Bacteria and turbidity total maximum daily loads for streams in the middle Cimarron River study area, Oklahoma

              FINAL
BACTERIA AND TURBIDITY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY
LOADS FOR STREAMS IN THE MIDDLE CIMARRON RIVER
STUDY AREA, OKLAHOMA
Prepared By:
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AUGUST 2011
FINAL
BACTERIA AND TURBIDITY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY
LOADS FOR STREAMS IN THE MIDDLE CIMARRON RIVER
STUDY AREA, OKLAHOMA
OKWBID
Cimarron River OK620920030010_00
Buffalo Creek OK620920050010_00
Sand Creek OK620920050050_00
Cimarron River OK620920020010_00
Long Creek OK620920020080_00
Cimarron River OK620920010010_00
Main Creek OK620920010180_00
Griever Creek OK620920010130_00
Eagle Chief Creek OK620920040010_00
Cottonwood Creek OK620920010080_00
Cimarron River OK620910020010_10
Cimarron River OK620910020010_00
Prepared by:
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AUGUST 2011
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
i FINAL
August 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... VI
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 TMDL Program Background ........................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Watershed Description .................................................................................................. 1-3
1.3 Stream Flow Conditions .............................................................................................. 1-10
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 ................................................................................... 2-7
2.3 Water Quality Target ................................................................................................... 2-10
SECTION 3 POLLUTANT SOURCE ASSESSMENT .......................................................... 3-1
3.1 NPDES-Permitted Facilities .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Continuous Point Source Discharges ................................................................ 3-2
3.1.2 NPDES No-Discharge Facilities and Sanitary Sewer Overflows ..................... 3-7
3.1.3 NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Discharge ....................................... 3-8
3.1.4 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ........................................................ 3-9
3.1.5 Stormwater Permits Construction Activities ................................................... 3-10
3.1.6 Rock, Sand and Gravel Quarries ..................................................................... 3-11
3.1.7 Section 404 Permits ......................................................................................... 3-11
3.2 Nonpoint Sources ........................................................................................................ 3-13
3.2.1 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 3-13
3.2.2 Non-Permitted Agricultural Activities and Domesticated Animals ................ 3-14
3.2.3 Failing Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems and Illicit Discharges .............. 3-18
3.2.4 Domestic Pets .................................................................................................. 3-20
3.3 Summary of Bacteria Sources ..................................................................................... 3-21
SECTION 4 TECHNICAL APPROACH AND METHODS ................................................. 4-1
4.1 Determining a Surrogate Target for Turbidity .............................................................. 4-1
4.2 Using Load Duration Curves to Develop TMDLs ........................................................ 4-4
4.3 Development of Flow Duration Curves ........................................................................ 4-4
4.4 Estimating Current Point and Nonpoint Loading for Bacteria ...................................... 4-6
4.5 Development of TMDLs Using Load Duration Curves ................................................ 4-6
SECTION 5 TMDL CALCULATIONS ................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Surrogate TMDL Target for Turbidity .......................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Flow Duration Curves ................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3 Estimated Loading and Critical Conditions ................................................................ 5-11
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
ii FINAL
August 2011
5.4 Wasteload Allocation .................................................................................................. 5-29
5.4.1 Indicator Bacteria ............................................................................................ 5-29
5.4.2 Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................... 5-30
5.4.3 Section 404 Permits ......................................................................................... 5-30
5.5 Load Allocation ........................................................................................................... 5-31
5.6 Seasonal Variability ..................................................................................................... 5-31
5.7 Margin of Safety .......................................................................................................... 5-31
5.8 TMDL Calculations ..................................................................................................... 5-32
5.9 Reasonable Assurances ............................................................................................... 5-63
SECTION 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................... 6-1
SECTION 7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 7-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A Ambient Water Quality Bacteria Data
Appendix B Estimated Flow Exceedance Percentiles
Appendix C State of Oklahoma Antidegradation Policy
Appendix D NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report Data
Appendix E Response to Comments
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Middle Cimarron River Study Areas Not Supporting Primary Body Contact
Recreation or Fish and Wildlife Propagation ............................................................... 1-7
Figure 1-2 Middle Cimarron River Study Area Land Use Map .................................................... 1-8
Figure 3-1 Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Study Area ...................................... 3-5
Figure 3-2 Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Study Area ...................................... 3-6
Figure 4-1 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Cimarron River below Waynoka
(OK620920010010_00) ............................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-2 Flow Duration Curve for Cimarron River, near Buffalo (OK620920030010_00) ...... 4-6
Figure 5-1 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Cimarron River below Waynoka
(OK620920010010_00) ............................................................................................... 5-1
Figure 5-2 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Main Creek (OK620920010180_00) ......... 5-2
Figure 5-3 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Eagle Chief Creek
(OK620920040010_00) ............................................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5-4 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Cottonwood Creek
(OK620920010080_00) ............................................................................................... 5-3
Figure 5-5 Linear Regression for TSS-Turbidity for Cimarron River near Dover
(OK620910020010_00) ............................................................................................... 5-3
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
iii FINAL
August 2011
Figure 5-6 Flow Duration Curve for Cimarron River near Buffalo (OK620920030010_00) ...... 5-4
Figure 5-7 Flow Duration Curve for Buffalo Creek near Lovedale (OK620920050010_00) ...... 5-5
Figure 5-8 Flow Duration Curve for Sand Creek (OK620920050050_00) ................................... 5-5
Figure 5-9 Flow Duration Curve for Cimarron River at Freedom (OK620920020010_00) ........ 5-6
Figure 5-10 Flow Duration Curve for Traders Creek (OK620920020170_00) ............................ 5-6
Figure 5-11 Flow Duration Curve for Long Creek (OK620920020080_00) ................................ 5-7
Figure 5-12 Flow Duration Curve for Cimarron River below Waynoka
(OK620920010010_00) ............................................................................................... 5-7
Figure 5-13 Flow Duration Curve for Main Creek (OK620920010180_00) ................................ 5-8
Figure 5-14 Flow Duration Curve for Griever Creek (OK620920010130_00) ............................ 5-8
Figure 5-15 Flow Duration Curve for Eagle Chief Creek (OK620920040010_00) ...................... 5-9
Figure 5-16 Flow Duration Curve for Cottonwood Creek (OK620920010080_00) ..................... 5-9
Figure 5-17 Flow Duration Curve for Cimarron River near Ames (OK620910020010_10) ..... 5-10
Figure 5-18 Flow Duration Curve for Cimarron River near Dover (OK620910020010_00) .... 5-10
Figure 5-22 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Buffalo Creek .................................................. 5-13
Figure 5-23 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Buffalo Creek .......................................... 5-14
Figure 5-24 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Sand Creek ...................................................... 5-14
Figure 5-25 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Sand Creek .............................................. 5-15
Figure 5-28 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Long Creek ............................................. 5-16
Figure 5-29 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Cimarron River below Waynoka ..................... 5-17
Figure 5-30 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Cimarron River below Waynoka ............ 5-17
Figure 5-31 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Cimarron River below Waynoka ....... 5-18
Figure 5-32 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Main Creek ...................................................... 5-18
Figure 5-33 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Main Creek ............................................. 5-19
Figure 5-34 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Griever Creek .......................................... 5-19
Figure 5-35 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Eagle Chief Creek ........................................... 5-20
Figure 5-36 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Eagle Chief Creek ................................... 5-20
Figure 5-37 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Cottonwood Creek ............................. 5-21
Figure 5-38 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Cimarron River near Ames .............................. 5-22
Figure 5-39 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Cimarron River near Ames ..................... 5-22
Figure 5-40 Load Duration Curve for E. coli in Cimarron River near Dover ............................. 5-23
Figure 5-41 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Cimarron River near Dover .................... 5-23
Figure 5-42 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Cimarron River near Dover ............... 5-24
Figure 5-43 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Cimarron River below
Waynoka .................................................................................................................... 5-25
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
iv FINAL
August 2011
Figure 5-44 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Main Creek ........................... 5-26
Figure 5-45 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Eagle Chief Creek ................ 5-26
Figure 5-46 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Cottonwood Creek ............... 5-27
Figure 5-47 Load Duration Curve for Total Suspended Solids in Cimarron River near Dover .. 5-27
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, 1998-2008 .......................................................................................................... 3
Table ES-3 Summary of Turbidity Samples Collected During Base Flow Conditions, 1998-
2009 ................................................................................................................................ 6
Table ES-4 Summary of TSS Samples During Base Flow Conditions, 1998-2009 ......................... 6
Table ES-5 Regression Statistics and TSS Targets .......................................................................... 7
Table ES-6 Stream Segments and Pollutants for TMDL Development ........................................... 8
Table ES-7 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources by Category .................................................. 9
Table ES-8 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Standards for
Indicator Bacteria .......................................................................................................... 12
Table ES-9 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Targets for Total
Suspended Solids .......................................................................................................... 12
Table 1-1 Water Quality Monitoring stations used for 2008 303(d) Listing Decision ................. 1-3
Table 1-2 County Population and Density .................................................................................... 1-3
Table 1-3 Average Annual Precipitation by Stream Segment ....................................................... 1-4
Table 1-4 Land Use Summaries by Watershed ............................................................................. 1-5
Table 1-5 Land Use Summaries by Watershed ............................................................................. 1-6
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 Each Impaired Waterbody in the Study Area ............. 2-3
Table 2-4 Summaries of All Turbidity Samples 1998 - 2009 ....................................................... 2-9
Table 2-5 Summary of Turbidity Samples Collected During Base Flow Conditions 1998-2009 . 2-9
Table 2-6 Stream Segments and Pollutants for TMDL Development ......................................... 2-10
Table 3-1 Point Source Discharges in the Study Area .................................................................. 3-4
Table 3-2 NPDES No- Discharge Facilities in the Study Area .................................................... 3-7
Table 3-3 Sanitary Sewer Overflow Summary .............................................................................. 3-7
Table 3-4 NPDES-Permitted CAFOs in Study Area ................................................................... 3-10
Table 3-5 Construction Permits Summary .................................................................................. 3-12
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
v FINAL
August 2011
Table 3-6 Rock, Sand and Gravel Quarries ................................................................................. 3-12
Table 3-7 Estimated Population and Fecal Coliform Production for Deer ................................. 3-14
Table 3-8 Commercially Raised Farm Animals and Manure Application Area Estimates by
Watershed .................................................................................................................. 3-16
Table 3-9 Fecal Coliform Production Estimates for Commercially Raised Farm Animals (x109
number/day) ............................................................................................................... 3-17
Table 3-10 Estimates of Sewered and Unsewered Households .................................................. 3-19
Table 3-11 Estimated Fecal Coliform Load from OSWD Systems ............................................ 3-20
Table 3-12 Estimated Numbers of Pets ....................................................................................... 3-20
Table 3-13 Estimated Fecal Coliform Daily Production by Pets (x 109) .................................... 3-21
Table 3-14 Estimated Major Source of Bacteria Loading by Watershed .................................... 3-21
Table 3-15 Summaries of Daily Fecal Coliform Load Estimates from Nonpoint Sources to
Land Surfaces (% of Total Watershed Load) ............................................................ 3-22
Table 5-1 Regression Statistics and TSS Goals ............................................................................. 5-4
Table 5-2 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Standards for Indicator
Bacteria ...................................................................................................................... 5-28
Table 5-3 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Targets for Indicator
for Total Suspended Solids ........................................................................................ 5-29
Table 5-4 Permit Information for NPDES-Permitted Facilities .................................................. 5-30
Table 5-5 Explicit Margin of Safety for Total Suspended Solids TMDLs ................................. 5-32
Table 5-6 Summaries of Bacteria TMDLs .................................................................................. 5-33
Table 5-7 Summaries of TSS TMDLs ......................................................................................... 5-33
Table 5-8 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River near Buffalo
(OK620920030010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-34
Table 5-9 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River near Buffalo E. coli
(OK620920030010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-35
Table 5-10 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River near Buffalo
(OK620920030010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-36
Table 5-11 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Buffalo Creek near Lovedale
(OK620920050010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-37
Table 5-12 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Buffalo Creek near Lovedale
(OK620920050010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-38
Table 5-13 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Sand Creek (OK620920050050_00) ...................... 5-39
Table 5-14 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Sand Creek (OK620920050050_00) .............. 5-40
Table 5-15 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River at Freedom
(OK620920020010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-41
Table 5-16 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Long Creek (OK620920020080_00) ...................... 5-42
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Table of Contents
vi FINAL
August 2011
Table 5-17 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Long Creek (OK620920020080_00) ............. 5-43
Table 5-18 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River below Waynoka
(OK620920010010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-44
Table 5-19 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River below Waynoka
(OK620920010010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-45
Table 5-20 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River below Waynoka
(OK620920010010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-46
Table 5-21 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Main Creek (OK620920010180_00) ...................... 5-47
Table 5-22 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Main Creek (OK620920010180_00) ............. 5-48
Table 5-23 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Griever Creek (OK620920010130_00) ......... 5-49
Table 5-24 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Eagle Chief Creek ................................................... 5-50
Table 5-25 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Eagle Chief Creek .......................................... 5-51
Table 5-26 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Cottonwood Creek
(OK620920010080_00) ............................................................................................. 5-52
Table 5-27 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River near Ames
(OK620910020010_10) ............................................................................................. 5-53
Table 5-28 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River near Ames
(OK620910020010_10) ............................................................................................. 5-54
Table 5-29 E. coli TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River near Dover
(OK620910020010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-55
Table 5-30 Enterococci TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River near Dover
(OK620910020010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-56
Table 5-31 Fecal Coliform TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River near Dover
(OK620910020010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-57
Table 5-32 Turbidity TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River below Waynoka
(OK620920010010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-58
Table 5-33 Turbidity TMDL Calculations for Main Creek (OK620920010180_00) ................. 5-59
Table 5-34 Turbidity TMDL Calculations for Eagle Chief Creek (OK620920040010_00) ....... 5-60
Table 5-35 Turbidity TMDL Calculations for Cottonwood Creek (OK620920010080_00) ...... 5-61
Table 5-36 Turbidity TMDL Calculations for Cimarron River near Dover
(OK620910020010_00) ............................................................................................. 5-62
Table 5-37 Partial Lists of Oklahoma Water Quality Management Agencies ............................ 5-63
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Acronyms and Abbreviations
vii FINAL
August 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
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 National Resources Conservation Service
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
OLS ordinary least square regression
O.S. Oklahoma statutes
ODAFF Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry
DEQ 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
SSO Sanitary sewer overflow
TMDL Total maximum daily load
TSS Total suspended solids
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
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-1 FINAL
August 2011
Executive Summary
This report documents the data and assessment used to establish TMDLs for the pathogen
indicator bacteria [fecal coliform, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Enterococci] and turbidity for
certain waterbodies in the Middle Cimarron River watershed. 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 (DEQ) guidance and procedures. DEQ 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 Middle Cimarron River Study Area,
identified in Table ES-1, that DEQ 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.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-2 FINAL
August 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
Cimarron River near Buffalo OK620920030010_00 24 2014 3 X X X N
Buffalo Creek near Lovedale OK620920050010_00 50 2010 1 X X N
Sand Creek OK620920050050_00 26 2014 3 X X N
Cimarron River at Freedom OK620920020010_00 33 2014 3 X N
Long Creek OK620920020080_00 22 2019 4 X N
Cimarron River below Waynoka OK620920010010_00 43 2014 3 X X N X N
Main Creek OK620920010180_00 19 2019 4 X X N X N
Griever Creek OK620920010130_00 20 2014 3 X X N
Eagle Chief Creek OK620920040010_00 74 2014 3 X N
Cottonwood Creek OK620920010080_00 22 2014 3 X X X N X N
Cimarron River near Ames OK620910020010_10 42 2014 3 X X N
Cimarron River near Dover OK620910020010_00 18 2014 3 X X N
ENT = enterococci; FC = fecal coliform; N = Not attaining; X = Criterion Exceeded, TMDL Required Source: 2008 Integrated Report, DEQ 2008.
Table ES-2 summarizes water quality data collected during primary contact recreation season from the water quality monitoring
(WQM) stations between 1998 and 2008 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.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-3 FINAL
August 2011
Table ES-2 Summary of Indicator Bacteria Samples from Primary Body Contact Recreation Season, 1998-2008
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name
Indicator
Bacteria
Geo-Mean
Concentration
(count/100ml)
Number
of
Samples
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
Single Sample
Criterion
% of Samples
Exceeding
Single
Sample
Criterion
2008
303(d)
Listing
Notes
OK620920030010_00 Cimarron River near Buffalo
FC 351 21 8 38% X TMDL required
ENT 220 21 13 62% X TMDL required
EC 1951 21 16 76% X TMDL required
OK620920050010_00 Buffalo Creek near Lovedale
ENT 128 42 25 60% X TMDL required
EC 130 42 8 19% X TMDL required
OK620920050050_00 Sand Creek
ENT 415 17 15 88% X TMDL required
EC 392 17 10 59% X TMDL required
OK620920020010_00 Cimarron River at Freedom EC 951 14 11 79% X TMDL required
OK620920020080_00 Long Creek
ENT 176 18 12 67% X TMDL required
EC 149 18 3 17%
List: TMDL required
FC 246 14 4 29%
List: TMDL required
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka ENT 207 14 9 64% X TMDL required
EC 164 14 4 29% X TMDL required
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek
ENT 219 18 13 72% X TMDL required
EC 193 18 1 6% X TMDL required
OK620920010130_00 Griever Creek
ENT 209 24 15 63% X TMDL required
EC 92 24 4 17% X Delist: Meets standards
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek
ENT 175 36 20 56% X TMDL required
EC 165 36 11 31% X TMDL required
FC 247 8 4 50% X TMDL required
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek ENT 140 5 3 60% X Delist: Not enough data
EC 56 5 1 20% X Delist: Not enough data
OK620910020010_10 Cimarron River near Ames ENT 40 23 8 35% X TMDL required
EC 327 23 13 57% X TMDL required
FC 343 24 7 29%
List: TMDL required
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover ENT 162 24 12 50% X TMDL required
EC 438 24 11 46% X TMDL required
Fecal coliform (FC) water quality criterion = Geometric Mean of 400 counts/100 mL
E. coli (EC) water quality criterion = Geometric Mean of 126 counts/100 mL
Enterococci (ENT) water quality criterion = Geometric Mean of 33 counts/100 mL
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-4 FINAL
August 2011
The definition of PBCR is summarized by the following excerpt from Chapter 45 of the
Oklahoma WQSs.
(a) Primary Body Contact Recreation involves direct body contact with the water where a
possibility of ingestion exists. In these cases the water shall not contain chemical,
physical or biological substances in concentrations that are irritating to skin or sense
organs or are toxic or cause illness upon ingestion by human beings.
(b) In waters designated for Primary Body Contact Recreation...limits...shall apply only
during the recreation period of May 1 to September 30. The criteria for Secondary Body
Contact Recreation will apply during the remainder of the year.
To implement Oklahoma’s WQS for PBCR, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board
(OWRB) promulgated Chapter 46, Implementation of Oklahoma’s Water Quality Standards
(OWRB 2008a). The abbreviated excerpt below from Chapter 46: 785:46-15-6, stipulates how
water quality data will be assessed to determine support of the PBCR use as well as how the
water quality target for TMDLs will be defined for each bacterial indicator.
(a) Scope. The provisions of this Section shall be used to determine whether the
subcategory of Primary Body Contact of the beneficial use of Recreation designated in OAC
785:45 for a waterbody is supported during the recreation season from May 1 through
September 30 each year. Where data exist for multiple bacterial indicators on the same
waterbody or waterbody segment, the determination of use support shall be based upon the use
and application of all applicable tests and data.
(b) Screening levels:
(1) The screening level for fecal coliform shall be a density of 400 colonies per 100 ml.
(2) The screening level for Escherichia coli shall be a density of 235 colonies per 100 ml in
streams designated in OAC 785:45 as Scenic Rivers and in lakes, and 406 colonies per 100 ml
in all other waters of the state designated as Primary Body Contact Recreation.
(3) The screening level for enterococci shall be a density of 61 colonies per 100 ml in
streams designated in OAC 785:45 as Scenic Rivers and in lakes, and 108 colonies per 100 ml
in all other waters of the state designated as Primary Body Contact Recreation.
(c) Fecal coliform:
(1) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall
be deemed to be fully supported with respect to fecal coliform if the geometric mean of 400
colonies per 100 ml is met and no greater than 25% of the sample concentrations from that
waterbody exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section.
(d) Escherichia coli (E. coli):
(1) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall
be deemed to be fully supported with respect to E. coli if the geometric mean of 126 colonies
per 100 ml is met, or the sample concentrations from that waterbody taken during the
recreation season do not exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section, or both
such conditions exist.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-5 FINAL
August 2011
(e) Enterococci:
(1) The Primary Body Contact Recreation subcategory designated for a waterbody shall
be deemed to be fully supported with respect to enterococci if the geometric mean of 33
colonies per 100 ml is met, or the sample concentrations from that waterbody taken during the
recreation season do not exceed the screening level prescribed in (b) of this Section, or both
such conditions exist.
Where concurrent data exist for multiple bacterial indicators on the same waterbody or
waterbody segment, each indicator group must demonstrate compliance with the numeric
criteria prescribed (OWRB 2008). Waterbodies placed on the 303(d) list for not supporting the
PBCR are the result of individual samples exceeding the instantaneous criteria or the long-term
geometric mean of individual samples exceeding the geometric mean criteria for each
respective bacterial indicator. Targeting the instantaneous criterion established for the primary
contact recreation season (May 1st to September 30th) as the water quality goal for TMDLs
corresponds to the basis for 303(d) listing and may be protective of the geometric mean
criterion as well as the criteria for the secondary contact recreation season. However, both the
instantaneous and geometric mean criteria for E. coli and Enterococci will be evaluated as
water quality targets to ensure the most protective goal is established for each waterbody.
All TMDLs for fecal coliform must take into account that no more than 25 percent of the
samples may exceed the instantaneous numeric criteria. For E. coli and Enterococci, no
samples may exceed instantaneous criteria. Since the attainability of stream beneficial uses for
E. coli and Enterococci is based on the compliance of either the instantaneous or a long-term
geometric mean criterion, percent reductions goals will be calculated for both criteria. TMDLs
will be based on the percent reduction required to meet either the instantaneous or the long-term
geometric mean criterion, whichever is less.
Turbidity is a measure of water clarity and is caused by suspended particles in the water
column. Because turbidity cannot be expressed as a mass load, total suspended solids (TSS)
are used as a surrogate for the TMDLs in this report. Therefore, both turbidity and TSS data
are presented.
Table ES-3 summarizes a subset of water quality data collected from the WQM stations
between 1998 and 2009 for turbidity under base flow conditions, which DEQ 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.
Table ES-4 presents a subset of data for TSS samples collected during base flow conditions.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-6 FINAL
August 2011
Table ES-3 Summary of Turbidity Samples Collected During Base Flow Conditions,
1998-2009
WQM Station Waterbody Name
Number of
Turbidity
Samples
Number of
Samples
Exceed 50
(NTU)
Percentage of
Samples
Exceeding
Criterion
Average
Turbidity
(NTU)
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka 39 9 23% 51
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek 34 6 18% 42
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek 78 12 15% 45
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek 18 9 50% 82
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover 74 9 12% 61
Table ES-4 Summary of TSS Samples During Base Flow Conditions, 1998-2009
WQM Station Waterbody Name Number of TSS Samples Average TSS (mg/L)
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka 9 68
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek 32 45
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek 74 59
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek 17 74
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover 14 38
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.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-7 FINAL
August 2011
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 targets as surrogates.
Table ES-5 provides the results of the waterbody specific regression analysis.
Table ES-5 Regression Statistics and TSS Targets
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name R-square NRMSE TSS Target
(mg/L)
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka 0.899 7.2% 88
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek 0.891 8.3% 64
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek 0.846 11.0% 56
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek 0.769 10.6% 47
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover 0.913 8.3% 86
After re-evaluating bacteria and turbidity/TSS data for the streams listed in Table ES-1, the
following stream segments and their corresponding pollutants are recommended for delisting:
Griever Creek (E. coli) and Cottonwood Creek (Enterococci and E. coli). The following stream
segments and their corresponding pollutants are recommended for listing after re-evaluation:
Eagle Chief Creek (Turbidity) and Cimarron River near Dover (Turbidity). Table ES-6 shows
the bacteria and turbidity TMDLs that will be developed in this report:
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-8 FINAL
August 2011
Table ES-6 Stream Segments and Pollutants for TMDL Development
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name
Stream
Miles
TMDL
Date
Priority ENT E. coli FC Turbidity
OK620920030010_00 Cimarron River near Buffalo 24 2014 3 X X X
OK620920050010_00 Buffalo Creek near Lovedale 50 2010 1 X X
OK620920050050_00 Sand Creek 26 2014 3 X X
OK620920020010_00 Cimarron River at Freedom 33 2014 3 X
OK620920020080_00 Long Creek 22 2019 4 X X
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka 43 2014 3 X X X X
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek 19 2019 4 X X X
OK620920010130_00 Griever Creek 20 2014 3 X
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek 74 2014 3 X X X
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek 22 2014 3 X X
OK620910020010_10 Cimarron River near Ames 42 2014 3 X X
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover 18 2014 3 X X X X
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-7 summarizes the point and
nonpoint sources that contribute bacteria or TSS to each respective waterbody.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-9
FINAL
August 2011
Table ES-7 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources by Category
Waterbody Name Waterbody ID
Municipal
NPDES
Facility
Industrial
NPDES
Facility
MS4
NPDES No
Discharge
Facility
CAFO
Mines &
Quarries
Construction
Stormwater
Permit
Nonpoint
Source
Cimarron River near Buffalo OK620920030010_00
Bacteria
Bacteria
Buffalo Creek near Lovedale OK620920050010_00
Bacteria Bacteria
Bacteria
Sand Creek OK620920050050_00
Bacteria
Cimarron River at Freedom OK620920020010_00
Bacteria
Bacteria
Long Creek OK620920020080_00
Bacteria
Cimarron River below Waynoka OK620920010010_00 Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria, TSS
Main Creek OK620920010180_00
Bacteria
Bacteria, TSS
Griever Creek OK620920010130_00
Bacteria
Eagle Chief Creek OK620920040010_00 Bacteria
Bacteria Bacteria TSS
Bacteria, TSS
Cottonwood Creek OK620920010080_00
Bacteria, TSS
Cimarron River near Ames OK620910020010_10
Bacteria
Bacteria
Cimarron River near Dover OK620910020010_00
Bacteria, TSS
No facility present in watershed.
Facility present in watershed, but not recognized as pollutant source.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-10 FINAL
August 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 WQtarget 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
in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2); or multiplying the flow by the bacteria indicator
concentration to calculate daily loads; then
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-11 FINAL
August 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) = WQtarget * flow (cfs) * unit conversion factor
where: WQtarget = 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 none of
the 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-8 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-8 is denoted by bold text. The TMDL PRG will be the
lesser of that required to meet the geometric mean or instantaneous criteria for E. coli and
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-12 FINAL
August 2011
Enterococci because WQSs are considered to be met if, 1) either the geometric mean of all data
is less than the geometric mean criteria, or 2) no samples exceed the instantaneous criteria. The
PRGs range from 13 to 99.99 percent.
Table ES-8 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
OK620920030010_00 Cimarron River near Buffalo 69% 99% 94% 99.99% 86%
OK620920050010_00 Buffalo Creek near Lovedale 91% 13% 98% 77%
OK620920050050_00 Sand Creek 82% 71% 96% 93%
OK620920020010_00 Cimarron River at Freedom 97% 88%
OK620920020080_00 Long Creek 82% 24% 99.99% 83%
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka 28% 73% 31% 99.99% 86%
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek 91% 41% 97% 86%
OK620920010130_00 Griever Creek 97% 86%
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek 96% 31% 98% 83%
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek 49%
OK620910020010_10 Cimarron River near Ames 89% 65% 91% 26%
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover 85% 97% 74% 99.99% 82%
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 fourteen waterbodies included in this TMDL report are summarized in Table ES-
9 and range from 62 to 86 percent.
Table ES-9 TMDL Percent Reductions Required to Meet Water Quality Targets for
Total Suspended Solids
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name
Required
Reduction Rate
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka 86%
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek 64%
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek 76%
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek 82%
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover 62%
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.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Executive Summary
ES-13 FINAL
August 2011
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 of 10 or 15 percent was used for
waterbodies in this report.
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 86 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.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
1-1 FINAL
August 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 (TMDL) 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 in-stream 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 bacteria and turbidity
TMDLs for certain waterbodies in the Middle Cimarron River study area. The 2008 Integrated
Water Quality Assessment Report (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ]
2008) identified these 14 streams as impaired for either bacteria and/or turbidity. 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 (DEQ)
guidance and procedures. DEQ 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 in-stream 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
uncertainty 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 and /or turbidity
loadings within each watershed. Watershed-specific control actions and management measures
will be identified, selected, and implemented under a separate process involving stakeholders
who live and work in the watersheds, tribes, and local, state, and federal government agencies.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
1-2 FINAL
August 2011
This TMDL report focuses on waterbodies listed below that DEQ placed in Category 5 of
the 2008 Integrated Report [303(d) list] for nonsupport of primary body contact recreation
(PBCR) or beneficial use category Fish and Wildlife Propagation:
Cimarron River
OK620920030010_00
Buffalo Creek
OK620920050010_00
Sand Creek
OK620920050050_00
Cimarron River
OK620920020010_00
Traders Creek
OK620920020170_00
Long Creek
OK620920020080_00
Cimarron River
OK620920010010_00
Main Creek
OK620920010180_00
Griever Creek
OK620920010130_00
East Griever Creek
OK620920010140_00
Eagle Chief Creek
OK620920040010_00
Cottonwood Creek
OK620920010080_00
Cimarron River
OK620910020010_10
Cimarron River
OK620910020010_00
Figure 1-1 is a location map showing the impaired segments of these waterbodies and
their contributing watersheds. This map also displays the locations of the water quality
monitoring (WQM) stations used as the basis for placement of these waterbodies on the
Oklahoma’s 303(d) list. These waterbodies and their surrounding watersheds are hereinafter
referred to as the Study Area.
The TMDLs established in this report are a necessary step in the process to develop the
bacteria and turbidity loading controls needed to restore the contact recreation and the Fish and
Wildlife Propagation use designated for each waterbody. Table 1-1 provides a description of
the locations of the WQM stations on the 303(d)-listed waterbodies.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
1-3 FINAL
August 2011
Table 1-1 Water Quality Monitoring stations used for 2008 303(d) Listing Decision
Waterbody Name Waterbody ID WQM Station Legal Description
Cimarron River near Buffalo OK620920030010_00 OK620920030010-001AT Section 02 - T27N - R20WI
OK620920-05-0010T NE¼ NE¼ NE¼ Section 8-27N-23W
Buffalo Creek near Lovedale OK620920050010_00 OK620920-05-0010G NW¼ SW¼ SW¼ Section 33-27N-20W
OK620920-05-0010P SE¼ SE¼ SW¼ Section 22-27N-21W
Sand Creek OK620920050050_00 OK620920-05-0050G NW¼ NW¼ SW¼ Section 20-26N-21W
OK620920-05-0050J SW¼ SW¼ SW¼ Section 19-26N-21W
Cimarron River at Freedom OK620920020010_00 OK620920020010-001RS Section 35 - T24N - R16WI
Traders Creek OK620920020170_00 OK620920-02-0170G SE¼ SE¼ SW¼ Section 22-26N-19W
Long Creek OK620920020080_00 OK620920-02-0080D NW¼ NE¼ NE¼ Section 27-26N-18W
OK620920-02-0080T SW¼ NE¼ SW¼ Section 12-24N-19W
Cimarron River below Waynoka OK620920010010_00 OK620920010010-001AT Section 23 - T22N - R12WI
Main Creek OK620920010180_00 OK620920-01-0180F NE¼ NE¼ NE¼ Section 10-23N-16W
Griever Creek OK620920010130_00
OK620920-01-0130K
OK620920-01-0130G
NE¼ NW¼ SE¼ Section 36-22N-16W
SE¼ SE¼ SE¼ Section 9-22N-15W
Griever Creek, East OK620920010140_00 None No Monitoring Station Available
Eagle Chief Creek OK620920040010_00 OK620920-04-0010C SW¼ SE¼ SE¼ Section 2-22N-12W
OK620920-04-0010G NW¼ NW¼ NW¼ Section 24-25N-13W
Cottonwood Creek OK620920010080_00 OK620920-01-0080G E.B. SE¼ Section 21-22N-12W
Cimarron River near Ames OK620910020010_10 OK620910020010-004RS Section 19 - T21N - R10WI
Cimarron River near Dover OK620910020010_00 OK620910020010-001AT Section 14 - T17N - R07WI
1.2 Watershed Description
General. The drainage area for the Middle Cimarron River Study Area waterbodies included
in this report begins with the upper part of the Cimarron River as it enters Oklahoma from
Kansas. This is between Woods and Harper Counties with two of the studied waterbodies
draining eastern Harper County. A majority of the waterbodies are in and around the Cimarron
River in Woodward and Major Counties. The lower drainage area in this report is in
northwestern Kingfisher County. Small areas of northeastern Blaine County and southwestern
Alfalfa County also fall within the study area.
Table 1-2, derived from the 2000 U.S. Census, demonstrates that the counties in which
these watersheds are located are sparsely populated (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
Table 1-2 County Population and Density
County Name
Population
(2000 Census)
Area
(square miles)
Population Density
(per square mile)
Alfalfa 6,105 881 7
Blaine 11,976 939 13
Harper 3,562 1,041 3
Kingfisher 13,926 906 15
Major 7,545 958 8
Woods 9,089 1,290 7
Woodward 18,486 1,246 15
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
1-4 FINAL
August 2011
Climate. Table 1-3 summarizes the average annual precipitation for each stream segment.
Average annual precipitation values among the stream segments in this portion of Oklahoma
range between 25.3 and 32.8 inches (Oklahoma Climatological Survey 2005).
Table 1-3 Average Annual Precipitation by Stream Segment
Waterbody Name Waterbody ID Average Annual (Inches)
Cimarron River near Buffalo OK620920030010_00 25.5
Buffalo Creek near Lovedale OK620920050010_00 25.3
Sand Creek OK620920050050_00 25.3
Cimarron River at Freedom OK620920020010_00 26.9
Traders Creek OK620920020170_00 26.1
Long Creek OK620920020080_00 26.4
Cimarron River below Waynoka OK620920010010_00 29.8
Main Creek OK620920010180_00 27.7
Griever Creek OK620920010130_00 28.2
Griever Creek, East OK620920010140_00 28.3
Eagle Chief Creek OK620920040010_00 28.9
Cottonwood Creek OK620920010080_00 29.2
Cimarron River near Ames OK620910020010_10 31.5
Cimarron River near Dover OK620910020010_00 32.8
Land Use. Tables 1-4 and 1-5 summarizes the acreages and the corresponding percentages of
the land use categories for the contributing watershed associated with each respective
Oklahoma waterbody. 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 dominant land use throughout all of the Study Area is Grasslands/Herbaceous and the
second most prevalent land use in all sub-watersheds is Row Crops/Cultivated land.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
1-5
FINAL
August 2011
Table 1-4 Land Use Summaries by Watershed
Land Use Category
Stream Segments
Cimarron River
near Buffalo
Buffalo Creek Sand Creek
Cimarron River
at Freedom
Traders Creek Long Creek
Cimarron River
below Waynoka
Waterbody ID OK620920030010_00 OK620920050010_00 OK620920050050_00 OK620920020010_00 OK620920020170_00 OK620920020080_00 OK620920010010_00
Barren 2,263 267 5 1,492 0 24 1,781
Cultivated 77,906 59,084 12,741 73,038 4,749 9,376 253,152
Deciduous Forest 365 238 147 2,274 3 0 8,016
Developed High Intensity 56 56 0 29 0 0 132
Developed Low Intensity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Developed Medium Intensity 570 482 62 1,088 35 69 3,914
Developed Open Space 14,821 9,939 1,894 13,318 911 1,277 26,846
Evergreen Forest 3,552 3,552 828 29,782 3,718 3,485 22,222
Grassland 375,893 235,637 61,163 331,524 36,122 24,062 352,429
Herbaceous Wetland 2,084 614 2 2,919 0 4 765
Mixed Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,054
Pasture Hay 514 514 239 518 0 0 1,710
Shrub 1,498 1,415 745 3,909 721 444 505
Woody Wetland 865 542 220 3,455 20 30 2,151
Water 8,410 2,831 360 5,045 34 117 4,806
Total (Acres) 488,796 315,171 78,407 468,391 46,312 38,888 680,483
Barren 0.46% 0.08% 0.01% 0.32% 0.00% 0.06% 0.26%
Cultivated 15.94% 18.75% 16.25% 15.59% 10.25% 24.11% 37.20%
Deciduous Forest 0.07% 0.08% 0.19% 0.49% 0.01% 0.00% 1.18%
Developed High Intensity 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
Developed Low Intensity 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Developed Medium Intensity 0.12% 0.15% 0.08% 0.23% 0.08% 0.18% 0.58%
Developed Open Space 3.03% 3.15% 2.42% 2.84% 1.97% 3.28% 3.95%
Evergreen Forest 0.73% 1.13% 1.06% 6.36% 8.03% 8.96% 3.27%
Grassland 76.90% 74.76% 78.01% 70.78% 78.00% 61.88% 51.79%
Herbaceous Wetland 0.43% 0.19% 0.00% 0.62% 0.00% 0.01% 0.11%
Mixed Forest 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.30%
Pasture Hay 0.11% 0.16% 0.30% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25%
Shrub 0.31% 0.45% 0.95% 0.83% 1.56% 1.14% 0.07%
Woody Wetland 0.18% 0.17% 0.28% 0.74% 0.04% 0.08% 0.32%
Water 1.72% 0.90% 0.46% 1.08% 0.07% 0.30% 0.71%
Total Percentage: 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
1-6
FINAL
August 2011
Table 1-5 Land Use Summaries by Watershed
Land Use Category
Stream Segments
Main Creek Griever Creek Eagle Chief
Creek
Cottonwood
Creek
Cimarron River
near Ames
Cimarron River near
Dover
Waterbody ID OK620920010180_00 OK620920010130_00 OK620920040010_00 OK620920010080_00 OK620910020010_10 OK620910020010_00
Barren 189 155 85 12 1,088 22
Cultivated 5,918 5,486 168,297 10,764 183,799 33,486
Deciduous Forest 5 530 2,385 147 10,341 1062
Developed High Intensity 0 2 28 1 72 25
Developed Low Intensity 0 0 0 0 0 0
Developed Medium Intensity 262 391 1,043 314 2,078 373
Developed Open Space 2,213 3,040 12,830 1,396 16,858 2,451
Evergreen Forest 11,532 18,203 492 1,527 11,566 275
Grassland 38,739 53,881 123,580 20,335 143,043 16,210
Herbaceous Wetland 175 0 250 0 308 0
Mixed Forest 0 1,607 0 115 104 0
Pasture Hay 0 0 310 37 466 75
Shrub 936 195 1 0 14 0
Woody Wetland 138 0 743 0 0 0
Water 110 111 1,324 209 5,476 381
Total (Acres) 60,217 83,601 311,366 34,859 375,214 54,360
Barren 0.31% 0.19% 0.03% 0.04% 0.29% 0.04%
Cultivated 9.83% 6.56% 54.05% 30.88% 48.99% 61.60%
Deciduous Forest 0.01% 0.63% 0.77% 0.42% 2.76% 1.95%
Developed High Intensity 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.05%
Developed Low Intensity 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Developed Medium Intensity 0.43% 0.47% 0.33% 0.90% 0.55% 0.69%
Developed Open Space 3.68% 3.64% 4.12% 4.00% 4.49% 4.51%
Evergreen Forest 19.15% 21.77% 0.16% 4.38% 3.08% 0.50%
Grassland 64.33% 64.45% 39.69% 58.34% 38.12% 29.82%
Herbaceous Wetland 0.29% 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 0.08% 0.00%
Mixed Forest 0.00% 1.92% 0.00% 0.33% 0.03% 0.00%
Pasture Hay 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.11% 0.12% 0.14%
Shrub 1.55% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Woody Wetland 0.23% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Water 0.18% 0.13% 0.43% 0.60% 1.46% 0.70%
Total Percentage: 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
1-7
FINAL
August 2011
Figure 1-1 Middle Cimarron River Study Areas Not Supporting Primary Body Contact Recreation or Fish and Wildlife
Propagation
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
1-8
FINAL
August 2011
Figure 1-2 Middle Cimarron River Study Area Land Use Map
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Introduction
1-9
FINAL
August 2011
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs 1-10
FINAL
August 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.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-1 FINAL
August 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 Antidegredation Policy is provided in Appendix D. Table 2-2, an excerpt from the
2008 Integrated Report (DEQ 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
EWS – Emergency Water Supply
Table 2-1 summarizes the PBCR and WWAC use attainment status and 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 WWAC-beneficial uses.
The definition of PBCR is summarized by the following excerpt from the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards (785-:45-5-16):
(a)Primary Body Contact Recreation involves direct body contact with the water where a
possibility of ingestion exists. In these cases the water shall not contain chemical, physical or
biological substances in concentrations that are irritating to skin or sense organs or are toxic
or cause illness upon ingestion by human beings.
(b) In waters designated for Primary Body Contact Recreation...limits...shall apply only
during the recreation period of May 1 to September 30. The criteria for Secondary Body
Contact Recreation will apply during the remainder of the year.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-2
FINAL
August 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
Designated
Use Primary
Body Contact
Recreation
Turbidity
Designated
Use Warm
Water
Aquatic Life
Cimarron River near Buffalo OK620920030010_00 24 2014 3 X X X N
Buffalo Creek near Lovedale OK620920050010_00 50 2010 1 X X N
Sand Creek OK620920050050_00 26 2014 3 X X N
Cimarron River at Freedom OK620920020010_00 33 2014 3 X N
Traders Creek OK620920020170_00 22 2010 1 X N
Long Creek OK620920020080_00 22 2019 4 X N
Cimarron River below Waynoka OK620920010010_00 43 2014 3 X X N X N
Main Creek OK620920010180_00 19 2019 4 X X N X N
Griever Creek OK620920010130_00 20 2014 3 X X N
Griever Creek, East OK620920010140_00 13 2014 3 X X N
Eagle Chief Creek OK620920040010_00 74 2014 3 X N
Cottonwood Creek OK620920010080_00 22 2014 3 X X X N X N
Cimarron River near Ames OK620910020010_10 42 2014 3 X X N
Cimarron River near Dover OK620910020010_00 18 2014 3 X X N
ENT = enterococci; FC = fecal coliform N = Not attaining; X = Criterion Exceeded, TMDL Required Source: 2008 Integrated Report, DEQ 2008.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-3
FINAL
August 2011
Table 2-2 Designated Beneficial Uses for Each Impaired Waterbody in the Study Area
Waterbody Name Waterbody ID AES AG WWAC FISH PBCR PPWS Limitation
Cimarron River near Buffalo OK620920030010_00 I N I I N EWS
Buffalo Creek near Lovedale OK620920050010_00 F F F X N I
Sand Creek OK620920050050_00 I F F X N I
Cimarron River at Freedom OK620920020010_00 F N N I N EWS
Traders Creek OK620920020170_00 F F I X N F
Long Creek OK620920020080_00 F F F X N I
Cimarron River below Waynoka OK620920010180_00 F F N X N I
Main Creek OK620920010010_00 I F N I N EWS
Griever Creek OK620920010130_00 F F I X N I
East Griever Creek OK620920010140_00 F F F X N I
Eagle Chief Creek OK620920040010_00 F F F X N I
Cottonwood Creek OK620920010080_00 F F N X N I
Cimarron River near Ames OK620910020010_10 I N F N N EWS
Cimarron River near Dover OK620910020010_00 I N F F N EWS
F – Fully supporting; N – Not supporting; I – Insufficient information; X – Not assessed
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
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-4
FINAL
August 2011
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:
(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
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-5
FINAL
August 2011
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:
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.
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).
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-6
FINAL
August 2011
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.
(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.
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 2-2 summarizes water quality data collected during primary contact recreation season
from the WQM stations between 1998 and 2008 for each indicator bacteria. The data summary
in Table 2-2 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 was used to support the decision to place specific waterbodies within
the Study Area on the DEQ 2008 303(d) list (DEQ 2008). Water quality data from the primary
contact recreation seasons are provided in Appendix A. For the data collected between 1998
and 2008, evidence of nonsupport of the PBCR use based on fecal coliform, Enterococci and E.
coli concentrations was observed in three waterbodies: Cimarron River near Buffalo
(OK620920030010_00), Cimarron River below Waynoka (OK620920010010_00) and
Cimarron River near Dover (OK620910020010_00). Evidence of nonsupport of the PBCR use
based on E. coli and Enterococci exceedances was observed in six waterbodies: Buffalo Creek
(OK620920050010_00), Sand Creek (OK620920050050_00), Long Creek
(OK620920020080_00), Main Creek (OK620920010010_00), Eagle Chief Creek
(OK620920040010_00) and Cimarron River near Ames (OK620910020010_10). Evidence of
nonsupport of the PBCR use based on E. coli exceedances was observed in Cimarron River at
Freedom (OK620920020010_00) and fecal coliform exceedances was observed in Cottonwood
Creek (OK620920010080_00). Evidence of nonsupport of the PBCR use based on Enterococci
exceedances was observed in Griever Creek (OK620920010130_00). There was not enough
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-7
FINAL
August 2011
evidence of nonsupport of the PBCR use based on E. coli and Enterococci exceedances
observed in Cottonwood Creek (OK620920010080_00). There was also no Evidence of
nonsupport of the PBCR use based on Enterococci exceedances in Traders Creek
(OK620920020170_00). There was no data available in East Griever Creek
(OK620920010140_00).
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 2-3 summarizes water quality data collected from the WQM stations between 1998
and 2009 for turbidity. 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, DEQ 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, Table 2-4 was prepared to represent the subset of these data for samples
collected during base flow conditions. 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. The data in Table 2-4 were used to support the decision
to place three of the waterbodies listed in Table 2-1 (Cimarron River below Waynoka, Main
Creek and Cottonwood Creek) on the DEQ 2008 303(d) list (DEQ 2008) for nonsupport of the
WWAC use based on turbidity levels observed in the waterbody. Evidence for nonsupport of
the WWAC use based on turbidity levels was also observed in Eagle Chief Creek and Cimarron
River near Dover after water quality samples had been evaluated. In using TSS as a surrogate
to support TMDL development at least 10 TSS samples are required to conduct the regression
analysis between turbidity and TSS. Water quality data for turbidity and TSS are provided in
Appendix A.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-8 FINAL
August 2011
Table 2-3 Summary of Indicator Bacteria Samples from Primary Body Contact Recreation Season, 1998-2008
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name
Indicator
Bacteria
Geo-Mean
Concentration
(count/100ml)
Number
of
Samples
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
Single Sample
Criterion
% of Samples
Exceeding
Single
Sample
Criterion
2008
303(d)
Listing
Notes
OK620920030010_00 Cimarron River near Buffalo
FC 351 21 8 38% X TMDL required
ENT 220 21 13 62% X TMDL required
EC 1951 21 16 76% X TMDL required
OK620920050010_00 Buffalo Creek near Lovedale
ENT 128 42 25 60% X TMDL required
EC 130 42 8 19% X TMDL required
OK620920050050_00 Sand Creek
ENT 415 17 15 88% X TMDL required
EC 392 17 10 59% X TMDL required
OK620920020010_00 Cimarron River at Freedom EC 951 14 11 79% X TMDL required
OK620920020170_00 Traders Creek ENT 131 6 2 33% X Delist: Not enough data
OK620920020080_00 Long Creek
ENT 176 18 12 67% X TMDL required
EC 149 18 3 17%
Impaired: TMDL required
FC 246 14 4 29%
Impaired: TMDL required
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka ENT 207 14 9 64% X TMDL required
EC 164 14 4 29% X TMDL required
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek
ENT 219 18 13 72% X TMDL required
EC 193 18 1 6% X TMDL required
OK620920010140_00 Griever Creek, East
ENT
X Delist: No data available
EC
X Delist: No data available
OK620920010130_00 Griever Creek
ENT 209 24 15 63% X TMDL required
EC 92 24 4 17% X Delist: Meets standards
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek
ENT 175 36 20 56% X TMDL required
EC 165 36 11 31% X TMDL required
FC 247 8 4 50% X TMDL required
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek ENT 140 5 3 60% X Delist: Not enough data
EC 56 5 1 20% X Delist: Not enough data
OK620910020010_10 Cimarron River near Ames ENT 40 23 8 35% X TMDL required
EC 327 23 13 57% X TMDL required
FC 343 24 7 29%
Impaired: TMDL required
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover ENT 162 24 12 50% X TMDL required
EC 438 24 11 46% X TMDL required
Fecal coliform (FC) water quality criterion = Geometric Mean of 400 counts/100 mL
E. coli (EC) water quality criterion = Geometric Mean of 126 counts/100 mL
Enterococci (ENT) water quality criterion = Geometric Mean of 33 counts/100 mL
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-9 FINAL
August 2011
Table 2-4 Summaries of All Turbidity Samples 1998 - 2009
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name
Number of
Turbidity
Samples
Number of
Samples
Exceed 50
(NTU)
Percentage
of Samples
Exceeding
Criterion
Average
Turbidity
(NTU)
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka 60 19 32% 81
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek 41 8 20% 64
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek 81 13 16% 48
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek 20 11 55% 133
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover 100 32 32% 138
Table 2-5 Summary of Turbidity Samples Collected During Base Flow Conditions 1998-2009
Waterbody ID
Waterbody
Name
Number of
Turbidity
Samples
Number of
Samples
Exceed 50
(NTU)
Percentage
of Samples
Exceeding
Criterion
Average
Turbidity
(NTU)
2008
303(d)
Comments
OK620920010010_00
Cimarron River
below Waynoka
39 9 23% 51 X TMDL Required
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek 34 6 18% 42 X TMDL Required
OK620920040010_00
Eagle Chief
Creek
78 12 15% 45
Impaired,
TMDL Required
OK620920010080_00
Cottonwood
Creek
18 9 50% 82 X TMDL Required
OK620910020010_00
Cimarron River
near Dover
74 9 12% 61
Impaired,
TMDL Required
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 29
bacteria/turbidity TMDLs will be developed in this report.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-10 FINAL
August 2011
Table 2-6 Stream Segments and Pollutants for TMDL Development
Waterbody ID Waterbody Name
Stream
Miles
TMDL
Date
Priority ENT E. coli FC Turbidity
OK620920030010_00 Cimarron River near Buffalo 24 2014 3 X X X
OK620920050010_00 Buffalo Creek near Lovedale 50 2010 1 X X
OK620920050050_00 Sand Creek 26 2014 3 X X
OK620920020010_00 Cimarron River at Freedom 33 2014 3 X
OK620920020080_00 Long Creek 22 2019 4 X X
OK620920010010_00 Cimarron River below Waynoka 43 2014 3 X X X X
OK620920010180_00 Main Creek 19 2019 4 X X X
OK620920010130_00 Griever Creek 20 2014 3 X
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek 74 2014 3 X X X
OK620920010080_00 Cottonwood Creek 22 2014 3 X X
OK620910020010_10 Cimarron River near Ames 42 2014 3 X X
OK620910020010_00 Cimarron River near Dover 18 2014 3 X X X 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 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 is 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).
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Problem Identification and Water Quality Target
2-11 FINAL
August 2011
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 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 target 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.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-1 FINAL
August 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. 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.
The 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report (DEQ 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.
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 includes:
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 discharge (MS4);
NPDES multi-sector general permits; and
NPDES construction stormwater discharges.
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
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-2 FINAL
August 2011
sediment particles from erosion or sediment resuspension). Discharges of organic suspended
solids from WWTPs are addressed by DEQ 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 where 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 are no NPDES-permitted facilities in the contributing watersheds of Sand Creek
(OK620920050050_00), Traders Creek (OK620920020170_00), Long Creek
(OK620920020080_00), Griever Creek (OK620920010130_00), Cottonwood Creek
(OK620920010080_00) and Cimarron River near Dover (OK620910020010_00). The
remaining seven watersheds in the Study Area have at least one NPDES-permitted facility.
Section 5.4 will discuss the permits that have the pollutants of concern.
There are no areas designated as MS4s within this Study Area.
3.1.1 Continuous Point Source Discharges
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. There
are five active continuous point source discharging facilities within the Study Area but they are
not all sources of concern for bacteria or TSS loading. None of these facilities are discharging
to a waterbody that requires a TMDL for TSS although all of the facilities in Table 3-1
discharge TSS and have specific permit limits for TSS which is provided in Table 3-1. The
municipal WWTPs designated with a Standard Industrial Code number 4952 or 4959 in Table
3-1 discharge organic TSS and therefore are not considered a potential source of turbidity
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-3 FINAL
August 2011
within their respective watershed. There are three active NPDES-permitted industrial facilities
operating in the Study Area which are shown in Figures 3-1 and facility information is listed in
Table 3-1. These industrial facilities do not contribute to the impairment of their respective
receiving streams since the streams are impaired for bacteria and not TSS.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-4 FINAL
August 2011
Table 3-1 Point Source Discharges in the Study Area
OPDES
Permit No.
Name
Receiving Water:
Waterbody Name &
(Waterbody ID)
Facility
Type
SIC
Code
County
Design
Flow
(mgd)
Max. FC
cfu/100mL
Max./Avg.
TSS mg/L
Expiration
Date
Status
OK0040240 Cargill Inc., Salt Division Cimarron River near Buffalo
OK620920030010_00
Chemical
Preparations
2899 Woods 0.2307 NA 45 7/31/14 Active
OK0040241 Cargill Inc., Salt Division
Chemical
Preparations
2899 Woods 0.5134 NA 45 7/31/14 Active
OK0020079 Fairview WWTP
Cimarron River below
Waynoka
OK620920010010_00
Sewerage
Systems
4952 Major 0.3370 NA 135/90 9/30/12 Active
OKG580045 Town of Aline
Eagle Chief Creek
OK620920040010_00
Sewerage
Systems
4952 Alfalfa 0.0310 NA 135/90 6/30/11 Active
OK0038806 US Gypsum Company
Cimarron River near Ames
OK620910020010_00
Gypsum
Products
3275 Blaine 0.2500 NA 45/30 9/30/14 Active
OKG580030 City of Okeene
Sewerage
Systems
4952 Blaine NA NA NA NA Inactive
OK0025801
Hitchcock Development,
Inc.
Sewerage
Systems
4952 Blaine 0.020 NA NA NA Inactive
OK0043419
Laverne Remediation
Project
Buffalo Creek
OK620920050010_00
Sewerage
Systems
4959 Harper NA NA NA NA Inactive
NA = not available.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-5 FINAL
August 2011
Figure 3-1 Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Study Area
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-6 FINAL
August 2011
Figure 3-2 Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Study Area
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-7 FINAL
August 2011
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 bacteria or TSS loading. However, it is possible the wastewater collection systems
associated with these no-discharge facilities could be a source of bacteria loading, or that
discharges from the wastewater plant may occur during large rainfall events that exceed the
systems’ storage capacities. There are seven recorded municipal and industrial no-discharge
facilities in the study area which are listed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 NPDES No- Discharge Facilities in the Study Area
Facility
Facility
ID
County Facility Type Type Watershed
Freedom WWT S20903 Woods Lagoon (Total Retention) Municipal
Cimarron River near Freedom
OK620920020010_00
Buffalo WWT S20902 Harper Lagoon (Total Retention) Municipal
Buffalo Creek
OK620920050010_00
Cleo Springs
WWT
S20943 Major Lagoon (Total Retention) Municipal
Cimarron River below Waynoka
OK620920010010_00
Waynoka WWT S20904 Woods Land Application Municipal
Carmen WWT S20906 Alfalfa Lagoon (Total Retention) Municipal
Eagle Chief Creek
OK620920040010_00
Dacoma WWT S20905 Woods Lagoon (Total Retention) Municipal
Southard - US
Gypsum WWT
S20971 Blaine Lagoon (Total Retention) Industrial
Cimarron River near Ames
OK620910020010_10
While not all sewer overflows are reported, DEQ has some data on SSOs available. There
were 24 combined SSO occurrences in the Middle Cimarron River study area on record which
goes back to as early as 1990. The first occurrence was in March 1990 and the last in April
2009. A summary of the reported SSOs are provided in Table 3-3. Additional data on each
individual SSO event and the facility are provided in Appendix D.
Table 3-3 Sanitary Sewer Overflow Summary
Facility Name
Facility
ID
Receiving Water
Number of
Occurrences
Date Range
From To
Freedom WWT S20903 Cimarron River near Freedom 7 3/5/1990 4/26/2009
Buffalo WWT S20902 Buffalo Creek 4 6/29/1999 10/21/2008
Waynoka WWT S20904 Cimarron River below Waynoka 12 3/23/1990 5/15/2007
Dacoma WWT S20905 Eagle Chief Creek 1 2/23/1997 2/23/1997
Sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) from wastewater collection systems, although infrequent,
can be a major source of fecal coliform 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
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-8 FINAL
August 2011
reporting of SSOs has been strongly encouraged by USEPA, primarily through enforcement
and fines. While not all sewer overflows are reported, DEQ has some data on SSOs available.
SSOs are a common result of the aging wastewater infrastructure around the state. DEQ
has been ahead of other states and, in some cases EPA itself, in its handling of SSOs. Due to
the widespread nature of the SSO problem, DEQ has focused its limited resources to first target
SSOs that result in definitive environmental harm, such as fish kills, or lead to citizen
complaints. All SSOs falling in these two categories are addressed through DEQ’s formal
enforcement process. A Notice of Violation (NOV) is first issued to the owner of the collection
system and a Consent Order (CO) is negotiated between the owner and DEQ to establish a
schedule for necessary collection system upgrades to eliminate future SSOs.
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.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-9 FINAL
August 2011
3.1.4 Concentrated Animal 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 Swine Feeding Operation (SFO) Act, AEMS works with producers and
concerned citizens to ensure that animal waste does not impact the waters of the state. 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 2009). 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 2009). CAFOs
are considered no-discharge facilities.
CAFOs are designated by USEPA as potential significant sources of pollution, and may
cause serious impacts to water quality if not managed properly (ODAFF 2009a). Potential
problems for CAFOs can include animal waste discharges 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 3-1 and is listed in Table 3-4.
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.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-10
FINAL
August 2011
Table 3-4 NPDES-Permitted CAFOs in Study Area
ODAFF
Owner ID
Number
EPA
Facility
Number
ODAFF
ID
ODAFF
License
Number
Maximum # of Permitted
Animals at Facility
Total # of
Animal
Units at
Facility
Slaughter County Watershed
Feeder
Cattle
Swine
WQ0000031 OKG010003 31 1347 3,000
3,000 Harper Buffalo Creek
AGN032914 OKG010300 81 15 35,000 OK620920050010_00
35,000 Harper
WQ0000337 OKU000242 207 12621
4,000 1,600 Kingfisher
Cimarron River near
Ames
OK620910020010_10
WQ0000334 OKU000254 208 12622
12,000 1,200 Kingfisher
WQ0000335 OKU000251 209 12623
24,000 9,600 Kingfisher
WQ0000323 OKU000356 212 1491
11,086 4,434 Kingfisher
WQ0000341 OKU000243 213 12611
5,460 2,184 Kingfisher
WQ0000344 OKU000395 214 12612
12,000 1,200 Kingfisher
WQ0000348 OKU000255 215 12613
6,000 2,400 Kingfisher
WQ0000346 OKU000247 216 12614
6,000 2,400 Kingfisher
WQ0000347 OKU000240 217 12615
6,000 2,400 Kingfisher
WQ0000345 OKU000249 218 12616
6,000 2,400 Kingfisher
WQ0000342 OKU000244 430 1225
18,264 7,306 Kingfisher
WQ0000320 OKU000387 211 1490
14,081 5,632 Major
WQ0000324 OKU000215 223 1311
23,832 7,613 Major
WQ0000051 OKU000358 128 980004
6,000 2,400 Blaine
AGN007231 OKG010072 235 86 10,001
10,001 Woods
Cimarron River at
Buffalo
OK620920030010_00
AGN021005 OKG010209 269 1114 1,500
1,500 Woods
Eagle Chief Creek
OK620920040010_00
WQ0000319 OKU000401 210 1489
180,800 50,720 Woodward
Main Creek
OK620920010180_00
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 in the study area are summarized in Table 3-5
and shown in Figure 3-2.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-11
FINAL
August 2011
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. Table 3-6 summarizes
data from the Oklahoma Department of Mines and provides the permitted mining acres for each
of the quarries located within the Study Area. The locations of these quarries are shown in
Figures 3-2. However, three of the four facilities are not located in a turbidity impaired sub-watershed.
Litzenberger Construction Incorporated, which is located in the sub-watershed of
Eagle Chief Creek, does not have a discharge permit because they do not discharge.
3.1.7 Section 404 Permits
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes programs to regulate the discharge
of dredged or fill 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 will
use its Section 401 certification authority to ensure Section 404 permits protect Oklahoma
water quality standards.
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-12
FINAL
August 2011
Table 3-5 Construction Permits Summary
Company Name County
Permit
ID
Date Issued Waterbody ID Receiving Water (Permit)
Estimated
Acres
ODOT JP #18868(04) Harper 7497 1/11/2008 OK620920050010_00 Buffalo Creek 12.6
ODOT JP #20949(04) Woods 8750 3/24/2008 OK620920030010_00 Cimarron River near Buffalo 30
NIXON #2 Woodward 7276 OK620920020080_00 Long Creek 1230.26
ODOT JP #18164(04) Woodward 7550 12/18/2007 OK620920020170_00 Traders Creek 6.25
ODOT JP #22601(04) Major 8550 12/17/2007
OK620920020010_00
Cimarron River near Freedom
2.37
ODOT JP#20950(04) Woods 9135 6/11/2008 30.4
BRO-177D(071)CO JP# 22894(04 Woodward 9216 3
ODOT JP #17458(10) Woods 7793 1/10/2008
OK620920040010_00 Eagle Chief Creek
230
BELLA RANCH Woods 7807 142
Walgreens Wagoner Blaine 8252 10/8/2007 OK620910020010_10 Cimarron River near Ames 1
Table 3-6 Rock, Sand and Gravel Quarries
Company Name County Permit ID Product
Permitted
Acres
Permit
Issue Date
Permit
Renewal
Date
Mining
Expiration
Date
Waterbody ID
U.S. Gypsum Company
(Southard-Plant #227)
Blaine L.E.-1530-D Gypsum 6205.7 2/1/1997 1/31/2009 1-31-2047
Cimarron River near
Ames
OK620910020010_00
Larry Hutchison Woods X08-1222 Sand 3 1/1/2008 NA 12-31-08
Cimarron River near
Freedom
OK620920020010_00
Litzenberger Const.,
Inc.
Woods X08-1148 Red Shale 3 8/17/2007 NA 8-16-08
Eagle Chief Creek
OK620920040010_00
Cargill Inc. Woods L.E.-1602 Salt 500 11/1/1997 10/31/2008 10-31-2047
Cimarron River near
Buffalo
OK620920030010_00
Middle Cimarron Bacteria and Turbidity TMDLs Pollutant Source Assessment
3-13
FINAL
August 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. Bacteria originate
from warm-blooded animals in rural, suburban, and urban areas. These sources include
wildlife, various agricultural activities, 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 (DEQ 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 wil