United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(WH-553)
| ,.>., .
j f EPX841-F-93-002
! August 1992
Number 2
&EPA TMDL Case Study
South Fork of the f5almon
River !
Key Feature:
Project Name:
Location:
Scope/Size:
Land Type:
Type of Activity:
Pollutant:
TMDL Development:
Data Sources:
Data Mechanisms:
Monitoring Plan:
Control Measures:
Program Integration:
A phased TMDL for clean sediment developed
using quantified goals based on a narrative
standard
South Fork Salmon River
EPA Region X/Central Idaho
River, drainage area 370 mi2
Mountainous
Silviculture
Fine sediment
NFS, phased approach
USDA Forest Service
BOISED model, site-specific model
Yes
Specified
USDA Forest Service/EPA Region X/State
FIGURE 1. Location of the
I South Fork Salmon River basin
tin Idaho !
Summary: The South Fork of the Salmon River, located in the mountains of central Ir 1200
Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, phone (206)553-2600. ' W^ff^^Z - ~ . - \>: "^l.
u iMiyjS-s
-------
-------
anttplfed grazing contributed to increased
.degradation of riparian areas. From
.and, boulders Qn_which young fish depend to protect them
i5. intensive logging activities resulted in dense
from predators and to rest from swimming in fast currents.
Thwtr
jquality criteria specify that "waters of the state
activitiesLwere removed from the basin by the
when
activity within the basin went into effect.
are no longer profitable, mining activities
ggdjment^o^^j^ings piles continues
loadings are considered
to the amount of sediment originating
i activities.
tent of Health and Welfare Rules and
Regulations Section 01.2250, or, in the absence of specific
_^edimenl_criteria. in quantities which impair beneficial
uses." For salmonid spawning and cold water biota, no
specific numerical sediment criteria have been established.
However, because of the problems associated with excess
sediment in the SFSR interim «"atex_quality criteria were
^setfojrthe river and its tributaries by a consensus team
ased of twQjjwdrologists and one fisheries research
ie Intermountain Research Station, one
l^2^£LS£&§S£^iiPJp8*s'; from
of the South Fork of the ^°lse National Forest, one hydrologist and p^district
.quality limited due to fisheries biologist from Payette National' Forest, one
__representative from the ""•" "-' ™-~~~-~~ • "
ients
Boundaries
(Region X), and two from m
•Environmental Quality-one being from the Forest Service
"oTTarlnteragency Personnel Agreement.
are to Rice Creek
JJ3.3
lorn Creek
722.7
ucl^oy^C^rgekJ^^gcesh^Ryer 123.5
i EF SFSR1
^ASSESSING AND CHARACTERIZING THE
•PROBLEM
Targeting and Prioritizing
o
teen the maior source of
tietrated the South
Jfaejgflcentury; the South Fork Road
ConservatibiTCorps during
_and_J2ad_building associated with timber
mn of
on. As stated previously, preogging
"TunTof returning summer chinook adults were estimated at
jgpoximately 10,000, and returning steelhead were
"esGmated at 3,UODradultslnlhe"r950s^ These numbers
have decreased dramatically over the years, with an
yncregsed in the 1950s and early 1960s.,,
a ^g6 area of the canyon and adjacent
es was burned by wildfire. As mitigation, the Forest
" 6 areas of _ the Jburn. but
1964-65 a series of rain-on-snow
^estimatedlbw of 250 steelhead in 1979. Some of the
"laecliheTn pbpulationTs due to the downstream influences
"of commercial and sport fishing, and the construction of
"eight mainstream hyroelectric dams on The Columbia and
"Snake Rivers. Dams can prevent sahnon from safely
asjn^caused^road fills^on unstable slnnes and
^ireas in |h§ POgVerty, Burato saturate and fail.
MLresultedirLniassive sedimentation of the river and
leaving the river when they are grown and from returning
"to spawn. Some of the Decline in population is also
primary critical sahnonid spawning areas
CHoIe, iCrassel, Poverty Flats. Upper Stolle, and
ith cc
"aHHbutable to the degradation of suitable spawning and^
rearing habitat by sediment originating from land use
activities. As a result of public interest in restoring the
IFishery, the State identified the SFSR as a priority for
glopment. ^A consensus team was established to
jgcent years, the numt
of Chinook salmon and
"
gffljlj, matl|gSe,,,Pawnmg op the SFSR have
coordinate with Forest Service plans to better manage its
sedtment has covered and
activities in the watershed in order to decrease sediment
fading and improve spawning habitat.
function as
^materials at ^spawning sites,
;deposition because of their low Monitoring find Dttttt
niay trap fry that are attempting to
oxygen levels, smotherinjTeggs
have been laid: limit
ations_usgd as a food source by predatory fish in
e pools and pockets between rocks
The SFSR and its tributaries have been monitored
^extensively since 1965. The South Fork Monitoring
Committee, composed of soil, water, and aquatic specialists
from the Boise andJEaygae^HationaLForests and the
-------
-------
pl where quantitative data are inadequate for decision-
f'^*^ ^.-^Hr^fi,^.:-^- (.«z,^«effi^w^cw,«-«w-^w*™l/sa5W»affl^r^,w,-r™*™i-!»pm*™*.^^*»--.^^^.
ted. They devised a strategy to accomplish this mmmmOmmmm
Projects that together may .provide an
_ MPlllJgiiyHd^^ '. estimated 25 percent reduction in sediment yield
iik^iyii^
.-rfi,^.:-^- (.«z,^«effi^w^cw,«-«w-^
and difficult to attain.
™ Est. Yield
• Reduction
set
VL"SWHttl:*$i SSWMf 'fr-viiiJ^ufi-Vi
Scheduled
Imp.
ya-:ii»iifeai^«^^
he first step was to establish numeric goals for instream Forest Highway 2.2 Fill
iuiiafe';T1,?!r H feniv ;i&rk i.-L-a-., i -.r.'jii "•-i^raL™, ^T^'MBS. ,i'RBk"'«mwM*iTBfHT»i«aji^w«]JMj»'mii«^-.iiiij. .4»mjj.j.»«iiHi V^T,, «tji , •« r«ri. •^t..--',,. - 1 -.-•-„***- 45, OigHi]l7ati/-trk
oal for cobble embeddedness,as
'i -»='-
by the Burns technique (Burns, 1984), was set at
, ----- _„. 'tx'T' (V,'',; riM'" -tT.^.rj ^.S.rT^^lulWJjraBH.iS^^^m^^^mmjaA™™,..^^^ ire-^h,/tt^.^a*^^~w.ira^ii ^K^UMJ..™:^'!*^ ,~.r,o
|-jear mean below 32percent wifli no Jndjvidual yjiar
,= ™^t,a™™,,_, -— — - - " ......... .............. °a osu ^s pper SF
.-.u.^.«.>^,i basin Hoad otaoilization
i3111|iES^^
^eti|ryldualyear over 29 percent ' "™ ~————•""-- ~~stabilization
83
150
25
9
54
'iteration /
Stabilization
in to^and^iLOfj/^er^quality-
,,,™«™™™ ~ 6l,_the SFSRJs believed to be at
• S'^^.;-f^L^^ *-.-<• pn*4JQ proolr nrainana
;Hl|fequilibnum (Platts, et al., 1989; Platts and Megahan, 1975), ^ Si«S^
••iySpiy't"'»f-«««anre^™"--.ijraa:srK-r.,ra-™~«ii™.«3r-««Bi.»«fD«»s..,,^,'. „_,,/>„.....,-., -Spot Stabilization
, , , .Temp Closure of
y^Jffe-19^jj5awmn^_c^^iMes. Buckhprn. Road
>it, Six-Bit, Loop
40
200
55
1991
1991
1992
1992
1992
1992
1993
1994
1995
1995
iaWtatJmproyejtnent_pnly_ if sediment
awer can remove
3ere
mm&'t
i reasonable time
s
[ghi sedimentJ^^J^c^^^^asso^^^^be^^y^^c^ly identified in both the Boise and Payette
" *~£con^^tic^^ojectJPayette"^ National Forest Plans.
.Jt^^^S-JSJISfeSi
Din£for a p^^r^DlTbase^fon load^
s, and feedback of
1 and
"they"
W«a«n. fflajff.- -.'-*.. .-„
^^S^M^JalBasWective is to provide habitat sufficient
_,^to_support fishable populations of naturally spawning and
„. Bearing sah^gn and tTQut by 1997. This determination will
^to^l^ltESP"1.118^?' harvest of wild
j^JSfe enibeddedi^ss.. cpre*siampimg, photographs,
and ojher pertinent_data. Data must indicate that habitat is
.su^hc^t^sustain^natijEQiIly producing populations of
""" ~"' ZZisSSSaaets^m^Mm™**™* .-,
M.aS&,MMennLoMective, which does not
define fullj
* "-rf-'j.", y
sn
'«.!SfS«™j
™i§
t jflrATaaiiLiBiB^ii^Kiii^KajaKBiaitKr1 .^^stiWMKJ i* ..«is ^..jr -r •!fflMcaaManraal«sk..'!r-i'»-i.r ra
^.ftajjhe^numerK^goals are
tgi|firenmigj6"to fes^^lahi^oj^^awning^^rffie^yCT™
S.SFSR TMDL _
ing (feyelpped in phases. Under Ms £hased approach,
IWiiiSillll^^
toJiffilement^
.Pr^e^JsJteyj|toged, and
_,
isssCitiflarrative standard, and intCTknnMneric goals.
"ft.^M^.i^ik^.^u^erig,Stete^i/a^^qujili^stodarfs_ was a
<^^^^|^ln^v^E>ing the TMDL. jnL£st^djrds and'
*f'fyti;-§ui^Un^ fo£,s^-?Eu-S!.^^l^^SSSe^5l; W&IS^^
^3^M^£xmM^cmc^s^&Ttii^riSv^
efine fully restored habitat, is interpreted as follows:
.:•.:-,- ^
l. Photographs should demonstrate that the river is
„„ Imprbving. Evidence of improvement can be shown by
such characteristics as duning and stringing sand, and
J-hanges from the existing conditions toward conditions
" mOTe'similar to^i£ose fowd'in''ChamiK^Ia^ Creek,
" centrai reaches of the Secesh JRiver, and oflier
R^;!^BiS8!S6i!fe£^'i&£'l^^^ %""* • *'• -!".\:r; f'",1"', W «„« <• *
appropriate streams.
"™"2. A 5-year mean of < 32 percent and no individual year
> 37 percent must be observed in locations where
cobble embTddedness now exceeds 32 percent Other
beyond natural variation.
3". A 5-y^r mean of < 27 percent and no individual year
> 29 percent must be observed in locations where the
-------
iran
"9*«
luib
itM3
*4^4n
auQ-
—
m
-------
(salmon and steelhead spawning habitat capability) at the
five important spawning sites.
; Each watershed improvement project developed by the
: Forest Service has been closely linkedI to coordinated
'•• researchand rnonitoring activities. These activities are
;; essential to document the relative, effectiveness of the
individual projects and to evaluate system-wide effects on
erosion, sediment transport, and fish production.
f .•",. • ' .',.'- •'.'•• 1
Depth fines and cobble embeddedness data will be
collected by the Boise and Payette National Forests. The
Division of Environmental Quality or its contractors will be
, responsible for linking the depth fines and embeddedness
data to determinei whether the S.F§R,|s,supporting
beneficial uses. Rearing habitat capability will be
monitored using cobble embeddedness protocols (Burns,
1984; Payette National Forest, 1991X
If monitoring indicates that Chinook and steelhead
spawning capability has increased to acceptable limits by
2001, the level of effort expended to achieve., the 25 percent
reduction will be maintained. If spawning capability does
not increase, additional recovery projects and/or an analysis
of the level of beneficial use attainability wiU be required.
Additional projects would be aimed at further sediment
source reduction.
REFERENCES
n f.
' t K '
Burns, D.C. 1984. An inventory of cobble embeddedness
ofsalmonid habitat in the South Fprfaf§0!n}Qn River
'drainage. Payette and Boise National Forests
'i.. " • • '"','• ; "i • • ' \ • 'r '?>ii* 'HV~U'-*^ T 1 ;, *
:•• '•' ' ,- • '• --, &.;„ _ i<"
Megahan, W.F. 1982. Channel, sediment storage behind
obstructions in forested drainage basins draining the
granitic bedrock of the Idaho bathplijh.^ ed,. F.J. Swanston,
Rj. Janda, T. Dunne, and: DJvf"^ Swansftjn, pp. 114-121.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Gen. Tech
;Rpt. PNW-141.
Megahan, W.F., and R.A. Nowlin. 1976. Sediment
storage in channels draining small forested watersheds in
the mountains of central Idaho. Third Federal Inter-agency
Sedimentation Conference, Denver, Colorado.
Payette National Forest. 1991. FY1991 Payette National
Forest Soil, Water, Air and Fisheries Monitoring Results.
U,S, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Idaho.
Payette National Forest. 1990. Appendix H of the South
Fork Salmon Road project final environmental impact
statement. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Idaho.
Platts, W.S., RJ. Torquemada, M. McHenry, and C.K.
Graham. 1989. Changes in salmon spawning and rearing
habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment to the
South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
118:274-283.
Platts, W.S. and W.F. Megahan. 1975. Time trends in
riverbed sediment composition in salmon and steelhead
spawning areas: South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Trans.
North Am. Wild, and Nat. Res. Conf. 40:229-239.
Reignig, L., R.L. Beveridge, J.P. Potyondy, and F.M.
Hernandez. 1991. BOISED user's guide and program
documentation. Boise National Forest, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Idaho.
USD A, 1989, South Fork Salmon River restoration
strategy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Idaho.
This case study was prepared: \>y Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax,
VA, in conjunction with USEPA, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Watershed Management Section.
To obtain copies, contact your EPA Regional 303{d)/TMDL
Coordinator.
-------
------- |