flathead – stillwater nutrient, sediment, & temperature tmdls

Flathead – Stillwater Nutrient, Sediment, & Temperature TMDLs

Public Meeting October 30, 2014 – Kalispell, MT

Presentation Outline

• What are TMDLs and Why Do We Need Them? • TMDL History of the Flathead Lake Watershed • Flathead – Stillwater TMDL Project Area • Nutrient TMDLs Overview • Sediment & Temperature TMDLs Overview • Restoration Approaches, Goals, & Process • Future TMDL Work in the Watershed • Public Comment Information

Introduction Outline

• Context: Why Are We Doing This? • Types of Pollutants & Pollutant Sources • What is a TMDL? • How Do We Develop TMDLs? • Montana’s TMDL History • Flathead Lake Watershed TMDL History • What TMDLs Were Written for this Project

Context: Why Are We Doing This? •The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to

assess the quality of their waters

•The goal of the CWA is to ensure that all surface waters are capable of supporting designated beneficial uses.

Ashley Creek

• Numeric or Narrative (Descriptive) • Protect Designated Uses Such as Agriculture &

Aquatic Life • Streams and lakes not supporting their

beneficial use(s) are impaired

Recreation Drinking Water Aquatic Life

Water Quality Standards

Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment

• DEQ uses monitoring data to assess water quality and compare to applicable water quality standards

• If the data show a water quality problem, the waterbody is put on a list of impaired waters

• Waterbodies impaired by a pollutant will require a TMDL to be developed for that particular waterbody-pollutant combination

NUTRIENTS

SEDIMENT

METALS

TEMPERATURE

Types of Pollutants

Sources of Pollutants

Point Source Nonpoint Source

Natural Source

What is a TMDL?

• Total Maximum Daily Load is the maximum amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards.

• It is an equation that calculates an allowable load

Current Load

TMDL

What is a TMDL?

A TMDL may be expressed as a load per unit time (e.g., lbs/day) or as a percent load reduction (e.g., 36% reduction) A load is calculated by multiplying streamflow by the pollutant concentration

How Do We Develop a TMDL?

• Characterize the impaired waterbody’s existing water quality conditions and compare those conditions to Montana’s water quality standards.

• Quantify the magnitude of the pollutant contribution from each significant source

• Determine the total allowable load of the pollutant to the waterbody

• Allocate the total allowable load into individual loads for each significant source or source type

What Makes Up The Total Allowable Load?

TMDL = Load Allocations (LA) + Wasteload Allocations (WLA)

Allocations usually based on existing loading and opportunity for reductions via best management practices

Example Point Sources

Example Nonpoint & Natural Sources

How Many TMDLs?

TMDLs are specific to a waterbody segment and a pollutant, so a single waterbody may have

multiple TMDLs

Ashley Creek has 3 segments, each with multiple TMDLs:

Upper: TN, Sediment, Temperature Middle: TN, TP, Sediment, Temperature Lower: TN, TP, Sediment, Temperature

Water Quality Goals

• For all waterbodies to support their designated water quality beneficial uses

• Developing TMDLs for waterbodies impaired by a pollutant is an important step to address water quality problems

• TMDL documents can be used as a water quality planning tool

Montana’s TMDL History

• More than 1,200 approved TMDLs (1998 – present)

• More than 60 TMDL documents completed as of October 2014

• Completed documents can be found at: http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/TMDL/finalReports.mcpx

Flathead Lake Watershed TMDL Planning Areas

TMDL Planning Area

Boundary Description

Big Creek The Big Creek watershed defines the boundary of this planning area.

Flathead Headwaters

The headwater streams of the Flathead River to the formation of the Flathead River create the boundary of this planning area. This includes the Middle, South, and North forks of the Flathead River and Hungry Horse Reservoir.

Flathead – Stillwater

This planning area contains: The Flathead River from its formation to its confluence with Flathead Lake; tributaries to the Flathead River within the Flathead Lake watershed; the Stillwater River watershed; Whitefish Lake; Lake Mary Ronan

Flathead Lake

Includes the lake itself, plus direct tributaries to the lake, outside of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe lands. The Flathead Reservation creates the southern boundary of the planning area.

Swan The entire Swan River watershed, including Swan Lake

TMDL History of the Flathead Lake Watershed TMDL

Document Waterbodies TMDLs

Flathead Lake 2001

“Phase I”

Flathead Lake Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus

Big Creek 2003

Big Creek Sediment

Flathead River Headwaters

2004

Coal Creek Sediment

Swan Lake 2004

Goat Creek TSS

Jim Creek

Sediment

Swan Lake Sediment Total Nitrogen

Total Phosphorus

http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/TMDL/finalReports.mcpx

Flathead – Stillwater TMDL Planning Area

• Ashley Creek • Logan Creek • Haskill Creek • Sheppard Creek • Spring Creek • Stillwater River • Whitefish River

Nutrient TMDLs for Ashley Creek and Spring Creek

Jason Gildea, EPA October 30, 2014

Nutrients

• Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) • Nutrients are essential for life…BUT • Excess N and P in a waterbody (nutrient pollution)

can cause algae to grow faster than ecosystems can handle—a process called eutrophication

• Excess nutrients fertilize the stream

Excess Algae

Excess Algae Changes in

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Recreational Uses Impacted

Changes in pH

Aquatic Life Impacted

Changes in Habitat

Excess Algae Causes…

Reduced visibility/algal scums

Unsafe drinking water

Human Health Impacted

Nutrient Water Quality Standards

Montana has developed nutrient water quality criteria and a nutrient assessment methodology to determine if streams are polluted (i.e., “impaired”) because of excess nutrients

WATER COLUMN CRITERIA • Total P < 0.025 mg/L • Total N < 0.275 mg/L *values only apply to the “growing season”, defined as July 1-Sept 30

ALGAE INDICATORS • Chlorophyll-a < 125 mg/m2

• Ash Free Dry Weight < 35 g/m2

• Periphyton Metric < 50%

*Different methods for measuring algae

Streams Assessed for Nutrient Impairment

Evaluated Streams • Challenge Creek • Ashley Creek • Spring Creek • Fish Creek • Stillwater River • Sheppard Creek • Whitefish River • Swift Creek

Nutrient Impaired Streams • Ashley Creek

– Upper Ashley Creek – Middle Ashley Creek – Lower Ashley Creek

• Spring Creek

Ashley Creek Watershed

Ashley Creek just upstream of Smith Lake

Smith Lake

Ashley Creek upstream of Lone Lake

Ashley Creek near Airport Rd

Spring Creek

Nutrient Problems in the Ashley Creek Watershed

1. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations often exceed the criteria

2. Algae dominate parts of the stream in some months

3. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are lower than criteria

4. The periphyton metric indicates impairment

Ashley Creek

32

Nutrient Sources in the Ashley Creek Watershed

• Atmospheric deposition • Bank erosion • Cattle/grazing/pasture • Crops/Fertilizer • Forest Fires • Kalispell WWTP • Lakes/lake dynamics

• Roads • Septic systems • Stormwater/sewers • Timber Harvest • Urban areas • Wetlands

Urban Sources

Septic Systems

Agriculture

Timber Harvest

Roads

Natural Sources

Quantifying Nutrient Sources

• A watershed model was developed to calculate the nutrient contribution from the various sources

• The model was run over a 10 year period (2003 to 2012), and average results were summarized for the growing season time period (July 1 – Sept 30)

• The model can report nutrient loads at various points in the stream from various sources

TN and TP Load by Source, Summer Growing Season, Lower Ashley Creek

TN TP

TN and TP Load by Source, Summer Growing Season, Spring Creek

TN TP

Nutrient TMDLs

• Nutrient TMDLs were completed for Ashley Creek and Spring Creek

• The TMDL provides the math and the path to achieving water quality goals

• TMDL Target/Goal – achieve the nutrient water quality standards during the growing season!

TN TMDL for Lower Ashley Creek

TP TMDL for Lower Ashley Creek

What Needs to be Done?

• The main sources of controllable nutrients vary depending on the location within the watershed

• For the entire Ashley Creek watershed, septic systems, urban areas, agriculture, and the Kalispell WWTP are the major sources – Implementation efforts should focus on reducing nutrients from those sources

• Note: DEQ needs to conduct additional work in Upper Ashley Creek to better understand wetland dynamics in the Smith Lake wetland complex

Implementation

• #1 Goal: Keep Nutrients OUT of the stream! • Agricultural BMPs

– Water gaps and off stream watering – Nutrient management plans

• Protect riparian areas/ stream buffers • Septic system maintenance/inspections • Urban BMPs

– Retention ponds – Street sweeping – Lawn fertilizer management

Flathead-Stillwater TPA Sediment TMDLs

TMDLs written for seven stream segments • Ashley Creek

– Upper, middle, lower segments

• Haskill Creek • Logan Creek • Sheppard Creek • Stillwater River

Fish Creek: Evaluated and determined to be not impaired by sediment Sediment can harm aquatic life by filling spawning and rearing habitat and reducing gill function

Sediment Data Collection

W/D % fines in riffles

% eroding banks % understory shrub cover

Collected in 2008: - Fine sediment (<6mm and <2mm in riffles and in pools) - Channel form stability (W/D ratio and entrenchment) - Instream habitat (pools/mile, and pool depth) - Riparian health (% understory shrub cover) - Bank Erosion* (Number of banks, loads, and associated causes and severity) *LSPC model used to estimate loading

Uses: characterize stream reaches, compare to targets, determine sediment sources, future monitoring and restoration

Data Evaluation and TMDLs

• Targets were developed to translate the narrative standard and evaluate condition of each stream

– Targets based on USFS and DEQ reference data

• Sediment TMDLs are based on following all reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices

– TMDL is based on a percent reduction approach for all potentially significant sediment sources

Potential Sediment Source Categories Natural Erosion • Result of climatic and hydrologic processes

Human-caused sediment/erosion • Streambank Erosion

- Streamside Vegetation Removal - Unnatural Flow Fluctuations - Livestock trampling

• Unpaved Roads

- Non- “BMP’ed” roads and crossings - Culvert failure

• Sediment from Upland Erosion

- Grazing practices - Timber harvest - Streamside Vegetation Removal - Crop Production - Development

• Point Sources

- Permitted entities

Potential Sediment Source Categories Annual sediment loads were estimated for each category using the Flathead model: Sources include –

• Bank Erosion

• Natural Background

• Urban Areas

• Agriculture

• Timber Harvest

• Unpaved Roads

• Forest Fire

• Golf Courses Lower Ashley Creek

Upper Ashley Creek

Potential Sediment Source Categories The sources were grouped for reductions: - Reductions are the basis for the TMDL allocations

• Natural Background – no reductions

• Bank Erosion – 0-55% reduction based on field data • Upland Erosion – 50% reduction to human-caused sources based on

literature values • Unpaved Roads – 13-30% reductions based on previous work done by

DEQ and documented BMP work in watersheds

• Point Sources (stormwater discharges, WWTPs) – reduction varied by type of discharge

Sediment TMDL Table

Upper Ashley Creek

Sediment Sources Current

Estimated Load (Tons/Year)

Total Allowable

Load (Tons/Year)

Load Allocations

(% reduction)

Streambank Erosion 255.2 114.8 55% Upland Sediment Sources 227.8 217.1 5%

Roads 17.7 12.4 30%

Total Sediment Load 500.7 344.3 31% Note: Values were rounded to the nearest tenth; differences in loads presented in this table may not correspond to the identified percent reduction

Overall Sediment TMDL Reductions by Segment

31% 34% 33%

14%

0.2% 0.2% 3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

UpperAshleyCreek

MiddleAshleyCreek

LowerAshleyCreek

HaskillCreek

LoganCreek

SheppardCreek

StillwaterRiver

Perc

ent r

educ

tion

Stream segment

Sediment TMDL Implementation Options for reducing sediment loading include:

• Sediment from Unpaved Roads – replacing culverts, installing appropriate BMPs, potential road decommissioning, BMP maintenance

• Bank Erosion – improving riparian vegetation via streambank stabilization, limiting cattle access to riparian areas, streamside buffers

• Upland Erosion – rotational grazing, buffer strips

• Point sources – apply and maintain stormwater BMPs

• Protecting healthy areas and where BMPs are already in place

– Temperature vegetation map and table can help determine these areas on Ashley Creek

Flathead-Stillwater TPA Temperature TMDLs

The maximum allowable increase over the naturally occurring temperature is 1°F when the naturally occurring temperature is less than 66°F. Within the naturally occurring temperature range of 66 – 66.5°F, the allowable increase cannot exceed 67°F. If the naturally occurring temperature is greater than 66.5°F the maximum allowable increase is 0.5°F.

The Temperature Standard

Excess temperatures can cause reduced feeding and growth and lead to fish death and can also cause a shift is aquatic insect species present.

TMDLs written for four stream segments

• Ashley Creek – Upper, middle, lower

segments

• Whitefish River

Temperature Data Collection

Uses: characterize stream reaches, QUAL2K model input, target development, determine temperature sources, future monitoring and restoration

2008 Sampling

Collected: - Temperature (data loggers) - Bankfull width - Riparian canopy type - Shade - Stream and irrigation return discharge

Other data: - Flow and temperature from MPDES

permitted discharges - Climate data

Temperature Data Collection

Ashley Creek - 20 temperature data loggers deployed - 14 flow measurements - 12 sites evaluated for shade

Temperature Data Collection

Whitefish River - 11 temperature data loggers

deployed

- 7 flow measurements

- 8 sites evaluated for shade

Temperature Model • Helps determine if the temperature water quality standard is being exceeded - Can run different scenarios and demonstrate the improvements that can be achieved (e.g., 0.58 – 10.81°F) - In this case, to achieve the shade scenario, shade needs to be increased along 23.4 miles (52%) of Ashley Creek

Example Temperature TMDL

• Example for upper Ashley Creek - Uses a flow of 5.0 cfs, naturally occurring temperature of 65.5°F - At this temperature the standard allows a 1.0°F increase above the

naturally occurring temperature

TMDL = flow x (naturally occurring temperature + increase allowed by the standard)

Category Load Temperature (°F)¹ Daily Load (kcal/day)¹

Composite LA 65.5°F 227,491,200 Explicit MOS 1.0°F 6,825,600 TMDL 66.5°F 234,316,800 ¹ Based on a naturally occurring temperature of 65.5°F, flow of 5.0 cfs, and an explicit MOS of 1.0°F

Temperature TMDL Implementation

Options for reducing temperature loading include:

• Streamside management practices that encourage streamside vegetation establishment and growth

– streambank stabilization – limiting cattle access to riparian areas – rotational grazing – buffer strips – Planting riparian vegetation

• Protecting areas where riparian vegetation is healthy and/or BMPs

are already in place

What Next?

Watershed Protection Section Provide technical and financial support for TMDL implementation

TMDL is a non-regulatory approach to reducing NPS pollutants WPS distributes funding from EPA for pollutant reduction

projects as described in Section 319 of the CWA

Watershed Protection and 319 Funding

WPS manages 319 Project Funds for TMDL implementation and restoration of nonpoint sources Passive Restoration – minimally invasive; cost effective Active Restoration – temporary impacts to stream bed and banks

Projects are driven by prioritization of restoration projects in locally developed Watershed Restoration Plans to address water quality impairment

Annual Funding Cycle (2015 schedule) • June 2 – Call For Proposals • July 28 – Project proposal are due • August 12 – MWCC Review Meeting • September 29 – Final project proposals are due • October 23 – Evaluation by Agency Review Panel • November 4 – Notice of intent to award • December 31 – Final Scope of Work due • June – Funds available

Restoring Stream Processes

Active Passive

Restoring Stream Processes

Best Management Practices

Best Management Practices

Watershed Restoration Plans

WRP are now required by EPA in order to be eligible for Clean Water Act Section 319 (Nonpoint Source) funding

Nine elements ensure an effective integrated approach to water quality restoration and protection

Locally led planning effort to prioritize activities based on needs, concerns, and local interest

• Identify sources and causes of problems, determine changes necessary to attain standards

• Identify the actions necessary to make the changes, the partners and assistance needed for those changes

• Develop timeframe, milestones, and criteria to keep on track or make necessary adjustments

9 Minimum Elements

1. Identify causes and sources of pollution 2. Estimate pollutant loading into the watershed and the expected load

reductions 3. Describe management measures that will achieve load reductions and

targeted critical areas 4. Estimate amounts of technical and financial assistance and the relevant

authorities needed to implement the plan 5. Develop an information/education component 6. Develop a project schedule 7. Describe the interim, measurable milestones 8. Identify indicators to measure progress 9. Develop a monitoring component

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/watershed_mgmnt_quick_guide.pdf

Flathead Lake WRP

Flathead Lakers currently developing a WRP; based largely on 2001 TMDL

document WRP modifications could be necessary based on future TMDL work Current Goals

1. Nonpoint source education 2. Restoration and Conservation of Critical Lands and Waters 3. Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention

Resources EPA Website and Handbook

o Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters – with a shorter Quick Guide

• http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm o Incorporating Wetlands into WRPs

• http://www.epa.gov/region5/agriculture/pdfs/wetlands-in-watershed-planning-supplement-region-5-201302.pdf

DEQ Staff and Website o Wiki Site (http://montananps319grants.pbworks.com/w/page/40496302/Watershed%20Restoration%20Plans)

o Staff with Expertise (http://svc.mt.gov/deq/staffdir.asp#wqp)

319 Call for Proposals Webinar Other

o Flathead Lakers • www.flatheadlakers.org

o Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes o Flathead and Kootenai National Forests o Montana Watershed Coordination Council (MWCC)

• http://www.mtwatersheds.org/ o DNRC o FWP o Volunteers

Robert Ray Watershed Protection Section Supervisor 406.444.5319

rray@mt.gov

Eric Trum Water Quality Specialist 406.444.0531

etrum@mt.gov

Watershed Protection Contacts

Future Flathead Lake Watershed TMDL-Related Activities

Future TMDL Work: Flathead Lake Phase II Nutrient TMDL Development • Numeric Water Quality Standards for Flathead

Lake – Evaluate continued applicability of nutrient TMDL

targets in 2001 document • Nutrient Modeling

– Transfer of modeling capabilities to Montana DEQ – Flathead Lake Phase II Nutrient TMDL

development – Modeling scenarios & water quality planning

assistance

Future TMDLs to Address Remaining Impairment Conditions

• Spring Creek: Arsenic • Whitefish Lake: PCBs; Mercury • Whitefish River: PCBs; Oil & Grease • Flathead Lake: PCBs; Mercury

Wrap - Up

How To Submit Comments

• Comment period ends Wednesday, Nov 12 (5 p.m.)

• Document available at: Big Fork, Columbia Falls, Kalispell, Missoula, Polson, & Whitefish public libraries

• Submit written comments via mail or electronically at: http://deq.mt.gov/pubcom.mcpx

• Project Website: http://montanatmdlflathead.pbworks.com

• Final document will be available beginning of 2015