NPS 1 NPS 2 Background Reserve MOS WLA 3 WLA 2 WLA1WLA1 North Canadian River Oklahoma River Shell Creek Draft TMDLs For Bacteria PUBLIC MEETING.

NPS 1NPS 2

Background

Reserve

MOS

WLA 3

WLA 2

WLA1

North Canadian RiverOklahoma River

Shell Creek

Draft TMDLs For Bacteria

PUBLIC MEETINGPUBLIC MEETING

PUBLIC MEETINGPUBLIC MEETINGAgendaAgenda

• WELCOME

• INTRODUCTIONS

• STUDY OVERVIEW

• QUESTIONS

• COMMENTS

The Clean Water ActFirst Adopted 1972

Clean Water Goals:

July 1, 1983

Wherever attainable, Fishable Swimmable water quality

1985

Eliminate discharge of pollutants

How Do We Get There ???

Two Step Approach

• Technology-Based Limits For All Point Sources

• Additional Water Quality Based Controls To Meet Water Quality Standards

Identifying Problem Areas

Compare Monitoring Results

To

Water Quality Standards

Set Priorities

Compile Problem Areas And Priorities In the 303d

List

The TMDLAmount Of Pollution A Waterbody Can Receive Without Violating Water Quality StandardsPoint Sources

• Wasteload Allocations

Nonpoint Sources

Natural Background

• Load Allocations

The TMDL Pie

Total LoadAllocations

Total WasteloadAllocations

TotalUnallocated

NPS 1NPS 2

Background

Reserve

MOS

WLA 3

WLA 2

WLA1

Study OverviewsNorth Canadian River: Canton Dam to Yukon, including Shell Creek

Prepared by Parsons

And DEQPresented by Paul Yue

North Canadian River & Oklahoma River: Yukon to Dale

Prepared by ACOGPresented by John Harrington

Bacterial Standards

Bacteria Indicator

Standards(/100 ml)

Fecal Coliform 400

E-Coli 406

Enterococci 108

Monitoring Sites

NC02 NC05

NC03NC04

NC08

NC06

NC07

NC01

Shell Crk

Monitoring Data

• If more than 10% of data above the standards Problem

• North Canadian River (NC01)FC – 33% exceed

E-Coli – 13% exceedEnterococci – 94% exceed

NC02NC05

NC03

NC04

NC08

NC06

NC07

NC01

Shell Crk

FC – 33%EC – 13%

ENT – 94%

FC – 22%EC – 11%

ENT – 72% FC – 24%EC – 0%

ENT – 76%

FC – 67%EC – 6%

ENT – 89% FC – 47%EC – 6%

ENT – 82%

Monitoring Data

Fecal Coliform (NC01)(33% data above standard)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

4/1/2003 6/1/2003 8/1/2003 10/1/2003 12/1/2003

Time

Fec

al C

olif

orm

(/1

00

ml)

Fecal Coliform Data Standard

Monitoring Data

Enterococci (NC01)(94% data above standard)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

4/1/2003 6/1/2003 8/1/2003 10/1/2003 12/1/2003

Time

En

tero

cocc

i (/1

00

ml)

Enterococci Data Standard

Monitoring Data

Fecal Coliform (Shell Creek)(50% data above standard)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

3/1/2000 8/1/2000 12/31/2000

6/2/2001 11/1/2001

4/3/2002

Time

Fe

ca

l Co

lifo

rm (

/10

0

ml)

Fecal Coliform Data Standard

Monitoring Data

Fecal Coliform (NC05)(67% data above standard)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

4/1/2003 6/1/2003 8/1/2003 10/1/2003 12/1/2003

Time

Fec

al C

olif

orm

(/

100m

l)

Fecal Coliform Data Standard

Pollutant Sources

• Point Sources– Permitted discharge - Watonga– No-discharge facilities – 6– CAFOs - 4

Pollutant Sources

• Non-Point Sources– Livestock– Pets– Failing Septic Tanks– Wildlife

TMDL Development

• Definition – the maximum load a stream can receive without violating standards

• TMDL = LA + WLA + MOS

• Load Duration Curve

Load Duration Curve

• Step #1: Flow Duration Curve

Load Duration Curve

• Step #2: Load = C * Flow * Standard

Fecal Coliform Load Duration Curve 1990-2001, Station S-050

1.E+10

1.E+11

1.E+12

1.E+13

1.E+14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Flow Exceedance Percentile

Fe

cal C

olif

orm

Da

ily L

oa

d (

#/d

ay)

Load at WQ Criterion Load at WQ Target FC Observations 90 Percentile FC Load

46%68%

68%

North Canadian River

• Fecal Coliform - 88% Reduction

North Canadian River

• Enterococci - 89% Reduction

Shell Creek

• Fecal Coliform - 92% Reduction

Study OverviewsNorth Canadian River: Canton Dam to Yukon, including Shll Creek

Prepared by Parsons

And DEQPresented by Paul Yue

North Canadian River & Oklahoma River: Yukon to Dale

Prepared by ACOGPresented by John Harrington

Highway 81 El Reno Station

Rope Swing, Garth Brooks Blvd

Anderson Road, Oklahoma County

Dale, Oklahoma

Bacterial Standards

Bacteria Indicator

Standards(/100 ml)

Fecal Coliform 400

E-Coli 406

Enterococci 108

FECAL COLIFORM SUMMARY CHART

ENTEROCOCCI SUMMARY CHART

EL RENO STATION ENTEROCOCCI

REDUCTION GOAL: 95.6%

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE??

What Do the Municipalities Do???

Phase II Stormwater Program

Six “Minimum Control Measures”

Public Education and Outreach Public Participation and Involvement

Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination

Best Management Practices – Illicit Discharge Detection, Erosion Control, Ordinances

Construction Site Runoff Control Post-Construction Runoff Control

Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping

ImplementationHow Can We Get There ???NonPoint Sources

• Voluntary Programs ONLY• Cost Share & Incentives

• Technical Assistance

ImplementationHow Can We Get There ???

Point Sources

CAFOs

• “No Discharge”

• Good Housekeeping BMPs

ImplementationHow Can We Get There ???

Point Sources

Wastewater Treatment Plants

• No Effect

• Current Limits = WQS

• Enforcement

ImplementationHow Can We Get There ???

Point Sources

Stormwater

• Revise Local Management Program Within 2 Years

• Consider Listed BMPs

ImplementationHow Can We Get There ???

Point Sources

Stormwater

• Monitoring Program

• NO Numeric Effluent Limits

Stormwater PermitsWithin The Watershed

• Yukon

• Mustang

• Bethany

• Warr Acres

• Moore

• Del City

• Midwest City

• Oklahoma City

• Spencer

• Nicoma Park

• Choctaw

• ODOT

• OTA

• Tinker AFB

Example BMPsStormwater & NonPoint Source

Best Management Practice

ImpairmentSource Reported

EfficiencyRURAL URBAN

Animal waste management X X 75 %

Detention pond/basin X X 25 % - 51%

Fencing X 75 %

Filtration (e.g., sand filters) X X 30 % - 51%

Infiltration Basin X 50 %

Example BMPsStormwater & NonPoint Source

Best Management Practice

ImpairmentSource Reported

EfficiencyRURAL URBAN

Onsite treatment system installation X X

Porous pavement X 50 %

Rain gardenbio-retention basin

X 40 %

Retention ponds/basins X X 32 %

Riparian Buffer Zone X X 43 – 57 %

Example BMPsStormwater & NonPoint Source

Best Management Practice

ImpairmentSource Reported

EfficiencyRURAL URBAN

Septic system pump-out X X 5 %

Sewer line maintenance/sewer flushing

X

Stream bank protection and stabilization

X X 40 - 75 %

Vegetated filter strip X X

Wetland development or enhancement - including creation and restoration

X X 30 %

What Happens Next ?

• Comments Accepted Through April 21• Comment Responsiveness Summary

Late May• Final Draft Submitted For EPA Approval

Early June• Incorporate In Water Quality Management Plan

Includes Additional Public Participation

How To Provide Comments

Oral Comments Accepted This Evening

By Mail:Dr. Karen MilesWater Quality DivisionOklahoma Department of Environmental QualityP.O. Box 1677Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677

By Email:[email protected]

Comments Must Be Received By

APRIL 21 !

QUESTIONS

COMMENTS

Thank You