Section 319
NONPOINT SOURCE PRHGRAM SUCCESS STORY
Implementing Best Management Practices Reduces Bacteria Levels
WaterbodieS ImDrOVed Polluted runoff from agricultural lands led to high levels of
Escherichia coli and sediment in the Nolichucky River. As
a result, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) added three
segments of the Nolichucky River to Tennessee's 2002 Clean Water Act (CWA) section
303(d) list of impaired waters. Local farmers entered into the state's voluntary cost share
program and installed various agricultural best management practices (BMPs). Water
quality improved, prompting TDEC to remove the three Nolichucky River segments from the
CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters in 2008.
Problem
The Nolichucky River watershed drains portions
of North Carolina (616 square miles) and eastern
Tennessee (1,128 square miles). Major land uses in
the Nolichucky River watershed are forest (61.2 per-
cent) and pasture (28.1 percent). High levels of E. coli
and sediment in the Nolichucky River prompted
TDEC to add three segments (Figure 1) of the
Nolichucky River to the CWA section 303(d) list of
impaired waters in 2002.
The first segment (TN06010108001-2000) is 7.7 miles
long and extends from Flat Creek to Bent Creek
in Cocke and Hamblen counties. TDEC added this
segment to the impaired waters list for £ coli from
pasture grazing.
The second segment (TN06010108005-1000) is
9.4 miles long and extends from Little Chucky Creek
to Evans Island in Greene County. TDEC added this
segment to the CWA section 303(d) list as impaired
for biological integrity from siltation.
The third segment (TN06010108005-2000) is
6.6 miles long and extends from Evans Island to
Pigeon Creek in Greene and Cocke counties. TDEC
added this segment to the impaired waters list for £
coli and biological integrity from siltation.
Bacteria levels in all three segments exceeded
Tennessee's water quality standard for £ coli,
which requires that no individual sample exceed
941 colony forming units (cfu) per 100 milliliters (ml)
or 126 cfu/100 ml as a geometric mean based on a
collection of five samples over a period.
Crterokee La
9-10
Noltchucky Riv«
,000
Douglas Late
Cocke
County
ID
1
:
5
-i
5
b
:•
*•
?
10
n
i:
15
14
15
jfi
17
15
19
D
a
IMRCSCode
393
S6i
614
Ml
556
b;&
614
561
512
382
561
614
516
576
362
382
516
561
614
57fi
iS2
Practice
F,!«r Strip
Heavy Use Area
Watering facility
Heaw Use Area
Roof Sunoff Structure
Pipeline
Watenng Facility
HCJV-V u«Ar*a
Pasture & hbv Pbnti n j
Fence
Heaw Uic Area
YVaw^ng Facility
Pipeline
Stream Crossing
Fence
Fence
Pipeline
Heaw Use Area
;Vi:t:,rigFi:.|.tv
iirBj11"- i.r;:r,r 5
Fence
Si if at Practice
0.5 aae
0 1 acre
1 trough
0.1 we
Ireof
360 feet
1 water er
tUS£e
5 acres
Z.dOGfeet
IHUAQQlatre
Itifik
1000 feet
1 crossing
390 feet
390 feet
200 feet
0.1 acre
ITanfc
2 crossings
ISSOfcc:
Frencft Broad River
TN" Drpt of Aznculturc
' -.' iOlO
Figure 1. These three impaired Nolichucky River segments (8001-
2000, 8005-1000 and 8005-2000) have been the focus of several
BMP implementation projects.
-------
Figure 2. Landowners installed heavy use
area protections such as this one which
prevents erosion at a stream crossing.
Figure 3. A landowner installed fencing
to prevent livestock from accessing the
stream and surrounding riparian areas.
Figure 4. A landowner installed this roof
runoff structure (gutters and piping) to
prevent stormwater from running across
the bare earth of the work area.
Project Highlights
Local landowners installed numerous agricultural
BMPs (see Figure 1) along all three segments of
the Nolichucky River. The BMPs included plant-
ing 10 acres of pasture and hay, protecting heavy
use areas (Figure 2), adding filter strips, installing
fencing to exclude livestock from stream areas
(Figure 3), establishing runoff structures (Figure 4)
and building alternative watering facilities.
Results
Monitoring data collected from several stations
along the river after BMP implementation showed
£ co/i levels to be below the state standard. For
example, data collected along the 7.7-mile segment
TN06010108001-2000 showed a geometric mean
of 5.3 cfu/100 ml. On the basis of the data, TDEC
removed the segmentTN06010108001-2000 from
the 2008 CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters.
In addition, TDEC established a Semi-Quantitative
Single Habitat Assessment (SQSH) to monitor
the effects of the restoration activities on biologi-
cal integrity. SQSH assessment is a tool used to
recognize stream impairment as judged by species
richness measures, emphasizing the presence or
absence of indicator organisms without regard to
relative abundance. The principal metrics used are
the total macroinvertebrate families (or genera)
and the number of families of mayflies, stoneflies
and caddisflies (collectively referred to as EPT,
which is short for the order names Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera). Implementing agricul-
tural BMPs reduced siltation and improved habitat,
allowing macroinvertebrate populations to rise.
Within the 9.4-mile-long segmentTN06010108005-
1000, SQSH documented 7 EPT genera, 16 total
genera, and a habitat score of 152 out of 200, which
is classified as good. Those improvements in bio-
logical integrity and attainment of fish and aquatic
life uses resulted in TDEC removing the segment
from the 2008 CWA section 303(d) list.
Within the 6.6-mile-long segment TN06010108005-
2000, the SQSH documented 11 EPT genera and 21
total genera. Furthermore, water quality monitor-
ing data showed that £ co/i levels met standards,
with a geometric mean of 20.8 cfu/100 mL for 13
samples and zero values exceeding 941 cfu/100 mL.
A combination of low bacteria levels and improved
macroinvertebrate population counts prompted
TDEC to remove the segment from the 2008 CWA
section 303(d) list.
Partners and Funding
Multiple funding sources helped support BMP
implementation efforts. From 2003 through 2008,
Tennessee contributed approximately $20,000
through its Agricultural Resources Conservation
Fund. Cocke, Greene and Hamblen county soil con-
servation districts used $13,813 in CWA section 319
funding. Landowners contributed $9,118 in matched
cost-share funding.
I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA841-F-10-001R
September 2010
For additional information contact:
Sam Marshall
Tennessee Department of Agriculture
sam.marshall@tn.gov • 615-837-5306
------- |