Bacteria and turbidity total maximum daily loads for the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River, Oklahoma (OK621000, OK621010, OK621100, OK621200, OK621210)

              FINAL
BACTERIA AND TURBIDITY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR THE SALT FORK OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER, OKLAHOMA (OK621000, OK621010, OK621100, OK621200, OK621210)
Prepared for:
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Prepared by:
PPAARRSSOONNSS
SEPTEMBER 2011 FINAL
BACTERIA AND TURBIDITY
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR THE SALT FORK OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER, OKLAHOMA (OK621000, OK621010, OK621100, OK621200, OK621210)
OKWBID
OK621000010010_30, OK621000020130_00, OK621000030010_00, OK621000040010_00, OK621000050010_00, OK621000060010_00, OK621010010010_00, OK621010010090_00, OK621010010160_00, OK621010010230_00, OK621010010270_00, OK621010020010_00, OK621010030010_00, OK621010030030_00, OK621100000010_00, OK621100000010_10, OK621100000100_00, OK621200010200_00, OK621200030010_00, OK621200050010_00, OK621200050010_10, OK621210000050_10, OK621210000270_00
Prepared for:
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Prepared by:
PPAARRSSOONNSS
8000 Centre Park Drive, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78754
SEPTEMBER 2011
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality: FY08 106 Grant (CA# I-006400-08) Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx i FINAL
September 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ ES-1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 TMDL Program Background ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Watershed Description ............................................................................................... 1-6
1.3 Stream Flow Conditions ........................................................................................... 1-14
SECTION 2 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY TARGET ...... 2-1
2.1 Oklahoma Water Quality Standards ........................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Problem Identification ................................................................................................ 2-7
2.2.1 Bacteria Data Summary .................................................................................. 2-7
2.2.2 Turbidity Data Summary ................................................................................ 2-7
2.3 Water Quality Target ................................................................................................ 2-16
SECTION 3 POLLUTANT SOURCE ASSESSMENT ....................................................... 3-1
3.1 NPDES-Permitted Facilities ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Continuous Point Source Dischargers ............................................................ 3-3
3.1.2 NPDES No-Discharge Facilities and Sanitary Sewer Overflows .................. 3-7
3.1.3 NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Discharge .................................. 3-10
3.1.4 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ................................................... 3-11
3.1.5 Stormwater Permits Construction Activities ................................................ 3-12
3.1.6 Rock, Sand and Gravel Quarries .................................................................. 3-12
3.1.7 Section 404 permits ...................................................................................... 3-13
3.2 Nonpoint Sources ..................................................................................................... 3-16
3.2.1 Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 3-16
3.2.2 Non-Permitted Agricultural Activities and Domesticated Animals ............. 3-18
3.2.3 Failing Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems and Illicit Discharges ........... 3-22
3.2.4 Domestic Pets ............................................................................................... 3-25
3.3 Summary of Bacteria Sources .................................................................................. 3-26
SECTION 4 TECHNICAL APPROACH AND METHODS .............................................. 4-1
4.1 Determining a Surrogate Target for Turbidity ........................................................... 4-1
4.2 Using Load Duration Curves to Develop TMDLs ..................................................... 4-4
4.3 Development of Flow Duration Curves ..................................................................... 4-4
4.4 Estimating Existing Loading ...................................................................................... 4-6
4.5 Development of TMDLs Using Load Duration Curves ............................................. 4-6
SECTION 5 TMDL CALCULATIONS ................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Surrogate TMDL Target for Turbidity ....................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Flow Duration Curves .............................................................................................. 5-11
5.3 Estimated Loading and Critical Conditions ............................................................. 5-23 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ii FINAL
September 2011
5.4 Wasteload Allocation ............................................................................................... 5-56
5.4.1 Indicator Bacteria ......................................................................................... 5-56
5.4.2 Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................ 5-58
5.5 Load Allocation ........................................................................................................ 5-59
5.6 Seasonal Variability .................................................................................................. 5-59
5.7 Margin of Safety ....................................................................................................... 5-60
5.8 TMDL Calculations .................................................................................................. 5-60
5.9 Reasonable Assurances .......................................................................................... 5-123
SECTION 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................. 6-1
SECTION 7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 1
APPENDICES
Appendix A Ambient Water Quality Data
Appendix B General Method for Estimating Flow for Ungaged Streams and Estimated Flow Exceedance Percentiles
Appendix C State of Oklahoma Antidegradation Policy
Appendix D NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report Data
Appendix E ODEQ Sanitary Sewer Overflow Data – 1990 to 2011
Appendix F Storm water permitting Requirements and Presumptive Best Management practices (BMPs) Approach
Appendix G Responses to Comments
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx iii FINAL
September 2011
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Upper Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Watersheds Not Supporting Primary Body Contact Recreation or Fish and Wildlife Propagation .......................................... 1-3
Figure 1-2 Lower Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Watersheds Not Supporting Primary Body Contact Recreation or Fish and Wildlife Propagation Use .................................. 1-4
Figure 1-3 Land Use Map ...................................................................................................... 1-9
Figure 3-1 Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Study Area ............................... 3-5
Figure 3-2 Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Study Area ............................... 3-6
Figure 4-1 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) ........................................................................................ 4-3
Figure 4-2 Flow Duration Curve for Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) .................. 4-6
Figure 5-1 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621000010010_30) ........................................................................................ 5-2
Figure 5-2 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) ........................................................................................ 5-3
Figure 5-3 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Deer Creek
(OK621000040010_00) ........................................................................................ 5-3
Figure 5-4 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Pond Creek
(OK621000050010_00) ........................................................................................ 5-4
Figure 5-5 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Crooked Creek
(OK621000060010_00) ........................................................................................ 5-4
Figure 5-6 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for the Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010010_00) ........................................................................................ 5-5
Figure 5-7 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00) ........................................................................................ 5-5
Figure 5-8 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Turkey Creek
(OK621010010230_00) ........................................................................................ 5-6
Figure 5-9 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Medicine Lodge River (OK621010030010_00) ........................................................................................ 5-6
Figure 5-10 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Driftwood Creek
(OK621010030030_00) ........................................................................................ 5-7
Figure 5-11 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Chikaskia River, Lower (OK621100000010_00) ........................................................................................ 5-7
Figure 5-12 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Chikaskia River, Upper (OK621100000010_10) ........................................................................................ 5-8
Figure 5-13 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Bitter Creek
(OK621100000100_00) ........................................................................................ 5-8 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx iv FINAL
September 2011
Figure 5-14 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Arkansas River
(OK621200010200_00) ........................................................................................ 5-9
Figure 5-15 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Red Rock Creek, Lower (OK621200050010_00) ........................................................................................ 5-9
Figure 5-16 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Red Rock Creek, Upper (OK621200050010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-10
Figure 5-17 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Chilocco Creek
(OK621210000270_00) ...................................................................................... 5-10
Figure 5-18 Flow Duration Curve for Arkansas River, Salt Fork
(OK621000010010_30) ...................................................................................... 5-11
Figure 5-19 Flow Duration Curve for Spring Creek (OK621000020130_00) ....................... 5-12
Figure 5-20 Flow Duration Curve for Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) ................ 5-12
Figure 5-21 Flow Duration Curve for Deer Creek (OK621000040010_00) ......................... 5-13
Figure 5-22 Flow Duration Curve for Pond Creek (OK621000050010_00) ......................... 5-13
Figure 5-23 Flow Duration Curve for Crooked Creek (OK621000060010_00) ................... 5-14
Figure 5-24 Flow Duration Curve for Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010010_00) .. 5-14
Figure 5-25 Flow Duration Curve for Clay Creek (OK621010010090_00) .......................... 5-15
Figure 5-26 Flow Duration Curve for Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00) .. 5-15
Figure 5-27 Flow Duration Curve for Turkey Creek (OK621010010230_00) ...................... 5-16
Figure 5-28 Flow Duration Curve for Yellowstone Creek (OK621010010270_00) ............. 5-16
Figure 5-29 Flow Duration Curve for Sandy Creek (OK621010020010_00) ....................... 5-17
Figure 5-30 Flow Duration Curve for Medicine Lodge River (OK621010030010_00) ........ 5-17
Figure 5-31 Flow Duration Curve for Driftwood Creek (OK621010030030_00) ................. 5-18
Figure 5-32 Flow Duration Curve for Chikaskia River, Lower (OK621100000010_00) ..... 5-18
Figure 5-33 Flow Duration Curve for Chikaskia River, Upper (OK621100000010_10) ...... 5-19
Figure 5-34 Flow Duration Curve for Bitter Creek (OK621100000100_00) ........................ 5-19
Figure 5-35 Flow Duration Curve for Arkansas River (OK621200010200_00) ................... 5-20
Figure 5-36 Flow Duration Curve for Black Bear Creek (OK621200030010_00) .............. 5-20
Figure 5-37 Flow Duration Curve for Red Rock Creek, Lower (OK621200050010_00) ..... 5-21
Figure 5-38 Flow Duration Curve for Red Rock Creek, Upper (OK621200050010_10) ..... 5-21
Figure 5-39 Flow Duration Curve for Beaver Creek (OK621210000050_10) ...................... 5-22
Figure 5-40 Flow Duration Curve for Chilocco Creek (OK621210000270_00) ................... 5-22
Figure 5-41 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621000010010_30) ...................................................................................... 5-24
Figure 5-42 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Spring Creek Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx v FINAL
September 2011
(OK621000020130_00) ...................................................................................... 5-24
Figure 5-43 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Bois d’Arc Creek
(OK621000030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-25
Figure 5-44 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-25
Figure 5-45 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-26
Figure 5-46 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Deer Creek (OK621000040010_00) .......... 5-26
Figure 5-47 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Deer Creek
(OK621000040010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-27
Figure 5-48 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Pond Creek (OK621000050010_00) ......... 5-27
Figure 5-49 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Pond Creek
(OK621000050010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-28
Figure 5-50 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Crooked Creek
(OK62100060010_00) ........................................................................................ 5-28
Figure 5-51 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-29
Figure 5-52 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Clay Creek
(OK621010010090_00) ...................................................................................... 5-29
Figure 5-53 Load Duration Curve for E.coli in Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00) ...................................................................................... 5-30
Figure 5-54 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00) ...................................................................................... 5-30
Figure 5-55 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00) ...................................................................................... 5-31
Figure 5-56 Load Duration Curve for E.coli in Turkey Creek (OK621010010230_00) ....... 5-31
Figure 5-57 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Turkey Creek
(OK621010010230_00) ...................................................................................... 5-32
Figure 5-58 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Yellowstone Creek (OK621010010270_00) ...................................................................................... 5-32
Figure 5-59 Load Duration Curve for E.coli in Sandy Creek (OK621010020010_00) ......... 5-33
Figure 5-60 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Sandy Creek
(OK621010020010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-33
Figure 5-61 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Sandy Creek
(OK621010020010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-34
Figure 5-62 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Medicine Lodge River Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx vi FINAL
September 2011
(OK621010030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-34
Figure 5-63 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Medicine Lodge River (OK621010030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-35
Figure 5-64 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Driftwood Creek
(OK621010030030_00) ...................................................................................... 5-35
Figure 5-65 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Driftwood Creek
(OK621010030030_00) ...................................................................................... 5-36
Figure 5-66 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Chikaskia River, Lower (OK621100000010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-36
Figure 5-67 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Chikaskia River, Lower (OK621100000010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-37
Figure 5-68 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci Chikaskia River, Upper (OK621100000010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-37
Figure 5-69 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Chikaskia River, Upper (OK621100000010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-38
Figure 5-70 Load Duration Curve for E.coli in Bitter Creek (OK621100000100_00) .......... 5-38
Figure 5-71 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Bitter Creek
(OK621100000100_00) ...................................................................................... 5-39
Figure 5-72 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in the Arkansas River (OK621200010200_00) ...................................................................................... 5-39
Figure 5-73 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Black Bear Creek
(OK621200030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-40
Figure 5-74 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Black Bear Creek (OK621200030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-40
Figure 5-75 Load Duration Curve for E.coli in Red Rock Creek, Lower (OK621200050010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-41
Figure 5-76 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Red Rock Creek, Lower (OK621200050010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-41
Figure 5-77 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Red Rock Creek, Upper (OK621200050010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-42
Figure 5-78 Load Duration Curve for E.coli in Beaver Creek (OK621210000050_10) ....... 5-43
Figure 5-79 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Beaver Creek
(OK621210000050_10) ...................................................................................... 5-43
Figure 5-80 Load Duration Curve for E.coli in Chilocco Creek (OK621210000270_00) ... 5-44
Figure 5-81 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Chilocco Creek
(OK621210000270_00) ...................................................................................... 5-44 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx vii FINAL
September 2011
Figure 5-82 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621000010010_30) ...................................................................................... 5-45
Figure 5-83 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-46
Figure 5-84 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Deer Creek (OK621000040010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-46
Figure 5-85 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Pond Creek (OK621000050010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-47
Figure 5-86 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Crooked Creek (OK621000060010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-47
Figure 5-87 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-48
Figure 5-88 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00) ...................................................................................... 5-48
Figure 5-89 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Turkey Creek (OK621010010230_00) ...................................................................................... 5-49
Figure 5-90 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Medicine Lodge River (OK621010030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-49
Figure 5-91 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Driftwood Creek (OK621010030030_00) ...................................................................................... 5-50
Figure 5-92 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Chikaskia River, Lower (OK621100000010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-50
Figure 5-93 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Chikaskia River, Upper (OK621100000010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-51
Figure 5-94 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Bitter Creek (OK621100000100_00) ...................................................................................... 5-51
Figure 5-95 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in the Arkansas River (OK621200010200_00) ...................................................................................... 5-52
Figure 5-96 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Red Rock Creek, Lower (OK621200050010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-52
Figure 5-97 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Red Rock Creek, Upper (OK621200050010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-53
Figure 5-98 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Chilocco Creek (OK621210000270_00) ...................................................................................... 5-53
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx viii FINAL
September 2011
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1 Excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report – Oklahoma 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (Category 5) ................................................................................................ 3
Table ES-2 Summary of Indicator Bacteria Samples from Primary Body Contact Recreation Season, 1998-2009 .................................................................................................. 4
Table ES-3 Summary of Turbidity Samples Collected During Base Flow Conditions,
1998-2009 .............................................................................................................. 10
Table ES-4 Summary of TSS Samples During Base Flow Conditions, 1998-2009................. 11
Table ES-5 Regression Statistics and TSS Goals ..................................................................... 13
Table ES-6 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources by Category .......................................... 15
Table ES-7 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Standards for Indicator Bacteria .................................................................................................... 3
Table ES-8 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Targets for Total Suspended Solids ..................................................................................................... 4
Table 1-1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations used for 2008 303(d) Listing Decision ........ 1-5
Table 1-2 County Population and Density ............................................................................ 1-6
Table 1-3 Towns and Cities by Watershed ........................................................................... 1-7
Table 1-4 Average Annual Precipitation by Watershed ....................................................... 1-8
Table 1-5a Land Use Summaries by Watershed ................................................................... 1-10
Table 1-5b Land Use Summaries by Watershed ................................................................... 1-11
Table 1-5c Land Use Summaries by Watershed ................................................................... 1-12
Table 1-5d Land Use Summaries by Watershed ................................................................... 1-13
Table 2-1 Designated Beneficial Uses for TMDL Required Waterbodiesy in This Report . 2-2
Table 2-2 Excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report – Oklahoma 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (Category 5) ............................................................................................. 2-3
Table 2-3 Summary of Indicator Bacteria Samples from Primary Body Contact Recreation Season, 1998-2009 ............................................................................................... 2-9
Table 2-4 Summary of All Turbidity Samples, 1998-2009 ................................................ 2-12
Table 2-5 Summary of Turbidity Samples Collected During Base Flow Conditions,
1998-2009 ........................................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2-6 Summary of All TSS Samples, 1998-2009 ........................................................ 2-14
Table 2-7 Summary of TSS Samples During Base Flow Conditions 1998-2009............... 2-15
Table 3-1 Continuous Point Source Discharges in the Study Area ...................................... 3-4
Table 3-2 NPDES No-Discharge Facilities in the Study Area ............................................. 3-8
Table 3-3 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Summary .......................................................... 3-9
Table 3-4 NPDES-Permitted CAFOs in Study Area .......................................................... 3-12 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ix FINAL
September 2011
Table 3-5 Construction Permits Summary .......................................................................... 3-14
Table 3-6 Rock, Sand and Gravel Quarries ........................................................................ 3-15
Table 3-7 Estimated Population and Fecal Coliform Production for Deer ......................... 3-17
Table 3-8 Livestock and Manure Estimates by Watershed ................................................ 3-20
Table 3-9 Fecal Coliform Production Estimates for Commercially Raised Farm Animals (x109 number/day) .............................................................................................. 3-21
Table 3-10 Estimates of Sewered and Unsewered Households ............................................ 3-23
Table 3-11 Estimated Fecal Coliform Load from OSWD Systems ...................................... 3-24
Table 3-12 Estimated Numbers of Pets ................................................................................ 3-25
Table 3-13 Estimated Fecal Coliform Daily Production by Pets (x109 counts/day) ............ 3-26
Table 3-14 Summary of Fecal Coliform Load Estimates from Nonpoint Sources to Land Surfaces ( x109 counts/day) ................................................................................ 3-27
Table 5-1 Regression Statistics and TSS Goals .................................................................... 5-1
Table 5-2 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Standards for Indicator Bacteria ............................................................................................... 5-55
Table 5-3 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Targets for Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................................ 5-56
Table 5-4 Permit Information for NPDES-Permitted Facilities ......................................... 5-57
Table 5-5 Total Suspended Solids Wasteload Allocations for NPDES-Permitted
Facilities ............................................................................................................. 5-58
Table 5-6 Explicit Margin of Safety for Total Suspended Solids TMDLs ......................... 5-60
Table 5-7 Summaries of Bacteria TMDLs .......................................................................... 5-61
Table 5-8 Summaries of TSS TMDLs ................................................................................ 5-63
Table 5-9 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621000010010_30) ...................................................................................... 5-64
Table 5-10 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Spring Creek
(OK621000020130_00) ...................................................................................... 5-65
Table 5-11 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) ..... 5-66
Table 5-12 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Bois d’Arc Creek
(OK621000030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-67
Table 5-13 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-68
Table 5-14 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Deer Creek (OK621000040010_00) ............... 5-69
Table 5-15 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Deer Creek (OK621000040010_00) ...... 5-70
Table 5-16 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Pond Creek (OK621000050010_00) .............. 5-71
Table 5-17 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Pond Creek (OK621000050010_00) ...... 5-72 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx x FINAL
September 2011
Table 5-18 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Crooked Creek
(OK621000060010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-73
Table 5-19 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-74
Table 5-20 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Clay Creek (OK621010010090_00) ...... 5-75
Table 5-21 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Arkansas River, Salt Fork
(OK621010010160_00) ...................................................................................... 5-76
Table 5-22 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00) ...................................................................................... 5-77
Table 5-23 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00) ...................................................................................... 5-78
Table 5-24 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Turkey Creek (OK621010010230_00) ........... 5-79
Table 5-25 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Turkey Creek (OK621010010230_00) .. 5-80
Table 5-26 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Yellowstone Creek
(OK621010010270_00) ...................................................................................... 5-81
Table 5-27 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Sandy Creek (OK621010020010_00) ............. 5-82
Table 5-28 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Sandy Creek (OK621010020010_00) .... 5-83
Table 5-29 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Sandy Creek (OK621010020010_00) ... 5-84
Table 5-30 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Medicine Lodge River
(OK621010030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-85
Table 5-31 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Medicine Lodge River (OK621010030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-86
Table 5-32 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Driftwood Creek (OK621010030030_00) ...... 5-87
Table 5-33 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Driftwood Creek
(OK621010030030_00) ...................................................................................... 5-88
Table 5-34 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Chikaskia River, Lower
(OK621100000010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-89
Table 5-35 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Chikaskia River, Lower (OK621100000010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-90
Table 5-36 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Chikaskia River, Upper (OK621100000010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-91
Table 5-37 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Chikaskia River, Upper (OK621100000010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-92
Table 5-38 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Bitter Creek (OK621100000100_00) .............. 5-93
Table 5-39 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Bitter Creek (OK621100000100_00) ..... 5-94
Table 5-40 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Arkansas River Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx xi FINAL
September 2011
(OK621200010200_00) ...................................................................................... 5-95
Table 5-41 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Black Bear Creek (OK621200030010_00) ..... 5-96
Table 5-42 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Black Bear Creek
(OK621200030010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-97
Table 5-43 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Red Rock Creek, Lower
(OK621200050010_00) ...................................................................................... 5-99
Table 5-44 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Red Rock Creek, Lower (OK621200050010_00) .................................................................................... 5-100
Table 5-45 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Red Rock Creek, Upper
(OK621200050010_10) .................................................................................... 5-101
Table 5-46 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Beaver Creek (OK621210000050_10) ......... 5-102
Table 5-47 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Beaver Creek
(OK621210000050_10) .................................................................................... 5-103
Table 5-48 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Chilocco Creek (OK621210000270_00) ...... 5-104
Table 5-49 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Chilocco Creek
(OK621210000270_00) .................................................................................... 5-105
Table 5-50 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621000010010_30) .................................................................................... 5-106
Table 5-51 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Bois d’Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) .................................................................................... 5-107
Table 5-52 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Deer Creek (OK621000040010_00) .................................................................................... 5-108
Table 5-53 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Pond Creek (OK621000050010_00) .................................................................................... 5-109
Table 5-54 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Crooked Creek (OK621000060010_00) .................................................................................... 5-110
Table 5-55 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for the Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010010_00) .................................................................................... 5-111
Table 5-56 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for the Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00) .................................................................................... 5-112
Table 5-57 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Turkey Creek (OK621010010230_00 ..................................................................................... 5-113
Table 5-58 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Medicine Lodge River (OK621010030010_00) .................................................................................... 5-114
Table 5-59 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Driftwood Creek (OK621010030030_00) .................................................................................... 5-115
Table 5-60 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Chikaskia River, Lower (OK621100000010_00) .................................................................................... 5-116 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx xii FINAL
September 2011
Table 5-61 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Chikaskia River, Upper (OK621100000010_10) .................................................................................... 5-117
Table 5-62 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Bitter Creek (OK621100000100_00) .................................................................................... 5-118
Table 5-63 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Arkansas River (OK621200010200_00) .................................................................................... 5-119
Table 5-64 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Red Rock Creek, Lower (OK621200050010_00) .................................................................................... 5-120
Table 5-65 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Red Rock Creek, Upper (OK621200050010_10) .................................................................................... 5-121
Table 5-66 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Chilocco Creek (OK621210000270_00) .................................................................................... 5-122
Table 5-67 Partial List of Oklahoma Water Quality Management Agencies ..................... 5-123 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Acronyms and Abbreviations
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx xiii FINAL
September 2011
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEMS
Agricultural Environmental Management Service
AES
Aesthetics
AG
Agriculture water supply
ASAE
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
BMP
best management practice
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAFO
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CBOD
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
Cubic feet per second
cfu
Colony-forming unit
CPP
Continuing planning process
CWA
Clean Water Act
DMR
Discharge monitoring report
EWS
Emergency water supply
FISH
Fish consumption
IQR
Interquartile range
LA
Load allocation
LDC
Load duration curve
LOC
Line of organic correlation
mg
Million gallons
mgd
Million gallons per day
mg/L
Milligram per liter
mL
Milliliter
MOS
Margin of safety
MS4
Municipal separate storm sewer system
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRMSE
Normalized root mean square error
NTU
Nephelometric turbidity unit
OLS
Ordinary least square
O.S.
Oklahoma statute
ODAFF
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry
ODEQ
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
OPDES
Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OSWD
Onsite wastewater disposal
OWRB
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
PBCR
Primary body contact recreation Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Acronyms and Abbreviations
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx xiv FINAL
September 2011
PPWS
Public and private water supply
PRG
Percent reduction goal
RMSE
Root mean square error
SH
State Highway
SSO
Sanitary sewer overflow
TMDL
Total maximum daily load
TSS
Total suspended solids
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WLA
Wasteload allocation
WQM
Water quality monitoring
WQS
Water quality standard
WWAC
Warm water aquatic community
WWTP
Wastewater treatment plant Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-1 FINAL
September 2011
Executive Summary
This report documents the data and assessment used to establish TMDLs for the pathogen indicator bacteria [fecal coliform, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Enterococci] and turbidity for certain waterbodies in the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River basin. Elevated levels of pathogen indicator bacteria in aquatic environments indicate that a waterbody is contaminated with human or animal feces and that a potential health risk exists for individuals exposed to the water. Elevated turbidity levels caused by excessive sediment loading and stream bank erosion impact aquatic communities. Data assessment and total maximum daily load (TMDL) calculations are conducted in accordance with requirements of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance, and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) guidance and procedures. ODEQ is required to submit all TMDLs to USEPA for review and approval. Once the USEPA approves a TMDL, then the waterbody may be moved to Category 4a of a state’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, where it remains until compliance with water quality standards (WQS) is achieved (USEPA 2003).
The purpose of this TMDL report is to establish pollutant load allocations for indicator bacteria and turbidity in impaired waterbodies, which is the first step toward restoring water quality and protecting public health. TMDLs determine the pollutant loading a waterbody can assimilate without exceeding the WQS for that pollutant. TMDLs also establish the pollutant load allocation necessary to meet the WQS established for a waterbody based on the relationship between pollutant sources and instream water quality conditions. A TMDL consists of a wasteload allocation (WLA), load allocation (LA), and a margin of safety (MOS). The WLA is the fraction of the total pollutant load apportioned to point sources, and includes stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as point sources. The LA is the fraction of the total pollutant load apportioned to nonpoint sources. The MOS is a percentage of the TMDL set aside to account for the lack of knowledge associated with natural process in aquatic systems, model assumptions, and data limitations.
This report does not stipulate specific control actions (regulatory controls) or management measures (voluntary best management practices) necessary to reduce bacteria or turbidity within each watershed. Watershed-specific control actions and management measures will be identified, selected, and implemented under a separate process.
E.1 Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
This TMDL report focuses on waterbodies in the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River basin, identified in Table ES-1, that ODEQ placed in Category 5 [303(d) list] of the Water Quality in Oklahoma, 2008 Integrated Report (2008 Integrated Report) for nonsupport of primary body contact recreation (PBCR) or warm water aquatic community (WWAC).
Elevated levels of bacteria or turbidity above the WQS result in the requirement that a TMDL be developed. The TMDLs established in this report are a necessary step in the process to develop the pollutant loading controls needed to restore the PBCR or fish and wildlife propagation use designated for each waterbody. Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-2 FINAL
September 2011
Bacteria: Table ES-2 summarizes water quality data collected during primary contact recreation season from the water quality monitoring (WQM) stations between 1998 and 2009 for each bacterial indicator. The data summary in Table ES-2 provides a general understanding of the amount of water quality data available and the severity of exceedances of the water quality criteria. This data collected during the primary contact recreation season includes the data used to support the decision to place specific waterbodies within the Study Area on the ODEQ 2008 303(d) list (ODEQ 2008). It also includes the new date collected after the data cutoff date for the 2008 303(d) list.
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-3
FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-1 Excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report – Oklahoma 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (Category 5) WBID Name Stream Miles TMDL Date Priority E. coli ENT FC Designated Use Primary Body Contact Recreation Turbidity Designated Use Warm Water Aquatic Life
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
34.5
2019
4
x
N
x
N
OK621000020130_00
Spring Creek
6.1
2019
4
x
N
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek
36.9
2019
4
x
x
x
N
x
N
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
40.8
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek
60.2
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek
32.9
2019
4
x
N
x
N
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
17.3
2013
2
x
N
x
N
OK621010010090_00
Clay Creek
3.4
2016
3
x
N
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
15.0
2019
4
x
x
x
N
x
N
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek
20.8
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621010010270_00
Yellowstone Creek
21.8
2019
4
x
N
OK621010020010_00
Sandy Creek
17.8
2013
2
x
x
x
N
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River
13.5
2016
2
x
x
N
x
N
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek
38.8
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River
5.4
2016
3
x
x
N
x
N
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River
23.1
2016
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek
23.3
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River
37.5
2013
4
x
N
x
N
OK621200030010_00
Black Bear Creek
68.0
2013
2
x
x
N
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek
37.3
2016
3
x
x
N
x
N
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek
46.1
2019
4
x
N
x
N
OK621210000050_10
Beaver Creek
21.6
2019
4
x
x
N
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek
16.3
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
ENT = enterococci; FC = fecal coliform N = Not attaining; X = Criterion exceeded Source: 2008 Integrated Report, ODEQ 2008. Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-4
FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-2 Summary of Indicator Bacteria Samples from Primary Body Contact Recreation Season, 1998-2009 Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Indicator Number of samples Geometric Mean Concentration (count/100 ml) Number of samples exceeding single sample criterion % samples exceeding single sample criterion 2008 303(d) Notes
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork ENT 33 750 29 88% X TMDL required
OK621000020040_00
Wild Horse Creek
EC
8
292
4
50%
X
Insufficient number of samples
ENT
8
350
7
88%
X
Insufficient number of samples
OK621000020130_00
Spring Creek
EC
6
1070
5
83%
X
Insufficient number of samples
ENT
6
874
6
100%
X
Insufficient number of samples FC 9 782 6 67% X TMDL required
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek EC 22 191 5 23% X TMDL required ENT 22 191 15 68% X TMDL required FC 9 1240 5 56% X TMDL required
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek EC 17 124 4 24% X TMDL required ENT 17 95 6 35% X TMDL required
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek EC 17 174 4 24% X TMDL required ENT 17 289 16 94% X TMDL required
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek ENT 15 122 10 67% X TMDL required
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork ENT 17 29 2 12% X Geomean standard met
OK621010010090_00
Clay Creek ENT 17 181 11 65% X TMDL required
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork EC 39 236 12 31% X TMDL required ENT 39 1384 37 95% X TMDL required FC 32 832 24 75% X TMDL required
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek EC 21 327 9 43% X TMDL required Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-5
FINAL
September 2011
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Indicator Number of samples Geometric Mean Concentration (count/100 ml) Number of samples exceeding single sample criterion % samples exceeding single sample criterion 2008 303(d) Notes ENT 21 636 21 100% X TMDL required
OK621010010270_00
Yellowstone Creek ENT 21 91 8 38% X TMDL required
OK621010020010_00
Sandy Creek EC 22 288 9 41% X TMDL required ENT 22 235 18 82% X TMDL required FC 8 1413 7 88% X TMDL required
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River EC 17 247 5 29% X TMDL required ENT 17 250 13 76% X TMDL required
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek EC 17 176 4 24% X TMDL required ENT 17 300 13 76% X TMDL required
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River EC 17 97 5 29% X Geomean standard met ENT 17 68 6 35% X TMDL required
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River ENT 39 183 21 54% X TMDL required FC 24 182 8 33% X TMDL required
OK621100000010_20
Chikaskia River
ENT
X
No data
OK621100000030_00
Duck Creek
EC
6
122
1
17%
X
Insufficient number of samples ENT 6 280 4 67% X Insufficient number of samples
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek EC 25 136 4 16% X TMDL required ENT 25 143 14 56% X TMDL required
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River ENT 21 187 12 57% X TMDL required
OK621200030040_00
Camp Creek
FC
7
409
1
14%
X
Insufficient number of samples
OK621200030270_00
Cow Creek
EC
6
328
1
17%
X
Insufficient number of samples Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-6
FINAL
September 2011
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Indicator Number of samples Geometric Mean Concentration (count/100 ml) Number of samples exceeding single sample criterion % samples exceeding single sample criterion 2008 303(d) Notes ENT 6 720 5 83% X Insufficient number of samples
OK621200030010_00
Black Bear Creek EC 18 357 6 33% X TMDL required ENT 18 357 6 33% X TMDL required FC 6 581 2 33% X Insufficient number of samples
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek EC 18 390 7 39% X TMDL required ENT 17 336 11 65% X TMDL required
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek EC 18 357 6 33% X TMDL required
OK621200050160_00
Grassy Creek
EC
X
No data
OK621210000030_10
Arkansas River
FC
X
No data
ENT
X
No data
OK621210000050_10
Beaver Creek EC 18 357 6 33% X TMDL required ENT 18 357 6 33% X TMDL required
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek EC 18 357 6 33% X TMDL required ENT 18 357 6 33% X TMDL required
Fecal coliform (FC) water quality criterion = Geometric Mean of 400 counts/100 mL E. coli (EC) water quality criterion = Geometric Mean of 126 counts/100 mL Enterococci (ENT) water quality criterion = Geometric Mean of 33 counts/100 mL
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-7 FINAL
September 2011
The definition of PBCR is summarized by the following excerpt from the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (785:45-5-16).
(a) Primary Body Contact Recreation involves direct body contact with the water where a possibility of ingestion exists. In these cases the water shall not contain chemical, physical or biological substances in concentrations that are irritating to skin or sense organs or are toxic or cause illness upon ingestion by human beings.
(b) In waters designated for Primary Body Contact Recreation...limits...shall apply only during the recreation period of May 1 to September 30. The criteria for Secondary Body Contact Recreation will apply during the remainder of the year.
To implement Oklahoma’s WQS for PBCR, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) promulgated Chapter 46, Implementation of Oklahoma’s Water Quality Standards (OWRB 2008a). The abbreviated excerpt below from Chapter 46: 785:46-15-6, stipulates how water quality data will be assessed to determine support of the PBCR use as well as how the water quality target for TMDLs will be defined for each bacterial indicator.
(a) Scope. The provisions of this Section shall be used to determine whether the subcategory of Primary Body Contact of the beneficial use of Recreation designated in OAC 785:45 for a waterbody is supported during the recreation season from May 1 through September 30 each year. Where data exist for multiple bacterial indicators on the same waterbody or waterbody segment, the determination of use support shall be based upon the use and application of all applicable tests and data.
(b) Screening levels:
(1) The screening level for fecal coliform shall be a density of 400 colonies per 100 ml.
(2) The screening level for Escherichia coli shall be a density of 235 colonies per 100 ml in streams designated in OAC 785:45 as Scenic Rivers and in lakes, and 406 colonies per 100 ml in all other waters of the state designated as Primary Body Contact Recreation.
(3) The screening level for enterococci shall be a density of 61 colonies per 100 ml in streams designated in OAC 785:45 as Scenic Rivers and in lakes, and 108 colonies per 100 ml in all other waters of the state designated as Primary Body Contact Recreation.
(c) Fecal coliform:
(1) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall be deemed to be fully supported with respect to fecal coliform if the geometric mean of 400 colonies per 100 ml is met and no greater than 25% of the sample concentrations from that waterbody exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section.
(d) Escherichia coli (E. coli):
(1) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall be deemed to be fully supported with respect to E. coli if the geometric mean of 126 colonies per 100 ml is met, or the sample concentrations from that waterbody taken during the recreation season do not exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section, or both such conditions exist. Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-8 FINAL
September 2011
(e) Enterococci:
(1) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall be deemed to be fully supported with respect to enterococci if the geometric mean of 33 colonies per 100 ml is met, or the sample concentrations from that waterbody taken during the recreation season do not exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section, or both such conditions exist.
Where concurrent data exist for multiple bacterial indicators on the same waterbody or waterbody segment, each indicator group must demonstrate compliance with the numeric criteria prescribed (OWRB 2008). Waterbodies placed on the 303(d) list for not supporting the PBCR are the result of individual samples exceeding the instantaneous criteria or the long-term geometric mean of individual samples exceeding the geometric mean criteria for each respective bacterial indicator. Targeting the instantaneous criterion established for the primary contact recreation season (May 1st to September 30th) as the water quality goal for TMDLs corresponds to the basis for 303(d) listing and may be protective of the geometric mean criterion as well as the criteria for the secondary contact recreation season. However, both the instantaneous and geometric mean criteria for E. coli and Enterococci will be evaluated as water quality targets to ensure the most protective goal is established for each waterbody.
All TMDLs for fecal coliform must take into account that no more than 25 percent of the samples may exceed the instantaneous numeric criteria. For E. coli and Enterococci, no samples may exceed instantaneous criteria. Since the attainability of stream beneficial uses for E. coli and Enterococci is based on the compliance of either the instantaneous or a long-term geometric mean criterion, percent reductions goals will be calculated for both criteria. TMDLs will be based on the percent reduction required to meet either the instantaneous or the long-term geometric mean criterion, whichever is less.
If fecal coliform is utilized to establish the TMDL, then the water quality target is the instantaneous water quality criteria (400/100 mL). If E. coli is utilized to establish the TMDL, then the water quality target is the instantaneous water quality criterion value (406/100 mL), and the geometric mean water quality target is the geometric mean criterion value (126/100 mL). If Enterococci are utilized to establish the TMDL, then the water quality target is the instantaneous water quality criterion value (108/100 mL) and the geometric mean water quality target is the geometric mean criterion value (33/100 mL). TMDLs for bacteria will incorporate an explicit 10 percent MOS.
After re-evaluating bacteria data for the streams listed in Table ES-1 bacteria TMDLs are not required for the following waterbodies: Wild Horse Creek (OK621000020040_00), Chikaskia River (OK621100000010_20), Duck Creek (OK621100000030_00), Camp Creek (OK621200030040_00), Cow Creek (OK621200030270_00), Grassy Creek (OK621200050160_00), Arkansas River (OK621210000030_10).
Turbidity: Turbidity is a measure of water clarity and is caused by suspended particles in the water column. Because turbidity cannot be expressed as a mass load, total suspended solids (TSS) are used as a surrogate for the TMDLs in this report. Therefore, both turbidity and TSS data are presented.
Table ES-3 summarizes a subset of water quality data collected from the WQM stations between 1998 and 2009 for turbidity under base flow conditions, which ODEQ considers to be Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-9 FINAL
September 2011
all flows less than the 25th flow exceedance percentile (i.e., the lower 75 percent of flows) Water quality samples collected under flow conditions greater than the 25th flow exceedance percentile (highest flows) were therefore excluded from the data set used for TMDL analysis. Table ES-4 presents a subset of data for TSS samples collected during base flow conditions. Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-10 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-3 Summary of Turbidity Samples Collected During Base Flow Conditions, 1998-2009 Waterbody ID Waterbody Name WQM Stations Number of turbidity samples Number of samples greater than 50 NTU % samples exceeding criterion Average Turbidity (NTU)
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621000010010-001AT
11
6
55%
204
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek
OK621000030010C, OK621000030010F
36
6
17%
51
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
OK621000040010D
36
12
33%
62
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek
OK621000050010D
35
18
51%
128
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek
OK621000060010C
35
12
34%
64
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621010010010D
40
33
83%
146
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621010010160-001AT
34
22
65%
141
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek
OK621010010230G
60
18
30%
46
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River
OK621010030010D
38
12
32%
87
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek
OK621010030030C
41
16
39%
83
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River
OK621100000010B
20
8
40%
45
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River
OK621100000010-001AT, OK621100000010M
60
17
28%
68
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek
621100-00-0100G
54
17
31%
40
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River
OK621200010200-001AT
15
3
20%
52
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek
OK621200050010K
31
19
61%
145
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek
OK621200050010M
33
18
55%
111
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek
OK621210-00-0270C
23
6
26%
39
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-11 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-4 Summary of TSS Samples During Base Flow Conditions, 1998-2009 Waterbody ID Waterbody Name WQM Stations Number of TSS samples Average TSS (mg/L)
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621000010010-001AT
0
-
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek
OK621000030010C, OK621000030010F
36
36
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
OK621000040010D
36
52
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek
OK621000050010D
34
79
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek
OK621000060010C
33
41
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621010010010D
38
103
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621010010160-001AT
18
220
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek
OK621010010230G
59
37
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River
OK621010030010D
36
72
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek
OK621010030030C
40
65
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River
OK621100000010B
18
58
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River
OK621100000010-001AT, OK621100000010M
49
107
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek
621100-00-0100G
53
45
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River
OK621200010200-001AT
7
45
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek
OK621200050010K
30
61
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek
OK621200050010M
33
57
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek
OK621210-00-0270C
21
29
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-12 FINAL
September 2011
The beneficial use of WWAC is one of several subcategories of the Fish and Wildlife Propagation use established to manage the variety of communities of fish and shellfish throughout the state (OWRB 2008). The numeric criteria for turbidity to maintain and protect the use of “Fish and Wildlife Propagation” from Title 785:45-5-12 (f) (7) is as follows:
(A) Turbidity from other than natural sources shall be restricted to not exceed the following numerical limits:
1. Cool Water Aquatic Community/Trout Fisheries: 10 NTUs;
2. Lakes: 25 NTU; and
3. Other surface waters: 50 NTUs.
(B) In waters where background turbidity exceeds these values, turbidity from point sources will be restricted to not exceed ambient levels.
(C) Numerical criteria listed in (A) of this paragraph apply only to seasonal base flow conditions.
(D) Elevated turbidity levels may be expected during, and for several days after, a runoff event.
The abbreviated excerpt below from Chapter 46: 785:46-15-5, stipulates how water quality data will be assessed to determine support of fish and wildlife propagation as well as how the water quality target for TMDLs will be defined for turbidity.
Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Propagation support
(a) Scope. The provisions of this Section shall be used to determine whether the beneficial use of Fish and Wildlife Propagation or any subcategory thereof designated in OAC 785:45 for a waterbody is supported.
(e) Turbidity. The criteria for turbidity stated in 785:45-5-12(f)(7) shall constitute the screening levels for turbidity. The tests for use support shall follow the default protocol in 785:46-15-4(b).
785:46-15-4. Default protocols
(b) Short term average numerical parameters.
(1) Short term average numerical parameters are based upon exposure periods of less than seven days. Short term average parameters to which this Section applies include, but are not limited to, sample standards and turbidity.
(2) A beneficial use shall be deemed to be fully supported for a given parameter whose criterion is based upon a short term average if 10% or less of the samples for that parameter exceed the applicable screening level prescribed in this Subchapter.
TMDLs for turbidity in streams designated as WWAC must take into account that no more than 10 percent of the samples may exceed the numeric criterion of 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). However, as described above, because turbidity cannot be expressed as a mass load, TSS is used as a surrogate in this TMDL. Since there is no numeric criterion in the Oklahoma WQS for TSS, a regression method to convert the turbidity criterion to TSS based on a relationship between turbidity and TSS was used to establish TSS goals as surrogates. Table ES-5 provides the results of the waterbody specific regression analysis. Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-13 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-5 Regression Statistics and TSS Goals Waterbody ID Waterbody Name R-square NRMSE TSS Goal (mg/L)a MOSb
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
0.814
12.4%
47
15%
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek
0.860
9.1%
52
10%
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
0.863
9.4%
47
10%
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek
0.933
8.3%
42
10%
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek
0.888
8.7%
44
10%
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
0.894
5.4%
41
10%
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
0.880
8.2%
82
10%
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek
0.607
17.9%
49
20%
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River
0.878
9.8%
59
15%
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek
0.904
7.7%
52
10%
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River, Lower
0.913
7.9%
57
10%
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River, Upper
0.745
14.7%
75
15%
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek
0.761
11.6%
61
15%
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River
0.772
9.7%
80
10%
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek, Lower
0.780
11.1%
35
15%
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek, Upper
0.816
12.3%
38
15%
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek
0.624
14.3%
39
15%
a WQ goal minus MOS
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-14 FINAL
September 2011
E.2 Pollutant Source Assessment
A pollutant source assessment characterizes known and suspected sources of pollutant loading to impaired waterbodies. Sources within a watershed are categorized and quantified to the extent that information is available. Bacteria originate from warm-blooded animals; some plant life and sources may be point or nonpoint in nature. Turbidity may originate from NPDES-permitted facilities, fields, construction sites, quarries, stormwater runoff and eroding stream banks.
Point sources are permitted through the NPDES program. NPDES-permitted facilities that discharge treated wastewater are required to monitor for one of the three bacterial indicators (fecal coliform, E coli, or Enterococci) and TSS in accordance with their permits. Nonpoint sources are diffuse sources that typically cannot be identified as entering a waterbody through a discrete conveyance at a single location. Nonpoint sources may emanate from land activities that contribute bacteria or TSS to surface water as a result of rainfall runoff. For the TMDLs in this report, all sources of pollutant loading not regulated by NPDES are considered nonpoint sources. Sediment loading of streams can originate from natural erosion processes, including the weathering of soil, rocks, and uncultivated land; geological abrasion; and other natural phenomena. There is insufficient data available to quantify contributions of TSS from these natural processes. TSS or sediment loading can also occur under non-runoff conditions as a result of anthropogenic activities in riparian corridors which cause erosive conditions. Given the lack of data to establish the background conditions for TSS/turbidity, separating background loading from nonpoint sources whether it is from natural or anthropogenic processes is not feasible in this TMDL development. Table ES-6 summarizes the point and nonpoint sources that contribute bacteria or TSS to each respective waterbody.
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-15 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-6 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources by Category Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Municipal NPDES Facility Industrial NPDES Facility MS4 NPDES No Discharge Facility CAFO Mines Nonpoint Source
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
TSS
OK621000020130_00
Spring Creek
Bacteria
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek
Bacteria, TSS
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
Bacteria, TSS
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek
Bacteria, TSS
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek
Bacteria, TSS
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
Bacteria, TSS
OK621010010090_00
Clay Creek
Bacteria
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
Bacteria, TSS
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek
Bacteria, TSS
OK621010010270_00
Yellowstone Creek
Bacteria
OK621010020010_00
Sandy Creek
Bacteria
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River
Bacteria, TSS
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek
Bacteria, TSS
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River
Bacteria, TSS Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-16 FINAL
September 2011
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Municipal NPDES Facility Industrial NPDES Facility MS4 NPDES No Discharge Facility CAFO Mines Nonpoint Source
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River
Bacteria, TSS
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek
Bacteria, TSS
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River
Bacteria, TSS
OK621200030010_00
Black Bear Creek
Bacteria
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek
Bacteria, TSS
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek
Bacteria, TSS
OK621210000050_10
Beaver Creek
Bacteria
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek
Bacteria, TSS Facility present in watershed. Facility present in watershed, but not recognized as pollutant source.
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-1 FINAL
September 2011
E.3 Using Load Duration Curves to Develop TMDLs
The TMDL calculations presented in this report are derived from load duration curves (LDC). LDCs facilitate rapid development of TMDLs, and as a TMDL development tool are effective at identifying whether impairments are associated with point or nonpoint sources. The technical approach for using LDCs for TMDL development includes the following steps: Preparing flow duration curves for gaged and ungaged WQM stations; Estimating existing loading in the waterbody using ambient bacteria water quality data; and estimating loading in the waterbody using measured TSS water quality data and turbidity-converted data; and Using LDCs to identify the critical condition that will dictate loading reductions and the overall percent reduction goal (PRG) necessary to attain WQS.
Use of the LDC obviates the need to determine a design storm or selected flow recurrence interval with which to characterize the appropriate flow level for the assessment of critical conditions. For waterbodies impacted by both point and nonpoint sources, the “nonpoint source critical condition” would typically occur during high flows, when rainfall runoff would contribute the bulk of the pollutant load, while the “point source critical condition” would typically occur during low flows, when wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents would dominate the base flow of the impaired water. However, flow range is only a general indicator of the relative proportion of point/nonpoint contributions. Violations have been noted under low flow conditions in some watersheds that contain no point sources.
LDCs display the maximum allowable load over the complete range of flow conditions by a line using the calculation of flow multiplied by a water quality criterion. The TMDL can be expressed as a continuous function of flow, equal to the line, or as a discrete value derived from a specific flow condition.
The basic steps to generating an LDC involve: obtaining daily flow data for the site of interest from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); sorting the flow data and calculating flow exceedance percentiles for the time period and season of interest; obtaining the water quality data from the primary contact recreation season (May 1 through September 30); or obtaining available turbidity and TSS water quality data; matching the water quality observations with the flow data from the same date; displaying a curve on a plot that represents the allowable load determined by multiplying the actual or estimated flow by the WQS for each respective bacteria indicator; or displaying a curve on a plot that represents the allowable load determined by multiplying the actual or estimated flow by the WQgoal for TSS; converting measured concentration values to loads by multiplying the flow at the time the sample was collected by the water quality parameter concentration (for sampling events with both TSS and turbidity data, the measured TSS value is used; if only turbidity was measured, the value was converted to TSS using the regression equation); or multiplying the flow by the bacteria indicator concentration to calculate daily loads; then Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-2 FINAL
September 2011
plotting the flow exceedance percentiles and daily load observations in a load duration plot.
For bacteria TMDLs the culmination of these steps is expressed in the following formula, which is displayed on the LDC as the TMDL curve:
TMDL (cfu/day) = WQS * flow (cfs) * unit conversion factor
Where: WQS = 400 cfu /100 mL (Fecal coliform); 406 cfu/100 mL (E. coli); or 108 cfu/100 mL (Enterococci)
unit conversion factor = 24,465,525 mL*s / ft3*day
For turbidity (TSS) TMDLs the culmination of these steps is expressed in the following formula, which is displayed on the LDC as the TMDL curve:
TMDL (lb/day) = WQ goal* flow (cfs) * unit conversion factor
where: WQ goal = waterbody specific TSS concentration derived from regression analysis results presented in Table 4-1
unit conversion factor = 5.39377 L*s*lb /(ft3*day*mg)
Historical observations of bacteria, TSS and/or turbidity concentrations are paired with flow data and are plotted as separate LDCs. The fecal coliform load (or the y-value of each point) is calculated by multiplying the fecal coliform concentration (colonies/100 mL) by the instantaneous flow (cubic feet per second[cfs]) at the same site and time, with appropriate volumetric and time unit conversions. Fecal coliform/E. coli/Enterococci loads representing exceedance of water quality criteria fall above the water quality criterion line. Likewise, the TSS load (or the y-value of each point) is calculated by multiplying the TSS concentration (measured or converted from turbidity) (mg/L) by the instantaneous flow (cfs) at the same site and time, with appropriate volumetric and time unit conversions. TSS loads representing exceedance of water quality criteria fall above the TMDL line.
E.4 TMDL Calculations
A TMDL is expressed as the sum of all WLAs (point source loads), LAs (nonpoint source loads), and an appropriate MOS, which attempts to account for the lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality.
This definition can be expressed by the following equation:
TMDL = Σ WLA + Σ LA + MOS
For each waterbody the TMDLs presented in this report are expressed as a percent reduction across the full range of flow conditions. The difference between existing loading and the water quality target is used to calculate the loading reductions required. PRG are calculated for each waterbody and bacterial indicator species as the reductions in load required so no existing instantaneous water quality observations would exceed the water quality target for E. coli and Enterococci and no more than 25 percent of the samples exceed the water quality target for fecal coliform.
Table ES-7 presents the percent reductions necessary for each bacterial indicator causing nonsupport of the PBCR use in each waterbody of the Study Area. Selection of the appropriate PRG for each waterbody in Table ES-7 is denoted by bold text. The TMDL PRG will be the lesser of that required to meet the geometric mean or instantaneous criteria for E. coli and Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-3 FINAL
September 2011
Enterococci because WQSs are considered to be met if, 1) either the geometric mean of all data is less than the geometric mean criteria, or 2) no samples exceed the instantaneous criteria. The PRGs range from 0 to 96 percent.
Table ES-7 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Standards for Indicator Bacteria Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Required Reduction Rate FC EC ENT Instant-aneous Instant-aneous Geo-mean Instant-aneous Geo-mean
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
99.0%
96.0%
OK621000020130_00
Spring Creek
71.0%
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek
88.0%
82.0%
40.8%
99.1%
84.4%
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
82.0%
8.3%
98.1%
68.7%
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek
78.0%
34.7%
95.0%
89.7%
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek
92.0%
75.7%
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
91.0%
0.0%
OK621010010090_00
Clay Creek
95.0%
83.6%
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
80.0%
95.0%
57.4%
99.5%
97.6%
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek
82.0%
65.4%
98.1%
95.3%
OK621010010270_00
Yellowstone Creek
96.0%
67.3%
OK621010020010_00
Sandy Creek
95.2%
94.0%
60.6%
95.0%
87.3%
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River
73.0%
54.1%
94.5%
88.1%
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek
91.0%
35.4%
98.2%
90.1%
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River, Lower
82.0%
0.0%
95.2%
56.0%
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River, Upper
64.0%
99.2%
83.8%
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek
79.0%
16.6%
98.1%
79.2%
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River
95.6%
84.1%
OK621200030010_00
Black Bear Creek
93.5%
51.6%
99.1%
87.6%
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek, Lower
95.0%
70.9%
99.1%
91.2%
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek, Upper
93.0%
68.3%
OK621210000050_10
Beaver Creek
94.0%
55.4%
98.6%
87.6%
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek
75.0%
39.1%
91.0%
79.2%
Similarly, percent reduction goals for TSS are calculated as the required overall reduction so that no more than 10 percent of the samples exceed the water quality target for TSS. The PRGs for the seventeen waterbodies included in this TMDL report are summarized in Table ES-8 and range from 43 to 89 percent.
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-4 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-8 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Targets for Total Suspended Solids Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Required Reduction Rate
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
89%
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek
43%
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
60%
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek
82%
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek
51%
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
82%
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
85%
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek
52%
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River
67%
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek
70%
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River, Lower
44%
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River, Upper
54%
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek
50%
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River
51%
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek, Lower
85%
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek, Upper
77%
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek
44%
The TMDL, WLA, LA, and MOS vary with flow condition, and are calculated at every 5th flow interval percentile. The WLA component of each TMDL is the sum of all WLAs within each contributing watershed. The sum of the WLAs can be represented as a single line below the LDC. The LDC and the simple equation of:
Average LA = average TMDL – MOS - ΣWLA
can provide an individual value for the LA in counts per day, which represents the area under the TMDL target line and above the WLA line.
Federal regulations (40 CFR §130.7(c)(1)) require that TMDLs include an MOS and account for seasonal variability. The MOS, which can be implicit or explicit, is a conservative measure incorporated into the TMDL equation that accounts for the lack of knowledge associated with calculating the allowable pollutant loading to ensure WQSs are attained.
For bacteria TMDLs, an explicit MOS was set at 10 percent.
For turbidity, the TMDLs are calculated for TSS instead of turbidity. Thus, the quality of the regression has a direct impact on confidence of the TMDL calculations. The better the regression is, the more confidence there is in the TMDL targets. As a result, it leads to a smaller MOS. The selection of MOS is based on the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) for each waterbody. The explicit MOS ranges from 10 percent to 20 percent.
The bacteria TMDLs established in this report adhere to the seasonal application of the Oklahoma WQS which limits the PBCR use to the period of May 1st through September 30th. Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx ES-5 FINAL
September 2011
Similarly, the TSS TMDLs established in this report adhere to the seasonal application of the Oklahoma WQS for turbidity, which applies to seasonal base flow conditions only. Seasonal variation was also accounted for in these TMDLs by using more than 5 years of water quality data and by using the longest period of USGS flow records when estimating flows to develop flow exceedance percentiles.
E.5 Reasonable Assurance
As authorized by Section 402 of the CWA, ODEQ has delegation of the NPDES in Oklahoma, except for certain jurisdictional areas related to agriculture and the oil and gas industry retained by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture and Oklahoma Corporation Commission, for which the USEPA has retained permitting authority. The NPDES program in Oklahoma is implemented via Title 252, Chapter 606 of the Oklahoma Pollution Discharge Elimination System (OPDES) Act, and in accordance with the agreement between ODEQ and USEPA relating to administration and enforcement of the delegated NPDES program. Implementation of WLAs for point sources is done through permits issued under the OPDES program. The pollutant reduction rates called for in this TMDL report are as high as 99 percent. The ODEQ recognizes that achieving such high reductions will be a challenge, especially since unregulated nonpoint sources are a major cause of both bacteria and TSS loading. The high reduction rates are not uncommon for pathogen- or TSS-impaired waters. Similar reduction rates are often found in other pathogen and TSS TMDLs around the nation. Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-1 FINAL
September 2011
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 TMDL Program Background
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 130) require states to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for waterbodies not meeting designated uses where technology-based controls are in place. TMDLs establish the allowable loadings of pollutants or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody based on the relationship between pollution sources and instream water quality conditions, so states can implement water quality-based controls to reduce pollution from point and nonpoint sources and restore and maintain water quality (USEPA 1991).
This report documents the data and assessment used to establish TMDLs for the pathogen indicator bacteria [fecal coliform, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Enterococci] and turbidity for selected waterbodies in the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River basin. (All future references to bacteria in this document imply these three classes of fecal pathogen indicator bacteria unless specifically stated otherwise.) Elevated levels of pathogen indicator bacteria in aquatic environments indicate that a waterbody is contaminated with human or animal feces and that a potential health risk exists for individuals exposed to the water. Elevated turbidity levels caused by excessive sediment loading and stream bank erosion impact aquatic biological communities. Data assessment and TMDL calculations are conducted in accordance with requirements of Section 303(d) of the CWA, Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130), USEPA guidance, and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) guidance and procedures. ODEQ is required to submit all TMDLs to USEPA for review and approval. Once the USEPA approves a TMDL, then the waterbody may be moved to Category 4a of a state’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, where it remains until compliance with water quality standards (WQS) is achieved (USEPA 2003).
The purpose of this TMDL report is to establish pollutant load allocations for indicator bacteria and turbidity in impaired waterbodies, which is the first step toward restoring water quality and protecting public health. TMDLs determine the pollutant loading a waterbody can assimilate without exceeding the WQS for that pollutant. TMDLs also establish the pollutant load allocation necessary to meet the WQS established for a waterbody based on the relationship between pollutant sources and instream water quality conditions. A TMDL consists of a wasteload allocation (WLA), load allocation (LA), and a margin of safety (MOS). The WLA is the fraction of the total pollutant load apportioned to point sources, and includes stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The LA is the fraction of the total pollutant load apportioned to nonpoint sources. The MOS is a percentage of the TMDL set aside to account for the lack of knowledge associated with natural process in aquatic systems, model assumptions, and data limitations.
This report does not stipulate specific control actions (regulatory controls) or management measures (voluntary best management practices) necessary to reduce bacteria or turbidity within each watershed. Watershed-specific control actions and management measures will be identified, selected, and implemented under a separate process involving stakeholders who live Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-2 FINAL
September 2011
and work in the watersheds, along with tribes, and local, state, and federal government agencies.
This TMDL report focuses on waterbodies that ODEQ placed in Category 5 [303(d) list] of the Water Quality in Oklahoma, 2008 Integrated Report (2008 Integrated Report) for nonsupport of primary body contact recreation (PBCR) or warm water aquatic community (WWAC) designated uses. The waterbodies addressed in this report, which are presented upstream to downstream, include: Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621000010010_30), Spring Creek (OK621000020130_00), Bois d' Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00), Deer Creek (OK621000040010_00), Pond Creek (OK621000050010_00), Crooked Creek (OK621000060010_00), Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010010_00), Clay Creek (OK621010010090_00), Arkansas River, Salt Fork (OK621010010160_00), Turkey Creek (OK621010010230_00), Yellowstone Creek (OK621010010270_00), Sandy Creek (OK621010020010_00), Medicine Lodge River (OK621010030010_00), Driftwood Creek (OK621010030030_00), Chikaskia River (OK621100000010_00), Chikaskia River (OK621100000010_10), Bitter Creek (OK621100000100_00), Arkansas River (OK621200010200_00), Black Bear Creek (OK621200030010_00), Red Rock Creek (OK621200050010_00), Red Rock Creek (OK621200050010_10), Beaver Creek (OK621210000050_10), and Chilocco Creek (OK621210000270_00).
Figures 1-1 and 1-2 are location maps showing these Oklahoma waterbodies and their contributing watersheds. These maps also display locations of the water quality monitoring (WQM) stations used as the basis for placement of these waterbodies on the Oklahoma 303(d) list. These waterbodies and their surrounding watersheds are hereinafter referred to as the Study Area. Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-3 FINAL
September 2011
Figure 1-1 Upper Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Watersheds Not Supporting Primary Body Contact Recreation or Fish and Wildlife Propagation
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-4 FINAL
September 2011
Figure 1-2 Lower Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Watersheds Not Supporting Primary Body Contact Recreation or Fish and Wildlife Propagation Use
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-5 FINAL
September 2011
Elevated levels of pathogen indicator bacteria or turbidity above the WQS result in the requirement that a TMDL be developed. The TMDLs established in this report are a necessary step in the process to develop the pollutant loading controls needed to restore the PBCR or fish and wildlife propagation use designated for each waterbody. Table 1-1 provides a description of the locations of WQM stations on the 303(d)-listed waterbodies.
Table 1-1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations used for 2008 303(d) Listing Decision Station ID Waterbody Name Description WBID
OK621000010010-001AT
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
Salt Fork Arkansas River At US77 At Tonkawa, OK
OK621000010010_30
OK621000-02-0130G
Spring Creek
Section 12-26N-7W
OK621000020130_00
OK621000-03-0010C
Bois d'Arc Creek
SE SE SE Section 18-25N-2E
OK621000030010_00
OK621000-03-0010F
Bois d'Arc Creek
NW Section 32-26N-2E
OK621000030010_00
OK621000-04-0010D
Deer Creek
NE NE NW Section 26-26N-2W
OK621000040010_00
OK621000-05-0010D
Pond Creek
SE SE SE Section 35-26N-4W
OK621000050010_00
OK621000-06-0010C
Crooked Creek
NW SW SW Section 8-26N-7W
OK621000060010_00
OK621010-01-0010D
Salt Fork of Arkansas River
NE NE NE Section 11-26N-9W
OK621010010010_00
OK621010-01-0090R
Clay Creek
NE NE NE Section 19-26N-10W
OK621010010090_00
OK621010010160-001AT
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
Salt Fork Arkansas River At SH 58 Near Ingersoll, OK
OK621010010160_00
OK621010-01-0230G
Turkey Creek
SW NW NW Section 14-27N-14W
OK621010010230_00
OK621010-01-0270C
Yellowstone Creek
NW SW NW SECTION 19-29N-15W
OK621010010270_00
OK621010-01-0270G
Yellowstone Creek
SE NW SE SECTION 21-29N-16W
OK621010010270_00
OK621010-02-0010D
Sandy Creek
SW SE SE Section 6-27N-9W
OK621010020010_00
OK621010-02-0010G
Sandy Creek
Section 18-29N-9W
OK621010020010_00
OK621010-03-0010D
Medicine Lodge River
S.B. Section 1-27N-11W
OK621010030010_00
OK621010-03-0030C
Driftwood Creek
SE SW SE Section 2-27N-11W
OK621010030030_00
OK621100-00-0010B
Chickaskia River: Lower
S.B. Section 18-25N-1E
OK621100000010_00
OK621100-00-0010M
Chickaskia River: Upper
NE NE NE Section 9-27N-1W
OK621100000010_10
OK621100-00-0100G
Bitter Creek
SW NW NW Section 11-27N-1W
OK621100000100_00
OK621200010200-001AT
Arkansas River
Arkansas River At SH 18 At Ralston, OK
OK621200010200_00
OK621200-03-0010D
Black Bear Creek: Lower
Sections 31/32 22N-6E
OK621200030010_00
OK621200-03-0010G
Black Bear Creek: Lower
SE NW NE Section 1-21N-4E
OK621200030010_00
OK621200-03-0010M
Black Bear Creek: Lower
W.B. Section 9-21N-3E
OK621200030010_00
OK621200-03-0010W
Black Bear Creek: Upper
NE NE NE Section 32-22N-1E
OK621200030010_00
OK621200-05-0010K
Red Rock Creek: Lower
SW SE Section 3-23N-2E
OK621200050010_00
OK621200-05-0010P
Red Rock Creek: Lower
W.B. Section 16-23N-1E
OK621200050010_00
OK621200-05-0010M
Red Rock Creek: Upper
SW NW NW SECTION 16-23N-1W
OK621200050010_10
OK621210-00-0050L
Beaver Creek
N.B. Section 34-28N-5E
OK621210000050_10
OK621210-00-0270C
Chilocco Creek
W.B. Section 26-29N-3E
OK621210000270_00
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-6 FINAL
September 2011
1.2 Watershed Description
General. The Salt Fork of the Arkansas River is located in the northern portion of Oklahoma and southern portion of Kansas. The majority of the waterbodies addressed in this report are located in Alfalfa, Garfield, Grant, Kay, Noble, Osage, Pawnee and Woods Counties of Oklahoma. The southern section of Black Bear Creek (OK621200030010_00) is located in Payne County. 34.6 percent of the Study Area is located in Barber, Comanche, Cowley, Harper and Sumner Counties of Kansas. These counties are part of the Prarie Tableland, Cross Timbers Transition, Flint Hills, North Cross Timbers and Osage Cuestas ecoregions of Oklahoma (Woods, A.J, Omerik, J.M., et al 2005).
The watersheds in the Study Area are located in the Northern Shelf and Nemaha Ridge geological provinces (ODEQ 2008). Table 1-2, derived from the 2000 U.S. Census, demonstrates that the counties in which these watersheds are located are sparsely populated (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Table 1-3 lists the towns and cities located in each watershed.
Table 1-2 County Population and Density County Name Population (2000 Census) Population Density (per square mile)
Oklahoma
Alfalfa
6,105
7
Garfield
57,813
55
Grant
5,144
5
Kay
48,080
51
Noble
11,411
15
Osage
44,437
19
Pawnee
16,612
28
Payne
68,190
98
Woods
9,089
7
Kansas
Barber
5,307
5
Comanche
1,967
2
Cowley
36,291
32
Harper
6,536
8
Sumner
25,946
22
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-7 FINAL
September 2011
Table 1-3 Towns and Cities by Watershed Waterbody Name Waterbody ID Municipalities
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621000010010_30
Tonkawa
Spring Creek
OK621000020130_00
Newkirk, Kildare
Bois d' Arc Creek
OK621000030010_00
Deer Creek
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
Pond Creek
OK621000050010_00
Renfrow, Medford, Jefferson
Crooked Creek
OK621000060010_00
Manchester, Wakita
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621010010010_00
Amorita, Byron
Clay Creek
OK621010010090_00
Lambert
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621010010160_00
Turkey Creek
OK621010010230_00
Yellowstone Creek
OK621010010270_00
Sandy Creek
OK621010020010_00
Sharon, Attica, Hazelton, Waldron
Medicine Lodge River
OK621010030010_00
Kiowa, Burlington
Driftwood Creek
OK621010030030_00
Hardtner, Capron
Chikaskia River
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River
OK621100000010_10
Blackwell
Bitter Creek
OK621100000100_00
Braman
Arkansas River
OK621200010200_00
Ralston, Blackburn, Maramec, Hallett
Black Bear Creek
OK621200030010_00
Skedee, Pawnee, Morrison, Glencoe
Red Rock Creek
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock
Red Rock Creek
OK621200050010_10
Hunter, Billings
Beaver Creek
OK621210000050_10
Chilocco Creek
OK621210000270_00
Climate. Table 1-4 summarizes the average annual precipitation for each Oklahoma waterbody in the Study Area. NOAA National Climatic Data Center precipitation data was downloaded from Mesonet from 1971-2000. Annual precipitation for each watershed was calculated using an area weighted average based on Thiessen Polygons for each station. Average annual precipitation values among the watersheds in this portion of Oklahoma range between 24 and 38.7 inches (http://www.mesonet.org/index.php). Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-8 FINAL
September 2011
Table 1-4 Average Annual Precipitation by Watershed Waterbody Name Waterbody ID Average Annual Precipitation (Inches)
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621000010010_30
35.7
Spring Creek
OK621000020130_00
34.6
Bois d' Arc Creek
OK621000030010_00
37.3
Deer Creek
OK621000040010_00
35.1
Pond Creek
OK621000050010_00
34.4
Crooked Creek
OK621000060010_00
31.6
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621010010010_00
31.3
Clay Creek
OK621010010090_00
31.4
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
OK621010010160_00
30.0
Turkey Creek
OK621010010230_00
27.0
Yellowstone Creek
OK621010010270_00
24.1
Sandy Creek
OK621010020010_00
30.3
Medicine Lodge River
OK621010030010_00
29.3
Driftwood Creek
OK621010030030_00
27.6
Chikaskia River
OK621100000010_00
36.3
Chikaskia River
OK621100000010_10
35.4
Bitter Creek
OK621100000100_00
36.1
Arkansas River
OK621200010200_00
38.7
Black Bear Creek
OK621200030010_00
37.6
Red Rock Creek
OK621200050010_00
36.3
Red Rock Creek
OK621200050010_10
35.5
Beaver Creek
OK621210000050_10
37.9
Chilocco Creek
OK621210000270_00
38.0
Land Use. Tables 1-5a through 1-5d summarize the percentages and acreages of the land use categories for the contributing watershed associated with each respective Oklahoma waterbody addressed in the Study Area. The land use/land cover data were derived from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (USGS 2007). The land use categories are displayed in Figure 1-3. The two most dominant land use categories throughout the Study Area are cultivated crops and grasslands/herbaceous. Two watersheds in the Study Area do have a significant percentage of land use classified as Deciduous Forest including Arkansas River (OK621200010200_00) and Black Bear Creek (OK621200030010_00). The Bois d' Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) watershed has a significant percentage of land use classified as Pasture/Hay. The aggregated total of low, medium, and high intensity developed land account for less than 2 percent of the land use in each watershed, except for Bois d' Arc Creek (OK621000030010_00) which accounts for 4.6 percent. The watersheds targeted for TMDL development in this Study Area range in size from 4,819 acres (Chikaskia River, OK621100000010_00) to 296,734 acres (Sandy Creek, OK621010020010_00).Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-9 FINAL
September 2011
Figure 1-3 Land Use Map
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-10 FINAL
September 2011
Table 1-5a Land Use Summaries by Watershed Land Use Category Watershed Arkansas River, Salt Fork Spring Creek Bois d' Arc Creek Deer Creek Pond Creek Crooked Creek Waterbody ID OK621000010010_30 OK621000020130_00 OK621000030010_00 OK621000040010_00 OK621000050010_00 OK621000060010_00
Percent of Open Water
1.73%
0.71%
0.32%
0.29%
0.39%
0.29%
Percent of Developed, Open Space
4.74%
3.66%
5.33%
4.29%
4.35%
3.91%
Percent of Developed, Low Intensity
1.22%
0.21%
3.42%
0.26%
0.48%
0.40%
Percent of Developed, Medium Intensity
0.17%
0.00%
0.83%
0.02%
0.06%
0.02%
Percent of Developed, High Intensity
0.03%
0.00%
0.30%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
Percent of Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
Percent of Deciduous Forest
0.80%
0.38%
0.80%
0.25%
0.10%
1.32%
Percent of Evergreen Forest
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Mixed Forest
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
Percent of Shrub/Scrub
0.07%
0.04%
0.17%
0.05%
0.03%
0.59%
Percent of Grassland/Herbaceous
9.18%
50.63%
19.32%
15.53%
27.30%
36.81%
Percent of Pasture/Hay
6.42%
0.00%
10.17%
1.97%
0.35%
0.15%
Percent of Cultivated Crops
71.19%
41.73%
55.87%
74.69%
63.76%
54.65%
Percent of Woody Wetlands
4.10%
1.61%
3.19%
2.36%
2.03%
1.35%
Percent of Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
0.34%
1.03%
0.27%
0.29%
1.13%
0.49%
Acres Open Water
1,279
54
201
291
826
446
Acres Developed, Open Space
3,501
279
3,370
4,313
9,218
5,959
Acres Developed, Low Intensity
900
16
2,161
257
1,011
617
Acres Developed, Medium Intensity
129
0
522
16
135
33
Acres Developed, High Intensity
24
0
190
0
28
2
Acres Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)
7
0
4
0
22
8
Acres Deciduous Forest
590
29
507
251
206
2,004
Acres Evergreen Forest
3
0
0
0
0
0
Acres Mixed Forest
0
0
0
0
0
8
Acres Shrub/Scrub
48
3
110
52
56
898
Acres Grassland/Herbaceous
6,779
3,862
12,215
15,599
57,917
56,079
Acres Pasture/Hay
4,740
0
6,427
1,976
746
228
Acres Cultivated Crops
52,576
3,183
35,319
75,014
135,253
83,260
Acres Woody Wetlands
3,028
123
2,017
2,373
4,301
2,064
Acres Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
252
79
170
286
2,397
749
Total (Acres)
73,856
7,628
63,213
100,428
212,118
152,355
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-11 FINAL
September 2011
Table 1-5b Land Use Summaries by Watershed Land Use Category Watershed Arkansas River, Salt Fork Clay Creek Arkansas River, Salt Fork Turkey Creek Yellowstone Creek Sandy Creek Waterbody ID OK621010010010_00 OK621010010090_00 OK621010010160_00 OK621010010230_00 OK621010010270_00 OK621010020010_00
Percent of Open Water
11.10%
2.20%
2.37%
1.60%
1.04%
0.79%
Percent of Developed, Open Space
3.75%
3.72%
4.14%
3.16%
2.05%
3.54%
Percent of Developed, Low Intensity
0.73%
0.29%
0.25%
0.69%
0.03%
0.22%
Percent of Developed, Medium Intensity
0.03%
0.02%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
0.02%
Percent of Developed, High Intensity
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)
5.79%
4.82%
0.21%
0.01%
0.00%
0.02%
Percent of Deciduous Forest
2.57%
0.30%
1.13%
2.10%
2.41%
1.81%
Percent of Evergreen Forest
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Mixed Forest
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
Percent of Shrub/Scrub
3.06%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.09%
Percent of Grassland/Herbaceous
47.98%
31.57%
25.09%
71.06%
89.47%
57.15%
Percent of Pasture/Hay
0.31%
0.03%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.09%
Percent of Cultivated Crops
18.17%
56.78%
65.18%
21.04%
4.80%
35.71%
Percent of Woody Wetlands
4.25%
0.03%
1.55%
0.29%
0.18%
0.50%
Percent of Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
2.24%
0.21%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.06%
Acres Open Water
6,165
1,703
828
395
437
2,333
Acres Developed, Open Space
2,086
2,880
1,447
779
860
10,497
Acres Developed, Low Intensity
403
225
87
170
11
667
Acres Developed, Medium Intensity
19
14
0
9
0
56
Acres Developed, High Intensity
6
7
0
0
0
6
Acres Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)
3,217
3,725
73
2
0
67
Acres Deciduous Forest
1,426
233
395
519
1,010
5,358
Acres Evergreen Forest
0
14
0
0
0
0
Acres Mixed Forest
0
0
1
0
0
23
Acres Shrub/Scrub
1,701
0
6
1
2
275
Acres Grassland/Herbaceous
26,657
24,426
8,760
17,523
37,500
169,583
Acres Pasture/Hay
171
24
15
0
0
262
Acres Cultivated Crops
10,097
43,931
22,755
5,190
2,014
105,959
Acres Woody Wetlands
2,361
22
542
72
74
1,476
Acres Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
1,247
159
2
1
5
170
Total (Acres)
55,557
77,364
34,911
24,660
41,913
296,734
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-12 FINAL
September 2011
Table 1-5c Land Use Summaries by Watershed Land Use Category Watershed Medicine Lodge River Driftwood Creek Chikaskia River Chikaskia River Bitter Creek Arkansas River Waterbody ID OK621010030010_00 OK621010030030_00 OK621100000010_00 OK621100000010_10 OK621100000100_00 OK621200010200_00
Percent of Open Water
1.76%
0.52%
2.99%
1.27%
0.28%
2.78%
Percent of Developed, Open Space
3.82%
3.90%
3.58%
5.35%
5.18%
3.68%
Percent of Developed, Low Intensity
0.36%
0.18%
0.18%
2.76%
0.47%
0.16%
Percent of Developed, Medium Intensity
0.07%
0.02%
0.00%
0.39%
0.03%
0.06%
Percent of Developed, High Intensity
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.07%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)
0.01%
0.01%
0.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
Percent of Deciduous Forest
1.22%
0.80%
4.16%
0.55%
0.92%
25.02%
Percent of Evergreen Forest
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.79%
Percent of Mixed Forest
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Shrub/Scrub
0.03%
0.00%
0.24%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Grassland/Herbaceous
36.05%
40.18%
2.10%
9.24%
22.54%
59.59%
Percent of Pasture/Hay
0.16%
0.25%
6.31%
7.92%
6.36%
2.02%
Percent of Cultivated Crops
56.18%
53.93%
70.26%
69.75%
62.28%
5.82%
Percent of Woody Wetlands
0.32%
0.22%
9.86%
2.37%
1.84%
0.00%
Percent of Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
0.00%
0.00%
0.24%
0.30%
0.09%
0.04%
Acres Open Water
2,921
866
144
706
248
5,082
Acres Developed, Open Space
6,349
6,520
173
2,977
4,562
6,734
Acres Developed, Low Intensity
602
298
9
1,534
414
302
Acres Developed, Medium Intensity
117
25
0
216
30
107
Acres Developed, High Intensity
21
2
0
40
2
9
Acres Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)
23
12
4
2
4
75
Acres Deciduous Forest
2,028
1,334
201
308
812
45,789
Acres Evergreen Forest
7
6
0
0
0
1,450
Acres Mixed Forest
5
2
0
0
0
0
Acres Shrub/Scrub
42
4
11
22
1
0
Acres Grassland/Herbaceous
59,887
67,156
101
5,144
19,840
109,051
Acres Pasture/Hay
259
412
304
4,410
5,598
3,693
Acres Cultivated Crops
93,322
90,130
3,386
38,837
54,825
10,651
Acres Woody Wetlands
536
365
475
1,317
1,620
0
Acres Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
6
0
12
167
79
73
Total (Acres)
166,124
167,133
4,819
55,681
88,033
183,014
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-13 FINAL
September 2011
Table 1-5d Land Use Summaries by Watershed Land Use Category Watershed Black Bear Creek Red Rock Creek Red Rock Creek Beaver Creek Chilocco Creek Waterbody ID OK621200030010_00 OK621200050010_00 OK621200050010_10 OK621210000050_10 OK621210000270_00
Percent of Open Water
0.91%
0.67%
0.68%
0.75%
0.53%
Percent of Developed, Open Space
4.44%
4.78%
4.31%
3.15%
4.69%
Percent of Developed, Low Intensity
0.71%
0.63%
0.30%
0.14%
0.31%
Percent of Developed, Medium Intensity
0.08%
0.31%
0.05%
0.00%
0.04%
Percent of Developed, High Intensity
0.02%
0.07%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.02%
0.00%
Percent of Deciduous Forest
13.25%
4.67%
2.20%
1.57%
5.84%
Percent of Evergreen Forest
0.32%
0.01%
0.09%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Mixed Forest
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Shrub/Scrub
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percent of Grassland/Herbaceous
62.74%
45.77%
26.76%
77.84%
31.24%
Percent of Pasture/Hay
3.60%
0.39%
0.30%
7.69%
6.25%
Percent of Cultivated Crops
13.94%
42.69%
65.28%
4.26%
48.43%
Percent of Woody Wetlands
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.25%
2.51%
Percent of Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.32%
0.14%
Acres Open Water
2,204
956
1,050
427
163
Acres Developed, Open Space
10,778
6,804
6,625
1,788
1,434
Acres Developed, Low Intensity
1,728
903
466
78
96
Acres Developed, Medium Intensity
191
439
77
0
11
Acres Developed, High Intensity
39
97
16
0
0
Acres Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)
8
2
24
11
0
Acres Deciduous Forest
32,186
6,654
3,379
890
1,787
Acres Evergreen Forest
766
21
133
0
0
Acres Mixed Forest
0
0
0
0
0
Acres Shrub/Scrub
0
0
0
1
0
Acres Grassland/Herbaceous
152,394
65,165
41,145
44,145
9,552
Acres Pasture/Hay
8,736
550
465
4,363
1,911
Acres Cultivated Crops
33,852
60,782
100,379
2,418
14,808
Acres Woody Wetlands
0
4
0
2,410
767
Acres Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
9
8
0
179
43
Total (Acres)
242,892
142,386
153,759
56,712
30,573 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 1-14 FINAL
September 2011
1.3 Stream Flow Conditions
Stream flow characteristics and data are key information when conducting water quality assessments such as TMDLs. The USGS operates flow gages throughout Oklahoma, from which long-term stream flow records can be obtained. At various WQM stations additional flow measurements are available which were collected at the same time bacteria, total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity water quality samples were collected. Not all of the waterbodies in this Study Area have historical flow data available. However, the flow data from the surrounding USGS gage stations and the instantaneous flow measurement data along with water quality samples have been used to estimate flows for ungaged streams. Flow data collected at the time of water quality sampling are included in Appendix A along with corresponding water chemistry data results. A summary of the method used to project flows for ungaged streams and flow exceedance percentiles from projected flow data are provided in Appendix B. Problem Identification and
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Water Quality Target
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 2-1 FINAL
September 2011
SECTION 2 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY TARGET
2.1 Oklahoma Water Quality Standards
Title 785 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code contains Oklahoma’s water quality standards and implementation procedures (OWRB 2008). The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) has statutory authority and responsibility concerning establishment of state water quality standards, as provided under 82 Oklahoma Statute [O.S.], §1085.30. This statute authorizes the OWRB to promulgate rules …which establish classifications of uses of waters of the state, criteria to maintain and protect such classifications, and other standards or policies pertaining to the quality of such waters. [O.S. 82:1085:30(A)]. Beneficial uses are designated for all waters of the state. Such uses are protected through restrictions imposed by the antidegradation policy statement, narrative water quality criteria, and numerical criteria (OWRB 2008). An excerpt of the Oklahoma WQS (Title 785) summarizing the State of Oklahoma Antidegradation Policy is provided in Appendix C. Table 2-1, an excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report (ODEQ 2008), lists beneficial uses designated for each bacteria and/or turbidity impaired stream segment where at least one TMDL is required. The beneficial uses include: AES – Aesthetics AG – Agriculture Water Supply WWAC – Warm Water Aquatic Community FISH – Fish Consumption PBCR – Primary Body Contact Recreation PPWS – Public and Private Water Supply EWS – Emergency Water Supply
Table 2-2 summarizes the PBCR and WWAC use attainment status and the bacteria and turbidity impairment status for streams in the Study Area. The TMDL priority shown in Table 2-2 is directly related to the TMDL target date. The TMDLs established in this report, which are a necessary step in the process of restoring water quality, only address bacteria and/or turbidity impairments that affect the PBCR and WWAC-beneficial uses.
The definition of PBCR is summarized by the following excerpt from the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (785:45-5-16).
(a) Primary Body Contact Recreation involves direct body contact with the water where a possibility of ingestion exists. In these cases the water shall not contain chemical, physical or biological substances in concentrations that are irritating to skin or sense organs or are toxic or cause illness upon ingestion by human beings.
(b) In waters designated for Primary Body Contact Recreation...limits...shall apply only during the recreation period of May 1 to September 30. The criteria for Secondary Body Contact Recreation will apply during the remainder of the year.
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 2-2 FINAL
September 2011
Table 2-1 Designated Beneficial Uses for TMDL Required Waterbodies in This Report WBID Name AES AG WWAC FISH PBCR PPWS EWS
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
F
F
N
N
N
F
OK621000020130_00
Spring Creek
F
F
I
X
N
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek
I
N
N
X
N
I
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
F
N
N
X
N
I
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek
I
F
N
X
N
I
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek
F
F
N
X
N
I
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
I
F
N
X
N
I
OK621010010090_00
Clay Creek
F
N
N
X
N
F
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
F
N
N
F
N
F
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek
N
N
N
X
N
I
OK621010010270_00
Yellowstone Creek
F
N
F
X
N
I
OK621010020010_00
Sandy Creek
F
F
I
X
N
I
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River
F
F
N
X
N
I
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek
F
F
N
X
N
I
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River
I
F
N
X
N
I
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River
I
F
N
N
N
I
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek
I
N
N
X
N
I
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River
I
F
N
F
N
I
OK621200030010_00
Black Bear Creek
I
F
N
N
N
I
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek
I
N
N
X
N
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek
I
N
N
X
N
OK621210000050_10
Beaver Creek
I
F
N
X
N
I
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek
F
F
N
X
N
F – Fully supporting; N – Not supporting; I – Insufficient information; X – Not assessed Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 2-3 FINAL
September 2011
Table 2-2 Excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report – Oklahoma 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (Category 5) WBID Name Stream Miles TMDL Date Priority E. coli ENT FC Designated Use Primary Body Contact Recreation Turbidity Designated Use Warm Water Aquatic Life
OK621000010010_30
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
34.5
2019
4
x
N
x
N
OK621000020130_00
Spring Creek
6.1
2019
4
x
N
OK621000030010_00
Bois d' Arc Creek
36.9
2019
4
x
x
x
N
x
N
OK621000040010_00
Deer Creek
40.8
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621000050010_00
Pond Creek
60.2
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621000060010_00
Crooked Creek
32.9
2019
4
x
N
x
N
OK621010010010_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
17.3
2013
2
x
N
x
N
OK621010010090_00
Clay Creek
3.4
2016
3
x
N
OK621010010160_00
Arkansas River, Salt Fork
15.0
2019
4
x
x
x
N
x
N
OK621010010230_00
Turkey Creek
20.8
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621010010270_00
Yellowstone Creek
21.8
2019
4
x
N
OK621010020010_00
Sandy Creek
17.8
2013
2
x
x
x
N
OK621010030010_00
Medicine Lodge River
13.5
2016
2
x
x
N
x
N
OK621010030030_00
Driftwood Creek
38.8
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621100000010_00
Chikaskia River
5.4
2016
3
x
x
N
x
N
OK621100000010_10
Chikaskia River
23.1
2016
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621100000100_00
Bitter Creek
23.3
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
OK621200010200_00
Arkansas River
37.5
2013
4
x
N
x
N
OK621200030010_00
Black Bear Creek
68.0
2013
2
x
x
N
OK621200050010_00
Red Rock Creek
37.3
2016
3
x
x
N
x
N
OK621200050010_10
Red Rock Creek
46.1
2019
4
x
N
x
N
OK621210000050_10
Beaver Creek
21.6
2019
4
x
x
N
OK621210000270_00
Chilocco Creek
16.3
2019
4
x
x
N
x
N
ENT = enterococci; FC = fecal coliform N = Not attaining; X = Criterion exceeded Source: 2008 Integrated Report, ODEQ 2008 Problem Identification and
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Water Quality Target
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 2-4 FINAL
September 2011
To implement Oklahoma’s WQS for PBCR, OWRB promulgated Chapter 46, Implementation of Oklahoma’s Water Quality Standards (OWRB 2008a). The excerpt below from Chapter 46: 785:46-15-6, stipulates how water quality data will be assessed to determine support of the PBCR use as well as how the water quality target for TMDLs will be defined for each bacterial indicator.
(a) Scope. The provisions of this Section shall be used to determine whether the subcategory of Primary Body Contact of the beneficial use of Recreation designated in OAC 785:45 for a waterbody is supported during the recreation season from May 1 through September 30 each year. Where data exist for multiple bacterial indicators on the same waterbody or waterbody segment, the determination of use support shall be based upon the use and application of all applicable tests and data.
(b) Screening levels.
(1) The screening level for fecal coliform shall be a density of 400 colonies per 100 ml.
(2) The screening level for Escherichia coli shall be a density of 235 colonies per 100 ml in streams designated in OAC 785:45 as Scenic Rivers and in lakes, and 406 colonies per 100 ml in all other waters of the state designated as Primary Body Contact Recreation.
(3) The screening level for enterococci shall be a density of 61 colonies per 100 ml in streams designated in OAC 785:45 as Scenic Rivers and in lakes, and 108 colonies per 100 ml in all other waters of the state designated as Primary Body Contact Recreation.
(c) Fecal coliform:
(1) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall be deemed to be fully supported with respect to fecal coliform if the geometric mean of 400 colonies per 100 ml is met and no greater than 25% of the sample concentrations from that waterbody exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section.
(2) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall be deemed to be not supported with respect to fecal coliform if the geometric mean of 400 colonies per 100 ml is not met, or greater than 25% of the sample concentrations from that waterbody exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section, or both such conditions exist.
(d) Escherichia coli (E. coli):
(1) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall be deemed to be fully supported with respect to E. coli if the geometric mean of 126 colonies per 100 ml is met, or the sample concentrations from that waterbody taken during the recreation season do not exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section, or both such conditions exist.
(2) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall be deemed to be not supported with respect to E. coli if the geometric mean of 126 colonies per 100 ml is not met and any of the sample concentrations from that waterbody taken during the recreation season exceed a screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section.
(e) Enterococci: Problem Identification and
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Water Quality Target
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Salt Fork Arkansas (Parsons, 58)\Final_Sfarkansas_09-01-2011.Docx 2-5 FINAL
September 2011
(1) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall be deemed to be fully supported with respect to enterococci if the geometric mean of 33 colonies per 100 ml is met, or the sample concentrations from that waterbody taken during the recreation season do not exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section, or both such conditions exist.
(2) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall be deemed to be not supported with respect to enterococci if the geometric mean of 33 colonies per 100 ml is not met and any of the sample concentrations from that waterbody taken during the recreation season exceed a screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section.
Compliance with the Oklahoma WQS is based on meeting requirements for all three bacterial indicators. Where concurrent data exist for multiple bacterial indicators on the same waterbody or waterbody segment, each indicator group must demonstrate compliance with the numeric criteria prescribed (OWRB 2008).
As stipulated in the WQS, utilization of the geometric mean to determine compliance for any of the three indicator bacteria depends on the collection of five samples within a 30-day period. For most WQM stations in Oklahoma there are insufficient data available to calculate the 30-day geometric mean since most water quality samples are collected once a month. As a result, waterbodies placed on the 303(d) list for not supporting the PBCR are the result of individual samples exceeding the instantaneous criteria or the long-term geometric mean of individual samples exceeding the geometric mean criteria for each respective bacterial indicator. Targeting the instantaneous criterion established for the primary contact recreation season (May 1st to September 30th) as the water quality goal for TMDLs corresponds to the basis for 303(d) listing and may be protective of the geometric mean criterion as well as the criteria for the secondary contact recreation season. However, both the instantaneous and geometric mean criteria for E. coli and Enterococci will be evaluated as water quality targets to ensure the most protective goal is established for each waterbody.
A sample quantity exception exists for fecal coliform that allows waterbodies to be listed for nonsupport of PBCR if there are less than 10 samples. The assessment method states that if there are less than 10 samples and the existing sample set already assures a nonsupport determination, then the waterbody should be listed for TMDL development. This condition is true in any case where the small sample set demonstrates that at least three out of six samples exceed the single sample fecal coliform criterion. In this case if four more samples were available to meet minimum of 10 samples, this would still translate to >25 percent exceedance or nonsupport of PBCR (i.e., three out of 10 samples = 33 percent exceedance). For E. coli and Enterococci, the 10-sample minimum was used, without exception, in attainment determination.
The beneficial use of WWAC is one of several subcategories of the Fish and Wildlife Propagation use established to manage the variety of communities of fish and shellfish throughout the state (OWRB 2008). The n