333.91
W31r207
STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION
AUG \ i 2000
M0N»^
TATE LIBRARY
AVL.
HELENA, MUN
#*iir.w=<*T--»r
Watershed Restoration Assessment
for Lost Creek -- a tributary of the
Upper Clark Fork River
Report No. 207
J
M
ONTANA
L University System
^m^%
Water Resources
center
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
3 0864 0016 2453 8
Watershed Restoration Assessment
for Lost Creek -- a tributary of the
Upper Clark Fork River
Report No. 207
by
James Harris, and Vicki Watson (advisor and Professor)
University of Montana - Environmental Studies
Missoula, Montana 59812
Final Report Submitted to the
MONTANA University System WATER CENTER
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana
2000
The project on which this report is based was financed in part by the Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey, through the Montana University System Water Center as authorized under the Water
Resources Research Act of 1984 (PL98-242) as amended by Public Law 101-397.
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Department of the
Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement or
recommendation for their use by the United States Government.
Watershed Restoration Assessment for Lost Creek
— a tributary of the Upper Clark Fork River
James A. Harris and Vicki Watson,
Environmental Studies, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812
Lost Creek, a tributary to the Upper Clark Fork of the Columbia, is listed on Montana's 303(d) list as
impaired for a number of beneficial uses, including aquatic life support, drinking water supply, and cold
water fishery Lost Creek is undergoing major riparian restoration and grazing management changes which
will be the basis of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrients and sediment for the lower 17
stream miles Therefore the objectives of this project include the following
1) assess current conditions in Lost Creek including kinds and degrees of impairment,
2) provide baseline data to evaluate benefits of restoration work,
3) evaluate Lost Creek as a nutrient source to the nutrient-impaired Clark Fork River,
4) evaluate nutrient sources along Lost Creek,
5) make recommendations for TMDL development for Lost Creek, and how it should relate to
the Clark Fork VNRP (which calls for a 20% reduction in nonpoint sources of nutrients)
Water samples were collected from May through August 1 999 at sites along the creek which bracketed
suspected sources. Samples were analyzed for nutrients (nitrate/nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, soluble
reactive phosphorus, and total phosphorus) using an EPA-approved protocol Riparian health assessments
were performed on the lower 20 miles of Lost Creek using the University of Montana's Riparian and
Wetland Research Program's Lotic Inventory Form Riparian inventories are used to identify and prioritize
problem areas and provide detailed baseline information for gauging the success of restoration projects on
Lost Creek
Lost Creek does not provide good habitat for attached algae growth, but in some areas aquatic plants may
be a problem Hence, the main reason for reducing nutrients in Lost Creek is to reduce the load to the Clark
Fork Phosphorus levels in Lost Creek were below those considered to be a problem for streams according
to the Clark Fork VNRP Total nitrogen (particularly nitrate/rutrite) levels are high enough to be a concern
Nitrate/nitrite levels increase in the area near Dutchman reservoir. Although wetland disturbance by cattle
grazing is a likely source of nutrients in this area, it appears likely that irrigation water from the land
application of Anaconda's municipal wastewater is leaching into groundwater from nearby hay fields and
from storage ponds in the Dutchman Creek drainage Riparian inventories found 30% of riparian areas were
not performing their functions while the other 70% were at risk to become nonfunctional.
In terms of TMDL development for Lost Creek, the conservation practices being undertaken by landowners
with state and federal funding will likely improve habitat and reduce nutrient loads. Success should be
judged by periodic reevaluation of riparian condition and nutrient loads Lost Creek does provide a
significant TN load to the Clark Fork, and this is probably best addressed by riparian wetland restoration and
land application of Anaconda wastewater over a larger area at an appropriate agronomic rate. Additional
recommendations for monitoring and TMDL development are detailed in the full report
This work was supported by the Montana University System Water Center with funds from the USGS
Section 104 Program Our grateful thanks to Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the US NRCS and
landowners in the Lost Creek Basin for their efforts to restore Lost Creek
Introduction
Lost Creek is a tributary of western Montana's Clark Fork of the Columbia River.
Both streams have multiple water quality problems and appear on Montana's list of
impaired streams (MDEQ,1998). Hence under the Clean Water Act, the state is to
develop restoration plans for these streams that will restore their health and ability to
support their beneficial uses. The Clark Fork River is considered impaired by a number
of pollutants, including nutrients, a problem recently addressed in a voluntary nutrient
reduction plan. Lost Creek is also considered to be impaired by nutrients and other
problems. As a result, several restoration and conservation projects are being undertaken
on Lost Creek. This paper evaluates the extent to which these actions on Lost Creek are
likely to address its problems as well as those of the Clark Fork River.
The Clark Fork River Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Program (VNRP) was
established to substitute for a mandatory Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)for
nutrients in the mainstem of the Clark Fork River. The VNRP is centered around the
voluntary efforts of four major point sources of nutrients: Smurfitt Stone Corporation
(manufacturers of paperboard), and the municipal wastewater treatment plants of Butte,
Deer Lodge and Missoula. From the results of a three year nutrient study, Ingman
(1992a) estimated that these sources contribute 80% of the total nutrient load to the Clark
Fork River during the summer low flow months (July-September), a period when algae
production is at its peak. However, historic data also indicates that tributaries contribute
approximately 50% and 75% of the yearly loads of total nitrogen and phosphorus,
respectively (Ingman, 1992b). Tributary loads arise predominantly from non-point
sources such as irrigated crop production, cattle grazing, forestry, and unsewered
residential development. Therefore, in addition to reductions from major point sources,
the 10-year VNRP calls for a 20% reduction from nonpoint sources. Incorporating
reductions from point sources and nonpoint sources and a margin of safety, the VNRP
hopes to achieve nutrient targets in the Clark Fork mainstem set at 300 ppb total nitrogen
(TN), 39 ppb total phosphorus (TP) below Missoula, and 20 ppb TP upstream of
Missoula (Watson, 1999). These targets are expected to maintain standing crop of algae
below nuisance levels (Dodds, 1997).
Based on sampling from 1989-1991, Lost Creek represented a major source of
nitrogen to the upper Clark Fork River, particularly with respect to total soluble inorganic
nitrogen (TSIN) and was identified as a high priority stream for nonpoint source control
of soluble nitrogen (Ingman, 1992a,b). From 1989-91, Lost Creek's TSIN load to the
upper river averaged 27.4 kg/day which is comparable to Silver Bow Creek, the receiving
waterbody for the Butte wastewater treatment plant. However, Lost Creek was not a
significant source of phosphorus to the upper river during the years from 1989-1991.
Lost Creek is listed on the 303d list as moderately impaired over the lower 17 stream
miles for the following probable causes: flow alterations, nutrients, habitat alterations,
and siltation (MDEQ,1998). The beneficial uses impaired by these probable causes
include contact recreation, coldwater trout fishery, and aquatic life support. In addition,
drinking water supply is listed as "nonsupportive" of uses for this reach. The Montana
Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP)in cooperation with the Deer Lodge
office of the USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), has assembled
funding from a variety of sources for a restoration project which will be developed into a
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrients and sediments. The goals of the
MDFVVP restoration plan include: habitat improvement for spawning trout (primarily
brown trout), riparian habitat restoration, and removal offish barriers to increase
connectivity of Lost Creek with mainstem populations of trout (Reiland, 1999). Specific
actions (described in greater detail in the next section) include a number of restoration
and management strategies intended to improve fish habitat, such as offstream water
development, corral relocation, stream bank revegetation, riparian exclosures and
pastures, conservation easements, and the return of several channelized reaches to
historic meandering channels.
Considering the existing conditions on Lost Creek and the scope of the proposed
restoration, habitat improvements will likely result in reductions in nutrient loading and
sediment delivery to Lost Creek and the mainstem of the Clark Fork River. Therefore the
goals of this thesis project include the following:
1 ) Assess current conditions in Lost Creek including kinds and degrees of
impairment;
2) Provide baseline data to evaluate benefits of restoration work;
3) Evaluate Lost Creek as a nutrient source to the Clark Fork River;
4) Evaluate nutrient sources along Lost Creek;
5) Make specific recommendations for TMDL development for Lost Creek, and
how it should relate to the Clark Fork VNRP.
Description of Lost Creek Basin and History
Lost Creek is 37.5 miles long and drains approximately 62 square miles. A
tributary to the Upper Clark Fork of the Columbia River, Lost Creek has a long history of
environmental impacts. Once a part of the more extensive Mt. Haggin ranch, the Lost
Creek basin has been the site of over 100 years of intensive management, originally
sheep ranching and more recently cattle ranching. Irrigated crop production resulted in
dramatic hydrologic modification with numerous irrigation withdrawals, including a
diversion from adjacent Warm Springs Creek into Lost Creek. Dutchman Creek, a
tributary to Lost Creek was also diverted from its original channel into an impoundment
designed for irrigation water storage. Other impacts include unsewered residential
development near the town of Lost Creek and upland soils contaminated by nearby
Anaconda's now defunct copper smelting facilities. In addition, the Ueland Ranch has
been irrigating hay fields with Anaconda's municipal wastewater since 1995. Water is
stored in ponds located near the ranch's calving facility (near sample site 3 on Map 1 )
and is pumped to sprinkler systems on the north side of the Lost Creek drainage. This
system includes five groundwater infiltration basins which receive excess water from the
storage ponds approximately 2-3 months during the spring when wastewater exceeds
irrigation demand.
In addition to providing important spawning habitat for brown trout from the
mainstem river, Lost Creek and its extensive riparian wetlands provide habitat for
waterfowl, raptors, and large mammals such as deer, elk and moose The main purpose
of the MTFWP project is to restore both aquatic and riparian habitat in the basin
primarily for the purposes of improving fish habitat. For example, fish habitat has been
degraded by the loss of woody vegetation and instream structures and the abundance of
sediment delivered to the stream. In addition, fish barriers pose a threat to spawning fish,
which stack up below barriers such as Dutchman dike (site 6 on maps). As a result, late
spawning fish either destroy existing redds or are forced to utilize substandard habitat
which ultimately affects recruitment to the Clark Fork River (Reiland, 1999).
Table 1 summarizes some measures of Lost Creek's condition and the details of
the MT FWP restoration plan. However, some particulars of historic management and
future changes are worth mentioning in terms of the goals of this project. For instance,
the Ueland Ranch historically contained an over-wintering area and calving facility
where high concentrations of cattle had free access to the stream channel. The lower
floodplain of Lost Creek contains a predominance of fine bank material, and the loss of
woody vegetation in this area has resulted in severe down-cutting and lateral movement.
This area was chosen for nutrient monitoring as well as riparian health assessment, since
the proposed corral relocation and off-stream watering will likely have a positive effect
on water quality as well as on revegetation of woody species and bank stability. Similar
conditions exist elsewhere on the Ueland ranch, and a combination of riparian fencing
and grazing regimes are proposed to improve riparian habitat and the stability of the
stream banks. The Heggelund Ranch is marked by extensive areas devoid of mature
woody vegetation, a result of herbicide use to remove woody vegetation in favor of
increased forage production. A 30 year conservation easement is sought for riparian and
wetland recovery for this reach.
It should be noted that "channel relocation" and "channel reconstruction" refer to
removing unnecessary diversions and returning channelized reaches of Lost Creek to
historic channels which are now dry. In one case, the historic channel of the creek had
been obliterated so new channel meanders will be constructed. In addition, habitat
improvements will entail the installation of root wads and placement of large woody
material to stabilize revegetating banks and provide needed fish habitat.
Monitoring and Assessment Design and Methods
Where access was granted, sample stations were positioned upstream and
downstream of areas suspected to yield substantial nutrient loads to the creek. In
addition, two stations were selected on a major tributary (Dutchman Creek) and an
irrigation ditch (Gardiner Ditch). Station 1 (refer to map) was sampled to provide a
reference of ambient nutrient levels in Lost Creek above impacts of cattle ranching and
unsewered residential development. Except where conditions prevented access, these
sites were sampled weekly during spring high flow (May-June) and twice monthly during
summer low flow (July- August), yielding 9 sample dates for most sites.
Grab samples were collected for nutrients at each site following the protocol
described by Ingman (1992a) in order to be consistent with data collected by the MT
DEQ. Samples for nutrient analysis were frozen with dry ice in the field and shipped to
the Montana State Environmental Laboratory in Helena for nutrient analysis. Analysis
included total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrite plus nitrate (N02/N03), total phosphorus
(TP), and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), which was filtered on site with a .45 um
membrane filter. Detection limits for analysis were <0. 1 mg/1 for TKN, <0.01 mg/1 for
nitrate/nitrite, and <0.001 mg/1 for SRP and TP. All nutrient sampling equipment was
acid washed in 50% instranalyzed HC1 and triple-rinsed in deionized water. Field blanks
were prepared for each sampling date for quality assurance. Sample results for TKN and
N02/N03 were summed to estimate total nitrogen (TN). Total nutrient loads were
estimated using discharge data collected using standard pygmy flow meter. Gardiner
ditch (Station 3) and the Dutchman diversion (Station 6) are exceptions since discharge
could not be measured and only TN and TP concentrations were determined.
Temperature and pH determinations were made at each site on each visit using a
Orion Model 250A portable pH meter. Turbidity samples were brought to the laboratory
and analyzed using a Hach 2100A turbidimeter within 24 hours. Samples were collected
for total suspended sediment determination by filtration method.
A combination of spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel) and statistical software (SPSS) was
used to manage and analyze physical and water quality data. Simple descriptive
statistics (i.e. means and 95% confidence intervals) were used to generate summary
tables and graphs to assess differences between sites. Because initial analysis of water
quality data based on flow period (i.e. high spring flow vs. low summer flow) did not
reveal any additional significant information, tables and graphs of water quality data are
presented in terms of summer (May through August) mean values (See Fig. 1 through 9).
Riparian inventories were performed using the UM School of Forestry's Riparian and
Wetland Research Program's Lotic inventory (detailed inventory). Forms and description
of protocols are available online at http://www.nvrp.umt.edu. The study area was
divided into areas called polygons, covering approximately 0.5 stream miles and
bordered by the edge of the riparian zone. Ending and starting points for polygons were
delineated by a combination of GPS coordinates, photo documentation and narrative
descriptions. Specific areas of concern (i.e. severely eroding banks, headcuts, etc.) were
recorded in a similar manner. Riparian inventories were completed for the entire length
of the proposed restoration area (see map), except where the creek entered wetland and
beaver complexes above the reservoir. In this area, there was a lack of distinct channel
or riparian boundaries so assessments were not feasible.
Lotic inventories involved recording the presence and coverage of plant species,
infestation by invasive species, and age class and utilization of woody species. In
addition, information about human-caused bare soil, eroding banks, lateral cutting and
other physical factors were recorded. These completed Lotic inventories will be
available through the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. This information was
used to generate health scores for riparian vegetation, soils and hydrology, from which a
total score was derived to indicate the level of functionality for each polygon. Protocol
for the health assessment scoring system is available from the RWRP. A summary of
these scores and major problems is provided in Tables 5 through 7.
Within the framework of this project, performing lotic health evaluations served
several purposes:
( 1 ) provides "baseline" vegetation and soils/hydrology information necessary
for gauging the success of the restoration at some time in the future.
(2) provides information which may assist land managers with grazing
strategies, weed control and prioritizing areas of greatest concern.
(3) Helps identify nature of problems in specific areas and potential for
recovery.
However, it is not within the scope of this study to make management
recommendations but only to identify problems and document conditions. Grazing
strategies and restoration goals are currently in the development stage, and funding and
implementation for some (such as offsite watering) have already begun. The results of
this study are intended to assist the MDFWP, NRCS and land-owners to identify and
assess priority areas for restoration along Lost Creek. Therefore, discussion of riparian
conditions will concentrate on how existing riparian conditions relate to water quality
and the potential for monitoring changes in the watershed.
Results and Discussion
Flow, Temperature, Turbidity, TSS, and pH
Mean summer discharge from May through August of 1999 is presented in Figure
1 , and mean, minimum and maximum values are also summarized in Table 2. Highest
peak discharge (75.2 cfs) occurred at Station 1 above any diversions of water. A
minimum flow of 2.5 cfs was recorded at Station 7 just below Dutchman dike. Based on
summer means there appeared to be a decrease in discharge moving downstream. The
exception to this trend is station 8, with discharge decreasing again at station 9.
Unfortunately, very little historic discharge data is available for Lost Creek. Summer
discharge data from 1989-1990 (see appendix) indicates that discharge at the mouth of
Lost Creek in 1999 was within the range of normal flow . A review of historic discharge
data from nearby Warm Springs Creek (1984-1999) suggests that the 1999 water year
was average in terms of summer mean discharge (May-Aug) and mean high flow (May -
June).
Measuring stream discharge was complicated by diversions and inputs to Lost
Creek too numerous to gauge in this study. For instance, Gardiner Ditch carries water
from Warm Springs Creek and represents a significant input to Lost Creek, yet discharge
in the creek decreases just below its confluence due to several imgation withdrawals in
the area of the over-wintering facility. In addition, Dutchman Creek is diverted above its
natural confluence into a reservoir, which empties into Lost Creek and another irrigation
ditch. From visual estimates, the discharge in this ditch (running to the north of Station
7) often greatly exceeded the discharge in Lost Creek particularly in July and August
when irrigation demand was high. These withdrawals are responsible for the downstream
trend of decreasing discharge seen in Fig 1. The increase in discharge at Station 8 is
likely due to groundwater and surface return flow from water that has pooled in extensive
wetlands below the Dutchman dike and resurfaced as flow in the natural channel of
Dutchman Creek and numerous seeps feeding Lost Creek. Overall, Lost Creek did not
exhibit the typical downstream increase in flow during runoff in reaches below Station 2
where intensive irrigation (which includes storage behind Dutchman dike) moderated the
effect of high spring flow.
Temperature also exhibited a downstream trend as mean summer values increase
downstream (see Fig. 2). Note that this apparent increase is likely the result of diurnal
variation in temperature, since downstream stations were sampled at times as much as 6
hours later in the day than upper stations. No historic temperature data exists for
comparison. Flow alteration may also be responsible for the downstream increase in
temperature since decreasing discharge volume reduces the heat absorbing capacity of
the creek. In addition, the stream reach between stations 8 and 9 has a marked lack of
shade-providing woody vegetation, and station 9 exhibits the largest temperature increase
between sites from a mean summer value of 14.0 C at station 8 to 17. 1 C at station 9
(Note: these sites were sampled within one hour of each other). In the future, diurnal
temperature should be assessed in Lost creek with continuous data loggers.
Turbidity, TSS, and pH are summarized in Table 2 . Turbidity measurements
were low, with the exception of one sample date on which turbidity samples were
inadvertently frozen, creating a floe. TSS was also low for most sites (<20 mg/1) with
highest values measured at Stations 2 and 9. Irrigation diversions appear to have had a
positive effect on TSS, providing an opportunity for suspended material and sediment to
settle behind diversions like those located above Stations 4 and 7. These diversions,
which have depressed peak spring flows may have kept TSS at a minimum. Conversely,
Station 2 is not located downstream from any major diversions and exhibited the highest
values for TSS with a mean of 49 mg/1 and a peak of 1 73 mg/1. Station 2 is also located
along a higher gradient reach than are lower stations, since Lost Creek shifts from a B3/4
channel type into a C4 type as it enters the area of the Ueland ranch - roughly between
Stations 2 and 4 (Rosgen, 1996). As mentioned above, much of Lost Creek's bed load is
comprised of sand and fine sediment , mainly as a result of eroding and slumping banks,
with the stream bottom in several reaches composed largely of bank materials.
Nutrients
Table 3 presents the results of nutrient samples gathered from May to August of
1999. Load calculations were not possible for stations 3 and 6 since discharge was
difficult to estimate. Table 4 compares nutrient loads and concentrations for Station 9
(near mouth) and the mainstem of the Clark Fork River utilizing 1999 water data for Lost
Creek and Clark Fork and data collected by the DEQ between 1989-1990.
In all years, Lost Creek contribution of SRP and TP is insignificant in terms of
Clark Fork River concentrations, and mean concentrations for most sites on Lost Creek
fall well below the VNRP target of 20 ppb (Figures 3 and 4). Similarly, mean
phosphorus loads (Fig. 5) were typically low (< 1 kg/day) and results indicated only slight
differences between sites. A maximum daily load of 0.7 kg/day was recorded at Station 9
near the mouth. Mean loading at the mouth (0.3 kg/day) was only 1% of the Clark Fork
river load of 28 kg/day. Station 2 exhibited the highest concentrations of TP in Lost
Creek ranging from 14-53 ppb with a summer mean of 24 ppb. The area upstream from
this station contains the greatest concentration of unsewered residential development in
the basin and may be the source of most of the Total P load to Lost Creek.
Nitrate/nitrite levels (Fig. 6) were lowest at the 4 upstream stations; below these
stations nitrate/nitrite were much higher. Station 5 results are based on only two sample
dates in May where access to the channel was permitted, and mean value is highly
variable. Dutchman Creek (Station 6) exhibited the highest mean values and the highest
peak value of 720 ppm. Stations downstream from this area exhibited a gradual decrease
in mean nitrate/nitrite concentrations ending with a mean value of 179 ppb at Station 9,
considerably higher than most upstream stations.
Nitrogen, particularly nitrate, shows the greatest increases in concentrations and
loads in the middle and lower reaches of Lost Creek. Like the 3 upstream stations,
station 4 (located below the overwintering and calving area) exhibited low nutrient levels
during the sampling period (May-August). Although this area is a likely source of
nutrients, its effect on nutrient levels would occur earlier in the spring when low
elevation snow melt would deliver nutrients from animal waste to the creek. The area
including Stations 5-7 all exhibit high mean levels of nitrate relative to upstream values.
Likely explanations for these high levels vary from site to site. Station 5 is located above
the Dutchman reservoir and high levels of nitrate may be influenced by subsurface return
of irrigation from the land application of wastewater to fields occupying the ridge north
of this station. Upstream from Station 5 are several wet meadow complexes that form
against the base of this ridge where a number of seeps have formed. Station 6 on
Dutchman Creek drains the southern portion of the basin, which includes the site of the
wastewater storage ponds and the groundwater infiltration basins that receive excess
wastewater 2-3 months of the year depending on supply and demand. Groundwater
nitrate data is scant yet one sample obtained from the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality Groundwater Section from 1995 indicates that levels are
significant (9.38 mg/1) from a sample taken from a well just east (down gradient) from
storage ponds.
Station 7 is located below the outfall of the Dutchman reservoir, and Lost Creek
nitrate levels here may be affected by the water table fluctuations caused by the filling
and draining of the reservoir for irrigation purposes. While the extensive wetlands
influenced by the presence of the dike may act as a sink for organic matter and nutrients,
periodic drops in the water table caused by irrigation withdrawal may result in increased
decomposition of stored organic matter and releases of nutrients (Mitsch and Gosselink,
1986).
Similarly, Station 8 is located downstream from the natural confluence of Dutchman
Creek which is recharged by water from the extensive wetlands that have formed below
the dike. Discharge at this station is the highest on the lower reaches of the Creek, which
indicates the influence of subsurface water recharge by groundwater, despite significant
withdrawals for irrigation. As a result of increased flow, Lost Creek carries its highest
mean load of TN (37.2 kg/day) in this reach, despite a drop in TN concentrations.
Kjeldahl nitrogen levels (Fig. 7) were highly variable for most sites, with Station
6 on Dutchman Creek having the highest mean concentration of 363 ppb. Station 9, near
the creek's mouth had the second highest mean value of 290 ppb. Peak daily values
exceeded 280 ppb for all sites with maximum levels at Stations 6 (860 ppb) and 8 (850
ppb). Highest levels for all sites occurred during peak runoff in May and June.
Total nitrogen levels (Fig. 8) at Stations 1-4 were all approximately 200 ppb.
Due mostly to the high levels of nitrate/nitrite recorded for Stations 5 through 9, total
mtrogen levels exhibit a similar pattern with a sharp increase in TN in the area above and
in Dutchman Creek. Dutchman had the highest levels of TN with a mean of 950 ppb and
a maximum value of 1360 ppb on 6/24/99. Mean values near the mouth of Lost Creek
were 470 ppb TN, with a maximum value of 740 ppb. On most sample dates, Station 9
exceeded the VNRP target of 300 ppb TN.
Average TN loads of all stations (Fig. 9) were within range of Station 1 . Station 8
had the highest average loads of 37 kg/day TN. Lost Creek's TN loads relative to Clark
Fork River loads are summarized in Table 4. From 1989-1999 summer mean TN load for
Lost Creek near its mouth varied from 12-31 kg/day which is 11-18% of the Clark Fork
River TN load just above Lost Creek. Mean loading of nitrate/nitrite represented nearly
half Lost Creek's TN load at mouth and 23-44% of the Clark Fork's nitrate loads.
Amazingly, on 5/13/99, Lost Creek's nitrate load equaled the load earned by the river
(-40 kg/day).
Although average 1999 loads of TN at the confluence were within the range of
historic values (Table 4), nitrate levels were higher in 1999 and comprised a greater
proportion of the total nitrogen concentration than in prior sampling years. Again, this
may be a result of applying Anaconda's wastewater in the Lost Creek basin, which began
in 1994. Prior to that, Anaconda pumped its wastewater into the Opportunity Ponds
which would have contributed nutrients to the headwaters of the Clark Fork. However,
mean nitrate concentrations in the Clark Fork River appear higher (if only slightly) in
1999 than 1989-1990.
In general, variation in loading was more affected by discharge than concentration, and
linkages between land-uses such as grazing and loads cannot be made with the exception
that irrigation withdrawals exert a strong influence over discharge and loads earned by
Lost Creek. In addition, groundwater return in the area above Station 8 likely results in
both increased flow and nitrogen rich water from multiple sources. In this case,
groundwater (which may include loads from land application of wastewater) and
Dutchman Creek, may represent the largest TN loads to the system based on flow
contribution and concentration of nitrate.
Riparian Health Assessment
Results of riparian inventories are summarized in Table 5 through 7 indicating the
health scores for vegetation, soils/hydrology and total health scores. Specific concerns
were listed under Problem Summary heading if category received a score of 33% or less
than its potential score. For example, if the infestation of invasive species resulted in an
actual score of 1 point out of a potential of 3 points it was included in the table as a
factor responsible for lowering the overall score for the polygon.
Overall, 70 % of the polygons surveyed were scored as "not functionar, and the
remaining 30 % were scored as "functional / at risk". The greatest proportion of non-
functional polygons was found on the middle to lower reaches (see Map 2). In general,
the majority of polygons exhibited severe noxious weed problems (mainly thistle), loss of
woody vegetation and/or over-utilization of woody vegetation. In addition, bank
instability caused by the loss of deep binding rootmass and trampling of banks by cattle
were common problems.
Lateral cutting and channel incisement were commonly observed, with several
reaches possessing moderate headcuts and channel braiding in heavily impacted areas.
Cannel bottom composition of fine sediment was also calculated by summing silt and
sand coverage from lotic inventories. Fine sediment coverages ranged from 13% to 80%
of total bottom cover, with the highest coverages observed in the middle to lower reaches
below the Dutchman reservoir.
As mentioned above, riparian health assessments were performed to provide a current
inventory and health evaluation of vegetation and soil/hydrology processes. Ideally, the
RWRP Lotic Inventories will be performed on a periodic basis to gauge the success of
the proposed restoration. As such, the health scores (70% not functioning, 30% at risk)
derived in this study re-emphasize the need for habitat improvement in the
basin and should help managers focus on areas of concern. Although the results of the
health assessments are consistent with problem areas identified by the MDFWP, detailed
information in the Lotic Inventory form, such as noxious weed infestation, shrub
regeneration, and vegetation cover and type, should prove invaluable to managers
developing the grazing management and riparian restoration plans on Lost Creek.
This project intended to link nutrient loads with land-use and grazing practices in the
basin. Although the peak nitrogen levels measured at Stations 5-9 coincide with
polygons exhibiting severely impaired riparian areas, it doesn't appear that grazing is the
predominant factor influencing nutrients in this reach. As discussed above, high levels of
nitrogen in the area of Dutchman reservoir appear to be influenced more by additions of
flow from numerous potential sources than by the presence of cattle. However, it is
likely that impairment of the riparian wetlands by grazing and flow manipulation may
reduce nutrient trapping and uptake by riparian vegetation.
Although this discussion does not intend to critique proposed restoration work, several
comments regarding its potential success should be noted. First of all, despite severe
impacts from grazing on woody vegetation (and in some areas the complete absence of
mature woody species), shrub regeneration was high for nearly all the polygons
inventoried. This suggests a strong potential for relatively rapid re-establishment of
mature woody vegetation through proposed management that would reduce grazing
intensity and duration. Allowing mature vegetation to develop is likely to confer
multiple benefits to water quality, such as moderating temperature by shading, increasing
bank stability, and trapping sediments and nutrients. Periodic inventories, both for
riparian health and water quality, may yield a closer relationship between land
management and parameters such as nutrients, temperature and sediment. In this sense,
the main value of riparian inventories on Lost Creek may lie in their continued
application as a monitoring and adaptive management tool, which will be discussed
further in the section on TMDL recommendations.
Recommendations for TMDL Development on Lost Creek
This discussion is not intended to represent an exhaustive set of TMDL
recommendations, since much information is still unknown concerning the relationship
between land-use and water quality in Lost Creek, particularly with respect to possible
groundwater loads. Therefore, this discussion will evaluate the components of TMDL
development for sediments and nutrients utilizing what information currently exists for
TMDL decisions. In addition, specific recommendations for additional information and
monitoring are discussed. The following questions will be addressed:
1 ) Are there sufficient credible data for beneficial use determinations?
2) What, if any, beneficial uses are impaired?
3) What are the causes and sources for impairment?
4) What are reasonable targets for water quality?
5) What actions are planned to address the problem?
6) What monitoring should be required?
Are there sufficient credible data for beneficial use determinations?
10
At the time of this writing, only the Lost Creek data collected from 1989-1991
were available to supplement water quality data collected in this study. Montana DEQ
will only accept biological, not chemical, data over five years old as sufficient credible
data. Guidelines for sufficient credible data and beneficial use support determinations
are available from the Montana DEQ (www.deq.state.mt.us). However, water quality
data gathered in this investigation meet minimum requirements for an acceptable level of
information to make such determinations. Using impairment guidance, these 1999 Lost
Creek data indicate a moderate impairment by nutrients at most sampled stations on Lost
Creek. In addition, the assessments of stream and riparian health should also meet the
minimum requirements to determine that the majority of stream reaches (>70%) are
severely impaired by habitat alterations. However, additional information on the
impairment of aquatic life support needs to be gathered to supplement these
determinations in order to achieve a clear picture of the impairment. In this case, the
DEQ should work with the MFWP to develop fishery guidelines, and the level of
information required (i.e. # of assemblages, biotic indexes required).
Are beneficial uses impaired?
Currently, the beneficial uses of coldwater trout fishery, contact recreation, and
aquatic life support are listed as moderately impaired over the lower 17 stream miles. At
the present time the rationale for this determination is unclear, and the data supporting it
is likely outdated. MT DEQ has re-issued the 303(d) list in April 2000 with significant
changes in the priority level for TMDL development for Lost Creek. The 1998 303(d)
list established a low priority rating for TMDL development for the lower 17 miles of
Lost Creek. Based on a new scoring and evaluation method, the DEQ has raised Lost
Creeks priority to the second highest priority stream in the Upper Clark Fork River, with
a score of 52 points compared to 53 points for The Little Blackfoot River. However, the
question remains whether Lost Creek is impaired by nutrients, given that there was very
little observable algae growth in the creek, due mainly to insufficient rocky substrate for
algae to attach Abundant aquatic macrophytes were observed in the fine substrate found
in the lower reaches. However, it should be determined if their growth constitutes
nuisance levels by evaluating diel fluctuations in dissolved oxygen. Without further
investigation, gauging impairment caused by elevated nutrients is problematic since the
state of Montana has not formulated numeric criteria for nutrients. However, use
impairment criteria assume that waters are moderately impaired for nutrients if levels
exceed reference conditions by 200% and severely impaired above 400% of reference
(MTDEQ, 1998). Although a reference stream was not identified for Lost Creek, several
stations (5-9) exceeded background values (represented by upstream Station 1) for nitrate
by 200%, and Dutchman Creek nitrate levels were in excess of 400% of Station 1 levels.
Although it is unclear whether high nitrate levels impair beneficial uses in Lost Creek
itself, TMDL development for nutrients should consider Lost Creek's contribution of
total and soluble nitrogen to the Clark Fork River.
Habitat assessments indicate that 70% of the stream length surveyed is not
functioning properly. The stream and riparian condition indicated by these surveys, in
conjunction with the MFWP observation of fishery impairment suggest that Lost Creek is
impaired as a cold water fishery. Abundant sediment, eroding banks, fish barriers and
sub-optimal spawning habitat all contribute to this determination. Whether aquatic life
support is impaired depends on several factors. As mentioned above, sampling of diurnal
dissolved oxygen levels is needed to determine if low DO conditions persist in Lost
Creek as a result of nutrient enrichment and/or dewatering and lack of shade in lower
reaches. In the event that DO levels threaten aquatic life in the lower part of Lost Creek,
control of aquatic macrophytes could be incorporated into the TMDL taking into
consideration all the possible factors that influence macrophyte growth.
What are the causes and sources for impairment?
Since TMDLs are required to establish all causes and sources for impairment,
development of a TMDL for Lost Creek should focus on linking sources, or actions, or
mstream conditions to water quality impairments. This often represents the most
difficult and resource consuming component of the TMDL process, particularly for
systems impaired by nonpoint sources of pollutants and/or habitat alterations. In the
case of nutrients, further study involving continuous temperature loggers and 24 hour DO
surveys during critical midsummer conditions should determine whether or not aquatic
plants in Lost Creek are responsible for diel fluctuations in dissolved oxygen which may
impair aquatic life support. Once determined, the linkage between nutrient levels and
their cause and sources can proceed. Quantifying the nutrient load contributed by land
application of wastewater seems the higher priority than estimating the nutrient
contribution from grazing practices, particularly since significant changes such as offsite
watering, corral relocation are already underway to reduce grazing impacts. Conversely,
impairment of habitat does not require further study and has obvious sources (eroding
banks, lack of woody vegetation, etc.) and causes (cattle grazing, hydrologic
modification, etc.). These components are therefore readily addressed through a phased
management plan (explained below). Developing nutrient targets to control aquatic
plants in Lost Creek would require additional modeling and sampling in the basin,
particularly to gauge the influence of land application of wastewater and cattle grazing.
Overall, restoring instream habitat and riparian habitat and addressing causes of their
impairment are most important to a Lost Creek TMDL, while nutrients from Lost Creek
are most relevant as a source to the Clark Fork River mainstem.
Although a strong linkage between water quality targets (or thresholds for
maintaining use support) and pollutant sources or habitat degradation is a prerequisite for
acceptable TMDLs, a phased approach which relies on adaptive management may be
accepted by the EPA if reasonable effort is ongoing to establish these linkages and load
allocations (USEPA, 1999a,b). Therefore, without sufficient site specific information to
develop targets in advance of action, TMDL development can proceed with flexible
targets that may change over time.
What are reasonable targets for water quality?
12
Once probable causes of water quality impairments are determined, ideally the
level of pollution reduction or habitat restoration required to restore beneficial uses can
be estimated to guide restoration actions. In the case of nutrients, load reductions and
instream targets should be based on maintaining nutrient concentrations below the level
that would stimulate aquatic plants to reach nuisance levels, interfering with beneficial
uses, and/or depleting dissolved oxygen. Again, a study of this linkage is critical to
developing a nutrient loading and instream targets for the Lost Creek TMDL. In the
event that aquatic plants are not impairing Lost creek, the nutrient target for the Lost
Creek TMDL should be set so as to meet the nutrient targets for the Upper Clark Fork
River. Establishing a target of 300 ppb TN and 20 ppb TP for Lost Creek would be a
reasonable step towards achieving the Clark Fork VNRP proposed 20% reduction in
nonpoint sources. Achieving the Clark Fork VNRP targets in Lost Creek would represent
a 36% reduction in nonpoint source of nitrogen to the Upper Clark Fork River mainstem.
In the event that summer levels below 300 ppb TN cannot be maintained at the mouth of
Lost Creek through reasonable land and water conservation practices then nutrient levels
in Lost Creek may exceed Clark Fork targets, providing Lost Creek's load to the river
doesn't significantly raise Clark Fork River concentrations below the mixing zone.
Sediment targets should be set to ensure fishery impairment is not resulting from
increased bed load sedimentation. Based on the data from this study, TSS may not be a
good indicator of sediment problems since stream flow alterations in Lost Creek
moderate sediment in the water column. In Lost Creek, sediment targets could focus on
bed load sediment in combination with targets for riparian and stream habitat. At
present, MFWP estimates that approximately 4,000 cubic yards of sediment in excess of
natural background erosion are being delivered to Lost Creek each year (Reiland, pers.
comm.). The MFWP further estimates a reduction of 40% in delivery of sediment based
on reductions in eroding stream bank and lateral migration of the stream channel. Since
sediment loading appears to be dominated by bank instability, setting a target for
sediment in terms of readily measured parameters of riparian habitat and stream health is
perhaps the best approach. As in the case of the Deep Creek TMDL, reducing the
percentage of eroding banks is a justifiable "good faith" approach in an adaptive
management plan where numeric load allocations are substituted with effective
management and stream restoration (EPA, 1999b). Therefore, targets for riparian health
could be set to so that all polygons exhibit improvement in Lotic Inventory scores each
year (or management be adapted to ensure their improvement) with all polygons scoring
as fully functional at the end of 10-15 years.
It should be noted that, in the absence of point sources, TMDLs are still required
to establish all load allocations for existing or future nonpoint sources including
background levels, and integrate a margin of safety (EPA, 1999a,b). While a phased
TMDL can establish general goals for nutrient and sediment loads, developing a load
allocation for the land application of Anaconda's wastewater would be an integral part of
the final TMDL. In order to accomplish this, several components should be added to the
proposed restoration (see next section).
13
What actions are planned to address problems?
Table 1 summarizes the MDFWP proposed restoration and management plan for
Lost Creek. Although intended for fishery enhancement, these actions are likely to
confer multiple benefits to Lost Creek. These actions will be proposed as part of a
phased approach TMDL and may require review and adaptation, as more information on
their effectiveness for habitat improvement is made available. However, several
necessary components of a acceptable TMDL must be developed in terms of water
quality. Since the land application of Anaconda's wastewater represents a source of
nutrients to the basin, a load allocation should be established for its contribution to Lost
Creek. This can be achieved by developing a nutrient and water-use budget for the
irrigated fields and using appropriate models (Leaching Index, NGLEAMS) in a
irrigation management plan (USDA, 1999; EPA, 1997a,b). If the irrigated fields
represent a source of nitrate to the groundwater, adjustments in irrigation practices can
optimize water and nutrient availability for specific crop types. Depending on the
magnitude of the nutrient load, simple irrigation management such as adjustment in
frequency and duration could have a marked effect on meeting load allocations for
nitrate. Perhaps the best opportunity for reducing Lost Creek's nutrient loading to the
Clark Fork River is the application of Anaconda's municipal wastewater over a greater
acreage to reduce seepage from the storage ponds and infiltration basins and leaching to
groundwater from over-fertilized and over-watered soils.
What monitoring should be required?
Monitoring ground and surface water could be limited to monthly sampling
during the spring and summer months (April-August) at a few selected sites that would
capture the influences of various sources on the concentrations of nutrients and loads in
Lost Creek. Sampling for the parameters in this study, future monitoring should include
Stations 2, 6, 8 and 9, since these sites bracket important areas of potential loading and
demonstrated the peak values for TP (Station 2), TN and nitrate (Station 6) and TN load
(Station 8). Station 9 would be needed to estimate loads and concentrations relative to
the Clark Fork River. In addition, nocturnal measurements of dissolved oxygen in the
lower reaches (between stations 7 and 9) should be performed to determine whether
aquatic macrophytes are impairing uses. It is also recommended that temperature data
loggers be installed at a number of points to measure differences in temperature between
sites and long term changes in Lost Creek.
After the influence of groundwater on Lost Creek is determined, groundwater
monitoring may be warranted if nitrate originating from land application of wastewater
represents a major source to the system. In the event that nitrate in groundwater exceeds
drinking water standards, a well monitoring program should also be included.
Since the main focus of the restoration work planned by the MFWP is intended to
improve the fishery in Lost Creek, a suitable biological monitoring plan should be
implemented. Since the biological integrity of the Lost Creek fishery is beyond the scope
14
of this study, no specific recommendations are offered on monitoring these parameters.
However, monitoring should be coordinated between the MDFWP and the MDEQ in
order to establish an acceptable level of information for future beneficial use support
determinations.
Monitoring of riparian habitat and stream health should be performed on a yearly
basis. Since the longer Lotic Inventory used in this study is time consuming, it may be
reserved for less frequent assessments (-3-5 years) while relying on a shorter version of
the inventory for intervening years. Photo documentation and GPS should be used to
map and track areas of particular interest, such as severe lateral movement, down cutting,
and stream braiding. In general, riparian assessment may prove to be the most powerful
monitoring tool in a phased or adaptive management TMDL which is based on targeting
a response of habitat improvement.
The restoration work proposed by the MT FWP and NRCS has organized the
majority of the stakeholders in the Lost Creek basin, and therefore has satisfied one of
the most important ingredients to TMDL development for nonpoint source nutrient
pollution - volunteer participation in a basin-wide restoration plan. Ultimately,
watershed restoration efforts in small watersheds should concentrate on developing the
willingness of landowners to undertake land and water conservation measures likely to
improve water quality, rather than developing elaborate and expensive modeling and
monitoring plans. In addition, stakeholders in Lost Creek and other tributaries to the
Clark Fork River should seek to integrate sub-watershed TMDLs with the Clark Fork
VNRP in order to achieve the desired 20% decrease in their nonpoint nutrient
contributions.
WORKS CITED
Dodds, W.K., V.H. Smith and B. Zander. 1997. Developing nutrient targets to control
benthic chlorophyll levels in streams: a case study of the Clark Fork River. Water
Research 31(7): 1738-50
Ingman, G. 1992a. A rationale and alternatives for controlling nutrients and
eutrophication problems in the Clark Fork River basin. Mt. Dept. Health and
Environmental Sciences, Helena, MT.
Ingman, G.L. 1992b. Assessment of phosphorus and nitrogen sources in the Clark Fork
River basin. State of Montana, Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences. Section 525 of 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Remhold Co. New
York, 539 p.
Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Waterbodies in need of Total
Maximum Daily Load Development .
is
Rei land, Eric. 1999. Personal Correspondence. Montana Department of Fish Wildlife
and Parks. Missoula, MT.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Colorado.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Core 4: Conservation Practices training Guide.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999a. Protocol for developing nutrient TMDLs.
EPA/84 l-B-99-007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999b. Protocol for developing sediment
TMDLs. EPA/84 l-B-99-004 '
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997a. Monitoring guidance for determining
the effectiveness of nonpoint nutrient controls. EPA/84 l-B-96-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997b. Techinques for tracking, evaluating, and
reporting the implementation of nonpoint control measures: I. Agriculture.
EPA/84 l-B-97-0 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Compendium of tools for watershed
assessment and TMDL development. EPA/84 1 -B-97-006
Watson, V.J., G. Ingman, and B. Anderson. 1999. Scientific basis of a nutrient TMDL
for a river of the Northern Rockies. Wildland Hydrology: Proceedings of the
American Water Resources Association, Herndon, Virginia, TPS-99-3, pp. 67-74.
Watson. V. 1989. Maximum levels of attached algae in the Clark Fork River.
Proceedings of the Montana Academy of Sciences 49: 27-35.
16
Table 1. Summary of channel conditions and proposed restoration by stream reach.
Landowner
Stream
Miles
Cattle
Nos.
Eroding
Banks %
Channelized
Length (ft)
Poorly
Vegetated
% (miles)
Restoration Information
(stream feet)
Multiple
Landowners
(EPA/ARCO
Reclamation)
5.5
9
Not
Measured
Not
Measured
40% (2.2)
Upland soil amendments,
revegetation and sediment control
Derzay
0.75
?
10%
Unknown
15% (0.1)
Fish Passage
Ueland
6.1
1780
45-50%
6860
65% (4.0)
Fish passage, off-site water, coral
relocation, habitat improvement
(15,000'), channel relocation &
reconstruction (3, 1 80')
Heggelund
65
210
40%
1620
100% (6.5)
30 NRCS conservation easement on
609 npanan/wetland acres, habitat
improvement (12,200")
Lord
44
125
55-60%
2920
100% (4.4)
Channel reconstruction (2900'),
habitat improvement ( 1 0, 1 00')
Mathews
0.75
78
25%
0
35% (3.6)
Repair irrigation headgate, habitat
improvement (3,100')
Lamperts
3.6
520
100%
19,000 do-
channel,
irrigation
100% (3.6)
Channel reconstruction (19,000")
TOTAL
27.6
2713
N/A
34,000"
76%
(21.1)
65,480"
Source: Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks
17
Table 2. Summary of physical data from Lost Creek, May-August 1999.
STATION
Discharge
(cfs)
Temperature
(C)
PH
Turbidity
TSS
(mg/1)
1.0
Mean
39
7.4
7.9
.7
2.4
Min.
16
2.5
7.6
.4
.2
Max.
75
12.1
8.3
1.4
6.5
2.0
Mean
14
11.0
8.2
1.5
48.7
Min.
4
6.0
7.7
.9
8.6
Max.
35
15.4
8.8
3.0
173.3
3.0
Mean
10.9
8.3
2.5
12.1
Min.
4.5
7.7
1.6
2.7
Max.
15.1
8.8
3.4
42.2
4.0
Mean
9
11.2
8.2
1.5
9.5
Min.
6
4.5
7.8
.6
4.2
Max.
18
16.0
8.5
2.1
20.4
5.0
Mean
11.0
7.8
1.4
16.4
Min.
7.0
7.8
1.3
8.7
Max.
15.0
7.8
1.5
24.0
6.0
Mean
13.4
7.7
1.3
Min.
9.0
7.6
1.2
Max.
16.2
7.9
1.4
7.0
Mean
11
14.2
8.2
1.7
11.4
Min.
3
7.0
7.8
.4
.8
Max.
20
18.1
8.4
5.5
31.8
8.0
Mean
28
14.1
8.1
2.6
9.6
Min.
17
7.5
7.5
.7
.6
Max.
45
20.1
8.4
14.0
45.1
9.0
Mean
15
17.1
8.3
3.6
11.7
Min.
6
7.5
7.6
1.0
.4
Max.
30
24.0
8.7
18.0
44.6
18
Table 3. Summary of nutrient data from Lost Creek, May-August, 1999.
TN
TP
TKN
Nitrate
TN
SRP
TP
LOAD
LOAD
STATION
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(kg/day)
(kg/day)
1
Mean
.172
.021
.192
.003
.009
23
1
Min.
.050
.005
.055
.001
.004
2
0
Max.
.380
.060
.385
.005
.014
60
1
2
Mean
.145
.018
.163
.009
.024
6
1
Min.
.047
.005
.055
.004
.014
1
0
Max.
.280
.040
.310
.019
.053
25
4
3
Mean
.256
.009
.265
.016
Min.
.050
.005
.055
.006
Max.
.430
.020
.435
.027
4
Mean
.187
.008
.194
.005
.Old
5
0
Min.
.050
.005
.055
.001
.009
1
0
Max.
.440
.020
.450
.013
.026
12
1
5
Mean
.245
.370
.615
.009
.015
Min.
.200
.320
.520
.004
.011
Max.
.290
.420
.710
.014
.019
6
Mean
.363
.588
.950
.007
Min.
.140
.500
.690
.002
Max.
.860
.720
1.360
.010
7
Mean
.166
.418
.584
.004
.011
17
0
Min.
.028
.230
.430
.001
.005
4
0
Max.
.300
.610
.710
.005
.016
30
1
8
Mean
.260
.284
.545
.004
.016
37
1
Min.
.050
.170
.220
.001
.006
12
0
Max.
.850
.380
1.180
.006
.047
81
3
9
Mean
.290
.179
.469
.004
.012
14
0
Min.
.120
.030
.240
.003
.004
4
0
Max.
.470
.550
.740
.005
.017
49
1
14
Table 4. Nutrient comparisons between Lost Creek and Clark Fork River
Clark Fork River below Warm Springs
1989
SRP
(mg/1)
TP
(mg/1)
Nitrate
(mg/1)
TKN
(mg/1)
TN
(mg/1)
Discharge TN Load
(cfs) (kg/day)
TP Load
(kg/day)
Nitrate Load
(kg/day)
Mean
Max.
Min.
0.014
0.027
0.003
0.057
0.079
0.028
0.046
0.070
0.030
0.500
1.300
0.200
0.546
1.340
0.230
137
219
30
172
498
47
36
6
15
22
i
1990
Mean
Max.
Min.
0.027
0.053
0.017
0.053
0.077
0.038
0.032
0.050
0.010
0.400
0.500
0.300
0.432
0.510
0.350
111
238
23
111
244
29
13
25
3
9
20
1999
Mean
Max.
Min.
0.011
0.019
0.003
0.037
0.066
0.011
0.060
0.100
0.030
0.222
0.380
0.130
0.282
0.450
0.160
226
373
87
160
301
34
21
43
5
39
91
6
Lost Creek at Frontage
1989
SRP
TP
Nitrate
TKN
(mg/1)
TN
Discharge
TNLoad
(kg/day)
TPLoad
(kg/day)
Nitrate Load
(kg/day)
Mean
Max.
Min.
0.006
0.017
0.002
0.023
0.036
0.013
0.110
0.300
0.010
0.486
1.300
0.200
0.596
1.600
0.220
15
35
2
31
138
1
1
3
0
6
26
0
1990
Mean
Max.
Min.
0.005
0.008
0.003
0.014
0.019
0.010
0.104
0.280
0.005
0.283
0.300
0.200
0.388
0.580
0.305
12
24
5
12
23
4
0
1
0
4
11
0
1999
Mean
Max.
Min.
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.012
0.017
0.004
0.179
0.550
0.030
0.290
0.470
0.120
0.469
0.740
0.240
15
30
6
19
49
4
9
40
1
20
Table 5. Riparian Health Summary for the Ueland Ranch, Lost Creek
Polygon
Vegetation
Rating
Soil/
Hydrology
Rating
Overall
Rating
Descriptive
Categorv
Problem Summary
1
70.8
833
78.3
Functional
At Risk
Invasive Weeds
Exposed soil
2
66.7
61.1
633
Functional
At Risk
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil
Dead/decadent woody material, Laleral Cutting
3
583
55.6
56.7
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, Undesirable
Cover, Dead/decadent woody material. Lateral
Cutting
4
70.8
61 1
65
Functional
At Risk
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil
Dead/decadent woody material. Lateral
Cutting. High Tree/Shrub UtilizaUon
5
524
44.4
47.3
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, Low Total
Cover
High Tree/Shrub UtilizaUon, Lateral Cutting
6
714
83.3
78.9
Functional
At Risk
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil
High Tree/Shrub UulizaUon
7
57.1
72.2
66.7
Functional
At Risk
Invasive Weeds, Undesirable cover. High
Tree/Shrub UulizaUon
8
61.9
50
54.4
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, High
Tree/Shrub UulizaUon, Lateral Cutting,
Channel Incisement
9
52.4
44.4
47 4
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, Lateral Cutting,
High Tree/Shrub Utilization, Low Total Cover,
Low Deep Binding Rootmass
10
42.9
33.3
36.8
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, Undesirable
Cover, Lateral Cutting, High Tree/Shrub
UulizaUon, Low Deep Binding Rootmass,
Channel Incisement
11
47.6
44 4
45.6
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, Lateral Cutting,
High Tree/Shrub Utilization, Undesirable
Cover, Channel Incisement
12
52.4
50
50.9
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, Lateral Cutting,
High Tree/Shrub UtilizaUon, Undesirable
Cover, Channel Incisement
13
61.9
50
54.4
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, Lateral Cutting,
High Tree/Shrub Utilization,
14
57 .1
61.1
59.6
Non-
Functional
Invasive weeds. Exposed Soil, Undesirable
Cover, Lateral Cutting, High Tree/Shrub
UtilizaUon
15
52.4
61.1
57.9
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, High
Tree/Shrub UtilizaUon, Lateral Cutting
16
57.1
50
526
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, Undesirable
Cover, Lateral Cutting, High Tree/Shrub
Utilization, Low Deep Binding Rootmas
17
61 9
50
544
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, Exposed Soil, High T/S
Utilization Lateral Cutting, Low Deep Binding
Rootmas
21
Table 6. Riparian Health Summary for Lost Creek (Heggelund Ranch)
Polygon
Vegetation
Rating
Soil/
Hydrology
Rating
Overall
Rating
Descriptive
Category
Problem Summary
18
71 4
66 7
68 4
Functional
At Risk
Invasive Weeds, Lateral Cutting
19
57 1
66.7
63.2
Functional
At Risk
Invasive Weeds, Low Woody Covei, High
Tree/Shrub UulizaUon, Lateral Cutting, Lou
Deep Binding Rootmass
20
57.1
38.9
45.6
Non-
Functional
High Tree/Shrub Utilization, Low Woody
Cover,
Lateral Cutting, Low Deep Bunding Rootmass,
Low Total Cover, Exposed Soil
21
57 1
50
526
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, High Tree/Shrub Utilization,
Low Woody Cover, Lateral Cutting, Low Deep
Binding Rootmass, Exposed Soil
22
476
44.4
456
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, High Tree/Shrub UtilizaUon,
Low Woody Cover, Lateral Cutting, Low Deep
Binding Rootmass, Low Total Cover, Exposed
Soil
Table 7, Riparian Health Summary for Lost Creek (Lord Ranch and Matthews Ranch*)
Polygon
Vegetation
Rating
Soil/
Hydrology
Rating
Overall
Rating
Descriptive
Category
Problem Summary
23
61 9
66.7
649
Functional
At Risk
Invasive Weeds, High Tree/Shrub Utilization,
Lateral Cutting
24
57 1
44.4
49.1
Non-
Functional
Invasive weeds. High Tree/Shrub Utilization,
Undesirable Cover, Exposed Soil,
Lateral Cutting, Low Deep Binding Rootmass
25
429
50
47.4
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, High Tree/Shrub UtilizaUon,
Low Woody Cover, Low Total Cover, Low
Deep Binding Rootmass, Exposed Soil,
Channel Increment
26*
47.6
389
42 1
Non-
Functional
Invasive Weeds, High Tree/Shrub Utilization,
Low Woody Cover, Low Total Cover, Low
Deep Binding Rootmass, Exposed Soil,
22
Fig. 1 . Mean discharge in Lost Creek, May-Aug. 1 999
60-
50-
£, 40-
<u
ca
-= 30
2 20
10
u
a
cd
21
E
u
H
9
9
9 9
9
9
1
2
4 7
STATION
8
9
Fig. 2. Mean temperature in Lost Creek, May-Aug. 1999
JU
20-
i
■ i
■
■
1
• '
10-
!
_L
0
9
9
9 9
9
9
1
2
4 7
STATION
8
9
23
Fig. 3. Mean SRP in Lost Creek, May- Aug. 1999
.025
£
n?n
v.
S
c
D,
•s.
C
.015-
>
o
.010-
i
i
.005-
0.000
j
fl
■
•
13
•
c
Gfl
N =
9
9 e
9
9
9
1
2 4
7
8
9
STATION
Dotted line represents VNRP target of 20 ppb TP
Fig. 4. Total phosphorus in Lost Creek, May- Aug. 1999
E
E
c
-C
D.
or.
O
S
o
.04
.03
.02
.01
0.00
~r
9
9
9
s
4
9
9
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
STATION
Dotted line represents the VNRP target of 20 ppb TP
24
Fig. 5. Total phosphorus load in Lost Creek, May- Aug. 1999
lay)
■
-§) 1-5"
M
-o
CS
o
I 1.0
o
a.
O
.C
B
o
■
i
i
i
'
■
•
■
0.0
N
<
1
(
:
) 9
! 4
STATION
9
7
9
8
9
9
Fig. 6. Mean nitrate/nitrite in Lost Creek, May- Aug. 1999
6-
Ob
■
i
F
u
1
4-
1
m
4
g
2
.2
0.0
N =
9
■
i
■
1
9
■
9
9 t
9
s <
1
2
3
4 i
> 7
8 £
I
STATION
Dotted line represents the VNRP target of 300 ppb TN
25
Fig. 7. Total Kjeldahl nirtogen in Lost Creek, May-Aug. 1999
.8-
6
4-
^
E
c
u
bo
c
Z
■
■S
TJ
<u
H"
.2-
0.0
■
]
•
■
■
2
c
H
■
■
N =
9
1
9
2
9
3
9 2 4
4 5 6
9
7
9
8
9
9
STATION
Dotted line represents the VNRP target of 300 ppb TN
Fig. 8. Total nitrogen in Lost Creek, May-Aug. 1999
1 6
1.4-
S 1-21
E
c
00
o
B
5
o
f-
1.0
8
6-
.4
2-
0.0
1=
9
3
9
4
STATION
Dotted line represents the VNRP target of 300 ppb TN
26
Fig. 9. Total nitrogen load in Lost Creek, May-Aug. 1999
DU-
"Si)
■
trogen load (1
o <
1
c 20-
3
o
1
■
H 10-
■
■
0
N =
9
7
9
8
STATION
27
CO
"O
=3
■*-'
CO
■*—•
c
<L>
3
z:
O
■*->
o
Q.
03
(0
5 £
4)
n
5 o
and Rivers
/ Small tribut
d Ponds
o>— "c
id Hi
tiona
te Pa
IB 2 P
<fl — CO
O "D o
f£ O u
w-JU
<c <c j!
0) O)^
o >- *-
c/) Jb -1
« 4> O
S Q _j
■
nn
Map 2. Location of sample sites and riparian inventory polygons.
Streams and Rivers
Irrigation / Small tributaries
Lakes and Ponds
Major Roads and Highways
Q> Sample site
ED Functional - At Risk
ED Non - Functional
w
N
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11