DOCSLIB.ORG

Neosho River Basin Bacteria Tmdls Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neosho River Basin Bacteria Tmdls Table of Contents FINAL BACTERIA TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR THE NEOSHO RIVER BASIN, OKLAHOMA (OK121600) Prepared for: OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Prepared by: PARSONS JUNE 2008 FINAL BACTERIA TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR THE NEOSHO RIVER BASIN, OKLAHOMA (OK121600) OKWBID OK121600010060, OK121600010100, OK121600010440, OK121600030090, OK121600030160, OK121600030180, OK121600030190, OK121600030340, OK121600030440, OK121600030445, OK12600030510, OK121600040060, OK121600040130, OK121600040170, OK121600040200 Prepared for: OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Prepared by: PARSONS 8000 Centre Park Drive, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78754 JUNE 2008 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality: FY07 106 Grant (CA# I-006400-05) Project 24 – Bacteria TMDL Development Neosho River Basin Bacteria TMDLs Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... viii SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1-1 1.1 TMDL Program Background .....................................................................................1-1 1.2 Watershed Description ...............................................................................................1-3 SECTION 2 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY TARGET ......2-1 2.1 Oklahoma Water Quality Standards...........................................................................2-1 2.2 Problem Identification................................................................................................2-4 2.3 Water Quality Target..................................................................................................2-5 SECTION 3 POLLUTANT SOURCE ASSESSMENT .......................................................3-1 3.1 NPDES-Permitted Facilities.......................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Continuous Point Source Discharges .............................................................3-2 3.1.2 NPDES No-Discharge Facilities and SSOs....................................................3-8 3.1.3 NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Discharge (MS4).........................3-9 3.1.4 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ...................................................3-11 3.2 Nonpoint Sources .....................................................................................................3-11 3.2.1 Wildlife.........................................................................................................3-11 3.2.2 Non-Permitted Agricultural Activities and Domesticated Animals.............3-13 3.2.3 Failing Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems and Illicit Discharges...........3-17 3.2.4 Domestic Pets ...............................................................................................3-19 3.3 Summary of Bacteria Sources ..................................................................................3-20 SECTION 4 TECHNICAL APPROACH AND METHODS ..............................................4-1 4.1 Using Load Duration Curves to Develop TMDLs .....................................................4-1 4.2 Development of Flow Duration Curves .....................................................................4-2 4.3 Estimating Current Point and Nonpoint Loading.....................................................4-13 4.4 Development of TMDLs Using Load Duration Curves ...........................................4-14 SECTION 5 TMDL CALCULATIONS................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Estimated Loading and Critical Conditions ...............................................................5-1 5.2 Wasteload Allocation ...............................................................................................5-13 5.3 Load Allocation........................................................................................................5-15 5.4 Seasonal Variability..................................................................................................5-15 5.5 Margin of Safety.......................................................................................................5-15 5.6 TMDL Calculations..................................................................................................5-16 5.7 LDCs and TMDL Calculations for Additional Bacterial Indicators ........................5-32 5.8 Reasonable Assurances ............................................................................................5-40 SECTION 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION............................................................................. 6-1 J:\planning\TMDL\Parsons\2007\5 Neosho river(22)\Neosho_FINAL_06-03-08.doc i FINAL June 2008 Neosho River Basin Bacteria TMDLs Table of Contents SECTION 7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................7-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Ambient Water Quality Bacteria Data – 1997 to 2006 Appendix B NPDES Permit Discharge Monitoring Report Data and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Data Appendix C Estimated Flow Exceedance Percentiles Appendix D State of Oklahoma Antidegradation Policy Appendix E Storm Water Permitting Requirements and Presumptive Best management Practices (BMP) Approach Appendix F Response to Comments LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1a Watersheds Not Supporting Primary Body Contact Recreation Use within the Study Area......................................................................................................1-9 Figure 1-1b Watersheds Not Supporting Primary Body Contact Recreation Use within the Study Area....................................................................................................1-10 Figure 1-2a Land Use Map byWatershed ..............................................................................1-11 Figure 1-2b Land Use Map byWatershed ..............................................................................1-12 Figure 3-1a Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities and Poultry Operations in the Study Area ......................................................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-1b Locations of NPDES-Permitted Facilities and Oklahoma Poultry Operations in the Study Area..................................................................................................3-7 Figure 4-1 Flow Duration Curve for Ranger Creek (OK121600010060_00)........................4-5 Figure 4-2 Flow Duration Curve for Fourteenmile Creek (OK121600010100_00)..............4-5 Figure 4-3 Flow Duration Curve for Crutchfield Branch (OK121600010440_00)...............4-6 Figure 4-4 Flow Duration Curve for Drowning Creek (OK121600030090_00)...................4-7 Figure 4-5 Flow Duration Curve for Horse Creek (OK121600030160_00)..........................4-7 Figure 4-6 Flow Duration Curve for Fly Creek (OK121600030180_00)..............................4-8 Figure 4-7 Flow Duration Curve for Little Horse Creek (OK121600030190_00)................4-8 Figure 4-8 Flow Duration Curve for Cave Springs Branch (OK121600030340_00)............4-9 Figure 4-9 Flow Duration Curve for Elk River (OK121600030440_00) ..............................4-9 Figure 4-10 Flow Duration Curve for Honey Creek (OK121600030445_00).......................4-10 Figure 4-11 Flow Duration Curve for Sycamore Creek (OK121600030510_00) .................4-10 Figure 4-12 Flow Duration Curve for Tar Creek (OK121600040060_00)............................4-11 Figure 4-13 Flow Duration Curve for Cow Creek (OK121600040130_00)..........................4-11 Figure 4-14 Flow Duration Curve for Fourmile Creek (OK121600040170_00)...................4-12 Figure 4-15 Flow Duration Curve for Russell Creek (OK121600040200_00) .....................4-12 J:\planning\TMDL\Parsons\2007\5 Neosho river(22)\Neosho_FINAL_06-03-08.doc ii FINAL June 2008 Neosho River Basin Bacteria TMDLs Table of Contents Figure 5-1 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Ranger Creek (OK121600010060_00)........................................................................................5-6 Figure 5-2 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Fourteenmile Creek (OK121600010100_00)........................................................................................5-6 Figure 5-3 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Crutchfield Branch (OK121600010440_00)........................................................................................5-7 Figure 5-4 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Drowning Creek (OK121600030090_00)........................................................................................5-7 Figure 5-5 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Horse Creek (OK121600030160_00)........................................................................................5-8 Figure 5-6 Load Duration Curve for Fecal Coliform in Fly Creek (OK121600030180_00)........................................................................................5-8 Figure 5-7 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Little Horse Creek (OK121600030190_00)........................................................................................5-9 Figure 5-8 Load Duration Curve for E. Coli in Cave Springs Branch (OK121600030340_00)........................................................................................5-9 Figure 5-9 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci in Elk River (OK121600030440_00) ....5-10 Figure 5-10 Load Duration Curve for Enterococci
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Restoration and Maintenance of the Access to the Neosho River at Jacobs Creek-John Redmond Reservoir)
    FEASIBILITY STUDY (RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ACCESS TO THE NEOSHO RIVER AT JACOBS CREEK-JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR) 2008 Prepared for Kansas Water Office 901 South Kansas Topeka, KS 66612 Prepared by Watershed Institute, Inc. 1200 SW Executive Dr. Topeka, KS 66615 www.watershedinstitute.biz Cover Page Photo: Neosho River Logjam from Jacobs Landing FEASIBILITY STUDY — NEOSHO RIVER LOGJAM ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION...........................................................................................................2 PROJECT SETTING ...............................................................................................................................2 Neosho River Logjam..........................................................................................................................4 NEOSHO RIVER RESEARCH...............................................................................................................4 Natural and Regulated Flows/Historical Droughts ............................................................................4 High-Flow Frequency/Channel Geometry..........................................................................................5 Geomorphic Effects/Overflow Dams...................................................................................................5 Channel Stability Downstream from John Redmond Dam
    [Show full text]
  • CHECK out OTHER FISHING INFORMATION at OUR WEBSITE: Kansas Fishing: We’Ve Come a Long Way, Baby!
    Details Back Cover CHECK OUT OTHER FISHING INFORMATION AT OUR WEBSITE: www.kdwp.state.ks.us Kansas fishing: We’ve come a long way, baby! hat's right. Kansas fishing isn't what it used to be. It's much more. Oh, we still have some of the best channel, Tflathead, and blue catfishing to be found, but today Kansas anglers have great variety. If you're an old-school angler and still want to catch the whiskered fish native to our streams and rivers, you have more opportunities today than ever. Channel catfish are found in nearly every stream, river, pond, lake, and reservoir in the state. They remain one of the most popular angling species. To keep up with demand, state fish hatcheries produce mil- lions of channel cats each year. Some are stocked into lakes as fry, but more are fed and grown to catchable size, then stocked into one of many state and community lakes around the state. Our reservoirs hold amazing numbers of channel catfish, and for the most part, the reservoir cats are overlooked by anglers fishing for other species. Fisheries biologists consider channel cats an underutilized resource in most large reservoirs. For sheer excitement, the flathead catfish is still king. Monster flatheads weighing 60, 70 and even 80 pounds are caught each owned, but some reaches are leased by the department through summer. Most of the truly large flatheads come from the larger the Fishing Impoundments and Stream Habitats (F.I.S.H) rivers in the eastern half of the state, where setting limb and trot Program, while other reaches are in public ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1951 Kansas - Missouri Floods
    The 1951 Kansas - Missouri Floods ... Have We Forgotten? Introduction - This report was originally written as NWS Technical Attachment 81-11 in 1981, the thirtieth anniversary of this devastating flood. The co-authors of the original report were Robert Cox, Ernest Kary, Lee Larson, Billy Olsen, and Craig Warren, all hydrologists at the Missouri Basin River Forecast Center at that time. Although most of the original report remains accurate today, Robert Cox has updated portions of the report in light of occurrences over the past twenty years. Comparisons of the 1951 flood to the events of 1993 as well as many other parenthetic remarks are examples of these revisions. The Storms of 1951 - Fifty years ago, the stage was being set for one of the greatest natural disasters ever to hit the Midwest. May, June and July of 1951 saw record rainfalls over most of Kansas and Missouri, resulting in record flooding on the Kansas, Osage, Neosho, Verdigris and Missouri Rivers. Twenty-eight lives were lost and damage totaled nearly 1 billion dollars. (Please note that monetary damages mentioned in this report are in 1951 dollars, unless otherwise stated. 1951 dollars can be equated to 2001 dollars using a factor of 6.83. The total damage would be $6.4 billion today.) More than 150 communities were devastated by the floods including two state capitals, Topeka and Jefferson City, as well as both Kansas Cities. Most of Kansas and Missouri as well as large portions of Nebraska and Oklahoma had monthly precipitation totaling 200 percent of normal in May, 300 percent in June, and 400 percent in July of 1951.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis Rafinesqueana)
    Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Cover photo: Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This species biological report informs the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). The Species Biological Report is a comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Neosho Mucket and provides an account of species overall viability. A Recovery Implementation Strategy, which provides the expanded narrative for the recovery activities and the implementation schedule, is available at https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Executive Summary The Neosho Mucket is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It is associated with shallow riffles and runs comprising gravel substrate and moderate to swift currents, but prefers near-shore areas or areas out of the main current in Shoal Creek and Illinois River. It does not occur in reservoirs lacking riverine characteristics. The life-history traits and habitat requirements of the Neosho Mucket make it extremely susceptible to environmental change (e.g., droughts, sedimentation, chemical contaminants). Mechanisms leading to the decline of Neosho Mucket range from local (e.g., riparian clearing, chemical contaminants, etc.), to regional influences (e.g., altered flow regimes, channelization, etc.), to global climate change. The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of threats are often complex in aquatic environments, making it difficult to predict changes in mussel and fish host(s) distribution, abundance, and habitat availability that may result from these effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Water Flow on Neosho Madtom
    Am. Midl. Nat. 156:305–318 Influence of Water Flow on Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) Reproductive Behavior JANICE L. BRYAN1 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 MARK L. WILDHABER U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri 65201 AND DOUGLAS B. NOLTIE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 ABSTRACT.—The Neosho madtom is a small, short-lived catfish species endemic to gravel bars of the Neosho River in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, U.S.A. It spawns during summer in nesting cavities excavated in gravel. Although the species has survived dam construction within the Neosho River basin, its declining numbers resulted in it being added to the federal threatened species list in 1991. To test how water flow affects the reproductive behavior of Neosho madtoms, we compared activities of male-female pairs in static versus flowing-water aquaria. Using a behavioral catalog, we recorded their behavior sequences during randomly selected 5-min nighttime periods. For males and females, Jostle and Embrace were the most performed reproductive behaviors and the Jostle-Embrace-Carousel was the most performed reproductive behavior sequence. Water flow decreased the mean frequency of occurrence, percentage of time spent and mean event duration of male Nest Building. Because Neosho madtom courtship, reproduction and parental care is a complex and extended process, disturbances such as heightened river flows during the species’ spawning season may negatively affect nest quality and reproductive success. INTRODUCTION Many environmental cues trigger spawning in temperate fish species, including food abundance, photoperiod, temperature, flooding, lunar cycles and social interaction (Bye, 1984; Munro et al., 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Neosho River (Chanute) Water Quality Impairment: Copper
    NEOSHO BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Water Body/Assessment Unit: Neosho River (Chanute) Water Quality Impairment: Copper 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Subbasin: Upper Neosho Counties: Coffey, Anderson, Woodson, Allen, and Neosho HUC 8: 11070204 HUC 11 (HUC 14s): 050 (010, 020, 050) Drainage Area: 448 square miles (Station 560 only) Main Stem Segments: 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 starting near confluence with Crooked Creek in southeastern Coffey County and traveling downstream through Woodson and Allen Counties to northwest Neosho County at monitoring station #560 and confluence with Sutton Creek (Figure 1). Tributary Segments: Sutton Creek (35), Slack Creek (30), Charles Branch Creek (27), Onion Creek (24), Elm Creek (1050), Rock Creek (7), Spring Creek (46), Indian Creek (924), Little Indian Creek (939), Martin Creek (49), Crooked Creek (44) Designated Uses: Special Aquatic Life Support, Primary Contact Recreation; Domestic Water Supply; Food Procurement; Ground Water Recharge; Industrial Water Supply Use; Irrigation Use; Livestock Watering Use for Main Stem Segments in HUC 11070204. Impaired Use: Expected Aquatic Life Support Water Quality Standard: Acute Criterion = WER[EXP[(0.9422*(LN(hardness)))-1.700]] Hardness-dependent criteria (KAR 28-16-28e(c)(2)(F)(ii)). Aquatic Life (AL) Support formulae are: (where Water Effects Ratio (WER) is 1.0 and hardness is in mg/L). 2. CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITION AND DESIRED ENDPOINT Level of Support for Designated Use under 2002 303(d): Not Supporting Aquatic Life Monitoring Site: Station 560 near Chanute Period of Record Used for Monitoring and Modeling: 1985 - 2001 for Station 560. Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) modeling period for soil data is 1998 – 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 145/Tuesday, July 29, 2003/Rules And
    44466 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 2003 / Rules and Regulations areas in accordance with 44 CFR part #Depth in Dated: July 21, 2003. 60. feet above Anthony S. Lowe, ground. Interested lessees and owners of real *Elevation Mitigation Division Director, Emergency property are encouraged to review the Source of flooding and location in feet Preparedness and Response Directorate. (NGVD) proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood •Elevation [FR Doc. 03–19245 Filed 7–28–03; 8:45 am] Insurance Rate Map available at the in feet BILLING CODE 6718–04–P address cited below for each (NAVD) community. ALABAMA The base flood elevations and DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND modified base flood elevations are made Pike Road (Town), Mont- SECURITY final in the communities listed below. gomery County (FEMA Elevations at selected locations in each Docket No. D–7558) Federal Emergency Management community are shown. Little Catoma Creek: Agency National Environmental Policy Act. Approximately 1.5 miles up- stream of the confluence of 44 CFR Part 67 This rule is categorically excluded from Little Catoma Creek Tribu- the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, tary 1 ................................. *226 Final Flood Elevation Determinations Environmental Consideration. No Approximately 2.7 miles up- environmental impact assessment has stream of the confluence of AGENCY: Federal Emergency Little Catoma Creek Tribu- been prepared. tary 1 ................................. *232 Management Agency, Emergency Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Little Catoma Creek Tributary Preparedness and Response Directorate, Mitigation Division Director of the 1: Department of Homeland Security. Approximately 4,400 feet up- Emergency Preparedness and Response ACTION: Final rule. Directorate certifies that this rule is stream of the confluence with Little Catoma Creek ..
    [Show full text]
  • GRDA), an Agency of the State of Oklahoma
    PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC No. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN As Approved by the Board of Directors on June 11, 2008 GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY VINITA, OKLAHOMA PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC No. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN June 11, 2008 GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY VINITA, OKLAHOMA PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC NO. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN Executive Summary The Pensacola Project (FERC No. 1494) (Project) is an existing, federally licensed hydroelectric project located in northeastern Oklahoma that is owned and operated by the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), an agency of the State of Oklahoma. Completed in 1940, the Project’s Pensacola Dam is the longest multi-arched dam in the world. The Pensacola Dam impounds the waters of the Grand River to form the Grand Lake O’ The Cherokees (Grand Lake). Grand Lake encompasses approximately 46,500 surface acres of water and 1,300 miles of shoreline. The Project boundary is located in close proximity to the shoreline and privately owned land is generally found mere feet from the water’s edge. Since its creation, Grand Lake has been a popular recreational and residential destination. During its history, Grand Lake has hosted the National Governor’s Conference and several nationally recognized fishing tournaments. It is the home of the nation’s oldest long distance regatta on an inland lake and the oldest yacht club in Oklahoma. Current uses of the shoreline include residential and commercial development, agriculture, and wildlife management areas. Grand Lake also has considerable value as an environmental resource. It contains significant aquatic and terrestrial habitat for a host of species. Additionally, the shoreline serves an important function in the local ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Neosho Madtom Determined to Be Threatened
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln US Fish & Wildlife Publications US Fish & Wildlife Service 1990 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Neosho Madtom Determined To Be Threatened Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usfwspubs Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Neosho Madtom Determined To Be Threatened" (1990). US Fish & Wildlife Publications. 201. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usfwspubs/201 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Fish & Wildlife Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Fish & Wildlife Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 21148 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 1990 I Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Cottonwood and Spring Rivers are With the exception of mainstream part of the Neosho River drainage. Federal reservoirs, and Flint Hills Fish and Wildlife Service Specimens misidentified as furious National Wildlife Refuge at the upper Ladtom (Schilbeodes eleutherus) and end of John Redmond Reservoir, all 50 CFR Part 17 rindled madtom (Schilbeodes miurus) stream reaches in the range of the PIN 1O18-AB31 3lso were collected from the Illinois Neosho madtom are in private Ri ‘er in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, in ownership. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 1946 (Moore and Paden 1950). The Neosho madtom is small, with and Plants; Neosho Madtom Subsequent collections in 1948 and 1950 adults averaging less than 7.5 cm (3 Determined To Be Threatened confirmed the presence of Neosho inches) long.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Survey of the Western Fanshell and the Neosho Mucket in Oklahoma
    1990 c.3 OKLAHOMA <) PROJECT TITLE: STATUS SURVEY OF THE WESTERN FANSHELL AND THE NEOSHO MUCKET IN OKLAHOMA To determine the distribution and abundance of the freshwater mussels Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson in Oklahoma. A survey to determine the status of the freshwater mussels, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson, in Oklahoma was completed during August and September, 1989. These species are also known by the common names of Western Fanshell and Neosho Mucket, respectively. The western fanshell is probably extinct in the state. It is known that the species formerly occurred in the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and as a result of this study, was determined that it had also existed in the Caney River. However, no evidence of living or fresh specimens was found in any river system in northeastern Oklahoma. The Neosho mucket has also disappeared from most of its former range within the state and presently only occurs in a segment of the Illinois River system extending from the Lake Frances dam near the Arkansas border to Lake Tenkiller. Protection for this species is recommended. This report describes efforts to determine the status of two species of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Oklahoma. Both species are generally considered to be rare and have rather limited geographical distributions. Both species may meet the criteria of endangered species and thus it was considered important to gain some information as to their current status. Both species have been recorded in Oklahoma but their current abundance and distribution in the state were unknown. The western fanshell, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) was described in 1850 from specimens collected on the rapids of the Verdigris River, Chambers' Ford, Oklahoma (Johnson, 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas' Neosho River, Section 319 Success Story
    Section 319 NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SUCCESS STORY Implementing Agricultural Best ManagementKansas Practices Reduces Bacteria in the Neosho River Runoff from cattle grazing areas contributed high levels of bacteria Waterbodies Improved to several waterbodies in Kansas’ Twin Lakes watershed, including a 20.6-mile-long segment of the Neosho River (“Neosho River near Parkerville”) and a 12.2-mile-long segment of Haun Creek, a tributary to the Neosho River. In 1998 the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) added these waterbodies to the state’s Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters for violating the state’s fecal coliform (FC) bacteria water quality standard and not supporting the waterbodies’ primary contract recreation designated uses. Working with the local Kansas Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (KS WRAPS) Twin Lakes Project, project partners in Morris County implemented agricultural best management practices (BMPs) throughout the watershed. River monitoring data collected between 2004 and 2011 showed that the “Neosho River near Parkerville” segment and waters upstream to the river’s headwaters now meet the state’s bacteria water quality standards. As a result, in 2012 KDHE removed the two segments (“Neosho River near Parkerville” and the Haun Creek segment, totaling 32.8 miles) from the state’s list of impaired waters. Problem The headwaters of the Neosho River originate in the northwest corner of Morris County in central Kansas, which is part of the Twin Lakes watershed (Figure 1). Nestled in the Flint Hills, the Twin Lakes watershed is predominately grassland, which cov- ers 67 percent of the drainage area.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas-Oklahoma Arkansas River Compact 1966
    Kansas-Oklahoma Arkansas River Compact 1966 K.S.A. 82a-528. Arkansas river basin compact. The legislature hereby ratifies the compact, designated as the "Arkansas river compact," between the states of Oklahoma and Kansas signed in the city of Wichita, state of Kansas, on the thirty-first day of March, 1965, by Geo. R. Benz and Frank Raab as representatives for the state of Oklahoma, Robert L. Smith and Warden L. Noe as representatives for the state of Kansas, and Trigg Twichell as representative of the United States of America, which said compact is as follows: ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN COMPACT, KANSAS-OKLAHOMA The state of Kansas and the state of Oklahoma, acting through their duly authorized compact representatives, Robert L. Smith and Warden L. Noe, for the state of Kansas, and Geo. R. Benz and Frank Raab, for the state of Oklahoma, after negotiations participated in by Trigg Twichell, appointed by the president as the representative of the United States of America, and in accordance with the consent to such negotiations granted by an act of congress of the United States of America, approved August 11, 1955 (public law 340, 84th congress, 1st session), have agreed as follows respecting the waters of the Arkansas river and its tributaries: Article I The major purposes of this compact are: A. To promote interstate comity between the states of Kansas and Oklahoma: B. To divide and apportion equitably between the states of Kansas and Oklahoma the waters of the Arkansas river basin and to promote the orderly development thereof; C. To provide an agency for administering the water apportionment agreed to herein; D.
    [Show full text]