31
Chowan River TMDL Development and Source Assessment Blackwater River Area October 25, 2004

Chowan River TMDL Development and Source Assessment Blackwater River Area October 25, 2004

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Chowan River TMDL Development and Source Assessment Blackwater River Area October 25, 2004. Blackwater River Watershed. TMDL Steps – Blackwater River. Monitoring/Listing - Identification of Water Quality Problem. Source Assessment – Locating potential contributors of pollutant in watershed. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Chowan River TMDL Development and Source

Assessment

Blackwater River Area

October 25, 2004

Blackwater River Watershed

#

#

#

#

#

#

Petersburg

Waverly Dendron

Wakefield

Ivor

Surry

.-,295

.-,95

(/460

ø÷106

ôó40ôó10

ôó31

(/460

Blackwater

RiverPrince George

Sussex

Southampton

Isle of Wight

Surry

Prince George

TMDL Steps – Blackwater River

Monitoring/Listing - Identification of Water Quality Problem.

Source Assessment – Locating potential contributors of pollutant in watershed.

Modeling – Examining the movement of sources from the land to the water.

Allocation/TMDL – Use the model to determine the load reductions necessary to achieve water quality goals.

Historical Water Quality Data Analysis

Impairment StationSampled

DatesCount

(#)Minimum

(cfu/100ml)Maximum

(cfu/100ml)Mean

(cfu/100ml)

Median

(cfu/100ml)

Violation(%)400

Cypress Swamp 5ACPP003.20 9/90-3/04 55 18 9,200 592 100 11

Cypress Swamp 5ACPP006.04 5/01-6/03 12 100 800 242 100 17

Cypress Swamp 5ACPP007.84 7/03-3/04 9 25 2,000 383 75 22

Johnchecohunk S. 5AJCH002.27 7/03-3/04 9 25 1,300 366 250 22

Mill Swamp 5AMSW006.77 8/94-3/04 38 18 16,000 775 105 18

Rattlesnake Cr. 5ARKN006.40 8/94-3/04 102 13 4,800 312 100 16

Fecal Coliform Concentrations

Water Quality Data Analysis E. coli

Impairment StationSampled Dates

Count(#)

Minimum(cfu/100ml)

Maximum

(cfu/100ml)

Mean (cfu/100ml)

Median

(cfu/100ml)

Violation (%)235

Cypress Swamp 5ACPP03.20 7/03-4/04 9 12 250 82 44 22

Cypress Swamp 5ACPP007.84 7/03-6/04 12 20 800 204 85 17

Johnchecohunk S. 5AJCH002.27 7/03-

6/04 12 20 300 124 110 17

Mill Swamp 5AMSW006.77 7/03-4/04 9 14 400 100 64 11

Rattlesnake Cr. 5ARKN006.40 7/03-8/04 17 28 260 98 80 6

Source Assessment

Livestock Wildlife

Pets

Permitted discharges

Wastewater treatment facilities Human

Biosolids

Permitted Discharges

Chlorine fecal coliform translator

Historical averages (DMR) for calibration period

Design values for allocations

Direct application

Permitted DischargesReceiving

WaterPermit ID Facility

Spring Branch VA0061310 Spring Branch WWTF

Human Source

Population, housing units, and onsite treatment system based on U.S. Census

Sanitary Sewer Loading rates

Exfiltration Overflows

Land-applied / direct deposition Loading type Proximity to stream

Human Source

Septic Systems Failure to soil surface throughout year Lateral movement continuously to

stream Straight Pipes

Direct continuous input into stream Biosolids

Land-applied

Human Source

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

Petersburg Claremont

Surry

Rushmere

Wakefield

Ivor

Waverly

ø÷156

I-295

I-95

U-460

ôó10

ôó40

ø÷258

2 0 2 Miles

S

N

EW

Model Area

Population Census 20000 - 11 - 22 - 55 - 88 - 1212 - 2020 - 3030 - 4646 - 7373 - 112

Major Roads#S Towns

Human Source (2004)

ImpairmentPopulatio

n

Housing Units (HU)

HU with

Sewer

HU with

Septic

HU with Other

Cypress Swamp 1,118 436 0 396 41Mill Swamp 843 338 0 305 33Rattlesnake (Creek) Swamp

1,147 446 0 413 33

Pet Source

Population/household based on literature values, veterinarians, and animal control

Translated to housing units based on U.S. Census

Land-applied

Pet Source (2004)

Impairment Dogs CatsCypress Swamp 268 261Mill Swamp 180 202Rattlesnake (Creek) Swamp

238 267

Livestock Source

Distribution of waste Pastured Confined, waste collected,

spread Direct deposition to the stream

Seasonal varying applications

Population Virginia Agricultural

Statistics Consultation with SWCD,

NRCS, VADCR, and VCE Watershed visits

Livestock Population Estimates

Impairment All cattle Beef Dairy Hog Horse Sheep Goat

Cypress Swamp 20 10 0 80 25 0 45Mill Swamp 303 153 0 275 33 0 20Rattlesnake (Creek) Swamp

105 53 0 0 2 0 0

Wildlife Source

Population Animal densities from VDGIF biologists Habitat from literature values

Distribution of waste based on habitat

Land-applied Direct deposition to the stream

Seasonal variations based on migration patterns and food sources

Wildlife Population

Impairment Deer Turkey Goose Duck MuskratRaccoo

nBeaver

Cypress Swamp 1,352 356 144 367 19,968 2,526 258Mill Swamp 859 217 91 232 9,432 1,621 131Rattlesnake (Creek) Swamp

974 255 122 309 12,007 2,169 159

Bacterial Source Tracking

Antibiotic Resistance Analysis (ARA) Differentiates the sources of bacteria

based on bacterial resistance to antibiotics

Bacterial Source Tracking Results

Station DateFecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml)

E. Coli (cfu/100 ml)

Percent Isolates classified as:

Wildlife

Human Livestock Pet

5ACPP003.20

7/23/2003 600 250 29% 4% 50% 17%

8/13/2003 6,000 290 38% 0% 62% 0%

9/15/2003 350 240 0% 0% 100% 0%

10/14/2003 120 40 0% 0% 50% 50%

11/12/2003 340 48 54% 0% 4% 42%

12/3/2003 100 40 50% 4% 25% 21%

1/14/2004 20 16 30% 0% 10% 60%

2/17/2004 30 12 50% 0% 12% 38%

3/3/2004 30 44 84% 0% 8% 8%

4/15/2004 40 48 84% 0% 4% 12%

5/12/2004 20 70 88% 0% 12% 0%

6/9/2004 1 270 66% 17% 0% 17%BOLD type indicates a statistically significant value.

Bacterial Source Tracking Results

Station DateFecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml)

E. Coli (cfu/100 ml)

Percent Isolates classified as:

Wildlife

Human Livestock Pet

5AMSW006.77

7/14/2003 670 400 0% 4% 96% 0%

8/11/2003 2,800 140 0% 0% 88% 12%

10/20/2003 80 20 100% 0% 0% 0%

11/17/2003 150 134 71% 0% 4% 25%

12/8/2003 60 66 88% 4% 8% 0%

1/12/2004 20 14 72% 14% 14% 0%

2/9/2004 120 24 27% 0% 0 73%

3/15/2004 50 38 17% 0% 0% 83%

4/12/2004 20 64 50% 8% 4% 38%

5/10/2004 50 120 25% 0% 25% 50%

6/14/2004 100 110 50% 0% 25% 25%BOLD type indicates a statistically significant value.

Bacterial Source Tracking Results

Station DateFecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml)

E. Coli (cfu/100 ml)

Percent Isolates classified as:

Wildlife

Human Livestock Pet

5ARNK006.40

7/14/2003 270 130 0% 4% 96% 0%

8/11/2003 5,900 170 12% 0% 88% 0%

9/8/2003 770 260 71% 0% 21% 8%

10/20/2003 120 40 25% 0% 75% 0%

11/17/2003 160 144 50% 0% 33% 17%

12/8/2003 110 142 84% 8% 8% 0%

1/12/2004 30 28 25% 6% 14% 50%

2/9/2004 70 104 25% 4% 33% 38%

3/15/2004 50 28 5% 16% 5% 74%

4/12/2004 20 92 71% 0% 17% 12%

5/10/2004 70 110 75% 0% 0% 25%

6/14/2004 150 190 59% 9% 0% 32%BOLD type indicates a statistically significant value.

Modeling

Models

Hydrology and Water Quality Hydrologic Simulation Program – Fortran (HSPF)

Watershed-based Continuous time interval Land-applied, direct loads

Wildlife in Stream

VPDES Permit

Conceptual Model

Mathematical Representation

Withdrawal Direct discharges

Overland

Wildlife on the Land

Pastured Livestock

Straight Pipes

Lateral Flow from Septic Systems

Parking Lots

Livestock in Stream

Septic Failures

Sewer Overflows

Biosolids Application

Pets

Hydrologic Modeling Components

Climatic data Land use Topography Soils Stream channel characteristics Point source discharge/withdrawal Flow data

Land use

#

#

#

#

#

#

Petersburg

Waverly

Dendron

Wakefield

Ivor

Surry

.-,295

.-,95

(/460

ø÷106

ôó40ôó10

ôó31

(/460

Land Use AcreagesAgricultural - 79,655Forest - 173,884Urban - 4,618Water - 1,215Wetlands - 28,707

5 0 5 10 Miles

S

N

EW

Impairment AcresForest

(%)Barren

(%)Agricultural

(%)Urban

(%)Water

(%)Cypress Swamp 37,693 67 6 16 0 11Mill Swamp 23,860 45 1 31 0 23Rattlesnake (Creek) Swamp

77,721 45 1 29 0 25

Based on Aerial Photos/Land Use maps/On site surveys

Project For Growth/land use change

Model forest, wetland, agricultural and urban areas

Water Quality Modeling Components

Sources Fecal production FC densities FC distribution

Delivery Mechanisms Direct Land-applied

Temporal Variation

Allocation Scenarios

Project impact of Load Reductions from various sources. (Ex: 99% Human, 60% livestock, 0% Wildlife).

Explore impact of BMP’s. Develop reduction/BMP scenarios that

will achieve water quality standards.

Public Meeting 2 Public Review Submit to EPA State Approval Implementation Plan Development Implementation