DOCSLIB.ORG

TMDL Report Without Appendices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TMDL Report Without Appendices ril 2012 p Total Maximum Daily Loads for A the Moxahala Creek Watershed Final Report April 4, 2012 John R. Kasich, Governor Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor Scott J. Nally, Director Photo caption: Jonathan Creek at Crock Road near White Cottage. Moxahala Creek Watershed TMDLs Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Clean Water Act Requirement to Address Impaired Waters .......................... 1 1.2 Public Involvement ................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Organization of Report .......................................................................................... 4 2 Characteristics and Expectations of the Watershed ................................................... 5 2.1 Watershed Characteristics .................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Population and Distribution ........................................................................ 5 2.1.2 Land Use ................................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Point Source Discharges ........................................................................... 7 2.1.4 Public Drinking Water Supplies ................................................................. 8 2.2 Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Aquatic Life Use......................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Recreation Use ........................................................................................ 11 2.2.3 Public Drinking Water Supply Use ........................................................... 13 2.2.4 Human Health (Fish Contaminants) Use ................................................. 13 3 Water Quality Conditions in the Watershed ............................................................... 15 3.1 Jonathan Creek (05040004 04) ........................................................................... 16 3.1.1 Buckeye Fork (05040004 04 04) ............................................................. 21 3.2 Moxahala Creek (05040004 05) .......................................................................... 22 4 Methods to Calculate Load Reductions ...................................................................... 27 4.1 Load Duration Curves ......................................................................................... 28 4.1.1 Justification .............................................................................................. 28 4.1.2 Sources of Data ....................................................................................... 29 4.1.3 Target(s) .................................................................................................. 29 4.1.4 Validation of Hydrology ............................................................................ 29 4.1.5 Allowance for Future Growth ................................................................... 29 4.1.6 Seasonality and Critical Conditions ......................................................... 30 4.2 Paired Site Analysis: Temperature ...................................................................... 30 4.2.1 Justification and Target............................................................................ 30 4.2.2 Sources of Data ....................................................................................... 30 4.2.3 Allowance for Future Growth ................................................................... 31 4.2.4 Seasonality and Critical Conditions ......................................................... 31 4.3 Acid Mine Drainage: Moxahala AMDAT .............................................................. 31 4.3.1 Justification .............................................................................................. 31 4.3.2 Sources of Data ....................................................................................... 32 4.3.3 Target(s) .................................................................................................. 32 4.3.4 Method Uncertainty .................................................................................. 33 4.3.5 Allowance for Future Growth ................................................................... 33 4.3.6 Seasonality and Critical Conditions ......................................................... 33 4.4 Margin of Safety .................................................................................................. 33 5 Load Reduction Results ............................................................................................... 35 5.1 Valley Run (05040004 04 01) .............................................................................. 35 5.2 Valley Run (05040004 04 01), Headwaters Jonathan Creek (04 02), Turkey Run (04 03), Painter Creek-Jonathan Creek (04 07) ........................................... 35 5.3 Kent Run (05040004 04 05), Thompson Run (04 06), Painter Creek- Jonathan Creek (04 07) ....................................................................................... 36 5.3.1 E. coli TMDLs .......................................................................................... 36 5.3.2 Temperature Range TMDL ...................................................................... 37 i Moxahala Creek Watershed TMDLs 5.4 Black Fork (05040004 05 01) .............................................................................. 37 5.4.1 E. coli TMDLs .......................................................................................... 37 5.4.2 Acidity/alkalinity TMDLs ........................................................................... 38 5.5 Upper Moxahala Creek (05040004 05 02) .......................................................... 39 5.6 Black Fork (05040004 05 01), Middle Moxahala Creek (05 03), Lower Moxahala Creek (05 04) ...................................................................................... 40 5.6.1 E. coli TMDLs .......................................................................................... 40 5.6.2 Acidity/alkalinity TMDLs ........................................................................... 40 6 Water Quality Improvement Strategy .......................................................................... 42 6.1 Regulatory Recommendations ............................................................................ 45 6.2 Jonathan Creek (05040004 04) ........................................................................... 46 6.3 Moxahala Creek (05040004 05) .......................................................................... 50 6.4 Reasonable Assurances ..................................................................................... 55 6.4.1 Local Watershed Groups ......................................................................... 56 6.4.2 Other Sources of Funding and Special Projects ...................................... 56 6.4.3 Past and Ongoing Water Resource Evaluation ....................................... 56 6.4.4 Potential and Future Evaluation ............................................................... 56 6.4.5 Revision to the Improvement Strategy ..................................................... 56 7 References ..................................................................................................................... 57 Appendix A NPDES Permitted Discharges Appendix B Status of Water Quality Appendix C Water Quality Standards in Ohio Appendix D Loading Analysis Information Appendix E Implementation and Reasonable Assurances Appendix F Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and Treatment Plan for the Moxahala Creek Watershed (prepared by the Institute for Local Government Administration and Rural Development) List of Tables Table 1-1. Summary of impairments in the Moxahala Creek watershed and methods used to address impairments. ............................................................................................. 2 Table 2-1. Biological criteria applicable in the Moxahala Creek watershed. .............................. 11 Table 2-2. Recreation use criteria in Ohio. ................................................................................ 12 Table 3-1. Number of impaired sites, organized by use and nested subwatershed, in the Jonathan Creek subwatershed. ............................................................................... 20 Table 3-2. Number of impaired sites, organized by use and nested subwatershed, in the Moxahala Creek subwatershed. ............................................................................... 25 Table 4-1. Summary of causes of impairment and actions taken to address them in assessment units within the 05040004 04 and 05040004 05 ten-digit hydrologic units. ....................................................................................................... 28 Table 5-1. TMDL table for site on Valley Run @ Laurel Hill Rd. ................................................ 35 Table 5-2. TMDL table for site on Jonathan Creek near White Cottage @ Crock Rd. .............. 36 Table 5-3. TMDL table for site on Jonathan Ck DST SR-93 dam pool @ Powell Rd. ............... 36 Table 5-4. TMDL table for site on Ogg Ck S. of Deavertown @ SR-555. .................................. 38 Table 5-5. TMDL table for site on Black Fk Moxahala Ck adj.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ground Water Pollution Potential of Perry County, Ohio
    GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL OF PERRY COUNTY, OHIO BY PAUL SPAHR GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL REPORT NO. 42 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER WATER RESOURCES SECTION JUNE, 1997 This publication was financed through a grant from Ohio Environmental Protection Agency under provisions of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act as amended in 1987. ABSTRACT A ground water pollution potential map of Perry County has been prepared using the DRASTIC mapping process. The DRASTIC system consists of two elements: the designation of mappable units, termed hydrogeologic settings, and the superposition of a relative rating system for pollution potential. Hydrogeologic settings incorporate hydrogeologic factors that control ground water movement and occurrence including the depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography (slope), impact of the vadose zone media, and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. The relative ranking scheme uses a combination of weight and ratings to produce a numerical value called the pollution potential index that helps prioritize areas with respect to ground water contamination vulnerability. Hydrogeologic settings and the corresponding pollution potential indexes are displayed on maps. Seven hydrogeologic settings were identified in Perry County. Ground water pollution potential indices ranged from 68 to 140. Perry County lies within the Glaciated Central and the Nonglaciated Central hydrogeologic setting. The northern third of Perry County is overlain by varying thicknesses of glacial till. Buried valleys underlie many of the modern streams in northern and western Perry County. The buried valleys contain variable thicknesses of interbedded outwash sand and gravel, fine- grained glacial till and lacustrine deposits, and alluvium.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of a Highly Acid Watershed Located
    CHARACTERIZATION OF A HIGHLY ACID WATERSHED LOCATED MAINLY IN PERRY COUNTY, OHIO A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ College of Engineering and Technology Ohio University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Science by Ryan J. Eberhart August, 1998 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Kenneth B. Edwards for all of the time spent guiding me through the course of this thesis project and all of the hours spent out in the field collecting data. I would also like to thank Branko Olujic for the many hours spent out in the field taking water samples and measuring flowrates and for writing the computer program to calculate flowrates. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Ben J. Stuart for all of his contributions to the project and Dr. Mary Stoertz and the Geology Department for allowing us to use their flume, probes, and pygmy meters. A special thanks goes to Hocking College for all of their help with collecting water samples and measuring flowrates out in the field. Also, I would like to thank Dr. James K. Lein for serving on my graduate committee and for his Geography 579 class notes regarding ARC/INFO, which I referenced in my thesis. Lastly, this project would not have been possible without assistance from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, who fbnded this project and the Department of Civil Engineering at Ohio University who gave me the opportunity to work on this thesis project. "To Robyn, Taylor, and my parents" TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I .
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 24/Friday, February 5, 2010
    Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5909 standards would be inconsistent with around the dive platform vessel while it DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND applicable law or otherwise impractical. is performing dive operations in and SECURITY Voluntary consensus standards are around the CHEHALIS wreck. This technical standards (e.g., specifications safety zone extends from the surface of Federal Emergency Management of materials, performance, design, or the water to the ocean floor. The wreck’s Agency operation; test methods; sampling approximate position is 14°16.52′ S, procedures; and related management 170°40.56′ W, which is approximately 44 CFR Part 67 systems practices) that are developed or 350 feet north of the fuel dock in Pago [Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal adopted by voluntary consensus Pago Harbor, American Samoa. These Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1085] standards bodies. coordinates are based upon the National This proposed rule does not use Oceanic and Atmospheric Proposed Flood Elevation technical standards. Therefore, we did Administration Coast Survey, Pacific Determinations not consider the use of voluntary Ocean, Samoa Islands, chart 83484. consensus standards. AGENCY: Federal Emergency (b) Prohibited activities. (1) Entry into Management Agency, DHS. Environment or remaining in the safety zone ACTION: Proposed rule. We have analyzed this proposed rule described in paragraph (a) of this SUMMARY: Comments are requested on under Department of Homeland section is prohibited unless authorized the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Security Management Directive 023–01 by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed and Commandant Instruction Honolulu.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Acid Mine Drainage on Streams in Southeastern Ohio: Importance of Biological Assessments
    Impact of Acid Mine Drainage on Streams in Southeastern Ohio: Importance of Biological Assessments Dr. Ben J. Stuart, P.E., Assistant Professor Ohio University Department of Civil Engineering 120 Stocker Center Athens, OH, 45701 Phone: (740)593‐9455 Fax: (740)593‐0873 email: [email protected] Rajesh Ramachandran Graduate Research Assistant Ohio University Department of Environmental Studies Athens, Ohio, 45701 James Grow Aquatic Biologist Division of Surface Water Southeast District Office Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Logan, Ohio, 43138 Abstract Acid mine drainage (AMD) forms from oxidation of iron disulfide minerals, pyrite and marcasite, when they are exposed to air, water and chemosynthetic bacteria. Oxidation occurs through the mining process, which allows air entry and increases the surface area for reactions. Formation of AMD involves xseveral reactions beginning with oxidation and hydrolysis of pyrite producing soluble hydrous iron sulfates and acidity. Coal has been mined in Ohio since 1804 and AMD has been a major problem. Various chemical studies have been performed on watersheds throughout the Ohio River basin. Recently the need for biological assessments has been stressed due to their reflection on the overall integrity of the watershed in terms of chemical, physical and biological composition. Integrating the study of the biological communities with other aspects has been found to be a more valid approach to ecosystem studies. The goal of the study is to examine stream quality and to assess the impact of AMD on the organisms. This paper evaluates streams in Southeastern Ohio using chemical, physical, and biological assessments. Comprehensive chemical characterization was completed and the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) used by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) was incorporated during site characterization.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water Pollution Potential of Muskingum County, Ohio
    GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL OF MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO BY MICHAEL P. ANGLE AND MIKE AKINS GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL REPORT NO. 54 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER WATER RESOURCES SECTION 2001 ABSTRACT A ground water pollution potential map of Muskingum County has been prepared using the DRASTIC mapping process. The DRASTIC system consists of two major elements: the designation of mappable units, termed hydrogeologic settings, and the superposition of a relative rating system for pollution potential. Hydrogeologic settings form the basis of the system and incorporate the major hydrogeologic factors that affect and control ground water movement and occurrence including depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography, impact of the vadose zone media, and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. These factors, which form the acronym DRASTIC, are incorporated into a relative ranking scheme that uses a combination of weights and ratings to produce a numerical value called the ground water pollution potential index. Hydrogeologic settings are combined with the pollution potential indexes to create units that can be graphically displayed on a map. Ground water pollution potential analysis in Muskingum County resulted in a map with symbols and colors that illustrate areas of varying ground water contamination vulnerability. Eleven hydrogeologic settings were identified in Muskingum County with computed ground water pollution potential indexes ranging from 63 to 190. Muskingum County lies within the Nonglaciated Central hydrogeologic setting. The extreme western edge of Hopewell Township is within the Glaciated Central hydrogeologic setting. The buried valley underlying portions of the present Muskingum River basin contains sand and gravel outwash that is capable of yielding up to 500 gallons per minute (gpm) from properly designed, large diameter wells.
    [Show full text]
  • Place Names Directory: Southeast Ohio
    STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Horace R. Collins, Chief Information Circular No. 49 PLACE NAMES DIRECTORY: SOUTHEAST OHIO compiled by Madge R. Fitak Columbus 1980 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL STAFF GDNR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Horace R. Collins, MS, State Geologist and Division Chief Richard A. Struble, PhD, Geologist and Assistant Chief William J. Buschman, Jr., BS, Administrative Geologist Barbara J. Adams, Office Manager REGIONAL GEOLOGY GEOCHEMISTRY LABORATORY Robert G. Van Horn, MS, Geologist and Section Head David A. Stith, MS, Geologist and Section Head Richard W. Carlton, PhD, Geologist George Botoman, MS, Geologist Douglas L. Crowell, MS, Geologist Norman F. Knapp, PhD, Chemist Richard M. DeLong, MS, Geologist Cynthia M. Bowman, Laboratory Technician Michael C. Hansen, MS, Geologist Rodney D. Fritz, Laboratory Technician David A. Hodges, MS, Geologist Richard C. Guimond, BS, Environmental Technician Dennis N. Hull, MS, Geologist Evelyn M. Jennings, Laboratory Technician Michele L. Risser, BA, Geologist Clark L. Scheerens, MS, Geologist Joel D. Vormelker, MS, Geologist Beverly A. Leffler, Public Inquiries Assistant LAKE ERIE Charles H. Carter, PhD, Geologist and Section Head SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY Jonathan A. Fuller, MS, Geologist Donald E. Guy, Jr., BA, Geologist Frank L. Majchszak, MS, Geologist and Section Head Carl L. Hopfinger, MS, Geology Technician John D. Gray, MS, Geologist Dale L. Liebenthal, Research Vessel Operator Floyd M. Honeycutt, MS, Geologist Marlene S. Longer, Typist Richard H. Kingsbury, Jr., MS, Geologist John C. Hadley, BGS, Geology Technician Allan T. Luczyk, BS, Environmental Technician David A. Nicklaus, BS, Geology Technician Jerry M.
    [Show full text]
  • Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and Treatment Plan for the Moxahala Creek Watershed
    Appendix F ACID MINE DRAINAGE ABATEMENT AND TREATMENT PLAN FOR THE MOXAHALA CREEK WATERSHED Prepared by: The Institute for Local Government Administration and Rural Development ACID MINE DRAINAGE ABATEMENT AND TREATMENT PLAN FOR THE MOXAHALA CREEK WATERSHED Andrew Creek Underground mine seep in Bear Creek Highwall in McLuney Creek Iron flocculate deposits in McLuney Creek Prepared by The Institute for Local Government Administration and Rural Development (ILGARD) At Ohio University Athens, Ohio April 2005 This publication was financed in part by a grant From the Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA under the provisions of Section 319 (h) of the Clean Water Act Moxahala AMDAT Plan 5-3-05 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Appendices...................................................................................................................................vi List of Maps (see map folder)..................................................................................................................vi List of Figures.........................................................................................................................................vii List of Tables.........................................................................................................................................viii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................x SECTION I .................................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records to December 31 , 1 963 Part 3.-0Hio River Basin
    Index of Surface-Water Records to December 31 , 1 963 Part 3.-0hio River Basin Index of Surface-Water Records to December 31 , 1963 Part 3.-0hio River Basin By B. A. Anderson and C. B. Ham Geological Survey Circular 503 Washington 1965 United States Department of the Interior STEW ART L. UDALL, SECRETARY Geological Survey WILLIAM T. PECORA DIRECTOR Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to December 31,1963 Part 3.-0hio River Basin By B. A. Anderson and C. B. Ham INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the Ohio River basin for which records have been or are to be published in r~ports of the Geological Survey for periods through December 31~ 1963. It supersedes Geological Survey Circular 383. Basic data on surface-water supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes., including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951~ the records for the 48 States were published in 14 volumes~ one for each of the parts. From 1951 to 1960~ the records for the 48 States were published annually in 18 volumes~ there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2~ 3~ and 6. The boundaries of the various parts are shown on the map in figure 1. Beginning in 1961~ the annual series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year series.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.2 FLOOD Floods Are a Natural and Beneficial Function of Stream and Lacustrine Systems
    State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.2 FLOOD Floods are a natural and beneficial function of stream and lacustrine systems. Floods occur when streams or lakes overflow their banks and spill onto the adjoining land area, which is called a floodplain. Loss of life and property can result when people build structures and develop in flood hazard areas. Numerous factors can cause or exacerbate flooding in Ohio including: heavy and/or prolonged periods of rainfall, snowmelt, soil saturation, ground freeze, severe wind events, and inadequate drainage systems. Floods damage private and public property and infrastructure in Ohio every year. Flooding is the most frequently occurring natural disaster in Ohio and the United States. RISK ASSESSMENT The two major drainage basins in Ohio are the Lake Erie and Ohio River basins. Streams in the northern third of the state flow into Lake Erie and eventually into the Atlantic Ocean. Streams in the southern two-thirds of the state flow into the Ohio River and eventually into the Gulf of Mexico. Map 2.2.2.1.a displays the major Ohio watersheds. There are many types of flooding that occur in Ohio including: riverine, flash flooding, coastal flooding, and shallow flooding. Riverine flooding is generally characterized by slower rising water, which allows for increased warning time but has the potential to last for longer periods of time. Ohio communities experience riverine flooding on both large basins and smaller tributary streams throughout the state. Major sources of riverine flooding in Ohio include the Ohio River, Scioto River, Great Miami River, Muskingum River, Hocking River, Maumee River, Sandusky River, Cuyahoga River, Grand River, Little Miami River, the Mahoning River and their larger tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Ohio Streams
    A Guide to Ohio Streams Edited by Randall E. Sanders, ODNR, Division of Wildlife Information and Graphic Design, Ronald J. Zimmerman, Information Design Group Published by Streams Committee, Ohio Chapter of the American Fisheries Society in Partnership with Ohio Environmental Education Fund Ohio Department of Natural Resources Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Columbus, Ohio 2001 © 2000 Information Design Group for OCAFS. 09.15.00 Title LT © 2000 Information Design Group for OCAFS. 09.15.00 Title RT A guide to Ohio Streams Table of Contents and guide to what, where, and how to find things in this book. Chapter and Section Number This book is divided into 10 chapters and 1.0 Streams 6.0 Wildlife Diversity Chapter Section chapter sections. 1.1 Natural and Human Changes 6.1 Aquatic Insects All information This number pertaining to a identifies the 1.2 Principal Streams 6.2 Mollusks chapter section chapter and and Watersheds 6.3 Stream Fishes will be contained section you are in the white area in. It also serves 1.3 Uses, Benefits, and Values 6.4 Reptiles and Amphibians Section Heading of the page. as a double page 1.4 Stream Trivia number. 2.0 Geology and Geography 7.0 Recreation 2.1 Bedrock, Ground Water, 7.1 Gone Fishin’ Section and Glacial Deposits 7.2 More Sport Fishes Introduction 2.2 Climate and Water Cycle 7.3 Recreational Opportunities 2.3 Precipitation 2.4 Relief and Land Use 3.0 Habitat Quality and Threats 8.0 Stream Laws 3.1 Quality and Size 8.1 U.S.
    [Show full text]