table of contentstable 39 -analysis of nutrients data for 0305.....77 table 40 – analysis of...

1

Table of Contents Table of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 3

Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 4

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 7

Activities and Accomplishments ................................................................................................. 7

Significant Findings ...................................................................................................................... 7

Bacteria ................................................................................................................................... 8

Habitat .................................................................................................................................... 9

Nitrogen Compounds .............................................................................................................. 9

Phosphorus ............................................................................................................................. 9

Algae ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Dissolved Oxygen .................................................................................................................... 9

pH .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 10

Lower Sulphur River Watershed ........................................................................................... 10

Wright Patman Lake Watershed ........................................................................................... 10

Sulphur River Watershed ...................................................................................................... 11

Days Creek Watershed .......................................................................................................... 11

North Sulphur River Watershed ........................................................................................... 11

Upper South Sulphur River Watershed ................................................................................ 12

Jim Chapman Lake Watershed .............................................................................................. 12

Summary Report ........................................................................................................................... 13

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 13

Clean Rivers Program ............................................................................................................ 13

Coordination ......................................................................................................................... 13

Overview of the Sulphur River Basin’s Characteristics ......................................................... 13

Summary of the Basin’s Water Quality Characteristics ........................................................ 19

2.0 Public Involvement .............................................................................................................. 22

3.0 Water Quality Review .......................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Water Quality Terminology ............................................................................................ 25

2

3.2 Data Review Methodology ............................................................................................. 28

3.3 Watershed Summaries .................................................................................................... 30

Lower Sulphur River – 0301 .................................................................................................. 30

Wright Patman Lake – 0302 .................................................................................................. 38

Sulphur River – 0303 ............................................................................................................. 50

Days Creek – 0304 ................................................................................................................. 61

North Sulphur River – 0305 .................................................................................................. 73

Upper South Sulphur River – 0306 ....................................................................................... 82

Jim Chapman Lake – 0307..................................................................................................... 91

4.0 Recommendations and Conclusions ................................................................................. 100

4.1 Recommendations and Comments............................................................................... 100

4.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 101

3

Table of Tables Table 1 – Impairments and concerns in the Sulphur River Basin ................................................... 8 Table 2 – Descriptions of ecoregions in the SRB by TPWD ........................................................... 16 Table 3 – Summary of impairments and concerns in the waterbodies of the SRB ...................... 20 Table 4 – Criteria for classified segments in the SRB .................................................................... 23 Table 5 – Criteria for classified segments in the SRB .................................................................... 23 Table 6 – Values for unclassified (and unspecified) waterbodies ................................................ 24 Table 7 – Specified criteria for unclassified waterbodies in the SRB ............................................ 24 Table 8 – Recreation classification and bacterial criteria ............................................................. 24 Table 9 – Water quality terminology ............................................................................................ 25 Table 10 –Parameters retrieved from SWQMIS Public Data Viewer ............................................ 29 Table 11 - Descriptions for 0301 Waterbodies ............................................................................. 31 Table 12 - Criteria For 0301 Watershed........................................................................................ 31 Table 13 - Analysis of Flow, Minerals, and Bacteria Data for 0301 .............................................. 32 Table 14 – Analysis for Field Data of 0301 .................................................................................... 33 Table 15 – Analysis of Nutrients Data for 0301 ............................................................................ 34 Table 16 – Analysis of Minerals Data for 0301 ............................................................................. 35 Table 17 – Description of the Waterbodies in 0302 ..................................................................... 39 Table 18 – Criteria for 0302 Waterbodies .................................................................................... 40 Table 19 – Analysis for Water Level, Alkalinity, and E. Coli in 0302 ............................................. 41 Table 20 – Analysis for Field Data in 0302 .................................................................................... 42 Table 21 – Analysis of Nutrients for Wright Patman Lake ............................................................ 44 Table 22 – Analysis of Minerals in Wright Patman Lake ............................................................... 46 Table 23 -Descriptions of Waterbodies in the 0303 Watershed .................................................. 51 Table 24 – Criteria for Waterbodies in the 0303 Watershed ....................................................... 52 Table 25 – Analysis of Flow, Alkalinity, and E. Coli Data for 0303 ................................................ 54 Table 26 – Analysis of Field Data for 0303 .................................................................................... 55 Table 27 – Analysis of Nutrients for 0303 ..................................................................................... 57 Table 28 -Analysis of Minerals Data for 0303 ............................................................................... 58 Table 29 -Descriptions of Waterbodies in 0304 Watershed ........................................................ 62 Table 30 – Criteria for Waterbodies in the 0304 Watershed ....................................................... 62 Table 31 – Analysis of Flow, Alkalinity, and E. Coli Data for 0304 ................................................ 64 Table 32 – Analysis of Field Data for 0304 .................................................................................... 65 Table 33 – Analysis of Nutrients Data in 0304 .............................................................................. 67 Table 34 – Analysis of Minerals Data in 0304 ............................................................................... 69 Table 35 – Descriptions of Waterbodies in 0305 .......................................................................... 74 Table 36 – Criteria for Waterbodies in 0305 Watershed .............................................................. 74 Table 37 – Analysis of Flow, Alkalinity, and E. Coli Data in 0305 .................................................. 75 Table 38 – Analysis of Field Data for 0305 .................................................................................... 76

4

Table 39 -Analysis of Nutrients Data for 0305 .............................................................................. 77 Table 40 – Analysis of Minerals Data for 0305 ............................................................................. 79 Table 41 – Description of Waterway in 0306 ............................................................................... 82 Table 42 -Criteria for Waterbody in 0306 ..................................................................................... 83 Table 43 – Analysis of Flow, Alkalinity, and E. Coli Data for 0306 ................................................ 84 Table 44 – Analysis of Field Data for 0306 .................................................................................... 84 Table 45 – Analysis of Nutrient Data for 0306 .............................................................................. 86 Table 46 – Analysis of Minerals Data for 0306 ............................................................................. 89 Table 47 – Descriptions of Waterbodies in the 0307 Watershed ................................................ 92 Table 48 – Criteria for Waterbodies in the 0307 Watershed ....................................................... 92 Table 49 – Analysis of Water Level, Alkalinity, and E. Coli in 0307 ............................................... 93 Table 50 – Analysis of Field Data for 0307 .................................................................................... 94 Table 51 – Analysis of Nutrient Data for 0307 .............................................................................. 96

Table of Figures Figure 1 -Lakes in the SRB ............................................................................................................. 14 Figure 2 – The watersheds of the seven segments of the SRB: Lower Sulphur River 0301, Wright Patman Lake 0302, Sulphur River 0303, Days Creek 0304, North Sulphur River 0305, South Sulphur River 0306, and Jim Chapman Lake 0307. ....................................................................... 15 Figure 3 – Map of the ecoregions in the SRB ................................................................................ 15 Figure 4 – Climate data for Texarkana .......................................................................................... 17 Figure 5 – Climate data for Clarksville .......................................................................................... 17 Figure 6 – Climate data for Paris ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 7 – Map of the Lower Sulphur River Watershed 0301 ...................................................... 30 Figure 8 - Graph of E. Coli to Flow for 0301 .................................................................................. 32 Figure 9 – Graph of Dissolved Oxygen to Flow for 0301 .............................................................. 33 Figure 10 – Graph of pH to Flow for 0301 .................................................................................... 34 Figure 11 – Graph of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Flow for 0301 ................................................... 35 Figure 12 – Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Time for 0301 ................................................... 36 Figure 13 – Graph of Chloride to Flow for 0301 ........................................................................... 36 Figure 14 – Graph of Total Dissolved Solids to Flow for 0301 ...................................................... 37 Figure 15 – Graph of Water Level in Wright Patman Lake to Time .............................................. 38 Figure 16 – Map of the Wright Patman Lake Watershed (0302) ................................................. 39 Figure 17 – Graph of Water Level in Wright Patman Lake to Time .............................................. 41 Figure 18 – Graph of pH to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake ................................................. 42 Figure 19 – Graph of Secchi Depth to Time in Wright Patman Lake ............................................ 43 Figure 20 – Graph of Secchi Depth to Water level in Wright Patman Lake.................................. 43 Figure 21 -Graph of Orthophosphate to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake ............................. 44

https://txkcol-my.sharepoint.com/personal/kenneth_crane_texarkanacollege_edu/Documents/Clean%20Rivers/FY2019Files/BSR/BasinSummaryReportD.docx#_Toc13048535






5

Figure 22 – Graph of Chlorophyll-a to Time in Wright Patman Lake ............................................ 45 Figure 23 – Graph of Chlorophyll-a to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake ................................ 45 Figure 24 -Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Time in Wright Patman Lake .............................. 46 Figure 25 – Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake................. 47 Figure 26 – Graph of Chloride to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake ........................................ 47 Figure 27 – Graph of Sulfate to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake ........................................... 48 Figure 28 – Graph of Total Dissolved Solids to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake ................... 48 Figure 29 – Map of Sulphur River Watershed (0303) ................................................................... 50 Figure 30 – Graph of E.Coli to Flow in 0303 .................................................................................. 54 Figure 31 – Graph of Temperature to Flow in 0303 ..................................................................... 55 Figure 32 – Graph of pH to Flow in 0303 ...................................................................................... 56 Figure 33 – Graph of Dissolved Oxygen to Flow in 0303 .............................................................. 56 Figure 34 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Time in 0303 .............................................................. 57 Figure 35 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Flow in 0303 .............................................................. 58 Figure 36 – Graph of Chloride to Flow for 0303 ........................................................................... 59 Figure 37 – Graph of Total Dissolved Solids to Flow for 0303 ...................................................... 59 Figure 38 – Map of Days Creek Watershed (0304) ....................................................................... 61 Figure 39 – Graph of E. Coli to Flow in 0304 ................................................................................. 64 Figure 40 – Graph of Temperature to Flow in 0304 ..................................................................... 65 Figure 41 – Graph of Dissolved Oxygen to Flow in 0304 .............................................................. 66 Figure 42 – Graph of pH to Flow in 0304 ...................................................................................... 66 Figure 43 – Graph of Ammonia to Time in 0304 .......................................................................... 67 Figure 44 – Graph of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Time in 0304 ..................................................... 68 Figure 45 – Graph of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Flow in 0304 ..................................................... 68 Figure 46 – Graph of Nitrate to Flow in 0304 ............................................................................... 69 Figure 47 – Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Flow in 0304 ..................................................... 70 Figure 48 – Graph of Chloride to Flow in 0304 ............................................................................. 70 Figure 49 – Graph of Sulfate to Flow in 0304 ............................................................................... 71 Figure 50 – Map of the North Sulphur Watershed (0305) ........................................................... 73 Figure 51 – Graph of Alkalinity to Flow in 0305 ............................................................................ 75 Figure 52 – Graph of Temperature to Flow for 0305 ................................................................... 76 Figure 53 – Graph of pH to Flow for 0305 .................................................................................... 77 Figure 54 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Flow in 0305 .............................................................. 78 Figure 55 – Graph of Orthophosphate to Time in 0305 ............................................................... 78 Figure 56 – Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Flow in 0305 ..................................................... 79 Figure 57 – Graph of Chloride to Flow in 0305 ............................................................................. 80 Figure 58 – Graph of Sulfate to Flow in 0305 ............................................................................... 80 Figure 59 – Map of Upper South Sulphur River Watershed (0306) .............................................. 82 Figure 60 – Graph of Temperature to Flow for 0306 ................................................................... 85 Figure 61 – Graph of pH to Time for 0306 .................................................................................... 85


































6

Figure 62 – Graph of Conductivity to Flow for 0306 .................................................................... 86 Figure 63 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Time for 0306 ............................................................ 87 Figure 64 – Graph of Orthophosphate to Time for 0306 .............................................................. 87 Figure 65 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Flow for 0306 ............................................................ 88 Figure 66 – Graph of Orthophosphate to Flow for 0306 .............................................................. 88 Figure 67 – Graph of Chloride to Flow for 0306 ........................................................................... 89 Figure 68 – Graph of Total Dissolved Solids to Flow for 0306 ...................................................... 90 Figure 69 – Map of Jim Chapman Lake Watershed (0307) ........................................................... 91 Figure 70 – Graph of the Lake Level in Jim Chapman to Time...................................................... 93 Figure 71 – Graph of Alkalinity to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake .......................................... 94 Figure 72 – Graph of pH to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake .................................................... 95 Figure 73 – Graph of Conductivity to Time in Jim Chapman Lake ................................................ 95 Figure 74 – Graph of Ammonia to Time in Jim Chapman Lake .................................................... 96 Figure 75 – Graph of Ammonia to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake ......................................... 97 Figure 76 – Graph of Orthophosphate to Time in Jim Chapman Lake ......................................... 97 Figure 77 – Graph of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake ................... 98 Figure 78 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake ............................ 98 Figure 79 – Graph of Chlorophyll-a to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake ................................... 99


















7

Executive Summary

Activities and Accomplishments The Sulphur River Basin Authority (SRBA) coordinates the Clean Rivers Program (CRP) for the Sulphur River Basin (SRB). SRBA contracts with Texarkana College (TC) to collect, analyze, and report data for the CRP. Data is also collected with the help of the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality field office. In the five years since the last basin summary report (1/1/2014-1/1/2019), the CRP in the SRB generated 38,158 data points across 51 sampling sites. Water monitoring is done quarterly and includes field data like temperature and flow and laboratory analyses for bacteria, algae, and nutrients in the water. Monitoring is coordinated to try to monitor waterways across the basin to track known water quality issues and identify potential new concerns.

The CRP in the SRB went through a transition to new quality assurance officer and a new data manager in the 2018 fiscal year. Along with the changes in personnel came a revamped website to keep the public informed of activities in the basin. Updates on the program are also given at the monthly SRBA meetings and an annual steering committee meeting held at TC, which is open to anyone who wishes to be involved. To address erosion issues, workshops on riparian buffers were offered to local landowners. Community outreach also includes the support of citizen scientist through the Texas Stream Team by purchasing supplies for use by the volunteers to monitor their adopted waterways.

Significant Findings This report examines the impairments, concerns, and sources from the draft 2016 Integrated Report (IR) for waterbodies in the basin. Then, it examines over twenty years of historical data to identify trends for time and flow for each of the seven classified segments in the basin.

For the 2016 303(d) list, there are three common impairments throughout the basin: high pH, high bacteria, and depressed dissolved oxygen. In Wright Patman, Jim Chapman, and the Upper South Sulphur River, the impairment is high pH. In White Oak Creek and Wagner Creek (new listing for 2016), the impairment is bacteria. In White Oak Creek, there is also an impairment with depressed dissolved oxygen. Additionally, there are six common water quality concerns in the basin including bacteria, depressed dissolved oxygen, nitrogen compounds, phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and impaired habitat. The concerns and impairments are summarized in Table 1

8

Table 1 – Impairments and concerns in the Sulphur River Basin

Waterbody Impairments Concerns Segment

Lower Sulphur River Chlorophyll-a 0301

Akin Creek Habitat 0301A

Wright Patman Lake High pH Algal growth 0302

Big Creek Phosphorus 0302A

Anderson Creek Dissolved Oxygen Phosphorus 0302C

Rice Creek Dissolved Oxygen 0302E

South Sulphur Bacteria 0303

White Oak Creek Bacteria Dissolved Oxygen Bacteria Habitat 0303B

Rock Creek Bacteria Nitrate Phosphorus 0303D

East Caney Creek Bacteria Ammonia Phosphorus 0303E

Stouts Creek Bacteria Ammonia Phosphorus 0303F

Kickapoo Creek Habitat 0303L

Smackover Creek Habitat 0303M

Horse Creek Habitat 0303N

Days Creek Polycyclic Aromatic

Hydrocarbons Bacteria Nitrate 0304

Swampoodle Creek Bacteria Habitat 0304A

Cowhorn Creek Habitat 0304B

Wagner Creek Bacteria Dissolved Oxygen Ammonia, Nitrate Phosphorus 0304C

Nix Creek Habitat 0304D

Auds Creek Habitat 0305B

Big Sandy Habitat 0305D

Upper South Sulphur River High pH Chlorophyll-a Nitrate Phosphorus 0306

Jim Chapman Lake High pH 0307 Related concerns and impairments are highlighted similarly

Bacteria Bacterial concentrations are measured as the number of colonies of E.Coli formed from 100ml of water. E.Coli is an intestinal bacteria indicating that human or animal waste is entering the water. This can come from agricultural sources such as bovine and chicken operations found commonly in the SRB. In urban areas, the source may be pet waste in yards. The waste from these animals can be brought into the waterways with runoff from rain. Another source of E Coli is human waste that might be point source such as wastewater treatment plants or non-point source such as septic systems that are prevalent in the basin. Currently, every waterway in the basin is measured against the highest standard for bacteria that means that it would be suitable for swimming and as a source for drinking water.

9

Habitat This includes habitat destruction, impaired fish community, or impaired macrobenthic community. Habitat may be destroyed directly through channelization, or indirectly through poor water quality. Channelization may remove structures like plants or sediment that organisms need in order to live, find food, or reproduce. Fish live in the water itself and benthics live in the lower part of the water and the sediment. Certain species are only able to survive in clean healthy environments whereas others are often found in poorer quality environments. These species can be used as indicators for water quality.

Nitrogen Compounds Nitrate (NO3-) and ammonia (NH3) are common concerns in the SRB. Excess amounts in the water leads to eutrophication with excessive algal growth. Nitrogen is a necessary nutrient for plant growth and is usually only found in small amounts in the environment. Nitrogen is a key element in fertilizers, so runoff may be non-point source. Nitrates are common in wastewater discharge. Ammonia is also found in animal waste and large concentrations in the water can be detrimental to aquatic organisms.

Phosphorus Excess amounts of phosphorus in the water leads to eutrophication with excessive algal growth. Phosphorus is a necessary nutrient for plant growth and is usually found in trace amounts in the environment. This makes it a limiting nutrient for plant growth. Phosphorus is a key element in fertilizers, so runoff may be non-point source. Phosphorus is concentrated in animal waste and is often present in wastewater.

Algae Eutrophication (excessive nutrients in the water) leads to excessive growth of algae. The presence of photosynthetic algae is found with chlorophyll-a concentrations. Excessive algal populations can lead to low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water. Oxygen is needed for cellular respiration and is found as free oxygen in small amounts in the water. Algae can use oxygen directly when light is not available or can lead to the growth of bacterial populations that use it. Both actions remove DO from the water to levels that aquatic organisms may not be able to survive.

Dissolved Oxygen For organisms to use oxygen for cellular respiration, oxygen must be free (dissolved) in the water. Though water (H2O) has oxygen, it is not free for organisms to use. Oxygen is less soluble in warm water than in cold water so there is seasonal variation. High water temperatures, whatever their source, leads to lower DO. Aquatic organisms must have enough DO in the water to survive. Low levels of DO are often caused by excessive algal and bacterial populations. Low DO levels are the concerns in the SRB.

10

pH This is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of water. It is a log scale so each change in pH represents a tenfold change. Organisms live in a narrow range of pH. High pH is the impairment in the SRB and may be due to natural sources such as minerals or from a lack of CO2 (which creates a lower pH in water) used in photosynthesis because of algal growth.

For 2016, portions of Jim Chapman Lake and the Upper South Sulphur were delisted for pH. Portions of Wright Patman Lake were also delisted for temperature and depressed dissolved oxygen, and portions of White Oak Creek were also delisted for depressed dissolved oxygen. Across the basin there are signs of rising eutrophication with increased levels of chlorophyll-a and phosphorus, along with high levels of bacteria and nitrates. High pH levels in waterbodies are common.

Recommendations Lower Sulphur River Watershed The Sulphur River shows signs of eutrophication in high levels of chlorophyll-a. This probably has more to do with it being below Wright Patman Lake (WPL) with its concern for algal growth rather than anything intrinsic to the river. Historical analysis shows that E. Coli, TKN, chloride and TDS decrease with increased flow. This suggests that they are not brought in with runoff, but rather are diluted with more rain or flow from WPL. Increasing the flow in the Lower Sulphur could help with water quality, but WPL is used for flood control, so higher flows below the dam may not be possible.

Wright Patman Lake Watershed Wright Patman Lake is an important source of drinking water and recreation for the SRB. It is the source of industrial water for International Paper and is being considered as a source of industrial water for TexAmaricas center and a potential drinking water source for the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex. The lake is showing signs of eutrophication with algal growth and high pH. There are sources of phosphorus from tributaries that may be adding to this problem. Analyses show that with higher lake levels, chloride, sulfate, and TDS all decrease with pH, chlorophyll-a, and orthophosphates also showing a decrease with increased lake levels. Wright Patman Lake is a fairly shallow lake and there are proposals to increase the elevation level for WPL and the data analyzed here suggests that the lake would be healthier with increased water levels. However, this may only be a temporary relief of dilution and the health of the lake would continue to decline at the higher levels. Monitoring of the lake should continue with attempts to identify practices that would reduce the amount of phosphorus in the watershed that is possibly leading to decreased DO and higher pH levels.

11

Sulphur River Watershed This watershed leads directly to Wright Patman Lake. Bacteria and phosphate are the majors concerns for this very large agricultural watershed. Other concerns are for decreased habitat health due to municipal and industrial sources. Total phosphorous (TP) and chloride are indicators of fertilizer runoff and the analysis here suggests that fertilizer runoff is not a major concern for the Sulphur. However, phosphorus levels are a concern in three tributaries for the Sulphur. Historical trends show that E. Coli increases with increased flow. This suggests that the bacteria are being brought into the river as runoff. This is a very agricultural area with numerous cattle and chicken operations as well as rural homes with septic systems. They are the most likely source for the bacteria. White Oak Creek is the only waterway in the SRB that was evaluated for a possible change in the acceptable level of bacteria in the waterway. Elevated nitrates are a concern in Rock Creek which is a site of wastewater discharge. Attempts to identify agricultural point-sources of bacteria should be initiated and the monitoring of waterways impacted by municipal and industrial discharge should continue.

Days Creek Watershed The Days Creek watershed has two superfund sites that are old manufacturing sites that used mixtures of hydrocarbons as preservatives for wood. The hydrocarbons are not water soluble and the they show up in the sediment far from the original sites. The watershed is a very urban environment with two wastewater treatment plants discharging into the waterways. Sulfates and the nitrogen compounds (nitrates, TKN, ammonia) are common in wastewater discharge. Historical analysis shows that E. Coli concentration increase with increased flow suggesting that the waste products from animals and humans are entering the waterways with runoff. A geographic analysis of septic systems and bacterial concentrations may be able to show if there is a correlation between E. Coli in the waterways and septic system use. Wastewater treatment for nitrogen compounds should be improved, if possible.

Channelization of waterways in urban areas is common and restoration of habitat should improve water quality. Monitoring for bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the streams above and below the treatment plants should continue. Contamination from the EPA superfund sites should be reevaluated and practices to reduce or eliminate further contamination, if possible, should be implemented.

North Sulphur River Watershed Though there were no new concerns in the watershed, it is showing signs of eutrophication with high chlorophyll-a values and increased phosphate with increased flow. Total phosphorus increasing with flow suggests it is coming in with runoff and fertilizer is often the source. Sources of phosphate should be clarified to encourage practices to reduce phosphorus in the water. The North Sulphur River was dredged in 1929 and now has eroded to a chalky bottom. More study on sources of sedimentation and the geology of the area are needed. Orthophophates show a decrease over time so this could be a sign of improvement, but the data is old so more current levels need to be established.

12

Upper South Sulphur River Watershed This watershed is showing signs of eutrophication with chlorophyll-a, nitrate, and phosphorus levels showing concern. It has pH levels high enough to be impaired. The sources for all issues are described as non-point source from agriculture and point source from municipal discharge. Orthophosphates, TP, conductivity, and chlorides decrease with increased flow suggesting that runoff is not the source. More monitoring and data analyses are needed to clarify this issue. High pH may be from natural sources so more chemical analysis and geographic analysis are needed. The acceptable pH level was recently raised and monitoring should continue on water around municipal discharge and prior to Jim Chapman to check for nutrients and compliance with the new pH level.

Jim Chapman Lake Watershed As with the nearby Upper South Sulphur Watershed, high pH may be natural for this lake and some more chemical analysis and geographic analysis are needed. The screening level was raised to 9, so monitoring should continue to ensure that the lake is meeting this level. Total phosphorus increases with higher lake levels suggesting that phosphorus is coming from surrounding land. The lake is showing hints of eutrophication with ammonia, chlorophyll-a, and nitrate. Monitoring should continue for these parameters as well as an attempt to identify the sources so that practices to reduce these levels in this important water supply can be identified.

13

Summary Report

1.0 Introduction Clean Rivers Program The Texas Clean Rivers Program (CRP) was created by the Texas Legislature in 1991 through the Texas Clean Rivers Act. The CRP is designed to do the planning, coordination, and reporting of water quality monitoring and to involve the public in the process. The program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and is funded by state-collected fees. The goals of the CRP are to maintain and improve the quality of water within each river basin in Texas through an ongoing partnership involving the TCEQ, river authorities, other state agencies, regional entities, local governments, industry, and citizens. Through the program’s watershed management approach, the CRP identifies and evaluates water quality issues, establishes priorities for corrective action, works to implement those actions, and adapts to changing priorities.

Coordination The Sulphur River Basin Authority (SRBA) coordinates the CRP for the Sulphur River Basin. The CRP investigates water quality concerns and coordinates efforts in order to address water quality issues. As a participant in the Texas Clean Rivers Program, SRBA submits its Basin Summary Report (BSR) to the TCEQ. SRBA contracts with Texarkana College (TC) to collect, analyze, and report data for the CRP to the TCEQ. The CRP of the SRBA will be referred to as the SRB-CRP to distinguish it from the state-run CRP. The SRB-CRP coordinates with the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) and the TCEQ Field Office for additional water monitoring in the basin. Water monitoring in the basin is coordinated through the annual Coordinated Monitoring Meeting between the four groups. A schedule of activities can be found on the coordinated monitoring website. The TCEQ and CRP partners use this report and others submitted throughout the state to develop and prioritize programs that protect the quality of healthy water bodies and improve the quality of impaired water bodies.

Overview of the Sulphur River Basin’s Characteristics The Sulphur River Basin (SRB) is contained in eleven counties in the north-east part of Texas covering approximately 3,600 square miles. There are four rivers (North Sulphur, South Sulphur, Middle Sulphur, and Sulphur River) and thirty-one creeks. Together they are about 890 river miles long. There are also six lakes (Wright Patman, Jim Chapman, Big Creek, TP, Lake Sulphur Springs, and Rivercrest Lake) covering about 48 thousand acres. Water in the SRB flows almost directly west to east.

https://cms.lcra.org/

14

Basins are divided into watersheds for rivers, lakes, or streams that have a homogeneous hydrological and chemical composition. The Sulphur River Basin is identified as basin number three (3 or 03) by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for assessment purposes. This is the leading number for all waterbodies in the basin. There are seven segments in the Sulphur River Basin. Each segment is assigned an additional two digits to the basin number for identification. The seven segments are: Lower Sulphur River 0301, Wright Patman Lake 0302, Sulphur River 0303, Days Creek 0304, North Sulphur River 0305, South Sulphur River 0306, and Jim Chapman Lake 0307.

Figure 1 -Lakes in the SRB

15

Figure 2 – The watersheds of the seven segments of the SRB: Lower Sulphur River 0301, Wright Patman Lake 0302, Sulphur River 0303, Days Creek 0304, North Sulphur River 0305, South Sulphur River 0306, and Jim Chapman Lake 0307.

Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD) describes 10 ecoregions in Texas. A full description of the ecoregions can be found on the TPWD website. The SRB covers three of these ecoregions (descriptions in Table 2) and changes from Blackland Praries in the west to Oak Woods and Prairie in the middle and Piney Woods in the east.

Figure 3 – Map of the ecoregions in the SRB

https://tpwd.texas.gov/education/hunter-education/online-course/wildlife-conservation/texas-ecoregions

16

Table 2 – Descriptions of ecoregions in the SRB by TPWD

Ecoregion Description

Piney Woods

Rolling terrain covered with pines and oaks, and rich bottomlands with tall hardwoods, characterize the forests of the east Texas Piney Woods. This region is part of a much larger area of pine-hardwood forest that extends into Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. The average annual rainfall of 36 to 50 inches is fairly uniformly distributed throughout the year, and humidity and temperatures are typically high. The soils of the region are generally acidic and mostly pale to dark gray sands or sandy loams. Elevations range from 200 to 500 feet above sea level. The Piney Woods region can be described as pine and pine-hardwood forests with scattered areas of cropland, planted pastures, and native pastures. Timber and cattle production are important industries in the region. Farms and ranches are relatively small compared to the state average.

Oak Woods and Prairies

The Oak Woods and Prairies region is a transitional area for many plants and animals whose ranges extend northward into the Great Plains or eastward into the forests. This region, sometimes called the Cross-Timbers or Post Oak Savanah, was named by early settlers, who found belts of oak forest crossing strips of prairie grassland. Average annual rainfall averages 28 to 40 inches per year. May or June usually brings a peak in monthly rainfall. Upland soils are light colored, acidic sandy loam or sands. Bottomland soils may be light brown to dark gray and acidic with textures ranging from sandy loams to clays. The landscape of the region is gently rolling to hilly and elevations range from 300 to 800 feet above sea level. The region can be described as oak savannah, where patches of oak woodland are interspersed with grassland. Cattle ranching is the major agricultural industry in the Oak Woods and Prairies. Introduced grasses such as bermudagrass are grazed along with forage crops and native grasslands.

Blackland Prairie

The Blackland Prairies region is named for the deep, fertile black soils that characterize the area. Blackland Prairie soils once supported a tallgrass prairie dominated by tall-growing grasses such as big bluestem, little bluestem, indiangrass, and switchgrass. Because of the fertile soils, much of the original prairie has been plowed to produce food and forage crops. The average annual rainfall ranges from 28 to 40 inches. May is the peak rainfall month for the northern end of the region; however, the south-central part has a fairly uniform rainfall distribution throughout the year. Typically, soils are uniformly dark-colored alkaline clays, often referred to as "black gumbo," interspersed with some gray acidic sandy loams. The landscape is gently rolling to nearly level, and elevations range from 300 to 800 feet above sea level. Crop production and cattle ranching are the primary agricultural industries.

17

Climate in the basin varies slightly between the ecoregions. Summer months are generally hotter and dryer than the cooler and wetter winter months. There are slight differences between the ecoregions with the Blackland Prairie ecoregion being hotter and dryer than the woodsier ecoregions. Climate graphs for Texarkana, Clarksville, and Paris illustrate average temperatures and average precipitation by month. Texarkana (Figure 4) is in the Piney Woods ecoregion, Clarksville (Figure 5) is in the Oak Woods and Prairies ecoregion, and Paris (Figure 6) is in the Blackland Prairie ecoregion. The data for the graphs was obtained from usclimatedata.com.

Figure 4 – Climate data for Texarkana

Figure 5 – Climate data for Clarksville

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0102030405060708090

100

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

inch

es

Fahr

enhe

it

Climate Data for Texarkana (Piney Woods)

Average high Average low Average precip.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0102030405060708090

100


inch

es

Fahr

enhe

it

Climate Data for Clarksville (Oak Woods & Prairies)


https://www.usclimatedata.com/

18

Figure 6 – Climate data for Paris

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0102030405060708090

100


inch

es

Fahr

enhe

it

Climate Data for Paris (Blackland Prairie)


19

Summary of the Basin’s Water Quality Characteristics The Texas Integrated Report (IR) describes water quality throughout the state. It is based on an analysis of data reported by the CRP. The IR evaluates the quality of surface waters in the state and provides resource managers with a tool for making informed decisions when directing agency programs. The IR describes the status of Texas’ natural waters based on historical data and the extent to which they attain the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. The IR satisfies the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d). The TCEQ produces a new report every two years in even-numbered years, as required by law. The 303(d) List must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before it is final. The draft 2016 IR was submitted to the EPA but has not been approved at the time of this report.

The assessment results for the SRB can be found on the TCEQ website. Waterbody segments are divided into the two classifications of classified and unclassified. Classified segments have defined screening levels while unclassified segments have general screening levels, though they may be modified. Classified segments are numbered with the basin number (3 or 03) and then an identifier. For the SRB they are numbered from 1 to 7. For example: Days Creek is 0304 because it is the classified waterbody in segment 304. Unclassified waterbodies are identified by adding a letter to the classified segment for which they are a tributary. For example: Wagner Creek is 0304C because it is a tributary to Days Creek. Segments that minimally exceed (number of occurrences) or that nearly exceed their screening levels (85%) are placed on a list for concerns. Segments that exceed their criteria are placed on a list for impairments (303(d)). A summary of the impairments and concerns can be found in Table 3.

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/standards

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/waterquality/swqm/assess/16txir/2016_Basin3.pdf

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/waterquality/swqm/assess/16txir/2016_concerns.pdf

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/waterquality/swqm/assess/16txir/2016_concerns.pdf

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/waterquality/swqm/assess/16txir/2016_303d.pdf

20

Table 3 – Summary of impairments and concerns in the waterbodies of the SRB

SegId Segment Name Impairments Concerns

0301 Sulphur River Below Wright Patman Lake

chlorophyll-a

0301A Akin Creek impaired fish community 0302 Wright Patman Lake pH excessive algal growth 0302A Big Creek total phosphorus 0302B Boone Creek

0302C Anderson Creek depressed dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus

0302D Caney Creek

0302E Rice Creek depressed dissolved oxygen

0302F Akin Creek (moved to 0301A)

0302G TP Lake

0303 Sulphur/South Sulphur River bacteria 0303A Big Creek Lake

0303B White Oak Creek bacteria, depressed dissolved oxygen

bacteria, impaired habitat

0303C Morrison Branch

0303D Rock Creek bacteria, nitrate, total phosphorus

0303E East Caney Creek ammonia, bacteria, total phosphorus

0303F Stouts Creek ammonia, bacteria, total phosphorus

0303G North Caney Creek

0303H Big Creek

0303I Big Creek

0303J Cuthand Creek

0303K Little Mustang Creek

0303L Kickapoo Creek impaired habitat 0303M Smackover Creek impaired habitat

0303N Horse Creek impaired macorbenthic community

21

SegId Segment Name Impairments Concerns

0304 Days Creek bacteria, nitrate, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediment

0304A Swampoodle Creek bacteria, impaired macrobenthic community

0304B Cowhorn Creek impaired habitat, impaired macrobenthic community

0304C Wagner Creek bacteria (new listing) ammonia, depressed dissolved oxygen, nitrate, total phosphorus

0304D Nix Creek impaired habitat 0305 North Sulphur River

0305A Rowdy Creek

0305B Auds Creek impaired habitat, impaired macrobenthic community

0305C Hickory Creek

0305D Big Sandy Creek impaired habitat, impaired macrobenthic community

0306 Upper South Sulphur River pH chlorophyll-a, nitrate, total phosphorus

0307 Jim L. Chapman Lake (formerly Cooper Lake) pH

0307A Middle Sulphur River

0307B Jernigan Creek

0307C Pecan Creek

0307D East Fork Jernigan Creek

22

2.0 Public Involvement Public involvement begins with information updates. The SRB-CRP maintains a website with announcements, a description of the CRP, water monitoring in the basin, how to access public data, and public outreach and involvement. The SRB-CRP website was completely redone in 2018. A report on the progress of the SRB-CRP is given at every monthly meeting of the Sulphur River Basin Authority (SRBA). Since the last Basin Summary Report (2014), the SRB-CRP hosted two Riparian Workshops in the basin in an effort to introduce management practices to landholders and to reduce erosion and sedimentation in the basin. The SRB-CRP Steering Committee holds a meeting every year to discuss activities in the basin and gauge stakeholder concerns for the next monitoring year. The Steering Committee members represent the diverse interests of the stakeholders in the Sulphur River Basin. Everyone and every organization in the river basin is a stakeholder, and the CRP is designed to address stakeholder concerns. Individuals and representatives of organizations are encouraged to attend the SRB-CRP Steering Committee meetings and to become members of the committee. Information on becoming involved can be found on the website or by contacing Nancy Rose at (903) 223-7887.

The SRB-CRP partnership with TC allows the faculty and students to be involved in data collection in the area. Students in the program have gone on to fields in medicine, teaching, and academics. Public involvement continues with support of local data gathering by citizen scientists. The Texas Stream Team is a volunteer organization that has trained water monitors adopt a site and collect data that is reported to the Meadows Center at Texas State University. The CRP supports the efforts of the Texas Stream Team by purchasing supplies for use by the volunteers. The SRB-CRP did presentations at local high school and elementary schools as well as a hands-on fish kill activity at Scout O Rama. Local scouts also toured the lab at TC used by the SRB-CRP for their talk with a scientist.

3.0 Water Quality Review Classified segments (Table 4) have site-based specific criteria (Table 5). Unclassified segments do not have site-based criteria and are screened by a presumed standard depending on their flow regime (Table 6). Some unclassified segments have specified criteria (Table 7) assigned to them.

Criteria for recreational use, aquatic life use, dissolved oxygen, pH, and bacterial concentrations are general and are used to describe classified and unclassified segments. Recreational use is used to set the criteria for the bacterial concentration limit (Table 8). There are five levels of recreational use: primary contact recreation 1 and 2, secondary contact recreation 1 and 2, and noncontact recreation. In order to change the recreational use criterion, a recreational use attainability analysis (RUAA) must be conducted. The RUAA website of the TCEQ shows active RUAAs. Aquatic life use is used to determine the dissolved oxygen values, habitat characteristics, and species attributes. Table 3 of Chapter 307 contains the aquatic life use

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/standards/ruaas

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/fids/201800575-3.pdf

23

descriptions. Values for unclassified waterbodies used for the draft 2016 IR are found in Table 6. Specific values for unclassified segments are found in Appendix D of Chapter 307.

Table 4 – Criteria for classified segments in the SRB

Segment No. Segment Names Recreation

Use Aquatic Life Use

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

pH Range (SU)

E. Coli #/100 mL

0301 Sulphur River Below Wright Patman Lake PCR1 H 5 6.0-8.5 126

0302 Wright Patman Lake PCR1 H 5 6.5-9.5 126

0303 Sulphur/South Sulphur River PCR1 H 5 6.0-8.5 126

0304 Days Creek PCR1 I 4 6.0-8.5 126 0305 North Sulphur River 1,2 PCR1 I1 5 6.0-8.5 126

0306 Upper South Sulphur River PCR1 I 4 6.5-9.0 126

0307 Jim L. Chapman Lake PCR1 H 5 6.5-9.0 126 Dissolved oxygen criteria are listed as minimum 24-hour means at any site within the segment and the absolute minima is 3.0. The pH criteria are listed as minimum and maximum values expressed in standard units at any site within the segment. 1 For the purpose of assessment, the intermediate aquatic life use applies only to the fish community. The benthic community is to be assessed using a limited aquatic life use. 2 The segment is an intermittent stream with perennial pools. Table 5 – Criteria for classified segments in the SRB

Segment No. Segment Names Cl-1

(mg/L) SO4-2

(mg/L) TDS

(mg/L) Temperature (degrees F)

0301 Sulphur River Below Wright Patman Lake 120 100 500 90

0302 Wright Patman Lake 75 75 400 90 0303 Sulphur/South Sulphur River 80 180 600 93 0304 Days Creek 525 75 850 90 0305 North Sulphur River2,3 190 475 1,320 93 0306 Upper South Sulphur River 80 180 600 93 0307 Jim L. Chapman Lake 50 50 225 93

The criteria for Cl-1 (chloride), SO4-2 (sulfate), and TDS (total dissolved solids) are a maximum annual average

for the segment. The criteria for temperature are listed as maximum values at any site within the segment

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/fids/201800575-8.pdf

24

Table 6 – Values for unclassified (and unspecified) waterbodies

Criterion Value Recreation Use PCR1 Aquatic Life Use H E. Coli #/100 mL 126 Temperature (degrees F) 32.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Min 3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Low 5 pH High (SU) 8.5 pH Low (SU) 6 Cl-1 (mg/L) 120 SO4-2 (mg/L) 100 TDS (mg/L) 500 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.33 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 14.1 Nitrate (mg/L) 1.95 Total P (mg/L) 0.69

Table 7 – Specified criteria for unclassified waterbodies in the SRB

SEGMENT COUNTY WATER BODY ALU DO 0302A Bowie Big Creek I 4.0 0302C Bowie Anderson Creek I 4.0

0303B Franklin, Hopkins, Morris, Titus White Oak Creek I 4.0

0303C Red River Morrison Branch I 4.0 0304C Bowie Wagner Creek I 4.0

Table 8 – Recreation classification and bacterial criteria

Classification E. Coli #/100 ml

Primary Contact Recreation 1 (PCR1) 126 Primary Contact Recreation 2 (PCR2) 206 Secondary Contact Recreation 1 (SCR1) 630 Secondary Contact Recreation 2 (SCR2) 1030 Noncontact Recreation (NR) 2060

25

3.1 Water Quality Terminology Table 9 – Water quality terminology

Parameter Impact Causes

Temperature

Water temperature affects the oxygen content of the water, with warmer water unable to hold as much oxygen. When water temperature is too cold, cold-blooded organisms may either die or become weaker and more susceptible to other stresses, such as disease or parasites.

Colder water can be caused by reservoir releases. Warmer water can be caused by removing trees from the riparian zone, soil erosion, or use of water to cool manufacturing equipment.

Conductivity

Conductivity is a measure of the water body’s ability to conduct electricity and indicates the approximate levels of dissolved salts, such as chloride, sulfate and sodium in the stream.

Elevated concentrations of dissolved salts can impact the water as a drinking water source and as suitable aquatic habitat.

pH

Most aquatic life is adapted to live within a narrow pH range. Different organisms can live at and adjust to differing pH ranges, but all fish die if pH is below four (the acidity of orange juice) or above 12 (the pH of ammonia).

Industrial and wastewater discharge, runoff from quarry operations and accidental spills.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Organisms that live in the water need oxygen to live. In stream segments where DO is low, organisms may not have sufficient oxygen to survive.

Modifications to the riparian zone, human activity that causes water temperatures to increase, increases in organic matter, bacteria and over abundant algae may cause DO levels to decrease.

Stream Flow

Flow is an important parameter affecting water quality. Low flow conditions common in the warm summer months create critical conditions for aquatic organisms.

At low flows, the stream has a lower assimilative capacity for waste inputs from point and nonpoint sources.

Secchi Disc

Transparency is a measure of the depth to which light is transmitted through the water column and thus the depth at which aquatic plants can grow.

Low secchi disc depth is an estimate of turbidity.

Turbidity

Turbidity is a measure of the water clarity or light transmitting properties.

Increases in turbidity are caused by suspended and colloidal matter such as clay, silt, finely divided organic and inorganic matter, plankton and other microscopic organisms.

26


Hardness

Hardness is a composite measure of certain ions in the water, primarily calcium and magnesium. The hardness of the water is critical due to its effect on the toxicity of certain metals

Higher hardness concentrations in the receiving stream can result in reduced toxicity of heavy metals.

Chloride

Chloride is an essential element for maintaining normal physiological functions in all organisms. Elevated chloride concentrations can disrupt osmotic pressure, water balance and acid/base balances in aquatic organisms which can adversely affect survival, growth and/or reproduction.

Natural weathering and leaching of sedimentary rocks, soils and salt deposits can release chloride into the environment. Other sources can be attributed to oil exploration and storage, sewage and industrial discharges, run off from dumps and landfills and saltwater intrusion.

Sulfate

Effects of high sulfate levels in the environment have not been fully documented. However, sulfate contamination may contribute to the decline of native plants by altering chemical conditions in the sediment.

Due to abundance of elemental and organic sulfur and sulfide mineral, soluble sulfate occurs in almost all natural water. Other sources are the burning of sulfur containing fossil fuels, steel mills and fertilizers.

Total Dissolved Solids

High total dissolved solids may affect the aesthetic quality of the water, interfere with washing clothes and corrode plumbing fixtures. High total dissolved solids in the environment can also affect the permeability of ions in aquatic organisms.

Mineral springs, carbonate deposits, salt deposits and sea water intrusion are sources for natural occurring high concentration TDS levels. Other sources can be attributed to oil exploration, drinking water treatment chemicals, storm water and agricultural runoff and point/nonpoint wastewater discharges.

Bacteria Escherichia coli (E coli) or Enterococci

Although fecal coliform bacteria may not themselves be harmful to human beings, their presence is an indicator of recent fecal matter contamination and that other pathogens dangerous to human beings may be present.

Present naturally in the digestive system of all warm-blooded animals, these bacteria are in all surface waters. Poorly maintained or ineffective septic systems, overflow of domestic sewage or non-point sources and runoff from animal feedlots can elevate bacteria levels.

Ammonia Nitrogen

Elevated levels of ammonia in the environment can adversely affect fish and invertebrate reproductive capacity and reduce the growth of young.

Ammonia is excreted by animals and is produced during the decomposition of plants and animals. Ammonia is an ingredient in many fertilizers and is also present in sewage, storm water run-off, certain industrial wastewaters and runoff from animal feedlots.

27


Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Suspended solids increase turbidity which reduces light penetration and decreases the production of oxygen by plants. They can also clog fish gills. Eventually, the suspended solids settle to the bottom of the stream or lake, creating sediment. Excessive sediment can cover instream habitat, smother benthic organisms and eggs.

Excessive TSS is the result of accelerated erosion and is often associated with high flows where riverbanks are cut or sediment is suspended. It can also be the result of sheet erosion, where over land flow of water causes a thin layer of soil to be carried by the water to the stream. Disturbing vegetation without a proper barrier to slow down overland flow (such as construction sites or row cropping) increases TSS.

Nutrients • Nitrogen • Nitrate • Total Phosphorus • Ortho- phosphate phosphorus

Nutrients increase plant and algae growth. When plants and algae die, the bacteria that decompose them use oxygen. This reduces the dissolved oxygen in the water. High levels of nitrates and nitrites can produce nitrite toxicity, or “brown blood disease,” in fish. This disease reduces the ability of blood to transport oxygen throughout the body.

Nutrients are found in effluent released from wastewater treatment plants, fertilizers and agricultural runoff carrying animal waste from farms and ranches. Soil erosion and runoff from farms, lawns and gardens can add nutrients to the water.

Chlorophyll-a

High levels of chlorophyll can cause algae blooms, decrease water clarity and cause swings in dissolved oxygen level due to photosynthesis. Most commonly measured as chlorophyll a.

Algal blooms can result in elevated chlorophyll-a levels indicating an increase in nutrients that increase growth and reproduction in algal species.

28

3.2 Data Review Methodology Data review began with looking into all the impairments and concerns for the SRB in the draft 2016 Texas Integrated Report. For each watershed, all waterbody screening levels for the different parameters were found and organized. Parameters for impaired segments were highlighted in red, while those on the concerns list were highlighted in yellow. Unclassified segments with site-specific criteria were highlighted in blue and the parameter highlighted in gray.

To get a historical picture of the water in the basin, for each classified segment, data was retrieved using the SWQMIS Public Data Viewer. The data ranged from 1/1/1998 to 12/31/2018 to look at the trends over the last 21 years. The data was retrieved for the parameters in Table 10 and all monitoring stations in each segment. For any date with multiple site measurements, the data for the segment was averaged across sites. This gives a generalized look at the classified segments.

Parameters were assessed by dates to look for significant changes through time. Streams were also assessed with flow data to see if there are changes that are dependent on the amount of water flowing through the stream. Lakes do not have flow, so they were assessed with the water level in the lake to see if changes in the parameters were significant with the amount of water in the lake.

Statistics were calculated using Excel with a spreadsheet provided by David Bass of the Lower Colorado River Authority. E.Coli and flow values range from orders of magnitude so they were analyzed as log values. Log values of 0 were changed to 0.1 prior to statistical analysis. Analyses for streams were done against time and flow and considered significant with p-values less than 0.1 and T-scores greater than 2. Secchi data was not plotted for streams since the depth is what is recorded and there are many times when the Secchi depth is greater than the depth of the stream. Analyses for lakes were done against time and water level expressed as height above sea level. Data for water levels in the lakes was retrieved from the Texas Water Development Board. Prior to October 1, 2000, data for the water level in Jim Chapman was recorded as percentage full. Water levels prior to that date were calculated as the percentage times the conservation pool elevation of 440 feet.

Tables of general statistical values for the parameters in Table 10 with the T-scores and p-values considered significant were highlighted. The data were further analyzed with linear regressions and graphed with screening level lines added when necessary. Extreme outliers were removed from datasets for a more representative trend. Linear regression equations and R-squared values were attached to the graphs.

https://www80.tceq.texas.gov/SwqmisWeb/public/crpweb.faces

https://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/statewide

https://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/statewide

29

Table 10 –Parameters retrieved from SWQMIS Public Data Viewer

Parameter Group Units Code Temperature Field Data C 00010 Transparency, Secchi Field Data m 00078 Conductance Field Data µS / cm @ 25 C 00094 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Field Data mg / l 00300 pH Field Data Units 00400 Flow (Q) Flow CFS 00061 Alkalinity Dissolved Minerals mg/ l 00410 Ammonia (NH3) Nutrients mg / l 00610 Nitrate (NO3) Nutrients mg / l 00620 Total Nitrogen (TKN) Nutrients mg / l 00625 Total Phosphorus (TP) Nutrients mg / l 00665 Orthophosphate Nutrients mg / l 00671, 70507 Chlorophyll – a Nutrients µg / l 32211, 70953 Total Dissolved Solids Dissolved Solids mg / l 00530 Chloride (Cl) Dissolved Solids mg / l 00940 Sulfate (SO4) Dissolved Solids mg / l 00945 Total Suspended Solids Dissolved Solids mg / l 70300 E. Coli Bacteria CFU / 100 ml 31666, 31699

30

3.3 Watershed Summaries

Lower Sulphur River – 0301 Description 0301 The Lower Sulphur watershed is approximately 120 square miles located on the extreme eastern edge of the SRB in Bowie and Cass counties. It lies entirely within the Piney Woods ecoregion. There are three permitted wastewater dischargers, two for the cities of Domino (pop. 78) and Queen City (pop. 1,476) which discharge less than 1 million gallons per day (MGD) and one is for the International Paper corporation at more than 1 MGD. International Paper (IP) draws water from Wright Patman Lake which is in segment 0302. IP has a water treatment plant that produces 500 MGD of drinking water for local municipalities. International Paper merged with Graphic Packaging International in late 2017.

The Sulphur River (0301) begins at the Texas state line and continues east approximately 19 miles to the dam for Wright Patman lake. There is a boat ramp below the dam. The river below the dam is often used for fishing from boats and along the shore at the gates. Akin Creek is the only other waterway and is also referred to as Aiken Creek. It is approximately 18 miles long and was originally designated as 0302F, but it was redesignated as 0301A.

Figure 7 – Map of the Lower Sulphur River Watershed 0301

31

Table 11 - Descriptions for 0301 Waterbodies

Segment Name Description

0301 Sulphur River Below Wright Patman Lake

From the Arkansas State Line in Bowie/Cass County to Wright Patman Lake Dam in Bowie/Cass County

0301A Akin Creek From the confluence with the Sulphur River in Bowie County below Lake Wright Patman to 1 kilometer (.6 miles) south of US HWY 82

Water Quality Issues 0301 Table 12 - Criteria For 0301 Watershed

Segment 0301 0301A Recreation Use PCR1 PCR1 Aquatic Life Use H H E. Coli #/100 mL 126 126 Temperature (degrees C) 32.2 32.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Min 3 3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Low 5 5 pH High (SU) 8.5 8.5 pH Low (SU) 6 6 Cl-1 (mg/L) 120 120 SO4

-2 (mg/L) 100 100 TDS (mg/L) 500 500 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.33 0.33 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 14.1 14.1 Nitrate (mg/L) 1.95 1.95 Total P (mg/L) 0.69 0.69

Concerns list highlighted

The Sulphur River (0301) below the Wright Patman Lake dam has concerns for chlorophyll-a. The potential sources are described as upstream impoundment, Wright Patman Lake dam, and unidentified non-point source pollution. Akin Creek (0301A) has a concern for “impaired fish community”. The potential sources are identified as nonpoint sources of grazing and rural residential areas.

32

Historical Analysis 0301

Table 13 - Analysis of Flow, Minerals, and Bacteria Data for 0301

LogQ Alkalinity LogEC n 63 101 100

Minimum -0.301 6.250 2.200 Maximum 4.037 32.800 12.350

Mean 2.560 20.059 8.600 Range 4.338 26.550 10.150

Time t score 0.369 -0.252 1.406 Time p value 0.713 0.801 0.163 Flow t score X -0.115 3.724 Flow p value X 0.909 0.000

Significant results highlighted

126

y = -0.075x + 1.5935R² = 0.0197

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

log

E. C

oli (

#/10

0 m

l)

log Flow (cfs)

E. Coli to Flow

Figure 8 - Graph of E. Coli to Flow for 0301

33

Table 14 – Analysis for Field Data of 0301

Temp Secchi DO pH Cond n 101 89 100 101 101

Minimum 6.250 0.150 2.200 6.600 108.000 Maximum 32.800 1.200 12.350 8.600 928.000

Mean 20.059 0.465 8.600 7.464 242.569 Range 26.550 1.050 10.150 2.000 820.000

Time t score 0.175 2.871 1.406 0.232 -0.245 Time p value 0.861 0.005 0.163 0.817 0.807 Flow t score -1.480 3.944 3.724 -2.495 -0.660 Flow p value 0.144 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.512


Figure 9 – Graph of Dissolved Oxygen to Flow for 0301

y = 0.9437x + 6.1566R² = 0.1852

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

DO (m

g/l)

log Flow (cfs)

Dissolved Oxygen to Flow

34

Figure 10 – Graph of pH to Flow for 0301

Table 15 – Analysis of Nutrients Data for 0301

NH3 TKN NO3 TP OrthoP Chla n 83 83 7 80 55 84

Minimum 0.020 0.423 0.060 0.020 0.004 1.330 Maximum 0.590 2.300 0.240 0.330 0.148 148.000

Mean 0.118 1.117 0.106 0.135 0.059 29.853 Range 0.570 1.877 0.180 0.310 0.144 146.670

Time t score -

0.729 -1.830 -0.335 -0.261 -0.571 0.679 Time p value 0.468 0.071 0.749 0.795 0.570 0.499

Flow t score -

0.907 -2.535 -0.043 -1.323 0.052 -0.730 Flow p value 0.368 0.014 0.966 0.191 0.959 0.468


y = -0.0301x + 7.5414R² = 0.0071

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

pH

log Flow (cfs)

pH to Flow

35

Figure 11 – Graph of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Flow for 0301

Table 16 – Analysis of Minerals Data for 0301

TSS Cl SO4 TDS n 45 95 97 94

Minimum 95.000 2.195 4.735 3.650 Maximum 755.000 3800.000 881.000 112.000

Mean 187.289 54.294 32.791 25.854 Range 660.000 3797.805 876.265 108.350

Time t score 2.474 1.249 1.341 0.658 Time p value 0.017 0.215 0.183 0.512 Flow t score -0.026 -2.889 -1.603 -2.133 Flow p value 0.980 0.005 0.114 0.037


y = -0.2214x + 1.7635R² = 0.4684

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

TKN

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Flow

36

Figure 12 – Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Time for 0301

Figure 13 – Graph of Chloride to Flow for 0301

y = 0.0356x - 1181.7R² = 0.1246

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Jul-98 Dec-99 Apr-01 Sep-02 Jan-04 May-05 Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12

TSS

(mg/

l)

Date

Total Suspended Solids to Time

y = -4.7497x + 28.353R² = 0.0959

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Cl-1

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Chloride to Flow

37

Figure 14 – Graph of Total Dissolved Solids to Flow for 0301

During higher flows in 0301, E. Coli, pH, Chloride, and TDS appear to be diluted. Along with this, TKN has larger decreases with higher flow. Over time, there is a slight increase in TSS. Though there are a few high values recorded at later dates, their removal does not nullify the trend.

Comments 0301 In the 0301 watershed the chlorophyll-a found in the Lower Sulphur River is the main water quality issue. This probably has more to do with it being below Wright Patman than anything intrinsic to the river. Thus, the source is identified as upstream impoundment. Wright Patman Lake (WPL) has a large algal population which is the most likely source for the chlorophyll-a. This will be explored in the review of the 0302 watershed. The historical analysis shows an increase in TSS over time that may be due to increased construction in the area around US 59 and Domino. Historical analysis shows that chloride and TDS decrease with increased flow. These are indicators of salts from anthropogenic sources. Also decreasing with increased flow are E. Coli and TKN which are indicators of biological waste. Here, these are decreasing with increased flow suggesting that they are not brought in with runoff, but rather are diluted with more rain or flow from WPL. DO increasing with flow would be normal with increased agitation of the water especially with large releases from the WPL dam. While the Lower Sulphur River seems to show that runoff is not a source of pollution, upstream in Aikin, the source of the decreased habitat in the form of the fish community is identified as runoff from rural residential areas. Aikin, being closer to Texarkana is in a more developed part of the watershed. The more residential areas have more fertilizers and septic systems that reduce water quality with runoff.

y = -2.1194x + 29.447R² = 0.0277

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

TDS

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Total Dissolved Solids to Flow

38

Wright Patman Lake – 0302 Description 0302 The Wright Patman lake watershed covers an area of approximately 477 square miles in the counties of Bowie, Cass, and a small part in Red River. The watershed is within the Piney Woods ecoregion. The cities of DeKalb (pop. 1,699), New Boston (pop. 4,550), Redwater (pop. 1,057), and Maud (pop. 1,056) are in the watershed. There are about 137 miles of five unclassified streams that flow into Lake Wright Patman. Wright Patman covers about 29.5 thousand acres and is one of the sources of drinking water for Texarkana Water Utilities. It is the water source for International Paper which also treats water for Cass County. Wright Patman Lake is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The conservation pool (water that can be used for non-flood control purposes) is at 220.6 feet with a spillway at 259.5 feet. The lake is operated under an interim rule curve where it is operated at 220.6 feet until April when it is allowed to rise to 227.5 feet and then slowly dropped to 225 feet in October and back to 220.6 feet by November. Information on the operation of the lake can be found on the USACE website.

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

Jan-98 Sep-00 Jun-03 Mar-06 Dec-08 Sep-11 Jun-14 Mar-17

Heig

ht (f

t)

Date

Water Level in Wright Patman

Figure 15 – Graph of Water Level in Wright Patman Lake to Time

http://www.swf-wc.usace.army.mil/wrightpatman/

39

Figure 16 – Map of the Wright Patman Lake Watershed (0302)

Table 17 – Description of the Waterbodies in 0302


0302 Wright Patman Lake

From Wright Patman Lake Dam in Bowie/Cass County to a point 1.5 kilometers (0.9 miles) downstream of Bassett Creek in Bowie/Cass County, up to the normal pool elevation of 226.4 feet (impounds the Sulphur River)

0302A Big Creek Intermittent stream with perennial pools from FM 2149 up to 1.3 kilometers south of U.S. 82 south-east of New Boston

0302B Boone Creek From the confluence with Wright Patman Lake upstream to approximately 3.5 miles north of highway 67 in Bowie County

0302C Anderson Creek From Lake Wright Patman upstream 88.6 km (55 mi) to the headwaters near US HWY 82

0302D Caney Creek From the confluence with Big Creek in Bowie County to approximately 1.5 kilometers south of US HWY 82

0302E Rice Creek From the confluence with Anderson Creek in Bowie County upstream to the dam of TP Lake west of New Boston

0302F Akin Creek Moved to 0301A

0302G TP Lake Impounds the portion of Rice Creek 0.02 kilometers south of US 82 in Bowie County extending to the dam

40

Water Quality Issues 0302 Table 18 – Criteria for 0302 Waterbodies

Segment 0302 0302A 0302B 0302C 0302D 0302E 0302G Recreation Use PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 Aquatic Life Use H I H I H H H E. Coli #/100 mL 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 Temp. (degrees C) 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 DO (mg/L) Min 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DO (mg/L) Low 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 pH High (SU) 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 pH Low (SU) 6.5 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cl-1 (mg/L) 75 120 120 120 120 120 120 SO4

-2 (mg/L) 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 TDS (mg/L) 400 500 500 500 500 500 500 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 Nitrate (mg/L) 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 Total P (mg/L) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69

Concerns list highlighted in yellow. Impaired highlighted in red. Unclassified segments with specific criteria highlighted in blue with the changed parameter highlighted in gray.

Wright Patman Lake (0302) has a concern for excessive algal growth and an impairment for high pH. For the draft 2016 report, the highest pH value assessed was 8.5 and there were 36 exceedances of the 135 samples with an averaged value of 8.78. The identified sources are internal nutrient cycling.

Big Creek (0302A) has a concern for total phosphorus. The identified source is point source municipal discharge.

Anderson Creek (0302C) has a concern for depressed dissolved oxygen and total phosphorus. The identified sources are grazing, rural residential areas, tree farming, and municipal point discharge.

Rice Creek (0302E) has a concern for depressed dissolved oxygen with two of four values assessed in the draft 2016 IR exceeding the DO minimum criteria of 3 mg/l with an average of 1.95 mg/l. The identified source is agriculture.

41


Table 19 – Analysis for Water Level, Alkalinity, and E. Coli in 0302

Level Alkalinity LogEC n 281 194 191

Minimum 221.170 5.100 0.100 Maximum 253.260 32.533 13.467

Mean 227.486 21.665 7.445 Range 32.090 27.433 13.367

Time t score 2.314 -1.094 -0.449 Time p value 0.021 0.277 0.654 Flow t score X -1.481 -1.840 Flow p value X 0.140 0.067


Figure 17 – Graph of Water Level in Wright Patman Lake to Time

y = 0.0005x + 208.99R² = 0.0283

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

260


Heig

ht (f

t)

Date

Water Level to Time

42

Table 20 – Analysis for Field Data in 0302


Minimum 5.100 0.140 0.100 6.600 103.000 Maximum 32.533 1.350 13.467 9.075 394.150

Mean 21.665 0.600 7.445 7.910 191.117 Range 27.433 1.210 13.367 2.475 291.150

Time t score -0.392 2.126 -0.449 -1.918 -1.727 Time p value 0.696 0.035 0.654 0.057 0.086 Flow t score -0.111 3.161 -1.840 -3.010 -0.847 Flow p value 0.912 0.002 0.067 0.003 0.398


Figure 18 – Graph of pH to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake

y = -0.0567x + 20.806R² = 0.3379

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255

pH

Height (feet)

pH to Water Level

43

y = 2E-05x - 0.1246R² = 0.0311

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6


Secc

hi (m

)

Date

Secchi to Time

y = 0.0158x - 2.9898R² = 0.198

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255

Secc

hi (m

)

Height (feet)

Secchi to Water Level

Figure 19 – Graph of Secchi Depth to Time in Wright Patman Lake

Figure 20 – Graph of Secchi Depth to Water level in Wright Patman Lake

44

Table 21 – Analysis of Nutrients for Wright Patman Lake


Minimum 0.020 0.427 0.010 0.015 0.006 3.053 Maximum 0.330 2.140 0.229 0.642 0.250 133.000

Mean 0.077 1.044 0.054 0.119 0.048 32.802 Range 0.310 1.714 0.219 0.627 0.244 129.947

Time t score -1.524 -0.622 0.553 0.039 -0.283 2.299 Time p value 0.130 0.535 0.583 0.969 0.778 0.023 Flow t score -0.656 -1.615 1.474 0.511 -2.191 -3.468 Flow p value 0.512 0.107 0.142 0.610 0.029 0.001


y = -0.0006x + 0.1787R² = 0.0029

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

220 225 230 235 240 245

OO

P (m

g/l)

Height (feet)

OOP to Water Level

Figure 21 -Graph of Orthophosphate to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake

45

Figure 22 – Graph of Chlorophyll-a to Time in Wright Patman Lake

Figure 23 – Graph of Chlorophyll-a to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake

y = 0.0025x - 66.353R² = 0.0374

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Chlo

roph

yll-a

(µg

/ l)

Date

Chlorophyll-a to Time

y = -1.445x + 361.39R² = 0.104

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255

Chlo

roph

yll-a

(µg

/ l)

Height (feet)

Chlorophyll-a to Water Level

46

Table 22 – Analysis of Minerals in Wright Patman Lake

TSS Cl SO4 TDS n 102 142 142 131

Minimum 66.000 3.330 5.333 2.265 Maximum 230.000 25.000 34.000 65.000

Mean 129.160 10.200 15.970 14.156 Range 164.000 21.670 28.667 62.735

Time t score 2.245 -1.983 -0.567 -1.427 Time p value 0.027 0.049 0.572 0.156 Flow t score -2.805 -4.695 -4.045 -3.501 Flow p value 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.001


Figure 24 -Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Time in Wright Patman Lake

y = 0.0046x - 48.484R² = 0.048

507090

110130150170190210230250


TSS

(mg/

l)

Date

Total Suspended Solids to Time

47

y = -2.4335x + 680.7R² = 0.1194

507090

110130150170190210230250

220 225 230 235 240 245

TSS

(mg/

l)

Height (feet)

Total Suspended Solids to Water Level

y = -0.4427x + 110.7R² = 0.2388

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255

Cl-1

(mg/

l)

Height (feet)

Chloride to Water Level

Figure 25 – Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake

Figure 26 – Graph of Chloride to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake

48

Figure 28 – Graph of Total Dissolved Solids to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake

Water levels in the lake show a trend for higher levels over time probably due to heavy rains in 2016. With higher lake levels, chloride, sulfate, and TDS all decrease. A large decrease is seen with higher lake levels for pH. Wright Patman has an impairment for high pH. TSS show a slight increase over time, but a decrease with higher lake levels along with an increase in Secchi depth with higher lake levels. Orthophosphates show only a slight decrease with lake level, but all of the higher readings occur at lower lake levels. Chlorophyll-a is showing an increase over time suggesting eutrophication. However, at higher lake levels there is a decrease in chlorophyll-a levels.

y = -0.5745x + 144.62R² = 0.1572

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255

TDS

(mg/

l)

Height (feet)

Total Dissolved Solids to Water Level

Figure 27 – Graph of Sulfate to Water Level in Wright Patman Lake

y = -0.5221x + 134.47R² = 0.1815

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255

SO4-2

(mg/

l)

Height (feet)

Sulfate to Water Level

49

Comments 0302 Wright Patman Lake has a concern for excessive algal growth. Chlorophyll-a is a way to measure the photosynthetic algae in the water and it is showing an increase over time. Phosphorus is necessary for organism growth and is usually in low concentrations in the environment, so it is growth limiting in populations like algae. When the concentration in the environment increases from sources like fertilizer, then growth is no longer limited and the algal population increases. Orthophosphate is a biologically available form of phosphorus and is attributable to fertilizer runoff.

The algae take in carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide in water leads to the production of carbonic acid which lowers pH. Algae use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis when light is available. When carbon dioxide is removed from the water, there is less carbonic acid and the pH rises. Through photosynthesis, algae produce oxygen, so it may seem counterintuitive that more algae leads to lower DO, but the problem is that the algae soon die and sink to the bottom. There, the bacteria take in the abundance of food from the dead algae and bacterial populations explode that utilize cellular respiration which relies on the use of oxygen. Algae will also use oxygen for cellular respiration when light is not available. It is this increased demand for oxygen that leads to lower DO levels in the water.

Wright Patman Lake is a fairly shallow lake that has an average depth of approximately 9 feet over 29.5 thousand acres with a maximum depth of about 40 feet. It is often completely mixed. There are concerns that sedimentation may be making this worse. TSS does show a slight increase over time. With higher lake levels, chloride, sulfate, and TDS all decrease. A large decrease is also seen with higher lake levels for pH. Chlorophyll-a and orthophosphates also see a decrease with increased lake levels. There are proposals to increase the elevation level for WPL and the data analyzed here suggests that the lake would be healthier with increased water levels. However, this may only be a temporary relief of dilution and the health of the lake would continue to decline at the higher levels. Tributaries to WPL are showing increased levels of phosphorus and decreased DO levels suggesting that this is a likely case.

50

Sulphur River – 0303 Description 0303 The Sulphur River watershed covers approximately 1,970 square miles in nine counties with about 576 miles of waterways. All of the other watersheds in the SRB are in only one ecoregion. The 0303 watershed contains fragments of all three of the ecoregions in the basin (Blackland Prarie, Oak Woods and Praries, Piney Woods). It is located in the middle of the basin and is the site of numerous cattle operations along with oil production, mining, and forestry. There are fifteen permitted outfalls with two that are for over 1 MGD, which are operated by the city of Sulphur Springs (pop. 15,449), and an industrial permit near Clarksville (pop. 3,285). Two outfalls are for mining operations by Luminant in Titus and Red River counties. Luminant ceased operations in 2017. The other eleven are operated by smaller cities and independent school districts for less than 1 MGD.

Figure 29 – Map of Sulphur River Watershed (0303)

51

Table 23 -Descriptions of Waterbodies in the 0303 Watershed


0303 Sulphur/South Sulphur River

From a point 1.5 kilometers (0.9 miles) downstream of Bassett Creek in Bowie/Cass County to Jim L. Chapman Dam (formerly Cooper Lake dam) in Delta/Hopkins County

0303A Big Creek Lake From Big Creek Dam up to normal pool elevation of 458 feet north of Cooper (impounds Big Creek)

0303B White Oak Creek From the confluence of the Sulphur River north of Naples in Morris County to the upstream perennial portion of the stream east of Sulphur Springs in Hopkins County

0303C Morrison Branch Intermittent stream with perennial pools from the confluence with Little Mustang Creek upstream to approximately 0.7 km south of FM 909 southeast of the City of Bogata

0303D Rock Creek From the confluence with White Oak Creek to the southwest corner of Hughes Springs approximately 2 miles southeast of the intersection of I-30 and State Hwy 19

0303E East Caney Creek From the confluence with White Oak Creek to just east of Como in southeastern Hopkins County

0303F Stouts Creek From the confluence with White Oak Creek to approximately 7 miles due east of Como in Hopkins County

0303G North Caney Creek From the confluence with White Oak Creek in Hopkins County to Farm Road 71

0303H Big Creek From the confluence with Sulphur/South Sulphur River in Delta County northwest to just south of FM 128

0303I Big Creek From the confluence with White Oak Creek south to approximately .5 miles north of FM 900 in Hopkins County

0303J Cuthand Creek From the confluence with the Sulphur River in Titus County to 2.5 kilometers (1.7 miles) north of the intersection of Farm Road 196 and US HWY 82

0303K Little Mustang Creek From the confluence with the Sulphur River in Red River County to 1.3 kilometers (.8 miles) north of the intersection of US HWY 271 and HW 37

0303L Kickapoo Creek From the confluence with Cuthand Creek in Titus County to 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) south of FM 114

0303M Smackover Creek From the confluence of White Oak Creek upstream to the headwaters at an impoundment 1.8 kilometers upstream of FM1001 in Titus County

0303N Horse Creek From the confluence of White Oak Creek upstream to a small impoundment 0.2 kilometers northeast of the intersection of Highway 67 and FM 1993 in Titus County

52

Water Quality Issues 0303 Table 24 – Criteria for Waterbodies in the 0303 Watershed

Segment 0303 0303A 0303B 0303C 0303D 0303E 0303F 0303G Recreation Use PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 Aquatic Life Use H H I I H H H H E. Coli #/100 mL 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 Temp. (degrees C) 33.9 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 DO (mg/L) Min 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DO (mg/L) Low 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 pH High (SU) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 pH Low (SU) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cl-1 (mg/L) 80 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 SO4

-2 (mg/L) 180 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 TDS (mg/L) 600 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 Nitrate (mg/L) 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 Total P (mg/L) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69

Segment 0303H 0303I 0303J 0303K 0303L 0303M 0303N

Recreation Use PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1

Aquatic Life Use H H H H H H H

E. Coli #/100 mL 126 126 126 126 126 126 126

Temp. (degrees C) 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2

DO (mg/L) Min 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

DO (mg/L) Low 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

pH High (SU) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5

pH Low (SU) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Cl-1 (mg/L) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

SO4-2 (mg/L) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

TDS (mg/L) 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Ammonia (mg/L) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33

Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1

Nitrate (mg/L) 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95

Total P (mg/L) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69


53

The South Sulphur River (0303) below the Jim Chapman dam has a concern for bacteria. Of the 18 values assessed, there was one geomean exceedance for bacteria of 135 cfu/100 ml. Some identified sources are related to animals with agriculture in grazing and feeding operations and wildlife. Rural residential areas are also identified as a source.

White Oak Creek (0303B) has an impairment for bacteria and depressed dissolved oxygen. While the bacteria criterion is 126 cfu/100 ml, there was one exceedance of a yearly geomean of 159 cfu/100 ml. The bacteria level is attributed to cattle with grazing and dairy operations. White Oak Creek recently underwent an RUAA to gauge its recreational use. In the draft 2016 IR with the new standard of 4 mg/l for DO, there were no exceedances for the 24-hour average DO, but for the DO grab, there were 4 exceedances of the 33 samples. The low DO level can be attributed to point source municipal discharge with unknown or natural non-point sources. There is also a concern for chlorophyll-a with 4 exceedances (average 29.23 µg/ml) of the 27 values examined.

Rock Creek (0303D) has a concern for bacteria. There was one exceedance of 278.37 cfu/ml out of 10 samples examined. Almost all the data for nitrate and total phosphorus exceeded their limits. The nitrate average was 10.46 mg/l with a screening level of 1.95 mg/l and the phosphorus average was 2.00 mg/l with a screening level of 0.69 mg/l. The nitrate and total phosphorus sources are identified as a point source municipal discharge while the bacteria is attributed to agriculture.

East Caney Creek (0303E) has concerns for bacteria, ammonia, and total phosphorus. The bacteria had one exceedance of 409 cfu/ml out of 6 samples. Three of the seven ammonia samples exceeded their screening level of 0.33 mg/l with an average of 0.70 mg/l. Seven of eight sample for phosphorus exceeded their level of 0.69 mg/l with an average of 1.11 mg/l. The sources for all concerns is identified as livestock.

Stouts Creek (0303F) had one exceedance for bacteria of the 6 samples examined with a geomean of 468.75 cfu/ml. There were three exceedances for ammonia with an average of 1.68 mg/l out of the 7 samples examined. Phosphorus had 7 of 8 exceedances with an average of 1.45 mg/l. As with East Caney Creek, the identified source is livestock.

Kickapoo Creek (0303L) and Smackover Creek (0303M) have concerns for impaired habitat, while Horse Creek (0303N) has a concern for the macrobenthic community. Smackover and Horse Creeks have livestock feeding operations identified as the sources. The Kickapoo Creek source is identified as a municipal point source from inadequate industrial pretreatment of discharge.

54

Historical Analysis 0303 Table 25 – Analysis of Flow, Alkalinity, and E. Coli Data for 0303


Minimum -0.854 3.300 1.700 Maximum 4.064 36.500 13.200

Mean 1.612 19.501 8.029 Range 4.918 33.200 11.500

Time t score 1.545 0.404 0.614 Time p value 0.124 0.687 0.540 Flow t score X -1.679 3.670 Flow p value X 0.095 0.000


y = 0.107x + 1.8052R² = 0.0272

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5

log

E. C

oli (

#/10

0 m

l)

log Flow (cfs)

E. Coli to Flow

Figure 30 – Graph of E.Coli to Flow in 0303

55

Table 26 – Analysis of Field Data for 0303


Minimum 3.300 0.050 1.700 6.400 125.000 Maximum 36.500 1.000 13.200 8.700 1138.000

Mean 19.501 0.313 8.029 7.573 327.186 Range 33.200 0.950 11.500 2.300 1013.000

Time t score -0.951 5.004 0.614 -0.642 -1.212 Time p value 0.343 0.000 0.540 0.521 0.227 Flow t score -3.658 -2.626 3.670 -4.800 0.632 Flow p value 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.528


y = -2.0845x + 22.861R² = 0.0734

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-1 0 1 2 3 4

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

log Flow (cfs)

Temperature to Flow

Figure 31 – Graph of Temperature to Flow in 0303

56

y = 0.5806x + 7.2226R² = 0.0723

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-1 0 1 2 3 4

DO (m

g/l)

log Flow (cfs)


y = -0.0162x + 7.6416R² = 0.0024

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

-1 0 1 2 3 4

pH

log Flow (cfs)

pH to Flow

Figure 32 – Graph of Dissolved Oxygen to Flow in 0303

Figure 33 – Graph of pH to Flow in 0303

57

Table 27 – Analysis of Nutrients for 0303


Minimum 0.020 0.230 0.050 0.020 0.004 0.890 Maximum 0.430 1.510 0.745 0.747 0.250 37.400

Mean 0.065 0.816 0.207 0.147 0.056 8.763 Range 0.410 1.280 0.695 0.727 0.246 36.510

Time t score -1.841 0.649 0.946 2.156 1.392 -1.218 Time p value 0.067 0.517 0.359 0.033 0.166 0.225 Flow t score -0.851 1.166 -0.499 3.115 1.471 -1.034 Flow p value 0.396 0.245 0.618 0.002 0.143 0.303


Figure 34 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Time in 0303

y = 7E-06x - 0.133R² = 0.0284

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8


TP (m

g/l)

Date

Total Phosphorus to Time

58

Figure 35 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Flow in 0303

Table 28 -Analysis of Minerals Data for 0303

TSS Cl SO4 TDS n 116 196 197 196

Minimum 99.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 Maximum 462.000 128.000 175.500 658.000

Mean 213.305 17.810 32.979 64.607 Range 363.000 127.000 174.500 656.000

Time t score 1.638 0.208 -0.618 -1.100 Time p value 0.104 0.836 0.537 0.273 Flow t score -1.087 -3.551 -0.994 5.377 Flow p value 0.279 0.000 0.322 0.000


y = 0.0291x + 0.0954R² = 0.0946

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

-1 0 1 2 3 4

TP (m

g/l)

log Flow (cfs)

Total Phosphorus to Flow

59

y = -4.9841x + 24.46R² = 0.0923

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

-1 0 1 2 3 4

Cl-1

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Chloride to Flow

y = 30.875x + 15.208R² = 0.1702

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

-1 0 1 2 3 4

TDS

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)




60

E. Coli and phosphate increase with flow suggesting that it is washed in from outside in this very agricultural area. TDS increases with flow possibly from cropland or mining debris being washed into the river. Chloride, however, is diluted with more flow. The water temperature decrease with flow is probably more of a correlation with higher rainfall in cooler months. DO increases with flow, but this may again be a correlation with cooler temperatures or churning of moving water so more data analysis would be needed to try to parse information on temperatures and DO. The pH increase with flow is slight enough to ignore. Phosphate is increasing with time showing a likely sign for eutrophication.

Comments 0303 Total phosphorus in the Sulphur is only increasing slightly with time and flow and is well below the screening level of 0.69 mg/l. Chloride decreases with increased flow and is also well below its screening level. Total phosphorus and chloride are indicators of fertilizer runoff and the analysis here suggests that fertilizer runoff is not a major concern for the Sulphur. However, phosphorus levels are a concern in three tributaries for the Sulphur. This is a common problem in the basin and an early sign of eutrophication.

High bacterial concentrations are the concern for the Sulphur River. E.Coli is an intestinal bacteria indicating that human or animal waste is entering the water. Historical trends show that E. Coli increases with increased flow. This suggests that the bacteria are being brought into the river as runoff. This is a very agricultural area with numerous cattle and chicken operations as well as rural homes with septic systems. They are the most likely source for the bacteria. The screening levels for all the waters in 0303 are at the primary contact recreation level of 126 CFU/ml. Three of the tributaries to White Oak Creek, which is then a tributary to the Sulphur, show high concentrations of bacteria and phosphorus. Rock Creek is the discharge route for Sulphur Springs and shows elevated nitrates that are often found in sewage. White Oak Creek is showing signs of eutrophication with these increased inputs in the form of chlorophyll-a which is an indicator for algal growth that is stimulated by increased phosphorus and nitrate concentrations.

There are higher flows with lower temperatures and higher DO with increased flows. This is what should be expected with seasonal rainfall and water mixing during increased flow.

61

Days Creek – 0304 Description 0304 The 0304 watershed covers approximately 47 square miles almost entirely covered by the cities of Texarkana (pop. 36,411), Wake Village (pop. 5,492), and Nash (pop. 1,281). There are about 28 miles of waterways running through urbanized areas and are often channelized. The Texarkana Water Utilities operates two wastewater treatment plants that are permitted to discharge over 1 MGD into Wagner and Days Creeks. Wagner Creek and Days Creek also flow through EPA superfund sites that were industries for preservative treatment of wooden crossties. There are two other industrial permits for discharge both at over 1 MGD. The watershed is in the extreme east end of the SRB in the Piney Woods ecoregion. Water crosses the Texas border with Arkansas before eventually draining into the Sulphur River.

Figure 38 – Map of Days Creek Watershed (0304)

62

Table 29 -Descriptions of Waterbodies in 0304 Watershed


0304 Days Creek From the Arkansas State Line in Bowie County to the confluence of Swampoodle Creek and Nix Creek in Bowie County.

0304A Swampoodle Creek From the confluence of Days Creek in central Texarkana in Bowie County to the upstream perennial portion of the stream in northern Texarkana in Bowie County

0304B Cowhorn Creek From the confluence of Wagner Creek in southern Texarkana in Bowie County to the upstream perennial portion of the stream in northern Texarkana in Bowie County

0304C Wagner Creek Perennial stream from the confluence with Days Creek to a point 1.5 km upstream of IH 30

0304D Nix Creek From the confluence with Swampoodle Creek to 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) directly east of the intersection of US HWY 271 and I30


Segment 0304 0304A 0304B 0304C 0304D Recreation Use PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 Aquatic Life Use I H H I H E. Coli #/100 mL 126 126 126 126 126 Temp. (degrees C) 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Min 3 3 3 3 3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Low 4 5 5 4 5 pH High (SU) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 pH Low (SU) 6 6 6 6 6 Cl-1 (mg/L) 525 120 120 120 120 SO4

-2 (mg/L) 75 100 100 100 100 TDS (mg/L) 850 500 500 500 500 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 Nitrate (mg/L) 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 Total P (mg/L) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69


63

Days Creek (0304) has concerns for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are present in the sediment. The source is listed as industrial point source. There is an EPA superfund site from industrial wood treatment that Days Creek flows through. Of the 23 values examined, there was one bacteria exceedance of 141.30 cfu/100 ml. The source is attributed to urban runoff. Almost all values for phosphorus exceeded their screening criteria of 0.69 mg/l with an average value of 1.52 mg/l.

Swampoodle Creek (0304A) has concerns for bacteria and an impaired macrobenthic community. Of the four bacteria values assessed, one exceeded the screening level of 126 cfu/100 ml at 346.26 cfu/100 ml, which would also exceed the level for PCR2 (206 cfu/100 ml). The indicated source for both concerns is channelization with urban runoff.

Cowhorn Creek (0304B) has concerns for impaired habitat with an impaired macrobenthic community. Again, the source is channelization with urban runoff.

Wagner Creek (0304C), also known as Waggoner Creek, has an impairment for bacteria. Of the 20 values examined, there was one exceedance of 434.61 cfu/100 ml compared to the screening level of 126 cfu/100 ml. Wagner Creek’s concern for low dissolved oxygen is found for several measurements including the 24-hour average, 24 hour minimum, and grab sample with a lowest value of 2.21 mg/l. Around half of the 20 values examined exceeded their screening levels for ammonia, nitrate, and total phosphorus. Ammonia had an average of 0.74 mg/l with a screening level of 0.33 mg/l. Nitrate had an average of 11.53 mg/l with a screening level of 1.95 mg/l. Total phosphorus had an average of 1.80 mg/l with a screening level of 0.69 mg/l. The sources for all the impairments and concerns is municipal point source discharge and non-point source urban runoff.

Nix Creek (0304D) like all the other urban creeks has concerns for impaired habitat with an impaired macrobenthic community and the source is channelization with urban runoff.

64



Minimum 0.630 5.300 4.900 Maximum 2.115 29.200 13.800

Mean 1.290 21.259 7.634 Range 1.485 23.900 8.900

Time t score 0.484 0.970 1.789 Time p value 0.630 0.364 0.077 Flow t score X 0.609 4.690 Flow p value X 0.545 0.000


y = 0.3519x + 1.6955R² = 0.0486

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

log

E. C

oli (

cfu/

100

ml)

log Flow (cfs)

E. Coli to Flow

126

Figure 39 – Graph of E. Coli to Flow in 0304

65



Minimum 5.300 0.160 4.900 6.480 74.000 Maximum 29.200 1.500 13.800 8.300 580.000

Mean 21.259 0.733 7.634 7.096 368.467 Range 23.900 1.340 8.900 1.820 506.000

Time t score -1.924 -4.367 1.789 0.625 0.605 Time p value 0.058 0.000 0.077 0.534 0.547 Flow t score -3.799 -2.764 4.690 -10.112 -0.290 Flow p value 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.772


y = -9.0684x + 32.943R² = 0.1632

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

log Flow (cfs)

Temperature to Flow

Figure 40 – Graph of Temperature to Flow in 0304

66

y = 3.1159x + 3.6704R² = 0.2292

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

DO (m

g/l)

log Flow (cfs)


y = -0.0457x + 7.1911R² = 0.0011

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

pH

log Flow (cfs)

pH to Flow

Figure 41 – Graph of Dissolved Oxygen to Flow in 0304

Figure 42 – Graph of pH to Flow in 0304

67

Table 33 – Analysis of Nutrients Data in 0304


Minimum 0.020 0.200 0.312 0.010 0.010 2.000 Maximum 0.980 2.500 22.400 3.600 0.321 8.000

Mean 0.190 1.079 10.125 0.345 0.077 3.302 Range 0.960 2.300 22.088 3.590 0.311 6.000

Time t score -2.894 -3.054 -0.251 1.734 -0.568 -0.531 Time p value 0.005 0.004 0.803 0.087 0.578 0.597 Flow t score 1.060 2.457 -3.759 0.905 -0.701 -0.477 Flow p value 0.292 0.016 0.000 0.368 0.486 0.635


y = -3E-05x + 1.3488R² = 0.1029

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2


NH 3

(mg/

l)

Date

Ammonia to Time

0.33

Figure 43 – Graph of Ammonia to Time in 0304

68

y = -0.0001x + 6.5063R² = 0.1546

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


TKN

(mg/

l)

Date

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Time

y = 0.3354x + 0.6237R² = 0.0204

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

TKN

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Flow

Figure 44 – Graph of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Time in 0304

Figure 45 – Graph of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Flow in 0304

69

Table 34 – Analysis of Minerals Data in 0304

TSS Cl SO4 TDS n 66 73 72 76

Minimum 4.000 1.000 7.220 1.000 Maximum 380.000 92.000 69.600 190.000

Mean 231.015 40.860 40.763 14.796 Range 376.000 91.000 62.380 189.000

Time t score 0.598 0.452 0.119 0.301 Time p value 0.552 0.653 0.906 0.764 Flow t score -2.986 -3.243 -3.164 1.858 Flow p value 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.067


y = -13.826x + 28.282R² = 0.4766

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1

NO

3(m

g/l)

log Flow (cfs)

Nitrate to Flow

1.95

Figure 46 – Graph of Nitrate to Flow in 0304

70

y = -208x + 508.79R² = 0.5864

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

TSS

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Total Suspended Solids to Flow

y = -38.146x + 92.28R² = 0.4

0102030405060708090

100

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

Cl-1

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Chloride to Flow

Figure 47 – Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Flow in 0304

Figure 48 – Graph of Chloride to Flow in 0304

71

Figure 49 – Graph of Sulfate to Flow in 0304

E. Coli levels in this very urban area are always high and increase with increased flow. Water temperature and DO again are probably correlated with cooler months. The change in pH with flow again can be ignored. Ammonia levels and TKN are decreasing over time probably as the wastewater treatment plants improved. TKN shows a slight increase with flow. Nitrates are always high but have a large decrease with increased flow suggesting that wastewater is diluted with increased flow. TSS, sulfate, and chloride are also dramatically diluted with flow.

y = -36.028x + 88.865R² = 0.4086

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

SO4-2

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Sulfate to Flow

72

Comments 0304 Days Creek is the classified segment for the 0304 watershed. It runs through one superfund site and has a tributary that runs through another. These are old manufacturing sites that used mixtures of hydrocarbons as preservatives for wood. The hydrocarbons are not water soluble and the PAHs from this show up in the sediment far from the original sites.

The 0304 watershed is a very urban environment with two wastewater treatment plants discharging into the waterways. Sulfates and the nitrogen compounds (nitrates, TKN, ammonia) are common in wastewater discharge. Historical analysis shows that the concentrations of these decrease with increased flow suggesting that there is a constant discharge from wastewater treatment that is diluted with increased rainfall. Historical analysis shows that the nitrogen is decreasing over time. Contrary to this is the TKN increasing with increased flow. This may be biologically available nitrogen from fertilization of urban yards brought into the streams with runoff.

E. Coli is an intestinal bacterium of animals. E. Coli concentration increase with increased flow suggests that the waste products from animals and humans are entering the waterways with runoff. This could be from pet waste in a concentrated urban environment, but also from septic systems. While the watershed is very urban, there are many areas that utilize septic systems in densely populated areas. This may account for the high bacterial concentrations that are found in the 0304 waterways. All of the waterways in the 0304 watershed are at the highest screening level of PCR1.

Urban areas have large amounts of impervious surfacing such as concrete and asphalt. Water cannot enter the ground and so runs off quickly. This creates a need for this water to go downstream quickly so often in urban environments waterways are channelized (dug out and concreted). Benthics live at the bottom of the waterway in the rocks and dirt normally found there. Channelizing destroys this and therefore destroys the benthic communities. This shows in the concerns for impaired benthic communities. The types of benthics found in the waterway vary depending on the quality of the water and are used as indicators of water quality.

73

North Sulphur River – 0305 Description 0305 The North Sulphur River watershed covers approximately 475 square miles in the counties of Fannin, Lamar, and Delta in the northwestern part of the SRB. This watershed is in the Blackland Prairie ecoregion. The North Sulphur River runs for approximately 50 miles along the southern edge of the watershed. There are four other waterways that total about 70 miles in length. The city of Paris (pop. 25,171) is on the northernmost edge of the watershed in the middle of Lamar County. There are five permitted industrial outfalls on the western edge of Paris all over 1 MGD. The other two permitted outfalls are not in Paris and are for less than 1 MGD. These are held by the city of Roxton (pop. 650) and Petty Water Supply. The other three outfalls are for stormwater and are on the western edge of Paris.

Figure 50 – Map of the North Sulphur Watershed (0305)

74

Table 35 – Descriptions of Waterbodies in 0305


0305 North Sulphur River From the confluence with the South Sulphur River in Lamar County to a point 6.7 km (4.2 miles) upstream of FM 68 in Fannin County

0305A Rowdy Creek From the confluence with the North Sulphur River in Lamar county, northwest to US HWY 82

0305B Auds Creek From the confluence with the North Sulphur River in Lamar County to 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) south of US HWY 82

0305C Hickory Creek From the confluence with the North Sulphur River in Lamar County to .4 kilometers (.2 miles) east of FM 1497

0305D Big Sandy Creek From the confluence with the North Sulphur River in Lamar County to .4 kilometers (.2 miles) 0f US HWY 82 Business in Paris

Water Quality Issues 0305 Table 36 – Criteria for Waterbodies in 0305 Watershed

Segment 0305 0305A 0305B 0305C 0305D Recreation Use PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 Aquatic Life Use I1 H H H H E. Coli #/100 mL 126 126 126 126 126 Temp. (degrees C) 33.9 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Min 3 3 3 3 3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Low 5 5 5 5 5 pH High (SU) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 pH Low (SU) 6 6 6 6 6 Cl-1 (mg/L) 190 120 120 120 120 SO4

-2 (mg/L) 475 100 100 100 100 TDS (mg/L) 1,320 500 500 500 500 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 Nitrate (mg/L) 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 Total P (mg/L) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69

1 For the purpose of assessment, the intermediate aquatic life use applies only to the fish community. The benthic community is to be assessed using a limited aquatic life use. Concerns list highlighted in yellow.

75

For the draft 2016 IR, there were no new concerns. Auds Creek (0305B) and Big Sandy Creek (0305D) concerns for impaired habitat and impaired macrobenthic communities are carryovers from previous listings. The North Sulphur River (0305) is showing signs of eutrophication with 7 of 26 samples for chlorophyll-a exceeding their screening value of 14.1 µg/l with an average value of 27.39 µg/l. The sources are identified as municipal and industrial point source discharges with Auds Creek (0305B) also described as channelized.


Table 37 – Analysis of Flow, Alkalinity, and E. Coli Data in 0305


Minimum -1.523 1.500 2.900 Maximum 3.632 35.000 14.800

Mean 0.859 20.464 9.041 Range 5.155 33.500 11.900

Time t score 0.712 -0.626 0.087 Time p value 0.479 0.533 0.931 Flow t score X 3.237 1.035 Flow p value X 0.002 0.304


y = 14.4x + 117.42R² = 0.1833

0

50

100

150

200

250

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Alka

linity

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Alkalinity to Flow

Figure 51 – Graph of Alkalinity to Flow in 0305

76



Minimum 1.500 0.070 2.900 6.467 212.000 Maximum 35.000 1.100 14.800 9.200 4180.000

Mean 20.464 0.467 9.041 7.919 822.272 Range 33.500 1.030 11.900 2.733 3968.000

Time t score 0.739 3.038 0.087 0.697 -0.669 Time p value 0.462 0.003 0.931 0.487 0.505 Flow t score -2.845 -2.069 1.035 -7.242 0.585 Flow p value 0.006 0.042 0.304 0.000 0.560


y = -2.5367x + 22.098R² = 0.0986

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

log Flow (cfs)

Temperature to Flow

Figure 52 – Graph of Temperature to Flow for 0305

77

Table 39 -Analysis of Nutrients Data for 0305


Minimum 0.020 0.277 0.020 0.010 0.010 1.000 Maximum 0.206 2.690 2.787 1.130 0.120 46.200

Mean 0.058 0.712 0.756 0.093 0.053 9.827 Range 0.186 2.413 2.767 1.120 0.110 45.200

Time t score -0.752 1.274 -0.342 1.054 -2.340 0.128 Time p value 0.454 0.207 0.737 0.295 0.024 0.898 Flow t score 0.786 1.971 -1.143 2.299 1.674 -1.360 Flow p value 0.434 0.052 0.257 0.024 0.098 0.178


y = -0.0205x + 7.9198R² = 0.0032

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

pH

log Flow (cfs)

pH to Flow

Figure 53 – Graph of pH to Flow for 0305

78

y = 0.0133x + 0.072R² = 0.0352

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

TP (m

g/l)

log Flow (cfs)


y = -5E-06x + 0.2454R² = 0.1107

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14


OO

P (m

g/l)

Date

Orthophosphate to Time

Figure 54 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Flow in 0305

Figure 55 – Graph of Orthophosphate to Time in 0305

79


TSS Cl SO4 TDS n 54 81 80 82

Minimum 250.000 6.000 27.100 3.000 Maximum 1550.000 509.000 1610.000 1580.000

Mean 543.944 39.532 228.576 60.268 Range 1300.000 503.000 1582.900 1577.000

Time t score -0.567 -0.611 -0.477 1.638 Time p value 0.573 0.543 0.635 0.105 Flow t score -2.052 -3.768 -4.742 1.999 Flow p value 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.049


y = -158.45x + 639.24R² = 0.3619

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

TSS

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Total Suspended Solids to Flow

Figure 56 – Graph of Total Suspended Solids to Flow in 0305

80

Alkalinity and total phosphate increase with flow suggesting that they are brought in with rainfall. Lower temperature and higher flows again suggest this is seasonal. pH decrease with flow is negligible. Orthophosphate, TSS, and chloride are diluted with increased flow. This also happens with the high levels of sulfate.

y = -14.47x + 41.606R² = 0.2714

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Cl-1

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Chloride to Flow

475

y = -98.824x + 272.14R² = 0.418

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

SO4-2

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Sulfate to Flow

Figure 57 – Graph of Chloride to Flow in 0305

Figure 58 – Graph of Sulfate to Flow in 0305

81

Comments 0305 The North Sulphur River does not have any listed concerns. Sulfate concentration is high in this waterway. Sulfate can come from natural sources such as gypsum or from wastewater discharge. Historical analysis shows that sulfates decrease with increasing flow suggesting that there is a diluting effect with increased runoff. Groundwater may be bringing in a constant supply from minerals in the area, or wastewater discharge may also have a fairly constant supply that is diluted with increased flow. This may be a geographic phenomenon, so a more thorough chemical analysis of the geology and treated wastewater would be necessary to parse this.

Suspended solids decrease with increased flow. The North Sulphur River was dredged in 1929 and now has eroded to a chalky bottom. This may even be the source of sulfate. The North Sulphur was a big source of sedimentation, but that may be declining. More study on sources of sedimentation and the geology of the area are needed.

Total phosphorus increasing with flow suggests that the source is runoff and this often indicates fertilizer runoff that can lead to eutrophication. There was a previous concern for chlorophyll-a, but there is not one currently. Orthophophates show a decrease over time so this could be a sign of improvement, but the data end around 2010 so there needs to be more chemical data gathered to see current levels.

82

Upper South Sulphur River – 0306 Description 0306 The South Sulphur watershed is on the extreme western end of the SRB in the Blackland Prairie ecoregion. The watershed covers approximately 210 square miles with about 46 miles of the upper part of the South Sulphur river before it reaches Jim Chapman lake. There are three municipal outfalls with the city of Commerce (pop. 8,078) having the only one over 1 MGD.

Table 41 – Description of Waterway in 0306


0306 Upper South Sulphur River From a point 1.0 km (0.6 miles) upstream of SH 71 in Delta/Hopkins County to SH 78 in Fannin County

Figure 59 – Map of Upper South Sulphur River Watershed (0306)

83

Water Quality Issues 0306 Table 42 -Criteria for Waterbody in 0306

Segment 0306 Recreation Use PCR1 Aquatic Life Use I E. Coli #/100 mL 126 Temp. (degrees C) 33.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Min 3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Low 4 pH High (SU) 9 pH Low (SU) 6 Cl-1 (mg/L) 80 SO4

-2 (mg/L) 180 TDS (mg/L) 600 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.33 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 14.1 Nitrate (mg/L) 1.95 Total P (mg/L) 0.69

Concerns list highlighted in yellow. Impaired highlighted in red.

The South Sulphur River (0306) has an impairment for high pH. This is a carryover in the draft 2016 IR at a screening level of 8 and was not reassessed at the new level of 9. There are also concerns for chlorophyll-a, nitrate, and total phosphorus; almost all the values for each parameter examined exceeded their screening levels. Chlorophyll-a has a screening level of 14.10 µg/l and 11 of 12 samples gave an average exceedance of 85.34 µg/l. Nitrate has a screening level of 1.95 mg/l and had an average exceedance of 9.88 mg/l for 12 of 14 samples. Total phosphorus had an average value of 1.45 mg/l versus its screening level of 0.69 mg/l for 14 of 15 samples. The sources for all issues are described as non-point source from agriculture and point source from municipal discharge.

84



Minimum -1.523 6.050 2.600 Maximum 2.111 37.000 16.300

Mean 0.541 19.857 8.662 Range 3.633 30.950 13.700

Time t score -0.589 1.672 -0.085 Time p value 0.557 0.099 0.932 Flow t score X -1.197 -0.281 Flow p value X 0.234 0.780




Minimum 6.050 0.030 2.600 6.400 184.000 Maximum 37.000 1.000 16.300 9.800 863.000

Mean 19.857 0.252 8.662 7.925 486.056 Range 30.950 0.970 13.700 3.400 679.000

Time t score -0.453 -1.095 -0.085 -2.277 1.205 Time p value 0.651 0.278 0.932 0.025 0.232 Flow t score -2.757 -0.975 -0.281 -1.755 -2.621 Flow p value 0.007 0.332 0.780 0.083 0.010


85

y = -3.2052x + 22.123R² = 0.0804

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

log Flow (cfs)

Temperature to Flow

y = -5E-05x + 9.7637R² = 0.0488

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10


pH

Date

pH to Time

Figure 60 – Graph of Temperature to Flow for 0306

Figure 61 – Graph of pH to Time for 0306

86

Table 45 – Analysis of Nutrient Data for 0306


Minimum 0.050 0.710 0.050 0.180 0.060 3.000 Maximum 23.600 2.200 14.500 2.900 2.200 222.000

Mean 0.451 1.320 5.050 0.893 0.671 37.543 Range 23.550 1.490 14.450 2.720 2.140 219.000

Time t score -1.903 0.153 -0.106 2.307 2.335 0.263 Time p value 0.061 0.879 0.916 0.024 0.023 0.793 Flow t score 1.119 -1.440 -1.422 -2.457 -3.356 -1.926 Flow p value 0.266 0.153 0.159 0.016 0.001 0.057


y = -166.37x + 616.14R² = 0.4807

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cond

uctiv

ity (µ

S/cm

@ 2

5 C)

log Flow (cfs)

Conductivity to Flow

Figure 62 – Graph of Conductivity to Flow for 0306

87

0.69

y = 8E-05x - 2.1714R² = 0.0768

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


TP (m

g/l)

Date

Total Phosphorus to Time

y = 5E-05x - 1.4375R² = 0.0763

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5


OO

P (m

g/l)

Date


Figure 63 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Time for 0306

Figure 64 – Graph of Orthophosphate to Time for 0306

88

y = -0.6439x + 1.2768R² = 0.238

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

TP (m

g/l)

log Flow (cfs)


0.69

y = -0.5055x + 1.0042R² = 0.3807

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

OO

P (m

g/l)

log Flow (cfs)

Orthophosphate to Flow

Figure 65 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Flow for 0306

Figure 66 – Graph of Orthophosphate to Flow for 0306

89


TSS Cl SO4 TDS n 75 79 79 77

Minimum 134.000 2.600 8.800 1.000 Maximum 6420.000 71.800 99.700 550.000

Mean 412.340 29.576 46.999 69.079 Range 6286.000 69.200 90.900 549.000

Time t score -0.595 -0.454 1.500 0.288 Time p value 0.554 0.651 0.138 0.774 Flow t score -0.673 -3.902 -1.676 2.627 Flow p value 0.503 0.000 0.097 0.010


y = -21.347x + 44.328R² = 0.5856

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cl-1

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)

Chloride to Flow


90

Water temperature decreasing with flow is probably seasonal affects. The pH measurements that led to the impairment are found around the old limit of 8, but would be under the new limit of 9. pH is showing a slight decrease over time. Conductivity significantly decreased with increased flow, suggesting dilution of a constant supply of electrolytes in the water. Phosphate and orthophosphate are increasing over time, which suggests that the waterbody is undergoing eutrophication. They both decreased greatly with increased flow. Chloride also shows dilution with increased flow. TDS increases with flow suggesting that dissolved solids are brought in with runoff, but chloride does not seem to be in the runoff.

Comments 0306 Historical analysis shows that when flow increases: TP, orthophosphates, conductivity, and chlorides decrease. Sources of these parameters are fertilizers and wastewater. Dilution of these parameters suggests that it is not runoff contaminated with fertilizer. TP and orthophosphates show an increase over time as with many waterways in the basin. There is a gap of data in time, so the trend could be suspect, but the very high readings in the later years suggests that this is an actual increase over time.

The concern from nitrate that may also be attributed to wastewater along with the increase in phosphorus over time can lead to eutrophication. The concern for chlorophyll-a, an indicator of algae, suggests that this is occurring. Without addressing the nitrate and phosphorus concerns, water quality will probably continue to decline.

y = 26.098x + 37.204R² = 0.1927

0

50

100

150

200

250

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

TDS

(mg/

l)

log Flow (cfs)



91

Jim Chapman Lake – 0307 Description 0307 The Jim Chapman Lake watershed covers approximately 275 square miles in the western part of the SRB and is located in the Blackland Prairie ecoregion. It is in Fannin, Delta, Hopkins, and Hunt counties. The city of Commerce (pop. 8,078) is on the southern edge and the city of Cooper (pop. 1,969) is on the northern edge. Cooper is near Jim Chapman Lake (formerly Cooper Lake). Jim Chapman Lake is about 18,000 square acres and serves as a public water supply for the North Texas Municipal Water District, Sulphur Municipal Water District, and the City of Irving. Information on Jim Chapman can be found on the USACE webpage. Jim Chapman is normally operated at a height of 440 feet. There are three waterways with a combined length of 50 miles. There are three municipal outfalls with the city of Ladonia (pop. 612) having the only greater than 1 MGD permit. This discharge is into Pecan Creek.

Figure 69 – Map of Jim Chapman Lake Watershed (0307)

http://www.swf-wc.usace.army.mil/cooper/

92

Table 47 – Descriptions of Waterbodies in the 0307 Watershed


0307 Jim L. Chapman Lake (formerly Cooper Lake)

From Jim L. Chapman Dam to a point 1.0 kilometers (0.7 mile) upstream of SH 71 on the South Sulphur River arm and 300 meters (275 yards) below the confluence of Barnett Creek on the Middle Sulphur River arm, up to a conservation pool elevation of 440 fee

0307A Middle Sulphur River From the confluence Cooper Lake in Hopkins County to the upstream perennial portion of the stream east of Wolfe City in Hunt County

0307B Jernigan Creek From the confluence with Cooper Lake to the confluence with the east and west forks of Jernigan Creek in Delta County

0307C Pecan Creek From the confluence with the Middle Sulphur River to 2,5 miles below Ladonia discharge in Hunt County


Segment No. 0307 0307A 0307B 0307C Recreation Use PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 PCR1 Aquatic Life Use H H H H E. Coli #/100 mL 126 126 126 126 Temp. (degrees C) 33.9 32.2 32.2 32.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Min 3 3 3 3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Low 5 5 5 5 pH High (SU) 9 8.5 8.5 8.5 pH Low (SU) 6.5 6 6 6 Cl-1 (mg/L) 50 120 120 120 SO4

-2 (mg/L) 50 100 100 100 TDS (mg/L) 225 500 500 500 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 Nitrate (mg/L) 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 Total P (mg/L) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69

Impaired highlighted in red

Jim Chapman Lake (0307) has an impairment for high pH. This is a carryover for draft 2016 IR at the 8.5 screening level. This is attributed to natural sources. There are no listed concerns, but there are a few slight exceedances for ammonia, chlorophyll-a, and nitrate in Jim Chapman.

93

Historical Analysis Table 49 – Analysis of Water Level, Alkalinity, and E. Coli in 0307

Level Alkalinity LogEC n 121 120 116

Minimum 308.880 6.100 2.000 Maximum 447.670 31.250 12.650

Mean 433.840 19.427 8.085 Range 138.790 25.150 10.650

Time t score 4.397 0.152 1.233 Time p value 0.000 0.880 0.220 Flow t score X 6.282 0.568 Flow p value X 0.000 0.571


y = 0.0044x + 253.91R² = 0.1348

250

300

350

400

450

500


Heig

ht (f

eet)

Date

Lake Level to Time

Figure 70 – Graph of the Lake Level in Jim Chapman to Time

94



Minimum 6.100 0.150 2.000 7.125 136.500 Maximum 31.250 1.000 12.650 8.750 254.000

Mean 19.427 0.510 8.085 7.889 183.871 Range 25.150 0.850 10.650 1.625 117.500

Time t score -0.880 -0.379 1.233 1.631 -4.024 Time p value 0.381 0.706 0.220 0.106 0.000 Flow t score -1.432 -0.392 0.568 -2.910 1.077 Flow p value 0.155 0.696 0.571 0.004 0.284


y = -0.8184x + 436.01R² = 0.1084

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

425 430 435 440 445 450

Alka

linity

(mg/

l)

Height (feet)

Alkalinity to Water Level

Figure 71 – Graph of Alkalinity to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake

95

y = 0.0016x + 7.1812R² = 0.0096

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

pH

Height (feet)

pH to Water Level

y = -0.0037x + 334.47R² = 0.1225

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280


Cond

uctiv

ity (µ

S/cm

@ 2

5C)

Date

Conductivity to Time

Figure 72 – Graph of pH to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake

Figure 73 – Graph of Conductivity to Time in Jim Chapman Lake

96

Table 51 – Analysis of Nutrient Data for 0307


Minimum 0.020 0.475 0.020 0.027 0.010 2.960 Maximum 0.310 1.340 0.538 0.215 0.228 41.750

Mean 0.077 0.734 0.152 0.089 0.047 16.415 Range 0.290 0.865 0.518 0.188 0.218 38.790

Time t score 3.931 0.332 -0.568 0.972 -3.209 1.721 Time p value 0.000 0.741 0.572 0.334 0.002 0.088 Flow t score 3.765 5.019 1.649 4.372 -1.229 3.041 Flow p value 0.000 0.000 0.102 0.000 0.221 0.003


y = 6E-06x - 0.1765R² = 0.1956

00.020.040.060.08

0.10.120.140.160.18

0.2


NH 3

(mg/

l)

Date

Ammonia to Time

Figure 74 – Graph of Ammonia to Time in Jim Chapman Lake

97

y = -5E-06x + 0.2542R² = 0.1222

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25


OO

P (m

g/l)

Date


Figure 75 – Graph of Ammonia to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake

y = 0.0013x - 0.4876R² = 0.0321

00.020.040.060.08

0.10.120.140.160.18

0.2

425 430 435 440 445 450

NH 3

(mg/

l)

Height (feet)

Ammonia to Level

Figure 76 – Graph of Orthophosphate to Time in Jim Chapman Lake

98

y = -0.0002x + 0.8266R² = 3E-05

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

425 430 435 440 445 450

TKN

(mg/

l)

Height (feet)

Total Kjeldahl to Level

y = 0.0023x - 0.9379R² = 0.0559

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

425 430 435 440 445 450

TP (m

g/l)

Height (feet)

Total Phosphorus to Water Level

Figure 77 – Graph of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake

Figure 78 – Graph of Total Phosphorus to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake

99

Figure 79 – Graph of Chlorophyll-a to Water Level in Jim Chapman Lake

Due to some very low lake levels in 1999, the water level in the lake increased with time. Alkalinity increases with lower lake levels while pH decreases with lower lake levels. All the pH measurements are under the new level of 9. Orthophosphate and conductivity are decreasing with time. Conductivity appears to show some seasonal effects, but more analysis would be needed. Ammonia and TP increase with higher lake levels suggesting that this may be from external sources, however TKN has a negligible change. Chlorophyll-a slightly decreases with higher lake levels.

Comments 0307 In this part of the basin, TP and ammonia are increasing with water level suggesting that these limiting nutrients are being brought into the lake with increased rainfall probably from fertilizers. Alkalinity and conductivity decrease with increased lake levels showing a diluting effect. The alkalinity and high pH may be from natural sources so more chemical analysis and geographic analysis would be needed in this area. The impairment for the lake is high pH, but this may be a natural source. There is a slight increase in pH as water level increases with a corresponding slight decrease in chlorophyll-a suggesting that algae are not the cause of the change in pH.

There does seem to be a decrease in orthophosphates over time, but there is a large gap in the data and some very high readings in early years, so this may not be a real effect.

y = -0.2108x + 108.69R² = 0.0091

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

425 430 435 440 445 450

Chlo

roph

yll-a

(µg/

l)

Height (feet)

Chlorophyll-a to Level

100

4.0 Recommendations and Conclusions 4.1 Recommendations and Comments Lower Sulphur River – 0301 The Sulphur River shows signs of eutrophication in high levels of chlorophyll-a. During higher flows, many parameters decreased. Wright Patman Lake is used for flood control, so higher flows below the dam may not be possible. Work should be done to try to clarify the sources for the increased chlorophyll-a. This may be due to water from the lake, or it may be due to inflows from surrounding areas including those from Akin Creek. With an identified source, practices to reduce eutrophication would benefit this recreational water body.

Wright Patman Lake – 0302 Wright Patman Lake is an important source of drinking water and recreation for the Sulphur River Basin. It is currently a source for industrial water for International Paper and a potential source for industrial water for the TexAmericas Center. It is also being considered as a potential water source for the DFW metroplex some 180 miles away. This would require that the lake level be raised.

The lake is showing signs of eutrophication with algal growth and high pH. There are sources of phosphorus from tributaries that may be adding to this problem. The data suggests that with higher lake levels the lake would be healthier. However, as long as limiting nutrients like phosphorus are added the effect may only be one of temporary dilution rather than a healthier lake with an established thermocline and less mixing with the lower levels. Monitoring of the lake should continue with attempts to identify practices that would reduce the amount of phosphorus in the watershed that is possibly leading to decreased DO and higher pH levels.

Sulphur River – 0303 Bacteria and phosphate are the majors concerns for this very large agricultural watershed. Other concerns are for decreased habitat health due to municipal and industrial sources. This watershed leads directly to Wright Patman Lake. Bacterial screening levels for this rural area may not be appropriate given that most of the area is not used for contact recreation. White Oak Creek recently underwent an RUAA so monitoring will need to continue to establish whether any new levels that are set are maintained. Any agricultural point-source of bacteria should be identified to create practices that keep the water quality in this watershed from degrading further. Monitoring of waterways impacted by municipal and industrial discharge should continue and practices by wastewater treatment should be improved to reduce the impact of these discharges.

Days Creek – 0304 The 0304 watershed has impaired habitat. The need to remove water from impervious urban development destroys habitat through channelization. When possible, designs to delay water in wetlands and repair habitat should be used. The recreational use of this stream should be reassessed to determine if the appropriate recreational standards are being applied. New

101

recreational use standards would increase the acceptable level of bacteria in the creek. However, practices to reduce urban sources of bacteria and phosphorus should be instituted. A geographic analysis of septic systems and bacterial concentrations may be able to show if there is a correlation between the two. Wastewater treatment for nitrogen compounds should be improved, if possible. Monitoring for bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the streams above and below the treatment plants should continue. Contamination from the EPA superfund sites should be reevaluated and practices to reduce or eliminate further contamination, if possible, should be implemented.

North Sulphur River – 0305 Though there were no new concerns in the watershed, it is showing signs of eutrophication with high chlorophyll-a values and increased phosphate with increased flow. Sources of phosphate should be clarified to encourage practices to reduce phosphorus in the water.

Upper South Sulphur River – 0306 The 0306 watershed is showing signs of eutrophication with chlorophyll-a, nitrate, and phosphorus levels showing concern. It has pH levels high enough to be impaired. The sources for all issues are described as non-point source from agriculture and point source from municipal discharge. Practices to reduce runoff of nutrients into the water and improvement in water treatment should be implemented to improve water quality entering Jim Chapman Lake. Monitoring should continue on water around municipal discharge and prior to Jim Chapman to check for nutrients and compliance with the new pH level.

Jim Chapman Lake – 0307 The major problem for Jim Chapman Lake is high pH. Most of the measurements for the last 20 years hover around 8. This may be the natural level for this lake and some work to establish this would be good. The screening level was raised to 9, so monitoring should continue to ensure that the lake is meeting this level. TP increases with higher lake levels suggesting that phosphorus is coming form surrounding land. The lake is showing hints of eutrophication with ammonia, chlorophyll-a, and nitrate. Monitoring should continue for these as well as an attempt to identify the sources so that practices to reduce these levels in this important water supply can be identified.

4.2 Conclusions Approximately half of the waterbodies in the basin are showing signs for concern. Across the basin there are signs of rising eutrophication with increased levels of chlorophyll-a and phosphorus mainly. Also found are high levels of bacteria and nitrates. High pH levels in waterbodies are common. Municipal and industrial point discharge along with non-point urban runoff, agriculture, and livestock are often noted as sources. Overall, most parameters are below their screening levels. Screening levels are under refinement and monitoring should be targeted to known problems and conformity to new levels. Practices need to be implemented to reduce the impact on water quality from point and non-point sources.