HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-03-2004-10aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 3, 2004
Action Agenda
Item No. ~ (~ _~
SUBJECT: Status Report -Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project/Nutrient 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.G. 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 acctamulation 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
occurs aver 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 (DWO) considers Jordan 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 Carrboro) 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 far 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 nanpoint sources contribute about 7Q% 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
.l 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-paint 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 an 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, DWQ 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 same 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
3
..O~~O~ WAT~~pG
y r
>_ ..,
O ~
Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project
Piedmont Triad Caancl! of Governments
Reglonnl Geagraphtc fnformatfoa Systom
'T`riangle J
F~ Ctluncil of Governments
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 Envirorrrrrental 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 Maximum 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 .Iordan Lake 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 TMDL for all or pazt of .Jordan Lake.
Based on the recently completed Jordan 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
pazticipation 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 tlueaten 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 L,alce TMDL, and exploring
the possibility of developing a Voluntary Nutrient Management Strategy for the Jordan Lake Watershed.
Stakeholder Participation Information
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 .T Council of Govermnents'
water resources progr'azn manager, at 919-558-9.392 or smiller f co .or .
hrip://www.tjcog,dst.naus/jorlak/jlsp.hhn 9/27/2004
Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project
4
The following schedule is intended to provide the opportunity for stakeholders to develop a Voluntary
Nutrient Management Strategy for Jordan Lake in concert with the Environmental Management
Commission's adoption of Total Maximum Daily Loads for the New Hope River Arm of Jordan Lake.
Meeting 1
Date: May 20, 100.3
Time: 1.•00-4; 00
Place: Mebane Arts arzd Conznzzznity Center
Agenda: Introduce stakeholders, describe purpose of stakeholder grozzp and schedule, and captza•e
stakeholder interests.
Meeting 2
Date: Jutze 17, 100.3
Time: 1:00-4.00
Place: Mebane Arts aztd Conuanznity Center
Agenda: Present TMDL, iznplenzetztation strategy, and process used izz tlie Neuse River Basin.
Meeting 3
Date: August 19, 200.3
Time: 1:00-4:00
Place: Mebane Arts and Conznnznity Center
Agenda: Preser:t.7ordmz Lake Nzztriezzt Response Model and Jordan Lake TMDL
Meeting 4
Date: September 16, .2003
Time: 1:00-4.-00
Place: Mebane Arts and Community Center
Agenda: Discuss Joz•dazz Lalce Nutrient Response Model scezzarios and Present Getzeral YYatezshed
Loading Function model
Meeting 5
Date: Octobez• 21, 2003
Time: 1.00-4.00
Place: Mebane Arts and Conzmznzity Center
Agenda: Present Joz°dmt bake TMDL, target arzd Discuss potential model scenarios, for nutrient
allocations.
Meeting 6
Date: November I2, 100.3
Time: 9; 00-11:00
Place: Mebane Arts and Cottzntuzzity Cetzter
Agenda: Select Jordata Lake nutrient targets and Discuss potential model scetzm•ios for nzztrierzt
allocations.
Meeting 7
Date: December 1, 1003
Time: 1.x00-4 00
Place: Mebane Az°ts and Community Center
Agenda: Present Jordatz I,a/ce nutrzezzt targets and Bt°ainstorm additiwtal nuh'ient allocatdon scenarios.
http://www.tjcog.dst,nc,us/jorlaldjlsplihn 9/27/2004
Jordan Lalce Stakeholder Project - --
5
Meeting 8
Date: January 20, 2004
Time: 1:00-4x00
Place: Mebane Arts and Conznzunity Center
Agenda: Discuss results of EMC WQC meeting, Present preliminary results of nztrient allocations,
and Pr°eserzE Neuse point source allocation strategy,
Meeting 9
Date: March 16, 2004
Time: 1; 00-4:00
Place: Mebane Arts and Comrnunita~ Center
Agenda: WORK SESSION: Develop nutrient allocations mzd Develop rzutrierrt marzagenzent strategzes
Meeting 10
Date: May .S, 2004
Time: 9.30-12:00
Place: Mebane Arts and Community Center
Agenda: WORK SESSION, Develop rzutrierzt allocatiwzs and Develop nutrient nzanagenzent strategies
Meeting 11
Date: May 18, 1004
Time: 1:00-4,00
Place: Mebane Arts and Connnzmit)~ Center
Agenda: Discuss nzztrier:t allocations arzd Discuss rzutrierrt rnarzagenzent str°ategies.
Meeting 12
Date: Azzgust 18, 2004
Time: 1:00-4.00
Place: Mebane Arts and Conzrnurzity Cerzter-
Agenda: Discuss proposed rzutrierrt allocations arzd proposed rudr°ient nzmzagemerzt strategies
Meeting 13
Date: Augzrst 30, 2004
Time: 1.°30-4:00
Place: Archdale Building, Raleigh
Point Sources. .5th Floor Conference Room
Nonpoirzt Sources,. 6th Floor Corzfw°ence Roonz
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Upper New Hope Arm stakeholders..
Meeting 14
Date: September 1, 2004
Time: 9 30-12.00
Place: Archdale Building, Raleigh
Point arzd Norzpoint Sources: 6th Floor° Conference Room
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Haw River Arm stakeholders.
Meeting 15
Date: September 1.5, 2004
Time: 9:.30-I2: 00
Place: Ker•rzodle Senior Activities Facility, Burlington
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Haw River Ar°nz stalcelzolders.
http://www.tjcog..dst_nc,us/jorlalc/jlsp.htm 9/27/2004
Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project
Meeting 16
Date: September 17, 2004
Time: 9:30-12:00
Place: Noy°th Dur°Isarn WRF
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Lipper New Hope Arn: nonpoi~it source stakeholders.
Meeting 17
Date: October 5, 2004
Time: 1:00-4:00
Place: Graham Public Library
Agenda: WORK, SESSION for Haw River Arm nonpoint source stakeholders.
Meeting 18
Date: October 15, 2004
Time: 9:30-12:00
Place: Durham County Main Library
Agenda: WORK SESSION for Upper New I-Iope Arm nonpoint source stakeholders,.
Meeting 19
Date: October 26, 2004
Time: 9:30-12:00
Place: ICernodle 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 Corrigidor Street, Mebane, North Carolina.
Fxom I-40, take exit number 153 to NC 119. Tuxn onto NC 119 North. Take a left onto Holmes Road.
Take a right onto Third Street Extension. Talce a left onto Conigidor Street and the Mebane Arts and
Community Center will be on yom left.
Agenda, May 20th, 2003
1:00-1:05 Review Agenda
1:05-1:25 Bxief Introductions
1:25-1:45 Present Project Overview and Timeline
1:45-3:50 Stakeholder Preparation
3:50-4:00 Present Next Steps
http://www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/jorlak/jlsp.htm 9/27/2004
7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board ofDirectors
THROUGH: Ed Kerwin
FROM: Ed Holland
DATE: September 17, 2004
SUBJECT: Update on Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
[Much of the background information provided in. this memo is taper: from a December .3,
.2003 update report that appeared in the Board's agenda paclrage of December° 11,
200.3.)
Background
The "Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project" is a,joint effort of the NC Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), Triangle J Council of Govenunents (TJCOG), and Piedmont Triad
Council of Govenunents (PTCOG) to provide a framework for a variety of stakeholders
to address concerns about water quality degradation caused by increasing levels of total
phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) in .lordan Lake, Recommendations from this
process are intended to help the NC Enviromnental Management Commission (EMC)
develop a nutrient management strategy for the 1,700-square mile Jordan Lake watershed
and address specific water quality problems in the lake's Upper New Hope Ann, which is
immediately downstream of Chapel Hill and Durham and much of the Research Triangle
Park..
A key tool for evaluating a range of management options has been the .lordan Lake
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 P,rm is
subject to these conditions, and consequently is under a "TMDL" (Total Maximum Daily
Load) regulatory process, through which the EMC will determine (a) the maximum
nutrient loads that can be accommodated while achieving applicable water quality
Update on .Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
September 17, 2004
Page 2 of 5
standards and (b) nutrient reduction targets to be achieved through a combination of point
and nonpoint management practices.
Based on 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
cleaz that the success of any nutrient management strategy will depend on meaningful
control ofnutrient loads from nonpoint as well as point sources. Because most ofthe
Upper New Hope Arm nonpoint load comes from developed (urban azrd suburban) land
surfaces, it will be importazrt that the nonpoint management strategy address both existing
and new development in the Canboro-Chapel Hill-Durhazn-Research Triangle Park area..
It is notable that the potential for .lordazr Lake 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 .Iordan Lake watershed; however, in
1997 the NC General Assembly enacted HB 515, which required that all wastewater
dischargers in NSW watersheds (such as .Jordan Lalce) 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 goverrunents contributed to the development of
the .Tordan Lake Nutrient Response Model, as noted above, which has been a key tool of
the evolving management strategy,
Management 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, envirorunental groups, agriculture, and the business community, have
participated in a series of more than 15 meetings held from May 2003 tlu-ough August
2004, but achieved little consensus.. In early .July, OWASAstaff 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 continent on the phased proposal with the
S
Update on Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
September 17, 2004
Page 3 of 5
August 18, 2004 stakeholder meeting, when seiuor DWQ staff announced their intention
to recoimnend that the EMC pursue a phased or "adaptive management" approach to the
nutrient reduction goals. Rather thair immediately imposing more stringent TN and TP
limits for wastewater dischargers, it is DWQ's intent to phase in these limits by 2011. In
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 and TP reductions that DWQ staff has proposed for
the Upper New Hope Arm, assuming plaint flows of up to 14.5 mgd.
Historically, wastewater discharges have been regulated on a concentration basis; e.g.,
pounds (or milligrams) of pollutant 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 Durham County's
wastewater treatment plants -are based on annual mass load, rather than concentration
limits. This means that the total mass of TN or TP discharged during a calendar year
cannot exceed a specified aznount. Daily loads (and concentrations) may vary - as long
as the total pounds of TN 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, are presented below..
Table 1.
Annual Mass Load Limits and Effective Concentrations
Under AWASA's Exiting NPDES Permit (NG0025241)
Permitted Total N itrogen Total Phos horns
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
q
Update on Jordan L,alce Nutrient Management Strategy
September 17, 2004
Page 4 of 5
Table 2.
Annual Mass Load Limits and Effective Concentrations
Currently Proposed By DWQ
Permitted Total N itrogen Total Phosphorus
Flow Mass Load Limit Concentration Mass Load Limit Concentration
MGD (Pounds) (mg/L (Pounds) (mg/L)
12.0 135,669 3..71 10,501 029
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 orbuild-out flow for OWASA) shown in Tables 1 and 2
represent the practical limits of current wastewater treatment 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 further enhanced by the OWASA/UNC wastewater reuse system, which will
reduce the effluent volume -and therefore the total nutrient load -discharged to Morgan
Creek.
Under DWQ's proposed management strategy, all dischargers to the Upper New Hope
Arm of Jordan Lake (OWASA, Durham, 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 Lake's unique hydrology, and as reflected in results of the
Nutrient Response Model, wastewater dischargers in the Haw River arm of the watershed
would be subject to different (less stringent) nutrient limits..
Enforcement of Point Source TN and TP Limits
DWQ has two principle approaches for administering and enforcing the amoral 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 "mnbrella" permit based on
the total allowable TP and TN mass loads for all the pazticipating 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 been
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
to
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 paint 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 participaticn 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 the EMC before the end of 2004, and will hold public hearings during
the spring or summer of 2005. The final 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 this regulatory process.
Edward A. Holland, AICP
Planning Director
attaclunent
~a
Jordan Lake
Nutrient Management
City & County Managers
August 6, 2004
Sydney Paul Miller
Water Resources Program Manager
Triangle J ,
Council of Governments
Acro y s
~
• Nutrient Sensitive lu ion
• Nationa
Water (NSW) Discharge
• Environmental Elimination S tem
Management (NPDES)
Commission (EMC) • NC Division of
• House Bill (HB) Water Quality
(DWQ)
Geog
Jordan Lake
Nutrient ~nagement
• Regulatory rramework
• TMDL. and NMS Development
• Iordan Lake Stakeholder Projec[
Acro yens
~~
• North Carolina List • Total nit qeq (TN)
of Impaired Waters • Total phosp orus~
(303(d) list) (Tp) ~
`~
• Tolal Maximum • US Environmen I
Daily Load (TMDL.) Protection Agenc
(EPA)
ework
• Nutrient Sensitive Water
e Total Maximum Daily Load
~J
Nutrient Se 'tive Water
• State surface water classificatio
• 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
justify different nutrient limits
Model ( - ation of
Current Condl inps
(annual average) \\
Percent Days \
> 40 pglL _. \ \\
0-5%
O 5-10%
10-15% u
15-20%
30-00%
• Federal requirement under Cleali~Ut`
• Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan La
designated in the 2002 303(d) List
e Impairment based on chlorophyll a st
e Modeling indicates both nitrogen and
phosphorus are co-limiting factors
Act
Nutrient Res nse Model
e Developed by Tetra Tech. Inc\~~
• Originally funded by nine municipal fes~at
about $400,000 total project cost \~~
• Coupled hydrodynamic and water qualit
model (EFDC and WASP)
e Model simulates conditions from 1997 to
2001
• Model endpoint is chlorophyll a in the lake
Mad~ulation of
Current Conditions
(yROwing season average)
Percent Days
a 40 pg/L
0-5% ~
O 5-10% n -
10-1>%
IS-20%
?0-30%
[~ 30-40%
Water to lia ty Management
Plannin ~ole
,,, ~ ;I,r ~ --
„~ .. ~b5,,, ~,t,~ ~, ~~~
_ \
7
'ii
4i u ~i -' t IYi+,- .
s,l,
TMDL De e opment
1. Problem identification
?. Target analysis \
3. Source assessment ~ \\
4. Linkage ofsowce and target
5. Determine maximum :dlowable load
G. Allocation oftaad/wastdoad
N~ -uti'ient Target Selection
Lumpetl Segments 1-0 Respansa to New Hopa.
Northeast. and Morgan Geek Loatl Reductions
(wlumo~welahlM avera0e O,owinp season Ircauenry olexcuaions)
-/1mt
r.~wnoluudevnw•
a=.Mw~.o
v 1.; x0°wn
zo 0
3 v ~~ xso
m°
y° v fEs
9 a°
wv
Ev
~` Ev
va vv ~ Illustmtian from
O'rrKlonolEW Mp TeW NInM o•
Proposed N r-lent Targets
~
Upper New Hope Arm Ha
ACm\
ti
% TN
d
\
• 35% TN reduction c
re
on
~
• 5
a 5°/a TP reduction • 20% TP redu lion
• 8°/a excursion • 6%excursion
frequency frequency
Nu Target Selection
Lumpetl Segments 74 & 15 Response
to Haw River Load Changes
Iwfumowe bnlN avera°e nrowinp scavon Genuenry of axwrslons)
^/ Is
r..mimamovnrv.
r,o,.xo.
Si ....~..xn0w,
- vo
n°
my
! ~
,.
~sv
~ ~
rz v
\ ,°o
~o
v
e yr I
os u , s
ee vAe~•=IESVwrawx~.u
e Developed by Tetra Tech, Inc
• Consists of:
- Loading Model (GWLF)
- Delivery Model
- Spreadsheet Tool for aggregating
i~-
3
I Results
°Sp fiat Distribution of
Ex~~i ec~Total Nitrogen
O ~
O
r~
o~
o •-
~,.
Nutrien urces
Total Nitrogen Tot~hosphorus
Point
Point 16%
32%
Nonpoint Nonpoint
68% 84%
ou~~~~~of Nonpoint
Phosphor~as,Laad
Other Resirlenfia\
Industrial
6%
61%
tl Results
apa~fiat Distribution of
Exed~ Dial Phosph
Load \
~~
O rv+
O
O
D
o•
® .
So •c~s\\of Nonpoint
Nitrogen Dad
Other
7°
Reside tial
Forost \
28%
19%
Commercia
Industrial
10%
Agriculture
36%
Jordan Lake Stakeholder
• Participants
• Process
• Issues
15
4
Project
o Triangle J Council of Governm t ~
o piedmont Triad Council of Govern en
• NC Division of Water Quality, Mode a\
and TMDL Unit
• Teha Tech, Inc.
• Natural Resources Leadership Institute
s NCDENR -Federal 104(b)(3) Grant
o Monthly meetings during May~003 -May
2004 \\
o Occasional worldng sessions
• Additional meeting scheduled for Aug t
18, 2004
• Regularly updated project web site and e-
mailnotices
s EMC decision expected in December 2004
Opportunities tc~Participate
• Provide comments at any tinme t ~ JCOG
e Attend the public hearing (not yet
scheduled) ~
o Provide comments to DWQ during the
official comment period associated with re
public hearing
Stake
Potential N of
O
i
ti \ t~CtuaL't of
O
~
i
(io
s
rgan
za
ons
1denUficd r
:m
za
n
Pa~'cip~ting
L ocal Governments 30 1
State & Federal 40 14
Agencies
Nongovernmental 20 11
Organizations
Why
o NPDES permit for a wastewatei
in the Jordan Lake Watershed
e Own or manage land within the
Watershed
Stakeho
o Chlorophyll a standard
• Data quality
• Model uncertainty and validity
• Mandatory nutrient reductions for non
sources (State should go to rulemaking;
vs
Voluntary strategy for agricultural land
• Nutrient Trading
icy
5
17
More I
s www.tjcog.dst.nc
• Sydney Mi11er, IICOG
smiller@ycog org, 919-SSSA392