Salt Fork Arkansas River bacteria turbidity TMDL |
Previous | 1 of 8 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Description
Title | Salt Fork Arkansas River bacteria turbidity TMDL |
OkDocs Class# | E4850.3 B131sf 2011 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/WQDnew/tmdl/salt_fork_arkansas_river_bacteria_turbidity_final_tmdl_report_2011-09-01.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | 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 |
Date created | 2011-09-15 |
Date modified | 2011-10-28 |
Tags
Add tags for Salt Fork Arkansas River bacteria turbidity TMDL