OCWP Beaver-Cache watershed region |
Previous | 1 of 5 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region Statewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region and Basin Delineation Contents Introduction 1 Regional Overview . 1 Beaver-Cache Regional Summary . 2 Synopsis . 2 Water Resources & Limitations 2 Water Supply Options . 4 Water Supply . 6 Physical Water Availability . 6 Surface Water Resources 6 Groundwater Resources . 9 Permit Availability 11 Water Quality 12 Water Demand . 20 Public Water Providers . 22 Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Limitations Analysis 30 Primary Options 30 Demand Management 30 Out-of-Basin Supplies . 30 Reservoir Use 30 Increasing Reliance on Surface Water 31 Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 31 Expanded Options 31 Expanded Conservation Measures . 31 Artificial Aquifer Recharge 31 Marginal Quality Water Sources 31 Potential Reservoir Development 31 Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 35 Basin 24 . 35 Basin 25 . 45 Basin 26 . 55 Basin 27 . 65 Basin 28 . 75 Basin 29 . 85 Basin 30 . 95 Basin 31 . 105 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Regional Overview The Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region includes eight basins (numbered 24-31 for reference). The region is in the Central Lowland physiography province, encompassing 3,288 square miles in southwest Oklahoma spanning from the southern portion of Caddo County in the north to the Red River on the south, and including all or portions of Tillman, Caddo, Comanche, Cotton, Grady, Stephens, and Jefferson Counties. The region’s terrain varies from lush pasture in the river bottoms and gently rolling plains to the Wichita Mountains in the northwest, which rise 400 to 1,100 feet above surrounding redbed plains. Mixed eroded plains occur over the southwest portion of the region, much of which has been converted for wheat or cotton production, transitioning east to tallgrass prairie and intergrading in the northeast to Post-Oak-Blackjack forest, known locally as the Cross Timbers. The region has a generally mild climate with average monthly temperatures varying from 38°F in January to 84°F in July (Lawton Regional Airport). Annual average precipitation ranges from 28 inches in the west to 34 inches in the east. Annual evaporation ranges from 27 inches in the west to 33 inches in the east. The largest cities in the region include Lawton (2010 population of 96,867), Duncan (23,431), Frederick (3,940), and Marlow (4,662). The greatest water demand is from municipal and industrial water use followed by crop irrigation. By 2060, this region is projected to have a total water demand of 56,560 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 12,000 AFY (27%) from 2010.peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins is based on 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates. Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 OCWP Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the OCWP Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the OCWP Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website. The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals: Provide safe and dependable water supply 1. for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment. Provide information so that water 2. providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources. In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations. Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved dividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions. This Watershed Planning Region report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the Beaver-Cache Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information. Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O tool, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demands to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demands, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios. Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and Introduction The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints. As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages. Beaver-Cache Regional Report 1 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanBedrock Groundwater Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 17% of the demand in the region. Currently allocated groundwater and projected withdrawals are from the Rush Springs aquifer, and to a lesser extent, the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills and Hennessey-Garber aquifers. Aquifer storage depletions are likely to occur during summer months. These depletions are small relative to the amount of water in storage and maximum annual yields of the aquifers. The Beaver-Cache Region accounts for 2% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sector is Municipal and Industrial (55%), followed by Crop Irrigation (28%). Water Resources & Limitations Surface Water Surface water is used to meet two-thirds of the Beaver-Cache Region’s demand. The region is supplied by three large creeks that flow into the Red River: Beaver Creek, Cache Creek, and Deep Red Creek. Historically, major creeks in the region experience seasonal low flows and extended periods of low flow due to droughts. Large reservoirs have been built on Cache Creek tributaries (Lake Lawtonka and Lake Ellsworth) and Beaver Creek (Waurika Lake) to supply public water systems and irrigators and provide other important regional benefits, such as flood control and recreation. Basins lacking access to major reservoirs are expected to experience physical surface water supply shortages in the future. supply a similar portion of demand in the future, depletions from these aquifers are likely to occur in summer months, although projected depletions will be small relative to the amount of water in storage and permit availability. Water quality issues will remain a concern for the region and may constrain some uses of alluvial groundwater. The availability of water rights is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Water quality may constrain supplies for Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation demand sectors. Public and private water and agriculture supplies in Lake Lawtonka, Waurika Lake, Cow Creek, Deep Red Creek, and Beaver Creek currently have water quality impairments due to elevated levels of total dissolved solids, sulfates, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed, in part, through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but the use of these supplies may be limited in the interim. The availability of water rights is not expected to constrain the use of surface water supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Alluvial Groundwater Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 19% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently allocated alluvial groundwater (i.e., groundwater in alluvial and terrace deposits) withdrawals in the region are from the Tillman Terrace aquifer, and to a lesser extent, the Red River aquifer. If alluvial groundwater is used to Synopsis The Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface water supplies (including reservoirs) and to a lesser extent, groundwater supplies. It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on existing reservoirs and major aquifers to meet future demand. Surface water supplies will be insufficient at times to meet demand in basins without major reservoirs. Groundwater storage depletions are anticipated but should be relatively small compared to the amount of water in storage. Construction of additional small reservoirs, new out-of-basin or other regional supplies, and increased reliance on groundwater may be effective solutions for areas with anticipated surface water gaps. Users with surface water gaps or who rely on minor aquifers can increase dependability of their supplies through emergency demand management and conservation, new reservoirs, and/or out-of-basin supplies. Basin 26 has been identified as a “hot spot,” an area where more pronounced water supply availability issues are forecasted. (See “Regional and Statewide Opportunities and Solutions,” 2012 OCWP Executive Report.) Beaver-Cache Regional Summary AFY Current Water Demand: 44,590 acre-feet/year (2% of state total) Largest Demand Sector: Municipal & Industrial (55% of regional total) Current Supply Sources: 64% SW 19% Alluvial GW 17% Bedrock GW Projected Demand (2060): 56,560 acre-feet/year Growth (2010-2060): 11,970 acre-feet/year (27%) Beaver-Cache Region Demand Summary Current and Projected Regional Water Demand 2 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanWater quality issues may constrain future Municipal and Industrial use (due to high fluoride levels) and Crop Irrigation use (due to high chloride levels) from portions of the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills aquifer. The availability of water rights is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Water Supply Limitations Beaver-Cache Region Water Supply Limitations Surface water limitations are determined based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations are determined based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060; insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions are considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis. Beaver-Cache Regional Report 3 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanThis evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors. Water Supply Option Effectiveness Beaver-Cache Region Water Supply Options To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local and existing out of basin supplies was assumed to continue in current (2010) proportions. Existing major reservoirs are expected to be capable of supplying the majority of surface water demand in the Beaver-Cache region. Basins without access to major reservoirs are expected to experience physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future. The demand in these basins is relatively small and broadly dispersed. Water conservation or emergency drought management practices can aid in reducing projected gaps or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state. Two potentially viable sites were identified in the OCWP Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region. Due to extended dry periods, demand management measures alone will likely be insufficient to prevent gaps. New reservoirs at the basin outlet, typically holding less than 500 acre-feet (AF) of water, could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies in basins without a major reservoir (Basins 24, 26, 29, 30, and 31). Alternatively, interbasin transfer of water from existing major reservoirs or major aquifers could prevent gaps while minor aquifers could help domestic or small volume users meet future demands. Depletions of groundwater storage are anticipated throughout the Beaver-Cache region, particularly during the summer. However, both bedrock and alluvial aquifer storage depletions are minimal compared to the amount of water in storage. Water rights are not expected to constrain the ability to meet local demand through 2060. Users in portions of Basins 24, 25, and 26 currently utilize groundwater from non-delineated minor aquifers. These aquifers typically have low yields, and while providing a valuable source of water for domestic use, may not provide adequate supply for high-volume users. These users can reduce the potential of shortages through emergency demand management and conservation, new small reservoirs, or out-of-basin sources. 4 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 5 Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The largest is Waurika Lake, constructed on Beaver Creek by the USACE in 1977. Waurika Lake is unique in that the USACE was authorized to develop conveyance facilities as a part of the project. The USACE continues to direct flood control operations, but the Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District operates and maintains water supply facilities for its member cities of Comanche, Duncan, Lawton, Temple, and Walters. The City of Lawton impounds two large municipal lakes in the region: Lake Ellsworth, located on East Cache Creek in Comanche and Caddo Counties, and Lake Lawtonka, on Medicine Creek (tributary to East Cache Reservoirs Beaver-Cache Region Reservoir Name Primary Basin Number Reservoir Owner/Operator Year Built Purposes1 Normal Pool Storage Water Supply Irrigation Water Quality Permitted Withdrawals Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted Storage Yield Storage Yield Storage Yield AF AF AFY AF AFY AF AFY AFY AFY Dave Boyer 28 City of Walters 1936 WS, R 936 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Ellsworth 28 City of Lawton 1962 WS, R 81,224 68,700 23,500 0 0 0 0 23,500 0 Frederick 30 City of Frederick 1974 WS, FC, R 9,663 --- --- 0 0 0 0 3,400 --- Lawtonka 28 City of Lawton 1905 WS, R 55,171 64,000 23,500 0 0 0 0 23,500 0 Waurika 25 USACE 1977 FC, IR, WS, WQ, R, FW 203,100 151,400 40,549 16,200 5,041 0 0 44,806 784 1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed. WS = Water Supply, R = Recreation, HP= Hydroelectric Power, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, WQ = Water Quality, FW = Fish & Wildlife, LF = Low Flow Regulation, N = Navigation No known information is annotated as “---” Physical Water Availability Surface Water Resources Surface water has historically been the primary source of supply used to meet demand in the Beaver-Cache Region. The region’s major streams include the Red River, Cache Creek, and Beaver Creek. Water in the Red River mainstem (southern border of the Beaver-Cache region), which maintains substantial flows, is highly mineralized, primarily due to high concentrations of chlorides from natural sources upstream. Without extensive water treatment or management techniques, the high chloride content of the Red River renders water generally unsuitable for most consumptive uses. For this reason, the Red River was not considered as a feasible source of supply in this analysis. As treatment technology evolves over time, treatment costs will likely decrease, and this source may become more attractive relative to other local and regional source options. Also, full implementation of the Red River Chloride Control Project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) could reduce naturally occurring chloride levels in the Red River and its tributaries, thereby making it a more feasible source of future water supply. Cache Creek, located in the central area of the region, consists of a short mainstem and three large tributaries: East Cache Creek (approximately 100 miles long), West Cache Creek (60 miles), and Deep Red Creek (90 miles). Downstream of its confluence with these tributaries, Cache Creek flows southwest to the Red River. Cache Creek and its tributaries are located in Basins 27, 28, 29, and 30. Beaver Creek (80 miles long) originates in northwestern Comanche County and southwestern Grady County. Beaver Creek and its tributaries are located in Basins 24, 25, and 26. Many streams in this region experience a wide range of flows, including both periodic no flow conditions and flooding events. Streamflow is not a dependable supply source for most purposes due to generally intermittent flow and poor water quality. As important sources of surface water in Oklahoma, reservoirs and lakes help provide dependable water supply storage, especially when streams and rivers experience periods of low seasonal flow or drought. Water Supply Creek) near the slopes of Mount Scott in the Wichita Mountains of Comanche County. The reservoirs are owned and operated by Lawton for water supply, flood control, and recreation. Lake Lawtonka receives inflows from Lake Ellsworth to improve yields and maintain water levels. There are many other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), municipal, and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for public water supply, agriculture, flood control, and recreation. 6 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanReservoirs in the Beaver-Cache Region include Dave Boyer, Ellsworth, Frederick, Lawtonka, and Waurika. Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose. Surface Water Resources Beaver-Cache Region Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7 Surface Water Flows (1950-2007) Beaver-Cache Region Surface water is the main source of supply in the Beaver-Cache Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, localized or intermittent shortages can occur due to variability in surface water flows. Several large reservoirs have been constructed to reduce the impacts of drier periods on surface water users. Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060 Beaver-Cache Region Streamflow Statistic Basins 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 AFY Average Annual Flow 195,300 107,000 57,000 399,300 151,000 222,900 122,200 105,800 Minimum Annual Flow 4,400 0 100 36,300 12,900 7,700 4,300 3,500 Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060. Water Supply Availability Analysis For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand. The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol. The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. The unused yield of existing reservoirs was considered for this analysis. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option. Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that an aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer. For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately. Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed. For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions. More information is available in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report on the OWRB website. 8 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Groundwater Resources Two major bedrock aquifers, the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills and Rush Springs, are present in the northern portion of the Beaver-Cache Region, and two major alluvial aquifers, the Tillman Terrace and Red River, are located in the southern portion of the region. The Arbuckle-Timbered Hills aquifer underlies portions of Basins 25, 28, and 29, and consists predominantly of limestone and dolomite. The aquifer occurs in two areas: the Limestone Hills north of the Wichita Mountains, where the aquifer is exposed at land surface, and the Cache-Lawton area south of the Wichita Mountains, where the aquifer is buried under as much as 2,000 feet of younger rock. Availability of groundwater in the Limestone Hills is erratic because of faulting and folding. Most wells are 500 feet or deeper, and wells and springs yield as much as 100 gallons per minute (gpm). In the Cache-Lawton area, well depths range from 350 to more than 2,000 feet, and yields from 25 up to 600 gpm have been reported. Water from the Limestone Hills area is generally very hard; water from the Cache-Lawton area is generally soft. Fluoride concentrations from both areas generally exceed the drinking water standard, limiting use for public water supply. Water in parts of the Cache-Lawton area has high chloride concentrations, which may make the water unsuitable for irrigation. The Rush Springs aquifer is a fine-grained sandstone aquifer with some shale, dolomite, and gypsum. Thickness of the aquifer ranges from 200 to 300 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 400 gpm. The water tends to be very hard, requiring water softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. In some areas nitrate and sulfate concentrations exceed drinking water standards, limiting Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in aquifer depletion and reduced storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability.use for drinking water. This aquifer underlies portions of Basins 25 and 28. Both the Red River and Tillman Terrace alluvial aquifers consist of clay, sandy clay, sand, and gravel. The Red River aquifer, located in southern Tillman, Cotton, and Jefferson Counties, supplies water for municipal, irrigation, and domestic purposes. The average saturated thickness is estimated to be around 20-30 feet; however, little data are available concerning this aquifer and its potential as a major source of groundwater. The Red River aquifer is located in southern portions of Basins 24 and 31. The Tillman Terrace aquifer, located in Tillman County, supplies large quantities of groundwater for irrigation purposes and smaller amounts for municipal and domestic use. The formation averages 70 feet in thickness with an average saturated thickness of about 23 feet. Wells in the aquifer produce 200 to 500 gpm. The water exhibits significant hardness and generally requires softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. Nitrate concentrations in the aquifer often exceed drinking water standards, thereby limiting use for public water supply without significant treatment. The Tillman Terrace aquifer underlies portions of Basin 31. Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the El Reno, Hennessey-Garber, Post Oak, and Southwestern Oklahoma. Minor alluvial aquifers include Beaver Creek and Cache-Creek. Minor aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally have lower well yields which may be insufficient for large volume users. Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge, or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands. Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown. Groundwater Resources Beaver-Cache Region Aquifer Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer Recharge Rate Current Groundwater Rights Aquifer Storage in Region Equal Proportionate Share Groundwater Available for New Permits Name Type Class1 PercentInch/ Yr AFY AF AFY/Acre AFY Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Bedrock Major 10% 0.3-0.6 5,300 883,000 temporary 2.0 429,800 Red River Alluvial Major 6% 2.5 6,900 287,000 temporary 2.0 254,100 Rush Springs Bedrock Major 3% 1.8 17,500 1,558,000 temporary 2.0 103,900 Tillman Terrace Alluvial Major 4% 2.9 11,900 598,000 1.0 68,200 Beaver Creek Alluvial Minor 2% 3.6 0 151,000 1.0 38,300 Cache Creek Alluvial Minor 9% 3.6 6,300 746,000 1.0 180,600 El Reno Bedrock Minor 2% 0.75 2,700 166,000 temporary 2.0 62,600 Hennessey-Garber Bedrock Minor 61% 2.7 3,500 5,579,000 1.6 2,024,400 Post Oak Bedrock Minor 5% 3.6 1,600 2,500,000 2.0 190,000 Southwestern Oklahoma Bedrock Minor 5% 2.25 0 293,000 temporary 2.0 217,100 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Alluvial Minor 2,200 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Bedrock Minor 3,800 1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9 Major bedrock aquifers in the Beaver-Cache Region include Rush Springs and Arbuckle-Timbered Hills. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include Tillman Terrace and Red River. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm. Groundwater Resources Beaver-Cache Region 10 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Groundwater Permit Availability Beaver-Cache Region Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits through 2060 in all aquifers in the Beaver-Cache region. Permit Availability For OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law. In the Beaver-Cache Region, the Tillman Terrace aquifer’s EPS is set at one acre-foot per year (AFY) per acre. For the Rush Springs, Arbuckle Timbered Hills, and Red River aquifers, temporary permits are issued, granting users two AFY per acre of land until the OWRB conducts hydrologic investigations and establishes the maximum annual yield of the basins. Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits in all aquifers and surface water available for new permits in all basins in the Beaver-Cache region through 2060. However, there is substantially less surface water available for permits in Basins 25 and 26 than other basins in the region. If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others. Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Beaver-Cache Region. Surface Water Permit Availability Beaver-Cache Region Surface Water Permit Availability Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount. To determine surface water permit availability in each OCWP planning basin in 2060, the analysis utilized OWRB protocol to estimate the average annual streamflow at the basin’s outlet point, accounting for both existing and anticipated water uses upstream and downstream, including legal obligations, such as those associated with domestic use and interstate compact requirements. Groundwater Permit Availability Groundwater available for permits in Oklahoma is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer. For unstudied aquifers, temporary permits are granted allocating 2 AFY/acre. For studied aquifers, an “equal proportionate share” (EPS) is established based on the maximum annual yield of water in the aquifer, which is then allocated to each acre of land overlying the groundwater basin. Temporary permits are then converted to regular permits and all new permits are based on the EPS. To calculate groundwater permit availability in 2060, the OCWP analysis determined the geographical area overlying all aquifers in each basin, utilized the respective EPS or temporary permit allocations, then applied current and future permit amounts. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11 with conductivity ranging from approximately 380-550 microSiemens (uS). Lakes and streams are typically phosphorus limited and show moderate cultural eutrophication, which is indicative of higher than normal nutrient concentrations. Ecological diversity is higher and closely resembles the Cross Timbers ecoregion. It can be affected by habitat degradation and sedimentation/siltation. Along the western edge of the transition in the north is the Wichita Mountains ecoregion, which may be the most ecologically diverse ecoregion of the Central Great Plains. Comprised mostly of steep mountains and rocky outcroppings, the Wichita Mountains also support thriving grasslands and dense scrub oak forests. Because of the native geology, the streams are a mixture of cobble, gravel, and sand and resemble waters found in the Arbuckle Uplift of south-central Oklahoma. Likewise, the geology also produces waters that have fair to excellent water clarity and, although slightly alkaline, comparatively low salinity. Characteristic watersheds include Lake Lawtonka and Lake Elmer Thomas. The lakes have good to excellent water clarity, with average turbidity values ranging from 2-8 NTU and Secchi depth readings from 3.5-5.5 feet. The water in Lake Lawtonka is slightly alkaline with an average pH of 8.1 and average hardness of 163.4 ppm. Conversely, with much less buffering capacity and an average hardness of less than 50 ppm, Lake Elmer Thomas has slightly acidic water with nearly 15% of all measured pH values of less than 6.5 units. Moreover, with Ecoregions Beaver-Cache Region The Beaver-Cache region is comprised of several distinct ecoregions, as evidenced by its diverse geology and water quality, which ranges from excellent to poor. Water Quality Water quality of the Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region is markedly different from north to south. Although wholly contained within the Central Great Plains ecoregion, the water quality differences are primarily due to dramatic geographical changes over a very small landmass. The northern third and much of the northeastern portion of the region is comprised of two distinct ecoregions, the Cross Timbers Transition and the Wichita Mountains, which is a mix of forested, irregular plains and steep highlands. Conversely, the southern and mostly western portion of the region is dominated by the Broken Red Plains ecoregion. The Cross Timbers Transition runs from north to south over the eastern portion of the area. As its name denotes, the transitional area is a hybrid mix of rough plains, and the oak/elm forests that dominate much of the Cross Timbers ecoregion. Represented by the Lake Ellsworth and Lake Waurika watersheds, the transition is emblematic of the waters in the Central Great Plains, with more loose sediments, such as sand and silt, and typically higher salinity. Water clarity is poor to average, with an average turbidity of 25-40 NTU and Secchi depths of approximately 1.0-1.5 feet. Likewise, the water is neutral to slightly alkaline, with pH values ranging from 7.2-8.8 and an average hardness of approximately 200 parts per million (ppm). Waters are moderately saline, Lake Trophic Status A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality. Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels. Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels. Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich. Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients. 12 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan a conductivity average of 393.8 uS, Lawtonka resembles the salinity found in much of the southern Cross Timbers. However, Elmer Thomas is similar to waters of Southeastern Oklahoma with a mean conductivity of less than 85 uS. While both lakes are phosphorus limited, Lawtonka is moderately eutrophic, while Elmer Thomas remains oligotrophic and has much lower nutrient concentrations. Ecological diversity is higher than anywhere in the Central Great Plains. It can be affected by habitat degradation and sedimentation/siltation. Much of the central and mostly western portions of the region are dominated by the Broken Red Plains and Red Prairie ecoregions. Although still more irregular than most of the Central Great Plains, it has characteristically sandy soils and is grassland dominated with low density scrub forests. Creeks are mostly sand and silt with much less relief than the northern portion of the Beaver-Cache region. Reservoirs, like Lake Frederick and Lake Dave Boyer, are similar to reservoirs in the Cross Timbers Transition. They normally demonstrate poor water clarity with turbidity ranging on average from 50-100 NTU, and Secchi depths less than one foot. Water is typically alkaline with pH ranging from 7.5 to 8.5 units, and hardness values averaging approximately 200 ppm. Likewise, they are moderately saline with conductivity ranges between 250-650 uS. Additionally, these lakes are eutrophic and phosphorus limited. Conversely, surface water quality in rivers and streams are much more characteristic of water quality in the Central Great Plains. East and West Cache Creeks drain much of the Water Quality Standards Implementation Beaver-Cache Region A 1997 demonstration project on the Beaver and Whiskey Creek watersheds by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission showed that additional non-point source restoration programs would be beneficial. Water Quality Standards and Implementation The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes, other bodies of surface water, and groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics. The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur. The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are permits for point source (e.g. municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters. More information about OWQS and the latest revisions can be found on the OWRB website. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13 central and western portions of the Broken Red Plains and in several ways resemble the reservoirs of the area. Water clarity is typically poor to fair with mean turbidities ranging from 31-48 NTU, and they are slightly alkaline with pH ranging from 7.4-8.5 and hardness ranging from 220-305 ppm. However, salinity in these rivers begins to approximate that seen throughout the plains. The conductivity ranges from a mean of 700 uS on East Cache Creek to near 1160 uS on West Cache Creek. When considering the mainstem of the Red River, the water quality differences become even starker. Water clarity is very poor with an average of 120 NTU. The Red River is moderately alkaline with a pH average of 8.2 but a maximum value of 9.0 units, and a hardness average of 860 ppm. Salinity shows a strong influence from the upper Red River ecoregions as conductivity averages approximately 4,860 uS. Like the reservoirs, rivers and streams are phosphorus limited and eutrophic, but phosphorus and nitrogen values are much higher, with an average of 1.149 ppm and 2.328 ppm, respectively, along East Cache Creek. Lastly, the area is much less diverse ecologically, and is more indicative of plains streams. Habitat degradation, flow modification, and sedimentation/siltation can decrease diversity. Although a statewide groundwater water quality program does not exist in Oklahoma, various aquifer studies have been completed, and data are available from municipal authorities and other sources. As was stated earlier in this document, the Beaver-Cache region is underlain by several major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. In most Regional water quality impairments are based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Natural elevated levels of salinity in this region produce agricultural use impacts and make several streams unsuitable for use as public water supply. Waurika and Lawtonka lakes, which are both designated as Sensitive Water Supply (SWS) sources, are impaired due to high levels of chlorophyll-a. Water Quality Impairments Beaver-Cache Region Water Quality Impairments A waterbody is considered to be impaired when its quality does not meet the standards prescribed for its beneficial uses in the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS). For example, impairment of the Public and Private Water Supply beneficial use means the use of the waterbody as a drinking water supply is hindered. Impairment of the Agricultural use means the use of the waterbody for livestock watering, irrigation, or other agricultural uses is hindered. Impairments can exist for other uses, such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation or Recreation. The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP), established in 1998 to document and quantify impairments of assigned beneficial uses of the state’s lakes and streams, provides information for supporting and updating the OWQS and prioritizing pollution control programs. A set of rules known as “use support assessment protocols” is also used to determine whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are being supported. In an individual waterbody, after impairments have been identified, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is conducted to establish the sources of impairments— whether from point sources (discharges) or non-point sources (runoff). The study will then determine the amount of reduction necessary to meet the applicable water quality standards in that waterbody and allocate loads among the various contributors of pollution. For more detailed review of the state’s water quality conditions, see the most recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, a comprehensive assessment of water quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required by the federal Clean Water Act and developed by the ODEQ. 14 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture Beaver-Cache Region southwest Oklahoma alluvial aquifers, water quality is good, and except for hardness and localized nitrate problems, the water is appropriate for domestic, irrigation, industrial and municipal use. Throughout much of southwestern Oklahoma, thick deposits of salt and gypsum occur in many Permian-age formations creating high chloride and sulfate concentrations, which can migrate into portions of alluvial aquifers. Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the Rush Springs Sandstone and Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group. The Rush Springs Sandstone extends into the northeastern most portion of the region. Although comparatively hard, most of Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply Beaver-Cache Regionthe water derived from it is suitable for domestic, municipal, irrigation and industrial use, with total dissolved solids (TDS) values generally less than 500 ppm. However, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate concentrations exceed drinking water standards in some areas. The Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group occurs in two areas: in the Limestone Hills north of the Wichita Mountains and in the Cache-Lawton area south of the Wichita Mountains. Water from the Limestone Hills area sometimes contains hydrogen sulfide gas and is very hard, calcium bicarbonate water, with total dissolved solids ranging from 195 to 940 ppm. Water from the Cache-Lawton area is soft and of a sodium-chloride type with total dissolved solids ranging from 279 to 6,380 ppm. Where permeability is high, water in the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group may be suitable for industrial use. Because fluoride concentrations generally range from 1.6 to 17 ppm and exceed drinking water standards, public water supply use is limited. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 15 Lake Frederick, a public water supply reservoir, does not have a SWS designation, which could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watershed and provide limits for algae (chlorophyll-a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs. Surface Water Protection Areas Beaver-Cache Region Surface Water Protection The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways. Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas. Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma. The High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants. The Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs. Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants. Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma. Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients. 16 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Groundwater Protection Areas Beaver-Cache Region Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater based upon OWRB vulnerability modeling. The Red River alluvial aquifer has been identified by the OWRB as highly vulnerable but currently lacks protection to prevent degradation. Groundwater Protection The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.” Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies. Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures. Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities. Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas. Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution. NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17 Water Quality Trends Study As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus. Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity. Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend. Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire period • of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%. Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%. Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues. Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural, and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high. Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate, and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and habitat. Total Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess phosphorus leads to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment. Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration. 18 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Stream Water Quality Trends Beaver-Cache Region Parameter Red River near Terral, OK East Cache Creek near Walters, OK All Data Trend (1967-1995, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend (1969-1993, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) Conductivity (us/cm) NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT Turbidity (NTU) Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division. 1Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters. Notable concerns for stream water quality include the following: Significant upward trend for conductivity and nutrients on East Cache Creek• Significant increase in turbidity over the entire period of record at all stations• Reservoir Water Quality Trends Beaver-Cache Region Parameter Lake Ellsworth Lake Lawtonka Walters Lake Waurika Lake (1994-2009) (1998-2009) (1995-2008) (1996-2008) Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3) NT Conductivity (us/cm) NT NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT NT NT Turbidity (NTU) NT NT NT Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division. Notable concerns for reservoir water quality include the following: Significant upward trends both chlorophyll-a and total nitrogen on several reservoirs• Significant upward trend in conductivity at both Lawtonka and Walters• Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Report 19 Self-Supplied Residential (SSR) demand is projected to account for approximately 1% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 89% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 11% by bedrock groundwater. Self-Supplied Industrial demand is projected to account for less than 1% of the 2060 demand. Demand for this sector is supplied by surface water. The Beaver-Cache Region’s water needs account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand is projected to increase by 27% (12,000 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of demand and largest growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is projected to account for approximately 51% of the region’s 2060 demand. Currently, 89% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 3% by alluvial groundwater, and 8% by bedrock groundwater. Crop Irrigation demand is projected to account for 28% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 25% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 48% by alluvial groundwater, and 27% by bedrock groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in the Beaver-Cache Region include cotton, pasture grasses, and wheat. Thermoelectric Power demand is projected to account for 8% of the 2060 demand. The Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s Comanche Plant, which is supplied by surface water, is a large user of water for thermoelectric power generation in the region. Livestock demand is projected to account for 7% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 35% of the demand for this sector is supplied by surface water, 29% by alluvial groundwater, and 36% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production. Oil and Gas (O&G) demand is projected to account for 4% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 78% of the demand for this sector is supplied by surface water, 5% by alluvial groundwater, and 17% by bedrock groundwater. Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin (Percent of Total Basin Demand) Beaver-Cache Region Water Demand Municipal and Industrial demand is expected to remain the largest sector in the region, accounting for 51% of the projected total regional demand in 2060. 20 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Supply Sources Used to Meet Current Demand (2010) Beaver-Cache Region Water needs in the Beaver-Cache Region account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand is projected to increase by 27% (11,970 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors. Total Water Demand by Sector Beaver-Cache Region Total Water Demand by Sector Beaver-Cache Region Planning Horizon Crop Irrigation Livestock Municipal & Industrial Oil & Gas Self-Supplied Industrial Self-Supplied Residential Thermoelectric Power Total AFY 2010 12,390 3,910 24,600 550 200 370 2,570 44,590 2020 13,090 3,950 25,980 810 200 400 2,860 47,290 2030 13,780 4,000 26,970 1,120 200 410 3,190 49,670 2040 14,480 4,040 27,780 1,470 210 430 3,560 51,970 2050 15,010 4,090 28,480 1,890 210 440 3,980 54,090 2060 15,860 4,140 29,110 2,350 220 450 4,440 56,560 Water Demand Water demand refers to the amount of water required to meet the needs of people, communities, industry, agriculture, and other users. Growth in water demand frequently corresponds to growth in population, agriculture, industry, or related economic activity. Demands have been projected from 2010 to 2060 in ten-year increments for seven distinct consumptive water demand sectors. Water Demand Sectors nThermoelectric Power: Thermoelectric power producing plants, using both self-supplied water and municipal-supplied water, are included in the thermoelectric power sector. n Self-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector. n Self-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system are included in the SSI sector. Water use data and employment counts were included in this sector when available. n Oil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as Self-Supplied Industrial use), are included in the oil and gas sector. n Municipal and Industrial: These demands represent water that is provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants. n Livestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census. n Crop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports. OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation, and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin. Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the basin summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports. Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21 There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94% of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs. The Beaver-Cache Region includes 33 of the 785 public supply systems analyzed for the 2012 OCWP Update. The Public Water Providers map indicates the approximate service areas of these systems. (The map may not accurately represent existing service areas or legal boundaries. In addition, water systems often serve multiple counties and can extend into multiple planning basins and regions.) In terms of population served (excluding provider-to-provider sales), the five largest systems in the region, in decreasing order, are Lawton, Duncan, Caddo County Rural Water District (RWD) 3, Frederick, and Jefferson County Consolidated RWD 1. These five systems provide service for more than 75% of the population served by public water providers in the region. Demand upon public water systems, which comprises the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial water demand sector, was analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water Public Water Providers production or distribution to residential homes and businesses. Retail demand does not include wholesaled water. OCWP provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede water demand forecasts developed by individual providers. OCWP analyses were made using a consistent methodology based on accepted data available on a statewide basis. Where available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort. Public Water Providers Beaver-Cache Region 22 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Providers SDWIS ID1 County Retail Per Capita (GPD)2 Planning Horizon 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 APACHE OK2000806 Caddo 111 1,618 1,686 1,735 1,784 1,843 1,892 CACHE OK2001607 Comanche 148 2,422 2,584 2,726 2,840 2,926 2,992 CHATTANOOGA PWS OK2001608 Comanche 60 555 604 628 652 676 688 COMANCHE CO RWD #1 OK3001602 Comanche 179 2,858 3,053 3,220 3,350 3,452 3,536 COMANCHE CO RWD #2 OK2001604 Comanche 82 701 749 790 822 847 867 COMANCHE CO RWD #3 OK2001602 Comanche 80 806 861 909 945 974 998 COMANCHE CO RWD #4 OK3001654 Comanche 109 3,572 3,816 4,026 4,187 4,315 4,419 COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS OK1011101 Stephens 253 1,700 1,711 1,733 1,755 1,777 1,821 COTTON CO RWD #1 OK3001702 Cotton 116 607 615 624 632 652 660 COTTON CO RWD #2 OK2001702 Cotton 140 2,023 2,051 2,079 2,107 2,173 2,201 DAVIDSON OK2007104 Tillman 270 150 154 158 162 166 170 DEVOL OK3001701 Cotton 250 150 150 150 150 160 160 DUNCAN OK1010809 Stephens 198 22,500 22,762 22,973 23,235 23,607 24,070 ELGIN PWS OK2001610 Comanche 99 1,528 1,634 1,716 1,787 1,834 1,881 FAXON OK3001675 Comanche 97 134 144 153 163 163 172 FLETCHER OK2001612 Comanche 87 1,043 1,109 1,175 1,223 1,261 1,289 FREDERICK OK1011401 Tillman 245 5,300 5,415 5,531 5,646 5,762 5,935 GERONIMO OK3001680 Comanche 72 976 1,042 1,099 1,147 1,175 1,203 GRANDFIELD OK2007103 Tillman 140 1,140 1,161 1,192 1,213 1,244 1,275 HOLLISTER OK2007102 Tillman 64 60 60 60 60 60 60 INDIAHOMA OK2001609 Comanche 57 355 382 400 418 426 435 JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1 OK3003401 Jefferson 197 4,146 4,213 4,280 4,343 4,469 4,595 LAWTON OK1011303 Comanche 181 110,957 118,723 124,436 128,881 132,372 135,224 MANITOU OK3007101 Tillman 196 286 286 296 306 306 317 MEDICINE PARK OK3001603 Comanche 122 376 404 423 441 451 460 RYAN OK3003405 Jefferson 214 894 904 915 925 956 986 STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN) OK2006905 Stephens 75 1,610 1,629 1,644 1,663 1,690 1,722 STERLING PWA OK2001601 Comanche 105 779 827 874 912 941 960 TEMPLE OK1011306 Cotton 98 1,152 1,172 1,192 1,213 1,243 1,263 TILLMAN CO RWD #1 OK2007107 Tillman 97 1,500 1,532 1,564 1,596 1,628 1,676 WALTERS OK1011305 Cotton 107 2,760 2,802 2,843 2,885 2,968 3,010 WAURIKA LAKE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Jefferson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WAURIKA PWA OK1011201 Jefferson 295 2,200 2,234 2,269 2,303 2,372 2,441 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System 2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day. Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served Beaver-Cache Region Population and Demand Projection Data Provider level population and demand projection data, developed specifically for OCWP analyses, focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population served that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23 Projections of Retail Water Demand Each public water supply system has a “retail” demand, defined as the amount of water used by residential and non-residential customers within that provider’s service area. Public-supplied residential demands include water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demands include customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demands do not include wholesale water to other providers. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is driven by projected population growth and specific customer characteristics. Demand forecasts for each public system are estimated from average water use (in gallons per capita per day) multiplied by projected population. Oklahoma Department of Commerce 2002 population projections (unpublished special tabulation for the OWRB) were calibrated to 2007 Census estimates and used to establish population growth rates for cities, towns, and rural areas through 2060. Population growth rates were applied to 2007 population-served values for each provider to project future years’ service area (retail) populations. The main source of data for per capita water use for each provider was the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey conducted by the OWRB in cooperation with the Oklahoma Rural Water Association and Oklahoma Municipal League. For each responding provider, data from the survey included population served, annual average daily demand, total water produced, wholesale purchases and sales between providers, and estimated system losses. For missing or incomplete data, the weighted average per capita demand was used for the provider’s county. In some cases, provider survey data were supplemented with data from the OWRB water rights database. Per capita supplier demands can vary over time due to precipitation and service area characteristics, such as commercial and industrial activity, tourism, or conservation measures. For the baseline demand projections described here, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems. Providers SDWIS ID1 County Retail Demand Including System Loss 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 AFY APACHE OK2000806 Caddo 202 210 216 222 230 236 CACHE OK2001607 Comanche 402 428 452 471 485 496 CHATTANOOGA PWS OK2001608 Comanche 37 41 42 44 46 46 COMANCHE CO RWD #1 OK3001602 Comanche 572 611 644 670 690 707 COMANCHE CO RWD #2 OK2001604 Comanche 64 69 73 75 78 80 COMANCHE CO RWD #3 OK2001602 Comanche 72 77 81 85 87 89 COMANCHE CO RWD #4 OK3001654 Comanche 435 464 490 509 525 538 COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS OK1011101 Stephens 482 485 491 497 504 516 COTTON CO RWD #1 OK3001702 Cotton 79 80 81 82 85 86 COTTON CO RWD #2 OK2001702 Cotton 317 322 326 330 341 345 DAVIDSON OK2007104 Tillman 45 47 48 49 50 51 DEVOL OK3001701 Cotton 42 42 42 42 45 45 DUNCAN OK1010809 Stephens 4,998 5,056 5,103 5,161 5,244 5,347 ELGIN PWS OK2001610 Comanche 170 182 191 199 204 209 FAXON OK3001675 Comanche 15 16 17 18 18 19 FLETCHER OK2001612 Comanche 101 108 114 119 123 125 FREDERICK OK1011401 Tillman 1,456 1,488 1,520 1,551 1,583 1,631 GERONIMO OK3001680 Comanche 79 84 89 92 95 97 GRANDFIELD OK2007103 Tillman 179 182 187 191 196 200 HOLLISTER OK2007102 Tillman 4 4 4 4 4 4 INDIAHOMA OK2001609 Comanche 23 24 26 27 27 28 JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1 OK3003401 Jefferson 915 930 945 958 986 1,014 LAWTON OK1011303 Comanche 22,461 24,033 25,190 26,089 26,796 27,373 MANITOU OK3007101 Tillman 63 63 65 67 67 69 MEDICINE PARK OK3001603 Comanche 51 55 58 60 61 63 RYAN OK3003405 Jefferson 214 217 219 222 229 236 STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN) OK2006905 Stephens 134 136 137 139 141 144 STERLING PWA OK2001601 Comanche 92 97 103 107 111 113 TEMPLE OK1011306 Cotton 126 128 131 133 136 138 TILLMAN CO RWD #1 OK2007107 Tillman 164 167 171 174 177 183 WALTERS OK1011305 Cotton 332 337 342 347 357 362 WAURIKA LAKE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Jefferson 0 0 0 0 0 0 WAURIKA PWA OK1011201 Jefferson 728 739 751 762 785 808 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System Public Water Provider Demand Forecast Beaver-Cache Region 24 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 Sales Purchases Sells To Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both Purchases from Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both COMANCHE CO RWD #1 OK3001602 Lawton O T COMANCHE CO RWD #2 OK2001604 Lawton E T COMANCHE CO RWD #3 OK2001602 Lawton Stephens Co RWD #5 Walters O E O T T T COMANCHE CO RWD #4 OK3001654 Indiahoma O T Snyder O T COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS OK1011101 Stephens Co RWD #3 (Meridian) Jefferson Co Cons RWD #1 O O T R Waurika Lake MCD O R COTTON CO RWD #1 OK3001702 Grandfield O DAVIDSON OK2007104 Frederick O T DEVOL OK3001701 Grandfield O T DUNCAN OK1010809 Stephens Co RWD #5 Jefferson Co RWD #1 O O T T Waurika Lake MCD O R FAXON OK3001675 Tillman Co RWD #1 O T FREDERICK OK1011401 Davidson Grandfield Manitou Tillman Co RWD #1 Tipton O O O O O T T T T T GERONIMO OK3001680 Lawton O T GRANDFIELD OK2007103 Devol Cotton Co RWD #1 O O T Frederick O T HOLLISTER OK2007102 Tillman Co RWD #1 O T INDIAHOMA OK2001609 Comanche Co RWD #4 O T JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1 OK3003401 Healdton E T Duncan Comanche Public Works Waurika PWA O O O T T T LAWTON OK1011303 Comanche Co RWD #1 Comanche Co RWD #2 Comanche Co RWD #3 Medicine Park Geronimo O E O O O T T T T T Waurika Lake MCD O R MANITOU OK3007101 Frederick O T MEDICINE PARK OK3001603 Lawton O T RYAN OK3003405 Waurika PWA O T STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN) OK2006905 Comanche Public Works O T STERLING PWA OK2001601 TEMPLE OK1011306 Waurika Lake MCD O R TILLMAN CO RWD #1 OK2007107 Faxon Hollister O O T T Frederick O T WALTERS OK1011305 Comanche Co RWD #3 O T Waurika Lake MCD WAURIKA LAKE MCD NONE Comanche Duncan Lawton Temple Walters Waurika O O O O O O R R R R R R WAURIKA PWA OK1011201 Jefferson Co Cons RWD #1 Ryan O O R T Waurika Lake MCD 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System Wholesale Water Transfers Beaver-Cache Region Wholesale Water Transfers Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demands. Wholesale quantities typically vary from year to year depending upon growth, precipitation, emergency conditions, and agreements between systems. Water transfers between providers can help alleviate costs associated with developing or maintaining infrastructure, such as a reservoir or pipeline; allow access to higher quality or more reliable sources; or provide additional supplies only when required, such as in cases of supply emergencies. Utilizing the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey and OWRB water rights data, the Wholesale Water Transfers table presents a summary of known wholesale arrangements for providers in the region. Transfers can consist of treated or raw water and can occur on a regular basis or only during emergencies. Providers commonly sell to and purchase from multiple water providers. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25 Provider SDWIS ID1 County Water Rights Source Permitted Surface Water Permitted Alluvial Groundwater Permitted Bedrock Groundwater AFY Percent APACHE OK2000806 Caddo 1,743 0% 0% 100% CACHE OK2001607 Comanche 258 0% 0% 100% CHATTANOOGA PWS OK2001608 Comanche --- --- --- --- COMANCHE CO RWD #1 OK3001602 Comanche --- --- --- --- COMANCHE CO RWD #2 OK2001604 Comanche 198 0% 0% 100% COMANCHE CO RWD #3 OK2001602 Comanche 288 0% 59% 41% COMANCHE CO RWD #4 OK3001654 Comanche --- --- --- --- COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS OK1011101 Stephens 360 100% 0% 0% COTTON CO RWD #1 OK3001702 Cotton 168 0% 0% 100% COTTON CO RWD #2 OK2001702 Cotton 1,006 0% 61% 39% DAVIDSON OK2007104 Tillman 328 0% 100% 0% DEVOL OK3001701 Cotton 7 0% 100% 0% DUNCAN OK1010809 Stephens 6,653 100% 0% 0% ELGIN PWS OK2001610 Comanche 620 0% 0% 100% FAXON OK3001675 Comanche --- --- --- --- FLETCHER OK2001612 Comanche 156 0% 0% 100% FREDERICK OK1011401 Tillman 4,450 76% 24% 0% GERONIMO OK3001680 Comanche 219 0% 48% 52% GRANDFIELD OK2007103 Tillman 928 0% 100% 0% HOLLISTER OK2007102 Tillman --- --- --- --- INDIAHOMA OK2001609 Comanche 240 0% 0% 100% JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1 OK3003401 Jefferson --- --- --- --- LAWTON OK1011303 Comanche 42,233 100% 0% 0% MANITOU OK3007101 Tillman 87 0% 100% 0% MEDICINE PARK OK3001603 Comanche --- --- --- --- RYAN OK3003405 Jefferson --- --- --- --- STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN) OK2006905 Stephens 865 0% 0% 100% STERLING PWA OK2001601 Comanche 260 0% 0% 100% TEMPLE OK1011306 Cotton --- --- --- --- TILLMAN CO RWD #1 OK2007107 Tillman 234 0% 100% 0% WALTERS OK1011305 Cotton 268 100% 0% 0% WAURIKA LAKE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Jefferson 44,806 100% 0% 0% WAURIKA PWA OK1011201 Jefferson --- --- --- --- 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals (2010) Beaver-Cache Region Provider Water Rights Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s), source of supply, and reported water use have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider. A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider. In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights. 26 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Apache PWA (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace two miles of 4-inch clay tile water line with 6-inch water line. Replace 10 fire plugs. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: new water tower. Town of Cache (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Rush Springs Aquifer) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: treat supplies from two recently drilled wells for high levels of fluoride; replace a 3-inch water line with a 6-inch water line; add a new pump to existing booster station and pump housing to comply with DEQ requirements. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: increase the main water line size throughout the distribution system; treat supplies from 4 existing wells for fluoride. Chattanooga PWS (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (West Cache Creek Alluvial Aquifer) Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: two new wells. Infrastructure improvements: chlorine stations for new wells. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche Co. RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Lawton Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: groundwater. Infrastructure improvements: connect new well field to the north end of the distribution system; construct two new water towers. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Arbuckle Group Aquifer) Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: purchase additional water rights. Infrastructure improvements: new distribution lines and storage. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (West Cache Creek Alluvial Aquifer), surface water (Lawton, Walters). Emergency source: Stephens RWD 5. Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: expand existing wellfield. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Mountain Park MCD Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: potential contract for water from the City of Lawton. No infrastructure improvements identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche Public Works (Stephens County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika MCD. Emergency source: Comanche Lake. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Cotton County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Grandfield PWA Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: new water storage tank. Long-Term Needs None Identified. Cotton County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Red River Terrace Aquifer) Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: additional well. Town of Davidson (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lake Frederick, groundwater (Tillman Terrace Aquifer) Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Devol (Cotton County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Grandfield PWA Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Duncan (Stephens County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika Lake Waurika MCD, Lake Humphreys, Lake Fuqua Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add raw water lines from Lake Fuqua. Long-Term Needs None identified. Elgin PWS (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Rush Springs Aquifer) Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: two new wells. Infrastructure improvements: new water tower; new 12” water line from well fields to town. Town of Faxon (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Tillman County RWD 1 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replacement of water meters in some areas of town; upgrade water lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replacement of major main water lines and possible expansion of new lines into new housing development. Fletcher Water Dept. (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Rush Springs Aquifer) Short-Term Needs No new water supply sources identified. Infrastructure improvements: one new well. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: expand well system in Rush Springs Aquifer. Infrastructure improvements: replace and expand water lines in the distribution system; add additional storage. OCWP Provider Survey Beaver-Cache Region Provider Supply Plans In 2008, a survey was sent to 785 municipal and rural water providers throughout Oklahoma to collect vital background water supply and system information. Additional detail for each of these providers was solicited in 2010 as part of follow-up interviews conducted by the ODEQ. The 2010 interviews sought to confirm key details of the earlier survey and document additional details regarding each provider’s water supply infrastructure and plans. This included information on existing sources of supply (including surface water, groundwater, and other providers), short-term supply and infrastructure plans, and long-term supply and infrastructure plans. In instances where no new source was identified, maintenance of the current source of supply is expected into the future. Providers may or may not have secured the necessary funding to implement their stated plans concerning infrastructure needs, commonly including additional wells or raw water conveyance, storage, and replacement/upgrade of treatment and distribution systems. Additional support for individual water providers wishing to pursue enhanced planning efforts is documented in the Public Water Supply Planning Guide. This guide details how information contained in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports and related planning documents can be used to formulate provider-level plans to meet present and future needs of individual water systems. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27 City of Frederick (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Mountain Park MCD, Frederick Lake, & Tom Steed Reservoir Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: complete water treatment, storage, and distribution improvement projects to attain TTHM compliance and other benefits. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: continue upgrades as needed. Town of Geronimo (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Lawton Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Grandfield (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Frederick, groundwater (Red River Terrace Aquifer) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: correct order deficiencies to obtain TTHM compliance; construct facility to eliminate nitrates in groundwater. Long-Term Needs None identified. Hollister PWA (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Tillman County RWD 1 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add new valves. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Indiahoma (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Comanche County RWD 4 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: treatment of well water. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: use groundwater sources. Infrastructure improvements: new system to remove impurities. Jefferson County Cons RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika PWA, Duncan, Comanche Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: use groundwater sources. Infrastructure improvements: well field currently in progress. Sterling PWA (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (El Reno Group Aquifer) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: extend distribution line. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: continue extending distribution system. Temple Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika MCD. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Tillman County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Frederick Lake, Cache Creek Alluvial Aquifer Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: new wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: construct a reverse osmosis system to remove nitrates from groundwater.) Walters PWA (Cotton County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lake Dave Boyer, East Cache Creek, & Waurika MCD Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: increase pipeline capacity. Waurika Lake MCD (Wholesaler Only) No Information Waurika PWA (Jefferson County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika MCD Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: one additional well. Infrastructure improvements: install a microfiltration water treatment plant. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: new wells. Infrastructure improvements: install new water lines; add more filtration units to the water treatment plant; construct a bigger clearwell; add storage. City of Lawton (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika MCD, Lake Ellsworth, Lake Lawtonka Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: upgrade distribution capacity; purchase additional storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Expansion of treatment capacity of the SEWTP; Installation of additional pumping capacity to convey water from SEWTP to Ft. Sill and industrial facilities west of the City; installation of additional pipes to upgrade the distribution system; improve pumping capacity from MPWTP. Town of Manitou (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Frederick Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: groundwater from existing unused wells. Infrastructure improvements: develop plan to utilize wells with a blending station. Town of Medicine Park (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Lawton Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: extend infrastructure (piping and storage) to serve areas currently without water service. Town of Ryan (Jefferson County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika PWA Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Stephens County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. OCWP Provider Survey Beaver-Cache Region 28 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Infrastructure Cost Summary Beaver-Cache Region Provider System Category1 Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars) Present - 2020 2021 - 2040 2041 - 2060 Total Period Small $480 $140 $290 $910 Medium $40 $250 $10 $300 Large $160 $80 $70 $310 Reservoir $60 $0 $0 $60 TOTAL $740 $470 $370 $1,580 1 Large providers are defined as those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems as those serving between 3,301 and 100,000 people, and small systems as those serving 3,300 and fewer people. The “reservoir” category is for rehabilitation projects. Approximately $1.6 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure • needs of the Beaver-Cache region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur within the next 20 years. Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 80% of the providers’ • estimated infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment and source water projects. Small providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.• Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs comprise approximately 4% of the • total costs. Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water. Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While estimated costs for new reservoirs are not included, rehabilitation project costs for existing major reservoirs were applied at the regional level. More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the OCWP Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region report. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Report 29 Water Supply Options Limitations Analysis For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. Physical availability limitations for surface water were referred to as gaps. Availability limitations for alluvial and bedrock groundwater were referred to as depletions. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur. Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%. The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map in the regional summary). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was also the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data. Basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most significant limitations ranking were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report. Primary Options To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). For basins where shortages are not projected, no options are necessary and thus none were evaluated. Demand Management “Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing conservation or drought management measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Conservation measures” refer to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year, while “drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements. Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irrigation. For the Watershed Planning Region reports, only moderately expanded conservation activities were considered when assessing the overall effectiveness of the demand management option for each basin. A broader analysis of moderate and substantial conservation measures statewide is discussed below and summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OCWP Executive Report. Demand management was considered to be “typically effective” in basins where it would likely eliminate both gaps and storage depletions and “potentially effective” in basins where it would likely either reduce gaps and depletions or eliminate either gaps or depletions (but not both). There were no basins where demand management could not reduce gaps and/or storage depletions to at least some extent; therefore this option was not rated “likely ineffective” for any basin. Out-of-Basin Supplies Use of “out-of-basin supplies” refers to the option of transferring water through pipelines from a source in one basin to another basin. This option was considered a “potentially effective” solution in all basins due to its general potential in eliminating gaps and depletions. The option was not rated “typically effective” because complexity and cost make it only practical as a long-term solution. The effectiveness of this option for a basin was also assessed with the consideration of potential new reservoir sites within the respective region as identified in the Expanded Options section below and the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study. Reservoir Use “Reservoir Use” refers to the development of additional in-basin reservoir storage. Reservoir storage can be provided through increased use of existing facilities, such as reallocation of existing purposes at major federal reservoir sites or rehabilitation of smaller NRCS projects to include municipal and/or industrial water supply, or the construction of new reservoirs. The effectiveness rating of reservoir use for a basin was based on a hypothetical reservoir located at the furthest downstream basin outlet. Water transmission and legal or water quality constraints were not considered; however, potential constraints in permit availability were noted. A site located further upstream could potentially provide adequate yield to meet demand, but would likely require greater storage than a site located at the basin outlet. The effectiveness rating was also largely contingent upon the existence of previously studied reservoir sites (see the Expanded Options section below) and/or the ability of new streamflow diversions with storage to meet basin water demands. Reservoir use was considered “typically effective” in basins containing one or more potentially viable reservoir sites unless the basin was fully allocated for surface water and had no permit availability. For basins with no permit availability, reservoir use was considered “potentially effective,” since diversions would be limited to existing 30 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan permits. Reservoir use was also considered “potentially effective” in basins that generate sufficient reservoir yield to meet future demand. Statewide, the reservoir use option was considered “likely ineffective” in only three basins (Basins 18, 55, and 66), where it was determined that insufficient streamflow would be available to provide an adequate reservoir yield to meet basin demand. Increasing Reliance on Surface Water “Increasing reliance on surface water” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing surface water use. For baseline analysis, the proportion of future demand supplied by surface water and groundwater for each sector is assumed equal to current proportions. Increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions without reservoir storage or releases upstream from storage provides a reliable supply option in limited areas of the state and has potential to mitigate bedrock groundwater depletions and/or alluvial groundwater depletions. However, this option largely depends upon local conditions concerning the specific location, amount, and timing of the diversion. Due to this uncertainty, the pronounced periods of low streamflow in many river systems across the state, and the potential to create or augment surface water gaps, this option was considered “typically ineffective” for all basins. The preferred alternative statewide is reservoir use, which provides the most reliable surface water supply source. Increasing Reliance on Groundwater “Increasing reliance on groundwater” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing groundwater use. Supplies from major aquifers are particularly reliable because they generally exhibit higher well yields and contain large amounts of water in storage. Minor aquifers can also contain large amounts of water in storage, but well yields are typically lower and may be insufficient to meet the needs of high volume water users. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered prior to large-scale use. Additional groundwater supplies may also be developed through artificial recharge (groundwater storage and recovery), which is summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OWRB Executive Report. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically effective” in basins where both gaps and depletions could be mitigated in a measured fashion that did not lead to additional groundwater depletions. This option was considered “potentially effective” in basins where surface water gaps could be mitigated by increased groundwater use, but would likely result in increased depletions in either alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically ineffective” in basins where there were no major aquifers. Expanded Options In addition to the standard analysis of primary options for each basin, specific OCWP studies were conducted statewide on several more advanced though less conventional options that have potential to reduce basin gaps and depletions. More detailed summaries of these options are available in the OWRB Executive Report. Full reports are available on the OWRB website. Expanded Conservation Measures Water conservation was considered an essential component of the “demand management” option in basin-level analysis of options for reducing or eliminating gaps and storage depletions. At the basin level, moderately expanded conservation measures were used as the basis for analyzing effectiveness. In a broader OCWP study, summarized in the OCWP Executive Report and documented in the OCWP Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change, both moderately and substantially expanded conservation activities were analyzed at a statewide level for the state’s two largest demand sectors: Municipal/ Industrial (M&I) and Crop Irrigation. For each sector, two scenarios were analyzed: (1) moderately expanded conservation activities, and (2) substantially expanded conservation activities. Water savings for the municipal and industrial and crop irrigation water use sectors were assessed, and for the M&I sector, a cost-benefit analysis was performed to quantify savings associated with reduced costs in drinking water production and decreased wastewater treatment. The energy savings and associated water savings realized as a result of these decreases were also quantified. Artificial Aquifer Recharge In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1410 requiring the OWRB to develop and implement criteria to prioritize potential locations throughout the state where artificial recharge demonstration projects are most feasible to meet future water supply challenges. A workgroup of numerous water agencies and user groups was organized to identify suitable locations in both alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Fatal flaw and threshold screening analyses resulted in identification of six alluvial sites and nine bedrock sites. These sites were subjected to further analysis that resulted in three sites deemed by the workgroup as having the best potential for artificial recharge demonstration projects. Where applicable, potential recharge sites are noted in the “Increasing Reliance on Groundwater” option discussion in basin data and analysis sections of the Watershed Planning Region Reports. The site selection methodology and results for the five selected sites are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Artificial Aquifer Recharge Issues and Recommendations report. Marginal Quality Water Sources In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1627 requiring the OWRB to establish a technical workgroup to analyze the expanded use of marginal quality water (MQW) from various sources throughout the state. The group included representatives from state and federal agencies, industry, and other stakeholders. Through facilitated discussions, the group defined MQW as that which has been historically unusable due to technological or economic issues associated with diverting, treating, and/or conveying the water. Five categories of MQW were identified for further characterization and technical analysis: (1) treated wastewater effluent, (2) stormwater runoff, (3) oil and gas flowback/produced water, (4) brackish surface and groundwater, and (5) water with elevated levels of key constituents, such as nitrates, that would require advanced treatment prior to beneficial use. A phased approach was utilized to meet the study’s objectives, which included quantifying and characterizing MQW sources and their locations for use through 2060, assessing constraints to MQW use, and matching identified sources of MQW with projected water shortages across the state. Feasibility of actual use was also reviewed. Of all the general MQW uses evaluated, water reuse—beneficially using treated wastewater to meet certain demand—is perhaps the most commonly applied elsewhere in the U.S. Similarly, wastewater was determined to be one of the most viable sources of marginal quality water for short-term use in Oklahoma. Results of the workgroup’s study are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Marginal Quality Water Issues and Recommendations report. Potential Reservoir Development Oklahoma is the location of many reservoirs that provide a dependable, vital water supply source for numerous purposes. While economic, environmental, cultural, and geographical constraints generally limit the construction of new reservoirs, significant interest persists due to their potential in meeting various future needs, particularly those associated with municipalities and regional public supply systems. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31 Potential Reservoir Sites (Categories 3 & 4) Beaver-Cache Region Name Category Stream Basin Purposes1 Total Storage Conservation Pool Primary Study Updated Cost Estimate2 (2010 dollars) Surface Area Storage Dependable Yield Date Agency AF AF AF AFY Cookietown 4 Deep Red Creek 30 WS, FC, F&W, R 400,000 13,100 208,190 34,700 1979 Bureau of Reclamation $298,161,000 Snyder 3 Deep Red Creek 30 F&W, WS, R 110,000 3,668 90,000 10,600 1974 Bureau of Reclamation $103,052,000 1 WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation 2 The majority of cost estimates were updated using estimated costs from previous project reports combined with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) annual escalation figures to scale the original cost estimates to present-day cost estimates. These estimated costs may not accurately reflect current conditions at the proposed project site and are meant to be used for general comparative purposes only. Reservoir Project Viability Categorization Category 4: Sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development. Category 3: Sites with sufficient data for analysis, but less than desirable for current viability. Category 2: Sites that may contain fatal flaws or other factors that could severely impede potential development. Category 1: Sites with limited available data and lacking essential elements of information. Category 0: Typically sites that exist only on an historical map. Study data cannot be located or verified. As another option to address Oklahoma’s long-range water needs, the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study was initiated to identify potential reservoir sites throughout the state that have been analyzed to various degrees by the OWRB, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other public or private agencies. Principal elements of the study included extensive literature search; identification of criteria to determine a reservoir’s viability; creation of a database to store essential information for each site; evaluation of sites; Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of the most viable sites; aerial photograph and map reconnaissance; screening of environmental, cultural, and endangered species issues; estimates of updated construction costs; and categorical assessment of viability. The study revealed more than 100 sites statewide. Each was assigned a ranking, ranging from Category 4 (sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development) to Category 0 (sites that exist only on a historical map and for which no study data can be verified). This analysis does not necessarily indicate an actual need or specific recommendation to build any potential project. Rather, these sites are presented to provide local and regional decision-makers with additional tools as they anticipate future water supply needs and opportunities. Study results present only a cursory examination of the many factors associated with project feasibility or implementation. Detailed investigations would be required in all cases to verify feasibility of construction and implementation. A summary of potential reservoir sites statewide is available in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study. Potential reservoir development sites for this Watershed Planning Region appear on the following chart and map. 32 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Expanded Water Supply Options Beaver-Cache Region Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Data & Analysis Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region Basin 24 35Basin 24 accounts for about 2% of the current demand in the Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region. About 61% of the basin’s 2010 demand was from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Livestock was the second largest demand sector at 25%. Surface water satisfies about 73% of the current demand in the basin. Alluvial groundwater satisfies about 27% of the current demand. There are currently no permits for bedrock groundwater use and none expected in the future. The peak summer month total water demand in Basin 24 is about 2.5 times the winter monthly demand, which is similar to the overall statewide pattern. The flow in Beaver Creek at its confluence with the Red River is typically greater than 400 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 3,700 AF/month in the spring. However, the creek can have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year. There are no major reservoirs in the basin; however, the City of Waurika receives out-of-basin supplies from Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District in Basin 25. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 24 is considered poor. Beaver Creek is impaired for Agricultural use due to elevated levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and chlorides. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality. Current Demand by Source and Sector Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Total Demand 710 AFY Basin 24 Summary Synopsis Water users are expected to continue to rely mainly on surface water and to a lesser extent, alluvial groundwater. By 2030, there is a moderate probability of surface water gaps from increased demand on existing supplies during low flow periods. To reduce the risk of adverse effects on water supplies, it is recommended that gaps be decreased where economically feasible. Additional conservation measures could mitigate surface water gaps. To mitigate surface water gaps, dependable groundwater supplies, out-of-basin supplies, and/or developing new reservoirs could be used as alternatives. These supply sources could be used without major impacts to groundwater storage. Water Resources Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 36 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan dry months. The entire increase in demand from 2010 to 2060 could be supplied by a new river diversion and less than 100 AF of reservoir storage at the basin outlet. Increasing the use of surface water supplies through direct diversions, without reservoir storage, will increase surface water gaps and is not recommended. Increased reliance on alluvial groundwater supplies could mitigate surface water gaps, but may create alluvial groundwater storage depletions. Any storage depletions would be small relative to the volume of water stored in the Red River aquifer underlying the basin. However, localized storage depletions may occur and adversely affect well yields, water quality, and/or pumping costs. The Red River alluvial aquifer underlies the eastern portion of the basin, but currently allocated withdrawals from the aquifer are small. The majority of current water rights in the basin are from non-delineated minor alluvial aquifers along Beaver Creek. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered before large scale use. There are currently no water rights in bedrock aquifers in the basin; therefore, no future withdrawals are expected from bedrock sources. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues. The use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060. The projected 2060 water demand of 810 AFY in Basin 24 reflects a 100 AFY increase (14%) over the 2010 demand. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Gaps & Depletions Based on projected demand and historical hydrology, surface water gaps may occur by 2030. No groundwater storage depletions are expected through 2060. Surface water gaps may occur in summer, and by 2060, will be up to 30 AFY with a 45% probability of occurring in at least one month of the year. Options Water users are expected to continue to rely on surface water and alluvial groundwater. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the basin’s water users, surface water gaps should be decreased where economically feasible. Moderately expanded permanent conservation activities in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation demand sectors could mitigate surface water gaps. Temporary drought management activities may not be effective in this basin, since gaps have a moderate probability of occurring. Currently, the City of Waurika obtains water from Waurika Lake in Basin 25 via the Waurika Master Conservancy District. Increased use of this source could effectively reduce surface water gaps. Waurika Lake is almost fully allocated at this time. Out-of-basin supplies could mitigate surface water gaps. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study, which evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state, identified two potentially viable out-of-basin sites in the Beaver-Cache Region. However, because of the distance to reliable water supplies, out-of-basin supplies may not be cost-effective for many users in the basin. Additional reservoir storage in Basin 24 could effectively supplement supplies during Projected Water Demand Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Water Supply Limitations Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Surface Water Alluvial Groundwater Bedrock Groundwater nMinimalnPotentialnSignificant Water Supply Option Effectiveness Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Demand Management Out-of-Basin Supplies Reservoir Use Increasing Supply from Surface Water Increasing Supply from Groundwater nTypically EffectivenPotentially EffectivenLikely IneffectivenNo Option Necessary Median Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Report 37 Surface Water Resources Historical streamflow from 1950 through • 2007 was used to estimate the range of future surface water supplies. This basin had a prolonged period of below-average streamflow from the early 1960s to the mid 1980s. From the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s, the basin went through a prolonged period of above-average streamflow and precipitation, demonstrating the hydrologic variability in the basin. The range of historical streamflow at the • basin outlet is shown by the average, median, and minimum streamflow over a 58-year period of record. The median flow of Beaver Creek confluence with the Red River is greater than 400 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 10,000 AF/month in May and June. However, the creek can have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 24 is considered poor. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality. There are no significant reservoirs in • the basin. Monthly Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Historical Precipitation Regional Climate Division Basin 24 Data & Analysis 38 Beaver-Cache Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanGroundwater Resources The majority of current groundwater • rights in the basin are from non-delineated minor alluvial groundwater sources along Beaver Creek. There are additional groundwater rights in the Red River major alluvial aquifer. There are no significant groundwater • quality issues in the basin. Groundwater Resources - Aquifer Summary (2010) Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Aquifer Portion of Basin Overlaying Aquifer Current Groundwater Rights Aquifer Storage in Basin Equal Proportionate Share Groundwater Available for New Permits Name Type Class1 Percent AFY AF AFY/Acre AFY Red River Alluvial Major 24% 300 36,000 temporary 2.0 38,100 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Bedrock Minor N/A 0 N/A temporary 2.0 N/A Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Alluvial Minor N/A 1,300 N/A temporary 2.0 N/A 1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major. Beaver-Cache Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 39 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanWater Demand Basin 24’s water needs make up • about 2% of the total demand in the Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region and will increase by 14% (100 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. However, demand growth in the basin is expected to occur in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation demand sectors. The majority of demand will be from the Municipal and Industrial and Livestock demand sectors. Surface water is used to meet 73% • of the total demand in Basin 24 and its use will increase by 15% (70 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of surface water use and growth in surface water use will be in the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Alluvial groundwater is used to • meet 27% of the total demand in Basin 24 and its use will increase by 12% (20 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. Alluvial groundwater use will be solely from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. There is no current bedrock • groundwater use in Basin 24; no future demand is expected. Total Demand by Sector Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Planning Horizon Crop Irrigation Livestock Municipal & Industrial Oil & Gas Self-Supplied Industrial Self-Supplied Residential Thermoelectric P
Object Description
Description
Title | OCWP Beaver-Cache watershed region |
OkDocs Class# | W1700.3 W331b 2011 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/regionalreports/OCWP_BeaverCache_Region_Report.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 | Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region Statewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region and Basin Delineation Contents Introduction 1 Regional Overview . 1 Beaver-Cache Regional Summary . 2 Synopsis . 2 Water Resources & Limitations 2 Water Supply Options . 4 Water Supply . 6 Physical Water Availability . 6 Surface Water Resources 6 Groundwater Resources . 9 Permit Availability 11 Water Quality 12 Water Demand . 20 Public Water Providers . 22 Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Limitations Analysis 30 Primary Options 30 Demand Management 30 Out-of-Basin Supplies . 30 Reservoir Use 30 Increasing Reliance on Surface Water 31 Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 31 Expanded Options 31 Expanded Conservation Measures . 31 Artificial Aquifer Recharge 31 Marginal Quality Water Sources 31 Potential Reservoir Development 31 Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 35 Basin 24 . 35 Basin 25 . 45 Basin 26 . 55 Basin 27 . 65 Basin 28 . 75 Basin 29 . 85 Basin 30 . 95 Basin 31 . 105 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Regional Overview The Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region includes eight basins (numbered 24-31 for reference). The region is in the Central Lowland physiography province, encompassing 3,288 square miles in southwest Oklahoma spanning from the southern portion of Caddo County in the north to the Red River on the south, and including all or portions of Tillman, Caddo, Comanche, Cotton, Grady, Stephens, and Jefferson Counties. The region’s terrain varies from lush pasture in the river bottoms and gently rolling plains to the Wichita Mountains in the northwest, which rise 400 to 1,100 feet above surrounding redbed plains. Mixed eroded plains occur over the southwest portion of the region, much of which has been converted for wheat or cotton production, transitioning east to tallgrass prairie and intergrading in the northeast to Post-Oak-Blackjack forest, known locally as the Cross Timbers. The region has a generally mild climate with average monthly temperatures varying from 38°F in January to 84°F in July (Lawton Regional Airport). Annual average precipitation ranges from 28 inches in the west to 34 inches in the east. Annual evaporation ranges from 27 inches in the west to 33 inches in the east. The largest cities in the region include Lawton (2010 population of 96,867), Duncan (23,431), Frederick (3,940), and Marlow (4,662). The greatest water demand is from municipal and industrial water use followed by crop irrigation. By 2060, this region is projected to have a total water demand of 56,560 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 12,000 AFY (27%) from 2010.peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins is based on 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates. Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 OCWP Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the OCWP Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the OCWP Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website. The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals: Provide safe and dependable water supply 1. for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment. Provide information so that water 2. providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources. In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations. Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved dividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions. This Watershed Planning Region report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the Beaver-Cache Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information. Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O tool, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demands to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demands, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios. Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and Introduction The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints. As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages. Beaver-Cache Regional Report 1 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanBedrock Groundwater Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 17% of the demand in the region. Currently allocated groundwater and projected withdrawals are from the Rush Springs aquifer, and to a lesser extent, the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills and Hennessey-Garber aquifers. Aquifer storage depletions are likely to occur during summer months. These depletions are small relative to the amount of water in storage and maximum annual yields of the aquifers. The Beaver-Cache Region accounts for 2% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sector is Municipal and Industrial (55%), followed by Crop Irrigation (28%). Water Resources & Limitations Surface Water Surface water is used to meet two-thirds of the Beaver-Cache Region’s demand. The region is supplied by three large creeks that flow into the Red River: Beaver Creek, Cache Creek, and Deep Red Creek. Historically, major creeks in the region experience seasonal low flows and extended periods of low flow due to droughts. Large reservoirs have been built on Cache Creek tributaries (Lake Lawtonka and Lake Ellsworth) and Beaver Creek (Waurika Lake) to supply public water systems and irrigators and provide other important regional benefits, such as flood control and recreation. Basins lacking access to major reservoirs are expected to experience physical surface water supply shortages in the future. supply a similar portion of demand in the future, depletions from these aquifers are likely to occur in summer months, although projected depletions will be small relative to the amount of water in storage and permit availability. Water quality issues will remain a concern for the region and may constrain some uses of alluvial groundwater. The availability of water rights is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Water quality may constrain supplies for Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation demand sectors. Public and private water and agriculture supplies in Lake Lawtonka, Waurika Lake, Cow Creek, Deep Red Creek, and Beaver Creek currently have water quality impairments due to elevated levels of total dissolved solids, sulfates, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed, in part, through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but the use of these supplies may be limited in the interim. The availability of water rights is not expected to constrain the use of surface water supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Alluvial Groundwater Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 19% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently allocated alluvial groundwater (i.e., groundwater in alluvial and terrace deposits) withdrawals in the region are from the Tillman Terrace aquifer, and to a lesser extent, the Red River aquifer. If alluvial groundwater is used to Synopsis The Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on surface water supplies (including reservoirs) and to a lesser extent, groundwater supplies. It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on existing reservoirs and major aquifers to meet future demand. Surface water supplies will be insufficient at times to meet demand in basins without major reservoirs. Groundwater storage depletions are anticipated but should be relatively small compared to the amount of water in storage. Construction of additional small reservoirs, new out-of-basin or other regional supplies, and increased reliance on groundwater may be effective solutions for areas with anticipated surface water gaps. Users with surface water gaps or who rely on minor aquifers can increase dependability of their supplies through emergency demand management and conservation, new reservoirs, and/or out-of-basin supplies. Basin 26 has been identified as a “hot spot,” an area where more pronounced water supply availability issues are forecasted. (See “Regional and Statewide Opportunities and Solutions,” 2012 OCWP Executive Report.) Beaver-Cache Regional Summary AFY Current Water Demand: 44,590 acre-feet/year (2% of state total) Largest Demand Sector: Municipal & Industrial (55% of regional total) Current Supply Sources: 64% SW 19% Alluvial GW 17% Bedrock GW Projected Demand (2060): 56,560 acre-feet/year Growth (2010-2060): 11,970 acre-feet/year (27%) Beaver-Cache Region Demand Summary Current and Projected Regional Water Demand 2 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanWater quality issues may constrain future Municipal and Industrial use (due to high fluoride levels) and Crop Irrigation use (due to high chloride levels) from portions of the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills aquifer. The availability of water rights is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. Water Supply Limitations Beaver-Cache Region Water Supply Limitations Surface water limitations are determined based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations are determined based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060; insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions are considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis. Beaver-Cache Regional Report 3 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanThis evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors. Water Supply Option Effectiveness Beaver-Cache Region Water Supply Options To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local and existing out of basin supplies was assumed to continue in current (2010) proportions. Existing major reservoirs are expected to be capable of supplying the majority of surface water demand in the Beaver-Cache region. Basins without access to major reservoirs are expected to experience physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future. The demand in these basins is relatively small and broadly dispersed. Water conservation or emergency drought management practices can aid in reducing projected gaps or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state. Two potentially viable sites were identified in the OCWP Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region. Due to extended dry periods, demand management measures alone will likely be insufficient to prevent gaps. New reservoirs at the basin outlet, typically holding less than 500 acre-feet (AF) of water, could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies in basins without a major reservoir (Basins 24, 26, 29, 30, and 31). Alternatively, interbasin transfer of water from existing major reservoirs or major aquifers could prevent gaps while minor aquifers could help domestic or small volume users meet future demands. Depletions of groundwater storage are anticipated throughout the Beaver-Cache region, particularly during the summer. However, both bedrock and alluvial aquifer storage depletions are minimal compared to the amount of water in storage. Water rights are not expected to constrain the ability to meet local demand through 2060. Users in portions of Basins 24, 25, and 26 currently utilize groundwater from non-delineated minor aquifers. These aquifers typically have low yields, and while providing a valuable source of water for domestic use, may not provide adequate supply for high-volume users. These users can reduce the potential of shortages through emergency demand management and conservation, new small reservoirs, or out-of-basin sources. 4 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 5 Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The largest is Waurika Lake, constructed on Beaver Creek by the USACE in 1977. Waurika Lake is unique in that the USACE was authorized to develop conveyance facilities as a part of the project. The USACE continues to direct flood control operations, but the Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District operates and maintains water supply facilities for its member cities of Comanche, Duncan, Lawton, Temple, and Walters. The City of Lawton impounds two large municipal lakes in the region: Lake Ellsworth, located on East Cache Creek in Comanche and Caddo Counties, and Lake Lawtonka, on Medicine Creek (tributary to East Cache Reservoirs Beaver-Cache Region Reservoir Name Primary Basin Number Reservoir Owner/Operator Year Built Purposes1 Normal Pool Storage Water Supply Irrigation Water Quality Permitted Withdrawals Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted Storage Yield Storage Yield Storage Yield AF AF AFY AF AFY AF AFY AFY AFY Dave Boyer 28 City of Walters 1936 WS, R 936 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Ellsworth 28 City of Lawton 1962 WS, R 81,224 68,700 23,500 0 0 0 0 23,500 0 Frederick 30 City of Frederick 1974 WS, FC, R 9,663 --- --- 0 0 0 0 3,400 --- Lawtonka 28 City of Lawton 1905 WS, R 55,171 64,000 23,500 0 0 0 0 23,500 0 Waurika 25 USACE 1977 FC, IR, WS, WQ, R, FW 203,100 151,400 40,549 16,200 5,041 0 0 44,806 784 1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed. WS = Water Supply, R = Recreation, HP= Hydroelectric Power, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, WQ = Water Quality, FW = Fish & Wildlife, LF = Low Flow Regulation, N = Navigation No known information is annotated as “---” Physical Water Availability Surface Water Resources Surface water has historically been the primary source of supply used to meet demand in the Beaver-Cache Region. The region’s major streams include the Red River, Cache Creek, and Beaver Creek. Water in the Red River mainstem (southern border of the Beaver-Cache region), which maintains substantial flows, is highly mineralized, primarily due to high concentrations of chlorides from natural sources upstream. Without extensive water treatment or management techniques, the high chloride content of the Red River renders water generally unsuitable for most consumptive uses. For this reason, the Red River was not considered as a feasible source of supply in this analysis. As treatment technology evolves over time, treatment costs will likely decrease, and this source may become more attractive relative to other local and regional source options. Also, full implementation of the Red River Chloride Control Project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) could reduce naturally occurring chloride levels in the Red River and its tributaries, thereby making it a more feasible source of future water supply. Cache Creek, located in the central area of the region, consists of a short mainstem and three large tributaries: East Cache Creek (approximately 100 miles long), West Cache Creek (60 miles), and Deep Red Creek (90 miles). Downstream of its confluence with these tributaries, Cache Creek flows southwest to the Red River. Cache Creek and its tributaries are located in Basins 27, 28, 29, and 30. Beaver Creek (80 miles long) originates in northwestern Comanche County and southwestern Grady County. Beaver Creek and its tributaries are located in Basins 24, 25, and 26. Many streams in this region experience a wide range of flows, including both periodic no flow conditions and flooding events. Streamflow is not a dependable supply source for most purposes due to generally intermittent flow and poor water quality. As important sources of surface water in Oklahoma, reservoirs and lakes help provide dependable water supply storage, especially when streams and rivers experience periods of low seasonal flow or drought. Water Supply Creek) near the slopes of Mount Scott in the Wichita Mountains of Comanche County. The reservoirs are owned and operated by Lawton for water supply, flood control, and recreation. Lake Lawtonka receives inflows from Lake Ellsworth to improve yields and maintain water levels. There are many other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), municipal, and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for public water supply, agriculture, flood control, and recreation. 6 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanReservoirs in the Beaver-Cache Region include Dave Boyer, Ellsworth, Frederick, Lawtonka, and Waurika. Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose. Surface Water Resources Beaver-Cache Region Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7 Surface Water Flows (1950-2007) Beaver-Cache Region Surface water is the main source of supply in the Beaver-Cache Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, localized or intermittent shortages can occur due to variability in surface water flows. Several large reservoirs have been constructed to reduce the impacts of drier periods on surface water users. Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060 Beaver-Cache Region Streamflow Statistic Basins 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 AFY Average Annual Flow 195,300 107,000 57,000 399,300 151,000 222,900 122,200 105,800 Minimum Annual Flow 4,400 0 100 36,300 12,900 7,700 4,300 3,500 Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060. Water Supply Availability Analysis For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand. The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol. The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. The unused yield of existing reservoirs was considered for this analysis. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option. Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that an aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer. For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately. Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed. For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions. More information is available in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report on the OWRB website. 8 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Groundwater Resources Two major bedrock aquifers, the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills and Rush Springs, are present in the northern portion of the Beaver-Cache Region, and two major alluvial aquifers, the Tillman Terrace and Red River, are located in the southern portion of the region. The Arbuckle-Timbered Hills aquifer underlies portions of Basins 25, 28, and 29, and consists predominantly of limestone and dolomite. The aquifer occurs in two areas: the Limestone Hills north of the Wichita Mountains, where the aquifer is exposed at land surface, and the Cache-Lawton area south of the Wichita Mountains, where the aquifer is buried under as much as 2,000 feet of younger rock. Availability of groundwater in the Limestone Hills is erratic because of faulting and folding. Most wells are 500 feet or deeper, and wells and springs yield as much as 100 gallons per minute (gpm). In the Cache-Lawton area, well depths range from 350 to more than 2,000 feet, and yields from 25 up to 600 gpm have been reported. Water from the Limestone Hills area is generally very hard; water from the Cache-Lawton area is generally soft. Fluoride concentrations from both areas generally exceed the drinking water standard, limiting use for public water supply. Water in parts of the Cache-Lawton area has high chloride concentrations, which may make the water unsuitable for irrigation. The Rush Springs aquifer is a fine-grained sandstone aquifer with some shale, dolomite, and gypsum. Thickness of the aquifer ranges from 200 to 300 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 400 gpm. The water tends to be very hard, requiring water softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. In some areas nitrate and sulfate concentrations exceed drinking water standards, limiting Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in aquifer depletion and reduced storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability.use for drinking water. This aquifer underlies portions of Basins 25 and 28. Both the Red River and Tillman Terrace alluvial aquifers consist of clay, sandy clay, sand, and gravel. The Red River aquifer, located in southern Tillman, Cotton, and Jefferson Counties, supplies water for municipal, irrigation, and domestic purposes. The average saturated thickness is estimated to be around 20-30 feet; however, little data are available concerning this aquifer and its potential as a major source of groundwater. The Red River aquifer is located in southern portions of Basins 24 and 31. The Tillman Terrace aquifer, located in Tillman County, supplies large quantities of groundwater for irrigation purposes and smaller amounts for municipal and domestic use. The formation averages 70 feet in thickness with an average saturated thickness of about 23 feet. Wells in the aquifer produce 200 to 500 gpm. The water exhibits significant hardness and generally requires softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. Nitrate concentrations in the aquifer often exceed drinking water standards, thereby limiting use for public water supply without significant treatment. The Tillman Terrace aquifer underlies portions of Basin 31. Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the El Reno, Hennessey-Garber, Post Oak, and Southwestern Oklahoma. Minor alluvial aquifers include Beaver Creek and Cache-Creek. Minor aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally have lower well yields which may be insufficient for large volume users. Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge, or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands. Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown. Groundwater Resources Beaver-Cache Region Aquifer Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer Recharge Rate Current Groundwater Rights Aquifer Storage in Region Equal Proportionate Share Groundwater Available for New Permits Name Type Class1 PercentInch/ Yr AFY AF AFY/Acre AFY Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Bedrock Major 10% 0.3-0.6 5,300 883,000 temporary 2.0 429,800 Red River Alluvial Major 6% 2.5 6,900 287,000 temporary 2.0 254,100 Rush Springs Bedrock Major 3% 1.8 17,500 1,558,000 temporary 2.0 103,900 Tillman Terrace Alluvial Major 4% 2.9 11,900 598,000 1.0 68,200 Beaver Creek Alluvial Minor 2% 3.6 0 151,000 1.0 38,300 Cache Creek Alluvial Minor 9% 3.6 6,300 746,000 1.0 180,600 El Reno Bedrock Minor 2% 0.75 2,700 166,000 temporary 2.0 62,600 Hennessey-Garber Bedrock Minor 61% 2.7 3,500 5,579,000 1.6 2,024,400 Post Oak Bedrock Minor 5% 3.6 1,600 2,500,000 2.0 190,000 Southwestern Oklahoma Bedrock Minor 5% 2.25 0 293,000 temporary 2.0 217,100 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Alluvial Minor 2,200 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Bedrock Minor 3,800 1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9 Major bedrock aquifers in the Beaver-Cache Region include Rush Springs and Arbuckle-Timbered Hills. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include Tillman Terrace and Red River. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm. Groundwater Resources Beaver-Cache Region 10 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Groundwater Permit Availability Beaver-Cache Region Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits through 2060 in all aquifers in the Beaver-Cache region. Permit Availability For OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law. In the Beaver-Cache Region, the Tillman Terrace aquifer’s EPS is set at one acre-foot per year (AFY) per acre. For the Rush Springs, Arbuckle Timbered Hills, and Red River aquifers, temporary permits are issued, granting users two AFY per acre of land until the OWRB conducts hydrologic investigations and establishes the maximum annual yield of the basins. Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits in all aquifers and surface water available for new permits in all basins in the Beaver-Cache region through 2060. However, there is substantially less surface water available for permits in Basins 25 and 26 than other basins in the region. If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others. Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the Beaver-Cache Region. Surface Water Permit Availability Beaver-Cache Region Surface Water Permit Availability Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount. To determine surface water permit availability in each OCWP planning basin in 2060, the analysis utilized OWRB protocol to estimate the average annual streamflow at the basin’s outlet point, accounting for both existing and anticipated water uses upstream and downstream, including legal obligations, such as those associated with domestic use and interstate compact requirements. Groundwater Permit Availability Groundwater available for permits in Oklahoma is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer. For unstudied aquifers, temporary permits are granted allocating 2 AFY/acre. For studied aquifers, an “equal proportionate share” (EPS) is established based on the maximum annual yield of water in the aquifer, which is then allocated to each acre of land overlying the groundwater basin. Temporary permits are then converted to regular permits and all new permits are based on the EPS. To calculate groundwater permit availability in 2060, the OCWP analysis determined the geographical area overlying all aquifers in each basin, utilized the respective EPS or temporary permit allocations, then applied current and future permit amounts. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11 with conductivity ranging from approximately 380-550 microSiemens (uS). Lakes and streams are typically phosphorus limited and show moderate cultural eutrophication, which is indicative of higher than normal nutrient concentrations. Ecological diversity is higher and closely resembles the Cross Timbers ecoregion. It can be affected by habitat degradation and sedimentation/siltation. Along the western edge of the transition in the north is the Wichita Mountains ecoregion, which may be the most ecologically diverse ecoregion of the Central Great Plains. Comprised mostly of steep mountains and rocky outcroppings, the Wichita Mountains also support thriving grasslands and dense scrub oak forests. Because of the native geology, the streams are a mixture of cobble, gravel, and sand and resemble waters found in the Arbuckle Uplift of south-central Oklahoma. Likewise, the geology also produces waters that have fair to excellent water clarity and, although slightly alkaline, comparatively low salinity. Characteristic watersheds include Lake Lawtonka and Lake Elmer Thomas. The lakes have good to excellent water clarity, with average turbidity values ranging from 2-8 NTU and Secchi depth readings from 3.5-5.5 feet. The water in Lake Lawtonka is slightly alkaline with an average pH of 8.1 and average hardness of 163.4 ppm. Conversely, with much less buffering capacity and an average hardness of less than 50 ppm, Lake Elmer Thomas has slightly acidic water with nearly 15% of all measured pH values of less than 6.5 units. Moreover, with Ecoregions Beaver-Cache Region The Beaver-Cache region is comprised of several distinct ecoregions, as evidenced by its diverse geology and water quality, which ranges from excellent to poor. Water Quality Water quality of the Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region is markedly different from north to south. Although wholly contained within the Central Great Plains ecoregion, the water quality differences are primarily due to dramatic geographical changes over a very small landmass. The northern third and much of the northeastern portion of the region is comprised of two distinct ecoregions, the Cross Timbers Transition and the Wichita Mountains, which is a mix of forested, irregular plains and steep highlands. Conversely, the southern and mostly western portion of the region is dominated by the Broken Red Plains ecoregion. The Cross Timbers Transition runs from north to south over the eastern portion of the area. As its name denotes, the transitional area is a hybrid mix of rough plains, and the oak/elm forests that dominate much of the Cross Timbers ecoregion. Represented by the Lake Ellsworth and Lake Waurika watersheds, the transition is emblematic of the waters in the Central Great Plains, with more loose sediments, such as sand and silt, and typically higher salinity. Water clarity is poor to average, with an average turbidity of 25-40 NTU and Secchi depths of approximately 1.0-1.5 feet. Likewise, the water is neutral to slightly alkaline, with pH values ranging from 7.2-8.8 and an average hardness of approximately 200 parts per million (ppm). Waters are moderately saline, Lake Trophic Status A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality. Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels. Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels. Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich. Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients. 12 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan a conductivity average of 393.8 uS, Lawtonka resembles the salinity found in much of the southern Cross Timbers. However, Elmer Thomas is similar to waters of Southeastern Oklahoma with a mean conductivity of less than 85 uS. While both lakes are phosphorus limited, Lawtonka is moderately eutrophic, while Elmer Thomas remains oligotrophic and has much lower nutrient concentrations. Ecological diversity is higher than anywhere in the Central Great Plains. It can be affected by habitat degradation and sedimentation/siltation. Much of the central and mostly western portions of the region are dominated by the Broken Red Plains and Red Prairie ecoregions. Although still more irregular than most of the Central Great Plains, it has characteristically sandy soils and is grassland dominated with low density scrub forests. Creeks are mostly sand and silt with much less relief than the northern portion of the Beaver-Cache region. Reservoirs, like Lake Frederick and Lake Dave Boyer, are similar to reservoirs in the Cross Timbers Transition. They normally demonstrate poor water clarity with turbidity ranging on average from 50-100 NTU, and Secchi depths less than one foot. Water is typically alkaline with pH ranging from 7.5 to 8.5 units, and hardness values averaging approximately 200 ppm. Likewise, they are moderately saline with conductivity ranges between 250-650 uS. Additionally, these lakes are eutrophic and phosphorus limited. Conversely, surface water quality in rivers and streams are much more characteristic of water quality in the Central Great Plains. East and West Cache Creeks drain much of the Water Quality Standards Implementation Beaver-Cache Region A 1997 demonstration project on the Beaver and Whiskey Creek watersheds by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission showed that additional non-point source restoration programs would be beneficial. Water Quality Standards and Implementation The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes, other bodies of surface water, and groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics. The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur. The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are permits for point source (e.g. municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters. More information about OWQS and the latest revisions can be found on the OWRB website. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13 central and western portions of the Broken Red Plains and in several ways resemble the reservoirs of the area. Water clarity is typically poor to fair with mean turbidities ranging from 31-48 NTU, and they are slightly alkaline with pH ranging from 7.4-8.5 and hardness ranging from 220-305 ppm. However, salinity in these rivers begins to approximate that seen throughout the plains. The conductivity ranges from a mean of 700 uS on East Cache Creek to near 1160 uS on West Cache Creek. When considering the mainstem of the Red River, the water quality differences become even starker. Water clarity is very poor with an average of 120 NTU. The Red River is moderately alkaline with a pH average of 8.2 but a maximum value of 9.0 units, and a hardness average of 860 ppm. Salinity shows a strong influence from the upper Red River ecoregions as conductivity averages approximately 4,860 uS. Like the reservoirs, rivers and streams are phosphorus limited and eutrophic, but phosphorus and nitrogen values are much higher, with an average of 1.149 ppm and 2.328 ppm, respectively, along East Cache Creek. Lastly, the area is much less diverse ecologically, and is more indicative of plains streams. Habitat degradation, flow modification, and sedimentation/siltation can decrease diversity. Although a statewide groundwater water quality program does not exist in Oklahoma, various aquifer studies have been completed, and data are available from municipal authorities and other sources. As was stated earlier in this document, the Beaver-Cache region is underlain by several major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. In most Regional water quality impairments are based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Natural elevated levels of salinity in this region produce agricultural use impacts and make several streams unsuitable for use as public water supply. Waurika and Lawtonka lakes, which are both designated as Sensitive Water Supply (SWS) sources, are impaired due to high levels of chlorophyll-a. Water Quality Impairments Beaver-Cache Region Water Quality Impairments A waterbody is considered to be impaired when its quality does not meet the standards prescribed for its beneficial uses in the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS). For example, impairment of the Public and Private Water Supply beneficial use means the use of the waterbody as a drinking water supply is hindered. Impairment of the Agricultural use means the use of the waterbody for livestock watering, irrigation, or other agricultural uses is hindered. Impairments can exist for other uses, such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation or Recreation. The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP), established in 1998 to document and quantify impairments of assigned beneficial uses of the state’s lakes and streams, provides information for supporting and updating the OWQS and prioritizing pollution control programs. A set of rules known as “use support assessment protocols” is also used to determine whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are being supported. In an individual waterbody, after impairments have been identified, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is conducted to establish the sources of impairments— whether from point sources (discharges) or non-point sources (runoff). The study will then determine the amount of reduction necessary to meet the applicable water quality standards in that waterbody and allocate loads among the various contributors of pollution. For more detailed review of the state’s water quality conditions, see the most recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, a comprehensive assessment of water quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required by the federal Clean Water Act and developed by the ODEQ. 14 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Agriculture Beaver-Cache Region southwest Oklahoma alluvial aquifers, water quality is good, and except for hardness and localized nitrate problems, the water is appropriate for domestic, irrigation, industrial and municipal use. Throughout much of southwestern Oklahoma, thick deposits of salt and gypsum occur in many Permian-age formations creating high chloride and sulfate concentrations, which can migrate into portions of alluvial aquifers. Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the Rush Springs Sandstone and Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group. The Rush Springs Sandstone extends into the northeastern most portion of the region. Although comparatively hard, most of Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply Beaver-Cache Regionthe water derived from it is suitable for domestic, municipal, irrigation and industrial use, with total dissolved solids (TDS) values generally less than 500 ppm. However, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate concentrations exceed drinking water standards in some areas. The Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group occurs in two areas: in the Limestone Hills north of the Wichita Mountains and in the Cache-Lawton area south of the Wichita Mountains. Water from the Limestone Hills area sometimes contains hydrogen sulfide gas and is very hard, calcium bicarbonate water, with total dissolved solids ranging from 195 to 940 ppm. Water from the Cache-Lawton area is soft and of a sodium-chloride type with total dissolved solids ranging from 279 to 6,380 ppm. Where permeability is high, water in the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group may be suitable for industrial use. Because fluoride concentrations generally range from 1.6 to 17 ppm and exceed drinking water standards, public water supply use is limited. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 15 Lake Frederick, a public water supply reservoir, does not have a SWS designation, which could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watershed and provide limits for algae (chlorophyll-a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs. Surface Water Protection Areas Beaver-Cache Region Surface Water Protection The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways. Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas. Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma. The High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants. The Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs. Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants. Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma. Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients. 16 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Groundwater Protection Areas Beaver-Cache Region Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater based upon OWRB vulnerability modeling. The Red River alluvial aquifer has been identified by the OWRB as highly vulnerable but currently lacks protection to prevent degradation. Groundwater Protection The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.” Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies. Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures. Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities. Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas. Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution. NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17 Water Quality Trends Study As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus. Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity. Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details. Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend. Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire period • of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%. Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%. Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues. Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural, and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high. Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate, and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and habitat. Total Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess phosphorus leads to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment. Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration. 18 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Stream Water Quality Trends Beaver-Cache Region Parameter Red River near Terral, OK East Cache Creek near Walters, OK All Data Trend (1967-1995, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) All Data Trend (1969-1993, 1998-2009)1 Recent Trend (1998-2009) Conductivity (us/cm) NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT Turbidity (NTU) Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division. 1Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters. Notable concerns for stream water quality include the following: Significant upward trend for conductivity and nutrients on East Cache Creek• Significant increase in turbidity over the entire period of record at all stations• Reservoir Water Quality Trends Beaver-Cache Region Parameter Lake Ellsworth Lake Lawtonka Walters Lake Waurika Lake (1994-2009) (1998-2009) (1995-2008) (1996-2008) Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3) NT Conductivity (us/cm) NT NT Total Nitrogen (mg/L) NT Total Phosphorus (mg/L) NT NT NT Turbidity (NTU) NT NT NT Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division. Notable concerns for reservoir water quality include the following: Significant upward trends both chlorophyll-a and total nitrogen on several reservoirs• Significant upward trend in conductivity at both Lawtonka and Walters• Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Report 19 Self-Supplied Residential (SSR) demand is projected to account for approximately 1% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 89% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 11% by bedrock groundwater. Self-Supplied Industrial demand is projected to account for less than 1% of the 2060 demand. Demand for this sector is supplied by surface water. The Beaver-Cache Region’s water needs account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand is projected to increase by 27% (12,000 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of demand and largest growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is projected to account for approximately 51% of the region’s 2060 demand. Currently, 89% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 3% by alluvial groundwater, and 8% by bedrock groundwater. Crop Irrigation demand is projected to account for 28% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 25% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water, 48% by alluvial groundwater, and 27% by bedrock groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops in the Beaver-Cache Region include cotton, pasture grasses, and wheat. Thermoelectric Power demand is projected to account for 8% of the 2060 demand. The Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s Comanche Plant, which is supplied by surface water, is a large user of water for thermoelectric power generation in the region. Livestock demand is projected to account for 7% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 35% of the demand for this sector is supplied by surface water, 29% by alluvial groundwater, and 36% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly cattle for cow-calf production. Oil and Gas (O&G) demand is projected to account for 4% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 78% of the demand for this sector is supplied by surface water, 5% by alluvial groundwater, and 17% by bedrock groundwater. Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin (Percent of Total Basin Demand) Beaver-Cache Region Water Demand Municipal and Industrial demand is expected to remain the largest sector in the region, accounting for 51% of the projected total regional demand in 2060. 20 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Supply Sources Used to Meet Current Demand (2010) Beaver-Cache Region Water needs in the Beaver-Cache Region account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand is projected to increase by 27% (11,970 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors. Total Water Demand by Sector Beaver-Cache Region Total Water Demand by Sector Beaver-Cache Region Planning Horizon Crop Irrigation Livestock Municipal & Industrial Oil & Gas Self-Supplied Industrial Self-Supplied Residential Thermoelectric Power Total AFY 2010 12,390 3,910 24,600 550 200 370 2,570 44,590 2020 13,090 3,950 25,980 810 200 400 2,860 47,290 2030 13,780 4,000 26,970 1,120 200 410 3,190 49,670 2040 14,480 4,040 27,780 1,470 210 430 3,560 51,970 2050 15,010 4,090 28,480 1,890 210 440 3,980 54,090 2060 15,860 4,140 29,110 2,350 220 450 4,440 56,560 Water Demand Water demand refers to the amount of water required to meet the needs of people, communities, industry, agriculture, and other users. Growth in water demand frequently corresponds to growth in population, agriculture, industry, or related economic activity. Demands have been projected from 2010 to 2060 in ten-year increments for seven distinct consumptive water demand sectors. Water Demand Sectors nThermoelectric Power: Thermoelectric power producing plants, using both self-supplied water and municipal-supplied water, are included in the thermoelectric power sector. n Self-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector. n Self-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system are included in the SSI sector. Water use data and employment counts were included in this sector when available. n Oil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as Self-Supplied Industrial use), are included in the oil and gas sector. n Municipal and Industrial: These demands represent water that is provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants. n Livestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census. n Crop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports. OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation, and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin. Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the basin summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports. Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21 There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94% of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs. The Beaver-Cache Region includes 33 of the 785 public supply systems analyzed for the 2012 OCWP Update. The Public Water Providers map indicates the approximate service areas of these systems. (The map may not accurately represent existing service areas or legal boundaries. In addition, water systems often serve multiple counties and can extend into multiple planning basins and regions.) In terms of population served (excluding provider-to-provider sales), the five largest systems in the region, in decreasing order, are Lawton, Duncan, Caddo County Rural Water District (RWD) 3, Frederick, and Jefferson County Consolidated RWD 1. These five systems provide service for more than 75% of the population served by public water providers in the region. Demand upon public water systems, which comprises the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial water demand sector, was analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water Public Water Providers production or distribution to residential homes and businesses. Retail demand does not include wholesaled water. OCWP provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede water demand forecasts developed by individual providers. OCWP analyses were made using a consistent methodology based on accepted data available on a statewide basis. Where available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort. Public Water Providers Beaver-Cache Region 22 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Providers SDWIS ID1 County Retail Per Capita (GPD)2 Planning Horizon 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 APACHE OK2000806 Caddo 111 1,618 1,686 1,735 1,784 1,843 1,892 CACHE OK2001607 Comanche 148 2,422 2,584 2,726 2,840 2,926 2,992 CHATTANOOGA PWS OK2001608 Comanche 60 555 604 628 652 676 688 COMANCHE CO RWD #1 OK3001602 Comanche 179 2,858 3,053 3,220 3,350 3,452 3,536 COMANCHE CO RWD #2 OK2001604 Comanche 82 701 749 790 822 847 867 COMANCHE CO RWD #3 OK2001602 Comanche 80 806 861 909 945 974 998 COMANCHE CO RWD #4 OK3001654 Comanche 109 3,572 3,816 4,026 4,187 4,315 4,419 COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS OK1011101 Stephens 253 1,700 1,711 1,733 1,755 1,777 1,821 COTTON CO RWD #1 OK3001702 Cotton 116 607 615 624 632 652 660 COTTON CO RWD #2 OK2001702 Cotton 140 2,023 2,051 2,079 2,107 2,173 2,201 DAVIDSON OK2007104 Tillman 270 150 154 158 162 166 170 DEVOL OK3001701 Cotton 250 150 150 150 150 160 160 DUNCAN OK1010809 Stephens 198 22,500 22,762 22,973 23,235 23,607 24,070 ELGIN PWS OK2001610 Comanche 99 1,528 1,634 1,716 1,787 1,834 1,881 FAXON OK3001675 Comanche 97 134 144 153 163 163 172 FLETCHER OK2001612 Comanche 87 1,043 1,109 1,175 1,223 1,261 1,289 FREDERICK OK1011401 Tillman 245 5,300 5,415 5,531 5,646 5,762 5,935 GERONIMO OK3001680 Comanche 72 976 1,042 1,099 1,147 1,175 1,203 GRANDFIELD OK2007103 Tillman 140 1,140 1,161 1,192 1,213 1,244 1,275 HOLLISTER OK2007102 Tillman 64 60 60 60 60 60 60 INDIAHOMA OK2001609 Comanche 57 355 382 400 418 426 435 JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1 OK3003401 Jefferson 197 4,146 4,213 4,280 4,343 4,469 4,595 LAWTON OK1011303 Comanche 181 110,957 118,723 124,436 128,881 132,372 135,224 MANITOU OK3007101 Tillman 196 286 286 296 306 306 317 MEDICINE PARK OK3001603 Comanche 122 376 404 423 441 451 460 RYAN OK3003405 Jefferson 214 894 904 915 925 956 986 STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN) OK2006905 Stephens 75 1,610 1,629 1,644 1,663 1,690 1,722 STERLING PWA OK2001601 Comanche 105 779 827 874 912 941 960 TEMPLE OK1011306 Cotton 98 1,152 1,172 1,192 1,213 1,243 1,263 TILLMAN CO RWD #1 OK2007107 Tillman 97 1,500 1,532 1,564 1,596 1,628 1,676 WALTERS OK1011305 Cotton 107 2,760 2,802 2,843 2,885 2,968 3,010 WAURIKA LAKE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Jefferson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WAURIKA PWA OK1011201 Jefferson 295 2,200 2,234 2,269 2,303 2,372 2,441 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System 2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day. Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served Beaver-Cache Region Population and Demand Projection Data Provider level population and demand projection data, developed specifically for OCWP analyses, focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population served that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23 Projections of Retail Water Demand Each public water supply system has a “retail” demand, defined as the amount of water used by residential and non-residential customers within that provider’s service area. Public-supplied residential demands include water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demands include customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demands do not include wholesale water to other providers. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is driven by projected population growth and specific customer characteristics. Demand forecasts for each public system are estimated from average water use (in gallons per capita per day) multiplied by projected population. Oklahoma Department of Commerce 2002 population projections (unpublished special tabulation for the OWRB) were calibrated to 2007 Census estimates and used to establish population growth rates for cities, towns, and rural areas through 2060. Population growth rates were applied to 2007 population-served values for each provider to project future years’ service area (retail) populations. The main source of data for per capita water use for each provider was the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey conducted by the OWRB in cooperation with the Oklahoma Rural Water Association and Oklahoma Municipal League. For each responding provider, data from the survey included population served, annual average daily demand, total water produced, wholesale purchases and sales between providers, and estimated system losses. For missing or incomplete data, the weighted average per capita demand was used for the provider’s county. In some cases, provider survey data were supplemented with data from the OWRB water rights database. Per capita supplier demands can vary over time due to precipitation and service area characteristics, such as commercial and industrial activity, tourism, or conservation measures. For the baseline demand projections described here, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems. Providers SDWIS ID1 County Retail Demand Including System Loss 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 AFY APACHE OK2000806 Caddo 202 210 216 222 230 236 CACHE OK2001607 Comanche 402 428 452 471 485 496 CHATTANOOGA PWS OK2001608 Comanche 37 41 42 44 46 46 COMANCHE CO RWD #1 OK3001602 Comanche 572 611 644 670 690 707 COMANCHE CO RWD #2 OK2001604 Comanche 64 69 73 75 78 80 COMANCHE CO RWD #3 OK2001602 Comanche 72 77 81 85 87 89 COMANCHE CO RWD #4 OK3001654 Comanche 435 464 490 509 525 538 COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS OK1011101 Stephens 482 485 491 497 504 516 COTTON CO RWD #1 OK3001702 Cotton 79 80 81 82 85 86 COTTON CO RWD #2 OK2001702 Cotton 317 322 326 330 341 345 DAVIDSON OK2007104 Tillman 45 47 48 49 50 51 DEVOL OK3001701 Cotton 42 42 42 42 45 45 DUNCAN OK1010809 Stephens 4,998 5,056 5,103 5,161 5,244 5,347 ELGIN PWS OK2001610 Comanche 170 182 191 199 204 209 FAXON OK3001675 Comanche 15 16 17 18 18 19 FLETCHER OK2001612 Comanche 101 108 114 119 123 125 FREDERICK OK1011401 Tillman 1,456 1,488 1,520 1,551 1,583 1,631 GERONIMO OK3001680 Comanche 79 84 89 92 95 97 GRANDFIELD OK2007103 Tillman 179 182 187 191 196 200 HOLLISTER OK2007102 Tillman 4 4 4 4 4 4 INDIAHOMA OK2001609 Comanche 23 24 26 27 27 28 JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1 OK3003401 Jefferson 915 930 945 958 986 1,014 LAWTON OK1011303 Comanche 22,461 24,033 25,190 26,089 26,796 27,373 MANITOU OK3007101 Tillman 63 63 65 67 67 69 MEDICINE PARK OK3001603 Comanche 51 55 58 60 61 63 RYAN OK3003405 Jefferson 214 217 219 222 229 236 STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN) OK2006905 Stephens 134 136 137 139 141 144 STERLING PWA OK2001601 Comanche 92 97 103 107 111 113 TEMPLE OK1011306 Cotton 126 128 131 133 136 138 TILLMAN CO RWD #1 OK2007107 Tillman 164 167 171 174 177 183 WALTERS OK1011305 Cotton 332 337 342 347 357 362 WAURIKA LAKE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Jefferson 0 0 0 0 0 0 WAURIKA PWA OK1011201 Jefferson 728 739 751 762 785 808 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System Public Water Provider Demand Forecast Beaver-Cache Region 24 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Provider SDWIS ID1 Sales Purchases Sells To Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both Purchases from Emergency or Ongoing Treated or Raw or Both COMANCHE CO RWD #1 OK3001602 Lawton O T COMANCHE CO RWD #2 OK2001604 Lawton E T COMANCHE CO RWD #3 OK2001602 Lawton Stephens Co RWD #5 Walters O E O T T T COMANCHE CO RWD #4 OK3001654 Indiahoma O T Snyder O T COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS OK1011101 Stephens Co RWD #3 (Meridian) Jefferson Co Cons RWD #1 O O T R Waurika Lake MCD O R COTTON CO RWD #1 OK3001702 Grandfield O DAVIDSON OK2007104 Frederick O T DEVOL OK3001701 Grandfield O T DUNCAN OK1010809 Stephens Co RWD #5 Jefferson Co RWD #1 O O T T Waurika Lake MCD O R FAXON OK3001675 Tillman Co RWD #1 O T FREDERICK OK1011401 Davidson Grandfield Manitou Tillman Co RWD #1 Tipton O O O O O T T T T T GERONIMO OK3001680 Lawton O T GRANDFIELD OK2007103 Devol Cotton Co RWD #1 O O T Frederick O T HOLLISTER OK2007102 Tillman Co RWD #1 O T INDIAHOMA OK2001609 Comanche Co RWD #4 O T JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1 OK3003401 Healdton E T Duncan Comanche Public Works Waurika PWA O O O T T T LAWTON OK1011303 Comanche Co RWD #1 Comanche Co RWD #2 Comanche Co RWD #3 Medicine Park Geronimo O E O O O T T T T T Waurika Lake MCD O R MANITOU OK3007101 Frederick O T MEDICINE PARK OK3001603 Lawton O T RYAN OK3003405 Waurika PWA O T STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN) OK2006905 Comanche Public Works O T STERLING PWA OK2001601 TEMPLE OK1011306 Waurika Lake MCD O R TILLMAN CO RWD #1 OK2007107 Faxon Hollister O O T T Frederick O T WALTERS OK1011305 Comanche Co RWD #3 O T Waurika Lake MCD WAURIKA LAKE MCD NONE Comanche Duncan Lawton Temple Walters Waurika O O O O O O R R R R R R WAURIKA PWA OK1011201 Jefferson Co Cons RWD #1 Ryan O O R T Waurika Lake MCD 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System Wholesale Water Transfers Beaver-Cache Region Wholesale Water Transfers Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demands. Wholesale quantities typically vary from year to year depending upon growth, precipitation, emergency conditions, and agreements between systems. Water transfers between providers can help alleviate costs associated with developing or maintaining infrastructure, such as a reservoir or pipeline; allow access to higher quality or more reliable sources; or provide additional supplies only when required, such as in cases of supply emergencies. Utilizing the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey and OWRB water rights data, the Wholesale Water Transfers table presents a summary of known wholesale arrangements for providers in the region. Transfers can consist of treated or raw water and can occur on a regular basis or only during emergencies. Providers commonly sell to and purchase from multiple water providers. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25 Provider SDWIS ID1 County Water Rights Source Permitted Surface Water Permitted Alluvial Groundwater Permitted Bedrock Groundwater AFY Percent APACHE OK2000806 Caddo 1,743 0% 0% 100% CACHE OK2001607 Comanche 258 0% 0% 100% CHATTANOOGA PWS OK2001608 Comanche --- --- --- --- COMANCHE CO RWD #1 OK3001602 Comanche --- --- --- --- COMANCHE CO RWD #2 OK2001604 Comanche 198 0% 0% 100% COMANCHE CO RWD #3 OK2001602 Comanche 288 0% 59% 41% COMANCHE CO RWD #4 OK3001654 Comanche --- --- --- --- COMANCHE PUBLIC WORKS OK1011101 Stephens 360 100% 0% 0% COTTON CO RWD #1 OK3001702 Cotton 168 0% 0% 100% COTTON CO RWD #2 OK2001702 Cotton 1,006 0% 61% 39% DAVIDSON OK2007104 Tillman 328 0% 100% 0% DEVOL OK3001701 Cotton 7 0% 100% 0% DUNCAN OK1010809 Stephens 6,653 100% 0% 0% ELGIN PWS OK2001610 Comanche 620 0% 0% 100% FAXON OK3001675 Comanche --- --- --- --- FLETCHER OK2001612 Comanche 156 0% 0% 100% FREDERICK OK1011401 Tillman 4,450 76% 24% 0% GERONIMO OK3001680 Comanche 219 0% 48% 52% GRANDFIELD OK2007103 Tillman 928 0% 100% 0% HOLLISTER OK2007102 Tillman --- --- --- --- INDIAHOMA OK2001609 Comanche 240 0% 0% 100% JEFFERSON CO CONS RWD #1 OK3003401 Jefferson --- --- --- --- LAWTON OK1011303 Comanche 42,233 100% 0% 0% MANITOU OK3007101 Tillman 87 0% 100% 0% MEDICINE PARK OK3001603 Comanche --- --- --- --- RYAN OK3003405 Jefferson --- --- --- --- STEPHENS CO RWD #3 (MERIDIAN) OK2006905 Stephens 865 0% 0% 100% STERLING PWA OK2001601 Comanche 260 0% 0% 100% TEMPLE OK1011306 Cotton --- --- --- --- TILLMAN CO RWD #1 OK2007107 Tillman 234 0% 100% 0% WALTERS OK1011305 Cotton 268 100% 0% 0% WAURIKA LAKE MCD (Wholesaler Only) None Jefferson 44,806 100% 0% 0% WAURIKA PWA OK1011201 Jefferson --- --- --- --- 1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals (2010) Beaver-Cache Region Provider Water Rights Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s), source of supply, and reported water use have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider. A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider. In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights. 26 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Apache PWA (Caddo County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replace two miles of 4-inch clay tile water line with 6-inch water line. Replace 10 fire plugs. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: new water tower. Town of Cache (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Rush Springs Aquifer) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: treat supplies from two recently drilled wells for high levels of fluoride; replace a 3-inch water line with a 6-inch water line; add a new pump to existing booster station and pump housing to comply with DEQ requirements. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: increase the main water line size throughout the distribution system; treat supplies from 4 existing wells for fluoride. Chattanooga PWS (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (West Cache Creek Alluvial Aquifer) Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: two new wells. Infrastructure improvements: chlorine stations for new wells. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche Co. RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Lawton Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: groundwater. Infrastructure improvements: connect new well field to the north end of the distribution system; construct two new water towers. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Arbuckle Group Aquifer) Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: purchase additional water rights. Infrastructure improvements: new distribution lines and storage. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (West Cache Creek Alluvial Aquifer), surface water (Lawton, Walters). Emergency source: Stephens RWD 5. Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: expand existing wellfield. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche County RWD 4 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Mountain Park MCD Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: potential contract for water from the City of Lawton. No infrastructure improvements identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Comanche Public Works (Stephens County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika MCD. Emergency source: Comanche Lake. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Cotton County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Grandfield PWA Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: new water storage tank. Long-Term Needs None Identified. Cotton County RWD 2 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Red River Terrace Aquifer) Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: additional well. Town of Davidson (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lake Frederick, groundwater (Tillman Terrace Aquifer) Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Devol (Cotton County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Grandfield PWA Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Duncan (Stephens County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika Lake Waurika MCD, Lake Humphreys, Lake Fuqua Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add raw water lines from Lake Fuqua. Long-Term Needs None identified. Elgin PWS (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Rush Springs Aquifer) Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: two new wells. Infrastructure improvements: new water tower; new 12” water line from well fields to town. Town of Faxon (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Tillman County RWD 1 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replacement of water meters in some areas of town; upgrade water lines. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: replacement of major main water lines and possible expansion of new lines into new housing development. Fletcher Water Dept. (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (Rush Springs Aquifer) Short-Term Needs No new water supply sources identified. Infrastructure improvements: one new well. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: expand well system in Rush Springs Aquifer. Infrastructure improvements: replace and expand water lines in the distribution system; add additional storage. OCWP Provider Survey Beaver-Cache Region Provider Supply Plans In 2008, a survey was sent to 785 municipal and rural water providers throughout Oklahoma to collect vital background water supply and system information. Additional detail for each of these providers was solicited in 2010 as part of follow-up interviews conducted by the ODEQ. The 2010 interviews sought to confirm key details of the earlier survey and document additional details regarding each provider’s water supply infrastructure and plans. This included information on existing sources of supply (including surface water, groundwater, and other providers), short-term supply and infrastructure plans, and long-term supply and infrastructure plans. In instances where no new source was identified, maintenance of the current source of supply is expected into the future. Providers may or may not have secured the necessary funding to implement their stated plans concerning infrastructure needs, commonly including additional wells or raw water conveyance, storage, and replacement/upgrade of treatment and distribution systems. Additional support for individual water providers wishing to pursue enhanced planning efforts is documented in the Public Water Supply Planning Guide. This guide details how information contained in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports and related planning documents can be used to formulate provider-level plans to meet present and future needs of individual water systems. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27 City of Frederick (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Mountain Park MCD, Frederick Lake, & Tom Steed Reservoir Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: complete water treatment, storage, and distribution improvement projects to attain TTHM compliance and other benefits. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: continue upgrades as needed. Town of Geronimo (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Lawton Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. City of Grandfield (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Frederick, groundwater (Red River Terrace Aquifer) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: correct order deficiencies to obtain TTHM compliance; construct facility to eliminate nitrates in groundwater. Long-Term Needs None identified. Hollister PWA (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Tillman County RWD 1 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: add new valves. Long-Term Needs None identified. Town of Indiahoma (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Comanche County RWD 4 Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: treatment of well water. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: use groundwater sources. Infrastructure improvements: new system to remove impurities. Jefferson County Cons RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika PWA, Duncan, Comanche Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: use groundwater sources. Infrastructure improvements: well field currently in progress. Sterling PWA (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater (El Reno Group Aquifer) Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: extend distribution line. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: continue extending distribution system. Temple Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika MCD. Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Tillman County RWD 1 Current Source of Supply Primary source: Frederick Lake, Cache Creek Alluvial Aquifer Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: new wells. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: construct a reverse osmosis system to remove nitrates from groundwater.) Walters PWA (Cotton County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Lake Dave Boyer, East Cache Creek, & Waurika MCD Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: increase pipeline capacity. Waurika Lake MCD (Wholesaler Only) No Information Waurika PWA (Jefferson County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika MCD Short-Term Needs New water supply sources: one additional well. Infrastructure improvements: install a microfiltration water treatment plant. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: new wells. Infrastructure improvements: install new water lines; add more filtration units to the water treatment plant; construct a bigger clearwell; add storage. City of Lawton (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika MCD, Lake Ellsworth, Lake Lawtonka Short-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: upgrade distribution capacity; purchase additional storage. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: Expansion of treatment capacity of the SEWTP; Installation of additional pumping capacity to convey water from SEWTP to Ft. Sill and industrial facilities west of the City; installation of additional pipes to upgrade the distribution system; improve pumping capacity from MPWTP. Town of Manitou (Tillman County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Frederick Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs New water supply sources: groundwater from existing unused wells. Infrastructure improvements: develop plan to utilize wells with a blending station. Town of Medicine Park (Comanche County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: City of Lawton Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs Infrastructure improvements: extend infrastructure (piping and storage) to serve areas currently without water service. Town of Ryan (Jefferson County) Current Source of Supply Primary source: Waurika PWA Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. Stephens County RWD 3 Current Source of Supply Primary source: groundwater Short-Term Needs None identified. Long-Term Needs None identified. OCWP Provider Survey Beaver-Cache Region 28 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Infrastructure Cost Summary Beaver-Cache Region Provider System Category1 Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars) Present - 2020 2021 - 2040 2041 - 2060 Total Period Small $480 $140 $290 $910 Medium $40 $250 $10 $300 Large $160 $80 $70 $310 Reservoir $60 $0 $0 $60 TOTAL $740 $470 $370 $1,580 1 Large providers are defined as those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems as those serving between 3,301 and 100,000 people, and small systems as those serving 3,300 and fewer people. The “reservoir” category is for rehabilitation projects. Approximately $1.6 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure • needs of the Beaver-Cache region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur within the next 20 years. Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 80% of the providers’ • estimated infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment and source water projects. Small providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.• Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs comprise approximately 4% of the • total costs. Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water. Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While estimated costs for new reservoirs are not included, rehabilitation project costs for existing major reservoirs were applied at the regional level. More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the OCWP Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region report. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Report 29 Water Supply Options Limitations Analysis For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. Physical availability limitations for surface water were referred to as gaps. Availability limitations for alluvial and bedrock groundwater were referred to as depletions. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur. Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%. The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map in the regional summary). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was also the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data. Basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most significant limitations ranking were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report. Primary Options To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). For basins where shortages are not projected, no options are necessary and thus none were evaluated. Demand Management “Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing conservation or drought management measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Conservation measures” refer to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year, while “drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements. Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irrigation. For the Watershed Planning Region reports, only moderately expanded conservation activities were considered when assessing the overall effectiveness of the demand management option for each basin. A broader analysis of moderate and substantial conservation measures statewide is discussed below and summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OCWP Executive Report. Demand management was considered to be “typically effective” in basins where it would likely eliminate both gaps and storage depletions and “potentially effective” in basins where it would likely either reduce gaps and depletions or eliminate either gaps or depletions (but not both). There were no basins where demand management could not reduce gaps and/or storage depletions to at least some extent; therefore this option was not rated “likely ineffective” for any basin. Out-of-Basin Supplies Use of “out-of-basin supplies” refers to the option of transferring water through pipelines from a source in one basin to another basin. This option was considered a “potentially effective” solution in all basins due to its general potential in eliminating gaps and depletions. The option was not rated “typically effective” because complexity and cost make it only practical as a long-term solution. The effectiveness of this option for a basin was also assessed with the consideration of potential new reservoir sites within the respective region as identified in the Expanded Options section below and the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study. Reservoir Use “Reservoir Use” refers to the development of additional in-basin reservoir storage. Reservoir storage can be provided through increased use of existing facilities, such as reallocation of existing purposes at major federal reservoir sites or rehabilitation of smaller NRCS projects to include municipal and/or industrial water supply, or the construction of new reservoirs. The effectiveness rating of reservoir use for a basin was based on a hypothetical reservoir located at the furthest downstream basin outlet. Water transmission and legal or water quality constraints were not considered; however, potential constraints in permit availability were noted. A site located further upstream could potentially provide adequate yield to meet demand, but would likely require greater storage than a site located at the basin outlet. The effectiveness rating was also largely contingent upon the existence of previously studied reservoir sites (see the Expanded Options section below) and/or the ability of new streamflow diversions with storage to meet basin water demands. Reservoir use was considered “typically effective” in basins containing one or more potentially viable reservoir sites unless the basin was fully allocated for surface water and had no permit availability. For basins with no permit availability, reservoir use was considered “potentially effective,” since diversions would be limited to existing 30 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan permits. Reservoir use was also considered “potentially effective” in basins that generate sufficient reservoir yield to meet future demand. Statewide, the reservoir use option was considered “likely ineffective” in only three basins (Basins 18, 55, and 66), where it was determined that insufficient streamflow would be available to provide an adequate reservoir yield to meet basin demand. Increasing Reliance on Surface Water “Increasing reliance on surface water” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing surface water use. For baseline analysis, the proportion of future demand supplied by surface water and groundwater for each sector is assumed equal to current proportions. Increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions without reservoir storage or releases upstream from storage provides a reliable supply option in limited areas of the state and has potential to mitigate bedrock groundwater depletions and/or alluvial groundwater depletions. However, this option largely depends upon local conditions concerning the specific location, amount, and timing of the diversion. Due to this uncertainty, the pronounced periods of low streamflow in many river systems across the state, and the potential to create or augment surface water gaps, this option was considered “typically ineffective” for all basins. The preferred alternative statewide is reservoir use, which provides the most reliable surface water supply source. Increasing Reliance on Groundwater “Increasing reliance on groundwater” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing groundwater use. Supplies from major aquifers are particularly reliable because they generally exhibit higher well yields and contain large amounts of water in storage. Minor aquifers can also contain large amounts of water in storage, but well yields are typically lower and may be insufficient to meet the needs of high volume water users. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered prior to large-scale use. Additional groundwater supplies may also be developed through artificial recharge (groundwater storage and recovery), which is summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OWRB Executive Report. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically effective” in basins where both gaps and depletions could be mitigated in a measured fashion that did not lead to additional groundwater depletions. This option was considered “potentially effective” in basins where surface water gaps could be mitigated by increased groundwater use, but would likely result in increased depletions in either alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically ineffective” in basins where there were no major aquifers. Expanded Options In addition to the standard analysis of primary options for each basin, specific OCWP studies were conducted statewide on several more advanced though less conventional options that have potential to reduce basin gaps and depletions. More detailed summaries of these options are available in the OWRB Executive Report. Full reports are available on the OWRB website. Expanded Conservation Measures Water conservation was considered an essential component of the “demand management” option in basin-level analysis of options for reducing or eliminating gaps and storage depletions. At the basin level, moderately expanded conservation measures were used as the basis for analyzing effectiveness. In a broader OCWP study, summarized in the OCWP Executive Report and documented in the OCWP Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change, both moderately and substantially expanded conservation activities were analyzed at a statewide level for the state’s two largest demand sectors: Municipal/ Industrial (M&I) and Crop Irrigation. For each sector, two scenarios were analyzed: (1) moderately expanded conservation activities, and (2) substantially expanded conservation activities. Water savings for the municipal and industrial and crop irrigation water use sectors were assessed, and for the M&I sector, a cost-benefit analysis was performed to quantify savings associated with reduced costs in drinking water production and decreased wastewater treatment. The energy savings and associated water savings realized as a result of these decreases were also quantified. Artificial Aquifer Recharge In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1410 requiring the OWRB to develop and implement criteria to prioritize potential locations throughout the state where artificial recharge demonstration projects are most feasible to meet future water supply challenges. A workgroup of numerous water agencies and user groups was organized to identify suitable locations in both alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Fatal flaw and threshold screening analyses resulted in identification of six alluvial sites and nine bedrock sites. These sites were subjected to further analysis that resulted in three sites deemed by the workgroup as having the best potential for artificial recharge demonstration projects. Where applicable, potential recharge sites are noted in the “Increasing Reliance on Groundwater” option discussion in basin data and analysis sections of the Watershed Planning Region Reports. The site selection methodology and results for the five selected sites are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Artificial Aquifer Recharge Issues and Recommendations report. Marginal Quality Water Sources In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1627 requiring the OWRB to establish a technical workgroup to analyze the expanded use of marginal quality water (MQW) from various sources throughout the state. The group included representatives from state and federal agencies, industry, and other stakeholders. Through facilitated discussions, the group defined MQW as that which has been historically unusable due to technological or economic issues associated with diverting, treating, and/or conveying the water. Five categories of MQW were identified for further characterization and technical analysis: (1) treated wastewater effluent, (2) stormwater runoff, (3) oil and gas flowback/produced water, (4) brackish surface and groundwater, and (5) water with elevated levels of key constituents, such as nitrates, that would require advanced treatment prior to beneficial use. A phased approach was utilized to meet the study’s objectives, which included quantifying and characterizing MQW sources and their locations for use through 2060, assessing constraints to MQW use, and matching identified sources of MQW with projected water shortages across the state. Feasibility of actual use was also reviewed. Of all the general MQW uses evaluated, water reuse—beneficially using treated wastewater to meet certain demand—is perhaps the most commonly applied elsewhere in the U.S. Similarly, wastewater was determined to be one of the most viable sources of marginal quality water for short-term use in Oklahoma. Results of the workgroup’s study are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Marginal Quality Water Issues and Recommendations report. Potential Reservoir Development Oklahoma is the location of many reservoirs that provide a dependable, vital water supply source for numerous purposes. While economic, environmental, cultural, and geographical constraints generally limit the construction of new reservoirs, significant interest persists due to their potential in meeting various future needs, particularly those associated with municipalities and regional public supply systems. Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31 Potential Reservoir Sites (Categories 3 & 4) Beaver-Cache Region Name Category Stream Basin Purposes1 Total Storage Conservation Pool Primary Study Updated Cost Estimate2 (2010 dollars) Surface Area Storage Dependable Yield Date Agency AF AF AF AFY Cookietown 4 Deep Red Creek 30 WS, FC, F&W, R 400,000 13,100 208,190 34,700 1979 Bureau of Reclamation $298,161,000 Snyder 3 Deep Red Creek 30 F&W, WS, R 110,000 3,668 90,000 10,600 1974 Bureau of Reclamation $103,052,000 1 WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation 2 The majority of cost estimates were updated using estimated costs from previous project reports combined with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) annual escalation figures to scale the original cost estimates to present-day cost estimates. These estimated costs may not accurately reflect current conditions at the proposed project site and are meant to be used for general comparative purposes only. Reservoir Project Viability Categorization Category 4: Sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development. Category 3: Sites with sufficient data for analysis, but less than desirable for current viability. Category 2: Sites that may contain fatal flaws or other factors that could severely impede potential development. Category 1: Sites with limited available data and lacking essential elements of information. Category 0: Typically sites that exist only on an historical map. Study data cannot be located or verified. As another option to address Oklahoma’s long-range water needs, the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study was initiated to identify potential reservoir sites throughout the state that have been analyzed to various degrees by the OWRB, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other public or private agencies. Principal elements of the study included extensive literature search; identification of criteria to determine a reservoir’s viability; creation of a database to store essential information for each site; evaluation of sites; Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of the most viable sites; aerial photograph and map reconnaissance; screening of environmental, cultural, and endangered species issues; estimates of updated construction costs; and categorical assessment of viability. The study revealed more than 100 sites statewide. Each was assigned a ranking, ranging from Category 4 (sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development) to Category 0 (sites that exist only on a historical map and for which no study data can be verified). This analysis does not necessarily indicate an actual need or specific recommendation to build any potential project. Rather, these sites are presented to provide local and regional decision-makers with additional tools as they anticipate future water supply needs and opportunities. Study results present only a cursory examination of the many factors associated with project feasibility or implementation. Detailed investigations would be required in all cases to verify feasibility of construction and implementation. A summary of potential reservoir sites statewide is available in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study. Potential reservoir development sites for this Watershed Planning Region appear on the following chart and map. 32 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Expanded Water Supply Options Beaver-Cache Region Beaver-Cache Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Data & Analysis Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region Basin 24 35Basin 24 accounts for about 2% of the current demand in the Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region. About 61% of the basin’s 2010 demand was from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Livestock was the second largest demand sector at 25%. Surface water satisfies about 73% of the current demand in the basin. Alluvial groundwater satisfies about 27% of the current demand. There are currently no permits for bedrock groundwater use and none expected in the future. The peak summer month total water demand in Basin 24 is about 2.5 times the winter monthly demand, which is similar to the overall statewide pattern. The flow in Beaver Creek at its confluence with the Red River is typically greater than 400 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 3,700 AF/month in the spring. However, the creek can have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year. There are no major reservoirs in the basin; however, the City of Waurika receives out-of-basin supplies from Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District in Basin 25. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 24 is considered poor. Beaver Creek is impaired for Agricultural use due to elevated levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and chlorides. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality. Current Demand by Source and Sector Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Total Demand 710 AFY Basin 24 Summary Synopsis Water users are expected to continue to rely mainly on surface water and to a lesser extent, alluvial groundwater. By 2030, there is a moderate probability of surface water gaps from increased demand on existing supplies during low flow periods. To reduce the risk of adverse effects on water supplies, it is recommended that gaps be decreased where economically feasible. Additional conservation measures could mitigate surface water gaps. To mitigate surface water gaps, dependable groundwater supplies, out-of-basin supplies, and/or developing new reservoirs could be used as alternatives. These supply sources could be used without major impacts to groundwater storage. Water Resources Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 36 Beaver-Cache Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan dry months. The entire increase in demand from 2010 to 2060 could be supplied by a new river diversion and less than 100 AF of reservoir storage at the basin outlet. Increasing the use of surface water supplies through direct diversions, without reservoir storage, will increase surface water gaps and is not recommended. Increased reliance on alluvial groundwater supplies could mitigate surface water gaps, but may create alluvial groundwater storage depletions. Any storage depletions would be small relative to the volume of water stored in the Red River aquifer underlying the basin. However, localized storage depletions may occur and adversely affect well yields, water quality, and/or pumping costs. The Red River alluvial aquifer underlies the eastern portion of the basin, but currently allocated withdrawals from the aquifer are small. The majority of current water rights in the basin are from non-delineated minor alluvial aquifers along Beaver Creek. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered before large scale use. There are currently no water rights in bedrock aquifers in the basin; therefore, no future withdrawals are expected from bedrock sources. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues. The use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060. The projected 2060 water demand of 810 AFY in Basin 24 reflects a 100 AFY increase (14%) over the 2010 demand. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Gaps & Depletions Based on projected demand and historical hydrology, surface water gaps may occur by 2030. No groundwater storage depletions are expected through 2060. Surface water gaps may occur in summer, and by 2060, will be up to 30 AFY with a 45% probability of occurring in at least one month of the year. Options Water users are expected to continue to rely on surface water and alluvial groundwater. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the basin’s water users, surface water gaps should be decreased where economically feasible. Moderately expanded permanent conservation activities in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation demand sectors could mitigate surface water gaps. Temporary drought management activities may not be effective in this basin, since gaps have a moderate probability of occurring. Currently, the City of Waurika obtains water from Waurika Lake in Basin 25 via the Waurika Master Conservancy District. Increased use of this source could effectively reduce surface water gaps. Waurika Lake is almost fully allocated at this time. Out-of-basin supplies could mitigate surface water gaps. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study, which evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state, identified two potentially viable out-of-basin sites in the Beaver-Cache Region. However, because of the distance to reliable water supplies, out-of-basin supplies may not be cost-effective for many users in the basin. Additional reservoir storage in Basin 24 could effectively supplement supplies during Projected Water Demand Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Water Supply Limitations Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Surface Water Alluvial Groundwater Bedrock Groundwater nMinimalnPotentialnSignificant Water Supply Option Effectiveness Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Demand Management Out-of-Basin Supplies Reservoir Use Increasing Supply from Surface Water Increasing Supply from Groundwater nTypically EffectivenPotentially EffectivenLikely IneffectivenNo Option Necessary Median Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Beaver-Cache Regional Report 37 Surface Water Resources Historical streamflow from 1950 through • 2007 was used to estimate the range of future surface water supplies. This basin had a prolonged period of below-average streamflow from the early 1960s to the mid 1980s. From the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s, the basin went through a prolonged period of above-average streamflow and precipitation, demonstrating the hydrologic variability in the basin. The range of historical streamflow at the • basin outlet is shown by the average, median, and minimum streamflow over a 58-year period of record. The median flow of Beaver Creek confluence with the Red River is greater than 400 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 10,000 AF/month in May and June. However, the creek can have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 24 is considered poor. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality. There are no significant reservoirs in • the basin. Monthly Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Historical Precipitation Regional Climate Division Basin 24 Data & Analysis 38 Beaver-Cache Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanGroundwater Resources The majority of current groundwater • rights in the basin are from non-delineated minor alluvial groundwater sources along Beaver Creek. There are additional groundwater rights in the Red River major alluvial aquifer. There are no significant groundwater • quality issues in the basin. Groundwater Resources - Aquifer Summary (2010) Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Aquifer Portion of Basin Overlaying Aquifer Current Groundwater Rights Aquifer Storage in Basin Equal Proportionate Share Groundwater Available for New Permits Name Type Class1 Percent AFY AF AFY/Acre AFY Red River Alluvial Major 24% 300 36,000 temporary 2.0 38,100 Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Bedrock Minor N/A 0 N/A temporary 2.0 N/A Non-Delineated Groundwater Source Alluvial Minor N/A 1,300 N/A temporary 2.0 N/A 1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major. Beaver-Cache Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 39 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water PlanWater Demand Basin 24’s water needs make up • about 2% of the total demand in the Beaver-Cache Watershed Planning Region and will increase by 14% (100 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. However, demand growth in the basin is expected to occur in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation demand sectors. The majority of demand will be from the Municipal and Industrial and Livestock demand sectors. Surface water is used to meet 73% • of the total demand in Basin 24 and its use will increase by 15% (70 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of surface water use and growth in surface water use will be in the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. Alluvial groundwater is used to • meet 27% of the total demand in Basin 24 and its use will increase by 12% (20 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. Alluvial groundwater use will be solely from the Municipal and Industrial demand sector. There is no current bedrock • groundwater use in Basin 24; no future demand is expected. Total Demand by Sector Beaver-Cache Region, Basin 24 Planning Horizon Crop Irrigation Livestock Municipal & Industrial Oil & Gas Self-Supplied Industrial Self-Supplied Residential Thermoelectric P |
Date created | 2011-12-07 |
Date modified | 2011-12-07 |