annual water quality and benthic algae...

CLARK FORK RIVER WATER QUALITY MONITORING COMMITTEE

ANNUAL WATER QUALITY AND BENTHIC ALGAE MONITORING RESULTS FOR THE

CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN 2014

6/23/2015

Prepared by: Christine Brick, Clark Fork Coalition, P.O. Box 7593, Missoula, MT 59807

1

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 History and Background .................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 Monitoring Program ......................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 Data Quality Control ......................................................................................................................... 5

5.0 Nutrient Results ................................................................................................................................ 6

5.1 Total Phosphorous ............................................................................................................................ 6

5.2 Soluble Reactive Phosphorous .......................................................................................................... 6

5.3 Total Nitrogen ................................................................................................................................... 7

5.4 Nitrate + Nitrite ................................................................................................................................. 7

5.5 Ammonia ........................................................................................................................................... 8

6.0 Benthic Algae Results ...................................................................................................................... 14

7.0 Peak Flow Nutrient Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 16

8.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Figures

Figure 1: Clark Fork and Pend Oreille River Monitoring Sites.………………………………………………………………….4

Figure 2: Total phosphorous results.……………………………………………………………………………………………………….9

Figure 3: Soluble reactive phosphorous results.….………………………………………………………………………………..10

Figure 4: Total nitrogen results..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………11

Figure 5: Nitrate + nitrite results………………………………………..……………………………...…………………………………12

Figure 6: Ammonia results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

Figure 7: Benthic algae chlorophyll-a and ash-free dry weight results…………………………………………………..15

Tables

Table 1: Monitoring Locations, Rationale, & Sampling Frequency on Clark Fork River and Tributaries……5

Table 2: Estimated Lake Pend Oreille Nutrient Loads from Clark Fork River 2012 to 2014…………………….17

Attachments

QA/QC Report for Clark Fork River Monitoring 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables

HydroSolutions Tech Memo: Estimate of 2014 Nutrient Loading from Clark Fork River into Lake Pend

Oreille

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents 2014 nutrient and benthic algae monitoring results from the Clark Fork River basin collected by the University of Montana (UM), the City of Missoula, and Avista Corporation (Avista) and overseen by the Clark Fork River Water Quality Monitoring Committee (CFRWQMC). This report also summarizes and presents results of quality assurance and quality control analysis by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and annual nutrient loading analysis to Lake Pend Oreille by Avista. The purpose of the report is to present monitoring results and assess the results with respect to compliance with water quality standards. Further analysis of the annual results from this monitoring program is accomplished on a five-year schedule when the Clark Fork River Water Quality Monitoring Committee contracts a statistical evaluation and trends analysis. The latest trends report covered the period 1998-2012 (HydroSolutions, 2014) and the next trends report will be presented in 2018, adding data through 2017.

2.0 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The current monitoring program is a continuation of the Montana portion of program begun through the Tri-State Water Quality Council (TSWQC) in 1998. The TSWQC, a partnership of citizens, businesses, industry, tribes, government, and environmental groups, formed in 1993 to collaboratively address solutions to the problem of excess nutrients and algae identified in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Management Plan (EPA, 1993) in Montana, Idaho and Washington. The monitoring committee of the TSWQC began a basin-wide targeted monitoring program in 1998, in part to assess the progress of a 10-year Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Program (VNRP) in Montana. The monitoring program employed a statistically-based sampling design and was intended to support sound, scientifically-based water management decisions. Nutrient and algal targets developed for the VNRP were later adopted as numeric standards in the Clark Fork basin in 2002 – the first numeric standards for nutrients and algae in Montana. Due to shrinking budgets, the TSWQC disbanded in 2012 but Montana DEQ assumed responsibility for monitoring in the Clark Fork basin. Former members of the TSWQC in Montana and Idaho formed the Clark Fork River Water Quality Monitoring Committee (CFRWQMC), comprised of MDEQ, Avista, City of Missoula, UM Watershed Clinic, and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), to continue and oversee the monitoring effort. The 2013-2017 monitoring program represents the first 5 year monitoring program managed by the CFRWQMC. The Tri-State Water Quality Council managed the previous 5 year monitoring programs from 1998-2002, 2003-2007, and 2008-2012, which provided the basis for a statistical analysis of water quality time trends for the Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille Watershed. The CFRWQMC modified the monitoring plan to be as cost effective as possible while still maintaining continuity for statistical analysis.

3.0 MONITORING PROGRAM

The CFRWQMC monitoring program in Montana maintains two of the original four management goals established by the TSWQC which are to:

1) Control nuisance algae in the Clark Fork River by reducing nutrient concentrations 2) Protect Lake Pend Oreille water quality by maintaining or reducing current rates of nutrient

loading from the Clark Fork River To meet these goals in Montana, the CFRWQMC will:

3

1) Evaluate time trends in nutrient concentrations in the mainstem Clark Fork River and selected tributaries;

2) Evaluate time trends for periphyton (algae) standing crops in the Clark Fork River; 3) Monitor summer nutrient and periphyton target levels in the Clark Fork River; 4) Estimate nutrient loading rates to Lake Pend Oreille from the Clark Fork River;

The states of Idaho and Washington carry out additional monitoring and studies to address the remaining TSWQC goals and objectives specific to Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River. These are described in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (MDEQ, 2015). Water quality data collected under ID and WA QAPPs will also be analyzed within the 2013-2017 five year trend report. The 2013-2017 program consists of a basic monitoring component and several annual and periodic, rotational add-on elements incorporated as needed. The basic program consists of the highest priorities for annual monitoring, while the add-ons represent options for additional monitoring that are contingent on annual funding availability (e.g., the lower Flathead River monitoring station was added in 2013 and additional sites for the Statewide Monitoring Program may be added in the future). All monitoring activities to meet the Montana objectives were performed in accordance with the “Clark Fork River-Pend Oreille Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Program from Headwaters to Below Cabinet Gorge Dam – Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)” (MDEQ, 2015) which is updated annually. The objectives are met by:

1. Monthly monitoring: Avista collects monthly nutrients and field constituents at three lower Clark Fork River sites (excluding December, January, and February);

2. Peak flow monitoring: Avista collects nutrient samples at the Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam during spring peak flow (six sampling events over a 1-month period in approximately May and/or June);

3. Summer monitoring: The City of Missoula and the University of Montana Watershed Clinic collect nutrient samples and field constituents in summer at nine Clark Fork River sites and one site on the Lower Flathead River (six sampling events, July-September; coordinated between the City of Missoula and UM);

4. Benthic algae monitoring: The UM Watershed Clinic collects summer benthic algae samples for chlorophyll-a and ash-free dry weight at seven Clark Fork River sites and one site on the lower Flathead River August-September.

Specifically, the CFRWQMC measures:

Nutrients: total phosphorus (TP), total persulfate nitrogen (TPN), nitrate + nitrite nitrogen (NO2+NO3-N), dissolved ammonia nitrogen (NH3+NH4-N), and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP).

Field parameters: water temperature (˚C), dissolved oxygen (mg/l), pH (standard units), redox potential (mv), specific conductance (μs/cm), total dissolved solids (mg/l), and turbidity (NTU).

Benthic algae: chlorophyll-a (mg/m2) and ash-free dry weight (g/m2). All nutrient samples are analyzed by the City of Missoula Wastewater Treatment Plant lab and benthic algae samples are analyzed by the UM Watershed Health Clinic. Sampling, QA/QC and analytical methods are described in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (MDEQ 2015). MDEQ’s QA/QC Report for Clark Fork River Monitoring (May 13, 2015) is attached to this report and data qualifiers are noted in the 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables, attached. The locations of the monitoring stations are provided in Figure 1 and Table 1.

4

Figure 1. Clark Fork and Pend Oreille River Monitoring Sites. Note that only Clark Fork River sites (above Lake Pend Oreille) are included in this monitoring report.

5

Table 1. Monitoring Locations, Rationale, and Sampling Frequency on Clark Fork River and Tributaries

Station Name Rationale Sampling Frequency

CFR 2.5 Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity below mixing zone for Butte WWTP S6

CFR 07 Clark Fork below Warm Springs Creek upstream control site, start of Clark Fork River

S6

CFR 09 Clark Fork at Deer Lodge upstream control site, upper river indicator site

C20, S6

CFR 10 Clark Fork above Little Blackfoot River below mixing zone for Deer Lodge WWTP C20, S6

CFR 12 Clark Fork at Bonita (Beavertail Hill) upper river site, between significant tributaries

C20, S6

CFR 15.5 Clark Fork above Missoula below Blackfoot drainage, control site for Missoula

C20 S6

CFR 18 Clark Fork below Missoula (Tower Street Conservation Area)

below mixing zone for Missoula WWTP C20, S6

CFR 22 Clark Fork at Huson lower river site, downstream of Missoula and Smurfit-Stone

C20, S6

CFR 25 Clark Fork above Flathead lower river site, upstream control for the Flathead River

C20, S6

CFR 26 Flathead River near Mouth (near Tribal Boundary)

Requested by EPA for TMDL purposes C20, S6

CFR 28 Clark Fork below Thompson Falls lower river site, downstream of Flathead River and Thompson Falls WWTP

N9

CFR 29 Clark Fork at Noxon Bridge lower river site, reflects reservoir influence N9

CFR 30 Clark Fork below Cabinet Gorge Dam estimation of nutrient loading to Lake Pend Oreille

N15

CFR = Clark Fork River and its tributaries N9 = Monthly monitoring for nutrients and field constituents, 9 monthly samples (excludes December, January and February) N15 = Monthly monitoring for nutrients and field constituents, 9 monthly samples (excludes December, January and February) and Peak flow monitoring for nutrients, 6 peak flow samples

C20 = Benthic algae monitoring for Chlorophyll-a and ash-free dry weight , 20 replicates per site, August and

September S6 = Summer monitoring for nutrients and field constituents, 6 samples during July, August and September

4.0 DATA QUALITY CONTROL

Montana DEQ analyzes the monitoring data each year for quality assurance/quality control and provides

a report (QA/QC Report for Clark Fork River Monitoring) that is appended to this report. This section

briefly summarizes the results. Data flags from the QA/QC report are included in the 2014 CFR-BASIN

Data Tables, also appended to this report. Nine data were flagged H for exceeding holding times. Seven

blank samples had detects above the lower reporting limit and as a result, 18 data results were flagged

B. Seven blanks had detects less than the lower reporting limit and above the method detection limit

and as a result 36 data results were flagged J to indicate a greater level of uncertainty. Three data were

flagged JB and one was flagged JH for the combination of issues. Four field duplicates exceeded a

relative percent difference of 25%. Two of these were near or below the lower reporting limit where

small differences become large percentages, and one is influenced by a blank sample above the

6

detection limit. Four samples failed logic checks where dissolved constituents exceed total results, but

were generally within error range. Three of these were labeled D because differences are likely due to

dilution required for analysis. Overall, 12 data were flagged D because the reporting limit was

increased due to sample dilutions. There was no data flagged for laboratory issues, and the overall

project DQOs and DQIs were met as set forth in the QAPP. There was no data that was determined to

be unusable (rejected) in the validation process or lost due to sampler or laboratory error. The

CFWQMC discussed ways to improve data quality and QA/QC reporting at their annual meeting, and the

QAPP and SAPs were updated accordingly.

5.0 NUTRIENT RESULTS

5.1 TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS

Upper to middle Clark Fork sites were sampled by the City of Missoula and UM six times at approximate two week intervals from early July to mid-September. Lower Clark Fork sites were sampled by Avista at monthly intervals from mid-March to mid-November. Results of total phosphorous monitoring are presented in Figure 2 and in the 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables, attached. Total phosphorous is highest in Silver Bow Creek (range: 167.5 – 296.7 ug/L). Numeric standards for total phosphorous are established in ARM 17.30.631 on the mainstem of the Clark Fork River. From below Warm Springs Creek to the confluence of the Blackfoot River the total P standard is 20 ug/L. From the Blackfoot River to the confluence with the Flathead River, the total P standard is 39 ug/L. The standards are applicable from June 21 to September 21. All but one of the samples from the four upper Clark Fork River stations (below Warm Springs, at Deer Lodge, above Little Blackfoot and Bonita) exceeded the total phosphorous standard. Samples at these stations ranged from 19 ug/L to 233 ug/L. Nine of the 24 samples were double the standard or higher. None of the samples below Bonita exceeded the standard, and were generally lower overall and decreasing downstream with lowest concentrations in the Flathead River. Total P at these stations (above Missoula to the Flathead) ranged from 5.5 ug/L to 26.3 ug/L. Total P at the three lower Clark Fork stations was generally low with the exception of one sample in March below Thompson Falls (69.3ug/L). Excluding that sample, the range was 5.1 – 31.6 ug/L.

5.2 SOLUBLE REACTIVE PHOSPHOROUS

Upper to middle Clark Fork sites were sampled by the City of Missoula and UM six times at approximate two week intervals from early July to mid-September. Lower Clark Fork sites were sampled by Avista at monthly intervals from mid-March to mid-November. Results of soluble reactive phosphorous (SRP) monitoring are presented in Figure 3 and in the 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables, attached. There are no numeric standards for soluble reactive phosphorous. Spatial distribution of soluble reactive phosphorous is similar to that of total phosphorous with levels decreasing downstream and low concentrations in the Flathead River. SRP as a percentage of total phosphorous (TP) is:

7

Site Mean Percentage SRP of Total Phosphorous Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 77.8% Clark Fork below Warm Springs 66.6% Clark Fork at Deer Lodge 35.4% Clark Fork above Little Blackfoot 45.7% Clark Fork at Bonita (Beavertail Hill) 46.8% Clark Fork above Missoula 37.4% Clark Fork below Missoula 40.5% Clark Fork at Huson 33.1% Clark Fork above Flathead 39.7% Flathead River 29.6% Clark Fork below Thompson Falls 35.7% Clark Fork at Noxon 41.4% Clark Fork below Cabinet Gorge Dam 34.5%

5.3 TOTAL NITROGEN

Upper to middle Clark Fork sites were sampled by the City of Missoula and UM six times at approximate two week intervals from early July to mid-September. Lower Clark Fork sites were sampled by Avista at monthly intervals from mid-March to mid-November. Results of total nitrogen monitoring are presented in Figure 4 and in the 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables, attached. Total nitrogen concentrations were highest in Silver Bow Creek and were generally more than double other sites there (range: 896-2586 ug/L). Numeric standards for total nitrogen are established in ARM 17.30.631 on the mainstem of the Clark Fork River from below Warm Springs Creek to the confluence of the Flathead River from June 21 to September 21. The total N standard is 300 ug/L. The standard was exceeded in 50% of the samples from the Clark Fork below Warm Springs (range: 194-387 ug/L), 100% of the samples from the Clark Fork at Deer Lodge (range: 306-370 ug/L), 50% of the samples from the Clark Fork above Little Blackfoot (range: 236-418 ug/L), and 16.7% of the samples from the Clark Fork at Bonita (range: 198-321). Samples from all other stations met the standard. With the exception of one sample below Thompson Falls (TN = 586 ug/L), all other samples below the Bonita station ranged generally between 100-200 ug/L, with the Flathead River at the lower end of that range.

5.4 NITRATE + NITRITE

Upper to middle Clark Fork sites were sampled by the City of Missoula and UM six times at approximate two week intervals from early July to mid-September. Lower Clark Fork sites were sampled by Avista at monthly intervals from mid-March to mid-November. Results of nitrate + nitrite monitoring are presented in Figure 5 and in the 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables, attached. There are no numeric standards for nitrate + nitrite. Concentrations were highest in Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity (range 316 – 2211 ug/L). Concentrations were second highest in the Clark Fork at Deer Lodge (range: 39.6 – 70.2 ug/L). The lowest concentrations were found at the Clark Fork at Bonita (range: 1.1 – 5.5 ug/L) and at the Clark Fork above Missoula (range: 1.1 – 4.3). Concentrations from monthly sampling at the three lower Clark Fork sites were more variable, ranging from 5.5 – 67.7 ug/L (excluding one sample from the Clark Fork below Thompson Falls at 141.3 ug/L). Nitrate + nitrite as a percentage of total nitrogen is shown below:

8

Site Mean Percentage Nitrate+Nitrate of Total Nitrogen Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 99.2% Clark Fork below Warm Springs 5.3% Clark Fork at Deer Lodge 16% Clark Fork above Little Blackfoot 2.3% Clark Fork at Bonita 1.6% Clark Fork above Missoula 1.9% Clark Fork below Missoula 10.8% Clark Fork at Huson 12.8% Clark Fork above Flathead 6.1% Flathead River 8.3% Clark Fork below Thompson Falls 16.2% Clark Fork at Noxon 21.3% Clark Fork below Cabinet Gorge Dam 19.9%

5.5 AMMONIA

Upper to middle Clark Fork sites were sampled by the City of Missoula and UM six times at approximate two week intervals from early July to mid-September. Lower Clark Fork sites were sampled by Avista at monthly intervals from mid-March to mid-November. Results of ammonia monitoring are presented in Figure 6 and in the 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables, attached. Almost 70% of all samples were at or below the lower reporting limit of 10 ug/L. Only one sample (Clark Fork at Bonita) exceeded 20 ug/L with the exception of Silver Bow Creek where ammonia concentrations ranged from 12.6 – 32.4 ug/L.

9

Figure 2: Total phosphorous results for summer nutrient monitoring (upper) and monthly nutrient

monitoring (lower). Bars indicate sampling dates that range from early July to mid-September for Silver

Bow to Flathead and mid-March to mid-November for the lower Clark Fork. See 2014 CFR-BASIN Data

Tables for exact dates.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Clark Fork River below ThompsonFalls

Clark Fork River at Noxon Clark Fork River below CabinetGorge Dam

ug/

L To

tal P

ho

sph

oro

us

2014 Total Phosphorous Monthly - Lower Clark Fork

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Clark ForkRiver below

WarmSprings

Clark ForkRiver at

Deer Lodge

Clark ForkRiver above

LittleBlackfoot

Clark ForkRiver atBonita


Missoula


Missoula

Clark ForkRiver atHuson


Flathead

FlatheadRiver

ug/

L To

tal P

ho

sph

oro

us

2014 Total Phosphorous Summer - Silver Bow to Flathead

Phosphorous Standard Phosphorous Standard 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Silver BowCreek at

Opportunity

ug/

L

10

Figure 3: Soluble reactive phosphorous results for summer nutrient monitoring (upper) and monthly

nutrient monitoring (lower). Bars indicate sampling dates that range from early July to mid-September

for Silver Bow to Flathead and mid-March to mid-November for the lower Clark Fork. See 2014 CFR-

BASIN Data Tables for exact dates.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50



ug/

L So

lub

le R

eac

tive

Ph

osp

ho

rou

s

2014 Soluble Reactive Phosphorous Monthly - Lower Clark Fork

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


WarmSprings

Clark ForkRiver at

Deer Lodge


LittleBlackfoot



Missoula


Missoula



Flathead

FlatheadRiver

ug/

L So

lub

le R

eac

tive

Ph

osp

ho

rou

s 2014 Soluble Reactive Phosphorous Summer - Silver Bow to Flathead

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Silver Bow Creekat Opportunity

ug/

L

11

Figure 4: Total nitrogen results for summer nutrient monitoring (upper) and monthly nutrient monitoring (lower). Bars indicate sampling dates that range from early July to mid-September for Silver Bow to Flathead and mid-March to mid-November for the lower Clark Fork. See 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables for exact dates.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Clark ForkRiverbelowWarmSprings

Clark ForkRiver at

Deer Lodge

Clark ForkRiver

above LittleBlackfoot


Clark ForkRiverabove

Missoula

Clark ForkRiverbelow

Missoula



Flathead

FlatheadRiver

ug/

L To

tal

Nit

roge

n

2014 Total Nitrogen Summer - Silver Bow to Flathead

Nitrogen Standard

0

1000

2000

3000

Silver BowCreek at

Opportunity

ug/

L

0

100

200

300

400

500

600



ug/

L To

tal N

itro

gen

2014 Total Nitrogen Monthly - Lower Clark Fork

12

Figure 5: Nitrate+Nitrite results for summer nutrient monitoring (upper) and monthly nutrient monitoring (lower). Bars indicate sampling dates that range from early July to mid-September for Silver Bow to Flathead and mid-March to mid-November for the lower Clark Fork. See 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables for exact dates.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140



ug/

L N

itra

te +

Nit

rite

2014 Nitrate + Nitrite Monthly - Lower Clark Fork

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Clark ForkRiver at

Deer Lodge

Clark ForkRiver

above LittleBlackfoot



Missoula


Missoula



Flathead

FlatheadRiver

ug/

L N

itra

te +

Nit

rite

2014 Nitrate + Nitrite Summer - Silver Bow to Flathead

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Silver BowCreek at

Opportunity

ug/

L

13

Figure 6: Ammonia results for summer nutrient monitoring (upper) and monthly nutrient monitoring (lower). Bars indicate sampling dates that range from early July to mid-September for Silver Bow to Flathead and mid-March to mid-November for the lower Clark Fork. See 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables for exact dates.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Clark ForkRiver at

Deer Lodge

Clark ForkRiveraboveLittle

Blackfoot



Missoula


Missoula



Flathead

FlatheadRiver

ug/

L To

tal A

mm

on

ia

2014 Total Ammonia Summer - Silver Bow to Flathead

0

10

20

30

40

Silver BowCreek at

Opportunity

ug/

L

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



ug/

L To

tal A

mm

on

ia

2014 Total Ammonia Monthly - Lower Clark Fork

14

6.0 BENTHIC ALGAE RESULTS

Benthic algae were sampled twice: once in late July-early August and again at the end of August-early September. Averages for chlorophyll-a and ash free dry weight from each sample date are shown in Figure 7. Individual sample results for specific dates are included in the 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables, attached. Numeric standards for benthic algae chlorophyll-a are established in ARM 17.30.631 on the Clark Fork River below Warm Springs Creek to the confluence of the Flathead River from June 21 to September 21. The standard for summer mean algal density is 100 mg/m2 and the standard for summer maximum density is 150 mg/m2. Algal density exceeded the summer mean standard at Deer Lodge (221 mg/m2) and Bonita (125 mg/m2). Algal density exceeded the summer maximum standard at Deer Lodge on August 3 (280 mg/m2) and August 31 (162 mg/m2), and at Bonita on August 3 (151 mg/m2). Although the maximum standard applies only to the average of multiple samples collected at a site on a given date, it is instructive to see how many of the individual samples exceeded 150 mg/m2. These are listed below.

Percent individual samples over 150 mg/m2 (not the same as standard exceedance – see discussion above)

Late July – early August Late August – early September

Deer Lodge 48% 50%

Above Little Blackfoot 20% 11%

Bonita 32% 25%

Above Missoula 10% 20%

Below Missoula 0% 30%

Huson 0% 0%

Above Flathead 0% 0%

Flathead River 0% 0%

15

Figure 7: Benthic Algae Chlorophyll-a and Ash Free Dry Weight Results. Bars indicate average results for 2 sampling dates (1) late July-early August and (2) late August-early September. See 2014 CFR-BASIN Data Tables for exact dates.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Clark ForkRiver at

Deer Lodge


LittleBlackfoot



Missoula


Missoula



Flathead

FlatheadRiver

mg/

squ

are

me

ter

Benthic Algae Chorophyll-a Upper Clark Fork to Flathead

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Clark ForkRiver at

Deer Lodge


LittleBlackfoot



Missoula


Missoula



Flathead

FlatheadRiver

g/sq

uar

e m

ete

r

Benthic Algae Ash Free Dry Weight Upper Clark Fork to Flathead

16

7.0 PEAK FLOW NUTRIENT MONITORING

This section summarizes the results of a technical memorandum to Avista on nutrient loading to Lake Pend Oreille in 2014 (HydroSolutions, 2015, attached). Peak flow nutrient monitoring is done below the Cabinet Gorge Dam to estimate nutrient loading from the Clark Fork watershed in Montana to Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho per the Montana and Idaho Border Nutrient Load Memorandum of Agreement (Border Agreement), established in 2002. Nutrient targets established in the Border Agreement were developed to maintain water quality in the open waters of Lake Pend Oreille from the mouth of the Clark Fork River to the Long Bridge (Highway 95). The Border Agreement and the Montana and Idaho Border Nutrient Load Agreement Technical Guidance (Tri-State Water Quality Council 2001) are available on the Montana DEQ website at: http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/OtherWQLinks.mcpx. Nutrient targets are outlined in section VII of the Border Agreement as follows:

An area-weighted euphotic-zone average concentration of 7.3 μg/L total phosphorus (TP) for Lake Pend Oreille,

Total loading to Lake Pend Oreille of 328,651 kilograms per year (kg/year) total phosphorus,

259,500 kg/year total phosphorus from Montana (as measured at Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam),

69,151 kg/year total phosphorus from Lake Pend Oreille watershed in Idaho,

Greater than 15:1 total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratio. The Border Agreement establishes short-term and long-term exceedances of the established nutrient targets. As stated in the Border Agreement, an exceedance of the target exists when either of the following conditions is documented:

1) A short-term exceedance of the targets (three consecutive years of total phosphorus load increases at the border that are above the targets by greater than 10%).

2) A long-term exceedance of the targets (a ten year average total phosphorus concentration in the lake greater than 7.3 μg/L).

Every year the estimated annual TP load is evaluated against the Border Agreement’s nutrient load target for the Clark Fork River of 259,500 kg/year, and for short term exceedance of this target. The load estimation method is detailed in HydroSolutions, 2015. Results of the loading estimate for 2014 and the previous two years are presented in Table 2. In 2014 the estimated TP load exceeded the allocated target load of 259,500 kilograms per year by 0.4 percent. Since 1998 the estimated TP load has exceeded the allocated target load five times. All of the exceedances have occurred in the last eight years: in 2006, 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2014. Of those exceedances only estimated TP loads in 2011 and 2012 were greater than 110 percent of the target load as defined in the Border Agreement in evaluating short term exceedances. Based on this assessment there is no short term TP load exceedance in the past three years or any previous consecutive three year period since 1998.

http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/OtherWQLinks.mcpx

17

Table 2: Estimated Lake Pend Oreille Nutrient Loads from the Clark Fork River 2012 to 2014 (From: HydroSolutions, 2015)

8.0 REFERENCES

HydroSolutions, 2015, Estimate of 2014 Nutrient Loading from Clark Fork River into Lake Pend Oreille, Technical Memorandum to Avista Corporation, May 7. HydroSolutions, 2014, Clark Fork River Nutrient Water Quality Status and Trends Report, 1998—2012, Helena, MT. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2015, QA/QC Report for Clark Fork River Monitoring, QAPP ID: WQPBQAP-10, Water Quality Planning Bureau, May 13. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2015, Clark Fork River-Pend Oreille Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Program from Headwaters to Below Cabinet Gorge Dam – Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study: A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan, EPA Region 10, Seattle, EPA 910/R-93-006.

QA/QC REPORT FOR CLARK FORK RIVER MONITORING

QAPP ID: WQPBQAP-10

MAY 13, 2015

Prepared for:

Randy Apfelbeck, Clark Fork Monitoring Project Manager

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Water Quality Planning Bureau

Monitoring and Assessment Section

Prepared by:

Terri Mavencamp, QA Officer

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Water Quality Planning Bureau

Quality Assurance Section

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 Field Components ................................................................................................................................... 3

Field Documentation................................................................................................................................. 3

Chain of Custody Forms ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.4

Sample Sites .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Frequency of Field Blanks and Field Duplicates ........................................................................................ 4

3.0 Sample Handling ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Preservation and Holding Times from SAPs/QAPP ................................................................................... 4

Field to Lab drop off .................................................................................................................................. 6

Holding Times and H flagged data ............................................................................................................ 8

4.0 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 8

Required Analytical Methods .................................................................................................................... 8

Required Detection Limits ........................................................................................................................ 9

Field Blanks ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Field Duplicates ....................................................................................................................................... 12

General Quality Checks ........................................................................................................................... 12

Laboratory QC ........................................................................................................................................ 13

5.0 QC Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Flagged Data ........................................................................................................................................... 13

Completeness.......................................................................................................................................... 16

6.0 Recommended Corrective Actions ....................................................................................................... 16

Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A data quality control (QC) review has been completed on all data collected and submitted to

DEQ in 2014 for the Clark Fork River-Pend Oreille Watershed Water Quality Monitoring

Program. Monitoring activities were performed in accordance with the “Clark Fork River-Pend

3

Oreille Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Program from Headwaters to Below Cabinet Gorge

Dam – Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)” (QAPP ID: WQPBQAP-10) and associated SAPs.

The scope of the QC evaluation was to evaluate documentation associated with sampling and

measurement (i.e., field logbooks and site visit forms) and laboratory analytical results to verify

data quality. The QC evaluation includes a review of the data quality objectives (DQOs) and data

quality indicators (DQIs) as outlined in the QAPP and follows the DEQ QA/QC program. The

review also includes:

Review of field data sheets to verify calibration and to identify field notes that explain

any deviations from the QAPP

Review of field notes and field data sheets for a data logic check and to identify any

notes indicating deviations from the QAPP

Review of the sample delivery group to evaluate the overall quality of the data including

reporting errors, data omissions, and suspect or anomalous values

The QC review applies to the monthly and peak flow nutrient monitoring by Avista and the

summer nutrient monitoring by the City of Missoula and University of Montana.

2.0 FIELD COMPONENTS

FIELD DOCUMENTATION

A review of City of Missoula field logbooks shows that the field meter was calibrated (typically 1-2 days

before sampling) and checks performed daily prior to sampling. Some field notes were difficult to

decipher and it would be easier if Missoula used a form similar to the Avista form and referred to the

stations both by the name and by the station number. On 8/27/14, the turbidity readings were taken as

an average of two readings and the oxygen reduction potential was very variable (+/- 100, outside the

+/- 20 mV accuracy allowance). It was unclear from the field forms if the City of Missoula took grab

samples or not.

Avista had field notes and the field measurement and calibration data was recorded and stored in the

YSI instrument used to make the measurements. There was one turbidity reading above the turbidity

range on 3/11/14. The field notes from 3.11.2014, were filled out as both 3.14.14(typed) and 5.14.14

(written). The samples were named cfr-30-031114-S and a chain of custody was attached to this from

5.6.14 for samples cfr 30 050614 S PF, but with only the sampler’s signature.

The University of Montana submitted field forms with collection information for the benthic algae

sample collections, and sample handling information. The station ID and lat/longs were clearly

identified on the form. All samples were collected and went from ice to the freezer within 9 hours, and

typically just 2-3 hours.

4

CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS

Avista

Overall, the chain-of-custody forms were easy to follow and filled out correctly by Avista. The Avista IDs

on the COCs matched those in EQUIS.

University of Montana

I received two University of Montana Chain of Custody forms from 8/1/2014 and 8/30/2014 for two sets

of water chemistry samples. The sample IDs on the form from 8/1/14 did not match those in EQUIS,

(Sample ID dates were one day off of actual collection time, 8/2 vs 8/1 and the sample IDs were changed

in EQuIS to reflect sampling date). In addition, it appears that the blank, CFR-22-080214-QC-FB was

mislabeled, because in EQUIS it was FHR-26-080114-QC-FB. There are no temperatures recorded on the

COC forms, and therefore holding time exceedances could not be determined.

The sample handling was indicated on the field forms for the benthic algae samples, and all samples

went from ice to the freezer within 9 hours.

The City of Missoula does not fill out chain of custody forms because the samples never leave the City’s

possession. But, I don’t have an easy-to-follow record to track sample handling.

SAMPLE SITES

Avista sample sites matched locations specified in the QAPP. University of Montana Sample sites

matched the locations specified in the QAPP. Sites in the field notebook of the City of Missoula were

referred to slightly differently than the other two samplers, and it is suggested that they refer to the

sites by the station IDs as well as the name. It was unclear from the notebook where several sights were,

e.g., McClays, Buckhouse.

FREQUENCY OF FIELD BLANKS AND FIELD DUPLICATES

One field blank sample and one duplicate sample were collected for Avista (sites 28, 29 and 30), the City

of Missoula (sites 7, 9, 10, 12, 15.5, 18, 2.5, 22, 25 and 26) and the University of Montana (22,25,26) for

each monitoring event. This frequency met the frequency outlined in the requirements as described in

the QAPP.

3.0 SAMPLE HANDLING

PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIMES FROM SAPS/QAPP

5

The preservation outline in the QAPP, Table 1, did not agree with that outlined in the DEQ monitoring

suite, Table 2, or in the individual SAPs, Table 3. It is recommended to change the preservation methods

in the QAPP to reflect what is currently occurring in the field and to agree with the SAPs.

Table 1. Sample volumes, containers, preservation and holding times From QAPP Analyte Sample Volume Container Preservation Holding Time

TPN 250 ml Acid-washed polyethylene

cool to 4°C 28 days

TP 500 ml Acid-washed polyethylene

Add H2SO4 to pH<2, cool to 4°C

28 days

NO2+NO3 and NH3+NH4

250 ml Acid-washed polyethylene

Filter, cool to 4°C or freeze

28 days

SRP 250 ml Acid-washed polyethylene

Filter, cool to 4°C or freeze

48 hours*

*Holding

Table 2. Sample volumes, containers, preservation and holding times From DEQ Monitoring Suite

Parameter Method Alt method RRL Holding time

Container Preservative

Total Persulfate Nitrogen (TPN)

A4500-N C A4500-N B 40 28 250ml HDPE

≤6oC (28d HT),

Freeze (45d HT)

Dissolved Orthophosphate as P (SRP)

EPA 365.1 A4500-P F 1 2 250ml HDPE

Filt. 0.45 um, ≤6oC

Total Phosphorus as P (TP)

EPA 365.1 A4500-P F 3 28 250 ml HDPE

H2SO4 , ≤6oC or

Freeze

Nitrate-Nitrite as N NO2+NO3

EPA 353.2 A4500-NO3 F 10

Total Ammonia as N NH3+NH4

EPA 350.1 A4500-NH3 B,C,D,E,or G

50

Table 3. Sample volumes, containers, preservation and holding times From SAPs, 2014

Analytes Filtered? Bottle Size Container Preservation and Storage

Holding Time

TPN N 250 ml HDPE Bottle Cool to ≤ 4 °C (on ice)in field, then freeze solid

28 days

TP N 500 ml HDPE Bottle H₂SO₄; Cool to ≤ 4 °C (on ice)

28 days

SRP Y 250 ml HDPE Bottle Cool to ≤ 4 °C (on ice) in field; then Freeze solid

28 days

Dissolved NO2+NO3 and NH3+NH4

Y 250 ml HDPE Bottle Cool to ≤4 °C (on ice)in field; then freeze solid

28 days

6

FIELD TO LAB DROP OFF

Avista

Sample delivery and check in at lab:

Red = sample handling error

Green = good

Orange = borderline

Samples taken on 3/11/14 from 12:54-3:42 were delivered to the lab 3/12/14 and accepted 3/13 at 9:30

the temp was 1.1 °C. This approaches the holding time for SRP and Nitrate/nitrite total ammonia and

SRP should be frozen.

Samples delivered from Avista to City of Missoula on 4/15/14 were noted as being taken from 10:40-

12:40, and were delivered 4/15 and accepted 4/16 at 11:30 am at 6.5 °C. Nitrate/nitrite, total ammonia

and SRP should be frozen.

Samples from 5/14 (?) from 10:20-1:12 were delivered to the lab on 5/16/14 at 12:30 at 12.8 °C, this

exceeds the allowed temperature for all analytes and exceeds the time for SRP.

The samples taken at 5/16- 5/29 were delivered to the lab at 6/2. As is indicated on the COC, the

samples were on ice/partially frozen (2.4-3.3 C). This exceeds the allowed holding time for SRP (2 days)

and Nitrate/nitrite total ammonia and SRP should be frozen.

Samples taken 6/11 from 10:28-12:39 were delivered to the lab 6/11 at 1:30 and accepted 6/12/14 at

10:05 at 6.9-7.6C.

Samples taken 7/16/14 from 11:03- 1:43 were delivered to the lab at 7/16/14 and checked in 7/17/14 at

10:40 at 7.4C. Nitrate/nitrite total ammonia and SRP should be frozen-has 24 hr on ice then freeze been

tested for accuracy of analytical results?

Samples taken 8/11/14 from 10:20 – 1:15 were delivered to the lab 8/13 at 1:00 and accepted on

8/14/14 at 10:17 (?). The temperature was 3.8C. This exceeds the holding time for SRP and

Nitrate/nitrite, total ammonia and SRP should be frozen.

The samples taken 9/17/14 from 10:08 – 12:05 and delivered to the lab 9/17 at 12:45 and accepted 9/18

at 10:35 were at temp 2.C This exceeds the holding time for SRP. Nitrate/nitrite total ammonia and SRP

should be frozen.

7

The samples taken 10/15/14 from 10:00 – 11:50 were delivered to the lab 10/15/14 at 12:30 and

accepted 10/16 at 9:30. Temperature distilled water = 3.3 C. Nitrate/nitrite total ammonia and SRP

should be frozen.

Samples taken 11/19/14 from 10:42-1:29 were delivered to the lab 11/19/14 at 2:05 and accepted

11/20/14 at 10:35 the temp was 4.5C. Nitrate/nitrite total ammonia and SRP should be frozen.

U of Mont:

Samples were delivered 2 days after collection. pH was checked and ok on all relevant bottles, but

temperature was not recorded, so it was not possible to determine if HT was exceeded.

Laboratory holding times from delivery:

Avista:

Table 4. Sample Handling

Date Time samples taken

Time lab checked in

Lab-recorded temp at sign in

OK? Date(s) of lab analysis +/- 1-2 d

OK?

3.11.14 12:54-3:42 pm 3/13 9:30 am

Temp 1.1 C No, borderline orthophosphate (maybe) Ok TP, TPN

Lab analysis 3/26/2014

Yes

4.15.14 10:40-12:40 4/16 11:30 am

Temp 6.5 C Ok TP, TPN 4/29/14 Yes

5.14.14 12:20-1:12 5/16 12:30

12.8 C No 5/28/14- 6/4/14

Yes TPN 7/9 No

5/16-5/23-5/29/14

12:15, 11:52, 11:44, respectively

6/3/14 3.3 and 2.4 C

No OK TP Ok TPN

6/4-7/2

Some exceedances for first 2 sampling dates see tbl 5

6/11/14 6/6

10:28-12:39 6/12 1:30

6.9-7.6 C No variable OK 1 exceedance for 6/6/ see tbl 5

7/16

11:03-1:43 7/17 10:40 am

7.4 C No 7/18-7/23 OK

8/11/14 10:20-1:15 8/14 10_24 am

3.8 C NO Except TPN and TP

8/14-8/22 (10/9)

1 FD exceedance

8

9/17/14 10:00-12:05 9/18/14 10:35 am

2.0 C Borderline ortho P Ok TPN and TP

10/2-10/9 ok

10/15/14 10:00-11:50 10/16/14 9:30am

3.3 C Borderline ortho P Ok TPN and TP

10/23-10/29 ok

11/19/14 10:42-1:29 11/20 10:35 am

4.5C Borderline ortho P Ok TPN and TP

12/4-12/18 ok

HOLDING TIMES

Analytical holding times were reviewed for Clark Fork River monthly, peak flow, and summer nutrient

monitoring. The twelve samples identified in Table 4 were flagged H for exceeding the holding times.

SRP were not flagged, because it was assumed that the holding time was 28 days if you put on ice and

then freeze the samples.

Table 5. Samples that exceeded holding times and were flagged H.

Activity ID Characteristic name Result value Unit Fraction flag

CFR-30-050614-S-PF Nutrient-nitrogen 132 ug/l Total H

CFR-30-051414-QC-FD Nutrient-nitrogen 219 ug/l Total H

CFR-30-051414-S Nutrient-nitrogen 167 ug/l Total H

CFR-30-051614-S-PF Orthophosphate 4 ug/l Dissolved H

CFR-30-051614-S-PF Ammonia-nitrogen ND Dissolved H

CFR-30-051614-S-PF Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)

44.4 ug/l Dissolved H

CFR-30-051614-S-PF

Phosphate-phosphorus

13.2 ug/l Total

H

CFR-30-052314-S-PF Ammonia-nitrogen 7.2 ug/l Dissolved JH

CFR-30-052314-S-PF

Phosphate-

phosphorus

15.9 ug/l Total H

CFR-30-052314-S-PF Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)

35.2 ug/l Dissolved H

CFR-30-060614-S-PF Nutrient-nitrogen 278 ug/l Total H

CFR-30-081114-QC-FD Nutrient-nitrogen 132 ug/l Total H

4.0 ANALYSIS

REQUIRED ANALYTICAL METHODS

9

All requested parameters specified in the SAPs were reported. The analytical analyses were not

performed in accordance with methods defined in the QAPP (QAPP from 2013 need update?), but were

performed in accordance with the methods defined in the individual 2014 SAPs.

Table 6. Analytical Methods Variations

Parameter Analytical Method Defined in SAPs, 2014

Analytical Method Reported

Total Phosphorus (TP) SM 4500 P H 4500-P-H

Total Persulfate Nitrogen (TN) SM 4500 N (C) 4500-N-C

Total Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3) SM 4500 NH3 (H) 4500-NH3-H

Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) SM 4500 P (G) 4500-P-G

Nitrate + Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2+NO3-N)

SM 4500 NO3 (I) 4500-NO3-I

The TN method (4500-N-C) is an EPA-approved method and is a method used by DEQ. The methods for

TP, SRP, NH3, and NO2+NO3-N methods are flow injection analysis (FIA) methods that are not EPA-

approved. According to EPA, if you use a modification to an approved 40 CFR Part 136 method, the

regulated community is allowed more flexibility to modify approved methods without EPA review. The

automated wet chemistry FIA methods are considered as an acceptable alternative to equivalent

segmented flow methods (which are EPA-approved methods).

REQUIRED DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory reporting limit met the project-required detection limits defined in the QAPP except

where dilution increased the LRL.

FIELD BLANKS

B – Flags:

The following field blanks had detects above the Lower reporting limit, and were therefore B flagged.

Table 7. Field blanks with detects above the lower reporting limit.

Activity ID result Characteristic name LRL MDL

CFR-30-071614-QC-FB 2.1 ug/l Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)

2

.8

CFR-30-091714-QC-FB

70 ug/L Nutrient-nitrogen

50 32.8

CFR-07-090314-QC-FB

2.6


1

0.86

CFR-10-080614-QC-FB

2 ug/L Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)

2 0.8

FHR-26-080114-QC-FB

15.7

Ammonia-nitrogen

10 7.6

10

FHR-26-080114-QC-FB

2.7

Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)

2 .8

FHR-26-082114-QC-FB

14.4

Ammonia-nitrogen

10 7.6

The following samples were B flagged for detections above the LRL in the associated blanks.

Table 8. Field samples with associated blank detects above the lower reporting limit.

Activity ID Result ug/L Characteristic name LRL MDL

CFR-07-080614-S 16 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8

CFR-12-080614-S 4.8 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8

CFR-15.5-080614-S 2.7 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8

CFR-15.5-090314-S 16.9 Phosphate-phosphorus 1 0.86

CFR-22-080114-S 10.4 Ammonia-nitrogen 10 7.6





CFR-28-091714-S 125 Nutrient-nitrogen 50 32.8



CFR-30-071614-QC-FD 11.8 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8


CFR-30-091714-QC-FD 123 Nutrient-nitrogen 50 32.8


FHR-26-080114-S 7.9 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8

FHR-26-082114-QC-FD

14.8 Ammonia-nitrogen 10 7.6

J-Flags

The following blanks had detects above the minimum detection level and below the required reporting

limit and are flagged as J.

Table 9. Blanks with detects less than the LRL and above the MDL.

Activity ID result Characteristic name LRL MDL

CFR-30-031114-QC-FB

1 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)

2 .8

CFR-30-041514-QC-FB

6.3

Ammonia-nitrogen

10 6.1

CFR-30-052914-S-QC-FB

1 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)

2 .8

CFR-30-061114-QC-FB

.8 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)

2 .8

CFR-30-071614-QC-FB

2.7 Phosphate-phosphorus

4 2.48

CFR-07-090314-QC-FB 1 Orthophosphate 2 .98

11

FHR-26-082114-QC-FB

1.4

Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)

2 .8

The following samples had detects above the minimum detection level and below the required reporting

limit in the associated blanks and are therefore flagged as J, indicating an increased level of uncertainty.

Table 10. Samples with Blank detects less than the LRL and above the MDL.

Activity ID Result ug/L Characteristic name LRL MDL


CFR-07-090314-QC-FB 1 Orthophosphate 2 0.98



CFR-10-080614-QC-FD 1.5 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8







CFR-15.5-071614-S 8 Ammonia-nitrogen 10 7.6

CFR-15.5-082014-S 8.6 Ammonia-nitrogen 10 7.6










CFR-30-031114-QC-FB 1 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8


CFR-30-041514-QC-FB 6.3 Ammonia-nitrogen 10 6.1

CFR-30-050614-S-PF 6.5 Ammonia-nitrogen 10 6.1

CFR-30-051414-QC-FD 8.7 Ammonia-nitrogen 10 6.1



CFR-30-052914-S-QC-FB 1 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8


CFR-30-061114-QC-FB 0.8 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8

CFR-30-061114-QC-FD 6.8 Ammonia-nitrogen 10 6.1

CFR-30-071614-QC-FB 2.7 Phosphate-phosphorus 4 2.48

CFR-7-082014-S 8 Ammonia-nitrogen 10 7.6

FHR-26-070314-S 1.4 Orthophosphate 2 0.98



FHR-26-082114-QC-FB 1.4 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) 2 0.8


12

FIELD DUPLICATES

The following field duplicates were outside of the data quality objective for relative differences of field

blanks as specified in the QAPP, field duplicates must be < 25%.

Table 11. Field duplicates with relative differences above 25%.

Activity ID result Characteristic name LRL MDL Relative % Difference

Data Qualifier?

CFR-30-061114-QC-FD

6.8 Ammonia-nitrogen

10 6.1 From 82-12.7% Depending on the ND (from 3.1ug/L to 6

ug/L, respectively)

None

CFR-30-061114-S

ND Ammonia-nitrogen

10 6.1 none

CFR-10-080614-

QC-FD


10 6.1 From 1,200 – 69.6% RPD for ND=3.1 ug/L to 6 ug/L

None

CFR-10-080614-S

nd Ammonia-nitrogen

10 6.1 none

CFR-15.5-

070214-QC-FD

177 Nutrient-nitrogen

50 32.8 RPD = 71.3%

None

CFR-15.5-

070214-S

84 Nutrient-nitrogen

50 32.8 none

FHR-26-082114-

QC-FD


10 7.6 blank = 14.4 B

FHR-26-082114-

S

ND Ammonia-nitrogen

10 7.6 B

General Quality Checks:

Table 12. Logic checks

Activity ID result Characteristic name LRL MDL Data Qualifier?

CFR-07-090314-S

33.1

Orthophosphate

2 .98 None

CFR-07-090314-S

29.6

Phosphate-phosphorous

1 .86 none

These are so close, it is possible that all of the phosphate was orthophosphate.

13


CFR-2.5-082014-S

252

Orthophosphate

4 .98 D

CFR-2.5-082014-S

232.9

Phosphate-phosphorous

4 .98

Again, these are so close, see comment above.


CFR-2.5-090314-

S 1185 Nutrient-nitrogen

100

32.8

D

CFR-2.5-090314-S 13 Ammonia-nitrogen

10

7.6

CFR-2.5-090314-

S 1892.3

Inorganic nitrogen

(nitrate and nitrite)

40

0.8

D

These data are enough out that they could be flagged “J”


FHR-26-073114-FM 0.3 Specific conductance

FHR-26-073114-FM 0 Total dissolved solids

LABORATORY QC

The Missoula Waste Water Treatment Plant Laboratory quality control summary was reviewed.

Laboratory QC including lab control blanks, laboratory control standards, replicates and matrix spikes

were evaluated to determine the usability of the data for each analysis. All laboratory QC was within

limits specified by the specific analytical methods and the QAPP.

5.0 QC SUMMARY

FLAGGED DATA

The overall project data had 9 data flagged “H” for exceeding holding times and 18 data flagged “B” for

field blank contamination. In the electronic data deliverable, there are 12 data flagged “D” because the

reporting limit was increased due to sample dilutions. Also in the electronic data deliverable there are

36 data that had reported values between the method detection limit and the reporting limit were

flagged “J”. Three data were flagged for JB and one for JH. There was no data flagged for laboratory

issues. The overall project DQOs and DQIs were met as set forth in the QAPP. A summary of the flagged

data is shown in Table 4 below.

14

Table 13. Flagged Data in the Electronic Data Deliverable

Sample ID Parameter Data Flag

CFR-30-050614-S-PF Nutrient-nitrogen H

CFR-30-051414-QC-FD Nutrient-nitrogen H

CFR-30-051414-S Nutrient-nitrogen H

CFR-30-051614-S-PF Orthophosphate H

CFR-30-051614-S-PF Ammonia-nitrogen H

CFR-30-051614-S-PF Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) H

CFR-30-052314-S-PF Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) H

CFR-30-060614-S-PF Nutrient-nitrogen H

CFR-30-051614-S-PF


H

CFR-30-052314-S-PF


H

CFR-30-081114-QC-FD Nutrient-nitrogen H

CFR-28-071614-S Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) B

CFR-28-091714-S Nutrient-nitrogen B



CFR-30-071614-QC-FD Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) B


CFR-30-091714-QC-FD Nutrient-nitrogen B




CFR-15.5-080614-S Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) B

CFR-15.5-090314-S Phosphate-phosphorus B

CFR-22-080114-S Ammonia-nitrogen B




FHR-26-080114-S Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) B

FHR-26-082114-QC-FD Ammonia-nitrogen B

CFR-2.5-070214-S Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) D

CFR-2.5-071614-S Nutrient-nitrogen D


CFR-2.5-082014-S Orthophosphate D





15







CFR-29-051414-S Ammonia-nitrogen J



CFR-30-031114-QC-FB Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) J


CFR-30-041514-QC-FB Ammonia-nitrogen J

CFR-30-050614-S-PF Ammonia-nitrogen J

CFR-30-051414-QC-FD Ammonia-nitrogen J


CFR-30-052914-S-QC-FB Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) J

CFR-30-060614-S-PF Ammonia-nitrogen J

CFR-30-061114-QC-FB Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) J

CFR-30-061114-QC-FD Ammonia-nitrogen J

CFR-30-071614-QC-FB Phosphate-phosphorus J


CFR-07-090314-QC-FB Orthophosphate J



CFR-10-082014-S Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) J




CFR-12-091714-S Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) J

CFR-15.5-071614-S Ammonia-nitrogen J

CFR-15.5-082014-S Ammonia-nitrogen J

CFR-15.5-082014-S Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) J

CFR-15.5-091714-S Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) J





FHR-26-070314-S Orthophosphate J



FHR-26-082114-QC-FB Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) J


16



CFR-10-080614-QC-FD Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) JB

CFR-10-080614-S Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) JB

CFR-18-082114-S Ammonia-nitrogen JB

CFR-30-052314-S-PF

Ammonia-nitrogen

JH

COMPLETENESS

There was no data that was determined to be unusable (rejected) in the validation process or lost due to

sampler or laboratory error.

6.0 RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

As a result of the QA review, the following are recommended actions:

▪ The City of Missoula should use a field note format similar to Avista for clarity; grab samples

should be reported and the stations should be referred to by name and number.

▪ University of Montana Benthic Algae Chain of Custody & field forms need to be filled out for

QC on sample handling, sample sites, etc, to be carried out.

▪ Sample handling for the City of Missoula could not be reviewed, as there was not sufficient

documentation, no COC (alternatively, sample handling could be documented on the field notes, e.g.,

samples were frozen at -20C at 10:30, except for TPN and TP, which were stored in the fridge at 4 C).

▪ Provide documentation that the current sample handling does not affect results.

▪ To increase holding time above 0 °C, consider adding H2SO4 to Nitrate-Nitrite(N) and total

Ammonia. But, SRP would still need to be frozen.

Appendix A. Data Result Qualifiers:

Table A-1 Data Result Qualifiers. Result

Qualifier Result Qualifier Description

B Detection in field blank

D Reporting limit increased due to sample matrix

H EPA holding time exceeded

J Estimated: The analyte was positively identified and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.

R Rejected: The sample results are unusable due to the quality of the data generated because certain criteria were not met. The analyte may or may not be present in the sample.

2014 Clark Fork River Basin Nutrient Monitoring Data Tables

Field blanks are yellow; Duplicate nutrient samples are blue; Peak flow samples below Cabinet Gorge are gray; Numeric standard exceedances for TN and TP are in pink Data Qualifiers: H – exceeded holding time; B – field blank contamination; D – reporting limit increased due to sample dilution; J – between method detection limit and reporting limit

Station Name Start Date Sample Type Ammonia (ug/l)

Nitrate and nitrite

(ug/l)

Total Persulfate

Nitrogen (ug/l)

Orthophosphate

(ug/l)

Total Phosphorus

(ug/l)

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 7/2/2014 Routine Sample 20.8 1264.5 D 1252 130.7 167.5

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 7/16/2014 Routine Sample 12.6 907.8 D 1263 D 143.3 175.6

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 8/6/2014 Routine Sample 22.2 316.3 896 143.8 205.8

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 8/20/2014 Routine Sample 32.4 1383.5 D 974 D 252 D 232.9

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 9/3/2014 Routine Sample 13 1892.3 D 1185 D 152.2 D 204.6

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 9/17/2014 Field Blank < 10 < 2 < 50 < 2 < 1

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 9/17/2014 Routine Sample 20.7 2211.3 D 2586 D 161.7 D 296.7

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 7/2/2014 Routine Sample < 10 14.3 194 16 28.3

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 7/16/2014 Routine Sample 9.2 J 21.7 290 24.3 45.1

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 8/6/2014 Routine Sample 13.1 16 B 311 38.5 61.8

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 8/20/2014 Routine Sample 8 J 10.4 303 33 52.5

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 9/3/2014 Field Blank < 10 < 2 < 50 1 J 2.6

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 9/3/2014 Field Duplicate < 10 15.8 268 33.4 33.6

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 9/3/2014 Routine Sample < 10 15.4 278 33.1 29.6

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 9/17/2014 Routine Sample 14.6 10.2 387 35.1 66.9

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 7/2/2014 Routine Sample < 10 39.6 306 15.5 42.5

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 7/16/2014 Routine Sample 9.1 J 60.9 370 17.3 37.2

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 8/6/2014 Routine Sample 17.1 70.2 310 7.8 19

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 8/20/2014 Field Blank < 10 < 2 < 50 < 2 < 4

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 8/20/2014 Routine Sample 15.2 54 330 13.7 30.9

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 9/3/2014 Routine Sample < 10 43.5 314 8.8 94.9

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 9/17/2014 Routine Sample 12.1 43.9 326 8.7 25

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 7/2/2014 Routine Sample < 10 45.2 418 27.6 69.5

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 7/16/2014 Routine Sample 9.2 J 5.2 294 27.2 45.7

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/6/2014 Field Blank < 10 2 < 50 < 2 < 4

1


Nitrate and nitrite

(ug/l)

Total Persulfate

Nitrogen (ug/l)

Orthophosphate

(ug/l)

Total Phosphorus

(ug/l)

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/6/2014 Field Duplicate 12.4 1.5 JB 243 17.3 30.2

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/6/2014 Routine Sample < 10 1.4 JB 236 16.9 30.1

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/20/2014 Routine Sample 12.1 1.7 J 311 18.7 33.9

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 9/3/2014 Routine Sample < 10 < 2 282 10.4 33.2

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 9/17/2014 Routine Sample 7.8 J < 2 321 8.5 26.1

Clark Fork River at Bonita 7/2/2014 Routine Sample < 10 5.5 321 22 59.4

Clark Fork River at Bonita 7/16/2014 Field Blank < 10 < 2 < 50 < 2 < 4

Clark Fork River at Bonita 7/16/2014 Field Duplicate < 10 4 201 23.2 40

Clark Fork River at Bonita 7/16/2014 Routine Sample < 10 4.2 217 24.9 39.3

Clark Fork River at Bonita 8/6/2014 Routine Sample 26.1 4.8 B 198 16.8 30.6

Clark Fork River at Bonita 8/20/2014 Routine Sample 9.2 J 4.3 263 17.7 36.4

Clark Fork River at Bonita 9/3/2014 Routine Sample < 10 4.3 260 16.4 37.6

Clark Fork River at Bonita 9/17/2014 Routine Sample 8.9 J 1.1 J 226 7.3 21.9

Clark Fork River above Missoula 7/2/2014 Field Blank < 10 < 2 < 50 < 2 < 4

Clark Fork River above Missoula 7/2/2014 Field Duplicate < 10 4.3 177 10.1 24.4

Clark Fork River above Missoula 7/2/2014 Routine Sample < 10 4.3 84 9.3 26.3

Clark Fork River above Missoula 7/16/2014 Routine Sample 8 J 2.7 165 7.8 16.6

Clark Fork River above Missoula 8/6/2014 Routine Sample 16.7 2.7 B 133 3.5 11.5

Clark Fork River above Missoula 8/20/2014 Routine Sample 8.6 J 1.1 J 170 5.1 11.6

Clark Fork River above Missoula 9/3/2014 Routine Sample < 10 2 215 5.7 16.9 B

Clark Fork River above Missoula 9/17/2014 Routine Sample 10.8 1.7 J 164 4.9 14.5

Clark Fork River below Missoula 7/3/2014 Routine Sample < 10 8.6 155 8 22.9

Clark Fork River below Missoula 7/17/2014 Routine Sample < 10 10 135 8.5 17.6

Clark Fork River below Missoula 8/7/2014 Routine Sample 13.1 23.7 162 3.9 12.7

Clark Fork River below Missoula 8/21/2014 Routine Sample 8.2 JB 19.6 156 6.6 16



Clark Fork River at Huson 7/3/2014 Routine Sample < 10 24.1 168 7.8 20.6

2


Nitrate and nitrite

(ug/l)

Total Persulfate

Nitrogen (ug/l)

Orthophosphate

(ug/l)

Total Phosphorus

(ug/l)

Clark Fork River at Huson 7/17/2014 Routine Sample < 10 10.1 159 7 14.2

Clark Fork River at Huson 8/1/2014 Routine Sample 10.4 B 37.6 178 5.2 15.2

Clark Fork River at Huson 8/21/2014 Routine Sample 11.4 B 18.2 165 3.4 12.5

Clark Fork River at Huson 8/30/2014 Routine Sample < 10 8.4 169 4 17.9

Clark Fork River at Huson 9/18/2014 Routine Sample 12.3 45 236 4.1 14.8

Clark Fork River above Flathead 7/3/2014 Routine Sample 9.4 J 15.4 136 7 17.5

Clark Fork River above Flathead 7/17/2014 Routine Sample < 10 7 182 3.6 10.4

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/1/2014 Routine Sample < 10 8.8 B 266 3 7.8

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/21/2014 Routine Sample 17.5 B 11.1 134 3.2 9.3

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/30/2014 Field Blank < 10 < 2 < 50 < 2 < 1

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/30/2014 Routine Sample 9.3 J 6.3 136 3.9 12.1

Clark Fork River above Flathead 9/18/2014 Field Blank < 10 < 2 < 50 < 2 < 1

Clark Fork River above Flathead 9/18/2014 Field Duplicate 11.8 7.7 148 3.6 8.2

Clark Fork River above Flathead 9/18/2014 Routine Sample 9.8 J 7.7 141 4.6 7.9

Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls 3/11/2014 Routine Sample 42.0 141.3 586 17.6 69.3

Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls 4/15/2014 Routine Sample < 10 26.3 221 4.7 31.6


Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls 6/11/2014 Routine Sample < 10 32 179 6 22.8

Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls 7/16/2014 Routine Sample < 10 11.1 B 139 2.2 8.8

Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls 8/11/2014 Routine Sample < 10 6.4 143 2 6.8

Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls 9/17/2014 Routine Sample < 10 9.6 125 B 2.5 7.2



Clark Fork River at Noxon 3/11/2014 Routine Sample 10.1 62.5 152 2.2 6.9

Clark Fork River at Noxon 4/15/2014 Routine Sample < 10 8.7 126 2.8 11.9

Clark Fork River at Noxon 5/14/2014 Routine Sample 9.2 J 42.8 173 3.8 14.6


Clark Fork River at Noxon 7/16/2014 Routine Sample < 10 9.5 B 138 2.2 13.7

Clark Fork River at Noxon 8/11/2014 Routine Sample 19.1 16.3 132 4 9.6

3


Nitrate and nitrite

(ug/l)

Total Persulfate

Nitrogen (ug/l)

Orthophosphate

(ug/l)

Total Phosphorus

(ug/l)

Clark Fork River at Noxon 9/17/2014 Routine Sample 14.8 46 153 B 5.1 9.9


Clark Fork River at Noxon 11/19/2014 Routine Sample < 10 34.3 135 3.8 5.6

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 3/11/2014 Field Blank < 10 1 J < 50 < 2 < 4

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 3/11/2014 Field Duplicate 10.9 66.3 184 2.2 9.6

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 3/11/2014 Routine Sample 9.3 J 67.7 187 2.5 8.9

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 4/15/2014 Field Blank 6.3 J < 2 < 50 < 2 < 4

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 4/15/2014 Field Duplicate < 10 5.9 122 2.1 10

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 4/15/2014 Routine Sample < 10 5.5 118 2.3 10

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/6/2014 Peak Flow 6.5 J 24.5 132 H 2.4 12.1

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/14/2014 Field Blank < 10 < 2 < 50 < 2 < 4

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/14/2014 Field Duplicate 8.7 J 43.4 219 H 3.8 15.3

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/14/2014 Routine Sample 8.5 J 45.6 167 H 3.8 15.5

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/16/2014 Peak Flow < 10 H 44.4 H 171 4 H 13.2 H

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/23/2014 Peak Flow 7.2 JH 35.2 H 225 4.4 15.9 H

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/29/2014 Peak Flow 12.0 40 187 5.6 23.2

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/29/2014 Field Blank < 10 1 J < 50 < 2 < 4

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/29/2014 Field Duplicate 14.4 45 222 6.3 21.8

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 6/6/2014 Peak Flow 7.9 J 38.5 278 H 4.1 14.8

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 6/10/2014 Peak Flow < 10 35.7 139 3.9 13.3

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 6/11/2014 Field Blank < 10 0.8 < 50 < 2 < 4

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 6/11/2014 Field Duplicate 6.8 34.5 138 4.5 12.9

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 6/11/2014 Routine Sample < 10 32.6 146 4.5 12.1

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 7/16/2014 Field Blank < 10 2.1 < 50 < 2 2.7 J

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 7/16/2014 Field Duplicate < 10 11.8 B 124 2.2 8.7

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 7/16/2014 Routine Sample < 10 12.7 B 115 2.5 8.9


Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 8/11/2014 Field Duplicate < 10 18.2 132 H 2.3 7.9

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 8/11/2014 Routine Sample < 10 17.4 159 2 7.6

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 9/17/2014 Field Blank < 10 < 2 70 < 2 < 1

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 9/17/2014 Field Duplicate < 10 15.3 123 B 3.5 8.3

4


Nitrate and nitrite

(ug/l)

Total Persulfate

Nitrogen (ug/l)

Orthophosphate

(ug/l)

Total Phosphorus

(ug/l)

Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 9/17/2014 Routine Sample < 10 16 120 B 3.1 8.3


Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 10/15/2014 Field Duplicate < 10 27.6 120 3.3 5.8



Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 11/19/2014 Field Duplicate < 10 32.8 123 2.7 5.2


Flathead River 7/3/2014 Routine Sample < 10 15.1 120 1.4 J 7.6

Flathead River 7/17/2014 Routine Sample < 10 7 112 1.3 J 8.1

Flathead River 8/1/2014 Field Blank 15.7 2.7 < 50 < 2 < 4

Flathead River 8/1/2014 Routine Sample < 10 7.9 B 108 1.8 J 5.5

Flathead River 8/21/2014 Field Blank 14.4 1.4 J < 50 < 2 < 4

Flathead River 8/21/2014 Field Duplicate 14.8 B 9.1 127 2.1 5.8

Flathead River 8/21/2014 Routine Sample < 10 8.4 134 1.9 J 6.8

Flathead River 8/30/2014 Routine Sample < 10 6.9 96 2.2 4.9

Flathead River 9/18/2014 Routine Sample 14 13.6 130 2.5 6.7

2014 CFR-BASIN Field Measurement Results

Station Name Start Date Activity Type

Dissolved oxygen

(mg/l)

Oxidation reduction

potential (mV)

pH

(s.u.)

Specific conductance

(uS/cm)

Temperature,

water (deg C)

Total dissolved

solids (mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 7/2/2014 Field 10.08 -409.4 8.57 371.4 20.8 241.2 3.87

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 7/16/2014 Field 9.27 18.7 8.59 412.4 21.1 267.8 4.5

Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity 8/6/2014 Field 11.24 167.9 9.24 513 22.9 333.5 3.51




5


Dissolved

oxygen (mg/l)

Oxidation

reduction potential (mV)

pH (s.u.)

Specific

conductance (uS/cm)

Temperature, water (deg C)

Total

dissolved solids (mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 7/2/2014 Field 9.76 -413.7 8.44 207.8 15.8 135.2 2.84

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 7/16/2014 Field 8.87 250.9 8.56 255.9 17.0 166.4 3.29

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 8/6/2014 Field 9.28 88.8 9.00 347 19.3 225.6 2.96

Clark Fork River below Warm Springs 8/20/2014 Field 9.83 195.4 8.90 356 16.9 231.4 2.83



Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 7/2/2014 Field 10.01 -406.5 8.17 267.5 17.2 174.2 8.07

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 7/16/2014 Field 10.00 250.6 8.37 348.7 18.3 226.9 3.98





Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 7/2/2014 Field 9.68 -407.4 8.21 314.6 17.6 204.7 9.47

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 7/16/2014 Field 11.02 196 8.44 374.8 18.4 243.8 2.96

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/6/2014 Field 9.50 201.4 7.92 399.7 19.4 260 1.49

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/20/2014 Field 11.76 194.9 8.29 462.7 17.7 301 2.8

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 9/3/2014 Field 9.72 192.1 8.47 454.4 13.2 295.1 3.62

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 9/17/2014 Field 11.28 216.6 8.46 474.9 12.8 308.7 2.79

Clark Fork River at Bonita 7/2/2014 Field 8.98 -406.1 8.13 350 17.3 227.5 11.3

Clark Fork River at Bonita 7/16/2014 Field 9.16 253.5 8.20 437.5 19.5 284.7 2.13

Clark Fork River at Bonita 8/6/2014 Field 8.70 244 8.24 545 19.3 354.2 1.99

Clark Fork River at Bonita 8/20/2014 Field 8.78 229.7 8.26 521 18.0 338.7 4.28

Clark Fork River at Bonita 9/3/2014 Field 9.10 239.7 8.21 494.1 14.7 321.1 5.09

Clark Fork River at Bonita 9/17/2014 Field 9.72 106.6 8.30 514 13.6 334.1 3.5

Clark Fork River above Missoula 7/2/2014 Field 9.10 -401.2 7.59 212.2 15.0 137.8 5.35

Clark Fork River above Missoula 7/16/2014 Field 8.73 240.6 8.00 249.7 17.2 162.5 2.67

Clark Fork River above Missoula 8/6/2014 Field 8.40 253 7.77 299.6 17.7 195 1.59

6


Dissolved

oxygen (mg/l)

Oxidation


pH (s.u.)

Specific

conductance (uS/cm)


Total


Turbidity (NTU)

Clark Fork River above Missoula 8/20/2014 Field 8.25 243 8.05 302.7 17.1 196.9 1.51

Clark Fork River above Missoula 9/3/2014 Field 8.59 239.4 7.80 330 14.3 214.5 2.85

Clark Fork River above Missoula 9/17/2014 Field 9.34 235 7.68 346.9 12.5 225.6 2.34

Clark Fork River below Missoula 7/3/2014 Field 9.11 -442.9 8.07 207.9 16.3 135.2 5.34

Clark Fork River below Missoula 7/17/2014 Field 8.89 184.6 8.19 249.6 17.6 162.5 2.24


Clark Fork River below Missoula 8/21/2014 Field 8.91 236 8.19 294.5 16.7 191.1 1.87



Clark Fork River at Huson 7/3/2014 Field 8.93 -410.2 7.67 137.6 17.0 89.7 5.13

Clark Fork River at Huson 7/17/2014 Field 8.85 179 7.94 177.2 18.9 115.1 2.26

Clark Fork River at Huson 8/1/2014 Field 8.72 195.8 7.72 234.1 21.4 152.1 1.54

Clark Fork River at Huson 8/21/2014 Field 9.34 238.3 8.21 258 18.1 167.7 1.61

Clark Fork River at Huson 8/30/2014 Field 9.55 193.4 8.32 275.6 18.2 179.4 1.79

Clark Fork River at Huson 9/18/2014 Field 8.13 268.2 8.08 306.7 14.3 199.6 2

Clark Fork River above Flathead 7/3/2014 Field 9.42 -381.7 7.89 136.4 17.4 88.4 5.71

Clark Fork River above Flathead 7/17/2014 Field 8.62 167.3 7.97 170.3 19.6 110.5 1.69

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/1/2014 Field 8.09 98.6 8.07 219.6 20.3 143 1.31

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/21/2014 Field 8.94 217.9 8.24 236.6 19.4 154 1.1

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/30/2014 Field 8.17 210.5 8.22 257 17.9 167 1.91

Clark Fork River above Flathead 9/18/2014 Field 9.68 238.1 8.06 280.7 15.5 182.6 1.54

Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls 3/11/2014 Field 12.37 208 7.42 162 3.65 105 49.8

Clark Fork River below Thompson Falls 4/15/2014 Field 12.76 230.1 7.99 159 7.29 103 7.11





7


Dissolved

oxygen (mg/l)

Oxidation


pH (s.u.)

Specific

conductance (uS/cm)


Total


Turbidity (NTU)




Clark Fork River at Noxon 3/11/2014 Field 13.54 213.6 8.00 184 0.98 120 3.81









Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 3/11/2014 Field 13.21 242.4 7.98 178 1.25 115 4.74





Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam 5/23/2014 Field 13.45 222 7.55 124 11.19 80 8.32










Flathead River 7/3/2014 Field 10.68 -381.6 8.02 163.5 17.6 106 5.1

8


Dissolved

oxygen (mg/l)

Oxidation


pH (s.u.)

Specific

conductance (uS/cm)


Total


Turbidity (NTU)

Flathead River 7/17/2014 Field 9.63 169.1 8.27 166.7 23.3 108.5 3.35

Flathead River 7/31/2014 Field 8.58 167.7 8.60 0.3 22.3 0 1.31


Flathead River 8/21/2014 Field 9.28 228 8.42 162.5 21.8 106 1.03

Flathead River 8/30/2014 Field 7.59 207 8.37 176.5 19.2 114.4 0.995


9

2014 CFR-BASIN Chlorophyll-a Results

Averages for sample date in blue; Summer Mean in green; Summer mean exceedances in pink;

Summer max exceedances in yellow

Station Name Start Date Activity Type Chlorophyll a

(mg/m2)

Ash-free

Dry Weight (g/m2)

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge Summer Mean 221

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 8/3/2014 Date Average 280 95

Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 8/3/2014 Routine Sample 697 295























Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge 8/31/2014 Date Average 162 31





















Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot Summer Mean 91

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/3/2014 Date Average 105 156

Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/3/2014 Routine Sample 193 305






10


(mg/m2)

Ash-free

Dry Weight (g/m2)




















Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/31/2014 Date Average 77 32










Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/31/2014 Routine Sample < 4 < 0.4





Clark Fork River above Little Blackfoot 8/31/2014 Routine Sample 4 3.9




Clark Fork River at Bonita Summer Mean 125

Clark Fork River at Bonita 8/3/2014 Date Average 151 123

Clark Fork River at Bonita 8/3/2014 Routine Sample 465 235

Clark Fork River at Bonita 8/3/2014 Routine Sample 25 7.4













Clark Fork River at Bonita 8/3/2014 Routine Sample < 4 < 0.4






11


(mg/m2)

Ash-free

Dry Weight (g/m2)



Clark Fork River at Bonita 8/31/2014 Date Average 100 27





















Clark Fork River above Missoula Summer Mean 92.5

Clark Fork River above Missoula 8/4/2014 Date Average 76 41

Clark Fork River above Missoula 8/4/2014 Routine Sample 13 5.8

Clark Fork River above Missoula 8/4/2014 Routine Sample 84 65



















Clark Fork River above Missoula 8/29/2014 Date Average 109 31















12


(mg/m2)

Ash-free

Dry Weight (g/m2)







Clark Fork River below Missoula Summer Mean 82

Clark Fork River below Missoula 7/31/2014 Date Average 40 13

Clark Fork River below Missoula 7/31/2014 Routine Sample 24 6.2

Clark Fork River below Missoula 7/31/2014 Routine Sample 47 16









Clark Fork River below Missoula 7/31/2014 Routine Sample < 4 < 0.4


Clark Fork River below Missoula 7/31/2014 Routine Sample < 4 < 0.4








Clark Fork River below Missoula 9/1/2014 Date Average 124 20





















Clark Fork River at Huson Summer Mean 22.5

Clark Fork River at Huson 8/1/2014 Date Average 20 5.5

Clark Fork River at Huson 8/1/2014 Routine Sample 22 7.4


Clark Fork River at Huson 8/1/2014 Routine Sample 47 10






13


(mg/m2)

Ash-free

Dry Weight (g/m2)

Clark Fork River at Huson 8/1/2014 Routine Sample < 4 < 0.4






Clark Fork River at Huson 8/1/2014 Routine Sample < 4 0.4






Clark Fork River at Huson 8/30/2014 Date Average 25 11





















Clark Fork River above Flathead Summer Mean 18

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/1/2014 Date Average 19 8.7

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/1/2014 Routine Sample < 4 0.8

Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/1/2014 Routine Sample 39 29


Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/1/2014 Routine Sample < 4 < 0.4








Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/1/2014 Routine Sample 9 3.5









Clark Fork River above Flathead 8/30/2014 Date Average 17 11





14


(mg/m2)

Ash-free

Dry Weight (g/m2)


















Flathead River Summer Mean 21

Flathead River 8/1/2014 Date Average 12 10

Flathead River 8/1/2014 Routine Sample 4 20



Flathead River 8/1/2014 Routine Sample < 4 < 0.4


Flathead River 8/1/2014 Routine Sample 5 1.6








Flathead River 8/30/2014 Date Average 30 16





















Billings Office Helena Office PO Box 80866 PO Box 1779 Billings, MT 59108-0866 Helena, MT 59624 Phone: (406) 655-9555 Phone: (406) 443-6169 Fax: (406) 655-0575 Fax: (406) 443-6385

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: MR. JOE DOSSANTOS, AVISTA CORPORATION

FROM: LUKE OSBORNE, P.E., HYDROSOLUTIONS INC DATE: MAY 7, 2015

SUBJECT: ESTIMATE OF 2014 NUTRIENT LOADING FROM CLARK FORK RIVER INTO LAKE PEND OREILLE

Introduction

HydroSolutions Inc (HydroSolutions) completed this technical memorandum under contract with Avista Corporation (Avista) as part of their 2014 annual water quality monitoring program. Clark Fork River water quality monitoring for nutrient concentrations completed by Avista is used to assess annual nutrient loading of the Clark Fork River to Lake Pend Oreille. This memorandum evaluates nutrient loading estimates to nutrient targets established in the 2002 Montana and Idaho Nutrient Load Agreement. Avista conducts monthly water quality monitoring from March through November at three Lower Clark Fork River monitoring stations, and peak flow monitoring at one monitoring station. Nine water quality sample sets are collected during monthly monitoring at all three monitoring stations. Peak flow monitoring includes collection of six water quality sample sets at the furthest downstream monthly monitoring station, Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam (CFR-30), near the Montana-Idaho border. Peak flow monitoring generally occurs during the rising limb and peak flow of the annual hydrograph (typically May and June). Surface water samples collected at CFR-30 for Avista’s monitoring program are analyzed for total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) and used to estimate nutrient loading to Lake Pend Oreille from the Clark Fork River. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) completeed all quality assurance (QA) review of the water quality data prior to this evaluation.

Montana and Idaho Border Nutrient Load Agreement

The Montana and Idaho Border Nutrient Load Memorandum of Agreement (Border Agreement) was established in 2002. Nutrient targets established in the Border Agreement were developed to maintain water quality in the open waters of Lake Pend Oreille from the mouth of the Clark Fork River to the Long Bridge (Highway 95). The Border Agreement and the Montana and Idaho Border Nutrient Load Agreement Technical Guidance (Tri-State Water Quality Council 2001) are available on the Montana DEQ website at: http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/OtherWQLinks.mcpx. Nutrient targets are outlined in section VII of the Border Agreement as follows:

http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/OtherWQLinks.mcpx

Avista Corporation May 7, 2015 Clark Fork River Nutrient Loading 2014 Page 2

HydroSolutions Inc

• An area-weighted euphotic-zone average concentration of 7.3 μg/L total phosphorus for Lake Pend Oreille,

• Total loading to Lake Pend Oreille of 328,651 kilograms per year (kg/year) total phosphorus,

• 259,500 kg/year total phosphorus from Montana (as measured at Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam),

• 69,151 kg/year total phosphorus from Lake Pend Oreille watershed in Idaho,

• Greater than 15:1 total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratio.

The Border Agreement establishes short-term and long-term exceedances of the established nutrient targets. As stated in the Border Agreement, an exceedance of the target exists when either of the following conditions are documented:

(a) A short-term exceedance of the targets (three consecutive years of total phosphorus load increases at the border that are above the targets by greater than 10%).

(b) A long-term exceedance of the targets (a ten year average total phosphorus concentration in the lake greater than 7.3 μg/L).

In support of the Border Agreement, and in coordination with Montana DEQ, this memorandum provides estimates of 2014 annual nutrient loads from the Clark Fork River. The annual TP load is estimated from the Clark Fork River monitoring station CFR-30. The estimated annual TP load is evaluated against the Border Agreement’s nutrient load target apportioned to the Clark Fork River of 259,500 kg/year, and for short term exceedance of this target.

Nutrient Loading Estimation Method

Consistent with previous analyses, Clark Fork River nutrient loading (TP and TN) into Lake Pend Oreille was evaluated using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) FLUX32 Load Estimation Software model (version 3.10). The FLUX32 model is one of three USACE models that comprise the BATHTUB Eutrophication model (Walker 1999). The model uses grab-sample nutrient concentrations, corresponding discharge measurements, and complete discharge records to calculate annual nutrient loading. The FLUX32 model provides six methods to synthesize the discharge-nutrient concentration relationship from individual sample records and impute them onto the entire flow record. Method 6, Regression Applied to Individual Flows, as described in the Technical Guidance document (Tri-State Water Quality Council 2001), has been used in previous annual and five year trend reports (Tri-State Water Quality Council 2009), and is used in this evaluation to maintain consistency. Method 6 is generally preferred over the other regression-based methods when the discharge-nutrient concentration relationship is well defined. Method 6, Regression Applied to Individual Flows, is defined by Walker (1999) and shown in the following equation:

( ) ( )[ ]∑ +++=j

2j6 2SEQln1baexpW

Where:


HydroSolutions Inc

=6W estimated mean flux over N days, method 6 (kg/year)

=c measured concentration in sample in milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)

=q measured flow during sample

=a intercept of ( )cln versus ( )qln regression

=b slope of ( )cln versus ( )qln regression

=jQ mean flow on day j in cubic hectometers per year (hm3/year)

∑ =j

sum over N days in daily flow record

=SE Standard error of estimate for ( )cln versus ( )qln regression

For the loading analysis, nutrient concentrations were converted from µg/L to milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) and discharge values were converted from cfs to cubic hectometers per year (hm3/year). The FLUX32 program outputs of 2014 TP and TN loading are provided in Attachment 1.

To be consistent with previous nutrient loading analysis, nutrient loads were estimated using the record of mean daily discharge from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) station 12392000, Clark Fork River at Whitehorse Rapids. This station is located downstream of Cabinet Gorge Dam and though it is no longer operated, the USGS maintains flow annual discharge records. Flow at this station is now calculated from the sum of measured flow at USGS station 12391950, Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge dam and 600 cfs groundwater inflow derived from seepage estimation around the dam (USGS 2015).

To improve loading estimates the model stratified loading regressions by the discharge hydrograph. The FLUX32 model develops separate regression equations for individual stratified discharge regimes. As defined by the model, the three separate stratum used include: flow less than one-half of the mean, medium flow, and flow greater than two times the mean. For each stratum, a regression equation is applied individually to each corresponding flow value. The sum of daily loads provides the annual estimate.

Nutrient Loading Results

Results of the loading estimated for 2014 and the previous two years is presented in Table 1. In 2014 the estimated TP load exceeded the allocated target load of 259,500 kilograms per year by 0.4 percent. Since 1998 the estimated TP load has exceeded the allocated target load five times. All of the exceedances have occurred in the last eight years: in 2006, 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2014. Of those exceedances only estimated TP loads in 2011 and 2012 were greater than 110 percent of the target load as defined in the Border Agreement in evaluating short term exceedances. Although no targets are established for TN loading to Lake Pend Oreille, they are also presented in Table 1.


HydroSolutions Inc

Table 1. Estimated Lake Pend Oreille Nutrient Loads from Clark Fork River 2012 to 2014

Year Daily Mean Flow rate Inflow Volume TP Loading TN Loading

CFS % of Average hm3 ac-ft x 1000 Kg x 1000 lbs x 1000 Kg x 1000 lbs x 1000

2012 26,219 119% 23,481 19,036 312.0 687.8 3,966 8,743

2013 19,535 89% 17,447 14,144 148.9 328.2 2,279 5,025

2014 25,598 116% 22,799 18,483 260.5 574.3 3,720 8,200

Notes: CFS - cubic feet per second hm3 - cubic hectometer ac-ft - acre feet

lbs -- pound mass Kg – Kilogram

TP - Total Phosphorus TN - Total Nitrogen

-Average of mean daily flow rate at USGS gaging station 12392000 Clark Fork at Whitehorse Rapids near Cabinet Idaho for 1929-2014 approved daily mean data.

-Nutrient load of 259,500 kilograms per year TP is allocated in The Montana and Idaho Border Nutrient Load Memorandum of Agreement for Clark Fork River nutrient contribution to Lake Pend Oreille

TP and TN loading to Lake Pend Oreille from the Clark Fork River from 1998 to 2014 are presented in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Chart of Estimated Total Phosphorus Loading from the Clark Fork River 1998 to 2014, Annual Inflow as Percent of Average at USGS Gaging Station 12392000 Clark Fork at Whitehorse Rapids, and Montana-Idaho Nutrient Border Agreement Clark Fork River Allocated Annual Target Load.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Inflo

w P

erce

nt o

f Ave

rage

(192

9-20

14)

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(Kg

x 1,

000)

Phosphorus Load Inflow

Target Load 259,500 Kg


HydroSolutions Inc

Figure 2. Chart of Estimated Total Nitrogen Loading from the Clark Fork River 1998 to 2014 and Annual Inflow as Percent of Average at USGS Gaging Station 12392000 Clark Fork at Whitehorse Rapids.

Conclusions

Nutrient loading of TP and TN from the Clark Fork River to Lake Pend Oreille varies year to year and is in general, proportional to the volume of inflow from the watershed. In years when Clark Fork River flow from Montana is in excess of the annual average daily discharge, the TP load exceeds the allocated target load of 259,500 kilograms per year of the Border Agreement. The estimated TP load has exceeded the allocated target load five times since 1998. In 2014 the average daily flow was 116 percent of the long term average and the estimated TP load was 260,519 Kg, or 0.4 percent above the allocated target load. Estimated TP and TN loading in 2014 were consistent with the average daily flow for the year. Similar to the average daily flow trends, estimated TP and TN loading in 2014 was more than 2013 loading levels, but less than 2012 loading levels. Estimated TP loads in 2012 to 2014 are less than 110 percent of the target load. Based on this assessment there is no short term TP load exceedance in the past three years or any previous consecutive three year period since 1998.

Attachment 1 FLUX32 program outputs of 2014 TP and TN loading

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Inflo

w P

erce

nt o

f Ave

rage

(192

9-20

14)

Nitr

ogen

Loa

d (K

g x

1,00

0)

Nitrogen Load Inflow


HydroSolutions Inc

References

Tri-State Water Quality Council. 2001. "Montana and Idaho Border Nutrient Load Agreement Technical Guidance." Montana DEQ Water Quality Planning Bureau Other Water Quality Links. January. Accessed May 6, 2014. http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/pdf/TechGuidanceFinal.pdf.

Tri-State Water Quality Council. 2009. Water Quality Status and Trends in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed: Time Trends Analysis for the 1984-2007 Period. Helena: PBS&J.

U.S. General Services Administration. 2012. Preliminary Engineering Report Infrastructure Piegan Port of Entry, Piegan, Montana. Helena, MT: Robert Peccia and Associates.

USGS. 2015. USGS 12392000 Clark Fork at Whitehorse Rapids near Cabinet, Idaho. April 8. Accessed April 30, 2015. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?referred_module=sw&site_no=12392000.

Walker, W.W. 1999. Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Predicion: User Manual. Updated April, Instruction Report W-96-2. Vicksburg: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimentation Station.

HydroSolutions Inc

ATTACHMENT 1

FLUX32 Program Outputs of 2014 TP and TN Loading

FLOW AND LOAD SUMMARIES FOR TotalPhosphorus(ug/L)

Method: C/Q Reg3(daily) (6)DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLES VS. DAILY FLOWS Daily Flow Smpl FlowTotalPhosphorus(ug/L) Flux** SLOPEStratum Flows Smpls Evnts Vol % (CFS) (CFS) (µg/L) (kg/y) LgC/LgQ R² p > C/Q1 Flow < 1/2 Me 114 3 3 12.3 10028.77 11033.33 6.8 60606 -3.176 0.62 0.42382 Medium Flow 189 5 5 43.9 21649.89 31880 10.18 173904 0.5549 0.75 0.05563 Flow > 2x Mea 61 7 7 43.8 66924.59 68200 14.943 902489 1.092 0.79 0.0079Overall 364 15 15 100.0 25597.56 44660 11.727 260519 0.4612 0.83 0.0000

STRATUM BOUNDARIES(CFS)--------------------------------------------------STRATUM LOWER LIMIT UPPER LIMITFlow < 1/2 Mean 0 12798.8Medium Flow 12798.8 51195.1Stratum 3 51195.1 91302.7

--------------------------------------------------

DAILY FLOW STATISTICSDaily Flow Duration 364 Days = 0.997 YearsDaily Mean Flow Rate 25597.60 (CFS)Daily Total Flow Volume 22799.00 (Mega m³)Daily Flow Date Range 01/01/2014 to 12/31/2014Samples Date Range 03/11/2014 to 11/19/2014

LOAD ESTIMATES FOR TotalPhosphorus(ug/L) Flw Wgted Method Mass(kg) Flux(kg/y)** Flux Variance Conc.(µg/L) C.V.1 Average Load 341738 342911 3.4012919E9 15 0.1702 Flw Wghted Conc. 284618 285595 7.2918364E8 12.5 0.0953 Flw Wghted IJC. 287972 288961 8.547306E8 12.6 0.1014 C/Q Reg1 262899 263802 6.655642E8 11.5 0.0985 C/Q Reg2(VarAdj) 264753 265662 4.7348783E8 11.6 0.0826 C/Q Reg3(daily) 259627 260519 4.2894257E8 11.4 0.0798 Time Series* 258318 259205 N/A 11.3 N/A

--------------------------------------------------------*Time series estimates use residual interpolation. Maximum Interpolation Gap is set at 15.00 days** Flow duration includes a fractional year; units of Flux/y may mislead.

FLOW AND LOAD SUMMARIES FOR TotalNitrogen(ug/L)

Method: C/Q Reg3(daily) (6)DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLES VS. DAILY FLOWS Daily Flow Smpl FlowTotalNitrogen(ug/L) Flux** SLOPEStratum Flows Smpls Evnts Vol % (CFS) (CFS) (µg/L) (kg/y) LgC/LgQ R² p > C/Q1 Flow < 1/2 Me 114 3 3 12.3 10028.77 11033.33 115.33 1040592 0.5535 0.30 0.62872 Medium Flow 190 5 5 44.5 21807 31880 149.2 2977329 -0.04694 0.01 0.87773 Flow > 2x Mea 60 7 7 43.3 67181.67 68200 182.57 11160169 0.9464 0.41 0.1175Overall 364 15 15 100.0 25597.56 44660 158 3719588 0.2291 0.41 0.0103

STRATUM BOUNDARIES(CFS)--------------------------------------------------STRATUM LOWER LIMIT UPPER LIMITFlow < 1/2 Mean 0 12889.7Medium Flow 12889.7 51559Stratum 3 51559 91750.3

--------------------------------------------------

DAILY FLOW STATISTICSDaily Flow Duration 364 Days = 0.997 YearsDaily Mean Flow Rate 25597.60 (CFS)Daily Total Flow Volume 22799.00 (Mega m³)Daily Flow Date Range 01/01/2014 to 12/31/2014Samples Date Range 03/11/2014 to 11/19/2014

LOAD ESTIMATES FOR TotalNitrogen(ug/L) Flw Wgted Method Mass(kg) Flux(kg/y)** Flux Variance Conc.(µg/L) C.V.1 Average Load 4446318 4461587 3.0910566E11 195 0.1252 Flw Wghted Conc. 3687105 3699767 6.511735E10 162 0.0693 Flw Wghted IJC. 3699327 3712031 6.5720037E10 162 0.0694 C/Q Reg1 3680397 3693035 9.0296665E10 161 0.0815 C/Q Reg2(VarAdj) 3666154 3678744 1.0402965E11 161 0.0886 C/Q Reg3(daily) 3706859 3719588 1.0460377E11 163 0.0878 Time Series* 3671382 3683990 N/A 161 N/A

--------------------------------------------------------*Time series estimates use residual interpolation. Maximum Interpolation Gap is set at 15.00 days** Flow duration includes a fractional year; units of Flux/y may mislead.

annual water quality and benthic algae...

Documents