DOCSLIB.ORG

Clark Fork and Kootenai River Basins Water Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CLARK FORK & KOOTENAI RIVER BASINS WATER PLAN—DECEMBER 2014 Contents I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 A. Basin Advisory Councils and The Montana Water Supply Initiative (MWSI) ........................................ 2 B. Major Findings of the Clark Fork/Kootenai Scoping Process ................................................................. 4 C. Recommendations from the Clark Fork and Kootenai BAC .................................................................. 5 D. Water User Profile ................................................................................................................................. 9 II. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11 A. Statutory Authority for Water Planning .............................................................................................. 11 B. History of Water Planning in MT ......................................................................................................... 12 C. Methodology for Developing the Clark Fork/Kootenai Basins Water Plan ......................................... 15 III. Basin Profile of the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basin ................................................................. 21 A. Socioeconomic Portait – Clark Fork / Kootenai River Basins ............................................................... 21 B. Water User Profile ............................................................................................................................... 28 C. Environmental Concerns ..................................................................................................................... 30 IV. Water Resources in the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basins ......................................................... 32 A. Physical Setting .................................................................................................................................... 32 B. Surface Water Resources of the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basins ....................................................... 42 C. Groundwater Resources of the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basins ......................................................... 56 V. Water Use in the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basins ................................................................... 64 A. Inventory of Consumptive Water Use in the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basins .................................... 64 B. Inventory of Non-Consumptive Water Use in the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basins ............................ 80 C. Existing Water Quality Impairments in the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basins ....................................... 92 VI. Administration ...................................................................................................................... 97 A. Institutional and Legal Framework for Water Use in Montana .......................................................... 97 B. Federal Agencies with a Role in Managing Montana’s Water Resources ......................................... 103 C. State Agencies with a Role in Managing Montana’s Water Resources ............................................. 104 D. Local Government and Non-Governmental Organizations with a Role in Managing Montana’s Water Resources ............................................................................................................................... 105 E. Federal and Tribal Reserved Water Rights ........................................................................................ 106 CLARK FORK & KOOTENAI RIVER BASINS WATER PLAN 2014 i VII. Potential Future Demands for Water in the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basins .......................... 110 A. Demand Projections ……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………110 B. Climate Variability and Drought in the Clark Fork and Kootenai Basins ………………………………………..117 VIII. Options for Meeting New Water Demands – Opportunities, Strategies and Tools ..................... 134 A. Basins with Unallocated Water ......................................................................................................... 134 B. Change of Use Authorizations ........................................................................................................... 136 C. Mitigation .......................................................................................................................................... 137 D. Current Reservoir Storage ................................................................................................................. 138 E. Basins with Hydrology That Could Potentially Support New Storage ............................................... 139 IX. Major Findings and Key Recommendations.......................................................................... 144 A. Maintaining Water Availability .......................................................................................................... 144 B. Ensuring Natural Systems Health ...................................................................................................... 147 C. Water Rights Administration, Protection and Enforcement ............................................................. 149 D. Meeting Future Water Demand ........................................................................................................ 150 E. Use of Water User Councils for Implementation of the State Water Plan ....................................... 152 X. Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................... 155 XI. References .......................................................................................................................... 160 XII. List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 162 XIII. List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... 164 Appendices Appendix I-1 CF-K Final Recommendations Development Report Appendix II-1 2004 Clark Fork Plan Status Report Appendix III-1 Socioeconomic Portrait -Clark Fork-Kootenai Appendix IV-1 Water Resources Appendix V-1 Water Use Methods Appendix V-2 Water Use Non-Consumptive Appendix VII-1 Future Demands & Climate Variability CLARK FORK & KOOTENAI RIVER BASINS WATER PLAN—2014 ii I. Executive Summary In 2013, under direction from the Montana Legislature, the DNRC launched the Montana Water Supply Initiative (MWSI) to work with citizens and community leaders to transform the current Montana State Water Plan into a dynamic guide to help residents and water managers in the state’s major river basins: the Clark Fork and Kootenai, Yellowstone, Upper Missouri, and Lower Missouri. The Legislature directed DNRC to update the State Water Plan and submit the results to the 2015 Legislative Session. The state water plan is to include: • An inventory of consumptive and nonconsumptive uses with existing water rights; • An estimate of the amount of surface and ground water to satisfy new future demands; • Analysis of the effects of frequent drought and new or increased depletions on the availability of future water supplies; • Proposals for the best means, to satisfy existing water rights and new water demands; • Possible sources of water to meet the needs of the state, and • Any legislation necessary to address water resource concerns. During the 18-month long planning process, DNRC worked with the Clark Fork Task Force on developing a basin specific response to each of the subject areas listed above. Results of this effort along with supporting data are contained in this report. The Clark Fork / Kootenai Basins Water Plan serves as a standalone document for guiding the development and management of the basins’ water resources. This basin plan will continue to evolve to meet the planning needs of the two basins. Water use in the Clark Fork and Kootenai River Basins totals approximately 35 million acre-feet annually. Water use in the basin exceeds the amount of water produced annually due to the re-use of water by several hydropower facilities. Hydroelectric power generation accounts for 33 million acre-feet or 94% of the water used in the basins. Approximately 668,782 acre-feet is consumed in the Clark Fork and Kootenai River Basins. Agriculture consumes approximately 448,700 on acre-feet, reservoir evaporation consumes 181,900 acre-feet, and municipal, industrial, domestic, and livestock watering consumes 38,212 acre-feet combined. Demand for water is a function of many factors that are inherently uncertain. Population may grow or decline and agriculture and industry may demand more water or make do with less through greater efficiency. Changing and variable climatic conditions compound this uncertainty. To forecast the potential effects of climate trends on future water supplies in Montana, DNRC modeled a range of climate scenarios following general procedures similar to those described in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2011) West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments. Virtually all model simulations project warmer temperatures and most project modest precipitation increases. Although annual stream flow volumes are expected to stay the same or increase, Montanans are likely to see shift in the timing of runoff do to earlier snowmelt and an increase in the rain
Recommended publications
  • December 18, 2020 Fish Consumption Guidance Updated for Portions Of

    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.

  • South Fork of the Flathead River Originates in the South End of the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Flows Northward to Hungry Horse Reservoir

    The South Fork Acclaimed as one of Montana’s most pristine and remote rivers, the Wild and Scenic South Fork of the Flathead River originates in the south end of the Bob Marshall Wilderness and flows northward to Hungry Horse Reservoir. Boats and supplies are generally packed in on mules or horses over mountain passes to reach the headwa- ters and then packed again from the take-out just above Meadow Creek Gorge, to Meadow Creek Trailhead. There are several commercial outfitters who can provide packing services or full-service floats, but plan ahead as they have limited space available. The floating season is generally from mid-June through late August. The river is Class II-III with standing river waves and shallow rocky shoals. Log jams and other hazards exist, and may change and move seasonally. Always scout from shore prior to floating into any river feature without clear passage. Due to its remoteness, the South Fork requires advanced planning and preparation. Contact the Spotted Bear Ranger Station for updated informa- tion on river and trail conditions, regulations and list of permitted outfitters. Restrictions All sections of the South Fork • Solid human waste containment and the use of fire pans and blankets is recommended. • Store your attractants in a bear resistant manner, in an approved container or vehicle, or hang. Section Specific Restrictions - Confluence with Youngs Creek to Cedar Flats - • Wilderness Section • The party size is limited to 15 people per group and 35 head of stock per party. • Use of weed free stock feed is required. • No wheeled carts or wheelbarrows.
  • Derek Decker, Senior Offensive

    Derek Decker, Senior Offensive

    Derek Decker, senior offensive gua Other area attractions include “A Carousel for Missoula” (one of the first fully hand-carved carousels to be built in America since the Great Depression), Garnet Ghost Town, the National Bison Range, the Ninemile Remount Depot and Ranger Station, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Wildlife Visitor Center, and the Smokejumper Visitor Center. Missoula Parks and Recreation and the YMCA provide a variety of recreational opportunities in basketball, soccer, softball, tennis, volleyball, and ice skating. Missoula also serves as a center for education, health care, retail, and the arts. The University of Montana provides educa­ tional opportunities for more than 13,000 college students. Com­ munity Medical Center and St. Patrick Hospital, along with many clinics, make Missoula one of the state’s premier health care com­ munities. The Missoula community supports the arts in all its forms: the­ Summertime in Missoula, the Downtown Association’s Out to Lunch ater productions, dance, art, and music. The Missoula Children’s weekly series. Theater, founded in 1970, moved into a renovated building near Birthplace and hometown of author Norman McLean, who wrote campus and produces plays and musicals by national and local A River Runs Through It, Missoula is also known as the “Garden playwrights for both adults and children. The theater also has an City” for its dense trees and lush green landscape. Missoula is International Tour Project, taking theatrical productions to audi­ nestled in the heart of the Northern Rockies in western Montana. ences outside the Missoula area. The Garden City Ballet and A community of approximately 66,000 residents, Missoula lies in a Missoula Symphony, which is in its 50th season, bring performances mountain forest setting where five valleys converge.
  • FERC Project No. 2058

    FERC Project No. 2058

    FERC Project No. 2058 Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Appendix A As approved by the Management Committee on 3/14/2017 2017 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY – APPENDIX A Clark Fork Project, FERC No. 2058 Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Hydroelectric Developments Title Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Implementation Staff Lead Ken Bouwens, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, (208) 770-3766, [email protected] Background The purpose of this program is to offset the impacts of the power peaking operation of the Cabinet Gorge Project to native salmonids through the restoration and enhancement of lower Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille (LPO) tributary watersheds, fishery monitoring and management support, and a public education and enforcement initiative focused on Bull Trout and their associated habitats in Idaho. Outlined below is the 2017 annual implementation plan for Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement and Fish Resource Monitoring, Enhancement, and Management portions of this program. The public education and enforcement component of this program is described in Appendix D of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (CFSA). In addition, other CFSA appendices also support watershed and native salmonid protection, restoration, and enhancement (e.g., Fish Passage/Native Salmonid Restoration Plan, Watershed Council Program), and thereby augment the efforts to be initiated under this program. 2017 Project Plans Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement Fund 1. Habitat Restoration Scoping Allocation 2. Idaho Land Conservation Strategy 3. Habitat Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring Allocation 4. Grouse Creek Resurvey 5. Lightning Creek Large Woody Debris and Recruitment Project 6. Twin Creek Restoration Revegetation 7.
  • Restoration Plan for Bull Trout in the Clark Fork River Basin and Kootenai River Basin Montana

    Restoration Plan for Bull Trout in the Clark Fork River Basin and Kootenai River Basin Montana

    RESTORATION PLAN FOR BULL TROUT IN THE CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN AND KOOTENAI RIVER BASIN MONTANA Prepared by: MONTANA BULL TROUT RESTORATION TEAM FOR GOVERNOR MARC RACICOT c/o Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife and Parks 1420 East Sixth Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 JUNE 2000 RESTORATION PLAN FOR BULL TROUT IN THE CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN AND KOOTENAI RIVER BASIN, MONTANA This restoration plan for bull trout in Montana was developed collaboratively by, and is supported by, the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, appointed by Governor Marc Racicot. Restoration Team members represented the organizations listed below. All parties to this restoration plan recognize that they each have specific statutory responsibilities that cannot be abdicated, particularly with respect to the management and conservation of fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the management, development and allocation of land and water resources. Nothing in this plan is intended to abrogate any of the parties' respective responsibilities. Each party has final approval authority for any activities undertaken as a result of this agreement on the lands owned or administered by them. The Restoration Plan was developed by the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, represented by the following organizations and agencies (arranged in alphabetical order by agency/organization): American Fisheries Society Bonneville Power Administration Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation National
  • Report Clark Fork River Biomonitoring Macroinvertebrate Community

    Report Clark Fork River Biomonitoring Macroinvertebrate Community

    Report Clark Fork River Biomonitoring: Macroinvertebrate Community Assessments for 2019 Prepared by: David Stagliano Montana Biological Survey/Stag Benthics Prepared for: Boise, Idaho Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 June 2020 Executive Summary The upper Clark Fork River (CFR) Basin in western at Kohrs Bend (Station 10) to 85 percent at SBC Montana contains four contiguous Superfund below Warm Springs (Station 4.5) and the operable units that have been undergoing various Blackfoot River site (Station 14) (Figure ES-1). remediation activities for decades. Since 1986, Both SBC sites (stations 2.5 and 4.5) were rated as annual benthic macroinvertebrate-based (BMI) slightly impaired. Slight biological impairment monitoring has been performed at 13 CFR stream from nutrients was evident at two CFR stations reaches with ongoing or future remedial actions near Deer Lodge (8.5 and 9.0) and near Missoula (McGuire Consulting 1986-2017; Montana (Station 15.5), but the former sites have improved Biological Survey/Stag Benthics 2017-Present). markedly since 2017. The lower Blackfoot River Monitoring extended from Silver Bow Creek (SBC) (Station 14) was ranked slightly impaired again in sites upstream of the Warm Springs Ponds, 2019, likely due to metal related stressors. downstream through the upper CFR, bracketing During 2019, environmental conditions in SBC at the former Milltown Dam site to below the Opportunity (Station 2.5) improved after CFR-Bitterroot River confluence. In addition to experiencing declines in integrity scores in 2018. providing current assessments of ecological Likewise, SBC below the Warm Springs Ponds conditions, these sampling events extend the (Station 4.5) remained slightly impaired but BMI long-term data set for evaluating water quality integrity improved over 2017 scores.
  • Birding in the Missoula and Bitterroot Valleys

    Birding in the Missoula and Bitterroot Valleys

    Birding in the Missoula and Bitterroot Valleys Five Valleys and Bitterroot Audubon Society Chapters are grassroots volunteer organizations of Montana Audubon and the National Audubon Society. We promote understanding, respect, and enjoyment of birds and the natural world through education, habitat protection, and environmental advocacy. Five Valleys Bitterroot Audubon Society Audubon Society P.O. Box 8425 P.O. Box 326 Missoula, MT 59807 Hamilton, MT 59840 www.fvaudubon.org/ www.bitterrootaudubonorg/ Montana Audubon P.O. Box 595 Helena, MT 59624 406-443-3949 www.mtaudubon.org Status W Sp Su F Bird Species of West-central Montana (most vagrants excluded) _ Harlequin Duck B r r r Relative abundance in suitable habitat by season are: _ Long-tailed Duck t r r c - common to abundant, usually found on every visit in _ Surf Scoter t r r r moderate to large numbers _ White-winged Scoter t r r r u - uncommon, usually present in low numbers but may be _ Common Goldeneye B c c c c _ missed Barrow’s Goldeneye B u c c c _ o - occasional, seen only a few times during the season, not Bufflehead B o c u c _ Hooded Merganser B o c c c present in all suitable habitat _ Common Merganser B c c c c r - rare, one to low numbers occur but not every year _ Red-breasted Merganser t o o _ Status: Ruddy Duck B c c c _ Osprey B c c c B - Direct evidence of breeding _ Bald Eagle B c c c c b - Indirect evidence of breeding _ Northern Harrier B u c c c t - No evidence of breeding _ Sharp-shinned Hawk B u u u u _ Cooper’s Hawk B u u u u Season of occurrence: _ Northern Goshawk B u u u u W - Winter, mid-November to mid-February _ Swainson’s Hawk B u u u Sp - Spring, mid-February to mid-May _ Red-tailed Hawk B c c c c Su - Summer, mid-May to mid-August _ Ferruginous Hawk t r r r F - Fall, mid-August to mid-November _ Rough-legged Hawk t c c c _ Golden Eagle B u u u u This list follows the seventh edition of the AOU check-list.
  • Protecting the Crown: a Century of Resource Management in Glacier National Park

    Protecting the Crown: a Century of Resource Management in Glacier National Park

    Protecting the Crown A Century of Resource Management in Glacier National Park Rocky Mountains Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (RM-CESU) RM-CESU Cooperative Agreement H2380040001 (WASO) RM-CESU Task Agreement J1434080053 Theodore Catton, Principal Investigator University of Montana Department of History Missoula, Montana 59812 Diane Krahe, Researcher University of Montana Department of History Missoula, Montana 59812 Deirdre K. Shaw NPS Key Official and Curator Glacier National Park West Glacier, Montana 59936 June 2011 Table of Contents List of Maps and Photographs v Introduction: Protecting the Crown 1 Chapter 1: A Homeland and a Frontier 5 Chapter 2: A Reservoir of Nature 23 Chapter 3: A Complete Sanctuary 57 Chapter 4: A Vignette of Primitive America 103 Chapter 5: A Sustainable Ecosystem 179 Conclusion: Preserving Different Natures 245 Bibliography 249 Index 261 List of Maps and Photographs MAPS Glacier National Park 22 Threats to Glacier National Park 168 PHOTOGRAPHS Cover - hikers going to Grinnell Glacier, 1930s, HPC 001581 Introduction – Three buses on Going-to-the-Sun Road, 1937, GNPA 11829 1 1.1 Two Cultural Legacies – McDonald family, GNPA 64 5 1.2 Indian Use and Occupancy – unidentified couple by lake, GNPA 24 7 1.3 Scientific Exploration – George B. Grinnell, Web 12 1.4 New Forms of Resource Use – group with stringer of fish, GNPA 551 14 2.1 A Foundation in Law – ranger at check station, GNPA 2874 23 2.2 An Emphasis on Law Enforcement – two park employees on hotel porch, 1915 HPC 001037 25 2.3 Stocking the Park – men with dead mountain lions, GNPA 9199 31 2.4 Balancing Preservation and Use – road-building contractors, 1924, GNPA 304 40 2.5 Forest Protection – Half Moon Fire, 1929, GNPA 11818 45 2.6 Properties on Lake McDonald – cabin in Apgar, Web 54 3.1 A Background of Construction – gas shovel, GTSR, 1937, GNPA 11647 57 3.2 Wildlife Studies in the 1930s – George M.
  • Montana Fishing Regulations

    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
  • Stream Setback Handout 12-10-07.Pmd

    Stream Setback Handout 12-10-07.Pmd

    Streamside Setbacks Protecting People, Property, and Montana’s Streams and Rivers with Specific Information on Ravalli County, Montana Montana’s future depends on clean water. One of the significant threats to our water quality is the increasing number of developments—including homes, parking lots, lawns, roads, and other developments—located next to our streams and rivers. Stream setbacks offer an intelligent solution that protects clean water, a homeowner’s privacy, and the natural landscapes that harbor the fish and wildlife that everyone in the state of Montana enjoys. Setbacks also reduce the risk of losing investments to flooding and erosion— and they increase property values. Much of the information contained in this handout is based on A Planning Guide for Protecting Montana’s Wetlands and Riparian Areas (Ellis and Richard, 2003). SETBACKS AND PUBLIC HEALTH The main way that stream setbacks address public health, is by filtering out pollutants from our water. Polluted runoff—which occurs when rainfall or snowmelt washes pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, and salt into streams, lakes, and ground water—is the number one source of pollution to the waters of our state (DEQ, 2007a). What Setbacks Do for Clean Water: All Montanans depend upon clean water that comes from ground water or surface "Development along rivers and water. Wetlands and riparian areas act like a filter to reduce streams that destroys protective the amount of pollutants that enter streams, ground water, riparian areas is possibly the and—ultimately—drinking water, in runoff originating from single most urgent ecosystem sources such as city streets, lawns, construction sites, and threat facing Montana around buildings.
  • South Fork Flathead Watershed Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    South Fork Flathead Watershed Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    South Fork Flathead Watershed Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS) and State of Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) Department Title of Proposed Project: South Fork Flathead Watershed Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Program State Involved: Montana Abstract: In cooperation with MFWP, BPA is proposing to implement a conservation program to preserve the genetic purity of the westslope cutthroat trout populations in the South Fork of the Flathead drainage. The South Fork Flathead Watershed Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Program constitutes a portion of the Hungry Horse Mitigation Program. The purpose of the Hungry Horse Mitigation Program is to mitigate for the construction and operation of Hungry Horse Dam through restoring habitat, improving fish passage, protecting and recovering native fish populations, and reestablishing fish harvest opportunities. The target species for the Hungry Horse Mitigation Program are bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish. The program is designed to preserve the genetically pure fluvial and adfluvial westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) populations in the South Fork drainage of the Flathead River. In order to accomplish the goals, MFWP is proposing to remove hybrid trout from identified lakes in the South Fork Flathead drainage on the Flathead National Forest and replace them with genetically pure native westslope cutthroat trout over the next 10-12 years. Some of these lakes occur within the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Jewel Basin Hiking Area. Currently, 21 lakes and their outflow streams with hybrid populations have been identified and are included in this proposal.
  • Hungry Horse Powerplant Modernization and Overhaul Project Finding of No Significant Impact Final Environmental Assessment Hungry Horse Dam

    Hungry Horse Powerplant Modernization and Overhaul Project Finding of No Significant Impact Final Environmental Assessment Hungry Horse Dam

    Hungry Horse Powerplant Modernization and Overhaul Project Finding of No Significant Impact Final Environmental Assessment Hungry Horse Dam Hungry Horse, Montana U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho November 2018 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PROTECTING AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS AND POWERING OUR FUTURE The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Hungry Horse Powerplant Modernization and Overhaul Project Hungry Horse Project, Montana U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region PN-FONSI 18-08 November 19, 2018 Introduction The Bureau of Reclamation has prepared this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to comply with the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This document briefly describes the proposed action, the alternatives considered, environmental scoping process, Reclamation’s consultation and coordination activities, and Reclamation’s finding. The Hungry Horse Powerplant Modernization and Overhaul Project Final Environmental Assessment (EA), attached, fully documents the analysis. Background The purpose of the Project is to modernize and overhaul the power generating units at the Hungry Horse Powerplant (HHPP) by refurbishing and replacing key components, and to bring the fire safety features of the powerplant up to industry standards.