SOUTH CHICKAMAUGA CREEK WATERSHED PLAN

Watershed Plan - Environmental Assessment for South Chickamauga Creek Watershed, Georgia and Tennessee SUMMARY OF WATERSHED PLAN Project Name: Counties: States: Sponsors: South Chickamauga Creek Watershed Catoosa, Walker, Whitfield / Bradley, Hamilton Georgia/Tennessee Coosa River River Soil and Water Conservation District, GA Limestone Valley Soil and Water Conservation District, GA Catoosa County Soil and Water Conservation District, GA Hamilton County Soil Conservation District,TN Bradley County Soil Conservation District, TN Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan consist of the installation of approximately 212 animal waste management systems which will include all or parts the following components: waste treatment lagoon or pond, pump and concrete pad with stationary delivery pipe (waste utilization system), pasture and hayland planting with cross fencing and alternative livestock water supply, fencing, heavy use area protection, flush down system, diversions/curbing, stream crossings, manure scraper, riparian forested buffers, waste storage facilities with gutters, manure spreader and composting facilities. Land treatment on a total of 4,864 acres of eroding pasture and cropland will include crop residue use, filter strips, conservation cropping sequence, critical area planting and riparian forested buffers. Nutrient management will be used when applying animal waste and prescribed grazing practices will be incorporated for pasture areas. 1 1 Resource Information: Land Cover Size of South Chickamauga Creek Watershed (AC) 249,527 Cropland (AC) Pastureland (AC) Forest Land (AC) Hayland (AC) Wetlands(AC) Open Water (AC) Urban (AC) Other land (AC) 6,124 92,448 132,836 10,000 367 1,949 5,536 267 Land Ownership - 92% private, 8 % public Number of Farms - 716 Average Farm Size - (AC) 122 Prime and Important Farm Land - (AC) 140,000 Number of Minorities Producers - 6 Number of Limited Resource Operators - 155 The watershed is oriented primarily to the production of agricultural products. Ringgold and Chickmauga are the larger towns in the watershed with populations of 1,925 and 3,100 respectively. Many family farm units contain a dairy, beef or poultry operation with its supporting crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, and vegetables. Per capita income in the project area average $16,888 compared to $23,243 for the state and $24,900 for the nation. Wetlands (AC) 2,316 Flood Plains (AC) 22,489 Highly Erodible Cropland (AC) 4,975 2 2 Threatened and Endangered Species: There are 21 species of animals and 7 plants in Georgia that occur on the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species. There are 16 animals and 11 plants listed on the state of Georgia and Tennessee Threatened and Endangered Lists. A detailed listing of these is included in the Scope of the Environmental Assessment section on page 33. Cultural Resources: There are 19 listings on the Historic Register in the watershed. Catoosa County Georgia includes Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Fort Oglethorpe Historic District, Ringgold Depot, Stone Church, Whitman-Anderson House, Ringgold Commercial Historic District. Walker County Georgia includes: Ashland Farm, Gordon Lee House, Lane House, Lee and Gordon Mill, Miller Brothers Farm, Morgan Brick House, John Ross House, Rossville Post Office, McLemore Cove Historic District. Hamilton County Tennessee includes Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Ryall Springs, Audubon Acres Site (40 HA 84), and Brainerd Mission Cemetery. Tunnel Hill battle site and historic tunnel are in Whitfield County, Georgia. Cherokee Indian artifacts are also well distributed throughout the area. Watershed Concerns and Problems: Landowners and individuals in the watershed identified natural resource concerns in the watershed. The table on page 20 indicates the degree of each concern for each issue identified through the public participation process. Watershed protection and improvement of water quality related issues from agricultural sources were the focus of this plan because PL-566 program policy limits funding to agricultural sources. It is recognized that industrial, commercial and residential sources also contribute to the overall concerns in the watershed. These land use contributions to the overall concerns in the watershed are listed in the table on page 31. The figures in the table were determined by the consensus of local officials, state and federal agencies. Analysis and evaluation of the concerns in this plan are based on agricultural influences to the entire watershed. High concentrations of nutrients and bacteria from dairy, beef and poultry operations and sediment from eroding pasture and cropland being delivered to the streams and wetlands of the watershed were identified as major concerns of people in the area. Stream bank degradation and lack of riparian areas is also a major concern in the watershed. Related problems associated with these concerns include: impairments to pasture and cropland productivity, area streams and lakes not meeting state designated use classifications, adverse impacts to water quality, recreation, property values, fish and wildlife habitats, and health. Potential drinking water problems downstream from the watershed in Chattanooga, TN. was also identified as a major concern. An NRCS interdisciplinary team field investigation in 1999 determined that a major contributor of these problems were livestock operations operating without waste management systems and inadequate land treatment measures on pasture and cropland. 3 3 The interdisciplinary team determined that approximately 61,583 tons of animal waste from 19 dairy operations, 165,975 tons of waste from 295 beef operations, 378,223 tons of waste from 79 poultry/breeder operations and 143,620 tons from all other animal operations are being produced in the watershed each year. The major concern is the great quantity of agricultural nutrients contained in animal waste and sediment from pasture and crop land entering the South Chickamauga Creek system and flowing into Nickajack Lake which is located downstream on the Tennessee River near Chattanooga. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) owns and operates this lake for electricity and recreational purposes. The high concentrations of nutrients and bacteria pose potential health risks for recreational users of the lake. Sediment is causing significant damages (both economic and environmental) to the land and related water resources. Pasture and cropland erosion (72,751 tons/year) on 108,571 acres is reducing forage productivity and generating significant offsite sediment. Nineteen percent (39,681 tons) of the sediment is delivered to watershed wetlands, ponds and streams. In addition erosion from animal created washes and gullies, animal access areas and stream bank degradation is creating 54,054 tons/year of sediment in the watershed. It is estimated that 5 percent (6,259 tons/year) of the sediment reaches the watershed outlet and into Nickajack Lake annually. Sediment buildup in the South Chickamauga Creek drainage area have caused several "islands" to form, reducing the drainage capacity altering water flow and increasing sedimentation off site. This adversely impacts recreational opportunities, real estate values, and aquatic habitats. Alternative Plans Considered: In the formulation process, the No Action Plan would use existing EQIP and CRP activities directed toward improving water quality and enhancing environmental resources. The National Economic Development Plan consists of 206 animal waste management systems plus land treatment of 4,560 acres of eroding pasture and crop land. The Resource Protection Plan would include 212 animal waste management systems plus land treatment of 31,099 acres of eroding pasture and cropland. Alternative plan 3 would include 212 animal waste management systems plus land treatment of 4,864 acres of eroding pasture and cropland. Project Purpose: Watershed Protection and Improvement of Water Quality Principal Project Measures: Measures will include the installation of approximately 10 dairy, 159 beef and 43 poultry waste management systems to control and utilize waste generated from these operations. These systems will include all or parts of the following components: waste treatment lagoon or pond, pump and concrete pad with stationary delivery pipe (waste utilization system), pasture and hayland planting with cross fencing and alternative livestock water supply, fencing, heavy use area protection, flush down system, diversions/curbing, stream crossings, manure scraper, riparian forested buffers, waste storage facilities with gutters, manure spreader and composting facilities. 4 4 Land treatment on a total of 4,864 acres of eroding pasture and cropland will include, filter strips, critical area planting and riparian forested buffers. Non cost share management practices will include: conservation cropping sequences, crop residue use, pesticide management, and prescribed grazing. Nutrient management plans will be used when applying animal wastes. Project Costs: PL 83-566 Funds $ Other Funds $ Total $ Animal Waste Management Systems 1,784,475 594,825 2,379,300 Land Treatment Systems 527,022 175,674 702,696 Technical Assistance 346,724 115,575 462,299 Project Administration 92,460 30,820 123,280 TOTAL 2,750,681 916,894 3,667,575 Monetary Benefits: Watershed Protection (Average Annual) Agricultural Related $ 653,860 Non-Agricultural Related $ 591,753 Total Monetary Benefits $1,245,613 Project Benefits: (Price Base 1999) 5 5 Non-Monetary Benefits: The project will enhance the aesthetic and environmental quality of the watershed, the South Chickamauga Creek drainage area and Nickajack Lake downstream on the Tennessee River. Benefits to the area resources will be realized by improving water quality. Wildlife habitats will be improved and odor from animal waste will be reduced. The potential for health and safety problems from impaired water quality will be reduced and the overall well-being and social feelings in the communities will improve. Land Use Changes (AC) None Environmental Values Changed or Lost: Wooded Flood Plain (AC) Increase -- Flood plain areas void of vegetation caused by roaming cattle will be managed and allowed to grow back in native riparian vegetation. Fisheries (AC or MI) Increase – Impaired fish habitats will decrease, allowing fish yields to increase. Wildlife Habitat (AC) Increase – Impaired riparian wildlife habitats will be restored. Wetlands (AC) Increase – None Cultural Resources (NO) None Prime Farmland (AC) None Compensatory Mitigation: None Major Conclusions: (Final Statements) Areas of Controversy: (Final Statements) Issues to be Resolved: (Final Statements) Other: 6 6 INTRODUCTION The Coosa River, Limestone Valley, and Catoosa County Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Georgia and the Bradley and Hamilton County Soil Conservation Districts in Tennessee (Sponsor) requested The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) assistance in developing a watershed protection plan for the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed (Figure 1, Page ii), Public Law 83-566 (PL-566) authorizes the NRCS to assist local sponsors in developing and carrying out such projects. This watershed protection plan addresses the regions air, plant, animal, water and soil resources by: protecting water quality, reducing nutrient and bacterial offsite transport, reducing offsite sedimentation damage, sustaining productivity of the soil resource base and improving the social and economic resources in the area. The plan identifies the animal waste management systems and land treatment practices necessary to address these concerns. The plan also serves as a basis and justification for authorizing federal assistance to implement the watershed project. The United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service provided assistance to the sponsoring Soil and Water Conservation Districts for development of this plan. The plan was prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566, as amended. Financial assistance will be provided at the same rate as other similar federal cost share programs in the area (up to 75 percent), and will be used to complement farmer inputs and other cost share assistance programs. This watershed is comprised of seven subwatersheds in the Tennessee River Basin (06020001). These include subwatersheds: 170,190,200,210,220,230,and 240 that are adversely impacting water quality in the South Chickamauga Creek drainage area, Chattanooga, TN. area and also on Nickajack Lake, an important recreational and water supply reservoir on the Tennessee River in Tennessee. None of the subwatersheds included in the project area have accelerated water quality and land treatment actions underway. This project is the key to long term recovery of this important regional resource. All information and data, except as otherwise noted, were collected during watershed planning investigations or were previously collected by USDA, The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and other natural resource agencies. 7 7 PROJECT SETTING Location The South Chickamauga Creek Watershed is located in northwest Georgia and southeast Tennessee in the Southern Appalachian Ridge and Valley Land Resource Area (MLRA 128). The Project area includes subwatersheds 170, 190, 200, 210, 220, 230, and 240 which are located in the 06020001 hydrologic Basin. The total project area is 249,527 acres. Of this total, 103,930 acres are located in Catoosa County, 94,189 acres in Walker County and 27,918 in Whitfield County Georgia and 17,618 acres in Hamilton County and 5,872 acres in Bradley County Tennessee. A location map of the watershed is displayed on page a. Population in the watershed is estimated at 105,000 people. The population increased approximately 9 percent from 1990 to 1995. In the rural areas, the primary occupation is agriculture with manufacturing and service related industry dominating the urban areas. Land use within the area is very diverse. While some areas of the watershed are developing rapidly, over one fourth of the area remains agricultural. Most of the agricultural land is devoted to pasture and supports cow/calf operations of varying sizes. The poultry industry is steadily increasing in the area. Streams, Lakes, and Wetlands There are an estimated 463 miles of streams in the watershed. The main creeks include: West Chickamauga, Tiger, Peavine, Little Chickmauga, and East Chickmauga which drain into South Chickamauga Creek. Nickajack Lake (10,900 surface acres) on the Tennessee River is located 10 miles south of the watershed. The effective drainage area to the South Chickamauga Creek outlet is 249,527 acres. The effective drainage area of Nickajack Lake is 691,200 acres. Based on these figures, the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed constitutes 36 percent of this total. All surface drainage from the watershed flows into South Chickamauga Creek and eventually into Nickajack Lake (see page 9). Stream channels are fairly well defined in the perennial reaches, however, they are poorly defined in the intermittent reaches which are often filled with sediment. There are approximately 1,600 constructed or natural ponds in the watershed. The watershed contains a few natural ponds, bays, beaver ponds and associated forested wetlands. These wetlands along with streams and ponds are estimated at 2,316 acres. Approximately 22,489 acres are considered flood plains. Watershed streams play a very important role in development and maintenance of one of the region’s more vital resources. While the watershed soils and streams do not directly recharge this regional aquifer, they supply surface water into recharge areas. A portion of rainfall enters the ground and passes downward to the zone of saturation to become ground water. Weathering and the forces that produce secondary openings in the form of fractures, joints, and solution cavities, enable certain rocks to store vast quantities of ground water. 8 8 STREAM AND LAND USE MAP (From TVA) 9 9 All aquifers in the watershed are recharged through their outcrops with more active recharge where features such as sinkholes may provide surface direct access to the aquifer. A significant part of this discharge also occurs in the form of upland spring flow. Aquifers are susceptible to surface contamination wherever recharge occurs. The source of contamination may be point sources or non-point sources such as agriculture, through animal waste, and fertilizer and pesticide application. Topography The South Chickamauga Creek Watershed is approximately 33 miles in length with elevations ranging from 660 feet mean sea level (MSL) near the watershed outlet to 2,329 feet MSL in the headwaters. Climate The climate of the watershed is humid and mild with long hot summers and cool short winters. Summer temperatures normally exceed 90 degrees F. and winter temperatures are rarely lower than 20 degrees F. The average annual temperature is 60 degrees F. Precipitation is fairly heavy throughout the year averaging 52 inches. The total number of growing degree days per year is 4490. Last frost in the spring is generally between April 15 and April 29. First frost in the fall usually occurs between October 8 and 22. It is normal to have more than 0.10 inch of rain per day 25 days out of the year. Geology The watershed lies in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province of northwest Georgia and southeast Tennessee where rocks range from early Cambrian to Mississippian age. The Province is dominated by northward trending valleys separated by low rounded ridges and by high steep sided ridges. Parent materials forming the soils of the valleys and ridge were derived through the weathering of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. These geologic formations were originally flat until compressional forces from the southeast deformed them into faulted folds. Erosion of the folded and faulted rocks produced a varied outcrop pattern with alternating ridges and valleys. Taylor Ridge is a prominent north/south feature that passes through the project, on the east side of Ringgold. Ridges in the area comprise the Red Mountain formation, the Lookout sandstone and other similar formations that include sandstone, shale, and chert, rock types resistant to weathering and erosion. The flanks or lower slopes of the ridges typically include Fort Payne Chert, with Lavendar Shale, Floyd Shale, sandstone, and limestone. The more soluable limestone and dolomite forms the broad valleys and underlie Chickamauga Creek and its tributaries. These streams have been largely controlled by the position of the carbonate rocks which offer less resistance to weathering and erosion. Chickamauga Limestone is the principal rock underlying most of the streams in the watershed with Conasauga Limestone underlying Peavine Valley and contains numerous sink holes along the outcrop area. 10 10 Land Use TOTAL WATERSHED ACRES 249,527 CROPLAND PASTURELAND FORESTLAND HAYLAND WETLANDS OPEN WATER URBAN OTHER Acres for the major land uses within the watershed are indicated below: Cropland (AC) Pastureland (AC) Forest Land (AC) Hayland (AC) Wetlands(AC) Open Water (AC) Urban (AC) Other land (AC) 6,124 92,448 132,836 10,000 367 1,949 5,536 267 11 11 Livestock A total of 2,760 dairy cows and 15,000 beef cattle exist in the watershed. The average size of each dairy operation is 172 cows. The average number of beef cattle per operation is 50 head. Most of the dairies are located on or have access to the 92,448 acres of watershed pastureland. However, continuous grazing without pasture management practices and waste treatment systems is the common practice. Holding areas also lack waste handling facilities. Average annual milk production is estimated at 29.3 million pounds and is significant to the area economy. Poultry A total of 79 poultry operations that produce approximately 25,800,000 birds annually exist in the watershed. Of this total 25, 740,000 are broilers and 60,000 are breeders. Most operations do not have facilities to handle and dispose of the waste being produced. Soils An estimated 37,000 acres (15 percent) of the watershed are listed as prime farmland, of which 500 acres are land capability Class I. An estimated 162,000 acres (65 percent) are in land capability Subclass e, 37,000 acres (15 percent) in Subclass s, and 50,000 acres (20 percent) in Subclass w. The predominate upland soils are Minvale, Lyerly, Townley, and Shack with Chennaby, and Rome the predominate lowland soils Cropland Thirteen percent of the estimated 6,124 cropland acres is hydric soil and another 49 percent (3,000 acres) is Highly Erodible Land (HEL) 24 percent of the cropland is severe to moderately eroding and the remaining 14 percent have slight erosion problems. Some 22 watershed acres (less than 1 percent), have been signed up for conversion from cropland to permanent cover under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Crops The major crops inventoried were soybeans, corn, cotton, forage crops, and specialty crops such as vineyards and vegetables. Some 5 percent of the cropland is idle. Most of the idle acres was either in "set aside" programs or operators decided not to plant due to economics or weather conditions. 12 12 Crop acreage along with some estimated average yields from the watershed are presented in the following table: 1/ Crop Soybeans Corn Cotton Fruits and vegetables Forage crops CRP Acres 605 1,370 10 250 3,867 22 ______ 6,124 Average Yield Non-Irrigated 1/ 30 bushels/Acre 85 bushels/Acre 640 pounds/Acre Total Woodland Much of the watershed woodland is mixed hardwoods and pine. Oak-Hickory eastern deciduous forests are located in the lower elevations while white pine-upland hardwoods dominate the ridge and mountain areas. Introduced species are also prevalent. Most of the ridge and mountain areas that have been harvested have been re-established in Virginia or Loblolly pine stands. Currently, large amounts of lowland forestland are being converted to other uses, mainly urban and residential. Fish Habitat Studies by Georgia Department of Natural Resources indicate the portions of the South Chickamauga Creek drainage are presently not fully supporting their designated use. However, area streams and lakes can support high populations of game fish with good quality water. Mountain streams are regularly stocked with trout for sport fishing while many small lakes and farm ponds are stocked with bass and bream species. There are primary trout stream habitats located in the watershed that support native reproducing trout populations. Reproducing populations of warmer water fish also thrive throughout the area's streams and creeks. Nickajack Lake can also support a very large population of game fish. Fishing on the lake in the past has been one of the most popular recreational activities in the area. The federally protected snail darter exists on South Chickamauga Creek 1/ Yield data was obtained from 1999 Georgia Agricultural Facts 13 13 There are 2,316 acres of water contained in streams, small lakes, farm ponds, and natural ponds. Fish populations in these water bodies depend on the degree of management and water quality. The primary native fish species identified in the watershed were shiners, studfish, redhorse, bluegill, darters, and bass. Trout populations vary according to stocking rates and type habitat. Wildlife Habitat Wildlife habitat includes land in hardwood, mixed pine and hardwood, upland hardwood, bottomland hardwood, pasture land and cropland. The most important wildlife habitat is located in the flood plains of streams. Deer is the most abundant big game animal while turkeys are also present. Bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, squirrels and mourning dove are the most prevalent small game species. Other primary animal species include: golden eagle, red-tail hawk, crow, turkey vultures, raccoon, opossum, bobcat, and a growing population of black bear. Waterfowl concentrations occur near the larger lakes and in the South Chickamauga Creek flood plain. These species include bald eagle, wood ducks, mallard duck and other wading birds such as herons and egrets. Reptile and amphibian populations are consistent with Tennessee Valley species. Songbirds include: mockingbird, wood thrush, cardinals, titmouses and finches. Threatened and Endangered Species There are 21 species of animals and 7 plants in the watershed that occur on the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species. There are 16 animals and 11 plants that are listed on the State of Georgia and Tennessee Threatened and Endangered Lists. A detailed listing of these is included in the Scope of the Environmental Assessment section on page 34. Recreation/Tourism South Chickamauga Creek and Nickajack Lake are significant sources of water-based recreation in the region. As part of the Tennessee River, Nickajack Lake is an important part of a thriving tourism industry. Based on TVA estimates, there are approximately 940,000 visits annually for recreational use to Nickajack Lake. Based on Tennessee River Valley-wide estimates of $2 billion annually, Nickajack Lake recreation generates approximately $17 million annually for the area. Hamilton County alone, which includes portions of Lake Chickamauga and Nickajack Lake, tourism generates $430 million annually in revenues and supports 6,800 jobs with an annual payroll of $92 million Recreation related businesses on Nickajack Lake include marinas, boat sales, tour and entertainment boat operations, groceries, service stations, restaurants, motels, and convention facilities. There are recreational boat loading sites, commercial boat docks, and recreational parks located on the Lake. 14 14 The non-developed area along the South Chickamauga Creek and downstream surrounding the lake is a naturally diverse area, offering hiking trails, primitive camping, picnic areas, hunting and fishing. Real Estate Chattanooga's expansion into the project area is having a huge effect on real estate. Currently land is being converted at a rate of 2,057 acres per year. Land values average $10,000 per acre for residential uses, $ 6,000 for municipal/industrial uses and up to $ 5,000 for agricultural uses. There are over 300 housing units located in the floodplains of the watershed. Presently real estate values in the area are averaging about $ 90,000 per property. Property adjacent to the lake is valued 30 percent higher than non-lakefront property. Cultural Resources, Natural and Scenic Areas, and Visual Resources There are 19 listings on the Historic Register in the watershed. Catoosa County Georgia includes Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Fort Oglethorpe Historic District, Ringgold Depot, Stone Church, Whitman-Anderson House, Ringgold Commercial Historic District. Walker County Georgia includes: Ashland Farm, Gordon Lee House, Lane House, Lee and Gordon Mill, Miller Brothers Farm, Morgan Brick House, John Ross House, Rossville Post Office, McLemore Cove Historic District. Hamilton County Tennessee includes Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Ryall Springs, Audubon Acres Site (40 HA 84), Brainerd Mission Cemetery and Tunnel Hill battle site and historic tunnel. Cherokee Indian artifacts are well distributed throughout the area Potential adverse impacts on natural and cultural resources will be assessed further, on a field by field basis, during conservation measure plan development prior to implementation. Visual appearance of the watershed is less than desirable due to erosion of the landscape and algal growth and organic scum on area ponds. Social and Economic Data The economy of the watershed is oriented primarily to the production of agricultural products. Ringgold, Chickamauga, the outer fringes of Chattanooga TN. and a few small towns are the only urbanized areas in the watershed. Chickamauga and Ringgold have populations of 3,100 and 1,925 respectively. There are 716 farms in the watershed. Average size per farm is 122 acres. Approximately 50 percent of the farms are owneroperated. The other 50 percent are operated under lease arrangements. There are 6 minority landowners living in the watershed, exclusive of the urban areas. Most of the land in the watershed is under private ownership. Per capita income in the project area average $16,888 compared to $23,243 for the state and $24,950 for the nation. Most family farm units in the watershed contain either a dairy, beef cattle operation or poultry and its supporting crops, and/or pasture. Crops include: corn, cotton, soybeans, and vegetables. 15 15 Agricultural related operations provide an important economic stimulus to the area. However, to maintain this condition, actions need to be taken to reduce current and potential animal waste problems. Onsite and offsite effects of erosion and sedimentation that have been recognized in the watershed also need to be addressed. The South Chickamauga Creek enters the Tennessee River less than one mile upstream from the water intake for the Tennessee American Water Company in Chattanooga, TN. which provides 38 million gallons per day to 67,000 metered customers. Over 6,000 metered customers receive water from surface water in the watershed. Yates Spring in Catoosa County supplies water to over 12,000 water meters at a rate of 5.5 million gallons per day. A large percentage of rural homes in the watershed rely on individual wells for water. Land Use and Population Changes Historic trends and associated projections indicate that land use changes, livestock and poultry numbers, and management of agricultural operations in the watershed have the potential to be significantly impacted over the next 25 years. As indicated in the charts/tables on the following pages, population and nonagricultural land use in the watershed has changed significantly since 1982. POPULATION CHANGES 1990 1999 % Change 95,550 105,000 + 9.0 WATERSHED POPULATION 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 2025 1999 1990 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 LAND USE CHANGES 16 16 1982 1999 % Change Cropland Acres Pastureland Acres Forestland Acres Urban/Built-up Acres 9,877 101,693 147,448 2,860 6,124 92,448 132,836 5,536 -38.0 -10.0 -11.0 +93.0 Population has increase almost 10 percent in the watershed since 1990 while land has been converted to more urban/built uses. There has been a significant change in land use over the past 17 years in the watershed (see table above). Non-agricultural growth has advanced southeast from Chattanooga, Tennessee and to a lesser extent, northward from Atlanta, Georgia. Urbanization in areas surrounding Chickamauga, Ringgold, and Tunnel Hill has also taken land out of agriculture. This trend is expected to remain steady over the next 25 years with a continued decrease in agricultural land. LAND USE 1999 CROPLAND ACRES PASTURELAND FORESTLAND 5,536 6,124 URBAN/ BUILT UP 92,448 132,836 17 17 WATERSHED PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES General Summary Implementing this plan along with other programs currently in effect and future plans will help solve the agriculture related water quality problems in the region. Watershed citizens along with local workgroups and committees have supported regional water quality assessments since the 1980's and have requested water quality improvement projects. Water, animal, plant, air and soil resources in the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed are being negatively impacted from agricultural activities (see map page 19). It is estimated that a significant amount of the water quality problems in the watershed are associated with agricultural runoff from pasture and crop land and animal operations. Thirty miles of streams in the watershed do not meet or fully meet their designated use (fishing or recreation) due to excessive nutrients, bacteria and sediment from agricultural activities. Damage to fish and wildlife habitats are significant. Foul odor originating from dairy, beef, and poultry operations and associated eutrophic ponds and wetlands are becoming a problem in the watershed. There are moderate impairments to visual quality and a growing concern for health from high nitrates and fecal coliform being detected in the water supply. There also exists a potential for reduction of recreational opportunities in watershed streams, ponds, and surrounding areas because of impaired water quality. Land values near the water areas in the watershed could expect a decrease over the next 25 years. There are severe onsite soil resource impairments occurring on 4,470 acres of cropland and pasture eroding at greater than 2T. Pasture land productivity in the watershed over the next 25 years will decrease by 40% per acre. Agricultural land uses is contributing approximately 48 percent of the nitrogen, 50 percent of phosphorus, 55 percent of bacteria and 43 percent of ammonia produced in the South Chickamauga drainage area. Thirty-six percent of the sediment produced in the drainage area is coming from agricultural land. As a result, several tributaries (see Figure on page 23) of the South Chickamauga Creek drainage area do not meet or only partially meet their designated uses (fishing and recreation). The problems include moderate impairments to water quality, biological habitats, visual quality, recreation, and real estate values. Problems in the watershed impact recreation by $492,823 annually and real estate by $959,233 annually. The South Chickamauga Creek Watershed is also contributing approximately 3 to 7 percent (average 5 percent) of these loadings to Nickajack Lake. These problems are expected to continue causing greater adverse impacts to the area's resources. Recent gains or improvements to the South Chickamauga Creek drainage area will be negated without implementation of the watershed project. The ideal scenario, to bring all of South Chickamauga Creek's drainage area to fully support its designated use, is to continue the regional approach and follow South Chickamauga Creek Watershed with an acceleration of water quality improvement on other area tributaries that drain into Nickajack Lake. 18 18 Problem Area Map (from TVA) 19 19 Magnitude of Current Watershed Problems The table below identifies the degree of impact for each area of concern. The degree of impact was determined through public meeting assessments and consensus of interdisciplinary team investigations. EVALUATION OF IDENTIFIED CONCERNS Economic, Environmental, Cultural, and Social Concerns Degree of Significance to Decision making 1/ Surface water quality (Ag. chemicals & animal waste) Ground water quality (Ag. chemicals & animal waste) Pasture quality Water quantity Human health and safety Floodwater Property values Erosion and sedimentation Streams and wetland quality Land use, flora, prime farmland & forest land Fish and wildlife habitats Local economy Social well being Natural and scenic areas Air quality and noise Animal health Endangered and threatened plants & animals Recreation Transportation Visual resources Mineral resources Cultural resources high high high high high high high high high high medium medium medium medium low low low low low low low low 1/ High - must be considered in the analysis of alternatives; medium - may be affected by some alternative solutions; low - consider, but not very significant. 20 20 Inventory and Forecasted Conditions Historic trends indicate that livestock and poultry numbers, land use and management of agricultural operations in the watershed will have the potential to increase over the projected 25 year evaluation period without strong external incentives and accelerated program opportunities. However, with the likelihood of increased urban influences from Chattanooga to the north and Atlanta to the south, the expected agricultural growth is forecasted as a constant with regard to animal numbers with a decreasing supply of agricultural land. The following table identifies current problems and future conditions that are likely in the South Chickamauga Creek Drainage area without project treatment for the next 25 years. Current problems Future conditions 30 miles of streams partially/not supporting designated use 60 miles of streams partially/not supporting designated use Excess sedimentation in riparian areas 38 percent of wells impacted due to recharge of nitrogen and bacteria rich waters Potential flood damage Agricultural sources contribute 5 percent of sediment annually to the lake Change in bottomland habitat to dryer land species 50 percent increase in well contamination problems Increase in potential flood damage Continued 5-7 percent sediment deposition to lake annually from agricultural sources Reduced real estate values by 5% for impacted areas Reduced real estate values by an additional 10 percent over 25 years for impacted areas Periods of turbidity in lake increase by 10% Periods of high turbidity in the lake Water contact sports reduced Water contact sports reduced by 20 percent Threatened game and fish habitat (change from game to scavenger type fish) 21 21 20 percent loss in game and fish habitats Problem Causes/Monitoring Support Data Water quality problems exist when the intended use of the water is denied or impaired because of contaminants in the water. For water quality problems to deny or impair use, the water's chemical properties are unacceptable. Georgia Water Standards for Recreation and Fishing uses are as follows: Bacteria (fecal coliform) Recreation Fishing 200 (no/100ml) 200 (no/100ml) Dissolved Oxygen 5.0 (mg/l) 5.0 (mg/l) PH 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5 The Recommended levels for Total Nitrogen, Ammonia, and Phosphorus are as follows: Nitrogen Ammonia Phosphorus less than .3 mg/l (Eutrophic conditions) less than .2 mg/l less than .05 mg/l (Eutrophic conditions) The following conditions or causes have been identified through numerous water quality studies and assessments in the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed. These impairments to the watershed waters result in the water not supporting or only partially supporting the State's designated use of fishing and/or recreation. Thirty miles of identified creeks in the watershed do not support or only partially support their designated use as identified in the 1997 305(b) report by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Creek Not/Partially Supporting (NS) (PS) (PS) Reason South Chickamauga Creek Peavine Creek West Chickamauga Fecal coliform Biota/sediment Fecal coliform 22 22 Impaired Stream Segement Map 23 23 Monitoring data for West Chickamauga Creek near Lakeview Ga. as Reported by the United States Geological Survey Water Data Report 1997. Range Dissolve Oxygen (mg/l) Phosphorus (mg/l) Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3) (mg/l) Ammonia NH4 (mg/l) Fecal Coliform ((mpn) 6.9-9.7 .04-.15 Average 8.2 .07 17-.840 .03-.350 20-13000 .628 .083 2195 Water quality data on South Chickamauga Creek as indicated from the Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control Water Management Ambient Monitoring Program. Range Dissolve Oxygen (mg/l) Phosphorus (mg/l) Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3) (mg/l) Ammonia NH4 (mg/l) Fecal Coliform ((mpn) 4.68-10.77 .01-.91 Average 7.62 .11 .01-1.12 .02-.15 2-76000 .51 .07 6008 TVA Monitoring Data for South Chickamauga Creek: Poor Benthic Score Index of Biotic Integrity Biochemical Oxygen Demand Dissolved Oxygen Suspended Solids 3 7 Fair 16 14 Good 4 3 1 3 - 3 - 17 12 6 24 24 Approximately 38 percent of the wells sampled in the project area tested positive for Fecal Coliform as reported by County Environmental Health Services. Watershed Problem Sources The table on page 31 indicates the percent contributions of agriculture related pollutants to the watershed streams and waterways. It is recognized that industrial, municipal, residential and other land uses are also major source contributors to the concerns identified. However, these contributors will be addressed by other local, state and federal programs. Through consensus agreement with local, state and federal planners, a significant portion of the problem sources could be attributed to agriculture. From scientific assessment of agricultural operations in the watershed, it was determined that approximately 61,583 tons of animal waste from dairy operations, 165,975 tons of waste from beef operations, 378,223 tons of waste from poultry operations and 143,620 tons of waste from other animal types are generated in the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed annually. This amount of waste contains 2,589 tons of N and 773 tons of P. The waste is primarily generated from 19 dairy, 295 beef and 79 poultry operations. Approximately 3 of the dairy operations, 35 of the beef operations and 11 poultry operations in the watershed do not have any type of waste management system installed. The remaining 16 dairies, 260 beef and 68 poultry operations have partial systems that do not adequately handle the waste being produced. Manure produced by dry and replacement cows is deposited on poorly maintained pastureland. Waste of some dairies produced in confined areas is allowed to wash away without proper controls. Therefore most of the manure is not contained onsite nor utilized properly. Beef cattle congregate in streams and graze on poor quality pastureland while many poultry operations are without systems to store, handle and utilize their waste properly. Commercial fertilizer applied to 98,572 acres of crop and pastureland in the watershed also contributes nutrients to the watershed streams. Poor pasture quality, animal access areas and trails and severe stream bank degradation are also main contributors of water quality problems. Erosion from crop land and pasture land totals 208,969 tons per year. Of this total, 39,681 tons are delivered offsite annually into the watershed streams and wetlands. Agricultural related problems in the watershed can be grouped into several source areas. These include: 1) Animal access to streams and streambanks. 2) Streambank riparian degradation and sedimentation from animal walkways. 3) Inadequate management and disposal of animal waste onsite. 4) Eroding pasture and cropland The pictures on the following pages were taken of conditions in the watershed to support the stated problems and problem sources. 25 25 WATERSHED PROBLEMS ANIMAL ACCESS AND SEDIMENTATION ANIMAL ACCESS AREAS, STREAMBANK EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 26 26 ANIMAL ACCESS AND STREAMBANK EROSION POTENTIAL NUTRIENT AND BACTERIA PROBLEMS FROM ANIMAL ACCESS 27 27 POTENTIAL NUTRIENT RUNOFF FROM HEAVY USE AREAS INADEQUATE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF ANIMAL WASTE 28 28 INADEQUATELY MAINTAINED PASTURELAND GRAZING LAND WITHOUT FENCING OR ROTATION 29 29 WETLAND DEGRADATION FROM POORLY MANAGED PASTURELAND WETLAND DEGRADATION FROM ANIMAL ACCESS AND LACK OF RIPARIAN BUFFER 30 30 The following table shows offsite nutrient loadings from agricultural sources to streams and wetlands in the watershed. Unit DAIRY Nutrients of animal waste generated for 2,760 cows Nitrogen Phosphorus BEEF (15,000 hd) Nutrients of animal waste Nitrogen Phosphorus POULTRY (25,800,000) Nutrients of animal waste Nitrogen Phosphorus Tons/yr Tons/yr Tons/yr Tons/yr Tons/yr Tons/yr Generated Onsite Total Deposited Offsite (Estimated) 167 55 19 6 552 170 49 14 1,610 677 8 1 OTHER ANIMALS (HOGS,GOATS, HORSE) Nutrients of animal waste Nitrogen Phosphorus PASTURE/HAYLAND EROSION (102,448 acres) Nitrogen Phosphorus CROPLAND EROSION (6,124 acres) Nitrogen Phosphorus TOTALS (Nitrogen) (Phosphorus) Tons/yr Tons/yr Tons/yr Tons/yr 13,791 960 247,026 17,982 21 2 154 29 Tons/yr Tons/yr 230,741 16,065 46 4 Tons/yr Tons/yr 165 55 11 2 31 31 Municipal/Industrial There are 8 municipal/industrial facilities (TRIS facilities) located in the watershed that have Pt. Source discharge permits as identified by EPA. The following table identifies a consensus assessment of total pollutants produced in the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed by producer categories. POLLUTANT SOURCE POLLUTANT PERCENT CONTRIBUTION Industrial/Municipal Nitrates (NO3) Ammonia (NH4) Fecal Coliform Phosphorus Heavy Metals Sediments Nitrates (NO3) Ammonia (NH4) Fecal Coliform Phosphorus Heavy Metals Sediments Nitrates (NO3) Ammonia (NH4) Fecal Coliform Phosphorus Heavy Metals Sediments Nitrates (N03) Ammonia (NH4) Fecal Coliform Phosphorus Heavy Metals Sediments Nitrates (N03) Ammonia (NH4) Fecal Coliform Phosphorus Heavy Metals Sediments 12 17 12 21 22 1 24 24 28 18 60 35 48 43 55 50 8 36 3 3 0 3 5 8 13 13 5 8 5 20 Residential Agriculture Silviculture/Forestry Other/Natural Occurences Estimated loadings to Nickajack Lake from agricultural sources South Chickamauga Creek watershed constitutes 36 percent of the drainage total. 32 32 Focus of the PL-566 Small Watershed Program is to address agricultural related problems by treating agricultural sources. Therefore, issues dealing with industrial, municipal and residential related problems will be addressed by other local, state and federal programs. The South Chickamauga Creek Watershed Project is part of a regional effort to improve water quality by controlling non-point source pollution and sediment in the South Chickamauga Creek drainage area. The effective area comprises 249,527 acres which is roughly the drainage area north of Lafayette Georgia and southeast of Chattanooga Tennessee. The South Chickamauga Creek supports its designated use (fishing) until it reaches the Ringgold Georgia area. Below this point and downstream to Nickajack Lake the South Chickamauga Creek drainage use is only partially supported. Within the Nickajack Lake drainage area no PL-566 projects have been approved for watersheds to help alleviate these pollution problems. TVA and the COE have initiated the Brainerd Levee Shoreline Stabilization Project for the Tennessee River. This project has helped protect and stabilize the shoreline of the Tennessee River at Nickajack Lake. The Tennessee Department of Agriculture has provided Non-Point Source funding to treat 100 acres in the watershed. In addition to these projects the USDA-NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) funding will treat 793 acres. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has treated 22 acres in the watershed. This acreage is expected to increase as riparian areas are protected to improve water quality of the watershed's streams and creeks. The effective drainage area to the South Chickamauga Creek outlet is 249,527 acres. The effective drainage area of Nickajack Lake is 691,200 acres. Based on these figures, the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed constitutes 36 percent of this total. All surface drainage from the watershed flows into South Chickamauga Creek and eventually into Nickajack Lake. Again, other source contributing land uses such as industrial, commercial and residential are not evaluated in this plan. Their percent impact on the overall problems identified in the watershed are, however, calculated out from the overall watershed evaluation to determine the impact for agriculture. It is assumed that if substantial offsite impacts are linked to these sources that appropriate actions and solutions will be taken to help protect natural resources in the watershed. Their treatment is beyond the scope of the PL-566 program. 33 33 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A scoping process was used to identify issues of economic, environmental, cultural and social concerns in the watershed. Watershed concerns of local citizen were expressed at public meetings and through questionnaires. Factors that would effect soil, water, air, animal, and plant resources were identified by multidisciplinary teams composed of agronomists, biologists, economists, resource conservationists, soil scientists, water quality specialists and others. The concerns and their degree of significance to the decision making process were identified. A multidisciplinary team composed of various State and Federal agency personnel, conducted an environmental evaluation in April 2000 and provided input into the development of the Environmental Assessment (EA). Water quality and erosion were the major issues identified. Opportunities to reduce water quality degradation and erosion related flooding were targeted for analysis. The following table shows the degree of significance of the concerns identified. EVALUATION OF IDENTIFIED CONCERNS Economic, Environmental, Cultural, and Social Concerns Degree of Significance to Decision making 1/ high high high high high high high high high high medium medium medium medium low low low low low low low low Surface water quality (Ag. chemicals & animal waste) Ground water quality (Ag. chemicals & animal waste) Pasture Quality Water quantity Human health and safety Floodwater Property values Erosion and sedimentation Streams and wetland quality Land use, flora, prime farmland & forest land Fish and wildlife habitats Local economy Social well being Natural and scenic areas Air quality and noise Animal health Endangered and threatened plants & animals Recreation Transportation Visual resources Mineral resources Cultural resources 1/ High - must be considered in the analysis of alternatives; medium - may be affected by some alternative solutions; low - consider, but not very significant. 34 34 Wetlands There are 367 acres of wetlands in the watershed. Additionally, there are 2,316 acres of ponds, streams and creeks and 32,370 acres of hydric soils in the project area. Wildlife Habitat There are 3 basic woodland wildlife habitat types in the area. These are; oak-hickory upland hardwood, upland white pine-mixed hardwood and bottomland hardwood. The vegetative composition of the various woodland habitat types supports a variety of small wildlife species such as raccoons, opossums, red fox, gray squirrels, cottontail rabbits, various woodpeckers, songbirds and small rodents. Game species utilizing the area are white tail deer and wild turkey. Raptors include: Red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, bald eagle and owls. There also exists a growing population of black bears in the mountainous areas. Open land habitat consists of cropland, abandoned cropland and pasture. There are 6,124 acres of cropland under intensive use for raising cotton, corn, and soybeans and are clean tilled with little or no residue remaining on the soil surface. There are estimated 12,450 acres of abandoned cropland fields and pastures. These areas are in the first 3 to 5 years of succession, sprouting up with small pines, hardwoods, briers, and wild plum thickets. Wildlife using the cropland habitat are confined to the "ecotone" created by the cropland that is adjacent to woodland. The diversification of the abandoned cropland and pasture is creating better conditions for escape, nesting, and resting cover for many species of wildlife, including birds, deer and small mammals. Fish Habitat Studies by Georgia Game and Fish biologists indicate the South Chickamauga Creek can support high populations of game fish with good quality water. South Chickamauga Creek and Nickajack Lake can also support a very large population of game fish. Fishing in the drainage areas and on the lake has been one of the most popular recreational activities in the area. There are numerous primary and secondary trout streams in the watershed which support native populations of Brook trout and stocked populations of rainbow trout. There are an additional 2,316 acres of water contained in streams, small lakes, farm ponds, and natural ponds. Fish populations in these water bodies depend on the degree of management and water quality. The primary native fish species identified in the watershed were shiners, studfish, redhorse, bluegill, darters, and bass. Trout populations vary according to stocking rates and type habitat. 35 35 Endangered and Threatened Animals and Plants The Federal list of Endangered and Threatened Species contains the following as occurring in the watershed. Animals:1/ Bald eagle (T) (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Gray bat (E) (Myotis griescens) American peregrine falcon (E) (Falco peregrinus anatum) Red-cockaded woodpecker (E) (Picoides borealis) Spotfin chub (T) (Cyprinella monacha) Yellowfin madtom (T) (Noturus flavipinnis) Snail darter (T) (Percina tanasi) Anthony's river snail (E) (Atherania anthonyi) Alabama moccasinshell mussel (T) (Medionidus acutissimus) Southern pigtoe mussel (E) (Pleurobema georgianum) Blue shiner (T) (Myotis griescens) Amber darter (E) (Percina antesella) Conasauga logperch (E) (Percina jenkinsi) Cylindrical liopax (E) (Liopax cyclostomaformis) Upland combshell mussel (E) (Epioblasma metastriata) Southern acornshell mussel (E) (Epioblasma othcaloogensis) Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (T) (Lampsilis altilis) Coosa moccasinshell mussel (E) (Medionidus acutissimus) Southern clubshell mussel (E) (Pleurobema decisum) Ovate clubshell mussel (E) (Pleurobema perovatum) Triangular kidneyshell mussel (E) (Ptychobranchus greeni) Plants:1/ Canby's dropwort (E) (Oxypolis canbyi) Harperella (E) (Ptliimnium nodosum) Relict trillium (E) (Trillium religuum) Large-flowered skullcap (E) (Scutellaria montana) Mohr's Barbara's buttons (T) (Marshallia mohrii) Virginia spirea (T) (Spiraea virginiana) Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (E) (Xyris tennesseensis) 1/ (E) Endangered, (T) Threatened, (S) Threatened due to similarity of appearance of another endangered or threatened species. 36 36 The State of Georgia's and Tennessee's list of Endangered and Threatened Species contains the following as occurring in the watershed: Animals:2/ Bigeye chub (R) (Hybopsis amblops) Popeye shiner (T) (Notropis ariommus) Mountain madtom (T) (Noturus eleutherus) Dusky darter (R) (Percina sciera) Stargazing minnow (T) (Phenacobius uranops) Pigeon mountain salamander (R) (Plethodon petraeus) Black darter (R) (Etheostoma duryi) Northern studfish (T) (Fundulus catenatus) Alabama map turtle (R) (Graptemys pulchra) River redhorse (R) (Moxostoma carinatum) Frecklebelly madtom (E) (Noturus munitus) River darter (E) (Percina shumardi) Freckled darter (E) (Percina lenticula) Coldwater darter (T) (Etheostoma ditrema) Trispot darter (T) (Etheostoma trisella) Lined chub (S) (Noturus munitus) Plants:2/ Glade-cress (T) (Leavenworthia exigua exigua) Great Plains ladies-tresses (E) (Spiranthes magnicamporum) Purple sedge (T) (Carex purpurifera) Golden seal (E) (Hydrastis canadensis) Twinleaf (E) (Jeffersonia diphylla) Cumberland rose gentian (R) (Sabatia capitata) Wood's false hellebore (R) (Veratrum woodii) Four-flowered loosestrife (S) (Lysimachia quadriflora) Swamp lousewort (T) (Pedicularis lanceolata) Maryland milkwort (S) (Polygala mariana) Canada lily (T) (Lilium canadense) 2/ (E) Endangered, (T) Threatened, (R) Rare, (S) Threatened due to similarity of appearance of another endangered or threatened species. 37 37 Cultural and Historical Resources There are 19 listings on the Historic Register in the watershed. Catoosa County Georgia includes Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Fort Oglethorpe Historic District, Ringgold Depot, Stone Church, Whitman-Anderson House, Ringgold Commercial Historic District. Walker County Georgia includes: Ashland Farm, Gordon Lee House, Lane House, Lee and Gordon Mill, Miller Brothers Farm, Morgan Brick House, John Ross House, Rossville Post Office, McLemore Cove Historic District. Hamilton County Tennessee includes Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Ryall Springs, Audubon Acres Site (40 HA 84), Brainerd Mission Cemetery and Tunnel Hill battle site and historic tunnel. Cherokee Indian artifacts are well distributed throughout the area. Potential adverse impacts on natural and cultural resources will be assessed further, on a field by field basis, during conservation measure plan development prior to implementation. Prime Farmland There are 37,000 acres of prime farmland in the 249,527 acre drainage area. 38 38 FORMULATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES General Preliminary alternatives for solving offsite and onsite problems caused by animal waste and erosion were developed according to the following objectives of the Sponsor: 1. Improve surface and ground water quality to support its designated use by reducing the amount of nutrients, bacteria and sediment from agricultural sources. 2. Reduce offsite sediment deposition damages to streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands, flood plains, county roadways and ditches. 3. Maintain the productivity of the soil resource base by reducing excessive erosion damages on pasture and crop land. The South Chickamauga Creek Watershed project is formulated to bring the watershed waters to support their designated uses. The consensus of federal and state water quality specialists involved in the planning process is that if present watershed sediment, bacteria and nutrient levels exported can be reduced by 10-30 percent from agricultural sources their would be a substantial improvement in water quality. This improvement, would help those waters that do not fully and partially support their designated uses achieve their use criteria. Providing very limited support to the proposed watershed project is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). South Chickamauga Creek Watershed is part of a regional effort to improve water quality by controlling non-point source pollution and sediment to South Chickamauga Creek and Nickajack Lake downstream on the Tennessee River. The effective watershed area is 249,527 acres which is roughly the drainage area northwest of Dalton Georgia to Chattanooga, Tennessee. Water quality of South Chickamauga Creek supports its designated use (fishing) until it reaches the Ringgold Georgia area. Below this point and downstream to Nickajack Lake the South Chickamauga’s use is only partially supported in most places. It was determined that 18 percent of the water quality impairments in Nickajack Lake are caused by agricultural sources in the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed. Meeting the goals in the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed along with accomplishments in the EQIP and CRP Programs and reductions associated with other agricultural ongoing programs and special projects impacting the South Chickamauga Creek drainage and Nickajack Lake can reduce sediment, bacteria, and nutrient exports to the Lake by 5-8 percent. These activities and anticipated funding through ongoing programs and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) should help bring the overall reduction to 10 percent. These cumulative project effects and continued emphasis on nutrient and pesticide management along with sound conservation program should maintain the Creek and associated waterways in the project area as a quality resource over the next 25 plus years. 39 39 Municipalities and industries in the watershed with waste treatment systems either currently have EPD or EPA approved waste management plans or discharge permits. Those communities without plans are developing such with EPD or EPA guidance. It is assumed that non-agricultural related water quality pollution concerns will be addressed by other plans and actions ongoing in the area. The Sponsor, along with individual landowners, has shown an interest in developing and carrying out a water quality and watershed protection project in a timely manner. No opposition to the project has surfaced. Studies and experience in similar watersheds indicate that technical and financial assistance requested by the Sponsor through the PL-566 program is appropriate for solving the soil, water, air, plant and animal related resource problems in this watershed. The proposed project will improve water quality, reduce the deterioration of the soil resource base, reduce erosion and the resulting sediment, improve wetland and wildlife habitats, and reduce recreational, real estate and transportation impairments. All of the above improvements will enhance the quality of life in the area. This project will support the number one priority of Georgia's Water Management Plan to maintain and protect water quality. Maintenance of water quality in agricultural areas is also a high priority of the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The project will assist the local community to achieve their goal of protecting the surface and ground water supplies. Formulation Process The watershed was studied in detail to determine the extent of the problems and their causes. A scoping process was used to identify resource concerns and impairments. Local landowners and users assisted the interdisciplinary team in identifying and assessing alternative solutions to watershed resource problems. The watershed presently has 19 dairies, 295 beef and 79 poultry operations and 74,000 acres of marginal pastureland and 5,300 acres of excessively eroding cropland. Based on criteria and procedures listed in NRCS Technical Note 1801 "Guide for Estimating Participation in Conservation Operations and Watershed Protection Projects" the overall estimated participation rate for land treatment measures and animal waste systems in the recommended plan is 54 percent. Based on the 54% estimated participation, 10 dairies, 159 beef and 43 poultry operations to be treated are probable. Five to ten percent of the operations are being partially treated under other programs. The remaining operations are considered eligible for project action. The animal operations are grouped according to expected needs. Animal waste management systems were grouped into six evaluation units (EU). EU 1 included animal waste management systems for 37 poultry operations that have partial animal waste systems. EU 2 included animal waste management systems for 6 poultry operations with no systems currently in place. EU 3 is composed of 140 beef operations with partial systems in place. EU 4 include animal waste management systems for 19 beef operations without any type system in place. 40 40 EU 5 included systems for 8 dairy operations with partial systems currently in place. And EU 6 is composed of 2 dairy operations with no animal waste system in place. A description of each animal waste evaluation unit can be found on page 57. Animal waste management practices were developed to minimize the impacts of nutrients and bacteria from dairy, beef and poultry operations on water resources, recreation, real estate and biological habitats in the watershed and offsite in the South Chickamauga Creek drainage area and downstream on Nickajack Lake. Animal waste systems, livestock water development, nutrient management, grazing land management and other management practices were considered in the formulation process. Animal waste evaluation units were identified based on the type and size of operations. Consideration was given to both on-farm and multi-farm management systems; however, on-farm systems were considered more acceptable by landowners. Animal waste management systems will include all or parts of the the following components: waste treatment lagoon or pond, pump and concrete pad with stationary delivery pipe (waste utilization system), pasture and hayland planting with cross fencing and alternative livestock water supply, fencing, heavy use area protection, flush down system, diversions/curbing, stream crossings, manure scraper, riparian forested buffers, waste storage facilities with gutters, manure spreader and composting facilities. Land treatment on a total of 4,864 acres of eroding pasture and cropland will include crop residue use, filter strips, conservation cropping sequence, critical area planting and riparian forested buffers. Nutrient, pesticide and grazing land management practices for dairy, beef and poultry operations were included as components of each animal waste management system to help provide adequate protection of resources impacted by animal waste. Grazing land practices in EU 3,4,5,and 6 consists of cross fencing and livestock watering facilities. The nutrient management plans for grazing land will consist of rotational grazing on individual pastures to improve desired pasture growth, plant densities, and forage quality which will improve waste utilization and reduce overland flow of nutrients. Current annual funding for conservation measures through EQIP for Bradley, Catoosa, Hamilton, Walker, and Whitfield counties is $150,000. Assuming funding is proportional to land area, the watershed receives approximately $ 75,000 annually, which can cost share for treatment on approximately 5,769 acres or on 3 complete animal waste management systems per year. Other available programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), if continued, would help but would not alleviate the major cropland erosion problems. The 530 acres of excessively eroding cropland are expected to be treated with the ongoing and other programs. Treatment Units (TU) established for the On-going program/Future Without project were identified. TU1 treated the remaining 4770 eligible acres. TU2 factored by a 54 percent participation rate results in TU3 for a treatment area of 2,576 acres. The balance (2,194 acres) is TU4. Pasture land acres of 7,440 (TU5) are expected to be treated with ongoing programs. The remaining 35,964 eligible acres (TU6) factored by a 54 percent participation rate results in a treatment area of 30,636 acres (TU7) . The Present Condition/Future Without scenario is based on the 4,770 cropland acres in TU2 and 66,660 acres of pasture plus associated nutrients and bacteria from 19 dairies, 295 beef and 79 poultry operations (EU's 1,2,3,4,5,and 6). 41 41 Conservation land treatment options were developed based on judgement of an interdisciplinary team considering soils, slopes, farm management practices, agricultural trends and experience gained in planning other projects with similar problems. Conservation options include all or combinations of the following components: conservation cropping sequence, grassed waterways, filter strips, riparian buffers, critical area treatment, and nutrient management. Total resource management systems were determined based on maximization of net benefits as well as those that address environmental, social, and regional concerns that most closely meet the planning goals of USDA programs. Detailed economic evaluations were used to determine project costs and benefits for the National Economic Development (NED), Resource Protection (RP) and other alternative plans. Formulation of alternative plans for the South Chickamauga Creek Watershed followed procedures outlined in the "Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resource Problems". Formulation also followed specifications in Technical Note 1706 "Project Planning for Water Quality Concerns". Three alternative plans, that included 10 dairies, 159 beef, and 43 poultry operations, 35,964 acres of pasture and 2,576 acres of cropland, were developed based on individual benefit-cost information and their probability of being; complete, effective, efficient, and acceptable. 42 42 The following table identifies the expected effects on problems and opportunities for with and without project conditions based on the land treatment practices and animal waste systems considered. WITH PROJECT Problems and Opportunities Accelerated Land Treatment Treatment of Animal Waste WITHOUT PROJECT Accelerated Land Treatment Treatment of Animal Waste a. Surface water quality b. Recreation opportunities c. Property values d. Biological habitats e. Stream/lake capacity f. Health and Safety g. Forage productivity h. Cropland productivity i. Flooding j. Water Quantity + + - - + + + + + + - - + + + + + + 0 + + + 0 + - 0 0 0 - (+) favorable impact (-) adverse impact (0) no impact Description and Effects of Alternative Plans In evaluating preliminary alternative plans emphasis was placed on the most cost effective and acceptable method to reduce offsite problems caused by animal waste, sedimentation and onsite problems caused by soil erosion from pasture and cropland. 43 43 The ongoing program (No Project Action), National Economic Development (NED), Resource Protection (RP), and Alternative Plan 3 were developed. The No Project Action Plan assumes no action will be taken to increase technical or financial assistance for installation of animal waste management systems, grazing land management systems, and land treatment practices in the identified problem area (treatment area). The project treatment area will consist of installing 212 animal waste management systems and treatment on 4,864 pasture and crop land acres. Note: An assumption was made that ongoing programs will treat only 530 HEL acres (TU1) and 7,400 acres of pastureland. The comparison of alternatives is based on the treatment area (38,540 acres in TU 7); therefore, the present condition for TU 2 and TU6 represents the future without project. Ongoing Program Components: Ongoing Program consists of existing EQIP and CRP funds directed toward (EU's 1,2,3,4,5,6, AND 7). Practices include: installation of Resource Management Systems in addition to animal waste management systems on the 2 dairy, 30 beef and 8 poultry operations. Cost: Total cost - $ 200,000; Gov't share - $150,000; State/Local - $50,000; annual cost - $ 16,586. Benefits: Partial treatment on 2 dairy, 30 beef, and 8 poultry will reduce nitrogen and phosphorus to the watershed by 1 percent and 1 percent to Nickajack Lake. Erosion on the 530 acres of land identified as TU1 will be reduced by 3,374 tons per year, a 1 percent watershed reduction, sediment will be reduced in the watershed by approximately 1 percent. Sediment to Nickajack Lake will be reduced by 47 tons/year and the associated nitrogen and phosphorus by 1 percent. Effects: With existing EQIP and CRP funding it is anticipated that animal waste associated nitrogen and phosphorus will be reduced to watershed streams from 76 tons per year to 75 tons per year and 21 tons per year year to 20 tons per year, respectfully. Overall nutrients reduction to the watershed and to Nickajack Lake is 1 percent over a 6 year installation period. It is expected that watershed bacteria counts will be reduced in the1 to 3 percent range. Existing EQIP and CRP activities directed toward the 530 acres of cropland (TU1) and 7,400 acres of pastureland (TU5) will reduce total erosion from an average of 337,417 tons per year to 334,043 tons per year. Offsite sediment from the treated area (TU 1 and TU5) to the watershed outlet will be reduced from 93,733 tons per year to 937 tons per year (a one percent reduction on the treatment area. Total estimated average annual benefits are $ 20,732. The alternative plans are detailed on the following pages. 44 44 Alternative No. 1 National Economic Development (N.E.D.) Plan Components: The National Economic Development Plan will include evaluation units 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Installation of approximately 206 animal waste management systems may include the following components: waste treatment lagoon or pond, pump and concrete pad with stationary delivery pipe (waste utilization system), pasture and hayland planting with cross fencing and alternative livestock water supply, fencing, heavy use area protection, hose and wash down system, diversions/curbing, stream crossings, manure scraper, riparian forested buffers, waste storage facilities with gutters, manure spreader and composting facilities. Land treatment of 4,560 acres of eroding cropland and pastureland management that includes pasture and hay land planting and nutrient management practices when applying animal waste. Costs: Total project cost - $ 2,392,093; PL-566 share - $1,794,070; Other - $ 598,023; Annual cost - $258,380. Benefits: The amount of nutrients from 10 dairy, 159 beef and 37 poultry operations entering the waterways will be reduced by approximately 49 and 57 percent for nitrogen and phosphorus respectively. This reduction will minimize adverse impacts to human health, real estate values, and recreation by 38%. Biological habitats in the watershed and on Nickajack Lake will begin to improve. Application of animal waste from lagoons will provide nutrients to crop and pasture land. Grazing land management practices on pasture land will effectively utilize animal waste before the waste enters waterways and wetland areas and also enhance forage quality for the cows. Erosion on the pasture and cropland treatment area will be reduced by 86,927 tons per year, a 32 percent reduction. The reduction in erosion will also eliminate nutrients from entering the waterways by the same percent. This will help maintain the productive capacity of the soil. Sediment entering the watershed streams will be reduced by 25 percent (17,970 tons per year) and loadings to Nickajack Lake will be reduced by 797 tons per year (5 percent). Installation of the animal waste management systems and land treatment practices will allow watershed streams in the project area and Nickajack Lake to fully and maintain their designated uses respectively. Annual benefits are estimated to be $ 1,088,334 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 4.21:1.0 for this plan. 45 45 Effects: Implementation of the N.E.D. Plan will improve water quality and provide erosion protection to 4,940 acres of eroding pasture and cropland. Installation of the 10 dairy, 159 beef and 37 poultry waste management systems and the implementation of grazing management practices and nutrient management plans will provide an additional 4,000 lbs. of forage per acre annually and result in proper utilization and disposal of animal waste. Grazing land management practices on pasture land will increase nutrient utilization thus increasing the density and litter mass of grasses. The reduction in bacteria and nutrients entering waterways will minimize offsite damages and impairments to the environment and water quality. This reduction will also reduce the potential for harmful effects on human health in the area and minimize the adverse impacts to recreational activities and real estate on Nickajack Lake. Nitrogen leaving offsite from dairy, beef and poultry operations will be reduced from 76 tons/yr. to 29 tons/yr., while phosphorus will be reduced from 21 tons/yr. to 12 tons/yr. offsite. Implementation of the plan will also help maintain the productive capacity of the soil resource base. Erosion rates will be reduced from an average of 337,417 tons per year to 249,102 tons per year. Offsite sediment from the treated area to the watershed streams and ponds will be reduced from 63,765 tons per year to 45,795 tons per year. Sediment reduction to the watershed outlet will be from 3,188 to 2,296 tons per year. This reduction will decrease the variable production cost and enhance the long term production capacity of the land. Nitrogen from crop and pasture land will be reduced from 67 tons/yr. to 48 tons/yr. Phosphorus will be reduced from 6 tons/yr. to 4 tons/yr. Alternative No. 2 Resource Protection Plan (RP) Components: The Resource Protection Plan will include Evaluation Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Installation of approximately 212 animal waste management systems may include the following components: waste treatment lagoon or pond, pump and concrete pad with stationary delivery pipe (waste utilization system), pasture and hayland planting with cross fencing and alternative livestock water supply, stream bank protection, fencing, heavy use area protection, flush down system, diversions/curbing, stream crossings, manure scraper, riparian forested buffers, waste storage facilities with gutters, manure spreader and composting facilities. Land treatment on a total of 31,099 acres of eroding pasture and cropland will include grassed waterways, crop residue use, filter strips, conservation cropping sequence, critical area planting and riparian forested buffers. Nutrient management will be used when applying animal waste and prescribed grazing practices will be incorporated for pasture areas. Costs: Total project cost - $8,902,022 PL-566 share - $6,676,517; Other $ 2,225,505; Annual cost - $ 906,149. 46 46 Benefits: The amount of nutrients from 10 dairy, 159 beef and 43 poultry operations entering the waterways and Nickajack Lake will be reduced by approximately 69 percent for nitrogen and 74 percent for phosphorus. This reduction will minimize adverse impacts to human health, real estate values, and recreation by 60%. Biological habitats in the watershed and on Nickajack Lake will improve. Application of animal waste from lagoons and stack storage facilities and composters will provide nutrients for crop and pasture land. Grazing land management practices on pasture land will effectively utilize animal waste before the waste enters waterways and wetland areas and also enhance forage quality for the cows. Erosion on the pasture and cropland treatment area will be reduced by 140,168 tons per year, a 42 percent reduction. This reduction in erosion will eliminate nutrients entering waterways by the same percentage. This will help maintain the productive capacity of the soil. Sedimentation of ponds, streams, wetlands, woodland, and roadway areas will be reduced by 36,131 tons per year, resulting in a moderate improvement in water quality. Sediment entering Nickajack Lake will be reduced by 1,371 tons per year (5%). Installation of the animal waste management systems and land treatment practices will allow watershed streams and Nickajack Lake to fully and maintain their designated uses respectively. Annual benefits are estimated to be $1,195,114 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.32:1.0 for this plan. Effects: Implementation of the RP plan will improve water quality and provide erosion protection to 31,160 acres of eroding pasture and cropland. Installation of approximately 10 dairy, 159 beef and 43 poultry waste management systems and implementation of nutrient and grazing management plans will result in proper disposal of animal waste. Grazing land management practices on pasture land will provide an additional 4,000 lbs. of forage per acre annually and increase nutrient utilization thus increasing the density and litter mass of grasses. The reduction in bacteria and nutrients entering waterways will minimize the offsite damages and impairments to the environment and water quality. This reduction will also reduce the potential for harmful effects on human health in the area and minimize the impacts to recreational activities on Nickajack Lake. Nitrogen from dairy, beef and poultry operations will be reduced from 76 tons/yr. to 32 tons/yr, and phosphorus will be reduced from 21 tons/yr. to 7 tons/yr. Implementation of the plan will also help maintain the productive capacity of the soil resource base. Erosion rates will be reduced from an average of 337,417 tons per year to 197,249 tons per year. Offsite sediment from the treated area to the watershed streams and ponds will be reduced from 63,765 tons per year to 27,634 tons per year. Reduction to the watershed outlet will be from 3,188 to 1817 tons per year. This reduction will decrease the variable production cost and enhance the long-term production capacity of the land. Nitrogen from crop and pasture land will be reduced from 67 tons/yr. to 29 tons/yr. and phosphorus will be reduced from 6 tons/yr. To 2 tons/yr. 47 47 Alternative No. 3 (Recommended) Components: Alternative Plan 3 (Recommended) will include evaluation units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6 and 7. Installation of approximately 212 animal waste management systems may include the following components: waste treatment lagoon or pond, pump and concrete pad with stationary delivery pipe (waste utilization system), pasture and hayland planting with cross fencing and alternative livestock water supply, fencing, heavy use area protection, flush down system, diversions/curbing, stream crossings, manure scraper, riparian forested buffers, waste storage facilities with gutters, manure spreader and composting facilities. Land treatment on a total of 4,864 acres of eroding pasture and cropland will include crop residue use, filter strips, conservation cropping sequence, critical area planting and riparian forested buffers. Nutrient management will be used when applying animal waste and prescribed grazing practices will be incorporated for pasture areas. Costs: Total project cost - $ 3,667,575; PL-566 share - $2,750,681; Other $ 916,894; Annual cost - $ 559,850. Benefits: The amount of nutrients and bacteria from 10 dairy, 159 beef and 43 poultry operations entering the waterways and Nickajack Lake will be reduced by approximately 47 percent. This reduction will minimize adverse impacts to human health, real estate values, and recreation by approximately 55 %. Biological habitats in the watershed and on Nickajack Lake will also be improved. Application of animal waste from lagoons and stack storage facilities will provide nutrients to crop and pasture land. Grazing land management practices on pasture land will effectively utilize animal waste before the waste enters waterways and wetland areas and also enhance forage quality for the cows. Erosion on the pasture and cropland treatment area will be reduced by 93,748 tons per year, a 28 % percent reduction. This reduction in erosion will eliminate nutrients entering waterways by the same percentage. This will help maintain the productive capacity of the soil. Sedimentation of ponds, streams, wetlands, woodland, and roadway areas will be reduced by 22,662 tons per year, resulting in a moderate improvement in water quality. Sediment entering Nickajack Lake will be reduced by 893 tons per year (5%). Installation of the animal waste management systems and land treatment practices will allow watershed streams and Nickajack Lake to fully and maintain their designated uses respectively. Annual benefits are estimated to be $ 1,245,613 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 2:22:1.0 for this plan. Effects: Implementation of the Alternative Plan #3 (Recommended) will improve water quality and provide erosion protection to 4,864 acres of eroding pasture and cropland. Installation of approximately 10 dairy, 159 beef and 43 poultry waste management systems and implementation of nutrient and grazing management plans will result in proper disposal of animal waste. Grazing land management practices on pasture land will increase nutrient utilization thus increasing the density and litter mass of grasses. The reduction in bacteria and nutrients entering waterways will minimize the offsite damages and impairments to the environment and water quality. 48 48 This reduction will also reduce the potential for harmful effects on human health in the area and minimize the impacts to recreational activities on Nickajack Lake. Nitrogen from dairy, beef and poultry operations will be reduced from 76 tons/yr. to 34 tons/yr., and phosphorus will be reduced from 21 tons/yr. to 11 tons/yr. Implementation of the plan will also help maintain the productive capacity of the soil resource base. Erosion rates will be reduced from an average of 337,417 tons per year to 243,669 tons per year. Offsite sediment from the treated area to the watershed outlet will be reduced from 63,765 tons per year to 41,103 tons per year and to the outlet from 3,188 to 1,498 tons per year. This reduction will decrease the variable production cost and enhance the long-term production capacity of the land. Nitrogen from crop and pasture land will be reduced from 67 tons/yr. to 43 tons/yr., and phosphorus will be reduced from 6 tons/yr. to 3 tons/yr. 49 49 Table A Table A continued 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 Risk and Uncertainty The occurrence of 2-10 year storm events immediately after installation of land treatment measures and application of animal waste could temporarily impair surface water quality and reduce the effectiveness of the proposed measures in controlling soil erosion and nutrient runoff. The risk and uncertainty of landowner participation in the installation, operation, and maintenance of such practices and systems is a concern. The benefits and costs of proposed measures are computed at a specific rate of landowner participation and are based on the assumption that practices and systems installed will be properly maintained throughout the life of the project (25 years). However through public participation efforts and criteria in NRCS Technical Note 1801 it was estimated that the rate of landowner participation will be 54 percent for animal waste management systems and land treatment for the Recommended Plan. If the percentages are not obtained or the measures are not operated and maintained properly, the project benefits and costs will be reduced. Rationale for Plan Selection The Recommended Plan (Alternative # 3 consist of the conservation option 1 for EU1, 1 for EU2, 2 for EU3, 1 for EU4, 2 for EU5, 2 for EU6 and 1 for EU 7. It was developed at the request of the Sponsor and judged to be the more acceptable alternative in a March 2000 public meeting. The Recommended Plan meets the Sponsor's objectives of reducing nutrients, bacteria and sediments entering the streams and recharge areas. This plan approaches the resource protection alternative in maintaining productivity and environmental quality benefits. The Selected Plan reasonably maximizes net economic benefits. The Plan includes all Evaluation Units (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). There were no other complete and acceptable treatment alternatives for these evaluation units. 54 54 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Since the 1980’s citizens within the South Chickamauga Watershed have recognized increasing water quality issues and potential problems related to agriculture. Landowners utilized assistance through EQIP to address their concerns but were limited by program policy and budget constraints. Meetings were held to evaluate the problem and determine if the issues warranted application for additional federal assistance through the PL-566, Small Watershed Program. Based on data obtained and interest within the watershed the Districts (Sponsors) and NRCS agreed that this watershed should be targeted for special water quality improvement efforts. The Sponsor(s) submitted an application on May 21, 1999 to the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission for NRCS planning assistance under the PL-566 authority. The Commission approved the application and gave it high priority. At the initiation of the planning process, meetings were held with key farmers and District representatives from the watershed area to discuss problem identification, conservation systems and PL-566 requirements. Meetings were held on 1/21/99, 2/24/99 and 3/17/99. To publicize this planning effort and project development, a public announcement was made to local, state and federal agencies by letter and to local landowners through local newspapers and radio to announce the planning start of this project. A public meeting was held on June 29, 1999 to scope the problems and concerns and to explain impacts of the program in relation to the identified concerns. An overflow crowd of approximately 180 concerned citizens, land owners and partners attended the meeting. Support was unanimous for continued development of the PL-566 Land Treatment project to help protect the area’s natural resources. A Meeting with the Environmental Work Group was held on 12/16/99 to determine the influence of agricultural activities on natural resource concerns in the watershed. A recreation evaluation meeting for present and future conditions was held with TVA on 2/25/00. Real estate valuation figures were acquired through interviews with respective real estate agents in the watershed. This information was used to calculate current and future conditions in the watershed Data collected from partner agencies, databases, landowners and others throughout the entire planning process, were evaluated at formal planning team meetings held on 5/26/99, 8/25/99, 10/6/99, 11/16/99/ and 2/2/00. Non formal discussions with planning team members, partner agencies and landowners were conducted throughout the entire planning period. Another public meeting was held on March 21, 2000 to explain possible alternative solutions, cost sharing and the recommended plan. The purpose of this meeting was to select one of the alternative plans and estimate the participation rate by local land users. Through a voting process, Alternative Plan 3 was selected as the most complete, acceptable, efficient and effective plan for the watershed. This plan was scheduled for completion by September 2000. 55 55 The following agencies were involved in the development of this plan: Coosa River,Limestone Valley, and Catoosa County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, GA. and Bradley and Hamilton County Soil Conservation Districts, TN. In Cooperation with: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) USDA, US Forest Service (FS) USDA, Farm Services Agency (FSA) USDI, Fish and WildLife Service (F&WS) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Georgia Dept. Natural Resources Game and Fish Division (Ga G&F) and Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Tennessee Department of Economic Development (TDEC) State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 56 56 SELECTED PLAN Purpose and Summary The Selected Plan (Alternative Plan #3) provides technical and financial assistance to accelerate installation of 212 animal waste management systems installed to reduce non-point source pollution from the 10 dairy, 159 beef and 43 poultry operations, and accelerated measures to control pastureland and cropland erosion on 4,864 acres. Over the 6-year implementation period, 4,864 acres by PL-566 and 7,970 acres by CRP and EQIP of excessively eroding pastureland and cropland will be protected from erosion damages. Installation of the Selected Plan will promote rural economic development; increase local sales tax revenues and income; provide employment; reduce the amount of agricultural pollutants reaching the South Chickamauga Creek outlet and downstream to Nickajack Lake; reduce erosion; maintain the productivity of the soil resource base; and reduce sediment reaching watershed streams, lakes and wetland areas. The plan will be implemented through the Memorandum and Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Project Agreement between the NRCS and the sponsoring Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Animal waste systems and land treatment measures will be installed under approximately 212 long-term contracts (LTC) between qualifying landowners or operators and the District. These contracts will be developed during the installation period from 2000 through 2005. PL 83-566 funds amounting to $ 2,750,681 will be available on a cost share basis to project participants for installation of animal waste management systems and accelerated land treatment practices. The cost share rate is 75 percent federal and 25 percent local for installing enduring or permanent practices. Measures to be Installed Ongoing programs will treat only 2 dairy, 30 beef and 8 poultry operations and 530 acres of crop and 7,400 acres of pastureland in the watershed. Non project actions will have only a small impact on alleviating the major animal waste and cropland erosion problems. This project will provide adequate technical and financial assistance to help treat 212 animal operations and 4,560 pasture land acres and 304 crop land acres eligible under PL-566 criteria. The District, supported by the NRCS through the MOU and Project Agreement, will provide administrative and technical assistance in the development of conservation plans and application of conservation practices. Landowners will make the final decision on land use and practices to be installed; however, assistance will be provided only when it contributes to the identified project objectives and does not result in significant adverse impacts. Participation in the program is voluntary. Through public participation efforts and criteria in NRCS Technical Note 1801 it was estimated that the rate of landowner participation will be 54 percent for animal waste management systems and land treatment for the Selected Plan. 57 57 Conservation plans will be developed to install the recommended animal waste management systems and land treatment practices. These systems and practices will reduce pollution, protect the soil resource, and complement the landowners' farming operations. The conservation technical staff will make a field evaluation upon the owner/operators request to assess problems and assign fields to the proper evaluation units. Evaluation Units form the basis for deciding which conservation treatment measure will be applied on a particular treatment unit. Evaluation Unit 1 will consist of animal waste management systems for 37 poultry operations averaging 54,400 birds per flock with partial animal waste facilities on hand. Systems will include dead bird composters. Nutrient management plans will be used when applying animal wastes to improve forage quality and more effectively utilize animal waste deposited on the fields. Evaluation Unit 2 will consist of animal waste management systems for 6 poultry operations averaging 54,400 birds per flock without any system or waste handling facilities on hand. Systems will include all or parts of the following waste storage facilities with gutters, dead bird composters, scraper, manure spreader. Nutrient management plans will be used when applying animal wastes to improve forage quality and more effectively utilize animal waste deposited on the fields. Evaluation Unit 3 consists of animal waste management systems for 140 beef operations averaging 50 cows with partial animal waste facilities on hand. Systems will include all or parts of the following components: fencing, riparian forested buffers, and heavy use area protection. Nutrient management plans will be used when applying animal wastes. Grazing land management practices: alternative livestock water supply, pasture and hayland planting and cross fencing will be incorporated into the nutrient management plans to improve forage quality and more effectively utilize animal waste deposited on the fields. Evaluation Unit 4 consists of animal waste management systems for 19 beef operations averaging 50 cows without any system or waste handling facilities on hand. Systems will include all or parts of the following components: fencing, riparian forested buffers, heavy use area protection, and stream crossings. Nutrient management plans will be used when applying animal wastes. Grazing land management practices: alternative livestock water supply, pasture and hayland planting and cross fencing will be incorporated into the nutrient management plans to improve forage quality and more effectively utilize animal waste deposited on the fields. Evaluation Unit 5 consists of animal waste management systems for 8 dairy operations averaging 172 cows with partial animal waste facilities on hand. Systems will include all or parts of the following components: animal waste lagoons/ waste storage ponds, flush down systems, diversions/curbing, fencing, riparian forested buffers, heavy use area protection, waste disposal pumps fixed to cement pad and underground delivery pipe from pump to field (waste utilization system) and stream crossings. Nutrient management plans will be used when applying animal wastes. Grazing land management practices: pasture and hayland planting and cross fencing will be incorporated into the nutrient management plans to improve forage quality and more effectively utilize animal waste deposited on the fields. 58 58 Evaluation Unit 6 consist of animal waste management systems for 2 dairy operations averaging 172 cows without any type of system or waste handling facilities on hand. Systems will include all or parts of the following components: animal waste lagoons/ waste storage ponds, flush down systems, diversions/curbing, scraper, fencing, riparian forested buffers, heavy use area protection, waste disposal pumps fixed to cement pad and underground delivery pipe from pump to field (waste utilization system) and stream crossings. Nutrient management plans will be used when applying animal wastes. Grazing land management practices: livestock water supply, pasture and hayland planting and cross fencing will be incorporated into the nutrient management plans to improve forage quality and more effectively utilize animal waste deposited on the fields. Evaluation Unit 7 will consist of consist of land treatment on 4,864 acres. Treatment practices will include water disposal systems, critical area treatment, conservation cropping sequence, pasture and hayland planting, riparian forested buffers, filter strips, pesticide management and crop residue use practices. Nutrient management plans will be used when applying commercial fertilizer and animal waste to the treated areas. Estimates of components used in the 212 animal waste systems as planned are listed in Appendix C5. All dairy and beef relocations will be on upland sites free of wetland conditions. Nutrient management plans will apply to all nutrients applied. Land treatment components per operator include: 30 acres of hayland and pasture planting, .5 acre of filter strips, 1 acre of riparian buffer, and .5 acre of critical area treatment. Management practices included: Prescribed grazing, nutrient management, residue management, pesticide management, and conservation cropping sequence. Practices or systems other than those listed above that provide either equal or greater benefits are permitted. However, cost sharing will be limited to the amount based upon established average costs and the percent as indicated in the Watershed Agreement section. Watershed funds may be used for conversion to permanent grass or trees. All enduring practices or combination of practices listed in Section IV of the Georgia NRCS Field Office Technical Guide are eligible alternatives as long as they provide equal or greater benefits. Erosion reduction targets are defined in the Georgia NRCS Field Office Technical Guide for resource management systems. Technical and financial assistance will be limited to areas where they contribute to project objectives and does not result in adverse impacts to identified concerns. Mitigation Upon outcome of Cultural Resource consideration in the planning process, mitigation may be required. Permits and Compliance Permits are required for poultry operations and lagoons must be approved by the Georgia Department of Agriculture. In the future, systems with liquid waste generated by 300-500 animal units will be required to register their operations. It is proposed through national legislature that liquid waste producing operations over 1,000 animal units will be required to obtain a permit (This law is already in place for swine operations). No permits will be required on conservation practices installed on pasture and cropland areas which are owned or controlled by individual land users. 59 59 Costs The estimated project installation costs appear in Table 1 on page 65. This includes the cost of animal waste management systems and land treatment practices for which financial assistance, technical assistance and project administration will be provided. PL 83-566 funds amounting to $ 2,750,681 will be available on a cost shared payment basis including $1,784,475 and $ 527,022 for animal waste management systems and accelerated land treatment measures, respectfully. Cost sharing will be based on one of the four methods outlined in Title 120, Part 404, Subpart D of the NRCS General Manual. The average cost method will be used unless actual cost data can be obtained. The average cost list will be developed by local USDA agency and district personnel and approved by the NRCS State Conservationist prior to installation. These costs will be reviewed semi-annually by the state economist and updated if significant increases or decreases are found. Alternative practices may be substituted if the same or greater level of protection is achieved. Payment will be based on the average cost of the substituted practices and will be limited to the amount which would have been paid in the selected plan. Cost sharing on a long-term contract (LTC) is limited to a total of $100,000 of PL 83-566 funds for work with an individual, family, corporation or a combination of these where the party has a mutual interest. The NRCS will provide technical assistance for the design, layout, and installation of appropriate animal waste management systems and land treatment practices as determined in the individual conservation plans and as identified in the LTC's. All practices will be designed, constructed and maintained according to NRCS standards and specifications. The cost of NRCS technical assistance is estimated at $ 346,724. The State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, represented Districts and counties in the watershed are expected to continue funding employees to provide technical assistance during the project installation for an estimated $ 115,575. The NRCS and District will provide an estimated $ 92,460 and $ 30,820 respectively, for project administration. Project administration costs are the costs associated with contract administration, providing government representatives when necessary and inspection services during installation of conservation measures to ensure compliance with design plans and specifications. It includes follow-up assistance during the maintenance period. The total project cost of $ 3,667,575 is for protection of water, air, plant, animal and soil resources within the watershed and offsite downstream of the watershed. In addition to the installation costs, there will be operation, maintenance and replacement costs (OM&R) that will be incurred by participating landowners and operators. These costs will primarily be for maintaining and replacing components of the water disposal systems and animal waste facilities. Average annual OM&R costs are estimated to be $ 304,311. 60 60 The average annual costs of the project are shown in Table 4 on page 66. Project costs and benefits were discounted and amortized at an 6.625 percent interest rate for the 25-year evaluation period to arrive at average annual figures. The total average annual cost is $ 559,850. Summary of Cost Share Rates NRCS will provide financial assistance in the form of cost sharing with landowners on permanent practices. Annual or management type practices are not eligible for cost sharing under PL-566. Cost Share Rates as allowed by policy were established based on the Onging Program Rate for the area. Since the area is included in the statewide EQIP resource concern area the cost share rates is established at a 75/25 percent , federal/local rate. The following summarizes the conservation measures identified in the Selected Plan that are eligible for cost share and their cost share percentages: Conservation Measure Cost Share Percentage Local PL83-566 75 75 Animal Waste Management Systems Land Treatment Practices 25 25 Installation and Financing General - This section describes the responsibilities of the Sponsor, NRCS, and program participants for installing and financing the project. Table B on page 63. provides the schedule for obligation of funds and installation of project measures. The installation period of structural practices is planned for six years. Installation - All works of improvement will be installed in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. Waste generated by livestock enterprises may exceed the amount of land controlled by the operator. In these cases, waste management plans may be developed that allow for changing cropping systems for better nutrient utilization or spreading excess waste on neighbors' farms with an acceptable agreement. During installation, equipment will not be allowed to operate when conditions are such that soil erosion, water, air, and noise pollution cannot be satisfactorily controlled. Disposal of clearing waste and construction debris will be accomplished by burying, burning, or hauling. Vegetation will be established immediately following construction on all land disturbed by construction activities. Appropriate plants for erosion control and wildlife habitat will be selected based upon the installation season, soils, surrounding vegetation and landuser's preference. 61 61 Responsibilities - The NRCS will provide technical assistance to the Sponsor for determining participant eligibility, conducting soil surveys, developing conservation plans and designing and installing planned animal waste management systems and land treatment practices. NRCS will also provide funds for cost sharing on the waste management systems and land treatment measures through the Sponsors. NRCS will certify completion of practices. The Sponsors, Coosa River, Limestone Valley, and Catoosa County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, GA. and Bradley and Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, TN. will be responsible for the following: 1) administer the program, 2) accept applications and set priorities, 3) develop contracts and provide adequate technical assistance to the producers, 4) issue payments to participants for completed practices, 5) review overall program at least quarterly to ensure proper development of measures, 6) review and handle contract violations as needed, and 7) coordinate with other USDA and State programs, 8) consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if listed species are found within the project area. The program participants will be responsible for the proper installation, cost documentation, operation, maintenance and replacement of project measures identified in the conservation plan and the long-term contract for the duration of the contract. Contracting - The Sponsors will enter into project agreements with NRCS for installation of project measures. The project agreements are the fund obligating documents that provide funds for cost-share payments. The planned project measures are to be installed under provisions of long-term contracts between the participating landowners or operators and the Sponsor. Animal waste management systems will be included in long-term contracts that deal with animal waste problems. The contract periods will be not less than 3 years and not more than 10 years. All cost-share practices must be completed within 8 years to allow for 2 years of maintenance. No long-term contract will be signed until the initial participation requirements are met. All LTC's must be signed within 5 years of the date on which the plan is approved. The participants will be subject to repayment of cost-share payments (or portions thereof) should he/she fail to properly operate and maintain the conservation practices during the contract period. Real property and relocations - All project measures will be installed on property controlled by the participating landowners; thus no additional land rights will be needed. There will be no relocation involved with installation of the project measures. 62 62 TABLE B OBLIGATION OF FUNDS AND INSTALLATION OF PROJECT MEASURES SCHEDULE Year 2000 Measure Conservation Systems Technical Assistance Project Admin. TOTAL Conservation Systems Technical Assistance Project Admin. TOTAL Conservation Systems Technical Assistance Project Admin. TOTAL Conservation Systems Technical Assistance Project Admin. TOTAL Conservation Systems Technical Assistance Project Admin. TOTAL Conservation Systems Technical Assistance Project Admin. TOTAL PL-566 Funds 346,726 52,009 13,869 412,604 577,875 86,679 23,115 687,669 577,875 86,679 23,115 687,669 462,299 69,345 18,492 550,136 231,150 34,673 9,246 275,069 115,575 17,336 4,623 137,534 Other Funds 115,574 17,336 4,623 137,533 192,624 28,895 7,705 229,224 192,624 28,895 7,705 229,224 154,100 23,115 6,164 183,379 77,050 11,557 3,082 91,689 38,525 5,779 1,541 45,845 Total 462,300 69,345 18,492 550,137 770,499 115,574 30,820 916,893 770,499 115,574 30,820 916,893 616,399 92,460 24,656 733,515 308,200 46,230 12,328 366,758 154,100 23,115 6,164 183,379 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 GRAND TOTAL 2,750,681 916,894 3,667,575 Price Base: 1999 Other Agencies - No federal agencies 63 63 other than the Natural Resources Conservation Service have any responsibilities in carrying out this plan. Threatened and Endangered Species – Specific sites have not been selected and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, if any listed species or suitable habitat for these species occur within a proposed site, surveys for listed species will be conducted by qualified personnel. Also, surveys for listed plants will be conducted during the fruit and flowering time periods and the results of the on-site survey(s) forwarded to the Georgia Ecological Services Field office. Consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 will be initiated if species are likely to be affected by the proposed action. Cultural Resources - The treatment areas will have the potential for some surface disturbance with the installation of grassed waterways, diversions and animal waste management systems. Since application for eligible fields have not been received nor practices or locations of practices determined, the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and NRCS, representing the Sponsor, have developed the following methodology. NRCS personnel will do a preliminary cultural resource reconnaissance after applications are submitted. Potential sites as indicated by surface litter will be marked and numbered on quadrangle sheets and a corresponding information form provided by the SHPO will be completed. The information will be provided to the SHPO or their agent to determine initial significance. If their recommendation warrants followup actions, a determination of significance and/or eligibility, confirmation procedures will be initiated. If significant cultural values are discovered during construction, the participants will be advised to notify the State Historical Preservation Officer and the Secretary of the Interior (through the appropriate field office of the Interagency Archaeological Services Division) in accordance with GM 420-401. In accordance with Section 3 of Public Law 93-291, NRCS will take action to protect or recover, or both, any significant cultural resources discovered during construction. Financing - Federal assistance for carrying out this plan will be provided under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566) as amended. This assistance will be subject to appropriations from Congress. Local financing will come from the individual participants and the District. Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Each long-term contract will provide for the operation, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) of included measures. The participating landowners or operators will be responsible for OM&R activities and obtaining materials needed to ensure that each project measure performs its intended functions. Contracts with landowners will specify that all practices will be maintained for at least two years after installation of all required conservation treatment. Following this twoyear period, the Sponsor and the NRCS will encourage participants to continue maintenance and provide timely replacement as needed to maintain a reasonable level of OM&R throughout the 25-year project life. NRCS or the District's technical representative may inspect the practices at any reasonable time during the period that the long-term contract or agreement is in effect. 64 64 Tables 1,4,5,6 65 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 REFERENCES 1. Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. Georgia Agricultural Facts. 1999. 2. Economic Research Service. Theory and Practice. Economics of Water Quality Protection from Non-Point Sources. No. 782 Nov. 1999. 3. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resource Implementation Studies. 4. Science and Education Administration, Animal Waste Utilization on Cropland and Pastureland. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Utilization Research Report No. 6, 1979 5. Tennesse Valley Authority, Water Management Div. Chickamauga/ Nickajack - Issue Analysis/Portfolio Evaluation. May 1995 6. USGS- Phosphorus in Streams of the Upper Tennessee River Basin 1970-1993, 1998. 7. State of Georgia, 1997, Clean Water Strategy (Section 305 B Update) DNR-EPD 8. State of Georgia, 1989, Georgia Nonpoint Source Management Report: DNR, EPD. 9. State of Georgia, 1998 Georgia County Guide: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. 10. USDA, NRCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 3 11. USDA, NRCS National Engineering Handbook, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, Chapter 4. 12. USDA, NRCS, National Watersheds Manual (NWSM). 13. USDA, NRCS, National Operation and Maintenance Manual. 14. USDA, NRCS, General Manual, Title 120, Part 404. 15. USDA, NRCS Conservation Practice Job Sheet. Riparian Forest Buffer April 1997 16. Clean Water Action Plan. Restoring and Protecting America’s Waters www.cleanwater.gov 17. Southern Rural Development Center. Southern Perspective. Vol. 3 1999 18. RTK-NET Environmental Database. www.rtk.net/pcsinputarea.html U.S. 69 69 List of Preparers NRCS SPECIAL PROJECTS TEAM Title Education Experience Cran Upshaw Economist B.S., M.S, Ag. Economics Auburn. Univ Auburn, Alabama 10 years Economist Jimmy Bramblett Water Quality Specialist B.S., M.S, Ag. Economics Athens,Georgia 2 yrs. Ag. Economist 6 yrs. Res. Conserv. 2 yrs,Water Quality Specialist GEORGIA NRCS STAFF Sheri Teems District Conservationist B.S. Berry College Rome, Georgia B.S.A. Agronomy Univ. of Georgia Athens, Georgia B.S., Ag. Engineering Univ. of Georgia Athens, Georgia High School 4 yrs, Soil. Conserv. 6 yrs. District Conserv. 5 yrs, Soil Conserv., 6 years District. Conserv. 9 yrs. Ag. Engineer Cindy Askew District Conservationist Brian Kimsey Agricultural Engineer Jimmy Taylor Soil. Conserv. 27 years Technician Soil. Coserv. Technician 20 yrs. Soil Conserv. 12 yrs. Res. Conserv. William Taylor Area Resource Conervationist B.S. M.S. Agronomy Ft. Valley State Ft. Valley, Ga. TENNESSEE NRCS STAFF Bill Dailey District Conservationist B.S. Agri. University of Tenn. Knoxville, Ga. B.S. Ag. Nat. Res. Mgt. Tenn. Tech. Univ. 24 yrs,Soil Conserv.& Ditsrict Conserv. 4 yrs, Soil Conserv. 6 yrs. District Conserv. Kathy Dougherty District Conservationist 70 70 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Linda Harris Senior Field Representative B.S. UTenn Chattanooga 28 yrs. in Natural Res. Protection 6 yrs.TVA 24 yrs. TVA Water Programs Drew Miller Civill Engineer B.S. M.S. Civil Engineering Tenn. Tech Univ. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISRTICTS Fred Pou Coosa River District Supervisor 8 yrs. District Supervisor Ga. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (EPD) Broughton Caldwell Environmental Project Administrator B.S. M.S. Georgia State College Atlanta, Ga.. 27 yrs. Env. Specialist. 3 yrs. Env. Project Admn. 71 71 APPENDIX A Letters and Oral Comments 72 72 73 73 Oral Comments 74 74 75 75 APPENDIX B Support Maps 76 76 APPENDIX C Investigation And Analysis General The overall plan development was guided by NRCS's National Watersheds Manual as amended December, 1992, and associated Circulars No. 1, 2, and 4. It is recognized that other source contributing land uses such as industrial, commercial and residential are not evaluated in this plan. Their percent impact on the overall problems identified in the watershed are, however, calculated out from the overall watershed evaluation to determine the impact for agriculture. It is assumed that if substantial offsite impacts are linked to these sources that appropriate actions and solutions will be taken to help protect natural resources in the watershed. Their treatment is beyond the scope of the PL-566 program. Land Use Present land use in the watershed was determined from Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office records, meetings with local agricultural workers, National Resources Inventory (NRI) 1997, and regional and local statistical data from state and local commissions and agencies. NRCS also performed a field specific cropland erosion assessment on all the cropland in the watershed. Future land use is based on good land management, the intentions of local landowners and trends in land use as recognized by agricultural leaders and workers within the watershed area. Historic trends indicate that crop rotations, livestock and poultry numbers, land use and management of agricultural operations in the watershed could change significantly over the next 25 years. Animal Waste Options Technical Note 1706,"Project Planning for Water Quality Concerns" was used as a guide along with the NRCS Engineering Handbook-Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook in developing and evaluating alternative animal waste management systems. Alternative systems were developed considering the functions of each system component used in the production, storage, treatment, transfer and utilization of animal waste. Multi-systems were derived considering these functions and the associated components that would enable a complete and efficient system to be installed. Consideration for the acceptability and practicality of each system for the local landowners was determined and those systems that did not meet the criteria were deleted from further consideration. The systems included all or parts of the following: The Project Engineer, District Conservationists, and Extension Agents supplied the cost estimates. 77 77 C2 Land Treatment Options The practices or conservation systems considered under the watershed project were compared, where applicable, to the ongoing programs, or EQIP and CRP programs. For example, critical area treatment and riparian buffers were used in the waterways with pasture and hayland planting on the pasture areas. The erosion and sediment reduction is approximately 47 percent over present conditions. By comparison, the selected watershed plan will approach "T" values for the soils. All practices and systems will be installed according to NRCS standards and specifications applicable at the time of the agreement date. NRCS, FSA, TVA, Soil and Water Conservation Commissions, district personnel, along with local farmers, helped develop a list of potential practices and estimated costs. All practices available in NRCS's National Conservation Handbook were reviewed for consideration. Forestry A systematic field survey by the NRCS in consultation with the Forest Service and Georgia Forest Commission personnel assessed ground cover, forest and hydrologic conditions, excessive erosion, and treatment needs. The recommended measures help reduce flooding, stabilize soil and reduce offsite sediment problems. Fish and Wildlife The NRCS Biologist and interdisciplinary team made several watershed reconnaissance and visited with local and regional parks, game and fisheries personnel to establish the fisheries, fishing and hunting pressure, wildlife abundance and habitat and problems in those arenas. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species A literature search and a field reconnaissance of the watershed was made by a NRCS biologist and members of the planning team. They confirmed presence of some listed species and recognized likely habitat for many others. Following this finding an interagency planning team scoped problem area sites to determine the impact of project actions on threatened and endangered species and determined that proposed measures would not impair their habitats. A list of the threatened and endangered species is found in the Scope of the EA section of the Plan. Wetlands A wetland survey of the watershed counties was made by consulting the 1997 NRI database. Additional field checks will be made in determining eligibility. The maps and checks will be consulted when developing implementation plans and long term contracts. 78 78 C3 Geology and Sedimentation The geologic investigation consisted of a study of literature and maps pertaining to the area and a field reconnaissance. The watershed area is covered by published soils maps, up-to-date Soils-5 data sheets, USGS quad sheets, multiple USGS and Georgia Geological Survey Bulletins and recent aerial photography. Procedures established in the NRCS National Engineering Handbook (NEH-3) were followed. Erosion values and sediment yields were established for all major land uses. Economics The economic analysis was conducted in accordance with procedures outlined in the NRCS National Watersheds Manual, the NRCS Economics Handbook and the Water Resource Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. The formulation and evaluation of this project is consistent with the federal objective of contributing to national economic development while protecting the nation's environment. All alternative project plans were formulated to alleviate environmental problems, while maximizing economic development. All basic data used in the investigation and analysis of this project was obtained from interviews with local farmers and agricultural workers, publications from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of Georgia's College of Agriculture and from the interdisciplinary planning team members. Animal waste treatment measures were selected following an economic evaluation of all viable alternatives. Each recommended option was selected based on cost efficiency, greatest net benefits and other non-monetary factors. Onsite benefits included utilizing the waste on pasture, hayland, or cropland for fertilizer. Crop and livestock data reported by the Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service and information compiled by the NRCS Special Project ‘s Team Water Quality Specialist were used to estimate the total volume of waste produced. Evaluation units were established using the size of operations and treatment methods as the grouping criteria. Land treatment options considered erosion factors affecting pasture and cropland. The selection of the recommended project measures was determined by following the Conservation Options Procedures (COP). The COP procedure was used to determine the cost effectiveness of conservation practices and combinations of practices, the quantification of net benefits and the costs of the alternatives identified as being cost effective. The COP identified the National Economic Development (NED) plan, the Resource Protection Plan (RP), and any other alternative plans. All benefits of the alternative plans were calculated using the difference in the value of goods and services available "with the project" and their values "without the project". The onsite agricultural benefits were determined by subtracting gross returns without treatment from gross returns with treatment and then adding the reduction in variable production costs. 79 79 C4 Offsite benefits attributable to offsite sediment reduction and water quality improvements were determined from interdisciplinary meetings and interviews with state, city and county officials. Damages were based on impacts to area water resources. All benefits and costs are average annual figures for the evaluation period (25 years). The tables on the following pages show the procedures used for calculating the average annual equivalents over the evaluation period. 80 80 C5 Practices and Resource Management Systems for the Selected Plan The eligible cost shared practices, units and cost per unit used in formulation. Unit Animal Waste Management Practices Waste management systems (312) Diversions/curbing (362) Fencing (382) Cross electric barbed wire Exclusion electric barbed wire Heavy use protection area (561) Irrigation water conveyance (430-DD) Irrigation sprinkler system (442) Pumping plant for water control includes appurtenances (533) Composting facility (317) Waste storage structure (313)no. Stack facility Waste Storage Pond /lagoon (new) (upgrade) Stream crossings (728) Roof Runoff mgt. (558) Trough or Tank (includes pump) (614) Watering Flush Land Treatment Practices Pasture and hayland planting (512) Critical area planting (342) Filter strips (393) Riparian forest buffers (391) 4,560 76 76 152 ac. ac. ac. ac. 853 ft 34,987 ft 139,946 ft 34,987 148,154 369,657 15,390 10 ft ft sqft ft no. Cost($) 2.47/ft .75/ft 1.10/ft .75/ft 1.10/ft 1.00/sqft 3.20/ft 2,600 ea. 9,500 ea. 16,800 ea. 24,000 ea. 6,600 4,100 1,885 264 ea. ea. ea. ea. 10 no. 43 no. 10 no. 2 8 21 10 no. no. no. no. 159 no. 10 no. 1,900 ea. 3,830 ea. 100/ac. 1,300/ac. 186/ac. 230/ac. Non-cost shared practices, units and cost per unit used in formulation. Conservation tillage Conservation cropping sequence Contour farming Crop residue use Nutrient management Pesticide management Waste utilization 827 827 827 827 44,900 44,900 44,900 acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 30/ac. 10/ac. 5/ac. 10/ac. .03/cuft. 10/ac. 81 81 82 82