Water Quality in the

Upper Tennessee River Basin

Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia, 1994–98

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1205
POINTS OF CONTACT AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Front cover: Clear Creek, Tennessee (courtesy of National Park Service, Obed Wild and Scenic River). 

Back cover: Tobacco in Cocke County, Tennessee (photograph by G.C. Johnson, U.S. Geological Survey); center, 

Whitewater rafting (photograph courtesy of National Park Service, Obed Wild and Scenic River); right, French 

Broad River Valley, North Carolina (photograph by P.S. Hampson, U.S. Geological Survey). 

The companion Web site for NAWQA summary reports:

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/

Upper Tennessee River Basin

 contact and Web site:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

Water Resources Division

640 Grassmere Park Drive, Suite 100

Nashville, TN 37211

e-mail: dc_tn@usgs.gov

http://tn.water.usgs.gov/

National NAWQA Program:

Chief, NAWQA Program

U.S. Geological Survey

Water Resources Division

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M.S. 413

Reston, VA 20192

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/

River Basin Assessments

Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Basin (Circular 1157)

Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins (Circular 1202)

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (Circular 1164)

Central Arizona Basins (Circular 1213)

Central Columbia Plateau (Circular 1144)

Central Nebraska Basins (Circular 1163)

Connecticut, Housatonic and Thames River Basins (Circular 1155)

Eastern Iowa Basins (Circular 1210)

Georgia-Florida Coastal Plain (Circular 1151)

Hudson River Basin (Circular 1165)

Kanawha-New River Basins (Circular 1204)

Lake Erie-Lake Saint Clair Drainages (Circular 1203)

Las Vegas Valley Area and the Carson and Truckee River Basins

(Circular 1170)

Lower Illinois River Basin (Circular 1209)

Long Island-New Jersey Coastal Drainages (Circular 1201)

Lower Susquehanna River Basin (Circular 1168)

Mississippi Embayment (Circular 1208)

Ozark Plateaus (Circular 1158)

Potomac River Basin (Circular 1166)

Puget Sound Basin (Circular 1216)

Other NAWQA summary reports

Red River of the North Basin (Circular 1169)

Rio Grande Valley (Circular 1162)

Sacramento River Basin (Circular 1215)

San Joaquin-Tulare Basins (Circular 1159)

Santee River Basin and Coastal Drainages (Circular 1206)

South-Central Texas (Circular 1212) 

South Platte River Basin (Circular 1167)

Southern Florida (Circular 1207)

Trinity River Basin (Circular 1171)

Upper Colorado River Basin (Circular 1214) 

Upper Mississippi River Basin (Circular 1211)

Upper Snake River Basin (Circular 1160)

Western Lake Michigan Drainages (Circular 1156)

White River Basin (Circular 1150)

Willamette Basin (Circular 1161)

National Assessments

The Quality of Our Nations’ Waters—Nutrients and Pesticides (Circular 1225)
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR

Water Quality in the 

Upper Tennessee River Basin, Tennessee, 

North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia 1994–98

1205

By Paul S. Hampson, M.W. Treece, Jr., Gregory C. Johnson, Steven A. Ahlstedt,

 and Joseph F. Connell
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publications Data

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and

does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Free on application to the

U.S. Geological Survey

Information Services

Box 25286 Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

Or call: 1-888-ASK-USGS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director

2000

Water quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia, 1995–98 / 

by Paul S. Hampson...]et al.].

p. cm. -- (U.S. Geological Survey Circular ; 1205)

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 0-607-95546-5 (alk. paper)

1. Water quality--Tennessee River Watershed. I. Hampson, Paul S. II. Geological Survey (U.S.)

III. Series.

TD223.5 .W388 2000

363.739’42’09768--dc21

00-049460
CONTENTS

Contents III

NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM............................................................... IV

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 1

Surface-Water Highlights .............................................................................................................. 1

Ground-Water Highlights............................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION TO THE UPPER TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN....................................................... 3

MAJOR FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 7

Bacteria in the Upper Tennessee River Basin .............................................................................. 7

Nutrients in the Upper Tennessee River Basin ............................................................................. 9

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE— Nutrient Concentrations in Upper Tennessee River Surface 

Waters Generally Are Lower Than National Median Concentrations......................................... 11

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE— Nutrient Concentrations Generally Are Low in Upper 

Tennessee River Ground Water................................................................................................. 13

Pesticides in the Upper Tennessee River Basin ........................................................................... 14

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE— Some Pesticides Were Detected More Frequently in the 

Upper Tennessee River Basin Than Nationally ......................................................................... 16

Volatile Organic Compounds in Upper Tennessee River Ground Water...................................... 18

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE— Upper Tennessee River Basin and National VOC Detection 

Frequencies Are Similar............................................................................................................. 18

Water-Quality Influences of Industry and Mining .......................................................................... 19

Freshwater Mussels in the Clinch and Powell Rivers ................................................................... 21

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE— Upper Tennessee River Biological Communities ......................... 21

Toxic Spills and Releases ............................................................................................................. 22

STUDY UNIT DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 23

GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................ 25

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX—WATER-QUALITY DATA FROM THE UPPER TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN

 IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT........................................................................................... 27
NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

IV National Water-Quality Assessment Program 

THIS REPORT summarizes major findings about water quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin that emerged 

from an assessment conducted between 1994 and 1998 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Water quality is discussed in terms of local and regional issues and 

compared to conditions found in all 36 NAWQA study areas, called Study Units, assessed to date. Findings are also 

explained in the context of selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality and the 

protection of aquatic organisms. The NAWQA Program was not intended to assess the quality of the Nation’s 

drinking water, such as by monitoring water from household taps. Rather, the assessments focus on the quality of 

the resource itself, thereby complementing many ongoing Federal, State, and local drinking-water monitoring 

programs. The comparisons made in this report to drinking-water standards and guidelines are only in the context 

of the available untreated resource, Finally, this report includes information about the status of aquatic 

communities and the condition of in-stream habitats as elements of a complete water-quality assessment.

Many topics covered in this report reflect the concerns of officials of State and Federal agencies, water-resource 

managers, and members of stakeholder groups who provided advice and input during the Upper Tennessee River 

Basin assessment. Basin residents who wish to know more about water quality in the areas where they live will find 

this report informative as well. 

THE NAWQA PROGRAM seeks to improve scientific and public understanding of water quality in the Nation’s 

major river basins and ground-water systems. Better understanding facilitates effective resource managment, 

accurate identification of water-quality priorities, and successful development of strategies that protect and restore 

water quality. Guided by a nationally consistent study design and shaped by ongoing communication with local, 

State, and Federal agencies, NAWQA assessments support the investigation of local issues and trends while 

providing a firm foundation for understanding water quality at regional and national scales. The ability to integrate 

local and national scales of data collection and analysis is a unique feature of the USGS NAWQA Program.

The Upper Tennessee River Basin Study Unit is one of 51 water-quality assessments initiated since 1991, when 

the U.S. Congress appropriated funds for the USGS to begin the NAWQA Program. As indicated on the map, 36 

assessments have been completed, and 15 more assessments will conclude in 2001. Collectively, these assessments 

cover about one-half of the land area of the United States and include water resources that are available to more 

than 60 percent of the U.S. population.

1991–95

1994–98

1997–2001

Not yet scheduled

High Plains Regional

Ground -Water Study, 

1999–2004

NAWQA Study Units— 

Assessment schedule

Upper Tennessee River Basin
 Summary of Major Findings 1

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS

Small Streams Major Rivers

Agricultural Forest

Selected Indicators of Stream-Water Quality

Mixed

Land Use

Phosphorus2

Pesticides1

Trace

elements3

Volatile

organic

compounds5

Semivolatile

organic

compounds6

Organochlorine

compounds4

Bacteria

Mixed

Land Use

a

— — —

1 Insecticides, herbicides, and pesticide metabolites, sampled in water.

2 Total phosphorus, sampled in water. 

3 Arsenic, mercury, and metals, sampled in sediment.

4 Organochlorine compounds including DDT and PCBs, sampled in sediment.

5 Solvents, refrigerants, fumigants, and gasoline compounds, sampled in sediment.

6 Miscellaneous industrial chemicals and combustion by-products, sampled in sediment. 

—

Percentage of samples with concentrations equal to or greater than a health-related national guideline for drinking water, aquatic life, or watercontact recreation; or below a national goal for preventing excess algal growth

Percentage of samples with concentrations less than a health-related national 

guideline for drinking water, aquatic life, or water-contact recreation; or below a 

national goal for preventing excess algal growth

Percentage of samples with no detection (a Percentage is 1 or less and may 

not be clearly visible

Not assessed

The Upper Tennessee River Basin encompasses about 21,390 

square miles and includes parts of four States: Tennessee, North 

Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia. Three major physiographic 

provinces are represented in the basin: the Cumberland Plateau, 

Valley and Ridge, and Blue Ridge Provinces. Most of the 

2.4 million people residing in the basin live in the four metropolitan 

areas of Knoxville and Chattanooga, Tennessee; Asheville, North 

Carolina; and the Tri-Cities area of Tennessee and Virginia.

Surface-Water Highlights

The Upper Tennessee River Basin is characterized by an 

abundance of surface water that usually meets existing 

guidelines for drinking-water supply, recreation, and the 

protection of aquatic life. Bacteria levels, however, frequently exceed State standards for contact recreation both 

in agricultural and urban areas. In addition, mixtures of 

pesticides were detected at 67 of the 74 stream sites sampled. No pesticide concentrations exceeded drinking-water 

standards, but standards have not been determined for 11 of 

the 31 compounds detected.

• Bacteria levels frequently exceeded State standards in 

agricultural streams and streams in urban areas. Runoff 

from pasture land and direct livestock access to streams 

contribute to elevated bacterial counts in agricultural 

streams. Aging wastewater infrastructures are the most 

likely cause of elevated bacteria counts in urban streams.

• Inputs from urban and agricultural land uses have 

increased nutrient levels in streams. Yields of total nitrogen in streams are correlated to agricultural inputs, such 

as animal waste and fertilizer applications, whereas 

yields of total phosphorus are correlated with wastewater 

discharges. Tributary reservoirs serve as effective sinks 

for both nitrogen and phosphorus species in the basin.

• Herbicides and herbicide degradates were detected in 98 

percent of the 428 total stream-water samples collected but 

at levels within drinking-water standards and aquatic-life 

guidelines. Insecticides used on agricultural fields, gardens, and lawns were detected infrequently (less than 12 

percent of samples) and were at levels within drinkingwater standards. Concentrations exceeding aquatic-life 

guidelines were observed, however, for carbaryl, diazinon, 

and lindane. 

• Contamination from previous industrial and mining activities persists in parts of the basin resulting in fish-consumption advisories for PCB’s (polychlorinated biphenyls), 

dioxin, and mercury in certain reservoirs and stream 

reaches. SVOC (semivolatile organic compounds) sediment concentrations exceeding aquatic-life guidelines 

were detected in some stream reaches draining coal mining areas.

• The Upper Tennessee River Basin is widely known for its 

aquatic diversity of fish and mussel species. While mussel 

populations are recovering in some parts of the basin, 

overall diversity is slowly declining.

• Releases and spills resulting in fish and mussel kills have 

occurred in many parts of the basin and pose a threat to 

isolated and endangered populations of aquatic species.

River

Chattanooga

Knoxville

Asheville

Bristol Kingsport

Johnson

 City

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES

Tennessee

Virginia

Tennessee

Georgia Georgia

Tennessee

North Carolina

North Carolina

Blue Ridge

Valley and Ridge

Cumberland Plateau

Tennessee River

River

River

 River

Powell River

 River

Clinch

Holston

Hiwassee 

Tennessee 

Little 

French Broad

GA

SC

KY VA

NC

TN.

EXPLANATION
2 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin 

Selected Indicators of Ground-Water Quality 

 Domestic

Supply Wells

 Agricultural

 Shallow

Ground Water Springs

Nitrate2

Pesticides1

Radon3

Volatile

organic 

compounds4

Bacteria —

—

Percentage of samples with concentrations equal to or 

greater than a health-related national guideline for drinking 

water

Percentage of samples with concentrations less than

a health-related national guideline for drinking water

Percentage of samples with no detection

Not assessed

1 Insecticides, herbicides, and pesticide metabolites, sampled in water.

2 Nitrate (as nitrogen), sampled in water.

3 Radon, sampled in water.

4 Solvents, refrigerants, fumigants, and gasoline compounds, sampled in water.

Trends in Stream-Water Quality

Because of water-treatment improvements, nitrogen and 

phosphorus levels for most of the streams in the Upper Tennessee River Basin remained unchanged or decreased from 

1970 to 1993. Nitrogen concentrations, however, increased 

significantly for many streams in the Blue Ridge physiographic province because of nonurban residential development and aquaculture.

Trends in other water-quality constituents are difficult to 

assess because of changes in data-collection methods over 

time and an overall lack of data. Persistent organochlorine 

compounds such as DDE, a breakdown product of DDT, 

which was discontinued in 1973, and chlordane, which was 

discontinued in 1988, are still detected in fish tissues and 

bottom sediments in various parts of the basin.

 Major Influences on Surface Waters

• Runoff from agricultural and urban areas

• Effluent from wastewater-treatment facilities

• Persistent sediment contamination

• Episodic spills and toxic releases

Ground-Water Highlights

Although ground-water use accounts for a little more than 

3 percent of the total water use in the basin, over one-third of 

the population relies upon ground-water sources for drinking 

water. In the Upper Tennessee River Basin, ground-water 

studies focused on the carbonate rock formations of the Valley and Ridge physiographic province, which compose the 

most prolific aquifers in the basin and are the most susceptible to contamination. These aquifers typically provide water 

that meets all Federal and State drinking-water standards 

with the exceptions of nitrate and bacteria. Nitrate concentrations in domestic wells and springs used as drinking-water 

sources were within drinking-water standards and guidelines. Levels of nitrate exceeding drinking-water standards 

were detected only in shallow agricultural monitoring wells. 

Numerous pesticides and volatile organic compounds were 

detected in wells and springs, but none exceeded drinkingwater standards.

• Bacteria levels exceeding finished drinking-water standards were detected in 11 of 30 wells used for untreated 

domestic drinking-water supply and in all 35 springs sampled. Bacteria levels in two springs exceeded State standards for recreation. Seventeen of the springs sampled are 

used for untreated drinking-water supplies.

• Nitrate was present in all domestic wells and springs but 

usually in concentrations well within the Federal drinkingwater standard. Five of 30 monitoring wells that were 

installed adjacent to burley tobacco fields contained nitrate 

concentrations exceeding the drinking-water standard. 

• Pesticides were detected in 40 percent of the agricultural 

wells, 43 percent of domestic water-supply wells, and 69 

percent of the springs in relatively low concentrations. No 

pesticide concentrations exceeded drinking-water standards; however, 5 of the 18 compounds detected currently 

do not have standards. The most frequently detected pesticides were atrazine and metalaxyl (tobacco-specific) in the 

agricultural wells and atrazine, tebuthiuron, and prometon 

in domestic wells and springs.

• Volatile organic compounds were detected in 86 percent of 

the springs and 67 percent of the domestic wells sampled. 

Trichloromethane was the most frequently detected compound of the 28 volatile organic compounds that were 

detected; but carbon disulfide, propanone, and methylbenzene generally were detected in the highest concentrations. 

None of the volatile organic compounds exceeded drinking-water standards or guidelines, but only 12 of the 28 

currently have standards.

 Major Influences on Ground Water

• Agricultural and urban land uses

• Permeability of soils and aquifer materials

• Bedrock fracture patterns and karst features
 Introduction to the Upper Tennessee River Basin 3

INTRODUCTION TO THE UPPER TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN

Georgia Georgia

Virginia

Tennessee

Tennessee

Tennessee

North Carolina

North Carolina

Forest

Pasture

Cropland

Developed

Open Water

EXPLANATION

Knoxville

Chattanooga

Asheville

Bristol

Johnson

 City

Kingsport

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

 The Upper Tennessee River Basin 

Study Unit encompasses about 21,390 

square miles and includes the entire 

drainage area of the Tennessee River 

and its tributaries upstream from the 

USGS gaging station at Chattanooga, 

Tennessee. The study area includes 

parts of four States: Tennessee (11,500 

square miles), North Carolina (5,480 

square miles), Virginia (3,130 square 

miles), and Georgia (1,280 square 

miles). In 1990, the total population of 

the study area was about 2.4 million, 

of which about 1.6 million resided in 

the four metropolitan statistical areas 

of Chattanooga and Knoxville, Tennessee; Asheville, North Carolina; and 

the Tri-Cities area of Kingsport and 

Johnson City, Tennessee, and Bristol, 

Tennessee and Virginia.

Parts of three physiographic provinces–the Cumberland Plateau, Valley 

and Ridge, and Blue Ridge Provinces– 

compose the Upper Tennessee River 

Basin. Altitudes range from 621 feet 

above sea level at Chattanooga to 

6,684 feet at Mount Mitchell, which is

just northeast of Asheville, North 

Carolina, and is the highest point in the 

Eastern United States. The Study Unit 

contains some of the most rugged terrain in the Eastern United States, 

including the Great Smoky Mountains 

range. The crest of the Smoky Mountains exceeds 5,000 feet for 34 miles 

along the Tennessee-North Carolina 

State line, has 16 peaks that exceed 

6,000 feet, and is the most massive 

mountain range east of the Mississippi 

River. 

The region generally has a temperate climate; temperatures and annual 

precipitation totals largely are dependent on land-surface elevations. Average annual temperatures in the area 

generally decrease by about 3 degrees 

Fahrenheit for every 1,000-foot 

increase in elevation. Average annual 

precipitation ranges from about 40 

inches in some low-lying, sheltered 

areas in the Valley and Ridge province 

to more than 90 inches at elevations 

over 6,000 feet. Precipitation generally 

is distributed evenly throughout the

year with no distinct dry 

and wet seasons.(1)

Forests cover more than 67 percent 

of the Study Unit (fig. 1) and five 

National Forests–Jefferson, Pisgah, 

Cherokee, Nantahala, and Chattahooche National Forests–wholly or 

partially lie within the basin. Agricultural land, predominantly pasture, is 

the second most common land use and 

accounts for more than 26 percent of 

the study area. Row crops account for 

only about 2.6 percent of the study 

area. Most of the agricultural land is 

located in the stream valleys and gently rolling parts of the Valley and 

Ridge physiographic province. The 

crests of steep ridges and more rugged 

areas of the basin remain forested. 

Less than 4.5 percent of the basin is 

developed. Row crops and developed 

areas, however, generally affect waterquality conditions much more than 

their small percentages would indicate.

Forest is the predominant land use 

in the Upper Tennessee River Basin.

Pasture is the predominant agricultural

land use in the Upper Tennessee Basin. Row crops account for only 2.6 percent 

of the Upper Tennessee River Basin.

Urban and industrial land uses have 

greater water-quality effects than their 

land-use percentages might indicate.

Figure 1. Water-quality conditions in the Upper Tennessee River Basin are influenced by land uses.
4 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Figure 2. Two types of major reservoirs are on five major tributaries of the Upper 

Tennessee River.

Virginia

Tennessee North Carolina

Georgia

Tennessee

Georgia

North Carolina

Tennessee

Clinch River Basin

Holston

 River

 Basin

French

Broad

River

Basin

Little Tennessee River Basin

Hiwassee River Basin

Tennessee

 River

 Basin

1 2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

Reservoir Reservoir name Reservoir type Surface area, Total capacity,

 number in acres in acre-feet

 1 Norris Tributary storage 34,200 969,000

 2 Cherokee Tributary storage 30,300 580,300

 3 Douglas Tributary storage 30,400 631,200

 4 Fontana Tributary storage 10,640 476,900

 5 Melton Hill Flow-through 5,960 16,100

 6 Fort Loudon Flow through 14,600 120,000

 7 Tellico Flow through 15,860 63,800

 8 Watts Bar Flow through 39,000 191,000

 9 Chickamauga Flow through 35,000 175,000

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

Surface-Water Features

The most prominent surface-water 

features of the Upper Tennessee River 

Basin are the tributary and main-stem 

reservoirs constructed and maintained 

by the Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA) and sometimes referred to as 

the “Great Lakes of the South.” Four 

main-stem reservoirs are primarily 

flow-through systems that provide 

power generation and maintain navigational depths but provide little flood 

storage. These four reservoirs have a 

combined capacity of about 3.1 million 

acre-feet. Seventeen tributary reservoirs provide flood storage and power 

generation. These tributary reservoirs 

have a combined storage capacity of 

some 10 million acre-feet. An additional 17 privately owned and operated 

reservoirs also are located in the study 

area and have a combined storage 

capacity of about 0.6 million acre-feet.

(2)

 Five major tributaries (fig. 2) 

account for about 86 percent of the 

annual mean discharge of 35,450 cubic 

feet per second at the Tennessee River 

at Chattanooga and over 87 percent of 

the total area of the upper Tennessee 

River Basin. The Clinch (4,413 square 

miles), Holston (3,776 square miles), 

French Broad (5,124 square miles), 

Little Tennessee (2,627 square miles), 

and Hiwassee (2,700 square miles) 

Rivers each exhibit distinctive climatic 

and runoff characteristics. Average 

annual precipitation in these river 

basins ranges from about 45 inches in 

the Holston River Basin to almost 60 

inches in the Little Tennessee River 

Basin, which receives the highest rainfall in the continental United States 

outside of the Puget Sound area of

Washington State.(3) Average annual 

runoff totals have similar variations 

and range from about 18 inches in the 

Holston River Basin to more than 34 

inches in the Little Tennessee River 

Basin.(4)

Water Use

In 1995, withdrawals of surface and 

ground water in the Upper Tennessee 

River Basin totaled about 4.8 billion 

gallons per day. Surface-water withdrawals for once-through cooling at 

thermoelectric plants accounted for 

about 3.5 billion gallons per day, or 73 

percent of this total. Other uses (fig. 3) 

were commercial and industrial, 702 

million gallons per day; public and 

domestic supply, 394 million gallons 

per day; agricultural, 203.3 million 

gallons per day: and mining, 10.4 million gallons per day, all of which were 

predominantly surface-water withdrawals.(5) A total of 897 facilities 

were permitted to discharge wastewater in 1995 to area streams. 

Total ground-water withdrawals in 

the basin for 1995 were about 138 million gallons per day and accounted for 

about 10.5 percent of the total nonthermoelectric water use in the basin. 

About 77 percent of the ground-water 

withdrawals were for public and 

domestic supply for over one-third of 

the basin’s population.

Commercial and Industrial

 53.6%

Public and Domestic Supply

 30.1%

Agricultural

 15.5%

Mining

 0.8%

Figure 3. Nonthermoelectric water use in 

the Upper Tennessee River Basin, 1995.

(Thermoelectric water use accounted for

73 percent of the total water use.)

Large reservoirs are the most prominent 

surface water features of the Upper

Tennessee Basin.
 Introduction to the Upper Tennessee River Basin 5

Sandstone

Dolomite

Limestone

Shale

Igneous and 

Metamorphic

Figure 6. Ground-water availability is a function of surface geology in

the Upper Tennessee River Basin.

Tennessee

Virginia

Georgia

Tennessee

Tennessee

North Carolina

North Carolina

Georgia

EXPLANATION

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

Hydrologic Conditions

Understanding hydrologic variations over time is necessary for assessing water-quality conditions as well as 

for providing a context with which to 

evaluate trends. Overall, rainfall during the data-collection period was 

about 10 percent greater than the longterm mean values. Most of the excess 

rainfall occurred in the northern part of 

the basin, as the Knoxville and TriCities weather stations both recorded 

about 4 inches per year more than their 

long-term averages of 46.7 and 41.3 

inches, respectively. During this same 

period, rainfall at Chattanooga averaged only about 1 inch per year more 

than the long-term average of 53.3 

inches.(6)

Although precipitation usually is 

distributed relatively evenly throughout the year in the Upper Tennessee 

River Basin with no pronounced dry or 

wet seasons, two relatively dry periods 

occurred in the late summer and fall of 

1997 and 1998. These periods are 

reflected in the rainfall departures in 

figure 4 and streamflow discharges in 

figure 5.

Ground-Water Resources

Ground water in the Upper Tennessee River Basin occurs almost exclusively in unconfined water-table 

conditions with no regional flow systems. Ground-water flow systems usually are less than 10 square miles in 

areal extent and are largely controlled 

by the bedrock geology (fig. 6) and 

thickness of overlying regolith. 

The Cumberland Plateau is characterized by hard, relatively impermeable sandstone of Pennsylvanian age 

generally overlain by thin soils. Well 

yields generally range from 5 to 50 

gallons per minute from fractures, 

faults, and bedding-plane openings. 

Over much of the province, however, 

reliable ground-water supplies are not 

obtainable. Similarly, the Blue Ridge 

physiographic province is characterized by fractured crystalline igneous 

and metamorphic rock of low porosity 

and little storage capacity.

Well yields depend upon interception 

of water-bearing fracture systems and 

usually range from 10 to 25 gallons of 

water per minute where available.

The Valley and Ridge physiographic 

province is underlain by folded and 

extensively faulted limestone, dolomite, shale, and sandstones that occur 

in long subparallel belts trending 

southwest to northeast. The principal 

water-bearing units are the carbonatebased dolomites and limestones, which 

provide water for many cities and 

industries. Yields 

generally range from 

5 to 200 gallons per minute, but wells 

penetrating extensive solution features 

may yield as much as 2,000 gallons per 

minute.(7) Solution features, such as 

caves and sinkholes with their inherent 

permeability, make the Valley and 

Ridge carbonate aquifers the most susceptible in the basin to contamination.

JAN 96JULY 96JAN 97JULY 97JAN 98JULY 98DEC 98

102

103

104

Clinch River above Tazewell, Tenn.

Nolichucky River at Embreeville, Tenn.

MEAN MONTHLY DISCHARGE,IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Figure 5. Mean monthly discharge for the Clinch and Nolichucky Rivers reflect the 

abnormally dry summers of 1997 and 1998.

JAN 96JULY 96JAN 97JULY 97JAN 98JULY 98DEC 98

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

 DEPARTURE FROM MEAN MONTHLY RAINFALL, IN INCHES

Knoxville, Tennessee

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Tri-Cities, Tennessee - Virginia

Figure 4. Departures from mean monthly rainfall at three stations in the Upper 

Tennessee River Basin reflect hydrologic conditions during the 1996-98 study period. 

(Data from National Weather Service, Morristown, Tenn.)
6 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Biological Diversity

The Upper Tennessee River Basin

is noted nationally for its diversity of 

freshwater fishes and mussels. The 

basin provides habitat for 174 species 

of fish, including 25 species that are 

non-native. 

Of the 149 fish species native to the 

Upper Tennessee River, 29 are found 

only in the Tennessee and adjacent 

Cumberland River Basins, and 15 are 

found only in the Upper Tennessee 

River. Fifteen fish species in the basin 

are federally listed as endangered or 

threatened and 50 species are listed 

under management categories used by 

the four States. 

Most of the fish diversity in the 

basin is concentrated in the Valley and 

Ridge physiographic province, which 

includes 141 of the 149 native Upper 

Tennessee species, most notably in the 

Upper Clinch and lower Holston River 

Basins (fig. 7). The Clinch River alone 

is home to 126 Upper Tennessee River 

native species, 12 of which are federally protected and 41 of which are 

State listed. Four previously recorded 

fish species are no longer found in the 

Clinch River, the largest number of 

eliminated fish species for any Upper 

Tennessee drainage.

The Upper Tennessee River also 

includes one of the most diverse freshwater mussel fauna in the world with 

85 different species having historically 

been recorded. Twenty-five of these 

species are no longer found in the 

basin, mostly because of habitat 

destruction associated with reservoir

impoundment, and 11 are now 

believed to be extinct. Of the 60 freshwater mussel species now found in the 

Upper Tennessee River Basin, 30 species are under Federal protection and 

52 species are listed by the States.

As with fishes, most of the freshwater mussel diversity is associated 

with the Valley and Ridge physiographic province, especially the Clinch 

River system (fig. 8). The Clinch River 

is now home to about 52 species of a 

previously recorded total of 79. Of the 

current total, 28 are federally listed and 

38 are listed by the States.

Home to more than 300 globally 

rare species, the Upper Clinch River 

system, which includes the Powell 

River, has attracted attention from a 

number of environmental organizations including the designation as one 

of the “Last Great Places” by the 

Nature Conservancy. The Clinch 

River system also is considered to be 

one of the more biologically threatened river systems in the country (fig. 

9). Of the 178 freshwater fish and mussel species presently inhabiting the 

Clinch River Basin, more than onefourth are considered to be at-risk.(8)

Study Unit Design Focuses on 

Land Use.

Chemical and biological samples 

were collected from selected rivers and 

streams draining different land-use 

areas to assess overall quality as well 

as the effects of specific land uses. The 

study focused on agricultural land use 

and unregulated streams in the Valley 

and Ridge physiographic province. At 

Basic Fixed Sites, water samples were 

collected monthly and during storms to 

assess runoff conditions. Synoptic sites 

were sampled only once during periods of average flow.

Springs, domestic wells, and specifically installed agricultural monitoring 

wells were sampled to assess overall 

ground-water quality in the basin. 

Ground-water studies focused on the 

dolomite and limestone areas of the 

Valley and Ridge province, which provide the best aquifers and are the most 

susceptible areas in the basin to 

ground-water contamination. (See 

Study Unit Design, page 23, for 

details.)

Figure 7. Fish diversity is highest in the 

Lower Holston and Upper Clinch River 

systems.

EXPLANATION

Tennessee

Tennessee

Georgia Georgia

Virginia

North Carolina

Tennessee

North Carolina

Upper Clinch River

Lower Holston River

71 TO 90

91 TO 110

MORE THAN 110

50 TO 70

Number of Species

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 MILES

The Upper Tennessee River Basin 

includes one of the world's most 

diverse freshwater mussel faunas.

(Photograph courtesy of Richard 

Neves, Virginia Polytechnic and 

State University.)

The yellowfin madtom is one of the 

threatened fish species in the Upper 

Tennessee River Basin. (Photograph 

courtesy of the Tennessee Valley Authority.)

Figure 9. The Upper Clinch and Powell 

Rivers have the highest numbers of freshwater fish and mussel species considered 

to be at risk.(8)

Tennessee

Tennessee

Tennessee

Virginia

North Carolina

North Carolina

Georgia Georgia

LESS THAN 9

10 TO 14

15 TO 23

24 TO 50

Powell River

Upper Clinch River

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 MILES

EXPLANATION

Number of Species

Figure 8. Freshwater mussel diversity is 

highest in the Valley and Ridge physiographic province.

0 TO 5

6 TO 20

21 TO 50

MORE THAN 50

Tennessee

Tennessee

Tennessee

Virginia

North Carolina

North Carolina

Georgia Georgia

Upper Clinch River

Lower Holston River

Powell River

EXPLANATION

Number of Species

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 MILES
 Major Findings 7

MAJOR FINDINGS

Bacteria in the Upper 

Tennessee River Basin

Fecal indicator bacteria are the most 

frequent and widespread water-quality 

standard exceedances involving potential adverse effects to human health in 

the Upper Tennessee River Basin. The 

indicator bacteria themselves usually 

are harmless and easy to detect, but 

they are indicators of the presence of 

fecal material and have been shown to 

be associated with some waterborne 

disease-causing organisms. The presence of indicator bacteria, however, 

cannot be considered direct proof of 

any threat to human health, and research is underway to find better indicators.

Bacterial Counts Frequently 

Exceed Standards

The State of Tennessee’s current water-quality standards are based on a total fecal coliform level of 200 colonies 

per 100 milliliters of water, as a mean 

value.(9) This value is commonly exceeded in agricultural and urban 

streams in the Upper Tennessee River 

Basin (fig. 10). In agricultural areas, 

livestock waste is the most likely bacterial source both from allowing livestock direct access to streams and 

runoff from animal-waste areas. Bacterial counts generally increase during 

higher streamflows associated with 

runoff events in the agricultural areas 

(fig. 11).

Deteriorated and leaky sewage systems, faulty sewage treatment plants, 

urban runoff, and combined sewer 

overflow systems are among the

sources of bacterial contamination in 

many urban streams. For example, all 

of the urban streams draining the central Knoxville, Tennessee, area regularly exceed bacterial standards(10)

because of widespread leakage from 

very old and deteriorating sewer systems in the older parts of the city. Replacement in 1998 of an obsolete 

combined sewer overflow system for 

one city neighborhood, however, has 

improved conditions for that neighborhood and adjacent parts of Fort Loudon 

Reservoir. These conditions highlight 

the continuing need for infrastructure 

improvements, especially in older urban areas.

Knoxville

Asheville

Kingsport

Bristol

Johnson

 City

Virginia

Tennessee North Carolina

Georgia

Tennessee

Georgia

North Carolina

Tennessee

#

# # #

##

# # ## # #

# # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # ### # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # ##

##

##

#

UTEN Synoptic Sites

Less than 200

More than 200

Percentage of monthly Colonies per 100 milliliters

samples exceeding 200 

colonies per 100 milliliters



% %

%

% %

%

% %

%

%

%

%

UTEN Basic Fixed Sites

Less than 1

1 to 30

30 to 50

Greater than 50

Chattanooga

Figure 10. Fecal coliform bacteria frequently exceed standards in Upper 

Tennessee River (UTEN) streams.

EXPLANATION

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

Livestock are a major contributor to fecal 

coliform levels in area streams.

In Upper Tennessee River Basin urban areas, 

deteriorated sewerage systems and combined 

sewer overflows produce elevated fecal coliform

levels.

Figure 11. Fecal coliform counts vary 

with streamflow at Big Limestone Creek 

in Tennessee.

10 100 1,000

100,000

100

1,000

10,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA, IN COLONIES PER 100 MILLILITERS
8 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin 

Figure 13. Coliform bacteria are often detected in Upper Tennessee River Basin 

ground water.

DOMESTIC WELLS SPRINGS

0

1 TO 200

GREATER

THAN 200

1 TO 200

GREATER

THAN 200

Tennessee

Tennessee

Tennessee

North Carolina

North Carolina

Virginia

Georgia Georgia

IGNEOUS AND

METAMORPHIC

SANDSTONE

DOLOMITE

LIMESTONE

SHALE

SURFACE GEOLOGY

EXPLANATION

Colonies per 100 milliliters

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

Bacteria Frequently Are Detected 

in Domestic Wells and Springs

A common misconception is that untreated ground water from wells and 

springs generally is safe for consumption because percolation through the 

soil removes most contaminants. While 

the soil can act as a natural filter, this 

does not guarantee the absence of contaminants. In fact, about half of the 

waterborne-disease outbreaks in the 

United States since 1900 have involved 

contaminated ground water.(11)

Ground-water systems such as the 

carbonate systems of the Upper Tennessee River Basin are particularly susceptible to contamination from surface 

sources. Ground-water flow paths in 

these systems usually are shallow, principally involving the upper 10 to 20 

feet of highly fractured and heavily 

weathered rock. In addition, the common presence of bedrock outcrops, areas of thin overburden, and karst 

features such as sinkholes provide direct avenues for aquifer contamination 

(fig. 12). Other potential sources for 

bacterial contamination include faulty 

or poorly placed septic systems and 

poor well construction or sanitation 

practices.

For finished drinking water, the detection of as few as 4 coliform bacteria 

colonies per 100 milliliters (col/100 

mL) or the detection of 1 col/100 mL of 

fecal coliform bacteria, or E. coli, warrants concern for human health.(12) Of 

30 domestic wells used as sources for 

untreated drinking water, 11 (37 percent) exceeded the total coliform drinking-water standard and 9 (30 percent)

the E. coli drinking-water standard (fig. 

13). The highest E. coli value detected 

was 1,600 col/100 mL.

Total coliform values for 35 springs 

sampled in the Upper Tennessee River 

Basin ranged from 10 to 1,900 col/100 

mL and E. coli ranged from 

0 to 660 col/100 mL. All of the springs 

tested exceeded drinking-water standards for total coliform bacteria, and 95 

percent of the springs exceeded the E. 

coli standard. Two springs exceeded 

the E. coli body-contact standard of 

126 col/100 mL. Sixteen of the 35 

springs are used as domestic water supplies and others are used for filling water containers by the roadside with 

what usually is believed to be “clean 

mountain spring water.”

Knox Dolomite Chickamauga Limestone

 Rome

Sandstone

Sinkhole

Spring

Bedrock

outcrop

Well

Thin or absent

 overburden

Water Table

Figure 12. Upper Tennessee ground-water flow systems can be affected by a 

number of potential contamination sources such as sinkholes, outcrops of bedrock, and areas with thin overburden. (Not to scale)

Most of the rural population in the Upper

Tennessee River Basin depend on 

shallow domestic wells for water supply.

Although much of the public 

perceives them as clean sources 

of drinking water, springs are very 

susceptible to contamination.
 Major Findings 9

EXPLANATION

PHOSPHORUS YIELDS, 

 IN POUNDS PER ACRE

 PER YEAR

0 to 0.2

0.21 to 0.4

0.41 to 0.8

0.81 to 1.0

Greater

than 1.0

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

Figure 15. Mean annual total phosphorus yields between 1973 and

1993 were highest in the upper French Broad River Basin.

Clinch River Basin

Holston River

 Basin

French Broad

 River Basin

Cherokee

Reservoir Norris

Reservoir

Watts Bar

Reservoir

Chickamauga

Reservoir

Douglas

Reservoir

EXPLANATION

NITROGEN YIELDS, IN

POUNDS PER ACRE 

 PER YEAR 

2.1 to 3.0

3.1 to 4.0

4.1 to 5.0

5.0 to 6.0

6.1 to 7.0

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

Figure 14. Mean annual total nitrogen yields between 1973 and

1993 were highest in the upper French Broad and upper Clinch

River Basins.

Clinch River Basin

Holston River 

 Basin

French Broad

 River Basin

Norris

Reservoir

Cherokee

Reservoir

Watts Bar

Reservoir

Chickamauga

Reservoir

Douglas

Reservoir

Nutrients in the Upper 

Tennessee River Basin

Nutrients are nitrogen and phosphorus compounds that are essential for 

plant growth. When found at elevated 

concentrations, however, nutrients can 

degrade water quality. The enrichment 

of a water body with nutrients, called 

eutrophication, can result in dense, 

rapidly multiplying growths, or 

blooms, of algal species and other nuisance aquatic plants. These can clog 

water intake pipes and filters and interfere with recreational activities, such 

as fishing, swimming, and boating. 

Subsequent decay of algal blooms can 

overload water bodies with oxidizable 

debris and result in foul odors, bad 

taste, and reduced dissolved oxygen 

levels, which are harmful to other 

aquatic life.(13)

Nutrients in the Upper Tennessee 

River Basin originate from point and 

nonpoint sources. Point sources are 

typically piped discharges from wastewater-treatment facilities and large 

urban and industrial stormwater systems. Nonpoint sources include stormwater runoff from urban and 

agricultural areas. In the Upper Tennessee River Basin, applications of 

synthetic fertilizers and manure are 

major sources.

Nutrient Loadings and Yields Vary 

among Upper Tennessee River 

Subbasins

Nutrient loadings in the Upper Tennessee River subbasins are primarily 

influenced by land use and streamflow 

conditions. Loads were estimated by 

using a constituent transport model 

and multiple regression to relate 

streamflow to the concentration of a 

water-quality constituent to derive 

loads.(14) Twenty-three stations with 

adequate streamflow and chemical 

records were used for nitrogen calculations and 20 for total phosphorus.

The highest yields in the study area 

for both nutrient species were detected 

in the French Broad River Basin, particularly the upstream portion that includes Asheville, North Carolina (figs. 

14 and 15). The French Broad River, as 

a whole, accounted for about 40 percent of the 138,000 pounds per day 

(lb/d) average annual total nitrogen 

load(15) and about 25 percent of the 

13,500 lb/d average annual total phosphorus load,(16) leaving the basin at 

Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Holston 

River Basin added another 22 percent 

of the total nitrogen load but only 8 percent of the total phosphorus load.

 A combination of agricultural and 

urban runoff is probably responsible 

for conditions in the French Broad 

River. In addition, the French Broad 

River and its tributaries have a history 

of water-quality problems associated 

with industrial point-source discharges. 

These basins also had the highest yields 

and loadings in the Upper Tennessee 

River Basin for total ammonia and organic forms of nitrogen.

Nutrient loadings and yields generally were lowest in those basins with 

relatively low percentages of agricultural land use and at sites directly 

downstream from tributary reservoirs. 

The fate of nutrients in the reservoirs 

depends on the physical characteristics 

of the reservoir (volume, surface area, 

depth, and hydraulic retention time) 

and its trophic state.(17) The tributary 

reservoirs in the Upper Tennessee River Basin commonly function as sinks 

for nutrient species by providing a favorable environment for nitrogen transformation and by efficiently trapping 

both dissolved and sediment-bound 

phosphorus. Outflow loads of total 

phosphorus below Norris Lake on the 

Clinch River, for example, were 37 percent of the inflow load from the Clinch 

and Powell River Basins. Load estimates for the Holston River upstream 

and downstream from
10 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin MEDIAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 16. Median total nitrogen concentrations can be related to (A) agricultural, 

and (B) urban land uses.

PERCENTAGE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

PERCENTAGE URBAN LAND USE

A B

Figure 17. Median total phosphorus concentrations can be related to 

(A) agricultural and (B) urban land uses.

MEDIAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

PERCENTAGE URBAN LAND USE

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PERCENTAGE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

A B

Cherokee Reservoir similarly indicate 

that the reservoir traps about 46 percent 

of the incoming load of total phosphorus. In contrast, less trapping occurs in 

the main-stem reservoirs, which are 

predominantly flow-through systems 

with limited storage capacity and relatively short residence times. Outflow 

phosphorus loads downstream from 

Chickamauga and Watts Bar Reservoirs significantly exceeded the inflow 

loads from upstream drainages. The increased loads can be attributed to low 

rates of trapping as well as additional 

input from ungaged areas adjacent to 

the reservoirs.(16)

Nutrient Concentrations and Yields 

Vary with Land Use

The relation between total nitrogen 

concentrations and land-use percentages was investigated for 87 sites in 

the Upper Tennessee River Basin and 

was found to be statistically significant. Stations in forested watersheds 

had the lowest concentrations of total 

nitrogen, whereas stations in agricultural areas had the highest. Concentrations of nitrogen in urban and mixed 

land-use areas were significantly 

greater than forested watersheds but 

were somewhat less than nitrogen concentrations in agricultural watersheds. 

Total nitrogen concentrations tended to 

increase with increased development 

whether agricultural or urban 

(fig.16).(15)

Nitrogen sources also were investigated by using regression analysis between annual basin yields and total 

annual inputs from fertilizer, animal 

waste, wastewater discharges, and atmospheric deposition. For total nitrogen, basin yields significantly and 

positively correlated with agricultural 

inputs but only weakly correlated with 

wastewater discharges and atmospheric 

inputs. This tends to identify agricultural land use as the major contributor 

to annual instream nitrogen yields.(18)

The relation between total phosphorus concentrations and land-use percentages also were investigated for 83 

sites in the Upper Tennessee River Basin. Although the relation was not quite 

as clear as with nitrogen, statistically 

significant increases in total phosphorus concentrations also accompanied 

increased development whether urban 

or agricultural (fig. 17). As with total 

nitrogen, the lowest phosphorus concentrations were detected at sites in 

predominantly forested watersheds, 

whereas sites in urban and agricultural 

areas had the highest phosphorus concentrations.(16)

Phosphorus sources also were investigated by using calculated basin yields

and total annual inputs from fertilizer,

animal waste, wastewater discharges, 

and the atmosphere. Phosphorus yields 

were found to strongly correlate with 

wastewater discharges but not with the 

agriculturally related input categories. 

This suggests that wastewater discharges may account for most of the 

total phosphorus load in basin streams 

(J.F. Connell, U.S. Geological Survey, 

written comun., October 20, 2000). 

Agriculturally applied phosphorus may 

be assimilated quickly by area soils 

thereby reaching area streams slowly if 

at all.

Agricultural land uses appear to account 

for most of the total nitrogen loads to 

area streams.

Wastewater discharges appear to 

account for most of the total 

phosphorus in Upper Tennessee 

River Basin streams.
 Major Findings 11

Nutrient Concentrations in Upper Tennessee River Basin Surface 

Waters Generally Are Lower Than National Median Concentrations

Nitrogen Species Changed by 

Wastewater Treatment

Prior to the widespread implementation of wastewater treatment, nitrogen loadings for most Upper 

Tennessee River Basin streams primarily consisted of reduced species 

such as ammonia and various organic 

forms. These nitrogen species generally are undesirable in surface water 

because of associated color changes 

and decreases in dissolved oxygen levels. In addition, under certain conditions, ammonia nitrogen can be highly 

toxic to aquatic life. Wastewater-treatment facilities convert these undesirable forms to the oxidized species, 

nitrite and nitrate.

At the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, Tennessee, as 

with most major streams in the Upper Tennessee River 

Basin, the ratio of reduced to oxidized nitrogen species 

began to change in the late 1970s (fig. 18), corresponding to 

the implementation of wastewater-treatment facilities. By 

about 1983, the oxidized nitrogen species, nitrate and nitrite, 

became the predominant forms of nitrogen discharged from 

the basin, a trend which has continued to the present.

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Organic plus Ammonia Nitrogen

Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen

Mean Annual Discharge

NITROGEN LOADING, IN 1,000 KILOGRAMS PER DAY AS NITROGEN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

 MEAN ANNUAL DISCHARGE,IN 1,000 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Figure 18. The predominant nitrogen species changed at the Tennessee River 

at Chattanooga, Tennessee, between 1970 and 1998.

FLOW-WEIGHTED TOTAL NITROGEN MEAN CONCENTRATION , IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Big Limestone Creek

Copper Creek

Nolichucky River 

Middle Fork Holston River

Holston River

French Broad River

Clinch River

Guest River

Tennessee River

Clear Creek 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

25

50

75

PERCENTILE OF NATIONAL MEAN CONCENTRATIONS

Total nitrogen exceeded the national median value only

 at the two intensively sampled agricultural sites.

FLOW-WEIGHTED MEAN PHOSPHORUS  CONCENTRATION , IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER Big Limestone Creek

Copper Creek 

Nolichucky River

Middle Fork Holston River

Holston River

French Broad River

Clinch River

Guest River 

Tennessee River

Clear Creek 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

25

50

75

PERCENTILE OF NATIONAL MEAN CONCENTRATIONS

Less than method reporting limit

Total phosphorus exceeded the national mean in two 

heavily agricultural drainages and also in the French

 Broad River below the Asheville, N.C., urban area.

Although nutrient concentrations and loadings are a concern

in parts of the Upper Tennessee River Basin, concentrations 

generally are low for most area subbasins when compared 

with national averages. Mean total nitrogen concentrations 

exceeded or equaled the national median values only for 

three agricultural sites: Big Limestone Creek (83 percent

agricultural), Copper Creek (51 percent agricultural), and the

Nolichucky River (39 percent agricultural). Similar results

were obtained for total phosphorus at Big Limestone Creek 

and the Nolichucky River, but the French Broad River 

flowing into Tennessee from North Carolina also exceeded 

the national median value. Although relatively low, mean 

total phosphorus concentrations at most sites exceeded

 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) goal 

of 0.05 mg/L total phosphorus for surface water entering 

reservoirs.
12 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Loading Trends Increase in Parts 

of the Upper Tennessee Basin

Trend analyses for 56 stations using 

the seasonal Kendall statistical analysis 

test indicated significant increases in 

total nitrogen at seven sites in the Upper Tennessee River Basin and significant decreases at eight sites (fig. 19). 

Sites showing decreases were all on 

relatively major streams (average 

drainage area, 2,600 square miles) or 

below major impoundments. Of the 

seven sites showing increases, six are 

in the Blue Ridge physiographic province and six drain basins with forests 

accounting for more than 75 percent of 

the total land use. The exception is 

Beaver Creek, which drains the Bristol, 

Tennessee and Virginia, urban area in 

the Valley and Ridge Province. The average area of basins showing nitrogen 

increases was only 276 square 

miles.(15) 

Of the seven sites showing increases, five are in the Blue Ridge in North 

Carolina–two sites on the French Broad 

River and one each on the Little Tennessee River and tributaries to the Hiwassee and Pigeon Rivers. Much of 

this area is undergoing nonurban residential development in the form of vacation homes. Nitrogen loads are 

probably increased by the sewage and 

fertilizer use associated with this development.

Similar trend analyses for 42 sites to 

detect changes in total phosphorus 

concentrations yielded only one site 

with significant increases (fig. 20). 

West Chickamauga Creek, which 

drains a major industrial and urban setting, showed high concentrations for 

the entire period of record. Most (33) 

sites showed no trend, and eight sites

showed significant decreases. These 

sites are dominated for the most part 

by pasture and forest; however, three 

sites are downstream from major 

wastewater discharges.(16) For sites in 

these more urbanized basins, improvements in wastewater-treatment processes are clearly responsible for the 

downward phosphorus trends.

Virginia

Tennessee North Carolina

Georgia

Tennessee

Georgia

North Carolina

Tennessee

Downward Trends

Upward Trends

No change

EXPLANATION

Figure 20. Total phosphorus decreased or remained unchanged in 

the Upper Tennessee River Basin between 1970 and 1993.

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

Nonurban residential development in 0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

the Blue Ridge Mountains is most likely 

the largest contributor to increasing 

total nitrogen concentrations. 

Virginia

Tennessee North Carolina

Georgia

Tennessee

Georgia

North Carolina

Tennessee

Downward Trends

Upward Trends

No change

EXPLANATION

Figure 19. Total nitrogen increased in parts of the Upper Tennessee 

River Basin between 1970 and 1993.

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES
 Major Findings 13 NATIONAL DATA BASE PERCENTILE

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

Shallow agricultural

 ground water 

Domestic Springs

 wells

25

50

MEDIAN NITRATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Median ground-water nitrate concentrations in the Upper

Tennessee River Basin were significantly lower than the 

national median

Median nitrate concentrations in shallow ground water beneath

agricultural land use in the Upper Tennessee River Basin were 

in the medium range on a national basis.

Background concentration

Bold outline indicates median values

greater than background concentration

(2 milligrams per liter)

Average annual total nitrogen 

input--

in pounds per acre, by county, for 

1995-98. Inputs are from fertilizer,

manure, and the atmosphere

Greater than 25 pounds per acre

6 to 25 pounds per acre

Less than 6 pounds per acre

in milligrams per liter.

Highest (greater than 5.1)

Medium (0.48 to 5.1)

Lowest (less than 0.48)

Median concentration of nitrateEach circle represents a

ground-water study

Upper Tennessee River Basin

Nutrient Concentrations Generally Are Low in Upper Tennessee 

 River Basin Ground Water

EXPLANATION

All of the nutrients measured in the Upper Tennessee 

River Basin ground water were relatively low, as is usually typical of ground water. Most nutrient species are retained by soil particles or organic matter, taken up by 

plants, or utilized by soil bacteria and never enter the 

ground-water flow system. Exceptions are the nitrate and 

ammonia forms of nitrogen; however, only nitrate has a 

drinking-water standard, which is 10 mg/L. Drinking 

water containing nitrate concentrations higher than the 

standard can cause methemoglobinemia, a life-threatening illness in infants.

Nitrate was present in all wells and springs sampled in 

the Upper Tennessee River Basin but usually at concentrations of 3 mg/L or less. This included all of the 30 domestic wells used for drinking-water supply that were 

sampled and the 35 springs sampled across the basin. 

The median nitrate concentration for domestic wells was 

0.59 mg/L, slightly more than the 25th percentile value 

nationally; the median nitrate concentration for springs 

was 1.16 mg/L, which was significantly lower than the 

national 50th percentile. The higher concentrations 

detected in springs most likely reflect the predominance 

of relatively short ground-water flow paths associated 

with localized recharge and runoff. No nitrate concentrations in excess of the 10-mg/L standard were detected in 

any domestic wells or springs.

Nitrate concentrations in excess of the 10 mg/L standard 

were detected in 5 of the 30 wells installed during the 

study period to monitor shallow ground-water quality 

under and adjacent to tobacco fields. Tobacco is the main 

cash crop in the Upper Tennessee River Basin and is usually grown in small but intensively fertilized and cultivated plots. In general, fertilizer applications for tobacco 

cultivation are much greater than for any other row-type 

crop raised in the Upper Tennessee River Basin.

 The median nitrate concentration in the shallow agricultural monitoring wells, however, was 0.68 mg/L–only 

slightly more than the median concentration for domestic 

wells and the national 25th percentile. Among the concentrations found nationally for agricultural and urban 

land uses, this value falls in the lower end of the medium 

range as shown in the accompanying figure. 

The results indicate that nitrate contamination of extensive areas of ground water in the Upper Tennessee 

River Basin is very unlikely. High nitrate concentrations 

relative to the 10 mg/L drinking-water standard were detected only in shallow ground water directly under heavily fertilized tobacco plots. Tobacco fields typically

cover only about 2 acres and are widely scattered across 

the study area. The potential for nitrate contamination of 

drinking-water sources is, therefore, very low outside of 

the immediate vicinity of tobacco fields.
14 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

 Big Limestone

 Creek near

Limestone, Tenn.

Copper Creek

 near

Gate City, Va.

 Nolichucky

 River near

Lowlands, Tenn.

Figure 21. Pesticide detections at three 

agriculturally dominated sites followed similar 

patterns.

Lindane

Carbofuran

p, p' - DDE

Chlorpyrifos

Malathion

Carbaryl

Diazinon

Dichlobenil

Dichlorprop

Bromacil

Diuron

Tebuthiuron

Prometon

Simazine

2,4,5 - T

Trifluralin

Napropamide

Pendimethalin

DCPA

Molinate

Metribuzin

Acetochlor

Alachlor

Cyanazine

Metolachlor

 Deethylatrazine

Atrazine

SAMPLES WITH DETECTIONS, IN PERCENT

0 0 100 100 0 100

Pesticides in the Upper 

Tennessee River Basin

Pesticides are widely used in the Upper Tennessee River Basin to control 

insects, fungi, weeds, and other undesirable organisms. These compounds 

vary in their toxicity, persistence in the 

environment, and transport characteristics. Use of some of the more persistent 

organochlorine compounds, such as 

DDT, chlordane, dieldrin, and aldrin 

has been discontinued in the United 

States, but their residues are still detected in the environment. Although pesticides usually are applied to specific 

areas and directed at specific organisms, these compounds often become 

widely distributed and pose hazards to 

nontarget organisms. Of 18 sites sampled for organochlorine residues in bottom material and biota in the Upper 

Tennessee River Basin, chlordane was 

detected at three sites and dieldrin and 

DDT-related residues at two sites. 

Pesticides were Frequently 

Detected in Surface Water

Pesticide use in the Upper Tennessee 

River Basin is primarily for agricultural 

purposes. Herbicides, including atrazine and its degradation product, deethylatrazine, had some of the highest 

application rates and were also among 

the most frequently detected pesticides 

in the basin. Herbicides were detected 

in 98 percent of the 428 surface-water 

samples collected; atrazine was found 

in 91 percent and deethylatrazine in 86 percent. Metolachlor and

Table 1. Major pesticides used in the Upper Tennessee River Basin, listed in order of 

estimated total pounds of active ingredient applied annually (1991-94) (18)

Insecticides Herbicides Fungicides

Oil ......................256,000 Atrazine ............ 116,000 Methyl bromide..423,000

Acephate ..............80,700 2-4-D .................. 55,600 1-3-D ................. 342,000

Chlorpyrifos....... 71,500 Metolachlor ........ 46,300 Captan.. ............. 108,000

Carbaryl ...............27,200 Alachlor .............. 40,900 Ziram .................. 69,500

Fenamiphos........ 17,200 Pebulate .............. 31,400 Sulfur .................. 58,700

Carbofuran............17,000 Pendimethalin ..... 25,200 Chloropicrin ........ 45,100

Formetanate..........16,300 Butylate ...............24,800 Mancozeb ......... 40,400

Azinphos-methyl..14,400 Simazine...............23,800 Metalaxyl ............ 28,100

Phosmet..................9,420 Glyphosate............16,100 Manab ................. 21,500

simazine were detected in 62 and 40 

percent, respectively. Tebuthiuron and 

prometon, which are used most commonly in noncrop areas, were also 

among the most frequently detected 

herbicides (in 58 and 31 percent of the 

samples collected, respectively). The 

most frequently detected insecticides 

were diazinon (12 percent), carbaryl 

(10 percent), and chlorpyrifos (10 percent), all of which are used on a variety 

of crops to control pests.

Detection frequencies for 27 pesticides detected at 3 intensively sampled 

agricultural sites in the Upper Tennessee River Basin (fig. 21) generally illustrate the results obtained at all 13 

Basic Fixed Sites from which surfacewater samples were collected. Overall, 

a total of 32 pesticides were detected. 

Chlorothalonil, alpha-BHC, and terbacil each were detected once and ethoprop was detected twice.

 Some differences among the three 

sites are notable and probably reflect 

different agricultural practices and hydrologic conditions. For example, at 

the Nolichucky River site, compounds 

generally not found at other sites such 

as cyanazine, alachlor, DCPA, 

metribuzin, bromacil, and diazinon, 

were detected. Molinate, trifluralin, 

and p,p’-DDE were detected only 

at the Copper Creek site, which

also had a significantly higher frequency of detection for tebuthiuron.

Pesticide detection frequencies at

Big Limestone Creek and the Nolichucky River were, as expected,

similar for several compounds 

.

including metolachlor, simazine, 

prometon, and napropamide. Big 

Limestone Creek is a tributary to the 

Nolichucky River, and both drain the 

same general agriculturally dominated 

area. The Big Limestone Creek drainage basin, however, contains more 

dairy operations than other parts of the 

Nolichucky drainage basin, which may 

account for some of the differences between the two sites.

Pesticides are widely used in the Upper 

Tennessee Basin for control of insects, fungi, 

weeds, and other undesirable organisms.
Major Findings 15 

Mixtures of Pesticides Are 

Common

Pesticides were seldom detected 

alone in surface-water samples and 

usually occurred as mixtures of several 

compounds. Generally, the effects of 

pesticide mixtures on biota or humans 

are not included in water-quality criteria, which are most commonly based on 

single-species, single-chemical toxicity tests conducted under laboratory 

conditions. As a result, potential adverse effects on biota may be underestimated. 

Of the 163 samples collected at the 

three intensive sites, only 2 samples at 

Copper Creek contained only one detectable pesticide compound, and only 

5 total samples contained only two 

compounds (fig. 22). Among the intensively sampled sites, samples from the 

Nolichucky River at Lowlands, Tennessee, generally contained more detectable pesticide compounds than 

samples from the other sites, but usually at lower concentrations. This reflects 

the larger drainage area of the Nolichucky River (1,687 square miles) as 

compared to the drainage areas of the 

other intensive sites (79 and 106 square 

miles for Big Limestone and Copper 

Creeks, respectively). Similarly, more 

pesticides also were detected in samples from Big Limestone Creek, which 

has a larger percentage of agricultural 

land use and a greater variety of crops 

than the Copper Creek Basin in 

Virginia.

Peak Pesticide Concentrations Are 

Seasonal

Pesticide concentrations were found 

to be seasonal and closely related to 

land use. The highest concentrations 

occurred in the more heavily agricultural basins in late spring and early 

summer, coinciding with crop applications. Results of weekly sampling results at the three intensively sampled 

agricultural sites illustrate the seasonality and short-lived nature of the peak 

concentrations in streams draining agricultural areas

(fig. 23). Peak concentrations coincided 

with the first substantial runoff event following agricultural 

applications in May 

1996, after which concentrations declined 

relatively rapidly to 

near-background levels. Less frequent 

sampling would have 

made it less likely to 

have noted the existence of the peaks. 

Because these streams are “flashy” in 

that peak discharges come and go very 

quickly, it is possible that even higher 

concentrations can occur for short periods of time. Seasonality also was evident at sites not characterized or 

directly influenced by intense agricultural activities. Atrazine and metolachlor concentrations at Clear Creek at 

Lilly Bridge, a predominantly forested 

watershed and part of the Obed National Wild and Scenic River watershed, 

also showed a distinct seasonality but 

with much lower concentrations (fig. 

24). The seasonal pattern at this site is 

more gradual, suggesting atmospheric 

input more than runoff from agricultural activity. 

2

4 

1

3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

14

Copper Creek near Gate City, Va.

Nolichucky River at Lowlands, Tenn.

Big Limestone Creek near Limestone, Tenn.

EXPLANATION

Figure 22. Pesticides usually were detected as 

mixtures of different compounds.

30

12

3 2 4

14 20

7

6 4 1 1

2

1

4

12

10

13

8 3 4 1 1 Number of 

pesticides detected

Numbers within pie slices

refer to number of samples 

collected with specified

number of pesticide 

detections

Atrazine

Metolachlor

MAR 97

MAY 97

JULY 97

SEPT 97

NOV 97

JAN 98

MAR 98

MAY 98

JULY 98

SEPT 98

0

0.03

0.06

0.09

 CONCENTRATION,IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 24. Atrazine and metolachlor concentrations were 

seasonal in monthly samples at Clear Creek at Lilly Bridge, 

March 1997 - September 1998.

APR 96 MAR 97 JUNE 96 SEPT 96 NOV 96 JAN 97

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

0

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.1

ATRAZINE CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

Copper Creek near Gate City, Va.

Big Limestone Creek near Limestone, Tenn.

Nolichucky River at Lowlands, Tenn.

Figure 23. Atrazine concentrations were seasonal in the

Upper Tennessee River Basin intensively sampled sites, 

March 1996 - April 1997.
16 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Pesticide Concentrations Usually 

Meet Guidelines

Although most of the water samples 

collected contained detectable concentrations of one or more pesticides, no 

concentrations exceeded any drinkingwater standards or guidelines. Only 20 

of the 31 pesticides detected, however, 

have established guidelines. Of the 15 

compounds that have aquatic-life 

guidelines, four were detected at concentrations higher than the guidelines. 

Carbaryl concentrations in excess of 

the 0.20-μg/L (micrograms per liter) 

aquatic-life criterion(19) were found in 

four samples—two each from the 

Guest River near Millers Yard, Virginia, and the Nolichucky River at Lowlands, Tennessee (fig. 25). Lindane, an 

organochlorine used primarily for the 

protection of tobacco transplants, was 

above the 0.01-μg/L criterion in three 

samples from three different sites, two 

of which were in the same subbasin - 

Little Limestone Creek and the Nolichucky River at Lowlands, Tennessee.

An atrazine concentration higher than 

the 0.18-μg/L criterion(20) also was detected in one sample taken at the Nolichucky River at Lowlands, Tennessee, 

in May 1996. This was the only criterion exceedance noted for any herbicide 

even though herbicides were detected 

much more frequently than the other

pesticide types. One sample collected 

at the Guest River near Millers Yard, 

Virginia, contained a diazinon concentration that was not only greater than 

the aquatic-life guideline of 0.08 μg/L 

but approached the USEPA lifetime 

health advisory level of 0.60 μg/L for 

drinking water.

Three herbicides consistently were detected more frequently

in the Upper Tennessee River Basin than in other basins across 

the Nation. Atrazine and deethylatrazine were detected in 99 

and 98 percent, respectively, of samples from agricultural 

basins in the Upper Tennessee River Basin and in 94 and 95 

percent, respectively, of samples from mixed land-use basins - 

significantly more frequently than the national averages of 

about 80 and 60 percent, respectively. Tebuthiuron also was 

detected in about 60 percent of the Upper Tennessee River 

Basin samples as opposed to an overall average of about 

20 percent nationally. Detection frequencies for most of the 

other herbicides probably reflect different herbicide-use 

patterns in the Upper Tennessee River Basin resulting from

particular crop patterns. The three most commonly detected 

insecticides in the Upper Tennessee River Basin - diazinon, 

carbaryl, and chlorpyrifos - were detected less frequently 

than the national averages in all land-use categories.

Atrazine

Deethyl atrazine

Metolachlor

Napropamide

Tebuthiuron

Simazine

Prometon

Diazinon

Chlorpyrifos

Metribuzin

Carbaryl

0

20

40

60

80

100 Herbicides Insecticides

National Averages

Upper Tennessee

INTEGRATOR AND MIXED LAND-USE BASINS

Atrazine

Deethylatrazine

Metolachlor

Napropamide

Tebuthiuron

Simazine

Prometon

Diazinon

Chlorpyrifos

Metribuzin

Carbaryl

0

20

40

60

80

100 Herbicides Insecticides

DETECTION FREQUENCY, IN PERCENT

National Averages

Upper Tennessee

AGRICULTURAL BASINS

Some Pesticides Were Detected More Frequently in the Upper 

 Tennessee River Basin Than Nationally DETECTION FREQUENCY, IN PERCENT

Figure 25. Pesticide concentrations, in micrograms per liter (μg/L), infrequently 

exceeded aquatic-life criteria in the Upper Tennessee River Basin, 1996-98.

Nolichucky River at Lowlands, Tenn.

July 23, 1996 - Diazinon - 0.59 μg/L

July 23, 1996 - Carbaryl - 0.72 μg/L

July 16, 1997 - Carbaryl - 0.20 μg/L

Sept. 19, 1996 - Lindane - 0.014 μg/L

Aug. 6, 1996 - Carbaryl - 0.43 μg/L

Sept. 25, 1996 - Carbaryl - 0.92 μg/L

Apr. 17, 1996 - Lindane - 0.026 μg/L

May 29, 1996 - Atrazine - 2.0 μg/L

July 1, 1997 - Lindane - 0.012 μg/L

Little Limestone Creek, Tenn.

Virginia

Tennessee North Carolina

Georgia

Tennessee

Georgia

North Carolina

Tennessee

Guest River near Millers Yard, Va.

Middle Fork Holston River

 at Seven Mile Ford, Va.

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES
 Major Findings 17

Figure 27. Pesticides were detected 

more frequently in springs than in wells

in the Upper Tennessee River Basin.

Atrazine

 Deethylatrazine

Tebuthiuron

Prometon

Metolachlor

Simazine

Alachlor

Dieldrin

p-p' DDE

2, 4 - D

2, 4, 5 - T

0 20 40 60

DETECTION FREQUENCY,

 IN PERCENT

Springs

Domestic wells

Agricultural wells

Pesticides Were Detected at Low 

Levels in Ground Water 

Pesticides were detected in Upper 

Tennessee River Basin ground-water 

samples more often than not, but generally at concentrations less than 0.01 

μg/L. Pesticide concentrations in 

ground water did not exceed any drinking-water standards or guidelines. Usually, however, pesticides occur in 

mixtures for which criteria are not 

available. In addition, 5 of the 11 pesticides detected have no established 

guidelines or criteria.

Pesticides were detected in springs 

significantly more often and in more 

pesticide detections per sample than in 

other ground-water sources sampled 

(fig. 26). This probably reflects the 

greater vulnerability of springs to surface contamination either from the immediate area or karst features in the 

carbonate bedrocks. More frequent

detections also may reflect the larger 

drainage areas from which springs capture ground water as opposed to wells. 

Of the 35 springs sampled, 24 (69 percent) contained detectable pesticide 

concentrations, and 12 (34 percent) 

contained detectable quantities of three 

or more different compounds. Detection frequencies in agricultural and domestic wells, by contrast, were 

significantly lower and similar to one 

another; 12 of 30 (40 percent) agricultural wells and 13 of 30 (43 percent) 

domestic wells contained detectable 

pesticide concentrations. Of these 

detections, only three (10 percent) samples from agricultural wells had detections of three or more pesticides. Eight 

(27 percent) domestic wells, however, 

had detections of three or more 

compounds.

Atrazine and its degradation 

product, deethylatrazine, were the 

pesticides most commonly detected in all ground-water samples 

but were detected twice as frequently in springs as in other 

ground-water sources (fig. 27). 

Tebuthiuron, the third most frequently detected pesticide, also 

was detected more than twice as 

frequently in springs as in domestic wells. The different pesticide 

mixtures typical of the agricultural wells sampled reflect the 

focus on tobacco in this phase of 

the study. In general, a different 

suite of pesticides are used for 

tobacco than for most other crops. 

For example, atrazine and other 

broadleaf herbicides are toxic to 

tobacco.

Figure 26. Pesticides were detected at low concentrations in Upper Tennessee 

River Basin ground water.

Tennessee

Tennessee

Tennessee

North Carolina

North Carolina

Virginia

Georgia Georgia

EXPLANATION

DOMESTIC

 WELL

AGRICULTURAL

 WELL SPRING

MORE THAN 3

1

2 

3 

NONE

NUMBER OF

PESTICIDES

DETECTED DOLOMITE

LIMESTONE

SHALE

IGNEOUS AND

METAMORPHIC

SANDSTONE

SURFACE GEOLOGY

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

Pesticides were detected more frequently in 

Upper Tennessee River Basin springs than in 

other sources of ground water. 
18 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Figure 28. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are often detected in Upper 

Tennessee River Basin ground water.

Tennessee

Tennessee

Tennessee

Georgia Georgia

North Carolina

North Carolina

Virginia

VOC DETECTIONS

DOMESTIC

 WELLS

0

1 TO 2

3 TO 6

SPRINGS

0

1 TO 2

3 TO 6

8 TO 9

EXPLANATION

DOLOMITE

LIMESTONE

SHALE

IGNEOUS AND

METAMORPHIC

SANDSTONE

SURFACE

GEOLOGY

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Were Frequently Detected in 

Ground Water

Ground-water samples were collected from 30 domestic wells and 35 

springs tapping carbonate strata in the 

Upper Tennessee River Basin. Volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) were 

detected in most of the ground-water 

samples (fig. 28) but generally at very 

low concentrations–often in orders of 

magnitude below the established 

reporting limit. Twenty-eight different 

VOCs were detected during sampling, 

12 of which have drinking-water standards. No measured concentrations, 

however, exceeded these standards.

VOCs were detected more frequently in springs (86 percent) than in domestic wells (67 percent) and 

generally at slightly higher concentrations. Of the 20 samples with one or 

more concentrations greater than 0.1 

μg/L, 14 were taken from springs and 

only 6 from wells. Similarly, of the 28 

compounds detected, 22 were detected 

in spring samples and only 18 were 

detected in domestic wells. 

The most frequently detected 

VOCs were trichloromethane (51 percent), chloromethane (28 percent), 

styrene (23 percent), tetrachloroethane (18 percent), carbon disulfide (11 

percent), and trichloroethene (9 percent). The

remaining 22 compounds were detected in three or fewer samples (less than 

5 percent).

Other than the greater detection frequencies for spring samples, no areal 

or other occurrence patterns could be 

found. As is the case nationally, the 

source for many of the most common 

VOCs detected in ground water, such 

as trichloromethane, is unclear. The 

greater occurrence of detections in 

springs as well as the widespread but 

random pattern of occurrence suggests 

the possibility of atmospheric origins, 

but no definite source can be identified 

at present.

Detection frequencies in Upper 

Tennessee River Basin wells for the 10 

most commonly detected VOCs 

nationally were similar to national 

detection frequencies found for ambient 

ground water in all land-use settings. All 

compounds were assessed at a common 

detection level of 0.1 μg/L. 

Trichloromethane was the most 

commonly detected compound 

nationally as well as in the Upper 

Tennessee River Basin but typically 

was detected at concentrations far 

below drinking-water standards. 

The results are consistent with the 

mixed urban and rural land uses 

surrounding most Upper Tennessee 

River Basin ground-water sites.

Upper Tennessee River Basin and National 

VOC Detection Frequencies Are Similar 

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES WITH DETECTIONS

TRICHLOROMETHANE

TETRACHLOROETHENE

METHYLBENZENE

CARBON DISULFIDE

1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE

METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER

TRICHLOROETHENE

1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE

M,P-XYLENES

No Upper Tennessee River Basin Detections

No Upper Tennessee River Basin Detections

No Upper Tennessee River Basin Detections

No Upper Tennessee River Basin Detections

Upper Tennessee River 

Basin Wells

NAWQA National Frequencies

Upper Tennessee River Basin detection frequencies were similar to national results

for the 10 most commonly detected VOCs nationally. (Assessment level of 0.1 

microgram per liter)
 Major Findings 19

Water-Quality Influences of 

Industry and Mining

Industrial and mining activities prior 

to the passage of the Clean Water Act in 

1972 have left a legacy of contaminated sediment that continues to affect water quality in parts of the Upper 

Tennessee River Basin. The most widespread contaminants are PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and mercury, 

mostly from industrial activities dating 

from 1950 to1972. Sources for some of 

the other contaminants, however, such 

as those affecting the Pigeon and Ocoee 

Rivers date back as far as 1908 and 

1843, respectively.

Mercury in the North Fork Holston 

River is a result of the operation of a 

chlor-alkali plant on the banks of the 

river from 1950 through 1971. An estimated 75 pounds of mercury per day 

were discharged either directly to the 

river or into unlined holding ponds 

along the riverbank.(21) Although soils 

at the site have been remediated, the 

site continues to discharge mercury.(22)

Bed-sediment and tissue samples taken 

from the Holston River system (fig. 29) 

were the only samples taken during the 

study that were above the Canadian 

guideline for aquatic-life protection 

(0.486 micrograms per gram total mercury). Although tissue samples in the 

main-stem Holston River site at Surgoinsville were free of mercury, the bedsediment results suggest that mercury 

may be migrating farther downstream 

than previously thought and may eventually reach Cherokee Reservoir.

Mercury is also a major contaminant 

in the drainages downstream from the 

Department of Energy’s 35,585-acre 

Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), such as 

East Fork Poplar Creek, the White Oak 

Creek watershed, and the lower Clinch 

River - Watts Bar Reservoir. The ORR, 

established in 1942 as part of the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic 

bomb, encompasses three major facilities — X–10, originally for weapons 

research but now Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL); Y–12, for the fabrication of nuclear weapons components; and K–25, for uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion. As a result 

of these operations, about 527 sites 

covering approximately 15 percent of 

the total ORR area have been identified 

as contaminated with metals, including 

mercury, radionuclides, a variety of 

VOCs, and nitrates.(23)

Most of the contamination has remained confined within the ORR,

which was added in its entirety to 

USEPA’s National Priorities List in 

1989. A number of contaminants, most 

notably mercury, PCBs, and cesium137, however, have migrated to downstream areas. The State of Tennessee 

has posted a fish-consumption advisory

for ORR drainages as wells as Watts

Bar Reservoir as a result of bioaccumulation of mercury and PCBs in some 

fish species.

A 1983 inventory estimated that 

about 2 million pounds (1,088 metric 

tons) of mercury was ‘lost’ from operations related to thermonuclear bomb 

development on the ORR.(24) Most of 

this mercury is believed to have volatilized into the atmosphere, but much 

remains within ORR facilities and in 

Watts Bar Reservoir sediments. Analyses of sediment cores indicate that the 

highest discharges of mercury and 

cesium-137 occurred during the 1950s, 

and that about 76 metric tons of mercury has accumulated in Watts Bar sediments. About 91 percent of the 335 

Tennessee

Virginia

Georgia

Tennessee

North Carolina

Georgia

Tennessee

North Carolina

Oak Ridge Reservation

Pigeon River

 Waterville

 Reservoir

 Boone

Reservoir

 North Fork

Holston River

Ocoee

 River

Parksville

Reservoir

Tellico

Reservoir

Figure 29. Mercury, in micrograms per gram, and organic contaminants persist in bed 

sediments and biological tissues in parts of the Upper Tennessee River Basin.

Watts Bar

Reservoir

Melton Hill

Reservoir

Poplar Creek

Saltville, Virginia

North Fork Holston River 

at Hayter's Gap, Virginia

Mercury in Bed Sediment 1.60 μg/g

Mercury in Asiatic clam tissue 1.50 μg/g

North Fork Holston River 

at Cloud Ford, Tennessee

Mercury in Bed Sediment 1.20 μg/g

Mercury in Asiatic clam tissue 1.40 μg/g

Ft. Loudon

 Reservoir

Location Contaminant Source Comment

N. Fk. Holston River Mercury Industrial point source Fish consumption advisory

Boone Resevoir PCBs, Chlordane Not identified Fish consumption advisory

Pigeon River Dioxin Industrial point source Fish consumption advisory

Waterville Reservoir Dioxin Industrial point source Fish consumption advisory

Melton Hill Reservoir PCBs, Chlordane Industrial point source Fish consumption advisory

E. Fk. Poplar Creek PCBs, Mercury Industrial point source Fish consumption advisory

Watts Bar Reservoir PCBs, Mercury Industrial point source Fish consumption advisory

Ft. Loudon Reservoir PCBs Industrial point source Fish consumption advisory

Tellico Reservoir PCBs Not identified Fish consumption advisory

Parksville Reservoir Metals Abandoned mining area None

Ocoee River Metals Abandoned mining area None

 Holston River 

at Surgoinsville, Tennessee

Mercury in Bed Sediment 0.93 μg/g

Mercury in Asiatic clam tissue 0.00 μg/g

Cherokee

Reservoir

EXPLANATION

Sediment concentration numbers in 

excess of aquatic-life guidelines are 

shown in red color

0 50 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 MILES

25
20 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Clinch River near Tazewell. Tenn.

Emory River at Oakdale, Tenn.

Powell River near Arthur, Tenn.

Guest River at Millers Yard, Va.

Clinch River at Pendleton Island, Va.

EXPLANATION

Abandoned mine

Bed-sediment sampling site

Active mine

Copper Creek near Gate City, Va.

Figure 30. Relatively high polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations, 

in micrograms per kilogram, are common in bed sediments in the upper Clinch 

River Basin.

          Bed-sediment concentration

numbers in excess of aquatic-life protection

       guidelines shown in red color.

TennesseeVirginia

Georgia

Tennessee

North Carolina

Georgia

North Carolina

Tennessee

Naphthalene 180 μg/kg

Phenanthrene 230 μg/kg

Naphthalene 190 μg/kg

Phenanthrene 370 μg/kg

Naphthalene 400 μg/kg

Phenanthrene 570 μg/kg

Naphthalene 1600 μg/kg

Phenanthrene 1300 μg/kg

Naphthalene 610 μg/kg

Phenanthrene 480 μg/kg

Naphthalene less than 50 μg/kg

Phenanthrene 33 μg/kg

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

curies of cesium-137 released from the 

ORR have also been retained by the 

lake sediments. The concentrations 

detected are not believed to pose an imminent human health risk, especially if 

the deep sediments are not disturbed.(25)

Mining of the massive sulfide deposits in the Copper Basin along the 

Ocoee River began in 1843. Copper 

was the primary metal extracted, but 

iron, sulfur, zinc, and small amounts of 

gold and silver also were produced. 

Before 1900, Copper Basin was the 

largest metal-mining district in the 

Southeast. The last mine was closed in 

1987.(26)

High concentrations of sulfur dioxide produced by smelting operations 

devastated the surrounding environment, resulting in a “moonscape” of 

about 25 square miles. Erosion of the 

area resulted in high sediment and associated metal loads to area streams. 

Although thousands of acres have been 

revegetated and the landscape is being 

slowly transformed back to forest, 

relatively high metal concentrations remain in the upper reaches of Parksville 

Reservoir and the Ocoee River.

Discharge of essentially untreated 

paper-mill effluent to the Pigeon River 

began in early 1908 and continued until 

plant improvements were instituted in 

the 1990s. Dioxins were first detected 

in fish samples from the river in 1988 

(dioxin detection methods were not 

available until 1985) and became an 

immediate priority with respect to human health effects.(27) Dioxins have 

not been detected in recent samples, including bed-sediment and tissue samples taken during the Upper Tennessee 

NAWQA study. The State of Tennessee, however, continues a precautionary fish-consumption advisory for the 

Tennessee portion of the river.

 Even though discussions regarding 

the Pigeon River continue between the 

States of Tennessee and North Carolina, all parties agree that conditions 

have improved significantly. Once 

nearly devoid of aquatic life, benthic 

invertebrate and fish populations in the 

Tennessee portion of the Pigeon River 

are showing signs of recovery. Waterville Lake, however, still retains tons of 

contaminated sediments deposited 

since the dam became operational in 

1930, and these sediments remain a 

potential source of dioxin and other 

contaminants. 

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) commonly are detected as 

pollutants in soils and sediments, occur 

naturally in crude oil and coal, and also 

can result from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and forest fires.(28)

In the upper Clinch River Basin, PAH 

concentrations reflect the presence of 

coal fines from upstream mining activities.

Twenty-nine PAHs were found in 

upper Clinch River bed-sediment samples and, with only a few exceptions, 

were not detected in the 12 samples 

taken from other parts of the Upper 

Tennessee Basin. Although PAHs are 

known to be toxic to fish, mussels, and 

aquatic insects, sediment-quality 

guidelines for the protection of aquatic 

life have been established for only 12 

of the compounds detected. Of these, 

only two compounds – naphthalene and 

phenanthrene – exceeded their respective Canadian probable-effect levels of 

391 μg/kg (micrograms per kilogram) 

and 515 μg/kg (fig. 30). The probableeffect levels define concentrations 

above which adverse effects are expected. A third compound, benzo(a)anthracene, occurred in concentrations 

very near its guideline of 385 μg/kg, 

and a number of compounds lacking 

guidelines were found at concentrations of 1,000 μg/kg or greater.

The highest concentrations generally follow the results for naphthalene 

and phenanthrene and occurred in the 

major river sites nearest, on a relative 

basis, to upstream mining activities. 

For example, concentrations at the 

Powell River and Pendleton Island sites 

exceeded those found at the Clinch 

River near Tazewell, which is farther 

removed from active mining in terms 

of river miles. Higher gradients and 

water velocities in the tributaries to the 

major streams prevent the accumulation of fine-grained sediment and coal 

fines. The main river channels, however, contain large pools and backwater 

areas where fine-grained material and 

associated constituents are deposited.
 Major Findings 21

Figure 32. Estimated mean densities of 

freshwater mussel specimens in the 

Clinch and Powell Rivers, Tennessee and 

Virginia, 1979-99. (29)

1979

1988

1994

1999

Virginia,

 9 sites

Tennessee,

 5 sites

0 20 40

Estimated mean mussel density,

in specimens per square meter

 Clinch River

1979

1983

1988

1994

1999

0 2 4 6 8

Estimated mean mussel density,

 in specimens per square meter

Virginia,

 9 sites

Tennessee,

 10 sites

 Powell River

Freshwater Mussels in the 

Clinch and Powell Rivers

Freshwater mussel species diversity 

has been slowly declining in the Clinch 

and Powell Rivers of Tennessee and 

Virginia over the past 100 years. The 

numbers of mussel species found in 

these rivers are shown in figure 31 for 

selected periods of time and illustrate 

the long-term trend in loss of species 

diversity. The numbers do not precisely 

show numbers of species lost but reflect difficulties in finding specimens 

as species decline and, in some cases, 

difficulty with basin access. For example, prior to 1915, the upper parts of the 

river basins were inaccessible and remained unsurveyed.

Although some forms were lost, survey results from 1963 to 1971 indicate 

that the fauna survived TVA impoundment largely intact. Mussel declines 

became apparent, however, in the mid1970’s, and by that time many previously common mussel species had become rare, extirpated, or extinct. 

The greatest declines in mussel 

abundance occurred during the record 

drought from 1983 to 1988 (fig. 32). 

Since that time, the Clinch River in 

Tennessee has shown remarkable 

recovery, both in mussel densities and 

species numbers. The Virginia parts of 

the Clinch and the Powell Rivers, however, have recovered to a only a little 

more than half the densities recorded in 

1979, mostly reflecting recovery of the 

three most abundant species. Most of 

the rare and more sensitive species continue to decline in the Powell River and 

in the Virginia part of the Clinch 

River.(29)

Upper Tennessee River Biological Communities in a National Context

 Three biological indicators, which typically respond to changes in stream 

degradation, illustrate the relation of Upper Tennessee River Basin sites to 

the overall range of NAWQA sites nationwide. For all indicators, higher 

values suggest a more degraded stream site.

 Algal status focuses on the changes in the percentage of certain algae in 

response to increasing siltation.Within the Upper Tennessee River Basin, the 

only sites in the highest 25 percent nationally are Big Limestone Creek, 

which drains predominantly agricultural land use, and the Pigeon River,

which has been heavily affected by industrial wastes.

 Invertebrate status is the average of 11 invertebrate (primarily insects, 

worms, crayfish, clams) metrics that summarize changes in richness, tolerance,

trophic conditions, and dominance commonly associated with water-quality 

degradation. Among the Upper Tennessee River Basin sites, the two that 

rank highest on the index are the Pigeon and French Broad Rivers. The 

Pigeon River is recovering from decades of receiving industrial wastes. The 

French Broad River is principally affected by urban development in the 

Asheville, North Carolina, area and agriculture in the lower part of the basin.

 Fish status is the sum of scores of four fish metrics (percentage of tolerant, 

omnivorous, non-native individuals, and percentage of individuals with external 

anomalies) that tend to increase in association with water-quality degradation.

The Holston River at Surgoinsville, Tennessee, which ranked highest on this 

index, is characterized by relatively high concentrations of mercury and copper 

in bed sediments, probably derived from upstream industrial activities.

 Algal status indicator

Undeveloped

Agricultural

Urban

Mixed

 0 20 40 60 80 100

 0 20 40 60 80 100

 Invertebrate status indicator

Undeveloped

Agricultural

Urban

Mixed

0 5 10 15 20

 Fish status indicator

Undeveloped

Agricultural

Urban

Mixed

 25th percentile of sites in 16 NAWQA

 Study Units, 1994 - 98.

 Biological status assessed

 at a site

 75th percentile of sites in 16 NAWQA

 Study Units, 1994 - 98.

EXPLANATION

Figure 31. Freshwater mussel species diversity 

in the Clinch and Powell Rivers, Tennessee and 

Virginia, 1899-1999.

Pre1915

1963-

1971

1972-

1975

1978-

1983

1988-

1994

1999

49

32

53

39 37 36

43

35 38 37

22

27

0

20

40

60

Clinch River

Powell River

NUMBER OF FRESHWATER  MUSSEL SPECIES
22 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Toxic Spills and Releases 

The NAWQA Program, like most 

water-quality assessments, is designed 

to gather information on general waterquality conditions and analyze problems that tend to be chronic as opposed 

to episodic. Even though the NAWQA 

Program provides for sampling during 

storm events in order to achieve a more 

complete “picture” of water-quality 

conditions, detection of every instance 

of water contamnation is clearly 

beyond the program’s defined scope. In 

general, this is true of every other ongoing State or Federal water-quality 

assessment.

In late May 1996, however, a toxic 

release was recorded at the Big Limestone Creek site (fig. 33, number 8) that 

resulted in a fishkill over several miles 

in the lower end of the stream. The apparent cause was excessive ammonia 

concentrations that were traced to agricultural activities upstream. If not for 

the sampling activity being conducted 

at the site, the kill most likely would 

have gone unreported. Given the relatively remote nature of many biologically diverse stream reaches in the 

Upper Tennessee River Basin, it is possible that many similar episodes go unreported as well.

The number of relatively rare and 

threatened aquatic species in the Upper 

Tennessee River Basin make accidental 

spills and releases a particular concern 

in parts of the basin. Habitat modifications resulting from human activities, 

such as impoundments and pollution, 

have restricted the greatest numbers 

and variety of aquatic fauna to only a 

few tributaries.(32) In addition, impoundments have effectively separated 

once contiguous biological communities into smaller, more vulnerable subunits.

The upper Clinch and Powell watersheds are home to the most diverse fish 

and mussel fauna in the Upper Tennessee River Basin. These two subbasins 

are effectively separated from biological interaction, however, by Norris 

Lake and are very vulnerable to coalfine spills from numerous active and 

abandoned mining sites in their headwaters. At least five coal-fine spills occurred during the 1995–99 study period 

(G. Heffinger, U.S Fish and Wildlife 

Service, written commun., April 17, 

2000).

Mussel species generally are of the 

greatest concern because of their lack 

of mobility and the longer times typically required for populations to recover. For example, data collected in 1971 

following a very large 1967 fly-ash 

spill in the Clinch River found that fish 

and aquatic insects were reestablished 

relatively quickly. Mussels, however, 

have yet to recolonize the 9- to 10-mile 

reach directly downstream from the 

spill site.(33)

Figure 33. Contaminant releases have resulted in fish and mussel kills in the 

Upper Tennessee River Basin, 1995-99.(30, 31)

Virginia

Tennessee North Carolina

Georgia

Tennessee

Georgia

North Carolina

Tennessee

19

5

11

2 7 1 10

21

17

24

9

23

4

3

8

15

13

12

14

16 18

6

20

22

 1 Apr 95 West Prong, Bird Creek , Tenn. Industrial Concrete

 2 May 95 Second Creek, Tenn. Urban Raw sewage

 3 Sept. 95 Crockett Creek, Tenn. Urban Unknown

 4 Sept. 95 Flat Creek, Tenn. Industrial Sulfuric acid, zinc

 5a Aug. 95 E. Fork Poplar Creek Industrial Styrene

 5b July 97 E. Fork Poplar Creek Industrial Sodium bisulfite

 6a Nov 95 Clinch River, Va. Mining Coal fines

 6b Feb. 96 Clinch River, Va. Mining Coal fines

 6c Mar. 96 Clinch River, Va. Mining Coal fines

 7a May 96 W. Prong, Little Pigeon River, Tenn. Urban Sodium hypochlorite 

 7b July 96 W. Prong, Little Pigeon River, Tenn. Urban Sodium hypochlorite 

 8 May 96 Big Limestone Creek, Tenn. Agriculture Ammonia

 9 June 96 Reems Creek, N.C. Urban Raw sewage

10 July 96 Webb Creek, Tenn. Industrial Asphalt sealant

11 July 96 Citico Creek, Tenn. Agricultural Concrete

12 Oct. 96 Powell River, Va. Mining Coal fines

13 Mar. 97 North Indian Creek, Tenn. Urban Chlorine

14 July 97 North Fork Powell River, Va. Mining Coal fines

15 July 97 North Toe River, N.C. Urban Chlorine

16 Aug. 97 Straight Creek, Va. Mining Acid mine drainage

17 Aug. 97 French Broad River, N.C. Unknown Unknown

18 Sept. 97 Stone Creek, Va. Mining Oil

19 Feb. 98 Rogers Branch, Tenn. Urban Pesticide

20 Aug. 98 Clinch River, Va. Industrial Octocure 554

21 Nov 98 Richland Creek, N.C. Other Oxygen demand

22 June 99 M. Fork Holston River, Va. Unknown Pesticide

23 Sept. 99 Swannanoa River, N.C. Urban Chlorine

24 Nov. 99 Smith Mill Creek, N.C. Urban Unknown

EXPLANATION

5 Site Number

Number and Date Site name Spill source Contaminant

of incident

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES
STUDY UNIT DESIGN

 Study Unit Design 23

Georgia Georgia

Tennessee

Tennessee

Tennessee

North Carolina

North Carolina

#

# # #

##

# # ## # #

# # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # ### # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # ##

##

##

#

4

5 6

7 8 9

1110

12

13

Virginia

1

2

3

1 Basic/Intensive Site

 and Number

1996 Synoptic Site (Cumberland Plateau)

1997 Synoptic Site (French Broad River Basin)

1998 Synoptic Site (Holston River Basin)

EXPLANATION

Sandstone

Dolomite

Limestone

Shale

Igneous and

Metamorphic

Agricultural well

Domestic well

Spring

Tennessee

Georgia

North Carolina

Georgia

Virginia

Tennessee

Tennessee

North Carolina

EXPLANATION

LAND USE

SAMPLING SITES

Forest

Pasture

Cropland

Developed

Open water

0 10 30 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

Study designs for both ground-water and surfacewater components focused principally on the Valley and 

Ridge province. The Valley and Ridge is home to the 

majority of the Study Unit population and is the most 

highly developed in terms of agriculture and urban land 

uses. Ground-water studies focused on the carbonatebased dolomites and limestones of the Valley and 

Ridge. These geologic units form the most prolific aquifers in the Upper Tennessee River Basin and also are the 

most susceptible to contamination because of their associated karst and solution features. Ground-water 

resources are very limited in the Blue Ridge and Cumberland Plateau provinces because of the relatively 

impermeable nature of the bedrock and the low waterstorage capacity of the thin soils that overlie the bedrock.

Surface-water studies focused on the unregulated portions of the Upper Tennessee River Basin principally in 

the Valley and Ridge province, which contains the most 

intense agricultural activity in the basin. Thirteen basic 

fixed stream-sampling sites were operated during the 

study to monitor water-quality conditions with time in 

various parts of the basin. Data-collection sites were 

selected to cover the major subbasins of the Upper Tennessee River and to encompass the major land uses. An 

additional 61 sites were sampled during the study as part 

of three synoptic networks designed to better describe 

areal water-quality variations of the subbasins. In keeping with the NAWQA multiple lines of evidence 

approach to describe water-quality conditions,(34) data-

 collection activities included water-column chemistry

 at all sites, bed-sediment and Asiatic clam 

 tissue samples at Basic Fixed Sites, and

 stream ecological sampling (fish communities, 

 benthic invertebrates, habitat, and 

algae) at all Basic Fixed 

Sites and most 

Synoptic sites.

Site 

number Site name Site type

Physiographic

 province*

1 Guest River near Millers Yard, 

Virginia

Indicator,

Mining

CP

2 Middle Fork Holston River at 

Seven-Mile Ford, Virginia

Indicator, 

Mixed

VR

3 Copper Creek near 

Gate City, Virginia

Indicator, 

Agriculture

VR

4 Powell River near 

Arthur, Tennessee

Integrator CP-VR

5 Clinch River at 

Tazewell, Tennessee

Integrator VR-CP

6 Holston River at 

Surgoinsville, Tennessee

Integrator VR

7 Big Limestone Creek near 

Limestone, Tennessee

Indicator, 

Agriculture

VR

Site 

number Site name Site type

Physiographic

 province*

8 Nolichucky River at 

Embreeville, Tennessee

Indicator,

Mining

BR

9 Nolichucky River at Lowlands, 

Tennessee

Indicator, 

Mixed

BR-VR

10 French Broad River near 

Newport, Tennessee

Indicator, 

Agriculture

BR

11 Pigeon River at Newport, 

Tennessee

Integrator BR-VR

12 Clear Creek at Lilly Bridge, 

Tennessee

Integrator CP

13 Tennessee River at 

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Integrator CP-VR-BR

* CP - Cumberland Plateau, BR - Blue Ridge, VR - Valley and Ridge
24 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Study

component What data were collected and why Types of sites sampled Number of 

sites

Sampling frequency

 and period

Stream Chemistry

Bottomsediment

survey

Sediment in depositional zones was sampled for 

pesticides, other synthetic organic compounds, and trace elements to determine the 

presence of potentially toxic compounds. 

Water-quality samples also were taken at each 

site, including major ions, nutrients, organic 

carbon, pesticides, bacteria, and suspended 

sediment.

Selected rivers and streams. 15 Once

(1995, 1996, 1998)

Waterchemistry 

sites

Water-chemistry data, including major ions, 

nutrients, organic carbon, pesticides, bacteria, 

and suspended sediment, were used to 

describe concentrations and loads.

Sampling occurred near selected 

continuous streamflow sites.

13 Variable

(1996–98)

Storm 

sampling 

program

Water-chemistry data, including major ions, 

nutrients, organic carbon, pesticides, bacteria, 

and suspended sediment, were used to 

describe concentrations and loads.

Samples were taken at waterchemistry sites during highflow conditions.variable Variable

(1996–98)

Nutrient/

pesticide

synoptic 

studies

Water-chemistry data, including major ions, 

nutrients, organic carbon, pesticides, bacteria, 

and suspended sediment, were used to 

describe concentrations of selected constituents. 

Surface-water sampling sites in 

the Cumberland Plateau, 

French Broad River Basin, and 

the Valley and Ridge were 

selected to describe conditions 

across the Study Unit.

64 Variable

(1996)

(1997)

(1998)

Intensive 

pesticide 

sampling

Pesticides, major ions, organic carbon, suspended sediment, bacteria, and nutrients were 

analyzed to determine seasonal variations in 

concentrations and loads.

Water-chemistry sites located in 

intensive agricultural basins or 

mixed land-use basins.

3 Biweekly

(March–Nov.,1996)

Stream Ecology

Contaminants

in Asiatic

clams

Asiatic clams were sampled for pesticides, other 

synthetic organic compounds, and trace elements to determine the presence of potentially 

toxic compounds.

Selected rivers and streams. 15 Once

(1995, 1996, 1998)

Aquatic

biology

Biological communities and stream habitat were 

assessed and fish, macroinvertebrates, and 

algae were quantitatively sampled.

Biological communities and habitat at basic fixed water-chemistry sites, and biological 

communities at synoptic sites.

13 fixed 

sites,

63 synoptic 

sites

Once

(1995–98)

Spring 

synoptic

study

Macroinvertebrates were qualitatively sampled. Spring sites. 35 Once

(Aug.–Nov.,1997)

Ground-Water Chemistry

Agricultural 

land-use 

survey

Water-chemistry data, including major ions, 

nutrients, organic carbon, pesticides, and 

radon, were analyzed to determine the effects 

of burley tobacco production on shallow 

ground-water quality.

Shallow 2-inch monitoring wells 

were installed adjacent to 

tobacco fields in the Valley and 

Ridge in northeastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia. 

30 Once

(June and July, 1997)

Study Unit

spring survey

Water-chemistry data, including major ions, 

nutrients, organic carbon, pesticides, bacteria, 

and radon were analyzed to determine the 

quality of ground water.

Randomly selected springs in the 

Valley and Ridge.

35 springs Once

(Aug.–Nov.,1997)

Study Unit 

well survey

Water-chemistry data, including major ions, 

nutrients, organic carbon, pesticides, bacteria, 

and radon, were analyzed to determine the 

quality of ground water.

Randomly selected wells in the 

Valley and Ridge. 30 wells

Once

(Sept. 98–Nov. 99)

 

 

SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION IN THE UPPER TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN, 1994–98
 Glossary 25

GLOSSARY 

Aquatic-life criteria—Water-quality guidelines for protection of 

aquatic life. Often refers to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

water-quality criteria for protection of aquatic organisms.

Aquifer—A water-bearing layer of soil, sand, gravel, or rock that 

will yield usable quantities of water to a well. 

Basic Fixed Sites—Sites on streams at which streamflow is measured and samples are collected for temperature, salinity, suspended 

sediment, major ions and metals, nutrients, and organic carbon to 

assess the broad-scale spatial and temporal character and transport 

of inorganic constituents of stream water in relation to hydrologic 

conditions and environmental settings. 

Bed sediment—The material that temporarily is stationary in the 

bottom of a stream or other watercourse. 

Bed sediment and tissue studies—Assessment of concentrations 

and distributions of trace elements and hydrophobic organic contaminants in streambed sediment and tissues of aquatic organisms 

to identify potential sources and to assess spatial distribution. 

Benthic invertebrates—Insects, mollusks, crustaceans, worms, 

and other organisms without a backbone that live in, on, or near the 

bottom of lakes, streams, or oceans. 

Constituent—A chemical or biological substance in water, sediment, or biota that can be measured by an analytical method. 

Contamination—Degradation of water quality compared to original or natural conditions and due to human activity. 

Cubic foot per second (ft3/s, or cfs)—Rate of water discharge representing a volume of 1 cubic foot passing a given point during 1 

second, equivalent to approximately 7.48 gallons per second or 

448.8 gallons per minute or 0.02832 cubic meter per second. 

Degradation products—Compounds resulting from transformation of an organic substance through chemical, photochemical, 

and/or biochemical reactions. 

Detection limit—The minimum concentration of a substance that 

can be identified, measured, and reported within 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero; determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the 

analyte. 

Discharge—Rate of fluid flow passing a given point at a given 

moment in time, expressed as volume per unit of time. 

Drainage area—The drainage area of a stream at a specified location is that area, measured in a horizontal plane, which is enclosed 

by a drainage divide. 

Drinking-water standard or guideline—A threshold concentration in a public drinking-water supply, designed to protect human 

health. As defined here, standards are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that specify the maximum contamination 

levels for public water systems required to protect the public welfare; guidelines have no regulatory status and are issued in an advisory capacity. 

Indicator sites—Stream sampling sites located at outlets of drainage basins with relatively homogeneous land use and physiographic 

conditions; most indicator-site basins have drainage areas ranging 

from 20 to 200 square miles. 

Integrator or Mixed-use site—Stream sampling site located at an 

outlet of a drainage basin that contains multiple environmental settings. Most integrator sites are on major streams with relatively 

large drainage areas. 

Intensive Fixed Sites—Basic Fixed Sites with increased sampling 

frequency during selected seasonal periods and analysis of dissolved pesticides for 1 year. Most NAWQA Study Units have one to 

two integrator Intensive Fixed Sites and one to four indicator Intensive Fixed Sites. 

Karst—A type of topography that results from dissolution and collapse of carbonate rocks such as limestone and dolomite, and characterized by closed depressions or sinkholes, caves, and 

underground drainage. 

Load—General term that refers to a material or constituent in solution, in suspension, or in transport; usually expressed in terms of 

mass or volume. 

Main stem—The principal course of a river or a stream. 

Metamorphic rock—Rock that has formed in the solid state in 

response to pronounced changes of temperature, pressure, and 

chemical environment. 

Micrograms per liter (μg/L)—A unit expressing the concentration of constituents in solution as weight (micrograms) of solute per 

unit volume (liter) of water; equivalent to one part per billion in 

most stream water and ground water. One thousand micrograms per 

liter equals 1 mg/L. 

Milligrams per liter (mg/L)—A unit expressing the concentration 

of chemical constituents in solution as weight (milligrams) of solute 

per unit volume (liter) of water; equivalent to one part per million in 

most stream water and ground water. 

Nonpoint source—A pollution source that cannot be defined as 

originating from discrete points such as pipe discharge. Areas of 

fertilizer and pesticide applications, atmospheric deposition, 

manure, and natural inputs from plants and trees are types of nonpoint source pollution. 

Point source—A source at a discrete location such as a discharge 

pipe, drainage ditch, tunnel, well, concentrated livestock operation, 

or floating craft. 

Synoptic sites—Sites sampled during a short-term investigation of 

specific water-quality conditions during selected seasonal or hydrologic conditions to provide improved spatial resolution for critical 

water-quality conditions. 

Tributary— A river or stream flowing into a larger river, stream, 

or lake. 

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—Organic chemicals that 

have a high vapor pressure relative to their water solubility. VOCs 

include components of gasoline, fuel oils, and lubricants, as well as 

organic solvents, fumigants, some inert ingredients in pesticides, 

and some by-products of chlorine disinfection. 

Water-quality standards—State-adopted and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency-approved ambient standards for water bodies. 

Standards include the use of the water body and the water-quality 

criteria that must be met to protect the designated use or uses. 

Water table—The point below the land surface where ground 

water is first encountered and below which the earth is saturated. 

Depth to the water table varies widely across the country. 

Yield—The mass of material or constituent transported by a river 

in a specified period of time divided by the drainage area of the 

river basin. 
26 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

REFERENCES 

1 Murless, Dick, and Stallings, Constance, 1973, Hiker’s guide to the 

Smokies: San Francisco, Calif., Sierra Club Books, 375 p.

2 Tennessee Valley Authority, 1987, Tennessee Valley Authority 

handbook—Dams and reservoirs, Knoxville, Tenn., 265 p.

3 Brewer, Alberta, and Brewer, Carson, 1975, Valley so wild: Knoxville, Tenn., East Tennessee Historical Society, 382 p.

4 Hampson, P.S., 1995, National Water-Quality Assessment Program 

- the Upper Tennessee River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey 

Fact Sheet FS–150–95, 2 p.

5 U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Downloading 1995 water-use data: 

accessed on October 20, 2000, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/spread95.html

6 National Weather Service, 2000, East Tennessee climatological 

data, Monthly climate data for Chattanooga, Knoxville, and 

Tri-Cities: accessed on October 20, 2000, at

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ftproot/

7 Zurawski, Ann, 1978, Summary appraisals of the Nation’s groundwater resources—Tennessee Region: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 813–L, 35 p.

8 Master, L.L., Flack, S.R., and Stein, B.A., eds., 1998, Rivers of 

life—critical watersheds for protecting freshwater biodiversity: 

Arlington, Va., The Nature Conservancy, 71 p.

9 State of Tennessee, 1999, Rules of the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, Chapter 1200–4–3, General 

Water Quality Criteria, 25 p.

10 State of Tennessee, 1998, Final 1998 303(d) list for the State of 

Tennessee: accessed on October 20, 2000, at 

http://www.state.tn.us/environment/water.htm

11 Yates, M.V., and Yates, S.R., 1993, Pathogens, in Alley, W.M., 

ed., Regional ground-water quality: New York, Van Nostrand 

Reinhold, p. 383–404.

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Ambient waterquality criteria for bacteria—1986: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 44015–84–002, 18 p.

13 U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, The quality of our Nation’s waters 

—Nutrients and pesticides: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1225, 82 p.

14 Helsel, D.R., 1993, Hydrology of stream quality—Statistical analysis of water-quality data, in National Water Summary 1990–

91—Hydrologic events and stream-water quality: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2400, p. 93–100.

15 Treece, M.W., Jr., and Johnson, G.C., 1997, Nitrogen in streams of 

the Upper Tennessee River Basin, 1970–93, U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 97–117, 4 p.

16 Johnson, G.C., and Treece, M.W., Jr.,1998, Phosphorus in streams 

of the Upper Tennessee River Basin, 1970–93, U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 98–532, 6 p.

17 Tennessee Valley Authority, 1991, Reservoir vital signs monitoring—1990, physical and chemical characteristics of water and 

sediment: Tennessee Valley Authority TVA/WR/WQ–91/10, 

142 p.

18 Thelin, G.P., 1999, County-level pesticide use estimates (1991–

1993, 1995) in the conterminous United States (metadata): U.S. 

Geological Survey, accessed on October 20, 2000, at

ftp://ftpdcascr.wr.usgs.gov/nsp/thelin/ncfap.html

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, National recommended water quality criteria—Correction: EPA 822–Z—99–

001, 26 p. accessed on October 20, 2000, at 

(http://www.epa.gov/ost/pc/revcom.pdf)

20 Environment Canada, 1999, Canadian sediment quality guidelines: accessed on October 20, 2000, at 

(www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/sediment.htm)

21 Milligan, J.D., and Ruane, R.J., 1978,Analysis of mercury data 

collected from the North Fork of the Holston River: Tennessee 

Valley Authority, Division of Environmental Planning, 

TVA/EP–78112, 32 p.

22 Seivard, L.D., Stilwell, D.A., Rice, Stephen O., and Seeley, K.R., 

1993, Geographic distribution of mercury in asiatic clams, Corbicula fluminea, from the North Fork Holston River, Virginia: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Contaminants 

Division, 16 p.

23 State of Tennessee, 1999, Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, DOE Oversight Division: Status report to the 

public, 72 p.

24 U.S. Department of Energy, 2000, Y-12 Mercury Task Force 

files—A guide to record series of the Department of Energy 

and its contractors: accessed on October 20, 2000, at 

http://www.tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/new/findingaids/epidemiologic/oakridge1/intro.html

25 Olsen, C.R., Larsen,I.L., Lowry, P.D., Moriones, C.R., Ford, 

C.J.,Deerstone, K.C.,Turner, R.R., Kimmel, B.L., and Brandt, 

C.C., 1992, Transport and accumulation of cesium-137 and 

mercury in the Clinch River and Watts Bar Reservoir system: 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division Publication 3471.

26 U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, The Ocoee River story: accessed 

on October 20, 2000, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ocoee2

27 Bartlett, R.A., 1995, Troubled waters—Champion International 

and the Pigeon River controversy: Knoxville, Tennessee, University of Tennessee Press, 348 p.

28 Swartz, R.C., 1999, Consensus sediment quality guidelines for 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures: Environmental 

Toxiology and Chemistry, v. 18, no. 4, p. 780–787.

29 Ahlstedt, S.A. and Tuberville, J.D., 1997, Quantitative reassessment of the freshwater mussel fauna in the Clinch and Powell 

Rivers, Tennessee and Virginia, in Cummings, K.S., Buchanan, 

A.C., Mayer, C.A., and Naimo, T.J., eds., Conservation and 

management of freshwater mussels II, Proceedings of a Upper 

Mississippi River Conservation Committee symposium, October 16–18, 1995, St.Louis, Mo., p. 71–77.

30 State of Tennessee, 2000, Fish kill report database: Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency.

31 State of North Carolina, 2000, North Carolina Division of Water 

Quality 2000 Fish kill event update: accessed on October 20, 

2000, at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Fishkill/fishkill00.htm

32 Parmalee, P.W. and Bogan, A.E., 1998, The freshwater mussels of 

Tennessee: Knoxville, Tenn., University of Tennessee Press, 

328 p.

33 The Nature Conservancy, 1993, Clinch River Valley Bioreserve, 

Strategic Plan: The Nature Conservancy, Abingdon, Va., 135 p.

34 Gilliom, R.J., Alley, W.M., and Gurtz, M.E., 1995, Design of the 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Occurrence and 

distribution of water-quality conditions: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1112, 33 p.
Water-Quality Data in a National Context 27 

Streams in agricultural areas 

Streams in urban areas

Streams and rivers draining mixed land uses 

Shallow ground water in agricultural areas

Shallow ground water in urban areas 

Major aquifers 

Detected concentration in Study Unit

Frequencies of detection, in percent. Detection frequencies 

were not censored at any common reporting limit. The lefthand column is the study-unit frequency and the right-hand 

column is the national frequency 

Not measured or sample size less than two

Study-unit sample size. For ground water, the number of 

samples is equal to the number of wells sampled

National ranges of detected concentrations, by land use, in 36 

NAWQA Study Units, 1991–98—Ranges include only samples

in which a chemical was detected

Drinking-water quality (applies to ground water and surface water)

Protection of aquatic life (applies to surface water only)

Prevention of eutrophication in streams not flowing directly into 

lakes or impoundments

No benchmark for drinking-water quality

No benchmark for protection of aquatic life

*

**

66 38

Other herbicides detected

Acetochlor (Harness Plus, Surpass) * **

Alachlor (Lasso, Bronco, Lariat, Bullet) **

Bromacil (Hyvar X, Urox B, Bromax) 

Cyanazine (Bladex, Fortrol) 

DCPA (Dacthal, chlorthal-dimethyl) * **

Dichlorprop (2,4-DP, Seritox 50, Lentemul) * **

Diuron (Crisuron, Karmex, Diurex) **

Metribuzin (Lexone, Sencor) 

Molinate (Ordram) * **

Napropamide (Devrinol) * **

Pendimethalin (Pre-M, Prowl, Stomp) * **

Prometon (Pramitol, Princep) **

2,4,5-T **

2,4,5-TP (Silvex, Fenoprop) **

Trifluralin (Treflan, Gowan, Tri-4, Trific)

Herbicides not detected

Acifluorfen (Blazer, Tackle 2S) **

Benfluralin (Balan, Benefin, Bonalan) * **

Bentazon (Basagran, Bentazone) **

Bromoxynil (Buctril, Brominal) * 

Butylate (Sutan +, Genate Plus, Butilate) **

Chloramben (Amiben, Amilon-WP, Vegiben) **

Clopyralid (Stinger, Lontrel, Transline) * **

2,4-DB (Butyrac, Butoxone, Embutox Plus, Embutone) * **

Dacthal mono-acid (Dacthal breakdown product) * **

CHEMICALS IN WATER

Concentrations and detection frequencies, Upper Tennessee 

River Basin, 1995–98—Detection sensitivity varies among chemicals 

and, thus, frequencies are not directly comparable among chemicals

Lowest

25 percent

Middle

50 percent

Highest

25 percent

National water-quality benchmarks

National benchmarks include standards and guidelines related to 

drinking-water quality, criteria for protecting the health of aquatic life, and 

a goal for preventing stream eutrophication due to phosphorus. Sources 

include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Canadian 

Council of Ministers of the Environment

|

|

|

--

This appendix is a summary of chemical concentrations 

and biological indicators assessed in the Upper Tennessee 

River Basin. Selected results for this Basin are graphically 

compared to results from as many as 36 NAWQA Study 

Units investigated from 1991 to 1998 and to national 

water-quality benchmarks for human health, aquatic life, or 

fish-eating wildlife. The chemical and biological indicators 

shown were selected on the basis of frequent detection, 

detection at concentrations above a national benchmark, 

or regulatory or scientific importance. The graphs illustrate 

how conditions associated with each land use sampled in 

the Upper Tennessee River Basin compare to results from 

across the Nation, and how conditions compare among 

the several land uses. Graphs for chemicals show only 

detected concentrations and, thus, care must be taken to 

evaluate detection frequencies in addition to concentrations when comparing study-unit and national results. For 

example, tebuthiuron concentrations in Upper Tennessee 

River Basin major aquifers were similar to the national 

distribution, but the detection frequency was much higher 

(31 percent compared to 3 percent).

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection, in percent

Pesticides in water—Herbicides

Study-unit sample size

12

Atrazine (AAtrex, Atrex, Atred, Gesaprim) 

100 88 | | 100 -- 86 | | 0 93 87 | | 121

27 40 | 30 -- 30 | 0 57 18 | 35

2,4-D (Aqua-Kleen, Lawn-Keep, Weed-B-Gone) 0 15 | | 68 -- 18 | | 0 0 11 | | 68

3 <1 | 30 -- 1 | 0 0 <1 | 35

Deethylatrazine (Atrazine breakdown product) * ** 99 75 100 -- 62 0 95 75 121

30 39 30 -- 28 0 54 19 35

Metolachlor (Dual, Pennant) 

60 81 | | 100 -- 64 | | 0 69 83 | | 121

0 18 | 30 -- 9 | 0 11 5 | 35

Simazine (Princep, Caliber 90) 20 61 | | 100 -- 77 | | 0 63 74 | | 121

0 21 | 30 -- 18 | 0 9 5 | 35

Tebuthiuron (Spike, Tebusan) 68 22 | | 100 -- 39 | | 0 58 32 | | 121

0 3 | 30 -- 7 | 0 31 3 | 35

APPENDIX—WATER-QUALITY DATA FROM THE UPPER TENNESSEE 

RIVER BASIN IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT

For a complete view of Upper Tennessee River Basin data and for additional information about specific benchmarks used, visit our Web site at 

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/. Also visit the NAWQA Data Warehouse for access to NAWQA data sets at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data. 
28 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 

Dicamba (Banvel, Dianat, Scotts Proturf) 

2,6-Diethylaniline (Alachlor breakdown product) * **

Dinoseb (Dinosebe) 

EPTC (Eptam, Farmarox, Alirox) * **

Ethalfluralin (Sonalan, Curbit) * **

Fenuron (Fenulon, Fenidim) * **

Fluometuron (Flo-Met, Cotoran) **

Linuron (Lorox, Linex, Sarclex, Linurex, Afalon) * 

MCPA (Rhomene, Rhonox, Chiptox) 

MCPB (Thistrol) * **

Neburon (Neburea, Neburyl, Noruben) * **

Norflurazon (Evital, Predict, Solicam, Zorial) * **

Oryzalin (Surflan, Dirimal) * **

Pebulate (Tillam, PEBC) * **

Picloram (Grazon, Tordon) 

Pronamide (Kerb, Propyzamid) **

Propachlor (Ramrod, Satecid) **

Propanil (Stam, Stampede, Wham) * **

Propham (Tuberite) **

Terbacil (Sinbar) **

Thiobencarb (Bolero, Saturn, Benthiocarb) * **

Triallate (Far-Go, Avadex BW, Tri-allate) * 

Triclopyr (Garlon, Grandstand, Redeem, Remedy) * **

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection, in percent

Pesticides in water—Insecticides

Study-unit sample size

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ground water

These graphs represent data from 16 Study Units, sampled from 1996 to 1998

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection in percent Study-unit sample size

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 

Other insecticides detected 

Carbofuran (Furadan, Curaterr, Yaltox) 

Chlorpyrifos (Brodan, Dursban, Lorsban) 

Diazinon (Basudin, Diazatol, Neocidol, Knox Out) 

Malathion (Malathion) 

Insecticides not detected

Aldicarb (Temik, Ambush, Pounce) 

Aldicarb sulfone (Standak, aldoxycarb) 

Aldicarb sulfoxide (Aldicarb breakdown product) 

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion, Gusathion M) * 

Dieldrin (Panoram D-31, Octalox, Compound 497) 

Disulfoton (Disyston, Di-Syston) **

Ethoprop (Mocap, Ethoprophos) * **

Fonofos (Dyfonate, Capfos, Cudgel, Tycap) **

alpha-HCH (alpha-BHC, alpha-lindane) **

3-Hydroxycarbofuran (Carbofuran breakdown product) * **

Methiocarb (Slug-Geta, Grandslam, Mesurol) * **

Methomyl (Lanox, Lannate, Acinate) **

Methyl parathion (Penncap-M, Folidol-M) **

Oxamyl (Vydate L, Pratt) **

Parathion (Roethyl-P, Alkron, Panthion, Phoskil) * 

cis-Permethrin (Ambush, Astro, Pounce) * **

Phorate (Thimet, Granutox, Geomet, Rampart) * **

Propargite (Comite, Omite, Ornamite) * **

Propoxur (Baygon, Blattanex, Unden, Proprotox) * **

Terbufos (Contraven, Counter, Pilarfox) **

Other VOCs detected

tert-Amylmethylether (tert-amyl methyl ether (TAME)) * 

Benzene 

Bromodichloromethane (Dichlorobromomethane) 

2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)) * 

n-Butylbenzene (1-Phenylbutane) * 

Carbon disulfide * 

Chlorobenzene (Monochlorobenzene) 

Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride) * 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene (m-Dichlorobenzene) 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene) 

Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12, Freon 12) 

1,1-Dichloroethane (Ethylidene dichloride) * 

1,1-Dichloroethene (Vinylidene chloride) 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ((Z)-1,2-Dichloroethene) 

Diethyl ether (Ethyl ether) * 

Diisopropyl ether (Diisopropylether (DIPE)) * 

1,2-Dimethylbenzene (o-Xylene) 

1,3 & 1,4-Dimethylbenzene (m-&p-Xylene) 

Ethenylbenzene (Styrene) 

1-Ethyl-2-methylbenzene (2-Ethyltoluene) * 

Ethylbenzene (Phenylethane) 

Iodomethane (Methyl iodide) * 

Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) * 

p-Isopropyltoluene (p-Cymene) * 

Methylbenzene (Toluene) 

2-Propanone (Acetone) * 

n-Propylbenzene (Isocumene) * 

Tetrachloroethene (Perchloroethene) 

1,2,3,4-Tetramethylbenzene (Prehnitene) * 

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon 113) * 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methylchloroform) 

Trichloroethene (TCE) 

1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (Hemimellitene) * 

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (Pseudocumene) * 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (Mesitylene) *

VOCs not detected

Bromobenzene (Phenyl bromide) * 

Bromochloromethane (Methylene chlorobromide) 

Bromoethene (Vinyl bromide) * 

Bromomethane (Methyl bromide) 

sec-Butylbenzene * 

tert-Butylbenzene * 

3-Chloro-1-propene (3-Chloropropene) * 

1-Chloro-2-methylbenzene (o-Chlorotoluene) 

1-Chloro-4-methylbenzene (p-Chlorotoluene) 

Chlorodibromomethane (Dibromochloromethane) 

Chloroethene (Vinyl chloride) 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP, Nemagon) 

1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide, EDB) 

Carbaryl (Carbamine, Denapon, Sevin) 

4 9 | | 100 -- 46 | | 0 16 16 | | 121

0 <1 | 30 -- 2 | 0 0 1 | 35

p,p'-DDE 1 8 | | 100 -- 2 | | 0 2 4 | | 121

0 4 | 30 -- 2 | 0 3 2 | 35

gamma-HCH (Lindane, gamma-BHC) 0 1 | | 100 -- 1 | | 0 1 4 | | 121

0 <1 | 30

0 <1 | 35

Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) 

7 20 | 30 -- 22 | 0 50 15 | 36

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 

0 4 | 30 -- 16 | 0 3 6 | 36

Trichloromethane (Chloroform) 

37 35 | 30 -- 51 | 0 58 30 | 36
Water-Quality Data in a National Context 29 

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 

Nutrients in water

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection, in percent Study-unit sample size

Dissolved solids in water

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection, in percent Study-unit sample size

Dibromomethane (Methylene dibromide) * 

trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ((Z)-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene) * 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (o-Dichlorobenzene) 

1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride) 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ((E)-1,2-Dichlorothene) 

Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 

1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride) 

2,2-Dichloropropane * 

1,3-Dichloropropane (Trimethylene dichloride) * 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ((E)-1,3-Dichloropropene) 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ((Z)-1,3-Dichloropropene) 

1,1-Dichloropropene * 

1-4-Epoxy butane (Tetrahydrofuran, Diethylene oxide) * 

Ethyl methacrylate * 

Ethyl tert-butyl ether (Ethyl-t-butyl ether (ETBE)) * 

Hexachlorobutadiene 

1,1,1,2,2,2-Hexachloroethane (Hexachloroethane) 

2-Hexanone (Methyl butyl ketone (MBK)) * 

Methyl acrylonitrile * 

Methyl-2-methacrylate (Methyl methacrylate) * 

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)) * 

Methyl-2-propenoate (Methyl acrylate) * 

Naphthalene 

2-Propenenitrile (Acrylonitrile) 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane * 

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 

Tetrachloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride) 

1,2,3,5-Tetramethylbenzene (Isodurene) * 

Tribromomethane (Bromoform) 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene * 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (Vinyl trichloride) 

Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC 11, Freon 11) 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (Allyl trichloride) 

Trace elements in ground water

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection, in percent Study-unit sample size

Radon-222 

100 99 | 28 -- 100 | 0 94 97 | 35

Other nutrients detected

Dissolved ammonia plus organic nitrogen as N * **

CONCENTRATION, IN PICOCURIES PER LITER

 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 

Ammonia, as N * **

61 84 95 -- 86 0 56 75 196

53 78 30 -- 71 0 17 70 36

Dissolved nitrite plus nitrate, as N ** 100 95 | 95 -- 97 | 0 99 91 | 196

77 81 | 30 -- 74 | 0 100 71 | 36

Orthophosphate, as P * ** 66 79 95 -- 72 0 67 74 196

33 59 30 -- 52 0 36 61 36

Total phosphorus, as P * **

74 92 | 95 -- 90 | 0 87 88 | 196

Dissolved solids * ** 100 100 101 -- 100 0 100 100 193

100 100 30 -- 100 0 100 100 36
30 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Fish tissue from streams in agricultural areas

Fish tissue from streams in urban areas

Fish tissue from streams draining mixed land uses

Sediment from streams in agricultural areas 

Sediment from streams in urban areas 

Sediment from streams draining mixed land uses

Protection of fish-eating wildlife (applies to fish tissue)

Protection of aquatic life (applies to bed sediment)

No benchmark for protection of fish-eating wildlife

No benchmark for protection of aquatic life

|

|

**

CHEMICALS IN FISH TISSUE

AND BED SEDIMENT

Concentrations and detection frequencies, Upper Tennessee 

River Basin, 1995–98—Detection sensitivity varies among chemicals 

and, thus, frequencies are not directly comparable among chemicals. 

Study-unit frequencies of detection are based on small sample sizes; 

the applicable sample size is specified in each graph

Lowest

25 percent

Middle

50 percent

Highest

25 percent

National benchmarks for fish tissue and bed sediment

National benchmarks include standards and guidelines related to 

criteria for protection of the health of fish-eating wildlife and aquatic 

organisms. Sources include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

other Federal and State agencies, and the Canadian Council of 

Ministers of the Environment

*

Other organochlorines detected

o,p'+p,p'-DDD (sum of o,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDD) * 

p,p'-DDE * **

o,p'+p,p'-DDE (sum of o,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDE) * 

o,p'+p,p'-DDT (sum of o,p'-DDT and p,p'-DDT) *

Organochlorines not detected

Chloroneb (Chloronebe, Demosan) * **

DCPA (Dacthal, chlorthal-dimethyl) * **

Endosulfan I (alpha-Endosulfan, Thiodan) * **

Endrin (Endrine) 

gamma-HCH (Lindane, gamma-BHC, Gammexane) * 

Heptachlor epoxide (Heptachlor breakdown product) * 

Heptachlor+heptachlor epoxide (sum of heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide) **

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) **

Isodrin (Isodrine, Compound 711) * **

p,p'-Methoxychlor (Marlate, methoxychlore) * **

o,p'-Methoxychlor * **

Mirex (Dechlorane) **

Total PCB 

Pentachloroanisole (PCA) * **

cis-Permethrin (Ambush, Astro, Pounce) * **

trans-Permethrin (Ambush, Astro, Pounce) * **

Toxaphene (Camphechlor, Hercules 3956) * **

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM

(Fish tissue is wet weight; bed sediment is dry weight)

 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 

National ranges of concentrations detected, by land use, in 36 

NAWQA Study Units, 1991–98—Ranges include only samples

in which a chemical was detected

Detected concentration in Study Unit

Frequencies of detection, in percent. Detection frequencies 

were not censored at any common reporting limit. The lefthand column is the study-unit frequency and the right-hand 

column is the national frequency

Not measured or sample size less than two

Study-unit sample size

66 38

--

12

Organochlorines in fish tissue (whole body)

and bed sediment

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection, in percent Study-unit sample size

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM, DRY WEIGHT

 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection, in percent

Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)

in bed sediment

Study-unit sample size

Total Chlordane (sum of 5 chlordanes) 

0 9 | 3

-- 57 | 1

9 11 | 11

Total DDT (sum of 6 DDTs) **

0 49 3

-- 66 1

27 41 11

Anthraquinone **

67 21 3 -- 83 1 55 39 11

9H-Carbazole **

0 19 3 -- 76 1 64 33 11

Dibenzothiophene **

0 12 3 -- 64 1 45 30 11

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene **

67 65 3 -- 74 1 82 77 11

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate **

100 91 3 -- 99 1 100 95 11

Fluoranthene 

100 66 | 3 -- 97 | 1 100 78 | 11
Water-Quality Data in a National Context 31 

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM, DRY WEIGHT

 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection, in percent Study-unit sample size

Other SVOCs detected

Acenaphthene 

Acenaphthylene 

Acridine **

C8-Alkylphenol **

Anthracene 

Benz[a]anthracene 

Benzo[a]pyrene 

Benzo[b]fluoranthene **

Benzo[ghi]perylene **

Benzo[k]fluoranthene **

2,2-Biquinoline **

Butylbenzylphthalate **

Chrysene 

p-Cresol **

Di-n-butylphthalate **

Di-n-octylphthalate **

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 

Diethylphthalate **

1,2-Dimethylnaphthalene **

1,6-Dimethylnaphthalene **

Dimethylphthalate **

2-Ethylnaphthalene **

9H-Fluorene (Fluorene) 

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene **

Isophorone **

Isoquinoline **

1-Methyl-9H-fluorene **

2-Methylanthracene **

4,5-Methylenephenanthrene **

1-Methylphenanthrene **

1-Methylpyrene **

Phenanthridine **

Pyrene 

Quinoline **

2,3,6-Trimethylnaphthalene **

SVOCs not detected

Azobenzene **

Benzo[c]cinnoline **

4-Bromophenyl-phenylether **

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol **

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane **

bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether **

2-Chloronaphthalene **

2-Chlorophenol **

4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether **

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (o-Dichlorobenzene) **

1,3-Dichlorobenzene (m-Dichlorobenzene) **

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene) **

3,5-Dimethylphenol **

2,4-Dinitrotoluene **

Nitrobenzene **

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine **

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine **

Pentachloronitrobenzene **

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene **

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM

(Fish tissue is wet weight, bed sediment is dry weight)

 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 10,000 1,000 

Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent

National frequency of detection, in percent

Trace elements in fish tissue (livers) and 

bed sediment

Study-unit sample size

Naphthalene 

0 11 | 3 -- 47 | 1 82 30 | 11

Phenanthrene 

67 50 | 3 -- 93 | 1 100 66 | 11

Phenol **

67 81 3 -- 82 1 82 80 11

Arsenic * 

100 99 | 3 -- 98 | 0 100 97 | 11

Cadmium * 

100 98 | 3 -- 100 | 0 100 98 | 11

Chromium * 

100 100 | 3 -- 99 | 0 100 100 | 11

Copper * 

100 100 | 3 -- 99 | 0 100 100 | 11

Lead * 

100 100 | 3 -- 100 | 0 100 99 | 11

Mercury * 

100 82 | 3 -- 97 | 0 100 93 | 11

Nickel * **

100 100 3 -- 100 0 100 100 11

Selenium * 

100 100 | 3 -- 100 | 0 100 100 | 11

Zinc * 

100 100 | 3 -- 99 | 0 100 100 | 11
32 Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

Biological indicator value, Upper Tennessee River Basin, by 

land use, 1995–98

Biological status assessed at a site

National ranges of biological indicators, in 16 NAWQA Study 

Units, 1994–98

Streams in undeveloped areas

Streams in agricultural areas

Streams in urban areas

Streams in mixed-land-use areas

75th percentile

25th percentile

BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS

Higher national scores suggest habitat disturbance, water-quality 

degradation, or naturally harsh conditions. The status of algae, 

invertebrates (insects, worms, and clams), and fish provide a 

record of water-quality and stream conditions that waterchemistry indicators may not reveal. Algal status focuses on the 

changes in the percentage of certain algae in response to 

increasing siltation, and it often correlates with higher nutrient 

concentrations in some regions. Invertebrate status averages 11 

metrics that summarize changes in richness, tolerance, trophic 

conditions, and dominance associated with water-quality 

degradation. Fish status sums the scores of four fish metrics 

(percent tolerant, omnivorous, non-native individuals, and percent 

individuals with external anomalies) that increase in association 

with water-quality degradation

 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

 0 5 10 15 20

 Algal status indicator

Undeveloped

Agricultural

Urban

Mixed

 Invertebrate status indicator

Undeveloped

Agricultural

Urban

Mixed

 Fish status indicator

Undeveloped

Agricultural

Urban

Mixed
A COORDINATED EFFORT

Coordination with agencies and organizations in the Upper Tennessee River Basin was integral to the success of 

this water-quality assessment. We thank those who served as members of our liaison committee. 

Federal Agencies

Tennessee Valley Authority

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Energy,

 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

 Natural Resources Conservation Service

State Agencies

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Tennessee Department of Environment and

 Conservation

Tennessee Department of Agriculture

North Carolina Department of Environment and

 Natural Resources

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy

Local Agencies

Knox County, Tennessee

City of Johnson City, Tennessee

Universities

University of Tennessee

Virginia Polytechnic and State University

Tennessee Technological University

Other public and private organizations

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere 

 Program

Nature Conservancy

We thank the following individuals for contributing to this effort. 

Edward Oaksford, Ben McPherson, Michael Woodside, Rebecca Deckard, and Sandra Cooper (USGS), Roberta 

Hylton (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Karen Koehn and Celia Hampson (Knox County, Tennessee) for reviewing 

the report.

Charles Saylor and Edward Scott (Tennessee Valley Authority) for assistance in site selection and data collection.

The numerous property owners that allowed the use of their property by the USGS for access to specific stream 

reaches, the installation of monitoring wells, or the sampling of exisiting wells.
Hampson and others— Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee River Basin

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1205

National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program

Upper Tennessee River Basin

NAWQA

Tennessee R

Clinch R

Hiwassee River Little Tennessee R Knoxville

Chattanooga

Asheville

Kingsport

Johnson City

Bristol

Holston R

TN

TN TN NC

NC

VA

GA GA

Fren ch Broad R