^E0SX
' Q '
PRO^
Section 319
PINPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SUCCESS STORY
Dcuth & fire hn d
Removing Sources of Fecal Coliform Improves Water Quality
Waterbodies Improved Llvest°ck g'Prices and failing septic systems
contributed fecal coliform bacteria to South Carolina s
Thompson Creek watershed, prompting the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC) to add two sites to the state's 2000/2002 Clean Water
Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Watershed stakeholders implemented
agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and repaired septic systems, thereby
reducing the amount of fecal coliform in the creek. The two impaired Thompson Creek
sites are showing progress toward attaining water quality criteria.
Problem
The Thompson Creek Watershed drains parts of
South Carolina's Chesterfield County (100 square
miles) and North Carolina's Anson County (49.8
square miles), before emptying into South Carolina's
Pee Dee River (Figure 1). Major land uses in the
watershed are forest (65.5 percent) and agriculture
(22.3 percent).
High fecal coliform levels impaired Thompson Creek
above South Carolina's Highway 9 in Chesterfieid
County. Ambient water quality monitoring collected
before 2002 show fecal coliform counts signifi-
cantly higher than the South Carolina water quality
standard of 400 colony forming units (cfu) per
100 milliliters (mL). Fecal coliform counts routinely
reached more than 2,000 cfu/100 mL in water qual-
ity samples, with some samples reaching as high as
11,000 cfu/100 mL.
On the basis of the data, DHEC placed two seg-
ments (PD-246 and PD-24'7) of Thompson Creek on
South Carolina's 2002 CWA section 303(d) list of
impaired waters for not meeting the state's fecal
coliform bacteria water quality standard. DHEC
attributed the impairment primarily to nonpoint
source pollution (Figure 2).
DHEC established a total maximum daily load
(TMDL) forThompson Creek in 2003. Project
partners worked to implement a watershed-based
plan for two fecal coliform TMDLs along Thompson
Creek. The partners' project received special rec-
ognition for successfully combining funding from
federal, state and local sources to achieve water
quality improvements.
Figure 1. Thompson
Creek flows
through portions
of North and South
Carolina before
emptying into South
Carolina's Pee Dee
River.
Figure 2. Prior
to project
implementation,
Thompson Creek
was impaired by
bacteria, largely
from nonpoint
sources such as
manure from cattle
that loitered in and
around the creek.
Project Highlights
The local soil and water conservation district
recruited participants to implement BMPs.
Landowners installed almost 53,000 feet of fence
to exclude cattle from stream areas—this effort
had an immediate beneficial effect on water
quality. Other BMPs installed included 5 wells,
37 watering facilities, 24,648 feet of pipeline,

-------
974 acres of conservation tillage, 2 waste storage
facilities, 3 acres of critical area planting, 24,899
square feet of heavy use area protection (Figures 3
and 4), 34 acres of forest site preparation, 26 acres
of pasture and hayland planting, and 106 acres
of tree and shrub planting. Homeowners also
repaired/replaced 34 septic systems. Collectively,
the BMPs have significantly improved water quality
in the watershed.
Figure 3. Prior
to project
implementation,
runoff from this
muddy cattle
feeding area flowed
downhill into
Thompson Creek.
Figure 4. To address
the runoff from the
heavy use feeding
area, the landowner
built a structure
that keeps the cows
dry during feeding
and allows for easy
clean up of manure.
¦ -
Results
DHEC staff assessed the impaired Thompson Creek
sites (PD-246 and PD-247) monthly beginning a year
before (2003) and ending a year after the project's
completion (2008). Data collected in 2008 indicated
that, while the sites were not yet fully meeting water
quality standards, overall water quality had improved.
Monitoring data collected at sites PD-246 and
PD-247 in 2008 after the project's completion
found that no samples exceeded 1,000 cfu/100 ml_,
compared to one-third of the samples collected
in 2003. Only 5 of 22 samples exceeded South
Carolina's water quality standard of 400 cfu/100 ml.
Both stations show that the average number of
exceedances decreased—from 3,064 cfu/100 ml_ to
570 cfu/100 ml_ (81.4 percent reduction) for PD-246
and 1375 cfu/100 ml_ to 580 cfu/100 mL (57.8 percent
reduction) for PD-247. Project partners feel that the
majority of sources in the South Carolina portion of
the watershed have been addressed and expect that,
with time, the water quality standard will be met.
Overall, agricultural BMPs installed in the
Thompson Creek watershed dramatically improved
water quality. Project participants received added
benefits—homeowners cited improvements to their
health and general quality of life, and increased
production and reduced costs on their farms.
Many project participants have been eager to share
accomplishments and knowledge with other local
residents. Thus, through the Thompson Creek
Watershed Project, other citizens have learned
about the requirements for maintaining clean water
and the role they can play in protecting this vital
resource.
Partners and Funding
The project was supported by $393,150 in U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) CWA
section 319 funding, $61,291 in U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Environmental Quality
Incentive Program (EQiP) funds and a nonfederal
match of $274,351 provided by Pee Dee Resource
Conservation and Development Council, and
from landowners'cost-share. Chesterfield USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
staff worked diligently to combine CWA section
319and EQIPfundsasmuchas possible for the
project. Leveraging of complementary resources
allowed section 319 funds to be stretched further
in the watershed and helped to make the project
successful.
Participating partners for the project included
the EPA CWA Section 319 Program, the South
Carolina DHEC, USDA NRCS, Pee Dee Resource
Conservation and Development Council, the
Chesterfield County Soil and Water Conservation
District, South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and local landowners.
^tDSrX
•' Q '
\

PRO't^*
S
o
T
•/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA 841-F-10-001Q
September 2010
For additional information contact:
Meredith Murphy
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
803-898-4222 • murphymb@dhec.sc.gov

-------