I s Suamiary 333.91 envl roa aenta N7cfs iaoact statement 19 for water r esarvat ion Sf< apolications in CtLtte UpoAer CLRark K yvvM^' TEB 2 C 1991 SVi MONTANA STATE LIBk .<v 1515 E 6th AVE -ii-LfcN.A MOW ANA 59biO I CrtnQ WATER RESERVATION r IT \/ iV APPLICATIONS BASIN Final Environmental Impact Statement ;'•"-, < RES |1, ' ;-.» ^•--/ /! >,.: ^ i 6-i« a *. MONTANASTATEL-"IrB.R«AnRY SSu3m3m3.a9r1yNe7ncvtisro1n9m9e1ntCa.l1impacislatemenif I ittliliililllniiiliiilililiiiji 3 0864 00071002 3 Samma-rv S environmental 333.31 statement impact V179c9f15 for water reservation aopiications in the Upper Clark ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR WATER RESERVATION APPLICATIONS THE IN January 1991 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION In December 1988, the DepartmentofNatural Re- draft EISand addendum. Some ofthis information sources and Conservation (DNRC) released thedraft was not available when thedraft and addendum were environmental impact statement (EIS) on theupper prepared. Writtenand oral comments are presented Clark Forkbasin water reservationapplications. The with DNRC'sresponsesin Chapter Four. The final EIS draft EISexamines waterreservation requests from the does not contain recommendations from DNRC to the GraniteConservation District (GCD) and the Montana Board ofNatural Resourcesand Conservation (Board) Department ofFish,Wildlifeand Parks (DFWP). GCD regardingaction on thepending water reservation is seeking a water reservationon theNorth Fork of applications. Thedecision of whether to grant, modify, Lower Willow Creekto supply water to supplement ordeny a reservation rests with the Board, not DNRC, irrigationon 2,900acresofland westofHall. This and willbemadeaftera contested case hearing isheld project would requirea new damupstreamfrom the to receive testimony from theapplicants and objectors. existing LowerWillow Creek reservoir. DFWPis re- When deliberating oneach reservation application, the questingreservarions to maintain instreamflowson Board will relyoninformation from the application, the main-stem Clark Fork and 17 tributariesabove thedraftand final EISs, and evidence presented at the Milltown Dam for theprotection offish, wildlife, and contested case hearing. recreationand to maintaindilution flows forwater quality purposes. Noticeofthe contested casehearingwill be served by first-class mail uponall water right claimants and Following publicationof the draft EIS, thepublic permittees ofrecord in the upperClark Forkbasinand wasgiven 90days to comment. DNRCheld public otherpersons that maybe affected by the proposed meetings in Drummond, DeerLodge, and Bonnerin reservations. Legal notice will bepublished in local January 1989, and vmttencommentswereaccepted newspapers,and newsreleases will also be sent to the until March 16, 1989. newspapers. A second reservationrequest forwateron Boulder Anyaffected personcanparticipate in the hearings Creek hadbeen included in GCUs original application process, eitherby presentingpublic testimony without (1987),but wasomitted from thedraft EISon thebasis filingan objection orby filing a formal objection to a ofa meetingbetweenGCDand DNRC in the springof water reservation application. The noticeofthecon- 1988. InJuly 1989, theGCDboard chairman sent a tested casehearingwill describe the procedure for letter to DNRC statingGCD'sintent to pursue the participating. BoulderCreekproposal, necessitating an addendumto thedraft EIS. The addendumwas published in March The followingsummaryisprovided forreaders 1990, and examinesGCD's proposal to reservewater who do not need theentire EIS. Copiesofthecomplete on BoulderCreek to irrigate4,093 acresofland south- Final EIS areavailableon request from DNRC. eastofHall. This project would requirea newdam on Boulder Creek. Thepublic commentperiod of30days wasextended 15 additional days. Apublic meeting was held in Drummond on April 4, 1990, and written comments wereaccepted until May 1, 1990. The final EIS summarizes, updates, and re\ises the draft and addendum in response to the490written and oral commentsreceived. New and additional informa- tionispresented toclarifytheanalysescontained in the Introduction CHAPTER TWO SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT AND ADDENDUM EIS BOARD DECISION CRITERIA "(a)whethertheexpected benefitsofapplyingthe reserved waterto beneficial useare reasonablylikelyto ThedraftEISand theaddendum to thedraft exceed thecosts; (b) whether thenet benefitsassociated present DNRC'sanalysesoftheenvironmental impacts withgrantinga reservation exceed the net benefitsof ofgrantingordenying GCD'sand DFWP's requests for notgrantingthereservation; (c) whether thereare no waterreservationsinthe upperClarkForkbasin. The reasonablealternatives to the proposed reservation that decisionofwhether to grantordeny thesereservations havegreaternetbenefits; (d) whether failure to reserve rests with theBoard, whichmustabidebythe follow- thewater will orislikely to result in an irretrievable ing criteria forgrantinga reservation. lossofa natural resourceoran irretrievable lossofa resourcedevelopmentopportunity; and (e) whether Qualifications and Purpose thereareno significantadverseimpacts to public health, welfare, and safety." The Board may also con- TheBoard must find that theapplicant isqualified siderotherfactors it finds relevant (ARM to reserve waterand that thepurposeofthe reservation 36.16.107B(4)). isa beneficial use (§85-2-316(1) and 85-2-316(4)(a)(i), MCA; ARM 36.16.107B(1)). Diligence Need Ifthe purposeofthereservation requiresconstruc- tionofa storageordiversion facility, theapplicant TheBoard mustfind thatthereservation isneeded shall establish to thesatisfactionofthe Board that there (§85-2-316(4)(a)(ii), MCA). A reservation is needed if will beprogress toward completion ofthe facilityand "thereisa reasonablelikelihood that future instateor accomplishmentof the purpose with reasonabledili- out-of-statecompeting wateruses would consume, gence in accordance with an established plan (§85-2- degrade, orotherwiseaffect the wateravailable for the 316(5), MCA). purposeofthe reservation" (ARM 36.16.107B (2)(a)), or if "thereareconstraints that would restrict theappli- NoAdverse Effect on SeniorWaterRights cant fromperfectinga waterpemnit forthe intended purposeofthe reservation" (ARM36.16.107B(2)(c)). Thereservation, as proposed foradoption, must notadverselyaffect water rightsinexistenceat the Amount timeofadoption (§85-2-316(9), MCA). A reservation cannotbegranted if the record of thecontested case TheBoard mustdetermine theamountneeded to hearingshows that theexerciseofsenior waterrights fulfill the purposeofthe reservation (§85-2-316(4) would beadversely affected. (A)(iii), MCA). Thisamount mustbebased on "accu- rateand suitable" methodsand assumptions. The Board must find that thereareno "reasonable cost- SUMMARIES effective measures thatcould betakenwithin the reser- vation termto increase the useefficiencyand lessen the Theremainderofthischaptersummarizes the amountof waterrequired" (ARM 36.16.107(3)). resultsofDNRC'sanalysesofthesocial and environ- mental effectsofgrantingall, some, or noneofthe Public Interest waterrequested and ofputting the water to useas proposed bytheapplicants. The information presented The Board must find that thereservation isin the hereisexcerpted primarily fromchaptersTwo, Five, public interest (§ 85-2-316(4)(a)(iv), MCA). In making Six,and Eightofthe draft EIS and fromchaptersOne, thisdetermination, the Board must weigh and balance Three, and Four oftheaddendum. Summary The results arepresented here under the relevantBoard decision criteria, but do not represent determinations, conclusions, or recommendations ofwhether any one reservation requestsatisfies any ofthegiven criteria. Such determinations are made solely by the Board after considering additional information from the contested case hearing. GCD'S REQUEST ON THE NORTH FORK OF maybelessthan this. The 11,165afestimate includes LOWER WILLOW CREEK water forlandsthat are already irrigated with water fromLowerWillowCreek reservoir. But theexisting GCDisrequestinga reservation on theNorthFork reservoircurrently meets project demand for full-ser- ofLowerWillowCreek,a tributary ofFlintCreek,to vice irrigation in only5 years out of 10. The requested provide water for supplemental irrigationon 2,900 reservation would allow GCD to build a new reservoir acresofland west ofHall,asshown in Figure2-1. This to catch high spring flows, which would provide for project would requirea new damon the North Fork of full-service irrigation in8 years out of 10. The amount LowerWillow Creek. Theproposed dam would be 113 wasdetermined basedon local crop needs and pro- feet high, 1,070 feet long,and would store5,000acre- jected deliveryefficiencies. The water would bedeliv- feet (af) ina 112-acrereservoir. No new canals would ered throughexisting canals and wheelline sprinkler beneeded. Waterwould be released into theNorth irrigationsystems. DNRC found no economically fea- Fork ofLowerWillow Creek to refill theexisHng Lower siblealternatives that would increase project efficiency WillowCreekreservoir. orreduce theamountofwaterrequired. Qualifications and Purpose Public Interest GCD wasorganized underthe state Conservation Thedraft HISexamined thebenefitsand costsof Districts Act {§ 76-15-101,etseq., MCA) in 1954. Con- grantingGCD's reservationrequest on the North Fork servation districtsare political subdivisionsof the state. ofLowerWillowCreek. A summaryand comparison The stated purposeofthe requested reservation isto ofthesignificantbenefitsand costs isprovided here. provide water for supplemental irrigation, whichisa beneficialuseasdefined in Section85-2-102(2)(a), Benefits MCA. IfGCD'sprojectontheNorth ForkofLowerWil- Need lowCreek returnsa profit,it would directly benefit about 20 ranching familiesby increasing hay yieldsby GCD hasapplied fora reservationand nota permit 2,000 tonsannually on 2,900 acresofland that is al- becauseitcannotbuild the projectunder presenteco- readyirrigated. Indirectbenefits would include im- nomicconditions (GCD 1987). Competing wateruses proved recreation ontheexisting LowerWillowCreek that may limit future wateravailabilityon theNorth reservoirdue to higherand morestable water levels. ForkofLowerWillowCreekinclude DP^WP'srequest Theprojectcould also slightly increasebusiness in- forinstream flow reservationson FlintCreek and the comeand countytaxrevenues. Clark Fork main stem. GCD'sproject would conflict with DFWP'srequested reservations in Marchand Return flows from the North Fork ofLowerWillow April underaverageflow conditions. Potential devel- Creek project would increase streamflowsduring the opment ofirrigable landson theClark Fork also may high-demand seasonat MFC's hydropowerdamsat require flowsfrom upstream tributaries. Milltown and Thompson Falls. These flow increases would offset springtimedepletions that would occur when the MFCdams typically spill water. In an aver- Amount age flowyear, the project would allow MFC to increase net annual powerproductionby an estimated 79,600 GCD has requested up to 11,165af/year(15.4cfs) kWh. Thisis an annual benefit of$1,751 at current ofwater toirrigate2,900acres ofland,but acknowl- wholesale powerrates. edges that theamountneeded for thenew reservoir ChapterTwo N01 1 N6 i < u o Uh O N01 1 N6 1 Summary Costs Irretrievable Losses DNRCestimatesprojectcoststobea minimumof GrantingGCD a reservation for this project would $9.97million, which is threetimesgreater thanGCD's give thedistrictan earlierprioritydate than it would estimateof$2.9 million. Thisdisparity isdue primarily haveifitobtained a permit when theproject isbuilt. If to differencesin theestimated costsofthespillway and thedam and reservoirareconstructed, 112 acresof outlet works. currently irrigated pasture would be inundated. Re- duced flows in the2.9 mile reach below the proposed Indirect costsofthe projecton the North Fork of damcould imperil a populationofpure strain, LowerWillow Creekwould include possible degrada- westlopecutthroat trout, a species with limited distri- tion offish habitatdue to reduced spring flows in the bution. 2.9-milestreamreach between the proposed and exist- ing reservoirs, floodingofwildlife habitatand irrigated PublicHealth.Welfare, and Safety land at thereservoir site, and thepreclusion ofother usesofthewaterconsumed by the project. Project GCD'sproposed damon theNorth Fork ofLower depletionsofstreamflow would reducehydropower Willow Creekwould beclassified as a high-hazard productionatWWP'sNoxon Rapidsdam byan esti- dam, requiringmeasures to protect public safety. In an mated 8I3OO kWh on average. Thisisan annual cost average flowyear, the project would slightly reduce of$1,789 atcurrentwholesale powerrates. Coupled thenet annual amountofwater available to dilute with MFC'snetannual gain ofanestimated 79,600 arsenic in Flint Creek, possibly violatingcurrent state kWh, theneteffect would bean annual loss in waterquality standards forarsenic. See ChapterThree Montana of 1,700 kWh,or$38 at current wholesale ofthe final EIS fora description ofarsenic levels in the power rates. Theproject would reducepower produc- upperClark Fork basin. tion atColumbia Riverhydroelectric plantsdown- stream from Montanabyanestimated 800,440 kWh in GCD'S REQUEST ON BOULDER CREEK anaverageyear. Thisisan annual costof$17,610 at current wholesale powerrates. GCDisrequestinga reservation on BoulderCreek, a tributary ofFlint Creek, to provide new irrigation to Comparison ofNetBenefits and Costs 4,093 acresofland southeast ofHall, as shown in Fig- ure2.2. Thisproject would requirea new dam on DNRCestimatesthat thesupplemental irrigation BoulderCreek. Theproposed dam would be 145 feet supplied by the project would provide net annual re- high, 1,150feet long, and would store8,500afin a 145- turns of$30peracre. Based on DNRC'sestimatesof acrereservoir. Approximately33 miles of new canal projectcosts,netannual returns from thesupplemental are proposed todeliver water to project lands. irrigation would have to be$161 peracreforproject benefits to exceed costs. Qualifications and Purpose GCD'sestimated costs would require a netannual returnof$45 peracrefrom the supplemental irrigation. GCD wasorganized under the state Conservation IfGCD's higheryield and priceestimatesareused, net DistrictsAct (§ 76-15-101, etseq., MCA) in 1954. Con- annual returnswould be$90p>eracre. servation districtsare political subdivisions of the state. Thestated purposeofthe requested reservation is to Based on DNRC'syield and priceestimates, project provide water fornew irrigation, which isa beneficial costs would exceed benefits. useasdefined in Section85-2-102(2)(a), MCA. Alternatives Need Projectlandsmightbe served byusing water GCD hasapplied fora reservation and not a permit stored in theGeorgetown Lake/Silver Lakesystem. because it cannotbuild the project under presenteco- Thewaterrights maybe for sale. Preliminary cost nomic conditions (GCD 1987). Competing water uses estimates indicate thisoption iseconomicallyinfea- that may limit future wateravailabilityon Boulder sible, thoughlessinfeasible than GCD's proposed CreekincludeDFWP'srequests for instream flow res- project. ervations on Boulderand Flintcreeksand theClark Forkmainstem. GCD's project would conflict with DFWP'srequested reservations inall monthsexcept for ChapterTwo