S Pinal 333.91 environ ental N7cff i.pact tateaent 19 1 for water - reservation --- applic tlona in STATf'DOr.nM!MTI COllECTlON - t be Upper Clark r. i 23 19 1 CLAR M()\'1iir\i'lA :5TATE LIBRARY: 1515 ~. 6th AVE. \o4~I-ENA. MONTANA 59620 FO RK WATER RESERVATION . APPLICATIONS BASIN ~\>.~ "OJ'.~ J.~' ~ ", ~ -.::''<"~,(. . .':•j• J" ••.,:s' .. .:..... ,.... , :~r';/.. - ;'l~':" •• '1;;" .; .. J. • ~inal Environmental Impact Stat I MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 8333.91 N7cll1991 c.1 7 F,nilmIJlmi~I~~iilli~~~lilfiljilllllll 11111 F 8 199 3 0864 00071004 9 OV 9 01 FEB 23 .·.·;'[:1 :.l Ai:''':, ··F·: ·N...··\.. l ··L!.: . ," -. ~. .' ..... ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR WATER RESERVATION APPLICATIONS IN THE UPPE'R CLARK FORK BASIN January 1991 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER TWO: SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT EIS AND ADDENDUM 3 BOARD DECISION CRITERIA 3 Qualifications and Purpose 3 Need ~ 3 Amount 3 Public Interest 3 Diligence 3 No Adverse Effect on Senior Water Rights 3 SUMMARIES 3 CCD'S REQUEST ON THE NORTH FORK OF LOWER WILLOW CREEK .4 Qualifications and Purpose 4 Need 4 Amount 4 Public Interest 4 Benefits 4 Costs 6 Comparison of Net Benefits and Costs 6 AI ternatives 6 Irretrievable Losses ,. 6 Public Health, Welfare, and Safety 6 'CCD'S REQUEST ON BOULDER CREEK 6 Qualifications and Purpose 6 Need 6 Amount 8 Public Interest 8 Benefits 8 Costs 8 Comparison of Net Benefits and Costs 8 Alternatives 8 Irretrievable Losses 8 Public Health, Welfare, and Safety 8 DFWP'S REQUESTS FOR THE UPPER CLARK FORK AND 17 TRIBUTARIES 9 Qualifications and Purpose 9 Need 9 Amount 9 Wetted-perimeter Method 9 Other Considerations 13 Other Methods to Determine Amount of Instream Flow 14 Streams Where the WETI' Method was Not Used 14 Fifty Percent Limit 14 Public Interest 14 Benefits 14 Costs 16 Comparison of Net Benefits and Costs 16 Alternatives 16 Irretrievable Losses 16 Public Health, Welfare, and Safety 16 iii CHAPTER THREE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS 27 INTRODUCTION 27 SECTION I -ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 27 WATER AVAILABILITY 27 The Effect of DFWP's Reservations on Flows Below Milltown Dam 27 No Legal Protection of Flows 27 Contribution to Downstream Flows Still Likely 27 If DFWP's Reservations are Denied 27 STREAMFLOWS : 28 WATEE QUAL!'!'Y ..,' 32 Adoption of New Water Quality Standards 32 Arsenic 32 Copper 37 Zinc 38 Nutrients 39 UPDATED WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS 43 PROJECT FEASIBILI1Y: A COMPARISON OF METHODS USED BY DNRC AND GCD 43 EFFECTS OF GCD'S PROPOSED PROJECTS ON HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION 44 n- SECTION OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS 48 EPA SUPERFUND CLEANUP 48 INSTREAM FLOW LEASING (HB 707) 49 WILD AND SCENIC RNERS DESIGNATICN 50 COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM OPERAnON REVIEW 50 DEER LODGE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 50 NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL PR '1 Ll'ED AREAS DESIGNATION 51 OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS 52 CHAPTER FOUR: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 53 INTRODUCTION 53 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 53 APPENDIX A: WETTED-PERIMETER VERSUS FLOW CURVES 227 APPENDIX B: WATER QUALITY DATA FOR UPPER CLARK FORK TRIBUTARIES 241 BIBLIOGRAPHY 251 ERRATA 264 LIST OF PERSONS PREPARING THE FINAL EIS 265 REVIEWERS 265 IV LIST OF TABLES 2-1 DFWP's Reservation Requests by Stream 10 2-2 Instream Flow Requests and Average Flows Based on Stream Cauges 15 2-3 Fish Species in the Upper Clark Fork by Stream Reach 17 2-4 Typical Animals and Waterfowl Use Found Along Clark Fork Tributaries 19 2-5 Typical Plants and Condition of Vegetation Found Along Clark Fork Tributaries 20 2-6 Fishing Pressure (Angler Days per Year) 21 2-7 Water Quality of Streams Where Reservations are Requested 22 2-8 Irrigable Acreages in the Upper Clark Fork Basin 23 2-9 Estimated Flows in Excess of DFWP's Reservations Clark Fork main stem (3 tables) 24 Little Blackfoot River Reach 2 (l table) 26 Flint Creek Reach 1 (l table) 26 Boulder Creek (1 table) 26 3-1 Revised Median Flow Estimates on Flint Creek 29 3-2 Instantaneous Measurements for Selected Streams near their Mouths 31 3-3 Estimated Mean Annual Runoff-Clark Fork Tributaries 28 3-4 Surface-water Arsenic Levels in the Flint Creek Area 32 3-5 Average Monthly Concentrations of Total Recoverable Arsenic in Upper Clark Fork Main Stem 33 3-6 Copper Levels for the Clark Fork Above and Below the Little Blackfoot River 37 3-7 Zinc Levels for the Clark Fork Above and Below the Little Blackfoot River 39 3-8 July 1988-June 1990 Clark Fork BAsin Nutrient Concentration Data Summary .40 3-9 Ranking of Clark Fork Basin Nutrient Sources by Mean Concentrations of Phosphorus and Nitrogen .41 3-10 Increase in Net Returns Due to Project using Different Assumptions 44 3-11 Change in Power Production Due to CCO's Proposed Project on Boulder Creek (in kWh) .45 3-12 Change in Power Production Due to CCO's Proposed Project on the North Fork of Lower Willow Creek (in kWh) 45 3-13 Change in Power Production Due to Both Projects (in kWh) 46 3-14 Change in Power Production Due to CCO's Proposed Project on Boulder Creek (in $) 46 3-15 Change in Power Production Due to CCD's Proposed Project on the North Fork of Lower Willow Creek (in $) 47 3-16 Change in Power Production Due to Both Projects (in $) 47 3-17 Protected Streams and Reaches in the Upper Clark Fork Basin 51 3-18 Agencies with Possible Jurisdiction 52 4-1 Water Quality Criteria for Ambient Dissolved Oxygen Concentration 81 4-2 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Versus Level of Effect 82 4-3 Water Use Permits Issued Appropriating At Least 100 CPM of Surface Water as of 8/20/90 88 4-4 Lower Willow Creek Reservoir Releases With and Without Proposed North Fork of Lower Willow Creek Project .. 107 4-5 Estimated Flows Below Proposed North Fork of Lower Willow Creek Reservoir Site With and WithoLl t Proposed Reservoir 108 4-6 Estimates of Population Trends in Upper Clark Fork Basin Counties 1980-1987 111 4-7 Changes in Flow Below CCD Project Lands 118 4-8 Mining Operations, Upper Clark Fork Basin, 1990 144 4-9 Small Miner Exclusion Mines, Upper Clark Fork Basin, by County, 1990 145 4-10 1987 Installation and Operation Costs of Stream Cauge Options 150 4-11 Alfalfa Yields T/ A 165 -1-12 Permits with Priority Dates of 1985 to Present in the Upper Clark Fork Basin (76C) 174 4-13 Lower Flint and Boulder Creek Basin Model (without the Boulder Creek Dam) 187 4-14 Lower Flint and Boulder Creek Basin Model (with the Boulder Creek Dam) 188 4-15 Estimated Allendale Canal Shortages with and without Proposed Boulder Creek Project 209 4-16 Comparison of Boulder Creek Flows at Maxville and Proposed Dam Site 224 Appendix B; Water Quality Data for Upper Clark Fork Tributaries 243 v LIST OF FIGURES 2-1 Lower Willow Creek Project Area 5 2-2 Proposed Boulder Creek Reservoir, Canal, and Irrigated Lands 7 2-3 Reservation Requests in the Upper Clark Fork Basin 11 3-1 Relation of conentration of total arsenic to suspended sediment-Clark Fork at Deer Lodge 35 3-2 Relation of conentration of total arsenic to suspended sediment-Clark Fork at Turah Bridge 35 3-3 Daily mean streamflow and suspended-sediment concentration for the Clark Fork at Deer Lodge 36 3-4 Daily mean streamflow and suspended-sediment concentration for the Clark Fork at Turah Bridge 36 3-5 Clark Fork Basin Main Stem Phosphorus Concentration 42 3-6 Clark Fork Basin Main Stem Nitrogen Concentration 4-1 Clark Fork at Warm Springs, Diurnal DO 77 4-2 Clark Fork at Deer Lodge, Diurnal DO 78 4-3 Clark Fork Above Little Blackfoot, Diurnal DO 78 4-4 Clark Fork Below Gold Creek, Diurnal DO 79 4-5 Clark Fork at Drummond, Diurnal DO 79 4-6 Clark Fork Above Rock Creek, Diurnal DO 80 4-7 Clark Fork at Turah, Diurnal DO 80 4-8 Upper Clark Fork River, Total Number of Trout per Mile in 31 River Segments (Spring 1987) 181 A-I Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Clark Fork near Deer Lodge 229 A-2 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Clark Fork near Gold Creek 229 A-3 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Clark Fork near Bearmouth 230 A-4 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Clark Fork near Turah 230 A-5 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Warm Springs Creek near Meyers Dam 231 A-6 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Warm Springs Creek near mouth 231 A-7 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Barker Creek 232 A-8 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Storm Lake Creek 232 A-9 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Twin Lakes Creek 233 A-I0 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Lost Creek 233 A-II Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Racetrack Creek near the Deerlodge Forest boundary 234 A-12 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Racetrack Creek near mouth 234 A-13 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Dempsey Creek 235 A-14 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Little Blackfoot River above Dog Creek 235 A-15 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Little Blackfoot River near mouth 236 A-16 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Snowshoe Creek 236 A-17 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Dog Creek 237 A-18 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Gold Creek 237 A-19 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Flint Creek above Boulder Creek 238 A-20 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Flint Creek near mouth 238 A-21 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Boulder Creek 239 1\-22 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, North Fork of Flint Creek 239 1\-23 Wetted Perimeter versus Flow, Harvey Creek 240 VI ABBREVIATIONS af acre-feet AMC Anaconda Mining Company ARCO Atlantic Richfield Company ARM Administrative Rules of Montana ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service AUM animal unit month BHES Montana Board of Health and Environmental Sciences BLM United States Bureau of Land Management Board Montana Board of Natural Resources and Conservation BOD biological oxygen demand BPA Bonneville Power Administration cfs cubic feet per second COD chemical oxygen demand DFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks DHES Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation DSL Montana Department of State Lands EIS environmental impact statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GCD Granite Conservation District kv kilovolt kWh kilowatt-hour MCA Montana Codes Annotated MEPA Montana Environmental Policy Act mg/l milligrams per liter MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program MNRIS Montana Natural Resources Information System MPC Montana Power Company MRI Montana Resources Incorporated TDS total dissolved solids TSS total suspended solids Ilg/l micrograms per liter USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of the Interior USFS United States Forest Service USGS United States Geological Survey WWP Washington Water Power Company vii