Chowan River TMDL Development Raccoon/Sappony Area 09/8/04

Chowan River TMDL DevelopmentRaccoon/Sappony Area

09/8/04

Impaired Waters in the Blackwater River Drainage

Raccoon Creek – Fecal Coliform Sappony Creek – Fecal Coliform Spring Branch – General Standard (Benthic)

Fecal Coliform ImpairmentsImpaired Stream Segments in the Nottoway River watershed

TMDL Development

Historical data analysis Source assessment

Bacterial source tracking Modeling Allocation

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

Raccoon Creek 5ARCN003.36 7/90-3/04 72 4 16,000 742 100 7 14

Raccoon Creek 5ARCN012.80 7/03-3/04 9 25 580 114 25 0 11

Sappony Creek 5ASAP005.54 11/03-3/04 5 10 150 74 80 0 0

Sappony Creek 5ASAP013.69 9/94-3/04 44 20 16,000 635 100 7 11

Spring Creek 5ASGC004.15 7/03-3/04 9 25 250 73 50 0 0

Water Quality Data AnalysisLocation of BST water quality monitoring stations in the Nottoway River watershed

Water Quality Data Analysis

E. coli concentrations

Station Id Sampled

Dates Count Minimum Maximum Mean Median

% Violations

235

5ARCN003.36 11/03-3/04 5 1 88 29 14 0

5ARCN012.80 7/03-3/04 9 10 140 31 20 0

5ASAP005.54 11/03-3/04 5 20 112 50 34 0

5ASAP013.69 7/03-3/04 13 10 60 32 25 0

5ASGC004.15 7/03-3/04 9 10 120 40 20 0

Water Quality Data Analysis

Statistical Analysis of Water Quality Measurements versus Precipitation to determine the relationship between rainfall and water quality

Analyzed relationships for seasonal trends No seasonal trends found

Source Assessment

Identification of Sources DEQ/DCR/Locality records 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?

Human (2004)

Impairment PopulationHousing

Units (HU)

HU with Sewer

HU with Septic

HU with Other

Raccoon CreekSappony Creek

773998

394448

4967

311352

3429

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 CatsRaccoon Creek 210 235Sappony Creek 239 268

Livestock - 1997

Impairment All Cattle Beef Dairy Hog Horse Sheep

Raccoon Creek 224 115 0 1,813 18 14Sappony Creek 396 178 40 140 17 14

Wildlife Population

Impairment DeerTurke

yGoose Duck Muskrat

Raccoon

Beaver

Raccoon CreekSappony Creek

1,272654

274177

165115

421216

18,94710,603

3,0382,480

287189

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 5ARNC003.36 and USGS Station #02045500

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 5ASAP013.69 and USGS Station #02045500

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

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

10/0

1/19

90

11/2

3/19

90

01/1

5/19

91

03/0

9/19

91

05/0

1/19

91

06/2

3/19

91

08/1

5/19

91

10/0

7/19

91

11/2

9/19

91

01/2

1/19

92

03/1

4/19

92

05/0

6/19

92

06/2

8/19

92

08/2

0/19

92

10/1

2/19

92

12/0

4/19

92

01/2

6/19

93

03/2

0/19

93

05/1

2/19

93

07/0

4/19

93

08/2

6/19

93

10/1

8/19

93

12/1

0/19

93

02/0

1/19

94

03/2

6/19

94

05/1

8/19

94

07/1

0/19

94

09/0

1/19

94

10/2

4/19

94

12/1

6/19

94

02/0

7/19

95

04/0

1/19

95

05/2

4/19

95

07/1

6/19

95

09/0

7/19

95

Date

Flo

w (

cfs)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Pre

cip

itat

ion

(in

.)

Precip Observed Modeled

$

Hydrologic Calibration

Observed Modeled Error Target Total In-stream Flow: 50.14 53.26 6.24% 10.00% Upper 10% Flow Values: 25.59 28.48 11.28% 15.00% Lower 50% Flow Values: 3.55 3.58 0.86% 10.00% Winter Flow Volume 27.24 29.67 8.89% 30.00% Spring Flow Volume 14.39 13.96 -3.00% 30.00% Summer Flow Volume 4.14 4.65 12.27% 30.00% Fall Flow Volume 4.36 4.99 14.38% 30.00% Total Storm Volume 49.59 53.26 7.40% 20.00% Winter Storm Volume 27.11 29.67 9.43% 30.00% Spring Storm Volume 14.25 13.96 -2.07% 30.00% Summer Storm Volume 4.00 4.65 16.08% 30.00% Fall Storm Volume 4.23 4.99 18.04% 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 Human: 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 Human: Failing septic systems

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 All Cattle Beef Dairy Hog Horse Sheep

Raccoon Creek 292 172 0 1,592 41 3Sappony Creek 412 188 39 3,690 54 19

Allocation

Time, (days)

FC

Con

c., (

cfu/

100m

l)

Historical Data

TMDL