Jack Creek Water Monitoring and Education Project: 2010 End of Year Report

8/3/2019 Jack Creek Water Monitoring and Education Project: 2010 End of Year Report

1/51

JACK CREEK WATER MONITORING AND

EDUCATION PROJECTEND-OF-YEAR REPORT 2010


2/51

OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Preface .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6Project Sponsors ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Project Supporters ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Project History .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Goals and Approach ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8

2010SEASON......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Water Chemistry and Sediment methods ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Tiered Trigger Level Framework ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Flow Patterns .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Observations and Measurements ................................................................................................................................................... 14

GENERAL STATION DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 15

INDIVIDUAL STATION DISCUSSIONS.............................................................................................................................................................. 19

EDUCATION PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 32

TECHNICAL ADVICE FROM MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY .............................................................................................. 34

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 43


3/51

Figure 1. 2010 monitoring station locations on Jack Creek. Watershed boundary defined by blue line. ________________________ 9

Figure 2: Flows at Canyon Station and cumulative precipitation and average daily temperature at Lone Mt. SNOTEL site. . ______ 15

Figure 3: Average Dissolved Oxygen content for 2010 sampling and growing seasons_____________________________________ 16

Figure 4: Average Temperature for 2010 sampling and growing seasons _______________________________________________ 16

Figure 5: Average electrical conductivity for 2010 sampling and growing seasons ________________________________________ 17

Figure 6: Average total Phosphorus for the 2010 sampling and growing seasons_________________________________________ 17

Figure 7: Average total Nitrate + Nitrite for the 2010 sampling and growing seasons _____________________________________ 18

Figure 8: Average daily flow (cfs) at Jack Creek Ranch station 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010. This data is qualified as having uncertain

quality due to site modifications described below. __________________________________________________________________ 20

Figure 9: Fish trap installed by MTFWP at Jack Creek Ranch station. TruTrack location indicated by arrow. ___________________ 21

Figure 10: Average daily flow (cfs) at Canyon station historic and 2006-2010. ___________________________________________ 23

Figure 11: Average daily flow (cfs) for Campground station 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010. _____________________________________ 24

Figure 12: Eroding bank upstream of Campground station 2010. TruTrack location indicated by arrow. ______________________ 25

Figure 13: Eroded bank immediately upstream of TruTrack, South Side Road station, taken in 2009. TruTrack location indicated by

arrow. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 26

Figure 14: Average daily flows (cfs) South Side Road station 2006-2010. _______________________________________________ 27

Figure 15: Average daily flows (cfs) for Moonlight Creek station 2006-2010. ____________________________________________ 28

Figure 16: Average daily flows (cfs) for Madison Road station 2007-2010. ______________________________________________ 30

Figure 17: Average Daily Flows (cfs) for Lone Creek station 2010. _____________________________________________________ 31

Figure 18: Ennis kindergarten students test the pH of the water in Jack Creek, September 2010. ____________________________ 33

Figure 19: Students from Ennis Community Childrens School examine a macroinvertebrate sample from Jack Creek, July 2010. ___ 33


4/51

Table 1: Monitoring site descriptions _____________________________________________________________________________ 9

Table 2. Narrative and numeric recreational water quality standards from MT DEQ for streams classified as B1 in the Middle Rockies

Ecoregion. Adapted from Circular DEQ-7 (WQB-7) and ARM 17-2691. _________________________________________________ 13

Table 3: Min/Max Flow (cfs) and cumulative discharge (acre/ft) for each station in 2010. Station are listed from downstream to

headwaters; tributaries indicated by (*). _________________________________________________________________________ 13

Table 4: Flow and chemistry data for Jack Creek Ranch station 2010. __________________________________________________ 22

Table 5: Flow and chemistry data for Canyon station 2010. __________________________________________________________ 23

Table 6: Flow and chemistry data for Campground station 2010. _____________________________________________________ 25

Table 7: Flow and chemistry data for South Side Road station 2010. ___________________________________________________ 27

Table 8: Flow and chemistry data for Moonlight Creek station 2010. __________________________________________________ 29

Table 9: Flow and chemistry data for Madison Road station 2010. ____________________________________________________ 30

Table 10: Description of completed education events in 2010 for Jack Creek Water Monitoring Project. ______________________ 32


5/51

OVERVIEW

Jack Creek is a mountain stream watershed system located within the Madison Range east of

Ennis, Montana and is a tributary of the Madison River. Encompassing waters from Lee Metcalf

Wilderness, Cedar Creek Wilderness and Moonlight Basin Ski Resort, Jack Creek originates in high

elevation environments and flows through developed and undeveloped areas, rangeland, pasture and

cropland as it makes its way to the Madison River. The Madison River is home to several blue ribbon

trout fisheries and one of three rivers forming the Missouri River, a major water resource for a large

portion of the United States. Proper management of water resources is vital to maintain health and

productivity of the Madison and points downstream.

Soils in the Jack Creek watershed vary depending on their location within the watershed. Soils on

the floodplains between the confluence with the Madison River and the canyon are very gravely sandy

loams. Cobbly loams are found on terraces and alluvial fans and on some of the floodplains there are

eolian deposits over gravelly alluvium. Cryaquols (cold, wet, Mollisols) are the majority of soils along

Jack Creek as it moves east towards the headwaters. Stony sandy loams and rock outcrops of gravelly

colluvium and/or alluvium and/or glacial till make up the rest of the soils along this section of Jack creek.

As Jack Creek nears its headwaters, soils change to clayey residuum weathered from shale with gravelly

alluvium/colluvium and/or glacial till soils on steeper slopes. The majority of the headwaters area is

dominated by the same types of soils with the exception of Ulreys Lakes area. Soils here consist of coarse

loamy colluvium from granite, gneiss and/or glacial till.


6/51

Climate in the Jack Creek watershed is as varied as geology and soils, with an average annual

rainfall in the headwaters area of 19 inches but only 12.5 inches in the valley. Average annual snowfall

for the headwaters area is approximately 144 inches, while the valley only receives 33 inches. Average

annual minimum and maximum temperatures are 22 F and 53 F in the headwaters area and 30 F and

57 F at the confluence.

PREFACE

A collaborative partnership between developers, private landowners, university researchers and a

school district was formed based on the shared belief of giving back to the community. The partners for

the project include the Montana State University Water Quality Program, Moonlight Basin Ranch, the Jack

Creek Preserve Foundation, the Madison River Foundation, and the Madison Conservation District.

Partners wanted to develop a volunteer water monitoring project along Jack Creek for multiple reasons:

1) monitor Jack Creek to preserve and/or maintain water quality and quantity; 2) introduce students to

the practical/applicable side of math and science through experiential learning while gathering useful

water quality and quantity data; and 3) provide people of all ages experiential learning opportunities.

PROJECTSPONSORS

Moonlight Basin Ranch (Moonlight) is a world-class destination resort at the headwaters of Jack

Creek which has made a commitment to responsible stewardship by engaging in limited development

that enhances natural systems of the region. The goal of Moonlight is to save critical wildlife habitat,


7/51

ecology, wildlife management, ethical hunting practices and environmental stewardship that give young

people a deeper appreciation and foster a deeper understanding and involvement with their

environment.

The Madison River Foundation is a not-for-profit advocacy group with a mission to preserve,

protect and enhance the Madison River ecosystem for the mutual benefit of wildlife and all people who

use it by employing professional expertise and advocating worthy public policy to ensure the future well-

being of this valuable resource. The Foundation engages in advocacy on behalf of sound public policies

that advance the organization's mission. It also helps to fund and implement worthy conservation

projects on the Madison watershed.

The Madison Conservation District is a local government entity working to promote the

conservation of local natural resources. The Conservation Districts activities include education and on-

the-ground projects dealing with the regions critical natural resources. Additionally, the ConservationDistrict oversees the permitting review process for work in or near perennial streams.

PROJECTSUPPORTERS

The Montana State University Extension Water Quality Program (MSUEWQ) is a unit of the

Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, of MSU located in Bozeman and is part of the

US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) National Water Quality

P Th l f th NIFA i t t t i th lit f t


8/51

The first planning meeting was held in April 2006, with representatives from JCP, Moonlight,

Ennis Schools, MSUWQ, the Montana Watercourse and the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group gathering in

Ennis, MT. Everyone present was asked for their primary objectives, or goals for the project. Two main

points came out of the meeting: 1) experiential learning opportunities for students and 2) a need to

collect baseline data and conduct yearly monitoring to detect impacts to Jack Creek.

GOALS ANDAPPROACH

In keeping with the theme of environmental education through experiential learning, JCP and

Moonlight partnered with MSUEWQ and Ennis High School to develop a water monitoring project along

Jack Creek. Jack Creek is an exceptional study area because it is an easily accessible main channel of a

small watershed feeding directly into the Madison River.

The overall goal of the Jack Creek monitoring project was to gather non-biased water quality and

quantity data while giving students hands-on educational experiences. To accomplish these goals, six

sites were selected from the headwaters of Jack Creek to the confluence with the Madison River to

monitor flow, sediment and chemistry, and a monthly monitoring schedule was set. A seventh site,

located on Lone Creek just below the six shooter lift in the base area of Moonlight Basin, was installed in

July of 2007. As Moonlight develops guest and residential areas on-mountain, they are drilling

centralized water supply wells and want to monitor flow to determine if/what effects wells have on

stream discharge in Lone Creek. Access for installation of monitoring stations and site visits was

id d b J k C k R h J i H R h JCP d M li ht


9/51

Figure 1. 2010 monitoring station locations on Jack Creek. Watershed boundary defined by blue line.

Table 1: Monitoring site descriptions

Site Name Site Description Uses

J k C k R h (JCR) th d f th ld M di Ed ti


10/51

A Trutrack data logger was installed in a stilling well at each monitoring site with instrumentation.

Trutracks measure water height (stage), water temperature and air temperature on a continuous basis,

and record (log) data on pre-set intervals. For this project, Trutracks were set to log stream height and

air and water temperature every hour. Ennis High School shop students made stilling wells and caps

from inch steel pipe. One end was welded together and pounded flat to form a wedge-shaped tip for

driving into stream bottoms. Slits were cut along the sides to allow water to flow through and holes were

drilled on the top to secure a cap and bolt, which suspends the Trutrack. If a Trutrack is placed in-stream

without a stilling well, water will push up higher on the upstream side than the downstream, resulting

in false high stage readings (water levels). Stilling wells allow water to settle so accurate water heightsare recorded and they provide a secure place for Trutracks.

Stream flow was measured at all sites using a FP101 Global Flow Probe. Flow measurements

made with the flow meter were correlated with Trutrack stage (water height) data to develop flow versus

stage rating curves. Total Phosphorous (mg/L), nitrate (NO3+NO2N) (mg/L), and total suspended

sediment grab samples were collected at every site except Lone Creek and analyzed by Pace Analytical

Laboratories in Billings, MT. Temperature (C), pH, and EC (s/cm) were measured using a HANNA

Combo pH, EC, TDS Tester. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L) was measured using the YSI DO 550A meter.

Instruments were calibrated at the start of each sampling day.

2010SEASON

Beginning in spring and through the fall, monitoring stations were visited approximately once a


11/51

weather, etc. With non-continuous data, it is important to consider timing and frequency of sample

collection to get as good a picture as possible of the variability in the stream within budget constraints.

Monthly sample collection can provide a picture of the seasonal variability which is expected in a stream.

Due to the inherent variability in stream water quality related to weather, comparison of only a few

samples does not provide a lot of insight. However, regularly scheduled long term data collection allows

for evaluation of trends in the data which can be used to evaluate effects to water quality from land use

changes.

Sediment samples were collected at each site visit and submitted to Pace Analytical Laboratory foranalysis. Turbidity was also measured on site, by using a turbidity tube and calculating the average of 3

readings. Turbidity tubes were provided to the project in mid-June, missing data indicates time before

equipment was available.

A general water quality concept is that the amount of sediment in a stream is often related to theamount of flow in the stream. At high flow sediment concentration is high and at low flow sediment

concentration is low. Often, this relationship can help to estimate the amount of sediment moving in a

stream. However, there are a lot of complications to this type of relationship, especially on a small stream

like Jack Creek (Appendix B).

Routine sampling doesnt necessarily catch the whole spectrum offlow and sediment conditions.

There are multiple variables to consider including, but not limited to, time of year, climate, changes in-


12/51

carried by Jack Creek. The majority of samples were within observed/recorded ranges we have for each

station over the last three years, even during spring run-off and high flow events.

TIERED TRIGGER LEVEL FRAMEWORK

As was discussed during the review of 2009 data, the project may benefit by the establishment of a

tiered trigger level framework and 'trigger points'. The tiered trigger level framework is a pro-active,

preventative approach to water quality protection through monitoring of surface water. Trigger levels

are established using baseline water quality data and non-degradation and contaminant concentrations.

A trigger point is a value which indicates when more extensive data or examination is needed. Trigger

points can be useful from a regulatory standpoint as well as a monetary one. Laboratory analysis of

sediment and nutrient samples is costly and can be wasteful if all concentrations are below detection

limits or within natural variations.

The tiered trigger level framework is an appropriate portion of the Sampling Analysis Plan for the

Jack Creek Project. Development of this document is planned with assistance from the MSUEWQ and

Montana Watercourse staff.


13/51


14/51

Table 2. Narrative and numeric recreational water quality standards from MT DEQ for streams classified as B1 in the Middle

Rockies Ecoregion. Adapted from Circular DEQ-7 (WQB-7) and ARM 17-2691.

Parameter Standard

pH 6.5-8.5 normal

Total PhosphorousMT DEQ Draft criteria 0.048mg/L during the growing

season

Nitrate + nitrite as N (NO3+NO2N)MT DEQ Draft criteria 0.100 mg/L during the growing

season

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

(salmonid embryo and larval

stages)

> 11 no production impairment; < 8 moderate

production impairment; < 5 limit to avoid acute

mortality

Temperature (C)< 1 F (0.6 C) increase above average seasonal

temperatures

EC (mmhos/cm)Irrigation standard only, criteria starting at > 500

S/cm

Sediment (TSS) Narrative standard only

Turbidity Normal + 5 NTU

FLOWPATTERNS

Hourly Trutrack data (stage) and measured flows (cfs) were used to develop flow versus stage

rating curves for each monitoring station (Appendix A). Rating curves were used to calculate averagedaily flow in cfs and total discharge (Acft) for each station during the monitoring season. Table 2 shows

discharge (Acft) and minimum and maximum cfs for each station in 2010.


15/51

As expected, data suggests Jack Creek is picking up water as it moves down gradient from the

headwaters tributary streams (Madison Road, Moonlight Creek and Lone Creek) to the Canyon. There

are multiple tributaries between South Side Road and the Canyon to account for this increase. Data also

indicate a reduction in water volume from Canyon to Jack Creek Ranch. Decreases during height of runoff

could be attributed to streambed composition (geology) which can influence streamflows by either

creating a loss or a gain of water due to movement of water through streambed gravels. An additional

cause of decreased flow could be attributed to irrigation water which is diverted mid summer. Negative

numbers are a function of issues with flow measurement and creation of the rating curve (discussed in

the Madison station section).

OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

Weather events are a major influence on flow quantity and hydrograph pattern. Data collected

from the NRCS SNOTEL site at Lone Mountain (Site number 590) provides useful information on

temperature and precipitation for the Jack Creek headwaters area. Figure 2 illustrates the patterns

during the 2010 sampling season, and also includes flow patterns at the Canyon station. The snow water

equivalent reported for April 15, 2010 was 16.1 inches, which illustrates the amount of moisture in the

form of snowpack. During spring 2010, over 10 inches of precipitation was recorded from April 21

through June 21, 2010. This quantity of moisture is directly related to the increase in flow quantities at

the Canyon station during the same period, particularly when average daily air temperatures reached 10

C in May, and also when average daily temperatures were consistently above 5 C at the end of May.


16/51

Figure 2: Flows at Canyon Station and cumulative precipitation and average daily temperature at Lone Mt. SNOTELsite. .

GENERAL STATION DISCUSSIONS

As a useful means to compare chemistry data at the sampling stations, Figure 3- Figure 7 provide

illustration of the 2010 yearly averages at each site. The data was sorted to display averages for the

entire sampling season as well as the growing season (June September), a period of the year

emphasized as critical for meeting established standards.


17/51

Figure 3: Average Dissolved Oxygen content for 2010 sampling and growing seasons


18/51

Figure 5: Average electrical conductivity for 2010 sampling and growing seasons

Nutrient and sediment averages reflected more variability than previous parameters. Growing

season total phosphorus averages tended to be higher than season long data, with the exception of

Moonlight and Madison stations. Spikes in the data at Madison were from a single event at the last

sampling day, and are likely linked to an isolated event. Additional discussion is provided for this in the

individual station discussion.


19/51

Jack Creek Ranch station exhibited the highest averages of Nitrate + Nitrite, with other stations

being variable in ranges (Figure 7). Growing season averages were typically higher by a factor of >0.02.

Headwaters streams were commonly lowest, with little change between period of examination.

Figure 7: Average total Nitrate + Nitrite for the 2010 sampling and growing seasons

Sediment averages, with the exception of the Madison season long average, generally increased

from headwaters streams to the lower stations. Growing season averages tended to be lower than season

long averages, due to the exclusion of data from the spring runoff event. The Madison station average is

influenced by the last sampling event of the year, and is discussed in more detail in the individual station

discussion.


20/51

INDIVIDUAL STATION DISCUSSIONS

This section contains hydrographs and chemistry data of monitoring stations for the 2010 season.

Appendix C contains compiled data for all stations from 2007-2010. The primary focus of discussion is

for data collected in 2010; major deviations from previous years sampling will be noted periodically.

Several environmental factors that may have influenced the data are also mentioned in discussion. The

summary will start at the Jack Creek Ranch, close to the confluence of Jack Creek with the Madison River

and work up to the headwaters area and Lone Creek.

Jack Creek Ranch

Fi 8 ill t t d il fl f th M di V ll R h t ti i 2006 d 2007 d


21/51

Figure 8: Average daily flow (cfs) at Jack Creek Ranch station 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010. This data is qualified as having

uncertain quality due to site modifications described below.

Although the flow data for the Jack Creek Ranch station appears to be within an expected range of

values, all data from April 21, 2010 through May 19, 2010 should be considered unreliable. During this

period of time, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks had installed a fish trap directly adjacent to the

TruTrack. Figure 9 illustrates how water elevations in the region of the TruTrack were affected by the

device, likely resulting in false high readings for water height.


22/51

Figure 9: Fish trap installed by MTFWP at Jack Creek Ranch station. TruTrack location indicated by arrow.

Table 4 contains chemistry data for Jack Creek Ranch during the 2010 sampling year. Using

standards from


23/51


24/51

Table 4: Flow and chemistry data for Jack Creek Ranch station 2010.

Jack Creek Ranch Flow pH TP NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity

cfs ppm ppm mg/L C s/cm mg/L cm

04/21/10 59.72 8.40 0.00 0.00 10.20 5.70 202.00

05/18/10 7.87 0.03 0.04 9.80 7.30 124.00 75.00

06/14/10 8.08 0.06 0.08 11.48 6.80 99.00 59.10

07/12/10 65.16 8.30 0.02 0.04 10.70 10.50 174.00 9.60 90.80

08/23/10 21.77 8.35 0.02 0.10 10.09 14.80 270.00 11.70 55.00

09/13/10 21.31 8.00 0.03 0.14 9.64 7.60 310.00 10.20 83.00

10/11/10 18.48 8.30 0.02 0.14 10.34 11.80 283.00 15.10 72.60

Canyon

Figure 10 illustrates differences between present and historical flow patterns at the Canyon

station, and provides a good comparison of flow magnitude and patterns for Jack Creek as it leaves the

mountains. The dashed line represents historical discharge (cfs) from 1974-1992 and the solid lines

represent data from 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010.

Flows in 2009 and 2007 both peaked at earlier times of the year, with flow quantities in 2007

being significantly smaller. During both 2007 and 2009, depressed flows mid-season are likely a result of

drought and the fact that historical data is averaged from a much longer, and wetter, period. 2010 data

follows the trends of historic data in both timing and flow quantities. This is to be expected as the


25/51


26/51

Campground

Figure 11 illustrates average daily flow at the Campground station for 2006, 2007, 2009, and

2010. In 2010, the campground station lacked the distinct mid-May spike as seen in lower stations,perhaps illustrating the difference in influence of higher elevation conditions on the Campground station.

The sudden drop in flows in early June could be a result of a blockage upstream of this station paired with

colder daily temperatures. Flow quantities are similar between 2009 and 2010, with 2007 data

contrasting with lower quantities and earlier peak flows.


27/51


28/51

Table 6: Flow and chemistry data for Campground station 2010.

Campground Flow pH TP NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity


04/21/10 47.65 7.90 0.00 0.00 9.20 6.40 119.00 0.00

05/18/10 7.93 0.01 0.03 10.20 5.40 63.00 47.20

06/14/10 8.10 0.03 0.06 11.63 5.30 106.00 22.10

07/12/10 70.81 8.30 0.02 0.03 10.36 11.60 113.00 5.80 >120

08/23/10 33.35 8.02 0.02 0.06 9.91 9.70 151.00 6.70 104.00

09/13/10 32.90 8.20 0.02 0.08 10.75 6.80 180.00 3.00 >120

10/11/10 24.75 8.29 0.01 0.02 10.85 7.50 156.00 0.00 >120

A concern at the Campground site is the large portion of bank upstream of the monitoring station

that is highly unstable (Figure 12). During a September 10, 2010 field tour, representatives from USFS

and the BLM expressed interest in pursuing funds to restore this area as a cooperative project with local

organizations.


29/51

As has been the case in previous years, difficult access to this site prevented installation of

equipment until June 2010. During the initial site visit, it was determined that because of the potential

for the unstable trees (Figure 13) to damage the 2009 station, the TruTrack stilling well was moved

upstream to a more stable site. It was noted during the July site visit that the trees had fallen into thecreek at the 2009 station.

Figure 13: Eroded bank immediately upstream of TruTrack, South Side Road station, taken in 2009. TruTrack

location indicated by arrow.

Figure 14illustrates average daily flow for the South Side Road station for 2006-2010. Data for 2010

illustrates flows within historic ranges. The 2010 period of record for this station is from June 14 October 11,

2010. It is apparent that the complications with access results in a limited perspective of the hydrograph


30/51

Figure 14: Average daily flows (cfs) South Side Road station 2006-2010.

Table 7contains chemistry data for the South Side Road station in 2010. A single sampling event in

August had elevated levels of Phosphorus and Nitrate + Nitrite-N. Historically, only phosphorus levels have

exceeded standards, in May and July of 2007. Sediment levels were low and did not follow the pattern of

increased levels in August, as was seen in 2008 and 2009.

Table 7: Flow and chemistry data for South Side Road station 2010.

SSR Flow pH TP NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity

cfs ppm ppm mg/L C s/cm mg/L cm06/14/10 54.08 7.74 0.02 0.06 11.18 7.30 78.00 9.10

07/12/10 14.28 8.30 0.02 0.00 9.81 12.90 106.00 2.50 >120


31/51

undercut banks and debris blocking flow. These small mountain streams are very difficult to accurately assess;

however these numbers are useful for year to year comparison to ensure concentrations dont elevate and

flows arent drastically altered.

Figure 7 illustrates average daily flow 2006-2010, with limited period of record for 2008 and 2007.

Data from 2009 is suspect, as challenges with flow measurement make confident rating curves difficult to

establish. During 2010, discharge patterns follow those of other stations, with a mid May spike and a late May

peak, corresponding to weather conditions during those time periods. This site is located along a narrow

section of dense willows and alders, which contribute significant amounts of debris into the stream. During

each sampling, debris would need to be removed from around the base of the TruTrack stilling well,

circumstances that could provide false high readings on the stage measurements but not likely significant

enough to consider relocating the station.


32/51

phosphorus can be from natural causes, such as geologic. All other chemistry parameters were within

standards and follow trends seen over the last four years.

Table 8: Flow and chemistry data for Moonlight Creek station 2010.

Moonlight Flow pH TP NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity


05/18/10 4.46 7.86 0.02 0.02 8.80 3.80 25.00 10.00

06/14/10 2.36 8.01 0.02 0.02 11.11 5.40 95.00 3.50

07/12/10 1.02 8.39 0.02 0.00 9.80 11.60 143.00 17.20 >120

08/23/10 0.34 8.30 0.01 0.01 9.98 5.60 207.00 1.20 >12009/13/10 0.29 8.70 0.01 0.01 10.01 7.80 230.00 1.30 >120

10/11/10 0.31 8.21 0.12 0.00 9.87 6.90 209.00 22.10 >120

Madison Road

Figure 16 illustrates average daily flow for the Madison Station from 2007- 2010. This site is a

particular challenge to measure due to the channel morphology. This section of stream is very shallow,

often too shallow to get a reading from the flow meter, has tight curves and quite a bit of debris in the

channel, making it very difficult to accurately measure discharge. Negative discharge estimates in 2008

and 2010 are a result of the challenges measuring flow and calculating discharge. These complications

tell us that we cannot trust the accuracy of the measurements to closer than about 1 cfs but the relative

changes in flow and the shape of the hydrographs are still very useful.


33/51

Figure 16: Average daily flows (cfs) for Madison Road station 2007-2010.

Table 9 contains chemistry data for the Madison Road station for 2010. With the exception of the

final sampling event of the year, chemistry data were within baseline trends and nutrient concentrations

are within standards. Conditions on the final sampling event coincided with a steady rainfall, and were

noticeably different than during the other sampling days. Moonlight representatives were notified of the

conditions, and an area of concern was identified and will be monitored in subsequent years.

Table 9: Flow and chemistry data for Madison Road station 2010.

Madison Flow pH TP NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity


34/51

years, all late season stream discharge values coincide. This suggests there has been no impact to base

flow in Lone Creek from upstream development to date.

Figure 17: Average Daily Flows (cfs) for Lone Creek station 2010.


35/51

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The educational component of the Jack Creek Project seeks to provide local youth an opportunity

to learn the basics of water quality monitoring. By combining classroom lessons with field trips, students

have the opportunity to learn why water quality monitoring is important and how water monitoring is

done by doing the data collection themselves.

During 2010, several student field days were organized so students could spend time on-stream

with project manager, teachers and volunteers collecting and discussing data. Students were actively

involved; asking pertinent questions and making their own observations and discoveries. A total of 10

volunteers, 102 students, and 12 staff/teachers participated in education programs during the 2011

season (Table 10).

Table 10: Description of completed education events in 2010 for Jack Creek Water Monitoring Project.

Date TaskNumber of

Staff/Teachers

Number of

Students

Number of

volunteers5/21/2010 Education- 5th Grade 1 12 28/17/2010 Education- preschool 7 409/15/2010 Education-kindergarten 3 30 810/7/2010 Education- high school 1 20

The students were instructed on a range of subjects, depending on age and length of time available

for the lessons. Lessons for the youngest students focused on macroinvertebrate identification, with

older students learning about physical, chemical and biological parameters of water quality. In addition,


36/51

Figure 18: Ennis kindergarten students test the pH of the water in Jack Creek, September 2010.


37/51

TECHNICAL ADVICE FROM MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

During June 2010, results from sampling years 2006-2009 were submitted to DEQ for review and

to solicit feedback on data collection approach and results. The following text is taken directly from that

correspondence:

1. The growing season average nitrate + nitrite concentration atMVR/JCR is 13% higher (0.113

mg/L) than applicable criteria of 0.100mg/L; five of seven of these samples were higher than the

criteria. Also, the growing season average nitrate + nitrite concentration atMVR/JCR is 265%

higher than the growing season average atCanyon/Old Canyon. This suggests that a significant

source of nitrate + nitrite (probably nitrate) is present between the two sites. Taken together, thissuggests that Nitrate levels in lower Jack Creek may be elevated to levels that could impact

beneficial uses (e.g. through altered trophic structure and/or nuisance algae levels)

2. The growing season average total P concentration atMVR/JCR is 35% lower (0.031mg/L) than

applicable criteria of 0.048mg/L; one of seven of values were higher than the criteria. The growing

season average total P concentration is 72% higher atMVR/JCR than atCanyon/Old Canyon.

This suggests that there is a source of P to the stream in the lower reach. Although the observed

concentrations are not elevated above criteria, there may be enough P present (depending on its

form) to fuel nuisance algae growth given the concurrent apparently elevated nitrateconcentration in the lower reach.

3. The growing season average Nitrate + Nitrite concentrations atCanyon/Old Canyon,

Campground, South Side Road, Moonlight, and Madison Rd sites are very similar. The values

do not appear to be elevated.

4. The growing season average PO4 concentration atCanyon/Old Canyon and Campground sites

are nearly identical. Growing season average value for PO4 atSouth Side road is 78% higher than

atCampground and is slightly below the Total P criteria of 0.048mg/L. The growing season

average of 0.057mg/L PO4 atMadison Road is the highest of all the sites. This value is 19%

higher than Middle Rockies Ecoregion criteria for Total P. The Total P value at the Moonlightsite

is low and similar to the values atCanyon and Campground sites. When taken together this


38/51

Recommendations:

1. I recommend continued sampling for nutrients only during growing season period- July 1st

through September 30th. It is during the growing season when nutrient levels have effects on

water quality that can be linked to impacted beneficial uses. Nutrient samples should be collectedno less than 30 days apart to mitigate serial correlation of samples, i.e. sample early July, early

August, early September for 3 total visits per year.

2. I recommend reducing the number of sample sites to 3: MVR; Canyon; Madison Rd.

3. I recommend identification of alternative reference sites. It appears as though logging and roads in

Moonlight Creek have the potential to influence nutrient and sediment levels. Also, this site can

only be used as a reference site for sites on Jack Creek with a similar watershed area, elevation,

geology, vegetation, etc. If possible it would be useful to have local reference sites for the MVR,

Canyon, and Madison Rd sites.

4. I recommend collecting chlorophyll-a samples along with nutrients in order to link nutrients with

biological conditions.

5. TSS data can be difficult to analyze and even more difficult to show that TSS levels are impacting

water quality and beneficial uses. I recommend discontinued sampling of TSS, but if continued

monitoring of sediment is an interest, I suggest that parameters be shifted towards monitoring

stream bed sediment impacts. DEQ is in the process of updating its sediment assessment method,

which will involve multiple assessment procedures


39/51


40/51

APPENDIXA

Flow versus stage relationships for each station in 2010


41/51


42/51


43/51

APPENDIXB

Flow versus sediment relationships for each station in 2010.


44/51


45/51


46/51


47/51

47

Canyon Flow pH PO4 NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity

08/31/07 22.14 8.4


48/51

48

Campground Flow pH PO4 NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity

06/29/07 55.20 7.02 0.01 0.03 10.00 14.00 131.00 1.90

07/20/07 30.41 6.96 0.09 0.03 11.00 16.00 142.00 10.28

08/09/07 25.90 8.11 0.02


49/51

49

SSR Flow pH PO4 NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity

06/18/08 80.59 7.68 0.04


50/51

50

Moonlight Flow pH PO4 NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity

10/05/07 0.17 8.27


51/51

51

Madison Flow pH PO4 NO3+NO2N DO TEMP EC Sed Turbidity

08/31/07 0.05 7.82 0.02

Documents

Jack Creek Water Monitoring and Education Project: 2010 End of Year Report