DOCSLIB.ORG

Mad River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment and Turbidity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mad River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment and Turbidity u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Mad River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment and Turbidity Approved by: \Je.~ 2..\) 2-001­ Date TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 1.1. OVERVIEW OF THE TMDL PROGRAM ....................................................................... 1 1.2. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................. 3 1.2.1. Geology and Climate .......................................................................................................... 7 1.2.2. Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.3. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION...................................................... 10 1.4. ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................ 11 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................... 12 2.1. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS................................................................................. 12 2.2. FISH POPULATION AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONCERNS........................... 15 2.3. SEDIMENT AND TURBIDITY PROBLEMS ................................................................ 21 CHAPTER 3: SEDIMENT AND TURBIDITY TMDLS........................................................ 26 3.1. SEDIMENT SOURCE ASSESSMENT........................................................................... 26 3.1.1. Sediment Source Analysis Methodology.......................................................................... 27 3.1.2. Results............................................................................................................................... 43 3.2. TMDLs AND ALLOCATIONS ....................................................................................... 81 3.2.1. Loading Capacity and TMDLs for Sediment and Turbidity............................................. 81 3.2.2. Allocations ........................................................................................................................ 86 3.3. WATER QUALITY INDICATORS AND TARGETS.................................................... 92 3.3.1. Summary of Indicators and Targets.................................................................................. 93 3.3.2. Turbidity Indicators for Basins Less than 10 mi2 ............................................................. 93 3.4. MARGIN OF SAFETY .................................................................................................... 94 3.5. SEASONAL VARIATION AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS........................................ 95 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 96 CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ........................................................................... 101 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 102 APPENDICES Appendix A: Sediment Source Analysis (available as a separate document) i LIST OF FIGURES Plate 1-a. Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................... 4 Plate 1-b. Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................... 5 Plate 1-c. Subwatersheds ............................................................................................................... 6 Figure 1. Longitudinal Profile for the Mainstem Mad River Showing GMA Continuous Monitoring Sites............................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 2. Mad River Mainstem Sampling Sites, Continuous Turbidity, WY 2006..................... 50 Figure 3. Mad River Mainstem Sampling Sites, Continuous Turbidity, WY 2007..................... 51 Figure 4. Mad River Tributary Monitoring Sites Turbidity Duration Analysis, 12/24/05 through 2/25/06............................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 5. Mad River Mainstem Monitoring Sites Turbidity Duration Analysis, 12/24/05 through 2/25/06............................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 6. Mad River Mainstem Monitoring Sites SSD Duration Analysis, 12/24/05 through 2/25/06............................................................................................................................. 61 Figure 7. Mad River Unit SSD Duration Analysis, 12/24/05 through 2/25/06 ........................... 62 Figure 8. WY 2006-2007 Unit Suspended Sediment Loads vs. Watershed Area ....................... 63 Figure 9. Unit Maximum Suspended Sediment Concentration vs. Watershed Area................... 64 Figure 10. Longitudinal Plot of Unit Sediment Delivery for the Mad River............................... 72 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Beneficial Uses (NCRWQCB 2007) ............................................................................. 13 Table 2. Water Quality Objectives (NCRWQCB 2007).............................................................. 13 Table 3. Comparison of Background Turbidity Data with Mad River Sites, WY 2005.............. 25 Table 4. List of Mad River Subwatersheds and Drainage Areas................................................. 33 Table 5. Mad River turbidity and SSC sampling site list ............................................................ 34 Table 6. Log Pearson III Analysis of Annual Maximum Peak Discharges ................................. 44 Table 7. Relationship between Turbidity and Suspended Sediment Concentration for Mainstem Mad River Sites............................................................................................................ 52 Table 8. Suspended Sediment Loads for WY2006 and 2007 Periods of Record ........................ 52 Table 9. Turbidity Exceedence for Tributary and Mainstem Sites.............................................. 58 Table 10. Suspended Sediment Concentration Exceedence for Tributary and Mainstem Sites............................................................................................................................................... 59 ii Table 11. Comparison of WY2006 Mad River Turbidity, SSC, and SSD Data with Reference Sites.............................................................................................................................. 60 Table 12. GMA Sampling Site Observed Maximum Turbidity and SSC .................................... 65 Table 13. Count of Landslide Type Sorted by Triggering Mechanism Related to Land Use ..... 67 Table 14. NetMap Sediment Budget by Monitoring Subarea Vs. Measured Load ..................... 71 Table 15. Unit Sediment Delivery by Type by Subwatershed..................................................... 75 Table 16. Unit Sediment Delivery by Type by Subwatershed, Divided into Reaches Created by Monitoring Sites ......................................................................................................... 76 Table 17. Comparison of Measured SSL and Upland SSA by Monitoring Reach...................... 77 Table 18. Total Sediment Loading in the Entire Mad River Study Area (1975-2006) ............... 80 Table 19. Suspended Sediment Loading in the Entire Mad River Study Area (1975-2006)....... 81 Table 20. Total Sediment Load Allocations Summary for the Mad River Watershed................ 87 Table 21. Suspended Sediment Load Allocations Summary for the Mad River Watershed....... 88 Table 22. Total Sediment Load Allocations Summary by Subareas ........................................... 89 Table 23. Suspended Sediment Load Allocations Summary by Subareas .................................. 90 Table 24. Sediment and Turbidity Indicators and Targets........................................................... 93 iii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. OVERVIEW OF THE TMDL PROGRAM The primary purpose of the sediment and turbidity Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for California’s Mad River is to assure that beneficial uses of water (such as salmonid habitat) are protected from detrimental increases in sediment and turbidity. The TMDLs set the maximum levels of pollutants that the waterbody can receive without exceeding water quality standards, an important step in achieving water quality standards for the Mad River basin. The major water quality problems in the Mad River and tributaries addressed in this report are reflected in the decline of salmon and steelhead populations. While many factors have been implicated in the decline of west coast salmon and steelhead, we are concerned here with two water quality considerations: increases in natural sediment and turbidity. The Mad River (along with many other watersheds in California and throughout the nation) has been included in a list of “impaired” or polluted waters. The listing leads to the TMDLs for this watershed, and the TMDLs determine the “allowable” amount of sediment and turbidity for the watershed. Development of measures to implement the TMDLs is the responsibility of the State of California. Background The Mad River Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for sediment and turbidity are being established in accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Humboldt Community Services District Eureka, California
    2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR HUMBOLDT COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT EUREKA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Humboldt Community Services District Eureka, California 95503 May 20, 2016 Prepared by: Orrin Plocher and Stan Thiesen of Freshwater Environmental Services 78 Sunny Brae Center Arcata, California 95521 Phone (707) 839-0091 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. vi LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ................................................................ 1 1.1 Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 ........................................ 1 1.2 Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) ................................................. 1 2.0 PLAN PREPARATION .................................................................................... 2 2.1 Basis for Preparing a Plan ........................................................................... 2 2.2 Regional Planning ....................................................................................... 2 2.3 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure ............................................ 2 2.4 Coordination and Outreach ......................................................................... 2 2.5 Notice to Cities and Counties .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrologic Analysis for Mad River Near the City of Blue Lake, Humboldt County, California
    Hydrologic Analysis for Mad River near the City of Blue Lake, Humboldt County, California Prepared for: Humboldt County Public Works Department 8 February 2013 Prepared by: Northern Hydrology & Engineering Manhard Consulting P.O. Box 2515 611 I Street, Suite A McKinleyville, CA 95519 Eureka, CA 95501 Introduction/Background This document describes the hydrologic analysis conducted for the Mad River in the vicinity of the Mad River levee (a federal levee project) near the City of Blue Lake, Humboldt County, California. The hydrologic analysis was prepared by Northern Hydrology & Engineering and Manhard Consulting for the Humboldt County Public Works Department (County). Humboldt County is currently in the process of conducting hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and floodplain mapping (Project) in the vicinity of the Mad River levee with funding provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The overall purpose of this Project is to provide accurate, up-to-date information regarding flood risk for areas formally protected by levees and adjacent areas in the study area in conformance with current FEMA standards. The work products from this Project will be used by FEMA to update the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for Humboldt County. Detailed Study Area/Reach The Mad River detailed study area/reach is located in Humboldt County and consists of approximately 3 miles of the Mad River and approximately 1.1 miles of the North Fork (NF) Mad River (Figure 1), near the City of Blue Lake. The study area includes the approximate 1.5- mile long Mad River levee located along the right bank (facing downstream) of the Mad River and NF Mad River near their confluence (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Transportation / O.E.S
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Transportation / O.E.S. Complex/Justice Center Blue Lake Rancheria, Humboldt County, California Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20531 1.0 333333333333333 Cooperating Agency: Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Council 428 Chartin Road Blue Lake, California 95525 August 2020 Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation / O.E.S. Complex/Justice Center Blue Lake Rancheria Table of Contents DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Transportation / O.E.S. Complex/Justice Center Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... viii 2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Background ................................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................. 2 2.4 General Setting ............................................................................................................ 3 2.5 Overview of the Environmental Review Process ..................................................... 3 2.6 Environmental Issues Addressed .............................................................................. 3 2.6.1
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Relative Abundance of Fish in Ruth Reservoir, California, in Relation to Environmental Variables
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 42 Number 4 Article 5 12-31-1982 Distribution and relative abundance of fish in Ruth Reservoir, California, in relation to environmental variables Steven Vigg Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada Thomas J. Hassler Humboldt State University, Arcata, California Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Vigg, Steven and Hassler, Thomas J. (1982) "Distribution and relative abundance of fish in Ruth Reservoir, California, in relation to environmental variables," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 42 : No. 4 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol42/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH IN RUTH RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA, IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES' Steven Viifg- Hassler' and Thomas J. Abstract.— The fish population of Ruth Reservoir, Cahfornia, was sampled every two weeks with variable mesh gill nets from May 1974 through May 1975. Fish were captured in the following order of numerical abundance: Humboldt sucker (Catostomus hurnboldtianus), golden shiner {Notemigonus crysoleucus), brown bullhead [Ictahtrus nebulosus), white catfish (/. catus), rainbow trout {Sahno gairdneri), and largemouth bass {Micwpterus sabnoides). The three most abundant species made up about 95 percent of total numbers and weight. All species exhibited a similar cyclic temporal availability pattern: catch rates increased to a maximum during summer and fall and de- creased during winter and spring.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Spotted Owl
    HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN fafl ~ NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL CALIFORNIA TIMBERLANDS OF SIMPSON TIMBER COMPANY Simpson Simpson Timber Company Redwood Division Po sox 1159 ARCATA CALIFORNIA 95521-1169 (707) 822-0371 October 12, 1992 This habitat conservation plan (HCP) was developed based on three years of field work and ongoing discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). It was formally submitted to the Service for final review and approval in April 1992, after which the Service prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the issuance of an incidental take permit to Simpson's California Subsidiaries. The permit was issued on September 17, 1992. As part of the Service's review of the documents and in response to public comments solicited by the Service, specific clarifications and refinements of portions of the HCP were made prior to the issuance of the permit. These changes are described in the "Supplement" which can be found at the end of the HCP, following Appendix E. Any inquiries regarding this document should be addressed to: Mr. T. E. O'Dell Resource Manager Simpson Timber Company P. 0. Box 1169 Arcata, CA 95521-1169 (707) 822-0371 Very truly yours, SIMJ_fil?,N TIMBER COMPANY ,-~---· David W. Kaney Vice President & General Manager Table of Contents Table of Contents Page Summary 1 Chapter 1. The Planning Context and the Plan Area 27 A. Introduction 27 B. The Regulatory Framework 28 1) Federal Listing of the Species 28 a) Restrictions on Take 28 b) Designation of Critical Habitat 29 c) Recovery Plan 30 2) HCP Requirements and Guidelines 31 a) Permit Application and Approval Process 31 b) Planning Guidelines 32 3) Other Legal Requirements 33 a) National Environmental Policy Act 33 b) California Environmental Quality Act 34 c) California Forest Practice Rules 35 d) California Endangered Species Act 37 e) Local Plans and Ordinances 38 4) Other Plans and Programs 38 a) Interagency Scientific Committee Report 38 b) California Habitat Conservation Plan 39 c) Natural Community Conservation Plans 40 C.
    [Show full text]