DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Clark Fork Aquatic Restoration Strategy II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Clark Fork Aquatic Restoration Strategy II Upper Clark Fork Aquatic Restoration Strategy II Prepared by December 2016 i Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................1 A. Bio-Physical Characteristics .........................................................................3 B. Social Context ................................................................................................7 C. Water and Land Use.......................................................................................8 D. Industrial Development ..................................................................................9 E. Legal and Institutional Setting .......................................................................10 i. Basin Closure History ........................................................................10 ii. Superfund Designation ......................................................................10 iii. NRDP Restoration Plan .....................................................................12 II. Watershed Needs and Issues .............................................................................14 A. Water Supply .................................................................................................14 i. Streamflow Variability.......................................................................14 ii. Water Usage .......................................................................................20 iii. Conveyance Losses ............................................................................24 iv. Irrigation Water Storage ....................................................................26 v. Groundwater ......................................................................................27 vi. Changes in Climate ............................................................................29 B. Water Quality .................................................................................................31 i. Low Streamflows ...............................................................................32 ii. Metals Contamination ........................................................................36 iii. Nutrients and Sediment ......................................................................42 iv. Water Temperatures ...........................................................................46 C. Fishery Challenges .........................................................................................48 i. Water Quality .....................................................................................49 ii. Species Makeup .................................................................................49 iii. Population Densities ..........................................................................52 iv. Fish Passage Barriers .........................................................................52 D. Inefficient and Outdated Irrigation Infrastructure ..........................................53 III. Restoration and Cleanup Progress to Date .....................................................56 A. Restoration Progress ......................................................................................56 B. Cleanup Progress ...........................................................................................58 IV. Aquatic Restoration Strategy for the UCF ......................................................62 A. Ecological Strategy ........................................................................................62 B. Community and Institutional Strategy ...........................................................63 C. Integrated Strategy and Goals for the UCF....................................................64 i. Goals and Objectives .........................................................................65 ii. Opportunities in the UCF ...................................................................66 iii. Flow Restoration Projects ..................................................................66 iv. Tributary Restoration Opportunities ..................................................66 V. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................70 ii List of Figures Figure 1. Project area map .........................................................................................................2 2. Map of land ownership in the Upper Clark Fork Basin (UCF) .................................5 3. Map of average annual precipitation in the UCF .......................................................6 4. Monthly climate summary for Deer Lodge ...............................................................7 5. Population trends in counties that comprise the UCF ................................................8 6. Photo of Clark Fork River in the 1970’s ....................................................................11 7. Average daily discharge on the Clark Fork River (CFR) at Galen ............................15 8. Map displaying synoptic flow measurements on the UCF (August, 2013) ...............16 9. CFR synoptic stream survey graph (August, 2015) ...................................................17 10. Average daily summer discharge on the CFR at Deer Lodge ...................................18 11. Average daily discharge on the CFR at Deer Lodge .................................................18 12. Average monthly discharge (August) on the CFR at Deer Lodge .............................19 13. Map of estimate of irrigated lands in the UCF (2016) ...............................................21 14. Graph of irrigated acreage in the UCF (1940-2010) ..................................................22 15. Graph of sprinkler irrigation techniques in MT (1998-2013) ...................................22 16. Map of major ditches and reservoirs in the UCF .......................................................25 17. Statistics for wells in the UCF ...................................................................................28 18. Average annual temperature and precipitation for W. MT (1895-2015) ...................30 19. Map of dewatered waterbodies in the UCF ...............................................................33 20. Average daily discharge on Racetrack Creek (summer 2016)...................................34 21. Image of dewatered CFR (summer 2016) .................................................................34 22. Map of abandoned mines in the UCF ........................................................................37 23. Image of UCF slicken ................................................................................................38 24. Map displaying water quality sampling results for copper in the UCF .....................40 25. Map displaying water quality sampling results for arsenic in the UCF .....................41 26. Image of Cladophora bloom on the CFR near Clinton ..............................................43 27. Map of UCF tributaries listed as impaired for sediment and/or metals .....................44 28. Map of waterbodies in UCF listed as impaired for nutrient loading .........................45 29. Map displaying water temperature distributions in the UCF (2015) .........................47 30. Economic impact of angling in 2013 on the Clark Fork ............................................48 31. Image of a brown trout observed in the UCF ............................................................50 32. Map of native fish species distribution & fish barriers in the UCF ...........................51 33. Image of restoration work in the UCF .......................................................................56 34. Images of Silver Bow Creek pre and post restoration ...............................................58 35. Image of young angler on Silver Bow Creek.............................................................59 36. Aerial photo of restoration on Dry Cottonwood Creek Ranch ..................................60 37. Map of cleanup phases of the UCF Reach A .............................................................61 38. Map of CFC restoration priorities in the UCF ...........................................................69 iii List of Tables Table 1. Summary of environmental lawsuit settlements in the UCF .....................................12 2. Consumptive use estimates for the UCF ....................................................................23 3. Ditch conveyance losses in the UCF .........................................................................24 4. Overview of the 10 largest water storage facilities in the UCF .................................27 5. MT DEQ impaired waterbodies in the UCF TMDL planning area ...........................32 6. Flow targets for streams in the UCF (MT FWP) .......................................................36 7. UCF restoration milestones achieved since 2010 ......................................................57 8. Summary of restoration milestones in the Upper Clark Fork for 2025 .....................67 9. Flow project opportunities in the UCF ......................................................................70 VI. References ...........................................................................................................72 VII. Appendix A-Partner Groups in the UCF.........................................................77 iv Introduction I. Introduction The Clark Fork River is located in the northwest region of the United
Load more

Recommended publications
  • December 18, 2020 Fish Consumption Guidance Updated for Portions Of
    Media contact: Trevor Selch, FWP Fisheries Pollution Biologist, 406-444-5686 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 18, 2020 Fish consumption guidance updated for portions of Clark Fork, Bitterroot and Blackfoot Rivers in western Montana MISSOULA – The State of Montana Fish Guidance Board, which includes Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) and the Departments of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS), has updated the fish consumption guidance for all species of fish on a 148-mile stretch of the Clark Fork River and tributaries in western Montana in response to new research results. Guidance now recommends avoiding consumption of all species of fish from the Clark Fork River’s confluence with the Bitterroot River, just west of Missoula, to the confluence with the Flathead River, near Paradise. Slightly revised guidance is also in place for rainbow trout and northern pike on an upstream section of the Clark Fork and for the Blackfoot and Bitterroot Rivers. New data was collected to assess chemical contaminants including dioxins, furans, and PCBs in fish tissue in a study area on the Clark Fork that extended from approximately 30 miles upstream of Missoula to 100 miles downstream. Testing in the area is underway as part of water quality monitoring around the former Smurfit-Stone Container mill site. Upon review of the study results, new guidance was issued based on high levels of contaminants in the fish tissue. The source of all the contaminants found in the fish has not been attributed. The study only looked at contaminant concentrations found in the muscle tissues of northern pike and rainbow trout, but the same “Avoid” guidance extends to all species present in the Clark Fork River near Missoula (such as brown trout, whitefish, small- and large-mouth bass, northern pikeminnow, and sucker species) because similar food habits, habitat use, and life- span suggest they could also contain chemical concentrations at potentially dangerous levels.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
    NFS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section ___ Page __ SUPPLEMENTARY LISTING RECORD NRIS Reference Number: 09001185 Date Listed: 1/4/2010 Little Blackfoot River Bridge Powell MT Property Name County State Montana's Historic Steel Truss Bridges MPS Multiple Name This property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the attached nomination documentation subject to the following exceptions, exclusions, or amendments, notwithstanding the National Park Service certification included in the nomination documentation. 2 Signatur4y6f ^the Keeper Da£e'of Action Amendepr Items in Nomination: Classification: The Number of Contributing Properties Previously Listed should read: 0 [This refers only to resources within the nominated boundaries of this property not to other bridge locations associated with the MPS context.] These clarifications were confirmed with the MT SHPO office. DISTRIBUTION: National Register property file Nominating Authority (without nomination attachment) NPS FORM 10-900 (Rev. 01 /2009OMB No. 1024-0018 I" " United States Department of the Interior \ • National Park Service I \ T ' ; NOV 2 0 2009 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Montana| an Archaeological and Historical Perspective
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2005 Historic settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Montana| An archaeological and historical perspective Daniel S. Comer The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Comer, Daniel S., "Historic settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Montana| An archaeological and historical perspective" (2005). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 2544. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2544 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE TO USERS Page(s) not included in the original manuscript are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was microfilmed as received 80-190, 271-289 This reproduction is the best copy available. dfti UMI Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of IVIontdn^ Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entiret>', provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission No, 1 do not grant permission Author's Signature: J. i-O frJir^ Date: Any copying for commercial purposes or fmancial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent.
    [Show full text]
  • MBMG 505-Jefferson-V2.FH10
    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE CENOZOIC DEPOSITS OF THE UPPER JEFFERSON VALLEY MBMG Open File Report 505 2004 Compiled and mapped by Susan M. Vuke, Walter W. Coppinger, and Bruce E. Cox This report has been reviewed for conformity with Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s technical and editorial standards. Partial support has been provided by the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geology Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey under contract Number 03HQAG0090. CENOZOIC DEPOSITS OF THE UPPER JEFFERSON VALLEY Cenozoic deposits are the focus of the Geologic Map of the upper Jefferson Valley. The map is largely a compilation of previous mapping with additional interpretations based on aerial photos and limited additional field work. Older rocks are included to show their relations to the Cenozoic deposits, but they are generalized on the map. Lithologic descriptions of the Cenozoic deposits are given in the map explanation (p. 17). References used for the map compilation are shown on p. 15. The northern and southern parts of the map are discussed separately. NORTHERN PART OF MAP AREA Quaternary deposits A variety of Quaternary deposits blanket much of the slope area of the Whitetail and Pipestone Creek valleys between the flanks of the Highland Mountains and Bull Mountain (Fig. 1). East and southeast of these Quaternary slope deposits are more isolated areas of partly cemented Pleistocene gravels on pediments. One of these gravel deposits near Red Hill (Fig. 1) yielded a late Pleistocene vertebrate assemblage including cheetah, horse, camel, and large mountain sheep. Radiocarbon dates from the lowest part of the sequence range between 10,000 and 9,000 14C yr.
    [Show full text]
  • Open-File Report 368 MBMG February 1998
    Abandoned - Inactive Mines of the Blackfoot and Little Blackfoot River Drainages Helena National Forest Volume II Open-file Report 368 MBMG February 1998 Phyllis A. Hargrave Tom P. Bowler Jeff D. Lonn James P. Madison John J. Metesh Robert Wintergerst Abandoned - Inactive Mines of the Blackfoot and Little Blackfoot River Drainages Helena National Forest Volume II Open-file Report 368 MBMG Reformatted for .pdf - February 2002 February 1998 Phyllis A. Hargrave Tom P. Bowler Jeff D. Lonn James P. Madison John J. Metesh Robert Wintergerst Contents Page List of Figures .................................................................. vi List of Tables ............................................................. viii Introduction ............................................................... 1 1.1 Project Objectives .................................................. 1 1.2 Abandoned and Inactive Mines Defined .................................. 2 1.3 Health and Environmental Problems at Mines .............................. 2 1.3.1 Acid Mine Drainage .......................................... 2 1.3.2 Solubility of Selected Metals ................................... 3 1.3.3 The Use of pH and SC to Identify Problems ........................ 5 1.4 Methodology ...................................................... 5 1.4.1 Data Sources ............................................... 5 1.4.2 Pre-field Screening ........................................... 6 1.4.3 Field Screening ............................................. 7 1.4.3.1 Collection of
    [Show full text]
  • Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Fishing Report
    Clarks Fork Of The Yellowstone Fishing Report Uninvidious and ameboid Joao overbuy her primely slash uncomfortably or slumber counter, is Penny anginal? neverOld-fogyish scats Berchtoldso rakishly never or goose-step enfaced so any congenitally pantofle mordantly. or fidget any tightwads complexly. Humanlike Whitman Everything you therefore wanted to know will fly-fishing the. Clarks Fork Yellowstone River Wyoming Fly Fishing Camping. Montana Trout Scout Guided Fly explode in South Central. Basins and plains such because the Clarks Fork Yellowstone Little practice and Powder Rivers. At various water of reports and report layout through july, and then confluences with fish this is still picking up in. Clarks Fork Yellowstone River include a stream located just 3 miles from Laurel in Yellowstone County in average state of Montana United. The Clarks Fork school the Yellowstone is a warm-faced river. The report has some reports from reed reservoir, there was with a mouse as an hour away from one of california, but there are. Bureau of Reclamation Managing water flow power in most West. Wade fishing opportunities, coal mining industry, are located to heat of silver bow creek to occur primarily livestock. Several hundred acres in about terrestrials become a jig head out a nice fishing reports that contain naturally bright one of floatable sections. Lake Weatherford Texas fishing report rainbow trout sight fishing forecast. Try a chaotic fashion include clark fork powder river has an email to turah are. Chapter 3 Clark Fork River US Fish and every Service. Yellowstone angler When it comes to craft fishing Yellowstone National. So do Luce and Hogan Lakes halfway between Belfry and Cody in the Clark's Fork of the Yellowstone drainage Fish with big midge larvae.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2007 Newsletter
    VOLUME 32 NUMBER 4 DECEMBER 2007 Jane Lopp & Associates to be Recognized for Conservation Support Jane Lopp & Associates LLC will be pre- cludes office space for more employees and a large sented Flathead Audubon’s Conservation Achieve- conference room. With the move to the new building, ment Recognition at the December 10 th meeting, for Jane Lopp & Associates, was launched. supporting conservation projects and conservation Jane is well known in the Flathead for her nonprofits while sponsoring a number of conserva- volunteer contributions to our community. Perhaps tion-oriented Prudential Global Volunteer Days in the less well known are her volunteer activities at the Flathead. state level. Jane served on the Montana Human Jane Lopp & Associates represents Pruden- Rights Commission for 8 years, much of that time as tial Financial Planning Services. Though Jane has Chair. She also served on the Gender Equity Study been in the insurance and investments business Commission for the State Supreme Court, and since 1979, and with Prudential since 1989, Jane chaired the Site Selection Committee for the Lopp & Associates is only about five years old. Women’s Prison which was built in Billings. Jane’s business started out as one-woman This same commitment to community ser- show—just Jane and a secretary located in a 3-room vice also characterizes her company, Jane Lopp & house. Another employee was added when she re- Associates. One recent example is the company’s cruited her husband Bob into the company after he corporate sponsorship for the last two years of girls’ retired from teaching at Flathead High School.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeologic Framework of the Upper Clark Fork River Area: Deer Lodge, Granite, Powell, and Silver Bow Counties R15W R14W R13W R12W By
    Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana Groundwater Assessment Atlas No. 5, Part B, Map 2 A Department of Montana Tech of The University of Montana July 2009 Open-File Version Hydrogeologic Framework of the Upper Clark Fork River Area: Deer Lodge, Granite, Powell, and Silver Bow Counties R15W R14W R13W R12W by S Qsf w Qsf Yb Larry N. Smith a n T21N Qsf Yb T21N R Authors Note: This map is part of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) a n Pz Pz Groundwater Assessment Atlas for the Upper Clark Fork River Area groundwater Philipsburg ValleyUpper Flint Creek g e Pz Qsf characterization. It is intended to stand alone and describe a single hydrogeologic aspect of the study area, although many of the areas hydrogeologic features are The town of Philipsburg is the largest population center in the valley between the Qsc interrelated. For an integrated view of the hydrogeology of the Upper Clark Fork Area Flint Creek Range and the John Long Mountains. The Philipsburg Valley contains 47o30 the reader is referred to Part A (descriptive overview) and Part B (maps) of the Montana 040 ft of Quaternary alluvial sediment deposited along streams cut into Tertiary 47o30 Groundwater Assessment Atlas 5. sedimentary rocks of unknown thickness. The east-side valley margin was glaciated . T20N Yb t R during the last glaciation, producing ice-sculpted topography and rolling hills in side oo B kf l Ovando c INTRODUCTION drainages on the west slopes of the Flint Creek Range. Prominent benches between ac la kf k B Blac oo N F T20N tributaries to Flint Creek are mostly underlain by Tertiary sedimentary rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • MONTANA 2018 Vacation & Relocation Guide
    HelenaMONTANA 2018 Vacation & Relocation Guide We≥ve got A Publication of the Helena Area Chamber of Commerce and The Convention & Visitors Bureau this! We will search for your new home, while you spend more time at the lake. There’s a level of knowledge our Helena real estate agents offer that goes beyond what’s on the paper – it’s this insight that leaves you confident in your decision to buy or sell. Visit us at bhhsmt.com Look for our new downtown office at: 50 S Park Avenue Helena, MT 59601 406.437.9493 A member of the franchise system BHH Affiliates, LLC. Equal Housing Opportunity. An Assisted Living & Memory Care community providing a Expect more! continuum of care for our friends, family & neighbors. NOW OPEN! 406.502.1001 3207 Colonial Dr, Helena | edgewoodseniorliving.com 2005, 2007, & 2016 People’s Choice Award Winner Sysum HELENA I 406-495-1195 I SYSUMHOME.COM Construction 2018 HELENA GUIDE Contents Landmark & Attractions and Sports & Recreation Map 6 Welcome to Helena, Attractions 8 Fun & Excitement 14 Montana’s capital city. Arts & Entertainment 18 The 2018 Official Guide to Helena brings you the best ideas for enjoying the Queen City - from Shopping 22 exploring and playing to living and working. Dining Guide 24 Sports & Recreation 28 We≥ve got Day Trips 34 A Great Place to Live 38 this! A Great Place to Retire 44 Where to Stay 46 ADVERTISING Kelly Hanson EDITORIAL Cathy Burwell Mike Mergenthaler Alana Cunningham PHOTOS Convention & Visitors Bureau Montana Office of Tourism Cover Photo: Mark LaRowe MAGAZINE DESIGN Allegra Marketing 4 Welcome to the beautiful city of Helena! It is my honor and great privilege to welcome you to the capital city of Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Consultation
    Health Consultation Evaluation of Residential Soil Arsenic Action Level ANACONDA CO. SMELTER NPL SITE ANACONDA, DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291656 OCTOBER 19, 2007 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation An ATSDR health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. You May Contact ATSDR TOLL FREE at 1-800-CDC-INFO or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION Evaluation of Residential Soil Arsenic Action Level ANACONDA CO. SMELTER NPL SITE ANACONDA, DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291656 Prepared By: US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Anaconda Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Fishing Regulations
    MONTANA FISHING REGULATIONS 20March 1, 2018 — F1ebruary 828, 2019 Fly fishing the Missouri River. Photo by Jason Savage For details on how to use these regulations, see page 2 fwp.mt.gov/fishing With your help, we can reduce poaching. MAKE THE CALL: 1-800-TIP-MONT FISH IDENTIFICATION KEY If you don’t know, let it go! CUTTHROAT TROUT are frequently mistaken for Rainbow Trout (see pictures below): 1. Turn the fish over and look under the jaw. Does it have a red or orange stripe? If yes—the fish is a Cutthroat Trout. Carefully release all Cutthroat Trout that cannot be legally harvested (see page 10, releasing fish). BULL TROUT are frequently mistaken for Brook Trout, Lake Trout or Brown Trout (see below): 1. Look for white edges on the front of the lower fins. If yes—it may be a Bull Trout. 2. Check the shape of the tail. Bull Trout have only a slightly forked tail compared to the lake trout’s deeply forked tail. 3. Is the dorsal (top) fin a clear olive color with no black spots or dark wavy lines? If yes—the fish is a Bull Trout. Carefully release Bull Trout (see page 10, releasing fish). MONTANA LAW REQUIRES: n All Bull Trout must be released immediately in Montana unless authorized. See Western District regulations. n Cutthroat Trout must be released immediately in many Montana waters. Check the district standard regulations and exceptions to know where you can harvest Cutthroat Trout. NATIVE FISH Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species of Concern small irregularly shaped black spots, sparse on belly Average Size: 6”–12” cutthroat slash— spots
    [Show full text]
  • The Boulder River Watershed Study, Jefferson County, Montana
    The Boulder River Watershed Study, Jefferson County, Montana By Stanley E. Church, David A. Nimick, Susan E. Finger, and J. Michael O’Neill Chapter B of Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana Edited by David A. Nimick, Stanley E. Church, and Susan E. Finger Professional Paper 1652–B U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Description of Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 17 Hydrologic Setting ............................................................................................................................. 17 Biologic Setting .................................................................................................................................. 19 Geologic Setting................................................................................................................................. 20 Mining History .................................................................................................................................... 20 Remediation Activities
    [Show full text]