Water Quality Assessment for the
Tongue River Watershed,
Montana
August 2, 2007
Appendices
FINAL DRAFT
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Montana Operations Office and Tetra Tech, Inc.
Project Manager: Ron Steg
-------
-------
Appendices
Water Quality Assessment for the Tongue
River Watershed, Montana
FINAL DRAFT
August 2, 2007
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Montana Operations Office
and Tetra Tech, Inc.
Project Manager: Ron Steg
Cover photo by USGS
-------
-------
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.O MONTANA NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS A-1
B.O METHODOLOGY FOR APPLYING MONTANA'S WATER QUALITY STANDARDS B-1
B.1 Tongue River Tributaries B-1
B.1.1 Salinity and IDS B-1
B.1.2 Sodium Adsorption Ratio B-2
B.1.3 Chlorides B-2
B.1.4 Sulfates B-3
B.1.5 Metals B-3
B.1.6 Sediment (i.e., Siltation and Suspended solids) B-4
B.1.6.1 NRCS Stream Corridor Assessment 6-6
B.1.6.2 Suspended Sediment/Total Suspended Solids Data 6-7
B.1.6.3 Relative Bed Stability Index 6-8
B.1.6.4 Riparian and Bank Condition Index 6-8
B.1.6.5 Rapid Habitat Assessments 6-9
B.1.6.6 Human Influence Index (HII) 6-9
B.1.6.7 Sediment Sources 6-9
B.1.7 Comparative Analysis of Tributary Water Quality Data B-10
B.2 Main Stem Tongue River B-11
B.2.1 Salinity B-11
B.2.2 Sodium Adsorption Ratio B-11
B.2.3 Sediment (i.e., Suspended Solids) B-12
B.2.4 Metals B-12
B.3 Tongue River Reservoir B-13
B.3.1 Salinity B-13
B.3.2 Sodium Adsorption Ratio B-13
B.3.3 Nutrients B-13
6.3.3.1 Modeling B-14
B.3.3.2 South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources B-14
6.3.3.3 USEPA Nutrient Targets B-15
B.3.4 Dissolved Oxygen B-15
B.3.5 Sediment (i.e., Suspended Solids) B-16
B.4 References B-16
C.O COEFFICIENTS FOR CALCULATING MONTANA METALS STANDARDS C-1
D.O WYOMING AND NORTHERN CHEYENNE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS D-1
D.1 Wyoming Water Quality Standards D-1
D.1.1 Narrative Standards D-1
D.1.2 Numeric Standards D-1
D.2 Northern Cheyenne Tribal Standards D-5
D.3 References D-6
E.O MONTHLY SC ANALYSIS E-1
E.1 Salinity Standards E-1
E.2 Tongue River at Miles City Montana (06308500) E-2
E.3 Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam (06307990) E-5
E.4 Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge (06307830) E-7
E.5 Tongue River at Birney Day School Bridge (06307616) E-10
E.6 Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam (06307500) E-13
E.7 Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line (06306300) E-16
E.8 Tongue River at Monarch, Wyoming (06299980) E-19
E.9 Tongue River at Dayton, Wyoming (06298000) E-21
E.10 Hanging Woman Creek (06307600) E-23
E.11 Otter Creek (06307740) E-26
E.12 Pumpkin Creek (06308400) E-29
E.13 Summary and Conclusions E-32
F.O MONTHLY SAR ANALYSIS F-1
F.1 Tongue River at Miles City Montana (06308500) F-2
-------
Table of Contents
F.2 Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam (06307990) F-5
F.3 Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge (06307830) F-7
F.4 Tongue River at Birney Day School Bridge (06307616) F-9
F.5 Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam (06307500) F-11
F.6 Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line (06306300) F-13
F.7 Tongue River at Monarch, Wyoming (06299980) F-15
F.8 Tongue River at Dayton, Wyoming (06298000) F-17
F.9 Hanging Woman Creek (06307600) F-19
F.10 Otter Creek (06307740) F-22
F.11 Pumpkin Creek (06308400) F-25
F.12 Summary and Conclusions F-28
G.O GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATIONS IN HANGING WOMAN CREEK, OTTER CREEK, AND PUMPKIN CREEK
WATERSHEDS G-1
G.1 Hanging Woman Creek G-1
G.1.1 Salinity G-1
G.1.2 SAR G-2
G.2 Otter Creek G-3
G.2.1 Salinity G-3
G.2.2 SAR G-4
G.3 Pumpkin Creek G-5
G.3.1 Salinity G-5
G.3.2 SAR G-6
G.4 References G-7
H.O HYDROLOGY OF THE TONGUE RIVER WATERSHED H-1
H.1 Introduction H-1
H.2 Precipitation H-1
H.3 Stream Flow H-3
H.3.1 Headwaters to the Tongue River Reservoir H-5
H.3.2 Tongue River Reservoir H-9
H.3.3 Tongue River Reservoir Dam to the Mouth H-11
H.3.4 Tongue River Flows- Summary H-14
H.4 Drought H-16
H.5 References H-17
I.O BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES AND APPLICATION OF THE MULTIMETRIC INDEX (MMI), AND THE RIVER
INVERTEBRATE PREDICTION AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (RIVPACS) IN THE TONGUE RIVER WATERSHED ...1-1
1.1 Macroinvertebrates 1-1
1.1.1 Macroinvertebrate Sampling Sites I-2
1.1.2 Hanging Woman Creek I-4
1.1.3 Otter Creek I-4
1.1.4 Pumpkin Creek I-5
1.1.5 Tongue River I-5
I.2 Fish I-7
1.2.1 Hanging Woman Creek I-8
I.2.2 Otter Creek I-9
I.2.3 Pumpkin Creek 1-10
1.2.4 Tongue River 1-11
1.2.5 Tongue River Reservoir 1-14
1.3 References 1-16
J.O MODEL SCENARIOS J-1
J.1 Factors Potentially Influencing SC and SAR in the Tongue River Watershed J-1
J.2 Scenarios J-2
J.3 References J-8
J.4 Scenario Results J-13
J.5 Tongue River at Miles City, Montana J-15
J.6 Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line J-21
J.7 Hanging Woman Creek near the Mouth J-27
-------
Table of Contents
J.8 Tongue River Reservoir J-33
J.9 Otter Creek near the Mouth J-39
J.10 Pumpkin Creek J-45
K.O COMPARISON OF GREAT PLAINS STREAMS WATER CHEMISTRY DATA K-1
K.1 Tributaries to the Tongue River K-1
K.2 Main Stem Tongue River K-28
K.3 References K-34
L.O 2003 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING DATA L-1
MI
-------
Table of Contents
Tables
Table B-l. Montana's numeric salinity criteria for tributaries to the Tongue River B-l
Table B-2. Montana's numeric SAR criteria for tributaries to the Tongue River B-2
Table B-3. Montana numeric aquatic life criteria for metals B-4
Table B-4. Montana numeric criteria for metals at Tongue River average hardness B-4
Table B-5. Applicable narrative standards for sediment related pollutants B-5
Table B-6. Summary of sediment indicators for tributaries to the Tongue River B-6
Table B-7. Montana's numeric salinity criteria for the Tongue River B-ll
Table B-8. Montana's numeric SAR criteria for the Tongue River B-12
Table B-9. Summary of sediment indicators for the Tongue River B-12
Table B-10. Montana's numeric salinity criteria for the Tongue River Reservoir B-13
Table B-ll. Montana's numeric SAR criteria for the Tongue River Reservoir B-13
Table B-12. Preliminary nutrient indicators forthe Tongue River Reservoir B-14
Table B-13. Minimum Aquatic life standards (Class B2) for dissolved oxygen (mg/L) B-15
Table D-l. Summary of the Wyoming narrative water quality standards D-2
Table D-2. Summary of the numeric Wyoming surface water quality standards D-3
Table D-3. Minimum DO criteria3 (mg/L) for Wyoming waters D-3
Table D-4. Wyoming metals standards for hardness dependant parameters.* D-4
Table D-5. Northern Cheyenne surface water quality standards D-5
Table D-6. Numeric standards for EC, TDS, and SAR for waters in the Northern Cheyenne
Reservation D-6
Table E-1. Monthly average salinity standards for the mainstem Tongue River and tributaries E-1
Table E-2. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards forthe Tongue River at Miles City - USGS Gage 06308500 E-3
Table E-3. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam - USGS Gage 06307990.
E-6
Table E-4. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards forthe Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge - USGS Gage 06307830... E-8
Table E-5. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Birney Day School Bridge - USGS Gage
06307616 E-ll
Table E-6. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam - USGS Gage
06307500 E-14
Table E-7. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line - USGS Gage
06306300 E-17
Table E-8. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards forthe Tongue River at Monarch - USGS Gage 06299980 E-20
Table E-9. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards forthe Tongue River at Dayton - USGS Gage 06298000 E-22
Table E-10. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Hanging Woman Creek at Birney, MT- USGS Gage 06307600 E-24
Table E-ll. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Otter Creek at Ashland, MT- USGS Gage 06307740 E-27
Table E-12. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Pumpkin Creek at Miles City, MT- USGS Gage 06308400 E-30
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Table F-1. Monthly average sodium adsorption ratio standards for the mainstem Tongue River and
tributaries F-l
Table F-2. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at Miles City - USGS Gage 06308500 F-3
Table F-3. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at above the T&Y Diversion Dam - USGS Gage
06307990 F-6
Table F-4. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge - USGS Gage 06307830... F-8
Table F-5. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Birney Day School Bridge - USGS Gage
06307616 F-10
Table F-6. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam - USGS Gage
06307500 F-12
Table F-7. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line - USGS Gage
06306300 F-14
Table F-8. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at Monarch - USGS Gage 06299980 F-16
Table F-9. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at Dayton - USGS Gage 06298000 F-18
Table F-10. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, MT - USGS Gage 06307600 F-20
Table F-11. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Otter Creek at Ashland-USGS Gage 06307740 F-23
Table F-12. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Pumpkin Creek near Miles City - USGS Gage 06308400 F-26
Table G-l. Summary of groundwater specific conductance data in the Hanging Woman Creek
watershed ((iS/cm) G-2
Table G-2. Summary of groundwater SAR in the Hanging Woman Creek watershed G-2
Table G-3. Summary of groundwater specific conductance data in the Otter Creek watershed G-3
Table G-4. Summary of groundwater SAR in the Otter Creek watershed G-4
Table G-5. Summary of groundwater salinity (SC) in the Pumpkin Creek watershed G-5
Table G-6. Summary of groundwater SAR in the Pumpkin Creek watershed G-6
Table H-l. Summary of yearly precipitation data at selected stations in the Tongue River watershed.
H-l
Table H-2. Summary of selected USGS continuous flow gages in the Tongue River watershed H-3
Table H-3. Summary of flows in four mountain streams H-6
Table H-4. Summary of flows in Prairie Dog Creek and Squirrel Creek H-7
Table H-5. Summary of flows in the Tongue River and Goose Creek H-8
Table H-6. Summary of flows in the Tongue River downstream of the Tongue River Reservoir.. H-l 2
Table H-7. Summary of flows in Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek H-l 3
Table I-1. Biological impairment thresholds for streams in the Plains region of Montana 1-1
Table 1-2. Plains MMI and RIVPACS scores for sites in the Hanging Woman Creek 1-4
Table 1-3. Plains MMI and RIVPACS scores for sites in the Otter Creek 1-4
Table 1-4. Plains MMI and RIVPACS scores for sites in Pumpkin Creek 1-5
-------
Table of Contents
Table 1-5. Tongue River macroinvertebrate samples with less than 300 organisms 1-5
Table 1-6. Plains MMI and RIVPACS scores for sites in the Tongue River 1-6
Table 1-7. Plains IBI scores for sites in the Hanging Woman Creek watershed 1-8
Table 1-8. Plains Fish IBI scores for sites in the Otter Creek watershed 1-9
Table 1-9. Plains fish IBI scores for sites in the Pumpkin Creek watershed 1-10
Table I-10. Fish collected in the Tongue River, Montana between 1999 and 2004 1-12
Table 1-11. Fish sampling events in the Tongue River, Montana (1999-2004) 1-13
Table J-l. Evaluation points for Scenarios 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 J-4
Table J-2. Concentrations implemented in the Scenario 9 model runs J-8
Table J-3. Potential sources of salinity and/or nutrients in the Tongue River watershed J-9
Table J-4. Flow statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana
(Modeling subbasin 1002) J-16
Table J-5. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002) J-16
Table J-6. SC (|iS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana
(Modeling subbasin 1002) J-18
Table J-7. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana
(Modeling subbasin 1002) J-18
Table J-8. Comparison of mean SC (|iS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002) J-18
Table J-9. SAR statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana
(Modeling subbasin 1002) J-20
Table J-10. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana
(Modeling subbasin 1002) J-20
Table J-l 1. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002) J-20
Table J-12. Flow statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling
subbasin 3006) J-22
Table J-13. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006) J-22
Table J-14. SC (|iS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at the State Line
(Modeling subbasin 3006) J-24
Table J-15. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River at the State Line
(Modeling subbasin 3006) J-24
Table J-16. Comparison of mean SC ((iS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006) J-24
Table J-l7. SAR statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling
subbasin 3006) J-26
Table J-18. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River at the State Line
(Modeling subbasin 3006) J-26
Table J-l 9. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006) J-26
Table J-20. Flow statistics for various scenarios in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1095) J-28
Table J-21. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095) J-28
Table J-22. SC ((iS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1095) J-30
VI
-------
Table of Contents
Table J-23. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1095) J-30
Table J-24. Comparison of mean SC ((iS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095) J-30
Table J-25. SAR statistics for various scenarios in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1095) J-32
Table J-26. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1095) J-32
Table J-27. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095) J-32
Table J-28. SC (|iS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling
Subbasin 3000) J-34
Table J-29. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling
Subbasin 3000) J-34
Table J-30. Comparison of mean SC (|iS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling Subbasin 3000) J-34
Table J-31. SAR statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling Subbasin
3000) J-36
Table J-32. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling
Subbasin 3000) J-36
Table J-3 3. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling Subbasin 3000) J-36
Table J-34. Upstream total nitrogen and total phosphorus daily loading statistics for various scenarios
in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling Subbasin 3001) (pounds per day) J-3 7
Table J-3 5. Modeling existing versus natural dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and
chlorophyll-a concentrations in the Tongue River Reservoir near the dam (surface layer).
J-38
Table J-36. Flow statistics for various scenarios in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin
1059) J-40
Table J-3 7. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059) J-40
Table J-38. SC ((iS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1059) J-42
Table J-39. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1059) J-42
Table J-40. Comparison of mean SC ((iS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059) J-42
Table J-41. SAR statistics for various scenarios in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin
1059) J-44
Table J-42. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1059) J-44
Table J-43. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059) J-44
Table J-44. Flow statistics for various scenarios in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1007) J-46
Table J-45. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007) J-46
Table J-46. SC ((iS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1007) J-48
Table J-47. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1007) J-48
VII
-------
Table of Contents
Table J-48. Comparison of mean SC ((iS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007) J-48
Table J-49. SAR statistics for various scenarios in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1007) J-50
Table J-50. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1007) J-50
Table J-51. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition
scenario, Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007) J-50
Table K-l. USGS sampling stations, location information, and period of sampling K-4
Table K-2. USGS Parameters and Parameter Groupings K-5
Table K-3. TSS and SSC sampling period of record and summary statistics (mg/L) K-6
Table K-4. SC Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (|iS/cm) K-10
Table K-5. SAR Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics K-12
Table K-6. Calcium Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L) K-14
Table K-7. Magnesium Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L) K-16
Table K-8. Sodium Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L) K-18
Table K-9. Chloride Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L) K-20
Table K-10. Sulfate Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L) K-22
Table K-11. Hardness Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L) K-24
Table K-12. Temperature (°F) Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics K-26
Table K-13. Summary of the selected rivers for the suspended sediment analysis K-28
Table K-14. Summary of grab sample SSC data for selected Great Plains streams K-32
Table K-15. Summary of continuous SSC data for selected Great Plains streams K-33
Table L-l. Location of 2003 sampling sites L-l
Table L-2. Water quality parameters and number of samples collected during the 2003 field season.
L-2
VIM
-------
Table of Contents
Figures
Figure E-1. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Tongue River Miles City gage (Gage #06308500) E-2
Figure E-2. SC versus flow for the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana. Entire period of record is
shown E-4
Figure E-3. Average monthly growing season SC values at Miles City (past five years only) versus
flow percentile E-4
Figure E-4. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam (Gage #06307990) E-5
Figure E-5. Average monthly growing season SC values above the T&Y Diversion Dam (past five
years only) versus flow percentile E-6
Figure E-6. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge (Gage #06307830) E-7
Figure E-7. Average monthly growing season SC values at the Brandenberg Bridge (past five years
only) versus flow percentile (flow percentile based on the entire period of record for this
station) E-9
Figure E-8. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Tongue River Birney Day School Bridge gage (Gage #06307616) E-10
Figure E-9. Average monthly growing season SC values at the Birney Day School Bridge (past five
years only) versus flow percentile (flow percentile for the entire period of record for this
station) E-12
Figure E-10. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam gage (Gage #06307500) E-13
Figure E-l 1. Average monthly growing season SC values at the Tongue River below the Tongue River
Reservoir Dam (past five years only) versus flow percentile E-15
Figure E-12. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Montana-Wyoming State Line (Gage #06306300) E-16
Figure E-13. Average monthly growing season SC values at the Montana-Wyoming State Line (past
five years only) versus flow percentile E-18
Figure E-14. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Tongue River Monarch gage (Gage #06299980) E-19
Figure E-15. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Tongue River Dayton gage (Gage #06298000) E-21
Figure E-16. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Hanging Woman Creek gage near Birney, MT (Gage #06307600) E-23
Figure E-l7. SC versus flow for Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, Montana. Entire period of
record is shown E-25
Figure E-18. Average monthly growing season SC values for Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, MT
(past five years only) versus flow percentile E-25
Figure E-19. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Otter Creek gage near Ashland, MT (Gage #06307740) E-26
Figure E-20. SC versus flow for Otter Creek near Ashland, Montana. Entire period of record is shown.
E-28
Figure E-21. Average monthly growing season SC values for Otter Creek near Ashland, MT (past five
years only) versus flow percentile E-28
Figure E-22. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month at the
Pumpkin Creek gage near Miles City, MT (Gage #06308400) E-29
Figure E-23. SC versus flow for Pumpkin Creek near Miles City, Montana. Entire period of record is
shown E-31
IX
-------
Table of Contents
Figure E-24. Average monthly growing season SC values for Pumpkin Creek near Miles City, MT
(past five years only) versus flow percentile E-31
Figure F-l. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Tongue River Miles City gage (Gage #06308500) F-2
Figure F-2. SAR versus flow for the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana. Entire period of record is
shown F-4
Figure F-3. Average monthly growing season SAR values at Miles City (past five years only) versus
flow percentile F-4
Figure F-4. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam (Gage #06307990) F-5
Figure F-5. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge (Gage #06307830) F-7
Figure F-6. Average monthly growing season SAR values at the Brandenberg Bridge (past five years
only) versus flow percentile F-8
Figure F-7. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Tongue River Birney Day School Bridge gage (Gage #06307616) F-9
Figure F-8. Average monthly growing season SAR values at the Birney Day School Bridge (past five
years only) versus flow percentile F-10
Figure F-9. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam gage (Gage #06307500).. F-l 1
Figure F-10. Average monthly growing season SAR values below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam
(past five years only) versus flow percentile F-12
Figure F-l 1. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Montana-Wyoming State Line (Gage #06306300) F-13
Figure F-12. Average monthly growing season SAR values at the Montana-Wyoming state line (past
five years only) versus flow percentile F-14
Figure F-13. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Tongue River Monarch gage (Gage #06299980) F-15
Figure F-14. Average monthly growing season SAR values at Monarch (past five years only) versus
flow percentile F-16
Figure F-15. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Tongue River Dayton gage (Gage #06298000) F-17
Figure F-16. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, MTgage (Gage #06307600) F-l9
Figure F-17. SAR versus flow for Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, Montana. Entire period of
record is shown F-21
Figure F-l8. Average monthly growing season SAR values near Birney (past five years only) versus
flow percentile F-21
Figure F-19. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Otter Creek Ashland gage (Gage #06307740) F-22
Figure F-20. SAR versus flow for Otter Creek at Ashland, Montana. Entire period of record is shown.
F-24
Figure F-21. Average monthly growing season SAR values at Ashland (past five years only) versus
flow percentile F-24
Figure F-22. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at
the Pumpkin Creek Miles City gage (Gage #06308400) F-25
Figure F-23. SAR versus flow for Pumpkin Creek near Miles City, Montana. Entire period of record
is shown F-27
Figure F-24. Average monthly growing season SAR values near Miles City (past five years only)
versus flow percentile F-27
-------
Table of Contents
Figure H-1. Total yearly precipitation at two mountain gages in the Tongue River watershed H-2
Figure H-2. Total yearly precipitation at two prairie gages in the Tongue River watershed H-2
Figure H-3. Selected USGS continuous flow gages in the Tongue River watershed H-4
Figure H-4. 3D elevation model of the Tongue River watershed H-5
Figure H-5. Average daily flows in four mountain streams in the Tongue River watershed upstream of
the Tongue River Reservoir (entire period of record is shown) H-6
Figure H-6. Average daily flow for Prairie Dog Creek and Squirrel Creek H-7
Figure H-7. Average daily flow, Tongue River Stateline gage H-8
Figure H-8. Average daily flow in the Tongue River at the Stateline (USGS Gage 06306300) H-8
Figure H-9. Volume of water in the Tongue River Reservoir, 1960 to 2006 H-10
Figure H-10. Average monthly volume of water in the Tongue River Reservoir, 1999-2006 H-10
Figure H-11. Average daily flow in the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam (USGS
Gage 06307500) H-ll
Figure H-12. Stream flows in the Tongue River, Otter Creek, and Hanging Woman Creek in February
and March of 1975 H-ll
Figure H-13. Average daily flows at four USGS gages in the Tongue River downstream of the Tongue
River Reservoir (entire period of record is shown) H-12
Figure H-14. Average daily flows for Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek (entire
period of record is shown) H-13
Figure H-15. Flow statistics for USGS stations with 10 or more years of flow data in the mainstem
Tongue River. The entire period of record is shown for each station H-14
Figure H-16. Average daily flows at representative stations in the Tongue River and major tributaries.
Entire period of record is shown. For illustration purposes only; not to scale H-15
Figure 1-1. Macroinvertebrate sampling sites in the Tongue River, Hanging Woman Creek, Otter
Creek, and Pumpkin Creek, Montana 1-3
Figure 1-2. Total number of yellow perch and walleye captured in Tongue River Reservoir, 1989 to
2003 1-15
Figure J-l. Total yearly flow in the Tongue River at Miles City (06308500) and State Line
(06306300) J-3
Figure J-2. CBM outfalls modeled in the scenarios J-3
Figure J-3. Scenario results for flow in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin
1002) J-15
Figure J-4. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in the Tongue River at Miles City,
Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002) J-17
Figure J-5. Scenario results for SAR in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin
1002) J-19
Figure J-6. Scenario results for flow in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006).
J-21
Figure J-7. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in the Tongue River at the State Line
(Modeling subbasin 3006) J-23
Figure J-8. Scenario results for SAR in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin
3006) J-25
Figure J-9. Scenario results for flow in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin
1095) J-27
Figure J-10. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in Hanging Woman Creek near the
mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095) J-29
Figure J-l 1. Scenario results for SAR in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin
1095) J-31
XI
-------
Table of Contents
Figure J-12. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in the Tongue River Reservoir
(Modeling subbasin 3000) J-33
Figure J-13. Scenario results for SAR in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling subbasin 3000)... J-35
Figure J-14. Scenario results for total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads to the Tongue River
Reservoir from upstream sources (Modeling subbasin 3001) J-37
Figure J-15. Scenario results for flow in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).... J-39
Figure J-16. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in Otter Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1059) J-41
Figure J-17. Scenario results for SAR in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).... J-43
Figure J-18. Scenario results for flow in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007).. J-
45
Figure J-19. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1007) J-47
Figure J-20. Scenario results for SAR in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007).. J-
49
Figure K-1. Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota ecoregions K-2
Figure K-2. Location of selected Prairie streams and USGS water quality gages K-3
Figure K-3. TSS and SSC box plot. Turbidity sampling period of record and summary statistics
(NTU) K-7
Figure K-3. Turbidity sampling period of record and summary statistics (NTU) K-8
Figure K-4. Turbidity Box Plot K-9
Figure K-5. Specific Conductance Box Plot K-ll
Figure K-6. SAR Box Plot K-13
Figure K-7. Calcium Box Plot K-15
Figure K-8. Magnesium Box Plot K-17
Figure K-9. Sodium Box Plot K-19
Figure K-10. Chloride Box Plot K-21
Figure K-ll. Sulfate Box Plot K-23
Figure K-12. Hardness Box Plot K-25
Figure K-13. Temperature Box Plot K-27
Figure K-14. Location of Great Plains streams used in the Tongue River sediment comparison analysis.
K-29
Figure K-15. Box plots of SSC data for selected Great Plains streams (sorted by drainage area) K-31
XII
-------
APPENDIX A - MONTANA NARRATIVE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
-------
Appendix A
A.O MONTANA NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The narrative Montana water quality standards applicable to the 303(d) listed pollutants in the Tongue
River watershed are provided below. The full set of standards for the State can be found in the
Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), Chapter 30, Subchapter 6. Numeric water quality standards,
where applicable, are discussed in Appendix B.
17.30.624 B-2 CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS
(1) Waters classified B-2 are to be maintained suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing
purposes, after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and marginal
propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and
industrial water supply.
(2) No person may violate the following specific water quality standards for waters classified B-2:
(f) No increases are allowed above naturally occurring concentrations of sediment or suspended
sediment (except as permitted in 75-5-318, MCA), settleable solids, oils, or floating solids which will or
are likely to create a nuisance or render the waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health,
recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other wildlife.
(h) Concentrations of carcinogenic, bioconcentrating, toxic, radioactive, nutrient, or harmful
parameters may not exceed the applicable standards set forth in department Circular DEQ-7.
(i) Dischargers issued permits under ARM Title 17, chapter 30, subchapter 13, shall conform with
ARM Title 17, chapter 30, subchapter 7, the nondegradation rules, and may not cause receiving water
concentrations to exceed the applicable standards specified in department Circular DEQ-7 when stream
flows equal or exceed the design flows specified in ARM 17.30.635(4).
(j) If site-specific criteria for aquatic life are adopted using the procedures given in 75-5-310,
MCA, the criteria shall be used as water quality standards for the affected waters and as the basis for
permit limits instead of the applicable standards in department Circular DEQ-7.
(k) In accordance with 75-5-306(1), MCA, it is not necessary that wastes be treated to a purer
condition than the natural condition of the receiving water as long as the minimum treatment
requirements, adopted pursuant to 75-5-305, MCA, are met.
17.30.625 B-3 CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS
(1) Waters classified B-3 are to be maintained suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing
purposes, after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of
non-salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial
water supply.
(2) No person may violate the following specific water quality standards for waters classified B-3:
(f) No increases are allowed above naturally occurring concentrations of sediment or suspended
sediment (except as permitted in 75-5-318, MCA), settleable solids, oils, or floating solids, which will or
are likely to create a nuisance or render the waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health,
recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other wildlife.
(h) Concentrations of carcinogenic, bioconcentrating, toxic, radioactive, nutrient, or harmful
parameters may not exceed the applicable standards set forth in department Circular DEQ-7.
(i) Dischargers issued permits under ARM Title 17, chapter 30, subchapter 13, shall conform with
ARM Title 17, chapter 30, subchapter 7, the nondegradation rules, and may not cause receiving water
concentrations to exceed the applicable standards specified in department Circular DEQ-7 when stream
flows equal or exceed the design flows specified in ARM 17.30.635(4).
A-1
-------
Appendix A
(j) If site-specific criteria for aquatic life are adopted using the procedures given in 75-5-310,
MCA, the criteria shall be used as water quality standards for the affected waters and as the basis for
permit limits instead of the applicable standards specified in department Circular DEQ-7.
(k) In accordance with 75-5-306(1), MCA, it is not necessary that wastes be treated to a purer
condition than the natural condition of the receiving water as long as the minimum treatment
requirements, adopted pursuant to 75-5-305, MCA, are met.
17.30.629 C-3 CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS
(1) Waters classified C-3 are to be maintained suitable for bathing, swimming, and recreation, and growth
and propagation of non-salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers. The quality
of these waters is naturally marginal for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes, agriculture, and
industrial water supply. Degradation which will impact established beneficial uses will not be allowed.
(2) No person may violate the following specific water quality standards for waters classified C-3:
(f) No increases are allowed above naturally occurring concentrations of sediment or suspended
sediment (except as permitted in 75-5-318, MCA), settleable solids, oils or floating solids, which will or
are likely to create a nuisance or render the waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health,
recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other wildlife.
(h) Concentrations of carcinogenic, bioconcentrating, toxic, radioactive, nutrient, or harmful
parameters may not exceed the applicable standards set forth in department Circular DEQ-7.
(i) Dischargers issued permits under ARM Title 17, chapter 30, subchapter 13, shall conform with
ARM Title 17, chapter 30, subchapter 7, the nondegradation rules, and may not cause receiving water
concentrations to exceed the applicable standards specified in department Circular DEQ-7 when stream
flows equal or exceed the design flows specified in ARM 17.30.635(4).
(j) If site-specific criteria for aquatic life are adopted using the procedures given in 75-5-310,
MCA, the criteria shall be used as water quality standards for the affected waters and as the basis for
permit limits instead of the applicable standards specified in department Circular DEQ-7.
(k) In accordance with 75-5-306(1), MCA, it is not necessary that wastes be treated to a purer
condition than the natural condition of the receiving water as long as the minimum treatment
requirements, adopted pursuant to 75-5-305, MCA, are met.
17.30.637 GENERAL PROHIBITIONS
(1) State surface waters must be free from substances attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural
practices or other discharges that will:
(a) Settle to form objectionable sludge deposits or emulsions beneath the surface of the water or upon
adjoining shorelines;
(b) Create floating debris, scum, a visible oil film (or be present in concentrations at or in excess of 10
milligrams per liter) or globules of grease or other floating materials;
(c) Produce odors, colors or other conditions as to which create a nuisance or render undesirable
tastes to fish flesh or make fish inedible;
(d) Create concentrations or combinations of materials which are toxic or harmful to human, animal,
plant or aquatic life; and
(e) Create conditions which produce undesirable aquatic life.
(2) No wastes may be discharged and no activities conducted such that the wastes or activities, either
alone or in combination with other wastes or activities, will violate, or can reasonably be expected to
violate, any of the standards.
A-2
-------
Appendix A
(3) Leaching pads, tailing ponds, or water, waste, or product holding facilities must be located,
constructed, operated and maintained in such a manner and of such materials so as to prevent the
discharge, seepage, drainage, infiltration, or flow which may result in the pollution of surface waters. The
department may require that a monitoring system be installed and operated if the department determines
that pollutants are likely to reach surface waters or present a substantial risk to public health.
(a) Complete plans and specifications for proposed leaching pads, tailing ponds, or water, waste, or
product holding facilities utilized in the processing of ore must be submitted to the department no less
than 180 days prior to the day on which it is desired to commence their operation.
(b) Leaching pads, tailing ponds, or water, waste, or product holding facilities operating as of the
effective date of this rule must be operated and maintained in such a manner so as to prevent the
discharge, seepage, drainage, infiltration or flow which may result in the pollution of surface waters.
(4) Dumping of snow from municipal and/or parking lot snow removal activities directly into surface
waters or placing snow in a location where it is likely to cause pollution of surface waters is prohibited
unless authorized in writing by the department.
(5) Until such time as minimum stream flows are established for dewatered streams, the minimum
treatment requirements for discharges to dewatered receiving streams must be no less than the minimum
treatment requirements set forth in ARM 17.30.635(2) and (3).
(6) Treatment requirements for discharges to ephemeral streams must be no less than the minimum
treatment requirements set forth in ARM 17.30.635(2) and (3). Ephemeral streams are subject to ARM
17.30.635 through 17.30.637, 17.30.640, 17.30.641, 17.30.645 and 17.30.646 but not to the specific water
quality standards of ARM 17.30.620 through 17.30.629.
(7) Pollution resulting from storm drainage, storm sewer discharges, and non-point sources, including
irrigation practices, road building, construction, logging practices, over-grazing and other practices must
be eliminated or minimized as ordered by the department.
(8) Application of pesticides in or adjacent to state surface waters must be in compliance with the labeled
direction, and in accordance with provisions of the Montana Pesticides Act (Title 80, chapter 8, MCA)
and the Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act (7 USC 136, et seq., (Supp. 1973) as amended).
Excess pesticides and pesticide containers must not be disposed of in a manner or in a location where
they are likely to pollute surface waters.
(9) No pollutants may be discharged and no activities may be conducted which, either alone or in
combination with other wastes or activities, result in the total dissolved gas pressure relative to the water
surface exceeding 110 percent of saturation.
A-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX B -METHODOLOGY FOR APPLYING
MONTANA'S WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
-------
Appendix B
B.O METHODOLOGY FOR APPLYING MONTANA'S WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
One of the primary goals of this water quality assessment was to provide a comparison of the available
water quality data to the applicable Montana water quality standards. For pollutants with numeric criteria
such as salinity, SAR, and metals, Montana's numeric criteria were used directly as a point of reference
for this comparison. However, for pollutants with only narrative criteria such as chlorides, sulfates,
sediment, nutrients and temperature, it was necessary to develop a suite of indicators representing the
narrative criteria. These indicators were used as a point of reference for comparison of the available
water quality data to the narrative standards.
The comparisons to Montana's water quality standards are presented for informational purposes only. The
criteria and indicators are used only as a point of reference to facilitate the comparison. Water quality
impairment decisions for the purpose of Clean Water Act Section 303(d) are not presented or implied and are
the delegated responsibility of the States,
B.1 Tongue River Tributaries
The tributaries addressed in this appendix include Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin
Creek. The characteristics of these water bodies differ considerably from the main stem of the Tongue
River and the Tongue River Reservoir in terms of hydrologic response, physical size, and biota that
inhabit them. This necessitates a unique approach for the tributaries. This section presents the criteria,
indicators and methods used to apply Montana's water quality standards in the tributaries to the Tongue
River.
B. 1.1 Salinity and TDS
The State of Montana adopted maximum and average numeric criteria for salinity (as measured by
electrical conductivity, EC, in uS/cm) on June 6, 2003 (Table B-l) (ARM 17.30.670). The Montana
criteria are specified separately for the growing season (March 2-October 31) and non-growing season
(November 1-March 1), although the seasonal values are identical for EC in the Tongue River tributaries.
These values are used directly to measure agricultural beneficial use impairment.
Throughout this document, Montana's numeric water quality standards for EC are used as a watershed-
wide, common point of reference for purposes of characterizing current water quality conditions in both
Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water quality standards are directly
applicable within thejurisdictional boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a
single watershed-scale point of reference.
Table B-1. Montana's numeric salinity criteria for tributaries to the Tongue River.
Waterbody
Tongue River Tributaries
Season
Nov 1 - Mar 1
Mar2-Oct31
Monthly Average EC
(uS/cm)
500
500
Maximum EC (uS/cm)
500
500
B-1
-------
Appendix B
The Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM 17.30.670) do not provide guidance regarding the minimum
number of samples needed to calculate "monthly average" values. In the absence of such guidance, the
available data were screened to determine the quantity of available data on a monthly basis (i.e., 1, 2, 3, or
>4 data points per month) and whether or not the available data adequately represent the full range of
flow conditions and the current time period. Since the quantity of available data varies on a station-by -
station basis, this screening analysis was conducted for each of the USGS stations used in each of the
subject water bodies. This analysis is presented in Appendix E. The specific approach for applying the
monthly standard is presented in the main body of the document.
B.1.2 Sodium A dsorption Ratio
The State of Montana adopted maximum and average numeric criteria for sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
on June 6, 2003 (Table B-2) (ARM 17.30.670). Criteria vary by growing season (March 2-October 31)
versus non-growing season (November 1-March 1). These values are used directly to measure
agricultural beneficial use impairment.
Throughout this document, Montana's numeric water quality standards for SAR are used as a watershed-
wide, common point of reference for purposes of characterizing current water quality conditions in both
Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water quality standards are directly
applicable within thejurisdictional boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a
single watershed-scale point of reference.
Table B-2. Montana's numeric SAR criteria for tributaries to the Tongue River.
Waterbody
Tongue River Tributaries
Season
Nov 1 - Mar 1
Mar2-Oct31
Monthly Average SAR
5.0
3.0
Maximum SAR
7.5
4.5
The Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM 17.30.670) do not provide guidance regarding the minimum
number of samples needed to calculate "monthly average" values. In the absence of such guidance, the
available data were screened to determine the quantity of available data on a monthly basis (i.e., 1, 2, 3,
>4 data points per month) and whether or not the available data adequately represent the full range of
flow conditions and the current time period. Since the quantity of available data varies on a station-by -
station basis, this screening analysis was conducted for each of the USGS stations used in each of the
subject water bodies. This analysis is presented in Appendix E. The specific approach for applying the
monthly standard is presented in the main body of the document.
B.I.3 Chlorides
Montana does not currently have numeric criteria for chlorides. The narrative standards applicable to
chlorides are contained in the General Prohibitions of the surface water quality standards (ARM
17.30.637 et. Seq.,) (see Appendix A). The prohibition against the creation of "concentrations or
combinations of materials which are toxic or harmful to human, animal, plant or aquatic life" is generally
the most relevant to chlorides. USEPA recommends chloride criteria for streams and rivers based on the
aquatic toxicity of plant, fish, and invertebrate species (USEPA, 1988). Recommended aquatic life criteria
are 860 mg/L (acute) and a 230 mg/L (chronic). These criteria are proposed as a basis of comparison for
all streams in the Tongue River watershed. Chloride is also one component of the total dissolved solids
(salinity) in a stream. Because of this, high chloride concentrations can also adversely affect agricultural
B-2
-------
Appendix B
beneficial uses. The USDA salinity lab reports an alfalfa chloride tolerance of 700 mg/L in the soil water
(USDA, 2004). The chronic aquatic life recommendations are stricter and, therefore, have been used as a
point of reference for comparison to the available water quality data.
B.1.4 Sulfates
Sulfate, often the dominant anion in southeast Montana streams (USGS, 2001; USGS, 2002), is one
component of salinity (or total dissolved solids). The narrative standards applicable to sulfate (SO4) are
contained in the General Prohibitions of the surface water quality standards (ARM 17.30.637 et. Seq.,).
The prohibition against the creation of "concentrations or combinations of materials which are toxic or
harmful to human, animal, plant or aquatic life" is generally the most relevant to sulfates. Sulfates are
generally a threat to agricultural uses because of the potential to increase stream salinity. However,
sulfate itself generally does not threaten agricultural uses at concentrations commonly found in the natural
environment (Eaton, 1942; Wickman and Vavrovsky, 2002). Sulfate can also provide fertility benefits to
crops, and is often applied with fertilizers (Tisdale et al., 1993). Therefore, the salinity standards
presented in Section B. 1.1 are a considered a surrogate point of reference for sulfates for the purposes of
this assessment.
B.1.5 Metals
Montana has numeric standards for most metals (contained in Montana DEQ Circular DEQ-7). There are
three different numeric standards for each metal: acute and chronic toxicity aquatic life standards
designed to protect aquatic life uses, and the human health standard, designed to protect drinking water
uses (MDEQ, 2006b). Many of the aquatic life criteria for metals vary according to the hardness of the
water. Table B-3 shows the aquatic life criteria as specified in DEQ-7. Table B-4 shows the acute and
chronic aquatic life standards and the human health standards applicable to the metals of concern in the
Tongue River watershed, re-expressed at average Tongue River hardness, where applicable. These
numeric criteria will be directly applied to metals data in the Tongue River watershed (with hardness
corrections as necessary, see Table B-4).
It should be noted that the metals criteria in DEQ-7 are based on "total recoverable" metals. However,
few total recoverable metals data were available for the Tongue River watershed. Because of this, data
reported as "total metals" are also included in the Assessment Report. As reported in 40 CFR Part 136.3
(Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants), the two methods are considered
equivalent, although they differ slightly in the digestion process.
The procedures used to sample metals in the field and analyze metals in the laboratory have changed
substantially overtime. General speculation is that historical metals sampling results are often
questionable because of possible contamination during collection and processing. New metals procedures
set by USEPA and Montana DEQ have been implemented to ensure clean sampling results (USEPA,
1996). Analytical procedures in the laboratory now have better accuracy and lower detection limits.
Because of these issues, only metals data collected after 1996 are analyzed in this report.
To maintain the highest level of quality, only data collected by USGS, Montana DEQ, and USEPA are
used in these analyses. Data collected by private companies or landowners (having unknown quality
assurance/quality control) are not used in this report.
B-3
-------
Appendix B
Table B-3. Montana numeric aquatic life criteria for metals.
Parameter
Arsenic (TR)
Cadmium (TR)
Chromium (III) (TR)
Copper (TR)
Iron (TR)
Lead (TR)
Nickel (TR)
Selenium (TR)
Silver (TR)
Zinc(TR)
Acute (|jg/L)a
at 25 mg/L hardness
340
0.52C
5.79C
3.79C
13.98C
145°
20
0.374C
37C
Chronic (|jg/L)b
at 25 mg/L hardness
150
0.097C
27.7C
2.85C
1,000
0.545C
16.1C
5
37C
"Maximum allowable concentration.
bNo four-day (96-hour) or longer period average concentration shall exceed these values.
'Standard is dependent on the hardness of the water, measured as the concentration of total hardness at the time of sampling (CaCO3) (mg/L).
Corrections to ambient hardness are provided in Appendix C.
TR - Total Recoverable.
Table B-4. Montana numeric criteria for metals at Tongue River average hardness.
Parameter
Arsenic (TR)
Cadmium (TR)
Chromium (III) (TR)
Copper (TR)
Iron (TR)
Lead (TR)
Nickel (TR)
Selenium (TR)
Silver (TR)
Zinc(TR)
Aquatic Life (acute) (ug/L)a
340
6.74 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
4,554 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
41 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
345 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
1,222 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
20
28 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
312 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
Aquatic Life (chronic) (ug/L) b
150
0.63 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
218 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
25 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
1,000
13 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
136 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
5
312 @ 310 mg/L hardness0
Human Health
(ug/L)a
10
5
1,300
15
100
50
100
2,000
'Maximum allowable concentration.
bNo four-day (96-hour) or longer period average concentration shall exceed these values.
'Standard is dependent on the hardness of the water, measured as the concentration of total hardness at the time of sampling (CaCO3) (mg/L). The
average hardness of the Tongue River (310 mg/L) is presented in this table for an example.
TR - Total Recoverable.
B. 1.6 Sediment (i.e., Siltation and Suspended solids)
Sediment (i.e., coarse and fine bed sediment), siltation, and suspended solids are addressed via the
narrative standards identified in Table B-5.
B-4
-------
Appendix B
Table B-5. Applicable narrative standards for sediment related pollutants.
Administrative
Rules
17.30.623(2)
17.30.623(2)(f)
17.30.637(1)
17.30.637(1 )(a)
17.30.637(1 )(d)
17.30.602(17)
17.30.602(21)
Standard
No person may violate the following specific water quality standards for waters classified B-2, B-
3, and C-3.
No increases are allowed above naturally occurring concentrations of sediment or suspended
sediment (except as permitted in 75-5-31 8, MCA), settleable solids, oils, or floating solids, which
will or are likely to create a nuisance or render the waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to
public health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other wildlife.
State surface waters must be free from substances attributable to municipal, industrial,
agricultural practices or other discharges that will:
Settle to form objectionable sludge deposits or emulsions beneath the surface of the water or
upon adjoining shorelines.
Create concentrations or combinations of materials that are toxic or harmful to human, animal,
plant, or aquatic life.
The maximum allowable increase above naturally occurring turbidity is: 0 NTU for A-closed; 5
NTU for A-1 , B-1 , and C-1 ; 1 0 NTU for B-2, C-2, and C-3
"Naturally occurring" means conditions or material present from runoff or percolation over which
man has no control or from developed land where all reasonable land, soil and water
conservation practices have been applied. Conditions resulting from the reasonable operation of
dams in existence as of July 1, 1971 are natural.
"Reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices" means methods, measures, or
practices that protect present and reasonably anticipated beneficial uses. These practices
include but are not limited to structural and nonstructural controls and operation and
maintenance procedures. Appropriate practices may be applied before, during, or after pollution-
producing activities.
Streams in the Great Plains region of Montana have flashy flows and highly erodible soils (see the Status
Report), both of which contribute to naturally high sediment in streams throughout the region. These
factors result in streams that have naturally high sediment bedload, shifting channels, few riffles, silt and
clay substrates, and turbid water (Moody et al, 1999; Pizzuto, 1994; Bramblett et al., 2004). Several
species offish in the region (paddlefish, sturgeon chub, sauger) are specifically adapted to warm, turbid
waters, and provide evidence that the high sediment loads in southeast Montana prairie streams have
existed for a long period of time (MFWP, 2003).
At the same time, there are anthropogenic sediment sources in most southeast Montana watersheds, which
contribute some increment of additional sediment to streams. The combination of naturally high sediment
loading and human-caused landscape alterations makes application of Montana's narrative sediment
criteria difficult because:
In their natural condition, prairie streams have more fine sediments than streams in the mountains
or foothills regions in Montana. Human activities that increase fine sediment may simply mimic
natural conditions; thus differentiating between natural and human caused in-stream sediment
conditions is especially challenging in this region (Bramblett et al., 2004).
The harsh environment in this region creates the possibility that natural factors will, on occasion,
impact biota irrespective of human influence (Bramblett et al., 2004). Therefore, it is not always
possible to determine the specific cause of impairment using biological data. This is true when
trying to differentiate between human versus naturally caused biological impairments and also
when trying to determine which pollutant or pollutants (e.g., sediment, metals, salinity, etc.) are
causing the biological impairment.
Having an understanding of the reference or natural condition is a prerequisite to the application
of Montana's narrative water quality standards for sediment. Human influence, though often
B-5
-------
Appendix B
subtle, is pervasive in the eastern plains of Montana, and defining reference conditions is
difficult. As a result, little reference data are currently available for defining the natural condition
in prairie streams relative to sediment.
While research is ongoing in an attempt to resolve these issues, at the time of this report, there are no
definitive indicators available for direct comparison to the narrative criteria in the Tongue River
watershed. Therefore, a suite of indicators within the following four data type categories were compiled
to create a measurable point of reference for the narrative sediment criteria:
Physical Habitat and Channel Condition Data
Biological Data
In-stream chemistry data
Information pertaining to the presence or absence of anthropogenic sources and/or the relative
significance of anthropogenic sources.
The suite of sediment indicators is presented in Table B-6 and details regarding each of the indicators are
discussed in the following sections.
Table B-6. Summary of sediment indicators for tributaries to the Tongue River.
Indicator
Water Chemistry (SSC/TSS)
Relative Bed Stability Index
Riparian and Bank Condition Index
NRCS Riparian Assessment Score
Rapid Habitat Assessments
Human Influence Index (HII)
Point of Reference
Comparable to Regional Conditions
Stable conditions or improving trends
No localized sediment loading
>-2.2
>61
> 74% (Sustainable)
> 76%
>614
B. 1.6.1 NRCS Stream Corridor Assessment
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) inventoried point, linear, and riparian features for
Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, Pumpkin Creek, and the Tongue River in Big Horn, Custer, Powder
River, and Prairie Counties, Montana. These data were summarized in two reports: Powder River and
Tongue River Stream Corridor Assessment Montana Reaches Phase I- Rapid Aerial Assessment, and
Tongue River Stream Corridor Assessment Montana Reaches Phase II-Physical Habitat Assessment
(NRCS, 2001; NRCS, 2002).
Data from the Phase I report were used to evaluate potential sources of sediment in the target watersheds.
Data from Phase II were used to evaluate the condition of riparian corridors, stream banks, and channel
morphology (physical habitat and channel condition data). NRCS assigned scores to various channel
characteristics, including:
Incisement
Soils
% Utilization
Irrigation Impacts
Lateral Cutting
Binding Root Mass
Riparian/Wetland Characteristics
Land Use Activities
Sediment Balance
Woody Establishment
Floodplain
B-6
-------
Appendix B
Based on these scores and estimated stream potential, sites were classified as Sustainable, At Risk, and
Not Sustainable. Class descriptions are shown below (NRCS, 2002).
Sustainable (>74%) - the stream and associated riparian area had certain expected attributes -
flood plain, adequate riparian vegetation, sufficient soil, and channel characteristics in place, and
processes such as energy dissipation, sediment trapping, and biotic function were working
together to make the system stable.
Not Sustainable (50-74%) - the stream and riparian system clearly lacked adequate vegetation,
channel characteristics, etc., and was not able to demonstrate any of the processes that would be
expected in a stable system. Accelerated bank erosion, sediment deposition or another indicator
of imbalance was present.
At Risk (<50%) - most of the attributes and processes are in place and working. What was
lacking, however, was critical to stability and function. For example, most of the criteria may
have been scored adequate except that vegetative cover may have been determined to be
inadequate (with respect to potential) to protect the area from high flows. In this case, the area
received an "At Risk" rating.
A physical habitat assessment score of >74 percent or greater (sustainable) was used as the point of
reference. It should be noted that some sites were classified as "At Risk" or "Not Sustainable" because of
natural conditions (i.e., flooding, drought, soils, geology). NRCS noted where these sites occurred.
B.I. 6.2 Suspended Sediment/Total Suspended Solids Data
Total suspended solids (TSS) and suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) were collected at various
sites throughout the Tongue River watershed from 1971 to present. However, there are few appropriate
reference streams to compare to measured data. For the Tongue River and Tongue River Reservoir, there
are essentially no reference streams. TSS and SSC data are used as indicators in three different ways:
Compare data for Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek to other Great Plains
wadable streams.
Analyze data for temporal trends.
Analyze data for spatial trends, or localized sediment loading throughout specific segments.
Ideally, data should be similar to reference conditions, should show stable or improving trends, and
should show no indications of localized (human caused) sediment loading.
TSS and SSC measure suspended solids mass by different methods. SSC, which uses a larger sample
volume, is generally considered the more accurate method of measuring suspended solids mass in a
stream, particularly at higher flows, as TSS data tend to underestimate the concentration of sand-sized
particles in the sample (Gray et al., 2000). However, for the purpose of this analysis, TSS and SSC data
were analyzed together, as the data are only used to determine broad temporal and regional trends. Also,
data were collected by a variety of different agencies using multiple sampling techniques (i.e., grab
samples, depth-width integrated, storm event, etc.). Again, data were combined and analyzed together for
the purpose of broad scale assessments.
B-7
-------
Appendix B
B. 1. 6.3 Relative Bed Stability Index
The substrate of a stream channel is one of the most important physical components for organisms that
inhabit a stream. A stream bottom with excessive amounts of fine sediment (in this case, sediment less
than 2 millimeters in diameter) is likely to contain a degraded aquatic macroinvertebrate community
(Waters, 1995). In turn, fish that rely on macroinvertebrates as a food source will also be affected. In the
Montana Northern Plains, most streams have a low gradient and contain higher amounts of sand and fine
material than steeper gradient, faster flowing streams. Still, gravel and cobble substrates are common in
the slow flowing streams and are important aquatic habitats (Bramblett et al. 2004). When an increase in
fine sediment occurs, the gravel and cobble substrates can be covered with sediment and habitat quality
for the biota is diminished (Waters, 1995).
The relative bed stability (RBS) metric is used to determine if a stream had excessive sediment
(Kaufmann et al., 2004). Basically, the metric compares the measured median substrate size in the
streambed to the maximum substrate size carried during bankfull events. In other words, if a stream is
capable of moving large boulders during bankfull flow events, yet the measured median substrate is fine
silt, then the metric suggests that excessive sediment loading is present. The metric is calculated as the
Logic of the median substrate size (D50) divided by the maximum substrate size carried at bankfull width
(Dcbf).
RBS = Logw -L
Additional details about the RBS, and how to calculate the Dcbf, can be found in the USEPA document,
Quantifying Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams (Kaufmann et al., 1999).
Reference sites for southeast Montana Northern Plains streams were used to determine thresholds for
streams in good, fair, and poor condition based on relative bed stability (USEPA, 2005). Based on
comparisons to the reference sites, the following classes were developed for excess sediment using the
relative bed stability metric:
> -2.2 indicates a good condition
-2.7 to -2.2 indicates a fair condition
< -2.7 indicates a poor condition
These values are proposed as an indicator in the wadable streams in the Tongue River watershed (i.e.,
Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek).
B.I. 6.4 Riparian and Bank Condition Index
Qualitative estimates of bank condition and riparian vegetation were obtained at sites throughout
southeast Montana as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and
Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) programs. Several estimates,
including bank stability and riparian vegetation, were combined to form a riparian and bank condition
(RBC) index. RBC indexes were well correlated with stream impairment - "good" (high) RBC scores
were generally correlated with few anthropogenic sources and good stream biology. The index was based
on a scale of 0 to 100. Based on comparisons with the reference site scores, the following condition
classes were developed (USEPA, 2005):
B-8
-------
Appendix B
>61 indicates good riparian and bank conditions,
49-60 indicates fair riparian and bank conditions,
<48 indicates poor riparian and bank conditions.
These values are proposed as an indicator in the wadable streams in the Tongue River watershed
(Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek).
B. 1.6.5 Rapid Habitat Assessments
Various studies throughout the Tongue River watershed have used the Montana DEQ Rapid
Bioassessment Macroinvertebrate Protocols (Bukantis, 1997) or USEPA rapid habitat assessment
protocols (Lazorchak et. al, 2001) to evaluate riparian and channel health. The following is a list of
features evaluated as part of the rapid habitat assessments.
Riffle Development Benthic Substrate Embeddedness
Channel Alteration Sediment Deposition Channel Flow Status
Bank Stability Bank Vegetation Protection Riparian Vegetation Width
The following condition classes were adopted from Plafkin et. al, 1989.
>81% indicates an optimal condition.
75-56% indicates a sub-optimal condition.
<49-29% indicates a marginal condition.
<23% indicates a poor condition.
Based on these condition classes, a rapid habitat assessment score of 76 percent or higher is proposed as
the point of reference for this indicator.
B. 1.6.6 Human Influence Index (HII)
Bramblett et al. (2004) developed a human influence index (HII) to systematically compare human
disturbance among multiple watersheds. Variables were selected representing reach-level habitat and
disturbance, landscape-level disturbance, and water chemistry that were potentially affected by human
activities. The HII was created by first listing raw values of the human influence attributes for each reach,
then calculating the rank of these raw values among all reaches, and finally summing the ranks to form
the HII score for the sampling reach. The HII scores were then separated into thirds based on percentiles
to form strata; good was the top third of HII scores, fair was the middle third of HII scores and poor was
the bottom third of HII scores. Four reaches were randomly chosen from each stratum to form the
validation data set. HII attributes included such variables as the Rapid Habitat Assessment score, channel
dimensions, fish cover, mid-layer canopy cover, substrate measures, near sample site land use, and
various chemical values. An HII value of 615 or greater (good category) is proposed as the point of
reference for this indicator in the Tongue River tributaries.
B. 1.6.7 Sediment Sources
A preliminary sediment source assessment was conducted for each stream to obtain a better understanding
of anthropogenic sources and their relative importance in comparison to natural sources using a GIS
application of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), bank erosion estimates, and other data available
from literature or watershed studies.
B-9
-------
Appendix B
Sediment Modeling (USLE)
Sediment loading from upland areas was estimated for the Tongue River watershed and tributaries using
the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USDA, 1978). Data sources for the modeling were:
Land Cover - Montana and Wyoming GAP Analysis
Soils and Soil Properties - STATSGO Soils (USDA)
Elevation and Slope - 30 meter Digital Elevation Models (DEM) (USGS)
Equation Coefficients - "Design Hydrology and Sedimentology for Small Catchments," (Haan et.
al., 1994)
This analysis is based on the following assumptions:
All land cover classes from the GAP analysis occurring on slopes greater than 25 degrees were
reclassified to "badlands". This assumption was made based on field reconnaissance and air photo
review suggesting that vegetative cover was very sparse to nonexistent on steep slopes and these
areas consisted of bare, exposed soil highly susceptible to erosion.
The GAP land cover was assumed to be accurate and reflect current conditions.
"Natural" conditions were assumed to reflect the absence of grazing and row crops, thus
increasing the percent vegetative cover and decreasing C factors.
Grazing was assumed to occur on all shrub, grassland, and riparian areas.
Two difference scenarios were modeled - existing conditions and "natural" (i.e., not grazed, no crops).
Bank Erosion
To estimate bank erosion, a simple analysis was performed using literature values and conservative
assumptions. The amount of bank erosion was calculated based on riparian surveys (percent of stream
with eroding banks), measurements of bank height, and estimates of erosion rates. Assuming an average
bulk density of 60 pounds per cubic feet (Juvan, undated), the sediment loads from bank erosion could be
estimated for each stream listed as impaired because of sediment, siltation, or total suspended solids.
B. 1.7 Comparative Analysis of Tributary Water Quality Data
Appendix K compares water quality data in the 303(d) listed Tongue River tributaries to water quality
data in other streams having similar watershed characteristics. Sufficient data were compiled to conduct
this comparison for salinity (SC), SAR, TSS/SSC, nitrogen (various forms), phosphorus (various forms),
dissolved oxygen, stream temperature, chlorides, chlorophyll-a, calcium, magnesium, sodium, sulfate, and
turbidity. Streams had to have a watershed size of less than 2,000 square miles, had to be completely
contained in the Great Plains ecoregion (i.e., not originating in the Big Horn Mountains), had to be near
the Tongue River watershed, and generally had to have more than 50 sampling events at a single station
over a period of 20 or more years. Twenty stations were identified from the USGS NWIS database based
on these requirements, and data are presented in Appendix K.
No direct inferences are made about the condition of Tongue River watershed tributaries when evaluated
with the other Great Plains streams, as many of the Great Plains streams are also listed on various 303(d)
lists. The Great Plains streams simply serve as a starting point with which to compare water quality data,
specifically for Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek.
B-10
-------
Appendix B
B.2 Main Stem Tongue River
As described in Section 1.1, the 303(d) listed causes of impairment for the mainstem of the Tongue River
have included the following pollutants: metals, other inorganics (i.e., sulfates), salinity/TDS/chlorides,
and suspended solids. This section presents the standards, indicators, and methods used to apply
Montana's water quality standards for each of the above listed pollutants in the mainstem of the Tongue
River. The proposed approach for metals, chlorides and other inorganics (i.e., sulfates) in the Tongue
River is the same as described previously for the tributaries (refer to Sections B.I.3, B.I.4, and B.I.5).
B.2.7 Salinity
The State of Montana adopted maximum and average numeric criteria for salinity (as measured by
electrical conductivity, EC, in uS/cm) on June 6, 2003 (Table B-7) (ARM 17.30.670). Criteria vary by
growing season (March 2-October 31) versus non-growing season (November 1-March 1). These values
are used directly to measure agricultural beneficial use impairment. The approach for applying the
monthly average criteria is described above in Section B.I.I.
Throughout this document, Montana's numeric water quality standards for EC are used as a watershed-
wide, common point of reference for purposes of characterizing current water quality conditions in both
Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water quality standards are directly
applicable within thejurisdictional boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a
single watershed-scale point of reference.
Table B-7. Montana's numeric salinity criteria for the Tongue River.
Waterbody
Tongue River
Season
Nov 1 - Mar 1
Mar2-Oct31
Monthly Average EC
(pS/cm)
1,500
1,000
Maximum EC (uS/cm)
2,500
1,500
B.2.2 Sodium Adsorption Ratio
The State of Montana adopted maximum and average numeric criteria for sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
on June 6, 2003 (Table B-8) (ARM 17.30.670). Criteria vary by growing season (March 2-October 31)
versus non-growing season (November 1-March 1). These values are used directly to measure
agricultural beneficial use impairment. The approach for applying the monthly average criteria is
described above in Section B.I.2.
Throughout this document, Montana's numeric water quality standards for SAR are used as a watershed-
wide, common point of reference for purposes of characterizing current water quality conditions in both
Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water quality standards are directly
applicable within thejurisdictional boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a
single watershed-scale point of reference.
B-11
-------
Appendix B
Table B-8. Montana's numeric SAR criteria for the Tongue River.
Waterbody
Tongue River
Season
Nov 1 - Mar 1
Mar2-Oct31
Monthly Average SAR
5.0
3.0
Maximum SAR
7.5
4.5
B.2.3 Sediment (i.e., Suspended Solids)
As described in Section B.I.6, sediment, suspended solids, and siltation are addressed by Montana's
narrative standards (see Table B-5). A suite of indicators within the following four data type categories
were compiled to create a measurable point of reference for the narrative sediment criteria in the
mainstem Tongue River:
Physical Habitat and Channel Condition Data
Biological Data
In-stream chemistry data
Information pertaining to the presence or absence of anthropogenic sources and/or the relative
significance of anthropogenic sources.
Given the availability of data and the fact that the Tongue River is a 5th order stream, the suite of sediment
indicators used for the Tongue River differs from those presented previously for the tributaries. The suite
of sediment indicators is presented in Table B-9. Details regarding each of the indicators were presented
above in Section B.I.6.
Table B-9. Summary of sediment indicators for the Tongue River.
Indicators
Water Chemistry (SSC/TSS)
NRCS Riparian Assessment Score
Rapid Habitat Assessments
Point of Reference
Comparable to Regional Conditions
Stable conditions or improving trends
No localized sediment loading
> 74% (Sustainable)
> 75%
B.2.4 Metals
The metals standards described in Section B.I.5 will also be applied to metals data in the Tongue River.
B-12
-------
Appendix B
B.3 Tongue River Reservoir
As described in Section 1.1, the 303(d) listed causes of impairment for the Tongue River Reservoir have
included the following pollutants: nutrients, organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, and
suspended solids (MDEQ, 1996, MDEQ, 2006). This section presents the criteria, indicators and methods
used to apply Montana's water quality standards for each of the above listed pollutants, as well as salinity
and SAR, in the Tongue River Reservoir.
B.3.7 Salinity
The State of Montana adopted maximum and average numeric criteria for salinity (as measured by
electrical conductivity, EC, in uS/cm) on June 6, 2003 (Table B-10) (ARM 17.30.670). Criteria for the
Tongue River Reservoir do not vary by growing season (March 2-October 31) versus non-growing
season (November 1-March 1). These values are used directly to measure agricultural beneficial use
impairment. The approach for applying the monthly average criteria is described above in Section B. 1.1.
Table B-10. Montana's numeric salinity criteria for the Tongue River Reservoir.
Waterbody
Tongue River Reservoir
Season
Nov 1 - Mar 1
Mar2-Oct31
Monthly Average EC
(|jS/cm)
1,000
1,000
Maximum EC (uS/cm)
1,500
1,500
B.3.2 Sodium Adsorption Ratio
The State of Montana adopted maximum and average numeric criteria for sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
on June 6, 2003 (Table B-l 1) (ARM 17.30.670). Criteria for the Tongue River Reservoir do not vary by
growing season (March 2-October 31) versus non-growing season (November 1-March 1). These values
are used directly to measure agricultural beneficial use impairment. The approach for applying the
monthly average criteria is described above in Section B.I.2.
Table B-11. Montana's numeric SAR criteria for the Tongue River Reservoir.
Waterbody
Tongue River Reservoir
Season
Nov 1 - Mar 1
Mar2-Oct31
Monthly Average SAR
3.0
3.0
Maximum SAR
4.5
4.5
B.3.3 Nutrients
Montana does not have numeric water quality criteria for nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus);
instead, the impacts of excess nutrient concentrations are addressed via narrative standards. Determining
appropriate nutrient indicators for the Tongue River Reservoir is a complex undertaking due to the
reservoir's unique features. The reservoir is not a natural lake; it is a part of the Tongue River that was
flooded with the creation of the Tongue River Dam in 1940 (see Appendix H). The reservoir also has a
relatively large ratio of watershed area to surface area (i.e., ratio of 308), which suggests that natural
nutrient loadings to the reservoir would be larger than comparably-sized reservoirs or lakes with smaller
upstream drainage areas (WOW, 2004). Finally, the reservoir's location and dam operations suggest that
thermal stratification may be an important factor affecting its water quality (Wetzel, 2001).
B-13
-------
Appendix B
Several potential nutrient indicators were identified through a literature review and modeling analysis.
Indicators are summarized in Table B-12 and further discussed in the following sections. It should be
noted, however, that regional or national standards developed for other reservoirs may not be appropriate
to the Tongue River Reservoir because of the unique features described above. Indicator values should
therefore be used with caution.
Table B-12. Preliminary nutrient indicators for the Tongue River Reservoir.
Source
South Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (SDDNER, 2005)
USEPA Nutrient Targets for Lakes and
Reservoir in Ecoregion IV (USEPA, 2001)
Tongue River Modeling - "Natural Conditions"
TSI
<58.5
NA
NA
Total Phosphorus
(mg/L)
<0.043
<0.020
< 0.010
Total Nitrogen
(mg/L)
NA
<0.44
< 0.028
Chlorophyll-a
(ug/L)
<17.0
<2.0
<1.5
B.3.3.1 Modeling
A modeling approach was used to determine potential nutrient targets. The LSPC/HSPF watershed model
was linked to the CE-QUAL-W2 lake model to simulate nutrient, dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll-a
concentrations in the reservoir (see the 2007 Modeling Report for additional information). The models
were run for two scenarios - existing conditions and "natural" conditions (i.e., no anthropogenic sources
of nutrients) - for the years 1997 through 2002. These years were chosen because they contained the
most complete set of weather data (e.g., precipitation, wind speed, solar radiation) needed to run the W2
model.
Results from the natural scenario indicated that annual median chlorophyll-a concentrations at the surface
of the reservoir near the dam during this period would range from 1.21 to 1.50 (ig/L. The instantaneous
maximum chlorophyll a concentration at this location was predicted to be 7.96 (ig/L. Annual median
total phosphorus concentrations under natural conditions were predicted to range from 5.3 to 10.0 (ig/L
with a long-term median of 9.6 (ig/L. Annual median total nitrogen concentrations under natural
conditions were predicted to range from 23.7 (ig/L to 30.0 (ig/L with a long-term median of 27.6 (ig/L.
B.3.3.2 South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Secchi disk transparency, chlorophyll a, and total phosphorus are often used to define the degree of
eutrophication or trophic status of a lake (Carlson, 1977). The concept of trophic status is based on the
fact that changes in nutrient levels (measured by total phosphorus) usually cause changes in algal biomass
(measured by chlorophyll a) which in turn causes changes in lake clarity (measured by Secchi disk
transparency).
A trophic state index is a convenient way to quantify this relationship. One popular index was developed
by Dr. Robert Carlson (Carlson, 1977). His index uses a log transformation of Secchi disk values as a
measure of algal biomass on a scale from 0 to 110. Each increase often units on the scale represents a
doubling of algal biomass. A target value of 5 8.5 for the Tongue River Reservoir was identified based on
a statistical study of lakes in the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion completed by the South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR, 2005). Using the formulas below
(obtained from Carlson, 1977), aTSI score of 58.5 translates into atotal phosphorus target of 43 (ig/L,
and a chlorophyll-a target of 17 (ig/L.
B-14
-------
Appendix B
TSI(TP) = 10 x (6 -
Ln2
s where TP is in Mg/L (Carlson, 1997)
TSI(Chl) = 10 x I 6 - 2-04~°-68(^( - ) 1 ^ where Chiorophyii.a is in Mg/L (Carlson, 1997)
^ Ln2 )
The Carlson trophic state index is useful for comparing lakes within a region and for assessing changes in
trophic status over time. However, the index was developed for use with lakes that have few rooted
aquatic plants and little non-algal turbidity. Because non-algal turbidity is significant in the Tongue River
Reservoir, the index is used to provide primarily a qualitative perspective on the condition of the
reservoir.
B.3.3.3 USEPA Nutrient Targets
USEPA developed nutrient guidance for lakes and reservoirs using the 25th percentile of a large set of
data obtained throughout a defined nutrient ecoregion. The 25th percentile approach assumes that 25
percent of the sampled lakes and reservoirs (e.g., the "best" 25 percent) are surrogates for reference
conditions (USEPA, 2001). The Tongue River is located in nutrient Ecoregion 4 (Great Plains Grass and
Shrublands), where the recommended nutrient targets are as follows: 0.020 mg/L TP, 0.44 mg/L TN, and
2.0 (ig/L chlorophyll-a (USEPA, 2001). Because the approach is purely statistical, it does not guarantee
that the targets are appropriate indices of support of beneficial uses; however, they are of value for a
cross-sectional comparison.
B.3.4 Dissolved Oxygen
The numeric freshwater aquatic life standards for dissolved oxygen are presented in Table B-13 (MDEQ,
2006b). A table offish spawning times and schedule for the presence of early life stages offish that are
likely to occur may be found at http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/Standards/SpawningTimesFWP.pdf
The Montana dissolved oxygen standard is 5.0 mg/L as a 1-day minimum concentration and is used as a
supplemental indicator to assess the nutrient impairment of the Tongue River Reservoir and also used
directly to assess compliance with Montana's DO standards.
Table B-13. Minimum Aquatic life standards (Class B2) for dissolved oxygen (mg/L).
Time Period
30-day average
7-day average
7-day average minimum
1-day minimum
Early Life Stages3
NA
9.5(6.5)
NA
8.0(5.0)
Other Life Stages
6.5
NA
5
4
"These are water column concentrations recommended to achieve the required intergravel DO concentrations shown in
parentheses. For species that have early life stages exposed directly to the water column, the figures in parentheses apply.
B-15
-------
Appendix B
B.3.5 Sediment (i.e., Suspended Solids)
Sediment (i.e., coarse and fine bed sediment), siltation, and suspended solids are addressed via the
narrative standards identified in Table B-5
Similar to nutrients, determining appropriate sediment indicators for the Tongue River Reservoir is a
complex undertaking due to the reservoir's unique features and the lack of accepted target values for
prairie lakes. In the absence of such accepted target values, a preliminary target for the Tongue River
Reservoir has been adopted based on data collected from studies of water quality and fish response
(Newcombe and MacDonald, 1991; Newcombe and Jensen, 1996). This research indicates that fish
respond negatively when exposed to increasing concentrations of suspended sediments with increasing
duration of exposure.
Newcombe and Jensen (1996) created a quantitative index, the "Severity of 111 Effects" scale (SEV), by
which to define the qualitative fish responses to various sediment concentration-duration scenarios. The
scale groups the responses into four major effect classes: nil effect, behavioral effects, sublethal effects
and lethal effects. These were further categorized into a more detailed 15-point SEV scale and a
regression model was developed to predict SEV based on various sediment doses. For adult freshwater
nonsalmonids, long-term TSS concentrations below 20 mg/L are predicted to cause only behavioral
effects and this value is proposed as a preliminary target for the Tongue River Reservoir.
B.4 References
Bartholow, J. 2002. Stream Segment Temperature Model (SSTEMP), Version 2.0, User's Manual.
United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center Online, Fort Collins, CO
http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/training/if312.asp.
Bramblett, R.G., T.R. Johnson, A.V. Zale, and D. Heggem. 2004. Development of Biotic Integrity
Indices for Prairie Streams in Montana Using Fish, Macroinvertebrate, and Diatom Assesmblages - Draft
Report.
Bukantis, Robert. 1997. Physical Characterization/Water Quality Field Data Sheet. Montana
Department of Environmental Quality. Helena, Montana.
Carlson, R.E. 1977. A Trophic State Index for Lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 22:361-369.
Eaton, Frank M. 1942. Toxicity and Accumulation of Chloride and Sulfate Salts in Plants. Journal of
Agricultural Research. Volume 64, No. 7.
Gordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A., and Finlayson, B.L., 1992, Stream hydrology, an introduction for
ecologists: New York, John Wiley, 526 p.
Gray, J.R. D. Glysson. L.M. Turcios. and G.E. Schwarz. 2000. Comparability of Suspended-Sediment
Concentration and Total Suspended Solids Data. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 00-4191. Reston, Virginia.
Haan, C. T., B.J. Barfield, and J.C. Hayes. 1994. Design Hydrology and Sedimentology for Small
Catchments. Academic Press, New York.
B-16
-------
Appendix B
Kaufmann, P.R, P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-99/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
Kaufmann, P., P. Larson, J. Faustini. 2004. Assessing Relative Bed Stability and Excess Fine Sediments
in Streams. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, Providence, Rhode Island. May 2004. Available
online atwww.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/symposia/symp2004/
pre sentations/PhilipKaufmann .pdf.
Lazorchak, J.L., B.H. Hill, O.K. Averill, D.V. Peck, and D.J. Klemm, Editors. 2000. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program-Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the
Ecological Condition of Non-Wadeable Rivers and Streams. EPA/620/R-00/007. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
MDEQ. 1996. Montana 303(d) List-Streams. Montana Department of Environmental Quality;
Planning, Prevention, and Assistance Division, Monitoring and Data Management Bureau, Helena,
Montana.
MDEQ. 2006. 2006 Integrated 303(d)/305(b) Water Quality Report for Montana. Montana Department
of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau. Helena, Montana. Available online at:
http://www.deq.mt.gov/CWAIC/default.aspx
MDEQ. 2006b. Circular DEQ-7 - Montana Numeric Water Quality Standards. Montana Department of
Environmental Quality Planning, Prevention, and Assistance Division - Water Quality Standards Section.
Helena, Montana.
MFWP. 2003. A Field Guide to Montana Fishes. 3rd Edition. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.
Helena, Montana.
Moody, J.A., J.E. Pizzuto, and R.H. Meade. 1999. Ontogeny of a Flood Plain. GS A Bulletin, v. 111.
no. 2. pp 291-303.
Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of Suspended Sediments on Aquatic Ecosystems.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 11: 72-82.
Newcombe, C.P. and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996 Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A synthesis for
quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North Amer. J. Fish. Man. 16: 693-727.
NRCS. 2001. Tongue River and Tongue River Stream Corridor Assessment. Montana Reaches. Phase I
- Rapid Aerial Assessment. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Bozeman, Montana.
NRCS. 2002. Tongue River Stream Corridor Assessment. Montana Reaches. Phase II'- Physical
Habitat Assessment. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Bozeman, Montana.
Pizzuto, J. E. 1994. Channel Adjustments to Changing Discharges, Powder River Between Moorhead and
Broadus, Montana. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 106: 1494-1501.
B-17
-------
Appendix B
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. EPA 440-4-89-001.
SDDENR, 2000. Ecoregion Targeting for Impaired Lakes in South Dakota. South Dakota Watershed
Protection Program, Division of Financial and Technical Assistance, South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Pierre, South Dakota.
SDDNR. 2005. Targeting Impaired Lakes In South Dakota. South Dakota Watershed Protection
Program Division of Financial and Technical Assistance. South Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. www.state.sd.us/DENR/DFTAAVatershedProtection/TSINEW.pdf
Tisdale, S.L., W.L. Nelson, J.D. Beaton, and J.L Havlin. 1993. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 5th Edition.
Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Thomann, R.V., and Mueller, J.A. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control,
Harper & Row, New York.
USDA. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses - A Guide to Conservation Planning. U.S. Department
of Agriculture Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station. Agriculture Handbook Number 537.
USDA. 2004. Chloride Tolerance of Agricultural Crops [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture-
Agricultural Research Service. Available at http://www.ussl.ars.usda.gov/pls/caliche/CLTT49.
USEPA. 1988. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chloride-1988. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Water. EPA 440/5-88-001. Washington D.C.
USEPA. 1992. Interim Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation on Aquatic Life Criteria for
Metals. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology. Washington D.C.
Available online at www.epa.gov/waterscience/library/wqcriteria/metals.pdf.
USEPA. 1996. Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels. EPA-
821R96008. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.C.
USEPA. 2001. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations - Information Supporting the
Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria Lakes and Reservoirs in Nutrient Ecoregion IV. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, and Health and
Ecological Criteria Division. EPA 822-B-01-009. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2005. An Assessment of the Condition of Warm-Water, Perennial Streams in Montana's
Northern Plains. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII. Denver, Colorado.
USGS. 2001. U.S. Geological Survey Monitoring of Powder River Basin Stream-Water Quantity and
Quality. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4279. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
USGS. 2002. Water Quality and Environmental Isotopic Analyses of Ground-Water Samples Collected
from the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations in Areas of Coalbed Methane DevelopmentImplications
to Recharge and Ground-Water Flow, Eastern Powder River Basin, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4045. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
B-18
-------
Appendix B
Waters, Thomas F. 1995. Sediment in Streams - Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American
Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Bathesda, Maryland.
Wetzel, Robert G. 2001. Limnology. Academic Press. San Diego, California.
Wickman, D.M., and J. Vavrovsky. 2002. Evaluation of Sulfur Fertilizer Use on Dryland Alfalfa.
Abstract. West. Soc. Crop Sci. Honolulu, HI May 31-June 4.
WOW. 2004. Understanding Lake Ecology - the Watershed [Online]. Water On The Web. University
of Minnesota-Duluth, Duluth, MN. Available at http://WaterOntheWeb.org.
B-19
-------
-------
APPENDIX C -COEFFICIENTS FOR
CALCULATING MONTANA METALS
STANDARDS
-------
-------
Appendix C
C.O COEFFICIENTS FOR CALCULATING MONTANA METALS STANDARDS.
The following formulas and table provide the coefficients necessary for calculating Montana's hardness
dependant metals criteria. Values were obtained from Montana DEQ Circular DEQ-7 (Dated February
2006).
Acute Standard = exp.{a [In(Hardness)] + b}
Chronic Standard = exp.{c [In(Hardness)] + d}
Table C-1. Coefficients for calculating metals standards in Montana.
Parameter
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium (III)
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Acute Coefficients
a
1.0166
0.9422
0.819
1.273
0.846
1.72
0.8473
b
-3.924
-1.700
3.7256
-1.46
2.255
-6.52
0.884
Chronic Coefficients
c
0.7409
0.8545
0.819
1.273
0.846
0.8473
d
-4.719
-1.702
0.6848
-4.705
0.0584
0.884
Note: If the hardness is < 25 mg/L as CaCO3, the number 25 must be used in the calculation. If the hardness is greater than or equal to 400 mg/L as
CaCO3, 400 mg/L must be used in the calculation.
C-1
-------
-------
APPENDIX D - WYOMING AND NORTHERN
CHEYENNE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
-------
Appendix D
D.O WYOMING AND NORTHERN CHEYENNE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
D.1 Wyoming Water Quality Standards
Wyoming classifies most of the major streams in the Tongue River drainage as Class 2AB streams
(WDEQ, 2001). These streams are protected for drinking water, game fish, nongame fish, fish
consumption, other aquatic life, recreation, wildlife, agriculture, industry, and scenic value uses. The
main stem of the Tongue River is a Class 2AB coldwater fishery stream. Other Class 2AB streams in
Wyoming are Prairie Dog Creek and Goose Creek. Most of the tributaries to the Tongue River in
Wyoming are classified as Class 3B streams and are protected for other aquatic life, recreation, wildlife,
agriculture, industry, and scenic value uses.
D. 1.1 Narrative Standards
Wyoming has narrative standards to protect all beneficial uses assigned to a waterbody, including
industrial, agricultural, and aquatic life uses. Aquatic life uses are generally protected under Sections 28
and 32 of the standards which state that waters must be free of substances that "adversely alter the
structure and function of indigenous or intentionally introduced aquatic communities", and no conditions
may be produced which "cause undesirable aquatic life in a waterbody," (WDEQ, 2007). Agricultural
uses of a waterbody are protected so that there shall be no "measurable decrease in crop or livestock
production." Wyoming has chosen not to pursue numeric criteria for SAR and SC. SAR and SC
impairments are determined by using the narrative standards and implementation procedures for
determining those impairments. A summary of the Wyoming narrative standards is shown in Table D-l.
All Wyoming standards can be accessed on the Internet at http://deq.state.wy.us.
D.1.2 Numeric Standards
Numeric surface water quality standards have been developed for the protection of beneficial uses in
Wyoming waters. These standards apply to pollutants such as metals, fecal coliforms, pH, and other
toxics (WDEQ, 2007). Unlike Montana, Wyoming's criteria for metals are expressed in the dissolved
form, which constitutes the major bioavailable pool. Standards are summarized in Table D-2 and Table
D-3.
D-1
-------
Appendix D
Table D-1. Summary of the Wyoming narrative water quality standards.
Rule
Text
Affected Pollutants
Section 13
Except for those substances referenced in Sections 21 (e) and (f) of these
regulations, toxic materials attributable to or influenced by the activities of
man shall not be present in any Wyoming surface water in concentrations
or combinations which constitute "pollution".
Metals
Section 15
In all Wyoming surface waters, substances attributable to or influenced by
the activities of man that will settle to form sludge, bank or bottom deposits
shall not be present in quantities which could result in significant aesthetic
degradation, significant degradation of habitat for aquatic life or adversely
affect public water supplies, agricultural or industrial water use, plant life or
wildlife.
Total Suspended Solids
Siltation
Section 16
In all Wyoming surface waters, floating and suspended solids attributable to
or influenced by the activities of man shall not be present in quantities
which could result in significant aesthetic degradation, significant
degradation of habitat for aquatic life, or adversely affect public water
supplies, agricultural or industrial water use, plant life or wildlife.
Total Suspended Solids
Siltation
Section 19
All Wyoming surface waters which have the natural water quality potential
for use as an industrial water supply shall be maintained at a quality which
allows continued use of such waters for industrial purposes. Degradation of
such waters shall not be of such an extent to cause a measurable increase
in raw water treatment costs to the industrial user(s). Unless otherwise
demonstrated, all Wyoming surface waters have the natural water quality
potential for use as an industrial water supply.
All Parameters
Section 20
All Wyoming surface waters which have the natural water quality potential
for use as an agricultural water supply shall be maintained at a quality
which allows continued use of such waters for agricultural purposes.
Degradation of such waters shall not be of such an extent to cause a
measurable decrease in crop or livestock production. Unless otherwise
demonstrated, all Wyoming surface waters have the natural water quality
potential for use as an agricultural water supply.
Salinity
SAR
Section 23
In all cold water fisheries and drinking water supplies (classes 1, 2AB, 2A,
and 2B), the discharge of substances attributable to or influenced by the
activities of man shall not be present in quantities which would result in a
turbidity increase of more than ten (10) nephelometric turbidity units
(NTUs). (b) In all warm water or nongame fisheries (classes 1, 2AB, 2B and
2C), the discharge of substances attributable to or influenced by the
activities of man shall not be present in quantities which would result in a
turbidity increase of more than 15 NTUs.
Total Suspended Solids
Siltation
Section 28
All Wyoming surface waters shall be free from substances and conditions
or combinations thereof which are attributable to or influenced by the
activities of man, in concentrations which produce undesirable aquatic life.
All Parameters
Section 32
Class 1, 2 and 3 waters of the state must be free from substances, whether
attributable to human induced point source discharges or nonpoint source
activities, in concentrations or combinations which will adversely alter the
structure and function of indigenous or intentionally introduced aquatic
communities.
All Parameters
D-2
-------
Appendix D
Table D-2. Summary of the numeric W
Parameter
Aluminum, (pH 6.5-9.0 only)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium0
Chloride
Chromium (lll)c
Copper0
Iron
Leadc
Manganese0
Nickelc
Silver0
Zincc
Fecal coliforms
PH
Aquatic Life (acute)
(ug/L)a
750
340
4.3
860,000
569.8
13.4
1,000
64.6
3,110
468.2
3.4
117.2
Aquatic Life (chronic)
(ug/L)a
87
150
2.2
230,000
74.1
9
300
2.5
1,462
52.0
118.1
Human Health (ug/L)b
7
2,000
5
100
1,000
15
50
100
5,000
During the entire year, fecal coliform concentrations shall not exceed a geometric
mean of 200 organisms per 1 00 ml_ (based on a minimum of not less than 5
samples obtained during separate 24-hour periods for any 30-day period), nor shall
the geometric mean of 3 separate samples collected within a 24-hour period exceed
400 organisms per 100 ml_ in any Wyoming surface water.
For all Wyoming surface waters, wastes attributable to or influenced by the activities
of man shall not be present in amounts which will cause the pH to be less than 6.5
or greater than 9.0 standard units. For all Class 1 , 2 and 3 waters, effluent
attributable or influenced by human activities shall not be discharged in amounts
which change the pH to levels which result in harmful acute or chronic effects to
aquatic life, directly or in conjunction with other chemical constituents, or which
would not fully support existing and designated uses.
oming surface water quality standards.
"Metals criteria are for dissolved metals.
bNo 4-day (96-hour) or longer period average concentration may exceed these values.
'Hardness-dependent criteria. Value given is an example only and is based on a CaCO3 hardness of 100 mg/L. Criteria for each case must be
calculated using a formula (see Table D-4).
Table D-3. Minimum DO criteria3 (mg/L) for Wyoming waters.
Period of Time
30-day mean
7-day mean
7-day mean
minimumd
1-day minimumd
Coldwater Criteria
Early Life Stages'3'0
NA
9.5(6.5)
NA
8.0(5.0)
Other Life
Stages
6.5
NA
5.0
4.0
Warmwater Criteria
Early Life Stages0
NA
6.0
NA
5.0
Other Life Stages
5.5
NA
4.0
3.0
'These limitations apply to Class 1, 2A, 2B, and 2C waters only and in no case may be interpreted to require DO concentrations greater than 100
percent saturation at ambient temperature and elevation.
These are water column concentrations recommended to achieve the required intergravel DO concentrations shown in parentheses. For species that
have early life stages exposed directly to the water column, the figures in parentheses apply.
'Includes all embryonic and larval stages and all juvenile forms to 30 days after hatching.
dAII minima should be considered as instantaneous concentrations to be achieved at all times.
D-3
-------
Appendix D
Table D-4. Wyoming metals standards for hardness dependant parameters.
Parameter
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Acute
eA (1.128 [ln(hardness)]-3.6867)(CF)
eA (0.8190 [In(hardness)] +3.7256)(0.316)
eA (0.9422 [ln(hardness)]-1.700)(0.960)
eA (1.273 [ln(hardness)]-1.460)(CF)
eA (0.7693[ln(hardness)]+4.4995)
eA (0.8460 [ln(hardness)]+2.255)(0.998)
eA (1.72 [ln(hardness)]-6.52)(0.85)
eA (0.8473 [ln(hardness)]+0.884)(0.978)
Chronic
eA (0.7852 [ln(hardness)]-2.715)(CF)
eA (0.8190 [ln(hardness)]+0.6848)(0.860)
eA (0.8545 [ln(hardness)]-1.702)(0.960)
eA (1.273 [ln(hardness)]-4.705)(CF)
eA (0.5434[ln(hardness)]+4.7850)
eA (0.8460 [ln(hardness)]+0.0584)(0.997)
N/A
eA (0.8473 [ln(hardness)]+0.884)(0.986)
Hardness measured as mg/L CaCO3. Hardness values used in these equations must be between 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L. For hardness values less
than 25 mg/L, use 25. For hardness values greater than 400 mg/L use 400.
Conversion Factors: Aquatic life values for the above metals are based on dissolved amounts of each substance. Because the
National Toxics Criteria (USEPA's Section 304(a) criteria) are expressed as "total recoverable" values, the application of a
conversion factor is necessary to convert from "total recoverable" to "dissolved". Furthermore, the toxicity of the associated metals
varies with hardness and the total recoverable value must be calculated based on the CaCO3 hardness prior to multiplying by the
conversion factor (CF).
D-4
-------
Appendix D
D.2 Northern Cheyenne Tribal Standards
Based on the tribally adopted water quality standards (currently pending review by USEPA), the Tongue
River is a beneficial use Class 1 coolwater stream from Cook Creek to the confluence with Logging
Creek. From Logging Creek to the Northern Reservation border, the Tongue River is a Class 1
warmwater stream (NCEPD, 2002). Class 1 coolwater streams "provide for protection, propagation, and
growth of coolwater fishes, as well as protection, growth, and propagation of associated aquatic life
normally found where summer water temperatures do not often exceed 25 degrees Celsius." Class 1
warmwater streams "provide for protection, propagation, and growth of warmwater fishes, as well as
protection, growth, and propagation of associated aquatic life normally found where summer water
temperatures do not often exceed 35 degrees Celsius."
The Northern Cheyenne Tribe's narrative standards are similar to Montana's standards and address two
basic concepts: (1) activities that would result in nuisance aquatic life are prohibited; and (2) no increases
are allowed over naturally occurring conditions of sediment, settleable solids, oils, or floating solids,
which are harmful to public health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or
other wildlife.
Numeric standards for the Tongue River watershed are shown in Table D-5 and Table D-6. The salinity
(EC and TDS) standards are similar to the proposed Montana standards, but the SAR standards for the
Tongue River and its tributaries are more stringent.
Table D-5. Northern Cheyenne surface water quality standards.
Parameter
Aluminum (TR), (pH 6.5-9.0 only)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmiumb
Chloride
Chromium (lll)b
Copperb
Iron
Leadb
Nickelb
Selenium
Silverb
Zincb
Aquatic Life (acute)
(ug/L)
750
340
2.0
860,000
570
13
65
470
3.4
120
Aquatic Life (chronic) (ug/L)
87
150
0.025
230,000
74
9.0
1,000
2.5
52
5.0
0.12
120
Human Health
(ug/Lf
18
1,000
1,300
300
610
170
9,100
"Maximum allowable concentration.
bStandard is dependent on the hardness of the water, measured as the concentration of CaCO3 (mg/L). Values are shown at 100 mg/L hardness (see
Appendix C for the coefficients to calculate the standard).
Note: TR - total recoverable.
D-5
-------
Appendix D
Table D-6. Numeric standards for EC, TDS, and SAR for waters in the Northern Cheyenne
Reservation.
Southern Boundary
Irrigation Period Average3
Year Round Maximum
Northern Boundary
Irrigation Period Average3
Year Round Maximum
Tributaries
Irrigation Period Average3
Year Round Maximum
EC (uS/cm)
1,000
2,000
1,500
2,000
1,500
2,000
SAR
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
TDS (mg/L)
660
1,320
990
1,320
990
1,320
"An "irrigation period average" is the 30-day average applicable during the period of active irrigation or water spreading, defined by the Tribe as April 1
through November 15, annually.
D. 3 References
NCEPD. 2002. Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation - Surface Water
Quality Standards (Draft Standards Submitted to USEPA on July 17, 2002).
WDEQ. 2001. Wyoming Surface Water Classification List (Dated June 21,2001). Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
WDEQ. 2007. Water Quality Rules And Regulations - Chapter 1 - Wyoming Surface Water Quality
Standards (Dated February 16, 2007). Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Cheyenne,
Wyoming.
D-6
-------
APPENDIX E - MONTHLY SC ANALYSIS
-------
-------
Appendix E
E.O MONTHLY SC ANALYSIS
Montana has adopted instantaneous and monthly average salinity standards for the Tongue River and its
tributaries. However, the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM 17.30.670) do not provide guidance
regarding the minimum number of samples needed to calculate "monthly average" values. In the absence
of such guidance, the available data from eight representative stations in the Tongue River, and one
station each in Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek were screened to determine the
quantity of available data on a monthly basis (i.e. 1, 2, 3, >4 data points per month) and whether or not the
available data adequately represent the full range of flow conditions, and the current time period3. The
selected stations are:
Tongue River at Miles City - USGS Gage 06308500
Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam - USGS Gage 06307990
Tongue River below the Brandenberg Bridge - USGS Gage 06307830
Tongue River at the Birney Day School Bridge - USGS Gage 06307616
Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam - USGS Gage 06307500
Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line - USGS Gage 06306300
Tongue River at Monarch, Wyoming - USGS Gage 06299980
Tongue River at Dayton, Wyoming - USGS Gage 06298000
Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, Montana - USGS Gage 06307600
Otter Creek at Ashland, Montana - USGS Gage 06307740
Pumpkin Creek near Miles City, Montana - USGS Gage 06308400
E.1 Salinity Standards
The monthly average salinity standards (measured as electrical conductivity, EC) for the mainstem
Tongue River and tributaries in Montana are shown in Table E-l. The standard varies between the
growing season and nongrowing season. While there is no guidance in the Administrative Rules of
Montana (ARM), it is assumed that the "electrical conductivity" standard can be applied to "specific
conductance" (SC) data, which is simply electrical conductivity that has been corrected to a temperature
of 25° Celsius. All of the available USGS data is reported in SC rather than EC, and all salinity data will
be reported as SC for the remainder of this document.
Table E-1. Monthly average salinity standards for the mainstem Tongue River and tributaries.
Waterbody
Mainstem Tongue
River
Tributaries
Season
Nongrowing Season (Nov 1 - Mar 1)
Growing Season (Mar 2 - Oct 31 )
Nongrowing Season (Nov 1 - Mar 1)
Growing Season (Mar 2 - Oct 31 )
Monthly Average EC Standard (uS/cm)
1,500
1,000
500
500
a Throughout this document, Montana's numeric water quality standards for EC are used as a watershed-wide, common point of reference for
purposes of characterizing current water quality conditions in both Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water
quality standards are directly applicable within the jurisdictional boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a single
watershed-scale point of reference.
E-1
-------
Appendix E
E.2 Tongue River at Miles City Montana (06308500)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for the Tongue River at Miles City. Discrete data are
instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October 1, 1959. 627 discrete
samples were collected between October 1, 1959 and September 20, 2006. Data were generally obtained
once per month during that time period.
Continuous SC data were collected during the growing season (i.e., mid March to November 1) at the
Miles City gage between April 29, 2004 and September 30, 2006. These data were collected by a probe
placed in the Tongue River which recorded SC at 15 minute intervals. The data were then reported as
"average daily" SC values by USGS. There were 568 average daily values reported between April 29,
2004 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Miles City gage, 423 months have at least one SC sample. Of
those, 300 months have only 1 SC sample, 67 months have 2 samples, 22 months have 3 samples, and 34
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-l). Most of the months with 4 or more samples were collected
when the continuous data loggers were operational (April 2004 to September 2006). There was also a
period of more intense sampling between 1962 and 1970. Only one nongrowing season month had 4 or
more samples (November 1968).
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 62 months had one or more SC samples. Of
those, 32 months have only 1 SC sample, 7 months have 2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 22
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-l). All of the months with 4 or more samples were collected
when the continuous data loggers were operational (April 2004 to September 2006).
O One Sample
Two Samples
A Three Samples
X Four or More Samples
2,500
2,250
1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006
Year
Figure E-1. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Tongue River Miles City gage (Gage #06308500).
E-2
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to the average monthly SC standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-2). In general,
there are more exceedances of the standard in the past 5 years, and there are more exceedances when
constricted to 4 or more sampling events per month. The most exceedances occurred in the past five
years when 4 or more samples were available per month.
Table E-2. Average monthly SC data and exceedances
standards for the Tongue River at Miles City
of the average monthly water quality
USGS Gage 06308500.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 1, 1959
to September 30,
2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
292
131
33
1
46
16
22
0
# Months
Exceeding
47
1
10
0
18
0
10
NA
% Months
Exceeding
16.10%
0.76%
30.30%
0.00%
39.13%
0.00%
45.45%
NA
E-3
-------
Appendix E
There is a documented inverse relationship
between flow and SC in the Tongue River at
Miles City (Figure E-2). This relationship,
combined with the ongoing drought in southeast
Montana (1999-present), suggests that SC
exceedances observed in the past five years may
be a function of low flow and therefore, the last
five years may not be representative of typical
conditions.
Using the average daily flow data from the
Miles City USGS gage, the total volume of
water was calculated for each month in the
station's period of record (January 1, 1940 to
September 30, 2006). The flow percentile for
each month was then calculated and plotted with
the monthly average growing season SC data for
the past 5 years where there are four or more
samples (Figure E-3). As expected, the monthly
_o
3
o
0)
2,500 -yx*
2,000 -
1,500 -
1,000
500 -
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Flow (cfs)
5,000 6,000
Figure E-2. SC versus flow for the Tongue
River at Miles City, Montana. Entire period of
record is shown.
average SC appears to increase with decreasing flow, and no exceedances occur at flow percentiles
greater than 20 percent. The data also suggest that the full range of flows during the past five years are
well represented during the growing season, spanning 95 percent (1st to 96th flow percentile) of the flows
ever recorded at Miles City. While it appears appropriate to evaluate the growing season using only
months with four or more samples, there is insufficient data to adequately evaluate the non-growing
season with four or more samples per month.
Miles City Growing Season
WQ Standard - MonthlyAvg
1,400
1,200 -
? 1,000 -
w
3. 800 -|
O
w
0)
o) 600 -
m
400 -
200 -
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Flow Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure E-3. Average monthly growing season SC values at Miles City (past five years only)
versus flow percentile.
E-4
-------
Appendix E
E.3 Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam (06307990)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for the Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam.
Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at a monthly frequency since November 1,
2004. 30 discrete samples were collected between November 1, 2004 and September 20, 2006.
Continuous SC data were collected during the growing season (i.e., mid March to November 1) at the
gage upstream of the T&Y Diversion Dam between March 16, 2005 and September 30, 2006. These data
were collected by a probe placed in the Tongue River which recorded SC at 15 minute intervals. The data
were then reported as "average daily" SC values by USGS. There were 373 average daily values reported
between March 16, 2005 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SC data at the gage upstream of the T&Y Diversion Dam, 22 months have at
least one SC sample. Of those, 3 months have only 1 SC sample, 3 months have 2 samples, 0 months
have 3 samples, and 16 months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-4). Most of the months with 4 or more
samples were collected when the continuous data logger was operational (March 2005 to September
2006). None of the months in the nongrowing season had four or more samples. Since the USGS gage
was installed in 2004, these statistics also apply as the last five years of data.
1,200 T
One Sample
a Tw o Samples
X Four or More Samples
1,000 -
jj
o
w
800
600
400
200
x x
Aug-04 Nov-04 Feb-05 May-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jul-06 Oct-06 Jan-07
Date
Figure E-4. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam (Gage #06307990).
E-5
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to the average monthly SC standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-3). No
exceedances of the monthly average salinity standard were observed at the Tongue River above the T&Y
Diversion Dam. However, the period of record is limited at this gage (November 2004 to September
2006). The data also suggest that the range of flows during the past five years is not well represented
during the growing season (Figure E-5). Several of the SC samples were taken in 2006, outside of the
period of flow record. Non-growing season data also have insufficient data for conducting a
representative evaluation when using only months with four or more samples.
Table E-3. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam - USGS Gage 06307990.
Time Period
"All Data" -
November 1,
2004 to
September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
15
7
15
1
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
0
0
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Above T&Y Dam Growing Season
WQ Standard - MonthlyAvg
E
.o
CO
o
CO
ro
cu
1,200 -,
1,000
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Row Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure E-5. Average monthly growing season SC values above the T&Y Diversion Dam (past
five years only) versus flow percentile.
E-6
-------
Appendix E
E.4 Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge (06307830)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for the Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge.
Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since April 10, 1974.
97 discrete samples were collected between April 10, 1974 and August 15, 1985. Data were generally
obtained once per month during that time period. No samples were collected between August 16, 1985
and June 12, 2000. Monthly to bi-monthly sampling (101 samples) was then reinstated between June 13,
2000 and September 30, 2006
Continuous SC data were collected at the Brandenberg Bridge gage between August 24, 2000 and
September 30, 2006. Data were collected year-round until November 20, 2002. After November 2002,
data were only collected during the growing season (March/April to October/November) of each year.
These data were collected by a probe placed in the Tongue River which recorded SC at 15 minute
intervals. The data were then reported as "average daily" SC values by USGS. There were 1500 average
daily values reported between August 24, 2000 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Brandenberg Bridge gage, 168 months have at least one SC
sample. Of those, 102 months have only 1 SC sample, 9 months have 2 samples, 0 months have 3
samples, and 57 months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-6). All of the months with 4 or more samples
were collected when the continuous data logger was operational (August 24, 2000 and September 30,
2006). Only ten nongrowing season months had 4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 58 months had one or more SC samples. Of
those, 9 months have only 1 SC sample, 5 months have 2 samples, 0 months have 3 samples, and 44
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-6).
O One Sample
Tw o Samples
X Four or More Samples
1 ?nn
1 nnn
^
55
3
o snn
Jo buu
400
9nn
0
I ^
I
I
o
° ^ <
'O
x^ O
o o
D *
Oj 0
<>t£ 0
I
I
I
I
I
? ,
»
» O>VA
LI
00
s
0
}&t>
, *
04
o
* 0
o
>
0
>
'
<
4-
0
^&
I
° 4
o
6
0 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
x
x *x<
^\Xy
X *
x*
X
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
?n<
xx^
>x x
X
#-
^
n
xnx
«>«<
xx
X
1973 1975 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Date
Figure E-6. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge (Gage #06307830).
E-7
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to the average monthly SC standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-4). Standards
were only exceeded based on single samples (i.e., one sample per month) between 1974 and 1981. There
have been no exceedances in the last five years and, as shown in Figure E-7. The months with four or
more samples per month in the last five years appear to adequately represent the full range of flow
conditions at this sample station.
Table E-4. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge - USGS Gage 06307830.
Time Period
"All Data" -
April 10, 1974
to September
30, 2006
"Past 5 Years"
October 1,2001
to September
30, 2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
< 1000
pS/cm
< 1500
pS/cm
< 1000
pS/cm
< 1500
pS/cm
< 1000
pS/cm
< 1500
pS/cm
< 1000
pS/cm
< 1500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
122
46
47
10
40
18
37
6
# Months
Exceeding
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Months
Exceeding
7.38%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
E-8
-------
Appendix E
E
o
CO
O
CO
o>
ro
1,200 -,
1,000 -
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
Brandenberg Bridge Growing Season
WQ Standard - MonthlyAvg
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Row Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure E-7. Average monthly growing season SC values at the Brandenberg Bridge (past five
years only) versus flow percentile (flow percentile based on the entire period of record for this
station).
E-9
-------
Appendix E
E.5 Tongue River at Birney Day School Bridge (06307616)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for the Tongue River at the Birney Day School
Bridge. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October
2, 1979. 227 discrete samples were collected between October 2, 1979 and September 21, 2006. Data
were generally obtained once per month during that time period.
Continuous SC data were collected year-round at the Birney Day School gage between April 29, 2004
and September 30, 2006. These data were collected by a probe placed in the Tongue River which
recorded SC at 15 minute intervals. The data were then reported as "average daily" SC values by USGS.
There were 734 average daily values reported between April 29, 2004 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Birney Day School Bridge gage, 200 months have at least one
SC sample. Of those, 167 months have only 1 SC sample, 6 months have 2 samples, no months have 3
samples, and 27 months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-8). Most of the months with 4 or more
samples were collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (April 2004 to September
2006). Only five nongrowing season months had 4 or more samples (November 2004 and November
2005 through February 2006).
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 47 months had one or more SC samples. Of
those, 18 months have only 1 SC sample, 2 months have 2 samples, zero months has 3 samples, and 27
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-8). All of the months with 4 or more samples were collected
when the continuous data loggers were operational (April 2004 to September 2006).
1,600
1,400 -
1,200 -
1,000
= 800
600
400
200
O One Sample
a Tw o Samples
X Four or More Samples
% ^
oo
' O ft O 0 O 00 * O O %
o ^o ooo0o 0 Oo0*0^ 1
; ><> o * *'* * s* x>
a o
o o
o o
q>
X
o $
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Date
Figure E-8. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Tongue River Birney Day School Bridge gage (Gage #06307616).
E-10
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to the average monthly SC standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-5). In general,
the frequency of exceedance of the standard in the past five years is similar to the entire period of record,
and the frequency is greater with four or more sampling events per month. As shown in Figure E-9, the
months with > four samples per month in the last five years appear to adequately represent the full range
of flow conditions at this sample station.
Table E-5. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Birney Day School Bridge - USGS Gage 06307616.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 2, 1979
to September 30,
2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
156
44
22
5
31
12
22
5
# Months
Exceeding
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
% Months
Exceeding
1 .28%
0.00%
4.45%
0.00%
3.22%
0.00%
4.45%
0.00%
E-11
-------
Appendix E
1,200
E
.o
V)
O
V)
0)
o>
ro
5
1,000 -
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
Birney Day School Bridge Growing Season
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Row Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure E-9. Average monthly growing season SC values at the Birney Day School Bridge (past
five years only) versus flow percentile (flow percentile for the entire period of record for this
station).
E-12
-------
Appendix E
E.6 Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam (06307500)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for the Tongue River below the Tongue River
Reservoir Dam. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since
October 7, 1975. 299 discrete samples were collected between October 7, 1975 and September 21, 2006.
Data were generally obtained once per month during that time period.
Continuous SC data were collected year-round at the Tongue River gage below the Tongue River
Reservoir Dam from November 1, 1980 to December 31, 1986 and from May 1, 2004 to September 30,
2006. These data were collected by a probe placed in the Tongue River which recorded SC at 15 minute
intervals. The data were then reported as "average daily" SC values by USGS. There were 2,047 average
daily values reported from November 1, 1980 to December 31, 1986 and 780 average daily values
reported from May 1, 2004 to September 30, 2006 for a total of 2,827 average daily SC values.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Tongue River gage below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam,
280 months have at least one SC sample. Of those, 164 months have only 1 SC sample, 16 months have
2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 99 months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-10). Most of the
months with 4 or more samples were collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (May
2004 to September 2006). There was also a period of more intense sampling between 1980 and 1987.
Thirty-two nongrowing season months had 4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 46 months had one or more SC samples.
those, 13 months have only 1 SC sample, 4 months have 2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 28
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-10).
Of
1,200 -,
1,000 -
800
_o
J= 600
O
w
400
200
One Sample
Tw o Samples
A Three Samples
X Four or More Samples
***
" x
o o <>
xx
X
0
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Date
Figure E-10. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam gage (Gage #06307500).
E-13
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to the average monthly SC standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-6). No
exceedances of the monthly average standard have been observed under any of the conditions considered.
As shown in Figure E-l 1, the months with > four samples per month in the last five years appear to
adequately represent the full range of flow conditions at this sample station.
Table E-6. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam - USGS Gage 06307500.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October?, 1975
to September 30,
2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
196
84
67
32
33
13
21
7
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
E-14
-------
Appendix E
Tongue River Below Reservoir Dam Growing Season
WQ Standard - MonthlyAvg
1,200
1,000 -
800 -
o
W 600 -
ra
^
at
400 -
200 -
0
>*
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Flow Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure E-11. Average monthly growing season SC values at the Tongue River below the
Tongue River Reservoir Dam (past five years only) versus flow percentile.
E-15
-------
Appendix E
E.7 Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line (06306300)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for the Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State
Line. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October
16, 1985. 241 discrete samples were collected between October 16, 1985 and November 15, 2006. Data
were generally obtained once per month during that time period.
Continuous SC data were collected year-round at the Montana-Wyoming State Line gage between
October 1, 1982 through December 31, 1986 and August 22, 2000 through September 30, 2006. These
data were collected by a probe placed in the Tongue River which recorded SC at 15 minute intervals. The
data were then reported as "average daily" SC values by USGS. There were 1,522 average daily values
reported between October 1, 1982 and December 31, 1986 and 1,942 average daily values reported from
August 22, 2000 to September 30, 2006 for a total of 3,464 average daily SC values.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Montana-Wyoming State Line gage, 222 months have at least
one SC sample. Of those, 90 months have only 1 SC sample, 7 months have 2 samples, 4 months have 3
samples, and 121 months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-12). Most of the months with 4 or more
samples were collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (May 2000 to September
2006). There was also a period of more intense sampling between 1982 and 1987. Thirty-eight
nongrowing season months had 4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 67 months had one or more SC samples. Of
those, 7 months have only 1 SC sample, zero months have 2 samples, zero months have 3 samples, and 60
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-12).
One Sample
n Tw o Samples
A Three Samples
X Four or More Samples
_o
_=_
O
9nn
nnn
800
9nn
n
"&
X
#
X
X
X
* X
xx X
X
X
xVx ^'
o
x
X 0
0
G
0
0
«***
i $> £
o
0 A
0?° 4
o
» *
°0
o°oo°
0 *
A
0
0°
0 «
0 0
o
o
o
«
o
o
00
o
X
X
X
X
D X
A
X
X >.
» *x
x x
X
X
X-y -*
*X x
X^ X
X
X
c__
xo
)!S
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Date
Figure E-12. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Montana-Wyoming State Line (Gage #06306300).
E-16
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to the average monthly SC standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-7). The monthly
standard has only been exceeded once during the period of record, and that was during a low flow event
(0th percentile) in August of 2001. As shown in Figure E-13, the 39 months with four or more samples
from the last five years appears to represent the full range of flow conditions at this station during the
growing season.
Table E-7. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line - USGS Gage 06306300.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 16, 1985
to September 30,
2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
154
68
84
38
41
21
39
16
# Months
Exceeding
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
% Months
Exceeding
0.65%
0.00%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
E-17
-------
Appendix E
Tongue River at Wyoming-Montana Border Growing Season
1,200
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
1,000 -
o
CO
o
co
0>
ro
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
F»*
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Row Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure E-13. Average monthly growing season SC values at the Montana-Wyoming State Line
(past five years only) versus flow percentile.
E-18
-------
Appendix E
E.8 Tongue River at Monarch, Wyoming (06299980)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for the Tongue River at Monarch. Discrete data are
instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since April 3, 1974. 135 discrete
samples were collected between April 3, 1974 and August 7, 2006. Data were generally obtained once
per month during that time period.
Continuous SC data were collected year-round at the Monarch gage between May 1, 2004 and September
30, 2006. These data were collected by a probe placed in the Tongue River which recorded SC at 15
minute intervals. The data were then reported as "average daily" SC values by USGS. There were 609
average daily values reported between May 1, 2004 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Monarch gage, 115 months have at least one SC sample. Of
those, 82 months have only 1 SC sample, 12 months have 2 samples, zero months have 3 samples, and 21
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-14). Most of the months with 4 or more samples were
collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (May 2004 to September 2006). There was
also a period of more intense sampling between 1974 and 1984. There were no nongrowing season
months with 4 or more samples for this station.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 31 months had one or more SC samples. Of
those, 5 months have only 1 SC sample, 5 months have 2 samples, zero months have 3 samples, and 21
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-14). All of the months with 4 or more samples were collected
when the continuous data loggers were operational (April 2004 to September 2006).
700
600
O One Sample
Tw o Samples
X Four or More Samples
I
8
200
100
O
1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Date
Figure E-14. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Tongue River Monarch gage (Gage #06299980).
E-19
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to Montana's average monthly SC standards'3.
In comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season
to show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-8). There
have been no SC exceedances at the Monarch gage station and with a maximum recorded value of 660
(iS/cm, it is unlikely that the monthly standard would be exceeded. Recent data, however, are confined to
the last two years and data are severely limited for the non-growing season.
Table E-8. Average monthly SC data and exceedances
standards for the Tongue River at Monarch -
of the average monthly water quality
USGS Gage 06299980.
Time Period
"All Data" -April
3, 1974 to
September 30,
2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
81
34
21
0
23
8
21
0
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
NA
Montana's numeric water quality standards for EC are used as a watershed-wide, common point of reference for purposes of characterizing current water quality
conditions in both Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water quality standards are directly applicable within the jurisdictional
boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a single watershed-scale point of reference.
E-20
-------
Appendix E
E.9 Tongue River at Dayton, Wyoming (06298000)
Discrete SC data are available for the Tongue River at Dayton; however no continuous data are available
for this station. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since
October 10, 1966. 216 discrete samples were collected between October 10, 1966 and August 14, 2002.
Data were generally obtained once per month during that time period.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Dayton gage, 202 months have at least one SC sample. Of
those, 189 months have only 1 SC sample, 12 months have 2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and no
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-15). In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30,
2006), 1 month had only one SC sample.
400 -,
350
300
250 -I
I 200 A
150
100
50
0
0 One Sample
o Tw o Samples
A Three Samples
1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Date
Figure E-15. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Tongue River Dayton gage (Gage #06298000).
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to Montana's average monthly SC standards0.
In comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season
to show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-9). This
station has no more than 3 SC samples per month and only one sample within the last 5 years. There are
no SC exceedances at the Dayton gage station, however, data for the recent time period are limited.
Nonetheless, the maximum recorded SC at this station was 360 (iS/cm, making exceedances unlikely at
this station.
c Montana's numeric water quality standards for EC are used as a watershed-wide, common point of reference for purposes of characterizing current water quality
conditions in both Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water quality standards are directly applicable within the jurisdictional
boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a single watershed-scale point of reference.
E-21
-------
Appendix E
Table E-9. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at Dayton - USGS Gage 06298000.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 10, 1966
to August 14,
2002
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
<1000
pS/cm
<1500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
136
66
0
0
1
0
0
0
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
NA
NA
0.00%
NA
NA
NA
E-22
-------
Appendix E
E.10 Hanging Woman Creek (06307600)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, Montana.
Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October 2, 1974.
225 discrete samples were collected between October 2, 1974 and June 6, 2006. Data were generally
obtained once per month during that time period.
Continuous SC data were collected year-round at the Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, Montana gage
between November 1, 1980 and June 16, 2006. These data were collected by a probe placed in Hanging
Woman Creek which recorded SC at 15 minute intervals. The data were then reported as "average daily"
SC values by USGS. There were 1,935 average daily values reported between November 1, 1980 and
June 16, 2006.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Birney, MT gage, 217 months have at least one SC sample.
Of those, 133 months have only 1 SC sample, 10 months have 2 samples, 4 months have 3 samples, and
70 months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-16). Most of the months with 4 or more samples were
collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (May 2004 to September 2006). There was
also a period of more intense sampling between 1980 and 1987. Twenty nongrowing season months had
4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 26 months had one or more SC samples. Of
those, 8 months have only 1 SC sample, 5 months have 2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 12 months
have 4 or more samples (Figure E-16).
O One Sample n Two Samples A Three Samples x Four or More Samples
25
A nnn
3 500
Q nnn
2,500
9 nnn
1 nnn
n -
*
0
0
00$
~ "O" ~*
0 v
k o
n
O d£>
v<*>
oo
»
0
$
<*>*
»
^
n
9~
b
0
of
JT4
&
?>
^O
$<*
*x
4
*
3
*
e* ;
"A
14
&K <
t jk
x x
< *
0
*--«>-
s
o
A ~
oo
0
>00
0
o
o
> oo
*>U .
>0<>
O
<
--
--
0
n
t>
5^
Ojs
£. x
^
*
X
*
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Date
Figure E-16. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Hanging Woman Creek gage near Birney, MT (Gage #06307600).
E-23
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to the average monthly SC standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-10). Across all
stratifications, all observed values (with one exception- 405 (iS/cm in March of 1975) were found to
exceed the average monthly standards. However, data are limited to only 30 percent of the full range of
flows at this station (Figure E-18).
Table E-10. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Hanging Woman Creek at Birney, MT- USGS Gage 06307600.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 2, 1974
to June 16, 2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September
30, 2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
145
72
50
20
18
8
12
0
# Months
Exceeding
144
72
50
20
18
8
12
NA
% Months
Exceeding
99.31%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
NA
E-24
-------
Appendix E
u
w
_3_
o
W
There is a documented inverse
relationship between flow and SC in
Hanging Woman Creak near Birney,
Montana (Figure E-17). This
relationship, combined with the
ongoing drought in southeast Montana
(1999-present), suggests that SC
exceedances observed in the past five
years may be a function of low flow
and therefore, the last five years may
not be representative.
Using the average daily flow data
from the Hanging Woman Creek
USGS gage near Birney, the total
volume of water was calculated for
each month in the station's period of
record (September 1, 1973 to September 30,
2006). The flow percentile for each month was
then calculated and plotted with the monthly
average growing season SC data for the past 5 years where there are four or more samples (Figure E-18).
As shown below, all 12 growing season samples are well above the standard, although all are for flows
less than the 40th percentile. There are no months from the non-growing season with four or more
samples per month, further limiting analyses.
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
n
y=2212x-°1264
R2 = 0.2441
«
|s^^ «
0
0 O 0 o
o o oo
0
100
200 300 400 500 600
Flow (cfs)
Figure E-17. SC versus flow for Hanging
Woman Creek near Birney, Montana. Entire
period of record is shown.
Hanging Woman Creek Growing Season
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
3,000
2,500 -
.o 2,000 -
oo
w 1,500 -
2
S 1,000 -
500 -
0
*
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Row Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure E-18. Average monthly growing season SC values for Hanging Woman Creek near
Birney, MT (past five years only) versus flow percentile.
E-25
-------
Appendix E
E.11 Otter Creek (06307740)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for Otter Creek at Ashland, Montana. Discrete data
are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October 2, 1974. 218 discrete
samples were collected between October 2, 1974 and August 8, 2006. Data were generally obtained once
per month during that time period.
Continuous SC data were collected year-round at the Otter Creek at Ashland, Montana gage between
November 1, 1980 and September 30, 2006. These data were collected by a probe placed in Otter Creek
which recorded SC at 15 minute intervals. The data were then reported as "average daily" SC values by
USGS. There were 2,121 average daily values reported between November 1, 1980 and September 30,
2006.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Ashland, MT gage, 219 months have at least one SC sample.
Of those, 132 months have only 1 SC sample, 11 months have 2 samples, no months have 3 samples, and
76 months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-19). Many of the months with 4 or more samples were
collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (May 2004 to September 2006). There was
also a period of more intense sampling between 1980 and 1986. Twenty nongrowing season months had
4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 34 months had one or more SC samples. Of
those, 10 months have only 1 SC sample, 4 months have 2 samples, no months have 3 samples, and 20
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-19).
4,500
O One Sample
Tw o Samples
X Four or More Samples
4,000 -
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Date
Figure E-19. Average monthly SC values and the number of SC samples collected each month
at the Otter Creek gage near Ashland, MT (Gage #06307740).
E-26
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to the average monthly SC standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-l 1). Across all
stratifications, all observed values (with one exception- 370 (iS/cm in March of 1975) were found to
exceed the average monthly standards.
Table E-11. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Otter Creek at Ashland, MT- USGS Gage 06307740.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 2, 1974
to September 30,
2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
155
64
56
20
27
7
20
0
# Months
Exceeding
154
64
56
20
27
7
20
NA
% Months
Exceeding
99.35%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
NA
E-27
-------
Appendix E
u
w
_3_
o
W
There is a documented inverse
relationship between flow and SC in
Otter Creak near Ashland, MT (Figure
E-20). This relationship, combined
with the ongoing drought in southeast
Montana (1999-present), suggests that
SC exceedances observed in the past
five years may be a function of low
flow and therefore, the last five years
may not be representative.
Using the average daily flow data
from the Otter Creek USGS gage near
Ashland, the total volume of water
was calculated for each month in the
station's period of record (October 1,
1972 to September 30, 2006). The
flow percentile for each month was then
calculated and plotted with the monthly
average growing season SC data for the
past 5 years where there are four or more samples (Figure E-21). As shown below, all 19 growing season
samples are well above the standard. About 70 percent of the full flow range is covered by these data,
with no flows greater than the 80th percentile represented. There are no months from the non-growing
season with four or more samples per month, limiting analysis for that time period.
100
400
500
200 300
Flow (cfs)
Figure E-20. SC versus flow for Otter Creek near
Ashland, Montana. Entire period of record is shown.
Otter Creek Growing Season
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
3,500
3,000 -
-£ 2,500 -
.o
w
2- 2,000 -
O
W
§> 1,500 -I
ro
< 1,000
500 -
0
o *
o %
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Row Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure E-21. Average monthly growing season SC values for Otter Creek near Ashland, MT
(past five years only) versus flow percentile.
E-28
-------
Appendix E
E.12 Pumpkin Creek (06308400)
Both discrete and continuous SC data are available for Pumpkin Creek at Miles City, Montana. Discrete
data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October 15, 1975. 88
discrete samples were collected between October 15, 1975 and September 20, 2006. Data were generally
obtained once per month during that time period, mostly during the growing season.
Continuous SC data were collected year-round at the Miles City, Montana gage between March 10, 2004
and September 30, 2006. These data were collected by a probe placed in Pumpkin Creek which recorded
SC at 15 minute intervals. The data were then reported as "average daily" SC values by USGS. There
were 292 average daily values reported between March 10, 2004 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Miles City, Montana gage, 74 months have at least one SC
sample. Of those, 47 months have only 1 SC sample, 12 months have 2 samples, no months have 3
samples, and 15 months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-22). Most of the months with 4 or more
samples were collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (March 2004 to September
2006). There was also a period of sampling between 1975 and 1986. No months during the nongrowing
season had 4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 21 months had one or more SC samples. Of
those, 1 month has only 1 SC sample, 5 months have 2 samples, no months have 3 samples, and 15
months have 4 or more samples (Figure E-22).
One Sample
Two Samples
X Four or More Samples
o
w
M
8 nnn
7 000
6 nnn
5 nnn
4 nnn
Q nnn
9 nnn
1 nnn
0
<
" «
c
>
>
>
*;.
0
*
» **
4
o
^
*
D D
o
o
0
<»
0%
o
o
-------
Appendix E
The calculated average monthly SC values were compared to the average monthly SC standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table E-12). Most of
the observed stations were found to exceed the average monthly standards at the Pumpkin Creek, Miles
City gage station. However, the data may only represent a portion of the full range of flow conditions.
Table E-12. Average monthly SC data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Pumpkin Creek at Miles City, MT- USGS Gage 06308400.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 15, 1975
to September 30,
2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
<500
pS/cm
# Months
with
Samples
55
19
15
0
17
4
15
0
# Months
Exceeding
49
16
15
NA
16
4
15
NA
% Months
Exceeding
89.09%
84.21%
100%
NA
94.12%
100%
100%
NA
E-30
-------
Appendix E
u
w
_3_
o
W
There is a documented inverse
relationship between flow and SC in
Pumpkin Creak near Miles City,
Montana (Figure E-23). This
relationship, combined with the
ongoing drought in southeast Montana
(1999-present), suggests that SC
exceedances observed in the past five
years may be a function of low flow
and therefore, the last five years may
not be representative.
Using the average daily flow data
from the Pumpkin Creek USGS gage
near Miles City, the total volume of
water was calculated for each month
in the station's period of record
(October 1, 1972 to September 30, 2006).
The flow percentile for each month was then
calculated and plotted with the monthly
average growing season SC data for the past
5 years where there are four or more samples (Figure E-24). As shown below, all 13 growing season
samples from the last five years are well above the standard. Less than 50 percent of the full flow range is
covered by these data, with no flows below the 50th percentile represented. There are no months from the
non-growing season with four or more samples per month, further limiting analysis for that time period.
\J , WWW
8,000 |
7,000 -
6,000 *
5,000 <
$
y=1283.2x-°1798
R2 = 0.3241
>
4'°°° 4
3,000 j
2,000 |
1,000 1
J
500
1,000
Flow (cfs)
1,500
2,000
Figure E-23. SC versus flow for Pumpkin Creek
near Miles City, Montana. Entire period of record is
shown.
Pumpkin Creek Growing Season
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
E
.0
CO
o
CO
0)
0>
ro
-------
Appendix E
E.13 Summary and Conclusions
A screening analysis was conducted to provide insight regarding potential alternatives for interpretation
of Montana's monthly average salinity standard. The results of this analysis indicate that:
The period of record varies from a maximum of approximately 47 years at Miles City, Montana
(gage # 06308500) to a minimum of approximately two years above the T&Y Diversion Dam,
Montana (gage #06307990).
There is considerably less data during the non-growing season when compared to the growing
season.
In most cases, with the exception of the last five years when USGS began collecting continuous
SC data, there are few months with greater than one sample per month.
Given the variability in SC on a monthly basis (an overall range of 38 to 7,990 (iS/cm), it is
logical to conclude that more samples per month would better represent the "monthly average"
than fewer samples per month.
Even though there are only > 4 samples per month for a relatively small proportion of the period
of record, those months generally represent the current time period (i.e., the last 5 years) and also
represent the full range of flow conditions (high flows, low flows, average flows) with the
exception of Hanging Woman Creek and Pumpkin Creek.
E-32
-------
APPENDIX F - MONTHLY SAR ANALYSIS
-------
-------
Appendix F
F.O MONTHLY SAR ANALYSIS
Montana has adopted instantaneous and monthly average sodium adsorption ratio standards for the
Tongue River and its tributaries. However, the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM 17.30.670) do
not provide guidance regarding the minimum number of samples needed to calculate "monthly average"
values. In the absence of such guidance, the available data from eight representative stations in the
Tongue River, and one station each in Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek were
screened to determine the quantity of available data on a monthly basis (i.e. 1, 2, 3, >4 data points per
month) and whether or not the available data adequately represent the full range of flow conditions, and
the current time periodd. The selected stations are:
Tongue River at Miles City - USGS Gage 06308500
Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam - USGS Gage 06307990
Tongue River below the Brandenberg Bridge - USGS Gage 06307830
Tongue River at the Birney Day School Bridge - USGS Gage 06307616
Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam - USGS Gage 06307500
Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line - USGS Gage 06306300
Tongue River at Monarch, Wyoming - USGS Gage 06299980
Tongue River at Dayton, Wyoming - USGS Gage 06298000
Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, Montana - USGS Gage 06307600
Otter Creek at Ashland, Montana - USGS Gage 06307740
Pumpkin Creek near Miles City, Montana - USGS Gage 06308400
The monthly average SAR standards for the mainstem Tongue River and tributaries in Montana are
shown in Table F-l. The standard varies between the growing season and nongrowing season. The State
of Montana adopted average monthly numeric criteria for SAR on June 6, 2003. These values are used
directly to measure agricultural beneficial use impairment.
Table F-1. Monthly average sodium adsorption ratio standards for the mainstem Tongue River and
tributaries.
Waterbody
Mainstem Tongue
River
Tributaries
Season
Nongrowing Season (Nov 1 - Mar 1)
Growing Season (Mar 2 - Oct 31 )
Nongrowing Season (Nov 1 - Mar 1)
Growing Season (Mar 2 - Oct 31 )
Monthly Average SAR Standard
(uS/cm)
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
Throughout this document, Montana's numeric water quality standards for SAR are used as a watershed-wide, common point of reference for purposes of
characterizing current water quality conditions in both Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water quality standards are directly
applicable within the jurisdictional boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a single watershed-scale point of reference.
F-1
-------
Appendix F
F.1 Tongue River at Miles City Montana (06308500)
Both discrete and continuous SAR data are available for the Tongue River at Miles City. Discrete data
are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October 1, 1959. 481 discrete
samples were collected between October 1, 1959 and August 21, 2006. Data were generally obtained
once per month during that time period.
Continuous6 SAR data were collected during the growing season (i.e., mid March to November 1) at the
Miles City gage between April 29, 2004 and September 30, 2006. These data were collected by a probe
placed in the Tongue River which recorded SAR at 15 minute intervals. The data were then reported as
"average daily" SAR values by USGS. There were 568 average daily values reported between April 29,
2004 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SAR data at the Miles City gage, 319 months have at least one SAR sample.
Of those, 209 months have only 1 SAR sample, 53 months have 2 samples, 23 months have 3 samples,
and 34 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-l). Most of the months with 4 or more samples were
collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (April 2004 to September 2006). There was
also a period of more intense sampling between 1962 and 1970. Only one nongrowing season month had
4 or more samples (November 1968).
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 35 months had one or more SAR samples.
Of those, 7 months have only 1 SAR sample, 5 months have 2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 22
months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-l).
O One Sample n Two Samples A Three Samples x Four or More Samples
0.0
1958 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011
Date
Figure F-1. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Tongue River Miles City gage (Gage #06308500).
e USGS estimated SAR from the continuous specific conductance (SC) data. See http://tonguerivermonitoring.cr.usgs.gov/SC_SAR_2006.htm
for more details.
F-2
-------
Appendix F
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to the average monthly SAR standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-2). In general,
there are more exceedances of the standard in the past 5 years, and there are more exceedances when
analyzing 1 or more sampling events per month. The most exceedances occurred in the past five years
when 1 or more samples were available per month.
Table F-2. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at Miles City - USGS Gage 06308500.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 1, 1959
to September 30,
2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
215
104
32
2
27
8
22
0
# Months
Exceeding
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
NA
% Months
Exceeding
2.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7.41%
0.00%
0.00%
NA
F-3
-------
Appendix F
There is a documented inverse
relationship between flow and SAR in
the Tongue River at Miles City (Figure
F-2). This relationship, combined with
the ongoing drought in southeast
Montana (1999-present), suggests that
SAR exceedances observed in the past
five years may be a function of low
flow and therefore, the last five years
may not be representative of typical
conditions.
Using the average daily flow data from
the Miles City USGS gage, the total
volume of water was calculated for
each month in the station's period of
record (January 1, 1940 to September
30, 2006). The flow percentile for
each month was then calculated and
W
O y= 4.7613x-02089
R2 = 0.4002
0.0
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Flow (cfs)
6,000
Figure F-2. SAR versus flow for the Tongue River at Miles
City, Montana. Entire period of record is shown.
plotted with the monthly average growing season SAR data for the past 5 years where there are four or
more samples (Figure F-3). As expected, the monthly average SAR also appears to increase with
decreasing flow, and no exceedances occur at flow percentiles greater than 10 percent. The data also
suggest that the full range of flows during the past five years are well represented during the growing
season, spanning 95 percent (1st to 96th flow percentile) of the flows ever recorded at Miles City. While it
appears appropriate to evaluate the growing season using only months with four or more samples, there is
insufficient data to adequately evaluate the non-growing season with four or more samples per month.
Miles City Growing Season
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
3.5 -,
3.0 -
2.5 -
DL
W 2.0 -I
<
1.5-1
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Flow Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure F-3. Average monthly growing season SAR values at Miles City (past five years only) versus flow
percentile.
F-4
-------
Appendix F
F.2 Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam (06307990)
Discrete SAR data are available for the Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam; however no
continuous SAR data are available for this station. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were
collected at a monthly frequency since November 1, 2004. 50 discrete samples were collected between
November 1, 2004 and August 21, 2006. Discrete samples were generally obtained once per month.
Based on all of the available SAR data for the Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam gage, 21
months have at least one SAR sample. Of those, 3 months have only 1 SAR sample, 12 months have 2
samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 5 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-4). All 21 SAR
samples were collected within the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006) and 7 were
collected during the nongrowing season.
2.5 ^
One Sample
Tw o Samples
A Three Samples
X Four or More Samples
2.0 -
1.5 -
W
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0
XX A
X X X
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
Date
2005
2006
2006
2006
Figure F-4. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Tongue River above the T&Y Diversion Dam (Gage #06307990).
F-5
-------
Appendix F
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to the average monthly SAR standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-3). No
exceedances of the monthly average SAR standard were observed at the Tongue River above the T&Y
Diversion Dam. However, the period of record is limited at this gage (November 2004 to September
2006), and may not adequately represent all hydrologic conditions. Additionally, monthly average SAR
data with four or more samples from the past five years were all obtained in 2006, and the flow data only
spans into 2005, so no figure could be generated to assess flow range conditions.
Table F-3. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at above the T&Y Diversion Dam - USGS Gage 06307990.
Time Period
"All Data" -
November 1,
2004 to August
21,2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
14
7
5
0
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
0
NA
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
NA
F-6
-------
Appendix F
F.3 Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge (06307830)
Both discrete and continuous SAR data are available for the Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge.
Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October 1, 1974.
179 discrete samples were collected between October 1, 1974 and August 21, 2006. Data were generally
obtained once per month during that time period. No samples were collected between September 16,
1981 and June 12, 2000. Monthly to bi-monthly sampling (108 samples) was then reinstated between
June 13, 2000 and August 21, 2006.
Continuous SAR data were collected at the Brandenberg Bridge gage between October 1, 2003 and
September 30, 2006. Data were primarily collected during the growing season. These data were
collected by a probe placed in the Tongue River which recorded SAR at 15 minute intervals. The data
were then reported as "average daily" SAR values by USGS. There were 594 average daily values
reported between October 1, 2003 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SAR data at the Brandenberg Bridge gage, 143 months have at least one
SAR sample. Of those, 112 months have only 1 SAR sample, 7 months have 2 samples, no months have
3 samples, and 24 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-5). All of the months with 4 or more
samples were collected when the continuous data logger was operational (October 1, 2003 and September
30, 2006). Only 1 nongrowing season month had 4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 58 months had one or more SAR samples.
Of those, 29 months have only 1 SAR sample, 5 months have 2 samples, no months have 3 samples, and
24 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-5).
2.5
O One Sample
Tw o Samples
X Four or More Samples
2.0
1.5 -
W
1.0 -
0.5
0.0
o o
o _
o
°o
<*>
e
_1 _ _ _ L
X
o x
* *
1970 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005
Date
Figure F-5. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge (Gage #06307830).
F-7
-------
Appendix F
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to the average monthly SAR standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-4). With a
maximum recorded monthly SAR value of 2.19 from the Brandenberg Bridge site, it is unlikely that the
water quality standard would be exceeded. The data do suggest that flows over the past 5 years are well
represented (Figure F-6).
Table F-4. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Brandenberg Bridge - USGS Gage 06307830.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 1,1 974
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
101
42
23
1
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
0
0
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Brandenberg Bridge Growing Season
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
3.5
3.0 -
2.5 -
ce
w 2.0 -I
D)
« 1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Flow Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure F-6. Average monthly growing season SAR values at the Brandenberg Bridge (past five years
only) versus flow percentile.
F-8
-------
Appendix F
F.4 Tongue River at Birney Day School Bridge (06307616)
Discrete SAR data are available for the Tongue River at Birney Day School Bridge; however no
continuous SAR data are available for this station. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were
collected at a monthly frequency since October 2, 1979. 159 discrete samples were collected between
October 2, 1979 and August 21, 2006. Discrete samples were generally obtained once per month and in
some cases bimonthly.
Based on all of the available SAR data for the Tongue River at Birney Day School Bridge gage, 123
months have at least one SAR sample. Of those, 98 months have only 1 SAR sample, 19 months have 2
samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 5 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-7). There were
numerous monthly samplings from August 15, 1987 through June 15, 1993, then there is a break in
samples until January 15, 2004 where monthly sampling begins again. 30 SAR samples were collected
within the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006) and 8 of the recent samples were
collected during the nongrowing season.
O One Sample n Two Samples A Three Samples x Four or More Samples
1 R
1 A
1 9
1 n
n ft
n R
n A
n 9
nn -
<%
XV
OV^1
o
*
\
\
\
\
\
0
o
X> 0
o. o o
0* l 0
" * ~
o
0
A
A.
o
*
0
o
3
n
*P
A
r °JF
a a*
a
D
t
1978
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
Date
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
Figure F-7. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Tongue River Birney Day School Bridge gage (Gage #06307616).
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to the average monthly SAR standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-5). With a
maximum SAR recorded value of 1.71 no exceedances are likely at this station. The data also suggest
that only a minimal flow range is represented by the data collected at this station (Figure F-8) spanning
only 53 percent of the full range of flows.
F-9
-------
Appendix F
Table F-5. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Birney Day School Bridge - USGS Gage 06307616.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 2,
1979 to August
21,2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
92
31
5
0
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
0
NA
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
NA
3.5
3.0 -
2.5 -
0.5 -
0.0
Birney Day School Bridge Growing Season
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Flow Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure F-8. Average monthly growing season SAR values at the Birney Day School Bridge (past five
years only) versus flow percentile.
F-10
-------
Appendix F
F.5 Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam (06307500)
Discrete SAR data are available for the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam; however
no continuous SAR data are available for this station. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were
collected at a monthly frequency since October 7, 1975. 251 discrete samples were collected between
October 7, 1975 and August 21, 2006. Discrete samples were generally obtained once per month and in
some cases bimonthly.
Based on all of the available SAR data for the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam
gage, 208 months have at least one SAR sample. Of those, 176 months have only 1 SAR sample, 26
months have 2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 5 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-9).
There were monthly samplings from October 15, 1975 through August 15, 1995. There are no samples
until January 15, 2004 where monthly sampling begins again. 30 SAR samples were collected within the
last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006) and 8 of the recent samples were collected during
the nongrowing season.
2.0
O One Sample n Two Samples A Three Samples x Four or More Samples
1.8 -
1.6
1.4-
1.2 -
£
"ti
v> L
0.8
0.6
0.4-
0.2
0.0
O
P
# o o o
"f, o o
o 0
1974 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006
Date
Figure F-9. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam gage (Gage #06307500).
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to the average monthly SAR standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-6). There are no
exceedances of the SAR standard at the Tongue River gage below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam and
exceedances are unlikely as the maximum SAR value recorded was 1.86 at this station. However, the
data suggest that only a minimal flow range is represented (Figure F-10), spanning 51 percent of the flows
ever recorded at the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam.
F-11
-------
Appendix F
Table F-6. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam - USGS Gage 06307500.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 7,
1975 to August
21,2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
149
59
5
0
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
0
NA
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
NA
Below TR Reservoir Dam Growing Season
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
3.5
3.0 -
2.5 -
oi
w 2.0 -|
D)
«j 1.5-1
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Flow Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure F-10. Average monthly growing season SAR values below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam (past
five years only) versus flow percentile.
F-12
-------
Appendix F
F.6 Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line (06306300)
Both discrete and continuous SAR data are available for the Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming
State Line. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since
November 4, 1985. 241 discrete samples were collected between November 4, 1985 and August 22,
2006. Data were generally obtained once per month during that time period.
Continuous SAR data were collected year-round at the Montana-Wyoming State Line gage from August
22, 2000 to September 30, 2006. These data were collected by a probe placed in the Tongue River which
recorded SAR at 15 minute intervals. The data were then reported as "average daily" SAR values by
USGS. There were 1,937 average daily SAR values reported from August 22, 2000 to September 30,
2006.
Based on all of the available SAR data at the Montana-Wyoming State Line gage, 99 months have at least
one SAR sample. Of those, 27 months have only 1 SAR sample, 2 months have 2 samples, no months
have 3 samples, and 70 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-l 1). Most of the months with 4 or
more samples were collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (September 2000 to
September 2006). 20 nongrowing season months had 4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 60 months had one or more SAR samples.
Of those, 5 months have only 1 SAR sample, no months have 2 samples, no months have 3 samples, and
55 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-l 1).
O One Sample
Two Samples
X Four or More Samples
3.0
2.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0 0
%
" * "
o o o
0 <
A
Q
o &
0 0 $
X
X
v X.
,\₯T^₯
O ^ P° x
X
x*x
* 96
X
1983 1985 1988 1991 1993 1996 1999 2002 2004
Date
Figure F-11. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Montana-Wyoming State Line (Gage #06306300).
F-13
-------
Appendix F
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to the average monthly SAR standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-7). There are no
exceedances at the Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming state line station and the data suggest that the
full range of flows during the past five years is well represented (Figure F-12). However, the period of
record is limited at this gage (most data collected August 22, 2000 to September 30, 2006).
Table F-7. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line - USGS Gage 06306300.
Time Period
"All Data" -
November 4,
1985 to
September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
69
30
50
20
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
0
0
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
o Montana-Wyoming State Line Growing Season
WQ Standard - MonthlyAvg
3.5
3.0
2.5 -I
cc
w 2.0
o>
«j 1.5-1
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0
* - » « o
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Row Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure F-12. Average monthly growing season SAR values at the Montana-Wyoming state line (past five
years only) versus flow percentile.
F-14
-------
Appendix F
F.7 Tongue River at Monarch, Wyoming (06299980)
Both discrete and continuous SAR data are available for the Tongue River at Monarch. Discrete data are
instantaneous samples that were collected year-round since April 3, 1974. 133 discrete samples were
collected between April 3, 1974 and August 7, 2006. Data were generally obtained once per month
during that time period.
Continuous SAR data were collected year-round at the Monarch gage between May 1, 2004 and
September 30, 2006. These data were collected by a probe placed in the Tongue River which recorded
SAR at 15 minute intervals. The data were then reported as "average daily" SAR values by USGS.
There were 611 average daily values reported between May 1, 2004 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SAR data at the Monarch gage, 106 months have at least one SAR sample.
Of those, 75 months have only 1 SAR sample, 9 months have 2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 21
months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-13). Most of the months with 4 or more samples were
collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (May 2004 to September 2006). There was
also a period of monthly sampling between 1974 and 1984. There were no nongrowing season months
with 4 or more samples for this station.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 31 months had one or more SAR samples.
Of those, 4 months have only 1 SAR sample, 5 months have 2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and 21
months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-13). All of the months with 4 or more samples were collected
when the continuous data loggers were operational (May 2004 to September 2006).
O One Sample n Two Samples A Three Samples x Four or More Samples
1 A
1 9
1 n
^ n a
w u-°
n R
n 4
n 9
nn
*
<
,
o
o o
r>
r °«>
> «>* ^
&Ck ^..^
» ^
"
o
0
0 0 $
o
rf
fjf
r
X
1972 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
Date
Figure F-13. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Tongue River Monarch gage (Gage #06299980).
F-15
-------
Appendix F
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to Montana's average monthly SAR
standardsf. In comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency,
and season to show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-8).
There are no SAR exceedances at the Monarch gage station. Though the period of record is limited at this
gage (most data collected May 1, 2004 to September 30, 2006), the full range of flows during the past five
years are well represented (Figure F-14).
Table F-8. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at Monarch - USGS Gage 06299980.
Time Period
"All Data" -
Aprils, 1974 to
September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
74
32
21
0
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
0
NA
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
NA
Monarch Growing Season
WQ Standard - MonthlyAvg
3.5
3.0 -
2.5 -
2.0 -|
1.5-1
1.0 -
0.5
0.0
*...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Flow Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure F-14. Average monthly growing season SAR values at Monarch (past five years only) versus flow
percentile.
f Montana's numeric water quality standards for SAR are used as a watershed-wide, common point of reference for purposes of characterizing current water quality
conditions in both Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana1 s water quality standards are directly applicable within the jurisdictional
boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a single watershed-scale point of reference.
F-16
-------
Appendix F
F.8 Tongue River at Dayton, Wyoming (06298000)
Discrete SAR data are available for the Tongue River at Dayton; however no continuous data are
available for this station. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying
frequencies since October 10, 1966. 221 discrete samples were collected between October 10, 1966 and
August 14, 2002. Data were generally obtained once per month during that time period.
Based on all of the available SAR data at the Dayton gage, 207 months have at least one SAR sample. Of
those, 195 months have only 1 SAR sample, 11 months have 2 samples, 1 month has 3 samples, and no
months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-15). In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30,
2006), 1 month had only one SAR sample.
0.25
O One Sample
Two Samples
A Three Samples
0.00
1964 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002
Date
Figure F-15. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Tongue River Dayton gage (Gage #06298000).
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to Montana's average monthly SAR
standards8. In comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency,
and season to show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-9).
This station has no more than 3 SAR samples per month and only one sample within the last 5 years.
There are no exceedances at the Dayton gage station as there are very low recorded SAR values (0.31 as a
maximum).
8 Montana's numeric water quality standards for SAR are used as a watershed-wide, common point of reference for purposes of characterizing current water quality
conditions in both Montana and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water quality standards are directly applicable within the jurisdictional
boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a single watershed-scale point of reference.
F-17
-------
Appendix F
Table F-9. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for the Tongue River at Dayton - USGS Gage 06298000.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 10,
1966 to August
14,2002
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
138
69
0
0
# Months
Exceeding
0
0
NA
NA
% Months
Exceeding
0.00%
0.00%
NA
NA
F-18
-------
Appendix F
F.9 Hanging Woman Creek (06307600)
Both discrete and continuous SAR data are available for Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, Montana.
Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October 2, 1974.
185 discrete samples were collected between October 2, 1974 and June 6, 2006. Data were generally
obtained once per month during that time period.
Continuous SAR data were collected during the growing season (i.e., mid March to November 1) at the
gage near Birney, Montana between May 22, 2004 and June 16, 2006. These data were collected by a
probe placed in the Tongue River which recorded SAR at 15 minute intervals. The data were then
reported as "average daily" SAR values by USGS. There were 228 average daily values reported
between May 22, 2004 and June 16, 2006.
Based on all of the available SAR data at the gage near Birney, 166 months have at least one SAR
sample. Of those, 147 months have only 1 SAR sample, 8 months have 2 samples, no months have 3
samples, and 11 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-16). Most of the months with 4 or more
samples were collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (May 2004 to June 2006).
There are no nongrowing season months with 4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 25 months had one or more SAR samples.
Of those, 10 months have only 1 SAR sample, 4 months have 2 samples, no months have 3 samples, and
11 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-16).
O One Sample
Two Samples
X Four or More Samples
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0 0
I
I
l_ +
I
:::::ijj&&r
T*4
° ««>'
n
o ***fcJ£
>>*0v
o
+
/>«
<>0o<^
O 00
0 T"
» 0 o
» ^0 00
o o
***
k
0
0 o <>o*
U-.-*«H-V
o
,°o« o
~»~~
0*
' 0
o o
~+*~
X
^
«x
o
o <
*£
iic*
1 or
1972 1977 1982 1988 1993 1999 2004
Date
Figure F-16. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, MT gage (Gage #06307600).
F-19
-------
Appendix F
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to the average monthly SAR standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-10). At this
Hanging Woman Creek station, all but 5 recorded monthly average SAR values were found to exceed the
water quality standard. Most exceedances occurred during the growing season when 4 or more samples
were available per month.
Table F-10. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, MT - USGS Gage 06307600.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 2, 1974
to June 16, 2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September
30, 2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
114
52
11
0
18
7
11
0
# Months
Exceeding
112
49
11
NA
17
5
11
NA
% Months
Exceeding
98.25%
94.23%
100%
NA
94.44%
71.43%
100%
NA
F-20
-------
Appendix F
y=4.8863x
R2 = 0.0547
-0.0389
w
There is a documented inverse
relationship between flow and SAR in
Hanging Woman Creek near Birney
(Figure F-17). This relationship,
combined with the ongoing drought in
southeast Montana (1999-present),
suggests that SAR exceedances
observed in the past five years may be
a function of low flow and therefore,
the last five years may not be
representative.
Using the average daily flow data
from the USGS gage near Birney, the
total volume of water was calculated
for each month in the station's period
of record (September 1, 1973 to
September 30, 2006). The flow
percentile for each month was then
calculated and plotted with the
monthly average growing season SAR data for the past 5 years where there are four or more samples
(Figure F-18). The data suggest that the full range of flows during the past five years are not well
represented during the growing season (less than 40 percent of the full range of flows at this station). The
analyses of both the growing and nongrowing seasons are severely limited by the available data.
100
300
400
200
Flow (cfs)
Figure F-17. SAR versus flow for Hanging Woman Creek near
Birney, Montana. Entire period of record is shown.
Hanging Woman Creek Growing Season
WQ Standard - MonthlyAvg
5 -
ce
CO
ro1 3
5
2 -
1 -
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Row Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
Figure F-18. Average monthly growing season SAR values near Birney (past five years only) versus flow
percentile.
F-21
-------
Appendix F
F.10 Otter Creek (06307740)
Both discrete and continuous SAR data are available for Otter Creek at Ashland, Montana. Discrete data
are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying frequencies since October 2, 1974. 193 discrete
samples were collected between October 2, 1974 and August 8, 2006. Data were generally obtained once
per month during that time period.
Continuous SAR data were collected during the growing season (i.e., mid March to November 1) at the
Ashland gage between May 25, 2004 and September 30, 2006. These data were collected by a probe
placed in the Tongue River which recorded SAR at 15 minute intervals. The data were then reported as
"average daily" SAR values by USGS. There were 484 average daily values reported between May 25,
2004 and September 30, 2006.
Based on all of the available SAR data at the Ashland gage, 172 months have at least one SAR sample.
Of those, 144 months have only 1 SAR sample, 8 months have 2 samples, no months have 3 samples, and
20 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-19). Most of the months with 4 or more samples were
collected when the continuous data loggers were operational (May 2004 to September 2006). There are
no nongrowing season months with 4 or more samples.
In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006), 34 months had one or more SAR samples.
Of those, 10 months have only 1 SAR sample, 4 months have 2 samples, no months have 3 samples, and
20 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-19).
O One Sample
Two Samples
X Four or More Samples
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0 0
4
& ^ &>
- $ *>-&
QC> o
& O
^
*> o «>
o $
«*_v^£
» V
o
^
o
1 °o
$> o *
ffy?
!>
0
o 0
' ^ WVo
V Oc
0 0°
0 0
'<>0
!> 0
+
1
1
1
o
<**£
^9
>
o
*
X
s*
*xx
1972 1977 1982 1988 1993 1999 2004
Date
Figure F-19. Average monthly SAR values and the number of SAR samples collected each month at the
Otter Creek Ashland gage (Gage #06307740).
F-22
-------
Appendix F
The calculated average monthly SAR values were compared to the average monthly SAR standards. In
comparing values to the standards, data were stratified by time period, sampling frequency, and season to
show the variations in exceedances depending on the chosen stratification level (Table F-l 1). At this
Otter Creek station, all recorded monthly average SAR values were found to exceed the water quality
standard, with the exception of two values (1.00 and 1.62, both in March of 1975 and 1978, respectively).
Table F-11. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Otter Creek at Ashland- USGS Gage 06307740.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 2, 1974
to September 30,
2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
125
47
20
0
27
7
20
0
# Months
Exceeding
123
47
20
NA
27
7
20
NA
% Months
Exceeding
98.40%
100%
100%
NA
100%
100%
100%
NA
F-23
-------
Appendix F
W
There is a documented inverse
relationship between flow and SAR in
Otter Creek at Ashland (Figure F-20).
This relationship, combined with the
ongoing drought in southeast Montana
(1999-present), suggests that SAR
exceedances observed in the past five
years may be a function of low flow
and therefore, the last five years may
not be representative.
Using the average daily flow data
from the Ashland USGS gage, the
total volume of water was calculated
for each month in the station's period
of record (October 1, 1972 to
September 30, 2006). The flow
percentile for each month was then
calculated and plotted with the monthly
average growing season SAR data for the past 5 years where there are four or more samples (Figure F-
21). The data also suggest that the full range of flows during the past five years are relatively well
represented during the growing season, spanning 77 percent (7th to 78th flow percentile) of the flows ever
recorded at Ashland. While it appears appropriate to evaluate the growing season using only months with
four or more samples, there is insufficient data to adequately evaluate the non-growing season with four
or more samples per month.
100
400
500
200 300
Flow (cfs)
Figure F-20. SAR versus flow for Otter Creek at Ashland,
Montana. Entire period of record is shown.
ac.
6 -
5 -
V) 4
-------
Appendix F
F.11 Pumpkin Creek (06308400)
Discrete SAR data are available for Pumpkin Creek near Miles City; however no continuous data are
available for this station. Discrete data are instantaneous samples that were collected at varying
frequencies since October 15, 1975. 93 discrete samples were collected between October 15, 1975 and
June 21, 2006. Data were generally obtained once per month during that time period. Sampling occurred
between October 1975 and August 1985, and again between March 2004 and June 2006.
Based on all of the available SC data at the Pumpkin Creek gage, 68 months have at least one SAR
sample. Of those, 53 months have only 1 SAR sample, 11 months have 2 samples, no months have 3
samples, and 4 months have 4 or more samples (Figure F-22). In the last 5 years (October 1, 2001 to
September 30, 2006), 17 months had at least one SC sample. Of those, 6 months have only 1 SAR
sample, 7 months have 2 samples, no months have 3 samples, and 4 months have 4 or more samples
(Figure F-22). Only 3 months had nongrowing season data, none of which had more than 2 samples.
One Sample
Two Samples
X Four or More Samples
9c; n
on n
1 c n
m n
^ n
0 0
19
*
f
<*>0^o0 «
p "*
. o
0<> D
o
78 19
O
0°
o o
o
83 19
89 19
Date
94 20
X
-9-°-
%
-------
Appendix F
Table F-12. Average monthly SAR data and exceedances of the average monthly water quality
standards for Pumpkin Creek near Miles City - USGS Gage 06308400.
Time Period
"All Data" -
October 15, 1975
to June 21, 2006
"Past 5 Years" -
October 1,2001
to September 30,
2006
Sampling
Frequency
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
1 or more
samples per
month
4 or more
samples per
month
Season
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Growing Season
(March 2 to
October 31)
Nongrowing
Season
(November 1 to
March 1)
Numeric
Standard
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
<3.0
<5.0
# Months
with
Samples
50
18
4
0
14
3
4
0
# Months
Exceeding
49
15
4
NA
13
3
4
NA
% Months
Exceeding
98.00%
83.33%
100%
NA
92.86%
100%
100%
NA
F-26
-------
Appendix F
y=8.5768x-°11
R2=0.4126
There is a documented inverse
relationship between flow and SAR in
Pumpkin Creek near Miles City
(Figure F-23). This relationship,
combined with the ongoing drought in
southeast Montana (1999-present),
suggests that SAR exceedances
observed in the past five years may be
a function of low flow and therefore,
the last five years may not be
representative.
Using the average daily flow data
from the Pumpkin Creek near Miles
City USGS gage, the total volume of
water was calculated for each month
in the station's period of record
(October 1, 1972 to September 30,
2006). The flow percentile for each
month was then calculated and plotted with the monthly average growing season SAR data for the past 5
years where there are four or more samples (Figure F-24). The data suggest that the full range of flows
during the past five years are not well represented during the growing season, spanning only about 30
percent of the flows ever recorded at Miles City. Both growing and nongrowing seasons are limited in
both the available SAR data and the corresponding flow range coverage.
30.0
25.0
20.0
w 15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
500
1,000
Flow (cfs)
1,500
2,000
Figure F-23. SAR versus flow for Pumpkin Creek near Miles
City, Montana. Entire period of record is shown.
14
12 -
10
ce
co 8
D)
« 6
2 -
Pumpkin Creek Growing Season
WQ Standard - Monthly Avg
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Flow Percentile (Total Monthly Volume)
80%
90%
100%
Figure F-24. Average monthly growing season SAR values near Miles City (past five years only) versus
flow percentile.
F-27
-------
Appendix F
F.12 Summary and Conclusions
A screening analysis was conducted to provide insight regarding potential alternatives for interpretation
of Montana's monthly average sodium adsorption ratio standard. The results of this analysis indicate
that:
The period of record varies from a maximum of approximately 47 years at Miles City, Montana
(gage # 06308500) to a minimum of approximately two years above the T&Y Diversion Dam,
Montana (gage # 06307990).
There is considerably less data during the non-growing season when compared to the growing
season.
In most cases, with the exception of the last five years when USGS began collection continuous
SAR data, there are few months with greater than one sample per month.
Given the variability in SAR on a monthly basis (an overall range of 0 to 24.754 in SAR values),
it is logical to conclude that more samples per month would better represent the "monthly
average" than fewer samples per month.
Even though there are only > 4 samples per month for a relatively small proportion of the period
of record, those months generally represent the current time period (i.e., the last 5 years) and also
represent the full range of flow conditions (high flows, low flows, average flows), with a few
exceptions (Tongue River below the Reservoir Dam, Tongue River at the Birney Day School
Bridge, Hanging Woman Creek, and Pumpkin Creek).
F-28
-------
APPENDIX G - GROUNDWATER
CONCENTRATIONS IN HANGING WOMAN
CREEK, OTTER CREEK, AND PUMPKIN CREEK
WATERSHEDS
-------
-------
Appendix G
G.O GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATIONS IN HANGING WOMAN CREEK, OTTER
CREEK, AND PUMPKIN CREEK WATERSHEDS
This appendix presents a summary of groundwater quality data in the Hanging Woman Creek, Otter
Creek, and Pumpkin Creek watersheds to provide context for the discussions of water quality in the main
report. Information about local geology, soils, and groundwater quality was obtained from existing
USGS and NCRS studies. Groundwater data in the three watersheds were also downloaded from the
USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database (available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis)
and from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) Groundwater Information Center (GWIC)
database (available at http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu/).
G.1 Hanging Woman Creek
G.1.1 Salinity
Geology and soils in the Hanging Woman Creek
watershed are naturally high in salinity. Soil
survey data indicates that some soil salinity
naturally exceeds 10,000 (iS/cm in this region
(USDA, 2007a; USDA, 2007b). NRCS noted
that saline soils and seeps were common in the
upstream reaches of Hanging Woman Creek, as
evidenced by alkali deposits, pan spots, exposure
of salt bearing shales, salt crusts, and greasewood
(NRCS, 2002).
Salt deposits and saline seeps in Hanging Woman
Creek near the Montana-Wyoming border (Photo by
NRCS, June 2002).
The Hanging Woman Creek watershed has large
coal reserves. Several of the stream valleys
dissect the coal seems, resulting in high salinity
soils and springs originating from the coal aquifers
(USGS, 1983; USGS, 1984; USGS, 1989). The
Anderson coal bed is especially high in salinity, with an average TDS concentration of 8,700 mg/L
(approximately equal to 12,000 (iS/cm SC) (USGS, 1983). These coal beds are located in the upstream
reaches of Hanging Woman Creek, where the stream exhibits high salinity. The high salinity soils noted
by NRCS are also in this region. Salinity in the streams and groundwater tend to decrease in a
downstream direction (USGS, 1989). This correlation between the geology, soils, and water chemistry all
suggest that salinity concentrations are naturally high in Hanging Woman Creek due to localized geology
and groundwater contributions.
Data from MBMG and USGS shows that salinity is high throughout most of the aquifers in the Hanging
Woman Creek watershed, and is generally higher than the average in-stream salinity (Table G-l).
Average SC concentrations for the quaternary alluvial aquifer, Tongue River Member aquifer, and the
Wasatch Formation aquifer were 5,345 (iS/cm, 3,940 (iS/cm, and 3,126 (iS/cm, respectively.
G-1
-------
Appendix G
Table G-1. Summary of groundwater specific conductance data in the Hanging Woman Creek
watershed (uS/cm).
Aquifer
Alluvium (Quaternary)
Spring
Tongue River Member (of Ft
Union Fm.)
Wasatch Formation
Count
156
7
228
5
Average
5,345
1,729
3,940
3,126
Minimum
2,700
313
313
1,830
Maximum
14,800
4,204
10,500
5,880
StDev
2,363
1,349
2,329
1,737
Period of
Record
1977-1987
1973-1982
1973-1986
1961-1976
Data obtained from USGS and MBMG.
G.1.2 SAR
Geology and soils in the Hanging Woman Creek watershed are naturally high in sodium, resulting in
naturally high SAR. The watershed has large coal reserves, which often have sodium rich coal bed
aquifers. Where coal beds are at or near the surface, soils and surface water are naturally high in sodium
and SAR. Like salinity, SAR values are high in the southern portion of the watershed (see Figure 2-24 in
the 2003 Tongue River Status Report [MDEQ, 2003]), and tend to decrease in a downstream direction.
USGS reported that SARs ranged from 41 to 61 in the Canyon and Deitz coal bed aquifers, and ranged
from 50 to 56 in the Anderson coal bed aquifers (USGS, 1983; USGS, 1984). Soil survey data indicates
that some soil SARs naturally exceed 15 in this region (USDA, 2007a; USDA, 2007b). Data from the
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology and USGS NWIS shows that SAR is high in aquifers near coal
beds (i.e., Tongue River Member), and SAR is low in the alluvial and sandstone aquifers not containing
coal (i.e., alluvium, Wasatch Formation) (Table G-2).
Table G-2. Summary of groundwater SAR in the Hanging Woman Creek watershed.
Aquifer
Alluvium
Wasatch Formation
Tongue River Member (of Ft Union Fm.)
Springs
Count
61
1
81
8
Average
7.08
2.28
27.22
3.13
Minimum
1.52
2.28
0.37
0.58
Maximum
14.2
2.28
71.24
6.78
StDev
2.3
NA
20.67
2.67
Period of Record
1923-1987
1973
1973-1986
1923-1982
Data obtained from USGS and MBMG.
G-2
-------
Appendix G
G.2Otter Creek
G.2.1 Salinity
The Otter Creek watershed has large coal reserves (USGS, 1984b; USGS 1985). Water in alluvial
aquifers typically contains TDS values ranging from 1,770 to 12,600 mg/L (USGS, 1983; USGS, 1985).
These coal beds are located throughout the watershed, and are slightly more concentrated in the upstream
reaches of Otter Creek (USGS, 1988). This correlation between the geology, soils, and water chemistry
all suggests that salinity concentrations are naturally high in Otter Creek due to localized geology and
groundwater contributions. Dilution, as well as the lack of coal beds near the mouth of the creek, helps to
decrease salinity in a downstream direction.
Data from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology and USGS shows that salinity is high throughout
most of the aquifers in the Otter Creek watershed, and is generally higher than the average in-stream
salinity (Table G-3). Average SC concentrations for the quaternary alluvial aquifer, Tongue River
Member aquifer, and the Wasatch Formation aquifer were 3,946 (iS/cm, 3,004 (iS/cm, and 2,980 (iS/cm,
respectively.
Table G-3. Summary of groundwater specific conductance data in the Otter Creek watershed.
Aquifer
Alluvium (Pleistocene)
Alluvium (Quaternary)
Lebo Shale Member (Of Ft Union Fm.)
Spring
Tongue River Member (Of Ft Union Fm.)
Tullock Member (Of Ft Union Fm.)
Wasatch Formation
Count
1
236
2
56
452
27
3
Average
3,641
3,916
1,635
3,078
3,004
2,355
2,980
Minimum
3,641
373
1,570
373
400
1,471
2,140
Maximum
3,641
14,000
1,700
8,400
8,600
3,480
4,500
St
Dev
NA
1,912
92
1,723
1,521
487
1,319
Period of
Record
1974
1973-1988
1973
1973-1984
1973-1988
1973-1980
1974
Data obtained from USGS and MBMG.
G-3
-------
Appendix G
G.2.2 SAR
Geology and soils in the Otter Creek watershed are naturally high in sodium, resulting in naturally high
SAR (USGS, 1984b; USGS 1985). The watershed has large coal reserves, which often have sodium rich
coal bed aquifers. Where coal beds are at or near the surface, soils and surface water are naturally high in
sodium and SAR. USGS reported that SARs ranged from 41 to 61 in the Canyon and Deitz coal bed
aquifers, and ranged from 50 to 56 in the Anderson coal bed aquifers (USGS, 1983). Soil survey data
indicates that some soil SARs naturally exceed 15 in this region (USDA, 2003). Data from the Montana
Bureau of Mines and Geology and USGS NWIS shows that SAR is high in aquifers near coal beds (i.e.,
Tongue River Member), and SAR is low in the alluvial and sandstone aquifers not containing coal (Table
G-4).
Table G-4. Summary of ground water SAR in the Otter Creek watershed.
Aquifer
Alluvium (Pleistocene)
Alluvium (Quaternary)
Judith River Formation (Of Montana
Group)
Lebo Shale Member (Of Ft Union Fm.)
Minnelusa Sandstone Or Formation
Mission Canyon Limestone (Of Madison
Group)
Shannon Sandstone Mbr. (Of Cody Or
Steele Sh)
Spring
Tongue River Member (Of Ft Union Fm.)
Tullock Member (Of Ft Union Fm.)
Wasatch Formation
Count
1
175
2
2
2
2
4
56
375
24
3
Average
5.68
5.97
106.2
37.35
80.72
4.18
124.13
6.68
22.38
66.25
1.48
Minimum
5.68
0.76
104.42
29.19
48.59
1.79
94.46
0.54
0.54
13.63
0.76
Maximum
5.68
17.86
107.98
45.51
112.85
6.56
158.42
38.37
74.26
109.12
2.91
St
Dev
NA
2.71
2.52
11.54
45.44
3.37
26.33
7.64
18.57
22.39
1.24
Period of
Record
1974
1973-1988
1956
1973
1961-1964
1962-1964
1956
1973-1984
1923-1988
1973-1980
1974
Data obtained from USGS and MBMG.
G-4
-------
Appendix G
G.SPumpkin Creek
G.3.1 Salinity
The Pumpkin Creek watershed has large coal reserves, primarily in the headwaters region upstream of
monitoring station 06308160, and in the Little Pumpkin Creek watershed (Bergantino et al., 1980;
Bergantino et al., 1981). Data from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology and USGS shows that
salinity is high throughout most of the aquifers in the Pumpkin Creek watershed, and is generally similar
to the average in-stream salinity (Table G-5). This suggests that water in Pumpkin Creek is primarily
sustained by groundwater and springs, and receives little dilution from precipitation. Average SC
concentrations for the quaternary alluvial aquifer and the Tongue River Member aquifer were 3,813
(iS/cm, and 2,916 (iS/cm, respectively.
Table G-5. Summary of groundwater salinity (SC) in the Pumpkin Creek watershed.
Aquifer
Alluvium (Quaternary)
Fox Hills-Hell Creek
Aquifer
Hell Creek Formation
Lebo Shale Member
(Of Ft Union Fm.)
Spring
Tongue River Member
(of Ft Union Fm.)
Tullock Member (of Ft
Union Fm.)
Count
2
2
6
10
3
52
7
Average
3,813
1,305
1,447
2,369
1,168
2,916
2,959
Minimum
3,520
1,230
1,234
990
640
720
1,305
Maximum
4,105
1,380
1,700
2,950
2,181
5,345
4,782
StDev
414
106
191
626
878
1,333
1,024
Period of
Record
1976-1977
1976-1977
1976-1977
1976
1974-1977
1974-1994
1976
Data obtained from USGS and MBMG.
G-5
-------
Appendix G
G.3.2 SAR
The Pumpkin Creek watershed has large coal reserves, primarily in the headwaters region upstream of
monitoring station 06308160, and in the Little Pumpkin Creek watershed (Bergantino et al., 1980;
Bergantino et al., 1981). Data from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology and USGS shows that
SAR is high throughout most of the aquifers in the Pumpkin Creek watershed, although SAR values in
the alluvium are generally low and similar to in-stream values (Table G-6). This suggests that water in
Pumpkin Creek is primarily sustained by alluvial groundwater and springs, and receives little dilution
from precipitation. SAR values in the coal aquifers in Pumpkin Creek (Tongue River Member, Lebo
Shale Member) are much higher, having averages as high has 120.7 (Eagle Sandstone). Average SAR
concentrations for the quaternary alluvial aquifer and the Tongue River Member aquifer were 6.3, while
the average SAR in the Tongue River Member was 18.9.
Table G-6. Summary of groundwater SAR in the Pumpkin Creek watershed.
Aquifer
Alluvium (Quaternary)
Eagle Sandstone
Fox Hills-Hell Creek Aquifer
Hell Creek Formation
Lebo Shale Member (of Ft Union Fm.)
Parkman Sandstone (of Montana
Group)
Red Bird Siltstone Member (of Pierre
Shale)
Shannon Sandstone Member
Spring
Tongue River Member (of Ft Union
Fm.)
Tullock Member (of Ft Union Fm.)
Count
2
3
2
6
10
1
1
9
3
49
7
Average
6.3
120.7
63.2
58.8
32.2
71.6
65.7
112.5
2.2
18.9
33.4
Minimum
6.3
119.4
52.3
45.8
2.5
71.6
65.7
60.1
0.4
0.4
17.2
Maximum
6.4
123.3
74.0
73.1
61.5
71.6
65.7
130.7
5.8
57.2
58.1
StDev
0.1
2.2
15.3
11.1
26.8
NA
NA
26.2
3.1
17.3
16.4
Period of
Record
1976-1977
1955
1976-1977
1976-1977
1976
1955
1955
1955-1956
1974-1977
1974-1994
1976-1976
Data obtained from USGS and MBMG.
G-6
-------
Appendix G
G.4References
Bergantino, R.N., Pederson, R.J., and Berg, R.B., 1980. Mineral Resources Map of the Hardin 1X2
Degree Quadrangle, Southeastern Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana Atlas MA
2-C, scale 1:250,000.
Bergantino, R.N., and Cole, G.A., 1981, Mineral Resources Map of the Ekalaka 1X2 Degree
Quadrangle, Southeastern Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana Atlas MA 1-C,
scale 1:250,000.
MDEQ. 2003. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Status Report - Tongue River TMDL Planning
Area. Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Helena, Montana.
NRCS. 2002. Tongue River Stream Corridor Assessment. Montana Reaches. Phase II'- Physical
Habitat Assessment. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Bozeman, Montana.
USDA. 2007a. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Big Horn County Area, Montana
[Computer File]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [Producer and
Distributor]. Fort Worth, TX. Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/.
USDA. 2007b. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Powder River Area, Montana
[Computer File]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [Producer and
Distributor]. Fort Worth, TX. Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/.
USGS. 1983. Potential Effects of Surface Coal Mining on the Hydrology of the Snider Creek Area,
Rosebud and Ashland Coal Fields, Southeastern Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 82-4051. Helena, Montana.
USGS. 1984a. Potential Effects of Surface Coal Mining on the Hydrology of the Corral Creek Area,
Hanging Woman Creek Coal Field, Southeastern Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 83-4260. Helena, Montana.
USGS. 1984b. Potential Effects of Surface Coal Mining on the Hydrology of the West Otter Area,
Ashland and Birney-Broadus Coal Fields, Southeastern Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 84-4087. Helena, Montana.
USGS. 1985. Effects of Potential Surface Coal Mining on Dissolved Solids in Otter Creek and in the
Otter Creek Alluvial Aquifer, Southeastern Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 85-4206. Helena, Montana.
USGS. 1988. Potential Effects of Surface Coal Mining on the Hydrology of the Upper Otter Creek-
Pasture Creek Area, Moorhead Coal Field, Southeastern Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 88-4187. Helena, Montana.
USGS. 1989. Water Resources and Effects of Potential Surface Coal Mining on Dissolved Solids in
Hanging Woman Creek Basin, Southeastern Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 89-4047. Helena, Montana.
G-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX H - HYDROLOGY OF THE TONGUE
RIVER WATERSHED
-------
-------
Appendix H
H.O HYDROLOGY OF THE TONGUE RIVER WATERSHED
H.1 Introduction
This appendix presents a summary of precipitation and stream flows in the Tongue River watershed to
provide context for the discussions of water quality in the main report.
H.2 Precipitation
Precipitation data are available from over 50 weather stations within and near the Tongue River
watershed. For the purpose of this report, five stations were chosen to provide a simple overview of
precipitation in the watershed: Burgess Junction (WY), Dome Lake (WY), Sheridan (WY), Ashland
(MT), and Miles City (MT). These stations were selected because they represent the three major regions
of the Tongue River watershed: mountains (Burgess Junction and Dome Lake), transition from mountains
to prairie (Sheridan), and prairie (Ashland and Miles City). It should be noted that additional stations
were used in the LSPC modeling (see the Modeling Report for a discussion of these stations). Average
yearly precipitation in the watershed ranges from over 30 inches per year in the Bighorn Mountains to
less than 13 inches per year near Ashland, Montana (Table H-l). Figure H-l shows that mountain
precipitation varied between 20 and 37 inches per year, while prairie precipitation varied between 5 and
24 inches per year (Figure H-2).
Low precipitation years (generally defined as less than 10 inches of precipitation) are common throughout
the period of record at the Miles City and Sheridan precipitation gages (see Figure H-2). Historically,
these low precipitation years were then followed by years of above average precipitation. The past
several years (1999 to 2006) are unique because they have been consecutive low precipitation years,
resulting in a prolonged period of drought. Since 1998, seven out of the past eight years (as measured at
Sheridan) have been below the long-term average of 14.6 inches per year. At Miles City, six of the past
eight years have been below average (average of 13.4 inches per year). Additional details about the
documented ongoing drought that started in 1999 are presented in Section H.4.
Table H-1. Summary of yearly precipitation data at selected stations in the Tongue River
watershed.
Station
Burgess Junction
Dome Lake
Sheridan
Ashland
Miles City
Type
Mountain
Mountain
Prairie
Prairie
Prairie
Period of
Record
1989-2006
1989-2006
1950-2006
1950-2006
1950-2006
Average
26.9
30.1
14.6
12.8
13.4
Median
27.3
29.4
14.6
12.7
13.2
Min
19.7
24.5
8.2
7.5
5.3
Max
31.4
37.1
23.8
20.2
20.3
Range
11.7
12.6
15.6
12.7
15.0
5-Yr
Avg1
26.3
29.5
13.2
12.6
12.0
'Years 2002-2006.
H-1
-------
Appendix H
40.0
Burgess Junction
I Dome Lake
Figure H-1. Total yearly precipitation at two mountain gages in the Tongue River watershed.
Sheridan Miles City
i/r 9n
V
.c
u
Total Yearly Precif
3 01 0 C
1
T- OM
§8?
Figure H-2. Total yearly precipitation at two prairie gages in the Tongue River watershed.
H-2
-------
Appendix H
H.3Stream Flow
The USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) online database has continuous flow data for 54
gages in the Tongue River watershed. The period of record ranges from May 1, 1903 to the present.
Gages are located on the mainstem Tongue River, most of the major tributaries (e.g., Goose Creek, Prairie
Dog Creek, Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek), and in both high altitude mountain streams and low
altitude prairie streams. The continuous flow gages summarized in Table H-2 and shown in Figure H-3
were selected to provide a general understanding of flow in the Tongue River watershed from the
headwaters to the mouth. The following sections summarize stream flows from the headwaters to the
Tongue River Reservoir (Section H.3.1), within the Tongue River Reservoir (Section H.3.2), and from the
Tongue River Reservoir Dam to the mouth (Section H.3.3).
Table H-2. Summary of selected USGS continuous flow gages in the Tongue River watershed.
Station
ID
06298000
06299500
06299980
06302000
06303500
06305700
06306100
06306250
06306300
06307500
06307600
06307616
06307740
06307830
06308400
06308500
Site Name
Tongue River near Dayton, WY
Wolf Creek at Wolf, WY
Tongue River at Monarch, WY
Big Goose Creek near Sheridan,
WY
Little Goose Creek In Canyon,
Near Big Horn, WY
Goose Creek near Acme, WY
Squirrel Creek near Decker, MT
Prairie Dog Creek near Acme,
WY
Tongue River at State Line near
Decker, MT
Tongue River at Tongue River
Reservoir Dam near Decker, MT
Hanging Woman Creek near
Birney, MT
Tongue River at Birney Day
School Bridge near Birney, MT
Otter Creek at Ashland, MT
Tongue River below Brandenberg
Bridge near Ashland MT
Pumpkin Creek near Miles City,
MT
Tongue River at Miles City, MT
Latitude
44.84941
44.77247
44.90025
44.70219
44.59608
44.88636
45.05136
44.98386
45.00886
45.14137
45.29555
45.41166
45.58389
45.83972
46.22834
46.38472
Longitude
-107.30453
-107.23424
-107.02090
-107.18146
-107.04007
-106.98896
-106.92729
-106.83979
-106.83618
-106.77145
-106.50393
-106.45781
-106.25529
-106.21973
-105.69055
-105.84528
Altitude
(ft)
4,060
4,525
3,620
4,505
4,860
3,620
3,680
3,450
3,429
3,344
3,150
3,060
2,917
2,760
2,490
2,360
Drainage
Area (mi2)
206
38
478
120
52
413
34
358
1,453
1,770
470
2,621
707
3,948
697
5,379
Period of
Record1
1918-Present
1945-Present
2004-Present
1930-2000
1941 -Present
1984-Present
1975-1985
1970-Present
1960-Present
1939-Present
1973-Present
1979-Present
1972-Present
1973-Present
1972-Present
1938-Present
Period of record for the continuous flow recorders only.
H-3
-------
Appendix H
Streams
| Count! es
Tribal Land
| | Tongue River Wartwshed
USGS Flow Gages
,~
MPNTAN,
WYOMING
Figure H-3. Selected USGS continuous flow gages in the Tongue River watershed.
H-4
-------
Appendix H
H.3.1 Headwaters to the Tongue River Reservoir
It is important to understand the topography of the Tongue River watershed because it directly relates to
stream flow. The headwaters of the Tongue River are located in the Bighorn Mountains, which are part
of the larger Middle Rocky Mountains ecoregion. In the Tongue River watershed, the mountains rise up
from the Great Plains (elevation of 3,000 to 5,000 feet near Sheridan, Wyoming) to a peak of 11,500 feet
at the headwaters of Big Goose Creek (Figure H-4). Approximately 9 percent of the Tongue River
watershed is located in the Bighorn Mountains.
Figure H-4. 3D elevation model of the Tongue River watershed.
Precipitation and snowmelt from the Bighorn Mountains first flows into multiple small, high altitude
tributaries and lakes. Some of the water is stored in high altitude reservoirs, which are regulated to store
and release water for downstream irrigators. The multiple high altitude tributaries eventually flow into
four streams that deliver water out of the Bighorn Mountains and into the prairie region near Sheridan,
Wyoming. The four streams are the Tongue River, Wolf Creek, Big Goose Creek, and Little Goose
Creek. USGS maintains continuous flow gages on each of these streams just downstream of the
mountains (Figure H-3 shows the location of the gages, and flow data are summarized in Table H-3).
Except for the Tongue River at Dayton, USGS currently maintains the gages from April 1 to September
30 of each year. As shown in Figure H-5, each stream exhibits a typical mountain snowmelt hydrograph,
with peak flows in June and base flows in the winter months. The most water flows out of the mountains
through the Tongue River (average flow of 174 cfs), and the least amount through Wolf Creek (average
flow of 36 cfs). The regulation of the high altitude reservoirs is most evident in the falling limb of the
Little Goose Creek hydrograph which, unlike the other hydrographs, shows sustained flows in July and
August.
H-5
-------
Appendix H
Table H-3. Summary of flows in four mountain streams.
Station Name
Tongue River
near Dayton, WY
Wolf Creek at
Wolf, WY
Big Goose Creek
near Sheridan,
WY
Little Goose
Creek in Canyon,
near Big Horn,
WY
Station
ID
06298000
06299500
06302000
06303500
Count
27,727
15,750
20,503
17,302
Average
(cfs)
174
36
92
81
Median
(cfs)
72
12
25
53
Minimum
(cfs)
18
2
2
3
Maximum
(cfs)
2,590
601
2,050
837
5-Year
Average
(cfsf
110
36
NA
86
Period of
Record
1918-1929;
1940-
Present
1945-
Present
1930-
Present
1941-
Present
October 1, 2001-September 30, 2006. No data were available for Big Goose Creek in the past 5 years.
900
800
£ 700
I
01
O)
£
600
500
400
Tongue River (06298000)
Little Goose Creek (06303500)
-Big Goose Creek (06302000)
-Wolf Creek (06299500)
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure H-5. Average daily flows in four mountain streams in the Tongue River watershed
upstream of the Tongue River Reservoir (entire period of record is shown).
H-6
-------
Appendix H
1000 i
Prairie Dog Creek (06306250)
Squirrel Creek (06306100)
100 \
o
= 10 -
Prairie tributaries upstream of the Tongue River
Reservoir also contribute flow to the Tongue River,
but the relative contribution is small when
compared to flow from the mountains. Major
prairie tributaries upstream of the Tongue River
Reservoir include Prairie Dog Creek, Badger Creek,
Squirrel Creek, and Youngs Creek. Figure H-6
shows the average daily flows for Prairie Dog Creek
near Acme, Wyoming (USGS Gage 06306250) and
Squirrel Creek near Decker, Montana (USGS Gage
06306100). Flow at the Prairie Dog Creek gage is
not typical of prairie streams in the Tongue River
watershed because it receives an average flow of 62
cubic feet per second during the growing season
from a diversion from the Powder River watershed.
This results in an average flow of 35.8 cubic feet per
second, as opposed to 0.9 cfs observed at the Squirrel
Creek gage (Table H-4). Additional details for the Powder River diversion are included in the Modeling
Report. No continuous flow gages were available for Badger Creek or Young's Creek.
n
Q
o
D)
rj
o
1 -
0.1
_a
0)
a.
<
>s
ro
Q.
0)
>
o
o
0)
Q
Figure H-6. Average daily flow for Prairie
Dog Creek and Squirrel Creek.
Table H-4. Summary of flows in Prairie Dog Creek and Squirrel Creek.
Station Name
Squirrel Creek
near Decker,
MT
Prairie Dog
Creek near
Acme, WY
Station
ID
06306100
06306250
Count
3,744
5,507
Average
(cfs)
3.1
35.8
Median
(cfs)
0.9
25.0
Minimum
(cfs)
0.0
0.0
Maximum
(cfs)
323
3,090
5-Year
Avg
(cfs)1
NA
21.1
Period of
Record
1975-1985
1970-1979;
2000-
Present
'October 1, 2001-September30, 2006. No data were available for Squirrel Creek.
Flows in the Tongue River watershed upstream of the Tongue River Reservoir are highly regulated for
irrigation purposes. Diversions deliver flow from Piney Creek in the Powder River watershed to Prairie
Dog Creek and Little Goose Creek in the Tongue River watershed. High altitude reservoirs in the
Bighorn Mountains store water for irrigation use, and water is then diverted among various streams and
delivered to downstream users. Prairie diversions, stock ponds, irrigation withdrawals, irrigation return
flows, surface water discharges, and domestic water withdrawals further alter stream flows. Each of these
flow alterations is discussed in more detail in the Modeling Report.
H-7
-------
Appendix H
Together, mountain streams, prairie streams, and
flow alterations contribute to the flows measured
in the Tongue River at Monarch, WY (USGS
Gage 06299980) and Goose Creek near Acme,
WY (USGS Gage 06305700). The Tongue River
and Goose Creek then flow together, and the sum
of most upstream flows is measured at the Tongue
River Stateline gage (USGS Gage 06306300).
Flows for all three gages are summarized in Table
H-5, and Figure H-8 shows the average daily flow
at the Stateline gage. Peaks flows at the Stateline
are the highest in the entire watershed (average
yearly peak flow of 3,185 cubic feet per second),
and the highest recorded flow in the Tongue River
watershed (15,400 cfs) was measured at the
Stateline gage.
2,500
Figure H-7. Average daily flow, Tongue River
Stateline gage
Table H-5. Summan
Station Name
Tongue River at
Monarch, WY
Goose Creek near
Acme, WY
Tongue River at
State Line near
Decker ,MT
Station
ID
06299980
06305700
06306300
Count
758
8,079
16,902
/ of flows in the Tongue River and Goose Creek.
Average
(cfs)
166
152
429
Median
(cfs)
81
85
226
Minimum
(cfs)
16
3
5
Maximum
(cfs)
2,660
3,040
15,400
5-Year
Avg
(cfs)1
166
110
271
Period of
Record
2004-
Present
1984-
Present
1960-
Present
'October 1, 2001-September 30, 2006.
After this gage, the Tongue River flows into the Tongue River Reservoir, which is regulated to provide
flood control and irrigation water to downstream users. The Tongue River Reservoir is discussed in
Section H.3.2, and flows downstream of the reservoir are discussed in Section H.3.3.
H-8
-------
Appendix H
H. 3.2 Tongue River Reservoir
The Tongue River Reservoir (TRR) was originally completed in 1940 by constructing an earthen dam on
the Tongue River north of Decker, Montana (DNRC, 2004a). The reservoir was built for irrigation,
recreational, and flood control purposes. A 1996-1999 rehabilitation project increased the reservoir's
active storage capacity from approximately 68,000 acre-feet of water to 79,000 acre-feet of water. An
additional spillway was also added during the rehabilitation project so that the maximum potential
discharge from the reservoir is now approximately 4,000 cfs. The average depth of the reservoir is
reported as 5.1 meters (16.6 feet) with a length of approximately 12.5 kilometers (7.8 miles) (DNRC,
2005). The average volume of water in the reservoir between 1999 and 2006 was 40,432 acre-feet and
the median residence time during this period was approximately 88 days (with longer residence times
during the fall, winter, and spring and shorter
residence times during the summer) (DNRC,
2006).
The primary spillway for the Tongue River
Reservoir is a concrete labyrinth spillway
(weirwall spillway) with a crest of 3,428.4 feet
(79,071 acre-feet of water in the reservoir). The
primary spillway was re-constructed in the late
1990's and the first full year of normal operation
was 2000 (Personal Communication, Kevin
Smith, Montana DNRC, June 14, 2004). Very
little water has gone over the spillway since the
re-construction. The reservoir also has an
emergency spillway with a crest at 3,431.5 feet,
or when the reservoir volume is at 91,107 acre-
Tongue River Reservoir Primary Spillway and Inlet feet of water
Release Structure
(Photo by Tetra Tech, Inc.) In addition to the primary and emergency
spillways, the reservoir has two inlet structures.
The first was built in 1940 and the second in 1999 (Personal Communication, Kevin Smith, Montana
DNRC, June 14, 2004). Each structure has inverts at two elevations (3,375 feet and 3,390 feet) with grills
on all sides and on top. Water flow through these grills is controlled through a central system located
within the earthen dam. There is no way to close one grate versus another and water intake through the
individual grills is therefore not regulated. At its fullest, the reservoir is drafting water through all grill
inlets, the emergency spillway, and the primary spillway. However, normal operation is to draft water
over the primary spillway and through the inlets. By the end of summer, water is typically only
discharging through the two inlet towers. The reservoir is almost never drafted below an elevation of
3,404 feet (Personal Communication, Kevin Smith, Montana DNRC, June 14, 2004).
Information on the monthly volume of water in the Tongue River Reservoir is available from 1960
through the present (Figure H-9). The data indicate that reservoir volumes have fluctuated considerably
over the past forty years with no apparent increasing or decreasing trend (DNRC, 2006). Figure H-10
shows that the reservoir typically fills during the winter and spring and then water is released during the
summer to support downstream irrigation. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
(MFWP) has requested that downstream flows are maintained at a minimum of 75 cfs at all times to
provide suitable habitat for downstream fish. Flows out of the reservoir fell below this value 6 percent of
the days between January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2006.
H-9
-------
Appendix H
t:
o
_>*
I
o
0)
0)
s
0
<
Figure H-9. Volume of water in the Tongue River Reservoir, 1960 to 2006.
"Data not available for certain months over the period of record. Reservoir levels during 1997 and 1998 were held below
normal elevations due to rehabilitation and construction at dam.
70,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure H-10. Average monthly volume of water in the Tongue River Reservoir, 1999-2006.
H-10
-------
Appendix H
The only measure of flow out of the reservoir is
the USGS gage just downstream of the dam
(station 06307500). Data from this gage show
that on average, base flows are maintained from
November to April (Figure H-l 1). In early April,
additional water is released from the reservoir to
provide flows for downstream irrigation.
Upstream snowmelt generally causes the dam to
overflow in May and June of each year, while
additional water is held in the reservoir to provide
late season irrigation flows. Flows taper off
through the late summer and fall as the volume of
water in the reservoir depletes, and irrigation
demand goes down.
H. 3.3 Tongue River Reservoir Dam to
the Mouth
1,600
1,400 -
1,200 -
° 1,000 -
i soo -
-------
Appendix H
Flow from tributaries cause the Tongue River at Miles City to have the most variable hydrograph in the
main stem. Tributary influence is particularly noticeable in March, when spring snowmelt and storms in
the Great Plains, on average, double the flow in the Tongue River at Miles City.
Table H-6. Summary of flows in the Tongue River downstream of the Tongue River Reservoir.
Station Name
Tongue River at Tongue River
Reservoir Dam near Decker, MT
Tongue River at Birney Day
School Bridge near Birney, MT
Tongue River below
Brandenberg Bridge near
Ashland MT
Tongue River at Miles City, MT
Station ID
06307500
06307616
06307830
06308500
Count
24,687
9,819
6,257
23,636
Average
(cfs)
425
362
404
400
Median
(cfs)
246
235
250
220
Min
(cfs)
1
28
40
0
Max
(cfs)
9,580
3,740
7,600
9,290
5-Year Avg
(cfs)1
254
254
254
206
Period of
Record
1939-
Present
1979-
Present
1973-1984;
2000-
Present
1938-
Present
'October 1, 2002-September 30, 2006.
1,600
Below TRR Dam (06307500)
Brandenberg Bridge (06307830)
Birney Day School (06307616)
Mies City (06308500)
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure H-13. Average daily flows at four USGS gages in the Tongue River downstream of the
Tongue River Reservoir (entire period of record is shown).
Most of the tributaries in the lower Tongue River watershed are small (i.e., watershed area of less than 50
square miles) and have intermittent flows. Three larger tributaries - Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek,
and Pumpkin Creek - have perennial flows, which at times can comprise more than 90 percent of the flow
in the Tongue River at Miles City. However, most of the time, these three tributaries have low flows
(median flows of 0.7, 1.8, and 0.07 cubic feet per second, respectively) (Table H-7). In contrast, the
median flow in the Tongue River at the Miles City is 220 cubic feet per second. As shown in Figure H-
14, early spring (i.e., February to April) snowmelt and rainfall produce the highest sustained tributary
flows. Flows then decrease throughout the summer as water is evaporated, infiltrated, and used for
irrigation. The streams are dynamic in that flows rapidly increase and decrease in response to storm
events and snowmelt, resulting in steep "spikes" in the hydrograph. For example, the maximum-recorded
day-to-day increase in flow at the Hanging Woman Creek Birney gage is 1,520 cubic feet per second.
Flows in almost all of the smaller tributaries, as well as the mainstem Tongue River, are impacted by
stock ponds, irrigation withdrawals, and surface water discharges, which are discussed in further detail in
the Modeling Report.
H-12
-------
Appendix H
Table H-7. Summary of flows in Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek.
Station Name
Hanging Woman
Creek near
Birney, MT
Otter Creek at
Ashland, MT
Pumpkin Creek
near Miles City,
MT
Station
ID
06307600
06307740
06308400
Count
8,615
8,858
5,561
Average
(cfs)
3.15
4.29
14.09
Median
(cfs)
0.70
1.80
0.07
Minimum
(cfs)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum
(cfs)
1,730
350
1,980
5-Year
Avg
(cfs)1
0.07
1.30
0.06
Period of
Record
1973-1995;
2004-
Present
1972-1995;
2004-
Present
1972-1985;
2004-
Present
'October 1, 2002-September 30, 2006.
1000
100
o
0.1
0.01
Hanging Woman Creek(06307600)
Pumpkin Creek(06308400)
Otter Creek (06307740)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure H-14. Average daily flows for Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek
(entire period of record is shown).
H-13
-------
Appendix H
H.3.4 Tongue River Flows - Summary
The Tongue River watershed is large and complex. Diversions, withdrawals, return flows, surface water
discharges, operation of the Tongue River Reservoir Dam, and stock ponds contribute to the hydrologic
complexity of the system. Hydrology in the Tongue River watershed is also complicated because of its
shear size; the watershed encompasses 5,400 square miles, which is equal to the size of Connecticut. The
main stem of the Tongue River is more than 250 river miles in length, with another 7,000 miles of
tributaries (USGS, 2006).
Figure H-15 and Figure H-16 present a summary of the flows in the mainstem Tongue River. Figure H-
15 shows that, on average, flows increase the most between Dayton and the State line, and are relatively
constant downstream of the Tongue River Reservoir Dam. A schematic summarizing mainstem and
tributary flows is presented in Figure H-16.
Min
Max
-Median
-Average
-25th Percentile
-75th Percentile
100000
0.1
300
250
200 150
River Mile (miles)
100
50
Figure H-15. Flow statistics for USGS stations with 10 or more years of flow data in the
mainstem Tongue River. The entire period of record is shown for each station.
H-14
-------
Appendix H
o:
>, 1 ,500 -
Q 1 ,000 -
^ o -I
!
Dayton (06298000)
l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l
--I--I-4-I I I I--I--I-4 I
I I I I I I I I I I I
~TT~[~l~l~l~rTT~[~l~
I I I I /T\ I I I I I
i i i y~\ \i i i i i
£1 i- 1->,C'5D)Q.-" >O
airao-nj 3-53 01,^ 001
I
Yellowstone River
Tongue River
Reservoir
(Controlled
Release)
Figure H-16. Average daily flows at representative stations in the Tongue River and major
tributaries. Entire period of record is shown. For illustration purposes only; not to scale.
H-15
-------
Appendix H
H.4Drought
The ongoing drought in southeastern Montana has been well documented by DNRC, NOAA, and USDA
(NOAA, 2007; DNRC, 2007). The most severe effects have been documented in the Big Horn Mountains
and streams originating in those mountains (i.e., Tongue River and tributaries). The Burgess Junction and
Dome Lake precipitation gages in the Big Horn Mountains show that total precipitation averaged 28.5
inches per year between 1989 and 2000 (see Figure H-l). The average total precipitation in 2001 and
2002 was 22.6 and 23.4 inches, respectively, and 2001 and 2002 had the lowest recorded precipitation on
record at the two gages. 2003 and 2005 had above average total precipitation, while 2004 and 2006 were
below average. The effects of the drought have also been observed at the Sheridan and Miles City
precipitation gages. Except for 2005, total yearly precipitation at Sheridan since 1999 has been less than
the long term average (see Figure H-2). A similar pattern has been observed at Miles City, except that
2001 was also slightly above average.
Recent below average precipitation in both the Bighorn Mountains and prairie regions of the Tongue
River watershed have had dramatic effects on almost all measured stream flows in the Tongue River
watershed. The average flow at Miles City over the past five years (October 1, 2002 to September 30,
2006) was half the long-term average (206 versus 400 cfs). Similar impacts were also observed at every
gage in the mainstem Tongue River (see Table H-5 and Table H-6) and tributaries (see Table H-4 and
Table H-7). As described in Section H.2, the past 8 years are unique because of the consecutive drought
years, which have had a cumulative impact on stream flow because water tables have been lowered,
streams dewatered, and soil moisture depleted.
H-16
-------
Appendix H
H. 5 References
DNRC. 2004a. DNRC Water Resources Division Annual Report - 2004. Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation. Helena, Montana. Available online at http://dnrc.mt.gov/About_Us/
publications/2004/wrd.pdf (accessed February 26, 2007).
DNRC. 2004b. Flow Data for the T&Y Ditch [Computer File]. Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation [Producer and Distributor]. Helena, Montana.
DNRC. 2005. CAD files for the Tongue River Reservoir [Computer File]. Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation [Producer and Distributor]. Helena, Montana.
DNRC. 2006. Stage-Volume Data for the Tongue River Reservoir [Computer File]. Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation [Producer and Distributor]. Helena, Montana.
DNRC. 2007. Montana's Current Drought Situation by County [Online]. Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation. Available online at http://drought.mt.gov/ (Accessed February 27,
2007).
NOAA. 2007. U.S. Drought Monitor-February 20, 2007. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Available online at http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html (Accessed February
27, 2007).
USGS. 2006. National Hydrography Data-Medium Resolution GIS File [Computer File]. U.S.
Geological Survey [Producer and Distributor]. Rolla, Missouri. Available online at
http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html (Accessed January 21, 2006).
H-17
-------
-------
APPENDIX I - BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES
AND APPLICATION OF THE MULTIMETRIC
INDEX (MMI), AND THE RIVER INVERTEBRATE
PREDICTION AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(RIVPACS) IN THE TONGUE RIVER WATERSHED
-------
-------
Appendix I
1.0 BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES AND APPLICATION OF THE MULTIMETRIC INDEX
(MMI), AND THE RIVER INVERTEBRATE PREDICTION AND CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM (RIVPACS) IN THE TONGUE RIVER WATERSHED
1.1 Macroinvertebrates
Montana DEQ has two assessment tools for evaluating the health of macroinvertebrate aquatic life in
streams: the Multimetric Indices (MMI), and the River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System
(RIVPACS).
The Multimetric Indices are based upon a series of macroinvertebrate metrics (e.g. clinger taxa, percent
EPT) that were chosen because they can indicate a biological response from human-induced stressors.
Scores are assigned to individual metrics, which are then summed to provide the MMI score for an
individual sample. Additional details about the development of the MMI for Montana can be found in
Jessup et al., 2006.
Montana DEQ used a reference based approach to develop a MMI threshold value for streams in the
Plains region of Montana. Both reference and degraded streams were previously identified by Montana
DEQ (Suplee et al., 2005). The average MMI score for reference sites in the Plains region was 41
(Feldman, 2006). To allow for natural variability, Montana DEQ chose a threshold value for the MMI
that was 90 percent of the average reference value (i.e., a MMI score of 37). MMI values greater than or
equal to 37 indicate that the sampling site is similar to reference conditions. Values less than 37 may
indicate that the site differs from reference conditions (Feldman, 2006) (Table 1-1).
The RIVPACS model is a tool for comparing the taxa that are expected at a site under a variety of
environmental conditions with the actual observed taxa that were found when the site was sampled
(sometimes referred to an "O/E" model - Observed/Expected). Jessup et al. (2006) describes the
methodology for developing the RIVPACS model for Montana. As with the MMI, Montana DEQ
established a RIVPACS threshold based on an analysis of reference sites. RIVPAC values greater than
0.80 indicate that the sampling site is similar to expected conditions. Values less than 0.80 indicate that
the site was not similar to expected conditions (Feldman, 2006) (Table 1-1).
Table 1-1 . Biological impairment thresholds for streams in the Plains region of Montana.
RIVPACS Score
>0.80
<0.80
MMI Score
>37
<37
Determination
Similar to Reference Condition
Not Similar to Reference Condition
It should be noted that sites sampled with the Surber sampling method were not included in the analysis
because data were not comparable to samples obtained with a Kick Net or EMAP protocols (Personal
Communication, Ben Jessup, TetraTech, Inc., 2007).
As with any model, there is error and uncertainty associated with data sampling and processing, model
calibration, validation, and model use. For example, Jessup et. al. (2006) reported that the MMI for the
Plains region had a discrimination efficiency of 77 percent, indicating that the MMI was unable to
distinguish between reference and degraded sites in approximately 23 percent of the samples. The
standard deviation for the O/E model was 0.24. Some sites, such as Otter Creek Site 200, were originally
classified as "degraded" sites, but then had a MMI score indicating conditions that were similar to
reference (see Section 1.1.3). This situation is not surprising since the screening process used to identify
1-1
-------
Appendix I
"degraded" sites was less rigorous than the process used to identify reference sites; therefore, these
streams may not represent truly "degraded" conditions. In addition, plains streams are highly variable
and naturally flashy and support more tolerant organisms. Recent analyses have indicated areas for
refining the classification approach used in the Plains MMI and expanding the reference site distribution
in the plains ecoregions.
Despite these model limitations, there is greater confidence in the macroinvertebrate results when both
independent models (i.e., MMI, O/E score) indicate that the site is similar to reference condition or
different from reference. In cases where one model indicates the site is similar to reference and the other
model indicates a degraded condition, each model result should be closely examined. Overall, the MMI
and RIVPACS results provide insight into the biological condition of the stream, and should be used only
as part of a weight of evidence approach for evaluating stream or beneficial use condition.
/. 1.1 Macroinvertebrate Sampling Sites
Macroinvertebrate data were available for 32 sites in the Tongue River (Montana), Hanging Woman
Creek, Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek (Figure 1-1). Data were collected by multiple agencies including
Montana DEQ, BLM, NRCS, USEPA, and USGS. The following sections summarize the data per stream
segment.
I-2
-------
Appendix I
Streams
[ 1 Counties
Tribal Land
| | Tongue River Watershed
Bfology Sampling Sites
heyenne
'06307616
y^ a. ,o
ra
'
MONTANA
WYOMING
MONTANA
WYOMING
10
2Z-
I
40 Miles
j I
Figure 1-1. Macroinvertebrate sampling sites in the Tongue River, Hanging Woman Creek,
Otter Creek, and Pumpkin Creek, Montana.
I-3
-------
Appendix I
1.1.2 Hanging Woman Creek
As shown in Table 1-2 and Figure 1-1, macroinvertebrates were sampled at five sites (five total samples)
in Hanging Woman Creek between 2001 and 2005. Three sites sampled with the Surber method were
excluded from the analysis (see Section I.I). MMI and RIVPACS scores were calculated for each sample
and scores are shown in Table 1-2. Highlighted scores in Table 1-2 indicate values that are not similar to
reference. Four out of the five samples had MMI and O/E scores that were in agreement - three sites
classified as similar to reference conditions and one site classified as not similar. The one site where the
two methods did not agree (Site SOS) had a low MMI score (i.e., not similar to reference conditions) and
a high O/E score (similar to reference).
Table 1-2. Plains MMI and RIVPACS scores for sites in the Hanging Woman Creek.
Station ID
Y15HGWC2-1
HANGING-01
6307600
SOS
6307570
Agency
NRCS
NRCS
uses
REMAP
uses
Collection
Method
Kick
Kick
Kick
REMAP
Kick
Collection
Date
15-Oct-02
22-Jun-04
23-Jun-05
29-Aug-01
22-Jun-05
Plains MMI
Score
10.62
45.19
66.44
36.69
45.09
RIVPACS
Score
0.41
0.95
1.04
1.05
1.08
Bold scores are not similar to reference conditions.
1.1.3 Otter Creek
As shown in Table 1-3 and Figure 1-1, macroinvertebrates were sampled at seven sites (eight total
samples) in Otter Creek between 2002 and 2005. MMI and RIVPACS scores were calculated for each
sample and scores are shown in Table 1-3. Highlighted scores in Table 1-3 indicate values that are not
similar to reference. Five out of the eight samples had MMI and O/E scores that were in agreement, and
all five sites were classified as similar to reference conditions. The three samples where the two methods
did not agree (Sites CNFOTT1 and OTTERC-1) had low O/E scores (i.e., not similar to reference
conditions) and MMI scores that were classified as similar to reference conditions.
Table 1-3. Plains MMI and RIVPACS scores for sites in the Otter Creek.
Station ID
WMTP99-0697
4517321060
Y16OTRC4-1
CNFOTT1
200
OTTERC-1
06307740
Agency
EMAP
uses
DEQ
Heritage
REMAP
NRCS
uses
Collection Method
WEMAP-RW
KICK
MAC-R-500
REMAP
REMAP
KICK
KICK
Collection
Date
09-Oct-02
29-Jun-05
17-Oct-02
19-May-04
20-May-05
18-Jul-OO
15-Jul-04
30-Jun-05
Plains MMI
Score
53.84
61.13
59.08
37.20
46.10
59.67
47.18
43.89
RIVPACS
Score
1.04
0.95
1.02
0.76
0.76
1.00
0.63
1.00
Bold scores are not similar to reference conditions.
I-4
-------
Appendix I
1.1.4 Pumpkin Creek
As shown in Table 1-4 and Figure 1-1, macroinvertebrates were sampled at three sites (five total samples)
in Pumpkin Creek between 1999 and 2005. MMI and RIVPACS scores were calculated for each sample
and are scores shown in Table 1-4. Four out of the five samples had MMI and O/E scores that were in
agreement and all four sites were classified as similar to reference conditions. The one site where the two
methods did not agree (Site 165, September 22, 1999) had a low MMI score (i.e., not similar to reference
conditions) and a high O/E score (similar to reference).
Table 1-4. Plains MMI and RIVPACS scores for sites in Pumpkin Creek.
Station ID
165
165
165
Y16PMPKC03
06308400
Collection Date
22-Sep-99
17-Jul-OO
19-Sep-OO
11-Aug-05
23-Jun-05
Sampling Method
REMAP
REMAP
REMAP
Riffle
Kick
Plains MMI Score
34.68
51.15
69.03
70.17
43.19
RIVPACS Score
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.87
1.12
Bold scores are not similar to reference conditions.
1.1.5 Tongue River
As shown in Table 1-5 and Figure 1-1, macroinvertebrates were sampled at thirteen sites (22 total
samples) in the Tongue River between 2000 and 2005. Prior to calculating the MMI and RIVPACS
scores for the Tongue River samples, samples were screened by the total number of organisms collected.
Only samples with 300 or more organisms were retained, as a small sample size can over inflate the MMI
scores and under inflate the O/E values. Nine sites were removed from the analysis because they had
sample counts of less than 300 organisms (Table 1-5). The reason for the low sample size is unclear.
Table 1-5. Tongue River macroinvertebrate samples with less than 300 organisms.
Station ID
Y15TONGR01
Y16TNR13-1
Y16TONGR01
Y16TONGR01
Y17TONGR01
Y17TONGR01
Y17TONGR01
Y17TONGR01
Y17TONGR01
Collection Date
01-Aug-02
18-Oct-02
14-Jul-03
13-Jul-05
26-Jul-01
31-Jul-02
14-Jul-03
21-Jun-04
13-Jul-05
Sampling Method
Kick
Riffle
Kick
Unknown
Unknown
Kick
Kick
Hess
Unknown
Total Individuals
293
291
85
110
17
140
50
13
37
MMI and RIVPACS scores were calculated for each remaining sample and scores are shown in Table 1-6.
Highlighted scores in Table 1-6 indicate values that are not similar to reference. Thirteen out of the
twenty-two samples had MMI and O/E scores that were in agreement - nine were classified as similar to
reference conditions and four were classified as not similar. All of the nine conflicting sites had low O/E
scores (i.e., not similar to reference) and MMI scores that suggested conditions similar to reference
conditions.
1-5
-------
Appendix I
Table 1-6. Plains MMI and RIVPACS scores for sites in the Tongue River.
Station ID
4459571065
Y15TNR1-1
Y15TNR1-1 (Rep)
TONGUE-04
TONGUE-03
TONGUE-02
4516071063
WMTP99-0714
06307616
WMTP99-0519
Y16TONGR01
Y16TONGR01
Y16TONGR01
Y16TONGR01
06307830
Y16TNR13-1
Y16TNR13-1
(Replicate)
Y17TONGR01
Y17TONGR01
Y17TONGR01
Y17TONGR01
Y17TONGR01
Collection Date
15-Aug-05
1 5-Oct-02
15-Oct-02
26-Jul-04
27-Jul-04
28-Jul-04
16-Aug-05
28-Jul-02
12-Sep-05
23-Jul-OO
31-Jul-02
14-Jul-03
21-Jun-04
13-Jul-05
13-Sep-05
18-Oct-02
1 8-Oct-02
26-Jul-01
31-Jul-02
14-Jul-03
21-Jun-04
13-Jul-05
Sampling Method
Kick
Riffle
Riffle
Kick
Kick
Kick
Kick
WEMAP
Kick
WEMAP
Hess
Hess
Hess
Hess
Kick
Riffle
Riffle
Hess
Hess
Hess
Hess
Hess
Plains MMI Score
62.71
45.00
37.61
41.35
48.23
40.61
53.43
55.25
55.84
64.82
51.70
39.17
53.87
37.35
58.20
66.97
37.26
25.08
39.91
33.65
25.87
32.46
RIVPACS Score
1.10
0.82
0.68
0.96
0.79
0.77
1.01
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.12
0.37
0.25
0.25
0.99
0.99
1.12
0.12
0.74
0.12
0.37
0.25
Bold scores are not similar to reference conditions.
I-6
-------
Appendix I
1.2 Fish
Bramblett et al. (2004) developed a fish multimetric index of biotic integrity (IBI) to help determine
fishery beneficial use impairments for southeastern Montana streams. The IBI was created to identify
impairment due to anthropogenic sources in wadable Northern Plains streams in Montana. It is not
applicable to the main stem of the Tongue River or to streams primarily originating in the Big Horn
Mountains (e.g., Goose Creek, Wolf Creek).
The fish IBI for the Montana Northern Plains includes ten metrics and addresses species richness,
tolerance, feeding group, reproductive strategies, and fish abundance (Bramblett et al., 2004). The
metrics found to be most useful for the fish IBI were:
Number of Native Species Proportion of Invertivorous Cyprinids
Number of Native Families Number of Benthic Invertivorous Species
Number of Catostomid and Ictalurid Species Proportion of Litho-Obligate Reproductive Guild Individuals
Proportion of Tolerant Individuals Proportion of Tolerant Reproductive Guild Individuals
Proportion of Native Individuals Number of Species with Long-lived Individuals
Each metric score ranged from 0 to 100. All the metric scores were then summed so that the final IBI had
values ranging from 0 to 1000. Actual fish IBI scores for the sites in this study ranged from 0 to 910
(Bramblett et al. 2003).
Based on fish IBIs for the reference sites, the following condition classes were defined:
>60 indicates a good condition (i.e., similar to reference conditions)
41-59 indicates afair condition (i.e., some deviation from reference conditions)
<40 indicates apoor condition (i.e., extreme deviation from reference conditions)
It should be noted that a low IBI score does not necessarily mean that a stream is impaired. The harsh
environment in the Tongue River watershed creates the possibility that natural factors will, on occasion,
impact biota irrespective of human influence (Bramblett et al., 2003). Therefore, fish data and IBI scores
should be used with caution and in conjunction with other sources of data.
Fish IBI scores are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
1-7
-------
Appendix I
1.2.1 Hanging Woman Creek
In Hanging Woman Creek, fish data were collected between 2001 and 2004. As shown in Table 1-7, five
fish samples were collected in Hanging Woman Creek:
One sample collected by USEPA on August 29, 2001, approximately 9 river miles upstream of
the mouth and just upstream with the confluence with Lee Creek (Rosebud County, MT) -805
One sample collected by BLM on September 26, 2002, approximately 27 river miles upstream of
the mouth and 3 miles downstream with the confluence of Corral Creek (Big Horn County, MT)
-BLMHWC10.
One sample collected by MFWP on May 12, 2004, near the confluence with Horse Creek (Big
Horn County, MT) - FWPHWC2
One sample collected by MFWP on July 7, 2004, approximately four miles upstream of the
mouth (Rosebud County, MT) - FWPHWC1
One sample collected by MFWP on August 5, 2004, approximately fifteen miles upstream of the
mouth (Rosebud County, MT) - FWPHWC3.
Fish IBI scores in Hanging Woman Creek ranged from 33 (poor) to 55 (fair), with an average score of 42
(fair). The two best scoring sites (BLMHWC10 and FWPHWC2) were both located in the upstream
reach of Hanging Woman Creek (upstream of the confluence with Horse Creek). These two sites had IBI
scores of 55 and 48, respectively. Scores then decreased in a downstream direction, with scores of 33 and
36 near the mouth of Hanging Woman Creek. These results must be used with caution. Given the limited
data, it is not possible to determine if these results are representative from a spatial and/or temporal
perspective. Further, all five samples were collected during a drought period.
Table 1-7. Plains IBI scores for sites in the Hanging Woman Creek watershed.
Station
EMAPS05
BLMHWC10
FWPHWC1
FWPHWC2
FWPHWC3
Year Sampled
2001
2002
2004
2004
2004
Score
33
55
36
48
37
Ranking
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Thresholds: > 59 - Good; 41-59 - Fair; <41 - Poor
I-8
-------
Appendix I
1.2.2 Otter Creek
As shown in Table 1-8, four fish samples were collected in Otter Creek:
One sample collected by USEPA on July 18, 2000, approximately eight miles upstream of the
mouth and just upstream of the confluence with Threemile Creek (Powder River County, MT) -
REMAP200
One sample collected by MFWP on July 16, 2003, 4.7 miles upstream of the mouth (Rosebud
County) - MWFP4.7
One sample collected by MFWP on May 26, 2004 near the confluence with Elk Creek (Powder
River County, MT) - FWPOTT1
One sample collected by MFWP on May 26, 2004 near the confluence with Bear Creek (Powder
River County, MT) - FWPOTT2
The IBI score for the 2000 fish sample was 35, indicating poor conditions. However, in 2003 and 2004,
three segments in Otter Creek had good fish populations (MFWP4.7, FWPOTT1, and FWPOTT2).
However, given the limited data, it is not possible to determine if the samples are representative from a
spatial and/or temporal perspective, and the samples were collected during a drought period.
Table 1-8. Plains Fish IBI scores for sites in the Otter Creek watershed.
Station
REMAP200
MFWP4.7
FWPOTT1
FWPOTT2
Year Sampled
2000
2003
2004
2004
Score
30
62
71
83
Rating
Poor
Good
Good
Good
Thresholds: > 59 - Good; 41-59 - Fair; <41 - Poor
I-9
-------
Appendix I
1.2.3 Pumpkin Creek
In Pumpkin Creek, fish data were collected between 1999 and 2004. As shown in Table 1-9, seven fish
samples were recently collected in Pumpkin Creek:
Three samples collected by USEPA at one site on September 22, 1999; July 17, 2000; and
September 19, 2000. Site is located approximately 17 river miles upstream of the mouth (Custer
County, Montana) - REMAP 165
Two samples collected by MFWP at one site on May 15, 2003 and May 10, 2004. Site is located
approximately 36.2 river miles upstream of the mouth (Custer County, Montana) - MFWP36.2.
One sample collected by MFWP at one site on May 16, 2003. Site is located approximately 87.2
river miles upstream of the mouth (Custer County, Montana) - MFWP87.2.
One sample collected by MFWP at one site on May 26, 2004. Site is located approximately
146.0 river miles upstream of the mouth (Custer County, Montana) - MFWP 146.0.
IBI scores from the USEPA sampling events at station REMAP 165 in September 1999, July 2000, and
September 2000 were 41,38, and 28, respectively. These values equate to fair, poor, and poor conditions,
respectively. At river mile 36.2, IBI scores were 48 in both 2003 and 2004, indicating fair conditions.
Sampling at the most upstream site (river mile 146) found no water in 2004, and no IBI score could be
calculated. All of the IBI results must be used with caution. Given the limited data, it is not possible to
determine if these results are representative from a spatial perspective. Further, all samples were obtained
during a drought period.
Table 1-9. Plains fish IBI scores for sites in the Pumpkin Creek watershed.
Station
RE MAP 165
MFWP36.2
MFWP87.2
MFWP36.2
MFWP146.0
Year Sampled
September 1999
July 2000
September 2000
May 2003
May 2003
May 2004
May 2004
Score
41
38
28
48
NA
48
NA
Ranking
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
*No Water
Fair
*No Water
Thresholds: > 59 - Good; 41-59 - Fair; <41 - Poor
1-10
-------
Appendix I
1.2.4 Tongue River
The Tongue River from the State Line downstream to Prairie Dog Creek (near Birney, Montana) is
classified as a B-2 water, where growth and marginal propagation of salmonid fishes (i.e., cold water) and
associated aquatic life are designated uses. Until recently, approximately 2000 trout were stocked in the
tailrace section of the river below the Tongue River Reservoir annually and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks (MFWP) managed this reach as a "put and take" recreational salmonid fishery. This fishery was
supported by cool, relatively clear releases from the dam, but, since conditions were not suitable for
spawning, it was not a self-sustaining fishery. Given land use changes that have limited public fishing
access, MFWP is no longer stocking trout and has begun managing this reach of the river as a warm-
water fishery focusing on smallmouth bass (personal communication with Brad Schmitz, July 15, 2005).
Downstream from Birney, the Tongue River is classified as a B-3 water, where growth and marginal
propagation of non-salmonid fishes (i.e., warm water) and associated aquatic life are designated uses.
Fish data were collected by several agencies in the Tongue River. However, without an appropriate
reference stream, it is difficult to analyze the available data with respect to anthropogenic impacts.
Furthermore, samples were obtained over two hundred river miles, and often at different times of year.
This also limits the use of the data. As a result, the following data are provided for informational
purposes only. Table I-10 shows the fish species identified during 21 sampling events (2000-2004) in
the Tongue River. MFWP, USGS, and EPA collected the data in early spring (March/April) or mid-
summer (July/August). Table 1-11 shows the specific sampling events, site locations, and summary
statistics for the data.
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks considers the Tongue River from the T&Y Diversion Dam to the
mouth to be at risk from periodic dewatering (i.e., dewatering is a significant problem only in drought or
water-short years) (MFWP, 2005a). Also, while efforts are ongoing to remedy the issue, the T&Y
Diversion Dam currently obstructs upstream fish migration. MFWP considers the warm-water fishery
below the Tongue River Reservoir Dam to be limited by a number of factors including: flow alteration
(reduced flood peaks during spring spawning migrations for some fish species), reduced
turbidity/sediment levels, and possibly temperature (personal communications, Brad Schmitz, MFWP
Fisheries Biologist, July 15, 2005).
Although site-specific data are not available for the Tongue River, it is known that blue suckers (a
Montana Species of Concern known to inhabit the Tongue River) have been adversely affected in other
river systems by habitat changes (particularly those caused by large dams that block passage to spawning
grounds), altered streamflow, and elimination of peak flows that initiate spawning runs. Dams also
discharge cold, clear water as opposed to the warm, turbid waters in which these species evolved (MFWP,
2005b). Additionally, low stream flows probably have eliminated some sturgeon chub populations (a
Montana Species of Concern) in smaller streams such as the Tongue River (MFWP, 2005b). Saugar,
another Montana Species of Concern inhabiting the Tongue River, are thought to have declined since the
late 1970's in the Tongue River due to dam operations and associated affects (personal communication
with Brad Schmitz, July 15, 2005).
1-11
-------
Appendix I
Table 1-10. Fish collected in the Tongue River, Montana between 1999 and 2004.
Common Name
Black Bullhead
Black Grapple
Blue Sucker
Brown Trout
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Fathead Minnow
Flathead Chub
Freshwater Drum
Goldeye
Green Sunfish
Longnose Dace
Longnose Sucker
Mountain Sucker
Pumpkinseed
Rainbow Trout
River Carpsucker
Rock Bass
Sand Shiner
Sauger
SaugerX Walleye Hybrid
Shorthead Redhorse
Shovelnose Sturgeon
Smallmouth Bass
Smallmouth Buffalo
Spottail Shiner
Stonecat
Sturgeon Chub
Walleye
Western Silvery Minnow
White Crappie
White Sucker
Yellow Bullhead
Species Name
Ameiurus me/as
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Cycleptus elongatus
Salmo trutta
Ictalurus punctatus
Cyprinus carpio
Notropis atherinoides
Pimephales promelas
Platygobio gracilis
Aplodinotus grunniens
Hiodon alosoides
Lepomis cyanellus
Rhinichthys cataractae
Catostomus catostomus
Catostomus platyrhynchus
Lepomis gibbosus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Carpoides carpio
Ambloplites ruprestris
Notropis ludibundus
Sander canadensis
Moxostoma
macrolepidotum
Scaphirhynchus
platorynchus
Micropterus dolomieui
Ictiobus bubalus
Notropis hudsonius
Noturus Flavus
Macrhybopsis gelida
Sander vitreum
Hybognathus argyritis
Pomoxis annularis
Catostomus commersoni
Ameiurus natalis
Origin
Introduced
Introduced
Native
Introduced
Native
Introduced
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Introduced
Native
Native
Native
Introduced
Introduced
Native
Introduced
Native
Native
Native
Native
Introduced
Native
Introduced
Native
Native
Introduced
Native
Introduced
Native
Introduced
General
Tolerance
Tolerant
Moderate
Moderate
Tolerant
Moderate
Tolerant
Moderate
Intolerant
Tolerant
Intolerant
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Intolerant
Intolerant
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Tolerant
Moderate
# of Sampling
Events
where Collected
4
2
1
1
17
20
6
2
14
1
11
6
4
15
4
3
1
19
7
3
10
2
20
1
13
1
1
17
2
11
9
2
21
6
Montana
Species of
Concern
X
X
X
Fish collected by MFWP, USGS, and USEPA in 21 sampling events occurring between 2000 and 2004.
1-12
-------
Appendix I
Table -11. Fish sampling events in the Tongue River, Montana
Stream
MT-WY Border to
the Tongue River
Reservoir
Tongue River
Reservoir Dam to
the T&Y Diversion
Dam
T&Y Diversion
Dam to the Mouth
Site
Tongue River at
Stateline
(06306300)
RM 195-202
Tongue River below
reservoir
(06307500)
RM 167.0-173.0
RM 165.4-165.5
Tongue River near
Birney, MT
(06307616)
RM 135.1-135.2
RM 88-95
Tongue River at
Brandenberg
Bridge, MT
(06307830)
RM 68-74
RM 13.3-19.6
RM 13.3-19.6
RM 13.3-19.6
RM 4.3-6.0
RM 4.3-6.0
RM 4.3-6.0
RM 4.3-6.0
RM 4.3-6.0
Tongue River at
Miles City
(06308500)
RM 0.1-2.8
RMO-5
Sample
Date
7/19/04
8/5/03
7/19/04
7/31/03
7/28/02
7/23/04
7/23/00
7/30/03
7/25/04
7/22/03
4/7/99
4/8/99
4/20/00
3/23/00
3/24/00
4/4/00
4/19/00
4/25/00
7/25/04
3/21/03
7/10/03
% In-
tolerant
3%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
2%
0%
2%
0%
2%
2%
4%
3%
4%
4%
6%
7%
10%
32%
13%
%
Tolerant
27%
17%
64%
25%
25%
78%
11%
18%
84%
20%
6%
5%
12%
11%
11%
7%
10%
8%
5%
3%
15%
Total
Number of
Species
12
15
8
12
10
8
10
14
13
10
12
11
15
13
13
16
16
15
12
8
15
1999-2004).
Total # of
Native
Species
3
6
3
6
5
4
6
9
9
7
10
8
12
10
10
14
13
12
11
8
9
Dominant
Species
Rock Bass
Shorthead
Redhorse
Green
Sunfish
Shorthead
Redhorse
Shorthead
Redhorse
White
Sucker
Shorthead
Redhorse
Shorthead
Redhorse
White
Sucker
Shorthead
Redhorse
Flathead
Chub
Longnose
Sucker
Shorthead
Redhorse
Shorthead
Redhorse
Shorthead
Redhorse
Shorthead
Redhorse
Shorthead
Redhorse
Shorthead
Redhorse
Flathead
Chub
Shorthead
Redhorse
Channel
Catfish
Data collected by USEPA, MDEQ, and MFWP. RM - River Mile
1-13
-------
Appendix I
/. 2.5 Tongue River Reservoir
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks' (MFWP) personnel were contacted to obtain information on the
aquatic life conditions in the Tongue River Reservoir. The reservoir is managed primarily as a crappie
fishery and secondarily as a smallmouth bass and walleye fishery. Some sauger and walleye are believed
to occasionally spawn up-river, but most of the crappies and other fish spawn in the reservoir. The
reservoir is considered to be very productive and generally supports a healthy and highly diverse fish
population. However, MFWP is concerned about the cumulative effects of multiple stressors on the
reservoir (Vic Riggs, MFWP, personal communication March 18, 2005). Fish kills are believed to be
occurring more frequently and a crappie fish kill during the winter of 2005 was considered to be more
severe than previous fish kills. The specific causes of each kill are rarely known (Brad Schmitz, Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, personal communication June 24, 2005).
The MFWP MFISH database was evaluated to assess aquatic life conditions in the Tongue River
Reservoir. More than 1,000,000 walleye were stocked in the reservoir each year from 1990 to 2006 and
more than 400,000 sauger were stocked in the reservoir during both 2003 and 2004. According to the
MFISH database, many fish species, such as black bullhead, black crappie, channel catfish, common carp,
largemouth bass, longnose sucker, northern pike, pumpkinseed, sauger, shorthead redhorse, smallmouth
bass, walleye, white crappie, white sucker, yellow bullhead, and yellow perch, are thought to be common
year-round residents of the reservoir. According to MFISH, spottail shiners are the only species reported
to be abundant.
Figure 1-2 provides information on the number of yellow perch and walleye captured by MFWP in the
Tongue River Reservoir from 1989 to 2003 (data for other species were not available for each year at the
time this analysis was prepared). The data indicate that there is substantial year-to-year variability in the
perch and walleye populations.
1-14
-------
Appendix I
30 n
25 -
20 -
S 15
c
3
15
£ 104
5 -
III.I,II
111
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Figure I-2. Total number of yellow perch and walleye captured in Tongue River Reservoir,
1989 to 2003.
Two historic studies of aquatic life in the Tongue River Reservoir have been conducted. A 1977 study
indicated that the reproductive success of largemouth and smallmouth bass in the reservoir was limited by
suitable spawning substrate and turbidity. However, fingerling growth did not seem to be affected by
differences in turbidity in parts of the lake (Penkal, 1977). A 1980 study of zooplankton populations in
the reservoir found that the zooplankton population was similar to other non-alkaline lakes located at
similar elevations and latitude (Leathe, 1980). The author of this study also determined that the
zooplankton populations were likely to be more responsive to changes in the fish populations of the
reservoir than to potential changes in water quality associated with proposed mining activities.
Few data are available documenting nuisance algal blooms in the Tongue River Reservoir. However,
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks' personnel report that they are not uncommon. They typically occur
later in the summer, especially during low water years, and can last for several days until they are
dispersed by the wind. These blooms are believed to have a potentially significant impact on the juvenile
fish populations, especially when they are already stressed due to other factors.
1-15
-------
Appendix I
1.3 References
Bramblett, R.G., T.R. Johnson, A.V. Zale, and D. Heggem. 2004. Development of Biotic Integrity
Indices for Prairie Streams in Montana Using Fish, Macroinvertebrate, and Diatom Assesmblages - Draft
Report.
Feldman, David. 2006. A Report to the DEQ Water Quality Planning Bureau on the Proper
Interpretation of Two Recently Developed Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Models. Montana
Department of Environmental Quality. Helena, Montana.
Jessup, Benjamin, Chuck Hawkins, and James Stribling. Biological Indicators of Stream Condition in
Montana Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Prepared for the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality. Helena, Montana. Available online at http://www.deq.state.mt.us/
wqinfo/Standards/Montana%20Indicators%20Report%20(FINALcomb_061004) .pdf
Jessup, Personal Communication. February 7 and 8, 2007. Email communication regarding the possible
bias introduced by Surber sample results.
Jessup, Benjamin and C.P. Hawkins. Draft. 2007. Interpretation of Differences between Two Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Indicators of Stream Condition in Montana. Tetra Tech, Inc. Report for EPA Region
Leathe, S.A. 1980. The population dynamics and production of limnetic crustacean zooplankton in the
Tongue River Reservoir, Montana. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Botany. Montana State University. Bozeman, Montana. September 1980.
MFWP. 2005a. Montana Fisheries Information System Database Query. Montana Natural Resources
Information System. Available at http://nris.state.mt.us/ (Accessed 5/15/05).
MFWP. 2005b. Montana Animal Field Guide. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (in cooperation with
the Montana Natural Heritage Program). Helena, Montana. Available online at:
http ://fwp. state .mt.us/fieldguide/.
Penkal, R.F. 1977. Black Bass Populations of the Tongue River Reservoir, Montana, MS Thesis, MSU.
Suplee, M., R. Sada de Suplee, D. Feldman, and T. Laidlaw. 2005. Identification and Assessment of
Montana Reference Streams: A Follow-up and Expansion of the 1992 Benchmark Biology Study
(DRAFT 2.5). Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Planning, Prevention and Assistance
Division, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Water Quality Standards Section, Helena, MT.
1-16
-------
APPENDIX J - MODEL SCENARIOS AND
RESULTS
-------
-------
Appendix J
J.O MODEL SCENARIOS
One of the primary purposes for developing the LSCP and CE-QUAL-W2 models for the Tongue River
watershed was to determine if observed exceedances of water quality standards were a result of natural
causes, anthropogenic causes, or a combination of both. It was envisioned that the models would also
provide insight regarding the relative magnitude of influence associated with the various factors that
influence water quality. This appendix first lists and briefly discusses the factors that influence salinity
and SAR in the Tongue River watershed. The model scenarios that have been developed and run to date
are then described. Model results for each of these scenarios are presented at the end of this appendix
(Sections J.5 to J. 10).
J.1 Factors Potentially Influencing SC and SAR in the Tongue River
Watershed
Factors that potentially influence the levels of salinity and SAR in the Tongue River and its tributaries
include:
Irrigation
o High altitude reservoirs
o Diversions
o Inter-basin transfers
o Intra-basin transfers
o Irrigation withdrawals
o Irrigation returns
Agriculture
o Irrigated agriculture
o Non-irrigated agriculture
Stock ponds
Tongue River Reservoir and operation of the dam
CBM produced water discharge
o Direct discharge to perennial surface waters
o Discharge to ponds
o Beneficial reuse
Coal mining
o Permitted discharges
o Stormwater
o Strip mines
Wastewater treatment
o City of Sheridan WWTP
o Ranchester and Dayton lagoons
o Other small permitted discharges
Natural sources
Soils and geology
Each of these sources is summarized in Table J-3 at the end of this appendix, and each source has been
simulated with the LSPC model for the Tongue River watershed or the CE-QUAL-W2 model for the
Tongue River Reservoir.
J-1
-------
Appendix J
J.2 Scenarios
To date, all of the following model scenarios have been developed and run with the exception of Scenario
3:
1. Existing Condition
2. Natural Condition
3. All Reasonable Land, Soil, and Water Conservation Practices
4. CBM Influence
5. Stock Pond Influence
6. Irrigation Influence
7. Influence of Interbasin Transfers
8. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Influence
9. Hypothetical CBM Discharges in Hanging Woman and Badger Creeks
Each of these is described below and model results are provided at the end of this appendix. It is
anticipated that additional scenarios will be developed and evaluated in the future under a separate scope
of work.
Scenario 1 - Existing Condition - What is the current condition?
The existing condition scenario is the baseline from which all other scenarios are compared. Model
simulations of the existing condition attempt to replicate the actual hydrologic influences and pollutant
generation, fate, and transport from each of the above factors. For the purposes of these analyses and in
the absence of monitoring data to facilitate calibration of each of the individual processes simulated by
the models, it is assumed that these are reasonably well simulated by the models since reasonable
calibrations have been obtained in the Tongue River and its tributaries (see Section 4.0 and Appendix B
the Modeling Report).
The existing condition scenario has been run for a period of 10 years between October 1, 1993 and
September 30, 2003. This time period includes 2 wet years (1995 and 1997), 3 dry years (2000, 2001,
and 2002), and 5 average years (1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2003) (see Figure J-l). All of the
following scenarios have been modeled for the same set of wet, dry, and average years.
All diversions and irrigation have been modeled based on the available data for these 10 years. Discharge
and water quality from the Sheridan WWTP, Ranchester Lagoons, Bighorn Mountain KOA, Dayton
Lagoons, and Decker East/West coal mines have also been modeled based on the available data for the 10
year period. The Powder Horn Ranch has been input as of September 2006 because this facility only
began discharging in 2001.
CBM ponds and CBM discharges were input as the average flow and concentration occurring between
October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006. as reported in the provided Wyoming DEQ database and
Montana DEQ DMR Data. An outfall was included in the analysis if it had at least one flow reported
during this period - 140 CBM outfalls were identified. Figure J-2 shows the CBM facilities included in
Scenario 1 (and all other scenarios discussed in this memo where CBM discharge has been modeled).
J-2
-------
Appendix J
Stateline (06306300)
Miles City (06308500)
i
o
S.
I
&
i
5
.f%^:.
Figure J-2. CBM outfalls modeled in the scenarios.
J-3
-------
Appendix J
The geographic points where model results have been extracted for evaluation are shown in Table J-l.
The results are provided at the end of this appendix.
Table J-1. Evaluation points for Scenarios 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Evaluation Point
Tongue River at Stateline
(06306300)
Tongue River at Miles City
(06308500)
Tongue River Reservoir
Hanging Woman Creek near
Birney (06307600)
Otter Creek at Ashland
(06307740)
Pumpkin Creek near mouth
(06308400)
Tongue River before Tongue
River Reservoir
Subbasin
3006
1002
3000
1095
1059
1007
3001
Purpose
Determine the magnitude of Wyoming's contribution
Examine watershed-scale effects at the mouth of
the river and evaluate effects of the T&Y Ditch
Examine potential changes within the reservoir
Examine watershed-scale effects at the mouth of
the creek.
Examine watershed-scale effects at the mouth of
the creek.
Examine watershed-scale effects at the mouth of
the creek.
Determine the nutrient loads to the Tongue River
Reservoir
Parameters
SC, SAR, TN,
TP, Flow
SC, SAR, Flow
SC, SAR, TN, TP
SC, SAR, Flow
SC, SAR, Flow
SC, SAR, Flow
TN, TP
The results from the existing condition scenario do not attempt to replicate past
conditions and, therefore, cannot be directly compared to the observed data.
The frequency of exceedances of the Montana water quality standards reported at the end of this appendix may be
different than those reported, based on observed data, in the Assessment Report. This is because:
1. The existing condition scenario is a hypothetical scenario where the conditions that exist "today" are used to
"force" hydrologic and chemical processes over a 10-year period of wet, dry and average years. Thus, the
variability in factors such as CBM discharge that have occurred overtime in the past has been eliminated. The
intent of the existing condition scenario is to fix "today's" condition in time to provide a baseline for comparison to
other scenarios.
2. The observed data for the various parameters that have been evaluated (e.g., SC, SAR, nutrients, etc.) is
sporadic. For example, in the Tongue River at Miles City (since 1990), monthly SC data were collected between
1990 and 2003, and daily data were collected between 2004 and present. In contrast, the LSPC model
produces output at an hourly time step. Thus, model estimated frequency of exceedance is based on a more
complete data set (e.g., 30 daily average values per month with the model versus 0-30 daily average observed
values) which may result in discrepancies between observed and predicted data.
J-4
-------
Appendix J
Scenario 2 - Natural Condition - What would water quality conditions be like in the absence of
human influence?
The potential extreme magnitude of anthropogenic influence on water quality has been estimated by
removing the majority of human-caused influences from the model. This scenario has removed the
following from the model:
High altitude diversions, inter-basin transfers, irrigation withdrawals, irrigation returns, stock
ponds, CBM produced water discharge, coal mining, and wastewater treatment discharge.
Irrigated agriculture would be modeled as 100% grassland. Non-irrigated agricultural and urban
lands would be modeled as grassland.
The high altitude reservoirs and Tongue River Reservoir would remain in the model but would be
assumed to operate in "run of the river" mode (i.e., outflow naturally over the spillway).
Although it is acknowledged that this condition is unattainable and may not meet everyone's definition of
"natural", model results from this scenario place upper bounds on the potential range of affect. It is
intended to be the first step in a step wise modeling approach. If the model results from the "natural"
scenario do not differ significantly from the "existing condition" scenario then the question of whether or
not current water quality conditions are a result of natural or anthropogenic causes has already been
answered and no further modeling is necessary. On the other hand, if there is a significant difference
between the modeled "natural condition" and "existing condition" then additional modeling may be
necessary to estimate the relative importance of each of the anthropogenic causes.
The geographic points where model results have been extracted for evaluation are shown in Table J-l.
The results are provided at the end of this appendix.
Scenario 3 - All Reasonable Land, Soil and Water Conservation Practices - What would
water quality conditions be like if all reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices were
applied to all of the human-caused factors influencing water quality?
Without specific guidance from Montana DEQ, it is not possible to interpret what the phrase "all
reasonable land, soil and water conservation practices" means. It is assumed to mean full application of
all best management practices (BMPs) for all of the factors that have anthropogenic influence on water
quality. To effectively develop such a scenario, it would be necessary to individually evaluate each of the
factors listed above, determine the extent to which BMPs have already been employed, develop a
conceptual suite of BMPs for cases where they have not already been employed, conceptualize how the
BMPs might reduce pollutant loads and/or affect hydrology, and then modify model inputs accordingly.
While it is possible to develop and run this model scenario, it is beyond the current scope of work and,
therefore, has not been evaluated.
Scenario 4 - CBM Influence - What influence is the discharge of CBM produced water having on
water quality?
To evaluate the potential magnitude of influence associated with the discharge of CBM produced water,
direct discharge and CBM ponds has been removed from the model (Scenario 4a). Then to individually
evaluate the effects of direct discharge (Scenario 4b) and ponds (Scenario 4c), they have been removed
from the model one at a time.
The geographic points where model results have been extracted for evaluation are shown in Table J-l.
The results are provided at the end of this appendix.
J-5
-------
Appendix J
Scenario 5 Stock Pond Influence - What influence are stock ponds having on water quality?
To evaluate the potential magnitude of influence associated with stock ponds, they have been removed
from the model.
The geographic points where model results have been extracted for evaluation are shown in Table J-l.
The results are provided at the end of this appendix.
Scenario 6 Irrigation Influence - What influence is irrigation having on water quality?
Factors associated with irrigation that may have influence on SC and SAR include high altitude
reservoirs, high altitude diversions, inter-basin transfers, irrigation withdrawals, irrigation returns,
irrigated agriculture, and operation of the Tongue River Reservoir Dam.
Scenario 6 removes irrigation withdrawals and irrigation returns from the model. The high altitude
reservoirs and the Tongue River Reservoir remain, but are assumed to operate in "run of the river" mode
(i.e., outflow naturally over the spillway). The T&Y Diversion and high altitude reservoirs have been
removed from the model. It is acknowledged that this is an unrealistic scenario. However, the purpose of
evaluating this scenario is to determine the potential maximum magnitude of influence resulting from
irrigation.
If the model results from Scenario 6 differ significantly from the "existing condition" scenario then more
refined scenarios can be developed to determine the significance of the individual factors at play (e.g.,
remove irrigation withdrawals and returns separately).
The geographic points where model results have been extracted for evaluation are shown in Table J-l.
The results are provided at the end of this appendix.
Scenario 7 Interbasin Transfers - What influence are the interbasin transfers having on water
quality?
Scenario 7 removes the interbasin transfers from the Powder River from the LSPC model. The high
altitude reservoirs and Tongue River Reservoir remain, but are assumed to operate in "run of the river"
mode (i.e., outflow naturally over the spillway). The high altitude diversions were also removed. It is
acknowledged that this is an unrealistic scenario. However, the purpose of evaluating this scenario is to
determine the potential maximum magnitude of influence resulting from interbasin transfers.
If the model results from Scenario 7 differ significantly from the "existing condition" scenario then more
refined scenarios can be developed to determine the significance of the individual factors at play (increase
of decrease the amount of water, change the location of the diversions).
The geographic points where model results have been extracted for evaluation are shown in Table J-l.
The results are provided at the end of this appendix.
Scenario 8 Wastewater Treatment - What influence is the discharge of municipal wastewater
having on water quality?
Scenario 8 removes the municipal wastewater treatment facilities from the LSPC model. The following
facilities were removed: Sheridan WWTP, Ranchester Lagoons, Dayton Lagoons, Bighorn Mountain
KOA, and Powder Horn Ranch. The City of Sheridan drinking water withdrawal was also removed. All
other model inputs remained the same.
J-6
-------
Appendix J
The geographic points where model results have been extracted for evaluation are shown in Table J-l.
The results are provided at the end of this appendix.
Scenario 9 - Hypothetical CBM Discharge Scenarios in Hanging Woman and Badger
Creek - How might future CBM discharges affect water quality in both the tributaries and downstream
in the Tongue River?
In March 2007, Montana DEQ and Wyoming DEQ jointly requested that the LSPC model be used to
answer the following question:
What end-of-pipe effluent limits, what volumes, and during what months can discharge to Hanging
Woman Creek and Badger Creek occur, and meet Montana's expectations?
The following three scenarios were developed and evaluated to provide insight relative to this question:
Scenario 9a - Draft Wyoming Permit Limits
Wyoming DEQ released a draft general permit for the Badger/Hanging Woman Creek Watershed for
committee review on July 26, 2006 (WDEQ, 2006). Scenario 9a is based on the effluent limits for
"Category 1 Discharges" (i.e., direct discharge) as specified in the draft permit. The draft permit states
that 5 cfs of direct discharge will be allowed at the Montana-Wyoming Stateline. It was assumed that 5
cfs of CBM effluent was directly discharged into both Hanging Woman and Badger Creeks. The draft
permit allows for an SC of 2,440 (iS/cm, a sodium concentration of 420 mg/L, and an SAR of 5.2.
Cations required for the LSPC model (i.e., Ca, Mg, Na) were based on the relationship between the
cations and SC in Hanging Woman Creek [SC = 78.801 (Ca + Na + Mg) + 172.9, in milliequivalents].
Final modeled cations are shown in Table J-2. It should be noted that a permit limit of 2440 (iS/cm and a
sodium concentration of 420 cannot result in a SAR of 5.2 (the calculation is provided at the end of this
section). The resulting SAR would be approximately 8. Thus, this scenario was based on an SAR of 8.0
as opposed to that which was specified in the draft permit.
Scenario 9b - Untreated CBM Discharge
Scenario 9b was developed to evaluate the affect of potential future CBM discharges at 5 cfs at
concentrations equal to the average measured concentrations of current CBM outfalls in the Hanging
Woman Creek and Badger Creek watersheds. Average measured concentrations were based on the entire
period of record for all CBM outfalls in those two watersheds (Table J-2).
Scenario 9c - Montana Average Growing Season Standards
Scenario 9c was developed to evaluate the affect of potential future CBM discharges at 5 cfs at
concentrations equal to the Montana average monthly growing season standards for SC and SAR in the
tributaries to the Tongue River (i.e., 500 and 3.0, respectively) (ARM 17.30.670). Table J-2 shows the
individual cation concentrations.
J-7
-------
Appendix J
Table J-2. Concentrations implemented in the Scenario 9 model runs.
Parameter
Calcium (mg/L)
Magnesium (mg/L)
Sodium (mg/L)
EC (uS/cm)
SAR
Option A (Wyoming
Draft Permit Limits)
79
79
420
2,440
8
Option B (Avg
Observed)
9
5
493
1,924
33.8
Option C (MT Permit
Limits)
11.5
11.5
60
500
3
The geographic points where model results have been extracted for evaluation are shown in Table J-l.
The results are provided at the end of this appendix.
J.3 References
WDEQ. 2006. Badger / Hanging Woman Creek Watershed General Permit for Surface Discharges
Related to Coal Bed Methane Production - Draft Permit Dated July 26, 2006. Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, WYPDES Program. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available
online at http://deq.state.wy.us/wqdAVYPDES_PermittingAVYPDES_cbm/Pages/
CBM_Watershed_Permitting/Tongue_PrairieDog_HangingWoman_Badger_Creek%5D/Tongue%20PHB
%20Downloads/wypdes_cbm_wsperm_LowerTongue.asp
J-8
-------
Table J-3. Potential sources of salinity and/or nutrients in the Tongue River watershed.
Category
Name
Type
What is It?
Potential Influence on Salinity/SAR
Stock Ponds
Stock Ponds
Anthropogenic
Stock ponds are generally located in small,
ephemeral tributaries, and are created with the
purpose of providing water to livestock. The
estimated total stock pond capacity in the Tongue
River watershed is 13,725 acre-feet, with an
estimated drainage area to the ponds of 1,164
square miles (23% of the total watershed area).
Stock ponds modify stream hydrology by capturing
and storing storm event runoff. This potentially
results in increased infiltration, and higher water
tables. Evaporation in the ponds and mixing with
high salinity soils and groundwater can result in
increased salt concentrations in the infiltrated water.
Irrigation
High Altitude
Reservoirs
Anthropogenic
Reservoirs constructed in the Bighorn Mountains to
capture mountain snowmelt and release water for
later irrigation use. The 6 major reservoirs in the
Tongue River watershed include Twin, Park,
Bighorn, Cross Creek, Dome, and Sawmill
Reservoirs. The total full capacity of the reservoirs
is 26,956 acre-feet.
High altitude reservoirs modify stream hydrology by
capturing, storing, and releasing mountain snowmelt.
High Altitude
Diversions
Anthropogenic
High altitude diversions are used to adjust the
location and timing of water delivered to
downstream irrigators. This includes diversions
from the Big Goose Creek watershed to the Little
Goose Creek watershed (average of 49 cfs from
the Park and Mountain Supply Diversions).
Modifies volume and timing of water. Moves low
salinity water among various streams/ subbasins.
Transbasin
Diversions
Anthropogenic
Three canals (Meade-Coffen, Piney-Cruse, and
Prairie Dog) divert water from Piney Creek in the
Powder River watershed to Little Goose Creek and
Prairie Dog Creek in the Tongue River watershed.
An average of 67 cfs (max of 100 cfs) is diverted
between April and October of each year.
Modifies timing and volume of water. The quality of
this water (and its potential salinity impact) is
dependant on the supply from Piney Creek, but the
water is essentially mountain snowmelt that is
minimally affected by anthropogenic sources.
Irrigation
Withdrawals
Anthropogenic
Water withdrawn or applied (i.e., flood irrigation) at
the point of use to meet crop consumptive use
requirements.
Reduces the total volume of water in the stream,
thereby resulting in less dilution for any downstream
high salinity inputs.
Irrigation Return
Flows
Anthropogenic
Water returned to the stream from irrigation.
Return flow water equilibrates with groundwater and
generally returns to the stream at a higher salinity
concentration than when withdrawn.
Irrigated
Agriculture (Full
Supply)
Anthropogenic
Land that is irrigated with stream water to meet the
full water demand of the crop. Calculated at
80,980 acres in the Tongue River watershed.
Irrigated land has more dense plants, resulting in
more rainfall interception, more water uptake in the
root zone, and concentration of salts by plant uptake.
Generally reduces the available water in the system
and concentrates salts.
<£>
-------
Table J-3. Potential sources of salinity and/or nutrients in the Tongue River watershed.
Category
CBM
Coal Mines
Wastewater
Treatment
Name
Irrigated
Agriculture
(Partial Supply)
Nonirrigated
Agriculture
T&Y Dam and
Diversion
CBM Pond
Discharges
CBM Direct
Discharges
Coal Mine
Discharges
Strip Mining
Sheridan WWTP
Type
Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic
What is It?
Land that is irrigated with stream water to meet a
partial water demand of the crop (assumed to be 1/4
the water demand). Calculated at 32,442 acres in
the Tongue River watershed.
Dry-land farming that does not use irrigation, but
does have some land management.
Diversion Dam located approximately 12 miles
upstream of Miles City diverts an average of 133
cfs from the Tongue River to the T&Y Ditch during
the growing season, which irrigates land in both the
Tongue River and Yellowstone River watersheds.
CBM wells that discharge water to on or off
channel ponds for containment/ infiltration. CBM
effluent in the Tongue watershed generally has
higher salinity and sodium concentrations that
ambient stream concentrations. 427 known
discharges to CBM ponds (as of September 30,
2006).
CBM wells that discharge water directly to a
perennial stream. 18 direct discharges to the
Tongue River watershed (as of September 30,
2006).
Three coal mines (Decker East, Decker West,
Spring Creek) currently discharge water into the
Tongue River watershed. Average total flow of 3.6
cfs.
Strip mines.
The Sheridan WWTP is an activated sludge
treatment plant for the City of Sheridan, Wyoming.
It discharges an average of 4.6 cfs to Goose
Creek.
Potential Influence on Salinity/SAR
Irrigated land has more dense plants, resulting in
more rainfall interception, more water uptake in the
root zone, and concentration of salts by plant uptake.
Generally reduces the available water in the system
and concentrates salts.
Increased canopy cover plus water used can reduce
the volume of available water and concentrate salts in
the root zone.
Decrease in flow results in less dilution potential.
Return flows increase salinity loading.
CBM effluent in the Tongue watershed generally has
higher salinity and sodium concentrations that
ambient stream concentrations. Ponds are generally
unlined, and infiltrate the high salinity water into the
water table. On channel ponds also act like stock
ponds (see above), reducing stream flows and
increasing infiltration.
CBM effluent in the Tongue watershed generally has
higher salinity and sodium concentrations that
ambient stream concentrations. Therefore, untreated
discharges increase salinity, SAR, and flow in
streams.
Coal mine effluent in the Tongue watershed generally
has higher salinity and sodium concentrations that
ambient stream concentrations. Therefore, the
discharges increase salinity, SAR, and flow in
streams.
Strip mines alter infiltration, no plant interception.
No salinity data were available for the Sheridan
WWTP. It is assumed that salinity increases between
the intake (near the Big Goose Creek Canyon) to the
outfall downstream of Sheridan. This results in an
increase in salinity, and a net decrease in flow
through consumption.
-------
Table J-3. Potential sources of salinity and/or nutrients in the Tongue River watershed.
Category
Tongue
River
Reservoir
Natural
Sources
Name
Ranchester and
Dayton Lagoons
Other
Wastewater
Treatment
Tongue River
Reservoir Dam
Operations
Soils/Geology
Type
Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic
Natural
What is It?
The Ranchester and Dayton lagoons are the two
other large wastewater treatment systems in the
Tongue River watershed. Discharge an average of
0.21 and 0.16 cfs to the Tongue River,
respectively.
Powder Horn Ranch, Bighorn KOA, and Burgess
Junction Waste Dump all have lagoons discharging
to the Tongue River watershed. Discharge an
average of 0.030, 0.003, and 0.000 cfs,
respectively.
Located downstream of the MT-WY Stateline, the
Tongue River Reservoir has a capacity of 79,000
acre-feet of water.
Areas of naturally high soils, geology, and
groundwater exist throughout the Tongue River
watershed.
Potential Influence on Salinity/SAR
It is assumed that salinity increases between the
intake to the outfall. This results in an increase in
salinity, and a net decrease in flow through
consumption.
It is assumed that salinity increases between the
intake to the outfall. This results in an increase in
salinity, and a net decrease in flow through
consumption.
The reservoir is managed to store and release water
to serve downstream irrigators. This results in
downstream hydromodification. The reservoir, due to
its long residence time (90 day average), also serves
to mix high and low salinity water.
High salinity geology and soils contribute naturally
high loads to the Tongue River watershed.
CD
3
Q.
x"
-------
Appendix J
Calculation of SAR Permit Limits at a Specific Conductance of 2,440 uS/cm and a sodium
concentration of 420 mg/L
Na
Eq. 1: SAR= . ,where Ca, Mg, and Na are in milliequivalents.
EC = sum of the cations or anions (in milliequivalents). Assume that the cations are Ca, Mg, and Na +
miscellaneous other cations. Use measured data in Hanging Woman Creek near Birney Montana (USGS
Gage 06307600) to determine the relationship between sum of cations (Ca + Mg + Na) and EC.
Relationship equals:
Eq. 2: EC (uS/cm) = 78.801 (Ca + Mg + Na) + 172.9
Knowns: (a) Wyoming Permit Limit for EC = 2440 (iS/cm
(b) Wyoming permit limit for sodium = 420 mg/L = 18.26 meq/L
Eq. 3: 2440 = 78.801 (Ca + Mg + 18.26) + 172.9
Eq. 4: 28.77 = (Ca + Mg + 18.26)
Eq. 5: 10.51 = Ca + Mg
Eq. 6: SAR= . 1§'26 = 8.0
V(10.51)/2
J-12
-------
Appendix J
J.4 Scenario Results
The following sections present scenario results for the Tongue River at Miles City, Tongue River at the
Montana-Wyoming State Line, Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth, Otter Creek near the mouth,
Pumpkin Creek near the mouth, and the Tongue River Reservoir near the Tongue River Reservoir Dam.
Results are presented for flow, specific conductance, and sodium adsorption ratio at all of the sites. Total
nitrogen and total phosphorus results are also presented for the Tongue River Reservoir. Data and results
for additional sites throughout the Tongue River watershed are available upon request.
Throughout this document, Montana's numeric water quality standards for EC are used as a watershed-wide,
common point of reference for purposes of characterizing current water quality conditions in both Montana
and Wyoming. This is not intended to imply that Montana's water quality standards are directly applicable
within the jurisdictional boundaries of Wyoming. Montana's values are used only to provide a single
watershed-scale point of reference.
J-13
-------
-------
J.5 Tongue River at Miles City, Montana
| 25th-75th Percentile
Median
| Min-Max
Average
o
10,000 -,
1,000 -
100 -
10 -
Existing Natural No CBM
No CBM No CBM No Stock No No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Drect Pond Pond Irrigation Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-3. Scenario results for flow in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002).
CD
Q.
01
-------
Table J-4. Flow statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
346
103
201
316
6,089
4
Natural
2
441
140
219
426
6,817
21
No
CBM
4a
343
102
201
310
5,891
4
No CBM
Direct
4b
345
102
201
312
5,965
4
No CBM
Pond
4c
346
103
201
314
6,037
4
No Stock
Pond
5
354
104
205
323
6,681
4
No
Irrigation
6
437
146
223
427
6,264
24
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
353
113
210
364
6,254
2
No
WWTP
8
348
103
201
317
6,101
4
WY Permit
Limits
9a
353
108
207
324
6,163
5
Untreated
Discharge
9b
353
108
207
324
6,163
5
MT Stnd.
9c
353
108
207
324
6,163
5
O
1
Q.
Table J-5. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Tongue River at Miles City, Montana
(Modeling subbasin 1002).
Statistic
Mean Flow (cfs)
Mean Flow Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
Flow?1
Existing
1
316
NA
Natural
2
426
Yes
No
CBM
4a
310
No
No CBM
Direct
4b
312
No
No CBM
Pond
4c
314
No
No Stock
Pond
5
323
No
No
Irrigation
6
427
Yes
No
Transfers
7
364
Yes
No
WWTP
8
317
No
WY Permit
Limits
9a
324
No
Untreated
Discharge
9b
324
No
MT
Stnd.
9c
324
No
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
o
co
2,000
1 ,800 -_
1 ,600 -_
1 ,400 :
o 1 ,200 -
S5
1,000 ;
soo;
600 -
400
200 1
0
I 25th-75th Percentile
Median
| Mi n-Max
Average
Existing Natural No CBM
No CBM No CBM No Stock No Irrigation No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Drect Pond Pond Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-4. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-6. SC (|jS/cm
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
857
618
767
754
1,626
142
Natural
2
596
456
517
553
1,728
136
No
CBM
4a
815
589
736
725
1,618
135
statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling
No CBM
Direct
4b
828
595
742
732
1,620
136
No CBM
Pond
4c
846
612
760
747
1,624
136
No Stock
Pond
5
842
578
749
732
1,761
144
No
Irrigation
6
640
509
572
595
1,577
144
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
806
629
703
764
1,874
148
No
WWTP
8
848
611
760
747
1,622
146
WY Permit
Limits
9a
955
667
832
817
1,646
168
subbasin 1002
Untreated
Discharge
9b
926
654
814
798
1,637
166
MT Stnd.
9c
833
619
750
743
1,612
159
Table J-7. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002).
Evaluation
Period
Instantaneous
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
(uS/cm)
1500
2500
1000
1500
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
0.2%
0.0%
7.5%
0.0%
Natural
2
0.2%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
No
CBM
4a
0.2%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
No
CBM
Direct
4b
0.2%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
No
CBM
Pond
4c
0.2%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
No
Stock
Pond
5
0.3%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
No
Irrigation
6
0.2%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
No
Transfers
7
5.4%
0.0%
16.3%
0.0%
No
WWTP
8
0.2%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
0.2%
0.0%
16.3%
0.0%
Untreated
Discharge
9b
0.2%
0.0%
1 2.5%
0
MT
Stnd.
9c
0.2%
0.0%
6.3%
0
Table J-8. Comparison of mean SC (uS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Tongue River at Miles City,
Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002).
Statistic
Mean SC (uS/cm)
Mean SC Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SC?1
Existing
1
754
NA
Natural
2
553
Yes
No
CBM
4a
725
Yes
No CBM
Direct
4b
732
Yes
No CBM
Pond
4c
747
No
No Stock
Pond
5
732
Yes
No
Irrigation
6
595
Yes
No
Transfers
7
764
Yes
No
WWTP
8
747
No
WY Permit
Limits
9a
817
Yes
Untreated
Discharge
9b
798
Yes
MT
Stnd.
9c
743
Yes
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
I 25th-75th Percentile
Median
| Min-Max
Average
6.0 -
5.0 -
4.0 -
3.0 -
2.0 -
1.0 -
0.0
Existing Natural No CBM No CBM No CBM No Stock No Irrigation No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Direct Pond Pond Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-5. Scenario results for SAR in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling subbasin 1002).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-9. SAR statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
1.48
0.96
1.18
1.33
5.03
0.40
Natural
2
0.88
0.40
0.65
0.76
4.19
0.18
No
CBM
4a
1.17
0.72
0.88
1.08
4.97
0.28
No CBM
Direct
4b
1.22
0.77
0.92
1.12
4.97
0.31
No CBM
Pond
4c
1.43
0.93
1.12
1.29
5.02
0.39
No Stock
Pond
5
1.57
1.03
1.25
1.41
5.07
0.46
No
Irrigation
6
1.15
0.77
1.01
1.06
3.89
0.42
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
1.57
0.95
1.15
1.57
6.19
0.42
No
WWTP
8
1.48
0.96
1.18
1.32
5.03
0.40
Modeling subbasin 1002).
WY Permit
Limits
9a
1.96
1.21
1.52
1.64
5.06
0.47
Untreated
Discharge
9b
2.09
1.28
1.63
1.75
5.14
0.49
MT Stnd.
9c
1.52
1.00
1.22
1.36
4.99
0.41
Table J-10. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River at Miles City, Montana (Modeling
Evaluation
Period
Instantaneous
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
4.5
7.5
3
5
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
0.3%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
Natural
2
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
4a
0.2%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
No
CBM
Direct
4b
0.2%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
No
CBM
Pond
4c
0.3%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
No
Stock
Pond
5
0.3%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
No
Irrigation
6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Transfers
7
8.0%
0.0%
15.0%
0.0%
No
WWTP
8
0.3%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
subbasin 1002).
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
0.3%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Untreated
Discharge
9b
0.4%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
MT
Stnd.
9c
0.3%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
Table J-11. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Tongue River at Miles City, Montana
(Modeling subbasin 1002).
Statistic
Mean SAR
Mean SAR Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SAR?1
Existing
1
1.33
NA
Natural
2
0.76
Yes
No
CBM
4a
1.08
Yes
No CBM
Direct
4b
1.12
Yes
No CBM
Pond
4c
1.29
Yes
No Stock
Pond
5
1.41
Yes
No
Irrigation
6
1.06
Yes
No
Transfers
7
1.57
Yes
No
WWTP
8
1.32
No
WY Permit
Limits
9a
1.64
Yes
Untreated
Discharge
9b
1.75
Yes
MT
Stnd.
9c
1.36
Yes
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
J.6 Tongue River at the Montana-Wyoming State Line
| 25th-75th Percentile
Median
| Min-Max
Average
10,000 -,
1,000 -
o
100 -
10
Existing Natural No CBM
No CBM No CBM No Stock No No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Drect Pond Pond Irrigation Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-6. Scenario results for flow in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006).
CD
Q.
-------
10
10
Table J-12. Flow statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
345
143
202
379
4,568
18
Natural
2
423
139
198
405
4,711
59
No
CBM
4a
341
139
197
375
4,559
15
No CBM
Direct
4b
342
140
199
376
4,564
15
No CBM
Pond
4c
344
142
200
377
4,562
18
No Stock
Pond
5
347
143
202
380
4,571
18
No
Irrigation
6
424
141
199
408
4,760
65
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
337
132
191
371
4,605
17
No
WWTP
8
348
143
202
380
4,570
18
WY Permit
Limits
9a
345
143
202
379
4,568
18
Untreated
Discharge
9b
345
143
202
379
4,568
18
MT Stnd.
9c
345
143
202
379
4,568
18
1
Q.
Table J-13. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Tongue River at the State Line
(Modeling subbasin 3006).
Statistic
Mean Flow (cfs)
Mean Flow Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
Flow?1
Existing
1
379
NA
Natural
2
405
Yes
No
CBM
4a
375
No
No CBM
Direct
4b
376
No
No CBM
Pond
4c
377
No
No Stock
Pond
5
380
No
No
Irrigation
6
408
Yes
No
Transfers
7
371
Yes
No
WWTP
8
383
No
WY Permit
Limits
9a
379
No
Untreated
Discharge
9b
379
No
MT
Stnd.
9c
379
No
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
I
o
V)
1,400
| 25th-75th Percentile
Median
| Mi n-Max
Average
1,200 -
1,000 -
800 -
600 -
400
200 -
Existing Natural No CBM No CBM No CBM No Stock No Irrigation No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Drect Pond Pond Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-7. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-14. SC (|jS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
801
448
741
647
1,134
138
Natural
2
551
323
480
459
901
127
No
CBM
4a
764
420
698
613
998
135
No CBM
Direct
4b
764
393
699
599
993
109
No CBM
Pond
4c
774
417
712
610
1,099
109
No Stock
Pond
5
784
417
721
618
1,120
109
No
Irrigation
6
617
349
549
510
1,046
130
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
762
444
703
631
1,312
137
No
WWTP
8
790
438
728
638
1,140
137
WY Permit
Limits
9a
801
448
741
647
1,134
138
Untreated
Discharge
9b
801
448
741
647
1,134
138
MT Stnd.
9c
801
448
741
647
1,134
138
Table J-15. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006).
Evaluation
Period
Instantaneous
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
(uS/cm)
1500
2500
1000
1500
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Natural
2
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
4a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
Direct
4b
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
Pond
4c
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Stock
Pond
5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Irrigation
6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Transfers
7
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
No
WWTP
8
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Untreated
Discharge
9b
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MT
Stnd.
9c
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Table J-16. Comparison of mean SC (uS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Tongue River at the State Line
(ivioaennc
Statistic
Mean SC (uS/cm)
Mean SC Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SC?1
Existing
1
647
NA
Natural
2
459
Yes
No
CBM
4a
613
Yes
No CBM
Direct
4b
599
Yes
No CBM
Pond
4c
610
Yes
suDDasm JUUD).
No Stock
Pond
5
618
Yes
No
Irrigation
6
510
Yes
No
Transfers
7
631
Yes
No
WWTP
8
638
Yes
WY Permit
Limits
9a
647
No
Untreated
Discharge
9b
647
No
MT
Stnd.
9c
647
No
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
2.5 T
2.0 -
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0
| 25th-75th Percentile
Median
| Min-Max
Average
Existing Natural
No CBM No CBM No CBM No Stock No Irrigation No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Direct Pond Pond Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-8. Scenario results for SAR in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-17. SAR statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
0.67
0.38
0.57
0.58
2.33
0.11
Natural
2
0.26
0.13
0.22
0.21
0.38
0.06
No
CBM
4a
0.38
0.20
0.36
0.30
0.47
0.08
No CBM
Direct
4b
0.47
0.23
0.42
0.37
1.19
0.09
No CBM
Pond
4c
0.59
0.36
0.52
0.52
2.37
0.10
No Stock
Pond
5
0.67
0.39
0.57
0.58
2.39
0.12
No
Irrigation
6
0.66
0.28
0.52
0.51
2.09
0.10
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
0.69
0.37
0.58
0.58
2.35
0.11
No
WWTP
8
0.66
0.37
0.55
0.57
2.28
0.11
WY Permit
Limits
9a
0.67
0.38
0.57
0.58
2.33
0.11
Untreated
Discharge
9b
0.67
0.38
0.57
0.58
2.33
0.11
MT Stnd.
9c
0.67
0.38
0.57
0.58
2.33
0.11
Table J-18. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in the Tong
Evaluation
Period
Instantaneous
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
4.5
7.5
3
5
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Natural
2
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
4a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
Direct
4b
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
Pond
4c
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ue River at the State Line (Modeling subbasin 3006).
No
Stock
Pond
5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Irrigation
6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Transfers
7
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
WWTP
8
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Untreated
Discharge
9b
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MT
Stnd.
9c
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Table J-19. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Tongue River at the State Line (Modeling
subbasin 3006).
Statistic
Mean SAR
Mean SAR Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SAR?1
Existing
1
0.58
NA
Natural
2
0.21
Yes
No
CBM
4a
0.30
Yes
No CBM
Direct
4b
0.37
Yes
No CBM
Pond
4c
0.52
Yes
No Stock
Pond
5
0.58
No
No
Irrigation
6
0.51
Yes
No
Transfers
7
0.58
No
No
WWTP
8
0.57
No
WY Permit
Limits
9a
0.58
No
Untreated
Discharge
9b
0.58
No
MT
Stnd.
9c
0.58
No
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
J.7 Hanging Woman Creek near the Mouth
o
1000
100 -
10 -
1 -
0.1 -
0.01
25th-75th Percentile
Median
Mi n-Max
Average
Existing Natural No CBM No CBM No CBM No Stock No Irrigation No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Direct Pond Pond Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-9. Scenario results for flow in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
CD
Q.
-------
10
00
Table J-20. Flow statistics for various scenarios in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
3.6
0.2
0.6
3.3
260.8
0.1
Natural
2
4.0
0.3
0.9
3.6
266.6
0.1
No
CBM
4a
3.7
0.2
0.6
3.3
262.0
0.1
No CBM
Direct
4b
3.6
0.2
0.6
3.3
260.8
0.1
No CBM
Pond
4c
3.6
0.2
0.6
3.3
260.8
0.1
No Stock
Pond
5
3.8
0.3
0.6
3.4
267.4
0.1
No
Irrigation
6
3.9
0.3
0.8
3.4
258.8
0.1
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
3.6
0.2
0.6
3.3
260.8
0.1
No
WWTP
8
3.6
0.2
0.6
3.3
260.8
0.1
WY Permit
Limits
9a
8.2
4.6
5.4
7.8
270.7
2.8
Untreated
Discharge
9b
8.2
4.6
5.4
7.8
270.7
2.8
MT
Standards
9c
8.2
4.6
5.4
7.8
270.7
2.8
1
Q.
Table J-21. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Hanging Woman Creek near the
mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
Statistic
Mean Flow (cfs)
Mean Flow Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
Flow?1
Existing
1
3.3
NA
Natural
2
3.6
No
No
CBM
4a
3.3
No
No CBM
Direct
4b
3.3
No
No CBM
Pond
4c
3.3
No
No
Stock
Pond
5
3.4
No
No
Irrigation
6
3.4
No
No
Transfers
7
3.3
No
No
WWTP
8
3.3
No
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
7.8
Yes
Untreated
Discharge
9b
7.8
Yes
MT
Standards
9c
7.8
Yes
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
25th-75th Percentile
Median
| Mi n-Max
Average
4,000
3,500 -
3,000 -
E 2,500
I
O 2,000
OT
1,500 -
1,000 -
500 -
Existing Natural No CBM No CBM No CBM No Stock No Irrigation No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Drect Pond Pond Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-10. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-22. SC (|jS/cm
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
2,555
2,229
2,371
2,413
3,694
433
Natural
2
2,548
2,226
2,360
2,417
3,688
429
No
CBM
4a
2,560
2,233
2,377
2,416
3,699
435
statistics for various scenarios in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
No CBM
Direct
4b
2,555
2,229
2,371
2,413
3,694
433
No CBM
Pond
4c
2,560
2,233
2,377
2,416
3,699
435
No Stock
Pond
5
2,552
2,230
2,370
2,412
3,688
431
No
Irrigation
6
2,533
2,217
2,349
2,407
3,688
429
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
2,555
2,229
2,371
2,413
3,694
433
No
WWTP
8
2,555
2,229
2,371
2,413
3,694
433
WY Permit
Limits
9a
2,821
2,407
2,548
2,606
3,446
992
Untreated
Discharge
9b
2,369
2,005
2,154
2,197
3,190
850
MT
Standards
9c
1,353
689
876
1,054
2,764
452
Table J-23. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
Evaluation
Period
Inst.
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
(uS/cm)
500
500
500
500
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
Natural
2
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
No
CBM
4a
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
No
CBM
Direct
4b
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
No
CBM
Pond
4c
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
No
Stock
Pond
5
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
No
Irrig
6
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
No
Transfers
7
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
No
WWTP
8
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Untreated
Discharge
9b
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
MT
Stnd.
9c
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
Table J-24. Comparison of mean SC (uS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Hanging Woman Creek near the
mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
Statistic
Mean SC (uS/cm)
Mean SC Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SC?1
Existing
1
2,413
NA
Natural
2
2,417
No
No
CBM
4a
2,416
No
No CBM
Direct
4b
2,413
No
No CBM
Pond
4c
2,416
No
No
Stock
Pond
5
2,412
No
No
Irrigation
6
2,407
No
No
Transfers
7
2,413
No
No
WWTP
8
2,413
No
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
2,606
Yes
Untreated
Discharge
9b
2,197
Yes
MT
Standards
9c
1,054
Yes
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
25th-75th Percentile
Median
| Min-Max
Average
35.0 -,
co
30.0 -
25.0 -
20.0 -
15.0 -
10.0 -
5.0 -
0.0
Existing Natural No CBM
No CBM No CBM No Stock No Irrigation No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Drect Fond Fond Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-11. Scenario results forSAR in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-25. SAR statistics for various scenarios in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
5.75
4.79
5.12
5.38
8.39
1.71
Natural
2
5.78
4.78
5.11
5.39
8.44
1.69
No
CBM
4a
5.75
4.81
5.14
5.39
8.40
1.72
No CBM
Direct
4b
5.75
4.79
5.12
5.38
8.39
1.71
No CBM
Pond
4c
5.75
4.81
5.14
5.39
8.40
1.72
No Stock
Pond
5
5.75
4.79
5.11
5.38
8.38
1.70
No
Irrigation
6
5.73
4.74
5.08
5.35
8.39
1.69
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
5.75
4.79
5.12
5.38
8.39
1.71
No
WWTP
8
5.75
4.79
5.12
5.38
8.39
1.71
WY Permit
Limits
9a
8.20
6.84
7.73
7.48
9.26
3.32
Untreated
Discharge
9b
23.31
10.13
18.35
17.06
30.78
3.51
MT
Standards
9c
4.13
3.20
3.62
3.74
6.56
2.05
Table J-26. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1095).
Evaluation
Period
Inst.
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
4.5
7.5
3
5
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
94%
0%
100%
25%
Natural
2
94%
0%
100%
25%
No
CBM
4a
94%
0%
100%
25%
No
CBM
Direct
4b
94%
0%
100%
25%
No
CBM
Pond
4c
94%
0%
100%
25%
No
Stock
Pond
5
94%
0%
100%
25%
No
Irrig
6
94%
0%
100%
23%
No
Transfers
7
94%
0%
100%
25%
No
WWTP
8
94%
0%
100%
25%
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
100%
47%
100%
98%
Untreated
Discharge
9b
100%
90%
100%
100%
MT
Standards
9c
17%
0%
100%
0%
Table J-27. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Hanging Woman Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1095).
Statistic
Mean SAR
Mean SAR Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SAR?1
Existing
1
5.38
NA
Natural
2
5.39
No
No
CBM
4a
5.39
No
No CBM
Direct
4b
5.38
No
No CBM
Pond
4c
5.39
No
No
Stock
Pond
5
5.38
No
No
Irrigation
6
5.35
No
No
Transfers
7
5.38
No
No
WWTP
8
5.38
No
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
7.48
Yes
Untreated
Discharge
9b
17.06
Yes
MT
Standards
9c
3.74
Yes
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
J.8 Tongue River Reservoir
1,000 -,
900 :
800 -
700 '-
600 :
500 ^
400 :
300 -
200 :
100 -
0
25th-75th Percentile
Median
Mi n-Max
Average
Existing Natural No CBM
No CBM No CBM No Stock No Irrigation No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Drect Pond Pond Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-12. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling subbasin 3000).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-28. SC (|jS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling Subbasin 3000).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
734
484
634
610
855
330
Natural
2
443
363
404
405
567
285
No
CBM
4a
694
450
597
574
825
322
No CBM
Direct
4b
706
457
605
583
833
325
No CBM
Pond
4c
721
478
626
601
847
328
No Stock
Pond
5
732
483
633
609
853
330
No
Irrigation
6
531
414
478
472
651
306
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
643
477
571
557
732
328
No
WWTP
8
724
478
625
602
846
328
WY Permit
Limits
9a
774
519
672
646
893
336
Untreated
Discharge
9b
761
512
661
636
876
335
MT
Standards
9c
725
489
631
606
844
330
Table J-29. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling Subbasin 3000).
Evaluation
Period
Instantaneous
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
(uS/cm)
1000
1500
1000
1500
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Natural
2
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
4a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
Direct
4b
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
Pond
4c
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Stock
Pond
5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Irrigation
6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Transfers
7
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
WWTP
8
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Untreated
Discharge
9b
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MT
Stnd.
9c
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Table J-30. Comparison of mean SC ((jS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling
Subbasin 3000).
Statistic
Mean SC (uS/cm)
Mean SC Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SC?1
Existing
1
610
NA
Natural
2
405
Yes
No
CBM
4a
574
Yes
No CBM
Direct
4b
583
Yes
No CBM
Pond
4c
601
No
No
Stock
Pond
5
609
No
No
Irrigation
6
472
Yes
No
Transfers
7
557
Yes
No
WWTP
8
602
No
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
646
Yes
Untreated
Discharge
9b
636
Yes
MT
Standards
9c
606
No
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
25th-75th Percentile
Median
Min-Max
Average
1 .8 y
1.6 -
1.4 -
1.2 -
1.0 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
0.0 -
i-
Existing Natural No CBM
No CBM No CBM No Stock No Irrigation No No WWTP WY Permit Untreated MT
Direct Pond Pond Transfers Limits Discharge Standards
Figure J-13. Scenario results for SAR in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling subbasin 3000).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-31. SAR statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling Subbasin 3000).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
0.82
0.52
0.68
0.70
1.22
0.22
Natural
2
0.20
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.27
0.10
No
CBM
4a
0.48
0.32
0.42
0.40
0.58
0.16
No CBM
Direct
4b
0.55
0.36
0.46
0.45
0.70
0.17
No CBM
Pond
4c
0.76
0.50
0.64
0.65
1.12
0.21
No Stock
Pond
5
0.81
0.52
0.68
0.70
1.22
0.22
No
Irrigation
6
0.74
0.47
0.61
0.61
1.07
0.21
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
0.76
0.52
0.65
0.66
1.12
0.23
No
WWTP
8
0.81
0.52
0.67
0.69
1.22
0.22
WY Permit
Limits
9a
1.03
0.66
0.86
0.89
1.58
0.27
Untreated
Discharge
9b
1.10
0.69
0.90
0.94
1.72
0.28
MT
Stnd.
9c
0.84
0.54
0.71
0.72
1.24
0.23
Table J-32. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling Subbasin 3000).
Evaluation
Period
Instantaneous
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
(uS/cm)
4.5
7.5
3
5
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Natural
2
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
4a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
Direct
4b
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
CBM
Pond
4c
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Stock
Pond
5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Irrigation
6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Transfers
7
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
WWTP
8
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Untreated
Discharge
9b
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MT
Stnd.
9c
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Table J-33. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling
Subbasin 3000).
Statistic
Mean SAR
Mean SAR Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SAR?1
Existing
1
0.70
NA
Natural
2
0.17
Yes
No
CBM
4a
0.40
Yes
No CBM
Direct
4b
0.45
Yes
No CBM
Pond
4c
0.65
Yes
No Stock
Pond
5
0.70
No
No
Irrigation
6
0.61
Yes
No
Transfers
7
0.66
Yes
No
WWTP
8
0.69
No
WY Permit
Limits
9a
0.89
Yes
Untreated
Discharge
9b
0.94
Yes
MT
Stnd.
9c
0.72
No
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
(Total Nitrogen
(Total Phosphorus
1,000
Existing Natural No CBM No CBM No CBM Pond No Stock No Irrigation No Transfers No WWTP
Direct Pond
Scenario
Figure J-14. Scenario results for total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads to the Tongue River Reservoir from upstream sources (Modeling
subbasin 3001).
Table J-34. Upstream total nitrogen and total phosphorus daily loading statistics for various scenarios in the Tongue River Reservoir (Modeling
Subbasin 3001) (pounds per day).
Statistic
75th Percentile
25th Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
464
208
303
518
10,170
47
Natural
2
331
104
161
405
10,259
31
NoCBM
4a
422
165
259
475
10,114
15
No CBM Direct
4b
428
172
267
482
10,132
15
No CBM Pond
4c
458
200
295
511
10,152
46
No Stock Pond
5
466
208
304
520
10,356
47
No Irrigation
6
423
179
247
490
10,355
81
No Inter-basin Transfers
7
433
188
284
490
10,165
46
No WWTP
8
427
188
270
488
10,153
46
CD
Q.
-------
o
00
O)
14
12
10-
8
2
Existing
Natural
120
10°
80
60
40
20
Existing
Natural
o
.c
Q.
t/>
O
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Existing
Natural
12
_ 10
d
Q.
O
2 -
Existing
3
Q.
Natural
Table J-35. Modeling existing versus natural dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a concentrations in the Tongue
River Reservoir near the dam (surface layer).
-------
J.9 Otter Creek near the Mouth
I 25th-75th Percentile »Median I Min-Max Average
1000
100
10
0.1
111
Existing Natural No Stock Fbnd No Irrigation
Figure J-15. Scenario results for flow in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).
-------
Table J-36. Flow statistics for various scenarios in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
4.7
0.8
2.3
5.4
668.1
0.2
Natural
2
7.6
1.3
3.0
7.7
857.5
0.3
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No Stock
Pond
5
6.1
0.9
3.0
7.3
873.8
0.2
No
Irrigation
6
5.8
1.1
2.4
5.8
654.4
0.3
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WY Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
Q.
Table J-37. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Otter Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1059).
Statistic
Mean Flow (cfs)
Mean Flow Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
Flow?1
Existing
1
5.4
NA
Natural
2
7.7
Yes
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
7.3
Yes
No
Irrigation
6
5.8
No
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
I 25th-75th Fercentile » Median I Min-Max Average
4,000
3,500 -
3,000 -
2,500 -
O 2,000
OT
1,500 -
1,000 -
500
0
Existing Natural No Stock Pond No Irrigation
Figure J-16. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-38. SC (|jS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
3,033
2,643
2,864
2,825
3,697
468
Natural
2
3,035
2,591
2,780
2,806
3,862
479
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No Stock
Pond
5
3,032
2,640
2,860
2,824
3,689
479
No
Irrigation
6
3,034
2,589
2,781
2,805
3,866
467
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WY Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table J-39. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).
Evaluation
Period
Inst.
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Std
(uS/cm)
500
500
500
500
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
99.7%
81 .9%
100.0%
100.0%
Natural
2
99.8%
77.4%
100.0%
100.0%
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
99.7%
81 .9%
100.0%
100.0%
No
Irrig
6
99.7%
81 .9%
100.0%
100.0%
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Stnd.
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table J-40. Comparison of mean SC ((jS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Otter Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1059).
Statistic
Mean SC (uS/cm)
Mean SC Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SC?1
Existing
1
2,825
NA
Natural
2
2,806
Yes
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
2,824
No
No
Irrigation
6
2,805
Yes
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
I 25th-75th Percentile Median I Min-Max
Average
o:
ss
8.0 -,
7.0 -
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Existing Natural No Stock Pond No Irrigation
Figure J-17. Scenario results for SAR in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-41. SAR statistics for various scenarios in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
6.30
5.48
5.87
5.89
7.16
1.14
Natural
2
6.34
5.41
5.78
5.86
7.38
1.20
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No Stock
Pond
5
6.30
5.47
5.86
5.89
7.18
1.21
No
Irrigation
6
6.34
5.41
5.78
5.86
7.37
1.13
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WY Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table J-42. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1059).
Evaluation
Period
Inst.
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
4.5
7.5
3
5
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
99%
0%
100%
98%
Natural
2
99%
0%
100%
98%
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
99%
0%
100%
98%
No
Irrig
6
99%
0%
100%
98%
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table J-43. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Otter Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1059).
Statistic
Mean SAR
Mean SAR Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SAR?1
Existing
1
5.89
NA
Natural
2
5.86
Yes
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
5.89
No
No
Irrigation
6
5.86
Yes
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
J.10 Pumpkin Creek
I
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001 -
0.0001
25th-75th Percentile Median I Min-Max Average
Existing Natural No Stock Pond No Irrigation
Figure J-18. Scenario results for flow in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-44. Flow statistics for various scenarios in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
3.8
0.0
0.4
20.1
4,397.1
0.0
Natural
2
4.4
0.3
0.9
21.4
4,886.3
0.0
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No Stock
Pond
5
4.1
0.0
0.4
22.0
4,933.5
0.0
No
Irrigation
6
4.0
0.3
0.9
19.4
4,350.3
0.0
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WY Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
o
1
Q.
Table J-45. Comparison of mean flow (cfs) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Pumpkin Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1007).
Statistic
Mean Flow (cfs)
Mean Flow Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
Flow?1
Existing
1
20.1
NA
Natural
2
21.4
No
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
22.0
No
No
Irrigation
6
19.4
No
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
3,500
| 25th-75th Fercentile » Median I Min-Max Average
3,000 -
2,500 -
55 2,000
o
V)
1 ,500 -
1 ,000 -
500
0
Existing Natural No Stock Pond No Irrigation
Figure J-19. Scenario results for salinity (specific conductance) in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007).
CD
Q.
-------
Table J-46. SC (|jS/cm) statistics for various scenarios in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
1,435
693
985
1,103
2,786
121
Natural
2
1,607
739
1,126
1,200
3,099
122
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No Stock
Pond
5
1,433
695
987
1,102
2,778
121
No
Irrigation
6
1,611
736
1,121
1,197
3,122
122
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WY Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table J-47. Percentage of SC exceedances per scenario in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007).
Evaluation
Period
Inst.
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Std
(uS/cm)
500
500
500
500
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
86.8%
86.6%
96.3%
90.0%
Natural
2
88.5%
84.9%
95.0%
87.5%
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
86.9%
86.4%
96.3%
90.0%
No
Irrig
6
88.3%
84.9%
95.0%
87.5%
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Stnd.
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table J-48. Comparison of mean SC ((jS/cm) values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Pumpkin Creek near the mouth
(Modeling subbasin 1007).
Statistic
Mean SC (uS/cm)
Mean SC Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SC?1
Existing
1
1,103
NA
Natural
2
1,200
Yes
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
1,102
No
No
Irrigation
6
1,197
Yes
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
I 25th-75th Fercentile »Median | Min-Max Average
14.0
12.0
10.0
55 8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Existing Natural No Stock Fbnd No Irrigation
Figure J-20. Scenario results forSAR in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007).
CD
Q.
<£>
-------
Table J-49. SAR statistics for various scenarios in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling subbasin 1007).
Statistic
75th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
Average
Max
Min
Existing
1
8.61
4.21
6.18
6.44
12.67
0.31
Natural
2
8.65
4.27
6.28
6.55
12.86
0.39
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No Stock
Pond
5
8.59
4.22
6.16
6.43
12.64
0.32
No
Irrigation
6
8.65
4.26
6.26
6.54
12.86
0.39
No Inter-basin
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
8.61
4.21
6.18
6.44
12.67
0.31
WY Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table J-50. Percentage of SAR exceedances per scenario in Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling
Evaluation
Period
Inst.
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Growing
Season
Nongrowing
Season
Standard
4.5
7.5
3
5
Count
of
Values
2450
1202
80
40
Existing
1
71%
53%
100%
73%
Natural
2
73%
51%
100%
73%
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
71%
53%
100%
73%
No
Irrig
6
73%
51%
100%
73%
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
subbasin 1007).
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table J-51. Comparison of mean SAR values from various scenarios to the existing condition scenario, Pumpkin Creek near the mouth (Modeling
subbasin 1007).
Statistic
Mean SAR
Mean SAR Differs From
Existing Condition Mean
SAR?1
Existing
1
6.44
NA
Natural
2
6.55
Yes
No
CBM
4a
NA
NA
No CBM
Direct
4b
NA
NA
No CBM
Pond
4c
NA
NA
No
Stock
Pond
5
6.43
No
No
Irrigation
6
6.54
No
No
Transfers
7
NA
NA
No
WWTP
8
NA
NA
WY
Permit
Limits
9a
NA
NA
Untreated
Discharge
9b
NA
NA
MT
Standards
9c
NA
NA
Means were compared using a Student's T-Test at an a of 0.05.
-------
APPENDIX K - COMPARISON OF GREAT
PLAINS STREAMS WATER CHEMISTRY DATA
-------
-------
Appendix K
K.O COMPARISON OF GREAT PLAINS STREAMS WATER CHEMISTRY DATA
This appendix presents the results of a comparison of selected water quality data in prairie streams in the
Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The
purpose of this analysis was to compare water quality concentrations in Hanging Woman Creek, Otter
Creek, Pumpkin Creek, and the Tongue River to concentrations sampled at similar streams in neighboring
watersheds. The spatial extent of the analysis was determined by a number of factors including climate,
elevation, ecoregion, stream type, contributing drainage area, and data availability.
K.1 Tributaries to the Tongue River
The primary factor considered while selecting the streams was the ecoregional setting and type of
watershed. An ecoregion map (USEPA, 2007) for the states of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and
South Dakota was used to differentiate prairie streams from mountainous streams (Figure K-l). The
ecoregion coverage was also used to compare climate and elevation for each stream. Streams in the
Tongue River watershed presented in the analysis include Pumpkin Creek, Otter Creek, Hanging Woman
Creek, and Squirrel Creek (Figure K-2). Streams selected from adjacent watersheds include Sarpy Creek,
Armells Creek, Cherry Creek, Beaver Creek, O'Fallen Creek, Donkey Creek, Belle Fourche River, Black
Thunder Creek, Mizpah Creek, Little Powder River, Rosebud Creek, and Antelope Creek (Figure K-2).
These streams were selected on the premise that they receive similar amounts of precipitation, their
watersheds are entirely located in the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion (including their headwaters),
and they are prairie type streams with a similar drainage area to Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek,
and/or Pumpkin Creek.
Water quality data for the analysis was acquired from the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
National Water Information System (NWIS). Stations with the greatest numbers of samples and sampling
period were selected for each stream listed above. Table K-l lists stations used in this analysis, sampling
period of record, station location information, drainage area, and elevation. Additionally, Table K-2
provides a list of parameters evaluated. Data for multiple parameters with the same group name were
assumed to approximate the same parameter and were combined. Table K-3 through Table K-12 and
Figure K-3 through Figure K-l 3 present a summary of statistics and box plots of data for all stations and
parameter groups.
K-1
-------
",,* State Boundane*
"^ VAitemhotb
MtsUiwESIern Glaciated Plains
Ho4l!»w«sS(Wn Gr*«! Plains
Figure K-1. Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota ecoregions.
-------
Appendix K
/*&&. IS \f
ioo» ik..
-------
Appendix K
Table K-1. USGS sampling stations, location information, and period of sampling.
Station ID
06294940
06294995
06295113
06295250
06296003
06307600
06307740
06308400
0631 3400
06324970
06325500
06326300
06326555
06326600
06336600
06364700
06375600
06426400
06426500
Location
Sarpy Creek near
Hysham, MT
Armells Creek near
Forsyth, MT
Rosebud Creek at
Reservation
Boundary near
Kirby, MT
Rosebud Creek near
Colstrip, MT
Rosebud Creek at
mouth near
Rosebud, MT
Hanging Woman Cr.
nr Birney, MT
Otter Creek at
Ashland, MT
Pumpkin Creek near
Miles City, MT
Salt Creek near
Sussex, WY
Little Powder River
above Dry Creek
nearWeston, WY
Little Powder River
near Broadus, MT
Mizpah Creek near
Mizpah, MT
Cherry Creek near
Terry, MT
O'Fallon Creek near
Ismay, MT
Beaver Creek near
Trotters, ND
Antelope Creek near
Teckla, WY
Little Thunder Creek
near Hampshire, WY
Donkey Creek near
Moorcroft, WY
Belle Fourche River
near Moorcroft, WY
Begin Date
1 2/3/1 974
1 0/8/1 974
10/1/1979
1 0/9/1 974
10/10/1974
1 0/2/1 974
1 0/2/1 974
10/15/1975
1 0/9/1 967
1/8/1975
8/30/1 978
10/17/1975
1 0/9/1 977
10/24/1977
2/29/1 948
1 0/3/1 977
9/30/1 977
9/29/1 977
9/22/1 972
End Date
6/28/1984
8/22/1995
7/13/2004
10/1/2003
10/1/2003
6/22/2004
8/18/2004
8/2/1 985
9/22/2003
9/16/2003
9/3/2003
9/30/2003
6/9/1 994
4/21/1992
8/20/2003
9/8/2003
5/28/1997
9/9/2003
9/8/2003
State
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
WY
WY
MT
MT
MT
MT
ND
WY
WY
WY
Wy
HUC
10100001
10100001
1 01 00003
1 01 00003
1 01 00003
10090101
10090102
10090102
1 0090204
1 0090208
1 0090208
1 009021 0
1 01 00004
1 01 00005
10110204
10120101
10120103
10120201
10120201
Latitude
46.2386
46.2497
45.361 1
45.7675
46.2647
45.2992
45.5883
46.2283
43.6219
44.9269
45.3903
46.2608
46.8500
46.4214
47.1631
43.4853
43.6550
44.2828
44.3219
Longitude
-107.1373
-106.8067
-106.9903
-106.5700
-106.4756
-106.5084
-106.2553
-105.6906
-106.3684
-105.3533
-105.3047
-105.2933
-105.3247
-104.7616
-103.9927
-105.2253
-104.9092
-105.0639
-104.9405
Drainage
Area
453
370
123
799
1,302
470
707
697
769
1,237
1974
797
357
669
616
959
234
236
1690
Altitude
(meters)
2,680
2,560
3,780
3,000
2,480
3,150
2,916
2,490
4,480
3,410
3,020
2,490
2,301
2,590
2,370
NA
4,400
NA
4110
K-4
-------
Appendix K
Table K-2. USGS Parameters and Parameter Groupings.
Group
Calcium
Chloride
Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved
Phosphorus
Hardness
Magnesium
Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate + Nitrite
Nitrate + Nitrite
Nitrite
Nitrite
Nitrite
SAR
Sodium
Specific
Conductance
Specific
Conductance
Specific
Conductance
Specific
Conductance
SRP
SRP
SRP
Sulfate
Temperature
TKN
TKN
TN
TN
TP
TP
TP
TP
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
Turbidity
Turbidity
USGS Parameter
Code
915
940
70953
70954
300
666
900
925
618
620
71851
630
631
613
615
71856
931
930
94
95
90094
90095
660
671
70507
945
10
605
625
600
71887
665
669
678
71886
500
530
70299
80154
70
76
Parameter Name
Calcium, Dissolved (mg/L as Ca)
Chloride, Dissolved (mg/L as Cl)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Chromotographic- Fluorometric
(mg/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, Chromotographic- Fluorometric (|ig/L)
Oxygen, Dissolved (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Dissolved (mg/L as P)
Hardness, Total (mg/L as Ca03)
Magnesium, Dissolved (mg/L as Mg)
Nitrogen, Nitrate, Dissolved (Mg/L As N)
Nitrogen, Nitrate, Total (mg/L as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrate, Dissolved (mg/L As No3)
Nitrogen, Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (mg/L as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Dissolved (Mg/L As N)
Nitrogen, Nitrite, Dissolved, mg/L As N
Nitrogen, Nitrite, Total (mg/L as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrite, Dissolved (mg/L as No2)
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
Sodium, Dissolved (mg/L as Na)
Specific Conductance, Field (|iS/cm at 25 Degrees Celsius)
Specific Conductance, Field (|iS/cm at 25 Degrees Celsius)
Specific Conductance, Area Weighted Average (|iS/cm at 25
Degrees Celsius)
Specific Conductance, Lab (|iS/cm at 25 Degrees Celsius)
Phosphate, Ortho, Dissolved (mg/L as Po4)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Dissolved (mg/L as P)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total (mg/L as P)
Sulfate, Dissolved (mg/L as So4)
Temperature, Water, (Degrees Celsius)
Nitrogen, Organic, Total (mg/L as N)
Nitrogen, Ammonia Plus Organic, Total (mg/L as N)
Nitrogen, Total (mg/L as N)
Nitrogen, Total (mg/L as NO3)
Phosphorus, Total (mg/L as P)
Phosphorus, Hydrolyzable, Total (mg/L as P)
Phosphorus, Hydrolizable Plus Ortho, Total (mg/L as P)
Phosphorus, Total (mg/L as PO4)
Solids, Residue on Total Evaporation at 105 Degrees Celsius
(mg/L)
Residue, Total Non Filterable (mg/L)
Solids, Residue at 110 Deg. C, Suspended, Total (mg/L)
Suspended Sediment Concentration (mg/L)
Turbidity (Jackson Candle Units)
Turbidity (NTU)
K-5
-------
Table K-3. TSS and SSC sam|
Watershed
Lower Yellowstone
Powder
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Powder R. near Weston, WY
L Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus, MT
Station ID
06295113
06324890
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06336600
06326600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06326300
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
06325500
3ling period of record and summary statistics (mg/L).
Drainage
Area (sq. Mi)
123
182
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
12/10/1979
6/3/1975
9/30/1977
9/29/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
10/14/1977
10/24/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
12/10/1975
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
10/3/1977
1/8/1975
10/10/1974
2/10/1976
7/26/1988
End
5/12/2004
8/12/1983
5/28/1997
6/9/1981
6/9/1994
8/22/1995
6/28/1984
6/22/2004
7/8/1981
6/27/1984
7/31/1985
7/13/2004
10/15/1987
9/29/2003
10/1/2003
8/11/1981
9/16/2003
10/1/2003
10/19/1999
9/3/2003
Count
49
58
63
58
64
133
75
159
56
66
57
161
114
73
100
51
190
148
103
24
Min
24
1
17
11
6
13
4
4
14
26
9
2
61
14
5
5
8
4
9
48
Avg
84
71
985
382
643
145
83
86
175
223
2,195
93
5,300
2,100
158
110
993
686
684
141
Max
463
1,120
9,350
6,040
16,900
1,860
416
650
2,560
4,390
27,100
536
88,200
25,900
1,040
1,130
19,400
21,600
10,500
388
StDev
66
151
1,925
938
2,428
216
82
91
388
537
5,458
74
13,428
4,706
204
176
2,734
2,303
1,655
75
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
1,000,000 r
100,000 :
10,000 :
1,000 :
100
10
^li : 53 T -58- p 4 = -133- - - 75: ^ 1S9 j: sg
--1979
2004
123
₯
- -1977i - 1977 r -1977-
1997 1981 1994
234 236 357
\ - - - -\
I
4
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-J-!
m
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EEr
~ T ~
~ T ~
H
>
I
I
I
--1974-
_ _1995_
370
I
I
--1974^ 1974 1
977
1984 2004 1981
I
453^ 470 T 616
i
i- i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i -
I r
1
I r
i 1 i
I '
1 ' 1
1 '
I - 1
I i
I *~
1
: 66: = 57 1(J1 114 73 =| 300= ^ =51 = 190 148= T 103 24
::1984 19
75 1974 ^975-
--1977 198S 2004 1987
669 8i7 70? 769
i
-i
M I
ll
___,
.. _L 1
-I- |
-I- |
1 1
I |
-I- |
I |
I |
" T 1
... _L 1
.. _L 1
I |
I |
... 1
I
I
I 1 |
T - I f-
k
1
1
i
i
i
- -1 975^ - A 974 r - 1977
_ J2QQ31 _ J2003I _ 1981
I
7971 799 T 959
I
1 H
f
<
1
1
1
1 |
1 |
1 |
1
1
1
1
1
> H
r~ n ~ ^
1 - -
1
1
1
1
1
~ 1
1
> r
t 3 * 1
J+l
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
--1975-
__200a
1,237
- -1974^ - 1976 1988
--2003t-1999 2003
I I
1,302 1,690 1,974
I |
1- - I
I |
|<
I |
I |
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 ^
1- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
r: 1
i
i
i
I |
I |
I |
Count
Begin
End
Drainage
Area
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy Cr.Hanging Beaver O'fallon PumpkinOtter Cr. Salt Cr. Mizpah RosebudAntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT Dry Cr. Broadus,
I bfith-Tfith Percentile * median I Min-Max MT
Figure K-3. TSS and SSC box plot.
-------
7s
d»
Turbidity sampling
Watershed
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
Station ID
06295113
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06326300
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
period of record and summary statistics (NTU).
Drainage
Area (sq. Mi)
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
Start
9/25/2003
9/27/1980
6/8/1978
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
11/7/1974
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
12/10/1975
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
4/10/1980
6/4/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
End
9/25/2003
6/3/1991
9/19/1983
8/8/1978
9/5/1978
6/8/1978
10/2/2003
9/13/1978
10/2/2003
3/11/1981
9/30/2003
10/1/2003
4/10/1980
5/7/2002
10/1/2003
8/18/1993
Count
1
3
17
11
42
31
52
22
51
10
29
49
1
133
50
92
Min
5
15
1
1
1
2
2
7
1
20
5
3
5
1
3
2
Avg
5
1,555
37
61
72
30
49
1,046
49
543
1,015
77
5
268
240
183
Max
5
4,500
180
450
780
280
400
11,000
999
2,600
9,500
600
5
5,500
2,500
4,600
StDev
2,551
41
132
146
52
87
2,589
143
871
2,119
130
919
522
556
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2003 1980
2003 1991
123 234
-17- -
1978
1983
236
-*
-11-- -42- 31 52
:1977: 'L : 1974 j : 3 974 1874
1978 1978 1978 2003
22 51 - -10- -
1974 1975
1978 2003 1981
357
370 453
697
" 1 i ~
707 769
^29^ - 49 - 1
1975 -19747 1980
2003 2003 i?qP
: 1757;::: 799: ::9s:
ftl
_ J L .
" 1 I "
-13J- -«&- --92-
1975 --1974-]-- 1975
ZUUZ ZUUJ
1993
1,237 1,302
_ I L .
"I - T "
Count
Begin
End
Drainage
Area
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry Armells Sarpy Hanging Pumpkin Otter Cr. Salt Cr. Mizpah Rosebud Antelope L. Rosebud Belle
Cr. nr Thunder Cr.
Kirby, Cr.
MT
Cr.
Cr.
Cr. Woman Cr.
Cr.
Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche
Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R.
MT Dry Cr.
IJ5th-75th Percentile median) Min-Max
Figure K-4. Turbidity Box Plot.
-------
7s
^A
o
Table K-4. SC Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics QjS/cm).
Watershed
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus, MT
Station ID
06295113
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06336600
06326600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06326300
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
06325500
Drainage
Area (sq. Mi)
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
10/1/1979
9/30/1977
9/29/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
2/29/1948
10/24/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
10/9/1967
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
10/3/1977
6/4/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
8/30/1978
End
7/13/2004
5/28/1997
9/9/2003
6/9/1994
8/22/1995
6/28/1984
6/22/2004
7/8/2003
4/21/1992
8/2/1985
8/18/2004
9/22/2003
9/30/2003
10/1/2003
7/15/2003
9/16/2003
10/1/2003
9/8/2003
9/3/2003
Count
210
84
162
261
246
104
1,977
230
135
79
1,910
398
146
246
101
378
318
300
58
Min
215
150
710
162
250
204
226
232
155
168
200
1,700
162
152
435
358
190
299
1,440
Avg
957
1,718
3,103
2,474
3,891
2,539
2,494
2,051
2,652
1,753
2,730
6,076
2,032
1,434
2,466
2,896
1,798
2,356
2,392
Max
2,110
7,500
6,900
4,010
7,000
4,720
4,670
6,200
5,580
7,990
4,200
8,920
5,210
2,903
3,300
5,500
3,770
5,500
4,630
StDev
158
1,276
1,096
1,105
1,459
975
603
798
1,216
1,709
470
1,375
1,277
401
552
1,112
736
1,007
653
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
o
UJ
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2ttH 84 162 T 261 24fr r 104 1,877 230 13S
! IlSraJI 1977 1977 il 9771 1 1974 1974 1974 1948 1977
. ~2D04| ~ 1 997 2003 * -1994-] - 1 995 - 1984 2004 - -2003^ 1 992
123j 234 236| 357 370 453 470 616 B69T
1 III
1 III
1 III
1 III
I J
I
I
I
I
I
--
1
1" '
1- - -
1- - -
1- - -
D
1
1
1
; = <
0^
1 1 1
1 1 1
4
>
i i
i i
i i
1
l-f-
i i I i
i I I
r 1"
1
1
1
1
1
1
~ T ~
~ T ~
Isjl
_l
J
1
1
1
1
1
I - -
1 - -
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
" ~ 1
" ~ 1
1
1
1
1::::
:;;
1 1 I r
T L
; | |
J i
J i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
_ _| ; .
_ _l ,
_ _l 1
_ _l 1
. _ J
. _ J .
. _ 1 _
_ J
1
1
1
1
1
~ T ~
- 1
- H
<
H
i
~ T ~
~ T ~
-\
- H
- -I
- -I
--;-
>~
79
398 14S 246
1974 1967 1975+ _ 1974] _ J9J7^ _
1974
300 58l
1975 1978
SJjTCount
2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003
799
200c
Begin
End
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy CrHanging Beaver O'fallonPumpkirOtter Cr.Salt Cr. MizpahRosebucRntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT Dry Cr. Broadus,
MT
C±6th-75th Percentile * median i Min-Max
Figure K-5. Specific Conductance Box Plot.
1
Q.
x'
-------
7s
^A
N)
Table K-5. SAR Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics.
Watershed
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus, MT
Station ID
06295113
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06336600
06326600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06326300
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
06325500
Drainage
Area (sq. Mi)
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
10/1/1979
12/21/1977
10/27/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
2/29/1948
11/21/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
10/9/1967
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
11/4/1977
6/4/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
8/30/1978
End
5/12/2004
5/28/1997
9/9/2003
8/24/1981
8/22/1995
6/28/1984
6/22/2004
7/8/2003
6/27/1984
4/2/1985
6/23/2004
9/22/2003
9/29/2003
10/1/2003
7/15/2003
9/16/2003
5/22/2003
9/8/2003
9/3/2003
Count
52
49
76
33
132
76
162
85
57
54
159
306
79
101
67
251
136
142
36
Min
0.4
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.3
1.9
1.0
4.7
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.9
5.1
Avg
0.7
4.1
6.5
7.1
10.5
6.1
4.9
5.4
11.9
8.5
5.4
25.6
12.8
1.4
2.6
5.7
3.1
5.4
8.0
Max
1.0
10.0
22.0
9.0
20.0
12.0
8.0
11.0
23.0
25.0
7.3
50.0
34.7
3.6
4.0
12.0
10.3
14.0
13.4
StDev
0.1
2.7
3.7
2.0
3.9
2.1
1.2
2.1
4.8
4.8
0.9
11.5
6.4
0.7
0.5
1.8
1.8
2.4
2.3
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
Count
Drainage
Area
251 [ 136 142 36
1975 1974 1975 1978
2003 2003 2003 2003
306 79 j 101 _ |_ _ 67
{967! 197_5_|_^974! 1977
2003 2003 2003 2003
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy CrJHanging Beaver O'fallon PumpkinOtter Cr. Salt Cr. Mizpah Rosebucftntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT DryCr. Broadus,
LH25th-75th Percentile *medianl Min-Max MT
Figure K-6. SAR Box Plot.
-------
Table K-6. Calcium Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L).
Watershed
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus, MT
Station ID
06295113
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06336600
06326600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06326300
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
06325500
Drainage
Area (sq. Mi)
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
10/1/1979
12/21/1977
10/27/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
2/29/1948
11/21/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
10/9/1967
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
11/4/1977
6/4/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
8/30/1978
End
5/12/2004
5/28/1997
9/9/2003
8/24/1981
8/22/1995
6/28/1984
6/22/2004
7/8/2003
6/27/1984
4/2/1985
6/23/2004
9/22/2003
9/29/2003
10/1/2003
7/15/2003
9/16/2003
5/22/2003
9/8/2003
9/3/2003
Count
52
50
76
33
132
76
162
85
57
54
159
306
79
101
67
251
136
143
36
Min
56.0
19.0
45.0
22.0
17.0
8.6
14.0
16.0
11.0
5.8
23.0
22.0
4.0
29.0
33.0
14.2
9.7
19.0
17.4
Avg
74.4
84.1
141.4
97.9
104.4
91.1
98.0
86.0
54.6
48.0
79.1
103.8
39.5
77.6
248.2
151.2
70.3
113.5
94.8
Max
91.0
180.0
250.0
140.0
220.0
190.0
230.0
160.0
180.0
150.0
140.0
290.0
110.0
120.0
337.0
320.0
130.0
280.0
248.0
StDev
7.9
43.7
44.4
28.0
50.8
33.9
30.6
34.5
28.3
36.9
20.9
62.1
23.4
15.1
61.6
61.4
23.3
54.4
61.7
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
400
300
52 J 50 L 76
-1979-1 1977 1977
2004, 1997L 2003
I |
1231 234 T 236
33 132
1977 1974
1981 1995
357
370
76 a 1S2
H974 1974
1984
85 ^ 57 54 158
-1948 1977 1975 1974
2003 1984 1985 2004
306 79 u 101 j JIT 251
1967 1975 --1974^- 1977 1975
2003 2003 2003 2003 ~2003~
_ I°"_i _.'fl L _!"_!_ 959 1 237
136 L 143 36
^974^-1975-^978
2003 2003
I
1,302 1,690
2003
1,974
Count
Begin
End
Drainage
Area
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy CrHanging Beaver O'fallon PumpkinOtter Cr. Salt Cr. Mizpah RosebucAntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT Dry Cr. Broadus,
MT
LZIsth-75th Percentile median! Min-Max
Figure K-7. Calcium Box Plot.
1
Q.
x'
-------
7s
^A
o>
Table K-7. Magnesium Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L).
Watershed
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus, MT
Station ID
06295113
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06336600
06326600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06326300
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
06325500
Drainage
Area (sq. Mi)
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
10/1/1979
12/21/1977
10/27/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
2/29/1948
11/21/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
10/9/1967
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
11/4/1977
6/4/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
8/30/1978
End
5/12/2004
5/28/1997
9/9/2003
8/24/1981
8/22/1995
6/28/1984
6/22/2004
7/8/2003
6/27/1984
4/2/1985
6/23/2004
9/22/2003
9/29/2003
10/1/2003
7/15/2003
9/16/2003
5/22/2003
9/8/2003
9/3/2003
Count
52
49
76
33
132
76
163
85
57
54
159
306
79
101
67
253
136
143
36
Min
46.0
9.3
33.0
6.2
9.7
6.2
11.0
7.0
4.5
2.4
5.0
7.8
1.9
19.0
13.0
7.3
2.8
8.8
9.5
Avg
77.0
52.3
131.1
76.7
126.9
108.1
122.8
77.1
59.5
46.9
152.9
60.3
29.8
104.2
95.1
99.1
95.7
77.6
54.8
Max
104.0
140.0
260.0
120.0
280.0
240.0
216.0
140.0
110.0
200.0
240.0
297.0
200.0
281.0
132.0
203.0
190.0
180.0
146.0
StDev
8.5
34.0
49.1
24.7
68.8
50.2
34.6
32.7
26.6
54.8
38.0
34.1
27.7
35.6
27.8
43.7
36.8
38.1
37.4
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
400
300
I 200
100
52 J 49LL 76
-1979-! 1977 1977
2004, 1997 L 2003
I |
1231 234 T 236
33 132
1977 1974
1981 1995
357
370
76 163
-1974 1974
1984
453 470
85 ^ 57
1948 1977
2003 1984
616
54 159
1975 19^4
1985 2004
306 a _79_ u _101 _, 67 L 253
1967 1975 -t974J - 4977 j- -1975-
2003 2003 2003 2003 2003
136 L 143
36
1974 1975
2003 2003
-^978
~ "2003
Count
Begin
End
Drainage
Area
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy CrHanging Beaver O'fallon PumpkinOtter Cr. Salt Cr. Mizpah Rosebud^ntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT Dry Cr. Broadus,
MT
LZIsth-75th Percentile median! Min-Max
Figure K-8. Magnesium Box Plot.
1
Q.
x'
-------
7s
^A
00
Table K-8. Sodium Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L).
Watershed
Lower
Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower
Yellowstone
Lower
Yellowstone
Lower
Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower
Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower
Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower
Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus,
MT
Station
ID
06295113
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06336600
06326600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06326300
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
06325500
Drainage
Area (sq. Mi)
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
10/1/1979
12/21/1977
10/27/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
2/29/1948
11/21/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
10/9/1967
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
11/4/1977
6/4/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
8/30/1978
End
5/12/2004
5/28/1997
9/9/2003
8/24/1981
8/22/1995
6/28/1984
6/22/2004
7/8/2003
6/27/1984
4/2/1985
6/23/2004
9/22/2003
9/29/2003
10/1/2003
7/15/2003
9/16/2003
5/22/2003
9/8/2003
9/3/2003
Count
52
49
76
33
132
76
162
85
57
54
159
306
79
101
67
252
136
142
36
Min
15
15
47
16
19
14
17
18
22
24
26
290
37
13
28
35
17
24
240
Avg
36
231
480
399
693
385
333
313
557
380
377
1,274
451
90
207
405
176
331
421
Max
60
750
1,400
540
1,400
880
615
570
1,200
1,800
583
2,000
1,340
302
289
950
622
740
736
StDev
8
196
280
138
267
164
103
139
257
370
85
360
286
48
52
174
119
166
88
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
Count
Drainage
Area
52 n 49 76 --33-H 132 76 182 85 57
79, 101 67 252 136 + _ 142
SOT ?nm 1981 1995
jy/ zuuo IOTJI uju
1,237 1,302 1690 1,974
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy CrHanging Beaver O'fallonPumpkinOtterCr. Salt Cr. Mizpah RosebucRntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT DryCr. Broadus,
LlE5th-75th Percentile »median! Min-Max MT
Figure K-9. Sodium Box Plot.
to
1
Q.
x'
-------
Table K-9. Chloride Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L).
Watershed
Lower
Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower
Yellowstone
Lower
Yellowstone
Lower
Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower
Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower
Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower
Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus,
MT
Station
ID
06295113
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06336600
06326600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06326300
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
06325500
Drainage Area (sq.
Mi)
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
10/1/1979
12/21/1977
10/27/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
2/29/1948
11/21/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
10/9/1967
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
11/4/1977
6/4/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
8/30/1978
End
5/12/2004
5/28/1997
9/9/2003
8/24/1981
8/22/1995
6/28/1984
6/22/2004
7/8/2003
6/27/1984
4/2/1985
6/23/2004
9/22/2003
9/29/2003
10/1/2003
7/15/2003
9/16/2003
5/22/2003
9/8/2003
9/3/2003
Count
52
50
76
33
132
75
163
84
57
54
157
305
81
101
67
255
136
144
35
Min
2.1
2.0
12.0
1.9
3.8
3.0
2.5
0.1
1.8
1.8
1.3
39.2
2.2
1.1
3.7
2.6
1.8
3.4
4.3
Avg
6.4
32.5
133.3
10.2
28.7
15.1
14.2
9.1
9.6
8.4
14.3
1,065.3
10.2
6.9
17.3
34.2
9.3
84.6
28.8
Max
88.0
290.0
270.0
23.0
260.0
34.0
140.0
22.0
26.0
31.0
86.0
1,980.0
38.0
70.0
31.0
580.0
28.1
290.0
200.0
StDev
11.8
58.4
111
4.2
24.7
6.1
11.4
3.8
4.5
7.2
7.4
399.0
6.8
6.8
6.3
50.1
5.6
62.6
34.4
N)
O
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
2,200
2,000
1 ,800
1 ,600
^ 1 ,400
"a
| 1,200-
°
jz
o
1 ,000
800
600
400
200
0
52 H SOL |__76--I--33-i- 132 -, - 75
19791 1977^1977 1977 ^ 1974) 1974
123^ 234 [ 236^ 357^ 370^ 453
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
l_r_L_J_J L_|_J
i I v 4- *
163 84
1974, 1948
2004 9fim
- - 47tr--6ie
--',-
|::::
;
- -T -
;-
\--
I::::
I ::::
57; 54 157
__197_7i . 19.75 1974
r
669 89? 707
i
i
i-
L
I
I
r
i-
L
i
i
r
1
I
r
r
r-
I
I
r
- T
L
I
I
I-
I-
L
I
r
i-
i
, - - r..jf
305
~T967
2003
769
<
>
81_ 1 _ IQd _
" "1975" "T974
797 1 799
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
67 255
1977 1975
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* j. * rc
136 144
1974 1975
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~_l~_
! 1
1
1 p* i
*
3 "r1
35
1978
_ 1,974
Count
Begin
End
Drainage
Area
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy CrHanging Beaver O'fallonPumpkinOtterCr. Salt Cr. Mizpah RosebucRntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT DryCr. Broadus,
I lnh-7Sth Parnantila + median I Min-Max MT
Figure K-10.
Chloride Box Plot.
-------
Table K-10.Sulfate Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics
Watershed
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus, MT
Station ID
6295113
6375600
6426400
6326555
6294995
6294940
6307600
6336600
6326600
6308400
6307740
6313400
6326300
6295250
6364700
6324970
6296003
6426500
6325500
Drainage Area (sq. Mi)
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
10/1/1979
12/21/1977
10/27/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
2/29/1948
11/21/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
10/9/1967
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
11/4/1977
6/4/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
8/30/1978
End
5/12/2004
5/28/1997
9/9/2003
8/24/1981
8/22/1995
6/28/1984
6/22/2004
7/8/2003
6/27/1984
4/2/1985
6/23/2004
9/22/2003
9/29/2003
10/1/2003
7/15/2003
9/16/2003
5/22/2003
9/8/2003
9/3/2003
mg/L).
Count
52
50
76
33
132
76
163
84
57
54
158
304
81
101
67
252
135
144
36
Min
101
82
220
47
75
12
57
49
25
11
80
460
36
54
150
76
16
71
420
Avg
155
649
1,321
1,055
1,779
996
961
825
1,066
822
1,092
1,191
784
404
1,082
1,290
537
846
966
Max
210
2,200
3,400
1,500
3,400
2,500
2,060
1,400
2,800
3,900
1,960
4,350
3,180
1,490
1,550
2,700
1,290
2,000
2,220
StDev
24
501
716
363
735
443
355
346
517
877
274
490
542
230
298
557
278
412
443
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
Count
Drainage
Area
8t ; = t(H =|= =67= ; = 252= = =135 £ = t«
= 1975 - -1974Z 1975 1978
-1-901, |_ ,1990^ _ _1QQ4i_- 2004 2003
123 234 236 357 370 : =453
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy CrHanging Beaver O'fallonPumpkinOtterCr. Salt Cr. Mizpah RosebucRntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT Dry Cr. Broadus,
MT
I lnh-7Sth Parnantila + median I Min-Max
Figure K-11.
Sulfate Box Plot.
^
w
1
Q.
x'
-------
Table K-11. Hardness Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics (mg/L).
Watershed
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Mizpah Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus, MT
Station ID
06295113
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06336600
06326600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06326300
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
06325500
Drainage Area (sq. Mi)
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
797
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
10/1/1979
12/21/1977
10/27/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
10/14/1977
11/21/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
10/9/1967
10/17/1975
10/9/1974
11/4/1977
6/4/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
8/30/1978
End
5/12/2004
8/12/1981
6/9/1981
8/24/1981
9/17/1982
9/17/1982
5/30/2003
3/15/2003
9/1/1982
6/7/1982
5/30/2003
12/16/1985
4/23/2003
5/31/2003
8/11/1981
4/12/1994
9/15/1982
7/28/1982
10/21/1978
Count
35
28
45
33
79
64
83
53
44
43
85
170
55
83
45
130
84
80
2
Min
330
95
250
80
82
47
110
190
0
25
120
190
18
150
140
41
58
140
530
Avg
503
468
953
560
732
681
746
603
379
349
851
435
246
591
910
793
564
600
615
Max
650
1,000
1,500
840
1,600
1,400
1,200
950
710
1,100
1,220
970
1,100
1,100
1,200
1,500
1,100
1,400
700
StDev
56
245
315
170
371
284
208
193
171
322
220
157
181
124
221
342
182
307
120
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
1,800
1,600
1,400
35 J _ _28_ L _ 45 33 79 _ _64_ I
|7Q 1977 1977 1977 1974 1974
83 i.
1Q74
19'
-2004!-T9BT|--1981 1981 1982 1982 2003 2003
12S] 234 L 236 J 357 [sTQ J 453 470 616
85
1974
170
1967
_S5__L__83_!__45__L 130
1975 1P7V 1Q77 1975
Count
Drainage
Area
Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy CrHanging Beaver O'fallonPumpkinOtterCr. Salt Cr. Mizpah RosebucRntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT Dry Cr. Broadus,
MT
Lj5th-75th Percentile median! Min-Max
Figure K-12.
Hardness Box Plot.
NJ
Ol
1
Q.
x'
-------
7s
o>
Table K-12. Temperature (°F
Watershed
Tongue
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Belle Fourche
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Little Missouri
Lower Yellowstone
Tongue
Tongue
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Cheyenne
Powder
Lower Yellowstone
Belle Fourche
Powder
Stream
Squirrel Cr.
Rosebud Cr. nr Kirby, MT
L. Thunder Cr.
Donkey Cr.
Cherry Cr.
Armells Cr.
Sarpy Cr.
Hanging Woman Cr.
Beaver Cr.
O'fallon Cr.
Pumpkin Cr.
Otter Cr.
Salt Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at Colstrip, MT
Antelope Cr.
L. Powder R. abv. Dry Cr.
Rosebud Cr. at mouth
Belle Fourche R.
L. Powder R. nr Broadus, MT
Station ID
06306100
06295113
06375600
06426400
06326555
06294995
06294940
06307600
06336600
06326600
06308400
06307740
06313400
06295250
06364700
06324970
06296003
06426500
06325500
Sampling Period of Record and Summary Statistics.
Drainage Area (sq. Mi)
34
123
234
236
357
370
453
470
616
669
697
707
769
799
959
1,237
1,302
1,690
1,974
Start
10/6/1975
4/19/1984
9/30/1977
9/29/1977
10/9/1977
10/8/1974
12/3/1974
10/2/1974
2/29/1948
10/24/1977
10/15/1975
10/2/1974
10/9/1967
10/9/1974
10/3/1977
1/8/1975
10/10/1974
7/2/1975
3/19/2002
End
6/26/1985
4/18/1988
5/28/1997
9/9/2003
6/9/1994
8/22/1995
6/28/1984
8/5/2003
7/8/2003
4/21/1992
8/13/1985
9/2/2003
9/22/2003
7/30/2003
7/15/2003
9/16/2003
6/2/2003
9/8/2003
9/3/2003
Count
89
2
63
127
248
176
78
192
198
119
60
180
380
219
74
317
257
277
19
Min
32.0
51.8
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
Avg
47.6
51.8
50.8
48.8
54.8
50.8
45.0
49.0
48.5
50.7
50.4
50.4
50.5
48.2
51.6
52.3
49.5
50.9
55.2
Max
74.3
51.8
78.8
89.6
93.2
92.3
73.4
82.4
79.2
86.0
85.1
85.1
87.8
78.8
86.0
86.0
85.1
87.8
84.2
StDev
44.4
32.0
46.0
47.3
47.6
48.1
45.2
47.5
47.1
49.5
49.3
48.4
47.5
47.3
48.2
47.7
47.7
48.2
49.5
1
Q.
x'
303(d) listed streams in the Tongue River watershed are in bold.
-------
o
cb
0)
O,
0)
3 20
£
g. :
1 ;
15
ggj 2 1 63 127 1 248 ^^64 J
1975 1984 1977 1977 {- 4977 - -1974; - i&
1985 1988 1997 2003 1994 1995 "198
- -0- - - 123- [ -234 - - 236 357 37
i
i
~ T ~
I
I
~ T ~
_ _|-
I
J r ~
>
--
I
I
j
I
I
_^ 1
1 I
I
I
I
*
'
1 1 _
I
1
- -\ -
_ _L _
- -f -
- 4 -
I
I
" ~[ ~~
I
I
i ~~
- 4 -
1
1 ~
1
I
1
»
'
I
I
I
- - JH . - -
_[_
I
1
1
1
-J
LJ
I
. _ 1
J
I
" I
- - 1
1
_ _
- - H
J
I
. _ r _
I
I
" ~ 1
-1
I
I
- H
i
~ T ~
- -1
1
1
~ 1
1
1
~ 1
_ J
I
I
- -| - -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
I
180 380 219 74 ;_257--^2
1974 1967 1974 1977 1 975 -- 1974- - -1
20D3 2003 2P03 2003 2003 2003 2
707 769 T99 959 1]237 1,302 Z
1
7Z4
975
003
690 1
19
2002
2003
,974
I I I I I
I I I I I
T
i i
i i
i i
i i
i
i
i
i
i
" ~l ~
- -i -
i
i
" ~i ~~
i
i
~ i ~~
i
i
i
i
- 1- -
~ r "
- i- -
i
i
~~ r ~
i
i
~~ r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
r
-1 -
-\ -
-\ -
1
1
~l ~~
1
1
~l ~~
-1 -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
»
1
T ~
1
<
1
1
~ 1
1
1
~ 1
_ J
I
TTn
A
> :
--
P *-i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
" T ~
- -I- -
>-
" T ~
- 4 -
I
I
~ T ~
I
I
~ ~r ~
- -I-
I
r£_i
*:
f
Count
End
Drainage
Squirrel Rosebud L. Donkey Cherry ArmellsSarpy CrJHanging Beaver O'fallon PumpkinOtter Cr. Salt Cr. Rosebud<\ntelope L. Rosebud Belle L.
Cr. Cr. nr Thunder Cr. Cr. Cr. Woman Cr. Cr. Cr. Cr. at Cr. Powder Cr. at Fourche Powder
Kirby, MT Cr. Cr. Colstrip, R. abv. mouth R. R. nr
MT Dry Cr. Broadus,
n MT
I I5th-75th Percentile ^median1 Min-Max
Figure K-13.
Temperature Box Plot
1
Q.
x'
-------
Appendix K
K.2 Main Stem Tongue River
The purpose of this section is to compare suspended sediment data from the Tongue River to other large
streams that are primarily located in the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion (Level III Ecoregion 43).
The spatial extent of the analysis was determined by a number of factors including climate, elevation,
ecoregion, stream type, contributing drainage area, and data availability, with the goal of selecting
streams that had characteristics similar to the Tongue River watershed. Based on this, 14 rivers were
selected from Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota - the Belle Fourche River, Cheyenne
River, Grand River, Green River, Heart River, Little Missouri River, Little Big Horn River, Moreau
River, Musselshell River, Poplar River, Powder River, Tongue River, White River, and Wind River
(Figure K-14). Eleven of the selected rivers flow, at least in part, through the Northwestern Great Plains
ecoregion (Table K-13). The Poplar River flows entirely through the Northwest Glaciated Plains
ecoregion, while the Wind and Green Rivers in Wyoming flow through the Wyoming Basin and Middle
Rockies ecoregions. The Wind, Green, and Poplar Rivers were included in this analysis to increase the
total number of sites, and because it was felt that these rivers were similar enough to the Tongue River to
warrant a data comparison. From the 14 rivers, 25 sampling sites were selected to compare to the five
Tongue River sites (Table K-14 and Table K-15).
It should be noted that the rivers selected for this analysis are not meant to represent "reference
conditions" in the Tongue River. In fact, several of the rivers are themselves listed as impaired because
of siltation or TSS (see Table K-13), and several of the rivers have major dams and reservoirs that
complicate river hydrology and sediment transport. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to conduct a
detailed sediment assessment for each of the 14 rivers. Rather, the purpose of this analysis is to put
suspended sediment data in the Tongue River into context with similar neighboring rivers to better
understand existing conditions.
Table K-13. Summary of the selected rivers for the suspended sediment analysis.
River
Belle Fourche River
Cheyenne River
Grand River
Green River (WY)
Heart River
L. Missouri River
Little Big Horn River
Moreau River
Musselshell River
Poplar River
Powder River
Tongue River
White River
Wind River
Sediment 303(d) Listings (2004 or
2006 Lists)
MT
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
No
NA
Yes
Yes
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
NA
NA
WY
No
No
NA
No
NA
No
No
NA
NA
NA
No
No
NA
No
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
No
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SD
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
No
NA
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
NA
Ecoregions
NW Great Plains
Middle Rockies
NW Great Plains
Middle Rockies
NW Great Plains
Wyoming Basin
NW Great Plains
NW Great Plains
NW Great Plains
Middle Rockies
NW Great Plains
NW Great Plains
NW Glaciated Plains
NW Great Plains
Middle Rockies
NW Great Plains
Middle Rockies
NW Great Plains
Wyoming Basin
Middle Rockies
Major Reservoirs
Impacting Sampling
Sites
Keyhole Reservoir
None
Shadehill Reservoir
Fontenelle Reservoir
Patterson Reservoir
None
None
None
None
Morrison Dam (Canada)
None
Tongue River Reservoir
None
Boysen Reservoir
K-28
-------
.
_
X :
.X ,
f iar
USflS SwKnent Satom (Source)
MW1S
Streams
Sato Boundartei
Figure K-14. Location of Great Plains streams used in the Tongue River sediment comparison analysis.
to
-------
Appendix K
Suspended sediment data were downloaded from USGS's National Water Information System (NWIS)
and Suspended Sediment Database. Grab sample data are summarized in Figure K-15 and Table K-14,
and continuous data are summarized in Table K-15. The periods of record for each site vary. As a result,
direct comparison from one site to another is complicated by the fact that the data from each site do not
necessarily reflect similar climatic and hydrologic conditions. Nonetheless, this comparison is presented
to put suspended solids concentrations in the Tongue River into perspective with other Great Plains
streams. Median suspended sediment concentrations for all sites in the Tongue River, for both the grab
sample and continuous data, fall within the lower 25th percentile of the data set.
K-30
-------
Count
Beqin
End
Drain Area
110 173 194 84 30 135
70 60 23 50 57 50
1968 1955 1974 1973 1371 1949 1972 1949 1987 1991 1975 1377
1996 2002 2004 1990 2004 1997
B94 1951 1991 2002 1980 1981
116 150 119 128 105 86 86 53 311 90 62 223 103 60
1975 1975 1972 1975 1967 1964 1979 1975 1949 1950 1990 1370 1376 1975
2004 1994 B33 2004 1987 1967 2TO 1979 2002 1997 2002 2000 1999 1987
89 60 83 42 23
964 2000 971 975 987
997 2004 2001 978 991
6050 5870 5379 5370 5270 5000 4880 4640 4568 4390 4280 4023 3948 3910 3310 3174 3090 3000 2621 2533 2309 2200 2134 1891 1690 1527 1500 1453 1294 1260 1125
1,000,000 |
100,000 :
10,000 :
-§ 1,000 :
o
w
w
100 :
10 :
1
: t
± Zt 1
1 1 1 1
1
1
11
1
1 1 1
_zc zf 1
I It 1
1 1 1
H-i
1
11
1
1
-1- -
_L _
_L _
1
It _
-1- -
^
i
-i -
_i _
i
-i -
i
i -
1=1=3
1 1 1
1 1 1
= = E
0
T
1 1 1 1
LI r i it
ii i i
i
EC
^ L
i| _f
i i i
- H 1 1 -
i
Zl
i
i
i
iljjn;
=l
Zl
II
R
tSty ^
i i 1
LI r i it J
i i i i
ii
-§ 'ra ra £ -^ u.
+=
1 1 1
I
-I
|
Q. - 0)
t
n
L,
4
i=:
I
I
:
4
i
- H
i
rn
1 r
4-
1
1
5 a
3 !_
i
I
i
zt _
i
Zf
It
n:F:
4-
E| J =
n
4 r -
1 1
-4 1
1 1
1 1
-I--
-L
a
w
T
1
i
iii
= = = =
~i i
i
i ' 1 ' '
i
i
= '=1
H
ffi
MM
J^ -
^z
- 1 ' -h 1
1 1
I
1 S
-i ± 1 =
i
i
i
~ Zl ~~
f
1
I
LI r n t zi
i:t:
i
-^
i
_F
i i i i i
S 1 >.
w ^
-------
Appendix K
Table K-14. Summary of grab sample SSC data for selected Great Plains streams.
Waterbody
Green River - below
Fontenelle Reservoir
Green River La Barge
Tongue River- Hanging
Woman Cr.
Tongue River- Birney
Wind River- Crowheart
Heart River- Mandan
Tongue River - State Line
Tongue River -
Brandenberg Bridge
Musselshell River -
Harlowton
Poplar River
Tongue River - Miles City
Cheyenne River- Dull
Center
Musselshell River -
Musselshell
Wind River- Kinnearr
Musselshell River -
Roundup
Belle Fourche River -
Moorcroft
Cheyenne River- Spencer
Belle Fourche River -
Sturgis
Wind River- Boysen Res.
Little Big Horn River
Grand River- Little Eagle
White River- Slim Butte
Wind River- Riverton
Moreau River- Whitehorse
Powder River - Sussex
L. Missouri River -
Marmath
White River- Rockyford
Powder River - Arvada
White River- Oglala
White River- Kadoka
Station ID
9211200
9209400
6307610
6307616
6225500
6349000
6306300
6307830
61 20500
6181000
6308500
6365900
61 27500
6227600
61 26500
6426500
6386500
6437000
62361 00
6294000
6357800
6445700
6228000
6360500
631 3500
6335500
6446200
631 7000
6446000
6447000
Drainage Area
(mi2)
4,280
3,910
2,533
2,621
1,891
3,310
1,453
3,948
1,125
3,174
5,379
1,527
4,568
2,194
4,023
1,690
5,270
5,870
4,390
1,294
5,370
1,500
2,309
4,880
3,090
4,640
3,000
6,050
2,200
5,000
Count
57
150
53
86
223
119
60
116
23
128
194
60
23
62
50
103
30
173
50
83
84
89
311
70
105
60
86
110
90
135
Median9
(mg/L)
4
15
23
27
34
42
45
47
48
66
84
86
89
94
96
151
168
171
182
237
331
344
354
488
1,395
1,510
1,640
7,200
7,740
18,700
Min
(mg/L)
1
2
2
2
2
4
3
6
16
11
5
13
27
9
7
9
9
3
9
20
28
43
5
40
138
20
46
179
319
576
Max
(mg/L)
27
880
812
780
9,360
2,690
170
23,100
108
1,270
14,000
21 ,500
1,320
6,590
4,230
10,500
14,800
42,000
3,920
8,670
1 1 ,000
41 ,400
8,320
24,500
113,000
21 ,600
38,600
122,000
30,800
81,600
Period of
Record
1975-1980
1975-1994
1975-1979
1979-2004
1 970-2000
1 972-1 993
2000-2004
1975-2004
1987-1991
1 975-2004
1974-2004
1975-1987
1987-1991
1 990-2002
1977-1981
1976-1999
1971-2004
1955-2002
1991-2002
1971-2001
1973-1990
1 964-1 997
1 949-2002
1972-1994
1 967-1 987
1949-1951
1 964-1 967
1 968-1 996
1 950-1 997
1 949-1 997
"Data sorted by median concentration. Stations in the Tongue River are highlighted.
K-32
-------
Appendix K
Table K-15. Summary of continuous SSC data for selected Great Plains streams.
Waterbody
Wind River- Riverton
Heart River- Mandan
Tongue River -
Brandenberg Bridge
Heart River - Richardton
Tongue River - Miles
City
Moreau River- Faith
Grand River - Shadehill
Little Big Horn River
Musselshell River -
Mosby
L. Missouri River -
Marmath
Moreau River -
Whitehorse
White River - Oglala
Wind River- Boysen Res.
Grand River- L. Eagle
Powder River - Sussex
Belle Fourche River -
Sturgis
White River - Kadoka
Station
ID
6228000
6349000
6307830
6345500
6308500
6359500
6357500
6294000
6127600
6335500
6360500
6446000
6236100
6357800
6313500
6437000
6447000
Drainage Area
(mi2)
2,309
3,310
3,948
1,240
5,379
2,660
3,120
1,294
5,941
4,640
4,880
2,200
4,390
5,370
3,090
5,870
5,000
Count
1,561
1,826
2,455
1,919
3,018
909
1,333
2,557
1,415
734
1,346
1,931
187
1,827
899
1,074
1,791
Median3
(mg/L)
32
40
46
56
66
66
77
109
110
147
220
245
299
350
589
1,000
1,340
Min
(mg/L)
3
1
1
4
3
1
2
7
1
21
17
9
20
85
38
7
14
Max
(mg/L)
11,900
3,460
6,400
6,500
14,200
41,100
18,600
6,660
27,000
27,000
20,300
34,400
2,810
19,000
111,000
78,000
76,200
Period of
Record
1948-1958
1971-1976
1974-1981
1946-1952
1977-1985
1946-1949
1946-1950
1969-1977
1962-1966
1952-1954
1971-1976
1947-1952
1994-1995
1971-1976
1951-1984
1955-1958
1949-1954
"Data sorted by median concentration. Stations in the Tongue River are highlighted.
K-33
-------
Appendix K
K.3 References
USEPA. 2007. Level III Ecoregions for the Conterminous United States (Revision March 2007)
[Computer File]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Producer and Distributor]. Corvallis, Oregon.
Available online at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm.
K-34
-------
APPENDIX L - 2003 WATER QUALITY
SAMPLING DATA
-------
-------
Appendix L
L.02003 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING DATA
USEPA collected water quality data at 14 sites in the Tongue River watershed in 2003 (Table L-l). Data
were collected to fill in gaps in the available water chemistry data. Table L-2 shows the sampled
parameters, and the frequency of data collection at each site. Six sampling events occurred at
approximately one month intervals: April 23-26; May 29-30; June 23-27; July 28-August 1; August 20-
22; October 1-3. Data were then submitted to Northern Analytical Laboratories for analysis, and all
results were submitted to the Montana DEQ STOJ^ET coordinator on December 28, 2004.
Table L-1. Location of 2003 sampling sites.
Station ID
Y15HNGWC01
Y15HNGWC02
Y15TNGR01
Y15TNGRR01
Y15TNGRR02
Y15TNGRR03
Y16OTTRC01
Y16OTTRC02
Y16PMPKC01
Y16PMPKC02
Y16TNGR01
Y16TNYID01
Y16TNYID02
Y16TNYID03
Station Name
Hanging Woman Ck.
Near Birney, MT
Hanging Woman Ck.
Below Horse Creek near
Birney
Tongue River at the
TRR Dam near Decker,
MT
Tongue River Reservoir,
South end
Tongue River Reservoir,
Middle of Reservoir near
boat launch
Tongue River Reservoir
near dam
Otter Creek Near
Ashland, MT
Otter Creek Below
Taylor Ck. Near Otter,
MT
Pumpkin Creek near the
mouth at the Tongue
River 12-Mile Dam
fishing access
Pumpkin Creek Off Hwy.
232 Approx. 1.5 miles
upstream of mouth
Tongue River below
Hanging Woman Creek
near Birney, MT
T&Y Irrigation Ditch
Near Diversion
T&Y Irrigation Ditch
Near VA Cemetery
T&Y Irrigation Ditch near
Yellowstone River
Primary
Type
River/Stream
River/Stream
River/Stream
Reservoir
Reservoir
Reservoir
River/Stream
River/Stream
River/Stream
River/Stream
River/Stream
Canal
Canal
Canal
Lat
Degrees
45.29547
45.13481
45.14144
45.0701
45.10018
45.12099
45.58775
45.29208
46.24725
46.23375
45.33971
46.25333
46.3791666
46.507222
Long
Degrees
106.5029
106.48379
106.77111
106.7996
106.78454
106.78092
106.25426
106.14763
105.74617
105.71127
106.52488
105.748611
105.82555
105.7097222
State
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
County
Rosebud
Big Horn
Big Horn
Big Horn
Big Horn
Big Horn
Rosebud
Powder
River
Custer
Custer
Rosebud
Custer
Custer
Custer
HUC
10090101
10090101
10090101
10090101
10090101
10090101
10090102
10090102
10090102
10090102
10090102
10090102
10090102
10090102
L-1
-------
Appendix L
Table L-2. Water quality parameters and number of samples collected during the 2003 field
season.
Parameter
Arsenic Dissolved (ug/L As As)
Arsenic Total (ug/L As As)
Cadmium Dissolved (ug/L As Cd)
Cadmium Total (ug/L As Cd)
Calcium Dissolved (mg/L As Ca)
Chloride Dissolved (mg/L As Cl)
Chlorophyll a, Periphyton,
Spectrophotometric, Corrected (mg/Sq meter)
Chlorophyll a, Phytoplankton,
Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected
Chromium Dissolved (ug/L As Cr)
Chromium Total (ug/L As Cr)
Copper Dissolved (ug/L As Cu)
Copper Total (ug/L As Cu)
Discharge, Instantaneous, Cubic Feet Per
Second
Hardness Total (mg/L As CaCO3)
Iron Dissolved (ug/L As Fe)
Iron, Total, (ug/L As Fe)
Lead Dissolved (ug/L As Pb)
Lead Total (ug/L As Pb)
Magnesium Dissolved (mg/L As Mg)
Nickel Dissolved (ug/L As Ni)
Nickel Total (ug/L As Ni)
Nitrogen Ammonia Plus Organic Total (mg/L
AsN)
Nitrogen Nitrite Plus Nitrate Total (mg/L As N)
Oxygen Dissolved (mg/L)
Ph, Water, Whole, Field, Standard Units
Phosphorus Orthophosphate Dissolved (mg/L
AsP)
Phosphorus Total (mg/L As P)
Residue, Total Non Filterable (mg/L)
5TNGRR01
>-
5TNGRR02
>-
5TNGRR03
>-
6OTTRC02
>-
6
6
6
1
6
6
6
5
5TNGR01
>-
1
1
1
1
6
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5HNGWC02
>-
6
6
4
1
6
6
6
5
5HNGWC01
>-
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
5
5
6
6
4
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6TNGR01
>-
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6OTTRC01
>-
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
5
5
6
6
6
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6PMPKC01
>-
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
5
5
6
6
3
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6PMPKC02
>-
6TNYID01
>-
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
6TNYID02
>-
2
2
2
1
1
1
6TNYID03
>-
3
3
4
3
4
4
L-2
-------
Appendix L
Table L-2. Water quality parameters and number of samples collected during the 2003 field
season.
Parameter
Selenium Dissolved (ug/L As Se)
Selenium Total (ug/L As Se)
Silver Dissolved (ug/L As Ag)
Silver Total (ug/L As Ag)
Sodium Dissolved (mg/L As Na)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
Specific Conductance, uS/cm @ 25 Degrees
Celsius
Sulfate Dissolved (mg/L As SO4)
Turbidity (NTU)
Water Temperature, Degrees Celsius
Zinc Dissolved (ug/L As Zn)
Zinc Total (ug/L As Zn)
I5TNGRR01
>-
I5TNGRR02
>-
I5TNGRR03
>-
I6OTTRC02
>-
6
6
6
6
6
6
I5TNGR01
>-
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
I5HNGWC02
>-
6
6
6
6
5
6
I5HNGWC01
>-
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
I6TNGR01
>-
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
I6OTTRC01
>-
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
I6PMPKC01
>-
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
I6PMPKC02
>-
1
I6TNYID01
>-
5
5
5
5
5
5
I6TNYID02
>-
2
2
1
2
1
1
I6TNYID03
>-
3
3
4
3
4
4
L-3
------- |