Transcript Slide 1

North Canadian River
Oklahoma River
Shell Creek
Draft TMDLs For Bacteria
2nd PUBLIC MEETING
September 12, 2006
AGENDA
• Welcome / Introductions
• Recap Current Studies
• Revisions in Version 2
• Issues Raised To Date
• NPS Watershed Plans (OCC)
• Questions
• Comments
Review Current Studies
North Canadian River: Canton Dam to Yukon,
including Shell Creek
Prepared by Parsons
And DEQ
North Canadian River & Oklahoma River:
Yukon to Dale
Prepared by ACOG
Presented by Paul Yue
Upstream of
OKC discharge
HW 81
Yukon
NC06
XXX Rd
NC01
NC02
NC05
NC04
Shell Crk
NC03
NC07
Dale
NC08
Lake Overholser
Del City
Midwest City
Monitoring Data
• If more than 10% of data above
the standards  Problem
• North Canadian River (NC01)
FC – 33% exceed
E-Coli – 13% exceed
Enterococci – 94% exceed
North Canadian River: Canton Dam to
Yukon, including Shell Creek
Prepared by Parsons and DEQ
North Canadian River
• Enterococci - 89% Reduction
Shell Creek
• Fecal Coliform - 92% Reduction
REDUCTION RATES
(Parsons Report)
Streams
N Canadian
River
Shell Creek
Fecal
Coliform
68%
E Coli
Enterococci
48%
89%
92%
62%
90%
North Canadian River & Oklahoma River:
Yukon to Dale
Prepared by ACOG
North Canadian River (ACOG)
EL RENO STATION ENTEROCOCCI
REDUCTION GOAL: 95.6%
REDUCTION RATES
(ACOG Report)
Sites
NC01
NC02
NC03
Fecal Coliform
92.4%
53.1%
70.7%
E. Coli
None
None
None
Enterococci
95.6%
95.9%
81.0%
NC04
NC05
NC06
94.0%
98.2%
None
63.0%
63.8%
None
99.3%
99.7%
87.7%
NC07
None
None
4.9%
NC08
18.3%
None
83.2%
Proposed Revisions
In Version 2
What Is Necessary To Comply With
The TMDL ?
Clarifications added
Demonstrate progress toward meeting the
reduction goals
Demonstrate progress toward attainment of
water quality standards
Do Stormwater Dischargers Have To
Produce The Entire Reduction
Required By The TMDL ?
“Permitted MS4 stormwater discharges are considered point
sources. Since these sources are associated with wet weather
events, they are assigned the same pathogen reduction goals
as the nonpoint source load allocations. These reduction goals
apply only to the pathogen contribution from within the MS4.
Permitted stormwater dischargers are not expected or
required to produce the entire pathogen loading reduction
specified in this TMDL. ”
Are Current Water Quality Standards
Appropriate ?
“The suitability of the current criteria
for pathogens and the beneficial uses of
the receiving stream should be
reviewed.”
Are Current Water Quality Standards
Appropriate ?
3 Approaches To WQS Revisions
• Remove The Use
Requires a Use Attainability Analysis
 Existing Uses Cannot Be Removed

Are Current Water Quality Standards
Appropriate ?
3 Approaches To WQS Revisions
• Modify Application Of The Criteria
Exemption For High Flows
 Allowance For “Natural” Conditions
 Establish A Subcategory Of The Use
 Special Provision For Urban Areas

Are Current Water Quality Standards
Appropriate ?
3 Approaches To WQS Revisions
• Revise The Numeric Criteria
Remove Indicator(s)
 Change The Numeric Values
 Risk-Based Approaches

Are Current Water Quality Standards
Appropriate ?
“Unless or until the water quality standards
are revised and approved by EPA, Federal
rules require that this TMDL must be based
on attainment of the current standards. If
revisions to the pathogen standards are
approved in the future, the reductions
specified in this TMDL will be re-evaluated.”
Appendix F
Stormwater Permit Provisions
• Yukon
• Oklahoma City
• Mustang
• Spencer
• Bethany
• Nicoma Park
• Warr Acres
• Choctaw
• Moore
• ODOT
• Del City
• OTA
• Midwest City
• Tinker AFB
Appendix F
Stormwater Permit Provisions
OKR04 Requirements
• Ensure that discharges that would cause
or contribute to any water quality
standards exceedance will not occur
• Discharge of a pollutant into any water
for which a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for that pollutant has been either
established or approved by the DEQ or
EPA is prohibited, unless your discharge is
consistent with that TMDL
Appendix F
Stormwater Permit Provisions
“Compliance with the following provisions will constitute
compliance with the requirements of this TMDL”.
1. Develop A Bacteria Reduction
Plan
2. Develop Or Participate In A
Bacteria Monitoring Program
3. Annual Reporting
Appendix F
Stormwater Permit Provisions
1. Develop A Bacteria Reduction
Plan
• Consider ordinances or other regulatory mechanisms
• Evaluate the existing SWMP
• Educational programs
• Implement BMPs
• Modifications to the dry weather field screening and
illicit discharge detection and elimination program
• Periodic evaluation of effectiveness
• Ensure progress toward attainment of water quality
standards.
• Implementation schedule (2 years)
Appendix F
Stormwater Permit Provisions
2. Develop Or Participate In A
Bacteria Monitoring Program
• Establish the effectiveness of the selected BMPs
• Demonstrate progress toward the reduction goals
• TMDL monitoring schedule or commitment to
participate in regional program (18 months)
• Implemented within 2 years
Appendix F
Stormwater Permit Provisions
3. Annual Reporting
• Include a TMDL implementation report in the
annual report.
• Status and actions taken to implement the TMDL
Appendix F
CAFO Permit Provisions
• These NPDES permits are issued by EPA
• CAFO permits in the watershed and their
management plans must be reviewed
• Further actions necessary to reduce bacteria loads
and achieve progress toward meeting the reduction
goals must be implemented
• Forward to EPA for follow up
Issues Raised
To Date
al
e
D
Yu
ko
n
O
ve
rh
ol
se
r
D
el
C
M
ity
id
w
es
tC
O
KC
i ty
D
is
ch
ar
ge
XX
X
R
d
W
81
H
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml)
Monitoring Data
Average Fecal Coliform Conc
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
al
e
D
Yu
ko
n
O
ve
rh
ol
se
r
D
el
C
ity
M
id
w
es
tC
O
KC
i ty
D
is
ch
ar
ge
XX
X
R
d
W
81
H
E Coli (/100 ml)
Monitoring Data
Average E Coli Conc
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
W
81
D
al
e
Yu
ko
n
O
ve
rh
ol
se
r
D
el
C
M
ity
id
w
es
tC
O
KC
i ty
D
is
ch
ar
ge
XX
X
R
d
H
Enterococci (/100 ml)
Monitoring Data
Average Enterococci Conc.
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Applicability Of The
Load Duration Curve Model
• Load Duration Curve (LDC)
Method is approved by EPA
• LDC – a proven method for
TMDL development
Applicability Of The
Load Duration Curve Model
• LDC – used by many states (AR,
LA, TX, KS, MO, CA, OH, TN,
NC, ND, WI, VA, OR, NJ, IN, …)
• And EPA
Geometric Mean
vs
Maximum Values
Fecal Coliform
Impaired = Violate EITHER Test
Not Impaired = Pass BOTH Tests
E. Coli. And Enterococci
Impaired = Violate BOTH Tests
Not Impaired = Pass EITHER Test
For Impairment determination, use 2-year geometric mean
Not 30-day geometric mean (OAC 785:46-15)
Bacterial Source Tracking
(BST)
• BST is considered by the experts to
still have great uncertainty.
• “In all, fewer than 30%percent of
challenge isolates were classified to
the correct source-animal species by
any method” – USGS Report
http://wv.usgs.gov/press.html
BST Examples
• Turkey Creek Watershed, OK (2003)
by USGS (43% isolates unidentified)
• Four Mile Run –
Northern Virginia
(49% isolates
unidentified)
North Canadian River (ACOG)
EL RENO STATION ENTEROCOCCI
REDUCTION GOAL: 95.6%
REDUCTION RATES **
(ACOG Report)
Sites
NC01
NC02
NC03
Fecal Coliform
88.8 %
95.5 %
95.1 %
E. Coli
31.0 %
44.0 %
96.8 %
Enterococci
98.5 %
98.4 %
98.7 %
NC04
NC05
NC06
79.0 %
92.8 %
82.0 %
None
None
None
98.7 %
99.1 %
98.8 %
NC07
88.4 %
None
99.9 %
NC08
67.5 %
None
86.5 %
** Re-calculated reduction rates
REDUCTION RATES
(ACOG Report)
Sites
NC01
NC02
NC03
Fecal Coliform
92.4%
53.1%
70.7%
E. Coli
None
None
None
Enterococci
95.6%
95.9%
81.0%
NC04
NC05
NC06
94.0%
98.2%
None
63.0%
63.8%
None
99.3%
99.7%
87.7%
NC07
None
None
4.9%
NC08
18.3%
None
83.2%
Nonpoint Sources
What Programs Are Available?
What Are The Plans For
The North Canadian River?
Greg Kloxin
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
What Happens Next ?
• Comments Accepted Through October 12
• Comment Responsiveness Summary
• Final Draft Submitted For EPA Approval
• Incorporate In Water Quality
Management Plan
How To Provide Comments
 Oral Comments Accepted This Evening
 By Mail:
Dr. Karen Miles
Water Quality Division
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
 By Email:
[email protected]
Comments Must Be Received By
October 12 !
QUESTIONS
COMMENTS
Thank You