North Canadian River Oklahoma River Shell Creek Draft TMDLs For Bacteria 2 nd 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
Demonstrate progress toward meeting the reduction goals Demonstrate progress toward attainment of water quality standards What Is Necessary To Comply With The TMDL ? Clarifications added
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. Do Stormwater Dischargers Have To Produce The Entire Reduction Required By The TMDL ?
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. Are Current Water Quality Standards Appropriate ?
Appendix F Stormwater Permit Provisions Yukon Mustang Bethany Warr Acres Moore Del City Midwest City Oklahoma City Spencer Nicoma Park Choctaw ODOT OTA 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 1. Develop A Bacteria Reduction Plan 2. Develop Or Participate In A Bacteria Monitoring Program 3. Annual Reporting Compliance with the following provisions will constitute compliance with the requirements of this TMDL.
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
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%
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: Karen.Miles@deq.state.ok.us Comments Must Be Received By October 12 !