Table Of ContentS Hissouri River
333.91 Sasln draf-t
ll7Mrpd« enV iron«en tal
1991 impact statement
for water
reservation
applications
al>ov/e
RIVER BASIN
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR WATER RESERVATION APPLICATIONS ABOVE FORT PECK DAM
m ^flONTANASTATELIBRARY
SMi3s33M.u9l1nNTwmrrpBdMwin19d9r1anC.a1nvMnnMiiM
9
t994
ABBREVIATIONS 3 0864 00073794 3
JUN 2 ? m^.
OCT '^^ '^ni af acre-feet
af/y acre-feet peryear
ARM Administrative Rules ofMontana
BHES Montana Board ofHealth and Environmental Sciences
BLM United States Bureau ofLand Management
Board MontanaBoard ofNatural Resources and Conservation
BOD biological oxygen demand
BUREC United States Bureau ofReclamation
cfs cubic feet persecond
cm centimeter
COD chemical oxygen demand
Corps United StatesArmy Corps ofEngineers
DFWP Montana Department ofFish, Wildlife and Parks
DHES Montana Department ofHealth and Environmental Sciences
DNRC Montana Department ofNatural Resources and Conservation
EIS environmental Impact statement
EPA United States Environmental ProtectionAgency
FERC Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission
GW
gigawatt
GWh
gigawatt-hour
kV kUovolt
kW
kilowatt
kWh kUowatt-hour
MCA Montana CodeAnnotated
MEPA Montana Environmental PolicyAct
mg/1 milligrams per liter
MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program
MNRIS Montana Natural Resources Information System
MFC Montana Power Company
MW
megawatt
MWh
megawatt-hour
ppm parts per million
scs United States Soil Conservation Service
SHPO Montana Historical Society. State Historic Preservation Office
TDS total dissolved solids
TSS total suspended solids
Hg/1 micrograms perliter
USDA United States Department ofAgriculture
USDI United States Department ofthe Interior
USES United States Forest Service
uses United States Geological Survey
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND CONSERVATION
LEEMETCALFBUILDING
STANSTEPHENS,GOVERNOR 1S20EASTSIXTHAVENUE
OF MONTANA'
STATE
DIRECTOR'SOFFICE(406)444-6699 HELENA.MONTANA59620-2301
TELEFAXNUMBER(406)444-6721
NOTICE - JULY 3, 1991
The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) recently
completed its draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and supporting
environmental assessments on proposed reservations of water in the Missouri
River Basin above Fort Peck Dam. Reservations of water are sought by the
following public agencies:
Conservation Districts Municipalities
; ;
Big Sandy Belgrade
Broadwater Bozeman
Cascade County Chester
Chouteau County Choteau
Fergus County Conrad
Gallatin Cut Bank
Glacier County Dillon
Hill County East Helena
Jefferson Valley Fairfield
Judith Basin Fort Benton
Lewis and Clark County Great Falls
Liberty County Helena
Meagher County Lewistown
Lower Musselshell Power
Pondera County Shelby
Teton County Three Forks
Toole County West Yellowstone
Valley County Winifred
State Agencies Federal Agencies
; ;
Montana Department of Health United States Bureau of Reclamation
and Environmental Sciences United States Bureau of Land Management
Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks
Copies of this DEIS are being circulated for public review and comment
for 60 days, ending September 2, 1991. Copies of the environmental
assessments are available upon request from DNRC. Requests can be made by
calling (406) 444-6627, or by writing DNRC at the address below. Persons
making written comments should address comments to;
fc^o5'^
^'
IK.1
CENTRALIZEDSERVICES
Page 2
Larry Dolan
re: Missouri River Reservations
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Water Resources Division
1520 East Sixth Avenue
Helena, MT 59620-2301
Informal information meetings will be held prior to the public hearings
to answer questions on the reservation process and DEIS. The public hearings
will begin at 7:30 p.m. to receive hand-written or oral comments on the DEIS.
Tiroes
Where
OtL(^ ^ rl/f^^'^5f^
.
MISSOURI
RIVER BASIN
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR WATER RESERVATION
APPLICATIONS
ABOVE FORT PECK DAM
t!0^
Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation
June 1991
S-1
SUMMARY
MISSOURI RIVER WATER ment(BLM) requestedInstreamflowson31 streams
RESERVATION STATUTE forfish,wildlife,recreation, andtomaintainchannel
form. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC)
appliedtoreserve280cfsor89,000acrefeetofwater
In 1985, the Montana Legislature directed the peryearfi-omthe MissouriRiver. Thiswaterwould
MontanaDepartmentofNaturalResoiorcesandCon- be divertedintotheMilkRiverBasintorelievewater
servation(DNRC)tobeginabaslnwidewaterreserva- shortages and provide forsome new irrigation.
tion proceeding for the Missouri River Basin above
FortPeckDam. Thelegislaturefeltthatimplementa- EIS PROCESS
tionofawaterreservationprocedurewould encour-
age more coordinated development ofthe water re-
The MontanaEnvironmentalPolicyActrequires
sources In the basin and would help form a strong
preparation ofan environmental Impact statement
and unified basis forprotecting Montana's share of
(EIS)formajoractionsofstategovernmentthathave
the Missouri River water from downstream states. the potential to affect significantly the human and
Reservationsgranted Inthisprocesshave apriority
date ofJuly 1, 1985. Under Montana water law, natural environment. This EIS examines the envi-
ronmental, social, andeconomicImpactsofthepro-
reservationsallowforexistingorfutureconsumptive
usesofwater, andformaintaininginstreamflowsto pDoNsReCdreservationrequests. Inthesummerof1989,
held 10publicmeetingsat differentlocations
protect aquatic life, recreation, and water quality.
Onlypublicentitlessuchaslocalgovernments, con- throughoutthebasintoIdentifyimportantIssuesfor
analysesandInclusionintheEIS. Anenvironmental
servation districts, and state and federal agencies
can apply for and hold water reservations. DNRC assessmentwaspreparedforeachreservationappli-
waandstaosspriogvnieddebtyecshtnaitcuatleatnodcfoionradnicniaatleastshiestparnocceestso ccaltuisoinontsocpornotvaiidneetdhienbtahsiissEfIoSr.tDheNaRnCalaylsseosdeavnedlocpone-d
conservation districts and municipalitiesinprepar- a computer model of the Missouri River Basin to
assess physical and legal availability ofwater. This
ing their applications. The Board of Natural Re-
csiosuirocneosnawnadteCronrseesrevravtatiioonns(Baopaprldi)camtuisotnsraebaocvheaFoder-t drreasfetarEcIhSainsdbaansaeldysoisnbtyheDNabRoCvestianfffoairnodatcioonnsualntd-
PeckDambyJuly 1,1992. aan6t0s-.dFaoylpleorwiiondgdruerlienasgewohfitchhetdirmaeftwrEiItSt,etnhceoremmwielnltbse
APPLICATIONS onthe draft EIS canbe submittedto DNRC. DNRC
also will hold public meetings across the basin to
DNRC received 40 reservation applications. raedcderievsescaolmlmsuebnsttsanotnivtehecodrmamftenEItSs.rTehspeofnidnailnEgItSowtihlel
Eighteenmunicipalities applied for34,689 acre-feet draft EIS.
peryearto meet futuregrowth. Eighteenconserva-
tion districts requested 388,137 acre-feet per year ALTERNATIVES
primarilyfor220proposedirrigationprojectscover-
iHnegalt1h51a,n5d71Enavcirreos.nmeTnhtealMSocnietnacneas (DDeHpEaSr)tmaepnpltieodf To address the full range of potential Impacts
and options available to the Board, DNRC selected
toreservehalftheaverageannualflowatfourpoints
on the Missouri River (near Toston, Ulm, Virgelle, fouralternativestoanalyzeintheEIS. Theyare; the
Consumptive Use, Instream, Combination, and No
andLandusky) tomaintaindilutionofarsenicInthe
Action alternatives.
riverwater. TheMontanaDepartmentofFish,Wild-
life and Parks (DFWP) applied to reserve Instream Municipalities were included under all three
flows on 283 streams or stream reaches, one lake, alternatives and given first priority because of the
and onewetland to protect fish, wildlife, recreation, relatively small amount ofwater requested for that
andwaterquality. TheU.S.BureauofLandManage- purpose.
S-2
IMPACTS UNDER
The Consumptive Use Alternative emphasizes
the use ofwater for irrigation and municipal pur- CONSUMPTIVE USE,
poses. First preference In this alternative goes to COMBINATION, AND
municipalities, followed by proposed irrigation
INSTREAM ALTERNATIVES
projects, and then instream uses. All irrigation
projects proposed in the reservation applications
were included inthis alternative. General Considerations
Impacts onthe existing environment are gener-
The Instream Alternative gives first priority to
allygreatestundertheConsumptiveUseAlternative,
municipal uses, but emphasizes instream uses for
less under the Combination Alternative and least
the protection offish, wildlife, recreation and water
under the Instream Alternative. Some proposed
quality. Irrigationwould havethird priority.
projectsincludedinallthreealternativeswouldhave
To some extent, the CombinationAlternative is substantial Impacts. Impactswere not assessed for
some ofthe larger projects where information was
similartothe ConsumptiveUseAlternativeinthatit A
notrequirednoravailableintheapplications. sepa-
gives first preference to municipalities, second to rate environmental review may be required before
proposed irrigation projects, and third to instream
some ofthese projects could be constructed.
uses. It differsprimarilyinthat proposed irrigation
projects are onfy included Ifthey are economically WATER QUANTITY AND DISTRIBUTION
and financially feasible at least 50 percent of the
A
time. fewotherprojectswere excluded orreduced Manyrivers,streams,reservoirs,andgroundwa-
in size on the basis ofconcerns about land use or tersystemshavebeenalteredbyexistingwateruses
otherenvironmentalconsiderations. and could be further modified by any consumptive
use project developed through the use of reserva-
UndertheNoActionAltematlve,DNRCdescribes tions. On some streams, there is not enoughwater
trendsthatmightunfoldthroughtheyear2025ifno in dry years to satisfy all existing water users.
waterIs reserved for anypurpose. Impactsto streamflowswouldbegreatestunderthe
Consumptive Use Alternative which would reduce
BOARD'S AUTHORITY flows substantially In the Jefferson, Smith, Sun,
Marias, and Teton rivers and in at least a dozen
smaller tributary streams. In several ofthe rivers
TheBoardcangrant,modify,ordenyanyorallof and streams, late summer streamflows would be
thereservationrequests. Applicantsmustestablish
reduced to zero or near zero during dry years.
to the satisfaction of the Board the following four Impacts to streamflows would be less under the
criteria: Combination Alternative and least under the In-
streamAlternative.
a. the purpose ofthe reservation,
b. the need forthe reservation,
LEGAL Water Availability
c theamountofwaternecessaryforthereserva-
tion, and By law, water reservations cannot adversefy af-
d. that the reservation isin the public Interest. fect the amount ofwaterlegally available to holders
ofwaterrightswith a prioritydate earlierthanJuty
Besides these criteria, the Board also must en- 1. 1985. However, If an existing water right user
sure that the reservation applicants make progress wishestochangethepointofdiversion,placeofuse,
toward development ofthe proposed use with rea- purpose of use, or place of storage, all senior and
sonable diligence and that no reservations are juniorwaterrightholders.Includingthosewithwater
granted that would adversefy affect senior water reservations, have a right to object to the change If
rights. To make Its decision, the Boardwill have to theyfeelthattheexerciseoftheirwaterrightswould
abide by the decision criteria described In Chapter be adversely affected. This same legal right allows
Seven and refy on Information in the applications, holdersofwaterreservationsto objecttowaterright
draftandfinalEIS.individualenvironmentalassess- claimssubmitted Inthe statewide adjudication pro-
ments, and ontestimonypresentedatthecontested ceeding. Holdersofwaterreservations, like allother
case hearing. waterrightholders, mayseekrelieffromthe district
court to protect theirwater rights.
S-3
While water may be physically available for a also exceed the federal drinking water standard in
reservation at the point ofdiversion, it may already the Madison River and the portion ofthe Missouri
beappropriatedbyawateruserdownstream. Elxlst- RiverupstreamfromTostonDam. Arsenicisaknown
Ing water users such as Irrigators, Montana Power carcinogen. EPA'sstandardforcarcinogensIsbased
Company (MPC), BUREC, BLM, Indian tribes, and on a risklevel that would result in one case ofskin
CorpsofEngineersalreadyclaimmostoftheflowIn cancer per million people. Based on this standard
the Missouri River and Its tributaries. The exact andassumption,theriskofskincancerfromarsenic
amountofwaterlegallyavailableforfutureconsump- is ashigh as one caseper77 people atWestYellow-
tiveappropriation. Ifany,willnotbeknownforsome stone to about one case in 10,000 people at
time. However, thestatewidewaterrightsadjudica- Landusky. AtToston,theriskofcancerIsaboutone
tion process will determine the size and extent of case per666 people.
these waterrights.
Reservations that leads to consumptive water
CanyonFerryDamwasbuilttoprovidewaterfor use in the Missouri River basin could increase the
consumptive uses, primarily for Irrigation, while at concentration of arsenic in the Missouri River and
the same time maintaining the level ofhydropower adjacent groundwater systems. Consequently, the
production at MFC's downstream facilities. Soon risk ofskin cancerfor people who refy on Missouri
after Cartyon Ferry Dam went Into operation, re- River waterfor drinking would Increase unless the
leases from the reservoir increased MFC's down- arsenic is removed through special treatment. Pro-
streamelectricitygenerationbyanarmualaverageof posed irrigation projects diverting water from the
106GWhabovethepre-CanyonFerrylevel. Asmore Madison River into the Gallatin drainage and from
waterwasconsumedforotherpurposes,theincrease the Missouri RiverInto the Milk drainagewould In-
above the 1955 level decreased to an average of84 crease arseniclevelsInthe Gallatinand Milkrivers.
GWh peryearby 1986, andwould decrease further Instreamreservationswouldnotchangewaterqual-
to an average of 54 GWh per year under the Con- ity but may not be adequate to preserve flows for
sumptive UseAlternative. In the two lowest power arsenic dilution.
yearsin 10underthepresentoperatingregime,MPC
wouldreceivenoincreasebenefitsfromthereservoir Soils and Stream Channel Form
at eitherthe 1986 level ofirrigation development or
under the Consumptive Use Alternative. However, Ingeneral,reservationsthatwouldresultinthe
the problem of high arsenic concentrations in the conversion of rangeland to irrigation would affect
MissouriRiverdrainage stillmust be addressedbe- soils through the loss of organic matter, reduced
foreBURECwlUmarketwaterstoredInCanyonFerry waterholdingcapacity, and increased susceptibility
Reservoirforconsumptive uses. to erosion. These effects would be somewhat offset
once an alfalfa crop is established. Where reserva-
The Blackfeet Tribes have substantial federal tions convert dry cropland to irrigation, soU struc-
reservedwaterrightclaims onthe MariasRiverand turewillimprove,erosionwUldecrease, andnitrogen
its tributaries. This special class of water rights andorganicfertilitywillincrease.Forty-threeprojects
mighteffectbothfuturewaterreservationsandmany may have substantial soil Impacts and these are
existingwater users. identified in ChapterSix. Othereffects ofconsump-
tive use projects on soils are generallyminor.
Water Quality
Impacts to stream charmels generallywould be
Water reservations for consumptive use would minor. In some Instances, consumptive water uses
causeadeclineInwaterqualityinsomestreamsand could decrease channel capacity by increasing the
groundwater systems. Higherconcentrations ofnu- depositionofsediment. Instreamreservationswould
trients, pesticides, and saltswould be noticeable in not change existing streamchannel'forms.
some waters, but In most Instances the Increases
wouldbeminor. Short-termincreasesin sediments Land Use
would result fromconstructionofreservoirs and di-
version structures. Proposed irrigation reservations would convert
nonlrrigated cropland, pasture, and rangeland to
Arsenic concentrations exceeds the federal and irrigated fields. The amount of irrigated cropland
state Ingtream standard in the Madison and Mis- would Increase in the basin by about 24 percent
souri rivermalnstems inMontana. Concentrations
S-4
(208.000acres)undertheConsumptiveUseAlterna- mationisnotavailabletodeterminetheextentofthe
tive, 15percent (129,000acres)undertheCombina- effect, if any. Grouse and birds of prey would be
tionAlternative and 5 percent (40,000 acres) under affected by local disturbance during nesting and
the Instream Alternative. Forty-two irrigation brood rearing periods. Reduced streamflows would
projects may have other substantial land-use Im- make waterfowl more vulnerable to predatlon and
pacts and these are Identified in ChapterSix. Other alsowould limit food suppliesforaquaticmammals
land use impactsare generallyminor. which would render them more susceptible to
predatlon.
Fish and aquatic Habitat
Vegetation
Low flow conditions already stress game fish
populationsandaquatichabitat onsomeriversand Impactstovegetationwouldresultfromreplace-
streams in the basin. Further consumptive uses mentofnaturalplantcommunitieswithagricultural
would generally worsen conditions on these rivers crops. Inundationofripariananduplandplantcom-
andstreams. Streamsmost severelyaffectedbythe munities by reservoirs, reduced stream flows, and
proposed consumptive use reservations include the increasedproliferationofnoxiousweeds. However,it
Jefferson RivernearWaterloo andThree Forks, the isdifficulttodetermineimpactsonriparianandwet-
BoulderRiverabove ColdSprings, theMariasRiver, landplantspeciessuch ascottonwoods, sedgesand
the lower portions ofthe Sun andTeton rivers, and rushes, and dominant tree species. No Montana
eight tributaries. Streamswheretheeffectscouldbe plants are federally listed as threatened or endan-
less. Include the Gallatin, Missouri, Judith, Dear- gered species. Probablythe most significantvegeta-
bom, and Smith rivers and seven smallertributary tioneffect isthe Increased riskofspreadingnoxious
streams. Storedwatercouldbe releasedfromTiber weeds.
ReservoirtooffsetmostwaterdepletionsInthelower
HISTORICAL, Archaeological, and
MariasRiver. ReservationsforInstreamflowswould Paleontological Sites
helpmaintainthe existingaquatichabitat andfish-
eries. Proposed consumptive use reservations would
affect60knownhistorical,archaeological,orpaleon-
The effects offlowreductions onthe pallid stur- tologicalsites. Mostsitesarelocated onprivateland
geon, a federally listed endangered species, are not
whereformalevaluationIsnotrequiredtodetermine
kagneowpnro.jeIcttIsscpoouslsdibslueptphoarttfaofuirshoefrty.h.eOpnrolpaorsgeedirsrtiogra-- ifsome sites might be eligible for listing on the Na-
tional RegisterofHistoric Places.
tion projects, fish could be killed in the diversion
structures, thoughthiscouldbeminimizedthrough Storage
properdesign.
Reservationsmay reduce water available forfu-
Wildlife ture storage projects. However, reservationsgener-
allywouldnotprecludestorageofspringrunoffflows,
Proposed irrigation projects could affect wildlife but could make storage projects less economically
by altering habitat. Thirty-six Irrigation projects feasible. Existingwaterrightscouldbeagreatercon-
wouldconvertnativegrasslandtoirrigatedcropland strainttothedevelopmentofnewstoragethanwater
on big game winter range and would reduce the reservations. Development ofconsumptive use res-
amount of native forage available to wintering elk ervationswould decrease reservoirlevels in Canyon
anddeer. Lossesofwinterrangecouldstresswildlife Ferry, Fort Peck, and Tiber reservoirs. The reserva-
duringthewinterandearlyspringandincreasedep- tion applications include 15 water storage projects,
redation oncropsand hay. DFWPhasidentified 70 and together they would store a relatively small
proposedIrrigationprojectswith ahigh potentialfor amount ofwater.
cropdamagefi-omwildlife. Mostoftheseprojectsare
Recreation
near orwithin existingwinterranges.
Birds ofprey (raptors), waterfowl such as ducks Instream reservations would help maintain
andgeese, andaquaticmammalssuchasminkand streamflows on streams and rivers that are impor-
riverottercouldbeaffectedbyconsumptiveuseres- tant to recreation and tourism. Recreational use of
ervations. However,inmostcases,sitespecificinfor- waterintheMissouriRiverBasininMontanatotaled
over 2 million recreation days in 1989. About 61
