Bacteria and turbidity total maximum daily loads for the Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River area, Oklahoma (OK520700)

              FINAL
BACTERIA AND TURBIDITY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR THE LOWER DEEP FORK OF CANADIAN RIVER AREA, OKLAHOMA (OK520700)
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SEPTEMBER 2011 FINAL
BACTERIA AND TURBIDITY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR THE LOWER DEEP FORK OF CANADIAN RIVER AREA, OKLAHOMA (OK520700)
OKWBID
OK520700020010_10 OK520700020200_00
OK520700030020_00 OK520700060130_10
OK520700060140_00
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SEPTEMBER 2011
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_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 ............................................................................................... 1-4
1.3 Stream Flow Conditions ............................................................................................. 1-9
SECTION 2 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY TARGET ...... 2-1
2.1 Oklahoma Water Quality Standards ........................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Problem Identification ................................................................................................ 2-6
2.2.1 Bacteria Data Summary .................................................................................. 2-6
2.2.2 Turbidity Data Summary ................................................................................ 2-6
2.3 Water Quality Target .................................................................................................. 2-9
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 .................. 3-3
3.1.3 NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Discharge .................................... 3-8
3.1.4 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Poultry Feeding Operations . 3-8
3.1.5 Stormwater Permits Construction Activities ................................................ 3-10
3.1.6 Rock, Sand and Gravel Quarries .................................................................. 3-10
3.1.7 Section 404 permits ...................................................................................... 3-10
3.2 Nonpoint Sources ..................................................................................................... 3-12
3.2.1 Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 3-12
3.2.2 Non-Permitted Agricultural Activities and Domesticated Animals ............. 3-13
3.2.3 Failing Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems and Illicit Discharges ........... 3-16
3.2.4 Domestic Pets ............................................................................................... 3-17
3.3 Summary of Bacteria Sources .................................................................................. 3-18
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 ..................................................................... 4-5
4.4 Estimating Existing Loading ...................................................................................... 4-6
4.5 Development of TMDLs Using Load Duration Curves ............................................. 4-7
SECTION 5 TMDL CALCULATIONS ................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Surrogate TMDL Target for Turbidity ....................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Flow Duration Curve .................................................................................................. 5-3
5.3 Estimated Loading and Critical Conditions ............................................................... 5-5 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ii FINAL
September 2011
5.4 Wasteload Allocation ............................................................................................... 5-12
5.4.1 Indicator Bacteria ......................................................................................... 5-12
5.4.2 Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................ 5-14
5.4.3 Section 404 permits ...................................................................................... 5-15
5.5 Load Allocation ........................................................................................................ 5-15
5.6 Seasonal Variability .................................................................................................. 5-16
5.7 Margin of Safety ....................................................................................................... 5-16
5.8 TMDL Calculations .................................................................................................. 5-16
5.9 Reasonable Assurances ............................................................................................ 5-25
SECTION 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................ 6-1
SECTION 7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 7-1
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 Sanitary Sewer Overflows Data
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
iii FINAL
September 2011
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Watersheds Not Supporting Primary Body Contact Recreation or Fish and Wildlife Propagation .......................................... 1-3
Figure 1-2 Land Use Map ...................................................................................................... 1-7
Figure 3-1 Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities for Discharges and Constructions in the Study Area ............................................................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-2 Locations of CAFOs, Poultry, Total Retention Facilities and Land Application Sites in the Study Area ......................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 4-1 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for the Red River, North Fork, Headrick (OK311500010020_10) ........................................................................................ 4-3
Figure 4-2 Flow Duration Curve for the Red River, North Fork, Headrick (OK311500010020_10) ........................................................................................ 4-6
Figure 5-1 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Deep Fork of Canadian River (OK520700020010_10) ........................................................................................ 5-1
Figure 5-2 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Little Deep Fork Creek (OK520700060130_10) ........................................................................................ 5-2
Figure 5-3 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Catfish Creek (OK520700060140_00) . 5-3
Figure 5-4 Flow Duration Curve for Deep Fork of Canadian River (OK520700020010_10) 5-4
Figure 5-5 Flow Duration Curve for Little Deep Fork Creek (OK520700060130_10) ........ 5-4
Figure 5-6 Flow Duration Curve for Catfish Creek (OK520700060140_00) ....................... 5-5
Figure 5-7 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Deep Fork of Canadian River (OK520700020010_10) ........................................................................................ 5-6
Figure 5-8 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Deep Fork of Canadian River (OK520700020010_10) ........................................................................................ 5-7
Figure 5-9 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Little Deep Fork Creek (OK520700060130_10) ........................................................................................ 5-8
Figure 5-10 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Deep Fork of Canadian River (OK520700020010_10) ........................................................................................ 5-9
Figure 5-11 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Little Deep Fork Creek (OK520700060130_10) ...................................................................................... 5-10
Figure 5-12 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Catfish Creek (OK520700060140_00) ...................................................................................... 5-11
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
iv FINAL
September 2011
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1 Excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report – Oklahoma 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (Category 5) ................................................................................................ 2
Table ES-2 Summary of Indicator Bacteria Samples from Primary Body Contact Recreation Season ...................................................................................................................... 3
Table ES-3 Summary of Turbidity and TSS Samples Collected Under Base Flow Condition .. 6
Table ES-4 Regression Statistics and TSS Goals ....................................................................... 8
Table ES-5 Stream Segments and Pollutants for TMDL Development ..................................... 9
Table ES-6 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources by Category ............................................ 9
Table ES-7 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Standards for Indicator Bacteria .................................................................................................. 12
Table ES-8 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Targets for Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................................... 12
Table 1-1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations Used in This Report ..................................... 1-4
Table 1-2 County Population and Density ............................................................................ 1-4
Table 1-3 Towns and Cities by Watershed ........................................................................... 1-5
Table 1-4 Average Annual Precipitation by Watershed ....................................................... 1-5
Table 1-5 Land Use Summaries by Watershed ..................................................................... 1-8
Table 2-1 Excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report – Oklahoma 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (Category 5) ............................................................................................. 2-2
Table 2-2 Designated Beneficial Uses for the Listed Stream Segments in the Study Area . 2-2
Table 2-3 Summary of Indicator Bacteria Samples from Primary Body Contact Recreation Season ................................................................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-4 Summary of All Turbidity and TSS Samples ....................................................... 2-8
Table 2-5 Summary of Turbidity and TSS Samples Excluding High Flow Samples ........... 2-8
Table 2-6 Stream Segments and Pollutants for TMDL Development .................................. 2-9
Table 3-1 Point Source Discharges in the Study Area .......................................................... 3-4
Table 3-2 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Summary .......................................................... 3-4
Table 3-3 NPDES-Permitted CAFOs in Study Area ............................................................ 3-9
Table 3-4 Registered PFOs in Study Area ............................................................................ 3-9
Table 3-5 Construction Permits Summary .......................................................................... 3-11
Table 3-6 Estimated Population and Fecal Coliform Production for Deer ......................... 3-13
Table 3-7 Commercially Raised Farm Animals and Manure Application Area Estimates by Watershed ........................................................................................................... 3-15
Table 3-8 Fecal Coliform Production Estimates for Commercially Raised Farm Animals (x109 number/day) .............................................................................................. 3-15 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
v FINAL
September 2011
Table 3-9 Estimates of Sewered and Unsewered Households ............................................ 3-16
Table 3-10 Estimated Fecal Coliform Load from OSWD Systems ...................................... 3-17
Table 3-11 Estimated Numbers of Pets ................................................................................ 3-17
Table 3-12 Estimated Fecal Coliform Daily Production by Pets (x109 counts/day) ............ 3-18
Table 3-13 Summary of Fecal Coliform Load Estimates from Nonpoint Sources to Land Surfaces .............................................................................................................. 3-18
Table 5-1 Regression Statistics and TSS Goals .................................................................... 5-3
Table 5-2 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Standards for Indicator Bacteria ............................................................................................... 5-12
Table 5-3 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Targets for Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................................ 5-12
Table 5-4 Permit Information for NPDES-Permitted Facilities ......................................... 5-14
Table 5-4a Wasteload Allocations for NPDES-Permitted Facilities .................................... 5-14
Table 5-5 Explicit Margin of Safety for Total Suspended Solids TMDLs ......................... 5-16
Table 5-6 Summaries of Bacteria TMDLs .......................................................................... 5-18
Table 5-7 Summaries of TSS TMDLs ................................................................................ 5-18
Table 5-8 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Deep Fork of Canadian River (OK520700020010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-19
Table 5-9 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Deep Fork of Canadian River (OK520700020010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-20
Table 5-10 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Little Deep Fork Creek (OK520700060130_10) ...................................................................................... 5-21
Table 5-11 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Deep Fork of Canadian River (OK520700020010_10) ...................................................................................... 5-22
Table 5-12 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Little Deep Fork Creek (OK520700060130_10) ...................................................................................... 5-23
Table 5-13 Total Suspended Solids TMDL Calculations for Catfish Creek (OK520700060140_00) ...................................................................................... 5-24
Table 5-14 Partial List of Oklahoma Water Quality Management Agencies ....................... 5-25 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Acronyms and Abbreviations
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
vi FINAL
September 2011
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEMS
Agricultural Environmental Management Service
ASAE
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
BMP
best management practice
CAFO
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
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
HUC
Hydrologic unit code
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
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRMSE
Normalized root mean square error
NTU
Nephelometric turbidity unit
OLS
Ordinary least square
O.S.
Oklahoma statutes
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
PRG
Percent reduction goal
RMSE
Root mean square error
SH
State Highway Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Acronyms and Abbreviations
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
vii FINAL
September 2011
SSO
Sanitary sewer overflow
TMDL
Total maximum daily load
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
WWTP
Wastewater treatment plant Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_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 and Enterococci] and turbidity for certain waterbodies in the Lower Deep Fork of Canadian 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 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian 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 primary body contact recreation or fish and wildlife propagation use designated for each waterbody. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-2 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-1 Excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report – Oklahoma 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (Category 5) Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Stream Miles TMDL Date Priority ENT E. coli FC Designated Use Primary Body Contact Recreation Turbidity Designated Use Warm Water Aquatic Life
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
39.074
2019
4
X
X
N
X
N
OK520700020200_00
Nuyaka Creek
21.72
2019
4
X
X
N
OK520700030020_00
Walnut Creek
14.71
2016
3
X
X
N
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
24.39
2016
3
X
X
X
N
X
N
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
9.94
2016
3
X
X
N
ENT = enterococci; FC = fecal coliform N = Not attaining; X = Criterion exceeded Source: 2008 Integrated Report, ODEQ 2008.
Table ES-2 summarizes water quality data collected during primary contact recreation season (May 1 through September 30) from the water quality monitoring (WQM) stations 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.
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-3 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-2 Summary of Indicator Bacteria Samples from Primary Body Contact Recreation Season Waterbody ID Stream Segments Bacteria Indicator Standards GeoMean # of Violations # of Samples % violations 2008 303(d) Comments
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork FC 400 126.9 10 28 36% X TMDL required
EC
406
60.7
4
26
15%
Meet standard ENT 108 127.5 13 26 50% X TMDL required
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek FC 400 848.0 4 8 50% X TMDL required
EC
406
540.5
2
2
100%
X
not Impaired: insufficient data
ENT
108
787.0
1
1
100%
X
not Impaired: insufficient data
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
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-4 FINAL
September 2011
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.
(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 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-5 FINAL
September 2011
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.
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 turbidity and TSS data collected from the WQM stations under base flow conditions, which ODEQ considers to be 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. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-6 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-3 Summary of Turbidity and TSS Samples Collected Under Base Flow Condition Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Number of turbidity samples Number of TSS samples Number of Turbidity samples greater than 50 NTU % turbidity samples exceeding criterion 2008 303(d) Comments OK520700020010_10 Canadian River, Deep Fork 30 0 21 70% X TMDL required
OK520700020200_00
Nuyaka Creek
12
1
1
8%
X
Not impaired: meet standard
OK520700030020_00
Walnut Creek
14
0
0
0%
X
Not impaired: meet standard OK520700060130_10 Little Deep Fork Creek 17 3 3 18% X TMDL required OK520700060140_00 Catfish Creek 20 3 3 15% X TMDL required
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-7 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 exceeds 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-4 provides the results of the waterbody specific regression analysis. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-8 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-4 Regression Statistics and TSS Goals Waterbody ID Waterbody Name R-square NRMSE TSS Goals (mg/L)
OK520700020010_10
Deep Fork Creek
0.93
6.3%
34.5
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
0.57
18.5%
35.3
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
0.72
13.8%
19.9
After re-evaluating bacteria and turbidity/TSS data for the streams listed in Table ES-1, Table ES-5 shows the bacteria and turbidity TMDLs that will be developed in this report:
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.
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-9 FINAL
September 2011
Table ES-5 Stream Segments and Pollutants for TMDL Development Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Stream Miles TMDL Date Priority ENT Fecal Coliform Turbidity
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
39.074
2019
4
X
X
X
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
24.39
2016
3
X
X
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
9.94
2016
3
X
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 Construction Stormwater Permit Nonpoint Source
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria/TSS
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
Bacteria
Bacteria/TSS
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
Bacteria/TSS No facility present in watershed. Facility present in watershed, but not recognized as pollutant source.
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-10 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 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-11 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) 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 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-12 FINAL
September 2011
lesser of that required to meet the geometric mean or instantaneous criteria for E. coli and 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 46 to 78 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
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
46.3%
94.9%
78.4%
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
76.1%
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 four waterbodies included in this TMDL report are summarized in Table ES-8 and range from 35 to 81 percent.
Table ES-8 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Targets for Total Suspended Solids Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Required Reduction Rate
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
81.3%
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
64.9%
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
34.9%
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 margin of safety. The selection of MOS is based on the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) for each waterbody. The explicit MOS ranges from 10% to 20% in this report. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
ES-13 FINAL
September 2011
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. 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 reduction rates called for in this TMDL report are as high as 81 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. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_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 and Enterococci] and turbidity for selected waterbodies in the Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River basin just above Lake Eufaula. (All future references to bacteria in this document imply these two 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 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_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: Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10 Nuyaka Creek
OK520700020200_00 Walnut Creek
OK520700030020_00 Little Deep Fork Creek
OK520700060130_10 Catfish Creek
OK520700060140_00
Figure 1-1 is 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. Lower Dee Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
1-3 FINAL
September 2011
Figure 1-1 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Watersheds Not Supporting Primary Body Contact Recreation or Fish and Wildlife Propagation Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
1-4 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 primary body contact recreation 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 in This Report WBID Name monitoring sites Lat Long Agency
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
OK520700-06-0140G
35.8282
-96.4190
OCC
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork
OK520700-06-0130T
35.8279
-96.5341
OCC
OK520700030020_00
Walnut Creek
WALNUT CREEK near Mason
35.5953
-96.3494
ODEQ
OK520700020200_00
Nuyaka Creek
NUYAKA CREEK near Okfuskee
35.5950
-96.2117
ODEQ
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
520700020010-001AT
35.6742
-96.0688
OWRB
1.2 Watershed Description
General. The Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River basin is located in the east central portion of Oklahoma. The waterbodies addressed in this report are located in Okmulgee, Okfuskee, Creek and Lincoln counties. Table 1-2, derived from the 2010 U.S. Census, demonstrates that the counties in which these watersheds are located are sparsely populated (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Table 1-3 lists the towns and cities located in each watershed.
Table 1-2 County Population and Density County Name Population (2000 Census) Area (square mile) Population Density (per square mile)
Okmulgee
40,069
702.0
57
Okfuskee
12,191
628.6
19
Creek
69,967
969.7
72
Lincoln
34,273
965.3
36
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
1-5 FINAL
September 2011
Table 1-3 Towns and Cities by Watershed Towns and Cities Stream Name Waterbody ID
Shamrock
Little Deep Fork Crk
OK520700060130_10
Bristow
Little Deep Fork Crk
OK520700060130_10
Pulaski
Little Deep Fork Crk
OK520700060130_10
Depew
Little Deep Fork Crk
OK520700060130_10
Bellvue
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Tabor
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Slick
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Beggs
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Dentonville
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Preston
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Edna
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Tuskegee
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Nuyaka
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Park Wheeler Corner
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
Okfuskee
Nuyaka Creek
OK520700020200_00
Last Chance
Nuyaka Creek
OK520700020200_00
Oriental
Nuyaka Creek
OK520700020200_00
Woodard Corner
Nuyaka Creek
OK520700020200_00
Mason
Walnut Creek
OK520700030020_00
Chilesville
Walnut Creek
OK520700030020_00
IXL
Walnut Creek
OK520700030020_00
Climate. Table 1-4 summarizes the average annual precipitation for each Oklahoma waterbody based on the approximate midpoint of each watershed. Average annual precipitation values among the watersheds in this portion of Oklahoma range between 40.1 and 42.2 inches (Oklahoma Climate Survey 2007).
Table 1-4 Average Annual Precipitation by Watershed Precipitation Summary Waterbody Name Waterbody ID Average Annual Precipitation (Inches)
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
41.7
Nuyaka Creek
OK520700020200_00
42.2
Walnut Creek
OK520700030020_00
41.7
Little Deep Fork Creek
OK520700060130_10
40.1
Catfish Creek
OK520700060140_00
40.4
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
1-6 FINAL
September 2011
Land Use. Tables1-5 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 1-2. The three most dominant land use categories throughout the study area are deciduous forest, grasslands/herbaceous and pasture/hay. Ninety to ninety-five percent of sub-watershed areas consist of these three land covers.
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
1-7 FINAL
September 2011
Figure 1-2 Land Use Map
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
1-8 FINAL
September 2011
Table 1-5 Land Use Summaries by Watershed Landuse Category Canadian River, Deep Fork Nuyaka Creek Walnut Creek Little Deep Fork Creek Catfish Creek Waterbody ID OK520700020010_00 OK520700020200_00 OK520700030020_00 OK520700060130_10 OK520700060140_00
Open Water
1588.8
340.4
305.4
729.7
217.6
Medium Intensity Residential
810.6
85.8
5.8
553.6
66.1
High Intensity Residential
81.0
3.3
0.0
83.4
3.1
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Deciduous Forest
93852.6
16090.1
12655.2
30015.2
9641.9
Evergreen Forest
69.4
4.0
5.3
6.0
0.0
Grasslands/Herbaceous
53239.2
11619.0
11011.2
19782.2
5629.1
Pasture/Hay
42198.2
21983.9
4148.6
6086.8
2201.3
Row Crops
2419.0
1608.9
153.5
335.8
0.0
Urban/Recreational Grasses
9589.8
2140.6
1015.9
4122.8
1067.3
Woody Wetlands
24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
121.0
8.9
12.0
0.0
0.0
Total (Acres):
203994
53885
29313
61715
18826
Open Water
0.78%
0.63%
1.04%
1.18%
1.16%
Medium Intensity Residential
0.40%
0.16%
0.02%
0.90%
0.35%
High Intensity Residential
0.04%
0.01%
0.00%
0.14%
0.02%
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Deciduous Forest
46.01%
29.86%
43.17%
48.63%
51.21%
Evergreen Forest
0.03%
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
Grasslands/Herbaceous
26.10%
21.56%
37.56%
32.05%
29.90%
Pasture/Hay
20.69%
40.80%
14.15%
9.86%
11.69%
Row Crops
1.19%
2.99%
0.52%
0.54%
0.00%
Urban/Recreational Grasses
4.70%
3.97%
3.47%
6.68%
5.67%
Woody Wetlands
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
0.06%
0.02%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
Total (percentage):
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
1-9 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. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_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 D. Table 2-2, an excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report (ODEQ 2008), lists beneficial uses designated for each bacteria and/or turbidity impaired stream segment in the Study Area. The beneficial uses include: AES – Aesthetics AG – Agriculture Water Supply Fish and Wildlife Propagation
o WWAC – Warm Water Aquatic Community FISH – Fish Consumption PBCR – Primary Body Contact Recreation PPWS – Public & Private Water Supply
Table 2-1 summarizes the PBCR and WWAC use attainment status and the bacteria & turbidity impairment status for streams in the Study Area. The TMDL priority shown in Table 2-1 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 Fish and Wildlife Propagation 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.
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
2-2 FINAL
September 2011
Table 2-1 Excerpt from the 2008 Integrated Report – Oklahoma 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (Category 5) Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Stream Miles TMDL Date Priority ENT E. coli FC Turbidity
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
39.074
2019
4
X
X
X
OK520700020200_00
Nuyaka Creek
21.72
2019
4
X
OK520700030020_00
Walnut Creek
14.71
2016
3
X
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
24.39
2016
3
X
X
X
X
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
9.94
2016
3
X
* TMDL completed in Sans Bios Bacteria TMDL report
ENT = enterococci; FC = fecal coliform X = Criterion exceeded Source: 2008 Integrated Report, ODEQ 2008.
Table 2-2 Designated Beneficial Uses for the Listed Stream Segments in the Study Area Waterbody ID Waterbody Name AES AG WWAC FISH PBCR PPWS
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
I
F
N
F
N
I
OK520700020200_00
Nuyaka Creek
I
I
N
X
X
X
OK520700030020_00
Walnut Creek
I
F
N
X
X
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
F
F
N
X
N
I
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
I
N
N
X
X
F – Fully supporting; N – Not supporting; I – Insufficient information; X – Not assessed
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
2-3 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: Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
2-4 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 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:
i. Cool Water Aquatic Community/Trout Fisheries: 10 NTUs; Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
2-5 FINAL
September 2011
ii. Lakes: 25 NTU; and
iii. 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.
To implement Oklahoma’s WQS for Fish and Wildlife Propagation, promulgated Chapter 46, Implementation of Oklahoma’s Water Quality Standards (OWRB 2008a). The 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.
(3) A beneficial use shall be deemed to be fully supported but threatened if the use is supported currently but the appropriate state environmental agency determines that available data indicate that during the next five years the use may become not supported due to anticipated sources or adverse trends of pollution not prevented or controlled. If data from the preceding two year period indicate a trend away from impairment, the appropriate agency shall remove the threatened status.
(4) A beneficial use shall be deemed to be not supported for a given parameter whose criterion is based upon a short term average if at least 10% of the samples for that parameter exceed the applicable screening level prescribed in this Subchapter. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
2-6 FINAL
September 2011
2.2 Problem Identification
In this subsection water quality data summarizing waterbody impairments caused by elevated levels of bacteria are summarized first followed by the data summarizing impairments caused by elevated levels of turbidity.
2.2.1 Bacteria Data Summary
Table 2-3 summarizes water quality data collected during primary contact recreation season from the WQM stations between 1999 and 2006 for each indicator bacteria. The data summary in Table 2-3 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 was used to support the decision to place specific waterbodies within the Study Area on the ODEQ 2008 303(d) list (ODEQ 2008). Water quality data from the primary contact recreation seasons are provided in Appendix A. For the data collected between 1999 and 2006, evidence of nonsupport of the PBCR use based on elevated fecal coliform and Enterococci concentrations was observed in Canadian River, Deep Fork (OK520700020010_10). Evidence of nonsupport of the PBCR use based on fecal coliform exceedances was observed in Little Deep Fork Creek (OK520700060130_10). There were no enough E. coli and Enterococci data in Little Deep Fork Creek for impairment assessment.
2.2.2 Turbidity Data Summary
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 in this TMDL. Therefore, both turbidity and TSS data are presented in this subsection.
Table 2-4 summarizes turbidity and TSS data collected from the WQM stations between 1997 and 2010. However, as stipulated in Title 785:45-5-12 (f) (7) (C), numeric criteria for turbidity only apply under base flow conditions. While the base flow condition is not specifically defined in the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards, ODEQ considers base flow conditions to be all flows less than the 25th flow exceedance percentile (i.e., the lower 75 percent of flows) which is consistent with the USGS Streamflow Conditions Index (USGS 2007a). Therefore, 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 2-5 was prepared to represent the subset of these data for samples collected during base flow conditions. For the data collected between 1997 and 2010, evidence of nonsupport of the Fish and Wildlife Propagations was observed in Canadian River, Deep Fork (OK520700020010_10), Little Deep Fork Creek (OK520700060130_10), and Catfish Creek (OK520700060140_00). Fish and Wildlife Propagations beneficial use was fully supported with regard to turbidity in Nuyahka Creek and Walnut Creek. Assessment for Nuyahka Creek and Walnut Creek was based on the most recent data collected in 2009 and 2010. Water quality data for turbidity and TSS are provided in Appendix A.
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
2-7 FINAL
September 2011
Table 2-3 Summary of Indicator Bacteria Samples from Primary Body Contact Recreation Season
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 Waterbody ID Stream Segments Bacteria Indicator Standards GeoMean # of Violations # of Samples % violations 2008 303(d) Comments
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork FC 400 126.9 10 28 36% X TMDL required
EC
406
60.7
4
26
15%
Meet standard ENT 108 127.5 13 26 50% X TMDL required
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek FC 400 848.0 4 8 50% X TMDL required
EC
406
540.5
2
2
100%
X
Delist: no enough data
ENT
108
787.0
1
1
100%
X
Delist: no enough data Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
2-8 FINAL
September 2011
Table 2-4 Summary of All Turbidity and TSS Samples Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Number of turbidity samples Number of TSS samples Number of turbidity samples greater than 50 NTU % turbidity samples exceeding criterion Sampling period
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
39
0
30
77%
2006-2010
OK520700020200_00
Nuyaka Creek
12
1
1
8%
2009-2010
OK520700030020_00
Walnut Creek
14
0
0
0
2009-2010
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
21
20
7
33%
1999-2001
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
20
27
3
15%
1997-1999
Table 2-5 Summary of Turbidity and TSS Samples Excluding High Flow Samples Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Number of turbidity samples Number of TSS samples Number of Turbidity samples greater than 50 NTU % turbidity samples exceeding criterion 2008 303(d) Comments OK520700020010_10 Canadian River, Deep Fork 30 0 21 70% X TMDL required
OK520700020200_00
Nuyaka Creek
12
1
1
8%
X
Delist: meet standard
OK520700030020_00
Walnut Creek
14
0
0
0%
X
Delist: meet standard OK520700060130_10 Little Deep Fork Creek 17 3 3 18% X TMDL required OK520700060140_00 Catfish Creek 20 3 3 15% X TMDL required
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
2-9 FINAL
September 2011
After re-evaluating both bacteria and turbidity data following Oklahoma’s assessment protocol, TMDLs will be developed only for the streams and pollutants listed in Table 2-6. A total of 6 bacteria/turbidity TMDLs will be developed in this report.
Table 2-6 Stream Segments and Pollutants for TMDL Development Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Stream Miles TMDL Date Priority ENT Fecal Coliform Turbidity
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
39.074
2019
4
X
X
X
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
24.39
2016
3
X
X
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
9.94
2016
3
X
2.3 Water Quality Target
The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR §130.7(c)(1)) states that, “TMDLs shall be established at levels necessary to attain and maintain the applicable narrative and numerical water quality standards.” For the WQM stations requiring bacteria TMDLs in this report, defining the water quality target is somewhat complicated by the use of three different bacterial indicators each with different numeric criterion for determining attainment of PBCR use as defined in the Oklahoma WQSs. An individual water quality target is established for each bacterial indicator since each indicator group must demonstrate compliance with the numeric criteria prescribed in the Oklahoma WQS (OWRB 2008). As previously stated, because available bacteria data were collected on an approximate monthly basis (see Appendix A) instead of at least five samples over a 30–day period, data for these TMDLs are analyzed and presented in relation to both the instantaneous and a long-term geometric mean for each bacterial indicator.
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 the 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 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).
The TMDL for bacteria will incorporate an explicit 10 percent margin of safety. The allowable bacteria load is derived by using the actual or estimated flow record multiplied by the Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
2-10 FINAL
September 2011
water quality target. The line drawn through the allowable load data points is the water quality target which represents the maximum load for any given flow that still satisfies the WQS.
An individual water quality target established for turbidity must demonstrate compliance with the numeric criteria prescribed in the Oklahoma WQS (OWRB 2008). According to the Oklahoma WQS [785:45-5-12(f)(7)], the turbidity criterion for streams with WWAC beneficial use is 50 NTUs (OWRB 2008). The turbidity of 50 NTUs applies only to seasonal base flow conditions. Turbidity levels are expected to be elevated during, and for several days after, a storm event.
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 NTU. However, as described above, because turbidity cannot be expressed as a mass load, TSS is used as a surrogate for TMDL development. Since there is no numeric criterion in the Oklahoma WQS for TSS, a specific method must be developed to convert the turbidity criterion to TSS based on a relationship between turbidity and TSS. The method for deriving the relationship between turbidity and TSS and for calculating a water body specific water quality goal using TSS is summarized in Section 4 of this report.
The MOS for the TSS TMDLs varies by waterbody and is related to the goodness-of-fit metrics of the turbidity-TSS regressions. The method for defining MOS percentages is described in Section 5 of this report.
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-1 FINAL
September 2011
SECTION 3 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. Pathogen indicator bacteria originate from the digestive tract of 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 pathogen indicators (fecal coliform, 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.
The 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report (ODEQ 2008) listed potential sources of turbidity as clean sediment, grazing in riparian corridors of streams and creeks, highway/road/bridge runoff (non-construction related), non-irrigated crop production, petroleum/natural gas activities, rangeland grazing, as well as other unknown sources. The following discussion describes what is known regarding point and nonpoint sources of bacteria in the impaired watersheds. Where information was available on point and nonpoint sources of indicator bacteria or TSS, data were provided and summarized as part of each category. .
3.1 NPDES-Permitted Facilities
Under 40 CFR, §122.2, a point source is described as a discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or may be discharged to surface waters. Certain NPDES-permitted municipal plants are classified as no-discharge facilities. NPDES-permitted facilities classified as point sources that may contribute bacteria or TSS loading include: NPDES municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP); NPDES Industrial WWTP Discharges; NPDES municipal no-discharge WWTP; NPDES Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO); NPDES municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharges; NPDES multi-sector general permits; and NPDES construction stormwater discharges. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-2 FINAL
September 2011
Continuous point source discharges such as WWTPs could result in discharge of elevated concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria if the disinfection unit is not properly maintained, is of poor design, or if flow rates are above the disinfection capacity. It is possible that continuous point source discharges from municipal and industrial WWTPs could result in discharge of elevated concentrations of TSS if a facility is not properly maintained, is of poor design, or flow rates exceed capacity. However, in most cases suspended solids discharged by WWTPs consist primarily of organic solids rather than inorganic suspended solids (i.e., soil and sediment particles from erosion or sediment resuspension). Discharges of organic suspended solids from WWTPs are addressed by ODEQ through its permitting of point sources to maintain WQS for dissolved oxygen and are not considered a potential source of turbidity in this TMDL. Discharges of TSS will be considered to be organic suspended solids if the discharge permit includes a limit for BOD or CBOD. Only WWTP discharges of inorganic suspended solids will be considered and will receive wasteload allocations.
While the no-discharge facilities do not discharge wastewater directly to a waterbody, it is possible that the collection systems associated with each facility may be a source of bacteria loading to surface waters. CAFOs are recognized by USEPA as significant sources of pollution, and may have the potential to cause serious impacts to water quality if not properly managed.
Stormwater runoff from MS4 areas, which is now regulated under the USEPA NPDES Program, can also contain high fecal coliform bacteria concentrations. Stormwater runoff from MS4 areas, facilities under multi-sector general permits, and NPDES construction stormwater discharges, which are regulated under the USEPA NPDES Program, can contain TSS concentrations. 40 C.F.R. § 130.2(h) requires that NPDES-regulated stormwater discharges must be addressed by the wasteload allocation component of a TMDL. However, any stormwater discharge by definition occurs during or immediately following periods of rainfall and elevated flow conditions when Oklahoma Water Quality Standard for turbidity does not apply. Oklahoma Water Quality Standards specify that the criteria for turbidity “apply only to seasonal base flow conditions” and go on to say “Elevated turbidity levels may be expected during, and for several days after, a runoff event” [OAC 785:45-5-12(f)(7)]. In other words, the turbidity impairment status is limited to base flow conditions and stormwater discharges from MS4 areas or construction sites do not contribute to the violation of Oklahoma’s turbidity standard. Therefore, WLAs for NPDES-regulated stormwater discharges is essentially considered unnecessary in this TMDL report and will not be included in the TMDL calculations.
There is at least one NPDES-permitted facility in each sub-watershed. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-3 FINAL
September 2011
3.1.1 Continuous Point Source Dischargers
The locations of the NPDES-permitted facilities that discharge wastewater to surface waters addressed in these TMDLs are listed in Table 3-1 and displayed in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. For some continuous point source discharge facilities the permitted design flow was not available and therefore is not provided in Table 3-1. There are 4 active continuous point source discharging facilities within the Study Area but they are not all sources of concern for bacteria or TSS loading. All of these facilities are discharging to a waterbody that requires a TMDL for bacteria. All of the facilities in Table 3-1 discharge TSS and have specific permit limits for TSS which are provided in Table 3-1. However, the municipal WWTPs designated with a Standard Industrial Code number 4952 in Table 3-1 discharge organic TSS and therefore are not considered a potential source of turbidity within their respective watershed. There is one active NPDES-permitted industrial facility (SIC Code: 2099, Food Preparations) operating in the Study Area. This facility also discharges organic TSS and therefore is not considered a potential source of turbidity.
3.1.2 NPDES No-Discharge Facilities and Sanitary Sewer Overflows
For the purposes of these TMDLs, it is assumed that no-discharge facilities do not contribute indicator bacteria or TSS loading. However, it is possible the wastewater collection systems associated with these no-discharge facilities could be a source of indicator bacteria loading, or that discharges from the wastewater plant may occur during large rainfall events that exceed the systems’ storage capacities. There are no no-discharge facilities in the study area.
Sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) from wastewater collection systems, although infrequent, can be a major source of indicator bacteria loading to streams. SSOs have existed since the introduction of separate sanitary sewers, and most are caused by blockage of sewer pipes by grease, tree roots, and other debris that clog sewer lines, by sewer line breaks and leaks, cross connections with storm sewers, and inflow and infiltration of groundwater into sanitary sewers. SSOs are permit violations that must be addressed by the responsible NPDES permittee. The reporting of SSOs has been strongly encouraged by USEPA, primarily through enforcement and fines. While not all sewer overflows are reported, ODEQ has data on reported SSOs. 44 overflows were reported since 2000 ranging from 10 to 10,000 gallons. Table 3-2 summarizes the SSO occurrences by NPDES facility. SSO data are provided in Appendix D. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-4 FINAL
September 2011
Table 3-1 Point Source Discharges in the Study Area Waterbody name Waterbody ID FACILITY NPID STATE_ID SIC code Design Flow (MGD) Fecal Coliform Ave/Max. cfu /100mL Max./Avg TSS mg/L Expiration Date Notes
Little Deep Fork Creek
OK520700060130_10
DEPEW, TOWN OF
OK0021890
S20716
4952
0.05
200/400
90/135
05/31/11
Active
BRISTOW, CITY OF
OK0032549
S20717
4952
0.945
200/400
30/45
09/30/14
Active
KWIKSET CORPORATION
OKP003003
19001400
NA
NA
NA
NA
Closed on 8/15/06
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
CP KELCO US, INC.-OKMULGEE
OK0044504
56000630
2099
Report
200/400
30/45
08/31/15
Active
BEGGS, CITY OF
OK0028177
S20718
4952
0.175
200/400
15/22.5
05/31/16
Active
NA = not available.
Table 3-2 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Summary Facility Name Facility ID Receiving Stream Receiving Water Number of Occurrences Date Range Amount (Gallons) From To Min Max
Town of Depew
S20718
Little Deep Fork Creek
OK520700060130_10
17
2001
2010
10
500
City of Bristow
S20717
Little Deep Fork Creek
OK520700060130_10
21
2000
2007
100
10,000
City of Beggs
S20716
Canadian River, Deep Fork
OK520700020010_10
6
2000
2001
800
2000
4Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-5 FINAL
September 2011
Figure 3-1 Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities for Discharges and Constructions in the Study Area
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-6 FINAL
September 2011
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-7 FINAL
September 2011
Figure 3-2 Locations of CAFOs, Poultry, Total Retention Facilities and Land Application Sites in the Study Area Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-8 FINAL
September 2011
3.1.3 NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Discharge
Phase I MS4
In 1990 the USEPA developed rules establishing Phase I of the NPDES Stormwater Program, designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being washed by stormwater runoff into MS4s (or from being dumped directly into the MS4) and then discharged into local water bodies (USEPA 2005). Phase I of the program required operators of medium and large MS4s (those generally serving populations of 100,000 or greater) to implement a stormwater management program as a means to control polluted discharges. Approved stormwater management programs for medium and large MS4s are required to address a variety of water quality-related issues, including roadway runoff management, municipal-owned operations, and hazardous waste treatment. There are no Phase I MS4 permits in the Study Area.
Phase II MS4
Phase II of the rule extends coverage of the NPDES stormwater program to certain small MS4s. Small MS4s are defined as any MS4 that is not a medium or large MS4 covered by Phase I of the NPDES Stormwater Program. Phase II requires operators of regulated small MS4s to obtain NPDES permits and develop a stormwater management program. Programs are designed to reduce discharges of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable,” protect water quality, and satisfy appropriate water quality requirements of the CWA. Small MS4 stormwater programs must address the following minimum control measures: Public Education and Outreach; Public Participation/Involvement; Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination; Construction Site Runoff Control; Post- Construction Runoff Control; and Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping.
The small MS4 General Permit for communities in Oklahoma became effective on February 8, 2005. ODEQ provides information on the current status of the MS4 program on its website, which can be found at: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/WQDnew/stormwater/ms4/.
There is no permitted MS4s in the study area.
3.1.4 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Poultry Feeding Operations
The Agricultural Environmental Management Services (AEMS) of the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (ODAFF) was created to help develop, coordinate, and oversee environmental policies and programs aimed at protecting the Oklahoma environment from pollutants associated with agricultural animals and their waste. Through regulations established by the Oklahoma Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Act and Poultry Feeding Operation (PFO) Registration Act, AEMS works with producers and concerned citizens to ensure that animal waste does not impact the waters of the state.
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-9 FINAL
September 2011
(1) CAFOs
A CAFO is an animal feeding operation that confines and feeds at least 1,000 animal units for 45 days or more in a 12-month period (ODAFF 2005). The CAFO Act and SFO Act are designed to protect water quality through the use of best management practices (BMP) such as dikes, berms, terraces, ditches, or other similar structures used to isolate animal waste from outside surface drainage, except for a 25-year, 24–hour rainfall event (ODAFF 2005). CAFOs are considered no-discharge facilities.
CAFOs are designated by USEPA as significant sources of pollution, and may have the potential to cause serious impacts to water quality if not managed properly. Potential problems from CAFOs can include unauthorized discharges of bacteria or nutrient loads to waters of the state and failure to properly operate wastewater lagoons. CAFOs are not considered a source of TSS loading. The location of each CAFO is shown in Figure 3-2 and is listed in Table 3-3. CAFO data used in this report were provided by ODAFF in May of 2011.
Regulated CAFOs within the watershed operate under state CAFO licenses issued and overseen by ODAFF and NPDES permits by EPA. In order to comply with this TMDL, those CAFO permits in the watershed and their associated management plans must be reviewed. Further actions to reduce bacteria loads and achieve progress toward meeting the specified reduction goals must be implemented. This provision will be forwarded to EPA and ODAFF for follow up.
Table 3-3 NPDES-Permitted CAFOs in Study Area ODAFF Location ID EPA Facility License # Company Max # of Swine >55 lbs units at facility Max # of Swine <55 lbs units at facility Total # of Animal Units at Facility County Waterbody ID and Waterbody Name
AGN031723
1382
RAN-MAR FARMS
1500
0
1500
Okfuskee
OK520700030020_00
(2). PFOs
A registered PFO is an animal feeding operation which raises chicken and generates more than 10 tons of poultry waste (litter) per year. PFO is required to develop an Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP) or an equivalent document such as Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) to store and apply litter properly in order to protect water quality of streams and lakes located in the watershed. Applicable BMPs shall be included in the Plan.
Per data provided by ODAFF in May 2011, there is only one PFO located in the watershed as shown on Table 3-4. It generates dry litter and does not have any significant impact on the watershed.
Table 3-4 Registered PFOs in Study Area Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Company Name Poultry ID County Type Total Birds
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
Fisher Ag. Enterprises, Inc
1018
Okmulgee
Layer
30,000 Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-10 FINAL
September 2011
3.1.5 Stormwater Permits Construction Activities
A general stormwater permit (OKR10) is required by the ODEQ for any stormwater discharges associated with construction activities that result in land disturbance of equal to or greater than one (1) acre, or less than one (1) acre if they are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that totals at least one (1) acre. The permit also authorizes any stormwater discharges from support activities (e.g. concrete or asphalt batch plants, equipment staging yards, material storage areas, excavated material disposal areas, and borrow areas) that are directly related to a construction site that is required to have permit coverage, and is not a commercial operation serving unrelated different sites (ODEQ 2007). Stormwater discharges occur only during or immediately following periods of rainfall and elevated flow conditions when the turbidity criteria do not apply and are not considered potential contributors to turbidity impairment. The construction permits are summarized in Table 3-5.
3.1.6 Rock, Sand and Gravel Quarries
Operators of rock, sand and gravel quarries in Oklahoma are regulated with a general permit (OKG950000) issued by the ODEQ. The general permit does not allow discharge of wastewater to waterbodies included in Oklahoma’s 303(d) List of impaired water bodies listed for turbidity for which a TMDL has not been performed or the result of the TMDL indicates that discharge limits more stringent than 45 mg/l for TSS are required (ODEQ 2009). If the TMDL shows that a TSS limit more stringent than 45 mg/L is required, an individual discharge permit with the TMDL required TSS limit will be issued to the facility. According to the data from the Oklahoma Department of Mines, there are no rock, sand and gravel quarries located within the Study Area.
3.1.7 Section 404 permits
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fills material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g. certain farming and forestry activities).
Section 404 permits are administrated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. EPA reviews and provides comments on each permit application to make sure it adequately protects water quality and complies with applicable guidelines. Both USACE and EPA can take enforcement actions for violations of Section 404.
Discharge of dredged or fill material in waters can be a significant source of turbidity/TSS. The federal Clean Water Act requires that a permit be issued for activities which discharge dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. The state of Oklahoma will use its Section 401 certification authority to ensure Section 404 permits protect Oklahoma water quality standards. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-11 FINAL
September 2011
Table 3-5 Construction Permits Summary Company Name County Permit ID Date Issued Waterbody ID Receiving Water (Permit) Estimated Acres
ODOT JP #21792(04)
OKFUSKEE
8462
10/30/2007
OK520700030020_00
Nuyaka Creek
6
BEGGS WASTEWATER TREATMENT P
OKMULGEE
9210
OK520700020010_10
Unnamed trib to Adams Creek, to Deep Fork of Canadian River
2
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-12 FINAL
September 2011
3.2 Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint sources include those sources that cannot be identified as entering the waterbody at a specific location. The relatively homogeneous land use/land cover categories throughout the Study Area associated with rural agricultural, forest and range management activities has an influence on the origin and pathways of pollutant sources to surface water. Pathogen indicator bacteria originate from warm-blooded animals in rural, suburban, and urban areas. These sources include wildlife, various agricultural activities and domesticated animals, land application fields, urban runoff, failing onsite wastewater disposal (OSWD) systems and domestic pets. Water quality data collected from streams draining urban communities often show existing concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria at levels greater than a state’s instantaneous standards. A study under USEPA’s National Urban Runoff Project indicated that the average fecal coliform concentration from 14 watersheds in different areas within the United States was approximately 15,000/100 mL in stormwater runoff (USEPA 1983). Runoff from urban areas not permitted under the MS4 program can be a significant source of fecal coliform bacteria. Water quality data collected from streams draining many of the non-permitted communities show existing loads of fecal coliform bacteria at levels greater than the State’s instantaneous standards.
Various potential nonpoint sources of TSS as indicated in the 2008 Integrated Report include sediments originating from grazing in riparian corridors of streams and creeks, highway/road/bridge runoff, non-irrigated crop production, rangeland grazing and other sources of sediment loading (ODEQ 2008). Elevated turbidity measurements can be caused by stream bank erosion processes, stormwater runoff events and other channel disturbances. The following section provides general information on nonpoint sources contributing bacteria or TSS loading within the Study Area.
3.2.1 Wildlife
Fecal coliform bacteria are produced by all warm-blooded animals, including wildlife such as mammals and birds. In developing bacteria TMDLs it is important to identify the potential for bacteria contributions from wildlife by watershed. Wildlife is naturally attracted to riparian corridors of streams and rivers. With direct access to the stream channel, wildlife can be a concentrated source of bacteria loading to a waterbody. Fecal coliform bacteria from wildlife are also deposited onto land surfaces, where it may be washed into nearby streams by rainfall runoff. Currently there are insufficient data available to estimate populations of wildlife and avian species by watershed. Consequently it is difficult to assess the magnitude of bacteria contributions from wildlife species as a general category.
However, adequate data are available by county to estimate the number of deer by watershed. This report assumes that deer habitat includes forests, croplands, and pastures. Using Oklahoma Department of Wildlife and Conservation county data, the population of deer can be roughly estimated from the actual number of deer harvested and harvest rate estimates. Because harvest success varies from year to year based on weather and other factors, the average harvest from 1999 to 2003 was combined with an estimated annual harvest rate of 20 percent to predict deer population by county. Using the estimated deer population by county and the percentage of the watershed area within each county, a wild deer population can be calculated for each watershed. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-13 FINAL
September 2011
According to a study conducted by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), deer release approximately 5x108 fecal coliform units per animal per day (ASAE 1999). Although only a fraction of the total fecal coliform loading produced by the deer population may actually enter a waterbody, the estimated fecal coliform production based on the estimated deer population provided in Table 3-6 in cfu/day provides a relative magnitude of loading in each watershed.
Table 3-6 Estimated Population and Fecal Coliform Production for Deer Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Watershed Area (acres) Wild Deer Population Estimated Wild Deer per acre Fecal Production (x 109 cfu/day) of Deer Population
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
203994
3005
0.0147
1502
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
61715
764
0.0124
382
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
18826
237
0.0126
118
3.2.2 Non-Permitted Agricultural Activities and Domesticated Animals
There are a number of non-permitted agricultural activities that can also be sources of bacteria or TSS loading. Agricultural activities of greatest concern are typically those associated with livestock operations (Drapcho and Hubbs 2002). Examples of commercially raised farm animal activities that can contribute to bacteria sources include:
Processed commercially raised farm animal manure is often applied to fields as fertilizer, and can contribute to fecal bacteria loading to waterbodies if washed into streams by runoff.
Animal grazing in pastures deposit manure containing fecal bacteria onto land surfaces. These bacteria may be washed into waterbodies by runoff.
Animal often have direct access to waterbodies and can provide a concentrated source of fecal bacteria loading directly into streams or can cause unstable stream banks which can contribute TSS.
Table 3-7 provides estimated numbers of selected livestock by watershed based on the 2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) county agricultural census data (USDA 2002). The estimated commercially raised farm animal populations in Table 3-7 were derived by using the percentage of the watershed within each county. Because the watersheds are generally much smaller than the counties, and commercially raised farm animals are not evenly distributed across counties or constant with time, these are rough estimates only. Cattle are clearly the most abundant species of commercially raised farm animals in the Study Area and often have direct access to the impaired waterbodies or their tributaries.
Detailed information is not available to describe or quantify the relationship between instream concentrations of bacteria and land application of manure from commercially raised Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-14 FINAL
September 2011
farm animal. Nor is sufficient information available to describe or quantify the contributions of sediment loading caused by commercially raised farm animal responsible for destabilizing stream banks or erosion in pasture fields. The estimated acreage by watershed where manure was applied in 2002 is shown in Table 3-7. These estimates are also based on the county level reports from the 2002 USDA county agricultural census, and thus, represent approximations of the commercially raised farm animal populations in each watershed. Despite the lack of specific data, for the purpose of these TMDLs, land application of commercially raised farm animal manure is considered a potential source of bacteria loading to the watersheds in the Study Area.
According to a livestock study conducted by the ASAE, the daily fecal coliform production rates by livestock species were estimated as follows (ASAE 1999):
Beef cattle release approximately 1.04E+11 fecal coliform counts per animal per day;
Dairy cattle release approximately 1.01E+11 per animal per day
Swine release approximately 1.08E+10 per animal per day
Chickens release approximately 1.36E+08 per animal per day
Sheep release approximately 1.20E+10 per animal per day
Horses release approximately 4.20E+08 per animal per day;
Turkey release approximately 9.30E+07 per animal per day
Ducks release approximately 2.43E+09 per animal per day
Geese release approximately 4.90E+10 per animal per day
Using the estimated animal populations and the fecal coliform production rates from ASAE, an estimate of fecal coliform production from each group of commercially raised farm animal was calculated in each watershed of the Study Area in Table 3-8. Note that only a small fraction of these fecal coliform are expected to represent loading into waterbodies, either washed into streams by runoff or by direct deposition from wading animals. Cattle again appear to represent the most likely commercially raised farm animal source of fecal bacteria. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-15 FINAL
September 2011
Table 3-7 Commercially Raised Farm Animals and Manure Application Area Estimates by Watershed Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Cattle & Calves-all Dairy Cows Horses & Ponies Goats Sheep & Lambs Hogs & Pigs Ducks & Geese Chicken & Turkeys Acres of Manure Application
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
17,277
94
1,315
2
306
725
244
5,956
744
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
4,375
46
405
2
115
128
123
3,332
248
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
1,267
11
124
0
33
40
40
1,101
59
Table 3-8 Fecal Coliform Production Estimates for Commercially Raised Farm Animals (x109 number/day) Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Cattle & Calves-all Dairy Cows Horses & Ponies Goats Sheep & Lambs Hogs & Pigs Ducks & Geese Chickens & Turkeys Total
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
1,796,790
9,449
552
20
3,671
7,834
592
810
1,819,718
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
454,969
4,690
170
21
1,378
1,382
299
453
463,362
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
131,809
1,065
52
4
391
429
97
150
133,996
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-16 FINAL
September 2011
3.2.3 Failing Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems and Illicit Discharges
ODEQ is responsible for implementing the regulations of Title 252, Chapter 641 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code, which defines design standards for individual and small public onsite sewage disposal systems (ODEQ 2004). OSWD systems and illicit discharges can be a source of bacteria loading to streams and rivers. Bacteria loading from failing OSWD systems can be transported to streams in a variety of ways, including runoff from surface ponding or through groundwater. Fecal coliform-contaminated groundwater discharges to creeks through springs and seeps.
To estimate the potential magnitude of OSWDs fecal bacteria loading, the number of OSWD systems was estimated for each watershed. The estimate of OSWD systems was derived by using data from the 1990 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The density of OSWD systems within each watershed was estimated by dividing the number of OSWD systems in each census block by the number of acres in each census block. This density was then applied to the number of acres of each census block within a WQM station watershed. Census blocks crossing a watershed boundary required additional calculation to estimate the number of OSWD systems based on the proportion of the census tracking falling within each watershed. This step involved adding all OSWD systems for each whole or partial census block.
Over time, most OSWD systems operating at full capacity will fail. OSWD system failures are proportional to the adequacy of a state’s minimum design criteria (Hall 2002). The 1995 American Housing Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that, nationwide, 10 percent of occupied homes with OSWD systems experience malfunctions during the year (U.S. Census Bureau 1995). A study conducted by Reed, Stowe & Yanke, LLC (2001) reported that approximately 12 percent of the OSWD systems in east Texas and 8 percent in the Texas Panhandle were chronically malfunctioning. Most studies estimate that the minimum lot size necessary to ensure against contamination is roughly one-half to one acre (Hall 2002). Some studies, however, found that lot sizes in this range or even larger could still cause contamination of ground or surface water (University of Florida 1987). It is estimated that areas with more than 40 OSWD systems per square mile (6.25 septic systems per 100 acres) can be considered to have potential contamination problems (Canter and Knox 1986). Table 3-9 summarizes estimates of sewered and unsewered households for each watershed in the Study Area.
Table 3-9 Estimates of Sewered and Unsewered Households Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Public Sewer Septic Tank Other Means Housing Units % Sewered
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
3,392
2,398
57
5,847
58.0%
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
560
586
18
1,164
48.1%
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
346
278
8
632
54.7%
For the purpose of estimating fecal coliform loading in watersheds, an OSWD failure rate of 12 percent was used in the calculations made to characterize fecal coliform loads in each watershed. Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-17 FINAL
September 2011
Fecal coliform loads were estimated using the following equation (USEPA 2001):
galmlhouseholdpersonpersondaygalmlcountssystemsFailingdaycounts2.3785#7010010##6
The average of number of people per household was calculated to be 2.44 for counties in the Study Area (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Approximately 70 gallons of wastewater were estimated to be produced on average per person per day (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). The fecal coliform concentration in septic tank effluent was estimated to be 106 per 100 mL of effluent based on reported concentrations from a number of publications (Metcalf and Eddy 1991; Canter and Knox 1985; Cogger and Carlile 1984). Using this information, the estimated load from failing septic systems within the watersheds was summarized below in Table 3-10.
Table 3-10 Estimated Fecal Coliform Load from OSWD Systems Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Acres Septic Tank # of Failing Septic Tanks Estimated Loads from Septic Tanks ( x 109 counts/day)
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
203,994
2398
240
1639
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
61,715
586
59
401
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
18,826
278
28
190
3.2.4 Domestic Pets
Fecal matter from dogs and cats, which is transported to streams by runoff from urban and suburban areas, can be a potential source of bacteria loading. On average 37.2 percent of the nation’s households own dogs and 32.4 percent own cats and in these households the average number of dogs is 1.7 and 2.2 cats per household (American Veterinary Medical Association 2007). Using the U.S. Census data at the block level (U.S. Census Bureau 2010), dog and cat populations can be estimated for each watershed. Table 3-11 summarizes the estimated number of dogs and cats for the watersheds of the Study Area.
Table 3-11 Estimated Numbers of Pets Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Dogs Cats
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
3,678
4,116
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
732
819
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
398
445
Lower Deep Fork of Canadian River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
J:\Planning\TMDL\Bact_Turbidity_Tmdls\Lower Deep Fork Of Canadian River (6)\Finallower Deep Fork Bact_Turb Tmdls_Sept_12_2011.Docx
3-18 FINAL
September 2011
Table 3-12 provides an estimate of the fecal coliform load from pets. These estimates are based on estimated fecal coliform production rates of 5.4x108 per day for cats and 3.3x109 per day for dogs (Schueler 2000).
Table 3-12 Estimated Fecal Coliform Daily Production by Pets (x109 counts/day) Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Dogs Cats Total
OK520700020010_10
Canadian River, Deep Fork
12,137
2,223
14,359
OK520700060130_10
Little Deep Fork Creek
2,416
443
2,859
OK520700060140_00
Catfish Creek
1,312
240
1,552
3.3 Summary of Bacteria Sources
The Deep Fork of Canadian River and Little Deep Fork Creek watersheds have continuous point source discharge. There is no CAFO in the Deep Fork of Canadian River and Little Deep Fork Creek watershed which require bacterian TMDLs. The various nonpoint sources are considered to be the major source of bacteria loading in each watershed that requires a TMDL for bacteria.
Table 3-13 below provides a summary of the estimated fecal coliform loads in cfu/day for the four major nonpoint source categories (commercially raised farm animals, pets, deer, and septic tanks) that contribute to the elevated bacteria concentrations in each watershed. Livestock are estimated to be the largest contributors of fecal coliform loading to land surfaces. It must be noted that while no data are available to estimate populations and fecal loading of wildlife other than deer, a number of bacteria source tracking studies around the nation demonstrate that wild birds and mammals represent a major source of the fecal bacteria found in streams.
Table 3-13 Summary of Fecal Coliform Load Estimates from Nonpoint Sources to Land