total maximum daily load (tmdl) · e-8 e. coli load duration curve for bullrun creek – rm 5.2...

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)

for

E. coli

in the

Lower Clinch River Watershed

(HUC 06010207)

Anderson, Campbell, Grainger, Knox, Loudon, Morgan,

Roane, and Union Counties, Tennessee

Final

Prepared by:

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Resources

William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 11th Floor

Nashville, TN 37243

Submitted July 31, 2017 Approved by EPA Region 4 – September 21, 2017

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1

2.0 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT .............................................................................................................1

3.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................1

4.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION ..............................................................................................................8

5.0 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA & TMDL TARGET........................................................................9

6.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND DEVIATION FROM TARGET .................................. 13

7.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 19

7.1 Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 19 7.2 Nonpoint Sources ....................................................................................................................... 22

8.0 DEVELOPMENT OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS ........................................................ 28

8.1 Expression of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs .......................................................................................... 28 8.2 Area Basis for TMDL Analysis .................................................................................................... 28 8.3 TMDL Analysis Methodology ...................................................................................................... 30 8.4 Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation ................................................................................ 30 8.5 Margin of Safety .......................................................................................................................... 30 8.6 Determination of TMDLs ............................................................................................................. 31 8.7 Determination of WLAs & LAs .................................................................................................... 31

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ........................................................................................................ 34

9.1 Application of Load Duration Curves for Implementation Planning ........................................... 34 9.2 Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 36 9.3 Nonpoint Sources ....................................................................................................................... 37 9.4 Additional Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 41 9.5 Source Area Implementation Strategy ........................................................................................ 43 9.6 Evaluation of TMDL Implementation Effectiveness ................................................................... 48

10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................................... 51

11.0 FURTHER INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 52

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 53

iii

APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. Land Use Distribution in the Lower Clinch River Watershed A-1 B. Water Quality Monitoring Data for the Lower Clinch River Watershed B-1 C. Load Duration Curve Development and Determination

of Required Daily Loading C-1 D. Hydrodynamic Modeling Methodology D-1 E. Source Area Implementation Strategy E-1 F. Trend Analysis for Waterbodies Impaired by E. coli in the Lower Clinch

River Watershed F-1 G. Public Notice Announcement G-1 H. Public Comments Received H-1 I. Response to Public Comments I-1

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Location of the Lower Clinch River Watershed 4

2. Level IV Ecoregions in the Lower Clinch River Watershed 5

3. Land Use Characteristics of the Lower Clinch River Watershed 6

4. Waterbodies Impaired by E. coli (as documented on the Final 2014 and Draft 2016 303(d) Lists) 12

5. Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Lower Clinch River Watershed 18

6. Facilities with NPDES Permits to Discharge Sanitary Wastewater to Impaired Subwatersheds and Drainage Areas of the Lower Clinch River Watershed 21

7. Land Use Area of Lower Clinch River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (less than 10 sq. mi.) 25

8. Land Use Percent of Lower Clinch River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (less than 10 sq. mi.) 25

9. Land Use Area of Lower Clinch River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 10 sq. mi. & less than 70 sq. mi.) 26

10. Land Use Percent of Lower Clinch River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 10 sq. mi. & less than 70 sq. mi.) 26

11. Land Use Area of Lower Clinch River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 70 sq. mi.) 27

12. Land Use Percent of Lower Clinch River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 70 sq. mi.) 27

13. Five-Zone Flow Duration Curve for Beaver Creek at RM 3.5 35

14. TDA Best Management Practices located in the Lower Clinch River Watershed 40

15. Example Graph of TMDL implementation effectiveness (LDC regression analysis) 49

16. Example Graph of TMDL implementation effectiveness (LDC analysis) 49

17. Example Graph of TMDL implementation effectiveness (box and whisker plot) 50

v

LIST OF FIGURES (cont’d)

Figure Page

C-1 Flow Duration Curve for Coal Creek at RM 1.2 C-7

C-2 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Coal Creek at RM 1.2 C-7

D-1 Hydrologic Calibration: Bullrun Creek near Halls Crossroads, TN,

USGS 03535000 (WYs 2008-2012) D-4

D-2 5-Year Hydrologic Comparison: Bullrun Creek, USGS 03535000 D-4

E-1 Flow Duration Curve for Scarboro Creek at RM 0.1 E-3

E-2 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Scarboro Creek at RM 0.1 E-3

E-3 Flow Duration Curve for Hinds Creek at RM 0.7 E-6

E-4 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hinds Creek at RM 0.7 E-6

E-5 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Beaver Creek – RM 3.5 E-11



E-8 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Bullrun Creek – RM 5.2 E-12



E-11 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Byrams Creek – RM 0.4 E-14

E-12 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Coal Creek – RM 1.2 E-14

E-13 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Coal Creek – RM 10.6 E-15

E-14 E. coli Load Duration Curve for E. Fork Poplar Creek – RM 6.9 E-15

E-15 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Ernie’s Creek – RM 0.1 E-16

E-16 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hinds Creek – RM 0.7 E-16



E-19 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Scarboro Creek – RM 0.1 E-18

E-20 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Willow Fork – RM 0.5 E-18

vi


Figure Page

F-1 Time Series Plot for Beaver Creek – RM 3.5 F-5

F-2 Box and Whisker Plot for Beaver Creek – RM 3.5 F-5





F-7 Box and Whisker Plot for Beaver Creek – 2013 Monitoring F-8

F-8 Time Series Plot for Buffalo Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.7 F-9

F-9 Box and Whisker Plot for Buffalo Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.7 F-9

F-10 Time Series Plot for Bullrun Creek – 3 sites F-10

F-11 Box and Whisker Plot for Bullrun Creek – RM 5.2 F-10

F-12 Box and Whisker Plot for Bullrun Creek – RM 16.2 F-11

F-13 Box and Whisker Plot for Bullrun Creek – 2013 Monitoring F-11

F-14 Time Series Plot for Byrams Creek – RM 0.4 F-12

F-15 Box and Whisker Plot for Byrams Creek – RM 0.4 F-12

F-16 Time Series Plot for Coal Creek – 2 sites F-13

F-17 Box and Whisker Plot for Coal Creek – RM 1.2 F-13

F-18 Box and Whisker Plot for Coal Creek – RM 10.6 F-14

F-19 Box and Whisker Plot for Coal Creek – 2013 Monitoring F-14

F-20 Time Series Plot for E. Fork Poplar Creek – 2 sites F-15

F-21 Box and Whisker Plot for E. Fork Poplar Creek – RM 6.9 F-15

F-22 Time Series Plot for Ernie’s Creek – RM 0.1 F-16

F-23 Box and Whisker Plot for Ernie’s Creek – RM 0.1 F-16

F-24 Time Series Plot for Grassy Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.9 F-17

F-25 Box and Whisker Plot for Grassy Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.9 F-17

F-26 Time Series Plot for Hinds Creek – 3 sites F-18

F-27 Box and Whisker Plot for Hinds Creek – RM 0.7 F-18



F-30 Box and Whisker Plot for Hinds Creek – 2013 Monitoring F-20

vii


Figure Page

F-31 Time Series Plot for Hines Creek – RM 0.2 F-21

F-32 Box and Whisker Plot for Hines Creek – RM 0.2 F-21

F-33 Time Series Plot for Knob Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.8 F-22

F-34 Box and Whisker Plot for Knob Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.8 F-22

F-35 Time Series Plot for Meadow Creek – RM 0.2 F-23

F-36 Box and Whisker Plot for Meadow Creek – RM 0.2 F-23

F-37 Time Series Plot for N. Fork Bullrun Creek – RM 0.1 F-24

F-38 Box and Whisker Plot for N. Fork Bullrun Creek – RM 0.1 F-24

F-39 Time Series Plot for Plumb Creek – RM 0.3 F-25

F-40 Box and Whisker Plot for Plumb Creek – RM 0.3 F-25

F-41 Time Series Plot for Scarboro Creek – RM 0.1 F-26

F-42 Box and Whisker Plot for Scarboro Creek – RM 0.1 F-26

F-43 Time Series Plot for Willow Fork – RM 0.5 F-27

F-44 Box and Whisker Plot for Willow Fork – RM 0.4 F-27

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. MRLC Land Use Distribution – Lower Clinch River Watershed 7

2. Waterbody-Specific Designated Use Classifications 8

3. Extract from Final 2014 and Draft 2016 303(d) Lists for E. coli Impaired Waterbodies – Lower Clinch River Watershed 10

4. Summary of TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data 15

5. Summary of DOE Water Quality Monitoring Data 17

6. Facilities with NPDES Permits to Discharge Sanitary Wastewater to Impaired Subwatersheds and Drainage Areas of the Lower Clinch River Watershed 20

7. Livestock Distribution in the Lower Clinch River Watershed 24

8. Estimated Population on Septic Systems in the Lower Clinch River Watershed 24

9. Determination of Analysis Areas for TMDL Development 29

10. TMDLs, WLAs & LAs expressed as daily loads for Impaired Waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed 32

11. Source area types for waterbody drainage area analysis 44

12. Example Urban Area Management Practice/Hydrologic Flow Zone Considerations 45

13. Example Agricultural Management Practice/Hydrologic Flow Zone Considerations 46

A-1 Land Use Distribution of Impaired HUC-12s & Drainage Areas A-2

B-1 TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data B-2

B-2 DOE Water Quality Monitoring Data B-18

C-1 TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs for Impaired Waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed (06010207) C-8

D-1 Hydrologic Calibration Summary: Bullrun Creek near Halls Crossroads, TN (USGS 03535000) D-3

E-1 Load Duration Curve Summary for Implementation Strategies (Example: Scarboro Creek Subwatershed, HUC-12 06010207-0403)

(4 Flow Zones) E-4

E-2 Load Duration Curve Summary for Implementation Strategies (Example: Hinds Creek Subwatershed, HUC-12 06010207-0402)

(5 Flow Zones) E-7

E-3 Summary of Critical Conditions for Impaired Waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed E-10

ix

LIST OF TABLES (cont’d)

Table Page

E-4 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Beaver Creek – RM 3.5 E-19

E-5 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Beaver Creek – RM 3.5 E-19


E-7 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Beaver Creek – RM 24.7 E-20


E-9 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Loading – Beaver Creek – RM 40.1 E-21

E-10 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Bullrun Creek – RM 5.2 E-22

E-11 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Bullrun Creek – RM 5.2 E-22

E-12 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Bullrun Creek– RM 16.2 E-23


E-14 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Bullrun Creek – RM 31.1 E-24


E-16 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Byrams Creek – RM 0.4 E-25

E-17 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Byrams Creek – RM 0.4 E-25

E-18 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Coal Creek – RM 1.2 E-26

E-19 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Coal Creek – RM 1.2 E-26

E-20 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Coal Creek – RM 10.6 E-27

E-21 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Coal Creek – RM 10.6 E-27

x

LIST OF TABLES (cont’d)

Table Page

E-22 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – E. Fork Poplar Creek – RM 6.9 E-28

E-23 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – E. Fork Poplar Creek – RM 6.9 E-28

E-24 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Ernie’s Creek – RM 0.1 E-29

E-25 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Hinds Creek – RM 0.7 E-29

E-26 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Hinds Creek – RM 0.7 E-30



E-29 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Hinds Creek – RM 14.1 E-31

E-30 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Scarboro Creek – RM 0.1 E-32

E-31 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Willow Fork – RM 0.5 E-33

E-32 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Willow Fork – RM 0.35 E-33

E-33 Summary of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs by Flow Regime for Impaired Waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed (06010207) E-34

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Assessment Database

AFO Animal Feeding Operation

BMP Best Management Practices

BST Bacteria Source Tracking

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFS Cubic Feet per Second

CFU Colony Forming Units CRC

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

d/s Downstream

DA Drainage Area

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DOE Department of Energy

DS Direct Sources

DWR Division of Water Resources

E. coli Escherichia coli

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GIS Geographic Information System

HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program - Fortran

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

LA Load Allocation

LDC Load Duration Curve

MGD Million Gallons per Day

MOS Margin of Safety

MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristic

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MST Microbial Source Tracking

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NMP Nutrient Management Plan

NPS Nonpoint Source

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

ONRW Outstanding National Resource Water

PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction

PDFE Percent of Days Flow Exceeded

PFGE Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis

PLRG Percent Load Reduction Goal

qm Mean daily facility (WWTP) flow (cfs)

qd Facility design flow (cfs)

Q Mean daily in-stream flow (cfs)

RM River Mile

SOP State Operating Permit

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

SW Storm Water

SWMP Storm Water Management Plan

xii

TDA Tennessee Department of Agriculture

TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation

TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

TWRA Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

u/s Upstream

UCF Unit Conversion Factor

USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USGS United States Geological Survey

UT Unnamed Tributary

UTK University of Tennessee, Knoxville

WCS Watershed Characterization System

WLA Waste Load Allocation

WQ Water Quality

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

WY Water Year

xiii

SUMMARY SHEET

Total Maximum Daily Load for E. coli in

Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207)

Impaired Waterbody Information (Based on Draft 2016 List of Impaired Waters)

State: Tennessee Counties: Anderson, Campbell, Grainger, Knox, Loudon, Morgan, Roane, and Union Watersheds: Lower Clinch River (HUC 06010207) Constituents of Concern: E. coli Waterbodies Addressed in This Document:

Waterbody ID Waterbody Miles Impaired

TN06010207006T_0900 Scarboro Creek 1.99

TN06010207006T_1100 Ernies Creek 4.1

TN06010207011_0200 a Willow Fork 5.9

TN06010207011_0500 a Hines Branch 3.2

TN06010207011_0600 a Knob Fork 8.1

TN06010207011_0700 a Grassy Creek 8.2

TN06010207011_0800 a Meadow Creek 4.96

TN06010207011_0900 Plumb Creek 5.3

TN06010207011_1000 a

Beaver Creek (Melton Hill Reservoir to Hallsdale-Powell STP discharge)

22.5

TN06010207011_2000 a

Beaver Creek (Hallsdale-Powell STP discharge to Willow Fork)

13.7

TN06010207011_3000 a Beaver Creek (Willow Fork to origin) 7.5

TN06010207014_0400 a North Fork Bullrun Creek 19.0

TN06010207014_1000 a Bullrun Creek (Melton Hill Reservoir to Hwy 441) 11.8

TN06010207014_2000 b Bullrun Creek (Hwy 441 to N Fork Bullrun) 15.6

TN06010207014_3000 a Bullrun Creek (N Fork Bullrun to origin) 11.4

TN06010207016_0100 b Buffalo Creek 19.9

TN06010207016_0200 Byrams Creek 22.4

TN06010207016_1000 Hinds Creek (Melton Hill Reservoir to ut near I-75)

6.7

TN06010207016_2000 b Hinds Creek (ut near I-75 to Hinds Creek Rd) 7.1

TN06010207016_3000 a Hinds Creek (Hinds Creek Rd to origin) 8.9

TN06010207026_1000 a

East Fork Poplar Creek (Clinch River embayment to road d/s or Oak Ridge STP)

9.7

TN06010207026_2000 a

East Fork Poplar Creek (road d/s of Oak Ridge STP to origin)

11.3

TN06010207029_1000 a

Coal Creek (Clinch River to Beech Grove Creek)

10.9

TN06010207029_2000 a Coal Creek (Beech Grove Creek to origin) 15.0

a Waterbodies covered by TMDLs approved by EPA in 2005. The TMDLs included in this

document supersede the TMDLs approved by EPA in 2005. b Waterbodies listed on the Draft 2016 303(d) List, but not on the Final 2014 303(d) List.

xiv

Designated Uses:

The designated use classifications for all waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed include fish and aquatic life, irrigation, livestock watering & wildlife, and recreation. Additional designated use classifications for specific waterbodies are listed in the following table:

Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Portion Designated Use

TN06010207011_1000 Beaver Creek

RM 0.0 to RM 8.4

Domestic Water Supply Industrial Water Supply

RM 8.4 to RM 10.4

Industrial Water Supply

RM 10.4 to RM 17.5


RM 17.5 to RM 17.9


RM 17.9 to RM 21.6


TN06010207011_2000 Beaver Creek RM 23.6 to RM 29.4



RM 31.4 to origin

Domestic Water Supply Industrial Water Supply TN06010207011_3000

TN06010207014_1000

Bullrun Creek RM 1.0 to

origin Domestic Water Supply TN06010207014_2000

TN06010207014_3000

Water Quality Targets:

Derived from State of Tennessee Water Quality Standards, Chapter 0400-40-03, General Water Quality Criteria, 2015 Version (TDEC, 2015) for recreation use classification (most stringent):

The concentration of the E. coli group shall not exceed 126 colony forming units per 100 mL, as a geometric mean based on a minimum of 5 samples collected from a given sampling site over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days with individual samples being collected at intervals of not less than 12 hours. For the purposes of determining the geometric mean, individual samples having an E. coli concentration of less than 1 per 100 mL shall be considered as having a concentration of 1 per 100 mL.

Additionally, the concentration of the E. coli group in any individual sample taken from a lake, reservoir, State Scenic River, Exceptional Tennessee Water or ONRW (0400-40-03-.06) shall not exceed 487 colony forming units per 100 mL. The concentration of the E. coli group in any individual sample taken from any other waterbody shall not exceed 941 colony forming units per 100 mL.

For further information on Tennessee’s general water quality standards, see:

http://share.tn.gov/sos/rules/0400/0400-40/0400-40-03.20150406.pdf

None of the impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed are classified as lakes or reservoirs, or as State Scenic Rivers or Exceptional Tennessee Waters.


xv

TMDL Scope:

Waterbodies identified on the Final 2014 303(d) list as impaired due to E. coli. Three additional waterbodies identified on the Draft 2016 303(d) list as impaired due to E. coli are also included. TMDLs were developed for impaired waterbodies on a HUC-12 subwatershed or waterbody drainage area basis.

Under Tennessee’s watershed management approach, each HUC-8 watershed is examined (or re-examined) on a rotating basis. TMDLs were developed for portions of the Lower Clinch River Watershed in 2005. Since that time, (1) Additional monitoring data have been collected; (2) Eight additional waterbodies have been assessed as impaired due to E. coli; and (3) Tennessee’s method of expressing TMDLs has changed to a Q- based (flow-based) load. For all of these reasons, existing TMDLs have been revisited (and re-developed) and TMDLs developed for newly assessed impairments for the Lower Clinch River (HUC 06010207) Watershed. The E. coli TMDLs developed in this document supersede the pathogen TMDLs approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 25, 2005 for selected waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed.

Analysis/Methodology:

The TMDLs for the impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed were developed using a load duration curve methodology to assure compliance with the E. coli 126 CFU/100 mL geometric mean and the 941 CFU/100 mL maximum water quality criteria. A duration curve is a cumulative frequency graph that represents the percentage of time during which the value of a given parameter is equaled or exceeded. Load duration curves are developed from flow duration curves and can illustrate existing water quality conditions (as represented by loads calculated from monitoring data), how these conditions compare to desired targets, and the region of the waterbody flow zone represented by these existing loads. Load duration curves were also used to determine percent load reduction goals (PLRG) to meet the target maximum loading for E. coli.

Critical Conditions:

Water quality data collected over a period of 5 to 10 years for load duration curve analysis were used to assess the water quality standards representing a range of hydrologic and meteorological conditions.

For each impaired waterbody, critical conditions were determined by evaluating the percent load reduction goals and the percent of samples exceeding TMDL target concentrations (percent exceedance), for each hydrologic flow zone, to meet the target (TMDL) loading for E. coli. The percent load reduction goal and/or the percent exceedance of the greatest magnitude corresponds with the critical flow zone(s).

When available, water quality data collected over a period of up to 15 years were evaluated for determination of relative change (trend analysis).

Seasonal Variation:

The 10-year period used for WinHSPF model simulation and for load duration curve analysis included all seasons and a full range of flow and meteorological conditions.

Margin of Safety (MOS):

Explicit MOS = 10% of the E. coli water quality criteria for each impaired subwatershed or drainage area.

xvi

Summary of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs expressed as daily loads for the Impaired Waterbodies

in the Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207)

HUC-12 Subwatershed (06010207__)

Impaired Waterbody Name Impaired Waterbody ID TMDL MOS

WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c

[CFU/day] [CFU/day] [CFU/day] [CFU/d/ac] [CFU/d/ac]

0101/0102

Bullrun Creek TN06010207014_1000

2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(3.091 x 105 x Q) – (3.434 x 105 x qd)

(3.091 x 105 x Q) – (3.434 x 105 x qd)

Bullrun Creek d TN06010207014_2000 (4.832 x 105 x Q)

– (5.369 x 105 x qd) (4.832 x 105 x Q)

– (5.369 x 105 x qd)

Bullrun Creek d,e TN06010207014_3000 (1.810 x 106 x Q)

– (2.011 x 106 x qd) (1.810 x 106 x Q)

– (2.011 x 106 x qd)

North Fork Bullrun Creek d,f TN06010207014_0400 (2.673 x 106 x Q)

– (2.970 x 106 x qd) (2.673 x 106 x Q)

– (2.970 x 106 x qd)

0201/0202

Beaver Creek TN06010207011_1000

2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(3.595 x 105 x Q) – (3.994 x 105 x qd)

(3.595 x 105 x Q) – (3.994 x 105 x qd)

Beaver Creek d,e TN06010207011_2000 (5.872 x 105 x Q)

– (6.525 x 105 x qd) (5.872 x 105 x Q)

– (6.525 x 105 x qd)


– (1.630 x 106 x qd) (1.467 x 106 x Q)

– (1.630 x 106 x qd)

Willow Fork d,e TN06010207011_0200 (4.562 x 106 x Q)

– (5.069 x 106 x qd) (4.562 x 106 x Q)

– (5.069 x 106 x qd)

Hines Branch d,e TN06010207011_0500 (1.469 x 107 x Q)

– (1.632 x 107 x qd) (1.469 x 107 x Q)

– (1.632 x 107 x qd)

Knob Fork d,e TN06010207011_0600 (5.566 x 106 x Q)

– (6.185 x 106 x qd) (5.566 x 106 x Q)

– (6.185 x 106 x qd)

Grassy Creek d,e TN06010207011_0700 (4.840 x 106 x Q)

– (5.378 x 106 x qd) (4.840 x 106 x Q)

– (5.378 x 106 x qd)

Meadow Creek d,e TN06010207011_0800 (9.002 x 106 x Q)

– (1.000 x 107 x qd) (9.002 x 106 x Q)

– (1.000 x 107 x qd)

Plumb Creek d,e TN06010207011_0900 (9.975 x 106 x Q)

– (1.108 x 107 x qd) (9.975 x 106 x Q)

– (1.108 x 107 x qd)

0302

East Fork Poplar Creek TN06010207026_1000

2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(1.090 x 106 x Q) – (1.221 x 106 x qd)

(1.090 x 106 x Q) – (1.221 x 106 x qd)

East Fork Poplar Creek d,e TN06010207026_2000 (2.844 x 106 x Q)

– (3.160 x 106 x qd) (2.844 x 106 x Q)

– (3.160 x 106 x qd)

0401

Coal Creek d TN06010207029_1000

2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(8.899 x 105 x Q) – (9.887 x 105 x qd)

(8.899 x 105 x Q) – (9.887 x 105 x qd)

Coal Creek d TN06010207029_2000 (1.356 x 106 x Q)

– (1.506 x 106 x qd) (1.356 x 106 x Q)

– (1.506 x 106 x qd)

xvii

Summary of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs expressed as daily loads for the Impaired Waterbodies

in the Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207) (cont’d)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c


0402

Hinds Creek TN06010207016_1000

2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(4.920 x 105 x Q) – (5.467 x 105 x qd)

(4.920 x 105 x Q) – (5.467 x 105 x qd)

Hinds Creek d,e TN06010207016_2000 (8.242 x 105 x Q)

– (9.158 x 105 x qd) (8.242 x 105 x Q)

– (9.158 x 105 x qd)


– (2.198 x 106 x qd) (1.979 x 106 x Q)

– (2.198 x 106 x qd)

Buffalo Creek d TN06010207016_0100 (2.073 x 106 x Q)

– (2.303 x 106 x qd) (2.073 x 106 x Q)

– (2.303 x 106 x qd)

Byrams Creek d,e TN06010207016_0200 (3.147 x 106 x Q)

– (3.497 x 106 x qd) (3.147 x 106 x Q)

– (3.497 x 106 x qd)

0403 Ernies Creek d,e TN06010207006T_1100 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (1.271 x 107 x Q)

– (1.412 x 107 x qd) (1.271 x 107 x Q)

– (1.412 x 107 x qd)

0404 Scarboro Creek d,e TN06010207006T_0900 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (2.119 x 107 x Q)

– (2.354 x 107 x qd) (2.119 x 107 x Q)

– (2.354 x 107 x qd)

Notes: Q = Mean Daily In-stream Flow (cfs). qm = Mean Daily WWTP Flow (cfs) qd = Facility (WWTP) Design Flow (cfs) a. WLAs for WWTPs are expressed as E. coli loads (CFU/day). All current and future WWTPs must meet water quality standards as specified in their NPDES permit. b. Applies to any MS4 discharge loading in the subwatershed. Future MS4s will be assigned waste load allocations (WLAs) consistent with load allocations (LAs) assigned to precipitation induced

nonpoint sources. Compliance is achieved by meeting in-stream single-sample E. coli concentrations of ≤ 941 CFU/100 mL (or 487 CFU/100 mL for lakes, reservoirs, State Scenic Rivers, or Exceptional Tennessee Waters).

c. WLAs and LAs expressed as a “per acre” load are calculated based on the drainage area at the pour point of the HUC-12 subwatershed or drainage area (see Table A-1). As regulated MS4 area increases (due to future growth and/or new MS4 designation), unregulated LA area decreases by an equivalent amount. The sum will continue to equal total subwatershed area.

d. Waterbody Drainage Area (DA) is not coincident with HUC-12(s). e. No WWTPs currently discharging into or upstream of the waterbody. (WLA[WWTPs] Expression is future growth term for new WWTPs.) f. No MS4s currently located in the subwatershed drainage area. (Expression is future growth term for expanding or newly designated MS4s.)

E. coli TMDL Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207)

9/21/17 – Final Page 1 of 55

PROPOSED E. COLI TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)

Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires each state to list those waters within its boundaries for which technology based effluent limitations are not stringent enough to protect any water quality standard applicable to such waters. Listed waters are prioritized with respect to designated use classifications and the severity of pollution. In accordance with this prioritization, states are required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for those waterbodies that are not attaining water quality standards. State water quality standards consist of designated uses for individual waterbodies, appropriate numeric and narrative water quality criteria protective of the designated uses, and an antidegradation statement. The TMDL process establishes the maximum allowable loadings of pollutants for a waterbody that will allow the waterbody to maintain water quality standards. The TMDL may then be used to develop controls for reducing pollution from both point and nonpoint sources in order to restore and maintain the quality of water resources (USEPA, 1991).

2.0 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT

This document presents details of TMDL development for waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed, identified on the Final 2014 303(d) (TDEC, 2016b) list as not supporting designated uses due to E. coli. Three additional waterbodies identified on the Draft 2016 303(d) (TDEC, 2016a) list as not supporting designated uses due to E. coli are also included. TMDL analyses were performed primarily on a 12-digit hydrologic unit area (HUC-12) basis. In some cases, where appropriate, TMDLs were developed for an impaired waterbody drainage area.

Under Tennessee’s watershed management approach, each HUC-8 watershed is examined (or re-examined) on a rotating basis. TMDLs were developed for portions of the Lower Clinch River Watershed in 2005. Since that time, (1) Additional monitoring data have been collected; (2) Eight additional waterbodies have been assessed as impaired due to E. coli; and (3) Tennessee’s method of expressing TMDLs has changed to a Q- based (flow-based) load. For all of these reasons, existing TMDLs have been revisited (and re-developed) and TMDLs developed for newly assessed impairments for the Lower Clinch River (HUC 06010207) Watershed. The E. coli TMDLs developed in this document supersede the pathogen TMDLs approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 29, 2005 for selected waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed.

3.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION

The Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207) is located in Anderson, Campbell, Grainger, Knox, Loudon, Morgan, Roane, and Union Counties, in eastern Tennessee (Figure 1). The Lower Clinch River watershed has approximately 854.4 miles of streams and 8,026 reservoir acres (based on the EPA/Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Assessment Database (ADB)) and has a drainage area of approximately 628 square miles (mi2). Watershed land use distribution is based on the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristic (MRLC) databases derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper digital images from around 2011. Although changes in the land use of the Lower Clinch River Watershed have occurred since 2011 as a result of rapid development, this is the most current land use data available. Land use for the Lower Clinch River Watershed is


9/21/17 – Final Page 2 of 55

summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 3. Predominant land use in the Lower Clinch River Watershed in Tennessee is forest (62.4%) followed by urban (21.9%) and agriculture (15.7%). Details of land use distribution of impaired subwatersheds in the Lower Clinch River Watershed are presented in Appendix A.

The Lower Clinch River Watershed lies within three Level III ecoregions (Ridge and Valley, Southwestern Appalachians, Central Appalachians) and contains five Level IV subecoregions as shown in Figure 2 (USEPA, 1997):

The Southern Limestone/Dolomite Valleys and Low Rolling Hills (67f) form a heterogeneous region composed predominantly of limestone and cherty dolomite. Landforms are mostly low rolling ridges and valleys, and the soils vary in their productivity. Landcover includes intensive agriculture, urban and industrial, or areas of thick forest. White oak forests, bottomland oak forests, and sycamore-ash-elm riparian forests are the common forest types, and grassland barrens intermixed with cedar-pine glades also occur here.

The Southern Dissected Ridges and Knobs (67i) contain more crenulated, broken, or hummocky ridges, compared to smoother, more sharply pointed sandstone ridges. Although shale is common, there is a mixture and interbedding of geologic materials. The ridges on the east side of Tennessee’s Ridge and Valley tend to be associated with the Ordovician-age Sevier shale, Athens shale, and Holston and Lenoir limestones. These can include calcareous shale, limestone, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate. In the central and western part of the ecoregion, the shale ridges are associated with the Cambrian-age Rome Formation: shale and siltstone with beds of sandstone. Chestnut oak forests and pine forests are typical for the higher elevations of the ridges, with areas of white oak, mixed mesophytic forest, and tulip poplar on the lower slopes, knobs, and draws.

Cumberland Plateau (68a) tablelands and open low mountains are about 1000 feet higher than the Eastern Highland Rim (71g) to the west, and receive slightly more precipitation with cooler annual temperatures than the surrounding lower-elevation ecoregions. The plateau surface is less dissected with lower relief compared to the Cumberland Mountains (69d) or the Plateau Escarpment (68c). Elevations are generally 1200-2000 feet, with the Crab Orchard Mountains reaching over 3000 feet. Pennsylvanian-age conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale is covered by well-drained, acidic soils of low fertility. Bituminous coal that has been extensively surface and underground mined underlies the region. Acidification of first and second order streams is common. Stream siltation and mine spoil bedload deposits continue as long-term problems in these headwater systems. Pockets of severe acid mine drainage persist.

Plateau Escarpment (68c) is characterized by steep, forested slopes and high velocity, high gradient streams. Local relief is often 1000 feet or more. The geologic strata include Mississippian-age limestone, sandstone, shale, and siltstone, and Pennsylvanian-age shale, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate. Streams have cut down into the limestone, but the gorge talus slopes are composed of colluvium with huge angular, slabby blocks of sandstone. Vegetation community types in the ravines and gorges include mixed oak and chestnut oak on the upper slopes, mesic forests on the middle and lower slopes (beech-tulip poplar, sugar maple-basswood-ash-buckeye), with hemlock along rocky streamsides and river birch along floodplain terraces.


9/21/17 – Final Page 3 of 55

Cumberland Mountains (69d), in contrast to the sandstone-dominated Cumberland Plateau (68a) to the west and southwest, are more highly dissected, with narrow-crested steep slopes, and younger Pennsylvanian-age shales, sandstones, siltstones, and coal. Narrow, winding valleys separate the mountain ridges, and relief is often 2000 feet. Cross Mountain, west of Lake City, reaches 3534 feet in elevation. Soils are generally well-drained, loamy, and acidic, with low fertility. The natural vegetation is a mixed mesophytic forest, although composition and abundance vary greatly depending on aspect, slope position, and degree of shading from adjacent landmasses. Large tracts of land are owned by lumber and coal companies, and there are many areas of strip mining. Acid mine drainage is primarily limited to first and second order systems. Siltation as surface run-off remains the primary pollutant from past mining, timber harvest and unpaved roads.


9/21/17 – Final Page 4 of 55

Figure 1. Location of the Lower Clinch River Watershed


9/21/17 – Final Page 5 of 55

Figure 2. Level IV Ecoregions in the Lower Clinch River Watershed


9/21/17 – Final Page 6 of 55

Figure 3. Land Use Characteristics of the Lower Clinch River Watershed


9/21/17 – Final Page 7 of 55

Table 1. MRLC Land Use Distribution – Lower Clinch River Watershed

Land use Entire Watershed

Code Description [acres] [%]

11 Open Water 9,116 2.25

21 Developed Open Spaces 42,265 10.4

22 Low Intensity Residential 30,464 7.51

23 Medium Intensity Residential 12,404 3.06

24 High Intensity Residential 3,536 0.87

31 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay 1,676 0.41

41 Deciduous Forest 176,534 43.5

42 Evergreen Forest 15,930 3.93

43 Mixed Forest 19,909 4.91

52 Shrub/Scrub 2,235 0.55

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 21,878 5.40

81 Pasture/Hay 63,440 15.6

82 Cultivated Crops 299 0.07

90 Woody Wetlands 5,657 1.40

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 157 0.04

Total 405,500 100%

Note: A spreadsheet was used for this calculation and values are approximate due to rounding.


9/21/17 – Final Page 8 of 55

4.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION

The State of Tennessee’s Final 2014 303(d) list (TDEC, 2016b), http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/environment/attachments/wr_wq_303d-2014-final.pdf, was approved by EPA, Region 4, in May 2016. The Draft 2016 303(d) list (TDEC, 2016a), http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/environment/attachments/wr_wq_303d-2016-draft.pdf, is currently under review. These lists identified a number of waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed as not fully supporting designated use classifications due, in part, to E. coli (see Table 2 & Figure 4). The designated use classifications for these waterbodies include fish and aquatic life, irrigation, livestock watering & wildlife, and recreation. Additional designated use classifications for specific waterbodies are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Waterbody-Specific Designated Use Classifications

Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Portion Designated Use


RM 0.0 to RM 8.4


RM 8.4 to RM 10.4


RM 10.4 to RM 17.5


RM 17.5 to RM 17.9


RM 17.9 to RM 21.6


TN06010207011_2000 Beaver Creek RM 23.6 to RM 29.4



RM 31.4 to origin

Domestic Water Supply Industrial Water Supply TN06010207011_3000

TN06010207014_1000

Bullrun Creek RM 1.0 to

origin Domestic Water Supply TN06010207014_2000

TN06010207014_3000

http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/environment/attachments/wr_wq_303d-2014-final.pdf

http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/environment/attachments/wr_wq_303d-2016-draft.pdf


9/21/17 – Final Page 9 of 55

5.0 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA & TMDL TARGET

As previously stated, the designated use classifications for the Lower Clinch River waterbodies include fish & aquatic life, recreation, irrigation, and livestock watering & wildlife. Of the use classifications with numeric criteria for E. coli, the recreation use classification is the most stringent and will be used to establish target levels for TMDL development. The coliform water quality criteria, for protection of the recreation use classification, is established by State of Tennessee Water Quality Standards, Chapter 0400-40-03, General Water Quality Criteria (TDEC, 2015).

For further information concerning Tennessee’s general water quality criteria and Tennessee’s Antidegradation Statement, including the definition of Exceptional Tennessee Water, see:


The geometric mean standard for the E. coli group of 126 colony forming units per 100 ml (CFU/100 ml) and the sample maximum of 941 CFU/100 ml have been selected as the appropriate numerical targets for TMDL development for all impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed.

None of the impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed are classified as lakes or reservoirs, or as State Scenic Rivers or Exceptional Tennessee Waters.



9/21/17 – Final Page 10 of 55

Table 3. Extract from Final 2014 and Draft 2016 303(d) Lists for E. coli Impaired Waterbodies –


Waterbody ID Impacted Waterbody Miles/Acres

Impaired Cause (Pollutant) Pollutant Source

TN06010207006T_0900 Scarboro Creek 1.99 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207006T_1100 Ernies Creek 4.1 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207011_0200 a

Willow Fork 5.9 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207011_0500 a

Hines Branch 3.2 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207011_0600 a

Knob Fork 8.1 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207011_0700 a

Grassy Creek 8.2 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207011_0800 a

Meadow Creek 4.96 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207011_0900 Plumb Creek 5.3 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207011_1000 a

Beaver Creek

(Melton Hill Reservoir to Hallsdale-Powell STP discharge)

22.5 Escherichia coli Pasture Grazing

Collection System Failure

TN06010207011_2000 a

Beaver Creek

(Hallsdale-Powell STP discharge to Willow Fork)


Discharges from MS4 Area Collection System Failure

TN06010207011_3000 a

Beaver Creek

(Willow Fork to origin) 7.5 Escherichia coli

Pasture Grazing Discharges from MS4 Area Collection System Failure

TN06010207014_0400 a

North Fork Bullrun Creek 19.0 Escherichia coli Pasture Grazing

TN06010207014_1000 a

Bullrun Creek

(Melton Hill Reservoir to Hwy 441) 11.8 Escherichia coli

Pasture Grazing Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207014_2000 b

Bullrun Creek

(Hwy 441 to N Fork Bullrun Ck) 15.6 Escherichia coli

Pasture Grazing Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207014_3000 a

Bullrun Creek

(N Fork Bullrun Creek to origin) 11.4 Escherichia coli Pasture Grazing


9/21/17 – Final Page 11 of 55

Table 3 (con’t). Extract from Final 2014 and Draft 2016 303(d) Lists for E. coli Impaired Waterbodies –


Waterbody ID Impacted Waterbody Miles/Acres

Impaired Cause (Pollutant) Pollutant Source

TN06010207016_0100 b

Buffalo Creek 19.9 Escherichia coli Pasture Grazing

TN06010207016_0200 Byrams Creek 22.4 Escherichia coli Pasture Grazing

TN06010207016_1000 Hinds Creek

(Melton Hill Reservoir to ut near I-75)


TN06010207016_2000 b

Hinds Creek

(ut near I-75 to Hinds Creek Rd.) 7.1 Escherichia coli Pasture Grazing

TN06010207016_3000 a

Hinds Creek

(Hinds Creek Rd. to origin) 8.9 Escherichia coli Pasture Grazing

TN06010207026_1000 a

East Fork Poplar Creek

(Clinch River embayment to road d/s of Oak Ridge STP)

9.7 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area Collection System Failure

TN06010207026_2000 a

East Fork Poplar Creek

(road d/s of Oak Ridge STP to origin)

11.3 Escherichia coli Discharges from MS4 Area

TN06010207029_1000 a

Coal Creek

(Clinch River to Beech Grove Ck) 10.9 Escherichia coli Municipal Point Source

TN06010207029_2000 a

Coal Creek

(Beech Grove Ck to origin) 15.0 Escherichia coli Septic Tanks

a Waterbodies covered by TMDLs approved by EPA in 2005. The TMDLs included in this document supersede the TMDLs

approved by EPA in 2005. b

Waterbodies listed on the Draft 2016 303(d) List, but not on the Final 2014 303(d) List.


9/21/17 – Final Page 12 of 55

Figure 4. Waterbodies Impaired by E. coli (as Documented on the Final 2014 and Draft 2016 303(d) Lists)


9/21/17 – Final Page 13 of 55

6.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND DEVIATION FROM TARGET

The following water quality monitoring stations provided data for waterbodies identified as impaired for E. coli in the Lower Clinch River Watershed:

HUC-12 06010207-0101:

o BULLR031.1UN – Bullrun Creek, at Hwy 144 bridge, immediately u/s of confluence with North Fork Bull Run Creek

o NFBUL000.1UN – North Fork Bullrun Creek, at mouth, just u/s of Hwy 144 bridge

HUC-12 06010207-0102:

o BULLR005.2AN – Bullrun Creek, at Clinton Hwy bridge

o BULLR016.2KN – Bullrun Creek, at Hwy 441/70 bridge

HUC-12 06010207-0201:

o BEAVE040.1KN – Beaver Creek, at Stormer Road

o HINES000.2KN – Hines Creek, at Cunningham Road bridge

o KNOB000.3KN – Knob Fork, at West Beaver Creek Dr

o KNOB000.8KN – Knob Fork, u/s of Irwin Road

o WILLO000.5KN – Willow Fork, at Halls Crossroads; vicinity of Hwy 131 bridge

HUC-12 06010207-0202:

o BEAVE003.5KN – Beaver Creek, at Swafford Rd bridge

o BEAVE024.7KN – Beaver Creek, 100 ft below Clinton Hwy bridge

o GRASS000.3KN – Grassy Creek, at Beaver Creek Rd

o GRASS000.9KN – Grassy Creek, off 62, at private drive on Tim Graham property

o MEADO000.2KN – Meadow Creek, at Crossland, off Byington

o PLUMB000.3KN – Plumb Creek, at Highgate Circle Rd., just d/s of Hardin Valley, behind house #10038

HUC-12 06010207-0302:

o EFPOP006.9RO – East Fork Poplar Creek, at first bridge at Gum Hollow Rd

o EFPOP008.6AN – East Fork Poplar Creek, at Montery Road bridge. u/s of STP

HUC-12 06010207-0401:

o COAL001.2AN – Coal Creek, at Lovely Spring

o COAL010.6AN – Coal Creek, at Briceville Hwy 116 bridge


9/21/17 – Final Page 14 of 55

HUC-12 06010207-0402:

o BUFFA000.3AN – Buffalo Creek, d/s Intex discharge (Frank L. Diggs Dr)

o BUFFA000.7AN – Buffalo Creek, at Bethel Buffalo Rd.

o BYRAM000.4AN – Byrams Creek, u/s Hwy 170 bridge

o HINDS000.7AN – Hinds Creek, at Brushy Valley Road bridge

o HINDS006.8AN – Hinds Creek, at Mountain Road bridge

o HINDS014.1AN – Hinds Creek, at Hinds Creek Rd

HUC-12 06010207-0403:

o Station 23 – Ernie’s Creek, at mile 0.1, short distance from the Ernie’s Creek/Clinch River embayment at Clinch River mile 51.1

HUC-12 06010207-0404:

o Station 8 – Scarboro Creek, at mile 0.1, near confluence with Melton Hill Lake

The locations of these monitoring stations are shown in Figure 5. The water quality monitoring results for these stations are tabulated in Appendix B. Examination of the data shows exceedances of the 941 CFU/100 mL maximum E. coli standard at all but two of the monitoring stations on the impaired waterbodies. Water quality monitoring results for those stations are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.

Whenever a minimum of 5 samples was collected at a given monitoring station over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days, the geometric mean was calculated. There were sufficient data to conduct geometric mean analyses for all of the impaired waterbodies except Ernie’s Creek and Scarboro Creek.

Several of the water quality monitoring stations (Tables 4 and 5, and Appendix B) have at least one E. coli sample value reported as >2420. For the purpose of calculating summary data statistics, TMDLs, Waste Load Allocations (WLAs), and Load Allocations (LAs), these data values are treated as (equal to) 2420. Therefore, the calculated results are considered to be estimates. In order to obtain an accurate number for future calculations, E. coli sample analyses at these sites should follow established protocol (see Section 9.4.).


9/21/17 – Final Page 15 of 55

Table 4. Summary of TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data

Monitoring Station Date Range a

E. coli (Max. WQ Target = 941 cfu/100 mL) (Geomean WQ Target = 126 cfu/100 mL)

# of Data Points

Min. Avg. Max. Geomean* No. Exceedances WQ Max. Target [CFU/100mL] [CFU/100mL] [CFU/100mL] [CFU/100mL]

BEAVE003.5KN 1999-2013 33 66 >342.1 >2419 142.7 1

2013 5 111 151.2 260 142.7 0

BEAVE024.7KN 2004-2013 22 154 693.2 >2419 414.8 4

2013 5 236 466.2 921 414.8 0

BEAVE040.1KN 1999-2013 21 41 >1060.5 5779 1083.7 8

2013 5 548 1259 2420 1083.7 3

BUFFA000.3AN 2008-2013 11 153 500.7 >2419 390.8 1

2013 5 192 365.6 488 345.2 0

BUFFA000.7AN 1999-2010 24 75 340.8 980 Ngd 1

BULLR005.2AN 1999-2013 15 33 393.1 1203 234.6 1

2013 5 155 243.6 326 234.6 0

BULLR016.2KN 1999-2013 11 71 539.6 1733 409.0 2

2013 5 179 498.2 980 409.0 1

BULLR031.1UN 2001-2013 7 199 >841.3 >2420 548.7 1

2013 5 199 >820.4 >2420 548.7 1

BYRAM000.4AN 2003-2013 44 6 >576.6 >2419 513.7 7

2013 5 378 523.6 613 513.7 0

COAL001.2AN 1999-2013 38 10 >559.4 >2419 794.6 8

2013 5 365 933.4 1986 794.6 2

COAL010.6AN 1999-2013 22 30 >409.0 >2419 501.5 3

2013 5 30 137.2 228 111.7 0

EFPOP006.9RO 2008-2013 17 86 214.6 488 246.8 0

2013 5 108 288.8 488 246.8 0


9/21/17 – Final Page 16 of 55

Table 4 (cont’d). Summary of TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data



# of Data Points


EFPOP008.6AN 2008-2011 18 41 280.4 980 123.8 1

2011 1 770 770 770 Ngd 0

GRASS000.3KN 2008-2013 10 157 474.4 1414 420.1 1

2013 5 291 431.2 548 420.1 0

GRASS000.9KN 2004-2006 12 88 630.5 2419 Ngd 1

HINDS000.7AN 1999-2013 48 27 614.8 1986 1083.9 10

2013 5 411 537.8 687 528.6 0

HINDS006.8AN 1999-2013 44 25 308.8 >2419 231.6 2

2013 4 313 441.3 548 Ngd 0

HINDS014.1AN 1999-2013 45 57 >367.4 >2419 452.7 3

2013 5 238 478.2 687 452.7 0

HINES000.2KN 2004-2013 23 147 >884.9 >2419 903.9 5

2013 5 365 614.4 921 586.0 0

KNOB000.3KN 2004-2013 18 105 >617.3 >2419 194.2 4

2013 1 687 687 687 Ngd 0

KNOB000.9KN 2013 4 129 265.0 344 Ngd 0

MEADO000.2KN 2004-2013 22 23 >819.1 >2420 783.0 6

2013 5 435 987.0 2420 783.0 2

NFBUL000.1UN 2001-2013 10 104 376.4 1414 244.0 1

2013 5 108 277.4 488 244.0 0

PLUMB000.3KN 2004-2013 22 107 591.7 2419 192.4 4

2013 5 107 213.2 411 192.4 0


9/21/17 – Final Page 17 of 55

Table 4 (cont’d). Summary of TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data



# of Data Points


WILLO000.5KN 2004-2013 21 121 >602.5 >2419 345.4 4

2013 5 260 351.8 461 345.4 0 * If multiple geomean sampling periods are available, the maximum calculated geomean value is recorded. a When two date ranges are presented, the first is period of record and the second is the most recent five year period.

Ngd = no geomean data

Table 5. Summary of DOE Water Quality Monitoring Data

Monitoring Station Date Range


# of Data Points

Min. Avg. Max. Geomean No. Exceedances WQ Max. Target [CFU/100mL] [CFU/100mL] [CFU/100mL] [CFU/100mL]

8 (Scarboro Ck) 1997-2008 15 12 415.0 1414 Ngd 2

23 (Ernie’s Ck) 1999-2008 9 76 >939.0 >2419 Ngd 3 Ngd = no geomean data


9/21/17 – Final Page 18 of 55

Figure 5. Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Lower Clinch River Watershed


9/21/17 – Final Page 19 of 55

7.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT

An important part of TMDL analysis is the identification of individual sources, or source categories of pollutants in the watershed that affect E. coli loading and the amount of loading contributed by each of these sources.

Under the Clean Water Act, sources are classified as either point or nonpoint sources. Under 40 CFR §122.2, (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol22/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol22-sec122-2.pdf), a point source is defined as a discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or may be discharged to surface waters. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/) regulates point source discharges. Point sources can be described by three broad categories: 1) NPDES regulated municipal (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/municipal-wastewater) and industrial (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/industrial-wastewater) wastewater treatment facilities (WWTPs); 2) NPDES regulated industrial and municipal stormwater discharges (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-stormwater-program); and 3) NPDES regulated Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos). A TMDL must provide Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) for all NPDES regulated point sources. Nonpoint sources are diffuse sources that cannot be identified as entering a waterbody through a discrete conveyance at a single location. For the purposes of this TMDL, all sources of pollutant loading not regulated by NPDES permits are considered nonpoint sources. The TMDL must provide a Load Allocation (LA) for these sources. 7.1 Point Sources 7.1.1 NPDES Regulated Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities Both treated and untreated sanitary wastewater contain coliform bacteria. There are 9 facilities located in or upstream of impaired subwatersheds or drainage areas in the Lower Clinch River Watershed that have NPDES permits authorizing the discharge of treated sanitary wastewater (Figure 6 and Table 6). Three of the nine facilities are sewage treatment plants (STPs) serving municipalities with design capacities equal to or greater than 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD). The permit limits for discharges from these WWTPs are in accordance with the coliform criteria specified in Tennessee Water Quality Standards for the protection of the recreation use classification.

Non-permitted point sources of (potential) E. coli contamination of surface waters associated with STP collection systems include leaking collection systems and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol22/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol22-sec122-2.pdf


https://www.epa.gov/npdes/

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/municipal-wastewater

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/industrial-wastewater

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-stormwater-program

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos


9/21/17 – Final Page 20 of 55

Table 6. Facilities with NPDES Permits to Discharge Sanitary Wastewater

To Impaired Subwatersheds and Drainage Areas

Of the Lower Clinch River Watershed

NPDES Permit No.

Facility Design Flow

Receiving Stream [MGD]

*TN0020630 Norris STP 0.2 Buffalo Creek mile 2.2

*TN0022870 Maynardville STP 0.6 N Fork Bullrun Creek mile 3.1

*TN0024155 Oak Ridge STP 10 E Fork Poplar Creek mile 8.3

*TN0025127 City of Rocky Top STP 0.95 Coal Creek mile 3.3

*TN0057860 Briceville ES 1 0.009 Coal Creek mile 8.6

*TN0059323 Hallsdale-Powell Raccoon

Valley STP 0.3 Bullrun Creek mile 12.6

*TN0060020 West Knox UD – Karns

Beaver Creek STP 4 Beaver Creek mile 10.7

TN0074071 ACWA – Airbase STP 0.1 Slatestone Creek mile 1.5

*TN0078905 Hallsdale-Powell UD STP 9.7 Beaver Creek mile 23.5

*Discharges to impaired waterbody 1 ES = Elementary School

7.1.2 NPDES Regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) are considered to be potential point sources of E. coli. Discharges from MS4s occur in response to storm events through road drainage systems, curb and gutter systems, ditches, and storm drains. Phase I of the EPA stormwater program (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-municipal-sources#overview) requires large and medium MS4s to obtain NPDES stormwater permits. Large and medium MS4s are those located in incorporated places or counties serving populations greater than 100,000 people. Portions of the Knoxville Phase I MS4 are located in the Lower Clinch River Watershed.

As of March 2003, regulated small MS4s in Tennessee must also obtain NPDES permits in accordance with the Phase II stormwater program (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/municipal-sources-resources). A small MS4 is designated as regulated if: a) it is located within the boundaries of a defined urbanized area that has a residential population of at least 50,000 people and an overall population density of 1,000 people per square mile; b) it is located outside of an urbanized area but within a jurisdiction with a population of at least 10,000 people, a population density of 1,000 people per square mile, and has the potential to cause an adverse impact on water quality; or c) it is located outside of an urbanized area but contributes substantially to the pollutant loadings of a physically interconnected MS4 regulated by the NPDES stormwater program. Most regulated small MS4s in Tennessee obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-stormwater-

discharges-permitting (TDEC, 2016c). The city of Oak Ridge and the counties of Anderson, Knox, and Loudon are covered under Phase II of the NPDES Stormwater Program.

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-municipal-sources#overview

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/municipal-sources-resources

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/municipal-sources-resources

http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-stormwater-discharges-permitting



9/21/17 – Final Page 21 of 55

Figure 6. Facilities with NPDES Permits to Discharge Sanitary Wastewater to Impaired Subwatersheds and Drainage

Areas of the Lower Clinch River Watershed


9/21/17 – Final Page 22 of 55

The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) has been issued an individual MS4 permit (TNS077585) that authorizes discharges of stormwater runoff from State roads and interstate highway rights-of-way that TDOT owns or maintains, discharges of stormwater runoff from TDOT owned or operated facilities, and certain specified non-stormwater discharges. This permit covers all eligible TDOT discharges statewide, including those located outside of urbanized areas. For information about TDOT’s stormwater management program, see the TDOT website: https://www.tn.gov/tdot/topic/storm-water-management-plan

For information regarding stormwater permitting in Tennessee, see the TDEC website: http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-stormwater-permitting-program

7.1.3 NPDES Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

Animal feeding operations (AFOs) are agricultural enterprises where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. AFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields, or on rangeland (USEPA, 2002a). Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are AFOs that meet certain criteria with respect to animal type, number of animals, and type of manure management system. CAFOs are considered to be potential point sources of E. coli loading and are required to obtain a State Operating Permit (SOP) or an NPDES permit. Most CAFOs in Tennessee qualify as Class II and obtain coverage under SOPC00000, SOPCE0000, or SOPCI0000, General State Operating Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (https://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-concentrated-animal-feeding-operation-cafo-general-state-opera), while larger, Class I CAFOs are required to obtain an individual NPDES permit.

As of March 28, 2017, there are no Class I or II CAFOs in the Lower Clinch River watershed with coverage or pending coverage under individual permits or SOPs, respectively.

7.2 Nonpoint Sources

Nonpoint sources of coliform bacteria are diffuse sources that cannot be identified as entering a waterbody through a discrete conveyance at a single location. These sources generally, but not always, involve accumulation of coliform bacteria on land surfaces and wash off as a result of storm events. Nonpoint sources of E. coli loading are primarily associated with agricultural and urban land uses. The majority of waterbodies identified on the Final 2014 and Draft 2016 303(d) Lists as impaired due to E. coli are attributed to nonpoint agricultural or urban sources.

7.2.1 Wildlife

Wildlife feces contain coliform bacteria which can be deposited onto land surfaces where it can be transported during storm events to nearby streams. The overall deer density for Tennessee was estimated by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) to be 23 animals per square mile. Wildlife are included in the allocation for the LASW term in the TMDL.

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/topic/storm-water-management-plan

http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-stormwater-permitting-program

https://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-concentrated-animal-feeding-operation-cafo-general-state-opera



9/21/17 – Final Page 23 of 55

7.2.2 Agricultural Animals

Agricultural activities can be a significant source of coliform bacteria loading to surface waters. The activities of greatest concern are typically those associated with livestock operations:

Agricultural livestock grazing in pastures deposit manure containing coliform bacteria onto land surfaces. This material accumulates during periods of dry weather and is available for washoff and transport to surface waters during storm events. The number of animals in pasture and the time spent grazing are important factors in determining the loading contribution.

Processed agricultural manure from confined feeding operations is often applied to land surfaces and can provide a significant source of coliform bacteria loading. Guidance for issues relating to manure application is available through the University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

Agricultural livestock and other unconfined animals often have direct access to waterbodies and can provide a concentrated source of coliform bacteria loading directly to a stream.

Data sources related to livestock operations include the 2012 Census of Agriculture. Livestock data for counties located within the Lower Clinch River Watershed are summarized in Table 7. Note that, due to confidentiality issues, any tabulated item that identifies data reported by a respondent or allows a respondent’s data to be accurately estimated or derived is suppressed and coded with a ‘D’ (USDA, 2014). Agricultural animals are included in the allocation for the LASW term in the TMDL. (See Section C.2.)

7.2.3 Failing Septic Systems

Some of the coliform loading in the Lower Clinch River Watershed can be attributed to failure of septic systems and illicit discharges of raw sewage. Estimates of population utilizing septic systems for counties in the Lower Clinch River Watershed were derived from 2010 county census data and the percent of population on septic systems in 1990 (the last year the data are available), and are summarized in Table 8. In Tennessee, it is estimated that there are approximately 2.47 people per household on septic systems, some of which can be reasonably assumed to be failing. As with livestock in streams, failing septic systems have the potential to provide a concentrated source of coliform bacteria directly to waterbodies. Failing septic tanks are not included in the TMDL and receive an allocation of zero. (See Section C.2.)

7.2.4 Urban Development Nonpoint source loading of coliform bacteria from urban land use areas is attributable to multiple sources. These include: stormwater runoff, illicit discharges of sanitary waste, runoff from improper disposal of waste materials, leaking septic systems, and domestic animals. Impervious surfaces in urban areas allow runoff to be conveyed to streams quickly, without interaction with soils and groundwater. Urban land use area in impaired subwatersheds in the Lower Clinch River Watershed ranges from 6.9% to 85.8%. Land use for the Lower Clinch River drainage areas is summarized in Figures 7-12, and tabulated in Appendix A. Urban development is included in the allocation for the LASW term in the TMDL.

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Tennessee/


9/21/17 – Final Page 24 of 55

Table 7. Livestock Distribution in the Lower Clinch River Watershed

County

Livestock Population (2012 Census of Agriculture)

Beef Cow Milk Cow Poultry

Hogs Sheep Goats Horse Layers Broilers

Anderson (D) (D) 1,944 42 138 267 548 447

Campbell (D) (D) 811 (D) 46 125 394 240

Grainger 12,102 338 1,025 148 3 7557 890 1,148

Knox (D) (D) 1,723 112 48 280 956 1,686

Loudon 7,102 2,655 1,153 26 286 153 288 1,165

Morgan 4,205 133 (D) 347,151 84 394 383 601

Roane 5,045 225 1,316 160 94 296 242 744

Unicoi (D) (D) 112 62 (D) 44 74 52

* In keeping with the provisions of Title 7 of the United States Code, no data are published in the 2012 Census of Agriculture that would disclose information about the operations of an individual farm or ranch. Any tabulated item that identifies data reported by a respondent or allows a respondent’s data to be accurately estimated or derived is suppressed and coded with a ‘D’ (USDA, 2014).

Table 8. Estimated Population on Septic Systems in the Lower Clinch River Watershed

County % of Population on

Septic Systems (1990) Total Population (2010

Census) Estimated Population

on Septic (2010)*

Anderson 37.7 75,129 28,324

Campbell 58.7 40,716 23,900

Grainger 88.3 22,657 20,006

Knox 24.7 432,226 106,760

Loudon 59.5 48,556 28,891

Morgan 87.5 21,987 19,239

Roane 59.0 54,181 31,967

Unicoi 62.0 18,313 11,354

* Estimate based on 2010 census and 1990 percent of population on septic.


9/21/17 – Final Page 25 of 55

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Willow Fk DA Ernies Ck DA Scarboro Ck DA

Are

a (

acre

s)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water

Figure 7. Land Use Area of Lower Clinch River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds

(less than 10 sq. mi.)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Willow Fk DA Ernies Ck DA Scarboro Ck DA

Are

a (

perc

en

t)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water

Figure 8. Land Use Percent of Lower Clinch River E. coli-Impaired

Subwatersheds (less than10 sq. mi.)


9/21/17 – Final Page 26 of 55

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Hinds Ck (HUC-12 0402) Coal Creek DA E Fork Poplar Ck (HUC-12 0302)

Are

a (

acre

s)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water


(greater than 10 sq. mi. and less than 70 sq. mi.)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hinds Ck (HUC-12 0402) Coal Creek DA E Fork Poplar Ck (HUC-12 0302)

Are

a (

perc

en

t)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water


Subwatersheds (greater than 10 sq. mi. and less than 70 sq. mi.)


9/21/17 – Final Page 27 of 55

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Bullrun Ck (HUC-12 0101+0102) Beaver Ck (HUC-12 0201+0202)

Are

a (

acre

s)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water


(greater than 70 sq. mi.)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bullrun Ck (HUC-12 0101+0102) Beaver Ck (HUC-12 0201+0202)

Are

a (

perc

en

t)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water


Subwatersheds (greater than 70 sq. mi.)


9/21/17 – Final Page 28 of 55

8.0 DEVELOPMENT OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS

The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process quantifies the amount of a pollutant that can be assimilated in a waterbody, identifies the sources of the pollutant, and recommends regulatory or other actions to be taken to achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards based on the relationship between pollution sources and in-stream water quality conditions. A TMDL can be expressed as the sum of all point source loads (Waste Load Allocations), nonpoint source loads (Load Allocations), and an appropriate margin of safety (MOS) that takes into account any uncertainty concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality:

TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS The objective of a TMDL is to allocate loads among all of the known pollutant sources throughout a watershed so that appropriate control measures can be implemented and water quality standards achieved. 40 CFR §130.2 (i) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol22/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol22-sec130-2.pdf) states that TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time, toxicity, or other appropriate measure.

This document describes TMDL, Waste Load Allocation (WLA), Load Allocation (LA), and Margin of Safety (MOS) development for waterbodies identified as impaired due to E. coli on the Final EPA Approved 2014 and Draft 2016 303(d) lists. 8.1 Expression of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs In this document, the E. coli TMDL is a daily load expressed as a function of mean daily flow (daily loading function). For implementation purposes, corresponding percent load reduction goals (PLRGs) to decrease E. coli loads to TMDL target levels, within each respective flow zone, are also expressed. WLAs & LAs for precipitation-induced loading sources are also expressed as daily loading functions in CFU/day/acre. Allocations for loading that is independent of precipitation (WLAs for WWTPs and LAs for “other direct sources”) are expressed as CFU/day. 8.2 Area Basis for TMDL Analysis The primary area unit of analysis for TMDL development was the HUC-12 subwatershed containing one or more waterbodies assessed as impaired due to E. coli (as documented on the Final 2014 and Draft 2016 303(d) Lists). In some cases, however, TMDLs may be developed for an impaired waterbody drainage area only. Determination of the appropriate area to use for analysis (see Table 9) was based on a careful consideration of a number of relevant factors, including: 1) location of impaired waterbodies in the HUC-12 subwatershed; 2) land use type and distribution; 3) water quality monitoring data; and 4) the assessment status of other waterbodies in the HUC-12 subwatershed.




9/21/17 – Final Page 29 of 55

Table 9. Determination of Analysis Areas for TMDL Development

Subwatershed (06010207____)

Impaired Waterbody Area

0101/0102

Bullrun Creek (014_1000)

HUC-12 Bullrun Creek (014_2000)


North Fork Bullrun Creek

0201/0202

Beaver Creek (011_1000)

HUC-12



Grassy Creek

Hines Creek

Knob Fork

Meadow Creek

Plumb Creek

0201 Willow Fork DA

0302 E Fork Poplar Creek (026_1000)

HUC-12 E Fork Poplar Creek (026_2000)

0401 Coal Creek (029_1000)

DA Coal Creek (029_2000)

0402

Hinds Creek (016_1000)

HUC-12



Buffalo Creek

Byrams Creek

0403 Ernie’s Creek DA

0404 Scarboro Creek DA

Note: HUC-12 = HUC-12 Subwatershed DA = Waterbody Drainage Area


9/21/17 – Final Page 30 of 55

8.3 TMDL Analysis Methodology TMDLs for the Lower Clinch River Watershed were developed using load duration curves for analysis of impaired HUC-12 subwatersheds or specific waterbody drainage areas. A load duration curve (LDC) is a cumulative frequency graph that illustrates existing water quality conditions (as represented by loads calculated from monitoring data), how these conditions compare to desired targets, and the portion of the waterbody flow zone represented by these existing loads. Load duration curves are considered to be well suited for analysis of periodic monitoring data collected by grab sample. LDCs were developed at monitoring site locations in impaired waterbodies and daily loading functions were expressed for TMDLs, WLAs, LAs, and MOS. In addition, load reductions (PLRGs) for each flow zone were calculated for prioritization of implementation measures according to the methods described in Appendix E. 8.4 Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation The critical condition for nonpoint source E. coli loading is an extended dry period followed by a rainfall runoff event. During the dry weather period, E. coli bacteria builds up on the land surface, and is washed off by rainfall. The critical condition for point source loading occurs during periods of low streamflow when dilution is minimized. Both conditions are represented in the TMDL analyses.

A ten- to fifteen-year period between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2014 was used to simulate flow. (The length of the simulation period varied depending on the period of record of the monitoring data for the selected waterbody.) This period contained a range of hydrologic conditions that included both low and high streamflows. Critical conditions are accounted for in the load duration curve analyses by using the entire period of flow and water quality data available for the impaired waterbodies.

In all subwatersheds, water quality data have been collected during most flow ranges. For each subwatershed, the critical flow zone has been identified based on the incremental levels of impairment relative to the target loads. Based on the location of the water quality exceedances on

the load duration curves and the distribution of critical flow zones, no one delivery mode for E. coli appears to be dominant for waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed (see Section 9.1.2 and 9.1.3).

Seasonal variation was incorporated in the load duration curves by using the entire simulation period and all water quality data collected at the monitoring stations. Some water quality data were collected during all seasons. Most water quality data were collected during periods of mid-range to low flows. 8.5 Margin of Safety There are two methods for incorporating MOS in TMDL analyses: a) implicitly incorporate the MOS using conservative model assumptions; or b) explicitly specify a portion of the TMDL as the MOS and use the remainder for allocations. For development of E. coli TMDLs in the Lower Clinch River Watershed, an explicit MOS, equal to 10% of the E. coli water quality targets (ref.: Section 5.0), was utilized for determination of WLAs and LAs:


9/21/17 – Final Page 31 of 55

Instantaneous Maximum (lakes, reservoirs, State Scenic Rivers, or Exceptional Tennessee Waters waterbodies): MOS = 49 CFU/100 ml

Instantaneous Maximum (all other waterbodies): MOS = 94 CFU/100 ml

30-Day Geometric Mean: MOS = 13 CFU/100 ml

8.6 Determination of TMDLs E. coli daily loading functions were calculated for impaired segments in the Lower Clinch River Watershed using LDCs to evaluate compliance with the single sample maximum target concentrations according to the procedure in Appendix C. These TMDL loading functions for impaired segments and subwatersheds are shown in Table 10. 8.7 Determination of WLAs & LAs WLAs for MS4s and LAs for precipitation induced sources of E. coli loading were determined according to the procedures in Appendix C. These allocations represent the available loading after application of the explicit MOS. WLAs for existing WWTPs are equal to their existing NPDES permit limits. Since WWTP permit limits require that E. coli concentrations must comply with water quality criteria (TMDL targets) at the point of discharge and recognition that loading from these facilities are generally small in comparison to other loading sources, further reductions were not considered to be warranted. All waterbody IDs have a WLA term for WWTPs. The “qm” term in the WLAWWTP expression will be equal to the sum of the mean daily discharge for all WWTPs discharging to that waterbody ID. When there is no WWTP currently discharging to a waterbody ID (indicated by superscript e), the “qm” term in the WLAWWTP expression will be zero. The “qm” term provides a future growth allowance to the WLAWWTP expression when there is not an active WWTP, and when a WWTP goes online. WLAs for CAFOs and LAs for “other direct sources” (non-precipitation induced) are equal to zero. WLAs, & LAs are summarized in Table 10.


9/21/17 – Final Page 32 of 55

Table 10. TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs expressed as daily loads for Impaired Waterbodies

in the Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c


0101/0102


2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(3.091 x 105 x Q) – (3.434 x 105 x qd)

(3.091 x 105 x Q) – (3.434 x 105 x qd)


– (5.369 x 105 x qd) (4.832 x 105 x Q)

– (5.369 x 105 x qd)


– (2.011 x 106 x qd) (1.810 x 106 x Q)

– (2.011 x 106 x qd)


– (2.970 x 106 x qd) (2.673 x 106 x Q)

– (2.970 x 106 x qd)

0201/0202


2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(3.595 x 105 x Q) – (3.994 x 105 x qd)

(3.595 x 105 x Q) – (3.994 x 105 x qd)


– (6.525 x 105 x qd) (5.872 x 105 x Q)

– (6.525 x 105 x qd)


– (1.630 x 106 x qd) (1.467 x 106 x Q)

– (1.630 x 106 x qd)


– (5.069 x 106 x qd) (4.562 x 106 x Q)

– (5.069 x 106 x qd)


– (1.632 x 107 x qd) (1.469 x 107 x Q)

– (1.632 x 107 x qd)


– (6.185 x 106 x qd) (5.566 x 106 x Q)

– (6.185 x 106 x qd)


– (5.378 x 106 x qd) (4.840 x 106 x Q)

– (5.378 x 106 x qd)


– (1.000 x 107 x qd) (9.002 x 106 x Q)

– (1.000 x 107 x qd)


– (1.108 x 107 x qd) (9.975 x 106 x Q)

– (1.108 x 107 x qd)

0302


2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(1.090 x 106 x Q) – (1.221 x 106 x qd)

(1.090 x 106 x Q) – (1.221 x 106 x qd)


– (3.160 x 106 x qd) (2.844 x 106 x Q)

– (3.160 x 106 x qd)

0401

Coal Creek d TN06010207029_1000

2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(8.899 x 105 x Q) – (9.887 x 105 x qd)

(8.899 x 105 x Q) – (9.887 x 105 x qd)


– (1.506 x 106 x qd) (1.356 x 106 x Q)

– (1.506 x 106 x qd)


9/21/17 – Final Page 33 of 55

Table 10. TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs expressed as daily loads for Impaired Waterbodies

in the Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207) (cont’d)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c


0402


2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(4.920 x 105 x Q) – (5.467 x 105 x qd)

(4.920 x 105 x Q) – (5.467 x 105 x qd)


– (9.158 x 105 x qd) (8.242 x 105 x Q)

– (9.158 x 105 x qd)


– (2.198 x 106 x qd) (1.979 x 106 x Q)

– (2.198 x 106 x qd)


– (2.303 x 106 x qd) (2.073 x 106 x Q)

– (2.303 x 106 x qd)


– (3.497 x 106 x qd) (3.147 x 106 x Q)

– (3.497 x 106 x qd)


– (1.412 x 107 x qd) (1.271 x 107 x Q)

– (1.412 x 107 x qd)


– (2.354 x 107 x qd) (2.119 x 107 x Q)

– (2.354 x 107 x qd)






9/21/17 – Final Page 34 of 55

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs developed in Section 8 are intended to be the first phase of a long-term effort to restore the water quality of impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed through reduction of excessive E. coli loading. Adaptive management methods, within the context of the State’s rotating watershed management approach, will be used to modify TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs as required to meet water quality goals.

TMDL implementation activities will be accomplished within the framework of Tennessee’s Watershed Approach (ref: http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/wr-ws-watershed-management-approach). The Watershed Approach is based on a five-year cycle and encompasses planning, monitoring, assessment, TMDLs, WLAs/LAs, and permit issuance. It relies on participation at the federal, state, local and non-governmental levels to be successful. 9.1 Application of Load Duration Curves for Implementation Planning The Load Duration Curve (LDC) methodology (Appendix C) is a form of water quality analysis and presentation of data that aids in guiding implementation by targeting management strategies for appropriate flow conditions. One of the strengths of this method is that it can be used to interpret possible delivery mechanisms of E. coli by differentiating between point and nonpoint source problems. The load duration curve analysis can be utilized for implementation planning. See Cleland (2003) for further information on duration curves and TMDL development. 9.1.1 Flow Zone Analysis for Implementation Planning A major advantage of the duration curve framework in TMDL development is the ability to provide meaningful connections between allocations and implementation efforts (USEPA, 2006). Because the flow duration interval serves as a general indicator of hydrologic condition (i.e., wet versus dry and to what degree), allocations and reduction goals can be linked to source areas, delivery mechanisms, and the appropriate set of management practices. The use of duration curve zones (e.g., high flow, moist, mid-range, dry, and low flow) allows the development of allocation tables (USEPA, 2006) (Appendix E), which can be used to guide potential implementation actions to most effectively address water quality concerns.

For the purposes of implementation strategy development, available E. coli data are grouped according to flow zones, with the number of flow zones determined by the HUC-12 subwatershed or drainage area size, the total contributing area (for non-headwater HUC-12s), and/or the baseflow characteristics of the waterbody. In general, for drainage areas greater than 40 square miles, the duration curves will be divided into five zones (Figure 13): high flows (exceeded 0-10% of the time), moist conditions (10-40%), median or mid-range flows (40-60%), dry conditions (60-90%), and low flows (90-100%). For smaller drainage areas, flows occurring in the low flow zone (baseflow conditions) are often extremely low and difficult to measure accurately. In many small drainage areas, extreme dry conditions are characterized by zero flow for a significant percentage of time. For this reason, the low flow zone is best characterized as a broader range of conditions (or percent time) with subsequently fewer flow zones. Therefore, for most HUC-12 subwatershed drainage areas less than 40 square miles, the duration curves will be divided into four zones: high flows (exceeded 0-10% of the time), moist conditions (10-40%), median or mid-range flows (40-70%), and low flows (70-100%). Some small (<40 mi2) waterbody drainage areas have sustained baseflow (no zero flows) throughout their period of record. For these waterbodies, the duration curves will be divided into five zones. Given adequate data, results (allocations and percent load reduction goals) will be calculated for all

http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/wr-ws-watershed-management-approach

http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/wr-ws-watershed-management-approach


9/21/17 – Final Page 35 of 55

flow zones; however, less emphasis is placed on the upper 10% flow range for E. coli TMDLs and implementation plans. The highest 10 percent flows, representing flood conditions, are considered non-recreational conditions: unsafe for wading and swimming. Humans are not expected to enter the water due to the inherent hazard from high depths and velocities during these flow conditions. As a rule of thumb, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data (Lane, 1997) advises its personnel not to attempt to wade a stream for which values of depth (ft) multiplied by velocity (ft/s) equal or exceed 10 ft2/s to collect a water sample. Few observations are typically available to estimate loads under these adverse conditions due to the difficulty and danger of sample collection. Therefore, in general, the 0-10% flow range is beyond the scope of E. coli TMDLs and subsequent implementation strategies.

Figure 13 Five-Zone Flow Duration Curve for Beaver Creek at RM 3.5


9/21/17 – Final Page 36 of 55

9.1.2 Existing Loads and Percent Load Reductions Each impaired waterbody has a characteristic set of pollutant sources and existing loading conditions that vary according to flow conditions. In addition, maximum allowable loading (assimilative capacity) of a waterbody varies with flow. Therefore, existing loading, allowable loading, and percent load reduction expressed at a single location on the LDC (for a single flow condition) do not appropriately represent the TMDL in order to address all sources under all flow conditions (i.e., at all times) to satisfy implementation objectives. The LDC approach provides a methodology for determination of assimilative capacity and existing loading conditions of a waterbody for each flow zone. Subsequently, each flow zone, and the sources contributing to impairment under the corresponding flow conditions, can be evaluated independently. Lastly, the critical flow zone (with the highest percent load reduction goal and/or the highest percent of samples exceeding the TMDL target) can be identified for prioritization of implementation actions.

Existing loading is calculated for each individual water quality sample as the product of the sample flow (cfs) times the single sample E. coli concentration (times a conversion factor). A percent load reduction is calculated for each water quality sample exceeding the single sample maximum water quality criterion as that required to reduce the existing loading to the product of the sample flow (cfs) times the single sample maximum water quality standard (times a conversion factor). Samples with negative percent load reductions (non-exceedance: concentration below the single sample maximum water quality criterion) are not factored into the calculation of the percent load reduction goals (PLRGs). The PLRG for a given flow zone is calculated as the mean of all the percent load reductions for a given flow zone. (See Appendix E.) 9.1.3 Critical Conditions The critical condition for each impaired waterbody is defined as the flow zone with the largest PLRG and/or percent exceedance, excluding the “high flow” zone because these extremely high flows are not representative of recreational flow conditions, as described in Section 9.1.1. If the PLRG and/or percent exceedance in this zone is greater than all the other zones, the zone with the second highest PLRG and/or percent exceedance will be considered the critical flow zone. The critical conditions are such that if water quality standards were met under those conditions, they would likely be met overall. 9.2 Point Sources 9.2.1 NPDES Regulated Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities All present and future discharges from industrial and municipal wastewater treatment facilities are required to be in compliance with the conditions of their NPDES permits at all times, including elimination of bypasses and overflows. With few exceptions, in Tennessee, permit limits for treated sanitary wastewater require compliance with coliform water quality standards (ref: Section 5.0) prior to discharge. No additional reduction is required. WLAs for WWTPs are derived from mean daily facility flows and permitted E. coli limits and are expressed as daily loads in CFU per day.


9/21/17 – Final Page 37 of 55

9.2.2 NPDES Regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) For discharges from current and future regulated municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), WLAs are and will be implemented through the appropriate MS4 permit. These permits require the development and implementation of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will reduce the discharge of pollutants to the "maximum extent practicable" and not cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. A monitoring component to assess the effectiveness of BMPs must also be included in the SWMP. Regulated MS4s that maintain compliance with the provisions of their NPDES permits are considered to be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the WLAs of this TMDL. For guidance on the six minimum control measures for MS4s regulated under Phase I or Phase II and a menu of BMPs representative of the types of practices that can successfully achieve them, a series of fact sheets are available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-stormwater. For further information on Tennessee’s MS4 permitting program (including links to individual MS4 programs and DWR’s Permits Dataviewer) see:

http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-stormwater-discharges-permitting.

9.2.3 NPDES Regulated Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) There are currently no CAFOs present in the Lower Clinch River Watershed. Future CAFOs will be addressed through the appropriate CAFO State Operating Permit (SOP) or the facility’s individual permit. Provisions of the SOP include development and implementation of Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) and requirements for CAFO liquid waste management systems. For further information, see: https://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-concentrated-animal-feeding-operation-cafo-general-state-opera.

9.3 Nonpoint Sources The Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) has no direct regulatory authority over most nonpoint source (NPS) discharges. Reductions of E. coli loading from nonpoint sources will be achieved using a phased approach. Voluntary, incentive-based mechanisms will be used to implement NPS management measures in order to assure that measurable reductions in pollutant loadings can be achieved for the targeted impaired waters. Cooperation and active participation by the general public and various industry, business, and environmental groups is critical to successful implementation of TMDLs. There are links to a number of publications and information resources on EPA’s Nonpoint Source Pollution web page (http://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution) relating to the implementation and evaluation of nonpoint source pollution control measures.

Local citizen-led and implemented management measures have the potential to provide the most efficient and comprehensive avenue for reduction of loading rates from nonpoint sources. The Water Quality Forum is a coalition of diverse partners including municipalities, utilities, non-profit organizations and businesses working together to keep waters in East Tennessee clean. The partners work together to conduct on the ground projects and education/outreach activities geared toward improving water quality in the Knoxville, Tennessee area. Adopt-A-Watershed involves middle and high school students in curriculum-based projects that use their school’s watershed as a

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-stormwater





http://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution

http://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution


9/21/17 – Final Page 38 of 55

“living laboratory” and culminates in student-generated products or services that meet true community needs. Water Fest is a day-long festival at Ijams Nature Center for area students that focuses on environmental and water quality education and outdoor activities. Rainy Day Brush-Off promotes water conservation through the use of locally painted artistic rain barrels. River Rescue has organized 600-plus volunteers a year since 1990 to participate in a one-day cleanup of public shorelines along the Tennessee and Clinch Rivers in Knox, Blount and Anderson Counties. The Environmental Stewardship Program (ESP) works with property owners to find sustainable approaches to stormwater drainage problems. Additional information about the Water Quality Forum is available at: http://waterqualityforum.org. Community-led activities have also been described in TDEC’s 5-Alt Report for Beaver Creek.

9.3.1 Urban Nonpoint Sources Management measures to reduce E. coli loading from urban nonpoint sources are similar to those recommended for MS4s (Sect. 9.2.2). Specific categories of urban nonpoint sources include stormwater, illicit discharges, septic systems, pet waste, and wildlife.

Stormwater: Most mitigation measures for stormwater are not designed specifically to reduce bacteria concentrations (ENSR, 2005). Instead, BMPs are typically designed to remove sediment and other pollutants. Bacteria in stormwater runoff are, however, often attached to particulate matter. Therefore, treatment systems that remove sediment may also provide reductions in bacteria concentrations.

Illicit discharges: Removal of illicit discharges to storm sewer systems, particularly of sanitary wastes, is an effective means of reducing E. coli loading to receiving waters (ENSR, 2005). These include intentional illegal connections from commercial or residential buildings, failing septic systems, and improper disposal of sewage from campers and boats.

Septic systems: When properly installed, operated, and maintained, septic systems effectively reduce E. coli concentrations in sewage. To reduce the release of E. coli, practices can be employed to maximize the life of existing systems, identify failed systems, and replace or remove failed systems (USEPA, 2005a). Alternatively, the installation of public sewers may be appropriate.

Pet waste: If the waste is not properly disposed of, these bacteria can wash into storm drains or directly into waterbodies and contribute to E. coli impairment. Encouraging pet owners to properly collect and dispose of pet waste is the primary means for reducing the impact of pet waste (USEPA, 2002b; USEPA, 2001).

Wildlife: Reducing the impact of wildlife on E. coli concentrations in waterbodies generally requires either reducing the concentration of wildlife in an area or reducing their proximity to the waterbody (ENSR, 2005). The primary means for doing this is to eliminate human inducements for congregation. In addition, in some instances population control measures may be appropriate. Three additional urban nonpoint source resource documents provided by EPA are: National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas (http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10004FY.txt) helps citizens and municipalities in urban areas protect bodies of water from polluted runoff that can result from everyday activities. The scientifically sound techniques it presents are among the best practices known today. The guidance will also help states to implement their nonpoint source control programs and municipalities to implement their Phase II Storm Water Permit Programs (Publication Number EPA 841-B-05-004, November 2005).

The Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Urban Watersheds is a comprehensive literature

http://waterqualityforum.org/

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10004FY.txt

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100O0RJ.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2011%20Thru%202015%7C1995%20Thru%201999%7C1981%20Thru%201985%7C2006%20Thru%202010%7C1991%20Thru%201994%7C1976%20Thru%201980%7C2000%20Thru%202005%7C1986%20Thru%201990%7CPrior%20to%201976%7CHardcopy%20Publications&Docs=&Query=600R04184&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=2&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C00THRU05%5CTXT%5C00000035%5CP100O0RJ.txt&User=anonymous&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=15&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r85g16/r85g16/x150y150g16/i500&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x


9/21/17 – Final Page 39 of 55

review on commonly used urban watershed Best Management Practices (BMPs) that heretofore was not consolidated. The purpose of this document is to serve as an information source to individuals and agencies/municipalities/watershed management groups/etc. on the existing state of BMPs in urban stormwater management (Publication Number EPA/600/R-04/184, September 2004).

The National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices website (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-stormwater) is based on the Stormwater Phase II Rule’s six minimum control measures and was first released in October 2000. As recently as September, 2016, EPA has renamed, reorganized, updated, and enhanced the features of the website, including addition of new fact sheets and revisions of existing fact sheets. Fact sheets can be obtained by following the directions on the above website.

9.3.2 Agricultural Nonpoint Sources BMPs have been implemented in the Lower Clinch River Watershed to reduce the amount of coliform bacteria transported to surface waters from agricultural sources. These BMPs (e.g., animal waste management systems, waste utilization, stream stabilization, fencing, heavy use area treatment, livestock exclusion, etc.) may have contributed to reductions in in-stream concentrations of coliform bacteria in one or more Lower Clinch River Watershed E. coli-impaired subwatersheds during the TMDL evaluation period. The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) keeps a database of BMPs implemented in Tennessee. Those listed in the Lower Clinch River Watershed are shown in Figure 14. The NRCS has also implemented BMPs in the Lower Clinch River Watershed. Identification and quantification of agricultural sources of coliform bacteria (e.g., livestock access to streams, manure application practices, etc.) would be necessary to increase success of future remediation efforts.

Implementation and monitoring of BMPs are essential to document performance in reducing coliform bacteria loading to surface waters from agricultural sources. Demonstration sites for various types of BMPs should be established and maintained, and their performance (in source reduction) evaluated prior to recommendations for utilization for subsequent implementation. E. coli sampling and monitoring during low-flow (baseflow) and storm periods at sites with and without BMPs and/or before and after implementation of BMPs are necessary to document appropriate BMP operation.

For additional information on agricultural BMPs in Tennessee, see: http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/agriculture/attachments/AgFarBMPsAgricultural.pdf. An additional agricultural nonpoint source resource provided by EPA is National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture (http://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution/national-management-measures-control-nonpoint-source-0): a technical guidance and reference document for use by State, local, and tribal managers in the implementation of nonpoint source pollution management programs. It contains information on the best available, economically achievable means of reducing pollution of surface and groundwater from agriculture (EPA 841-B-03-004, July 2003). Information about specific BMPs can be obtained at the following website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/ncps/


http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/agriculture/attachments/AgFarBMPsAgricultural.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution/national-management-measures-control-nonpoint-source-0


http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/ncps/


9/21/17 – Final Page 40 of 55

Figure 14. TDA Best Management Practices located in the Lower Clinch River Watershed


9/21/17 – Final Page 41 of 55

9.3.3 Other Nonpoint Sources Additional nonpoint source references (not specifically addressing urban and/or agricultural sources) provided by EPA include: National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry (http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/2005_05_09_nps_forestrymgmt_guidance.pdf) helps forest owners protect lakes and streams from polluted runoff that can result from forestry activities. These scientifically sound techniques are the best practices known today. The report will also help states to implement their nonpoint source control programs (EPA 841-B-05-001, May 2005). 9.4 Additional Monitoring Additional monitoring and assessment activities will determine whether implementation of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs has resulted in achievement of in-stream water quality targets for E. coli. 9.4.1 TMDL Monitoring Future activities recommended for the Lower Clinch River Watershed:

Evaluate the effectiveness of implementation measures (see Sect. 9.6) and include BMP performance analysis and monitoring by permittees and stakeholders.

Provide additional data to clarify status of ambiguous sites (e.g., geometric mean data) for potential listing as an impaired water.

Continue ambient (long-term) monitoring at appropriate sites and key locations.

Comprehensive water quality monitoring activities include sampling during all seasons and a broad range of flow and meteorological conditions. In addition, collection of E. coli data at sufficient frequency to support calculation of the geometric mean, as described in Tennessee’s General Water Quality Criteria (TDEC, 2015), is encouraged only when reductions are expected to be sufficient to support delisting. Finally, for individual monitoring locations, where historical E. coli data are greater than 2419 colonies/100 mL (or future samples are anticipated to be), a 1:10 (or 1:100) dilution should be performed as described in Protocol A of the Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Chemical and Bacteriological Sampling of Surface Water (TDEC, 2011).

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/2005_05_09_nps_forestrymgmt_guidance.pdf


9/21/17 – Final Page 42 of 55

9.4.2 Source Identification

An important aspect of E. coli load reduction activities is the accurate identification of the actual sources of pollution. In cases where the sources of E. coli impairment are not readily apparent, Microbial Source Tracking (MST) is one approach to determining the sources of fecal pollution and E. coli affecting a waterbody. Those methods that use bacteria as target organisms are also known as Bacterial Source Tracking (BST) methods. This technology is recommended for source identification in E. coli impaired waterbodies.

Bacterial Source Tracking is a collective term used for various biochemical, chemical, and molecular methods that have been developed to distinguish sources of human and non-human fecal pollution in environmental samples (Shah, 2004). In general, these methods rely on genotypic (also known as “genetic fingerprinting”), or phenotypic (relating to the physical characteristics of an organism) distinctions between the bacteria of different sources. Three primary genotypic techniques are available for BST: ribotyping, pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Two prominent phenotypic techniques are available for BST: antibiotic resistance analysis (ARA) and carbon utilization profile (CUP).

The USEPA has published a fact sheet that discusses BST methods and presents examples of BST application to TMDL development and implementation (USEPA, 2002b). Various BST projects and descriptions of the application of BST techniques used to guide implementation of effective BMPs to remove or reduce fecal contamination are presented. The fact sheet can be found on the following EPA website: http://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/bacsortk.pdf.

An article about “Advancements in Bacterial Source Tracking” is available at: http://foresternetwork.com/daily/water/stormwater-management/advancements-in-bacterial-source-tracking/. This article provides information about: (1) general types of BST methods, and comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of several of these methodologies, (2) the value of adopting BST techniques in an effort to focus system improvements in a way that reduces costs by placing an emphasis on the right source(s) of bacteria (i.e., human versus non-human), and (3) advances in BST technology, including a list of reading sources to study this topic in greater detail.

A multi-disciplinary group of researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) has developed and tested a series of different microbial assay methods based on real-time PCR to detect fecal bacterial concentrations and host sources in water samples (Layton, 2006). The assays have been used in a study of fecal contamination and have proven useful in identification of areas where cattle represent a significant fecal input and in development of BMPs. It is expected that these types of assays could have broad applications in monitoring fecal impacts from Animal Feeding Operations, as well as from wildlife and human sources. Additional information can be found on the following UTK website: http://web.utk.edu/~hydro/JournalPapers/Layton06AEM.pdf. BST technology was utilized in a study conducted in Stock Creek (Little River Watershed) (Layton, 2004). Microbial source tracking using real-time PCR assays to quantify Bacteroides 16S rRNA genes was used to determine the percent of fecal contamination attributable to cattle. E. coli loads attributable to cattle were calculated for each of nine sampling sites in the Stock Creek subwatershed on twelve sampling dates. At the site on High Bluff Branch (tributary to Stock Creek), none of the sample dates had E. coli loads attributable to cattle above the threshold. This suggests that at this site removal of E. coli attributable to cattle would have little impact on the total E. coli loads. The E. coli load attributable to cattle made a large contribution to the total E. coli load at each of the eight remaining sampling sites. At two of the sites (STOCK005.3KN and GHOLL000.6KN), 50–75% of the E. coli attributable to cattle loads alone was above the 126 CFU/100mL threshold. This suggests that removal of the E. coli attributable to cattle at these sites would reduce the total E. coli load to acceptable limits.

http://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/bacsortk.pdf

http://foresternetwork.com/daily/water/stormwater-management/advancements-in-bacterial-source-tracking/


http://web.utk.edu/~hydro/JournalPapers/Layton06AEM.pdf


9/21/17 – Final Page 43 of 55

9.5 Source Area Implementation Strategy Implementation strategies are organized according to the dominant landuse type and the sources associated with each (Table 11 and Appendix E). Additional considerations for classification of source area type include waterbody assessment information from TDEC’s ADB and subsequent Pollutant Source designation on the 303(d) List. Each HUC-12 subwatershed and waterbody drainage area is grouped and targeted for implementation based on this source area classification. Three primary categories are identified: predominantly urban, predominantly agricultural, and mixed urban/agricultural. See Appendix A for information regarding landuse distribution of impaired subwatersheds. For the purpose of implementation evaluation, urban is defined as residential, commercial, and industrial landuse areas (landuse classifications: low, medium, and high intensity development) with predominant source categories such as point sources (WWTPs), collection systems/septic systems (including SSOs and CSOs), and urban stormwater runoff associated with MS4s. Agricultural is defined as cropland and pasture, with predominant source categories associated with livestock and manure management activities. A 303(d) List Pollutant Source designation of Undetermined Source warrants classification as mixed source area unless landuse is overwhelmingly dominated by urban or agricultural. A fourth category (infrequent) is associated with forested (including non-agricultural undeveloped and unaltered [by humans]) landuse areas with the predominant source category being wildlife.

All impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas have been classified according to their respective source area types in Table 11. The implementation for each area will be prioritized according to the guidance provided in Sections 9.5.1 and 9.5.2, below. For all impaired waterbodies, the determination of source area types serves to identify the predominant sources contributing to impairment (i.e., those that should be targeted initially for implementation). However, it is not intended to imply that sources in other landuse areas are not contributors to impairment and/or to grant an exemption from addressing other source area contributions with implementation strategies and corresponding load reduction. For mixed use areas, implementation will follow the guidance established for both urban and agricultural areas, at a minimum.

Appendix E provides source area implementation examples for urban and agricultural subwatersheds, development of percent load reduction goals, and determination of critical flow zones (for implementation prioritization) for E. coli impaired waterbodies. Load duration curve analyses (TMDLs, WLAs, LAs, and MOS) and percent load reduction goals for all flow zones for all E. coli impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed are summarized in Table E-33.

9.5.1 Urban Source Areas For impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas classified as predominantly urban, implementation strategies for E. coli load reduction will initially and primarily target source categories similar to those listed in Table 12 (USEPA, 2006). Table 12 presents example urban area management practices and the corresponding potential relative effectiveness under each of the hydrologic flow zones. Each implementation strategy addresses a range of flow conditions and targets point sources, nonpoint sources, or a combination of each. For each waterbody, the existing loads and corresponding PLRG for each flow zone are calculated according to the method described in Section E.1. The resulting determination of the critical flow zone further focuses the types of urban management practices appropriate for development of an effective load reduction strategy for a particular waterbody.


9/21/17 – Final Page 44 of 55

Table 11. Source area types for waterbody drainage area analyses

HUC-12 / Waterbody Source Area Type*

Urban Agriculture Mixed Forested




North Fork Bullrun Creek




Grassy Creek

Hines Creek

Knob Fork

Meadow Creek

Plumb Creek

Willow Fork

E Fork Poplar Creek (026_1000)

E Fork Poplar Creek (026_2000)

Coal Creek (029_1000)

Coal Creek (029_2000)




Buffalo Creek

Byrams Creek

Ernie’s Creek

Scarboro Creek

* All waterbodies potentially have significant source contributions from other source type/landuse areas.

9.5.2 Agricultural Source Areas For impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas classified as predominantly agricultural, implementation strategies for E. coli load reduction will initially and primarily target source categories similar to those listed in Table 13 (USDA, 1988). Table 13 presents example agricultural area management practices and the corresponding potential relative effectiveness under each of the hydrologic flow zones. Each implementation strategy addresses a range of flow conditions and targets point sources, nonpoint sources, or a combination of each. For each waterbody, the existing loads and corresponding PLRG for each flow zone are calculated according to the method described in Section E.2. The resulting determination of the critical flow zone further focuses the types of agricultural management practices appropriate for development of an effective load reduction strategy for a particular waterbody.


9/21/17 – Final Page 45 of 55

Table 12. Example Urban Area Management Practice/Hydrologic Flow Zone

Considerations

Management Practice Duration Curve Zone (Flow Zone)

High Moist Mid-Range Dry Low

Bacteria source reduction

Remove illicit discharges L M H

Address pet & wildlife waste H M M L

Combined sewer overflow management

Combined sewer separation H M L

CSO prevention practices H M L

Sanitary sewer system

Infiltration/Inflow mitigation H M L L

Inspection, maintenance, and repair L M H H

SSO repair/abatement H M L

Illegal cross-connections

Septic system management

Managing private systems L M H M

Replacing failed systems L M H M

Installing public sewers L M H M

Storm water infiltration/retention

Infiltration basin L M H

Infiltration trench L M H

Infiltration/Biofilter swale L M H

Storm Water detention

Created wetland H M L

Low impact development

Disconnecting impervious areas L M H

Bioretention L M H H

Pervious pavement L M H

Green Roof L M H

Buffers H H H

New/existing on-site wastewater treatment

systems

Permitting & installation programs L M H M

Operation & maintenance programs L M H M

Other

Point source controls L M H H

Landfill control L M H

Riparian buffers H H H

Pet waste education & ordinances M H H L

Wildlife management M H H L

Inspection & maintenance of BMPs L M H H L

Note: Potential relative importance of management practice effectiveness under given hydrologic condition (H: High, M: Medium, L: Low)


9/21/17 – Final Page 46 of 55

Table 13. Example Agricultural Area Management Practice/Hydrologic

Flow Zone Considerations

Flow Condition High Moist Mid-range Dry Low

% Time Flow Exceeded 0-10 10-40 40-60 60-90 90-100

Grazing Management

Prescribed Grazing (528A) H H M L

Pasture & Hayland Mgmt (510) H H M L

Deferred Grazing (352) H H M L

Planned Grazing System (556) H H M L

Proper Grazing Use (528) H H M L

Proper Woodland Grazing (530) H H M L

Livestock Access Limitation

Livestock Exclusion (472) M H H

Fencing (382) M H H

Stream Crossing M H H

Alternate Water Supply

Pipeline (516) M H H

Pond (378) M H H

Trough or Tank (614) M H H

Well (642) M H H

Spring Development (574) M H H

Manure Management

Managing Barnyards H H M L

Manure Transfer (634) H H M L

Land Application of Manure H H M L

Composting Facility (317) H H M L

Vegetative Stabilization

Pasture & Hayland Planting (512) H H M L

Range Seeding (550) H H M L

Channel Vegetation (322) H H M L

Brush (& Weed) Mgmt (314) H H M L

Conservation Cover (327) H H H

Riparian Buffers (391) H H H

Critical Area Planting (342) H H H

Wetland restoration (657) H H H


9/21/17 – Final Page 47 of 55

Table 13 (cont’d). Example Agricultural Area Management Practice/Hydrologic

Flow Zone Considerations

Flow Condition High Moist Mid-range Dry Low


CAFO Management

Waste Management System (312) H H M

Waste Storage Structure (313) H H M

Waste Storage Pond (425) H H M

Waste Treatment Lagoon (359) H H M

Mulching (484) H H M

Waste Utilization (633) H H M

Water & Sediment Control Basin (638) H H M

Filter Strip (393) H H M

Sediment Basin (350) H H M

Grassed Waterway (412) H H M

Diversion (362) H H M

Heavy Use Area Protection (561)

Constructed Wetland (656)

Dikes (356) H H M

Lined Waterway or Outlet (468) H H M

Roof Runoff Mgmt (558) H H M

Floodwater Diversion (400) H H M

Terrace (600) H H M

Potential for source area contribution under given hydrologic condition (H: High; M: Medium; L: Low)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are the U.S. Soil Conservation Service practice number.

9.5.3 Forestry Source Areas There are no impaired waterbodies with corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas classified as source area type predominantly forested, with the predominant source category being wildlife, within the Lower Clinch River Watershed.


9/21/17 – Final Page 48 of 55

9.6 Evaluation of TMDL Implementation Effectiveness Evaluation of the effectiveness of TMDL implementation strategies should be conducted on multiple levels, as appropriate:

HUC-12 or waterbody drainage area (i.e., TMDL analysis location)

Subwatersheds or intermediate sampling locations

Specific landuse areas (urban, pasture, etc.)

Specific facilities (WWTP, CAFO, uniquely identified portion of MS4, etc.)

Individual BMPs In order to conduct an implementation effectiveness analysis on measures to reduce E. coli source loading, monitoring results should be evaluated in one of several ways. Sampling results can be compared to water quality standards (e.g., load duration curve analysis) for determination of impairment status, results can be compared on a before and after basis (temporal), or results can be evaluated both upstream and downstream of source reduction measures or source input (spatial). Considerations include period of record, data collection frequency, representativeness of data, and sampling locations.

In general, periods of record greater than 5 years (given adequate sampling frequency) can be evaluated for determination of relative change (trend analysis). For watersheds in second or successive TMDL cycles, data collected from multiple cycles can be compared. If implementation efforts have been initiated to reduce loading, evaluation of routine monitoring data may indicate improving or worsening conditions over time and corresponding effectiveness of implementation efforts.

Water quality data for implementation effectiveness analysis can be presented in multiple ways. The following examples are taken from the Hiwassee River watershed because the monitoring site (Oostanaula Creek at mile 28.4) has a large quantity of monitoring data available and the data demonstrate clear improvement. There were no monitoring sites in the Lower Clinch River watershed with a similar quantity of monitoring data available and showing a definite trend.

Figure 15 shows best fit curve analyses (regressions) of flow (percent time exceeded) versus E. coli loading, for a historical (1999-2004) period versus a recent post-implementation period of sampling data (2005-2013). The LDCs of the single sample maximum and geometric mean water quality standards are also plotted to illustrate the relative degree of impairment for each period. Figure 16 shows a LDC analysis of E. coli loading statistics for Oostanaula Creek for the same two periods. In addition, the 90th percentiles for each flow zone are plotted for comparison. Lastly, Figure 17 shows E. coli concentration data statistics for recent versus historical data. The individual flow zone analyses are presented in a box and whisker plot of recent [2] versus historical [1] data. Note that Figures 15-17 present the same data, each clearly illustrating improving conditions between historical and recent periods.


9/21/17 – Final Page 49 of 55

Figure 15. Example Graph of TMDL implementation effectiveness (LDC regression analysis)

Figure 16. Example Graph of TMDL implementation effectiveness (LDC analysis)


9/21/17 – Final Page 50 of 55

Figure 17. Example Graph of TMDL implementation effectiveness (box and whisker plot)


9/21/17 – Final Page 51 of 55

10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

In accordance with 40 CFR §130.7, the proposed E. coli TMDLs for the Lower Clinch River Watershed will be placed on Public Notice for a 35-day period and comments solicited. Steps that will be taken in this regard include:

1) Notice of the proposed TMDLs was posted on the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation website. The announcement invited public and stakeholder comment and provided a link to a downloadable version of the TMDL document.

2) Notice of the availability of the proposed TMDLs (similar to the website

announcement) was included in one of the NPDES permit Public Notice mailings which is sent to over 190 interested persons or groups who have requested this information.

3) Letters were sent to WWTPs and other facilities located in E. coli-impaired

subwatersheds or drainage areas in the Lower Clinch River Watershed, permitted to discharge treated effluent containing E. coli, advising them of the proposed TMDLs and their availability on the TDEC website and providing a link to a downloadable version of the TMDL document. The letters also stated that a copy of the draft TMDL document would be provided on request. A letter was sent to the following facilities:

ACWA – Airbase STP (TN0074071) Briceville Elementary School (TN0057860) City of Rocky Top STP (TN0025127) Hallsdale-Powell Raccoon Valley STP (TN0059323) Hallsdale-Powell UD STP (TN0078905) Maynardville STP (TN0022870) Norris STP (TN0020630) Oak Ridge STP (TN0024155) West Knox UD – Karns Beaver Creek STP (TN0060020)

4) Letters were sent to those MS4s that are wholly or partially located in E. coli-impaired subwatersheds, advising them of the proposed TMDLs and their availability on the TDEC website and providing a link to a downloadable version of the TMDL document. The letters also stated that a copy of the draft TMDL document would be provided on request. A letter was sent to the following MS4s:

City of Knoxville, Tennessee (TNS068055) Anderson County (TNS075108) Knox County (TNS075582) Loudon County (TNS075591) Oak Ridge Phase II MS4 (TNS088366) Tennessee Dept. of Transportation (TNS077585)


9/21/17 – Final Page 52 of 55

5) A letter was sent to water quality partners in the Lower Clinch River Watershed advising them of the proposed E. coli TMDLs and their availability on the TDEC website and providing a link to a downloadable version of the TMDL document. The letter also stated that a written copy of the draft TMDL document would be provided upon request. A letter was sent to the following partners:

Water Quality Forum, including: City of Oak Ridge Stormwater Program GeoServices, LLC City of Knoxville Communications Dept. Ijams Nature Center Knox County Stormwater Program McGill Associates S&ME Town of Farragut Stormwater Program UT – Biosystems Engineering & Soil Sciences UT – TN Water Resources Center

Lower Clinch Watershed Council, including: Beaver Creek Task Force Bullrun Creek Restoration Initiative Coal Creek Watershed Foundation Natural Resources Conservation Service Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning Trout Unlimited – Clinch River Chapter Water Quality Forum

Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee Tennessee Department of Agriculture Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency The Nature Conservancy

11.0 FURTHER INFORMATION

Further information concerning Tennessee’s TMDL program can be found on the Internet at the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation website:

http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/wr-ws-tennessees-total-maximum-daily-load-tmdl-program Technical questions regarding this TMDL should be directed to the following members of the DWR staff:

Vicki Steed, P.E., Watershed Management Unit e-mail: [email protected] David M. Duhl, Ph.D., Manager, Watershed Management Unit e-mail: [email protected]

http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/wr-ws-tennessees-total-maximum-daily-load-tmdl-program

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


9/21/17 – Final Page 53 of 55

REFERENCES

California Dept. of Transportation (CalTrans). November 2003. Discharge Characterization Study Report. CTSW-RT-03-065.51.42. Available at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW-RT-03-065.pdf.

Center for Watershed Protection, 1999. Watershed Protection Techniques. Vol. 3. No. 1. Center

for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. April 1999. Cleland, Bruce, 2003. TMDL Development from the “Bottom Up” – Part III: Duration Curves and

Wet-Weather Assessments. America’s Clean Water Foundation. Washington, DC. September 2003. This document can be found at TMDLs.net, a joint effort of America’s Clean Water Foundation, the Association of State and Interstate Water Resources Administrators, and EPA: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228822472_TMDL_Development_from_the_Bottom_Up-_PART_III_Durations_Curves_and_Wet-Weather_Assessments

ENSR. 2005. Mitigation Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Waters: A TMDL

Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts. Prepared by ENSR International for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. July 2005.

Hyer, Kenneth E., and Douglas L. Moyer, 2004. Enhancing Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily

Load Models Through Bacterial Source Tracking. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 40(6):1511-1526. Paper No. 03180.

Lane, S. L., and R. G. Fay, 1997. National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data,

Chapter A9. Safety in Field Activities: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. 9. October 1997. This document is available on the USGS website: http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chap9/content.html.

Layton, Alice, Gentry, Randy, and McKay, Larry, 2004. Calculation of Stock Creek E. coli loads and

partitioning of E. coli loads into that attributable to bovine using Bruce Cleland’s Flow Duration Curve Models. Personal note.

Layton, Alice, McKay, Larry, Williams, Dan, Garrett, Victoria, Gentry, Randall, and Sayler, Gary,

2006. Development of Bacteriodes 16S rRNA Gene TaqMan-Based Real-Time PCR Assays for Estimation of Total Human, and Bovine Fecal Pollution in Water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology (AEM), June 2006, p. 4214-4224. This document is available on the UTK website: http://web.utk.edu/~hydro/JournalPapers/Layton06AEM.pdf .

Powell, Mike. 2014. Advancements in Bacterial Source Tracking. StormH2O, May 2014, p. 20-27.

This document is available at the following website: http://foresternetwork.com/daily/water/stormwater-management/advancements-in-bacterial-source-tracking/

Shah, Vikas G., Hugh Dunstan, and Phillip M. Geary, 2004. Application of Emerging Bacterial

Source Tracking (BST) Methods to Detect and Distinguish Sources of Fecal Pollution in Waters. School of Environmental and Life Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW-RT-03-065.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228822472_TMDL_Development_from_the_Bottom_Up-_PART_III_Durations_Curves_and_Wet-Weather_Assessments

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228822472_TMDL_Development_from_the_Bottom_Up-_PART_III_Durations_Curves_and_Wet-Weather_Assessments

http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chap9/content.html

http://web.utk.edu/~hydro/JournalPapers/Layton06AEM.pdf




9/21/17 – Final Page 54 of 55

Stiles, T., and B. Cleland, 2003, Using Duration Curves in TMDL Development & Implementation

Planning. ASIWPCA “States Helping States” Conference Call, July 1, 2003. This document is available on the Indiana Office of Water Quality website: http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/files/monitoring_loads_duration_about_using.pdf.

TDEC. 2011. Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Chemical and Bacteriological

Sampling of Surface Water. State of Tennessee, Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources. August 2011.

TDEC. 2015. State of Tennessee Water Quality Standards, Chapter 0400-40-03 General Water

Quality Criteria. State of Tennessee, Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources. April 2015.

TDEC. 2016a. Draft 2016 303(d) List. State of Tennessee, Department of Environment and

Conservation, Division of Water Resources, July 2016. TDEC. 2016b. Final EPA Approved 2014 303(d) List. State of Tennessee, Department of

Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources, May 2016. TDEC. 2016c. NPDES General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

Systems. State of Tennessee, Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources, August 2010. This document is available on the TDEC website: http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-stormwater-discharges-permitting

USDA, 1988. 1-4 Effects of Conservation Practices on Water Quantity and Quality. In Water

Quality Workshop, Integrating Water Quality and Quantity into Conservation Planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.

USDA, 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture, Tennessee State and County Data, Volume 1,

Geographic Area Series, Part 42 (AC-12-A-42). USDA website URL: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Tennessee/tnv1.pdf. May 2014.

USDA, 2016. National Conservation Practice Standards. Available from USDA website URL:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/ncps/ USEPA. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality –based Decisions: The TMDL Process. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-440/4-91-001, April 1991.

USEPA. 1997. Ecoregions of Tennessee. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health

and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. EPA/600/R-97/022. USEPA, 2001. Managing Pet and Wildlife Waste to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-916-F-01-027, July 2001.

USEPA, 2002a. Animal Feeding Operations Frequently Asked Questions. USEPA website URL:

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos . September 12, 2002.

http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/files/monitoring_loads_duration_about_using.pdf


http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Tennessee/tnv1.pdf

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Tennessee/tnv1.pdf

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/ncps/

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos


9/21/17 – Final Page 55 of 55

USEPA, 2002b. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, Bacterial Source Tracking. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA 832-F-02-010, May 2002. This document is available on the EPA website: http://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/bacsortk.pdf

USEPA. 2003. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from

Agriculture. EPA 841-B-03-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. This document is available on the EPA website: (http://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution/national-management-measures-control-nonpoint-source-0

USEPA. 2004. The Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Urban Watersheds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-04/184, September 2004.

USEPA. 2005a. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban

Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA 841-B-05-004, November 2005. This document is available on the EPA website: (http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10004FY.txt)

USEPA. 2005b. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from

Forestry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA 841-B-05-001, May 2005. This document is available on the EPA website: (http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/2005_05_09_nps_forestrymgmt_guidance.pdf

USEPA, 2006. An Approach for Using Load Duration Curves in Developing TMDLs. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds. Washington, D.C. Draft, December 2006.

USEPA, 2014. Protection of Downstream Waters in Water Quality Standards: Frequently Asked

Questions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA/820-F-14-001. June 2014.

http://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/bacsortk.pdf



http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10004FY.txt




9/21/17 - Final Page A-1 of A-6

A-1

APPENDIX A

Land Use Distribution in the Lower Clinch River Watershed



A-2

Table A-1. 2011 MRLC Land Use Distribution of Impaired HUC-12s & Drainage Areas

Landuse Impaired Watershed (06010207____) or Waterbody Drainage Area (DA)

HUC-12 0101+0102 (Bullrun Creek)

HUC-12 0101 (Upper Bullrun Creek)

HUC-12 0102 (Lower Bullrun Creek)

Code Description [acres] [%] [acres] [%] [acres] [%]

11 Open Water 393 0.59 12 0.03 364 1.15

21 Developed, Open Space 5,674 8.47 2,348 6.63 3,229 10.2

22 Developed, Low Intensity 2,444 3.65 1,266 3.58 1,354 4.29

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 693 1.03 357 1.01 420 1.33

24 Developed, High Intensity 176 0.26 83 0.23 128 0.41

31 Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 427 0.64 263 0.74 173 0.55

41 Deciduous Forest 31,067 46.4 16,752 47.3 14,250 45.2

42 Evergreen Forest 2,657 3.97 1,242 3.51 1,385 4.39

43 Mixed Forest 4,572 6.83 2,456 6.94 2,108 6.68

52 Shrub/Scrub 106 0.16 189 0.54 146 0.46

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 6,955 10.4 4,612 13.0 2,117 6.71

81 Pasture/Hay 11,233 16.8 5,712 16.1 5,434 17.2

82 Cultivated Crops 24 0.04 4 0.01 20 0.06

90 Woody Wetlands 551 0.82 113 0.32 415 1.31

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0 0.00 2 0.01 21 0.07

Subtotal – Urban 8,987 13.4 4,054 11.5 5,130 16.3

Subtotal – Agriculture 11,257 16.8 5,716 16.1 5,453 17.3

Subtotal - Forest 46,726 69.8 25,642 72.4 20,980 66.5

Total 66,970 100 35,412 100 31,563 100



A-3

Table A-1 (cont’d). 2011 MRLC Land Use Distribution of Impaired HUC-12s & Drainage Areas


HUC-12 0201+0202 (Beaver Creek)

HUC-12 0201 (Upper Beaver Creek)

HUC-12 0202 (Lower Beaver Creek)


11 Open Water 85 0.15 7 0.02 79 0.31

21 Developed, Open Space 12,837 22.3 5,764 18.3 6,239 24.7

22 Developed, Low Intensity 10,660 18.5 5,356 17.0 5,644 22.3

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 3,342 5.80 2,011 6.39 2,427 9.60



41 Deciduous Forest 9,619 16.7 5,434 17.3 4,096 16.2

42 Evergreen Forest 2,187 3.80 1,075 3.42 1,070 4.24

43 Mixed Forest 2,847 4.94 1,890 6.01 92 0.36

52 Shrub/Scrub 49 0.08 71 0.23 19 0.07

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 4,036 7.01 3,080 9.79 820 3.24

81 Pasture/Hay 10,594 18.4 6,172 19.6 3,942 15.6


90 Woody Wetlands 480 0.83 132 0.42 334 1.32


Subtotal – Urban 27,492 47.7 13,513 42.9 14,768 58.4

Subtotal – Agriculture 10,649 18.5 6,172 19.6 3,986 15.8

Subtotal - Forest 19,440 33.8 11,782 37.4 6,520 25.8

Total 57,581 100 31,467 100 25,274 100



A-4



HUC-12 0302 (E. Fork Poplar Creek)

HUC-12 0402 (Hinds Creek)

Willow Fork DA (in 0201)


11 Open Water 16 0.08 12 0.03 2 0.05

21 Developed, Open Space 2,471 13.0 3,320 7.89 476 10.5

22 Developed, Low Intensity 2,280 12.0 1,789 4.25 323 7.12

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 1,288 6.78 602 1.43 81 1.78



41 Deciduous Forest 9,043 47.6 16,653 39.6 931 20.5

42 Evergreen Forest 773 4.07 1,780 4.23 200 4.41

43 Mixed Forest 532 2.80 2,907 6.91 427 9.41

52 Shrub/Scrub 39 0.20 281 0.67 12 0.25

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 237 1.25 3,189 7.58 763 16.8

81 Pasture/Hay 669 3.52 10,739 25.5 1,284 28.3


90 Woody Wetlands 917 4.83 413 0.98 10 0.23


Subtotal – Urban 6,697 35.3 5,837 13.9 894 19.7

Subtotal – Agriculture 677 3.56 10,777 25.6 1,284 28.3

Subtotal - Forest 11,612 61.2 25,459 60.5 2,359 52.0

Total 18,986 100 42,074 100 4,537 100



A-5


Landuse

Impaired Watershed (06010207____) or Waterbody Drainage Area (DA)

Ernies Creek DA (in 0403)

Scarboro Creek DA (in 0404)

Code Description [acres] [%] [acres] [%]

11 Open Water 0 0.00 3 0.30

21 Developed, Open Space 491 30.2 104 10.6

22 Developed, Low Intensity 538 33.0 130 13.3

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 270 16.6 152 15.6

24 Developed, High Intensity 99 6.08 23 2.35

31 Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 0 0.03 0 0.00

41 Deciduous Forest 155 9.52 405 41.4

42 Evergreen Forest 25 1.54 43 4.39

43 Mixed Forest 29 1.79 24 2.41

52 Shrub/Scrub 0 0.00 4 0.46

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 6 0.40 19 1.98

81 Pasture/Hay 0 0.00 53 5.42

82 Cultivated Crops 0 0.00 0 0.00

90 Woody Wetlands 15 0.90 17 1.73

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0 0.00 0 0.00

Subtotal – Urban 1,398 85.8 409 41.9

Subtotal – Agriculture 0 0.00 53 5.42

Subtotal - Forest 231 14.2 515 52.7

Total 1,629 100 977 100



A-6


Landuse

Impaired Watershed (06010207____) or Waterbody Drainage Area (DA)

Coal Creek DA (in 0401)

Byrams Creek DA (in 0402)

Code Description [acres] [%] [acres] [%]

11 Open Water 7 0.03 1 0.02

21 Developed, Open Space 1,903 8.18 366 5.56

22 Developed, Low Intensity 851 3.66 83 1.25

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 378 1.63 4 0.06

24 Developed, High Intensity 80 0.35 0 0.00

31 Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 67 0.29 1 0.02

41 Deciduous Forest 15,660 67.3 3,681 56.0

42 Evergreen Forest 550 2.36 447 6.79

43 Mixed Forest 1,529 6.57 592 8.99

52 Shrub/Scrub 291 1.25 79 1.20

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 1,231 5.29 566 8.60

81 Pasture/Hay 635 2.73 727 11.1

82 Cultivated Crops 0 0.00 0 0.00

90 Woody Wetlands 75 0.32 32 0.48

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 6 0.02 0 0.00

Subtotal – Urban 3,212 13.8 452 6.87

Subtotal – Agriculture 635 2.73 727 11.1

Subtotal - Forest 19,416 83.5 5,398 82.1

Total 23,262 100 6,578 100


9/21/17 - Final Page B-1 of B-18

B-1

APPENDIX B

Water Quality Monitoring Data

for the Lower Clinch River Watershed



B-2

The location of monitoring stations in the Lower Clinch River Watershed is shown in Figure 5. Monitoring data recorded by TDEC at these stations are tabulated in Table B-1. Monitoring data recorded by DOE at these stations are tabulated in Table B-2. Exceedances of the appropriate E. coli standard are shown in red.

Table B-1. TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data

Monitoring Station Date E. coli

[CFU/100mL]

BEAVE003.5KN

23-Feb-99 147

23-Mar-99 147

26-Apr-99 79

03-Jun-99 261

27-Jul-99 172

28-Jul-99 196

24-Aug-99 187

30-Sep-99 250

25-Oct-99 88

02-Dec-99 179

25-Jan-00 66

04-Mar-04 488

13-Apr-04 >2419

04-May-04 1553

25-May-04 86

29-Jun-04 313

14-Jul-04 770

03-Aug-04 435

13-Sep-04 127

27-Oct-04 225

14-Dec-04 866

11-Jan-05 613

16-May-06 93

23-Jul-08 72

30-Jul-08 248

06-Aug-08 89

13-Aug-08 285

20-Aug-08 78

25-Jul-13 260

01-Aug-13 155

06-Aug-13 115

13-Aug-13 115

15-Aug-13 111



B-3

Table B-1 (cont’d). TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data


[CFU/100mL]

BEAVE024.7KN

04-Mar-04 261

13-Apr-04 >2419

04-May-04 1203

25-May-04 613

29-Jun-04 649

14-Jul-04 1414

03-Aug-04 517

13-Sep-04 365

27-Oct-04 649

14-Dec-04 2419

11-Jan-05 548

16-May-06 299

23-Jul-08 162

30-Jul-08 461

06-Aug-08 173

13-Aug-08 613

20-Aug-08 154

25-Jul-13 387

01-Aug-13 921

06-Aug-13 299

13-Aug-13 488

15-Aug-13 236

BEAVE040.1KN

23-Feb-99 148

23-Mar-99 1046

26-Apr-99 411

03-Jun-99 1733

27-Jul-99 613

28-Jul-99 5779

24-Aug-99 >2419

30-Sep-99 248

25-Oct-99 548

06-Dec-99 980

25-Jan-00 144



B-4



[CFU/100mL]

BEAVE040.1KN (cont’d)

23-Jul-08 120

30-Jul-08 770

06-Aug-08 248

13-Aug-08 727

20-Aug-08 41

25-Jul-13 548

01-Aug-13 1414

06-Aug-13 613

13-Aug-13 1300

15-Aug-13 2420

BUFFA000.7AN

25-Feb-99 75

24-Jul-03 577

27-Aug-03 121

09-Sep-03 387

18-Sep-03 114

24-Sep-03 980

16-Oct-03 140

21-Oct-03 99

27-Oct-03 727

30-Oct-03 105

14-Sep-04 248

26-Oct-04 291

21-Dec-04 214

26-Jan-05 108

09-Mar-05 411

27-Apr-05 517

18-May-05 517

12-Jun-05 179

02-Aug-05 770

01-Apr-10 157

30-Sep-10 461

01-Nov-10 435

29-Nov-10 285

29-Dec-10 260



B-5



[CFU/100mL]

BULLR005.2AN

25-Feb-99 35

20-Apr-99 109

22-Jun-99 579

18-Aug-99 727

28-Dec-99 33

27-Sep-01 548

30-Oct-01 112

12-Dec-01 1203

15-Jul-02 816

07-Oct-02 517

30-Jul-13 261

05-Aug-13 155

08-Aug-13 185

15-Aug-13 291

26-Aug-13 326

BULLR016.2KN

06-Dec-99 146

27-Sep-01 517

30-Oct-01 71

12-Dec-01 1733

15-Jul-02 687

07-Oct-02 291

30-Jul-13 727

05-Aug-13 260

08-Aug-13 980

15-Aug-13 179

26-Aug-13 345

BULLR031.1UN

12-Dec-01 866

15-Jul-02 921

30-Jul-13 308

05-Aug-13 488

08-Aug-13 >2420

15-Aug-13 687

26-Aug-13 199



B-6



[CFU/100mL]

BYRAM000.4AN

24-Jul-03 1733

27-Aug-03 285

09-Sep-03 488

18-Sep-03 387

24-Sep-03 1986

16-Oct-03 488

21-Oct-03 308

23-Oct-03 249

27-Oct-03 2419

30-Oct-03 1046

14-Sep-04 242

26-Oct-04 435

21-Dec-04 48

26-Jan-05 49

09-Mar-05 34

27-Apr-05 >2419

18-May-05 387

21-Jun-05 250

02-Aug-05 73

10-Jul-08 >2419

17-Jul-08 276

21-Jul-08 214

24-Jul-08 228

30-Jul-08 326

05-Aug-08 249

01-Apr-10 6

29-Apr-10 173

26-May-10 345

30-Jun-10 517

26-Jul-10 649

05-Aug-10 517

10-Aug-10 219

24-Aug-10 1414

26-Aug-10 579



B-7



[CFU/100mL]

BYRAM000.4AN (cont’d)

02-Sep-10 248

30-Sep-10 687

01-Nov-10 192

29-Nov-10 140

29-Dec-10 27

30-Jul-13 378

05-Aug-13 613

08-Aug-13 435

15-Aug-13 613

26-Aug-13 579

COAL001.2AN

25-Feb-99 361

20-Apr-99 148

22-Jun-99 76

18-Aug-99 81

28-Dec-99 22

24-Jul-03 1203

27-Aug-03 141

09-Sep-03 292

18-Sep-03 131

24-Sep-03 >2419

16-Oct-03 150

21-Oct-03 84

23-Oct-03 58

27-Oct-03 2419

30-Oct-03 82

10-Jul-08 1203

17-Jul-08 104

21-Jul-08 127

24-Jul-08 158

30-Jul-08 866

05-Aug-08 219

20-Aug-08 99

17-Sep-08 23

16-Oct-08 99

19-Nov-08 105



B-8



[CFU/100mL]

COAL001.2AN (cont’d)

14-Jan-09 1986

19-Feb-09 10

10-Mar-09 649

22-Apr-09 770

13-May-09 48

02-Jun-09 199

07-Jul-09 1986

28-Jul-09 272

30-Jul-13 687

05-Aug-13 980

08-Aug-13 1986

15-Aug-13 649

26-Aug-13 365

COAL010.6AN

25-Feb-99 155

24-Jul-03 85

27-Aug-03 259

09-Sep-03 687

18-Sep-03 687

24-Sep-03 299

16-Oct-03 96

21-Oct-03 214

23-Oct-03 155

27-Oct-03 980

30-Oct-03 57

10-Jul-08 >2419

17-Jul-08 236

21-Jul-08 285

24-Jul-08 150

30-Jul-08 1300

05-Aug-08 248

30-Jul-13 30

05-Aug-13 194

08-Aug-13 228

15-Aug-13 93

26-Aug-13 141



B-9



[CFU/100mL]

EFPOP006.9RO

18-Aug-08 152

16-Sep-08 147

13-Oct-08 157

19-Nov-08 127

16-Dec-08 345

13-Jan-09 161

11-Feb-09 122

12-Mar-09 113

08-Apr-09 86

05-May-09 488

09-Jun-09 185

08-Jul-09 121

25-Jul-13 108

01-Aug-13 488

06-Aug-13 138

13-Aug-13 365

15-Aug-13 345

EFPOP008.6AN

30-Jul-08 91

04-Aug-08 148

07-Aug-08 187

12-Aug-08 170

13-Aug-08 68

18-Aug-08 115

16-Sep-08 548

13-Oct-08 172

19-Nov-08 138

16-Dec-08 345

13-Jan-09 50

11-Feb-09 41

12-Mar-09 158

08-Apr-09 138

05-May-09 517

09-Jun-09 980

08-Jul-09 411

05-Jul-11 770


9/21/17 - Final Page B-10 of B-18

B-10



[CFU/100mL]

GRASS000.3KN

23-Jul-08 1414

30-Jul-08 345

06-Aug-08 411

13-Aug-08 157

20-Aug-08 261

25-Jul-13 517

01-Aug-13 435

06-Aug-13 365

13-Aug-13 548

15-Aug-13 291

HINDS000.7AN

25-Feb-99 131

20-Apr-99 236

22-Jun-99 291

18-Aug-99 186

28-Dec-99 27

24-Jul-03 1986

27-Aug-03 1553

09-Sep-03 687

24-Sep-03 1733

16-Oct-03 140

21-Oct-03 649

23-Oct-03 1414

27-Oct-03 1120

30-Oct-03 411

14-Sep-04 365

26-Oct-04 172

21-Dec-04 91

26-Jan-05 93

09-Mar-05 130

27-Apr-05 649

18-May-05 152

21-Jun-05 727

02-Aug-05 387


9/21/17 - Final Page B-11 of B-18

B-11



[CFU/100mL]

HINDS000.7AN (cont’d)

10-Jul-08 1733

17-Jul-08 770

21-Jul-08 1300

24-Jul-08 1120

30-Jul-08 770

05-Aug-08 204

01-Apr-10 126

29-Apr-10 548

26-May-10 980

30-Jun-10 548

26-Jul-10 921

05-Aug-10 921

10-Aug-10 517

24-Aug-10 461

26-Aug-10 435

02-Sep-10 980

30-Sep-10 548

01-Nov-10 345

29-Nov-10 210

29-Dec-10 54

30-Jul-13 613

05-Aug-13 517

08-Aug-13 461

15-Aug-13 411

26-Aug-13 687

HINDS06.8AN

25-Feb-99 55

24-Jul-03 1203

27-Aug-03 144

09-Sep-03 272

18-Sep-03 105

24-Sep-03 >2419

16-Oct-03 387

21-Oct-03 86

23-Oct-03 130

27-Oct-03 687

30-Oct-03 59


9/21/17 - Final Page B-12 of B-18

B-12



[CFU/100mL]


14-Sep-04 184

26-Oct-04 99

21-Dec-04 61

26-Jan-05 53

09-Mar-05 77

27-Apr-05 548

18-May-05 179

21-Jun-05 179

02-Aug-05 104

10-Jul-08 548

17-Jul-08 76

21-Jul-08 91

24-Jul-08 172

30-Jul-08 110

05-Aug-08 124

01-Apr-10 25

29-Apr-10 285

26-May-10 326

30-Jun-10 435

26-Jul-10 387

05-Aug-10 170

10-Aug-10 236

24-Aug-10 308

26-Aug-10 326

02-Sep-10 99

30-Sep-10 727

01-Nov-10 115

29-Nov-10 104

29-Dec-10 127

05-Aug-13 387

08-Aug-13 313

15-Aug-13 517

26-Aug-13 548

HINDS014.1AN

25-Feb-99 68

24-Jul-03 727

27-Aug-03 260


9/21/17 - Final Page B-13 of B-18

B-13



[CFU/100mL]


09-Sep-03 316

18-Sep-03 173

24-Sep-03 1553

16-Oct-03 158

21-Oct-03 147

23-Oct-03 125

27-Oct-03 980

30-Oct-03 194

14-Sep-04 411

26-Oct-04 119

21-Dec-04 99

26-Jan-05 113

09-Mar-05 105

27-Apr-05 770

18-May-05 228

21-Jun-05 291

02-Aug-05 345

10-Jul-08 >2419

17-Jul-08 345

21-Jul-08 326

24-Jul-08 115

30-Jul-08 308

05-Aug-08 206

01-Apr-10 57

29-Apr-10 378

26-May-10 225

30-Jun-10 291

26-Jul-10 308

05-Aug-10 150

10-Aug-10 138

24-Aug-10 435

26-Aug-10 249

02-Sep-10 155

30-Sep-10 238

01-Nov-10 179

29-Nov-10 308

29-Dec-10 131


9/21/17 - Final Page B-14 of B-18

B-14



[CFU/100mL]


30-Jul-13 517

05-Aug-13 461

08-Aug-13 488

15-Aug-13 238

26-Aug-13 687

HINES000.2KN

04-Mar-04 147

13-Apr-04 >2419

04-May-04 488

25-May-04 921

29-Jun-04 1300

14-Jul-04 >2419

03-Aug-04 1203

13-Sep-04 687

27-Oct-04 461

14-Dec-04 517

11-Jan-05 548

16-May-06 687

23-Aug-06 228

23-Jul-08 613

30-Jul-08 727

06-Aug-08 770

13-Aug-08 727

20-Aug-08 2419

25-Jul-13 365

01-Aug-13 649

06-Aug-13 649

13-Aug-13 921

15-Aug-13 488

KNOB000.3KN

04-Mar-04 178

13-Apr-04 >2419

04-May-04 1414

25-May-04 228

29-Jun-04 365

14-Jul-04 >2419

03-Aug-04 517


9/21/17 - Final Page B-15 of B-18

B-15



[CFU/100mL]

KNOB000.3KN (cont’d)

13-Sep-04 192

27-Oct-04 980

14-Dec-04 131

11-Jan-05 173

16-May-06 131

23-Jul-08 687

30-Jul-08 225

06-Aug-08 135

13-Aug-08 126

20-Aug-08 105

25-Jul-13 687

KNOB000.8KN

01-Aug-13 261

06-Aug-13 129

13-Aug-13 344

15-Aug-13 326

MEADO000.2KN

04-Mar-04 165

13-Apr-04 >2419

04-May-04 548

25-May-04 816

29-Jun-04 921

14-Jul-04 >2419

03-Aug-04 579

13-Sep-04 214

27-Oct-04 2419

14-Dec-04 178

11-Jan-05 1300

16-May-06 345

23-Jul-08 79

30-Jul-08 308

06-Aug-08 276

13-Aug-08 75

20-Aug-08 23

25-Jul-13 2420

01-Aug-13 517

06-Aug-13 435

13-Aug-13 517

15-Aug-13 1046


9/21/17 - Final Page B-16 of B-18

B-16



[CFU/100mL]

NFBUL000.1UN

27-Sep-01 276

30-Oct-01 104

12-Dec-01 1414

15-Jul-02 345

07-Oct-02 238

30-Jul-13 172

05-Aug-13 328

08-Aug-13 488

15-Aug-13 291

26-Aug-13 108

PLUMB000.3KN

04-Mar-04 249

13-Apr-04 2419

04-May-04 517

25-May-04 231

29-Jun-04 178

14-Jul-04 613

03-Aug-04 365

13-Sep-04 214

27-Oct-04 2419

14-Dec-04 2419

11-Jan-05 1203

16-May-06 157

23-Jul-08 211

30-Jul-08 345

06-Aug-08 194

13-Aug-08 109

20-Aug-08 109

25-Jul-13 411

01-Aug-13 166

06-Aug-13 107

13-Aug-13 172

15-Aug-13 210

WILLO000.5KN

04-Mar-04 121

13-Apr-04 >2419

04-May-04 178

25-May-04 1733


9/21/17 - Final Page B-17 of B-18

B-17



[CFU/100mL]

WILLO000.5KN (cont’d)

14-Jul-04 1203

03-Aug-04 517

13-Sep-04 2419

27-Oct-04 579

14-Dec-04 197

11-Jan-05 356

16-May-06 157

23-Jul-08 214

30-Jul-08 201

06-Aug-08 219

13-Aug-08 249

20-Aug-08 131

25-Jul-13 365

01-Aug-13 260

06-Aug-13 308

13-Aug-13 365

15-Aug-13 461


9/21/17 - Final Page B-18 of B-18

B-18

Table B-2. DOE Water Quality Monitoring Data

Monitoring Station Site # Date E. coli

[CFU/100mL]

Scarboro Creek 8

12/4/1997 135

6/15/1998 411

10/8/1998 1414

6/22/1999 12

11/8/1999 61

6/8/2000 101

10/10/2000 488

4/30/2001 157

10/8/2001 649

10/7/2002 1046

4/24/2007 115

9/20/2007 326

9/20/2007 261

6/2/2008 613

10/16/2008 435

Ernie’s Creek 23

6/22/1999 76

11/8/1999 219

6/19/2000 >2419

10/9/2000 75

5/7/2001 2419

5/1/2007 328

9/24/2007 2419

6/26/2008 249

10/15/2008 248


9/21/17 - Final Page C-1 of C-9

C-1

APPENDIX C

Load Duration Curve Development

and

Determination of Daily Loading



C-2

The TMDL process quantifies the amount of a pollutant that can be assimilated in a waterbody, identifies the sources of the pollutant, and recommends regulatory or other actions to be taken to achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards based on the relationship between pollution sources and in-stream water quality conditions. A TMDL can be expressed as the sum of all point source loads (Waste Load Allocations), nonpoint source loads (Load Allocations), and an appropriate margin of safety (MOS) that takes into account any uncertainty concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality:

TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS

The objective of a TMDL is to allocate loads among all of the known pollutant sources throughout a watershed so that appropriate control measures can be implemented and water quality standards achieved. 40 CFR §130.2 (i) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol22/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol22-sec130-2.pdf) states that TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time, toxicity, or other appropriate measure.

C.1 Development of TMDLs

E. coli TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs were developed for impaired subwatersheds and drainage areas in the Lower Clinch River Watershed using Load Duration Curves (LDCs). Daily loads for TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs are expressed as a function of daily mean in-stream flow (daily loading function).

C.1.1 Development of Flow Duration Curves

A flow duration curve is a cumulative frequency graph, constructed from historic flow data at a particular location, that represents the percentage of time a particular flow is equaled or exceeded. Flow duration curves are developed for a waterbody from daily discharges of flow over an extended period of record. In general, there is a higher level of confidence that curves derived from data over a long period of record accurately represent the entire range of flow. The preferred method of flow duration curve computation uses daily mean data from USGS continuous-record stations (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/tn/nwis/sw ) located on the waterbody of interest. For ungaged streams, alternative methods must be used to estimate daily mean flow. These include: 1) regression equations (using drainage area as the independent variable) developed from continuous record stations in the same ecoregion; 2) drainage area extrapolation of data from a nearby continuous-record station of similar size and topography; and 3) calculation of daily mean flow using a dynamic computer model, such as the Windows version of Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran (WinHSPF).

Flow duration curves for impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed were derived from WinHSPF hydrologic simulations based on parameters derived from calibrations at several USGS gaging stations (see Appendix D for details of calibration). For example, a flow duration curve for Coal Creek at mile 1.2 was constructed using simulated daily mean flow for the period from 1/1/98 through 12/31/14 (RM 1.2 corresponds to the location of monitoring station COAL001.2AN). This flow duration curve is shown in Figure C-1 and represents the cumulative distribution of daily discharges arranged to show percentage of time specific flows were exceeded during the period of record (the highest daily mean flow during this period is exceeded 0% of the time and the lowest daily mean flow is equaled or exceeded 100% of the time). Flow duration curves for other impaired waterbodies were derived using a similar procedure.



http://waterdata.usgs.gov/tn/nwis/sw



C-3

C.1.2 Development of Load Duration Curves and TMDLs

When a water quality target concentration is applied to the flow duration curve, the resulting load duration curve (LDC) represents the allowable pollutant loading in a waterbody over the entire range of flow. Pollutant monitoring data, plotted on the LDC, provides a visual depiction of stream water quality as well as the frequency and magnitude of any exceedances. Load duration curve intervals can be grouped into several broad categories or zones, in order to provide additional insight about conditions and patterns associated with the impairment. For example, the duration curve could be divided into five zones: high flows (exceeded 0-10% of the time), moist conditions (10-40%), median or mid-range flows (40-60%), dry conditions (60-90%), and low flows (90-100%). Impairments observed in the low flow zone typically indicate the influence of point sources, while those further left on the LDC (representing zones of higher flow) predominantly reflect potential nonpoint source contributions (Stiles, 2003).

E. coli load duration curves for impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed were developed from the flow duration curves developed in Section C.1.1, E. coli target concentrations, and available water quality monitoring data. Load duration curves and required load reductions were developed using the following procedure (Coal Creek at RM 1.2 is shown as an example):

1. A target load duration curve (LDC) was generated for Coal Creek by applying the E. coli

target concentration of 941 CFU/100 mL to each of the ranked flows used to generate the flow duration curve (ref.: Section D.1) and plotting the results. The E. coli target maximum load corresponding to each ranked daily mean flow is:

(Target Load)Coal Creek = (941 CFU/100 mL) x (Q) x (UCF)

where: Target Load = TMDL (CFU/day)

Q = daily instream mean flow (cfs) UCF = the required unit conversion factor (2.44x107)

TMDL = (2.30x1010) x (Q) CFU/day

2. Daily loads were calculated for each of the water quality samples collected at monitoring station COAL001.2AN (ref.: Table B-1) by multiplying the sample concentration by the daily mean flow for the sampling date and the required unit conversion factor. COAL001.2AN was selected for LDC analysis because it has a longer period of record and multiple exceedances of the target concentration.

Note: In order to be consistent for all analyses, the derived daily mean flow was

used to compute sampling data loads, even if measured (“instantaneous”) flow data were available for some sampling dates.

Example – 8/8/13 sampling event

Modelled Flow = 19.9 cfs Concentration = 1986 CFU/100 mL Daily Load = 9.68x1011 CFU/day



C-4

3. Using the flow duration curves developed in C.1.1, the “percent of days the flow was exceeded” (PDFE) was determined for each sampling event. Each sample load was then plotted on the load duration curves developed in Step 1 according to the PDFE. The resulting E. coli load duration curve for Coal Creek is shown in Figure C-2.

LDCs of other impaired waterbodies were derived in a similar manner and are shown in Appendix E.

C.2 Development of WLAs & LAs As previously discussed, a TMDL can be expressed as the sum of all point source loads (WLAs), nonpoint source loads (LAs), and an appropriate margin of safety (MOS) that takes into account any uncertainty concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality:

TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS Expanding the terms:

TMDL = [WLAs]WWTP + [WLAs]MS4 + [WLAs]CAFO + [LAs]DS+ [LAs]SW + MOS For E. coli TMDLs in each impaired subwatershed or drainage area, WLA terms include:

[WLAs]WWTP is the allowable load associated with discharges of NPDES permitted WWTPs located in impaired subwatersheds or drainage areas. Since NPDES permits for these facilities specify that treated wastewater must meet in-stream water quality standards at the point of discharge, no additional load reduction is required. WLAs for WWTPs are calculated from the mean daily facility flow (expressed as “qm”) and the Daily Maximum permit limit. A future growth term for potential new WWTPs is included.

[WLAs]CAFO is the allowable load for all CAFOs in an impaired subwatershed or drainage area. All wastewater discharges from a CAFO to waters of the state of Tennessee are prohibited, except when either chronic or catastrophic rainfall events cause an overflow of process wastewater from a facility properly designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to contain:

o All process wastewater resulting from the operation of the CAFO (such as wash water, parlor water, watering system overflow, etc.); plus,

o All runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the existing CAFO or new dairy or cattle CAFOs; or all runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event for a new swine or poultry CAFO.

Therefore, a WLA of zero has been assigned to this class of facilities.

[WLAs]MS4 is the allowable E. coli load for discharges from MS4s. E. coli loading from MS4s is the result of buildup/wash-off processes associated with storm events.

LA terms include:

[LAs]DS is the allowable E. coli load from “other direct sources”. These sources include leaking septic systems, illicit discharges, and animals access to streams. The LA specified for all sources of this type is zero CFU/day (or to the maximum extent feasible).



C-5

[LAs]SW represents the allowable E. coli loading from nonpoint sources indirectly going to surface waters from all land use areas (except areas covered by a MS4 permit) as a result of the buildup/wash-off processes associated with storm events (i.e., precipitation induced).

Since [WLAs]CAFO = 0 and [LAs]DS = 0, the expression relating TMDLs to precipitation-based point and nonpoint sources may be simplified to:

TMDL – MOS = [WLAs]WWTP + [WLAs]MS4 + [LAs]SW As stated in Section 8.5, an explicit MOS, equal to 10% of the E. coli water quality targets (ref.: Section 5.0), was utilized for determination of the percent load reductions necessary to achieve WLAs and LAs:

Instantaneous Maximum (lake, reservoir, State Scenic River, Exceptional Tennessee Waters):

Target – MOS = (487 CFU/100 ml) – 0.1(487 CFU/100 ml)

Target – MOS = 438 CFU/100 ml

Instantaneous Maximum (other):

Target – MOS = (941 CFU/100 ml) – 0.1(941 CFU/100 ml)


30-Day Geometric Mean: Target – MOS = (126 CFU/100 ml) – 0.1(126 CFU/100 ml)


C.2.1 Daily Load Calculation Since WWTPs discharge must comply with instream water quality criteria (TMDL target) at the point of discharge, WLAs for WWTPs are expressed as a function of the mean daily facility flow (“q”) and the Daily Maximum permit limit. In addition, WLAs for MS4s and LAs for precipitation-based nonpoint sources are equal on a per unit area basis and may be expressed as the daily allowable load per unit area (acre) resulting from a decrease in in-stream E. coli concentrations to TMDL target values minus MOS:

WLA[MS4] = LA = {TMDL – MOS – WLA[WWTPs]} / DA

where: DA = waterbody drainage area (acres)

Using Coal Creek as an example:

TMDLCoal Creek = (941 CFU/100 mL) x (Q) x (UCF)

TMDL = 2.30x1010 x Q



C-6

MOSCoal Creek = TMDL x 0.10 = 2.30x109 x Q

MOS = (2.30x109) x (Q) CFU/day

WLA[WWTFs]Coal Creek = qm (cfs) x 941 (CFU/100 mL) x UCF

WLA[WWTFs]Coal Creek = (2.30x1010) x (qm) CFU/day

For cases in which there is a WWTP currently discharging to the waterbody, the design flow (qd) will be used in the equation because the mean daily facility flow can be as high as design flow (qd):

WLA[MS4]Coal Creek = LACoal Creek

= {TMDL – MOS – WLA[WWTPs]d} / DA

= {(2.30x1010 x Q) – (2.30x109 x Q) – (2.30x1010 x qd)} / (23,016)

WLA[MS4]Coal Creek = LACoal Creek

= [8.994x105 x Q] – [9.99x105 x qd]

For cases in which there is no WWTP currently discharging to the waterbody, the variable qd will be retained in the equation as a placeholder for any future WWTPs. Using Willow Fork as an example:

WLA[MS4]Willow Fork = LAWillow Fork

= {TMDL – MOS – WLA[WWTPs]d} / DA

= {(2.30x1010 x Q) – (2.30x109 x Q) – (2.30x1010 x qd)} / (4537.5)

WLA[MS4]Willow Fork = LAWillow Fork = [4.562x106 x Q] – [5.07x106 x qd]

TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs for other impaired subwatersheds and drainage areas were derived in a similar manner and are summarized in Table C-1.



C-7

Figure C-1. Flow Duration Curve for Coal Creek at RM 1.2

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)

Flow Duration Interval

Coal CreekLoad Duration Curve (2008-2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: COAL001.2AN

941 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure C-2. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Coal Creek at RM 1.2



C-8

Table C-1. TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs for Impaired Waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c


0101/0102


2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(3.091 x 105 x Q) – (3.434 x 105 x qd)

(3.091 x 105 x Q) – (3.434 x 105 x qd)


– (5.369 x 105 x qd) (4.832 x 105 x Q)

– (5.369 x 105 x qd)


– (2.011 x 106 x qd) (1.810 x 106 x Q)

– (2.011 x 106 x qd)


– (2.970 x 106 x qd) (2.673 x 106 x Q)

– (2.970 x 106 x qd)

0201/0202


2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(3.595 x 105 x Q) – (3.994 x 105 x qd)

(3.595 x 105 x Q) – (3.994 x 105 x qd)


– (6.525 x 105 x qd) (5.872 x 105 x Q)

– (6.525 x 105 x qd)


– (1.630 x 106 x qd) (1.467 x 106 x Q)

– (1.630 x 106 x qd)


– (5.069 x 106 x qd) (4.562 x 106 x Q)

– (5.069 x 106 x qd)


– (1.632 x 107 x qd) (1.469 x 107 x Q)

– (1.632 x 107 x qd)


– (6.185 x 106 x qd) (5.566 x 106 x Q)

– (6.185 x 106 x qd)


– (5.378 x 106 x qd) (4.840 x 106 x Q)

– (5.378 x 106 x qd)


– (1.000 x 107 x qd) (9.002 x 106 x Q)

– (1.000 x 107 x qd)


– (1.108 x 107 x qd) (9.975 x 106 x Q)

– (1.108 x 107 x qd)

0302


2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(1.090 x 106 x Q) – (1.221 x 106 x qd)

(1.090 x 106 x Q) – (1.221 x 106 x qd)


– (3.160 x 106 x qd) (2.844 x 106 x Q)

– (3.160 x 106 x qd)

0401

Coal Creek d TN06010207029_1000

2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(8.899 x 105 x Q) – (9.887 x 105 x qd)

(8.899 x 105 x Q) – (9.887 x 105 x qd)


– (1.506 x 106 x qd) (1.356 x 106 x Q)

– (1.506 x 106 x qd)



C-9

Table C-1 (cont’d). TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs for Impaired Waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed (HUC 06010207)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c


0402


2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm)

(4.920 x 105 x Q) – (5.467 x 105 x qd)

(4.920 x 105 x Q) – (5.467 x 105 x qd)


– (9.158 x 105 x qd) (8.242 x 105 x Q)

– (9.158 x 105 x qd)


– (2.198 x 106 x qd) (1.979 x 106 x Q)

– (2.198 x 106 x qd)


– (2.303 x 106 x qd) (2.073 x 106 x Q)

– (2.303 x 106 x qd)


– (3.497 x 106 x qd) (3.147 x 106 x Q)

– (3.497 x 106 x qd)


– (1.412 x 107 x qd) (1.271 x 107 x Q)

– (1.412 x 107 x qd)


– (2.354 x 107 x qd) (2.119 x 107 x Q)

– (2.354 x 107 x qd)






9/21/17 - Final Page D-1 of D-4

D-1

APPENDIX D

Hydrodynamic Modeling Methodology



D-2

D.1 Model Selection

The Windows version of Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran (HSPF) was selected for flow simulation of pathogen-impaired waters in the subwatersheds of the Lower Clinch River Watershed. HSPF is a watershed model capable of performing flow routing through stream reaches.

D.2 Model Set Up

The Lower Clinch River Watershed was delineated into subwatersheds in order to facilitate model hydrologic calibration. Boundaries were constructed so that subwatershed “pour points” coincided with HUC-12 delineations, 303(d)-listed waterbodies, and water quality monitoring stations. Watershed delineation was based on the NHD stream coverage and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data. This discretization facilitates simulation of daily flows at water quality monitoring stations.

Several computer-based tools were utilized to generate input data for the WinHSPF model. ArcMap and BASINS, GIS tools, were used to display, analyze, and compile available information to support hydrology model simulations for selected subwatersheds. This information includes land use categories, point source dischargers, soil types and characteristics, population data (human and livestock), and stream characteristics.

Weather data from multiple meteorological stations were available for the time period from January 1970 through December 2014. Meteorological data for a selected 11- to 16-year period were used for all simulations. The first year of this period was used for model stabilization with simulation data from the subsequent 10- to 15-year period used for TMDL analysis. The length of the simulation varied depending on the period of record of the monitoring data for the selected waterbody. Occasionally, a period of less than 10 years was used for calibration because either (1) the gage did not have a full 10-year period of continuous record; or, (2) unusual weather events (e.g. drought or flood) precluded calibration for a 10-year period.

An important factor influencing model results is the precipitation data used for the simulation. For the Lower Clinch River watershed, a grid was created of cells that were 0.1° (latitude) x 0.1° (longitude) (approximately 6.9 mi. x 5.6 mi.).Total hourly precipitation for each grid cell for the desired time period was downloaded from the NASA website using their Giovanni tool (https://giovanni.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/). For each individual model, the total hourly precipitation data for each of the grid cells within the drainage area of the model were averaged to create a unique precipitation record for that drainage area. For parameters other than precipitation, meteorological data from the station at the Knoxville airport were used.

D.3 Model Calibration

Hydrologic calibration of the watershed model involves comparison of simulated streamflow to historic streamflow data from USGS stream gaging stations for the same period of time. One USGS continuous record station located in the Lower Clinch River Watershed was selected as the basis of the hydrology calibration. Station 03535000 is located on Bullrun Creek near Halls Crossroads, TN, within Level IV ecoregions 67f and 67i and has a drainage area of 66.9 square miles.

Initial values for hydrologic variables were taken from an EPA developed default data set. During the calibration process, model parameters were adjusted within reasonable constraints until acceptable agreement was achieved between simulated and observed streamflow. Model parameters adjusted include: evapotranspiration, infiltration, upper and lower zone storage, groundwater storage, recession, losses to the deep groundwater system, and interflow discharge.

The results of the hydrologic calibration for Bullrun Creek near Halls Crossroads, TN, (USGS Station 03535000) are shown in Table D-1 and Figures D-1 and D-2.

https://giovanni.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/



D-3

Table D-1. Hydrologic Calibration Summary: Bullrun Creek near Halls Crossroads, TN

(USGS 03535000)

Simulation Name: USGS03535000 Simulation Period:

Watershed Area (ac): 42853.80

Period for Flow Analysis

Begin Date: 10/01/07 Baseflow PERCENTILE: 2.5

End Date: 10/01/12 Usually 1%-5%

Total Simulated In-stream Flow : 96.61 Total Observed In-stream Flow : 101.41

Total of highest 10% flow s: 47.81 Total of Observed highest 10% flow s: 48.48

Total of low est 50% flow s: 10.34 Total of Observed Low est 50% flow s: 10.62

Simulated Summer Flow Volume ( months 7-9): 9.89 Observed Summer Flow Volume (7-9): 8.57

Simulated Fall Flow Volume (months 10-12): 27.32 Observed Fall Flow Volume (10-12): 26.48

Simulated Winter Flow Volume (months 1-3): 36.88 Observed Winter Flow Volume (1-3): 43.25

Simulated Spring Flow Volume (months 4-6): 22.52 Observed Spring Flow Volume (4-6): 23.11

Total Simulated Storm Volume: 92.83 Total Observed Storm Volume: 96.96

Simulated Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 8.95 Observed Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 7.45

Errors (Simulated-Observed) Recommended Criteria Last run

Error in total volume: -4.74 10

Error in 50% low est f low s: -2.64 10

Error in 10% highest f low s: -1.38 15

Seasonal volume error - Summer: 15.36 30

Seasonal volume error - Fall: 3.18 30

Seasonal volume error - Winter: -14.73 30

Seasonal volume error - Spring: -2.56 30

Error in storm volumes: -4.26 20

Error in summer storm volumes: 20.02 50



D-4

Figure D-1. Hydrologic Calibration: Bullrun Creek, USGS 03535000 (WYs 2008-2012)

0

3

6

9

120

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

10/1/2007 10/1/2008 10/1/2009 10/1/2010 10/1/2011 10/1/2012

Tota

l R

ain

fall

(in)

Flo

w (

cfs

)

Time

Total Rainfall (in) Observed Flow Modeled Flow

Figure D-2. 5-Year Hydrologic Comparison: Bullrun Creek, USGS 03535000


9/21/17 - Final Page E-1 of E-38

E-1

APPENDIX E

Source Area Implementation Strategy



E-2

All impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas have been classified according to their respective source area types in Section 9.5, Table 9. The implementation for each will be prioritized according to the source area classifications and the information provided in Sections 9.5.1 and 9.5.2, with examples provided in Sections E.1 and E.2, below. For all impaired waterbodies, the determination of source area types serves to identify the predominant sources contributing to impairment (i.e., those that should be targeted initially for implementation). It is not intended to imply that sources in other landuse areas are not contributors to impairment and/or to grant an exemption from addressing other source area contributions with implementation strategies and corresponding load reduction. For mixed use areas, implementation will address both urban and agricultural areas, at a minimum.

E.1 Urban Source Areas

For impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas identified as predominantly urban source area types, Scarboro Creek provides an example for implementation analysis. Scarboro Creek was selected because of its high proportion (41.9 percent) of urban area. The Scarboro Creek subwatershed, in HUC-12 060102070403, lies within the boundaries of Oak Ridge. The drainage area for Scarboro Creek is approximately 977 acres (1.53 mi2); therefore, four flow zones were used for the duration curve analysis (see Sect. 9.1.1).

The flow duration curve for Scarboro Creek at mile 0.1 was constructed using simulated daily mean flow for the period from 1/1/97 through 12/31/14 (mile 0.1 corresponds to the location of DOE monitoring station 8). This flow duration curve is shown in Figure E-1 and represents the cumulative distribution of daily discharges arranged to show percentage of time specific flows were exceeded during the period of record. Flow duration curves for other impaired waterbodies were developed using a similar procedure (Appendix C).

The E. coli LDC for Scarboro Creek (Figure E-2) was analyzed to determine the frequency with which observed daily water quality loads exceed the E. coli target maximum daily loading (941 CFU/100 mL x flow [cfs] x conversion factor) under four flow conditions (low, mid-range, moist, and high). Observation of the plot illustrates that exceedances occurred during moist conditions (Table E-3, Section E.4), indicating that the Scarboro Creek subwatershed may be impacted by non-point sources, dominant during high flow/runoff conditions.

Results indicate the implementation strategy for the Scarboro Creek subwatershed will require BMPs targeting non-point sources. Table E-1 presents an allocation table of LDC analysis statistics for Scarboro Creek E. coli and implementation strategies for each source category covering the entire range of flow (Stiles, 2003). The implementation strategies listed in Table E-1 are a subset of the categories of BMPs and implementation strategies available for application to the Lower Clinch River Watershed for reduction of E. coli loading and mitigation of water quality impairment from urban sources. Targeted implementation strategies and LDC analysis statistics for other impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds and drainage areas identified as predominantly urban source area types can be derived from the information and results available in Tables 12 and E-33.

LDCs for other impaired waterbodies were developed using a similar procedure (Appendix C) and are shown in Figures E-5 through E-20. The LDCs shown in Figures E-5 through E-20 (and the associated Tables E-4 through E-32) are based on the most recent sampling period (2012-2016). For Ernie’s Creek and Scarboro Creek, the LDCs are based on the entire period of record because there is no monitoring data for the most recent sampling period. Table E-33 presents LDC analyses (TMDLs, WLAs, LAs, and MOS) and PLRGs for all flow zones for all E. coli impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed.



E-3

Figure E-1. Flow Duration Curve for Scarboro Creek at RM 0.1

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Scarboro CreekLoad Duration Curve (1997-2008 Monitoring Data)

941 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-2. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Scarboro Creek at RM 0.1



E-4

Table E-1. Load Duration Curve Summary for Implementation Strategies (Example: Scarboro

Creek subwatershed, part of HUC-12 060102070403) (4 Flow Zones).

Hydrologic Condition High Moist* Mid-range Low

% Time Flow Exceeded 0-10 10-40 40-70 70-100

Scarboro Creek

(060102070403)

RM 0.1

Number of Samples 0 5 3 7

% > 941 CFU/100 mL1

0 40.0 0 0

Load Reduction2

NA 21.7% NR NR

TMDL (CFU/day) 2.015E+11 5.189E+10 1.976E+10 5.934E+09

Margin of Safety (CFU/day)

2.015E+10 5.189E+09 1.976E+08 5.934E+08

WLA (WWTPs) (CFU/day)

2.30E+10 x qm 2.30E+10 x qm 2.30E+10 x qm 2.30E+10 x qm

WLAs (MS4s) (CFU/day/acre)3 (1.856E+08)

-(2.35+7xqd)

(4.780E+07)

-(2.35+7xqd)

(1.820E+07)

-(2.35E+7xqd)

(5.466E+06)

-(2.35E+7xqd)

LA (CFU/day/acre)3 (1.856E+08)

-(2.35+7xqd)

(4.780E+07)

-(2.35+7xqd)

(1.820E+07)

-(2.35E+7xqd)

(5.466E+06)

-(2.35E+7xqd)

Implementation Strategies4

Municipal NPDES L M H

Stormwater Management H H

SSO Mitigation H M L

Collection System Repair H M

Septic System Repair L M M

Potential for source area contribution under given flow condition (H: High; M: Medium; L: Low)

qm = Mean Daily WWTP Discharge (cfs) qd = Facility (WWTP) Design Flow (cfs) * The Moist Conditions Flow zone represents the critical condition for E. coli loading in the Scarboro Creek subwatershed. 1 Tennessee Maximum daily water quality criterion for E. coli. 2 Reductions (percent) based on mean of observed percent load reductions in range. 3 LAs and MS4s are expressed as daily load per unit area in order to provide for future changes in the distribution of LAs and MS4s

(WLAs). 4 Example Best Management Practices for Urban Source reduction. Actual BMPs applied may vary and should not be limited according

to this grouping.



E-5

E.2 Agricultural Source Areas For impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas identified as predominantly agricultural source area types, Hinds Creek provides an example for implementation analysis.

The Hinds Creek drainage area, part of HUC-12 060102070402, lies in a partially-urbanized area of Anderson county. The drainage area for Hinds Creek is approximately 42,074 acres (66 mi2); therefore, five flow zones were used for the duration curve analysis (see Sect. 9.1.1). The landuse for Hinds Creek is approximately 26% agricultural, with the remainder split between forest (61%) and urban (14%). Though Hinds Creek is categorized as Mixed Source Area Type (Table 11), the predominant landuse type and sources are agricultural (Table 3).

The flow duration curve for Hinds Creek at mile 0.7 was constructed using simulated daily mean flow for the period from 1/1/02 through 12/31/13 (mile 0.7 corresponds to the location of monitoring station HINDS000.7AN). This flow duration curve is shown in Figure E-3 and represents the cumulative distribution of daily discharges arranged to show percentage of time specific flows were exceeded during the period of record. Flow duration curves for other impaired waterbodies were developed using a similar procedure (see Appendix C).

The E. coli LDC for Hinds Creek (Figure E-4) was analyzed to determine the frequency with which observed daily water quality loads exceed the E. coli target maximum daily loading (941 CFU/100 mL x flow [cfs] x conversion factor) under four flow conditions (low, mid-range, moist, and high). Observation of the plot illustrates that exceedances over the entire period of record occurred in multiple flow regimes, with the highest exceedances occurring during dry conditions (see Table E-3, Section E.4). Because exceedances primarily occurring in the high end of dry conditions and low end of mid-range flows, the Hinds Creek drainage area is most likely impacted by a combination of point and non-point sources.

Results indicate the implementation strategy for the Hinds Creek drainage area will require BMPs targeting point and non-point sources. Table E-2 presents an allocation table of LDC analysis statistics for Hinds Creek E. coli and targeted implementation strategies for each source category covering the entire range of flow (Stiles, 2003). The implementation strategies listed in Table E-2 are a subset of the categories of BMPs and implementation strategies available for application to the Lower Clinch River Watershed for reduction of E. coli loading and mitigation of water quality impairment from agricultural sources. Targeted implementation strategies and LDC analysis statistics for other impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds and drainage areas identified as predominantly agricultural source area types can be derived from the information and results available in Tables 13 and E-33.

LDCs for other impaired waterbodies were developed using a similar procedure (Appendix C) and are shown in Figures E-5 through E-20. The LDCs shown in Figures E-5 through E-20 (and the associated Tables E-4 through E-32) are based on the most recent sampling period (2012-2016). For Ernie’s Creek and Scarboro Creek, the LDCs are based on the entire period of record because there is no monitoring data for the most recent sampling period. Table E-33 presents LDC analyses (TMDLs, WLAs, LAs, and MOS) and PLRGs for all flow zones for all E. coli impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed.



E-6

Figure E-3. Flow Duration Curve for Hinds Creek at RM 0.7

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. c

oli (

#/d

ay)


Hinds CreekLoad Duration Curve (2008-2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: HINDS000.7AN

941 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Dry Conditions

Figure E-4. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hinds Creek at RM 0.7



E-7

Table E-2. Load Duration Curve Summary for Implementation Strategies (Example:

Hinds Creek subwatershed, in HUC-12 060102070402) (5 Flow Zones)

Hydrologic Condition High Moist Mid-range Dry* Low


Hinds Creek

(060102070402)

RM 0.7

Number of Samples 0 8 7 10 0

% > 941 CFU/100 mL1

0 0 14.3 400.0 0

Load Reduction2

NA NR 16.0% 20.3% NA

TMDL (CFU/day) 5.649E+12 1.883E+12 8.978E+11 4.190E+11 1.304E+11

Margin of Safety (CFU/day)

5.649E+11 1.883E+11 8.978E+10 4.190E+10 1.304E+10

WLA (WWTPs) (CFU/day)

2.30E+10 x qm 2.30E+10 x qm 2.30E+10 x qm 2.30E+10 x qm 2.30E+10 x qm

WLAs (MS4s) (CFU/day/acre)3 (1.243E+08)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

(4.145E+07)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

(1.976E+07)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

(9.222E+06)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

(2.869E+06)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

LA (CFU/day/acre)3 (1.243E+08)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

(4.145E+07)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

(1.976E+07)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

(9.222E+06)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

(2.869E+06)

-(5.63E+5xqd)

Implementation Strategies4

Pasture and Hayland Management H H M L L

Livestock Exclusion M H H

Fencing M H H

Manure Management H H M L L

Riparian Buffers L M H M M

Potential for source area contribution under given flow condition (H: High; M: Medium; L: Low)

qm = Mean Daily WWTP Discharge (cfs) qd = Facility (WWTP) Design Flow (cfs) * The Dry Conditions-range flow zone represents the critical conditions for E. coli loading in the Hinds Creek drainage area. 1 Tennessee Maximum daily water quality criterion for E. coli. 2 Reductions (percent) based on mean of observed percent load reductions in range. 3 LAs and MS4s are expressed as daily load per unit area in order to provide for future changes in the distribution of LAs and MS4s (WLAs). 4 Example Best Management Practices for Agricultural Source reduction. Actual BMPs applied may vary and should not be limited according to this grouping.



E-8

E.3 Forestry Source Areas

There are no impaired waterbodies with corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas classified as source area type predominantly forested, with the predominant source category being wildlife, in the Lower Clinch River Watershed.

E.4 Calculation of Percent Load Reduction Goals and Determination of Critical Flow

Zones

In order to facilitate implementation, corresponding percent reductions in loading required to decrease existing, in-stream E. coli loads to TMDL target levels (percent load reduction goals) were calculated. As a result, critical flow zones were determined and subsequently verified by secondary analyses. The following example is from Coal Creek at mile 1.2 (Figure C-2) and includes data for the past two monitoring cycles. 1. For each flow zone, the mean of the percent exceedances of individual loads relative to their

respective target maximum loads (at their respective PDFEs) was calculated. Individual loads with no required load reduction are not included in the mean calculation. The following illustrates the calculation of the PLRG for the mid-range flow zone:

Date Sample Conc. (CFU/100 mL)

Flow (cfs) Existing Load

(CFU/Day) Target (TMDL)

Load (CFU/Day) Percent

Reduction

7/17/08 104 28.0 7.12E+10 6.44E+11

8/26/13 365 24.4 2.18E+11 5.62E+11

7/24/08 158 21.0 8.10E+10 4.82E+11

3/10/09 649 20.7 3.28E+11 4.76E+11

8/8/13 1,986 19.9 9.68E+11 4.58E+11 52.6

7/7/09 1,986 19.1 9.26E+11 4.39E+11 52.6

7/21/08 127 18.7 5.81E+10 4.30E+11

7/10/08 1,203 16.6 4.88E+11 3.82E+11 21.8

11/19/08 105 15.8 4.05E+10 3.63E+11

8/5/08 219 15.5 8.30E+10 3.57E+11

Percent Load Reduction Goal (PLRG) for Mid-Range Flow Conditions (Mean) 42.3

2. The PLRGs calculated for each of the flow zones, not including the high flow zone (see Section

9.1.1), were compared and the PLRG of the greatest magnitude indicates the critical flow zone for prioritizing implementation actions for Coal Creek at mile 1.2.

Example – High Flow Zone Percent Load Reduction Goal = NR

Moist Conditions Flow Zone Percent Load Reduction Goal = 52.6 Mid-Range Flow Zone Percent Load Reduction Goal = 42.3 Low Flow Zone Percent Load Reduction Goal = 4.0

Therefore, the critical flow zone for prioritization of Coal Creek implementation activities is the Moist Conditions Zone and subsequently actions targeting non-point source controls.

3. Due to the frequently limited availability of sampling data and subsequent randomness of distribution of samples by flow zone, the determination of the critical flow zone by PLRG calculation often has a high degree of uncertainty. Therefore, secondary analyses were conducted to verify or supplement the determination of the critical flow zones. For each flow



E-9

zone, the percent of samples that exceed the E. coli TMDL target levels was calculated. For Coal Creek at mile 1.2:

Flow Zone Number of

Samples

Samples > 941

CFU/100 mL

% > 941

CFU/100 mL

High 1 0 0

Moist 6 1 16.7

Mid-Range 10 3 30.0

Low 6 1 16.7

Based on the number of exceedances in each flow zone, the critical flow zone for prioritization of Coal Creek implementation activities is identified as the Mid-Range Flow zone. Whenever the two methods of determining critical flow zone produce different results, both flow zones should be targeted for implementation activities.

4. Lastly, emphasis (priority) should be placed on recent data versus historical data. If data from

multiple watershed cycles are available, analysis of recent data (current cycle) versus the entire period of record, or previous cycles, may identify different critical areas for implementation

Zone Past 2 Cycles (2008-13) Most Recent Cycle (2012-13)

# of samples % Red. % Exceed. # of samples % Red. % Exceed.

High 1 NR 0 0 NA 0.0

Moist 6 52.6 16.7 1 NR 0.0

Mid-Range 10 42.3 30.0 2 52.6 50.0

Low 6 4.0 16.7 2 4.0 50.0

The critical flow zone for prioritization of implementation activities for Coal Creek was identified as the Mid-Range Flow zone. Whenever a different flow zone, or zones, is identified, the flow zone(s) from analysis of recent data would have emphasis for implementation prioritization.

PLRGs and critical flow zones of the other impaired waterbodies were derived in a similar manner and are shown in Table E-33.

Geometric Mean Data

For cases where five or more samples were collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days, the geometric mean E. coli concentration was determined and compared to the target geometric mean E. coli concentration of 126 CFU/100 mL. If the sample geometric mean exceeded the target geometric mean concentration, the reduction required to reduce the sample geometric mean value to the target geometric mean concentration was calculated.

Example: Monitoring Location = Coal Creek Mile 1.2 Sampling Period = 7/30/13 – 8/26/13 Geometric Mean Concentration = 794.6 CFU/100 mL Target Concentration = 126 CFU/100 mL Reduction to Target = 84.1%


9/21/17 - Final Page E-10 of E-38

E-10

For impaired waterbodies where monitoring data are limited to geometric mean data only, results can be utilized for general indication of relative impairment and, when plotted on a load duration curve, may indicate areas for prioritization of implementation efforts. For impaired waterbodies where both types of data are available, geometric mean data may be utilized to supplement the results of the individual flow zone calculations.

Table E-3. Summary of Critical Conditions for Impaired Waterbodies in the


Waterbody ID HUC-12 Moist Mid-

Range Dry Low Monitoring Station

Drainage Area (ac)

Bullrun Creek (_3000) b

0101 BULLR031.2UN 11,437

N Fork Bullrun Creek

Bullrun Creek (_1000) 0102 BULLR016.2KN 42,840

Bullrun Creek (_2000) b

Beaver Creek (_3000) b

0201 BEAVE040.1KN 5,673 Hines Branch

Knob Fork

Willow Fork

Beaver Creek (_1000) a

0202 BEAVE024.7KN 35,251

Beaver Creek (_2000) a

Grassy Creek

Meadow Creek

Plumb Creek

EFork Poplar Creek (_1000)

a

0302 EFPOP006.9RO 8,534 EFork Poplar Creek

(_2000)

Coal Creek (_1000) b

0401 COAL001.2AN 23,016

Coal Creek (_2000)

Hinds Creek (_1000)

0402 HINDS000.7AN 40,891

Hinds Creek (_2000)

Hinds Creek (_3000)

Buffalo Creek

Byrams Creek

Ernie’s Creek 0403 Station 23 1,629

Scarboro Creek 0404 Station 8 977 a No critical condition. No exceedances of single sample maximum criterion during most recent sampling period, or the only exceedances were in the High Flow zone. b Critical condition based on geomean data and may not be a reliable indication of prioritization.


9/21/17 - Final Page E-11 of E-38

E-11

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Beaver CreekLoad Duration Curve (2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: BEAVE003.5KN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Dry Conditions

Figure E-5. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Beaver Creek – RM 3.5

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)



Site: BEAVE024.7KN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed Geomean Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Dry Conditions



9/21/17 - Final Page E-12 of E-38

E-12

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)



Site: BEAVE040.1KN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows


1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Bullrun CreekLoad Duration Curve (2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: BULLR005.2AN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Dry Conditions

Figure E-8. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Bullrun Creek – RM 5.2


9/21/17 - Final Page E-13 of E-38

E-13

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)



Site: BULLR016.2KN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Dry Conditions


1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)



Site: BULLR031.1UN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows



9/21/17 - Final Page E-14 of E-38

E-14

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Byrams CreekLoad Duration Curve (2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: BYRAM000.4AN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-11. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Byrams Creek – RM 0.4

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Coal CreekLoad Duration Curve (2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: COAL001.2AN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-12. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Coal Creek – RM 1.2


9/21/17 - Final Page E-15 of E-38

E-15

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Coal CreekLoad Duration Curve (2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: COAL010.6AN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-13. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Coal Creek – RM 10.6

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


East Fork Poplar CreekLoad Duration Curve (2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: EFPOP006.9RO

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-14. E. coli Load Duration Curve for E. Fork Poplar Creek – RM 6.9


9/21/17 - Final Page E-16 of E-38

E-16

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. c

oli (

#/d

ay)


Ernies CreekLoad Duration Curve (1999-2008 Monitoring Data)

941 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-15. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Ernie’s Creek – RM 0.1

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Hinds CreekLoad Duration Curve (2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: HINDS000.7AN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed Geomean Dara

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Dry Conditions

Figure E-16. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hinds Creek – RM 0.7


9/21/17 - Final Page E-17 of E-38

E-17

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)



Site: HINDS006.8AN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows


1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)



Site: HINDS014.1AN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows



9/21/17 - Final Page E-18 of E-38

E-18

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. c

oli (

#/d

ay)


Scarboro CreekLoad Duration Curve (1997-2008 Monitoring Data)

941 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-19. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Scarboro Creek – RM 0.1

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Willow ForkLoad Duration Curve (2013 Monitoring Data)

Site: WILLO000.5KN

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL


Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)


Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-20. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Willow Fork – RM 0.5


9/21/17 - Final Page E-19 of E-38

E-19

Table E-4. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Beaver Creek – RM 3.5

Sample Date

Flow Regime

Flow PDFE Concentration Load % Reduction to Achieve TMDL *

Average of Load Reductions

% Reduction to TMDL – MOS

[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/13/13 Moist Conditions

167 19.9% 115 4.71E+11 NR

NR NR 8/15/13 145 23.2% 111 3.95E+11 NR

7/25/13 Mid-Range

Flows 58.0 54.1% 260 3.69E+11 NR NR NR

8/1/13 Dry Conditions

20.7 81.7% 155 7.85E+10 NR

NR NR 8/6/13 13.4 88.6% 115 3.76E+10 NR Note: NR = No reduction required

* % Reduction based on Single Sample Maximum Criterion (941 CFU/100 mL)

Table E-5. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Beaver Creek – RM 3.5

Sample Date Flow PDFE Concentration

Geometric Mean

Calculated Reduction

to Target GM (126 CFU/100 mL)

to Target - MOS (113 CFU/100 mL)

[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/25/13 58.0 54.1% 260 8/1/13 20.7 81.7% 155 8/6/13 13.4 88.6% 115 8/13/13 167 19.9% 115

8/15/13 145 23.2% 111 142.7 11.7 20.8 Note: Geometric Mean is calculated whenever 5 or more samples are collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days.


9/21/17 - Final Page E-20 of E-38

E-20


Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]


125 14.8% 488 1.49E+12 NR

NR NR 8/15/13 78.8 26.1% 236 4.55E+11 NR

7/25/13 Mid-Range

Flows 33.4 55.7% 387 3.16E+11 NR NR NR

8/1/13 Dry Conditions

14.8 78.2% 921 3.34E+11 NR





Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/25/13 33.4 55.7% 387 8/1/13 14.8 78.2% 921 8/6/13 8.24 88.4% 299 8/13/13 125 14.8% 488

8/15/13 78.8 26.1% 236 414.8 69.6 72.8 Note: Geometric Mean is calculated whenever 5 or more samples are collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days.


9/21/17 - Final Page E-21 of E-38

E-21


Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]


16.4 16.4% 1300 5.22E+11 27.6

44.4 49.9 8/15/13 11.4 27.3% 2420 6.72E+11 61.1

7/25/13 Mid-Range Flows

4.40 59.8% 548 5.89E+10 NR

33.5 40.1 8/1/13 3.39 68.4% 1414 1.17E+11 33.5

8/6/13 Low Flows 1.41 87.5% 613 2.11E+10 NR NR NR Note: NR = No reduction required




Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/25/13 4.40 59.8% 548 8/1/13 3.39 68.4% 1414 8/6/13 1.41 87.5% 613 8/13/13 16.4 16.4% 1300

8/15/13 11.4 27.3% 2420 1084 88.4 89.6 Note: Geometric Mean is calculated whenever 5 or more samples are collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days.


9/21/17 - Final Page E-22 of E-38

E-22

Table E-10. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Bullrun Creek – RM 5.2

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/15/13 Moist

Conditions 163 17.5% 291 1.16E+12 NR NR NR

8/26/13 Mid-Range

Flows 69.4 44.1% 326 5.54E+11 NR NR NR

7/30/13 Dry

Conditions

29.6 72.0% 261 1.89E+11 NR

NR NR

8/8/13 26.0 75.8% 185 1.18E+11 NR

8/5/13 22.4 79.1% 155 8.49E+10 NR Note: NR = No reduction required


Table E-11. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Bullrun Creek – RM 5.2


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/30/13 29.6 72.0% 261 8/5/13 22.4 79.1% 155 8/8/13 26.0 75.8% 185 8/15/13 163 17.5% 291



9/21/17 - Final Page E-23 of E-38

E-23


Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/15/13 Moist


8/26/13 Mid-Range

Flows 49.50 44.3% 345 4.18E+11 NR NR NR

7/30/13 Dry

Conditions

20.93 72.6% 727 3.72E+11 NR

4.0 13.6

8/8/13 20.79 72.9% 980 4.99E+11 4.0





Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/30/13 20.93 72.6% 727 8/5/13 16.04 79.2% 260 8/8/13 20.79 72.9% 980 8/15/13 115 17.3% 179



9/21/17 - Final Page E-24 of E-38

E-24


Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/15/13 Moist

Conditions 29.3 17.5% 687 4.92E+11 NR NR NR

8/26/13 Mid-Range

Flows 12.9 44.0% 199 6.27E+10 NR NR NR

8/8/13

Low Flows

5.73 70.6% 2420 3.39E+11 61.1

61.1 65.0

7/30/13 5.39 72.5% 308 4.06E+10 NR





Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/30/13 5.39 72.5% 308 8/5/13 4.28 78.8% 488 8/8/13 5.73 70.6% 2420 8/15/13 29.3 17.5% 687



9/21/17 - Final Page E-25 of E-38

E-25

Table E-16. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Byrams Creek – RM 0.4

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/15/13 Moist



6.79 45.3% 579 9.62E+10 NR

NR NR 8/8/13 3.56 67.4% 435 3.79E+10 NR

7/30/13 Low Flows

3.26 70.1% 378 3.02E+10 NR



Table E-17. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Byrams Creek – RM 0.4


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/30/13 3.26 70.1% 378 8/5/13 2.72 75.5% 613 8/8/13 3.56 67.4% 435 8/15/13 17.7 15.7% 613



9/21/17 - Final Page E-26 of E-38

E-26

Table E-18. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Coal Creek – RM 1.2

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/15/13 Moist



24.4 49.3% 365 2.18E+11 NR

52.6 57.4 8/8/13 19.9 56.4% 1986 9.68E+11 52.6

7/30/13 Low Flows

12.7 72.8% 687 2.13E+11 NR

4.0 13.6 8/5/13 10.9 77.5% 980 2.62E+11 4.0 Note: NR = No reduction required


Table E-19. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Coal Creek – RM 1.2


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/30/13 12.7 72.8% 687 8/5/13 10.9 77.5% 980 8/8/13 19.9 56.4% 1986 8/15/13 60.3 19.0% 649



9/21/17 - Final Page E-27 of E-38

E-27

Table E-20. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Coal Creek – RM 10.6

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/15/13 Moist



6.54 47.5% 141 2.26E+10 NR

NR NR 8/8/13 3.47 68.5% 228 1.93E+10 NR

7/30/13 Low Flows

3.21 71.4% 30 2.35E+09 NR



Table E-21. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Coal Creek – RM 10.6


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/30/13 3.21 71.4% 30 8/5/13 2.74 76.2% 194 8/8/13 3.47 68.5% 228 8/15/13 15.8 18.7% 93

8/26/13 6.54 47.5% 141 111.7 NR NR Note: Geometric Mean is calculated whenever 5 or more samples are collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days.


9/21/17 - Final Page E-28 of E-38

E-28

Table E-22. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – E. Fork Poplar Creek – RM 6.9

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/13/13 High Flows 72.3 6.9% 365 6.46E+11 NR NR NR

8/15/13 Moist



19.0 45.3% 488 2.27E+11 NR

NR NR 7/25/13 16.6 54.1% 108 4.39E+10 NR



Table E-23. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – E. Fork Poplar Creek – RM 6.9


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/25/13 16.6 54.1% 108 8/1/13 19.0 45.3% 488 8/6/13 11.5 83.7% 138 8/13/13 72.3 6.9% 365



9/21/17 - Final Page E-29 of E-38

E-29

Table E-24. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Ernie’s Creek – RM 0.1

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

5/1/07 Mid-Range

Flows 1.18 57.9% 328 9.47E+09 NR NR NR

11/8/99

Low Flows

0.523 78.8% 219 2.80E+09 NR

61.1 65.0

10/9/00 0.469 81.0% 75 8.61E+08 NR

6/19/00 0.340 86.2% 2419 2.01E+10 61.1

10/15/08 0.230 91.6% 248 1.39E+09 NR

9/24/07 0.193 93.7% 2419 1.14E+10 61.1

5/7/01 0.128 96.7% 2419 7.58E+09 61.1

6/26/08 0.108 97.8% 249 6.57E+08 NR



Table E-25. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Hinds Creek – RM 0.7

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/15/13 Moist


8/26/13 Mid-Range

Flows 42.5 46.7% 687 7.15E+11 NR NR NR

8/8/13 Dry

Conditions

26.4 63.5% 461 2.98E+11 NR

NR NR

7/30/13 20.8 71.0% 613 3.11E+11 NR




9/21/17 - Final Page E-30 of E-38

E-30

Table E-26. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Hinds Creek – RM 0.7


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/30/13 20.8 71.0% 613 8/5/13 17.6 76.1% 517 8/8/13 26.4 63.5% 461 8/15/13 114 15.8% 411



Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/15/13 Moist



26.1 45.8% 548 3.50E+11 NR

NR NR 8/8/13 13.3 68.7% 313 1.02E+11 NR




9/21/17 - Final Page E-31 of E-38

E-31


Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

8/15/13 Moist



10.7 46.0% 687 1.80E+11 NR

NR NR 8/8/13 5.82 66.3% 488 6.95E+10 NR

7/30/13 Low Flows

5.09 70.5% 517 6.44E+10 NR



Table E-29. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Hinds Creek – RM 14.1


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/30/13 5.09 70.5% 517 8/5/13 4.31 75.4% 461 8/8/13 5.82 66.3% 488 8/15/13 28.4 15.8% 238



9/21/17 - Final Page E-32 of E-38

E-32

Table E-30. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Scarboro Creek – RM 0.1

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

10/8/98

Moist Conditions

3.41 15.5% 1414 1.18E+11 33.5

21.7 29.6

6/15/98 2.82 19.6% 411 2.83E+10 NR

6/2/08 2.30 24.6% 613 3.44E+10 NR

12/4/97 1.79 31.6% 135 5.90E+09 NR

10/7/02 1.53 36.2% 1046 3.91E+10 10.0

6/8/00 Mid-Range

Flows

1.04 49.2% 101 2.57E+09 NR

NR NR

4/24/07 1.00 50.5% 115 2.82E+09 NR

10/8/01 0.604 65.5% 649 9.58E+09 NR

11/8/99

Low Flows

0.374 78.2% 61 5.58E+08 NR

NR NR

10/10/00 0.314 81.7% 488 3.75E+09 NR

4/30/01 0.257 85.1% 157 9.86E+08 NR

9/20/07 0.208 88.4% 326 1.66E+09 NR

9/20/07 0.208 88.4% 261 1.33E+09 NR

10/16/08 0.156 92.4% 435 1.66E+09 NR




9/21/17 - Final Page E-33 of E-38

E-33

Table E-31. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Willow Fork – RM 0.5

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]


11.6 18.9% 365 1.04E+11 NR

NR NR 8/15/13 9.20 26.5% 461 1.04E+11 NR

7/25/13 Mid-Range

Flows 3.47 59.9% 365 3.10E+10 NR NR NR

8/1/13 Low Flows

2.39 71.5% 260 1.52E+10 NR



Table E-32. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Willow Fork – RM 0.5


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

7/25/13 3.47 59.9% 365 8/1/13 2.39 71.5% 260 8/6/13 1.14 87.5% 308 8/13/13 11.6 18.9% 365



9/21/17 - Final Page E-34 of E-38

E-34

Table E-33. Summary of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs by Flow Regime for Impaired Waterbodies in the Lower Clinch

River Watershed (HUC 06010207)

Waterbody Description

(06010207____)

Hydrologic Condition

Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range

Flow Range WWTPsc MS4sd

[%] [cfs] [cfs] [%] [CFU/d] [CFU/d] [CFU/d] [CFU/d/ac] [CFU/d/ac]

Beaver Creek g High Flows 0-10 289 – 3,246 396

11.7b

8.806E+12 8.806E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.422E+08) - (4.13E+5 x qd)

(1.422E+08) - (4.13E+5 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 85.8 – 289 140 3.112E+12 3.112E+11 (5.026E+07)

- (4.13E+5 x qd) (5.026E+07)

- (4.13E+5 x qd)

011_1000 Mid-Range 40-60 47.6 – 85.8 68.5 1.525E+12 1.525E+11 (2.463E+07)

- (4.13E+5 x qd) (2.463E+07)

- (4.13E+5 x qd)

Dry

Conditions 60-90 11.8 – 47.6 29.1 6.474E+11 6.474E+10 (1.045E+07)

- (4.13E+5 x qd) (1.045E+07)

- (4.13E+5 x qd)

HUC-12: 0202 Low Flows 90-100 1.43 – 11.8 7.43 1.654E+11 1.654E+10 (2.671E+06)

- (4.13E+5 x qd) (2.671E+06)

- (4.13E+5 x qd)

Beaver Creek e,g High Flows 0-10 165 – 2,119 258

69.6b

5.941E+12 5.941E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.517E+08) - (6.53E+5 x qd)

(1.517E+08) - (6.53E+5 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 52.8 – 165 80.8 1.858E+12 1.858E+11 (4.743E+07)

- (6.53E+5 x qd) (4.743E+07)

- (6.53E+5 x qd)

011_2000 Mid-Range 40-60 28.6 – 52.8 41.0 9.424E+11 9.424E+10 (2.406E+07)

- (6.53E+5 x qd) (2.406E+07)

- (6.53E+5 x qd)

Dry

Conditions 60-90 7.17 – 28.6 17.2 3.945E+11 3.945E+10 (1.007E+07)

- (6.53E+5 x qd) (1.007E+07)

- (6.53E+5 x qd)

HUC-12: 0201/0202 Low Flows 90-100 0.960 – 7.17 4.41 1.015E+11 1.015E+10 (2.590E+06)

- (6.53E+5 x qd) (2.590E+06)

- (6.53E+5 x qd)

Beaver Creek e High Flows 0-10 22.9 – 354 39.6

88.4b

9.110E+11 9.110E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.445E+08) - (4.06E+6 x qd)

(1.445E+08) - (4.06E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 7.94 – 22.9 12.0 2.765E+11 2.765E+10 (4.386E+07)

- (4.06E+6 x qd) (4.386E+07)

- (4.06E+6 x qd)

011_3000 Mid-Range 40-70 3.18 – 7.94 5.10 1.174E+11 1.174E+10 (1.862E+07)

- (4.06E+6 x qd) (1.862E+07)

- (4.06E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0201 Low Flows 70-100 0.186 – 3.18 1.63 3.754E+10 3.754E+09 (5.955E+06)

- (4.06E+6 x qd) (5.955E+06)

- (4.06E+6 x qd)


9/21/17 - Final Page E-35 of E-38

E-35

Table E-33. Summary of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs by Flow Regime for Impaired Waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River

Watershed (HUC 06010207) (cont’d)


(06010207____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



Bullrun Creek g High Flows 0-10 253 – 3,121 372

46.3b

8.546E+12 8.546E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.310E+08) - (3.92E+5 x qd)

(1.310E+08) - (3.92E+5 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 78.2 – 253 123 2.840E+12 2.840E+11 (4.352E+07)

- (3.92E+5 x qd) (4.352E+07)

- (3.92E+5 x qd)

014_1000 Mid-Range 40-60 43.5 – 78.2 50.1 1.152E+12 1.152E+11 (1.765E+07)

- (3.92E+5 x qd) (1.765E+07)

- (3.92E+5 x qd)

Dry

Conditions 60-90 12.3 – 43.5 26.9 6.194E+11 6.194E+10 (9.493E+06)

- (3.92E+5 x qd) (9.493E+06)

- (3.92E+5 x qd)

HUC-12: 0102 Low Flows 90-100 2.28 – 12.3 8.25 1.898E+11 1.898E+10 (2.909E+06)

- (3.92E+5 x qd) (2.909E+06)

- (3.92E+5 x qd)

Bullrun Creek High Flows 0-10 177 – 2,325 277

69.2b

6.360E+12 6.360E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.336E+08) - (5.37E+5 x qd)

(1.336E+08) - (5.37E+5 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 55.8 – 177 87.2 2.005E+12 2.005E+11 (4.213E+07)

- (5.37E+5 x qd) (4.213E+07)

- (5.37E+5 x qd)

014_2000 Mid-Range 40-60 31.3 – 55.8 42.0 9.651E+11 9.651E+10 (2.028E+07

- (5.37E+5 x qd)e

(2.028E+07) - (5.37E+5 x qd)

Dry

Conditions 60-90 8.83 – 31.3 19.3 4.435E+11 4.435E+10 (9.317E+06)

- (5.37E+5 x qd) (9.317E+06)

- (5.37E+5 x qd)

HUC-12: 0101/0102 Low Flows 90-100 1.60 – 8.83 6.13 1.410E+11 1.410E+10 (2.962E+06)

- (5.37E+5 x qd) (2.962E+06)

- (5.37E+5 x qd)

Bullrun Creek e High Flows 0-10 43.6 – 646 70.0

77.0b

1.609E+12 1.609E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.266E+08) - (2.01E+6 x qd)

(1.266E+08) - (2.01E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 14.5 – 43.6 22.6 5.206E+11 5.206E+10 (4.097E+07)

- (2.01E+6 x qd) (4.097E+07)

- (2.01E+6 x qd)

014_3000 Mid-Range 40-70 5.83 – 14.5 9.34 2.148E+11 2.148E+10 (1.690E+07)

- (2.01E+6 x qd) (1.690E+07)

- (2.01E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0101 Low Flows 70-100 0.394 – 5.83 3.21 7.388E+10 7.388E+09 (5.813E+06)

- (2.01E+6 x qd) (5.813E+06)

- (2.01E+6 x qd)


9/21/17 - Final Page E-36 of E-38

E-36




(06010207____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



Byrams Creek e High Flows 0-10 24.4 – 403 40.1

75.5b

9.221E+11 9.221E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.262E+08) - (3.50E+6 x qd)

(1.262E+08) - (3.50E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 8.00 – 24.4 12.7 2.910E+11 2.910E+10 (3.982E+07)

- (3.50E+6 x qd) (3.982E+07)

- (3.50E+6 x qd)

016_0200 Mid-Range 40-70 3.27 – 8.00 5.13 1.179E+11 1.179E+10 (1.613E+07)

- (3.50E+6 x qd) (1.613E+07)

- (3.50E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0402 Low Flows 70-100 0.225 – 3.27 1.72 3.951E+10 3.951E+09 (5.407E+06)

- (3.50E+6 x qd) (5.407E+06)

- (3.50E+6 x qd)

Coal Creek High Flows 0-10 91.7 – 1,692 154

84.1b

3.544E+12 3.544E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.386E+08) - (9.99E+65x qd)

(1.386E+08) - (9.99E+65x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 31.1 – 91.7 48.8 1.122E+12 1.122E+11 (4.385E+07)

- (9.99E+5 x qd) (4.385E+07)

- (9.99E+5 x qd)

029_1000 Mid-Range 40-70 13.8 – 31.1 20.5 4.721E+11 4.721E+10 (1.846E+07)

- (9.99E+5 x qd) (1.846E+07)

- (9.99E+5 x qd)

HUC-12: 0401 Low Flows 70-100 2.15 – 13.8 7.65 1.744E+11 1.744E+10 (6.818E+06)

- (9.99E+5 x qd) (6.818E+06)

- (9.99E+5 x qd)

Coal Creek g High Flows 0-10 24.8 – 481 40.9

NRb

9.396E+11 9.396E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.306E+08) - (3.55E+6 x qd)

(1.306E+08) - (3.55E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 8.10 – 24.8 12.8 2.948E+11 2.948E+10 (4.099E+07)

- (3.55E+6 x qd) (4.099E+07)

- (3.55E+6 x qd)

029_2000 Mid-Range 40-70 3.33 – 8.10 5.22 1.199E+11 1.199E+10 (1.668E+07)

- (3.55E+6 x qd) (1.668E+07)

- (3.55E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0401 Low Flows 70-100 0.273 – 3.33 1.72 3.965E+10 3.965E+09 (5.513E+06)

- (3.55E+6 x qd) (5.513E+06)

- (3.55E+6 x qd)

E Fork Poplar Creek g High Flows 0-10 56.1 – 806 90.6

48.9b

2.084E+12 2.084E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.198E+08) - (2.70E+6 x qd)

(2.198E+08)

- (2.70E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 20.6 – 56.1 28.1 6.468E+11 6.468E+10 (6.821E+07)

- (2.70E+6 x qd)

(6.821E+07) - (2.70E+6 x qd)

026_1000 Mid-Range 40-70 13.5 – 20.6 16.4 3.774E+11 3.774E+10 (3.980E+07)

- (2.70E+6 x qd)

(3.980E+07) - (2.70E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0302 Low Flows 70-100 9.25 – 13.5 11.3 2.597E+10 2.597E+09 (2.739E+07)

- (2.70E+6 x qd )

(2.739E+07) - (2.70E+6 x qd

)


9/21/17 - Final Page E-37 of E-38

E-37




(06010207____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



Ernie’s Creek e High Flows 0-10 10.2 – 154 18.1 NA 6.696E+11 6.696E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.297E+08) - (1.41E+7 x qd)

(2.297E+08)

- (1.41E+7 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 2.15 – 10.2 3.82 NA 2.148E+10 2.148E+09 (4.859E+07)

- (1.41E+7 x qd)

(4.859E+07) - (1.41E+7 x qd)

006T_1100 Mid-Range 40-70 0.755 – 2.15 1.31 NR 1.086E+10 1.086E+09 (1.665E+07)

- (1.41E+7 x qd)

(1.665E+07) - (1.41E+7 x qd)

HUC-12: 0403 Low Flows 70-100 0.032 – 0.755 0.370 61.1 2.688E+09 2.688E+08 (4.702E+06)

- (1.41E+7 x qd)

(4.702E+06) - (1.41E+7 x qd)

Hinds Creek High Flows 0-10 162 – 2,374 246

76.2b

5.649E+12 5.649E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.243E+08) - (5.63E+5 x qd)

(1.243E+08)

- (5.63E+5 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 52.3 – 162 81.9 1.883E+12 1.883E+11 (4.145E+07)

- (5.63E+5 x qd)

(4.145E+07) - (5.63E+5 x qd)

016_1000 Mid-Range 40-60 29.2 – 52.3 39.0 8.978E+11 8.978E+10 (1.976E+07)

- (5.63E+5 x qd)

(1.976E+07) - (5.63E+5 x qd)

Dry Conditions 60-90 8.73 – 29.2 18.2 4.190E+11 4.190E+10

(9.222E+06) - (5.63E+5 x qd)

(9.222E+06)

- (5.63E+5 x qd)

HUC-12: 0402 Low Flows 90-100 1.43 – 8.73 5.67 1.304E+11 1.304E+10 (2.869E+06)

- (5.63E+5 x qd)

(2.869E+06) - (5.63E+5 x qd)

Hinds Creek e,g High Flows 0-10 101 – 1,445 152 NA 8.628E+12 8.628E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.250E+08) - (9.16E+5 x qd)

(1.250E+08) - (9.16E+5 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 31.0 – 101 49.0 NR 2.538E+12 2.538E+11 (4.040E+07)

- (9.16E+5 x qd) (4.040E+07)

- (9.16E+5 x qd)

016_2000 Mid-Range 40-70 12.6 – 31.0 19.9 NR 1.241E+11 1.241E+10 (1.638E+07)

- (9.16E+5 x qd) (1.638E+07)

- (9.16E+5 x qd)

HUC-12: 0402 Low Flows 70-100 0.683 – 12.6 6.72 NR 3.000E+11 3.000E+10 (5.538E+06)

- (9.16E+5 x qd) (5.538E+06)

- (9.16E+5 x qd)

Hinds Creek e,g High Flows 0-10 39.6 – 601 63.3

72.2b

1.457E+12 1.457E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.253E+08) - (2.20E+6 x qd)

(1.253E+08)

- (2.20E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 13.1 – 39.6 20.3 4.676E+11 4.676E+10 (4.023E+07)

- (2.20E+6 x qd)

(4.023E+07) - (2.20E+6 x qd)

016_3000 Mid-Range 40-70 5.45 – 13.1 8.24 1.895E+11 1.895E+10 (1.630E+07)

- (2.20E+6 x qd)

(1.630E+07) - (2.20E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0402 Low Flows 70-100 0.529 – 5.45 2.78 6.403E+10 6.403E+09 (5.508E+06)

- (2.20E+6 x qd )

(5.508E+06) - (2.20E+6 x qd

)


9/21/17 - Final Page E-38 of E-38

E-38




(06010207____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



Scarboro Creek e High Flows 0-10 5.11 – 85.6 8.76 NA 2.015E+11 2.015E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.856E+08) - (2.35E+7 x qd)

(1.856E+08)

- (2.35E+7 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 1.36 – 5.11 2.26 21.7 5.189E+10 5.189E+09 (4.780E+07)

- (2.35E+7 x qd)

(4.780E+07) - (2.35E+7 x qd)

006T_0900 Mid-Range 40-70 0.514 – 1.36 0.859 NR 1.976E+10 1.976E+09 (1.820E+07)

- (2.35E+7 x qd)

(1.820E+07) - (2.35E+7 x qd)

HUC-12: 0404 Low Flows 70-100 0.026 – 0.514 0.258 NR 5.934E+09 5.937E+08 (5.466E+06)

- (2.35E+7 x qd)

(5.466E+06) - (2.35E+7 x qd)

Willow Creek e,g High Flows 0-10 18.1 – 272 30.7

63.5b

7.054E+11 7.054E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.399E+08) - (5.07E+6 x qd)

(1.399E+08)

- (5.07E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 6.21 – 18.1 9.56 2.198E+11 2.198E+10 (4.359E+07)

- (5.07E+6 x qd)

(4.359E+07) - (5.07E+6 x qd)

011_0200 Mid-Range 40-70 2.54 – 6.21 3.98 9.159E+10 9.159E+09 (1.817E+07)

- (5.07E+6 x qd)

(1.817E+07) - (5.07E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0201 Low Flows 70-100 0.142 – 2.54 1.30 2.997E+10 2.997E+09 (5.944E+06)

- (5.07E+6 x qd)

(5.944E+06) - (5.07E+6 x qd)

Notes: NA = Not Applicable. NR = No Reduction Required. PLRG = Percent Load Reduction Goal to achieve TMDL. qm = Mean Daily WWTP Discharge (cfs) qd = Facility (WWTP) Design Flow (cfs) Shaded Flow Zone for each waterbody represents the critical flow zone.

a. Flow applied to TMDL, MOS, and allocation (WLA[MS4] and LA) calculations. Flows represent the midpoint value in the respective hydrologic flow regime. b. PLRG based on geomean data. c. WLAs for WWTPs are expressed as E. coli loads (CFU/day). All current and future WWTPs must meet water quality standards as specified in their NPDES permit. d. WLAs and LAs expressed on a “per acre” basis are calculated based on the drainage area at the specific monitoring point (see Table E-3). As regulated MS4 area increases

(due to future growth and/or new MS4 designation), unregulated LA area decreases by an equivalent amount. The sum will continue to equal total subwatershed area. e. No WWTPs currently discharging into or upstream of the waterbody. (WLA[WWTPs] Expression is future growth term for new WWTPs.) f. No MS4s currently located in the subwatershed drainage area. (Expression is future growth term for expanding or newly designated MS4s.) g. No critical condition. No exceedances of single sample maximum criterion during most recent sampling period, or the only exceedances were in the High Flow zone.


9/21/17 - Final Page F-1 of F-27

F-1

APPENDIX F

Trend Analysis for Waterbodies Impaired by E. coli

in the Lower Clinch River Watershed



F-2

In the Lower Clinch River Watershed, periods of record greater than 5 years (given adequate sampling frequency) were evaluated for trend analysis. For watersheds in second or successive TMDL cycles, data collected from multiple cycles were compared. If implementation efforts have been initiated to reduce loading, evaluation of routine monitoring data may indicate improving or worsening conditions over time and corresponding effectiveness of implementation efforts.

Water quality data for implementation effectiveness analysis can be presented in multiple ways. Several examples are shown in Section 9.6. Load duration curve methodology is most appropriate when monthly monitoring data, representative of all flow regimes, have been collected. However, in the Lower Clinch River Watershed, most of the recent monitoring data have been collected for geomean analysis (5 or more samples in a 30-day period). Therefore, box and whisker plots have been selected as the most appropriate method of presenting the monitoring data. Data intended for geomean analysis are grouped together for each specific 30-day period and the maximum geomean within that 30-day period is represented by a red dot. Data covering a period greater than 30 days are grouped together by sampling cycle, a 12-month period usually not coincident with the calendar year. In this case, the mean of the data is represented by a white diamond.

All of the waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed listed as impaired by E. coli had sufficient monitoring data to perform trend analysis. At this time, most of the impaired waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River Watershed show no obvious trend. In some cases, the results have fluctuated; in other cases, the results have remained essentially the same. Part of the reason for the uncertainty is the predominance of geomean sampling over the past decade. Geometric mean sampling is useful when listing a waterbody. Geomean sampling can only be used to determine the condition of a given waterbody during a 30-day period and, by itself, is inadequate to determine an overall trend. As stated in section 9.4.1, “comprehensive water quality monitoring activities include sampling during all seasons and a broad range of flow and meteorological conditions.”

Based on analysis of data from 1999 through 2013, the condition of Beaver Creek appears to be fluctuating, with no overall trend apparent. Figures F-1 and F-2 show the results of monitoring for

segment TN06010207011_1000 at mile 3.5. Figures F-3 and F-4 show the results of monitoring for

segment TN06010207011_2000 at mile 24.7. Figures F-5 and F-6 show the results of monitoring

for segment TN06010207011_3000 at miles 40.1. Figure F-7 compares the results of monitoring at all three locations on the same dates in 2013. Figure F-7 suggests that the impairment is greater further upstream, possibly due to the effect of dilution downstream. Additional improvement will be required before Beaver Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2003 through 2013, the condition of Buffalo Creek at miles 0.3 and

0.7 (TN06010207016_0100) shows no overall trend (Figures F-8 and F-9). Although there have been no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion since 2008, the geomean values in 2008 (391 cfu/100 mL) and 2013 (345 cfu/100 mL) are still above the geomean criterion. Additional improvement will be required before Buffalo Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 1998 through 2013, the condition of Bullrun Creek appears to be fluctuating, with no overall trend apparent. Figure F-10 shows the results of monitoring for all three

segments. Figure 11 shows the results of monitoring for segment TN06010207014_1000). Figure

F-12 shows the results of monitoring for segment TN06010207014_2000. Figure F-13 compares the results of monitoring for all three segments on the same dates in 2013. Figure F-13 suggests the impairment is slightly greater further upstream, possibly due to the effect of dilution downstream. Additional improvement will be required before Bullrun Creek can re-attain water quality standards.



F-3

Based on analysis of data from 2003 through 2013, the condition of Byrams Creek

(TN060102070167_0200) appears to indicate slight improvement (Figures F-14 and F-15). There were no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion during the most recent sampling cycle, but the geomean values have remained essentially unchanged (403, 470, and 514 cfu/100 mL for 2008, 2010, and 2013 respectively). Additional improvement will be required before Byrams Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 1999 through 2013, the condition of Coal Creek appears to be fluctuating, with no overall trend apparent. Figure F-16 shows the results of monitoring for two monitoring sites on the two impaired segments. Figure-F-17 shows the results of monitoring for

segment TN06010207029_1000 at mile 1.2. Figure F-18 shows the results of monitoring for

segment TN06010207029_2000 at mile 10.6. Figure F-19 compares the results of monitoring for the two segments on the same dates in 2013. Figure F-19 suggests that the impairment is slightly greater closer to the mouth of the waterbody. Additional improvement will be required before Coal Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2008 through 2013, the condition of East Fork Poplar Creek

(TN06010207026_1000 and TN06010207026_2000) shows no overall trend. Figure F-20 suggests that impairment is slightly greater at the downstream segment (at RM 6.9), but there was no monitoring at that location in 2013. Figure F-21 suggests that the condition of the upstream segment (at RM 8.6) is worsening. Additional improvement will be required before East Fork Poplar Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 1999 through 2008, the condition of Ernie’s Creek

(TN06010207006T_1100) appears to be unchanged. It is difficult to determine a trend with the limited number of samples. In Figure F-22, there appear to be high values, possibly associated with storm events, and low values, with no values in the mid-range. Additional improvement will be required before Ernie’s Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2013, the condition of Grassy Creek

(TN06010207011_0700) shows no overall trend. In Figure F-24, there were no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion during the most recent sampling cycle. However, in Figure F-25, the geomean value still exceeds the geomean criterion. Additional improvement will be required before Grassy Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 1999 through 2013, the condition of Hinds Creek

(TN06010207016_1000, TN06010207016_2000, and TN06010207016_3000) suggests improvement. Figure F-26 illustrates that monitoring during 2003 through 2008 showed higher values than during 1999. However the magnitude of the exceedances decreased during 2010 and 2013. Figures F-27 through F-29 show the results of monitoring at stations on each of the three segments. Figure F-30 illustrates monitoring for all three segments during 2013. The values at monitoring locations on all three segments are in the same range. Additional improvement will be required before Hinds Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2013, the condition of Hines Creek

(TN06010207011_0500) appears to be improving. In Figure 31, there were no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion during the most recent sampling cycle. However, in Figure F-32, the geomean values still exceed the geomean criterion. Additional improvement will be required before Hines Creek can re-attain water quality standards.



F-4

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2013, the condition of Knob Creek

(TN06010207011_0600) appears to be improving. In Figure 33, there have been no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion since 2006. However, in Figure F-34, the geomean values still exceed the geomean criterion. There were not enough samples in 2013 to calculate the geomean. Additional improvement will be required before Hines Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2013, the condition of Meadow Creek

(TN06010207011_0800) appears to be fluctuating, with no overall trend apparent. In Figures F-35 and F-36, there were no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion in 2008 and the geomean value was below the geomean criterion. However, in 2013 there were exccedances of the single sample maximum criterion and the geomean criterion. It is possible that the decreased values in 2008 were due to the near-drought conditions. Additional improvement will be required before Meadow Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2001 through 2013, the condition of North Fork Bullrun Creek

(TN06010207014_0400) shows no overall trend. In Figure F-37, there were no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion during the most recent sampling cycle. However, in Figure F-38, the geomean value still exceeds the geomean criterion. Additional improvement will be required before North Fork Bullrun Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2013, the condition of Plumb Creek

(TN06010207011_0900) suggests slight improvement. In Figure F-39, there were no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion since 2005. However, in Figure F-40, the geomean values still exceed the geomean criterion. Additional improvement will be required before Plumb Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 1997 through 2008, the condition of Scarboro Creek

(TN06010207006T_0900) suggests slight improvement. In Figure F-41, there were no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion since 2005. However, in Figure F-42, the geomean values still exceed the geomean criterion. Additional improvement will be required before Scarboro Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2013, the condition of Willow Fork

(TN06010207011_0200) suggests slight improvement. In Figure F-43, there were no exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion since 2005. However, in Figure F-44, the geomean values still exceed the geomean criterion. Additional improvement will be required before Willow Fork can re-attain water quality standards.



F-5

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15

Beaver Creek - Mile 3.5

Figure F-1. Time Series Plot for Beaver Creek – RM 3.5

10

100

1000

10000

1999-2000 2004-06 2008 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles


Mean

GM

11

12

5 5

Figure F-2. Box and Whisker Plot for Beaver Creek – RM 3.5



F-6

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000




10

100

1000

10000

2004-06 2008 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles


Mean

GM

12

5

5




F-7

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000




10

100

1000

10000

1999-2000 2008 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles


Mean

GM

12

146




F-8

10

100

1000

10000

RM3.5 RM24.7 RM40.1

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Monitoring Location

Beaver Creek - 2013

5

5

5

Figure F-7. Box and Whisker Plot for Beaver Creek – 2013 Monitoring



F-9

10

100

1000

10000


Buffalo Creek - 2 sites

RM0.3

RM0.7

Figure F-8. Time Series Plot for Buffalo Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.7

10

100

1000

10000

RM0.7: 2003-05 RM0.3:2008 RM0.7:2010 RM0.3:2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Buffalo Creek - 2 sites

Mean

GM

18

6

5 5

Figure F-9. Box and Whisker Plot for Buffalo Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.7


9/21/17 - Final Page F-10 of F-27

F-10

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Bull Run Creek - 3 sites

RM5.2

RM16.2

RM31.1

Figure F-10. Time Series Plot for Bullrun Creek – 3 sites

10

100

1000

10000

1999-2002 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Bullrun Creek - Mile 5.2

Mean

GM

10

5

Figure F-11. Box and Whisker Plot for Bullrun Creek – RM 5.2


9/21/17 - Final Page F-11 of F-27

F-11

10

100

1000

10000

1999-2002 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Bullrun Creek - Mile 16.2

Mean

GM

6

5

Figure F-12. Box and Whisker Plot for Bullrun Creek – RM 16.2

10

100

1000

10000

RM5.2 RM16.2 RM31.1

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Monitoring Location

Bullrun Creek - 2013

Mean

GM

5

5

5

Figure F-13. Box and Whisker Plot for Bullrun Creek – 2013 Monitoring


9/21/17 - Final Page F-12 of F-27

F-12

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15

Byrams Creek - Mile 0.4

Figure F-14. Time Series Plot for Byrams Creek – RM 0.4

1

10

100

1000

10000

2003-05 2008 2010 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Byrams Creek - Mile 0.4

Mean

GM

19 614

5

Figure F-15. Box and Whisker Plot for Byrams Creek – RM 0.4


9/21/17 - Final Page F-13 of F-27

F-13

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Coal Creek - 2 sites

RM1.2

RM10.6

Figure F-16. Time Series Plot for Coal Creek – 2 sites

1

10

100

1000

10000

1999 2003 2008-09 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Coal Creek - Mile 1.2

Mean

GM

10

5

19 5

Figure F-17. Box and Whisker Plot for Coal Creek – RM 1.2


9/21/17 - Final Page F-14 of F-27

F-14

10

100

1000

10000

2003 2008 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Coal Creek - Mile 10.6

Mean

GM

6

10

5

Figure F-18. Box and Whisker Plot for Coal Creek – RM 10.6

10

100

1000

10000

RM1.3 RM10.6

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Coal Creek - 2013

5

5

Figure F-19. Box and Whisker Plot for Coal Creek – 2013 Monitoring


9/21/17 - Final Page F-15 of F-27

F-15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15

East Fork Poplar Creek - 2 sites

RM6.9

RM8.6

Figure F-20. Time Series Plot for E. Fork Poplar Creek – 2 sites

10

100

1000

2008-09 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

East Fork Poplar Creek - Mile 6.9

Mean

GM

12 5

Figure F-21. Box and Whisker Plot for E. Fork Poplar Creek – RM 6.9


9/21/17 - Final Page F-16 of F-27

F-16

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09

Ernie's Creek - Mile 0.1

Figure F-22. Time Series Plot for Ernie’s Creek – RM0.1

10

100

1000

10000

1999-2001 2007-2008

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Ernie's Creek - Mile 0.1

5 4

Figure F-23. Box and Whisker Plot for Ernie’s Creek – RM 0.1


9/21/17 - Final Page F-17 of F-27

F-17

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Grassy Creek - 2 sites

RM0.3

RM0.9

Figure F-24. Time Series Plot for Grassy Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.9

10

100

1000

10000

RM0.9: 2004-06 RM0.3: 2008 RM0.3: 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Grassy Creek - 2 sites

Mean

GM

5

12

5

Figure F-25. Box and Whisker Plot for Grassy Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.9


9/21/17 - Final Page F-18 of F-27

F-18

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Hinds Creek - 3 sites

RM0.7

RM6.8

RM14.1

Figure F-26. Time Series Plot for Hinds Creek – 3 sites

1

10

100

1000

10000

1999 2003-05 2008 2010 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Hinds Creek - Mile 0.7

Mean

GM

18

5

6

14 5

Figure F-27. Box and Whisker Plot for Hinds Creek – RM 0.7


9/21/17 - Final Page F-19 of F-27

F-19

10

100

1000

10000

2003-05 2008 2010 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles


Mean

GM

19

46

14


10

100

1000

10000

2003-05 2008 2010 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles


Mean

GM

19

5

6

14



9/21/17 - Final Page F-20 of F-27

F-20

10

100

1000

10000

RM0.7 RM6.8 RM14.1

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Monitoring Location

Hinds Creek - 2013

Mean

GM

5 54

Figure F-30. Box and Whisker Plot for Hinds Creek – 2013 Monitoring


9/21/17 - Final Page F-21 of F-27

F-21

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Hines Creek - Mile 0.2

Figure F-31. Time Series Plot for Hines Creek – RM 0.2

10

100

1000

10000

2004-06 2008 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Hines Creek - Mile 0.2

Mean

GM

513

5

Figure F-32. Box and Whisker Plot for Hines Creek – RM 0.2


9/21/17 - Final Page F-22 of F-27

F-22

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Knob Creek - 2 sites

RM0.3

RM0.8

Figure F-33. Time Series Plot for Knob Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.8

10

100

1000

10000

RM0.3:2004-06 RM0.3:2008 RM0.8:2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Knob Creek - 2 sites

Mean

GM

5

12

4

Figure F-34. Box and Whisker Plot for Knob Creek – RM 0.3 & 0.8


9/21/17 - Final Page F-23 of F-27

F-23

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Meadow Creek - Mile 0.2

Figure F-35. Time Series Plot for Meadow Creek – RM 0.2

10

100

1000

10000

2004-06 2008 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Meadow Creek - Mile 0.2

Mean

GM

5

12 5

Figure F-36. Box and Whisker Plot for Meadow Creek – RM 0.2


9/21/17 - Final Page F-24 of F-27

F-24

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15

North Fork Bullrun Creek - RM0.1

Figure F-37. Time Series Plot for N. Fork Bullrun Creek – RM 0.1

10

100

1000

10000

2001-02 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

N. Fork Bullrun Creek - Mile 0.1

Mean

GM

5

5

Figure F-38. Box and Whisker Plot for N. Fork Bullrun Creek – RM 0.1


9/21/17 - Final Page F-25 of F-27

F-25

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Plumb Creek - Mile 0.3

Figure F-39. Time Series Plot for Plumb Creek – RM 0.3

1

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2008 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Plumb Creek - Mile 0.3

Mean

GM

5

11

5

Figure F-40. Box and Whisker Plot for Plumb Creek – RM 0.3


9/21/17 - Final Page F-26 of F-27

F-26

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09

Scarboro Creek - Mile 0.1

Figure F-41. Time Series Plot for Scarboro Creek – RM 0.1

10

100

1000

10000

1997-2002 2007-2008

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Scarboro Creek - Mile 0.1

10

5

Figure F-42. Box and Whisker Plot for Scarboro Creek – RM 0.1


9/21/17 - Final Page F-27 of F-27

F-27

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Willow Fork - Mile 0.5

Figure F-43. Time Series Plot for Willow Fork – RM 0.5

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2008 2013

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Willow Fork - Mile 0.5

Mean

GM

5

10

5

Figure F-44. Box and Whisker Plot for Willow Fork – RM 0.5


9/21/17 - Final Page G-1 of G-2

G-1

APPENDIX G

Public Notice Announcement


9/21/17 - Final Page G-2 of G-2

G-2

STATE OF TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)

FOR E. COLI IN LOWER CLINCH RIVER WATERSHED (HUC 06010207), TENNESSEE Announcement is hereby given of the availability of Tennessee’s proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for E. coli in the Lower Clinch River watershed, located in eastern Tennessee. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop TMDLs for waters on their impaired waters list. TMDLs must determine the allowable pollutant load that the water can assimilate, allocate that load among the various point and nonpoint sources, include a margin of safety, and address seasonality.

A number of waterbodies in the Lower Clinch River watershed are listed on Tennessee’s Draft 2016 303(d) list as not supporting designated use classifications due, in part, to pasture grazing or discharges from MS4 areas. The TMDL utilizes Tennessee’s general water quality criteria, continuous flow data from a USGS discharge monitoring station located in proximity to the watershed, site specific water quality monitoring data, a calibrated hydrologic model, load duration curves, and an appropriate Margin of Safety (MOS) to establish allowable loadings of pathogens which will result in the reduced in-stream concentrations and attainment of water quality standards. The TMDL requires reductions of E. coli loading on the order of 11.7-88.4% in the listed waterbodies.

The Lower Clinch River E. coli TMDL may be downloaded from the Department of Environment and Conservation website:

http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/wr-ws-tennessees-total-maximum-daily-load-tmdl-program Technical questions regarding this TMDL should be directed to the following members of the Division of Water Resources staff:

Vicki S. Steed, P.E., Watershed Management Unit Telephone: 615-532-0707 David M. Duhl, Ph.D., Watershed Management Unit Telephone: 615-532-0438

Persons wishing to comment on the proposed TMDLs are invited to submit their comments in writing no later than July 25, 2017 to:

Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Resources

Watershed Management Section William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 11th Floor

Nashville, TN 37243 All comments received prior to that date will be considered when revising the TMDL for final submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The TMDL and supporting information are on file at the Division of Water Resources, William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 11th Floor, Nashville, Tennessee 37243. They may be inspected during normal office hours. Copies of the information on file are available on request.




9/21/17 - Final Page H-1 of H-6

H-1

APPENDIX H

Public Comments Received



H-2



H-3



H-4



H-5



H-6


9/21/17 - Final Page I-1 of I-2

I-1

APPENDIX I

Response to Public Comments


9/21/17 - Final Page I-2 of I-2

I-2

The TMDL document identifies TDOT as a point source with the potential to contribute pathogens to the subject waterbodies. TDOT’s own data supports this conclusion. According to information presented to TDEC by TDOT in a presentation titled “Stormwater Runoff from Tennessee Highways” on September 8, 2015 “nutrients and pathogens appeared to be the only parameters to potentially be of concern”. All stormwater permittees, regardless of size, are considered potential sources and are assigned WLAs. TDEC acknowledges the work your agency does to minimize nonpoint source contributions, but TDEC recognizes TDOT as a potential source. TDEC supports prioritization of TDOT MS4 discharge locations to most efficiently allocate resources in order to remediate the most significant water quality issues. As long as TDOT meets the requirements of their MS4 permit and Storm Water Management Program, TDOT’s Storm Water Monitoring Plan will be considered to be consistent with the goals of this TMDL.