chowan river tmdl development nottoway area 08/31/04
DESCRIPTION
Chowan River TMDL Development Nottoway Area 08/31/04. Historical data analysis Source assessment Physical Source Identification Bacterial source tracking Modeling Allocation. TMDL Development. Fecal Coliform Impairments. Impaired Stream Segments in the Nottoway River watershed. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Chowan River TMDL Development
Nottoway Area
08/31/04
TMDL Development
Historical data analysis Source assessment
Physical Source Identification Bacterial source tracking
Modeling Allocation
Fecal Coliform ImpairmentsImpaired Stream Segments in the Nottoway River watershed
Water Quality Data AnalysisLocation of VADEQ water quality monitoring stations used for TMDL assessment in the Nottoway River watershed
Water Quality Data Analysis
Fecal Coliform Concentrations
Impairment Station ID Sampled
Dates Count Minimum Maximum Mean Median
% Violations
1000
% Violations
400
Big Hounds Creek 5ABHC003.73 9/90 - 6/03 58 18 16,000 794 130 14 26
Big Hounds Creek 5ABHC006.57 10/74 - 6/79 36 100 8,000 878 100 14 22
Beaver Pond Creek 5ABPC000.12 9/94 - 4/01 34 18 16,000 2,457 410 38 50
Little Nottoway R. 5ALNT004.68 10/90 - 6/03 61 15 16,000 1,192 300 18 30
Little Nottoway R. 5ALNT009.80 2/68 - 9/74 60 100 240,000 6,180 230 25 33
Lazaretto Creek 5ALZT004.21 11/74 - 6/79 31 100 6,000 677 100 16 23
Nottoway River 5ANTW126.94 7/02 - 6/03 6 100 400 150 100 0 0
Nottoway River 5ANTW136.52 2/68 - 9/74 &
8/90 - 6/94 103 0 21,000 699 100 10 24
Nottoway River 5ANTW142.08 10/74 - 6/79 35 100 6,000 326 100 6 6
Nottoway River 5ANTW145.30 8/16/03 1 100 100 100 100 0 0
Nottoway River 5ANTW155.06 7/94 - 4/97 &
4/03 - 3/04 18 20 16,000 1,388 200 17 28
Water Quality Data AnalysisLocation of BST water quality monitoring stations in the Nottoway River watershed
Water Quality Data Analysis
E. coli concentrations
Impairment Station ID Sampled
Dates Count Minimum Maximum Mean Median
% Violations
235 Big Hounds Creek 5ABHC003.73 7/03 - 12/03 6 25 280 160 165 33
Beaver Pond Creek 5ABPC000.12 2/02 - 3/04 17 25 2,000 441 200 47
Dry Creek 5ADRY002.85 7/03 - 3/04 9 25 100 50 25 0
Little Nottoway R. 5ALNT004.68 7/03 - 12/03 6 25 330 168 153 33
Little Nottoway R. 5ALNT009.80 7/03 - 3/04 9 25 320 114 75 22
Lazaretto Creek 5ALZT000.12 4/03 - 10/03 5 25 600 140 25 20
Modest Creek 5AMDT001.20 7/03 - 3/04 9 25 230 77 50 0
Nottoway River 5ANTW136.52 7/03 - 3/04 9 25 300 114 100 11
Nottoway River 5ANTW142.08 7/03 - 3/04 9 25 300 67 25 11
Nottoway River 5ANTW155.06 7/03 - 3/04 10 10 280 85 38 10
Water Quality Data Analysis Statistical Analysis of Water Quality Measurements
versus Precipitation to determine the relationship between rainfall and water quality
Summary of the Mood Median Test on mean monthly precipitation at station 444101 (p=0.013).
Month Mean (in)
Minimum (in)
Maximum (in)
Median Groups
January 3.93 0.54 8.06 A B February 3.15 0.54 5.63 A B March 4.36 1.34 8.27 A B April 3.40 0.64 7.64 A B May 3.95 1.02 7.93 B June 3.15 0.35 5.78 A B July 4.48 0.04 8.17 B August 4.35 0.44 12.49 A B September 4.77 0.58 16.85 A B October 3.52 0.00 9.53 A November 3.29 0.42 7.00 A B December 3.22 0.56 7.03 A B
Source Assessment
Identification of Sources DEQ/DCR/Locality records VPDES U.S. Census Ag Census Habitat Analysis Stakeholders, local knowledge – improve estimates BST
Delivery Mechanisms Direct Land-applied Exported Out of Watershed
Temporal Variation Migration Patterns/Resident Populations Import/Export of agricultural/STP waste?
Permitted Discharges
Permitted Discharges
Indicates poultry facility with some animals outside watershed boundary
** Farm no longer active
ND – no data, facility not required to submit monitoring data
NA – Not available
Facility Name Permit No Design Flow
(MGD) Permitted For Fecal Control
Data Availability
Victoria East Sewage Treatment Plant VA0020184 0.4 Yes 2/99 - 4/04
Victoria WTP VA0030015 0.03 Yes 5/99 - 4/04
Crewe WTP VA0050016 0.04 Yes 2/99 - 4/04
DOC - Nottoway Correctional Center VA0066869 0.35 Yes 5/99 - 4/04
Hood Wallace VPG270010 Poultry No ND
Ingram Charles VPG270058 Poultry No ND
Ingram William T VPG270074 Poultry No ND
Jeffrey W. Dunn VPG270062* Poultry No ND
Nottoway County Schools Nottoway High VA0061158 0.0256 Yes 5/99 - 4/04
Oakmotte Farm VPG270081* Poultry No ND
Randy Reynolds VPG270087 Poultry No ND
Rolling Acres Farm VPG270049* Poultry No ND
Triple R Farm VPG270018* Poultry No ND
Big Oak Farm VPG170043 CAFO No ND
Super Chic Ltd. VPG270024 Poultry No ND
Walter Berryman Glascock VPG270068 Poultry No ND
Human (2004)
ImpairmentPopulatio
n
Housing Units (HU)
HU with Sewer
HU with Septic
HU with Other
Beaverpond CreekBig Hounds Creek
2542,058
122983
4484
113461
439
Little Nottoway River 4,858 1,634 419 1,145 70Nottoway River 2,588 623 186 419 17
Human
Sanitary sewer Overflows - reported to DEQ Exfiltration – rate from literature
Failing septic systems Rate based on age of house
Straight pipes U.S. Census and VDH consultation
Pets (2004)
Impairment Dogs CatsBeaverpond CreekBig Hounds CreekLittle Nottoway River
65525873
73588977
Nottoway River 332 372
Livestock - 1997
Impairment Beef Dairy Horse Sheep
Beaverpond Creek 137 31 13 11Big Hounds Creek 215 13 10 5 Little Nottoway River 2,058 333 48 187Nottoway River 509 68 18 17
Wildlife Population
Impairment Deer Turkey Goose Duck MuskratRaccoo
nBeaver
Beaverpond CreekBig Hounds Creek
123268
3270
2141
3939
3,2387,788
4431,086
44142
Little Nottoway RiverNottoway River
1,240888
241215
129112
122107
21,18314,592
3,3862,952
424388
Bacterial Source TrackingLocation of BST stations in the Nottoway River watershed
Modeling
Hydrologic model Runoff model HSPF
Water Quality model Source Assessment Results HSPF
Model Calibration and Validation Based on data availability, period of
interest
Modeling
$
Modeling
VADEQ Station 5ANTW155.06 and USGS Station #02044500
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
Fec
al C
olif
orm
(cf
u/1
00m
l)
Listing Standard New Instantaneous Standard Observed FC
High Flow Moist Conditions Mid-Range Flow Dry Conditions Low Flow
Modeling
VADEQ Station 5ALNT004.68 and USGS Station #02044500
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
Fec
al C
olif
orm
(cf
u/1
00m
l)
Listing Standard New Instantaneous Standard Observed FC
High Flow Moist Conditions Mid-Range Flow Dry Conditions Low Flow
Hydrologic Calibration
$
Observed vs. Modeled (10/1/1990-9/30/1995)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
10
/01
/19
90
11/1
3/1
99
0
12
/26
/19
90
02
/07
/19
91
03
/22
/19
91
05
/04
/19
91
06
/16
/19
91
07
/29
/19
91
09
/10
/19
91
10
/23
/19
91
12
/05
/19
91
01
/17
/19
92
02
/29
/19
92
04
/12
/19
92
05
/25
/19
92
07
/07
/19
92
08
/19
/19
92
10
/01
/19
92
11/1
3/1
99
2
12
/26
/19
92
02
/07
/19
93
03
/22
/19
93
05
/04
/19
93
06
/16
/19
93
07
/29
/19
93
09
/10
/19
93
10
/23
/19
93
12
/05
/19
93
01
/17
/19
94
03
/01
/19
94
04
/13
/19
94
05
/26
/19
94
07
/08
/19
94
08
/20
/19
94
10
/02
/19
94
11/1
4/1
99
4
12
/27
/19
94
02
/08
/19
95
03
/23
/19
95
05
/05
/19
95
06
/17
/19
95
07
/30
/19
95
09
/11
/19
95
Date
Flo
w (
cfs
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pre
cip
ita
tio
n (
in.)
Precip Observed Modeled
$
Hydrologic Calibration Criterion Observed Modeled Error Target
Total In-stream Flow: 48.57 47.29 -2.62% 10.00%
Upper 10% Flow Values: 22.02 21.42 -2.73% 15.00%
Lower 50% Flow Values: 6.85 6.37 -6.89% 10.00%
Winter Flow Volume 24.90 24.45 -1.78% 30.00%
Spring Flow Volume 12.68 13.91 9.65% 30.00%
Summer Flow Volume 4.48 3.50 -21.86% 30.00%
Fall Flow Volume 6.50 5.43 -16.51% 30.00%
Total Storm Volume 45.46 46.35 1.94% 20.00%
Winter Storm Volume 24.13 24.22 0.38% 30.00%
Spring Storm Volume 11.90 13.67 14.81% 30.00%
Summer Storm Volume 3.71 3.28 -11.75% 30.00%
Fall Storm Volume 5.72 5.19 -9.32% 30.00%
Modeling Source Loads
Source Characterization Fecal production / densities / distribution
Delivery Mechanisms Direct Land-applied Exported Out of Watershed
Temporal Variation
Load CharacteristicsAnimal Waste Load
(lb/an-day) Fecal Coliform Density
(cfu/lb) # Dairy Cow Equivalents
Dairy 120.4 1.23E+08 1 Beef 46.4 4.58E+07 7
Horse 51.0 4.26E+07 7 Swine 11.3 1.81E+08 7 Sheep 2.4 1.95E+07 316 Goat 5.7 6.80E+06 382
Broiler 0.2 2.66E+08 328 Layer 0.3 2.66E+08 214
Human 0.9 2.91E+08 58 Dog 1.0 2.18E+08 69 Cat 0.0 4.08E+03 84,765,882
Raccoon 1.0 9.53E+08 16 Muskrat 0.2 8.62E+08 78 Beaver 0.4 4.54E+05 74,001 Deer 1.7 1.72E+08 50
Turkey 0.7 6.04E+05 34,723 Goose 0.5 1.13E+08 263
Mallard 0.3 1.59E+06 28,191
Model Load Characterization
“Direct to Stream” Loads Point Sources: Design Flow/Fecal Discharge Overflows: Reported overflow volume Characterize Volume and Duration Animal/Human: direct deposition, straight pipes
“Land Applied” Loads Wildlife, Livestock, Pets Transported to stream during runoff producing event Use measured waste characteristics Compute die-off in between events
Application timing
Wildlife
Animal Type Portion of Day in Stream Access Areas
Direct Deposition
Time of Day Loads Produced
(%) (%) (hr) Deer 5 1 6PM – 6AM Raccoon 5 5 6PM – 6AM Muskrat 90 5 6AM – 6PM Beaver 100 100 6AM – 6PM Turkey 5 1 6AM – 6PM Goose 50 5 6AM – 6PM Duck 75 5 6AM – 6PM
Livestock
Average percentage of collected livestock waste applied throughout year
Month Applied % of Total Land use Dairy Beef Swine Poultry January 1.50 8.33 0.00 0.00 Cropland February 1.75 8.33 0.00 5.00 Cropland March 17.00 8.34 20.00 25.00 Cropland April 17.00 8.34 20.00 20.00 Cropland May 17.00 8.33 20.00 5.00 Cropland June 1.75 8.33 0.00 5.00 Pasture July 1.75 8.33 0.00 5.00 Pasture August 1.75 8.33 0.00 5.00 Pasture September 5.00 8.34 0.00 10.00 Cropland October 17.00 8.34 20.00 10.00 Cropland November 17.00 8.33 20.00 10.00 Cropland December 1.50 8.33 0.00 0.00 Cropland
Livestock
Average time dairy milking cows spend in different areas per day
Livestock
Average time dry cows and replacement heifers spend in different areas per day
Livestock
Average time beef cows not confined in feedlots spend in areas per day
Allocation
Quantify Current Source Conditions Run model with present-day sources
Develop reduction scenarios that will meet water quality standards 100% reduction in straight pipes, 25%
reduction in failed septic systems 100% reduction in straight pipes, 50%
reduction in livestock direct deposition Allocate loads to each source
Livestock - 2002
Impairment Beef Dairy Horse Sheep Poultry*
Beaverpond Creek 145 30 41 14 -Big Hounds Creek 338 0 31 4 -Little Nottoway River 1,955 365 144 20 337,680Nottoway River 575 40 59 8 118,000
* Must get information regarding import/export of poultry litter in watershed.
Allocation
Time, (days)
FC
Con
c., (
cfu/
100m
l)
Historical Data
TMDL
