Watershed Assessment of the Kiamichi Basin of Oklahoma

Transcription

Watershed Assessment for the Kiamichi
Basin of Oklahoma
_____________________
Hydrological Unit Code (HUC): 11140105
D. Russell Sanford II and Susy Boyd
Kiamichi River below Sardis Dam in summer of 2011.
Photo: Oklahomans for Responsible Water Policy (ORWP).
Fall 2012
Oregon State University
Revised February 2013
The Kiamichi Watershed is located in Southeast Oklahoma, and the headwaters
originate on Pine Mountain in the Ouachita Mountains, adjacent to Arkansas'
border. The 172 mile-long Kiamichi River flows through three counties before
it reaches its confluence with the Red River, located south of Hugo, Oklahoma.
2
Table of Contents
Background Information
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………….……..4
Historical Land Use………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….…5
Current Land Use………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Climate…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………..….7
Topography…………………………………………………………………………………………….………..………………………..7
Geology………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..………………8
Hydrology and Water Resources.………………………………………………………………………………..………………8
Water Quality: Lentic Resources…..……………………………………………………………………………………….….10
Water Quality: Lotic Systems………………………………………………………………………………..…………………..11
Vegetation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….……12
Disturbances………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………13
Fish and Wildlife…………………………………………………………………………………………..……………….…………14
Integrated Watershed Management..………………………………………………………………………………….……16
Conclusion…….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17
Assessment Report Card.………………………………………….……………………………………………………….………………….19
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…21
Appendix A: Grading Rubric and Discussion..…………………………………………………………………………………………28
Appendix B: Figures..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….44
Appendix C: Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………….59
Appendix D: 2010 – 2011 Beneficial Use Monitoring Program Reports for Sardis Lake, Hugo Lake……………
and the Kiamichi River………………..………………………………………………………………………………..….62
3
Background Information
Introduction
The Kiamichi Watershed is located in the southeast corner of the state of Oklahoma. Its namesake river - the Kiamichi River -- originates in the Ouachita National Forest in extreme western Arkansas and enters
Oklahoma in southeastern LeFlore County. The Kiamichi River's 172-mile (277 km) length then continues
its reach until it ends its journey as a tributary feeding into the Red River in Choctaw County (Oklahoma
Water Resources Board [OWRB] 2000). As seen in Figure 1, the river runs through three Oklahoma
counties, and the basin itself spans six counties.
Major tributaries of the Kiamichi River include Jackfork, Buck, Tenmile, Buffalo, Cedar, Gates, Anderson,
and Pine Creeks (Pigg and Hill 1974, p 121). Also notable are two significant reservoirs: Hugo Reservoir,
which was constructed in 1974 and impounds the main channel of the river, and Sardis Reservoir, later
constructed in 1983 as an impoundment of Jackfork Creek. The Kiamichi River Watershed is approximately
4800 km2 (Pyron and others 1998, p 336) and is situated within two major geomorphic provinces. Ouachita
Mountain Province is where the headwaters originate in the mountains' long ridges above shale valleys;
the lower drainage lies in the Dissected Coastal Plains Province composed of sands, gravels, and clays from
the Gulf Coastal Plain. The upper watershed is comprised of oak-pine forest found within the designated
Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness, while the lower section is composed of oak-hickory forest with tall grass
prairie in the lower drainage (Pigg and Hill 1974, p 121).
The remarkable story of the Kiamichi Watershed rests in a turbulent political and social battle. This
coveted water resource first fended off aggressive attempts from north Texas interests to gain access to
the waters to fuel their rapid growth. Oklahoma lawmakers responded with a moratorium on out-of-state
water sales, a legal entanglement that continues to the present day. Then in 2010, the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board attempted to grant 90 percent of Sardis Lake water rights to Oklahoma City, a move that
4
has instigated the formation of the grassroots organization Oklahomans for Responsible Water Policy
(ORWP) as well as legal response from the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes, which claim water rights within
the Kiamichi River basin (Pearson 2012, p 1). The Kiamichi Watershed exists as a classic example of a
wicked problem.
Historical Land Use
The Ouachita region was primarily home to the Ouachita tribe, which was later assimilated into the
Natchitoches tribe and is today a part of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma. However, tribal sites have only
been discovered along the Ouachita River of Arkansas and Louisiana (Gregory 1965; State of Louisiana
2012). Prior to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the Ouachita Highlands were composed of virgin lands
relatively free of human influence and settlement, although small-scale fire regime disturbances and
agriculture by prehistoric American Indians has been documented (US Forest Service [USDAFS] 1999, p 9).
In 1830, the Choctaw tribe, the first natives subjected to removal, settled in the western Ouachita range
of Indian Territory. This displacement of the Choctaws set the stage for large-scale land conversion in what
would later become Oklahoma.
Railroad companies, who were granted rights-of-way by the Choctaw Reconstruction treaty of 1866,
spearheaded a hijacking of the region’s timber and coal resources (Kidwell and Roberts 1980, p 52). Under
the treaty, Choctaws were to grant passage for one east-west line and one north-south line, the first of
which was completed in 1873. Subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court recognized that eminent domain
lay with the United States government, and permitted additional railroads to be built within the Choctaw
Nation (Kidwell and Roberts 1980, p 53).
The post-allotment era allowed the transfer of land ownership from Choctaws to outsiders, which became
a heavily exploited market. The era has been described as “an orgy of plunder and exploitation probably
unparalleled in American history” (Faiman-Silva 1997, p 76). Choctaws were cheated out of land by use of
5
whiskey, forged contracts, the language barrier (Mould 2004, pp 149-150, 154-157), and the abuse of the
court system, which in some cases granted whites guardianship of Choctaws (Faiman-Silva 1997, p 80-82).
By the time Oklahoma reached statehood in 1907, virtually all other forests in the eastern US had fallen
victim to the logging and mill industry’s grip. Thus, the Ouachitas are often described as the last virgin
forest east of the Rocky Mountains (Smith 1986, p 4). Around 1908, a timber boom hit Southeast
Oklahoma and ushered the opening of six large sawmills and hundreds of smaller mills. Historically, the
Caddo River Lumber Company and Dierks Lumber Company dominated the area’s timber industry. Within
just 40 years, lumbermen cut every known virgin stand in the Ouachita range. The closing of the mill in
Forester, Arkansas in 1952 signified the inability to obtain quality timber from the Ouachita Highlands
despite a massive post-war demand for lumber (Smith 1986, p 203).
In 1969, the Dierks sold their entire holdings to Weyerhaeuser Corporation in one of the largest timber
industry land transfers in history. Weyerhaeuser now owns sizable portions of forested lands in Oklahoma
(Faiman-Silva 1997, p 106) and operates them for both sustained yield timber and as leases for game
hunting (Weyerhaeuser 2012).
Current Land Use
Today, the low-elevation, rolling Ouachitas are largely fragmented due to timber harvest and land
conversion (Fig. 2). Smith (1986, p 15) estimated about 20% of the original Ouachita forest coverage
remained after its initial harvest, with no virgin stands known to exist.
The Kiamichi Basin in particular is also heavily fragmented. Forested lands account for 65.5% of land type
and pasturelands make up about 25% of the total land area (Fig. 3). Roughly 5.5% of these pasturelands
have been designated as native (Table 1). With these figures, we can deduce that at least one fifth of lands
in the Kiamichi watershed have been converted. Other land uses, such as cropland (1.46%) and industrial
6
use (0.25%) are relatively negligible. However, the use of cattle and chicken waste as fertilizer in the area’s
pasturelands has been suspected as a contributor to increased levels of nitrogen in the area’s watersheds
(Carla Atkinson, University of Oklahoma, personal correspondence).
The area is very rural, with the largest population center being Hugo, Oklahoma with a population of 5,326
(US Census 2011). The City of Hugo is actually bisected by the boundary of the Kiamichi watershed. The
six counties whose boundaries fall within the watershed combine for a total population of just 148,342
people and only three counties reported a growth in population between 2010 and 2011, which was a
fraction of the statewide average (US Census 2011).
Climate
Precipitation and temperature patterns can vary widely from year to year in Southeast Oklahoma, as this
region of the United States is prone to drought (Figs. 4 and 5). However, precipitation patterns are
extremely unique in the Ouachita highlands compared to the rest of the region. The Kiamichi Basin
receives an annual average of 48 to over 56 inches of precipitation, whereas most areas of the state
receive less than 36 inches annually (Fig. 6).
Typically, rainfall in Southeast Oklahoma is somewhat evenly distributed throughout the year, with the
driest periods occurring during the hottest summer months of July and August (Fig. 7). Future climate
projections illustrate that the Ouachita Highlands will become warmer (Fig. 8) and drier (Fig. 9).
Topography
The entirety of the Kiamichi Basin encompasses Basin 5 (ID 10301) and Basin 6 (ID 10302) with respective
square kilometers of 984 and 3737; elevation ranges between 270 to 810 m. The basin serves as drainage
for an area of steep east-west trending ridges separated by a broad and flat-bottomed stream valley (Figs.
7
10 and 11). The surrounding Ouachita Mountains are made of sedimentary rocks that have been deformed
into tightly folding anticlines and synclines that form the local topography (Mast and Turk 1999, pp 1-3).
Rainfall in the eastern part of the Kiamichi Basin is high because of the influence of the Kiamichi Mountains
along with moist air masses from the Gulf of Mexico. It is the combination of the precipitation along with
the steep topography of the Ouachita Mountain Region that results in the Kiamichi River Basin as having
one of the highest runoff-per-square-mile regions in the state of Oklahoma (OWRB 2000, p 7).
Geology
The substrate and alluvial areas of the Kiamichi River and its tributaries are composed of a mixture of
gravel, sand, silt and clay (Fig. 12). Within the upland areas, the dominant formations are terrace deposits
composed of gravel, sand, silt, clay and volcanic ash. On top, it might contain windblown sand or colluvial
wash down from adjoining hillsides.
The hills of the basin most often contain an olive-green to gray form of Stanley Shale, with poorly sorted
beds of micaceous, quartzose sandstones and some thin siliceous cherty beds and black shales. Along
these fault zones, asphaltite, lead and quartz veins occur often. Jackfork Sandstone also commonly forms
the hills with tan to gray, maroon quartzose sandstone with some mica. In the Kiamichi watershed,
Arkansas Novaculite is particular to the tops of the Potato Hills, which is a type of fine-grained chert in
various shades of gray, green, tan, black, white and pink. The Caddo Formation of the southern portion of
the watershed near the Red River is predominately limestone.
8
Hydrology and Water Resources
The Kiamichi Watershed, Oklahoma's most prolific water resource, includes the Kiamichi River which is
fed by four major tributaries: Jackfork, Cedar, Buck and Tenmile Creeks, and two impoundments: Hugo
and Sardis Lakes. The Kiamichi River is free-flowing for the first 248 km and is impounded by the Hugo
Lake Dam (constructed in 1974) 29 km upstream from its convergence with the final destination of Red
River. In 1983 another dam was built on the Jackfork Creek tributary, which resulted in the creation of
Sardis Lake and has altered streamflow below Jackfork Creek’s confluence with the Kiamichi River
(Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation [ODWC] 2006, p 2). Both the Hugo and Sardis dams were
constructed as the result of Flood Control Act legislation with the intent of addressing issues related to
flood control, water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife uses (ODWC 2000, pp 11-13).
The Kiamichi River originates in the Ouachita and Kiamichi Mountains in southeast Oklahoma adjacent to
the Arkansas border, then flows westerly until it approaches the town of Clayton. Then the river turns and
flows south by southeast until it converges with its final destination, the Red River. Channel slope has
variation between 20 m/km at the headwaters to .3 m/km near Hugo Lake, close to its final output. Above
Hugo Lake, the Kiamichi River has long, clear pools and extended riffles (Martin 1997, p 1). The river
bottom varies somewhat with division into three major sections: the headwaters region contains large
sandstone rocks, sand, and gravel. The middle section with its more sluggish flow contains fine gravel, silt,
or mud. The lower section of the River, below Antlers, has sediment composed of clay and fine sediments
(Pigg and Hill 1974, pp. 121-22).
The Kiamichi Basin is noted for high run-off per-square-mile attributed to both steep topography and the
region's precipitation patterns: while Oklahoma's average annual precipitation is 36 inches, the far
southeast corner where the Kiamichi Basin lies averages about 56 inches of precipitation annually, as
compared to the far western pandhandle region which averages about 17 inches per year (Vogel, Stringer,
9
and Beem, No Date Given p. 3). USGS operates three stream gauges along the river continuum at Big Cedar
nearest the headwaters, Clayton in the midsection, and Antlers at the lower river section. Average annual
flow based on daily measurements of rate flow through the channel during a one year period for each
respective station is 62K ac-ft/yr at Big Cedar, 816K ac-ft/yr at Clayton, and more than 1.3 million ac-ft/yr
at Antlers (OWRB 2000, p 7). In spite of high run-off, the Kiamichi Watershed is prone to dry spells, which
have been increasing in recent years and was significant in the year 2011. Historical data indicate that flow
at the lower Antlers gauge station drops to <50 cfs during summer months prior to runoff events. (OWRB
2002, p 21). Most tributaries within the watershed are ephemeral, particularly in the Upper Kiamichi
Watershed (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USDAFS] No Date Given, p G-17). Table 2
indicates flood discharge data for Jackfork Creek and Kiamichi River at 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year
intervals (Ruhl 2012, p 1474).
Groundwater can be found in two major basins that underlie the Kiamichi River Basin. The Antlers
Sandstone, consisting of fine-grained sand interbedded with clay, has 320 square miles of its 4,400 square
mile area under the Kiamichi Watershed. The Arkansas Novaculite and Bigfork Chert underlie 33 square
miles of the Kiamichi River Basin, but are located in such a remote region that few wells tapping into the
aquifer have been drilled (OWRB 2000, p 9). Nitrite plus nitrate was found in groundwater samples in the
Ouachita Province in concentrations as high as 4.7 mg/L, with a median of 0.16 mg/L. Median nitrite plus
nitrate concentrations tended to be higher in samples from springs in comparison to wells which is
indicative of surface source contamination possibly due to surrounding agricultural land use (USDAFS
1999, p 25).
10
Water Quality: Lentic Resources
The two largest sources of drinking water and aquatic recreation, Hugo and Sardis Lakes, have been
deemed impaired. The EPA (2010a) lists Hugo Lake as overall impaired due to color and turbidity, the
sources of which are listed as “unknown”. The aesthetic value of the reservoir has been impaired due to
color. Also, the propagation of fish and wildlife has been impaired by turbidity, and has hindered
recreational harvest (EPA 2010a).
Sardis Lake has also been assessed as overall impaired due to turbidity, lack of dissolved oxygen, and
Enterococcus bacteria by unknown sources (EPA 2010b). Fish and wildlife propagation has been impaired
by turbidity and the lack of dissolved oxygen. Also, recreation has been impacted due to the possibility of
bodily contact with Enterococcus bacteria (EPA 2010b).
Biological samples of a fish species were taken by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
(OKDEQ) between 1997 and 2004 to detect the presence of toxicants. Results from Sardis Lake range
between 0.2 – 0.4 mg/kg of mercury per sample, and results from Hugo Lake show as much as 0.56 mg/kg
of mercury per sample (EPA 2012a). The presence of mercury in fish for both lakes is considerably higher
than what is typically found in albacore tuna (.358 mg/kg on average; FDA 2010), a large fish that is
renowned for high mercury levels. By comparison, the largest of all fish samples from Hugo and Sardis by
mass weighed only 1.94 kg (EPA 2012a).
Water Quality: Lotic Systems
Water originating from the Ouachita Mountains tends to be cooler than that found in the streams of the
ecosystems of Oklahoma's Great Plains, with a range of 17.8 degrees Celsius in winter to 28.9 degrees
Celsius in summer (Strickland 2011, p 1). Stream reaches within the Kiamichi Watershed have been
documented as problematic for turbidity, presence of Enterococcus bacteria, and heavy metals including
11
copper, lead, silver, and zinc. These impairments have impacted aesthetics, recreation, fish consumption
and fish/wildlife propagation (Appendix D).
The greatest concern is impairment of fish/wildlife propagation due to heavy metals listed above. Copper,
lead, and silver presence have all been identified as being potentially caused by highway/road/bridge
runoff as well as abandoned mine lands (ODEQ 2010a). A report by John Sibley from 1805 places an Indian
silver mine near present-day Clayton, OK (Wilson 1976, p 259). Lead mining in the Ouachita Mountains
has been noted (Johnson 1998, p 3), but lead and zinc mining was predominantly carried out in the
northeast section of Oklahoma.
Lotic waters in the Kiamichi Watershed are noted for low pH levels. Mast and Turk (1999, p 5) indicate pH
levels of 4.7 for twelve years. The USEPA Watershed Assessment (2010) cites sulfates as an impairment to
the Kiamichi Watershed, and sulfates have been shown to be excellent indicators of coal pollution (Rikard
and Kunkle, 1989, p 1). Iron sulfide, found around coal seams, produces sulfuric acid, which can lower the
pH of nearby streams: predominant anions were indicative of sulfate and nitrate. The southeast region of
Oklahoma, most relevantly in McAlester, which is located within the Kiamichi vicinity, is a coal mining
center. Predominant cations were hydrogen and ammonium which strongly suggest fertilizers as a source
of nitrate. Additionally, Kiamichi's sandstone and shale substrate has low free carbonates with low
buffering capacity. All of these factors can contribute to low pH levels in stream water.
Vegetation
Primary vegetation of the Kiamichi Basin is dominated by second growth (50 to 70 years old) oak, hickory,
and pine vegetation types. On the drier south- and west- facing slopes, the region is dominated by
shortleaf pine and some loblolly pine. Midstory vegetation in the shortleaf pine region includes winged
elm, sparkleberry, and low blueberry; understory vegetation includes greenbriar, poison ivy, and little
bluestem (Bales and others 2007, p 56). On the wetter north- and east-facing slopes, pines and hardwoods
12
grow together, predominated by hardwood species including white oak, black oak, post oak, blackjack
oak, black hickory, pignut hickory, and mockemut hickory. Here, midstory is composed of dogwood and
redbud with an understory of panicum and wildrye (Bales and others 2007, p 56). Hardwoods are also
predominant in the bottomlands of the stream valleys (USGS Circular 1173-B 1999).
Hundreds of thousands of acres of shortleaf pine-hardwood have been converted to loblolly pine
plantations on commercial lands. Remaining second-growth hardwood stands on average have more trees
with smaller diameter than in historical forests. Understory vegetation is now dominated by woody
species; grasses and forbs are scarce. Present-day stands have been shaped largely by two factors: lumber
extraction for commercial use and more than 60 years of fire suppression practices. Large scale timber
removal took place mainly between the early 1910's through 1940. Following the cutting, a strict policy
of fire suppression continued into the 1980's. Restoration efforts are currently being implemented with a
steady increase in percentage of forested lands, and management activities that include thinning and
prescribed burns (Hedrick and others, No Date Given). More detailed data for forestry practice both
current and historical are found in the previous Land Use sections of this assessment.
Disturbances
Noted disturbances to the ecosystems of the Ouachita Forest region are insect outbreak, wind damage,
and fire (Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment: Summary Report No Date Given). Ice storms are
infrequent but can impact the forest ecosystems. In December of 2000 the region experienced a significant
ice storm, depositing between 1.3 and 15.2 cm of ice. Thousands of trees were downed or damaged from
the ice accumulation; patchy patterns of ice storm damage were observed throughout the Ouachita
National Forest. The highest percentage of storm damage occurred in regions of moderate elevations,
moderate slopes, and windward aspects (Isaacs 2007).
13
Fire presents an interesting irony in that the absence of fire has contributed to the decline of forest health.
Historical records indicate frequent fire regime between 1896 and the mid-1950's. Following the 1950's,
near-complete fire elimination policies were set in place, resulting in significant densification of the forests
(Masters 2007). Higher density forest stands due to fire suppression policies are now being thinned and
prescribed burns are taking place there in order to improve forest health and wildlife habitat.
The most significant human-induced disturbances are the two dams within the watershed, as indicated in
the Hydrology section; the Sardis Dam impounds the Jackfork Creek and the Hugo Dam impounds the
Kiamichi River. Flow interruption and reduction in flow at the post-dam sites have resulted in changes
throughout the Kiamichi Watershed. Criteria for total dissolved solids indicate that impoundment for
beneficial use for agriculture has been fully supported based on sampling studies from 2010-2011
(Appendix D; OWRB 2011b).
Fish and Wildlife
There are 29 species of mussels recorded as occurring in the Kiamichi basin, and are regarded as keystones
in the watershed’s ecosystem (Vaughn and others 1996, p 327). Many species are endemic to the Ouachita
range, including the federal and state endangered Ouachita rock-pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri),
Scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon), and Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa). However, recent research
shows that the populations of these rare and endangered species have declined significantly. For instance,
Arkansia wheeleri was not found at any of the historically monitored sites (Galbraith and others 2008).
Removal of riparian habitat, gravel mining, and the impoundments of Jack Fork Creek and the Kiamichi
River have been cited as sources threatening mussel communities (Galbraith and others 2008).
Water management practices have altered flow regimes due to unnatural reservoir releases. Coupled with
perturbations in climate, damming has led to decreases in aquatic biomass, species richness, and
community composition (Galbraith and others 2010). Periods of low flow occur during the hottest months
14
of the summer, and water management has reduced the continuous flows of the Kiamichi River into a
series of warm, isolated pools (Figs. 10 and 13).
Pyron and others (1998) have identified 101 fish species in the Kiamichi River Basin, but it should be noted
that their report is now dated and represents the most comprehensive assessment of total fish species to
be found specifically for this region: many of the species are rare. Endemic fish species include two
madtoms (Noturus lachneri/N. taylori) and a darter (Etheostoma pallidodorsum) in the headwaters region
of the Ouachita. Other species primarily found in the Ouachita Mountains and drainages are the peppered
shiner (Notropis perpallidus), rocky shiner (N. suttkusi), and Ouachita shiner (Lythrurus snelsoni). It is
noteworthy that 21 of the 34 native species of crayfish are endemic (Abell and others 2000, p 2).
Numerous fish species are listed as vulnerable: the Blackspot Shiner (Notropis atrocaudalis), Pallid Shiner
(Hybopsis amnis), Peppered Shiner (Notropis perpallidus), Kiamichi Shiner (Notropis ortenburgeri),
Goldstripe Darter (Etheostoma parvipinne), and Crystal Darter (Crystallaria asprella). The Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is very rare and vulnerable to extinction (G3 status). The Indiana Bat
(Myotis sodalis) is considered imperiled globally due to rarity (G2 status), and the American Burying Beetle
(Nicrophorus americanus) is critically imperiled globally and extremely rare (G1 status). Two other
endangered species have been spotted in the Kiamichi Basin while migrating, the Piping Plover
(Charadrius melodus) and Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum).
Pyron and others (1998) attribute a relationship between species richness and upstream distance from
reservoir impoundments as a result of reservoir construction, noting a decrease in abundance of three
fish species (Fundulus olivaceus, Notropis atherinoides, and Labidesthes sicculus) in the time period
following dam construction.
15
Integrated Watershed Management
Many stakeholders share the management of and interest in the Kiamichi Basin. Federal, state, tribal, and
citizen groups often coordinate in an attempt to form a unified vision and plan for the water resources of
Southeast Oklahoma. Currently, the main focus for the tribal and citizen based groups are the storage and
use rights of Sardis Lake, which Oklahoma City is attempting to purchase from the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board (OWRB). Furthermore, a suit filed by the Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) of Texas
in 2007 against the OWRB has recently been advanced to the US Supreme Court for review (ORWP 2012a,
personal correspondence). Although comprehensive watershed management includes the EPA, US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma’s Department of Environmental Quality, and others, here we’ll focus on
four primary stakeholders.
OWRB
The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB 2012) is a state agency whose nine-member board is
appointed by the Governor. The board appoints an executive director to oversee the agency, which is
responsible for protecting and managing the aquatic resources of Oklahoma. Duties of the OWRB include
water use appropriation, permitting, water quality monitoring and standards, dam safety, floodplain
management, financial assistance for water systems, long-term water supply planning, mapping, and
technical studies and research (OWRB 2012). In 2006, the OWRB contracted with the Oklahoma Water
Resources Research Institute (OWRRI) at Oklahoma State University (OSU) to initiate a public participation
process for comprehensive policy development.
16
OCC
The Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC 2012) was formed in response to Section 319, a 1987
amendment to the Clean Water Act of 1972. The OCC strives to achieve the new mandates by identifying
waters impaired by non-point source pollution (NPS), such as pesticides, fertilizers, sediment, and animal
waste. Goals of the commission include seeking input from various landowners, environmental groups,
agencies and Indian tribes to identify impairments and prioritize action (OCC 2012).
ORWP
Oklahomans for Responsible Water Policy (ORWP 2012b) is a “grassroots” organization of concerned
citizens, who are interested in protecting their water resources, environment and ways of life. Founded in
March 2010, the group has already grown to over 14,000 members by use of mailing campaigns, online
resources, and social media (ORWP 2012b).
The Tribal Nations
The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations of Oklahoma have a shared interest in the water resources of
Southeast Oklahoma. They are working collectively to ensure that the future generations of their Nations
and those living in Oklahoma have primary access and use to water resources. The two Nations have
launched The Water Network (WN), www.waterfuture.tv, an online resource that seeks to protect
Oklahoma’s resources through extension and education. The site broadcasts news and videos in real time,
and provides historical context, documentaries, and legal commentary (WN 2012).
Conclusion
Initial impressions may lead one to conclude that the Kiamichi Basin is a pristine ecosystem that has been
out of reach from human perturbations. After all, there are no major point sources of pollution in the
watershed and the region is free of large population centers. However, Hugo and Sardis reservoirs have
drastically changed the natural timing of flows in the Kiamichi River and Jackfork Creek. The construction
17
of these dams, coupled with landscape-scale land conversion, has drastically impacted a host of endemic
and endangered species through habitat destruction and poor water quality. Further, these precious
ecosystems are under threat from inter-basin water transfers. The sustainable provision of consumptive
and non-consumptive uses and benefits of Kiamichi water for future generations will rely upon
collaboration, monitoring, adaptive management, and substantial research.
18
Assessment Report Card
TOPIC
ISSUE
EXPLANATION
GRADE
Ecologically sustainable
use of animal waste as
fertilizer
The use of animal manure as fertilizer is
regulated and monitored
F
Fragmentation and
conversion of riparian
zones
Regulation limits and monitors the development
of riparian zones; best practice methods are
utilized and funding provided to landowners for
restoration
C
Fragmentation and
conversion of upland
zones
Regulation limits and monitors the development
of upland zones; best practice methods are
utilized and funding provided to landowners for
restoration
C
Endangered and
threatened species
Endangered and threatened species of aquatic
and terrestrial habitats have recently been
surveyed and inventoried
F
Noxious weeds
Landowners are required to treat, control or
eradicate infestations and report the occurrence
of noxious weeds to the state Department of
Agriculture
C
Agriculture
Private Lands
Survey and Inventory
Integrated Resource Management
Inter-agency coordination Watershed management is a cooperative
and public participation
arrangement inclusive of all stakeholders
B
Provision of resources for Beneficial uses and ecosystem services of the
future generations
basin are monitored and management plans
adapted in response to degradation
D
Reservoir Levels
Water levels are consistently high and are
supportive of biota and recreation
A
Stream Flows
In-stream flows follow natural regimes and are
supportive of biota and recreation
D
Sustainability
Water Quantity
Groundwater/Aquifers
Measuring and Monitoring Water quantity of groundwater is known and
of Groundwater/Aquifers quality is measured on a regular basis
19
F
Water Quality
Monitoring of Surface
Water Quality
Water quality is consistently monitored to
ensure beneficial uses and ecosystem services
are not jeopardized
B
Streams and Rivers
Beneficial uses and ecosystem services are
sustained
C
Reservoirs and Lakes
Beneficial uses and ecosystem services are
sustained
C
Provision of recreational
opportunities
Recreational opportunities are supported by
local businesses and local, state and federal
governments
A
Sources of Impairments
and TMDLs
The sources causing impairments are known and
TMDLs have been set for lentic and lotic systems
D
Acid Rain/Air Quality
Monitoring
Monitoring stations have been installed in the
basin to measure air quality and acid rain
F
Projections show that by the end of the century,
the basin’s average temperature and rainfall will
remain resilient to a changing global climate
D
Recreation and Tourism
Effluents
Global Environmental Influences
Projections for Future
Climate
OVERALL GRADE:
C
Discussion: The waters of the Kiamichi are routinely represented as pristine,
unperturbed by man, and of high quality and value. Some parts of the watershed are
impressive, such as Upper Kiamichi, which is nested in a designated Wilderness
region. However, the Kiamichi Watershed is by no means pristine.
Localized agricultural and timber industries, along with historical and present-day
mining practices, have had degrading effects on dissolved oxygen, pH,
sedimentation, and have introduced heavy metals such as copper, lead, and silver.
Sulfates and nitrates are present, arguably attributable to regional mining and
agricultural industries. Groundwater yields and quality are virtually unknown in the
Kiamichi Basin.
Local fish populations in Sardis and Hugo Lakes show highly elevated levels of
mercury. Several endangered mussel species and many vulnerable fish species are
threatened with expiration due to low in-stream flows from inconsistent releases
from impoundments. These problems are expected to compound as climate
projections illustrate higher temperatures and less rainfall throughout the remainder
of this century.
20
References
Abell, R.A., Loucks, C.J., Hedeo, P., Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Hurley, P., Diggs, J.T., Eichbaum, W.,
Walters, S., Wettengel, W. and Allnut, T. 2000. Freshwater Ecoregions Of North America: A
Conservation Assessment [monograph online]. Washington, DC: Island Press; Available from:
http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=145 Accessed 2012 October 30.
Bales, Lyda, S., Hellgren, E.C., and Leslie, Jr., D.M. 2007. Diurnal habitat selection and home-range size of
female black bears in the Ouachita Mountains of Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma
Academy of Science 87: 55-64.
Brianna, B. 2011. Congressional study: harmful fracking chemicals used in Oklahoma. Journal Record
(Oklahoma City, OK). 04/18/2011.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station (US) [USFS]. 1999. Ozark-Ouachita
highlands assessment: terrestrial vegetation and wildlife. Ashenville, NC: USDA. General Technical
Report SRS-35.
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA 2010a] [Internet]. 2012 Oct 31; Available from:
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?
p_au_id=OK410300020020_00&p_state=OK&p_cycle=2010
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA 2010b] [Internet]. 2012 Oct 31; Available
from:http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?_p_au_id=OK41031003002
0_00&p_state=OK&p_cycle=2010
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA 2012a] [Internet]. 2012 Dec 1; Available from:
http://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/STORETSummary/f?p=WatershedUI:1:0::::P1_ORG_CHAR,P1_HUC:1,
11140105
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA 2012b] [Internet]. 2012 Dec 1; Available from:
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_watershed.control?p_huc=11140105&p_state=OK&
p_cycle=&p_report_type=T
Faiman-Silva Sandra. 1997. Choctaws at the Crossroads: The political Economy of Class and Culture in
the Oklahoma Timber Region. Lincoln (NE): University of Nebraska Press.
Fenner, D. and Martinez, D.; Oklahoma: Warmer streams could add to stresses on rare water
species [Internet]. Open Spaces: A Blog of the Fish and Wildlife Service; 2011 May 31
[2012 June 21]. Available from:
http://www.fws.gov/news/blog/index.cfm/2011/5/31/Oklahoma-Warmer-Streams-Could-Add-toStresses-on-Rare-Water-Species
Food and Drug Administration [FDA] [Internet]. 2012 Dec 1; Available from:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/ProductSpecificInformation/Seafood/FoodbornePathogensContaminants/Methylmercury/ucm115644.htm
21
Galbraith Heather S, Spooner Daniel E, Vaughn Caryn C. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater
mussels of Southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist 52 (1): 45-50.
Galbraith Heather S, Spooner Daniel E, Vaughn Caryn C. 2010. Synergistic effects of regional climate
patterns and local water management on freshwater mussel communities. Biological Conservation
143 (2010): 1175 – 1183.
Gregory HF. 1965. European Trade beads from Six Sites in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana. The Florida
Anthropologist 18(3): 15.
Hedrick, L.D., Bukenhofer, G.A., Montague, W.G., Pell, W.F., and Guldin, J.M. 2007. Shortleaf pinebluestem restoration in the Ouachita National Forest. In: Kabrick, J.M., Dey, D.C., and Gwaze, D.,
editors. Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks. Proceedings of a Symposium. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NRS-P-15; 2006 November 7-9; Newton Square, PA. Northern Research Station: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. p 206-13.
Heran WD, Green G, and Stoeser DB. 2003. A Digital Geologic Map Database of Oklahoma: U. S. G. S.
Open File Report 03-247. Department of the Interior, Geological Society (US). [Internet]. 2005.
[cited 2012 Oct 25] Available from: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=OK
Isaacs, R.E. August 2007. Spatial patterns of ice storm disturbance in the forested landscape of Ouachita
Mountains [Internet], Arkansas and Oklahoma [MS Thesis]. College Station (TX): Texas A & M
University. 183 p. Available from: http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU1515/ISAACS-THESIS.pdf?sequence=1
Johnson, K.S. 1998 June. Mountains, streams, and lakes of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey.
Available online: http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/InfSeries/infseries1.pdf
Kidwell Clara Sue, Roberts Charles. 1980. The Choctaws: A Critical Bibliography. Bloomington (IN):
Indiana University Press.
Martin, D.B. 1997. Concentrations of selected elements in the Kiamichi River above Hugo Reservoir
[Internet] Tulsa, OK: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 p. Available from:
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/KiamichiRiver.pdf
Mast, M.A. and Turk, J.T. 1999. Environmental characteristics and water quality of Hydrologic Benchmark
Network stations in the West-Central United States, 1963-95. USGS Circular 1173-B. 130 p.
Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1173/circ1173b/chapter11.htm
Masters, R.E., Kreiter, S.D., and Gregory, M.S. 2007. Dynamics of an old-growth hardwood-pinus forest
over 98 years. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science [serial online]; 87. Available:
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/OAS/oas_pdf/v87/p15_29.pdf Accessed 2012 October 18.
Matthews, W.J., Cashner, R.C. and Gelwick, F.P., 1988. Stability and persistence of fish faunas and
assemblages in three midwestern streams. Copeia 1988(4). 945-955.
Mould Tom. 2004. Choctaw Tales. Jackson (MS): University of Mississippi.
22
Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] [Internet]. 2009. Accessed 2012 Oct 31 from:
http://www.ok.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/GIS/MiadsHUIndex.html
Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] [Internet]. 2012 Dec 4. Financial Assistance. Accessed
from: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/
NatureServe [Internet]. 2012 Dec 3; NatureServe Explorer. Accessed from:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
Oklahoma Climatological Survey [OCS 2012a] [Internet]. Norman, OK; 2012 Oct 24; Available from:
http://climate.ok.gov/index.php/climate/climate_trends/precipitation_history_annual_statewide/
CD09/prcp/Annual
Oklahoma Climatological Survey [OCS 2012b] [Internet]. Norman, OK; 2012 Oct 24; Available from:
http://climate.ok.gov/index.php/climate/climate_trends/temperature_history_annual_statewide/
CD09/tavg/Annual
Oklahoma Conservation Commission [OCC] [Internet]. 2012 Dec 5; Accessed from:
http://www.okcc.state.ok.us/Publications/WQ_Primer.pdf
Oklahoma Conservation Commission [OCC] [Internet]. 2012 Oct 25; Accessed from:
http://www.ok.gov/conservation/Agency_Divisions/Water_Quality_Division/
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality [ODEQ]. 2010a. 2010 Oklahoma Integrated Report,
Appendix C – List of Impaired Waters. Accessed 2012 Dec 4 from:
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/wqdnew/305b_303d/2010/2010%20Appendix%20C%20-%20303d.pdf
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality [ODEQ]. 2010b. Mercury in Fish: A guide to healthy fish
consumption in Oklahoma. Accessed 2012 Dec 4 from:
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/csdnew/fish/PDFs/PDFs/TabLinks/MercuryInFishInformation/Mercury
InFishAdvisoryBooklet.pdf
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality [ODEQ]. 2011. Air Data Report. Accessed 2012 Dec 5
from: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/airreport2011/2011intro.html
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation [ODWC]. 2004 June - 2006 June. Fluvial geomorphology
analysis of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. Federal Aid Grant No. T-19-P-1. 293 p. Available from:
http://www.odwc.state.ok.us/wildlifemgmt/wildlifegrants/T-19-P-1.pdf Accessed 2012 October
25.
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry [ODAFF] [Internet]. 2012 Dec 3; Accessed from:
http://www.ok.gov/~okag/cps-weed.htm
Oklahoma Fertilizer Act [OFA]. Title 2 Oklahoma Statues. § 8-77.1 – 8-77.18. (2011). Accessed 2012 Dec
3 from: http://www.ok.gov/~okag/forms/cps/faar.pdf
Oklahoma Forestry Services [OFS]. 2010a. The Oklahoma Forest Resource Assessment. Accessed 2012
Dec 4 from:
23
http://www.forestry.ok.gov/Websites/forestry/Images/Oklahoma%20Forest%20Resource%20Asse
ssment,%20FINAL%20FOR%20WEB.pdf
Oklahoma Forestry Services [OFS]. 2010b. The Oklahoma Forest Resource Strategy, 2010 - 2015.
Accessed 2012 Dec 4 from:
http://www.forestry.ok.gov/Websites/forestry/Images/THE%20OKLAHOMA%20FOREST%20RESOU
RCE%20STRATEGY%20FINAL%20FOR%20WEB.pdf
Oklahoma Forestry Services [OFS] [Internet]. 2012 Dec 4; Grant and Cost-Share Opportunities. Accessed
from: http://www.forestry.ok.gov/mgmt-grants
Oklahoma Noxious Weed Law [ONWL]. Title 2 Oklahoma Statues. § 3-220. (2000). Accessed 2012 Dec 3
from: http://www.ok.gov/~okag/forms/law/noxweedlaw.htm
Oklahoma State University [OSU]. 1998. Riparian Area Management Handbook. Accessed 2012 Dec 4
from: http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2251/e-952.pdf
Oklahoma State University [OSU] [Internet]. 2012a Dec 4. Riparian Buffer Systems for Oklahoma.
Accessed from: http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2245/BAE1517web%20color.pdf
Oklahoma State University [OSU] [Internet]. 2012b Dec 4. Forest Ecology and Management. Accessed
from: http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-353
Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB]. 2000 February. Final Report: Kiamichi river basin water
resources development plan. Available from:
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/legislative/southeast/southeast_pdf/KiamichiWRDPlan_2000.pd
f Accessed 2012 October 23.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB]. 2002 March. Joint state/tribal water compact & water
marketing proposals: Southeast Oklahoma Water Resources Development Plan. 47 p. Available
from:
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/legislative/southeast/southeast_pdf/Status%20Report_Part%20
1.pdf Accessed 2012 October 22.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB]. 2009 June 26. Monitoring in support of TMDL development
in the Upper Kiamichi, Upper Little, and Upper Mountain Fork Watersheds. (FY-2003 Section
104(b)3 Supplemental (CA# X7-97625-01) Project 2). Available online:
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/reports/reports_pdf/SEOK_pH_metals2009.pdf
Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB]. 2011a. Oklahoma’s Water Quality Standards. Accessed Dec
4 2012 from: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/util/rules/pdf_rul/RulesCurrent2011/Ch45Current2011.pdf
Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB]. 2011b. Beneficial Use Monitoring Program [BUMP]. Streams
Report. Available online:
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/quality/monitoring/bump/pdf_bump/Current/CurrentStreamsReport.ht
ml
24
Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB] [Internet]. 2012 Oct 25; Accessed from:
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/about/about_pdf/owrb.pdf
Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB 2013a] [Internet]. 2013 Feb 6; Accessed from:
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/reports/reports.php
Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB 2013b] [Internet]. 2013 Feb 6; Accessed from:
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/maps/pdf_map/GW%20Groundwater%20Basins%20with%20MAY.pdf
Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB 2013c] [Internet]. 2013 Feb 19; Accessed from:
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/maps/pdf_map/GW%20Bedrock%20and%20Alluvial%20Aquifers.pdf
Oklahomans for Responsible Water Policy [ORWP 2012a]. 2012 Nov 30; Personal correspondence via
internet.
Oklahomans for Responsible Water Policy [ORWP 2012b] [Internet]. 2012 Oct 25; Accessed from:
http://www.orwp.net/about/
Ouachita National Forest [ONF] [Internet]. 2009. USDA Forest Service. Fiscal year 2008 monitoring and
evaluation report for the land and resource management plan. Accessed Dec 3 2012 from
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5199590.pdf
Pearson, J. Water issues are complex and easy answers few [Internet]. 2012 February 2; Available from:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=211&articleid=20120212_211_G1_CU
TLIN852571
Pigg, J. and Hill, L.G. 1974. Fishes of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma
Academy of Science [serial online]; 54: p 121-130. Available:
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v54/p121_130.pdf. Accessed 2012
October 16.
PRISM Climate Group [PRISM] [Internet]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University; 2006 – [cited 2012 Oct
25] Available from: http://prism.oregonstate.edu/pub/prism/state_ppt/oklahoma300.png
Pyron, M., Vaughn, C., Winston, M.R. and Pigg, J. 1998. Fish assemblage structure from 20 years of
collections in the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist [serial online]; 43(3).
Available: http://mpyron.iweb.bsu.edu/Publications/FishAssemblageKiamichi.pdf Accessed 2012
October 17.
Rikard, M. and Kunkle, S. 1990. Sulfate and conductivity as field indicators for detecting coal-mining
pollution. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 15: 49-58.
Ruhl, J. and Hernandez B.D. 2012. New Reservoir Models for Oklahoma. In: Innovative Dam
and Levee Design and Construction for Sustainable Water Management; 2012 April 23-27;
New Orleans, LA. Denver: U.S. Society on Dams. p 1467-1480.
25
Sams III, J.I. and Beer, K.M. (U.S. Department of the Interior/USGS). 2000. Effects of coal-mine drainage
on stream water quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins-sulfate transport and
trends. Lemoyne, PA: National Water Quality Assessment Program. Available online:
http://pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir_99-4208.pdf
Saugey AS, Heidt GA, Heath DR, McDaniel R. 1990. Hibernating Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) from the
Ouachita Mountains of Southeastern Oklahoma. The Southern Naturalist 35(3): 341-342.
Smith, Kenneth L. 1986. Sawmill: The Story of Cutting the Last Great Virgin Forest East of the Rockies.
Fayetteville (AR): The University of Arkansas Press.
Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program [SCIPP] [Internet]. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma;
2009 – [cited 2012 Oct 25]. Available from:
http://www.southernclimate.org/products/temp_precip.php
State of Louisiana [Internet]. The Caddo Indians of Louisiana. 2012 Dec 3. Accessed from:
http://www.crt.state.la.us/archaeology/virtualbooks/CADDO/tribal2.htm
US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] [Internet]. 2012a Dec 4; Monthly charts for Sardis Lake. Accessed
from: http://www.swt-wc.usace.army.mil/SARDcharts.html
US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] [Internet]. 2012b Dec 4; Monthly charts for Hugo Lake. Accessed
from: http://www.swt-wc.usace.army.mil/HUGOcharts.html
US Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts [Internet]. 2012 Oct 24; Data derived from Population
Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, State and County
Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census,
Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report Last Revised:
Tuesday, 18-Sep-2012. Available from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html
US Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USDAFS]. No Date Given. Appendix G:
Roadless Area/Wilderness Evaluations and Wild and Scenic Rivers [Internet]. 45 p.
Available from: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_039537.pdf
US Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USDAFS]. 1999 [Modified 2012 October 4].
Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment: Summary Report. Asheville, NC: USDAFS. 56 p.
Available from: USDAFS, Southern Research Station; Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-31.
US Department of Agriculture Forest Service [USDAFS]. 2007.
Short-leaf Pine Restoration and Ecology in the Ozarks: Proceedings of a Symposium. Newton
Square, PA: USDAFS, Northern Research Station; Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-15.
US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]; Watershed Quality Assessment Report: Listed Waters for
Reporting Year 2010 Oklahoma, Kiamichi Watershed [Internet]. 2010; Available from:
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_watershed.control?p_huc=11140105&p_state=OK
&p_cycle=&p_report_type=T
26
US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] [Internet]. 2006. Red-cockaded woodpecker 5-year review:
summary and evaluation. Clemson Ecological Services Field Office. Accessed 2012 Dec 3 from:
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc787.pdf
US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] [Internet]. 2012 Dec 3. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office.
Accessed from: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/ABB_Add_Info.htm
US Global Change Research Program [USGCRP] [Internet]. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States. Accessed from: http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climateimpacts-report.pdf
Vaughn Caryn C, Mather Charles M, Pyron Mark, Mehlhop Patricia, Miller Estelle K. 1996. The current
and historical mussel fauna of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist 41 (3):
325-328.
Vogel, J., Stringer, A., and Beem, M. No Date Given. Understanding stormwater runoff and low impact
development (LID). Online Oklahoma State University: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
BAE-1758. Available online: http://osufacts.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document8240/BAE-1758web.pdfw
Water Network [WN] [Internet]. 2012 Oct 25; Accessed from:
http://www.waterfuture.tv/#/home/text/generic_page,7
Weyerhaeuser Outdoor Recreational Leases [Internet]. Dallas, TX: Weyerhaeuser Company; 2012 Oct
31; Available from: http://www.weyerhaeuserhuntinglands.com/PropertySearch.aspx?State=OK
Wilson, S. 1976. Oklahoma Treasures and Treasure Tales. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 313 p.
27
APPENDIX A: Grading Rubric and Discussion
Agriculture: Regulated and monitored use of animal waste as fertilizer
Grade Rubric
A
On all lands within the Kiamichi watershed, regulation restricts and monitors the use of
animal wastes as fertilizers, and the build-up of manure from grazing animals.
B
In areas where runoff directly impacts the watershed, regulation restricts and monitors the
use of animal wastes as fertilizers, and the build-up of manure from grazing animals.
C
Regulation restricts the use of animal wastes as fertilizers, and the build-up of manure from
grazing animals, but monitoring mechanisms are not in affect. Best practice methods
acknowledge that the use of animal wastes as fertilizers, and the build-up of manure from
grazing animals, can harm the health of aquatic ecosystems.
D
Regulation does not restrict or monitor the use of animal wastes as fertilizers or the buildup of manure from grazing animals. Best practice methods acknowledge that the use of
animal wastes as fertilizers, and the build-up of manure from grazing animals, can harm
the health of aquatic ecosystems.
F
There are no regulations regarding the use of animal waste as fertilizer, or mitigating the
affects of long-term animal waste from grazing. Best practice methods do not exist for the
use of animal wastes as fertilizer, or encourage their use.
Discussion: The Oklahoma Fertilizer Act (OFA) excludes the use of manure as fertilizer
from its regulatory process (OFA 2011). Unmanipulated manure, excreta that has not
been processed in any manner, is not classified as fertilizer and is implicitly exempt
from the OFA. Manipulated manure, excreta that has been processed or dried, is
explicitly excluded from regulation under Section 8-77.4. Thus, the use and
distribution of manure is exempt from licensing, labeling, inspection, and monitoring
processes that serve to protect Oklahoma’s surface and ground water resources.
GRADE: F
28
Private Lands: Fragmentation, conversion and restoration of riparian zones
Grade Rubric
A
For all privately held lands in the Kiamichi watershed, regulations prohibit deforestation
and land conversion of the riparian zones of any stream order. Best practice methods have
been developed and incentives for restoration exist at the state and federal levels.
B
For privately held lands in the Kiamichi watershed, regulations prohibit deforestation and
land conversion of the riparian zones of some streams and rivers. Best practice methods
have been developed and incentives for restoration exist at the state and federal levels.
C
The development or conversion of the watershed’s riparian zones is largely unregulated.
Best practice methods have been developed and incentives for restoration exist at the
state and federal levels.
D
There are no restrictions on the development or conversion of lands in the riparian zones.
No state-funded incentives for riparian restoration are available. Best practice methods
may or may not have been developed.
F
There are no restrictions on the development or conversion of lands in the riparian zones
of any order stream. Incentives and funding for riparian reforestation do not exist. Best
practice methods have not been developed.
Discussion: Private landowners are allowed to deforest, convert or develop riparian
zones without oversight (NRCS, Latimer County Office, personal correspondence),
although heavy equipment is not allowable for this process (US Army Corps of
Engineers, Tulsa District Office, personal correspondence). State-funded incentives
for restoration exist through Oklahoma Forestry Services (OFS 2012), and federal
incentives are made available through the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS 2012).
Best practices have been extensively developed by the Extension Service of Oklahoma
State University and the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OSU 1998; OSU
2012a).
GRADE: C
29
Private Lands: Fragmentation, conversion and restoration of upland zones
Grade Rubric
A
For all privately held lands in the Kiamichi watershed, the deforestation and conversion of
lands in upland areas are approved only after a state or federal agency conducts an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment. Landowners are
required to offset their environmental impact by purchasing permits or conservation
credits. Federal and state incentives exist for landowners to restore their lands. Best
practice methods have been developed for the harvest, conservation and restoration of
native ecosystems.
B
For privately held lands in the Kiamichi watershed, landowners must obtain a permit and
approval for deforestation and land conversion prior to development. Options for
landowners to offset environmental impacts exist, but may not be required. Best practice
methods have been developed for the harvest, conservation and restoration of native
ecosystems. Incentives for restoration exist at the state and federal levels.
C
The development or conversion of the watershed’s upland zones is largely unregulated.
Options for landowners to offset environmental impacts exist, but are not required. Best
practice methods have been developed for the harvest, conservation and restoration of
native ecosystems. Incentives for restoration exist at the state and federal levels.
D
There are no restrictions on the development of upland zones. Options for landowners to
offset environmental impacts do not exist. Best practice methods have been developed for
the harvest, conservation and restoration of native ecosystems. State and local funding
and incentives for reforestation may not exist.
F
There are no restrictions on the development of upland zones. Options for landowners to
offset environmental impacts do not exist. Best practice methods have not been developed
for the harvest, conservation and restoration of native ecosystems. State and local funding
and incentives for reforestation do not exist.
Discussion: Private landowners are allowed to deforest, convert or develop upland
zones without oversight (NRCS, Latimer County Office, personal correspondence).
State-funded incentives for restoration exist through Oklahoma Forestry Services
(OFS 2012), and federal incentives are made available through the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS 2012).
Best practices for the harvest, restoration and conservation of native ecosystems
have been extensively developed by the USFS (USDAFS 2007, Oklahoma Forestry
Services (OFS 2010a; OFS 2010b), and Oklahoma State University (OSU 2012b).
GRADE: C
30
Survey and Inventory: Endangered and Threatened Species
Grade Rubric
A
Surveys have been undertaken for all endangered and threatened species within the last
three (3) years. Survey includes aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
B
five (5) years. Survey includes aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
C
ten (10) years. Survey includes aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
D
twenty-five (25) years. Survey includes aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
F
If complete surveys of endangered and threatened wildlife have been conducted, data is
over twenty-five (25) years old.
Discussion: Latest survey dates and sources are summarized in Table 4. Currently,
the only known population of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW) in Oklahoma
resides outside of the Kiamichi Basin, in McCurtain County Wilderness Area (USFWS
2006). This assessment failed to locate survey and inventory data for the Kiamichi
Basin. Surveys for the RCW within the Kiamichi watershed are strongly encouraged,
as RCW habitat is improving in the Kiamichi Basin (USFWS 2006) and populations of
RCW are rebounding in the Ouachita range of Arkansas (Fig. 14).
Surveys for the Indiana Bat could not be located after previous surveys failed to
locate them in Southeast Oklahoma (Saugey and others 1990). Because bats are
transient and population locations can shift over time, new surveys are encouraged.
Also, colonies are often found under overpasses that span bodies of water.
Although known to migrate through Oklahoma, surveys could not be located for the
Interior Least Tern or Piping Plover. Current management approaches for both
species focus on the conservation and restoration of breeding habitats rather than
migratory routes. However, surveys of these species in the Kiamichi basin are
encouraged during migratory seasons.
GRADE: F
31
Survey and Inventory: Noxious Weeds
Grade Rubric
A
Landowners and are required to report noxious infestations to the state Department of
Agriculture, even if treated, controlled, or eradicated. The Department is required to
monitor reported infestations for two seasons. Penalties exist for landowners who fail to
treat, control or eradicate. State funding is available for those who cannot afford
abatement techniques prescribed by the Department or extension services.
B
Landowners and are required to treat, control, or eradicate noxious infestations, but are
not required to report infestations to the state Department of Agriculture. The Department
is required to monitor reported infestations for two seasons. Penalties exist for landowners
who fail to treat, control or eradicate. State funding is available for those who cannot afford
abatement techniques prescribed by the Department or extension services.
C
Landowners and are required to treat, control, or eradicate noxious infestations, but are
not required to report infestations to the state Department of Agriculture. The Department
is required to monitor reported infestations only in the event of that a complaint is filed.
Penalties exist for landowners who fail to treat, control or eradicate. State funding may not
be available for those who cannot afford abatement techniques prescribed by the
Department or extension services.
D
Landowners and are only required to treat, control, or eradicate noxious infestations in the
event of a complaint. The Department of Agriculture is required to monitor reported
infestations only in the event of that a complaint is filed. Penalties exist for landowners
who fail to treat, control or eradicate noxious weeds. State funding is not available for
those who cannot afford abatement techniques prescribed by the Department or
extension services.
F
Noxious weeds are not monitored and the law does not require their removal.
Discussion: The Oklahoma Noxious Weed Law (ONWL) does not require landowners
to report infestations to the state Department of Agriculture (ONWL 2000). Although
penalties exist for landowners who fail to treat, control or eradicate noxious weeds,
the Department does not take action unless a complaint is filed. State funding is not
available to those with infestations (ODAFF 2012).
GRADE: C
32
Integrated Resource Management: Interagency Coordination and Public
Participation
Grade Rubric
A
Watershed management is an “open forum” format that takes into consideration the
values held by all stakeholders. In addition to citizen-based groups and the general public,
management is also inclusive of state, federal, municipal, and tribal governments.
Decisions are forged without adjudication.
B
Watershed management may take into consideration the values held by most
stakeholders. In addition to citizen-based groups and the general public, management is
also inclusive of state, federal, municipal, and tribal governments. However, publicly held
meetings might be exclusive or not existing. Adjudication might be necessary to resolve
disputes.
C
Watershed management is a “closed forum” format that takes into consideration the
values held by a few stakeholders. Important groups, like citizen-based groups, the general
public, or state, federal, municipal, and tribal governments are underrepresented in the
management process. Adjudication is a common method of conflict resolution.
D
Watershed management is a “closed forum” format that takes into consideration the
values held by a few stakeholders. Important groups, like citizen-based groups, the general
public, or state, federal, municipal, and tribal governments are implicitly excluded in the
management process. Adjudication is necessary for some stakeholders.
F
A central authority dominates watershed management, or the collaboration between a
few stakeholders with shared interests. A forum for open collaboration for stakeholders
does not exist. Adjudication is the only form of conflict resolution.
Discussion: The flow of information and correspondence between stakeholders and
resource managers of the Kiamichi Basin is mostly public, transparent and ongoing.
Although the desire to avoid adjudication is strong for all those involved, lawsuits
over the appropriation of rights to Sardis Lake are rampant.
GRADE: B
33
Sustainability: Provision of resources for future generations
Grade Rubric
A
The Kiamichi watershed is protected and utilized in a sustainable fashion that guarantees
beneficial uses for future generations. Impairments to beneficial uses are monitored and
management plans adapted in response to degradation.
B
Most regulations and practices protect beneficial uses of the watershed for several
generations. Impairments to beneficial uses are monitored and management plans
adapted in response to degradation.
C
There are few regulations or arrangements that protect the watershed from exploitation.
Impairments to beneficial uses are monitored, but management plans are often not
adapted in response to degradation.
D
Water usage and storage rights are largely undefined and/or under regulated. Large water
transfers, into or out of, the watershed might be possible. Impairments to beneficial uses
are monitored, but management plans are not adapted in response to degradation.
F
Water usage and storage rights are undefined and/or under regulated. Large water
transfers, into or out of, the watershed is possible. Impairments to beneficial uses are not
monitored, and management plans consider only consumptive uses of water.
Discussion: Not all beneficial uses are monitored for impairment in Hugo and Sardis
Lakes. Results from OWRB’s Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) for these
two reservoirs, Appendix D, show that impairments to “Fish Consumption” were not
considered. Although the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has placed
restrictions on the consumption of fish in Hugo and Sardis Lakes due to mercury (DEQ
2010a), these waters are not listed as impaired by either the DEQ (DEQ 2010b) or the
EPA (EPA 2010a; EPA 2010b).
In fact, this assessment finds that the amounts of mercury found in historical samples
(EPA 2012a) are several magnitudes of order higher than what is set forth by OWRB’s
Water Quality Standards (OWRB 2011a).
Overall management of the watershed cannot be described as adaptive. For
example, Sardis dam releases continue to follow unnatural flow regimes (USACE
2012), contrary to what has been advised by the scientific community (Galbraith and
others 2008). Failure to change or halt water management techniques that harm
ecosystem services and beneficial uses will perpetuate degradation and does not
meet the definition of sustainability.
GRADE: D
34
Water Quantity: Reservoir and Lake Levels
Grade Rubric
A
B
C
D
F
Lake levels rarely vary, and are adequate for the health and propagation of all wildlife;
aquatic recreational opportunities remain available during anticipated and typical
monthly seasonal patterns; regional consumer water needs are met; cropland water
requirements are plentiful.
Lake levels vary, but are adequate for the health and propagation of most wildlife;
aquatic recreational opportunities typically remain available during anticipated and
typical monthly seasonal patterns; regional consumer water needs are met; cropland
water requirements are sustainable.
Lake levels are inconsistent, and may harm the health and propagation of some wildlife;
aquatic recreational opportunities remain available only during height of tourist season;
regional consumer water needs are met with modifications such as moderate
conservation measures; cropland water requirements are sustainable.
Typical lake levels are low and generally unsuitable for the health and propagation of
most wildlife; aquatic recreational opportunities are limited year-round due to lower
water levels; regional consumer water needs are met only by mandatory conservation
measures; cropland water requirements are inadequate and lead to change in
agricultural practices.
Withdrawals and/or releases from lakes and reservoirs outpace inputs; levels are too low
to support fish habitat and recreation. Some resources no longer support consumptive
uses of water and/or agricultural practices.
Discussion: Levels for both Sardis and Hugo Lakes are consistently high. Beneficial
uses and wildlife have not been impacted due to low levels (USACE 2012a and
2012b).
GRADE: A
35
Water Quantity: Stream Flow
Grade Rubric
A
B
C
D
F
Streams and rivers are in their natural configuration with no flow interruption attributed
to manmade activities. No impoundments of creeks or rivers.
Water flow is interrupted in a limited number of smaller tributaries, but these
interruptions have no marked affect on the timing of natural stream flows. No
impoundments of creeks or rivers.
Impoundments are present in the basin, but the timing and amount of flow is monitored
and regulated using monitoring stations in many sections of stream reach. There is no
marked impact to wildlife and aquatic habitat.
Impoundments are present in the basin. The timing and amount of stream flows might
be monitored, but are typically not adjusted to sustain downstream wildlife.
Consumptive and beneficial uses are typically a higher priority than sustainable aquatic
habitat. Aquatic wildlife populations and habitat are in decline and degraded.
Water from impoundments and/or flowing systems are diverted to far-reaching
populations. Regional water requirements are sacrificed for greater good of larger
outlying population centers. Diversions result in significant reduction or cessation of instream flows. Most or all aquatic habitat has been destroyed, and extinction has
occurred.
Discussion: The lack of in-stream flows due to the impoundment of Sardis Lake has
drastically impacted the downstream ecosystem. Only one population of the
endangered Ouachita Rock Pocketbook was found during the last survey (Galbraith
and others 2008) and appears to be headed for extinction.
For a period of 119 consecutive days during the summer of 2012, no water as
released downstream from Sardis Lake (USACE 2012a).
GRADE: D
36
Groundwater and Aquifers: Measuring and Monitoring of Groundwater/Aquifers
Grade Rubric
A
B
C
D
F
Water yield and quality for groundwater resources is measured and monitored on a
regular monthly basis. Data is obtained for the preservation of consumptive and nonconsumptive uses.
Water yield and quality for groundwater resources is measured and monitored on a
regular bi-monthly or quarterly basis. Data is obtained for the preservation of
consumptive and non-consumptive uses.
Water yield and quality for groundwater resources is measured and monitored on an
irregular basis. Data is obtained for the preservation of consumptive and nonconsumptive uses. Measurements may not be taken in all seasons, or during periods of
low flow.
Water yield and quality for groundwater resources are only measured in locations near
where natural fossil fuel extraction occurs.
Water yield and quality for groundwater resources is not measured or monitored.
Discussion: Within the last couple of decades, southeast Oklahoma has become a
hot-bed of drilling activity. A federal congressional report in 2011 listed Oklahoma in
the top three states where the highest volumes of harmful chemicals have been used
for hydraulic fracturing (Brianna 2011). The OWRB lists only a handful of aquifers
slated for study, and the board has not published a groundwater study since 2008,
the topic of which was current and historical drought conditions (OWRB 2013a).
Further, only the Antlers aquifer has been assessed for total maximum yield within
the Kiamichi Basin (Figure 16). It seems that the size and quality of Southeast
Oklahoma’s groundwater is virtually unknown (Figure 17).
GRADE: F
37
Water Quality: Monitoring of Surface Waters
Grade Rubric
A
B
C
D
F
Water quality for lentic and lotic resources is measured and monitored on a regular
monthly basis. Data is obtained for the preservation of consumptive uses, nonconsumptive uses, and endemic species.
Water quality for lentic and lotic resources is measured and monitored on a regular bimonthly or quarterly basis. Data is obtained for the preservation of consumptive uses,
non-consumptive uses, and endemic species.
Water quality for lentic and lotic resources is measured and monitored on an irregular
basis. Data is obtained for the preservation of consumptive uses, non-consumptive uses,
and endemic species. Measurements may not be taken in all seasons, or during periods
of low flow.
Water quality for lentic and lotic resources may be measured and monitored regularly,
but data is obtained only for the preservation of consumptive and beneficial human uses.
Measurements may not be taken in all seasons, or during periods of low flow.
Water quality for lentic and lotic resources is not measured and monitored.
Discussion: Although water quality is often monitored for the Kiamichi River, there
are only 4 stations in the entire stream reach. More monitoring stations are
encouraged, especially downstream from areas of point source pollution. Sardis and
Hugo Lakes are also regularly monitored, but biological measurements for fish
consumption are not more recent than 2005. The measurements of toxicants like
benzene and mercury are strongly encouraged.
GRADE: B
38
Water Quality: Streams and Rivers
Grade Rubric
A
There are no impairments for any of the streams and rivers within the basin.
B
Only minor impairments to streams and rivers exist, such as ascetics.
C
There are several impairments, but water source is generally suitable for agriculture and
public and private water supply.
D
Due to poor water quality, consumptive and beneficial uses are not possible, but
supports fish and wildlife.
F
Consumptive and beneficial uses are not possible due to poor water quality, and fish and
wildlife are unsupported.
Discussion: Various areas of the Kiamichi River are impaired for fish & wildlife
propagation, primary body contact recreation, fish consumption, public & private
water supply, and/or aesthetics (See Appendix D). Water quality may not be
supportive of endemic species, such as the Ouachita Rock Pocketbook.
GRADE: C
39
Water Quality: Reservoirs and Lakes
Grade Rubric
A
There are no impairments for any of the reservoirs or lakes within the basin.
B
Only minor impairments to reservoirs and lakes exist, such as ascetics.
C
There are several impairments, but water source is generally suitable for recreation,
agriculture and public and private water supply.
D
Due to poor water quality, consumptive and beneficial uses are not possible, but
supports fish and wildlife.
F
Consumptive and beneficial uses are not possible due to poor water quality, and fish and
wildlife are unsupported.
Discussion: Hugo Lake is listed as impaired due to affects of turbidity on fish &
wildlife propagation, and color has affected aesthetics. Sardis Lake is listed as
impaired due to pH. The consumption of fish is restricted in each lake due to mercury
(ODEQ 2010b). Results for these two lakes are in Appendix D. The EPA also lists
several other smaller lakes as impaired: Carl Albert Lake, Nanih Waiya Lake, Ozzie
Cobb Lake, Raymond Gary Lake, and Talihina Lake (EPA 2012b).
GRADE: C
40
Recreation and Tourism: Provision for Recreational Opportunities
Grade Rubric
A
Year-round recreational opportunities are fully developed/supported by local businesses
and local, state and federal governments
B
Seasonal recreational opportunities are fully developed/supported by local businesses
and local, state and federal governments
C
Recreational opportunities are under developed/supported by local businesses and local,
state and federal governments
D
Barriers to recreational opportunities exist and are likely to remain due to a lack of
involvement from local businesses, or local, state and federal governments
F
Recreational opportunities in the area do not exist.
Discussion: Due to the mild climate, recreation in the Kiamichi Basin is possible year
round. Hiking, boating, fishing and hang gliding. The USACE have constructed
campsites at both Sardis and Hugo Lakes, and Hugo also hosts a state park. There
are several privately owned cabin rentals and resorts in the basin.
GRADE: A
41
Effluents: Sources of Impairments and TMDLs
Grade Rubric
A
If water impairments within the watershed exist, their sources are known. TMDLs have
been set for all water bodies.
B
Sources of water impairments are known for eighty percent of impairments. TMDLs have
been set for all water bodies utilized for recreation and consumptive use.
C
Sources of water impairments are known for fifty percent of impairments. TMDLs have
been set for most water bodies utilized for recreation and consumptive use.
Sources of water impairments are known for less than fifty percent of impairments.
TMDLs have not been set for most water bodies utilized for recreation and consumptive
use.
Causes of all water impairments are unknown. TMDLs have not been set for any water
bodies utilized for recreation and consumptive use.
D
F
Discussion: A vast majority of sources contributing to impairments are listed as
“unknown” by the EPA (2012b). A total of 5 TMDLs have been established in the
basin: 1 for Enterococcus bacteria in the Kiamichi River, and 4 TMDLs for fecal
Coliform in Bolen, Dry, Dumpling, and Tenmile Creeks (EPA 2012b).
GRADE: D
42
Effluents: Acid Rain/Air Quality Monitoring
Grade Rubric
P
Monitoring stations have been installed in the basin to measure air quality and acid rain.
F
Monitoring stations have not been installed in the basin to measure air quality and acid
rain.
Discussion: Aquatic ecosystems are especially sensitive to changes in pH, which can
be directly influenced by the deposition of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2). Most commonly, these effluents take the form of acid rain and are by-products
of coal-fired power plants, one of which resides outside of Hugo, OK. However, the
nearest monitoring stations for SO2 and NO2 are about 200 miles away, located
outside of Oklahoma City and Tulsa (Fig. 15).
It is strongly encouraged that monitoring stations be installed within the Kiamichi
Basin to provide understanding as to what degree atmospheric SO2, NO2, and
mercury (Hg) deposition is affecting water quality and biota. The OCC cites that “acid
rain is not a serious problem in Oklahoma”, but it is unclear how this conclusion is
reached without monitoring stations downwind from coal-fired power plants (OCC
undated).
GRADE: F
43
Global Environmental Influences: Projections for Future Climate
Grade Rubric
A
No changes in precipitation or temperature patterns are projected by the end of the
century.
B
Slight changes in precipitation or temperature patterns are projected by the end of the
century.
C
Slight changes in precipitation and temperature patterns are projected by the end of the
century.
D
Significant changes in precipitation or temperature patterns are projected by the end of
the century.
F
Significant changes in precipitation and temperature patterns are projected by the end of
the century.
Discussion: By the end of the century, Southeast Oklahoma is expected to experience
higher average temperatures (Fig. 8) and may experience drier conditions (Fig. 9).
GRADE: D
44
APPENDIX B: Figures
45
Fig. 1 – Kiamichi Watershed of Oklahoma (HUC 11140105), delineated on a topographic map.
46
Fig. 2 – Satellite image of Southeast Oklahoma depicting water resources and landscape fragmentation.
47
Fig. 3 – Land types and use in the Kiamichi Basin watershed. Data compiled from NRCS (2009) and
adapted from Table 3, below.
48
Fig. 4 – Historical annual precipitation of Southeast Oklahoma, 1895-2011. Average precipitation amounts can vary widely from year to year, as
exhibited by the diamonds (Oklahoma Climatological Survey [OCS] 2012a).
49
Fig. 5 – Historical annual temperature for Southeast Oklahoma, 1895-2011. Average temperature can vary widely from year to year, as exhibited
by the diamonds (OCS 2012b).
50
Fig. 6 – Average annual precipitation in Oklahoma, 1971-2000. Kiamichi Basin watershed is bounded by the red line. Adapted from PRISM
(2006).
51
Fig. 7 – Average monthly temperature and rainfall for SE Oklahoma, 1982-2011. Adapted from SCIPP (2012). The warmest months of summer
typically correlate to periods of low rainfall.
52
Fig. 8 – Projected Increases in Average Temperature for the Great Plains Region (USGCRP 2009).
53
Fig. 9 – Projected Precipitation Change in Percent for the Great Plains Region (USGCRP 2009).
54
Fig. 10 – Jackfork Creek between Sardis Dam and the town of Clayton, OK. Photo provided by ORWP.
55
Fig. 11 - Kiamichi River Basin. Perspective from Panorama Vista on Talimena Drive (Hwy 1), Ouachita National Forest. Buffalo Mountain in
background. 3/24/2012. Photo by D. Russell Sanford II.
56
Fig. 12 – Dominant stratigraphic nomenclature of the Kiamichi Basin. Adapted from Heran and others
(2003).
57
Fig. 13 – Left: photograph of the main channel of the Kiamichi River under normal flow conditions. Middle: the same location during drought
conditions, showing isolated pools and dry stretches. Right: close up of a dry stretch showing dead mussels. Photos by Caryn Vaughn
and Heather Galbraith (Galbraith and others 2010, p 1178).
58
Fig. 14 – Population survey of red-cockaded woodpecker in the Ouachita National Forest of Arkansas, 1997-2008 (ONF 2009).
59
Fig. 15 – SO2 and NO2 monitoring sites in Oklahoma (ODEQ 2011).
60
Fig. 16 - Aquifers with maximum total yield determinations (OWRB 2013b). Note only the Antlers aquifer has been tested in the Kiamichi Basin.
61
Fig. 17 – Major and minor groundwater resources of Oklahoma (OWRB 2013c). Note that many aquifers are delineated by county line.
62
APPENDIX C: Tables
Table 1 – Land use data for the Kiamichi Watershed (HUC 11140105). Adapted from NRCS (2009).
Land Type/Use
Cropland
Cropland - Orchards, Groves, Horticultural Crops
Rangeland - Open Grasslands
Rangeland - Postoak/Blackjack; Low density - Canopy < 35%
Rangeland - Postoak/Blackjack; High density - Canopy > 35%
Rangeland - Persimmon/Sumac; Low density - < 25 plants/ac
Rangeland - Persimmon/Sumac; High density - > 25 plants/ac
Pastureland
Pastureland - Brushy; Canopy > 20%
Forest - Pine Plantation (Clearcut/reforested)
Forest - Shortleaf Pine; > 70% Pine
Forest - Shortleaf Pine/Oak (Mixed forest)
Forest - Oak/Hickory/Associate Species; > 70% deciduous
Forest - Bottomland Hardwoods
Forest - Postoak/Blackjack Oak
Wetland - Forested
Wetland - Non-Forested (Grass and/or Shrubs)
Native Pasture
Urban Ranchette - House and Lot/Tract (2 to 20)
Farmstead (Greater than 5 acres)
Highway - Multi-Lane (4 lanes or more)
Quarries and Gravel Pits; > 5 acres
Strip Mine - Unreclaimed (bare or sparsely vegetated)
Strip Mine - Unreclaimed (fair to good vegetation)
Cemetery
Recreation Land
Commercial Nursery
Pecan Groves and Pasture
Forest - Eastern Red Cedar
Pecan Groves and Cropland
Bottomland Woods and Pasture
Industrial Site - Rural Area
Fill Material - Dam or Elevated Roadbed
Range - Shortleaf Pine/Oak; Low density - Canopy < 35%
Range - Shortleaf Pine/Oak; High density - Canopy > 35%
Sewage Lagoon
Acres
% of Watershed
15437
128
12749
5870
4427
5105
17195
155325
63788
44586
47719
448472
61121
51348
109126
1700
89
63779
99
207
2471
1937
217
89
120
3903
642
1877
633
752
2709
2955
188
1453
20
10
1.327%
0.011%
1.096%
0.504%
0.380%
0.439%
1.478%
13.348%
5.482%
3.831%
4.101%
38.539%
5.252%
4.413%
9.378%
0.146%
0.008%
5.481%
0.009%
0.018%
0.212%
0.166%
0.019%
0.008%
0.010%
0.335%
0.055%
0.161%
0.054%
0.065%
0.233%
0.254%
0.016%
0.125%
0.002%
0.001%
63
Water/Bare Sand Channel (rivers)
Urban/Built-Up Land
Water (lakes/ponds)
Total Observed
800
4752
29872
1163670
0.069%
0.408%
2.567%
100.000%
Table 2 - Stream Frequency Flood Discharges (cfs) Model-projections (Ruhl and Hernandez 2012).
Models: Unsteady-and steady-state HEC-RAS
River
Location
Jackfork Creek
Clayton, OK
Kiamichi River
Clayton, OK
10-year
28,000
50-year
100-year
500-year
5,000
7,500
10,000
40,000
45,000
60,000
Table 3 – General land use types of the Kiamichi Watershed (HUC 11140105). Adapted from NRCS
(2009) and Table 1, above.
Land Type
Cropland
Rangeland
Pastureland
Forest Pine
Forest Other
Industrial
Wetland
Rivers
Lakes/Ponds
Urban
Other Types
Total
Total Acres % of Watershed
16959
46819
287478
540777
222228
2955
1789
800
29872
4752
9241
1.46%
4.02%
24.70%
46.47%
19.10%
0.25%
0.15%
0.07%
2.57%
0.41%
0.79%
1163670
100.00%
64
Table 4 – Survey summary of endangered and threatened species in the Kiamichi Basin.
Conservation
Species
Status
Endangered
American Burying
Beetle
Last Survey
Source
2012
US Fish and Wildlife Service
(2012)
1989
Saugey and others (1990)
N/A
Natural Heritage records exist
for this species in the Kiamichi
Basin (NatureServe 2012).
2005
Galbraith and others (2008)
N/A
Species is associated with
riparian areas; known to migrate
through Oklahoma
N/A
Currently only known outside of
Kiamichi Basin, in McCurtain
County (USFWS 2006).
2005
2005
(Nicrophorus americanus)
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Indiana Bat
(Myotis sodalis)
Least Tern
(Sterna antillarum)
Ouachita Rock
Pocketbook
(Arkansia wheeleri)
Threatened
Endangered
Piping Plover
(Charadrius melodus)
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
(Picoides borealis)
Endangered
Endangered
Scaleshell
(Leptodea leptodon)
Winged Mapleleaf
(Quadrula fragosa)
65
APPENDIX D:
Beneficial Use Monitoring Program Reports for Sardis Lake, Hugo Lake,
and the Kiamichi River
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

Watershed Assessment of the Kiamichi Basin of Oklahoma

Transcription

Similar documents

Kiamichi River Watershed - Oklahoma Water Resources Center

WOTOL poster

Misty May-Treanor September 26, 2014 FREE

Building a Culture of Wellness - Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New

Watershed Committee of the Ozarks

click here - Oklahoma City University School of Law

News from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Rodgers and Hammerstein`s