United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
Total Maximum Daily Load
For Total Suspended Solids,
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus
Piper Creek (MO 1444)
Polk County, Missouri
2S
(GWALkMMDWi
Ch
'4
w
Jliam A. Spratlin /
n
Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division
II-no
Date
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
For Piper Creek (Town Branch)
303(d) Listed Pollutants: Organic Sediment and Unknown
Name: Piper Creek (Town Branch)
Location: Near the city of Bolivar in Polk County, Missouri
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 10290107-0303
Water Body Identification (WBID): 14442
Missouri Stream Class: Class P3
Designated Beneficial Uses:
¦ Livestock and Wildlife Watering
¦ Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life
¦ Human Health Protection (Fish Consumption)
¦ Whole Body Contact Recreation - Category B (CSR, 2009)
Size of Classified Segment: 7.5 miles
Size of Impaired Segment: 7.5 miles
Location of Classified Segment: From State Highway 83 in Bolivar, Missouri, to the
confluence of Piper Creek with the Pomme De Terre River (approximately from 93° 24' 16.93"
West, 37° 36' 1.45" North to 93° 24' 18.16" West, 37° 40' 45.36" North).
Location of Impaired Segment: From State Highway 83 in Bolivar, Missouri, to the
confluence of Piper Creek with the Pomme De Terre River (approximately from 93° 24' 16.93"
West, 37° 36' 1.45" North to 93° 24' 18.16" West, 37° 40' 45.36" North).
Impaired Use: Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life
Pollutants: Organic Sediment and Unknown
Identified Source on 303(d) List: City of Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF)4
and Unknown
TMDL Priority Ranking: High
1 The water body is named "Town Branch" in Missouri water quality standards (WQS) Table H (10 Code of State
Regulations (CSR) 20-7.031) and referred to as Piper Creek (Town Branch) in the 2008 303(d) List.
2 WBIDs are usually assigned to one segment of a classified stream; however, WBID #1444 includes Town Branch
as well as a segment of Piper Creek. Town Branch is the receiving stream for Bolivar WWTF and is a tributary of
Piper Creek. Throughout this TMDL, the name Piper Creek will be used.
3 Streams that maintain permanent flow even in drought periods. See Missouri WQS 10 CSR 20-7.031 (1)(F).
4 Missouri State Operating Permit No. M00022373. The state permitting system is Missouri's program for
administering the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
iii
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 BACKGROUND 2
2.1 The Setting 2
2.2 Physiographic Location, Geology and Soils 3
2.3 Rainfall and Climate 3
2.4 Population 7
2.5 Land Use and Land Cover 8
3 DEFINING THE PROBLEM 9
4 SOURCE INVENTORY 15
4.1 Point Sources 15
4.1.1 Runoff from MS4 Urban Areas 20
4.2 Nonpoint Sources 22
4.2.1 Runoff from Agricultural Areas 22
4.2.2 Runoff from Non-MS4 Urban Areas 23
4.2.3 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems 24
4.2.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions 24
5 APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND NUMERIC WATER
QUALITY TARGETS 25
5.1 Designated Beneficial Uses 25
5.2 Criteria 26
5.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen 26
5.2.2 Organic Sediment 26
5.2.3 Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus 27
5.3 Antidegradation Policy 28
6 MODELING APPROACH 28
6.1 Load Duration Curves 29
6.2 QUAL2K 30
7 CALCULATION OF LOADING CAPACITY 30
8 WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION (POINT SOURCE LOADS) 37
9 LOAD ALLOCATION (NONPOINT SOURCE LOADS) 39
10 MARGIN OF SAFETY 39
11 SEASONAL VARIATION 40
12 MONITORING PLAN FOR TMDLS DEVELOPED UNDER PHASED APPROACH 40
13 REASONABLE ASSURANCES 41
14 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 41
15 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 42
References 43
Appendix A - Piper Creek/Town Branch Water Quality and Sediment Data 46
Appendix B - Piper Creek QUAL2K Modeling 61
B.l Overview of QUAL2K 61
B.2 QUAL2K Model Setup 61
B.2.1 Stream Segmentation 61
iv Piper Creek TMDL
-------
B.2.2 Geometry, Elevation and Weather Data 63
B. 2.3 Boundary Conditions 69
B.2.4 Point Sources 71
B. 2.5 Critical Conditions 73
B.3 Model Calibration 74
B.3.1 Flow and Water Depth Simulations 74
B.3.2 Water Quality Calibration 76
B.4 Model Validation 84
Appendix C - Development of TSS Targets Using Reference LDCs 92
Appendix D - Development of Nutrient Targets Using Ecoregion Nutrient Criteria with LDCs 96
Appendix E - Stream Flow and Water Quality Stations Used to Develop TMDLs in the Piper
Creek Watershed 101
Appendix F - Supplemental Implementaion Plan 101
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Piper Creek Watershed with Weather Stations 5
Figure 2. Piper Creek Watershed Soils 6
Figure 3. Thirty-Year Monthly Temperature and Precipitation Averages for Station 230789
(Bolivar, Missouri) (NOAA, 2009) 7
Figure 4. Land Use/Land Cover in the Piper Creek Impaired Watershed (MoRAP, 2005) 9
Figure 5. Location of July 2009 and August 2009 Sampling Sites 13
Figure 6. Location of Permitted Facilities in the Piper Creek Watershed 21
Figure 7. TSS LDC for Piper Creek at Confluence of Piper Creek with the Pomme De Terre
River 35
Figure 8. TN LDC for Piper Creek at Confluence of Piper Creek with the Pomme De Terre
River 36
Figure 9. TP LDC for Piper Creek at Confluence of Piper Creek with the Pomme De Terre
River 37
Figure A-l. Location of Town Branch/Piper Creek 2004 - 2006 Sediment and Water Quality
Monitoring Stations 59
Figure A-2. Location of Town Branch/Piper Creek 2009 Water Quality Monitoring Stations.. 60
Figure B-l. Diagram of Piper Creek QUAL2K Stream Model (not to scale) 62
Figure B-2. Reaches in Piper Creek QUAL2K Model 63
Figure B-3. Comparisons of observed and simulated flow (Q), velocity (U) and depth (H) in
Piper Creek 75
Figure B-4. Temperature calibration in Piper Creek 78
Figure B-5. DO calibration in Piper Creek 78
Figure B-6. CBOD calibration in Piper Creek 79
Figure B-7. TKN calibration in Piper Creek 79
Figure B-8. Ammonium calibration in Piper Creek (all measured ammonia was below the
detection limit of 500 iag/L) 79
Figure B-9. Nitrate calibration in Piper Creek 80
Figure B-10. Total nitrogen calibration in Piper Creek 80
Figure B-l 1.Total phosphorus calibration in Piper Creek 80
v
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Figure B-12. Validation of observed and simulated flow (Q), velocity (U) and depth (H) in Piper
Creek 85
Figure B-13. Temperature validation in Piper Creek 86
Figure B-14. DO validation in Piper Creek 86
Figure B-15. CBOD validation in Piper Creek 86
Figure B-16.TKN validation in Piper Creek 87
Figure B-17. Ammonium validation in Piper Creek (all measured ammonia was below the
detection limit of 500 ug/L) 87
Figure B-18. Nitrate validation in Piper Creek 87
Figure B-19. Total nitrogen validation in Piper Creek 88
Figure B-20. Total phosphorus validation in Piper Creek 88
Figure C-l. Synthetic Flow Development in the Ozark/Osage EDU 93
Figure C-2. Estimate of Power Function from Instantaneous Flow in the Ozark/Osage EDU... 94
Figure C-3. TMDL LDC for TSS 95
Figure D-l. Synthetic Flow Development in the Ozark/Osage EDU 97
Figure D-2. Graphic Representation of Data Adjustment in Ozark/Osage EDU 98
Figure D-3. Load / Flow Relationship Used to Set LDC TMDL 99
Figure D-4. Example of TMDL LDC Using This Method 100
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Piper Creek Watershed Soils Breakdown (NRCS, 2009) 4
Table 2. Land Use/Land Cover in the Piper Creek Impaired Watershed (MoRAP, 2005).. 8
Table 3. Summary of Piper Creek Water Quality Data Collected on July 15, 2009 14
Table 4. Summary of Piper Creek Water Quality Data Collected on July 16, 2009 14
Table 5. Summary of Piper Creek Water Quality Data Collected on August 19, 2009 14
Table 6. Summary of Piper Creek Water Quality Data Collected on August 20, 2009 15
Table 7. Permitted Facilities in the Piper Creek Watershed 17
Table 8. Percentage Land Use/Land Cover Within a 30-Meter Riparian Buffer (MoRAP
(2005)) 25
Table 9. TMDL Summary for Piper Creek 34
Table 10. TSS TMDL Under a Range of Flow Conditions in Piper Creek 35
Table 11. TN TMDL Under a Range of Flow Conditions in Piper Creek 36
Table 12. TP TMDL Under a Range of Flow Conditions in Piper Creek 37
Table 13. WLAs for City of Bolivar WWTF (M00022373) in the Town Branch/Piper Creek
Watershed 38
Table 14. Existing TSS Permit Limits for Four Small WWTFs in the Town Branch/Piper
Creek Watershed 39
Table A-l. Station Number, Legal Location and Descriptive Information for Locations
Assessed in the MDNR 2003-2004 Bioassessment Study (MDNR, 2004a).
Station Numbers are used in Table A-2 through Table A-14 46
Table A-2. Summary of Sediment Monitoring in Piper Creek/Town Branch - March 23, 2004
47
Table A-3. Summary of Sediment Monitoring in Piper Creek/Town Branch - May 11, 2004
48
Table A-4. Summary of Sediment Monitoring in Piper Creek/Town Branch - July 7, 2005 49
vi Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-5. Summary of Sediment Monitoring in Piper Creek/Town Branch - March 6, 2006
50
Table A-6. Historic Data in Piper Creek and Town Branch 50
Metric Values and Scores, Using Biological Criteria Database for Stations in
Ozark/Osage EDU, Fall 2003 50
Table A-7. Historic Data in Piper Creek and Town Branch. Metric Values and Scores, Using
Five Small Ozark/Osage EDU Regional Control Stations Data, Fall 2003 50
Table A-8. Historic Data in Piper Creek and Town Branch. Metric Values and Scores, Using
Biological Criteria Database for Stations in Ozark/Osage EDU, Spring 2004 51
Table A-9. Historic Data in Piper Creek and Town Branch. Metric Values and Scores, Using
Five Small Ozark/Osage EDU Regional Control Stations Data, Spring 2004 51
Table A-10. Piper Creek/Town Branch Test and Control Stations and Small Regional Control
Station, Dry Fork #1, Macroinvertebrate Composition per Station, Fall 2003.
Values in Bold are the Dominant Macroinvertebrate Families and Taxa for Each
Sample 52
Table A-l 1. Piper Creek/Town Branch Test and Control Stations and Small Regional Control
Station, Dry Fork #1, Macroinvertebrate Composition per Station, Fall 2004.
Values in Bold are the Dominant Macroinvertebrate Families and Taxa for Each
Sample 53
Table A-l2. Piper Creek/Town Branch Test and Control Station Samples and Small Regional
Reference Control Station Samples, Mean (SD) Values for Macroinvertebrate
Community Composition, Spring Data 54
Table A-13. Piper Creek/Town Branch Test and Control Station Samples and Small Regional
Control Station Samples, Mean (SD) Values for Macroinvertebrate Community
Composition, Fall Data (MDNR, 2004a) 55
Table A-14. Physicochemical Variables for Piper Creek/Town Branch Study During the Fall
2003 Sampling Season with Outstanding Values Highlighted in Bold. Only Field
Measurements were Collected at Dry Fork #1. Units mg/L Unless Otherwise
Noted 56
Table A-l5. Physicochemical Variables for Piper Creek/Town Branch Study During the
Spring 2004 Sampling Season with Outstanding Values Highlighted in Bold.
Units mg/L Unless Otherwise Noted 56
Table A-16. Average Percent Estimated Fine Depositional Cover, Bolivar, MO - March 23,
200 4 57
Table A-17. Average Percent Estimated Fine Depositional Cover, Bolivar, MO - May 11, 2004
57
Table A-18. Average Percent Estimated Fine Depositional Cover, Bolivar, MO - July 7, 2005
58
Table A-19. Average Percent Estimated Fine Depositional Cover, Bolivar, MO - March 6,
2006 58
Table B-l. Number of Reaches and Elements Associated with Each Reach in Piper Creek. 62
Table B-2. Stream characteristics for Piper Creek used to develop QUAL2K
model hydraulic inputs 66
Table B-3. Rating Curve QUAL2K Model Inputs 66
Table B-4. Hourly Weather Data for July 15-16, 2009 and August 19-20, 2009 from the
Bolivar, Missouri Weather Station (KMOBOLIV3) 67
vii
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table B-5. Piper Creek QUAL2K headwater model input values for Reach 1 for the July 15-
16, August 25- 26, 2009 simulations 70
Table B-6. Piper Creek QUAL2K headwater model input values for Reach 3 for the July 15-,
16, August 25-26, 2009 simulations 71
Table B-7. Point Source Data Summary 72
Table B-8. Minimum DO (mg/L) measurement at each sampling location 73
Table B-9. Rates used for the Piper Creek QUAL2K Calibration 81
Table B-10. Percent Bottom SOD Coverage 84
Table B-l 1. Quantitative Calibration metrics 89
Table B-l2. Summary statistics for Calibration and validation runs 90
Table C-l. Stream Flow Stations Used to Estimate Flows in Piper Creek 93
Table C-2. Ozark/Osage EDU Flow and Sediment Statistics 94
Table D-l. Stream Flow Stations Used to Estimate Flows in Piper Creek 97
Table E-l. Stations Used to Develop Water Quality Data Targets in Piper Creek 101
Table E-2. Water Quality Data Used in TMDL Development 101
viii
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
£
Sum
Pg
Micrograms
Pg/L
Micrograms per Liter
PgN/L
Micrograms of Nitrogen per Liter
pgP/L
Micrograms of Phosphorus per Liter
AFO
Animal Feeding Operation
BI
Biotic Index
BMPs
Best Management Practices
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAFO
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CBOD
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CBOD5
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-Day)
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
Cubic Feet per Second
cms
Cubic Meters per Second
CSR
Code of State Regulation
CWA
Clean Water Act
DegC
Temperature in Degrees Celsius
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
e.g.
For Example
EDU
Ecological Drainage Unit
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTT
Ephemeroptera/ Plecoptera/ Trichoptera Taxa
FC
Fecal Coliform
GIS
Geographic Information System
HUC
Hydrologic Unit Code
km
Kilometer
LA
Load Allocation
Lbs/day
Pounds per day
LC
Loading Capacity
LDC
Load Duration Curve
m
Meters
m/s
Meters per Second
MDC
Missouri Department of Conservation
MDNR
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
mg
Milligrams
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
MO
Missouri
MoRAP
Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership
MOS
Margin of Safety
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSDIS
Missouri Spatial Data Information Service
ix
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
List of Acronyms (continued)
MSOPS
Missouri State Operating Permitting System
NA
Not Applicable
NASS
National Agricultural Statistics Service
NBOD
Nitrogenous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
nh3-n
Ammonia Nitrogen
no2-n
Nitrite Nitrogen
N03-N
Nitrate Nitrogen
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
O&G
Oil and Grease
°C
Temperature in Degrees Celsius
PBIAS
Percent Bias Statistic
PCS
Permit Compliance System
RMSE
Root Mean Square Error Statistic
SDI
Shannon Diversity Index
SOD
Sediment Oxygen Demand
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TKN
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TN
Total Nitrogen
TP
Total Phosphorus
TR
Taxa Richness
TRC
Total Residual Chlorine
TROP
Total Recoverable Oil Petroleum
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
URS
URS Group Inc.
U.S.
United States
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USDI
United States Department of the Interior
VSS
Volatile Suspended Solids
WBID
Water Body Identification
WET
Whole Effluent Toxicity
WLA
Wasteload Allocation
WQS
Water Quality Standards
WWTF
Wastewater Treatment Facility
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
X
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
The Piper Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is being established in accordance
with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The water quality limited segment is
included on the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Missouri
2008 303(d) List and is identified as impaired due to organic sediment and unknown pollutants.
This report addresses the Piper Creek impairment by establishing total suspended solids (TSS),
total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) TMDLs in accordance with Section 303(d) of the
CWA. EPA is establishing this TMDL to meet the milestones of the 2001 Consent Decree,
American Canoe Association, etal. v. EPA, No. 98-1195-CV-W in consolidation with No. 98-
4282-CV-W, February 27, 2001.
During 2003-2004, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) conducted a
water quality study aimed at assessing macroinvertebrate populations and characterizing
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), TSS and volatile suspended solids (VSS) concentrations in
portions of Town Branch (a tributary to Piper Creek) and Piper Creek. The objective of this
study was to determine if the macroinvertebrate community and water quality of Town Branch
and Piper Creek were being affected by a wastewater discharge (city of Bolivar wastewater
treatment facility (WWTF)). This study was followed by a second study in 2005 in which
additional sediment and organic solids assessment in Town Branch and Piper Creek were
performed. These studies concluded that both point and nonpoint sources contribute to impaired
aquatic life conditions in these water bodies.
Section 303(d) of the CWA and Federal Chapter 40 of Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 130 requires states to develop TMDLs for waters not meeting designated beneficial
uses under technology-based controls for pollutants of concern. The TMDL process
quantitatively assesses the impairment factors so that states can establish water-quality based
controls to reduce pollutants and restore and protect the quality of their water resources. The
purpose of a TMDL is to determine the maximum amount of a pollutant (the load) that a water
body can assimilate without exceeding the water quality standards (WQS) for that pollutant.
WQS are benchmarks used to assess the quality of rivers and lakes. The TMDL also establishes
the pollutant loading capacity (LC) necessary to meet the Missouri WQS established for each
water body based on the relationship between pollutant sources and in-stream water quality
conditions. The TMDL consists of a wasteload allocation (WLA), a load allocation (LA) and a
margin of safety (MOS). The WLA is the portion of the allowable load that is allocated to point
sources. The LA is the portion of the allowable load that is allocated to nonpoint sources. The
MOS accounts for the uncertainty associated with linking pollutant load to the water quality
impairment. This is often associated with model assumptions and data limitations.
The goal of the TMDL program is to restore impaired designated beneficial uses to water
bodies. Thus, reduction strategies for point and nonpoint sources and implementation of source
controls throughout the watershed will be necessary to restore the protection of warm water
aquatic life use in Piper Creek. In addition to establishing a TMDL for Piper Creek, this report
provides a summary of information, results and recommendations related to the impairment
based on a broad analysis of watershed information and detailed analysis of water quality, flow
1
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
data and comparison to a reference stream condition in the same ecoregion or ecological
drainage unit (EDU) in which Piper Creek is located.
Section 2 of this report provides background information on the Piper Creek watershed
and Section 3 describes the water quality problems. Section 4 describes potential sources of
concern and Section 5 presents the applicable WQS. Section 6 describes the modeling and
technical approach used to develop the TMDL. Sections 7 to 11 present the LC, WLA, LA,
MOS and seasonal variation. Sections 12 to 14 present the follow-up monitoring plan,
reasonable assurances and public participation. A summary of the administrative record is
presented in Section 15. Appendix A summarizes the available water quality data. Appendix B
presents QUAL2K modeling conducted to support this TMDL. Methods and data used in the
load duration curve (LDC) modeling are presented in Appendix C - Appendix E.
2 BACKGROUND
This section of the report provides information on Piper Creek and its watershed.
2.1 The Setting
Town Branch and Piper Creek are located in Polk County within the Middle Pomme de
Terre River watershed in southwest Missouri. Town Branch flows northeast through the city of
Bolivar into Piper Creek. Piper Creek then flows northwest into Pomme de Terre River, which is
part of the Osage River Basin that flows into the Missouri River. The Piper Creek impaired
watershed covers an area of approximately 37 square miles with a combined stream distance of
approximately eight miles.
Portions of Piper Creek and Town Branch are listed as impaired due to exceedances of
Missouri's general water quality criteria for protection of warm water aquatic life and natural
biological aquatic communities. Both streams were placed on the 303(d) list under the name
"Piper Creek" due to observations of objectionable solids downstream of the city of Bolivar
WWTF. Piper Creek remains as an impaired water body on the consolidated 2008 Missouri
303(d) List due to organic sediments and unknown pollutants and sources.
The EPA-approved 2008 303(d) List of impaired waters identifies the impaired segments
of Piper Creek (Town Branch) at a length of 7.5 miles. Due to the increased accuracy of
Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers for analysis over previous methods of stream
length measurements, the stream length used in the TMDL analysis does not correspond exactly
to the length shown in the 2008 303(d) List. The descriptive start and end point of each segment
remains the same. This TMDL addresses the impaired segment in its entirety. Based on such
improved estimates using GIS, the impaired segment is approximately eight miles in length,
originating on Town Branch at Highway 83 and continuing northeast to the confluence of Piper
Creek and the Pomme de Terre River (Figure 1). The elevation of the watershed ranges from
approximately 1260 to 870 feet (USDI, 1997). The channel averages approximately 21.5 feet
wide based on measurements at four monitoring locations and the average stream gradient is
0.004 feet/feet or 0.4 percent.
2
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
2.2 Physiographic Location, Geology and Soils
The Piper Creek watershed is located within the Springfield Plateau, a region within the
Ozark Natural Division. The Ozark Natural Division is a physiographic section of the Ozark
Highland Province. The geology of the watershed is dominated by Jefferson City-Cotter
dolomite and includes a small area of Mississippian limestone. Movement of water from the
surface to subsurface is minimal throughout most of the watershed. This is due to the stony red
clay residue overlying much of the Jefferson City-Cotter and the presence of thin shale units
within the formation (MDC, 2009).
Table 1 and Figure 2 provide a summary of soil types in the impaired Piper Creek
watershed. Soil data for the Piper Creek watershed is from Natural Resources Conservation
Service (2009) soil maps and data. The upland soils along Piper Creek are primarily of the
Hoberg-Bona-Creldon Association with a slope range of 1 to 15 percent. The Hoberg silt loam
is gently sloping (2 to 5 percent), very deep, well-drained soil found on summits and shoulder
slopes, with a fragipan layer. The Bona gravelly silt loam has similar characteristics to the
Hoberg, but it can be strongly sloping (3 to 15 percent) and is also found on back slopes. The
Creldon silt loam also has similar characteristics, but it is nearly level and is found on summits
only. The bottom-land soil is the Sturkie-Moniteau-Horsecreek Association, with a slope of 0 to
2 percent built from alluvium. The Sturkie silt loam is found in the flood plain. This very deep,
nearly level soil is well drained with moderate permeability and is frequently flooded.
Horsecreek silt loam has the same characteristics, but is found on the stream terrace. Moniteau
silt loam is similar to Horsecreek, but is poorly drained and has moderately slow permeability.
Lower Piper Creek runs through the Viraton-Ocie-Gatewood soil association. This association is
found on ridges and hills with a slope range of 2 to 35 percent. These silt loams are deep and
moderately well drained.
The soils hydrologic group relates to the rate at which surface water enters the soil
profile, which in turn affects the amount of water that enters the stream as direct runoff. The
dominant soil type C, covers approximately 73 percent of the watershed. Group C includes
sandy clay loam soils that have a moderately fine to fine structure. These soils have low
infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes
downward movement of water. Soil type B covers approximately 18 percent of the Piper Creek
watershed. Group B includes silt loam and loam which have moderate infiltration rates. These
soils consist of well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.
Approximately 5 percent of soils in the impaired watershed are categorized as Group D. Group
D soils include clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay or clay. This soil group has the
highest runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and
consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water
table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface and shallow soils over nearly
impervious material (Purdue Research Foundation, 2009).
2.3 Rainfall and Climate
Two weather stations are within or close to the Piper Creek watershed (Figure 3). Both
stations record daily precipitation, maximum and minimum temperature, snowfall and snow
depth. Figure 3 provides a summary of rainfall and climate data for Station 230789 (Bolivar 1
3
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
NE, Missouri) based on 30-year totals (1971 - 2000) (NOAA, 2009). The annual average
precipitation and temperature over the 30-year period is 45.5 inches and 55.5 degrees Fahrenheit,
respectively. These nearby weather stations will provide useful information for simulating
stream temperature which impacts the growth of algae, decay of carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBOD), transformations of nutrients and solubility of dissolved oxygen (DO).
Table 1. Piper Creek Watershed Soils Breakdown (NRCS, 2009)
Soil Type
Hydrologic Soil Group
Acres
Percent
Bona gravelly silt loam
B
509
2%
Peridge silt loam
B
425
2%
Pomme silt loam
B
1,361
6%
Racket silt loam
B
1,484
6%
Sturkie silt loam
B
265
1%
Wanda silt loam
B
299
1%
(Subtotal B soil group)
B
4,344
18%
Alsup gravelly silt loam
C
587
2%
Barden silt loam
C
672
3%
Basehor fine sandy loam
c
395
2%
Bolivar loam
c
2,501
11%
Creldon silt loam
c
2,969
13%
Goodson gravelly silt loam
c
237
1%
Goss gravelly silt loam
c
377
2%
Hoberg silt loam
c
2,152
9%
Mano-Ocie complex
c
798
3%
Ocie-Gatewood complex
c
1,452
6%
Plato silt loam
c
610
3%
Viraton silt loam
c
4,587
19%
(Subtotal C soil group)
c
17,337
73%
Glensted silt loam
D
315
1%
Hartville silt loam
D
501
2%
Sacville silty clay loam
D
253
1%
(Subtotal D soil group)
D
1,069
5%
Other5
B/C/D
1,002
4%
5 Other soil types that make up less than one percent of the total watershed area include: Alsup silt loam (C),
Blueye-Moko complex (D), Bolivar fine sandy loam (C), Cedargap gravelly silt loam (B), Goodson silt loam (C),
Goss very cobbly silt loam (C), Goss-Moko complex (C), Horsecreek silt loam (B), Humansville silt loam (B),
Liberal silt loam (C), McGirk silt loam (D), Moko-Rock outcrop complex (D), Moniteau silt loam (C/D), Sowcoon
silt loam (D) and Wilderness gravelly silt (C).
4
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Legend
Piper Creek Impaired Segment
/V Streams
State H ighway Roads
Urban Areas
Piper Creek Watershed
O 20CS Monitoring Stations
Sample Site 4
Sam pi e Site 3
Sample Site 2
* PolkSWS
Weather Station
Figure 1. Location of Piper Creek Watershed with Weather Stations
5
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Legend
A/
Piper Creek Impaired Segment
IZZI
Goodson gravelly silt loa
Ocie-Gatewood complex
/\/
Streams
Goodson silt loam
IZZI
Peridge silt loam
Piper Creek Watershed
Goss gravelly silt loam
Pits
Alsup gravelly silt loam
I I
Goss very cobbly silt loa
Plato silt loam
Alsup silt loam
I I
Goss-Moko complex
Pom me silt loam
Bard en silt loam
Hartville silt loam
Racket silt loam
Basehor fine sandy loam
Hob erg silt loam
Sacville silty clay loam
Bl u eye- M oko com p I ex
Horsecreek silt loam
I I
Sowcoon silt loam
Bolivar fine sandy loam
Humansville silt loam
I I
Sturkie silt loam
Bolivar loam
Liberal silt loam
I I
Viraton silt loam
Bona gravelly silt loam
Mano-Ocie complex
V\fenda silt loam
Cedargap gravelly silt lo
I I
McGirk silt loam
V\feter
Creldon silt loam
I I
Moko-Rock outcrop complex
I
VMIdemess gravelly silt
Glensted silt loam
Moniteau silt loam
0 0.5 1 2
l Miles
Figure 2. Piper Creek Watershed Soils
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
0 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
J FMAMJ JASON
Month (1971-2000)
Temperature - - - Precipitation
Figure 3. Thirty-Year Monthly Temperature and Precipitation Averages for
Station 230789 (Bolivar, Missouri) (NOAA, 2009)
2.4 Population
According to the United States Census Bureau, the 2000 population for the city of
Boliver was 9,143 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The urban population of the watershed can be
estimated by multiplying the percent of urban area (city of Bolivar) that is within the watershed
and the individual population of the urban area. The urban population of the Piper Creek
watershed is approximately 8,968.
The rural population of the watershed can be estimated based on the proportion of the
watershed compared to Polk County. Polk County covers an area of 641.86 square miles and has
a population of 26,992. The rural population in Polk County is approximately 15,218 (total
county population minus population of Aldrich, Bolivar, Fair Play, Flemington, Halfway,
Humansville, Morrisville and Pleasant Hope) and the rural county area is 630.33 square miles
(total county area minus 11.53 square miles county urban area). The Piper Creek watershed rural
area was estimated to be 758 persons; calculated by dividing the rural watershed area (31.4
square miles) by the Polk County rural area (630.33) and multiplying the product by the Polk
County rural population (15,218 persons).
The total estimated population of the Piper Creek watershed is approximately 9,715. An
overall population density for the Piper Creek watershed was calculated to be 263 persons per
square mile (9,715 persons divided by 37 square miles).
7
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
2.5 Land Use and Land Cover
The land use and land cover of the Piper Creek watershed is shown in Figure 4 and
summarized in Table 2 (MoRAP, 2005). The primary land uses/land covers are grassland (62.7
percent) and forest (12.6 percent) with impervious cover and low intensity urban areas occupying
7.1 percent and 6.7 percent of the watershed area, respectively. The remaining categories
comprise less than seven percent of the watershed area.
Table 2. Land Use/Land Cover in the Piper Creek Impaired Watershed (MoRAP, 2005)
Land Use/Land Cover
Watershed Area
Percent of
Watershed Area
Acres
Square Miles
Impervious6
1,682
2.6
7.1
High Intensity Urban7
91
0.1
0.4
Low Intensity Urban8
1,597
2.5
6.7
Barren or Sparsely Vegetated
171
0.3
0.7
Cropland
960
1.5
4.0
Grassland
14,887
23.3
62.7
Forest
2,993
4.7
12.6
Herbaceous9
1,214
1.9
5.1
Wetland
26
0.0
0.1
Open Water
130
0.2
0.6
Total
23,751
37.1
100
Note: MoRAP = Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership
6 Impervious land use includes non-vegetated, impervious surfaces including areas dominated by streets, parking
lots and buildings (MoRAP, 2005)
7 High Intensity Urban land use includes vegetated urban environments with a high density of buildings (MoRAP,
2005).
8 Low Intensity Urban land use includes vegetated urban environments with a low density of buildings (MoRAP
2005).
9 Herbaceous land use includes open woodland and woody shrubland (including young woodland) with less than
60% vegetated cover (MoRAP 2005).
8
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Legend
|__| Piper Creek V\fetershed
/V Streams
Rper Creek Impaired Segment
Landuse (2005)
| Barren or Spaisely Vegetated
~ Cropland
_] Forest
n Herbaceous
n Grassland
| V\fetland
~ High Intensity Urban
~ Impervious
n Low Intensiy Urban
¦ Open Water
0 0.5 1
l Miles
Figure 4. Land Use/Land Cover in the Piper Creek Impaired Watershed (MoRAP, 2005)
3 DEFINING THE PROBLEM
A TMDL is needed for Piper Creek because it is not meeting Missouri's general criteria
pertaining to the protection of aquatic life (10 CSR 20-7.031). The stream was placed on the
Missouri 303(d) List of impaired waters because it showed an accumulation of objectionable
9
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
solids downstream from the Bolivar WWTF in 1993 (MDNR, 2005). A two-year study of the
deposition of solids in Town Branch and Piper Creek was conducted by MDNR beginning in
2003. The portion of the study that characterized impacts related to sediment deposition and
organic solids was completed in 2004. The results of this study do not indicate VSS impairment
due to the treatment plant. However, the bioassessment portion of the study indicated that the
aquatic community was partly impaired due to the WWTF. The study reported heavy growth of
algae both upstream and downstream of the facility indicating the WWTF was not the only
source of the impairment (MDNR, 2005). The 2008 303(d) List reports Piper Creek (Town
Branch) as being impaired by organic sediment and unknown pollutants.
The study described above was comprised of three intensive field studies in the Piper
Creek (Town Branch) watershed: a 2003-2004 biological assessment study (MDNR 2004a) and
sediment deposition and organic solids evaluations in March - May 2004 and 2005 - 2006
(MDNR 2004b, MDNR 2006). The purpose of the 2003 - 2004 biological assessment study was
to characterize the relative importance of the city of Bolivar WWTF to biological conditions in
the stream. This characterization was determined through bioassessment, habitat and water
quality monitoring at four locations in the watershed and one regional control station (Dry
Creek). The Dry Creek #1 station is an unimpaired, regional control station with a watershed
size and land use characteristics similar to the Town Branch/ Piper Creek watershed. The
purpose of the 2005-2006 study was to evaluate the impact of fine organic solids, originating at
the city of Bolivar WWTF, on Town Branch and Piper Creek (MDNR 2006). These studies
provide a strong basis for understanding and quantifying impairment from sources in these water
bodies.
An underlying assumption in interpreting metric values based on macroinvertebrate
communities is that a healthy macroinvertebrate community is a reflection of healthy stream
conditions. Mean and standard deviation values for taxa richness (TR), Ephemeroptera/
Plecoptera/Trichoptera Taxa (EPTT), Biotic Index (BI), Shannon Diversity Index (SDI), percent
Ephemeroptera, percent Plecoptera, percent Trichoptera and percent composition of the
dominant macroinvertebrate families from the Piper Creek, Town Branch and small regional
control stations are presented in Appendix A. Taxa richness, EPTT, SDI, percent Ephemeroptera
and percent Trichoptera were much higher and BI was much lower at the small regional control
stations than the control and test stations at Piper Creek and Town Branch. Both the control and
test stations for Piper Creek and Town Branch did not have macroinvertebrate communities
comparable to the small regional control stations based on community composition and stream
condition index (SCI) scores. Mayflies were in higher abundance at the small regional control
stations while chironomids, tubificid worms and planarians were more abundant at the Piper
Creek and Town Branch stations. Caenidae, Heptageniidae, Isonychiidae, Psephenidae and
Arachnoidea were the more abundant families at the small regional control stations while
Elmidae, Planariidae, Chironomidae and Tubificidae were more abundant in the Piper Creek and
Town Branch stations. These macroinvertebrate abundances indicate that water quality tolerant
species pre-dominate the stream biology.
Spring 2004 data showed that TR, EPTT, percent Ephemeroptera, percent Plecoptera and
percent Trichoptera were much higher at Dry Fork #1 than the sampling stations on Town
Branch and Piper Creek (Appendix A). Taxa richness, EPTT, percent Ephemeroptera, percent
10
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Plecoptera and percent Trichoptera were very low at the Town Branch and Piper Creek sampling
stations except for percent Ephemeroptera at Piper Creek #2. No stoneflies were present at the
Town Branch sampling stations. Chironomids were more abundant at Town Branch/Piper Creek
sampling stations than Dry Fork #1. Chironomids were especially high in abundance at the
Town Branch sampling stations. Cricotopus/Orthocladius, Polypedilum convictum group and
Dicrotendipes made up much of the chironomid abundance at the Town Branch stations.
Cricotopus/Orthocladuis, Polypedilum convictum group and Eukiefferiella made up for most of
the chironomid abundance at Piper Creek. Elmid beetles, primarily Stenelmis, were abundant at
all of the sampling stations. Tubificid worms were fairly abundant at the sampling stations
except at Town Branch #2. Planariidae was much more abundant at the two test stations below
the Bolivar WWTF discharge (Town Branch #1 and Piper Creek #1). The results of this spring
study also indicate water quality tolerant species exist in the stream and dominate Town
Branch/Piper Creek.
Primary conclusions of these studies are as follows:
Town Branch
• Evidence of nutrient enrichment (excess algae growth) was present both above and below
the WWTF discharge suggesting that both point and nonpoint sources are contributors to
biological impairment.
• Town Branch was characterized as having poor habitat; sedimentation was high, pools
composed a very small percentage of the sample reach and substrate was very poor for
macroinvertebrates. Downstream of the WWTF, epifaunal substrate10, bank vegetative
protection and riparian zone were characterized as poor or marginal.
• The mean sediment deposition value above and below the WWTF discharge was found,
on average, to be 78 percent and 90 percent, respectively.
• Most of the effects of nutrient enrichment appeared to be due to the WWTF. In 2003, all
macroinvertebrate metrics at stations downstream of the WWTF showed a decline
compared to stations upstream of the WWTF.
• The importance of VSS as a contributor to impairment was assessed in both studies. The
2003 - 2004 study found other factors such as habitat, sediment deposition and nutrient
enrichment to be greater contributors to impairment than VSS while the 2005 - 2006
study found evidence of significant VSS impairment. The 2005 - 2006 study concluded
that "fine sediment percent cover estimations and sediment characterization analysis of
this study do show evidence of significant VSS impairment of Town Branch by the
Bolivar WWTP" [Wastewater Treatment Plant], and that "the notable differences during
[the 2003 - 2004 and 2005 - 2006] survey periods between the two Town Branch sites
indicate the Bolivar WWTP as a significant source of impairment."
Piper Creek
• The upstream control sample location showed evidence of poor to marginal habitat.
Sediment deposition, bank vegetative protection and riparian zone width scored in either
10 Epifanual substrate is material on the creek bed used by organisms that live on the material.
11
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
the poor or marginal scoring category. The influence of adjacent pasture land on erosion
and sedimentation was noted.
• The macroinvertebrate community appears to recover between the downstream Town
Branch monitoring location and the downstream Piper Creek monitoring location. Water
quality, riparian conditions and instream habitat improved at the downstream Piper Creek
monitoring location. At this location below the confluence of Town Branch and Piper
Creek, sediment deposition was low (17-18 percent sediment coverage).
In July 2009 and August 2009, two 48-hour WLA studies were conducted on Piper Creek
during summer ambient or low-flow conditions. The 48-hour studies consisted of the collection
of one early morning (e.g., 05:00 - 07:30 AM) and one early afternoon (e.g., 12:00 - 2:30 PM)
grab sample at each of the four sampling locations (Figure 5), over a consecutive two-day period.
The first WLA study was conducted during July 15 - 16, 2009, while the second WLA study was
conducted on August 19 - 20, 2009. A detailed summary of monitoring activities conducted
during these periods is provided in a separate report (EPA, 2009a). Results from the monitoring
are provided in Table 3 through Table 6 and are discussed in this section.
In both of the 48-hour sampling events, temperature and DO generally displayed lower
values in the early morning and higher values in the afternoon. The pH readings at all locations
throughout both sampling events ranged from 7.73 to 9.20. These values are consistent with
those typically expected for a surface water body. Ammonia was below the laboratory detection
reporting limit for all samples. Concentrations of nitrate+nitrite (NO3+NO2), total kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN), total nitrogen (TN) (calculated by adding the N03+N02 and the TKN
concentrations), total phosphorous (TP) and CBOD5 during both of the WLA events were lowest
at the sample location upstream of the WWTF with the exception of TKN on July 15, N03+N02
on July 16, TKN on August 19 and TKN and NO3+NO2 on August 20. In most cases, the
concentrations of all of these analytes were highest at the two locations immediately below the
WWTF and the concentrations decreased with an increase in distance downstream. This
indicates that the nutrients during these sampling events likely originated from the Bolivar
WWTF.
The studies (MDNR, 2004a; MDNR, 2004b; MDNR, 2006; and EPA, 2009a) conducted
on Piper Creek (Town Branch) identify several pollutants that may be leading to the impairment
of aquatic life. The pollutants include:
• Nutrients (TN and TP) from nonpoint and point sources that may contribute to excessive
algae growth above and below the Bolivar WWTF;
• Sediment (TSS) from nonpoint and point sources that may contribute to sedimentation
and poor substrate habitat and;
• Low DO caused by decaying organic solids, as measured by CBOD5, high consumption
of oxygen from decaying matter on the streambed below the Bolivar WWTF and physical
factors associated with low reaeration rates.
Based on this assessment, TMDLs for Piper Creek (Town Branch) will be calculated for
TSS, TN, TP and CBOD.
12
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Legend
O 2009 Monitoring Stations
t^b^' Roads
| | Urban A-eas
/V Other Streams
IS
J#3
Piper Creek
Sample Locations
st
iiiiiuiikiiiiiiiiiiiiHiniiiai,
Z
]
05 i
2
V
X
jUgUKULllJ111
iininnn-
September 2009
figure 5. Location of July 2009 and August 2009 Sampling Sites
13
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table 3. Summary of Piper Creek Water Quality Data Collected on July 15, 2009
Sampling
Location
Time
Flow
(cms)
Velocity
(m/sec)
CBOD,
(mg/L)
nh3
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
TKN
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
no2+no3
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
Temp.
fC)
TP
(mg/L)
1
6:15 AM
0.275
0.496
2.500
<0.500
0.611
1.080
7.730
7.990
22.510
0.059
1
1:00 PM
0.116
0.273
1.800
< 0.500
0.912
1.160
9.820
8.430
24.310
0.042
2
7:25 AM
0.297
0.399
2.200
< 0.500
0.602
2.080
7.370
8.230
22.890
0.840
2
1:50 PM
0.199
0.316
1.600
< 0.500
0.495
2.645
8.340
8.470
25.050
1.230
3
8:50 AM
0.057
0.006
2.100
< 0.500
1.211
0.520
7.080
8.260
23.980
0.120
3
2:50 PM
0.108
0.012
2.600
< 0.500
1.385
0.610
9.200
8.340
26.910
0.117
4
9:00 AM
0.359
0.166
2.000
< 0.500
0.787
1.610
7.900
8.500
23.540
0.530
4
3:20 PM
0.433
0.201
1.100
< 0.500
1.159
1.690
9.170
8.680
25.900
0.660
Notes: cms = cubic meters per second; m/sec = meters per second; mg/L = milligrams per liter; CBOD5 =
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 days); TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen; N02+N03 = Nitrite +
Nitrate; DO = Dissolved Oxygen; Temp. = Temperature in degrees Celsius; TP = Total Phosphorus
Table 4. Summary of Piper Creek Water Quality Data Collected on July 16, 2009
Sampling
Location
Time
Hon
(cms)
Yclocil>
(Ill/sec)
( HOI),
(mg/L)
Ml,
Nilrogen
(mg/L)
Tk\
Nilrogen
(mg/L)
\0;+\0t
Nilrogen
(mg/L)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
Temp.
(°C)
TP
(mg/L)
1
5:20 AM
0.050
0.156
1.000
<0.500
0.142
1.700
7.930
8.460
21.860
0.035
1
1:00 PM
0.044
0.141
0.700
< 0.500
0.270
1.795
11.680
8.910
23.960
0.035
2
6:15 AM
0.101
0.211
0.700
< 0.500
1.026
3.480
7.590
8.490
23.200
1.365
2
2:20 PM
0.103
0.214
1.100
< 0.500
0.709
4.170
8.600
8.660
25.600
1.910
3
7:50 AM
0.021
0.002
1.400
< 0.500
0.622
0.580
5.450
8.420
24.360
0.077
3
3:20 PM
0.016
0.002
1.400
< 0.500
1.355
0.550
6.550
8.410
25.110
0.071
4
8:20 AM
0.306
0.162
1.300
< 0.500
0.735
2.040
8.490
8.780
24.340
0.770
4
3:30 PM
0.204
0.115
1.200
< 0.500
0.758
2.160
9.550
9.200
26.840
0.750
Notes: cms = cubic meters per second; m/sec = meters per second; mg/L = milligrams per liter; CBOD5 =
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 days); TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen; N02+N03 = Nitrite +
Nitrate; DO = Dissolved Oxygen; Temp. = Temperature in degrees Celsius; TP = Total Phosphorus
Table 5. Summary of Piper Creek Water Quality Data Collected on August 19, 2009
Sampling
Location
Time
Flow
(cms)
Velocity
(m/sec)
CBOD,
(mg/L)
NH3
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
TKN
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
N02+N0j
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
Temp.
fC)
TP
(mg/L)
1
5:20 AM
0.033
0.120
1.100
< 0.500
2.944
1.650
6.810
8.030
18.710
0.024
1
1:00 PM
0.046
0.146
2.100
< 0.500
1.384
1.900
10.390
8.400
21.690
0.024
2
6:15 AM
0.075
0.166
1.600
<0.500
7.000
6.000
6.190
7.920
19.960
0.630
2
1:30 PM
0.122
0.217
2.400
< 0.500
1.319
6.700
8.740
8.340
22.780
0.694
3
6:50 AM
0.029
0.004
1.900
< 0.500
0.496
0.325
2.670
7.710
20.450
0.090
3
2:05 PM
—
—
1.600
< 0.500
0.366
0.260
3.680
7.750
21.400
0.039
4
8:15 AM
0.166
0.099
0.850
< 0.500
0.668
3.550
6.400
8.130
20.140
0.360
4
3:05 PM
0.185
0.103
2.100
< 0.500
1.237
3.500
10.130
8.750
23.120
0.340
Notes: cms = cubic meters per second; m/sec = meters per second; mg/L = milligrams per liter; CBOD5 =
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 days); TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen; N02+N03 = Nitrite +
Nitrate; DO = Dissolved Oxygen; Temp. = Temperature in degrees Celsius; TP = Total Phosphorus. Values
denoted — were too small to measure or compute.
14
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table 6. Summary of Piper Creek Water Quality Data Collected on August 20, 2009
Sampling
Location
Time
Flow
(cms)
Velocity
(m/sec)
CBOD,
(mg/L)
nh3
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
TKN
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
no2+no3
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
Temp.
fC)
TP
(mg/L)
1
5:15 AM
0.029
0.105
1.500
< 0.500
0.985
1.960
6.840
8.020
19.360
0.021
1
1:00 PM
0.027
0.097
1.300
< 0.500
0.827
1.780
10.950
8.340
21.980
0.019
2
5:50 AM
0.072
0.163
1.100
< 0.500
0.847
6.300
5.700
7.950
20.650
0.550
2
1:45 PM
0.091
0.189
1.700
< 0.500
0.646
8.400
7.840
8.210
23.000
0.670
3
7:05 AM
0.103
0.012
1.300
< 0.500
0.768
0.257
2.770
7.730
21.030
0.033
3
2:20 PM
0.001
0.000
1.500
< 0.500
2.973
0.255
4.900
7.710
22.160
0.029
4
8:15 AM
0.165
0.105
1.200
< 0.500
1.067
4.000
6.560
8.090
20.740
0.400
4
3:05 PM
0.199
0.105
1.400
< 0.500
0.614
3.600
10.110
8.770
23.520
0.330
Notes: cms = cubic meters per second; m/sec = meters per second; mg/L = milligrams per liter; CBOD5 =
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 days); TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen; N02+N03 = Nitrite +
Nitrate; DO = Dissolved Oxygen; Temp. = Temperature in degrees Celsius; TP = Total Phosphorus
As discussed in Sections 4 and 5, the low DO problem could be due to one or more of the
following:
• Excessive loads of decaying organic solids, as measured by BOD.
• Too much algae in the stream as a result of excessive phosphorus or nitrogen loading.
• High consumption of oxygen from decaying matter on the streambed.
• Higher temperatures due to loss of riparian vegetative canopy.
4 SOURCE INVENTORY
A source assessment is used to identify and characterize the known and suspected sources
contributing to impairment in Piper Creek. For the purpose of this report, sources have been
divided into two broad categories: point sources and nonpoint sources. Point sources can be
defined as sources, either constant or time transient which occur at a fixed location in a
watershed. Nonpoint sources are generally accepted to be diffuse sources not entering a water
body at a specific location. Nutrients and oxygen consuming substances from both point and
nonpoint sources are considered to be the primary contributors to impairment in Piper Creek.
Historic water quality data used to identify and assess sources is presented in Appendix A of this
document.
4.1 Point Sources
The term "point source" refers to any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, such
as a pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel or conduit, by which pollutants are transported to a water body.
For the purposes of TMDL development, point sources are defined as sources regulated through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Missouri has its own
program for administering the NPDES program, referred to as the Missouri State Operating
Permit System (MSOPS). The NPDES and MSOPS programs are the same and for the purposes
of this document the term "NPDES" will be used. The following NPDES-regulated entities are
included in this source category:
15
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
• Municipal and industrial WWTF,
• Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
• Storm water runoff from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and
• General permitted facilities (including storm water runoff from construction and
industrial sites).
General permits (as opposed to site specific permits) are issued to activities that are
similar enough to be covered by a single set of requirements. Storm water permits are issued to
activities that discharge only in response to precipitation events. Point sources in Piper Creek
were identified by consulting EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) website11 and Missouri's
GIS inventory12 of storm water and general NPDES-permitted facilities.
Point sources in Piper Creek watershed are listed in Table 7 and shown in Figure 6. Of
those listed, five are site specific permits, three are general permits and the remaining twelve are
storm water permits. Five permittees are required to monitor and report effluent or storm water
concentrations.
11 www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html
12 http://msdis.missouri.edu/datasearch/ThemeList.jsp; GIS layers updated May 2009 and June 2009
Piper Creek TMDL
16
-------
Table 7. Permitted Facilities in the Piper Creek Watershed
Facility ID
Facility Name
Receiving
Stream
Classification/
Description
Discharge Sampling
Requirements'
Design Flow
(MGD)2
Permit
Expiration
Date
M00022373
City of Bolivar WWTF
Town Branch
Sewerage system
Unionized NH3, Total NH3, DO, TP,
TN, TSS, Temperature, BOD5, pH,
Flow, O&G, FC, WET
2.55
2013
M00097594
Home Court
Advantage, Inc.
WWTF
Unnamed
Tributary to
Mile Branch
which flows to
Piper Creek
Group Home/
Sewerage Works
Flow, BOD5, TSS, pH, Fecal
Coliform, NH3, Temperature and DO
(quarterly monitoring)
0.007
2009
MO0116467
Quail Creek Mobile
Home Park WWTF
Unnamed
Tributary to
Piper Creek
Mobile Home
Park / Sewerage
Works
Flow, BOD5, TSS, pH, TP (quarterly
monitoring)
0.01395
2010
MO0121754
Silo Ridge
Homeowners
Association WWTF
Unnamed
Tributary to
Piper Creek
Subdivision /
Sewerage Works
Flow, BOD5, TSS, pH, Fecal
Coliform, TRC, NH3, Temperature,
DO (quarterly monitoring)
0.016830
2008
MO0121924
Karlin Place
Subdivision WWTF
Unnamed
Tributary to
Piper Creek
Commercial Park/
Subdivision/
Sewerage Works
Flow, BOD5, TSS, pH, Fecal
Coliform, NH3, Temperature and DO
(quarterly monitoring)
0.021
2013
MOG350232
Carl White Oil
Company
Town Branch
Tributary
Bulk terminal
petroleum station
pH, O&G, TROP, Ethanol, Ethyl
Benzene, flow
General
Permit
2012
MOG490247
Ewing Concrete
Materials
Mile Branch
Tributary
Crushed and
broken limestone
pH, O&G, TSS, Flow, Settleable
Solids
General
Permit
2011
MOG490263
Bolivar Ready Mix &
Material
Town Branch
Tributary
Crushed and
broken limestone
pH, O&G, TSS, Flow, Settleable
Solids
General
Permit
2011
MOR109R13
Industrial
Development
Piper Creek
Tributary
Heavy
Construction
NA
Storm water
permit
2012
17
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table 7. Permitted Facilities in the Piper Creek Watershed (continued)
Facility ID
Facility Name
Receiving
Stream
Classification/
Description
Discharge Sampling Requirements
Design
Flow
(MGD)
Permit
Expiration
Date
MOR109S12
Burlington Heights
Subdivision
Town Branch
Tributary
Heavy
Construction
NA
Storm water
permit
2012
MOR109S57
Monarch Landing
Town Branch
Heavy
Construction
NA
Storm water
permit
2012
MOR10A541
Settler's Village
Town Branch
Heavy
Construction
NA
Storm water
permit
2012
MOR10B098
Walgreen
Town Branch
Heavy
Construction
NA
Storm water
permit
2012
MOR10B515
Stonebridge Estates
Town Branch
Heavy
Construction
NA
Storm water
permit
2012
MOR10C027
ALDI
Town Branch
Heavy
Construction
NA
Storm water
permit
2012
MOR10C083
Highline Village
Town Branch
Tributary
Heavy
Construction
NA
Storm water
permit
2012
MOR203016
Tracker Marine
Town Branch
Boat building and
repairing
NA
Storm water
permit
2009
MOR240033
Bolivar Farmers
Exchange Fertilizer
Town Branch
Tributary
Farm supplies
NA
Storm water
permit
2014
MOR240221
Hawk Fertilizer
Town Branch
Tributary
Farm supplies
NA
Storm water
permit
2014
MOR60A120
Yeargain Steel &
Salvage Yard
Mile Branch
Tributary
Motor vehicle
parts, used
NA
Storm water
permit
2013
1 Where DO = Dissolved Oxygen, NH3 = Ammonia, BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand, TSS = Total Suspended Solids, TN = Total Nitrogen, TP = Total
Phosphorus O&G = Oil and Grease, WET = Whole Effluent Toxicity, FC = Fecal Coliform, TRC = Total Residual Chlorine, TROP = Total Recoverable Oil
Petroleum; "NA" = Not Applicable. Permits identified as "NA" are storm water or general permits.
2 MGD = Million Gallons per Day. 1MGD = 1.547229 cubic feet per second (cfs). 1 cfs = 0.6463169 MGD.
18
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
The city of Bolivar WWTF (M00022373) is located in Bolivar, Missouri. The current
NPDES permit became effective in April 2008 and expires in April 2013. The facility was
designed to accommodate a population of 25,365 people with a design flow of 2.55 million
gallons per day (MGD) and sludge production of 533 dry tons sludge/year. According to the
2008 permit, actual flows average 1.4 MGD. The facility maintains one outfall to Town Branch.
Two monitoring locations are specified in the permit. Monitoring location SI is located on
Town Branch at the State Highway 32 Bridge, approximately 340 meters upstream of outfall 001
and monitoring location S2 is located at the Division Street Bridge, approximately 360 yards
downstream of outfall 001.
Home Court Advantage, Inc. WWTF (also identified as Hillside Estates on the EPA PCS
website) (M00097594) is located in Bolivar, Missouri, and became effective September 2004
and expired September 2009. The facility was designed to accommodate a population of 70
people with a design flow of 7,000 gallons per day and sludge production of 1.5 dry tons
sludge/year. The facility maintains one outfall at Mile Branch, a tributary to Piper Creek.
The Quail Creek Mobile Home Park WWTF (MOO 116467) is located on Route 4 in
Bolivar, Missouri. This facility maintains one discharge to an unnamed tributary of Piper Creek
upstream of the confluence of Town Branch with Piper Creek. The facility was designed to
accommodate a population of 186 with a design flow of 13,950 gallons per day (adjusted design
flow is 6,999 gallons per day) and sludge production of 3 dry tons/year.
The Silo Ridge Homeowners Association WWTF (MO0121754) is in Bolivar, Missouri.
This facility maintains a single discharge to an unnamed tributary of Piper Creek upstream of the
confluence of Town Branch with Piper Creek. The facility was designed to accommodate a
population of 237 with a design flow of 16,830 gallons per day (adjusted design flow is 4,999
gallons per day) and a design sludge production of 1.66 dry tons/year.
Karlin Place Subdivision WWTF (MO0121924) is located in Bolivar, Missouri. This
facility maintains a single discharge to an unnamed tributary of Piper Creek upstream of the
confluence of Town Branch with Piper Creek. The facility was designed to accommodate a
population of 190 with a design flow of 21,000 gallons per day and a design sludge production of
1.33 dry tons/year.
Of these WWTFs, the city of Bolivar WWTF (M00022373) is the only point source that
discharges directly to the 303 (d)-listed portions of Town Branch/Piper Creek.
There are eight storm water permits that are classified as heavy construction, which is
designated as land disturbance, including construction or land disturbance greater than one acre.
This type of permit authorizes wastewater and storm water discharges with requirements that
discharges do not cause an exceedance of the state WQSs (10 CSR 20-7.031) and that the
permittee develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Since the
permit is for storm water discharges, it will likely have minimal impact on DO concentrations in
the stream as the measured DO exceedances occurred during low flow conditions. However, it is
possible that these permits may have an impact on organic sediment and sediment oxygen
demand (SOD).
19
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Storm water permit MOR203016 (Tracker Marine) is classified as boat building and
repairing, which authorizes the discharge of storm water runoff from facilities having Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes including 2514, 2522, 2542, 33xx, 34xx, 35xx, 36xx, 37xx
and 38xx. In general these codes represent metal, electrical and industrial equipment used for
storage and transportation.
Storm water permits MOR240033 (Bolivar Farmers Exchange Fertilizer) and
MOR240221 (Hawk Fertilizer) are classified as farm supplies which authorizes the discharge of
containment water to waters of the state of Missouri from an agrichemical facility.
Storm water permit MOR60A120 (Yeargain Steel and Salvage Yard) is classified as used
motor vehicle parts, which authorizes the discharge of storm water runoff to waters of the state
of Missouri from motor vehicle salvage yards and auto/truck recycling operations.
General permits MOG490247 (Ewing Concrete Materials) and MOG490263 (Bolivar
Ready Mix and Material) are classified as crushed and broken limestone which authorizes
wastewater discharges from limestone and other rock quarries, concrete, glass and asphalt
industries.
General permit MOG350232 (Carl White Oil Company) is classified as a bulk terminal
petroleum station which authorizes storm water discharges from facilities with above-ground
storage capacity totaling more than 20,000 gallons but less than 250,000 gallons of ethanol or
biodiesel.
Storm water and general permits shown in Table 7 and discussed in this section will not
have a significant impact on Piper Creek water quality during low flow events; however, these
sources may contribute nutrients and sediment during runoff events that may impact water
quality in the stream.
Illicit straight pipe discharges of household wastes (i.e., a pipe that transports human
waste from a household directly to a stream or lake) are also potential point sources in rural
areas. These sources are discharged directly into streams or land areas and are different than
illicitly connected sewers. There is no specific information on the number of illicit straight pipe
discharges of household wastes in the Piper Creek watershed. Leaking or illicitly connected
sewers can also be a significant source of pollutant loads within urban areas.
4.1.1 Runoff from MS4 Urban Areas
There are no Phase I or Phase II regulated communities within the Piper Creek watershed
at this time.
20
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
~ MCH30075'
MOR24GE2i,
MORSOA120
Bolivar
MGR10C083
~ / &AOOQ22373
fc ' - fMORIOBSlK
^ VoR109S^7-
/ e MORI OA 541
MOR106098
c' MOR10C027
MOG49024;
MOR20TO1S
[00121754
116467
Legend
~ Individual Permit
o Stormwater Permit
a General Permit
/V* State Highway Roads
Piper Creek Impaired Segment
~v Streams
Urban Areai
I Piper Creek Watershed
MOR109R13l7xv_-+, __
— \\/Y
V" y
N \ I
MO012
40033, MOG350232
MOG49026
MOR109S12
[Miles
Figure 6. Location of Permitted Facilities in the Piper Creek Watershed
21
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
4.2 Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint sources include all other categories of pollutant sources not classified as point
sources. Potential nonpoint sources contributing to low DO problems in the Piper Creek
watershed include runoff from agricultural areas, runoff from urban areas, onsite wastewater
treatment systems and various sources associated with riparian habitat conditions. Additional
discussion on nonpoint sources is provided in the following sections.
Based on the information before us, the decision to apply discharges associated with
unpermitted sources to the LA, as opposed to the WLA for purposes of this TMDL, is
acceptable. The decision to allocate these sources to the LA does not reflect any determination
by EPA as to whether these discharges are, in fact, unpermitted point source discharges within
this watershed. In addition, by approving these TMDLs with some sources treated as LAs, EPA
is not determining that these discharges are exempt from NPDES permitting requirements. If
sources of the allocated pollutant in this TMDL are found to be, or become, NPDES-regulated
discharges, their loads must be considered as part of the calculated sum of the WLA in this
TMDL. WLA in addition to that allocated here is not available.
4.2.1 Runoff from Agricultural Areas
Lands used for agricultural purposes can be a source of nutrients and oxygen consuming
substances. Accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus on cropland occurs from decomposition
of residual crop material, fertilization with chemical and manure fertilizers, atmospheric
deposition, wildlife excreta and irrigation water. The 2005 land use/land cover data indicates
there are 1.5 square miles of cropland in the watershed, which comprises 4 percent of the entire
watershed (Table 2). An assessment of cropland in the riparian buffer of the impaired stream
segment showed cropland to be approximately 1 percent ( Table 8).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) HUC 8 data taken from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2002) were combined with the land cover
data for the Piper Creek watershed to estimate approximately 3,122 cattle in the watershed13.
The cattle are most likely located on the approximately 23.3 square miles of grassland in the
watershed; and runoff from these areas can be potential sources of nutrients and oxygen
consuming substances. Animals grazing in pasture areas deposit manure directly upon the land
surface and even though a pasture may be relatively large and animal densities low, the manure
will often be concentrated near the feeding and watering areas in the field. These areas can
quickly become barren of plant cover, increasing the possibility of erosion and contaminated
runoff during a storm event. In addition, when pasture land is not fenced off from the stream,
cattle or other livestock may contribute nutrients to the stream while walking in or adjacent to the
water body. The low density of cattle in the Piper Creek watershed (84 cattle per square mile)
suggests they are unlikely to be a significant source of pollutants. The USDA Census of
Agriculture also reports there were 4,915 hogs, 510 sheep, 2,799 horses, 11,798 chickens,
13 According to the USDA Census of Agriculture there are approximately 56,196 head of cattle and 420.3 square
miles of pasture/rangeland in the Pomme De Terre Watershed (HUC 10290107) (USDA, 2002). These two values
result in a cattle density of approximately 134 cattle per square mile of grasslands. This density was multiplied by
the number of grassland square miles in the Piper Creek watershed to estimate the number of cattle in the watershed.
22
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
232,540 turkeys and 43 ducks in the Pomme De Terre Watershed (HUC 10290107) (USDA,
2002). No data are available to estimate the number of these other livestock that might be
located in the Piper Creek watershed. Since none of the agricultural operations are CAFOs and
the density of cattle is low, it is unlikely that runoff from agricultural areas is a significant source
of TSS, TN or TP loads to the watershed.
Permitted CAFOs identified in this TMDL are part of the assigned WLA. At this time,
animal feeding operations (AFOs) and unpermitted CAFOs are considered under the LA because
we do not currently have enough detailed information to know whether these facilities are
required to obtain NPDES permits. This TMDL does not reflect a determination by EPA that
such facility does not meet the definition of a CAFO nor that the facility does not need to obtain
a permit. To the contrary, a CAFO that discharges or proposes to discharge has a duty to obtain
a permit. If it is determined that any such operation is an AFO or CAFO that discharges, any
future WLA assigned to the facility must not result in an exceedance of the sum of the WLAs in
this TMDL as approved.
Any CAFO that does not obtain a NPDES permit must operate as a no discharge
operation. Any discharge from an unpermitted CAFO is a violation of Section 301. It is EPA's
position that all CAFOs should obtain a NPDES permit because it provides clarity of compliance
requirements, authorization to discharge when the discharges are the result of large precipitation
events (e.g., in excess of 25-year and 24-hour frequency/duration) or are from a man-made
conveyance.
4.2.2 Runoff from Non-MS4 Urban Areas
Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces, high intensity urban areas and low
intensity urban areas can also be a source of pollutants. Nutrients, organic matter and sediments
from urban storm water runoff can contribute to degraded water quality and impact aquatic life.
Excessive nutrients from fertilizers, pet waste and urban wildlife can contribute to nuisance algae
and rooted aquatic plants, which may contribute to low DO concentrations. Phosphorus loads
from residential areas can be comparable to or higher than loading rates from agricultural areas
(Reckhow et al., 1980; Athayde et al., 1983). Organic matter in storm water runoff may
originate from failing septic tanks, leaking sewers, yard waste, animal waste and natural organic
material. Decomposition of this material consumes oxygen and may reduce DO concentrations
in aquatic environments. Storm water runoff from urban areas such as parking lots and buildings
is also warmer than runoff from grassy and woodland areas, which can lead to higher
temperatures that lower the DO saturation capacity of the stream. Excessive discharge of
suspended solids from urban areas may lead to streambed siltation problems and contribute to
SOD within streams.
Since approximately 14.2 percent of the Piper Creek watershed is classified as urban and
much of this area drains directly to the impaired reach, it is likely that urban storm water runoff
contributes to the impairment. This source will be considered in developing the TMDL.
23
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
4.2.3 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
Onsite wastewater treatment systems (e.g., septic systems) that are properly designed and
maintained should not serve as a source of contamination to surface waters. However, onsite
systems do fail for a variety of reasons. When these systems fail hydraulically (surface
breakouts) or hydrogeologically (inadequate soil filtration) there can be adverse effects to surface
waters. Failing septic systems release nutrients and pathogens that can reach nearby streams
through both runoff and groundwater flows.
The exact number of onsite wastewater treatment systems in the Piper Creek watershed is
unknown. However, as discussed in Section 2.4, the estimated rural population in the Piper
Creek watershed is approximately 747 persons. Based on this population and on an average
density of 2.4 persons per household, there may be approximately 311 systems in the watershed
or approximately one septic system for every 64 acres of rural area. Based on aerial imagery,
most of the septic systems are thought to be evenly disbursed throughout the rural portion of the
watershed located outside the limits of the city of Bolivar. These areas are predominately used
for agriculture. No site specific studies have indicated that localized failure of onsite wastewater
treatment systems are a problem in the Piper Creek (Town Branch) watershed. EPA reports that
the statewide failure rate of onsite wastewater systems in Missouri is between 30 and 50 percent
(EPA, 2002). Failing onsite wastewater treatment systems could be a significant source of
pollutants if the failure rate is close to the EPA estimate. However, given that the number of
septic systems is relatively small (one system per 64 acres of rural land) and that field studies
have not identified the presence of failing septic systems in this watershed, this source is not
considered a significant source of pollutants at this time.
4.2.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Riparian14 (streamside) habitat conditions can have a strong influence on instream DO,
TSS, TN and TP. Wooded riparian buffers are a vital functional component of stream
ecosystems and are instrumental in the detention, removal and assimilation of nutrients from or
by the water column. Therefore, a stream with good riparian habitat is able to moderate higher
TSS and nutrient loads than a stream with poor riparian habitat. Riparian buffers can stabilize
stream banks and reduce soil erosion. Riparian buffers stabilize the stream banks by providing a
root network that helps hold soil in place, reducing instream TSS. In addition, riparian buffers
can reduce stream temperatures by providing more shading and thus increase DO carrying
capacity in the stream. However, riparian buffers can be the source of undesirable natural
material generated in the stream, which may cause low DO problems. For example, leaf fall
from vegetation near the water's edge, aquatic plants and drainage from organically rich areas
like swamps and bogs are all natural sources of material that consume oxygen.
As indicated in Table 8, approximately half of the land in the Piper Creek 30-meter
riparian corridor is classified as forest (MoRAP, 2005). Grassland, including pasture areas,
covers approximately one-third of the riparian corridor. Compared to wooded areas, grasslands
have the potential to provide much less shading and higher nutrient loads due to livestock
activity.
14 A riparian corridor (or zone or area) is the linear strip of land running adjacent to a stream bank.
24
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table 8. Percentage Land Use/Land Cover Within a
30-Meter Riparian Buffer
Percent of Piper Creek
Land Use/Land Cover
Riparian Area (%)'
Barren or Sparsely Vegetated
0.0
Cropland
1.1
Forest
48.1
Herbaceous2
9.4
Grassland
33.4
Wetland
0.0
High Intensity Urban
0.4
Impervious
0.6
Low Intensity Urban
4.4
Open Water
2.6
1 Source: MoRAP (2005)
2 Herbaceous land use includes open woodland and woody shrubland (including
young woodland) with less than 60% vegetated cover (MoRAP 2005)
5 APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND NUMERIC
WATER QUALITY TARGETS
Section 303(d) of the CWA and Chapter 40 of the CFR Part 130 require states to develop
TMDLs for waters not meeting WQS. The TMDL process quantitatively assesses the
impairment factors so that states can establish water-quality based controls to reduce pollutants
of concern from both point and nonpoint sources and to restore and protect the quality of their
water resources.
Under the CWA, every state must adopt WQS to protect, maintain and improve the
quality of the nation's surface waters (US Code Title 33, Chapter 26, Subchapter III [US Code,
2009]). These standards represent a level of water quality that will support the CWA's goal of
"fishable/swimmable" waters. Missouri's Surface WQS (10 Code of State Regulation [CSR,
2009] 20-7.031) consist of three components: designated uses, criteria (general and numeric)
and an antidegradation policy.
Beneficial or designated uses for Missouri streams are found in the WQS at 10 CSR 20-
7.031 (1) (C), (1) (F) and Table H (CSR, 2009). Criteria for designated uses are found at 10 CSR
20-7.031, Tables A and B (CSR, 2009)). Missouri's antidegradation policy is outlined at 10
CSR 20-7.031(2) (CSR, 2009).
5.1 Designated Beneficial Uses
The designated beneficial uses of Piper Creek (Class P) are:
• Livestock and Wildlife Watering
• Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life
25
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
• Protection of Human Health (Fish Consumption)
• Whole Body Contact Recreation-Category B (CSR, 2009)
The impaired use is the "Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life." The designated
beneficial uses and stream classifications for Missouri may be found in the WQS at 10 CSR 20-
7.031 (1) (C), (1) (F) and Table H available from the Missouri Secretary of State (CSR, 2009).
5.2 Criteria
Missouri's water quality criteria that relate to DO, organic sediment and nutrients are
presented in the following sections. The sections also provide brief descriptions of why these
parameters are important to water quality, how they are measured and how they are related to
other water quality parameters.
5.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen
The amount of DO in water is one of the most commonly used indicators of river and
stream health. Under extended hypoxic (low DO) or anoxic (no DO) conditions, many higher
forms of life are driven off or die. Fish, mussels, macroinvertebrates and all other aquatic life
utilize DO to create energy and metabolize food. The WQS for all Missouri streams except cold
water fisheries require a daily minimum of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) DO (10 CSR 20-7.031
Table A (CSR, 2009)).
DO in streams is affected by several factors including water temperature, the amount of
decaying matter (i.e., organic sediment) in the stream, turbulence at the air-water interface and
the amount of photosynthesis occurring in plants within the stream. Excessive nitrogen and
phosphorus loading to water bodies can also contribute to DO problems because they can
accelerate algal growth.
Algae growth in streams is most frequently assessed based on the amount of chlorophyll-
a in the water. Algal growth is affected by numerous biotic and abiotic factors including light
availability, flow and water velocity, nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus), grazing
and other influences. Algae contribute DO during photosynthesis and consume DO during
respiration. This typically results in a net gain of DO during the day and net loss of DO during
the night. The breakdown of dead, decaying algae also removes oxygen from water. The most
common approach to reducing excessive algal growth involves controls on activities that
contribute phosphorus to the water body.
5.2.2 Organic Sediment
As previously mentioned, organic sediments can contribute to fluctuating DO
concentrations. Decaying matter can come from wastewater effluent, as well as agricultural and
urban runoff and is typically measured in-stream as BOD. Decaying matter can also accumulate
on the bottom of a stream and cause sediment oxygen demand (SOD). SOD is a combination of
all of the oxygen-consuming processes that occur at or just below the sediment/water interface.
SOD is partly due to biological processes and partly due to chemical processes. Most of the
26
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
SOD at the surface of the sediment is due to the biological decomposition of organic material
and the bacterially facilitated nitrification of NH3, while SOD found several centimeters into the
sediment is often dominated by the chemical oxidation of species such as iron, manganese and
sulfide (Wang, 1980; Walker and Snodgrass, 1986).
High levels of organic sediment can contribute to sludge production along stream beds
which smother aquatic invertebrates and fish eggs and cause offensive odors and unsightliness.
Missouri's WQS do not include specific numeric criteria for this pollutant, but given the natural
effects of excessive organic sediment on aquatic life, Missouri's narrative criteria are applicable
[10 CSR 20-7.031(3) (A), (C), (D) and (G)] (CSR, 2009). Included in the narrative criteria are
the following requirements:
• Waters shall be free from substances in sufficient amounts to cause the formation of
putrescent, unsightly or harmful bottom deposits, or prevent full maintenance of
beneficial uses.
• Waters shall be free from substances in sufficient amounts to cause unsightly color or
turbidity, offensive odor, or prevent full maintenance of beneficial uses.
• Waters shall be free from substances or conditions in sufficient amounts to result in
toxicity to human, animal or aquatic life.
• Waters shall be free from physical, chemical or hydrologic changes that would impair the
natural biological community.
There are many quantitative indicators of sediment, such as TSS, turbidity and bedload
sediment, which are appropriate to describe sediment in rivers and streams (EPA, 2006). A
concentration of TSS was selected to represent the numeric target for this TMDL because it
enables the use of the highest quality available data and is included in monitoring data. A
detailed discussion of the method used to develop the TSS target is provided in Appendix C.
5.2.3 Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus
An overabundance of nutrients, in particular nitrogen and phosphorus, is a serious threat
to aquatic ecosystems. Excess nutrients support rapid algal growth, also referred to as algal
blooms, which will cause significant changes to the water body. This phenomenon is called
eutrophication. Eutrophication is the natural aging of lakes or streams caused by nutrient
enrichment. Cultural eutrophication is the accelerated aging of the natural condition caused by
human activities. Nutrient related water quality issues include the following:
• Proliferation of nuisance algae and the resulting unsightly and harmful bottom deposits;
• Turbidity due to suspended algae and the resulting green color;
• Organic enrichment when algal blooms die off, which perpetuates the cycle of excessive
plant growth;
• Low DO caused by extreme swings in oxygen production by over abundant plant life and
oxygen depletion resulting from decomposition of algae and other plants, which can have
a negative impact on aquatic organisms.
27
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Missouri does not have a numeric criterion for TN and TP in freshwater streams;
therefore, targets and LCs are based on EPA-recommended Ecoregion 39 criteria and water
quality observations at locations throughout the ecoregion (EPA, 2000). Reference conditions
for TN and TP in level III Ecoregion 39 streams are as follows: TN = 0.289 mg/L and TP =
0.007 mg/L. For this TMDL, recommended TN and TP ecoregion criteria are used directly in
developing LCs for TN and TP. A detailed discussion of the method used to develop the TN and
TP targets is provided in Appendix D of this report.
5.3 Antidegradation Policy
Missouri's WQS include EPA's "three-tiered" approach to antidegradation, which may
be found at 10 CSR 20-7.031(2) (CSR, 2009).
Tier 1 - Protects existing in stream uses and a level of water quality necessary to
maintain and protect those uses. Tier 1 provides the absolute floor of water quality for all
waters of the United States. Existing in stream water uses are those uses that were
attained on or after November 28, 1975, the date of EPA's first WQS Regulation.
Tier 2 - Protects and maintains the existing level of water quality where it is better than
applicable water quality criteria. Before water quality in Tier 2 waters can be lowered,
there must be an anti-degradation review consisting of: 1) a finding that it is necessary to
accommodate important economic and social development in the area where the waters
are located; 2) full satisfaction of all intergovernmental coordination and public
participation provisions; and 3) assurance that the highest statutory and regulatory
requirements for point sources and best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint
sources are achieved. Furthermore, water quality may not be lowered to less than the
level necessary to fully protect the "fishable/swimmable" uses and other existing or
beneficial uses.
Tier 3 - Protects the quality of outstanding national and state resource waters, such as
waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges and exceptional recreational or
ecological significance. There may be no new or increased discharges to these waters
and no new or increased discharges to tributaries of these waters that would result in
lower water quality.
6 MODELING APPROACH
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) in streams is determined by the factors of photosynthetic
productivity, respiration (autotrophic and heterotrophic), reaeration and temperature. These
factors are influenced by natural and anthropogenic conditions within a watershed. Generally,
reaeration is based on the physical properties of the stream and on the capacity of water to hold
DO. This capacity is mainly determined by water temperature with colder water having a higher
saturation concentration for DO. In a review of variables and their importance in DO modeling,
Nijboer and Verdonschot (2004) categorized the impact of a number of variables on oxygen
depletion. For this TMDL, the effects of temperature and the physical aspects of the stream itself
were discounted. Even though the hydrological regime of historic alluvial streams was modified
28
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
by changes in land cover and channelization, manipulation of these parameters does not address
a pollutant and so is not the goal of a TMDL. Pollutants which result in oxygen concentrations
below saturation are:
• fine particle size of bottom sediment
• high nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorus)
• turbidity
An essential component of developing a TMDL is establishing a relationship between the
source loadings and the resulting water quality. For this TMDL, two modeling approaches are
used. The load duration curve (LDC) method is used to develop TMDLs for TSS, TN and TP
under all flow conditions and the QUAL2K model is used to assess DO under low flow
conditions. The relationship between the source loadings of CBOD, nutrients (NH3, TN and TP)
and algal dynamics on DO is generated by the water quality model QUAL2K (Chapra et al.,
2008) under steady low flow conditions.
Since fine particle sized sediment and turbidity are derived from similar loading
conditions of terrestrial and stream bank erosion, this TMDL establishes an allocation for TSS
(see Appendix C for discussion of development of TSS targets). This target was derived based
on a reference approach by targeting the 25th percentile of TSS measurements (USGS, non-
filterable residue) in the Ozark/Osage geographic region in which Piper Creek is located. To
address nutrient levels, the EPA nutrient ecoregion reference concentrations were used. For the
Level III 39 Ecoregion where Piper Creek is located, the reference concentration for TN is 0.289
mg/L and the reference concentration for TP is 0.007 mg/L (EPA, 2000). This TMDL will not
specifically target chlorophyll as a WLA, but will use a linkage between nutrient concentrations
and chlorophyll response to achieve the ecoregion reference concentrations.
6.1 Load Duration Curves
The sediment target for this TMDL was derived using a reference approach by targeting
the 25th percentile of TSS measurements (USGS, non-filterable residue) in the geographical
region in which Piper Creek is located (see Appendix C for a list of sites and data). In this
approach, the target for pollutant loading is the 25th percentile of the current EDU condition
calculated from all data available within the EDU in which the water body is located. Therefore,
the 25th percentile is targeted as the TMDL LDC.
To develop LDCs for TN and TP, a method similar to that used for TSS was employed.
First, TN and TP measurements were collected from USGS sites in the vicinity of the impaired
stream. These data were adjusted such that the median of the measured data was equal to the
ecoregion reference concentration. This was accomplished by subtracting the difference of the
data median and the reference concentration. Where this would result in a negative
concentration, the data point in question was replaced with the minimum concentration seen in
the measured data. This resulted in a modeled data set which retained much of the original
variability seen in the measured data. This modeled data was then regressed as instantaneous
load versus flow. The resultant regression equation was used to develop the LDC. Allowable
pollutant loads were calculated for all flow conditions by multiplying flow by either the EPA-
29
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
recommended ecoregion reference concentration or the concentration established using the
regional streams, whichever concentration is higher.
To develop the TMDL expression of maximum daily loads, the background discharge at
the stream outlet was modified from the traditional approach using synthetic flow estimation.
Since the design flow from permitted facilities would overwhelm the background natural low
flow, the sum of permitted volumes was added to the derived stream discharge at all percentiles
of flow to take into account the increases in flow volume as well as pollutant load. The TMDL
curves in the LDCs flatten at low flow because at these lower flows the TMDL target is
dominated by the point source flow.
6.2 QUAL2K
QUAL2K and its predecessor models have been used extensively for permitting of
wastewater treatment discharges and TMDL development across the country. QUAL2K is
supported by EPA and is well accepted within the scientific community because of its proven
ability to simulate the processes important to DO conditions within streams. QUAL2K is
suitable for simulating the hydraulics and water quality conditions of a small river. It is a one-
dimensional model with the assumption of a completely mixed system for each computational
cell. QUAL2K assumes that the major pollutant transport mechanisms, advection and
dispersion, are significant only along the longitudinal direction of flow. The model allows for
multiple waste discharges, water withdrawals, tributary flows and incremental inflows and
outflows. The processes employed in QUAL2K address nutrient cycles, algal growth and DO
dynamics. QUAL2K links plant respiration and photosynthesis as well as other oxygen
demanding substances such as CBOD, the nitrification process (which uses oxygen to reduce
organic nitrogen to NH3 and then to NO3+NO2) and sediment demands of organic substances to
instream oxygen levels.
Flow and water quality data collected on July 15 - 16, 2009, were used to calibrate the
QUAL2K model for Piper Creek and data collected on August 19 - 20, 2009, were used to
validate the models. Once the QUAL2K model was set up and calibrated for Piper Creek, a
series of scenarios were run to evaluate the pollutant load reductions needed to achieve the
minimum DO criterion. These results are summarized in Section 7 and a detailed discussion of
the QUAL2K model is included in Appendix B.
7 CALCULATION OF LOADING CAPACITY
LC is defined as the greatest amount of a pollutant that a water body can assimilate
without violating WQS. This load is then divided among the point source (WLA) and nonpoint
source (LA) contributions to the stream, with an allowance for an explicit MOS. The MOS
accounts for uncertainty in the relationship between pollutant loads and the quality of the
receiving water body. If the MOS is implicit, no numeric allowance is necessary. Conceptually,
this definition is represented by the equation:
LC = E WLAs + E LAs + MOS Equation 1
30
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Where:
LC = Loading Capacity
WLA = Wasteload Allocations (point source)
LA = Load Allocations (nonpoint source)
MOS = Margin of Safety (may be implicit and factored into a conservative WLA or
LA or explicit)
The objective of the TMDL is to estimate allowable pollutant loads and to allocate these
loads to known pollutant sources within the watershed so appropriate control measures can be
implemented and the WQS can be achieved. The WLA and LA are calculated by multiplying
the appropriate flow in cubic feet per second (cfs) by the appropriate pollutant concentration in
milligrams per liter (mg/L). A conversion factor of 5.395 is used to convert to pounds per day
(lbs/day).
Critical conditions are considered when the LC is calculated. DO levels that threaten the
integrity of aquatic communities generally occur during low flow periods, so these periods are
considered the critical condition. For Class P streams, mixing zones are applicable to all
pollutants (with the exception of bacteria) that have specific criteria. Mixing zones are typically
based on the 7-day average low flow of a stream with a recurrence interval of 10 years (7Q10) to
account for critical low-flow conditions.
In the case of Piper Creek, a mixing zone of one-quarter (lA) of the stream width, cross-
sectional area, or volume of flow and a length of lA mile is allowed. For modeling purposes, lA
of the 7Q10 flow was used. The default 7Q10 for Class P streams is 0.1 cfs; thus a mixing zone
flow of 0.025 cfs is appropriate for Piper Creek upstream of the facility. For DO targeting
purposes, the 5 mg/L minimum DO criterion must be met at one-quarter mile below the facility
outfall at 25 percent of the 7Q10 low flow to meet the mixing zone requirements. The applicable
mixing zone regulation can be found at 10 CSR 20-7.031 (4) (A)4.B.(II). The rationale for
limiting the size of mixing zones is three-fold. First, the assumption of rapid and complete
mixing is not a conservative assumption. Meaning, many times effluent plumes exist and cause
areas of chronically toxic conditions that can extend laterally and longitudinally downstream.
Second a zone of passage should be provided so that aquatic organisms may pass by facility
outfalls without becoming adversely affected. Third, for antidegradation purposes, the entire
assimilative capacity of the water body cannot be allocated to a single discharger.
The mixing zone extends one-quarter mile downstream of the facility and the LC must
meet the DO target at the end of this section of the impaired segment. For modeling purposes,
model runs were conducted at one-quarter of the 7Q10 low flow to assess LC values one-quarter
mile downstream of the Bolivar WWTF and using 7Q10 low flow at distances further than a
quarter mile from the Bolivar WWTF. The QUAL2K models predicted that the minimum DO
concentration occurs within a quarter mile of the WWTF; thus, critical conditions are controlled
by the one-quarter 7Q10 flow. Loads required to meet 5 mg/L DO under one-quarter of the
7Q10 flows were found to also achieve 5 mg/L DO at 7Q10 flows.
31
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
The QUAL2K model was calibrated using data collected on July 15 - 16, 2009, and
validated using data collected on August 19 - 20, 2009. The August 19 - 20, 2009, models were
used to identify the LC since this period represented more critical conditions (i.e., reduced DO
and lower flows) than those present during the July 2009 monitoring events. The following steps
were taken during the modeling process:
Step 1: Application of the Model to Existing Conditions
This application forms the current condition that is used to evaluate the magnitude
of load reductions that are needed to meet WQS. Nonpoint source loads are set
equal to the calibrated conditions.
Step 2: Application of the Model to Existing Conditions with Point Sources at Permit
Limits
This application forms the baseline condition that will be reduced to meet the
allowable load. The Bolivar WWTF was set at its permit limits using the
permitted flow and mean daily concentration allowed for in the permit. For
pollutants not included in the permit, the observed effluent data were used.
Step 3: Develop and Test Allocation Scenarios
Working from the baseline condition and considering the primary pollutant
sources, sample allocation scenarios were developed and applied. For example, if
existing BOD or nutrient effluent limits for the Bolivar WWTF in Step 2 are not
protective of the instream DO WQS, the QUAL2K model is iteratively run at
reduced BOD and nutrient concentrations until compliance with the WQS is met.
The difference, between the baseline condition and BOD and nutrient WLA
required to achieve the standard, is the percent reduction needed at the facility.
The TMDL, summarized in Table 9, is based on simulating one-quarter of 7Q10 flows in
the model using the August 19, 2009, model results. The results are protective (e.g. DO > 5
mg/L) of the mixing zone at one-quarter the 7Q10 flow one-quarter mile downstream of the plant
and in the entire impaired reach.
The modeling analysis indicates that a zero percent reduction in NH3, a 82 percent
reduction in BOD5 load (from baseline conditions), a 50 percent reduction in SOD and increased
effluent aeration to increase DO in the WWTF effluent concentrations to 5 mg/L are needed to
achieve a minimum DO of 5 mg/L at locations downstream of the mixing zone.
BOD reductions are deemed necessary to achieve the SOD reduction because most of the
SOD at the surface of the sediment is likely due to the biological decomposition of particulate
organic material (including algae) discharged by the WWTF that settles downstream of the
outfall. Bacterially facilitated nitrification of NH3 is also a likely contributor to SOD.
32
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
To meet the targeted nutrient and TSS critical condition targets outlined in this TMDL,
the sum of the WLA was calculated by using nutrient ecoregion reference concentrations, the
25th percentile EDU TSS concentrations and the sum of the design flows of permitted facilities
in the watershed. The nonpoint sources or LA TMDL targets for TSS, TP and TN were
calculated by using nutrient ecoregion reference concentrations, the 25th percentile EDU TSS
concentrations and the sum of the headwater and tributary flows. For tributary loading, the
ecoregion target for nitrogen (289 micrograms of Nitrogen per Liter [pgN/L] was assigned as
289 pgN/L in the organic nitrogen fraction, based on the assumption that, after implementing the
TMDL, nitrogen from nonpoint sources would be largely represented by the organic nitrogen
fraction. Similarly, for point source loading, the ecoregion target for nitrogen was assigned as
289 pgN/L ammonia, based on the assumption that ammonia is the primary parameter of
concern, with respect to nitrogen, in treated WWTF effluent. For both point and nonpoint
sources, the ecoregion criteria target for TP was split 70:30 between organic and inorganic
phosphorus fractions15, respectively, such that the organic phosphorus target was set equal to 4.9
pg/L and the inorganic phosphorus target was set equal to 2.1 pg/L. TP and TN nonpoint source
baseline flow conditions were obtained using existing loads sampled on August 19, 2009. The
LDCs for the targeted pollutants are depicted in Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9, where the
TMDL line represents the total LC of all point and nonpoint sources of pollutants. In these
figures, the "Continuous WLA" includes the combined allocation for all five WWTFs that have a
permitted design flow (city of Bolivar WWTF, Home Court Advantage, Inc. WWTF, Quail
Creek Mobile Home Park WWTF, Silo Ridge Homeowners Association WWTF and Karlin
Place Subdivision WWTF). The pollutant allocations under a range of flow conditions are
presented in Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12.
15 Under the natural conditions, a stream would have more organic phosphorus than dissolved
phosphorus.
Piper Creek TMDL
33
-------
Table 9. TMDL Summary for Piper Creek at Critical Low Flows
Pollutant
Baseline Conditions (based on
monthly average limits and
design flow)
TMDL
WLA
Percent
Reduction
LA
Percent
Reduction
Point
Sources
Nonpoint
Sources
Total
Point
Sources
(WLA)
Nonpoint
Sources
(LA)
Total
Flow
(cfs)
4.026
0.071
4.096
4.026
0.071
4.096
0
0
bod5
(lb/day)
654.9
1.4
656
120.5
0.5
121
82
63
NBODuit
(lbs/day)
No
limit
2.8
Not
applicable
136.8
1.0
137.8
Not
applicable
65
nh3
(lb/day)
30
0.2
30.2
30
0.1
30.1
0
42
TSS
(lbs/day)
594
See Note
Not
applicable
192
3
195
68
See LDC
TN
(lbs/day)
No
limit
1.1
Not
applicable
6.3
0.1
6.4
Not
applicable
See LDC
TP
(lbs/day)
No
limit
0.02
Not
applicable
0.15
0.003
0.15
Not
applicable
See LDC
Note: The WLA and LA specified in Table 9 results in a minimum DO of 5 mg/L and the effluent is aerated to at
least 5.0 mg/L DO. Tributary and headwater nutrient concentrations are set to ecoregion criteria (TN = 0.289 mg/L
and TP = 0.007 mg/L). Monthly average permit limits were used for baseline conditions. No TSS data is available
in Piper Creek to calculate a baseline condition for nonpoint sources. Point and nonpoint baseline conditions for
flow, BOD5, NBODult [ultimate]. NH3, TN and TP are based on QUAL2K modeling results. The point source baseline
condition for TSS is based on permitted flow and TSS concentration limits at the WWTFs. Point and nonpoint
source TMDL limits for BOD5, NBODuit and NH3 were obtained from QUAL2K model results. As discussed in
Section 7, nitrogen target loading for point sources was based on setting ammonia equal to 289 pgN/L and nonpoint
sources was based on setting organic nitrogen equal to 289 pgN/L. Point source TMDL limits are based on the sum
of the site specific WWTFs
34
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Percent Exceed mice
TMDL Continuous WLA • Sample Data
figure 7. TSS LDC for Piper Creek at Confluence of Piper Creek with
the Pomme De Terre River
Table 10. TSS TMDL Under a Range of Flow Conditions in Piper Creek
WLA
WLA
Percent
LA
LA
Bolivar
(other
Flow
Estimated
TMDL
MOS1
Rural
Urban2
WWTF
permits)
Exceedance
Flow (cfs)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
95%
4.9
232.5
—
35.1
5.8
187.3
4.3
90%
5.2
248.4
—
48.7
8.1
187.3
4.3
70%
7.5
355.8
—
140.9
23.3
187.3
4.3
50%
14.8
702.8
—
438.6
72.6
187.3
4.3
30%
28.7
1,360.9
—
1,003.3
166.0
187.3
4.3
10%
72.3
3,434.6
—
2,782.5
460.5
187.3
4.3
5%
119.6
5,677.4
—
4,706.8
779.0
187.3
4.3
The TSS MOS is implicit.
2 LA is for low intensity urban area.
35
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Percent Exceedance
TMDL Continuous WLA • Sample Data
Figure 8. TN LDC for Piper Creek at Confluence of Piper Creek with
the Pomme De Terre River
Table 11. TN TMDL Under a Range of Flow Conditions in Piper Creek
WLA
Percent
LA
LA
Bolivar
WLA (other
Flow
Estimated
TMDL
MOS1
Rural
Urban2
WWII
permits)
Exceedance
Flow (cfs)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
95%
4.9
7.64
—
1.16
0.19
6.15
0.14
90%
5.2
8.16
—
1.60
0.27
6.15
0.14
70%
7.5
11.68
—
4.63
0.76
6.15
0.14
50%
14.8
23.08
—
14.40
2.39
6.15
0.14
30%
28.7
44.69
—
32.95
5.45
6.15
0.14
10%
72.3
112.79
—
91.38
15.12
6.15
0.14
5%
119.6
186.45
—
154.58
25.58
6.15
0.14
1 The TN MOS is implicit.
2 LA is for low intensity urban area.
36
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Percent Exceedance
TMDL Continuous WLA • Sample Data
Figure 9. TP LDC for Piper Creek at Confluence of Piper Creek with
the Pomme De Terre River
Table 12. TP TMDL Under a Range of Flow Conditions in Piper Creek
WLA
Percent
LA
LA
Bolivar
WLA (other
Flow
Estimated
TMDL
MOS1
Rural
Urban2
WWTF
permits)
Exceedance
Flow (cfs)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
95%
4.9
0.18
—
0.03
0.00
0.15
0.003
90%
5.2
0.20
—
0.04
0.01
0.15
0.003
70%
7.5
0.28
—
0.11
0.02
0.15
0.003
50%
14.8
0.56
—
0.35
0.06
0.15
0.003
30%
28.7
1.08
—
0.80
0.13
0.15
0.003
10%
72.3
2.73
—
2.21
0.37
0.15
0.003
5%
119.6
5.05
—
4.21
0.69
0.15
0.003
The TP MOS is implicit.
2 LA is for low intensity urban area.
8 WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION (POINT SOURCE LOADS)
The WLA is the portion of the LC that is allocated to existing and/ or future point sources
of pollutants. The sum of design flows of all site specific permitted dischargers with NPDES
Permits (Table 7) in the Piper Creek watershed, excluding permitted storm water flows, is 2.61
MGD.
37
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
New WLAs for the city of Bolivar WWTF were calculated through the modeling process
and are shown in Table 13. The WLA for BOD5 and NH3 were derived from the QUAL2K
modeling that resulted in meeting WQS. The WLAs for TN, TP and TSS were derived from the
LDCs at low flow, when inputs are set at the facility design flow of 3.95 cfs (2.55 MGD). The
other permitted facilities in the watershed each discharge an insignificant volume of effluent
compared to the city of Bolivar WWTF, and are unlikely to discharge during the critical low
flow periods. Their WLAs therefore remain equal to existing permit limits, which are
summarized in Table 14, for the facilities with individual, site specific permits.
Table 13. WLAs for City of Bolivar WWTF (M00022373) in the Town Branch/
Piper Creek Watershed
Effluent
Parameter
Design
Flow
(MGD)
Existing Permit Limit
Concentration
(mg/L)
Load
(lbs/day)
WLA at Design Flow
based on QUAL2K
modeling
Concentration
(mg/L)
Load
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
CBOD,
2.55
No limit
No limit
4.03
86
Not
applicable
NBOD,
2.55
No limit
No limit
1.17
25
Not
applicable
TN
2.55
No limit
No limit
0.289
6.17
Not
applicable
TP
2.55
No limit
No limit
0.007
0.15
Not
applicable
NH,
2.55
Daily Maximum =
3.716 - 8.117
Monthly Average =
1.4 - 3.119
30
1.4
30
TSS
2.55
Weekly Average = 41
Monthly Average = 27
575
27
575
0
Nfotes: CBOD5 is calculated using simulated BOD5 divided by 1.29, based on 1998 EPA modeling
guidance for NH3 toxicity and DO modeling. NBOD5 is the difference between BOD5 and
CBOD5 TN target loading for point sources was based on 289 jigN/L, Ecoregion 39 TN value.
TP target loading for point sources was based on 7 pgP/L, Ecoregion 39 TP value.
16 Represents limits from May 1 - October 31
17 Represents limits from November 1 - April 30
18 Represents limits from May 1 - October 31
19 Represents limits from November 1 - April 30
38
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table 14. Existing TSS Permit Limits for Four Small WWTFs in the
Town Branch/Piper Creek Watershed
Facility ID
Facility Name
Design Flow
(MGD)1
Existing TSS Permit Limits
Concentration
(mg/L)
Load
(lbs/day)2
M00097594
Home Court Advantage,
Inc. WWTF
0.007
Weekly Average = 45
Monthly Average = 30
1.75
MO0116467
Quail Creek Mobile Home
Park WWTF
0.01395
Weekly Average =110
Monthly Average = 70
8.15
MO0121754
Silo Ridge Homeowners
Association WWTF
0.01683
Weekly Average = 45
Monthly Average = 30
4.21
MO0121924
Karlin Place Subdivision
WWTF
0.021
Weekly Average = 45
Monthly Average = 30
5.26
1 MGD = Million Gallons per Day
2 Existing TSS permit limit loads (lbs/day) are based on existing design flow and monthly average limits
9 LOAD ALLOCATION (NONPOINT SOURCE LOADS)
The LA includes all existing and future nonpoint sources and natural background
contributions (40 CFR § 130.2(g)). The LA for the Piper Creek TMDL is for all nonpoint
sources of CBOD5, NBOD, TSS, TP and TN, which could include loads from agricultural lands,
runoff from urban areas, livestock and failing onsite wastewater treatment systems. The LA also
includes runoff from the city of Bolivar, Missouri. The LAs, provided in Table 9, Table 10,
Table 11 and Table 12, were calculated based on the total of all headwater and lateral inflow
loads used in the QUAL2K model for the allocation scenario model run and LDCs. The LA is
intended to allow the DO target to be met at all locations within the stream.
10 MARGIN OF SAFETY
A MOS is required in the TMDL calculation to account for uncertainties in scientific and
technical understanding of water quality in natural systems. The MOS is intended to account for
such uncertainties in a conservative manner. Based on EPA guidance, the MOS can be achieved
through one of two approaches:
1) Explicit - Reserve a numeric portion of the LC as a separate term in the TMDL.
2) Implicit - Incorporate the MOS as part of the critical conditions for the WLA and LA
calculations by making conservative assumptions in the analysis.
An implicit MOS was incorporated into the CBOD and NH3 TMDLs by identifying a LC
that achieves a minimum DO concentration of 5 mg/L at the 7Q10 low flow by using
conservative modeling assumptions within QUAL2K. The conservative modeling assumptions
used for the implicit MOS in the QUAL2K model calibration focused on measured low DO
concentrations, critical low flow conditions and DO concentrations under critical low flow
39
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
conditions in deriving applicable BOD, CBOD, NBOD, NH3 and TSS targets for the city of
Bolivar WWTF.
For TSS, TN and TP, an implicit MOS was incorporated into the TMDL based on
conservative assumptions used in the development of the TMDL LDCs. Among the
conservative approaches used was to calculate WLAs by targeting the 25th percentile of TSS
concentrations in the geographic region in which Piper Creek is located. Another conservative
approach was to establish WLAs for the city of Bolivar WWTF under critical low flow
conditions when discharge from this facility will dominate the stream flow. The TN and TP
targets for this TMDL are also conservative because they are based on the 25th percentile of all
TN and TP data gathered from the Subecoregion 39 of Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion IX. These
targets were derived by EPA to represent conditions of surface waters that are minimally
impacted by human activities and protective of aquatic life and recreational uses (EPA, 2000).
The 25th percentile is considered a surrogate for establishing a reference population of the
pristine systems (EPA 2000).
11 SEASONAL VARIATION
A TMDL must consider seasonal variation in the derivation of the allocations. DO levels
that threaten the integrity of aquatic communities generally occur during low flow periods and
warm temperatures, so these periods are considered the critical condition for the DO target.
Annual low-flow conditions in Missouri typically occur between July 1 and September 15. In
this TMDL report, summer low flow is defined as a 7-day average flow of the 10-year return
frequency (7Q10) dry-weather condition. This TMDL addresses seasonal variation and critical
conditions by identifying a LC that would be protective of the DO target during the 7Q10 low
flow period.
DO in streams is affected by several factors including water temperature, the amount of
decaying matter (i.e., organic sediment) in the stream, turbulence at the air-water interface and
the amount of photosynthesis occurring in plants within the stream. Organic sediments and SOD
can also contribute to fluctuating DO concentrations in the water column. The effects of high
nutrient and BOD concentrations on DO swings and low DO conditions (discussed in Section
5.2) are typically amplified under circumstances in which flow is low and water temperature is
relatively high (for example, summer months).
The TMDL LDCs for TSS, TN and TP represents flow under all conditions. Because the
WLA, LA and TMDL are applicable at all flow conditions, they are also applicable and
protective over all seasons. The advantage of the LDC approach is that all flow conditions are
considered and the constraints associated with using a single-flow critical condition are avoided.
12 MONITORING PLAN
TMDL monitoring will be scheduled by MDNR after new effluent limits in the city of
Bolivar WWTF permit has gone into effect in 2011 (ammonia) and 2012 (bacteria). In addition,
in-stream monitoring is required by the Bolivar WWTF permit as follows: Two sites, one
upstream and one downstream of the WWTP outfall, will be sampled quarterly for DO, TSS, TP
40
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
and TN. Also, the local watershed group monitors eight sites three times a year. Trained stream
team volunteer water quality monitors gather and submit these data to MDNR on a regular basis.
In addition, MDNR will routinely examine physical habitat, water quality, invertebrate
and fish community data collected by the Missouri Department of Conservation under its
Resource Assessment and Monitoring (RAM) Program. This program randomly samples
streams across Missouri on a 5- to 6-year rotating schedule.
As with all of Missouri's TMDLs, if continuing monitoring reveals that WQSs are not
being met, the TMDL will be reopened and re-evaluated accordingly.
13 REASONABLE ASSURANCES
MDNR has the authority to issue and enforce Missouri State Operating Permits.
Inclusion of effluent limits into a state operating permit and requiring that effluent and instream
monitoring be reported to MDNR should provide reasonable assurance that instream WQS will
be met. Section 301 (b) (1) (C) requires that point source permits have effluent limits as stringent
as necessary to meet WQS. However, for WLAs to serve that purpose, they must themselves be
stringent enough so that (in conjunction with the water body's other loadings) they meet WQS.
This generally occurs when the TMDL's combined nonpoint source LAs and point source WLAs
do not exceed the WQS-based LC and there is reasonable assurance that the TMDL's allocations
can be achieved. Any discussion of reduction efforts relating to nonpoint sources would be
found in the implementation section of the TMDL.
14 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
EPA regulations require that TMDLs be subject to public review (40 CFR 130.7). EPA
is providing public notice of this draft TMDL for Piper Creek (Town Branch) on the EPA,
Region 7, TMDL website: http://www.epa.gov/region07/water/tmdl public notice.htm. The
response to comments and final TMDL will be available at:
http://www.epa.gOv/region07/water/apprtmdl.htm#Missouri.
This water quality limited segment of Piper Creek (Town Branch) in Polk County,
Missouri, is included on the EPA-approved 2008 303(d) List for Missouri. This TMDL is being
established by EPA to meet the requirements of the 2001 Consent Decree, American Canoe
Association, etal. v. EPA, No. 98-1195-CV-W in consolidation with No. 98-4282-CV-W,
February 27, 2001. EPA is developing this TMDL in cooperation with the state of Missouri and
EPA is establishing this TMDL at this time to meet the American Canoe consent decree
milestones. Missouri may submit and EPA may approve a revised or modified TMDL for this
water at any time.
Before finalizing EPA established TMDLs (such as this TMDL), the public is notified
that a comment period is open on the EPA Region 7 website for at least 30 days. EPA's public
notices to comment on draft TMDLs are also distributed via mail and electronic mail to major
stakeholders in the watershed or other potentially impacted parties. After the comment period
closes, EPA reviews all comments, edits the TMDL as is appropriate, writes a Summary of
41
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Response to Comments and establishes the TMDL. For Missouri TMDLs, groups receiving the
public notice announcement include a distribution list provided by MDNR, the Missouri Clean
Water Commission, the Missouri Water Quality Coordinating Committee, stream team
volunteers, state legislators, County Commissioners, the County Soil and Water Conservation
District and potentially impacted cities, towns and facilities. EPA followed this public notice
process for this TMDL. Links to active public notices for draft TMDLs, final (approved and
established) TMDLs and Summary of Response to Comments are posted on the EPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/region07/water/tmdl.htm.
15 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
An administrative record on the Piper Creek (Town Branch) TMDL has been assembled
and is being kept on file with EPA.
42
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
References
Athayde, D., P. Shelley, E. Driscoll, D. Gabouiy and G. Boyd, 1983. Results of the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program, Volume I.
Chapra, S.C., G.J. Pelletier, and H. Tao, 2008. QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for
Simulating River and Stream Water Quality, Version 2.11: Documentation and Users Manual.
Code of State Regulations (CSR), 2009. Missouri Secretary of State Web page. Title 10 -
Department of Natural Resources. Division 20 - Clean Water Commission. Chapter 7 - Water
Quality. 10 CSR 20-7.031 - Water Quality Standards.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c20-7.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Recommendations. Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient
Criteria. Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion XI. EPA 822-B-00-020.
EPA, 2002. Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Manual. EPA/625/R-00/008. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. and Office of Research
and Development, Cincinnati, OH. February 2002.
EPA, 2009a. Piper Creek Sampling Report, prepared by URS Group for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, Kansas City, Kansas.
EPA, 2009b. Permit Compliance System (PCS). Accessed July 17, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html.
Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), 2009. MDC Online, Pomme de Terre Watershed.
Missouri Department of Conservation. Accessed February 2010.
http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/pomme/geology/
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), 2004a. Biological Assessment Study,
Town Branch/ Piper Creek, Polk County, 2003 - 2004. Prepared by: Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, Air and Land Protection Division, Environmental Services Program, Water
Quality Monitoring Section.
MDNR, 2004b. Sediment Deposition and Organic Solids Evaluation Report, Piper Creek and
Town Branch, Bolivar, MO, Polk County, March - May 2004. Prepared by: Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, Air and Land Protection Division, Environmental Services
Program, Water Quality Monitoring Section.
MDNR, 2006. Sediment Deposition and Organic Solids Evaluation Report, Piper Creek and
Town Branch, Bolivar, MO, Polk County, July 2005 - March 2006. Prepared by: Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, Field Services Division, Environmental Services Program
Water Quality Monitoring Section.
43
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MoRAP), 2005. Land Use/Land Cover Data.
Accessed July 1, 2009. http://www.msdis.missouri.edu
Missouri Spatial Data Information Service (MSDIS), 2009. GIS Layers Downloaded May 2009.
http://msdis.missouri.edu/datasearch/ThemeList.jsp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2009. NNDC Climate Data
Online. Accessed July 17, 2009.
http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim20/mo/234544.pdf.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Accessed July 17, 2009.
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Survey.aspx?County=M0001.
Nijboer, R.C. and P.F.M. Verdonschot, 2004. Variable selection for modeling effects of
eutrophication on stream and river ecosystems. Ecol. Model. 177, 17-39.
Purdue Research Foundation, 2009. Hydrologic Soil Groups. Accessed July 17, 2009.
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/runoff/documentation/hsg.html, Hydrologic Soil Groups.
Reckhow, K. H., M. N. Beaulac and J. R. Simpson, 1980. Modeling Phosphorous Loading and
Lake Response Under Uncertainty: A Manual and Compilation of Export Coefficients. EPA-
440/5-8-011, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
United States Census Bureau, 2000. 2000 Population Estimates. Accessed July 20, 2009.
http: //www. census .gov/
U.S. Code, 2009. Title 33 of the U.S. Code. Accessed February 19, 2009.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2002. Census of Agriculture. Accessed July 28, 2009.
http://bering.tetratech-ffx.com/website/stepl/viewer.htmwww.nass.usda.gov/
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), U.S. Geological Survey, 1997, Standards for Digital
Raster Graphics: Reston, VA
Walker, R.R. and W.J. Snodgrass, 1986. Model for sediment oxygen demand in lakes: Journal
of Environmental Engineering, v. 112, no. 1, p. 25-43.
Wang, W., 1980. Fractionation of sediment oxygen demand: Water Research, v. 14, p. 603-612.
44
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Appendices
Appendix A - Historic Piper Creek/Town Branch Water Quality and Sediment Data
Appendix B - Piper Creek QUAL2K Modeling
Appendix C - Development of TSS Targets Using Reference LDCs
Appendix D - Development of Nutrient Targets Using Ecoregion Nutrient Criteria with LDCs
Appendix E - Stream Flow and Water Quality Stations Used to Develop TMDLs in Piper Creek
Appendix F - Supplemental Implementation Plan
45
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Appendix A -Piper Creek/Town Branch Water Quality and Sediment Data
Table A-l. Station Number, Legal Location and Descriptive Information for Locations Assessed in the MDNR 2003 - 2004
Bioassessment Study (MDNR, 2004a). Station Numbers are used in Table A-2 through Table A-14
Station Number
Location 'A, Section.
Township, Range
Description
County
1 o\\ n Branch .. 1
X !j sec.0, 1. jj X., R. 22 \\.
lest 0.5 Miles Downstream of Bolivar \\ \\ 11- Discharge at 135th Rd Crossing
Polk
1 own Branch #2
SW Vi sec. 6, T. 33 N„ R. 22 W.
Control-Directly Upstream of Bolivar WWTF Discharge
Polk
Piper Creek #1
SW Vt sec. 31, T. 34 N„ R. 22 W.
Test-1.7 Miles Downstream of Bolivar WWTF Discharge at 42th Rd Crossing
Polk
Piper Creek #2
NW Vt sec. 5, T. 33 N„ R. 22 W.
Control-Upstream of Town Branch Confluence at 435th Road Crossing
Polk
Dry Fork #1
SW Vt sec. 35, T. 35 N„ R. 23 W.
Regional Control
Polk
Table A-2. Summary of Sediment Monitoring in Piper Creek/Town Branch - March 23, 2004
Mean
Sample
BOD
Mean BOD (not
TSS
Mean TSS (not
VSS
Mean VSS (not
VSS:NVSS
Stream
Station
Grid
#
(mg/L)
including dup.)
(mg/L)
including dup.)
(mg/L)
including dup.)
Sediment
Town Br.
1
Downstream
0411776
69
69
2730
2227
250
300
0.16
Town Br.
1
Middle
0411777
69
1870
320
Town Br.
1
Upstream
0411778
69
2080
330
Town Br.
2
Downstream
0411773
46
59
1520
1767
160
190
0.12
Town Br.
2
Middle
0411774
70
2110
250
Town Br.
2
Upstream
0411775
61
1670
160
Piper Cr.
1
Downstream
0411782
60
62
1410
961
210
162
0.20
Piper Cr.
1
Duplicate
(downstream)
0411783
69
2390
250
Piper Cr.
1
Middle
0411784
48
352
76
Piper Cr.
1
Upstream
0411785
69
1120
200
Piper Cr.
2
Downstream
0411779
69
62
7760
6607
670
545
0.09
Piper Cr.
2
Middle
0411780
50
860
85
Piper Cr.
2
Upstream
0411781
67
11200
880
Source: MDNR (2004b)
BOD = Biological Oxygen Demand, TSS = Total Suspended Solids, VSS = Volatile Suspended Solids, NVSS = Nonvolatile Suspended Solids
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-3. Summary of Sediment Monitoring in Piper Creek/Town Branch - May 11, 2004
Stream
Station
Grid
Sample
#
BOD
(mg/L)
Mean BOD (not
including dup.)
TSS
(mg/L)
Mean TSS (not
including dup.)
VSS
(mg/L)
Mean VSS (not
including dup.)
Mean
VSS:NVSS
Sediment
Town Br.
1
Downstream
0411789
80
58
124000
47313.3
2930
1450
0.03
Town Br.
1
Duplicate
(downstream)
0411790
47
47200
1530
Town Br.
1
Middle
0411791
53
13200
880
Town Br.
1
Upstream
0411792
41
4740
540
Town Br.
2
Downstream
0411786
21
38
1150
1636.7
128
192
0.13
Town Br.
2
Middle
0411787
42
1060
128
Town Br.
2
Upstream
0411788
52
2700
320
Piper Cr.
1
Downstream
0411796
36
36
3680
10793.3
300
326.7
0.03
Piper Cr.
1
Middle
0411797
42
5300
380
Piper Cr.
1
Upstream
0411798
30
23400
300
Piper Cr.
2
Downstream
0411793
32
34
25100
19573.3
330
2366
0.14
Piper Cr.
2
Middle
0411794
31
1620
176
Piper Cr.
2
Upstream
0411795
40
32000
1860
Source: M
DNR (2004b)
BOD = Biological Oxygen Demand, TSS = Total Suspended Solids, VSS = Volatile Suspended Solids, NVSS = Nonvolatile Suspended Solids
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-4. Summary of Sediment Monitoring in Piper Creek/Town Branch - July 7, 2005
Stream
Station
Grid
Sample
#
BOD
(mg/L)
Mean BOD (not
including dup.)
TSS
(mg/L)
Mean TSS (not
including dup.)
VSS
(mg/L)
Mean VSS (not
including dup.)
Mean
VSS:NVSS
Sediment
Town Br.
1
Downstream
0502884
213
268
13600
13927
3000
2560
0.22
Town Br.
1
Middle
0502885
418
20300
3690
Town Br
1
Upstream
0502886
178
7880
990
Town Br.
2
Downstream
0502881
37.6
106
2790
6503
310
715
0.12
Town Br.
2
Middle
0502882
214
11600
1290
Town Br
2
Upstream
0502883
67.3
5120
545
Piper Cr.
1
Downstream
0502890
143
147
3840
5793
530
723
0.14
Piper Cr.
1
Duplicate
(downstream)
0502891
119
3400
490
Piper Cr.
1
Middle
0502892
113
5520
530
Piper Cr.
1
Upstream
0502893
184
8020
1110
Piper Cr.
2
Downstream
0502887
208
208
44400
40066
4580
4143
0.12
Piper Cr.
2
Middle
0502889
210
42800
4270
Piper Cr.
2
Upstream
0502888
207
33000
3580
Source: M
DNR (2006)
BOD = Biological Oxygen Demand, TSS = Total Suspended Solids, VSS = Volatile Suspended Solids, NVSS = Nonvolatile Suspended Solids
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-5. Summary of Sediment Monitoring in Piper Creek/Town Branch - March 6, 2006
Stream
Station
Grid
Sample
#
BOD
(mg/L)
Mean BOD (not
including dup.)
TSS
(mg/L)
Mean TSS (not
including dup.)
VSS
(mg/L)
Mean VSS (not
including dup.)
Mean
VSS:NVSS
Sediment
Town Br.
1
Downstream
0601256
1980
1627
17600
20667
5020
5147
0.33
Town Br.
1
Middle
0601257
1490
29800
6840
Town Br
1
Upstream
0601258
1410
14600
3580
Town Br.
2
Downstream
0601259
191
322
4860
6293
680
700
0.13
Town Br.
2
Middle
0601260
396
6880
740
Town Br
2
Upstream
0601261
378
7140
680
Piper Cr.
1
Downstream
0601250
735
804
7960
10420
1620
2040
0.24
Piper Cr.
1
Middle
0601251
936
16200
2980
Piper Cr.
1
Upstream
0601252
741
7100
1520
Piper Cr.
2
Downstream
0601253
606
513
22200
19533
4040
3653
0.23
Piper Cr.
2
Middle
0601254
447
18100
3160
Piper Cr.
2
Upstream
0601255
487
18300
3760
Source: M
DNR (2006)
BOD = Biological Oxygen Demand, TSS = Total Suspended Solids, VSS = Volatile Suspended Solids, NVSS = Nonvolatile Suspended Solids
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-6. Historic Data in Piper Creek and Town Branch. Metric Values and Scores,
Using Biological Criteria Database for Stations in Ozark/Osage EDU, Fall 2003
S;tmpic #/Sliilion
TR
EPTT
HI
SDI
SCI
Susliiiiiiihililv
03-18710
Piper Creek #1 Value
62
9
6.44
3.13
Piper Creek #1 Score
3
3
5
3
14
Partial
03-18711
Piper Creek #2 Value
65
3
6.93
2.97
Piper Creek #2 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
03-18712
Town Branch #1 Value
57
7
6.78
2.86
Town Branch #1 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
03-18713
Town Branch #2 Value
75
9
6.44
3.00
Town Branch #2 Score
3
3
5
3
14
Partial
Source: MDNR (2004a)
TR = Taxa Richness, EPTT = Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera Taxa, BI = Biotic Index, SDI =
Shannon Diversity Index
Table A-7. Historic Data in Piper Creek and Town Branch. Metric Values and Scores,
Using Five Small Ozark/Osage EDU Regional Control Stations Data, Fall 2003
Siimplc #/Sliilion
TR
EPTT
HI
SDI
SCI
Susliiiiiiihililv
03-18710
Piper Creek #1 Value
62
9
6.44
3.13
Piper Creek #1 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
03-18711
Piper Creek #2 Value
65
3
6.93
2.97
Piper Creek #2 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
03-18712
Town Branch #1 Value
57
7
6.78
2.86
Town Branch #1 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
03-18713
Town Branch #2 Value
75
9
6.44
3.00
Town Branch #2 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
Source: MDNR (2004a)
TR = Taxa Richness, EPTT = Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera Taxa, BI = Biotic Index, SDI =
Shannon Diversity Index
50
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-8. Historic Data in Piper Creek and Town Branch. Metric Values and Scores,
Using Biological Criteria Database for Stations in Ozark/Osage EDU,
Spring 2004
S;tmpic #/Sliilion
TR
EPTT
HI
SDI
SCI
Susliiiiiiihililv
04-18698
Piper Creek #1 Value
75
10
6.10
2.96
Piper Creek #1 Score
3
1
5
3
12
Partial
04-18699
Piper Creek #2 Value
83
9
6.19
2.98
Piper Creek #2 Score
3
1
5
3
12
Partial
04-18700
Town Branch #1 Value
51
4
6.92
2.06
Town Branch #1 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
04-18701
Town Branch #2 Value
52
5
6.20
1.62
Town Branch #2 Score
3
1
3
1
8
Partial
Source: MDNR (2004a)
TR = Taxa Richness, EPTT = Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera Taxa, BI = Biotic Index, SDI =
Shannon Diversity Index
Table A-9. Historic Data in Piper Creek and Town Branch. Metric Values and Scores,
Using Five Small Ozark/Osage EDU Regional Control Stations Data,
Spring 2004
Siimplc #/Sliilion
TR
EPTT
HI
SDI
SCI
Susliiiiiiihililv
04-18698
Piper Creek #1 Value
75
10
6.10
2.96
Piper Creek #1 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
04-18699
Piper Creek #2 Value
83
9
6.19
2.98
Piper Creek #2 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
04-18700
Town Branch #1 Value
51
4
6.92
2.06
Town Branch #1 Score
3
1
3
3
10
Partial
04-18701
Town Branch #2 Value
52
5
6.20
1.62
Town Branch #2 Score
3
1
3
1
8
Partial
Source: MDNR (2004a)
TR = Taxa Richness, EPTT = Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera Taxa, BI = Biotic Index, SDI =
Shannon Diversity Index
51
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-10. Piper Creek/Town Branch Test and Control Stations and Small Regional
Control Station, Dry Fork #1, Macroinvertebrate Composition per Station, Fall
2003. Values in Bold are the Dominant Macroinvertebrate Families and Taxa
for Each Sample
\ iiriiihlo-Sliilion
Piper
("reck #1
Piper
(reek #2
Tow ii
linincli #1
Tow n
limni'li #2
Dry
l ork #1
Macro Sample Number
03-18710
03-18711
03-18712
03-18713
03-18714
TR
62
65
57
75
59
EPTT
9
3
7
9
9
BI
6.4
6.9
6.8
6.4
5.4
SDI
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.9
% Ephemeroptera
17.6
1.8
2.0
6.9
15.1
% Plecoptera
0
0
0
0
0.1
% Trichoptera
2.1
0.1
3.6
0.9
1.1
% Dominant
Macroinvertebrate Families
Chironomidae
27.4
22.6
49.7
47.0
24.6
Elmidae
19.0
18.6
20.3
24.0
15.6
Baetidae
10.2
0.2
0.9
2.2
0
Tubificidae
6.4
13.0
7.0
1.8
3.2
Heptageniidae
6.1
0
1.0
4.2
3.5
Hyalellidae
4.9
11.4
0.1
0
0
Corixidae
0
6.5
0
0
0
Planaridae
5.1
6.0
8.6
4.3
0.1
Hydropsychidae
2.1
0.1
3.5
0.4
0.3
Coenagrionidae
5.0
4.6
1.4
5.1
1.2
Psephenidae
2.1
0.3
0.3
1.6
22.2
Ancylidae
4.7
0.5
0.6
1.8
10.2
Caenidae
1.3
1.7
0.1
0.6
5.7
% Dominant
Macroinvertebrate Taxa
Stenelmis
17.3
17.0
20.2
23.4
15.4
Polypedilum convictum grp.
10.8
9.4
16.3
15.0
4.4
Baetis
10.1
0
0.9
2.2
0
Immature Tubificidae
6.0
12.2
7.0
1.8
3.1
Planaridae
5.1
6.0
8.6
4.3
0.1
Hyalella azteca
4.9
11.4
0.1
0
0
Corixidae
0
6.5
0
0
0
Tanytarsus
1.6
2.7
10.0
10.9
6.1
Argia
4.3
0.4
1.2
5.0
1.2
Psephenus herricki
2.0
0.3
0
1.2
22.2
Ancylidae
4.7
0.5
0.6
1.8
10.2
Caenis latipennis
1.3
1.7
0.1
0.6
5.7
Source: MDNR (2004a)
TR = Taxa Richness, EPTT = Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera Taxa, BI = Biotic Index, SDI =
Shannon Diversity Index
52
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-ll. Piper Creek/Town Branch Test and Control Stations and Small Regional
Control Station, Dry Fork #1, Macroinvertebrate Composition per Station, Fall
2004. Values in Bold are the Dominant Macroinvertebrate Families and Taxa
for Each Sample
\ iiriiihlo-Sliilion
Piper
Piper
Tow n
Tow n
l)rv
Creek #1
Creek #2
limni'li #1
linuich #2
l- ork #1
Macro Sample Number
04-18698
04-18699
04-18700
04-18701
04-18697
TR
75
83
51
52
103
EPTT
10
9
4
5
23
BI
6.1
6.2
6.9
6.7
5.5
SDI
3.0
3.0
2.1
1.6
3.4
% Ephemeroptera
2.9
6.1
0.6
1.7
6.4
% Plecoptera
1.0
2.0
0
0
9.6
% Trichoptera
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.3
11.3
% Dominant
Macroinvertebrate Families
Chironomidae
48.8
51.9
73.1
84.3
33.6
Elmidae
24.3
14.2
7.3
7.6
19.6
Planariidae
5.5
1.1
7.8
0.4
0.8
Pleuroceridae
4.0
0.3
0
0
0.4
Tubificidae
3.0
6.1
4.3
0.9
3.8
Caenidae
1.3
5.1
0.3
0.7
2.8
Coenagrionidae
0.9
4.9
0.8
0.4
0.2
Arachnoidea
1.2
0.2
2.0
0.4
1.0
Crangonyctidae
0.5
0.4
0.2
2.4
2.4
Heptageniidae
1.6
0.4
0.3
1.0
1.7
Hydroptilidae
0.2
0
0.3
0.2
8.1
Perlidae
0.9
1.9
0
0
6.4
% Dominant
Macroinvertebrate Taxa
Stenelmis
24.1
13.8
6.9
7.5
19.4
Cricotopus/Orthocladius
20.0
9.6
50.8
65.7
8.2
Planariidae
5.5
1.1
7.8
0.4
0.8
Polypedilum convictum grp.
5.2
4.8
2.7
1.7
0.8
Eukiefferiella
4.8
22.5
0
0.2
9.8
Caenis latipennis
1.3
5.1
0.3
0
2.8
Dicrotendipes
1.8
0.3
9.6
6.0
0.3
Immature Tubificidae
2.5
4.3
4.0
0.5
2.8
Hydrobaenus
2.1
0.7
0.3
2.7
2.0
Crangonyx
0.5
0.4
0.2
2.4
2.4
Perlesta
0.9
0
0
0
6.3
Ochrotrichia
0
0
0
0
5.4
Source: MDNR (2004a)
53
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-12. Piper Creek/Town Branch Test and Control Station Samples and Small
Regional Reference Control Station Samples, Mean (SD) Values for
Macroinvertebrate Community Composition, Spring Data
Pipor Creek/Town
Piper Creek/Town
Sm:iII Re<>ion;il
liinnch lost
lint nth Control
Reference Control
\ iiriiihle-Stiilion
Stations
Sliit ions
Stiitions
Sample Size (n)
2
2
5
TR
63.0 (17.0)
67.5 (21.9)
104.8 (6.3)
EPTT
7.0 (4.2)
7.0 (2.8)
29.2 (3.8)
BI
6.5 (0.6)
6.5 (0.4)
5.7 (0.2)
SDI
2.5 (0.6)
2.3 (1.0)
3.6 (0.2)
% Ephemeroptera
1.8 (1.7)
3.9 (3.2)
23.4 (11.0)
% Plecoptera
0.5 (0.7)
1.0 (1.4)
7.9 (4.6)
% Trichoptera
0.5 (0.3)
0.2 (0.1)
6.0 (3.5)
% Dominant
Macroinvertebrate Families
Caenidae
0.8 (0.7)
2.9 (3.1)
12.8 (10.1)
Heptageniidae
0.9 (0.9)
0.7 (0.4)
5.2 (3.4)
Tricorythidae
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
1.8 (2.9)
Siphlonuridae
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
1.0 (1.2)
Perlidae
0.5 (0.7)
1.0 (1.4)
2.8 (3.1)
Perlodidae
0.0 (0.1)
0.0 (0.0)
2.1 (2.3)
Nemouridae
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
2.0 (1.5)
Hydroptillidae
0.2 (0.0)
0.1 (0.1)
2.8 (3.1)
Elmidae
15.8 (12.0)
10.9 (4.7)
6.2 (7.6)
Coenagriondae
0.9 (0.1)
2.7 (3.2)
0.9 (0.4)
Hyalellidae
0.3 (0.2)
1.8 (2.2)
2.2 (1.5)
Crangonyctidae
0.3 (0.2)
0.4 (0.0)
0.9 (0.4)
Pleuroceridae
2.0 (2.8)
0.1 (0.2)
1.8 (1.4)
Planaridae
6.7 (1.6)
0.7 (0.5)
0.5 (0.3)
Arachnoidea
1.6 (0.6)
0.3 (0.1)
4.0 (4.1)
Chironomidae
60.9 (17.2)
68.1 (22.9)
37.9 (5.1)
Tubificidae
3.7 (0.9)
3.5 (3.7)
1.3 (1.5)
Source: MDNR (2004a)
54
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-13. Piper Creek/Town Branch Test and Control Station Samples and Small
Regional Control Station Samples, Mean (SD) Values for Macroinvertebrate
Community Composition, Fall Data (MDNR, 2004a)
Pipor Creek/Town
Piper Crock/Town
Sniiill Re<>ioiiiil
li ninth l ost
lii imch Control
Reference Control
\ iiriiihle-Sliilion
Stiilions
Stiilions
Stiilions
Sample Size (n)
2
2
5
TR
59.5 (3.5)
70.0 (7.1)
86.8 (17.9)
EPTT
8.0 (1.4)
9.0 (4.2)
20.0 (6.6)
BI
6.6 (0.2)
6.7 (0.4)
5.8 (0.3)
SDI
3.0 (0.2)
3.0 (0.0)
3.5 (0.4)
% Ephemeroptera
9.8 (11.1)
4.4 (3.6)
29.0 (11.1)
% Plecoptera
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
0.2 (0.2)
% Trichoptera
2.8 (1.0)
0.5 (0.6)
7.6 (4.3)
% Dominant
Macroinvertebrate Families
Caenidae
0.7 (0.8)
1.1 (0.8)
12.3 (9.2)
Heptageniidae
3.5 (3.6)
2.1 (3.0)
6.9 (2.2)
Isonychiidae
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
3.3 (2.1)
Baetidae
5.4 (6.8)
1.2 (1.5)
1.4 (1.2)
Hydropsychiidae
2.8 (1.0)
0.2 (0.2)
3.5 (4.3)
Elmidae
19.7 (0.9)
21.3 (3.8)
7.9 (4.9)
Psephenidae
1.2 (1.3)
0.9 (0.9)
7.5 (8.9)
Corixidae
0.0 (0.0)
3.2 (4.6)
0.0 (0.0)
Coenagrionidae
3.2 (2.5)
4.9 (0.4)
2.6 (1.3)
Hyalellidae
2.5 (3.3)
5.7 (8.1)
5.8 (5.7)
Ancylidae
2.7 (2.9)
1.2 (0.9)
3.3 (4.0)
Planaridae
6.9 (2.5)
5.2 (1.2)
0.4 (0.6)
Arachnoidea
0.1 (0.2)
0.3 (0.4)
3.5 (2.8)
Chironomidae
38.6 (15.8)
34.8 (17.2)
22.9 (9.8)
Tubificidae
6.7 (2.5)
7.4 (7.9)
1.4 (1.6)
Source: MDNR (2004a)
55
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-14. Physicochemical Variables for Piper Creek/Town Branch Study During the
Fall 2003 Sampling Season with Outstanding Values Highlighted in Bold. Only
Field Measurements were Collected at Dry Fork #1
l)rv Fork #1
Piper Crock
Piper Crock
Town
Town
Sniitll
#1
#2
limni'li #1
limni'li #2
Region ;tl
V:iri;ible-Sl:ilion
lost
Control
lost
Control
Control
Sample Number
03-00823
03-00824
03-00825
03-00826
03-00827
Sample Date
09/24/2003
09/24/2003
09/24/2003
09/24/2003
09/25/2003
Sample Time
1520
1400
1135
0935
0935
pH (Standard units)
8.30
7.90
7.80
8.10
7.40
Temperature (°C)
21.0
23.0
21.0
18.0
16.5
Conductivity (jiS)
675
395
756
534
509
DO (mg/L)
9.80
6.25
8.30
9.45
5.20
Discharge (cfs)
2.55
0.11
3.09
0.45
0.02
Turbidity (NTUs)
7.90
14.0
4.45
10.6
-
NH3-N (mg/L)
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
-
N03 + NOrN (mg/L)
9.86
0.10
13.40
2.04
-
TKN (mg/L)
0.06
1.02
0.55
0.05
-
Chloride (mg/L)
65.5
19.4
78.8
24.5
-
TP (mg/L)
1.94
0.13
2.69
0.03
-
Source: MDNR (2004a)
Table A-15. Physicochemical Variables for Piper Creek/Town Branch Study During the
Spring 2004 Sampling Season with Outstanding Values Highlighted in Bold
Dry Fork #1
PiperC rook
Piper C reek
Town
Town
Sin ;i II
#1
#2
limni'li #1
limni'li #2
Region ill
\ iiriithlo-Slitlion
Tost
Control
lost
Control
Control
Sample Number
04-11050
04-11051
04-11052
04-11053
04-11062
Sample Date
03/24/2004
03/25/2004
03/24/2004
03/24/2004
03/18/2004
Sample Time
1450
1000
1125
0910
1535
pH (Standard units)
8.52
7.68
8.31
8.35
8.28
Temperature (°C)
14.0
14.5
13.5
12.5
14.0
Conductivity (jiS)
490
397
681
505
389
DO (mg/L)
14.50
11.80
13.50
14.50
13.50
Discharge (cfs)
11.0
6.96
5.66
2.69
11.20
Turbidity (NTUs)
2.01
5.75
3.41
1.79
2.50
NH3-N (mg/L)
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
N03 + N02-N (mg/L)
3.00
0.85
8.43
1.74
0.09
TKN (mg/L)
0.12
0.25
0.05
0.05
0.11
Chloride (mg/L)
30.2
15.0
58.8
22.5
11.5
TP (mg/L)
0.11
0.02
0.36
0.01
0.02
Source: MDNR (2004a)
56
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-16. Average Percent Estimated Fine Depositional Cover, Bolivar, MO -
March 23, 2004
Transect
Mean %
Stream
Station
Grid
1
2
3
4
5
6
coverage/station
(not including
duplicate)
Town Br.
1
Downstream
100
96
60
95
96
60
78
Town Br.
1
Middle
32
40
88
90
75
85
Town Br.
1
Upstream
100
80
58
10
98
100
Town Br.
2
Downstream
1
0
5
1
7
2
67
Town Br.
2
Middle
95
100
100
100
100
100
Town Br.
2
Upstream
100
100
100
100
99
100
Piper Cr.
1
Downstream
20
75
50
88
15
20
17
Piper Cr.
1
Duplicate
(downstream)
100
85
12
5
2
3
Piper Cr.
1
Middle
1
1
1
2
0
2
Piper Cr.
1
Upstream
12
2
4
2
3
1
Piper Cr.
2
Downstream
100
97
99
100
100
100
87
Piper Cr.
2
Middle
100
100
100
100
100
4
Piper Cr.
2
Upstream
100
80
100
55
85
42
Source: IV
DNR (2004b)
Table A-17. Average Percent Estimated Fine Depositional Cover, Bolivar, MO - May 11, 2004
Transect
Mean %
Stream
Station
Grid
1
2
3
4
5
6
coverage/station
(not including
duplicate)
Town Br.
1
Downstream
100
100
97
100
100
100
78
Town Br.
1
Duplicate
(downstream)
78
100
85
100
98
42
Town Br.
1
Middle
55
82
32
40
42
80
Town Br.
1
Upstream
95
99
95
95
82
10
Town Br.
2
Downstream
100
87
96
95
60
98
90
Town Br.
2
Middle
60
80
95
100
92
80
Town Br.
2
Upstream
100
100
100
82
100
100
Piper Cr.
1
Downstream
95
1
0
0
2
5
18
Piper Cr.
1
Middle
0
3
1
5
6
4
Piper Cr.
1
Upstream
5
30
62
28
25
10
Piper Cr.
2
Downstream
12
100
12
18
100
90
49
Piper Cr.
2
Middle
100
12
30
100
3
2
Piper Cr.
2
Upstream
7.5
100
55
82
45
10
Source: IV
DNR (2004b)
57
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table A-18. Average Percent Estimated Fine Depositional Cover, Bolivar, MO - July 7, 2005
Transect
Mean %
Stream
Station
Grid
1
2
3
4
5
6
coverage/station
(not including
duplicate)
Town Br.
1
Downstream
88
96
100
48
100
90
86
Town Br.
1
Middle
100
100
100
32
50
100
Town Br
1
Upstream
78
80
90
98
100
100
Town Br.
2
Downstream
15
18
5
5
2
45
14
Town Br.
2
Middle
8
10
11
6
6
5
Town Br
2
Upstream
6
14
2
10
5
80
Piper Cr.
1
Downstream
70
12
4
96
98
60
60
Piper Cr.
1
Duplicate
(downstream)
32
45
82
38
20
82
Piper Cr.
1
Middle
18
38
75
82
55
75
Piper Cr.
1
Upstream
12
58
50
90
80
100
Piper Cr.
2
Downstream
10
78
100
4
80
38
54
Piper Cr.
2
Middle
48
95
95
78
30
25
Piper Cr.
2
Upstream
39
80
50
6
95
15
Source: IV
DNR (2006)
Table A-19. Average Percent Estimated Fine Depositional Cover, Bolivar, MO - March 6, 2006
Transect
Mean %
Stream
Station
Grid
1
2
3
4
5
6
coverage/station
(not including
duplicate)
Town Br.
1
Downstream
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
Town Br.
1
Middle
100
100
100
100
98
100
Town Br
1
Upstream
100
100
100
94
100
98
Town Br.
2
Downstream
22
15
9
15
10
15
32
Town Br.
2
Middle
15
18
20
20
18
35
Town Br
2
Upstream
60
50
65
68
65
48
Piper Cr.
1
Downstream
90
95
98
98
98
96
94
Piper Cr.
1
Middle
99
100
92
98
98
100
Piper Cr.
1
Upstream
75
88
96
90
78
96
Piper Cr.
2
Downstream
91
95
100
100
99
100
85
Piper Cr.
2
Middle
78
91
70
65
76
89
Piper Cr.
2
Upstream
96
52
70
90
88
84
Source: IV
DNR (2006)
58
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Legend
(_) 2009 Monitoring Stations
A/ Piper Creek Impaired Segment
^ Roads
S | | Urban Areas
/s/ Other Streams
X
-------
Legend
(_) 2009 Monitoring Stations
/s/ Piper Creek Impaired Segment
Roads
Urban Areas
/v/ Other Streams
Piper Creek
Sample LocationsLf
! / J "L - -
Figure A-2. Location of Town Branch/Piper Creek 2009 Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Appendix B - Piper Creek QUAL2K Modeling
B.l Overview of OUAL2K
The QUAL2K water quality model was selected for the development of the Piper Creek
DO TMDL. QUAL2K is supported by the EPA and has been used extensively for TMDL
development and point source permitting issues across the country, especially for issues related
to DO concentrations. The QUAL2K model is suitable for simulating hydraulics and water
quality conditions of small rivers and streams. It is a one-dimensional uniform flow model with
the assumption of a completely mixed system for each computational cell. QUAL2K assumes
that the major pollutant transport mechanisms, advection and dispersion, are significant only
along the longitudinal direction of flow. The model allows for multiple waste discharges, water
withdrawals, nonpoint source loading, tributary flows and incremental inflows and outflows.
The processes employed in QUAL2K can address nutrient cycles, algal growth, particulate
settling, SOD and DO dynamics.
B.2 OUAL2K Model Setup
This section describes the process that was used to setup the QUAL2K models for the
Piper Creek watershed.
B.2.1 Stream Segmentation
Figure B-l and Figure B-2 provide a visual description of the Piper Creek QUAL2K
model structure; including locations of monitoring stations, point sources, nonpoint sources and
boundaries. The impaired water body segment is divided into four reaches with one tributary
simulated as a single reach for a total of five reaches. The lengths of each reach are provided in
Table B-l. Reach lengths are based on the location of water quality monitoring stations, stream
hydrology, NPDES discharges and point/nonpoint sources. Reaches are further segmented into
elements as identified in Table B-l. A consistent element length of approximately 0.16
kilometers was used for all reaches.
As shown in Figure B-l and B-2, Piper Creek watershed includes several tributaries. Six
tributaries enter model reaches between the Reach 1 and Reach 5. The five smaller tributaries
were represented in the model as a unique point source and 1.76 kilometers of Piper Creek was
modeled (Figure B-l). Average daily flow for each simulated day and tributary was estimated
for unknown flows using a drainage area ratio approach. Using measured flow at the four
monitoring locations (stations 1, 2, 3 and 4) a watershed average flow/mi2 was calculated for
each of the five small tributaries.
The city of Bolivar WWTF, is represented as a point source in Reach 1. The Karlin Place
subdivision WWTF, Quail Creek Mobile Home Park WWTF and Silo Ridge Homeowners
Association WWTF are represented in Reach 3. The Home Court Advantage, Inc. WWTF is
represented in Reach 5.
61
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Karlin Place Town Branch
Figure B-l. Diagram of Piper Creek QUAL2K Stream Model (not to scale)
Table B-l. Number of Reaches and Elements Associated with Each Reach in Piper Creek
Reach Length
Element Length
Reach Number
(kilometers)
Number of Elements
(kilometers)
1
0.68
4
0.16
2
1.48
9
0.16
3
1.76
11
0.16
4
0.68
4
0.16
5
7.77
48
0.16
62
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Legend
/V Piper Creek Irrpaired Segment
/'S/ Piper Creek Tributary
/V Streams
State Highway Roads
Uban A^eas
~ Piper Creek W&tershed
I Miles
Figure B-2. Reaches in Piper Creek QUAL2K Model
B.2.2 Geometry, Elevation and Weather Data
Measurement of stream velocities, widths and depths were collected at four locations in
Piper Creek and were used to calculate flow rates at each location. QUAL2K allows the user to
63
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
calculate the flow balance using one of three approaches: weirs, rating curves and Manning
equations. For the Piper Creek models, velocity and depth inputs were estimated using rating
curves that were developed using Equations 2 and 3.
U=aQb
Equation 2
Where,
U = Velocity (m/s)
a = Empirical Coefficient
Q = Flow (m3/s)
b = Empirical Coefficient
H-aQp
Equation 3
Where,
H = Depth (m)
a = Empirical Coefficient
Q = Flow (m3/s)
P = Empirical Coefficient
a, b, a and /? are empirical coefficients that are determined from velocity-discharge and
stage-discharge rating curves. Within Q2K the values of velocity and depth are used to
estimate reach average cross-sectional area and width by:
Equation 4
Where,
Ac = average cross-sectional area (m2)
Q = flow (m3/s)
U = velocity (m/s)
Equation 5
Where,
B =
= width (m)
Ac = average cross-sectional area (m2)
H = depth (m)
64
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
The surface area and volume of the element can then be computed as:
Where,
As BAx Equation 6
As = surface area (m2)
B = width (m)
Ax = length of element
^ _ BHAx Equation 6
Where,
V = volume (m3)
B = width (m)
H = depth (m)
Ax = length of element
The raw data used to generate the rating curve equations used for the QUAL2K model
are provided in Table B-2 and the resulting model inputs are provided in Table B-3.
65
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table B-2. Stream characteristics for Piper Creek used to develop QUAL2K
model hydraulic inputs
\\ id 111
Ami (s(|ii:iiv
\'i-loiii\
lli.w
Time
Siii-
l);ik-
(HK'k'l'M
(Illl'llTS)
iiK-k-rs)
(lll/s)
(cms)
I'.M'lll
AM
Piper 1
07/15/09
3.962
0.140
0.554
0.196
0.275
July \\l A
PM
Piper 1
07/15/09
3.962
0.108
0.426
0.273
0.116
July WLA
AM
Piper 1
07/16/09
3.962
0.081
0.322
0.156
0.050
July WLA
PM
Piper 1
07/16/09
3.962
0.080
0.316
0.141
0.044
July WLA
AM
Piper 1
08/19/09
3.962
0.069
0.272
0.120
0.033
Aug WLA
PM
Piper 1
08/19/09
3.962
0.079
0.315
0.146
0.046
Aug WLA
AM
Piper 1
08/20/09
3.962
0.070
0.278
0.105
0.029
Aug WLA
PM
Piper 1
08/20/09
3.962
0.069
0.274
0.097
0.027
Aug WLA
AM
Piper 2
07/15/09
4.877
0.152
0.743
0.399
0.297
July WLA
PM
Piper 2
07/15/09
4.877
0.129
0.629
0.316
0.199
July WLA
AM
Piper 2
07/16/09
4.877
0.098
0.480
0.211
0.101
July WLA
PM
Piper 2
07/16/09
4.877
0.098
0.479
0.214
0.103
July WLA
AM
Piper 2
08/19/09
4.572
0.099
0.451
0.166
0.075
Aug WLA
PM
Piper 2
08/19/09
4.572
0.122
0.560
0.217
0.122
Aug WLA
AM
Piper 2
08/20/09
4.572
0.096
0.440
0.163
0.072
Aug WLA
PM
Piper 2
08/20/09
4.572
0.106
0.485
0.189
0.091
Aug WLA
AM
Piper 3
07/15/09
13.411
0.685
9.185
0.006
0.057
July WLA
PM
Piper 3
07/15/09
13.411
0.650
8.720
0.012
0.108
July WLA
AM
Piper 3
07/16/09
13.411
0.645
8.646
0.002
0.021
July WLA
PM
Piper 3
07/16/09
13.411
0.645
8.650
0.002
0.016
July WLA
AM
Piper 3
08/19/09
13.411
0.627
8.404
0.004
0.029
Aug WLA
PM
Piper 3
08/19/09
Data not used due velocity measurements of zero
AM
Piper 3
08/20/09
13.411
0.621
8.327
0.012
0.103
Aug WLA
PM
Piper 3
08/20/09
13.411
0.623
8.359
0.000
0.001
Aug WLA
AM
Piper 4
07/15/09
10.058
0.216
2.169
0.166
0.359
July WLA
PM
Piper 4
07/15/09
10.058
0.214
2.154
0.201
0.433
July WLA
AM
Piper 4
07/16/09
10.058
0.187
1.883
0.162
0.305
July WLA
PM
Piper 4
07/16/09
10.058
0.176
1.774
0.115
0.204
July WLA
AM
Piper 4
08/19/09
10.058
0.166
1.670
0.099
0.166
Aug WLA
PM
Piper 4
08/19/09
10.058
0.178
1.792
0.103
0.185
Aug WLA
AM
Piper 4
08/20/09
10.058
0.156
1.573
0.105
0.165
Aug WLA
PM
Piper 4
08/20/09
10.058
0.165
1.659
0.120
0.199
Aug WLA
Table B-3. Rating Curve QUAL2K Model Inputs
Model
Monitoring
Velocity
De
pth
Reach
Location
Coefficient
Exponent
Coefficient
Exponent
1
1
1.2038
0.686
0.2096
0.314
2
2
0.8664
0.632
0.2222
0.323
3
3
0.1131
0.993
0.6594
0.007
4
4
0.3566
0.701
0.2575
0.301
5
4
0.3566
0.701
0.2575
0.301
Hourly weather data for air temperature, dew point temperature and wind speed were
retrieved from the weather underground website20. Weather data from the Bolivar, Missouri,
Weather Station (KMOBOLIV3) were used because this was the closest station with the
20http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KMOBOLIV3&month=7&day=15&year
=2009
66
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
appropriate data. Table B-3 displays the hourly weather data used for July 15 - 16, 2009, and
August 19 - 20, 2009, modeled periods.
Table B-4. Hourly Weather Data for July 15-16 2009 and August 19 - 20, 2009,
from the Bolivar, Missouri, Weather Station (KMOBOLIV3)
Air
Dew point
Wind speed
Cloud
Date/Time
temperature C
temperature C
(meters/second)
cover
July 15,2009
12:00 AM
25.4
23.2
1.84
0.0%
1:00 AM
24.7
23.3
3.11
0.0%
2:00 AM
24.6
23.4
2.88
0.0%
3:00 AM
24.6
23.2
1.20
75.0%
4:00 AM
24.5
23.1
1.75
0.0%
5:00 AM
23.9
22.8
1.54
0.0%
6:00 AM
23.8
22.9
1.09
75.0%
7:00 AM
24.3
23.3
0.23
25.0%
8:00 AM
26.5
24.5
0.73
25.0%
9:00 AM
28.0
24.9
1.97
25.0%
10:00 AM
29.3
25.4
1.72
0.0%
11:00 AM
30.5
25.4
1.44
0.0%
12:00 PM
30.4
25.6
0.98
0.0%
1:00 PM
29.6
25.6
0.33
0.0%
2:00 PM
29.1
25.8
0.12
25.0%
3:00 PM
29.3
25.3
0.55
25.0%
4:00 PM
29.9
24.9
1.44
0.0%
5:00 PM
30.9
24.0
0.30
0.0%
6:00 PM
30.9
24.9
0.00
0.0%
7:00 PM
28.8
25.3
0.00
0.0%
8:00 PM
27.3
24.6
0.00
0.0%
9:00 PM
25.7
24.2
0.00
0.0%
10:00 PM
25.0
23.7
0.00
0.0%
11:00 PM
24.0
23.1
0.00
0.0%
July 16,2009
12:00 AM
23.9
23.5
0.07
25.0%
1:00 AM
24.3
23.6
0.12
25.0%
2:00 AM
23.7
23.2
0.06
25.0%
3:00 AM
23.5
23.0
0.00
25.0%
4:00 AM
23.4
22.8
0.12
25.0%
5:00 AM
23.2
22.7
0.34
25.0%
6:00 AM
22.9
22.4
0.38
25.0%
7:00 AM
23.5
22.7
0.11
25.0%
8:00 AM
24.3
23.6
0.40
25.0%
9:00 AM
25.2
24.2
0.89
50.0%
10:00 AM
26.6
24.6
0.75
75.0%
11:00 AM
28.0
24.9
0.47
75.0%
67
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Date/Time
Air
temperature C
Dew point
temperature C
Wind speed
(meters/second)
Cloud
cover
12:00 PM
29.6
25.0
0.56
75.0%
1:00 PM
30.5
24.7
0.78
50.0%
2:00 PM
31.1
24.4
1.32
10.0%
3:00 PM
25.7
22.5
1.04
75.0%
4:00 PM
23.0
21.9
0.77
25.0%
5:00 PM
26.8
24.0
0.54
0.0%
6:00 PM
27.9
24.1
0.42
0.0%
7:00 PM
26.4
23.3
0.63
0.0%
8:00 PM
24.7
22.8
0.00
0.0%
9:00 PM
23.6
21.7
0.14
0.0%
10:00 PM
23.0
19.8
0.36
0.0%
11:00 PM
21.8
19.2
0.06
0.0%
August 19, 2009
12:00 AM
21.0
20.2
0.00
0.0%
1:00 AM
20.9
20.2
0.00
0.0%
2:00 AM
20.9
20.0
0.00
0.0%
3:00 AM
20.7
19.8
0.00
0.0%
4:00 AM
20.6
19.9
0.61
0.0%
5:00 AM
21.1
20.2
1.66
0.0%
6:00 AM
21.2
20.3
1.42
0.0%
7:00 AM
21.4
20.4
0.80
0.0%
8:00 AM
22.4
21.1
0.35
0.0%
9:00 AM
23.0
21.4
1.31
0.0%
10:00 AM
23.7
21.7
1.45
0.0%
11:00 AM
24.5
21.4
1.82
0.0%
12:00 PM
23.7
20.6
2.47
0.0%
1:00 PM
21.7
19.9
1.64
0.0%
2:00 PM
21.0
19.2
2.47
0.0%
3:00 PM
21.0
19.6
2.04
0.0%
4:00 PM
20.8
19.4
0.89
0.0%
5:00 PM
20.4
18.9
1.53
0.0%
6:00 PM
19.9
18.7
1.44
0.0%
7:00 PM
19.5
18.6
1.03
0.0%
8:00 PM
19.2
18.0
1.10
0.0%
9:00 PM
19.2
17.7
1.48
0.0%
10:00 PM
19.9
18.1
1.38
0.0%
11:00 PM
17.3
16.4
0.96
0.0%
August 20, 2009
12:00 AM
17.0
16.6
2.04
0.0%
1:00 AM
18.1
17.8
2.09
0.0%
2:00 AM
18.1
17.8
1.12
0.0%
3:00 AM
18.0
17.7
2.75
0.0%
4:00 AM
18.0
17.6
2.12
0.0%
5:00 AM
17.9
17.6
1.61
0.0%
6:00 AM
17.9
17.5
0.63
0.0%
68
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Air
Dew point
Wind speed
Cloud
Date/Time
temperature C
temperature C
(meters/second)
cover
7:00 AM
18.0
17.7
0.28
0.0%
8:00 AM
18.6
18.3
0.48
0.0%
9:00 AM
20.0
19.3
0.97
0.0%
10:00 AM
20.7
19.7
1.32
0.0%
11:00 AM
21.7
20.0
1.10
0.0%
12:00 PM
23.1
20.3
1.23
0.0%
1:00 PM
23.8
21.1
1.38
0.0%
2:00 PM
24.8
21.0
1.71
0.0%
3:00 PM
25.3
19.0
2.04
0.0%
4:00 PM
25.4
19.1
1.99
0.0%
5:00 PM
25.7
17.6
1.40
0.0%
6:00 PM
25.4
16.4
0.92
0.0%
7:00 PM
22.6
15.6
0.05
0.0%
8:00 PM
19.2
18.0
1.10
0.0%
9:00 PM
19.2
17.7
1.48
0.0%
10:00 PM
19.9
18.1
1.38
0.0%
11:00 PM
17.3
16.4
0.96
0.0%
B.2.3 Boundary Conditions
Water quality and stream channel information collected at the most upstream monitoring
location were used to specify headwater boundary conditions for most parameters. The
following constituents and parameters were based directly on data collected at the most upstream
monitoring location (#1): flow, CBOD, nitrate-nitrogen, organic nitrogen, ammonium-nitrogen,
organic phosphorus, inorganic phosphorus, pH and rating curve velocity and depth coefficient
and exponent inputs. Hourly estimates for temperature and DO were calculated using a
polynomial regression on daily measurements. Separate regressions were developed for DO and
temperature on each day by utilizing AM and PM samples for each day at monitoring location
one. Hourly headwater inputs are provided in Table B-5.
In order to estimate inflows for each of the five small tributaries, the area of each
monitoring location was divided by its respective area and all flow/area ratios were averaged to
calculate a flow/area ratio for the entire watershed. The drainage area of each tributary was then
multiplied by the Piper Creek flow/area ratio to estimate a flow (cfs) for each tributary. Prior to
calculating the flow/area ratio for each sample location, the flow contributed by the Bolivar
WWTF was subtracted from the monitored flow, as it should have no impact on tributaries
draining into Piper Creek. Water quality concentrations for the tributaries were estimated using
water quality conditions at sample location #1 (upstream of the Bolivar WWTF) during July and
August 2009.
The Piper Creek tributary (Reach 3) was simulated from Sample Site 3 to the confluence
with Town Branch. The headwater conditions of this tributary were based directly on data
collected at monitoring location 3: flow, CBOD, nitrate-nitrogen, organic nitrogen, ammonium-
nitrogen, organic phosphorus, inorganic phosphorus, pH and rating curve velocity and depth
69
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
coefficient and exponent inputs. Hourly estimates for temperature and DO were calculated using
a polynomial regression on daily measurements. Hourly headwater inputs are provided in Table
B-6.
Table B-5. Piper Creek QUAL2K headwater model input values for Reach 1 for the
July 15 - 16, August 25-26, 2009 simulations
Constituent
QUAL2K Headwater Model Input values
July 15,2009
July 16,2009
August 19, 2009
August 20, 2009
Flow (cms)
0.198
0.048
0.040
0.028
Temperature (Deg C)1
20.8- 24.0
20.6- 24.3
18.5-23.7
18.37- 22.97
DO (mg/L)1
7.3-10.0
7.9-11.7
5.5-11.7
5.9-11.1
CBOD Ultimate (mg 02/L)
10.7
4.0
7.5
6.75
Organic Nitrogen (]ig N/L)
261.0
100.0
1664.0
406.0
NH4-Nitrogen (]ig N/L)
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
N03-Nitrogen (]ig N/L)
1120.0
1830.0
1775.0
1870.0
Organic Phosphorus (]ig P/L)
35.2
34.50
16.9
14.00
Inorganic Phosphorus (]ig P/L)
15.1
34.50
7.2
7.0
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L)
100.0
100.00
100.0
100.00
PH
8.2
8.7
8.2
8.2
Values for temperature and DO vary hourly
70
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table B-6. Piper Creek QUAL2K headwater model input values for Reach 3 for the
July 15 - 16, and August 25 - 26, 2009 Simulations.
Constituent
QUAL2K Headwater Model Input values
July 15,2009
July 16,2009
August 19, 2009
August 20, 2009
Flow (cms)
0.110
0.018
0.014
0.051
Temperature (Deg C)1
22.9- 28.0
24.1 - 25.4
20.1-21.8
20.6- 22.6
DO (mg/L)1
6.3-10.0
5.0-7.0
2.3-4.1
2.0-5.7
CBOD Ultimate (mg 02/L)
5.5
3.3
4.1
2.3
Organic Nitrogen (]ig N/L)
798.0
488.5
253.5
1370.5
NH4-Nitrogen (]ig N/L)
500.0
500.0
500.00
1000.0
N03-Nitrogen (]ig N/L)
565.0
565.0
303.3
256.0
Organic Phosphorus (]ig P/L)
83.0
51.8
51.1
21.8
Inorganic Phosphorus (]ig P/L)
35.55
22.2
21.9
72.0
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L)
100.0
100.00
100.0
100.00
PH
8.30
8.42
8.2
7.7
Values for temperature and DO vary hourly
B.2.4 Point Sources
Point source inputs for the QUAL2K model were obtained from discharge monitoring
reports (DMR) provided by MDNR and are summarized in Table B-5. Four point sources were
simulated in the model; the Bolivar WWTF which discharges at kilometer 10.31 (between
monitoring stations #1 and #2), Home Court Advantage, Inc. WWTF which discharges at
kilometer 1.36 (between monitoring location #1 and the end of the Piper Creek impaired
segment) and, Karlin Place Subdivision WWTF and Silo Ridge Homeowners Association
WWTF which both discharge at kilometer 1.76 on a tributary that enters into the Piper Creek
impaired segment (between monitoring location #3 and the confluence of the unimpaired
tributary with the Piper Creek impaired segment). Since the model only includes 1.76 of the
Piper Creek tributary these point sources are added at the upstream boundary of reach 3. This is
a conservative placement of the point sources; however, it has little impact on the model results
because the point sources contribute only a small portion of the flow in the tributary (0.0006 cms
of 0.110 cms or 0.5 percent of the total flow). The Quail Creek MHP WWTF has a permit to
discharge to Piper Creek; however, the DMR showed that the facility had no recoded discharges
during the July and August simulation periods.
None of the point sources report organic nitrogen, nitrate, or phosphorus discharge
concentrations. These parameters were estimated for the Bolivar WWTP from DMR and
instream data. Values estimated for the Bolivar WWTP were used for the other facilities. For
other parameters, such as flow, CBOD, NH3 and DO, data from DMR were used.
71
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table B-7. Point Source Data Summary
Discharge
Nitrate+
Facilitv Name &
Point
Flow
BODS
nh3
Organic N
Nitrite N
Organic P
Inorganic
DO
NPDES
Date
(km)1
(cms)
(mg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
P (Ug/L)
(mg/L)
7/15/2009
10.31
0.0613
22.00
130 E
NS
7,000 E
2800 E
1200 E
2.60
Bolivar WWTF2
7/16/2009
10.31
0.0570
8.50
130 E
1000 E
5,180 E
2100 E
1000 E
2.60
8/19/2009
10.31
0.0526
19.68
652.5 E
1957 E
10,000 E
805 E
345 E
2.70
8/20/2009
10.31
0.0526 E
12
652.5 E
652 E
10,000 E
805 E
345 E
3.70
Karlin Place
Subdivision
WWTF3
7/15/2009
12.69 E
0.0004 E
2.36 E
2600 E
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.40 E
7/16/2009
12.69 E
0.0004 E
2.36 E
2600 E
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.40 E
8/19/2009
12.69 E
0.0004 E
2.36 E
2600 E
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.40 E
8/20/2009
12.69 E
0.0004 E
2.36 E
2600 E
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.40 E
Silo Ridge
7/15/2009
7.53 E
0.0002 E
4.72 E
NS
NS
NS
4550 E
1950 E
NS
Homeowners
7/16/2009
7.53 E
0.0002 E
4.72 E
NS
NS
NS
4550 E
1950 E
NS
Association
8/19/2009
7.53 E
0.0002 E
4.72 E
NS
NS
NS
4550 E
1950 E
NS
WWTF3
8/20/2009
7.53 E
0.0002 E
4.72 E
NS
NS
NS
4550 E
1950 E
NS
Home Court
Advantage, Inc.
WWTF4
7/15/2009
1.36 E
0.0001 E
6.98 E
NS
NS
NS
623 E
267 E
NS
7/16/2009
1.36 E
0.0001 E
6.98 E
NS
NS
NS
623 E
267 E
NS
8/19/2009
1.36 E
0.0001 E
6.98 E
NS
NS
NS
623 E
267 E
NS
8/20/2009
1.36 E
0.0001 E
6.98 E
NS
NS
NS
623 E
267 E
NS
Discharge location is based on the distance to the end of the stream; The Bolivar WWTF and Home Court Advantage, Inc. WWTF discharge into the
impaired segment of Piper Creek; Karlin Place Subdivision WWTF and Silo Ridge Flomeowners Association WWTF discharge to a unimpaired tributary
entering the Piper Creek impaired segment.
2 Flow, pH, temperature and DO values reported on daily DMR for each respective day were used as model inputs. Inputs for BOD and ammonia on July 15
and July 16 were based on values reported on July 16, 2009. Inputs for BOD and ammonia on August 19 and August 20 were based on values reported on
August 20, 2009. Organic nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite N, organic phosphorus and inorganic phosphorus model inputs were not reported by the Bolivar WWTF
DMR. These model inputs were selected based on instream measurements at monitoring location #2. E = Estimated value was estimated based on
monitoring conducted on each day.
3 All values based on September 2009 quarterly DMR.
4 All values based on July 2008 DMR.
NS = Parameter was not included in the model for this point source.
Organic N is set equal to TKN minus NH3; Inorganic P estimated to be 70 percent of TP and Organic P estimated to be 30 percent of TP based on EPA, 1997.
72
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
B.2.5 Critical Conditions
DO levels that threaten the integrity of aquatic communities generally occur during low
flow periods, so these periods are considered the critical condition. For Class P streams, mixing
zones are applicable to all pollutants (with the exception of bacteria) that have specific criteria.
Mixing zones are typically based on the 7Q10 low flow of the receiving water body to account
for critical low-flow conditions. Missouri uses one quarter (1/4) of the 7Q10 for the mixing zone
flow. The rationale for limiting the size of mixing zones is three-fold. First, the assumption of
rapid and complete mixing is not a conservative assumption. Meaning, many times effluent
plumes exist and cause areas of chronically toxic conditions that can extend laterally and
longitudinally downstream. Second, state rule requires that a zone of passage be provided so that
aquatic organisms may pass by facility outfalls without becoming adversely affected. Third, for
antidegradation purposes, the entire assimilative capacity of the water body cannot be allocated
to a single discharger.
In the case of Piper Creek, a mixing zone of one-quarter (1/4) of the stream width, cross-
sectional area, or volume of flow and a length of lA mile is required. For modeling purposes, this
means 1/4 of the 7Q10 flow should be the volume of flow available to the facility for mixing and
this is the critical flow condition for 1/4 mile downstream of the WWTF discharge. At the
default 7Q10 for Class P streams of 0.1 cfs, a mixing zone of 0.025 cfs is the appropriate
headwater flow for Piper Creek upstream of the facility. For DO targeting purposes, the 5.0
mg/L minimum DO criteria must be met at lA mile below the facility outfall. The applicable
mixing zone regulation can be found at 10 CSR 20-7.031 (4) (A)4.B.(II) (CSR, 2009). At
distances greater than lA mile downstream the critical condition is the 7Q10 flow.
The modeling conducted for Piper Creek included both the 7Q10 and mixing zone flow
of lA of the 7Q10. Since the mixing zone DO requirement is applicable lA miles downstream of
the discharge and the 7Q10 DO requirements are applicable the entire length of the segment both
conditions must be evaluated. The modeling results indicated that the critical DO condition
occurred downstream of the mixing zone, thus the 7Q10 flows were used to develop TMDL
loads.
Table B-8 presents minimum DO measurements collected on July 15 - 16, 2009, and
August 19 - 20, 2009. Of these measurements, DO was found to be lowest during the August
morning sampling events. Based on this result, critical conditions are represented in this TMDL
through low flow conditions (7Q10 flow) using the August 19, 2009 model.
Table B-8. Minimum DO (mg/L) Measurement at each Sampling Location
Sampling
Location
Stream
distance (km)
7/15/2009
7/16/2009
8/19/2009
8/20/2009
1
10.61
7.73
7.93
6.81
6.84
2
9.93
7.37
7.59
6.19
5.7
3
1.76
7.08
5.45
2.67
2.77
4
7.77
7.9
8.49
6.4
6.56
73
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
B.3 Model Calibration
This section of the appendix describes the process that was used to calibrate the
QUAL2K model for the Piper Creek watershed and presents the calibration results.
B.3.1 Flow and Water Depth Simulations
The model was calibrated for flow, stream velocities and depths for the data collected on
July 15 - 16, 2009. QUAL2K provides the user with the option to simulate the following flows:
boundary headwater flows, point source flows and nonpoint source diffuse flow. In the Piper
Creek models, nonpoint sources are grouped with tributary flows that are included in the model
as point sources.
Portions of Piper Creek have been identified as a gaining stream. Measured flows
between monitoring stations #2 and #4 suggested the presence of water gains that were not
otherwise estimated based on watershed area and tributaries or measured at monitoring location
#3. For this reason, tributaries 1 and 2 flows were increased to account for flows otherwise not
accounted for between monitoring locations #2 and #4. Tributary 1 originates near the city of
Bolivar and flows northeast to Town Branch where it joins Town Branch downstream of
monitoring location #2 and upstream of the Piper Creek confluence. Tributary 2 originates near
the city of Bolivar and flows northeast to Piper Creek where it joins Piper Creek downstream of
the Town Branch confluence with Piper Creek and upstream of monitoring location #4.
Adjusted flow for both tributaries was determined using a watershed area-weighted approach.
A total of five tributaries are included in the model. Measured flow and concentration
data was used for the upstream boundary headwater. Discharges for all WWTFs were included
as separate point sources.
Stream velocity, depth and discharge are all critical to the water quality simulation
because they influence reaeration, DO, biogeochemical reactions and deposition rates, growth of
algal species and the influence of SOD in the stream. Calibration results for flow, depth and
velocity are provided for July 15 - 16, 2009, in Figure B-3. A summary of all calibration
statistics is provided in Table B-9.
74
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Piper Creek (7/15/2009)
Piper Creek (7/16/2009)
0.6
0.5 U
0.4 j-
0.3 \-
8 6 4
| Q, m3/s > Q-datam3/s|
Piper Creek (7/15/2009)
0.45
0.4
0.35 U
0.3 -
0.25 \-
0.2 \-
1
8 6 4
| ^—Q, m3/s • Q-datam3/s|
Piper Creek (7/16/2009)
6 4
|^~U,mps • U-datam/s]
Piper Creek (7/15/2009)
¦U,mps • U-datam/s|
Piper Creek (7/16/2009)
•
u
•
1
! •
12 10
12 10
m • H-datam
•H-datam|
Figure B-3. Comparisons of observed and simulated flow (Q), velocity (U) and depth (H)
in Piper Creek
75
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
B.3.2 Water Quality Calibration
Calibration consists of the process of adjusting model parameters and the initial estimates
of boundary conditions to provide a suitable representation of observed conditions. Calibration
is necessary because of the semiempirical nature of water quality models. Although these
models are formulated from mass balance principles, most of the kinetic descriptions in the
models are empirically derived. These empirical derivations contain a number of coefficients
that are usually determined by calibration to data collected in the water body. In addition, there
is uncertainty associated with the specification of boundary conditions, point source loads and
tributary loads. The boundary conditions and tributary loads might need to be adjusted within
the uncertainty bounds of available data to achieve model calibration. Water quality calibration
for the Piper Creek QUAL2K model relied on comparison of model predictions to observations
at three stations on the mainstem of the system.
Water quality models are often evaluated through visual comparisons, in which the
simulated results are plotted against the observed data for the same location and time and are
visually evaluated to determine if the model is able to mimic the trend and overall magnitude of
the observed conditions. If the model predictions follow the general trend and reproduce the
overall magnitude of the observed data, the model is said to represent the dynamics of the system
well. The merit of this method is that it is straightforward, taking full advantage of the strength
of human intelligence in pattern identification. This method works particularly well when data
are limited in quantity and contain significant uncertainty. The limitation of this method is that it
relies on the subjective judgment of modelers and lacks quantitative measures to differentiate
among sets of calibration result. Because of this, both a visual comparison and quantitative
measures were used during the Piper Creek calibration.
BOD is an important calibration parameter because of its influence on DO
concentrations. BOD typically consists of two parts: CBOD and NBOD. CBOD is the result of
the breakdown of organic carbon molecules such as cellulose and sugars into carbon dioxide and
water. NBOD is the result of ammonia oxidation, which is a conversion of ammonia to nitrate in
the environment. The consumption of nitrogen usually occurs slower than that of CBOD.
CBOD is the oxygen consumed by heterotrophic microbes that utilize the organic matter of the
waste in their metabolism. Nitrifying bacteria grow slower than the heterotrophic bacteria,
which is one of the reasons why NBOD occurs slower.
The parameter "fast reacting CBOD" was used to simulate CBOD in the models.
CBOD5 measurements were adjusted by multiplying each value by the average CBODr,:CBOD„n
ratio observed at each station on each of the four days. The CBODsiCBODuit ratio was
calculated to be 4.71, 6.56, 2.36 and 3.49 at monitoring locations #1, #2, #3 and #4, respectively.
This approach to adjusting CBOD model inputs was used for headwater, tributary and WWTF
source loads. Headwater and tributary CBOD inputs were adjusted using the ratio 4.71 (similar
to monitoring location #1) and the Bolivar WWTF CBOD was adjusted using the ratio 6.56
(similar to monitoring location #2). Given the wide range in calculated CBODsiCBODuit ratios,
in some cases adjustments were made during calibration to assist in DO fit.
76
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
The first order kinetic reaction rates for biogeochemical reactions are influenced from the
various flow and chemical conditions in streams. Kinetic rates are a function of different
physical and chemical mechanisms such as mixing and turbulence, the particulate and dissolved
chemical components ratio, physical settling, biochemical decompositions and sorption by
biological slimes on river bottom. In all Piper models, first order reaction rates were selected for
the final calibration because they were found to produce the best match to the observed data.
SOD by benthic sediments and organisms can be a large fraction of oxygen consumption
in the stream. Benthic sediments can be composed of inorganic minerals and organic material
such as leaf litter, particulate and dissolved BOD, detritus from phytoplankton/periphyton and
macrophytes. Reduced inorganic and organic materials can exert SOD by diffused oxygen into
sediments or oxygen consumption in water column after the inorganic and organic materials are
suspended from the sediments. In addition to physical and chemical characteristics of sediments,
the impact that SOD has on water column DO can be affected by water depth, stream velocity
and water temperature.
SOD is primarily a function of oxidation of dissolved ammonium, methane and
decomposition of organic matter by bacteria. Additionally, dissolved hydrogen sulfide and
reduced iron and manganese could consume DO once they diffuse into the aerobic sediment
layers. The amount of organic matter can be related to SOD consumption.
Organic matter can be described by Redfield ratio, Cw§H2^OmNwP ^ As this ratio
suggests, the bacterial conversion (decomposition) of the organic matter can generate the rapidly
reactive dissolved N and C species. These species eventually exert SOD from both within
sediments and at the interface between water column and sediments. SOD can be measured
using the respiration chamber but the method can have high uncertainty and the data was not
collected for Piper Creek. SOD values were estimated using the QUAL2K sediment diagenesis
routines. Percent bottom SOD coverage was based on the percent fine material identified in the
stream reach during the 2009 sampling events.
Benthic algae (periphyton) kinetics also have a marked effect on DO concentrations and
diurnal swings (EPA, 1985). Periphyton dynamics were included in model calibration to account
for the current observation and historical presence (e.g., Environmental Resources Coalition,
2005) of bottom algae and for the observed diurnal variation in DO. Algal growth, respiration,
death and related nutrient kinetics were adjusted within typical ranges reported by the literature
(EPA, 1985; Ambrose, 2006) to best match the observed DO variations and nutrient
concentrations from the July sampling events.
The "USGS (channel-control)" method was selected to simulate oxygen reaeration. This
method was selected after consultation with EPA based on the characteristics of the stream
channel and flow conditions. Equations 4 and 5 present formulas for calculating reaeration using
the USGS (channel-control) method (Chapra, 2008).
Low flow, Q< 0.556 cms (< 19.64 cfs):
kah (20) = 88(US)0 313 H~°'353 Equation 4
77
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
High flow, Q> 0.556 cms (> 19.64 cfs):
-0.66 d-0.243
kah(20) =142(US) H Bt
Equation 5
The final rates used for the Piper Creek calibration are presented in Table B-7. Figures
B-4 through B-l 1 present the results of the model calibration, including temperature, DO,
CBOD, TKN, ammonium, nitrate, TN and TP. A visual inspection of the plots indicates that the
model predictions follow the general trend and reproduce the overall magnitude of the observed
data well.
The quantitative calibration metrics that were used to assess the calibration include the
evaluation of average error, residual error, root mean squared error (RMSE), relative error and
percent bias. Table B-8 reports the statistical measure and equation for each quantitative
calibration metrics used to evaluate the calibration. Table B-9 presents statistical results for
calibration model runs for flow, DO, nitrate, TKN and TP.
Piper Creek (7/15/2009)
Piper Creek (7/16/2009)
13:
25 r
20 L
15 I
10 -
5 I
0 I-
-Temp(C)Average ¦ Mean Temp-data Temp(C)Minimum
-Temp(C)Maximum ~ Minimum Temp-data ~ Maximum Temp-data
-Temp(C)Average ¦ Mean Temp-data Temp(C)Minimum
-Temp(C)Maximum ~ Minimum Temp-data ~ Maximum Temp-data
Figure B-4. Temperature Calibration in Piper Creek
Piper Creek (7/15/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (7/16/2009) Mainstem
"~
n <-~B
10
6
4 2
DO(mg02/L)
¦ DO(mg02/L)data
DO(mg02/L)Min
DO(mg02/L)Max
~ Minimum DO-data
~ Maximum DO-data
DO sat
Figure B-5. DO Calibration in Piper Creek
4 -
2 r
o L-
~g~
-4- „
-cbB-
—
10 8
6 4
2
DO(mg02/L)
¦ DO(mg02/L)data
DO(mg02/L)Min
DO(mg02/L)Max
~ Minimum DO-data
~ Maximum DO-data
DO sat
78
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Piper Creek (7/15/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (7/16/2009) Mainstem
-~—
m ~
-4—
CBODf (mg02/L)
CBODf (mg02/L) Max
¦ CBODf (mg02/L) data CBODf (mg02/L)Min
~ Minimum CBODf-data ~ Maximum CBODf-data
Figure B-6. CBOD Calibration in Piper Creek
—CBODf (mg02/L)
-CBODf (mg02/L) Max
¦ CBODf (mg02/L) data CBODf (mg02/L)Min
~ Minimum CBODf-data ~ Maximum CBODf-data
Piper Creek (7/15/2009) Piper Creek (7/16/2009)
Figure B-7. TKN Calibration in Piper Creek
Piper Creek (7/15/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (7/16/2009) Mainstem
500
400
\
\
W
600
- 500
400
- 300
200
-Q-O-
k
-^V
\ v \ v \ \
\ i \ i \ v
NH4(ugN/L)data
-NH4(ugN/L)Max
NH4(ugN/L) NH4(ugN/L)Min
~ Minimum NH4-data ~ Maximum NH4-data
NH4(ugN/L)data
-NH4(ugN/L)Max
NH4(ugN/L) NH4(ugN/L) Min
~ Minimum NH4-data ~ Maximum NH4-data
Figure B-8. Ammonium Calibration in Piper Creek (all measured ammonia was below the
detection limit of 500 pg/L)
79
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Piper Creek (7/15/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (7/16/2009) Mainstem
~
¦ V ,
\
~ I
F
2500
2000
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0 L
12
¦ N03 (ugNZL)data N03(ugN/L) N03(ugN/L)Min
NQ3(ugN/L)Max ~ Minimum N03-data ~ Maximum N03-data
Figure B-9. Nitrate Calibration in Piper Creek
i;
¦ N03 (ugNZL)data
NQ3(ugN/L)Max
N03(ugN/L) N03(ugN/L)Min
~ Minimum N03-data ~ Maximum N03-data
Piper Creek (7/15/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (7/16/2009) Mainstem
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
t ~
1000 -
~
¦
J
~
_ -- -
!
¦ TN (ugN/L) data TNMin
~ Minimum TN-data ~ Maximum TN-data
TN
TN Max
Figure B-10. Total Nitrogen Calibration in Piper Creek
¦ TN (ugN/L) data TNMin
~ Minimum TN-data ~ Maximum TN-data
Piper Creek (7/15/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (7/16/2009) Mainstem
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
~
¦
~ I
V n
. . E
2000 -
~
m
n
k
»-~
"A
. . z
TP (ugPZL)data
-TP Max
TP TPMin
~ Minimum TP-data ~ Maximum TP-data
TP (ugPZL)data
-TP Max
TP TPMin
~ Minimum TP-data ~ Maximum TP-data
Figure B-ll. Total Phosphorus Calibration in Piper Creek
80
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table B-9. Rates Used for the Piper Creek QUAL2K Calibration
Parameter
I nits
Symbol
Stoichiometrv:
Carbon
40
RC
RC
Nitrogen
7.2
gN
rN
Phosphorus
1
RP
rP
Dry weight
100
rD
rD
Chlorophyll
1
rA
rA
Inorganic suspended solids:
Settling velocity
1.304
m/d
Vi
Oxygen:
Reaeration model
USGS (channel-
control)
User reaeration coefficient a
0
a
User reaeration coefficient (3
0
P
User reaeration coefficient y
0
y
Temp correction
1.024
a
Reaeration wind effect
Banks-Herrera
02 for carbon oxidation
2.69
ro2/rc
foe
02 for NH4 nitrification
4.57
ro2/rn
foil
Oxygen inhib model CBOD oxidation
Exponential
Oxygen inhib parameter CBOD oxidation
0.60
L/mg02
Ksocf
Oxygen inhib model nitrification
Exponential
Oxygen inhib parameter nitrification
0.60
L/mg02
K-sona
Oxygen enhance model denitrification
Exponential
Oxygen enhance parameter denitrification
0.60
L/mg02
K-sodn
Oxygen inhib model phyto resp
Exponential
Oxygen inhib parameter phyto resp
0.60
L/mg02
K-sop
Oxygen enhance model bot alg resp
Exponential
Oxygen enhance parameter bot alg resp
0.60
L/mg02
K-sob
Slow CBOD:
Hydrolysis rate
0.5
Id
khc
Temp correction
1.047
he
Oxidation rate
0
Id
kdes
Temp correction
1.047
des
Fast CBOD:
Oxidation rate
3
Id
kdc
Temp correction
1.047
dc
Organic N:
Hydrolysis
0.1
Id
hn
Temp correction
1.07
hn
Settling velocity
0.2
m/d
Von
81
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
/'ammeter
I nits
Symbol
. 1 mmonium:
Nitrification
0.1
Id
kna
Temp correction
1.07
na
Nitrate:
Denitrification
0.1
Id
kdn
Temp correction
1.07
dn
Sed denitrification transfer coeff
0
m/d
Vdi
Temp correction
1.07
di
Organic P:
Hydrolysis
0.1
Id
hp
Temp correction
1.07
hp
Settling velocity
0.1
m/d
Vop
Inorganic P:
Settling velocity
0
m/d
Vip
Inorganic P sorption coefficient
0.073
L/mgD
Kdpi
Sed P oxygen attenuation half sat constant
1.831
mg02/L
h
"¦spi
Phytoplankton:
Max Growth rate
0
Id
kgp
Temp correction
1.07
gp
Respiration rate
0.05
Id
krp
Temp correction
1.07
rp
Excretion rate
0.04
Id
kep
Temp correction
1.07
dp
Death rate
0.01
Id
kdp
Temp correction
1.047
dp
External Nitrogen half sat constant
100
ugN/L
kspp
External Phosphorus half sat constant
40
ugP/L
ksNp
Inorganic carbon half sat constant
1.30E-05
moles/L
kscp
Light model
Half saturation
Light constant
15
langleys/d
KLp
Ammonia preference
25
ugN/L
khnxp
Subsistence quota for nitrogen
0.72
mgN/mgA
qmp
Subsistence quota for phosphorus
0.1
mgP/mgA
Qopp
Maximum uptake rate for nitrogen
72
mgN/mgA/d
mNp
Maximum uptake rate for phosphorus
5
mgP/mgA/d
mPp
Internal nitrogen half sat constant
0.9
mgN/mgA
KqNp
Internal phosphorus half sat constant
0.13
mgP/mgA
KqPp
Settling velocity
0
m/d
Va
Bottom Algae:
Growth model
First-order
82
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
/'ammeter
I nits
Symbol
Max Growth rate
0.63
mgA/m2/d or /d
Cgb
Temp correction
1.07
gb
First-order model carrying capacity
1000
mgA/m2
3b,max
Respiration rate
0.02
Id
krb
Temp correction
1.07
rb
Excretion rate
0.09
Id
keb
Temp correction
1.07
db
Death rate
0.05
Id
kdb
Temp correction
1.07
db
External nitrogen half sat constant
100
ugN/L
kspb
External phosphorus half sat constant
40
ugP/L
ksNb
Inorganic carbon half sat constant
1.30E-05
moles/L
ksCb
Light model
Steele
Light constant
190
langleys/d
KLb
Ammonia preference
25
ugN/L
khnxb
Subsistence quota for nitrogen
0.72
mgN/mgA
Qon
Subsistence quota for phosphorus
0.1
mgP/mgA
Qop
Maximum uptake rate for nitrogen
72
mgN/mgA/d
mN
Maximum uptake rate for phosphorus
5
mgP/mgA/d
wP
Internal nitrogen half sat constant
0.9
mgN/mgA
KqN
Internal phosphorus half sat constant
0.13
mgP/mgA
KqP
Detritus (POM):
Dissolution rate
0.2
Id
kdt
Temp correction
1.07
dt
Fraction of dissolution to fast CBOD
0.50
Ff
Settling velocity
0.2
m/d
Vdt
Pathogens:
Decay rate
0.8
Id
kdx
Temp correction
1.07
kdx
Settling velocity
1
m/d
dx
Light efficiency factor
1.00
vx
pH:
Partial pressure of carbon dioxide
347
ppm
path
83
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
B.4
Model Validation
Typically, the performance of a calibrated model is evaluated through "validation."
Model validation is defined as "subsequent testing of a pre-calibrated model to additional field
data, usually under different external conditions, to further examine the model's ability to predict
future conditions" (EPA, 1997). Its purpose is to ensure that the calibrated model properly
assesses all the variables and conditions that can affect model results and demonstrate the ability
to predict field observations for periods separate from the calibration effort (Donigian, 2003).
Validation of the Piper Creek model was conducted using the data collected from
August 19 - 20, 2009. System rates and coefficients were initially set equal to the values
selected in the calibration runs. Comparison of the validation results with measured data
provided insight into how the system functioned and provided ideas for how to improve the
calibration. Based on this comparison minor adjustments were made to nutrient rates (oxidation,
hydrolysis, sorption and settling rates) and bottom algae (growth and respiration rates) in the
calibration period models. The adjustments that resulted in improvements during the calibration
periods were incorporated into the validation runs. All three models contain the same system
rates and coefficients.
Headwater and tributary flows were set equal to the average of morning and afternoon
flow measurements on each respective day. Similarly, model inputs for headwater and tributary
nutrients, DO, CBOD and pH were also based on average field measurements or calculated
based on field measurements (in the case of organic nitrogen, organic phosphorus and inorganic
phosphorus) on each respective day. Initial model inputs for air temperature, dew point
temperature, wind speed, cloud cover and shade were based on monitoring data. The sediment
diagenesis routine was used to estimate SOD. Percent reach with SOD coverage was estimated
from sediment characterization data collected during sampling. SOD coverage was set at the
percent of stream bottom with sand, silt or clay (Table B-10). The validation results are
presented in Figures B-12 to B-20.
Table B-10. Percent Bottom SOD Coverage
Reach Number
Bottom SOD Coverage
1
6.00%
2
6.00%
3
2.00%
4
10.00%
5
10.00%
84
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Piper Creek (8/19/2009)
Piper Creek (8/20/2009)
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
'
I
r
|^~Q, m3/s • Q-datam3/s|
Piper Creek (8/19/2009)
Q, m3/s • Q-datam3/s
Piper Creek (8/20/2009)
8 6 4
|^~U, mps • U-datam/s|
Piper Creek (8/19/2009)
U, mps 9 U-datam/s|
Piper Creek (8/20/2009)
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
~H, m • H-data m
-H, m • H-data m
Vn
*—I
i-i
•I
i
^—i
fw
/ •
Figure B-12. Validation of observed and simulated flow (Q), velocity (U) and depth (H) in
Piper Creek
85
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Piper Creek (8/19/2009)
Piper Creek (8/20/2009)
~
"ft"
Temp(C) Average ¦ Mean Temp-data Temp(C) Minimum
Temp(C) Maximum ~ Minimum Temp-data ~ Maximum Temp-data
Temp(C) Average ¦ Mean Temp-data — - Temp(C) Minimum
Temp(C) Maximum ~ Minimum Temp-data ~ Maximum Temp-data
Figure B-13. Temperature validation in Piper Creek
Piper Creek (8/19/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (8/20/2009) Mainstem
10
6
4 2
D0(mg02/L)
¦ DO (mg02/L) data
D0(mg02/L) Min
D0(mg02/L) Max
~ Minimum DO-data
~ Maximum DO-data
- - DO sat
Figure B-14. DO validation in Piper Creek
10 8
6
4 2
D0(mg02/L)
¦ DO (mg02/L) data
D0(mg02/L) Min
D0(mg02/L) Max
~ Minimum DO-data
~ Maximum DO-data
- - DO sat
Piper Creek (8/19/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (8/20/2009) Mainstem
~
~ \
n
=
Kn
\ N
s \ s
\ \ \
~ x
S
''s
CBODf (mg02/L) ¦ CBODf (mg02/L) data CBODf (mg02/L) Min
— — CBODf (mg02/L) Max ~ Minimum CBODf-data ~ Maximum CBODf-data
Figure B-15. CBOD validation in Piper Creek
CBODf (mg02/L) ¦ CBODf (mg02/L) data CBODf (mg02/L) Min
——CBODf (mg02/L) Max ~ Minimum CBODf-data ~ Maximum CBODf-data
86
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Piper Creek (8/19/2009)
Piper Creek (8/20/2009)
I TKNugN/L TKN Min TKN Max ~ Minimum TKN ~ Maximum TKN|
Figure B-16. TKN validation in Piper Creek
TKN Max ~ Minimum TKN ~ Maximum TKN
Piper Creek (8/19/2009) Ma in stem
Piper Creek (8/20/2009) Main stem
¦ NH4 (ugN/L) data NH4(ugN/L) NH4(ugN/L) Min
— — NH4(ugN/L) Max ~ Minimum NH4-data ~ Maximum NH4-data
\
\ ..
\\,
\»\\
A\
\ V
'A
\V
\V
\ ^
NH4 (ugN/L) data
- NH4(ugN/L) Max
NH4(ugN/L) NH4(ugN/L) Min
~ Minimum NH4-data ~ Maximum NH4-data
Figure B-17. Ammonium validation in Piper Creek (all measured ammonia was below the
detection limit of 500 pg/L)
Piper Creek (8/19/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (8/20/2009) Mainstem
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
rfi—\
\
U A
a
¦ N03 (ugN/L) data
NQ3(ugN/L) Max
N03(ugN/L) N03(ugN/L) Min
~ Minimum N03-data ~ Maximum N03-data
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
~
¦
~ "\
\
^
y ¦
10 a
¦ N03 (ugN/L) data
NQ3(ugN/L) Max
6 4 2
-N03(ugN/L) N03(ugN/L) Min
~ Minimum N03-data ~ Maximum N03-data
Figure B-18. Nitrate validation in Piper Creek
87
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Piper Creek (8/19/2009) Ma in stem
Piper Creek (8/20/2009) Main stem
14000
12000
u
¦
l~"V
y
n »
~
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
~
V ~
- HI
u -n
TN
TN Max
¦ TN (ugN/L) data TN Min
~ Minimum TN-data ~ Maximum TN-data
TN
TN Max
Figure B-19. Total nitrogen validation in Piper Creek
¦ TN (ugN/L) data TN Min
~ Minimum TN-data ~ Maximum TN-data
Piper Creek (8/19/2009) Mainstem
Piper Creek (8/20/2009) Mainstem
800
700
600
500
100
0 1
— |
*=*
Va- ^
C
¦ TP (ugP/L) data
TP Max
TP TP Min
~ Minimum TP-data ~ Maximum TP-data
~ \
n
\i
. . L
TP (ugP/L) data
- TP Max
TP TP Min
~ Minimum TP-data ~ Maximum TP-data
Figure B-20. Total phosphorus validation in Piper Creek
B.5 Model Goodness of Fit Discussion
The calibration and validation periods were assessed visually and statistically. The
figures presented above demonstrate that the model follows the same patterns and trends and the
measured data and the statistics quantify the differences between the simulated and measured
data. The statistics used to evaluate the model are listed in Table B-9 and the statistical
comparison between the model results and observed data are included in Table B-10.
The statistics demonstrate that the model results in prediction similar to those measured
in the field. Specifically, the following statistics demonstrate a good model fit:
• The RMSE for average DO is near 0.5 mg/L and near 1 mg/L for minimum DO.
• Coefficient of determination (r2) is high for all parameters and suggests a high degree of
correlation between the simulated model results and observed water quality data.
• The percent Bias is generally low for all parameters, and for parameters of importance
such as DO it is less than 5 percent.
88
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
• The bias for minimum DO is negative; thus the calibration and validation are
conservative.
The model calibration and validation runs use the same kinetic parameters to achieve a
good comparison with measured data. This is supported with a visual and statistical comparison.
Based on this comparison the QUAL2K model for Piper Creek is suitable for assessing DO
problems and for TMDL development.
Table B-ll. Quantitative Calibration Metrics.
Calibration Metric
Equation
Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)
I ^ (Pr edicted- Observeq|2
V 72-1
Coefficient of determination
^ (Squared Errors)
^ (Total Sum of Squares)
Percent Bias (pBias)
Y (Pr edicted- Observed)
^ '*10o
2_] Observed
Average Error
^ Simulated Value - Observed Value
j-\ H obs
Residual Error
^ (Simulated Value- Observed Value)
j=l 11 obs
Relative Error
V Simulated Value-Observed Value
^ *100
2_j Observed
89
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Table B-12. Summary statistics for calibration and validation runs
Statistic
Model
Period
Flow
DO
Min
DO
Max
DO
TN
TKN
no3
TP
Root Mean
Squared Error
(RMSE) (mg/L)
Calibration
0.02
0.66
1.63
1.80
290
261
84
96
Validation
0.006
0.68
2.08
2.36
1,027
959
207
62
Entire Period
0.01
0.64
1.78
2.01
720
670
151
77
Coefficient of
determination
Calibration
1.00
0.92
0.81
0.77
0.93
0.05
1.00
0.98
Validation
0.99
0.56
0.02
0.47
0.90
0.56
0.99
0.97
Entire Period
1.00
0.63
0.16
0.51
0.93
0.62
0.99
0.98
Percent Bias
(pBias) (%)
Calibration
-4.1
4.9
16.79
-13.4
-1.3
0.2
-1.7
-1.4
Validation
-1.4
-0.9
18.79
-20.9
0.1
2.6
-0.9
-3.6
Entire Period
-3.2
2.1
17.75
-17.0
-0.4
1.9
-1.2
-2.1
Average Error
(mg/L)
Calibration
0.01
0.47
1.46
1.34
212
210
68
70
Validation
0.003
0.55
1.51
1.85
558
550
124
32
Entire Period
0.006
0.51
1.49
1.59
385
380
96
51
Residual Error
(mg/L)
Calibration
0.008
-0.43
-1.46
1.16
36
-1
37
9
Validation
0.001
0.07
-1.51
1.69
-4
-42
38
12
Entire Period
0.005
-0.18
-1.49
1.42
16
-22
38
11
Relative Error
(%)
Calibration
4.3
5.5
16.79
15.4
7.5
30.7
3.2
10.3
Validation
3.3
6.8
18.79
22.9
9.7
34.1
3.0
9.4
Entire Period
4.0
6.1
17.75
19.0
9.0
33.1
3.1
10.0
90
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
References - Appendix B
Ambrose, R.B., J.L. Martin, and T. Wool, 2006. WASP7 Benthic Algae - Model Theory and
User's Guide, EPA 600/R-06/106. Office of Research and Development.
Chapra, S.C., G.J. Pelletier, and H. Tao, 2008. QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for
Simulating River and Stream Water Quality, Version 2.07: Documentation and Users Manual.
Code of State Regulations (CSR), 2009. Missouri Secretary of State Web page. Title 10 -
Department of Natural Resources. Division 20 - Clean Water Commission. Chapter 7 - Water
Quality. 10 CSR 20-7.031 - Water Quality Standards.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c20-7.pdf
Donigian. A.S, 2003. Watershed Model Calibration and Validation: The HSPF Experience.
WEF National TMDL Science and Policy 2002, November 13-16, 2002. Phoenix, AZ. WEF
Specialty Conference Proceedings on CD-ROM.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1985. Rates, Constants and Kinetics
Formulations In Surface Water Quality Modeling. Second Edition. EPA/600/3-85/040.
Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. and Humboldt State University.
EPA, 1997. Technical Guidance Manual for Developing Total Maximum Daily Loads, Book 2:
Streams and River. Part 1: Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen And
Nutrients/Eutrophication. EPA 823-B-97-002. Office of Water.
91
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Appendix C - Development of TSS Targets Using Reference LDCs
Overview
This procedure is used when a lotic system is placed on the 303(d) list for a pollutant and
the designated use being addressed is aquatic life. In cases where pollutant data for the impaired
stream is not available a reference approach is used. The target for pollutant loading is the 25th
percentile calculated from all data available within the EDU in which the water body is located.
Additionally, it is also unlikely that a flow record for the impaired stream is available. If this is
the case, a synthetic flow record is needed. In order to develop a synthetic flow record, calculate
an average of the log discharge per square mile of USGS gaged rivers for which the drainage
area is entirely contained within the EDU. Selection of these gages is based on location, land
use/soil/topography similarities to the Piper Creek watershed and the availability of flow data of
sufficient age and duration. From this synthetic record develop a flow duration from which to
build a LDC for the pollutant within the EDU.
From this population of load durations follow the reference method used in setting
nutrient targets in lakes and reservoirs. In this methodology the average concentration of either
the 75th percentile of reference lakes or the 25th percentile of all lakes in the region is targeted in
the TMDL. For most cases available pollutant data for reference streams is also not likely to be
available. Therefore follow the alternative method and target the 25th percentile of load duration
of the available data within the EDU as the TMDL LDC. During periods of low flow the actual
pollutant concentration may be more important than load. To account for this during periods of
low flow the LDC uses the 25th percentile of EDU concentration at flows where surface runoff is
less than 1 percent of the stream flow. This results in an inflection point in the curve below
which the TMDL is calculated using load calculated with this reference concentration.
Methodology
The first step in this procedure is to locate available pollutant data within the EDU of
interest. These data along with the instantaneous flow measurement taken at the time of sample
collection for the specific date are recorded to create the population from which to develop the
load duration. Both the date and pollutant concentration are needed in order to match the
measured data to the synthetic EDU flow record.
Secondly, collect average daily flow data for gages with a variety of drainage areas for a
period of time to cover the pollutant record. From these flow records normalize the flow to a per
square mile basis. Average the log transformations of the average daily discharge for each day
in the period of record. For each gage record used to build this synthetic flow record calculate
the Nash-Sutcliffe statistic to determine if the relationship is valid for each record. This
relationship must be valid in order to use this methodology. This new synthetic record of flow
per square mile is used to develop the load duration for the EDU. The flow record should be of
sufficient length to be able to calculate percentiles of flow (typically 20 years or more).
92
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Figure B-l shows the application of the approach in the Piper Creek EDU (Ozark/Osage
EDU). Watershed-size normalized data for the individual gages in the EDU were calculated and
compared to a pooled data set of all the gages (Figure C-l, Table C-l). Table C-l demonstrates
the pooled data set can confidently be used as a surrogate for the EDU analyses.
Percentile flow
— EDU Flow Duration
—USGS 06918460 Turnback Creek above Greenfield, MO
~ USGS 06918740 Little Sac River near Morrisville, MO
~ USGS 06919500 Cedar Creek near Pleasant View, MO
—USGS 06921070 Pomme de Terre River near Polk, MO
—USGS 06921200 Lindley Creek near Polk, MO
Figure C-l. Synthetic Flow Development in the Ozark/Osage EDU
Table C-l. Stream Flow Stations Used to Estimate Flows in Piper Creek
River/Station Name
Data
Source
Station
Number
Drainage
Area (mi2)
Lognormal
Nash-Sutcliffe
Turnback Creek above Greenfield, MO
USGS
06918460
252
97%
Little Sac River near Morrisville, MO
USGS
06918740
237
100%
Cedar Creek near Pleasant View, MO
USGS
06919500
420
76%
Pomme de Terre River near Polk, MO
USGS
06921070
276
98%
Lindley Creek near Polk, MO
USGS
06921200
112
92%
93
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
The next step is to calculate pollutant-discharge relationships for the EDU, these are log
transformed data for the yield (tons/mi2/day) and the instantaneous flow (cfs/mi2). Figure C-2
shows the EDU relationship. Further statistical analyses on this relationship are included in
Table C-2.
Estimate of Power Function from Instantaneous Flow
ln(Flow(cfs/ini2)
Figure C-2. Estimate of Power Function from Instantaneous Flow in the Ozark/
Osage EDU
Table C-2. Ozark/Osage EDU Flow and Sediment Statistics
m
1.17321391
b
-4.475326095
Standard Error (m)
0.01363522
Standard Error (b)
0.076406671
r2
0.89549291
Standard Error (y)
1.277485554
F
7403.38182
DF
864
SSreg
12082.0921
SSres
1410.02151
The standard error of y was used to estimate the 25th percentile level for the TMDL line.
This was done by adjusting the intercept (b) by subtracting the product of the one-sided Z75
statistic times the standard error of (y). The resulting TMDL equation is the following:
Sediment yield (t/day/mi2) = exp (1.17321391 * In (flow) -4.475326095)
A resulting pooled TMDL of all data in the watershed is shown in the following graph:
94
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
• Data TMDL - Percent Reduction
Piper Creek Sediment Loarl
100000
10000
1000
100
I
cz
t 10
I
H 1
0.1
0 01
0.001
100%
90° 0
80° 0
70°° s
3
60° 0 '"5
50°o |
40° o 1
U
30°o £
20° o
10°o
Low Flow Percentile Flow High Flow
Cs' cy
Figure C-3. TMDL LDC for TSS
To apply this process to a specific watershed would entail using the individual watershed
data compared to the above TMDL curve that has been multiplied by the watershed area. Data
from the impaired segment is then plotted as a load (tons/day) for the y-axis and as the percentile
of flow for the EDU on the day the sample was taken for the x-axis.
For Piper Creek the 25th percentile TSS concentration target is 8.8 mg/L. The TMDL,
LA and WLA were calculated based on this concentration and the current limits for permitted
facilities in the watershed.
For more information contact:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division
Total Maximum Daily Load Program
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Website: http://www.epa.gov/region07/water/tmdl.htm
95
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Appendix D - Development of Nutrient Targets Using Ecoregion
Nutrient Criteria with LDCs
Overview
This procedure is used when a lotic system is placed on the 303(d) impaired water body
list for nutrient pollutants and the designated use being addressed is aquatic life. In cases where
EPA-approved state numeric criteria for the impaired stream is not available a reference
approach is used. The target for pollutant loading is the EPA recommended ecoregion nutrient
criterion for the specific ecoregion in which the water body is located (EPA, 2000). If a flow
record for the impaired stream is not available a synthetic flow record is needed. To develop a
synthetic flow record a user should calculate an average of the log discharge per square mile of
LJSGS gaged rivers for which the drainage area is contained within the EDU. Selection of these
gages is based on location, land use/soil/topography similarities to the Piper Creek watershed and
the availability of flow data of sufficient age and duration. From this synthetic record develop a
flow duration and build a LDC for the pollutant within the EDU.
See EPA (2000) for more detailed information as to how recommended ecoregion
nutrient criteria were developed. This appendix describes how the nutrient criteria (TN and TP)
are expressed in this TMDL.
Methodology
The first step in this procedure is to gather available nutrient data within the ecoregion of
interest. These data, along with the instantaneous flow measurement taken at the time of sample
collection for the specific date, are required to develop the LDC. Both dates and nutrient
concentrations are needed in order to match the measured data used with the synthetic EDU flow
record.
Secondly, collect average daily flow data from gages with a variety of drainage areas for
a period of time to cover the nutrient record. From these flow records normalize the flow to a
per square mile basis. Average the log transformations of the average daily discharge for each
day in the period of record. For each gage record used to build the synthetic flow record
calculate the Nash-Sutcliffe value to determine if the relationship is valid for each record. This
relationship must be valid in order to use this methodology. This new synthetic record of flow
per square mile is then used to develop the LDC for the EDU. The flow record should be of
sufficient length to be able to calculate percentiles of flow (typically 20 years or more).
The following example shows the application of the approach for the Ozark/Osage EDU.
Watershed-size normalized data for the individual gages in the EDU were calculated and
compared to a pooled data set of all the gages (Figure D-l, Table D-l). Table D-l demonstrates
the pooled data set can confidently be used as a surrogate for the EDU analyses.
96
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
0.0001 ^ 1 1 1 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Percentile flow
EDU Flow Duration
USGS 06918460 Turnback Creek above Greenfield, MO
a USGS 06918740 Little Sac River near Morrisvle, MO
~ USGS 06919500 Cedar Creek near Pleasant View, MO
—USGS 06921070 Pomme de Terre River near Polk, MO
—1•— USGS 06921200 Lindley Creek near Polk, MO
Figure D-l. Synthetic Flow Development in the Ozark/Osage EDU
Table D-l. Stream Flow Stations Used to Estimate Flows in Piper Creek
River/Station Name
Data
Source
Station
Number
Drainage
Area (mi2)
Lognormal
Nash-Sutcliffe
Turnback Creek above Greenfield, MO
USGS
06918460
252
97%
Little Sac River near Morrisville, MO
USGS
06918740
237
100%
Cedar Creek near Pleasant View, MO
USGS
06919500
420
76%
Pomme de Terre River near Polk, MO
USGS
06921070
276
98%
Lindley Creek near Polk, MO
USGS
06921200
112
92%
97
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
The next step was to collect previously measured water quality data from within the
ecoregion. Measured TN concentrations are adjusted so their median is equal to the EPA
recommended ecoregion TN criterion. This is accomplished by subtracting the difference
between the EPA recommended ecoregion TN criterion and the median from the measured data.
This results in the data retaining most of its natural variability yet having a median which meets
the EPA recommended ecoregion TN criterion. Where this adjustment would result in a
negative concentration the minimum measured concentration is substituted. Figure D-2 shows
an example of this process where the solid line is the measured distribution of the natural log TN
concentration with the natural log flow, and the dashed line represents a data distribution (the
adjusted data) which would comply with the EPA recommended ecoregion TN criterion.
10
g 0.1
0.01
0.001
6 8
In (flow)
10
—I
12
~ Measured Data
¦ Adjusted Data
Linear (Measured Data)
Linear (Adjusted Data)
Figure D-2. Graphic Representation of Data Adjustment in Ozark/Osage EDU
98
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
The next step was to calculate the TN-discharge relationship for the ecoregion using the
adjusted data, this is natural log transformed data for the yield (pounds/mi2/day) and the
instantaneous flow (cfs/mi2). Figure D-3 shows this relationship for this TMDL.
Figure D-3. Load / Flow Relationship Used to Set LDC TMDL
This relationship was used to develop a LDC for which the relationship between flow and
nutrient distribution is taken into account. In this LDC the targeted concentration is allowed to
change at different percentiles of flow exceedance. However, meeting the LDC will result in a
water body in which the median concentration is equal to the EPA recommended ecoregion
criterion.
To apply this process to a specific watershed entails using the individual watershed data
compared to the TMDL curve that has been multiplied by the watershed area (mi2). Data from
the impaired segment is then plotted as a load (pounds/day) for the y-axis and as the percentile of
flow for the EDU on the day the sample was taken for the x-axis. These data points do not have
to be collected at the segment outlet. The spreadsheet applies an outlet flow (percentile
exceedance) to the concentration based on the synthetic flow estimate for the specific date the
sample was taken (Figure D-4).
99
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Percent Exceedance
TMDL Continuous WLA • Sample Data
Figure D-4. Example of TMDL LDC Using This Method
The resulting LDC with plotted site specific measured data can now be used to target
implementation by identifying flows in which TN concentrations are higher than would be
expected in a stream meeting the EPA recommended ecoregion TN criterion.
For more information contact:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division
Total Maximum Daily Load Program
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Website: http://www.epa.gov/region07/water/tmdl.htm
100
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Appendix E - Stream Flow and Water Quality Stations Used to
Develop TMDLs in the Piper Creek Watershed
Table E-l. Stations Used to Develop Water Quality Data Targets in Piper Creek
USGS Station
Station Name
7010500
Maramec Spring near St. James, MO
7014000
Huzzah Creek near Steelville, MO
7014200
Courtois Creek at Berryman, MO
7014500
Meramec River near Sullivan, MO
7064400
Montauk Springs at Montauk, MO
7064440
Current River at Montauk State Park, MO
7064530
Welch Spring near Akers, MO
7064555
Pulltite Spring near Round Spring, MO
7065000
Round Spring at Round Spring, MO
7065500
Alley Spring at Alley, MO
7066000
Jacks Fork at Eminence, MO
7066110
Jacks Fork above Two River, MO
7066510
Current River above Powder Mill, MO
7066550
Blue Spring near Eminence, MO
370857091265901
Jacks Fork River above Alley Spring, MO
370901091262001
Alley Spring Below Alley, MO
370905091204001
Jacks Fork above 2nd Unnamed Hollow below Eminence, MO
371014091201301
Jacks Fork above Lick Log Hollow below Eminence, MO
371026091183301
Jacks Fork above Powell Springs above Two Rivers, MO
371054091173501
Jacks Fork below 3rd Hollow above Two Rivers, MO
Table E-2. Water Quality Data Used in TMDL Development
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
370901091262001
5/10/1999
0.8
208
370901091262001
6/22/1999
0.85
136
370901091262001
11/8/1999
0.71
89
370901091262001
2/29/2000
0.83
173
370901091262001
6/6/2000
0.64
75
370901091262001
6/28/2000
0.62
99
370901091262001
8/22/2000
0.62
73
370901091262001
2/22/2001
0.85
208
370901091262001
3/21/2001
0.95
123
370901091262001
5/25/2001
0.65
75
370901091262001
5/27/2001
0.65
80
370901091262001
8/9/2001
0.6
69
370901091262001
10/11/2001
0.98
66
370901091262001
4/2/2002
0.76
200
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
370901091262001
5/10/1999
0.026
208
370901091262001
6/22/1999
0.008
136
370901091262001
8/10/1999
0.015
128
370901091262001
11/8/1999
0.01
89
370901091262001
12/14/1999
0.009
94
370901091262001
1/18/2000
0.009
85
370901091262001
2/29/2000
0.011
173
370901091262001
4/4/2000
0.006
87
370901091262001
5/10/2000
0.006
77
370901091262001
5/23/2000
0.009
80
370901091262001
5/25/2000
0.01
85
370901091262001
6/6/2000
0.011
75
370901091262001
6/28/2000
0.008
99
370901091262001
7/10/2000
0.009
82
101
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
370901091262001
4/30/2002
0.59
250
370901091262001
5/29/2002
0.7
293
370901091262001
6/28/2002
0.77
145
370901091262001
6/29/2002
0.79
142
370901091262001
10/8/2002
1.1
89
370901091262001
10/9/2002
0.74
89
370901091262001
6/2/2003
0.71
113
370901091262001
6/9/2003
0.81
117
370901091262001
9/23/2003
0.71
87
370901091262001
7/13/2004
0.31
108
370901091262001
9/21/2004
0.72
88
6930800
2/1/1999
0.89
3060
6930800
3/16/1999
0.92
4780
6930800
4/12/1999
0.45
2900
6930800
5/26/1999
0.35
1700
6930800
6/24/1999
0.42
921
6930800
7/12/1999
0.44
826
6930800
8/12/1999
0.32
642
6930800
9/2/1999
0.27
482
6930800
10/5/1999
0.47
492
6930800
11/16/1999
0.25
516
6930800
12/8/1999
0.36
879
6930800
1/13/2000
0.6
722
6930800
2/9/2000
0.31
560
6930800
3/13/2000
0.49
1010
6930800
4/4/2000
0.32
935
6930800
5/16/2000
0.3
504
6930800
6/13/2000
0.44
481
6930800
7/5/2000
0.48
493
6930800
8/1/2000
0.36
541
6930800
9/5/2000
0.23
350
6930800
10/24/2000
0.2
463
6930800
11/21/2000
0.1
535
6930800
12/6/2000
0.24
523
6930800
1/9/2001
0.35
475
6930800
2/15/2001
1.3
1570
6930800
3/28/2001
0.91
894
6930800
4/9/2001
0.62
1400
6930800
5/3/2001
0.32
681
6930800
6/13/2001
0.43
1150
6930800
7/18/2001
0.36
547
6930800
8/14/2001
0.32
429
6930800
9/6/2001
0.25
381
6930800
10/22/2001
0.21
504
6930800
11/19/2001
0.19
469
6930800
12/4/2001
0.71
1820
6930800
1/28/2002
0.8
1630
6930800
2/13/2002
1.5
2100
6930800
3/26/2002
1.1
8780
6930800
4/9/2002
0.54
2100
6930800
5/20/2002
0.84
26100
6930800
6/11/2002
0.37
1670
6930800
7/16/2002
0.27
729
6930800
8/12/2002
0.29
547
6930800
9/3/2002
0.26
598
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
370901091262001
7/28/2000
0.009
76
370901091262001
8/11/2000
0.009
73
370901091262001
8/22/2000
0.007
73
370901091262001
9/20/2000
0.012
74
370901091262001
10/4/2000
0.009
66
370901091262001
11/9/2000
0.009
79
370901091262001
12/20/2000
0.009
73
370901091262001
1/24/2001
0.01
79
370901091262001
2/22/2001
0.012
208
370901091262001
3/21/2001
0.011
123
370901091262001
4/25/2001
0.011
88
370901091262001
5/25/2001
0.009
75
370901091262001
5/26/2001
0.008
80
370901091262001
5/26/2001
0.01
80
370901091262001
5/27/2001
0.01
80
370901091262001
5/27/2001
0.01
80
370901091262001
6/7/2001
0.01
74
370901091262001
8/1/2001
0.009
64
370901091262001
8/8/2001
0.008
69
370901091262001
8/8/2001
0.009
69
370901091262001
8/9/2001
0.006
69
370901091262001
8/9/2001
0.01
69
370901091262001
9/18/2001
0.009
68
370901091262001
10/2/2001
0.009
66
370901091262001
10/10/2001
0.008
66
370901091262001
10/10/2001
0.009
66
370901091262001
10/11/2001
0.009
66
370901091262001
10/11/2001
0.01
66
370901091262001
11/20/2001
0.002
62
370901091262001
4/2/2002
0.015
200
370901091262001
4/30/2002
0.013
250
370901091262001
5/29/2002
0.021
293
370901091262001
6/4/2002
0.019
226
370901091262001
6/28/2002
0.012
145
370901091262001
6/29/2002
0.012
142
370901091262001
7/29/2002
0.013
118
370901091262001
8/6/2002
0.011
105
370901091262001
8/7/2002
0.012
105
370901091262001
10/8/2002
0.01
89
370901091262001
10/9/2002
0.01
89
370901091262001
6/2/2003
0.011
113
370901091262001
6/9/2003
0.007
117
370901091262001
6/28/2003
0.01
91
370901091262001
7/26/2003
0.009
86
370901091262001
8/6/2003
0.01
86
370901091262001
9/23/2003
0.011
87
370901091262001
10/8/2003
0.01
74
370901091262001
6/15/2004
0.012
127
370901091262001
6/26/2004
0.013
127
370901091262001
7/13/2004
0.009
108
370901091262001
8/11/2004
0.01
103
370901091262001
8/21/2004
0.009
108
370901091262001
9/21/2004
0.012
88
370901091262001
10/5/2004
0.01
85
370901091262001
6/14/2005
0.011
100
102
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
6930800
10/1/2002
0.12
498
6930800
11/13/2002
0.17
547
6930800
12/5/2002
0.16
547
6930800
1/15/2003
0.88
952
6930800
2/4/2003
0.53
631
6930800
3/5/2003
1.1
2660
6930800
4/8/2003
0.44
2720
6930800
5/8/2003
1.1
4900
6930800
6/9/2003
0.42
952
6930800
7/28/2003
0.19
475
6930800
9/5/2003
1.2
5300
6930800
10/29/2003
0.17
665
6930800
11/21/2003
2.2
13600
6930800
12/22/2003
1.2
2410
6930800
1/20/2004
1.1
5910
6930800
2/4/2004
1
2730
6930800
3/10/2004
1.3
5690
6930800
4/20/2004
0.28
1410
6930800
5/19/2004
0.42
1680
6930800
6/14/2004
0.44
864
6930800
7/8/2004
0.3
787
6930800
9/21/2004
0.2
481
6930800
10/13/2004
0.36
467
6930800
11/18/2004
1.2
1820
6930800
12/10/2004
1.4
7740
6930800
1/19/2005
1.2
5130
6930800
2/1/2005
1
1710
6930800
3/2/2005
0.49
1990
6930800
4/5/2005
0.27
1320
6930800
5/23/2005
0.31
763
6930800
6/9/2005
0.47
580
6930800
7/7/2005
0.28
484
6930800
8/1/2005
0.23
344
6930800
8/11/2005
0.27
343
6930800
9/1/2005
0.3
473
6930800
10/13/2005
0.17
554
6930800
11/22/2005
1
1340
6930800
12/20/2005
0.49
611
6930800
1/10/2006
0.28
117
6930800
2/6/2006
0.31
1180
6930800
3/22/2006
0.78
1660
6930800
4/25/2006
0.35
943
6930800
5/8/2006
1
5860
6930800
6/6/2006
0.31
871
6930800
7/5/2006
0.3
481
6930800
8/1/2006
0.27
463
6930800
9/7/2006
0.25
424
6930800
10/4/2006
0.23
404
6930800
11/2/2006
0.22
637
6930800
12/11/2006
1.5
2200
6930800
1/23/2007
1.3
7240
6930800
2/7/2007
1
1680
6930800
3/14/2007
0.4
1300
6930800
4/25/2007
0.45
3360
6930800
5/8/2007
0.32
2930
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
370901091262001
7/5/2005
0.01
94
370901091262001
8/9/2005
0.009
88
6930800
3/16/1999
0.03
4780
6930800
4/12/1999
0.03
2900
6930800
7/12/1999
0.04
826
6930800
10/5/1999
0.04
492
6930800
4/4/2000
0.03
935
6930800
6/13/2000
0.04
481
6930800
7/5/2000
0.04
493
6930800
8/1/2000
0.05
541
6930800
4/9/2001
0.03
1400
6930800
6/13/2001
0.03
1150
6930800
8/14/2001
0.03
429
6930800
12/4/2001
0.03
1820
6930800
3/26/2002
0.07
8780
6930800
5/20/2002
0.13
26100
6930800
3/5/2003
0.02
2660
6930800
5/8/2003
0.09
4900
6930800
6/9/2003
0.03
952
6930800
9/5/2003
0.11
5300
6930800
11/21/2003
0.3
13600
6930800
12/22/2003
0.03
2410
6930800
1/20/2004
0.07
5910
6930800
2/4/2004
0.02
2730
6930800
3/10/2004
0.05
5690
6930800
6/14/2004
0.02
864
6930800
7/8/2004
0.03
787
6930800
10/13/2004
0.04
467
6930800
11/18/2004
0.05
1820
6930800
12/10/2004
0.1
7740
6930800
1/19/2005
0.04
5130
6930800
2/1/2005
0.03
1710
6930800
6/9/2005
0.03
580
6930800
8/1/2005
0.02
344
6930800
8/11/2005
0.02
343
6930800
11/22/2005
0.06
1340
6930800
3/22/2006
0.03
1660
6930800
4/25/2006
0.03
943
6930800
5/8/2006
0.12
5860
6930800
6/6/2006
0.03
871
6930800
7/5/2006
0.02
481
6930800
8/1/2006
0.03
463
6930800
11/2/2006
0.02
637
6930800
12/11/2006
0.04
2200
6930800
1/23/2007
0.04
7240
6930800
3/14/2007
0.02
1300
6930800
4/25/2007
0.04
3360
6930800
5/8/2007
0.03
2930
6930800
6/4/2007
0.02
1540
6930800
7/11/2007
0.06
1360
6930800
9/10/2007
0.07
1890
6930800
12/4/2007
0.03
580
6930800
1/9/2008
0.31
8130
6930800
2/6/2008
0.11
7290
6930800
3/18/2008
0.21
25800
103
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
6930800
6/4/2007
0.5
1540
6930800
7/11/2007
0.63
1360
6930800
8/16/2007
0.22
487
6930800
9/10/2007
0.81
1890
6930800
10/17/2007
0.24
542
6930800
11/19/2007
0.17
557
6930800
12/4/2007
0.23
580
6930800
1/9/2008
1.9
8130
6930800
2/6/2008
1.3
7290
6930800
3/18/2008
1.5
25800
6930800
4/2/2008
1.1
22900
6930800
5/14/2008
0.52
6400
6930800
6/3/2008
0.42
2470
6930800
7/31/2008
0.44
1000
6930800
8/4/2008
0.36
1080
6930800
9/3/2008
0.37
874
6930800
10/16/2008
0.31
1160
6930800
11/4/2008
0.26
927
6930800
12/1/2008
0.36
795
6930800
1/26/2009
0.66
787
6930800
2/2/2009
0.54
825
6930800
3/16/2009
0.27
1560
6930800
4/6/2009
0.55
3230
6930800
5/18/2009
0.79
6440
6930800
6/1/2009
0.21
2320
6930800
7/6/2009
0.46
1150
6930800
8/17/2009
0.38
625
6930800
9/2/2009
0.49
592
6930800
10/5/2009
0.46
856
6930800
11/2/2009
1.3
37400
371054091173501
11/10/1999
0.37
169
371054091173501
12/16/1999
0.47
276
371054091173501
3/2/2000
0.72
470
371054091173501
4/6/2000
0.45
241
371054091173501
5/12/2000
0.36
146
371054091173501
5/25/2000
0.58
225
371054091173501
6/8/2000
0.48
177
371054091173501
6/30/2000
0.3
250
371054091173501
7/12/2000
0.4
171
371054091173501
7/26/2000
0.31
165
371054091173501
8/9/2000
0.43
132
371054091173501
8/21/2000
0.35
128
371054091173501
12/12/2000
0.42
195
371054091173501
1/24/2001
0.41
186
371054091173501
2/21/2001
0.63
475
371054091173501
4/25/2001
0.34
235
371054091173501
5/26/2001
0.33
218
371054091173501
5/27/2001
0.31
193
371054091173501
5/27/2001
0.33
193
371054091173501
8/1/2001
0.33
150
371054091173501
8/8/2001
0.33
122
371054091173501
8/8/2001
0.35
122
371054091173501
8/9/2001
0.36
122
371054091173501
8/9/2001
0.37
122
371054091173501
9/19/2001
0.33
125
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
6930800
4/2/2008
0.13
22900
6930800
5/14/2008
0.03
6400
6930800
6/3/2008
0.03
2470
6930800
7/31/2008
0.03
1000
6930800
8/4/2008
0.02
1080
6930800
9/3/2008
0.02
874
6930800
1/26/2009
0.04
787
6930800
2/2/2009
0.02
825
6930800
4/6/2009
0.02
3230
6930800
5/18/2009
0.06
6440
6930800
7/6/2009
0.03
1150
6930800
9/2/2009
0.03
592
6930800
10/5/2009
0.03
856
6930800
11/2/2009
0.21
37400
371054091173501
3/2/2000
0.005
470
371054091173501
5/12/2000
0.004
146
371054091173501
5/25/2000
0.014
225
371054091173501
6/8/2000
0.005
177
371054091173501
6/30/2000
0.004
250
371054091173501
7/12/2000
0.008
171
371054091173501
7/26/2000
0.005
165
371054091173501
8/9/2000
0.014
132
371054091173501
9/19/2000
0.004
113
371054091173501
12/12/2000
0.003
195
371054091173501
1/24/2001
0.002
186
371054091173501
2/21/2001
0.003
475
371054091173501
4/25/2001
0.004
235
371054091173501
5/26/2001
0.009
218
371054091173501
5/27/2001
0.006
193
371054091173501
5/27/2001
0.006
193
371054091173501
8/1/2001
0.008
150
371054091173501
8/8/2001
0.005
122
371054091173501
8/8/2001
0.006
122
371054091173501
8/9/2001
0.007
122
371054091173501
8/9/2001
0.008
122
371054091173501
9/19/2001
0.006
125
371054091173501
10/3/2001
0.004
110
371054091173501
10/10/2001
0.004
129
371054091173501
10/10/2001
0.004
129
371054091173501
10/11/2001
0.004
129
371054091173501
10/11/2001
0.006
129
371054091173501
4/3/2002
0.005
551
371054091173501
5/1/2002
0.006
728
371054091173501
5/30/2002
0.008
738
371054091173501
6/5/2002
0.005
548
371054091173501
6/28/2002
0.007
310
371054091173501
6/29/2002
0.006
298
371054091173501
7/30/2002
0.006
268
371054091173501
8/6/2002
0.004
226
371054091173501
8/7/2002
0.006
226
371054091173501
10/8/2002
0.004
167
371054091173501
10/9/2002
0.005
167
371054091173501
6/4/2003
0.003
344
371054091173501
6/28/2003
0.006
209
371054091173501
7/26/2003
0.007
185
104
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
371054091173501
10/10/2001
0.3
129
371054091173501
10/10/2001
0.49
129
371054091173501
10/11/2001
0.33
129
371054091173501
4/3/2002
0.46
551
371054091173501
5/1/2002
0.31
728
371054091173501
5/30/2002
0.37
738
371054091173501
6/5/2002
0.39
548
371054091173501
6/28/2002
0.48
310
371054091173501
6/29/2002
0.45
298
371054091173501
8/7/2002
0.39
226
371054091173501
10/9/2002
0.38
167
371054091173501
6/4/2003
0.4
344
371054091173501
7/26/2003
0.3
185
371054091173501
8/6/2003
0.35
229
371054091173501
9/23/2003
0.37
210
371054091173501
10/8/2003
0.35
158
371054091173501
6/15/2004
0.42
342
371054091173501
6/26/2004
0.35
266
371054091173501
7/13/2004
0.36
228
371054091173501
8/11/2004
0.37
181
371054091173501
8/21/2004
0.38
184
371054091173501
6/14/2005
0.4
186
371054091173501
7/6/2005
0.38
120
371054091173501
8/10/2005
0.37
149
371014091201301
11/9/1999
0.39
151
371014091201301
12/15/1999
0.51
298
371014091201301
1/19/2000
0.77
173
371014091201301
3/1/2000
0.73
524
371014091201301
4/5/2000
0.46
234
371014091201301
5/11/2000
0.42
138
371014091201301
5/24/2000
0.4
133
371014091201301
5/25/2000
0.4
221
371014091201301
6/7/2000
0.52
168
371014091201301
6/29/2000
0.29
265
371014091201301
7/11/2000
0.4
144
371014091201301
7/27/2000
0.38
143
371014091201301
8/10/2000
0.41
127
371014091201301
8/22/2000
0.42
122
371014091201301
10/4/2000
0.37
111
371014091201301
11/8/2000
0.28
227
371014091201301
3/21/2001
0.64
272
371014091201301
4/24/2001
0.36
226
371014091201301
5/25/2001
0.32
220
371014091201301
5/26/2001
0.33
208
371014091201301
5/26/2001
0.35
208
371014091201301
5/27/2001
0.36
208
371014091201301
5/27/2001
0.38
208
371014091201301
6/7/2001
0.33
192
371014091201301
7/31/2001
0.35
140
371014091201301
8/8/2001
0.4
97
371014091201301
8/9/2001
0.4
97
371014091201301
8/9/2001
0.4
97
371014091201301
10/2/2001
0.33
106
371014091201301
10/10/2001
0.37
109
371014091201301
10/11/2001
0.39
116
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
371054091173501
8/6/2003
0.009
229
371054091173501
9/23/2003
0.005
210
371054091173501
10/8/2003
0.006
158
371054091173501
6/15/2004
0.007
342
371054091173501
6/26/2004
0.005
266
371054091173501
7/13/2004
0.005
228
371054091173501
8/11/2004
0.008
181
371054091173501
8/21/2004
0.003
184
371054091173501
9/21/2004
0.005
150
371054091173501
10/5/2004
0.004
146
371054091173501
6/14/2005
0.007
186
371054091173501
7/6/2005
0.007
120
371054091173501
8/10/2005
0.007
149
371014091201301
11/9/1999
0.004
151
371014091201301
3/1/2000
0.006
524
371014091201301
5/11/2000
0.006
138
371014091201301
5/24/2000
0.005
133
371014091201301
5/25/2000
0.008
221
371014091201301
6/7/2000
0.01
168
371014091201301
6/29/2000
0.004
265
371014091201301
7/11/2000
0.008
144
371014091201301
7/27/2000
0.006
143
371014091201301
8/10/2000
0.013
127
371014091201301
8/22/2000
0.004
122
371014091201301
10/4/2000
0.005
111
371014091201301
11/8/2000
0.003
227
371014091201301
1/23/2001
0.003
204
371014091201301
3/21/2001
0.005
272
371014091201301
4/24/2001
0.005
226
371014091201301
5/25/2001
0.006
220
371014091201301
5/26/2001
0.006
208
371014091201301
5/26/2001
0.007
208
371014091201301
5/27/2001
0.005
208
371014091201301
5/27/2001
0.009
208
371014091201301
6/7/2001
0.014
192
371014091201301
7/31/2001
0.009
140
371014091201301
8/8/2001
0.012
97
371014091201301
8/9/2001
0.009
97
371014091201301
8/9/2001
0.013
97
371014091201301
9/18/2001
0.005
115
371014091201301
10/2/2001
0.004
106
371014091201301
10/10/2001
0.004
109
371014091201301
10/10/2001
0.009
109
371014091201301
10/11/2001
0.009
116
371014091201301
10/11/2001
0.015
116
371014091201301
11/21/2001
0.004
114
371014091201301
4/2/2002
0.005
590
371014091201301
4/30/2002
0.006
760
371014091201301
5/29/2002
0.007
657
371014091201301
6/4/2002
0.005
488
371014091201301
6/28/2002
0.008
309
371014091201301
6/29/2002
0.009
297
371014091201301
7/29/2002
0.007
266
371014091201301
8/6/2002
0.009
220
371014091201301
8/7/2002
0.007
216
105
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
371014091201301
10/11/2001
0.48
116
371014091201301
4/2/2002
0.43
590
371014091201301
4/30/2002
0.28
760
371014091201301
5/29/2002
0.39
657
371014091201301
6/4/2002
0.39
488
371014091201301
6/28/2002
0.5
309
371014091201301
6/29/2002
0.47
297
371014091201301
7/29/2002
0.41
266
371014091201301
8/6/2002
0.42
220
371014091201301
8/7/2002
0.39
216
371014091201301
10/8/2002
0.47
168
371014091201301
10/9/2002
0.48
171
371014091201301
6/3/2003
0.46
308
371014091201301
6/10/2003
0.52
296
371014091201301
6/28/2003
0.41
220
371014091201301
7/26/2003
0.36
170
371014091201301
8/6/2003
0.37
253
371014091201301
9/23/2003
0.4
208
371014091201301
10/8/2003
0.44
157
371014091201301
6/15/2004
0.45
355
371014091201301
6/26/2004
0.39
279
371014091201301
7/13/2004
0.39
223
371014091201301
8/21/2004
0.42
182
371014091201301
10/5/2004
0.4
151
371014091201301
6/15/2005
0.47
179
371014091201301
7/6/2005
0.44
164
371014091201301
8/10/2005
0.43
144
371026091183301
6/24/1999
0.49
267
371026091183301
8/12/1999
0.48
186
371026091183301
11/10/1999
0.39
164
371026091183301
12/15/1999
0.46
298
371026091183301
3/2/2000
0.76
489
371026091183301
4/5/2000
0.45
258
371026091183301
5/11/2000
0.38
144
371026091183301
5/24/2000
0.36
137
371026091183301
6/7/2000
0.45
191
371026091183301
6/29/2000
0.3
246
371026091183301
7/11/2000
0.34
155
371026091183301
7/27/2000
0.37
147
371026091183301
8/10/2000
0.34
133
371026091183301
8/22/2000
0.37
125
371026091183301
10/4/2000
0.33
114
371026091183301
12/20/2000
0.4
164
371026091183301
3/20/2001
0.64
302
371026091183301
4/24/2001
0.37
235
371026091183301
5/25/2001
0.38
235
371026091183301
5/26/2001
0.3
207
371026091183301
5/26/2001
0.33
207
371026091183301
5/27/2001
0.28
207
371026091183301
5/27/2001
0.32
207
371026091183301
6/7/2001
0.31
201
371026091183301
7/31/2001
0.36
147
371026091183301
8/8/2001
0.33
121
371026091183301
8/8/2001
0.43
121
371026091183301
8/9/2001
0.36
121
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
371014091201301
10/8/2002
0.005
168
371014091201301
10/9/2002
0.007
171
371014091201301
6/3/2003
0.007
308
371014091201301
6/10/2003
0.022
296
371014091201301
6/28/2003
0.006
220
371014091201301
7/26/2003
0.009
170
371014091201301
8/6/2003
0.012
253
371014091201301
9/23/2003
0.005
208
371014091201301
10/8/2003
0.009
157
371014091201301
6/15/2004
0.008
355
371014091201301
6/26/2004
0.006
279
371014091201301
7/13/2004
0.009
223
371014091201301
8/11/2004
0.006
195
371014091201301
8/21/2004
0.003
182
371014091201301
9/21/2004
0.011
135
371014091201301
10/5/2004
0.004
151
371014091201301
6/15/2005
0.011
179
371014091201301
7/6/2005
0.008
164
371014091201301
8/10/2005
0.012
144
371026091183301
5/12/1999
0.004
582
371026091183301
8/12/1999
0.005
186
371026091183301
3/2/2000
0.005
489
371026091183301
5/24/2000
0.005
137
371026091183301
6/7/2000
0.008
191
371026091183301
6/29/2000
0.005
246
371026091183301
7/11/2000
0.007
155
371026091183301
7/27/2000
0.006
147
371026091183301
8/10/2000
0.006
133
371026091183301
9/20/2000
0.005
114
371026091183301
10/4/2000
0.004
114
371026091183301
12/20/2000
0.002
164
371026091183301
3/20/2001
0.006
302
371026091183301
4/24/2001
0.004
235
371026091183301
5/25/2001
0.008
235
371026091183301
5/26/2001
0.007
207
371026091183301
5/26/2001
0.007
207
371026091183301
5/27/2001
0.006
207
371026091183301
5/27/2001
0.006
207
371026091183301
6/7/2001
0.009
201
371026091183301
7/31/2001
0.01
147
371026091183301
8/8/2001
0.005
121
371026091183301
8/8/2001
0.008
121
371026091183301
8/9/2001
0.007
121
371026091183301
8/9/2001
0.01
121
371026091183301
9/18/2001
0.004
118
371026091183301
10/2/2001
0.004
108
371026091183301
10/10/2001
0.005
109
371026091183301
10/10/2001
0.005
109
371026091183301
10/11/2001
0.006
116
371026091183301
10/11/2001
0.006
116
371026091183301
11/21/2001
0.003
119
371026091183301
4/2/2002
0.007
590
371026091183301
4/30/2002
0.006
751
371026091183301
5/29/2002
0.008
657
371026091183301
6/4/2002
0.006
492
106
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
371026091183301
8/9/2001
0.38
121
371026091183301
9/18/2001
0.3
118
371026091183301
10/10/2001
0.3
109
371026091183301
10/11/2001
0.33
116
371026091183301
10/11/2001
0.34
116
371026091183301
6/28/2002
0.49
314
371026091183301
6/29/2002
0.45
312
371026091183301
7/29/2002
0.4
249
371026091183301
8/7/2002
0.4
216
371026091183301
10/8/2002
0.4
168
371026091183301
10/9/2002
0.55
171
371026091183301
6/3/2003
0.45
308
371026091183301
6/10/2003
0.43
296
371026091183301
6/28/2003
0.36
220
371026091183301
7/26/2003
0.34
170
371026091183301
8/6/2003
0.35
253
371026091183301
9/23/2003
0.35
208
371026091183301
10/8/2003
0.41
157
371026091183301
6/15/2004
0.43
355
371026091183301
6/26/2004
0.36
279
371026091183301
7/13/2004
0.41
223
371026091183301
8/11/2004
0.39
195
371026091183301
8/21/2004
0.4
182
371026091183301
9/21/2004
0.37
135
371026091183301
6/15/2005
0.42
179
371026091183301
7/6/2005
0.39
164
371026091183301
8/10/2005
0.4
144
370857091265901
5/10/1999
0.24
307
370857091265901
6/22/1999
0.22
82
370857091265901
8/10/1999
0.17
61
370857091265901
12/14/1999
0.37
233
370857091265901
2/29/2000
0.79
359
370857091265901
4/4/2000
0.3
117
370857091265901
5/10/2000
0.22
52
370857091265901
5/23/2000
0.16
42
370857091265901
5/25/2000
0.24
129
370857091265901
6/6/2000
0.22
73
370857091265901
6/28/2000
0.18
123
370857091265901
7/28/2000
0.15
44
370857091265901
8/11/2000
0.16
36
370857091265901
8/22/2000
0.18
33
370857091265901
9/20/2000
0.12
25
370857091265901
11/9/2000
0.18
121
370857091265901
2/22/2001
0.54
328
370857091265901
3/21/2001
0.34
127
370857091265901
4/25/2001
0.2
107
370857091265901
5/25/2001
0.17
102
370857091265901
5/26/2001
0.15
94
370857091265901
5/26/2001
0.17
94
370857091265901
5/27/2001
0.14
85
370857091265901
5/27/2001
0.15
85
370857091265901
6/7/2001
0.15
94
370857091265901
8/1/2001
0.16
45
370857091265901
8/8/2001
0.12
30
370857091265901
8/8/2001
0.18
33
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
371026091183301
6/28/2002
0.005
314
371026091183301
6/29/2002
0.007
312
371026091183301
7/29/2002
0.007
249
371026091183301
8/6/2002
0.005
216
371026091183301
8/7/2002
0.005
216
371026091183301
10/8/2002
0.004
168
371026091183301
10/9/2002
0.006
171
371026091183301
6/3/2003
0.004
308
371026091183301
6/10/2003
0.003
296
371026091183301
6/28/2003
0.007
220
371026091183301
7/26/2003
0.008
170
371026091183301
8/6/2003
0.013
253
371026091183301
9/23/2003
0.004
208
371026091183301
10/8/2003
0.007
157
371026091183301
6/15/2004
0.008
355
371026091183301
6/26/2004
0.005
279
371026091183301
7/13/2004
0.008
223
371026091183301
8/11/2004
0.005
195
371026091183301
8/21/2004
0.005
182
371026091183301
9/21/2004
0.004
135
371026091183301
10/5/2004
0.004
151
371026091183301
6/15/2005
0.007
179
371026091183301
7/6/2005
0.007
164
371026091183301
8/10/2005
0.008
144
370905091204001
5/11/1999
0.006
616
370905091204001
6/23/1999
0.005
239
370905091204001
8/11/1999
0.008
190
370905091204001
3/1/2000
0.006
547
370905091204001
5/11/2000
0.005
142
370905091204001
5/24/2000
0.007
129
370905091204001
6/7/2000
0.007
177
370905091204001
7/11/2000
0.009
155
370905091204001
7/27/2000
0.007
144
370905091204001
8/10/2000
0.006
128
370905091204001
8/21/2000
0.007
124
370905091204001
10/2/2001
0.008
104
370905091204001
10/10/2001
0.007
109
370905091204001
10/10/2001
0.009
109
370905091204001
10/11/2001
0.01
116
370905091204001
10/11/2001
0.018
116
370905091204001
11/20/2001
0.002
112
370905091204001
4/2/2002
0.006
590
370905091204001
5/29/2002
0.008
657
370905091204001
6/4/2002
0.006
488
370905091204001
6/28/2002
0.008
309
370905091204001
6/29/2002
0.009
297
370905091204001
7/29/2002
0.008
266
370905091204001
8/6/2002
0.004
220
370905091204001
8/7/2002
0.007
216
370905091204001
10/8/2002
0.007
161
370905091204001
10/9/2002
0.009
164
370905091204001
6/3/2003
0.007
270
370905091204001
6/10/2003
0.014
263
370905091204001
6/28/2003
0.022
185
370905091204001
7/26/2003
0.009
169
107
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
370857091265901
8/9/2001
0.14
33
370857091265901
8/9/2001
0.15
33
370857091265901
9/18/2001
0.13
30
370857091265901
4/30/2002
0.15
382
370857091265901
5/29/2002
0.21
303
370857091265901
6/4/2002
0.23
201
370857091265901
6/28/2002
0.23
99
370857091265901
6/29/2002
0.22
90
370857091265901
10/8/2002
0.11
53
370857091265901
10/9/2002
0.26
54
370857091265901
6/2/2003
0.24
112
370857091265901
6/9/2003
0.2
101
370857091265901
8/6/2003
0.13
128
370857091265901
9/23/2003
0.21
94
370857091265901
10/8/2003
0.18
62
370857091265901
6/15/2004
0.26
162
370857091265901
6/26/2004
0.18
117
370857091265901
8/21/2004
0.16
64
370857091265901
6/14/2005
0.21
75
370857091265901
7/5/2005
0.18
59
370857091265901
8/9/2005
0.13
44
370905091204001
5/11/1999
0.34
616
370905091204001
6/23/1999
0.5
239
370905091204001
8/11/1999
0.52
190
370905091204001
11/9/1999
0.38
154
370905091204001
12/15/1999
0.56
299
370905091204001
1/19/2000
0.45
172
370905091204001
3/1/2000
0.76
547
370905091204001
4/5/2000
0.47
240
370905091204001
5/24/2000
0.41
129
370905091204001
6/7/2000
0.5
177
370905091204001
6/29/2000
0.36
244
370905091204001
7/27/2000
0.46
144
370905091204001
8/10/2000
0.31
128
370905091204001
8/21/2000
0.43
124
370905091204001
10/2/2001
0.41
104
370905091204001
10/10/2001
0.39
109
370905091204001
10/10/2001
0.4
109
370905091204001
10/11/2001
0.37
116
370905091204001
4/2/2002
0.43
590
370905091204001
4/30/2002
0.34
760
370905091204001
5/29/2002
0.36
657
370905091204001
6/4/2002
0.42
488
370905091204001
6/28/2002
0.51
309
370905091204001
6/29/2002
0.46
297
370905091204001
7/29/2002
0.42
266
370905091204001
8/7/2002
0.42
216
370905091204001
10/8/2002
0.47
161
370905091204001
10/9/2002
0.48
164
370905091204001
6/3/2003
0.47
270
370905091204001
6/10/2003
0.5
263
370905091204001
6/28/2003
0.43
185
370905091204001
7/26/2003
0.36
169
370905091204001
8/6/2003
0.35
226
370905091204001
9/23/2003
0.47
201
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
370905091204001
8/6/2003
0.011
226
370905091204001
9/23/2003
0.006
201
370905091204001
10/8/2003
0.009
151
370905091204001
6/15/2004
0.007
368
370905091204001
6/26/2004
0.005
266
370905091204001
7/13/2004
0.008
216
370905091204001
8/11/2004
0.005
186
370905091204001
8/21/2004
0.005
174
370905091204001
9/21/2004
0.012
147
370905091204001
10/5/2004
0.006
135
370905091204001
6/14/2005
0.008
156
370905091204001
7/6/2005
0.005
164
370905091204001
4/30/2002
0.006
760
7066110
6/20/1973
0.03
478
7066110
8/1/1973
0.02
288
7066110
10/17/1973
0.04
439
7066110
1/18/1974
0.03
560
7066110
4/17/1974
0.03
680
7066110
7/10/1974
0.01
326
7066110
10/22/1974
0.02
233
7066110
1/21/1975
0.01
490
7066110
5/4/1977
0.01
242
7066110
5/16/1979
0.01
980
7066110
9/5/1979
0.01
293
7066110
5/6/1980
0.09
279
7066110
6/10/1981
0.01
395
7066110
9/22/1981
0.02
127
7066110
6/30/1982
0.04
464
7066110
5/25/1983
0.01
700
7066110
5/16/1984
0.01
775
7066110
5/7/1986
0.01
300
7066110
5/12/1987
0.01
220
7066110
5/18/1988
0.02
282
7066110
10/12/1988
0.01
172
7066110
10/24/1989
0.01
159
7066110
11/20/1990
0.03
126
7066110
10/23/1991
0.01
166
7066110
11/12/1992
0.13
2200
7066110
12/8/1992
0.01
344
7066110
1/22/1993
0.02
1200
7066110
4/7/1993
0.05
1100
7066110
4/14/1993
0.02
702
7066110
6/3/1993
0.03
366
7066110
4/14/1994
0.04
4140
7066110
10/20/1994
0.06
251
7066110
5/22/1995
0.02
680
7066110
8/7/1995
0.12
262
7066110
10/11/1995
0.02
189
7066110
4/1/1996
0.03
1340
7066110
4/7/1997
0.03
3200
7066110
11/13/2000
0.17
215
7066110
5/13/2002
0.06
2400
7066110
2/14/2007
0.04
2400
7064555
4/3/1973
0.007
151
7064555
6/18/1973
0.04
164
108
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
370905091204001
10/8/2003
0.45
151
370905091204001
6/15/2004
0.47
368
370905091204001
6/26/2004
0.4
266
370905091204001
7/13/2004
0.42
216
370905091204001
8/11/2004
0.44
186
370905091204001
8/21/2004
0.46
174
370905091204001
9/21/2004
0.5
147
370905091204001
6/14/2005
0.45
156
370905091204001
7/6/2005
0.43
164
370905091204001
8/10/2005
0.46
138
7066110
6/20/1973
0.37
478
7066110
8/1/1973
0.45
288
7066110
10/17/1973
0.58
439
7066110
1/18/1974
0.39
560
7066110
4/17/1974
0.46
680
7066110
7/10/1974
0.46
326
7066110
10/22/1974
0.35
233
7066110
1/21/1975
0.48
490
7066110
4/15/1975
0.53
530
7066110
9/23/1976
0.3
132
7066110
5/4/1977
0.53
242
7066110
9/22/1977
0.69
210
7066110
5/11/1978
0.53
626
7066110
9/13/1978
0.56
140
7066110
5/16/1979
0.29
980
7066110
9/5/1979
0.34
293
7066110
5/6/1980
0.54
279
7066110
8/27/1980
0.73
121
7066110
6/10/1981
1.7
395
7066110
9/22/1981
0.6
127
7066110
6/30/1982
0.76
464
7066110
5/25/1983
0.6
700
7066110
9/14/1983
0.6
180
7066110
5/16/1984
0.7
775
7066110
5/15/1985
0.6
1140
7066110
9/11/1985
0.6
329
7066110
10/15/1986
1.1
205
7066110
5/12/1987
0.8
220
7066110
10/14/1987
0.5
145
7066110
5/18/1988
0.6
282
7066110
10/12/1988
0.5
172
7066110
5/24/1989
0.9
1380
7066110
11/20/1990
0.6
126
7066110
11/12/1992
0.9
2200
7066110
1/22/1993
0.52
1200
7066110
7/9/1993
0.59
274
7066110
8/7/1995
0.58
262
7066110
4/1/1996
0.69
1340
7066110
11/6/1996
0.54
123
7066110
6/10/1997
0.49
410
7066110
1/26/1999
0.45
530
7066110
3/2/1999
0.52
390
7066110
4/5/1999
0.29
860
7066110
6/17/1999
0.51
220
7066110
8/18/1999
0.5
196
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7064555
7/30/1973
0.02
93
7064555
5/5/1977
0.02
55
7064555
5/11/1978
0.01
105
7064555
5/15/1979
0.01
110
7064555
9/5/1979
0.01
57
7064555
5/7/1980
0.02
61
7064555
8/26/1980
0.01
21
7064555
6/11/1981
0.02
98
7064555
9/21/1981
0.02
9.8
7064555
7/1/1982
0.05
119
7064555
5/26/1983
0.02
132
7064555
5/15/1984
0.01
141
7064555
5/6/1986
0.01
101
7064555
10/14/1986
0.01
70
7064555
5/11/1987
0.01
85
7064555
10/13/1987
0.01
23
7064555
5/17/1988
0.02
75
7064555
10/11/1988
0.01
32
7064555
10/23/1989
0.01
28
7064555
10/22/1991
0.02
34
7064555
4/13/1993
0.04
124
7064555
10/19/1993
0.03
112
7064555
10/10/1995
0.04
49
7064555
10/1/1996
0.18
126
7064530
4/2/1973
0.004
500
7064530
6/18/1973
0.02
232
7064530
7/30/1973
0.03
272
7064530
5/5/1977
0.03
130
7064530
5/12/1978
0.01
299
7064530
5/15/1979
0.01
387
7064530
9/4/1979
0.01
127
7064530
5/8/1980
0.03
158
7064530
8/26/1980
0.01
103
7064530
6/11/1981
0.19
144
7064530
9/21/1981
0.02
111
7064530
6/29/1982
0.05
337
7064530
5/24/1983
0.01
356
7064530
9/15/1983
0.01
90
7064530
5/15/1984
0.01
271
7064530
9/18/1984
0.01
172
7064530
9/10/1985
0.01
244
7064530
5/6/1986
0.01
209
7064530
10/14/1986
0.01
176
7064530
5/11/1987
0.01
173
7064530
10/13/1987
0.01
97
7064530
5/17/1988
0.02
240
7064530
10/11/1988
0.01
115
7064530
10/23/1989
0.01
101
7064530
11/19/1990
0.01
171
7064530
10/22/1991
0.01
117
7064530
10/19/1994
0.18
169
7064530
10/10/1995
0.02
138
7065500
9/23/1976
0.01
78
7065500
5/10/1978
0.01
189
7065500
9/5/1979
0.01
118
109
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7066110
11/1/1999
0.41
179
7066110
3/20/2000
0.66
333
7066110
5/8/2000
0.43
180
7066110
7/17/2000
0.4
170
7066110
9/11/2000
0.35
145
7066110
11/13/2000
1.2
215
7066110
5/10/2001
0.39
225
7066110
7/17/2001
0.29
152
7066110
9/4/2001
0.31
110
7066110
1/22/2002
0.51
144
7066110
3/5/2002
0.4
504
7066110
5/13/2002
0.5
2400
7066110
7/15/2002
0.37
304
7066110
9/5/2002
0.48
288
7066110
3/11/2003
0.48
398
7066110
5/19/2003
0.37
1170
7066110
7/7/2003
0.41
271
7066110
9/5/2003
0.53
761
7066110
11/17/2003
0.33
340
7066110
1/22/2004
0.42
853
7066110
5/5/2004
0.44
1020
7066110
7/6/2004
0.35
404
7066110
9/7/2004
0.42
230
7066110
11/22/2004
0.54
425
7066110
1/25/2005
0.62
760
7066110
3/15/2005
0.45
428
7066110
5/19/2005
0.37
310
7066110
7/18/2005
0.38
210
7066110
9/1/2005
0.33
206
7066110
1/4/2006
0.5
165
7066110
3/1/2006
0.34
170
7066110
5/8/2006
0.29
1170
7066110
7/10/2006
0.39
166
7066110
11/15/2006
0.49
384
7066110
1/24/2007
0.29
984
7066110
2/14/2007
0.69
2400
7066110
4/3/2007
0.31
440
7066110
5/2/2007
0.34
530
7066110
6/11/2007
0.38
282
7066110
7/16/2007
0.44
206
7066110
9/4/2007
0.36
162
7066110
5/5/2008
0.35
650
7066110
7/7/2008
0.39
340
7066110
10/6/2008
0.4
230
7066110
1/12/2009
0.5
250
7066110
3/2/2009
0.49
322
7066110
5/28/2009
0.38
613
7066110
7/6/2009
0.48
310
7066110
9/9/2009
0.42
334
7066110
10/28/2009
0.51
1600
7064555
6/18/1973
0.76
164
7064555
7/30/1973
0.63
93
7064555
10/15/1973
0.68
114
7064555
9/24/1976
0.51
24
7064555
5/5/1977
0.67
55
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7065500
8/27/1980
0.01
73
7065500
9/22/1981
0.01
82
7065500
5/16/1984
0.01
297
7065500
5/7/1986
0.01
139
7065500
5/12/1987
0.01
115
7065500
10/25/1989
0.01
88
7065500
5/30/1991
0.01
163
7065500
10/16/1973
0.02
201
7065500
5/4/1977
0.02
148
7065500
5/16/1979
0.02
320
7065500
5/6/1980
0.02
138
7065500
6/10/1981
0.02
137
7065500
5/25/1983
0.02
197
7065500
5/18/1988
0.02
129
7065500
10/12/1988
0.02
96
7065500
10/22/1991
0.02
87
7065500
10/10/1995
0.02
103
7065500
10/8/2002
0.02
98
7065500
4/4/1973
0.021
309
7065500
6/19/1973
0.03
179
7065500
7/31/1973
0.03
141
7065500
7/10/1974
0.03
169
7065500
4/14/1993
0.03
204
7065500
6/30/1982
0.04
147
7066550
6/21/1973
0.03
176
7066550
8/1/1973
0.02
155
7066550
10/17/1973
0.02
180
7066550
5/4/1977
0.01
154
7066550
5/16/1979
0.01
273
7066550
9/5/1979
0.01
103
7066550
5/6/1980
0.03
102
7066550
6/10/1981
0.01
114
7066550
6/30/1982
0.04
128
7066550
5/25/1983
0.02
237
7066550
5/16/1984
0.01
254
7066550
9/11/1985
0.01
121
7066550
5/12/1987
0.01
118
7066550
5/18/1988
0.02
118
7066550
10/12/1988
0.01
96
7066550
10/23/1991
0.01
108
7066550
10/20/1994
0.02
98
7066550
5/23/1995
0.03
242
7066550
10/2/1996
0.02
232
7066550
10/7/2002
0.02
96
7014000
11/23/1993
0.03
244
7014000
3/11/1994
0.02
266
7014000
3/11/1994
0.02
266
7014000
6/23/1994
0.02
175
7014000
8/29/1994
0.09
115
7014000
1/13/1995
0.03
352
7014000
3/20/1995
0.02
245
7014000
8/7/1995
0.02
127
7014000
4/9/1996
0.02
245
7014000
6/24/1996
0.02
310
7014000
3/10/1997
0.03
330
110
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7064555
9/22/1977
0.62
15
7064555
5/11/1978
0.69
105
7064555
9/14/1978
1
21
7064555
5/15/1979
0.48
110
7064555
9/5/1979
0.66
57
7064555
5/7/1980
0.9
61
7064555
8/26/1980
0.87
21
7064555
6/11/1981
1
98
7064555
7/1/1982
1
119
7064555
5/26/1983
0.8
132
7064555
9/15/1983
0.9
49
7064555
5/14/1985
0.8
153
7064555
9/10/1985
0.9
77
7064555
10/14/1986
1.1
70
7064555
5/11/1987
0.7
85
7064555
10/11/1988
0.9
32
7064555
10/23/1989
0.9
28
7064555
5/30/1991
0.63
115
7064555
5/2/2000
0.62
26
7064555
5/8/2001
0.58
24
7064555
5/30/2002
0.42
150
7064555
10/8/2002
0.6
33
7064555
5/6/2003
0.54
113
7064530
6/18/1973
0.81
232
7064530
7/30/1973
0.87
272
7064530
10/15/1973
0.91
284
7064530
9/24/1976
0.58
65
7064530
5/5/1977
0.86
130
7064530
9/23/1977
0.8
75
7064530
5/12/1978
1.5
299
7064530
9/14/1978
1.1
113
7064530
5/15/1979
0.96
387
7064530
9/4/1979
1.1
127
7064530
5/8/1980
0.82
158
7064530
8/26/1980
1
103
7064530
6/11/1981
2.1
144
7064530
9/21/1981
1.1
111
7064530
6/29/1982
1.2
337
7064530
5/24/1983
1.4
356
7064530
9/15/1983
1.1
90
7064530
5/15/1984
1.4
271
7064530
9/10/1985
0.9
244
7064530
10/14/1986
1.7
176
7064530
5/11/1987
1.2
173
7064530
10/13/1987
0.9
97
7064530
10/11/1988
1
115
7064530
5/30/1991
0.83
300
7064530
10/1/1996
1.1
241
7065500
6/19/1973
0.74
179
7065500
7/31/1973
0.74
141
7065500
10/16/1973
0.97
201
7065500
7/10/1974
0.7
169
7065500
9/23/1976
0.57
78
7065500
5/4/1977
0.96
148
7065500
9/21/1977
0.82
105
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7014000
11/15/2000
0.078
105
7014000
5/9/2002
0.06
3050
7014500
1/19/1993
0.02
1450
7014500
4/8/1993
0.03
2090
7014500
5/19/1993
0.08
5020
7014500
6/1/1993
0.02
870
7014500
7/6/1993
0.05
833
7014500
8/12/1993
0.17
6830
7014500
9/30/1993
0.03
3210
7014500
10/6/1993
0.02
1640
7014500
11/3/1993
0.02
1070
7014500
12/2/1993
0.04
1840
7014500
2/14/1994
0.03
703
7014500
3/1/1994
0.04
1580
7014500
3/8/1994
0.02
1190
7014500
5/25/1994
0.02
1660
7014500
6/23/1994
0.02
966
7014500
8/31/1994
0.02
811
7014500
9/12/1994
0.02
669
7014500
3/22/1995
0.02
1270
7014500
5/9/1995
0.07
5890
7014500
6/12/1995
0.03
4620
7014500
7/18/1995
0.02
727
7014500
9/11/1995
0.02
405
7014500
10/3/1995
0.03
392
7014500
2/27/1996
0.02
500
7014500
7/24/1996
0.02
505
7014500
1/14/1997
0.02
670
7014500
2/5/1997
0.02
3450
7014500
3/13/1997
0.03
2230
7014500
4/7/1997
0.02
3800
7014500
1/19/1999
0.04
3180
7014500
2/9/1999
0.16
7760
7014500
4/26/1999
0.07
4540
7014500
5/20/1999
0.04
1260
7014500
8/10/1999
0.08
1380
7014500
10/6/1999
0.03
267
7014500
11/16/1999
0.04
302
7014500
6/13/2000
0.04
274
7014500
8/2/2000
0.03
242
7014500
11/7/2000
0.04
322
7014500
7/25/2001
0.03
226
7014500
3/28/2002
0.04
3000
7014500
5/23/2002
0.03
2800
7014500
8/12/2002
0.03
373
7014500
4/8/2003
0.02
1870
7014500
5/5/2003
0.06
2450
7014500
8/6/2003
0.03
373
7014500
12/17/2003
0.02
772
7014500
1/21/2004
0.02
1770
7014500
5/4/2004
0.05
3140
7014500
9/1/2004
0.03
642
7014500
11/3/2004
0.07
1570
7014500
12/14/2004
0.02
1180
7014500
5/17/2006
0.03
1710
Ill
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7065500
5/10/1978
1
189
7065500
9/13/1978
0.77
96
7065500
5/16/1979
0.62
320
7065500
9/5/1979
0.79
118
7065500
5/6/1980
0.86
138
7065500
8/27/1980
0.68
73
7065500
6/10/1981
2
137
7065500
9/22/1981
1
82
7065500
6/30/1982
1.2
147
7065500
5/25/1983
1.1
197
7065500
9/14/1983
1
93
7065500
5/16/1984
1
297
7065500
5/15/1985
0.8
213
7065500
9/11/1985
1.1
139
7065500
5/7/1986
0.9
139
7065500
10/15/1986
1.5
100
7065500
5/12/1987
1.1
115
7065500
10/12/1988
1.1
96
7065500
5/25/1989
0.8
202
7065500
5/29/2002
0.68
311
7065500
5/6/2003
0.7
175
7065500
5/18/2004
0.66
262
7065500
5/9/2006
0.62
350
7066550
6/21/1973
0.45
176
7066550
8/1/1973
0.68
155
7066550
10/17/1973
0.63
180
7066550
9/23/1976
0.37
91
7066550
5/4/1977
0.58
154
7066550
9/22/1977
0.54
104
7066550
5/11/1978
0.66
115
7066550
9/13/1978
1
93
7066550
5/16/1979
0.63
273
7066550
9/5/1979
0.9
103
7066550
5/6/1980
0.86
102
7066550
8/27/1980
0.78
92
7066550
6/10/1981
1.1
114
7066550
9/22/1981
1.1
116
7066550
6/30/1982
1.1
128
7066550
5/25/1983
1
237
7066550
9/14/1983
0.9
88
7066550
5/16/1984
0.9
254
7066550
9/11/1985
0.6
121
7066550
10/15/1986
1.2
119
7066550
5/12/1987
0.6
118
7066550
5/29/1991
1.9
214
7066550
5/7/2001
0.43
100
7066550
5/28/2002
0.65
239
7066550
5/9/2006
0.31
154
7014000
11/23/1993
0.48
244
7014000
8/7/1995
0.39
127
7014000
3/4/1999
0.36
200
7014000
4/8/1999
0.28
394
7014000
6/14/1999
0.36
153
7014000
8/19/1999
0.73
66
7014000
11/15/1999
0.25
56
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7014500
4/2/2007
0.05
2660
7014500
7/10/2007
0.02
425
7014500
2/6/2008
0.02
1950
7014500
3/25/2008
0.04
3270
7014500
4/15/2008
0.04
3310
7014500
6/3/2008
0.02
903
7014500
7/22/2008
0.02
415
7014500
9/2/2008
0.03
440
7014500
4/20/2009
0.18
10400
7014500
10/29/2009
0.04
3870
7010500
11/17/1993
0.04
1100
7010500
1/20/1994
0.02
135
7010500
3/8/1994
0.03
255
7010500
6/23/1994
0.03
135
7010500
8/29/1994
0.02
80
7010500
11/3/1994
0.04
130
7010500
1/13/1995
0.02
285
7010500
3/22/1995
0.05
90
7010500
8/8/1995
0.02
140
7010500
3/5/1996
0.18
55
7010500
4/10/1996
0.04
163
7010500
6/25/1996
0.03
170
7010500
11/13/1996
0.02
207
7010500
3/10/1997
0.04
318
7010500
11/16/1999
0.05
92
7010500
3/14/2000
0.03
114
7010500
5/17/2000
0.04
95
7010500
9/14/2000
0.04
75
7010500
11/8/2000
0.05
115
7010500
5/14/2001
0.04
72
7010500
7/20/2001
0.04
63
7010500
11/2/2001
0.04
72
7010500
9/5/2002
0.03
103
7010500
11/13/2002
0.03
105
7010500
1/14/2003
0.03
92
7010500
3/4/2003
0.02
129
7010500
5/5/2003
0.04
215
7010500
7/30/2003
0.03
129
7010500
11/10/2003
0.03
141
7010500
1/6/2004
0.03
287
7010500
3/15/2004
0.04
208
7010500
5/5/2004
0.03
190
7010500
7/27/2004
0.03
205
7010500
9/2/2004
0.02
197
7066000
5/11/1999
0.068
627
7066000
8/11/1999
0.004
194
7066000
11/8/1999
0.006
154
7066000
3/1/2000
0.004
542
7066000
5/24/2000
0.005
130
7066000
5/25/2000
0.01
235
7066000
7/11/2000
0.004
160
7066000
7/27/2000
0.004
143
7066000
8/10/2000
0.005
129
7066000
12/20/2000
0.002
160
7066000
2/21/2001
0.005
410
112
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7014000
1/11/2000
0.26
92
7014000
3/14/2000
0.26
100
7014000
5/17/2000
0.25
47
7014000
7/6/2000
0.24
76
7014000
9/7/2000
0.17
29
7014000
11/15/2000
0.76
105
7014000
3/22/2001
0.64
110
7014000
5/10/2001
0.36
66
7014000
7/11/2001
0.27
37
7014000
11/1/2001
0.11
57
7014000
1/23/2002
0.35
70
7014000
3/28/2002
0.37
469
7014000
5/9/2002
0.55
3050
7014000
9/3/2002
0.3
77
7014000
11/12/2002
0.19
84
7014000
1/13/2003
0.47
127
7014000
3/3/2003
0.34
255
7014000
5/6/2003
0.28
478
7014000
7/29/2003
0.31
69
7014000
9/11/2003
0.28
56
7014000
1/8/2004
0.38
88
7014000
3/17/2004
0.43
63
7014000
5/5/2004
0.31
438
7014000
7/27/2004
0.28
64
7014000
9/2/2004
0.28
163
7014000
11/9/2004
0.28
101
7014000
3/1/2005
0.28
175
7014000
5/18/2005
0.22
135
7014000
7/6/2005
0.23
58
7014000
9/7/2005
0.28
67
7014000
11/22/2005
0.38
139
7014000
1/10/2006
0.28
86
7014000
3/21/2006
0.43
408
7014000
5/9/2006
0.24
238
7014000
11/8/2006
0.24
163
7014000
2/14/2007
0.46
659
7014000
4/2/2007
0.28
579
7014000
5/22/2007
0.24
114
7014000
6/5/2007
0.26
86
7014000
7/13/2007
0.24
57
7014000
3/24/2008
0.54
629
7014000
5/19/2008
0.18
394
7014000
7/21/2008
0.28
70
7014000
9/2/2008
0.28
81
7014000
10/27/2008
0.14
141
7014000
5/26/2009
0.15
494
7014000
7/21/2009
0.24
221
7014000
10/27/2009
0.46
255
7014500
1/19/1993
0.82
1450
7014500
5/19/1993
0.81
5020
7014500
7/6/1993
0.67
833
7014500
11/3/1993
0.35
1070
7014500
3/1/1994
0.64
1580
7014500
3/21/1994
0.34
854
7014500
8/31/1994
0.68
811
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7066000
3/21/2001
0.004
242
7066000
4/24/2001
0.004
218
7066000
5/25/2001
0.006
215
7066000
5/26/2001
0.003
202
7066000
5/26/2001
0.006
202
7066000
5/27/2001
0.003
190
7066000
5/27/2001
0.003
186
7066000
6/6/2001
0.007
211
7066000
7/31/2001
0.005
136
7066000
8/8/2001
0.004
112
7066000
8/8/2001
0.005
112
7066000
8/9/2001
0.005
116
7066000
8/9/2001
0.008
116
7066000
9/18/2001
0.003
112
7066000
10/2/2001
0.003
104
7066000
10/10/2001
0.002
109
7066000
10/10/2001
0.007
109
7066000
10/11/2001
0.003
116
7066000
10/11/2001
0.004
116
7066000
11/20/2001
0.002
112
7066000
4/2/2002
0.005
590
7066000
4/30/2002
0.006
760
7066000
5/29/2002
0.009
657
7066000
6/4/2002
0.005
488
7066000
6/28/2002
0.006
309
7066000
6/29/2002
0.01
297
7066000
7/29/2002
0.006
266
7066000
8/6/2002
0.004
220
7066000
8/7/2002
0.004
216
7066000
10/8/2002
0.005
161
7066000
10/9/2002
0.004
164
7066000
6/3/2003
0.003
270
7066000
6/9/2003
0.019
263
7066000
6/28/2003
0.004
185
7066000
7/26/2003
0.005
169
7066000
8/6/2003
0.005
226
7066000
9/23/2003
0.004
201
7066000
10/8/2003
0.004
151
7066000
6/15/2004
0.01
368
7066000
6/26/2004
0.005
266
7066000
7/13/2004
0.005
216
7066000
8/11/2004
0.002
186
7066000
8/21/2004
0.003
174
7066000
9/21/2004
0.005
147
7066000
10/5/2004
0.004
125
7066000
6/14/2005
0.005
150
7066000
7/5/2005
0.005
127
7066000
8/9/2005
0.005
142
7065000
4/3/1973
0.013
158
7065000
6/19/1973
0.04
60
7065000
7/31/1973
0.02
48
7065000
10/16/1973
0.02
71
7065000
5/5/1977
0.04
28
7065000
5/16/1979
0.01
118
7065000
9/5/1979
0.01
40
113
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7014500
9/12/1994
0.41
669
7014500
10/12/1994
0.41
480
7014500
4/24/1995
0.44
3490
7014500
5/9/1995
0.45
5890
7014500
6/12/1995
0.92
4620
7014500
7/5/1995
0.42
1260
7014500
7/18/1995
0.48
727
7014500
9/11/1995
0.4
405
7014500
10/3/1995
0.3
392
7014500
1/9/1996
0.56
500
7014500
1/22/1996
0.7
1440
7014500
4/16/1996
0.48
1470
7014500
5/22/1996
0.46
1450
7014500
7/24/1996
0.51
505
7014500
10/7/1996
0.6
592
7014500
12/5/1996
0.56
2460
7014500
2/5/1997
0.59
3450
7014500
4/7/1997
0.57
3800
7014500
6/17/1997
0.54
2220
7014500
7/9/1997
0.27
812
7014500
1/19/1999
0.85
3180
7014500
2/9/1999
1.3
7760
7014500
3/24/1999
0.37
1800
7014500
4/26/1999
0.72
4540
7014500
5/20/1999
0.24
1260
7014500
6/29/1999
0.42
1170
7014500
7/21/1999
0.24
381
7014500
8/10/1999
0.95
1380
7014500
9/9/1999
0.28
272
7014500
10/6/1999
1.5
267
7014500
11/16/1999
0.16
302
7014500
12/8/1999
0.25
494
7014500
1/11/2000
0.16
517
7014500
2/8/2000
0.22
338
7014500
3/15/2000
0.22
662
7014500
4/4/2000
0.2
576
7014500
6/13/2000
0.59
274
7014500
7/5/2000
0.27
288
7014500
1/24/2001
0.16
333
7014500
2/15/2001
0.6
895
7014500
3/27/2001
0.35
489
7014500
4/18/2001
0.4
1000
7014500
5/14/2001
0.23
324
7014500
6/13/2001
0.21
523
7014500
7/25/2001
0.28
226
7014500
8/14/2001
0.23
355
7014500
9/6/2001
0.19
175
7014500
12/5/2001
0.34
673
7014500
1/23/2002
0.3
312
7014500
2/12/2002
0.66
821
7014500
3/28/2002
0.53
3000
7014500
4/10/2002
0.29
1860
7014500
5/23/2002
0.53
2800
7014500
6/20/2002
0.26
729
7014500
7/30/2002
0.24
419
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7065000
5/7/1980
0.03
31
7065000
6/9/1981
0.03
34
7065000
9/23/1981
0.01
20
7065000
7/1/1982
0.06
38
7065000
5/24/1983
0.02
100
7065000
5/17/1984
0.01
52
7065000
5/6/1986
0.01
58
7065000
10/14/1986
0.02
34
7065000
5/11/1987
0.01
52
7065000
5/17/1988
0.02
38
7065000
10/11/1988
0.01
21
7065000
10/22/1991
0.01
25
7065000
4/14/1993
0.04
214
7065000
10/21/1993
0.1
47
7065000
5/23/1995
0.02
82
7065000
10/1/1996
0.08
65
7064440
4/2/1973
0.013
253
7064440
6/18/1973
0.04
139
7064440
7/30/1973
0.04
107
7064440
10/15/1973
0.01
152
7064440
1/18/1974
0.04
160
7064440
4/17/1974
0.04
204
7064440
7/9/1974
0.03
146
7064440
10/21/1974
0.13
109
7064440
1/22/1975
0.04
153
7064440
4/15/1975
0.01
165
7064440
9/24/1976
0.03
64
7064440
5/6/1977
0.07
74
7064440
9/23/1977
0.03
45
7064440
5/12/1978
0.02
155
7064440
9/14/1978
0.02
58
7064440
5/15/1979
0.01
181
7064440
9/4/1979
0.04
90
7064440
5/8/1980
0.03
76
7064440
8/26/1980
0.03
62
7064440
6/9/1981
0.09
75
7064440
9/21/1981
0.03
52
7064440
6/29/1982
0.06
114
7064440
5/24/1983
0.01
172
7064440
9/13/1983
0.01
90
7064440
5/15/1984
0.02
181
7064440
9/18/1984
0.01
100
7064440
5/14/1985
0.01
196
7064440
9/10/1985
0.02
125
7064440
5/6/1986
0.02
130
7064440
10/14/1986
0.02
113
7064440
5/11/1987
0.02
114
7064440
10/13/1987
0.03
77
7064440
5/17/1988
0.02
116
7064440
10/11/1988
0.03
82
7064440
5/23/1989
0.02
221
7064440
10/23/1989
0.02
76
7064440
11/19/1990
0.01
90
7064440
5/30/1991
0.01
167
7064440
10/22/1991
0.03
81
114
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7014500
8/12/2002
0.39
373
7014500
9/3/2002
0.3
411
7014500
11/14/2002
0.15
411
7014500
12/2/2002
0.11
351
7014500
1/14/2003
0.32
580
7014500
2/4/2003
0.29
388
7014500
3/4/2003
0.4
1050
7014500
4/8/2003
0.39
1870
7014500
5/5/2003
0.6
2450
7014500
6/9/2003
0.28
621
7014500
7/30/2003
0.29
351
7014500
8/6/2003
0.28
373
7014500
9/4/2003
0.46
626
7014500
10/20/2003
0.14
396
7014500
12/17/2003
0.41
772
7014500
1/21/2004
0.48
1770
7014500
2/9/2004
0.3
766
7014500
3/2/2004
0.23
506
7014500
4/20/2004
0.28
637
7014500
5/4/2004
0.54
3140
7014500
6/1/2004
0.24
784
7014500
7/19/2004
0.26
358
7014500
9/1/2004
0.53
642
7014500
10/14/2004
0.27
367
7014500
11/3/2004
0.67
1570
7014500
12/14/2004
0.47
1180
7014500
1/3/2005
0.31
465
7014500
2/2/2005
0.6
877
7014500
3/10/2005
0.24
754
7014500
4/5/2005
0.17
760
7014500
5/4/2005
0.15
1050
7014500
6/8/2005
0.37
386
7014500
7/25/2005
0.2
353
7014500
8/17/2005
0.39
896
7014500
9/1/2005
0.22
283
7014500
10/12/2005
0.17
381
7014500
11/9/2005
0.21
581
7014500
12/5/2005
0.33
760
7014500
1/9/2006
0.23
425
7014500
2/7/2006
0.16
620
7014500
3/6/2006
0.2
415
7014500
4/12/2006
0.17
742
7014500
5/17/2006
0.49
1710
7014500
6/14/2006
0.29
420
7014500
7/20/2006
0.22
214
7014500
9/5/2006
0.19
206
7014500
10/11/2006
0.12
222
7014500
11/7/2006
0.14
401
7014500
12/4/2006
0.7
1910
7014500
1/8/2007
0.33
522
7014500
2/15/2007
0.59
1690
7014500
3/13/2007
0.22
642
7014500
4/2/2007
0.55
2660
7014500
5/21/2007
0.2
648
7014500
6/5/2007
0.53
565
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7064440
4/14/1992
0.01
122
7064440
9/30/1992
0.03
100
7064440
4/29/1993
0.02
173
7064440
10/21/1993
0.02
122
7064440
10/19/1994
0.02
91
7064440
5/22/1995
0.03
164
7064440
10/10/1995
0.07
98
7064440
5/8/2001
0.03
53
7064440
10/3/2001
0.03
48
7064440
10/9/2002
0.02
71
7064440
10/7/2004
0.03
51
7064440
5/8/2006
0.02
120
7066510
6/20/1973
0.03
1560
7066510
8/1/1973
0.02
1240
7066510
1/18/1974
0.03
1820
7066510
4/17/1974
0.03
2420
7066510
7/10/1974
0.02
1260
7066510
10/22/1974
0.02
850
7066510
1/21/1975
0.01
1870
7066510
5/4/1977
0.01
928
7066510
9/22/1977
0.01
738
7066510
5/16/1979
0.01
3000
7066510
9/5/1979
0.01
894
7066510
5/6/1980
0.01
798
7066510
6/10/1981
0.01
1190
7066510
9/22/1981
0.01
462
7066510
6/30/1982
0.04
1150
7066510
5/25/1983
0.02
2240
7066510
9/14/1983
0.04
680
7066510
5/12/1987
0.01
985
7066510
5/18/1988
0.02
932
7066510
10/12/1988
0.01
639
7066510
10/23/1991
0.01
659
7066510
4/13/1993
0.03
3500
7066510
5/23/1995
0.05
2400
7066510
10/7/2002
0.02
1000
7061600
1/13/2009
0.02
136
7061600
8/10/1995
0.01
248
7061600
9/8/2009
0.02
280
7061600
2/15/1994
0.01
360
7061600
2/12/2007
0.03
370
7061600
3/22/1995
0.02
416
7061600
7/11/1995
0.02
565
7061600
5/7/2008
0.03
735
7061600
1/29/2006
0.04
1140
7061600
5/21/2003
0.02
1320
7061600
11/18/2003
0.17
6280
7061600
5/14/2002
0.06
6630
7061600
5/11/2006
0.07
6830
7061600
4/12/1994
0.17
28800
7064400
9/24/1976
0.01
51
7064400
5/6/1977
0.03
60
7064400
5/12/1978
0.01
112
7064400
5/15/1979
0.01
140
7064400
9/4/1979
0.02
70
115
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7014500
7/10/2007
0.25
425
7014500
8/13/2007
0.33
214
7014500
9/5/2007
0.13
218
7014500
10/23/2007
0.2
278
7014500
11/5/2007
0.11
274
7014500
1/24/2008
0.57
396
7014500
2/6/2008
0.62
1950
7014500
3/25/2008
0.81
3270
7014500
4/15/2008
0.58
3310
7014500
5/21/2008
0.22
1710
7014500
6/3/2008
0.28
903
7014500
7/22/2008
0.36
415
7014500
8/5/2008
0.2
425
7014500
9/2/2008
0.33
440
7014500
10/28/2008
0.13
430
7014500
11/13/2008
0.2
559
7014500
12/8/2008
0.31
363
7014500
1/20/2009
0.37
363
7014500
2/3/2009
0.19
460
7014500
3/23/2009
0.16
548
7014500
4/20/2009
1.1
10400
7014500
6/1/2009
0.35
1580
7014500
7/21/2009
0.24
815
7014500
8/24/2009
0.28
614
7014500
9/2/2009
0.22
543
7014500
10/29/2009
0.5
3870
7010500
11/17/1993
0.78
1100
7010500
8/8/1995
0.93
140
7010500
11/13/1996
0.88
207
7010500
6/19/1997
0.76
384
7010500
11/16/1999
0.87
92
7010500
1/12/2000
0.88
102
7010500
5/17/2000
0.72
95
7010500
7/5/2000
0.64
79
7010500
9/14/2000
0.84
75
7010500
11/8/2000
0.77
115
7010500
1/9/2001
0.89
58
7010500
3/27/2001
1
104
7010500
5/14/2001
0.75
72
7010500
7/20/2001
0.76
63
7010500
9/6/2001
0.66
72
7010500
11/2/2001
0.75
72
7010500
1/28/2002
0.87
77
7010500
5/21/2002
0.6
411
7010500
7/29/2002
0.88
135
7010500
9/5/2002
0.91
103
7010500
11/13/2002
0.47
105
7010500
1/14/2003
0.89
92
7010500
5/5/2003
0.7
215
7010500
7/30/2003
0.92
129
7010500
9/4/2003
0.84
123
7010500
1/6/2004
0.78
287
7010500
3/15/2004
0.89
208
7010500
5/5/2004
0.63
190
7010500
9/2/2004
0.96
197
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7064400
8/26/1980
0.01
43
7064400
6/9/1981
0.02
64
7064400
9/21/1981
0.01
46
7064400
6/29/1982
0.07
106
7064400
5/24/1983
0.01
132
7064400
9/13/1983
0.05
70
7064400
5/15/1984
0.01
123
7064400
9/18/1984
0.01
77
7064400
5/14/1985
0.05
151
7064400
9/10/1985
0.02
95
7064400
5/6/1986
0.01
102
7064400
10/14/1986
0.02
83
7064400
5/11/1987
0.01
8.2
7064400
10/13/1987
0.02
61
7064400
5/17/1988
0.02
93
7064400
10/11/1988
0.02
68
7064400
10/23/1989
0.02
62
7064400
5/30/1991
0.01
132
7064400
10/22/1991
0.02
69
7064400
4/29/1993
0.02
92
7064400
10/21/1993
0.02
70
7064400
10/19/1994
0.04
78
7064400
10/10/1995
0.03
81
7014200
11/23/1993
0.04
240
7014200
8/7/1995
0.02
45
7014200
4/9/1996
0.02
140
7014200
6/24/1996
0.02
47
7014200
3/10/1997
0.03
240
7014200
8/19/1999
0.03
68
7014200
11/15/2000
0.09
39
7014200
5/9/2002
0.07
3250
7014200
2/14/2007
0.04
264
116
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7066000
5/11/1999
0.37
627
7066000
6/23/1999
0.5
227
7066000
8/11/1999
0.59
194
7066000
11/8/1999
0.35
154
7066000
12/15/1999
0.45
305
7066000
3/1/2000
0.75
542
7066000
4/5/2000
0.46
241
7066000
5/25/2000
0.36
235
7066000
6/7/2000
0.41
172
7066000
6/29/2000
0.34
245
7066000
7/27/2000
0.4
143
7066000
8/10/2000
0.36
129
7066000
8/22/2000
0.41
127
7066000
9/19/2000
0.4
113
7066000
2/21/2001
0.63
410
7066000
3/21/2001
0.6
242
7066000
5/25/2001
0.33
215
7066000
5/26/2001
0.31
202
7066000
5/26/2001
0.34
202
7066000
5/27/2001
0.22
186
7066000
5/27/2001
0.33
190
7066000
6/6/2001
0.29
211
7066000
7/31/2001
0.34
136
7066000
8/8/2001
0.32
112
7066000
8/8/2001
0.34
112
7066000
8/9/2001
0.34
116
7066000
8/9/2001
0.38
116
7066000
10/11/2001
0.35
116
7066000
10/11/2001
0.36
116
7066000
4/2/2002
0.44
590
7066000
4/30/2002
0.26
760
7066000
5/29/2002
0.37
657
7066000
6/28/2002
0.49
309
7066000
6/29/2002
0.31
297
7066000
8/7/2002
0.38
216
7066000
10/8/2002
0.44
161
7066000
6/3/2003
0.46
270
7066000
6/9/2003
0.46
263
7066000
6/28/2003
0.4
185
7066000
7/26/2003
0.35
169
7066000
8/6/2003
0.32
226
7066000
9/23/2003
0.37
201
7066000
10/8/2003
0.39
151
7066000
6/15/2004
0.46
368
7066000
6/26/2004
0.42
266
7066000
8/21/2004
0.44
174
7066000
9/21/2004
0.45
147
7066000
7/5/2005
0.39
127
7066000
8/9/2005
0.46
142
7065000
6/19/1973
0.47
60
7065000
7/31/1973
0.53
48
7065000
10/16/1973
0.5
71
7065000
9/22/1976
0.28
25
7065000
5/5/1977
0.51
28
7065000
9/22/1977
0.94
24
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
117
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7065000
5/11/1978
0.47
39
7065000
9/13/1978
0.73
26
7065000
5/16/1979
0.5
118
7065000
9/5/1979
0.51
40
7065000
5/7/1980
0.89
31
7065000
8/26/1980
0.64
20
7065000
6/9/1981
2
34
7065000
9/23/1981
0.68
20
7065000
7/1/1982
1.4
38
7065000
5/24/1983
0.8
100
7065000
9/13/1983
0.7
34
7065000
5/17/1984
0.7
52
7065000
5/16/1985
0.5
97
7065000
9/11/1985
0.7
43
7065000
5/6/1986
0.5
58
7065000
10/14/1986
1.4
34
7065000
5/11/1987
0.9
52
7065000
10/11/1988
0.5
21
7065000
5/23/1989
0.8
179
7065000
5/8/2001
0.54
27
7065000
5/29/2002
0.5
153
7065000
5/5/2003
0.45
53
7065000
5/18/2004
0.5
88
7065000
5/10/2006
0.42
250
7064440
6/18/1973
1.2
139
7064440
7/30/1973
0.97
107
7064440
10/15/1973
0.93
152
7064440
1/18/1974
0.66
160
7064440
4/17/1974
0.79
204
7064440
7/9/1974
0.86
146
7064440
10/21/1974
0.84
109
7064440
1/22/1975
0.82
153
7064440
4/15/1975
0.84
165
7064440
9/24/1976
0.9
64
7064440
5/6/1977
1.1
74
7064440
9/23/1977
0.91
45
7064440
5/12/1978
0.9
155
7064440
9/14/1978
1.2
58
7064440
5/15/1979
0.55
181
7064440
9/4/1979
0.89
90
7064440
5/8/1980
2.4
76
7064440
8/26/1980
1
62
7064440
6/9/1981
1.9
75
7064440
9/21/1981
1.1
52
7064440
6/29/1982
1.1
114
7064440
5/24/1983
1
172
7064440
9/13/1983
1.3
90
7064440
5/15/1984
1
181
7064440
5/14/1985
0.9
196
7064440
5/6/1986
1
130
7064440
10/14/1986
1.3
113
7064440
5/11/1987
1.3
114
7064440
10/11/1988
1.1
82
7064440
5/23/1989
1.3
221
7064440
4/29/1993
0.86
173
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
118
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7064440
5/29/1996
0.79
182
7064440
10/6/1999
0.96
96
7064440
5/3/2000
0.87
72
7064440
5/8/2001
0.79
53
7064440
10/3/2001
0.58
48
7064440
5/30/2002
0.56
189
7064440
10/9/2002
0.85
71
7064440
5/7/2003
0.64
151
7064440
10/7/2003
0.79
57
7064440
5/17/2004
0.62
186
7064440
10/7/2004
0.82
51
7064440
5/25/2005
0.83
80
7064440
5/8/2006
0.59
120
7066510
6/20/1973
0.38
1560
7066510
8/1/1973
0.5
1240
7066510
10/17/1973
0.52
1480
7066510
1/18/1974
0.34
1820
7066510
4/17/1974
0.49
2420
7066510
7/10/1974
0.46
1260
7066510
10/22/1974
0.01
850
7066510
1/21/1975
0.16
1870
7066510
4/15/1975
0.58
1880
7066510
9/23/1976
0.25
533
7066510
5/4/1977
0.36
928
7066510
9/22/1977
0.49
738
7066510
5/11/1978
0.51
2050
7066510
9/13/1978
0.58
532
7066510
5/16/1979
0.38
3000
7066510
9/5/1979
0.42
894
7066510
5/6/1980
0.48
798
7066510
8/27/1980
0.35
441
7066510
6/10/1981
1.4
1190
7066510
9/22/1981
0.59
462
7066510
6/30/1982
0.97
1150
7066510
5/25/1983
1.4
2240
7066510
9/14/1983
0.8
680
7066510
5/16/1984
0.6
2350
7066510
5/15/1985
0.6
2480
7066510
9/11/1985
0.7
1080
7066510
5/7/1986
0.5
1290
7066510
10/15/1986
3.1
1080
7066510
5/12/1987
0.7
985
7066510
5/29/1991
0.66
1750
7066510
5/1/2000
0.32
600
7066510
5/7/2001
0.38
720
7066510
10/7/2002
0.37
1000
7066510
5/5/2003
0.43
2500
7066510
10/6/2003
0.32
552
7066510
5/17/2004
0.33
2100
7066510
5/24/2005
0.31
713
7066510
5/8/2006
0.31
2800
7061600
4/12/1994
0.85
28800
7061600
11/2/1999
0.13
172
7061600
1/10/2000
0.39
316
7061600
7/24/2000
0.21
121
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
119
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7061600
9/14/2000
0.12
99
7061600
1/16/2001
0.21
599
7061600
3/12/2001
0.58
271
7061600
5/8/2001
0.38
164
7061600
7/16/2001
0.18
95
7061600
9/4/2001
0.13
93
7061600
5/14/2002
0.39
6630
7061600
9/5/2002
0.12
163
7061600
3/10/2003
0.29
329
7061600
5/21/2003
0.2
1320
7061600
7/7/2003
0.19
203
7061600
9/2/2003
0.26
468
7061600
11/18/2003
1.2
6280
7061600
5/5/2004
0.22
1000
7061600
11/23/2004
0.27
374
7061600
1/25/2005
0.34
444
7061600
3/15/2005
0.19
136
7061600
5/16/2005
0.13
322
7061600
9/6/2005
0.12
133
7061600
11/2/2005
0.21
501
7061600
1/4/2006
0.38
203
7061600
1/29/2006
0.34
1140
7061600
2/2/2006
0.24
802
7061600
2/13/2006
0.25
305
7061600
3/7/2006
0.24
225
7061600
4/18/2006
0.17
268
7061600
5/11/2006
0.42
6830
7061600
6/20/2006
0.17
191
7061600
7/12/2006
0.18
204
7061600
8/3/2006
0.17
134
7061600
10/23/2006
0.25
287
7061600
11/13/2006
0.34
348
7061600
12/19/2006
0.38
422
7061600
1/4/2007
0.23
614
7061600
3/29/2007
0.29
866
7061600
4/3/2007
0.21
990
7061600
9/10/2007
0.5
1020
7061600
5/7/2008
0.17
735
7061600
10/7/2008
0.14
110
7061600
3/3/2009
0.28
430
7061600
5/26/2009
0.15
497
7061600
7/6/2009
0.18
312
7061600
9/8/2009
0.18
280
7061600
10/27/2009
0.39
936
7064400
7/9/1974
1
101
7064400
9/23/1975
0.82
42
7064400
9/24/1976
0.84
51
7064400
5/6/1977
1
60
7064400
9/23/1977
0.82
42
7064400
5/12/1978
0.89
112
7064400
9/14/1978
1
51
7064400
5/15/1979
0.67
140
7064400
9/4/1979
1
70
7064400
5/8/1980
00
00
60
7064400
8/26/1980
1.1
43
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
120
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
TN
Flow
USGS Gage
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
7064400
6/9/1981
1.6
64
7064400
9/21/1981
1.3
46
7064400
6/29/1982
1.5
106
7064400
5/24/1983
1.6
132
7064400
9/13/1983
1.5
70
7064400
5/15/1984
1.2
123
7064400
5/14/1985
0.9
151
7064400
9/10/1985
1.2
95
7064400
10/14/1986
1.6
83
7064400
5/11/1987
1.2
8.2
7064400
10/13/1987
1.7
61
7064400
10/11/1988
1.2
68
7064400
10/6/1999
1.1
75
7064400
5/3/2000
0.89
61
7064400
5/30/2002
0.5
155
7064400
5/7/2003
0.63
111
7064400
5/17/2004
0.62
113
7064400
5/8/2006
0.59
90
7014200
8/7/1995
0.29
45
7014200
6/24/1996
0.52
47
7014200
6/19/1997
0.29
313
7014200
3/4/1999
0.24
88
7014200
4/8/1999
0.21
359
7014200
6/14/1999
0.19
90
7014200
8/19/1999
0.31
68
7014200
3/14/2000
0.14
68
7014200
5/17/2000
0.16
27
7014200
7/6/2000
0.19
25
7014200
9/7/2000
0.13
12
7014200
11/15/2000
0.75
39
7014200
3/22/2001
0.32
60
7014200
5/10/2001
0.16
43
7014200
7/11/2001
0.22
18
7014200
11/1/2001
0.13
29
7014200
1/23/2002
0.19
47
7014200
3/28/2002
0.17
328
7014200
5/9/2002
0.62
3250
7014200
7/30/2002
0.15
31
7014200
9/3/2002
0.14
32
7014200
11/12/2002
0.14
57
7014200
1/13/2003
0.27
97
7014200
3/3/2003
0.17
150
7014200
5/6/2003
0.16
441
7014200
9/11/2003
0.14
61
7014200
1/8/2004
0.21
210
7014200
3/17/2004
0.2
114
7014200
5/5/2004
0.16
289
7014200
7/27/2004
0.17
37
7014200
9/2/2004
0.18
46
7014200
11/9/2004
0.17
68
7014200
1/4/2005
0.15
61
7014200
3/1/2005
0.15
117
7014200
7/6/2005
0.16
22
7014200
9/7/2005
0.15
16
7014200
11/22/2005
0.24
82
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(mg/L)
(cfs)
121
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Sample
Date
TN
(mg/L)
3/21/2006
0.29
5/9/2006
0.16
11/8/2006
0.14
2/14/2007
0.34
4/2/2007
0.15
5/22/2007
0.12
6/5/2007
0.18
7/10/2007
0.15
3/24/2008
0.32
7/21/2008
0.17
10/27/2008
0.08
5/26/2009
0.28
7/21/2009
0.12
9/1/2009
0.13
10/27/2009
0.31
Sample
TP
Flow
USGS Ga«e
Date
(m»/L)
(cfs)
()r»
She Niimi'
Dull*
ISS
(inii/l.)
lusl. l-'low
(el's)
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/2/1984
4
14
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/5/1984
3
136
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/4/1984
14
80
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/10/1985
4
160
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/19/1985
8
135
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/18/1985
8
225
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/15/1985
20
220
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/21/1985
14
84
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/11/1985
113
660
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/5/1985
12
50
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/9/1985
1
35
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/8/1985
14
120
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/12/1985
2
40
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/6/1985
1
320
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/7/1986
1
120
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/10/1986
2
100
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/3/1988
6
33
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/1/1988
7
32
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/6/1988
6
114
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/3/1989
10
275
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/7/1989
3
88
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/9/1989
4
195
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/3/1989
7
290
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/9/1989
1
72
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/6/1989
13
88
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/17/1989
0.499
42
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/3/1989
15
88
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/5/1989
10
48
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/10/1989
0.499
50
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/6/1989
0.499
48
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/4/1989
3
48
122
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
ISS
lusl. l-'low
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
(lllii/l.)
id's)
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/8/1990
13
42
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/6/1990
11
100
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/5/1990
194
98
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/4/1990
0.499
166
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/10/1990
16
190
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/4/1990
6
195
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/26/1994
14
74
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/28/1994
8
22
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/10/1995
6
21
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/29/1995
14
120
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/16/1996
7
28
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/18/1996
37
76
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
4/14/1993
25
370
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
3/16/1994
14
440
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
4/13/1994
127
3020
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
5/10/1994
36
1200
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
6/16/1994
33
185
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
7/12/1994
16
70
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
8/16/1994
18
39
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
9/7/1994
25
130
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
10/11/1994
11
174
COEKC
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
11/21/1994
47
1120
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/3/1999
0.499
6.2
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/11/2000
2
20
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/24/2000
33
13
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/26/2000
4.99
106
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 11)
1/30/2001
6
0.9
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 13)
1/30/2001
2
1.3
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 14)
1/30/2001
6
5
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
1/30/2001
4
8.4
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 16)
1/30/2001
8
1.2
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 26)
1/30/2001
6
0.1
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 11)
2/19/2001
8
0.3
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 13)
2/19/2001
2
0.05
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 16)
2/19/2001
2
0.3
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 26)
2/19/2001
4
0.5
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 27)
2/19/2001
1
0.1
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 11)
3/24/2001
8
0.4
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
3/24/2001
20
0.9
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 26)
3/24/2001
25
0.1
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
1/30/2001
76
13.3
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 20)
1/30/2001
260
2.5
Murphy
Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 23)
1/30/2001
4
15.3
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
2/19/2001
8
9.6
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 20)
2/19/2001
4
0.8
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
2/19/2001
6
4.4
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 32)
2/19/2001
4
0.4
123
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Org
Site Name
Date
TSS
(mg/L)
Inst. Flow
(Cfs)
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
3/24/2001
28
2.6
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
3/24/2001
28
1.8
Murphy
Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 23)
3/24/2001
10
1.2
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 32)
3/24/2001
1
0.2
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 14)
4/16/2001
4
0.46
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
4/16/2001
3
0.95
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 26)
4/16/2001
6
0.04
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 11)
5/22/2001
8
0.04
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 13)
5/22/2001
42
0.11
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 14)
5/22/2001
14
0.11
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
5/22/2001
0.499
0.43
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 16)
5/22/2001
6.45
0.08
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 26)
5/22/2001
25.6
0.03
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 11)
6/5/2001
0.499
0.11
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 13)
6/5/2001
0.499
0.27
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 14)
6/5/2001
0.499
0.12
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
6/5/2001
0.499
0.37
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 16)
6/5/2001
0.499
0.37
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 26)
6/5/2001
0.499
0.02
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 27)
6/5/2001
0.499
0.42
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
4/16/2001
7
3.88
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 20)
4/16/2001
12
0.19
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
4/16/2001
23
1.32
Murphy
Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 23)
4/16/2001
23
2.74
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 32)
4/16/2001
5
0.88
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
5/22/2001
12
3.23
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 20)
5/22/2001
16
0.03
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
5/22/2001
19
0.56
Murphy
Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 23)
5/22/2001
22
1.45
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 32)
5/22/2001
10
0.2
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
6/5/2001
0.499
2.1
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 20)
6/5/2001
58
0.03
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
6/5/2001
0.499
0.76
Murphy
Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 23)
6/5/2001
0.0499
2.32
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 32)
6/5/2001
0.499
0.6
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 26)
11/6/2001
13
0.01
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 11)
12/17/2001
0.499
0.01
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 14)
12/17/2001
0.499
0.11
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 26)
12/17/2001
0.499
0.01
Murphy
Trib. to McCarty Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 28)
11/6/2001
18
0.04
Murphy
Trib. to McCarty Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 28)
12/17/2001
9
0.58
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
5/24/1994
96
1510
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
9/20/1994
34
44
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
5/23/1995
107
380
USGS
Brush Creek ab Green Spring
9/21/1994
3
0.39
USGS
Brush Creek ab Green Spring
5/23/1995
21
62
USGS
Brush Creek ab Green Spring
5/25/1994
15
13
124
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
Uiiii/I.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/29/2000
4.99
9.2
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/17/2001
4.99
38
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/23/2001
23
29
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
10/14/1986
5
353
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
11/5/1986
0.499
207
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
12/2/1986
6
148
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
1/5/1987
1
114
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
2/2/1987
5
253
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
3/2/1987
24
1010
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
4/7/1987
6
277
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
5/19/1987
28
103
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
6/9/1987
32
51
Murphy
Trib. to McCarty Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 28)
2/20/2003
24
2.6
Murphy
Trib. to McCarty Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 28)
3/25/2003
13
0.56
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
2/20/2003
12
2.8
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
3/25/2003
4
1.8
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
2/20/2003
10
1.6
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
3/25/2003
1.99
2.2
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 16)
3/25/2003
4
2.1
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 14)
3/25/2003
1.99
0.4
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 13)
3/25/2003
7
1.7
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 20)
3/25/2003
8
0.15
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
2/20/2003
1.99
0.35
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
3/25/2003
1.99
0.36
Murphy
Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 23)
3/25/2003
5
0.53
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 32)
3/25/2003
1.99
0.38
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 26)
3/25/2003
8
0.06
MDNR
Stockton Br. 0.1 mi ab. WWTP
6/24/2003
9
0.25
MDNR
Stockton WWTP effluent
6/24/2003
70
0.2
MDNR
Stockton Br. 40 yds. bl. WWTP
6/24/2003
19
0.45
MDNR
Stockton Br. 1.7 mi bl. WWTP
6/24/2003
30
0.33
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/4/2001
4.99
8.1
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/26/2001
20
22
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/10/2001
4.99
18
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/8/2002
4.99
36
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/12/2002
4.99
78
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/13/2002
4.99
78
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/15/2002
16
111
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/20/2002
18
526
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/19/2002
4.9
51
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/22/2002
18
24
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/27/2002
4.99
26
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/11/2002
10
8
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
10/8/1985
15
30
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
11/12/1985
1
54
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
12/6/1985
1
679
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
1/7/1986
2
230
125
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
(lllii/l.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
2/10/1986
1
202
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
3/20/1986
4
234
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
4/8/1986
480
749
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
5/13/1986
40
97
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
6/3/1986
106
72
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
7/9/1986
20
32
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
8/4/1986
24
32
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
9/16/1986
57
16
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
10/2/1984
5
22
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
11/5/1984
11
400
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
12/4/1984
8
258
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
1/10/1985
7
566
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
2/19/1985
15
386
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
3/18/1985
16
361
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
4/15/1985
18
560
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
5/21/1985
24
171
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
6/11/1985
74
533
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
7/10/1985
24
69
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
8/5/1985
11
37
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
9/9/1985
10
60
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
11/10/1983
16
265
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
12/6/1983
5
389
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
1/3/1984
0.499
131
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
2/6/1984
0.99
101
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
3/5/1984
120
1560
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
4/2/1984
42
674
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
5/8/1984
19
752
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
6/5/1984
33
84
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
7/10/1984
0.99
136
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
8/6/1984
12
29
USGS
Sac R. nr. Dadeville
9/11/1984
12
29
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/18/1983
22
40
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/10/1983
1
50
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/6/1983
2
194
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/3/1984
5
40
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/6/1984
0.99
40
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/5/1984
45
895
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/2/1984
17
250
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/8/1984
5
100
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/5/1984
21
28
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/10/1984
23
40
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/6/1984
12
30
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/11/1984
14
30
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/15/2002
4.99
8.4
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/4/2002
4.99
15
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/9/2002
4.99
10
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/22/2003
4.99
47
126
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
(lllii/l.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/11/2003
4.99
6.2
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/18/2003
4.99
56
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/15/2003
10
26
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/14/2003
30
128
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/17/2003
10
196
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/8/2003
23
20
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/21/2003
13
8.3
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/8/2003
4.99
19
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 14)
4/28/2003
6
0.98
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
4/28/2003
0.499
1.88
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 16)
4/28/2003
22
0.53
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 13)
5/29/2003
12
0.1
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 14)
5/29/2003
11
0.05
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
5/29/2003
0.499
1.89
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 16)
5/29/2003
0.499
0.51
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 13)
6/19/2003
24
0.1
Murphy
Trib to Wilkey Cr. US of Murphy OOP (Site 15)
6/19/2003
7
1.2
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
4/28/2003
5
1
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 20)
4/28/2003
4
0.16
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
4/28/2003
0.499
0.25
Murphy
Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 23)
4/28/2003
4
1.5
Murphy
Trib. to McCarty Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 28)
4/28/2003
10
0.29
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 32)
4/28/2003
11
0.14
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
5/29/2003
0.499
0.67
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 20)
5/22/2003
8
0.29
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
5/22/2003
7
0.34
Murphy
Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 23)
5/22/2003
0.499
1.4
Murphy
Trib. to McCarty Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 28)
5/22/2003
14
0.1
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 32)
5/22/2003
5
0.34
Murphy
Wilkey Cr. @ Murphy OOP (Site 17)
6/19/2003
9
0.33
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 22)
6/19/2003
48
1.6
Murphy
Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 23)
6/19/2003
81
0.43
Murphy
Trib to Cynthia Cr. DS of Murphy OOP (Site 32)
6/19/2003
47
0.17
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/15/2003
4.99
9.1
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/5/2003
4.99
21
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/9/2003
4.99
21
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/20/2004
4.99
203
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/9/2004
4.99
73
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/11/2004
10
194
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/19/2004
17
37
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/12/2004
18
71
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/7/2004
16
22
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/19/2004
15
9.1
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/24/2004
14
9.4
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/13/2004
10
7.8
MDNR
Brush Cr. 6.2 mi.bl. Humansville WWTP
7/6/2005
8
3.14
MDNR
Brush Cr. 2.9 mi.bl. Humansville WWTP
7/6/2005
10
1.76
127
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
(lllii/l.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
MDNR
Brush Cr. 1.8 mi.bl. Humansville WWTP
7/6/2005
9
2.19
MDNR
Brush Cr. 0.2 mi.bl. Humansville WWTP
7/6/2005
7
1.59
MDNR
Brush Cr. 0.3 mi.ab. Humansville WWTP
7/6/2005
2.499
0.82
MDNR
Panther Cr. @Hwy 13
7/5/2005
12
0.56
MDNR
Sadler Br. At Hwy N
7/5/2005
5
0.44
MDNR
Brush Cr. 1.8 mi.bl. Humansville WWTP
7/19/2005
6
0.96
MDNR
Brush Cr. 2.9 mi.bl. Humansville WWTP
7/19/2005
5
0.57
MDNR
Brush Cr. 6.2 mi.bl. Humansville WWTP
7/19/2005
8
0.75
MDNR
Panther Cr. @Hwy 13
7/19/2005
12
0.004
MDNR
Brush Cr. 0.3 mi.ab. Humansville WWTP
7/19/2005
9
0.44
MDNR
Sadler Br. At Hwy N
7/19/2005
10
0.3
MDNR
Brush Cr. 0.2 mi.bl. Humansville WWTP
7/19/2005
8
0.56
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/25/2004
4.99
12
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/16/2004
4.99
81
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/14/2004
4.99
130
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/20/2005
4.99
233
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/8/2005
4.99
42
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/29/2005
4.99
80
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/11/2005
10
186
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/24/2005
45
7.3
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/14/2005
23
14
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/27/2005
21
52
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/9/2005
12
8.8
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/19/2005
18
19
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/24/2005
4.99
6.1
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/29/2005
4.99
14
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/12/2005
4.99
13
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/17/2006
15
16
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/14/2006
4.99
8.9
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/20/2006
4.99
5.6
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/18/2006
4.99
10
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/23/2006
29
74
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/19/2006
4.99
7
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/27/2006
11
10
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/29/2006
20
21
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/18/2006
50
65
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/24/2006
4.99
6.7
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/15/2006
4.99
14
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/11/2006
4.99
5.6
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/22/2007
10
317
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/26/2007
4.99
30
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/5/2007
4.99
17
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/17/2007
4.99
254
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/8/2007
4.99
88
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/25/2007
4.99
28
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/23/2007
12
6.1
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/7/2007
4.99
18
128
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
(lllii/l.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/17/2007
4.99
54
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
10/16/2007
4.99
16
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
11/6/2007
4.99
10
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
12/17/2007
4.99
9
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
1/22/2008
4.99
14
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
2/13/2008
4.99
218
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
3/17/2008
4.99
59
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
4/22/2008
4.99
80
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
5/27/2008
4.99
41
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
6/3/2008
15
31
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
7/22/2008
4.99
5.6
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
8/4/2008
4.99
12
USGS
L. Sac R. @Walnut Grove
9/16/2008
4.99
255
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/3/1999
7
9.7
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/22/2000
4.99
16
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/11/1999
0.499
170
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/12/1999
6
58
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/4/1997
5
19
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/8/1998
12
546
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/13/1998
23
105
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/4/1996
2
222
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/22/1997
8
416
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
6/24/1997
19
27
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
8/12/1997
28
43
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/7/1995
9
8.3
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/16/1996
0.499
40
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
6/19/1996
9
35
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
8/5/1996
0.499
11
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/23/1994
44
475
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/11/1995
4
66
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
6/29/1995
56
1660
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
8/24/1995
26
10
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/25/1994
45
129
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/21/1994
11
9.1
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/24/1993
4
257
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/27/1994
28
461
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/28/1994
20
27
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/17/1992
0.499
183
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/12/1993
20
536
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/10/1993
8
331
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/5/1993
25
337
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/27/1993
19
56
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/28/1993
18
1040
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/27/2000
4.99
20
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/23/2001
16
100
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/26/2001
4.99
38
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/9/2002
4.99
78
129
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
(lllii/l.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/13/2002
4.99
212
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/20/2002
17
630
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/22/2002
12
12
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/9/2002
4.99
9.7
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
10/8/1985
7
7.9
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/12/1985
1
28
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
12/3/1985
1
761
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/7/1986
1
95
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
2/10/1986
4
348
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/5/1984
4
307
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
12/4/1984
9
150
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/11/1985
4
268
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
2/19/1985
34
959
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/18/1985
11
420
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
4/15/1985
8
451
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/21/1985
13
80
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
6/11/1985
43
974
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/9/1985
3
58
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
8/5/1985
9
15
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/9/1985
20
16
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/10/1983
13
275
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
12/6/1983
6
536
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/3/1984
2
114
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
2/6/1984
0.99
104
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/5/1984
72
1540
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
4/2/1984
11
481
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/8/1984
6
238
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
6/5/1984
16
47
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/10/1984
24
74
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
8/6/1984
8
7.5
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/11/1984
21
31
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/4/2002
4.99
11
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/23/2003
4.99
17
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/18/2003
4.99
76
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/14/2003
18
125
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/9/2003
19
11
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/8/2003
4.99
13
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/5/2003
10
27
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/20/2004
10
641
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/8/2004
11
674
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/12/2004
12
135
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/19/2004
4.99
29
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/13/2004
4.99
5.2
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/16/2004
4.99
221
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/20/2005
4.99
377
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/28/2005
4.99
256
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/23/2005
11
44
130
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
Uiiii/I.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/27/2005
15
11
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/19/2005
22
62
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/29/2005
4.99
19
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/17/2006
4.99
31
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/20/2006
4.99
38
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/22/2006
56
270
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/12/2006
13
21
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/18/2006
19
1.6
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/15/2006
4.99
21
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/22/2007
28
1250
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
2/27/2007
4.99
227
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/5/2007
4.99
141
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
4/17/2007
23
510
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/8/2007
4.99
204
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
6/25/2007
10
143
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/23/2007
4.99
43
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/17/2007
4.99
59
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
11/5/2007
4.99
15
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
1/22/2008
4.99
100
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
3/17/2008
4.99
236
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
5/27/2008
4.99
404
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
7/21/2008
4.99
85
USGS
Pomme de Terre R. nr. Polk
9/15/2008
69
988
USGS
Big Buffalo Cr. 2 mi. SW of Boylers Mill
1/21/1997
0.499
5.5
USGS
Big Buffalo Cr. 2 mi. SW of Boylers Mill
6/13/1997
11
124
USGS
Big Buffalo Cr. 2 mi. SW of Boylers Mill
1/30/1996
3
7.8
USGS
Big Buffalo Cr. 2 mi. SW of Boylers Mill
6/14/1996
1
5.9
USGS
Coakley Hollow
4/24/1996
1
1
USGS
Coakley Hollow
6/12/1996
2
0.5
USGS
Coakley Hollow
8/21/1996
0.499
0.18
USGS
Big Buffalo Cr. 2 mi. SW of Boylers Mill
1/25/1995
2
13
USGS
Big Buffalo Cr. 2 mi. SW of Boylers Mill
6/23/1995
4
20
USGS
Coakley Hollow
11/15/1994
8
2
USGS
Coakley Hollow
4/24/1995
6
11
USGS
Coakley Hollow
6/26/1995
2
1
USGS
Coakley Hollow
8/30/1995
6
0.2
USGS
Big Buffalo Cr. 2 mi. SW of Boylers Mill
1/14/1994
4
9.3
USGS
Big Buffalo Cr. 2 mi. SW of Boylers Mill
6/9/1994
8
14
USGS
Coakley Hollow
11/9/1993
0.499
0.55
USGS
Coakley Hollow
6/3/1994
6
0.32
USGS
Coakley Hollow
8/25/1994
0.499
0.2
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/15/1999
1
148
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/16/2000
4.99
150
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/19/1999
5
860
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/9/1999
1
307
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/20/1998
10
390
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/8/1998
4
250
131
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
Uiiii/I.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
11/15/1996
0.1
45
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
2/27/1997
0.5
110
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/22/1997
6
660
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/26/1997
8
270
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
11/21/1995
31
1.6
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
1/19/1996
20
51
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
4/3/1996
20
21
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
5/15/1996
10
88
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
6/27/1996
13
5.3
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
7/24/1996
19
2.2
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @HwyJJ
8/19/1996
44
0.67
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/31/1996
0.499
170
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
12/5/1995
0.499
79
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
4/25/1996
9
250
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
6/12/1996
2
124
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
8/21/1996
0.499
124
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @HwyJJ
10/4/1994
10
2.3
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
10/31/1994
3
4.3
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @HwyJJ
12/6/1994
10
13
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
1/9/1995
3
4
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
2/6/1995
2
30
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
3/8/1995
6
48
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
4/3/1995
23
7.8
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
5/17/1995
336
137
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
6/20/1995
20
17
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
7/12/1995
35
9.3
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
8/16/1995
24
3.7
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
10/4/1994
25
38
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
11/1/1994
8
88
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
12/6/1994
55
186
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
1/10/1995
10
101
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
2/6/1995
5
425
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
3/9/1995
18
569
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
4/3/1995
27
123
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
5/17/1995
33
438
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
6/20/1995
31
319
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
7/12/1995
32
164
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
8/16/1995
42
94
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/26/1995
4
747
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/30/1995
22
840
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
11/15/1994
32
177
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
4/24/1995
8
170
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
6/26/1995
6
250
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
8/29/1995
2
104
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @HwyJJ
10/5/1993
17
22
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
11/15/1993
28
372
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
12/6/1993
12
216
132
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
Uiiii/I.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
2/7/1994
1
7.6
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
2/22/1994
655
983
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
3/7/1994
16
25
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
3/22/1994
14
6
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
4/5/1994
2
20
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
4/14/1994
6
120
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
4/18/1994
5
48
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
4/28/1994
279
2020
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
5/11/1994
4
48
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
5/16/1994
4
73
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
5/26/1994
1
17
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
6/2/1994
16
12
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
6/9/1994
5
25
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
6/14/1994
11
10
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
6/22/1994
3
5.3
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
6/29/1994
18
3.2
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
7/12/1994
3
1.6
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
7/25/1994
3
7.7
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
8/16/1994
2
1.8
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
9/1/1994
4
21
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
10/5/1993
10
332
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
11/15/1993
58
1720
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
12/6/1993
13
627
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
1/4/1994
7
158
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
2/10/1994
4
160
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
3/7/1994
21
609
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
4/5/1994
6
393
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
5/17/1994
26
840
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
6/2/1994
13
225
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
6/14/1994
32
239
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
7/12/1994
19
44
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
8/11/1994
11
33
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
9/7/1994
31
133
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
11/5/1993
4
150
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
4/6/1994
6
162
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
6/7/1994
10
300
USGS
Hahatonka Spring
8/25/1994
30
97
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
4/21/1993
24
28
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
5/20/1993
9
44
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
6/14/1993
17
38
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
7/7/1993
37
11
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @HwyJJ
8/25/1993
26
0.62
USGS
Dousinbury Cr. @Hwy JJ
9/14/1993
90
720
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
4/21/1993
20
441
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
5/20/1993
45
638
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
6/14/1993
86
565
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
7/8/1993
60
201
133
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
ISS
lusl. l-'low
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilo
Uiiii/I.)
id's)
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
8/25/1993
39
20
USGS
Niangua R. nr. Windyville
9/14/1993
343
6480
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/17/1992
0.499
364
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/11/1993
18
560
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/5/1993
27
1000
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/14/1993
396
7000
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/20/2000
4.99
119
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/24/2001
8
497
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
10/5/1987
3
100
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/3/1987
0.499
145
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
12/8/1987
9
1020
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
2/2/1988
4
1360
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/1/1988
14
600
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
4/5/1988
30
1650
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/10/1988
0.499
260
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/10/1988
1
340
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/12/1988
9
180
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
8/2/1988
4
160
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/6/1988
32
135
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
10/14/1986
10
840
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/5/1986
3
490
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
12/2/1986
0.499
80
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/5/1987
1
250
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
2/2/1987
4
460
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/2/1987
31
1460
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
4/7/1987
3
432
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/19/1987
1
190
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/9/1987
4
150
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/7/1987
0.499
80
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
8/4/1987
3
147
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/1/1987
1
125
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/1/2001
4.99
147
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/22/2002
4.99
171
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/18/2002
4.99
376
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/21/2002
18
1160
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/29/2002
4.99
165
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/9/2002
4.99
140
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
10/8/1985
6
270
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/12/1985
1
145
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
12/3/1985
10
1900
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/7/1986
1
265
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
2/10/1986
6
680
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/18/1986
4
260
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
4/8/1986
14
6300
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/13/1986
29
310
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/5/1986
153
1250
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/7/1986
6
225
134
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
ISS
lusl. l-'low
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
(lllii/l.)
id's)
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
8/4/1986
3
135
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/16/1986
3
150
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
10/2/1984
1
125
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/5/1984
5
753
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
12/4/1984
6
360
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/11/1985
2
605
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
2/19/1985
14
1050
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/18/1985
13
1050
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
4/15/1985
7
1130
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/21/1985
3
340
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/11/1985
107
3280
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/9/1985
2
300
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
8/5/1985
0.499
175
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/9/1985
1
174
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
10/18/1983
0.499
125
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/10/1983
5
540
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
12/6/1983
7
1100
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/3/1984
1
185
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
2/6/1984
1
200
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/5/1984
184
6290
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
4/2/1984
6
860
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/8/1984
1
700
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/5/1984
6
95
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/10/1984
3
271
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
8/6/1984
2
135
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/11/1984
7
200
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
10/6/1982
2
122
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
12/16/1982
0.499
550
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
2/8/1983
0.499
345
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/15/1983
1
320
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
4/5/1983
38
1840
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/3/1983
24
2200
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/6/1983
12
590
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/5/1983
5
40
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
8/9/1983
14
174
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/22/1983
5
112
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/13/2002
4.99
151
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/14/2003
4.99
160
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/11/2003
4.99
256
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/28/2003
4.99
160
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/17/2003
12
153
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/8/2003
4.99
110
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/25/2003
4.99
280
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/22/2004
4.99
510
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/11/2004
56
534
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/24/2004
4.99
627
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/7/2004
4.99
179
135
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
ISS
lusl. l-'low
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
Uiiii/I.)
id's)
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/21/2004
4.99
113
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/17/2004
4.99
283
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/18/2005
4.99
760
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/21/2005
4.99
325
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/23/2005
4.99
153
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/25/2005
4.99
137
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/19/2005
12
261
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/29/2005
4.99
146
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/17/2006
4.99
146
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/20/2006
4.99
160
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/22/2006
4.99
184
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/24/2006
4.99
139
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/18/2006
4.99
113
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/2/2006
4.99
150
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/24/2007
4.99
1000
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
2/27/2007
4.99
300
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/5/2007
4.99
261
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
4/17/2007
15
1140
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/9/2007
4.99
283
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
6/25/2007
4.99
267
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/23/2007
4.99
130
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/17/2007
4.99
160
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
11/5/2007
4.99
39
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
1/22/2008
4.99
165
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
3/17/2008
12
372
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
5/27/2008
4.99
433
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
7/21/2008
4.99
296
USGS
Niangua R.@Hwy 64
9/15/2008
112
12900
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/8/1999
10
564
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/3/2000
6
1430
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/6/1999
10
7130
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/27/1999
23
54900
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/7/1997
6
1090
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/19/1998
14
11000
UE
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/17/2001
16.9
13100
UE
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
8/14/2001
8.8
708
UE
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
8/30/2001
19.8
13200
UE
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
6/22/2001
10.4
24200
UE
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/31/2001
22
15900
UE
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/13/2001
8
1420
USGS
L. Tavern Cr. nr mouth
5/19/1994
4
38
USGS
L. Tavern Cr. nr mouth
8/31/1994
5
14
USGS
L. Tavern Cr. nr mouth
5/30/1995
18
82
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/10/1993
14
32400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/15/1994
20
13200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/24/1993
63
4600
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/18/1993
36
31200
136
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
(lllii/l.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/21/1993
11
30400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/30/1993
64
44800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/14/1990
4
663
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/9/1991
5
4000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/7/1991
7
1450
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/6/1991
48
4500
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/15/1991
7
625
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/6/1991
11
960
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/19/1990
4
800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/20/1990
29
34700
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/7/1990
27
34800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/9/1990
71
31600
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/1/1988
11
666
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/10/1989
20
8550
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/17/1989
7
804
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/18/1989
221
788
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/15/1989
35
14400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/21/2000
4.99
556
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/2/2001
13
676
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
10/18/1974
62
7740
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/21/1974
44
17800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
12/19/1974
110
14500
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/20/1975
30
8780
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
2/13/1975
38
31000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/13/1975
62
35000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
4/17/1975
40
9080
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/13/1975
54
6610
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
6/4/1975
69
10100
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/23/1975
20
4080
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
8/29/1975
63
24700
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/24/1975
46
5020
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/6/1987
60
771
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/14/1988
23
16800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/3/1988
35
17900
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/9/1988
24
9250
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/15/1988
24
2390
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/7/1988
7
890
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/19/1986
4
51400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/15/1987
15
6360
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/12/1987
15
32700
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/15/1987
7
7950
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/9/1987
14
8080
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/10/1987
6
2490
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/7/2001
18
6190
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/9/2002
10
7280
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/7/2002
4.99
4420
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/8/2002
152
43700
137
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
Uiiii/I.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/15/2002
105
992
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/3/2002
11
740
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/15/1985
64
34200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/16/1986
29
4890
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/4/1986
7
9150
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/8/1986
20
6200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/18/1986
25
21800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/2/1986
2
1170
UE
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/31/2001
18.6
3700
UE
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/31/2001
18.6
3700
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/16/1984
26
5800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/18/1985
16
31700
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/15/1985
29
53000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/10/1985
6
15500
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/19/1985
29
1980
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/19/1985
68
2790
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
10/28/1975
28
1110
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/13/1975
122
554
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
12/18/1975
208
14900
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/14/1976
35
1970
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
2/4/1976
19
5750
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/19/1976
9
3200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
4/8/1976
11
3490
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/17/1976
374
3680
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
6/17/1976
8
1380
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/19/1976
16
875
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
8/19/1976
47
552
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/28/1976
54
1470
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/18/1976
21
1670
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
12/13/1976
61
803
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/12/1977
25
5810
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
2/4/1977
65
521
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/4/1977
1
742
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
4/15/1977
64
957
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/13/1977
25
706
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
6/16/1977
55
1180
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/7/1977
107
39100
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
8/11/1977
192
6060
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/15/1977
128
4660
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
10/6/1977
93
2290
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/4/1977
61
12300
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
12/15/1977
64
4050
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/23/1978
91
550
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
2/23/1978
60
4910
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/16/1978
58
20300
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
4/12/1978
160
31800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/25/1978
92
34100
138
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
(lllii/l.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
6/22/1978
133
1310
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/13/1978
96
1730
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
8/10/1978
36
1380
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
10/19/1978
209
1200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
12/14/1978
76
8400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
2/7/1979
52
11000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/22/1979
151
7530
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
6/14/1979
189
18100
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/12/1979
206
14200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
10/12/1979
8
560
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/8/1979
357
1800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
12/12/1979
358
660
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
2/22/1980
77
7300
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/27/1980
67
6800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
4/29/1980
77
920
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
6/12/1980
71
3900
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/10/1980
68
2200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
10/23/1980
58
780
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/25/1980
2
590
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
12/16/1980
24
2300
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/20/1981
22
570
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
2/24/1981
44
2400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/26/1981
114
866
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
4/22/1981
50
1770
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/28/1981
495
15400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
6/24/1981
1070
37500
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/28/1981
18
13500
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
8/18/1981
11
4340
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/12/1981
4
5600
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/12/1982
28
15000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/25/1982
46
25500
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/18/1982
71
13400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/15/1982
45
3700
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/29/1983
39
20400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/12/1984
41
6730
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/16/1984
42
22900
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/18/1984
48
35100
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/27/1984
28
2020
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/16/1982
19
4000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/24/1983
16
800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/31/1983
63
16000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/25/1983
25
4750
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/7/1983
313
660
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/12/2002
19
562
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/13/2003
4.99
568
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/10/2003
4.99
676
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/27/2003
4.99
820
139
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
()¦•»
Silo NiiiiK'
Diilc
ISS
(lllii/l.)
lusl. l-'low
id's)
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/14/2003
14
3450
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/3/2003
25
6110
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/24/2003
15
955
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/13/2004
8
12400
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/8/2004
38
29000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/25/2004
47
21900
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/6/2004
4.99
2200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/20/2004
17
992
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/29/2004
10
37200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/26/2005
11
36800
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/9/2005
4.99
20500
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/2/2005
4.99
1160
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/13/2005
14
8470
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/1/2005
24
20300
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/3/2005
4.99
1070
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/3/2006
4.99
648
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/6/2006
4.99
956
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/4/2006
81
27300
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/6/2006
11
529
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/5/2006
30
769
USGS
Maries R. 3 mi. W of Freeburg
8/10/2006
4
0.5
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/2/2006
4.99
449
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/23/2007
20
4660
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
2/6/2007
21
6030
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/13/2007
26
1200
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
4/24/2007
16
34500
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/8/2007
15
36600
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
6/5/2007
23
31000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/11/2007
12
49900
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/10/2007
15
6980
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
11/20/2007
14
1440
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
1/10/2008
38
3740
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
3/27/2008
15
29100
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
5/12/2008
14
41000
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
7/30/2008
20
32900
USGS
Osage R. bl. St. Thomas
9/3/2008
81
20700
140
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
Appendix F - Supplemental Implementation Plan
This implementation plan is not a requirement of the Federal CWA. However, the
contractor included it as part of the TMDL preparation. EPA recognizes that technical guidance
and support are critical to determining the feasibility of and achieving the goals outlined in this
TMDL. Therefore, this informational plan is included to be used by local professionals,
watershed managers and citizens for decision-making support and planning purposes. It should
not be considered to be a part of the established Town Branch/Piper Creek TMDL.
The Town Branch/Piper Creek TMDL will be implemented through permit actions and best
management practices (BMPs). This approach is based upon recommendations made in the
MDNR 2005 - 2006 sediment study report, which are:
• Measures should be taken to upgrade the facilities and/or operation of the Bolivar WWTP
to prevent VSS impairment of Town Branch and Piper Creek.
• The city of Bolivar should also provide an adequate buffer between Town Branch and the
city's community compost mound. Note: the compost pile was eliminated in spring
2006.
• Measures should also be taken to identify and control nonpoint sources of nutrient input
as well as practicing best land management practices.
Point Source
The city of Bolivar WWTF's state operating permit (M00022373) was renewed on April
4, 2008. Effluent limits for TSS, of 41/27 mg/L (weekly/monthly averages) were carried over
from the previous permit. New effluent limits for ammonia and bacteria will go into effect in
2011 and 2012, respectively. A schedule of compliance relating to these parameters is included
in the operating permit. As mentioned in the monitoring section of the TMDL (Section 8),
quarterly instream monitoring for DO, TSS and nutrients upstream and downstream of outfall
#001 is required. This will provide additional data with which to assess the impact of the
WWTF on Town Branch. Furthermore, the city is under enforcement by EPA to prevent future
by-passes and to take action to fix recurring infiltration and inflow problems throughout the
sewer's collection system.
Under the Order for Compliance and Consent (OCC), the city of Bolivar has created an
electronic Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO), Bypass and Basement Tracking System, a Data
Management System to collect, organize and analyze all existing and future data regarding the
city's sanitary sewer system, a detailed Plan of Action containing a schedule for eliminating SSO
events and bypasses and a Continuing Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP identifies all known
short and long term capital investment projects of operation and maintenance activities the city
anticipates will be necessary to ensure the current and long term compliance with the city's state
operating permit. In the last two and a half years (from Feb 2010), Bolivar has cleaned 26 miles
of sewer main (collection lines carrying sewage to the WWTP), video inspected seven miles of
141
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
sewer main and made 919 inspections of manholes. In the process, the city has found and
repaired many holes, leaks and breaks in the sewer mains and repaired or rebuilt many manholes.
The city's goal is to have cleaned all of the sewer mains in five years (there are approximately 70
miles left) and then repeat the process all over again. Collectively, these measures should be
adequate to reduce the facility's contribution of organic sediment and nutrients to healthy levels,
enabling the stream to meet WQSs.
The state is currently developing nutrient criteria for rivers and streams. When this has
been accomplished, the TMDL will be revised to reflect the new criteria for TP and TN. In
expectation of these criteria, the nutrient WLAs developed in this TMDL will not be
immediately added to the Bolivar WWTF permit. Rather, nutrient monitoring will first be added
to the facility operating permit to determine the current nutrient loading from the facility.
Nonpoint Source
In April 2005, MDNR started holding public meetings in Boliver to make the local
citizens aware of water quality and TMDL issues in Town Branch/Piper Creek. As a result of
these meetings, the Bolivar Community Watershed Improvement Group (BCWIG) was
organized in November 2005. This group has taken on the responsibility for identifying the
sources of nutrients entering Town Branch/Piper Creek and fixing these problems.
Some of the issues the group is addressing are:
• Physical clean-up of the streams
• Lawn care fertilization
• Animal waste
• Sewage infiltration
• Lack of retention and detention of storm water
The group is very actively engaged and regularly meets each month. Some of their
activities include:
• Conducting a watershed tour to survey the watershed and figure out the sources/problem
areas;
• Resolving the problem with the compost pile. At the June 19, 2006 meeting, the city
announced that the compost pile had been eliminated:
• Incorporating as a nonprofit organization;
• Four members have been trained as Volunteer Water Quality Monitors (one at high level
1, two at level 2 and one at CSI level equivalent to DNR professional monitoring)
through the Missouri Stream Team Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program. With
this expertise, the group can gather more data and be able to make better decisions on
where to focus time and resources. The group created their own monitoring plan and
started collecting data on Town Branch/Piper Creek spring of 2007
142
Piper Creek TMDL
-------
• Collecting samples to be analyzed for fecal coliform and ribotyping. The group booked
Dr. Andy Carson, a pioneer in ribotyping from the University of Missouri - Columbia, to
talk to the group about the DNA testing results and what they mean;
• Manning booths at the local Home and Garden Show in April 2008, 2009 and 2010,
handing out over 400 saplings and BCWIG watershed information;
• Organizing a litter pick-up in Town Branch, with city of Bolivar cooperation, in April
2008;
• Hosting a Volunteer WQ Monitoring Introductory Level workshop May 3, 2008;
• Working with the local Boy Scouts to stencil storm drains with "Do not dump. Drains to
stream" in July of 2008;
• Organizing and sponsoring an event in conjunction with World Water Monitoring Day
with water quality testing demonstrations on Town Branch and Piper Creek and
furnishing a lunch for attendees in October, 2008;
• Organizing and presenting a stakeholder's progress update and planning session with MU
Water Quality Program facilitators in October, 2009;
• Establishing an education/demonstration planting project along a section of Town
Branch;
• July 2010; In cooperation with the NRCS, City of Bolivar, and Springfield/Green
County watershed groups, BCWIG sponsored a field workshop in Springfield touring
four storm water and urban conservation projects that could be applied to the Town
Branch watershed.
As of August 2010, the group is writing their watershed management plan under a 319
grant. They have hired a Certified Public Accountant and are steadily moving ahead with this
monumental project. There will be a monitoring component contained in the Watershed
Management Plan.
143
Piper Creek TMDL
------- |