Bacteria and turbidity total maximum daily loads for streams in the middle Cimarrons River study area, Oklahoma |
Previous | 1 of 5 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
FINAL BACTERIA AND TURBIDITY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR 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
Object Description
Description
Title | Bacteria and turbidity total maximum daily loads for streams in the middle Cimarrons River study area, Oklahoma |
OkDocs Class# | E4850.3 B131m 2011 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/WQDnew/tmdl/middle_cimarron_bact_turb_tmdl_final_report_2011-08-22.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | FINAL BACTERIA AND TURBIDITY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR 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 |
Date created | 2011-09-15 |
Date modified | 2011-10-28 |
Tags
Add tags for Bacteria and turbidity total maximum daily loads for streams in the middle Cimarrons River study area, Oklahoma