CPAC Meeting 6-18-03
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

CPAC Meeting 6-18-03

on

  • 782 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
782
Views on SlideShare
782
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • http://www.csuohio.edu/cestp/sol/history/pictures.html The burning Cuyahoga highlighted the need to clean up America's rivers and provided an important impetus for the Clean Water Act of 1970.
  • Bacteria levels in Toledo area streams are too high for safe swimming nearly a third of the time. (Maumee River Basin Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan Recommendations) DSC01048 – CSO warning sign at Cullen Park Bacteria is monitored by testing for E. Coli. Probably aware of the toxic strain of E. Coli due to food issues, however, not all strains of E. Coli are a problem (e.g., you have thousands inside your intestine as do other warm-blooded mammals). Therefore, just because E. Coli are in the water, doesn’t mean there’s sewage or its unsafe. Just that there’s a risk that there may be a harmful virus, bacteria strain, etc. in the water.
  • Bacteria levels in Toledo area streams are too high for safe swimming nearly a third of the time. (Maumee River Basin Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan Recommendations) DSC01048 – CSO warning sign at Cullen Park Bacteria is monitored by testing for E. Coli. Probably aware of the toxic strain of E. Coli due to food issues, however, not all strains of E. Coli are a problem (e.g., you have thousands inside your intestine as do other warm-blooded mammals). Therefore, just because E. Coli are in the water, doesn’t mean there’s sewage or its unsafe. Just that there’s a risk that there may be a harmful virus, bacteria strain, etc. in the water.
  • Steelhead (salmonid) Walleye (giant predatious perch) Stonefly (pollution intolerant) Leech (pollution tolerant)

CPAC Meeting 6-18-03 CPAC Meeting 6-18-03 Presentation Transcript

  • Water Quality Briefing Community Program Advisory Committee Meeting June 18, 2003
  • Agenda
    • Introductions
    • Program Update
    • Water Quality Standards
    • Next Meeting
  • Overview
    • History of water quality protection
    • Where are we today?
    • Toledo supports improving water quality
    • Water quality standards are used to protect uses
    • How do we meet water quality standards?
    • Can we meet water quality standards?
  • Problem Recognition (1960s-1970s)
    • "We have met the enemy, and he is us“
    A national audience saw the Cuyahoga River burn in 1969
      • Raw sewage
      • Industrial discharges
      • Dead fish
      • Algal mats
      • Dead birds
    By the late 1960's, Lake Erie had been declared ecologically "dead"
  • 1972: An Ambitious Goal
    • “ [R]estore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters”
      • Eliminate discharge of pollutants by 1985
      • Wherever attainable, achieve an interim goal of water quality to provide for protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation by July 1, 1983
      • Establish national policies for control of point and nonpoint sources
    Clean Water Act. Title 33, Chapter 26, Subchapter I, Sec. 1251
  • Example Tools of the Clean Water Act
    • Construction grant funding for cities
    • Technology-based effluent limits
      • Secondary treatment for wastewater plants
      • “ Best” practical/available technologies for industries
    • Pretreatment requirements
    • Pollutant lists = water quality based effluent limits
    • Storm water permits
    • State nonpoint source control plans
    • National Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy
    1972 1977 1987 1994
  • Where are we today? Today, almost 2/3 of water bodies now meet Clean Water Act uses and goals. Recreation on Lake Erie is worth $3 billion a year. Jet skis and water taxis replaced fire patrol on the Cuyahoga.
  • Remaining Issues
    • Wet weather discharges
      • Combined sewer overflows
      • Storm water runoff (urban areas)
      • Agricultural runoff
      • Sanitary sewer overflows
    • Legacy pollutants (contaminated sediments)
    • Failing septic tanks
    • Other
      • Funding for wastewater infrastructure
      • Exotic species
  • 21 st Century Challenge
    • What water quality can be attained?
    • What will it cost?
    • Who should participate?
    • Are the controls affordable?
    • If not, how do we define how the river should be used and when?
  •  
  • Residential Customer Survey
    • Problems facing Toledo
      • #1 Public schools / education (22%)
      • #8 Pollution/utilities/sewers (3%)
    • Rivers and Lake Erie are of high value
    • Frequency of river use
      • #1 Enjoy scenery / walking / jogging
      • Fishing
        • #3 Lake Erie
        • #5 rivers
      • #6 Swimming
  • Residential Customer Survey (cont.)
    • Preventing sewer overflows is important
    • Residents have somewhat realistic expectations for water quality improvement
    • Support for increased sewer rates
  • How do we get there? Water quality objectives
  • Water Quality Standards
    • Uses
      • Swimming
      • Aquatic life (fish & bugs)
      • Industrial & agricultural water supply
    • Criteria
      • Numeric (less than / more than X)
      • Narrative (no aesthetic impacts)
  • Risk of Illness from Exposure to Bacteria
    • Fecal coliform*
      • (counts per 100 milliliters)
      • Bathing beach < 400
      • Swimming < 2,000
      • Wading < 5,000
    • E. Coli*
      • Bathing beach < 235
      • Swimming < 298
      • Wading < 576
    *Only 10% of samples can exceed these values over a 30-day period. May 1 to Oct. 15.
  • Aquatic Life Require Dissolved Oxygen Minimum range in dissolved oxygen for survival and reproduction Milligrams per liter (mg/L) > 3 to 8 > 3 to 6.5 > 4 to 10 > 2 to 4
  • Causal Factors
    • CSOs
    • Storm water
      • Illicit connections
      • Animal waste
    • Agricultural runoff
    • Leaking septic tanks
    • Sanitary sewer overflows
    • Decaying organic material (sediments)
    • Stagnant water (lack of reaeration)
    • CSOs
    • Elevated temperatures
    • Sanitary sewer overflows
    Bacteria problems Diss. oxygen problems
  • What is the water quality like today? 4 to 5 <200 to 60,000 Maumee River 2 to 3 <600 to 240,000 Ottawa River 4 to 5 <200 to 130,000 Swan Creek Minimum diss. oxygen (mg/L) Fecal bacteria (# per 100 mL) Water Body
  • How do we know if we can meet WQ standards?
    • Determine relative contribution of CSO and other sources
      • Measurement of pollutant loads
      • Computer model of sewer overflows
    • Determine impact of those sources on the river
      • Monitor sources of pollution and river impacts
      • Computer model of river flow and water quality
    • Evaluate how well different pollution control technologies can work
    • Determine the cost and affordability of pollution control
  • Questions to be Answered with the LTCP
    • How much would it cost to:
      • Eliminate all CSOs?
      • Have only 4 to 6 CSO events a year? Or more?
    • If we eliminated some or all of the CSOs:
      • Where could we swim and when?
      • Would dissolved oxygen in the Ottawa improve?
    • Could water quality be improved more if money were spent elsewhere (e.g., storm water, agriculture)?
    • How much time is needed to implement the LTCP and what funding is available?
  • Other Considerations
    • The CSO Policy recognizes that it may be appropriate to review and revise WQ standards
      • Some water quality standards illogical in wet weather
      • Generally not an easy process
      • Momentum for this is gaining, particularly for wet weather conditions
    • EPA also recognizes that a “watershed approach” is more cost-effective than just evaluating / controlling CSO
  • Summary
    • Water quality has significantly improved
    • There’s still a way to go
    • Reducing wet weather discharges is part of the answer
      • The LTCP will help improve water quality
    • Additional steps are also likely to be needed
      • Revising water quality standards
      • Watershed improvements