Approval Letters for the Cimarron, Upper

Arkansas, and Lower Arkansas Rivers

Basins


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII


901 NORTH 5TH STREET
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
Nov. 13, 2000

Clyde D. Graeber, Secretary
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
400 S. W. 8th Avenue, Suite 200
Topeka, Kansas 66603-3930

Dear Mr. Graeber:

This letter responds to the submission from Kansas dated April 18, 2001, of 28 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for segments located in the Lower Arkansas Basin, which were identified on the 1998 Kansas 303(d) list as medium or low priority segments. In addition to fulfilling the Clean Water Act statutory requirement to develop TMDLs for those waters listed on a state's 303(d) list, this submission was made pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Consent Decree entered on April 13, 1998.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received 28 final TMDLs on April 19, 2001, 19 revised final TMDLs on June 21, 2001, 5 revised final TMDLs on July 12, 2001, and one revised final TMDL on July 16, 2001.

EPA has completed its review of the TMDLs with supporting documentation and information. By this letter EPA approves the submitted 28 TMDLs. Enclosed with this letter are Region 7 TMDL Review Forms which summarize the rationale for EPA's approval of each of these 28 TMDLs. The EPA believes the separate elements of the TMDLs described in the enclosed forms adequately address the pollutants of concern, taking into consideration seasonal variation and a margin of safety. It is also noteworthy that Kansas has submitted these TMDLs for the Lower Arkansas Basin ahead of the schedule set in the Consent Decree.

EPA appreciates the thoughtful effort that Kansas has put into these TMDLs. EPA will continue to cooperate with and assist, as appropriate, in future efforts by Kansas to develop the remaining TMDLs.


Sincerely,

U. Gale Hutton
Director
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII


901 NORTH 5TH STREET
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
Nov. 13, 2000

Clyde D. Graeber, Secretary
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
400 S. W. 8th Avenue, Suite 200
Topeka, Kansas 66603-3930

Dear Mr. Graeber:

RE: Kansas Natural Resource Council, Inc., and Sierra Club v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Civil Action No. 95-2490-JWL

This letter responds to the submission from Kansas on September 8, 2000, of 27 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for 21 water bodies in the Lower Arkansas Basin, which were identified on the 1998 Kansas 303(d) list. In addition to fulfilling the Clean Water Act statutory requirement to develop TMDLs for those waters listed on a state's 303(d) list, this submission was made pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Consent Decree entered on April 13, 1998, by Judge Lungstrum in the above-referenced matter.

EPA has completed its review of the TMDLs with supporting documentation and information. By this letter EPA approves the 27 TMDLs submitted for the 21 water bodies identified in the enclosure. The enclosure also provides the dates that EPA received from Kansas final revisions to 22 of these TMDLs for 16 water bodies. Enclosed with this letter are Region 7 TMDL Review Forms which summarize the rationale for EPA's approval for each of these 27 TMDLs. The EPA believes the separate elements of the TMDLs described in the enclosed forms adequately address the pollutants of concern, taking into consideration seasonal variation and margin of safety. It is also noteworthy that Kansas has submitted these TMDLs for the Lower Arkansas Basin, which is ahead of the schedule set in the Consent Decree.

EPA appreciates the thoughtful effort that Kansas has put into these TMDLs, and will continue to cooperate with and assist, as appropriate, in future efforts by Kansas to develop the remaining TMDLs and to implement these final approved TMDLs. The TMDLs that Kansas submitted are very good examples of State government working with full participation and coordination with other State Agencies, and meaningful public participation. EPA continues to look forward to working with Kansas to develop and implement solutions to water quality problems in the State.


Sincerely,

U. Gale Hutton
Director
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII


901 NORTH 5TH STREET
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
Sep. 11, 2000

Clyde D. Graeber, Secretary
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
400 S. W. 8th Avenue, Ste 200
Topeka, Kansas 66603

Dear Mr. Graeber:

RE: Kansas Natural Resource Council, Inc., and Sierra Club v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Civil Action No. 95-2490-JWL

This letter responds partially to the submission from Kansas on June 29, 2000, of 54 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and a subsequent submission on August 21, 2000, of five additional TMDLs for impaired streams and lakes in the Upper Arkansas, the Lower Arkansas, and Cimarron Basins which were identified on the 1998 Kansas 303(d) list. To date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved 22 of the 54 TMDLs submitted on June 29, 2000. This letter addresses the remaining 32 TMDLs for which Kansas has completed revisions, plus the five TMDLs submitted in August which were mistakenly omitted form the June submission. In addition to fulfilling the Clean Water Act statutory requirement to develop TMDLs for those waters listed on a state's 303(d) list, the June 29 and August 21 submissions were made pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Consent Decree entered on April 13, 1998, by Judge Lungstrum in the above-referenced matter.

In the June 29 submission letter, Kansas determined that eight impairments identified on the Kansas 1998 303(d) list as point source impairments did not require TMDLs. EPA received clarifying information from Kansas by letter dated August 10, 2000 for these eight impairments located within six identified waterbodies. The clarifying information ensures that NPDES permits for those facilities, identified as the sole contributor of the pollutant impairment on the waterbody, have been reissued either new permit limits for the pollutant of concern or compliance schedules which will bring the waterbody into attainment with water quality standards (WQS). It is EPA's understanding, based upon the rationale provided by Kansas in the August 10 letter, that as a result of effluent limitations already in place, the following six waterbodies (waterbody #6 has three impairments) will be (or already are) in compliance with the 1999 Kansas WQS for the pollutant and by the dates indicated:

  1. Crooked Creek-Segment 2 for ammonia-2002.
  2. Arkansas River below Garden City-Segment 1 for ammonia-May, 2000.
  3. Sun Creek-Segment 13 for bacteria-June, 1999.
  4. South Fork of the Ninnescah River-Segment 4 for bacteria-February, 1999.
  5. Arkansas River below Arkansas City-Segment 1 for bacteria-April, 2001.
  6. Sandy Creek-Segment 30 for bacteria, DO, and ammonia-May 2002.

Kansas' determination not to develop TMDLs for the above six waterbodies is consistent with paragraph 5 of the above referenced Consent Decree which reads:

"In fulfilling their obligations under this Consent Decree, Kansas is under no obligation to submit TMDLs to EPA nor is EPA under any obligation to establish TMDLs either (a) that are determined not to be needed consistent with Section 303(d) of the CWA and its implementing regulations, as either may be amended from time to time, including, but not limited to, 40 C.F.R. 130.7(b)(1), or (b) for WQLSs or pollutants that were on Kansas's 1996 Section 303(d) list but, consistent with the provisions of the CWA and its implementing regulations, were removed from any subsequent Kansas Section 303(d) list."

Also in the August 10 clarifying letter, Kansas identified four waterbodies which were listed on the 1998 303(d) list as impaired because of hydrology. EPA agrees that hydrology does not lend itself as a pollutant to be allocated via the TMDL process and as such may be more correctly termed impaired due to pollution. It is EPA's understanding that for two of these waterbodies, state efforts have already been made to mitigate the loss of water from these waterbodies because of historic ground water depletions in the High Plains Aquifer and such remedies will remain in the purview of the state under its Water Appropriations Act. In this case, Kansas is not required TMDL's for the following four waterbodies under EPA's implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. 130.7:

  1. Frazier Lake - Cimarron Basin
  2. Lake Meade - Cimarron Basin
  3. Hamilton County State Fishing Lake - Upper Arkansas Basin
  4. Cheyenne Bottoms - Lower Arkansas Basin

EPA has completed its review of the TMDLs for which Kansas has completed revisions, and of the five additional TMDLs, with supporting documentation and information. By this letter EPA approves the 34 TMDLs submitted for the waterbodies identified in the enclosure. The enclosure also provides the dates that EPA received from Kansas final revisions to 29 of these TMDLs. Enclosed with this letter are Region 7 TMDL Review Forms which summarize the rationale for EPA's approval of each of these 34 TMDLs. The EPA believes the separate elements of the TMDLs described in the enclosed form adequately address the pollutants of concern, taking into consideration seasonal variation and a margin of safety. This approval action satisfies the Consent Decree noted above which requires that Kansas develop TMDLs for two basins in the year 2000. It is also noteworthy that Kansas has also submitted several TMDLs for a third Basin, the Lower Arkansas, and intends to complete TMDLs for that basin by the end of this calendar year.

EPA appreciates the thoughtful effort that Kansas has put into these TMDLs, and will continue to cooperate with and assist, as appropriate, in future efforts by Kansas to develop the remaining TMDLs and to implement these final approved TMDLs. The TMDLs that Kansas submitted are very good examples of State government working with full participation and coordination with other State Agencies, and meaningful public participation. EPA continues to look forward to working with Kansas to develop and implement solutions to water quality problems in the State.


Sincerely,

U. Gale Hutton
Director
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticide Division

Enclosures

cc: Tom Stiles, KDHE
John Simpson, KNRC, Inc.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII


901 NORTH 5TH STREET
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
August 9, 2000

Clyde D. Graeber, Secretary
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
400 S. W. 8th Avenue, Suite 200
Topeka, Kansas 66603-3930

Dear Mr. Graeber:

RE: Kansas Natural Resource Council, Inc., and Sierra Club v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Civil Action No. 95-2490-JWL

This letter responds partially to the submittal from Kansas on June 29, 2000, of 54 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and subsequent July 20 and August 3 revisions to many of those TMDLs, for impaired streams and lakes in the Upper Arkansas, the Lower Arkansas, and Cimarron Basins which were identified on the 1998 Kansas 303(d) list. In addition to fulfilling the Clean Water Act statutory requirement to develop TMDLs for those waters listed on a state's 303(d) list, this submittal was made pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Consent Decree entered on April 13, 1998, by Judge Lungstrum in the above-referenced matter.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed each of the 54 TMDLs submitted June 29, then met with Kansas TMDL staff July 17th and 18th to discuss revisions needed in order for several of the TMDLs to be approved by EPA. At this time, EPA is anticipating further information from Kansas regarding water bodies for which Kansas has indicated TMDLs are not required as well as clarifying technical information for others. Additionally, the lake eutrophication TMDLs are still undergoing review.

EPA completed its review of the TMDLs for which Kansas has completed revisions, the supporting documentation and information, and by this letter EPA ia approving TMDLs submitted for the 22 water bodies identified in enclosure A. Enclosure A also provides the dates that EPA received from Kansas revisions to theses TMDLs. Enclosed with this letter are 22 Region 7 TMDL Review Forms which summarize the rationale for EPA's approval for each of these TMDLs. The EPA believes the separate elements of the TMDLs described in the enclosed forms adequately address the pollutants of concern, taking into consideration seasonal variation and margin of safety.

EPA appreciates the thoughtful effort that Kansas has put into these TMDLs, and will continue to cooperate with and assist, as appropriate, in future efforts by Kansas to develop the remaining TMDLs and to implement these final approved TMDLs. The TMDLs that Kansas submitted are very good examples of State government working with full participation and coordination with other State Agencies, and meaningful public participation. EPA continues to look forward to working with Kansas to develop and implement solutions to water quality problems in the State.


Sincerely,

U. Gale Hutton
Director
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division

Enclosure A

Basin and Water Body Revised Submission Date(s)
Upper Arkansas Basin .
Arkansas River below Garden City-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Arkansas River from Pierceville to Ford-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Arkansas River from Ford to Kinsley-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Arkansas River from Kinsley to Dundee-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Arkansas River from Dundee to Great Bend-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Arkansas River at Larned-Ammonia .
Upper Pawnee River and Buckner Creek-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
North Fork Walnut Creek-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Jetmore Lake-Aquatic Plants 7/20/00
Cimarron Basin .
Cavalry Creek-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Lower Arkansas Basin .
Elm Creek-Ammonia .
Upper Medicine Lodge River-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Bluff Creek-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Fall Creek-Ammonia .
Fall Creek-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Cow Creek-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Cheney Lake-Siltation 7/20/00 and 8/1/00
Cowskin Creek-FCB .
Cowskin Creek-Nut/Organic 7/20/00
Arkansas River below Wichita-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Little Arkansas River-FCB 7/20/00 and 8/3/00
Little Arkansas River-Ammonia .