# Presentation: 611780

## TMDL Case Study

**TMDL Case Study**

**Virginia - EPA Region 3**
**Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL **
**Development for the Muddy Creek Watershed**

## Muddy Creek Watershed

**Located in northwestern Virginia**
**Covers approximately 20,025 acres**
**Primarily pasture land, with some forest and urban areas**

- Washington DC

- Richmond

- Rockingham County

- South Fork Shenandoah Watershed

**Muddy Creek Watershed**

## Muddy Creek Watershed

## Muddy Creek – Problem Statement

**Included on VA’s 1998 303(d) list**
**Impaired due to fecal coliform bacteria exceeding state water quality criteria**
**Exceedances occur during both wet and dry weather conditions**
**Most probable sources include wildlife, poultry waste, livestock, and septic systems**

## Background: Fecal Coliform Bacteria

**Unicellular organisms**
**Found in warm-blooded animal waste (humans, livestock, domestic pets, and wildlife)**
**Monitored to indicate presence of pathogenic contamination**
**Human health effects from pathogenic contamination can range from nausea and vomiting to acute respiratory illness, meningitis, and even death**

## Muddy Creek - Water Quality Criteria

**Fecal coliform bacteria criteria in the state of Virginia are:**
**1,000 fecal coliform per 100 ml**
**not to exceed at any time**
**200 fecal coliform per 100 ml as a geometric mean**
**not to exceed, based on 2 or more samples over 30 days**

## Impairment Analysis

**In-stream water quality data inventory**
**Impairment confirmation**
**Magnitude of impairment**
**Frequency**
**Seasonal patterns**
**Background conditions**
**Identification of data sets to support modeling**

## Long-term Water Quality Monitoring – VA DEQ

**A.**
**Water Quality Monitoring Station 1BMDD005.81**

**B.**
**Water Quality Monitoring  Station**
**1BMDD000.40**

**A.**

_**Violations of 1,000 #/100 mL standard**_

**B.**

## Fecal Coliform Sources

## Source Assessment

**Nonpoint Sources**
**Agriculture**
**Cropland/hayland (application of cow manure and poultry litter)**
**Pasture and loafing lots (animal grazing and feeding)**
**Beef cattle, dairy cows, hogs, sheep, turkeys **
**Wildlife**
**Key wildlife contributions**
**Deer**
**Other small animals (beaver, muskrat, raccoon, etc.)**
**Urban**
**Built-up land areas (pets, waste products)**
**Septic systems **
**Point Sources**
**Wampler Facility discharge**
**Mt. Clinton Elementary School**

## Landuse Distribution

## Point Source Locations

**Mount Clinton Elementary School**
- Negligible Flow

**Wampler Foods**
- 1990 - 1998 DMR Data
- Flow (mean) = 0.47 cfs
- Fecal Coliform (mean) = 3.5
- Fecal Coliform (max) = 54.8

## Source-response Linkage

**Selected HSPF model to address following requirements:**
**Examine effects of both point and nonpoint sources**
**Quantify source loading under existing and hypothetical/management conditions**
**Examine in-stream conditions under various loading scenarios**
**Compare estimated in-stream concentrations to geometric mean-based water quality criteria**
**Identify critical periods when exceedances occur  **
**Define a load reduction plan that best meets the water quality standard**

## Modeling Approach

**Configure model to represent all sources **
**Calibrate hydrology (flow) and water quality (fecal coliform) for historical conditions**
**Evaluate loading scenarios that meet the fecal coliform criteria**
**assess how changes in source loads impact in-stream conditions**
**provide information for exploring opportunities in improved management practices**
**Complete the TMDL Equation for a successful scenario, i.e. allocate source loads**

## Source Loading Analysis

**Represent fecal coliform sources and  loading pathways (contribution mechanisms)**
**direct inputs**
**runoff/wet weather inputs**
**dry weather inputs**
**Source loading estimation**
**estimate nonpoint source loading, e.g. fecal coliform content in waste produced by animals**
**estimate point source loadings, based on discharge monitoring data**

## Waste Production by Animal

## Waste Usage on Agricultural Lands

**Poultry Litter **
**Cropland:  5 tons/acre/year**
**Pasture:  4 tons/acre/year**
**Liquid manure (confined dairy cows) **
**Cropland:  6,600 gal/acre/year**
**Pasture:  3,900 gal/acre/year **
**Direct waste contributions**
**Pasture**
**Grazing cattle (beef and dairy)**
**Unhoused turkeys**
**Sheep**

## Critical Influence: Grazing Cattle in Waterbodies

**Monitoring sweep identified high fecal concentrations during low-flow conditions**

**Field survey verified presence of cattle within waterbodies**

## Hydrology Calibration

**Adjusted model parameters to match model output with flow observations**
**Methods:**
**Temporal Plots/Comparisons**
**Annual**
**Monthly**
**Weekly**
**Daily**
**Hourly**
**Flow-frequency Curves **
**Linear regression**
**Statistical Comparisons**
**50% Lowest Flows**
**10% Highest Flows**

## Fecal Coliform Calibration

**Analytical Considerations:**
**Annual loading (overall amount)**
**Seasonal variability**
**Concentrations during storms**
**loading as it relates to antecedent conditions**
**rising and falling limb of hydrograph**
**peak concentration**
**Interflow and groundwater components**
**Source contributions**
**Used similar comparison methods to hydrology calibration**

## Source-Response Analysis

**Adjusted individual sources and evaluated response**
**Considered dry and wet weather sources separately**
**Major source categories evaluated:**
**cropland**
**pasture**
**direct discharges from livestock to streams**
**point source discharges**

## Allocation Analysis

**   ****Allocation Steps:**
**Applied the model to existing conditions**
**Applied to existing conditions with point sources at permit limits**
**Applied model to future conditions**
**Developed and tested allocation scenarios**
**Selected final TMDL scenario**

## Developing Scenarios

**Define magnitude of sources**
**Examine sensitivity of waterbody response to changes in individual sources**
**Develop roadmap for control opportunities**
**Show results to stakeholders/public**

## Key Considerations in the Allocation Analysis

**Selection of where the TMDL is calculated and the location of individual allocations **
**Grouping of sources for allocation**
**Identification of background condition**
**Determination of the season or time period for the allocation**
**Expression of the TMDL**

## Successful Loading Scenario

## Allocations

**Wampler Foods:**
- Existing Load:  8.34 x108 counts/day
- Allocated Load:  8.34 x108 counts/day
- Percent Reduction:  0%
**Mount Clinton Elementary School:**
- assumed negligible
- (no allocation)

**Nonpoint Sources**

**Point Sources**

## Implementation

**VA will install a phased implementation process **
**This allows for evaluation of management practice effectiveness and refinement of the model, as necessary**
**Target for first phase:  10% or less violation of the 1,000 #/100 ml criteria**
**First phase assumes reduction of most critical and manageable contribution (in-stream cattle)**
**Cornerstone of plan is to cultivate shared sense of responsibility for reducing pollution, build partnerships, foster voluntary implementation**

## Creating the Implementation Plan -- Public Participation

**Public Meetings**
**TMDL development – three meetings held**
**Implementation Plan development  -- additional meetings held**
**Focus Groups**
**Agricultural (livestock producers)**
**Residential/Commercial (homeowners, septic contractors)**
**Environmental **
**Governmental (local and state govt. representatives, industry organizations)**
**Steering committee**
**Consisted of members from each focus group**

## Public Participation – Public Meetings

**High degree of public involvement and proactive management response**
**Three public meetings for TMDL **
**Pre-modeling - to introduce TMDL process and data available**
**Modeling - to present model set-up and watershed representation**
**Allocation phase – to present TMDL allocation scenarios**
**>1,100 man-hours devoted to public participation in developing Implementation Plan**

## Public Participation – Focus Groups

**Agricultural, Residential, Commercial, Environmental**
**Identify obstacles to implementation in respective community**
**Identify workable solutions to overcome obstacles**
**Governmental**
**Identify regulatory authority in specific areas related to implementation**
**Identify existing programs/funding sources to aid implementation**

## Public Participation – Steering Committee

**Responsible for formulation of TMDL implementation plan**
**Identify practical control measures**
**Establish time line**
**Set measurable goals and milestones**

## Focus Group Emphasis

**   ****Highlighted:**
**BMP Specifications**
**Locations of Control Measures**
**Funding**
**Education and Technical Assistance**
**Timeline**

## Example Focus Group Recommendations

**Recommended education and technical assistance strategies **
**Agriculture  **
**program of small workshops  **
**farm visits**
**Residential **
**small workshops on importance of septic system maintenance, **
**educational packets for new homeowners, **
**Stream walks to identify failing septic systems followed by targeted outreach to homeowners on options for corrections **