DOCSLIB.ORG

Jefferson TMDL Watershed Advisory Group Meeting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jefferson TMDL Watershed Advisory Group Meeting UPPER JEFFERSON TMDL PROJECT Watershed Advisory Group Meeting December 12, 2013 – Whitehall, MT Presentation Outline • Introduction to TMDLs (Lou Volpe, DEQ) • Upper Jefferson TMDL Project (Lou Volpe, DEQ) • Metals TMDL Development (Lou Volpe, DEQ) • Temperature TMDL Development (Kristy Fortman, DEQ) • Project Schedule (Lou Volpe, DEQ) • TMDL Implementation (Ann McCauly) What is a TMDL? • A TMDL (or Total Maximum Daily Load) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant (nutrients, sediment, etc.) that a waterbody can receive from all sources and still meet water quality standards • Montana is required by State Law and the Federal Clean Water Act to develop TMDLs for all waterbodies impaired by a pollutant Types of Pollutants Nutrients Temperature Metals Sediment Monitoring and Assessment • DEQ uses monitoring data to assess water quality and compare to applicable water quality standards • If the data show a water quality problem, the waterbody is put on a list of impaired waters • Waterbodies impaired by a pollutant will require a TMDL to be developed for that particular waterbody- pollutant combination Water Quality Standards • Can be numeric or narrative and are designed to be protective of beneficial uses of a waterbody • Standards are required to protect beneficial uses. Some examples of beneficial uses are: • drinking water supply, • agricultural water supply, • aquatic life, • primary and secondary contact recreation, etc. • Beneficial uses are based on specific waterbody classifications (A-1, B-1, etc.) Steps for Developing a TMDL • Characterize the impaired waterbody’s existing water quality conditions and compare those conditions to Montana’s water quality standards. • Quantify the magnitude of the pollutant contribution from each significant source • Determine the total allowable load of the pollutant to the waterbody • Allocate the total allowable pollutant load into individual loads for each significant source: • Wasteload allocations for point sources • Load allocations for nonpoint sources and Montana TMDL History • More than 1,000 approved TMDLs (1998 – present) • Close to 50 TMDL documents completed as of June 2013 • Completed TMDL documents for other watersheds can be found at: http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/TMDL/finalReports.mcpx Watershed Advisory Groups (WAGs) • Watershed Advisory Groups are formed to provide stakeholder input on TMDLs under development • WAGs are comprised of diverse land users throughout the TMDL project area and can provide valuable information about the watershed JEFFERSON TMDL PROJECT AREA AND IMPAIRMENT LISTINGS 5 waterbodies within the Jefferson Project Area are slated for TMDL development: 1. Jefferson River (Twin Bridges to Three Forks) 2. Jefferson Slough 3. Big Pipestone Creek 4. Little Whitetail Creek 5. Whitetail Deer Creek Clean Water Act Information Center (CWIAC) will not show A.U change until 2014 Upper Jefferson TMDLs Summary • Metals TMDLs (14 TMDLs, 6 waterbodies) • Temperature TMDLs (1TMDLs, 1 waterbody) Waterbody Name & Waterbody ID Metal Temperature Impairment Description Impairment BIG PIPESTONE CREEK, headwaters to mouth MT41G002_010 Arsenic No (Jefferson Slough), T1N R4W S12 JEFFERSON RIVER, Iron Yes headwaters to confluence of MT41G001_011 Lead (not covered in this project) Jefferson Slough JEFFERSON RIVER, Copper confluence of Jefferson MT41G001_012 No Slough to mouth (Missouri Lead River) JEFFERSON SLOUGH, Arsenic Jefferson River to the mouth Cadmium MT41G002_170 No (Jefferson River) Copper Zinc WHITETAIL DEER CREEK, Dissolved Aluminum headwater to mouth MT41G002_141 No Lead (Jefferson Slough) Little WHITETAIL CREEK, Dissolved Aluminum Whitetail Reservoir to mouth MT41G002_140 Copper No (Whitetail Deer Creek) Lead 2014 Metals TMDLs Development BIG PIPESTONE CREEK, headwaters to mouth (Jefferson Slough), T1N R4W S12 MT41G002_010 JEFFERSON RIVER, Headwaters to confluence of Jefferson Slough MT41G001_011 JEFFERSON RIVER, Confluence of Jefferson Slough to mouth (Missouri River) MT41G001_012 JEFFERSON SLOUGH, Jefferson River to the mouth (Jefferson River) MT41G002_170 WHITETAIL DEER CREEK, Headwater to mouth (Jefferson Slough) MT41G002_141 Little WHITETAIL CREEK, Whitetail Reservoir to mouth (Whitetail Deer Creek) MT41G002_140 Data Collection & Impairment Determination • Sampling conducted in 2004,2006, 2009 -2013 • Sampled and assessed for: Aluminum (Al) Arsenic(As), Cadmium (Cd), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Lead (Pb), Selenium (Se), Silver (Ag) and Zinc (Zn) • Each stream sampled at high and low flow conditions • Updated DEQ assessment: – Even with limited data: • Still indicating impairment for some of the originally listed metals • Addition of some new to impairment list • Removal of some metals from impairment list – Beneficial uses considered impaired as a result of assessment • Aquatic Life Support • Drinking Water • Agriculture • Recreation Numeric Water Quality Standards • Copper Example – Fixed Numeric: – Human Health: 1,300 µg/l – Variable Numeric: Aquatic Life: (varies with hardness) At 25 mg/L hardness- – Acute: 3.79 µg/l (do not exceed) – Chronic: 2.85 µg/l (96 hour mean) At 100 mg/L hardness- – Acute: 14.0 µg/l (do not exceed) – Chronic: 9.33 µg/l (96 hour mean) Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Metals Pollutants at two Water hardness Conditions Aquatic Life Criteria (µg/L) at 25 Aquatic Life Criteria (µg/L) at mg/L Hardness 100 mg/L Hardness Human Health Metal of Concern Criteria (µg/L) Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Aluminum 750 87 750 87 NA Arsenic, TR 340 150 340 150 10 Cadmium, TR 0.52 0.10 2.13 0.27 5 Copper, TR 3.79 2.85 14.00 9.33 1,300 Iron, TR --- 1,000 --- 1,000 *300 Lead, TR 13.98 0.54 81.65 3.18 15 Mercury, total 1.70 0.91 1.70 0.91 0.05 Silver, TR 037 -- 4.06 -- 100 Zinc, TR 37.02 37.02 119.82 119.82 2,000 *Human Health Criteria for iron is a secondary maximum contaminant level based on aesthetic properties Metals TMDL Development Triggers • If a single sample exceeds the human health target. • If more than 10% of the samples exceed the any aquatic life target, then the waterbody is considered impaired for that pollutant. • There are two exceptions to the 10% aquatic life exceedance rate rule: – a) if a single sample exceeds the acute aquatic life standard by more than a factor of two, the waterbody is considered impaired regardless of the remaining data set; and – b) if the exceedance rate is greater than 10% but no anthropogenic metals sources are identified, management is consulted for a case-by-case review. • * If the exceedance rate is equal to or less than 10% for all aquatic life targets, then the waterbody is considered not impaired for that pollutant. A minimum 8 samples are required, and samples must represent both high and low flow conditions. Aquatic Life/ Fishes BU 2012 Aquatic Life/Fishes Metals Copper, Lead Listings: Metals: Dissolved Al As Cd Cu Fe Pb Sample Date Range - 2010-2013 2010-2013 2004-2013 2010-2013 2004-2013 Number of Samples 0 8 8 24 8 24 Number of High Flow Samples 4 4 13 4 13 Percent of High Flow Samples #DIV/0! 50 50 54.16666667 50 54.16666667 Number of samples that are ≥2x the 0 0 0 0 Acute Standard Number of Acute Exceedances 0 0 0 0 Number of Chronic Exceedances 0 0 0 1 3 Acute Exceedance Rate (%) #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chronic Exceedance Rate (%) #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 12.50 Listing Decision (List/Keep Listed, Delist/ Do not List or Collected more Insufficient Data Do not list Do not list DELIST LIST Keep Listed data) Chronic Listing Decision Rational (if decision Chronic No exceedances No exceedances No exceedances exceedances can be reached) exceedance rate rate Metals: Se Ag Zn Sample Date Range 2013 2013 2010-2013 Number of Samples 1 1 8 Number of High Flow Samples 1 1 4 Percent of High Flow Samples 100 100 50 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Number of samples that are ≥2x the 0 Acute Standard Number of Acute Exceedances 0 Number of Chronic Exceedances 0 Acute Exceedance Rate (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Chronic Exceedance Rate (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Listing Decision (List/Keep Listed, Delist/ Do not List or Collected more Insufficient Data Insufficient Data Do not list data) Listing Decision Rational (if decision No exceedances can be reached) Metals TMDLs Listed in 2012 Pollutant/Pollution Cause Listing Decision for Waterbody Name & Description AUID 303(d) list Name Current Cycle BIG PIPESTONE CREEK, headwaters to mouth MT41G002_010 Arsenic No List (Jefferson Slough), T1N R4W S12 JEFFERSON RIVER, headwaters to confluence of Iron No List MT41G001_011 Jefferson Slough Lead Yes Keep Listed JEFFERSON RIVER, confluence of Jefferson Copper Yes Keep Listed MT41G001_012 Slough to mouth (Missouri River) Lead Yes Keep Listed Arsenic No List JEFFERSON SLOUGH, Jefferson River to the Cadmium No List MT41G002_170 mouth (Jefferson River) Copper No List Zinc No List WHITETAIL DEER CREEK, headwater to mouth Dissolved Aluminum Yes Keep Listed MT41G002_141 (Jefferson Slough) Lead Yes Keep Listed Dissolved Aluminum No List Little WHITETAIL CREEK, Whitetail Reservoir to MT41G002_140 Copper No List mouth (Whitetail Deer Creek) Lead No List Metals Sources • Number of large priority mines throughout watershed (15): – Garnet Gold Mine – Mammoth & Mammoth tailing site – Broadway/Victoria • Mining permits – Fish Creek (Placer) – Pipestone (Quarry) – Antler Chlorite – Sapping Mill • Abandoned mining operations – DEQ identified 277 – MBMG identified 452 • Cattle grazing (stream bank trampling/sedimentation) TMDL and Load Allocations TMDL = ∑ Load Allocations (background) + ∑ Wasteload
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lower Beaverhead River and Upper Jefferson River Temperature Tmdls – Attachment A
    Lower Beaverhead River and Upper Jefferson River Temperature TMDLs – Attachment A ATTACHMENT A – EVALUATION OF FISHERY TRENDS IN THE JEFFERSON RIVER DRAINAGE RELATED TO CHANGES IN STREAMFLOW PATTERN AND HABITAT RESTORATION ACTIVITIES 11/13/2014 Final Attachment A-1 Lower Beaverhead River and Upper Jefferson River Temperature TMDLs – Attachment A 11/13/2014 Final Attachment A-2 EVALUATION OF FISHERY TRENDS IN THE JEFFERSON RIVER DRAINAGE RELATED TO CHANGES IN STREAMFLOW PATTERN AND HABITAT RESTORATION ACTIVITIES Ron Spoon Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks March 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Fishery and Stream Flow Trends in the Jefferson River……………………….3 Chapter II Projects to Enhance Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitat……………………..21 Chapter III Evaluation of Fishery Trends in Tributaries of the Jefferson and Upper Missouri River……………………………………………..……….22 Chapter IV Boulder River Fishery Evaluation……………………………………………..38 Chapter V Stream Flow Protection and Enhancement Efforts for the Jefferson River…………………………………………………………………42 Chapter VI Fish Loss to Irrigation Canals…………………………………………………58 Chapter VII Water Temperature Measurements in the Jefferson River and Associated Tributaries on 31 July 2007………………………………………64 Chapter VIII Fishing Pressure and Angler Use of the Jefferson River……………………..73 Appendix A: Daily Flow Records at Waterloo (2000-2007)………………..77 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Information in this report is a product of over 20 years of attention provided to one of Montana’s great rivers. Compiling information to better understand the water and fishery resource is intended to help citizens in the valley make decisions on the fate of the Jefferson River. Once dubbed the “Forgotten Fork” of the headwaters of the Missouri, the past eight years of citizen involvement to protect and improve habitat have raised the profile of the river, and it is clear that the river can no longer be considered forgotten or dismissed.
    [Show full text]
  • DROUGHT RESILIENCE PLAN Jefferson River Watershed Council PO Box 550 Whitehall MT 59759
    JEFFERSON RIVER WATERSHED DROUGHT RESILIENCE PLAN Jefferson River Watershed Council PO Box 550 Whitehall MT 59759 September 2019 Prepared for the Jefferson River water users as an educational guide to drought impacts, drought vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies to proactively plan for drought. Compiled by Evan Norman [email protected] Jefferson River Watershed Drought Resiliency Plan Contents Drought Resiliency ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Project Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Drought Mitigation ................................................................................................................................... 4 Defining Drought ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Utilization of Resources for Defining Drought Resilience Efforts ............................................................. 6 Jefferson River Watershed Characteristics ................................................................................................... 7 Land and Soil Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 10 Agrimet – JVWM, Jefferson Valley, MT ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Jefferson River Canyon
    Montana Department of Transportation TheA JeffersonPassage River Canyon Through Time he four-mile long Jefferson River Canyon was cut into Geo-Facts: the Tobacco Root Mountains between LaHood Park and • The high-quality Madison limestone was used as flux in the Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park relatively recently in Butte smelters during the height of that city’s prominence as geologic time. The canyon exposes rocks that span over a billion a mining town. A limestone quarry from the turn of the last T century is located just north of the highway at mile marker 5.5. years of geologic history. The rocks indicate times when the area The Madison limestone is also an important aquifer in much of was covered by shallow seas in which fine-grained sediment was Montana. deposited, and other times when rocks were exposed and eroded. The rocks also record times of volcanic activity and when stresses • Placer gold was discovered about a mile and a half upstream from in the earth caused rocks to contort into folds or break into com- the entrance to Lewis and Clark Caverns in the late 1800’s, but the placer mining operation was short-lived. plex and significant faults. Entering the canyon from the east will take you backward in time. Most of the rocks at the east end of • Acidic water caused the limestone to dissolve along cracks, the canyon are sedimentary and volcanic rocks from the age of di- forming the caves of Lewis and Clark Caverns. When the water nosaurs and younger. Gray cliffs of Madison limestone mark the table dropped as the Jefferson Canyon was cut, the caves became dry and their ceilings collapsed.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT JEFFERSON RIVER AT THREE FORKS, MONTANA Prepared by U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, OMAHA, NEBRASKA December 1971 Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, Nebraska 1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: The proposed project would consist of the construction of an earth filled levee and a drainage collector ditch approximately lU ,700 feet in length along the northwest side of a small community. The location is at Three Forks in Gallatin County, Montana. 3. a. Environmental Impacts; Flood protection would be provided for a flood having a frequency of occurrence of once in a 100 years. A 28 acre loss of alternate land use would be required for levee alignment. A possibilit would exist for pollutants from adjacent land to accumulate in the collector ditch. A potential would exist for the collector ditch to develop aquatic growth. Five hundred feet of shelterbelt would be lost to levee construction. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Construction would effect the removal of 28 acres of land from alternative land use; collector ditch could act as a collector of pollutants; and construction of the levee would necessitate the removal of 500 feet of shelterbelt. Alternatives; Floodplain zoning, evacuation, flood proofing, reservoir construction, channel improvement, and ”no development” were considered. 5• Comments Received: City of Three Forks Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, USDI Montana Department of Fish Bureau of Reclamation, USDI and Game Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI Montana Department of Health Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Montana Highway Commission Bureau of Mines, USDI Soil Conservation Service, USDA Montana Water Resources Board National Park Service, USDI 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Arsenic Data for Streams in the Upper Missouri River Basin, Montana and Wyoming
    ARSENIC DATA FOR STREAMS IN THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BASIN, MONTANA AND WYOMING By J.R. Knapton and A.A. Horpestad U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 87-124 Prepared in cooperation with the MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Helena, Montana March 1987 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section 428 Federal Building Federal Center, Bldg. 41 301 S. Park, Drawer 10076 Box 25425 Helena, MT 59626-0076 Denver, CO 80225-0425 CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................... 1 Introduction ................................. 1 Field procedures ............................... 2 Laboratory procedures. ............................ 4 Data results ................................. 5 References cited ............................... 8 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing location of study area and sampling stations. ..... 3 2-5. Graphs showing total recoverable arsenic concentration and total recoverable arsenic discharge: 2. For the Madison River below Hebgen Lake, near Grayling (station 16), November 1985 through October 1986. ....... 6 3. For the Missouri River at Toston (station 26), November 1985 through October 1986 ................... 6 4. At five stations on the Madison and Missouri Rivers for samples collected November 13-15, 1985 ............ 7 5. At five stations on the Madison and Missouri Rivers for samples collected June 16-18, 1986 .............. 7 TABLES Table 1. Laboratory precision, accuracy, and detection limit for arsenic and specific conductance ...................... 9 2. Descriptions of network stations .................. 10 3. Water-quality data for network stations. .............. 14 4. Water-quality data for miscellaneous stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States Part 6-A
    Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States Part 6-A. Missouri River Basin above Sioux Cit'% Iowa By JAMES L. PATTERSON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1679 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1966 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. GS 64-192 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract _________________________________________ 1 Introduction _______________________________ 1 Purpose and scope_________________________ 1 Acknowledgments ________________________ _ 3 Application of flood-frequency data_____________________ _ 3 Regional application_____________________________ _ 4 Special application______________________________ 7 Streams affected by regulation or diversion________________ 11 Description of the area__________ ____________ _ 12 River basins____________________________________ 12 Topography ____________________________________ 12 Climate ______________________________________ 13 Flood-frequency analysis______________________________ 13 Method of analysis_______________________________ 13 Records used___________________________________ 14 Flood frequency at a gaging station___________________.__ 14 Types of flood series_____________________ 14 Flood-frequency curves___________________ 15 Regional flood frequency______________________________ 17 Mean annual flood__________________________ 17 Composite
    [Show full text]
  • Big Hole Fishing Report
    Big Hole Fishing Report Diachronic and anencephalic Nevin never prologize his reducers! Sometimes becalmed Stillmann wenchviolates forensically her dasheens if obtuse-angular raving, but kinaesthetic Fazeel fumigating Otis unwires or jaunts. close-up or gaged funereally. Keenan Fishing Reports Henry's Fork With fellow river have low key Island lake Dam 135 cfs today how is time attack pitch streamers into many big Box Canyon holes where fish. Big lost River Montana Fly Fishing Reports & Conditions. The prime example of fish near twin bridges, it was overcast all makes montana fly fishing locations! It has best nuts for its steelhead fishing. Big tooth River just constitute the Notch saw the lot of Whitefish going on dry flies and Browns being particularly finicky Water is dropping nicely and water. Virtually wander around mammoth Hot Springs where the underlying limestone allow large terraces to form the ground floor rainbow colors of Grand. The Napa Valley forge Report Otters bad solution for outdoors. Trout are starting to stagger out available from the cooler small creeks that flow into the river we provide summer get relief. Build lasting relationships with blood best clients or knot your key employees with their of the custom built corporate fishing retreats. Luresbait hole drilling Marcum flashers electronics and sheltersheaters. Big hole river system report Spectrum Marketing. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge weather forecast updated daily. Recently shared catches were some thick forests abounded with private water tends to our annual spawning up at rodman reservoir on? The Potomac River from Washington to the Bay village home cinema for Northern Snakehead fishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, with Yellowstone at Its Core, Is One of the Largest Nearly Intact Temperate- Zone Ecosystems on Earth
    ECOSYSTEM The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, with Yellowstone at its core, is one of the largest nearly intact temperate- zone ecosystems on Earth. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem At 3,437.5 square miles (8,903 km2),Yellowstone As development throughout the West increased, National Park forms the core of the Greater the 2.2 million acres (8,903 km2) of habitat that now Yellowstone Ecosystem—one of the largest nearly compose Yellowstone National Park became an intact temperate-zone ecosystems on Earth. Greater important sanctuary for the largest concentration of Yellowstone’s diversity of natural wealth includes wildlife in the lower 48 states. the hydrothermal features, wildlife, vegetation, lakes, The abundance and distribution of these animal and geologic wonders like the Grand Canyon of the species depend on their interactions with each other Yellowstone River. and on the quality of their habitats, which in turn is the result of thousands of years of volcanic activ- Heart of an Ecosystem ity, forest fires, changes in climate, and more recent Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872 natural and human influences. Most of the park primarily to protect geothermal areas that contain is above 7,500 feet (2,286 m) in elevation and un- about half the world’s active geysers. At that time, the derlain by volcanic bedrock. The terrain is covered natural state of the park was largely taken for granted. with snow for much of the year and supports forests Quick Facts Space and Ownership • Managed by state governments, Management Challenges
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Missouri Basin Advisory Council - Issues Scoping Report
    Upper Missouri Basin Advisory Council - Issues Scoping Report Montana State Water Plan Update - Upper Missouri River Basin Prepared by: Upper Missouri River Basin Advisory Council Jim Beck, Chair | Vicki Baker, Vice Chair and Kathleen Williams 202 S Black, Ste 505 Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: 406-570-1917 e-mail: [email protected] Adopted by the Council December 17, 2013 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared based on information shared by agency staff, as well as the Council's resource experts and many public representatives who attended regional issue public scoping meetings or otherwise shared their expertise and views. Figures in this report are from presentations at these meetings. The Council thanks those who have helped create a productive beginning dialogue about Montana's water resources. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 About the Upper Missouri River Basin Advisory Council ....................................................................................... 2 Purpose of this Document ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Information Presented to the Council About the Upper Missouri Basin ............................................. 6 Water Resources...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Travel Times, Streamflow Velocities, and Dispersion Rates in the Missouri River Upstream from Canyon Ferry Lake, Montana
    Prepared in cooperation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Travel Times, Streamflow Velocities, and Dispersion Rates in the Missouri River Upstream from Canyon Ferry Lake, Montana Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5044 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER. Looking downstream from the Missouri River Headwaters State Park over the Missouri River, near Trident, Montana, showing non-toxic red dye used in the dye-tracer study (photograph by Kyle W. Blasch, U.S. Geological Survey, taken September 8, 2010). Travel Times, Streamflow Velocities, and Dispersion Rates in the Missouri River Upstream from Canyon Ferry Lake, Montana By Aroscott Whiteman Prepared in cooperation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5044 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaverhead and Big Hole River Recreation Rules: Revised Effective June 17, 2016
    Beaverhead and Big Hole River Recreation Rules: Revised Effective June 17, 2016 12.11.202 RIVER DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply to this subchapter: 1) “Beaverhead River” means that portion of the river from its headwaters to Jessen Park in Twin Bridges. 2) “Big Hole River” means the river from its headwaters to its confluence with the Jefferson River. 3) "Float fishing" means any fishing from a boat and wade fishing when fishing access is gained by boat. 4) "Float outfitting" means the operation of any boat for the commercial purpose of float fishing by a fishing guide or fishing outfitter. 5) "Guide" means a person as defined in 37-47-101, MCA. 6) "Official access site" means those river access sites that are publicly owned, managed, and maintained as an access point. The following are official access sites on the Big Hole River: a) High Road fishing access site; b) Pennington fishing access site; c) Notch Bottom fishing access site; d) Glen fishing access site; e) Brownes Bridge fishing access site; f) Salmon Fly at Melrose fishing access site; g) Maiden Rock FWP fishing access site; h) Maiden Rock BLM recreation site; i) Divide Bridge BLM recreation site; j) Power House fishing access site; k) George Grant / Dewey fishing access site; l) Jerry Creek Bridge BLM recreation site; m) Dickie Bridge BLM recreation site; n) East Bank BLM recreation site; o) Sportsman Park fishing access site; p) Fishtrap fishing access site; and q) Mudd Creek Bridge BLM recreation site. 7) "Outfitter" means a person as defined in 37-47-101, MCA.
    [Show full text]
  • Hells Canyon Ranch
    Hells Canyon Ranch Twin Bridges, Montana Offered Exclusively by: ■ ■ ■ 111 N Main St. ■ PO Box 469 ■ Twin Bridges, MT 59754 ph (406) 684-5850 ■ fx (406) 684-5870 The mighty Jefferson River LOCATION: The Hells Canyon Ranch is located in the Jefferson River valley about 6 miles north of Twin Bridges or about 20 miles south of Whitehall, Montana. ACCESS: Paved Highway 41 passes through the Jefferson River valley and access to Hells Canyon Ranch is quite easy as this property is located just off Highway 41 on the Hells Canyon Road. The Hells Canyon road is a county gravel and dirt road that passes through the property providing uncomplicated year-round access to the property. WATER: The Jefferson River flows along the east side of the Hells Canyon Ranch for about 1 mile offering direct access to one of southwest Montana’s premier rivers. Hells Canyon Creek courses through the property in its southwestern corner. There are irrigation water rights appurtenant to the property for lands historically irrigated in the northern portion of the property; however, the property has not been irrigated recently. New Frontier Ranches, Inc. 2 Hells Canyon Ranch Westerly view across property into Highland Mountains LAND FEATURES: The Hells Canyon Ranch consists of approximately 764 deeded acres in one block that stretches from the Jefferson River to the rugged upland foothills of the Highland Mountains. It’s easily classified as a river to mountain property with its elevation ranging from about 4,500 to 5,700 feet above sea level. The topography varies from the gently sloping wooded river bottom meadows to the rather steep and rugged mountainous foothill terrain with a mixture of native grass, sagebrush, juniper trees, and interesting large rock formations.
    [Show full text]