draft final final formatted: font: bold report ... · 10-15 femto f 1015 peta p 10-18 atto a 1018...

Draft Final FINAL

REPORT

AprilJuneFebruary

2008 2008

ID: 90805050263011

Total Maximum Daily Load Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus

For

Lake HenryCassidy Bayou

Yazoo River Basin Coahoma, Quitman, and Tallahatchie Leflore Countiesy, Mississippi

Prepared By Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Office of Pollution Control TMDL/WLA Branch MDEQ PO Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39289-0385 (601) 961-5171 www.deq.state.ms.us

Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Bold

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/

Nutrient TMDL for Lake HenryCassidy Bayou

Yazoo River Basin 2

FOREWORD

This report has been prepared in accordance with the schedule contained within the federal

consent decree dated December 22, 1998. The report contains one or more Total Maximum

Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water body segments found on Mississippi’s 1996 Section 303(d) List

of Impaired Water bodies. Because of the accelerated schedule required by the consent decree,

many of these TMDLs have been prepared out of sequence with the State’s rotating basin

approach. The implementation of the TMDLs contained herein will be prioritized within

Mississippi’s rotating basin approach.

The amount and quality of the data on which this report is based are limited. As additional

information becomes available, the TMDLs may be updated. Such additional information may

include water quality and quantity data, changes in pollutant loadings, or changes in landuse

within the watershed. In some cases, additional water quality data may indicate that no

impairment exists.

Conversion Factors

To convert from To Multiply by To convert from To Multiply by

mile2 acre 640 acre ft2 43560

km2 acre 247.1 days seconds 86400

m3 ft3 35.3 meters feet 3.28

ft3 gallons 7.48 ft3 gallons 7.48

ft3 liters 28.3 hectares acres 2.47

cfs gal/min 448.8 miles meters 1609.3

cfs MGD 0.646 tonnes tons 1.1

m3 gallons 264.2 μg/l * cfs gm/day 2.45

m3 liters 1000 μg/l * MGD gm/day 3.79

Fraction Prefix Symbol Multiple Prefix Symbol

10-1 deci d 10 deka da

10-2 centi c 102 hecto h

10-3 milli m 103 kilo k

10-6 micro μ 106 mega M

10-9 nano n 109 giga G

10-12 pico p 1012 tera T

10-15 femto f 1015 peta P

10-18 atto a 1018 exa E


Yazoo River Basin 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TMDL INFORMATION PAGE ................................................................................................... 54

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 65

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 86

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 86

1.2 Listing History .................................................................................................................... 96

1.3 Applicable Water Body Segment Use ................................................................................ 97

1.4 Applicable Water Body Segment Standard ...................................................................... 107

1.5 Nutrient Target Development ........................................................................................... 107

WATER BODY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 129

2.1 Water Quality Data ........................................................................................................... 129

2.2 Assessment of Point Sources ............................................................................................ 129

2.3 Assessment of Non-Point Sources .................................................................................... 129

2.4 Estimated Existing Load for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus ............................... 1510

ALLOCATION ......................................................................................................................... 1913

3.1 Wasteload Allocation ...................................................................................................... 1913

3.2 Load Allocation .............................................................................................................. 1913

3.3 Incorporation of a Margin of Safety ............................................................................... 1913

3.4 Calculation of the TMDL................................................................................................ 1913

3.5 Seasonality and Critical Condition ................................................................................. 2013

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 2114

4.1 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................... 2114

4.2 Public Participation ......................................................................................................... 2215

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 2316

TMDL INFORMATION PAGE ..................................................................................................... 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 5

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Stressor Identification ........................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Applicable Water Body Segment Use .................................................................................. 7

1.4 Applicable Water Body Segment Standard .......................................................................... 7

1.5 Nutrient Target Development ............................................................................................... 7

WATER BODY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Water Quality Data ............................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Assessment of Point Sources ................................................................................................ 9

2.3 Assessment of Non-Point Sources ........................................................................................ 9

2.4 Estimated Existing Load for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus ................................... 10

ALLOCATION ............................................................................................................................. 12

3.1 Wasteload Allocation .......................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Load Allocation .................................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Incorporation of a Margin of Safety ................................................................................... 12

3.4 Calculation of the TMDL.................................................................................................... 12


Yazoo River Basin 4

3.5 Seasonality and Critical Condition ..................................................................................... 13

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 14

4.1 Public Participation ............................................................................................................. 14

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 15

FIGURES

Figure 1. Cassidy Bayou ............................................................................................................... 75

Figure 2. Cassidy Bayou §303(d) Listed Segment ....................................................................... 96

Figure 3. Cassidy Bayou Watershed Landuse .......................................................................... 1510

Figure 4. Delta Drainage Area to Flow Comparison ............................................................... 1611

Figure 1. Lake Henry ...................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Lake Henry §303(d) Listed Segment .............................................................................. 6

Figure 3. Lake Henry Watershed Landuse ................................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Delta Drainage Area to Flow Comparison ................................................................... 11

TABLES

Table 1. Listing Information ......................................................................................................... 54

Table 2. Water Quality Standards ................................................................................................. 54

Table 3. Total Maximum Daily Load for Cassidy Bayou ............................................................ 54

Table 4. Nutrient Targets for the Delta Wadeable Streams ........................................................ 118

Table 5. TMDL Calculations and Watershed Sizes .................................................................. 1712

Table 1. Listing Information ........................................................................................................... 4

Table 2. Water Quality Standards ................................................................................................... 4

Table 3. Total Maximum Daily Load for Lake Henry .................................................................... 4

Table 4 Nutrient Targets for the Delta Wadeable Streams ............................................................. 8

Table 5. Nutrient Loadings for Various Land Uses ........................................................................ 9

Table 6. Landuse Distribution for the Lake Henry Watershed ..................................................... 10

Table 7. Estimated Existing Total Nitrogen Load for Lake Henry ............................................... 11

Table 8. Estimated Existing Total Phosphorous Load for Lake Henry ........................................ 11

Table 9. TN, TP, and TBODu Total Maximum Daily Load based on Ecoregion Range for

Waterbody ............................................................................................................................. 12


Yazoo River Basin 5

TMDL INFORMATION PAGE

Table 1. Listing Information

Name ID County HUC Evaluated Cause

Lake

HenryCassidy

Bayou

MS385HLEMS2

74E

LefloreCoah

oma,

Quitman

08030207

08030202 Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus

Cassidy Bayou MS275E Quitman 08030202 Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus

Cassidy Bayou MS277E Tallahatchie 08030202 Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus

Table 2. Water Quality Standards

Parameter Beneficial use Water Quality Criteria

Nutrients Aquatic Life

Support

Waters shall be free from materials attributable to municipal, industrial,

agricultural, or other dischargers producing color, odor, taste, total suspended

solids, or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance, render the

waters injurious to public health, recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or

adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters

for any designated uses.

Table 3. Total Maximum Daily Load for Lake HenryCassidy Bayou

WLA

lbs/day

LA

lbs/day MOS

TMDL

lbs/day

Total Nitrogen 0.6.430 1340.72219 Implicit 1347.15219

Total Phosphorous 0.02.90 33202.38 Implicit 205.2833

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt


Yazoo River Basin 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This TMDL has been developed for Lake HenryCassidy Bayou which was placed on the

Mississippi 2006 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies due to evaluated causes of

sediment and nutrients. Sediment will be addressed in a separate TMDL report. This TMDL

will provide an estimate of the total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) allowable in the

water body.

Mississippi does not have water quality standards for allowable nutrient concentrations. MDEQ

currently has a Nutrient Task Force (NTF) working on the development of criteria for nutrients.

An annual concentration of 1.05 mg/l is an applicable target for TN and 0.16 mg/l for TP for

water bodies located in Ecoregion 73the west side of the Delta. MDEQ is presenting these

preliminary target values for TMDL development which are subject to revision after the

development of numeric nutrient criteria.

The Lake HenryCassidy Bayou Watershed is located in HUC 0803020708030202. The listed

portion of Lake HenryCassidy Bayou (MS274E) is near Mattson from headwaters to the 274/275

watershed boundary is . Cassidy Bayou (MS275E) is near Tutwiller from the 274/275 watershed

boundary to the 275/277 watershed boundarynear Itta Bena. Cassidy Bayou (MS277E) is near

Webb from the 275/277 watershed boundary to the confluence with the Tallahatchie River. The

location of the watershed for the listed segments is shown in Figure 1.

Because the critical 7Q10 flow of Lake HenryCassidy Bayou is zero, a predictive model was not

needed to determine that this water body is not an appropriate receiving water body for

wastewater effluent. The limited nutrient data and estimated existing ecoregion concentrations

indicate reductions of nutrients can be accomplished with installation of best management

practices.


Yazoo River Basin 7

Figure 1. Lake HenryCassidy Bayou


Yazoo River Basin 8

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The identification of water bodies not meeting their designated use and the development of total

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for those water bodies are required by Section 303(d) of the

Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Water Quality Planning and

Management Regulations (40 CFR part 130). The TMDL process is designed to restore and

maintain the quality of those impaired water bodies through the establishment of pollutant

specific allowable loads. This TMDL has been developed for the 2006 §303(d) listed segment

shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Lake HenryCassidy Bayou §303(d) Listed Segment

1.2 Stressor IdentificationListing History

The impaired segment was listed due to evaluating the watershed for potential impairment.

Physical, chemical, and biological data were collected in Cassidy Bayou in 2002 and 2003 as a

part of a fish community monitoring program. This data were evaluated through a stressor

identification process that indicated sediment and nutrients were probable primary stressors.

There are no data available in the watershed.

There are no state criteria in Mississippi for nutrients. These criteria are currently being

developed by the Mississippi Nutrient Task Force in coordination with EPA Region 4. MDEQ


Yazoo River Basin 9

proposed a work plan for nutrient criteria development that has been mutually agreed upon with

EPA Region 4 and is on schedule according to the approved timeline for development of nutrient

criteria (MDEQ, 2007).

For this TMDL, MDEQ is presenting preliminary targets for TN and TP. An annual

concentration 1.05 mg/l is an applicable target for TN and 0.16 mg/l for TP for water bodies

located in Ecoregion 73. However, MDEQ is presenting these preliminary target values for

TMDL development which are subject to revision after the development of nutrient criteria,

when the work of the NTF is complete.

1.3 Applicable Water Body Segment Use

The water use classifications are established by the State of Mississippi in the document State of

Mississippi Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate, and Coastal Waters (MDEQ, 2007).

The designated beneficial use for the listed segments is Fish and Wildlife.

1.4 Applicable Water Body Segment Standard

The water quality standard applicable to the use of the water body and the pollutant of concern is

defined in the State of Mississippi Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate, and Coastal

Waters (MDEQ, 2007).

Mississippi’s current standards contain a narrative criteria that can be applied to nutrients which

states “Waters shall be free from materials attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural, or

other discharges producing color, odor, taste, total suspended or dissolved solids, sediment,

turbidity, or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance, render the waters injurious

to public health, recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of

fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated use (MDEQ, 2007).” In the 1999

Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs, EPA suggests several methods for the development of

numeric criteria for nutrients (USEPA, 1999). In accordance with the 1999 Protocol, “The target

value for the chosen indicator can be based on: comparison to similar but unimpaired waters;

user surveys; empirical data summarized in classification systems; literature values; or

professional judgment.” MDEQ believes the most economical and scientifically defensible

method for use in Mississippi is a comparison between similar but unimpaired waters within the

same region. This method is dependent on adequate data which are being collected in

accordance with the current nutrient criteria development plan.

1.5 Nutrient Target Development

Numeric nutrient criteria are not currently available for Delta streams. Biotic indices such as the

MBISQ index used to assess attainment of aquatic life use in streams in other parts of

Mississippi are also not available for the Delta. Therefore, a percentile approach has been used

to suggest nutrient targets applicable for Delta streams, following the approach suggested by

EPA (EPA 2000).

USGS data were partitioned into eastern and western nutrient distributions. USGS nutrient data

for the western portion of the Delta were combined with MDEQ’s WADES nutrient data. These

two data distributions were used to derive the nutrient concentration associated with the lower


Yazoo River Basin 10

quartile following procedures similar to those used by EPA (2001) in developing nutrient criteria

recommendations for rivers and streams. The lower quartile nutrient concentrations associated

with these data sets are shown in the Table 4 below.

For this TMDL, MDEQ is presenting preliminary targets for TN and TP. An annual

concentration 1.05 mg/l is an applicable target for TN and 0.16 mg/l for TP for water bodies

located in the west side of the Delta. However, MDEQ is presenting these preliminary target

values for TMDL development which are subject to revision after the development of nutrient

criteria, when the work of the NTF is complete.

Table 4. Nutrient Targets for the Delta Wadeable Streams

Lower Quartile Values

Nutrient Conc. (mg/l) East (USGS) West (WADES/USGS)

TP 0.09 0.16

TN 0.58 1.05



WATER BODY ASSESSMENT

2.1 Water Quality Data

There are no data available for this water body are presented in the stressor identification report

(MDEQ, 2008).

.

2.2 Assessment of Point Sources

There are two NPDES pointno point sources in the watershed.

Green Acres Water Association Inc, East Park Subdivision Water NPDES No. MS0022683

Coahoma County

Lyon, Mississippi

Coahoma County School District, Lyon Elementary School Water NPDES No. MS0031968

Coahoma County

Clarksdale, Mississippi

Both of these water permits are minor facilities, and they are not significant sources of pollutant

for this TMDL. The flows are 0.057 and 0.010 MGD respectively. The determination of the

WLA is shown in Table 5. The estimated concentration from the effluent is 11.5 mg/l TN and

5.2 mg/l TP for each facility.

2.3 Assessment of Non-Point Sources

Non-point loading of nutrients and organic material in a water body results from the transport of

the pollutants into receiving waters by overland surface runoff, groundwater infiltration, and

atmospheric deposition. The two primary nutrients of concern are nitrogen and phosphorus.

Total nitrogen is a combination of many forms of nitrogen found in the environment. Inorganic

nitrogen can be transported in particulate and dissolved phases in surface runoff. Dissolved

inorganic nitrogen can be transported in groundwater and may enter a water body from

groundwater infiltration. Finally, atmospheric gaseous nitrogen may enter a water body from

atmospheric deposition.

Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus is primarily transported in surface runoff when it has been sorbed

by eroding sediment. Phosphorus may also be associated with fine-grained particulate matter in

the atmosphere and can enter streams as a result of dry fallout and rainfall (USEPA, 1999).

However, phosphorus is typically not readily available from the atmosphere or the natural water

supply (Davis and Cornwell, 1988). As a result, phosphorus is typically the limiting nutrient in

most non-point source dominated rivers and streams, with the exception of watersheds which are

dominated by agriculture and have high concentrations of phosphorus contained in the surface

runoff due to fertilizers and animal excrement or watersheds with naturally occurring soils which

are rich in phosphorus (Thomann and Mueller, 1987).



Watersheds with a large number of failing septic tanks may also deliver significant loadings of

phosphorus to a water body. All domestic wastewater contains phosphorus which comes from

humans and the use of phosphate containing detergents. Table 5 presents the estimated loads

from various land use types in the Delta based on information from USDA ARS Sedimentation

Laboratory. (Shields, et. al., 2008)typical nutrient loading ranges for various land uses.

Table 5. Nutrient Loadings for Various Land Uses

Landuse

Total Phosphorus [lbs/acre-y] Total Nitrogen [lbs/acre-y]

Minimum Maximum Median Minimum Maximum Median

Roadway 0.53 1.34 0.98 1.2 3.1 2.1

Commercial 0.61 0.81 0.71 1.4 7.8 4.6

Single Family-Low Density 0.41 0.57 0.49 2.9 4.2 3.6

Single Family-High Density 0.48 0.68 0.58 3.6 5.0 5.2

Multifamily Residential 0.53 0.72 0.62 4.2 5.9 5.0

Forest 0.09 0.12 0.10 1.0 2.5 1.8

Grass 0.01 0.22 0.12 1.1 6.3 3.7

Pasture 0.01 0.22 0.12 1.1 6.3 3.7

Source: Horner et al., 1994 in Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs (USEPA 1999)

The drainage area of Lake Henry is approximately 16,800 acres or 26.2 square miles. The

watershed contains mainly cropland but also has different landuse types, including urban, water,

and wetlands. The land use information for the watershed is based on the National Land Cover

Database (NLCD). The landuse information given below is based on data collected by the State

of Mississippi’s Automated Resource Information System (MARIS) 1997. This data set is based

on Landsat Thematic Mapper digital images taken between 1992 2002 and 19932004. Cropland

is the dominant landuse within this watershed. The landuse distribution for the Lake

HenryCassidy Bayou Watershed is shown in Table 6 5 and Figure 3. By multiplyingtaking the

landuse category size by the estimated nutrient load, the watershed specific estimate can be

calculated. and calculating worst-case estimates based on figures given in Table 5 the estimated

existing TP concentration is 0.31 mg/l and the estimated existing TN concentration is 6.03

mg/l.Table 5 presents the estimated loads, the target loads, and the reductions needed to meet the

TMDLs.

Table 6. Landuse Distribution for the Lake Henry Watershed

In Acres Urban Forest Cropland Pasture Scrub/Barren Water Wetlands

Lake Henry 1,551.4 10.0 12,626.0 0.0 3.3 819.3 1,786.5

Percentage 9.24% 0.06% 75.17% 0.00% 0.02% 4.88% 10.64%

Formatted Table

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered



Figure 3. Lake HenryCassidy Bayou Watershed Landuse

2.4 Estimated Existing Load for Total Nitrogen and Total

Phosphorus

The average annual flow in the watershed was calculated by utilizing the flow vs. watershed area

graph shown in figure 4 below. All available gages were compared to the watershed size. A

very strong correlation between flow and watershed size was developed for the Delta. The

equation for the line that best fits the data was then used to estimate the annual average flow for

Cassidy Bayou watershed. The TMDL target TN and TP loads were then calculated, using

Equation 1 and the results are shown in Table 5.

The flow in the watershed was calculated by utilizing the flow to watershed graph shown below.

To convert the estimated existing total nitrogen concentration to a total nitrogen load, the

average annual flow for Lake Henry was estimated based on USGS monitoring stations located

in the Delta. All available gages were tallied and compared to the watershed size. A very strong

correlation between flow and drainage area size was developed for the Delta. Figure 4 shows the

graph comparing the drainage area to the annual average flows. The equation for the line that

best fits the data was then used to estimate the annual average flow for Lake HenryCassidy

Bayou watershed. Thus, the annual average flow in Lake Henry is estimated as 38.7 cfs. The

TMDLexisting TN and TP loads were then calculated, using Equation 1 and the results are

shown in Tables 57 and 8..



Figure 4. Delta Drainage Area to Flow Comparison

Delta Flow vs. DA

y = 1.4641x

R2 = 0.9924

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Drainage Area (sq. miles)

Flo

w (

cfs

)

Nutrient Load (lb/day) = Flow (cfs) * 5.394 (conversion factor)*

Nutrient Concentration (mg/L) (Equation. 1)

Table 7. Estimated Existing Total Nitrogen Load for Lake Henry

Water body Area

(sq miles)

Average Annual

Flow

(cfs)

TN

(mg/L)

TN

(lbs/day)

Lake Henry 26.2 38.7 6.03 1259

Table 8. Estimated Existing Total Phosphorous Load for Lake Henry

Water body Area

(sq miles)

Average Annual

Flow

(cfs)

TP

(mg/L)

TP

(lbs/day)

Lake Henry 26.2 38.7 0.31 65

Delta Flow vs. DA

y = 1.4793x - 72.413

R2 = 0.9927

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Drainage Area (sq. miles)

Flo

w (

cfs

)Formatted: Font: (Default) Helv, 10 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Body Text 2, Centered

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold



Table 5. TMDL Calculations and Watershed Sizes

Water body

Cassidy Bayou Water Urban Scrub/Barren Forest Pasture/Grass Cropland Wetland Total

Acres 1071.7 7040.8 30.9 340.5 63.2 84863.5 10563.3 103974

Land Use TN kg/mile2 Percent 1.03% 6.77% 0.03% 0.33% 0.06% 81.62% 10.16% 100.00%

Forest 111.3 Miles2 in watershed 1.7 11.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 132.6 16.5 162.5

Pasture 777.0 Flow in cfs based on area 237.9 cfs

Cropland 10956.2

Urban 287.8 TN Load kg/mi2 annual avg 259.0 287.8 111.3 111.3 777.0 10956.2 259.0

Water 259.0 TP Load kg/mi2 annual avg 259.0 4.3 61.3 61.3 1295.0 5490.9 259.0

Wetland 259.0

aquaculture 2590.0 TN Load kg/day 1.2 8.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 3980.2 11.7 4002.2 kg/day

TP Load kg/day 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 1994.8 11.7 2008.2 kg/day

Land Use TP kg/mile2

Forest 61.3 TN target concentration 1.05 mg/l Point Source WLA Loads

Pasture 1295.0 TP target concentration 0.16 mg/l Permit Facility Flow MGD TN Load TP Load

Cropland 5490.9 22683 East Park 0.057 5.47 2.47

Urban 4.3 TN estimated concentration 6.88 mg/l 31968 Lyon 0.01 0.96 0.43

Water 259.0 TP estimated concentration 3.45 mg/l 6.43 2.90

Wetland 259.0

aquaculture 2590.0 TN target load 1347.15 lbs/day

TP target load 205.28 lbs/day

TN estimated load per day 8823.31 lbs/day

TP estimated load per day 4427.42 lbs/day The land use calculations are based on 2004 data. The nutrient estimates are based on USDA ARS. The TMDL targets are based on EPA guidance for calculation of targets when considering all available data.

TN reduction needed 84.73%

TP reduction needed 95.36%

Formatted: Heading 8, Left

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted Table



Formatted: Section start: New page



ALLOCATION

The allocation for this TMDL involves a wasteload allocation and a load allocation for non-point

sources necessary for attainment of water quality standards in Lake Henry. The nutrient portion

of this TMDL is addressed through initial estimates of the existing and target TN and TP

concentrations.

3.1 Wasteload Allocation

There are two NPDES point sources, MS0022683 and MS031968, in the watershed. Both of

these water permits are minor facilities, and they are not significant sources of pollutant for this

TMDL. The waste load allocation is 4.16 lbs/day for TN and 1.88 lbs/day for TP. There are no

point sources in the impaired segments. Therefore the waste load allocation has been set to zero

for these TMDLs. Future permits will be considered in accordance with Mississippi’s

Wastewater Regulations for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits,

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permits, State Permits, Water Quality Based Effluent

Limitations and Water Quality Certification(1994).

3.2 Load Allocation

Best management practices (BMPs) should be encouraged in the watersheds to reduce potential

TN and TP loads from non-point sources. For land disturbing activities related to

silviculturesilvaculture, construction, and agriculture, it is recommended that practices, as

outlined in “Mississippi’s BMPs: Best Management Practices for Forestry in Mississippi” (MFC,

2000), “Planning and Design Manual for the Control of Erosion, Sediment, and Stormwater”

(MDEQ, et. al, 1994), and “Field Office Technical Guide” (NRCS, 2000), be followed,

respectively.

3.3 Incorporation of a Margin of Safety

The margin of safety is a required component of a TMDL and accounts for the uncertainty about

the relationship between pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving water body. The two

types of MOS development are to implicitly incorporate the MOS using conservative model

assumptions or to explicitly specify a portion of the total TMDL as the MOS. The MOS selected

for this model is implicit.

3.4 Calculation of the TMDL

A predictive model was not used to calculate the TMDL due to the 7Q10 flow being zero.

Equation 1 was used to calculate the TMDL for TP and TN. The target concentration was used

with the average flow for the watershed to determine the TMDL.

Table 9. TN, TP, and TBODu Total Maximum Daily Load based on Ecoregion Range for Waterbody

Area

(sq miles)

Average Annual

Flow

(cfs)

Concentration

(mg/l)

Load

(lbs/day)

TN 26.2 38.7 1.05 219

TP 26.2 38.7 0.16 33



The nutrient TMDL loads were then compared to the estimated existing loads previously

calculated. The estimated existing TP concentration of 65 pounds per day indicates needed

reductions of 48.6 %. The TMDL for TP is 33 lbs/day. The estimated existing total nitrogen

concentration indicates needed reductions of 82.6%. The TMDL for TN is 219 lbs/day. Best

management practices are encouraged in this watershed to reduce the nonpoint nutrient and

organic enrichment loads. The BMPs used to control the nutrient loads will also control the

organic enrichment loads which will lead to the water quality meeting the standards.

3.5 Seasonality and Critical Condition

This TMDL accounts for seasonal variability by requiring allocations that ensure year-round

protection of water quality standards, including during critical conditions.



CONCLUSION

Nutrients were addressed through an estimate of a preliminary total phosphorous concentration

target and a preliminary total nitrogen concentration target. Based on the estimated existing and

target total phosphorous concentrations, this TMDL recommends a 84.7348.6% reduction of the

phosphorous loads entering these water bodies to meet the preliminary target range of 0.16 mg/l.

Based on the estimated existing and target total nitrogen concentrations, this TMDL recommends

a 895.362.6 % reduction of the nitrogen loads entering these water bodies to meet the

preliminary target range of 1.05 mg/l. The implementation of these BMP activities should

reduce the nutrient load entering the creeks. This will provide improved water quality for

organic enrichment and the support of aquatic life in the water bodies, and will result in the

attainment of the applicable water quality standards.

4.1 Next Steps

MDEQ's Basin Management Approach and Nonpoint Source Program emphasize restoration of

impaired waters with developed TMDLs. During the watershed prioritization process to be

conducted by the Yazoo River Basin Team, this TMDL will be considered as a basis for

implementing possible restoration projects. The basin team is made up of state and federal

resource agencies and stakeholder organizations and provides the opportunity for these entities to

work with local stakeholders to achieve quantifiable improvements in water quality. Together,

basin team members work to understand water quality conditions, determine causes and sources

of problems, prioritize watersheds for potential water quality restoration and protection activities,

and identify collaboration and leveraging opportunities. The Basin Management Approach and

the Nonpoint Source Program work together to facilitate and support these activities.

The Nonpoint Source Program provides financial incentives to eligible parties to implement

appropriate restoration and protection projects through the Clean Water Act's Section 319

Nonpoint Source (NPS) Grant Program. This program makes available around $1.6M each grant

year for restoration and protections efforts by providing a 60% cost share for eligible projects.

Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation Commission (MSWCC) is the lead agency responsible

for abatement of agricultural NPS pollution through training, promotion, and installation of

BMPs on agricultural lands. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) provides

technical assistance to MSWCC through its conservation districts located in each county. NRCS

assists animal producers in developing nutrient management plans and grazing management

plans. MDEQ, MSWCC, NRCS, and other governmental and nongovernmental organizations

work closely together to reduce agricultural runoff through the Section 319 NPS Program.

Mississippi Forestry Commission (MFC), in cooperation with the Mississippi Forestry

Association (MFA) and Mississippi State University (MSU), have taken a leadership role in the

development and promotion of the forestry industry Best Management Practices (BMPs) in

Mississippi. MDEQ is designated as the lead agency for implementing an urban polluted runoff

control program through its Stormwater Program. Through this program, MDEQ regulates most

construction activities. Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) is responsible for

implementation of erosion and sediment control practices on highway construction.

http://www.mswcc.state.ms.us/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://www.mfc.state.ms.us/

http://www.msforestry.net/

http://www.msforestry.net/

http://msucares.com/forestry/education/index.html



Due to this TMDL, projects within this watershed will receive a higher score and ranking for

funding through the basin team process and Nonpoint Source Program described above.

4.2 Public Participation

4.1 Public Participation

This TMDL will be published for a 30-day public notice. During this time, the public will be

notified by publication in the statewide newspaper. The public will be given an opportunity to

review the TMDLs and submit comments. MDEQ also distributes all TMDLs at the beginning

of the public notice to those members of the public who have requested to be included on a

TMDL mailing list. Anyone wishing to become a member of the TMDL mailing list should

contact Kay Whittington at [email protected].

All comments should be directed to [email protected] or Kay Whittington,

MDEQ, PO Box 10385, Jackson, MS 39289. All comments received during the public notice

period and at any public hearings become a part of the record of this TMDL and will be

considered in the submission of this TMDL to EPA Region 4 for final approval.

Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Widow/Orphan control

Formatted: Font color: Auto



REFERENCES Davis and Cornwell. 1988. Introduction to Environmental Engineering. McGraw-Hill.

MDEQ. 2008. Stressor Identification Report for Cassidy Bayou. Office of Pollution Control.

MDEQ. 2007. Mississippi’s Plan for Nutrient Criteria Development. Office of Pollution Control.

MDEQ. 2007. State of Mississippi Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate, and Coastal Waters.

Office of Pollution Control.

MDEQ. 1994. Wastewater Regulations for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

Permits, Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permits, State Permits, Water Quality Based Effluent

Limitations and Water Quality Certification. Office of Pollution Control.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse 3rd ed.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

MFC. 2000. Mississippi’s BMPs: Best Management Practices for Forestry in Mississippi.

Publication # 107.

NRCS. 2000. Field Office Technical Guide Transmittal No. 61.

Shields, F.D. Jr., Cooper, C.M., Testa, S. III, Ursic, M.E., 2008. Nutrient Transport in the Yazoo

River Basin, Mississippi. USDA ARS National Sedimentation Labortory, Oxford, Mississippi.

Telis, Pamela A. 1992. Techniques for Estimating 7-Day, 10-Year Low Flow Characteristics for

Ungaged Sites on Water bodys in Mississippi. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations

Report 91-4130.

Thomann and Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control.

New York: Harper Collins.

USEPA. 1997. Technical Guidance Manual for Developing Total Maximum Daily Loads, Book

2: Streams and Rivers, Part 1: Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients/

Eutrophication. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,

D.C. EPA 823-B-97-002.

USEPA. 1999. Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs. EPA 841-B-99-007. Office of Water (4503F),

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 135 pp.

USEPA. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual Rivers and Streams. United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA-822-B-00-002.

draft final final formatted: font: bold report ... · 10-15 femto f 1015 peta p 10-18 atto a 1018...

Documents