The Status of Water Quality
in Tennessee
1990 305(b) REPORT
TECHNICAL REPORT
APRIL 1990
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
Division of Water Pollution Control
150 Ninth Avenue North, Nashville, TN 37247-3420
-------
THE STATUS OF
WATER QUALITY IN TENNESSEE
305(b) REPORT
TECHNICAL REPORT
APRIL, 1990
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
Division of Water Pollution Control
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, Tennessee 37247-3420
This public document (Authorization Number 343891)
was promulgated at a cost of $ 5.47 per copy. July, 1990.
AcaicuiruBK
Printed on recycled paper.
-------
table or contents
i. TABLE or CONTENTS
ii. LIST or TABLES AND rZGURES
Z. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ZZ. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
ZZZ. INTRODUCTION II
IV. TENNESSEE GENERAL INFORMATION 13
V. STATUS Or SURTACE HATER QUALITY 14
A. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 14
B. BASIN ASSESSMENT 19
C. TOXICS 79
D. CAUSES AND SOURCES OF STREAM USE IMPAIRMENT 88
E. ADDITIONAL LAKES INFORMATION 92
F. WETLANDS 95
G. ATTAINMENT OF FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE GOAL 98
H. NONPOINT ASSESSMENT 98
I. WATER QUALITY TRENDS 102
VZ. GROUND WATER QUALITY 103
VZZ. TENNESSEE'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM 112
A. MONITORING PROGRAM 112
B. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 119
C. PERMITTING ACTIVITIES 120
D. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 121
E. ENFORCEMENT 124
ZX. LITERATURE CITED 125
X. APPENDICES 129
A, LIST OF WATERS IMPACTED BY BOTH POINT AND NONPOINT POLLUTION
B. LIST OF WATERS IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION
-------
LISTS or TABLES AMD FIGURES
tables
Table Name Page
12-1 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Statewide 2
IV-1 Summary of Classified Uses of Waterbodies in Tennessee 13
V-l Major Dischargers - Mississippi Basin 20
V-2 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Mississippi Basin 20
V-3 Major Dischargers - Memphis Basin 23
V-4 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Memphis Basin 23
V-5 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations 25
in the Memphis Basin
V-6 Major Dischargers - Hatchie River Basin 26
V-7 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Hatchie River Basin 27
V-8 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations 29
in the Hatchie River Basin
V-9 Major Dischargers - Obion-Forked Deer Basin 30
V-10 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Obion-Forked Deer Basin 31
V-ll Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations 33
in the Obion-Forked Deer Basin
V-12 Major Dischargers - Western Tennessee Valley 34
V-13 Summary of Waterbody Assessments-Western Tennesssee Valley 35
V-14 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations in the 37
Western Tennessee Basin
V-15 Major Dischargers - Elk-Shoal River Basin 38
V-16 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Elk-Shoal Basin 39
v-17 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations in 41
the Elk-Shoal Basin
V-18 Major Dischargers - Duck River Basin 42
V-l9 Summary of Water Quality Assessments - Duck River Basin 43
V-20 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations in 45
the Duck River Basin
V-21 Major Dischargers - Lower Cumberland Basin 47
V-22 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Lower Cumberland Basin 47
V-23 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations in 50
the Lower Cumberland Basin
V-24 Major Dischargers - Upper Cumberland Basin 52
-------
V-25 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Upper Cumberland Basin 52
V-26 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations in 54
the Upper Cumberland Basin
V-27 Major Dischargers - Lower Tennessee Basin 56
V-28 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Lower Tennessee Basin 56
V-29 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations in 60
the Lower Tennessee Basin
V-30 Major Dischargers - Upper Tennessee Basin 62
V-31 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Upper Tennessee Basin 62
V-32 Water Quality at Ambient Stations in the 65
Upper Tennessee Basin
V-33 Major Dischargers - Clinch River Basin 66
V-34 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Clinch River Basin 67
V-35 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations in 69
the Clinch River Basin
V-36 Major Dischargers - French Broad River Basin 71
V-37 Summary of Waterbody Assessments-French Broad River Basin 71
V-38 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations in 74
the French Broad River Basin
V-39 Major Dischargers - Holston River Basin 75
V-40 Summary of Waterbody Assessments - Holston River Basin 75
V-41 Water Quality at Ambient Monitoring Stations in 78
the Holston River Basin
V-42 Summary of Waterbody Size Affected by Toxicity 79
V-43 EPA's Final 304(1) Short List - 80
V-44 Posted Waters in Tennessee 81
V-45 Fish Kills That Resulted in Enforcement Actions 85
V-46 Acute and Chronic Bioassays Indicating Toxicity 85
V-47 Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses 89
Affected By Various Cause Categories - Lakes
V-48 Total Sizes of Waters Hot Fully Supporting Uses 89
Affected By Various Source Categories - Lakes
V-49 Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses 90
Affected By Various Cause Categories - Rivers
V-50 Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses 91
Affected By Various Source Categories - Rivers
V-51 Lakes Impacted By Mining Drainage 92
-------
V-52 Clean Lakes Trophic Status Report 93
V-53 Threatened Wetland Areas 96
V-54 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals - Lakes 97
V-55 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals - Streams 97
V-56 Target and Alternate Target Watersheds For NPS Projects 100
V-57 Potential Target Watersheds For NPS Projects 101
V-58 Summary of Water Pollution Trends Across Tennessee 102
VI-1 Known and Suspected Groundwater Contamination 107
VII-1 Fixed Station Ambient Monitoring Network 113
VI1-2 Parameter List for the Water Column 116
VII-3 Continuous Fish Tissue Stations 118
VII-4 Analyses for Fish Tissue 118
riGURSS
Figure Name Page
II-l Location of Major Basins in Tennessee 3
11-2 Use Support in Tennessee Lakes and Streams 4
II-3 Relative Contributions of Major Causes in Impacted Lakes 7
II-4 Relative Contributions of Major Sources in Impacted Lakes 8
II-5 Relative Contributions of Major Causes in Impacted Streams 9
II-6 Relative Contributions of Major Sources in Impacted Streams 10
VII-1 Ambient Monitoring Sites in Tennessee 117
-------
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the Technical and Administrative Services
Section of the Division of Water Pollution Control, Tennessee Department
of Health and Environment. Garey Mabry is the manager of the Technical
and Administrative Services Section; Paul Davis is the Director of the
Division of Water Pollution Control.
The following persons worked directly on the report:
PROJECT COORDINATOR
Greg Denton
COMPUTER ASSISTANCE
Andy Griswold Morris Flexner
TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ASSISTANCE
Ralph Sinclair Paul Davis
PROOFREADING
Linda Tidwell
Special acknowledgement is given to the Field Office staff of the
Division of Water Pollution Control who spent many hours assessing the
waters of Tennessee for this report.
Additional sections of the report were prepared by or adapted from
information developed by the following agencies: the Divisions of
Ground Water Protection and Environmental Laboratories of the Department
of Health and Environment; the Tennessee Valley Authority; and the
Tennessee Department of Conservation. The cover photograph and design
were provided by Media Production Services, Department of General
Services.
-------
ZZ. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The federal Water Quality Act of 1987 placed a considerable number of
new reporting requirements on individual states and placed a much
greater emphasis on the 305(b) Report. Congress identified the 305(b)
Report as the official reporting mechanism for information on toxics,
nonpoint pollution, lakes, and water quality in general.
Tennessee's goals for the report are to assess the water quality
conditions of streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and ground water a3
measured by the degree of support for designated uses; to identify the
causes and sources of pollutants causing impacts; to provide information
concerning waters posing risks to human health; and to continue the
development of systematic efficient approaches for these studies. An
additional program goal was to increase the number of streams on which
water quality assessments were made on the basis of monitored data.
As in the 1988 Report, Tennessee's computerized Waterbody System (WBS)
has been used to store and compile assessment information. Streams and
lakes have been delineated into waterbodies based on EPA's River Reach
system and other hydrologic considerations. Currently, 11,418.48 stream
miles and 538,504 lake acres have been delineated into 804 waterbodies.
A map of Tennessee streams and hydrologic units appears in Figure II-l.
These waterbodies have been placed in one of four categories defined by
the Environmental Protection Agency based on the degree of support of
classified uses. These categories were: fully supporting; fully
supporting but threatened; partially supporting; and not supporting.
Waterbodies have been placed in the fully supporting, but threatened
category when the Division determined that present or projected
activities in the watershed had a high potential to negatively impact
water quality.
Table JI-1 presents the results of the statewide water quality
assessments. The Division was unable to assess some waterbodies due to
a lack of current information. Thus, the assessed stream miles total is
different from the total stream miles in the Waterbody System. Where
the assessment was based on relatively new data (less than five years
old), the waterbody was considered no&itored. In cases in which the
Division based an assessment on a specific knowledge of the waterbody
rather than new data, the assessment was considered evaluated.
Of the 11,418.48 stream miles identified in Tennessee's Waterbody
System, 10,247.09 were assessed for a statewide assessment rate of 90
percent. The assessment rate in the 1988 report was 85 percent. The
results of this assessment are illustrated in Figure II-2.
Sixty-three percent of the assessed miles were evaluated as fully
supporting designated uses. Of the 6,524.1 fully supporting stream
miles, 1,872.25 miles were considered threatened.
1
-------
TABLE II-l
SUMMARY OT WXTERBODY ASSESSMENTS
Statavid* for Rivera and Lilua
RIVERS (all «1e« unit* In STREAM MILKS)
TOTAL NUMBER OF MILES IN WBS: 11,418.48
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 229
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 408
637
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 3435.34 1216.50 4651.84
SIZE THREATENED 1061.80 810.45 1872.25
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 1532.20 1087.70 2619.90
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 371.15 731.95 1103.10
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
6400.49
3846.60 10247.09
LAKES (all tin unlta In ACRES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN WBS: 538,504
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 25
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 88
113
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 270622.00 105186.00 375808.00
SIZE THREATENED 2208.00 51499.00 53707.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 38163.00 21293.00 59456.00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 15274.00 34077.00 49351.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
326267.00 212055.00 538322.00
Thirty-seven percent of the assessed stream miles had some degree of
nonsupport of designated uses. 1,103.1 (10.8 percent) of these miles
were assessed as not supporting uses because of severe impairment by
pollution. 2,619.9 (25.6 percent) of the stream miles were assessed as
partially supporting uses.
Of the 538,504 publicly-owned lake acres in the state, 429,515 acres (80
percent) are considered fully supporting designated uses. Of these
fully supporting acres, 53,707 are considered threatened. The 80
percent of lake acres fully supporting uses is down from the 84 percent
that fully supported in 1988, due to the addition of Melton Hill and
Watts Bar Reservoirs to the list of lakes with some degree of nonsupport
of designated uses.
2
-------
FIGURE 11 — I. Location of Major Basins in Tennessee
1. Mississippi River
2. Memphis
3. Hatchie River
4. Obion-Forked Deer
5. Western Tennessee Valley
6, Elk-Shoal
7, Duck River
8, Lower Cumberland
9, Upper Cumberland
1.0. Lower Tennessee
11. Upper Tennessee
12. CI inch River
13. French Broad River
1ft. Ho1ston River
-------
USE SUPPORT IN STREAMS
NOT SUPPORTING
11*
FULLY SUPPORTING
45%
PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
26%
SUPPORTING BUT
THREATENED
18%
USE SUPPORT IN LAKES
NOT SUPPORTING
^ 0%
R\RTIALLY
¦5X5^ SUPPORTING
Kooo^ 11%
SUPPORTING BUT
THREATENED
10%
FULLY SUPPORTING
70%
FIGURE 11-2
-------
108,807 lake acres (20 percent) in Tennessee have been identified as
having some degree of nonsupport of designated uses. 49,351 acres (9
percent) have been identified as not supporting designated uses. Four
large lakes in Tennessee assessed as not supporting uses are Reelfoot
Lake, Woods, Melton Hill, and Fort Loudoun Reservoirs, plus a portion of
Watts Bar Reservoir. Reelfoot Lake is hypereutrophic and impacted by
sedimentation. Woods, Melton Hill, Fort Loudoun, and a portion of Watts
Bar have been posted against fish consumption because of elevated levels
of PCB's. (It is important to note that other uses are supported in
these lakes.)
Eleven percent (59,456) of the lake acres have been identified as
partially supporting designated uses. The largest of these partially
supporting lakes is Boone Reservoir. Boone Reservoir is eutrophic and
has been impacted by both point and nonpoint source pollution. The
entire lake is under a fishing advisory in which pregnant or nursing
women, and children are advised not to consume carp and crappie from
Boone Reservoir because of elevated levels of lead and carp and catfish
because of elevated levels of chlorinated organics (PCB's and
chlordane). Adults are advised to limit consumption of these fish to
1.2 pounds per month.
As a general statement, middle Tennessee appears to have better water
quality than does west and east Tennessee.If the basins in Tennessee
were to be ranked on the basis of the percentage of streams that fully
support designated uses, the Duck River basin would have the highest
percentage, followed by the Lower Cumberland, Elk-Shoal, Western
Tennessee, Lower Tennessee, Clinch, Upper Cumberland, Hatchie, Holston,
Upper Tennessee, Memphis, Obion-Forked Deer, French Broad, and
Mississippi Basins. However, due to the differences in assessment rates
in the basins, this ranking is imprecise.
It was difficult to make an assessment concerning water quality trends
in Tennessee because of the impacts of the drought of 198 6 and 1987 and
then the return to more normal rainfall amounts in 1988 and 198 9. In
areas of industrial and municipal discharges, the drought negatively
impacted water quality by reducing the amount of water for waste
assimilation. In areas historically impacted by nonpoint pollution,
water quality appeared to improve during the drought because of the
reduction of the intensity and frequency of precipitation. However,
increased rainfall amounts in the last two years have caused an apparent
decline in water quality as measured by chemical data from the
Division's ambient water quality stations.
There are 52 bodies of water in Tennessee posted against a public use.
Of these posted streams, 37 are because of elevated fecal coliform
levels which impact water contact recreation and fishing. The other 15
bodies of water are impacted by toxic materials.
These toxic material postings range from fish tissue advisories, in
which the public is cautioned to limit consumption of certain kinds of
fish because of the accumulation of these materials in fish tissue, to
5
-------
commercial fishing bans which can be enforced by the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency, to streams (Chattanooga Creek, East Fork Poplar Creek)
where toxic materials are at high enough levels in the water column or
sediment to impact water contact recreation. A list of the posted
streams in Tennessee appears in Chapter V.
The greatest causes of nonsupport in lakes are nutrients, low dissolved
oxygen, siltation and priority organics (listed by order of magnitude).
Major sources of these are agricultural activities, municipal
discharges, upstream impoundments, hydrologic modification, and mining
activities (listed by order of magnitude). The major causes and sources
of use impairment in lakes are illustrated in Figures II-3 and II-4. It
should be noted that only major impacts are illustrated in Figures II-3
and II-4. Data concerning slight or moderate impacts are presented in
Chapter V.
The greatest causes of nonsupport in streams are siltation and suspended
solids, fecal coliforms, low dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and flow
alteration (listed by order of magnitude). Major sources are
agriculture, hydrologic modification (channelization), municipal
discharges, mining activities, industrial discharges, upstream
impoundment, urban runoff, and construction activities (listed by order
of magnitude). Figures II-5 and II-6 illustrate the major causes and
sources of use impairment in streams. Data on slight and moderate
impacts are presented in Chapter V.
6
-------
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MAJOR CAUSES
IN IMPACTED LAKES
L
A
K
E
A
C
R
E
S
I
N
T
H
O
U
S
A
N
D
S
7/—7y // ^
F G H
C
D
E
KEY;
NUTRIENTS
ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/D.O.
SILTATION
PRIORITY ORGAN1CS
NOXIOUS AQUATIC PLANTS
F - SUSPENDED SOLIDS
G - FLOW ALTERATION
H - HABITAT ALTERATION
I - TASTE & ODOR
FIGURE 11-3
7
-------
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MAJOR SOURCES
IN IMPACTED LAKES
L
A
K
E
A
C
R
E
S
N
T
H
O
U
S
A
N
D
S
B
H
KEY:
A - AGRICULTURE
B - MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
C - CHANNELIZATION
OF TRIBUTARIES
D - HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION
E - SURFACE MINING
F - FLOW REGULATION
G - NATURAL
H - UPSTREAM IMPOUNDMENTS
I - URBAN RUNOFF
FIGURE II-4
8
-------
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MAJOR CAUSES
IN IMPACTED STREAMS
2000
1500
1000
500
7 /7VZ1'
L M N O P Q R
KEY:
A - SILTATION
B - SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C - PATHOGEN INDICATORS
D - ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/D.O.
E - NUTRIENTS
F - FLOW ALTERATION
G - pH
H - HABITAT ALTERATION
I - METALS
J - PRIORITY ORGANICS
K - FILLING & DRAINING
L - AMMONIA
M - PESTICIDES
N - UNKNOWN TOXICITY
O - OTHER INORGANICS
P - THERMAL MODIFICATION
Q - SALINITY/TDS/CHLORIDES
R - TASTE & ODOR
S - OIL & GREASE
FIGURE II-5
9
-------
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MAJOR
SOURCES IN IMPACTED STREAMS
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
KEY;
A - AGRICULTURE
B - HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION
C - MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE
D - RESOURCE EXTRACTION
E - INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
F - OTHER*
G - URBAN RUNOFF
H - CONSTRUCTION
I - SILVICULTURE
J - COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
K - OTHER POINT SOURCES
L - LAND DISPOSAL
FIGURE II-6
~PRIMARILY UPSTREAM IMPOUNDMENTS
1 0
-------
III. INTRODUCTION
The Status of Water Quality in Tennessee is produced biennially by the
Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control (WPC) in accordance with
Section 305(b) of the Water Quality Act of 1987. This report attempts
to quantify water quality statewide with emphasis on those areas with
documented stream-use impairment. Previous reports on this subject were
published in 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, and 1988.
Because of new requirements in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and the
need to improve the reporting process, a new format was first used in
the 1988 report and will continue to be used in this and future 305(b)
reports. Tennessee has implemented a computerized tracking system for
water quality information. This system, more fully described in Chapter
IV, has been used to generate much of the information in this report.
Each significant stream segment, lake and ground water resource has been
designated for certain uses by the Tennessee Water Quality Control
Board. Commonly designated uses of water resources include: domestic
water supply, fish and aquatic life, recreation, irrigation, livestock
watering and wildlife, industrial water use, and navigation. Water
Quality Standards are established by the Board in order to protect each
use.
The mandate of Tennessee's program is to protect water quality and to
some extent, quantity, for these uses. This is accomplished through
regulation of pollution sources, monitoring of streams and lakes, and
public education. This report is part of the education process, as it
provides a systematic approach for addressing pollution problems and a
mechanism for informing the public on how resources are being used.
Tennessee's 1990 305(b) Report attempts to provide a balanced approach
to water quality assessment by using sophisticated analysis techniques.
There are many words and concepts used consistently throughout this
report that are no doubt confusing to the layman. A general discussion
of these concepts is in order.
Water quality is a term that is generally taken to mean that the water
in a given area is clean enough to protect public health and to support
healthy populations of native plants and animals. When the water is no
longer clean enough for these purposes because of the entry of
substances that degrade water quality, that stream is said to be
polluted. Those substances or conditions that cause the degradation are
called pollutants.
All major streams and lakes in the state have been divided into
w«t*rbod±*a. A waterbody is a discrete stream, or section of a stream,
or group of streams that have similar hydrologic characteristics. An
effort has been made to identify, or aaaaaa the water quality in each
waterbody. However, those waterbodies on which no reliable information
is available have been identified as not assessed.
11
-------
For those waterbodies on which an assessment is possible, two categories
of assessment are used. Monitored waterbodies are those on which data -
less than five years old are available. Bvaluattd waterbodies are those
on which data more than five years old are available or those on which
an assessment can be made on the basis of special knowledge of the
stream and its watershed.
All assessed waterbodies are placed in one of four categories based on
how well that stream supports its classified uses. These categories
are: fully supporting uses; fully supporting, but tbraaten«d; partially
supporting uses, and not supporting ua«s. The category, fully
supporting but threatened, is considered to be a subset of the fully
supporting category.
Another commonly used term is nonsupport of classified uses. Nonsupport
refers to those stream miles that are in the partially supporting or not
supporting categories.
The assessment in waters that are monitored is based on the measurement
of chemical, physical, and biological values which exceed those levels
thought to be needed to protect water quality. An assessment in waters
that are evaluated consists of a judgment based on physical evidence
that water quality degradation does or does not occur in that waterbody.
A certain amount of judgment is Involved in either type of assessment.
The primary source of water quality information used in the assessment
process is the Division of Water Pollution Control's monitoring network.
A Hater Quality Index has been used to assist in the assessment process.
When appropriate, information provided by other agencies has been
Incorporated.
12
-------
IV. TENNESSEE GENERAL INTORMATIOH
83*71 POPULATION: 5,066,811 {University of Tennessee estimate)
STATE SURFACES AREA: 42,244 (square miles)
NUMBER or HYDROLOGIC BASINS: 13 major basins (For purposes
of this report, an additional
basin, the Mississippi, was
added)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER MILES: 19,124
NUMBER OF BORDER RIVER MILES: 210
NUMBER Or PUBLICLY OWNED LAKES: 117
TOTAL LAKE ACRES: 536,504
ACRES or FRESHWATER WETLANDS: 767,000
There are approximately 19,124 miles of streams in Tennessee. (This
total does not include those stream miles currently impoundmented.) The
Mississippi River, which is the western border of the state, represents
most of the 210 border stream miles in Tennessee. Small portions of the
Tennessee River are the northern and southern border of Tennessee.
Table IV-1 contains a summary of classified uses in Tennessee. Please
note that the stream reach information in this Table is based on data
entered in the Waterbody System and may be slightly different from the
classification information in Tennessee's Water Quality Criteria and
Stream Use Classifications for Interstate and Intrastate Streams
(Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, 1987).
Almost all of the stream miles and lake acres in Tennessee are
classified for fish and aquatic life, and most are also classified for
recreation, irrigation, and livestock watering and wildlife.
Navigation, domestic water supply, and industrial water supply are less
frequent classified uses.
TABLE IV-1
SUMMARY Or CLASSiriED USES OV NATERBODIES IN TENNESSEE
(BASED ON INFORMATION IN WATERBODY SYSTEM)
Classified Uses Waterbody Size
Streams (Miles) Lakes (Acres)
Domestic Water Supply 4,023.3 508,215.0
Industrial Water Supply 4,536.3 513,436,0
Fish and Aquatic Life 11,418.5 538,504.0
Recreation 11,087.2 538,504.0
Irrigation 11,034.9 538,504.0
Livestock Watering and wildlife 11,073.8 538,504.0
Navigation 1,366.8 349,844.0
13
-------
V. STATUS or SOTMOS K&TKR QUALITY
A. AaMinut Methodology
The Waf rbody System
In response to the need to develop a consistent methodology for
reporting water quality assessments nationwide, EPA developed the
Waterbody System. The Waterbody System allows the indexing of specific
stream segments by River Reach number. An assessment is then designated
for each segment or waterbody.
The first step in the process of creating Tennessee's Waterbody System
was to delineate individual waterbodies. A waterbody can be a stream, a
group of streams, or a part of a stream. The size and number of
waterbodies was left to the discretion of each individual state.
Field staff were requested to enter the following information about each
waterbody:
ASSESSMENT CATEGORY - Waterbodies on which the assessment was based on
data less than five years old were considered "monitored". Those on
which an assessment was based on data more than five years old or on a
special knowledge of the watershed were called "evaluated." Those
waterbodies upon which no information was available were considered
"unassessed."
ASSESSMENT INFORMATION SOURCE- If the assessment was based on data,
staff were asked to give the type, such as ambient monitoring, intensive
survey, desktop model, or other possibilities.
ASSESSMENT- The four assessment choices were; fully supporting,
supporting but threatened, partially supporting, and not supporting
designated uses. The Waterbody System allowed for the subdividing of
waterbodies into different assessments, but staff were encouraged to
make whole waterbody assessments.
EXTENT OF USE SUPPORT- For each classified use, whether that use was
impaired.
TREND- Whether each waterbody was improving, declining or stable as a
possible indication of trends.
TOXICS INFORMATION- This field was used to indicate any evidence of
toxic materials in the waterbody.
NONSUPPORT CAUSE- For those waterbodies placed in the partially or not
supporting categories, the cause of that nonsupport. Potential causes
included bacteria, sediment, suspended solids, low dissolved oxygen and
others.
POLLUTANT SOURCE- The likely source of the pollutants in the previous
category. The general source categories were point sources, specified
nonpoint source, agriculture, silviculture, construction, urban runoff,
resource extraction, land disposal, hydro-modification, unknown, and
other.
A generalized discussion of the results of the assessment appears in the
section "Basin Discussion of Water Quality" in this Chapter. In the
future, the Waterbody System will be updated on a regular basis and will
be highly utilized as a water quality tracking and planning tool.
14
-------
Wittr Quality Index
Ambient monitoring data collected by the Division of Water Pollution
Control during 1988 and 1989 were analyzed using a methodology similar
to that used In the production of the 1984, 1986, and 1988 305(b)
Reports, the 1985 State's National Nonpoint Assessment Project Report,
and the 1987 report Water Quality at Reelfoot Lake, 1976-1986. A Water
Quality Index (WQI) developed by Tom Entzminger (EPA Region VIII) and
modified for SAS (Statistical Analysis System) application by Richard
Olson (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) was used to assist in the
interpretation of water quality data. The WQI program was chosen
because it uses an unlimited number of parameters and multiple criteria.
Each body of water in Tennessee has been classified for certain uses.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsors research to establish
limits of physical, biological and chemical parameters needed to protect
each body of water for the uses assigned to it. The Division uses these
suggested limits to accomplish this to regulate pollution sources.
Some of these limits have been established by the Tennessee Water
Quality Control Board as Water Quality Criteria. Each classified use
has Criteria assigned to it. Generally, the most stringent criteria are
assigned for the protection of fish and aquatic life and water contact
recreation.
The WQI works by comparing actual field data against values assigned for
that parameter by the researcher.
Some of the values entered into the computer model came from
"Tennessee's Water Quality Criteria and Stream Use Classification for
Interstate and Intrastate Streams" (Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, 1987) , Following is a summary of parameters used in the
WQI, values assigned and source of the value used.
Vmzmamfx: Temperature
Valua: 30,5°C
Temperature is important to water quality because the amount of
dissolved oxygen in the water column is dependent on water temperature.
In general, warm water is able to carry much less dissolved oxygen than
cold water. Also, biological activity increases as the temperature
increases, creating Increased oxygen demand. The value 30.5°C is a
Water Quality Criterion established by the State of Tennessee (Tennessee
Department of Health and Environment, 1987).
(irmtac: Dissolved Oxygen
Value: 5.0 rng/1
Oxygen is necessary for respiration and assimilation of biological waste
products in aquatic systems. Major sources of oxygen in water are
photosynthesis by plants and oxygen absorbed from the air. The value
5.0 mg/1 is a Water Quality Criterion established by the State for the
protection of aquatic life.
The criteria allow exceptions to the 5.0 mg/1 standard but states that
"in no instance shall the dissolved oxygen concentration be less than
3.0 mg/1" (Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, 1987).
15
-------
Parameter :
Valua:
pH
6.5 - 8.5
The range 6.5 - 8.5 has been established as the acceptable range for pH
in lakes and streams for the protection of aquatic life. Violations of
this criterion on the lower end tend to be caused by acid deposition,
surface mine runoff or industrial discharges. Highly eutrophic lakes
such as Reelfoot Lake tend to violate water quality standards on the
high end of the pH range, usually as a result of high photosynthetic
rates indicative of large amounts of algae, the criteria also states
that pH "shall not fluctuate more than 1.0 unit in this range <6.5 -
8.5) over a period of 24 hours" (Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, 1987) .
Parameter: Dissolved Residue
Valua: 2,000 mg/1
Dissolved solids are inorganic salts and other dissolved materials such
as carbonates, chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, sodium, potassium, calcium
and magnesium. This parameter is much more of a concern for waters used
for drinking or industrial use. The value 2,000 mg/1 was used in the
WQI because research has Indicated stress on freshwater aquatic life
when dissolved residue reaches this level (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1986).
Parameter: Suspended Residue
Valua: 80 mg/1
The State of Tennessee does not have water quality criteria for
suspended solids. The value 80 mg/1 was used in the WQI because
research indicates that above this level aquatic life may be impacted.
Impacts include a reduction of light transmission (thus reducing the
area in which photosynthesis can occur), a reduction of habitat (through
siltation) for desirable animal species and physiological impacts on
fish and other aquatic life (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1986).
Parameter: Ammonia
Un-ionized ammonia (NH3) is the toxic form of ammonia. Ammonia toxicity
is pH dependent, with concentrations more toxic at higher pH levels.
Tennessee has no specific numerical criteria for ammonia. The value
0.66 mg/1 (NHj and NH4) was taken from EPA Guidance for the protection
of warmwater fish (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985).
Parameter: Arsenic
Valua: 72 ug/1
Arsenic is toxic to fish, plants and humans. The value used in the
Water Quality Index was taken from EPA Guidance (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1985).
Parameter: Ca dmi um
Valua: 2.0 ug/1
Cadmium is a heavy metal highly toxic to humans. The value 2.0 ug/1 was
used in WQI calculations and is derived from EPA Guidance (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1985).
Valua
0.66 mg/1
16
-------
Parameter: Total Chromium
Valua: 100 ug/1
The value 100 ug/1 is from EPA Guidance for the protection of fish and
aquatic life (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985).
Faramatar: Copper
Valua: 20 ug/1
Copper is potentially toxic to both plants and animals. The value used
in the WQI was based on the protection of aquatic life. It should be
noted that copper occurs naturally in many areas of Tennessee.
Determination of normal background levels is often difficult (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1985).
Faramatar: Lead
Valua: 50 ug/1
The value 50 ug/1 was used in WQI calculations and was derived from EPA
Guidance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985).
Paraaatar: Nickel
Valua: 56.0 ug/1
The value 56 ug/1 was used in WQI calculations and was derived from EPA
Guidance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986).
Paraaatar: Zinc
Valua: 100.0 ug/1
The value 100 ug/1 was used in WQI calculations and was derived from EPA
Guidance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986).
Paraaatar: Mercury
Valua: 0.2 ug/1
Mercury is a highly toxic metal that tends to bioaccumulate in the
environment. The value 0.2 ug/1 was used in calculations and also
represents the lower detection limit for this element (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1985).
Faramatar: Phosphorus
Valua: 0.2 mg/1
Phosphorus has shown to be the nutrient most responsible for excessive
plant and algae growth (eutrophication) in many lakes. The value 0.2
mg/1 was used in calculations. This nutrient tends to be in low levels
in lakes because it is utilized quickly by phytoplankton and other
aquatic plants. Significant measurements of phosphorus often indicate
large algal die-offs, sewage, detergents, or agricultural runoff.
Faramatar: Nitrate
Valua: 0.2 mg/1
The value 0.2 mg/1 was derived from EPA Guidance and a review of
relevant literature (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976) .
17
-------
Parameter:
Value:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5.0 mg/1
BOD is the amount of oxygen needed to assimilate a organic material in a
certain amount of water. The value 5.0 mg/1 (5 day BOD) was used in
calculations, based on the need to prevent dissolved oxygen levels from
falling below 5.0 mg/1, the Water Quality criteria for the protection of
fish and aquatic life (Tennessee Department of Health and Environment,
Fecal coliforms are indicator organisms used to determine the presence
of animal or human wastes in a body of water. The value 200 colonies
per 100 ml is a State of Tennessee criterion for the protection of
recreation (Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, 1987). The
actual recreation criteria states:
"The concentration of a fecal coliform group shall not exceed 200 per
100 ml. as a geometric mean based on a miniftium of 10 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. In addition, the concentration of the fecal coliform
group in any individual sample shall not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml."
Most fecal coliform samples collected by the Division of Water Pollution
Control are individual samples. Thus, technically the 200 per 100
milliliter standard should not apply. However, since this is a water
quality assessment report rather than an enforcement report, the 200 per
100 milliliter value was used.
Only the parameters temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (fish and aquatic
life) and fecal coliforms (recreation) have WQI values assigned to them
that are actually based on Tennessee Water Quality Standards. All other
values are based on EPA Guidance or other relevant scientific
literature.
1987).
Parameter:
Value:
Fecal Coliforms
200/100 ml
18
-------
B. Baals Aaaaaamant
This section will follow a basin-by-baain approach to describe water
quality. The major source for geologic and hydraulic information was
Alexander, et al. (1984). Water quality information was generated from
the Waterbody specific assessment performed by the Division of Water
Pollution Control field staff in December, 1989, and January and
February of 1990. Some of the lakes information was supplied by the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Mlaalaalppl Rlvar Basin
Traditionally, the main stem of the Mississippi River has not been
considered as a separate major basin in Tennessee but subdivided and
grouped with the Obion-Forked Deer, the Hatchie, and Memphis basins.
However, because of the volume of water carried by the Mississippi and
significant water quality problems in some areas, for this report the
Mississippi will be discussed as a separate basin.
The Mississippi basin includes that part of the Mississippi River within
the western boundary of Tennessee and minor tributaries not included in
the Obion-Forked Deer, the Hatchie, or Memphis basins. For the most
part, the Mississippi forms the boundary between Tennessee and Arkansas
and Missouri. However, some changes in the river's course have occurred
since the boundary was established.
The Mississippi basin in Tennessee covers 637 square miles of land and
water area and consists of the following major hydrologic units as
delineated in EPA's River Reach system.
Major
Hydrologic
Unit
08010100
08010100
0B010100
08010100
Basin
Description
Mississippi Valley in Tennessee
above the Obion River
Mississippi Valley in Tennessee from
the Obion River to the Hatchie River
Mississippi Valley in Tennessee from the
Hatchie River to the Loosahatchie River
Mississippi Valley in Tennessee
below the Loosahatchie River excluding
the Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek
Tennessee
drainage area
(square miles)
156
235
148
98
From the Kentucky state line, the Mississippi River flows in a southerly
direction for about 200 miles to the Mississippi state line. At
Memphis, the Mississippi River has a drainage area of approximately
928,700 square miles. The Mississippi River is the outlet for all
streams in the state located west of the Tennessee Valley. The
topography of the Tennessee portion of the Mississippi basin is
characterized as a very flat alluvial floodplain bordered by uplands.
Both the upland and floodplain areas are susceptible to soil erosion.
The delta lands are highly productive agricultural areas.
The Mississippi basin encompasses the western parts of Lake, Dyer,
Lauderdale, Tipton, and Shelby Counties. With the exception of portions
of Memphis that extend into the Mississippi basin, there are no urban
areas within this basin and only 3 major dischargers (See Table V-l).
19
-------
TABLE V-l
Matrox Diachargara - Miaaiaaippi Basin
Permit ~
Name
County
Receiving Stream
TN0020729
TN0020711
Memphis-North STP
Memphis-South STP
TVA-Allen Steam
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Mississippi River
Mississippi River
TN0005355
McKellar Lake
The Mississippi River basin lies within the jurisdiction of the Memphis
and Jackson Field Offices of the Division of Water Pollution Control,
The staffs of these two offices combined information in order to assess
this basin. This assessment indicates severe water quality problems.
There are 227.3 miles of streams in the Mississippi River basin
identified and delineated in Tennessee's Waterbody System. Field office
staff were able to assess 183.5 of these miles <82 percent). According
to this assessment, no assessed streams in the Mississippi basin fully
supported their designated uses.
Fish and aquatic life, plus recreational use of the Mississippi River
near Memphis, are severely impaired by toxic materials. The Mississippi
River is posted against fish consumption and commercial fishing from the
Mississippi state line to mile 745 near the mouth of the Loosahatchie
River. This 34 mile waterbody is posted because of elevated levels of
chlordane, a highly toxic pesticide.
The source of this contamination is not clearly identified. There are
background levels of chlordane detected in most Mississippi River
samples, suggesting sources in states to the north of Tennessee.
However, only in the Memphis area have chlordane levels been high enough
to justify posting the river against public uses. This would seem to
indicate an additional source of chlordane in the Memphis area.
The Tennessee Division of Mater Pollution Control has completed a report
documenting the monitoring of toxic materials in Mississippi River fish
near Memphis. The report, entitled "Mississippi River Fish
Contamination Survey," documents the cooperative monitoring of this
problem by a multi-state task force and EPA (Collins, Robinson, and
Sinclair, 1989).
The remainder of the Mississippi River has been assessed as partially
supporting classified uses. This nonsupport is caused by high suspended
solids, nutrients, and occasionally elevated levels of toxic materials.
Table V-2 contains a summary of the waterbody assessments for the
Memphis basin.
TABLE V-2
fSffllMlRY t%W VlVKfifiAnY lQSlQQlflENT.Q
oUCftralllvJi vl WiJlif>PviL».l AddlidaiiU'lio
MISSISSIPPI BASIN
RIVERS (all alia unita in STREAM MILES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER HATERBODIES ASSESSED : 5
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 2
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 3
20
-------
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED .00 .00 .00
SIZE THREATENED .00 .00 .00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 119.20 37.30 156.50
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING .00 27.00 27.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED 119.20 64.30 183.50
LMMES (all sis* units la ACRZS)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 0
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 2
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED .00 .00 .00
SIZE THREATENED .00 .00 .00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 18.00 .00 18.00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 125.00 .00 125.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED 143.00 .00 143.00
* Assessments apply only to the Tennessee portion of the Mississippi
River.
McKellar Lake is a backwater area of the Mississippi River. Because of
chlordane levels in fish, this body of water has been included in the
commercial fishing ban on the Mississippi River. Recently, testing of
fish for the presence of dioxin by the Department and EPA has indicated
that this substance may also pose a public health threat. Additional
testing is planned to confirm the previous results and more clearly
identify the impacted area. If possible, the dioxin source to McKellar
Lake will be identified and controlled.
There are only two publicly-owned lakes in the Mississippi River basin.
(The definition of "publicly-owned lake" used in this report is that
established in the 1980 report, Survey of Publicly-Owned Lakes and
Reservoirs, which was produced by the then Department of Public Health.)
These lakes, Piersol and Poplar Tree Lakes, are located in Meeman-Shelby
State Park and are managed by the Tennessee Department of Conservation.
Both lakes are highly eutrophic because of their history of nutrient
addition by managers. However, information contributed by the Division
of State Parks (Jensen, 1989) indicates that these two lakes have not
been fertilized since 1984. If this practice is not reintroduced, these
lakes have a good chance for water quality improvement. (Nutrient
addition is a fisheries management practice in which bulk nutrients are
dumped into a lake in the hope that it will improve fishing.)
Although there are no ambient monitoring stations on the Mississippi
River, it is sampled for contaminated fish tissue on a regular basis.
Additional details concerning toxics monitoring in Tennessee can be
found in Chapter VIII.
21
-------
Mamphla Baa in
The Memphis Area basin covers 1,461 square miles of land and water area
and consists of all or parts of the following major hydrologic units as
delineated in EPA's River Reach system.
Major
Hydrologic
Unit
08010209
08010210
08010211
Basin
Description
Loosahatchie River and tributaries
Wolf River and tributaries
Nonconnah Creek and tributaries
Tennessee
drainage area
(square miles)
742
569
150
The Loosahatchie River rises in the steep hills of Hardeman County and
flows in a westerly direction for about 65 miles across Fayette and
Shelby Counties to its confluence with the Mississippi River at river
mile 740.5, just north of the city of Memphis. Major tributaries
include Big, Beaver, and Clear Cypress Creeks. The drainage area of
this basin is approximately 742 square miles. Elevations range from
about 220 to 660 feet above sea level.
The Wolf River originates south of the Mississippi state line and flows
in a northwesterly direction for about 80 miles across Fayette and
Shelby Counties, through the northern part of Memphis to its confluence
with the Mississippi River at river mile 738.7. Major tributaries
include Grays, Fletcher, Shaws, and North Fork Creeks. The drainage
area of this basin is approximately 825 square miles. Of this,
approximately 569 square miles are included in the West Tennessee area.
Elevations range from about 215 to 660 feet above sea level.
Nonconnah Creek also originates just south of the Tennessee-Mississippi
State line and flows in a northwesterly direction for 25 miles across
Fayette and Shelby Counties, through the southern part of the city of
Memphis to its terminus with McKellar Lake, an offshoot of the
Mississippi River. Major tributaries include Johns, Ten Mile, Hurricane,
and Days Creeks. The drainage area of this basin is approximately 183
mi2. Of this, approximately 150 mi2 are included in the West Tennessee
area. Elevations range from about 200 to 400 feet above sea level.
Topography in the Loosahatchie River, Wolf River, and Nonconnah Creek
basins is characterized as being gently rolling, interrupted by small
ditches and drainage divides. Some gullied topography has developed and
wetlands are common.
The Memphis Area basin encompasses all or major parts of Fayette and
Shelby Counties as well as minor parts of Hardeman, Haywood, and Tipton
Counties. The largest city within the basin is Memphis with a 1980
population of 646,356. Other cities with 1980 populations greater than
5,000 include Germantown (20,459), Millington (20,236), Bartlett
(12,080), and Collierville (7,839). A list of major dischargers appears
in Table V-3.
The Memphis basin is within the jurisdiction of the Memphis Field
Office. A Waterbody Assessment summary for the Memphis basin appears in
Table V-4.
22
-------
TABLE V-3
Major Diachargara - llani'ili 1 m Basis
Permit ~ Name County
TN0000442 Alpha Resins Corp. Fayette
TN0026344 Rossville STP Fayette
TN0057461 Collierville STP Shelby
TN0001091 Dupont-Memphis Shelby
TN0021067 Millington STP Shelby
TN0000078 Q 0 Chemical, Inc. Shelby
Receiving Stream
Wolf River
Wolf River
Wolf River
Loosahatchie River
Big Creek
Wolf River
SABLE V-4
SUMMARY OT WATERBQDY ASSESSMENTS
MEMPHIS BASIN
RIVERS (all aiza unita in 8TRJUM MILKS)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 33
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 15
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 18
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 82.50 28.60 111.10
SIZE THREATENED 24.30 .00 24.30
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 98.60 93.60 192.20
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 2.00 52.40 54.40
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED 207.40 174.60 382.00
LAKES (all aisa unita in ACRES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 0
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 4
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 17.00 .00 17.00
SIZE THREATENED .00 .00 .00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 81.00 .00 81.00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 177.00 .00 177.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED 275.00 .00 275.00
There are 388.4 Memphis basin stream miles entered into Tennessee's
Waterbody System. The water quality assessments in this basin indicate
poor water quality. Only 35 percent of the assessed stream miles in the
Memphis basin fully support designated uses. The other 65 percent of
streams had some degree of nonsupport {14 percent not supporting, 51
percent partially supporting).
23
-------
Two major streams In the Memphis basin, the Wolf and Loosahatchie
Rivers, have parts posted against public use because of contaminated
fish tissue. The Wolf River is posted against fish consumption from the
mouth of the river to mile 18.9 because of elevated chlordane levels.
The Loosahatchie River from the mouth to mile 20.9 is posted against
fish consumption for the same reason. The source of the chlordane is
not clear.
Other waterbodies in the Memphis basin assessed as not currently
supporting designated uses are Cypress Creek (in the Wolf River basin)
and the lower portion of Nonconnah Creek. Designated uses of Nonconnah
Creek are not supported because of metals, siltation, suspended solids,
low dissolved oxygen and organic enrichment, plus fecal coliforms.
Sources of these pollutants are thought to be predominantly construction
runoff, urban runoff, impacts related to stream channelization, and
industrial and other point source discharges. Refined Metals discharges
to this stream and was listed on EPA * a final version of the 304(1) short
list as discharging priority pollutants in toxic amounts. (Section
304(1) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 required states and EPA to
identify streams and lakes not fully supporting designated uses because
of toxicity.) An investigation into the possibility of dioxin
contamination of fish tissue in Nonconnah Creek is ongoing.
Several streams or portions of streams in the Memphis basin are assessed
as only partially supporting designated uses. Big Creek partially
supports designated uses because of suspended solids and siltation
caused by agricultural impacts that are magnified by stream
modification. Fletcher Creek uses are severely impacted by suspended
solids and metals. The sources of these pollutants are thought to be
urban runoff, channelization impacts, and point source dischargers.
The portion of the Loosahatchie and Wolf Rivers upstream of the area
that is posted, plus Nonconnah Creek have been assessed as partially
supporting designated uses. These streams are impacted by suspended
solids, fecal coliforms, siltation, and ammonia. Sources of these
pollutants are thought to be related to agricultural operations,
channelization in the watershed, and commercial and residential
construction activities in the Memphis area.
Additional streams in the basin assessed as partially supporting uses
include: Cypress Creek (Loosahatchie watershed), Beaver Creek, Horn Lake
Creek, Gray's Creek, Davis Creek and John's Creek. All are considered
impacted by agricultural activities. In addition, Grays and John's
Creeks are impacted by construction activities and Beaver and Horn Lake
Creeks are impacted by channel modification.
There are relatively few publicly-owned lakes in the Memphis area. The
largest of these, Herb Parsons Lake, is severely impacted by
eutrophication. The lake, which is managed by the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency, has a history of nutrient additions and has been
identified as being the most eutrophic lake in Tennessee (Tennessee
Department of Public Health, 1980) .
Caspar Lake has also been identified as only partially supporting
designated uses and is impacted by urban runoff. Two streams in the
Memphis basin have been assessed as fully supporting, but threatened by
current or projected activities in the watershed. These are Golden
Creek and the North Fork Wolf River which are impacted by silt loadings
from agricultural sources.
There are seven ambient monitoring stations in the Memphis basin. The
results of the Water Quality Index data from these stations is presented
in Table V-5.
24
-------
Tabl• ~-§. Watar Quality at JUabiant Monitoring Stations in tha Memphis Basin, 1986-1987.
Straaa
River Mil*
Station Humbar
County
Avarag*
EzctMdenca
Valua
Water
Quality
Indax
Paramatar
of
Concarn
Coomanta
Loosahatchie River
50.3
TN0017 68 Fayette
Loosahatchie River
50.3
TN001790 Shelby
~Loosahatchie River
5.2
TN001800 Shelby
Nonconnah Creek
2.2
TN001920 Shelby
•Wolf River
1.5
TNQ03845 Shelby
Wolf River
32.2
TN003925 Shelby
Wolf River
72.6
TN003927 Fayette
•posted stream segment
22.5
13.0
15.4
16.4
20.9
7.4
10.5
Suspended residue
fecal, copper,
6.59 nitrate, low pH
Fecal, nitrate,
4.76 phosphorus
fecal, nitrate,
11.79 phosphorus
Phosphorus,
low pH, fecal,
17.43 nitrate, copper
Fecal, low pH,
15.13 nitrate
1.80 Fecal, low pH
2.17 Low pH, nitrate
Sewer overflows
and agricultural
runoff
Agricultural
runoff
Urban runoff
and industrial
Urban runoff
and industrial
Urban Runoff
and Past Waste
Disposal
Parameters of concern are defined as
than 251 of the observations.
those that exceeded fish and aquatic life or recreation criteria in
more
-------
Hatchie Baaln
The Tennessee portion of the Hatchie River baain covers 1,877 square
miles of land and water area and consists of all or parts of the
following tributary basins as delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Major
Hydrologic
Unit
08010207
08010208
Basin
Description
Tennessee
drainage area
(square miles)
Hatchie River basin above Searles including 424
Little Hatchie Creek
Hatchie River basin from Searles to 1453
mouth on Mississippi River
The Hatchie River originates in Mississippi and flows in a northwesterly
direction for about 185 miles across McNairy, Hardeman, Haywood, Tipton,
and Lauderdale Counties to its confluence with the Mississippi River at
river mile 773.3, approximately 34 miles due north of the City of
Memphis. Major tributaries include the Tuscumbia River, Porters Creek,
Clear Creek, Glover Creek, Bear Creek, Big Muddy Canal, Indian Creek,
and Spring Creek.
Elevations range from about 230 to 665 feet above sea level. Topography
is characterized as gently rolling, interrupted by small ditches and
drainage divides. Some gullied topography has developed and wetlands
are common. The Hatchie River basin encompasses all or major parts of
Haywood, Hardeman, Lauderdale, McNairy, and Tipton Counties as well as
minor parts of Chester, Fayette, Madison and Shelby Counties. The
largest city within the basin is Brownsville with a 1980 population of
9,307. Other cities within the basin with a 1980 population greater
than 5,000 are Bolivar (6,597), Covington (6,065) and Ripley (6,366).
The major industrial and municipal facilities that discharge into
streams in the Hatchie basin are listed in Table V-6. The Hatchie River
basin area is split between the jurisdictions of the Memphis and Jackson
Field Offices. An assessment summary appears in Table V-7.
TABLE V-fi
Major Discbargara - Batch!* Riv*r Basis
Permit ~ Name
TN0000191 Armira Company
TN0062189 Bolivar STP
TN0000779 Harman International
TN0062367 Brownsville STP
TN0020982 Covington STP
TN0027715 Ray-O-Vac
TN0001180 TN Electroplating
TN0026565 SR of Tennessee
County
Hardeman
Hardeman
Hardeman
Haywood
Tipton
Tipton
Lauderdale
Lauderdale
Receiving Stream
Hatchie River
Spring Creek
Hatchie River
Hatchie River
Hatchie River
Town Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Hyde Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Cane Creek
26
-------
TABLE V-7
SUMMARY Or HATERBCJDY ASSESSMENTS
HATCHIE RIVER BASIN
RIVERS (all sis* units In STREAM MILES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 15
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED ; 10
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 5
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 37.40 9.00 46.40
SIZE THREATENED 16.20 109.80 126.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 25.40 64.40 89.80
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING .00 39.60 39.60
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED 79.00 222.80 301.80
LAKES (all aire units in ACRES}
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED ; 10
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 0
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 10
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
SIZE THREATENED
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
46.00 .00 46.00
21.00 .00 21.00
272.00 .00 272.00
36.00 .00 36.00
375.00 .00 375.00
There are a total of 466.5 stream miles delineated in this Waterbody
System. Of these miles, 301.8 miles were assessed. Although some of
its tributaries are channelized, the main stem of the Hatchie is, for
the most part, unaltered. This fact is reflected in the water quality
of the Hatchie River basin being much better than that found in its
heavily channelized neighbor, the Obion-Forked Deer Basin.
In the Hatchie Basin, 172.4 miles of streams fully support their
designated uses <46.4 of these miles are considered threatened). This
represents 57 percent of the total assessed miles in the basin.
Thirteen percent of the total assessed stream miles do not support
designated uses and 30 percent are assessed as partially supporting.
Within the Hatchie basin, Clover Creek and Cane Creek are assessed as
not supporting designated uses. Clover Creek is heavily impacted by
siltation from agriculture and other nonpoint sources.
27
-------
During the summer and fall of 1989, the Division of Water Pollution
Control with assistance from the Division of Laboratory Services Aquatic
Biology Section, performed an intensive toxicity survey on Cane Creek, a
tributary to the Hatchie River in Lauderdale County. Special emphasis
was given to the three major dischargers to Cane Creek and its
tributaries: the City of Ripley sewage treatment plant, Slegal-Roberts
of Tennessee, and Tennessee Electroplating. The survey served as a
follow-up to a 1984 intensive survey and was used to provide information
relative to the reissuance of NPDES permits to the three dischargers.
Sampling consisted of whole effluent toxicity bloassay surveys; chemical
sampling at 9 in-stream sites,* biological sampling at 14 in-stream
sites; sediment sampling below the electroplating operations; and
priority pollutant screening of effluent from the three major
discharges. These data indicate that Cane Creek and its tributaries are
impacted by toxic discharges from all three facilities, although
treatment from Ripley's sewage treatment plant has greatly improved. A
report of survey results has been finalized (Denton, Rector, and
Arnwine, 1990).
Three streams or portions of streams within the basin have been assessed
as partially supporting designated uses. A 37 mile stretch of the
Hatchie River is impacted by agricultural activities and the
channelization of tributaries in the watershed. Town, Bear, and
Porter's Creek are impacted by high sediment loads caused by
agricultural activities and channelization. Sugar Creek is impacted by
agriculture, urban runoff and point source dischargers.
Streams assessed as fully supporting but threatened include five
segments of the Hatchie River threatened primarily by the channelization
of tributaries and agricultural activities. One section of the river
near Bolivar is also threatened by point sources. Placid Lake, also in
the Hatchie Basin, has been assessed as fully supporting, but threatened
because of artificial fertilization.
There are relatively few publicly-owned lakes in the Hatchie basin and
all are small. Most are found in wildlife areas or state parks and are
highly impacted by eutrophication. As shown in Table V-7, only 18
percent of the lake acres in this basin fully support designated uses.
There are two lakes in this basin assessed as not supporting designated
uses; Fort Pillow Lake and Hatchie Wildlife Refuge Pit #1. Fort Pillow
Lake is managed by the Tennessee Department of Conservation and is
fertilized annually. The Hatchie Wildlife Refuge Pit #1 is managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although both lakes are
hypereutrophic, the impacts to Fort Pillow Lake are because of the
lake's management whereas Hatchie Wildlife Refuge Pit #1 is impacted by
natural sources of nutrients.
Lakes in the Hatchie Basin assessed as partially supporting designated
uses include: Big Hill Pond, Lajoie Lake, McCool Lakes #1 and <2, and
Whiteville Lake. Lajoie and Whitevllle Lakes are fertilized annually.
There are five ambient monitoring stations in the Hatchie River basin.
The results of the Water Quality Index analysis of data from these
stations appears in Table V-8.
28
-------
Table Wata* Quality at tabiant Monitoring Stations In Hatchia Basis, 1987-1988.
StMia
Rivar Mil*
Station lfuabar
County
Avaraga Water Parameter
Kxcaadanca Quality of .
Value
TtwUt
Conc«rnJ
Comments
to
VO
Hatchle River
182.0
TN001450
Hatchle River
122.1
TN001480
Hatchle River
80.8
TN001511
Hatchie River
22.0
111001545
Hardeman
Hardeman
Haywood
Tipton
6.6
8.8
6.7
10.0
1.36 Low pH
Low pH,
1.36 nitrate, fecal
Low pH
1.89 nitrate, fecal
3.37 Low pH, nitrate
STP and
industrial
discharge
1 Parameters of concern are those that exceeded fish and aquatic life or recreation criteria in more than 25% of
the observations.
-------
Obion-forked dmi Basin
The Tennessee portion of the Obion-Forked Deer River basin covers 4,412
square miles of land and water area and consists of all or parts of the
following tributary basins as delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Major
Hydrologic Basin
Unit Description
08010203 Middle, Rutherford and South Fork Obion
08010202 Obion River including North Fork Obion
River excluding Forked Deer River and
Middle and South Forks Obion River
08010201 Minor tributaries south of the
Kentucky state line
08010205 South Fork Forked Deer River from
headwaters to mouth
08010204 North Fork Forked Deer River Including
the Middle Fork
08010206 Forked Deer River below the confluence
of the North and South Forks
Tennessee
drainage area
(sauare miles)
426
1901
5
1061
952
67
The Obion River through its principal tributaries, the North, South,
Middle, and Rutherford Forks, rises in the uplands of Henry, Weakley,
and Carroll Counties. From the junction of its North and South Forks,
it flows in a southwesterly direction for about 83 miles across Obion,
Dyer, and Lauderdale Counties to its confluence with the Mississippi
River at river mile 819.4. Other major tributaries include the Forked
Deer River and Running Reelfoot Bayou. The drainage area of this basin
(excluding the Forked Deer River watershed) is approximately 2,475
square miles. Elevations range from about 250 feet to 670 feet above
sea level. Topography in the Obion-Forked Deer basin is characterized
as gently rolling, interrupted by small ditches and drainage divides.
Some gullied topography has developed and wetlands are common.
The Obion-Forked Deer River basin encompasses all or major parts of
Carroll, Chester, Crockett, Dyer, Gibson, Lake, Madison, Obion, and
Weakley Counties as well as minor parts of Haywood, Henderson, Henry,
Lauderdale, and McNairy Counties. The largest city within the basin is
Jackson with a 1980 population of 49,131. Other cities within the basin
with 1980 populations greater than 5,000 are Dyersburg (15,856), Union
City (10,436), Martin (8,898), Milan (8,083), McKenzie (5,934), and
Humboldt (10,209), Table V-9 contains a list of the major dischargers
in the Obion-Forked Deer basin.
VABLK V-9
Major Dischargers -
ObioB-rorkad Dmi
Basin
Permit #
Name
County
Receiving Stream
TN0020613
McKenzie STP
Carroll
Clear Creek
TN0026247
Bells Lagoon
Crockett
Forked Deer River
TN0023477
Dyersburg STP
Dyer
N. Fork Forked
Deer River
TN0062588
Humboldt STP
Gibson
Forked Deer River
TN0062375
Milan STP
Gibson
Wolf Creek
TN0000060
USA Milan Army Ammo
Gibson
Wolf Creek
TN0000264
Consolidated Aluminum Madison
Anderson Branch
TN0024813
Jackson U D STP
Madison
S. Fork Forked
Deer River
TN0021580
Union City STP
Obion
Obion River
TN0062545
Martin STP
Weakley
Cane Creek
30
-------
The Obion-Forked Deer basin is within the jurisdiction of the Jackson
Field Office. A summary of water quality assessments for this basin
appear in the table below.
TABLE V-10
SUMMARY OF KATERBODT ASSESSMENTS
OBION-FORKED DEER RIVER BASIN
RIVERS (mil slsa units is STREAM MILES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 59
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 27
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 32
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 35.40 42.20 77.60
SIZE THREATENED 63.10 73.40 136.50
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 230.50 214.40 444.90
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 147.15 177.10 324.25
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED 476.15 507.10 983.25
LAKES (all aiz* unita in ACRES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 7
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED ; 3
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 4
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 570.00 .00 570.00
SIZE THREATENED 283.00 .00 283.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING .00 10950.00 10950.00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 87.00 4550.00 4637.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
940.00
15500.00
16440.00
There are 1,050.4 miles of streams in the Obion-Forked Deer basin
delineated in Tennessee's Waterbody System. Water quality assessments
were possible on 983.25 of these miles. This is an assessment rate of
94 percent.
Of the 983.25 assessed stream miles in the Obion-Forked Deer basin, only
22 percent (214.1 miles) fully support designated uses. The other 78
percent of assessed stream miles have some degree of nonsupport.
Fourty-five percent (444.9 miles) only partially support designated uses
and 33 percent (324.25 miles) do not support.
Streams in the Obion-Forked Deer basin Identified as having sections not
supporting designated uses include: the Obion River, Harris Fork,
Cypress Creek, Davidson Creek, Richland Creek, Clover Creek, Crooked
Creek, North Fork Forked Deer River, Forked Deer River, South Fork
Forked Deer, Turkey Creek, Pond Creek, Reelfoot Creek, Running Reelfoot
Bayou, and Bayou du Chien.
31
-------
Streams in the Obion-Forked Deer basin identified as having sections
partially supporting designated uses include: the North Fork Obion
River, South Fork Obion River, Rutherford Fork Obion River, Middle Fork
Obion River, North Fork Forked Deer, South Fork Forked Deer, Middle Fork
Forked Deer, Hoosier Creek, Mill Creek, Reeds Creek, Mud Creek, Richland
Creek, Biffle Creek, Indian Creek, Beaver Creek, Clear Creek, Sugar
Creek, Buck Creek, Lewis Creek, Black Creek, Nixon Creek, and Anderson
Branch.
Most of the streams showing water quality problems in this basin are
impacted by agricultural activities and channelization. Some, such as
Biffle Creek, Reeds Creek, North Fork Obion River, Harris Fork,
Rutherford Fork Obion River, Clear Creek, Turkey Creek, Beaver Creek,
Mill Creek, South Fork Obion River, Middle Fork Obion River, Nixon
Creek, Mud Creek, and South Fork Forked Deer, and the Forked Deer River
are also impacted by point source discharges.
There are two lakes in the Obion-Forked Deer Basin that are assessed as
not supporting designated uses; Reelfoot Lake and Humboldt Lake.
Reelfoot Lake is the largest lake in west Tennessee and has been the
site of intense water quality research in the last ten years. Part of
this work has been performed by the Division of Water Pollution Control.
On the basis of these studies, Reelfoot Lake has been assessed as not
currently supporting designated uses. Cause of this nonsupport is
hypereutrophication and associated high nutrient levels, low dissolved
oxygen, high suspended solids, and sedimentation which cause impact fish
and aquatic life and water contact recreation. Sources of these
pollutants are agricultural activities in the watershed that have been
intensified by channelization. Reelfoot also has significant natural
sources of nutrients.
Tributaries to Reelfoot such as Bayou du Chien and Reelfoot Creek are
also assessed as not supporting designated uses because of high
suspended solids, fecal coliforms, BOD, and occasionally metals. Indian
Creek, a smaller tributary, has been assessed as partially supporting
because of the hydro-modification of the stream. Reelfoot Lake's outlet
to the Obion River, Running Reelfoot Bayou, is assessed as not
supporting because of discharges of low quality water from Reelfoot Lake
plus agricultural activities and channelization between Reelfoot Lake
and the Obion River.
The U.S. Geological Survey has been involved in an October, 1987,
through February, 1989, study of sediment and nutrient loadings, plus
pesticide levels, during storm events in the North and South Reelfoot
Creek. Of the pesticides analyzed, only atrazine and alachor were
regularly detected, both generally at low levels (maximum levels 58 and
45 parts per billion, respectively). A report concerning the study is
being produced.
Humboldt Lake in Crockett County is managed by the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency. It is fertilized on a regular basis and, as a result,
is hypereutrophic and does not support designated uses.
Several streams in the Obion-Forked Deer Basin have been assessed as
fully supporting but threatened by current or projected activities in
the watershed. These include the South Fork of the Obion, Reedy Creek,
the North Fork of the South Fork Forked Deer, Sugar Creek, Middle Fork
Forked Deer, Clear Creek, Garrett Lake, and Crooked Creek.
Table V-ll presents the results of the Water Quality Index analysis of
data from the 14 ambient monitoring stations in the Obion-Forked Deer
Basin. There are no posted streams in this basin.
32
-------
labia V-ll. Natac Quality at tafclut Mo&itorlBq Itatlosa is Oblon-rorked Sau Basis, 1981-lflt.
U)
U)
It i
Kivar Klla
ttatloa »a«bar
N. Fork Forked Deer
20.5
TN001852
Middle Fork Forked
Deer River
30.5
TNQ01851
Middle Fork Forked
Deer River
14.«
TN001B53
Middle Fork Obion
14.6
TN0Q1855
Middle Fork Oblori
•J.5
TN00185S
North Fork Obion
18.0
TN001997
North Fork Obion
5.9
TH001999
Obion River
62.4
TNOQ2026'
Obion River
20.9
TN002027
S. Fork Forked Deer
62.0
TN002472
S. Fork Forked Deer
43.2
TN002487
South Fork
Forked Deer
30.4
TN0Q2500
South Fork Obion
25.0
TN00264S
South Fork Obion
9.7
TN0Q2649
Rutherford rork Obion
29.9
TN002371
Rutherford Fork Obion
17.9
TN002372
Coanty
Gibson
Gibson
Gibson
Weakley
Weakley
Obion
Obion
Obion
Dyer
Madison
Had!ton
Haywood
Carroll
Neakley
Gibson
Gibson
Avarag*
IxcMdanoa
V«lo«
9.3
Water
Quality
lodaz
3.18
10.S
13.8
13.9
12.5
15.1
17.1
19.6
11.3
9.6
17.6
17.9
11.1
4.9
9.7
11.0
3.2#
4.54
3.95
4.88
3.85
8.51
11.38
3.53
4,14
13.37
35.47
2.91
1.27
3.70
7.32
(aruMttr
CentLrl
reeal, '
phosphorus,
nitrate
Nitrate,
low pH, fecal
Fecal, nitrate,
suspended
residue
Nitrate, lead
low pH
Nitrate,
low pH, fecal
Nitrate,
low pH, fecal
Fecal,
nitrate,
phosphorus
Cadmium, nitrate
susp, res., fecal
phosphorus, zinc
Fecal, nitrate,
suspended residue
Low pH, fecal
Low pH, nitrate
phosphorus, fecal
Fecal, nitrate,
low pH
Nitrate, fecal
low pH, mercury
CCBBBML&fcS
Agricultural
activities and
channelization
Low pH in west
Tennessee is
probably a ground
water influence
0nion City area
Impacts
Agricultural
activities and
channeliiatlon
Channelization
Agricultural
activities and
channelization
Agricultural
activities and
channelization
Low pH in west
Tennessee is
probably a ground
water influence
Low pH
Low pH, fecal
nitrate
Low pH, nitrate,
fecal, phosphorus
-------
W«8t>rn Tennessee Valley Basin
The Tennessee River Western Valley basin encompasses 3,905 square miles
of land and water area in Tennessee and consists of all or parts of the
following tributary basins as delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Major
Hydrologic
Unit
0604OT5T
Basin
Description
Tennessee River and minor tributaries
from Pickwick Landing Dam to mouth
of Duck River
Tennessee
drainage area
(square miles)
2315
06040005 Tennessee River and minor tributaries
from below Duck River to the
Tennessee-Kentucky state line
06030005 Tennessee River and minor tributaries
from Pickwick Landing Dam to the
Tennessee-Alabama state line
1428
162
The Tennessee River in west Tennessee flows northward across the entire
state for approximately 110 miles. While the sides of the river valley
are dissected by many small tributaries, the Tennessee Valley itself is
up to 20 miles in width. The Valley's flood plain ranges in width from
3.5 miles in Hardin County to only 1.5 miles in Houston and Benton
Counties.
Among the major streams and tributaries draining this basin are the
Beech and Big Sandy Rivers plus Big, Birdsong, Cedar, Crooked, Cypress,
Grassy, Hardin, Horse, Hurricane, Indian, Lick, Little Richland, Owl,
Rushing, Snake, Standing Rock, Turkey, West Sandy, and White Oak Creeks.
Throughout this part of the basin, the average stream slope is
approximately 0.35 ft/mi. Watershed elevations in this area range from
about 400 to 600 feet above sea level.
Essentially, this basin encompasses all or major portions of Benton,
Decatur, Hardin, Henderson, Henry, Houston, Humphreys, Perry, and Wayne
Counties and minor parts of Carroll, Chester, and McNairy Counties. The
largest city within the basin is Paris with a 1980 population of 10,728.
Other cities within the basin with 1980 populations greater than 5,000
are Savannah (6,992), and Lexington (5,934). Table V-12 lists the major
dischargers in the Western Tennessee Valley basin.
SABLE V-12
Major Dischargers - Western Tunasm Valley
Permit #
Name
County
Receiving Stream
TH0061565
Savannah STP
Hardin
Horse Creek
TN0002232
TN River Pulp t
Hardin
Tennessee River
Paper-Counce
TN0020788
Paris STP
Henry
Bailey Fork Creek
TN0001465
DuPont-New Johnsonville
Humphreys
Tennessee River
TN00Q1686
Chemetals
Humphreys
Tennessee River
New Johnsonville
TN0002763
Inland Container
Humphreys
Tennessee River
New Johnsonville
TN0005444
TVA-Johnsonville
Humphreys
Tennessee River
Steam
TN0024830
Waverly-STP
Humphreys
Trace Creek
34
-------
The Western Tennessee Valley basin is divided between the jurisdictions
of the Nashville and Jackson Field Offices. The Jackson office has all
of Hardin County and the western side of the Tennessee River. The
Nashville office has jurisdiction over the eastern side of the river,
except for Hardin County. The field office staffs collaborated on the
assessment for the main stem of the Tennessee River.
A summary of the water quality assessments for the Western Tennessee
Valley basin appears in Table V-13.
TABLE V-13
SUMMARY OF KATERBODY ASSESSMENTS
WESTERN TENNESSEE VALLEY
RIVERS (all sis* units in STREAM MILES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 50
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 22
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 28
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 282.64 153.30 435.94
SIZE THREATENED 41.90 54.60 96.50
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 23.30 51.30 74.60
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING .00 44.30 44.30
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED 347.84 303.50 651.34
LAKES (all sir* units in ACRES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 1
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED ; 12
13
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 108109.00 17500.00 125609.00
SIZE THREATENED 877.00 .00 877.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING .00 .00 .00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 167.00 .00 167.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
109153.00
17500.00 126653.00
Water quality assessments were possible on 651.34 of the 798.6 western
Tennessee basin stream miles identified in Tennessee's Waterbody System
This is an assessment rate of 82 percent. Water quality in the western
Tennessee basin appears considerably better than that found in the
Obion-Forked Deer basin to the west. Eighty-two percent of the stream
miles in this basin fully support designated uses. Eleven percent were
assessed as partially supporting and seven percent were assessed as not
supporting designated uses.
Cypress Creek, Eagle Creek, White Oak Creek, West Sandy Creek, and
Chambers Creek were assessed as not supporting designated uses. White
Oak Creek, West Sandy Creek, and Chambers Creek are impacted by
agricultural activities and channelization. Cypress Creek is impacted
by the Camden sewage treatment plant. Eagle Creek is impacted by a
Benton County Highway Department channelization project.
35
-------
There were ten streams assessed as partially supporting. Beason Creek
is impacted by municipal sewage treatment discharges (Adamsvilie). The
Beech River is impacted by suspended solids and fecal coliforms. The
major source of the impacts is Lexington's municipal discharge. Beech
River, Snake Creek, White Oak Creek, West Sandy Creek and Big Sandy
River are impacted by agriculture and channelization.
The Tennessee River below Pickwick Reservoir is considered threatened by
occasional low summer flows and low dissolved oxygen. The largest lake
in Tennessee is Kentucky Reservoir (117,500 acres in the Tennessee
portion). It has also been the site of a great deal of attention in the
last four years due to public concerns about the water quality in the
lake. The Division of Water Pollution Control, the Tennessee Valley
Authority and other agencies have been actively studying the lake.
The assessment of the main stem Tennessee River is that Pickwick
Reservoir (the small portion that is in Tennessee) fully supports
designated uses; the Tennessee River below Pickwick is fully supporting,
but threatened due to seasonal low flows and low dissolved oxygen from
Pickwick Reservoir; and Kentucky Lake is fully supporting. An
additional publicly-owned lake, Browns Creek Reservoir, is considered
impacted.
Several additional streams in the Western Tennessee basin have been
assessed as fully supporting but threatened by current or projected
activities in the watershed. These include: Eagle Creek, Beech Lake,
Flat Creek, Whites Creek, Lick Creek, Horse Creek, and Beech Creek.
There have been several special surveys performed by Division of Water
Pollution Control staff in the last two years. A chemical survey of
West Sandy Creek (Matthews, 1990) documented exceedences of water
quality criteria for several metals in the water column. In the same
waterbody, a sediment oxygen demand (SOD) study documented relatively
high SOD rates in the Big Sandy Embayment (Flexner and Weaver, 1990).
The Division is participating in two studies of water quality factors
affecting mussel populations and other aquatic life in Kentucky
Reservoir. Other agencies involved in these projects are the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency, Austin Peay, USGS, and Memphis State
University. Additional information concerning these projects are given
in the Nonpoint Section of this Chapter.
EPA's Rapid Bioassessment protocols were used to assess water quality in
multiple streams on the western side of the river in Decatur, Chester,
McNairy, and Henderson Counties. Stewman Creek (Thomas, 1989); Turnbo
Creek (Thomas, 1989); Whites Creek (Thomas, 1989); Cub and Sulfur Fork
Creeks (Thomas, 1990); Piney and Cane Creeks (Thomas, 1990); and Sugar,
Tar, Huggins, and Jacks Creeks (Thomas, 1990) were surveyed and found to
fully support designated uses.
On the eastern side of the river, a biological survey of Trace Creek
(Merritt, 1988) indicated that the Waverly sewage treatment plant did
not seem to be adversely impacting the stream.
There are eight ambient monitoring stations in the Western Tennessee
basin. The results of the Water Quality Index analysis of these data
appears in Table V-14.
36
-------
Table v-14. Vataz Quality at Aabiant Monitoring stations la Mttatn Tennessee Basin, 1986-1987.
ui
Stream
River Mils
Station Number
Beech River
21.9
TN000285
Beech River
0.0
TN000286
Big Sandy
16.6
TH000325
Big Sandy
0.0
TN000335
Horse Creek
12.6
TN001675
Horse Creek
5.2
TN001676
Tennessee River
89.0
TN003610
White Oak Creek
near mouth
TN003805
County
Henderson
Decatur
Carroll
Benton
Hardin
Hardin
Humphreys
Hardin
Average
Exceedence
Value
14.4
11.7
6.7
9.2
6.7
8.9
1.9
5.5
Water
Quality
9.66
Paranat«cs
of
Concern1
Phosphorus,
fecal, nitrate
4.06 Nitrate, fecal
2.17 Low pH, nitrate
Low pH, fecal,
2.62 nitrate
Low pH, nitrate
2.19 phosphorus
2.43 Nitrate, fecal
1.39 None
Phosphorus,
2.65 low pH, nitrate
Consents
Agriculture and
STP discharge
-------
Elk-Shoal Basin
The Elk-Shoal River basin encompasses 2,715 square miles of land and
water area in Tennessee and consists of all or parts of the following
tributary basins as delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Major Tennessee
Hydologic Basin drainage area
Unit Description (square miles)
06030002 Tennessee River north-side minor tributaries 212
above the Elk River to the Tennessee-Alabama
state line
06030003 Elk River headwaters to just above 1295
Richland Creek
06030004 Elk River from above Richland Creek to 704
the Tennessee-Alabama state line, including
Richland Creek
06030005 Tennessee River north-side minor tributaries 504
including the Shoal Creek area from just above
Bluewater Creek to just below Second Creek to
the Tennessee-Alabama state line
This basin's topography is characterized by gently rolling to hilly
terrain with some nearly level areas and meandering, low-gradient
streams. Major streams and tributaries draining the Elk-Shoal River
basin are:
o
o
Elk River: Bean, Bluewater, Butler, Cane, Coldwater,
Hurricane, Mulberry, Richland, and Sugar Creeks.
Tennessee River Minor Tributaries. Flint River plus Battle,
Hester, Keller, and Shoal Creeks.
Average stream slopes on the Elk River range from 1.56 ft/mi from the
Tennessee-Alabama State line to river mile 90, to 2,87 ft/mi from river
mile 90 to river mile 160. Basin elevations generally range from 600 to
1,800 feet with a maximum elevation of 2,000 feet above sea level.
Hydrologically, the Elk-Shoal River basin includes all or major parts of
Franklin, Giles, Lawrence, Lincoln, and Moore Counties and minor parts
of Coffee, Grundy, Marion, Marshall, and Wayne Counties. The largest
city within this basin is Lawrenceburg with a 1980 population of 10,184.
Other cities in the basin with 1980 populations greater than 5,000 are
Fayetteville (7,559), Pulaski (7,184), and Winchester (5,821).
Table V-15 contains a list of the major dischargers in the Elk-Shoal
River basin.
TABLE V-1S
Major Discbargara - *lk-Shoal Rivar Basin
Permit ~ Name County
TN0021857 Winchester STP Franklin
TH0021687 Pulaski STP Giles
TN0021814 Fayetteville STP Lincoln
TN0022551 Lawrenceburg STP Lawrence
TN0001473 Murray Ohio MFG Co. Lawrence
TN0001872 Union Carbide Lawrence
Lawrenceburg
TN00234 69 Tullahoma Coffee
Receiving Stream
Elk River
Richland Creek
Elk River
Shoal Creek
Shoal Creek
Shoal Creek
Rock Creek
38
-------
Although moat of the Elk-Shoal basin Is within the jurisdiction of the
Nashville Field Office, a small part of the headwaters of the Elk River
is technically within the Chattanooga Field Office area. By mutual
agreement, the Nashville staff assessed the entire Elk-Shoal basin. A
summary of this assessment appears in fable V-16.
TABLI V-16
SUMMARY Or WATERBODX ASSESSMENTS
ELK-SHOAL RIVER BASIN
RXVERS (all sis* units in STREAM MILES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED ; 48
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED s 18
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED ; 30
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
EVALUATED
MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
303.90
201.70
505.60
SIZE THREATENED
22.60
38.80
61.40
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
54,70
73.20
127.90
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING
.00
8.10
8.10
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
381.20
321.80
703.00
LAKES (mil sis* units in ACRES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED ; 2
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 1
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 10596.00 .00 10596.00
SIZE THREATENED .00 40.00 40.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING .00 .00 .00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING .00 3908.00 3908.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
10596.00
3948.00 14544.00
Of the 714.1 miles of streams entered in Tennessee's Waterbody System,
water quality assessments were possible on 98 percent (703.0 miles). Of
the assessed stream miles in the Elk-Shoal basin, 81 percent fully
supported designated uses. Eighteen percent were assessed as partially
supporting. Only one stream, Rock Creek, was assessed as not supporting
designated uses. Rock Creek was the site of a biological survey
(Rector, 1989) which found it to be impacted by the Tullahoma sewage
treatment plant.
39
-------
Streams identified as having sections partially supporting designated
uses include: the Elk River, Beans Creek, Boiling Fork Creek, Norris
Creek, Big Creek, and Shoal Creek. A waterbody on the main stem of the
Elk River is impacted by low flows and very low dissolved oxygen from
Tims Ford Reservoir, Boiling Fork Creek is impacted by inadequately
treated effluent and bypassing from the Cowan sewage treatment plant.
Beans Creek, Norris Creek, and Big Creek are impacted by agricultural
activities and animal wastes.
Pigeon Roost Creek is impacted by siltation from surface mining
activities. Shoal Creek has several industrial dischargers, plus a
municipal discharge that have a cumulative effect on water quality. One
of these facilities, the Lawrenceburg sewage treatment plant, was
originally placed on the 304(1)" short list as a discharger of priority
pollutants in toxic amounts. However, this facility was removed from
EPA's final list due to a construction upgrade of the facility which
provided improved treatment. A recent biological and chemical survey
(Rector, 1990) found Crowson Creek to be impacted by pollutants and
stream alteration cause by the operation of a quarry by the Rogers
Group.
Several additional streams, including Kelly Creek, Mud Creek, Indian
Creek, and Sugar Creek, are considered threatened by agricultural
activities and animal wastes.
There are two major lakes in the Elk-Shoal basin; Woods Reservoir and
Tims Ford Reservoir. Woods Reservoir was posted in 1987 against catfish
consumption because of high levels of PCB's in fish flesh. The results
of the most recent fish tissue survey (1989) again documented PCB's at
levels above FDA criteria. The source of the PCB's is considered to be
historical waste disposal problems at Arnold Engineering Development
Center near Tullahoma. Based on this toxicity problem, Woods Reservoir
has been assessed as not currently supporting designated uses.
Tims Ford Reservoir has been assessed as fully supporting designated
uses. TVA has been working for several years to increase dissolved
oxygen levels in tailwater releases from Tims Ford and provide the
quantity of water necessary to sustain a cold water fishery in the Elk
River for approximately 41 miles downstream.
Four streams and a public lake in the Elk-Shoal Basin have been assessed
as fully supporting but threatened by current or projected activities in
the watershed. David Crockett Lake is threatened by poorly treated
discharges from the David Crockett State Park package plant. Kelley
Creek, Mud Creek, Indian Creek, and Sugar Creek are threatened by
agricultural and animal waste runoff.
Additional special surveys have been performed in the Elk River-Shoal
Creek basin in the last two years. Rapid bioassessment surveys of five
streams in Giles County (Lynn Creek, Pigeon Roost Creek, Weakley Creek,
Sugar Creek, and the West Fork of Shoal Creek) indicated that these were
fully supporting designated uses (Holland, 1988).
There are two ambient monitoring stations in the Elk-Shoal basin. Table
V-17 presents the results of the Water Quality Index analysis of these
data.
40
-------
Tabla V-17. Wmtmx Quality at Ainbiant Monitoring Stations in Elk-Shoal Basin, 1988-1989.
Straan
ftivar Mil*
Station Nuabar
County
Average
Kxceedenca
Valua
Water
Quality
Index
Elk River
133.0
TN001207
Franklin
5.6
1.50
Shoal Creek
32.2
TN002395
Lawrence
7.4
5.57
Parameter
of
Concam Coananta
Nitrate, fecal
Nitrate
1 Parameters of concern are those that exceeded fish and aquatic life or recreation criteria in more than 25* of
the observations.
-------
Pack Rivar Baa in
The Duck-Buffalo River basin drains 3,500 square miles of land and water
area and consists of all or parts of the following tributary basins as
delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Hydologic Basin
Unit Description
0 604W0I Duck River from headwaters to
above Columbia
Tennessee
drainage area
(souare miles)
——
06040003 Duck River from Columbia to its
mouth excluding the Buffalo River
1528
06040004
Buffalo River
764
The Duck River originates on the western edge of the Cumberland Plateau
in an area which is characterized by unusually level terrain and
numerous wetland areas. From its headwaters, the river flows generally
westward through the basin's gently rolling to hilly terrain. While the
main river gradients are relatively flat, the river is fed by somewhat
steeper, meandering tributaries. The Buffalo River and western part of
the Duck River basin are characterized by a dissected, rolling terrain
that is crossed by numerous streams. Major tributaries draining this
basin include:
Duck River; Beaverdam, Big Bigby, Big Swan, Blue, East
Rock, Flat, Hurricane, Lick, Little Bigby, Rutherford,
Sinking, Spring, Sugar, Thompson, Tumbling, and Wartrace
Creeks.
Buffalo River: Little Buffalo and Green Rivers plus Big
Opossum, Brush, Cane, Coon, Fortyweight, Grinders,
Hurricane, Rockhouse, Sinking, Saw, Short, and Trace Creeks.
The Duck-Buffalo River basin encompasses all or major portions of
Bedford, Coffee, Hickman, Lewis, Marshall, and Maury Counties and minor
parts of Dickson, Humphreys, Lawrence, Perry, Rutherford, Wayne, and
Williamson Counties. The largest city within the basin is Columbia with
a 1980 population of 26,372. Other cities in the basin with 1980
populations greater than 5,000 are Tullahoma (15,800), Shelbyville
(13,530), Lewisburg (8,760), and Manchester (7,250). Table V-18
contains a list of the major dischargers within the Duck River basin.
TABLX
V-18
Major Dischargers •
- Duck Riv*r
Basin
Permit #
Name
Countv
Receiving Stream
TN0002143
Coey Tanning Co.
Bedford
Garrison Fork
TN00241B0
Shelbyville STP
Bedford
Duck River
TN0025038
Manchester STP
Coffee
Duck River
TN0022888
Lewisburg STP
Marshall
Big Rock Creek
TN0056103
Columbia STP
Maury
Duck River
TN0001538
Monsanto TN PLT
Maury
Duck River
TN0026441
Occidental Chem
Maury
Rutherford Cr.
TN0003841
Occidental Chem
Maury
Leipers Creek
Corp-tond E
TN0002399
Occidental Chem
Maury
Duck River
Corp-Williamsport
TN0001619
Rhone Poulenc, Inc.
Maury
Sugar Creek
TN0003425
ICI Americas
Maury
Big Bigby Creek
TN0002275
Union Carbide
Maury
Duck River
42
-------
The Duck River basin is entirely within the jurisdiction of the
Nashville Field Office. A summary of their water quality assessments
for the Duck River basin appears in the table below.
TABU V-19
SUMMARY Or HATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS
DUCK RIVER BASIN
RIVERS (all six* unit* In STREAM MIXES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 61
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 20
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 41
ASSESSMENT
BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
€65.00
166.50
831.50
SIZE THREATENED
19.60
28.70
48.30
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
.00
108.40
108.40
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING
6.20
6.90
13.10
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
690.80
310.50
1001.30
LAKES (all size units In ACRES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE
WATERBODIES ASSESSED
6
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED ; 0
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED ; 6
ASSESSMENT
BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
3302.00
.00
3302.00
SIZE THREATENED
327.00
.00
327.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
.00
.00
.00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING
22.00
.00
22.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
3651.00
.00
3651.00
The amount of water quality information available on this basin made it
possible to assess all stream miles. Only the Duck and the Lower
Cumberland basins were completely assessed for all streams and lakes.
This assessment indicates that the Duck River basin, on the whole, has
very good water quality.
There are only 13.1 stream miles (1 percent) in the Duck River basin
that do not support designated uses. One area of nonsupport is the Duck
River at Old Stone Fort State Park near Manchester. These two streams
are posted against water contact recreation because of elevated fecal
coliform levels. This posting was done at the request of the Division
of State Parks and the Coffee County Health Department.
The other stream classified as not supporting is Rutherford Creek.
Rutherford Creek, which empties into the Duck River near Columbia, is
severely impacted by a variety of activities in the watershed.
43
-------
Several streams were assessed as partially supporting designated uses.
The Duck River below Normandy Dam is impacted by poor water quality in
the discharges from the reservoir. These impacts include low flows,
metals, and low dissolved oxygen. The Duck River near Shelbyville is
impacted by discharges from the Shelbyville municipal sewage system and
Tyson, based on the results of a stream survey (Merritt, 1988). Near
Columbia, the Duck River is impacted by various point and nonpoint
sources.
Designated uses of Wartrace Creek, Big Rock Creek, and the Little Duck
River are partially impaired by municipal discharges (Wartrace,
Lewisburg, and Manchester, respectively). A new treatment plant has
recently been constructed at Lewisburg and improvement in the quality of
discharges is expected. Sugar Creek is impacted by a variety of sources
as documented in a stream survey (Merritt, 1989).
Several fully supporting reaches are threatened by future water quality
problems. Included were the Duck River near Columbia and tributaries of
Rutherford Creek that are being threatened by industrial and residential
construction associated with the rapid growth of the Columbia area.
Normandy Reservoir near Manchester is the largest reservoir in the Duck
River basin. This reservoir experiences seasonally elevated levels of
iron and manganese at the Duck River Utilities water supply intake.
Periodic algal blooms have resulted in taste and odor problems at the
treatment plant.
Occasionally, water in the upstream end of the reservoir becomes very
low in alkalinity, which has caused additional problems at the water
treatment plant from widely fluctuating pH and poor flocculation.
Normandy Reservoir is one of the two most eutrophic tributary reservoirs
in the TVA system.
Three streams and a public lake (Laurel Hill) in the Duck River Basin
have been assessed as fully supporting but threatened by current or
projected activities in the watershed. Water quality in a segment of
the Duck River would be threatened by the completion of the Columbia
Dam. Little Bigby Creek is threatened by industrial development. Lytle
Creek is threatened by urban runoff from the city of Columbia.
There are three ambient monitoring stations in the Duck River basin.
The results of the Water Quality Index analysis of these data are
presented in Table v-20. The Nashville Field Office performed several
addition stream surveys in the Duck River basin; one on Big Bigby Creek
which found it to be impacted by the ICI Americas facility (Merritt,
1988), and another on Snell Branch which appeared to be impacted by the
Heil-Quaker facility (Merritt, 1989). A survey of five small Duck River
tributaries in Bedford County (Sinking, Fall, Flat, Thompson, and Sugar
Creeks) indicated that they are fully supporting designated uses
(Rector, 1989) and (Holland, 1989). A Garrison Fork Creek survey
assessed the effects of effluent from Coey Tanning (Browning, 1989). An
intensive chemical survey of the lower portion of the Duck River
(Merritt, 1989) documented improved conditions.
In addition, the Division of Water Pollution Control performed a site-
specific standard study for copper on the Duck River (Sinclair, 1989).
Historically, copper levels in "unpolluted" streams in Tennessee have
been higher than national criteria values. This study was being
conducted using EPA guidelines with the intent of deriving a copper
criteria appropriate for the Duck River. Results of the study indicated
that EPA's copper criteria was possibly overly-conservative in the Duck
River. It is hoped that information gathered in this study will be
useful for the evaluation of other sites within the state.
44
-------
Tabla V-20. Watar Quality at taabient Monitoring Stations in Duck Rivar Baain, 1988-1989.
Stzaaa
River Mil*
Station Muafcar
County
Avarage
T-rraarUinra
Talm
Watac
Quality
Tni<»T
Parameter
o£
Concern3
Comments
Buffalo River
73.1
TN000408
Duck River
248.4
TH001025
Duck River
113.9
TN001065
Big Bigby Creek
8.5
TN000295
Perry
Coffee
Maury
Maury
1.9
5.6
14.0
15.7
0.43
1.55
8.47
18.12
Nitrate
Nitrate
Phosphorus#
nitrate, fecal
Phosphorus,
nitrate, fecal
1 Parameters of concern are those that exceeded fish and aquatic life or recreation criteria* in more than 25% of
the observations.
-------
Lowr Cumberland Basin
The Tennessee portion of the Lower Cumberland River basin (including
that part of the Green River basin in Tennessee) covers 5,599 square
miles of land and water area and consists of all or parts of the
following tributary basins as delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Major
Hydologic Basin
Unit Description
05130201 Cumberland River between Caney
Fork and Old Hickory Dam
05130203 Stones River, including East and West Forks
05130202 Cumberland River and minor tributaries
between Old Hickory Dam and Harpeth River
05130204 Harpeth River
05130206 Red River, including Sulphur Fork
05130205 Cumberland River and minor tributaries
below Harpeth River to Tennessee-
Kentucky state line
Tennessee
drainage area
(square miles)
1060
936
574
866
767
984
05110002
Green River basin, Kentucky-Tennessee
412
From Caney Fork, the Cumberland River flows west to Davidson County and
then turns in a northwesterly direction to the Tennessee-Kentucky state
line. The Central Basin is characterized by gently rolling to hilly
terrain, with some nearly level areas, and by meandering, low-gradient
streams. The Western Highland Rim is characterized by dissected,
rolling terrain that is crossed by numerous streams.
Water-surface elevations of the Cumberland River are controlled by three
reservoirs, Barkley, Cheatham, and Old Hickory. The normal pool
elevations of Barkley Reservoir are 359.0 feet and 354.0 feet during the
summer season and winter season, respectively. These elevations affect
that part of the river between mile 30.6 and mile 148.7. Cheatham
Reservoir has a normal pool elevation of 385 feet, which would affect
that part of the river between mile 148.7 and mile 216.2. The normal
pool elevation of Old Hickory Reservoir is 445.0 feet, which affects
that part of the river between mile 216.2 and mile 313.5. Major streams
and tributaries draining this basin include:
Harpeth River: Jones Creek, South Harpeth River, Turnbull Creek, and
West Harpeth River.
Stones River: East Fork Stones River, Fall Creek, Hurricane Creek,
Stewart Creek, Suggs Creek, and West Fork Stones River.
Cumberland River Minor Tributaries: Barton, Bear, Big Elk, Cedar,
Drake, Goose, Johnson, Long, Mill, Peyton, Round Lick, Saline, Sams,
Spencer, Spring, Station Camp, Sycamore, and Yellow Creeks.
The elevation in this basin generally ranges from 350 to over 2,000 feet
above sea level. The maximum elevation is 2,092 feet atop Short
Mountain in Cannon, which is an erosional remnant of the Cumberland
Plateau. Approximately 18 percent of the Green River basin is located
in Tennessee. The headwaters of several creeks are in this part of the
basin. All flow is to the north through hilly terrain into Kentucky.
Elevations of the basin range from about 1,060 feet at the basin divide
to 610 feet above sea level at the Kentucky state line. Streams
draining this basin include West Fork Drakes Creek, Salt Lick Creek, and
its tributary, Long Fork.
46
-------
The Lower Cumberland River basin (including that part of the Green River
basin in Tennessee) includes all or major parts of Cheatham# Davidson,
Dickson, Macon, Montgomery, Robertson, Rutherford, Stewart, Sumner,
Trousdale, Williamson, and Wilson Counties and minor parts of Cannon,
Hickman, Houston, Jackson, and Smith Counties. The largest city within
the basin is Nashville with a 1980 population of 455,651. Other cities
within the basin with 1980 populations greater than 5,000 are:
Clarksville (54,777), Murfreesboro (32,845), Hendersonville (26,561),
Gallatin (17,191), Franklin (12,407), Lebanon (11,872), Smyrna (8,839),
Dickson (7,040), LaVergne (5,495), Springfield (10,814), and Brentwood
(9,431). Major dischargers in the Lower Cumberland basin are listed in
Table V-21. The Lower Cumberland basin is within the jurisdiction of
the Nashville Field Office. The results of their assessment of water
quality appears in Table V-22.
TABLE V-21
Major Dischargers - Lower Cumberland Baa in
Permit ~ Name County
TN0025232 Harpeth Valley STP Davxdson
TN0002259 DuPont Old Hickory Davidson
TN0003573 Ford Motor Nashville Davidson
TN0020575 Nashville-Central STP Davidson
TN0020648 Nashville-Dry Creek STP Davidson
TN0024970 Nashville-White's Creek Davidson
TN0021920 Old Hickory U.D. STP Davidson
TN0003433 Stauffer Chem Co Nash Davidson
TNQ020656 Clarksville STP Montgomery
TN0029157 Jersey Miniere Zinc Montgomery
TN0031127 Union Carbide Corp Montgomery
TN0021296 USA Ft Campbell STP Montgomery
TN0024961 Springfield STP Robertson
TN0022586 Murfreesboro-
Sinking Cr STP Rutherford
TN0020541 Smyrna STP Rutherford
TN0005789 TVA-Cumberland Steam Stewart
TN0020141 Gallatin STP Sumner
TN0005428 TVA-Gallatin Steam Sumner
TN0028827 Franklin STP Williamson
TN0001384 General Smelting-
Refining Williamson
TN0028754 Lebanon STP Wilson
Receiving Stream
Harpeth River
Old Hickory Lake
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Ditch to Spring
Creek
Little W. Fork
Creek
Sulphur Fork
Creek
W. Fork Stones
River
Stewarts Creek
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Harpeth River
Harpeth River
Cumberland River
TABLE V-22
SOMMARX OF NATERBOD? ASSESSMENTS
LOWER CUMBERLAND (Includes Green River drainage)
RIVERS (all size units in STREAM MILES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 34
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED ; 42
76
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 579,90 300.60
SIZE THREATENED 154.30 120.90
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING .50 158.70
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 16.30 94.90
880.50
275.20
159.20
111.20
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
751.00
675.10
1426.10
47
-------
TABU V-22 (Cont.)
LAKES (all size units in ACRES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 16
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 3
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 13
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
SIZE THREATENED
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING
67638.00
27439.00
24.00
15.00
.00
95077.00
34.00
16.00
60.00
58.00
31.00
60.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
67748.00 27478.00 95226.00
All of the Lower Cumberland basin streams and lakes identified in
Tennessee's Waterbody System were assessed. On the basis of this
assessment, 81 percent of the stream miles in the Lower Cumberland were
fully supporting. However, 275.2 of the fully supporting stream miles
were considered threatened by future water quality problems.
Eight percent (111.2 miles) of the assessed miles were described as not
supporting designated uses. There are several posted streams in the
basin that contribute to this total. Seven points on the Cumberland
River (at miles 174.2, 182.5, 182.8, 184.2, 185.7, and 212.5), Brown's
Creek, portions of Dry, Richland, East Fork Hamilton, Gibson, Mansker's,
McCrory, an unnamed trib to McCrory, Mill, and Whites Creeks are posted
against water contact recreation because of high levels of fecal
coliforms. All of these streams are impacted by periodic bypasses of
sewage from the Metro Nashville collection system. Richland Creek was
the site of a survey in 1988 that documented potential public health
hazards (Browning, 1989) . A stream survey of the upper reaches of
Brown's Creek documented impacts from CSX's Radnor Yard (Rector, 1990).
An unnamed tributary of the Cumberland River known as Trice's Landing
has been posted because of collection system bypassing from the city of
Clarksville. The only other stream in the Lower Cumberland basin that
has been assessed as not currently supporting designated uses is the
Harpeth River near Franklin. This waterbody (from the confluence of the
Nest Harpeth River upstream to its headwaters) is severely impacted by
point and nonpoint sources in the city of Franklin and other activities
in the watershed.
Several additional streams in the Lower Cumberland basin have been
assessed as partially supporting designated uses. Bartons Creek near
Lebanon is impacted by urban runoff and bypasses from the Lebanon sewage
collection system. The Lebanon discharge has been moved to the
Cumberland River, so water quality in Bartons Creek should improve if
the collection system problems can be overcome. Round Lick Creek has
been impacted by the discharges from the Watertown sewage treatment
plant. The West Fork of the Stones River is impacted by bypasses from a
sewage pump station operated by the City of Murfreesboro. The Fort
Campbell sewage treatment plant has been documented as the source of
impacts to the West Fork Red River (Holland, 1989).
Mill Creek and its watershed are impacted by construction and urban
runoff associated with the rapid development of the south
Nashville/Metro Airport area. A stream survey of Sims Branch, a Mill
Creek tributary, documented impacts from discharges from the Metro
Airport's runoff collection system (Rector, 1990). In addition, a
discharger to a tributary of Mill Creek, Textron Aerostructures, was
included in Tennessee's final version of the Section 304(1) short list
as a discharger of priority pollutants in toxic amounts.
48
-------
The Cumberland River below Old Hickory Reservoir is impacted by the poor
quality of dam releases from Old Hickory and J. Percy Priest Reservoirs.
The Stones River below J. Percy Priest partially supports its designated
uses because of seasonal low flows and poor quality dam releases.
East Camp Creek in Stunner County has been channelized and impacted by
bypassing from Gallatin's collection system. The Red River near
Clarksville is impacted by agricultural nonpoint pollution. Lytle Creek
in Murfreesboro and Hurricane Creek near Lavergne are impacted by urban
and construction runoff.
There are several waterbodies in the Nashville area that are currently
fully supporting uses, but are considered threatened by future water
quality problems. Cedar Creek and Spencer Creek near Mount Juliet;
Drake Creek near Hendersonville; White's Creek in Nashville? Stewarts
Creek near Smyrna; Overall Creek and the West and the Middle Fork Stones
River near Murfreesboro; and the Little Harpeth River near Brentwood,
are all considered threatened by the rapid urbanization of these areas.
A 1989 survey of Stewart's Creek indicated that, although the stream
appeared to be under stress, the Smyrna sewage treatment plant did not
seem to be causing impacts (Browning, 1989).
Marrowbone Creek and Sycamore Creek are threatened by numerous gravel
dredging operations. The South Fork of the Red River is threatened by
agricultural activities. Permit violations by the Springfield sewage
treatment plant threaten Sulphur Fork Creek (Rector, 1989) .
Two small lakes in the Lower Cumberland basin have been identified as
not supporting designated uses. Marrowbone Lake is managed by the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and has a history of artificial
fertilization. As a result, Marrowbone Lake is hypereutrophic. Shelby
Park Lake, managed by the City of Nashville, is also highly eutrophic.
The nutrient source at Shelby Park Lake is urban runoff.
The major lakes in the basin are Cheatham, Old Hickory, J, Percy Priest,
and the Tennessee portion of Barkley Reservoir. All of these lakes,
which are managed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, are assessed as
currently fully supporting their designated uses.
There are seven ambient monitoring stations in the Lower Cumberland
basin. The results of the Water Quality Index analyses of data from
these stations are presented in Table V-23. Additional special studies
were performed on the following streams; Turkey Creek in Dickson County
(Browning, 1989), Flatrock Creek (Merritt, 19B9), an unnamed tributary
to the Cumberland River (Merritt, 1988), and Cheatham Branch in
Rutherford County (Rector, 1990). Turkey Creek, Flatrock Creek, and
Cheatham Branch were found to be fully supporting designated uses. The
unnamed tributary to the Cumberland River was found to be impacted by
discharges from the Whltehouse Utility District water treatment
facility.
49
-------
Table V-23. Water Quality at Aabient Monitoring Stations in the Iwnr Cumberland Basin, 1988-1989.
St!
Mime Mil®
Station Hunter
Cumberland River
381.1
TN000732
Cumberland River
308.3
TN000740
Cumberland River
262.9
TN000755
Cumberland River
174.5
TN000770
Stones River
3.9
TN002862
West Fork
Stones River
6.2
TN003046
Red River
8.4
TN002205
Harpeth River
40.5
TN0014311
County
Clay
Smith
Wilson
Davidson
Davidson
Rutherford
Montgomery
Cheatham
Arerage
i^ssdoaca
Value
9.1
5.7
4.5
7.7
7.7
11.9
13.9
16.7
Water
Quality
Indrnx
2.66
1.55
1.25
16.04
3.78
15.07
30.03
8.13
Parameters
of
Concern-1-
Nitrate, fecal
Comment*
Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate, fecal
Nitrate
Phosphorus,
nitrate, fecal
Fecal,
nitrate
Phosphorus,
nitrate, fecal
STP discharge
and urban
runoff
Impacts from
Percy Priest
Dam
Urban runoff,
construction,
and STP impacts
Agricultural
activities
1 Parameters of concern are those that exceeded fish and aquatic life or recreation criteria in
the observations.
more than 25% of
-------
gpper Ccmbarlimd Basin
The Tennessee part of the Upper Cumberland River basin covers 5,505
square miles of land and water are® and consists of all or parts of the
following tributary basins as delineated by EPA"s River Reach system.
Tennessee
drainage area
(square miles)
332
Major
Hydologic Basin
Unit Description
05130101 Clear Fork and Jellico Creek from the
headwaters to Tennessee-Kentucky state line
05130104 South Fork Cumberland River headwaters 978
to Tennessee-Kentucky state line
05130105 Obey River from headwaters to mouth, including 782
Tennessee portion of Dale Hollow Lake
05130106 Cumberland River and minor tributaries from 795
below the Obey River to above Caney Fork
05130103 Cumberland River and minor tributaries between 33
the Kentucky State line and the Obey River
05130108 Caney Fork River, excluding Collins River 1794
05130107 Collins River 791
The Cumberland River originates in Harlan County, Kentucky, at the
confluence of the Clover Fork and Poor Fork at a point 694.2 miles above
its mouth. The Upper Cumberland River basin in Tennessee includes 14
square miles of the Yellow Creek basin and that part of the Cumberland
River from the Tennessee-Kentucky state line at river mile 385.5 to the
mouth of and including the Caney Fork River at river mile 309.2.
From the Kentucky state line, the Cumberland River flows in a
southwesterly direction through an area of steep hills which are about
70 percent forested. Elevations of the drainage basin range from about
450 feet at the mouth of the Caney Fork to about 3,500 feet above sea
level atop Cross Mountain on the Anderson-Campbell County line. Water-
surface elevations from the Caney Fork to the Kentucky state line are
controlled by two reservoirs, Old Hickory and Cordell Hull.
The normal pool elevation of Old Hickory Reservoir is 445 feet above sea
level, which would affect that part of the river from mile 309,2 to mile
313.5. Cordell Hull Reservoir has normal summer season and winter season
pool elevations of 504.0 feet and 501.0 feet above sea level,
respectively. These elevations affect that part of the river between
river miles 313.5 and 385.5. Major tributaries to the Cumberland River
include the Caney Fork, Obey River, and Roaring River. Major streams
and tributaries draining this basin include;
Obey River; East and West Fork Obey River, and Wolf River.
Caney Fork: Bee Creek, Calfkiller River, Cane Creek, Collins
River, Falling Water River, Indian Creek, Laurel Creek, Fine
Creek, Rocky River, Sink Creek, and Smith Fork.
Roaring River; Blackburn Fork, Flat and Spring Creek.
Cumberland River Minor Tributaries: Defeated, Flynn, Jennings,
Martin, and Mill Creeks.
51
-------
The Upper Cumberland River basin includes all or parts of Cannon, Clay,
DeKalb, Fentress, Grundy, Jackson, Overton, Pickett, Putnam, Van Buren,
Warren, and White Counties and minor parts of Anderson, Bledsoe,
Campbell, Claiborne, Coffee, Cumberland, Macon, Morgan, Sequatchie,
Smith, and Wilson Counties. Cookeville is the largest city within this
basin with a 1980 population of 20,535. The only other city in this
basin with a 1980 population greater than 5,000 is McMinnville (10,683)
A list of the major dischargers can be found in Table V-24.
Permit #
TN0024198
TN0004227
TN0002593
TN0023591
tmm v-24
Major Sleshsrgmrs - Oppur €iimbmxlmad Basin
Name County
Cook@vill© STP Putnam
Jersey Miniere Zinc Smith
Mm L. Bonnell Co Smith
McMinnville STP Warren
Receiving Stream
Pigeon Roost Creek
Caney Fork River
Caney Fork River
Barren Fork River
The Upper Cumberland basin is predominantly within the jurisdiction of
the Nashville Field Office. A small portion of the basin in Scott and
Morgan county is within the Knoxville Field Office area. In addition,
the Surface Mining Section regulates mining activities and monitors
water quality. A summary of the water quality assessments for the Uppe
Cumberland basin is presented in Table V-25.
XML! V-25
bummmx or mmmoor mmssmwrs
UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN
RXVSRS (all ill* units 1b BTRMMM MILES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED s 17
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 62
79
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 680.70
SIZE THREATENED 99.70
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 236.00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 68.00
69.70
47.00
28.90
96.80
750.40
146.70
264.90
164.80
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
1084.40
242.40
1326.80
LAKH fall sis® units in ACRES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE NATERBODIES ASSESSED : 19
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 3
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 16
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 38947.00 23051.00 61998.00
SIZE THREATENED 105.00 66.00 171.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING .00 .00 .00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING .00 16.00 16.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
39052.00
23133.00
62185.00
Of the 1,452 miles of streams in the Upper Cumberland basin identified
in Tennessee's Waterbody System, 1,326.8 miles were assessed for this
report. This represents an 91 percent assessment rate for this basin.
52
-------
Of the 1,326.8 assessed miles, 897.1 miles 168 percent) were fully
supporting designated uses. Of these fully supporting miles, 171.0
miles were considered threatened by future water quality problems.
Twelve percent (164.8 miles) of the assessed miles were considered not
supporting designated uses and 20 percent (264.9 miles) were assessed as
partially supporting.
There are several posted streams in the Upper Cumberland basin. In
Scott County, ten miles of Pin® Creek plus portions of the tributaries
Litton Fork, South Fork, East Fork, and North Fork are posted against
body contact recreation. These streams are impacted by fecal coliforms
from the Oneida sewage treatment plant and nonpoint sources from the
surrounding areas. Mine Lick Creek is'posted because of impacts from
the Baxter sewage treatment plant.
Additional streams in the Upper Cumberland basin assessed as not
supporting designated uses include Jellico Creek, Bear Creek, West Fork
Obey, New River, East Fork Obey, Rockcastle Creek, Dry Creek, and Rocky
River, As documented in a 1990 stream survey (Rector, 1990), Rockcastle
Creek is severely impacted by discharges from the Jamestown sewage
treatment plant. The other streams are impacted by surface and
subsurface mining activities. Bear Creek is also impacted by subsurface
mining.
Pollutants from mining activities are usually low pH, siltation, and
metals. These pollutants cause instream toxicity and habitat
alteration. Some of these affected streams are completely devoid of
aquatic life. Sources of these pollutants include discharges from
active and abandoned sites (active sites are required to have an NPDES
permit), plus nonpoint sources associated with mining activities such as
stream alteration and vegetation removal. Throughout the coalfields,
active and abandoned haul roads are known to contribute to sediment
loading in streams.
Streams assessed as partially supporting due to mining activities are
Elk Creek (surface mining), Clear Fork Creek (surface and subsurface
mining), Stinking Creek (surface and subsurface mining), White Oak Creek
(surface mining and oil extraction), Brimstone Creek (surface and
subsurface mining), Buffalo Creek (channelization and surface mining),
Paint Rock Creek (surface and subsurface mining), Roaring Paunch Creek
(surface and subsurface mining), Big Piney Creek (surface and subsurface
mining), and Little Crab Creek (surface mining).
Other streams assessed as partially supporting are Rock Creek, Obey
River, Barren Fork River, Pigeon Roost Creek, and the upper reach of the
Caney River. Rock Creek is currently impacted by forestry activities.
The Obey River is impacted by the poor quality of discharges from Dale
Hollow Reservoir. Barren Fork River, Calfkiller River, and Pigeon Roost
Creek are impacted by municipal discharges (McMinnville, Sparta, and
Cookeville, respectively). Biological stream surveys (Merritt, 1989)
documented impacts to Fall Creek from Smithville's sewage treatment
plant and to Town Creek in the vicinity of the city of Livingston.
Several additional streams were identified as being fully supporting but
threatened. Portions of Jellico, Capuchin, Crooked, Elk, Clear Fork,
Stinking, Buffalo, and Savage Creeks were considered threatened by
mining impacts.
There are several major Corps of Engineer lakes in the Upper Cumberland:
Center Hill, Cordell Hull, and the Tennessee portion of Dale Hollow
Reservoir. These lakes have been assessed as fully supporting designated
uses. There are three ambient monitoring sites in the Upper Cumberland
basin. The results of the Water Quality Index analysis of data from
these stations appear in Table V-26.
53
-------
Table V-26. Water Quality at Aabiant Monitoring Stations la th« U)ppar Coaberland Basin, 1988-1989.
St
mLwrnx Nil#
Station
County
knziga
Value
Water
Quality
Of
Concern
in
Obey River
1.0
TN002020
Clear Fork
19.4
TN000655
Falling Water
River
10.6
TN001295
Clay
Campbell
Putnam
4.6
0.0
10.0
0.96 Nitrate
None
7.32
Nitrate, fecal
-------
lowr HiaiwM Rivr Basin
Tennessee's portion of the Lower Tennessee River basin encompasses 3,482
square miles of land and water area and consists of all or parts of the
following tributary basins as delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Major
Hydologic
Unit
06020002
06020003
06020001
06020004
06030001
03150101
Basin
Description
Hiwassee River from the Tennessee-North
Carolina Stat© line to the river's mouth
Ocoee River in Tennessee
Tennessee River from Watts Bar Dam to the
mouth of Sequatchie River
Sequatchie River
Tennessee River north-side minor tributaries
from the mouth of the Sequatchie River including
Crow Creek to the Tennessee-Alabama state line
Conasauga River and minor tributaries from
headwaters to Georgia state line
Tennessee
drainage area
(square miles)
1043
172
1209
605
32 6
127
The Hiwassee River watershed is characterized by rugged terrain with
streams in the upper part of the basin above the mouth of the Ocoee
River flowing through steep, well-entrenched gorges. Below the mouth of
the Ocoee River, the Hiwassee River flows through a valley at or near
right angles to the general northeast-southwest trend of the Tennessee
Valley to its mouth below Dayton, Tennessee. Elevations in the Hiwassee
River drainage area generally range from approximately 750 to 3,500 feet
with a maximum elevation of about 5,000 feet above sea level.
The Sequatchie River arises in the Cumberland Plateau area and flows
through a long, narrow, deeply-cut trough which nearly parallels the
Tennessee Valley's northeast-southwest trend. General elevations in the
Sequatchie River drainage area range from 650 to 2,000 feet above sea
level. The maximum elevation in the Sequatchie River area is about
3,000 feet.
Minor tributary streams to the Tennessee River between Watts Bar Dam and
the mouth of the Sequatchie River are characterized by relatively
narrow, parallel ridges and broader, intervening valleys which have
nearly a right-angle orientation to the Tennessee Valley itself.
Watershed elevations along this reach of the Tennessee River range from
about 300 to 1,200 feet above sea level. Major streams and tributaries
draining the Lower Tennessee River basin include the following:
° Hiwassee River: Ocoee River plus a number of smaller streams
' including Agency, Candies, Chatata, Coker, North and South
Chestuee, North and South Mouse, Oostanaula, Price, Rogers,
Spring, Sugar, Towee, and Turtletown Creeks.
° Sequatchie River: Little Sequatchie River and Big Brush, Crystal,
Hicks, McWilliams, Skillern, and Woodcock Creeks.
° Tennessee River Minor Tributaries. Big Possum, Clear, Decatur,
Long Savannah, Lookout, Middle, Mullins, Rock, Chattanooga,
North and South Chickamauga, Richland, Running Water, Sale,
Sewee, Soddy, Wolftever, and Yellow Creeks.
55
-------
Hydrologically, this basin encompasses all or major portions of Bledsoe,
Bradley, Hamilton, Marion, McMinn, Meigs, Polk, Rhea, and Sequatchie
Counties as well as minor parts of Grundy, Monroe, and Roane Counties in
southeast Tennessee. The largest city within this basin is Chattanooga
with a population of 169,565 in 1980. Other cities in this basin with
1980 populations greater than 5,000 are; Cleveland 126,415), East Ridge
(21,236), Athens (12,080), Red Bank (13,297), Soddy-Daisy (8,388),
Dayton (5,913), and Signal Mountain (5,818).
Table V-27 contains a list of the major dischargers in the tower
Tennessee basin.
!UU V-27
Major Diachargara - baims:
Permit # Name County
TN0024121 Cleveland STP Bradley
TN0002461 Olin Corporation Bradley
TN0024210 Chattanooga-Moccasin Hamilton
Bend STP
TN0002780 Chattem, Inc. Hamilton
TN0002453 Dixie Yarns Lupton City Hamilton
TN0002844 DuPont Chattanooga Hamilton
TN0020516 Red Bank STP Hamilton
TN0028380 So Wood Piedmont Hamilton
TN0026450 TVA-Sequoyah Nuclear Hamilton
TN0024295 So. Pittsburg STP Marion
TN0024201 Athens STP McMinn
TN0002356 Bowater Southern McMinn
Paper Company
TN0063771 Etowah STP McMinn
TN0002411 Tennessee Chemical Co. Polk
TN0020478 Dayton STP Rhea
TN0021261 Spring City STP Rhea
TN0020168 TVA-Watts Bar Nuclear Rhea
mmm Baals
Receiving Stream
Hiwassee River
Hiwassee River
Tennessee River
Chattanooga Creek
Tennessee River
Tennessee River
Tennessee River
Chattanooga Creek
Tennessee River
Tennessee River
Oostanaula Creek
Hiwassee River
Conasauga River
Ocoee River
Richland Creek Embayment
Watts Bar Lake
Tennessee River
The Lower Tennessee basin is within the jurisdiction of the Chattanooga
Field Office. Those streams in the Lower Tennessee basin impacted by
mining activities were assessed by the Surface Mining Section. A
summary of the water quality assessments for the Lower Tennessee basin
appears in the Table below.
SABLE ¥-2§
summary or mTKRBOBx assessments
LOWER TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN
RXWRS (all aim® unite in STRUM MILES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 66
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 35
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 31
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 172.50 153.00
SIZE THREATENED 200.40 277.65
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 18.90 114.20
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 42.90 76.35
325.50
478.05
133.10
119.25
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
434.70
621.20
1055.90
56
-------
TABU V-28 (Cont.)
mms (mil aim wits in ACHE®)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 12
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 7
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 5
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
SIZE THREATENED
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
SIZE MOT SUPPORTING
25.00 28747.00 28772.00
67.00 20169,00 20236.00
16.00 378.00 394.00
.00 1163.00 1163.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
108.00 50457.00 50565.00
Of the 1102.5 miles of streams in the Loner Tennessee basin identified
in Tennessee's Waterbody System, 1,055.9 were assessed (96 percent
assessment rate?. A total of 603.55 miles were assessed as fully
supporting designated uses (76 percent of the assessed miles). However,
it should be noted that 478.05 of these miles were considered
threatened. Thus, the Lower Tennessee had one of the highest
percentages ©f threatened stream miles in the state. Thirteen percent
{133.1 miles) of the total assessed miles were assessed as partially
supporting. Eleven percent 1119.25 miles) were assessed as not
supporting.
There are four streams in the Lower Tennessee basin posted against a
public use. The Tennessee portion of Chattanooga Creek is posted
against fishing and body contact recreation because of the presence of
elevated levels ©f fecal coliforms and organic chemicals. Stringer's
Branch in Hamilton County is posted against water contact recreation due
to bypassing and leakage from the city of Red Bank's collection system.
Coops Creek in Sequatchie County is posted due to backgound sources of
bacteria in the Dunlap area.
Oostanaula Creek below the Athens sewage treatment plant has been posted
against water contact recreation because of elevated coliform levels.
This stream was the subject of an intensive survey (McGregor, 1990) and
a special survey (Browning, 1988) which documented severe impacts from
inadequately treated municipal effluent. Based on these and other data,
the Athens Utility District was added to the Section 304 (1) short list
as a discharger of priority pollutants in toxic amounts.
Several other streams (or portions of streams) in the basin have been
assessed as not supporting designated uses. North Chickamauga, Possum,
Soddy, Big Brush, Hicks, and Woodcock Creeks are impacted by mining
activities. The Ocoee River and North Potato Creek are impacted by
historical mining activities in the Copper Basin. The Ocoee River is
also subjected to industrial discharges from the Tennessee Chemical
Company in Copperhill; waste spills from Tennessee Chemical Company, CSX
Railroad, and highway transport truck accidents; and flow alteration
caused by Tennessee Valley Authority power generation.
57
-------
The Tennessee River below Chattanooga has also been assessed as not
supporting designated uses due to urban runoff, combined sewer bypassing
from Chattanooga, collection system bypassing from Red Bank, poor water
quality from the Chattanooga Creek and South Chickamauga Creek
watersheds? and the cumulative effects of other dischargers in Hamilton
County. A portion of South Mouse Creek in Cleveland is not supporting
designated uses because of bypassing from the city's collection system.
to intensive survey was also performed on the Hiwassee River (McGregor,
1989). Based on data collected in this survey, the lower portion of the
Hiwassee is considered impacted by industrial and municipal discharges.
Bowater Southern Paper was added to the Section 304 (1) Short List as a
discharger of priority pollutants in toxic amounts because of the
detection of dioxin in fish tissue downstream of the facility, which
uses a bleached-kraft process.
There are eight streams identified as partially supporting uses. South
Chickamauga Creek is impacted by pollution sources in Georgia,
channelization, and a bypassing from the Chattanooga sewage collection
system. The Tennessee River below South Chickamauga Creek is impacted
by industrial discharges and poor water quality from the South
Chickamauga Creek watershed; the portion of the river below Watts Bar
Reservoir is impacted by poor quality tailwater releases.
Big Fiery Gizzard Creek is impacted by activities in the Tracy City
area. Little Richland Creek is impacted by overflows from Dayton's
collection system and Richland Creek is impacted by by-passing from the
Dayton sewage treatment plant. Crow Creek has also been channelized and
no longer fully supports designated uses. Wolftever Creek is impacted
by the Summit landfill and an unnamed tributary to to Harris Creek is
impacted by the Bradley County landfill. A stream survey of the Little
Sequatchie River and a small tributary, Gray's Creek, documented impacts
from releases of coal slurry from Consolidated Coal Company (Turner,
1989) .
There are several important reservoirs in the Lower Tennessee basin,
including a small portion of Guntersville Reservoir. Although aquatic
weeds are more widespread in Guntersville Reservoir than in any other
TVA reservoir, weeds do not pose a major problem in the Tennessee
portion of the reservoir.
Ocoee Number 3, Number 2, and Number 1 (Parksville) Reservoirs have been
severely impacted by mining and mineral processing activities of the
Copper Basin. Metal concentrations (copper, zinc, cadmium, lead, and
aluminum) are high. Algal production is very low, probably due to toxic
concentrations of heavy metals. The pH in Ocoee No. 1 Reservoir has
improved significantly in recent years, but values below 6.0 are still
measured occasionally. Fecal colifora concentrations at recreation
sites are acceptable for water contact recreation, but sedimentation is
affecting some recreation due to formation of extensive mud flats in the
upstream portion of the reservoir.
The severe erosion at Copperhill has caused the loss of over 80 percent
of the storage capacity at Ocoee No. 3 Reservoir due to siltation. To
keep the tunnel to the powerhouse from becoming blocked, annual flushing
of accumulated sediment is necessary. During these sluicing operations,
turbidity, suspended solids, COD, total copper, iron, manganese, and
zinc in the inflow to Ocoee No. 1 Reservoir increase by as much as a
thousandfold over background levels. The sedimentation rate at Ocoee
No. 1 Reservoir seems to be increasing and, as of 1982, about 24 percent
of the original storage volume of the reservoir had been lost.
58
-------
Studies have shown that base flows in dry weather from streams in the
Copper Basin, notably Davis Mill Creek, are heavily laden with toxic
metals due to the acidic nature ©f these waters in contact with the
exposed minerals as well as residuals from industrial operations. Under
a court-issued consent decree, Tennessee Chemical Company has conpleted
projects to correct some of the sources. However, the Company is now
bankrupt and sale of the facility is pending resolution of concerns over
the buyers acceptance of liability for past environmental damage.
Ocoee Number 3, Number 2, and a portion of Parksville Reservoir were
assessed as not supporting designated uses. The remainder of Parksville
Reservoir was assessed as partially supporting. Nickajack and
Chickamauga Reservoirs were assessed as fully supporting. However,
parts of each reservoir were considered threatened.
The upper portion of Nickajack is threatened by pollution from the
Hamilton County area. Chickamauga Reservoir is threatened by poor water
quality released from Watts Bar Reservoir and the planned increase in
industrial dischargers in the Hiwassee River area.
Additional streams assessed as fully supporting but threatened included:
Lookout Creek, Long Savannah Creek, Decatur Creek, a portion of Richland
and Little Richland Creek, Sewee Creek, Sale Creek, Possum Creek, Soddy
Creek, North Chickamauga Creek, Cain Creek, Falling Water Creek, Suck
Creek, Wolftever Creek, a portion of the Hiwassee River, Candies Creek,
South and North Mouse Creek, Chatata Creek, South Chestuee, Conasauga
Creek, Chestuee Creek, Greasy Creek, a portion of the Sequatchie River,
Maise Creek, Big Brush Creek, Woodcock Creek, Griffith Creek, and Coops
Creek.
There are 12 ambient monitoring stations in the Lower Tennessee basin.
Table V-29 presents the results of the Water Quality Index analysis of
these data. An additional stream survey of Isbell Branch in Hamilton
County documented impacts related to a motel discharge near Tiftonia
(McGregor, 1989) .
59
-------
ets
River Mil®
ftatiea Mtutbar
Pinny River
5.0
TN002102
•Chattanooga Creek
0.9
TN000590
Eiwaase® River
15.0
TN001587
Ocoee River
19.6
TN002050
Oostanaula Creek
28.4
g TN002058
Sequatchie River
6.3
TN002375
South Chickamauga
0.4
TN002425
Tennessee River
477.0
TN003195
Tennessee River
444.0
TN003315
Tennessee River
430.7
TN003325
Richland Creek
2.5
TN002224
Cane Creek
1.5
TN000425
Table V-29. Water Quality at Ubitnt Monitoring Stations in thm lower Tuumiim Basin, 1988-1989.
Wat mr
Quality
OwatT Value Indax
Wmmmmbmx
ot
Rhea
Hamilton
Bradley
Polk
McMinn
Marion
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Marion
1.2
13.3
4.9
13.6
22.2
10.7
16.35
3.3
7.5
5.6
5.6
18.7
0.23
227.93
4.08
5.33
29.54
15.16
20.61
0.63
2.46
1.55
8.38
36.43
High pH
Nitrate, fecal
Nitrate, fecal
Low pH, copper,
zinc, fecal
Ammonia, nickel,
nitrate, fecal,
phosphorus
Nitrate, fecal
Phosphorus,
BOD, fecal,
nitrate.
Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate
High pH,
nitrate
Nitrate, fecal,
ammonia, copper,
phosphorus
Land disposal,
urban runoff,
and STP impactc
Pollution from
Copperhill area
Athens
STP discharge
Agricultural
and mining
activities
Urban runoff
and STP
discharge
Removal of dry
weather discharge
of Dayton effluent
Agricultural,
urban and
STP impacts
-------
Pppt Jtonw— KlTir Baaln
The Upper Tennessee River basin covers 2,148 square miles of land and
water area and consists of all or parts of the following tributary
basins as delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Major Tennessee
Hydologic Basin drainage area
Unit Description (square milesI
06010201 Tennessee River and minor tributaries from 1367
the river's head to Watts Bar Dam
06010204 Little Tennessee River and tributaries 781
This basin's topography, particularly in the Little Tennessee and Little
River drainage areas, is very mountainous in nature. With the exception
of the lower 30 miles, the Little Tennessee River is characterized by
rugged mountain topography and considerable topographic relief with
elevations ranging from about 850 feet where the river emerges from the
mountains to over 6,600 feet above sea level at Mt. Guyot ©n the divide
between the Little Tennessee and French Broad Rivers. Throughout most
of this area, the Little Tennessee River flows in a steep, narrow, and
precipitous gorge. Just below Fontana Dam in east Tennessee, the ridges
and peaks rise some 2,000 to 3,000 feet above the river.
Similarly, the Little River which rises on the northern slop© of the
Smoky Mountains near Clingmans Dome is characterized by a rapid fall in
elevation from 6,000 feet to 900 feet above sea level within a distance
of 15 miles. The lower reaches of these streams and the Tennessee River
minor tributaries drainage area are characterized by comparatively
narrow, parallel ridges and somewhat broader, intervening valleys of
northeast-southwest trend.
Principal streams and tributaries draining the Upper Tennessee River
basin are delineated below by drainage area:
° Little Tennessee River; Tellico River plus numerous smaller
streams including Abrams, Baker, Bat, Citico, Fork, Island, and
Ninemile Creeks.
° Little River: Several smaller streams such as Crooked,
Ellejoy, Hesse, Knob, Nails, Pistol, and West Laurel Creeks.
° Tennessee River Minor Tributaries: Piney River plus a
number of smaller streams including Black, Caney, Cave, Mines,
Lackey, Paint Rock, Pole Cat, Pond, Richland, Riley, Steekee,
Sweetwater, Ten Mile, Turkey, Whites, and Wolf Creeks.
Average stream slopes in the Little Tennessee River basin equal about
2.81 ft/mi from river mile 0 to 42, and 17.30 ft/mi from river mile 42
to the Tennessee-North Carolina state line. In the Little River basin,
stream slopes average about 5.30 ft/mi from river mile 0 to 24, and
15.80 ft/mi from river mile 24 to 35. The average stream slope along
the Tennessee River main stem equals about 0.96 ft/mi. Basin elevations
range from 800 to 4,500 feet in the Little Tennessee River drainage
area; 850 to 3,500 feet in the Little River drainage area; and 300 to
500 feet above sea level along the Tennessee River main stem between
Watts Bar Dam and Knoxville.
61
-------
The Upper Tennessee River basin encompasses all or major parts ©f
Blount, Knox, Loudon, Monroe, and Roan® Counties plus minor parts of
Bledsoe, Cumberland, Meigs, Rhea, and Sevier Counties, The largest city
within th© basin is Knoxville with a population of 175,030 in 1980.
Other cities within the basin having 1980 populations greater than 5,000
are Maryville (17,€80), Alcoa (6,870), Rockwood (5,767), and Lenoir City
(5,446).
Table V-30 contains a list of the major dischargers in the Upper
Tennessee basin.
XJUKUE V-30
Major Dischargers - 0)pp« InauiM Basis
Permit #
Name
County
Receiving Stream
TN0001520
Aluminum Co. of Amer.
Blount
Russell Branch
TN0020079
Maryville STP
Blount
Tennessee River
TN0024287
Hallsdale-Powell-
Knox
Beaver Creek
Beaver Cr. STP
TN0023582
Knoxville-Kuwahee STP
Knox
Tennessee River
TN0023574
Knoxville-Fourth
Knox
Tennessee River
Creek STP
TN0023353
Turkey Creek STP
Knox
Turkey Creek
TN0060020
West Knox UD-
Knox
Beaver Creek
Karns Beaver Cr STP
TN0020494
Lenoir City STP
Loudon
Tennessee River
TN0058181
Loudon STP
Loudon
Tennessee River
TN0001457
Viskase Corp
Loudon
Tennessee River
TN0020052
Sweetwater STP
Monroe
Sweetwater Creek
TN0026158
Rockwood STP
Roane '
Black Creek
The Upper Tennessee basin is within the jurisdiction of the Knoxville
Field Office. Water quality assessments of streams in areas impacted by
coal mining were performed by the Mining Section. A summary of the
assessments for the Upper Tennessee basin appears in Table V-31.
TABLE V-31
SUMMERY Of KUXKBODY ASSESSMENTS
UPPER TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN
RTvms (all sin units in STRUM MXLES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 34
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED ; 4
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 30
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 119.40 10.50 129.90
SIZE THREATENED 137.20 2.00 139.20
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 112.60 21.50 134.10
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 40.80 28.80 69.60
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED 410.00 62.80 472.80
62
-------
TABU V-31 (Cont.)
LAKES (all sis® units in MCBKB)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED ; 7
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 2
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 5
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
SIZE THREATENED
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING
678.00
.00
1749.00
14600.00
.00
47700.00
7800.00
.00
678.00
47700.00
9549.00
14600.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
17027.00 55500.00 72527.00
Of the 588.3 miles of streams in the Upper Tennessee basin identified in
Tennessee's Waterbody System, 472.8 miles were assessed for this report.
This is an assessment rate of 80 percent. Only 57 percent (269.1) of
these assessed miles were considered fully supporting; 139.2 of the
fully supporting stream miles were considered threatened.
Several lakes and streams in the Upper Tennessee basin have segments
posted against a public use or have public advisories issued. Tellico,
Fort Loudoun, Chilhowee, and Watts Bar Reservoirs are impacted by PCB
levels in fish tissue.
The public has been advised to avoid consumption of catfish from Tellico
Reservoir. The public has been advised to limit consumption of
Chilhowee Reservoir rainbow trout fish to 1.2 pounds per month and to
avoid eating carp.
TWRA has banned the commercial sale and harvest of catfish from Fort
Loudoun Reservoir (from the dam upstream to the confluence of the
Holston and French Broad River) and the public has been advised to avoid
consumption of all catfish, plus largemouth bass that weigh over 2
pounds.
The Little River embayment on the Tennessee River (in Fort Loudoun
Reservoir) has been posted against catfish and largemouth bass
consumption. Potential sources of PCB's in the Little River embayment
and Fort Loudoun Reservoir have been suggested in previous Division
reports (McKinney, 1982). These suspected sources include the Forks of
the River Industrial Park, the Aluminium Corporation of America, the
Maryville sewage treatment plant, and the Singleton Marine Ways facility
operated by TVA.
An advisory has also been issued for Watts Bar Reservoir. Catfish,
striped bass, and hybrid striped/whitebass should not be eaten from the
portion of Watts Bar from Kingston to Lenoir City and consumption of
catfish, sauger, carp, whitebass, smallmouth buffalo, and largemouth
bass (larger than two pounds) should be limited to no more than 1.2
pounds per month in the entire reservoir.
Goose Creek, First Creek, Second Creek, Third Creek and the East Fork of
Third Creek in Knoxville are posted against wateOr contact recreation
63
-------
because of elevated coliform levels. The primary sources of the fecal
coliforroa are urban runoff and bypasses from Knoxville's sewage
collection system. The Sinking Creek Embayment on Fort Loudoun is also
posted against water contact recreation because of elevated coliform
levels. Source of these pollutants is the Ten Mile Creek area.
The Tennessee River below Fort Loudoun has also been assessed as not
supporting designated uses. This part of the river is severely impaired
by the poor quality of Fort Loudoun Dam discharges. The Tennessee River
at Knoxvllle Is impacted by urban runoff, municipal discharges, and
PCB's in fish tissue (dioxin was also recently detected in a tissue
sample collected near the Marine Base, southwest of Knoxville). The
Little River is impacted by industrial discharges and the presence of
PCB's in fish tissue.
Streams assessed as partially supporting designated uses include
Sweetwater Creek, Gallagher Creek, Crooked Creek, Ellejoy Creek, Nails
Creek, Town Creek, Caney Creek, Russell Branch, Turkey Creek, Fork
Creek, Bat Creek, and Ninemile Creek.
Sweetwater Creek is impacted by an industrial discharge (Langdale) plus
unspecified nonpoint pollution. Gallagher Creek, Crooked Creek, Ellejoy
Creek, Nails Creek, Fork Creek, Bat Creek, and Ninemile Creek are
impacted by nonpoint pollution from agricultural activities, pasture
lands and, in some cases, land development. The following are impacted
by municipal discharges: Caney Creek (Harriman) and Ninemile Creek
(school package plant). In addition, Goose Creek is impacted by Candora
Marble.
Town Creek is impacted by storm sewers and surface runoff. Turkey Creek
is impacted by land development, surface runoff, pasture land, and a
municipal discharge. Russell Branch is impacted by discharges from a
wastepond and landfill operated by the Aluminum Company of America.
Of the major lakes in the Upper Tennessee basin, Fort Loudoun and a
portion of Watts Bar Reservoir have been identified as not supporting
designated uses. The reasons for this assessment are urban runoff from
the Knoxville and Oak Ridge areas, municipal and industrial discharges,
and PCB contamination. Chilhowee Reservoir has been assessed as
partially supporting designated uses because of PCBs. The portion of
Watts Bar that is not currently posted is assessed as fully supporting,
but threatened.
Other streams in the Upper Tennessee basin have been assessed as fully
supporting but threatened by current or projected activities in the
watershed. These include the Little River outside of the Great Smokey
Mountains National Park, which is threatened by development in the
Townsend area; the Tellico River, threatened by discharges from the
Tellico Plains sewage treatment plant; and Citico Creek.
There are three ambient monitoring stations in the Upper Tennessee
basin. Table V-32 presents the results of the Water Quality Index
analysis of these data.
64
-------
Tabl® ¥-32. Wat«r Quality at Aabiant Monitoring Station® is tha Ujppar
Basin, 1988-1989.
St,
RIwe Mil®
Station
County
&f«raf«
Valua
Katax
Quality
Faraaatax
of
Concern-1
ConwDts
~Little River
2.6
TN001720
Tennessee River
643.3
TN003110
Tennessee River
529.5
TN003140
Blount
Knox
Rhea
3.4
7.5
3.6
1.49 Nitrate
4.77 Nitrate
0.67 Nitrate
Urban runoff
~posted stream segment
1 Parameters of concern are those that exceeded fish and aquatic life or recreation criteria in more than 25% of
the observations.
-------
Clinch River Basin
The Tennessee portion of the Clinch River basin covers 2,612 square
miles of land and water area and consists of all or parts of the
following tributary basins as delineated by EPA'a River Reach system.
Major
Hydologic
Unit
0601(5751
06010206
06010207
06010208
Basin
Description
Clinch River from the state line to
Norris Dam excluding the Powell River
Powell River from the Virginia state
line to the river's mouth.
Clinch River from Norris Dam to the mouth
Emory River including the Obed River
Tennessee
drainage area
(square miles)
TZf ~~
387
636
865
The Clinch River basin consists of the area drained by the Clinch and
Emory Rivers. The area drained by the Clinch River Is characterized by
minor parallel ridges and intervening valleys. Clinch River tributaries
include the Powell and Emory Rivers, plus a number of smaller streams
Including Bear, Beaver, Big War, Buffalo, lull Run, Cove, Davis, Hinds,
Indian, Mulberry, Poplar, Sycamore, and White Creeks. Elevations in
this area rang® from about 800 to 4,000 feet above sea level.
The Booty River and its principal tributaries, including the Obed and
Little Emory Rivers and Clear, Cllfty, Cook, Crab Orchard, Crooked Fork,
Daddys, Drowning, Greasy, Island, and Rock Creeks, drain the generally
flat uplands of the Cumberland Plateau. These streams are characterized
by meandering courses with steep side slopes which have cut deeply into
the Plateau's surface. The elevations in this area range from about 800
to 2,500 feet above sea level.
Hydrologically, this basin encompasses all or major parts of Anderson,
Campbell, Claiborne, Cumberland, Hancock, Morgan, Roane, and Union
Counties and minor parts of Fentress, Grainger, Hamblen, Knox, and
Loudon Counties. The largest city within the basin is Oak Ridge with a
population of 27,662 in 1980. Other cities within the basin with 1980
populations greater than 5,000 are Harriman (8,303), Crossville (6, 394),
LaFollette (8,198), and Clinton (5,245). Table V-33 presents a list of
the major dischargers within the Clinch River basin.
SJIBUE V-33
Major Discharger* - Clinch River Basin
Permit # Name
TN0026506 mHton STP #1
TN0024155 Oak Ridge-West STP
TN0005410 TVA-Bull Run Steam
TN0002950 USDOE-Gaseous Plant
TN0002968 USDOE-Oak Ridge *-12
TN0020532 LaFollette STP
TN0024996 Crossville STP
TN0002941 USDOE-Oak Ridge Nat Lab
TN0025437 Harriman STP
TN0020885 Oliver Springs STP
TN0005452 TVA-Kingston Steam
County
Anderson
Anderson
Anderson
Anderson
Anderson
Campbell
Cumberland
Roane
Roane
Roane
Roane
Receiving Stream
Clinch River
East Fork Poplar
Clinch River
Poplar Creek
East Fork Poplar
Big Creek
Obed River
Clinch River
Caney Creek
Indian Creek
Emory River
66
-------
A small portion ©£ the Clinch River basin in Hancock County is
technically within the jurisdiction of the Johnson City Field Office, _
However, for the purpose of this report? all Clinch River basin
assessments were performed by the Knoxville Field Office and the Surface
Mining Section. ft summary of their assessments appears in Table V-34.
max v-34
smnasw qj MXUtBODIT kiittMMDRTS
CLINCH RIVER BASIN
MXVtrn fall (iM unit a In SIBEM-M MXX»)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 28
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 4
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED s 24
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
EVALUATED
MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
115.50
34.30
149.80
SIZE THREATENED
234.40
12.60
247.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
130.20
15.30
145.50
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING
25.30
.00
25.30
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
505.40
62.20
567.60
LSKES («11 aiM unit* 1a JKCREgf
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED s 5
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 0
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 5
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
EVALUATED
MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
34232.00
.00
34232.00
SIZE THREATENED
6184.00
.00
6184.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
47.00
.00
47.00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING
.00
.00
.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
40463.00
.00
40463.00
Of the 690,5 Clinch River basin stream miles identified in the Waterbody
System, 567.6 were assessed for this report (82 percent assessment
rate). Of the assessed miles, 396.8 miles (70 percent) were identified
as fully supporting designated uses. Of the fully supporting stream
miles, 247 were considered threatened by future water quality problems.
170.8 stream miles were identified as having some degree of nonsupport
(25.3 miles not supporting, 145.5 partially supporting). Coal Creek is
posted against water contact recreation because of elevated coliform
levels from the Lake City sewage treatment plant. Crooked Fork Creek in
Morgan County is posted against water contact recreation because of
elevated fecal coliforms from the Wartburg sewage treatment plant. Cove
Creek is posted because of the Caryville - Jacksboro STP discharge.
One of Tennessee's most serious water quality problems occurs in East
Fork Poplar Creek. Fifteen miles of this stream have been posted
against all uses because of the elevated levels of mercury, other
metals, and organic chemicals. The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Y-
12 facility at Oak Ridge is the source.
As part of the Section 304(1) process, Tennessee identified three DOE
facilities as being dischargers of priority pollutants in toxic amounts.
These were Y-12, K-25, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Streams
67
-------
identified as being impacted were East Fork Poplar Creek, Mitchell
Branch, White Oak Creek, Melton Branch, Poplar Creek, Bear Creek and a
segment of the Clinch River.
A public advisory has been issued concerning Melton Hill Reservoir on
the Clinch River near Oak Ridge, The public has been advised to avoid
consumption of catfish from this body of water assessed as not
supporting designated uses. The Clinch River below Melton Hill also has
elevated levels of PCBs in fish and receives pollution from the DOE
facilities at Oak Ridge. This segment has been assessed as partially
supporting designated uses and the public has been advised to limit
consumption ©£ catfish from this portion of the Clinch to no more than
1.2 pounds per month.
Streams assessed as partially supporting designated uses include Big
Creek, Russell Creek, Hickory Creek, Beaver Creek, Hinds Creek, Clinch
River (below Horris Dam), Poplar Creek, Indian Creek, Emory River,
Crooked Fork Emory River, and Obed River. The portion of the Clinch
River below Morris Dam is impacted by low dissolved oxygen levels in dam
discharges. (Hub baffles are being used to increase DO in releases from
Morris Dam.) Big Creek, Russell Creek, Hinds Creek, and Beaver Creek
are impacted by municipal discharges (LaFolletta, Tazewell, Norris, and
West Knox Utility District, respectively). Poplar Creek is impacted by
pollutants from the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge facility and by
mining activities. Hinds Creek is impacted by agricultural activities.
Runoff from the Petro Truckstop impacts Hickory Creek.
The Obed River below the city of Crossville was the site of an intensive
survey (Sulkin, 1988, and Wojtowicz and Clark, 1989) This survey
indicated that this stream is impacted not only by inadequately treated
effluent from Crossville's sewage treatment plant but also land
development.
Indian Creek, a tributary to Bast Fork Poplar Creek, is impacted by
surface runoff and channelization. The Crooked Fork Emory River is
impacted by mining activities. The headwaters area of the Emory River
is impacted by runoff from forestry and mining activities. Important
streams identified as threatened include the Powell River (nonpoint
pollution from Virginia), the Clinch River (nonpoint pollution), and
parts of Melton Hill Reservoir.
Coal mining impacts threatening the Powell and Clinch Rivers have the
potential to affect Norris Reservoir. These impacts include low pH,
high sulfates, ailtation, coal fines and elevated concentrations of
heavy metals. The States of Virginia and Tennessee are cooperating in
an effort to identify and correct problems in these watersheds.
No additional publicly-owned lakes in the Clinch River basin were
assessed as not supporting designated uses. Byrd Lake in Cumberland
Mountain State Park was assessed as partially supporting.
Several additional streams in the Clinch River Basin have been assessed
as fully supporting but threatened by current or projected activities in
the watershed. These include the upper reaches of the Clinch and Powell
Rivers which are threatened by nonpoint sources in both Tennessee and
Virginia; Bull Run Creek threatened by discharges from the Maynardsville
sewage treatment plant; the Emory River which has historical mining
impacts; and Daddys Creek which has mining and agricultural pollutant
sources.
There are six ambient monitoring stations in the Clinch River basin.
Results of the Water Quality Index analysis of these data are presented
in Table V-35. An additional special stream survey was performed on
Swamp Branch and Cove Creek (McCoy and Turner, 1989).
68
-------
Table ¥-35. Water Qoality at lablaut Monitoring 8tatlons In thm Clinch Rl^®r Basin, 1986-1987.
Str#n
River Mil®
Station
Couatf
Average Water
Exeeedene® Quality ot
Value Index ConceraJ
Powell River
115.7
TN002180
Crooked Fork
4.2
TH000709
Obed River
36.9
-------
Frwofa Broad Mlwmx B»«la
The Tennessee portion of the French Broad River basin covers 2,298
square miles of land and water area and consists of all or parts of the
following tributary basins as delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Major
Hydologic
Unit
06010105
06010106
0601010?
06010108
Basin
Description
French Broad River from the Tennessee
state line to the Pigeon River
Pigeon River and tributaries from the
Tennessee state line to the river's mouth
French Broad River and tributaries from
the mouth of the Pigeon River to the
confluence with the Holston River.
Nolichucky River and tributaries from the
Tennessee state line to the mouth
Tennessee
drainage area
(square miles)
217
153
798
1130
The French Broad River meanders through a rather broad valley to its
junction with the Holston River about 4.5 river miles above Knoxville.
From the North Carolina line to a point about 2 miles upstream from
Bridgeport, Tennessee, near river mile 85, the river valley is
characterized by deep, precipitous gorges and high, craggy ridges.
Below Bridgeport, the river valley is characterized by relatively flat
valley slopes with an average stream slope equal to about 2.43 feet per
river mile. Basin elevations generally range from 900 to 5,000 feet
above sea level.
Major tributaries to the French Broad River include the Nolichucky and
Pigeon Rivers and several smaller streams such as the Little Pigeon
River and Boyds, Dumplin, Gulf Fork, Big, Long, and Sinking Creeks.
Other tributaries to the Nolichucky, Pigeon, and Little Pigeon River
include Bent, Big Limestone, English, Jennings, Lick, Long, Meadow,
North and South Indian, Richland, Waldon, and Webb Creeks plus the East
and West Forks of the Little Pigeon River.
Hydrologically, this basin encompasses all or major parts of Cocke,
Greene, Jefferson, Sevier, Unicoi, and Washington Counties as well as
minor parts of Blount, Hamblen, Hawkins, and Knox Counties. The largest
city within this basin is Greensville with a population of 14,097 in
1980. The only other city within this region with a 1980 population
greater than 5,000 is Newport 17,580).
Table V-36 contains a list of the major dischargers in the French Broad
River basin. The French Broad River basin is divided between the
jurisdictions of the Knoxville and Johnson City Field Offices. The
staffs of each office assessed the waterbodies within their
jurisdictions. Table V-37 presents the results of those assessments.
70
-------
TABU V-36
Itajor Diachargera - French Broad Mwir Basin
Permit #
TN0020702
TN0001899
TN0021229
TN0002810
TN0026646
TN0020117
TN0021237
TN0024350
TN0023001
TN0002038
Name County
Newport STP Cocke
Ball Zinc Products Greene
Greeneville STP Greene
BASF Fibers Hamblen
Forks of River STP Knox
Gatlinburg STP Sevier
Pigeon Forge Sevier
Sevierville STP Sevier
Erwin STP Unicoi
Nuclear Fuel Services Unicoi
Receiving Stream
Pigeon River ~
Sinking Creek
Nolichucky River
Nolichucky River
French Broad River
Nest Prong Little
Pigeon River
Nest Prong Little
Pigeon River
Little Pigeon R.
Nolichucky River
Martins Creek
Tmm v-37
summary or mamsmTC asssssments
FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN
RXVKRS (all alae units is STREAM MILES1
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER IfATERBODIES ASSESSED : 34
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 5
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 29
ASSESSMENT BASIS
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
EVALUATED
MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED
46.90
14.60
61.50
SIZE THREATENED
69.30
.00
69.30
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
374.80
46.00
420.80
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING
8.30
38.10
46.40
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
499.30
98.70
598.00
LUX8 (all ain unit* la ACRES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE WATERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 0
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 2
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS .
EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED .00
SIZE THREATENED 30703.00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING .00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING .00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
30783.00
.00
.00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
30703.00
.00
30703.00
71
-------
Of the 690.4 French Broad River basin stream miles identified in
Tennessee's Waterbody System, 598.0 were assessed for this report (87
percent assessment rate). Of the assessed miles, only 22% (130.6 miles)
mm assessed as fully supporting uses. Of these miles, 69.3 were
considered threatened.
Seventy-eight percent of the French Broad River stream miles had some
degree of nonsupport. The majority of these (420.8 miles) were assessed
as partially supporting. 46.4 miles were considered not supporting of
designated.
Because of the documentation of dioxin in Pigeon River fish, the portion
of the river in Tennessee has been posted against fish consumption and
assessed as not supporting uses. The Pigeon River represents one of the
most controversial water pollution issues in Tennessee and has received
nationwide attention in the last four years.
Since the 1940' s, the Pigeon River has been the subject of a number of
water quality studies done by various agencies and researchers. The
consistent conclusion has been that the river is severely degraded by
discharges from Champion Paper Company of Canton, North Carolina. The
State of Tennessee's concern over this matter has been repeatedly
expressed to the company and to officials of the State of North
Carolina.
Legal actions over this matter resulted in EPA's assuming authority for
issuing Champion's NPDES permit. A draft permit was issued in 1987?
however, the terms of the draft permit have not been fully accepted by
the citizens group in Tennessee and legal actions continue at present.
Because of the documentation of dioxin in the Pigeon River, Champion
Paper was included in Tennessee's Section 304(1) Short List of
facilities discharging priority pollutants to a Tennessee stream in
toxic amounts.
Leadvale Creek in Jefferson County is posted against water contact
recreation because of bacterial contamination from the White Pine sewage
treatment plant. The only other stream segments in the French Broad
River basin assessed as not supporting are the French Broad River below
Douglas Reservoir and Sinking Creek near Greeneville. This segment of
the French Broad River is severely impaired by low seasonal flows and
low dissolved oxygen in Douglas Dam releases.
Sinking Creek, the site of an intensive biological survey (Wojtowicr,
Clark, and Melgaard, 1989), was found to be impacted by toxicity
discharged from the Ball Zinc facility. As a result of this study, Ball
Zinc was added to the Section 304(1) Short List as a facility
discharging priority pollutants in toxic amounts.
There is a long list of streams considered partially supporting in the
French Broad basin. The entire length of the Tennessee portion of the
Nolichucky River is impacted by siltation and suspended solids from
nonpoint sources in North Carolina. There are also industrial impacts
in some segments.
Nolichucky River tributaries Meadow Creek, Cove Creek, Big Limestone
Creek, Pigeon Creek, Lick Creek, and Sinking Creek are impacted by
agricultural activities such as crop production, pasture land runoff and
discharges from animal waste systems.
Two tributaries to the Pigeon River, Sinking Creek and Cosby Creek, are
impacted by municipal discharges. The lower half of the Little Pigeon
River is impacted by land development, industrial discharges, municipal
discharges (City of Sevierville), and agricultural activities.
72
-------
Little Pigeon tributaries with poor water quality include the West Prong
Little Pigeon, Webb Creek, and Little East Fork. Two West Prong
tributaries, Maiden Creek and Dudley Creek, also only partially support
designated uses. The West Prong of the Pigeon River ia impacted by
domestic discharges, land development, and urban runoff from the
Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forg® areas. Dudley Creek is impacted by
channelisation and land development. Walden Creek is impacted by
agriculture and leakage from a waste storage facility. Webb Creek and
Little East Fork are impacted by agricultural nonpoint pollution and
land development.
The French Broad River downstream of the confluence of Pigeon River has
been assessed as partially supporting except for that segment below
Douglas Dam that has been assessed as not supporting. A biological
survey (Wojtowicz and Clark, 1989) indicated that impacts from the
Pigeon River extend into the French Broad. The French Broad section
between the confluence of the Holston River and Happy Creek is still
inpaired by the upstream impacts of Douglas Reservoir. Additional
impacts include agricultural activities and animal waste systems.
The French Broad segment between Douglas Reservoir and the mouth of
Pigeon River is impacted by an industrial discharge (Champion Paper in
North Carolina), agricultural activities, and poor water quality from
the Pigeon River. Dumplin Creek, a French Broad tributary, is impacted
by agricultural activities and several municipal discharges.
Douglas Reservoir is the major publicly-owned lake in the French Broad
basin and is threatened by siltation, thermal pollution, and excessive
color from the Champion Paper Mill discharge in North Carolina.
Siltation from abandoned and active mines in North Carolina has clogged
David Crockett Reservoir and contributed to closing the power plant.
The reservoir is currently used as a waterfowl refuge. High
concentrations of sediment solids throughout the reach of the Nolichucky
River have been reduced by mine reclamation work by TVA, the Soil
Conservation Service, and the State of North Carolina. Both Douglas and
David Crockett Reservoirs have been assessed as partially supporting
designated uses.
Three additional streams in the French Broad basin have been assessed as
fully supporting but threatened by current or projected activities in
the watershed. These are the West Prong of the Little Pigeon River,
South Indian Creek, and Bent Creek. The West Prong of the Little Pigeon
River is threatened by development in Gatlinburg.
There are five ambient monitoring stations in the French Broad River
basin. Table V-38 presents the results of the Water Quality Index
analysis of these data.
73
-------
table V-38. Hater Quality at tabint Monitoring Stations in tbm mutch Broad Hwr Baain, 1988-1989.
St
Rlvar
Station
County
tamrmqm
~aim
Mater
Quality
Xmtax
of
Conearn-1
French Broad River
95.9
TN001340 Cock®
Nolichucky River
98.5
TN001860 Unicoi
Pigeon River
20.4
TN002081 Cocke
Pigeon River
.8
TN002085 Cocke
Sinking Creek
.5
TN002376 Greene
11.5
10.1
8.1
10.3
14.7
7.95 Nitrate, fecal
4.24 Nitrate, fecal
3.51 Nitrate
12.42
Nitrate, fecal
Agricultural
activities
Mining
activities in
North Carolina
Champion
Paper Co. in
North Carolina
Champion
Paper Co. in
North Carolina
Phosphorus,
19.51 nitrate, fecal
1 Parameters of concern are those that exceeded fish and aquatic life or recreation criteria in 25% or
more of the observations.
I
-------
Holgtoa Riv«s Basin
The Tennessee portion of the Holston River basin covers 2,253 square
miles of land and water area and consists of all or parts of the
following tributary basins as delineated by EPA's River Reach system.
Major
Hydologic
Pnit
osoiolM"
06010103
06010104
06010101
Basin
Description
South Fork Holston River from above South
Holston Dam to the river's mouth
Watauga River from Tennessee state line to
the river's mouth
Holston River from th® North and South Forks
of the Holston River to the mouth ,
North Fork Holston River from the Virginia
State line to the river's mouth
Tennessee
drainage area
(square ^miles)
666
999
25
The basin is characterized by parallel ridges and intervening valleys.
The Holston River and its principal tributaries — the North, South, and
Middle Forks of the Holston River and the Watauga River, plus numerous
smaller streams such as Beech, Big, Big Flat, Caney, Poor Valley,
Richland, Robertson, Roseberry and Swanpond Creeks — flow in broad,
winding courses in the intervening valleys. Basin elevations generally
range from around 900 to 3,500 feet above sea level.
The Holston River basin encompasses all or major parts of Carter,
Grainger, Hamblen, Hawkins, Johnson, Sullivan, and Washington Counties
as well as minor parts of Jefferson, Knox and Union Counties. The
largest city in the basin is Johnson City with a population of 39,753 in
1980. Other cities within the basin with 1980 populations greater than
5,000 are Kingsport (32,027), Bristol (23,986), Morristown (19,683),
Elizabethton (12,431), and Jefferson City (5,€12) . Table V-39 contains
a list of the major dischargers in the Holston River basin, fable V-40
summarizes the results of the water quality assessments in the basin.
Major Dischargers -
Permit # Name
ff0023515 ElTzabethton STP
TN0004421 North American Rayon
TN0023507 Morristown STP
TN0002330 Holliston Mills
TN0020672 Rogersville STP
TN0005436 TVA - Sevier Steam
TN0021199 Jefferson City STP
TN0003719 OS Steel Corp
TN0021622 Knoxville-Loves Creek
TN0023S31 Bristol STP
TN002009S Kingsport STP
TN0001643 Mead Paper
TN0002640 Tennessee Eastman
TN0003671 OSA Holston Army Ammo
TN0024244 Johnson City Brush
TN0024236 Johnson City Knob
TN0028789 Johnson City Regional
V-39
Eolmtum Miwmx Basin
County
SEEtir
Carter
Hamblen
Hawkins
Hawkins
Hawkins
Jefferson
Jefferson
Knox
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Washington
Washington
Washington
Receiving Stream
Watauga River
Watauga River
Holston River
Holston River
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston River
Mossy Creek Emb.
Mossy Creek
Holston River
Boone Lake
S. Fork Holston
S. Fork Holston
S. Fork Holston
Holston River
Watauga River
Watauga River
Holston River
naxx v-40
BCMfMQf or natkrbooy mmmmmu
HOLSTON RIVER BASIN
mrvm (mil. wits &m mmm kiijw)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIVER WATERBODIES ASSESSED : 37
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : IX
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 26
75
-------
V-40 (Cent.)
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED
TOTAL
SIZE FOLLY SUPPORTED 233.40 28.20 261.60
SIZE THREATENED .00 34.90 34.90
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 120.80 47.20 168.00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING 14.20 30.fO 44.80
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
368.40
140.90
509.30
una (all sin ttsdfcs in ACHES)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAKE INTERBODIES ASSESSED
TOTAL NUMBER MONITORED : 3
TOTAL NUMBER EVALUATED : 4
DEGREE OF USE SUPPORT
ASSESSMENT BASIS
EVALUATED MONITORED TOTAL
SIZE FULLY SUPPORTED 6462.00 8441.00 14911.00
SIZE THREATENED .00 .00 .00
SIZE PARTIALLY SUPPORTING 5181.00 4400.00 9581.00
SIZE NOT SUPPORTING .00 .00 .00
TOTAL SIZE ASSESSED
11643.00
12849.00
24492.00
Of the 498.5 Holston River basin stream miles identified in Tennessee's
Waterbody System, 509.3 miles were assessed for this report for an
assessment rate of 94 percent. Of these assessed miles, 296.5 (55%)
were considered fully supporting. Nine percent (44.8) of the assessed
stream miles are considered not supporting designated uses.
Five waterbodies in the basin are posted against public uses. Beaver
Creek in Sullivan County Is posted against body contact recreation from
the Virginia state line to Boone Reservoir. Historically, this stream
has been impacted by elevated coliform levels from the Bristol sewage
treatment plant's collection system and upstream sources in Virginia..
A 1989 bacteriological stream survey (Morton, 1989) found continued
©levated bacterial levels and evidence of periodic bypassing. Cash
Hollow and Sinking Creeks in Johnson City are posted against water
contact recreation because ©£ septic tank and field line failures and
bypassing from Johnson City's collection system. Turkey Creek in in
Hamblen Count is impacted by bacterial sources in the Morristown area.
The North Fork of the Holston River is posted against fishing because of
mercury contamination. Source of the mercury was leakage from a waste
lagoon historically operated by Olin Chemical in Saltville, Virginia.
The company has performed extensive cleanup operations on the river and
water quality in the North Fork of the Holston is thought to be
improving. The only other stream in the basin assessed as not
supporting uses is the Holston below the John Sevier Steam Plant. The
plant is affecting the thermal characteristics of the stream which is
also impacted by flow regulation from Fort Patrick Henry Reservoir.
There are several additional streams assessed as partially supporting.
The Holston River from its confluence with the French Broad River to
Cherokee Dam is impacted by poor quality discharges from Cherokee Dam
and a municipal discharge (Loves Creek sewage treatment plant). Big
Flat Creek is Impacted by a discharge from a quarry. Richland Creek,
and Mossy Creek are impacted by nonpoint sources and municipal
discharges (Rutledge and Jefferson City sewage treatment plants,
respectively).
South Fork Holston River below Boone Reservoir is impacted by poor water
quality from Boone Reservoir and Fort Patrick Henry Reservoir and by
occasional waste spills from Tennessee Eastman. In addition, dioxin has
76
-------
been detected in fish tissue below Mead Paper Company, causing it to be
listed on th® Section 304(1) Short List as discharging priority
pollutants in toxic amounts. A survey of this stretch of the South
Holston did not document elevated fecal coliform levels, although
elevated levels were found in Horse and Reedy Creeks (Horton, 1988) .
A more upstream segment of th© South Holston has aquatic life impacts
because of low dissolved oxygen in South Holston Reservoir releases.
Reedy Creek, • South Holston River tributary, is impacted by storm
sewers and surface runoff from Kingsport. Boones Creek is also impacted
by agricultural and urban runoff. Buffalo Creek, a Watauga River
tributary, is impacted by package plant discharges from Milligan
College, Buffalo Vally, and Happy Valley School. Brush Creek is
affected by urban runoff from Johnson City.
The Watauga River above Boone Reservoir has been impacted by poor
quality water and flow regulation from Wilbur Reservoir and by an
industrial and a municipal discharger (North American Rayon and
Elizabethton STP). Because of the discharge of zinc at levels above
criteria for the protection of fish and aquatic life, both North
American Rayon and the Elizabethton sewage treatment plant were added to
the Section 304(1) Short List of those facilities discharging priority
pollutants in toxic amounts.
Boone Reservoir and Wilbur Reservoir have been assessed as partially
supporting designated uses. Sewage treatment plants discharging to
Boone Reservoir have a history of problems including combined sewer
overflows, hydraulic overloading, inadequate sludge disposal, and
inadequate industrial pretreatment. Nutrients discharged by these
plants and by agricultural nonpoint sources make Boone one of the most
eutrophic reservoirs in the TVA system. However, bacterial
contamination has declined to the point that a previous posting of a
portion of the lake against water contact recreation has been lifted
(Horton, 1988; Horton and Fulkerson, 1989; and Horton and Fulkerson,
1989).
In 1987, the State of Tennessee found chlorinated organics in carp and
catfish and lead in carp and crappie collected from Boone Reservoir. An
advisory was issued advising the public to limit consumption of these
fish to 1.2 pounds per month and advising pregnant women and nursing
mothers not to eat any of these fish from Boone Reservoir. In 1990,
additional fish tissue data from Boone Reservoir will be analyzed and
the public advisory will be reconsidered.
Wilbur Reservoir is impacted by poor water quality in tailwater releases
from Watauga Reservoir. Three streams in the Holston River Basin have
been assessed as fully supporting but threatened by current or projected
activities in the watershed. These include a portion of the Holston
River threatened by point sources and Kendrick Creek threatened by urban
runoff and agricultural practices. Mercury concentrations in Cherokee
Reservoir sediments have declined in recent years, however, the lake
remains threatened by high nutrient inflows and municipal discharges
from the Jefferson City and Morristown sewage treatment plants.
There are five ambient monitoring stations in the Holston River basin.
Table V-41 contains a summary of the Water Quality Index analysis of
these data. Several additional special surveys have been conducted in
the Holston River basin. A bacteriological survey of Kendrick Creek in
Washington County found that precipitation events cause elevated
bacterial levels; however, under most circumstances, these levels were
within normal ranges (Horton, 1988). High bacterial levels were also
documented in Crockett Creek in Hawkins County (Saulsbury, 1989).
Rapid bioassessments of Big Creek in Hawkins County (Brown and Horton,
1989) and Cobb Creek in Johnson County (Brown, 1990) found them to be
fully supporting of designated uses. A survey of Kendrick Creek in
Washington County (Brown and Horton, 1989) noted some impacts to aquatic
life.
77
-------
Tafela V-41. Wmtmr Quality at lutoimat Monitpciag Stmtlmm is tJm Holatoa Minur Bmsin# 1988-1989.
at:
Rifwr Mil*
Station
•Beaver Creek
15.3
TN000170
Cowtty
Sullivan
Avwragfli
Value
8.6
Water
Quality
42.40
fazsMttr
of
Concam
Nitrate, fecal
Combined sever
overflows
~Beaver Creek
.1
TN000225
Sullivan
7.8
5.29 Nitrate, fecal
Combined sewer
overflows
Holston River
131.5
TN001620
Hawkins
8.6
4.22 Nitrate
Dam discharges
•North Fork Holston
Historical
_ ... _ industrial
71,001980 Sullivan 2.9 1.25 Nitrate waste disposal
South Fork Holston
River
1.1
TN002630 Sullivan 12.2 3.87 Nitrate, fecal Dam discharges
•posted stream segment
iheaob^a?ionsC°nCern th°Se th8t exceeded fish and aquatic life or recreation criteria in more than 25% of
-------
C. toxics
Water Quality Standards for ToM.es
The State of Tennessee Is in the process of adopting numerical standards for
toxicity. These proposed standards are derived from the best available
information including EPA guidance such aa Quality Criteria for Water {Section
304 (a) of Public Law 92-500), Federal Regulations under Sectioa 30? of Public
Law 92-500, and Federal Regulations under Section 1412 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (Public Law 93-523).
Streams XaBp»et«d. By To*lca
The table below summarizes the total number of stream miles and lake acres
impacted by toxic materials. These data were retrieved from the Haterbodies
System for those causes of impacts associated with toxicity such as priority
organics, nonpriority organics, metals, chlorine, ammonia, and unknown
toxicity.
TABU V-42
SOMMART OF TOM, WUEmBODT SIZE MTECTED BT TOXICITY
SIZE MONITORED SIZE WITH ELEVATED
WATERBODY TYPE / UNITS FOR TOXICS LEVELS OF TOXICS
RIVER (STREAM MILES) 2550.40 432.60
LAKE (ACRES) 305,119.00 43,421.00
When the State of Tennessee has evidence that levels of toxic or other
materials in a stream or lake have exceeded levels necessary to protect public
health or public use, the Department of Health and Environment is authorized
to post that waterbody. A stream or lake posting usually consists of
announcing the posting to the public, then placing warning signs around the
waterbody. This action is taken when the health of typical consumers is at
risk.
The Department of Health and Environment also attempts to protect the health
of atypical consumers. An advisory suggests that a targeted group
-------
Toxicity Serening
Toxicity screening is an important tool used to prevent the contamination -of
streams. Each permitted discharger is required to monitor effluent and submit
reports to the Division of Water Pollution Control. These reports, called
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's), are analyzed and computerized in order
to provide the Division with information concerning the quality of effluent
being discharged at each facility.
The Division of Water Pollution Control uses various types of bioassays as an
additional toxicity control technique, A more detailed discussion of these
tests is presented in Chapter VIII in the "Compliance Assurance" section.
Table V-46 lists the flow-through, chronic, and acute static bioassays
performed in 1988 and 1989 and the results.
Coaplatlon of tlom Stctloa 304(1) Proc«»»
Section 304 (1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), later amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, required states to develop lists of impaired waters, to
identify point sources and amounts of pollutants discharged that cause toxic
impacts, and to develop individual control strategies for each such point
source. These individual control strategies are to be designed to ensure that
applicable water quality standards are achieved by no later than June 1992.
The Short List was a list of those waterbodies known to be impacted by
priority pollutants from an identifiable point source. States were required
to list the affected waterbodies, the facility, and the amounts of priority
pollutants discharged. The Division screened all of the point source
dischargers in 1987 and 1988 and submitted a proposed final short list in
February, 1989. Following EPA comments and suggestions, the Division
submitted a final version in early June, 1989.
EPA received public comments concerning the list in the fall of 1989. Based
on a further review of the list and response to public comments, EPA developed
to final version of the list in February, 1990. Table V-43 contains this
list.
TABLE V-43
KPA'S FINAL 304(1) 8BORZ LIST
jrZBKCARX, 1990
WATERBODY ID STREAM NAME
1. TN05130202007 Trib. to Mill Creek
2. TN06010102001 South Holston River
3. TN06010103008 Watauga River
FACILITY
Textron Aerostructures
Mead Paper
North American Rayon,
Elizabethton STP
DOE Oak Ridge
DOE Oak Ridge
DOE Oak Ridge
DOE Oak Ridge
DOE Oak Ridge
DOE Oak Ridge
Champion Paper Company
Champion Paper Company
Athens STP
Bowater Southern Paper
Refined Metals
4. TN06010207021 East Fork Poplar Creek
5. TN06010207021 Bear Creek
6. TN060i0207WHITE White Oak Creek
7. TN06010207WHITE Fifth Creek
8. TN06010207WHITE Melton Branch
9. TN06010207 Mitchell Branch
10. TN06010106001 Pigeon River
11. TN06010106009 Pigeon River
12. TN06020002063 Oostanaula Creek
13. TN06020002001 Hiwassee River
14. TN8010211001 Nonconnah Creek
80
-------
TABLE ¥-44
POSTED WATERS IN TENKBSS1
April, 1990
tMioa for
Posting
JLetlvity
Posted
Porting 8 "Bmtm
ifegpfalgi Mrrnm
Loosahatchie Shelby
River
Wolf River Shelby
Hissisaippi Shelby
River (including
McKellar Lake)
0.0 - 20.9
(20.9 miles)
0.0 - 18.9
(18.9 miles)
TN/MS line
to mile 745
(34.5 miles)
Chlordane
Chlordane
Chlordane
Fish
consumption
Fish
consumption
Fish
consumption
TDHE, County
Health Dept.
6/80
TDHE,
County Health
Dept. 2/81
TDHE,
County Health
Dept. 3/82
C^attaaegaa 'Mxmm,
Chattanooga
Creek
Oostanaula
Creek
Coops
Creek
Stringers
Branch
Hamilton
McMinn
Sequatchie
Hamilton
TN/GA
line to mouth
(7.7 miles)
28.4 - 31.2
(2.8 miles)
0.8 to mouth
(0.8 miles)
5.4 to mouth
(5.4 miles)
High fecal
coliforms, organic
chemicals
High fecal
coliforms
High fecal
coliforms
High fecal
coliforms
Fishing and
body contact
recreation
Body contact
recreation
Body contact
recreation
Body contact
recreation
TDHE
7/83
TDHE
2/85
TDHE
2/85
TDHE
12/89
Johnson Cifef Axm
S5__5i
Creek
(Bristol)
Boone Reservoir
(Bristol)
Cash Hollow
Creek
Sinking
Creek
North Fork
Holston River
Sullivan
Sullivan,
Washington
Washington
Washington
Sullivan,
Hawkins
TN/VA line
to Boone Lake
(20.0 miles)
entirety
0.0 - 1.4
(1.4 miles)
0.0 - 2.8
(2.8 miles)
0.0 - 6.2
TN/VA line
(6.2 miles)
High fecal
coliforms
Lead, chlorinated
organics
High fecal
coliforms
High fecal
coliforms
Mercury
Body contact
recreation
Fishing
advisory
Body contact
recreation
Body contact
recreation
Fishing
TDHE
8/83
TDHE
7/87
TDHE
7/84
TDHE
7/84
TDHE
5/82
-------
TABU 7-44 (continued)
•fc:
County
(¦ilM PQlUd)
Kastarills
Moods Reservoir
Onnamed trib to
to Cumberland R.
Mine Lick CiMlt
Duck River
and Little
Duck River
Waahvilla Verlodlo
Brown's Creek
E.Fork Hamilton Cr
Dry Creek
Gibson Creek
Mansker's Creek
McCrory Creek
Trib.to McCrory Cr
Mill Creek
Richland Creek
Whites Creek
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
Cumberland River
KnotK^lIl® Mxmm
Cove CreeJc
Turkey Creek
Pine Creek
Litton Fork
South Fork
East Fork
Coffee, Franklin entirety
Montgomery 0.0 to 0.5
Putnam
Coffee
•jpaaa feints:
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Campbell
Hamblen
Scott
Scott
Scott
Scott
15.3-15.8
Old Stone Fort
State Park
(0.1 mile of each)
Entirety
J. Percy
Mile 0.0
Mile 0.0
Mile 0.0
Mile 0.0
Mile 0.0
Mile 0.0
Mile 0.0
Mile 0.0
Kerrigan
Mile 174
Mile 182
Mile 182
Mile 184
Mile 185
Mile 212
(3.3 miles)
Priest embay,
to 0.1
to 0.2
to 3.3
to 0.2
to 0.1
to 0.9
to 2.2
to 2.1
St. Mile 190.6
. 2,Cleece's Ferry
.5,Whites Creek
.8,Whites Creek
,2,Schrader Lane
.7,Bordeaux Br.
.5,Vandiver Pump
14.2-17.0
(2.8 miles)
0.0-5.3
0.0 to 10.1
0.0 to 1.0
0.0 to 0.7
0.0 to 0.8
Bmum for
Activity
tugmnc
T
loitiag
Postm&
So®tiaa • Data
PCBs
Catfish consumption
TDHE, 8/87
High fecal
Body contact
TDHE
coliforms
recreation
12/89
Fecal
coliforms
Body contact
TDHE, 6/86
High fecal
Body contact
State Parks and
coliforms
recreation
County Health
•
Dept.
7/81
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
Fecal
coliforms
Body
contact
Expanded
6/90.
High
fecal
Body
contact
TDHE
coliforms
recreation
11/84
Fecal
. coliforms
Body contact
TDHE, 7/87
High fecal
Body contact
TDHE,
coliforms
recreation
11/87
High fecal
Body contact
TDHE,
coliforms
recreation
11/87
High fecal
Body contact
TDHE,
coliforms
recreation
11/87
High fecal
Body contact
TDHE,
coliforms
recreation
11/87
-------
TABU 1
tbs
North fork
Cotmtr
Scott
(¦11m po«Ud)
0.0 to 2.0
East Fork of
Poplar Creek
Coal Creek
Goose Creek
Leadvale
Creek
Crooked Fork
Creek
Anderaon,
Eoan*
Anderaon
Knox
Jefferaon
Morgan
0.0-15.0
(15.0 miles)
Lake City STP
to Clinch River
(4.7 miles)
South Knoxville
(4.0 miles)
1.5 to
Douglas Lake
(1.5 miles)
3.8-6.2
(2.4 miles)
00 First Creek Knox
Second Creek Knox
Third Creek Knox
East Fork of Knox
Third Creek
Sinking Creek Knox
Embayjnemt,
Ft. Loudoun Res.
Little River Knox
Embayment
(Fort Loudoun
Lake)
0.2-1.5
(1.4 miles)
0.0-4.0
(4.0 miles)
0.0-1.4 and 3.3
(1.5 miles)
0.0 - 0.8
(0.8 miles)
1.5 miles from
head of embayment
to cave
0.0 to 8.0
(8.0 miles)
Boone Reservoir
Sullivan,
Washington
Entirety
44 |oontim*d|
SbMaoci tor
totting
High fecal
coliforms
Mercury, metals,
organic chemicals
High fecal
coliforms
High fecal
coliforms
High fecal
coliforms
High fecal
coliforms
High fecal
coliforms
High fecal
coliforms
Bacteriological
problem
Bacteriological
problem
High fecal
coliforms
PCBs
Lead,
chlorinated
organics
tetiTitf'
fettad
Body contact
recreation
All activities
Body contact
recreation
Bosttog 8 Date
mm approved,
11/87 memo
TDHE,
DOE 7/83
TOHE 1/83
Lake City
7/83
Body contact
recreation
Body contact
recreation
TOHE
10/83
TDHE
8/86
Body contact
recreation
TDHE
6/86
Body contact
recreation
Body contact
recreation
Body contact
recreation
Body contact
recreation
Body contact
recreation
TDBEf
11/84
TDHE,
11/84
TDHE,
11/84
TOHE,
11/84
TDHE,
5/83
Catfish consumption TDHE, 5/82
only Expanded 3/84
All largemouth bass TDHE,
crappie - 1 pound/ 7/87
month
Children, pregnant and TDHE, 7/87
nursing mothers should
not consume fish. Others
should limit consumption
©f carp, crappie, and
catfish to no more than
1.2 pounds per month.
-------
TMSiJI ¥-11 (aoukiniMd)
St.
¦<
OowatT
<¦*1— POfdl
MmM»oa for
Foiting
latlTitr
Poeted
Ss@®S@W
Posting 1 Pmt®
Fort Loudoun
Reservoir
Loudon/Knoas/
Blount
entirety
Confluence of
Holston and French
rivers to dam
(46 miles)
PCBs
commercial harvest
and sale of catfish
catfish consumption
largemouth bass over
2 pounds.
THRU
TDHE, 6/85
TDHE,
7/87
Chilhowee
Reservoir
Monroe/Blount
entirety;
(7.4 miles)
PCB
Carp consumption. TDHE,
Rainbow trout no more
than 1.2 pound/month 7/87
Tellico Lake
Pig eon River
Loudon
Cocke
0.0-32.5
(entirety
32.5 miles)
North Carolina
line to Douglas
Reservoir
PCBs
Dioxin
Catfish
consumption
Ganmfish -
1.2 pound/month
Fish
Consumption
TDHE
12/86
TDHE
7/87
TDHE
4/89
Watts Bar
Reservoir
Roane
Kingston to Lenoir
City
Entire reservoir
Catfish,' striped bass, TDHE
striped bass-whitebass 12/88
hybrid consumption.
Limit consumption of
sauger, carp, white-
bass, smallmouth buffalo,
and largemouth bass
weighing more than 2
pounds to no more than
1.2 pounds per month
Melton Hill
Reservoir
Anderson, Knox Entirety
PCBs
Catfish consumption.
TDHE
12/88
Clinch River
Roane
Kingston to Melton
Hill Dam
PCBs
Limit consumption
of catfish to no
more than 1.2 pounds
per month
TDHE
12/88
-------
Tmm v-45
FISH KILLS MUkT MSULKD XH KKFOBCMMEHT ACTIONS
CIVIL
DAMAGE
Bomm
SSBUW WD
mzx
PENALSY
ASSESSMENT
P4D Trucking
S. Indian Creek
10-12-89
500.00
992.76
Copperweld Southern
Cotton Mill Creek
8-31-89
5000.00
141.15
Tennessee Eastman
Hoiston River
2-7-89
10000.00
6891.00
D.Cotten Hog Farm
Arrington Creek
8-31-98
1000.00
620.53
TVA Sequoyah Nuclear
Chickamauga Res.
8-1-88
2091.97
1st U.D., Knoxville
Seven Springs Creek
9-18-88
2000.00
246.40
North American Rayon
Watauga River
3-9-89
6000.00
1997.74
Monsanto
Greenlick Creek
9-25-88
5000.00
1402.48
Textron
Mill Creek •
8-31-88
5000.00
935.10
CSX
Indian Camp Creek
7-24-88
741.29
Tennessee Eastman
Holston River
7-4-88
6000.00
1154.07
Favorite Market
Friar's Branch
7-29-88
1000.00
501.19
Dekalb County Co-op
Fall Creek
5-3-87
1000.00
1164.44
Virgil Lane
Hall Town Creek
4-20-88
3210.25
Jack Daniels
Mulberry Creek
7-20-87
3000.00
2974.99
Mayfield Dairy
Oostanaula Creek
11-25-87
5000.00
3284.06
U.S. Coal
Smokey Creek
2-97
10000.00
SABLE V-46
1988 AMD 1989 TOXIC ACUTE WD CHRONIC BIOASSAYS
NPDES
PERMIT
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
HONE
PRETREAT.
TN0000141
TN0000191
TN0000353
TN0000396
TN0000442
TN0000779
TN0000779
TN0000779
TN0000779
TN0000779
TN0000779
TN000077 9
TN0000779
TN0000779
TN0000779
TN0000779
TN0000799
TN0001147
TN0001180
TN0001180
TN0001180
TN000144 9
TN0001457
TN0001473
TN0001473
TN0001473
TN0001520
FACILITY OR
STREAM NAME
PIGEON RIVER
CROSSV1LLE CER.
CSX -STATION 4
DUPONT
HYDE CREEK
HYDE CREEK
HYDE CREEK
SNELL BRANCH
PDRDY POND
PDRDY POND
KARLOCK, INC.
MARLOCK, INC.
ROCKWOOD IRON
GREAT LAKES CUB
NITREX, INC.
ARMIRA CORP.
G.E.AT SELMER
ROCKWELL MFG
ALPHA RESIN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN ADTO. IN
HARMAN INT.
HARMAN ADTO. IN
SANY METAL PROD
TN ELECTROPLAT
TN ELECTROPLAT
TN ELECTROPLAT.
SCOVILL INC.
VISKASE CORP.
MDRRAY OF OHIO
MDRRAY OF OHIO
MDRRAY OHIO
ALCOA
COONTY DATE RESDLTS SP. FLOW
THRO
COCKE 02/04/88 96-LC50-45 F
CUMBERLAND 02/23/88 TOXIC F
DAVIDSON 06/21/88 NOEL-0% C
HDMPHREYS 07/28/89 24/48 HR. LC50-17I C
LADDERDALE 08/26/88 48HRLC50-5.5 C
LADDERDALE 08/23/88 48HRLC50-17 C
IADDERDALE 08/25/88 4 8HRLC50-8 C
MARSHALL 04/27/88 ACOTELY TOX. C
LOUDON 04/12/89 LC50-24/55% 48/10% C
LODDON 04/12/89 24/NAT LC50-96/70% F
OHION 04/03/89 LC50-24/22% 96/4.4% F
ONION 04/03/89 LC50-24/30% 48/30% C
ROANE 05/02/89 24 « 96HRS/LC50-22.4 F
COCKE 02/02/88 96-LC50-1.2 ' F
SHELBY 02/06/89 10% - 24 4 48 HRS C
HARDEMAN 03/02/88 96-LC50-35.5 F
MCNAIRY 11/04/88 LC50-1.6% 7 DAYS C
MADISON 01/10/89 24/100%-LC50-48/62% C
FAYETTE 10/21/88 7 DAYS NAT C
HARDEMAN 02/03/88 96-LC50-79 F
HARDEMAN 02/03/88 48-LC50-
-------
«BXJI V-46 (coat.)
mnm facility cm oomri ub mssstTS m. rum
mmxT armm mm now
TN0001597 TEXTRON DAVIDSON 12/08/89 NAT7-DAY BE NOEC100% C
TN0001597 TEXTRON DAVIDSON 12/08/B9 NAR5DAY-68%-7DAY-55% C
TN0001597 TEXTRON DAVIDSON 12/07/89 LC50 24S48HlS-55% C
TN0001821 SIGNAL MTN CMT HAMILTON 01/09/89 48 houra/70% C
TN0001830 SIGNAL MTN CMT HAMILTON 01/31/89 10%-24448HR/100% EFL C
TN0001899 BALL METAL GREENE 08/02/88 48KRLC50-44 C
TN0001899 BALL METAL GREENE 08/04/88 48HRLC50-40 C
TN0001899 BALL METAL GREENE 08/10/88 NOEC-10% C
TN0001899 BALL METAL GREENE 08/05/88 48HRLC50-44 C
TN0002003 NEWPORT INDUST. COCKE 02/04/88 96-LC50-41 F
TN0002038 NOCLEAR FUEL DNICOI 12/05/89 EFF 72496HRS - 55% F
TN0002038 NOCLEAR FUEL UNICOI 12/04/89 LC50 24 & 48HRS-55I C
TN0002038 NUCLEAR FOEL SE DNICOI 02/02/88 TOXICITY F
TN0002038 NOCLEAR FOEL SE ONICOI 08/10/88 NOEC-
-------
TABUS V—46 (coat.)
mma iwnifs m mm mm wmm,m m, raw
wmmxf SBMMf BUB *BR0
TN0021547 JOKESBOROUGH WASHINGTON 03/01/89 24/LC50-69%,48/55% C
TN0021601 SMITHVILLE STP DEKALB 06/14/88 ACUTELY TOXI C
TN0021920 OLD HICK. U.D. DAVIDSON 02/06/89 LC50-24/54.8%-48/30% C
TN0021962 UNIVERSAL FASTS HICKMAN 08/03/89 6DAY LC50-<1% ChV-Cl C
TH0022S51 LAWRENCEBURG ST LAWRENCE 07/14/88 NOEL-10% C
TN0022586 MURFREESBORO ST RUTHERFORD 07/14/88 NOEL-10% C
TN0022888 LEWISBDRG STP MARSHALL 11/04/88 LC50-35% 7 DAYS C
TN0023001 ERWIN STP UNICOI 02/08/88 96-LC50-71 F
TN0023019 CITY OF LINDEN PERRY 02/06/89 LC50-19.4* 24 t 4 8HR C
TN0023345 BRIGGS KNOX 11/17/88 96 HRS NAT F
TN0023442 CITY/GLEASON WEAKLEY 01/16/89 LC50-24 t 48/<10% C
TN0021679 BRONNSVILLE STP HAYWOOD 07/21/89 24HR-60% SDRV. C
TN0021695 WAYNESBORO WAYNE 02/07/89 10%/24 I 48HR 100%EF C
TN0021814 FAYETTEVILLE LINCOLN 10/20/89 € DAY LC50 - 100% C
TN0021822 KNOXVILLE/LOVES KNOX 02/06/89 LC50-48/55%-24/10% C
TN0021857 WINCHESTER STP FRANKLIN 02/06/89 LC50-24S48/17.3-12.9 C
TN0021865 PORTLAND STP SDMNER 06/09/89 7DAY LC50-55% CHRONI C
TN0023469 TULLAHOMA COFFEE 02/06/89 LC50-48/44%-24/NAT C
TN0023507 MORRISTOWN HAMBLEN 01/17/89 24/60%-LC50-48/55% C
TN0023515 ELIZABETHTON ST CARTER 06/28/88 NOEL-30% C
TN0023531 BRISTOL POTW SULLIVAN 09/17/89 7-DAY LC50-44% C
TN0024121 CLEVELAND STP BRADLEY 09/30/88 CHV55I,NOEC30% C
TNO024155 OAK RIDGE STP ANDERSON 09/17/89 7-DAY LC50- 55% C
TN0024171 OAK RIDGE STP ANDERSON 02/23/88 TOXIC F
TN00241BO SHELBYVILLE BEDFORD 02/05/89 LC50-48/55%-24/30% C
TN0024198 COOKEVILLE PUTNAM 02/07/89 LC50-48/29.8%-24/40% C
TN0024201 ATHENS MCMINN 10/21/88 NOEC 3%, LC50 1.5 C
TN0024295 SO.PITTSBURG MARION 01/10/89 LC50-24 t 4 8/<10% C
TN0024341 LEXINGTON STP HENDERSON 11/04/88 7 DAYS NAT C
TN0024350 SEVIER WTR DEPT SEVIER 01/30/89 24/20%-LC50-48/76% C
TN0024813 JACKSON U.D.STP MADISON 02/23/88 96-LC50-56.5 F
TN0024830 WAVERLY HUMPHREYS 08/04/89 ACTE/CHRNC NOEC-100% C
TN0024953 TELLICO PLAINS MONROE 01/23/89 48 HRS. 78*/100% EFL C
TN0024996 CROSSVILLE CUMBERLAND 02/06/89 LC50-44% 24 ( 48 HRS C
TN0025038 MANCHESTER STP COFFEE 10/23/88 LC50-54%896HRS. F FT
TN0025054 PIKEVILLE BLEDSOE 02/06/89 AC.TOX.24/NAT-48/40% C
TN0025364 RIPLEY STP LAUDERDALE 10/20/89 LC50 7 DAY - 55% C
TN0026034 CITY/HENDERSON CHESTER 01/24/89 LC50-24 t 48/1.4% C
TN0026565 SR OF TENN LAUDERDALE 10/21/88 LC50-8.1% 7 DAYS C
TN0026S65 SR OF TN LAUDERDALE 07/21/89 7DAY NAT CHRONIC F
TN0026565 SR OF TN LAUDERDALE 07/21/89 24HR LC50-55% 48-44% C
TN0026646 KNOXVILLE/FORKS KNOX 01/30/89 10% 24 t 48HR/100%EF C
TN0026646 KNOXVL/FOBKS KNOX 12/10/88 LC50-48% 7DAYS C
TN0027715 RAY-O-VAC TIPTON 11/03/89 LC50 6 DAY - 55% C
TN0Q27715 RAY-O-VAC TIPTON 11/03/89 LOEC - 100% ChV-55% F
TN0027715 RAY-O-VAC TIPTON 11/03/89 LC50 48 HR. 44% C *
TN0027715 RAYOVAC TIPTON 08/31/88 NOEC-3% C
TN0028371 HILL MEAT BRADLEY 01/23/89 LC50-24 C 48/44% C
TN0042064 MANVILLE BUILD. MCMINN 01/30/88 96-LC50-35.5 F
TN0054658 JACKSON UTIL. MADISON 01/23/89 24/100%-LC50-48/55% C
TN0055883 AM. RESOURCE RE SHELBY 04/13/88 96HRLC50-32% F
TN00S5883 AMERICAN RESOOR SHELBY 11/03/89 LC50 6 DAY - NAT C
TM0056197 HICKORY SPECIAL CUMBERLAND 04/11/88 96HRLC50-32 F
TN0056197 HICKORY SPECIAL CUMBERLAND 04/11/88 96HRLC50-96 F
TN0057045 TPI ELEMENT DIV WASHINGTON 02/06/88 96-LC50-70.5 F
TN0057207 TBOmS IND. WHITE 08/18/89 LC50 24HR 69% 48-13% C
TN0057983 AEROJECT ORDIN WASHINGTON 12/04/89 LC50-24HR-21% F
TN0057983 AEROJET ORD. WASHINGTON 08/10/88 NOEC-3% C
TN0057983 AEROJET ORDIN WASHINGTON 12/04/89 LC50 24 i 65HR- 55% C
TN0058432 REF.MTLS/MEMPHS SHELBY 10/21/88 LC50-48% 7 DAYS C
TN0058483 CHEVRON TERMINL KNOX 06/13/89 48 HR. 10% C
TNO059595 BOSTON IND. PRO LEWIS 02/08/B8 TOXIC F
TNO059781 WATAUGA IND. CARTER 06/23/86 ACUTELY TOXI C
TN0059781 WATAOGA IWDUST. CARTER 02/15/88 TOXIC F
TN0060089 FORMAL PLASTICS KNOX 02/08/88 96-LC50-49 F
TN0060097 SPARTEX, STP WHITE 01/24/89 70% SURV. / 100% EFL C
TH0060305 OWENS-CORNING SHELBY 03/01/89 24/NAT-48/30% C
TN0060631 AMER OLEAN TILE MADISON 01/31/89 LC50-10% § 24 t 48HR C
TN0060721 ADCO/BABCOCK CO GIBSON 01/30/89 LC50- 10% 24(48 HRS. C
TN0060917 WHITE CLD LAUND ANDERSON 02/14/89 LC50-55% 24 i 48 C
UNKNOWN PVS KNOXVILLE KNOX 06/08/89 24 ( 96 LC50-22% F
87
-------
D. QraaM and lousms of Stxm*m 0m lapia^it
As part of the assessment process, field office staff entered
information on causes and sources of stream and lake use impairment into
the Waterbody Assessment. Cause and source information was entered only
on those lakes or streams placed In the "not supporting" or "partially
supporting* categories. Potential causes and source categories were
chosen from lists supplied by EPA.
Field office staff were also asked to stake judgements concerning
magnitude of causes and sources. For each cause or source, a magnitude
of slight (S), moderate (M)» or high (H) was added. For example, if a
stream was highly impacted by low pH from a surface mine, a 10H would be
entered for cause and a 51H would be entered for source. Cause code 10
and source code 51 represent pH and surface mining, respectively.
Tables V-47, v-48, V-49, and V-50 present summaries of the cause and
source information for both lakes and streams.
Since polluted streams are often impacted by multiple causes and
sources. The same stream mile might be added to several categories in
the tables in this section. Thus, these numbers should only be used to
gauge the relative contributions of each of the causes and sources.
Presenting a problem in this year's assessment is surface mining. Since
active mines are required to have an NPDES Permit, any impact from these
facilities should be considered point source. Traditionally, stream
impacts from abandoned mines have been considered nonpoint pollution.
In this assessment, mining impacts are still not fully delineated
between point or nonpoint in origin and have been placed under the
Resource Extraction source codes. Thus, these numbers cannot be used to
gauge the relative contributions of nonpoint versus point source mining
impacts. This problem will be corrected in subsequent 305(b) Reports.
ee
-------
TABU ¥-47
torn, sizes or haters mm warn.x sm»mxxmg toss
MTxcxm bx vmxms casus cuwmxis
m,TSRBC®X rpe - mmB
aim wmwom m acres1
SOURCE CATEGORIES
0300-PRIORITY ORGANICS
0500-METALS
0900-NUTRIENTS
1000-pH
1100-SILTATION
1200-ORGANIC ENRICH/DO
1400-THERM. MODIFICAT.
1500-FLOW ALTERATION
1600-HABITAT ALTERATION
1700-PATHOGEN INDICATORS
2000-TASTE & ODOR
2100-SUSPENDED SOLIDS
2200-NOX. AQUAT. PLANTS
MAJOR IMPACT
18508.00
.00
35308.00
.00
21074.00
34647.00
.00
167.00
16.00
.00
16.00
383.00
4565.00
MODERATE/MINOR
IMPACT
6149.00
21457.00
35642.00
11924.00
30425.00
43861.00
5109.00
24905.00
.00
20730.00
11.00
17041.00
23859.00
TABU V-48
TOTAL SIZES OF HATERS HOT FULLY SUPPORTING USES
AFFECTED BT VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES
mmmaom rmm ¦ zaxzs
SIZE REPORTED » ACEKS1
CAUSE CATEGORIES
MAJOR IMPACT
MODERATE/MINOR
IMPACT
0100-INDUS PT. SOURCES
*
.00
AJit Av 4
40391.00
0200-MUNIC PT. SOURCES
14600.00
9556.00
1000-AGRICULTURE
.00
45000.00
1100-NONIRRIGATED CROPS
15500.00
383.00
1200-IRRIGATED CROPS
.00
383.00
1800-ANIMAL MGNT AREAS
.00
4447.00
2000-SILVICULTURE
.00
4550.00
3000-CONSTRUCTION
.00
4550.00
3200-LAND DEVELOPMENT
.00
10950.00
4000-RUNOFF/STORM SEWERS
20.00
19081.00
5100-SURFACE MINING 2
1924.00
.00
6400-INDUS. LAND TREAT.
.00
7800.00
7100-CHANNELIZATION
4550.00
.00
7300-DAM CONSTRUCTION
4550.00
5109.00
7400-FLOW REGULATION
239.00 ¦
15500.00
7800-DRAIN/FILL WETLANDS
.00
10950.00
8400-SPILLS
.00
9341.00
8500-IN-PLACE CONTAM.
.00
4400.00
8600-NATURAL
87.00
15500.00
8700-RECREAT. ACTIVITIES
.00
47.00
8800-UPSTREAM IMPOUNDMNT
72.00
9341.00
1 Haters can be impacted by multiple causes and sources. Since overlap
can occur, the acres on this table will not equal the total number of
impacted lake acres in Tennessee.
2 Surface mining contains both point and nonpoint sources.
89
-------
CAUSE CATEGORIES
0100-UNKNOWN TOXICITY
0200-PESTICIDES
0300-PRIORITY ORGANICS
0400-NONPRIORITY ORGAN,
0500-METALS
0600-AMMONIA
0700-CHLORINE
0800-OTHER INORGANICS
0900-NUTRIENTS
1000-pH
1100-SILTATION
1200-ORGANIC ENRICH/DO
1300-SALIN./TDS/CHLOR.
1400-THERM. MODIFICAT.
1500-FLOW ALTERATION
1600-HABITAT ALTERATION
1700-PATHOGEN INDICATORS
1900-OIL AND GREASE
2000-TASTE £ ODOR
2100-SUSPENDED SOLIDS
2200-NOX. AQUAT. PLANTS
2300-FILLING i DRAINING
XJUKU V-4®
worm szzks or msmm mm nuu support ins uses
JUTFSCT*© BT WIODS CMfSl CMXG0R2BB
wmsmm rmm » mrmm
sis* nrasis m mma1
MAJOR IMPACT
31.20
33.00
73.20
.00
101.00
38.60
.00
24.30
255.50
144.65
1674.05
432.20
7.80
14.20
233.70
119.60
533.50
2.00
4.50
1053.15
.00
43.10
MODERATE/MINOR
IMPACT
32.30
205.30
310.00
7.30
575.45
309.40
92.00
18 .10
1169.80
419.80
1028.45
1412.75
11.00
38.90
377.10
202.00
861.70
125.80
6.70
784.40
54.60
18.80
1 Waters cart be impacted by multiple causes. Since overlap can occur,
the stream miles in this table will not equal the total number of
impacted stream miles in Tennessee.
90
-------
ZUU ¥-80
wax. sizes or mms mm mix ummmma
mmarnm mt various mmm gueoorxks
WKmmom twk • xrvra#
sizm memsm n miss1
SOURCE CATEGORIES
Point Sources
0100-INDUS PT. SOURCES
0200-MTOIC PT. SOURCES
0300-USER CODE
0400-COMB. SEWER 0VERFL0
1805-ANIMAL HOLDING AREAS (POINT)
1905-MANURE LAGOONS (POINT SOURCE)
6305-PERMITTED LANDFILL DISCHARGES
5105-PERMITTED SURFACE MINING
Subtotal
MAJOR IMPACT
217.60
510.90
.00
62.30
16.70
.00
.00
5.00
sii.So
MODERATE/MINOR IMPACT
353.40
1027.75
11.00
70.50
25.20
54.20
4.50
30.80
1577755
Nonpoint Sources
1000-AGRICULTURE
HOO-NONIRRIGATED CROPS
1200-IRRIGATED CROPS
1300-SPECIALTY CROPS
1400-PASTURE LAND
1500-RANGE LAND
1600-FEEDLOTS-ALL TYPES
1800-ANIMAL MGNT AREAS
1900-MANURE LAGOON
2000-SILVICULTURE
2100-HARVESTING/RESTOR.
2200-FOREST MANAGEMENT
2300-ROAD CONSTRUCTION
3000-CONSTRUCTION
3100-HIGHWAY, ROAD, BRIDGE
3200-JAND DEWLOPMENT
4000-RUNOFF/STORM SEWERS
5000-RE SOURCE EXTRACTION
5100-SURFACE MINING
5200-SUBSURFACE MINING
5400-DREDGE MINING
5500-PETROLEUM ACTIVITY
5600-MILL TAILINGS
5700-MINE TAILINGS
6100-SLUDQE
6200-mSTEWATEK
6300-LANDFILLS
6400-INDUS. LAND TREAT.
6500-ONSITE WASTE TREAT.
6 600-HAZARDOUS WASTE
6700-SEPTAGE DISPOSAL
7000-HYDRO / HABITAT MOD.
7100-CHANNELIZATION
7200-DREDGING
7300-DAM CONSTRUCTION
7400-FLOW REGULATION
7500-BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
7 600-VEGETATION REMOVAL
7700-STREAMBANK MODIFIC.
7800-DRAIN/FILL WETLANDS
8200-WASTE STORAGE/LEAKS
8300-HIGHWAY RUNOFF
8400-SPILLS
8500-IN-PLACE CONTAM.
8700-RECREAT. ACTIVITIES
8800-UPSTREAM I*ffi»O0NDM8tT
Subtotal
575.65
627.50
.00
.00
169.20
5.00
.00
196.10
.00
30.90
12.00
.00
33.10
40.50
30.80
81.60
172.80
.00
280.50
5.40
.00
40.30
6.90
16.50
.00
.00
7.80
3.10
3.00
.00
.00
455.85
447.70
89.40
13.30
105.70
.00
70.10
112.60
17.90
21.00
.00
12.50
12.80
.00
156.80
MM.S5
450.60
384.00
151.60
30.90
203.80
.00
14.00
175.80
24.60
.00
29.50
20.80
16.00
254.00
337.30
336.40
821.50
5.80
394.15
163.55
22.70
17.70
S5.70
103.65
53.50
8.70
21.70
24.70
38.20
34.60
6.00
118.20
320.60
57.40
64.60
62.10
42.70
286.60
350.70
25.30
33.80
35.30
327.90
8.50
9.00
96.70
¦mwM
9000-UNKNOWN
86OO-NAT0RAL
Subtotal
18.50
20.80
39.30
62.10
1003.60
1065.70
1 Matara can b* iapsctsd by aultlpla causes. Sine® ovarlap can occur, the stream alias on this table
«111 not «s«al ths total nunbar of impacted atraam nllai In Tannaaaaa. The Raaourca Extraction,
Surfaca Mining and Subaurfaca Mining alaawnta contain both point and nonpoint aourcaa of
contamination.
91
-------
I. Additional Lakes Information
Tennessee's publicly-owned lakes have been discussed in considerable
detail in other sections of this Chapter. The Water Quality Act of 1987
requires the inclusion of three lists of lakes in the 1988 305(b)
Report. These lists are concerned with acid precipitation, mining
drainage, and trophic status. As required in the Act, all are subsets
©f the "long list18. Information concerning lakes in state parks was
submitted by the Tennessee Department ©f Conservation (Jensen, 1989),
Acid Prscipitation
It is the assessment of the Division of Water Pollution Control field
staff that there are no lakes in Tennessee suffering impairment of
designated uses because of acid precipitation.
Mining Drainage
A retrieval of information from Tennessee's Waterbody System identified
5 publicly-owned lakes impacted by drainage from mining activites.
Impacted lakes are those placed in the "not supporting" or "partially
supporting" categories. These lakes appear in the Table below.
iua v-5i
urns MPACWD BY MXNXMS GSIZUbSS
DOES NOT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
Lake Name
Waterbody ID
(ACRES)
iACRES)
Davy Crockett Reservoir
TNO60101080102.0
0.0
383.0
Parksville Reservoir
TN06020003004
189.0
378.0
Ocoee Number Three Reservoir
TNO€02000301310.0
480.0
0.0
Ocoee Number Two Reservoir
TNO60200030135.0
494.0
0.0
,
Total
1,153.0
761.0
Parksville Reservoir, Ocoee Number Two, and Ocoee Number Three are lakes
impacted by pollution from historical copper mining activities in the
Copperhill area. Davy Crockett Reservoir (on the Nolichucky River) has
been impacted by siltation from mining activities in North Carolina.
Big Creek Lake in Grundy County and Laurel Lake are threatened by acid
drainage from strip mines.
Trophic Statue
Table V-52 contains a list of the publicly-owned lakes in Tennessee and
the Division of Water Pollution Control * s assessment of their current
trophic status. A source of information concerning trophic status was
Survey of Publicly-Owned Lakes and Reservoirs. This report
was published in 1980 by the then Department of Public Health. When
available, more current information has been used.
92
-------
C(HHHHS
,»§§§§!
M H H H W w
jjssssg
siS38H
s
M . . .
W > > > >
^sssg
8
w
M
50
<
O »0 >0 »0
m o o o
*§§§
o » >
sssss
|S||-
0 13 h h H 50 K
>nnnu
a 5 < o
o o o o o
O O H W H
1HOO
§?§§
H t"1
ODO
SS33-1
Co 58 <
S3S5
Cfl o
K9UH
oooooo
HSXXS"
*PQS5
§SSP
m to
59 W n 50
M 50 50 M
<
H CO O
CO < < CO
noon
53 H H 50
< 50 50 <
O O
3 g
nnnnssssnosnosnssxnnssssssossssnnnsonnno nnoonnx nxoonnnnn
v©
U)
M
M
fa
01
ui
M
Ul
CD
U2
40
«0
US
M
is>
40
©
•*4
*4
m
M
o o
o
9%
o
o
o
vo
o
o
o
m
©
40
©
© ©
K3
© M
*
» »
•
*
•
•
*
•-
•
•
•
•
9
•
•
e •
«
« a
O
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
o
o
o
©
©
©
© ©
©
© ©
O
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
o
©
© ©
©
© ©
M
M M
M
CD
o
M U5
IS3
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
©
©
U5 0
©
©©
*
• •
«
•
»
*
»
•
a
a
•
•
a
•
•
• a
B
• «
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
©
©
© ©
©
©o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
©
©
© ©
©
© ©
M
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
01
©
©
© ©
©
o ©
*
• •
*
«
»
•
•
«
•
•
•
*
*
•
*
• •
•
> •
o
o ©
o
o
o
o
©
o
o
o
o
o
©
©
©
© ©
©
© ©
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
©
©
©©
©
©©
M
*gfe
M
01
e©
*4
M
NJ
©
o
o o
o
o
o
^3
o
o
M
o
©
©
©
©
© m
©
© ©
¦
¦ «
¦
•
•
•
»
a
•
s
•
a
a
e
a
9 •
0
a ,
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
©
©
©
© ©
©
© ©
o
o ©
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
©
©
©©
©
© ©
to
o
o
M
M
ISJ
U5
-4
-J
40
s&
©
M
u%
©
v%
•*4
©
ifth
m
*&»
u>
© M ©©
IO
©
© ©
© -4
M
©
©
©
uj
• « • •
•
¦
• »
s •
«
•
•
a
a
a
© © © ©
©
©
© ©
©©
©
©
©
©
©
©
© © © ©
©
©
© ©
© ©
©
©
©
©
©
©
M
-J
•<4
M
40 Ul
©
©
&%
*& © ©
©
©
© ©
© ©
©
©
©
©
<1
©
• 4 • •
a
•
a a
¦ •
a
a
s
a
a
©©©©
©
©
© ©
© ©
©
©
©
©
©
©
© © © ©
©
©
© ©
© ©
©
©
©
©
©
©
us
*>4
o
O K>
m
KS
©
© ©
©
40
©
© ©
¦
• •
a
•
a
a
• •
a
©
© ©
©
©
©
©
©©
©
©
© ©
©
©
©
©
© ©
©
o
c©
M
in
*4
M
M
©
€B
©
M ©
©
© 40
©
40 ©
©
©
M ©
©
©
*4
*
» *
*
a a
•
¦
• «
,
»
©
© ©
©
© ©
©
© ©
©
©
© ©
©
©
©
©
© ©
©
© ©
©
©©
©
©
© ©
©
©
©
O ut
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo<
to
40
M
©
01
©
©
©
© ©
«4
o©
©
©
©
© o
©
•
• a
a
• *
a
»
a
a
©
©
©
© ©
©
© ©
©
©
©
© ©
©
©
©
©
© ©
©
©©
©
©
©
© ©
©
&
H
fr
S1
w
M
-------
TABLE ¥-52 (cont.)
LUB NAME vmmxc FULLY SUPPORT PARTLY DOBS SO*
8TAZD8 SUPPORTS THREATENED SUPPORTS SUPPORT
JAMESTOWN RESERVOIR
M
0.00
66.00
0.00
0.00
KENTUCKY RESERVOIR
M
17500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
KENTUCKY RESERVOIR
E
100000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LAJOIE LAKE
E
0.00
0.00
54.00
0.00
LAUREL HILL LAKE
E
0.00
327.00
0.00
0.00
LAUREL LAKE
M
49.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LAUREL LAKE
E
0.00
73.00
0.00
0.00
LEWISBURG RESERVOIR
E
29.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LUTHER LAKE
M
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MACAMEY (CHILHOWEE) LAKE
M
7.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MADISONVILLE IND. PARK LAKE
E
13.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MAPLE CREEK LAKE
E
90.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MARROWBONE LAKE
H
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
MCCOOL LAKE NUMBER ONE
E
0.00
0.00
18.00
0.00
MCCOOL LAKE NUMBER TWO
E
0.00
0.00
42.00
0.00
MCKELL&R PARK LAKE A
E
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MCKELLAR PARK LAKE B
E
7.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MEADOW PARK LAKE
M
275.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MELTON HILL RESERVOIR
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
5690.00
MONTEREY CITY LAKE
M
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NEW CITY LAKE
0
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NICKAJACK RESERVOIR
E
9657.00
1073.00
0.00
0.00
NORMANDY RESERVOIR
E
3260.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NORRIS RESERVOIR
0
34187.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OCOEE NUMBER THREE RESERVOIR
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
480.00
OCOEE NUMBER TWO RESERVOIR
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
494.00
OLD HICKORY RESERVOIR
E
27439.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PARKSVILLE RESERVOIR
0
0.00
1323.00
378.00
189.00
PICKETT LAKE
0
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PICKWICK RESERVOIR
M
5800.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PIERSOL LAKE
E
0.00
0.00
18.00
0.00
PIN OAK LAKE
0
663.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PINE LAKE
M
465.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PLACID LAKE
E
0.00
21.00
0.00
0.00
POPLAR TREE LAKE
H
0.00
0.00
0.00
125.00
RADNOR LAKE
E
80.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
REDBUD LAKE
M
211.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SOUTH HOLSTON RESERVOIR
M
7577.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SPENCER CITY LAKE
M
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.00
STANDING STONE LAKE
M
69.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
STEELE CREEK LAKE
E
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SYCAMORE LAKE
E
224.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TELLICO RESERVOIR
M
0.00
16500.00
0.00
0.00
TIMS FORD RESERVOIR
M
10596.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TWO RIVERS LAKE
E
9.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
UPPER BLUE BASIN, REELFOOT
H
0.00
0.00
0.00
1650.00
UPPER LAKE
M
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
VFW LAKE
E
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.00
WATAUGA LAKE
E
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
WATAUGA RESERVOIR
0
6427.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WATTS BAR RESERVOIR
E
0.00
31200.00
0.00
7800.00
WHITEVILLE LAKE
E
0.00
0.00
158.00
0.00
WILBUR RESERVOIR
0
0.00
0.00
72.00
0.00
MOODHAVEN LAKE
E
51.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WOODS RESERVOIR
M
0.00
0.00
0.00
3908.00
**• Total ***
375808.00
75897.00
61706.00
24911.00
Key to Trophic Status Abbreviations
H - Hypereutrophic
E - Eutrophic
M - Meaotrophic
O - Oligotrophic
94
-------
r. ftatlmads
Interest in wetlands has grown as a result of Increased awareness of the
importance of the wetlands ecosystem. Consequently/ Section 305(b)
requires states to include information on known wetlands impacted by
nonpoint source pollution. Unfortunately, this information is currently
limited.
An estimated 3 million acres of wetlands once existed in Tennessee.
Current research indicates the area of definable wetlands presently
existing to be somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 acres. This
translates into & loss of almost 75 percent, primarily over the last 60
years. Further estimates by the Ecological Services Division of the
Department of Conservation indicate that almost three-fourths of the
existing acreage, or 571,000 acres, are found in West Tennessee.
Unfortunately, this area is also the most suitable region of the state
for agriculture. The increasing demand for developable land places
these wetlands in jeopardy.
Drainage of wetlands for crop and timber production, as well as dredging
and stream channelization of adjacent waterways for navigation and flood
protection, are the greatest threats to wetlands in Tennessee. Because
the surrounding areas affected can be extensive, hydrologic
modifications have lasting environmental impacts.
There are a variety of federal and state agencies involved in evaluating
wetlands and rates of loss. In 1977, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
began a National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) with the intention of mapping
and cataloging wetlands in the lower 48 states. Tennessee's inventory
is in the draft stage and will be updated periodically. The Ecological
Services Division of the Tennessee Department of Conservation is in the
process of inventorying West Tennessee wetlands through interpretation
of aerial photographs, the NWI, and a systematic random sampling of all
seven major West Tennessee waterways.
Natural area quality wetlands have been surveyed in the central part of
the state. Detailed wetland vegetation surveys are lacking for the
eastern third of the state. In addition, the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency has produced a state inventory map of wetlands based on
U. S. Geological Survey Land Use Maps (1:250,000 scale). TWRA is
currently in the process of digitizing the NWI information.
In addition, the following studies have been conducted in specific
areas: (1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has documented changing
land use patterns in the 100-year flood plain of the Obion-Forked Deer
River Basins (OFDB) and major tributaries; (2) Memphis State University
Cartographic Studies has updated 13 selected topographic quadrangles
from the more than 60 used in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife OFDB study; and
(3) the Tennessee Department of Conservation has estimated the areal
extent of removal or regeneration of southern hardwood forests occurring
in Tennessee's Jackson South 1:24,000 USGS quadrangle. Clearly, there
is a need to coordinate all of these efforts in order to produce a more
unified estimate of existing wetlands, rates of loss of wetland habitat,
and the water quality in Tennessee.
Table V-53 provides information about wetlands or wetland areas impacted
by nonpoint source pollutants.
95
-------
smmls ¥-13 smmtsMMm mwam asmm
WETLAND/RIVER BASIN CATEGORY OF NFS POLLUTION PARAMETERS DATA
COUNT* IMPACTING WETLAND OF CONCERN E/M SOURCE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
.1 . I
I
1
1
1
AG | FR
t
UR
HM
11
DO |
1
WL
1 SED I
1 .1
1
1
1 1
t 1
IWffllCOIA MARSH
I HAMILTON
L_ .
I
1
1
i
1
X
II
11
jj
I
1
1
1
t
X
>*
1
1 E
i
1
1
1
iURBMf RUNOFF FROM CHATTANOOGA }
ESD [AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT I
, t f
1 GOOSE POND
I GRUNDY
t . .
1
I
,f
1
X (
I i
II
u
1
X 1
,1
1
1
1
1
1 E
(
1
1
J
ILOW DO FROM PREVIOUS HOG LOT- |
ESD I MAY BE RECOVERING I
I. ... J
t HATCHIE RIVER BOTTOM
IMULTIPLE
I
i
1
1
I
X I
X
11
11
11
1
1
1
X
1
1
1
X
1
1 E
I,
1
1
1
I CHANNELIZATION OF TRIBUTARIES 1
ESD I CAUSING SEDIMENTATION AND DRAINAGE I
1 1
1 LONG POND SLOUGH
1 MONTGOMERY
1
1
1
i
I
X I
X
11
11
I.?
1
i
i
X
1
1
r
1
1 E
1
1
'
1 CLEARING AND DRAINAGE |
TWRA | FOR AGRICULTURE |
1. .. .. 'I
1LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER BASIN I
|SHELBY/FAYETTE |
1 1
I _ L
1
X 1
I
X
X
11
1
1
1
1
I
I
i
i
i
X
1
1 I
1
1
I
1
1
1
I URBAN RUNOFF FROM MEMPHIS |
TWRA |DRAINAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION, I
I DEVELOPMENT, AND AGRICULTURE I
1 1
1
IOBION/F.DEER BASINS
IMULTIPLE
1
1.
1
1
1
I
s
I
1
X I X
1
X
11
II
11
11
1,1
1
1
1
1
I
X
i
i
i
1
i
X
I I 1 EXTENSIVE CHANNELIZATION AND 1
I IOSCORPSICLEARING IN THESE WEST TN I
IE/Ml MSU |RIVER BASINS CAUSING DRAINAGE 1
II |IN METLANDS AND SEDIMENTATION i
! 1 t.. . _ . . „ . _ !
IREELFOOT SAKE BASIN
ILAKE/OilOK
1
I
1
t
I
X (
X
11
11
11
1
1
1
X
i
i
i
X
1 1
IE/Ml
1 _J_
305(B) 1 EXCESSIVE SEDIMENTATION 1
ESD | IMPACTING WETLAND AREAS I
1 . 1
1 VAIL POND
(CARROLL
t
)
t
i
I
X
11
11
1)
1
1
1
X
i
i
I
X
1
1 E
i
1
1
1
1 POTENTIALLY THREATENED BY 1
TWRA I DRAINAGE AND CHANNELIZATION 1
... . L 1
J WOLF RIVER BASIN
1 SHELBY/FAYETTE/HARDEMAN
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
X I
1
.1
X
X
11
II
11
11
1
1
1
.1,
X
i
i
i
i
X
i
1 E
1
i
1
1
1
1
1 URBAN RUNOFF FROM MEMPHIS - 1
TWRA I DRAINAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION, |
(DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL USES I
i I
MPS POLLUTION IMPACT CATEGORIES;
AC - AGRICULTURE
FR - FORESTRY
OR - URBAN RUNOFF
KM - HYDROLOCIC MODIFICATION
PARAMETERS OF CONCERN:
DO - DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ML - WETLANDS LOSS
SED - SEDIMENTATION
AGENCY MBREVIATIOMS E/M - EVALUATED/MONITORED WATERBODY
ESD - Ecological farvlcea Dlvlalon, DepsrtBsnt of Consarvatlon
TWRA • Tannaaaaa Midlife Resources Agancla*
MSU - Hemphill State Unlvarslty
USCORPS - Corpa of Englnaara
96
-------
G. Attainment of Fishable/Swimmable Goal
In passing the original Clean Water Act of 1972, Congress established a goal
that all of the waters of the nation should fully support both fishing and
swimming by 1983. Tennessee did not achieve this goal, nor did any other
state. As a requirement of the Water Quality Act of 1987, states must report
on the current status of attainment of this goal.
The goal of fishable/swimmable waters is somewhat unrealistic. The goal
implies that clean water will be both fishable and swimmable, which is true to
a degree. However, there are waters in Tennessee that are swimmable but not
fishable. And there are fishable waters that are not swimmable. In fact, in
the Southeast, fisheries agencies and managers tend to try to maximize fishing
opportunities by artificial fertilization, a practice that speeds the
eutrophication process. At the same time, they eventually destroy the ability
of the body of water to support swinsting. " Thus, this practice prevents the
water from being both fishable and swinieable.
For the purposes of this analysis, waters that do not support the fishable
goal are defined as: (1) Waters that have some form of fishing ban or public
advisory against the consumption of fish. This criteria assumes that Congress
intended to include consumption of fish as part of the fishing activity being
protected. Examples of this type would include Chattanooga Creek, Boone
Reservoir, Wood Reservoir, Fort Loudoun Reservoir, the Mississippi River near
Memphis, and others. (See Table V-42 for a list of waters in Tennessee posted
against a public use.) (2) Waters (not posted at this time) that, because of
pollution problems, have severely diminished fish populations. An example of
this type stream is the Ocoee River.
Waters that do not support the swimmable goal are defined as those streams or
lakes that: (1) Have been posted against water contact recreation because of
elevated fecal coliform levels. (2) Have had the recreational classification
removed by the Water Pollution Control Board because of the discharge of
sewage treatment plant effluent. (3) Have very limited current water contact
recreation potential because of aesthetic reasons such as eutrophication or
siltation. Examples of these type are Reelfoot Lake and Herb Parsons Lake.
It is also assumed that Congress intended the fishable/swinmable goal for
lakes and streams and not wetland areas. A summary of the stream miles or
lake acres not achieving the fishable/swimmable goal is presented in Table V-
54 and Table V-55. It should be noted that just because a fishing advisory
has been issued warning the public to limit consumption of a certain type of
fish does not mean that other types of fish cannot be caught and eaten.
TABU V-54
ATTAINMENT OF CUBAN WATER ACT GOALS
LUES fin acres)
ainment
Fishable Goal
54,647.0
1,708.0
56,355.0
483,675.0
Swimmable Goal
O
Other lakes-size not meeting
Total size not meeting
Total size meeting
16,849.0*
16,849.0
521,473.0
* Reelfoot Lake represents 15,500 acres of this total.
IUSI V-55
ATTAxmom or chow mm act goals
STREAMS (in odles)
Goal Attainment
Posted streams-size not meeting
Other streams-size not meeting
Total size not meeting
Total size meeting
Fishable Goal
Swimmable Goal
TUT7S
116.3
223.8
15375"
554.9
660.8
10,857.3
10,420.3
97
-------
B. Mospoiat issagimmt
Monpoint tessggnsat Report Activities
The water quality assessment process for the 305(b) Report had the
following goals specific to nonpoint source pollution, (1) Identify
waters of the state not expected to meet water quality standards/goals
as a result of nonpoint sources of pollution. (2) Identify major
pollutants and significant pollutant categories.
Appendix B contains the list of Tennessee streams and lakes impacted by
nonpoint source IMPS) pollution. As required in the Water Quality Act
of 1987, the HPS impacted waterbodies list is a subset of the "long list
(Appendix A), the streams and lakes in Tennessee impacted by both point
source (PS) and HPS pollution. Information concerning the relative
contributions of NPS pollution is given in Section D, "Causes and
Sources of Stream Use Impairment."
Target Watersheds
The targeting of watersheds for nonpoint pollution abatement has been
accomplished by the Department of Health and Environment in cooperation
with a variety of other state, federal and local governments, as well as
the public. In accordance with EPA requirements, the following factors
were considered in selecting NPS target areas:
1. Waterbodies most valuable from various perspectives,
such as aquatic habitat, recreation, and water supply;
2. Waterbodies subject to adverse effects from water
pollution and aquatic habitat destruction (wetlands)
that can be positively impacted by water programs;
3. Available tools to address the waterbodies identified;
4. Areas most likely to be improved through governmental
actions;
5. Problems most amenable to available tools and controls;
6. Degree of public support (local or statewide) to protect
a particular aquatic resource;
7. Willingness of other governmental agencies to use their
tools and resources to address the problem; and
8. Most benefit from "combined action" relative to the
value of the aquatic resource.
The following is an updated, consensus list of five targeted watersheds
plus three alternates that was developed by Management Advisory Group
(MAG) members in late February, 1989. These watersheds, due to their
identified NPS water pollution problems, are to be considered as
candidates for potential 319 implementation funds (when available) as
well as other funding sources from various agencies. The proposed five
watersheds, listed from west to east and not necessarily in any order of
priority are:
98
-------
1. Wolf/Loosahatchie Rivers, including Beaver Creek
(Fayette, Shelby, and Tipton Counties).
2. Kentucky Lake (Big Sandy Embayment) (Benton and Henry
Counties!.
3. Duck River and Embayment (Humphreys and N. W. Bedford
Counties).
4. Big South Fork Cumberland River (New River) (Scott
County).
5. Nolichucky River (Limestone Creek) (Greene, Washington,
and Unicoi Counties).
The following watersheds would serve as alternates.
1. N. Reelfoot Creek/Reelfoot Lake (Obion County).
2. Hatchie River System (Hardeman, Haywood, Lauderdale,
and Madison Counties).
3. Clinch and Powell River System (Claiborne and Hancock
Counties) .
The selection of these watersheds has been based on both historical and
recent water quality data provided by federal and State agencies. All
agencies concur that documented HPS pollution problems exist in these
watersheds and that, as funds become available, these watersheds should
be targeted first for activities such as demonstration projects, best
management practice (BMP) implementation, and other remedial actions.
To supplement potential 319 implementation funds, the State Soil and
Conservation Service (SCS) and several other agencies are in the process
of developing and funding watershed demonstration programs that will
implement BMP's and other methods to reduce soil erosion as well as
other NPS pollutants in an effort to improve water quality in these
target watersheds.
Table V-56 represents a listing of watersheds which fulfill the
criteria. They are presented in alphabetical order and have not been
prioritized. In order for nonpoint pollution projects to show positive
results, relatively small watersheds must be selected for actual
implementation. The watersheds presented in Table V-57, however,
represent large areas where nonpoint problems are known to exist. This
is done to consider all waterbodies within that watershed for project
implementation and to allow for paired watershed comparative analysis.
Where smaller areas within the larger watershed meet the criteria for
selection, they have been listed and will be given first priority. The
Nonpoint Pollution Management Program is presently working on a means by
which these watersheds might be prioritized.
99
-------
Tabl» v-58 Target- «nd Alt«rn«t« T»rq«t W»t«r«hgd» for BPS Pro1«ct«
SMOH
COUNTY
HYDROLOGIC UNIT(S)
BIG S.F. CUMBERLAND RIVER
SCOTT
05130104
HEW RIVER
SCOTT
05130104
SMOKY CREEK
SCOTT (05130104)
CLEAR FORK
FENTRESS/SCOTT
05130104
DOCK RIVER
MULTIPLE
06040003
BIG BIGBY CREEK
MAURY
06040003
SPRING CREEK
MARSHALL
06040002
HARTRACE CREEK
BEDFORD
06040002
KENTUCKY LAKE
HENRY/BENTON
06040005
BIG SANDY EMBMMEN?
06040005
NOLICHUCKY-TOE RIVERS
MULTIPLE
06010108
WOLF RIVER
SHELBY/FAYETTE
08010210
DRAINAGE
AREA
CRITERIA/COMMENTS
POSSIBLE
AGENCY/
FUNDING
HPS PROBLEMS IN WATERSHED
1138 nl. aq.
396 nl. aq.
32.8 nl. aq.
272 ml. aq.
2736 ml. aq.
1130 ml. aq.
INTERSTATE WATERSHED, EXCEPTIONAL
RECREATION VALUE, VALUABLE
AQUATIC HABITAT, SEVERELY DE-
GRADED BY SURFACE MINING. BIG
SOUTH FORK CUMBERLAND IS A
NATIONAL RECREATIONAL AREA.
INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AN
ADVANTAGE.
PROBLEMS WITH EROSION FROM AGRI-
CULTURAL AMD MINE LANDS, ANIMAL
WASTE CONTAMINATION.
CONSTRUCTION, ROADBANK, AND
STREAMBANK EROSION. POSSIBLE COST
SHARING.
HIGH RECREATIONAL VALUE, SUPPORTS
COMMERCIAL MUSSEL INDUSTRY AND
FISHERY. MUSSELS AND AQUATIC
LIFE SERIOUSLY IMPACTED.
INTERSTATE WATERSHED, HIGH
RECREATIONAL VALUE, DRINKING
WATER IMPACTED.
TOXICS, POSSIBLE HEALTH RISKS,
POSTED STREAM, FISH AND AQUATIC
LIFE SERIOUSLY IMPACTED.
SCS, TDOC (AML)
TVA, TDHE, TWRA,
SCS, TDAG, SCD
SCS,TVA
MINING-
SEDIMENT, ACID DRAINAGE
FORESTRY-
CONTRIBUTING SEDIMENT
IUSGS
I TDHE
IUSNPS
I TVA
ITWM
I TDOC
ITSRA
AGRICULTURE- H
SEDIMENT, BACTERIA, [1
NUTRIENTS 11
RESOURCE EXTRACTION- |1
SEDIMENT |1
HYDRO. MOD.-Low DO, Mtalsl
NORMANDY DAM) I
AGRICULTURE-
SEDIMENT, PESTICIDES,
NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT
OTHER- METALS
AGRICULTURE I TDHE
SEDIMENT, BACTERIA I TVA
RESOURCE EXTRACTION- i TWRA
SEDIMENT, pH f
URBAN RUNOFF- |
SEDIMENT DUE TO |
CONSTRUCTION |
AGRICULTURE- ITDHE
SEDIMENT ITWRA
HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION- |
SEDIMENT I
URBAN RUNOFF- 1
BACTERIA,METALS,TOXICS, I
DUMPS I
CLINCH RIVER
HNiCOCK/ClAIBONfE
06010205
HATCHIE RIVER
MULTIPLE
08010208/08010207
POWELL RIVER
MULTIPLE
06010206
DAVIS CREEK
CLMBORHE
06010206
REELFOOT LAKE
LAKE/OBION
08010202
I INTERSTATE WATERSHED,HIGH
I RECREATIONAL VALUE, GOOD LOCAL
I INTEREST, POSSIBLE INTERAGENCY
I FUNDING.
(EXCEPTIONAL RECREATIONAL/NATURAL
IAREA. INTERSTATE WATERSHED.
(SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT.
I
1
I
226 nl. »q. !INTERSTATE WATERSHED, HIGH
I RECREATIONAL VALUE (NORRIS RES.)
I GOVERNOR-GOVERNOR INITIATIVE
I(VIRGINIA AND TENNESSEE).
I
I EXCEPTIONAL RECREATIONAL VALUE.
I INTERAGENCY COOPERATION. VALUABLE
I AQUATIC HABITAT, INTERSTATE
I WATERSHED.
TDHE, TVA, STATEiAGRICULTURE-
OF VIRGINIA, SCS[ SEDIMENT,BACTERIA
I RESOURCE EXTRACTION-
I SEDIMENT, METALS
TDOC (7) IHYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION-
I (ON TRIBS).SEDIMENT
I AGRICULTURE-(ON TRIBS)
I SEDIMENT
I URBAN RUNOFF-
i SEDIMENT
TDHE, TVA, STATEIAGRICULTURE-
OF VIRGINIA I SEDIMENT, BACTERIA
I RESOURCE EXTRACTION-
SEDIMENT, METALS
ITDHE I I
ITVA ||
ISCS II
ITDAG I I
I TDHE
IUSGS
ITSRA
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
« I
M
USGS,TDHE,SCS
I
I
— I-
I AGRICULTURE-
1 SEDIMENT, NUTRIENTS
,HYDROLOLGIC MODIFICATION-
| SEDIMENT
I TDHE
I TVA
I SCS
I TDAG
I
I
I TDHE
IUSGS
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-I I
LEGEND:
ASCS-AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND
CONSERVATION SERVICE
DAR-DEPARTHENT OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
EPA-ENVXRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCD-SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
SCS-UNITED STATES SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
TDAG-TENNESSEE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
TDHE-TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT; ADMIN. OF WATER PROGRAMS
TDOC-TENNESSEE DEPT. OF CONSERVATION
(AML)-ABANDONED MINE LANDS
TDOC(TDF)-TENNESSEE DEPT. OF CONSERVATION
TENNESSEE DIVISION OF FORESTRY
TVA-TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
TSRA-TENNESSEE SCENIC RIVERS ASSOCIATION
TWRA-TENNE5SEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY
USACOE-UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
USGS-UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
USNPS-UNITED STATES NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE
100
-------
asss
POTENTIAL TARGET WATERSHEDS
COUNTY DRAINAGE
HYDROLOGIC UNIT(S) AREA
CRITERIA/COMMENTS
POSSIBLE
AGENCY/
FUNDING
MPS PROBLEMS IN WATERSHED
DATA
SOURCE
BOONE RESERVOIR
SULLIVAN/WASHINGTON
060I0102/06010103
SOUTH FORK H0L5T0N RIVER
1194 mi
. *q.
SULLIVAN/WASHINGTON
06010102/06010103
BOONE'S CREEK
14 Bl.
»q.
WASHINGTON
06010103
CENTER HILL RESERVOIR
2174 ml
. sq.
DEKALB
05130108
DALE HOLLOW RESERVOIR
936 ml.
•q.
CLAY/PICKETT
05130105
EAST FORK OBEY RIVER
263 mi.
sq.
FENTRESS
05130105
ELK RIVER
1720 mi
. sq.
MULTIPLE
06030003/06030004
BEAN'S CREEK
>4 ml.
sq.
FRANKLIN/LINCOLN
06030003
HULSEY CREEK
GILES
06030004
SUGAR CREEK
130 ml.
®q.
GILES/LAWRENCE
06030004
LITTLE RIVER
BLOUNT
06010201
ELLEJOY CREEK
38 mi.
®q.
BLOUNT/SEVIER (06010201)
FORT LOUDOUN RESERVOIR
BLOUNT/KNOX
06010201
HIWASSEE RIVER
§27 al.
sq,
POLK/MCMINN/BRADLEY /MEIGS
06020002
OCOEE RIVER
211 Mi.
«q.
POM
06029003
OOSTANAULA CREEK
§6 Bl.
»q.
MCMINN/MOHROE
§6020002
NICKAJACK LAKE
:
MARION
06020001
..
N.F. FORKED DEER RIVER
MULTIPLE
01010204
LEWIS MUNSAKER CREEK
58 al.
«q.
DYER
08010204
1 HIGH RECREATIONAL VALUE, EXTENSIVE ITVA, EPA
I DATA, BOONE POSTED AGAINST FISH I
(CONSUMPTION, TOXICS, INTERAGENCY I
t
1 AGRICULTURE- I TVA
I SEDIMENT,PESTICIDES, I EPA
I BACTERIA,NUTRIENTS ITDHE
I URBAN RUNOFF- I
SEDIMENT,BACTERIA,METALS I
f LAND DISPOSAL-
f SEPTIC TANKS,BACTERIA,
| NUTRIENTS
jOTHER-
i FOB•e,HYDROCARBONS,
I (BOONE RESERVOIR)
j HIGH RECREATIONAL VALUE, NEED TO ;USACOE
I QUANTIFY POLLUTANT LOADS INTO RES-j
IERVOIR, INTERAGENCY COOPERATION. |
-I-
I-
--I-
1HYDROLOGIC MOOIFICATION-
I LOW DO, METALS IN DAM
; DISCHARGES
IAGRICULTURE-
J HIGH NUTRIENT LOADS
1
— i-
I INTERSTATE WATERSHED, HIGH [USACOE
I RECREATIONAL VALUE, COLD WATER |
\FISHERY BELOW THE RESERVOIR, t
IMINING ACTIVITIES IN E.F. OBEY |
'WATERSHED THREATENING DALE HOLLOW.1
-I-
.I RECREATIONAL VALUE, DRINKING WATERiTVA,SCS,TDAG
I SUPPLIES, FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE
I HABITAT IMPACTED. INTERSTATE
I WATERSHED.
I
I
I LOCAL INTEREST HIGH. ELLEJOY IS
ITRIB. TO LITTLE RIVER WHICH HAS
I GOOD RECREATIONAL VALUE, AQUATIC
I HABITAT AND DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY.
I
(HIGH RECREATIONAL VALUE, ENTIRE
fRESERVOIR POSTED AGAINST CATFISH
(CONSUMPTION IN 1985 DUE PCB's,
1PCB' > ALSO DETECTED IN LARGEMOUTK
I BASS, POSSIBLE HEALTH RISKS.
1
i
I
IHICH RECREATIONAL VALUE, DRINKING
iWATER SUPPLIES IMPACTED, HIWASSEE
• SUPPORTS COLD WATER FISHERY, OCOEE
(DOES NOT SUPPORT FISH OR AQUATIC
I LIFE. GOOD LOCAL COOPERATION
IFOR OOSTANAULA CREEK PROJECT.
I
SINTERSTATE PRIORITY WATERSHED,
!SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT
i(RESIDENT EAGLE POP.),
I POSSIBLE INTERAGENCY FUNDING,
I RECREATIONAL VALUE.
, [ _____________________
!FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE SERIOUSLY
1 IMPACTED. I
I I
! 1
i _____ { _
—i — —-
!RESOURCE EXTRACTION-
| SEDIMENT, pi
IHYDROLOGIC MOOIFICATION-
I LOW DO IN DAM RELEASES
I
I
IAGRICULTURE-
| SEDIMENT, BACTERIA
IHYDROLOGIC MOOIFICATION-
I LOW DO BELOW TIM'S FORD
I RESERVOIR
I URBAN RUNOFF-
1 SEDIMENT DUE TO
1 CONSTRUCTION
— I-
f AGRICULTURE-
I SEDIMENT,BACTERIA
IOTHER-
I PCB CONTAMINATION IN
I LITTLE RIVER EMBAYMENT
!USACOE
i I
1 s
I (
I I
USACOE
fTBHE I
(TSRA I
I TVA
I SCS
I TDAG
I
I
— I-
I
mac (ran,
FOREST*! wn.
l
i-
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
I
I
i-
TWRA, TDOC, TVA 1
I
i
AGRICULTURE-
SEDIMENT
URBAN RUNOFF-
METALS, BACTERIA
HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION-
LOW DO
LAND DISPOSAL-(SEP. TANKS)
NUTRIENTS,BACTERIA
OTHER-
TOXICS (PCB'ft)
AGRICULTURE-
SEDIMENT, BACTERIA
RESOURCE EXTRACTION-
SEDIMENT, METALS
FORESTRY-
SEDIMENT
URBAN RUNOFF
BACTERIA, SEDIMENT
fAGRICULTURE-
i SEDIMENT
IHYDROLOGIC MOOIFICATION-
I SEDIMENT
!URBAN RUNOFF-
I SEDIMENT
TONE
TVA
USGS
-t I
I t
II
I
I I
H
if
II
-I!
tl
II
li
i !
-I!
!!
I!
1!
i s
11
LEGEND;
ASCS-AGRI CULTURAL STABILIZATION AND
CONSERVATION SERVICE
DAS-DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
EPA-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCD-SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
SCS-UNITED STATES SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
TDAG-TENNESSEE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
TDHE-TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT;ADMIN. OF WATER PROGRAMS
fDOC-TENNESSEE DEPT. OF CONSERVATION
(MO.)-ABANDONED MINE LANDS
TDOC(TDF)-TENNESSEE DEPT. OF CONSERVATION
TENNESSEE DIVISION OF FORESTRY
TVA-TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
TSRA-TENNESSEE SCENIC RIVERS ASSOCIATION
WRA-TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY
USACOE-UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
USGS-UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
USNPS-UNITED STATES NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE
101
-------
X. Natar Quality Trwada
It is difficult to make conclusive statements concerning water quality -
trends in Tennessee. Assessment methodologies, assessment philosophies,
and assessment rates have all changed since 1986. However, it is
possible to report some trends information. As part of the waterbody
assessment, field office staff were asked to make a judgment as to
whether the general water quality of the waterbody was stable,
improving, or declining. Staff were asked to include this information
for ©very assessed waterbody, regardless of the results of the
assessment.
This information is summarized in Table V-58 below.
mams v-58
summary or mm polxotiom trews Mcmss rsmmsssx
LAKES RXPORTKD AS SURFACE ACRES
STREAMS REPORTED AS RXVBR MIXES
WATERBODY TYPE DEGRADING IMPROVING STABLE
Lakes 7,985.0 4,469.0 525,559.0
Streams 1,023.9 350.4 6,602.1
Lake Acres Trend Not Assessed 309.0
Stream Miles Trend Not Assessed 3,254.1
Based on this trend assessment, most lakes and streams were considered
to be in stable condition. However, many more lakes acres and streams
miles were considered to be degrading rather than improving. A judgment
on trends was not made on 3,254.1 stream miles and 309 lake acres.
In February, 1990, the Division issued a report concerning water quality
trends at several rivers that were sites of gross pollution in the late
1960s (Sinclair, Rector, Denton, and Wood, 1990). Historical biological
and chemical data were analyzed in an attempt to determine if water
quality had improved as a result of point source controls after
enactment of the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act.
Stream segments analyzed included the Holston River below Kingsport, the
Watauga River below Elizabethton, the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon
River below Champion Paper, the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, South
Chickamauga Creek (near Chattanooga), Barton's Creek near Lebanon,
Nonconnah Creek and the Wolf River in Memphis, the East Fork Obey River
and the New River (in the mining areas east of Dale Hollow Reservoir),
the Tennessee River below Knoxville, Beaver Creek in Bristol, Rock Creek
at Tullahoma, Big Bigby Creek near Mount Pleasant, the Duck River at
Williamsport, and the Nolichucky River below Erwin.
In almost every case, water quality was found to have dramatically
improved. Although some of these sites still do not fully support
designated uses, conditions have improved greatly in the last twenty
years.
102
-------
VI. GROUND MUTER QUALITY
Tennessee'a Ground Kaf r Resource
Tennessee has nine principal aquifers: the Alluvial, the Tertiary Sand,
the Cretaceous Sand, the Pennsylvanian Sandstone, the Mississippi
Carbonate, the Ordovician Carbonate, the Knox, the Cambrian-Ordovician
Carbonate, and the Crystalline Rock. The Alluvial aquifer underlies the
flood plain of the Mississippi River and its tributaries and the
southern end of the Western Valley of the Tennessee River. This aquifer
is used primarily for rural domestic supplies and for some irrigation
and is capable of yielding more than 1,500 gallons per minute (gal/min)
in the Mississippi River area.
The Tertiary Sand aquifer is the most productive aquifer in Tennessee.
It underlies the western part of the Coastal Plain and includes the
Memphis Sand of the Claiborne Group and the Fork Pillow Sand of the
Wilcox Group. The Tertiary Sand aquifer consists of a sequence of
sand and clay that ranges in thickness from 100 feet in the outcrop area
to about 2,000 feet near the Mississippi River. This aquifer supplies
water to most industries and municipalities in West Tennessee.
The formations of the Cretaceous Sand aquifer are the McNairy and Coffee
Sands and the Tuscaloosa Formation. The formations crop out in the
eastern part of the Coastal Plain and underlie the Tertiary Sand aquifer
to the west. The Cretaceous Sand aquifer is used primarily in and near
the outcrop area where it supplies water for municipal, industrial, and
rural use.
The Pennsylvanian Sandstone aquifer in the eastern part of Tennessee
includes sandstone and conglomerate. Water-bearing openings in these
rocks consist of fractures, faults, and bedding-plane openings. Well
yields generally are 5 to 50 gal/min, although some wells produce more
than 200 gal/min.
The formations that comprise the Mississippian Carbonate aquifer in the
Highland Rim and the Ordovician Carbonate aquifer in the Central Basin
are primarily limestone and dolomite with small amounts of shale. Water
in these carbonate aquifers occurs in solution-enlarged openings and is
confined or partially confined near the surface; water may be confined
at depth. These aquifers are important sources of water for rural users
and some public supplies. These aquifers are often connected to the
surface by caves and sinkholes and are susceptible to contamination.
The principal water-bearing formations of the Mississippian Carbonate
aquifer are the St. Genevieve (Monteagle), the St. Louis, the Warsaw
Limestones and the Fort Payne Formation. In some areas of the
southeastern Highland Rim, the Mississippian Carbonate aquifer contains
gravel zones in the regolith that yield as much as 400 gal/min to wells.
The principal water-bearing formations of the Ordovician Carbonate
aquifer are the Bigby, the Carters, the Ridley, and the Murfreesboro
Limestones. The regolith that overlies this aquifer commonly is less
that 10 feet thick. Some well yields exceed 300 gal/min.
The Knox aquifer underlies middle Tennessee and parts of east Tennessee.
Although the aquifer is not a principal aquifer in terms of significant
numbers of users or in providing large amounts to single users, it does
provide water for rural domestic use where ground water cannot be
obtained at shallower depths. Sulfate concentrations that exceed 500
mg/L and sulfide gas are problems in some areas.
103
-------
The Cambrian-Ordovician Carbonate aquifer provides water for some cities
and industries and practically all rural-domestic use in the Valley and
Ridge province ©£ East Tennessee. Major pumping centers in this aquifer
are Chattanooga, Elizabethton, and Jefferson City, Some wells that
penetrate large, extensive, and interconnected solution openings yield
as much as 2,000 gal/min.
The Crystalline Rock aquifer of the Blue Eidge province supplies water
for industrial, son® municipal, and most rural purposes. Some wells in
regolith, which is present in some valleys yield more than 100 gal/min.
Iron concentrations that exceed 1,0 mg/L and pH of less than 6.0 are
problems in several areas in the Blue Ridge province.
Sources of Ground Watmx Quality Degradation
The following list of potential ground water contamination sources has
been prioritized into categories of high, medium, low and unknown
importance. (They are not ranked within these categories.) This
ranking is based upon known or potential effects on ground water
quality, health impacts, contaminant distribution and frequency of
occurrence of the problem. This is a non-scientific cursory ranking
based upon opinions of staff personnel within regulatory programs
involving ground water.
High Priority Xsauaa
° Septic, sewage and water treatment plant sludge
° Illegal dumps
° Septic tanks
° Wastewater pits, ponds and lagoons
° Sanitary landfills
° Underground storage tanks and pipelines
° Abandoned hazardous waste sites
Madium Priority Xssiiic
° Mining
° Water supply wells
° Animal feed lots
° Fertilizers and pesticides
° Urban runoff
Low Priority Xssum
° Accidental spills
° Underground injection wells
° Abandoned wells
° Monitoring wells
Unknown Priority Xmum
° Particulate matter from airborne sources
° Urban runoff and injection wells in karst areas
Many pollutants are known or thought to be contaminating ground water.
These pollutants include metals, petroleum products, pesticides and
other agricultural chemicals, and radioactive materials. In addition,
volatile or synthetic organic materials, and inorganic chemicals such as
nitrates are detectable in some ground water sources.
104
-------
A list of areas with suspected ground water contamination is reported in
Table VI—1, This information was gathered by the Division of Superfund
in cooperation with other Divisions in the Department of Health and
Environment. Table vi-1 lists the sources or suspected sources of
ground water contamination, contaminants, concentrations if known, and
relevant comments. An asterisk placed next to a site name implies that
ground water contamination is suspected.
This list is based on Information available at the time of writing and
is subject to change. Unknowns imply that specific data either does not
exist or was not available at the time this document was written. This
also is subject to change.
Creation of a Ground Water Strategy
More than one-half of the population of Tennessee relies on ground water
for drinking water supplies. Twenty-one percent of the water withdrawn
in the state (exclusive of thermoelectric use) is ground water. Ground
water provides more than 250 million gallons per day (MGD) for public
and rural domestic supplies, 190 MGD to industries, and more than 13 MGD
for irrigation and livestock uses. In West Tennessee, nearly all public
supplies, industries, and rural residents use ground water; Memphis, the
largest city in Tennessee, is completely supplied by ground water.
Ground water has become a major area of concern for state and federal
regulators, as well as for the general public. In an effort to define
and protect this finite resource, the Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment (TDHE) has developed a Ground Water Management Strategy that
would assemble the many pieces of relevant information into a
comprehensive whole. Some of the recommendations contained in this
Strategy will require legislative action by the General Assembly while
others can be accomplished by coordination of existing programs through
the establishment of a Ground Water Management Council.
An overall strategy was needed to help set objectives and guide
development of Tennessee's ground water protection programs. The
Environmental Protection Agency provided funding for the development of
this ground water strategy. What emerged was a draft document centered
around these eight principles:
1. Ground water is important and must be protected.
2. The greatest protection will be given existing and potential
drinking water.
3. Existing information will form the basis for developing ground
water protection mechanisms.
4. All ground water will be divided into two classes: water for
beneficial uses and water for receiving underground wastes.
5. Initially, ground water protection must be dependent on existing
state and local regulatory programs.
6. The state will provide technical assistance and information to
local and regional agencies involved in ground water protection
efforts.
7. Program coordination mechanisms are needed.
8. Public participation is needed.
The Division of Ground Water Protection invited concerned and interested
citizens and ground water users to participate in developing consistent
policies and guidance for Tennessee1s programs. Five public meetings
were held across the state to solicit public input. The following
recommendations were incorporated into the strategy:
105
-------
1. The Strategy recommends the adoption of a policy of differential
protection while striving for an ideal goal of prevention of ground
water contamination.
2. The Strategy emphasizes public awareness of ground water quality and
quantity issues as a means of supporting local governments in their
efforts to define and implement ground water protection programs.
3. The Tennessee Water Quality Control Board should be empowered to
resolve disputes involving ground water usage,
4. The Strategy calls for the development of a coordinated information
base comprised ©£ quality and quantity data concerning Tennessee's
ground water and a statewide monitoring network.
5. The Strategy endorses the existing ground water classification
system that was adopted by the Water Quality Control Board in 1985.
6. "Point of use™ standards, as established under the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act should be utilized.
1. Source control programs should provide maximum resource protection
and be expanded to incorporate nonpoint sources currently exempt from
the Water Quality Control Act.
8. The Strategy recommends a coordinated program which assures
identification, assessment, and prioritization for remediation of
degraded ground water caused by unregulated actions.
9. The Tennessee Ground Water Management Strategy is a comprehensive
plan to coordinate and refine Tennessee's ground water policies and
programs. While many aspects of the strategy are "long-range," they set
a positive direction toward ground water protection.
Ground W«fr Monitoring
The Department is in the process of acquiring additional information on
ground water quality and has recently contracted (using funds from a
Section 205j (5) grant) with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to
complete three investigations in suspected areas of ground water
contamination. These are impacts to ground water from urban runoff in a
karst area in Clarksville, Tennessee; ground water contamination
resulting from the application of agricultural chemicals in Fayette,
Tipton, and Shelby Counties; and ground water contamination resulting
from blasted-in-bedrock subsurface sewage systems in Brentwood,
Tennessee. These studies represent an initial phase of establishing
baseline data to set ground water priorities.
A recently developed Ground Water Monitoring Network project involving
the Department, the Tennessee State Planning Office, and USGS is being
developed. Monitoring sites are being selected in conjunction with
another project, a water quality study of farmstead wells in Tennessee.
Approximately 150 domestic wells will be sampled and analyzed through
the Farmstead Project and about 165 additional wells will be sampled
across the state for the Network project.
106
-------
Safelm VX-1 Xamm msd mzwmd. Wkfeav esBtasdLisatisn
• - CONTAMINATION SUSPECTED
COUNTY/SITE
-------
Ml* ¥1-1 Wamm mad Huapmmtmd Omwsd Vat«r Om&tm&tsmtl&a. (C«BtlsiM
-------
tibia VX-1 Wsmm arid #s®pss«sfc«t Ss-awnA Katar CoatMsisatias (Oontiimcd)
COUNTY/SITE(S)
COHTAMIMAHTS
COSCEKTRATION
COMMENTS
KNOX
I
-
MIDDLEBROOK
GASOLINE
SWKNtMH
GASOLINE SPILL;TANK ABOVE GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
GASOLINE, METHANE, NATURAL GAS
unknown
SOURCE UNKNOWN
FOOTE MINERAL
HEAVY METALS- Mg, Pb
OMKHWH
CERCLA
MADISON
AMERICAN CREOSOTE
PCP, CHROMIUM, ZINC
HIGH
MEMPHIS SAND AQUIFER
JACKSON
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
0.5 - 3.3 pptn
WELL I'l - 4,5,6,7,10,11
JACKSON
PERCHLOROETHYLENE
1.6 - 23.0 ppm
WELL I's - 2,4,S,11,12,13
PORTER CABLE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
4 - 9 ppb
CERCLA
MAURY
SPRING
CHLORIDES, TOTAL DIS. SOLIDS
ON KNOWN
SMELTER SERV. LANDFILL SUSPECTED
LEIPERS CREEK
SUSP. AND SETT. SOLIDS
UNKNOWN
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL SUSPECTED
MCMINN
BEAUNIT MILLS
BENZENE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHANE
mtwom
CERCLA
1,1 DICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
MONROE
PRIVATE WELL
STRONTIUM
unknown
CERCLA
RED RIDGE LANDFILL
TRICHLOROETHELENE, VINYL
UNKNOWN
CERCLA
CHLORIDE, 1,4 DICKLOROBENZENE
PUTNAM
SPRINGS
BACTERIA, INDUSTRIAL WASTES
UNKNOWN
CONTAMINATION AT HIDDEN HOLLOW
RESORT - COOKEVILLE STP BYPASS
ROANE
PRIVATE WELL*
SEWAGE
UNKMOffl
FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
GROCERY STORE
BENZENE
UNKNOWN
BENZENE IN WELL
SHELBY
CARRIER CORP.
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
0.5 - 8.0 ppb
MEMPHIS SAND AQUIFER
ARLINGTON BLENDING
PESTICIDES
4.0 - 64.0 ppb
MONITORING WELLS
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
LEAD, CHROMIUM, NICKEL
LOS
MONITORING WELLS
N. HOLLYWOOD DUMP
VOLATILES, METALS, PESTICIDES
METALS-HIGH;OTHERS-LOW
MONITORING WELLS
NILOK CHEMICAL
LEAD, CHROMIUM, BARIUM, PCP
MOOERATE TO LOW
MONITORING WELLS
JACKSON PITS
MERCURY, ORGANICS
ORGANICS-MODERATE
MONITORING WELLS
MERCURY-ABOVE D.W.L.
MEMPHIS
TRICHLOROETHYLENE, TOLUENE
TRACE
CITY WELL 1 127
MAPCO
HYDROCARBONS
UWWOtW
RCM
SULLIVAN
ARCATA GRAPHICS
ACETONE, TOLUENE, XYLENE, ISO-
onknomn
U.S.T.
PROPANOL, METHYL ETHYL, KETONE
SULLIVAN GARDENS*
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE
UN KM OWN
U.S.T.
COLONIAL HEIGHTS EXXON*
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE
UNKNOWN
U.S.T.
HIGHWAY UW I 37
CHLORO METHYL PHENOL, TOLUENE
unknown
U.S.T.
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE, XYLENE
CHLOROFORM, METHYLENE
CHLORIDE, ETHYLBENZENE
109
-------
Yabla VI-1. Baswa and Ssremsd Watsr Cerataadikatiea (Ooafclaaad)
• - CONTAMINATION SUSPECTED
COUNTY/SITE{Si
SULLIVAN (Cont.)
PRIVATE WELL*
BROYLES TEXACO*
PRIVATE WELL*
ROADRUNNER ( 107*
PRIVATE WELL*
RAYTHEON
JOY MARKET*
TENNECO*
TENNESSEE EASTMAN
BLOOMINGDALE*
PRIVATE WELL*
COLONIAL HEIGHTS*
SULLIVAN GARDENS*
VERNON HEIGHTS*
BLOUNTVILLE*
SUMMER HILL*
SPRING FIELD ACRES*
SKARRID ADDITION*
PINEY FLATS*
DOGWOOD ACRES*
GLENFIELD*
DAVIS PIPE t METAL
CONTAMINANTS
CONCENTRATION
COMMENTS
BRISTOL METAL
AFG BROOK
SPERRY
SUMMER
SPRING
UNICOI
NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICE
UNICOI*
FISKEY*
CHESTOA*
I-
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE
KEROSENE
OIL t GREASE, ARSENIC,
1,1,1 TRICHLORETHANE
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE
COPPER, CHROMIUM
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
ARSENIC
LEAD
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
FLUORINE
ARSENIC
NICKEL
CHROMIUM
FLUORINE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE,
1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE,
1,2 DI- CHLOROETKYLENE
ARSENIC
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
SOLVEUTS
URANIUM, FLUORINE, SOLVENTS
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
SEWAGE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
ON KNOW
OTKNOKN
UNKNOWN
UKKNOWI
LOW
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKHOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UN KHOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
0.002 - 0.270 ppm
0.002 - 0.970 ppm
0.029 - 100.0 ppm
0.030 - 141.0 ppm
0.540 - 880.0 ppm
0.140 - 0.420 ppm
ND - 34.0 ppm
0.42 ppm
0.6 - 32.0 ppm
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
U.S.T.
U.S.T.
U.S.T.
U.S.T.
U.S.T.
U.S.T.
I U.S.T.
I U.S.T. - EDGEMONT AVENUE
I MONITORING WELLS
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
(FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
(FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
I RCRA CLOSURE
I
RCRA CLOSURE
30 MON. WELLS - CERCLA
WON. WELLS
MON. WELLS - CERCLA
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UH KNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOURCE UNKNOWN
WASTE POND
AILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS,
AILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
AILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
110
-------
Vabla VX-1 Km«®. axd, M&wg*n>a&»<£. m
J
)
I
lisMstiea (CootinwKi)
* - CONTAMINATION SUSPECTED
COUNTY/SITE (S)
CONTAMINANTS
CONCENTRATION
COMMENTS
UNICOI (Cont.)
BUMP AS COVE LANDFILL
METHYLENE CHLORIDE, 1,1 |
unknown
) MONITORING WELLS
DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1,1 (
1
TRICHLOROETHANE, TRI- I
1
CHLOROETHYLENE, TETRA- i
i
CHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DI- |
I
CHLOROETHANE, 1,2 |
J
DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,4 f
1
DICHLOROBENZENE |
1
HMREN
1
1
SPRING
BACTERIA, INDUSTRIAL WASTE |
UHICNCMM
f MCMINNVILLE SEWAGE BYPASS
„ 8 vr ..,T„..r „„ ... , ,
WASHINGTON
... ^
I
1
TRI BAIT SHELL*
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE |
US KNOW
1 U.S.T.
DOGWOOD OIL*
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE |
UNKNOWN
[ U.S.T.
FLEMING FOODS*
UNKNOWN 1
UNKNOWN
i U.S.T. SUSPECTED
SUPER OIL CO.*
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE j
UNKNOWN
[ U.S.T.
PRIVATE WELL*
KEROSENE (
UNKNOWN
1 U.S.T.
PRIVATE WELL*
BENZENE, TOLUENE, XYLENE |
UNKNOWN
I U.S.T.
SULFUR SPRINGS*
SEWAGE 1
UN KNOW)
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
AUSTIN SPRINGS*
SEWAGE I
UNKNOWM
(FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
ROCKINGHAM*
SEWAGE I
UNKNOWN
1 FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
DAVE* CROCKETT*
SEWAGE (
IWJfflOWN
I FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
LIMESTONE*
SEWAGE I
UNKNOm
(FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
OAK-GLENN*
SEWAGE |
UNKNOWN
1 FAILING SUBSURFACE SEWAGE SYS.
THOMAS IHD.
TRICHLOROETHYLENE, ACETONE 1
UNKHOSM
I RCRA CLOSURE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE, CHLORO- |
i
FORM, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE |
I
BAUSER RIDGE LANDFILL
CHLOROMETHMIE, J
ONKNONN
| JOHNSON CITY LANDFILL
BRQHOMETHAME, TOLUENE I
1
DICHLOROOIFLU OR OM ETHANE |
1
WASHINGTON CO. LANDFILL
DICHLOROOIFLUORCHETKANE, f
UNKNOWU
I MONITORING WELLS
CHLOROMETHANE, TRICHLOROETHANE|
1
BROMOMETHANE, BENZENE i
1
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE, !
»
1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, TOLUENE |
_ — -A,..
1
WAYNE
1
1
MALLORY CAPACITOR
PCB't, Til- CHLOROETHYLENE |
UNKMOWJ
1 CERCLA, MONITORING WELLS
WHITE
i
1
SPRING
PETROLEUM |
SMWatffl
1 MCCEE OIL SUSPECTED SOURCE
WILLIAMSON
I
K£NN ON/GEN ESCO
TOLUENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETKANE I
UWKNOWI
i CERCLA, MONITORING WELLS
1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE I
I
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE J
1
U.S.T. - UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
RCRA - RESOURCE CONSERVATION RECOVERY ACT
CERCLA - COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION,
AND LIABILITY ACT
111
-------
¥ii. msm mujJTim cmmm programs
The goal of the Division of Water Pollution Control (WPC) is to prevent
degradation of "the waters of the State," a duty mandated by Tennessee's
Water Quality Act of 1977. Tools used to accomplish this goal fall
under two general headings; regulatory (Permitting, Compliance
Assurance, and Enforcement) and non-regulatory {Monitoring, Operator
Training, Construction Grants and Loans, and Technical Assistance). The
purpose of this chapter is to acquaint the reader with these programs.
A. MONITORING PROGRAM
Aablmt Monitoring
Before 1983, the ambient monitoring program consisted of 23 sampling
sites that were monitored on a monthly basis. In 1983, this monitoring
network was expanded to 86 sites. All but 6 of these sites are now
monitored on a quarterly basis.
Table VIl-1 lists the ambient sites. Table Vll-2 lists parameters that
are analyzed from each site and the sampling frequency for each
parameter. Data from these sites are the basis of the Hater Quality
Index described in Chapter V. Data from the ambient monitoring network
are regularly entered into the STORET computer system. A STORET number
is assigned for each site (See Table VII-1).
A map of ambient monitoring sites appears on Figure VII-1. Sites are
keyed to map numbers (left column on Table VII-1).
Toxic* Monitoring Strategy
Tennessee has operated a toxics monitoring program for more than seven
years, primarily in conjunction with the ambient monitoring network.
Water, sediment and fish tissue samples have been collected and
analyzed. As a result of this program, environmental and health
officials have been alerted to potential problems in several areas
across the state.
During FY 1983, the Division implemented a toxics monitoring strategy
designed to inspect all significant water bodies within the State.
Through utilization of fish tissue samples and/or sediment samples,
analyses will be performed to determine the occurrence and concentration
of toxic materials. • All of the ambient sites monitoring (Table VII-1)
have been sampled. Currently, this fish tissue network concentrates on
those areas known to have toxicity problems. These sites are listed in
Table VIl-3.
Additional sites can be monitored as deemed necessary. Table VII-4 is a
parameter list for toxics monitoring. Annual development of the 106
Program Plan allows for re-evaluation of sites selected. If a need for
sampling still exists, sites will remain on the list and may receive a
higher priority. If a need no longer exists, sites will be dropped from
the list and replaced with other sites.
In order to provide as much reliable data as possible at an economical
level, sample analyses are restricted to composite samples only. (A
composite sample is one where fillets from several fish are blended
together, then analyzed as one sample.) At each site 5 game, 5 rough,
and 5 catfish are collected, then a composite sample of each group is
created. If toxic materials appear in the analysis, often the analysis
is duplicated using individual samples.
112
-------
V1I-1
FIXED-STATION AMBIENT MONITORING NETWORK
Map
Storet
R±^®r
Sampling
MO.
Ho.
Station Nsxm
Mil#
Location
Fraq.
1
000770*
Cumberland River at
174.5
Downstream of
Qtr
Cleece'3 Ferry
Nashville
2
014311
Harpeth River at
40.5
Pegram Bridge
Qtr
Kingston Springs
3
002205
Red River at
8.4
At Richview Dr.
Qtr
Clarksville
Bridge
4
002395
Shoal Creek
32.2
West Point Bridge
Qtr
5
001065*
Duck River
113.9
Williamsport Bridge
Qtr
6
000295*
Big Bigby Creek at
8.5
Tennessee Bridge
Qtr
Canaan
7
001295
Falling Water River
10.5
Bridge upstream of
Qtr
Burgess Falls
8
000732
Cumberland River
381.1
Highway 52 Bridge
Qtr
at Celina
9
002020
Obey River at Celina
1.0
Highway 53 Bridge
Qtr
10
003046*
West Fork of
6.2
Below Nice's Mill
Qtr
Stone's River
11
000755*
Cumberland River
262.9
Highway 231 Bridge
Qtr
at Lebanon
12
000740
Cumberland River
208.2
Cordell Hull Bridge
Qtr
at Carthage
13
001025
Duck River
248.4
Launch downstream
Qtr
of Normandy Dam
14
001207
Elk River
133.0
First Bridge
Qtr
below Tims Ford Dam
15
003610*
Tennessee River
89.0
Shirley's Light
Qtr
16
000408
Buffalo River
73.1
Bell Bridge on
Qtr
Highway 13
17
002862
Stones River
3.9
Highway 70 Bridge
Qtr
18
000170
Beaver Creek
15.3
VA/TN Line
Qtr
19
000225
Beaver Creek
0.1
Prior to Embayment
Qtr
20
001980*
North Fork Holston
4.6
Cloud's Ford
Qtr
21
002630
South Fork Holston
1.1
RidgefieId
Qtr
22
001620*
Holston River
131.5
Church Hill
Qtr
23
000665*
Clinch River
189.8
Kyle's Ford
Qtr
24
002180*
Powell River
115.7
Baldwin Ford
Qtr
25
001340*
French Broad River
95.9
N.C. Line
Qtr
26
002085
Pigeon River (Cocke)
0.8
Rankin
Qtr
27
001860*
Nolichucky River
98.5
N.C. Line
Qtr
28
002376
Sinking Creek (Greene)
0.5
Downstream Greene
Qtr
Valley STP
29
000655
Clear Fork (Campbell)
19.4
U.S. 2W Highcliff
Qtr
30
002005
Obed River
36.9
Upstream of 7ON
Qtr
31
000705
Coal Creek (Anderson)
5.4
Wye
Mo
32
002081
Pigeon River (Cocke)
20.4
Waterville
Mo
33
000709
Crooked Fork Creek
4.2
Potter's Falls
Mo
34
003110*
Tennessee River-Pt.
643.3
Marine Base
Qtr
Loudon (Knox)
35
001720
Little River (Knox)
2.6
U.S. 129. Down-
Qtr
stream Russell Br.
36
000680*
Clinch River (Roane)
10.0
Downstream DOE-
Mo
K-25 Plant
37
003315*
Tennessee River
444.0
Below Raccoon Mt.
Mo.
38
003195*
Tennessee River
477.0
Below Waconda Bay
Qtr
39
001587*
Hiwassee River
15.0
Below Olin and
Qtr
Bowater
40
002425*
South Chickamauga
0.4
At Amnicola
Qtr
Creek
Highway
41
000590
Chattanooga Creek
0.9
At Southern
Mo.
R.R. Bridge
113
-------
TABLE ¥11-1 (Cont.)
•tap
Storat
Riv@r
No.
No.
Station Nana
mi#
42
003325
Tennessee River
430.7
43
002058
Oostanaula Creek
28.4
44
002731
South Mouse Creek
3.4
(Deleted FY '87)
45
002224
Richland Creek
2.5
46
002102
Piney River
5.0
47
002050
Ocoee River
19.6
48
003140
Tennessee River
529.5
49
002375
Sequatchie River
6.3
50
000425
Cane Creek
1.5
51
000285
Beech River
21.9
52
000286
Beech River
7.0
53
000335
Big Sandy River
0.2
54
000325
Big Sandy River
16.6
55
001675
Horse Creek
12.6
(deleted FY 89)
56
001676
Horse Creek
5.2
57
003805
White Oak Creek
Mouth
(deleted FY 89)
58
002026
Obion River
62.4
(deleted FY 89)
59
002027*
Obion River
20.9
60
001855
Middle Fork Obion
14.6
(deleted FY 89)
61
001856
Middle Fork Obion
7.5
62
001997
North Fork Obion
18.0
(deleted FY 89)
63
001999
North Fork Obion
5.9
64
002371
Rutherford Fork
.9
Obion
65
002372
Rutherford Fork
17.9
Obion
66
002648
South Fork Obion
25.0
67
002649
South Fork Obion
9.7
(deleted FY 89)
68
001316*
Forked Deer River
18.2
(deleted FY 89)
69
001851
Middle Fork Forked
30.5
Deer
70
001853
Middle Fork Forked
14.6
Deer
71
001852
North Fork Forked
Deer
20.5
72
001854
North Fork Forked
2.2
Deer (deleted FY 89)
73
002485
South Fork Forked
Deer
46.7
74
002472
South Fork Forked
62.0
Deer
75
002500
South Fork Forked
30.4
Deer(deleted FY 89)
76
001545*
Hatchie River
22.0
Sasspllng
Location
At Boat ramp below
Hales Bar Light
Wooden Bridge on
Longs Mill Road
At Charleston
Access Road
On Scenic Drive
Dock at Rhea
Harbor Resort
At Caney Creek
Parking Area
Below Watts Bar Dam Qtr
At Valley Road Qtr
At Carlock Road Qtr
County Road near Qtr
Chesterfield
Hwy. 100 Qtr
Highway 69 Qtr
Highway 70 Qtr
County Road near Qtr
Maddox
County Road #128 Qtr
near Oak Grove
County Road #8088 Qtr
Highway 51 Qtr
Highway 20 Qtr
Como Highway Qtr
Highway 45E Qtr
Highway 45E near Qtr
Martin
County Road #8009 Qtr
near Rives
Highway 7OA Qtr
Highway 54 Qtr
Highway 79 Qtr
Highway 45E Qtr
County Road near Qtr
Unionville
Highway 45 Qtr
Highway 54 Qtr
Highway 104 Qtr
County Road near
Dyersburg Qtr
1-40 near Jackson Qtr
County Road #8058
near Jackson Qtr
Highway 54 Qtr
County Road near
Covington Qtr
Fraq.
Qtr
Qtr
Qtr
Qtr
Qtr
Qtr
114
-------
TABLE VTI-1 (Cont.)
Map
Storat
Rivar
Sampling
Mo.
Mo.
Station Hum
Mil®
Location
Freq.
77
001450
Hatchie River
182.0
Highway 57 near
Pocahontas
Qtr
78
001480
Hatchie River
122.1
Highway 100 near
Toone
Qtr
79
001511
Hatchie River
80.8
Highway 100 near
(deleted FY 89)
Koko
Qtr
80
003845*
Wolf River
1.5
Highway 51
Qtr
81
003925
Wolf River
36.1
Arlington-
Collierville Rd
Qtr
82
003927
Wolf River
72.6
County Road #8113
(deleted FY 89)
near LaGrange
Qtr
83
001800*
Loosahatchie River
5.2
Watkins Road
Qtr
84
001790
Loosahatchie River
31.3
Arlington-
Qtr
Collierville Rd
85
001768
Loosahatchie River
50.3
Highway 26 near
(deleted FY 89)
Somerville
Qtr
86
001920
Nonconnah Creek
2.2
Highway 61
Qtr
(deleted FY 89)
Indian Creek
4.0
Hwy. 128
Qtr
Tennessee River
134.9
Hwy. 100
Qtr
Tennessee River
189.9
Hwy. 64
Qtr
w. Sandy Creek
4.3
Elkhorn Rd.
Qtr
S.F. Obion
6.0
Hwy. 89 Macedonia
Qtr
N.F. Obion
10.0
Hwy. 22
Qtr
N.F. Forked Deer
36.5
Hwy. 77
Qtr
Sugar Creek
1.6
Sugar Creek Rd.
Qtr
Cypress Creek
9.0
Hwy. 8086 Ramer
Qtr
Harris Fork
8.9
Hwy. 51- Bypass
Qtr
South Fulton
Rushing Creek
2.7
Hwy. 100-
Qtr
Decaturville
Cane Creek
12.4
Grimes Store Rd Arp
Qtr .
Fletcher Creek
Bartlett Road
Semi
Harrington Creek
Raleigh-Lagrange Rd
Semi
Harrison Creek
Jackson Avenue
Semi
Workhouse Bayou
Pumping Station
Semi
Cypress Creek
Pumping Station
Semi
Grace-Chromasco
Fite Road
Semi
Todd Creek
Millington Road
Semi
Big Creek
Fite Road
Semi
Johns Creek
American Way
Semi
Black Bayou
Echles Street
Semi
Ten Mile Creek
American Way
Semi
Hurricane Creek
Democrat Road
Semi
Cane Creek
RR Bridge near
Semi
P4B Company
Latham Bayou
Pumping Station
Semi
* These were the original 23 ambient monitoring stations prior to 1982
changes.
115
-------
nuua vxx-2
Parameter
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Conductivity
Total Hardness
Nickel
Zinc
Ammonia Nitrogen as N
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Nitrate + Nitrite
Total Phosphorus
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Fecal Coliform
Residue, Total
Residue, Settleable
Iron, Fe
Manganese, Mn
Aluminum, A1
Selenium
Fecal Strep.
PARAMETER LIST
FOR TBS 1AXBR COLUMN
Storet
Unit
Number
C
00010
mg/L
00300
00400
UMHOS 825 C
00095
mg/L
00900
ug/L
01067
ug/L
01092
mg/L
00610
ug/L
01002
ug/L
01027
ug/L
01042
ug/L
01034
ug/L
71900
ug/L
01051
mg/L
00630
mg/L
00665
mg/L
00530
mg/L.
00515
No/100 ml
31616
mg/L
00500
ml/L
00545
ug/L
01045
ug/L
01055
ug/L
01105
ug/L
01147
No/100 ml
31679
116
-------
s?
FIGURE VII -1
AMBIENT MONITORING SUES
IN TENNESSEE
-------
tabu: vii-3
CONTINUOUS FISH TISSUE SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Storet No.
Stream Name
Mile
River
Parameter
Frequency
of
Sampling
001300
Loosahatchie River
5.2
Organics
4 yr
003110
Tennessee River -
643.3
PCB
2-3 yr
Ft. Loudoun
001980
North Fork Holston
4.6
Mercury
4 yr
¦ River
-
East Fk. Poplar Creek
Mercury
4 yr
000590
Chattanooga Creek
0.9
Metals & Org
4 yr
-
Mississippi River
735.0
Chlordane
2 yr
003845
Wolf River
1.5
Chlordane
2-3 yr
Woods Reservoir
PCB
2 yr
TABLE ¥11-4
Parameter
Analyses for Flab Tissue
Unit
Tissue
Storet Number
Sediment
Storet Number
Weight
Pounds
00023
Length
Inches
Lipid Content
per cent
39105
PCBs
ug/g
39520
39519
Aldrin
ug/g
39334
39333
Dieldrin
ug/g
39387
39383
DDT
0, P - DDE
ug/g
39329
39328
P, P - DDE
ug/g
39322
39321
O, P - DDD
ug/g
39325
39316
P, P - DDT
ug/g
39312
39311
O, P - DDT
ug/g
39318
39306
P, P - DDT
ug/g
39302
39301
Chlordane
CIS isomer of Chlordane
ug/g
39349
Transisomer of Chlordane
ug/g
39063
39064
CIS isomer of Nonachlor
ug/g
39069
¦ 39067
Transisomer of Nonachlor
ug/g
39072
39073
Endrin
ug/g
39397
39393
Methoxychlor
ug/g
39482
39481
Alpha BHC
ug/g
39074
39076
Gamma BHC
ug/g
39075
39811
Hexachlorobenzene
ug/g
39703
39701
Arsenic
ug/g
01004
01003
Cadmium
ug/g
71940
01028
Chromium
ug/g
71939
01029
Copper
ug/g
71937
01039
Mercury
ug/g
71930
71921
Lead
ug/g
71936
01052
118
-------
Intensive Surveys
When Division of Water Pollution Control personnel suspect that a human
activity or, rarely, a natural condition is causing degradation of a
stream segment, an intensive survey is often performed. An intensive
survey is a more in-depth study than is typically associated with
ambient or toxic monitoring. A typical intensive survey will have
several sampling sites distributed both above and below a suspected
pollution source. Sites are then monitored for a period of time. A
report is written detailing the findings and recommendations of the
study. Surveys are also performed in support of permitting and
enforcement activities.
Biological Datm
In an attempt to augment ambient monitoring data, macroinvertebrate
samples have been collected at selected ambient sites since 1978, {No
samples were collected in 1982 and 1983.) With standard water quality
monitoring, stream conditions at the moment of sampling are analyzed.
Water conditions are sometimes subject to very rapid changes which may
not be detected at the time of sampling.
However, benthic invertebrates are always there. Some species are
tolerant of pollution while other species are intolerant. Thus they are
good indicators of water quality.
Macroinvertebrate samples are collected by surber or artificial
substrate samplers and are identified to the lowest possible taxa by the
Division of Environmental Laboratories. A diversity index and verbal
description of water quality is an additional part of the analysis. The
resultant data are an integral part of the evaluation of water quality
status and trend analysis for the ambient system. The state will
continue to monitor the biological integrity of its streams on a
rotating basis for all ambient stations.
In 1988, the biological monitoring system was expanded by the
incorporation of new sites not currently in the ambient monitoring
network. This expansion will provide additional water quality
information.
B. MOMVOXHT SOORS (NFS) MMlAGBMQiT PRiDGRAM
The HPS Water Pollution Management Program for the State of Tennessee
was initiated in February 1987. In accordance with the amended Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and the Water Quality Act of 1987, Section
319, the Department of Health and Environment was designated by the
Governor as the lead agency for the development and implementation of
the State's MPS Management Program in March 1987. In August 1988, the
Draft NPS Management Program (NPS Assessment Report and Management
Program) was submitted to the U.S. EPA Region IV. After receipt of
public and specific EPA comments, the program was submitted to EPA by
the Governor on June 1, 1989. Final EPA approval of the NPS Assessment
Report and Management Program occurred September 1, 1989.
Initially, an NPS Steering Committee was established to ensure
coordination and input into the development of this program. An
outgrowth of this committee was the subsequent development of the
Management Advisory Group (MAG) which is composed of many agencies and
organizations, including the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, the
Farm Bureau, Economic and Community Development, the Tennessee
119
-------
Department of Conservation, the Tennessee State Planning Office, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the
Tennessee Environmental Council, and others.
During the first quarter of FY 1990, the HPS Management Program was
transferred from the Division of Construction Grants and Loans to the
Division of Water Pollution Control. This action was taken to more
closely align the HPS program with other water pollution control
programs, e.g., clean lakes, wetlands, and regulation. Annual updates
to the NFS Assessment Report are required by EPA and will be developed
as part of the Division's water quality assessment program.
C. PZmXVTZDG ACTIVITIES
The Division of Water Pollution Control issues several types of permits.
Generalized activities requiring permits are the discharge of a
pollutant to public waters, the alteration of an aquatic resource, and
gravel dredging from a watercourse. WPC also issues permits for mineral
mining and reviews or certifies permits issued and administered by other
agencies.
MPDES Permitting Systaat
Three sections of WPC have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) responsibilities. The Mining Section issues all mining
(coal and other minerals) NPDES permits. The Municipal Facilities and
Industrial Facilities Sections issue municipal and industrial permits.
Basically, when the Division receives a permit application, the category
of discharge is determined and a rationale is developed to determine the
level of pollutants that a discharger can release without causing harm
to the receiving stream or violating national categorical standards,
this study is based upon the type pollutants to be released and the
physical characteristics of the receiving stream. A draft permit is
written which contains proposed limits. After comments are received and
addressed, a final permit is issued.
In 1987, Tennessee was given primacy to issue NPDES permits to Federal
facilities.
8«ctlon 404 Certification
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the disposal (discharge) of
dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including
wetlands adjacent to such waters. The program is administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
which has primary responsibility for the permit program.
The Natural Resources Section reviews Corps of Engineers 404 Permit
Applications for Water Quality Certification as prescribed by Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. This certification mechanism is intended to
be a review by the state water quality regulatory agency in which
potential impacts of the project are considered and certification either
issued or denied accordingly. Without state certification or waiver of
certification, the 404 Permit cannot be granted.
Four Corps of Engineers Districts have jurisdiction in Tennessee:
Nashville, Memphis, Mobile and Louisville. The majority of permits
reviewed by WPC come from the Nashville and Memphis Districts which
encompass the greatest portion of the State.
120
-------
Gravel Dredging Program
The gravel dredging program is administered by the Natural Resources
Section of the WPC. This regulatory program is designed to help control
gravel dredging operations not under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 10 or 404 regulatory authority.
Under this progran, a potential gravel dredger is required t© apply for
a General Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit. Best Management Practices
requirements are part of the General Permit, The General Permit does
not apply on state Scenic Rivets or on streams with contaminated
sediment. If the site is disapproved for coverage by the General
Permit, the applicant has the option of applying for an individual
permit. If this permit is denied, then the applicant may appeal the
decision to the Water Quality Control Board.
The General Permit was issued for five years, during which time
cumulative effects of activities will be monitored and evaluated. If
adverse impacts are identified as a result of issuance of this General
Permit, it may be modified or revoked. Any modification, revocation, or
reissuance of the General Permit would be advertised through standard
regulation promulgation procedures.
Other Aquatic Resource Alteration Permits
The Natural Resources Section of the Division of Water Pollution Control
issues certain types of water quality permits under authority of the
Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977 (T.C.A. 69-3-101). The
Section processes water quality permits for work resulting in alteration
of the physical, chemical, biological, or radiological properties of the
waters of the State. This program complements the NPDES process which
permits point source discharges.
Types of work requiring a State Permit include stream channel
modifications, gravel dredging, water withdrawal, discharge of fill,
stream impoundments, and wetland conversions. The issuance of permits
has been approached in two ways: routine activities such as gravel
dredging and bridge construction are handled through a general permit
applicable to many different sites, while Aquatic Resource Alteration
Permits are written for circumstances requiring site specific
conditions.
d. cmphzmcx msmma
The Compliance Assurance Program is administered within the Enforcement
and Compliance and Municipal Facilities Section of the WPC. The purpose
of this program ia to ensure that effluent limitations are being met by
the permitted dischargers in the state. Important elements of
Compliance Assurance are Technical Assistance, Pretreatment, Compliance
Monitoring, and Compliance Review.
Technical Assistance
During FY 1982, the Division instituted a Wastewater Technical
Assistance Program to address needs and/or deficiencies noted through
the Operation and Maintenance <0 t M) program. Program activities focus
on Operation and Maintenance (0 t M) deficiencies that can cause or are
causing small STPs to be in noncompliance with NPDES Permit limits.
121
-------
Site-specific activities concentrate on evaluation of operation,
maintenance, and management practices at a selected STP with a strong
emphasis on developing better relations between the Division technical
staff, STP personnel, and city administration. Selected STPs are
evaluated in areas of operational control methods, maintenance, record
keeping, data collection, laboratory methodology, staffing, and
training. Assistance and recommendations follow initial evaluations.
Vxmtxmmtmmt Program
The federal Pretreatnvent Regulations require all state agencies that
administer the NPDES Permit Program to develop and administer a state
Pretreatment Program. Intent of the pretreatment program is to prevent
interference with, or inhibitions of, the pollutant removal performance
of the wastewater treatment facility; provide protection for sludge
disposal; provide protection for the receiving stream; and enforce
categorical pretreatment standards.
Goals of the state program are (1) to identify which STPs in the state
must develop a local pretreatment program; (2) to provide guidance and
assistance in local program development; (3) to review and approve or
disapprove STP program submissions; and (4) to conduct periodic follow-
up activities. These activities will include (1) on-site review of STP
records; (2) on-site sampling and subsequent analysis of STP influent
and effluent to verify compliance; (3) report submission by STPs on
pretreatment program implementation; and (4) technical assistance in the
administration and implementation of STP pretreatment program.
The state is requiring a significant number of STPs to develop a
pretreatment program as the primary vehicle for administering, applying
and enforcing National Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR Part 403.5 and
403.6) for Industrial Users (IUs). This strategy requires these STPs to
have complete local programs whereby notification of IUs concerning
pretreatment standards will be the responsibility of the municipality.
Thus, the state plans to have an oversight role in which a minimal
amount of state resources will be committed to applying and enforcing
National Pretreatment Standards against indirect dischargers.
Compliances Monitoring
One major duty of the Division of Water Pollution Control field staff is
compliance monitoring. The purpose of these routine inspections is to
ensure that dischargers are meeting effluent limits and all other permit
requirements. Major types of routine inspections are Compliance
Evaluation Inspections (CEI), Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI),
Performance Audit Inspections (PAI), Operation and Maintenance
Inspections (O £ M), and short form CEI's.
All dischargers are required to perform self-monitoring on a regular
basis and report this information to WPC. Compliance inspections are
field inspections which document the accuracy of self-monitoring and
reporting activities and provide documentation and verification to
justify and support enforcement actions. Major types of inspections are:
Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI). No water samples are taken in
this type inspection which is based on record reviews and a walk-through
survey of the facility. Influent and effluent are visually observed.
122
-------
Performance Audit Inspection (PAI). The PAI focuses on quality
assurance of the permittee's self-monitoring program by evaluation of
permittee performance and/or simulation ©f all the steps in the NPDES
self-monitoring process from sample collection and flow measurement
through laboratory and data analyses and reporting.
The PAI atill includes the basic objectives and tasks of a CII and
applies to both chemical and biological self-monitoring programs, The
PAI is more resource intensive than a CEI because of the additional
effort and ability required for in-depth evaluation of the permittee's
self-monitoring tasks? however, it is generally less resource intensive
than a CSI because sample collection and analyses are not a part of the
inspection.
Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI). During the CSI, a representative
sampleCa) of a permittee's effluent is collected and chemically
analyzed. The results are used to verify the accuracy of the
permittee's self-monitoring program and reports, gather evidence for
enforcement proceedings, determine the quantity and quality of
effluents, etc. In addition, a CSI includes the same objectives and
tasks as a CEI.
Operation and Maintenance Inspection (OfcM). to OSM inspection stresses
the operation of • discharger's facility rather than performance. This
type inspection is designed to investigate such areas as equipment
design and maintenance, personnel qualifications, and general facility
administration.
Major industrial or municipal dischargers are required by EPA and TDHE
to have at least one compliance inspection per year.
Compliance Review
A reliable tracking and data management system is vital to the
compliance assurance and enforcement activities of the Division of Water
Pollution Control. Information gathered during compliance inspections la
entered into the Permit Compliance System (PCS) computer data base.
Computers greatly aid the review process and help speed the enforcement
process.
Bloassavs
A bloassay differs from a CSI in that sample analysis is specifically
looking for toxic materials. A CSI checks facility performance on other
parameters such as dissolved oxygen, pH, BOD. A bloassay is typically
scheduled when a permit is being renewed or for support of enforcement
activities.
Major types of bioassays used are:
Static bioassays - a sample of effluent is collected by field
staff and analyzed for toxic effects by the Division of
Environmental Laboratories.
Flow-through bioassays - an on-site analysis of effluent toxicity.
Aquatic test organisms are subjected to effluent at various
concentrations as a way to determine toxicity.
Chronic bioassays - are performed in the laboratory using test
organisms such as Ceriodaphnia»
123
-------
K. KNTORCIMBNT
The Division of Water Pollution Control operates in accordance with
policy stated by the TDHE Bureau of Environment -in August, 1981. That
policy states that each case must be followed to a conclusion, either
compliance and/or enforcement.
Enforcement action is generally initiated in a Field Office. Violations
are divided into two groups, those which may be resolved through
voluntary compliance and those that are entered into enforcement. It is
the role of the Enforcement and Compliance Section t© give guidance and
consultation concerning this selection process.
Enforcement action is initiated by a document called the Notice of
Noncompliance (NONC). This letter informs the discharger of the
violation and requires abatement. Follow-up inspections are performed.
A total of three NONC's may be issued with associated follow-up
inspections. If compliance is not attained or if a penalty is
contemplated, the violator may be called to a Compliance Review Meeting.
This meeting is simply a face-to-face discussion between staff and
discharger. Extenuating circumstances are aired and considered. The
violator may be asked to sign a Letter of Agreement.
The next step is the Director's Show Cause Meeting. Show Cause Meetings
are most often held when a substantial period of time has elapsed
between the Compliance Review Meeting and the Request for Enforcement.
These meetings are also held in lieu of a Compliance Review Meeting when
the case is unusually severe or controversial. The Show Cause Meeting
can also result in a Letter of Agreement. Under certain circumstances,
this meeting can be bypassed.
Field staff prepare an enforcement request which provides the Central
Office and attorneys with full documentation of the case. This request
is processed through the Enforcement and Compliance Section on to the
Bureau of Environment and then to the Office of General Counsel. The
cases are prioritized against all other cases handled by the Bureau.
Enforcement actions against major dischargers (discharge of greater than
1 MGD) can also be generated through the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report
(QNCR). Each quarter, Discharge Monitoring Reports (OMR's) are reviewed
by the Enforcement and Compliance Section and a list of significant
violators is generated. The Basin Offices are contacted for additions
to the list based upon information other than the DMR's, such as failure
to monitor/report, falsification, bypassing, etc.
The first time a violator appears on a QNCR, they are issued a NONC by
the Enforcement and Compliance Section. If they appear on two
consecutive QNCR's, action — usually in the form of a Commissioner's
Order —• should be taken by the end of the second quarter. Failure to
comply with an Order is considered a significant violation and can cause
a violator to reappear on the QNCR with additional action, such as a
penalty (or an additional penalty) or court action.
For small dischargers without permits, action can be taken in General
Sessions court in the county where the violation exists. Such actions
are reviewed and approved by the Enforcement and Compliance Section and
the Office of General Counsel before going to court. Court action is
used as a means for quickly correcting a situation and may be followed
by administrative action such as Orders, Penalties, and Damages.
124
-------
VXXX« LZTOUOSX CJTXD
Alexander, F. M., L. A. Keck, L, G. Conn, and S. J. Wentz. 1984. Drought-related
impacts on municipal and major self-supplied industrial water withdrawals in
Tennessee-Part B. Prepared by 0. S. Geological Survey. Nashville, Tannessee.
pp. 398.
Brown, B. T. 1990. Rapid bioassessment of Cobb Creek, Johnson County, Tennessee.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Johnson City Field Office.
Brown, B. T. and J. K. Horton. 1989. Rapid bioassessment of Big Creek, Hawkins
County, Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division
of Hater Pollution Control, Johnson City Field Office.
. 1989. Rapid bioassessment of Kendrick Creek, Washington and Sullivan
Counties, Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division
of Water Pollution Control, Johnson City Field Office.
Browning, M. A. 1988. A biological survey of Oostanaula Creek near the Athens WWTP,
McMinn County, June, 1988. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment,
Division of Water Pollution Control.
. 1988. A rapid bioassessment of Richland Creek, Davidson County, October 13
and November 3, 1988. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment,
Division of Water Pollution Control.
. 1989. Rapid bioassessment survey of Garrison Fork Creek, Coey Tanning
Conpany, Inc., Bedford County. Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control.
. 1989. Rapid bioassessment survey of an Unnamed Tributary and Turkey Creek,
Dickson County. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of
Water Pollution Control.
. 1989. Rapid bioassessment survey of Stewart Creek, Smyrna WWTP, Rutherford
County. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water
Pollution Control.
Collins, R., D. M. Robinson, and R. M. Sinclair. 1989. Mississippi River fiah
contamination survey. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment.
Division of Water Pollution Control.
Denton, G.M. 1988. Background information for sites being reviewed for Section
304 (1) Requirements. 1988. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment,
Division of Water Pollution Control. pp. 72.
. 1989. Point source priority pollutant toxicity in Tennessee. Tennessee
Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control.
pp.26, plus appendices.
Denton, G. M., D. R. Rector, and D.H. Amwine. 1990. Toxicity survey of Cane Creek
and tributaries, Lauderdale County, Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Health
and Environment, Divisions of Water Pollution Control and Environmental
Laboratories, Nashville Tennessee.
Flexner, M. C., and T. P. Weaver. 1990. "In-situ Sediment Oxygen Demand (SOD)
measurements conducted in the Big Sandy River and West Sandy Embayment of
Kentucky Reservoir, Henry County, Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Health
and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control.
Holland, J. E. 1988. A survey of five streams in Giles County. Tennessee Department
of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville
Field Office.
. 1989, A cursory evaluation of Sinking Creek in Bedford County, March 3,
1989. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water
Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
. 1988. A cursory evaluation of benthos at the Fort Campbell STP, Little West
Fork of the Red River, Montgomery County, December 8, 1988. Tennessee
Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control,
Nashville Field Office.
125
-------
Horton, J, K. 1988. Bacteriological intensive survey of South Fork Holston R±v®r.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Johnaon City Field Office.
. 1988. Bacteriological screening survey of Kendrick Creek. Tenneeaee
Department of Health and Environment, Division of Hater Pollution Control,
Johnaon City Field Office.
. 1989. Bacteriological intensive survey of Boone Reservoir, 1988. Tennessee
Department of Health and Environment, Division of Hater Pollution Control,
Johnson City Field Office.
. 1989. Bacteriological screening survey, Beaver Creek, Sullivan County.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Johnson City Field Office.
Horton, J. K., and L. Fulkerson. 1989. Bacteriological sp«cial survey of Boone
Reservoir: 1-10-89 to 1-26-89. Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, Johnson City Field Office.
. 1989. Bacteriological special survey of Boone Reservoir { Point 10 to
Rainbow Bridge). Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of
Water Pollution Control, Johnson City Field Office.
Jensen, R. S. 1990. Personal communication of information regarding Department of
Conservation managed lakes. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of
State Parks. Nashville, Tennessee.
Keck, L. A. 1988. Local drought management planning guide for public water
suppliers: 1988. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of
Hater Pollution Control. pp. 195.
Matthews, B. 1990. Chemical survey of Heat Sandy Creek, Springville, Henry County,
Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water
Pollution Control, Jackson Field Office.
McCoy, D., and D. Turner. 1989. Water quality and invertebrate response to acid mine
drainage abatement on two headwater tributaries in East Tennessee. Tennessee
Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control,
Mining Section.
McGregor, A. 2. Hiwassee River survey: 1985. Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, Chattanooga Field Office,
pp. 33, plus appendices.
. 1989. Aquatic macroinvertebrate survey, Isbell Branch, Hamilton County.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Chattanooga Field Office.
. 1990. Oostanaula Creek survey. Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, Chattanooga Field Office.
McKinney, A. D., D. Melgaard, and J. A. Wojtowicz. 1982. Second interim report: the
occurrence of polychlorinated biphenls (PCB) in Fort Loudoun Reservoir,
Tennessee River. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of
Hater Management, Knoxville Field Office. Knoxville, Tennessee. pp. 30.
Merritt, T. M. 1988. A bacteriological, biological, and chemical survey of the Duck
River at Shelbyville, Bedford County, Tennessee. Tennessee Department of
Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville Field
Office.
. 1988. A survey of the bacteriological, biological, and chemical parameters
of Trace Creek, Humphreys County, 1988. Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
. 1988. A survey of the biological and physical parameters of an Unnamed
Tributary to the Cumberland River, Sumner County, 1988. Tennessee Department
of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville
Field Office.
. 1988. A survey of the biological and physical parameters of Fall Creek,
Dekalb County, Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment,
Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
126
-------
. . 1988. A survey of the aquatic macroinvertebrates of Big Bigby Creek, Maury
County, December 6, 1988, Tennessee Department of Health and Environment,
Diviaion of Water Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
_____ . 1989. A survey of the aquatic macroinvertebrates of Snell Branch, Marshal 1
County, November 22, 1988. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment,
Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
. 1989. A biological, chemical, and physical survey of Sugar Creek at Mount
Pleasant, Maury County, Tennessee, June, 1988. Tennessee Department of Health
and Environment, Division of Mater Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
. 1989. A biological, chemical, and physical survey of the Lower Duck River
from Columbia to Centerville, 1987/88. Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office, pp.
30.
. 1989. A survey of the biological, chemical, and physical parameters of
Flatrock Creek, Williamson County, Tennessee, 1989. Tennessee Department of
Health and Environment, Division of Nater Pollution Control, Nashville Field
Office.
. 1989. A survey of the biological, chemical, and physical parameters of Town
Creek, Overton County, October, 1988. Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
Rector, B. 1989. Rapid assessment of four selected waterbodiea in Bedford County,
Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water
Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
. 1989. Intensive stream survey of Rock Creek, Coffee County, Tennessee,
November, 1988. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of
Water Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
• 1990. A rapid bioassessment study of Rock Castle Creek, Fentress County,
Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water
Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
. 1990. A biological and chemical study of Crowson Creek, Lawrence County.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Nashville Field Office.
. 1990. Intensive stream survey of Browns Creek, Davidson County, Tennessee.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Nashville Field Office.
. 1990. An intensive stream survey of Sims Branch, Davidson County.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Nashville Field Office.
. 1990 A biological and chemical survey of Cheatham Branch, Tennessee,
Rutherford County. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division
of Water Pollution Control, Nashville Field Office.
Saulsbury, D. 1989. Bacteriological screening survey, Crockett Creek, Hawkins
County. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water
Pollution Control, Johnson City Field Office.
Sinclair, R. M. 1989. The development of a site-specific Water Quality Standard for
copper. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment. Division of Water
Pollution Control.
Sinclair, R. M., B. Rector, G. M. Denton, and S. Wood. 1990. Case studies of water
quality data at seventeen rivers before and after enactment of the Tennessee
Water Quality Control Act of 1971. Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control. pp. 13.
Sulkin, B.W. 1988. Assimilative capacity study of the Obed River at Crossville,
Tennessee: 1988. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Division of
Water Pollution Control. pp.145.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment. 1987. Tennessee's water quality
criteria and stream use classifications for interstate and intrastate streams.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Board.
Nashville, Tennessee, pp. 65.
127
-------
. 1988. Status ©f water quality in Tenneaaee: 1988 305(b) Report. Tenneaaee
Department of Health and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control, pp.
156.
. 1988. T«nn«i*M ground water management strategy. T«nn«a»«® Department of
Health and Environment, Division of Ground Water Protection. Naahville,
Tenneaaee. pp. 38.
Tenneaaee Department of Public Health. 1980. Survey of publicly-owned lakea and
reaervoira. Tenneaaee Department of Public Health, Diviaion of Water Quality
Control. Nashville, Tenneaaee. pp. 483.
Thomaa, A. J. 1989. A RBPI survey of Stewman Creek, Decatur County, Tenneaaee.
Tenneaaee Department of Health and Environment, Diviaion of Water Pollution
Control, Jackson Field Office.
. 1989. A RBP1 aurvey of the biological parameters of Turnbo Creek, Decatur
County, 1989. Tenneaaee Department of Health and Environment, Diviaion of
Water Pollution Control, Jackson Field Office.
. 1989. A RBP1 aurvey of Whit®® Creek, Decatur County, Tenneaaee. Tenneaaee
Department of Health and Environment, Diviaion of Water Pollution Control,
Jackaon Field Office.
. 1990. A RBPI aurvey of Cub Creek including Sulfur Fork, Decatur County,
Tenneaaee. Tenneaaee Department of Health and Environment, Diviaion of Water
Pollution Control, Jackaon Field Office.
. 1990. A RBPI aurvey of four streams in McNairy and Cheater Counties,
Tenneaaee Department of Health and Environment, Diviaion of Water Pollution
Control, Jackaon Field Office.
. 1990. A RBPI aurvey of Piney and Cane Creeka, Henderaon County, Tenneaaee.
Tenneaaee Department of Health and Environment, Diviaion of Water Pollution
Control, Jackson Field Office.
Turner, D. 1989. Cooperative stream investigation of the Little Sequatchie River and
Gray•a Creek. Tenneaaee Department of Health and Environment, Diviaion of
Water Pollution Control, Mining Section.
0. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Biological field and laboratory
methoda. D. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. pp. 177.
_. 1985. Technical support document for water quality-based toxics control.
0. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Waahington, B.C.
_. 1986. Quality criteria for water. O.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Regulationa and Standards. Waahington, D.C.
Wojtowicz, J. A., and B. F. Clark. 1989. An intenaive aurvey of the French Broad
River near Rankin Bridge downatream of the confluence of the Pigeon River,
Cocke County, Tenneaaee. Tenneaaee Department of Health and Environment,
Division of Water Pollution Control, Knoxville Field Office.
. 1989. An intenaive aurvey of the Obed River, Cumberland County, Tenneaaee,
1988. Tenneaaee Department of Health and Environment, Diviaion of Water
Pollution Control, Knoxville Field Office.
Wojtowicx, J. A., B. Clark, and D. Melgaard. 1989. Intenaive aurvey of Sinking
Creek, Greene County, Tenneaaee, 1987 - 1988. Tenneaaee Department of Health
and Environment, Diviaion of Water Pollution Control, Knoxville Field Office.
128
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF WATERS IMPACTED
BY BOTH POINT AND
NONPOINT POLLUTION
(LONG LIST)
129
-------
304 CI) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
MIDDLE FORK DRAKES CREEK
TN0511000200918.6
E R 4.50
CITY LAKE WESTMORELAND
TN05110002CITYLAKEWESTMOR
E L 0.00
PETROLEUM ACT,
0.00
H OTHER INORGANICS S
TASTE AND ODOR H
11.00
NATURAL
M NUTRIENTS H
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
TASTE AND ODOR M
TOWN CREEK
TN05110002TOWNCR
E R
JELLICO CREEK
TN051301010082.6
E R
ELK CREEK
TN051301010141.5
E R
1.50
7.50
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. H CHLORINE M
URBAN/STORM WAT S ORG. ENRICH./DO M
0.50 OIL AND GREASE S
SURFACE MINING
AGRICULTURE
0.00 CHANNELIZATION
VEG. REMOVAL
BANK MODIFICAT.
SURFACE MINING
3.90 PASTURE LAND
VEG. REMOVAL
M SILTATION H
S OTHER HAB. ALT. M
S pH S
S
S
M SILTATION M
pH S
S
s
CLEAR FORK CUMBERLAND RIVER INCL TACKETT CR
TN051301010152.6
E R 0.00 17.70
SURFACE MINING M pH
SUBSURF. MINING S SILTATION
MILL TAILINGS S METALS
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M
PETROLEUM ACT. M
S
M
S
STINKING CR INCL HICKORY, DAVIS i UNNANM TR
TN05130101016
M R
ROCK CREEK
TN0513010401014.5
E R
0.00
4.00
0.00
12.00
NONIRR. CROPS S SILTATION
HARVESTING S pH
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M
SURFACE MINING M
SUBSURF. MINING S
HARVESTING
ROAD CONSTR.
SILTATION
H METALS
H pH
M
S
H
S
T
WHITEOAK CREEK INCL BONE CAMP t BLACK WOLF
TN05130104032
E R 0.00 35.80
METALS M
SURFACE MINING H pH M
PETROLEUM ACT. H SILTATION M
OIL AND GREASE S
NEW RIVER
TN05130104037
M R
SILTATION
ROAD CONSTR. H METALS
21.10 0.00 HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE S pH
URBAN/STORM WAT S
SURFACE MINING H
SUBSURF. MINING M
VEG. REMOVAL S
H
M
S
-------
304 CD LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
BRIMSTONE CREEK
TN05130104038
E R
METALS
SURFACE MINING M pH
0.00 12.70 SUBSURF. MINING M SILTATION
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M OIL AND GREASE
HYDROMODIFICAT. S
DM! CONSTRUCT. S
NEW RIVER INCLUDING SMOKY CREEK
TN05130104041
M R 38.00
SILTATION
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M pH
0.00 SURFACE MINING S METALS
SUBSURF. MINING S
MINE TAILINGS S
MILL TAILINGS S
S
S
H
S
H
S
S
BUFFALO CREEK INCLUDING STRAIGHT FORK
TN05130104044
E R ' 0.00 18.80
PAINT ROCK CREEK
TN05130104047
E R
0.00
SURFACE MINING
CHANNELIZATION
VEG. REMOVAL
BANK MODIFICAT.
FILL AND DRAIN M
M SILTATION M
H OTHER HAB. ALT. S
M
M
SILTATION H
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE S METALS M
8.60 SURFACE MINING H pH S
SUBSURF. MINING M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
CHANNELIZATION S PATHOGENS S
BRIDGE CONSTR. S
VEG. REMOVAL S
PINE CREEK
TN05130104048
M R
BEAR CREEK
TN051301040501.9
E R
ROARING PAUNCH CREEK
TN051301040519.3
E R
5.80
4.30
0.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
MUNICIPAL P.S.
0.00 URBAN/STORM WAT
CHANNELIZATION
VEG. REMOVAL
1.10
4.80
H ORG. ENRICH./DO H
M PATHOGENS H
S METALS S
M
M
SURFACE MINING H METALS
SUBSURF. MINING H pH
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M SILTATION
ANIMAL HOLDINGS S METALS
HARVESTING M pH
SURFACE MINING M SILTATION
SUBSURF. MINING M
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE S
M
H
M
M
S
M
OBEY RIVER
TN05130105001
M R 0.00
WEST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN05130105015
E R 2.80
7.30
2.80
UPSTREAM IMP. H OTHER HAB. ALT.
SURFACE MINING H METALS
PH
SILTATION
S
M
H
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE —
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
WEST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN0S130105017
B R
20.40
LITTLE CRAB CREEK
TN05130105031
E R
0.00
SURFACE MINING H METALS
pH
SILTATION
0.00
13.30
EAST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN05130105019
M R 0.00
EAST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN05130105022
E R 14.00
BIG PINEY CREEK
TN05130105023
E R 0.00
EAST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN05130105025
E R 19.00
ROCKCASTLE CREEK
TN05130105029
M R 4.40
0.00
7.70
0.00
SURFACE MINING H METALS
P«
SILTATION
SURFACE MINING H METALS
PH
SILTATION
SURFACE MINING H pH
SUBSURF. MINING M SILTATION
SURFACE MINING H METALS
PH
SILTATION
MAG
S
M
H
S
H
M
MUNICIPAL P.S. H AMMONIA
URBAN/STORM WAT M SILTATION
0.00 SURFACE MINING M ORG. ENRICH./DO
SEPTIC SYSTEMS M PATHOGENS
CHLORINE
NUTRIENTS
S
H
M
H
H
S
H
M
M
M
H
M
S
S
4.30 SURFACE MINING H pH
H
BARREN FORK RIVER INCL WITTY CR £ NORTH PRONG
TN05130107006
E R 0.00 49.80 MUNICIPAL P.S. H PATHOGENS
DRY CREEK SURFACE MINING H pH H
TN05130107023 MINE TAILINGS H SILTATION H
M R 16.50 0.00 VEG. REMOVAL M METALS H
BANK MODIFICAT, M
ROCKY RIVER SURFACE MINING H METALS M
TN0513010602423.6 pH M
M R 11.00 0.00 ROAD CONSTR. S SILTATION H
SAL./TDS/CHLOR. S
FLOW ALT. M
CANEY FORK RIVER INCL CLIFTY, MEADOW £ LAUREL
TN05130108036 SURFACE MINING M pH H
E R 0.00 20.80 FOREST MGMT. S SILTATION S
NATURAL H
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
—- SIZE -----
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
CALFKILLER RIVER
TN05130108043
E R
0.00
35.20
MUNICIPAL P.S. H SILTATION S
SURFACE MINING M ORG. ENRICH./DO H
CHLORINE S
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
FALL CREEK
TN05130108FALLCREEK
M R
5.00
PIGEON ROOST CREEK
TN05130108PIGEONROOSTCR
M R 0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. H ORG. ENRICH,/DO H
0.00 PATHOGENS H
MUNICIPAL P.S. H ORG. ENRICH./DO H
PATHOGENS M
4.30 SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
SPENCER CITY LAKE
TN0 513010 8 SPENCERCITYLAKE
M L 16.00
NATURAL
0.00
H TASTE AND ODOR H
METALS M
OTHER HAB. ALT, H
ROUND LICK CREEK
TN05130201021
M R
0.00
14«10
MUNICIPAL P.S, H ORG. ENRICH./DO H
PATHOGENS M
EAST CAMP CR INCL TOWN CR AND HARRIS BRANCH
TN05130201041
M R 0.00 20.90
BARTONS CREEK INCL UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
TN05130201055
M R 0.00 24.10
CHANNELIZATION H FLOW ALT. H
BANK MODIFICAT. S OIL AND GREASE S
SPILLS S OTHER HAB. ALT. S
URBAN/STORM WAT S
MUNICIPAL P.S. S
MUNICIPAL P.S. H SILTATION S
URBAN/STORM WAT M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
LAND DEVELOP. S PATHOGENS H
CUMBERLAND RIVER
TN05130202005
M R
CUMBERLAND RIVER
TN05130202006
M R
MILL CREEK
TN05130202007
M R
0.00
24.30
0.00
21.00
MUNICIPAL P.S.
COMB. SEWER
H PATHOGENS
H
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. H PATHOGENS H
COMB. SEWER H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
URBAN/STORM WAT M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
URBAN/STORM WAT H
SPILLS S
24.60 URBAN/STORM WAT H PATHOGENS
CUMBERLAND RIVER
TN05130202009
M R
0.00
9.70
UPSTREAM IMP. H FLOW ALT.
MARROWBONE LAKE
TN051302020138.0
E L
60.00
0.00
NUTRIENTS H
AQUACULTURE H ORG. ENRICH./DO H
-------
304 11) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
BROWN'S CREEK
TN05130202BROWN'SCREEK
M R 6.50
RICHLAND CREEK
TN05130202RICHLANDCREEK
M R 10.50
WATAUGA LAKE
TN05130202WATAUGALAXE
E L
0.00
0.00
0.00
COMB. SEWER H UNKNOWN TOXICITY H
URBAN/STORM WAT H PATHOGENS H
OIL AND GREASE S
SPILLS M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
IN-PLACE CONT. M
COMB. SEWER H NUTRIENTS S
URBAN/STORM WAT S ORG. ENRICH./DO M
SPILLS S PATHOGENS H
URBAN/STORM WAT H NUTRIENTS M
5.00 ORG. ENRICH./DO M
STONES RIVER
TN05130203001
M R
0.00
6.70
UPSTREAM IMP.
H OTHER INORGANICS M
ORG. ENRICH./DO H
FLOW ALT. H
TASTE AND ODOR S
WEST FORK STONES RIVER
TN05130203018
M R
0.00
6.00
CHLORINE S
MUNICIPAL P.S. H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
LYTLE CREEK
TN05130203022
M R
HURRICANE CREEK
TN05130203034
E R
0.00
13.30
URBAN/STORM WAT M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
WASTE STO./LEAK M NUTRIENTS M
NONPRIORITY ORG. M
MUNICIPAL P.S. H PATHOGENS H
LAND DEVELOP. M FLOW ALT. M
10.30 0.00 URBAN/STORM WAT S OIL AND GREASE S
CHANNELIZATION H SILTATION M
SPILLS S
EAST FORK HAMILTON CREEK
TN05130203E.FK.HAMILTONCK
MR 1.90
HARPETH RIVER
TN05130204016
M R
51.70
MUNICIPAL P.S. H ORG. ENRICH./DO H
0.00 PATHOGENS H
MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS H
NONIRR. CROPS S ORG. ENRICH./DO M
0.00 LAND DEVELOP. M
URBAN/STORM WAT S
RED RIVER
TN05130206001
M R
0.00
WEST FORK RED RIVER
TN05130206039
M R
23.00
8.60
NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION
ANIMAL HOLDINGS H PATHOGENS
MUNICIPAL P.S. H CHLORINE
H
H
-------
304 CI) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
—~ SIZE —
NOT PARTIAL
DUNBAR CAVE LAKE
TNO513020 6DUNBARCAVELAKE
M L 0.00
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
15.00
URBAN/STORM WAT H NOX. AQ, PLANTS H
NORTH PORK HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010101001
M R 5.60
0.00
SOUTH HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010102001
M R
0.00
7.30
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H METALS
H
SOUTH HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010102005
E R
BOONE RESERVOIR
TN06010102006
M L
SOUTH HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010102014
E R
0.00
0.00
5.40
4400.00
UPSTREAM IMP. M FLOW ALT. M
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
URBAN/STORM WAT S NUTRIENTS M
MUNICIPAL P.S. M THERMAL MOD. S
SPILLS M NONPRIORITY ORG. S
PRIORITY ORG. S
AMMONIA S
OTHER HAB. ALT. S
UPSTREAM IMP. H FLOW ALT. M
FLOW REG./MOD. H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
MUNICIPAL P.S. M METALS S
IN-PLACE CONT. M PRIORITY ORG. S
ANIMAL HOLDINGS M
ORG. ENRICH./DO H
URBAN/STORM WAT M NUTRIENTS H
0.00
4.90
UPSTREAM IMP. H FLOW ALT.
FLOW REG./MOD. H
BEAVER CREEK INCL CEDAR CREEK
TN06010102042
M R 15.70
0.00
PASTURE LAND S ORG. ENRICH./DO M
ANIMAL HOLDINGS S PATHOGENS H
URBAN/STORM WAT H
REEDY CREEK
TN06010102046
M R
BOOHES CREEK
TN06010103006
M R
URBAN/STORM WAT H OTHER HAB. ALT. S
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
0.00 20.10 PASTURE LAND M SILTATION M
ANIMAL HOLDINGS M
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M
URBAN/STORM WAT M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
PASTURE LAND M NUTRIENTS M
0.00 9.00 ANIMAL HOLDINGS M
WATAUGA RIVER
TN06010103008
M R
0.00
10.80
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H UNKNOWN TOXICITY S
MUNICIPAL P.S. H METALS M
URBAN/STORM WAT S NUTRIENTS M
AGRICULTURE S THERMAL MOD. S
-------
304 (1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMWT TYPE
BRUSH CREEK
TN06010103009
E R
BUFFALO CREEK
TN06010103011
E R
--USE SUPPORT—
SIZE —
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
0.00
0.00
9.50
8.70
URBAN/STORM WAT H OTHER HAB. ALT. M
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
PASTURE LAND S SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE S CHLORINE M
NUTRIENTS M
WASTEWATER M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
WATAUGA RIVER
TN06010103018
E R
WILBUR RESERVOIR
TN060101030195.0
E L
0.00
0.00
UPSTREAM IMP. H FLOW ALT. M
8.20 FLOW REG./MOD. H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
72.00
UPSTREAM IMP. H FLOW ALT.
FLOW REG./MOD. H
M
CASH HOLLOW CREEK
TN06010103CASHHOLLOWCREEK
M R 3.00
0.00
URBAN/STORM WAT M PATHOGENS H
SEPTIC SYSTEMS H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
SINKING CREEK
TN06010103SINKINGCREEK
M R
HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010104001
E R
HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010104003
E R
MUNICIPAL P.S. H PATHOGENS H
URBAN/STORM WAT M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
6.30 0.00 HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M
MUNICIPAL P.S. S ORG. ENRICH./DO S
UPSTREAM IMP. M FLOW ALT. S
0.00 31.70 PATHOGENS S
0.00
17.80
UPSTREAM IMP.
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M FLOW ALT.
M
S
HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010104009
E R
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
14.20 0.00 DAM CONSTRUCT.
FLOW REG./MOD.
SPILLS
H THERMAL MOD. H
FLOW ALT. M
M NOX. AQ. PLANTS M
M
S
RICHLAND CREEK
TN0601010401B
E R
BIG FLAT CREEK
TN06010104019
E R
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S.
23.70 PASTURE LAND
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE
VEG. REMOVAL
BANK MODIFICAT.
0.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
8.10 SPILLS
M AMMONIA
CHLORINE
M NUTRIENTS
S SILTATION
M ORG. ENRICH./DO
M
S pH
S
s
s
M
H
M
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
MOSSY CREEK
TN06010104MOSSYCR
E R
PIGEON RIVER
TN06010106001
M R
—USE SUPPORT—
» SIZE —
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE _
MAG
0.00
12.10
2.80
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. M METALS M
NUTRIENTS M
AGRICULTURE M SILTATION M
RES. EXTRACT. M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H UNKNOWN TOXICITY H
NUTRIENTS H
URBAN/STORM WAT S ORG. ENRICH./DO H
SINKING CREEK
TN06010106002
E R
0.00
11.00
COSBY CREEK INCL INDIAN CAMP CR & BOGARD CR
TN06010106004
E R 0.00 26.90
MUNICIPAL P.S. S PATHOGENS
MUNICIPAL P.S. S PATHOGENS
PIGEON RIVER
TN06010106009
M R
12.60
0.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H UNKNOWN TOXICITY H
NUTRIENTS H
ORG. ENRICH./DO H
OTHER HAB. ALT. H
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TN06010107001
B R
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TN06010107006
E R
AGRICULTURE
0.00 24.60 MANURE LAGOONS
UPSTREAM IMP.
AGRICULTURE
8.30 0.00 DAM CONSTRUCT.
UPSTREAM IMP.
NUTRIENTS S
M SILTATION M
M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
H FLOW ALT. S
SILTATION S
M ORG. ENRICH./DO H
H THERMAL MOD. S
H FLOW ALT. H
LITTLE PIGEON RIVER
TN06010107007
E R
0.00 10.70
WEST PRONG LITTLE PIGEON RIVER
TN06010107010
E R 0.00 6.90
WALDEN CREEK INCL COVE CREEK
TN06010107011
E R 0.00 17.90
INDUSTRIAL P.S. S NUTRIENTS S
MUNICIPAL P.S. S SILTATION M
ORG. ENRICH./DO S
AGRICULTURE S
URBAN/STORM WAT S
CHANNELIZATION M
MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS M
SILTATION M
AGRICULTURE S ORG. ENRICH./DO M
URBAN/STORM WAT S PATHOGENS S
NUTRIENTS M
AGRICULTURE M SILTATION M
BRIDGE CONSTR. S ORG. ENRICH./DO M
WASTE STO./LEAK H PATHOGENS H
-------
304 CI) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 9
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
--USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
WEST PRONG LITTLE PIGEON RIVER
TNO6010107014
E R 0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS M
SILTATION M
9,50 LAND DEVELOP. M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
URBAN/STORM WAT M PATHOGENS S
DUDLEY CREEK
TN06010107016
E R
0.00
4.40
LITTLE PIGEON RIVER INCL BIRD CREEK
TN06010107018
E R 0.00 20.20
NUTRIENTS
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE H SILTATION
LAND DEVELOP. H ORG. ENRICH./DO
URBAN/STORM WAT M OTHER HAB. ALT.
CHANNELIZATION H
BANK MODIFICAT. H
SPILLS S
S
M
S
H
AGRICULTURE
LAND DEVELOP.
NUTRIENTS S
M SILTATION H
M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
WEBB CREEK
TN06010107024
E R
0.00
6.50
MUNICIPAL P.S.
LAND DEVELOP.
S NUTRIENTS S
SILTATION M
M ORG. ENRICH./DO 8
PATHOGENS 8
LITTLE EAST FORK INCL DUNN 6 WILHITE CREEKS
TNO6010107025
E R 0.00 31.10
AGRICULTURE
NUTRIENTS M
H SILTATION H
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TN06010107036
E R
DUMPLIN CREEK
TN06010107038
E R
0.00
0.00
14.60
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
AGRICULTURE
M NUTRIENTS . M
SILTATION M
M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
MUNICIPAL P.S.
18.20 AGRICULTURE
HWY MAINT./R.O.
S NUTRIENTS M
SILTATION H
H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
S PATHOGENS 5
NOLICHUCKY RIVER
TN06010108001
E R
NOLICHUCKY RIVER
TN06010108005
E R
MEADOW CREEK
TN06010108007
E R
COVE CREEK
TNO6010108009
E R
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.40
21.60
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
AGRICULTURE
S METALS M
NUTRIENTS S
S SILTATION M
ORG. ENRICH./DO S
NONIRR. CROPS
SURFACE MINING
IRRIG. CROPS
ANIMAL HOLDINGS
PASTURE LAND
6.60 FEEDLOTS
ANIMAL HOLDINGS
PASTURE LAND
7.40 FEEDLOTS
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
H SILTATION H
M
M NUTRIENTS M
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
M NUTRIENTS M
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
-------
304 CI) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
10
WATBRBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
DAVY CROCKETT RESERVOIR
TNO60101080102.0
E L 0.00 383.00
NOLICHUCKY RIVER
TN060101080109.0
M R 0.00 46.00
NONIRR. CROPS M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
SURFACE MINING H SILTATION H
IRRIG. CROPS M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
SURFACE MINING H SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION H
IRRIG. CROPS M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
AGRICULTURE S
BIG LIMESTONE CREEK INCL CARSON CREEK
TNO6010108030
E R 0.00 24.00
PIGEON CREEK
TN06010108033
E R
0.00
6.30
NONIRR. CROPS M NUTRIENTS H
PASTURE LAND M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
ANIMAL HOLDINGS M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
NONIRR. CROPS M NUTRIENTS M
PASTURE LAND M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
ANIMAL HOLDINGS M
LICK CREEK INCL GAP, HOOVER, £ HORSE CREEKS
TN06010108035
E R 0.00 84.00
NONIRR. CROPS M NUTRIENTS H
PASTURE LAND H SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
ANIMAL HOLDINGS H SILTATION M
IRRIG. CROPS M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
DAVY CROCKETT
TNO6010108079
E R
RESERVOIR TRIBUTARIES
0.00
1.00
AGRICULTURE S ORG. ENRICH./DO H
PASTURE LAND M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
ANIMAL HOLDINGS M SILTATION M
URBAN/STORM WAT M NUTRIENTS ' M
SINKING CREEK
TNO6010108SINKINGCR
M R
13.40
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H UNKNOWN TOXICITY M
METALS H
0.00 NUTRIENTS S
AGRICULTURE S SILTATION S
ORG. ENRICH./DO S
PATHOGENS S
WATTS BAR RESERVOIR
TN06010201001
M L
7800.00
0.00
UPSTREAM IMP. M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
IND. LAND TREAT S NOX. AQ. PLANTS S
URBAN/STORM WAT T METALS T
SPILLS M FLOW ALT. M
SWEETWATER CREEK
TN06010201015
M R
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
MUNICIPAL P.S.
H PRIORITY ORG.
S METALS
0.00 21.50 URBAN/STORM WAT M SILTATION
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M PATHOGENS
H
LAND DEVELOP.
CHANNELIZATION
M
M
H
M
M
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06010201016
M R
16.90
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. S PRIORITY ORG. H
URBAN/STORM WAT S SILTATION H
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
AGRICULTURE M
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
11
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE —
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
FORT LOUDOUN RESERVOIR
TN06010201020
E L 14600.00
GALLAGHER CREEK
TN06010201022
E R
MUNICIPAL P.S. H PRIORITY ORG.
URBAN/STORM WAT M NUTRIENTS
0.00 SILTATION
AGRICULTURE M ORG. ENRICH./DO
PATHOGENS
0.00
5.00
PASTURE LAND
RANGE LAND
H
H
H
H
M
NUTRIENTS M
H SILTATION H
H ORG. ENRICH./DO H
PATHOGENS M
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06010201025
M R
11.90
0.00
LITTLE RIVER
TN06010201026
EM R
10.80
0.00
CROOKED CREEK
TN06010201028
E R
ELLEJOY CREEK
TN06010201033
E R
0.00
0.00
11.50
NAILS CREEK
TN06010201034
E R
0.00
8.40
MUNICIPAL P.S.
AGRICULTURE
LAND DEVELOP.
M PRIORITY ORG.
NUTRIENTS
M SILTATION
H ORG. ENRICH./DO
URBAN/STORM WAT H PATHOGENS
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M PRIORITY ORG.
MUNICIPAL P.S. H NUTRIENTS
URBAN/STORM WAT S SILTATION
AGRICULTURE
LAND DEVELOP. H
URBAN/STORM WAT M
ORG. ENRICH./DO
H PATHOGENS
PASTURE LAND
NUTRIENTS
H SILTATION
ORG. ENRICH./DO
PASTURE LAND
H
NUTRIENTS
SILTATION
11.70 HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M ORG. ENRICH./DO
LAND DEVELOP.
VEG. REMOVAL
BANK MODIFICAT.
HWY MAINT./R.O.
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
H PATHOGENS
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M
NUTRIENTS
PASTURE LAND H SILTATION
LAND DEVELOP. M ORG. ENRICH.
BANK MODIFICAT. M PATHOGENS
/DO
M
H
H
M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN0€010201035
EM R
MUNICIPAL P.S. H PRIORITY ORG.
URBAN/STORM WAT H NUTRIENTS
15.50 0.00 SILTATION
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M ORG. ENRICH./DO
LAND DEVELOP. H PATHOGENS
H
H
H
H
H
SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
-------
304 (1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIBS PAGE 12
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
TOWN CREEK
TN06010201038
E R
0.00
6.90
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
URBAN/STORM WAT M NUTRIENTS M
SILTATION M
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
CANEY CREEK
TN0 6010201CANEYCR
E R 0.00 5.50
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M METALS S
MUNICIPAL P.S. H NUTRIENTS M
SILTATION H
LAND DEVELOP. M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
URBAN/STORM WAT H PATHOGENS H
FIRST CREEK
TN06010201FIRSTCREEK
EM R 4.60 0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. H NUTRIENTS M
URBAN/STORM WAT H SILTATION H
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
LAND DEVELOP. H PATHOGENS H
SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
VEG. REMOVAL H
BANK MODIFICAT. H
GOOSE CREEK INDUSTRIAL P.S. H SILTATION H
TN06010201GOOSECREEK MUNICIPAL P.S. M ORG. ENRICH./DO H
E R 4.00 0.00 OTHER HAB. ALT. M
URBAN/STORM WAT M PATHOGENS H
RUSSELL BR INDUSTRIAL P.S. H PRIORITY ORG. H
TN06010201RUSSELLBR AGRICULTURE M SILTATION M
E R 0.00 3.10 IND. LAND TREAT H
WASTE STO./LEAK H
SECOND CREEK
TN06010201SECONDCR
EM R 4.40 0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS M
URBAN/STORM WAT H SILTATION H
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
LAND DEVELOP. H PATHOGENS H
SINKING CREEK
TN0 6010201SINKINGCREEK
E R 0.00 1.50
MUNICIPAL P.S. S NUTRIENTS M
SILTATION H
LAND DEVELOP. H ORG. ENRICH./DO S
URBAN/STORM WAT M PATHOGENS H
THIRD CREEK
TN0 6010201THIRDCR
EM R 1.50 5.40
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS M
MUNICIPAL P.S. H SILTATION H
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
LAND DEVELOP. H PATHOGENS H
URBAN/STORM WAT H
SPILLS S
TURKEY CREEK
TN06010201TUCKEYCR
E R 0.00 5.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS H
PASTURE LAND M SILTATION H
LAND DEVELOP. H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
URBAN/STORM WAT H PATHOGENS H
-------
304 CI) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
13
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
TELLICO RESERVOIR
TN06010204001
M L
FORK CREEK
TN06010204002
E R
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
0.00 16500.00
0.00
16.80
PASTURE LAND
LAND DEVELOP.
PASTURE LAND
SLUDGE
BANK MODIFICAT,
SPILLS
MAG
PRIORITY ORG. M
M NUTRIENTS M
M SILTATION M
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
NUTRIENTS M
H SILTATION K
M ORG. ENRICH./DO H
M OTHER HAB. ALT. M
M PATHOGENS M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
BAT CREEK
TN06010204004
E R
0.00
15.60
NUTRIENTS M
PASTURE LAND H SILTATION H
VEG. REMOVAL M ORG. ENRICH./DO H
BANK MODIFICAT. M PATHOGENS M
CHILHOWEE RESERVOIR
TN060102040192.6
E L
NINEMILE CREEK
TN06010204042
E R
BIG CREEK
TN06010205BIGCR
E R
COVE CREEK
TN06010205COVECR
M R
0.00 1749.00
0.00
16.20
UNKNOWN
M PRIORITY ORG.
MUNICIPAL P.S.
PASTURE LAND
M NUTRIENTS
SILTATION
H ORG. ENRICH.
/DO
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M PATHOGENS
M
M
H
M
H
LAND DEVELOP.
VEG. REMOVAL
BRIDGE CONSTR.
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M
M
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS
SURFACE MINING M SILTATION
URBAN/STORM WAT M ORG. ENRICH./DO
MUNICIPAL P.S.
ROAD CONSTR.
SURFACE MINING*
CHANNELIZATION
DREDGING
H METALS
M pH
M SILTATION
M PATHOGENS
M
M
M
M
m
S
S
M
H
RUSSELL CREEK
TN06010206008
E R
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. M CHLORINE M
NUTRIENTS M
6.80 URBAN/STORM WAT M SILTATION M
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
PATHOGENS M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
-------
304 a) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
14
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
CLINCH RIVER
TN06010207001
E R
HICKORY CREEK
TN06010207004
E R
—USE SUPPORT—
—— SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
0.00
MELTON HILL RESERVOIR
TN06010207006
M L 5690.00
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
0.00
26.00
BEAVER CREEK
TN06010207011
E R
0.00
8.10
0.00
29.90
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M PRIORITY ORG. H
MUNICIPAL P.S. S METALS M
SILTATION S
URBAN/STORM WAT S THERMAL MOD. S
DAM CONSTRUCT. S FLOW ALT. S
UPSTREAM II®. S
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H UNKNOWN TOXICITY M
SILTATION H
OTHER HAB. ALT. M
UPSTREAM IMP.
SILTATION S
M THERMAL MOD. M
PRIORITY ORG. H
MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS M
SILTATION M
AGRICULTURE M ORG. ENRICH./DO H
PATHOGENS S
HINDS CREEK INCL BUFFALO CREEK
TN06010207016
E R 0.00
26.40
MUNICIPAL P.S. S NUTRIENTS M
SILTATION M
AGRICULTURE M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
PATHOGENS M
CLINCH RIVER
TN06010207019
E R
0.00
POPLAR CREEK INCL BRUSHY FORK
TN06010207020
E R 0.00
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
DAM CONSTRUCT. M THERMAL MOD. M
12.50 FLOW REG./MOD. M FLOW ALT. M
UPSTREAM IMP, M
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M PRIORITY ORG. M
MUNICIPAL P.S. S METALS M
33.80 NUTRIENTS M
SURFACE MINING M SILTATION M
SPILLS M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
WASTE STO./LEAK M PATHOGENS S
COAL CREEK
TN060102 0 7COALCREEK
E R
10.30
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS M
SILTATION H
SURFACE MINING H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
CHANNELIZATION H PATHOGENS S
EAST FORK POPLAR CREEK
TN0 6010207EASTFORKPOPLARC
E R 15.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H PRIORITY ORG. H
MUNICIPAL P.S. S METALS H
0.00 NUTRIENTS M
URBAN/STORM WAT S SILTATION M
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
PATHOGENS S
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
15
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
—— SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
INDIAN CREEK
TN06010207INDIANCR
E R
NUTRIENTS M
URBAN/STORM WAT M SILTATION H
0.00 3.00 RES. EXTRACT. M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
CHANNELIZATION M
VEG, REMOVAL M
CROOKED FORK EMORY RIVER
TN06010208004
M R
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. S
PASTURE LAND S
5.40 HARVESTING S
SURFACE MINING S
SUBSURF. MINING S
VEG. REMOVAL M
HWY MAINT./R.O. S
EMORY RIVER
TN06010208005
E R
0.00
OBED RIVER INCL OTTER CREEK
TN06010208013
M R 0.00
4.90
pH M
SILTATION M
ORG. ENRICH./DO S
PASTURE LAND S
4.70 HARVESTING S
URBAN/STORM WAT M
SURFACE MINING S
SILTATION
OTHER HAB. ALT.
MUNICIPAL P.S.
LAND DEVELOP.
URBAN/STORM WAT
M NUTRIENTS
H SILTATION
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M
S
M
M
M
BYRD LAKE
TN06010208BYRDLAKE
E L
0.00
47.00
AGRICULTURE M PATHOGENS
MUNICIPAL P.S. S NUTRIENTS
REC. ACTIVITIES S ORG. ENRICH./DO
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06020001002
M R
COMB. SEWER
URBAN/STORM WAT
9.20 0.00 UPSTREAM IMP.
SPILLS
MUNICIPAL P.S.
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06020001006
M R
COMB. SEWER
URBAN/STORM WAT
0.00 4.00 UPSTREAM IMP.
SPILLS
IND. LAND TREAT
LAND DEVELOP.
M PATHOGENS
S NUTRIENTS
S FLOW ALT.
M NOX. AQ. PLANTS
M PRIORITY ORG.
M PATHOGENS
S NUTRIENTS
S FLOW ALT.
M SILTATION
S
S CHICKAMAUGA CR INCL W CHICKAMAUGA CR
TN06020001007
M R 0.00 18.70
URBAN/STORM WAT S
PASTURE LAND S
LANDFILLS S
CHANNELIZATION S
SPILLS M
LAND DEVELOP. S
COMB. SEWER M
S
S
S
M
S
s
s
M
S
S
S
S
PATHOGENS M
NUTRIENTS S
SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06020001046
M R
0.00
UPSTREAM IMP. M FLOW ALT.
2.00 SPILLS T
H
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING INTERBODIES PAGE 16
WATERBODY NAME
—USE
SUPPORT-
ID
SIZE
ASMNT TYPE
NOT
PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG CAUSE
Ml
RICHLAND CREEK
COMB. SEWER
M
PATHOGENS
h
TN06020001048
URBAN/STORM WAT
S
NUTRIENTS
S
M R
0.00
3.10
LAND DEVELOP.
S
NOX. AQ. PLANTS
S
CHANNELIZATION
s
SPILLS
s
LITTLE RICHLAND CREEK
URBAN/STORM WAT
s
METALS
T
TN06020001049
LAND DEVELOP.
s
SILTATION
S
M R
0.00
3.00
LANDFILLS
s
OTHER HAB. ALT.
M
CHANNELIZATION
M
PATHOGENS
S
VEG, REMOVAL
s
SPILLS
T
SEPTAGE DISP.
S
POSSUM CREEK
TN06020001062
SURFACE MINING
s
pH
s
E R
2.50
0.00
CHANNELIZATION
s
METALS
s
SODDY CREEK INCL GRAY CREEK
SURFACE MINING
M
METALS
M
TN06020001064
SUBSURF. MINING
s
PH
H
E R
20.20
0.00
SILTATION
S
NORTH CHICKAMAUGA CREEK
SUBSURF. MINING M pH
H
TN06020001068
MINE TAILINGS
s
SILTATION
S
E R
5.40
5.60
LAND DEVELOP.
T
METALS
M
SUCK CREEK
SURFACE MINING
M
SILTATION
T
TN06020001076
SEPTAGE DISP.
S
METALS
T
S R
3.00
0.00
pi
S
CHATTANOOGA CREEK
COMB. SEWER
M
PATHOGENS
H
TN06020001CHATTCREEK
ANIMAL HOLDINGS
S
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M
M R
9.30
0.00
URBAN/STORM WAT
M
PRIORITY ORG.
M
PESTICIDES
M
SPILLS
M
>
HAZARDOUS WASTE
M
STRINGERS BRANCH
TN06020001STRINGERSBRANCH
MUNICIPAL P.S.
H
ORG. ENRICH./DO
H
M R
6.00
0.00
PATHOGENS
H
WOLFTEVER CREEK INCL LITTLE WOLFTEVER CR
MUNICIPAL P.S.
S
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M
TN06020001WOLFTEVERCREEK
PASTURE LAND
T
PLOW ALT.
S
M R
0.00
4.50
PATHOGENS
M
FLOW REG./MOD.
S
NUTRIENTS
M
SPILLS
s
LAND DEVELOP.
s
COMB. SEWER
M
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 17
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
HIWASSEE RIVER
TNO6020002001
M R
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
0.00
5.00
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MUNICIPAL P.S.
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
PASTURE LAND
UPSTREAM IMP.
SPILLS
M PATHOGENS
M METALS
T SILTATION
M FLOW ALT.
M PRIORITY ORG.
NUTRIENTS
MAG
S
M
S
M
S
M
HIWASSEE RIVER
TN06020002008
M R
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
MUNICIPAL P.S.
0.00 2.00 URBAN/STORM WAT
TOSTREAM IMP.
SPILLS
AMIMAL HOLDINGS
PASTURE LAND
M METALS M
M PATHOGENS S
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
M FLOW ALT. M
M PRIORITY ORG. M
S SILTATION S
T
MANURE LAGOONS T
S MOUSE CREEK
TN06020002009
M R
2.00
OOSTANAULA CREEK
TN06020002083
M R
10.30
PASTURE LAND
COMB. SEWER
16.00 LAND DEVELOP.
SPILLS
ANIMAL HOLDINGS
CHANNELIZATION
MUNICIPAL P.S.
PASTURE LAND
10.40 ANIMAL HOLDINGS
URBAN/STORM WAT
IND. LAND TREAT
LAND DEVELOP.
SPILLS
PARKSVILLE RESERVOIR
TNO6020003004
M L
T PATHOGENS M
M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
M METALS T
M OTHER HAB. ALT. M
S
M
M PATHOGENS H
M PRIORITY ORG. M
AMMONIA M
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
189.00
378.00
SPILLS
UPSTREAM IMP.
SURFACE MINING
S SILTATION H
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
H METALS S
OCOEE RIVER
TN06020003013
M R
5.00
0.00
OCOEE NUMBER THREE RESERVOIR
TNO602000301310 . 0
M L 480.00
0.00
SPILLS
SURFACE MINING
FLOW REG./MOD.
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
H SILTATION M
H pH S
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M METALS M
PATHOGENS S
FLOW ALT. H
SPILLS
SURFACE MINING
UPSTREAM IMP.
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
M SILTATION H
H pH M
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M METALS M
PATHOGENS S
FLOW ALT. S
-------
304 CD LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 18
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
—- SIZE
HOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
OCOEE NUMBER TWO RESERVOIR
TNO60200030135.0
M L 404.00
0.00
SPILLS
SURFACE MINING
UPSTREAM IMP.
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
M SILTATION
H
H pH S
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M METALS M
PATHOGENS S
FLOW ALT. M
OCOEE RIVER
TNO€0200030135.5
M R
20.70
0.00
FLOW REG./MOD.
SPILLS
SURFACE MINING
H SILTATION M
S pH S
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
METALS M
FLOW ALT. H
NORTH POTATO CREEK
TN06020003033
E R
6.60
0.80
SURFACE MINING H SILTATION
SPILLS S METALS
CHANNELIZATION H pH
H
M
M
BIG BRUSH CREEK INCL LITTLE BRUSH CREEK
TN06020004009
E R 5.20 0.00
WOODCOCK CREEK
TN06020004012
M R
4.95
0.00
HICKS CREEK (KELLEY CREEK)
TN06020004013
M R 7.40
0.00
SURFACE MINING M SILTATION S
SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
pH M
METALS S
SURFACE MINING M pH
SUBSURF. MINING M SILTATION
MINE TAILINGS S METALS
H
S
S
SURFACE MINING M SILTATION M
SUBSURF. MINING M OTHER HAB. ALT. S
CHANNELIZATION S METALS M
TOG. REMOVAL S
MINE TAILINGS S
L SEQUATCHIE R INCL INDIAN, POCKET £ LAUREL
TN06020004015
M R 0.00 42.30
MINE TAILINGS M SILTATION S
SURFACE MINING M SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE S
BIG FIERY GIZZARD CREEK
TN06030001059
M R
0.00
3.20
URBAN/STORM WAT S PATHOGENS
PASTURE LAND S
CROW CREEK
TNO603000106714.7
E R
BEAN'S CREEK
TN06030003012
E R
0.00
0.00
12.50 CHANNELIZATION H FLOW ALT.
H
14.40
NONIRR. CROPS H ORG. ENRICH./DO S
ANIMAL HOLDINGS H PATHOGENS M
NUTRIENTS S
PESTICIDES S
-------
304 (1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
19
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
ELK RIVER
TN06030003015
M R
BOILING FORK CREEK
TN06030003030
M R
WOODS RESERVOIR
TN06030003036
M L
ROCK CREEK
TN06030003053
M R
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE ——
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
0.00
0.00
3908.00
8.10
12.70
10.50
0.00
0.00
FLOW REG./MOD. H FLOW ALT. H
UPSTREAM IMP. H OTHER INORGANICS H
MUNICIPAL P.S. H ORG. ENRICH./DO S
PATHOGENS
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M PRIORITY ORG.
H
H
MUNICIPAL P.S. H METALS S
URBAN/STORM WAT S AMMONIA S
NUTRIENTS S
ORG. ENRICH./DO S
FLOW ALT. M
NORRIS CREEK
TN06030003059
M R
BIG CREEK INCL YOKLEY CREEK
TN06030004026
M
SHOAL CREEK
TN06030005082
M R
ANIMAL HOLDINGS H ORG. ENRICH./DO H
0.00 15.00 INDUSTRIAL P.S. M PATHOGENS S
ANIMAL HOLDINGS H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
NONIRR. CROPS S NUTRIENTS M
0.00 25.10 PESTICIDES S
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H METALS S
MUNICIPAL P.S. M AMMONIA S
0.00 0.80 ORG. ENRICH./DO H
PATHOGENS M
CROWSON CREEK
TN06030005084
M R
EAGLE CREEK
TN06040001003
M R
0.50
9.10
0.00
PRM. SURF. MIN. M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
OTHER HAB. ALT. M
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE H OTHER HAB. ALT. H
MUNICIPAL P.S. H AMMONIA H
NUTRIENTS M
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
NATURAL S
BEECH RIVER LOWER
TN06040001016
M R
CHANNELIZATION M SILTATION
NONIRR. CROPS M
0.00 16.70 MUNICIPAL P.S. M PATHOGENS
ANIMAL HOLDINGS H
METALS
H
M
M
-------
304(1) LOHG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 20
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASM TYPE
BROWNS CREEK RESERVOIR
TNO60400010207.1
E L 167.00 0,00 FLOW REG./MOD, H FLOW ALT, H
BEECH RIVER UPPER
MUNICIPAL P.S.
M
PATHOGENS
M
TM06040001022
METALS
S
M R
0.00
3.00
NUTRIENTS
M
NONIRR. CROPS
M
SILTATION
M
NATURAL
M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M
WHITEOAK CREEK INCLUDING
MOD CREEK
NONIRR. CROPS
H
SILTATION
H
TN06040001043
CHANNELIZATION
H
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
H
M R
12.40
0.00
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M
FLOW ALT.
M
SNAKE CREEK INCLUDING OWL CREEK
TN06040001054
UNKNOWN
M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
M
E R
0.00
21.30
AGRICULTURE
M
CHAMBERS CREEK
AGRICULTURE
M
SILTATION
M
TN06040001060
CHANNELIZATION
M
FLOW ALT.
M
M R
7.00
0.00
UNKNOWN
M
OTHER HAB. ALT.
M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
M
NATURAL
S
ORG. ENRICH./DO
S
BEASON CREEK
TN06040001BEASONCREEK
AGRICULTURE
M
SILTATION
H
E R
0.00
2.00
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
H
BIG ROCK CR INCL E ROCK AND BELFAST
CR
MUNICIPAL P.S.
H
AMMONIA
S
TN06040002012
NUTRIENTS
S
M R
0.00
42.50
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M
DUCK RIVER
TN06040002027
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
M
PATHOGENS
H
M R
0.00
17.80
MUNICIPAL P.S.
H
DUCK RIVER
UPSTREAM IMP.
H
METALS
M
TN06040002030
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M
M R
0.00
6.70
FLOW ALT.
H
DUCK RIVER
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
M
PATHOGENS
H
TN06040002032
PASTURE LAND
M
B R
6.20
0.00
AGRICULTURE
H
WARTRACE CREEK
TN06040002033
MUNICIPAL P.S.
H
ORG. ENRICH./DO
H
M R
0.00
15.80
PATHOGENS
H
—USE SUPPORT—
-—- SIZE
NOT PARTIAL SOURCE MAG CAUSE MAG
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
21
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
LITTLE DUCK RIVER
TN06040002LITTLEDUCKRIVER
MR 0.00
SUGAR CREEK
TN06040003023
M R
0.00
DUCK RIVER
TN06040003026
M R
0.00
6.20
7.00
11.60
MUNICIPAL P.S.
H AMMONIA S
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
PATHOGENS H
SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M SAL./TDS/CHLOR.
MUNICIPAL P.S. M PATHOGENS
SURFACE MINING S
LANDFILLS H
RUTHERFORD CREEK, MOUTH TO CARTER'S CR
TN06040003034
M R 6.90 0.00
H
M
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H OTHER INORGANICS H
MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS S
PATHOGENS S
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
OIL AND GREASE M
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H OTHER INORGANICS M
MILL TAILINGS H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
URBAN/STORM WAT S
VFW LAKE
TN06040004VFWLAKE
E L
22.00
0.00
WEST SANDY CREEK INCL HOLLY FORK BRANCH
TN06040005023
M R 23.40 0.00
AQUACULTURE
H NUTRIENTS
BIG SANDY RIVER
TN06040005027
M R
0.00
27.60
MUNICIPAL P.S.
SURFACE MINING
AGRICULTURE
CHANNELIZATION
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
H
INDUSTRIAL P.S. S NUTRIENTS S
MUNICIPAL P.S. S FLOW ALT. S
AGRICULTURE S SILTATION S
URBAN/STORM WAT S NOX. AQ. PLANTS S
DREDGING S ORG. ENRICH./DO S
BANK MODIFICAT. S OTHER HAB. ALT. S
FLOW REG./MOD. S
pH S
NATURAL S
S SILTATION M
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
S ORG. ENRICH./DO S
S PATHOGENS S
S FLOW ALT. M
CYPRESS CREEK
TN06040005CYPRESSCREEK
M R
1.00
4.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. H PATHOGENS H
URBAN/STORM WAT M ORG. ENRICH./DO H
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
AMMONIA M
INDUSTRIAL P.S. S
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN0801010000102 .3
M R
27.00
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S.
NONIRR. CROPS
NATURAL
DREDGING
H SILTATION H
M
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
-------
304(11 LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 22
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
—- SI2E
NOT PARTIAL
MCKELLAR LAKE
TN08010100002
M R
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN08010100005
M R
0.00
0.00
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE -
7.00
MAG
37.30
URBAN/STORM WAT M PESTICIDES H
REC. ACTIVITIES M PRIORITY ORG. M
CONSTRUCTION H SILTATION H
SPILLS M OIL AND GREASE S
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
AGRICULTURE
CONSTRUCTION
DREDGING
NATURAL
H SILTATION H
S PESTICIDES S
H PRIORITY ORG. S
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN0 8010100010
E R
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN08010100018
E R
0.00
0.00
49.90
61.10
AGRICULTURE
CONSTRUCTION
HYDROMODIFICAT.
NATURAL
H SILTATION H
S PESTICIDES S
H PRIORITY ORG. S
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
AGRICULTURE
CONSTRUCTION
HYDROMODIFICAT.
NATURAL
H SILTATION H
S PESTICIDES S
H PRIORITY ORG. S
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN080101000326.7
E R
0.00
AGRICULTURE
CONSTRUCTION
8.20 HYDROMODIFICAT.
NATURAL
H SILTATION H
S PESTICIDES S
H PRIORITY ORG. S
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
PIERSOL LAKE
TN0801010OPIERSOLLAKE
E L
0.00
18.00
AQUACULTURE
H NUTRIENTS
POPLAR TREE LAKE
TN08010100POPLARTREELAKE
E L 125.00
OBION RIVER
TN08010202001
M R
26.80
0.00
0.00
AQUACULTURE
AGRICULTURE
HYDROMODIFICAT.
NATURAL
VEG. REMOVAL
DREDGING
FLOW REG./MOD.
BANK MODIFICAT.
H NUTRIENTS H
H SILTATION H
H OTHER HAB. ALT. H
NUTRIENTS S
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
FLOW ALT.
OBION RIVER
TN08010202002
E R 20.70 0.00
AGRICULTURE H SILTATION H
HYDROMODIFICAT. H OTHER HAB. ALT. H
NUTRIENTS S
NATURAL M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
MUNICIPAL P.S. S FLOW ALT. H
PATHOGENS S
SUMP"
-------
304 CI) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING INTERBODIES
PAGE 23
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
REEDS CREEK
TN08010202003
E R
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
0.00
11.20
MUNICIPAL P.S.
AGRICULTURE
NATURAL
H ORG, ENRICH./DO H
M SILTATION M
S PATHOGENS M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
OBION RIVER
TN08010202004
M R
AGRICULTURE H SILTATION H
HYDROMODIFICAT. H OTHER HAB. ALT. H
16.30 0.00 NUTRIENTS S
NATURAL M
FLOW ALT.
N FORK OBION RIVER
TN08010202009
M R
H SILTATION
M AMMONIA
H ORG. ENRICH./DO
H PATHOGENS
H
MUNICIPAL P.S.
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
0.00 25.50 MUNICIPAL P.S.
AGRICULTURE
CONSTRUCTION
URBAN/STORM WAT M
HYDROMODIFICAT
SLUDGE
H
S OTHER HAB. ALT. M
CYPRESS CREEK
NONIRR. CROPS
H
SILTATION
H
TN08010202014
CHANNELIZATION
H
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
H
E R
10.70 0.00
VEG. REMOVAL
H
NUTRIENTS
M
BANK MODIFICAT.
H
N FORK OBION RIVER
INCL BIGGS & POWELL CREEKS
TN08010202015
AGRICULTURE
H
SILTATION
M
E R
0.00 8.80
HYDROMODIFICAT.
M
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
M
NATURAL
S
NUTRIENTS
S
N F OBION RIVER FROM BIGGS CR TO HEADWATERS
NONIRR. CROPS
H
SILTATION
H
TN08010202017
CHANNELIZATION
M
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
H
E R
0.00 45.90
MUNICIPAL P.S.
S
NUTRIENTS
S
NATURAL
S
PATHOGENS
S
RICHLAND CREEK
NONIRR. CROPS
H
SILTATION
H
TN0 8 0102 02 02 4
VEG. REMOVAL
H
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
H
E R
0.00 10.10
CHANNELIZATION
H
BANK MODIFICAT.
M
HARRIS FORK OF THE
N FORK OBION RIVER
MUNICIPAL P.S.
H
ORG. ENRICH./DO
H
TN08010202025
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
H
PATHOGENS
H
M R
10.20 0.00
AGRICULTURE
M
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
H
CHANNELIZATION
S
SILTATION
M
AMMONIA
H
URBAN/STORM WAT M
DAVIDSON CREEK
NONIRR. CROPS
H
SILTATION
H
TN08010202026
PASTURE LAND
M
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
H
E R
12.70 0.00
BANK MODIFICAT.
H
NUTRIENTS
M
NATURAL
S
-------
304 (!) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 24
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
RICHLAND CREEK
TN08010202027
E R
7.60
0.00
NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION H
BANK MODIFICAT. H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
NUTRIENTS M
CLOVER CREEK
NONIRR. CROPS
H
SILTATION
H
TN08010202028
BANK MODIFICAT.
H
SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
E R 7.60 0.00
NUTRIENTS
M
RUNNING REELFOOT BAYOU
NONIRR. CROPS
H
SILTATION
H
TN08010202029
CHANNELIZATION
M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
H
M R 22.00 0.00
NATURAL
M
NUTRIENTS
M
BANK MODIFICAT.
M
ORG. ENRICH./DO
M
VEG. REMOVAL
M
AMMONIA
M
FLOW REG./MOD.
H
UPSTREAM IMP.
H
BLUE BASIN, REELFOOT LAKE
NONIRR. CROPS
H
NUTRIENTS
H
TN08010202030
FLOW REG./MOD.
S
pB
M
M L 10950.00 0.00
NATURAL
M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
M
LAND DEVELOP.
M
ORG. ENRICH./DO
H
WETLAND DRAIN.
M
FLOW ALT.
S
METALS
S
NOX. AQ. PLANTS
S
BUCK BASIN, REELFOOT LAKE
NONIRR. CROPS
H
NUTRIENTS
H
TN06010202036
FLOW REG./MOD.
M
SILTATION
H
M L 2900.00 0.00
NATURAL
M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
M
CHANNELIZATION
H
ORG. ENRICH. /DO
H
CONSTRUCTION
M
METALS
S
DAM CONSTRUCT.
H
NOX. AQ. PLANTS
H
SILVICULTURE
M
REELFOOT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES
NONIRR. CROPS
H
NUTRIENTS
M
TN08010202037
SILVICULTURE
H
SILTATION
H
M R 30.90 0.00
CONSTRUCTION
S
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
H
CHANNELIZATION
H
ORG. ENRICH./DO
H
NATURAL
M
FLOW ALT.
S
BANK MODIFICAT.
M
METALS
S
SPECIALTY CROPS
S
VEG. REMOVAL
s
ANIMAL HOLDINGS
s
UPPER BLUE BASIN, REELFOOT LAKE
NONIRR. CROPS
H
NUTRIENTS
H
TN08010202040
FLOW REG./MOD.
M
SILTATION
H
M L 1650.00 0.00
NATURAL
M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
M
CHANNELIZATION
H
ORG. ENRICH. /DO
H
CONSTRUCTION
M
METALS
S
DAM CONSTRUCT.
H
NOX. AQ. PLANTS
H
SILVICULTURE
M
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 25
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
BAYOU DU CHIEN
TN08010202041
M R
—USE SUPPORT—
—— SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
4.70
BIFFLE CREEK
fNO 8010 2 0 2 BIFFLECREEK
E R
0,00
0.00
5.00
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
NONIRR. CROPS
NATURAL
UNKNOWN
H SILTATION H
NUTRIENTS H
M METALS S
S ORG. ENRICH./DO M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
NOX. AQ. PLANTS M
URBAN/STORM WAT S
AGRICULTURE H SILTATION H
HYDROMODIFICAT. M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
NATURAL M
HOOSIER CREEK
TN08010202HOOSIERCREEK
E R 0.00
INDIAN CREEK
TN08010202INDIANCREEK
M R 0.00
AGRICULTURE H SILTATION H
HYDROMODIFICAT. S SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
5.00 URBAN/STORM WAT M
5.00
NONIRR. CROPS M SILTATION H
DAM CONSTRUCT. H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
MILL CREEK
TN0 8 010 2 0 2MILLCREEK
E R
S FORK OBION RIVER
TN08010203001
M R
0.00
10.00
0.00
AGRICULTURE
MUNICIPAL P.S.
AGRICULTURE
15.00 CHANNELIZATION
BANK MODIFICAT.
NATURAL
S F OBION R FROM OWEN(LICK) CR TO BEAVER CR
TN08010203006
M R 0.00 4.80
M SILTATION H
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
H PATHOGENS M
H pH S
M SILTATION H
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
MUNICIPAL P.S.
AGRICULTURE
CHANNELIZATION
NATURAL
NONIRR. CROPS
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE
WETLAND DRAIN.
H ORG. ENRICH./DO S
H PATHOGENS H
H pH S
M SILTATION H
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
T NUTRIENTS M
T FLOW ALT. M
OTHER HAB. ALT. T
BEAVER CREEK
TN08010203010
E R
NONIRR. CROPS M SILTATION M
URBAN/STORM WAT M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
0.00 17.30 MUNICIPAL P.S. M NUTRIENTS M
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
NATURAL S
HYDROMODIFICAT. S
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE 26
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
CROOKED CREEK
TN08010203011
E R
—USE SUPPORT—
—— SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
10.60
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
NONIRR. CROPS
HARVESTING
0.00 CHANNELIZATION
WETLAND DRAIN.
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE
BANK MODIFICAT.
VEG. REMOVAL
NATURAL
H SILTATION
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS
H FLOW ALT.
T OTHER HAB. ALT.
T
T
T
S
MF OBION R
TN08010203015
M R
MUNICIPAL P.S.
NONIRR. CROPS
0.00 9.30 CHANNELIZATION
NATURAL
BANK MODIFICAT.
M AMMONIA S
H pH S
H ORG. ENRICH./DO S
S SILTATION H
M PATHOGENS S
SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
MF OBION R INCL THOMPSON CREEK
TN08010203017
M R 0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S.
NONIRR. CROPS
30.80 SURFACE MINING
CHANNELIZATION
NATURAL
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M SILTATION H
M pH S
M ORG. ENRICH./DO S
S
MUD CR MOUTH TO HEADWATERS
TN08010203020
E R 0.00
39.50
RUTHERFORD FORK OBION R
TN08010203023
M R
0.00
29.90
AGRICULTURE
MUNICIPAL P.S.
HYDROMODIFICAT.
NATURAL
H PATHOGENS M
M SILTATION H
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
S ORG. ENRICH./DO H
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE M
URBAN/STORM WAT M
SLUDGE T
MUNICIPAL P.S.
NONIRR. CROPS
CHANNELIZATION
NATURAL
BANK MODIFICAT.
VEG. REMOVAL
S SILTATION
H pH
S AMMONIA
M PATHOGENS
M
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE T
H
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
S
S
s
RUTHERFORD FORK OBION RIVER
TN0801020302329.9
M R 0.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
25.30 NONIRR. CROPS
CHANNELIZATION
DREDGING
MUNICIPAL P.S.
WETLAND DRAIN.
S pH S
S AMMONIA S
H PATHOGENS S
H SILTATION H
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
M NONPRIORITY ORG. T
M
-------
304 a) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
27
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
—— Slfe
NOT PARTIAL
CLEAR CREEK
TN0801020 3CLEARCREEK
E R
0.00
NORTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010204001
M R 0.70
POND CR
TN08O102O40O3
E R
24.00
NORTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN0B010204004
M R 18.60
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
5.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
MUNICIPAL P.S.
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE
UPSTREAM IMP.
URBAN/STORM WAT
SLUDGE
H PATHOGENS M
NUTRIENTS M
METALS S
AMMONIA S
ORG. ENRICH./DO S
T SILTATION T
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS T
S FLOW ALT. M
S CHLORINE S
AGRICULTURE
HYDROMODIFICAT.
NATURAL
CONSTRUCTION
URBAN/STORM WAT
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
H SILTATION
M
M
M
H
AGRICULTURE H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
HYDROMODIFICAT. H SILTATION H
NATURAL S
SLUDGE T
AGRICULTURE H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
HYDROMODIFICAT. H SILTATION H
NATURAL S
MIDDLE FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN080102040Q7
M R 0.00
MIDDLE FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN0B010204010
M R 0.00
NONIRR. CROPS
17.90 CHANNELIZATION
VEG. REMOVAL
WETLAND DRAIN.
BANK MODIFICAT.
H SILTATION M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
H NUTRIENTS M
H FLOW ALT. M
H FILL AND DRAIN H
H
NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION H
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
25.90 HYDROMODIFICAT. H NUTRIENTS M
NATURAL S pH S
FLOW ALT. M
TURKEY CR
TN0B010204015
E R
SUGAR CR
TN08010204016
E R
8.00
0.00
0.00
8.20
MUNICIPAL P.S.
NATURAL
CHANNELIZATION
H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
M PATHOGENS M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
M SILTATION H
NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION H
NATURAL S SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
CHANNELIZATION H FLOW ALT. M
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE T
BUCK CR
TN08010204017
E R
0.00
AGRICULTURE
CHANNELIZATION
10.20
M NUTRIENTS M
M SILTATION H
FLOW ALT. M
SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
-------
304(15 LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 28
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
—™ SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
NORTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010204020
M R 16.20
LEWIS CR
TN08010204023
E R
0.00
HUMBOLDT LAKE
TN08010204HUMBOLDTLAKE
E L
87.00
SOUTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010205001
E R 19.40
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
9.00
HYDROMODIFICAT.
AGRICULTURE
BANK MODIFICAT.
NATURAL
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE
DAM CONSTRUCT.
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS
M SILTATION
OTHER HAB. ALT.
M FLOW ALT.
S NUTRIENTS
S FILL AND DRAIN
M
PATHOGENS
MAG
H
H
H
H
M
H
7.20
URBAN/STORM WAT H SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
AGRICULTURE M SILTATION M
HYDROMODIFICAT. M
0.00
0.00
AQUACULTURE
NUTRIENTS
H ORG. ENRICH./DO
H
H
AGRICULTURE H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
MUNICIPAL P.S. M SILTATION H
HYDROMODIFICAT. H ORG. ENRICH./DO S
NUTRIENTS S
AMMONIA M
PATHOGENS S
NIXON CR INCL POND & MERIDIAN CRS.
TN08010205005
E R 0.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M PRIORITY ORG.
MUNICIPAL P.S.
35.60 AGRICULTURE
HYDROMODIFICAT.
VEG. REMOVAL
BANK MODIFICAT.
URBAN/STORM WAT M
M
H SILTATION H
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
H ORG. ENRICH./DO H
M
M
SOUTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010205010
M R 0.00
AGRICULTURE
MUNICIPAL P.S.
14.00 HYDROMODIFICAT.
URBAN/STORM WAT
NATURAL
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
M SILTATION H
H ORG. ENRICH./DO S
NUTRIENTS S
AMMONIA M
PATHOGENS S
S
S
S. F. FORKED DEER R.
TN08010205012
M R
MUNICIPAL P.S.
AGRICULTURE
22.70 0.00 CONSTRUCTION
URBAN/STORM WAT
HYDROMODIFICAT.
NATURAL
LAND DEVELOP.
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
IN-PLACE CONT.
DREDGE MINING
H ORG. ENRICH./DO M
H AMMONIA M
M NUTRIENTS S
S SILTATION H
S PATHOGENS H
S SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
M
S
T
S
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 29
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT-
ID —— SIZE —
ASMNT TYPE NOT PARTIAL SOURCE MAG CAUSE _ MAG
BLACK CR NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION M
TN08010205031 HYDROMODIFICAT. H SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
E R 0 .00 11.30 NUTRIENTS M
ANDERSON BRANCH
TN08010205ANDERSONBR
M R 0.00 2.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S. N pB M
URBAN/STORM WAT H OIL AND GREASE H
METALS S
SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010206001
E R 25.85 0.00
AGRICULTURE H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
MUNICIPAL P.S. M SILTATION H
HYDROMODIFICAT, H ORG. ENRICH./DO S
NATURAL M
NATURAL S
HATCHIE RIVER
TN08010208001
M R 0.00 18.60
SILTATION M
NATURAL M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
CHANNELIZATION H
NONIRR. CROPS H
HATCHIE RIVER
TN08010208004
M R
0.00
18.60
NATURAL S SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
CHANNELIZATION S SILTATION S
NONIRR. CROPS M
HWY/ROAD/BRIDGE S
BEAR CR
TN08010208011
M R
0.00
18.70
NONIRR. CROPS
HYDROMODIFICAT.
NATURAL
H SILTATION H
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
S NUTRIENTS M
PORTER'S CR
TN08010208024
E R
CLOVER CR
TN08010208029
M R
NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION H
HYDROMODIFICAT. H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
0.00 16.40 NATURAL S NUTRIENTS M
AGRICULTURE H SILTATION H
16.60 0.00 NATURAL S NUTRIENTS S
SUGAR CR
TN08010208031
M R 0.00 8.50
UNKNOWN M NUTRIENTS M
NONIRR. CROPS M SILTATION M
URBAN/STORM WAT M SUSPENDED SOLIDS S
MUNICIPAL P.S. T
CANE CR
TN08010208034
M R 23.00 0.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H METALS H
MUNICIPAL P.S. S ORG. ENRICH./DO H
NONIRR. CROPS H
URBAN/STORM WAT M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
CHANNELIZATION H SILTATION H
NATURAL M
FORT PILLOW LAKE
TN08010208FORTPILLOWLAKE
E L 25.00
NONIRR. CROPS H NUTRIENTS H
SILTATION M
0.00 ORG. ENRICH./DO M
-------
304 CI) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE
30
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
— SIZE
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
HATCHIE WILDLIFE REFUGE BORROW PIT
TN08010208HATCHIEPIT#1
E L 11,00 0.00
LA JO IE LAKE
TN0 801020 8LAJOIELAKE
E L
0.00
54.00
NATURAL
AQUACULTURE
MAG
CAUSE
H NUTRIENTS
H NUTRIENTS
MAG
H
MCCOOL LAKE NUMBER TWO
TN08010208MCCOOLI2
E L
0.00
42.00
NATURAL
H NUTRIENTS
MCCOOL LAKE NUMBER ONE
TN08010208MCCOOLLAKE#1
E L
0.00
18.00
NATURAL
H NUTRIENTS
H
TOWN CREEK
TN08010208TOWNCR
E R
NONIRR. CROPS
0.00 9.00 NATURAL
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H METALS
URBAN/STORM WAT M
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
SILTATION M
M OIL AND GREASE S
H
WHITEVILLE LAKE
TN08010208WHITEVILLELAKE
E . L 0.00
LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER
TN08010209001
M R
LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER
TN08010209002
M R
5.40
19.00
158.00
0.00
0.00
AQUACULTURE
H NUTRIENTS
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H PESTICIDES
AMMONIA
NONIRR. CROPS
CHANNELIZATION H NUTRIENTS
NATURAL M SILTATION
URBAN/STORM WAT S METALS
MUNICIPAL P.S. S
. H
S
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
M
H
M
MUNICIPAL P.S. S SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION H
CHANNELIZATION H AMMONIA S
NATURAL S NUTRIENTS S
CYPRESS CREEK
TN08010209003
E R
LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER
TN08010209004
M R
DAVIS CREEK
TN08010209010
E R
0.00
0.00
17.90
7.00
ANIMAL HOLDINGS H PATHOGENS H
NONIRR. CROPS M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
NONIRR. CROPS H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
CHANNELIZATION H SILTATION H
MUNICIPAL P.S. S PATHOGENS S
NATURAL S
0.00
4.00
MUNICIPAL P.S. H PATHOGENS M
NONIRR. CROPS ' M SILTATION M
NATURAL S SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
-------
304(1) LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES PAGE 31
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT-
ID —— SIZE -----
ASMNT TYPE HOT PARTIAL SOURCE MAG CAUSE MAG
LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER
TN08010209011 UNKNOWN H AMMONIA M
M R 0.00 18,50 PATHOGENS M
BEAVER CREEK INCL MIDDLE AND EAST FORKS
TN08010209016
E R 0.00 32.20
NONIRR. CROPS
CHANNELIZATION
MUNICIPAL P.S.
H SILTATION H
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
S ORG. ENRICH./DO S
BIG CREEK
TN08010209021
M R
CASPAR LAKE
TN08010209CASPARLAKE
E L
0.00
CHANNELIZATION H
NONIRR. CROPS H
31.00 NATURAL S
LAND DEVELOP. M
URBAN/STORM WAT M
0.00
81.00
SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
SILTATION H
URBAN/STORM WAT M NUTRIENTS M
ORG. ENRICH./DO M
WOLF RIVER
TN08010210001
M R
CONSTRUCTION M PESTICIDES H
URBAN/STORM WAT M SILTATION M
12.80 0.00 IN-PLACE CONT. H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
NATURAL S PATHOGENS H
UNKNOWN M
SPILLS S
WOLF RIVER HARBOR
TN08010210001WOLFHARBOR
E R 2.00
0.00
NONIRR. CROPS
LAND DEVELOP.
SPILLS
M SILTATION
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS
M PESTICIDES
EEC. ACTIVITIES M OIL AND GREASE
UNKNOWN
IN-PLACE CONT.
DREDGING
S PATHOGENS
M
M
WOLF RIVER
TN08010210002
M R
GRAYS CREEK
TN08010210022
E R
FLETCHER CREEK
TN08010210023
M R
0.00
CONSTRUCTION M
URBAN/STORM WAT M SILTATION M
10.90 SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
NATURAL S PATHOGENS H
NONIRR. CROPS S
MUNICIPAL P.S. S
0.00
0.00
14.50
MUNICIPAL P.S.
NONIRR. CROPS
LAND DEVELOP.
H PATHOGENS
ORG. ENRICH,
M SILTATION
M
/DO
9.10
H
M
S
NONIRR. CROPS S SILTATION H
URBAN/STORM WAT H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
CHANNELIZATION M METALS H
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H
CYPRESS CREEK
TN08010210032
M R
5.80
0.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S. H PESTICIDES H
CHANNELIZATION M OTHER HAB. ALT. H
URBAN/STORM WAT M
-------
304 CD LONG LIST OF NONSUPPORTING WATERBODIES
PAGE 32
WATERBODY NAME
ID
ASMNT TYPE
—USE SUPPORT—
SIZE —
NOT PARTIAL
SOURCE
MAG
CAUSE
MAG
HERB PARSONS LAKE
TN08010210HERBPARSONSLAKE
E L 177.00
0.00 AQUACULTURE
H NUTRIENTS
H
HORN LAKE CR LOWER SECTION
TN08010211001
E R 0.00
6.00
NONIRR. CROPS
CHANNELIZATION
NATURAL
SLUDGE
H SILTATION H
M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
S
M
HORN LAKE CREEK
TN08010211006
E R
0.00
NONIRR. CROPS
HYDROMODIFICAT.
3.70 COMB. SEWER
UNKNOWN
INDUSTRIAL P.S.
H SILTATION H
H SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
M ORG. ENRICH./DO M
M
S METALS S
NONCONNAH CREEK
TN0801021100718.5
E R
NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION M
CHANNELIZATION H SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
0.00 20.30 BANK MODIFICAT. H FLOW ALT. M
URBAN/STORM WAT M
LAND DEVELOP. M
NONCONNAH CREEK
TN080102110079.1
M R
JOHN'S CREEK
TN08010211JOHNSCR
M R
0.00
INDUSTRIAL P.S. M METALS
H
BANK MODIFICAT. S SILTATION H
9.40 0.00 SPILLS M SUSPENDED SOLIDS H
CONSTRUCTION M ORG. ENRICH./DO H
URBAN/STORM WAT M PATHOGENS H
CHANNELIZATION M
NONIRR. CROPS H SILTATION M
CONSTRUCTION H SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
8.00 INDUSTRIAL P.S. S OIL AND GREASE S
URBAN/STORM WAT S
SPILLS S
NONCONNAH CREEK, LOWER
TN08010211NONCONNAH
M R
0.00
2.10
INDUSTRIAL P.S,
CONSTRUCTION
SPILLS
UNKNOWN
H METALS M
M SILTATION M
M PRIORITY ORG. S
M PATHOGENS M
URBAN/STORM WAT M SUSPENDED SOLIDS M
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF WATERS IMPACTED
BY
NONPOINT POLLUTION
-------
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT
POLLUTION
ASSESSMENT
E-EVALUATED
M-MONITORED
REASONS FOR NONSUPPORT
A-AGRICULTURE
OGONS TRUCTI ON
H-HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION
L-LAND DISPOSAL
R-RESOURCE EXTRACTION
S-SILVICULTURE
U-URBMI RUNOFF
X-UNKNOWN
type
L-LAKE as ACRES
R-STREAM as MILES
F-HIGHWAY
I-IN-PLACE CON.
N-NATURAL •
P-RECREATION
B-SPILLS
D^UPSTREAM IMPOUNDMENTS
W-WASTE
l-SALT STORAGE
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
WATERBODY ID
MIDDLE FORK DRAKES CREEK
TN0511000200918.6
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
CITY LAKE WESTMORELAND
TN05110002CITYLAKEWESTMOR
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 11.00
JELLICO CREEK
TN051301010082.6
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 7.50 0.00 R
ELK CREEK
TN051301010141.5
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 3.90 R
CLEAR FORK CUMBERLAND RIVER
INCL TACKETT CR
TN051301010152.6
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 17.70 C R
STINKING CR
INCL HICKORY, DAVIS t UNNAME TR
TN05130101016
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 4.00 C R
ROCK CREEK
TN0513010401014 .5
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 12.00 S
WHITEOAK CREEK
INCL BONE CAMP t BLACK WOLF
TN05130104032
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 35.80 R
—USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR-
NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
4.50 0.00
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
NEW RIVER
TN05130104037
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 21.10 0.00 S R
BRIMSTONE CREEK
TN05130104038
ASSESSMENT:! TYPE:R 0.00 12.70 C R
NEW RIVER
INCLUDING SMOKY CREEK
TN05130104041
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 38.00 0.00 C
BUFFALO CREEK
INCLUDING STRAIGHT FORK
TN05130104044
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 18.80 R H
PAINT ROCK CREEK
TN05130104047
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 8.60 R
PINE CREEK
TN05130104048
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 5.80 0.00 H
BEAR CREEK
TN051301040501.9
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 4.30 1.10 C R
ROARING PAUNCH CREEK
TN051301040519.3
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 4.80 S R
OBEY RIVER
TN05130105001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 7.30 D
WEST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN05130105015
ASSESSMENT:E TYtE:R 2.80 2.80 R
WEST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN05130105017
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 20.40 0.00 R
EAST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN05130105019
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 13.30 R
EAST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN05130105022
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 14.00 0.00 R
BIG PINEY CREEK
TN05130105023
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
0.00 7.70
R
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE 3
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
EAST FORK OBEY RIVER
TN05130105025
ASSESSMENTS TYPE :R 19.00 0.00 R
ROCKCASTLE CREEK
TN05130105029
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 4.40 0.00 URL
LITTLE CRAB CREEK
TN05130105031
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 4.30 R
DRY CREEK
TN05130107023
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 16.50 0.00 R H
ROCKY RIVER
TN0513010802423.6
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 11.00 0.00 R
CANEY FORK RIVER
INCL CLIFTY, MEADOW & LAUREL
TNO513O1O0O36
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 20.60 R N
CALFKILLER RIVER
TN05130108043
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 35.20 R
SPENCER CITY LAKE
TN05130108SPENCERCITYLAKE
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 16.00 0.00 N
EAST CAMP CREEK
INCL TOWN CR AND HARRIS BRANCH
TN05130201041
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 20.90 H
BARTONS CREEK
INCL UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
TN05130201055
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 24.10 U
CUMBERLAND RIVER
TN05130202006
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 24.30 0.00 U
MILL CREEK
TN05130202007
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 24.60 U
CUMBERLAND RIVER
TN05130202009
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R
0.00 9.70
D
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
MARROWBONE LAKE
TNO51302020138 .0
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L SO.00 0,00
BROWN'S CREEK
TN05130202BROWN»SCREEK
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 6.50 0,00 U BI
WATAUGA LAKE
TN0513020 2WATAUGALAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 5.00 U
STONES RIVER
TN05130203001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 6.70 D
LYTLE CREEK
TN05130203022
ASSESSMENTS TYPE:R 0.00 13.30
HURRICANE CREEK
TN05130203034
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 10.30 0.00 C H
HARPETH RIVER
TN05130204016
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 51.70 0.00 C
RED RIVER
TN05130206001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R
0.00 23.00 A
WEST FORK RED RIVER
TN05130206039
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 8.60
DUNBAR CAVE LAKE
TNO5130206DUNBARCAVELAKE
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 0.00 15.00 U
SOUTH HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010102001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 7.30 B D
SOUTH HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010102005
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 5.40 H D
BOONE RESERVOIR
TN06010102006
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 0.00 4400.00 A U I
SOUTH HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010102014
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 4.90 H D
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
WATERBODY ID
BEAVER CREEK
INCL CEDAR CREEK
TNO6010102042
ASSESSMENT:M
—USE SUPPORT SIZE-
NOT PARTIAL
—REASONS FOR-
—NONSUPPORT--
TYPE:R
15.70
0.00
u
REEDY CREEK
TN06010102046
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 20.10 A U
BOONES CREEK
TN06010103006
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 9.00 A U
BRUSH CREEK
TNO6010103009
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 9.50 U
BUFFALO CREEK
TN06010103011
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 8.70 L
WATAUGA RIVER
TN06010103018
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 8.20 H D
WILBUR RESERVOIR
TNO60101030195.0
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 72.00 H D
CASH HOLLOW CREEK
TN06010103CASHHOLLOWCREEK
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 3.00 0.00 U L
SINKING CREEK
TNO 6 01010 3SINKINGCREEK
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 6.30 0.00 CU
HOLSTON RIVER
TNO6010104001
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 31.70 D
HOLSTON RIVER
TN06010104003
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 17.80 D
CHEROKEE RESERVOIR
TN06010104004
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 5109.00
HOLSTON RIVER
TNO6010104009
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 14.20 0.00 H
RICHLAND CREEK
TN06010104018
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 23.70 A H
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
BIG FLAT CREEK
TN06010104019
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 8.10
MOSSY CREEK
TNO6010104MOSSYCR
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 2.60 A R
SINKING CREEK
TN06010106002
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 11.00
COSBY CREEK
INCL INDIAN CAMP CR & BOGARD CR
TNO6010106004
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 26.90
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TN06010107001
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 24.60 A D
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TN06010107006
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 6.30 0.00 AH D
LITTLE PIGEON RIVER
TN06010107007
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 10.70 H
WALDEN CREEK INCL COVE CREEK
TN06010107011
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 17.90 A W
WEST PRONG LITTLE PIGEON RIVER
TN06010107014
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 9.50 CU
DUDLEY CREEK
TN06010107016
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 4.40 CU H
LITTLE PIGEON RIVER
INCL BIRD CREEK
TN06010107018
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 20.20 A C
LITTLE EAST FORK
INCL DUNN t WILHITE CREEKS
TN06010107025
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 31.10 A
DOUGLAS RESERVOIR
TNO6010107029
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L
0.00 30400.00 A
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE 7
WATERBQDY NAME
WATERBODY ID
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TN06010107036
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
—USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
0.00 14.60 A
DUMPLIN CREEK
TN06010107038
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 18.20 A
NOLICHUCKY RIVER
TN06010108001
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 22.40
NOLICHUCKY RIVER
TN06010108005
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 21.60 A R
MEADOW CREEK
TN06010108007
ASSESSMENT:E
COVE CREEK
TN06010108009
ASSESSMENT:E
TYPE:R
TYPE:R
0.00
0.00
6.60
7.40
DAVY CROCKETT RESERVOIR
TN060101080102.0
ASSESSMENT: E TYPE.-L 0.00 383.00 A R
NOLICHUCKY RIVER
TN060101080109.0
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 46.00 A R
PIGEON CREEK
TN06010108033
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 6.30 A
LICK CREEK
INCL GAP, HOOVER, £ HORSE CREEKS
TN06010108035
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 84.00 A
DAVY CROCKETT RESERVOIR TRIBS
TN06010108079
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 1.00 A U
WATTS BAR RESERVOIR
TN06010201001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 0.00 7800.00 U B D
SWEETWATER CREEK
TN06010201015
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 21.50 CU H
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06010201016
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 16.90 0.00 A
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
FORT LOUDON RESERVOIR
TN06010201020
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 14600.00 0.00 A U
GALLAGHER CREEK
TN06010201022
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
0.00 5.00 A
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06010201025
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 11.90 0.00 A CU
LITTLE RIVER
TN06010201026
ASSESSMENT:EM TYPE:R 10.80 0.00 A CU
CROOKED CREEK
TN06010201028
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
0.00 11.50 A
ELLEJOY CREEK
TN06010201033
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 11.70 A C H
NAILS CREEK
TN06010201034
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 8.40 A C H
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06010201035
ASSESSMENT:EM TYPE:R
TOWN CREEK
TN06010201038
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
15.50 0.00 CU
0.00 6.90 U
CANEY CREEK
TN06010201CANEYCR
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 5.50 CU
FIRST CREEK
TN06010201FIRSTCREEK
ASSESSMENT:EM TYPE:R " 4.60 0.00 CU H
GOOSE CREEK
TN06010201GOOSECREEK
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 4.00 0.00 U
RUSSELL BR
TN06010201RUSSELLBR
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 3.10 A L W
SECOND CREEK
TN06010201SECONDCR
ASSESSMENT:EM TYPE:R
4.40 0.00
CU
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—¦
SINKING CREEK
TN06010201SINKINGCREEK
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 1.50 CU
THIRD CREEK
TN06010201THIRDCR
ASSESSMENT:EM TYPE:R 1.50 2.00 CU
TUCKEY CREEK
TN06010201TUCKEYCR
ASSESSMENTS TYPE:R 0.00 5.00 A CU
TELLICO RESERVOIR
TN06010204001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L
0.00 16500.00 A C
FORK CREEK
TN06010204002
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 16.60 A LH B
BAT CREEK
TN06010204004
ASSESSMENT:E TYPEcR 0.00 15.60 A H
CHILHOWEE RESERVOIR
TN060102040192.6
ASSESSMENTS TYPE: L 0.00 1749.00
NINEMILE CREEK
TN06010204042
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 16.20 A C H
BIG CREEK
TN06010205BIGCR
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 5.00 UR
COVE CREEK
TNO6O102O5COVECR
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 5.00 S R H
RUSSELL CREEK
TN06010206008
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 6.80 U
BEAVER CREEK
TN06010207011
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 29.90 A
HINDS CREEK
INCL BUFFALO CREEK
TN06010207016
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 26.40 A
CLINCH RIVER
TN06010207019
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 12.50 H D
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
POPLAR CREEK
INCL BRUSHY FORK
TN06010207020
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 33.80 R W B
COM. CREEK
TNO6010207COALCREEK
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 10.30 0.00 R H
INDIAN CREEK
TN06010207INDIANCR
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 3.00 UR H
CROOKED FORK EMORY RIVER
TN06010208004
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 5.40 H
EMORY RIVER
TN06010208005
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 4.70 U
OBED RIVER INCL OTTER CREEK
TN06010208013
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 4.90 CU
BYRD LAKE
TN06010206BYRDLAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 47.00
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06020001002
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 9.20 0.00 B
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06020001006
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R - 0.00 4.00 B
S CHICKAMAUGA CR
INCL W CHICKAMAUGA CR
TN06020001007
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 18.70 B
TENNESSEE RIVER
TN06020001046
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 2 .00 B D
LITTLE RICHLAND CREEK
TN06020001049
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 3.00 H B
POSSUM CREEK
TN06020001062
ASSESSMENTS TYPE :R 2.50 0.00
SODDY CREEK INCL GRAY CREEK
TN06020001064
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 20.20
0.00
R
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
NORTH CHICKAMAUGA CREEK
TN06020001068
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 5.40 5.60 C R
SUCK CREEK
TN06020001076
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 3.00 0.00
CHATTANOOGA CREEK
TN0 6 0 2 0 0 01CHATTCREEK
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 1.30 0.00 U L B
WOLFTEVER CREEK INCL LITTLE WOLFTEVER CR
TN06020001WOLFTEVERCREEK
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 4.50 A
HIWASSEE RIVER
TN0602O0O2001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 5.00 A B D
HIWASSEE RIVER
TN06020002008
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 2.00 A B D
S MOUSE CREEK
TN06020002009
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 2.00 16.00 A C H B
©OSTANAULA CREEK
TN06020002083
ASSESSMENT :M TYPE-.R 10.30 10.40 A B
PARKSVILLE RESERVOIR
TNO6O20O03O04
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 189.00 378.00 R
OCOEE RIVER
TNO6O20O03013
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 5.00 0.00 R H B
OCOEE NUMBER THREE RESERVOIR
TN0602000301310.0
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 480.00 0.00 R B
OCOEE NUMBER TWO RESERVOIR
TN060200030135.0
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 4 94.00 0.00 R B
OCOEE RIVER
TN060200030135.5
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 20.70 0.00 R H
NORTH POTATO CREEK
TN06020003033
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
6.60 0.80
R H
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE 12
WATERBODY NAME
WATERBODY ID
BIG BRUSH CREEK
INCL LITTLE BRUSH CREEK
TN06020004009
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 5.20 0.00 R
—USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
WOODCOCK CREEK
TN06020004012
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 4.95 0.00 R
HICKS CREEK (KELLEY CREEK)
TN06020004013
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 7.40 0.00 R
LITTLE SEQUATCHIE RIVER
INCL INDIAN, POCKET & LAUREL C
TN06020004015
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 42.30 R
BIG FIERY GIZZARD CREEK
TN06030001059
ASSESSMENT :M TYPE:R 0.00 3.20
CROW CREEK
TN0603000106714.7
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 12.50 H
GRUNDY COUNTY LAKE NUMBER ONE
TN06030001GRUNDYCOUNTY1
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 16.00
BEAN'S CREEK
TN06030003012
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 14.40 A
NORRIS CREEK
TN06030003059
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 15.00 A
BIG CREEK INCL YOKLEY CREEK
TN06030004026
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 25.10 A
EAGLE CREEK
TN06040001003
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.50 0.00 C
BEECH RIVER LOWER
TN06040001016
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 16.70 A H
BROWNS CREEK RESERVOIR
TN060400010207.1
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 167.00 0.00 H
BEECH RIVER UPPER
TN06040001022
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 3.00 A N
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY 10 NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
WHITEOAK CREEK INCLUDING MUD CREEK
TN06040001043
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 12.40 0.00
SNAKE CREEK INCLUDING OWL CREEK
TN06040001054
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 21.30 A X
CHAMBERS CREEK
TN06040001060
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 7.00 0.00 A HX
BEASON CREEK
TN06040001BEASONCREEK
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 2.00 A
DUCK RIVER
TN06040002030
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 €.70 D
DUCK RIVER
TN0G040002032
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 6.20 0.00 A L
SUGAR CREEK
TN06040003023
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 7.80 L
RUTHERFORD CREEK FROM MOUTH TO CARTER'S CR
TN06040003034
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 6.90 0.00 R
VFW LAKE
TN06040004VFWLAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 22.00 0.00
WEST SANDY CREEK INCL HOLLY FORK BRANCH
TN06040005023
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 23.40 0.00 A
BIG SANDY RIVER
TN06040005027
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 27.60
CYPRESS CREEK
TN0604000 5CYPRES SCREEK
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 1.00 4.00 UR
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN0801010000102.3
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 27.00 0.00 A H N
MCKELLAR LAKE
TN08010100002
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R
0.00 7.00
CU BP
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE 14
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN08010100005
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 37.30 A H N
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN08010100010
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 41.90 A H N
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN08010100018
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 61.10 A H N
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TN080101000326.7
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 8.20 A H N
PIERSOL LAKE
TN08010100PIERSOLLAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 18.00
POPLAR TREE LAKE
TN0801010OPOPLARTREELAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 125.00 0.00
OBION RIVER
TN08010202001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 26.80 0.00 A H N
OBION RIVER
TN08010202002
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 20.70 0.00 A H N
REEDS CREEK
TN08010202003
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
0.00 11.20 A
OBION RIVER
TN08010202004
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 16.30 0.00 A H N
N FORK OBION RIVER
TN08010202009
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 25.50 A CU H
CYPRESS CREEK
TN08010202014
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 10.70 0.00 A H
NORTH FORK OBION RIVER INCL BIGGS £ POWELL CREEKS
TN08010202015
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 8.80 A H
NORTH FORK OBION RIVER FROM BIGGS CR TO HEADWATERS
TN08010202017
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 45.90 A
K
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
WATERBODY ID
—USE SUPPORT SIZE—
NOT PARTIAL
—REASONS FOR-
—NONSUPPORT--
RICHLAND CREEK
TNOB010202024
ASSESSMENT:E
TYPE:R
0.00
10.10
HARRIS PORK OF THE NORTH FORK OBION RIVER
TN08010202025
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 10.20 0.00 A U
DAVIDSON CREEK
TN08010202026
ASSESSMENT;E TYPE:R 12.70 0.00 A H
RICHLAND CREEK
TN08010202027
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 7.60 0.00 A H
CLOVER CREEK
TN08010202028
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 7.60 0.00 A H
RUNNING REELFOOT BAYOU
TN08010202029
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 22.00 0.00 A H N D
BLUE BASIN, REELFOOT LAKE
TN08010202030
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 0.00 10950.00 AC H N
BUCK BASIN, REELFOOT LAKE
TN08010202036
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 2900.00 0.00 ASC H N
REELFOOT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES
TN08010202037
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 30.90 0.00 AS H N
UPPER BLUE BASIN, REELFOOT LAKE
TN08010202040
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:L 1650.00 0.00 ASC H N
BAYOU DU CHIEN
TN08010202041
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 4.70 0.00 A X N
BIFFLE CREEK
TN08010202BIPFLECREEK
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 5.00 A H N
HOOSIER CREEK
TN08010202HOOSIERCREEK
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
0.00 5.00 A U
INDIAN CREEK
TN08010202INDIANCREEK
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 5.00 A H
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME
WATERBODY ID
MILL CREEK
TN08010202MILLCREEK
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 10.00 A
—USE SUPPORT SIZE™ —REASONS FOR—
NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
S FORK OBION RIVER
TN08010203001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 15.00 ' A H
SOUTH FORK OBION RIVER
FROM OWEN(LICK) CR TO BEAVER CR
TN08010203006
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 4.80 AC H N
BEAVER CREEK
TN08010203010
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 17.30 A CU
CROOKED CREEK
TN08010203011
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 10.60 0.00 ASC H
MF OBION R
TN08010203015
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 9.30 A H
MIDDLE FORK OBION RIVER
INCL THOMPSON CREEK
TN08010203017
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 30.80 A R H
MUD CR MOUTH TO HEADWATERS
TN08010203020
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 39.50 A CU LH
RUTHERFORD FORK OBION RIVER
TN08010203023
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 29.90 A C H
RUTHERFORD FORK OBION RIVER
TN0801020302329.9
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 25.30 A H
CLEAR CREEK
TN08010203CLEARCREEK
ASSESSMENT :E TYPE.-R 0.00 5.20 C D
NORTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010204001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 8.70 0.00 A CU H N
POND CR
TN08010204003
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 24.00 0.00 A LH
NORTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010204004
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 18.60
0.00 A H
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR-
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
MIDDLE FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010204007
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 1?.§0
MIDDLE FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010204010
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 25.90 A C H
TURKEY CR
TN08010204015
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 8.00 0.00 H N
SUGAR CR
TN08010204016
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 8.20 AC H
BUCK CR
TN08010204017
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 10.20 A H
NORTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010204020
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 16.20 9.00 A H
LEWIS CR
TN08010204023
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 7.20 A U H
HUMBOLDT LAKE
TN08010204HUMBOLDTLAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 87.00 0.00
SOUTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010205001
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 19.40 0.00 A H
NIXON CREEK INCL POND i MERIDIAN CRS.
TN08010205005
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 35.60 A U H
SOUTH FORK FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010205010
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 14.00 A H
S. F. FORKED DEER.RIVER
TN08010205012
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 22.70 0.00 A C I
BLACK CR
TN08010205031
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 11.30 A H
ANDERSON BRANCH
TN08010205ANDERSONBR
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 2.00 U
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
NOT PARTIAL — NONSUPPORT—
FORKED DEER RIVER
TN08010206001
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 25.85 0.00 A H N
WATERBODY NAME
WATERBODY ID
HATCHIE RIVER
TN08010208001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 18.60 A H N
HATCHIE RIVER
TN08O102080O4
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R
O.00 18.60 A
BEAR CR
TN08010208011
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 18.70 A H
PORTER'S CR
TN08010208024
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 16.40 A H
CLOVER CR
TN08010208029
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R
16.60 0.00 A
SUGAR CR
TN080102O8O31
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 8.50 A U X
CANE CR
TN0801O208O34
ASSESSMENTiM TYPE:R 23.00 0.00 A U H N
FORT PILLOW LAI®
TN0801020 8FORTPILLOWLAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 25.00 0.00
HATCHIE WILDLIFE REFUGE
BORROW PIT
TN08010208HATCHIEPIT*1
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 11.00 0.00 N
LAJOIE LAKE
TN08010208LAJOIELAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 54.00
MCCOOL LAKE NUMBER TWO
TN0 601020 8MCCOOL#2
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 42.00 N
MCCOOL LAKE NUMBER ONE
TN08010208MCCOOLLAKE#1
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 18.00 N
TOWN CREEK
TN08010208TOWNCR
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 1.00 A U N
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
WHITEVILLE LAKE
TN0801020 8WHITEVILLELAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 0.00 158.00
LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER
TN08010209001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 5.40 0.00 A H N
LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER
TN08010209002
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 19.00 0.00 A H
CYPRESS CREEK
TN08010209003
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 17.90 A
LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER
TN08010209004
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 7.00 A H
DAVIS CREEK
TN08010209010
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 4.00 A
LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER
TN08010209011
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 18.50 X
BEAVER CREEK
INCL MIDDLE AND EAST FORKS
TN08010209016
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 32.20 A H
BIG CREEK
TN08010209021
ASSESSMENTS TYPE2R 0.00 31.00 A CU H
CASPAR LAKE
TN0 801020 9CASPARLAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPErL 0.00 81.00 U
WOLF RIVER
TN08010210001
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 12.80 0.00 CU X I
WOLF RIVER HARBOR
TN08010210001WOLFHARBOR
ASSESSMENT:E TYPErR 2.00 0.00 A C HX BI P
WOLF RIVER
TN08010210002
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 10.90 CU
GRAYS CREEK
TN08010210022
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R
0.00 14.50 A C
-------
WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NONPOINT POLLUTION PAGE 20
WATERBODY NAME —USE SUPPORT SIZE— —REASONS FOR—
WATERBODY ID NOT PARTIAL —NONSUPPORT—
FLETCHER CREEK
TN08010210023
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0,00 9.10 U H
CYPRESS CREEK
TN08010210032
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 5.80 0.00 U H
HERB PARSONS LAKE
TN08010210HERBPARSONSLAKE
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:L 177.00 0.00
HORN LAKE CR LOWER SECTION
TN08010211001
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 6.00 A LH
HORN LAKE CREEK
TN08010211006
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 3.70 A HX
NONCONNAH CREEK
TN0801021100718.5
ASSESSMENT:E TYPE:R 0.00 20.30 A CU H
NONCONNAH CREEK
TN080102110079 .1
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 9.40 0.00 CU H B
JOHN'S CREEK
TN08010211JOHNSCR
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 8.00 AC
NONCONNAH CREEK, LOWER
TN08010211NONCONNAH
ASSESSMENT:M TYPE:R 0.00 2.10 CU X B
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
E-EVALUATED
M-MONITORED
TYPE
L-LAKE as ACRES
R-STREAM as MILES
REASONS FOR NONSUPPORT
NONPOINT SOURCES
A"AGRICULTURE
C-CONSTRUCTION
H-HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION
L-LAJTO DISPOSAL
R-RESOURCE EXTRACTION
S-SILVICULTURE
U"URBAN RUNOFF
X-UNKNOWN
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
H-HIGHWAY
I-IN-PLACE CON.
N-NATORM.
R-RECREATION
S-SPILLS
U-UPSTREAM IMPOUNDMENTS
W-WASTE
!-SALT STORAGE
------- |