WATER QUALITY STATUS AND TREND MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE CLARK FORK-PEND OREILLE WATERSHED
|
|
- Dennis Francis
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 WATER QUALITY STATUS AND TREND MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE CLARK FORK-PEND OREILLE WATERSHED Summary Monitoring Report 3 Prepared for: TRI-STATE WATER QUALITY COUNCIL Diane Williams, Executive Director 37 North Second Avenue, Suite 12 Sandpoint, ID Prepared by: LAND & WATER CONSULTING, INC. PO Box 824 Missoula, MT 87 April 4 Project # Cedar Street P.O. Box 824 Missoula, Montana 87 Tel (46) info@landandwater.net Fax (46) 721-3
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1. INTRODUCTION Background History Monitoring Program Goals Project Description Sampling Methods Field Constituents - Clark Fork and Pend Oreille Rivers Nutrients and Metals Clark Fork and Pend Oreille Rivers Periphyton Clark Fork River and Pend Oreille Lake Secchi Depth Pend Oreille Lake Analytical Methods Statistical Methods WATER QUALITY STATISTICS Algal Nutrients Spatial Comparison Total Nitrogen Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Heavy Metals Spatial Comparison Total Recoverable Copper Total Recoverable Zinc Total Recoverable Cadmium Dissolved Metals Field Constituents Spatial Comparison Temperature ph Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen Turbidity Summer Nutrient Levels Summer Boxplots Summer Summary Statistics PERIPHYTON STATISTICS Periphyton Temporal Comparison Clark Fork River Pend Oreille Lake Periphyton Spatial Comparison Clark Fork River Pend Oreille Lake Secchi Depth REFERENCES...18
3 FIGURES Figure 1-1 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3- Figure 3-6 Figure 3-7 Boxplot Construction Clark Fork at Deer Lodge chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, 18-3 Clark Fork above Little Blackfoot chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, 18-3 Clark Fork at Bonita chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, 18-3 Clark Fork above Missoula chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, 18-3 Clark Fork below Missoula chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, 18-3 Clark Fork at Huson chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, 18-3 Clark Fork above Flathead chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, 18-3 TABLES Table 1-1 Table 1-2 Table 1-3 Table 2-1 Monitoring Locations, Rationale, and Sampling Frequency Sampling Protocol Analytical Methods and Detection Limits Summer Sample Nutrient Target Compliance APPENDICES Appendix A Water Quality Monitoring Stations and Sampling Frequency/Figures TABLE 1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY, 3 FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I PROJECT STUDY AREA WATERSHED BOUNDARIES NUTRIENTS AND METALS MONITORING SITES ADDITIONAL SUMMER NUTRIENT MONITORING SITES PERIPHYTON DENSITY MONITORING SITES 3 Water Quality Data Spatial Boxplots 3 Water Quality Data Summary Statistics Tables 3 Summer Water Quality Data Spatial Boxplots 3 Summer Water Quality Data Summary Statistics Tables 3 Clark Fork River Periphyton Boxplots 3 Pend Oreille Lake Periphyton Boxplots 3 Pend Oreille Lake Secchi Depth Boxplots Contributors to the Tri-State Water Quality Council
4 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background History The mission of the Tri-State Water Quality Council has been to develop a management strategy to restore and protect designated water uses within the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin. The Tri- State Water Quality Council s Clark Fork-Pend Oreille watershed water quality monitoring program was begun in 18 and employs a statistically-based sampling design derived from an analysis of previous nutrient and periphyton data collected for the watershed by the state agencies. Through this design approach, sampling frequencies and monitoring locations have been optimized to provide reliable information for watershed management decision-making while minimizing operational costs. The 3-7 monitoring program represents the second five-year operational period of the Tri-State Water Quality Council s monitoring program. The initial five-year monitoring period (18-2), together with the preexisting agency data, provided the basis for a recently completed statistical analysis of water quality time trends in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin (Land & Water, 3a). The results of this analysis will be used to further optimize the 3-7 program Monitoring Program Goals The Tri-State Water Quality Council s Water Quality Monitoring Committee has established seven primary monitoring goals for the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, which conform to specific watershed management goals articulated in a tri-state management plan (EPA 13). These monitoring goals include: 1) Evaluating time trends in nutrient concentrations in the mainstem Clark Fork River and selected tributaries; 2) evaluating time trends for algal standing crops in the Clark Fork River; 3) monitoring compliance with established summer nutrient concentration target levels in the Clark Fork River; 4) estimating nutrient loading rates to Pend Oreille Lake from the Clark Fork River; ) evaluating time trends for algal standing crops in near-shore areas of Pend Oreille Lake; 6) evaluating time trends for Secchi depth in Pend Oreille Lake; and 7) evaluating time trends for nutrient concentrations in the Pend Oreille River. 1.2 Project Description The study area includes 22 monitoring locations on the Clark Fork River, selected tributaries, Pend Oreille Lake, and the Pend Oreille River within the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille watershed of western Montana, northern Idaho and northeastern Washington (Appendix A). The locations selected for water quality monitoring provide distributed spatial coverage for evaluating the effects of point and non-point pollution sources, and the influences of major population centers and tributary inflows. This design provides for a cost effective and reasonably sensitive 1
5 assessment of nutrient and metals inputs throughout the basin. A summary of monitoring locations, their rationale, and associated sampling frequencies are provided in Table 1-1. Table 1-1. Station STORET ID Monitoring Locations, Rationale, and Sampling Frequency Name Rationale SI Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity below mixing zone for Butte WWTP S CL2 Clark Fork below Warm Springs Creek 326CL1 Clark Fork at Deer Lodge 3726CL1 Clark Fork above Little Blackfoot River 12 31CL1 Clark Fork at Bonita CL1 Clark Fork above Missoula upstream control site, start of Clark Fork River upstream control site, upper river indicator site below mixing zone for Deer Lodge WWTP upper river site, between significant tributaries below Blackfoot drainage, control site for Missoula Sampling Frequency S P, S P, S P, S P, S CL1 Clark Fork below Missoula (Shuffields) below mixing zone for Missoula WWTP P, S CL1 Clark Fork at Huson lower river site, downstream of Missoula P, S 2 47CL1 Clark Fork above Flathead TH1 Thompson River near mouth 28* CL1 Clark Fork below Thompson Falls 2* 43CL1 Clark Fork at Noxon Bridge 3* 38CL1 Clark Fork below Cabinet Gorge Dam lower river site, upstream control for the Flathead River lower river tributary, sponsored on annual basis by Plum Creek lower river site, downstream of Flathead River and TF WWTP lower river site, reflects reservoir influence estimation of nutrient loading to Pend Oreille Lake Pend Oreille River at Newport, WA represents outflow of Pend Oreille Lake N12 Pend Oreille River at Metaline Falls, WA Pend Oreille Lake: Kootenai Pend Oreille Lake: Springy Point Pend Oreille Lake: Sunnyside downstream control site near-shore site, indicator of near-shore nutrient loading near Sandpoint and outflow of Pend Oreille Lake near-shore site, indicator of near-shore nutrient loading Pend Oreille Lake: Trestle Creek near-shore site, near mouth of Pack River P Pend Oreille Lake: Bayview Pend Oreille Lake: Hope Pend Oreille Lake: Granite Point N12 = Nutrient and field constituents, 12 monthly samples NM12 = Nutrient, metal and field constituents, 12 monthly samples NM18 = Nutrient, metal and field constituents, 12 monthly samples and 6 peak flow samples P = Periphyton, replicates per site, August and September S = Summer nutrient and field constituents, samples during 3 weeks in summer SD = Secchi Depth, 12 monthly samples (if available) * These sites sponsored by Avista Corp., pursuant to 41 certification requirement open water site, south end of Pend Oreille Lake near-shore site, over shallow north end of Pend Oreille Lake open water site, over deepest portion of Pend Oreille Lake P, S N12 NM12 NM12 NM18 N12 P P P P, SD SD SD 2
6 Currently, the 3-7 program includes a basic monitoring component and several annual or periodic rotational add-on elements. The basic program consists of the highest priorities for annual monitoring, while the add-ons represent options for additional monitoring that are contingent on annual funding availability. The 3 program included each of the tasks described below, which constitute the basic monitoring program: 1. monthly collection of nutrient and heavy metals samples and field constituents at three Clark Fork River sites, monthly collection of nutrient samples and field constituents at one Thompson River site and two Pend Oreille River sites (April December for Clark Fork and Thompson River sites, January December for Pend Oreille River sites); 2 summer collection of periphyton standing crop samples at seven Clark Fork River sites (August and September); 3. summer collection of nutrient samples and field constituents at nine Clark Fork River sites ( samples over 3 months); 4. collection of nutrient and heavy metals samples at the Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam during spring peak flow (six samples over a one-month period, May to June);. summer collection of periphyton standing crop samples at five Pend Oreille Lake sites (September); and 6. monthly Secchi depth readings at three Pend Oreille Lake sites. Nutrient constituents included: total phosphorus (TP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) or total persulfate nitrogen (TPN, Washington sites only), nitrate + nitrite nitrogen (NO 2 +NO 3 -N), total ammonia nitrogen (NH 3 +NH 4 -N), and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP). Heavy metal constituents included total recoverable copper (Cu) and total recoverable zinc (Zn). Two Clark Fork River sites (at Noxon and below Cabinet Gorge Dam) were also sampled for total recoverable cadmium (Cd), dissolved copper (diss Cu), dissolved zinc (diss Zn), and dissolved cadmium (diss Cd). Values for total nitrogen (TN) and total soluble inorganic nitrogen (TSIN) were calculated as follows: T TKN plus NO 2 +NO 3 -N TSI NO 2 +NO 3 -N plus NH 3 +NH 4 -N Field constituents included: water temperature ( C), dissolved oxygen (mg/l), ph (standard units), redox potential (mv), specific conductance (µs/cm), total dissolved solids (mg/l), and turbidity (NTU). Stream flow (instantaneous, cubic feet per second (cfs)) and river stage (ft) were also recorded where gauging stations were available. Periphyton samples from natural substrates were analyzed for chlorophyll a (mg/m 2 ) and ashfree dry weight (g/m 2 ). Secchi depth was recorded in meters (m). This report provides a brief summary of water quality and algae data collected during the 3 calendar year. No detailed study was undertaken for analysis of time trends in water quality, nor were statistical comparisons made of water quality between stations. These types of detailed analyses are conducted once every five years on a complete five-year data set. The 3 calendar year monitoring data will be evaluated fore time trends together with 4-7 data during 8. 3
7 1.3 Sampling Methods Field Constituents Clark Fork and Pend Oreille Rivers Field variables measured in the Clark Fork and Pend Oreille rivers using a hand-held water quality probe included water temperature ( C), dissolved oxygen (mg/l), ph (standard units), redox (mv), conductivity (µs/cm), and total dissolved solids (mg/l. Turbidity (NTU) levels were measured using a portable turbidimeter Nutrients and Metals Clark Fork and Pend Oreille Rivers Water samples for total phosphorus (TP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total persulfate nitrogen (TPN), nitrate plus nitrite-nitrogen (NO 2 NO 3 ), total ammonia-nitrogen (NH 4 ), soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), total recoverable copper (Cu), and total recoverable zinc (Zn) were collected using a grab sampling technique by wading in a well-mixed portion of the river. Samples were taken in the upstream direction to avoid entrainment of sediment disturbed by wading. Water samples for TP, TKN, Cu, and Zn were collected directly in acid washed, wide-mouthed polyethylene bottles. Bottles were rinsed twice with native water (or filtered native water) prior to sampling. During sampling, the sample bottle was positioned to face upstream and was drawn through the water column once, carefully avoiding disturbance of bottom sediments. Samples were acidified to a ph of less than 2 by adding concentrated sulfuric acid (H 2 SO 4 ) for nutrient samples and concentrated nitric acid (HNO 3 ) for metal samples. Water for soluble nitrogen constituents (NO 2+ NO 3 and NH 4 ) were filtered in the field through a.4 µm filter into acid-washed polyethylene bottles. A small volume of filtrate (3- ml) was discarded before the sample was collected. Nutrient samples (NO 2 NO 3 and NH 4 ) were frozen or acidified to a ph of less than 2 with concentrated sulfuric acid. Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) samples were filtered into polyethylene bottles, but were not preserved. SRP samples were cooled to 4 C or less, or frozen. Samples were clearly labeled with a waterproof marker or pre-printed labels. Label information included the site identification number, date and time, sample type, preservative, and sampler s initials. Each bottle was recorded on a chain-of-custody form before leaving the site. All samples were stored in coolers and chilled to 4 C or less (or frozen for SRP) for transport to the lab. A summary of sampling protocols used during 3 is provided in Table 1-2. Table 1-2. Sampling Protocol Constituent Sample Volume Container Preservation Holding Time TP and TKN 2 ml Acid-washed polyethylene H 2 SO 4, cool to 4 C 28 days Cu and Zn 2 ml Acid-washed polyethylene HNO 3 6 months NO 2 NO 3 and NH 4 2 ml Acid-washed Filter, add H 2 SO 4 and cool to polyethylene 4 C, or freeze 28 days SRP 2 ml Acid-washed polyethylene Filter, cool to 4 C or freeze 48 hours 4
8 1.3.3 Periphyton Clark Fork River and Pend Oreille Lake Two types of periphyton samples were collected: hoop samples (a bulk sampling method) and template samples (a rock scraping method). Hoop samples were collected for filamentous green algae (Cladophora) dominated sites (sites above Missoula) and template samples were collected for diatom dominated sites (sites below Missoula). Periphyton samples on Pend Oreille Lake were taken using the template method. Both chlorophyll a and ash-free dry weight (AFDW) were measured from the hoop and template samples. Clark Fork River periphyton samples were collected on two separate sampling events, once in August and again in September, in an attempt to document peak algal standing crops. Pend Oreille Lake periphyton samples were collected in September Secchi Depth Pend Oreille Lake For Secchi depth monitoring, a standard cm Secchi disc was used. Secchi depth readings were taken on the side of the boat with the least amount of surface roughness. Water transparency was evaluated by lowering the Secchi disc over the side of the boat until the markings were no longer visible. The depth was read after the disc was lowered past the extinction point, and then raised until just visible. Depth was recorded in meters. The sampler also noted time of day, weather, water surface conditions, and any other variables that may have affected the reading. 1.4 Analytical Methods State-certified laboratories, including the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services chemistry laboratory, the Missoula wastewater treatment plant laboratory, and the Washington Department of Ecology Manchester laboratory performed all nutrient and metals analyses using standard methods. The University of Montana biology laboratory performed the periphyton sample analyses. The analytical methods listed in Table 1-3 represent standard accepted procedures. Details regarding these methods are not included in this document but are described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, th Ed (APHA 1) and various EPA documents. Table 1-3. Analytical Methods and Detection Limits Analyte Method Detection Limit Total Phosphorus (TP) EPA µg/l Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) EPA 31.2 µg/l Nitrate + Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO 2 NO 3 ) EPA 33.2 µg/l Total Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH 4 ) EPA 3.1 µg/l Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) EPA µg/l Total Recoverable Copper (Cu) EPA.7 1 µg/l Total Recoverable Zinc (Zn) EPA.7. µg/l
9 1. Statistical Methods This report includes summary statistics and boxplots for visual comparisons of water quality. Summary statistics include median, mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, and variance. Boxplots compare water quality and algae data from different monitoring station locations (i.e. spatial comparison) or at the same station for different sampling years (i.e. temporal comparison). The shapes of the boxplots are based on median, interquartile, and extreme values of the data. The box encloses the interquartile range, which contains the middle percent of the values. The median value is displayed as the centerline of the box. The top and bottom whiskers display the maximum and minimum observed values, excluding outliers and extreme values. Outliers, defined as values that are 1. to 3 times greater than or less than values in the interquartile range, are displayed as circles ( ). Extreme values, or those more than 3 times the values in the interquartile range, are displayed with an asterisk ( * ). The boxplot construction is shown graphically in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1. Boxplot Construction 6
10 2. WATER QUALITY STATISTICS 2.1 Algal Nutrients Spatial Comparison Nutrients concentrations tend to vary spatially throughout the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille watershed. Boxplots were used to provide a visual comparison of spatial patterns in nutrient concentrations during 3 (Appendix B). Summary statistics including mean, median, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, and variance values, as well as the number of samples are provided in Appendix C. For boxplot presentations, stations were ordered (left to right) in the upstream to downstream direction Total Nitrogen Median total nitrogen (TN) concentrations were highest in the Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls Dam (. mg/l) and decreased in a downstream direction (. mg/l in the Pend Oreille River at Metaline Falls). Median TN at the Thompson River site (.1 mg/l) was lower than at the three Clark Fork River sites, but slightly higher than the Pend Oreille River sites. The Clark Fork River site below Cabinet Gorge Dam yielded the lowest median TN concentration of the three Clark Fork sites (.1 mg/l), yet all three sites differed only very slightly (.1. mg/l) Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen Median total soluble inorganic nitrogen (TSIN) concentrations were lowest in the Thompson River (.1 mg/l). TSIN concentrations tended to increase in the Clark Fork River from below Thompson Falls Dam (.378 mg/l) downstream to the Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam (.844 mg/l). Pend Oreille River sites at Newport and Metaline Falls (.14 mg/l and. mg/l respectively) showed TSIN concentrations that were lower than either the Thompson River or the Clark Fork River sites Total Phosphorous Median total phosphorus (TP) concentrations were lowest in the Thompson River (.67 mg/l) and in the Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls Dam (.62 mg/l) and increased at downstream Clark Fork River sites, peaking at the site below Cabinet Gorge Dam (.12 mg/l). Median TP concentrations in the Pend Oreille River (. mg/l at Newport and.8 at Metaline Falls) were comparable to those measured at the lower Clark Fork River sites Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Median soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations fluctuated significantly throughout the lower watershed. The highest median concentration in 3 occurred in the Thompson River (.32 mg/l), while the lowest median TN occurred at the Clark Fork River site below Cabinet Gorge Dam (<.1 mg/l). Median concentrations in the Pend Oreille River were higher than in the Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam, but it should be noted that detection limits were higher for the Pend Oreille River sites (.3 mg/l) than for the Clark Fork sites (.1 mg/l) due to different analytical laboratories. 7
11 2.2 Heavy Metals Spatial Comparison Total Recoverable Copper Median total recoverable copper (Cu) concentrations were below detection (<.1 mg/l) in the Thompson River site and in the Clark Fork at sites below Thompson Falls Dam and at the Noxon Bridge. No samples taken from the Thompson River produced results above the analytical detection limit (.1 mg/l). The median copper concentration in the Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam fell at the detection limit of.1 mg/l Total Recoverable Zinc Median concentrations of total recoverable zinc (Zn) fluctuated throughout the lower watershed. The Thompson River site did not produce any analyses above the analytical detection limit (. mg/l). The three lower Clark Fork River sites exhibited varying median concentrations ranging from.22 mg/l below Thompson Falls Dam, to.6 mg/l at the Noxon Bridge, to. mg/l below Cabinet Gorge Dam). Higher concentrations of total recoverable zinc were measured in samples collected on October 1, 3 at all three lower Clark Fork River sites (.4 mg/l below Thompson Falls,.73 mg/l at Noxon, and.774 mg/l below Cabinet Gorge Dam). It should be noted that the equipment blank also detected a high concentration of TR zinc during this sampling run (.6 mg/l), so values recorded on this date should be viewed with suspicion and are likely erroneous Total Recoverable Cadmium Total recoverable cadmium (Cd) samples were collected at lower Clark Fork River sites at Noxon Bridge and below Cabinet Gorge Dam in 3. All samples from both sites were below the analytical detection limit of.1 mg/l during Dissolved Metals Dissolved metals samples were collected at two sites in 3, the Clark Fork River at Noxon Bridge and below Cabinet Gorge Dam. Samples were analyzed for dissolved copper, dissolved zinc, and dissolved cadmium at these locations. Median dissolved copper concentrations were below the analytical detection limit at Noxon Bridge (<.1 mg/l), and at the detection limit below Cabinet Gorge Dam (.1 mg/l). Median dissolved zinc concentrations were.6 mg/l at Noxon, and. mg/l below Cabinet Gorge Dam. Median dissolved cadmium concentrations were below the analytical detection limit (<.1 mg/l) at both sites in Field Constituents Spatial Comparison Temperature Median stream temperature increased from a low of 8.4 o C in the Thompson River to a high of 14.4 o C in the Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam. The Pend Oreille River sites (7.6 o C at Newport and 8. o C at Metaline Falls) were comparable to the Thompson River. However, 8
12 these sites were sampled three additional times in early 3 and this fact may have skewed the median values ph Median ph values were lowest in the Thompson River (7.1) and increased steadily downstream to the Pend Oreille River at Metaline Falls (8.1). ph often increases from morning to evening as plants absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. It is likely that at least some of the between station differences in ph was due to diurnal variations and the upstream to downstream sampling schedule Conductivity Conductivity, an indirect measure of dissolved ion concentrations, was lowest in the Pend Oreille River at Newport and Metaline Falls (1 and 11 µs/cm, respectively). The Thompson River site exhibited a lower median conductivity (17 µs/cm) than the Clark Fork River sites, which varied only slightly (12 µs/cm below Thompson Falls versus 1 µs/cm below Cabinet Gorge Dam) Dissolved Oxygen Median dissolved oxygen concentrations (DO) in 3 were highest at the Thompson River site (12. mg/l) and lowest in the Clark Fork River at the Noxon Bridge (.4 mg/l). Median DO at Pend Oreille River sites (11. and 11.1 mg/l at Newport and Metaline Falls, respectively) was intermediate between the Thompson River and the Clark Fork River sites. Differences in dissolved oxygen concentrations between sampling sites was also probably affected to some degree by sampling times of day and diurnal fluctuations like was suggested for ph Turbidity Median turbidity was lowest at the Thompson River site (1.3 NTU). The highest median turbidity was measured in the Clark Fork River at the sites below Thompson Falls Dam and at the Noxon Bridge (1. NTU), and values decreased somewhat downstream in the Pend Oreille River at Metaline Falls (1.6 NTU). 2.4 Summer Nutrient Levels Intensive summer nutrient monitoring to evaluate compliance with the established instream target concentrations was conducted at one station on Silver Bow Creek and at eight Clark Fork River stations (Appendix A, Figure 4). The following stations were each sampled ten times beginning in May and continuing through September by Missoula wastewater treatment plant personnel: Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity, Clark Fork River below Warm Springs Creek, Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge, Clark Fork River above the Little Blackfoot River, Clark Fork River at Bonita, Clark Fork River above Missoula, Clark Fork River below Missoula, Clark Fork River at Huson, and Clark Fork River above the Flathead River.
13 The following Clark Fork Basin nutrient targets were developed by the Tri-State Water Quality Council and subsequently adopted as water quality standards by the State of Montana (ARM ): Total nitrogen Clark Fork River (headwaters to Flathead River) 3 µg/l Total phosphorous Clark Fork River (headwaters to Missoula) µg/l Total phosphorous Clark Fork River (Missoula to Flathead River) 3 µg/l The Tri-State Council has established secondary target values for soluble inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Clark Fork River, as follows: Total soluble inorganic nitrogen 3 µg/l Soluble reactive phosphorus 6 µg/l Summer Boxplots Spatial comparisons of summer nutrient concentrations in Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork River are presented using statistical boxplots (Appendix D). Where appropriate, boxplots are displayed on two scales to better display the data. The relevant target values are shown as horizontal lines, where these are available. The total nitrogen (TN) boxplots show that five stations had median values exceeding the target level (3 µg/l) in 3, including Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity (23 µg/l) and the Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge (27 µg/l), above the Little Blackfoot River (372 µg/l), at Bonita (3 µg/l), and below Missoula (322 µg/l). Median summer TN was highest at the Silver Bow Creek site, and generally decreased in a downstream direction, although increases were noted at Deer Lodge and below Missoula. The lowest median summer TN concentration was observed in the Clark Fork River above the Flathead River confluence (16 µg/l). Median summer total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in the Clark Fork River above Missoula exceeded the µg/l target at three sites in 3, including Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity (182 µg/l) and the Clark Fork River sites above the Little Blackfoot River (26 µg/l) and at Bonita (3 µg/l). Median summer TP in the Clark Fork River increased from below Warm Springs Creek to a peak at the site below Missoula, although a decrease occurred between Bonita and the site above Missoula. As was observed for TN, the lowest median summer TP concentration was observed in the Clark Fork River above the Flathead River confluence ( µg/l). Median summer total soluble inorganic nitrogen (TSIN) concentrations in 3 were well above the target value of 3 µg/l at each of four stations. Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity had the highest median value (1244 µg/l). The Clark Fork stations at Deer Lodge (14 µg/l), below Missoula (86 µg/l), and at Huson (6 µg/l) also exceeded the instream target. The Clark Fork River sites above the Little Blackfoot River and above Missoula had the lowest median summer TSIN values at 7. µg/l.
14 Median summer soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations exceeded the target value of 6 µg/l at six of the nine monitoring stations, including Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity (81.4 µg/l), and the Clark Fork River sites below Warm Springs Creek (6.6 µg/l), above the Little Blackfoot River (8. µg/l), at Bonita (7.7 µg/l), below Missoula (14.7 µg/l), and at Huson (6. µg/l). The lowest median SRP concentration was found in the Clark Fork River above the Flathead River confluence (2.7 µg/l) Summer Summary Statistics Mean, median, minimum, maximum, standard deviation and variance values for 3 for each of the nutrient constituents were calculated for the nine summer nutrient target stations (Appendix E). The Tri-State Water Quality Council s stated objective is to achieve a percent compliance rate at the percent confidence level for each of the summer target values. At a percent confidence level, the allowable number of exceedances for samples is 14.3 percent, or no more than 1 exceedance per samples. In summer 3, compliance with the established total nitrogen target level was met only in the Clark Fork River above Missoula. The total phosphorus target was met only at the Clark Fork River sites at Huson and above the Flathead River. The secondary target for total soluble inorganic nitrogen was met at Clark Fork River sites located at Bonita and above Missoula. The secondary target for soluble reactive phosphorus was not attained at any of the nine monitoring stations. The number of samples exceeding the nutrient target levels during the ten sampling events and the associated percent compliance for each nutrient variable is shown by monitoring station in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Summer Sample Nutrient Target Compliance Station # above target TN TP TSIN SRP % compliance # above target % compliance # above target % compliance # above target/ % compliance SBC at Opportunity CFR bl Warm Springs CFR at Deer Lodge CFR ab Ltl Blackfoot CFR at Bonita CFR ab Missoula CFR bl Missoula CFR at Huson CFR ab Flathead PERIPHYTON STATISTICS Seven Clark Fork River stations and five Pend Oreille Lake stations have been monitored for periphyton standing crops from 18-3 (Appendix A, Figure ). Clark Fork River stations 11
15 were sampled in August and September. Pend Oreille Lake stations were sampled in September only. Ten replicate samples were collected at each station and these were analyzed for two variables: Chlorophyll a (Chl a) (mg/m 2 ) Ash-free Dry Weight (AFDW) (g/m 2 ) In addition, Secchi disk depth (m) was measured in Pend Oreille Lake as a component of the periphyton monitoring program. 3.1 Temporal Comparison Temporal boxplots for chlorophyll a and ash-free dry weight in periphyton samples from the Clark Fork River (Appendix F) and Pend Oreille Lake (Appendix G) were developed to show changes over the six-year monitoring period Clark Fork River Mean chlorophyll a values for algae samples collected from natural substrates at sites in the Clark Fork River upstream of Missoula had lower mean chlorophyll a values in 3 than in 2. These sites included the Clark Fork at Deer Lodge (7.2 mg/m 2 ), above the Little Blackfoot River (83.8 mg/m 2 ), at Bonita (14.81 mg/m 2 ), and above Missoula (2.32 mg/m 2 ). In 3, the Deer Lodge site had the lowest mean chlorophyll a value recorded in six years of monitoring (18-3). Mean chlorophyll a values in 3 were higher than in 2 at the three Clark Fork River monitoring stations located downstream of Missoula. These included the Clark Fork River below Missoula (16.17 mg/m 2 ), at Huson (.61 mg/m 2 ), and above the Flathead River (17.31 mg/m 2 ). Even though these sites showed mean chlorophyll a values that were greater than those seen in 2, the mean concentrations were still relatively low compared to mean values seen over the entire period of record (18-3). Mean algal biomass values, measured as ash-free dry weight (AFDW), decreased from 2 to 3 at six of the seven monitoring stations. Only the Clark Fork River site above Missoula showed values in 3 that were greater than in 2. In 3 the Clark Fork River sites below Missoula and above the Flathead River exhibited the lowest mean AFDW values recorded in six years of monitoring Pend Oreille Lake Mean chlorophyll a values for algae samples collected from natural substrates in Pend Oreille Lake were higher in 3 than in any previous year of sampling (18-2) when data for all sample sites were pooled. However, the mean values for 3 were quite comparable to previous years when looking at the individual stations data. Mean chlorophyll a increased from 2 to 3 at Bayview (11.27 mg/m 2 ) and Trestle Creek (. mg/m 2 ), but decreased at Kootenai (8.7 mg/m 2 ), Springy Point (12.84 mg/m 2 ), and Sunnyside (7.11 mg/m 2 ). 12
16 Temporal patterns for attached algae measured as mean ash-free dry weight concentrations were similar to those for chlorophyll a. The mean AFDW in 3 for all Pend Oreille Lake stations pooled was the second highest on record, and only behind the 1 sampling year. Mean concentrations increased from 2 to 3 at Bayview (13.33 g/m 2 ), Springy Point (11.31 g/m 2 ), and Trestle Creek(6.76 g/m 2 ), but decreased at Kootenai (8.84 g/m 2 ) and Sunnyside (8.3 g/m 2 ). 3.2 Spatial Comparison Periphyton data for the Clark Fork River (Appendix F) and Pend Oreille Lake (Appendix G) are depicted as spatial boxplots for years Clark Fork River chlorophyll a boxplots include horizontal lines that show the benthic algae chlorophyll a targets levels for both a summer mean ( mg/m 2 ) and annual maximum (1 mg/m 2 ) instream concentration. These targets were developed by the Tri-State Water Quality Council and subsequently adopted as sitespecific water quality standards by the State of Montana (ARM ) Clark Fork River In August 3, five of seven Clark Fork River monitoring locations had mean chlorophyll a values below the mean target level of mg/m 2. These included sites at Deer Lodge (6.6 mg/m 2 ), above the Little Blackfoot River (64.8 mg/m 2 ), above Missoula (4.7 mg/m 2 ), at Huson (44.3 mg/m 2 ), and above the Flathead River (21.4 mg/m 2 ). In September 3, three of seven monitoring sites produced mean chlorophyll a values less than the mean target level, including the Clark Fork above Missoula (.3 mg/m 2 ), at Huson (7.2 mg/m 2 ), and above the Flathead River (13. mg/m 2 ). Additionally, five of the seven sites showed higher mean chlorophyll a values in September than in August, indicating that peak algae growth for 3 likely occurred in the month of September. Two stations, the Clark Fork at Bonita and below Missoula, exceeded the instream summer mean target level in August 3, while the same target level was exceeded instream at four locations during September 3. These four sites included the Clark Fork at Deer Lodge, above the Little Blackfoot River, at Bonita, and below Missoula. If the measured 3 chlorophyll levels for the Clark Fork River are averaged for the August and September sampling events to reflect a summer mean concentration, and these averages are compared to the summer mean state water quality standard for the Clark Fork River, 3 of 7 sites failed to attain the state standard for chlorophyll a in 3 ( mg/m 2 ). These monitoring locations are the Clark Fork at Deer Lodge, Bonita, and below Missoula. Additionally, the individual sample replicate data for chlorophyll a in the Clark Fork River during 3 showed that at least one measurement value for either August or September 3 surpassed the target for maximum growth (1 mg/m 2 ) at six of the seven sites. The only station with all samples below the target maximum (1 mg/m 2 ) in 3 was the Clark Fork River at Huson. Comparisons of the 18-3 algal standing crop data to the relevant target values/water quality standards for the Clark Fork River are shown in Figures 3-1 to 3-7. Mean values are displayed as points on the chart. The target mean ( mg/m 2 ) and maximum (1 mg/m 2 ) chlorophyll a values are displayed as dashed lines. 13
17 3.2.2 Pend Oreille Lake In 3, mean chlorophyll a values from algae samples collected from natural substrates in Pend Oreille Lake were lowest at the Sunnyside site (7.1 mg/m 2 ), and highest at the Springy Point site (12.8 mg/m 2 ) located near the outlet of Pend Oreille Lake. The Trestle Creek site had the lowest mean ash-free dry weight in 3 (6.8 g/m 2 ), while Bayview had the highest mean (13.3 g/m 2 ). For the entire period of record (18-3), the Sunnyside site had the highest mean chlorophyll a (12.8 mg/m 2 ) and AFDW (14.4 g/m 2 ) values. The lowest mean chlorophyll a and AFDW for the entire period of record was attributed to the Bayview site (6.2 mg/m 2 and 7.8 g/m 2, respectively) Mean Chlorophyll A concentration (mg/m2) Aug 18 Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug Sept Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug 2 Sept 2 Aug 3 Sept 3 Total Figure 3-1. Clark Fork at Deer Lodge chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, Mean Chlorophyll A concentration (mg/m2) Aug 18 Sept 18 Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug Sept Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug 2 Sept 2 Aug 3 Sept 3 Total Figure 3-2. Clark Fork above Little Blackfoot chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels,
18 3 Mean Chlorophyll A concentration (mg/m2) Aug 18 Sept 18 Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug Sept Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug 2 Sept 2 Aug 3 Sept 3 Total Figure 3-3. Clark Fork at Bonita chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, Mean Chlorophyll A concentration (mg/m2) Aug 18 Sept 18 Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug Sept Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug 2 Sept 2 Aug 3 Sept 3 Total Figure 3-4. Clark Fork above Missoula chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, Mean Chlorophyll A concentration (mg/m2) Aug 18 Sept 18 Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug Sept Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug 2 Sept 2 Aug 3 Sept 3 Total Figure 3-. Clark Fork below Missoula chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels,
19 Mean Chlorophyll A concentration (mg/m2) Aug 18 Sept 18 Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug Sept Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug 2 Sept 2 Aug 3 Sept 3 Total Figure 3-6. Clark Fork at Huson chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, Mean Chlorophyll A concentration (mg/m2) Aug 18 Sept 18 Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug Sept Aug 1 Sept 1 Aug 2 Sept 2 Aug 3 Sept 3 Total 1. Figure 3-7. Clark Fork above Flathead chlorophyll a values compared to instream target levels, Secchi Depth Secchi transparency measurements have been collected on Pend Oreille Lake periodically since the 1s. The Bayview, Hope and Granite stations have over years of historical data, and are currently the only stations monitored under the Tri-State Council program (Appendix A, Figure ). Boxplots (Appendix H) show fluctuations in median Secchi depth throughout the period of record. When data for the three current monitoring sites are pooled, the highest median value (or highest water transparency) was documented in 3, with the lowest median value found in 1. Secchi depth readings were typically highest in winter, with lowest values recorded in spring. The Bayview station experienced the greatest median Secchi depth readings, while the Hope site had the lowest median Secchi depth readings for the period of record. Secchi disk depth measurements were collected nine times in 3 at the Granite site, and three times in 3 at Hope and Bayview. Of these three sites, Bayview had the highest median 16
20 Secchi transparency (16.2 meters), followed by Granite (12. m) and Hope (11. m). The lowest Secchi depths recorded in 3 were experienced in spring, with the greatest depths occurring in winter. Additionally, the individual median Secchi disk readings for all three sites during 3 were the highest on record. 17
21 4. REFERENCES Administrative Rules of Montana. 2. Numeric Algal Biomass and Nutrient Standards for the Clark Fork River. ARM , Effective August 16, 2. Idaho Fish & Game. 3. Pend Oreille Lake Fishery Recovery Project Annual Progress Report for 2 (draft). Coeur d Alene, ID. Land & Water Consulting, Inc. 1. Water quality status and trends monitoring system for the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed. Prepared for the Tri-State Implementation Council. Missoula, MT. Land & Water Consulting, Inc. 3a. Water Quality Status and Trends Monitoring System for the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed Summary Monitoring Report 2. Prepared for Tri-State Water Quality Council. Missoula, MT. Land & Water Consulting, Inc. 3b. Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Program - Quality Assurance Project Plan. Prepared for Tri-State Water Quality Council. Missoula, MT. Tri-State Implementation Council (now the Tri-State Water Quality Council). 18. Clark Fork River Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Program, August 18. Sandpoint, Idaho. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 13. Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan. Conducted under Section 2 of the Clean Water Act of 187. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 8 and, State of Montana, State of Idaho, State of Washington. January 13. Seattle, WA. Walker, W.W. 1. Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction: User Manual. Instruction Report W-6-2, US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, updated April 1. 18
22 Appendix A WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY/FIGURES TABLE 1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY, 3 FIGURE 1 PROJECT STUDY AREA FIGURE 2 WATERSHED BOUNDARIES FIGURE 3 NUTRIENTS AND METALS CONCENTRATIONS MONITORING SITES FIGURE 4 ADDITIONAL SUMMER NUTRIENT MONITORING SITES FIGURE PERIPHYTON DENSITY MONITORING SITES Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed Summary Monitoring Report
23 Appendix A, Table 1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations and Sampling Frequency, 3 Station Name Sampling Frequency 2. Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity S 7 Clark Fork below Warm Springs Creek S Clark Fork at Deer Lodge P, S Clark Fork above Little Blackfoot River P, S 12 Clark Fork at Bonita P, S 1. Clark Fork above Missoula P, S 18 Clark Fork below Missoula (Shuffields) P, S 22 Clark Fork at Huson P, S 2 Clark Fork above Flathead P, S 27. Thompson River near mouth N12 28* Clark Fork below Thompson Falls NM12 2* Clark Fork at Noxon Bridge NM12 3* Clark Fork below Cabinet Gorge Dam NM18 Pend Oreille River at Newport, WA Pend Oreille River at Metaline Falls, WA Pend Oreille Lake: Kootenai Pend Oreille Lake: Springy Point Pend Oreille Lake: Sunnyside Pend Oreille Lake: Trestle Creek Pend Oreille Lake: Bayview Pend Oreille Lake: Hope Pend Oreille Lake: Granite Point N12 N12 P P P P P, SD SD SD N12 = Nutrient and field constituents, 12 monthly samples NM12 = Nutrient, metal and field constituents, 12 monthly samples NM18 = Nutrient, metal and field constituents, 12 monthly samples and 6 peak flow samples P = Periphyton, replicates per site, August and September (September only on Pend Oreille Lake) S = Summer nutrient and field constituents, samples during 3 weeks in summer SD = Secchi Depth, 12 monthly samples (if available) * These sites sponsored by Avista Corp., pursuant to 41 certification requirement
24 # ék P e n d O r e i l l e R i v e r Metaline Falls Box Canyon Dam Priest Lake Kalispel Tribe # Newport Sandpoint # Lake Pend Oreille Albeni Falls Dam Cabinet Gorge Dam # Noxon C Noxon Falls Dam l a r k Thompson Falls Dam Thompson Falls # F o r k R i v e r # St. Regis Kalispell # Flathead Lake F l a t h e a d R i v e r Flathead Indian Reservation Washington British Columbia, Canada Idaho Montana R i v e r B i t t e r r o o t Milltown Dam # Missoula B C l a l a c k f o o t r k F o r k R i v e r R i v e r # Deer Lodge Butte# Figure 1. Project Study Area Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin N W E S 2 2 Miles Project#: 328 Date: June 3 Location: Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Project Manager: G. Ingman Drawn By: M. Arthur LAND & WATER CONSULTING, INC. 11 Cedar Street PO Box 824 Missoula, MT 87
25 # Metaline Falls PEND ORIELLE WA ID PRIEST NORTH FORK FLATHEAD # Newport Sandpoint # LAKE PEND OREILLE ID MT # Noxon LOWER CLARK FORK Thompson # Falls STILLWATER Kalispell # FLATHEAD LAKE MIDDLE FORK FLATHEAD SWAN SOUTH FORK FLATHEAD # St. Regis LOWER FLATHEAD British Columbia, Canada MIDDLE CLARK FORK Missoula # BLACKFOOT Washington Montana Idaho BITTERROOT FLINT-ROCK # Deer Lodge UPPER CLARK FORK Butte# Figure 2. Watershed Boundaries Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin N W E S 2 2 Miles Project#: 328 Date: June 3 Location: Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Project Manager: G. Ingman Drawn By: M. Arthur LAND & WATER CONSULTING, INC. 11 Cedar Street PO Box 824 Missoula, MT 87
26 Figure 3. Nutrient and Metal Concentration Monitoring Sites Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin e POR/METALINE % WA ID P e n d O r e i l l e R i v e r Priest Lake POR/NEWPORT % Lake Pend Oreille $ ID MT CFK/Cabinet Gorge D # CFK / Noxon B Flathead Lake CFK bl Thompson Falls C # l a r k % F o r k Thompson R R i v e r a d R i v e r F l a t h Monitoring Site % Sampling Frequency = 12, Nutrients Only # Sampling Frequency = 12, Nutrients and Metals $ Sampling Frequency = 18, Nutrients and Metals R i v e r B l a c f k C l a r o o t R i v e r k F o r k R i v e r B i t t e r r o o t Project#: 328 Date: June 3 Location: Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Project Manager: G. Ingman Drawn By: M. Arthur N W E S 2 2 Miles LAND & WATER CONSULTING, INC. 11 Cedar Street PO Box 824 Missoula, MT 87
27 Figure 4. Additional Summer Nutrient Monitoring Sites Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin P e n d O r e i l l e R i v e r WA ID Priest Lake Lake Pend Oreille ID MT Flathead Lake C l a r k F o r k R i v e r # CFK/Flathead F l a t h e a d R i v e r Monitoring Site (Extra Summer Sample) # Sampling Frequency = # CFK/Shuffields CFK/Huson R i v e r B i t t e r r o o t ## B l a c k CFK/Missoula CFK/Bonita# o t f o C la r k R i v e r F o r k R i v CFK/Little Blackfoot R CFK/Deerlodge CFK/Warm Sp Cr Silver Bow/Opportunity e r # # # # Project#: 328 Date: June 3 Location: Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Project Manager: G. Ingman Drawn By: M. Arthur N W E S 2 2 Miles LAND & WATER CONSULTING, INC. 11 Cedar Street PO Box 824 Missoula, MT 87
28 Figure. Periphyton Density Monitoring Sites Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin P e n d O r e i l l e R i v e r Kootenai Sunnyside %U %U %U%U Trestle Springy "Á Hope Point "Á Granite Point %U"Á Bayview ID MT WA ID Priest Lake Lake Pend Oreille Flathead Lake C l a r k F o r k R CFK/Flathead i v e r # h e a d F l a t R i v e r Sandpoint %U # %U %U Trestle %U Sunnyside "Á Springy Hope Point Lake Pend Oreille "Á Granite Point %U "Á Bayview Miles # CFK/Shuffields CFK/Huson R i v e r B i t t e r r o o t ## B CFK/ Missoula CFK/Bonita l a c k f # C o o t la r k R i v e r F o r k CFK/Little Blackfoot R R i v e r CFK/Deer Lodge # # Monitoring Site "Á Secchi Disk # River Sites %U Lake Sites Project#: 328 Date: June 3 Location: Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Project Manager: G. Ingman Drawn By: M. Arthur N W E S 2 2 Miles LAND & WATER CONSULTING, INC. 11 Cedar Street PO Box 824 Missoula, MT 87
29 Appendix B 3 WATER QUALITY DATA SPATIAL BOXPLOTS Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed Summary Monitoring Report
30 ..4.3 Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Thompson River CFR at Noxon POR at New port CFR bl Thompson Fall CFR bl Cabinet Gorge POR at Metaline Fall.3 Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen (mg/l) Thompson River CFR at Noxon POR at New port CFR bl Thompson Fall CFR bl Cabinet Gorge POR at Metaline Fall Non-detectable concentrations reported as ½ detection limit. Not all extreme values shown on boxplots.
31 .4.3 Total Phosphorus (mg/l) Thompson River CFR at Noxon POR at New port CFR bl Thompson Fall CFR bl Cabinet Gorge POR at Metaline Fall..8 Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (mg/l) Thompson River CFR at Noxon POR at New port CFR bl Thompson Fall CFR bl Cabinet Gorge POR at Metaline Fall Non-detectable concentrations reported as ½ detection limit. Not all extreme values shown on boxplots.
32 ..4 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/l) Thompson River CFR at Noxon POR at New port CFR bl Thompson Fall CFR bl Cabinet Gorge POR at Metaline Fall Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/l) Thompson River CFR at Noxon POR at New port CFR bl Thompson Fall CFR bl Cabinet Gorge POR at Metaline Fall Non-detectable concentrations reported as ½ detection limit. Not all extreme values shown on boxplots.
33 Ammonium (mg/l) Thompson River CFR at Noxon POR at New port CFR bl Thompson Fall CFR bl Cabinet Gorge POR at Metaline Fall.4 Total Recoverable Copper (mg/l) Thompson River CFR at Noxon CFR bl Thompson Fall CFR bl Cabinet Gorge Non-detectable concentrations reported as ½ detection limit. Not all extreme values shown on boxplots.
WATER QUALITY STATUS AND TRENDS MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE CLARK FORK-PEND OREILLE WATERSHED
WATER QUALITY STATUS AND TRENDS MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE CLARK FORK-PEND OREILLE WATERSHED Summary Monitoring Report 06 Prepared for: TRI-STATE WATER QUALITY COUNCIL Diane Williams, Executive Director
More informationCLARK FORK PEND OREILLE WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
CLARK FORK PEND OREILLE WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM FINAL MONITORING REPORT 2010 Prepared for: TRI-STATE WATER QUALITY COUNCIL DIANE WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 101 N. FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE
More informationFlathead-Stillwater TMDL Planning Area Sampling Project : Nutrients, Metals Sampling and Analysis Plan
Flathead-Stillwater TMDL Planning Area Sampling Project - 2012: Nutrients, Metals Sampling and Analysis Plan May 24, 2012 Approvals: Alan Nixon (Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment) Date Darrin Kron
More informationCladophora blooms and ecosystem development: implications for restoration in the Upper Clark Fork River, MT
Cladophora blooms and ecosystem development: implications for restoration in the Upper Clark Fork River, MT Valett, H.M., M.G. Peipoch, N. Banish, J. Dyste, P. Davis, and K. Bray University of Montana
More information5.0 NUTRIENT TMDL COMPONENTS
5.0 NUTRIENT TMDL COMPONENTS This section of the document focuses on nutrients as a cause of water quality impairment in the Bitterroot project area. It describes: (1) how excess nutrients impair beneficial
More informationModeling Hydrology, Sediment, and Nutrients in the Flathead Lake Watershed Appendix C
APPENDIX C. SOUTH FORK FLATHEAD RIVER BOUNDARY CONDITION CONTENTS Introduction... C 3 Available Data... C 6 Available Flow Data... C 6 Available Suspended Sediment Concentration Data... C 8 Available Nitrogen
More informationAlbeni Falls Dam: Flexible Winter Power Operations Lake Pend Oreille Water Quality Monitoring Plan 2012
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Albeni Falls Dam: Flexible Winter Power Operations Lake Pend Oreille Water Quality Monitoring Plan 2012 By Kent Easthouse U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle
More informationBITTERROOT RIVER TRIBUTARIES SAMPLING PROJECT 2013
BITTERROOT RIVER TRIBUTARIES SAMPLING PROJECT 2013 Sampling and Analysis Plan Prepared for: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment and Water Quality Management
More informationLake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watersheds Authority. Canyon Lake Phase 2 Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watersheds Authority December 2010 Background Canyon Lake was formed in 1928 when the Canyon Lake (Railroad Canyon) Dam was constructed; the lake has three main sections the
More information2006 Aliceville Reservoir Report. Rivers and Reservoirs Monitoring Program
2006 Aliceville Reservoir Report Rivers and Reservoirs Monitoring Program Field Operations Division Environmental Indicators Section Aquatic Assessment Unit May 2011 Rivers and Reservoirs Monitoring Program
More informationMODELING THE SPOKANE RIVER-LAKE ROOSEVELT SYSTEM
MODELING THE SPOKANE RIVER-LAKE ROOSEVELT SYSTEM Chris J. Berger 1, Robert L. Annear, Jr. 2, Michael L. McKillip 3, Vanessa Wells 4 and Scott A. Wells, ASCE 5 1 Senior Research Associate, Department of
More informationWater Quality Conditions During 2007 in the Vicinity of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project
Prepared by: Richard Raymond, Ph.D. E&S Environmental Chemistry, Inc. Corvallis, Oregon Prepared for: PacifiCorp Energy 825 N.E. Multnomah, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97232 October 14, 2008 CONTENTS Section
More informationMILK RIVER WATERSHED WATER MONITORING REPORT 2017
MILK RIVER WATERSHED WATER MONITORING REPORT 2017 Prepared for: Milk River Watershed Council Canada Prepared by: Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. March 2018 Acknowledgements Thank you to Cardston County,
More informationThe ABCs of TMDLs for Stakeholders. Bruce Zander, EPA 28 September 2005 Webcast
The ABCs of TMDLs for Stakeholders Bruce Zander, EPA 28 September 2005 Webcast Agenda Review the parts and pieces of the TMDL* program Understand terminology View some case examples Understand how TMDLs
More information2005 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING CHLOROPHYLL A DATA SUMMARY
2005 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING CHLOROPHYLL A DATA SUMMARY Upper Gallatin River Water Quality Restoration Planning Areas Prepared for: BLUE WATER TASK FORCE, INC. Katie Alvin PO Box 160513 Big Sky, MT 59716
More informationJuly 2009 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND ANNUAL LOAD DETERMINATIONS FOR THE ILLINOIS RIVER AT ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 59 BRIDGE, 2008
July 29 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND ANNUAL LOAD DETERMINATIONS FOR THE ILLINOIS RIVER AT ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 59 BRIDGE, 28 LESLIE B. MASSEY, WADE CASH, AND BRIAN E. HAGGARD Submitted to Arkansas
More informationRocky River Monitoring Study, Division of Water Resources- Water Sciences Intensive Survey Branch
Rocky River Monitoring Study, 2016 Division of Water Resources- Water Sciences Intensive Survey Branch Thank You Tim Sweeny Town of Siler City Area of Study 6.7 mile stretch of River located in Chatham
More informationWater Quality Analysis of Lakewood Lakes
Water Quality Analysis of Lakewood Lakes December 2016 Prepared by WEST Consultants, Inc. Bellevue, Washington With support from HDR, Inc., Olympia, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... V
More informationSmithville Lake 2000 Water Quality Report
Smithville Lake 2 Water Quality Report 1. General. a. Project location. The dam is located at river mile 12.9 on the Little Platte River, a tributary of the Platte River. The drainage area above the dam
More information2018 WATER QUALITY MONITORING BLUE MARSH RESERVOIR LEESPORT, PENNSYLVANIA
2018 WATER QUALITY MONITORING BLUE MARSH RESERVOIR LEESPORT, PENNSYLVANIA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District Environmental Resources Branch January 2019 2018 Water Quality Monitoring Blue
More informationElsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Lake Elsinore Phase 2 Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Lake Elsinore Phase 2 Water Quality Monitoring Plan to Evaluate the Efficacy of the In-Lake Nutrient Reduction Facilities (Aeration and Mixing) for Lake Elsinore
More information2016 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROMPTON RESERVOIR PROMPTON, PENNSYLVANIA
2016 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROMPTON RESERVOIR PROMPTON, PENNSYLVANIA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District Environmental Resources Branch December 2016 2016 Water Quality Monitoring Prompton
More informationJuly 2009 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND ANNUAL LOAD DETERMINATIONS FOR NUTRIENTS AND SOLIDS ON
July 2009 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND ANNUAL LOAD DETERMINATIONS FOR NUTRIENTS AND SOLIDS ON THE BALLARD CREEK, 2008 LESLIE B. MASSEY, WADE CASH, AND BRIAN E. HAGGARD Submitted to Arkansas Natural
More informationCLMP+ Report on Grass Lake (Anoka County) Lake ID# CLMP+ Data Summary
CLMP+ Report on Grass Lake (Anoka County) Lake ID# 02-0113-00 2012-2013 CLMP+ Data Summary October 2014 Authors Shannon Martin, MPCA Editing and graphic design Public Information Office Staff The (MPCA)
More informationSubwatershed Prioritization of the Lake Wister Watershed Using Baseflow Water Quality Monitoring Data
Subwatershed Prioritization of the Lake Wister Watershed Using Baseflow Water Quality Monitoring Data Bradley J. Austin, Brina Smith, and Brian E. Haggard Eutrophication Process by which excess nutrients
More informationCLMP+ Report on Fleming Lake (Aitkin County)
CLMP+ Report on Fleming Lake (Aitkin County) Lake ID# -5-5-6 CLMP+ Data Summary July 7 Authors Shannon Martin Contributors/acknowledgements Terry Dahlberg Sandy Dahlberg Pam Anderson For questions regarding
More information2007 Inland and Purdy Reservoirs Report. Rivers and Reservoirs Monitoring Program
2007 Inland and Purdy Reservoirs Report Rivers and Reservoirs Monitoring Program Field Operations Division Environmental Indicators Section Aquatic Assessment Unit June 2012 Rivers and Reservoirs Monitoring
More informationÆÕ 65. Sullivan Lake Monitoring Report Æÿ Monitoring Sites. MWMO Watershed Bulletin: Lake Levels Lake Water Quality
Sullivan Lake Monitoring Report 2013 "S Mississippi River æº 2013 Monitoring Sites æº Lake Levels Lake Water Quality ÆÕ 65 Sullivan Lake æº Æÿ65 MWMO Watershed Bulletin: 2014-4 ÆÕ 65 Sullivan Lake Monitoring
More informationArkansas Water Resources Center
Arkansas Water Resources Center 2003 POLLUTANT LOADS KINGS RIVER NEAR BERRYVILLE, ARKANSAS Submitted to the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission By Marc A. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E. and L. Wade Cash,
More informationArkansas Water Resources Center
Arkansas Water Resources Center WATER QUALITY SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND ANNUAL LOAD DETERMINATIONS FOR TSS, NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS AT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY ROAD 195 BRIDGE ON THE WEST FORK OF THE WHITE RIVER
More information2016 Summit Lake Water Quality Report Prepared by Thurston County Environmental Health Division
! 216 Summit Lake Water Quality Report Prepared by Thurston County Environmental Health Division PART OF TOTTEN INLET WATERSHED LENGTH OF LAKE: 2.2 miles SHORELINE LENGTH: 5.6 miles LAKE SIZE: 53 acres
More informationWater Quality Assessment in the Thames River Watershed
Water Quality Assessment in the Thames River Watershed Nutrient Trends Karen Maaskant, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 2015 Lake St. Clair Conference October 21, 2015 Outline Thames River watershed,
More information2012 Nutrient Regulations Update
2012 Nutrient Regulations Update OWEA Government Affairs Workshop March 1, 2012 Guy Jamesson, PE, BCEE Malcolm Pirnie, The Water Division of ARCADIS Imagine the result Agenda Nutrient impacts Nutrient
More informationSITES. Bull Shoals Lake. Seasonal Analysis
Taney County and Ozark County SITES Seasonal Analysis Nutrient concentrations in the main lake sites (1, 2, & 7) and Site 8 (located in a tributary of the main lake) all displayed similar patterns during
More informationTarrant Regional Water District Water Quality Trend Analysis Final Report Executive Summary. July 2011
Tarrant Regional Water District Water Quality Trend Analysis 1989-2009 Final Report Executive Summary July 2011 Prepared for Tarrant Regional Water District 201 North Shore Drive Fort Worth, TX 76135 Phone:
More informationWhat s Happening in Lake Whatcom?
What s Happening in Lake Whatcom? Dr. Robin A. Matthews, Director Institute for Watershed Studies Huxley College of the Environment Western Washington University June 6, 2011 Site 2 Basin 2 Lake Whatcom
More informationARKANSAS NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT. EPA Region 6 Nutrient RTAG Dallas, Texas April 14, 2015
ARKANSAS NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT EPA Region 6 Nutrient RTAG Dallas, Texas April 14, 2015 CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT MILESTONES Assessment Methodology Beaver Lake Wadeable Streams Nutrient Trading-Act 335
More informationArkansas Water Resources Center
Arkansas Water Resources Center 2004 POLLUTANT LOADS KINGS RIVER NEAR BERRYVILLE, ARKANSAS Submitted to the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission By Marc A. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E. L. Wade Cash,
More informationContinuous records for the Chariton River indicate that 2004 was an average water year, with total flow approximately equal to the average annual
2004 Rathbun Report Iowa State University Limnology Laboratory John A. Downing, Ph.D. George Antoniou, Assistant Scientist For Rathbun Land and Water Alliance August 31, 2005 A. Tributaries Personnel of
More informationInterpreting Lake Data
Interpreting Lake Data Indiana Clean Lakes Program The Indiana Clean Lakes Program was created in 1989 as a program within the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's (IDEM) Office of Water Management.
More informationNewcastle Creek Community Watershed Water Quality Objectives Attainment Report
Newcastle Creek Community Watershed Water Quality Objectives Attainment Report Environmental Quality Section Environmental Protection Division West Coast Region 2013 Report Prepared by: Clayton Smith.
More informationKeeyask Infrastructure Project
Keeyask Infrastructure Project Terrestrial and Aquatic Monitoring Plan Annual Report 2014-2015 December 2015 KEEYASK INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC MONITORING PLAN Water Quality: Annual
More information2006 WATER MONITORING REPORT
26 WATER MONITORING REPORT May 27 Prepared for: South Washington Watershed District Prepared by: Memorandum To: Matt Moore South Washington Watershed District Administrator From: Wendy Griffin, Travis
More informationYAAK NUTRIENTS TMDL PROJECT. Watershed Advisory Group Presentation April 10, 2014 Yaak, MT
YAAK NUTRIENTS TMDL PROJECT Watershed Advisory Group Presentation April 10, 2014 Yaak, MT Presentation Outline Introduction to TMDLs The East Fork Yaak Nutrient TMDL Project Project Schedule and Wrap-Up
More information2016 WATER QUALITY MONITORING BELTZVILLE RESERVOIR LEHIGHTON, PENNSYLVANIA
2016 WATER QUALITY MONITORING BELTZVILLE RESERVOIR LEHIGHTON, PENNSYLVANIA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District Environmental Resources Branch December 2016 2016 Water Quality Monitoring
More informationInterpreting Lake Data
Interpreting Lake Data Indiana Clean Lakes Program The Indiana Clean Lakes Program was created in 1989 as a program within the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's (IDEM) Office of Water Management.
More informationHarry S Truman Reservoir 1999 Water Quality Report
Harry S Truman Reservoir 999 Water Quality Report. General. a. Project location. Truman Dam is located approximately. miles northwest of Warsaw, Missouri, at river mile. on the Osage River, a tributary
More informationLake Washington. Water Quality Assessment Report. Copyright 2012 PLM Lake & Land Management Corp.
Lake Washington 2012 Water Quality Assessment Report Copyright 2012 PLM Lake & Land Management Corp. Water Quality Report On May 22nd, June 18th, July 30th, August 29th, and September 27 th, 2012, PLM
More informationLOXAHATCHEE RIVER WATER QUALITY EVENT SAMPLING TASK 2: FINAL REPORT ASSESSMENT OF LOXAHATCHEE RIVER WATER QUALITY
LOXAHATCHEE RIVER WATER QUALITY EVENT SAMPLING TASK 2: FINAL REPORT ASSESSMENT OF 2007-2008 LOXAHATCHEE RIVER WATER QUALITY In Partial Fulfillment of Agreement No. 4600001281 For the Period October 2007
More informationAppendix D Monitoring Program
Appendix D Monitoring Program [This page left intentionally blank.] Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Third Generation Watershed Management Plan Monitoring Program Minnesota
More informationNutrient Limits: What to Expect. Water Division Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
Nutrient Limits: What to Expect Water Division Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality wentz@adeq.state.ar.us bailey@adeq.state.ar.us Timeline of Nutrient Criteria Development 1998 EPA published the
More informationJEFFERSON RIVER METALS TMDL PROJECT. Public Meeting October 14, 2014 Whitehall, MT
JEFFERSON RIVER METALS TMDL PROJECT Public Meeting October 14, 2014 Whitehall, MT Presentation Outline Jefferson River Metals Project Area TMDL Basics Metals TMDL Development Next Steps Public Comment
More informationData Required to Support Reservoir Water Quality Modeling
Data Required to Support Reservoir ater Quality Modeling The recommendations contained within this document are intended to assist with developing field data collection programs that can support reservoir
More informationChief Joseph Dam Sediment Quality Sampling and Analysis Plan, 2004
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Chief Joseph Dam Sediment Quality Sampling and Analysis Plan, 2004 Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Hydrology and Hydraulics Section
More informationLong-Term Volunteer Lake Monitoring in the Upper Woonasquatucket Watershed
Long-Term Volunteer Lake Monitoring in the Upper Woonasquatucket Watershed Linda Green URI Watershed Watch 1-87-95, lgreen@uri.edu WATER QUALITY IS A REFLECTION OF THE ACTIVITIES IN THE LANDS AND WATERS
More informationURBAN NON-POINT SOURCE IMPACTS ON SEATTLE AREA STREAM PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT
URBAN NON-POINT SOURCE IMPACTS ON SEATTLE AREA STREAM PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT Michael T. Brett, Sara E. Stanley, Benjamin O. Brattebo, Micaela Ellison & Giorgios Arhonditsis Department of Civil & Environmental
More informationFigure 1. Map of Platte River Watershed.
Figure 1. Map of Platte River Watershed. Hatchery Total Phosphorus (TP) Load Total Phosphorus (lbs) 199 1995 5 Figure. Long-Term Pattern of Hatchery Total Phosphorus Loads. TP (lbs) 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 1 11
More informationPortage Lake CASS COUNTY
Portage Lake 11-0204-00 CASS COUNTY Summary Portage Lake is located near Bena, MN in Cass County. It covers 1,539 acres, which places it in the upper 10% of lakes in Minnesota in terms of size. Portage
More informationThe Snapshot CONODOGUINET CREEK WATERSHED SNAPSHOT
CONODOGUINET CREEK WATERSHED SNAPSHOT ABOVE: CONODOGUINET CREEK AT RT 74 BRIDGE FACING DOWNSTREAM The Snapshot The Conodoguinet Watershed Snapshot was a collaborative effort to engage local citizens in
More informationPublic Notice: Application for Permit
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Walla Walla District 201 North Third Avenue Walla Walla, WA 99362-1876 Public Notice: Application for Permit APPLICATION NO.: NWW-2007-01303 WATERWAY: Sand Creek and Lake Pend
More informationGrants Pass Water Quality Monitoring
Grants Pass Water Quality Monitoring 2003-2005 Rogue Valley Council of Governments April 2005 Rogue Valley Council of Governments Natural Resources Department 155 North First Street Central Point, Oregon
More informationREPORT. Report No: 2013/0958 Prepared For: Natural Resources Committee Prepared By: Dean Olsen, Environmental Resource Scientist Date: 11 July 2013
REPORT Document Id: A544088 Report No: 2013/0958 Prepared For: Natural Resources Committee Prepared By: Dean Olsen, Environmental Resource Scientist Date: 11 July 2013 Subject: Waianakarua River Water
More informationBear Creek Hydrologic Reconnection and Habitat Enhancement Project Pre-Restoration Monitoring Report
Bear Creek Hydrologic Reconnection and Habitat Enhancement Project Pre-Restoration Monitoring Report December 2016 Alan D. Steinman Michael C. Hassett Grand Valley State University Annis Water Resources
More informationFigure 1. Platte River Sub-Watersheds and Monitoring Locations.
Figure 1. Platte River Sub-Watersheds and Monitoring Locations. 10 2 1 9 7 BL Pond 8 Hatchery 6 3 5 4 1 Platte River at Fewins Rd 6 B. Creek to Hatchery Spring 2 Platte River at Stone Bridge 7 Platte River
More informationWhite River Algae 2016 Results. Mindi May Prepared by Kelsi Antonelli 1/11/2018
White River Algae 2016 Results Mindi May Prepared by Kelsi Antonelli 1/11/2018 Sample Locations 2016 Nutrients Major ions Suspended solids Macroinvertebrates Site List and Samples Collected Site Description
More informationREPORT ON RABBIT CREEK SPECIAL STUDY SUBWATERSHED 5.19
REPORT ON RABBIT CREEK SPECIAL STUDY SUBWATERSHED 5.19 Sabine River Authority of Texas August 31, 23 Prepared in Cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Under the Authorization of
More information2002 Water Quality Monitoring Report
22 Water Quality Monitoring Report Wenck File #2-49 Prepared for: CLEARWATER RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT Box 276 Annandale, MN 55389 Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 18 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249
More informationComparative Study on Total Suspended Solids and Nutrients of the Las Vegas Wash Between the Demonstration Weir and its Terminus at the Las Vegas Bay
Comparative Study on Total Suspended Solids and Nutrients of the Las Vegas Wash Between the Demonstration Weir and its Terminus at the Las Vegas Bay Delta September 2006 Comparative Study on Total Suspended
More informationLeeper Park Duck Pond Water Sampling. City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana
Leeper Park Duck Pond Water Sampling City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana 1 Leeper Park Water Sampling Report South Bend Venues Parks and Arts, St. Joseph County, Indiana Document Information
More informationArkansas Water Resources Center
Arkansas Water Resources Center WATER QUALITY SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND ANNUAL LOAD DETERMINATIONS FOR TSS, NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS AT THE WYMAN BRIDGE ON THE WHITE RIVER Submitted to the Arkansas Soil and
More informationEvaluation of Pollutants in Wastewater Produced from Air Conditioning Cleaning Operations
2017 APWA NC Stormwater Management Division Conference Greenville, NC Evaluation of Pollutants in Wastewater Produced from Air Conditioning Cleaning Operations City of Durham Public Works Department -
More informationMorro Bay Watershed Creek Health For Water Year 2017
Morro Bay Watershed Creek Health For Water Year 201 Date Range: October 1, 201 to September 30, 201 Analytes: Dissolved oxygen, water temperature, nitrates as N, orthophosphates as P Background The Morro
More informationStatus Report. Work to Date on the Development of the VARQ Flood Control Operation at Libby Dam and Hungry Horse Dam. January 1999.
Status Report Work to Date on the Development of the VARQ Flood Control Operation at Libby Dam and Hungry Horse Dam January 1999 Section 3 29 JULY 1998 Prepared by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle
More informationLake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Monitoring Quarter 3 Report (DRAFT)
Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Monitoring 2016-2017 Quarter 3 Report (DRAFT) Prepared for: Lake Elsinore & San Jacinto Watershed Project Authority 11615 Sterling Avenue Riverside, California
More informationINVESTIGATION INTO THE NECESSITY OF DISSOLVED ORTHOPHOSPHATE-PHOSPHORUS FIELD FILTRATION
INVESTIGATION INTO THE NECESSITY OF DISSOLVED ORTHOPHOSPHATE-PHOSPHORUS FIELD FILTRATION Prepared for: Trinity River Authority of Texas 5300 South Collins P.O. Box 60 Arlington, TX 76004 Phone: 817-467-4343
More informationKeeyask Infrastructure Project
Keeyask Infrastructure Project Terrestrial and Aquatic Monitoring Plan Annual Report 2013-2014 December 2014 KEEYASK INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC MONITORING PLAN Water Quality: Annual
More informationLaurel Lake water quality, nutrients, and algae, summer
Laurel Lake water quality, nutrients, and algae, summer 2011 1 H.A. Waterfield, W.N. Harman and M.F. Albright SAMPLING ACTIVITIES Site visits to Laurel Lake were made on 16 June and 25 July 2011; water
More informationNarrative Water Quality Objective
Narrative Water Quality Objective Waste discharges shall not contribute to excessive algal growth in inland surface receiving waters. (Basin Plan, 1995, pg. 4-5) Excessive is not defined No numeric standard
More informationRainbow Creek TMDL Monitoring Program Report for October 2016 through September 2017
Rainbow Creek TMDL Monitoring Program Report for October 2016 through September 2017 Introduction The Rainbow Creek monitoring program has been developed to provide water quality data in support of the
More informationWALTON COUNTY COASTAL DUNE LAKES WATER CHEMISTRY SUMMARY 2016
WALTON COUNTY COASTAL DUNE LAKES WATER CHEMISTRY SUMMARY 2016 Prepared by Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance in partnership with Mattie Kelly Environmental Institute Contents Overview Northwest Florida Coastal
More informationBLACK STURGEON LAKES WATER QUALITY MONITORING
BLACK STURGEON LAKES WATER QUALITY MONITORING 2015 REPORT Prepared by: Ryan Haines, B.Sc. Biologist and Project Management Kenora Resource Consultants Inc. Site 155, Compartment 14, RR #1 Kenora, ON P9N
More informationJordan River TMDL Update
Jordan River TMDL Update 2010 Watershed Symposium August 4 th, 2010 Hilary N. Arens Utah Division of Water Quality Jordan River TMDL Outline What is a TMDL and what is the Jordan impaired for? Evaluation
More informationLake Whatcom Water Quality - Presentation to Bellingham City Council
Western Washington University Western CEDAR Lake Whatcom Other Reports Lake Whatcom 7-6-2015 Lake Whatcom Water Quality - Presentation to Bellingham City Council Robin A. Matthews Western Washington University,
More informationBacon Creek Watershed Plan Implementation Chapter 3: Learning More - Monitoring to Secure New Data Draft
Bacon Creek Watershed Plan Implementation Chapter 3: Learning More - Monitoring to Secure New Data Draft There are two main goals of watershed planning: protect good water quality and improve poor water
More informationDes Moines River Water Quality Network
Des Moines River Water Quality Network Monthly Report for December 2014 Donna S Lutz Assistant Scientist/Project Manager 394 Town Eng Bldg Iowa State University (515) 294-9720 dslutz@iastate.edu http://www.ccee.iastate.edu/dmrwqn
More informationRed River Gorge Restoration and Watershed Plan Chapter 3: Learning More - Monitoring to Secure New Data Draft
Red River Gorge Restoration and Watershed Plan Chapter 3: Learning More - Monitoring to Secure New Data Draft There are two main goals of watershed planning: protect good water quality and improve poor
More informationWhite Lake 2017 Water Quality Report
Introduction Watersheds Canada believes that every person has the right to access clean and healthy lakes and rivers in Canada. We work to keep these precious places naturally clean and healthy for people
More informationWatershed and Water Quality Modeling to Support TMDL Determinations Lake Oologah
Watershed and Water Quality Modeling to Support TMDL Determinations Lake Oologah 26 th Annual Conference Oklahoma Clean Lakes and Watersheds Association (OCLWA) April 5-6, 2017 Stillwater, Oklahoma Lake
More informationCalibration of the CE-QUAL-W2 Model For Lake Murray. Final Report. December 2006
Calibration of the CE-QUAL-W2 Model For Lake Murray Prepared for Prepared By Andy F. Sawyer and Richard J. Ruane, Reservoir Environmental Management, Inc Chattanooga, TN jimruane@comcast.net 423-265-5820
More information2.2 Middle Fork Nooksack River
2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158
More informationHydrology: Sources of Water and Nutrients
Hydrology: Sources of Water and Nutrients 37 Hydrology: Sources of Water and Nutrients Study results indicate that Silver Lake is colimited by both phosphorus and nitrogen, at the time when the bioassay
More informationGround- Water in the Clark Fork Basin
Well 19142: 6N 19W 7 BABC- Ravalli County Ground- Water in the Clark Fork Basin Tom Patton, John LaFave, and Larry Smith Montana Ground-Water Assessment September 27, 26 The Ground-Water Assessment Program
More informationCITY OF BONITA SPRINGS OCTOBER SEPTEMBER 2017 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT
CITY OF BONITA SPRINGS OCTOBER 2016 - SEPTEMBER 2017 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FEBRUARY 26, 2018 Prepared for: 9101 Bonita Beach Road Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Prepared by: 2122 Johnson
More informationSTORMWATER POLLUTANT ASSESSMENT AT THE CITY OF KISSIMMEE
STORMWATER POLLUTANT ASSESSMENT AT THE CITY OF KISSIMMEE Eric Gurr and Fidelia Nnadi Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL ABSTRACT Historically,
More informationWarm Mineral Springs Sampling by Sarasota County
Warm Mineral Springs Sampling by Sarasota County John Ryan, Kathryn Meaux, Rene Janneman and Jon S. Perry Sarasota County Environmental Services Sarasota, Florida September 11 Warm Mineral Springs is a
More informationTsulquate River Community Watershed Water Quality Objectives Attainment Report
Tsulquate River Community Watershed Water Quality Objectives Attainment Report Environmental Quality Section Environmental Protection Division West Coast Region 2013 Report Prepared by: Clayton Smith.
More information2016 HLWD WATER QUALITY RESULTS CATHERINE WEGEHAUPT WATERSHED TECHNICIAN JULY 2017 BOARD MEETING
2016 HLWD WATER QUALITY RESULTS CATHERINE WEGEHAUPT WATERSHED TECHNICIAN JULY 2017 BOARD MEETING JACK CREEK 1200 2016 JACK CREEK HYDROGRAPH 1.80 1000 1.60 1.40 MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE (CFS) 800 600 400
More informationPre-Construction, Construction, and Post- Construction Final Monitoring Report for Greenland Meadows: July November 2013
Pre-Construction, Construction, and Post- Construction Final Monitoring Report for Greenland Meadows: July 2007- November 2013 Water Quality Certification#2005-003, In Compliance with Condition E-10,d
More information2003 Water Quality Monitoring Report
23 Water Quality Monitoring Report Prepared for Clearwater River Watershed District January 24 23 Water Quality Monitoring Report File #2-58 Prepared for: CLEARWATER RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT Box 276 Annandale,
More informationAppendix 5. Fox River Study Group Interim Monitoring Evaluation
Appendix 5. Fox River Study Group Interim Monitoring Evaluation Introduction Submitted to Fox River Study Group 6 March 3 The purpose of this report is to review data collected by the Fox River Study Group
More information