DOCSLIB.ORG

Final – Jefferson River Metals Project Area Tmdls and Water Quality Improvement Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final – Jefferson River Metals Project Area Tmdls and Water Quality Improvement Plan Final – Jefferson River Metals Project Area TMDLs and Water Quality Improvement Plan December 2014 Steve Bullock, Governor Tom Livers, Director DEQ Document Number M08-TMDL-02aF The latest controlled version of this document is located on the DEQ website (http://deq.mt.gov). Printed copies are not controlled. Document users are responsible for ensuring printed copies are valid prior to use. Prepared by: Water Quality Planning Bureau Watershed Management Section Contributors: Water Quality Planning Bureau Watershed Management Section Lou Volpe, Metals Project Manager Christina Staten, Project Coordinator Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Planning Bureau 1520 E. Sixth Avenue P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Suggested citation: Montana DEQ. 2014. Jefferson River Metals Project Area TMDLs and Water Quality Improvement Plan. Helena, MT: Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would like to acknowledge multiple entities for their contributions in the development of the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) contained in this document. A draft of this document was provided to the Jefferson River Metals TMDL Advisory Group for review and input. We would like to thank advisory group members for their willingness to be involved and for their feedback. The involvement of all reviewers led to improvements in this document and is greatly appreciated. DEQ would like to thank the Jefferson River Watershed Council for their comments and contributions. Additionally, multiple staff in the Water Quality Planning Bureau of DEQ contributed to the production of this document, including Dean Yashan, Eric Trum, Eric Sivers, Janelle Egli, and Carrie Greeley. Jefferson River Metals TMDLs and Water Quality Improvement Plan – Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronym List ............................................................................................................................................... vii Document Summary ............................................................................................................................... DS-1 1.0 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Why We Write TMDLs ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Water Quality Impairments and TMDLs Addressed by this Document ........................................... 1-3 1.3 What This Document Contains ........................................................................................................ 1-5 2.0 Jefferson River TMDL Project Area Description ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Physical Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.3 Climate ...................................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2 Ecological Profile .............................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.2.1 Ecoregions ................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.2.2 Land Cover and Land Use .......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.3 Aquatic Life ............................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.3 Cultural Profile ................................................................................................................................. 2-9 2.3.1 Population ................................................................................................................................. 2-9 2.3.2 Land Ownership ........................................................................................................................ 2-9 2.3.3 Transportation Networks ........................................................................................................ 2-10 2.3.4. Permitted Point Sources ........................................................................................................ 2-10 2.3.5 Mining History ......................................................................................................................... 2-11 3.0 Montana Water Quality Standards ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Stream Classifications and Designated Beneficial Uses ................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Numeric and Narrative Water Quality Standards ............................................................................ 3-2 4.0 Defining TMDLs and Their Components .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Developing Water Quality Targets ................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Quantifying Pollutant Sources ......................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Establishing the Total Allowable Load ............................................................................................. 4-3 4.4 Determining Pollutant Allocations ................................................................................................... 4-3 4.5 Implementing TMDL Allocations ...................................................................................................... 4-5 5.0 Metals TMDL Components .................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Effects of Metals on Designated Beneficial Uses ............................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Stream Segments of Concern .......................................................................................................... 5-1 12/11/14 Final i Jefferson River Metals TMDLs and Water Quality Improvement Plan – Table of Contents 5.3 Water Quality Data and Information Sources ................................................................................. 5-4 5.4 Water Quality Targets and Comparison to Existing Conditions ....................................................... 5-4 5.4.1 Metals Evaluation Framework .................................................................................................. 5-4 5.4.2 Metals Water Quality Targets ................................................................................................... 5-5 5.4.3 Existing Conditions and Comparison with Water Quality Targets ............................................ 5-7 5.4.4 Metals Target Comparison and TMDL Development Summary ............................................. 5-21 5.5 Metals TMDLs ................................................................................................................................ 5-22 5.6 Metals Source Assessments ........................................................................................................... 5-28 5.6.1 Little Whitetail Creek MT41G002_140 Source Assessment ................................................... 5-29 5.6.2 Whitetail Deer Creek MT41G002_141 Source Assessment .................................................... 5-32 5.6.3 Big Pipestone Creek MT41G002_010 Sources Assessment .................................................... 5-35 5.6.4 Jefferson Slough MT41G002_170 Source Assessment ........................................................... 5-40 5.6.5 Upper Jefferson River MT41G001_011 Source Assessment ................................................... 5-44 5.6.6 Lower Jefferson River MT41G001_012 Sources Assessment ................................................. 5-50 5.6.7 Natural Background ................................................................................................................ 5-56 5.7 Metals Total Maximum Daily Load Allocations .............................................................................. 5-57 5.7.1 Types of Allocations ................................................................................................................ 5-58 5.7.2 Allocations by Waterbody Segment........................................................................................ 5-61 5.8 Seasonality and Margin of Safety .................................................................................................. 5-73 5.8.1 Seasonality .............................................................................................................................. 5-73 5.8.2 Margin of Safety ...................................................................................................................... 5-74 5.9 Uncertainty and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 5-74
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]
  • Historic Settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Montana| an Archaeological and Historical Perspective
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2005 Historic settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Montana| An archaeological and historical perspective Daniel S. Comer The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Comer, Daniel S., "Historic settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Montana| An archaeological and historical perspective" (2005). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 2544. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2544 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE TO USERS Page(s) not included in the original manuscript are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was microfilmed as received 80-190, 271-289 This reproduction is the best copy available. dfti UMI Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of IVIontdn^ Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entiret>', provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission No, 1 do not grant permission Author's Signature: J. i-O frJir^ Date: Any copying for commercial purposes or fmancial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent.
    [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]
  • MBMG 505-Jefferson-V2.FH10
    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE CENOZOIC DEPOSITS OF THE UPPER JEFFERSON VALLEY MBMG Open File Report 505 2004 Compiled and mapped by Susan M. Vuke, Walter W. Coppinger, and Bruce E. Cox This report has been reviewed for conformity with Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s technical and editorial standards. Partial support has been provided by the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geology Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey under contract Number 03HQAG0090. CENOZOIC DEPOSITS OF THE UPPER JEFFERSON VALLEY Cenozoic deposits are the focus of the Geologic Map of the upper Jefferson Valley. The map is largely a compilation of previous mapping with additional interpretations based on aerial photos and limited additional field work. Older rocks are included to show their relations to the Cenozoic deposits, but they are generalized on the map. Lithologic descriptions of the Cenozoic deposits are given in the map explanation (p. 17). References used for the map compilation are shown on p. 15. The northern and southern parts of the map are discussed separately. NORTHERN PART OF MAP AREA Quaternary deposits A variety of Quaternary deposits blanket much of the slope area of the Whitetail and Pipestone Creek valleys between the flanks of the Highland Mountains and Bull Mountain (Fig. 1). East and southeast of these Quaternary slope deposits are more isolated areas of partly cemented Pleistocene gravels on pediments. One of these gravel deposits near Red Hill (Fig. 1) yielded a late Pleistocene vertebrate assemblage including cheetah, horse, camel, and large mountain sheep. Radiocarbon dates from the lowest part of the sequence range between 10,000 and 9,000 14C yr.
    [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]
  • The Boulder River Watershed Study, Jefferson County, Montana
    The Boulder River Watershed Study, Jefferson County, Montana By Stanley E. Church, David A. Nimick, Susan E. Finger, and J. Michael O’Neill Chapter B of Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana Edited by David A. Nimick, Stanley E. Church, and Susan E. Finger Professional Paper 1652–B U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Description of Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 17 Hydrologic Setting ............................................................................................................................. 17 Biologic Setting .................................................................................................................................. 19 Geologic Setting................................................................................................................................. 20 Mining History .................................................................................................................................... 20 Remediation Activities
    [Show full text]
  • The Archean Geology of Montana
    THE ARCHEAN GEOLOGY OF MONTANA David W. Mogk,1 Paul A. Mueller,2 and Darrell J. Henry3 1Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 2Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 3Department of Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana ABSTRACT in a subduction tectonic setting. Jackson (2005) char- acterized cratons as areas of thick, stable continental The Archean rocks in the northern Wyoming crust that have experienced little deformation over Province of Montana provide fundamental evidence long (Ga) periods of time. In the Wyoming Province, related to the evolution of the early Earth. This exten- the process of cratonization included the establishment sive record provides insight into some of the major, of a thick tectosphere (subcontinental mantle litho- unanswered questions of Earth history and Earth-sys- sphere). The thick, stable crust–lithosphere system tem processes: Crustal genesis—when and how did permitted deposition of mature, passive-margin-type the continental crust separate from the mantle? Crustal sediments immediately prior to and during a period of evolution—to what extent are Earth materials cycled tectonic quiescence from 3.1 to 2.9 Ga. These compo- from mantle to crust and back again? Continental sitionally mature sediments, together with subordinate growth—how do continents grow, vertically through mafi c rocks that could have been basaltic fl ows, char- magmatic accretion of plutons and volcanic rocks, acterize this period. A second major magmatic event laterally through tectonic accretion of crustal blocks generated the Beartooth–Bighorn magmatic zone assembled at continental margins, or both? Structural at ~2.9–2.8 Ga.
    [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]
  • Mission Mountains Wilderness Flathead Nazionafou4t Montana
    A Proposal. Mission Mountains Wilderness Flathead NaZionaFou4t Montana beyond civilization lies Wilderness, where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE 7'-'i"J - t7 A PROPOSAL MISSION MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST MONTANA Recommended by: (Chief, Forest Service) ir"17' Report Approved: /77/ (éetar of Agriculture) tate) Report on the Proposed MISSION MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS Flathead National Forest Montana Recommendation: This report recommends that 71,927 acres of the Mission Mountains Primitive Area and 1 ,280 contiguous acres, for a total of 73,207 acres, in the Flathead National Forest, State of Montana, be added to the National Wilderness Preservation System by Act of Congress. It will be called the Mission Mountains Wilderness, Flathead National Forest. Administration will be in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577, dated September 3, 1964, and the Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations 251.70-251.84. It is further recommended that Primitive Area status be lifted from 2,018 acres found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Region Missoula, Montana TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY Location Principal Features and Attractions Proximity to Population and Other Classified Areas Acreage Summary I THE AREA 2 Historical 2 General
    [Show full text]