Water Quality Summary for the Lamar River, Yellowstone River, and Madison River in Yellowstone National Park Preliminary Analysis of 2016 Data

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Water Quality Summary for the Lamar River, Yellowstone River, and Madison River in Yellowstone National Park Preliminary Analysis of 2016 Data

Natural Resource Report NPS/GRYN/NRR—2019/1873 ON THE COVER Sampling location on the Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT, April 2016 Photography by NPS Water Quality Summary for the Lamar River, Yellowstone River, and Madison River in Yellowstone National Park Preliminary Analysis of 2016 Data

Natural Resource Report NPS/GRYN/NRR—2019/1873

Mary Levandowski

Greater Yellowstone Inventory and Monitoring Network National Park Service 2327 University Way, Suite 2 Bozeman, MT 59715

Editing and Design by Tani Hubbard

National Park Service & Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative 12661 E. Broadway Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85748

February 2019

U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public.

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientif- ically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.

Data in this report were collected and analyzed using methods based on established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocols.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.

This report is available from the Greater Yellowstone Network website, and the Natural Resource Publications Management website. If you have difficulty accessing information in this publication, particularly if using assistive technology, please email [email protected].

Please cite this publication as:

Levandowski, M. 2019. Water quality summary for the Lamar River, Yellowstone River, and Madison River in Yellowstone National Park: Preliminary analysis of 2016 data. Natural Resource Report NPS/GRYN/ NRR—2019/1873. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 101/150612, February 2019

ii Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Contents Page

Figures . . . . . ��v Tables . . . . . �� vi Appendices . . . . . �� vii Executive Summary . . . . . �� viii River Discharge . . . . . �� viii Water Quality Monitoring . . . . . �� viii Acknowledgments . . . . . �� ix Introduction . . . . . �� 1 Overview of Yellowstone National Park Water Resources . . . . . �� 1 Potential Threats to Water Resources . . . . . �� 3 Focal Waters . . . . . �� 4 Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY . . . . . �� 5 Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT . . . . . �� 5 Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT . . . . . �� 5 Water Quality Standards That Apply to Yellowstone National Park . . . . . �� 5 Federal Water Quality Criteria . . . . . �� 5 Montana Water Quality Standards and Water Classification System . . . . . �� 6 Wyoming Water Quality Standards and Water Classification System . . . . . �� 7 Monitoring Objectives . . . . . �� 7 Methods . . . . . �� 8 River Sampling . . . . . �� 8 Results . . . . . �� 10 Climate . . . . . �� 10 Climate Station Summaries . . . . . �� 10 2016 Temperature and Precipitation . . . . . �� 10 Discharge . . . . . �� 12 2016 Discharge . . . . . �� 12 Long-term trends in Discharge . . . . . �� 16 Discharge from Regional Rivers . . . . . �� 17 Water Chemistry . . . . . �� 17 Nutrients and Suspended Solids . . . . . �� 17 Trace Metals . . . . . �� 18

National Park Service iii Contents (continued) Page

Discussion . . . . . �� 21 Literature Cited . . . . . �� 23

iv Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Figures Page

Figure 1. U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations associated with Greater Yellowstone Network’s Yellow- stone National Park water quality sampling...... �� 2 Figure 2. Calendar year 2016 monthly and year-end temperature (maximum and minimum) and precipitation departures from the 30-year average for the Tower Falls COOP station 489025 (elevation 1910 m), 4 km from Lamar River monitoring site...... �� 11 Figure 3. Calendar year 2016 monthly and year-end temperature (maximum and minimum) and precipitation departures from the 30-year average for the Yellowstone Park Mammoth COOP station 489905 (elevation 1899 m), 17 km from the Yellowstone River monitoring site...... �� 11 Figure 4. Calendar year 2016 monthly and year-end temperature (maximum and minimum) and precipitation departures from the 30-year average for the Old Faithful COOP station 486845 (elevation 2243 m), 35 km from Madison River monitoring site...... �� 12 Figure 5. Cumulative precipitation data (5A) and daily precipitation data (5B) from the West Yellow- stone, MT, SNOTEL station near the Madison River sampling location...... �� 13 Figure 6. Summary of average daily discharge (in cfs) in the Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY (6A; USGS 06188000), Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT (6B; USGS 06191500), and Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT (6C; USGS 06037500)...... �� 14 Figure 7. Summary of annual peak discharge (7A) and date of peak discharge (7B; day of year) at the Lamar River monitoring site near Tower Ranger Station, WY (USGS 06188000)...... �� 16 Figure 8. Proportion of monthly nutrient samples collected in 2016 from Lamar River (LMR), Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs (YRCS), and Madison River (MDR) monitoring stations that produced non-detectable levels for ammonia as N (NH3 as N), nitrate + nitrite as N (NO3+NO2 as N), and ortho-phosphorus (ortho-P)...... �� 17 Figure 9. Rating curves show the relationship between log-transformed discharge and total phosphorus (9A), sulfate (9B), total suspended solids (9C), total sodium (9D), and total calcium (9E) at the Lamar River (USGS 06188000) sampling location...... �� 19 Figure 10. Daily discharge (in cfs; solid red line) and concentrations of total arsenic in the Lamar (10A; USGS 06188000), Yellowstone (10B; USGS 06191500) and Madison (10C; USGS 06037500) rivers...... �� 20 Figure C-1. 2016 Reese Creek stream flow measurements. Upper Flume cfs (cubic feet per second) represents the stream flow of Reese Creek above all diversions...... �� 40

National Park Service v Tables Page

Table 1. Summary of discharge metrics for the Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY (USGS 06188000)...... �� 15 Table 2. Summary of discharge metrics for the Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT (USGS 06191500)...... �� 15 Table 3. Summary of discharge metrics for the Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT (USGS 06037500)...... 15 Table A-1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Montana DEQ, and Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Criteria...... 27 Table B-1. Monthly water quality lab results for Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY...... �� 33 Table B-2. Monthly core field parameters for Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY...... �� 34 Table B-3. Monthly water quality lab results for Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT...... �� 35 Table B-4. Monthly core field parameters for Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT...... �� 36 Table B-5. Monthly water quality lab results for Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT...... �� 37 Table B-6. Monthly core field parameters for Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT...... �� 38 Table D-1. Summary of discharge metrics for the Gardner River near Mammoth, Yellowstone National Park (USGS 06191000)...... �� 42 Table D-2. Summary of discharge metrics for the Fall River near Squirrel, ID (USGS 13046995)...... �� 42 Table D-3. Summary of discharge metrics for the Gallatin River near Gallatin Gateway, MT (USGS 06043500)...... 42 Table D-4. Summary of discharge metrics for the Clark Fork of Yellowstone River near Belfry, MT (USGS 06207500)...... �� 42

vi Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Appendices Page

Appendix A. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Montana DEQ, and Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Criteria . . . . . �� 27 Appendix B. 2016 Laboratory Results from Monthly Monitoring of Lamar River, Yellowstone River, and Madison River . . . . . �� 33 Appendix C. Reese Creek Monitoring Report . . . . . �� 39 Appendix D. Discharge Summaries of Regional Rivers . . . . . �� 42

National Park Service vii Executive Summary

The Greater Yellowstone Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Network is a National Park Service (NPS) program charged with monitoring ecological vital signs in three national park units in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. This report focuses on discharge and water quality monitoring efforts in the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison rivers in and surrounding Yellowstone National Park for calendar year 2016. Monitoring activities for Soda Butte Creek, a 303(d)-listed stream that is a tributary to the Lamar River, will be included in a separate report for calendar year 2016. Reese Creek, identified for impairment due to a fish-passage barrier, was monitored during 2016 and the monitoring report prepared by Yellowstone National Park is included as an appendix to this report.

Results presented here for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison rivers include annual and long-term discharge summaries and an evaluation of chemical and suspended sediment conditions relative to state and federal water quality standards. Sampling locations on the Lamar and Yellowstone rivers are co-located with U.S. Geologi- cal Survey (USGS) streamflow gages. The Madison River sampling location is located at the Montana Hwy 191 bridge crossing downstream of the USGS streamflow gage. Results in this report are considered provisional, and therefore, may be subject to change.

River Discharge Hydrographs for the Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, and Madi- son River near West Yellowstone exhibit a general pattern of high early summer flows and lower baseflows. The hydrographs for the Lamar and Yellowstone rivers are indicative of snowmelt-driven systems while the hydrograph for the Madison River suggests greater contributions from groundwater. In 2016, flows were below the historical mean at each station for a majority of calendar days. The total volume at all three stations was lower in 2016 than the historical mean. Peak flows at the Lamar River occurred earlier than the historical mean, while the Yellowstone River was consistent with the historical mean. The onset of baseflows in all three rivers occurred several days earlier than the long-term average and extended into fall and winter. While the onset of baseflow occurred earlier in 2016, all stations exhibited higher flows in October 2016 due to historically high levels of precipitation. Notably, the Madison River peak flow occurred in October with a comparable discharge to the early snowmelt-generated peak flow. The daily flows at all three rivers were generally below the th25 percentile of long-term flows from summer to fall.

Water Quality Monitoring Water quality at sampling locations exhibited seasonal variability over the sampling period. Across all sites, total arsenic, calcium, chloride, and sodium concentrations were generally at minimum levels during high flows. Total arsenic levels in the Madison River near West Yellowstone exceeded the state of Montana’s chronic life criteria during all sampling occasions. Arsenic in the Madison River is likely naturally occurring from geothermal geology in the watershed. Other water quality results also suggest the Madison River is receiving greater groundwater contributions relative to the other monitored waters.

viii Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge and thank the Yellowstone National Park and Greater Yellowstone Inven- tory & Monitoring Network staff for their logistical support and with reviews of prior versions of this report. Special thanks to Ann Rodman who has been extremely helpful and supportive of water monitoring in Yellow- stone National Park. I would also like to thank Sarah Haas for assistance with research permits, and Erin White, Megan Podolinsky, Kristin Legg, and Andy Ray for reviews of prior versions of this report. Additionally, Andy Ray provided extensive help in the preparation of this report.

This work was funded by the National Park Service Greater Yellowstone Inventory & Monitoring Network and Yellowstone National Park.

National Park Service ix Introduction

Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872 classified as a snow-based, fully humid climate with as America’s first national park. Spanning approxi- lower elevations characterized by warm summers mately 890,000 hectares (2.2 million acres) in the (Dfb) and higher elevations characterized by cool northwest corner of Wyoming and including parts summers (Dfc) according to Köppen- Geiger climate of Montana and Idaho (Figure 1), Yellowstone is the classification (Kottek et al. 2006). second largest national park in the lower 48 states. Over 170 million visitors have been recorded since The long history of scientific research in the Greater 1904 with over 4.2 million visitors in 2016 alone Yellowstone Ecosystem has revealed evidence of a (NPS 2017a). The iconic park captivates visitors from changing climate (Westerling et al. 2011). Recent around the world with rare natural resources that increases in minimum and maximum temperatures have remained relatively unchanged due, in part, to (Sepulveda et al. 2015) and declines in snowpack early protection. (Pederson et al. 2011) have been documented. Changing whitebark pine (Shanahan et al. 2016) Yellowstone National Park was established primarily and cutthroat trout populations (Koel et al. 2012), to protect geothermal features. Half of the world’s wetland drying (Schook and Cooper 2014) and the active geysers are contained within the park. There associated impacts to wetland dependent species are over 10,000 hydrothermal features and 300 (McMenamin et al. 2008; Ray et al. 2016a), and geysers. Much of the water in Yellowstone National changing river hydrographs (Leppi et al. 2012; Levan- Park and the Northern Rockies originates from dowski and Ray 2017; Al-Chokhachy et al. 2017) are mountain snowpacks. Melt from these snowpacks areas of active study characterizing responses to a contributes disproportionately to river flows over a changing climate. three to four month window (Gardner et al. 2010). These snowpacks in Yellowstone National Park Given the complexity of climate throughout Yellow- and neighboring Grand Teton National Park also stone National Park, we provide 2016 meteorologi- serve as headwaters to two major river systems (the cal and 30-year climate summaries from climate Yellowstone and Snake rivers). Combined, these stations located closest to river monitoring stations rivers support an abundance of fish and wildlife, on the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison rivers. For provide numerous recreational opportunities, and more detailed information on climate in Yellowstone offer a lifeline for downstream agricultural users and National Park and across the Greater Yellowstone municipalities. Ecosystem, see Millspaugh et al. (2000), Tercek et al. (2012), Romme and Turner (2015), and Sepulveda et The climate in Yellowstone National Park is complex, al. (2015). in part due to its mountainous topography, but also because it rests at the boundary of two major precipi- Overview of Yellowstone National tation regimes (Tercek et al. 2012). Historically, Park Water Resources northern parts of Yellowstone receive most of their Yellowstone National Park contains a diversity of precipitation during late spring and early summer surface water features: over 600 lakes and ponds, (April, May, and June). In contrast, southern parts approximately 4,000 km (2,500 mi) of streams and of the park and neighboring Grand Teton National rivers, and ephemeral wetland habitats that alone Park experience the greatest precipitation in winter make up roughly three percent of the landscape (NPS months (December, January, and February; Tercek 2017b). Major lakes include Yellowstone, Shoshone, et al. 2012). Precipitation is greatly influenced by the Lewis, and Heart lakes; smaller lakes are common moisture channel formed by the Snake River Plain to and documented in Pierce (1987). Water has been the west that was originally created by the passing of monitored in Yellowstone National Park for over a the North American Plate over the belt of volcanism century. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey or ‘hotspot’ that currently exists beneath modern has been collecting stream discharge measurements day Yellowstone National Park (Pierce and Morgan since 1889 on the Yellowstone River. The records for 1992). Orographic effects and elevational gradients the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison rivers began in are also at work. In general, Yellowstone’s climate is 1923, 1889, and 1913, respectively. These long-term

1 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Yellowstone River Sampling Site U+ Bear Creek Gardiner Cooke Reese Creek Montana City Wyoming Mammoth Slough Lamar River Sampling Site Gallatin Creek Soda River Elk U+ Butte Gardner CreekTower Creek River Junction Grayling Creek Obsidian Yellowstone Creek River

Canyon Norris Village Lamar Madison River Sampling Site River Madison Gibbon West U+ River Pelican Entrance Creek River Madison

Lake

Firehole River Old Faithful Middle Creek

Grant Idaho Village

Bechler River Lewis River Snake River Flagg Ranch Greater Yellowstone Network River Sampling Sites ´ U+ USGS Gage Stations 0 5 10 Miles Thermal Areas

Figure 1. U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations associated with Greater Yellowstone Network’s Yellowstone National Park water quality sampling. Note that the Madison River is the only sampling location not completed at the associated USGS gaging station.

National Park Service 2 records provide unique opportunities to examine In 2003, a report to the World Heritage Committee how hydrographs in the region may be responding to identified high visitation, outdated waste treatment documented changes in air temperatures and snow- plants, and single wall fuel tanks as threats to mitigate packs (sensu Luce and Holden 2009). (UNESCO 2003). Chemical spills may occur from traffic accidents along roads near streams, rivers, or The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem contains the lakes. Road construction, dewatering, atmospheric headwaters of seven important rivers flowing to the deposition, runoff from mining sites outside the park Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of California, and the Gulf boundary, and climate change are cited as additional of Mexico. These rivers, which include the Missouri water quality threats in the Yellowstone Resources and Columbia rivers, provide essential water to the Handbook (NPS 2017b). western and midwestern United States. The headwaters of the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison rivers Waters are also threatened by various symptoms are within the park boundaries or within neighboring of the changing climate including changes in the protected areas and are minimally affected by human hydrologic cycle resulting from less precipitation as activities. Under the Clean Water Act, the surface snow and earlier snowmelt (Barnett et al. 2005). The waters in Yellowstone National Park are classified as effects of these changes have been documented or Outstanding National Resource Waters. Addition- are predicted in water processes throughout the park ally, these waters, located wholly within national as the frequency of low-flow conditions increases park boundaries, are designated as Outstanding (Leppi et al. 2012; Al-Chokhachy et al. 2017). These Resource Waters (Administrative Rules of Montana low-flow conditions and elevated air temperatures 17.30.617) or Class 1 Outstanding Natural Resource also influence water temperatures. Water tempera- Waters (WYDEQ 2013) by the states of Montana and ture is expected to increase between 0.8°C and 1.8°C Wyoming, respectively. In Wyoming, this designa- (1.4–3.2°F) by 2069 (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2013). tion indicates that high quality waters are known to Combined changes in discharge patterns and water support fish or supply drinking water and no further temperature may influence how visitors experience water quality degradation by point source discharges the park. For example, the park may issue seasonal other than from dams will be allowed (WYDEQ fishing closures on rivers with low water levels and 2013). high water temperatures to protect fish populations (NPS 2018). Temperature increases may trig- The quality of water in Yellowstone National Park is ger additional ecological changes including shifting generally high, but the chemistry of these waters is biological communities and increased opportunities nearly as varied as the geologic terrain. Water quality for the establishment of invasive species (Woodward is based largely on the degree to which a water body et al. 2010). In 2016, a decision to close 294.5 km is influenced by geothermal sources and by seasonal (183 mi) of the Yellowstone River downstream of effects (i.e., snowmelt and runoff) that influence the park occurred as a result of a documented large discharge patterns (NPS 2013). Total arsenic levels mountain whitefish Prosopium( williamsoni) die-off. are high across Yellowstone National Park (Planer- This die-off and the subsequent closure may portend Friedrich et al. 2007) and regularly exceeded the the novel threats facing water resources as record low Montana chronic aquatic life criteria of 0.15 mg/L flows combine with increasing temperatures (Opitz at the Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT, in and Rhoten 2017). 2015 and 2016 (Levandowski and Ray 2017). These exceedances are likely natural in origin as the tribu- A number of aquatic invasive species have already taries of the Madison River are heavily influenced by been documented in waters within Yellowstone geothermal activity (NPS 1994). National Park. New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyr- gus antipodarum), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), Potential Threats to Water Resources and whirling disease (Myxobolus cerebralis) are pres- The waters in Yellowstone National Park are classi- ent in various areas. New Zealand mud snails, which fied as Outstanding National Resource Waters and can grow to overwhelming numbers (300,000 snails are considered relatively unaffected by anthropogenic per square meter), alter nutrient flows, and poten- sources. Still, there are several anthropogenic threats tially outcompete native species, have been studied to the water quality in Yellowstone National Park. on the Madison River (Hall et al. 2003). Lake trout are present in Yellowstone Lake and brook trout

3 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 (Salvelinus fontinalis) are present in some tributar- also available and provide an opportunity to describe ies and smaller lakes, potentially harming native annual and long-term patterns of streamflow, ice- cutthroat species that are a necessary food source cover, and timing of important hydrologic events for large vertebrates (Ruzycki et al. 2003; Koel et al. (e.g., timing of peak and baseflows; see Levandowski 2005). Native fish species are also affected by whirling and Ray 2017). disease, which has been documented in the Yellow- stone and Madison rivers (Koel et al. 2005; Krueger In Yellowstone National Park, selected sites include et al. 2006). the Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY; the Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT; the Focal Waters Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT; and Soda Butte Creek near Silvergate, MT. Soda Butte Creek Site selection and sampling design are described in work completed by the Greater Yellowstone Network the approved Greater Yellowstone Network Regu- and its partners in 2016 is not reported here, but latory Water Quality Monitoring Protocol (O’Ney results are available in Henderson et al. (2018). Reese 2006) and can be found at https://irma.nps.gov/ Creek is also monitored collaboratively with Yellow- DataStore/Reference/Profile/628938. stone National Park and reported separately (see Water quality monitoring sites included in the Appendix C). Although these sites do not reflect all Greater Yellowstone Network’s water resource of the waters in the Yellowstone National Park, they monitoring program are those that met the program do offer insight into some of the major river systems objectives, have spatial and temporal variability, or in and exiting the park. The Snake River, which has are stream reaches that are 303(d)-listed. Sites were headwaters in Yellowstone National Park, is also also selected to be near or co-located with existing monitored by the Greater Yellowstone Network and permanent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream results for the Snake River are reported in the annual gaging stations because discharge readings can be reports for Grand Teton National Park (Ray et al. used to develop rating curves that characterize the 2016b). relationships between streamflow and water quality. At most USGS stations, long-term flow records are

The Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY, June 2016.

National Park Service 4 The Yellowstone River near Corwin Springs, MT, May 2016.

Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY segments of the Yellowstone River are upstream of The Lamar River is a major tributary of the Yellow- the sampling location. stone River. Much of the Lamar River watershed is protected within the boundaries of Yellowstone Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT National Park. The Lamar River has no documented The monitoring site for the Madison River near West impairments; however, Soda Butte Creek is one of Yellowstone, MT has a hydrograph that is character- only three current or formerly 303(d)-listed waters istic of a groundwater influenced system (Gardner identified entering the park in 2016. Soda Butte et al. 2010). Therefore, surface water pH and arsenic Creek joins the Lamar River before connecting with levels in the Madison River may be affected by the the Yellowstone River. local geology and geothermal activity (Thompson 1979). Many of the park’s geyser basins drain into the Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT Firehole River which joins the Gibbon River to form The Yellowstone River is the longest (1,080 km [671 the Madison River. Monitoring of the Madison River mi]) undammed river in the lower 48 states. The in 2016 was completed 7 km (4.5 mi) downstream of river begins on Younts Peak, WY, flows northwest the USGS gage at the Montana Highway 191 bridge through Yellowstone Lake, and exits the park near crossing (Figure 1). Gardiner, MT. The monitoring site at Corwin Springs is located downstream from Gardiner, MT. A 14-km Water Quality Standards That Apply (8.68 mi) segment of the Yellowstone River within to Yellowstone National Park the park from the Wyoming border to the Yellow- Federal Water Quality Criteria stone National Park boundary and a 7.7-km (4.79 mi) segment from the park boundary to Reese Creek The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2012) were listed on Montana’s 303(d)-list in 2016 for aquatic life water quality standards were examined dewatering/habitat modification. The 14-km segment along with Montana water quality criteria (MTDEQ was listed for ammonia, copper, nitrate + nitrite as N 2017) and Wyoming water quality criteria (WYDEQ 2013) to assess whether the Lamar, Yellowstone, and (i.e., NO3 + NO2 as N), sediment, and arsenic levels that exceed drinking water standards. Both listed Madison rivers are meeting current water quality

5 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 The Madison River near near West Yellowstone, MT, June 2016. standards. Water resource monitoring in Yellowstone Wyoming border to the Yellowstone National Park National Park and just outside of the park bound- boundary (MTDEQ 2016). ary except for arsenic does not include constituents on EPA’s national priority pollutants list (https:// The Yellowstone River upstream of Corwin Springs, water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/pollutants.cfm). MT, was present on Montana’s 303(d)-list (see However, federal criteria for non-priority pollutants above). The following probable causes of impair- are based on EPA National Recommended Water ment for 2016 were listed by MTDEQ: 1) highway/ Quality Criteria guidance (http://water.epa.gov/ road/ bridge runoff (non-construction related) for scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index. sediment; 2) impacts from abandoned mine lands cfm). Federal and state water quality standards are (inactive) for arsenic and copper; 3) natural sources presented in Appendix A. for ammonia, arsenic, copper, nitrate + nitrite as N (NO3+NO2 as N), and sediment; 4) subsurface Montana Water Quality Standards and Water (hardrock) mining for arsenic and copper; 5) surface Classification System mining for arsenic and copper; 6) unknown sources for ammonia, un-ionized arsenic, copper, lead, and Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality nitrate + nitrite as N (NO +NO as N; EPA 2016). (MTDEQ) water quality standards are described 3 2 in the Montana numeric water quality standards, While not discussed in detail here, Soda Butte Creek Circular DEQ-7 (MTDEQ 2017) and Montana was listed for copper, iron, lead, and manganese. base numeric nutrient standards, Circular DEQ-12 Soda Butte Creek is under review for delisting in (MTDEQ 2014). Water bodies within Yellowstone 2018. Reese Creek was historically listed for dewa- National Park are classified as Outstanding Resource tering/habitat modification. An 8.4-km (5.2 mi) Waters (ORW) by Montana. Three stream segments segment of Reese Creek from the Wyoming border on the northern border of Yellowstone National to the Yellowstone River was previously identified Park were formerly 303(d)-listed by MTDEQ: upper on Montana’s 2000 and 2002 303(d)-lists (MTDEQ Soda Butte Creek near Cooke City, MT; Reese Creek 2000, 2002). The 303(d)-list includes waters within from the park boundary to Yellowstone River near Water Quality Assessment Category 5. Waters in Gardiner, MT; and Yellowstone River from the Category 5 are those where the impairment of

National Park Service 6 beneficial uses has been identified and a total maxi- Wyoming Water Quality Standards and Water mum daily load (TMDL) is required to address those Classification System identified impairments or contributing factors. Since Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality that time, Reese Creek has been moved to Water (WYDEQ) water quality standards are described in Quality Assessment Category 4C (MTDEQ 2016); Chapter 1 of Water Quality Rules and Regulations Category 4C indicates that the identified threat or (WYDEQ 2013) and the agency’s plan for develop- impairment (fish–passage barrier) is a result of habi- ing and implementing nutrient criteria is outlined tat modification or hydrologic alteration—impair- in the Wyoming Nutrient Criteria Development ments due to pollution not caused by a pollutant. Plan (WYDEQ 2018). The Wyoming surface-water With its 4C designation, a TMDL is not required to standards are based on the Wyoming Surface Water address the impairments in Reese Creek. Classification List (WYDEQ 2013) and closely follow federal standards. Rivers and streams within Yellow- Guidance by the EPA on Water Quality Assessment stone National Park have been classified as Outstand- Category 4C (EPA 2015) waters indicates that there ing or Class 1 waters, those surface waters known to is a growing need nationally to identify, understand, support fish or supply drinking water (or where those and restore waters where impairments are not caused uses are believed to be attainable) in which no further by a pollutant (4C waters). EPA’s justification for this water quality degradation by point source discharges recent shift in focus acknowledges that hydrologic other than from dams will be allowed (WYDEQ alteration and habitat modification are significant 2013). threats to waters of the U.S. and that these altera- tions could interact with changing climatic conditions (e.g., increasing air temperatures) to further Monitoring Objectives impair Reese Creek and other 4C waters. For this and The Greater Yellowstone Network’s specific objec- other reasons, Yellowstone National Park scientists tives for the purposes of this annual reporting are to are working closely with private landowners, public summarize annual and long-term discharge patterns land managers, partners, and water right holders in and characterize water quality conditions of the the Reese Creek watershed to document annual and Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison rivers based on seasonal flow patterns and discuss options to mini- 2016 monitoring efforts. mize the effects of hydrologic alteration particularly during periods of low flow when these effects exacer- bate conditions (i.e., warm water temperatures) that are already stressful to aquatic life (Appendix C).

7 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Methods

River Sampling sample bottles, as well as the churn splitter, were Greater Yellowstone Network personnel collected triple-rinsed. depth-integrated water samples monthly (Appendix Replicate and blank samples were submitted along B) between April and November 2016 from three with ambient samples for field quality control. Repli- river monitoring sites: Lamar River near Tower cates can be “sequential replicates” (samples taken Ranger Station, WY; Yellowstone River at Corwin one immediately after the other, separated only by Springs, MT; and Madison River near West Yellow- the actual time required to fill the sample container) stone, MT. or “replicate splits” (subsamples drawn from the Under wadeable conditions, network personnel same initial volume of matrix [i.e., taken from the used a DH-81 hand-held sampler (Federal Inter- same churn splitter]). Field blanks are samples of agency Sedimentation Project, Vicksburg, Missis- blank matrix, certified inorganic free deionized water sippi) affixed to a 1-m wading rod. A 3-L (CIFDW) provided by the laboratory, and prepared polypropylene bottle was used with the DH-81 sampler to collect river water. Water was collected at multiple locations along the cross-section using vertically integrated sampling techniques. When full, the 3-L bottle was emptied into an 8-L polyethylene churn splitter.

During non-wadeable flows at the Yellowstone and Madison rivers, samples were collected from a bridge using a bridge-board, reel, and DH-95 suspension sampler. A 1-L polypropylene bottle was used with the DH-95 sampler to collect river water. The vertical transit rate for the line suspension sampler was adjusted based on flows present to avoid overfilling the sampler when represent- ing the entire stream depth. When full, the 1-L bottle was emptied into a polyethylene churn splitter.

Once full, the churn splitter was used to homogenize water collected from each cross-section. All laboratory-provided bottles used for shipping and laboratory analysis were filled from the churn. All water samples collected from the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison rivers were shipped overnight to Energy Laborato- ries in Casper, WY and/or Billings, MT.

After sampling, all equipment was rinsed A churn splitter (shown above) is used to homogenize and then dis- with distilled water to prevent contamina- pense a representative subsample into laboratory-provided bottles. Shown above are field personnel dispensing water collected at the tion between samples. In brief, the 3-L (used Lamar River sampling location into the sample bottles. with DH-81) and 1-L (used with DH-95)

National Park Service 8 in the field under identical conditions, processed the near West Yellowstone, MT). Note that water same, and included for analysis as a regular sample. sampling for the Madison River near West Yellow- Field blanks are a quality control check to iden- stone, MT, was completed 7 km (4.3 mi) downstream tify potential problems with water handling, bottle of the USGS gage to accommodate year-round contamination, or other errors in the field. access. We used USGS records of daily discharge to summarize calendar year 2016 and long-term In addition to water samples, core water quality discharge metrics (e.g., date of peak discharge and parameters (i.e., temperature, specific conductance, total volume) at each monitoring station. dissolved oxygen [DO], pH, and turbidity) were collected in situ using a handheld multi-parameter For comparative purposes, we also summarized instrument at a representative location on the river calendar year 2016 and long-term discharge patterns cross section. Collection of water sample core for four additional rivers in the region (USGS parameters and rationale for testing nutrients and 06191000 Gardner River near Mammoth, Yellow- suspended solids is described in the approved stone National Park; USGS 13046995 Fall River at Greater Yellowstone Network Regulatory Water Yellowstone Canal near Squirrel, ID; USGS 06043500 Quality Monitoring Protocol (O’Ney 2006). Gallatin River near Gallatin Gateway, MT; and USGS 06207500 Clarks Fork of Yellowstone River near All field and laboratory data are entered into Belfry, MT). These rivers were not selected randomly, NPSTORET, a database application developed and rather they were selected for the following reasons: 1) supported by the NPS Water Resource Division the presence of a USGS gage and associated long- (WRD). After a final review by technical staff, the term discharge record; 2) their recognized regional data are made available to WRD for approval. Upon importance to fish and wildlife, instream recreation, approval from the WRD, these data are imported to and downstream water users; and 3) their distinct the EPA National STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) physiographic settings. These rivers originate and Data Warehouse. Data from 2016 are anticipated then leave the park at distinct locations. For example, to be available in EPA National STORET by early the Gardner River flows north, exiting the park’s 2019. Data management is described in the approved north boundary before joining the Yellowstone River Greater Yellowstone Regulatory Water Quality Moni- near Gardiner, MT. In contrast, Fall River originates toring Protocol (O’Ney 2006). in the Bechler Region in Yellowstone’s southwest Discharge estimates for river sites were taken from corner and the Clarks Fork of Yellowstone River USGS maintained stations for the Lamar River flows east from its headwaters in the Beartooth (USGS 06188000 near Tower Ranger Station, WY), Mountains just outside Yellowstone’s northeast Yellowstone River (USGS 06191500 at Corwin entrance. Springs, MT), and Madison River (USGS 06037500

9 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Results

Climate temperature was 26.6°C (80°F) with an average July We present air temperature, precipitation, river minimum temperature of 8.4°C (47.2°F). The maxi- discharge, and water chemistry data from three mum temperature recorded at the Mammoth COOP monitoring sites in or near boundaries of Yellow- station was 37.2°C (99°F) in July 2002. The minimum stone National Park. We summarize information temperature was -37.2°C (-36°F) and occurred in the by site for the Lamar River, Yellowstone River, and month of January in 1951 and 1963, respectively. Madison River. Note that values are approximations The West Yellowstone SNOTEL station (elevation and slight differences between rounded and actual 2042 m [6,700 ft]) located in West Yellowstone, MT, quantities are anticipated in this report. 2.6 km (1.6 mi) from the Madison River monitoring station, received a total of 66.5 cm (26 in) of Climate Station Summaries precipitation in 2016. More than half of the annual The Tower Falls COOP weather station (eleva- precipitation (38.9 cm [15.3 in]) was delivered from tion 1910 m [6,266 ft]), located near Tower Ranger September to December. The greatest amount of Station, WY, is 4.0 km (2.5 mi) from the Lamar River annual precipitation was at West Yellowstone, MT, monitoring station and received a total of 39.9 cm where 25.2% (16.8 cm) occurred in October and the (15.7 in) of precipitation in 2016. Approximately half least amount, 0.8% (0.5 cm), occurred in August. The of the annual precipitation (20 cm [7.9 in]) was deliv- long-term average (1999 to 2015) January maximum ered from August to November with a large propor- temperature is -0.2°C (32°F) with an average January tion (40% of annual total) of the precipitation deliv- minimum temperature of –13.5°C (8°F). The long- ered in September and October alone. The greatest term average (1999 to 2015) July maximum tempera- amount of annual precipitation at Tower Falls, 26.3% ture is 25.1°C (77°F) with an average July minimum (10.5 cm), occurred in October and the least amount, temperature of 2.9°C (37°F). The maximum tempera- 2.7% (1.1 cm), in February. The long-term average ture recorded at the West Yellowstone SNOTEL (1949 to 2015) January maximum temperature was station was 35°C (95°F) in July 2002, August 2003, -2.8°C (27°F) with an average January minimum and October 2003. The minimum temperature at this temperature of -17.3°C (0.8°F). The average long- station was -44.4C (-48°F) and occurred in February term (1949 to 2015) July maximum temperature was 2014. 26.4°C (79°F) with an average July minimum temperature of 3.5°C (38°F). The maximum temperature 2016 Temperature and Precipitation recorded at the Tower Falls COOP station was 36.7°C Annual average temperatures in 2016 were above the (98°F) in July 2002. The minimum temperature of 30-year averages (1981 to 2010) at all three monitor- -45°C (-49°F) occurred in December 1964. ing locations. At the Lamar River (summarized using The Mammoth COOP weather station (elevation the Tower Falls COOP station; Figure 2), the average 1899 m [6,230 ft]) located in Mammoth, WY, 17 annual minimum temperature was 2°C [4°F] above km (10.5 mi) from the water monitoring station in the 30-year average, and the average annual maxi- Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT, received mum temperature was 0.5°C (1°F) above the long- 37.2 cm (14.7 in) of total precipitation in 2016. Nearly term average. At the Yellowstone River (summarized half of the annual precipitation in 2016 (17.9 cm [7.0 using the Mammoth COOP station; Figure 3), the in]) was delivered in three months from October average annual maximum and minimum tempera- to December. The greatest contribution to annual tures were approximately 2°C [4°F] above the 30-year precipitation in 2016 at Mammoth, 63.5% (11.4 cm), average. At the Madison River (summarized using occurred in October and the least amount, 4.3% (0.8 the Old Faithful COOP station; Figure 4), the average cm), in January. The long-term average (1894 to 1903 annual maximum temperature was 1°C [1.6°F] above and 1942 to 2015) January maximum temperature the 30-year average. The average annual minimum was -1.5°C (29°F) with an average January minimum temperatures at the Madison River were also above temperature of -11.9°C (10.6°F). The long-term aver- the 30-year average (1.2°C [2.2°F] above). At all three age (1894 to 1903 and 1942 to 2015) July maximum monitoring locations, December 2016 is one of the colder Decembers in the historical record.

National Park Service 10 Figure 2. Calendar year 2016 monthly and year-end temperature (maximum and minimum) and precipitation departures from the 30-year average for the Tower Falls COOP station 489025 (elevation 1910 m), 4 km from Lamar River monitoring site. Figure was constructed using www.climateanalyzer.org.

Figure 3. Calendar year 2016 monthly and year-end temperature (maximum and minimum) and precipitation departures from the 30-year average for the Yellowstone Park Mammoth COOP station 489905 (elevation 1899 m), 17 km from the Yellowstone River monitoring site. Figure was constructed using www.climateanalyzer.org.

11 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Figure 4. Calendar year 2016 monthly and year-end temperature (maximum and minimum) and precipitation departures from the 30-year average for the Old Faithful COOP station 486845 (elevation 2243 m), 35 km from Madison River monitoring site. Figure was constructed using www.climateanalyzer.org.

Total annual precipitation in 2016 was similar to the as rain instead of snow. Hydrograph responses indi- 30-year average at stations near all three monitoring cate significant runoff in both October and Novem- locations. A disproportionate amount of precipita- ber 2016. Hydrographs at all three sampling locations tion fell in October relative to the long-term record also show earlier runoff in the winter of 2016. It is at all weather stations. At the Tower Falls COOP likely that warmer winter temperatures (e.g., Febru- Station, over 280% of the 30-year average was deliv- ary 2016 minimum temperatures at Tower Ranger ered in October (Figure 2). At the Mammoth and Old Station were over 4°C [> 7°F] higher than the 30-year Faithful COOP stations, October precipitation was average) contributed to this pattern. 350% (Figure 3) and 500% (Figure 4) of the 30-year average. October precipitation in West Yellowstone Discharge was delivered through several large rain events that yielded an equivalent amount of precipitation as 2016 Discharge the combined December and January snowfall total Hydrographs for monitored rivers within Yellow- (Figure 5). Above-average precipitation was also stone National Park in 2016 exhibited a general recorded at Tower Falls in September (Figure 2) and pattern of an early runoff period relative to historical the Mammoth COOP station in December (Figure flows followed by a more prominent early summer 3). Above-average precipitation was recorded at peak (Figure 6). In addition, the onset of baseflows the Old Faithful COOP station in September and occurred several days earlier than the long-term December, as well (Figure 4). average and extended into fall and winter (Figure 6). While the onset of baseflows occurred earlier, The high relative temperatures in October and all stations exhibited higher flows in October 2016 November at the Lamar River (Figure 2), in June and due to historically high levels of precipitation. At the November at the Yellowstone River (Figure 3), and Madison River, these levels of precipitation contrib- June, October, and November at the Madison River uted to the highest flows of the year (Figure 6). are notable and likely led to more precipitation falling

National Park Service 12 Figure 5. Cumulative precipitation data (5A) and daily precipitation data (5B) from the West Yellowstone, MT, SNOTEL station near the Madison River sampling location. Both graphs display discharge at Madison River in 2016 from the USGS Madison River near West Yellowstone stream gage (USGS 06037500).

13 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Figure 6. Summary of average daily discharge (in cfs) in the Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY (6A; USGS 06188000), Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT (6B; USGS 06191500), and Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT (6C; USGS 06037500). River flows are presented by day of year where day 1 refers to January 1st of each calendar year. The periods of record for these gages are 1923 to 1986 and 1989 to 2016 at the Lamar River, 1890 to 1892 and 1911 to 2016 at the Yellowstone River, and 1913 to 1973 and 1989 to 2016 at the Madison River. Mean daily discharge for the period of record is shown in black and the 25th and 75th percentiles of daily discharge are shown in dark and light grey. A summary of 2016 (blue) is also presented.

National Park Service 14 The peak discharge at the Lamar River in 2016 was site averaged 1,337 cfs and typically occurred on 4,580 cubic feet per second (cfs) and occurred on May 25th (145th day of the year; Table 3). In 2016, May 10th (130th day of the year; Table 1). This peak peak discharge was 715 cfs (Table 3) and occurred flow (4,580 cfs) is 3,570 cfs lower than the long-term on October 31st following a 2.5 cm (1 in) rain event average (from 1923 to 1968 and 1989 to 2015; aver- on October 30th and a 7-day precipitation total of age peak discharge was 8,150 cfs; Table 1) and ranked 2016 as the 5th lowest peak discharge out of 75 years Table 1. Summary of discharge metrics for the Lamar River of available records (note that years 1969 to 1984 are near Tower Ranger Station, WY (USGS 06188000). Addi- missing from record with partial data sets from 1985 tional sites were compared, see Appendix D. to 1988). The long-term average peak flow at the Lamar River typically occurred on June 3rd (154th day Mean for Period of Record (1923 of the year; Table 1) almost a month (24 days) after Discharge to 1968 and 1989 the peak flow in 2016. Daily flows were below the Metric to 2015) 2016 th 25 percentile of flows for this station for an esti- Day of year of 154 (June 3) 130 (May 9) mated 112 days of the year. The hydrograph in 2016 peak discharge shows river flows increasing in late February and (calendar date) early March. These late winter increases in flow coin- Total volume (in 27.4 22.1 billions ft3) cided with above-average air temperatures in Febru- ary and March (Figure 2) that likely contributed to Peak discharge 8,150 4,580 (cfs) earlier melting and the subsequent onset of runoff compared with the historical average. Total volume of flow was 5.3 billion cubic feet less in 2016 compared Table 2. Summary of discharge metrics for the Yellowstone with the long-term average. River at Corwin Springs, MT (USGS 06191500). Additional sites were compared, see Appendix D. Similar to the Lamar River, flows in the Yellowstone River are characteristic of a snow-driven system Mean for Period (Figure 6). In the Yellowstone River at Corwin of Record (1890 Discharge to 1892 and 1911 Springs, MT, peak flows historically occurred at Metric to 2015) 2016 the beginning of June, coinciding with snowmelt Day of year of 160 (June 9) 160 (June 8) at higher elevations; high seasonal flows typically peak discharge persist from April through June. Peak flows occurred (calendar date) on the same day in 2016 as the historical peak flows; Total volume (in 98.4 75.8 however, runoff flows in the Yellowstone River began billions ft3) earlier and were, on average, lower in 2016 than the Peak discharge 16,996 10,200 long-term average (1890 to 1892 and 1911 to 2015). (cfs) Daily flows were below the 25th percentile of flows for this station for an estimated 143 days of the year. These flows at the Yellowstone River monitoring site Table 3. Summary of discharge metrics for the Madison ranked the 7th lowest out of 109 annual records (note River near West Yellowstone, MT (USGS 06037500). Addi- tional sites were compared, see Appendix D. that years 1894 to 1909 are missing from record with partial data sets in 1893 and 1910; Table 2). The peak Mean for Period flow in 2016 was 10,200 cfs and occurred on June th8 of Record (1913 th Discharge to 1973 and 1989 (160 day of the year), and was 6,796 cfs lower than Metric to 2015) 2016 the long-term average of 16,996 cfs (Table 2). The Day of year of 145 (May 25) 141 (May 20) total volume of flow in the Yellowstone River was peak discharge 305 (October 31)a 75.8 billion cubic feet in 2016, 22.6 billion cubic feet (calendar date) lower than the long-term average (Table 2). Total volume (in 15.0 12.3 billions ft3) The hydrograph for the Madison River monitoring Peak discharge 1,337 701 (May) site is characteristic of a ground-water fed system (cfs) 715 (October) (Figure 6). The long-term (1913 to 1973 and 1989 to a Rain-induced peak flow event following 7.6 cm (3.0 in) of rain in 2015) peak flows at the Madison River monitoring the seven days prior to this measurement.

15 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 7.6 cm (3.0 in; Figure 5B). The snowmelt generated 2016 (12.3 billion cubic feet) was 2.7 billion cubic feet peak or summer peak flow was 701 cfs and occurred below the long-term average of 15.0 billion cubic feet on May 20th (141th day of the year; Table 3), 4 days (Table 3). earlier than the long-term average. In 2016, peak discharge ranked the 2nd lowest out of the 89 years Long-term trends in Discharge of available annual records (note that years 1975 to There is considerable variation among years at all 1987 are missing from record with partial data sets sites. On average, peak flows in the Lamar River are in 1974 and 1988). Daily flows in the Madison River increasing 280 cfs per decade and the timing of peak near West Yellowstone, MT, in 2016 were below the flows is occurring about one day earlier per decade th 25 percentile of long-term daily flows on 185 days. (Figure 7). In the Yellowstone River, peak flows are, The total volume of flow in the Madison River in on average, decreasing 148 cfs per decade, with peak

Figure 7. Summary of annual peak discharge (7A) and date of peak discharge (7B; day of year) at the Lamar River monitoring site near Tower Ranger Station, WY (USGS 06188000). At this location, the magnitude of peak flow has increased from 1924 to 2016 (7A; 1923 to 1968 and 1989 to 2015 [other years are missing data]) and the date of peak flow is occurring one day sooner every decade (7B).

National Park Service 16 flows occurring four days earlier per decade. In the Water Chemistry Madison River, peak flows are, on average, increasing 200 cfs per decade, with peak flows occurring 1.75 Nutrients and Suspended Solids days earlier per decade. In 2016, water chemistry at the Lamar River, Yellow- stone River, and Madison River monitoring locations Discharge from Regional Rivers were indicative of high water quality with low levels Patterns of lower annual flow volumes were also of dissolved nutrients. Nitrogen and phosphorus apparent at four additional rivers in the region were low at all monitoring sites and non-detectable (USGS 06191000 Gardner River near Mammoth, results predominated for ammonia as N (NH3 as N), Yellowstone National Park; USGS 13046995 Fall nitrate + nitrite as N (NO3+NO2 as N), and ortho- River at Yellowstone Canal near Squirrel, ID; USGS phosphorus (ortho-P; Figure 8). Energy Laboratories 06043500 Gallatin River near Gallatin Gateway, MT; (one lab in Casper, WY and one lab in Billings, MT) and USGS 06207500 Clark Fork of Yellowstone River completed the analyses in 2016. One laboratory split near Belfry, MT). Earlier peak flows were observed at was completed on October 17, 2016 to compare two of these additional stations. See Appendix D for results from the two laboratories. 2016 and long-term discharge summaries from these four gages.

Figure 8. Proportion of monthly nutrient samples collected in 2016 from Lamar River (LMR), Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs (YRCS), and Madison River (MDR) monitoring stations that produced nondetectable levels for ammonia as N (NH as N), nitrate + nitrite as N 3 (NO3+NO2 as N), and ortho-phosphorus (ortho-P). A complete summary of water quality results and reporting limits are provided in Appendix B.

17 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 In 2016, water chemistry in the Lamar River ortho-P levels were quantified at the ENERGY Bill- contained relatively low levels of dissolved nutrients: ings lab as 0.026 mg/L; this value is consistent with NH3 as N, NO3+NO2 as N, and ortho-P levels were concentrations in 2014 and 2015. Between April and below detection levels on all sampling occasions. November 2016, TSS levels in the Madison River Total phosphorus (total P) and total suspended solids ranged from 2 to 11 mg/L. The highest levels of TSS (TSS) varied through the sampling season (see Table occurred during the April 21st sampling event. B-1, Appendix B). Total P ranged from 0.01 to 0.15 mg/L and TSS ranged from 2 mg/L to 72 mg/L; both Trace Metals constituents had maximum levels recorded in June Trace metals (i.e., arsenic, zinc, mercury, lead) have coinciding with high flows (Figures 9A and 9E). been detected in the waters of Yellowstone National Park and are often naturally present at measurable Water chemistry in the Yellowstone River contained concentrations (Elliott and Hektner 2000). Most low levels of dissolved nutrients. On all sampling measured metals occur below state standards for occasions, NH as N was below detection levels, 3 aquatic life. Total arsenic levels in the Lamar and except on April 14, 2016 when a concentration of Yellowstone rivers did not exceed the Montana 0.07 mg/L was detected. Except in April, Septem- or Wyoming acute or chronic aquatic life criteria. ber, October, and November when NO +NO as 3 2 Surface water from the Madison River near West N levels were between 0.1 and 0.2 mg/L, NO +NO 3 2 Yellowstone, MT, exceeded the State of Montana’s as N levels were below detection. Ortho-P was chronic aquatic life criteria (0.15 mg/L; Figure 10; only sampled from July to November in 2016 and Appendix A) for total arsenic during all sampling produced results below detection on all occasions. events. Surface water and groundwater contributing Total P and TSS did not exhibit a strong relationship to the Madison River inside the park boundary are with discharge; however, both tended to be higher influenced by geothermal features. Accordingly, arse- with higher flows. During the June th9 sampling, TSS nic in the Madison River is likely naturally occurring concentrations were highest during the June and total from the geothermal geology in the watershed. P concentrations were at annual maxima on April th th 14 and June 9 (see Table B-2, Appendix B). A rating curve of total arsenic at Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT, reveals an inverse relationship The Madison River also contained low levels of with arsenic and discharge (Figure 10D). Similarly, dissolved nutrients. On all sampling occasions, NH 3 sulfate, sodium, and calcium levels generally declined as N was below detection levels, as were NO +NO 3 2 as discharge increased while total phosphorus (total as N (<0.1 mg/L) and ortho-P levels (<0.05 mg/L). P) and total suspended solids (TSS) increased with During a laboratory split collected on October 17, increased discharge (Figure 9). 2016 and following more than 5 cm (2 in) of rain,

National Park Service 18 Figure 9. Rating curves show the relationship between log-transformed discharge and total phosphorus (9A), sulfate (9B), total suspended solids (9C), total sodium (9D), and total calcium (9E) at the Lamar River (USGS 06188000) sampling location.

19 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 L Figure 10. Daily discharge (in cfs; solid red line) and concentrations of total arsenic in the Lamar (10A; USGS 06188000), Yellowstone (10B; USGS 06191500) and Madison (10C; USGS 06037500) rivers. Also shown are concentrations of total arsenic (yellow circles) where detectable (no arsenic was detected in the Lamar River, 10A), summarized from water collected during monthly sampling events. The State of Montana’s chronic aquatic life criterion (same criterion for Wyoming; 0.15 mg/L) is represented by the solid black line in 10C. The rating curve of total arsenic for the Madison River (10D) shows an inverse relationship between arsenic and discharge.

National Park Service 20 Discussion

Water resources are critical to the health and productivity of semi-arid landscapes like those found within Yellowstone National Park. In addition, water resources are important to visitor recreational experiences and their perceptual evaluations of natural features (sensu Burmil et al. 1999) within national parks. Consistent with the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, maintenance of high quality waters and continued conservation of native freshwater assemblages for the ‘enjoyment of future generations’1 are important management objectives for the National Park Service, including Yellowstone National Park. During the 2016 calendar year, ongoing monitoring activities assisted in further characterizing water quality and discharge patterns in the Lamar, Yellow- stone, and Madison rivers. These summaries will contribute to the improved understanding of the variability and assist with trend monitor- Staff plate on the Lamar River on May 26, 2016. ing of important water resources in Yellowstone National Park. Importantly, this work also helps determine whether these aquatic resources are in late February indicating peak flows were 50 times meeting state and federal water quality criteria. higher than baseflows. In the Yellowstone River, peak flows were 17 times higher than baseflows in 2016; Discharge patterns in Yellowstone National Park’s flows ranged from 10,200 cfs in late October to 858 rivers vary among calendar years depending on cfs in early January. seasonal (e.g. October 2016; Figure 6) and annual precipitation and snowpack levels and seasonal and Warming conditions in snow-dominated regions are annual temperatures. Flow volumes and hydrograph predicted to alter river discharge patterns and, in patterns also vary considerably among monitored particular, produce earlier peak flows (Al-Chokhachy rivers. The Lamar and Yellowstone rivers show char- et al. 2017; Palmer et al. 2009; Barnett et al. 2005). In acteristic snowmelt driven hydrographs with much some of Yellowstone National Park’s rivers, shifts in higher peak flows than base flow. For example, the the timing and magnitude of peak flows have already Lamar River peak flows can be two orders of magni- been detected (Figure 7). The Lamar River has shown tude (100 times) higher than baseflows. In contrast, a shift over the period of record with the magnitude the hydrograph of the Madison River (and its tribu- of peak flows increasing and the date of peak flow taries) exhibits characteristics of a river influenced to occurring earlier. Compared with other rivers in a much greater extent by groundwater contributions the region (Gallatin River, Fall River, Gardner River, (Gardner et al. 2010). For example, peak flows in and Clark Fork River), it is apparent that long-term the Madison River are only 2 to 4 times higher than hydrologic shifts are occurring across monitoring baseflows. In 2016, peak flows in the Madison River locations. For the other rivers, we documented a were 2.5 times baseflow levels. In contrast, the Lamar general decrease in the total volume but timing of River ranged between 4,580 cfs in early May to 90 cfs peak flows varied between sites. This work indicates

1 NPS Organic Act of 1916 states ‘....to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’

21 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 that long-term hydrologic shifts are happening across In 2016, the WYDEQ and MTDEQ have no stan- monitoring locations; however, the magnitude and, dard for primary nutrients in our focal systems (see for some metrics (e.g., peak flows), the directions of WYDEQ 2013 and MTDEQ 2014). The Yellowstone changes are site specific. River at Corwin Springs, MT, is generally below the numeric nutrient criterion for lower portions of the Not unexpectedly, water quality in Yellowstone Yellowstone River downstream of the monitoring National Park’s rivers reflects that of high quality site (0.655 mg/L total nitrogen [total N] and 0.055 river conditions. There are also unique chemical mg/L total P; MTDEQ 2014). High quality condi- signatures associated with geothermally influenced tions described here are not unexpected given that rivers. For example, arsenic levels are high in the watersheds for the three sampling sites are largely Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT. These undeveloped. The high levels documented for arsenic high levels exceeded the State of Montana’s chronic and other trace metals are believed to be naturally aquatic life criterion (0.15 mg/L) on all sampling occurring (NPS 1994). occasions. This high level of arsenic is consistent with other studies in the Madison River (Thompson 1979) Water quality monitoring of select water resources and these elevated levels have been attributed to high of Yellowstone National Park during calendar year concentrations of arsenic from geothermal sources 2016 suggests that monitored resources are meet- (e.g., geothermal springs; Webster and Nordstrom ing state and federal water quality criteria for most 2003) like those found in the Firehole and Gibbon constituents. Based on results presented from the drainages of Yellowstone National Park (Thompson 2016 monitoring and summarized with this report, 1979). Other elements characteristic of geothermal we recommend the following: influence include mercury, fluoride, and selenium (Webster and Nordstrom 2003). Arsenic levels in • Continued monitoring of major cations and the Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT, were anions, growth limiting nutrients, trace metals, higher than reporting limits, although still below the and total suspended solids in the Lamar, Yellow- Montana chronic aquatic life criterion. Arsenic was stone, and Madison rivers. below reporting limits at the Lamar River. • Continued exploration of discharge summaries Dissolved nitrogen concentrations were low in all to characterize long-term discharge trends in the waters surveyed. Phosphorus was variable in the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison rivers, as well Lamar and Yellowstone rivers with maximum levels as, other gaged rivers in the region. occurring during high flows. In the Madison River, • Explore partnerships with other agencies and total phosphorus levels were relatively consistent nongovernmental organizations to expand moni- across monitoring occasions. The Greater Yellow- toring of long-term trends. stone Network is working with an analytical lab (Energy Laboratory in Billings, MT) to address • Use of large river sampling equipment for possible issues with phosphorus results at Madison sampling the Yellowstone and Madison rivers River due to potential interference from arsenic. during non-wadeable flows.

Water quality in Yellowstone National Park exhibited • Integration of other measures of riverine func- the greatest variability during high flows (May and tion (e.g., gross primary production and ecosys- June 2016). For example, during high flows, sulfate, tem metabolism; see Marcarelli et al. 2010) into sodium, and arsenic levels were generally lower in the river monitoring program. Although changes the Lamar and Yellowstone rivers relative to other in river chemistry are not anticipated within the months sampled. Total suspended solids (TSS) and protected boundaries of Yellowstone National total phosphorus (total P) levels were highest during Park, ecosystem metabolism may be strongly June in the Yellowstone and Lamar rivers. These influenced by observed and future changes in seasonal patterns for total P and TSS were less clear discharge patterns. in the Madison River during 2016. This latter result is not surprising given that variations between high and baseflows in the Madison River are muted relative to the snow-driven river systems.

National Park Service 22 Literature Cited

Al-Chokhachy, R., J. Alder, S. Hostetler, R. Gresswell, Available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/ and B. Shepard. 2013. Thermal controls of swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index. Yellowstone cut-throat trout and invasive fishes cfm. under climate change. Global Change Biology 19:3069-3081. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Aquatic life ambient water quality criteria Al-Chokhachy, R., A. J. Sepulveda, A. M. Ray, D. P. for ammonia - freshwater. Office of Water, Thoma, and M. T. Tercek. 2017. Evaluation of Washington, D.C. EPA 822-R-18-002. species-specific changes in hydrologic regimes: Available at https://www.epa.gov/wqc/ an iterative approach for salmonids in the aquatic-life-criteria-ammonia. Greater Yellowstone Area. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 27:425-441. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Memorandum dated August 13, Barnett, T. P., C. J. Adam, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. 2015. Information concerning 2016 Clean Potential impacts of a warming climate on water Water Act sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature integrated reporting and listing decisions. 438:303-309. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C. 20460. Burmil, S., T. C. Daniel, and J. D. Hetherington. 1999. Human values and perceptions of water in arid Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning Waterbody quality assessment report. 44:99-109. Available at https://ofmpub.epa.gov/ waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_au_ Elliott, C. R., and M. M. Hektner. 2000. Wetland id=MT43B001_011&p_cycle=2016&p_ resources of Yellowstone National Park. state=MT&p_report_type=#causes. Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth, Wyoming. Gardner, W. P., D. D. Susong, D. K. Solomon, and H. Heasler. 2010. Snowmelt hydrograph Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. interpretation: Revealing watershed scale Quality criteria for water 1986 [The Gold Book]. hydrologic characteristics of the Yellowstone EPA 440/5-86-001. U.S. EPA, Office of Water volcanic plateau. Journal of Hydrology Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. 383:209-222.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hall, R. O., Jr., J. L. Tank, and M. F. Dybdahl. 2003. 2000. Ambient water quality criteria Exotic snails dominate nitrogen and carbon recommendations: Information supporting the cycling in a highly productive stream. Frontiers development of state and tribal nutrient criteria in Ecology and the Environment 1:407-411. for rivers and streams in nutrient ecoregion 2. EPA 822-B-00-015. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Henderson, T., A. Ray, P. Penoyer, A. Rodman, M. Washington, D.C. Levandowski, A. Yoder, S. Matolyak, M. B. Marks, and A. Coleman. 2018. Mine-tailings Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. reclamation project improves water quality in The biotic ligand model: technical support Yellowstone’s Soda Butte Creek. Park Science document for its application to the evaluation 34:9-21. of water quality criteria for copper. U.S. EPA, Office of Science and Technology Health and Koel, T. M., J. L. Arnold, P. E. Bigelow, P. D. Doepke, Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, D.C. B. D. Ertel, and M. E. Ruhl. 2012. Yellowstone fisheries and aquatic sciences: Annual report, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. 2011. National Park Service, Yellowstone Center National recommended water quality criteria. for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Wyoming YCR-2012-03.

23 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Koel, T. M., P. E. Bigelow, P. D. Doepke, B. D. Ertel, in need of restoration. Montana Department of and D. L. Mahony. 2005. Nonnative lake trout Environmental Quality, Helena, Montana. result in Yellowstone cutthroat trout decline and impacts to bears and anglers. Fisheries 30:10-19. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ). 2002. Montana 305(b) report. Kottek, M., J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf, and F. Montana Department of Environmental Rubel. 2006: World map of the Köppen-Geiger Quality, Helena, Montana. climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15: 259-263. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ). 2014. Montana base numeric Krueger, R. C., B. L. Kerans, E. R. Vincent, and C. nutrient standards. Circular DEQ-12A. Rasmussen. 2006. Risk of Myxobolus cerebralis Montana Department of Environmental infection to rainbow trout in the Madison Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Water River, Montana, USA. Ecological Applications Quality Standards Section, Helena, Montana. 16:770-783. Montana Department of Environmental Quality Leppi, J. C., T. H. DeLuca, S. W. Harrar, and S. W. (MTDEQ). 2016. Montana final 2016 water Running. 2012. Impacts of climate change on quality integrated report. Montana Department August stream discharge in the Central-Rocky of Environmental Quality, Helena, Montana. Mountains. Climatic Change 112:997-1014. Montana Department of Environmental Quality Levandowski, M., and A. Ray. 2017. Water quality (MTDEQ). 2017. Montana numeric water summary for the Lamar River, Yellowstone quality standards. Circular DEQ-7. Montana River, and Madison River in Yellowstone Department of Environmental Quality, Water National Park: Preliminary analysis of 2015 Quality Division, Water Quality Planning data. Natural Resource Report NPS/GRYN/ Bureau, Water Quality Standards and Modeling NRR—2017/1389. National Park Service, Fort Section, Helena, Montana. Collins, Colorado. National Park Service (NPS). 1994. Yellowstone Luce, C. H., and Z. A. Holden. 2009. Declining National Park baseline water quality data annual streamflow distributions in the inventory and analysis. Available at https://irma. Pacific Northwest United States, 1948-2006. nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/431227. Geophysical Research Letters 36, L16401. National Park Service (NPS). 2013. Yellowstone Marcarelli, A. M., R. W. Van Kirk, and C. V. Baxter. National Park natural and cultural resources 2010. Predicting effects of hydrologic alteration vital signs. Yellowstone Center for Resources. and climate change on ecosystem metabolism in National Park Service, Yellowstone National a western U.S. river. Ecological Applications 20: Park, Mammoth, Wyoming. Available at https:// 2081-2088. www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/upload/ vitalsigns2-2.pdf. McMenamin, S. K., E. A. Hadly, and C. K. Wright. 2008. Climatic change and wetland desiccation National Park Service (NPS). 2017a. Yellowstone cause amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park statistics. Available at https:// National Park. Proceedings of the National irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20 Academy of Sciences 105:16988-16993. Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20 Recreation%20Visitation%20(1904%20-%20 Millspaugh, S. H., C. Whitlock, and P. J. Bartlein. Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=YELL. 2000. Variations in fire frequency and climate over the past 17 000 yr in central Yellowstone National Park Service (NPS). 2017b. Yellowstone National Park. Geology 28:211-214. resources and issues handbook: 2017. Yellowstone National Park, WY. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ). 2000. Montana 303(d) list: A compilation of impaired and threatened waters

National Park Service 24 National Park Service (NPS). 2018. Yellowstone Ray, A., K. Kaylor, W. A. Sigler, K. Mellander, and C. National Park fishing regulations. Available at Whaley. 2016b. Water quality summary for the https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/fishing. Snake River and alpine lakes in Grand Teton htm#fish_regs. National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway: Preliminary analysis of O’Ney S. 2006. Regulatory water quality monitoring 2014 data, revised May 2016. Natural Resource protocol, Version 2.0: Greater Yellowstone Report NPS/GRYN/NRR—2016/1229. Inventory & Monitoring Network. National National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Park Service, Greater Yellowstone Network, Bozeman, Montana. Romme, W. H., and M. G. Turner. 2015. Ecological implications of climate change in Yellowstone: Opitz, S., and J. Rhoten. 2017. 2016 Mountain Moving into uncharted territory? Yellowstone whitefish kill on the Yellowstone River. Montana Science 23:6-12. Fish Wildlife and Parks, Final Report. Ruzycki, J. R., D. A. Beauchamp, and D. L. Yule. Palmer, M. A., D. P. Lettenmaier, N. L. Poff, S. L. 2003. Effects of introduced lake trout on native Postel, B. Richter, and R. Warner. 2009. Climate cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake. Ecological change and river ecosystems: protection Applications 13:23-37. and adaptation options. Environmental Management 44:1053-1068. Sepulveda, A. J., M. T. Tercek, R. Al-Chokhachy., A. M. Ray, D. P. Thoma, B. R. Hossack, G. T. Pederson, G. T., S. T. Gray, C. A. Woodhouse, J. L. Pederson, A. W. Rodman, and T. Olliff. 2015. Betancourt, D. B. Fagre, J. S. Littell, E. Watson, The shifting climate portfolio of the Greater B. H. Luckman, and L. J. Graumlich. 2011. The Yellowstone Area. PLoS ONE 10-12: e0145060. unusual nature of recent snowpack declines in the North American Cordillera. Science Schook, D. M., and D. J. Cooper. 2014. Climatic and 333:332-335. hydrologic processes leading to wetland losses in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Journal of Pierce, K. L., and L. A. Morgan. 1992. The track of Hydrology 510:340–352. the Yellowstone hot spot: Volcanism, faulting, and Uplift. In Link, P. K., M. A. Kuntz, and L. B. Shanahan, E., K. Irvine, D. Thoma, S. Wilmoth, A. Platt, eds., Regional Geology of Eastern Idaho Ray, K. Legg, and H. Shovic. 2016. Whitebark and Western Wyoming: Geological Society of pine mortality related to forest disease, insect America Memoir 179. outbreak, and water availability. Ecosphere 7-12: e01610. Pierce, S. 1987. The lakes of Yellowstone: A guide for hiking, fishing & exploring. Mountaineers Tercek, M. T., S. T. Gray, and C. M. Nicholson. 2012. Books, Seattle, Washington. Climate zone delineation: evaluating approaches for use in natural resource management. Planer-Friedrich, B., J. London, R. B. McCleskey, Environmental Management 49:1076-1091. D. K. Nordstrom, and D. Wallschläger. 2007. Thioarsenates in geothermal waters of Thompson, J. M. 1979. Arsenic and fluoride in the Yellowstone National Park: Determination, upper Madison River system: Firehole and preservation, and geochemical importance. Gibbon rivers and their tributaries, Yellowstone Environmental Science & Technology National Park, Wyoming, and southeast 41:5245-5251. Montana. Environmental Geology 3:13-21.

Ray, A., W. Gould, B. Hossack, A. Sepulveda, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural D. Thoma , D. Patla, R. Daley, and R. Organization (UNESCO). 2003. State of Al-Chokhachy. 2016a. Influence of climate conservation of properties inscribed on the list drivers on extinction and colonization rates of of world heritage in danger. Available at https:// wetland-dependent species. Ecosphere 7(7): whc.unesco.org/archive/2003/whc03-27com- e01409. 07ae.pdf.

25 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Webster, J. G., and D. K. Nordstrom. 2003. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Geothermal arsenic. Pages 101-125 in Welch, (WYDEQ). 2013. Water quality rules and A. H., and K. G. Stollenwerk, eds. Arsenic in regulations. Chapter 1 in Water Quality Division Groundwater. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Rules and Regulations. Available at https:// Norwell, Massachusetts. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/ documents/wy-chapter1.pdf. Westerling, A. L., M. G. Turner, E. A. Smithwick, W. H. Romme, and M. G. Ryan. 2011. Continued Wyoming Department of Environmental warming could transform Greater Yellowstone Quality (WYDEQ). 2018. Nutrient criteria fire regimes by mid-21st century. Proceedings development plan. Available at http://deq. of the National Academy of Sciences wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Water%20 108:13165-13170. Quality/Nutrient%20Pollution/Numeric%20 Nutrient%20Criteria/2018-0307_Wyoming- Woodward, G., D. M. Perkins, and L. E. Brown. 2010. Nutrient-Criteria-Plan-March-2018.pdf. Climate change and freshwater ecosystems: Impacts across multiple levels of organization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 365:2093-2106.

National Park Service 26 Appendix A. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Montana DEQ, and Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Criteria

Table A-1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Montana DEQ, and Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Criteria.

EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (EPA 2012); EPA Aquatic Life Ambient EPA Ambient Wyoming Department of Water Quality Criteria for Water Quality Environmental Quality Water Ammonia - Freshwater (EPA Criteria (EPA Montana Circular DEQ-7 (MTDEQ Quality Rules and Regulations Parameter 2013) EPA Gold Book (EPA 1987) 2000) 2017) (WYDEQ 2013) Ammonia Acute criteria are pH and Acute criteria/pH and – Freshwater aquatic life standards for Acute criteria/pH and temperature as N temperature dependent. temperature dependent; from total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L NH3-N dependent; from pH 6.5–9.0, (NH3 as N) Acute criterion magnitude of pH 6.5–9.0, acute values for plus NH4-N). acute values for NH3-N plus NH4-N 17 mg total ammonia as N NH3-N plus NH4-N ranges Because these formulas are non-linear ranges from 885 to 32,600 μg/L (total nitrogen in forms of NH3 from 580 to 35,000 μg/L for in pH and temperature, the standard for coldwater/ salmonids present and NH4) per L and a chronic coldwater/ salmonids present is the average of separate evaluations and from 1,320 to 48,800 μg/L criterion magnitude of 1.9 mg and from 820 to 35,000 μg/L of the formulas reflective of the salmonids absent. The chronic TAN/L at pH 7 and 20ºC, with salmonids absent. fluctuations of pH and temperature criterion for ammonia are the stipulation that the chronic within the averaging period; it is not dependent on whether early life criterion cannot exceed 4.8 appropriate to apply the formula stages of fish or salmonids (of any mg TAN/L as a 4-day average. to average pH and temperature. life stage) are present. Calculations All criteria magnitudes are Acute criteria/pH and temperature for maximum concentrationª and recommended not to be dependent; 1-houra and 30-day continuous concentrationsb are exceeded more than once in criteriab with and without salmonids shown below. three years on average. See present. EPA 2013 for calculations to Trigger values used to determine base criterion using different “non-significant changes in pH and temperatures. water quality” under Montana’s nondegradation policy (ARM 17.30.701-718) is 10 μg/L. In addition, the highest four-day average within the 30-day period should never exceed 2.5 times the chronic criterion.

a One-hour acute ammonia-N criterion (in mg/L) is CMC = (0.275/(1 + 107.204-pH)) + (39.0/(1 + 10pH-7.204) (with salmonids)) or CMC = (0.411/(1 + 107.204-pH)) + (58.4/(1 + 10pH-7.204) (without salmonids)) b 30-day chronic ammonia-N criterion (in mg/L) is CCC = ((0.0577/(1+ 107.688-pH)) + (2.487/(1 + 10pH-7.688))) x MIN (2.85, 1.45 ∙ 100.028 ∙ (25–T)) (when early life stages of fish including all embryonic and larval stages and all juvenile forms of fish to 30-days following hatching are present) or CCC = ((0.0577/(1+ 107.688-pH)) + (2.487/(1 + 10pH-7.688))) x 1.45 ∙ 100.028 ∙ (25 – MAX (T,7)) (when early life stages of fish are not present)

27 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Table A-1 (continued). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Montana DEQ, and Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Criteria.

National Park Service 28 Table A-1 (continued). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Montana DEQ, and Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Criteria.

EPA Ambient Wyoming Department of EPA National Recommended Water Quality Environmental Quality Water Water Quality Criteria (EPA Criteria (EPA Montana Circular DEQ-7 (MTDEQ Quality Rules and Regulations Parameter 2012) EPA Gold Book (EPA 1987) 2000) 2017) (WYDEQ 2013) Chloride Freshwater (Acute) = 860,000 Domestic water supplies = – – Aquatic Life/Acute = 860,000 μg/L; μg/L 250,000 μg/L Aquatic Life/Chronic = 230,000 Freshwater (Chronic) = μg/L 230,000 μg/L Copper Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) was Freshwater aquatic organisms – Aquatic Life Standard/Acute = 3.79 Aquatic Life/Acute = 13.4 μg/L; developed to more carefully = at a hardness of 100,000 μg/L at 25 mg/L hardness (12); Aquatic Life/Chronic = 9.0 μg/L at a characterize copper toxicity in μg/L as CaCO3 , the 4-day Aquatic Life Standard/ Chronic = 2.85 CaCO3 hardness of 100,000 μg/L; freshwater environments (EPA average concentration is 12 μg/L at 25 mg/L hardness (12); Human Health value fish and 2009). This new approach μg/L and the 1-hour average Human Health surface water drinking water = 1,000 μg/L to modeling copper toxicity concentration is 18 μg/L; and ground water = 1300 μg/L; recognizes “that toxicity is not Human health = for controlling Bioconcentration Factor = 36 μg/L; simply related to total aqueous undesirable taste and odor Trigger value = 0.5 μg/L concentrations, but that both quality of ambient water, the metal-ligand complexation estimated level is 1,000 μg/L and metal interaction with competing cations at the site of action of toxicity” are needed to develop acute and chronic criteria. Human health for consumption of water + organism = 1,300 μg/L. Dissolved For early life stages, cold water For early life stages, cold water – Freshwater aquatic life standards For early life stages, cold water Oxygen (DO) criteria, the water column criteria, the water column recommended to achieve inter-gravel criteria, the water column concentration recommended concentration recommended DO concentration/ 1-day minimum = concentration recommended to achieve inter-gravel DO to achieve inter-gravel DO 8.0 mg/L; 5.0 mg/L for early life stages to achieve inter-gravel DO concentration/ 1-day minimum concentration/1-day minimum exposed directly to the water column. concentration/ 1-day minimum = 8,000 μg/L; 5,000 μg/L = 8,000 μg/L; 5,000 μg/L For other life stages cold water criteria, = 8.0 mg/L; 5.0 mg/L for early for early life stages exposed for early life stages exposed the water column concentration life stages exposed directly to directly to the water column. directly to the water column. recommended to achieve inter-gravel the water column. For other life For other life stages, cold For other life stages, cold DO concentration/ 1-day minimum stages, cold water criteria, the water criteria, the water water criteria, the water = 4.0 mg/L (for A-1, B-1, B-2, C-1, water column concentration column concentration column concentration and C-2 waters). Freshwater aquatic recommended to achieve inter- recommended to achieve inter- recommended to achieve inter- life standards for B-3, C-3, and I gravel DO concentration/ 1-day gravel DO concentration/1-day gravel DO concentration/1-day waters requires a 1-day DO minimum minimum = 4.0 mg/L. minimum = 4,000 μg/L. minimum = 4,000 μg/L. concentration = 5.0 mg/L for early life stages; for other life stages a 1-day minimum DO concentration = 3.0 mg/L is required.

29 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Table A-1 (continued). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Montana DEQ, and Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Criteria.

c Reference conditions for level III ecoregion 17; 25th percentile and or all-seasons median

National Park Service 30 Table A-1 (continued). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Montana DEQ, and Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Criteria.

EPA Ambient Wyoming Department of EPA National Recommended Water Quality Environmental Quality Water Water Quality Criteria (EPA Criteria (EPA Montana Circular DEQ-7 (MTDEQ Quality Rules and Regulations Parameter 2012) EPA Gold Book (EPA 1987) 2000) 2017) (WYDEQ 2013) Ortho- no standard no standard – Ortho-phosphate is recognized as not found in any WY guidance phosphate a plant nutrient that, in excessive documents amounts, may cause violations of Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.30.637 (1)(e). Selenium Freshwater (Chronic) = 5.0 Human health standard/ – Aquatic Life standard/Acute = 20 μg/L; Aquatic Life/Acute = 20 μg/L; μg/L surface water = 10 μg/L Aquatic Life Standard/Chronic = 5 Aquatic Life/Chronic = 5 μg/L. Human health consumption of μg/L. Human health value/fish and water + organism = 170 μg/L; Human health standard/Surface drinking water = 50 μg/L; Human health for consumption water = 50 μg/L; Bioconcentration Human health value fish only = of organism only = 4,200 μg/L factor=4.8 μg/L ; Trigger value = 0.6 4,200 μg/L. μg/L Total Freshwater fish and other Freshwater fish and other – No increases are allowed above In all Wyoming surface waters, Suspended aquatic life: settleable and aquatic life: settleable and naturally occurring concentrations floating and suspended solids Solids suspended solids should suspended solids should of sediment or suspended sediment attributable to or influenced not reduce the depth of not reduce the depth of which will or are likely to create a by the activities of man shall the compensation point for the compensation point for nuisance or render the waters harmful, not be present in quantities photosynthetic activity by more photosynthetic activity by detrimental or injurious to public which could result in significant than 10% from the seasonally more than 10% from the health, recreation, safety, welfare, aesthetic degradation, significant established norm for aquatic seasonally established norm livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or degradation of habitat for aquatic life for aquatic life other wildlife ARM 17.30.622 life, or adversely affect public water supplies, agricultural or industrial water use, plant life or wildlife. Turbidity Freshwater fish and other Freshwater fish and other 0.5 NTU No increase above naturally occurring In all cold water fisheries and aquatic life: settleable and aquatic life: settleable and turbidity or suspended sediment is drinking water supplies (classes 1, suspended solids should suspended solids should allowed (A-1 waters); no increase 2AB, 2A, and 2B) the discharge not reduce the depth of not reduce the depth of above naturally occurring greater than of substances attributable to or the compensation point for the compensation point for 5 NTUs (B-1, C-1); no increase above influenced by the activities of man photosynthetic activity by more photosynthetic activity by naturally occurring greater than 10 shall not be present in quantities than 10% from the seasonally more than 10% from the NTUs (B-2, B-3, C-2, C-3). From ARM which would result in a turbidity established norm for aquatic seasonally established norm 17.30.621 increase of more than ten (10) life for aquatic life NTUs.

31 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Table A-1 (continued). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Montana DEQ, and Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Criteria.

EPA Ambient Wyoming Department of EPA National Recommended Water Quality Environmental Quality Water Water Quality Criteria (EPA Criteria (EPA Montana Circular DEQ-7 (MTDEQ Quality Rules and Regulations Parameter 2012) EPA Gold Book (EPA 1987) 2000) 2017) (WYDEQ 2013) Water species-specific criteria species-specific criteria – A 1ºF maximum increase above For Class 1, 2, and 3 waters, Temperature naturally occurring water temperature effluent attributable to or is allowed within the range of 32ºF to influenced by the activities of man 66ºF; within the naturally occurring shall not be discharged in amounts range of 66ºF to 66.5ºF, no discharge which change ambient water is allowed which will cause the water temperatures to levels which result temperature to exceed 67ºF; and in harmful acute or chronic effects where the naturally occurring water to aquatic life, or which would temperature is 66.5ºF or greater, the not fully support existing and maximum allowable increase in water designated uses. When ambient temperature is 0.5ºF. temperatures are above 60ºF in all A 2ºF per-hour maximum decrease Class 1, 2AB, and 2B waters which below naturally occurring water are cold water fisheries, effluent temperature is allowed when the attributable to or influenced by water temperature is above 55ºF. the activities of man shall not be A 2ºF maximum decrease below discharged in amounts which will naturally occurring water temperature result in an increase of more than is allowed within the range of 55ºF to 2º (1.1ºC) in existing temperatures. 32ºF (A-1, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2). A 3ºF When ambient temperatures are maximum increase above naturally above 60ºF in all Class 1, 2AB, and occurring water temperature is 2B waters which are warm water allowed within the range of 32ºF to fisheries, effluent attributable to or 77ºF; within the naturally occurring influenced by the activities of man range of 77ºF to 79.5ºF, no thermal shall not be discharged in amounts discharge is allowed which will cause which will result in an increase of the water temperature to exceed 80ºF; more than 4ºF (2.2ºC) in existing and where the naturally occurring temperatures. The maximum water temperature is 79.5ºF or greater, allowable stream temperature the maximum allowable increase in will be the maximum natural water temperature is 0.5ºF. daily stream temperature plus A 2ºF per-hour maximum decrease the allowable change, provided below naturally occurring water that this temperature is not lethal temperature is allowed when the to existing fish life and under no water temperature is above 55ºF. circumstance shall this maximum A 2ºF maximum decrease below temperature exceed 68ºF (20ºC) in naturally occurring water temperature the case of cold water fisheries and is allowed within the range of 55ºF to 86ºF (30ºC) in the case of warm 32ºF (B-3, C-3) ARM 17.30.622 water fisheries.

National Park Service 32 Appendix B. 2016 Laboratory Results from Monthly Monitoring of Lamar River, Yellowstone River, and Madison River

The following tables present laboratory results for three river monitoring sites: Lamar River (Table B-1, B-2), Yellowstone River (Table B-3, B-4), and Madison River (Table B-5, B-6). Water sample results from the Lamar River, Yellowstone River, and Madison River were produced by Energy Laboratory in Billings, MT and Casper, WY. Total hardness as CaCO3 = water hardness as calcium carbonate, ammonia as N = NH3 as N, nitrate + nitrite as nitrogen= NO3 + NO2 as N, ortho P = ortho-phosphate, total P = total phosphorus, sulfate = SO4, TSS = total suspended solids, As = arsenic, Ca = calcium, Mg = magnesium, K = potassium, Na = sodium.

Table B-1. Monthly water quality lab results for Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY. All values presented are in mg/L. Reporting limit (RL) values are in mg/L. ‘ND’ = non-detectable result, ‘–’ = missing value. Columns with gray shading represent “blank” samples using certified inorganic free deionized water, or “replicate” samples on the same date as indicated by the header.

9-June 9-Nov Analyte 14-Apr 26-May 9-June (Replicate) 12-July 3-Aug 8-Sept 19-Oct 9-Nov (Blank) Total Hardness as 50 41 29 37 51 84 92 66 59 ND CaCO3 RL=5 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Ammonia as N ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 Chloride ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1

NO3+NO2 as N ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.005 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 Ortho-P – – ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 Total P 0.106 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.04 ND RL=0.008 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 Sulfate 4 2 1 1 3 6 7 7 5 ND RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 TSS 49 13 72 85 25 ND 2 11 4 ND RL=2 RL=1 RL=2 RL=2 RL=1 RL=10 RL=1 RL=2 RL=1 RL=1 Dissolved As ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 Total As ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 Dissolved Ca 12.6 11 7 8 13 22 23 17 15 ND RL=0.04 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1

33 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Table B-1 (continued). Monthly water quality lab results for Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY. All values presented are in mg/L. Reporting limit (RL) values are in mg/L. ‘ND’ = non-detectable result, ‘–’ = missing value. Columns with gray shading represent “blank” samples using certified inorganic free deionized water, or “replicate” samples on the same date as indicated by the header.

9-June 9-Nov Analyte 14-Apr 26-May 9-June (Replicate) 12-July 3-Aug 8-Sept 19-Oct 9-Nov (Blank) Total Ca 13.8 11 9 9 13 22 23 16 15 ND RL=0.04 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Dissolved Mg 4.58 4 3 4 5 7 8 6 5 ND RL=0.06 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total Mg 6.28 4 4 4 6 8 8 7 6 ND RL=0.06 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Dissolved K 0.99 ND ND ND 1 2 2 1 1 ND RL=0.02 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total K 1.51 ND 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 ND RL=0.02 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Dissolved Na 5.23 4 3 3 6 9 10 8 7 ND RL=0.03 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total Na 5.82 4 4 4 6 9 10 8 7 ND RL=0.03 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1

Table B-2. Monthly core field parameters for Lamar River near Tower Ranger Station, WY.

Field Parameter 14-Apr 26-May 9-June 12-July 3-Aug 8-Sept 19-Oct 9-Nov Water Temp. (°C) 2.80 6.01 9.20 9.01 17.09 11.76 3.62 1.99 Specific Conductance 115.7 90.1 72.3 117.1 187.8 212.1 155.6 134.8 (μS/m) pH 7.87 7.91 7.85 7.89 8.38 8.25 7.68 7.95 Dissolved Oxygen 10.57 10.45 8.60 9.71 8.51 9.59 10.96 11.56 (mg/L) Turbidity (FNU) 21.10 5.67 25.87 11.12 0.86 0.86 6.19 1.80

National Park Service 34 Table B-3. Monthly water quality lab results for Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT. All values are in mg/L. Reporting limit (RL) values are in mg/L. ‘ND’ = non- detectable result, ‘–’ = missing value. Columns with gray shading and labeled in the header represent “replicate” samples on the same date.

14-Apr 26-May 12-July Analyte 14-Apr (Replicate) 26-May (Replicate) 9-June 12-July (Replicate) 3-Aug 8-Sept 19-Oct 9-Nov Hardness, Total as 51 52 39 39 30 40 40 49 63 66 57 CaCO3 RL=5 RL=5 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Ammonia as N 0.07 0.06 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 Chloride 5 5 4 4 2 6 6 9 13 11 9 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1

NO3+NO2 as N 0.1 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.2 0.2 0.1 RL=0.005 RL=0.005 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 Ortho-P – – – – – ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 Total P 0.108 0.123 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 Sulfate 17 17 11 11 6 14 12 20 31 33 23 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 TSS 48 48 15 16 64 17 17 ND 2 13 4 RL=2 RL=2 RL=1 RL=1 RL=2 RL=1 RL=1 RL=10 RL=1 RL=2 RL=1 Dissolved As 0.014 0.013 0.009 0.01 ND 0.015 0.015 0.023 0.031 0.023 0.018 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 Total As 0.019 0.018 0.011 0.011 0.008 0.016 0.016 0.025 0.032 0.021 0.023 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 Dissolved Ca 13.3 13.6 10 10 8 10 10 13 16 17 15 RL=0.04 RL=0.04 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total Ca 14.5 14.4 11 10 9 10 10 13 17 16 15 RL=0.04 RL=0.04 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Dissolved Mg 4.39 4.47 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 5 RL=0.06 RL=0.06 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total Mg 5.83 5.78 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 6 5 RL=0.06 RL=0.06 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Dissolved K 2.8 2.8 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 4 RL=0.02 RL=0.02 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total K 3.35 3.29 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 4 RL=0.02 RL=0.02 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1

35 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Table B-3 (continued). Monthly water quality lab results for Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT. All values are in mg/L. Reporting limit (RL) values are in mg/L. ‘ND’ = non-detectable result, ‘–’ = missing value. Columns with gray shading and labeled in the header represent “replicate” samples on the same date.

14-Apr 26-May 12-July Analyte 14-Apr (Replicate) 26-May (Replicate) 9-June 12-July (Replicate) 3-Aug 8-Sept 19-Oct 9-Nov Dissolved Na 11.5 11.6 8 8 6 12 12 16 21 20 16 RL=0.03 RL=0.03 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total Na 12.7 12.4 9 8 7 12 12 17 21 19 17 RL=0.03 RL=0.03 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1

Table B-4. Monthly core field parameters for Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT. ‘–’ = missing value.

Parameter 14-Apr 26-May 9-June 12-July 3-Aug 8-Sept 19-Oct 9-Nov Water Temp. (°C) 6.23 9.09 12.75 13.71 18.38 15.13 7.39 6.62 Specific Conductance 159.0 115.5 93.6 139.4 177.8 238.3 232.5 191.8 (μS/m) pH 7.94 8.04 7.85 8.23 8.13 8.62 8.40 7.94 Dissolved Oxygen 9.74 – 8.65 9.69a 8.51 10.21 11.01 11.63 (mg/L) Turbidity (FNU) 20.29 4.95 22.77 6.08 1.11 1.58 3.90 0.94

a Suspect value; needs review

National Park Service 36 Table B-5. Monthly water quality lab results for Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT. All values presented are in mg/L. Reporting limit (RL) values are in mg/L. ‘ND’ = non-detectable result, ‘–’ = missing value. Columns with gray shading and labeled in the header represent “blank” samples using certified inorganic free deionized water, or laboratory “split” (one sample sent to each lab from the same date) as indicated in the header.

16-Aug 17-Oct Analyte 21-Apr 11-May 8-June 13-July 16-Aug (Blank) 7-Sept 17-Oct (Split) 30-Nov Hardness, Total as 19 17 18 22 21 ND 21 17 20 21 CaCO3 RL=5 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Ammonia as N ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 Chloride 51 39 48 58 65 ND 61 55 53 61 RL=0.1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1

NO3+NO2 as N ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.04 ND ND RL=0.005 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 RL=0.1 Ortho-P – – ND ND ND ND ND 0.026 ND ND RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 RL=0.05 Total P 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 ND 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 RL=0.008 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 RL=0.01 Sulfate 13 10 10 14 13 ND 13 18 20 15 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 TSS 11 9 3 4 1 ND 2 ND 6 6 RL=2 RL=1 RL=2 RL=1 RL=10 RL=10 RL=1 RL=2 RL=2 RL=1 Dissolved As 0.241 0.199 0.253 0.262 0.291 ND 0.292 0.237 0.224 0.276 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 Total As 0.24 0.18 0.21 0.26 0.29 ND 0.29 0.22 0.23 0.29 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 RL=0.008 Dissolved Ca 6 5 6 7 7 ND 7 6 6 7 RL=0.04 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total Ca 6 6 6 7 7 ND 7 6 5 7 RL=0.04 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Dissolved Mg 0.88 ND ND 1.00 ND ND ND ND 1.00 ND RL=0.06 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total Mg 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RL=0.06 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Dissolved K 8 6 7 8 9 ND 9 9 9 8 RL=0.02 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total K 8 7 8 9 10 ND 9 8 8 9 RL=0.02 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1

37 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Table B-5 (continued). Monthly water quality lab results for Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT. All values presented are in mg/L. Reporting limit (RL) values are in mg/L. ‘ND’ = non-detectable result, ‘–’ = missing value. Columns with gray shading and labeled in the header represent “blank” samples using certified inorganic free deionized water, or laboratory “split” (one sample sent to each lab from the same date) as indicated in the header.

16-Aug 17-Oct Analyte 21-Apr 11-May 8-June 13-July 16-Aug (Blank) 7-Sept 17-Oct (Split) 30-Nov Dissolved Na 79 59 69 80 95 ND 85 69 68 97 RL=0.03 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 Total Na 79 63 78 92 98 ND 91 73 66 96 RL=0.03 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1 RL=1

Table B-6. Monthly core field parameters for Madison River near West Yellowstone, MT. ‘–’ = missing value.

Parameter 21-Apr 11-May 8-June 13-July 16-Aug 7-Sept 17-Oct 30-Nov Water Temp. (°C) 12.288 8.434 17.280 13.120 15.066 14.758 8.302 3.332 Specific Conductance 412.3 319.2 436.7 466.3 454.3 484.9 400.3 505.5 (μS/m) pH 7.89 7.79 8.07 7.99 8.02 8.41 7.76 8.06 Dissolved Oxygen 7.73 9.40 7.23 8.19 8.01 9.71 8.62 10.58 (mg/L) Turbidity (FNU) 3.62 2.87 1.18 0.74 2.34 – 2.37 1.96

National Park Service 38 Appendix C. Reese Creek Monitoring Report

Reese Creek Flow and Water Use Monitoring

Yellowstone National Park, 2015

Brian Teets, North District Resource Operations

Introduction with ungulate winter range objectives. As a result, the USFS secured its own water rights on Reese Creek In 2016, Yellowstone National Park, North District and has become a cooperator in maintaining stream Resource Operations staff monitored seasonal stream flows there. flow in Reese Creek, a tributary of the Yellowstone River and that forms a portion of the park boundary 2016 Activities north of Gardiner, Montana. Reese Creek has been of interest to Yellowstone National Park staff because Yellowstone National Park field personnel measured it is the only stream in the park which maintains a stream flows in Reese Creek approximately once per water use agreement and has stream flow utilized week from May 26, 2016 until September 29, 2016. periodically for private irrigation use adjacent to the Stream discharge was computed by the mid-section park. In addition, this stream supports a population method with velocities determined with a Marsh- of resident native Yellowstone cutthroat trout and McBirney flow meter. On each sample occasion, contains suitable spawning habitat for migratory fish discharge was measured at the upper irrigation ditch species from the Yellowstone River. (Lower Flume) and adjacent to the upper main-stem flume (Upper Flume). A typical discharge measure- Existing water rights claims have made Reese Creek ment requires ½ to ¾ of an hour to complete; an over-appropriated stream, similar to many other however, we assumed that the proximity of the flow western streams. Since the early 1980s, National Park sites allows for “instantaneous” comparisons of Service (NPS) and the other water rights claimants the volume of water in different sections of Reese have been involved in negotiations to reach a water Creek. Staff plates located in the Parshall flume and usage agreement to appropriate water use for this the irrigation head-gate was read to yield additional stream where the demand may exceed the available data that can be used as a flow index at these sites. water. By 1992, a stipulated agreement was reached Weather conditions were also recorded during the that provided for some usage by the primary claim- sample period. ants –Royal Teton Ranch (RTR), (NPS), and other water right users. The amount of water allocated The difference between the estimated discharge at to each user is a flow-dependent variable percent- the upper flume and the measured stream flow in age of the total discharge estimated at a Parshall the irrigation ditch represented the amount of water flume (Upper Flume) located several hundred yards remaining in Reese Creek to meet NPS and USFS upstream from the uppermost point of diversion. The water rights. During the 2016 irrigation season, agreement is divided into irrigation (April 15 to Octo- the USFS periodically diverted their water rights. ber 15) and non-irrigation seasons (remainder of the Measurements were not taken by NPS staff at the year); this report only examines the active irrigation USFS diversion. season. Undiverted main stem discharge at the upper site The water use agreement contains provisions for reached its peak on June 8, 2016 at 13.904 cubic feet primary as well as additional water usage by other per second (cfs). By the end of July, discharge in minor claimants during periods of higher stream Reese Creek had leveled off, averaging 5.871 cfs for flow. About a decade after this cooperative usage the remainder of the irrigation season. The lowest process was begun, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) recorded stream flow was 3.520 cfs taken on Septem- initiated additional agreements with RTR in conjunc- ber 13, 2016. tion with land acquisitions and exchanges associated

39 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 During the irrigation season of 2016, these water • RTR: 2.61 cfs rights were not met on two occasions. The RTR • Mikolich: 0.25 cfs exceeded their allotment on nine occasions; however • Hotchkiss (Beede): 0.34 cfs these events only resulted in the NPS water flow becoming lower than their allotment on two occa- September 13, 2016 sions. The details of these events are outlined below. Discharge measurements: August 24, 2016 • Upper Flume: 3.52cfs Discharge measurements: • Lower Flume (RTR ditch): 2.46cfs • Upper Flume: 5.09 cfs • Remaining water in stream (NPS): 1.060cfs • Lower Flume (RTR ditch): 3.86 cfs Allotments based on 2006 stipulated agreement at • Remaining water in stream (NPS): 1.23 cfs* 3.50 cfs: (*- Not reported to RTR) • NPS: 1.25 cfs Allotments based on 2006 stipulated agreement at • USFS: 0.38 cfs 5.10 cfs: • RTR: 1.51 cfs • NPS: 1.25 cfs • Mikolich: 0.25 cfs • USFS: 0.65 cfs • Hotchkiss (Beede): 0.11 cfs

16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

Upper Flume cfs (Above All Diversions) 8.000 Lower Flume cfs (RTR Diver- sion Ditch) Main Stream cfs (Below All Diversions - NPS) 6.000 NPS Allotment

RTR Allotment Water Flow (Cubic Feet/Second) (Cubic Flow Water 4.000

2.000

0.000 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/16 6/23 6/30 7/7 7/14 7/21 7/28 8/4 8/11 8/18 8/25 9/1 9/8 9/15 9/22 2016 Figure C-1. 2016 Reese Creek stream flow measurements. Upper Flume cfs (cubic feet per second) represents the stream flow of Reese Creek above all diversions. Lower Flume represents the amount of water diverted from Reese Creek into the RTR irrigation ditch. Main Stream CFS represents the total water remaining in Reese Creek below the RTR diversion. RTR Allotment represents the amount of water (CFS) allotted to RTR based on the 2006 Stipulated Agreement at each Upper Flume measurement. NPS Allotment represents the amount of water allotted to NPS based on the 2006 Stipulated Agreement at each Upper Flume measurement.

National Park Service 40 In each instance where the RTR was overdrawing In an attempt to allow spawning fish species from the Ann Rodman (NPS) was notified and contacted RTR Yellowstone River to better use the habitat of lower representative and they reduced their take. North Reese Creek, North District Resource Manage- District Resource Ops staff did not take action on ment staff improved the fish ladder located near the August 24, 2016 overdraw event as the amount the middle diversion in 2013. The improvements of water overdrawn was within the accepted margin would allow fish of breeding size to access additional of error of our measuring equipment. It should also habitat between the middle diversion and the fish be noted that the solar powered fish barrier installed dam located near the upper diversion. North District just above the upper diversion continues to be out of resource management staff checked the fish ladder order. Due to exposure to the elements and regular occasionally during summer 2016 and found it to be wear and tear, the solar barrier is no longer opera- in good working order. tional. To ensure that as few fish as possible enter the irrigation diversion, North District Resource Management staff manually clear a stationary screen above the diversion to keep small fish from entering the diversion ditch, while allowing water to enter the diversion ditch.

41 Water Quality Summary for the Lamar, Yellowstone, and Madison Rivers in Yellowstone National Park: 2016 Appendix D. Discharge Summaries of Regional Rivers

Table D-1. Summary of discharge metrics for the Gardner River near Mammoth, Yellowstone National Park (USGS 06191000).

Mean for Period of Record (1939 to1972 Discharge Metric and 1985 to 2015) 2016 Day of year of peak discharge (calendar date) 154 (June 3) 160 (June 8) Total volume (in billions ft3) 6.6 5.3 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1,134 605

Table D-2. Summary of discharge metrics for the Fall River at Yellowstone Canal near Squirrel, ID (USGS 13046995).

Discharge Metric Mean for Period of Record (1993 to 2015) 2016 Day of year of peak discharge (calendar date) 153 (June 2) 141 (May 20) Total volume (in billions ft3) 26.4 21.9 Peak Discharge (cfs) 3,490 2,390

Table D-3. Summary of discharge metrics for the Gallatin River near Gallatin Gateway, MT (USGS 06043500).

Discharge Metric Mean for Period of Record (1930 to 2015) 2016 Day of year of peak discharge (calendar date) 158 (June 7) 160 (June 8) Total volume (in billions ft3) 24.9 23.6 Peak Discharge (cfs) 4,714 3,720

Table D-4. Summary of discharge metrics for the Clark Fork of Yellowstone River near Belfry, MT (USGS 06207500).

Discharge Metric Mean for Period of Record (1921 to 2015) 2016 Day of year of peak discharge (calendar date) 162 (June 11) 161 (June 9) Total volume (in billions ft3) 29.3 21.9 Peak Discharge (cfs) 7,271 6,060

National Park Service 42

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 101/150612, February 2019 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA™