DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Gallatin Planning Area Tmdls & Framework Water Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Gallatin Planning Area Tmdls & Framework Water Quality Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDLs & Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan March 2013 Steve Bullock, Governor Tracy Stone-Manning, Director DEQ Document Number M05-TMDL-02aF Prepared by: Water Quality Planning Bureau Watershed Management Section Contributors: Water Quality Planning Bureau Watershed Management Section Christian Schmidt, Nutrient and Pathogen Project Manager and Project Coordinator Pete Schade, Previous Nutrient and Pathogen Project Manager Information Management and Technical Services Section Kyle Flynn, Project Modeler Erik Makus, Project Modeler Eric Regensburger, Project Modeler U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Kusnierz, Sediment Project Manager 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. 2013. Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDLs and Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan. Helena, MT: Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality. ERRATA SHEET FOR THE LOWER GALLATIN PLANNING AREA TMDLS & FRAMEWORK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN This TMDL was approved by EPA on March 28, 2013. Several copies were printed and spiral bound for distribution, or sent electronically on compact disks. The original version had minor changes that are explained and corrected on this errata sheet. If you have a bound copy, please note the corrections listed below or simply print out the errata sheet and insert it in your copy of the TMDL. If you have a compact disk please add this errata sheet to your disk or download the updated version from our website. Appropriate corrections have already been made in the downloadable version of the TMDL located on our website at: http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/TMDL/finalReports.mcpx The following table contains corrections to the TMDL. The first column cites the page and paragraph where there is a text error. The second column contains the original text that was in error. The third column contains the new text that has been corrected for the Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDLs & Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan document. The text in error and the correct text are underlined. Location in the TMDL Original Text Corrected Text Page 11-1, last paragraph, Excerpts from the comment Excerpts from the comment second sentence. letters and DEQ responses are letters and DEQ responses are provided in Appendix G. provided in Appendix H. ERRATA SHEET FOR THE “LOWER GALLATIN PLANNING AREA TMDLS & FRAMEWORK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved 40 sediment, nutrient, and E. coli TMDLs in the Lower Gallatin TMDL planning area addressing 41 impairments on March 28th, 2013. This document included Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) nutrient TMDLs for all three segments of the East Gallatin River which was determined to be impaired by a variety of point and nonpoint sources. This addition provides the linkage between the nutrient TMDLs developed to address nutrient impairments and existing pH impairment listings on the middle and lower segments of the East Gallatin River. Listing History On the 2012 303(d) List and the draft 2014 303(d) List, there are two pH impairment listings on East Gallatin River assessment units which include the middle segment (Bridger Creek to Smith Creek; MT41H003_020) and the lower segment (Smith Creek to Gallatin River; MT41H003_030). Both segments are classified as B-1. At the time the East Gallatin River TMDLs were being developed, DEQ personnel believed that updated assessments would determine that pH was no longer impairing the East Gallatin River based on available data. However, a formal assessment in fall 2013 found that existing data did not clearly indicate that pH was no longer impairing the East Gallatin River. In the middle segment, pH data collected as part of nutrient sampling in 2005 and 2009 ranged from 8.21 to 9.06; the range in the lower segment during the same timeframe was 8.15 to 9.10. Applicable Water Quality Standards For B-1 classified streams, the Montana water quality standard for pH (17.30.623(c)) is: induced variation of hydrogen ion concentration (pH) within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 must be less than 0.5 pH unit. Natural pH outside this range must be maintained without change. Natural pH above 7.0 must be maintained above 7.0. This standard is protective of beneficial uses. Nutrient TMDL Targets and Linkage to Attainment of pH Water Quality Standards Impairment from high pH values in a waterbody are a secondary response to excess nutrient pollution and excessive algal growth. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus from human sources can cause excess algal growth, which in turn depletes the supply of dissolved oxygen, killing fish and other aquatic life. Excess nutrient concentrations in surface water create algal blooms, which can alter pH by two different mechanisms. Algal-blooms are caused by a rapid increase in net primary production and photosynthesis when nutrients are available at concentrations greater than naturally occurring levels. The capture of CO2 by photosynthesis removes carbon from the system raising pH levels (Zheng and Paul, 2014). Conversely, respiration and decomposition processes lower pH by releasing carbon dioxide which forms carbonic acid and hydroxyl ions (Zheng and Paul, 2014). Diel cycling of pH often occurs in streams with low acid neutralizing capacity and has been found to be related to excessive algal growth (Zheng and Paul, 2014). Continuously measured pH is a good indicator which captures heterotrophic and autotrophic responses which are generally sensitive to nutrient stress and provide a clear linkage to aquatic life (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Therefore, controlling excess nutrient inputs to a waterbody via TMDL development and implementation will also control swings in pH harmful to aquatic life and result in attainment of the pH standard as high pH levels can be toxic to fish and other organisms (Zheng and Paul, 2014). 9/18/2014 Errata 1 of 2 Errata for the “Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMLS & Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan” It should be noted that pH effluent data the city of Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) was reviewed to determine if simple mixing was causing an exceedance of the water quality standard in the middle segment of the East Gallatin River. Between 2002 and 2011, pH effluent values ranged from 6.57 to 8.60 with an average value of 7.49 and a median value of 7.54. Simple mixing with known East Gallatin River flows and pH values were not observed to violate the water quality standard. Therefore, simple mixing from the WRF point source is not the source of the pH impairment but rather the availability of excess nutrients paired with diel cycling caused by photosynthesis and respiration in the water column is the most probable cause of the pH impairment. As described in the Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDLs and Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan, nutrient targets identified for the East Gallatin River will ensure attainment of all beneficial uses, but particularly of aquatic life support, by limiting algal growth to concentrations that will result in meeting the standard for other response variables such as dissolved oxygen and pH. In addition to pH, the middle and lower segments of the East Gallatin River are impaired by both TN and TP, although larger reductions of TN are needed to achieve the TMDL and restore beneficial. For this reason, the TN TMDLs are used as surrogate TMDLs for the pH impairments on the middle and lower segments of the East Gallatin River. In the Lower Gallatin TMDL document, necessary TN reductions in the East Gallatin River ranged from approximately 75% in the middle segment to 50% in the lower segment. Nutrient Targets and TN TMDLs for the middle and lower segments of the East Gallatin River TP target TN target TN TMDL Stream segment (mg/L) (mg/L) (lbs/day) East Gallatin between Bridger Creek and Hyalite Creek ≤0.030 ≤0.300 60.83 East Gallatin between Hyalite Creek and Smith Creek ≤0.060 ≤0.290 92.79 East Gallatin between Smith Creek and mouth ≤0.030 ≤0.300 234.32 Summary Based on the linkage between nutrient impairment and pH, this addition clarifies that the TN TMDL for the East Gallatin River (Bridger Creek to Smith Creek) addresses both the nutrient and the pH impairments on assessment unit MT41H003_020. Additionally, the TN TMDL for the East Gallatin River (Smith Creek to Gallatin River) addresses both the Total Nitrogen and the pH impairments on the assessment unit MT41H003_030. Therefore, the Lower Gallatin document contains 40 TMDLs addressing 43 impairments. For your reference, the nutrient targets and TN TMDLs for the aforementioned segments of the East Gallatin River are in the table above but they are described in more detail in Section 6 of the Lower Gallatin TMDL document. Literature Cited United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Experts Workshop Summary: Nutrient Enrichment Indicators in Streams. EPA-822-S-13-001. Zheng, Lei and Michael J. Paul. 2014. Effects of Eutrophication on Stream Ecosystems. 9/18/2014 Errata 2 of 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEQ would like to acknowledge multiple entities for their contributions in the development of the sediment TMDLs contained in this document. The Greater Gallatin Watershed Council (GGWC) and the Gallatin Local Water Quality District (GLWQD) provided support throughout the Lower Gallatin TMDL planning process by providing assistance with the identification of stakeholders and coordinating stakeholder meetings, collecting and reporting water quality data, administering contracts for the completion of source assessments, and via public outreach and education. The GGWC will also be involved in implementing many of the water quality improvement recommendations contained in this document. Katie Makarowski, the DEQ Monitoring and Assessment project lead in the Lower Gallatin watershed was an invaluable asset for the analyses and determinations of impairment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Distribution, Biology and Harvest of Common Snipe (Capella Gallinago Delicata)
    Distribution, biology and harvest of Common Snipe (Capella gallinago delicata) in Montana by Graham Stuart Taylor A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fish and Wildlife Management Montana State University © Copyright by Graham Stuart Taylor (1978) Abstract: Distribution, migration chronology, breeding biology and harvest of Common Snipe (Capella gallinago delicata) were studied during 1976 and 1977 in Montana. Seven census sites, including one intensive study site, were maintained: Jackson and Divide in southwest Montana, Helm- ville and Choteau in the westcentral portion of the state, Malta and Medicine Lake in the northeast and Belgrade, which doubled as an intensive study site, in southcentral Montana. Spring arrival dates varied from 11 April to 11 May at Belgrade and Medicine Lake, respectively. Fall migration observed at the Belgrade area peaked the last two weeks of October in both years. Breeding pair densities (pairs per 100 hectare of habitat) for each census site, based on winnowing censuses were 14 pairs at Jackson, 17 at Divide, 14 at Helmville, 21 at Choteau, 50 at Malta, 8 at Medicine Lake and 34 at Belgrade. Breeding habitat surveyed ranged in size from 269 hectares at Jackson to 26 at Malta. Based on information from 20 nests, peak hatch occurred the last week of May and the first two weeks in June at Belgrade. Ninety-five percent of twenty-one nests were successful while individual egg success was equally high at 93 percent. Clutch size averaged 4 eggs. Vegeta-tional analysis of nest sites showed a strong preference by nesting snipe for stands of Carex spp.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGY and OIL and GAS PROSPECTS of the HUNTLEY FIELD, Montanj
    GEOLOGY AND OIL AND GAS PROSPECTS OF THE HUNTLEY FIELD, MONTANj By E. T. HANCOCK. INTRODUCTION. The Huntley field is in Yellowstone and Big Horn counties, south- central Montana, and embraces an area of about 650 square miles, part of which lies northwest and part southeast of Yellowstone River. The field has railroad facilities that are exceptionally good for this general region, being traversed by the main lines of the Northern Pacific and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy railroads. These roads furnish excellent shipping facilities at Huntley, Warden, Ballantine, Pompeys Pillar, and other points. Acknowledgments. In presenting this report the writer desires to express his thanks to David White for valuable suggestions and criticisms, to T. W. Stanton and F. H. Knowlton for the identifica­ tion of fossils, and to C. E. Dobbins for assistance in the detailed mapping. He also wishes to call attention to the public service rendered by oil and gas operators who have furnished records of deep borings and by individuals who have contributed in various ways to the success of the investigation. Earlier investigations. The Huntley field is in reality an ex­ tension of the Lake Basin field, which was mapped by the writer during the summer of 1916.1 The geologic investigation of the region including the Lake Basin and Huntley fields began with the Northern Transcontinental Survey of 1882. Prior to that time geologists had described certain struc­ tural features and the stratigraphic succession at points closely ad­ jacent to these fields, such as Judith Gap, the canyon of the North Fork of the- Musselshell, and the Bridger Range, but almost noth­ ing had been written concerning the geology of the area herein de­ scribed.
    [Show full text]
  • East Gallatin Nutrient Monitoring Project: Summary Report, 2017 Data Collection and ‘Site H’ Algal Spike
    East Gallatin Nutrient Monitoring Project: Summary Report, 2017 Data Collection and ‘Site H’ Algal Spike 215 W. Mendenhall, Suite 300 Bozeman, MT 59715 406.582.3168 www.glwqd.org Prepared by Torie Haraldson, Water Quality Tech. Specialist January, 2019 Project Background The Gallatin Local Water Quality District (GLWQD) led water quality data collection for a modeling effort by the City of Bozeman (the City) from 2014-2016. The purpose of the model is to understand the potential implications of Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Total Maximum Daily Load assessment on the City’s Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for their water reclamation facility (WRF) that discharges to the East Gallatin River, just north of Bozeman, Montana. Modeling (by HDR of Missoula) has provided insight into nutrient processing within the river system and its potential responses to nutrient management activities. The modeling process employs the river and stream water quality model QUAL2K, which couples nutrient data with light, weather, topography, and other inputs to predict algal growth in reaches along the river continuum. A project progress report by City of Bozeman staff at the GLWQD Board of Directors May 4, 2017 meeting included results that indicated a spike in algal density at ‘Site H’, a site on the main stem of the East Gallatin River approximately 13 miles downstream of the WRF (Figure 1). Chlorophyll-a is a photosynthetic pigment that is isolated from algae samples and used to quantify algal density. Mean Algal Chlorophyll-a at Main Stem Sites, 2014-2016 200 ) 180 2 160 140 120 July August Area Area (mg/m Density 100 a - September 80 Overall Mean 60 40 Mean Chlorophyll 20 0 ← Site ID ← River mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Fishing Regulations
    MONTANA FISHING REGULATIONS 20March 1, 2018 — F1ebruary 828, 2019 Fly fishing the Missouri River. Photo by Jason Savage For details on how to use these regulations, see page 2 fwp.mt.gov/fishing With your help, we can reduce poaching. MAKE THE CALL: 1-800-TIP-MONT FISH IDENTIFICATION KEY If you don’t know, let it go! CUTTHROAT TROUT are frequently mistaken for Rainbow Trout (see pictures below): 1. Turn the fish over and look under the jaw. Does it have a red or orange stripe? If yes—the fish is a Cutthroat Trout. Carefully release all Cutthroat Trout that cannot be legally harvested (see page 10, releasing fish). BULL TROUT are frequently mistaken for Brook Trout, Lake Trout or Brown Trout (see below): 1. Look for white edges on the front of the lower fins. If yes—it may be a Bull Trout. 2. Check the shape of the tail. Bull Trout have only a slightly forked tail compared to the lake trout’s deeply forked tail. 3. Is the dorsal (top) fin a clear olive color with no black spots or dark wavy lines? If yes—the fish is a Bull Trout. Carefully release Bull Trout (see page 10, releasing fish). MONTANA LAW REQUIRES: n All Bull Trout must be released immediately in Montana unless authorized. See Western District regulations. n Cutthroat Trout must be released immediately in many Montana waters. Check the district standard regulations and exceptions to know where you can harvest Cutthroat Trout. NATIVE FISH Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species of Concern small irregularly shaped black spots, sparse on belly Average Size: 6”–12” cutthroat slash— spots
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Sedan Quadrangle, Gallatin And
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS SERIES I–2634 Version 2.1 A 25 20 35 35 80 rocks generally fall in the range of 3.2–2.7 Ga. (James and Hedge, 1980; Mueller and others, 1985; Mogk and Henry, Pierce, K.L., and Morgan, L.A., 1992, The track of the Yellowstone hot spot—Volcanism, faulting, and uplift, in Link, 30 5 25 CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS 10 30 Kbc Billman Creek Formation—Grayish-red, grayish-green and gray, volcaniclastic mudstone and siltstone ၤ Phosphoria and Quadrant Formations; Amsden, Snowcrest Range and Madison Groups; and Three Overturned 45 20 10 30 20 P r 1988; Wooden and others, 1988; Mogk and others, 1992), although zircons have been dated as old as 3.96 Ga from P.K., Kuntz, M.A., and Platt, L.B., eds., Regional geology of eastern Idaho and western Wyoming: Geological 40 Ksms 45 Kh interbedded with minor volcanic sandstone and conglomerate and vitric tuff. Unit is chiefly 30 30 25 45 45 Forks Formation, Jefferson Dolomite, Maywood Formation, Snowy Range Formation, Pilgrim Ksl 5 15 50 SURFICIAL DEPOSITS quartzites in the Beartooth Mountains (Mueller and others, 1992). The metamorphic fabric of these basement rocks has Society of America Memoir 179, p. 1–53. 15 20 15 Kbc volcaniclastic mudstone and siltstone that are gray and green in lower 213 m and grayish red above; Estimated 40 Qc 5 15 Qoa Limestone, Park Shale, Meagher Limestone, Wolsey Shale, and Flathead Sandstone, undivided in some cases exerted a strong control on the geometry of subsequent Proterozoic and Phanerozoic structures, Piombino, Joseph, 1979, Depositional environments and petrology of the Fort Union Formation near Livingston, 15 25 Ksa 50 calcareous, containing common carbonaceous material and common yellowish-brown-weathering 60 40 20 15 15 (Permian, Pennsylvanian, Mississippian, Devonian, Ordovician, and Cambrian)—Limestone, Ksa 20 10 10 45 particularly Laramide folds (Miller and Lageson, 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Chapter 2 – Alternatives United States Department of FINAL Agriculture Forest Service Supplemental Final November 2011 Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project Bozeman Ranger District, Gallatin National Forest Gallatin County, Montana Looking north from the BMW Project area between the Hyalite and Leverich Creek divide toward Bozeman, MT. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual‟s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250- 9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Changes Between SFEIS (May 2011) and Final SFEIS (November 2011) Incorporation of the following changes and the inclusion of Appendix B – Response to Comments are the extent of the changes to the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact States (May 2011) that make up the Final SFEIS (November 2011). The Final SFEIS (November 2011) replaces SFEIS (May 2011) in its‟entirety. An errata sheet with the following updates and Appendix B will be circulated.
    [Show full text]
  • MONTANA N7 4Qea
    E 12, p( /F- o77 (r 2) Sf(jji PGJ/F-077(82) National Uranium Resource Evaluation 6 BOZEMAN QUADRANGLE 41 MONTANA n7 4QeA/ University of Montana Missoula, Montana and Montana State University Bozeman, Montana E2T oFi Issue Date August 1982 SATESO9 PREPARED FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Grand Junction Area Office, Colorado rmetadc957781 Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This report is a result of work performed by the University of Montana and Montana State University, through a Bendix Field Engineering Corporation subcontract, as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation. NURE was a program of the U.S. Department of Energy's Grand Junction, Colorado, Office to acquire and compile geologic and other information with which to assess the magnitude and distribution of uranium resources and to determine areas favorable for the occurrence of uranium in the United States. Available from: Technical Library Bendix Field Engineering Corporation P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland and Riparian Resource Assessment of the Gallatin Valley and Bozeman Creek Watershed, Gallatin County, Montana
    WETLAND AND RIPARIAN RESOURCE ASSESSMENT OF THE GALLATIN VALLEY AND BOZEMAN CREEK WATERSHED, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA Prepared By Alan English and Corey Baker Gallatin Local Water Quality District For Montana Department of Environmental Quality June 2004 Table of Contents Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 1 Importance of Wetlands Importance or Riparian Ares Funding Project Area Description Hydrogeologic Setting STEERING COMMITTEE 7 LIMITATIONS 7 Inventory vs. Delineation CIR Imagery and GIS Database Historical Mapping PROJECT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND TASKS 8 Overview and Assessment of Goals and Objectives DEVELOPMENT OF ORTHORECTIFIED CIR IMAGERY 10 Fundamentals of Using CIR Aerial Photography to Map Wetlands Color Infrared Aerial Photography of the Gallatin Valley Transforming CIR Aerial Photographs Into Digital Photographs Orthorectification of Digital CIR Photographs and Creation of CIR DOQs NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY (NWI) MAPPING 15 Information Provided by NWI Results ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS 16 Review of Subdivision Documents and Conservation Easements for Wetlands Description of Wetland and Riparian GIS Layers Mapping Conventions Analysis of Wetlands and Riparian Areas on CIR Imagery Ground-Truthing and Low Altitude Aerial Survey Inventory of Wetlands and Riparian Areas GIS Project CD Attributes of the Wetlands GIS Layer Attributes of the Riparian/Wetland Mixed GIS Layer i Table of Contents (Continued) Page HISTORICAL IMPACTS FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES (1800-2001) 28 Oral History Interviews as Insight The Pattern of
    [Show full text]
  • Fisherman Use and Fish Harvest on the West Gallatin River, Montana by Richard Seth Lyden a Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Facu
    Fisherman use and fish harvest on the West Gallatin River, Montana by Richard Seth Lyden A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fish and Wildlife Management Montana State University © Copyright by Richard Seth Lyden (1973) Abstract: Estimates of fishing intensity and yield of game fish were made on the canyon portion of the West Gallatin River, Montana during the summer fishing seasons, of 1971 and 1972» Two sections each about 11 miles long were selected for intensive study» These sections were the most accessible and most heavily fished portions of the river. An estimated 57 percent in 1971 and 36 percent in 1972 of all fisherman were interviewed. During 1971, total fisherman days per stream mile were estimated to be 181 and 224 for the upper and lower sections, respectively while during 1972 these values were 196 and 274, respectively. An increase in fishing pressure of 35 percent in the lower section was attributed to a shorter high and turbid water period in 1972. The catch varied from 5,318 fish caught in 3,305 fisherman days in section B during 1972 to 3,618 fish caught in 2,616 fisherman days in section B during 1971. The average number of fish caught per fisherman' day ranged from 1.38 to 2.02. Catch rates for wild rainbow trout ranged from 0.15 to 0.35 and for hatchery trout ranged from 0.05 to 0.30. Wild and hatchery rainbow trout combined, contributed 67.2 to 93.4 percent of the total game fish catch for both sections both years.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal and Storm Snow Distributions in the Bridger Range, Montana by Michael Jon Pipp a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillmen
    Seasonal and storm snow distributions in the Bridger Range, Montana by Michael Jon Pipp A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Earth Sciences Montana State University © Copyright by Michael Jon Pipp (1997) Abstract: Computer modeling of seasonal snowpack distribution and storm snowfall is a common tool for hydrologist and avalanche forecasters. Spatial scales for models range from global to local with temporal scales ranging from hours to months. The measurement stations available to constrain the models are widely spaced so that meso-scale resolution is difficult. Local-scale seasonal and storm snow distributions were measured to assess the variability and factors that control snow distributions between stations. A network of eleven measurement sites was established in the Ross Pass area in the central Bridger Range, MT. Sites were measured for elevation, aspect, slope, radial distance from Ross Pass, distance from the range crest, and distance north-south of the Pass. Atmospheric data was collected from National Weather Service Rawinsondes at Great Falls, MT. Surface meteorological data was collected locally. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) - Snow Survey measures snowpack at four locations in the Bridger Range, two north and south of the Ross Pass Study Area (RPSA). Seasonal snowpack was measured on April 1,1995 at all fifteen sites using Federal snow samplers. Storm snowfall was measured from storm boards at the RPSA sites with modified bulk samplers and spring scales. Results show that the NRCS estimated April 1, 1995 snowpack to have a snow-elevation gradient of 937 mm km-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Surrounded by Mountains
    Surrounded by Mountains he Gallatin Valley is one of the most picturesque and Rockies into the jagged peaks we see today. Over the last 50 Geo-Facts: agriculturally productive valleys in Montana. From million years, western Montana experienced several phases of • From the summit of Sacagawea Peak (9,596 ft.) in the northern here, you can see four prominent Montana mountain regional extension and block-faulting, resulting in the creation Bridger Range, you can see even more ranges in a spectacular Tranges: the Bridger Range (east), Gallatin Range (south), of modern Basin-and-Range topography. The crest of the 360o panorama of southwest Montana. Spanish Peaks (southwest), and the Big Belt Mountains Bridger Range arch slowly down-dropped one earthquake at a • A pluton is an intrusive igneous rock body that crystallized from (north). Each range has its own unique geology and topography. time to form the modern Gallatin Valley. Thick layers of mid- magma slowly cooling below the surface of the Earth. Its name The high peaks of the Gallatin Range are carved from volcanic and late Cenozoic sedimentary rocks and more recent stream comes from Pluto, the Roman god of the underworld. rocks and volcanic-derived mudflows that erupted during the deposits have been deposited in the Gallatin Valley, producing • One of the richest gold strikes in Montana history was made at Eocene, approximately 45 million years ago. The Spanish Peaks the fertile landscape that Native Americans called the “Valley of Confederate Gulch in the Big Belt Mountains in 1864. Miners expose metamorphic rocks that date back to the Earth’s early Flowers” – the Gallatin Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary and Late Tertiary of Montana: Climate, Glaciation, Stratigraphy, and Vertebrate Fossils
    QUATERNARY AND LATE TERTIARY OF MONTANA: CLIMATE, GLACIATION, STRATIGRAPHY, AND VERTEBRATE FOSSILS Larry N. Smith,1 Christopher L. Hill,2 and Jon Reiten3 1Department of Geological Engineering, Montana Tech, Butte, Montana 2Department of Geosciences and Department of Anthropology, Boise State University, Idaho 3Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Billings, Montana 1. INTRODUCTION by incision on timescales of <10 ka to ~2 Ma. Much of the response can be associated with Quaternary cli- The landscape of Montana displays the Quaternary mate changes, whereas tectonic tilting and uplift may record of multiple glaciations in the mountainous areas, be locally signifi cant. incursion of two continental ice sheets from the north and northeast, and stream incision in both the glaciated The landscape of Montana is a result of mountain and unglaciated terrain. Both mountain and continental and continental glaciation, fl uvial incision and sta- glaciers covered about one-third of the State during the bility, and hillslope retreat. The Quaternary geologic last glaciation, between about 21 ka* and 14 ka. Ages of history, deposits, and landforms of Montana were glacial advances into the State during the last glaciation dominated by glaciation in the mountains of western are sparse, but suggest that the continental glacier in and central Montana and across the northern part of the eastern part of the State may have advanced earlier the central and eastern Plains (fi gs. 1, 2). Fundamental and retreated later than in western Montana.* The pre- to the landscape were the valley glaciers and ice caps last glacial Quaternary stratigraphy of the intermontane in the western mountains and Yellowstone, and the valleys is less well known.
    [Show full text]