Missouri River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load Waterbody Assessment Unit Atchison County State Fishing Lake Water Quality Impairment Eutrophication Bundled With Ph


MISSOURI RIVER BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD

Waterbody Assessment Unit: Atchison County State Fishing Lake
Water Quality Impairment: Eutrophication bundled with pH

This TMDL serves as a revision for the Eutrophication portion of the existing Atchison County SFL
Eutrophication/Dissolved Oxygen /Aquatic Plants TMDL approved by EPA on August 28, 2001

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Subbasin:

Independence-Sugar

County: Atchison

HUC 8:	10240011	HUC10 (HUC12): 02(02)

Drainage Area: Approximately 3.41 square miles.

Conservation Pool:

Ecoregion:
Designated Uses:

303(d) Listings:

Impaired Use:

Surface Area = 75.5 acres
Watershed Ratio = 30:1
Maximum Depth =10.0 meters
Mean Depth = 3.4 meters
Storage Volume = 746.8 acre-feet
Estimated Retention Time = 0.72 years
Mean Annual Precipitation = 33.3 inches
Mean Annual Evaporation = 44.0 inches
Annual Outflow = 1044 acre-feet

Western Corn Belt Plains, Nebraska/Kansas Loess Hills (47h)

Primary Contact Recreation Class B; Expected Aquatic Life
Support; Drinking water Supply; Food Procurement; Industrial
Water Supply; Irrigation Use; Livestock Watering Use

Atchison County State Fishing Lake pH: 2002, 2004, 2008, 2010,
and 2012 Missouri River Basin Lakes. Eutrophication TMDL
initially approved on August 28, 2001.

All uses in Atchison County State Fishing Lake are impaired to a
degree by eutrophication.

Water Quality Criteria: Nutrients - Narrative: The introduction of plant nutrients into

streams, lakes, or wetlands from artificial sources shall be
controlled to prevent the accelerated succession or replacement of
aquatic biota or the production of undesirable quantities or kinds of
aquatic life (KAR 28-16-28e(c)(2)(A)).

1

-------
The introduction of plant nutrients into surface waters designated
for domestic water supply use shall be controlled to prevent
interference with the production of drinking water (K.A.R. 28-16-
28e(c)(3)(A)).

The introduction of plant nutrients into surface waters designated
for primary or secondary contact recreational use shall be
controlled to prevent the development of objectionable
concentrations of algae or algal by-products or nuisance growths of
submersed, floating, or emergent aquatic vegetation (KAR 28-16-
28e(c)(7)(A)).

The pH range outside the zone of initial dilution: 6.5-8.5 (K.A.R
28-16-28e(d), Table lg).

Figure 1. Atchison County State Fishing Lake base map. The watershed is delineated
with the heavy black line and 10 foot contour lines are shown withn the watershed.
(Image source: National Agricultural Imaging Program 2005 aerial photograph of the
region)

Atchison County State Fishing Lake

2

-------
2 CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITION AND DESIRED ENDPOINT

Level of Eutrophication: Hypereutrophic, Trophic Sate Index = 66.45 (1981-2011)

Hypereutrophic, Trophic State Index = 77.83 (2011)

The Trophic State Index (TSI) is derived from the chlorophyll a concentration. Trophic
state assessments of potential alagal productivity were made based on chlorophyll a
concentrations, nutrient levels, and values of the Carlson Trophic State Index (TSI).
Generally, some degree of eutrophic conditions is seen with chlorophyll a concentrations
over 12 ppb and hyperuetrophy occurs at levels over 30 ppb. The Carlson TSI derives
from the chlorophyll a concentrations and scales the trophic state as follows:

Oligotrophic

TSI

<40

Mesotrophic

TSI

40-49.99

Slightly Eutrophic

TSI

50-54.99

Fully Eutrophic

TSI

55-59.99

Very Eutrophic

TSI

60-63.99

Hypereutrophic

TSI

>64

Lake Chemistry Monitoring Sites: Station LM012601 in Atchison State Fishing Lake
(Figure 1).

Period of Record Used: Seven surveys conducted by KDHE in calendar years 1981,
1987, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2008, and 2011.

Current Condition: Over the period of record, Atchison County SFL has a chlorophyll
a concentration average of 50.57 |ig/L, with a corresponding Trophic State Index (TSI) of
66.45. Chlorphyll a concentrations were measured in samples taken during a single
sampling event in the summers of 1981, 1987, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2008, and 2011. As
indicated in Figure 2, chlorophyll a concentrations range from a low of 13.7 |ig/L in 1997
to a high of 123.7 |ig/L in 2011 and have increased sharply the past decade.

The ratio of total nitrogen and total phosphorus is a common ratio utilized to determine
which of these nutrients is likely limiting plant growth in Kansas aquatic ecosystems
(Dzialowski et al. 2005). Typically, lakes that are nitrogen limited have a water column
TN:TP ratio <10 (mass); lakes that are co-limited by nitrogen and phosphorus have a
TN:TP ratio between 10 and 17; and lakes that are phosphorus limited have a water
column TN:TP ratio > 17 (Smith, 1998). The total phosphorus concentrations for
samples obtained at 0.5 meters or less average 66 |ig/L for the sampling years of 1997,
2001, 2004, 2008, and 2011. The total phosphorus concentrations have steadily increased
over these years. The total nitrogen concentration average for these same sampling years
is 1.52 mg/L, and is primarily influence by the Kjeldahl Nitrogen content. With the
exception of the 2001 sampling event, the lake is phosphorus limited and phosphorus has
a strong influence on algal plant growth and lake condition rather than total nitrogen
concentrations.

-------
Table 1. Average Concentrations for sampling events in Atchison County SFL

Sample
Date

Chi a
(|ig/L)

TP

(mg/L)

TN

(mg/L)

TN:TP
Ratio

Field pH

Temp
(C)

Secchi
Depth
(m)

5/20/1981

16.55









15.2



8/3/1987

44.05







8.15

33.5



7/9/1997

13.7

0.0300

0.6565

21.88

8.2

28.5

1.20

7/9/2001

25.55

0.0595

0.2375

4.00

8.75

31.5

1.03

8/2/2004

56.55

0.0600

1.5125

25.21

8.72

28.5

0.91

6/30/2008

73.9

0.0635

1.6855

26.54

8.35

26

0.82

8/2/2011

123.71

0.1170

3.5180

30.01

9.16

32

0.49

Average

50.57

0.066

1.52

21.54

8.55

27.9

0.89

As seen in Table 1, water quality violations for pH with values greater than 8.5 were
observed in 2001, 2004, and 2011. Chlorophyll a and nutrient concentrations were high
during these years and likely influenced the pH within the lake as increasing algal
communities commonly lead to an increase in the level of pH due to photosynthesis.
Algal communities can be reduced through nutrient reduction leading to pH
concentrations that fall within the water quality standard of 6.5 to 8.5.

Figure 2. Chlorophyll a concentrations in Atchison County SFL over the period of
record.

Atchison County SFL

Sampling Year

-------
Figure 3. Total Phosphorus Concentrations from 1997-2011 in Atchison County SFL.

TP Averages in Atchison County SFL

Year

Figure 4. Field pH values in Atchison County SFL from 1987-2011.

Atchison County SFL - pH

Sampling Year

5

-------
Table 2 lists the six metrics measuring the roles of light and nutrients in Atchison County
SFL. Non-algal turbidity (NAT) values <0.4m-1 indicates there are very low levels of
suspended silt and/or clay. The values between 0.4 and 1.0m"1 indicates inorganic
turbidity assumes greater influence on water clarity but would not assume a significant
limiting role until values exceed 1.0m-1.

The depth of the mixed layer in meters (Z) multiplied by the NAT value assesses light
availability in the mixed layer. There is abundant light within the mixed layer of the lake
and potentially a high response by algae to nutrient inputs when this value is less than 3.
Values greater than 6 would indicate the opposite.

The partitioning of light extinction between algae and non-algal turbidity is expressed as
chl-a*SD (chlorophyll a * Secchi Depth). Inorganic turbidity is not responsible for light
extinction in the water column and there is a strong algal response to changes in nutrient
levels when this value is greater than 16. Values less than 6 indicate that inorganic
turbidity is primarily responsible for light extinction in the water column and there is a
weak algal response to changes in nutrient levels.

Values of algal use of phosphorus supply (Chi-a/TP) that are greater than 0.4 indicate a
strong algal response to changes in phosphorus levels, where values less than 0.13
indicate a limited response by algae to phosphorus.

The light availability in the mixed layer for a given surface light is represented as
Zmix/SD. Values less than 3 indicate that light availability is high in the mixed zone and
there is a high probability of strong algal responses to changes in nutrient levels. Values
> 6 indicate the opposite.

The above metrics indicate that Atchison County State Fishing Lake has very low levels
of suspended silt and there is a strong response to algae to nutrient inputs, particularly to
changes in phosphorus levels.

Table 2. Limiting factor determinations for Atchison County SFL from 1997-2011.
NAT= non-algal turbidity; TN:TP = nitrogen to phosphorus ratio; Z = depth of mixed
layer; Chla = chlorophyll-a; and SD = secchi depth. (Carney, 1997, 2001, 2004, and
2008)

Sampling
Year

TN:TP

NAT

Z*NAT

Chla*SD

Chla/TP

Z/SD

Factor

Chla

1997

21.88

0.49

16.44

0.46

13.7

2001

4.00

0.33

0.8

26.32

0.43

2.34

25.55

2004

25.21

<0.01

51.46

0.943

3.88

56.55

2008

26.54

<0.01

60.6

1.164

4.18

73.9

2011

30.01

<0.01

60.6

1.057

6.94

123.71

-------
Another method for evaluating limiting factors is the TSI deviation metrics. Figure 5
summarized the current trophic conditions at Atchison County SFL using a multivariate
TSI comparison chart for data obtained in 1997, 2001, 2004, 2008, and 2011. Points
above TSI(Chla)-TSI(TP), where TSI(Chla) is greater than TSI(TP), indicate situations
where phosphorus is limiting chlorophyll a, points below would conclude the opposite.
TSI(Chla)-TSI(SD) is plotted on the horizontal axis, showing that if the Secchi depth
(SD) trophic index is greater than the chlorophyll a trophic index, than large organic
materials dominate by zooplankton grazing. Transparency would be dominated by non-
algal factors such as color or inorganic turbidity if the Sechi depth index were less than
the chlorophyll a index. Points near the diagonal line occur in turbid situations where
phosphorus is bound to clay particles and therefore turbidity values are closely associated
with phosphorus concentrations. For the years plotted in Figure 4, Atchison County SFL
is primarily limited by phosphorus with the exception of the 2001 sampling event.

Figure 5. Multivariate TSI comparison chart of Atchison County SFL for 1997, 2001,
2004, 2008, and 2011.

Smaller Particle Predominate Larger Particles Predominate

I I

Dissolved Color Clay Particles

i i

1997 *

i i

/'•2C

/ 2004
/ ' 2011

- —0 -
0)

?08

T)
r~

I ~
~

_ _ \S _

NonrAlgaI Turbidity
/

~ ' 1

^ 1 1

2001 1

Zooplankton Grazing

i
i
i

1 1

Increasing P Surplus /
Increasing N Limitation

—

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

TSI(Chla) - TSI (Secchi)

Other Parameter Relationships: Within Atchison County SFL there are positive
relationships between chlorophyll a and; phosphorus, total suspended solids (TSS),
turbidity, pH, and total nitrogen as seen in Figure 6. There are negative relationships
between chlorophyll a and secchi depth and non-algal turbidity. As seen in Figure 7,
within the lake there are positive relationships between pH and: temperature, phosphorus,
TSS, turbidity, chlorophyll a, and total nitrogen.

-------
Figure 6. Relationship between chlorophyll a and: TP, TSS, Turbididty, pH, Secchi, TN,
and NAT in Atchison County SFL.

Atchison County SFL - Chlorophyll a Relationships

Figure 7. Relationship between pH and: temperature, TP, TSS, Turbidity, chlorophyll a,
and TN

Atchison County SFL - pH Relationships

TEMP_CENT

PHOSPHU

TURBIDITY

CHLOROPH

R-sq=15.7%

R-sq=30.1%

R-sq=21.9%

R-sq=48.5°/o	•

R-sq=36.3%

8

-------
Interim Endpoints of Water Quality (Implied Load Capacity) at Atchison County
State Fishing Lake: The ultimate endpoint of the TMDL is to achieve the Kansas Water
Quality Standards to fully support all designated uses of Atchison County State Fishing
Lake. In order to improve the trophic condition of the lake from its current
Hypereutrophic status, the desired endpoint will be to maintain summer chlorophyll a
concentrations below 12 ug/L, with the initial reductions focused on phosphorus loading
to the lake. Reductions in phosphorus loading will address the accelerated succession of
aquatic biota and the development of objectionable concentrations of algae and algae by-
products as determined by the chlorophyll a concentrations in the lake. KDHE
established chlorophyll a target values in the 303(d) listing methodology for lakes, with
the chlorophyll a target of 12 ug/L for lakes with a designated use of primary contact
recreation, but are not active public water supply lakes. The chlorophyll a endpoint of 12
|ig/L will also ensure long-term protection to fully support Primary Contact Recreation
within the lake. If Atchinson County SFL becomes an active or reserve municipal water
supply, as determined by the addition of a point of diversion for municipal use, a use
attainability analysis will be conducted to ascertain if the 12 |ig/L endpoint adequately
supports such use in the lake. Achievement of this endpoint should also result in pH
values between 6.5 and 8.5. Improving the trophic conditions of the lake should resolve
the pH impairment since this impairment has a good relationship with chlorophyll a and
phosphorus concentrations. The reduction of chlorophyll a will lower photosynthesis
rates within Atchison County SFL, which in effect will lower the pH of the lake.

This TMDL applies across all flow conditions effectively addressing the critical
condition brought about by high flow events when nutrient loading in the lake occurs at
exaggerated rates. Seasonal variation has been incorporated in this TMDL since the
peaks of algal growth occur in the summer months.

Based on the CNET reservoir eutrophication model (see Appendix A), the total
phosphorus concentrations must be reduced by 55% to achieve a phosphorus load
reduction of 69%. The TMDL as established through the CNET model is detailed in
Table 3.

-------
Table 3. Current conditions and reductions :

or Atchison County SFL.

Parameter

Current Condition

TMDL

Percent Reduction

Total Phosphorus
Annual Load

1431

444

69%

(lbs/year)







Total Phosphorus
Daily Load
(lbs/day)*

10.5

3.26

69%

Total Phosphorus
Concentration

66

30

55%

(ug/L)







Chlorophyll a
Concentration

50.6

<12

76%

(ug/L)







PH

8.55

6.5-8.5

12%

3. SOURCE INVENTORY

Land Use: The predominant land cover in the watershed around Atchison County SFL
includes grassland (39.2%), cropland (30.6%) and forest/woodland (23.1%) according to
the 2001 National Land Cover Data. Table 4 details the respective land cover acres with
the corresponding landuse percentages for the entire watershed. As seen in Figure 8, the
landuse map details the location of the corresponding landuses within the watershed.

Table 4. Landuse acres and percentages in the Atchison County SFL watershed (2001,
NLCD).			

Landuse

Acres

Percentage

Grassland

855.1

39.2 %

Cropland

666.5

30.6 %

Forest/Woodland

503.1

23.1 %

Developed

83.6

3.8%

Open Water

68.9

3.2%

Wetland

3.11

0.1 %

10

-------
Figure 8. Atchison County SFL Landuse Map.

Atchison County SFL Landuse Map

Landuse

CLASS

	| Cultivated Crops

y Deciduous Forest
| Developed. Low Intensity
| Developed. Open Space
| Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

~	G ra ssla nd/Herba ce o us
_J Mixed Forest

| Open Water
I Pasture/Hay

~	Shrub/Scrub

| Woody Wetlands

Point Sources: There are no NPDES permitted facilities within the watershed.

Livestock: There are no permitted or registered confined animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) located within the watershed. Smaller animal feeding operations with less than
300 animal units may be operating within the watershed. Animal waste from any facility
with livestock may add to the phosphorus load going into Atchison County SFL.
According to the 2011 Kansas Farm Facts there are 28,000 head of cattle in Atchison
County.

n

-------
Nonpoint Sources: Due to the lack of point sources in the watershed the impairment
within the Atchison County SFL watershed is attributed to nonpoint sources. Phosphorus
within the watershed may be attributed to fertilizer or manure application to the
agricultural lands.

The Kansas Biological Survey (KBS) conducted a study of runoff in the Atchison
County SFL watershed during 2002. Nutrient concentrations were documented ranging
from <0.1 mg/1 to 6.5 mg/1 TP, and 0.76 mg/1 to 5.9 mg/1 TN. Since the watershed lacks
point sources, the dominant mechanism for phosphorus entry into the lake is sediment,
and the high levels recorded by KBS suggest that significant sediment movement is
occurring during runoff events.

Contributing Runoff: The watershed of Atchison State Fishing Lake has a mean soil
permeability value of 0.57 inches/hour, ranging from 0.01 to 1.29 inches/hour according
to the NRCS STATSGO database. According to a USGS open-file report (Juracek,
2000), the threshold soil permeability values that represents very high, high, moderate,
low, very low, and extremely low rainfall intensity, were set at 3.43, 2.86, 2.29, 1.71,
1.14, and 0.57" / hour respectively. The lower rainfall intensities generally occur more
frequently than the higher rainfall intensities. The higher soil-permeability thresholds
imply a more intense storm during which areas with higher soil permeability may
potentially contribute runoff. Runoff is chiefly generated as infiltration excess with
rainfall intensities greater than the soil permeability. As soil profiles become saturated,
excess overland flow is produced. The entire watershed has a low soil permeability
value, which will produce runoff with rainfall events that produce 1.29 inches/hour of
rain. Runoff generated from cropland and grassland likely contribute to the siltation
impairment within Atchison SFL.

Population and On-Site Waste Systems: According to the 2010 U.S. Census block
information there are less than 25 people residing in census blocks within the Atchison
County SFL watershed. The population within the watershed likely utilizes septic
systems. Nutrient loading contribution from failing on-site septic systems may occur if a
system fails and is located near the lake or near streams entering the lake. If the on-site
septic systems are in working order and not located near drainage to the lake then on-site
waste systems are not a source contributing to the impairments in the watershed.

Internal Loading: The previously mentioned KBS study also examined sediment cores
taken from the lake bottom to determine nutrient loading rates. They reported 33 mg PO4-
/sq. meter/day. Undissolved nutrients bound to suspended solids in the inflow to
Atchison County SFL are potentially significant sources of nutrients that may endure in
the sediment layer until they are removed by dredging. Internal nutrients can undergo
remineralization and resuspension and may be a continuing source of nutrients in
Atchison County SFL.

-------
Other Sources: The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks maintains a series of fish
feeders in Atchison County SFL. They annually add 6000 lbs. of fish food, corresponding
to an annual estimated phosphorus load of 60 lbs.

Background: Leaf litter and wastes derived from natural wildlife may add to the nutrient
load of Atchison SFL. Atmospheric and geological formations (i.e. soil and bedrock)
may also contribute to the nutrient loads. The suspension of sediment and nutrients may
be influenced by the wind and bottom feeding fish, which may also re-suspend sediment
and contribute to available nutrients in the lake. Fish feeding operations additionally
contribute variably seasonal loads to the nutrient load within the lake.

4. ALLOCATIONS OF POLLUTANT REDUCTION RESPONSIBILITY

Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in Atchison County SFL and allocated under this
TMDL. The general inventory of sources within the drainage does provide some
guidance as to areas of load reduction.

Point Sources: A current Wasteload Allocation of zero is established by this TMDL
because of the lack of point sources in the watershed. Should future point sources be
proposed in the watershed and discharge into the impaired segments, the current
Wasteload allocation will be revised by adjusting current load allocations to account for
the presence and impact of these new point source dischargers.

Nonpoint Sources: Water quality violations are predominantly due to nonpoint source
pollutants. Background levels may be attributed to nutrient recycling and leaf liter. The
assessment suggests that runoff transporting nutrient loads associated with animal wastes
and cultivated crops where fertilizer has been applied, to include pasture and hay,
contribute to the elevated phosphorus concentrations in the lake. A load allocation of
399.6 lbs/year of total phosphorus, accounting for a 70% reduction, is necessary to reach
the TMDL endpoint. The calculated daily load allocation (see Appendix B) is 2.93
lbs/day of total phosphorus.

Defined Margin of Safety: The margin of safety provides some hedge against the
uncertainty of variable annual total phosphorus loads and the chlorophyll a endpoint.
Therefore, the margin of safety will be 10% of the original calculated total phosphorus
load allocation, which has been subtracted from the assigned load allocation to
compensate for the lack of knowledge about the relationship between the allocated
loadings and the resulting water quality. The margin of safety is 44.4 lbs/year, or 0.33
lbs/day (see Appendix B), of total phosphorus.

State Water Plan Implementation Priority: This TMDL will be a Medium Priority for
implementation.

Unified Watershed Assessment Priority Ranking: The Atchison County SFL
watershed lies within the Independence-Sugar Subbasin (HUC8: 10240011) with a
priority ranking of 25 (Medium Priority for restoration).

13

-------
5. IMPLEMENTATION

Desired Implementation Activities: There is a very good potential that agricultural best
management practices will improve the condition of Atchison County SFL. Some of the
recommended agricultural practices are as follows:

1.	Implement soil sampling to recommend appropriate fertilizer applications on
cultivated cropland.

2.	Maintain conservation tillage and contour farming to minimize cropland
erosion.

3.	Install grass buffer strips along streams and drainage channels in the
watershed.

4.	Reduce activities within riparian areas.

5.	Implement nutrient management plans to manage manure land applications
and runoff potential.

6.	Adequately manage fertilizer utilization in the watershed and implement
runoff control measures.

Implementation Program Guidance:

Fisheries Management - KDWP

1.	Assist evaluation in-lake or near-lake potential sources of nutrients to
lakes.

2.	Apply lake management techniques, which may reduce nutrient loading
and cycling in lake.

Nonpoint Source Pollution Technical Assistance - KDHE

a.	Support Section 319 demonstration projects for reduction of sediment
runoff from agricultural activities as well as nutrient management.

b.	Provide technical assistance on practices geared to the establishment of
vegetative buffer strips.

c.	Provide technical assistance on nutrient management for livestock
facilities in the watershed.

d.	Incorporate the provisions of this TMDL into the Missouri Basin WRAPS.

Water Resource Cost Share and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control

Programs - KDA Division of Conservation

a.	Apply conservation farming practices and/or erosion control structures,
including no-till, terraces and contours, sediment control basins, and
constructed wetlands.

b.	Provide sediment control practices to minimize erosion and sediment and
nutrient transport.

c.	Re-evaluate nonpoint source pollution control methods.

14

-------
Riparian Protection Program - KDA Division of Conservation

a.	Establish, protect or re-establish natural riparian systems, including
vegetative filter strips and streambank vegetation.

b.	Develop riparian restoration projects.

c.	Promote wetland construction to assimilate nutrient loadings.

Buffer Initiative Program - KDA Division of Conservation

a.	Install grass buffer strips near streams.

b.	Leverage Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program to hold
riparian land out of production.

Extension Outreach and Technical Assistance - Kansas State University

a.	Educate agricultural producers on sediment, nutrient, and pasture
management.

b.	Educate livestock producers on livestock waste management and manure
applications and nutrient management planning.

c.	Provide technical assistance on livestock waste management systems and
nutrient management planning.

d.	Provide technical assistance on buffer strip design and minimizing
cropland runoff.

e.	Encourage annual soil testing to determine capacity of field to hold
phosphorus.

f.	Continue to educate residents, landowners, and watershed stakeholders
about nonpoint source pollution.

Time Frame for Implementation: Continued monitoring over the years from 2013-
2018.

Targeted Participants: Primary participants for implementation of best management
practices will be agricultural producers within the drainage of the lake.

Milestone for 2017: The year 2017 will be the next time TMDL development and
revision will occur in the Missouri River Basin. At that point in time, sample data from
Atchison County SFL will be reexamined to confirm the impaired status of the lake.
Should impairment remain, more aggressive techniques will be examined to remove
potential sources of sediment and nutrients from the lake.

Delivery Agents: The primary delivery agents for program participation will be the
Atchison County Conservation District for programs of the Kansas Department of
Wildlife and Parks. Producer outreach and awareness will be delivered by Kansas State
Extension. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment shall continue to monitor
lake conditions.

15

-------
Reasonable Assurances:

Authorities: The following authorities may be used to direct activities in the watershed
to reduce pollutants.

1. K. S. A. 65-171 d empowers the Secretary of KDHE to prevent water pollution
and to protect the beneficial uses of the waters of the state through required
treatment of sewage and established water quality standards and to require
permits by persons having a potential to discharge pollutants into the waters of
the state.

2.	K.A.R. 28-16-69 through 71 implements water quality protection by KDHE
through the establishment and administration of critical water quality
management areas on a watershed basis.

3.	K.S.A. 2-1915 empowers the State Conservation Commission to develop
programs to assist the protection, conservation and management of soil and
water resources in the state, including riparian areas.

4.	K.S.A. 75-5657 empowers the State Conservation Commission to provide
financial assistance for local project work plans developed to control nonpoint
source pollution.

5.	K.S.A. 82a-901, et. seq. empowers the Kansas Water Office to develop a state
water plan directing the protection and maintenance of surface water quality
for the waters of the state.

6.	K.S.A. 82a-951 creates the State Water Plan Fund to finance the
implementation of the Kansas Water Plan, including selected Watershed
Restoration and Protection Strategies.

7.	K.S.A. 32-807 authorizes the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to
manage lake resources.

8.	The Kansas Water Plan and the Missouri River Basin Plan provide the
guidance to state agencies to coordinate programs intent on protecting water
quality and to target those programs to geographic areas of the state for high
priority in implementation.

Funding: The State Water Plan Fund annually generates $16-18 million and is the
primary funding mechanism for implementing water quality protection and pollution
reduction activities in the state through the Kansas Water Plan. The state water planning
process, overseen by the Kansas Water Office, coordinates and directs programs and
funding toward watershed and water resources of highest priority. Typically, the state

16

-------
allocates at least 50% of the fund to programs supporting water quality protection and
restoration through the WRAPS program. This watershed and its TMDL are a Medium
Priority consideration for funding.

Effectiveness: The key to success will be widespread utilization and maintenance of
conservation farming and proper livestock waste management within the watershed cited
in this TMDL.

6.	MONITORING

KDHE will continue sampling Atchison County SFL once every three or four years in
order to assess the impairment that drives this TMDL. Based on the sampling results, the
priority status of the 303(d) listing will be evaluated in 2022. Atchison County SFL
should be scheduled for sampling in 2014, 2017, and 2020.

7.	FEEDBACK

Public Meetings: Public meetings to discuss TMDLs in the Missouri Basin have been
held since 2001. An active internet web site was established at www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/ to
convey information to the public on the general establishment of TMDLs in the Missouri
Basin and these specific TMDLs. This TMDL was presented for comments at the
Missouri WRAPS meeting on April 25, 2013 in Troy.

Public Hearing: Public comments for this TMDL were held open from May 4 through
June 7, 2013. A public hearing on this TMDL was held on May 23, 2013 in Ottawa.

Basin Advisory Committee: The Missouri Basin Advisory Committee met to discuss
these TMDLs on September 13, 2012 in Hiawatha and on April 9, 2013 in Atchison.

Milestone Evaluation: In 2017, evaluation will be made as to any implementation of
management practices to minimize stormwater runoff contributing to this impairment.
Subsequent decisions will be made regarding the implementation approach, priority of
allotting resources for implementation and the need for additional or follow up
implementation in this watershed at the next TMDL cycle for this basin in 2012.

Consideration for 303(d) Delisting: Atchison County SFL will be evaluated for
delisting under Section 303(d), based on the monitoring data over 2012-2021. Therefore,
the decision for delisting will come about in the preparation of the 2022-303(d) list.
Should modifications be made to the applicable water quality criteria during the
implementation period, consideration for delisting, desired endpoints of this TMDL and
implementation activities may be adjusted accordingly.

17

-------
Incorporation into Continuing Planning Process, Water Quality, Management Plan
and the Kansas Water Planning Process: Under the current version of the Continuing
Planning Process, the next anticipated revision would come in 2014 which will
emphasize implementation of WRAPS activities. At that time, incorporation of this
TMDL will be made into the WRAPS. Recommendations of this TMDL will be
considered in the Kansas Water Plan implementation decisions under the State Water
Planning Process for Fiscal Years 2012-2020.

Rev October 31, 2013

References:

Carney, E.. 2006; Chlorophyll a Prediction Models. Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, Topeka, KS.

Carney, E.. 1997, 2001, 2004, 2008; Lake and Wetland Monitoring Program Annual
Report. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Topeka, KS.

Dodds, W.K., 2002. Freshwater Ecology Concepts and Environmental Applications.
Academic Press, San Diego.

Dzialowski, A.R., S.H. Wang, N.C. Lim, W.W. Spotts and D.G. Huggins. 2005;

Nutrient Limitation of Phytoplankton Growth in Central Plains Reservoirs, USA;
Journal of Plankton Research; 27 (6):587-595.

Juracek, K.E., 2000. Soils - Potential Runoff. U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report
00-253.

Kansas Biological Survey. 2005. Predicting the effects of watershed management on the
eutrophication of reservoirs in the central plains: an integrated modeling
approach. KB S Publication No. 123. University of Kansas.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2008. Missouri River Basin Total
Maximum Daily Load. Atchison County State Fishing Lake, Siltation.

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Kansas Farm Facts 2011. Accessed on
August 8, 2012 at:

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics by State/Kansas/Publications/Annual Statist
ical Bulletin/ff2011.pdf.

Smith, V.H. 1998. Cultural Eutrophication of Inland, Estuarine, and Coastal Waters.
In: M.L. Pace and P.M. Groffman (eds.), Limitation and frontiers in ecosystem
science. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. P 7-49.

18

-------
Appendix A - CNET Eutrophication Model for Bourbon County SFL.

Input for CNET Model

Parameter

Value Input into CNET Model

Drainage Area (km2)

8.83

Precipitation (m/yr)

0.845

Evaporation (m/yr)

1.12

Unit Runoff (m/yr)

0.17

Surface Area (km2)

0.31

Mean Depth (m)

10.0

Depth of Mixed Layer (m)

3.4

Observed Phosphorus (ppb)

66

Observed Chlorophyl a (ppb)

50.6

Observed Secchi Disc Depth

0.89

Output from CNET Model

Parameter

Output from CNET Model

Load Capacity (LC)*

444 lbs/year

Waste Load Allocations (WLA)

0 lbs/year

Atmospheric Air Deposition (LA)

30.8 lbs/ year

Other Nonpoint (LA)

368.8 lbs/year

Total Load Allocation (LA)

399.6 lbs/year

Margin of Safety (MOS)

44.4 lbs/year

* - LC=WLA + LA + MOS

19

-------
RESERVOIR EUTROPHICATION MODELING WORKSHEET

TITLE ->

VARIABLE

UNITS

Current

LC

WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS...



Latitude

37

Drainage Area

km 2

8.83

8.83

Precipitation

m/yr

0.845

0.645

Evaporation

m/yr

1.12

1.12

Unit Runoff

m/yr

0.17

0.17

Stream Total P Cone.

ppb

390*

125

Stream Ortho P Cone.

ppb

0

0

Atmospheric Total P Load

kg/km2-yr

46

46

Atmospheric Ortho P Load

kg/km2-yr

0

0

POINT SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS.







Flow

hm3/yr

0

0.0

Total P Cone

ppb

d*

0.0

Ortho P Cone

ppb

0

0

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS...







Surface Area

km 2

0.31

0.31

Max Depth

m

10

10

Mean Depth

m

3.4

3.4

Non-Algal Turbidity

1/m

o.oe"

0.53

Mean Depth of Mixed Layer

m

3.39

3.39

Mean Depth of Hypolimnion

m

1.35

1.35

Observed Phosphorus

ppb

86

30.0

Observed Chi-a

ppb

50.6

12.0

Observed Secchi

meters

0.89

1.20

MODEL PARAMETERS...







BATHTUB Total P Model Number

(1-8)

7

7

BATHTUB Total P Model Name



SETTLING



BATHTUB Chi-a Model Number

(2,4,5)

5

5

BATHTUB Chi-a Model Name



JONES



Beta = 1/S vs. C Slope

m2/mg

0.022205

0.069444

P Decay Calibration (normally

= 1)

1

1

Chlorophyll-a Calib (normally

¦ 1)

1

1

Chla Temporal Coef. of Var.



0.35

0.35

Chla Nuisance Criterion

ppb

12

12

WATER BALANCE...







Precipitation Flow

hm3/yr

0.26

0.26

NonPoint Flow

hm3/yr

1.50

1.50

Point Flow

hm3/yr

0.00

0.00

Total Inflow

hm3/yr

1.76

1.76

Evaporation

hm3/yr

0.35

0.35

Outflow

hm3/yr

1.42

1.42

u

Atchison Cnty SFL







Based on CNET.UK1 VERSION 1.0





VARIABLE

UNITS

Current

LC

VARIABLE

UNITS

Current

LC

AVAILABLE P BALANCE...









RESPONSE CALCDLATIONS.







Precipitation Load

kg/yr

7

7



Reservoir Volume

hm3

1.054

1.054

NonPoint Load

kg/yr

135

43



Residence Time

yrs

0.7444

0.7444

Point Load

kg/yr

0

0



Overflow Rate

m/yr

4.6

4.6

Total Load

kg/yr

142

50



Total P Availability Factor

1

1

Sedimentation

kg/yr

25

9



Ortho P Availability Factor

0

0

Outflow

kg/yr

116

41



Inflow Ortho P/Total P



0.000

0.000

PREDICTION SUMMARY...









Inflow P Cone

ppb

100.1

35.5

P Retention Coefficient

-

0.180

0.180



P Reaction Rate - Mods



3.2

1.1

Mean Phosphorus

ppb

82.2

29.1



P Reaction Rate - Model 2

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Mean Chlorophyll-a

ppb

50.6

11.1



P Reaction Rate - Model 3

7.5

2.6

Algal Nuisance Frequency

x

100.0

34.8



1-Rp Model 1 - Avail P



0.422

0.594

Mean Secchi Depth

meters

0.83

0.77



1-Rp Model 2 - Decay Rate

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Hypol. Oxygen Depletion A

mg/m2-d

1706.5

800.8



1-Rp Model 3 - 2nd Order Fixec

0.305

0.454

Hypol. Oxygen Depletion V

mg/m3-d

1264.1

593.2



1-Rp Model 4 - Canfield & Bact

0.404

0.555

Organic Nitrogen

ppb

1315.8

450.7



1-Rp Model 5 - Vollenweider lc

0.537

0.537

Non Ortho Phosphorus

ppb

87.8

28.3



1-Rp Model 6 - First Order Dec

0.573

0.573

Chi-a x Secchi

mg/m2

42.0 ,

8.5



1-Rp Model 7 - First Order Set

0.820

0.820

Principal Component 1

-

3.25 1

2.51



1-Rp Model 8 - 2nd Order Tp Or

0.422

0.594

Principal Component 2

-

1.22 '

0.75



1-Rp - Used



0.820

0.820



Observed

Fred

Target



Reservoir P Cone

ppb

82.2

29.1

Carlson TSI P

64.6

67.8

52.8



Gp



0.663

0.663

Carlson TSI Chi-a

69.1

69.1

54.3



Bp

PPb

86.0

20.8

Carlson TSI Secchi

61.7

62.7

63.8



Chla vs. P. Turb, Flus

2

36.0

7.9

OBSERVED / PREDICTED RATIOS...







Chla vs. P Linear

4

23.0

8.2

Phosphorus



0.80

1.03



Chla vs. P 1.46

5

50.6

11.1

Chlorophyll-a



1.00

1.08



Chla Used

ppb

50.6

11.1

Secchi



1.07

1.56



ml - Nuisance Freq Calc.

3.9

2.3

OBSERVED / PREDICTED T-STATISTICS...







z



-3.934

0.389

Phosphorus



-0.81

0.11



V



0.000

0.370

Chlorophyll-a



0.00

0.28



w



0.433

0.885

Secchi



0.25

1.65



X



0.000

0.348

ORTHO P LOADS...







TOTAL P LOADS...
BAF Override (KS )

OrP '/,





Precipitation

kg/yr

0

0

0.5

az

14

14

NonPoint

kg/yr

0

0

0.23

0%

585

188

Point

kg/yr

0

0

0.8

oz

0

0

Total

kg/yr

0

0





600

202

Total

#/vear

0

0





1319

444

-------
Appendix B - Conversion to Daily Loads as Regulated by EPA Region VII

The TMDL has estimated annual average loads for TN and TP that if achieved should
meet the water quality targets. A recent court decision often referred to as the "Anacostia
decision" has dictated that TMDLs include a "daily" load (Friend of the Earth, Inc v.
EPA, et al.).

Expressing this TMDL in daily time steps could be misleading to imply a daily response
to a daily load. It is important to recognize that the growing season mean chlorophyll a is
affected by many factors such as: internal lake nutrient loading, water residence time,
wind action and the interaction between light penetration, nutrients, sediment load and
algal response.

To translate long term averages to maximum daily load values, EPA Region 7 has
suggested the approach describe in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality
Based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001)(TSD).

Maximum Daily Load (MDL) = (Long-Term Average Load) * e[ZCT~05CT ]

where a2 = ln(cv2 +l)

CV = Coefficient of variation = Standard Deviation / Mean
Z = 2.326 for 99th percentile probability basis

LTA= Long Term Average
LA= Load Allocation
MOS= Margin of Safety

Parameter

LTA

CV

Q[Za-0.5a2]

MDL

LA

MOS
(10%)

TP

444 lbs/yr

0.5

2.68

3.26
lbs/day

2.93
lbs/day

0.33
lbs/day

21

-------
Maximum Daily Load Calculation

Annual TP Load = 444 lbs/yr

Maximum Daily TP Load = [(444 lbs/yr)/(365 days/yr)]*e[2 326*(0 6013)~0 5*(06013) 1

= 3.26 lbs/day

Margin of Safety (MOS) for Daily Load

Annual TP MOS = 44 lbs/yr

Daily TP MOS	= [(44 lbs/yr)/(365 days/yr)]*e[2-326*(a6013)"a5'>(0-6013)2]

= 0.33 lbs/day

Source- Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control
(EPA/505/2-90-001)

22

-------