total maximum daily load (tmdl) · 11/26/2018 · e-7 e. coli load duration curve for big muddy...

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)

for

E. coli

in the

Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds

(HUC8s 0801020207 and 08010208)

Chester, Fayette, Hardeman, Haywood, Lauderdale, Madison,

McNairy, and Tipton Counties, Tennessee

Proposed Final

Prepared by:

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Resources

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

Nashville, TN 37243

Submitted November 26, 2018

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

5.0 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA & TMDL TARGET........................................................................8

6.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND DEVIATION FROM TARGET .................................. 12

7.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 18

7.1 Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 18 7.2 Nonpoint Sources ....................................................................................................................... 21

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

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

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

9.1 Application of Load Duration Curves for Implementation Planning ........................................... 34 9.2 Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 36 9.3 Nonpoint Sources ....................................................................................................................... 37 9.4 Additional Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 41 9.5 Source Area Implementation Strategy ........................................................................................ 42 9.6 Evaluation of TMDL Implementation Effectiveness ................................................................... 48

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

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

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

iii

APPENDICES

Appendix Page

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

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

Hatchie River Watersheds F-1

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

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Location of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 4

2. Land Use Characteristics of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 5

3. Level IV Ecoregions in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 6

4. Waterbodies Impaired by E. coli (as documented on the Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters) 9

5. Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 17

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

7. Land Use Area of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (less than or equal to 10,000 acres) 24

8. Land Use Percent of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (less than or equal to 10,000 acres) 24

9. Land Use Area of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 10,000 acres & less than 20,000 acres) 25

10. Land Use Percent of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 10,000 acres & less than 20,000 acres) 25

11. Land Use Area of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 20,000 acres & less than 40,00 acres) 26

12. Land Use Percent of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 20,000 acres & less than 40,000 acres) 26

13. Land Use Area of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 40,000 acres) 27

14. Land Use Percent of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds (greater than 40,000 acres) 27

15. Five-Zone Flow Duration Curve for Big Muddy Creek at RM 4.3 35

16. TDA Best Management Practices located in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 40

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

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

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

v

LIST OF FIGURES (cont’d)

Figure Page

C-1 Flow Duration Curve for Hyde Creek at RM 1.0 C-7

C-2 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hyde Creek at RM 1.0 C-8

D-1 Hydrologic Calibration: Crooked Creek near Huntingdon, TN,

USGS 07024200 (WYs 2008-2016) D-4

D-2 9-Year Hydrologic Comparison: Crooked Creek, USGS 07024200 D-4

D-3 Hydrologic Calibration: Loosahatchie River near Arlington, TN, USGS 07030240 (WYs 2008-2014) D-6

D-4 7-Year Hydrologic Comparison: Loosahatchie River, USGS 07030240 D-6

E-1 Flow Duration Curve for Hyde Creek at RM 1.0 E-3

E-2 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hyde Creek at RM 1.0 E-4

E-3 Flow Duration Curve for Flat Creek at RM 1.8 E-7

E-4 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Flat Creek at RM 1.8 E-8

E-5 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Rose Creek – RM 1.3 E-13

E-6 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Alston Creek – RM 1.6 E-14

E-7 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Big Muddy Creek (007_1000) – RM 4.3 E-15

E-8 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Big Muddy Creek (007_2000) – RM 14.1 E-16

E-9 E. coli Load Duration Curve for UT to Big Muddy Creek – RM 0.6 E-17

E-10 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Camp Creek – RM 1.9 E-18

E-11 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Cane Branch – RM 1.9 E-19

E-12 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Cane Creek (034_2000) – RM 12.5 E-20

E-13 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Cane Creek (034_3000) – RM 17.4 E-21

E-14 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Carter Creek – RM 2.8 E-22

E-15 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Catron Creek – RM 3.1 E-23

E-16 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Copper Springs Branch – RM 2.3 E-24

E-17 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Flat Creek – RM 1.8 E-25

E-18 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hickory Creek – RM 1.7 E-26

E-19 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hyde Creek – RM 1.1 E-27

E-20 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Mathis Creek – RM 4.6 E-28

E-21 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Myron Creek – RM 1.8 E-29

E-22 E. coli Load Duration Curve for UT to Myron Creek – RM 0.6 E-30

vi


Figure Page

E-23 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Old Channel of Nelson Creek – RM 0.6 E-31

E-24 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Richland Creek (072_1000) – RM 1.7 E-32

E-25 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Richland Creek (073_1000) – RM 1.8 E-33

E-26 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Smart Creek – RM 1.0 E-34

E-27 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Sugar Creek – RM 1.5 E-35

E-28 E. coli Load Duration Curve for Town Creek – RM 2.3 E-36

E-29 E. coli Load Duration Curve for UT to Hatchie River (001_0400) – RM 1.2 E-37

F-1 Time Series Plot for Rose Creek – RM 1.3 F-5

F-2 Time Series Plot for Alston Creek – RM 1.6 F-6

F-3 Box and Whisker Plot for Alston Creek – RM 1.6 F-6

F-4 Time Series Plot for Big Muddy Creek – RM 4.3/14.1 F-7

F-5 Box and Whisker Plot for Big Muddy Creek – 2014/15 F-7

F-6 Box and Whisker Plot for Big Muddy Creek – RM 14.1 F-8

F-7 Time Series Plot for Camp Creek – RM 1.9 F-9

F-8 Box and Whisker Plot for Camp Creek – RM 1.9 F-9

F-9 Time Series Plot for Cane Branch – RM 1.9 F-10

F-10 Box and Whisker Plot for Cane Branch – RM 1.9 F-10

F-11 Time Series Plot for Cane Creek – RM 12.5/17.4 F-11

F-12 Box and Whisker Plot for Cane Creek – RM 12.5 F-11

F-13 Box and Whisker Plot for Cane Creek – RM 17.4 F-12

F-14 Time Series Plot for Carter Creek – RM 2.8 F-13

F-15 Box and Whisker Plot for Carter Creek – RM 2.8 F-13

F-16 Time Series Plot for Catron Creek – RM 3.1 F-14

F-17 Box and Whisker Plot for Catron Creek – RM 3.1 F-14

F-18 Time Series Plot for Copper Springs Branch – RM 2.3 F-15

F-19 Box and Whisker Plot for Copper Springs Branch – RM 2.3 F-15

F-20 Time Series Plot for Flat Creek – RM 1.8 F-16

F-21 Box and Whisker Plot for Flat Creek – RM 1.8 F-16

F-22 Time Series Plot for Hickory Creek – RM 1.7 F-17

vii


Figure Page

F-23 Time Series Plot for Hyde Creek – RM 1.0 F-18

F-24 Box and Whisker Plot for Hyde Creek – RM 1.0 F-18

F-25 Time Series Plot for Mathis Creek – RM 4.6 F-19

F-26 Box and Whisker Plot for Mathis Creek – RM 4.6 F-19

F-27 Time Series Plot for Myron Creek – RM 1.8 F-20

F-28 Box and Whisker Plot for Myron Creek – RM 1.8 F-20

F-29 Time Series Plot for UT to Myron Creek– RM 0.6 F-21

F-30 Box and Whisker Plot for UT to Myron Creek – RM 0.6 F-21

F-31 Time Series Plot for Old Channel of Nelson Creek – RM 0.2/0.6 F-22

F-32 Box and Whisker Plot for Old Channel of Nelson Creek – RM 0.2/0.6 F-22

F-33 Time Series Plot for Richland Creek (073_1000) – RM 1.8 F-23

F-34 Box and Whisker Plot for Richland Creek (073_1000) – RM 1.8 F-23

F-35 Time Series Plot for Smart Creek – RM 1.8 F-24

F-36 Box and Whisker Plot for Smart Creek – RM 1.8 F-24

F-37 Time Series Plot for Sugar Creek – RM 1.8 F-25

F-38 Box and Whisker Plot for Sugar Creek – RM 1.8 F-25

F-39 Time Series Plot for Town Creek – RM 1.0/2.3 F-26

F-40 Box and Whisker Plot for Town Creek – RM 1.0 F-26

F-41 Box and Whisker Plot for Town Creek – RM 2.3 F-27

F-42 Time Series Plot for UT to Hatchie River– RM 1.2 F-28

F-43 Box and Whisker Plot for UT to Hatchie River – RM 1.2 F-28

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. MRLC Land Use Distribution – Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 7

2. Extract from Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters – Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 11

3. Summary of TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data 14

4. Facilities with NPDES Permits to Discharge Sanitary Wastewater to Impaired Subwatersheds and Drainage Areas of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 19

5. Livestock Distribution in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 23

6. Estimated Population on Septic Systems in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 23

7. Determination of Analysis Areas for TMDL Development 29

8. TMDLs, WLAs & LAs expressed as daily loads for Impaired Waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds 32

9. Source area types for waterbody drainage area analysis 44

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

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

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

B-1 TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data B-2

C-1 TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs for Impaired Waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds (08010207 and 08010208) C-9

D-1 Hydrologic Calibration Summary: Crooked Creek near Huntingdon, TN (USGS 07024200) D-3

D-2 Hydrologic Calibration Summary: Loosahatchie River near Arlington, TN (USGS 07030240) D-5

E-1 Load Duration Curve Summary for Urban Area Implementation Strategies (Example: Hyde Creek Subwatershed, HUC-12 08010208-0701) (4 Flow Zones) E-5

E-2 Load Duration Curve Summary for Agricultural Area Implementation Strategies (Example: Flat Creek Subwatershed, HUC-12 08010208-0802) (4 Flow Zones) E-9

E-3 Summary of Critical Conditions for Impaired Waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds E-12

ix

LIST OF TABLES (cont’d)

Table Page

E-4 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Rose Creek – RM 1.3 E-38

E-5 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Alston Creek – RM 1.6 E-39

E-6 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Alston Creek – RM 1.6 E-40

E-7 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Load – Big Muddy Creek – RM 4.3 E-41

E-8 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Big Muddy Creek – RM 14.1 E-42

E-9 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – UT to Big Muddy Creek – RM 0.6 E-43

E-10 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Camp Creek – RM 1.9 E-44

E-11 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Camp Creek – RM 1.9 E-44

E-12 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Cane Branch– RM 1.9 E-45

E-13 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Cane Branch– RM 1.9 E-46

E-14 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Cane Creek – RM 12.5 E-47

E-15 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Cane Creek – RM 17.4 E-48

E-16 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Carter Creek – RM 2.8 E-49

E-17 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Catron Creek – RM 3.1 E-50

E-18 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Copper Springs Branch – RM 2.3 E-51

E-19 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Copper Springs Branch – RM 2.3 E-52

E-20 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Flat Creek – RM 1.8 E-53

E-21 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Hickory Creek – RM 1.7 E-54

E-22 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Hickory Creek – RM 1.7 E-55

x

LIST OF TABLES (cont’d)

Table Page

E-23 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Hyde Creek – RM 1.0 E-55

E-24 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Mathis Creek – RM 4.6 E-56

E-25 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Myron Creek – RM 1.8 E-57

E-26 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Myron Creek – RM 2.2 E-57

E-27 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – UT to Myron Creek – RM 0.6 E-58

E-28 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Old Channel of Nelson Creek – RM 0.6 E-59

E-29 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Richland Creek (072_1000) – RM 1.7 E-60

E-30 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Richland Creek (073_1000) – RM 1.8 E-60

E-31 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Data – Smart Creek – RM 1.0 E-61

E-32 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Sugar Creek – RM 1.5 E-62

E-33 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Town Creek – RM 2.3 E-63

E-34 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Town Creek – RM 2.3 E-64

E-35 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – UT to Hatchie River – RM 1.2 E-65

E-36 Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – UT to Hatchie River – RM 1.2 E-66

E-37 Summary of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs by Flow Regime for Impaired Waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds (08010207 and 08010208) E-67

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AFO Animal Feeding Operation

BMP Best Management Practices

BST Bacteria Source Tracking

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFS Cubic Feet per Second

CFU Colony Forming Units CRC

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

d/s Downstream

DA Drainage Area

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DS Direct Sources

DWR Division of Water Resources

E. coli Escherichia coli

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GIS Geographic Information System

HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program - Fortran

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

HW Headwaters

LA Load Allocation

LDC Load Duration Curve

MGD Million Gallons per Day

MOS Margin of Safety

MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristic

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MST Microbial Source Tracking

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NMP Nutrient Management Plan

NPS Nonpoint Source

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

ONRW Outstanding National Resource Water

PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction

PDFE Percent of Days Flow Exceeded

PFGE Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis

PLRG Percent Load Reduction Goal

qm Mean daily facility (WWTP) flow (cfs)

qd Facility design flow (cfs)

Q Mean daily in-stream flow (cfs)

qPCR Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction

RM River Mile

SF Storm Flow

SOP State Operating Permit

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

SW Storm Water

xii

SWMP Storm Water Management Plan

TDA Tennessee Department of Agriculture

TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation

TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

TWRA Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

u/s Upstream

UCF Unit Conversion Factor

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USGS United States Geological Survey

UT Unnamed Tributary

UTK University of Tennessee, Knoxville

WLA Waste Load Allocation

WQ Water Quality

WTRBA West Tennessee River Basin Authority

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

WY Water Year

xiii

SUMMARY SHEET

Total Maximum Daily Load for E. coli in

Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds (HUC 08010207 and 08010208)

Impaired Waterbody Information (Based on Final 2018 List of Impaired Waters)

State: Tennessee Counties: Chester, Fayette, Hardeman, Haywood, Lauderdale, Madison, McNairy, and Tipton Constituents of Concern: E. coli Waterbodies Addressed in This Document:

Waterbody ID Waterbody Miles Impaired

TN08010207035_0600 Rose Creek 10.9

TN08010208001_0200 Copper Springs Creek 13.9

TN08010208001_0300 Alston Creek 18.74

TN08010208001_0400 Unnamed Tributary to Hatchie River 21.41

TN08010208001_1800 Hickory Creek 25.5

TN08010208002_0500 Myron Creek 7.66

TN08010208002_0600 Cane Branch 14.42

TN08010208007_0200 a Catron Creek 17.2

TN08010208007_0300 Smart Creek 11.9

TN08010208007_0400 Unnamed Tributary to Big Muddy Creek 17.85

TN08010208007_1000 Big Muddy Creek (Hatchie River to UT near US Hwy 179) 7.5

TN08010208007_2000 Big Muddy Creek (UT near US Hwy 179 to headwaters) 17.2

TN08010208031_1000 Sugar Creek 10.5

TN08010208033_0100 Camp Creek 20.2

TN08010208034_0100 a Old Channel of Nelson Creek 0.76

TN08010208034_0300 a Hyde Creek 5.7

TN08010208034_2000 a Cane Creek (UT just d/s of Paris Rd. to Old Nelson Ck) 4.5

TN08010208034_3000 a Cane Creek (Old Nelson Creek to headwaters) 1

TN08010208056_1000 a Flat Creek 8.1

TN08010208065_1000 Mathis Creek 11.3

TN08010208072_1000 Richland Creek 11

TN08010208073_1000 a Richland Creek 11

TN080102081866_1000 Carter Creek 6.4

TN08010208896_1000 Town Creek 11.3

* Maximum water quality target is 487 CFU/100 mL for lakes, reservoirs, State Scenic Rivers, or Exceptional Tennessee Waters waterbodies and 941 CFU/100 mL for other waterbodies. No waterbodies in Upper or Lower Hatchie watersheds utilize the 487 CFU/100 mL target.

a Waterbodies covered by TMDLs approved by EPA in 2008. The TMDLs included in this

document supersede the TMDLs approved by EPA in 2008.

xiv

Designated Uses:

The designated use classifications for all waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds include fish and aquatic life, irrigation, livestock watering & wildlife, and recreation. None of the waterbodies covered in this document have additional designated use classifications.

As of July 1, 2018, none of the impaired waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds are classified as lakes or reservoirs, or classified as State Scenic Rivers or Exceptional Tennessee Waters.

Water Quality Targets:

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

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

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

For further information on Tennessee’s general water quality standards, see: http://sharetngov.tnsosfiles.com/sos/rules/0400/0400-40/0400-40-03.20150406.pdf

TMDL Scope:

Waterbodies identified on the Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters as impaired due to E. coli. TMDLs were developed for impaired waterbodies on a HUC-12 subwatershed or waterbody drainage area basis.

Under Tennessee’s watershed management approach, each HUC-8 watershed is examined (or re-examined) on a rotating basis. TMDLs were developed for portions of the Lower Hatchie River watershed in 2008. Since that time, (1) additional monitoring data have been collected; and (2) seventeen additional waterbodies have been assessed as impaired due to E. coli. For these reasons, existing TMDLs have been revisited (and re-developed) and TMDLs developed for newly assessed impairments for the Lower Hatchie River (HUC 08010208) watershed. The E. coli TMDLs developed in this document supersede the E. coli TMDLs approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 18, 2008 for selected waterbodies in the Lower Hatchie River watershed. E. coli TMDLs have not previously been developed in the Upper Hatchie River watershed.

http://sharetngov.tnsosfiles.com/sos/rules/0400/0400-40/0400-40-03.20150406.pdf

xv

Analysis/Methodology:

The TMDLs for the impaired waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds were developed using a load duration curve methodology to ensure compliance with the E. coli 126 CFU/100 mL geometric mean and the 487 CFU/100 mL maximum water quality criteria for lakes, reservoirs, State Scenic Rivers, or Exceptional Tennessee Waters and 941 CFU/100 mL maximum water quality criterion for all other waterbodies. A duration curve is a cumulative frequency graph that represents the percentage of time during which the value of a given parameter is equaled or exceeded. Load duration curves are developed from flow duration curves and can illustrate existing water quality conditions (as represented by loads calculated from monitoring data), how these conditions compare to desired targets, and the region of the waterbody flow zone represented by these existing loads. Load duration curves were also used to determine percent load reduction goals (PLRG) to meet the target maximum loading for E. coli.

Critical Conditions:

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

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

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

Seasonal Variation:

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

Margin of Safety (MOS):

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

xvi

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

in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds (HUC 08010207 and 08010208)

HUC-12 Subwatershed (08010207__)

Impaired Waterbody Name Impaired Waterbody ID TMDL MOS

WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c,f

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

0702 Rose Creek d,e TN08010207035_0600 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (1.502 x 106 x Q)

– (1.668 x 106 x qd) (1.502 x 106 x Q)

– (1.668 x 106 x qd)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c,f


0401

Catron Creek d,e TN08010208007_0200

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

(6.866 x 106 x Q) – (7.629 x 106 x qd)

(6.866 x 106 x Q) – (7.629 x 106 x qd)

Smart Creek d,e TN08010208007_0300 (4.804 x 106 x Q)

– (5.338 x 106 x qd) (4.804 x 106 x Q)

– (5.338 x 106 x qd)

Big Muddy Creek d,e TN08010208007_2000 (4.404 x 105 x Q)

– (4.894 x 105 x qd) (4.404 x 105 x Q)

– (4.894 x 105 x qd)

0402

UT to Big Muddy Creek d,e TN08010208007_0400

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

(3.243 x 106 x Q) – (3.603 x 106 x qd)

(3.243 x 106 x Q) – (3.603 x 106 x qd)


– (3.433 x 105 x qd) (3.090 x 105 x Q)

– (3.433 x 105 x qd)

0504 Hickory Creek d,e TN08010208001_1800 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (2.453 x 106 x Q)

– (2.725 x 106 x qd) (2.453 x 106 x Q)

– (2.725 x 106 x qd)

0506 Sugar Creek e TN08010208031_1000 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (1.962 x 106 x Q)

– (2.180 x 106 x qd) (1.962 x 106 x Q)

– (2.180 x 106 x qd)

0508 Carter Creek e TN080102081866_1000 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (1.875 x 106 x Q)

– (2.083 x 106 x qd) (1.875 x 106 x Q)

– (2.083 x 106 x qd)

0509 Richland Creek d,e TN08010208072_1000 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (3.874 x 106 x Q)

– (4.305 x 106 x qd) (3.874 x 106 x Q)

– (4.305 x 106 x qd)

0601

Myron Creek d,e TN08010208002_0500

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

(6.597 x 106 x Q) – (7.330 x 106 x qd)

(6.597 x 106 x Q) – (7.330 x 106 x qd)

Cane Branch d,e TN08010208002_0600 (4.743 x 106 x Q)

– (5.270 x 106 x qd) (4.743 x 106 x Q)

– (5.270 x 106 x qd)

0701

Old Channel Nelson Creek d,e TN08010208034_0100

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

(2.318 x 107 x Q) – (2.575 x 107 x qd)

(2.318 x 107 x Q) – (2.575 x 107 x qd)

Hyde Creek d,e TN08010208034_0300 (3.106 x 106 x Q)

– (3.451 x 106 x qd) (3.106 x 106 x Q)

– (3.451 x 106 x qd)

Cane Creek d,e TN08010208034_3000 (1.797 x 106 x Q)

– (1.996 x 106 x qd) (1.797 x 106 x Q)

– (1.996 x 106 x qd)

0702 Cane Creek d,e TN08010208034_2000 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (3.087 x 105 x Q)

– (3.430 x 105 x qd) (3.087 x 105 x Q)

– (3.430 x 105 x qd)

xvii

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

in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds (HUC 08010207 and 08010208)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c,f


0801 Camp Creek d,e TN08010208033_0100 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (3.017 x 106 x Q)

– (3.353 x 106 x qd) (3.017 x 106 x Q)

– (3.353 x 106 x qd)

0802

UT to Hatchie River d,e TN08010208001_0400

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

(2.881 x 106 x Q) – (3.202 x 106 x qd)

(2.881 x 106 x Q) – (3.202 x 106 x qd)

Flat Creek d,e TN08010208056_1000 (1.996 x 106 x Q)

– (2.218 x 106 x qd) (1.996 x 106 x Q)

– (2.218 x 106 x qd)

Richland Creek d,e TN08010208073_1000 (1.689 x 106 x Q)

– (1.876 x 106 x qd) (1.689 x 106 x Q)

– (1.876 x 106 x qd)

0803 Town Creek e TN08010208896_1000 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (1.511 x 106 x Q)

– (1.679 x 106 x qd) (1.511 x 106 x Q)

– (1.679 x 106 x qd)

0804

Copper Springs Branch d,e TN08010208001_0200

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

(4.091 x 106 x Q) – (4.545 x 106 x qd)

(3.196 x 106 x Q) – (3.551 x 106 x qd)

Alston Creek d,e TN08010208001_0300 (3.196 x 106 x Q)

– (3.551 x 106 x qd) (3.196 x 106 x Q)

– (3.551 x 106 x qd)

0805 Mathis Creek e TN08010208065_1000 2.3 x 1010 x Q 2.3 x 109 x Q (2.3x1010 x qm) (1.744 x 106 x Q)

– (1.938 x 106 x qd) (1.744 x 106 x Q)

– (1.938 x 106 x qd)

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

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

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

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

E. coli TMDL Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds (HUC 08010207 and 08010208)

11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page 1 of 55

PROPOSED E. COLI TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)

Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds (HUCs 08010207 and 08010208)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

2.0 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT

This document presents details of TMDL development for waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds, identified on the Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters (TDEC, 2018) as not supporting designated uses due to E. coli. TMDL analyses were performed primarily on a 12-digit hydrologic unit area (HUC-12) basis. In some cases, where appropriate, TMDLs were developed for an impaired waterbody drainage area.

Portions of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds are located in Mississippi. This TMDL only addresses the portion of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds located in Tennessee. For the purposes of TMDL development, waters flowing into Tennessee from Mississippi are expected to meet Tennessee water quality standards at the state line.

Under Tennessee’s watershed management approach, each HUC-8 watershed is examined (or re-examined) on a rotating basis. TMDLs were developed for portions of the Lower Hatchie River watershed in 2008. Since that time, (1) additional monitoring data have been collected; and (2) seventeen additional waterbodies have been assessed as impaired due to E. coli. For these reasons, existing TMDLs have been revisited (and re-developed) and TMDLs developed for newly assessed impairments for the Upper and Lower Hatchie River (HUC 08010207 and 08010208) watersheds. The E. coli TMDLs developed in this document supersede the E. coli TMDLs approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 18, 2008 for selected waterbodies in the Lower Hatchie River watershed.

3.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION

The Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds (HUCs 08010207 and 08010208) are located in Chester, Fayette, Hardeman, Haywood, Lauderdale, Madison, McNairy, and Tipton Counties, in western Tennessee (Figure 1). The Upper Hatchie River watershed (HUC 08010207) has approximately 753 miles of streams (based on EPA’s National Hydrography Dataset [NHD] Medium Resolution [1:100,000]) and has a drainage area of approximately 1,139 square miles (mi2), 431 mi2 of which are in Tennessee. The Lower Hatchie River watershed (HUC 08010208) has approximately 2,531 miles of streams (based on EPA’s National Hydrography Dataset [NHD]



Medium Resolution [1:100,000]) and has a drainage area of approximately 1,461 mi2, 1,446 mi2 of which are in Tennessee.

Watershed land use distribution is based on the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristic (MRLC) databases derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper digital images from around 2011. Although changes in the land use of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds have occurred since 2011 as a result of rapid development, this is the most current land use data available. Land use for the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds is summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2. Predominant land use in the Upper Hatchie River watershed in Tennessee is forest (75.4%) followed by agriculture (18.8%) and urban (5.82%). Predominant land use in the Lower Hatchie River watershed is forest (50.6%) followed by agriculture (43.5%) and urban (5.93%). Details of land use distribution of impaired subwatersheds in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds are presented in Appendix A.

The Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds lie within three Level III ecoregions (Southeastern Plains, Mississippi Alluvial Plain, and Mississippi Valley Loess Plains) and contain six Level IV subecoregions as shown in Figure 3 (USEPA, 1997):

The Blackland Prairie (65a) covers only a small portion of McNairy County, Tennessee. This region is a flat to undulating lowland, with elevations in Tennessee between 500-600 feet. The area is mostly in cropland and pasture, with small patches of mixed hardwoods, generally oaks and hickories. Patches of bluestem prairie are also associated with this ecoregion, although there is evidence that historically these patches were no more extensive in this area than in the rest of the Southeast, and that the original application of the term “prairie” to the Black Belt referred to soils and not a unique grassland vegetation type. Mean annual precipitation in the Tennessee portion is approximately 52 inches, with a frost-free period of 210 days.

The Flatwoods/Alluvial Prairie Margins (65b) covers only a small region in Tennessee. This region stands out as an area of agriculture between mostly forested land, with slightly lower elevations (400-500 feet) and less relief than the Southeastern Plans and Hills that surround it. Precipitation and temperatures are similar to the Blackland Prairie (65a).

The Southeastern Plains and Hills (65e) contain several north-south trending bands of sand and clay formations. Tertiary-age sand, clay, and lignite are to the west, and Cretaceous-age fine sand, fossiliferous micaceous sand, and silty clays are to the east. With elevations reaching over 650 feet, and more rolling topography and more relief than the Loess Plains (74b) to the west, streams have increased gradient, generally sandy substrates, and distinctive faunal characteristics for west Tennessee. The natural vegetation type is oak-hickory forest, grading into oak-hickory-pine to the south.

The Fall Line Hills (65i) covers only a small region in Tennessee. The majority of this subecoregion is located in Mississippi and Alabama. It is mostly forested terrain of open hills with 200-400 feet of relief. Elevations in the small Tennessee portion, roughly between Chambers Creek and Pickwick Lake, are 450-685 feet. Medium to coarse sand decomposition residuum and chert gravel are the primary surficial materials in the ecoregion, covered by Ultisols of the Silerton, Smithdale, Waynesboro, and Pickwick soil series. The potential natural vegetation is oak-hickory-pine. In Tennessee, the Fall Line Hills average 53 inches of annual precipitation with a frost-free period of 207 days.

The Northern Mississippi Alluvial Plain (73a) within Tennessee is a relatively flat region of Quaternary alluvial deposits of sand, silt, clay, and gravel. It is bounded distinctly on the east by the Bluff Hills (74a), and on the west by the Mississippi River. Average elevations are 200-300 feet with little relief. Most of the region is in cropland, with some areas of



deciduous forest. Soybeans, cotton, corn, sorghum, and vegetables are the main crops. The natural vegetation consists of Southern floodplain forest (oak, tupelo, bald cypress). The two main distinctions in the Tennessee portion of the ecoregion are between areas of loamy, silty, and sandy soils with better drainage, and areas of more clayey soils of poor drainage that may contain wooded swamp-land and oxbow lakes. Waterfowl, raptors, and migratory songbirds are relatively abundant in the region.

The Bluff Hills (74a) consist of sand, clay, silt, and lignite, and are capped by loess greater than 60 feet deep. The disjunct region in Tennessee encompasses those thick loess areas that are generally the steepest, most dissected, and forested. The carved loess has a mosaic of microenvironments, including dry slopes and ridges, moist slopes, ravines, bottomland areas, and small cypress swamps. While oak-hickory is the general forest type, some of the undisturbed bluff vegetation is rich in mesophytes, such as beech and sugar maple, with similarities to hardwood forests of eastern Tennessee. Smaller streams of the Bluff Hills have localized reaches of increased gradient and small areas of gravel substrate that create aquatic habitats that are distinct from those of the Loess Plains (74b) to the east. Unique, isolated fish assemblages more typical of upland habitats can be found in these stream reaches. Gravels are also exposed in places at the base of the bluffs.

The Loess Plains (74b) are gently rolling, irregular plains, 250-500 feet in elevation, with loess up to 50 feet thick. The region is a productive agricultural area of soybeans, cotton, corn, milo, and sorghum crops, along with livestock and poultry. Soil erosion can be a problem on the steeper, upland Alfisol soils; bottom soils are mostly silty Entisols. Oak-hickory and southern floodplain forests are the natural vegetation types, although most of the forest cover has been removed for cropland. Some less-disturbed bottomland forest and cypress-gum swamp habitats still remain. Several large river systems with wide floodplains, the Obion, Forked Deer, Hatchie, Loosahatchie, and Wolf, cross the region. Streams are low-gradient and murky with silt and sand bottoms, and most have been channelized.



Figure 1. Location of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds



Figure 2. Land Use Characteristics of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds



Figure 3. Level IV Ecoregions in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds



Table 1. MRLC Land Use Distribution – Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds

Land use Upper Hatchie Watershed

(HUC 08010207)

Upper Hatchie Watershed (HUC 08010207) (TN portion only)

Lower Hatchie Watershed (HUC 08010208)

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

11 Open Water 8,310 1.14 2,924 1.06 9,163 0.98

21 Developed Open Spaces 34,334 4.71 12,771 4.63 38,804 4.15

22 Low Intensity Residential 10,934 1.50 2,372 0.86 13,091 1.40

23 Medium Intensity Residential 3,135 0.43 717 0.26 2,618 0.28

24 High Intensity Residential 1,239 0.17 193 0.07 935 0.10

31 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay 292 0.04 110 0.04 94 0.01

41 Deciduous Forest 185,812 25.5 85,290 30.9 217,864 23.3

42 Evergreen Forest 87,985 12.1 28,136 10.2 21,506 2.30

43 Mixed Forest 46,726 6.41 19,226 6.97 21,693 2.32

52 Shrub/Scrub 104,970 14.4 35,721 13.0 77,795 8.32

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 21,869 3.00 7,117 2.58 3,834 0.41

81 Pasture/Hay 89,954 12.3 28,025 10.2 84,621 9.05

82 Cultivated Crops 68,376 9.38 23,805 8.63 321,841 34.4

90 Woody Wetlands 58,098 7.97 27,391 9.93 117,628 12.6

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 6,925 0.95 2,041 0.74 3,553 0.38

Total 728,960 100% 275,840 100% 935,040 100%

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



4.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION

The Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters (TDEC, 2018): https://www.tn.gov/environment/program-areas/wr-water-resources/water-quality/water-quality-reports---publications.html was approved by USEPA on July 26, 2018. This list identified a number of waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds as not fully supporting designated use classifications due, in part, to E. coli (see Table 2 & Figure 4). The designated use classifications for these waterbodies include fish and aquatic life, irrigation, livestock watering & wildlife, and recreation. None of the waterbodies covered by this document have additional designated use classifications.

5.0 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA & TMDL TARGET

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

As of July 1, 2018, none of the impaired waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds are classified as lakes or reservoirs, or classified as State Scenic Rivers or Exceptional Tennessee Waters.

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


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

https://www.tn.gov/environment/program-areas/wr-water-resources/water-quality/water-quality-reports---publications.html

https://www.tn.gov/environment/program-areas/wr-water-resources/water-quality/water-quality-reports---publications.html




Table 2. Extract from Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters – Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds

Waterbody ID Impacted Waterbody Miles/Acres

Impaired Cause (Pollutant) Pollutant Source

TN08010207035_0600 Rose Creek 10.9 Escherichia coli Source Unknown

TN08010208001_0200 Copper Springs Creek 13.9 Escherichia coli Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline

Zones

TN08010208001_0300 Alston Creek 18.74 Escherichia coli Municipal Point Source

Discharges

TN08010208001_0400 Unnamed Tributary to Hatchie

River 21.41 Escherichia coli Source Unknown

TN08010208001_1800 Hickory Creek 25.5 Escherichia coli Collection System Failure

TN08010208002_0500 Myron Creek 7.66 Escherichia coli Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline

Zones

TN08010208002_0600 Cane Branch 14.42 Escherichia coli Urbanized High Density Area

TN08010208007_0200 a Catron Creek 17.2 Escherichia coli

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones

Permitted Runoff from Confined Animal Feeding Operations

TN08010208007_0300 Smart Creek 11.9 Escherichia coli Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline

Zones

TN08010208007_0400 Unnamed Tributary to Big Muddy

Creek 17.85 Escherichia coli Source Unknown

TN08010208007_1000 Big Muddy Creek

(from Hatchie River to UT near US Hwy 179)

7.5 Escherichia coli Source Unknown

TN08010208007_2000 Big Muddy Creek

(from UT near US Hwy 179 to hw) 17.2 Escherichia coli Source Unknown

TN08010208031_1000 Sugar Creek 10.5 Escherichia coli Urbanized High Density Area

TN08010208033_0100 Camp Creek 20.2 Escherichia coli Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline

Zones

TN08010208034_0100 a Old Channel of Nelson Creek 0.76 Escherichia coli Source Unknown

TN08010208034_0300 a Hyde Creek 5.7 Escherichia coli


Collection System Failure



Table 2 (con’t). Extract from Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters – Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds

Waterbody ID Impacted Waterbody Miles/Acres

Impaired Cause (Pollutant) Pollutant Source

TN08010208034_2000 a

Cane Creek (from UT just d/s of Paris Rd. to

Old Nelson Creek) 4.5 Escherichia coli


TN08010208034_3000 a

Cane Creek (from Old Nelson Creek to hw)

1 Escherichia coli Collection System Failure

TN08010208056_1000 a Flat Creek 8.1 Escherichia coli


TN08010208065_1000 Mathis Creek 11.3 Escherichia coli Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline

Zones

TN08010208072_1000 Richland Creek 11 Escherichia coli Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline

Zones

TN08010208073_1000 a

Richland Creek 11 Escherichia coli Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline

Zones

TN080102081866_1000 Carter Creek 6.4 Escherichia coli Source Unknown

TN08010208896_1000 Town Creek 11.3 Escherichia coli Urbanized High Density Area

a Waterbodies covered by TMDLs approved by EPA in 2008. The TMDLs included in this document supersede the TMDLs

approved by EPA in 2008.



Figure 4. Waterbodies Impaired by E. coli (as Documented on the Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters)



6.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND DEVIATION FROM TARGET

The following water quality monitoring stations provided data for waterbodies identified as impaired for E. coli in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds:

HUC-12 08010207-0702:

o ROSE001.3MC – Rose Creek, 400 yds d/s Hwy 64, u/s Keith Branch

HUC-12 08010208-0401:

o BMUDD014.1FA – Big Muddy Creek, at Joyner Campground Drive

o CATRO003.1FA – Catron Creek, at Old Brownsville Road

o SMART001.0FA – Smart Creek, at Garnett Drive

HUC-12 08010208-0402:

o BMUDD004.3HY – Big Muddy Creek, at Hwy 79

o BMUDD007.0HY – Big Muddy Creek, at Hwy 179 (Stanton Koko Road)

o BMUDD7.2T0.6HY – UT to Big Muddy Creek, d/s Campground Road

HUC-12 08010208-0504:

o HICKO001.7HR – Hickory Creek, at Vildo Road

HUC-12 08010208-0506:

o SUGAR001.5HY – Sugar Creek, at Sugar Creek Rd., 2 mi due W of Sunnyhill, TN

HUC-12 08010208-0508:

o CARTE002.8HY – Carter Creek, at Hwy 19

HUC-12 08010208-0509:

o RICHL001.7HY – Richland Creek, d/s Hillville-Vildo Road

HUC-12 08010208-0601:

o CANE001.9TI – Cane Branch, at Atkins Store Road

o MYRON001.8TI – Myron Creek, at Marshall Road

o MYRON002.2TI – Myron Creek, at Akins Road

o MYRON1.7T0.6TI – UT to Myron Creek, at Atkins Store Road

HUC-12 08010208-0701:

o CANE017.4LE – Cane Creek, at George Brown Road

o HYDE001.0LE – Hyde Creek, at Ripley/Asbury Glimp Road bridge

o HYDE002.7LE – Hyde Creek, d/s RR tracks and impoundment in Ripley



HUC-12 08010208-0701 (cont’d):

o HYDE1T0.3LE – UT to Hyde Creek, at Viar Road

o ONELS1.1T0.2LE – Old Channel Nelson Creek UT, NW corner Hwy 209 and American Way

o ONELS1.1T0.6LE – Old Channel Nelson Creek UT, West side of Hwy 209 just South of industrial parking lot

HUC-12 08010208-0702:

o CANE012.5LE – Cane Creek, at Grimes Store Road

HUC-12 08010208-0801:

o CAMP001.9LE – Camp Creek, at Hwy 87

HUC-12 08010208-0802:

o FLAT001.8TI – Flat Creek, at Antioch Road

o HATCH48.0T1.2LE – UT to Hatchie River, at Berry Marrow Road

o RICHL001.8TI – Richland Creek, at Antioch Road

HUC-12 08010208-0803:

o TOWN000.1TI – Town Creek, at Pilljerk Road

o TOWN002.3TI – Town Creek, u/s Mt. Lebanon Road

HUC-12 08010208-0804:

o CSPRI002.3LE – Copper Springs Branch, at Cooper Creek Road

o HATCH40.7T1.6LE – Alston Creek, at Lovelace Crossing Road

HUC-12 08010208-0805:

o MATHI004.6TI – Mathis Creek, at Bennett Road

The locations of these monitoring stations are shown in Figure 5. The water quality monitoring results for these stations are tabulated in Appendix B. Examination of the data shows exceedances of the maximum E. coli standard at monitoring stations on all of the impaired waterbodies. Water quality monitoring results for those stations are summarized in Table 3.

Whenever a minimum of 5 samples was collected at a given monitoring station over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days, the geometric mean was calculated.

21 of the 30 water quality monitoring stations (Table 3 and Appendix B) have at least one E. coli sample value reported as >2420. For the purpose of calculating summary data statistics, TMDLs, Waste Load Allocations (WLAs), and Load Allocations (LAs), these data values are treated as (equal to) 2420. Therefore, the calculated results are considered to be estimates. In order to obtain an accurate number for future calculations, E. coli sample analyses at these sites should follow established protocol (see Section 9.4.).



Table 3. Summary of TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data

Monitoring Station Date Range a

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

# of Data Points

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

ROSE001.3MC 2007-2015 17 53 381.3 1290 213.4 2

2014-2015 12 63 361.6 1290 Ngd 1

BMUDD004.3HY 2004-2015 14 50.4 754.6 4350 Ngd 3

2014-2015 10 75 981.9 4350 Ngd 3

BMUDD007.0BEHY 2004-2005 14 19.9 122.4 307.6 Ngd 0

BMUDD014.1FA 2004-2015 36 26 >627.6 >2420 Ngd 7

2014-2015 12 124 >821.8 >2419.6 Ngd 3

BMUDD7.2T0.6HY 2014-2015 12 23 825.6 2420 Ngd 4

CAMP001.9LE 2004-2015 39 18 >917.2 9804 Ngd 6

2014-2015 15 18 305.3 686.7 Ngd 0

CANE001.9TI 2009-2015 32 27.9 >544.5 >2420 161.3 5

2014-2015 20 27.9 >376.0 >2420 161.3 2

CANE012.5LE 2009-2015 16 30 >418.5 >2420 Ngd 2

2014-2015 12 30 308.4 1310 Ngd 1

CANE017.4LE 2009-2015 14 10 847.6 6490 Ngd 2

2014-2015 10 10 949.7 6490 Ngd 1

CARTE002.8HY 2009-2015 32 1 >1121.6 8660 400.6 10

2014-2015 12 10 1310.3 8660 125.4 3

CATRO003.1FA 2004-2015 27 80.5 >1778.8 8164 Ngd 16

2014-2015 9 166.5 >1516.1 >2420 Ngd 6

CSPRI002.3LE 2004-2015 48 10 >768.0 12,997 240.3 9

2014-2015 16 10 458.2 1986.3 Ngd 3

FLAT001.8TI 2004-2015 25 39.9 648.0 5172 Ngd 4

2014-2015 9 39.9 654.6 2419.6 Ngd 2



Table 3 (cont’d). Summary of TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data



# of Data Points


HATCH40.7T1.6:E 2004-2016 43 13 >682.4 7270 144.9 8

2014-2016 19 13 >483.8 >22420 144.9 2

HATCH48.0T1.2LE 2004-2015 38 6 >730.4 12,033 Ngd 5

2014-2015 15 23 394.1 1986.6 Ngd 1

HICKO001.7HR 2004-2010 23 29 >696.6 >2420 1688.7 8

HYDE001.0LE 2009-2015 24 20 >2698.6 24,200 Ngd 5

2014-2015 12 41 >4760.5 24,200 Ngd 3

HYDE002.7LE 2007 5 22 214.0 649 103.5 0

HYDE1T0.3LE 2009-2010 12 70 >976.3 >2420 Ngd 5

MATHI004.6TI 2004-2015 36 31.8 >786.4 6488 Ngd 8

2014-2015 12 31.8 >535.3 >2149.6 Ngd 2

MYRON001.8TI 2009-2015 19 160 1197.5 8664 Ngd 6

2014-2015 7 344 985.9 1553.1 Ngd 3

MYRON002.2TI 2015 3 79 133.0 210 Ngd 0

MYRON1.7T0.6TI 2009-2015 24 38 >969.8 >2420 Ngd 8

2014-2015 12 198 >1114.6 >2419.6 Ngd 5

ONELS1.1T0.2LE 2009-2010 3 1553 >2131 >2420 Ngd 3

ONELS1.1T0.6LE 2010-2015 14 74 >6008.1 >24,196 Ngd 9

2014-2015 11 74 >7225.9 >24,196 Ngd 7

RICHL001.7HY 2014-2015 11 74 >725.0 >2419.6 Ngd 3

RICHL001.8TI 2004-2015 29 16 >527.2 >2420 Ngd 5

2014-2015 5 16 231.3 816 Ngd 0



Table 3 (cont’d). Summary of TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data



# of Data Points


SMART001.0FA 2004-2015 32 5 >715.9 >2420 Ngd 8

2014-2015 11 46.4 >938.2 >2419.6 Ngd 4

SUGAR001.5HY 2004-2015 36 20 >1819.4 >24,220 1064.1 10

2014-2015 12 20 1440.3 9800 Ngd 4

TOWN000.1TI 2004-2010 29 14.6 >504.5 6131 94.7 3

TOWN002.3TI 2004-2016 52 25.9 >544.8 4106 264.9 8

2014-2016 20 35.5 265.7 1382 114.8 1 * Maximum water quality target is 487 CFU/100 mL for lakes, reservoirs, State Scenic Rivers, or Exceptional Tennessee Waters waterbodies and 941 CFU/100 mL for other waterbodies. Waterbodies utilizing the 487 CFU/100 mL target are italicized. ** If multiple geomean sampling periods are available, the maximum calculated geomean value is recorded. a When two date ranges are presented, the first is period of record and the second is the most recent five year period.

Ngd = no geomean data



Figure 5. Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds



7.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT

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

Under the Clean Water Act, sources are classified as either point or nonpoint sources. Under 40 CFR §122.2, (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol22/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol22-sec122-2.pdf), a point source is defined as a discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or may be discharged to surface waters. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/) regulates point source discharges. Point sources can be described by three broad categories: 1) NPDES regulated municipal (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/municipal-wastewater) and industrial (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/industrial-wastewater) wastewater treatment facilities (WWTPs); 2) NPDES regulated industrial and municipal stormwater discharges (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-stormwater-program); and 3) NPDES regulated Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos). A TMDL must provide Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) for all NPDES regulated point sources. Nonpoint sources are diffuse sources that cannot be identified as entering a waterbody through a discrete conveyance at a single location. For the purposes of this TMDL, all sources of pollutant loading not regulated by NPDES permits are considered nonpoint sources. The TMDL must provide a Load Allocation (LA) for these sources. 7.1 Point Sources 7.1.1 NPDES Regulated Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities Both treated and untreated sanitary wastewaters contain coliform bacteria. Certain process wastewaters can also contain coliform bacteria. There are 6 facilities located in or upstream of impaired subwatersheds or drainage areas in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds that have NPDES permits authorizing the discharge of treated sanitary or process wastewater (Figure 6 and Table 4). Four of the six facilities are sewage treatment plants (STPs) serving municipalities with design capacities equal to or greater than 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD). The City of Ripley Wastewater Lagoon is located in the Lower Hatchie River watershed, but discharges to the Mississippi River watershed. The permit limits for discharges from these WWTPs are in accordance with the coliform criteria specified in Tennessee Water Quality Standards for the protection of the recreation use classification.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



Table 4. Facilities with NPDES Permits to Discharge Sanitary Wastewater

Located in Impaired Subwatersheds and Drainage Areas

of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds

NPDES Permit No.

Facility Design Flow

Receiving Stream [MGD]

TN0020982 Covington STP 3.62 UT to Hatchie River mile 35.2

*TN0025011 Henning Lagoon 0.28 Alston Creek mile 3.6

*TN0026590 Whiteville Lagoon 1.0 Hickory Creek mile 7.7

*TN0062154 Stanton Lagoon 0.288 Wetland to Big Muddy Creek mile 5.56

TN0062367 Brownsville STP 2.03 Hatchie River mile 76.3

TN0078191 City of Ripley

Wastewater Lagoon 3.1 Mississippi River mile 800.5

*Discharges to impaired waterbody

7.1.2 NPDES Regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) are considered to be potential point sources of E. coli. Discharges from MS4s occur in response to storm events through road drainage systems, curb and gutter systems, ditches, and storm drains. Phase I of the EPA stormwater program (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-municipal-sources) requires large and medium MS4s to obtain NPDES stormwater permits. Large and medium MS4s are those located in incorporated places or counties serving populations greater than 100,000 people. There are no Phase I MS4s located in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds.

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

(http://environment-online.state.tn.us:8080/pls/enf_reports/f?p=9034:34051:::NO:34051:P34051_PERMIT_NUMBER:TNS000000) (TDEC, 2016). The city of Brownsville and Madison County are covered under Phase II of the NPDES Stormwater Program.

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

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

http://environment-online.state.tn.us:8080/pls/enf_reports/f?p=9034:34051:::NO:34051:P34051_PERMIT_NUMBER:TNS000000





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

Areas of the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds



The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) has been issued an individual MS4 permit (TNS077585) that authorizes discharges of stormwater runoff from State roads and interstate highway rights-of-way that TDOT owns or maintains, discharges of stormwater runoff from TDOT owned or operated facilities, and certain specified non-stormwater discharges. This permit covers all eligible TDOT discharges statewide, including those located outside of urbanized areas.

For information about TDOT’s stormwater management program, see the TDOT website:

https://www.tdoteco.com/Pages/home.aspx

For information regarding stormwater permitting in Tennessee, see the TDEC website:

https://www.tn.gov/environment/permit-permits/water-permits1/npdes-permits1/npdes-stormwater-permitting-program.html

7.1.3 NPDES Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

Animal feeding operations (AFOs) are agricultural enterprises where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. AFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields, or on rangeland (USEPA, 2002a). Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are AFOs that meet certain criteria with respect to animal type, number of animals, and type of manure management system. Certain CAFOs are considered to be potential point sources of E. coli loading.

Due to newly passed legislation, changes to the CAFO program in Tennessee are being implemented. As of July 1, 2018, only large CAFOs that have the outdoor storage of liquid manure will be required to obtain a State Operating Permit.

7.2 Nonpoint Sources

Nonpoint sources of coliform bacteria are diffuse sources that cannot be identified as entering a waterbody through a discrete conveyance at a single location. These sources generally, but not always, involve accumulation of coliform bacteria on land surfaces and wash off as a result of storm events. Nonpoint sources of E. coli loading are primarily associated with agricultural and urban land uses. The majority of waterbodies identified on the Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters as impaired due to E. coli are attributed to nonpoint agricultural or urban sources.

7.2.1 Wildlife

Wildlife feces contain coliform bacteria which can be deposited onto land surfaces where it can be transported during storm events to nearby streams. Wildlife is included in the allocation for the LASW term in the TMDL.

https://www.tdoteco.com/Pages/home.aspx





7.2.2 Agricultural Animals

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

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

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

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

Data sources related to livestock operations include the 2012 Census of Agriculture. Livestock data for counties located within the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds are summarized in Table 5. Note that, due to confidentiality issues, any tabulated item that identifies data reported by a respondent or allows a respondent’s data to be accurately estimated or derived is suppressed and coded with a ‘D’ (USDA, 2014). Agricultural animals are included in the allocation for the LASW term in the TMDL. (See Section C.2.)

7.2.3 Failing Septic Systems

Some of the coliform loading in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds can be attributed to failure of septic systems and illicit discharges of raw sewage. Estimates of population utilizing septic systems for counties in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds were derived from 2010 county census data and the percent of population on septic systems in 1990 (the last year the data are available), and are summarized in Table 6. In Tennessee, it is estimated that there are approximately 2.47 people per household on septic systems, some of which can be reasonably assumed to be failing. As with livestock in streams, failing septic systems have the potential to provide a concentrated source of coliform bacteria directly to waterbodies. Failing septic systems must be repaired or upgraded. Therefore, failing septic tanks are not included in the TMDL and receive an allocation of zero. (See Section C.2.)

7.2.4 Urban Development

Nonpoint source loading of coliform bacteria from urban land use areas is attributable to multiple sources. These include: stormwater runoff, illicit discharges of sanitary waste, runoff from improper disposal of waste materials, leaking septic systems, and domestic animals. Impervious surfaces in urban areas allow runoff to be conveyed to streams quickly, without interaction with soils and groundwater. Urban land use area in impaired subwatersheds in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds ranges from 3.9% to 24.5%. Land use for the Upper and Lower Hatchie River drainage areas is summarized in Figures 7-14, and tabulated in Appendix A. Urban development is included in the allocation for the LASW term in the TMDL.

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



Table 5. Livestock Distribution in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds

County

Livestock Population (2012 Census of Agriculture)

Beef Cow Milk Cow Poultry

Hogs Sheep Goats Horse Layers Broilers

Chester (D) (D) 460 -- 69 124 325 322

Fayette 8,789 18 1,028 (D) (D) 183 193 1,212

Hardeman (D) (D) 1,838 544 155 162 660 611

Haywood 1,534 -- 363 (D) 36 (D) (D) 373

Lauderdale 3,156 -- 370 (D) 127 (D) 182 509

McNairy (D) (D) 1,029 (D) 275 57 768 704

Madison (D) (D) 743 (D) 140 26 761 697

Tipton (D) (D) 1,973 (D) 411 297 367 580

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

Table 6. Estimated Population on Septic Systems in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River

Watersheds

County % of Population on

Septic Systems (1990) Total Population (2010

Census) Estimated Population

on Septic (2010)*

Chester 61.9 17,131 10,604

Fayette 70.1 38,413 26,928

Hardeman 60.4 27,253 16,461

Haywood 40.5 18,787 7,609

Lauderdale 51.5 27,815 14,325

McNairy 70.8 26,075 18,461

Madison 31.0 98,294 30,471

Tipton 63.4 61,081 38,725

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



0

1,500

3,000

4,500

6,000

Richland Ck (-072)DA

Copper Springs BrDA

Cane Br DA Smart Ck DA Myron Ck DA Catron Ck DA Old Channel NelsonCk DA

Are

a (

acre

s)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water

Figure 7. Land Use Area of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired

Subwatersheds (less than or equal to 6,000 acres)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Richland Ck (-072)DA

Copper Springs BrDA

Cane Br DA Smart Ck DA Myron Ck DA Catron Ck DA Old ChannelNelson Ck DA

Are

a (

perc

en

t)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water

Figure 8. Land Use Percent of Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli-Impaired

Subwatersheds (less than or equal to 6,000 acres)



0

3,000

6,000

9,000

Hickory Ck DA UT Hatchie DA Camp Ck DA Hyde Ck DA Alston Ck DA UT Big Muddy DA

Are

a (

acre

s)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water


Subwatersheds (greater than 6,000 acres and less than 10,000 acres)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hickory Ck DA UT Hatchie DA Camp Ck DA Hyde Ck DA Alston Ck DA UT Big Muddy DA

Are

a (

perc

en

t)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water





0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

Rose Ck DA HUC-12 0803(Town Ck)

HUC-12 0805(Mathis Ck)

Richland Ck (-073) DA

Cane CK -3000DA

HUC-12 0508(Carter Ck)

HUC-12 0506(Sugar Ck)

Flat Ck DA

Are

a (

acre

s)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Rose Ck DA HUC-12 0803(Town Ck)

HUC-12 0805(Mathis Ck)

Richland Ck (-073) DA

Cane CK -3000DA

HUC-12 0508(Carter Ck)

HUC-12 0506(Sugar Ck)

Flat Ck DA

Are

a (

perc

en

t)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water





0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Big Muddy Ck DA Big Muddy -2000 DA Cane Ck -2000 DA HUC-12 0401 (Big MuddyCk hw)

HUC-12 0701 (Cane Ck hw)

Are

a (

acre

s)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water


Subwatersheds (greater than 20,000 acres)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Big Muddy Ck DA Big Muddy -2000 DA Cane Ck -2000 DA HUC-12 0401 (Big MuddyCk hw)

HUC-12 0701 (Cane Ckhw)

Are

a (

perc

en

t)

Subwatershed

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Open Water


Subwatersheds (greater than 20,000 acres)



8.0 DEVELOPMENT OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS

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

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

This document describes TMDL, Waste Load Allocation (WLA), Load Allocation (LA), and Margin of Safety (MOS) development for waterbodies identified as impaired due to E. coli on the Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters. 8.1 Expression of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs In this document, the E. coli TMDL is a daily load expressed as a function of mean daily flow (daily loading function). For implementation purposes, corresponding percent load reduction goals (PLRGs) to decrease E. coli loads to TMDL target levels, within each respective flow zone, are also expressed. WLAs & LAs for precipitation-induced loading sources are also expressed as daily loading functions in CFU/day/acre. Allocations for loading that is independent of precipitation (WLAs for WWTPs and LAs for “other direct sources”) are expressed as CFU/day. 8.2 Area Basis for TMDL Analysis The primary area unit of analysis for TMDL development is normally a HUC-12 subwatershed containing one or more waterbodies assessed as impaired due to E. coli (as documented on the Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters). In some cases, however, TMDLs may be developed for an impaired waterbody drainage area only. Determination of the appropriate area to use for analysis (see Table 7) was based on a careful consideration of a number of relevant factors, including: 1) location of impaired waterbodies in the HUC-12 subwatershed; 2) land use type and distribution; 3) water quality monitoring data; and 4) the assessment status of other waterbodies in the HUC-12 subwatershed.





Table 7. Determination of Analysis Areas for TMDL Development

Subwatershed (08010207____)

Impaired Waterbody Area

0702 Rose Creek DA

Subwatershed (08010208____)

Impaired Waterbody Area

0401

Big Muddy Creek (007_2000)

HUC-12 Catron Creek

Smart Creek

0402 Big Muddy Creek (007_1000)

HUC-12 UT to Big Muddy Creek

0504 Hickory Creek DA

0506 Sugar Creek HUC-12

0508 Carter Creek HUC-12

0509 Richland Creek (072_1000) DA

0601 Myron Creek DA

Cane Branch DA

0701

Cane Creek (034_3000) DA

Hyde Creek DA

Old Channel Nelson Creek DA

0702 Cane Creek (034_2000) DA

0801 Camp Creek DA

0802

Flat Creek DA

Richland Creek (073_1000) DA

UT to Hatchie River (001_0400) DA

0803 Town Creek HUC-12

0804 Alston Creek DA

Copper Springs Branch DA

0805 Mathis Creek HUC-12

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



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

A ten- to fifteen-year period between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2017 was used to simulate flow. (The length of the simulation period varied depending on the period of record of the monitoring data for the selected waterbody.) This period contained a range of hydrologic conditions that included both low and high streamflows. Critical conditions are accounted for in the load duration curve analyses by using the entire period of flow and water quality data available for the impaired waterbodies.

In most subwatersheds, water quality data have been collected during most flow ranges. For each subwatershed, the critical flow zone has been identified based on the incremental levels of impairment relative to the target loads. Based on the location of the water quality exceedances on the load duration curves and the distribution of critical flow zones, the dominant delivery mode for E. coli for waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds appears to be due to runoff (see Section 9.1.2 and 9.1.3). However, low flows, where point source loading tends to dominate, were poorly represented (or not at all) in many of the subwatersheds.

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



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

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

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

8.6 Determination of TMDLs E. coli daily loading functions were calculated for impaired segments in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds using LDCs to evaluate compliance with the single sample maximum target concentrations according to the procedure in Appendix C. These TMDL loading functions for impaired segments and subwatersheds are shown in Table 8. 8.7 Determination of WLAs & LAs WLAs for MS4s and LAs for precipitation induced sources of E. coli loading were determined according to the procedures in Appendix C. These allocations represent the available loading after application of the explicit MOS. WLAs for existing WWTPs are equal to their existing NPDES permit limits. Since WWTP permit limits require that E. coli concentrations must comply with water quality criteria (TMDL targets) at the point of discharge and recognition that loading from these facilities are generally small in comparison to other loading sources, further reductions were not considered to be warranted. All waterbody IDs have a WLA term for WWTPs. The “qm” term in the WLAWWTP expression will be equal to the sum of the mean daily discharge for all WWTPs discharging to that waterbody ID. When there is no WWTP currently discharging to a waterbody ID (indicated by superscript e), the “qm” term in the WLAWWTP expression will be zero. The “qm” term provides a future growth allowance to the WLAWWTP expression when there is not an active WWTP, and when a WWTP goes online. WLAs for CAFOs and LAs for “other direct sources” (non-precipitation induced) are equal to zero. WLAs, & LAs are summarized in Table 8.



Table 8. TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs expressed as daily loads for Impaired Waterbodies in the




WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c,f



– (1.668 x 106 x qd) (1.502 x 106 x Q)

– (1.668 x 106 x qd)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c,f


0401


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

(6.866 x 106 x Q) – (7.629 x 106 x qd)

(6.866 x 106 x Q) – (7.629 x 106 x qd)


– (5.338 x 106 x qd) (4.804 x 106 x Q)

– (5.338 x 106 x qd)


– (4.894 x 105 x qd) (4.404 x 105 x Q)

– (4.894 x 105 x qd)

0402


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

(3.243 x 106 x Q) – (3.603 x 106 x qd)

(3.243 x 106 x Q) – (3.603 x 106 x qd)


– (3.433 x 105 x qd) (3.090 x 105 x Q)

– (3.433 x 105 x qd)


– (2.725 x 106 x qd) (2.453 x 106 x Q)

– (2.725 x 106 x qd)


– (2.180 x 106 x qd) (1.962 x 106 x Q)

– (2.180 x 106 x qd)


– (2.083 x 106 x qd) (1.875 x 106 x Q)

– (2.083 x 106 x qd)


– (4.305 x 106 x qd) (3.874 x 106 x Q)

– (4.305 x 106 x qd)

0601


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

(6.597 x 106 x Q) – (7.330 x 106 x qd)

(6.597 x 106 x Q) – (7.330 x 106 x qd)


– (5.270 x 106 x qd) (4.743 x 106 x Q)

– (5.270 x 106 x qd)

0701


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

(2.318 x 107 x Q) – (2.575 x 107 x qd)

(2.318 x 107 x Q) – (2.575 x 107 x qd)


– (3.451 x 106 x qd) (3.106 x 106 x Q)

– (3.451 x 106 x qd)


– (1.996 x 106 x qd) (1.797 x 106 x Q)

– (1.996 x 106 x qd)


– (3.430 x 105 x qd) (3.087 x 105 x Q)

– (3.430 x 105 x qd)



Table 8(cont’d). TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs expressed as daily loads for Impaired Waterbodies in the




WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c,f



– (3.353 x 106 x qd) (3.017 x 106 x Q)

– (3.353 x 106 x qd)

0802


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

(2.881 x 106 x Q) – (3.202 x 106 x qd)

(2.881 x 106 x Q) – (3.202 x 106 x qd)


– (2.218 x 106 x qd) (1.996 x 106 x Q)

– (2.218 x 106 x qd)


– (1.876 x 106 x qd) (1.689 x 106 x Q)

– (1.876 x 106 x qd)


– (1.679 x 106 x qd) (1.511 x 106 x Q)

– (1.679 x 106 x qd)

0804


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

(4.091 x 106 x Q) – (4.545 x 106 x qd)

(3.196 x 106 x Q) – (3.551 x 106 x qd)


– (3.551 x 106 x qd) (3.196 x 106 x Q)

– (3.551 x 106 x qd)


– (1.938 x 106 x qd) (1.744 x 106 x Q)

– (1.938 x 106 x qd)




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



9.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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

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

For the purposes of implementation strategy development, available E. coli data are grouped according to flow zones, with the number of flow zones determined by the HUC-12 subwatershed or drainage area size, the total contributing area (for non-headwater HUC-12s), and/or the baseflow characteristics of the waterbody. In general, for drainage areas greater than 40 square miles, the duration curves will be divided into five zones (Figure 15): high flows (exceeded 0-10% of the time), moist conditions (10-40%), median or mid-range flows (40-60%), dry conditions (60-90%), and low flows (90-100%). For smaller drainage areas, flows occurring in the low flow zone (baseflow conditions) are often extremely low and difficult to measure accurately. In many small drainage areas, extreme dry conditions are characterized by zero flow for a significant percentage of time. For this reason, the low flow zone is best characterized as a broader range of conditions (or percent time) with subsequently fewer flow zones. Therefore, for most HUC-12 subwatershed drainage areas less than 40 square miles, the duration curves will be divided into four zones: high flows (exceeded 0-10% of the time), moist conditions (10-40%), median or mid-range flows (40-70%), and low flows (70-100%). Some small (<40 mi2) waterbody drainage areas have sustained baseflow (no

https://www.tn.gov/environment/program-areas/wr-water-resources/watershed-stewardship/watershed-management-approach.html

https://www.tn.gov/environment/program-areas/wr-water-resources/watershed-stewardship/watershed-management-approach.html



zero flows) throughout their period of record. For these waterbodies, the duration curves will be divided into five zones.

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

Figure 15 Five-Zone Flow Duration Curve for Big Muddy Creek at RM 4.3



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

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



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

https://www.tn.gov/content/tn/environment/permit-permits/water-permits1/npdes-permits1/npdes-stormwater-permitting-program/npdes-municipal-separate-storm-sewer-system--ms4--program.html

9.2.3 NPDES Regulated Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) There are currently no CAFOs present in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds. Future CAFOs will be addressed through the appropriate CAFO State Operating Permit (SOP). For further information, see: https://www.tn.gov/environment/permit-permits/water-permits1/concentrated-animal-feeding-operation--cafo--general-state-operating-permit.html.

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

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




https://www.tn.gov/environment/permit-permits/water-permits1/concentrated-animal-feeding-operation--cafo--general-state-operating-permit.html

https://www.tn.gov/environment/permit-permits/water-permits1/concentrated-animal-feeding-operation--cafo--general-state-operating-permit.html

http://www.epa.gov/nps



Local citizen-led and implemented management measures have the potential to provide the most efficient and comprehensive avenue for reduction of loading rates from nonpoint sources. One example of interagency cooperation is the development of a recreation area in West Tennessee. An 858-acre floodplain area north of Jackson was acquired by the state. This area is to be restored to its natural habitat, but the area will also be used for recreational purposes. The project was conceived and is managed by the West Tennessee River Basin Authority (WTRBA), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), and The Nature Conservancy, with assistance from the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development, Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation, Madison County, the City of Jackson and the Jackson Chamber of Commerce. The goal of the restoration project is to reduce the flood risk for the area while also bringing entire ecosystems back to their natural function. Recreation amenities will also be constructed for visitors, including hiking and biking trails, areas for viewing wildlife, waterway access and more. With interpretive signage, there will also be educational opportunities for school groups and the local community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



municipalities to implement their Phase II Storm Water Permit Programs (Publication Number EPA 841-B-05-004, November 2005).

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

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

9.3.2 Agricultural Nonpoint Sources BMPs have been implemented in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds to reduce the amount of coliform bacteria transported to surface waters from agricultural sources. These BMPs (e.g., animal waste management systems, waste utilization, stream stabilization, fencing, heavy use area treatment, livestock exclusion, etc.) may have contributed to reductions in in-stream concentrations of coliform bacteria in one or more Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds E. coli-impaired subwatersheds during the TMDL evaluation period. The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) keeps a database of BMPs implemented in Tennessee. Those listed in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds are shown in Figure 16. The NRCS has also implemented BMPs in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds. Identification and quantification of agricultural sources of coliform bacteria (e.g., livestock access to streams, manure application practices, etc.) would be necessary to increase success of future remediation efforts.

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

For additional information on agricultural BMPs in Tennessee, see:

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/agriculture/documents/landwaterstewardship/FINAL%20319%20PROGRAM%20MGMT%20DOC_081314.pdf. An additional agricultural nonpoint source resource provided by EPA is National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture (http://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution/national-management-measures-control-nonpoint-source-0): a technical guidance and reference document for use by State, local, and tribal managers in the implementation of nonpoint source pollution management programs. It contains information on the best available, economically achievable means of reducing pollution of surface and groundwater from agriculture (EPA 841-B-03-004, July 2003). Information about specific BMPs can be obtained at the following website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/ncps/

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


https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/agriculture/documents/landwaterstewardship/FINAL%20319%20PROGRAM%20MGMT%20DOC_081314.pdf

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/agriculture/documents/landwaterstewardship/FINAL%20319%20PROGRAM%20MGMT%20DOC_081314.pdf

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


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



Figure 16. TDA Best Management Practices located in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds



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

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

Provide additional data to clarify status of ambiguous sites for potential listing as an impaired water.

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

Comprehensive water quality monitoring activities include sampling during all seasons and a broad range of flow and meteorological conditions. In addition, collection of E. coli data at sufficient frequency to support calculation of the geometric mean, as described in Tennessee’s General Water Quality Criteria (TDEC, 2015), is encouraged only when reductions are expected to be sufficient to support delisting. Finally, for individual monitoring locations, where historical E. coli data are greater than 2419 colonies/100 mL (or future samples are anticipated to be), a 1:10 (or 1:100) dilution should be performed as described in Protocol A of the Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Chemical and Bacteriological Sampling of Surface Water (TDEC, 2011). 9.4.2 Source Identification

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

Bacterial Source Tracking is a collective term used for various biochemical, chemical, and molecular methods that have been developed to distinguish sources of human and non-human fecal pollution in environmental samples (Shah, 2004). In general, these methods rely on genotypic (also known

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



as “genetic fingerprinting”), or phenotypic (relating to the physical characteristics of an organism) distinctions between the bacteria of different sources. Three primary genotypic techniques are available for BST: ribotyping, pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Two prominent phenotypic techniques are available for BST: antibiotic resistance analysis (ARA) and carbon utilization profile (CUP). (Powell, 2014).

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

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

A multi-disciplinary group of researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) has developed and tested a series of different microbial assay methods based on real-time PCR to detect fecal bacterial concentrations and host sources in water samples (Layton, 2006). The assays have been used in a study of fecal contamination and have proven useful in identification of areas where cattle represent a significant fecal input and in development of BMPs. It is expected that these types of assays could have broad applications in monitoring fecal impacts from Animal Feeding Operations, as well as from wildlife and human sources.

The EPA has recently completed a five-year review of its 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria as required by the BEACH Act amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA). Since 2012, there has been significant progress toward the implementation of human source identification technologies. Research has shown that qPCR methodologies are highly reproducible, but only with standardized protocols. Currently, draft EPA Methods for human fecal source identification are under internal review. The EPA has also entered into an Interagency Agreement with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop national DNA reference material. With continuing advances and broader application of these technologies, MST has great potential to improve water quality management and help protect public health. (USEPA, 2018) 9.5 Source Area Implementation Strategy Implementation strategies are organized according to the dominant landuse type and the sources associated with each (Table 11 and Appendix E). Additional considerations for classification of source area type include waterbody assessment information from EPA’s ATTAINS and TDEC’s Waterlog and subsequent Pollutant Source designation on the List of Impaired and Threatened Waters. Each HUC-12 subwatershed and waterbody drainage area is grouped and targeted for implementation based on this source area classification. Three primary categories are identified: predominantly urban, predominantly agricultural, and mixed urban/agricultural. See Appendix A for information regarding landuse distribution of impaired subwatersheds. For the purpose of implementation evaluation, urban is defined as residential, commercial, and industrial landuse areas (landuse classifications: low, medium, and high intensity development) with predominant source categories such as point sources (WWTPs), collection systems/septic systems (including SSOs and

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

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




CSOs), and urban stormwater runoff associated with MS4s. Agricultural is defined as cropland and pasture, with predominant source categories associated with livestock and manure management activities. A List of Impaired and Threatened Waters Pollutant Source designation of Undetermined Source warrants classification as mixed source area unless landuse is overwhelmingly dominated by urban or agricultural. A fourth category (infrequent) is associated with forested (including non-agricultural undeveloped and unaltered [by humans]) landuse areas with the predominant source category being wildlife.

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

Appendix E provides source area implementation examples for urban and agricultural subwatersheds, development of percent load reduction goals, and determination of critical flow zones (for implementation prioritization) for E. coli impaired waterbodies. Load duration curve analyses (TMDLs, WLAs, LAs, and MOS) and percent load reduction goals for all flow zones for all E. coli impaired waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds are summarized in Table E-35.

9.5.1 Urban Source Areas For impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas classified as predominantly urban, implementation strategies for E. coli load reduction will initially and primarily target source categories similar to those listed in Table 10 (USEPA, 2006). Table 10 presents example urban area management practices and the corresponding potential relative effectiveness under each of the hydrologic flow zones. Each implementation strategy addresses a range of flow conditions and targets point sources, nonpoint sources, or a combination of each. For each waterbody, the existing loads and corresponding PLRG for each flow zone are calculated according to the method described in Section E.1. The resulting determination of the critical flow zone further focuses the types of urban management practices appropriate for development of an effective load reduction strategy for a particular waterbody.

9.5.2 Agricultural Source Areas For impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas classified as predominantly agricultural, implementation strategies for E. coli load reduction will initially and primarily target source categories similar to those listed in Table 11 (USDA, 1988). Table 11 presents example agricultural area management practices and the corresponding potential relative effectiveness under each of the hydrologic flow zones. Each implementation strategy addresses a range of flow conditions and targets point sources, nonpoint sources, or a combination of each. For each waterbody, the existing loads and corresponding PLRG for each flow zone are calculated according to the method described in Section E.2. The resulting determination of the critical flow zone further focuses the types of agricultural management practices appropriate for development of an effective load reduction strategy for a particular waterbody.



Table 9. Source area types for waterbody drainage area analyses

HUC-12 / Waterbody Source Area Type*

Urban Agriculture Mixed Forested

Rose Creek

Alston Creek



Camp Creek

Cane Branch

Cane Creek (034_2000)


Carter Creek

Catron Creek

Copper Springs Branch

Flat Creek

Hickory Creek

Hyde Creek

Mathis Creek

Myron Creek

Old Channel Nelson Creek

Richland Creek (072_1000)

Richland Creek (073_1000)

Smart Creek

Sugar Creek

Town Creek

UT to Hatchie River (001_0400)

UT to Big Muddy Creek

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



Table 10. Example Urban Area Management Practice/Hydrologic Flow Zone

Considerations

Management Practice Duration Curve Zone (Flow Zone)

High Moist Mid-Range Dry Low

Bacteria source reduction

Remove illicit discharges L M H

Address pet & wildlife waste H M M L

Combined sewer overflow management

Combined sewer separation H M L

CSO prevention practices H M L

Sanitary sewer system

Infiltration/Inflow mitigation H M L L

Inspection, maintenance, and repair L M H H

SSO repair/abatement H M L

Illegal cross-connections

Septic system management

Managing private systems L M H M

Replacing failed systems L M H M

Installing public sewers L M H M

Storm water infiltration/retention

Infiltration basin L M H

Infiltration trench L M H

Infiltration/Biofilter swale L M H

Storm Water detention

Created wetland H M L

Low impact development

Disconnecting impervious areas L M H

Bioretention L M H H

Pervious pavement L M H

Green Roof L M H

Buffers H H H

New/existing on-site wastewater treatment

systems

Permitting & installation programs L M H M

Operation & maintenance programs L M H M

Other

Point source controls L M H H

Landfill control L M H

Riparian buffers H H H

Pet waste education & ordinances M H H L

Wildlife management M H H L

Inspection & maintenance of BMPs L M H H L

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



Table 11. Example Agricultural Area Management Practice/Hydrologic

Flow Zone Considerations

Flow Condition High Moist Mid-range Dry Low

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

Grazing Management

Prescribed Grazing (528A) H H M L

Pasture & Hayland Mgmt (510) H H M L

Deferred Grazing (352) H H M L

Planned Grazing System (556) H H M L

Proper Grazing Use (528) H H M L

Proper Woodland Grazing (530) H H M L

Livestock Access Limitation

Livestock Exclusion (472) M H H

Fencing (382) M H H

Stream Crossing M H H

Alternate Water Supply

Pipeline (516) M H H

Pond (378) M H H

Trough or Tank (614) M H H

Well (642) M H H

Spring Development (574) M H H

Manure Management

Managing Barnyards H H M L

Manure Transfer (634) H H M L

Land Application of Manure H H M L

Composting Facility (317) H H M L

Vegetative Stabilization

Pasture & Hayland Planting (512) H H M L

Range Seeding (550) H H M L

Channel Vegetation (322) H H M L

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

Conservation Cover (327) H H H

Riparian Buffers (391) H H H

Critical Area Planting (342) H H H

Wetland restoration (657) H H H



Table 11(cont’d). Example Agricultural Area Management Practice/Hydrologic

Flow Zone Considerations

Flow Condition High Moist Mid-range Dry Low

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

CAFO Management

Waste Management System (312) H H M

Waste Storage Structure (313) H H M

Waste Storage Pond (425) H H M

Waste Treatment Lagoon (359) H H M

Mulching (484) H H M

Waste Utilization (633) H H M

Water & Sediment Control Basin (638) H H M

Filter Strip (393) H H M

Sediment Basin (350) H H M

Grassed Waterway (412) H H M

Diversion (362) H H M

Heavy Use Area Protection (561)

Constructed Wetland (656)

Dikes (356) H H M

Lined Waterway or Outlet (468) H H M

Roof Runoff Mgmt (558) H H M

Floodwater Diversion (400) H H M

Terrace (600) H H M

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

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

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



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

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

Subwatersheds or intermediate sampling locations

Specific landuse areas (urban, pasture, etc.)

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

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

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

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

Figure 17 shows best fit curve analyses (regressions) of flow (percent time exceeded) versus E. coli loading, for a historical (1999-2004) period versus a recent post-implementation period of sampling data (2005-2013). The LDCs of the single sample maximum and geometric mean water quality standards are also plotted to illustrate the relative degree of impairment for each period. Figure 18 shows a LDC analysis of E. coli loading statistics for Oostanaula Creek for the same two periods. In addition, the 90th percentiles for each flow zone are plotted for comparison. Lastly, Figure 19 shows E. coli concentration data statistics for recent versus historical data. The individual flow zone analyses are presented in a box and whisker plot of recent [2] versus historical [1] data. Note that Figures 17-19 present the same data, each clearly illustrating improving conditions between historical and recent periods.



Figure 17. Example Graph of TMDL implementation effectiveness (LDC regression analysis)

Figure 18. Example Graph of TMDL implementation effectiveness (LDC analysis)



Figure 19. Example Graph of TMDL implementation effectiveness (box and whisker plot)



10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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

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

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

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

3) Notice of the proposed TMDLs was posted on the DWR Facebook page. The

announcement invited public and stakeholder comment and provided a link to a downloadable version of the TMDL document.

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

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

Brownsville STP (TN0062367) Covington STP (TN0020982) Henning Lagoon (TN0025011) Ripley STP (TN0078191) Stanton Lagoon (TN0062154) Whiteville Lagoon (TN0026590)

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

Brownsville (TNS075191) Madison County (TNS075604) Tennessee Dept. of Transportation (TNS077585)



6) Letters were sent via email to water quality partners in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds advising them of the proposed E. coli TMDLs and their availability on the TDEC website and providing a link to a downloadable version of the TMDL document. The letters also stated that a written copy of the draft TMDL document would be provided upon request. Letters were sent to the following partners:

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Natural Resources Conservation Service

Tennessee Department of Agriculture Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency The Nature Conservancy United States Army Corps of Engineers West Tennessee Refuge Complex West Tennessee River Basin Authority

11.0 FURTHER INFORMATION

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

https://www.tn.gov/environment/program-areas/wr-water-resources/watershed-stewardship/tennessee-s-total-maximum-daily-load--tmdl--program.html

Technical questions regarding this TMDL should be directed to the following members of the DWR staff:

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



mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006. Development of Bacteriodes 16S rRNA Gene TaqMan-Based Real-Time PCR Assays for Estimation of Total Human, and Bovine Fecal Pollution in Water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology (AEM), June 2006, p. 4214-4224.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

TDEC. 2016. NPDES General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

Systems. State of Tennessee, Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources, August 2010. This document is available on the TDEC website: http://environment-online.state.tn.us:8080/pls/enf_reports/f?p=9034:34051:::NO:34051:P34051_PERMIT_NUMBER:TNS000000

TDEC. 2018. Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters. State of Tennessee,

Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources, July 26, 2018. USDA, 1988. 1-4 Effects of Conservation Practices on Water Quantity and Quality. In Water

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USEPA, 2018. 2017 Five-Year Review of the 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. Washington, D.C. EPA/823-R-18-001. May 2018.

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



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



E. coli TMDL Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds (HUCs 08010207 and 08010208)

11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page A-1 of A-11

A-1

APPENDIX A

Land Use Distribution in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds



A-2

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

Landuse

Impaired Watershed (08010207____)

Impaired Watershed

(08010208____)

Rose Creek DA (in HUC-12 0702)

HUC-12 0401

(Big Muddy Creek hw)

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

11 Open Water 76 0.55 0 0.00

21 Developed, Open Space 700 5.08 153 0.50

22 Developed, Low Intensity 52 0.38 1,214 3.98

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 4 0.03 360 1.18

24 Developed, High Intensity 0 0.00 12 0.04

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

41 Deciduous Forest 4,115 29.9 0 0.00

42 Evergreen Forest 2,020 14.7 5,808 19.0

43 Mixed Forest 1,890 13.7 220 0.72

52 Shrub/Scrub 1,799 13.1 317 1.04

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 357 2.59 4,097 13.4

81 Pasture/Hay 910 6.60 116 0.38

82 Cultivated Crops 957 6.94 4,576 15.0

90 Woody Wetlands 878 6.37 12,144 39.8

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 28 0.20 1,330 4.36

Subtotal – Urban 757 5.49 1,586 5.20

Subtotal – Agriculture 1,866 13.5 16,720 54.8

Subtotal - Forest 11,162 81.0 12,196 40.0

Total 13,785 100 30,505 100



A-3

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

Landuse Impaired Watershed (08010208____) or Waterbody Drainage Area (DA)

HUC-12 0402 (Big Muddy Creek mouth)

HUC-12 0506 (Sugar Creek)

HUC-12 0508 (Carter Creek)


11 Open Water 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

21 Developed, Open Space 179 0.56 70 0.66 108 0.98

22 Developed, Low Intensity 1,466 4.58 952 9.02 491 4.45

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 512 1.60 582 5.52 176 1.59

24 Developed, High Intensity 61 0.19 234 2.22 34 0.31

31 Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 3 0.01 97 0.92 10 0.09

41 Deciduous Forest 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00


43 Mixed Forest 45 0.14 11 0.10 30 0.27

52 Shrub/Scrub 99 0.31 14 0.13 57 0.52

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 1,578 4.93 512 4.85 576 5.22

81 Pasture/Hay 35 0.11 2 0.02 7 0.06

82 Cultivated Crops 3,674 11.5 687 6.51 856 7.75

90 Woody Wetlands 15,001 46.9 5,368 50.9 5,120 46.4

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 5,585 17.5 351 3.33 2,129 19.3

Subtotal – Urban 2,042 6.38 1,865 17.7 711 6.44

Subtotal – Agriculture 18,676 58.4 6,055 57.4 5,975 54.1

Subtotal - Forest 11,285 35.3 2,630 25.0 4,355 39.4

Total 32,006 100 10,551 100 11,041 100



A-4



HUC-12 0701 (Cane Creek hw)

HUC-12 0702 (Cane Creek mouth)

HUC-12 0803 (Town Creek)


11 Open Water 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00


22 Developed, Low Intensity 2,651 9.04 1,129 4.28 1,026 7.49

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 1,109 3.78 303 1.15 723 5.28




42 Evergreen Forest 5,399 18.4 4,628 17.55 782 5.71

43 Mixed Forest 41 0.14 40 0.15 11 0.08

52 Shrub/Scrub 18 0.06 34 0.13 5 0.04

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 1,129 3.85 1,176 4.46 353 2.58

81 Pasture/Hay 67 0.23 16 0.06 4 0.03

82 Cultivated Crops 3,763 12.8 2,292 8.69 812 5.93

90 Woody Wetlands 13,696 46.7 14,446 54.78 9,040 66.0

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 745 2.54 1,967 7.46 429 3.13

Subtotal – Urban 4,285 14.6 1,487 5.64 2,138 15.6


Subtotal - Forest 7,584 25.9 8,141 30.9 1,710 12.5

Total 29,327 100 26,371 100 13,699 100



A-5



HUC-12 0805 (Mathis Creek)

Alston Creek DA (in HUC-12 0804)

Big Muddy Creek _2000 DA (in HUC-12 0401)


11 Open Water 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00


22 Developed, Low Intensity 563 4.51 471 7.27 1,922 4.09






43 Mixed Forest 10 0.08 3 0.05 310 0.66

52 Shrub/Scrub 7 0.06 4 0.06 414 0.88

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 659 5.28 371 5.73 5,490 11.7

81 Pasture/Hay 27 0.22 3 0.05 179 0.38

82 Cultivated Crops 943 7.55 518 8.00 7,520 16.0

90 Woody Wetlands 7,879 63.1 3,501 54.1 18,344 39.0

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 437 3.50 159 2.46 3,229 6.87

Subtotal – Urban 851 6.81 802 12.4 2,646 5.63


Subtotal - Forest 2,760 22.1 1,657 25.6 18,485 39.3

Total 12,490 100 6.,477 100 47,001 100



A-6



UT to Big Muddy Creek DA (in HUC-12 0402)

Camp Creek DA (in HUC-12 0801)

Cane Branch DA (in HUC-12 0601)


11 Open Water 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00


22 Developed, Low Intensity 261 4.09 215 3.14 323 7.39





42 Evergreen Forest 294 4.61 353 5.14 1,485 34.0

43 Mixed Forest 8 0.13 0 0.00 104 2.38

52 Shrub/Scrub 19 0.29 3 0.04 43 0.98

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 141 2.21 124 1.81 461 10.6

81 Pasture/Hay 1 0.02 3 0.05 0 0.00

82 Cultivated Crops 576 9.02 117 1.70 258 5.90

90 Woody Wetlands 4,251 66.6 5,601 81.7 1,294 29.6

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 587 9.20 368 5.37 86 1.97

Subtotal – Urban 467 7.32 279 4.06 616 14.1


Subtotal - Forest 1,096 17.2 862 12.6 2,197 50.3

Total 6,383 100 6,860 100 4,365 100



A-7



Cane Creek _2000 DA (in HUC-12 0702)

Cane Creek _3000 DA (in HUC-12 0701)

Catron Creek DA (in HUC-12 0401)


11 Open Water 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00


22 Developed, Low Intensity 2,974 9.01 815 7.07 104 3.45

23 Developed, Medium Intensity 1,251 3.79 253 2.20 34 1.12




42 Evergreen Forest 5,674 17.2 1,583 13.74 601 19.95

43 Mixed Forest 56 0.17 21 0.18 17 0.58

52 Shrub/Scrub 13 0.04 7 0.06 43 1.42

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 1,056 3.20 462 4.01 462 15.31

81 Pasture/Hay 73 0.22 13 0.11 24 0.81

82 Cultivated Crops 4,314 13.1 1,703 14.78 605 20.07

90 Woody Wetlands 15,874 48.1 6,059 52.59 912 30.24


Subtotal – Urban 4,826 14.6 1,159 10.1 139 4.61


Subtotal - Forest 7,995 24.2 2,599 22.6 1,359 45.1

Total 33,008 100 11,521 100 3,015 100



A-8



Copper Springs Branch DA (in HUC-12 0804)

Flat Creek DA (in HUC-12 0802)

Hickory Creek DA (in HUC-12 0504)


11 Open Water 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00







42 Evergreen Forest 1,308 25.85 302 2.91 2,702 32.01

43 Mixed Forest 8 0.16 0 0.00 27 0.32

52 Shrub/Scrub 16 0.32 10 0.10 178 2.11

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 493 9.74 101 0.97 1,064 12.61

81 Pasture/Hay 6 0.11 3 0.03 3 0.03

82 Cultivated Crops 466 9.21 270 2.60 1,066 12.63

90 Woody Wetlands 2,455 48.52 8,626 83.17 2,590 30.69


Subtotal – Urban 197 3.90 748 7.21 565 6.69


Subtotal - Forest 1,942 38.4 732 7.06 4,220 50.0

Total 5,060 100 10,371 100 8,440 100



A-9



Hyde Creek DA (in HUC-12 0701)

Myron Creek DA (in HUC-12 0601)

Old Channel Nelson Creek DA (in HUC-12 0701)


11 Open Water 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00







42 Evergreen Forest 1,240 18.61 650 20.70 154 17.23

43 Mixed Forest 2 0.03 0 0.00 4 0.40

52 Shrub/Scrub 9 0.14 8 0.25 0 0.00

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 487 7.31 219 6.98 2 0.25

81 Pasture/Hay 4 0.06 26 0.83 4 0.50

82 Cultivated Crops 637 9.55 157 4.99 159 17.76

90 Woody Wetlands 2,513 37.71 1,259 40.12 446 49.94


Subtotal – Urban 1,632 24.5 646 20.6 93 10.4

Subtotal – Agriculture 3,150 47.3 1,415 45.1 605 67.7

Subtotal - Forest 1,882 28.2 1,076 34.3 196 21.9

Total 6,665 100 3,138 100 893 100



A-10


Landuse

Impaired Watershed (08010208____) or Waterbody Drainage Area (DA)

Richland Creek 072_ DA (in HUC-12 0509)

Richland Creek 073_ DA (in HUC-12 0802)


11 Open Water 0 0.00 0 0.00


22 Developed, Low Intensity 212 3.97 428 3.49




41 Deciduous Forest 0 0.00 0 0.00

42 Evergreen Forest 1,988 37.21 300 2.45

43 Mixed Forest 80 1.50 0 0.00

52 Shrub/Scrub 120 2.25 9 0.07

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 837 15.67 131 1.07

81 Pasture/Hay 17 0.31 0 0.00

82 Cultivated Crops 664 12.43 288 2.35

90 Woody Wetlands 1,283 24.01 9,902 80.77

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 83 1.56 826 6.74

Subtotal – Urban 243 4.54 747 6.09


Subtotal - Forest 3,152 59.0 1,324 10.8

Total 5,343 100 12,259 100



A-11


Landuse

Impaired Watershed (08010208____) or Waterbody Drainage Area (DA)

Smart Creek DA (in HUC-12 0401)

UT Hatchie River DA (in HUC-12 0802)


11 Open Water 0 0.00 0 0.00


22 Developed, Low Intensity 212 4.91 256 3.57




41 Deciduous Forest 0 0.00 0 0.00

42 Evergreen Forest 425 9.86 795 11.06

43 Mixed Forest 78 1.82 0 0.00

52 Shrub/Scrub 27 0.62 6 0.08

71 Grassland/Herbaceous 434 10.07 199 2.77

81 Pasture/Hay 6 0.13 6 0.08

82 Cultivated Crops 832 19.31 237 3.30

90 Woody Wetlands 2,060 47.81 5,397 75.13

95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 87 2.02 199 2.77

Subtotal – Urban 338 7.84 318 4.43


Subtotal - Forest 1,079 25.1 1,231 17.1

Total 4,309 100 7,184 100


11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page B-1 of B-23

B-1

APPENDIX B

Water Quality Monitoring Data

for the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds



B-2

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

Table B-1. TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data

Monitoring Station Date E. coli

[CFU/100mL]

ROSE001.3MC

8/6/07 1120

8/7/07 770

8/9/07 53

8/13/07 82

8/14/07 118

7/8/14 291

7/23/14 1290

8/14/14 259

9/4/14 265

10/9/14 279

12/4/14 226

1/6/15 432

2/5/15 355

3/12/15 63

4/7/15 369

5/7/15 218

6/4/15 292

BMUDD004.3HY

7/14/04 50.4

10/6/04 86.7

1/12/05 90.7

4/6/05 517.2

9/3/14 959

10/8/14 2220

11/5/14 187

12/3/14 145

1/7/15 627

2/4/15 663

3/4/15 298

4/15/15 4350

BMUDD007.0HY

7/14/04 96

9/7/04 107.6

9/14/04 191.8

9/21/04 57.3



B-3

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


[CFU/100mL]

BMUDD007.0HY (cont’d)

10/6/04 19.9

12/14/04 119.8

12/21/04 95.9

1/12/05 25.6

3/1/05 307.6

3/8/05 93.3

3/15/05 225.3

6/7/05 290.9

6/14/05 45

6/21/05 38.2

BMUDD014.1FA

7/6/04 105

8/4/04 683

9/7/04 127.4

10/5/04 81.6

11/3/04 1986.3

12/1/04 1986.3

1/12/05 161.6

2/2/05 59.4

3/2/05 82.6

3/30/05 344.8

5/3/05 178.9

6/8/05 90.6

7/7/09 135

8/4/09 365

9/1/09 133

10/6/09 >2420

11/9/09 26

12/3/09 2420

1/14/10 48

2/9/10 816

3/2/10 88

4/7/10 190

5/6/10 125

6/9/10 80



B-4



[CFU/100mL]

BMUDD014.1FA (cont’d)

7/8/14 186

8/7/14 130

9/3/14 345

10/8/14 648.8

11/6/14 >2419.6

12/4/14 488.4

1/6/15 1732.9

2/3/15 2419.6

3/18/15 124

4/24/15 345

5/12/15 156

6/1/15 866

BMUDD7.2T0.6HY

7/8/14 980

8/7/14 23

9/3/14 689

10/8/14 2419.6

11/6/14 2419.6

12/4/14 34.5

1/6/15 111.9

2/3/15 435.2

3/18/15 25.8

4/24/15 166

5/12/15 179

6/1/15 >2420

CAMP001.9LE

7/7/04 638

8/11/04 81.3

9/8/04 104.6

10/13/04 >2419.2

11/10/04 146

12/8/04 404

1/26/05 110

2/9/05 156.5

3/9/05 298.7



B-5



[CFU/100mL]

CAMP001.9LE (cont’d)

4/20/05 101.7

5/11/05 44.3

6/15/05 172.2

7/15/09 517

8/11/09 9804

9/9/09 >2420

10/14/09 7701

11/17/09 >2420

12/9/09 2420

1/12/10 31

2/16/10 96

3/9/10 326

4/13/10 109

5/12/10 210

6/16/10 461

7/16/14 396

10/15/14 648.8

11/19/14 65

12/10/14 384.6

1/14/15 686.7

2/24/15 248.9

3/25/15 470.5

4/16/15 261.3

5/29/15 126

6/9/15 205

8/14/15 77

8/21/15 649

8/24/15 291

8/28/15 18

9/4/15 51

CANE001.9TI

7/15/09 345

8/11/09 >2420

9/9/09 866

10/14/09 >2420



B-6



[CFU/100mL]

CANE001.9TI (cont’d)

11/17/09 172

12/9/09 1986

1/12/10 59

2/16/10 160

3/9/10 272

4/13/10 579

5/12/10 517

6/16/10 108

7/16/14 36

8/14/14 138

9/9/14 179

10/15/14 1046.2

11/19/14 27.9

12/10/14 209.8

1/14/15 187.2

2/24/15 160.7

3/25/15 146.7

4/16/15 488.4

5/29/15 135

6/9/15 >2420

8/14/15 205

8/21/15 687

8/24/15 236

8/28/15 53

9/4/15 62

2/26/16 461

3/4/16 352

3/8/16 290

CANE012.5LE

8/6/09 >2420

11/4/09 41

2/4/10 488

5/20/10 46

7/1/14 129

8/5/14 63

9/2/14 480



B-7



[CFU/100mL]

CANE012.5LE (cont’d)

10/7/14 813

11/4/14 85

12/2/14 134

1/6/15 160

2/3/15 1310

3/26/15 135

4/1/15 121

5/5/15 30

6/2/15 241

CANE017.4LE

8/6/09 1986

11/4/09 58

2/4/10 201

5/20/10 124

9/2/14 20

10/7/14 6490

11/4/14 84

12/2/14 836

1/6/15 538

2/3/15 689

3/26/15 20

4/1/15 637

5/5/15 10

6/2/15 173

CARTE002.8HY

7/14/09 >2420

8/4/09 285

9/8/09 1

9/9/09 >2420

9/15/09 >2420

9/17/09 3076

9/22/09 573

10/13/09 105

11/2/09 >2420

12/1/09 >2420

1/12/10 303

2/11/10 2



B-8



[CFU/100mL]

CARTE002.8HY (cont’d)

3/1/10 14

3/15/10 199

3/16/10 575

3/18/10 167

3/23/10 116

4/13/10 1986

5/18/10 488

6/1/10 179

7/2/14 365

8/27/14 135

9/3/14 8660

10/8/14 426

11/5/14 644

12/3/14 10

1/7/15 122

2/4/15 118

3/4/15 961

4/15/15 4110

5/6/15 120

6/3/15 52

CATRO003.1FA

7/6/04 >2419.2

11/3/04 2419.2

12/1/04 1553.1

1/12/05 80.5

2/2/05 8164

3/2/05 156

3/30/05 167.8

5/3/05 613.1

6/8/05 272.3

8/4/09 387

10/6/09 >2420

11/9/09 2420

12/3/09 6490

1/14/10 >2420

2/9/10 1071



B-9



[CFU/100mL]

CATRO003.1FA (cont’d)

3/2/10 816

4/7/10 2420

5/6/10 93

9/3/14 770

10/8/14 >2149.6

11/6/14 >2419.6

1/6/15 >2419.6

2/3/15 >2419.6

3/18/15 166.5

4/24/15 450

5/12/15 >2420

6/1/15 430

CSPRI002.3LE

7/7/04 12997

8/11/04 325.5

9/8/04 145.5

10/13/04 261.3

11/10/04 387.3

12/8/04 960

1/26/05 318

2/9/05 275.5

3/9/05 686.7

4/20/05 435.2

5/11/05 201.4

6/15/05 290.9

7/15/09 687

8/6/09 1414

8/11/09 3076

8/13/09 387

8/31/09 17

9/3/09 28

9/9/09 55

10/14/09 >2420

11/17/09 179

12/9/09 1986



B-10



[CFU/100mL]

CSPRI002.3LE (cont’d)

1/12/10 96

2/16/10 179

2/17/10 197

2/24/10 111

3/2/10 179

3/3/10 104

3/9/10 517

4/13/10 411

5/12/10 99

6/16/10 108

7/16/14 547

8/14/14 57

9/9/14 84

10/15/14 344.8

11/19/14 17.1

12/10/14 314.4

1/14/15 1413.6

3/25/15 151.5

4/16/15 1986.3

5/29/15 579

6/9/15 326

8/14/15 201

8/21/15 1010

8/24/15 194

8/28/15 96

9/4/15 10

FLAT001.8TI

10/20/04 2419.2

11/17/04 235.9

1/19/05 156.5

2/22/05 140.6

3/16/05 275.5

4/5/05 166.4

5/25/05 58.4

6/22/05 235.9



B-11



[CFU/100mL]

FLAT001.8TI (cont’d)

11/19/09 178

12/16/09 210

1/19/10 411

2/23/10 112

3/16/10 261

4/21/10 128

5/26/10 5172

6/23/10 147

8/20/14 225

9/18/14 2420

10/21/14 39.9

11/25/14 298.7

12/17/14 2419.6

1/21/15 73.8

2/25/15 105.4

5/27/15 210

6/24/15 99

HATCH40.7T2.6LE

7/7/04 7270

8/11/04 166.4

9/8/04 2419.2

10/13/04 63

11/10/04 52

12/8/04 1467

1/26/05 171

2/9/05 248.1

3/9/05 547.5

4/20/05 31

5/11/05 201.4

6/15/05 101.4

7/15/09 411

8/11/09 426

9/9/09 64

10/14/09 >2420

11/17/09 77

12/9/09 >2420



B-12



[CFU/100mL]

HATCH40.7T2.6LE (cont’d)

1/12/10 26

2/16/10 980

3/9/10 260

4/13/10 167

5/12/10 75

6/16/10 86

7/16/14 222

8/14/14 50

9/9/14 548

10/15/14 410.6

11/19/14 20.6

12/10/14 101.7

1/14/15 488.4

2/24/15 172.5

4/16/15 >2419.6

5/29/15 206

6/9/15 140

8/14/15 461

8/21/15 770

8/24/15 104

8/28/15 133

9/4/15 13

2/26/16 >2420

3/4/16 428

3/8/16 84

HATCH48.0T1.2LE

7/7/04 146

9/8/04 31.7

10/13/04 88.4

11/10/04 613.1

12/8/04 1130

1/26/05 51.2

2/9/05 238.2

3/9/05 461.1

4/20/05 77.6

5/11/05 191.8

6/15/05 248.9



B-13



[CFU/100mL]

HATCH48.0T1.2LE (cont’d)

7/15/09 138

8/11/09 866

9/9/09 >2420

10/14/09 12033

11/17/09 86

12/9/09 2420

1/12/10 43

2/16/10 157

3/9/10 192

4/13/10 173

5/12/10 6

6/16/10 32

7/16/14 456

8/14/14 50

9/9/14 23

10/15/14 613.1

11/19/14 34.1

12/10/14 238.2

1/14/15 920.8

2/24/15 133.4

4/16/15 1986.3

5/29/15 109

8/14/15 326

8/21/15 326

8/24/15 579

8/28/15 75

9/4/15 42

HICKO001.7HR

7/14/04 261.3

1/12/05 84.2

4/6/05 1986.3

7/14/09 411

8/4/09 1733

9/8/09 >2420

9/9/09 1203



B-14



[CFU/100mL]

HICKO001.7HR (cont’d)

9/15/09 >2420

9/17/09 1989

9/22/09 980

10/13/09 56

11/2/09 184

12/1/09 1203

1/12/10 31

2/11/10 41

3/1/10 29

3/15/10 73

3/16/10 35

3/18/10 127

3/23/10 137

4/13/10 108

5/18/10 461

6/1/10 48

HYDE001.0LE

7/21/09 39

8/13/09 104

9/15/09 >2420

10/20/09 72

11/18/09 71

12/8/09 579

1/21/10 3255

2/11/10 62

3/9/10 830

4/20/10 25

5/13/10 20

6/8/10 162

7/1/14 70.3

8/5/14 41

9/2/14 97

10/7/14 >24196

11/4/14 5790

12/2/14 24200



B-15



[CFU/100mL]

HYDE001.0LE (cont’d)

1/6/15 199

2/3/15 860

3/26/15 309

4/1/15 432

5/5/15 504

6/2/15 428

HYDE002.7LE

7/2/07 649

7/5/07 46

7/9/07 22

7/10/07 62

7/11/07 291

HYDE1T0.3LE

7/21/09 187

8/13/09 >2420

9/15/09 >2420

10/20/09 579

11/18/09 461

12/8/09 1986

1/21/10 1120

2/11/10 104

3/9/10 1733

4/20/10 70

5/13/10 345

6/8/10 291

MATHI004.6TI

7/21/04 39.9

8/18/04 133.3

9/29/04 50.4

10/20/04 1732.9

11/17/04 172.3

12/29/04 6488

1/19/05 196.8

2/22/05 1203.3

3/16/05 325.5

4/5/05 225.4

5/25/05 116.2

6/22/05 61.3



B-16



[CFU/100mL]

MATHI004.6TI (cont’d)

7/21/09 548

8/18/09 326

9/15/09 >2420

10/28/09 3654

11/19/09 82

12/16/09 206

1/19/10 248

2/23/10 276

3/16/10 461

4/21/10 228

5/26/10 2481

6/23/10 210

7/22/14 261

8/20/14 344

9/18/14 980

10/21/14 154.1

11/25/14 >2149.6

12/17/14 290.9

1/21/15 31.8

2/25/15 118.7

3/26/15 344.8

4/22/15 816

5/27/15 206

6/24/15 727

MYRON001.8TI

7/15/09 345

8/11/09 8664

9/9/09 162

10/14/09 2420

11/17/09 1203

12/9/09 921

1/12/10 160

2/16/10 435

3/9/10 435

4/13/10 308

5/12/10 613

6/16/10 185



B-17



[CFU/100mL]

MYRON001.8TI (cont’d)

7/16/14 344

8/14/14 921

9/9/14 921

10/15/14 1553.1

11/19/14 816.4

12/10/14 1046.2

1/14/15 1299.7

MYRON002.2TI

5/27/15 110

5/29/15 79

6/9/15 210

MYRON1.7T0.6TI

7/15/09 91

8/11/09 >2420

9/9/09 219

10/14/09 2420

11/17/09 921

12/9/09 1733

1/12/10 249

2/16/10 38

3/9/10 921

4/13/10 161

5/12/10 548

6/16/10 179

7/16/14 198

8/14/14 2420

9/9/14 727

10/15/14 1203.3

11/19/14 517.2

12/10/14 547.5

1/14/15 648.8

2/24/15 501.2

3/25/15 727

4/16/15 >2419.6

5/29/15 1733

6/9/15 1733



B-18



[CFU/100mL]

ONELS1.1T0.2LE

11/18/09 >2420

12/8/09 >2420

3/9/10 1553

ONELS1.1T0.6LE

1/21/10 794

4/20/10 >2420

5/13/10 1414

7/1/14 517

8/5/14 >24196

9/2/14 2050

10/7/14 13000

11/4/14 120

1/6/15 74

2/3/15 228

3/26/15 6130

4/1/15 7700

5/5/15 1270

6/2/15 24200

RICHL001.7HY

7/9/14 >2419.6

8/14/14 529

9/4/14 1616

10/9/14 250

11/6/14 1780

12/4/14 74

2/5/15 158

3/12/15 121

4/7/15 450

5/7/15 432

6/4/15 145

RICHL001.8TI

7/21/04 201.4

8/18/04 287.3

9/29/04 1413.6

10/20/04 1119

11/17/04 191

12/29/04 365.4



B-19



[CFU/100mL]

RICHL001.8TI (cont’d)

1/19/05 78.5

2/22/05 1986.3

3/16/05 272.3

4/5/05 224.7

5/25/05 17.1

6/22/05 435.2

7/21/09 345

8/18/09 649

9/15/09 >2420

10/28/09 2046

11/19/09 26

12/16/09 31

1/19/10 548

2/23/10 150

3/16/10 194

4/21/10 172

5/26/10 908

6/23/10 50

8/20/14 108

11/25/14 114.5

1/21/15 16

5/27/15 816

6/24/15 102

SMART001.0FA

7/6/04 248.1

11/3/04 1986.3

12/1/04 1986.3

1/12/05 142.1

2/2/05 109.5

3/2/05 14.6

3/30/05 95.9

5/3/05 228.2

6/8/05 547.5

7/7/09 228

8/4/09 299

9/1/09 5



B-20



[CFU/100mL]

SMART001.0FA (cont’d)

10/6/09 >2420

11/9/09 35

12/3/09 2420

1/14/10 18

2/9/10 816

3/2/10 45

4/7/10 73

5/6/10 144

6/9/10 727

7/8/14 2420

9/3/14 397

10/8/14 613.1

11/6/14 >2419.6

12/4/14 46.4

1/6/15 307.6

2/3/15 1299.7

3/18/15 82

4/24/15 488

5/12/15 179

6/1/15 2068

SUGAR001.5HY

7/13/04 129.6

10/5/04 344.8

1/11/05 191.8

4/5/05 56.5

7/14/09 >2420

8/4/09 613

9/8/09 133

9/9/09 66

9/15/09 >24220

9/17/09 11199

9/22/09 573

10/13/09 461

11/2/09 >2420

12/1/09 >2420



B-21



[CFU/100mL]

SUGAR001.5HY (cont’d)

1/12/10 20

2/11/10 222

3/1/10 67

3/15/10 199

3/16/10 72

3/18/10 82

3/23/10 1733

4/13/10 160

5/18/10 308

6/1/10 104

7/2/14 166

8/27/14 20

9/3/14 9800

10/8/14 1610

11/5/14 305

12/3/14 52

1/7/15 63

2/4/15 959

3/4/15 862

4/15/15 3080

5/6/15 109

6/3/15 257

TOWN000.1TI

7/21/04 34.5

8/18/04 18.7

10/20/04 >2419.2

11/17/04 94

12/29/04 613.1

1/26/05 14.6

3/16/05 191.8

4/5/05 61.3

6/22/05 29.8



B-22



[CFU/100mL]

TOWN000.1TI (cont’d)

8/6/09 649

8/13/09 99

8/18/09 43

8/31/09 40

9/3/09 69

9/15/09 >2420

10/28/09 6131

11/19/09 53

12/16/09 131

1/19/10 687

2/10/10 81

2/17/10 49

2/23/10 96

2/24/10 36

3/3/10 16

3/16/10 79

4/21/10 18

5/26/10 179

6/23/10 20

TOWN002.3TI

7/21/04 201.4

8/18/04 52

9/29/04 25.9

10/20/04 1986.3

11/17/04 34.1

12/29/04 1732.9

1/19/05 129.6

2/22/05 >2419.2

3/16/05 211

4/5/05 88

5/25/05 33.6

6/22/05 27.8

7/21/09 727

8/6/09 1553

8/13/09 291

8/18/09 162

8/31/09 387



B-23



[CFU/100mL]

TOWN002.3TI (cont’d)

9/3/09 46

9/15/09 >2420

10/28/09 4106

11/19/09 150

12/16/09 119

1/19/10 687

2/10/10 313

2/17/10 91

2/23/10 411

2/24/10 98

3/3/10 135

3/16/10 130

4/21/10 548

5/26/10 3654

6/23/10 46

7/22/14 95

8/20/14 770

9/18/14 326

10/21/14 52.1

11/25/14 275.5

12/17/14 261.3

1/21/15 35.5

2/25/15 143.9

3/26/15 119.8

4/22/15 362

5/27/15 130

6/24/15 76

8/14/15 219

8/21/15 167

8/24/15 70

8/28/15 150

9/4/15 52

2/26/16 548

3/4/16 1382

3/8/16 79


11/26/18 - Proposed Final Page C-1 of C-10

C-1

APPENDIX C

Load Duration Curve Development

and

Determination of Daily Loading



C-2

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

TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS

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

C.1 Development of TMDLs

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

C.1.1 Development of Flow Duration Curves

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

Flow duration curves for impaired waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds were derived from WinHSPF hydrologic simulations based on parameters derived from calibrations at several USGS gaging stations (see Appendix D for details of calibration). For example, a flow duration curve for Hyde Creek at mile 1.0 was constructed using simulated daily mean flow for the period from 1/1/09 through 12/31/17 (RM 1.0 corresponds to the location of monitoring station HYDE001.0LE). This flow duration curve is shown in Figure C-1 and represents the cumulative distribution of daily discharges arranged to show percentage of time specific flows were exceeded during the period of record (the highest daily mean flow during this period is exceeded 0% of the time and the lowest daily mean flow is equaled or exceeded 100% of the time). Flow duration curves for other impaired waterbodies were derived using a similar procedure.



https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/tn/nwis/dv/?referred_module=sw



C-3

C.1.2 Development of Load Duration Curves and TMDLs

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

E. coli load duration curves for impaired waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds were developed from the flow duration curves developed in Section C.1.1, E. coli target concentrations, and available water quality monitoring data. Load duration curves and required load reductions were developed using the following procedure (Hyde Creek at RM 1.0 is shown as an example):

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

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

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

where: Target Load = TMDL (CFU/day)

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

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

2. Daily loads were calculated for each of the water quality samples collected at monitoring station HYDE001.0LE (ref.: Table B-1) by multiplying the sample concentration by the daily mean flow for the sampling date and the required unit conversion factor. HYDE001.0LE was selected for LDC analysis because it has a longer period of record and multiple exceedances of the target concentration.

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

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

Example – 9/15/09 sampling event

Modeled Flow = 23.1 cfs Concentration = 2420 CFU/100 mL Daily Load = 1.37x1012 CFU/day



C-4

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

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

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

TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS Expanding the terms:

TMDL = [WLAs]WWTP + [WLAs]MS4 + [WLAs]CAFO +

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



C-5

LA terms include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Target – MOS = 438 CFU/100 ml

Instantaneous Maximum (other):

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


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




C-6

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

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

where: DA = waterbody drainage area (acres)

Using Hyde Creek as an example:

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

TMDL = 2.30x1010 x Q

MOSHyde Creek = TMDL x 0.10 = 2.30x109 x Q

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

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

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

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

WLA[MS4]Hyde Creek = LAHyde Creek

= {TMDL – MOS – WLA[WWTPs]d} / DA

= {(2.30x1010 x Q) – (2.30x109 x Q) – (2.30x1010 x qd)} / (6,376)

WLA[MS4]Hyde Creek = LAHyde Creek

= [3.247x106 x Q] – [3.61x106 x qd]

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

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



C-7

Figure C-1. Flow Duration Curve for Hyde Creek at RM 1.0



C-8

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)

Flow Duration Interval

Hyde CreekLoad Duration Curve (2009-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: HYDE001.0LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure C-2. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hyde Creek at RM 1.0



C-9

Table C-1. TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs for Impaired Waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds

(HUCs 08010207 and 08010208)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c,f



– (1.668 x 106 x qd) (1.502 x 106 x Q)

– (1.668 x 106 x qd)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c,f


0401


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

(6.866 x 106 x Q) – (7.629 x 106 x qd)

(6.866 x 106 x Q) – (7.629 x 106 x qd)


– (5.338 x 106 x qd) (4.804 x 106 x Q)

– (5.338 x 106 x qd)


– (4.894 x 105 x qd) (4.404 x 105 x Q)

– (4.894 x 105 x qd)

0402


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

(3.243 x 106 x Q) – (3.603 x 106 x qd)

(3.243 x 106 x Q) – (3.603 x 106 x qd)


– (3.433 x 105 x qd) (3.090 x 105 x Q)

– (3.433 x 105 x qd)


– (2.725 x 106 x qd) (2.453 x 106 x Q)

– (2.725 x 106 x qd)


– (2.180 x 106 x qd) (1.962 x 106 x Q)

– (2.180 x 106 x qd)


– (2.083 x 106 x qd) (1.875 x 106 x Q)

– (2.083 x 106 x qd)


– (4.305 x 106 x qd) (3.874 x 106 x Q)

– (4.305 x 106 x qd)

0601


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

(6.597 x 106 x Q) – (7.330 x 106 x qd)

(6.597 x 106 x Q) – (7.330 x 106 x qd)


– (5.270 x 106 x qd) (4.743 x 106 x Q)

– (5.270 x 106 x qd)

0701


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

(2.318 x 107 x Q) – (2.575 x 107 x qd)

(2.318 x 107 x Q) – (2.575 x 107 x qd)


– (3.451 x 106 x qd) (3.106 x 106 x Q)

– (3.451 x 106 x qd)


– (1.996 x 106 x qd) (1.797 x 106 x Q)

– (1.996 x 106 x qd)


– (3.430 x 105 x qd) (3.087 x 105 x Q)

– (3.430 x 105 x qd)



C-10

Table C-1 (cont’d). TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs for Impaired Waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds

(HUCs 08010207 and 08010208)



WLAs LAs c

WWTPs a MS4s b,c,f



– (3.353 x 106 x qd) (3.017 x 106 x Q)

– (3.353 x 106 x qd)

0802


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

(2.881 x 106 x Q) – (3.202 x 106 x qd)

(2.881 x 106 x Q) – (3.202 x 106 x qd)


– (2.218 x 106 x qd) (1.996 x 106 x Q)

– (2.218 x 106 x qd)


– (1.876 x 106 x qd) (1.689 x 106 x Q)

– (1.876 x 106 x qd)


– (1.679 x 106 x qd) (1.511 x 106 x Q)

– (1.679 x 106 x qd)

0804


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

(4.091 x 106 x Q) – (4.545 x 106 x qd)

(3.196 x 106 x Q) – (3.551 x 106 x qd)


– (3.551 x 106 x qd) (3.196 x 106 x Q)

– (3.551 x 106 x qd)


– (1.938 x 106 x qd) (1.744 x 106 x Q)

– (1.938 x 106 x qd)




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


11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page D-1 of D-6

D-1

APPENDIX D

Hydrodynamic Modeling Methodology



D-2

D.1 Model Selection

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

D.2 Model Set Up

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

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

Weather data from multiple meteorological stations were available for the time period from January 1970 through December 2017. Meteorological data for a selected 11- to 16-year period were used for all simulations. The first year of this period was used for model stabilization with simulation data from the subsequent 10- to 15-year period used for TMDL analysis. The length of the simulation varied depending on the period of record of the monitoring data for the selected waterbody. Occasionally, a period of less than 10 years was used for calibration because either (1) the gage did not have a full 10-year period of continuous record; or, (2) unusual weather events (e.g. drought or flood) precluded calibration for a 10-year period.

D.3 Model Calibration

Hydrologic calibration of the watershed model involves comparison of simulated streamflow to historic streamflow data from USGS stream gaging stations for the same period of time. Two USGS continuous record stations located near the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds were selected as the basis of the hydrology calibration. Station 07024200 is located on Crooked Creek near Huntingdon, TN, within Level IV ecoregion 65e and has a drainage area of 26.5 square miles. Meteorological data from the station at Greenfield was used for hydrologic calibration at Crooked Creek. Station 07030240 is located on the Loosahatchie River near Arlington, TN, within Level IV ecoregion 74b and has a drainage area of 262 square miles. Meteorological data from the station at Memphis Airport was used for hydrologic calibration at the Loosahatchie River.

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

The results of the hydrologic calibration for Crooked Creek near Huntingdon, TN, (USGS Station 07024200) are shown in Table D-1 and Figures D-1 and D-2. The results of the hydrologic calibration for Loosahatchie River near Arlington, TN, (USGS Station 07030240) are shown in Table D-2 and Figures D-3 and D-4.



D-3

Table D-1. Hydrologic Calibration Summary: Crooked Creek near Huntingdon, TN

(USGS 07024200)

Simulation Name: USGS07024200 Simulation Period:

Watershed Area (ac): 16495.00

Period for Flow Analysis

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

End Date: 09/30/16 Usually 1%-5%

Total Simulated In-stream Flow : 266.18 Total Observed In-stream Flow : 278.98

Total of highest 10% flow s: 172.91 Total of Observed highest 10% flow s: 185.26

Total of low est 50% flow s: 26.52 Total of Observed Low est 50% flow s: 29.25

Simulated Summer Flow Volume ( months 7-9): 23.24 Observed Summer Flow Volume (7-9): 30.15

Simulated Fall Flow Volume (months 10-12): 61.42 Observed Fall Flow Volume (10-12): 58.48

Simulated Winter Flow Volume (months 1-3): 90.14 Observed Winter Flow Volume (1-3): 96.85

Simulated Spring Flow Volume (months 4-6): 91.37 Observed Spring Flow Volume (4-6): 93.50

Total Simulated Storm Volume: 253.90 Total Observed Storm Volume: 237.18

Simulated Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 20.16 Observed Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 19.63

Errors (Simulated-Observed) Recommended Criteria Last run

Error in total volume: -4.59 10

Error in 50% low est f low s: -9.32 10

Error in 10% highest f low s: -6.67 15

Seasonal volume error - Summer: -22.90 30

Seasonal volume error - Fall: 5.04 30

Seasonal volume error - Winter: -6.92 30

Seasonal volume error - Spring: -2.28 30

Error in storm volumes: 7.05 20

Error in summer storm volumes: 2.66 50



D-4

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FLO

W (

CF

S)

Percent of time indicated flows are equaled or exceeded

Observed flow (10/1/2007 to 9/30/2016) Modeled flow over the same period

Figure D-1. Hydrologic Calibration: Crooked Creek, USGS 07024200 (WYs 2008-2016)

0

30

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

10/1/2007 10/1/2008 10/1/2009 10/1/2010 10/1/2011 10/1/2012 10/1/2013 10/1/2014 10/1/2015 10/1/2016

Tota

l R

ain

fall

(in)

Flo

w (

cfs

)

Time

Total Rainfall (in) Observed Flow Modeled Flow

Figure D-2. 9-Year Hydrologic Comparison: Crooked Creek, USGS 07024200



D-5

Table D-2. Hydrologic Calibration Summary: Loosahatchie River near Arlington, TN

(USGS 07030240)

Simulation Name: USGS07030240 Simulation Period:

Watershed Area (ac): 166530.00

Period for Flow Analysis

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

End Date: 09/30/14 Usually 1%-5%

Total Simulated In-stream Flow : 174.40 Total Observed In-stream Flow : 159.56

Total of highest 10% flow s: 118.56 Total of Observed highest 10% flow s: 103.56

Total of low est 50% flow s: 18.22 Total of Observed Low est 50% flow s: 18.71

Simulated Summer Flow Volume ( months 7-9): 22.21 Observed Summer Flow Volume (7-9): 22.90

Simulated Fall Flow Volume (months 10-12): 37.02 Observed Fall Flow Volume (10-12): 25.90

Simulated Winter Flow Volume (months 1-3): 51.31 Observed Winter Flow Volume (1-3): 45.76

Simulated Spring Flow Volume (months 4-6): 63.86 Observed Spring Flow Volume (4-6): 65.00

Total Simulated Storm Volume: 153.62 Total Observed Storm Volume: 128.59

Simulated Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 16.97 Observed Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 15.09

Errors (Simulated-Observed) Recommended Criteria Last run

Error in total volume: 9.30 10

Error in 50% low est f low s: -2.60 10

Error in 10% highest f low s: 14.48 15

Seasonal volume error - Summer: -3.03 30

*** Seasonal volume error - Fall: 42.92 30

Seasonal volume error - Winter: 12.14 30

Seasonal volume error - Spring: -1.76 30

Error in storm volumes: 19.47 20

Error in summer storm volumes: 12.42 50



D-6

Figure D-3. Hydrologic Calibration: Loosahatchie River, USGS 07030240 (WYs 2008-2014)

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FLO

W (

CF

S)

Percent of time indicated flows are equaled or exceeded

Observed flow (10/1/2007 to 9/30/2014) Modeled flow over the same period

Figure D-4. 7-Year Hydrologic Comparison: Loosahatchie River, USGS 07030240

0

3

6

9

12

150

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

24000

28000

32000

36000

40000

10/1/2007 10/1/2008 10/1/2009 10/1/2010 10/1/2011 10/1/2012 10/1/2013 10/1/2014

Tota

l R

ain

fall

(in)

Flo

w (

cfs

)

Time

Total Rainfall (in) Observed Flow Modeled Flow


11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page E-1 of E-74

E-1

APPENDIX E

Source Area Implementation Strategy



E-2

All impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas have been classified according to their respective source area types in Section 9.5, Table 11. The implementation for each will be prioritized according to the source area classifications and the information provided in Sections 9.5.1 and 9.5.2, with examples provided in Sections E.1 and E.2, below. For all impaired waterbodies, the determination of source area types serves to identify the predominant sources contributing to impairment (i.e., those that should be targeted initially for implementation). It is not intended to imply that sources in other landuse areas are not contributors to impairment and/or to grant an exemption from addressing other source area contributions with implementation strategies and corresponding load reduction. For mixed use areas, implementation will address both urban and agricultural areas, at a minimum.

E.1 Urban Source Areas

For impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds or drainage areas identified as predominantly urban source area types, Hyde Creek provides an example for implementation analysis. Hyde Creek was selected because of its high proportion (24.5 percent) of urban area. The Hyde Creek subwatershed lies in HUC-12 080102080701. The drainage area for Hyde Creek at mile 1.0 is approximately 6,376 acres (10.0 mi2); therefore, four flow zones were used for the duration curve analysis (see Sect. 9.1.1).

The flow duration curve for Hyde Creek at mile 1.0 was constructed using simulated daily mean flow for the period from 1/1/09 through 12/31/17 (mile 1.0 corresponds to the location of monitoring station HYDE001.0LE). This flow duration curve is shown in Figure E-1 and represents the cumulative distribution of daily discharges arranged to show percentage of time specific flows were exceeded during the period of record. Flow duration curves for other impaired waterbodies were developed using a similar procedure (Appendix C).

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

Results indicate the implementation strategy for the Hyde Creek subwatershed will require BMPs targeting primarily non-point sources. Table E-1 presents an allocation table of LDC analysis statistics for Hyde Creek E. coli and implementation strategies for each source category covering the entire range of flow and entire period of record (Stiles, 2003). The implementation strategies listed in Table E-1 are a subset of the categories of BMPs and implementation strategies available for application to the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds for reduction of E. coli loading and mitigation of water quality impairment from urban sources. Targeted implementation strategies and LDC analysis statistics for other impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds and drainage areas identified as predominantly urban source area types can be derived from the information and results available in Tables 12 and E-3.

LDCs for other impaired waterbodies were developed using a similar procedure (Appendix C) and are shown in Figures E-5 through E-29. The LDCs shown in Figures E-5 through E-29 (and the associated Tables E-4 through E-36) are based on the most recent sampling period (2012-2017). Table E-37 presents LDC analyses (TMDLs, WLAs, LAs, and MOS) and PLRGs for all flow zones for all E. coli impaired waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds.



E-3

Figure E-1. Flow Duration Curve for Hyde Creek at RM 1.0



E-4

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)



Site: HYDE001.0LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-2. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hyde Creek at RM 1.0



E-5

Table E-1. Load Duration Curve Summary for Urban Area Implementation Strategies

(Example: Hyde Creek subwatershed, part of HUC-12 080102080701) (4 Flow Zones).

Hydrologic Condition High Moist* Mid-range Low

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

Hyde Creek

(080102080701)

RM 1.0

Number of Samples 1 15 8 0

% > 941 CFU/100 mL1

100.0 26.7 0 NA

Load Reduction2

71.1% 84.3% NR NA

TMDL (CFU/day) 1.731E+12 2.124E+11 1.110E+11 7.050E+10

Margin of Safety (CFU/day)

1.731E+11 2.124E+10 1.110E+10 7.050E+09

WLA (WWTPs) (CFU/day)

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

WLAs (MS4s) (CFU/day/acre)3 (2.443E+08)

-(3.61+6xqd)

(2.998E+07)

-(3.61+6xqd)

(1.567E+07)

-(3.61E+6xqd)

(9.951E+06)

-(3.61E+6xqd)

LA (CFU/day/acre)3 (2.443E+08)

-(3.61+6xqd)

(2.998E+07)

-(3.61+6xqd)

(1.567E+07)

-(3.61E+6xqd)

(9.951E+06)

-(3.61E+6xqd)

Implementation Strategies4

Municipal NPDES L M H

Stormwater Management H H

SSO Mitigation H M L

Collection System Repair H M

Septic System Repair L M M

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

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

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

to this grouping.



E-6

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

The Flat Creek drainage area, part of HUC-12 080102080802, lies in a rural area of Tipton county. The drainage area for Flat Creek is approximately 10,935 acres (16.2 mi2); therefore, four flow zones were used for the duration curve analysis (see Sect. 9.1.1). The landuse for Flat Creek is approximately 85.8% agricultural, with the remainder split between forest (7.1%) and urban (7.2%).

The flow duration curve for Flat Creek at mile 1.8 was constructed using simulated daily mean flow for the period from 1/1/04 through 12/31/17 (mile 1.8 corresponds to the location of monitoring station FLAT001.8TI). This flow duration curve is shown in Figure E-3 and represents the cumulative distribution of daily discharges arranged to show percentage of time specific flows were exceeded during the period of record. Flow duration curves for other impaired waterbodies were developed using a similar procedure (see Appendix C).

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

Results indicate the implementation strategy for the Flat Creek drainage area will require BMPs targeting primarily nonpoint sources. Table E-2 presents an allocation table of LDC analysis statistics for Flat Creek E. coli and targeted implementation strategies for each source category covering the entire range of flow and entire period of record (Stiles, 2003). The implementation strategies listed in Table E-2 are a subset of the categories of BMPs and implementation strategies available for application to the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds for reduction of E. coli loading and mitigation of water quality impairment from agricultural sources. Targeted implementation strategies and LDC analysis statistics for other impaired waterbodies and corresponding HUC-12 subwatersheds and drainage areas identified as predominantly agricultural source area types can be derived from the information and results available in Tables 13 and E-3.

LDCs for other impaired waterbodies were developed using a similar procedure (Appendix C) and are shown in Figures E-5 through E-29. The LDCs shown in Figures E-5 through E-29 (and the associated Tables E-4 through E-36) are based on the most recent sampling period (2012-2017). Table E-37 presents LDC analyses (TMDLs, WLAs, LAs, and MOS) and PLRGs for all flow zones for all E. coli impaired waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds.



E-7

Figure E-3. Flow Duration Curve for Flat Creek at RM 1.8



E-8

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Flat CreekLoad Duration Curve (2004-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: FLAT001.8TI

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-4. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Flat Creek at RM 1.8



E-9

Table E-2. Load Duration Curve Summary for Agricultural Area Implementation Strategies

(Example: Flat Creek subwatershed, in HUC-12 080102080802) (4 Flow Zones)

Hydrologic Condition High Moist* Mid-range Low

% Time Flow Exceeded 0-10 10-40 40-60 70-100

Flat Creek

(080102080802)

RM 1.8

Number of Samples 3 14 5 3

% > 941 CFU/100 mL1

0 28.6 0 0

Load Reduction2

NR 66.3% NR NR

TMDL (CFU/day) 2.123E+12 3.182E+11 1.694E+11 1.123E+11

Margin of Safety (CFU/day)

2.123E+11 3.182E+10 1.694E+10 1.123E+10

WLA (WWTPs) (CFU/day)

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

WLAs (MS4s) (CFU/day/acre)3 (2.144E+08)

-(1.35E+6xqd)

(3.213E+07)

-(1.35E+6xqd)

(1.711E+07)

-(1.35E+6xqd)

(1.134E+07)

-(1.35E+6xqd)

LA (CFU/day/acre)3 (2.144E+08)

-(1.35E+6xqd)

(3.213E+07)

-(1.35E+6xqd)

(1.711E+07)

-(1.35E+6xqd)

(1.134E+06)

-(1.35E+6xqd)

Implementation Strategies4

Pasture and Hayland Management H H M L

Livestock Exclusion M H

Fencing M H

Manure Management H H M L

Riparian Buffers L M H M

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

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

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

according to this grouping.



E-10

E.3 Forestry Source Areas

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

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

Zones

In order to facilitate implementation, corresponding percent reductions in loading required to decrease existing, in-stream E. coli loads to TMDL target levels (percent load reduction goals) were calculated. As a result, critical flow zones were determined and subsequently verified by secondary analyses. The following example is from Hyde Creek at mile 1.0 (Figure C-2).

1. For each flow zone, the mean of the percent exceedances of individual loads relative to their respective target maximum loads (at their respective PDFEs) was calculated. Individual loads with no required load reduction are not included in the mean calculation. The following illustrates the calculation of the PLRG for the low flow zone for the most recent sampling cycle:

Date Sample Conc. (CFU/100 mL)

Flow (cfs) Existing Load

(CFU/Day) Target (TMDL)

Load (CFU/Day) Percent

Reduction

2/3/15 860 23.2 4.87E+11 5.33E+11

6/2/15 428 21.6 2.26E+11 4.98E+11

7/1/14 70.3 17.0 2.93E+10 3.92E+11

1/6/15 199 11.0 5.34E+10 2.52E+11

10/7/14 24,196 7.76 4.60E+12 1.79E+11 96.1

4/1/15 432 7.59 8.02E+10 1.75E+11

3/26/15 309 7.50 5.67E+10 1.73E+11

12/2/14 24,200 6.68 3.96E+12 1.54E+11 96.1

5/5/15 504 6.57 8.10E+10 1.51E+11

11/4/14 5,790 6.45 9.13E+11 1.48E+11 83.7

Percent Load Reduction Goal (PLRG) for Moist Flow Conditions (Mean) 92.0

2. The PLRGs calculated for each of the flow zones, not including the high flow zone (see Section

9.1.1), were compared and the PLRG of the greatest magnitude indicates the critical flow zone for prioritizing implementation actions for Hyde Creek at mile 1.0.

Example – High Flow Zone Percent Load Reduction Goal = NA

Moist Conditions Flow Zone Percent Load Reduction Goal = 92.0 Mid-Range Flow Zone Percent Load Reduction Goal = NR Low Flow Zone Percent Load Reduction Goal = NA

Therefore, based on the most recent sampling cycle, the critical flow zone for prioritization of Hyde Creek implementation activities is the Moist Flow Zone and subsequently actions primarily targeting nonpoint source controls.

3. Due to the frequently limited availability of sampling data and subsequent randomness of distribution of samples by flow zone, the determination of the critical flow zone by PLRG calculation often has a high degree of uncertainty. Therefore, to verify or supplement the determination of the critical flow zones, the percent of samples that exceed the E. coli TMDL target levels during the most recent sampling cycle, for each flow zone, was calculated. For Hyde Creek at mile 1.0:



E-11

Flow Zone Total # of

Samples

# of Samples > 941

CFU/100 mL

% Samples > 941

CFU/100 mL

High 0 0 0

Moist 10 3 30.0

Mid-Range 2 0 0

Low 0 0 0

Based on the number of exceedances in each flow zone, the critical flow zone for prioritization of Hyde Creek implementation activities is identified as the Moist Condition flow zone. Whenever the two methods of determining critical flow zone produce different results, both flow zones should be targeted for implementation activities.

4. Lastly, emphasis (priority) should be placed on recent data versus historical data. If data from

multiple watershed cycles are available, analysis of recent data (current cycle) versus the entire period of record, or previous cycles, may identify different critical areas for implementation

Zone Past 3 Cycles (2004-15) Most Recent Cycle (2014-15)

# of samples % Red. % Exceed. # of samples % Red. % Exceed.

High 1 71.0 100.0 0 NA 0

Moist 15 84.3 26.7 10 92.0 30.0

Mid-Range 8 NR 0 2 NR 0

Low 0 NA 0 0 NA 0

The critical flow zone for prioritization of implementation activities for Hyde Creek was identified as the Moist Flow zone. Whenever a different flow zone, or zones, is identified, the flow zone(s) from analysis of recent data would have emphasis for implementation prioritization.

PLRGs and critical flow zones of the other impaired waterbodies were derived in a similar manner and are shown in Tables E-3 and E-37. Note that most stations have no data in the Dry and Mid-Range flow zones. The determination of critical flow zone can only be accurate when all flow zones are represented in the data.

Geometric Mean Data

For cases where five or more samples were collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days, the geometric mean E. coli concentration was determined and compared to the target geometric mean E. coli concentration of 126 CFU/100 mL. If the sample geometric mean exceeded the target geometric mean concentration, the reduction required to reduce the sample geometric mean value to the target geometric mean concentration was calculated.

Example: Monitoring Location = UT to Hatchie River Mile 1.2 Sampling Period = 8/14/15 – 9/4/15 Geometric Mean Concentration = 180.9 CFU/100 mL Target Concentration = 126 CFU/100 mL Reduction to Target = 30.4%



E-12

For impaired waterbodies where monitoring data are limited to geometric mean data only, results can be utilized for general indication of relative impairment and, when plotted on a load duration curve, may indicate areas for prioritization of implementation efforts. For impaired waterbodies where both types of data are available, geometric mean data may be utilized to supplement the results of the individual flow zone calculations.

Table E-3. Summary of Critical Conditions for Impaired Waterbodies in the

Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds

Waterbody ID HUC-

12 Moist

Mid-Range

Dry Low Monitoring Station Drainage Area (ac)

Rose Creek 0702 ROSE001.3 11,774


0401

BMUDD014.1FA 24,142

Catron Creek CATRO003.1FA 2,585

Smart Creek SMART001.0 4,309

Big Muddy Creek (007_1000) 0402

BMUDD004.3HY 62,212

UT to Big Muddy Creek BMUDD7.2T0.6HY 6,383

Hickory Creek 0504 HICKO001.7HR 7,625

Sugar Creek 0506 SUGAR001.5HY 10,167

Carter Creek 0508 CARTE002.8HY 3,124

Richland Creek (072_1000) 0509 RICHL001.7HY 4,634

Cane Branch 0601

CANE001.9TI 3,101

Myron Creek MYRON1.7T0.6TI 1,333


0701

CANE017.4LE 9,254

Hyde Creek HYDE001.0LE 6,376

Old Channel Nelson Creek ONELS1.1T0.6LE 893

Cane Creek (034_2000) * 0702 CANE012.5LE 28,744

Camp Creek 0801 CAMP001.9LE 5,496

Flat Creek

0802

FLAT001.8TI 8,912

Richland Creek (073_1000) RICHL001.8TIFA 11,483

UT to Hatchie River (001_0400) HATCH48.0T1.2LE 7,030

Town Creek 0803 TOWN002.3TI 12,535

Alston Creek 0804

HATCH40.7T1.6LE 6,199

Copper Springs Branch CSPRI002.3LE 4,163

Mathis Creek 0805 MATHI004.6TI 7,360 *Critical condition could not be determined. Waterbody had no exceedances, or exceedances only in the high flow zone, for both the current monitoring cycle and the previous cycle.



E-13

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Rose CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: ROSE001.3MC

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Sample Exceedance

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-5. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Rose Creek – RM 1.3



E-14

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Alston CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2016 Monitoring Data)

Site: HATCH40.7T1.6LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Sample Exceedance

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-6. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Alston Creek – RM 1.6



E-15

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Big Muddy CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: BMUDD004.3HY

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Dry Conditions

Figure E-7. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Big Muddy Creek (007_1000) – RM 4.3



E-16

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Big Muddy CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: BMUDD014.1FA

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-8. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Big Muddy Creek (007_2000) – RM 14.1



E-17

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


UT to Big Muddy CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: BMUDD7.2T0.6HY

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-9. E. coli Load Duration Curve for UT to Big Muddy Creek – RM 0.6



E-18

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Camp CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: CAMP001.9LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-10. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Camp Creek – RM 1.9



E-19

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Cane BranchLoad Duration Curve (2014-2016 Monitoring Data)

Site: CANE001.9LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Sample Exceedances

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-11. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Cane Branch – RM 1.9



E-20

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Cane CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: CANE012.5LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Sample Exceedance

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Dry Conditions

Figure E-12. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Cane Creek (034_2000) – RM 12.5



E-21

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Cane CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: CANE017.4LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Sample Exceedance

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-13. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Cane Creek (034_3000) – RM 17.4



E-22

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Carter CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: CARTE002.8HY

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-14. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Carter Creek – RM 2.8



E-23

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Catron CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: CATRO003.1FA

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-15. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Catron Creek – RM 3.1



E-24

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Copper Springs BranchLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: CSPRI002.3LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-16. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Copper Springs Branch – RM 2.3



E-25

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Flat CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: FLAT001.8TI

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-17. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Flat Creek – RM 1.8



E-26

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Hickory CreekLoad Duration Curve (2004-2010 Monitoring Data)

Site: HICKO001.7HR

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-18. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hickory Creek – RM 1.7



E-27

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)



Site: HYDE001.0LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-19. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Hyde Creek – RM 1.0



E-28

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Mathis CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: MATHI004.6TI

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-20. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Mathis Creek – RM 4.6



E-29

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Myron CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: MYRON001.8TI

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-21. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Myron Creek – RM 1.8



E-30

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


UT to Myron CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: MYRON1.7T0.6TI

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-22. E. coli Load Duration Curve for UT to Myron Creek – RM 0.6



E-31

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Old Channel of Nelson CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: ONELS1.1T0.6LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-23. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Old Channel of Nelson Creek – RM 0.6



E-32

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Richland CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: RICHL001.7HY

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-24. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Richland Creek (072_1000) – RM 1.7



E-33

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Richland CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: RICHL001.8TI

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-25. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Richland Creek (073_2000) – RM 1.8



E-34

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Smart CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: SMART001.0FA

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-26. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Smart Creek – RM 1.0



E-35

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

1.0E+15

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Sugar CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: SUGAR001.5HY

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Mean (exc)

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-27. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Sugar Creek – RM 1.5



E-36

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


Town CreekLoad Duration Curve (2014-2016 Monitoring Data)

Site: TOWN002.3TI

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Sample Exceedance

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-28. E. coli Load Duration Curve for Town Creek – RM 2.3



E-37

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.0E+12

1.0E+13

1.0E+14

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

E. co

li (

#/d

ay)


UT Hatchie RiverLoad Duration Curve (2014-2015 Monitoring Data)

Site: HATCH48.0T1.2LE

941 counts/100 mL

126 counts/100 mL

Observed WQ Data

Apr-Oct

>50% SF

Sample Exceedance

High Flow

Moist Conditions

Mid-range Flows

Low Flows

Figure E-29. E. coli Load Duration Curve for UT to Hatchie River (001_0400) – RM 1.2



E-38

Table E-4. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Rose Creek – RM 1.3

Sample Date

Flow Regime

Flow PDFE Concentration Load % Reduction to Achieve TMDL *

Average of Load Reductions

% Reduction to TMDL – MOS

[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

4/7/15 High Flows

301 2.4% 369 2.72E+12 NR

NR NR 3/12/15 57.3 9.6% 63 8.83E+10 NR

2/5/15

Moist Conditions

30.4 18.0% 355 2.64E+11 NR

27.1 34.3

6/4/15 25.4 22.6% 292 1.81E+11 NR

1/6/15 24.7 23.6% 432 2.61E+11 NR

12/4/14 20.5 30.1% 226 1.13E+11 NR

5/7/15 19.5 32.1% 218 1.04E+11 NR

7/23/14 17.7 36.0% 1290 5.58E+11 27.1

10/9/14 16.6 39.2% 279 1.13E+11 NR

8/14/14 Mid-Range

Flows

16.0 40.9% 259 1.01E+11 NR

NR NR

7/8/14 13.3 51.5% 291 9.46E+10 NR

9/4/14 13.0 52.6% 265 8.44E+10 NR Note: NR = No reduction required

* % Reduction based on Single Sample Maximum Criterion (941 CFU/100 mL)



E-39

Table E-5. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Alston Creek – RM 1.6

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

4/16/15

High Flow Conditions

173 2.0% 2419.6 1.02E+13 61.1

61.1 65.0

11/19/14 36.9 7.2% 20.6 1.86E+10 NR

2/24/15 29.3 8.3% 172.5 1.24E+11 NR

2/26/16 23.8 9.6% 2420 1.41E+12 61.1

10/15/14

Moist Conditions

21.3 10.6% 410.6 2.14E+11 NR

NR NR

3/4/16 18.7 11.6% 428 1.95E+11 NR

8/21/15 15.4 13.9% 770 2.90E+11 NR

1/14/15 13.3 15.9% 488.4 1.59E+11 NR

7/16/14 13.1 16.2% 222 7.10E+10 NR

5/29/15 12.2 17.5% 206 6.13E+10 NR

12/10/14 11.1 19.7% 101.7 2.75E+10 NR

8/24/15 9.23 24.0% 104 2.35E+10 NR

9/9/14 8.18 28.1% 548 1.10E+11 NR

3/8/16 7.67 30.8% 84 1.58E+10 NR

8/14/15 6.96 35.1% 461 7.85E+10 NR

6/9/15 6.91 35.5% 140 2.37E+10 NR

8/28/15 Mid-Range

Flows

6.36 40.1% 133 2.07E+10 NR

NR NR

8/14/14 6.22 41.4% 50 7.61E+09 NR





E-40

Table E-6. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Alston Creek– RM 1.6

Sample Date Flow PDFE Concentration

Geometric Mean

Calculated Reduction

to Target GM (126 CFU/100 mL)

to Target - MOS (113 CFU/100 mL)

[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

8/14/15 6.96 35.1% 461 8/21/15 15.4 13.9% 770 8/24/15 9.23 24.0% 104 8/28/15 6.36 40.1% 133

9/4/15 5.84 46.1% 13 144.9 13.0 22.0 Note: Geometric Mean is calculated whenever 5 or more samples are collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days.



E-41

Table E-7. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Big Muddy Creek – RM 4.3

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

10/8/14

Moist Conditions

266 10.4% 2220 1.44E+13 57.6

46.0 51.4

4/15/15 206 12.6% 4350 2.20E+13 78.4

3/4/15 205 12.7% 298 1.49E+12 NR

11/5/14 133 17.4% 187 6.08E+11 NR

2/4/15 123 18.5% 663 1.99E+12 NR

1/7/15 83.9 26.3% 627 1.29E+12 NR

6/3/15 81.0 27.4% 295 5.85E+11 NR

12/3/14 80.5 27.6% 145 2.85E+11 NR

9/3/14 69.1 33.6% 959 1.62E+12 1.9





E-42

Table E-8. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Big Muddy Creek – RM 14.1

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

11/6/14 High Flows

402 4.0% 2419.6 2.38E+13 61.1

61.1 65.0 10/8/14 112 9.9% 648.8 1.77E+12 NR

6/1/15

Moist Conditions

83.1 12.0% 866 1.76E+12 NR

53.4 58.1

2/3/15 67.5 14.1% 2419.6 3.99E+12 61.1

3/18/15 38.6 22.3% 124 1.17E+11 NR

1/6/15 37.5 23.0% 1732.9 1.59E+12 45.7

12/4/14 33.8 25.4% 488.4 4.04E+11 NR

5/12/15 30.2 28.8% 156 1.15E+11 NR

7/8/14 28.1 31.6% 186 1.28E+11 NR

4/24/15 27.9 32.1% 345 2.35E+11 NR

9/3/14 27.2 33.1% 345 2.29E+11 NR





E-43

Table E-9. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – UT to Big Muddy Creek – RM 0.6

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

11/6/14 High Flows 95.4 3.9% 2419.6 5.65E+12 61.1 61.1 65.0

2/3/15

Moist Conditions

21.6 11.4% 435.2 2.30E+11 NR

42.1 47.9

10/8/14 19.2 12.7% 2419.6 1.13E+12 61.1

6/1/15 13.4 18.1% 2420 7.92E+11 61.1

3/18/15 11.9 20.6% 25.8 7.50E+09 NR

1/6/15 11.5 21.5% 111.9 3.14E+10 NR

5/12/15 9.46 26.9% 179 4.14E+10 NR

12/4/14 8.55 30.6% 34.5 7.22E+09 NR

7/8/14 8.28 32.0% 980 1.99E+11 4.0

4/24/15 8.26 32.1% 166 3.35E+10 NR

9/3/14 7.94 33.9% 689 1.34E+11 NR





E-44

Table E-10. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Camp Creek – RM 1.9

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

4/16/15

High Flows

149 1.9% 261.3 9.53E+11 NR

NR NR

11/19/14 30.2 7.6% 65 4.80E+10 NR

2/24/15 25.6 8.4% 248.9 1.56E+11 NR

10/15/14

Moist Conditions

19.3 10.1% 648.8 3.07E+11 NR

NR NR

7/16/14 13.9 13.3% 396 1.35E+11 NR

8/21/15 13.9 13.4% 649 2.20E+11 NR

5/29/15 12.7 14.6% 126 3.92E+10 NR

1/14/15 12.0 15.3% 686.7 2.01E+11 NR

12/10/14 9.29 19.7% 384.6 8.74E+10 NR

8/24/15 8.66 21.1% 291 6.17E+10 NR

3/25/15 7.30 25.5% 470.5 8.41E+10 NR

8/14/15 6.06 32.9% 77 1.14E+10 NR

6/9/15 5.94 33.7% 205 2.98E+10 NR

8/28/15 5.47 37.6% 18 2.41E+09 NR

9/4/15 Mid-Range

Flows 4.96 44.3% 51 6.19E+09 NR NR NR Note: NR = No reduction required


Table E-11. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Camp Creek– RM 1.9


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

8/14/15 6.06 32.9% 77 8/21/15 13.9 13.4% 649 8/24/15 8.66 21.1% 291 8/28/15 5.47 37.6% 18

9/4/15 4.96 44.3% 51 105.9 NR NR Note: Geometric Mean is calculated whenever 5 or more samples are collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days.



E-45

Table E-12. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Cane Branch – RM 1.9

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

2/26/16

Moist Conditions

10.4 10.2% 461 1.18E+11 NR

10.1 19.0

1/14/15 5.45 17.7% 187.2 2.50E+10 NR

10/15/14 4.89 19.9% 1046.2 1.25E+11 10.1

4/16/15 4.45 21.7% 488.4 5.31E+10 NR

2/24/15 4.25 22.7% 160.7 1.67E+10 NR

7/16/14 4.17 23.2% 36 3.67E+09 NR

3/4/16 3.51 28.2% 352 3.02E+10 NR

12/10/14 2.94 35.3% 209.8 1.51E+10 NR

3/25/15 2.90 36.0% 146.7 1.04E+10 NR

3/8/16

Mid-Range Flows

2.44 46.9% 290 1.73E+10 NR

NR NR

8/24/15 2.25 53.8% 236 1.30E+10 NR

8/14/14 2.10 60.5% 138 7.08E+09 NR

11/19/14 2.02 64.4% 27.9 1.38E+09 NR

5/29/15 2.00 65.7% 135 6.60E+09 NR

9/9/14

Low Flows

1.89 70.9% 179 8.26E+09 NR

61.1 65.0

6/9/15 1.78 75.0% 2420 1.05E+11 61.1

8/21/15 1.66 80.1% 687 2.79E+10 NR

8/28/15 1.52 87.7% 53 1.97E+09 NR

8/14/15 1.49 89.7% 205 7.47E+09 NR





E-46

Table E-13. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Cane Branch– RM 1.9


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

8/14/15 1.49 89.7% 205 8/21/15 1.66 80.1% 687 8/24/15 2.25 53.8% 236 8/28/15 1.52 87.7% 53




E-47

Table E-14. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Cane Creek – RM 12.5

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

2/3/15 High Flows 111 9.8% 1310 3.55E+12 28.2 28.2 35.3

6/2/15

Moist Conditions

104 10.4% 241 6.12E+11 NR

NR NR

7/1/14 88.6 12.1% 129 2.80E+11 NR

1/6/15 54.7 18.9% 160 2.14E+11 NR

4/1/15 38.5 28.6% 121 1.14E+11 NR

3/26/15 38.0 29.1% 135 1.26E+11 NR

10/7/14 34.1 33.9% 813 6.78E+11 NR

5/5/15 33.6 34.3% 30 2.47E+10 NR

11/4/14 33.2 35.0% 85 6.90E+10 NR

12/2/14 32.9 35.4% 134 1.08E+11 NR

9/2/14 31.5 37.2% 480 3.70E+11 NR

8/5/14 Mid-Range





E-48

Table E-15. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Cane Creek – RM 17.4

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

2/3/15 High Flows 33.5 9.6% 689 5.65E+11 NR NR NR

6/2/15

Moist Conditions

30.1 10.4% 173 1.27E+11 NR

85.5 86.9

1/6/15 16.9 17.2% 538 2.23E+11 NR

4/1/15 11.9 25.5% 637 1.85E+11 NR

3/26/15 11.7 25.9% 20 5.74E+09 NR

5/5/15 10.3 31.4% 10 2.52E+09 NR

11/4/14 10.1 32.2% 84 2.07E+10 NR

12/2/14 9.86 33.0% 836 2.02E+11 NR

9/2/14 9.39 35.1% 20 4.60E+09 NR

10/7/14 9.37 35.2% 6490 1.49E+12 85.5 Note: NR = No reduction required




E-49

Table E-16. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Carter Creek – RM 2.8

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

9/3/14 High Flows

164 0.9% 8660 3.47E+13 89.1

83.1 84.8 4/15/15 11.4 9.7% 4110 1.14E+12 771

2/4/15

Moist Conditions

7.35 13.7% 118 2.12E+10 NR

2.1 11.9

3/4/15 6.71 14.9% 961 1.58E+11 2.1

6/3/15 6.69 15.0% 52 8.51E+09 NR

10/8/14 6.37 15.6% 426 6.64E+10 NR

7/2/14 5.75 17.4% 365 5.13E+10 NR

1/7/15 4.63 22.0% 122 1.38E+10 NR

11/5/14 4.52 22.7% 644 7.12E+10 NR

5/6/15 3.39 33.2% 120 9.97E+09 NR

12/3/14 3.31 34.3% 10 8.11E+08 NR

8/27/14 Low Flows 2.75 45.6% 135 9.08E+09 NR NR NR Note: NR = No reduction required




E-50

Table E-17. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Catron Creek – RM 3.1

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

11/6/14 High Flows 40.6 4.0% 2419.6 2.40E+12 61.1 61.1 65.0

2/3/15

Moist Conditions

8.37 11.6% 2419.6 4.95E+11 61.1

59.9 63.9

10/8/14 8.14 11.8% 2149.6 4.28E+11 56.2

6/1/15 5.49 17.0% 430 5.78E+10 NR

3/18/15 4.62 20.4% 166.5 1.88E+10 NR

1/6/15 4.35 21.5% 2419.6 2.58E+11 61.1

5/12/15 3.39 29.1% 2420 2.01E+11 61.1

4/24/15 3.24 30.9% 450 3.57E+10 NR





E-51

Table E-18. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Copper Springs Branch – RM 2.3

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

4/16/15 High Flows

151 1.5% 1986.3 7.35E+12 52.6

52.6 57.4 11/19/14 25.4 7.0% 17.1 1.06E+10 NR

10/15/14

Moist Conditions

13.4 10.4% 344.8 1.13E+11 NR

20.1 28.1

8/21/15 9.51 13.7% 1010 2.35E+11 6.8

1/14/15 8.22 15.6% 1413.6 2.84E+11 33.4

5/29/15 7.44 17.5% 579 1.05E+11 NR

7/16/14 7.31 17.8% 547 9.78E+10 NR

12/10/14 6.84 19.0% 314.4 5.26E+10 NR

8/24/15 5.65 23.4% 194 2.68E+10 NR

3/25/15 5.45 24.5% 151.5 2.02E+10 NR

9/9/14 5.26 25.7% 84 1.08E+10 NR

6/9/15 4.44 32.4% 326 3.54E+10 NR

8/14/15 4.42 32.7% 201 2.17E+10 NR

8/28/15 4.05 36.9% 96 9.51E+09 NR

8/14/14 3.94 38.8% 57 5.49E+09 NR





E-52

Table E-19. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Copper Springs Branch– RM 2.3


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

8/14/15 4.42 32.7% 201 8/21/15 9.51 13.7% 1010 8/24/15 5.65 23.4% 194 8/28/15 4.05 36.9% 96




E-53

Table E-20. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Flat Creek – RM 1.8

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

11/25/14

Moist Conditions

28.8 12.5% 298.7 2.11E+11 NR

61.1 65.0

2/25/15 23.6 14.8% 105.4 6.10E+10 NR

5/27/15 21.3 16.6% 210 1.09E+11 NR

12/17/14 17.2 20.4% 2419.6 1.02E+12 61.1

9/18/14 11.9 30.3% 2420 7.02E+11 61.1

10/21/14 11.5 31.6% 39.9 1.12E+10 NR

1/21/15 10.8 35.0% 73.8 1.94E+10 NR

8/20/14 10.7 35.3% 225 5.88E+10 NR





E-54

Table E-21. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Hickory Creek – RM 1.7

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

12/1/09

High Flows

114 4.4% 1203 3.35E+12 21.8

37.2 43.5

5/18/10 108 4.7% 461 1.21E+12 NR

6/1/10 98.4 5.0% 48 1.15E+11 NR

9/17/09 62.9 7.1% 1989 3.06E+12 52.7

3/23/10 40.2 9.8% 137 1.35E+11 NR

2/11/10

Moist Conditions

33.3 11.2% 41 3.34E+10 NR

36.9 43.2

11/2/09 28.6 12.7% 184 1.29E+11 NR

9/15/09 24.0 14.8% 2420 1.42E+12 61.1

9/22/09 22.8 15.8% 980 5.48E+11 4.0

7/14/09 22.1 16.3% 411 2.23E+11 NR

1/12/05 18.7 20.3% 84.2 3.84E+10 NR

3/15/10 16.6 23.2% 73 2.97E+10 NR

3/16/10 13.8 29.1% 35 1.18E+10 NR

3/1/10 11.9 35.2% 29 8.46E+09 NR

3/18/10 11.5 36.9% 127 3.56E+10 NR

8/4/09 11.1 38.4% 1733 4.72E+11 45.7

4/13/10

Mid-Range Flows

10.8 40.2% 108 2.84E+10 NR

45.2 50.7

10/13/09 10.0 44.4% 56 1.37E+10 NR

9/8/09 9.83 45.3% 2420 5.82E+11 61.1

4/6/05 9.40 48.0% 1986.3 4.57E+11 52.6

1/12/10 9.34 48.5% 31 7.09E+09 NR

9/9/09 6.63 62.9% 1203 1.95E+11 21.8

7/14/04 5.41 69.3% 261.3 3.46E+10 NR Note: NR = No reduction required




E-55

Table E-22. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Hickory Creek– RM 1.7


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

9/8/09 9.83 45.3% 2420 9/9/09 6.63 62.9% 1203 9/15/09 24.0 14.8% 2420 9/17/09 62.9 7.1% 1989

9/22/09 22.8 15.8% 980 1689 92.5 93.3

3/1/10 11.9 35.2% 29

3/15/10 16.6 23.2% 73

3/16/10 13.8 29.1% 35

3/18/10 11.5 36.9% 127

3/23/10 40.2 9.8% 137 66.4 Note: Geometric Mean is calculated whenever 5 or more samples are collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days.



E-56

Table E-23. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Hyde Creek – RM 1.0

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

2/3/15

Moist Conditions

23.2 11.2% 860 4.87E+11 NR

92.0 92.8

6/2/15 21.6 11.7% 428 2.26E+11 NR

7/1/14 17.0 14.3% 70.3 2.93E+10 NR

1/6/15 11.0 21.2% 199 5.34E+10 NR

10/7/14 7.76 30.0% 24196 4.60E+12 96.1

4/1/15 7.59 30.9% 432 8.02E+10 NR

3/26/15 7.50 31.4% 309 5.67E+10 NR

12/2/14 6.68 36.2% 24200 3.96E+12 96.1

5/5/15 6.57 36.8% 504 8.10E+10 NR

11/4/14 6.45 37.5% 5790 9.13E+11 83.7

9/2/14 Mid-Range Flows

6.03 40.1% 97 1.43E+10 NR

NR NR 8/5/14 5.02 52.0% 41 5.04E+09 NR Note: NR = No reduction required




E-57

Table E-24. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Mathis Creek – RM 4.6

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

2/25/15

Moist Conditions

6.99 34.8% 118.7 2.03E+10 NR

NR NR

4/22/15 6.64 38.0% 816 1.33E+11 NR

3/26/15 6.53 38.9% 344.8 5.51E+10 NR

1/21/15 6.47 39.3% 31.8 5.03E+09 NR

11/25/14

Mid-Range Flows

6.29 41.1% 2149.6 3.31E+11 56.2

30.1 37.1

7/22/14 5.36 55.2% 261 3.42E+10 NR

9/18/14 5.21 58.0% 980 1.25E+11 4.0

5/27/15 5.08 60.3% 206 2.56E+10 NR

12/17/14 5.02 61.6% 290.9 3.58E+10 NR

10/21/14 4.83 65.8% 154.1 1.82E+10 NR





E-58

Table E-25. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Myron Creek – RM 1.8

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

1/14/15

Moist Conditions

4.95 17.8% 1299.7 1.57E+11 27.6

25.7 33.1

10/15/14 4.26 20.5% 1553.1 1.62E+11 39.4

7/16/14 3.51 25.2% 344 2.95E+10 NR

12/10/14 2.57 35.6% 1046.2 6.59E+10 10.1


1.81 61.0% 921 4.07E+10 NR

NR 8.0 11/19/14 1.75 64.8% 816.4 3.49E+10 NR



Table E-26. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Myron Creek – RM 2.2

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]


0.939 60.8% 110 2.53E+09 NR

NR NR 5/29/15 0.903 65.3% 79 1.74E+09 NR





E-59

Table E-27. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – UT to Myron Creek – RM 0.6

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

4/16/15

Moist Conditions

2.73 17.0% 2419.6 1.61E+11 61.1

41.5 47.3

1/14/15 2.50 18.3% 648.8 3.97E+10 NR

2/24/15 2.26 19.9% 501.2 2.77E+10 NR

10/15/14 2.18 20.7% 1203.3 6.41E+10 21.8

7/16/14 1.59 27.8% 198 7.69E+09 NR

12/10/14 1.22 36.9% 547.5 1.63E+10 NR

3/25/15 1.20 37.8% 727 2.13E+10 NR

8/14/14 Mid-Range

Flows

0.863 61.1% 2420 5.11E+10 61.1

53.4 58.1

11/19/14 0.830 65.3% 517.2 1.05E+10 NR

5/29/15 0.825 66.1% 1733 3.50E+10 45.7

9/9/14 Low Flows

0.776 71.3% 727 1.38E+10 NR

45.7 51.5 6/9/15 0.737 74.9% 1733 3.12E+10 45.7 Note: NR = No reduction required




E-60

Table E-28. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Old Channel of Nelson Creek – RM 0.6

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

2/3/15

Moist Conditions

3.14 10.1% 228 1.75E+10 NR

73.6 76.2

6/2/15 2.76 11.0% 24200 1.63E+12 96.1

7/1/14 2.41 12.3% 517 3.05E+10 NR

1/6/15 1.59 18.4% 74 2.87E+09 NR

4/1/15 1.12 27.5% 7700 2.10E+11 87.8

3/26/15 1.10 28.0% 6130 1.66E+11 84.6

5/5/15 0.970 33.5% 1270 3.01E+10 25.9

10/7/14 0.966 33.6% 13000 3.07E+11 92.8

11/4/14 0.945 34.4% 120 2.78E+09 NR

9/2/14 0.883 37.6% 2050 4.43E+10 54.1

8/5/14 Mid-Range

Flows 0.743 49.6% 24196 4.40E+11 96.1 96.1 96.5 Note: NR = No reduction required




E-61

Table E-29. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Richland Creek (072_1000) – RM 1.7

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

4/7/15

High Flows

83.6 3.0% 450 9.20E+11 NR

54.1 58.7

7/9/14 65.5 3.8% 2419.6 3.88E+12 61.1

11/6/14 43.4 5.3% 1780 1.89E+12 47.1

3/12/15 21.2 8.6% 121 6.28E+10 NR

9/4/14

Moist Conditions

15.9 10.6% 1616 6.27E+11 41.8

41.8 47.9

2/5/15 8.44 17.7% 158 3.26E+10 NR

6/4/15 7.62 19.8% 145 2.70E+10 NR

10/9/14 5.26 30.6% 250 3.22E+10 NR

5/7/15 5.07 32.0% 432 5.36E+10 NR

12/4/14 4.95 32.9% 74 8.96E+09 NR



Table E-30. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Richland Creek (073_1000) – RM 1.8

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

11/25/14

Moist Conditions

39.3 11.9% 114.5 1.10E+11 NR

NR NR

5/27/15 30.2 15.9% 816 6.02E+11 NR

1/21/15 13.9 35.6% 16 5.43E+09 NR

8/20/14 13.8 35.9% 108 3.64E+10 NR





E-62

Table E-31. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Smart Creek – RM 1.0

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

11/6/14 High Flows 65.0 3.9% 2419.6 3.85E+12 61.1 61.1 65.0

2/3/15

Moist Conditions

15.4 11.2% 1299.7 4.89E+11 27.6

47.7 53.0

10/8/14 13.7 12.4% 613.1 2.05E+11 NR

6/1/15 8.98 18.6% 2068 4.54E+11 54.5

3/18/15 8.01 20.8% 82 1.61E+10 NR

1/6/15 7.49 22.1% 307.6 5.64E+10 NR

12/4/14 5.79 29.2% 46.4 6.58E+09 NR

5/12/15 5.65 30.0% 179 2.48E+10 NR

7/8/14 5.48 31.1% 2420 3.25E+11 61.1

4/24/15 5.42 31.9% 488 6.47E+10 NR





E-63

Table E-32. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Sugar Creek – RM 1.5

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

9/3/14 High Flows

444 1.0% 9800 1.07E+14 90.4

79.9 81.9 4/15/15 56.9 7.5% 3080 4.29E+12 69.4

10/8/14

Moist Conditions

26.7 13.6% 1610 1.05E+12 41.6

21.7 20.3

2/4/15 22.8 15.8% 959 5.35E+11 1.9

6/3/15 20.8 17.0% 257 1.31E+11 NR

3/4/15 20.2 17.7% 862 4.26E+11 NR

7/2/14 17.9 19.9% 166 7.28E+10 NR

1/7/15 13.7 25.7% 63 2.11E+10 NR

11/5/14 11.7 30.7% 305 8.72E+10 NR

12/3/14 9.93 37.1% 52 1.26E+10 NR

5/6/15 9.87 37.4% 109 2.63E+10 NR

8/27/14 Mid-Range





E-64

Table E-33. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – Town Creek – RM 2.3

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

2/26/16

Moist Conditions

51.2 10.4% 548 6.87E+11 NR

31.9 38.7

3/4/16 14.6 30.6% 1382 4.95E+11 31.9

8/21/15 13.8 32.5% 167 5.63E+10 NR

2/25/15 13.4 33.7% 143.9 4.71E+10 NR

11/25/14 12.8 35.4% 275.5 8.63E+10 NR

1/21/15 11.6 39.2% 35.5 1.01E+10 NR

8/24/15

Mid-Range Flows

11.4 40.1% 70 1.96E+10 NR

NR NR

4/22/15 11.1 41.9% 362 9.80E+10 NR

3/26/15 10.6 44.1% 119.8 3.11E+10 NR

3/8/16 9.62 50.4% 79 1.86E+10 NR

7/22/14 8.60 59.3% 95 2.00E+10 NR

12/17/14 8.47 60.8% 261.3 5.41E+10 NR

9/18/14 8.37 61.8% 326 6.67E+10 NR

5/27/15 8.14 64.0% 130 2.59E+10 NR

8/20/14 7.91 66.9% 770 1.49E+11 NR

10/21/14 7.76 68.7% 52.1 9.89E+09 NR

6/24/15

Low Flows

6.30 83.9% 76 1.17E+10 NR

NR NR

8/28/15 5.90 89.4% 150 2.16E+10 NR

8/14/15 5.74 91.2% 219 3.07E+10 NR





E-65

Table E-34. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – Town Creek– RM 2.3


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

8/14/15 5.74 91.2% 219 8/21/15 13.8 32.5% 167 8/24/15 11.4 40.1% 70 8/28/15 5.90 89.4% 150

9/4/15 5.48 93.5% 52 114.8 NR NR Note: Geometric Mean is calculated whenever 5 or more samples are collected over a period of not more than 30 consecutive days.



E-66

Table E-35. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Daily Loading – UT to Hatchie River – RM 1.2

Sample Date

Flow Regime




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/day] [%] [%] [%]

4/16/15

High Flows

197 1.9% 1986.3 9.58E+12 52.6

52.6 57.4

11/19/14 38.9 7.3% 34.1 3.25E+10 NR

2/24/15 32.0 8.2% 133.4 1.04E+11 NR

10/15/14

Moist Conditions

23.4 10.4% 613.1 3.51E+11 NR

NR 8.0

8/21/15 17.4 13.5% 326 1.39E+11 NR

7/16/14 15.8 14.7% 456 1.76E+11 NR

5/29/15 15.5 14.9% 109 4.14E+10 NR

1/14/15 15.1 15.3% 920.8 3.39E+11 NR

12/10/14 12.1 19.5% 238.2 7.04E+10 NR

8/24/15 11.0 21.5% 579 1.56E+11 NR

9/9/14 9.22 26.0% 23 5.19E+09 NR

8/14/15 7.69 32.6% 326 6.13E+10 NR

8/28/15 6.91 37.7% 75 1.27E+10 NR

8/14/14 6.76 39.0% 50 8.27E+09 NR

9/4/15 Mid-Range





E-67

Table E-36. Calculated Load Reduction Based on Geomean Data – UT to Hatchie River– RM 1.2


Geometric Mean




[cfs] [%] [CFU/100 ml] [CFU/100 ml] [%] [%]

8/14/15 7.69 32.6% 326 8/21/15 17.4 13.5% 326 8/24/15 11.0 21.5% 579 8/28/15 6.91 37.7% 75




E-68

Table E-37. Summary of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs by Flow Regime for Impaired Waterbodies in the


Waterbody Description

(08010207____)

Hydrologic Condition

Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range

Flow Range WWTPsc MS4sd,f

[%] [cfs] [cfs] [%] [CFU/d] [CFU/d] [CFU/d] [CFU/d/ac] [CFU/d/ac]

Rose Creek e High Flows 0-10 53.7 – 1004 155 NR 3.574E+12 3.574E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.732E+08) - (1.02E+6 x qd)

(2.732E+08) - (1.02E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 16.3 – 53.7 23.6 27.1 5.434E+11 5.434E+10 (4.154E+07)

- (1.02E+6 x qd) (4.154E+07)

- (1.02E+6 x qd)

035_0600 Mid-Range 40-70 7.81 – 16.3 12.3 NR 2.840E+11 2.840E+10 (2.171E+07)

- (1.02E+6 x qd) (2.171E+07)

- (1.02E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0702 Low Flows 70-100 0.416 – 7.81 4.10 NA 9.423E+10 9.423E+09 (7.203E+06)

- (1.02E+6 x qd) (7.203E+06)

- (1.02E+6 x qd)


(08010208____)

Big Muddy Creek e High Flows 0-10 109 – 2553 308 61.1 7.093E+12 7.093E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.644E+08) - (4.97E+5 x qd)

(2.644E+08) - (4.97E+5 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 22.5 – 109 34.3 53.4 7.894E+11 7.894E+10 (2.943E+07)

- (4.97E+5 x qd) (2.943E+07)

- (4.97E+5 x qd)

007_2000 Mid-Range 40-70 14.2 – 22.5 17.2 NA 3.956E+11 3.956E+10 (1.475E+07)

- (4.97E+5 x qd) (1.475E+07)

- (4.97E+5 x qd)


- (4.97E+5 x qd) (9.539E+06)

- (4.97E+5 x qd)

Catron Creek e High Flows 0-10 9.93 – 263 29.6 61.1 6.799E+11 6.799E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.367E+08) - (8.90E+6 x qd)

(2.367E+08) - (8.90E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 2.64 – 9.93 3.76 59.9 8.637E+10 8.637E+09 (3.007E+07)

- (8.90E+6 x qd) (3.007E+07)

- (8.90E+6 x qd)

007_0200 Mid-Range 40-70 1.72 – 2.64 2.06 NA 4.727E+10 4.727E+09 (1.646E+07)

- (8.90E+6 x qd) (1.646E+07)

- (8.90E+6 x qd)


- (8.90E+6 x qd) (1.101E+06)

- (8.90E+6 x qd)

Smart Creek e High Flows 0-10 17.3 – 421 46.9 61.1 1.078E+12 1.078E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.251E+08) - (5.34E+6 x qd)

(2.251E+08) - (5.34E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 4.52 – 17.3 6.50 47.7 1.494E+11 1.494E+10 (3.121E+07)

- (5.34E+6 x qd) (3.121E+07)

- (5.34E+6 x qd)

007_0300 Mid-Range 40-70 2.91 – 4.52 3.49 NA 8.018E+10 8.018E+09 (1.675E+07)

- (5.34E+6 x qd) (1.675E+07)

- (5.34E+6 x qd)


- (5.34E+6 x qd) (1.106E+05)

- (5.34E+6 x qd)



E-69

Table E-37. Summary of TMDLs, WLAs, & LAs by Flow Regime for Impaired Waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie

River Watersheds (HUCs 08010207 and 08010208) (cont’d)


(08010208____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



Big Muddy Creek High Flows 0-10 283 – 6166 740 NA 1.703E+13 1.703E+12

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.463E+08) - (3.70E+5 x qd)

(2.463E+08) - (3.70E+5 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 58.2 – 283 88.4 46.0 2.034E+12 2.034E+11 (2.943E+07)

- (3.70E+5 x qd) (2.943E+07)

- (3.70E+5 x qd)

007_1000 Mid-Range 40-60 41.2 – 58.2 47.9 NA 1.102E+12 1.102E+11 (1.595E+07)

- (3.70E+5 x qd) (1.595E+07)

- (3.70E+5 x qd)

Dry

Conditions 60-90 26.1 – 41.2 34.0 NA 7.826E+11 7.826E+10 (1.132E+07)

- (3.70E+5 x qd) (1.132E+07)

- (3.70E+5 x qd)


- (3.70E+5 x qd) (7.742E+06)

- (3.70E+5 x qd)

UT to Big Muddy Creek e High Flows 0-10 24.5 – 615 66.3 61.1 1.526E+12 1.526E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.151E+08) - (1.88E+6 x qd)

(2.151E+08) - (1.88E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 6.90 – 24..5 9.92 42.1 2.280E+11 2.280E+10 (3.215E+07)

- (1.88E+6 x qd) (3.215E+07)

- (1.88E+6 x qd)

007_0400 Mid-Range 40-70 4.39 – 6.90 5.25 NA 1.208E+11 1.208E+10 (1.702E+07)

- (1.88E+6 x qd) (1.702E+07)

- (1.88E+6 x qd)


- (1.88E+6 x qd) (1.131E+07)

- (1.88E+6 x qd)

Hickory Creek High Flows 0-10 39.1 – 634 98.1

92.5 b

2.256E+12 2.256E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.663E+08) - (1.57E+6 x qd)

(2.663E+08) - (1.57E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 10.8 – 39.1 15.7 3.617E+11 3.617E+10 (4.268E+07)

- (1.57E+6 x qd) (4.268E+07)

- (1.57E+6 x qd)

001_1800 Mid-Range 40-70 5.29 – 10.8 8.28 1.904E+11 1.904E+10 (2.247E+07)

- (1.57E+6 x qd) (2.247E+07)

- (1.57E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0504 Low Flows 70-100 0.390 – 5.29 2.83 6.514E+10 6.514E+09 (7.688E+06)

- (1.57E+6 x qd) (7.688E+06)

- (1.57E+6 x qd)

Sugar Creek e High Flows 0-10 38.9 – 830 104 79.9 2.397E+12 2.397E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.122E+08) - (1.18E+6 x qd)

(2.122E+08) - (1.18E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 9.28 – 38.9 14.0 21.7 3.213E+11 3.213E+10 (2.844E+07)

- (1.18E+6 x qd) (2.844E+07)

- (1.18E+6 x qd)

031_1000 Mid-Range 40-70 5.95 – 9.28 7.42 NR 1.707E+11 1.707E+10 (1.511E+07)

- (1.18E+6 x qd) (1.511E+07)

- (1.18E+6 x qd)


- (1.18E+6 x qd) (9.653E+06)

- (1.18E+6 x qd)



E-70




(08010208____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



Carter Creek e High Flows 0-10 10.7 – 270 33.5 83.1 7.710E+11 7.710E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.221E+08) - (7.36E+6 x qd)

(2.221E+08) - (7.36E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 2.97 – 10.7 4.20 2.1 9.469E+10 9.469E+09 (2.780E+07)

- (7.36E+6 x qd) (2.780E+07)

- (7.36E+6 x qd)

1866_1000 Mid-Range 40-70 2.00 – 2.97 2.46 NA 5.647E+10 5.647E+09 (1.627E+07)

- (7.36E+6 x qd) (1.627E+07)

- (7.36E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0508 Low Flows 70-100 0.750 – 2.00 1.61 NR 3.698E+10 3.698E+09 (1.066E+06)

- (7.36E+6 x qd) (1.066E+06)

- (7.36E+6 x qd)

Richland Creek e High Flows 0-10 16.7 – 392 46.2 54.1 1.063E+12 1.063E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.065E+08) - (4.96E+6x qd)

(2.065E+08) - (4.96E+6x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 4.33 – 16.7 6.03 41.8 1.386E+11 1.386E+10 (2.692E+07)

- (4.96E+6 x qd) (2.692E+07)

- (4.96E+6 x qd)

072_1000 Mid-Range 40-70 2.91 – 4.33 3.56 NA 8.181E+10 8.181E+09 (1.589E+07)

- (4.96E+6 x qd) (1.589E+07)

- (4.96E+6 x qd)


- (4.96E+6 x qd) (1.049E+06)

- (4.96E+6 x qd)

Myron Creek e High Flows 0-10 9.62 – 210 29.7 NA 6.838E+11 6.838E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.270E+08) - (4.43E+6 x qd)

(2.270E+08) - (4.43E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 2.36 – 9.62 3.54 25.7 8.140E+10 8.140E+09 (2.703E+07)

- (4.43E+6 x qd) (2.703E+07)

- (4.43E+6 x qd)

002_0500 Mid-Range 40-70 1.65 – 2.36 1.93 NR 4.444E+10 4.444E+09 (1.475E+07)

- (4.43E+6 x qd) (1.475E+07)

- (4.43E+6 x qd)


- (4.43E+6 x qd) (1.037E+06)

- (4.43E+6 x qd)

UT to Myron Creek e High Flows 0-10 5.08 – 113 15.7 NA 3.613E+11 3.613E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.440E+08) - (1.73E+7 x qd)

(2.440E+08)

- (1.73E+7 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 1.15 – 5.08 1.76 41.5 4.055E+10 4.055E+09 (2.739E+07)

- (1.73E+7 x qd)

(2.739E+07) - (1.73E+7 x qd)

002_0500 Mid-Range 40-70 0.789 – 1.15 0.927 53.4 2.132E+10 2.132E+09 (1.440E+07)

- (1.73E+7 x qd)

(1.440E+07) - (1.73E+7 x qd)

HUC-12: 0601 Low Flows 70-100 0.287 – 0.789 0.649 45.7 1.493E+10 1.493E+09 (1.008E+07)

- (1.73E+7 x qd )

(1.008E+07) - (1.73E+7 x qd

)



E-71




(08010208____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



Cane Branch e High Flows 0-10 10.7 – 223 33.2 NA 7.634E+11 7.634E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.216E+08) - (3.87E+6 x qd)

(2.216E+08)

- (3.87E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 2.69 – 10.7 3.91 10.1 8.982E+10 8.982E+09 (2.607E+07)

- (3.87E+6 x qd)

(2.607E+07) - (3.87E+6 x qd)

002_0600 Mid-Range 40-70 1.91 – 2.69 2.23 NR 5.129E+10 5.129E+09 (1.489E+07)

- (3.87E+6 x qd)

(1.489E+07) - (3.87E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0601 Low Flows 70-100 0.680 – 1.91 1.57 61.1 3.620E+10 3.620E+09 (1.051E+07)

- (3.87E+6 x qd)

(1.051E+07) - (3.87E+6 x qd)

Cane Creek e High Flows 0-10 31.7 – 806 102 NR 2.347E+12 2.347E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.283E+08) - (2.49E+6 x qd)

(2.283E+08)

- (2.49E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 8.63 – 31.7 12.0 85.5 2.765E+11 2.765E+10 (2.689E+07)

- (2.49E+6 x qd)

(2.689E+07) - (2.49E+6 x qd)

034_3000 Mid-Range 40-60 5.84 – 8.63 7.14 NA 1.643E+11 1.643E+10 (1.598E+07)

- (2.49E+6 x qd)

(1.598E+07) - (2.49E+6 x qd)


- (2.49E+6 x qd)

(1.062E+07) - (2.49E+6 x qd)

Hyde Creek e High Flows 0-10 26.8 – 556 75.2 NA 1.731E+12 1.731E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.443E+08) - (3.61E+6 x qd)

(2.443E+08) - (3.61E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 6.04 – 26.8 9.23 92.0 2.124E+11 2.124E+10 (2.998E+07)

- (3.61E+6 x qd) (2.998E+07)

- (3.61E+6 x qd)

034_0300 Mid-Range 40-70 3.85 – 6.04 4.83 NA 1.110E+11 1.110E+10 (1.567E+07)

- (3.61E+6 x qd) (1.567E+07)

- (3.61E+6 x qd)


- (3.61E+6 x qd) (9.951E+06)

- (3.61E+6 x qd)

Old Channel of Nelson

Creek e High Flows 0-10 3.14 – 78.0 10.1 NA 2.321E+11 2.321E+10

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.339E+08) - (1.34E+7 x qd)

(2.339E+08)

- (1.34E+7 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 0.845 – 3.14 1.21 73.6 2.774E+10 2.774E+09 (2.795E+07)

- (1.34E+7 x qd)

(2.795E+07) - (1.34E+7 x qd)

034_0100 Mid-Range 40-70 0.562 – 0.845 0.695 96.1 1.599E+10 1.599E+09 (1.611E+07)

- (1.34E+7 x qd)

(1.611E+07) - (1.34E+7 x qd)


- (1.34E+7 x qd )

(1.041E+07) - (1.34E+7 x qd

)



E-72




(08010208____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



Cane Creek e High Flows 0-10 107 – 2466 311 28.2 7.159E+12 7.159E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.241E+08) - (8.00E+5 x qd)

(2.241E+08)

- (8.00E+5 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 30.1 – 107 42.7 NR 9.823E+11 9.823E+10 (3.076E+07)

- (8.00E+5 x qd)

(3.076E+07) - (8.00E+5 x qd)

Mid-Range 40-60 23.4 – 30.1 25.0 NR 5.757E+11 5.757E+10 (1.803E+07)

- (8.00E+5 x qd)

(1.803E+07) - (8.00E+5 x qd)

034_2000 Dry

Conditions 60-90 15.9 – 23.4 19.5 NA 4.474E+11 4.474E+10 (1.401E+07)

- (8.00E+5 x qd)

(1.401E+07) - (8.00E+5 x qd)


- (8.00E+5 x qd)

(1.042E+07) - (8.00E+5 x qd)

Camp Creek e High Flows 0-10 19.4 – 469 52.0 61.1 1.195E+12 1.195E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.957E+08) - (4.19E+6 x qd)

(1.957E+08)

- (4.19E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 5.26 – 19.4 7.43 NR 1.708E+11 1.708E+10 (2.798E+07)

- (4.19E+6 x qd)

(2.798E+07) - (4.19E+6 x qd)

033_0100 Mid-Range 40-60 3.56 – 5.26 4.31 75.8 9.922E+10 9.922E+09 (1.625E+07)

- (4.19E+6 x qd)

(1.625E+07) - (4.19E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0801 Low Flows 90-100 1.33 – 3.56 2.87 61.1 6.608E+10 6.608E+09 (1.082E+07)

- (4.19E+6 x qd)

(1.082E+07) - (4.19E+6 x qd)

Flat Creek e High Flows 0-10 37.9 – 867 92.3 NA 2.123E+12 2.123E+12

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.144E+08) - (1.35E+6 x qd)

(2.144E+08) - (1.35E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 9.56 – 37.9 13.8 61.1 3.182E+11 3.182E+10 (3.213E+07)

- (1.35E+6 x qd) (3.213E+07)

- (1.35E+6 x qd)

056_1000 Mid-Range 40-70 6.13 – 9.56 7.37 NA 1.694E+11 1.694E+10 (1.711E+07)

- (1.35E+6 x qd) (1.711E+07)

- (1.35E+6 x qd)


- (1.35E+6 x qd) (1.134E+07)

- (1.35E+6 x qd)

Richland Creek e High Flows 0-10 48.4 – 1164 114 52.6 2.620E+12 2.620E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.053E+08) - (2.00E+6 x qd)

(2.053E+08)

- (2.00E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 12.5 – 48.4 18.5 43.7 4.245E+11 4.245E+10 (3.327E+07)

- (2.00E+6 x qd)

(3.327E+07) - (2.00E+6 x qd)

073_1000 Mid-Range 40-70 7.93 – 12.5 9.55 NR 2.197E+11 2.197E+10 (1.722E+07)

- (2.00E+6 x qd)

(1.722E+07) - (2.00E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0802 Low Flows 70-100 2.90 – 7.93 6.31 33.4 1.451E+11 1.451E+10 (1.137E+07)

- (2.00E+6 x qd )

(1.137E+07) - (2.00E+6 x qd

)



E-73




(08010208____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



UT to Hatchie River e High Flows 0-10 24.6 – 599 68.3

30.4b

1.571E+12 1.571E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.011E+08) - (3.27E+6 x qd)

(2.011E+08)

- (3.27E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 6.64 – 24.6 9.63 2.214E+11 2.214E+10 (2.834E+07)

- (3.27E+6 x qd)

(2.834E+07) - (3.27E+6 x qd)

001_0400 Mid-Range 40-70 4.51 – 6.64 5.49 1.262E+11 1.262E+10 (1.616E+07)

- (3.27E+6 x qd)

(1.616E+07) - (3.27E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0802 Low Flows 70-100 1.69 – 4.51 3.64 8.367E+10 8.367E+09 (1.071E+07)

- (3.27E+6 x qd )

(1.071E+07) - (3.27E+6 x qd

)

Town Creek e High Flows 0-10 53.3 – 904 133 NA 3.053E+12 3.053E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.192E+08) - (1.84E+6 x qd)

(2.192E+08)

- (1.84E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 11.4 – 53.3 17.9 31.9 4.108E+11 4.108E+10 (2.950E+07)

- (1.84E+6 x qd)

(2.950E+07) - (1.84E+6 x qd)

896_1000 Mid-Range 40-70 7.66 – 11.4 9.06 NR 2.083E+11 2.083E+10 (1.495E+07)

- (1.84E+6 x qd)

(1.495E+07) - (1.84E+6 x qd)


- (1.84E+6 x qd)

(1.026E+07) - (1.84E+6 x qd)

Copper Springs

Branch e High Flows 0-10 14.0 – 375 47.1 52.6 1.083E+12 1.083E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.340E+08) - (5.52E+6 x qd)

(2.340E+08)

- (5.52E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 3.86 – 14.0 5.34 20.1 1.229E+11 1.229E+10 (2.657E+07)

- (5.52E+6 x qd)

(2.657E+07) - (5.52E+6 x qd)

001_0200 Mid-Range 40-70 2.62 – 3.86 3.19 NA 7.326E+10 7.326E+09 (1.584E+07)

- (5.52E+6 x qd)

(1.584E+07) - (5.52E+6 x qd)


- (5.52E+6 x qd)

(1.059E+07) - (5.52E+6 x qd)

Alston Creek High Flows 0-10 22.8 – 530 67.9

13.0 b

1.561E+12 1.561E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(2.266E+08) - (3.71E+6 x qd)

(2.266E+08)

- (3.71E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 6.36 – 22.8 8.89 2.045E+11 2.045E+10 (2.970E+07)

- (3.71E+6 x qd)

(2.970E+07) - (3.71E+6 x qd)

001_0300 Mid-Range 40-70 4.38 – 6.36 5.30 1.220E+11 1.220E+10 (1.771E+07)

- (3.71E+6 x qd)

(1.771E+07) - (3.71E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0804 Low Flows 70-100 1.89 – 4.38 3.59 8.257E+10 8.257E+09 (1.199E+07)

- (3.71E+6 x qd)

(1.199E+07) - (3.71E+6 x qd)



E-74




(08010208____)


Flowa PLRG TMDL MOS

WLAs

LAs d

Flow Regime

PDFE Range



Mathis Creek e High Flows 0-10 24.9 – 525 70.5 NA 1.621E+12 1.621E+11

2.3E+10 x qm

(1.982E+08) - (1.63E+6 x qd)

(1.982E+08)

- (1.63E+6 x qd)

Waterbody ID: Moist

Conditions 10-40 6.39 – 24.9 8.92 NR 2.052E+11 2.052E+10 (2.510E+07)

- (1.63E+6 x qd)

(2.510E+07) - (1.63E+6 x qd)

065_1000 Mid-Range 40-70 4.62 – 6.39 5.38 30.1 1.236E+11 1.236E+10 (1.512E+07)

- (1.63E+6 x qd)

(1.512E+07) - (1.63E+6 x qd)

HUC-12: 0805 Low Flows 70-100 1.66 – 4062 3.84 NA 8.821E+10 8.821E+09 (1.079E+07)

- (1.63E+6 x qd )

(1.079E+07) - (1.63E+6 x qd

)

Notes: NA = Not Applicable. NR = No Reduction Required. PLRG = Percent Load Reduction Goal to achieve TMDL. qm = Mean Daily WWTP Discharge (cfs) qd = Facility (WWTP) Design Flow (cfs) Shaded Flow Zone for each waterbody represents the critical flow zone. For some waterbodies, critical flow zone could not be determined. Either the

waterbody had no exceedances, or exceedances only in the high flow zone. a. Flow applied to TMDL, MOS, and allocation (WLA[MS4] and LA) calculations. Flows represent the midpoint value in the respective hydrologic flow regime. b. PLRG based on geomean data. c. WLAs for WWTPs are expressed as E. coli loads (CFU/day). All current and future WWTPs must meet water quality standards as specified in their NPDES permit. d. WLAs and LAs expressed on a “per acre” basis are calculated based on the drainage area at the specific monitoring point (see Table E-3). As regulated MS4 area increases

(due to future growth and/or new MS4 designation), unregulated LA area decreases by an equivalent amount. The sum will continue to equal total subwatershed area. e. No WWTPs currently discharging into or upstream of the waterbody. (WLA[WWTPs] Expression is future growth term for new WWTPs.) f. Whenever there are no MS4s currently located in a subwatershed drainage area, the expression is future growth term for expanding or newly designated MS4s.


11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page F-1 of F-28

F-1

APPENDIX F

Trend Analysis for Waterbodies Impaired by E. coli

in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River Watersheds



F-2

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

Water quality data for implementation effectiveness analysis can be presented in multiple ways. Several examples are shown in Section 9.6. Load duration curve methodology is most appropriate when monthly monitoring data, representative of all flow regimes, have been collected. However, in cases where not all flow regimes are represented, box and whisker plots may be the most appropriate method of presenting the monitoring data.

Data intended for geomean analysis are grouped together for each specific 30-day period and the maximum geomean within that 30-day period is represented by a red dot. Geomean sampling can only be used to determine the condition of a given waterbody during a 30-day period and, by itself, is inadequate to determine an overall trend. Data covering a period greater than 30 days are grouped together by sampling cycle, a 12-month period usually not coincident with the calendar year. In this case, the mean of the data is represented by a white diamond. As stated in section 9.4.1, “comprehensive water quality monitoring activities include sampling during all seasons and a broad range of flow and meteorological conditions.”

Many of the waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds listed as impaired by E. coli had sufficient monitoring data to perform trend analysis. Several waterbodies were not included in this trend analysis due to insufficient monitoring data. Monitoring data for Richland Creek (072_1000) and the UT to Big Muddy Creek were only collected for one monitoring cycle. All other impaired waterbodies were included in the trend analysis.

At this time, the impaired waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds show no obvious trend. In some cases, the results have fluctuated; in most cases, the results have remained essentially the same.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2015, the condition of Rose Creek appears to be

unchanged. Figure F-1 displays the results of monitoring for segment TN08010207035_0600 (at mile 1.3). For the 2014-15 monitoring cycle, there was only one exceedance of the single sample maximum criterion, but the mean value was significantly above the geomean criterion. Improvement will be required before Rose Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2016, the condition of Alston Creek at miles 1.6

(TN08010208001_0300) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-2 and F-3). All values appear to be in the same range. There have been exceedances of both the single sample maximum and geomean criteria. Improvement will be required before Alston Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2010 through 2015, the condition of Big Muddy Creek

(TN08010208007_1000 and _2000) appears to be unchanged. Figures F-4 a d F-5 show the results of monitoring at mile 4.3 and mile 14.1, with all values in the same general range. Figure F-6 shows a comparison of monitoring at mile 14.1 (TN08010208007_2000) over three monitoring cycles. There were exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion at both locations. Improvement will be required before Big Muddy Creek can re-attain water quality standards.



F-3

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2015, the condition of Camp Creek

(TN08010208033_0100) appears to show slight improvement (Figures F-7 and F-8). All values appear to be in the same range. There were no exceedances of either the single sample maximum or the geomean criteria during the last sampling cycle. Historically, exceedances have occurred during the rainy season, but the most recent monitoring did not occur during the rainy season. Additional monitoring including the rainy season will be required before it can be confirmed that Camp Creek has re-attained water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2009 through 2016, the condition of Cane Branch

(TN08010208002_0600) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-9 and F-10). There have been exceedances of both the single sample maximum and geomean criteria. Improvement will be required before Cane Branch can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2009 through 2015, the condition of the Cane Creek

(TN08010208034_2000 and _3000) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-11 through F-13). There have been exceedances of both the single sample maximum and the mean was well above the geomean criteria. Improvement will be required before these segments of Cane Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2009 through 2015, the condition of Carter Creek

(TN080102081866_1000) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-14 and F-15). There have been exceedances of both the single sample maximum and geomean criteria. Improvement will be required before Carter Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2010 through 2015, the condition of Catron Creek

(TN08010208007_0200) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-16 and F-17). There have been exceedances of the single sample maximum and the mean was well above the geomean criteria. Improvement will be required before Catron Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2010 through 2015, the condition of Copper Springs Branch

(TN08010208001_0200) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-18 and F-19). There have been exceedances of both the single sample maximum and geomean criteria. lmprovement will be required before Copper Springs Branch can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2010 through 2015, the condition of Flat Creek

(TN08010208056_1000) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-20 and F-21). There have been exceedances of the single sample maximum and the mean was well above the geomean criteria. Improvement will be required before Flat Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2010, the condition of Hickory Creek

(TN08010208001_1800) appears to be unchanged (Figure F-22). There have been exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion and the mean was well above of the geomean criterion. Improvement will be required before Hickory Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2009 through 2015, the condition of Hyde Creek

(TN08010208034_0300) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-23 and F-24). All values appear to be in the same general range. There have been exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion and the mean was well above of the geomean criterion. Improvement will be required before Hyde Creek can re-attain water quality standards.



F-4

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2015, the condition of Mathis Creek

(TN08010208065_1000) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-25 and F-26). There have been exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion and the mean was well above of the geomean criterion. Improvement will be required before Mathis Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2009 through 2015, the condition of Myron Creek

(TN08010208002_0500) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-27 and F-28). All values appear to be in the same range. There have been exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion and all values are above of the geomean criterion. Improvement will be required before Myron Creek

can re-attain water quality standards. Figures F-29 and F-30 show monitoring at UT to Myron

Creek. Values appear to be in the same range as Myron Creek. It is possible that improvement of UT to Myron Creek will result in improvement of Myron Creek itself.

Based on analysis of data from 2009 through 2015, the condition of Old Channel of Nelson Creek

(TN08010208034_0100) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-31 and F-32). There have been exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion and the mean was well above of the geomean criterion. Improvement will be required before Old Channel of Nelson Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2015, the condition of Richland Creek

(TN08010208073_1000) appears to show slight improvement (Figures F-33 and F-34). There were exceedances of the single sample maximum and the mean was well above the geomean criteria. Improvement will be required before Richland Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2015, the condition of Smart Creek

(TN08010208007_0300) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-35 and F-36). There were exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion and the mean was well above the geomean criteria. Improvement will be required before Smart Creek can attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2015, the condition of Sugar Creek

(TN08010208031_1000) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-37 and F-38). There were exceedances of both the single sample maximum criterion and the geomean criterion. Improvement will be required before Sugar Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2016, the condition of Town Creek

(TN08010208896_1000) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-39 through F-41). There were exceedances of the single sample maximum criterion at both mile 1.0 and mile 2.3. The mean was well above the geomean criterion. Improvement will be required before Town Creek can re-attain water quality standards.

Based on analysis of data from 2004 through 2015, the condition of UT to Hatchie River

(TN08010208001_0400) appears to be unchanged (Figures F-42 and F-43). There were exceedances of both the single sample maximum criterion and the geomean criterion. Improvement will be required before the UT to Hatchie River can re-attain water quality standards.



F-5

10

100

1000

10000

Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18

Rose Creek - RM 1.3

Figure F-1. Time Series Plot for Rose Creek – RM 1.3



F-6

10

100

1000

10000


Alston Creek - Mile 1.6

Figure F-2. Time Series Plot for Alston Creek – RM 1.6

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-16

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Alston Creek - RM 1.6

Mean

GM

12

1219

Figure F-3. Box and Whisker Plot for Alston Creek – RM 1.6



F-7

10

100

1000

10000


Big Muddy Creek - RM4.3/14.1

RM4.3

RM14.1

Figure F-4. Time Series Plot for Big Muddy Creek – RM 4.3/14.1

10

100

1000

10000

RM 4.3 RM14.1

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Monitoring Location

Big Muddy Creek - 2014/15

10

12

Figure F-5. Box and Whisker Plot for Big Muddy Creek – 2014/15



F-8

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Big Muddy Creek - RM 14.1

12

12 12

Figure F-6. Box and Whisker Plot for Big Muddy Creek – RM 14.1



F-9

10

100

1000

10000


Camp Creek - Mile 1.9

Figure F-7. Time Series Plot for Camp Creek – RM 1.9

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Camp Creek - RM 1.9

12

12

15

Figure F-8. Box and Whisker Plot for Camp Creek – RM 1.9



F-10

1

10

100

1000

10000

Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18

Cane Branch - Mile 1.9

Figure F-9. Time Series Plot for Cane Branch – RM 1.9

10

100

1000

10000

2009-10 2014-16

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Cane Branch - RM 1.9

Mean

GM

12 20

Figure F-10. Box and Whisker Plot for Cane Branch – RM 1.9



F-11

10

100

1000

10000


Cane Creek - Mile 12.5/17.4

RM 12.5

RM 17.4

Figure F-11. Time Series Plot for Cane Creek – RM 12.5/17.4

10

100

1000

10000

2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Cane Creek - RM 12.5

4

12

Figure F-12. Box and Whisker Plot for Cane Creek – RM 12.5



F-12

10

100

1000

10000

2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Cane Creek - RM 17.4

4

10

Figure F-13. Box and Whisker Plot for Cane Creek – RM 17.4



F-13

10

100

1000

10000


Carter Creek - Mile 2.8

Figure F-14. Time Series Plot for Carter Creek – RM 2.8

1

10

100

1000

10000

2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Carter Creek - RM 2.8

Mean

GM

20

12

Figure F-15. Box and Whisker Plot for Carter Creek – RM 2.8



F-14

10

100

1000

10000


Catron Creek - RM 3.1

Figure F-16. Time Series Plot for Catron Creek – RM 3.1

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Catron Creek - RM 3.1

9 9

9

Figure F-17. Box and Whisker Plot for Catron Creek – RM 3.1



F-15

10

100

1000

10000

100000


Copper Springs Branch - RM 2.3

Figure F-18. Time Series Plot for Copper Springs Branch – RM 2.3

10

100

1000

10000

100000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Copper Springs Branch - RM 2.3

12

2016

Figure F-19. Box and Whisker Plot for Copper Springs Branch – RM 2.3



F-16

10

100

1000

10000


Flat Creek - Mile 1.8

Figure F-20. Time Series Plot for Flat Creek – RM 1.8

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Flat Creek - RM 1.8

8

8

9

Figure F-21. Box and Whisker Plot for Flat Creek – RM 1.8



F-17

10

100

1000

10000

Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11

Hickory Creek - RM 1.7

Figure F-22. Time Series Plot for Hickory Creek – RM 1.7



F-18

10

100

1000

10000


Hyde Creek - Mile 1.0

Figure F-23. Time Series Plot for Hyde Creek – RM 1.0

10

100

1000

10000

100000

2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Hyde Creek - RM 1.0

12

12

Figure F-24. Box and Whisker Plot for Hyde Creek – RM 1.0



F-19

10

100

1000

10000


Mathis Creek - Mile 4.6

Figure F-25. Time Series Plot for Mathis Creek – RM 4.6

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Mathis Creek - RM 4.6

12

12

12

Figure F-26. Box and Whisker Plot for Mathis Creek – RM 4.6



F-20

100

1000

10000


Myron Creek - Mile 1.8

Figure F-27. Time Series Plot for Myron Creek – RM 1.8

100

1000

10000

2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Myron Creek - RM 1.8

12

7

Figure F-28. Box and Whisker Plot for Myron Creek – RM 1.8



F-21

10

100

1000

10000


UT to Myron Creek - Mile 0.6

Figure F-29. Time Series Plot for UT to Myron Creek – RM 0.6

10

100

1000

10000

2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

UT to Myron Creek - RM 0.6

12 12

Figure F-30. Box and Whisker Plot for UT to Myron Creek – RM 0.6



F-22

10

100

1000

10000

100000


Old Channel Nelson Creek - Mile 0.2/0.6

Figure F-31. Time Series Plot for Old Channel of Nelson Creek – RM 0.2/0.6

10

100

1000

10000

100000

2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Old Channel Nelson Creek - RM 0.2/0.6

6

11

Figure F-32. Box and Whisker Plot for Old Channel of Nelson Creek – RM 0.2/0.6



F-23

1

10

100

1000

10000


Richland Creek - Mile 1.8

Figure F-33. Time Series Plot for Richland Creek (073_1000) – RM 1.8

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Richland Creek - RM 1.8

12

12

5

Figure F-34. Box and Whisker Plot for Richland Creek (073_1000) – RM 1.8



F-24

1

10

100

1000

10000


Smart Creek - Mile 1.0

Figure F-35. Time Series Plot for Smart Creek – RM 1.8

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Smart Creek - RM 1.0

9

12 11

Figure F-36. Box and Whisker Plot for Smart Creek – RM 1.8



F-25

1

10

100

1000

10000


Sugar Creek - Mile 1.5

Figure F-37. Time Series Plot for Sugar Creek – RM 1.8

10

100

1000

10000

100000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-15

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Sugar Creek - RM 1.5

Mean

GM

4

20

12

Figure F-38. Box and Whisker Plot for Sugar Creek – RM 1.8



F-26

10

100

1000

10000


Town Creek - Mile 1.0/2.3

RM 1.0

RM2.3

Figure F-39. Time Series Plot for Town Creek – RM 1.0/2.3

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Town Creek - RM 1.0

Mean

GM

9

19

Figure F-40. Box and Whisker Plot for Town Creek – RM 1.0



F-27

10

100

1000

10000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-16

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

Town Creek - RM 2.3

Mean

GM12

20

20

Figure F-41. Box and Whisker Plot for Town Creek – RM 2.3



F-28

10

100

1000

10000


UT to Hatchie River - Mile 1.2

Figure F-42 Time Series Plot for UT to Hatchie River – RM 1.2

10

100

1000

10000

100000

2004-05 2009-10 2014-16

E. c

oli

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

cfu

/10

0 m

L)

Sampling Cycles

UT to Hatchie River - RM 1.2

Mean

GM

11

12

15

Figure F-43. Box and Whisker Plot for UT to Hatchie River – RM 1.2


11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page G-1 of G-2

G-1

APPENDIX G

Public Notice Announcement


11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page G-2 of G-2

G-2

STATE OF TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)

FOR E. COLI IN UPPER AND LOWER HATCHIE RIVER WATERSHEDS

(HUCS 08010207 + 08010208), TENNESSEE Announcement is hereby given of the availability of Tennessee’s proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for E. coli in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds, located in west Tennessee. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop TMDLs for waters on their impaired waters list. TMDLs must determine the allowable pollutant load that the water can assimilate, allocate that load among the various point and nonpoint sources, include a margin of safety, and address seasonality.

A number of waterbodies in the Upper and Lower Hatchie River watersheds are listed on Tennessee’s Final 2018 List of Impaired and Threatened Waters as not supporting designated use classifications due, in part, to pasture grazing or discharges from MS4 areas. The TMDL utilizes Tennessee’s general water quality criteria, continuous flow data from a USGS discharge monitoring station located in proximity to the watershed, site specific water quality monitoring data, a calibrated hydrologic model, load duration curves, and an appropriate Margin of Safety (MOS) to establish allowable loadings of pathogens which will result in the reduced in-stream concentrations and attainment of water quality standards. The TMDL requires reductions of E. coli loading on the order of 2.1-96.1% in the listed waterbodies.

The Upper and Lower Hatchie River E. coli TMDL may be downloaded from the Department of Environment and Conservation website:

https://www.tn.gov/environment/program-areas/wr-water-resources/watershed-

stewardship/tennessee-s-total-maximum-daily-load--tmdl--program.html

Technical questions regarding this TMDL should be directed to the following members of the Division of Water Resources staff:

Vicki S. Steed, P.E., Watershed Management Unit Telephone: 615-532-0707 David M. Duhl, Ph.D., Watershed Management Unit Telephone: 615-532-0438

Persons wishing to comment on the proposed TMDLs are invited to submit their comments in writing no later than November 20, 2018 to:

Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Resources

Watershed Management Section William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 11th Floor

Nashville, TN 37243 All comments received prior to that date will be considered when revising the TMDL for final submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The TMDL and supporting information are on file at the Division of Water Resources, William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 11th Floor, Nashville, Tennessee 37243. They may be inspected during normal office hours. Copies of the information on file are available on request.




11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page H-1 of H-9

H-1

APPENDIX H

Public Comments Received



H-2



H-3



H-4



H-5



H-6



H-7



H-8



H-9


11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page I-1 of I-2

I-1

APPENDIX I

Response to Public Comments


11/26/18 – Proposed Final Page I-2 of I-2

I-2

This TMDL document identifies TDOT as a point source with the potential to contribute pathogens to the subject waterbodies. As stated in Section 9.2.2, as long as TDOT meets the requirements of their MS4 permit, they will be considered to be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the WLAs of this TMDL.