JACK CREEK WATER MONITORING AND EDUCATION PROJECT END-OF-YEAR REPORT 2010

Sunni Heikes-Knapton Madison Conservation District

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Preface .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Project Sponsors ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Supporters ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Project History .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Goals and Approach ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2010 SEASON ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Water Chemistry and Sediment methods ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Tiered Trigger Level Framework ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 Flow Patterns .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Observations and Measurements................................................................................................................................................... 14 GENERAL STATION DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 INDIVIDUAL STATION DISCUSSIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 EDUCATION PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 32 TECHNICAL ADVICE FROM MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY .............................................................................................. 34 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

2

Figure 1. 2010 monitoring station locations on Jack Creek. Watershed boundary defined by blue line. ________________________ 9 Figure 2: Flows at Canyon Station and cumulative precipitation and average daily temperature at Lone Mt. SNOTEL site. . ______ 15 Figure 3: Average Dissolved Oxygen content for 2010 sampling and growing seasons_____________________________________ 16 Figure 4: Average Temperature for 2010 sampling and growing seasons _______________________________________________ 16 Figure 5: Average electrical conductivity for 2010 sampling and growing seasons ________________________________________ 17 Figure 6: Average total Phosphorus for the 2010 sampling and growing seasons_________________________________________ 17 Figure 7: Average total Nitrate + Nitrite for the 2010 sampling and growing seasons _____________________________________ 18 Figure 8: Average daily flow (cfs) at Jack Creek Ranch station 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010. This data is qualified as having uncertain quality due to site modifications described below. __________________________________________________________________ 20 Figure 9: Fish trap installed by MTFWP at Jack Creek Ranch station. TruTrack location indicated by arrow. ___________________ 21 Figure 10: Average daily flow (cfs) at Canyon station historic and 2006-2010. ___________________________________________ 23 Figure 11: Average daily flow (cfs) for Campground station 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010. _____________________________________ 24 Figure 12: Eroding bank upstream of Campground station 2010. TruTrack location indicated by arrow. ______________________ 25 Figure 13: Eroded bank immediately upstream of TruTrack, South Side Road station, taken in 2009. TruTrack location indicated by arrow. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 26 Figure 14: Average daily flows (cfs) South Side Road station 2006-2010. _______________________________________________ 27 Figure 15: Average daily flows (cfs) for Moonlight Creek station 2006-2010. ____________________________________________ 28 Figure 16: Average daily flows (cfs) for Madison Road station 2007-2010. ______________________________________________ 30 Figure 17: Average Daily Flows (cfs) for Lone Creek station 2010. _____________________________________________________ 31 Figure 18: Ennis kindergarten students test the pH of the water in Jack Creek, September 2010. ____________________________ 33 Figure 19: Students from Ennis Community Children’s School examine a macroinvertebrate sample from Jack Creek, July 2010. ___ 33

3

Table 1: Monitoring site descriptions _____________________________________________________________________________ 9 Table 2. Narrative and numeric recreational water quality standards from MT DEQ for streams classified as B1 in the Middle Rockies Ecoregion. Adapted from Circular DEQ-7 (WQB-7) and ARM 17-2691. _________________________________________________ 13 Table 3: Min/Max Flow (cfs) and cumulative discharge (acre/ft) for each station in 2010. Station are listed from downstream to headwaters; tributaries indicated by (*). _________________________________________________________________________ 13 Table 4: Flow and chemistry data for Jack Creek Ranch station 2010. __________________________________________________ 22 Table 5: Flow and chemistry data for Canyon station 2010. __________________________________________________________ 23 Table 6: Flow and chemistry data for Campground station 2010. _____________________________________________________ 25 Table 7: Flow and chemistry data for South Side Road station 2010. ___________________________________________________ 27 Table 8: Flow and chemistry data for Moonlight Creek station 2010. __________________________________________________ 29 Table 9: Flow and chemistry data for Madison Road station 2010. ____________________________________________________ 30 Table 10: Description of completed education events in 2010 for Jack Creek Water Monitoring Project. ______________________ 32

4

OVERVIEW
Jack Creek is a mountain stream watershed system located within the Madison Range east of Ennis, Montana and is a tributary of the Madison River. Encompassing waters from Lee Metcalf Wilderness, Cedar Creek Wilderness and Moonlight Basin Ski Resort, Jack Creek originates in high elevation environments and flows through developed and undeveloped areas, rangeland, pasture and cropland as it makes its way to the Madison River. The Madison River is home to several blue ribbon trout fisheries and one of three rivers forming the Missouri River, a major water resource for a large portion of the United States. Proper management of water resources is vital to maintain health and productivity of the Madison and points downstream. Soils in the Jack Creek watershed vary depending on their location within the watershed. Soils on the floodplains between the confluence with the Madison River and the canyon are very gravely sandy loams. Cobbly loams are found on terraces and alluvial fans and on some of the floodplains there are eolian deposits over gravelly alluvium. Cryaquols (cold, wet, Mollisols) are the majority of soils along Jack Creek as it moves east towards the headwaters. Stony sandy loams and rock outcrops of gravelly colluvium and/or alluvium and/or glacial till make up the rest of the soils along this section of Jack creek. As Jack Creek nears its headwaters, soils change to clayey residuum weathered from shale with gravelly alluvium/colluvium and/or glacial till soils on steeper slopes. The majority of the headwaters area is dominated by the same types of soils with the exception of Ulreys Lakes area. Soils here consist of coarse loamy colluvium from granite, gneiss and/or glacial till. Parent material in the valley consists mainly of quaternary alluvium and gravel with terraces along Jack Creek and alluvial fans along the base of the mountains. Gneissic Archean rocks of unknown origin and limestones of the Madison Formation are found along Jack Creek from the mouth of the canyon to an old USFS campground at the end of the county road. Continuing up-canyon (east), parent material consists of interbedded sandstones, mudstones and shales with some porphyritic dacite (volcanic rock with a mix of plagioclase) from Upper Cretaceous volcanism. There are a few, small occurrences of these formations in the creek bottom of the headwaters area; however, the majority of parent material in the headwaters area is comprised of Upper Pleistocene glacial till.

5

Climate in the Jack Creek watershed is as varied as geology and soils, with an average annual rainfall in the headwaters area of 19 inches but only 12.5 inches in the valley. Average annual snowfall for the headwaters area is approximately 144 inches, while the valley only receives 33 inches. Average annual minimum and maximum temperatures are 22 F° and 53 F° in the headwaters area and 30 F° and 57 F° at the confluence.

PREFACE
A collaborative partnership between developers, private landowners, university researchers and a school district was formed based on the shared belief of “giving back to the community”. The partners for the project include the Montana State University Water Quality Program, Moonlight Basin Ranch, the Jack Creek Preserve Foundation, the Madison River Foundation, and the Madison Conservation District. Partners wanted to develop a volunteer water monitoring project along Jack Creek for multiple reasons: 1) monitor Jack Creek to preserve and/or maintain water quality and quantity; 2) introduce students to the practical/applicable side of math and science through experiential learning while gathering useful water quality and quantity data; and 3) provide people of all ages experiential learning opportunities.

PROJECT SPONSORS
Moonlight Basin Ranch (Moonlight) is a world-class destination resort at the headwaters of Jack Creek which has made a commitment to responsible stewardship by engaging in limited development that enhances natural systems of the region. The goal of Moonlight is to save critical wildlife habitat, preserve what made the region so unique and leave a legacy for future generations of people and wildlife. Moonlight is interested in educating people of all ages about responsible development and environmental stewardship. Moonlight is also interested in monitoring Jack Creek to preserve and/or maintain water quality and quantity. The Jack Creek Preserve Foundation (JCP) is a not-for-profit foundation engaged in conserving and protecting wildlife and its habitat using the area surrounding Jack Creek as an outdoor classroom. As a way of providing educational opportunities that give young people a deeper appreciation for our environment, JCP set aside a portion of land surrounding Jack Creek as the Jack Creek Preserve. The mission of the preserve is to provide “outside the box” educational opportunities about habitat and 6

ecology, wildlife management, ethical hunting practices and environmental stewardship that give young people a deeper appreciation and foster a deeper understanding and involvement with their environment. The Madison River Foundation is a not-for-profit advocacy group with a mission to preserve, protect and enhance the Madison River ecosystem for the mutual benefit of wildlife and all people who use it by employing professional expertise and advocating worthy public policy to ensure the future wellbeing of this valuable resource. The Foundation engages in advocacy on behalf of sound public policies that advance the organization's mission. It also helps to fund and implement worthy conservation projects on the Madison watershed. The Madison Conservation District is a local government entity working to promote the conservation of local natural resources. The Conservation District’s activities include education and onthe-ground projects dealing with the regions critical natural resources. Additionally, the Conservation District oversees the permitting review process for work in or near perennial streams.

PROJECT SUPPORTERS
The Montana State University Extension Water Quality Program (MSUEWQ) is a unit of the Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, of MSU located in Bozeman and is part of the US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) National Water Quality Program. The goal of the NIFA program is to protect or improve the quality of water resources throughout the United States and its territories at national, regional, state, and local levels, particularly in agriculturally managed watersheds. Over the years MSUEWQ has partnered with various state and federal agencies, watershed groups, irrigation districts, individuals, corporate and non-profit groups, and schools across the state. In these partnerships MSUEWQ acts as the technical service provider (TSP), gathering non-biased, useful data. In this role, MSUEWQ has been able to bridge the gap between “scientists” and “non-scientists” and has seen the publics’ understanding of issues associated with agriculture and water use increase when technical information is explained in “non-technical” language.

PROJECT HISTORY
7

The first planning meeting was held in April 2006, with representatives from JCP, Moonlight, Ennis Schools, MSUWQ, the Montana Watercourse and the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group gathering in Ennis, MT. Everyone present was asked for their primary objectives, or goals for the project. Two main points came out of the meeting: 1) experiential learning opportunities for students and 2) a need to collect baseline data and conduct yearly monitoring to detect impacts to Jack Creek.

GOALS AND APPROACH
In keeping with the theme of environmental education through experiential learning, JCP and Moonlight partnered with MSUEWQ and Ennis High School to develop a water monitoring project along Jack Creek. Jack Creek is an exceptional study area because it is an easily accessible main channel of a small watershed feeding directly into the Madison River. The overall goal of the Jack Creek monitoring project was to gather non-biased water quality and quantity data while giving students hands-on educational experiences. To accomplish these goals, six sites were selected from the headwaters of Jack Creek to the confluence with the Madison River to monitor flow, sediment and chemistry, and a monthly monitoring schedule was set. A seventh site, located on Lone Creek just below the six shooter lift in the base area of Moonlight Basin, was installed in July of 2007. As Moonlight develops guest and residential areas on-mountain, they are drilling centralized water supply wells and want to monitor flow to determine if/what effects wells have on stream discharge in Lone Creek. Access for installation of monitoring stations and site visits was provided by Jack Creek Ranch, Jumping Horse Ranch, JCP and Moonlight.

8

Figure 1. 2010 monitoring station locations on Jack Creek. Watershed boundary defined by blue line.
Table 1: Monitoring site descriptions

Site Name Jack Creek Ranch (JCR) Canyon Campground South Side Road (SSR) Moonlight Creek Madison Road Lone Creek

Site Description across the road from the old Madison Valley Ranch Station. about ¼ mile upstream of Old USGS station. At USFS Cedar Creek Trailhead site. South Side Road crossing Jack Creek. Jack Creek Road crossing Moonlight Creek (headwaters area of Moonlight Creek). small creek below Madison Lodge – Moonlight base area (Headwaters area of Jack Creek). Base of the six-shooter lift on Moonlight Basin ski area.

Uses Education Full Suite Data Collection Full Suite Data Collection Education Full Suite Data Collection Full Suite Data Collection Full Suite Data Collection Full Suite Data Collection Flow Only

9

A Trutrack data logger was installed in a stilling well at each monitoring site with instrumentation. Trutracks measure water height (stage), water temperature and air temperature on a continuous basis, and record (log) data on pre-set intervals. For this project, Trutracks were set to log stream height and air and water temperature every hour. Ennis High School shop students made stilling wells and caps from ½ inch steel pipe. One end was welded together and pounded flat to form a wedge-shaped tip for driving into stream bottoms. Slits were cut along the sides to allow water to flow through and holes were drilled on the top to secure a cap and bolt, which suspends the Trutrack. If a Trutrack is placed in-stream without a stilling well, water will “push” up higher on the upstream side than the downstream, resulting in false high stage readings (water levels). Stilling wells allow water to settle so accurate water heights are recorded and they provide a secure place for Trutracks. Stream flow was measured at all sites using a FP101 Global Flow Probe. Flow measurements made with the flow meter were correlated with Trutrack stage (water height) data to develop flow versus stage rating curves. Total Phosphorous (mg/L), nitrate (NO3+NO2N) (mg/L), and total suspended sediment grab samples were collected at every site except Lone Creek and analyzed by Pace Analytical Laboratories in Billings, MT. Temperature (°C), pH, and EC (µs/cm) were measured using a HANNA Combo pH, EC, TDS Tester. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L) was measured using the YSI DO 550A meter. Instruments were calibrated at the start of each sampling day.

2010 SEASON
Beginning in spring and through the fall, monitoring stations were visited approximately once a month by project manager and field technician. At every station, water height data was downloaded from the TruTrack, chemistry samples were collected and flow was measured. If conditions appeared too dangerous to measure flow, this measurement was not completed.

WATER CHEMISTRY AND SEDIMENT METHODS
During each site visit from April to October, data were collected and grab samples were collected for analysis of total phosphorous, nitrate and sediment concentrations; this is known as non-continuous sampling. Non-continuous sampling only provides a snap-shot of the chemistry at the time the sample was collected. For example; it is not possible to estimate DO for a whole season based on a value collected at one point in the day because DO changes with time of day, temperature, flow velocities, 10

weather, etc. With non-continuous data, it is important to consider timing and frequency of sample collection to get as good a picture as possible of the variability in the stream within budget constraints. Monthly sample collection can provide a picture of the seasonal variability which is expected in a stream. Due to the inherent variability in stream water quality related to weather, comparison of only a few samples does not provide a lot of insight. However, regularly scheduled long term data collection allows for evaluation of trends in the data which can be used to evaluate effects to water quality from land use changes. Sediment samples were collected at each site visit and submitted to Pace Analytical Laboratory for analysis. Turbidity was also measured on site, by using a turbidity tube and calculating the average of 3 readings. Turbidity tubes were provided to the project in mid-June, missing data indicates time before equipment was available. A general water quality concept is that the amount of sediment in a stream is often related to the amount of flow in the stream. At high flow sediment concentration is high and at low flow sediment concentration is low. Often, this relationship can help to estimate the amount of sediment moving in a stream. However, there are a lot of complications to this type of relationship, especially on a small stream like Jack Creek (Appendix B). Routine sampling doesn’t necessarily catch the whole spectrum of flow and sediment conditions. There are multiple variables to consider including, but not limited to, time of year, climate, changes inchannel, bank stability (soil types) and height, presence/absence of vegetation, presence/absence of animals and accessibility to stream channel. Sediment rating curves are also inhibited by Hysteresis; as flood waters rise, they scour the streambed, resulting in higher sediment concentrations than the same flow conditions when water is receding. However, the opposite can also occur; banks undercut during high flow collapse as waters recede causing increased sediment concentrations at lower flow conditions further confounding the flow by sediment relationship. Sediment versus flow relationships presented in appendix B indicate low R2 values and the poor correlation between flow and sediment. Therefore, data was not used to predict seasonal sediment loads

11

carried by Jack Creek. The majority of samples were within observed/recorded ranges we have for each station over the last three years, even during spring run-off and high flow events.

TIERED TRIGGER LEVEL FRAMEWORK
As was discussed during the review of 2009 data, the project may benefit by the establishment of a tiered trigger level framework and 'trigger points'. The tiered trigger level framework is a pro-active, preventative approach to water quality protection through monitoring of surface water. Trigger levels are established using baseline water quality data and non-degradation and contaminant concentrations. A trigger point is a value which indicates when more extensive data or examination is needed. Trigger points can be useful from a regulatory standpoint as well as a monetary one. Laboratory analysis of sediment and nutrient samples is costly and can be wasteful if all concentrations are below detection limits or within natural variations. The tiered trigger level framework is an appropriate portion of the Sampling Analysis Plan for the Jack Creek Project. Development of this document is planned with assistance from the MSUEWQ and Montana Watercourse staff.

12

Table 2 lists MT DEQ numeric and narrative water quality standards for recreational use in B1 class streams of the Jack Creek region (Middle Rockies Ecoregion). Chemistry and sediment results for each station are presented in tables accompanying the discussion of flow patterns. Appendix C contains all chemistry data for all stations monitored since 2007. This is the data that will be used in development of a tiered trigger level framework for the Jack Creek watershed.

13

Table 2. Narrative and numeric recreational water quality standards from MT DEQ for streams classified as B1 in the Middle Rockies Ecoregion. Adapted from Circular DEQ-7 (WQB-7) and ARM 17-2691.

Parameter pH Total Phosphorous Nitrate + nitrite as N (NO3+NO2N) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) (salmonid embryo and larval stages) Temperature (°C) EC (mmhos/cm) Sediment (TSS) Turbidity

Standard 6.5-8.5 normal MT DEQ Draft criteria 0.048mg/L during the growing season MT DEQ Draft criteria 0.100 mg/L during the growing season > 11 no production impairment; < 8 moderate production impairment; < 5 limit to avoid acute mortality < 1 °F (0.6 °C) increase above average seasonal temperatures Irrigation standard only, criteria starting at > 500 μS/cm Narrative standard only Normal + 5 NTU

FLOW PATTERNS
Hourly Trutrack data (stage) and measured flows (cfs) were used to develop flow versus stage rating curves for each monitoring station (Appendix A). Rating curves were used to calculate average daily flow in cfs and total discharge (Acft) for each station during the monitoring season. Table 2 shows discharge (Acft) and minimum and maximum cfs for each station in 2010.
Table 3: Min/Max Flow (cfs) and cumulative discharge (acre/ft) for each station in 2010. Station are listed from downstream to headwaters; tributaries indicated by (*).

Station JCR Canyon Campground SSR Moonlight* Madison * Lone Creek*

Period of Record 4/21-10/11/10 4/21-10/11/10 4/21-10/11/10 6/14-10/11/10 4/21-10/11/10 5/18-10/11/10 5/18-10/11/10

Minimum cfs 16.77 27.69 16.38 4.03 0.00 -1.14 1.18

Maximum cfs 196.39 239.24 168.64 40.27 6.04 8.83 19.36

Cumm. acre/ft 24512.28 30195.62 20722.98 2201.50 518.64 510.83 1162.21

14

As expected, data suggests Jack Creek is picking up water as it moves down gradient from the headwaters tributary streams (Madison Road, Moonlight Creek and Lone Creek) to the Canyon. There are multiple tributaries between South Side Road and the Canyon to account for this increase. Data also indicate a reduction in water volume from Canyon to Jack Creek Ranch. Decreases during height of runoff could be attributed to streambed composition (geology) which can influence streamflows by either creating a loss or a gain of water due to movement of water through streambed gravels. An additional cause of decreased flow could be attributed to irrigation water which is diverted mid summer. Negative numbers are a function of issues with flow measurement and creation of the rating curve (discussed in the Madison station section).

OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS
Weather events are a major influence on flow quantity and hydrograph pattern. Data collected from the NRCS SNOTEL site at Lone Mountain (Site number 590) provides useful information on temperature and precipitation for the Jack Creek headwaters area. Figure 2 illustrates the patterns during the 2010 sampling season, and also includes flow patterns at the Canyon station. The snow water equivalent reported for April 15, 2010 was 16.1 inches, which illustrates the amount of moisture in the form of snowpack. During spring 2010, over 10 inches of precipitation was recorded from April 21 through June 21, 2010. This quantity of moisture is directly related to the increase in flow quantities at the Canyon station during the same period, particularly when average daily air temperatures reached 10 C in May, and also when average daily temperatures were consistently above 5 C at the end of May.

15

Figure 2: Flows at Canyon Station and cumulative precipitation and average daily temperature at Lone Mt. SNOTEL site. .

GENERAL STATION DISCUSSIONS
As a useful means to compare chemistry data at the sampling stations, Figure 3- Figure 7 provide illustration of the 2010 yearly averages at each site. The data was sorted to display averages for the entire sampling season as well as the growing season (June – September), a period of the year emphasized as critical for meeting established standards. The first 3 figures illustrate rather consistent data between the two time periods and between the sampling sites. Dissolved oxygen content increases from headwaters to downstream stations, with all averages within desired ranges. Temperature appears more variable, with growing season temperatures being greater than season long averages. It is suspected that lower stream velocity contributes to the higher temperature stations.

16

Figure 3: Average Dissolved Oxygen content for 2010 sampling and growing seasons

Figure 4: Average Temperature for 2010 sampling and growing seasons

Electrical conductivity averages followed the trend of temperatures, with headwater streams exhibiting lower conductivity and values increasing in downstream stations (Figure 5). The Moonlight station averages were a slight exception to the trend, likely a reflection of conditions isolated to that drainage. Data for entire season and growing season tracked closely at individual stations, with most site having greater averages during growing season.

17

Figure 5: Average electrical conductivity for 2010 sampling and growing seasons

Nutrient and sediment averages reflected more variability than previous parameters. Growing season total phosphorus averages tended to be higher than season long data, with the exception of Moonlight and Madison stations. Spikes in the data at Madison were from a single event at the last sampling day, and are likely linked to an isolated event. Additional discussion is provided for this in the individual station discussion.

Figure 6: Average total Phosphorus for the 2010 sampling and growing seasons

18

Jack Creek Ranch station exhibited the highest averages of Nitrate + Nitrite, with other stations being variable in ranges (Figure 7). Growing season averages were typically higher by a factor of >0.02. Headwaters streams were commonly lowest, with little change between period of examination.

Figure 7: Average total Nitrate + Nitrite for the 2010 sampling and growing seasons

Sediment averages, with the exception of the Madison season long average, generally increased from headwaters streams to the lower stations. Growing season averages tended to be lower than season long averages, due to the exclusion of data from the spring runoff event. The Madison station average is influenced by the last sampling event of the year, and is discussed in more detail in the individual station discussion.

19

INDIVIDUAL STATION DISCUSSIONS
This section contains hydrographs and chemistry data of monitoring stations for the 2010 season. Appendix C contains compiled data for all stations from 2007-2010. The primary focus of discussion is for data collected in 2010; major deviations from previous years sampling will be noted periodically. Several environmental factors that may have influenced the data are also mentioned in discussion. The summary will start at the Jack Creek Ranch, close to the confluence of Jack Creek with the Madison River and work up to the headwaters area and Lone Creek. Jack Creek Ranch Figure 8 illustrates average daily flow for the Madison Valley Ranch station in 2006 and 2007 and the Jack Creek Ranch station in 2009 and 2010. The Jack Creek Ranch station is the replacement for Madison Valley Ranch station; it is located less than 1/4 mile upstream and there are no major diversions or inflows between the two stations. Trends between years track reasonably well, with peak discharges occurring within a 6 week range. The quick and dramatic spike in flows during mid May 2010 are likely attributable to a 3 day period of warm days that initiated snow melt from the surrounding landscape. Data after this event follows a predictable, and expected, pattern of higher, fluctuating stream discharge during continued spring snowmelt and early summer rains, a tapering off as the summer progresses with a return to base-flow conditions by the end of fall. Base flow data in 2010 illustrates late season precipitation events.

20

Figure 8: Average daily flow (cfs) at Jack Creek Ranch station 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010. This data is qualified as having uncertain quality due to site modifications described below.

Although the flow data for the Jack Creek Ranch station appears to be within an expected range of values, all data from April 21, 2010 through May 19, 2010 should be considered unreliable. During this period of time, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks had installed a fish trap directly adjacent to the TruTrack. Figure 9 illustrates how water elevations in the region of the TruTrack were affected by the device, likely resulting in false high readings for water height.

21

Figure 9: Fish trap installed by MTFWP at Jack Creek Ranch station. TruTrack location indicated by arrow.

Table 4 contains chemistry data for Jack Creek Ranch during the 2010 sampling year. Using standards from

22

Table 2 as a reference, nutrient values exceed criteria during several times of the year. Total phosphorus values in June and nitrate plus nitrite values in August, September and October all exceed recommended criteria. This is similar to 2009, where values for P were exceeded in May and values for N were exceeded in August. Sediment values are also higher compared to other stations during spring runoff and they remain at or above 9 mg/L for the remainder of the year during base flow. Jack Creek Ranch was the only station to have measureable turbidity during the entire sampling season. Potential factors affecting this include land use practices and the stream restoration activity that was being completed during the late summer period at the Jack Creek Ranch. Land use practices would have long term effects on turbidity, while restoration activity likely would have only short term effects.

23

Table 4: Flow and chemistry data for Jack Creek Ranch station 2010.

Jack Creek Ranch 04/21/10 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10 Canyon

Flow cfs 59.72

pH 8.40 7.87 8.08 8.30 8.35 8.00 8.30

TP ppm 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.14

DO mg/L 10.20 9.80 11.48 10.70 10.09 9.64 10.34

TEMP C 5.70 7.30 6.80 10.50 14.80 7.60 11.80

EC µs/cm 202.00 124.00 99.00 174.00 270.00 310.00 283.00

Sed mg/L 75.00 59.10 9.60 11.70 10.20 15.10

Turbidity cm

65.16 21.77 21.31 18.48

90.80 55.00 83.00 72.60

Figure 10 illustrates differences between present and historical flow patterns at the Canyon station, and provides a good comparison of flow magnitude and patterns for Jack Creek as it leaves the mountains. The dashed line represents historical discharge (cfs) from 1974-1992 and the solid lines represent data from 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. Flows in 2009 and 2007 both peaked at earlier times of the year, with flow quantities in 2007 being significantly smaller. During both 2007 and 2009, depressed flows mid-season are likely a result of drought and the fact that historical data is averaged from a much longer, and wetter, period. 2010 data follows the trends of historic data in both timing and flow quantities. This is to be expected as the mountains around Jack Creek in 2010 experienced above average late season snowfall, and longer and more intense spring run-off. In 2010, the highest flow value for all stations was recorded here, with 239 cfs flowing in Jack Creek at the Canyon Station on June 10, 2010. This number is also markedly higher than the historic average and is likely affected by station location above the losing reach of Jack Creek and a lack of diversions above this station.

24

Figure 10: Average daily flow (cfs) at Canyon station historic and 2006-2010.

Data in Table 5 indicate parameter values within recommended ranges, with the exception of Phosphorus values in June. This suggests limited adverse impacts to Jack Creek in this section and is similar to Phosphorus conditions at Jack Creek Ranch during the same period. The trend follows the pattern from previous years, where a majority of data is within standards (Appendix C).
Table 5: Flow and chemistry data for Canyon station 2010.

Canyon 04/21/10 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10

Flow cfs 62.13

pH 8.05 7.98 8.14 8.30 8.29 8.20 8.29

TP ppm 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01

DO mg/L 10.60 9.60 11.75 10.37 9.63 10.63 10.24

TEMP C 6.20 6.00 5.90 9.50 11.50 6.10 9.20

EC µs/cm 138.00 107.00 118.00 136.00 187.00 220.00 194.00

Sed mg/L 57.60 58.50 6.70 15.30 5.80 0.00

Turbidity cm

95.14 50.02 38.21 35.57

86.33 81.00 >120 >120

25

Campground Figure 11 illustrates average daily flow at the Campground station for 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. In 2010, the campground station lacked the distinct mid-May spike as seen in lower stations, perhaps illustrating the difference in influence of higher elevation conditions on the Campground station. The sudden drop in flows in early June could be a result of a blockage upstream of this station paired with colder daily temperatures. Flow quantities are similar between 2009 and 2010, with 2007 data contrasting with lower quantities and earlier peak flows.

Figure 11: Average daily flow (cfs) for Campground station 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010.

26

Table 6 contains chemistry data for the Campground station in 2010. Chemistry and sediment concentrations are all within criteria and appear to be within or below recorded ranges from previous years’ sampling. This provides excellent baseline information on stream conditions Jack Creek flows into the lower segment, and the highlights the potential effects of the variables associated with land use.

27

Table 6: Flow and chemistry data for Campground station 2010.

Campground 04/21/10 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10

Flow cfs 47.65

pH 7.90 7.93 8.10 8.30 8.02 8.20 8.29

TP ppm 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.02

DO mg/L 9.20 10.20 11.63 10.36 9.91 10.75 10.85

TEMP C 6.40 5.40 5.30 11.60 9.70 6.80 7.50

EC µs/cm 119.00 63.00 106.00 113.00 151.00 180.00 156.00

Sed mg/L 0.00 47.20 22.10 5.80 6.70 3.00 0.00

Turbidity cm

70.81 33.35 32.90 24.75

>120 104.00 >120 >120

A concern at the Campground site is the large portion of bank upstream of the monitoring station that is highly unstable (Figure 12). During a September 10, 2010 field tour, representatives from USFS and the BLM expressed interest in pursuing funds to restore this area as a cooperative project with local organizations.

Figure 12: Eroding bank upstream of Campground station 2010. TruTrack location indicated by arrow.

South Side Road

28

As has been the case in previous years, difficult access to this site prevented installation of equipment until June 2010. During the initial site visit, it was determined that because of the potential for the unstable trees (Figure 13) to damage the 2009 station, the TruTrack stilling well was moved upstream to a more stable site. It was noted during the July site visit that the trees had fallen into the creek at the 2009 station.

Figure 13: Eroded bank immediately upstream of TruTrack, South Side Road station, taken in 2009. TruTrack location indicated by arrow.

Figure 14 illustrates average daily flow for the South Side Road station for 2006-2010. Data for 2010 illustrates flows within historic ranges. The 2010 period of record for this station is from June 14 – October 11, 2010. It is apparent that the complications with access results in a limited perspective of the hydrograph pattern. The data captures the descending limb of the hydrograph, with insufficient information to determine if flows were higher prior to installation.

29

Figure 14: Average daily flows (cfs) South Side Road station 2006-2010.

Table 7 contains chemistry data for the South Side Road station in 2010. A single sampling event in August had elevated levels of Phosphorus and Nitrate + Nitrite-N. Historically, only phosphorus levels have exceeded standards, in May and July of 2007. Sediment levels were low and did not follow the pattern of increased levels in August, as was seen in 2008 and 2009.
Table 7: Flow and chemistry data for South Side Road station 2010.

SSR 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10 Moonlight Creek

Flow cfs 54.08 14.28 5.78 5.34 3.84

pH 7.74 8.30 7.94 8.50 7.90

TP ppm 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.02 0.01

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.06 0.00 0.16 0.07 0.00

DO mg/L 11.18 9.81 9.68 10.41 10.34

TEMP C 7.30 12.90 9.60 8.30 6.60

EC µs/cm 78.00 106.00 158.00 170.00 172.00

Sed mg/L 9.10 2.50 4.60 2.50 0.00

Turbidity cm >120 105.00 >120 >120

Figures 11 and 12 illustrate average daily flow for Moonlight Creek and Madison Road, two of the headwater streams of Jack Creek. It is very difficult to quantify flow in high mountain streams; they are typically very small, with low water levels, banks are often undercut and there is usually debris in the channel. To accurately measure flow, Trutracks need at least 3 inches of water and a stream reach which is confined but not congested. Both of these streams had times when water levels were below 3 inches and both have

30

undercut banks and debris blocking flow. These small mountain streams are very difficult to accurately assess; however these numbers are useful for year to year comparison to ensure concentrations don’t elevate and flows aren’t drastically altered.

Figure 7 illustrates average daily flow 2006-2010, with limited period of record for 2008 and 2007. Data from 2009 is suspect, as challenges with flow measurement make confident rating curves difficult to establish. During 2010, discharge patterns follow those of other stations, with a mid May spike and a late May peak, corresponding to weather conditions during those time periods. This site is located along a narrow section of dense willows and alders, which contribute significant amounts of debris into the stream. During each sampling, debris would need to be removed from around the base of the TruTrack stilling well, circumstances that could provide false high readings on the stage measurements but not likely significant enough to consider relocating the station.

Figure 15: Average daily flows (cfs) for Moonlight Creek station 2006-2010.

Table 8 contains chemistry data for the Moonlight Creek station for 2010. Total phosphorus exceeded standards during a single sampling event in October. This is interesting to note as Moonlight Creek serves as our 'control' stream; it flows from the Spanish Creek Wilderness, and has no upstream development. Total

31

phosphorus can be from natural causes, such as geologic. All other chemistry parameters were within standards and follow trends seen over the last four years.
Table 8: Flow and chemistry data for Moonlight Creek station 2010.

Moonlight 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10 Madison Road

Flow cfs 4.46 2.36 1.02 0.34 0.29 0.31

pH 7.86 8.01 8.39 8.30 8.70 8.21

TP ppm 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.12

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

DO mg/L 8.80 11.11 9.80 9.98 10.01 9.87

TEMP C 3.80 5.40 11.60 5.60 7.80 6.90

EC µs/cm 25.00 95.00 143.00 207.00 230.00 209.00

Sed mg/L 10.00 3.50 17.20 1.20 1.30 22.10

Turbidity cm

>120 >120 >120 >120

Figure 16 illustrates average daily flow for the Madison Station from 2007- 2010. This site is a particular challenge to measure due to the channel morphology. This section of stream is very shallow, often too shallow to get a reading from the flow meter, has tight curves and quite a bit of debris in the channel, making it very difficult to accurately measure discharge. Negative discharge estimates in 2008 and 2010 are a result of the challenges measuring flow and calculating discharge. These complications tell us that we cannot trust the accuracy of the measurements to closer than about 1 cfs but the relative changes in flow and the shape of the hydrographs are still very useful.

32

Figure 16: Average daily flows (cfs) for Madison Road station 2007-2010.

Table 9 contains chemistry data for the Madison Road station for 2010. With the exception of the final sampling event of the year, chemistry data were within baseline trends and nutrient concentrations are within standards. Conditions on the final sampling event coincided with a steady rainfall, and were noticeably different than during the other sampling days. Moonlight representatives were notified of the conditions, and an area of concern was identified and will be monitored in subsequent years.

Table 9: Flow and chemistry data for Madison Road station 2010.

Madison 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10 Lone Creek

Flow cfs 6.90 3.06 0.37 0.15 0.37 0.72

pH 7.12 7.30 7.56 7.33 8.20 7.12

TP ppm 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.55

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

DO mg/L 9.80 9.14 9.37 9.25 9.52 9.54

TEMP C 5.00 12.60 14.80 7.00 9.80 6.10

EC

Sed

Turbidity cm

µs/cm mg/L 59.00 28.50 69.00 6.20 92.00 2.50 124.00 11.00 130.00 7.40 127.00 536.00

>120 60.60 >120 2.30

As was explained previously, Lone Creek station includes measurements of flow only as a means to track potential development effect on water resources. Figure 17 illustrates average daily flow for the Lone Creek station for 2008-2010. Although peak flow quantity and timing are variable for the sampling 33

years, all late season stream discharge values coincide. This suggests there has been no impact to base flow in Lone Creek from upstream development to date.

Figure 17: Average Daily Flows (cfs) for Lone Creek station 2010.

34

EDUCATION PROGRAMS
The educational component of the Jack Creek Project seeks to provide local youth an opportunity to learn the basics of water quality monitoring. By combining classroom lessons with field trips, students have the opportunity to learn why water quality monitoring is important and how water monitoring is done by doing the data collection themselves. During 2010, several student field days were organized so students could spend time on-stream with project manager, teachers and volunteers collecting and discussing data. Students were actively involved; asking pertinent questions and making their own observations and discoveries. A total of 10 volunteers, 102 students, and 12 staff/teachers participated in education programs during the 2011 season (Table 10).
Table 10: Description of completed education events in 2010 for Jack Creek Water Monitoring Project.

Date
5/21/2010 8/17/2010 9/15/2010 10/7/2010

Task Education- 5th Grade Education- preschool Education-kindergarten Education- high school

Number of Staff/Teachers 1 7 3 1

Number of Students 12 40 30 20

Number of volunteers 2 8

The students were instructed on a range of subjects, depending on age and length of time available for the lessons. Lessons for the youngest students focused on macroinvertebrate identification, with older students learning about physical, chemical and biological parameters of water quality. In addition, students were also instructed on the concept of watersheds and the potential of land use as influence on water quality. The September 15 sampling event coincided with World Monitoring day. Two articles in the Madisonian newspaper also highlighted these events. Future education plans will continue to include students from local classrooms and childcare facilities. In response to a request by a member of the Madison Stream Team, the local adult water monitoring group, the project may include these participants during sampling days on Jack Creek in 2011.

35

Figure 18: Ennis kindergarten students test the pH of the water in Jack Creek, September 2010.

Figure 19: Students from Ennis Community Children’s School examine a macroinvertebrate sample from Jack Creek, July 2010.

36

TECHNICAL ADVICE FROM MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
During June 2010, results from sampling years 2006-2009 were submitted to DEQ for review and to solicit feedback on data collection approach and results. The following text is taken directly from that correspondence: The growing season average nitrate + nitrite concentration at MVR/JCR is 13% higher (0.113 mg/L) than applicable criteria of 0.100mg/L; five of seven of these samples were higher than the criteria. Also, the growing season average nitrate + nitrite concentration at MVR/JCR is 265% higher than the growing season average at Canyon/Old Canyon. This suggests that a significant source of nitrate + nitrite (probably nitrate) is present between the two sites. Taken together, this suggests that Nitrate levels in lower Jack Creek may be elevated to levels that could impact beneficial uses (e.g. through altered trophic structure and/or nuisance algae levels) The growing season average total P concentration at MVR/JCR is 35% lower (0.031mg/L) than applicable criteria of 0.048mg/L; one of seven of values were higher than the criteria. The growing season average total P concentration is 72% higher at MVR/JCR than at Canyon/Old Canyon. This suggests that there is a source of P to the stream in the lower reach. Although the observed concentrations are not elevated above criteria, there may be enough P present (depending on its form) to fuel nuisance algae growth given the concurrent apparently elevated nitrate concentration in the lower reach. The growing season average Nitrate + Nitrite concentrations at Canyon/Old Canyon, Campground, South Side Road, Moonlight, and Madison Rd sites are very similar. The values do not appear to be elevated. The growing season average PO4 concentration at Canyon/Old Canyon and Campground sites are nearly identical. Growing season average value for PO4 at South Side road is 78% higher than at Campground and is slightly below the Total P criteria of 0.048mg/L. The growing season average of 0.057mg/L PO4 at Madison Road is the highest of all the sites. This value is 19% higher than Middle Rockies Ecoregion criteria for Total P. The Total P value at the Moonlight site is low and similar to the values at Canyon and Campground sites. When taken together this suggests that there is a source of Total P upstream of the Madison road site that decreases in a downstream direction (through dilution, sediment deposition, or trophic uptake) but as mentioned before the value increases again in the lower reach of Jack Creek. The low TSS values at the Madison Rd site suggest that the P is not associated with sediment levels. All five upper sites appear to be Nitrogen limited based on N:P ratios. The Nitrate + Nitrite concentration at MVR/JCR seems to be conducive to nuisance algae growth. Algae growth at this site is either not limited or slightly P limited depending on how much of the P is actually in a bioavailable form. The available data does not indicate acute or chronic TSS concentrations. Only two values stood out. MVR on 6/11/2007 and Madison Road on 10/5/2007. Since these elevated concentrations appear to be short-lived, I don’t perceive suspended sediment as being a significant threat to water quality. I would be more concerned with chronically high concentrations during the growing season.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

37

Recommendations: I recommend continued sampling for nutrients only during growing season period- July 1st through September 30th. It is during the growing season when nutrient levels have effects on water quality that can be linked to impacted beneficial uses. Nutrient samples should be collected no less than 30 days apart to mitigate serial correlation of samples, i.e. sample early July, early August, early September for 3 total visits per year. I recommend reducing the number of sample sites to 3: MVR; Canyon; Madison Rd. I recommend identification of alternative reference sites. It appears as though logging and roads in Moonlight Creek have the potential to influence nutrient and sediment levels. Also, this site can only be used as a reference site for sites on Jack Creek with a similar watershed area, elevation, geology, vegetation, etc. If possible it would be useful to have local reference sites for the MVR, Canyon, and Madison Rd sites. I recommend collecting chlorophyll-a samples along with nutrients in order to link nutrients with biological conditions. TSS data can be difficult to analyze and even more difficult to show that TSS levels are impacting water quality and beneficial uses. I recommend discontinued sampling of TSS, but if continued monitoring of sediment is an interest, I suggest that parameters be shifted towards monitoring stream bed sediment impacts. DEQ is in the process of updating its sediment assessment method, which will involve multiple assessment procedures

1.

2. 3.

4. 5.

38

REFERENCES
Scientific and Technical basis of the numeric nutrient criteria: http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/standards/NumericNutrientCriteria.mcpx

39

APPENDIX A
Flow versus stage relationships for each station in 2010

40

41

42

APPENDIX B
Flow versus sediment relationships for each station in 2010.

43

44

45

APPENDIX C
Water chemistry data for all stations monitored from 2007-2010.

Jack Creek Ranch 05/07/09 06/03/09 06/24/09 07/15/09 08/05/09 08/25/09 09/24/09 04/21/10 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10

Flow cfs 95.65 96.68 38.88 24.85 23.94 12.73 59.72

pH

TP ppm 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.14

DO mg/L

TEMP C

EC µs/cm

7.86 8.10

11.00 9.00

238.00 290.00

Sed mg/L 41.07 17.86 26.79 7.14 14.29 16.07 16.07 75.00 59.10 9.60 11.70 10.20 15.10

Turbidity cm

65.16 21.77 21.31 18.48

8.40 7.87 8.08 8.30 8.35 8.00 8.30

10.20 9.80 11.48 10.70 10.09 9.64 10.34

5.70 7.30 6.80 10.50 14.80 7.60 11.80

202.00 124.00 99.00 174.00 270.00 310.00 283.00

90.80 55.00 83.00 72.60

Canyon 06/29/07 07/20/07 08/09/07

Flow cfs 59.75 35.91 29.45

pH 7.0 7.0 8.3

PO4 ppm 0.05 0.09 0.01

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.08 0.05 <.05

DO mg/L 11.0 12.0 11.7 46

TEMP C 13.8 15.4 12.1

EC µs/cm 156 175 206

Sed mg/L 2.2 0.0 5.8

Turbidity cm

Canyon 08/31/07 09/20/07 10/05/07 08/05/08 08/28/08 09/09/08 10/17/08 10/24/08 06/03/09 07/15/09 08/05/09 08/25/09 04/21/10 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10

Flow 22.14 23.63 20.16 61.77 34.11 35.31 24.16 21.32 60.47 36.30 41.35 62.13

pH 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.35 8.38 8.31 8.29

PO4 <.01 <.01 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

NO3+NO2N <.05 <.05 <.05 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01

DO 12.1 11.0 13.0 12.60 13.40 11.87 14.40

TEMP 12.0 9.3 3.4 10.80 7.50 10.80 2.10 14.70 11.30 8.00 6.20 6.00 5.90 9.50 11.50 6.10 9.20

EC 219 198 202 184.00 197.00 211.00 213.00 107.00 211.00 190.00 138.00 107.00 118.00 136.00 187.00 220.00 194.00

Sed 7.2 7.4 2.3 7.98 7.89

Turbidity

95.14 50.02 38.21 35.57

8.25 7.99 8.05 7.98 8.14 8.30 8.29 8.20 8.29

42.86 8.93 12.50 1.79 57.60 58.50 6.70 15.30 5.80 0.00

10.60 9.60 11.75 10.37 9.63 10.63 10.24

86.33 81.00 >120 >120

Campground 03/26/07 04/27/07 05/16/07

Flow cfs 27.51 50.55 95.29

pH 8.19 8.06 7.87

PO4 ppm <0.01 0.20 0.15

NO3+NO2N ppm <0.05 0.06 0.05

DO mg/L 11.00 11.00 8.00 47

TEMP C 3.60 8.30 13.40

EC µs/cm 149.00 133.00 105.00

Sed mg/L 16.67 19.22 13.28

Turbidity cm

Campground 06/29/07 07/20/07 08/09/07 08/31/07 09/20/07 06/03/09 06/11/09 07/15/09 08/25/09 09/24/09 04/21/10 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10 SSR 05/16/07 06/29/07 07/24/07 08/09/07 08/31/07

Flow 55.20 30.41 25.90 17.99 15.41 99.91 49.33 28.64 18.47 47.65

pH 7.02 6.96 8.11 8.31 8.25

8.00 7.90 7.93 8.10 8.30 8.02 8.20 8.29

PO4 0.01 0.09 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

NO3+NO2N 0.03 0.03 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.02

DO 10.00 11.00 11.51 11.33 10.00

TEMP 14.00 16.00 11.70 11.40 8.60

EC 131.00 142.00 164.00 171.00 173.00

9.70 9.20 10.20 11.63 10.36 9.91 10.75 10.85 6.40 5.40 5.30 11.60 9.70 6.80 7.50

133.00 119.00 63.00 106.00 113.00 151.00 180.00 156.00

70.81 33.35 32.90 24.75

Sed 1.90 10.28 5.05 4.35 1.17 41.07 7.14 5.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.20 22.10 5.80 6.70 3.00 0.00

Turbidity

>120 104.00 >120 >120

Flow cfs 37.22 12.03 4.34 4.28 2.74

pH 7.95 7.04 6.97 8.22 8.46

PO4 ppm 0.13 0.06 0.14 0.03 <.01

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.05 0.01 0.02 <0.05 <0.05

DO mg/L 9.00 10.00 11.00 10.44 11.20 48

TEMP C 13.20 16.70 15.00 14.80 13.00

EC µs/cm 82.00 121.00 155.00 178.00 195.00

Sed mg/L 3.48 1.26 4.62 4.14 10.19

Turbidity cm

SSR 06/18/08 07/03/08 07/22/08 08/05/08 08/28/08 09/09/08 09/26/08 10/24/08 06/24/09 07/15/09 08/05/09 08/25/09 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10 Moonlight 06/12/07 06/29/07 07/24/07 08/09/07 08/31/07 09/20/07

Flow 80.59 52.01 13.25 5.18 4.23 2.94 2.61 2.50 19.96 10.72 6.04 4.80 54.08 14.28 5.78 5.34 3.84

pH 7.68 8.13 8.50 8.20 8.10 8.27 8.21 8.14 8.20 8.01 8.19 7.74 8.30 7.94 8.50 7.90

PO4 0.04

NO3+NO2N <0.05

<0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.02 0.01

0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.16 0.07 0.00

DO 13.00 12.64 7.90 11.30 11.70 11.47 12.45 15.20

TEMP 8.20 10.70 13.90 13.00 8.00 11.10 5.70 1.80 11.50 13.90 14.50 7.30 12.90 9.60 8.30 6.60

EC 89.00 90.00 134.00 148.00 161.00 177.00 173.00 181.00

Sed

Turbidity

51.18 8.88 1.28

11.18 9.81 9.68 10.41 10.34

97.00 148.00 78.00 106.00 158.00 170.00 172.00

14.29 10.71 48.21 1.79 9.10 2.50 4.60 2.50 0.00

>120 105.00 >120 >120

Flow cfs 4.68 0.80 0.30 0.21 0.11 0.13

pH 6.06 7.00 6.96 8.12 8.27 8.34

PO4 ppm 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.01 <0.01

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.04 0.06 0.02 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DO mg/L 12.00 11.00 12.00 10.44 11.60 12.70 49

TEMP C 8.20 13.00 11.80 11.70 10.80 7.30

EC µs/cm 110.00 166.00 199.00 236.00 244.00 241.00

Sed mg/L 2.65 1.88 0.71 12.04 5.15 11.10

Turbidity cm

Moonlight 10/05/07 06/18/08 07/03/08 07/22/08 08/05/08 08/28/08 10/17/08 06/03/09 06/11/09 07/15/09 08/25/09 09/24/09 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10

Flow 0.17 7.53 4.97 0.71 0.49 0.17 0.13 7.04 2.93 0.74 0.44 0.18 4.46 2.36 1.02 0.34 0.29 0.31

pH 8.27 7.84 8.01 8.27 8.36 8.30 8.28

PO4 <0.01 0.04

NO3+NO2N <0.05 <0.05

<0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.12

<0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

DO 13.86 8.70 13.00 12.00 11.80 12.00 13.50

TEMP 2.20 5.60 7.50 11.60 10.70 6.00 2.90

EC 240.00 109.00 110.00 179.00 197.00 216.00 229.00

Sed 9.01

Turbidity

8.18 7.86 8.01 8.39 8.30 8.70 8.21

8.80 11.11 9.80 9.98 10.01 9.87

10.50 3.80 5.40 11.60 5.60 7.80 6.90

223.00 25.00 95.00 143.00 207.00 230.00 209.00

3.57 4.23 2.54 8.93 1.79 0.00 7.14 0.00 10.00 3.50 17.20 1.20 1.30 22.10

>120 >120 >120 >120

Madison 06/12/07 06/29/07 07/24/07 08/09/07

Flow cfs 2.15 0.33 0.07 0.26

pH 7.03 6.99 6.95 7.59

PO4 ppm 0.13 0.12 0.18 0.05

NO3+NO2N ppm 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.05

DO mg/L 12.00 10.00 10.00 9.48 50

TEMP C 10.00 15.40 13.90 14.90

EC µs/cm 180.00 105.00 135.00 173.00

Sed mg/L 17.63 3.95 5.26 17.14

Turbidity cm

Madison 08/31/07 09/20/07 10/05/07 06/18/08 07/03/08 07/22/08 08/05/08 08/28/08 10/17/08 06/11/09 07/15/09 08/25/09 09/24/09 05/18/10 06/14/10 07/12/10 08/23/10 09/13/10 10/11/10

Flow 0.05 0.09 0.43 5.69 1.13 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.08 2.08 0.12 0.04 6.90 3.06 0.37 0.15 0.37 0.72

pH 7.82 7.68 7.36 7.44 7.52 7.72 7.85 7.14

PO4 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.04

NO3+NO2N <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DO 10.80 11.79 14.00 10.60 10.84 11.30 10.90 14.67

TEMP 12.20 7.50 1.90 13.50 14.20 13.00 13.10 2.80

EC 160.00 160.00 149.00 78.00 89.00 108.00 117.00 135.00

Sed 10.99 0.00 194.20

Turbidity

6.43

7.68 7.12 7.30 7.56 7.33 8.20 7.12

0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.55

<0.05 <0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

12.70 9.80 9.14 9.37 9.25 9.52 9.54 5.00 12.60 14.80 7.00 9.80 6.10 59.00 69.00 92.00 124.00 130.00 127.00

1.79 10.71 3.57 5.36 28.50 6.20 2.50 11.00 7.40 536.00

>120 60.60 >120 2.30

51