NCS000395_ANNUAL REPORT_20110830

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
M54 PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
���CSQ 3YS
DOC TYPE
❑ F�INAL"PERMIT
(�ANNUALREPORT
❑ APPLICATION
❑ COMPLIANCE
❑ OTHER
DOC DATE
❑ L
YYYYMMDD

Charlotte -Mecklenburg
STORM
WATER
Services
August 30, 2011
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Fax: [phone]
L� LI V
Mike Randall HP .1 2011
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stormwater Permitting Unit MM-MgyTEROUCn,
1617 Mail Service Center *VL� APO STORMWATM WANCH
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Re: Goose Creek Recovery Program — Fiscal Year 2010 - 2011 Annual Report
Dear Mike,
Please find enclosed a copy of the Goose Creek Recovery Program — Final Report for Fiscal Year
2009-2010. It documents the activities necessary for compliance with the WQRP through
September 1, 2011 for the Town of Mint Hill as well as Mecklenburg County. This report
provides documentation of the activities completed during the year that were conducted to satisfy
the requirements of the Goose Creek Recovery Program. Specifically, the following
requirements have been satisfied:
Monitoring. In -stream monitoring were performed in the watershed.
Non-structural BMPs were implemented in the Watershed. Specifically, education
and septic system inspections.
Annual Meeting. The Goose Creek WQRP Advisory Group met on October 15,
2010.
4. A Structural BMP (livestock exclusion) has been funded and designed and is
expected to be constructed before the end of FY l 1- 12.
During FY 10-1 1 the North Carolina 2010 303d List was finalized and the segment of Goose
Creek upstream of SR1524 (13-17-18a draining Mint Hill and Mecklenburg County) was
recategorized from 4t (indicating a standard violation) to 1 t (no criteria exceeded). Subsequent to
the release of the final list, Charlotte -- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services staff attended a
meeting with NC DENR staffto discuss the recategorization of 13-17-18a. During this meeting
the decision was made to allow the suspension of the WQRP for those areas draining directly to
13-17-18a, which includes the portion of the watershed in Mint Hill and Mecklenburg County
along with a part of Stallings included in the watershed. Therefore, unless notified otherwise by
NC DENR, submission of the enclosed report will serve as the final activity of the WQRP in
Goose Creek for Mint Hill and Mecklenburg County.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence please call David Kroening
at 704-336-5448 or via email at David.Krocning(@,Mccklenburp-CountyNC.gov .
Sincerely,
f
avid E. Kr ening, P.G., Pr cct Manager
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Stori i Water Services
Water Quality Program
•
To report pollution or drainage problems call: 311
CHAR- E; http://stormwater,charmeck.org ,

PURPOSE
The purpose of the Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) is to achieve
and maintain compliance with Mint Hill's Phase II NPDES Discharge Permit (Permit
number NCS000395) requiring the development and implementation of a WQRP for the
Goose Creek Watershed for Fecal Coliform Bacteria. This report documents activities
for FY10-t 1, which spans from July t, 2010 through June 30, 2011, During FY10-1 I,
the North Carolina 2010 303d List was finalized. In this list, the Use Category Ior
AU Number 13-17-18a (Goose Creek from source to SR 1524) was changed from 4t
(standard violation) to It (no criteria exceeded) for fecal col iform bacteria. Category It is
described as "Parameter is supporting uses in the AU and there is an approved `l'MDI. for
the parameter". Subsequent to the release of the list a meeting was held with NC DIaNR
staffand the decision was made to allow the suspension of the WQRP for areas of the
watershed upstream of SR1524. Figure l shows the status ofthe WQRP within the
Goose Creek Watershed. Therefore, production and submittal of this annual report will
serve as the final task Ior the WQRP [or AU —Number 13-17-18a (all of Mint Hill and
Mecklenburg County and a portion of Stallings).
Figure 1: Status of the WQRP in the Goose Creek Watershed as of July, 2011.
Goose Creek Watershed Water Quality Recovery Program Status
w
^'�
IL
0 05 2 3
Mks
Union County {non Phase II Areas)
Legend
- WORP sl@I in place
WQRP Suspended
Indian Trail
Stallings
UMocktanburg County
_ Mint Hill
Goose VWtetshed
2

BACKGROUND
The WQRP requirement was specified in a letter dated August 10, 2006 from the North
Carolina Department of 1nvironment and Natural Resources — Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). Subsequent to the August 10, 2008 letter, DWQ released the Goose Creek
'I'MDL — WQRP Guidance Document on October 11, 2006. The Guidance Document
specifies several deadlines for achieving and maintaining compliance with the
requirement. The deadlines and specific requirements pertinent to FYI 0-11 are as
follows:
Requirement Requirement Task Deadline
Annual Assessment ofdata collected for each September 1, 2011
Report pollutant of concern (fecal coliform)
Assessment of the effectiveness of the
BMPs employed and propose additional
13MP measures that may be necessary to
return the impaired segments to compliance
"The WQRP was created during FY06-07 by the Mecklenburg County Water Quality
Program (MCWQP) in cooperation with the Towns of Mint Hill (Mecklenburg County),
Stallings and Indian Trail (Union County). During FY207-08 the MCWQP identified all
MS4 outlalls in the three (3) aforementioned jurisdictions, developed a monitoring plan
and produced an annual report. Furthermore, on May 6, 2008 DWQ submitted a letter
stating that the tasks presented under Requirement 1. Program Development had been
satisfied.
ACTIVITIES
The activities performed for the WQRP during FY10-11 are as follows:
1. Continued Implementation of the Monitoring Plan for Goose Creek WQRP. The
MCWQP continued implementation of the Monitoring Plan for the WQRP, which
began in July, 2007 and continued throughout FY09-10. 'These activities were
performed as outlined in the Monitoring Plan and the Quality Assurance Project
Plan for the MCWQP.
2. Completion of the Septic System Inspection Program_ The Mecklenburg County
Individual Water and Wastewater Program completed the inspection of septic
systems within the Mecklenburg County portion of the watershed.
3. Submission of FY09-10 Annual Report: The final version of the FY09-10 Annual
Report for the WQRP was submitted to DWQ in October, 2010.
4. Continued Implementation of the Cattle Fencing Project. The cattle fencing
project continued through FY10-1 1 and is expected to be completed in FYI 1-12.
IN -STREAM SAMPLE RESULTS

As specified in the Monitoring Plan for the Goose Creek WQRP, MCWQP staff collected
in -stream fecal coliform samples at MY9 (Goose Creek at Stevens Mill Road) and
MY 14 (Duck Creek at "Para Oaks). The sites are described in detail in the Monitoring;
flan. Data collected at MY9 and MY14 is intended to be a measure of watershed scale
fecal coliform values. Figure 2 shows the historical distribution of in -stream data.
Appendix A provides the FYI 0- 11 data in table format. Figure 3 shows the distribution
of in stream fecal coliform data collected during FY10-1 1. Figure 4 presents the FY10-
1 l in -stream fecal colfiorm results along; with the corresponding flow at Goose Creek and
Mill Grove Road. Figure 5 presents a time history of the in -stream fecal coliform sample
results collected during FY10-11. Figure 6 is a comparison of the flows observed at the
time in -stream samples were collected compared to all flows observed at Mill Grove
Road. Table 1 presents basic statistics on the in -stream data collected during FYI 0-11
along; with recent historical data. Appendix A presents the in -stream fecal coliform
sample results for MY9 and MY14.
E

Figure 2: Historical Distribution of In -Stream Fecal Coliform Data
Current and Historical Distribution of In -Stream Fecal Coliform Data for
the Goose Creek Watershed
100000
•
10000
•
1000
' • s '�.� � •
..ram.
100
t0
1/31/1993
10/28/1995
7/24/1998 4/19/2001 1/14/2004 10/10/2006
1/6/2009 4/1/2012

Figure 3: FY10-11 In -Stream Fecal Concentrations at MY9 and MY14
Goose Creek in -Stream Fecal Concentration vs Sample Date
4000
MY9
t MY14
3500
3000
2500
0
E
0
a
E 2000
.Q
ag
m
1500
loan
500
a
6/21/2010 8/10/2010 9/29/2010 11/18/2010 1/7/2011 2/26/7011 4/17/2011 6/6/2011 7/26/2011

Figure 4: Flow versus in -stream Fecal Coliform Concentration for FY09-10 samples
Goose Creek Fecal Concentration vs Flow
4000
♦ MY9
■ MY14
3500
3000
E
2500
0
0
2000
c
g
e
9
150o
LL
■
■
1000
■ ■ ♦♦ ■ ■ ■
Soo
0-
1 2 3 4 5 fi
Flow Ids)

Figure S: Time history oI, in -stream tecal cohlorm concentration during h YUJ-IU
Goose Creek In -Stream Fecal Concentration vs Sample Date with Flaw
... _ .... ...
_.. _.._.... -
4000 -
10000
3500
1000
3000 -
= 2500
0
100
0
2000
0
V
is
LL
10
1500
1000
F 1
500
0
0.1
5/2/2010 6/21/2tl10 8/10/2010
9/29/2010 11/18/2010 1/7/2011
2/26/2011
4/17/2011
6/6/2011
7/26/2011
I�
4

Figure G: Comparison of in -stream sampled flows with observed flows.
Observed and Sampled Flows in Goose Creek
07/01/2010 - 06/30/2011
14
—*—Observed Flaws
—41-Sampled Flaws
12
10
8
3
3
LL
6
4
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 1
Percentile
'fable 1: Basic statistics of fecal coliform results from MY9 and MY14
Statistic
MY9
FY10-
11
MY14
FY10-
11
MY14
FY09-
10
MY9
FY09-
10
MY14
FY08-
09
MY9
FY08-
09
MY9
FY07-
08
Minimum
200
31
88
120
56
88
31
Maximum
3800
1500
960
900
6600
4200
19000
Average
985
484
394
526
880
796
809
Median
600
320
320
485
520
445
390
25th Percentile
380
170
250
380
228
270
240
75th Percentile
1 100
650
400
683
860
900
700
90th Percentile
1980
1056
712
816
2100
1990
13fi0

MONITORING RESULTS DISCUSSION
In -Stream Monitoring
A total of 36 in -stream samples were collected from MY9 and MY14 in the Goose Creek
Watershed during FY 10-1 l . Of these sample results, 28 (57%) were in excess of the 200
cftt/100 ml standard and 19 (39%) were in excess of the instantaneous 400 efu/100 ml
standard. Processing of these results to determine the 30 geometric mean throughout the
fiscal year was not possible because of reduced sample frequency (approximately I
sample collected every other week at 2 sites). Further analysis by associating the fecal
coliform results at MY9 and MY14 with USGS flow at Mill Grove Road did not yield a
strong relationship. Although the samples were collected over a wide range of flows (see
Figure 6) that somewhat represented the flow history at the gauge during the year, no
strong relationship between flow and fecal coliform concentration was observed.
However a general trend of somewhat uniform fecal coliform concentration with
increasing flow may exist. Somewhat surprisingly, moderate, high and very high
concentrations were detected at all flows and at both sites. 'These observations may
indicate the following:
Sources of fecal coliform are likely similar between MY9 and MY14. Neither
data set exhibited a strong correlation with flow (Figure 3).
'There are multiple sources of fecal coliform within the watershed capable of
causing violations of the in stream standard. The standard is routinely violated
during dry weather and storm water conditions. The highest concentration was
detected during very low Flow (MY9). If the sources were isolated to dry weather
then decreased concentrations in storm water should be observed, conversely if
sources were isolated to storm water then baseflow concentrations should be
lower. Neither of these possibilities is supported by the dataset.
The sources of fecal col iforrm in the Goose Creek Watershed are relatively
constant. Fecal coliform results in excess of the standard were observed
consistently throughout the past (Figure 1). These conclusions are supported by
the FYI 0-11 results, which were consistent with historical values. It is likely that
the sources of fecal coliform in this watershed today are the same or similar to the
sources in the past.
In -stream concentrations of fecal coliform tend to be lowest during periods of
higher base now. This may be due to constant sources being more diluted by
higher base flow.
In -stream fecal coliform samples collected during FY10-1 1 tended to somewhat
under -represent the highest 20% of flows detected in Goose Creek at Mill Grove
Road (see Figure 6).
hand -use Monitoring
• Land -use monitoring was not conducted during FY10-11.
ii7

PUBLIC EDUCATION
An article was included in the Mint Hill "Town Newsletter entitled "Protecting Goose
Creek — What is being done and what you can do". A copy of the article is included with
this report as Appendix B.
13M11's EMPLOYED
Both structural and non-structural BMPs have been employed in the Goose Creek
Watershed. During FY10-11, a structural BMP involving livestock exclusion from
Goose Creek was initiated. Additionally, inspection of septic systems in the watershed
was completed during FY10-1 1. Specific BMI's are as follows:
Cattle Exclusion from Goose Creek at 12601 Bain School Road
Constructed by: Under Construction (anticipated completion FYI 1-12)
Jurisdiction: Mint [fill
BMP Type: Cattle Exclusion (Fencing and alternate water source)
Installation Date: Alternative water supply (well) was installed in October 2010.
Anticipate new fencing to exclude the cows from the creek to be completed by June
2012.
Basin: Basin 5
13MP Removal Efficiency for Fecal Coliform: Variable (see below)
Assumptions:
l . Each cow produces 9.42 x 1012 efu/year.
2. In July and August, 50% of cow scat is directly deposited in the creek.
3. During the rest of the year, 5% of the scat is directly deposited in the
creek.
4. 'There are 40 cows being fenced.
5. The cost of the project is $20,000.
Drainage area: Approximately 25 acres ofcow pasture.
Cost/Benefit Ratio: $0.1ONIlion colonies removed annually at an estimated cost of
$200,000/Billion Colonies.
Figure 8: Location of Cattle Exclusion Project

Septic System Inspections:
The Goose Creek Watershed is somewhat unique in Mecklenburg County in so far as it is
largely devoid of sanitary sewer lines and on -site septic systems are the primary method
of sewage disposal. As such, a pilot study for the inspection of individual septic systems
was implemented during FY08-09 in Basin I of the watershed. Inspections were
performed by Mecklenburg County Ground Water and Waste Water Services. A total of
178 systems were inspected within Basin 1 and 5 failing or out of compliance systems
were identified and subsequently repaired. This resulted in an estimated daily load of 7.4
x 107 c1t/100 ml per failing septic system being removed from Goose Creek. An
estimated total daily fecal coliform load reduction of 3.7 x 108 cfu/100 ml was achieved
through the repair of these five (5) systems. Staff also handed out 59 dye packs to
homeowners of systems that appeared to be operating correctly. Homeowners were
directed to flush these dye packets down the commode to determine if there was a linkage
between their septic systems and Goose Creek. Visual inspection of Goose Creek did not
detect the presence of dye, indicating there was little or no connection between the dyed
septic systems and the creek. Upon completion of the system inspections within Basin 1,
it was decided to pursue inspections on the remainder of the systems within the Mint Hill
portion of the watershed. Out of an estimated 1,480 systems in the watershed 1,422 were
able to be inspected. Of the systems inspected, a total of 13 were found to be non-
compliant, a rate of 1%. Appendix C presents a more specific breakdown of the septic
system inspections by basin.
X

Cost Benefit Analysis:
A total of 13 failing systems were corrected during the septic system inspection project.
This results in an estimated annual load of 3.51 x 1011 cfu being removed from Goose
Creek. At a cost of $68,563 this equates to a cost/benefit ratio of $195/13illion Colonies
removed.
PROGRAM EVALUATION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
As noted earlier in this report, the WQRP for Fecal Coliform in Goose Creek upstream of
SR 1524 will be suspended as of July, 2011. This affects all of Mint Hill and
Mecklenburg County and a portion of Stallings that were previously included in the
WQRP.
FUTURE EFFORTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM IN GOOSE CREEK
Mint Hill and Mecklenburg County will continue to implement their IDDE program in
the Goose Creek Watershed. Monthly fixed interval monitoring at MY9 will continue as
part of Mecklenburg County's water quality monitoring program. Additionally, Mint
Hill and Mecklenburg County will continue to implement their Phase 11 discharge permits
in the watershed, which require certain minimum measures to protect water quality.
13

Appendix A
Collect Date
Site
Result
Units
7/15/09 10:00
MY14
88
CFU/100 ml
8/19/09 10:10
MY14
200
CFU/100 ml
9/16/09 10:00
MY14
400
CFU/100 ml
10/21/09 11:00
MY14
960
CFU/100 ml
11/18/09 9:40
MY14
750
CFU/100 ml
12/15/09 10:11
MY14
300
CFU/100 ml
1/20/10 10:50
MY14
320
CFU/100 ml
2/17/10 10:15
MY14
240
CFU/100 ml
3/17/10 8:30
MY14
280
CFU/100 ml
4/21/1011:30
MY14
390
CFU/100 ml
5/19/10 12:20
MY14
250
CFU/100 ml
6/16/10 10:0Q
MY14
560
CFU/100 ml
6/21/10 9:52
MY14
390
CFU/100 ml
7/15/09 9:30
MY9
840
CFU/100 ml
8/19/09 9:40
MY9
330
CFU/100 ml
8/19/09 9:45
MY9
410
CFU/100 ml
9/16/09 9:45
MY9
560
CFU/100 ml
10/21/09 10:45
MY9
760
CFU/100 ml
11/18/09 9:00
MY9
120
CFU/100 ml
12/15/09 9:40
MY9
380
CFU/100 ml
1/20/10 10:20
MY9
540
CFU/100 ml
2/17/10 10:00
MY9
430
CFU/100 ml
3/17/10 8:15
MY9
370
CFU/100 ml
4/21/10 11:00
MY9
380
CFU/100 ml
5/19/10 12:40
MY9
690
CFU/100 ml
6/16/10 9:40
MY9
660
CFU/100 ml
6/21/10 9:37
1 MY9
900
CFU/100 ml
14

APPENDIX B
ProtectingGoese Creek — Vlhat is being done ar:d what You can do_
Goose Creek has been identifies as polluted by the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) due to elevated bacteria levels. DENR has issued written notification to the Towns of
Mint Fill, Indian Trail and Stallings that requires a plan to reduce bacteria levels and restore water
quality conditions in the creek.
The Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Plan aims to guide effors to improve water quality conditions
in Goose Creek. In 2010 many programs have been undertaken to find and eliminate pollution ;ources
that cause high levels of fecal bacteria in the stream.
While inspecting the stied I I I, Adfi LIINLuveie j 0IdL
app•oximately fcrty head of beef cattleihad direct access to
Goose Creek. Livestock in or near a creek can negatively
impact water quality and damage stream banks. In fact,
bacteria levels were 73 percent higher downstream from
the cattle than upstream levels.
Mecklenburg County staff is working with the owner tc
keep the cattle out of Goose Creek. T.1is will be
accomplished by installing aparoximately 1200 feet of
fencing along the main channel of Goose Creck and 450 fact of fence along a tributary of Goose Creek.
In addition, over 1,000 inspections of private septic systems have been completed in the Goose Creek
Watershed. Inspectors loo'c for signs of a malfunctioning system and Identify conditions that may cause
the septic system to stop working correctly in the future. Upon completion of the field inspection, staff
Rives the septic system owner a written description of what they found and any corrective measures
that need to be taken. So far nire septic system prob'ems have been discovered in the Goose Creek
Watershed and corrected.
In the planning stage is a project that will also help reduce the amount of
bacteria in the water. I: is a product called "Smart Sponge" that will be fitted
into four storm drains in Mint Hill. The drains are in a neighborhood where
storm water samples show high bacteria counts. I heSmart Sponge is
installed in the storm drain inlet where the popcorn like material alloy!, water
to pass thraugh, but captures pollutants such as bacteria, oil. dirt particles
and other suspended solids,
All of these project; wilt help restore the water quality of Goose Crcck, but we can't do it without you!
Remember to pickup after you pets. maintain yours septic systems and plant trees. Be a Water
Watcher and report pollution to your local storm water agency, In Mint hill, call 311. In Indian Trail, call
7C4-821-1118.In Stallings, call, 704-821-8557.
15

Appendix C
Septic System Inspection Summary Report
Goose Creek Watershed
Catchment
1
4
3
12
6
8
9
2
5
10
14
7
11
13
Totals
# Parcels in catchment
245
363
350
430
410
227
200
110
113
95
94
64
23
16
2740
# Vacant parcels / parcels served by sewer
58
95
102
244
177
88
146
107
34
43
49
27
30
7
1187
# Systems inspected
178
248
246
96
229
139
54
3
77
50
43
37 _
13
9
1422
It Systems inaccessible
9
20
2
14
4
1
0
0
4
2
2
0
0
0
58
Total # septic systems
187
268
248
110
233
140
54
3
81
52
45
37
13
9
1480
# NOVs issued
3
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
13
# Systems w/ trees in drain field
41
73
53
20
52
50
17
0
43
17
12
11
4
5
398
# Systems w/ irrigation in drain field
19
14
51
3
1
5
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
96
# Owners present for the inspection
68
86
60
23
62
35
9
0
36
14
9
10
4
3
419
# Sites w/ wells present
105
152
154
68
105
101
54
3
76
17
36
34
13
9
927
Average age (yrs.) of systems inspected
26.33
27.84
16.00
23.80
33.76
31.39
29.32
30
26.96
13.2
21.2
26.57
45.61
32.56
27.40
Total cost for Inspections
$9,205.94
$11,876.17
$11,504.97
$4,561.95
$11,027.05
$6,793A6
$2,524.57
$120.21
$3,825.40
$2,345.31
$2,097.87
$1,666.25
$633.58
$380.67
$68,563.30
Total hours for inspections
219.20
286.75
256.75
113.85
263.10
162.50
59.25
3.00
90.50
55.75
49.25
39.75
15.25
9.5
1624.4
Average cost per inspection
$51.72
$47.89
$46.77
$47.52
$48.15
$48.87
$46.75
$40.07
$49.68
$46.91
$48.79
$45.03
$48.74
$42.30
$47.08
Average time (hrs.) per Inspection
1.23
1.16
1.04
2.19
1.15
1.17
1.10
1.00
1.18
1.12
1.15
1.07
1.17
1.06
1.13
Inspector
# Inspections
Josh Sellers
14
37
139
0
51
35
14
0
6
12
11
13
1
0
333
Jeremy Michelone
21
27
0
43
13
21
13
0
21
13
11
10
4
0
197
Jeremy Michael
50
46
0
21
54
25
13
3
22
16
9
12
5
9
285
Jason Jackson
25
56
0
32
65
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
214
David Cornelius
41
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
Philo Walker
27
36
107
0
46
22
14
0
28
9
12
2
3
0
306
178
248
246
96
229
139
54
3
77
50
43
37
13
9
1422
16

Chartaffe•Mecklenburg
STORM
RF WATER
Services
August 13, 2010
700 North Tryon Strcet
Charlotte, NC 28202
Fax: [phone]
Mike Randall
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Re: Goose Creek Recovery Program — Fiscal Year 2009 - 2010 Annual Report
Dear Mike,
Please find enclosed a copy of the Goose Creek Recovery Program — Final Report for
Fiscal Year 2009-2010. It documents the activities necessary for compliance with the
WQRP through September 1, 2010 for the 'towns of Mint Hill, Matthews and Stallings as
well as Mecklenburg County. This report provides documentation of the activities
completed during the year that were conducted to satisfy the requirements of the Goose
Creek Recovery Program. Specifically, the following requirements have been satisfied:
l . Monitoring. Land -use and In -stream monitoring were performed iri the
watershed.
2. Non-structural f3MPs were implemented in the Watershed. Specifically,
education and septic system inspections.
3. Annual Meeting. The Goose Creek WQRP Advisory Group met on October
6, 2009.
4. A Structural 13MP (livestock exclusion) has been funded and designed and is
expected to be constructed before the end of 2010.
During the upcoming year, several changes to the WQRP are planned:
1. Cease land -use monitoring. As discussed during the October 6, 2009 annual
meeting, land -use monitoring will be suspended. The dataset is large enough
to draw conclusions regarding fecal coliform concentrations in runoff from
the dominant land -uses in the watershed. Land -use monitoring may be
restarted as decided by the WQRP Advisory Group.
2. Re -initiate stream walks. Stream walks will be re -initiated in the Mint : 0
Hill/Mecklenburg County portion of the watershed. All Mint ;zID
v hfl
Hill/Mecklenburg County streams will be re -walked in FY10-11 and every
years thereafter.
3. In -stream Monitoring. In -stream monitoring will be conducted at MY9 ands- r
MY 14A on a monthly interval. In -stream monitoring will also be conductell
upstream (if possible) and downstream before and after septic inspections t �F
document any changes in fecal coliform concentrations from the inspection A C�
•
To report pollution, call: 704.336,5500
To report drainage problems, call: 311
CHARIMI1?. http://stormwatcr.charmeck.org 0.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence please call David
Kroening at 704-336-5448 or via email at David. Kroening_na Mecklenburg_CountyNC.gov
incersly,
� C
David 11. Kroening

Randall, Mike
From:
Kroening, David [[e-mail]]
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, September 08, 2010 9:23 AM
Randall, Mike
Cc:
Rozzelle, Rusty
Subject:
Upcoming WQRP meeting agenda item
Mike,
Just wanted to give you a heads up regarding the upcomirig ycose WQRP meeting. I -put you on the agenda to provide
clarification regarding required versus voluntary WQRP a Specifically, we would like to hear from you if there
will be any required changes to the WQRP due to the proposed language for the Phase II permits. Similarly, we would
like feedback regarding structural BMP retrofits and if we should ',t::t them as a requirement — in the past there has
been an indication that they are not explicitly required and we•:vouid like to tie that down during the meeting.
Thanks
dk
David Kroening
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services
Water Quality Program
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte NC, 28202
704-336-5448
[e-mail]

Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Agenda: September 15, 2010 10:00 —12:00
Mint Hill Town Hall
Purpose: To update the Advisory Group on the Status of the WARP, receive input on the current and
proposed activities and define the path forward.
Outcomes:
1. Implement the Adaptive Management Section of the WARP: Receive input from the Advisory
Group
2. Receive feedback from the state on the minimum requirements of the WARP
3. Define the path forward.
I. Water Quality Recovery Program Review
a. Historical Activities
b. Annual Report
C. Education and Training
d. Septic System Inspections
e. Livestock Exclusion
f. Additional Stream Walks
II. Monitoring Data
a. In -stream data
b. Land -use data
III. BMP opportunities under evaluation by Mint Hill/Mecklenburg
IV. Feedback from NC DENR regarding required vs. voluntary WARP activites
V. General Discussion

North Carolina Water Quality Recovery Program Outline
Purpose
Identify the pUrpOSe and goals of a TMDL Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP).
The purpose of the Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) I'lanf is to reduce levels of
the pollutant of concern in'accordanec with the assigned MS4 NPDLS regulated WastC
Load Allocation (WLA) identified in the approved Total Maximum Daily Load ('1'MDL).
The goal ol'the Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) is to identify BM1's and
strategies, tinge frames and costs necessary to return Ille impaired segments to compliance
with state water quality standards.
Background
Identify the watershed and provide brief description including details such as vegetation, topography,
climate, hydrology, geology, soils, current and future land use, industrial, municipal, and other point
source dischargers, stream classifications, aquatic species, and relevant history.
Provide a map or maps as necessary showing; watershed location and land use or other important
information.
Add information about TMDL (approval date, affected streams, related NPDES permit info, etc.).
Establish a TMDL, Implementation Team
Assemble a team ol'stafl'representalives from affected municipal agencies that conduct activities in the
TMDL watershed. Identify other potential staff resources as necessary to serve on "TM DL
Implementation `beam. Based on the pollutant of concern, municipal agencies could include stormwater,
wastewater, public works, street maintenance, solid waste, and others. The Perrilittee (MS4) will be
responsible for interpreting data, judging BMP effectiveness, reporting to DWQ, and coordinating
activities and reviews with the Implementation "Team to meet the components and goals of the WQRP.
Staff will need to be adequately informed of the specific requirements of the WQRP.
Staff will also need to be informed ol'their specific duties and responsibilities toward
fulfilling the WQRP.
i
Permit Requirement. Within 12 months of the effective date of the permit or of becoming subject to all
approved'TMDI., the perinitlee shall establish a Water Quality Recovery Program.
fl eves- Qualify Rrroro y Progr•um Oullr+re I Afurck 5, 2009

Public Education and Outreach Program
Establish and implement a Public Education and Outreach Program. Establish a website to document and
disseminate information and results. Workshops for the general public, publicized through media releases,
will be held for the purpose of explaining efforts are being undertaken to reduce the pollutant(s) of
concern.
Sample Public Education and Outreach Program
0 1-'stablish a wcbsite to document and disseminate inforn-lation and results.
o Workshops for the general public, publicized through media releases, will be held for
the purpose of, explaining efforts are being undertaken to reduce the pollutant(s) of
concern.
• Develop and distribute public education materials to identified groups.
Pollutant or Pollutants of Concern
Discuss the pollutant or pollutants of concern in the TMDL watershed. Each approved TMDL will assign
a regulated waste load allocation (WLA) for the pollutant of concern. Discuss any concerns related to the
Pollutant of concern, state standards, water quality targets, etc. Conduct an assessment of the available
data for pollutant of concern. An assessment of actual and potential sources should also be included as
described in the related TMDL In addition, discuss any other water quality concerns, issues, or
contributing Factors in the watershed.
MS4 Major Outfall Identification
Identify and map the location of knoWn 111aJOr 011tfllls (as defined in the MS4 NPDES per-rnit) within the
1'ernnittee's jurisdictional area with the possibility of discharging the pollutant of concern to the impaired
segments, its tributaries or to segments and tributaries Within the watershed contributing to the impaired
segments.2
Create a schedule to locate the position of unknown major outfalls that may discharge the pollutant of
concern to the impaired segment, its tributaries or to segments and tributaries within the watershed
contributing to the impaired segments-'
Provide map of watershed showing streams & outfalls.
Permit Requirement. Within 12 months of the effective date of the permit or of becoming subject to an
approved TMDL, the permittee shall identitythe_locations of cIE1r_ently known M54 outlalls within its
jurisdictional area with the potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of concern to (lie impaired segiments, to their
tributaries, and to segments and tributaries within the watershed contributing to the impaired segments.
Permit Requirement. Within 12 montlis of the effective date of the permit or of becoming subject to an
approved TMDL, the perimittee shall develop a schedule to discover and locate other MS4 outfalls
within its jurisdictional area that may be discharging the pollutant(s) of concern to the impaired stream
segments, to their tributaries, and to segments and tributaries within the watershed contributing to the
impaired segments.
IValerQualaY leveoverr Frggram Urrllirre 2 Alurch 25, 00Y

Monitoring Plan
Develop the WQRP monitoring plan' for each pollutant of concern and submit the monitoring; p]atl to
DWQ for approval.
I'lie goals of the WQ1ZP monitoring plan are:
1. Identify the significant sources of the pollutant of concern.
2. Evaluate the performance of 13MI's utilized in the WQRP, where possible.
3. Assess progress toward the goals of the WQRP at the TMDL identified compliance point.
The monitoring plait shall include:
• I he Satllplc location by wrstt£11 desCrtl)tlon iltld latitude and longitudecoorclln$tcs
• Sample type
• Frequency
• Any seasonal considerations, and
• A monitoring implementation schedule for each pollutant of coneet-n
The monitoring plan shall include in -stream anchor major outlall monitoring at locations dectned
necessary to supposl assessment of activities in the Water Quality Recovery Program to address tlic MS4
NPDI:S regulated Waste Load Allocation (WLA) identified in the TMDL. Where appropriate, the
pernlitlee may reduce the monitoring; burden by proposing to monitor in -stream sites and/or major out fulls
that the Division would consider substantially similar to other in -stream sites and/or major outfalls in the
defined TMDL watershed.
The monitoring plan shall be adjusted as additional in -stream sites and/or major outfalls are idetltiGccf in
accordance with the schedule required in the Storni Water Management Plan and a5 aCClSIllUlfltlllg data
May suggest.
Existing Structural BMPs, Non-structural BMPs, and Regulatory Strategies
Identify and assess existing structural BMPs, non-structural BMPs, and regulatory strategies being
employed to determine their effectiveness to address the Waste Load Allocation identified in the TMDL.
Initial targeted HMI's may include:
• Increased public education effoos
• Watershed specific website
• hlcs-cased public participation
• Struclural13MPs
• L;xistitlg regulatory and non -regulatory strategies
• Low Impact Design (1,I1)) strategies
4 Permit Requirement. Within 24 montlis of the effective date of this permit or ofbecoming subject to an
approved TMD1, the permittee shall develop a monitoring plan for each pollutant of concern,
Waler Quality Recuroq Prairrmn Outline 3 March 25. 2009

Additional Structural and Nan -structural BMP Strategies
Identify and assess additional structural BMPs, non-structural BMPs, and reguiatory strategies to
determine if any additional struc111r11 f31VWS, non-structural 13MPs, and regulatory" strategies should be
employed to address the Waste Load Allocation identified in the TMDL.
Based on the initial BMP Identification and Assessment, additional targeted 13MPs may include:
• Increased IDDE — stream walks, monitoring, etc
• Increased point source or industrial inspections
• Increased municipal operations, street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, etc.
• Development of additional regulatory and non -regulatory strategies
Implement Appropriate Strategies
Develop a schedule to implement appropriate structural I3NIPs, non-structural BMPs, and regulatory
strategies to control the pollutant(s) of concern to the maximum extent practicable.
Implementation Schedule
Develop an implementation schedule including specific activities and schedules.
Sample Implementation Schedule
• Identify the purpose and goals of'a TMDL Water Quality Recovery Program
(WQRP)-by the end of year 1
• Identify the watershed and provide brief description -by the end of year I
• Assemble a team of staff representatives from affected municipal agencies
• I starfish and implement a Public Education and Outreach Program -by the end of
year 1
• Conduct an assessment of the available data For pollutant of concern — by end of year
• Complete MS4 major outf'all identification — by end of year 2
• Develop and submit a schedule to discover and locate all other MS4 outfalls within
its jurisdictional area that may be discharging the pollutant(s) of concern to the
impaired stream segments, to their tributaries, and to segments and tributaries within
the watershed contributing to the impaired segments — by end of year 2.
• Develop WQRP monitoring plan and submit to DWQ — by end of year 3
• Identify existing structural BMPs, non-structural 13MPs, regulatory strategies being
employed — by end of year 4
• Identify and assess additional structural BMPs, non-structural BMPs, and regulatory
strategies — by end of year 4
• Develop a schedule to implement appropriate structural BMPs, non-structural B1VIPs,
and regulatory strategies to control the pollutant(s) of concern to the maximum extent
practicable— by end of year 5
WaterQualilr Kacoior, Program Outline 4 hkrrch 25. 2009

WQRP Reporting
Activities and assessments conducted under the WQRP will be reported to DWQ along with the annual
report submitted each year for the MS4 NPDf S permiit.5 1n the first annual report, due no earlier than 12
months alter tlic applicability of a TMDL, (lie Permittee shall include:
• The location of currently known MS4 outfalls with the potential of discliargmg the pollutant(s) of
concern, the schedule for discovering and locating currently unknown MS4 oulfi-Ills with the
potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of concern, and
• The monitoring plan.
'flit next and each subsequent annual reports' Shall include:
• A review of programmatic management measures, existing WQRP data, watershed data,
monitoring data and other relevant data.
• An assessment of tlic available data for each pollutant ofconcern,
• An assessment of the effectiveness of the 13M Ps cmployed,
• A map showing the location of major outfalls in TMDL watersheds with the potential for
discharging the pollutants of concern,
• An updated schedule for locating currently unknown major outfalls that may potentially discharge
the pollutants of concern in TMDI. watersheds,
• Identification of In -stream and out#all sampling locations, and
• Identification and assessment of additional structural and non-structural 13M1' strategics to
determine if any additional structural and non-structural 13M1' strategies should be employed to
address the Waste Load Allocation identified in the'INDI,
following any review and comment by the Division on tlie'I'MDL Water Quality Recovery Program, tile;
permitter shall incorporate any necessary changes into the program. Tile permittee shall incorporate the
revised TMDL WQRP into the Stormwater Management flan.
Using the data collected through stream monitoring and assessments, a cost -benefit analysis of the
elimination of the various sources for each pollutant of concern will be conducted by the Permittee in year
S. The purpose of this analysis will be to determine the most cost effective method of eliminating sources
of tlic pollutant(s) of concern detected through direct stream evaluation. Established loading rates for
each pollutant of concerts will be compared to the costs to eliminate sources, which might include illicit
discharges, septic systems failures, sanitary sewer overflows, illicit connections, domestic anittlals, and
leaking sanitary sewer lines. The results of the analysis will be used to prioritize limited funds for
elimination of the greatest loath for the least expenditure for each pollutant(s) of -concern,
The permittee shall include the location of currently known MS4 outfalls with the potential of discharging the
pollutant(s) ofconcern, the schedule for discovering and Iocating currently unknown MS4 outfalls with site
potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of concern, and the monitoring plan, in the first annual report due no
earlier than 12 months after the applicability of a TMDL.
The next and Cads subsequent annual report shall include an assessment of the available data for each pollutant
of concern, and an assessment of the effectiveness of the BNIPs cmployed, to determine what, if any, additional
13MP measures may be necessary to address the MS4 NPDES regulated Waste Load Allocation (WLA)
identified in the TMDI_. The permittee shall implement appropriate BMI's to control the MS4 NI'DES WL.A
portion of the pollutant load for (lie pollutant(s) of concern to the maximum extent practicable. Implementation
of the appropriate best management practices constitutes compliance with the standard of reducing pollutants to
the maximum extent practicable.
Water Quahly kecoveny Program 01111ine J Afeirch 25. 200

M
Permit Requirements
Within 12 months of the effective date of this permit or of becoming subject to an approved TMDL,
the permittce shall establish a Water Quality Recovery Program, identify the locations of currently
known MS4 outfalls within itsjurisdictional area with the potential of discharging the pollutant(s)
of concern: to the impaired segments, to their tributaries, and to segments and tributaries within the
watershed contributing to the impaired segments and develop a schedule to discover and locate
other MS4 outfalls within its jurisdictional area that may be discharging the pollutant(s) of concern:
to the impaired stream segments, to their tributaries, and to segments and tributaries within the
watershed contributing to the impaired segments.
2. Within 24 nlontlls of the effective date ofthis permit or of becoming subject to in approved TMDL
the permittee shall develop a monitoring plan for each pollutant of concern. The monitoring plan
shall include the sample location by verbal description and latitude and longitude coordinates,
sample type, frequency, any seasonal considerations, and a monitoring implementation schedule [or
cacti pollutant of concern. Where appropriate, the pcnllittee may reduce the monitoring burden by
proposing; to monitor outfalls that the Division would consider substantially similar to other
outfalls. The permittee may also propose in -stream monitoring where it would complement the
overall monitoring plan. The monitoring plan shall be adjusted as additional outfialls are identified
in accordance with the schedule required in (a) above and as accunlulatingg data may suggest.
The permittee shall include the location of currently known MS4 outtalk with the potential of'
discharging the pollutant(s) of concern, the schedule for discovering; and locating currently
unknown MS4 outfalls with the potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of concern, and the
monitoring plan, in the first annual report due no earlier than 12 nlontlls after the applicability of a
TMDL.
4. `file next and each subsequent annual report shall include an assessment of the available data for
cash pollutant of concern, and an assessment orthe effectiveness of the BMPs employed, to
determine what, if any, additional 13MP pleasures may be necessary to address the MS4 NIID11S
regulated Waste Load Allocation (WLA) identified in the'l'MDL. The permittce shall inlplenlent
appropriate, 13MPs to control the MS4 Nil])]-S WLA portion of the pollutant load for the
pollutapt(s) of concern tothe nlaxiMuni extent practicable. Iinplcnlentation oft lie appropriate best
management practices constitutes conipliance with the standard of reducing pollutants to the
nlaxinlunl extent practicable.
Following any review and comment by the Division on the TMDL Water Quality Recovery
11rograin and monitoring; plan, the permittce shall incorporate Tiny necessary changes into the
program and/or monitoring plan. The permittee shall incorporate the approved TMDL Water
Quality Recovery Proggranl into the Stornlwater Plan.
Perms! Requrr677c'01(s
Mardi 25, 100Y

Water Quality Recovery Program Life Cycle
0
Progi'arrn Development
Establish a TMDL WARP, identify outfalls,
develop a schedule for identifying outfalls
and develop a monitoring plan.
Improvements
Adapt the program as necessary or appropriate
Program Evalualion
Assess the effectiveness of the program at meeting
TMDL targets
Assess program activities and data
Complete a cost -benefit analysis
Implementation
Implement appropriate monitoring and BMPs
Incorporate the TMDL WORP into the
Stormwater Management Plan
> Implement public participation and outreach
> Implement staff development
Data Collection and Documentation
> Current and potential outfalls with the potential of
discharging the pollutant(s) of concern
Monitoring Data
Data on structural and non-structural BMPs
> Data on public participation and outreach
activities
Data on staff development
Data on implementation and administration cost
Water Quali(1' Reeurei), Prngrasr Life C},cle ,tlarch 25, 2009

Goose Creek Recovery Program
Final Report for Fiscal Year 2009-2010
Prepared by: David Kroening
07/21 /2010

PURPOSE
The purpose of the Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) is to achieve
and maintain compliance with Mint Hill's Phase 11 NPDES Discharge Permit (Permit
number NCS000395) requiring the development and implementation of a Water Quality
Recovery Program for the Goose Creek Watershed for Fecal Coliform Bacteria. This
report documents activities for FY09-10, which spans from July 1, 2009 through June 30,
2010.
BACKGROUND
The Water Quality Recovery Program requirement was specified in a letter dated August
10, 2006.from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources --
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Subsequent to the August 10, 2008 letter, DWQ
released the Goose Creek TMDL — WQRP Guidance Document on October 11, 2006.
The Guidance Document specifies several deadlines for achieving and maintaining
compliance with the requirement. The deadlines and specific requirements pertinent to
FY2009-2010 are as follows:
Requirement Task Deadline
Annual Assessment of data collected -for each September 1, 2010
Report pollutant of concern (fecal coliform)
Assessment of the effectiveness of the
BMPs employed and propose additional
BMP measures that may be necessary to
return the impaired segments to compliance
The WQRP was created during FY2006-2007 by the Mecklenburg County Water Quality
Program in cooperation with the Towns of Mint Hill (Mecklenburg County), Stallings
and Indian Trail (Union County). During FY2007-2008 the Mecklenburg County Water
Quality Program identified all MS4 outfalls in the three aforementioned jurisdictions,
developed a monitoring plan and produced this annual report. Furthermore, on May 6,
2008 DWQ submitted a letter stating that the tasks presented under Requirement 1.
Program Development had been satisfied.
ACTIVITIES
The activities performed for the WQRP during FY2009-2010 are as follows:
Continued Implementation of the Monitoring Plan for Goose Creek WQRP. The
MCWQP continued implementation of the Monitoring Plan for the WQRP, which
began in July, 2007 and continued throughout FY09-10. These activities were
performed as outlined in the plan and the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
MCWQP.

2. Continuation of the Septic System Inspection_ Program. The Mecklenburg County
Individual Water and Wastewater Program continued the program in Basin 3, 4,
G, 8 and 12 of the Goose Creek Watershed.
3. Completion of Staff Training and Informational Sessions for the General Public:
Staff training and informational sessions for the general public were held during
FY09-10.
4. Submission of FY08-09 Annual Report: The final version of the FY08-09 Annual
Report for the WQRP was submitted to DWQ in September, 2009.
IN -STREAM SAMPLE RESULTS
As specified in the Monitoring Plan for the Goose Creek WQRP MCWQP staff collected
in -stream fecal coliform samples at MY9 (Goose Creek at Stevens Mill Road) and
MY14 (Duck Creek at Tara Oaks) and land -use samples from 9 sites within the
watershed. The sites are described in detail in the monitoring plan. Data collected at
MY9 and MY14 is intended to be a measure of watershed scale fecal coliform values.
Figure 1 shows the historical distribution of in -stream data. Appendix A provides the
FY09-10 data in table format. Figure 2 shows the distribution in stream fecal coliform
data collected during FY09-10. Figure 3 presents the FY09-10 in -stream fecal col Flo rill
results along with the corresponding flow (at Goose Creek and Mill Grove Road) the
samples were collected at. Figure 4 presents a time history of the in -stream fecal
coliform sample results collected during FY09-10. Figure 5 is a comparison of the flows
in -stream samples were collected at compared with all flows observed at Mill Grove
Road. `fable 1 presents basic statistics on the in -stream data collected during FY2009-
2010 along with recent historical data. Appendix A presents the in -stream fecal coliform
sample results for MY9 and MY14.
N

Fizure 1: Historical Distribution of In -Stream Fecal Coliform Data
Current and Historical Distribution of In -Stream Fecal
Coliform Data for
the Goose Creek Watershed
100000
10000
1000
100
10
9/19/1991 6/15/1994 3/11/1997
12/6/1999 9/1/2002 5/28/z005
2/22/2008 11/18/2010
3

'1�'UIG 4. P I V7-1 V III- M;4111 FlG; .CII %.UIIk UI1LtOLILJ1141 CIL 1V1 17 C111U 1V1 1 1`t
Goose Creek In -Stream Fecal Concentration vs Sample Date
1200
1000
goo
600
400
200
t MY14
t MY9
0 '
5/17/2009 7/6/2009 8/25/2009 10/14/2009 12/3/2009 1/22/2010 3/13/2010 5/2/2010 6/21/2010 8/10/2010
Axis ntle
4

Figure 3: Flow versus in -stream Fecal Coliform Concentration for FY09-10 samples
Goose Creek Feca I Concentration vs Flow
1200
♦ MY14
■ MY9
1000
■
■
Soo
c
O
�
C
600
a
■
400
200
0
0
2 4 6 B I0
12

Ig'UIC 4. I IIIIC ILINLV1y UI III-NLCUUM Mt, tUl CUI11V11I1 C10UCCRLIULIU11 UL11111g I' I V7-I V
Goose Creek In -Stream Fecal Concentration vs Sample Date with Flow
1200
1000
800
r
600
400
200
♦ MY14
■ MY9
-USGS Flow
♦
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1000
100
114111111111111111
1
0 0.1
5/17/2009 7/6/2009 8/25/2009 10/14/2009 1213/2009 1/22/2010 3/13/2010 5/2/2010 6/21/2010 8/10/2010
Axis 1HIe

Figure S: Comparison of in -stream sampled flows with observed flows.
Goose Creek Observed and Sampled Flows
35
t Observed Flows
t Sampled F lows
30
25
20
LL
]5
10
s
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Percentile
Table 1: Basic statistics of fecal coliform results from MY9 and MY14
Statistic
MY14
FY09-10
MY9
FY09-10
MY14
FY08-09
MY9
FY08-09
MY9
FY07-08
MY9
812004 — 6/2007
Minimum
88
120
56
88
31
13
Maximum
960
900
6600
4200
19000
13000
Avera a
394
526
880
796
809
715
Median
320
485
520
445
390
440
25th Percentile
250
380
228
270
240
250
75th Percentile
400
683
860
900
700
760
90th Percentile
712
816
2100
1990
1360
1200
LAND USE SAMPLE RESULTS
Land -use samples were collected at 9 locations in the Goose Creek Watershed during
FY2009-2010. Samples were collected from runoff generated from individual land -uses
during 9 unique events. Table 2 presents a list of the sites, land -uses sampled and
jurisdiction. Table 3 presents the basic statistics for the results from each site. Sample
results are included with this report in Appendix B (all results for all years are included).
Figure 6 presents all land -use fecal coliform sample results collected during the entire
duration of the WQRP. Figure 7 shows the distribution of the fecal results collected from
VA

the 3 - 0.25-0.5 acre residential sites (one each in Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail).
Appendix B presents the sample results for the land -use sample sites.
"fable 2: Land -use Sample Sites Established for the Goose Creek WQRP
Jurisdiction
Landuse
1D
Location
Site Notes
Mint Hill
D.25-0.5 ac res.
A
15030 Yarmouth Rd.
Mint Hill
Inst. School
B
6400 Matthews Mint
Hill Rd.
Queens Grant Community
School
Mint Hill
Inst. School
C
11524 Bain School
I -Rd.
Bain Elementary
Mint Hill
0.5 - 1 ac. Res.
D'
5221 Turkey Oak Dr.
Mint Hill
1-485
E
1-485 b/w Lawyers
Rd. and Hwy. 218
Stallings
0.25-0.5 ac res.
F
9108 Tenby Ln.
Stallings
Commercial
G
7800 Stevens Mill
Rd.
behind Harris Teeter
Indian Trail
0.25-0.5 ac res.
H
7006 Joyful Noise
Ln.
Indian Trail
Active
Development
1
2002 Centerview Dr.
Table 3: Results of the Land -Use Samples (all data used)
0.25-0.5
acre res.
0.5 - 1
acre res.
Commercial
Active
Development
1485
Inst.
School
Min
20
20
20
50
77
20
Max
200,000
23,000
85,000
210,000
60,000
106,000
Average
23,372
5,041
10,235
30,033
10,104
12,266
Median
5,500
2,500
2,100
6,900
1,750
1,300
25th
Percentile
1,400
190
295
2,325
268
120
75th
Percentile
25,250
6,200
9,700
46,000
17,750
8,400
90th
Percentile
74,900
15,400
32,100
80,500
26,600
40,000
8

Figure 6: Distribution of Land -use sample data (all data for all years used)
Distribution of Goose Creek Landuse Fecal Coliform Samples
220,000
acre res.
1 acre, res.
9

MONITORING RESULTS DISCUSSION
In -Stream Monitoring
A total of 26 in -stream samples were collected from MY9 and MY14 in the Goose Creek
Watershed during FY09-10. Of these sample results, 24 (92%) were in excess of the 200
cfull 00 ml standard and 12 (46%) were in excess of the instantaneous 400 cfilll 00 ml
standard. Processing of these results to determine the 30 geometric mean throughout the
fiscal year was not possible because of reduced sample frequency (approximately 1
sample collected per month). Further analysis by associating the fecal coliform results at
MY9 and MY14 with USGS flow at Mill Grove Road did not yield a strong relationship.
Although the samples were collected over a wide range of flows (see Figure S) that
somewhat represented the flow history at the gauge during the year, no strong
relationship between flow and fecal coliform concentration was observed. However a
general trend of decreasing fecal coliform concentration with increasing flow may exist.
Somewhat surprisingly, moderate, high and very high concentrations were detected at all
flows and at both sites. 'These observations may indicate the following:
• Sources of fecal coliform are likely similar between MY9 and MY14. Neither
data set exhibited a strong correlation with flow (Figure 3).
• There are multiple sources of fecal coliform within the watershed capable of
causing violations of the in stream standard. The standard is routinely violated
10

during dry weather and storm water conditions. If the sources.were isolated to
dry weather then decreased concentrations in storm water should be observed,
conversely if sources were isolated to storm water then baseflow concentrations
should be lower. Neither of these possibilities is supported by the dataset.
• The sources of fecal colifomn in the Goose Creek Watershed are relatively
constant. Fecal coliform results in excess of the standard were observed
consistently throughout the past (Figure 1). These conclusions are supported by
the FY09-10 results, which were consistent with historical values. It is likely that
the sources of fecal coliform in this watershed today are the same or similar to the
sources in the past.
• In -stream concentrations of fecal coliform tend to be lowest during periods of
higher base flow (December 2009 — April/May 2010). This may be due to
constant sources being more diluted by higher base flow.
• In -stream fecal coliform samples collected during FY09-10 tended to somewhat
under -represent the highest 20% of flows detected in Goose Creek at Mill Grove
Road (see Figure 5).
Land -use Monitoring
Review of the results from the land -use monitoring samples collected for the WQRP
indicate that samples from 0.25-0.5 acre residential land -uses generally had the highest
concentrations of fecal coliform (Figure 6). Of the 0.25-0.5 acre residential sites (3), the
samples From Indian Trail and Mint Hill were routinely higher than the Stallings Site
(Figure 7). At this time the reason for this difference is not known. Concentrations
detected from the active development site were also higher than the mean for all sites
(Figure 6). The high concentrations for the active development site may be related to site
stabilization and erosion control issues. The concentrations at the active development
site tend to mimic 0.25-0.5 acre residential sites. These observations support the
following conclusions:
• BMP retrofit efforts for fecal coliform bacteria should be focused upon 0.25-0.5
acre residential land -uses in the Goose Creek Watershed.
• Site stabilization vroblems at active development sites may contribute significant
fecal co arm to Goose Creek.
• The lowest concentrations detected were from 0.5-1 acre residential land -uses.
This is notable because much of the watershed is comprised of lower density
residential land use. One potential reason for the lower concentrations is the grass
swale drainage conveyance which removes fecal coliform and helps to infiltrate
storm water runoff.
• Commercial, institutional and 1-485 sample results tended to cluster together
indicating similar sources of fecal coliform may be contributing to the
concentrations from these land uses. Typically, however storm water runoff
volumes from these land -uses tend to be higher, which increases the overall fecal
coliform load for a given concentration.

PUBLIC EDUCATION
Staff training; for the municipal staffs of Stallings, Indian Trail, Mint Hilt and
Mecklenburg County was conducted on November 13, 2009 at the Stalling Civic Center.
The training addressed the WQRP and Site Specific Management Plan for the Goose
Creek Watershed.
A citizen workshop was advertised and held on February 16, 2010 at the Stallings Civic
Center. 'rhe WQRP and Site Specific Management Plan for the Goose Creek. Watershed
were discussed.
On 12/21/2009 Erin Oliverio and Catherine Knight mailed 512 postcards on proper pet
waste disposal to residents that live in Goose Creek Watershed. All of the residents have
property that touches the creek or its tributaries. A copy of the postcard is as follows:
What can you do?
♦ Pick up after your pet every single time
♦ Check with your pet store for products that
make picking up easy,
♦ Throw away pet waste in the garbage;
never wash it into the gutter or storm
drain.
• Never dispose of waste in or leave it near
creeks and lakes.
• Carry extra bags in your car so you are
prepared when you travel with your pet.
♦ Educate neighbors.
Visit http://stormwater.charmeck.org
and click Pollution Prevention
for more information.
Tryon St.
Re. N( M02
$.ab1�a Work-cK
12

WHY SCOOP THE POOP?
Cleaning up pet waste is good for your health
and the environment. Seriously.
It is estimated that there are over 218,000 dogs
in Mecklenburg County - and those dogs are
producing 72,000 pounds of waste each day!
r Pet waste left on the ground, especially near
streets and sidewalks, gets washed into storm
drains which flow to your local waterway...
without being treated.
Bacteria, parasites, and viruses found in pet
waste can he harmful to human health and
water quality.
Picking up pet waste is the responsible thing to
do for you, your kids and the environment.
An article was published in Volume I Number XXIII of the Mint Hill News on issues in
the Goose Creek•Watershed including the Carolina Heelsplitter and the WQRP.
BMPs EMPLOYED
Both structural and non-structural BMPs have been employed in the Goose Creek
Watershed. During FY09-10, a structural BMP involving livestock exclusion from
Goose Creek was approved. Additionally, inspection of septic systems in the watershed is
the only on -going non-structural BMP. Specific BMPs are as follows:
Cattle Exclusion from Goose Creek at 12601 Bain School Road
Constructed by: Under Construction (anticipated completion September, 2010)
Jurisdiction: Mint bill
BMP Type: Cattle Exclusion (Fencing and alternate water source)
Installation Date: September; 2010
Basin: Basin 5
BMP Removal Efficiency for Fecal Coliform: Variable (see below)
Assumptions:
1. Each cow produces 9.42x 10' 2 cfu/year
2.' 'In July and August 50% of cow scat is directly deposited in the creek
3. During the rest of the year 5% of the scat is directly deposited
4. There are 40 cows being fenced
5. The cost of the project is $20,000
13

Septic System Inspections:
The Goose Creek Watershed is somewhat unique in Mecklenburg County in so far as it is
largely devoid of sanitary sewer pipes with most residences being served with an on -site
septic system. As such a pilot study for the inspection of individual septic systems was
implemented during FY08-09 in Basin 1 of the watershed. Inspections were performed
by Mecklenburg County Ground Water and Waste Water Services inspectors. They
inspected a total of 178 systems within Basin 1 and found 5 failing or out of compliance
systems, which were fixed. This resulted in an estimated daily load of 7.4 x 107 cfu/100
ml per failing septic system being removed from Goose Creek. A total daily load
reduction of 3.7 x 108 cfu/100 ml was eliminated via fixing the 5 systems. Staff also
handed out 59 dye packs to homeowners of systems that appeared to operating correctly
for them to flush down the commode to determine if there was a linkage between septic
systems and Goose Creek. Visual inspection of Goose Creek did not detect the presence
of dye indicating there was little or no connection between the septic systems dyed and
the creek. Upon completion of the inspection of the systems within Basin 1 it was
decided to pursue inspections on the remainder of the systems within the Mint Hill
portion of the watershed. During FY09-10 approximately 50% of the remaining systems
were inspected. Appendix C presents a more specific breakdown of the septic system
inspections by basin. The results of the inspections are as follows:
15

I
Basin ID
#Parcels
# Systems
Inspected
# Inspections
Refused by
owner
#NOVs
Issued
Failure
Rate
1
245
179
9
3
1.7%
4
397
248
20
0
0%
3
366
246
2
1
0.4%
12
443
96
14
0
0%
6
317
229
4
3
1.7%
8
197
139
1
0
0%
Totals
1965
1137
50
7
0.6%
Note: Basin 1 was completed as the pilot study.
Cost Benefit Analysis: 1C�co k
c�
A total ofVa@_in s stems were corrected during I�Y09-10. This results in an estimated
annual load of 1,89 x 10 efu bein removed from Goose Creek. At a cost of $47,085.10
this equates to a cost/benefit ratio f $249/Billion colonies removed. 3cro- oe�
a- r3 M P
PROGRAM EVALUATION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
A stakeholders group made up of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, Stallings, Indian Trail
and Union County was formed in 2006. One of the purposes of this group is to evaluate
the WQRP and make recommendations to change it. The group met on October 6, 2009
at the Mint Hill Town Hall and representatives from each jurisdiction were in attendance.
Most of the discussion at the meeting centered upon monitoring, particularly land use
monitoring. Several key decisions were made during the meeting:
1. The land -use monitoring should be stopped at the end of FY09-10. The land -use
monitoring is not yielding new information regarding fecal coliform levels from
different land -uses. Therefore, Mike Randall agreed that the monitoring could 75S
cease.
2. The septic system inspections were a cost effective method for removing fecal
coliform from Goose Creek. The pilot project completed in FY08-09 should be
expanded to the entire watershed.
3. Where possible, simple BMPs, such as Iivest6ek exclusion should be pursued as
they are more cost effective than traditional retrofit BMPs. .
4. Stream walks provide an effective method for the identification and elimination of
sources of fecal coliform impairment. Mecklenburg County will begin to walk
Goose Creek and its tributaries during FYI 0-1 1.
FUTURE EFFORTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM IN GOOSE CREEK
16

Efforts during FY09-10 will be centered on expanding upon the information collected
during FY08-09. Specifically, these efforts will be focused upon improvements to the
monitoring program, installation and/or improvement of structural BMPs and continued
implementation of non-structural BMPs.
Monitoring Program
During FYI 0- 11 several specific changes to the monitoring program will be
implemented:
1. Fecal coliform samples will be collected downstream of basins scheduled for
septic inspection both before and after inspections have been conducted. The
goal of these efforts is to quantify in -stream affects from the septic system
inspection program.
2. In -stream samples will continue to be collected from MY9 and MY 14.
3. The land -use monitoring will be suspended.
Structural BMPs
Other than the completion of the cattle exclusion project on Bain School Road no
structural BMP retrofit projects are planned for FYI 0-1 1. Mint Hill continues to pursue
McWhirter Lake, which would act as a structural BMP however the property has not yet
been secured. Additional BMP retrofit opportunities exist within the watershed, however
funding is currently not available.
During June, 2010 Mecklenburg County staff toured BMPs on NC DOT property in the
Goose Creek Watershed. Sites for additional BMPs were recommended to NC DOT
personel.
Non -Structural BMPs
MCSWS in conjunction with MCGWWWS will complete the inspection of all septic
systems in the Goose Creek Watershed.
r
SoVV'U �A
,--x- k 1 E , I ° �k e-1-
A 41 Mt C" e � J, 'ri f k-
PA"AO4--a
`{���+.. Q .• al- 2 17
P"'J
ti s�-
3 l drok-�—
P,e'J
-rs 5
11

APPENDIX A
Site
Collect Date
Result
Units
MY14
7/15/09 10:00
88
CFU/100 ml
MY14
8/19/09 10:10
200
CFU/100 ml
MY14
9/16/0910:00
400
CFU/100 ml
MY14
10/21/09 11:00
960
CFU/100 ml
MY14
11/18/09 9:40
750
CFU/100 ml
MY14
12/15/09 10:11
300
CFU/100 ml
MY14
1/20/10 10:50
320
CFU/100 ml
MY14
2/17/10 10:15
240
CFU/100 ml
MY14
3/17/10 8:30
280
CFU/100 ml
MY14
4/21/10 11:30
390
CFU/100 ml
MY14
5/19/10 12:20
250
CFU/100 ml
MY14
6/16/10 10:00
560
CFU/100 ml
MY14
6/21/10 9:52
390
CFU/100 ml
MY9
7/15/09 9:30
840
CFU/100 ml
MY9
8/19/09 9:40
330
CFU/100 ml
MY9
8/19/09 9:45
410
CFU/100 ml
MY9
9/16/09 9:45
560
CFU/100 ml
MY9
10/21/09 10:45
760
CFU/100 ml
MY9
11/18/09 9:00
120
CFU/100 ml
MY9
12/15/09 9:40
380
CFU/100 ml
MY9
1/20/10 10:20
540
CFU/100 ml
MY9
2/17/1010:00
430
CFU/100 ml
MY9
3/17/10 8:15
370
CFU/100 ml
MY9
4/21/1011:00
380
CFU/100 ml
MY9
5/19/10 12:40
690
CFU/100 ml
MY9
6/16/10 9:40
660
CFU/100 ml
MY9
6/21/10 9:37
900
CFU/100 ml
18

APPENDIX B
Mint Hill
Stallings
Indian Trail
Mint Hill
Stallin s
Mint Hill
Mint Hill
Mint Hill
Indian Trail
Site
0.25-0.5 acre
res.
0.25-0.5 acre
res.
0.25-0.5 acre
res.
Commercial
Commercial
I nst.
School
0.5 - 1 acre.
res.
1-485
Active
Development
10/25/2007
14,000
7,600
37,000
13,000
27,000
8,400
3,600
21,000
77,000
12/28/2007
440
190
1,400
310
440
120
120
750
2,100
2/1/2008
570
1,500
4,800
170
660
180
1,500
540
230
2/13/2008
1,200
77
5,000
20
290
77
20
260
700
2/22/2008
2,300
64,000
1,000
640
20
92
380
2/26/2008
2,100
20
16,000
62
180
20
2,200
120
2,400
3/4/2008
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
77
50
.3/712008
540
50
12,000
190
960
270
77
1,100
4,200
8/13/2008
52,000
108,000
42,000
63,000
57,000
106,000
6,200
60,000
58,000
8/26/2008
13,000
15,000
43,000
9,400
32,000
12,000
23,000
5,300
63,000
9/16/2008
12,000
32,000
100,000
9,800
22,000
40,000
5,100
17,000
8,000
9/26/2008
5,100
5,800
65,000
2,100
6,400
40,000
3,800
5,200
36,000
11/14/2008
2,000
4,600
43,000
660
2,800
2,300
330
20C
9,400
12/10/2008
10,000
3,600
12,000
2,100
5,000
690
190
2,100
3,200
1/6/2009
5,200
10,000
8,800
270
2,100
810
4,200
270
5,400
2/18/2009
100
100
2,700
100
180
100
2,500
100
230
6/5/2009
76,000
13,000
150,000
12,000
9,100
910
19,000
4,500
82,000
6/17/2009
76,000
79,000
4,700
22,000
45,000
10,000
21,000
87,000
7/13/2009
140,000
22,000
2,100
33,000
2,300
4,000
1,400
10/5/2010
3,600
25,000
3,000
23,000
4,800
3,800
23,000
4,400
42,000
10/12/2009
22,000
49,000
26,000
5,100
41,000
7,200
1,100
47,000
9,300
11/10/2009
1,400
4,800
2,500
180
450
29,000
450
29,000
9,600
12/2/2009
180
3,000
1,400
270
630
1,300
8,600
990
5,800
2/2/2010
540
630
9,800
990
1,100
100
100
180
4,800
5/3/2010
200,000
5,800
2,200
85,000
6,400
6,000
6,800
20,000
210,000
M

APPENDIX C
Septic System Inspection Summary
Report
Goose Creek Watershed - Catchment 1
April to June 2009
# Parcels in catchment
245
# Vacant parcels
58
23.67%
# Systems inspected
178
95.19%
# Systems inaccessible
9
4.81%
Total # septic systems
187
# NOVs issued
3
1.69%
# Dye packs given out
59
33.15%
# Systems w/ trees in drain field
41
23.03%
# Systems w/ irrigation in drain field
19
10.67%
# Owners present for the inspection
68
38.20%
# Sites w/ wells present
105
58.99%
Average age (yrs.) of systems inspected
26.33
# Systems inspected 178
Total cost for inspections $9,205.94
Total hours for inspections 219.20
Average cost per inspection $51.72
Average time (hrs.) per inspection 1.23
%
Inspector
# Inspections
Hours
Cost
Inspections
Josh Sellers
14
17.50
$784.14
7.87%
Jeremy Michelone
21
33.35
$1,346.18
11.80%
Jeremy Michael
50
44.25
$1,796.40
28.09%
Jason Jackson
25
40.15
$1,621.95
14.04%
David Cornelius
41
26.00
$1,060.55
23.03%
Philo Walker
27
57.95
$2,596.72
15.17%
178
219.20
$9,205.94
20

Septic System Inspection Summary Report
Goose Creek Watershed - Catchment 12
November 2009 through January 2010
# Parcels in catchment
# Vacant parcels / parcels served by sewer
# Systems inspected
# Systems inaccessible
Total # septic systems
# NOVs issued
# Dye packs given out
# Systems w/ trees in drain field
# Systems w/ irrigation in drain field
# Owners present for the inspection
# Sites w/ wells present
Average age (yrs.) of systems inspected
# Systems inspected
Total cost for inspections
Total hours for inspections
Average cost per inspection
Average time (hrs.) per inspection
Inspector
Jeremy Michael
Jeremy Michelone
Jason Jackson
430
244 56.74%
96 87.27%
14 12.73%
110
0
0.00%
N/A
20
20.83%
3
3.13%
23
23.96%
68
70.83%
23.80
96
$4,561.95
113.85
$47.52
1.19
Inspections
Hours
Cost
Inspections
21
22.50
$901.59
21.88%
43
44.50
$1,783.13
44.79%
32
46.85
$1,877.23
33.33%
96
113.85
$4,561.95
21

Septic System Inspection Summary Report
Goose Creek Watershed - Catchment 3
November 2009 through January 2010
# Parcels in catchment
350
# Vacant parcels / parcels served by sewer
102
29.14%
# Systems inspected
246
99.19%
# Systems inaccessible
2
0.81%
Total # septic systems
248
# NOVs issued
1
0.41%
# Dye packs given out
N/A
# Systems w/ trees in drain field
53
21.54%
# Systems w/ irrigation in drain field
51
20.73%
# Owners present for the inspection
60
24.39%
# Sites w/ wells present
154
62.60%
Average age (yrs.) of systems inspected
16.00
# Systems inspected 246
Total cost for inspections $11,504.87
Total hours for inspections 256.75
Average cost per inspection $46.77
Average time (hrs.) per inspection 1.04
Inspector Inspections
Hours
Cost
Inspections
Josh Sellers 139
138.00
$6,183.78
56.50%
Philo Walker 107
118.75
$5,321.09
43.50%
246
256.75
$11,504.87
22

Septic System Inspection Summary Report
Goose Creek Watershed - Catchment 4
August to October 2009
# Parcels in catchment
# Vacant parcels
# Systems inspected
# Systems inaccessible
Total # septic systems
# NOVs issued
# Dye packs given out
# Systems w/ trees in drain field
# Systems w/ irrigation in drain field
# Owners present for the inspection
# Sites w/ wells present
Average age (yrs.) of systems inspected
# Systems inspected
Total cost for inspections
Total hours for inspections
Average cost per inspection
Average time (hrs.) per inspection
Inspector
Josh Sellers
Jeremy Michelone
Jeremy Michael
Jason Jackson
David Cornelius
Philo Walker
363
95 26.17%
248 92.54%
20 7.46%
268
0
0.00%
N/A
73
29.44%
14
5.65%
86
34.68%
152
61.29%
27.84
248
$11,876.17
286.75
$47.89
1.16
Inspections
Hours
Cost
Inspections
37
37.00
$1,657.97
14.92%
27
23.75
$951.63
10.89%
46
53.25
$2,133.80
18.55%
56
82.25
$3,295.53
22.58%
46
46.00
$1,843.22
18.55%
36
44.50
$1,994.02
14.52%
248
286.75
$11,876.17
23

Septic System Inspection Summary Report
Goose Creek Watershed - Catchment 6
February - March 2010
# Parcels in catchment
410
# Vacant parcels / parcels served by sewer
177
43.17%
# Systems inspected
229
98.28%
# Systems inaccessible
4
1.72%
Total # septic systems
233
# NOVs issued
3
1.31%
# Dye packs given out
N/A
# Systems w/ trees in drain field
52
22.71%
# Systems w/ irrigation in drain field
1
0.44%
# Owners present for the inspection
62
27.07%
# Sites w/ wells present
105
45.85%
Average age (yrs.) of systems inspected
33.76
# Systems inspected 229
Total cost for inspections $11,027.05
Total hours for inspections 263.10
Average cost per inspection $48.15
Average time (hrs.) per inspection 1.15
Inspector
Inspections
Hours
Cost
Inspections
Jeremy Michael
54
57.75
$2,314.08
23.58%
Jeremy Michelone
13
14.50
$581.02
5.68%
Josh Sellers
51
51.00
$2,285.31
22.27%
Philo Walker
46
51.25
$2,296.47
20.09%
Jason Jackson
65
88.60
$3,550.17
28.38%
229
263.10
$11,027.05
100.00%
24

U
Septic System Inspection Summary Report
Goose Creek Watershed - Catchment 8
April - May 2010
# Parcels in catchment
227
# Vacant parcels / parcels served by sewer
88
38.77%
# Systems inspected
139
99.29%
# Systems inaccessible
1
0.71%
Total # septic systems
140
# NOVs issued
0
0.00%
# Dye packs given out
N/A
# Systems w/ trees in drain field
50
35.97%
# Systems w/ irrigation in drain field
5
3.60%
# Owners present for the inspection
35
25.18%
# Sites w/ wells present
101
72.66%
Average age (yrs.) of systems inspected
31.39
# Systems inspected 139
Total cost for inspections $6,793.46
Total hours for inspections 162.50
Average cost per inspection $48.87
Average time (hrs.) per inspection 1.17
#
g�
Inspector
Inspections
Hours
Cost
Inspections
Jeremy Michael
25
31.75
$1,272.26
17.99%
Jeremy Michelone
21
23.25
$931.64
15.11%
Josh Sellers
35
35.00
$1,568.35
25.18%
Philo Walker
22
24.50
$1,097.82
15.83%
Jason Jackson
36
48.00
$1,923.39
25.90%
139
162.50
$6,793.46
100.00%
25