ebook img

Draft Upper Clark Fork River Basin water management plan PDF

60 Pages·1994·2.2 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Draft Upper Clark Fork River Basin water management plan

Upper Clark Fork 333*81 River Basin M26dwnp Steerinc Comnittee 1994 Draft Upper Clark Fork Hiver Basin water raanaeeraent plan DRAFT UPPER CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared by UPPER CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN STEERING COMMITTEE STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION September 1994 MAY 3 1 1895 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 1515 E. 6th AVE. HELENA, MONTANA59620 Sob?' ~ MONTANASTATELIBRARY ;- ; « ,',',A,,i. °S'3"3'3'."9*1•M'2'6^d'"w*'m^p"1^99"4"C."1^"""*•'•' FEB 2 1 ^>^''' JUL 28 1998 3 0864 00091499 7 FEB 12 2002 MAY 2 .3 7003 11 DRAFT UPPER CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY 5 I. A. BASIN CLOSURE 5 B. ONGOING WATERAND PLANNINGAND MANAGEMENT MECHANISM 5 C. PROTECTION OF EXISTING WATERRIGHTS 6 D. WATERADJUDICATION SYSTEM 6 E. WATERSTORAGE 6 1. Structural Storage 6 2. Non-Structural Storage 6 F. WATERQUALITY 7 1. Toxic Metals and StreamDewaterlng 7 2. Nutrient Pollution 7 3. Non-Point Pollution Strategy 7 G. FISHERY 7 H. IN-STREAM FLOWPILOTSTUDY 7 WATERRESERVATIONS 8 I. INTRODUCTION 9 II. A. GOALS OFTHE UPPERCLARKFORK RIVERBASINWATERMANAGEMENTPLAN 9 B. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE 9 C. UPPERCLARKFORK RTVERBASIN STEERING COMMITTEE 10 D. DEVELOPMENTOFTHE MANAGEMENTPLAN 11 E. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAND INVOLVEMENT 1 1. Steering Committee Meetings 1 2. WorkPlan 12 3. Watershed Committees 12 4. BasinWaterRights Closure Meeting 12 5. UpperClarkForkWater News 12 III. EXISTING SITUATION 13 A. MONTANAWATERLAW 13 1. WaterRight Basics 13 2. Water Reservations 13 3. Basin Closure 14 4. Changes to ExistingWater Rights 14 5 In-stream Flows 15 . 6. Adjudication 15 7. Enforcement ofWaterRights 17 B. WATERQUALITY STANDARDS 18 1. Definition and Purpose 18 2. Clark ForkBasinWater Quality Standards Designations 18 C. BASIN HYDROLOGY 20 1. Groundwater 21 2. Surface Water 23 D. WATERQUALITY 24 E. EXISTING WATERUSES 26 1. Aesthetics 26 2. Agriculture 26 3. Domestic 27 4. Fisheries 27 5. Industrial and Mining 28 6. Municipal 29 7. PowerGeneration 29 8. Recreation 30 ^ 9. Storage 30 10. Superfund 31 11. Transportation 32 F. EXISTING WATERMANAGEMENT 33 1. Overview 33 2. UpperClark ForkBasinWaterManagement Activities 33 IV. CONSIDERINGAND BALANCINGALLBENEFICIAL USES 37 V. CLOSURE OFTHE BASINTO NEWWATERRIGHTSPERMITS 38 A. RECOMMENDATION 38 B. DISCUSSION 38 1. Advantages 38 2. Disadvantages 38 3. ProposalRationale 38 C. HIGHLIGHTED ISSUES 39 1. Ground WaterInclusion 39 2. Superfund Exemption 39 VI. WATERISSUESAND RECOMMENDATIONS 41 A. CONTINUING UPPERCLAFiKFORKWATERPLANNING AND MANAGEMENTMECHANISM 41 B. PROTECTEXISTING WATERRIGHTS 42 C. WATERADJUDICATION SYSTEM 42 D. IMPLEMENTING WATERADJUDICATION DECREES 42 E. WATERSTORAGE. 43 F. WATERQUALITY 45 G. FISHERY 46 H. IN-STREAM FLOW PILOTSTUDY 47 L WATERRESERVATIONS 49 Table 1. UpperClarkForkRiverBasin Steering Committee 10 Table 2. Wateruse classifications and corresponding definitions forsurface waters ofthe upperClarkForkBasin. Source: Montana SurfaceWaterQualityStandards, Administrative Rules of Montana, Title 16, Chapter20 19 Table 3. Total streammiles * and lake acres ** inthe upperClark ForkBasin classified according to thevarious uses prescribed in the Montana Surface WaterQuality Standards 20 Table 4. UpperClarkForkRiverBasinWaterUses 37 Table 5. PriorityPotential Storage Expansion Sites 44 Table 6. NumberofMiles ofChronically DewaterStreams in the UpperClarkForkRiverBasin 47 Figure 1. Brown trout abundance 28 APPENDICES A. Senate Bill 434 51 B. List ofUpperClarkForkRiverBasin Steering Committee Public Meetings 52 C. Return Flowfrom Irrigation StabilizesWaterSources 54 D. Chronic and Periodic Dewatered Streams in the UpperClarkForkRiverBasin Above Milltown Dam 56 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY I. The following are summaries ofrecommendations found in SectionsV andVI below. The page number of the full recommendation are noted in each instance. A. BASIN CLOSURE (Page 38) The legislature should close the UpperClarkForkRiverBasintothe Issuance ofmost newsurface andground wateruse permits. The areaclosed should Include the entire ClarkFork and Blackfoot River drainagesaboveMllltownDam. TheclosureisnotIntendedtoaffectwaterusesthat donotrequireawater permit. It shouldbe conditioned so that it would not preempt new permits forthe development of: 1) Storage forbeneficial uses; 2) Stockwater; 3) Uses determined to be non-consumptive; and 4) Superfundremedies,exceptfordilution,requiredbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency for Superfund sites designated as ofJanuary 1, 1994. The exemption for Superfund remedies should expire after five years onJanuary 1, 2000. so that applications for new water rights permits for this purpose would have to have been filed on or before December31, 1999. A "non-consumptive use" means a beneficial use ofwater that does not cause a reduction In the source of supply because substantially all of the water returns without delay to the source of supply, causing little orno disruption In streamconditions. Concerning ground wateruse, existinglawdoesnot require a permit fora well producingwaterat lessthan35gallonsperminute not to exceed a totalvolumeof 10acre-feet peryear. Thisproposalwould not change this situation so that wells under this production limit could continue to be drilled for any purpose. It shouldalsobe noted that includinggroundwaterIntheclosure asproposedwouldnot allowcity and townsto obtain a permitfornewwellsfordrinkingwaterorothermunicipal uses. Municipalitieswill still be able to purchase orcondemn existingwater rightsto expand domestic watersupplies. The closure and the exemptions will be reviewed by the ongoing basln-wlde committee after five years,andnecessarychangeswillberecommendedtothelegislature. Theclosurecanbemodified,extended, orended by action ofthe legislature afterthe review. B. ONGOING WATER AND PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT MECHANISM (Page 4i) The legislature should provide for an ongoing basin water planning and management mechanism Including a basin-wide committee and watershed committees. The mechanism should not bevested with legal authority to compel any action by any water user or water Interest. Its purposes should. Instead. Include: 1) Providing a forumfor all interests to communicate about water issues; 2) Providing education about waterlaw and watermanagement issues; 3) Identifyingshort-termandlong-termwatermanagement Issuesand problemsand alternatives forresolving them; 4) Facilitating resolution ofwater related disputes via consensus-based collaborative processes includingmediation; 5 5) Providing coordination with other basin management and planning efforts, such as county drought committees and theTrl-State Section 525WaterQualityImplementationCouncil; 6) Advisingthegovernment agencies aboutwatermanagement and permitting activities; 7) Consultingwith the basin'slocalgovernments; and 8) Reportingperiodicallytosomeentitywithwatermanagementauthoritysuchasthelegislature. Forthefirsttwoyearsthemembersofthebasln-wldecommitteewillbeappointedbytheDirectorof theDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandConservation. MemberswillIncluderepresentativesofthefollowing localbasinwaterInterests: agricultureorganizations;conservationdistricts; environmentalorganizations; industries; local, state, and federal governments; reservation applicants; utilities; and water user organizations. The ongoingbasin-wide committeewill recommend modificationsofthe selection process tothe 1997Legislature IfanothermethodIsIdentifiedthatbetterensureslocalInputtomemberselection whilemaintainingthebroadrangeofmemberrepresentationofbasinwaterusers. Thebasln-wldecommittee willcontinue to decidethe membership ofwatershed committees. C. PROTECTION OF EXISTING WATER RIGHTS (Page 42) AnyactiontakenbythelegislatureoranyexecutivebranchagencyInresponsetothisplanmustbe predicated onpreserving existingwaterrights. D. WATER ADJUDICATION SYSTEM (Page 42) The Montana ReservedWaterRights Compact Commission should make the U.S. Forest Service a highpriorityamongthe federal agencies Inactivelynegotiating a reservedwaterrightscompact. Further. Ifthe commission takes ageographical approach to the Forest Service's reserved waterrightsclaims, the RockCreekdrainageshouldbestudiedasatestcaseofabasinwhereForestServiceclaimsaredownstream ofstate-based privatewaterrightsclaims. WATER STORAGE E. (Page 43) 1. Structural Storage The ongoingbasinwaterplanningandmanagementmechanismwillcontinue the Investigationsof the prioritynew and expanded existingwaterstorage sites Identified In the UpperClarkForkRiverBasin SteeringCommittee studyofpossible Increases ofwaterstorage inthe basin. Inparticular. ItwillIdentify thepotentialbeneficiariesofand a fundingmechanismfortheseprioritysites. TheSteeringCommitteewasunabletoconsiderandmakerecommendationsconcerningtheexisting Georgetown-Storm-SllverLakesystembecauseownershipofthefacilitiesandwaterrightsassociatedwith itwere cloudedbylitigation. WhenthislitigationIsresolved, this systemshouldbe studiedto determine ifItcontains unused storagecapacitythatmightbenefitbasinwaterusers. The ongoingbasinwaterplanning andmanagementmechanismshould also create somemeansto examine additional storage optionsinthebasinastheyarise. 2. Non-Structural Storage The ongoing basinwaterplanning and management mechanismwill continue to support the Flint Creek return flow study so that water users In the watershed can better understand and manage return flows tobenefit In-stream and diversionarywateruses. The ongoingmechanism should promote similar studiesofthe role ofreturnflows inwatershedsthroughout thebasin. WATER QUALITY F. (Page 45) 1. Toxic Metals and Stream Dewatering ProposednewstorageorothermanagementactivitiesthatcouldchangetheflowregimeIntheClark Fork River must Incorporate careful consideration of Impacts on water quality and, particularly, toxic metal concentrations. 2. Nutrient Pollution The ongoingbasinplanning andmanagementmechanismwill: a. Encourage and assist otherbasin communitiesthat have not alreadydone sotobanthe sale of phosphate detergents; b. Continue to encourage and assist the City of Deer Lodge, the National Park Service, and the DepartmentofHealthandEnvironmentalSciences(DHES) Inimplementingthislandapplication project, andencourageotherbasincommunitiessuchasButte,Galen,WarmSprings.Drummond. and Missoulato evaluate alternatives to direct discharge oftheirmunicipalwaste water, and c. Encourage Department ofNatural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to resolve water rights questions surrounding land application. 3. Non-Point Pollution Strategy The ongoing basin planning and management mechanism will continue to encourage upper Clark Forkbasinwatershedcommitteestoparticipate inthedevelopmentofvoluntary, localnon-point pollution control strategies and will provide assistancewhen requested and able to do so. FISHERY G. (Page 46) Theongoingbasinplanningandmanagementmechanismwillcontinuetoprovideacommunications linkthroughwhichtheDepartmentofFish,Wildlife, andParks(DFWP)andwillinglandownerscandiscuss the opportunities for leasingwater, forcooperative storage projects, for implementing the trial In-stream flowprogramoutlined Inthisplan, orforotherwise arrangingto relieve dewatered streamsections. DFWP should continue to seekwilling landowners to help solve dewatering problems to improve stream habitat improvement on private land. Itwill alsocontinue to utilize RiverRestoration Program funds (earmarked fishing license revenue) and fish kill mitigation money (ARCO settlement in 1989 fish kill) to fund habitat Improvement projects on private land. H. m-STREAM FLOW PILOT STUDY (Page 47) Thelegislatureshouldauthorizeatenyearin-streamflowpilotstudyintheUpperClarkFork River Basin. The studywill test allowing a public orprivate entityto purchase, lease, orreceive bydonation an existingwater right from a willing seller, convert it to an In-stream right through the waterrightschange process, and then protect It against appropriation byJunior users. To obtain and protect an in-stream right in a specific stream reach, an entity would be required to proceed through the water rights change process and demonstrate that no otherwaterright holderwould be adversely affected bythechange. The pilot studywill have a termination date. The legislature should change state law so that the cost of objecting by prevailing parties in all waterrightschange processeswill be paid by the non-prevalllng party. WATER RESERVATIONS I. (Page 49) The legislature should continue the current suspension of Granite Conservation District's (GCD) and the Department ofFish. Wildlife and Park's (DFWP) reservation applications during the period ofthe proposedbasinclosure. TheMay 1, 1991 prioritydatefortheseapplicationspreviouslyestablishedbythe legislature should remain Intact during this period. Ifa future basin closure review recommends either that the closure be terminated or that the exemptions be significantlymodified, GCD and DFWP should retainthe right to renewtheirreservation applicationsatthe end oftheclosure periodwithout lossofthe May 1. 1991prioritydate.TheirrenewalscouldIncludemodificationtotheiroriginalapplicationsIfwarranted bychangedcircumstanceswithoutlossoftheMay 1, 1991 prioritydatesolongasthewaterquantitytobe reserveddoesnotexceedthe amount intheoriginalreservationapplicationsandthe locationofthewater tobe reserved Isnotchangedfromthe original application.

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.