Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCS000030_OTHER_20050127STORINIWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET PERMIT NO. NC�J ��D �J D DOC TYPE ❑FINAL PERMIT ❑ MONITORING INFO ❑ APPLICATION ❑ COMPLIANCE OTHER DOC DATE ❑ YYYYMMDD �� Chapter 1 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 Including: Haw River, Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek 1.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-01 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 189 mil Land area: 187 mil Water area: 2 miz Population 2000 Est. Pop.: 66,449 people Pop. Density: 352 persons/mil Land Cover (percent) Forest/ Wetland: 58.6 % Water: 2.0 % ,+ Urban: 1.7 % Cultivated Crop: 7.1 Pasture/Managed Herbaceous: 30.6 Counties Alarnance, Caswell, Forsyth, Guilford and Rockingham Municipalities Reidsville Subbasin 03-06-01 is a piedmont watershed characterized by highly erodible soils. Most of the watershed is forested with extensive agriculture present. Development is occurring north of Greensboro and around Reidsville. Population is expected to grow by 140,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. There are l I individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 7.8 MGD (Figure 4). The largest is Reidsville W WTP (7.5 MGD). Refer to Appendix VI and Chapter 30 for more information on NPDES permit holders. Issues related to compliance with NPDES permit conditions are discussed below in Section 1.3 for impaired waters. There are no municipal areas in this subbasin required to develop a stormwater program (Chapter 31). There are two registered swine operations, one registered cattle operation, one registered horse farm and four registered dairy operations in this subbasin. Issues related to animal operations are discussed below in Section 1.3 for Impaired waters. There were l I benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and two fish community samples (Figure 4 and Table 4) collected during this assessment period. Some sites were not sampled because of high flows in 2003 and low flows in 2001 and 2002 may have had impacts on the biological communities as well. Data were also collected from eight ambient monitoring stations including four DWQ stations, two UCFRBA (Appendix V) stations and two shared station. Two reservoirs were also monitored. Refer to the 2003 Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.tis/bar,htnil and Appendix IV for more information on monitoring. Waters in the following sections are identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database, 303(d) Impaired waters list, and the various tables in this basin plan. The assessment unit number is a subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the DRAFT Chapter 1— Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 end of the AU# indicates that the assessment unit is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same. Introduction 2 U. Figure 4 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 Division of Water Quality inwide Planning Program jary 27, 2005 c •4 Reidsville B41 Lake unt SS29 ...... B j$.-. ROCKINGHAM BB396 y BBifi BB21u n BB43 C3 BB395 BB392 GUILFORD Lake ReldsWfle e> BA14 HA BA10 B�00 B fi3 ' I BF61 r • BA3 BA15 LU R - Q a a 5 a 5 10 Mlles BA1fi , BA17 Legend OSu6hasln Boundary ® Amhont Monitoring Stadon Benedc Station Fish Communhy Stallon NPDES Discharges ♦ uajar Minor Use Support Raling n/ Supporting NImpaired NNot Rated No Data A/ Primary Roads C _J County Boundary CD Munldpailty Cape Fear Subbasin 03-06-01 Benthic Fish Rating Rating Community Community Ambient Data AU Number Length Area AL REC Station Year Bioclass Station Year Bioclass Station Parameter % Geomean Applicability HAW RIVER 16-(1)a 7.8 FWmiles S NR BA2 dissolved oxygen <5mgll 17A parameter elevated BA2 fecal coliform bacteria 21.3 parameter elevated BA2 no criteria exceeded no criteria exceeded 16-(l)b 12.5 FWmiles S S BF61 1998 G BA3 dissolved oxygen <5mg/l 14 parameter elevated 16-(1)c 21.2 FWmiles S S BB163 '2003 GF BF61 '1998 G BA16 no criteria exceeded no criteriaexceedcd BA l5 no criteria exceeded no criteria exceeded BA15 turbidity 7.3 parameter elevated BA3 dissolved oxygen <5mg/l 14 parameter elevated BA3 no criteria exceeded no criteria exceeded BA3 no criteria exceeded no criteria exceeded 16-(1)dl 1.3 FWmiles S I BA17 fecal coliform bacteria 29 standards violation Little Troublesome Creek 16-7a 3.5 FWmiles NR BB415 '2001 NR BB208 '2001 NR BB86 '2000 NR 16-7b 5.1 FWmiles I S BB 161 '2000 F BF63 '2003 GF BA 14 no criteria exceeded no criteria exceeded BB400 '2000 F BF63 '1998 P BA14 turbidity 9.3 parameter elevated B8400 '2001 F BB400 '2001 F BB400 '2003 F BB161 '2001 F Draft Wednesday, February 16, 2005 03-06-01 Cape Fear Subbasin 03-06-01 Benthic Fish Rating Rating Community Community Ambient Data AU Number Length Area AL REC Station Year Bioclass Station Year Biorhms Station Parameter % Gcomean Applicability Iq�l Troublesome Creek 16-6-(0.3) 16.4 FWmiles S BB396 2002 GF BB395 2002 GF R8392 r2002 GF BB212 '2002 GF 16-6-(3) 1.8 FWmiles I S BAID dissolved oxygen <4mgll 12.8 standards violation BA l0 turbidity 7.3 parameter elevated Troublesome Creek (Lake Reidsville) 16-6-(0.7) 667.5 Mures ISR Lake Mo chlorophyll a 66 parameter elevated Unnamed Tributary to Troublesome Creek (Lake Hunt) 16-6-2-(1) 176.4 FWacres S Lake Mo no criteria exceeded no criteria exceeded Draft Wednesday, February 16, 2005 03-06-01 Cape Fear Subbasin 03-06-01 Benthic Fish Rating Rating Community Community Ambient Data AU Number Length Area AL REC Station Year Bioclass Station Year Binclass Station Parameter % Geomean Applicability Assessment Unit # -Portion of DWQ Classified Index where monitoring is app lied to assign a use support rating. Use Categories: Monitoring data type: Bioclassifcations: AL - Aquatic Life BF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent REC - Recreation BB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good BA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good -Fair Lake M o- Lake M onitoring F - Fair P - Poor NI - Not Impaired N- Natural M- Moderate S-Severe Aquatic Life Ratings Summary Recreation Ratings Summary S m FWacres 176.4 S m FWmiles 40.5 S m FWmiles 59.2 I In FWmiles 1.3 1 in FWmiles 6.8 NR m FWmiles T8 NR m FWacres 667.5 No Data FWacres 868.7 NR m FWmiles 3.5 No Data FWmiles 54.8 No Data FWacres 24.8 No Data FWmiles 34.9 Total FWacres 868.7 Total FWmiles 104.5 Total FWacres 868.7 Total FWmiles 104.5 Use Support Ratings 2004: S - Supporting, I - Impaired, NR - Not Rated Draft Wednesday, February 16, 2005 03-06-01 1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-01 in the aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption and water supply categories. All waters are Impaired on an evaluated basis in the fish consumption category because of fish consumption advice (Chapter 27) that applies to the entire basin. in the water supply category, all WS classified waters (843.9 acres and 24.3 miles) are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DFH regional water treatment plant consultants. Refer to Appendix III for a complete list of monitored waters and more information on Supporting monitored waters. There were 69.6 stream miles (66.6 percent) and 843.9 freshwater acres (97 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were 6.8 miles (6.5 percent) of Impaired waters in this category. There were also 1.3 stream miles (1.2 percent) Impaired for recreation in this subbasin. 1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2000) or are newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either remain on the state's 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2006 303(d) list. The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and each is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Refer to the overview for more information on Aus. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII. 1.3.1 Haw River [AU# 16-(1)a and b and d1j 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that no new discharges be permitted in these segments of the Haw River and that further monitoring be done to determine the extent of agricultural impacts and to identify stressors to the biological community. Current Status The Haw River [I6-(I)a) from the source to SR 2109 (7.8 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA2 although dissolved oxygen was below 5 mg/1 in 17 percent of samples collected during the assessment period. Previous benthic community ratings were Fair at this site, although a benthic community sample was not collected during the most recent assessment period due to high flows. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA2. The Oak Ridge Military Academy (NC0046043) had significant violations of the fecal coliform bacteria permit limits in the last two years of the assessment period as well. The discharge is into an unnamed tributary of the Haw River off NC 68. Oak Ridge Military Academy has had violations of other parameters in 2004 that were handled with notice of violations (NOV) and enforcement actions by DWQ. DkAFT Chapter I — Cape Fear River Suhhasin 03-06-01 The Haw River [ 16-(1)b] from SR 2109 to SR 2426 (12.5 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good fish community rating at site BF61. The site has regular high flows that have made sampling difficult at site BF61. In 2003, flow was too high and the water was too turbid to collect fish community samples. Dissolved oxygen was below 5 mg/l in 14 percent of samples at site BA3 about six miles downstream of BF61. No new dischargers have been permitted into these two segments. The western portion of the watershed is currently experiencing rapid development from Greensboro and Kernersville. The Ag Sediment Initiative (Chapter 28) identified runoff from impervious surfaces and streambank erosion as stressors to the biological community in both segments. The Haw River [16-(1)c] from SR 2426 to NC87 (21.2 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good -Fair benthic community rating at site BB 163 and a Good fish community rating at site BF61. Turbidity was above the standard in 7.3 percent of samples at site BA15. The Haw River [I 6-(1)d I] from NC 87 to the subbasin boundary (1.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA 17. This segment is Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA 17. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor these segments of the Haw River and work with DSWC staff to further implement BMPs to reduce the impacts of development and agriculture in this watershed, Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. The NPDES compliance process will continue to be used to address the significant permit violations noted above and any ongoing violations. Segment 16-(1)a will remain on the 303(d) list due to an Impaired biological community from 1998 sampling, Segment 16-(1)b will be removed from the 303(d) list because of the improved biological community rating. Segment 16-(1)dl will be added to the 303(d) list because it is Impaired for recreation, TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives The Ag Sediment Initiative (Chapter 28) estimates that over $1.2 million is needed in this watershed to preserve 1,000 acres of farmland, repair 20,000 feet of streambank and install BMPs on 525 acres of cropland. An urban conservationist is also recommended to help address impacts in this watershed associated with conversion of cropland to development. In 1998, the Haw River Assembly (Chapter 34) received a $24,500 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to preserve four acres around the headwater springs of the Haw River. In 2002, the Piedmont Land Conservancy (Chapter 34) received a mini -grant of $25,000 for pre -acquisition of 500 acres along the Haw River and Troublesome Creek. In 2001, the Haw River Assembly received a mini -grant of $14,500 for pre -acquisition of six tracts in the headwaters of the Haw River. DRAFT Chapter I — Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 8 1.3.2 Little Troublesome Creek ]AU# 16-7a and b] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work on a detailed study of Little Troublesome Creek as part of the WARP project to assess the effects of nonpoint source runoff on the creek. Current Status Little Troublesome Creek [AU# 16-7a] from the source to the Reidsville WWTP (3.5 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because benthic community ratings could not be assigned at sites B13208, BB415 and BB86 because of the small size of the stream. Little Troublesome Creek [AU# 16-7b] from Reidsville WWTP to the Haw River (5.1 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB 161 and BB400. The fish community at site BF63 improved from Poor to Good -Fair after the Reidsville WWTP discharge was moved to the Haw River in 1998. Turbidity also exceeded the water quality standard in 9.3 percent of samples at site BA14. A WARP study completed in November 2002 identified toxicity, organic enrichment and widespread habitat degradation from storm sewers and runoff as being stressors to the biological communities in both segments (DENR-DWQ 2002). An assessment made as part of the Little Troublesome Creek Local Watershed Plan (Chapter 34) indicated that 43 to 59 percent of the buffer had been disturbed in the upper watershed and greater than 10 percent was disturbed in the lower watershed. The assessment also concluded that sediment from agricultural land was not a problem in the watershed. The Ag Sediment Initiative (Chapter 28) identified runoff from impervious surfaces, urban development, unpaved roads, road construction, cropland erosion and streambank erosion as stressors to the biological community in both segments. DWQ developed a fecal colifonn bacteria TMDL (Chapter 35) that was approved by EPA in September 2002 that recommended a 40 percent reduction in fecal coliform bacteria loading to Little Troublesome Creek. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to work with all agencies and local governments involved in the Local Watershed Planning (Chapter 34) process to identify funding for and implementation of restoration, BMPs and preservation projects in the watershed. The City of Reidsville stormwater program should develop measures to help protect Little Troublesome Creek from stormwater impacts and to reduce fecal coliform loading by the 40 percent targeted in the TMDL. Both segments of Little Troublesome Creek will remain on the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives The Ag Sediment Initiative (Chapter 28) estimates that over $160,000 is needed in this watershed to install field borders on 74 acres of cropland, 34 acres of cropland conversion and other BMPs to help improve water quality from agriculture areas in the watershed. DRAFT Chapter 1 — Cape Fear River Szthbasin 03-06-01 9 1.3.3 Troublesome Creek {AU# 16-6-(0.3) and 16-6-(3)] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that no new discharges be permitted in these two segments of Troublesome Creek and that further monitoring be done to determine the extent of agricultural impacts and to identify stressors to the biological community. Current Status Troublesome Creek [16-6-(0.3)] from the source to SR 2423 (16.4 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of Good -Fair benthic community ratings at sites 1313212, BB392, BB395 and 1313396. A special study conducted in April 2002 found that the benthic communities were slightly more degraded than the reference stream and there were no indications of toxicity or nutrient impacts to the community. There were indicators of low dissolved oxygen instream although no ambient water quality data were collected in this segment. The sandy stream bottom is thought to be a natural condition in upper piedmont streams (DENR-DWQ, 2002). Monroeton Elementary School (NC0036994) had significant violations of the biological oxygen demand permit limit in the last two years of the assessment period as well. The discharge was into an unnamed tributary of Troublesome Creek off SR 2422 just upstream of site 1313396. This facility is no longer discharging and the permit has been rescinded. Lake Reidsville [16-6-(0.7)] a 667.5-acre impoundment of Troublesome Creek is Not Rated for aquatic life. Although dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a and turbidity exceeded water quality standards during lakes monitoring, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. Dissolved oxygen saturation was elevated and nutrient levels were higher than in previous years as well. Reidsville uses the reservoir as a water supply and has implemented a 100-foot buffer on the impoundment and 50-foot buffers on all tributaries. Reidsville should continue to protect the water supply by implementing BMPs where possible to reduce nutrient loading and turbidity in the watershed. DWQ will determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. Troublesome Creek [16-6-(3)] from dam at Reidsville Lake to the Haw River (1.8 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen levels violated the standard in 12.8 percent of samples at site BA 10 during the assessment period. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Troublesome Creek and work with DSWC staff to further implement BMPs to reduce the impacts of agriculture in this watershed. DWQ will investigate releases from the Reidsville Lake Dam to determine if the source of the low DO is from dam releases. Segment 16-6-(0.3) will be removed from the 303(d) list because of the improved biological community rating. Segment 16-6-(3) will be added to the 303(d) list because of the dissolved oxygen standard violation. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. DRAFT Chapter I — Cape Fear River Su66asin 03-06-01 10 Water uali Initiatives In 2002, the Piedmont Land Conservancy (Chapter 34) received a mini -grant of $25,000 to pay for pre -acquisition of 500 acres along the Haw River and Troublesome Creek. 1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality problems and concerns have been documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns and work with them to conduct further assessments and to locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions are useful tools to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix X. Waters in the following section are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). See overview for more information on AU#s. 1.4.1 Mears Fork [AU# 16-31 Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Mears Fork, from source to Haw River was not assessed for use support determination. This stream is near high growth areas north of Greensboro. This stream as well tributaries may be adversely impacted by poor development practices. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Water QualiU Initiatives Mears Fork Conservation Plan. In 1999, the Haw River Assembly (Chapter 34) received a $200,000 CWMTI~ (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 46 acres of land and for landowner permanent conservation easements on another 60 acres in this watershed. 1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-01 The following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not specific to particular streams, lakes or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to waters near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources. 1.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy All land uses and discharges of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-01 potentially contribute nutrients to Jordan Reservoir in subbasins 03-06-04 and 03-06-05. The reservoir is Impaired for aquatic life because chlorophyll a violated the standard in all segments of the reservoir. Refer to Chapter 36 for more information on this strategy. DRAFT Chapter 1— Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 11 Chapter 35 TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin 35.1 Introduction to TMDLs A TMDL or Total Maximum Daily Load is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant sources. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a margin of safety to ensure that the waterbody can be used for the purposes the State had designated. The calculation must also account for seasonal variation and critical conditions in water quality. For each water quality limited segment Impaired by a pollutant and identified in the 303(d) list, a TMDL must be developed. TMDLs are not required for waters Impaired by dam operations. A TMDL includes a water quality assessment that provides the scientific foundation for an implementation plan. An implementation plan outlines the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads in a certain body of water to restore and maintain human uses or aquatic life. For more information on TMDLs and the 303(d) listing process, refer to Appendix VII or visit the TMDL website at http:/ih2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/ 35.2 Approved TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin The following TMDLs have been completed and approved by EPA (Table 38). Refer to the subbasin chapters for specific reductions called for in the TMDLs and to determine what local governments may be affected by TMDLs. Table 38 EPA approved TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin Waterbody (Subbasin) Pollutant Approval Date Chapter Little Troublesome Creek (03-06-01) Fecal colifonn bacteria May 17, 2002 l North Buffalo Creek (03-06-02) Fecal coliform bacteria April 28, 2004 2 Town Branch (03-06-02) Fecal coliform bacteria September 16, 2002 2 Roberson (Robeson) Creek (03-06-04) Chlorophyll a (Total phosphorus) January 13, 2004 4 Northeast Creek (03-06-05) Fecal colifonn bacteria September 12, 2003 6 East Fork Deep River (03-06-08) Turbidity, Fecal coliform bacteria March 4, 2004 8 Richland and Muddy Creeks (03-06-08) Fecal coliform bacteria May 17, 2004 8 Several TMDLs are currently in progress at the DWQ. These include a fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity TMDL for the Haw River (Chapter 1), a fecal coliform TMDL for the Deep River (Chapter 8), a turbidity TMDL for Third Fork Creek (Chapter 5), a chlorophyll a TMDL for DRAFT Chapter 35 — TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin 312 Jordan Reservoir (Chapter 36), and a dissolved oxygen TMDL for the Cape Fear Estuary (Chapter 37). Two large TMDL efforts underway in the Cape Fear River Basin include the Jordan Reservoir Chlorophyll a TMDL and the Cape Fear Estuary Dissolved Oxygen TMDL. Information regarding water quality data and assessment for Jordan Reservoir is discussed in Chapter 5, while TMDL information in discussed in Chapter 36. Information regarding water quality data and assessment for the Cape Fear Estuary is discussed in Chapter 17, while TMDL information is discussed in Chapter 37. 35.3 Scheduled TMDLs in the Cape River Basin EPA guidance provides a timeline for TMDL development of 8 to 13 years. Thus, the elapsed time between 303(d) listing and TMDL development should not exceed 8 to 13 years. If the pace of TMDL development does not comply with this schedule, EPA may elect to develop TMDLs in order to meet this timeline. Waterbodies that were listed in 1998 should have TMDLs developed by 2006 to 2011. 35.4 TMDL Implementation Efforts Point source (i.e., wastewater) implementation plans are included in TMDLs per EPA guidance. Thus, any point source discharging to an Impaired water will receive an explicit allocation within the TMDL. In some cases, the allocation may be equal to existing permit limits, thus no action is needed by the wastewater permittee. In other cases, the allocation may be associated with a reduction in loading. Where applicable, the point source allocation may include provisions for bubble permits and point-to-point trading. Nonpoint source implementation plans are not included in TMDLs, nor are they required by federal law. Nonpoint source implementation plans can be developed by DWQ, other agencies within DENR, COGS, or local government offices. For example, the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) obtained Section 319 grants to develop implementation plans for Little Troublesome Creek and Tow_ n Branch. Each of these TMDLs has only nonpoint source loadings contributing to impairment. EPA has provided guidance regarding TMDLs and NPDES stormwater permits. As a result, selected NPDES stormwater permits may contain additional language when subject to a TMDL. Per EPA, MS4s identified in TMDLs as contributors to impairment may be required to develop a management plan that includes additional monitoring and BMP installation associated with pollutants of concern. 35.5 Impaired Waters Update Waters identified as Impaired during this assessment period will be updated in the 2006 Integrated Report. These waters will be considered Impaired upon EMC approval of this basin plan. TMDLs will be scheduled as appropriate depending upon the classification of the waterbody and the identified problem parameters. DRAFT Chapter 35 — TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin 313 Chapter 36 Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 36.1 - Introduction and Overview In 1983, all waters in the Haw River watershed (subbasins 03-06-01 to 03-06-06) including Jordan Reservoir received a supplemental classification of nutrient sensitive water (NSW) to acknowledge that Jordan Reservoir could have water quality problems associated with excessive nutrient inputs from both wastewater discharges and runoff from the various land uses in the watershed. The supplemental classification required than an NSW strategy be put in place to protect the reservoir from water quality problems associated with nutrient enrichment. Total phosphorus (TP) limits of 2.0 mg/l were required for NPDES permitted facilities with now greater than 0.005 MGD. In 2000, all subject dischargers were meeting this limit. In addition, discharges located upstream of the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Reservoir received TP limits of 0.5 mg/l during the months from April to October. However, nuisance algal blooms and chlorophyll a levels exceeding water quality standards continue to be observed. The Upper New Hope Arm of B. Everett Jordan Reservoir was placed on the 2002 303(d) list of Impaired waters based on results of the nutrient response model developed as described in Section 36.2 below. The listing of the Upper New Hope Arm is consistent with EPA rules that require water quality models to be utilized as a basis for 303(d) listing. The 303(d) listing of the Upper New Hope Arm of the reservoir results in the need for a TMDL for this portion of the lake. Thus, the Jordan Reservoir nutrient management strategy was developed in order to meet requirements of both the Clean Water Responsibility Act and the federal rules and guidance regarding TMDLs. The Lower New Hope Arm and Haw River Arm are currently Impaired as well (Chapter 5). Refer to Figure 34 for identification of the arms discussed here. The following sections describe the Jordan stakeholder process, Clean Water Responsibility Act, the modeling performed to support the nutrient management strategy, the development of loading targets and the nutrient management strategy that have occurred throughout the development of the models and the nutrient management strategy. For more information on use support assessments used to identify impairment of the reservoir, refer to Chapter 5 and Appendix X. DRAFT Chapter 36 —Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 314 Figure 34 Jordan Reservoir Segments 36.1 Jordan Reservoir Stakeholder Process Two stakeholder processes occurred during the development of this strategy. The first process was through the efforts of the Project Partners, During the initial development of the data review technical memorandum and the nutrient response model, the Project Partners held regular meetings with DWQ staff. At major completion steps, the Project Partners convened greater stakeholder meetings to share and discuss results of the data review and the modeling. DWQ staff, the Triangle J Council of Governments, and the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments initialized a more formal stakeholder process to carry a greater group of stakeholders forward through the development of management targets and the management strategy. A USEPA grant, in the amount of $29,730, was used to support this stakeholder process. A total of 21 stakeholder meetings were held between May 2003 and December 2004 to discuss TMDL development, modeling issues, target setting, and management strategy development. The councils of governments prepared a stakeholder report that includes descriptions of the meetings, stakeholder comments and concerns, and recommendations. The Triangle J Council of Governments also continues to maintain a project website, with links to presentations and handouts posted regularly. Materials can be downloaded from this website at httt):Hh2o.enr.state.ne.us/tmdl/SpecialStudies.htin#Jordan. 36.2 The Clean Water Responsibility Act of 1997 (House Bill 515, Senate Bill 1366) The Clean Water Responsibility Act of 1997 (often referred to as HB515) included legislation to further address water quality problems in NSW waters. The act set total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) NPDES permit limits for facilities discharging greater than 0.5 MGD into the Jordan Reservoir/Haw River watershed. A 5-year compliance period for limits of 5.5 mg/l of TN and 2 mg/l of TP was established for Qualifying facilities. Amendments to the act approved in 1998 (referred to as Senate Bill 1366) provided a compliance extension to the nutrient limits, with conditions. Those wastewater facilities granted a compliance extension by the Environmental Management Commission were required to develop a calibrated nutrient response model, evaluate and optimize the operation of all facilities to reduce nutrient loading, and evaluate methods to reduce nutrient mass loading to NSW waters. The municipalities of Greensboro, Mebane, Reidsville, Graham, Pittsboro and Burlington; and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) were granted the compliance extension by the Environmental Management Commission in April 1999. This collective group of facilities will be referred to as the Project Partners in subsequent sections of this chapter. Facilities that did not seek compliance extensions are the City of Durham/Durham South WWTP and Durham County/Triangle WWTP. The CWRA provided a timeline for progress towards a site -specific nutrient management strategy should facilities and/or municipalities choose to seek the compliance extension. This established timeline is as follows: Two years for the collection of data needed to prepare a calibrated nutrient response model; A maximum of one year to prepare the calibrated nutrient response model; DRAFT Chapter 36 —Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 316 ■ The amount of time, if any, that is required for the Commission to develop a nutrient management strategy and to adopt rules or to modify discharge permits to establish maximum mass loads or concentration limits based on the calibrated nutrient response model; and ■ A maximum of three years to plan, design, finance, and construct a facility that will comply with those maximum mass loads and concentration limits. If the Commission finds that additional time is needed to complete the construction of a facility, the Commission may further extend the compliance date by a maximum of two additional years. Each municipality developed optimization plans and submitted them to the Water Quality Committee. Plans for nutrient response model development began in 1999 when the project partners, through the local councils of governments, released a request for proposals for both a data review document and nutrient response model development. Screening level and detailed nutrient response models were developed by Tetra Tech, Inc., the consultant to the project partners. The total cost to the project partners for the development of the data review document and the models was $370,000. The combined hydrodynamic and water quality model was approved by the Water Quality Committee in July 2002. DWQ began work to develop a nutrient management strategy following this approval. 36.3 Nutrient Response and Watershed Loading Modeling Both the Projects Partners, with the addition of the municipalities of Apex and Cary, and the DWQ funded the development of numerous modeling tools to use for the development of the nutrient management strategy. Four modeling tools were developed by the Project Partners to as part of meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Responsibility Act. These tools included a screening level nutrient response model using the BATHTUB modeling framework, a combined hydrodynamic and water quality model, and a nutrient fate and transport model for all major wastewater dischargers in the watershed. Hydrodynamic models simulate water circulation and movement, and nutrient response models simulate the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, and algal response. The consultants, Tetra Tech, Inc., utilized the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) framework to construct the reservoir hydrodynamic model, and the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) to link to the hydrodynamic model and simulate reservoir nutrient response (i.e., the water quality model). The models were run for the time period from 1997 through 2001. The Jordan Reservoir Nutrient Response Model results were summarized to provide information regarding the average chlorophyll a levels in the reservoir and the likelihood of chlorophyll a standard violations in various portions of the reservoir. An example of model output is provided below in Figure 35. Detailed model output is provided in the modeling reports available on the Modeling and TMDL Unit website at h2o.enr.s1ate.nc.usltmdl. The Project Partners also funded the development of a nutrient fate and transport model to predict the fraction of wastewater that reaches Jordan Reservoir. The model demonstrates that a smaller fraction of wastewater discharged from facilities located farther upstream in watershed actually reaches Jordan Reservoir. This is contrary to facilities located nearer to the reservoir that have substantially greater delivery to the reservoir. The fraction of nutrients delivered to the lake from each of the major dischargers varies depending upon the location of the effluent discharge. For example, 43% of the nitrogen load and 42% of the phosphorus load from the City DRAFT Cahpter 36 — Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 317 of Greensboro North Buffalo WWTP reaches Jordan Reservoir. In contrast, 96% of the nitrogen load and 97% percent of the phosphorus load from the Durham County Triangle WWTP reaches Jordan Reservoir. Specific delivery rates for each facility are provided in the nutrient management strategy and TMDL document. After approval from the Water Quality Committee, DWQ funded an update of the hydrodynamic and nutrient response model developed by the Project Partners. An additional model year, 2001, was added to the calibration and model summaries. This year had the largest amount of measured data of the five years ultimately modeled. DWQ also funded the development of a screening level watershed loading model in order to capture loading from nonpoint sources in the watershed. The watershed loading model was constructed using the Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) model. The watershed loading model was combined with the previously developed fate and transport model to provide a better analysis of the point and nonpoint source nutrient load contributions to Jordan Reservoir. Sources of total nitrogen (TN) Fbint(i.e., WWTP.) 36% npoint 64% Sources of total phosphorus (TP) Fbint( i.e., WWTPs ) 17% Nonpoint 83% Figure 35 Sources of nutrient loads to Jordan Reservoir, 1997-2000 Modeling reports are available electronically from the Triangle J Council of Governments http://h2o.enr,state.nc.us/trndl/SliecialStudies.htni#Jordan and the DWQ Modeling and TMDL Unit (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tiiidl). 36.4 TMDL and Management Targets Management targets are those nutrient load associated with chlorophyll a standard compliance. The nutrient response model is used to determine nutrient loads likely to produce compliance in all parts of the lake, For Jordan Reservoir, the loads would primarily derive from the Morgan, New Hope and Northeast Creeks, and the Haw River. Nutrient loading targets were determined for three different parts of the reservoir, the Upper New Hope Arm, the Lower New Hope Arm, and the Haw River Arm. Together, these three parts of the reservoir include all of the main body of Jordan Reservoir, with the exception of coves. These three parts were selected based on hydrology, frequency of standard violations, and the locations of reservoir tributaries. The federal rules for Impaired waters and TMDLs require targets to consider seasonal variation and critical conditions. Thus, targets are based on the summer and early fall seasons to consider those times when predicted algal growth is most likely to result in standard violations. Consistent with use support methodology, the nutrient loading targets were then determined based on a standard violation frequency of less than 10 percent during the summer and early fall. DRAFT Cahpter 36 — Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW .Strategy 318 The federal rules for Impaired waters also require targets to have a margin of safety. Per EPA guidance (1999), the margin of safety is a required component of a TMDL and accounts for the uncertainty about the relationship between pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving waterbody. For this TMDL the DWQ has elected to use an explicit margin of safety determined by adjusting the TMDL target from a 10% standard violation frequency to an 8% standard violation frequency. Reduction targets were evaluated in terms of nitrogen and phoshorus loads. Multiple combinations of nitrogen and phosphorus loading scenarios that resulted in an 8% standard violation frequency were considered. Ultimately, three different targets were selected for Jordan Reservoir, corresponding to three different hydrologic areas of the lake. These targets are summarized in Table 39 by percentage reduction: Table 39 Nutrient Load Reduction Targets from 1997-2001 Baseline Area Total Nitrogen (TN) Percent Reduction Total Phosphorus (TP) Percent Reduction Upper New Hope Arm (above SR 1008) 35% 5% Middle and Lower New Hope Arm (ftom SR 1008 to the narrows) 0%(a) 0%(a) Haw River Arm 8% 5% (a) Provides a loading cap equal to 1997-2001 baseline nutrient loads. 36.5 Point Source Management Strategies There are numerous factors considered in the point source allocation strategy. These include the distance from the reservoir and the amount and type of waste discharged. Further weighting of the amount of wasteload allocations for each facility was evaluated using the actual annual average flow during the 1997-2001 period, the permitted flow during the 1997-2001 period, and the permitted flow in 2004. The final allocations are based on the permitted flow in 2004. The result of the allocation strategy is presented below for the Upper New Hope and Haw River arms of the reservoir. Detailed discussions can be found in the TMDL document. 36.5.1 Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Reservoir Converting the wasteload allocation from the Iake to the load at the effluent pipe yields a total allowable end of pipe nitrogen load of 444,088 lbs/year and phosphorus load of 34,270 Ibs/year for all facilities. All of the available loading was allocated to the existing facilities. Therefore, there will be no new nitrogen or phosphorus bearing loads permitted in this watershed. There are five facilities discharging greater than 100,000 gallons per day in the ,Upper New Hope Arm, as shown in Table 40. These facilities account for 99.8% of the total permitted flow from point sources. The discharge allocations for these five facilities provide equivalent concentrations for each facility. For nitrogen, this equivalent concentration is 3.05 mg/l, and for phosphorus this equivalent is 0.23 mgll. Therefore, the five large facilities will receive annual mass load limits as shown in Table 40. DRAFT Cahpter 36 — Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 319 Table 40 Wasteload Allocations for Facilities >100K GPD Permittee Facility Permitted Flow (MGD) Percent of Total Flow Wasteload Allocation lbs/vr TN TP City of Durham South Durham WRF 20.0 42.1 185,648 14,154 Orange Water & Sewer Authority Mason Farm WWTP 14.5 30.5 134,595 10,262 Durham County Triangle WWTP 12.0 25.3 111,389 8,492 Fearrington Utilities Fearrington Utilities WWTP 0.5 1.1 4,461 354 Whippoorwill LLC Carolina Meadows WWTP 0.35 0.7 3,249 248 Total for large facilities 47.4 99.8% 439.520 33,510 36.5.2 Haw River Arm of Jordan Reservoir Converting the wasteload allocation from the lake to the load at the effluent pipe yields a total allowable end of pipe nitrogen load of 1,570,890 lbs/year and phosphorus load of 195,510 lbs/year. All of the available loading was allocated to the existing facilities. Therefore, there will be no new nitrogen or phosphorus bearing loads permitted in this watershed. There are ten facilities discharging greater than 100,000 gallons per day in the Haw River Arm, as shown in Table 41. These facilities account for 99.3% of the total permitted flow from point sources. The discharge allocations for these ten facilities provide equivalent treatment levels for each facility. For nitrogen, this equivalent treatment level is 5.3 mgll, and for phosphorus this equivalent is 0.67 mg/l. Therefore, the ten large facilities will receive annual mass load limits as shown in Table 41. Table 41 Wasteload Allocations for Facilities > I OOK GPD Permittee Facility Permitted Flow (MGD) Percent I of Total Flow Wasteload allocation Ibs/y r TN TP City of Greensboro T.Z. Osborne WWTP 40.0 41.5 645,834 81,222 City of Greensboro North Buffalo Creek WWTP 16.0 16.6 258,333 32,489 City of Burlington Eastside WWTP 12.0 12A 193,750 24,367 City of Burlington Southside WWTP 12.0 12.4 193,750 24,367 City of Reidsville Reidsville WWTP 7.5 7.8 121,094 15,229 City of Graham Graham WWTP 3.5 3.6 56,510 7,107 City of Mebane Mebane WWTP 2.5 2.6 40,365 5,076 Town of Pittsboro Pittsboro WWTP 2.0 2.1 32,292 4,061 Quarterstone Farm Homeowners Association Quarterstone Farm WWTP 0.2 0.2 3,229 406 Gen Raven Inc. Altamahaw Division plant 0,15 0.2 2,422 305 Total for large facilities 95.85 99.3% 1,547,580 194,630 DRAFT Cahpter 36 -- Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 320 Special Permitting Options. There are two permitting options available to provide existing facilities flexibility with target compliance. One option is a bubble permit, which allows multiple facilities owned by the same permittee to pool the mass loading limits. This will only be an option for the Cities of Greensboro and Burlington. Another option is a group compliance option, which allows multiple facilities owned by various permittees to pool the mass loading limits for compliance purposes. The group compliance option provides the interested permittees the ability to meet to the total mass limit even if an individual facility does not meet the individual mass limit. This option also provides the ability for a new discharge with nitrogen or phosphorus bearing loads to purchase loading from the existing compliance group members, if they choose to sell. Both options are provided in the TMDL document. 36.6 Nonpoint Source Management Strategies 36.6.1 Introduction and Overview The comprehensive stakeholder process yielded five potential nonpoint source management scenarios covering the spectrum of possibilities between completely voluntary and regulation of all significant nutrient sources. Recognizing that point sources would be regulated, equity concerns led the stakeholders to favor some form of mandatory measures for all significant source types. The NPS management strategy proposed by DWQ staff builds from concepts implemented in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River Basins. All of the following elements would apply in the subwatersheds of both the Upper New Hope and Haw River arms, while only the riparian buffer protection and new development controls — would apply in the Lower New Hope subwatershed. The proposed strategy would require that: ■ All agricultural operations would collectively meet N and P export performance goals as implemented by local committees. ■ Stormwater: o All local governments would meet NPDES Phase 11 stormwater requirements of S 1210. o All local governments would achieve stormwater N and P export performance goals from all new and existing development. ■ DWQ would protect existing riparian buffers. ■ Persons who apply fertilizers to lands in the subwatershed would complete nutrient management training and a written plan for those lands. A tax on fertilizer would fund the implementation of this rule. ■ DWQ would work with DEH to develop programs to reduce N and P loading from on -site wastewater (the EMC has no control over this management area). ■ DWQ would refine existing wastewater land application permitting programs as needed. ■ DWQ would work with DFR to require forestry pre -harvest notification (EMC has no control over this management area). ■ DWQ would establish a trading program among point sources, between point and nonpoint sources, and among nonpoint sources. DRAFT Cahpter 36 — Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 321 ■ Local governments and agricultural committees would provide annual reports to the EMC. The EMC would reexamine the management strategy every five years. Table 42 presents the loading goals that have been calculated based on the percentage reductions established for each subwatershed. The following sections describe the agriculture, urban stormwater, buffer protection, nutrient management, and land application proposals in more detail. Proposed requirements in the agriculture and development sections refer back to these numeric loading goals. Table 42 Loading Goals by Subwatershed Nitrogen Phosphorus Subwatershed Reduction Goal / Load Goal Reduction Goal / Load Goal Upper New Hope 35% 4.1 Ib/ac-yr 5% 1.1 lb/ac-yr Haw 8% 5.6 Ib/ac-yr 5% 1.5 ib/ac-yr Lower New Hope 0% 4.8 Ib/ac-yr 0% 0.8 Ib/ae-yr 36.6.2 Agriculture Strategy Applicable Subwatersheds: Upper New Hope and Haw. What: Achieve and maintain net annual N and P loads from agricultural lands, in lb/ac-yr, equal to or less than the targets allocated to an Arm's Subwatershed. Who Administers: Local committees and a watershed oversight committee. Who is Affected: All agricultural operations lying wholly or partly within the subwatershed, including animal operations, pasture and horticulture. How: Local committees would be responsible for registering all producers, drafting strategies to achieve load targets, and submitting annual progress reports. A watershed oversight committee would develop a site evaluation tool to account for loading, review and approve local strategies, and provide reports to the EMC. Individual producers could comply automatically by implementing standard BMPs or they could contribute as needed to their collective local strategy and rely on it to comply. When: Relative to rule effective date, producers register within 1 year, accounting tool completed in 2 years, strategies developed in 3 years, targets reached in 5 years. If a local committee did not meet its goal in 5 years, then producers in that area would be subject to additional implementation needs as determined by the EMC. DRAFT Cahpter 36 — Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 322 36.6.3 Urban Stormwater Strategy Applicable Subwatersheds: Upper New Hope and Haw subject to all elements. Lower New Hope - subject to new development and redevelopment elements; existing development element would not apply, and NPDES Phase 11 would apply only to local governments dictated by 51210. What: NPDES Phase II stormwater measures per Senate Bill S1210 and a stormwater rule. The rule would require new development and redevelopment activities to achieve and maintain net annual N and P loads, in Ib/ac-yr, equal to or less than the targets allocated to an Ann's watershed. Redevelopment would have the option of meeting the subwatershed's percentage reduction targets relative to the previous development. Offsite trading options would be provided. The rule would also require retrofitting of existing development. Who Administers: All local governments wholly or partly within an arm's subwatershed except as stated above. Who is Affected: All new development and redevelopment projects, and existing development. How: Local governments would adopt ordinances. A watershed oversight committee would be established, responsible for developing a site evaluation tool for load accounting by all local governments and for presenting the tool to the EMC. For existing development, local governments would analyze their jurisdictions within a subwatershed to determine stormwater BMPs needed for existing development to meet the loading targets allocated to that subwatershed. They would prioritize BMP installations, develop implementation schedules, then implement retrofits. When: New development and redevelopment permitting would begin upon adoption of local ordinances within stormwater rule timeframes. Local governments would set retrofit implementation schedules for existing development within 5 years, then provide annual implementation reports to the EMC. The EMC would reexamine the retrofit approach every 5 years. DRAFT Cahpter 36 — Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 323 36.6.4 Buffer Protection Strategy Applicable Subwatersheds: All. What: Existing vegetated riparian buffers would be protected and maintained on both sides of perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds. Who Administers: DWQ. DWQ may delegate programs to interested, qualified local governments. Who is Affected: Potentially all owners of property with riparian buffers. How: 50 feet of riparian area would be protected on each side of water bodies. The first 30 feet adjacent to the water, or Zone 1, would remain undisturbed with the exception of certain activities. The outer 20 feet, or Zone 2, would be revegetated, with certain additional uses allowed. Specific activities would be identified in the rule as "exempt", "allowable", or "allowable with mitigation". Examples of "exempt" activities would include driveway and utility crossings of certain sizes through zone 1, and grading and revegetating in zone 2. "Allowable" and "allowable with mitigation" activities would require review by DWQ staff and would include activities such as new ponds in drainage ways and road crossings. Mitigation options would be defined. Footprints of existing uses within the buffer such as cropland, buildings, commercial facilities, lawns, utility lines, and onsite wastewater systems would be exempt. A newly vegetated buffer would not be required unless the existing use of the riparian area changes. When: Upon rule effective date. DWQ may propose a temporary rule to expedite protection. 36.6.5 Nutrient Application Management Strategy Applicable Subwatersheds: All. What: Completion of training and continuing education in nutrient management, completion and implementation of a written nutrient management plan addressing both N and P for all lands where nutrients are applied. Who Administers: Not yet determined. Who is Affected: All persons who apply fertilizer or biosolids to, or manage, ten or more acres of: cropland; golf courses; recreational lands; rights -of -way; residential, commercial, or industrial lawns and gardens; and other turfgrass areas. Cropland with a certified animal waste management plan would be exempt. How: Revenue from a tax on fertilizer would fund implementation of the rule When: Upon rule effective date, persons affected would be required to complete initial training and plans within five years. Persons who become subject after the effective date would be given a shorter time period to comply. Biosolids applicators would be given until 2010 to begin implementation of plans addressing both N and P. All persons would be required to comply with DRAFT Cahpter 36 — Jordan Reservoir and Han> River Watershed NSW Strategy 324 continuing education requirements on a periodic basis. 36.6.6 Wastewater Land Application Strategy DWQ would refine its existing permitting program as needed for the entire Jordan Lake watershed. Changes may include requiring all nondischarge systems within a certain distance of the lake or mainstems of the Haw or New Hope tributaries to meet reclaimed water effluent standards, with the exception of individual single family homes. New and existing industrial non -discharge facilities may be required to establish vegetated buffers compliant with the riparian buffer rule. DRAFT Cahpter 36 — Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 325