HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-19-2004-10aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 19, 2004
Action Agenda
Item No. ~Q"a.
SUBJECT: Status Report -Jordan Lake Stakeholder ProjectlNutrient Management Strategy
DEPARTMENT: Environment and Resource PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
Conservation
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Background Materials
2) Stakeholder Project Meeting Schedule
3) 9/17/04 OWASA Memorandum
4) Study Slide Handouts
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stancil, 245-2590
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive a report on the ongoing Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project, which will
yield a proposed Nutrient Management Strategy for the lake in late 2004.
BACKGROUND: The N.C. Division of Water Quality has been monitoring water quality in
Jordan Lake on a regular basis. Eutrophication (the aging process by which shallow lakes
gradually become dry as a result of the accumulation of sediment and organic matter) is an
area of concern for Jordan Lake. Nutrient enrichment contributes to the process as it causes
excessive growth of algae and aquatic plants, just as fertilizers applied to the land cause
grass, plants, and weeds to grow rapidly. Under natural conditions, this aging process
occtars over geologic time. However, the process can be greatly accelerated by human
activities in the watershed.
From 1999-2002, nine local governments and water providers in the Triangle and Triad
regions participated in the development of a Jordan Lake Nutrient Response Model. The
modeling found that Jordan Lake has elevated levels of nutrients -primarily phosphorus and
nitrogen -and high levels of chlorophyll a, which is an indicator of algal growth. The State
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) considers .tordan Lake to be one of the most biologically
productive or eutrophic lakes in the State.
As a result of these findings, the State has determined that the Upper New Hope Arm of
Jordan Lake (which includes Morgan Creek and streams in Chapel Hill and Carrbaro) must
address elevated chlorophyll-a levels that result from excessive nutrient loads (nitrogen and
phosphorus) to the lake, using a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standard to be enacted
2
early next year. Point sources account for 45% of the Total Nitrogen (TN) and 18% of the
Total Phosphorus (TP) load to the Upper New Hope Arm of the lake. Overall, it is estimated
that nonpoint sources contribute about 70% of the total nutrient load to the lake. Three major
publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants and several small privately owned "package'
plants discharge highly treated effluent just a short distance from the lake.
Over the past 16 months, a Jordan Lake Stakeholders Project, a joint effort of DWQ, Triangle
J Council of Governments and Piedmont Triad Council of Governments, has been formed.
This effort was created to provide a framework to address concerns about total phosphorus
and total nitrogen levels in the lake. The recommendations from the stakeholder project
would help the N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) develop a nutrient
management strategy for the entire watershed -especially the Upper New Hope arm.
Based on the modeling, it is expected that nutrient management measures to be developed
will need to address the non-point sources from developed land surfaces in the upstream
drainage area, which includes the New Hope Creek basin, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham
and RTP. If not managed properly, population and economic growth projected to occur in
the watershed over the coming decades will threaten the ability of the lake to support its
designated uses as a major regional drinking water supply, recreational resource, and
aquatic habitat. These management strategies likely to emerge from the study would
address both point-sources and non-point sources. This may translate into changes to local
stormwater programs, agricultural practices, development standards, and wastewater
treatment. This would be similar to new rules put in place for the Neuse River basin in 1999.
Discussions at recent stakeholders meetings have resulted in some disagreements between
and among utility providers, watershed groups and DWQ on the type and manner of nutrient
reduction strategies to be recommended. Several of the providers, including OWASA, have
cited a number of technical concerns and propose a phased, incremental approach to
nutrient reduction strategies. Some citizen watershed groups have expressed concerns
about the relatively less-stringent measures to be applied in the Haw River Arm of the lake.
In August, DWO staff announced an intention to recommend a phased approach to nutrient
management. A copy of a memorandum from OWASA Planning and Research Director Ed
Holland outlining some of these issues is attached. (Note: This memo is primarily concerned
with point-source issues for wastewater treatment).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact involved with receipt of this status report.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive as this report
as information and provide any comments to staff.
Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project
`o`~oF ~vnrF9oG
~ ~
U
o -~
3
Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project
Piedmont Triad Caunci! o/Governments
Raglonat Geographic inlormatlon Syslem
`I`riant;le J
,--„m Cowrcil of Goternntents
Purpose
The Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project will result in a Nutrient Management Strategy for the Jordan Lake
Watershed that will be presented as a recommendation to the Envirorunental Management Commission,
Background
In the newly released draft 303(d) list, the New Hope River Arm of Jordan Lake is proposed to have a
Total Maximrrrn Daily Load (TMDL) developed to address elevated chlorophyll a levels resulting from
excessive nutrient loads to the lake. Recently, nine local governments funded the completion of a
nutrient response model for Jordan Lalce at a total project cost of more than $400,000. The model is a
tool for predicting how different nutrient loads might affect lake water quality. It will provide the
technical basis for establishing the nutrient TMDZ, for all or part of Jordan Lake.
Based on the recently completed iordan Lake Nutrient Response Modeling Project, it is estimated that
nonpoint sources contribute about 70% of the total nutrient load to the New Hope Ann of the lake.
Three major publicly owned wastewater treatment plants and several small privately owned "package"
plants discharge highly treated effluent just a short distance from the lake. Clearly, any future nutrient
management strategy will need to address both nonpoint and point source loads, and include
participation from many diverse watershed stakeholders.
Project Description
The Jordan Lake Nutrient Response Model shows that increases in point and nonpoint source nutrient
loads will further degrade lake water quality. If not managed properly, the population and economic
growth that is projected to occur in the watershed over the coming decades will further threaten the
ability of the lake to support its designated uses as a major regional drinking water supply, recreational
resource, and aquatic habitat, The "Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project" provides a fraznework for
addressing these concerns, assisting the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in developing the Jordan Lalce TMDL, azrd exploring
the possibility of developing a Voluntary Nutrient Management Strategy for the Jordan Lake Watershed.
Stakeholder Participation Informatio^
Below are links to additional information related to the overall project, as well as specific stakeholder
meetings. If you have any questions, please contact Sydney Miller, Triangle J Council of Govenunents'
water resources program manager, at 919-558-9392 or smiller fc~.org.
http://www.tjcog,dst,no,us/jorlak/jlsp.htrn 9/27/2004
.Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project
'1
The following schedule is intended to provide the opportunity for stakeholders to develop a Volmitary,
Nutrient Management Strategy for Jordan Lake in concert with the Environmental Management
Commission's adoption of Total Maximwn Daily Loads for the New Hope River Arm of Tordan Lake.
Meeting 1
Date: May 20, 1003
Time: 1..00-4:00
Place: Mebazze Arts azad Community Cezzter
Agenda: hzb•oduce stakeholders, describe pzapose of stakeholder group and schedule, and capture
stakeholder interests,
Meeting 2
Date: Janie 17, 2003
Time: L°00-4:00
Place: Mebane Arts and Conuzzzaziry Center
Agenda: Present TMDL„ implementation strategy, and prrocess used in the Neuse River° Basin
Meeting 3
Date: August 19, 2003
Time: 1:00-4:00
Place: Mebane Arts and Community Center
Agenda: Present,7ordmz bake Nuh•ient Response Model azzd Jordan Lake TMDL
Meeting 4
Date: September 16, 2003
Time: 1 r00-4.00
Place: Mebane Arts and Conzrzzuuity Center°
Agenda: Discuss Jordan Lake Nutr°ient Response Model scenarios mzd Present General Tf'atexshed
Loading Fazrzction model
Meeting 5
Date: October 21, 1003
Time: 1:00-4x00
Place: Mebazze Arts and Conzmzanity Center
Agenda: Present Jw•dazz Z.alce TMDL tmget and Disezzss potential model scenarios foz° nutrient
allocations.
Meeting 6
Date: November 12, 2003
Time: 9:00-I2: 00
Place: Mebane Arts and Conuzzzzraity Center
Agenda: Select Jordan Lalce zzutriezzt targets arzd Discuss potential model scerzar•ios. for nutrient
allocations.
Meeting 7
Date: December° 2, 1003
Time: 1:00-4; 00
Place: Mebane Ar°ts and Corzuzzzzzzi~ty Center
Agenda: Present Jordan I,alce nutrient targets and Brainstorm additional nutrient allocation scenarios.
http://www,tjcog.dst.nc.us/jorlak/jlsp,htm 9/27/2004
.lordan Lake Stakeholder Project _ --
Meeting 8
Date: January 2Q 2004
Time: 1:00-4:00
Place: Mebazze Ants azzd Conuzzuzzity Center
Agenda: Disczzss results of'EMC WQC meeting, Pz-esent preliznizzazy results of nud-ient allocations,
and Presezzt Neuse poizzt source allocatiozz sh~ategy.
Meeting 9
Date: March 16, 2004
Time: 1: 00-4:00
Place: Mebmze Arts and Conununity Center
Agenda: WORK SESSION, Develop nutrient allocations and Develop nutz°iezzt nzarzageznent strategies.
Meeting 10
Date: May .S, 2004
Time: 9:30-12: 00
Place: Mebane Arts and Corzununity Center
Agenda: WORK SESSION: Develop nutrient allocations azzd Develop nub•ient management strategies.
Meeting 11
Date: May 18, 2004
Time: 1:00-4:00
Place: Mebane Arts and Comnnznity Center
Agenda: Discuss nubzent allocations and Discuss zzzzU~ient management strategies.
Meeting 12
Date: August 18, 2004
Time: 1:00-4:00
Place: Mebane Arts and Conuzuznit)~ Center
Agenda: Discuss proposed nzztriezzt allocations azzd proposed nutrient nzmzagenzezzt sh~ategies.
Meeting 13
Date: August 30, 2004
Tune: 1.•30-4.00
Place: Archdale Building, RaleigTz
Point Sources: .Sth Floor Conferezace Roonz
Nonpoizzt Sources: 6th Flooz° Confererzce Roonz
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Upper New Hope Arm stakeholders.
Meeting 14
Date: September 1, 2004
Time: 9x30-12:00
Place: Archdale Building, Raleigh
Point and Nonpoint Sozn~ces: 6tlz Floor Cor fez•ence Room
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Haw River Arm stakeholders..
Meeting 15
Date: September 1.5, 2004
Tune: 9 .30-12: 00
Place: Kez°nodle SeziiorActivities Facility, Burlizzgton
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Haw River Arm sta/ceholders
http://www.tjcog..dst.nc.us/jorlak/jlsp.hhn 9/27/2004
.Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project
Meeting 16
Date: September 17, 1004
Time: 9:30-12:00
Place: Nortk Darr°lsmn YVRF
Agenda: WORK SESSION for' Upper New Hope Az°i~2 nwrpoirst source stake&olders.
Meeting 17
Date: October 5, 2004
Time: 1:00-4:00
Place: Graham Public Library
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Haw
River Arm nonpoint source stalteholders.
Meeting 18
Date: October 15, 2004
Time: 9:30-12:00
Place: Durhani County Main Library
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Lipper New Hope Ann nonpoint source stalteholders,
Meeting 19
Date: October 26, 2004
Time: 9:30-12:00
Place: I{.ernodle Senior Activities Facility, Burlington
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Haw River Arm point source stakeholders.
Directions to the Mebane Arts and Community Center
The Mebane Arts and Community Center is located at 622 Conigidor Street, Mebane, North Carolina.
From I-40, tape exit number 15.3 to NC 119. Turn onto NC 119 North. Take a left onto Holmes Road.
Take a right onto Third Street Extension. Take a left onto Corrigidor Street and the Mebane Arts and
Community Center will be on your left.
Agenda, May 20th, 200.3
1:00-1:05 Review Agenda
1:05-1:25 Brief Introductions
1:25-1:45 Present Project Overview acrd Timeline
1:45-3:50 Stalteholder Preparation
3:50-4:00 Present Next Steps
http://www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/jorlalt/jlsp.htm 9/27/2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ed Kerwin
FROM: Ed Holland
DATE: September 17, 2004
SUBJECT: Update on .Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
[Much ofYhe background infornzatiozz provided izz this nzen:o is talcezz fi~onz a Decenzber3,
200.3 zzpdate report that appeared in the Bom d's agerzda package of Decernber° 11,
2003.)
Baclttround
The "Jordan Lahe Stakeholder Project" is a joint effort of the NC Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), Triangle .l Council of Govenunents (TJCOG), and Piedmont Triad
Council of Goverrmlents (PTCOG) to provide a framework for a variety of stalteholders
to address concerns about water quality degradation caused by increasing levels of total
phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) in .Iordan Lake. Recormnendations from this
process aze intended to help the NC Envirormzental Management Commission (EMC)
develop a nutrient management strategy for the 1,700-squaze mile .Jordan Lahe watershed
and address specific water quality problems in the lalte's Upper New Hope Arm, which is
immediately downstream of Chapel Hill azrd Durham and much of the Reseazch Triangle
Park,
A hey tool for evaluating a range of management options has been the Jordan L,alte
Nutrient Response Model, which was developed at a cost of $400,000 by nine local
governments, including OWASA.
Water Quality Concerns
Excessive nutrients (TN and TP) from point and nonpoint sources degrade water quality
by supporting excessive levels of algae, which can impair the recreational, aquatic
habitat, and water supply value of a waterbody. Jordan Lake's Upper New Hope Arm is
subject to these conditions, and consequently is under a "TMDL" (Total Maximum Daily
Load) regulatory process, tluough which the EMC will determine (a) the maximum
nutrient loads that can be accommodated while achieving applicable water quality
Update on .Jordan Lalce Nutrient Management Strategy
September 17, 2004
Page 2 of'S
standards and (b) nutrient reduction targets to be achieved though a combination of point
and nonpoint management practices,
Based ou available information, point sources account for about 45 percent of the TN
load and 18 percent of the TP load to the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake. It is
clear that the success of any nutrient management strategy will depend on meaningful
control of nutrient loads from nonpoint as well as point sources. Because most of the
Upper New Hope Arm nonpoint load comes from developed (urban and suburbazi) land
surfaces, it will be importazrt that the nonpoint management strategy address both existing
and new development in the Can~boro-Chapel Hill-Durham-Research Triangle Park azea.
It is notable that the potential for Jordan Lalce nutrient problems has been a water quality
concern for more than .30 years, pre-dating the dam's construction in the early 1970s and
the lake's eventual impoundment in 1981. The lake was designated Nutrient Sensitive
Waters (NSW) by the EMC in 198.3, and all point sources received concentration limits
for allowable total phosphorus (TP) discharges. OWASA's TP limit has been 0.6 mg/L.
Historically, no TN limits had been imposed in the .Jordan Lake watershed; however, in
1997 the NC General Assembly enacted HB 515, which required that all wastewater
dischargers in NSW watersheds (such as .Jordan Lake) meet a TN limit of 5,5 mg/L -
unless a nutrient response model indicated that alternative nutrient limits would be more
appropriate.
To assure that regulatory requirements were based on the best available technical
information, OWASA and several local govenunents contributed to the development of
the .Jordan Lake Nutrient Response Model, as noted above, which has been a key tool of
the evolving management strategy,
Manaeement Implications
The outcome of this process may have important effects on local stormwater programs,
agricultural practices, development requirements, and on wastewater treatment discharge
limits, A similar regulatory initiative has been completed in North Carolina for the
Neuse River Basin.
Recent Activities
Representatives from more than three dozen stakeholder groups, including local
governments, environmental groups, agriculture, and the business conurrunity, have
pazticipated in a series of more than 15 meetings held fiom May 2003 tluough August
2004, but achieved little consensus. In early July, OWASA staff co-signed a letter to
DWQ (attached) outlining a series of technical concerns and proposing a phased or
incremental approach to nutrient reduction strategies. DWQ staff provided a written
response to the technical issues, but did not corrunent on the phased proposal until the
g
Update on .lordazr Lake Nutzient Management Strategy
September 17, 2004
Page .3 of 5
August 18, 2004 stakeholder meeting, when senior- DWQ staff announced their intention
to recommend that the EMC pursue a phased or "adaptive management" approach to the
nutrient reduction goals. Rather thazr inunediately imposing more stringent TN and TP
limits for wastewater dischargers, it is DWQ's intent to phase in these limits by 2011. Ir
the meantime, additional monitoring, technical evaluation, potential nutrient "trading"
among sources, etc. could result in modified reduction goals.
Implications for OWASA
The most important issue for OWASA will continue to be the degree of TN and TP
removal required at the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant. Currently
programmed improvements and the capacity expansion to 14.5 million gallons per day
(mgd) have been designed in anticipation of this regulatory process, and will
satisfactorily achieve the level of TN azid TP reductions that DWQ staff has proposed for
the Upper New Hope Arm, assuming plazrt flows of up to 14..5 mgd.
Historically, wastewater discharges have been regulated on a concentration basis; e.g.,
pounds (or milligrams) ofpollutazrt per gallon (or liter) of effluent. A facility is deemed
in compliance if it meets these concentration limits, regardless of whether it produces a
large or small volume of wastewater. OWASA's new TN and TP limits for the Mason
Farm Plant - as well as the new TN and TP limits for Durham and Durhanl County's
wastewater treatment plants -are based on annual mass load, rather thazz concentration
limits. This means that the total mass of TN or TP discharged during a calendar year
cannot exceed a specified amount. Daily loads (and concentrations) may vary - as long
as the total pounds of'I'hT or TP do not exceed the specified limit at the end of the year.
Existing and proposed mass loads limits, along with the equivalent concentrations that
correspond to a range of existing and future wastewater flows, aze presented below.
Table 1.
Annual Mass Load Limits and Effective Concentrations
Under OWASA's Exiting NPDES Permit (N00025241)
Permitted Total Nitrogen Total Phos horus
Flow Mass Load Limit Concentration Mass Load Limit Concentration
MGD) (Pounds) (mg/L) (Pounds) (mg/L)
12.0 409,448 11.21 11,030 0.30
14.5 409,448 9.28 11,030 0.25
18.5 409,448 7.27 11,030 0.20
22.5 409,448 5.98 11,030 0.16
Update on Jordan L,alse Nutrient Management Strategy
September 17, 2004
Page 4 of S
Table 2.
Annual Mass Load Limits and Effective Concentrations
Currently Proposed By DWQ
Permitted Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus
Flow Mass Load Limit Concentration Mass Load Limit Concentration
(MGD) (Pounds) (mg/L) (Pounds) (mg/L)
12.0 135,669 3.71 10,501 0.29
14,5 135,669 3.07 10,501 0.24
18.5 135,669 2.41 10,501 0.19
22.5 135,669 1.98 10, 501 0.15
The equivalent TN and TP concentration limits at future flows of 18.5 and 22,5 mgd
(which is the estimated ultimate or build-out flow for OWASA) shown in Tables 1 and 2
represent the practical limits of cm-rent wastewater treahnent technology. OWASA staff
remains confident that the improvements currently underway will enable the Mason Farm
Plant to meet the stringent new limits at flows of 14,5 mgd and probably beyond. This
will be fiuther enhanced by the OWASA/UNC wastewater reuse system, which will
reduce the effluent volume -and therefore the total nutrient load -discharged to Morgan
Creels,
Under DWQ's proposed management strategy, all dischargers to the Upper New Hope
Arm of Jordan Lake (OWASA, Durhain, Durham County, plus several small private
facilities) would be subject to the same equivalent concentration limits. Annual mass
load limits would vary with the maximum permitted flow (volume) for each respective
facility. Because of Jordan Lalse's unique hydrology, and as reflected in results of the
Nutrient Response Model, wastewater dischargers in the Haw River ann of the watershed
would be subject to different (less stringent) mrtrient limits.
Enforcement of Point Source TN and TP Limits
DWQ has two principle approaches for administering uid enforcing the annual mass load
limits for point sources, One is to enforce the limits on afacility-by-facility basis, as is
currently done. The other is to enable point source dischargers to form a group
compliance partnership, and to issue the partnership a special "umbrella" permit based on
the total allowable TP and TN mass loads for all the participating facilities. Under that
approach, all dischargers would be considered in compliance as long as the group did not
exceed the allowed cumulative total. A group compliance approach has Ueen
implemented in the Neuse River Basin, and participants believe that such an approach
offers flexibility and "insurance" in achieving the collective point source nutrient load
reduction targets for that basin.
~o
Update on Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
September 17, 2004
Page 5 of 5
As further progress is made on the Upper New Hope Arm nutrient TMDL and on a
proposed watershed-wide nutrient management strategy, staff will work with managers of
other point source facilities to evaluate the merits of a group compliance partnership for
achieving the anticipated point source requirements for the Upper New Hope Arm.. Staff
will keep the Board informed of any meaningful progress on those discussions.,
OWASA's participation in such a compliance partnership would be subject to approval
by the Board of Directors.
Next Steps
DWQ is scheduled to present a recommended Jordan Lake nutrient management and
TMDL strategy to flee EMC before flee end of 2004, and will hold public hearings during
the spring or sununer of 2005. The fnal strategy and TMDL will include a schedule for
achieving the point and nonpoint source reduction goals from a variety of sources.
Staff will update the Board periodically as further information and proposals are available
regarding tlis regulatory process..
Edward A, Hollazld, AICP
Planning Director
attachment
Jordan Lake
Nutrient Management
Clty & County Managers
August 6, 2004
Sydney Paul Miller
Water Resources Program Manager
Triangle J
Council of Governments
Acro s
. Nutrient Sensitive • Nations\Ilu ion
Waler(NSW) Discharge
• Environmental
Management Elimination S tem
(NPDES)
Commission (EMC) • NC Division of
e House Bill (NB) Water Quality
(DWQ)
n
\Jordan Lake
Nutrient ~rlagement
• Regulatory Framework
• TMDL and NMS Development
• .Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project
~ ~ $
• North Carolina List • Total nif eq (TN)
of Impaired Waters
(303(d) List)
. Total Maximum .Total phosp or\us~
(Tp) ~\
• US Environmen I
Daily Load (TMDL) protection Agenc
(EPA)
e Nutrient Sensitive Water
e Total Maximum Daily Load
~a
1
~J
Nutrient Se?rs'tive Water
• State surface water classificati\
• Jordan Lake designated in 1983
• 1997 Clean Water Responsibility Act ( 515) ~
- Set nutrient limits (TP = 2 mg/L. TN = 5 5 mg )
- Option to develop a nutrient response model to
iustify different nutrient limits
Model I ation of
Current Condi iops
(annml average) \\
Percent Days \
> 40 pg/L
(~ 0-5
O 5-10% `\
10-15% u~ "Xr
15-20^/0 j~. -
20-30%
30-00%
• Federal requirement under Clea~ater Act
• Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan La
designated in the 2002 303(d) List
• Impairment based on chlorophyll a Stan qrd
• Modeling indicates both nitrogen and
phosphorus are co-limiting factors
Nutrient Res nse Model
• Developed by Tetra Tech, Inc \\~
• Originally funded by nine mumclpal Ces~at\
about $400,000 total project cosC
• Coupled hydrodynamic and water qualit
model (EFDC and WASP)
• Model simulates conditions from 1997 to
2001
. Model endpoint is chlorophyll a in the lake
Modulation of
Current Conditions
(growing season average)
Percent Days
> AO pglL
0.5 % rc
w
O 5-10% '
10-IS%
O 20-30%
O 30-00%
W_ ater flu lid ty Management
Plannin Cycle
~_
0 , ~,
tat ~ M1M1 rat n, ''
4 `~A loll r1J' ~\
E
II
~ ~~ i*
Gi it,I 'uc ri bb ~~~
P .~~ntlrl : P,t,, : 2d t vti
i
TMDL
13. Source assessment I
load
Nu pt Target Selection
lumped Segments i-0 ftesponso to New Hope.
Normeast, antl Morgan Creek Loatl Retlucllons
(wlumt~wegblM averaOxOrowin° season lrtyucnryol °xcuRlons)
-gym:
Pe„ml nl fXmcp~l9o
{=: En~wn~~on
woo
aoo \
2 ~ ~ sso
P 5, :oa
+so
s
+za
+oa
e°
GO
LL 1
Y
9: oa Prcm„mEmaoT<wxmw c9 tlWstralion from
Proposed N~tr'ent Targets
Upper New Hope Arm Haw Rive ACm
• 35°/a TN reduction • 5% TN red ctiOn ~~
e5%TPreduction •20%TPredution `
• 8%excursion a 8%excursion
frequency frequency
Nufrient Target Selection
Lumpetl SegmenLS t4 & 15 Response
io Haw River Load Changes
(wlumCwegMOtl.m°raaa er°win0 sea,°n Ganuenry°I exturslolss)
+ou
d
r. c.n9+mm=Py+9.
'~m 1°a~
a ~o 0
r ,sso
g ~ ~ ~ '. vo
3 uo
~ ao
+oa
u 00
°0
B x
{
al
cs9 9. 9, es + +v +av s
e PnPV9cnaf E,LmpTeW NbM 1x
Model
e Developed by Tetra Tech, Inc
• Consists of:
-Loading Model (GWLF)
-Delivery Model
-Spreadsheet Tool for aggregating
i~
3
Watershe ~ odel Results
,-rt
patial Distribution of
~-' - _ Ex~ e Total Nitrogen
'8' Load
-+;
~~ r
°o ;: ;: .:~ r u.' ~.
o ~. ,. '
o ,, ., t
®~. ~ :~
Nutrien urces
Total Nitrogen Tota Phosphorus
Point
Point 16%
32%
Nonpoint Nonpoint
68% 84%
Sour of Nonpoint
Phosphor Load
Other Residentia\
16% 12%
Commer al/ ~
Industrial \
Forest 6% ~
15%
Agriculture
51%
Watersh~ odel Results
r y' Sp hal Distnbution of
~' "~ ~"`~ -\ ~ '. Eke ~ Tolal Phosphorus
Load \
-~ ~ ~
~+~ ~ \
~rfl „r
o S. r"~-~
0
0
°~ rc~~
~_~_Soiarr; s~of Nonpoint
Nitrogeh oad
Other \
~° Reside fiat,
Forest 28% ~`
19% ~\
Commercia /
Industrial
10%
Agriculture
36%
Jordan Lafe~~Stakeholder
ProjeZ;t
\\.
• Participants
• Process
• Issues
15
4
Project
e Triangle.) Council of Governm' 1\~
• Piedmont Triad Council of Govern en
• NC Division of Water Quality, Mode (
and TMDL. Unit
• Tetra Tech, Inc.
• Natural Resources Leadership Institute
e NCDENR -Federal 104(6)(3) Grant
• Monthly meetings during May~003 - Ma}
2004 \
• Occasional working sessions
s Additional meeting scheduled for Aug t
18,2004
• Regularly updated project web site and e-
mail notices
e EMC decision expected in December 2004
Opportunities Participate
• Provide comments a[ any time ~T);. COG
• Attend the public hearing (not yet \\
scheduled)
e provide comments to DWQ during the
official comment period associated with ~re
public hearing
rs
I'olential ~ of
nimtions
O \\~ctual N of
r~ani
tions
rga
IdenliricJ \
Parl'cipating
Local Governments 30 I
State & Federal 40 14
Agencies
Nongovernmental 20 l l
Organizations
Why
o NPDES permit for a wastewate~i
in the Jordan Lake Watershed
e Own or manage land within the
Watershed
Stakeholder~Concerns
• Chlorophyll a standard ~\
• Data quality
• Model uncertainty and validity ~~~
tr Mandatory nutrient reductions For non inC\~
sources (State should go to rulemaking)
vs.
Voluntary strategy for agricultural land use
• Nutrient Trading
((v
More In ar ation
swww.t'co ,dst,naus/'orlal\htm
l g 1 J ~
• Sydney Miller, SICOG \
smiller@gcog org, 919-558-9392
-7
6