Hangman (Latah) Creek Watershed Fecal Coliform, Temperature, And .
Hangman (Latah) Creek WatershedFecal Coliform, Temperature, andTurbidity Total Maximum Daily LoadWater Quality Improvement ReportJune 2009Publication no. 09-10-030
Publication and Contact InformationThis report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website athttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0910030.htmlFor more information contact:Water Quality ProgramEastern Regional OfficeN. 4601 MonroeSpokane, WA 99205-1295Phone: 509-329-3557Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov/o Headquarters, Olympia360-407-6000o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue425-649-7000o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia360-407-6300o Central Regional Office, Yakima509-575-2490o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane509-329-3400Project Codes and 1996 303(d) Waterbody ID NumbersData for this project are available at Ecology’s Environmental Information Management (EIM)website at www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/index.htm. Search User Study ID, G0400196.Study Tracker Code (Environmental Assessment Program) is 04-011.TMDL Study Code (Water Quality Program) is HCWS56MP.Waterbody Numbers: Hangman Creek (WA-56-1010); Marshall Creek (WA-56-1500); RattlerRun Creek (WA-56-2050); Rock Creek (WA-56-2040).Cover photo: Hangman Creek in the canyon-like reach north of Keevey Road (photo byWalt Edelen, Spokane County Conservation District)Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only anddoes not imply endorsement by the author or the Department of Ecology.To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call theWater Quality Program at 360-407-6404. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 forWashington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341.
Hangman (Latah) Creek WatershedFecal Coliform, Temperature, and TurbidityTotal Maximum Daily LoadWater Quality Improvement Reportby:Joe JoyEnvironmental Assessment ProgramWashington State Department of EcologyOlympia, Washington 98504-7710Rick NollWater Resources ProgramSpokane County Conservation DistrictSpokane, Washington 99202Elaine SnouwaertWater Quality Program – Eastern Regional OfficeWashington State Department of EcologySpokane, Washington 98205-1295
This page is purposely left blank
Table of ContentsPageList of Figures .3List of Tables .4Abstract .7Acknowledgements .8Executive Summary .11What is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)? .11Why is Ecology conducting a TMDL study in this watershed? .11Goals and objectives .13Study methods.13TMDL analyses .14Implementation strategy.33What is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) .35Federal Clean Water Act requirements .35TMDL process overview .35Elements required in a TMDL .35Water quality assessment / Categories 1-5 .36Total Maximum Daily Load analyses: Loading capacity .36Why is Ecology Conducting a TMDL Study in this Watershed .37Overview .37Study area.37Pollutants addressed by this TMDL.37Impaired beneficial uses and water bodies on Ecology’s 303(d) list of impairedwaters .39Why are we doing this TMDL now? .41Water Quality Standards and Beneficial Uses .43Recreational contact uses .44Aquatic life uses .46Watershed Description .51Historic Hangman Creek vegetation .52Watershed geologic conditions .54Watershed physiographic provinces .55Geologic and man-made limitations .56Goals and Objectives .59Project goals .59Study objectives .59Related goals .60Hangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 1
Field Data Collection .61Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) .61Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD).61Study Methods .63Data collection .63Data management and analysis .68Seasonal variation and critical conditions.70Study Quality Assurance Evaluation .71Results and Discussion .75Hydrology .75Climate .77TMDL Analyses.81Fecal coliform .81Temperature .97Turbidity and total suspended solids.116Monitoring Recommendations.149Implementation Strategy .151Introduction .151What needs to be done? .151Who needs to participate? .156What is the schedule for achieving water quality standards? .162Reasonable assurances .162Adaptive management .165Monitoring progress .166Potential funding sources .167Summary of public involvement methods .171Next steps .173References .175Appendices .181Appendix A. Glossary and acronyms . A-183Appendix B. Supplemental information on temperature .B-189Appendix C. Supplemental information on models .C-213Appendix D. Marketing elements for water quality issues evaluated by theTMDL Advisory Committee . D-217Appendix E. Response to public comments . E-223Hangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 2
List of FiguresPageFigure 1. Hangman Creek watershed near Spokane, Washington (SCCD, 2005a). .38Figure 2. Relationship between total coliform, fecal coliform, and E. coli. .45Figure 3. Material deposited from Missoula floods (photo by SCCD). .55Figure 4. Hangman Creek physiographic provinces. (SCCD, 2005b). .57Figure 5. Water quality sampling sites in the Hangman Creek watershed. .64Figure 6. Additional water quality monitoring sites in the Hangman Creek watershed. .66Figure 7. A Seasonal Kendall trend analysis. .75Figure 8. Comparisons of average daily discharge. .77Figure 9. A comparison of long-term average monthly maximum temperatures. .78Figure 10. A comparison of long-term average monthly rainfall volumes.78Figure 11. Trend of FC counts (concentration). .82Figure 12. USGS discharge trend on Hangman Creek at mouth. .83Figure 13. FC load (instantaneous streamflow. .83Figure 14. Seasonally-stratified fecal coliform loads. .86Figure 15. A comparison of monthly fecal coliform average loads. .89Figure 16. Application of a 72% reduction in fecal coliform loading sources. .90Figure 17. Monthly statistics for instantaneous temperature measurements. .97Figure 18. Weekly average stream temperatures measured and modeled. .98Figure 19. Current shade along Hangman Creek. .102Figure 20. Hangman Creek water temperatures at Tekoa.103Figure 21. Current conditions and system-potential shade estimates. .106Figure 22. System-potential thermal loads along Hangman Creek. .107Figure 23. Shade curve constructed for sites in the Hangman Creek watershed. .109Figure 24. The rTemp model output for Hangman Creek at Tekoa. .110Figure 25. An example of bank erosion in an agricultural area of Hangman Creek. .116Figure 26. The total suspended solids (TSS). .117Figure 27. The turbidity trend from 1994–2005. .117Figure 28. Total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity statistics. .122Figure 29. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations. .124Hangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 3
Figure 30. Delineated catchments and stream layout. .126Figure 31. Total suspended solids (TSS) estimated loads. .129Figure 32. Period of sub-lethal and lethal suspended sediment conditions to troutspecies. .130Figure 33. WARMF model of Hangman Creek hydrological calibration output for1998-2005: daily streamflow simulation. .132Figure 34. WARMF model of Hangman Creek hydrological calibration output datafor 1998-2005: cumulative flow volume. .132Figure 35. A comparison of suspended sediment loads. .133Figure 36. Hangman Creek at the mouth. .134Figure 37. Estimated daily average suspended sediment loads. .136Figure 38. The estimated change in the sediment rating curve.138Figure 39. A comparison of estimated current and estimated full protection scenario. 139Figure 40. Hangman Creek sub-watersheds. .142Figure 41. A sediment rating curve for the mouth of Hangman Creek. .150Figure 42. Urbanized areas shows portion of Hangman Creek Watershed. .157List of TablesPageTable 1. Study area 303(d) listings (2004 list) addressed in this report. .39Table 2. Additional impairments on the 2008 303(d) list. .40Table 3. Additional 303(d) listings not addressed by this report. .41Table 4. Wastewater treatment plants with permits. .52Table 5: Land use changes in Hangman Creek watershed. .53Table 6. Sites sampled by the Spokane County Conservation District. .65Table 7. Special sites sampled by the Spokane County Conservation District. .67Table 8. Temperature monitoring sites. .69Table 9. The most upstream transect location of 19 sites. .70Table 10. Blank analysis results.71Table 11. Replicate analysis results and 90% confidence limits .72Table 12. Monthly and annual daily mean flow statistics. .76Table 13. A statistical summary of all fecal coliform bacteria results.t 2004. .84Hangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 4
Table 14. Fecal coliform NPDES permit limits. .85Table 15. The loading capacities and target fecal coliform statistics. .91Table 16. Fecal coliform load allocations and wasteload allocations. .93Table 17. The average monthly air temperature in degrees centigrade. .105Table 18. Heat load allocations and shade requirements. .108Table 19. Estimated water temperatures in Hangman Creek above Tekoa WWTP. .111Table 20. Temperature Wasteload Allocations for WWTP Discharges. .112Table 21. Annual sediment discharge estimates. .118Table 22. Areas of Hangman Creek on the 2004 303(d) list for turbidity. .118Table 23. Benthic macroinvertebrate sample scores.120Table 24. Newcombe and Jensen (1996) scale of severity of ill effects to fish. .127Table 25. Three estimates of annual suspended sediment load. .134Table 26. Suspended sediment reduction predicted. .137Table 27. WARMF model simulation results. .140Table 28. Estimated distribution of sources generating suspended sediment. .141Table 29. Estimated sediment reductions. .143Table 30. Total suspended solids load allocations. .143Table 31. TSS load allocation compliance points. .144Table 32. Total suspended solids wasteload allocations for the Hangman Creekwatershed. .145Table 33. Possible Sources of Each Pollutant. .153Table 34. Best Management Practices for water quality issues related to sources ofpollutants covered by this TMDL. .155Table 35. Schedules for achieving water quality standards. .162Table 36. Potential Funding Sources for Implementation Projects. .168Hangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 5
This page is purposely left blankHangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 6
AbstractThis Water Quality Improvement Report, also called a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)report, was a coordinated effort of the Spokane County Conservation District, the WashingtonState Department of Ecology, local landowners, agencies, organizations, and citizen groups. TheHangman Creek watershed is a cross-border watershed with approximately 35% in Idaho. Waterquality activities on the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation and on Idaho lands will be importantto the success of this water quality improvement project.Hangman (Latah) Creek is on Washington State’s list of impaired water bodies (the 303[d] list)for fecal coliform, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. In addition, the draftSpokane River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL recommends limits on phosphorus loads coming fromHangman Creek. Phosphorus delivery from Hangman Creek is associated with suspendedsediments and turbidity. This TMDL does not address phosphorus limits or dissolved oxygenand pH impairments in the watershed.The Clean Water Act requires states to establish a TMDL for each water body and parameter onthe 303(d) list. Using data collected from 1998 through 2006, this report analyzes how muchfecal coliform, heat, and suspended solids loads Hangman Creek and its tributaries can assimilateand meet water quality standards. This report lists strategies for how to reduce pollutant loadswhere necessary.There are six wastewater treatment facilities and three regulated stormwater dischargers in theHangman Creek watershed. Each receives wasteload allocations to control point (discrete)source pollution. Nonpoint (diffuse) source pollution will be controlled by meetingrecommended load allocations geographically throughout the watershed.This report emphasizes best management practices (BMPs) and education that target continuingnonpoint source problems, such as the high fecal coliform bacteria, erosion, and lack ofstreamside vegetation. The BMPs, and other alternatives discussed in this improvement plan,should help to reduce nutrients and alleviate other 303(d) listed problems in the Hangman Creekwatershed.Hangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 7
AcknowledgementsThe fieldwork and community outreach by the Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD)were funded by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) through a CentennialClean Water Fund Grant for the Hangman Creek TMDL assessment (grant number G0400196).Charlie Peterson, Dan Ross, Amy Voeller, and Jennifer McCall of SCCD spent many hours inthe field setting up the sampling sites, surveying the cross-sections, and organizing the fieldequipment.The outcome of this report, including many of the ideas and suggestions, can be directlyassociated to the significant help from several watershed residents: Bill Sayres was instrumental in forming one of the first meetings with small-scalelandowners along Hangman Creek. Charlie Johnson provided insight to many of the issues in the watershed and was at theforefront in organizing meetings involving livestock owners in the watershed. Pat and Jennie Kane provided valuable insight to our issues from the perspective of long-timefarmers. Gary Ostheller shared a historical perspective that helped the Hangman Creek AdvisoryCommittee gain an appreciation and understanding of the agricultural operations in thewatershed. Micki Harnois bestowed upon our committee the insight of the many small towns in thewatershed. Cathy McBeth brought to the committee insights from a newcomer to the area with theambition and resources to try new and innovative ideas in working the land. Layne Merritt of Century West, Inc. provided valuable information about the operations andchallenges of the small treatment plants in the watershed.Many thanks also to the following people for their contributions to this study: The watershed agencies that provided input and ideas: Dee Bailey and Scott Fields with theCoeur d’Alene Tribe, Reanette Boese and Ben Brattebo with Spokane County, and BillRickard with the city of Spokane. Region 10 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for funding the landscape modelingand technical support. Dave Ragsdale of that office for his reviews, comments, and advicethrough the TMDL process. Scott Coffey, Steve Wolosoff, and Tom Quasebarth of Camp, Dresser, McKee, Inc. fordeveloping the WARMF model for the Hangman Creek watershed. The Town of Fairfield which made our meetings exceedingly pleasant. It is a busy town andis characterized by a spirit of enterprise. A considerable acreage of wheat and other cerealsis raised in this vicinity, and the future of this progressive little town is sure to be prosperous.Hangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 8
David Moore of Ecology’s Water Quality Program and Stephanie Brock and Paul Pickett ofEcology’s Environmental Assessment Program for reviewing and providing comments onthis report. Joan LeTourneau, Gayla Lord, and Cindy Cook of Ecology’s Environmental AssessmentProgram, as well as Donna Ward from Ecology’s Water Quality Program, for formatting andediting this document.Hangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 9
This page is purposely left blankHangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 10
Executive SummaryWhat is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)?The federal Clean Water Act established a process to identify and clean up polluted waters.Each state is required to have water quality standards designed to protect, restore, and preservewater quality. Every two years, states are required to prepare a list of water bodies that do notmeet water quality standards. This list is called the 303(d) list.The Clean Water Act requires that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for eachpollutant of the water bodies on the 303(d) list. A TMDL is the highest amount (or load) of apollutant a surface water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. The differencebetween the TMDL and the current amount of pollutant coming from point (discrete) andnonpoint (diffuse) sources is how much pollution needs to be reduced or eliminated to achieveclean water. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), local governments, agencies,and the community develop a strategy to control the pollution and a monitoring plan to assesseffectiveness of the water quality improvement activities.Why is Ecology conducting a TMDL study in this watershed?Hangman Creek (also known as Latah Creek) is a trans-boundary watershed that begins in thefoothills of the Rocky Mountains of northern Idaho, extends over the southeastern portion ofSpokane County, Washington (Figure 1), and is a tributary to the Spokane River. It encompassesover 689 square miles (approximately 441,000 acres). The TMDL allocations are limited to the446 square miles of watershed within Washington, although some TMDL success depends onupstream controls on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation and Idaho.The watershed is dominated by dryland farming, but like other eastern Washington watersheds,is experiencing increases in urbanization and changes in land use practices. The watershedcontains remnant populations of genetically distinct redband trout and other native andintroduced fish species.Ecology and the Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD) are developing TMDLs becauseseveral parts of Hangman Creek were identified on the 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters fornot meeting state water quality standards for fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, pH, andtemperature. Hangman Creek and several of its tributaries (Little Hangman Creek, Rattler RunCreek, and Rock Creek) were also included on the 2004 303(d) list of impaired waters for notachieving state water quality standards for fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, andtemperature. Additional data collected for this study identified other water quality impairmentsthat are included on the 2008 303(d) list. The water quality impairments addressed by thisTMDL are listed in Table ES1.In addition to developing TMDLs specific to the Hangman Creek watershed, a phosphorus loadallocation was recommended for Hangman Creek by the draft Spokane River/Lake SpokaneHangman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 11
Dissolved Oxygen TMDL. The Spokane River and Lake Spokane exhibit depressed dissolvedoxygen (DO) levels during low flow in the summer months. Phosphorus loads from HangmanCreek and other sources in the Spokane River basin contribute to algae growth in the lake thateventually depress oxygen levels. Since phosphorus is often attached to suspended sediment,efforts to reduce turbidity may help increase Spokane River DO.Table ES1. Hangman Creek watershed reaches on the 303(d) list.Water body NameListed ParameterFecal ColiformHangman CreekTemperatureLittle Hangman CreekRattler Run CreekTurbidityFecal ColiformTurbidityFecal ColiformTemperatureTurbidityFecal ColiformRock CreekCalifornia CreekCalifornia CreekUnnamed CreekCove CreekMarshall CreekTemperatureTurbidityFecal ColiformTemperatureFecal ColiformFecal ColiformTemperatureListing Identification angman (Latah) Creek FC, Temperature, and Turbidity TMDL:WQ Improvement ReportPage 12
Goals and objectivesThe goal of this TMDL is to develop a plan to meet water quality standards for fecal coliformbacteria, temperature, and turbidity in Hangman Creek and its tributaries. The followingtechnical analysis and Implementation Strategy will accomplish this goal by:1. Characterizing fecal coliform bacteria, heat, and suspended sediment loading from variousparts of the basin.2. Incorporating previously conducted temperature modeling work into a temperature TMDL.3. Setting of (TMDL) allocations on fecal coliform, temperature, and suspendedsediment/turbidity.4. Outlining an Implementation StrategyOriginally, this TMDL study also included a phosphorus load analysis from Hangman Creek tothe Spokane River. The loading analysis used the same methods and models as this report’sturbidity and suspended sediment TMDL analysis. The phosphorus analysis is not included inthis report because it did not explore the role of
Hangman Creek watershed. Each receives wasteload allocations to control point (discrete) source pollution. Nonpoint (diffuse) source pollution will be controlled by meeting recommended load allocations geographically throughout the watershed. This report emphasizes best management practices (BMPs) and education that target continuing
Upper Allegany Watershed Upper Allegany Watershed North Branch Mill Creek Mud Run Cassadaga Creek Clear Creek Stillwater Creek MOUTH Little Conewango Creek Lake Erie CONEWANGO CREEK WATERSHED. NY PA . watershed plumbing time & space. Municipal Costs Rebuilt 5 times In 3 years: 15,000 Stabilized in 2005: 3,500 . Municipal Costs Benefits
Silver Creek Tributary #1 Bear Creek Alderwood Creek Lower Spring Creek Baker Creek Tributary Lower Baker Creek Lower . Project Area Legend XX-RR1 XX-RP1 FR 150 XX-WP1 150. Figure 11. Chuckanut Creek Sub-watershed: HRTA Tier 1 Summary . Bug Lake Sunset Pond Squalicum Creek Spring Creek Baker Creek South Fork Baker Creek Hannegan Rd d
Martin Creek 21, 22 Mud Creek 14, 15, 38 North Oconee River 30 Orr Creek 08, 09 Pitts Creek 38 Sardis Creek 22, 27 Sawnee Creek 05, 10 Shoal Creek 01, 02, 03 Short Creek 16, 17 Six Mile Creek 07, 11, 12 Split Oak Creek 32 Squirrel Creek 27, 33 Taylor Creek 20, 21, 24 T
C. 3. Fecal Coliforms as Indicators of Pollution 16 C. 4. Fecal Streptococci as Indicators of Pollution 17 D. Watershed Studies 18 D. 1 The Regulatory Process and TMDLS 20 D. 2 Fecal Sourcing in Watersheds 22 E. Non-Genomic Techniques in Fecal Typing 25 E. 1.
Corte Madera Creek Watershed Infiltration and Storage Assessment (FOCMC 2m) Corte Madera Creek Watershed Sediment Control and Drinking Water Reliability Project (MMWD 1.2m) Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Barriers to Fish Passage in Sleepy Hollow Creek (San Anselmo 2m) Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Saunders Fish Barrier Removal(San Anselmo 2m)
Along with Lacamas Creek, the watershed has five major tributaries. China Ditch, Fifth Plain, and Shanghai Creek are located in the northwest section of the watershed, and, Matney Creek and Dwyer Creek are located in the lower watershed. There are also many smaller creeks and channelized streams that flow to Lacamas Creek. These
Virginia). Figure 1. Location of the Mill Creek watershed, Berkeley Co., West Virginia. In the inset, the red area is the Mill Creek watershed, and the gray area surrounding and including it is the Opequon Creek watershed. Mill Creek is located in the southeastern part of Berkeley Count
Quantum Field Theories: An introduction The string theory is a special case of a quantum field theory (QFT). Any QFT deals with smooth maps of Riemannian manifolds, the dimension of is the dimension of the theory. We also have an action function defined on the set Map of smooth maps. A QFT studies integrals Map ! #" % '&)( * &-, (1.1) Here ( * &-, stands for some measure on the space of .
