North Canadian River Oklahoma River Shell Creek Draft TMDLs For Bacteria

1. North Canadian RiverOklahoma RiverShell CreekDraft TMDLs For Bacteria 2nd PUBLIC MEETING September 12, 2006

2. AGENDA • Welcome / Introductions • Recap Current Studies • Revisions in Version 2 • Issues Raised To Date • NPS Watershed Plans (OCC) • Questions • Comments

3. 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

5. Upstream of OKC discharge HW 81 Yukon NC06 XXX Rd NC01 NC02 NC05 NC04 NC07 Shell Crk NC03 Dale NC08 Lake Overholser Del City Midwest City

6. 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

7. North Canadian River: Canton Dam to Yukon, including Shell Creek • Prepared by Parsons and DEQ

8. North Canadian River • Enterococci - 89%Reduction

9. Shell Creek • Fecal Coliform - 92% Reduction

10. REDUCTION RATES (Parsons Report)

11. North Canadian River & Oklahoma River: • Yukon to Dale • Prepared byACOG

12. North Canadian River (ACOG) EL RENO STATION ENTEROCOCCI REDUCTION GOAL: 95.6%

13. REDUCTION RATES (ACOG Report)

14. Proposed Revisions In Version 2

15. 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

16. 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. ”

17. 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.”

18. Are Current Water Quality Standards Appropriate ? • 3 Approaches To WQS Revisions • Remove The Use • Requires a Use Attainability Analysis • Existing Uses Cannot Be Removed

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.”

22. 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

23. 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

24. Appendix F Stormwater Permit Provisions “Compliance with the following provisions will constitute compliance with the requirements of this TMDL”. • Develop A Bacteria Reduction Plan • Develop Or Participate In A Bacteria Monitoring Program • Annual Reporting

25. Appendix F Stormwater Permit Provisions • 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)

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. Issues Raised To Date

30. Monitoring Data

31. Monitoring Data

32. Monitoring Data

33. Applicability Of TheLoad Duration Curve Model • Load Duration Curve (LDC) Method is approved by EPA • LDC – a proven method for TMDL development

35. Applicability Of TheLoad 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

36. 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)

37. 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 Reporthttp://wv.usgs.gov/press.html Bacterial Source Tracking (BST)

38. Turkey Creek Watershed, OK (2003) by USGS (43% isolates unidentified) BST Examples • Four Mile Run – Northern Virginia (49% isolates unidentified)

39. North Canadian River (ACOG) EL RENO STATION ENTEROCOCCI REDUCTION GOAL: 95.6%

40. REDUCTION RATES ** (ACOG Report) ** Re-calculated reduction rates

41. REDUCTION RATES (ACOG Report)

42. Nonpoint Sources What Programs Are Available? What Are The Plans For The North Canadian River? Greg Kloxin Oklahoma Conservation Commission

43. What Happens Next ? • Comments Accepted Through October 12 • Comment Responsiveness Summary • Final Draft Submitted For EPA Approval • Incorporate In Water Quality • Management Plan

44.  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 How To Provide Comments Comments Must Be Received By October 12 !

45. QUESTIONS

46. COMMENTS

47. Thank You