Tobacco TMDL Planning Area Sediment TMDLs
2011 Draft Document
Portions of the draft Tobacco sediment TMDL document are available for your review. We will continue to post document sections and appendices as we complete them. Please submit comments to Christina Staten via email. If you have questions, please contact Christina at (406) 444-2836.
Optional Comment Form: Tobacco Document Review Form
Comment Timeframe:
Please submit comments by the first of July. We hope to have the document out for public comment by mid . The sooner we receive your comments, the more time we will have to try and incorporate them prior to public comment. You can also submit comments during the public comment period.
Available Document Pieces & Appendices
For compairson purposes, the draft version of the Tobacco sediment TMDLs, as written in September 2009, is still available below this table.
*Yellow and green highlighting in the documents serve as reminders for DEQ and does not denote anything of importance
*Appendices are in a different order than the 2009 version of the draft document
| DOCUMENT & DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS |
SUMMARY OF EDITS |
|
Section 5.0 - 5.5 (0.9 MB)
- Description of assessment methods
- Sediment water quality targets
- Comparison of each waterbody's existing water quality conditions to the targets
- Determination of which waterbodies will receive a TMDL
|
Posted April 15, 2011
- Significant edits to target development with expanded rationale and increased reliance on a variety of reference data sets such as the FS PIBO data.
- Improvements to the biology evaluation
- Sediment TMDLs developed for all evaluated streams
Posted June 16, 2011
Note: To be consistent with other recent sediment TMDLs, the statistic for comparing width to depth ratio and entrenchment ratio to the target will be based on the median, versus the average. When adjusted, there was no subsequent impact to any of the impairment conclusions and only minor modifications to the target comparison summaries.
|
|
Section 5.6 - Source Assessment (0.08 MB)
- Eroding Streambank Assessment
- Upland Erosion & Riparian Bufferring Capacity
- Road Sediment Assessment
- Point Sources
|
Posted June 13, 2011
- Added point source assessment details
- Added more loading summary details from existing condition and load reduction scenarios
- Integrated updated road related load analysis results for parallel segments, road sanding, and other information consistent with recently identified updates to roads appendix (Appendix G; see below).
|
|
Section 5.7 - TMDLs and Allocations (0.1 MB)
- Development of allocations for each source category
- TMDLs and allocations for each stream (Edna, Deep, Fortine, Lime, Sinclair, Swamp, and Therriault creek; Tobacco River)
|
Posted June 16, 2011
- Minor TMDL and allocation number updates based on source assessment updates within Section 5.6 and the roads appendix (App G).
- Added TMDLs and allocations for Lime and Swamp creeks, and the Tobacco River (based on updated target and departure analysis within Sections 5.4 and 5.5).
- Added language comparing the Grave Creek watershed source assessment and allocation methods from this document and the 2005 Grave Creek TMDL.
- Added wasteload allocation language for permitted point sources
- Added additional daily load language and reference to newly coreated daily loads appendix (App H)
- Added language on how to meet the intent of the allocations.
- Addressed culverts via allocation approach consistent with other recent sediment TMDLs.
- Linked the non-pollutant habitat alteration type impairments to the sediment TMDLs for each stream, where applicable.
|
|
Appendix C, Regulatory Framework & Reference Condition Approach (0.09 MB)
- Sediment water quality standards, stream classifications and benefical uses
- DEQ approach for determining reference conditions
- Use of statistics for developoing reference values or ranges
|
Posted April 15, 2011
Previously Appendix B
- Language clarifications
- Updated reference approach description
|
|
Appendix G, Road Sediment Assessment (0.5 MB)
- Site selection methods, data collection methods & assessment methodology
- Sediment load estimates from road crossings and parallel segments
- Culvert and fish passage assessment
- Best management practice scenarios and estimated load reductions
- Assessment of existing BMPs and BMP recommendations
- WEPP modeling results for assessed crossing and parallel segments
Figure 1: All Road Crossings (1.6 MB)
Figure 2: Road Crossings by Landscape Type (1.6 MB)
Figure 3: Road Crossings by Land Ownership (1.6 MB)
Figure 4: Road Crossings by Soil Erosion Hazard Classification (1.6 MB)
Figure 5: Paved Roads within 100 feet & 200 feet of Surface Water (0.6 MB)
Figure 6: Culverts Assessed for Fish Passage and Failure Potential (0.5 MB)
Zip File of Appendix & Figures (7.5 MB)
|
Posted June 10, 2011
Previously Appendix F
- Removed introduction language that was redundant with information already presented within the document
- Corrected climate station information
- Computed load values for parallel segments because it was concluded that the parallel segments represent a significant load after making corrections to loading values.
- Added additional language comparing private and federal road crossing loads based on stratification of landscape type and ownership. Also added language comparing federal to private crossings regarding load reductions and reduction precentages with the 200 foot BMP scenario in place. This information had always been within tables of the original appendix, but language discussing these results by ownership was not previously included
- Computed unpaved road load information for Lime Creek
- Developed a road sand load estimate based on approaches from other TMDL documents. Road sanding information was previously in the document, but no load estimate was developed.
- Developed a road load estimate approach for the Grave Creek watershed, based on the method used for the remainder of the Tobacco watershed, so that a total road watershed load could be computed. This was desirable because a completely different modeling approach was used for the 2004 Grave Creek TMDL.
- Computed ownership information relative to culvert failure potential; this information is added to tables and via additional summary language.
Notes:
The Tobacco River is labeled incorrectly on all maps (Figures 1- 6). This will be corrected prior to release for pubic comment. A map of all field assessed sites will also be added.
This document has not been formatted.
|
|
Appendix H, Daily Loads (0.2 MB)
All TMDLs expressed as daily loads
|
Posted June 16, 2011
New appendix
|
2009 Draft Document, Stakeholder Presentation, & Post Presentation Document Notes
11-18-09 stakeholder presentation (1.87 MB).
Draft Document Notes (updated 11-20-09):
Several edits will be made to the document prior to releasing for the public comment period. Edits will include:
- A correction to the Unpaved Roads Appendix to state that climate stations within the Tobacco River watershed were used, as opposed to those in Ravalli County.
- A waste load allocation will be included for Deep Creek for the Plum Creek Ksanka Sawmill Industrial Storm Water Permit even though this facility is no longer operating, the permit is still in place and requies a WLA per EPA guidance (3-15-11 update: the permit has been terminated and a WLA will not be developed)
- For consistency purposes, the Watershed Characterization will be renamed to Watershed Description
- The list of references will be completed
- Appendix G (the TMDLs expressed as daily loads) will be completed and included with the document
- Edits will be made to language regarding use of macroinvertebrate data
- Other language clarifications
This is not an all-inclusive list of edits.
Page Created: July 23, 2009
Last Updated: June 16, 2011 (Posted Section 5.7)
Recent visitors to the wiki:
