DOCSLIB.ORG

Union River Fecal Coliform TMDL Submittal Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Union River Fecal Coliform TMDL Submittal Report Union River Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Submittal Report June 2002 Publication No. 02-10-022 printed on recycled paper Union River Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Submittal Report by Suzanne Sweet William J. Ward Steve Butkus William Ehinger Water Quality Program Bellevue, Washington 98008 June 2002 Waterbody Number WA-15-2010 Publication No. 02-10-022 printed on recycled paper This report is available on the Department of Ecology home page on the World Wide Web at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0210022.html For additional copies of this publication, please contact: Department of Ecology Publications Distributions Office Address: PO Box 47600, Olympia WA 98504-7600 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (360) 407-7472 Refer to Publication Number 02-10-022 The Department of Ecology is an equal opportunity agency and does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, disability, age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disabled veteran's status, Vietnam era veteran's status, or sexual orientation. If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Michelle Ideker, Environmental Assessment Program, at (360)-407-6677 (voice). Ecology's telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) number at Ecology Headquarters is (360) 407-6006. Table of Contents Page List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................... ii Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 Components of the TMDL...............................................................................................................3 Background......................................................................................................................................4 Applicable Water Quality Standards ...............................................................................................7 Water Quality and Resource Impairments.......................................................................................9 Seasonal Variation .........................................................................................................................12 Loading Capacity Analysis............................................................................................................13 Modeling Approach .................................................................................................................13 Loading Capacity.....................................................................................................................14 Load Allocations......................................................................................................................18 Margin of Safety ......................................................................................................................18 Summary Implementation Strategy ...............................................................................................19 Introduction..............................................................................................................................19 Overview..................................................................................................................................19 Implementation Plan Development & Activities.....................................................................20 Reasonable Assurance ...................................................................................................................30 Adaptive Management...................................................................................................................32 Summary of Public Involvement ...................................................................................................33 Monitoring Strategy.......................................................................................................................34 Potential Funding Sources .............................................................................................................34 Abbreviations Index.......................................................................................................................35 References......................................................................................................................................37 Appendix A. Responsiveness Summary B. Technical Report Union River Fecal Coliform TMDL Page i List of Figures and Tables Page Figure 1. Union River Watershed............................................................................................... 5 Table 1. Union River Fecal Coliform 303(d) List .................................................................... 9 Table 2. Load reductions needed to meet fecal coliform standards at Union River mile 0.4 (UR1Hwy300)........................................................................ 14 Table 3. Load reductions needed to meet fecal coliform standards at Union River mile 1.3 (UR2Tmbr). ........................................................................... 15 Table 4. Load reductions needed to meet fecal coliform standards at Union River mile 1.8 (UR3River). ........................................................................... 15 Table 5. Load reductions needed to meet fecal coliform standards at Union River mile 4.5 (UR4Arch). ............................................................................ 16 Table 6. Load reductions needed to meet fecal coliform standards at Bear Creek (UR5Bear).............................................................................................. 16 Table 7. Loading capacity for fecal coliform in the Union River and Bear Creek................. 17 Table 8. TMDL surrogate measures in the Union River and Bear Creek............................... 17 Page ii Union River Fecal Coliform TMDL Introduction The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is establishing a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for fecal coliform bacteria in the Union River watershed. This TMDL (or Water Cleanup Plan) will address impairments of the beneficial uses of the Union River and its tributaries. Monitoring efforts by Ecology, the Washington State Department of Health, Mason County Department of Health Services, and Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District indicate that Union River has violated the Washington State Class AA standard for fecal coliform since 1990. A TMDL study was initiated to determine the loading capacity of the stream, identify nonpoint pollution sources of fecal coliform, and set load reductions along the stream corridor. The Union River Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Study (Ward, et al., 2001 (Appendix B)) was completed in October 2001 and is available at Ecology's Northwest Regional Office and on the internet at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0103038.html. This submittal report outlines the on-going and planned activities that will reduce fecal coliform pollution in the Union River. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act mandates that the state of Washington establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for surface waters that do not meet state water quality standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 130) and developed guidance for setting TMDLs (U.S. EPA, 1991). Under the Clean Water Act, every state has its own water quality standards designed to protect, restore, and preserve water quality. Water quality standards consist of designated uses, such as cold water biota and drinking water supply, and numeric standards, to achieve those uses. When a waterbody fails to meet water quality standards after application of required technology-based controls, the Clean Water Act requires that the state place the waterbody on a list of “impaired” waterbodies and to prepare an analysis called a TMDL. The goal of a TMDL is to ensure that the impaired waterbody will attain water quality standards within a reasonable period. A TMDL includes a written, quantitative assessment of water quality problem and of the pollutant sources that cause the problem. The TMDL determines the amount of a given pollutant, called the loading capacity, which can be discharged to the waterbody and still meet water quality standards and, subsequently, allocates that load among the various sources (if possible). If the pollutant comes from a discrete source (referred to as a point source) such as an industrial facility’s discharge pipe, that facility’s share of the loading capacity is a wasteload allocation. If the pollution comes from a diffuse source (referred to as a nonpoint source) such as a farm, that facility’s share is a load allocation. The TMDL must also consider seasonal variations and include a margin of safety that takes into account any lack of knowledge about the causes of the water quality problem or its loading capacity. The sum of the individual allocations and the margin of safety must be equal to or less than the loading capacity. The general purposes of this submittal document are to: • Provide an analysis of fecal coliform data of the Union River watershed from historical sampling and monthly sampling performed by Ecology during 1999; Union River Fecal Coliform TMDL Page 1 • Identify potential nonpoint sources of fecal coliform (there are no point sources in the Union River basin); • Summarize ongoing and planned
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization 2010
    KITSAP COUNTY FINAL DRAFT SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION Prepared for and by Kitsap County Department of Community Development, Environmental Programs 614 Division St. Port Orchard, WA 98366 FINAL DRAFT: NOVEMBER 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... i 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 SUMMARY OF REPORT CONTENTS AND REFERENCES ........................................... 1 1.1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Characterization Areas .................................................................................. 1 1.1.2.1 Marine Shoreline Summaries (by drift cell) .................................. 2 1.1.2.2 Freshwater Shoreline Summaries (by water body) ...................... 7 1.1.3 1. Recommendations and Management Options ........................................ 11 1.1.4 Public Access and Shoreline Use Analysis ................................................. 11 1.1.5 Characterization Data Gaps ........................................................................ 12 1.1.6 Appendices ................................................................................................. 12 1.2 GLOSSARY and ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kitsap County Hazard Identification & Vulnerability Assessment
    Kitsap County Hazard Identification & Vulnerability Assessment KITSAP COUNTY HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Revision October 2008 Prepared by Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management Phyllis A. Mann, Director Kitsap County HIVA – October 2008 1 Kitsap County Hazard Identification & Vulnerability Assessment KITSAP COUNTY HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS Table of Contents Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………4 I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................6 II. KITSAP COUNTY PROFILE .............................................................................7 A. HISTORY ....................................................................................................7 B. GEOGRAPHY .............................................................................................9 C. CLIMATE ....................................................................................................9 D. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................9 E. ECONOMY ...............................................................................................10 Attachment 1. Kitsap County Emergency/Disaster History .......................11 III. NATURAL HAZARDS .......................................................................................13 A. DROUGHT ................................................................................................13 B. EARTHQUAKES
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
    November 2013 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis Prepared for City of Bremerton 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, Washington 98337 This report was funded in part through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Prepared by Parametrix 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, WA 98004-5571 T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363 www.parametrix.com November 2013 │ 553-1896-088 CITATION Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. 2012. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 REPORT PURPOSE .................................................................................................. 1-3 1.2 APPROACH .............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................... 1-5 1.3.1 Geology ............................................................................................................ 1-7 1.3.2 Topography, Bathymetry, and Geomorphology ............................................... 1-7 1.3.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3.4 Oceanographic Processes ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mason County Belfair Urban Growth Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement | April 2021 300
    Mason County Belfair Urban Growth Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement | April 2021 300 3 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000 Seattle, Washington 98121 P (206) 324-8760 www.berkconsulting.com “Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures” Fact Sheet Project Title Belfair Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan Update and Planned Action Proposed Action and Alternatives The Belfair Urban Growth Area (UGA) is a long-standing urban unincorporated community in Mason County serving as a commercial hub for a broader community at the northern end of Hood Canal. SR 3 bisects the community and was recently widened, the County received a loan to further develop a sewer system, and a new state freight corridor route is pending. With these infrastructure investments facilitating travel between Kitsap and Mason Counties, a small-town quality of life, and natural environment assets, Belfair may soon experience a rapid increase in growth. The County proposes to update the Belfair UGA Plan, adopted in December 2004, and refresh the vision. The County also seeks to Planned Action ordinance for the Belfair UGA to facilitate growth that supports a community- based vision for Belfair. Amendments to the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and Belfair zoning and environmental regulations would be needed to implement alternatives. This Draft EIS considers a range of alternatives for implementation of the vision for Belfair: ▪ Alternative 1 – No Action: This alternative assumes no subarea plan update, zoning changes, or planned action would be adopted. Current plans and development regulations would remain in place, and growth under this alternative is assumed to be consistent with Mason County’s adopted growth target for the Belfair UGA and recent development permit trends (480 new housing units and approximately 54,350 square feet of new employment space).
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus Keta) Populations in Union and Tahuya Rivers, Washington, United States
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2018 Supplementation and Community Involvement as Drivers of Salmon Recovery: Summer Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) Populations in Union and Tahuya Rivers, Washington, United States Seth M. Elsen Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Elsen, Seth M., "Supplementation and Community Involvement as Drivers of Salmon Recovery: Summer Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) Populations in Union and Tahuya Rivers, Washington, United States" (2018). All Graduate Plan B and other Reports. 1202. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/1202 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Plan B and other Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AS DRIVERS OF SALMON RECOVERY: SUMMER CHUM SALMON (Oncorhynchus keta) POPULATIONS IN UNION AND TAHUYA RIVERS, WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES by Seth Elsen May 2018 A capstone report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES Committee Members: Chris Luecke, Ph.D. (Chair) Phaedra Budy, Ph.D. Brett Roper, Ph.D. UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2018 ABSTRACT Between the 1970s and late 1990s, Summer Chum salmon abundance in the Hood Canal basin declined significantly to the point the population was listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (1999), with multiple subpopulations extirpated. The Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, in partnership with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, developed and implemented a supplementation program to increase spawner abundance in the Union River so that supplementation could eventually take place in the Tahuya River, where Summer Chum had been extirpated.
    [Show full text]
  • Pamphlet to Accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3187
    Lidar-Revised Geologic Map of the Wildcat Lake 7.5’ Quadrangle, Kitsap and Mason Counties, Washington By Rowland W. Tabor, Ralph A. Haugerud, Peter J. Haeussler, and Kenneth P. Clark Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3187 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Viginia: 2011 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS Suggested citation: Tabor, R.W., Haugerud, R.A., Haeussler, P.J., and Clark, K.P., 2011, Lidar-revised geologic map of the Wildcat Lake 7.5’ quadrangle, Kitsap and Mason Counties, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investiga- tions Map 3187, scale 1:24,000, 12 p., and GIS data, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3187/. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • West WRIA 15-North WRIA 14
    SALMONID HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREAS 15 (WEST), KITSAP BASIN AND 14 (NORTH), KENNEDY-GOLDSBOROUGH BASIN FINAL REPORT JUNE 2003 Michael Kuttel, Jr. Washington State Conservation Commission P.O. Box 47721 Olympia, WA 98503 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Coho salmon preparing to spawn in a tributary of the Tahuya River. Photo courtesy of Marty Ereth, Skokomish Tribe. The Water Resource Inventory Areas 15 (West) and 14 (North) salmonid habitat limiting factors report could not have been completed without considerable contributions of time, data, and effort from the following people who participated in various capacities on the Technical Advisory Group (TAG): (In alphabetical order) Lee Boad, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Jim Bolger, Kitsap County Richard Brocksmith, Hood Canal Coordinating Council John Cambalik, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Monica Daniels, Kitsap County Jeff Davis, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Marty Ereth, Skokomish Tribe Danette Guy, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Dan Hannafious, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Ted Labbe, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Doris Small, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Steve Todd, Point No Point Treaty Council The author also wishes to thank: Ron McFarlane (Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission) for compilation of the maps for this report; Jennifer Cutler (Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission) and Ginna Correa (Washington State Conservation Commission) for assistance with mapping of fish distribution and fish passage barriers; Ed Manary (Washington State Conservation Commission) for authorship of the “Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Background” section, and for providing the extensive array of computer hardware, software, and other resources necessary to develop this report, and Marty Ereth (Skokomish Tribe) and the Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group for contributing photographs for use in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Of00 356 (Pdf)
    OPEN-FILE REPORT 00-356 Version 1.0 Preliminary geologic map of the Wildcat Lake 7.5’ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR quadrangle Kitsap andMason counties, Washington U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ° 122° 52´30˝ 47´ 30˝ 122 45´ 50´ 47° 37´30˝ 47° 37´30˝ CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS GEOLOGIC SUMMARY A Qal Unconsolidated and Intrusive rocks Equal Area stratified rocks INTRODUCTION af Qal Qw Holocene The Wildcat Lake quadrangle lies in the forearc of the Cascadia subduction zone, about Qva Qvt 20-km east of the Cascadia accretionary complex exposed in the Olympic Mountains (Tabor Qvr Qvri Qvrl and Cady, 1978), and about 100-km west of the axis of the Cascades volcanic arc. The Qw Qvt quadrangle lies near the middle of the Puget Lowland, which typically has elevations less than Qva QUATERNARY 600 feet (183 m), but on Gold Mountain, in the center of the quadrangle, the elevation rises Qw Qva Pleistocene to 1761 feet (537 m). This anomalously high topography also provides a glimpse of the deeper crust beneath the Lowland. Exposed on Green and Gold Mountains are rocks related to the Qpvu Qw Coast Range basalt terrane. This terrane consists of Eocene submarine and subaerial tholeiitic Unconformity basalt of the Crescent Formation,which probably accreted to the continental margin in Eocene time (Snavely and others, 1968). The Coast Range basalt terrane may have originated as an upper Eocene Qvt Tb oceanic plateau or by oblique marginal rifting (Babcock and others, 1992), but its subsequent and Oligocene Unconformity emplacement history is complex (Wells and others, 1984).
    [Show full text]