Missouri River Basin : Final Environmental Impact Statement For

Home , Fort Peck Dam, Lake Elwell, Rainbow Dam

S Missouri Biver 33^*91 Basin final r

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR WATER RESERVATION APPLICATIONS ABOVE FORT PECK DAM MONTANA STATE LIBRARY"nn i S 333.9 1 N7mrptw 1 992 c. 1 Missouri River basin :finar environmenta FEB 9 tW4 Tr. ABBREVIATIONS

XT 2 5 2004

af acre-feet af/y acre-feet per year ARM Administrative Rules of Montana BHES Montana Board of Health and Environmental Sciences BLM United States Bureau of Land Management Board Montana Board of Natural Resources and Conservation BOD biological oxygen demand BUREC United States Bureau of Reclamation cfs cubic feet per second cm centimeter COD chemical OJQ^gen demand Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers DFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks DHES Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation EIS environmental impact statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GW gigawatt GWh gigawatt-hour kV kllovolt kW kilowatt kWh kUowatt-hour MCA Montana Code Annotated MEPA Montana Environmental Policy Act

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 SoU Conservation Service SHPO Montana Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office TDS total dissolved solids TSS total suspended solids

micrograms per liter USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of the Interior USES United States Forest Service uses United States Geological Survey :

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

LEE METCALF STAN STEPHENS, GOVERNOR BUILDING 1520 EAST SIXTH AVENUE STATE OF MONTANA' DIRECTOR'S OFFICE (406) 444-6699 HELENA, MONTANA S9620-2301 TELEFAX NUMBER (406) 444-6721

January 8, 1992

TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS:

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) on behalf of the Board of Natural Resources and

Conservation (Board) . The EIS and supporting environmental assessments analyze the impacts on the environment from the proposed reservations of water in the Missouri River Basin above Fort Peck Dam.

Reservations of water have been sought by the following state and federal agencies and state subdivisions:

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 and United States Bureau of Environmental Sciences Reclamation Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife United States Bureau of and Parks Land Management

CENTHAUZED SERVICES I

On July 3, 1991, DNRC released a draft EIS. Informational meetings and public hearing on the draft EIS were held in Helena, Roundup, and Big Sandy on August 5, 1991; in Great Falls, Ennis and Valier on August 6, 1991; in Lewistown and Bozeman on August 7, 1991; and in Glasgow and Dillon on August 8, 1991. The 60-day comment period, originally scheduled to end September 2, 1991, was extended to September 16, 1991. DNRC received 121 written and oral responses on the draft EIS.

While not including any major changes from the draft EIS, the final EIS includes corrections, clarifications, and additions to the original text. Two new alternatives were considered - a municipal alternative and a water quality alternative - as the result of public comments. Public comments and DNRC' s responses to the comments are also included.

The EIS does not recommend a course of action to the Board. The Board has appointed a hearing examiner to conduct a contested case hearing, which will begin in February 1992. Hearing times and locations where the public can give testimony will be published in newspapers of general circulation. Based on information in the applications, the EIS, and on testimony at the hearing, the hearing examiner will present findings and recommendations to the Board. The Board has until July 1, 1992, to make a final decision on the water reservation applications.

Further information, including additional copies of the final EIS, can be obtained by calling (406) 444-6627, or by writing to DNRC at 1520 E. Sixth Ave., Helena, MT, 59620-2301. Sincerely,

OU^jJii-dLy—

Karen L. Barclay Director MISSOURI RIVER BASIN

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR WATER RESERVATION APPLICATIONS ABOVE FORT PECK DAM

Biizcre

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

January 1992

S-1

SUMMARY

In July 199 1 . the Montana Department ofNatural vation districts requested 388.137 af/yr, primarily Resources and Conservation (DNRC) released Its draft for 2 19 proposed irrigation projects covering 1 54,604 environmental Impact statement (EIS) for water res- acres. The Montana Department of Health and En- ervation applications above Fort Peck Dam. Informa- vironmental Sciences (DHE^) applied to reserve half tional meetings and public hearings on the draft EIS the average annual flow at four points on the Mis- were held in 10 Missouri basin communities from souri River (near Toston, Ulm, Vlrgelle, and August 5 through August 8. The public had until LanduslQ^) to maintain dilution of arsenic in the river September 2 to comment on the draft EIS, with this water. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife deadline later extended to September 16. This final and Parks (DFWP) applied to reserve Instream flows EIS responds to comments and questions pertaining on 283 streams or stream reaches, one lake, and one to the draft EIS and summarizes and updates the wetland, to protect fish, wildlife, recreation, and water draft. quality. The U.S. Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) requested instream flows on 31 streams for fish, MISSOURI RIVER WATER wildlife, recreation, and to maintain channel form. RESERVATION STATUTE The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC) applied to reserve a maximum of280 cubic feet per second (cfs)

up to a yearly total of 89,000 acre-feet (af) from the In 1985, the Montana Legislature directed DNRC Missouri River. This water would be diverted into the to begin a basinwide water reservation proceeding for Milk River basin to relieve water shortages and pro- the Missouri River basin above Fort Peck Dam. The vide for some new Irrigation. legislature felt that implementation of a water reservation procedure would encourage more coordinated development of the water resources in the basin and EIS PROCESS would help form a strong and unified basis for protecting Montana's share of the Missouri River water The Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEP^^ from downstream states. Reservations granted in requires preparation of an environmental Impact this process have a priority date of July 1, 1985. statement for major state government actions that Under Montana water law, reservations allow for have the potential to significantly affect the human existing or future consumptive uses of water and for and natural environment. An EIS examines the en- maintaining Instream flows to protect aquatic life, vironmental, social, and economic impacts of the recreation, and water quality. Only public entitles proposed action and is generally prepared in two such as local governments, conservation districts, phases—a "draft" and "final" EIS. Because the Mis- and state and federal agencies can apply for and hold souri basin water reservation proceeding is a major water reservations. DNRC was assigned by statute to state action that could have substantial effects on coordinate the process and to provide technical and the environment, an EIS was prepared. financial assistance to conservation districts and municipalities in preparing their applications. The In the summer of 1989, DNRC held 10 public Board ofNatural Resources and Conservation (Board) meetings at different locations throughout the basin must reach a decision on water reservation applica- to identity Important issues for analysis and inclu- tions above Fort Peck Dam by July 1, 1992. sion in the draft EIS. DNRC also developed a computer model of the Missouri River basin to assess the availability of water. The draft EIS included discus- APPLICATIONS sion of issues raised by meeting participants, along with analysis based on the computer modeling. Fur- DNRC received 40 reservation applications. Eigh- ther information, research, and analysis was pro- teen municipalities applied for 34,689 acre-feet per vided by DNRC staff and consultants. The draft EIS year (af/yr) to meet future growth. Eighteen conser- was distributed In July 1991. S-2

Information meetings followed by hearings were held in 10 Missouri basin communities during Au- gust 5, 6, 7, and 8. 1991. to take comments and

questions on the draft EIS (Table S- 1). Distribution of the draft EIS was followed by a 60-day comment period during which DNRC accepted written comments on the draft EIS. This comment period was extended two weeks to end on September 16, 1991. DNRC received 86 written comments in response to the draft EIS. This final EIS was then prepared to respond to comments and questions pertaining to the draft, and to

summarize and update information in it.

Comments on Draft EIS

Major issues raised in the comments pertained to the availability ofwater for the reservations; technical aspects of water law; appropriateness of a Board decision prior to completion of adjudication; how the reservations would affect water quality, particularly arsenic and sediment; appropriateness of methods used to determine instream flow requests and impacts to fisheries; and how the value of water for Instream flow was determined. Many commenters indicated support or opposition to one reservation or another.

New Information

MPC proposes to upgrade several of its Missouri River hydroelectric generating facilities, increasing gen-

erating capacity by 68 megawatts (MW) . Effects of each alternative on hydroelectric generation at the upgraded facilities were calculated and found to be small.

Table S-1. Public participation In meetings held to take comments on draft EIS

Meeting location S-3 quality. This alternative was developed in response Alternative, Municipal Alternative, and Water Qual- to comments on the draft EIS. ity Alternative. Some proposed consumptive use projects Included in all but the Water Quality Alter- The Municipal Alternative also was developed in native would have substantial Impacts. Some Im- response to comments on the draft EIS, which sug- pacts were not assessed for large projects where gested benefits would be maximized if an alternative information was not available. A separate environ- were developed that included all Instneam and mu- mental review might be required before some ofthese nicipal requests, but no new Irrigation projects. projects could be constructed. Under this alternative, first preference Is given to municipalities and second to instream reservations. Water Quantity and Distribution No irrigation projects are Included. Many rivers, streams, reservoirs, and groundwa- Underthe No Action Alternative, DNRC describes ter systems have been altered by existing water uses trends that might unfold through the year 2025 if no and could be further modified by any consumptive reservations are granted. use project developed through the use of reservations. Some streams have too little water in dryyears BOARD AUTHORITY to satisfy all existing water users. Impacts to streamflows would be greatest under the Consump-

The Board can grant, modify, or deny any or all of tive Use Alternative, which would reduce floAws sub- the reservation requests. Applicants must establish stantially in the JeflTerson, Smith, Sun, Marias, and to the satisfaction of the Board the following four Teton rivers, and In at least a dozen smaller tributary criteria: streams. In several of the rivers and streams, late summer streamflows would be reduced to zero or a. the purpose of the reservation; near zero during dry years. Streamflows would de- b. the need for the reservation; crease less under the Combination Alternative than c. the amount of water necessary for the reserva- underthe Consumptive Use Alternative. Streamflow tion; and reductions would be even less under the Instream d. that the reservation Is in the public interest. Alternative, and only minor under the Municipal Alternative. Flows would not be affected under the Besides these criteria, the Board also must en- Water Quality Alternative. sure that the reservation applicants make progress toward development of the proposed use with rea- Legal Water Availability sonable diligence and that no reservations are WhUe water may be physically available for a granted that would adversely affect senior water reservation at the point of diversion, it may already rights. To make its decision, the Board will have to be appropriated by a water user downstream. ESdst- abide by the decision criteria described In Chapter ing water users such as irrigators, Montana Power Seven of the draft EIS and rely on information in the Company (MPC), BUREC, BLM, Indian tribes, and applications, draft and final EIS, Individual environ- the Corps of Engineers already claim most ofthe flow mental assessments, and on testimony presented at in the Missouri River and its tributaries. The exact the contested case hearing. amount ofwater legally available for future consumptive appropriation. If any, will not be known for some IMPACTS UNDER time. The statewide water rights adjudication pro- CONSUMPTIVE USE, cess wUl determine the size and extent ofthese water COMBINATION, rights. The Board wQl need to find that existing water INSTREAM, rights would not be adversely affected by the pro- MUNICIPAL, AND WATER posed reservations. QUALITY ALTERNATIVES Canyon Feny Dam was built to provide water for General Considerations consumptive uses, primarily for irrigation, while at the same time maintaining the level of hydropower

Alternatives listed in order of decreasing Impacts production at MFC's downstream facilities. Soon to the existing environment are the Consumptive after Canyon Ferry Dam went into operation, re- Use Alternative. Combination Alternative, Instream leases from the reservoir Increased MFC's down- S-4

stream electricity generation by an annual average of of skin cancer for people who refy on Missouri River

106 gigawatt-hours (1 glgawatt = 1.000 megawatts) water for drinking would increase unless the arsenic above the pre-Canyon Ferry level. As more water was Is removed through special treatment. Such treat- consumed for other purposes, the Increase above the ment is expensive and requires extensive processing 1955 level decreased to an average of 84 GWh per facilities. Proposed irrigation projects diverting water year by 1986, and would decrease further to an from the Madison River into the Gallatin drainage average of 54 GWh per year under the Consumptive and from the Missouri River Into the Milk drainage Use Alternative. In the two lowest power years in 10 would increase arsenic levels in the Gallatin and under the present operating regime, MPC would re- Milk rivers. Instream reservations would not change ceive no additional benefits from the reservoir at water quality and would not be adequate to preserve either the 1986 level of irrigation development or flows for dilution of arsenic to meet EPA standards. under the Consumptive Use Alternative. The problem of high arsenic concentrations in the Missouri Soils and Stream Channel Form

River drainage still must be addressed before BUREC In general, reservations that would result In the will market water stored in Canyon Ferry Fieservolr conversion of rangeland to irrigation would affect for consumptive uses (see Water Quality). soils through the loss of organic matter, reduced The Blackfeet Tribes have substantial federal re- water holding capacity, and Increased susceptibility served water right claims on the Marias River and Its to erosion. These effects would be offset somewhat tributaries, with a priority date of May 1, 1888. This once an alfalfa crop Is established. Where reserva- special class of water rights might Impact use of tions convert dry cropland to Irrigation, soil struc- water reservations and existing water users. ture will Improve, erosion will decrease, and nitrogen and organic fertility will increase. Forty-three Water Quality projects might have substantial soil impacts and these are IdentiHed in Chapter Six of the draft EIS. Water reservations for consumptive use would cause Other effects ofconsumptive use projects on soils are a decline In water quality in some streams and generally minor. groundwater systems. Higher concentrations of nutrients, pesticides, sediments, and salts would be Impacts to stream channels generally would be noticeable in some waters, but In most Instances the minor. In some instances, consumptive water uses Increases would be minor. Short-term Increases in could decrease channel capacity by increasing the sediments would result from construction of reser- deposition ofsediment. Instream reservations would voirs and diversion structures. not change existing stream charmel forms.

Arsenic concentrations exceed the federal and Land Use state Instream standards In the Madison and Mis- souri rivers In Montana. These concentrations also Proposed irrigation reservations would convert exceed the federal drinking water standard in the nonlrrigated cropland, pasture, and rangeland to Madison River and the portion of the Missouri River irrigated fields. The amount of newly irrigated crop- upstream from Toston Dam. Arsenic is a known land would Increase in the basin by about 1 7 percent carcinogen. The Environmental Protection Agency (150,248 acres) under the Consumptive Use Alterna- (EPA) standard for carcinogens is based on a risk tive, 9 percent (77,759 acres) under the Combination level that would result in one case of skin cancer per Alternative, and 4 percent (36,775 acres) under the million people. Based on arsenic concentrations In Instream Alternative. No increases would occur the Missouri River, the EPA standard, and assump- under the Municipal or Water Quality alternatives. tions made by EPA in deriving the standard, the risk Forty-two Irrigation projects may have other sub- of skin cancer from arsenic is as high as one case per stantial land-use impacts and these are identified In 77 people at West Yellowstone, and drops to about the draft EIS. Other land use Impacts are generally one case In 10,000 people near Landusky. At Toston, minor. the risk of cancer is about one case per 666 people. Fish and aquatic Habitat Reservations that lead to consumptive water use In the Missouri River basin could increase the con- Low flow conditions already stress gameflsh popula- centration of arsenic In the Missouri River and adja- tions and aquatic habitat on some rivers and streams cent groundwater systems. Consequently, the risk in the basin. Further consumptive uses would S-5

generally worsen conditions on these rivers and Vegetation streams. Streams most severely affected by the pro- Impacts to vegetation would result from replace- posed consumptive use reservations Include the ment of natural plant communities with agricultural Jefferson River near Waterloo and Three Forks, the crops, inundation of riparian and upland plant com- Boulder River above Cold Springs, the Marias River, munities by reservoirs, reduced streamflows, and in- the lower portions of the Sun and Teton rivers, and creased proliferation of noxious weeds. However, it eight tributaries. Streams where there also would be is difficult to predict the level of Impacts on riparian impacts, although the effects could be less, include and wetland plant species such as the Gallatin. Missouri, Judith, Dearborn, and Smith cottonwoods, sedges, rushes, and dominant tree species. No rivers and seven smaller tributary streams. Stored Montana plants are federally listed as threatened or endan- water could be released from Tiber Reservoir to offset gered species. Probably the most significant vegeta- most water depletions in the lower Marias River. tion effect is the increased risk of spreading noxious Reservations for instream flows would help maintain weeds. the existing aquatic habitat and fisheries. Historical, The effects Archaeological, and of flow reductions on the pallid stur- Paleontological Sites geon, a federally listed endangered species, are not known. The arctic grayling has been proposed for Proposed consumptive use reservations would listing as an endangered species. Nearly all reserva- affect 60 known historical, archaeological, or paleon- tions for consumptive use are located downstream tological sites. Most sites are located on private land from the present range of the grayling. where formal evaluation Is not required to determine if some sites might be eligible for listing on the Na- It is possible that four of the proposed storage tional Register of Historic Places. projects could support a fishery. On large Irrigation projects, fish could be killed In the diversion struc- Storage tures, though this could be minimized through Reservations may reduce water available for fu- proper design. ture storage projects. Reservations generally would not Wildlife preclude storage of spring runoff fiows. but might make some storage projects less economically fea- Proposed irrigation projects could affect wildlife sible. Ebdsting water rights could be a greater con- by altering habitat. Thirty-six irrigation projects straint to the development of new storage than water would corrvert native grassland to Irrigated cropland reservations. Development of consumptive use res- on big game winter range and would reduce the ervations would slightly decrease reservoir levels in amount of native forage available to wintering elk Canyon Ferry. Fort Peck, and Tiber reservoirs. The and deer. Losses ofwinter range could stress wildlife reservation applications include 15 water storage during the winter and early spring and Increase dep- projects, and together they would store a relatively redation on crops and hay. DFWP has Identified 70 small amount of water. proposed Irrigation projects with a high potential for crop damage from wildlife. Most of these projects are Recreation near or within existing winter ranges. Instream reservations would help maintain streamflows on streams and rivers that are important Birds of prey (raptors), waterfowl such as ducks to recreation and tourism. Recreational use of water and geese, and aquatic mammals such as mink and in the Missouri River basin in Montana totaled more river otter could be affected by consumptive use res- than 2 million recreation days in 1989. About 61 ervations. However, in most cases, slte-speciflc percent of the total water-based recreation use is on Information is not available to determine the extent rivers and streams and 39 percent on reservoirs. The of the effect, if any. Grouse and birds of prey would most important recreational resources In the basin be affected by local disturbance during nesting and from £in economic perspective are the streams In the brood rearing periods. Reduced streamflows would Headwaters subbasin such as the Beaverhead, Big make waterfowl more vulnerable to predatlon Hole, Gallatin, and Madison rivers. The total net and also would limit food supplies for aquatic mam- economic value ofwater-based recreation in the basin mals, which would render them more susceptible to above Fort Peck Dam is $144 million per year. predatlon. S-6

Recreational use could decline under all alterna- basin under the Instream Alternative, about 53 un- tives that Include consumptive use. The effects would der the Combination Alternative, and about 106 become more severe as additional water is withdrawn under the Consumptive Use Alternative. No new from streams that already have low flows during dry Jobs would be created in the agricultural sector vm- years, such as the Gallatin, Jefferson, Boulder, der the Municipal orWater Quality alternatives. Total Smith, Dearborn, Sun, Teton, Judith, and Mussel- personal income in the basin would Increase be- shell rivers. Belt Creek, and the Marias River above tween $1,749,723 in the Instream Alternative and Tiber Reservoir. $6,066,878 per year under the Consumptive Use Alternative. County tax receipts would Increase be- Estimated recreational instream values range tween $59,563 for the Instream Alternative and from $35 an acre-foot on headwater rivers and $158,440 per year under the Consumptive Use Al- streams during July and August to $2 an acre-foot ternative. Agricultural sales would Increase between on Middle Missouri and Marias/Teton subbasin 1 .0 percent and 3.5 percent. Agricultural sales, per- streams during the rest of the year. Estimated recre- sonal Income, and county tax receipts would not ation losses are $3,754,000 per year under the Con- increase under the Water Quality Alternative. sumptive Use Alternative; $1,616,000 per year under the Combination Alternative; $307,000 per year Social Effects under the Instream Alternative; and $3,930 per year The reservations would not noticeably change under the Municipal Alternative. No recreation losses the social character of communities in the Missouri are expected under the Water Quality Alternative. River basin. The agriculture community would re- Hydropower main stable, and the recreation and tourism-related services would constitute a growing segment of the Consumptive use of water under the requested basin economy. reservations eventually would Increase the cost of electricity to ratepayers by: (1) Increasing the use of electricity to operate municipal and irrigation pumps; NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE and (2) decreasing streamflows that are used to generate electricity. These two actions would require If the Board were to deny all reservation applica- production of replacement power from new sources tions, consumptive water users could still apply that would be considerably more expensive than ex- through the water use permitting process to appro- isting power supplies. The total monetary impact to priate water for beneficial uses. If most or all direct ratepayers would range from $11 .0 to $29.2 million flows are appropriated by water users such as MPC per year under the Consumptive Use Alternative; and irrigators, a potential user could buy an existing $4.7 to $13.4 million per year under the Combina- water right and change the use. Municipalities could tion Alternative; $1.4 to $4.4 million per year under condemn existing water rights to meet future needs. the Instream Alternative; and $0.09 to $0.5 million per year under the Municipal Alternative. The Water If instream reservations are not granted, in- Quality Alternative would not directly affect stream flows In many streams and rivers would not ratepayers. The cost of replacing power used under be protected by a water right. In some Instances, the Consumptive Use Alternative (In excess of rev- increased consumptive uses could lead to streams enue received for Irrigation and municipal pumping) becoming very low or going dry, resulting In adverse would range from $1.8 to $11.0 million per year; $1.0 impacts to water quality, aquatic life, recreation, and wUdllfe. to $6. 1 million under the Combination Alternative; Murphy water rights, large hydropower $0.4 to $2.4 million under the Instream Alternative; water rights, and federal and state water quality and $.09 to $0.52 million under the Municipal Alter- standards for arsenic would provide some level of native. Instream flow protection in some streams and rivers.

AGRICULTURE If present trends hold, few large storage projects will be built over the next 25 years. Emphasis during Development of irrigation projects in the basin this period probably wUl be on rehabilitation and under any alternative would have a small beneficial enlargement of existing facilities as defined in the effect on jobs, personal income, taxes, and agricul- state water plan. tural sales. About 30 Jobs would be created in the S-7

BOARD DECISION CRITERIA reservation term to increase efficiency and lessen the amount of water required. The decision ofwhether to grant, modify, or deny the reservation applications rests with the Board, Conservation districts' requests are based on re- which must abide by several criteria that are dis- corded crop requirements and efficiency of proposed cussed below. The ability of the requested reserva- Irrigation sjrstems. Most of the projects were de- tions to meet these criteria Is examined in DNRC's signed for efiicient sprinkler Irrigation. research and analyses of the reservation applications, as explained in Chapter Seven ofthe draft EIS. The three agencies that requested Instream flows These results are preliminary and do not represent used various methods for determining their re- conclusions on whether arty reservation request sat- quested water reservations. DFWP employed several isfies arty of these criteria. Such determinations are methods, but primarily used the Wetted Perimeter made by the Board. Inflection Point Method (WETP). This method provides an indication ofstreamflows necessary to main- Qualification and Purpose tain aquatic habitat In riffle areas. BLM used the same wetted perimeter method to determine yearly All those who applied for reservations were found minimum flows, but also used charmel geometry to be qualified to reserve water through the Missouri methods developed by the U.S. Geological Survey FUver basin water reservation proceeding. The pur- (uses) for determining flows necessary to maintain poses for all reservation requests are beneficial uses charmel stability. DHES's position is that any new under Montana law. consumptive use development would increase arse- Need nic concentrations and the consequent cancer risk from Missouri River water, and that all remaining unappropriated A water reservation is needed if "there is a rea- flows are needed to protect public sonable likelihood that future Instate or out-of-state health. Under the law, however. DHE^S can request competing water users would consume, degrade, or no more than halfthe average annual flow on gauged otherwise affect the water available for the purpose of streams. This is the amount DHES requested at four the reservations," or if "there are constraints that points on the Missouri River. would restrict the applicant from perfecting a water permit for the intended purpose of the reservation." Municipalities requested enough water to service All applicants claimed a need to reserve water. Con- estimated population growth to the year 2025. The servation districts want to secure water for agricul- amount of water needed was normally calculated by multiplying tural production before the water is appropriated by the per capita rate of consumption times the other users In Montana or by downstream states. estimated population. Per capita use rates were They also want to have the option to develop this generally based on actual use requirements for each water when the economic climate improves. Munici- community. Long-term census information indicates palities want to appropriate water to meet future that 1 1 ofthe 18 municipal projections of population growth In the basin. DFWP and BLM want to have growth, and the associated amounts of water re- secure Instream flows to protect fish, wildlife, recre- quested, may be higher than actually would occur. ation, and water quality. DHES wants to secure Instream flows to protect the public from Increased BUREC based the amount of its request on esti- risk of cancer from arsenic concentrations that are mated supplemental water requirements for land already high. BUREC Intends to divert Missouri that is already irrigated when water is available along River water to reduce shortages in the Milk River the Milk River and on the Fort Belknap Indian Res- basin. ervation, and the water needed to irrigate land that is not now Irrigated on the Rocky Boy's Indian Fteserva- Amount tion and along the proposed canal. Present and future water conservation measures will relieve some The Board must determine the amount needed of the water shortages In the basin. Since it is not to fulfill the purpose ofthe reservations. This amount known how much water will be saved through con- must be based on accurate and suitable measuring servation nor the actual amount the tribes will need methods and determinations that no reasonable to satisfy their federal reserved water rights. It is cost-effective measures could be taken within the difilcult to determine the adequacy of the amount S-8 that BUREC requested In its application for the use projects would cost between 5 and 10 cents/ Vlrgelle diversion project. kilowatt-hour (kWh).

PUBLIC Interest At least 10 and as many as 59 of the 219 proposed irrigation proj ects would have a value per acre- The public Interest criteria requires in part that foot of water that is greater than the value of water the benefits ofthe reservation exceed the costs. Res- used for Instream purposes, given a 5 cent/kWh ervations for municipal water supplies and irrigation power cost. The value of water for at least 1 and as would provide monetary benefits to basin communi- many as 4 of the proposed Irrigation projects would ties. However, they would result in costs by causing be greater than the value of water used for instream streamflow reductions that could adversely affect purposes, given a 10 cent/kWh electricity cost. The recreation and hydropower production. Reserva- estimated value of an acre-foot of water for all mu- tions for consumptive uses also would Increase the nicipal reservations exceeds the estimated value for electrical power load, which eventually would re- instream flow and proposed irrigation projects. In- quire the production of electricity from new sources. stream flow values are greatest In the Headwaters New sources of power tend to cost more than existing subbasln where the recreation value is the highest power sources. Therefore, decreased hydroelectric and where each acre-foot of water can be passed generation combined with increased power loads along to be used to generate hydroelectriclty at down- would raise electricity costs for all users. Table S-2 stream hydropower facilities. Instream values de- identifies the net benefits and net costs ofwater uses cline progressively with distance downstream, but under the five alternatives. Total net benefits are the value ofwater for Irrigation remains more consis- greatest under the Instream Alternative ($327.2 mil- tent throughout the basin. lion), slightly less under the Municipal Alternative ($322.0 million) and Combination Alternative On each stream or stream reach, the potential ($305.1 million), considerably lower under the Con- net benefit is based on the assumption that water is sumptive Use Alternative ($151.3 million), and zero available. However, in some instances, water may under the Water Quality Alternative. not always be avaflable.

The value of an acre-foot of water for instream RECOMMENDATIONS and consumptive uses can be compared when reservations for the two uses are both requesting the same DNRC is not recommending a course of action to water. Instream values include the value of water the Board. The Board has appointed a hearings used for recreation, plus the value of water used for examiner to conduct a formal contested case hearing hydroelectric generation. In determining the value of that will begin in February 1992. Based on informa- water for the proposed irrigation projects. DNRC ex- tion in the applications and the EIS and on testimony amined three ways the timing of return flows affect at the hearing, the hearings examiner will present the value of water. DNRC assumed that replacement findings and recommendations to the Board. The lost power used to replace that due to reduced flows Board has until July 1 . 1992. to make its decision on and to satisfy increased power loads for consumptive the water reservation applications.

Table S-2. Contents

SUMMARY S-1 MISSOURI RIVER WATER RESERVATION STATUTE S-1 APPLICATIONS S-1 EIS PROCESS S-1 Comments on Draft EIS S-2

New Information , S-2 ALTERNATIVES S-2 BOARD AUTHORITY" S-3 IMPACTS UNDER CONSUMPTIVE USE, INSTREAM. COMBINATION. MUNICIPAL. AND WATER QUALHY ALTERNATIVES S-3 General Considerations S-3 Water QuanUty and Distribution S-3

Legal Water Availability , S-3 Water Quality S-4 Soils and Stream Channel Form S-4 Land Use S-4 Fish and AquaUc Habitat S-4 WUdllfe S-5 Vegetation S-5 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontologlcal Sites S-5 Storage S-5 Recreation S-5 Hydropower S-6 Agriculture S-6 Social EfTects S-6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE S-6 BOARD DECISION CRITERIA S-7 Qualiftcation and Purpose S-7 Need S-7 Amount S-7 Public Interest S-8 RECOMMENDATIONS S-8

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 EIS PROCESS 2 CONTESTED CASE HEARING 2 WHO HAS APPLIED 2 MONTANA WATER LAW 26 WATER RESERVATIONS 26 ALTERNATIVES 27

CHAPTER TWO: PROJECT UPDATE AND NEW INFORMATION 29 INTRODUCTION 29 WATER QUALHY ALTERNATIVE 29 Water Availability 29 Water Quality 29 Soils and Land Use 30 Fisheries 30 Wildlife, Vegetation, and Recreation 30 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontologlcal Resources 30 Power Production 30 Social and Economic Effects 30 11

MUNICIPAL ALTERNATIVE 30 Water Availability 30 Water Quality 30 Soils 31 Land Use 31 Fisheries 31 Wildlife and VegetaUon 31 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontologlcal Resources 31 RecreaUon 32 Power Production 32 Social and Economic Effects 32 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISH 32 Fluvial ArcUc Grayling 32 Pallid Sturgeon 33 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED RESERVATIONS ON HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH PROPOSED MPC UPGRADES 33 PUBLIC INTEREST 33 Benefits and Costs Under the Alternatives 33 BENEFITS 35 New Irrigation 35 Instream Uses 35 Municipal Use 35 COSTS 35 Reduced Recreation 35 Reduced Hydropower Production 36 New Supplies for Municipal and Irrigation Power Use 37 Comparison of Benefits and Costs 37 Benefits and Costs of Granting Reservations for Individual Projects 37 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES WITH GREATER NET BENEFITS 39 CHAPTER THREE: COMMENTS, RESPONSES, AND CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS 41 INTRODUCTION 41 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 43 Legal Concerns 43 Water Quantity and Distribution 55 Water Storage 70 Water Quality 74 Land Use 82 Fisheries 83 WUdlife 89 VegetaUon 90 Recreation 92 Hydropower 94 Socioeconomic Concerns 95 Economics 103 General 109 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS 132 DNRC STAFF CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS 178

APPENDIX A: MODEL RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A-1

APPENDIX B: COMPARISON OF WATER VALUES FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE AND INSTREAM USE B-1 1

APPENDIX C: REVIEW OF METHODS USED TO RECOMMEND INSTREAM FLOWS FOR AQUATIC HABITAT C-1 INTRODUCTION C-3 FIXED PERCENTAGE APPROACHES C-3 HABITAT RETENTION METHODS C-4 HABITAT-RATING METHODS C-4 COSTS OF VARIOUS METHODS C-6 VALIDATION OF DFWP'S WETP METHOD C-6 COMPARISON OF METHODS C-7 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS C-9

REFERENCES R-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table S-1. Public participation in meetings held to take comments on draft EIS S-2 S-2. Economic benefits and costs under five alternatives ($ million) S-8 Table 1-1. Conservation district reservation requests 3

1-2. DFWP instream flow requests 1 1-3. Amounts requested by DHES to protect water quality 21 1-4. Reservations requested by municipalities 21 1-5. Reservations requested by BLM for maintenance of aquatic habitat and stream channels 24 1.6. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reservation request 24

Table 2- 1 . Proposed modifications to MPC's hydroelectric generating facilities that would be affected by reservations 33 2-2 Costs of replacement power due to reduced hydroelectric production and increased electric loads for each alternative 34 2-3. Benefits and Costs under five alternatives ($ million) 36 2-4. Reductions in annual value of recreation due to change in average flows (rounded to nearest 1,000 dollars) 37 2-5. Recreation values per acre-foot at 1989 flows 38 2-6. Hydrof>ower values per acre-foot 39 Table 3-1. Public participation in hearings held to take comments on draft EIS 41 3-2. Irrigation efficiencies used by DNRC 56 3-3. Amount of water that must be diverted from a stream compared to that which is returned to stream by surface water and groundwater return flows (for each acre-foot used by an alfalfa crop) 56 3-4. Groundwater return flow patterns used by DNRC for the Big Hole River valley 57 3-5. Comparison of streamflows at upper and lower portions of Big Sheep Creek Canyon as measured by the University of Montana 60 3-6. Average flows computed for periods of record ending 1983 and 1984, and percentage change between years 65 3-7. Irrigation projects that may add sediment to streams 79 3-8. Comparison of flow rates corresponding to high and low levels of aquatic habitat protection to DFWP's requested reservations on four streams in the East Gallatin drainage 84 3-9. Comparison of flow rates corresponding to high and low levels of aquatic habitat protection to DFWP's reservation requests on three streams in the Madison River drainage 84 3-10. Irrigation projects for which reservations are sought that would be water-short in dry years If the Board grants instream reservations based on low inflection points flow levels of aquatic habitat protection) 85 3-11. Proposed irrigation projects requiring construction of new canals 89 3-12. Total angler use for basin rivers 94 3-13. Present and projected water use for the City of Bozeman 100 3-14. Purposes for which municipalities are requesting reservations 103 3-15. Number of riffle cross-sections used to determine the flow-versus-wetted-perimeter curve on streams for which the WETP method was adopted for the draft EIS 1 17 3-16. Summary of reservation requests with competing requests by subbasin 122 3-17. Irrigation efficiencies used in the draft EIS and the sensitivity analysis 127 Iv

Table A-1. Monthly streamflow jiercentlle distributions (cfs) A-3 A-2. Percentage reductions In monthly streamflows A-13 A-3. Monthly reservoir elevations, contents, and energy production A-18 A-4. Reductions to monthly reservoir elevations, contents, and energy production A-26 A-5. Sensitivity of modeled monthly streamflows (cfs) to 10 percent increases or decreases in baseline Irrigated acres A-30 A-6. Sensitivity of modeled monthly streamflows (cfs) to increased or decreased Irrigation efficiencies A-34 A- 7. Sensitivity of modeled monthty streamflows (cfs) to increased or decreased crop irrigation requirements (CIR) A-38 A-8. Sensitivity of modeled monthly streamflows (cfs) to Increased or decreased groundwater return flow factors (GRFF) A-42 Table B-1. Comparison of water values for consumptive use and Instream use ($/AcFt) B-3

Table C- 1 . Instrea flow regimes for fish, wildlife, recreation, and related environmental resources C-3 C-2. Seasonal Instream flow recommendations (=aquatlc base flows) for rivers In New England with different flow records C-4 C-3. Summaiy of the common "habitat retention" methods used to determine rearing flow requirements (derived from Wesche and Rechard 1980) C-5 C-4. Generalized time requirements of various methods to determine Instream flow needs on one stream reach C-6 C-5. The number of times that results for each method were within the defined maintenance flow range (unbiased) or were biased relative to the defined range on 13 trout streams C-8 C-6. Key flow parameters used to determine minimum flow requirements using habitat retention C-9 C-7. Methods DFWPused to estimate needed Instream flows C-11 C-8. Comparison of results from a fixed percentage method to results fh)m DFWP's methods C-18

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1-1. Proposed conservation district projects In the Headwaters Subbasin 7 1-2. Proposed conservation district projects in the Upper Missouri Subbasin 8 1-3. Proposed conservation district projects in the Marlas/Teton Subbasin 9 1-4. Proposed conservation district projects in the Middle Missouri Subbasin 10 1-5. Streams where Instream flows have been requested in the Headwaters Subbasin 17 1-6. Streams where instream flows have been requested in the Upper Missouri Subbasin 18 1-7. Streams where Instream flows have been requested In the Marias/Teton Subbasin 19 1-8. Streams where instream flows have been requested in the Middle Missouri Subbasin 20 1-9. Points on the Missouri River where DHES has applied to reserve water 22 1-10. Municipalities that have applied to reserve water in the basin 23 1-11. Proposed Bureau of Reclamation diversion project 25 Map 3-1. Streams In the Big Sheep Creek drainage 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Average monthly flows In the Musselshell River at Harlowton 44 3-2. Average monthly flows in the Musselshell River at Mosby 44 3-3. The history of coal production in Cascade, Fergus, and MusselsheU counties 96 3-4. Employment by sector in Judith Basin county 97 3-5. Personal Income by employment sector in Judith Basin county 98 3-6. Historical population and population forecasts for Bozeman 99 3-7. Population trends and projections for West YeUowstone 102 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides background information identifying its present and future water needs and on the water reservation process in the Missouri legally reserving water In amounts sufficient to meet River basin, on Montana water law, and on the appli- those needs. cations. Chapter Two presents information that was obtained or developed by DNRC subsequent to prepa- In reservation proceedings, local governments, ration of the draft EIS. Responses to comments on conservation districts, and state and federal agen- the draft EIS are presented in Chapter Three, along cies were authorized to appty to reserve water for with changes that have been made to the draft EIS. existing and future water-consuming uses or to maintain a minimum flow, level, or quality of water In Jufy 1991, DNRC released its EIS for water (§85-2-316. MCi^. Under the law, DNRC is respon- reservation applications in the Missouri River basin sible for assisting in preparing the reservation appli- above Fort Peck Dam. Informational meetings and cations and for coordinating the reservation process. public hearings on the draft EIS were held in 10 The Board of Natural Resources and Conservation Missouri basin communities from August 5 through (Board), a governor-appointed group of seven citi- Augusts, 1991. The public had until September 2 to zens, decides whether to grant, deny, or modify res- comment on the draft EIS, with this deadline later ervation requests. The Board's decisions on reserva- extended to September 16, 1991. This final EIS tion applications in the Missouri basin will be based responds to comments and questions pertaining to on a record of evidence that Includes the information the draft EIS and summarizes and updates the draft. provided in the applications, the EIS, and a contested case hearing.

BACKGROUND Due to the vast size of this basin, the Missouri reservation proceeding has been split into two parts. In 1985, the Montana Legislature directed DNRC Applications for water in the upper portion of the to initiate and coordinate a proceeding that allows basin, which encompasses the drainage area up- public entities (state and federal agencies and subdi- stream from Fort Peck Dam, are being considered visions of reserve water in the Missouri the state) to first. After an environmental review and contested River basin of Montana for future use. This reserva- case hearing, final decisions on the upper basin ap- First, tion proceeding was initiated for two reasons. plications will be made by the Board before July 1, It was thought that the comprehensive planning re- 1992. The draft EIS addressed only those applica- quired in a reservation process would encourage tions for the reservation of water In the basin up- more efficient development of the water resources in stream from Fort Peck Dam. Applications for water the basin. Second, the reservation proceeding was In the basin below Fort Peck Dam and in the Little seen as a way to build a strong legal basis for protect- Missouri and Milk River basins had to be compiled ing Montana's share of Missouri River water in any by July 1 , 1 99 1 , and will undergo similar review and future litigation with other states or in a congres- hearings. The Board has until December 31, 1993. sional apportionment of the water among states. to act on these applications. Any reservation granted in either the upper or lower portion of the basin will particularly concerned that The legislature was receive a July 1, 1985, priority date (except for the downstream states might litigate for the guaranteed Little Missouri River basin, where the priority date delivery of Missouri River flows from Montana. Mon- will be July 1, 1989). tana can best prepare for negotiation or litigation by EIS PROCESS This final EIS contains DNRC's responses to comments and provides information on issues raised following publication of the draft EIS. This EIS was prepared to satisfy the Montana Water Use Act and MEPA. MEPA requires that an EIS be prepared to address government actions that CONTESTED CASE HEARING might significantly affect the quality of the environ- reservations, if ment. DNRC determined that the While the final EIS was being prepared, DNRC that prepara- granted, would meet these criteria and issued legal notice of the reservation applications to EIS provides infor- tion of an EIS was required. This water right holders and other interested parties, and whether it mation for the Board to use in deciding accepted written objections. The Board then ap- reservations should grant, modify, or deny water pointed a hearings examiner, and a formal contested Missouri basin. It that have been applied for In the case hearing was scheduled to be held beginning in also serves to Inform the public of the possible envi- February 1992. At the hearing, reservation appli- action by the Board ronmental consequences of any cants and objectors can present testimony and evi- applications. on the pending water reservation dence. Testimony will be taken from parties for limited purposes at Lewistown. Great Falls, Boze- all pending water reserva- The EIS addresses man, Dillon, and Glasgow. This is the final opportu- Fort Peck Dam tions requested in the basin above nity for public involvement. After the contested case the reservation and describes in general terms hearing, the hearings examiner reviews the evidence would requests and the parties and resources that and information and presents findings of fact, con- The effects be affected if the requests are granted. clusions of law, and recommendations to the Board. the reservations are the main focus of of granting Based on its review of this record, the Board issues the EIS. an order to fully grant, partially grant, modify, or deny requested reservations. Detailed environmental assessments were completed on all reservation applications. These assessments were used in preparing the draft EIS and were WHO HAS APPLIED available for review by contacting DNRC in Helena. The application deadline for water reservations The public has had several opportunities to par- in the basin above Fort Peck Dam was July 1. 1989. ticipate in the EIS process. In the first of these, DNRC received applications from 18 conservation public meetings were held at 10 locations in the districts, 18 municipalities, BUREC. DFWP. DHES. summer of 1989 to help determine the issues that and BLM. A more detailed discussion of the appli- should be examined in the EIS. These issues, along cants' requests are presented In the draft EIS. Tables with information from state and federal agencies, 1-1 through 1-6 on the following pages identify the were combined with research results and other data amount of water requested by each applicant, and to form the basis for the draft EIS. DNRC held 10 maps 1-1 through 1-11 show where the reserved public hearings to gather written and oral comments. water would be used. «

Table 1-1. Conservation district reservation

6 9i

Table 1-2. DFWP instream flow requests

HEADWATERS SUBBASIN

BIG HOLE RIVER DRAINAGE DATES AMOUNT REQUESTED STREAM REACH DESCRIPTION REQUESTED (cfs) (af/yr)

Pattengail Creek Sand Lake to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 Pintlar Creek Oreamnos Lake to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 Rock Creek Beaverhead National Forest boundary to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 Ruby Creek Pioneer and WF Ruby creeks to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 Sevenmile Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 Seymour Creek Upper Seymour Lake to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 Sixmile Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31

~~SF Big Hole River Skinner Lake to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Steel Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Sullivan Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Swamp Creek Yank Swamp to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Tenmlle Creek Tenmile Lakes to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Trail Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Trapper Creek Trapper Lake to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Twelvemile Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 Warm Springs Creek West and East forks to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Willow Creek Tendoy Lake to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Wise River Mono and Jacobson creeks to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Wyman Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 2~~

~~Gallatin River Drainage (continued)~~

Gallatin River #1 Yellowstone NP boundary to WF Gallatin River Jan 1 - Dec 31 1 70 123,074 Gallatin River #2 WF Gallatin River to East Gallatin River Jan 1 - Dec 31 400 289,587 Gallatin River #3 East Gallatin River to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 1 ,000 723,967 Hell Roaring Creek NF Hell Roaring Creek to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 16 11 ,583

Hyalite (Middle) Creek #1 Middle Creek Dam to Middle Creek Ditch intake Jan 1 - Dec 31 28 20,271 Hyalite (Middle) Creek #2 1-90 bridge near Belgrade to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 16 11 ,583 MF of the WF Gallatin R. Headwaters to NF of the WF Gallatin River Jan 1 - Dec 31 3 2,1 72 Porcupine Creek NF Porcupine Creek to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 4.5 3,258 Reese Creek Bill Smith Creek to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 5 3,620 Rocky Creek Jackson Creek to Sourdough Creek Jan 1 - Dec 31 51 36,922 Sourdough (Bozeman) Ck. Mystic Reservoir to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 35.9 25,990 South Cottonwood Creek Jim Creek to Hart Ditch headgate Jan1-Dec31 14 10,136 SF Spanish Creek Falls Creek to mouth Jan 1- Dec 31 15 10,859 SF of the WF Gallatin R. Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 5 3,620 Spanish Creek North and South forks to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 70 50,678

Squaw Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 1 8,688 Taylor Fork Tumbledown Creek to mouth of Gallatin River Jan 1 - Dec 31 36 26,063 Thompson Spring Creek County road crossing in T1 N R5E Sec 30 to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 29 20,995 WF Gallatin River Middle and North forks to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 26 18,823 WF Hyalite Creek Hyalite Lake to Hyalite Reservoir Jan 1 - Dec 31 12 8,688

~~JEFFERSON AND BOULDER RIVER DRAINAGES DATES AMOUNT REQUESTED STREAM REACH DESCRIPTION REQUESTED (cfs) (af/yr)~~

~~Boulder River #1 13 c~~

~~RED ROCK-BEAVERHEAD DRAINAGE 14~~

~~Upper Missouri River and Tributaries (continued) DATES AMOUhJT REQUESTED STREAM REACH DESCRIPTION REQUESTED (cfs) (af) (af/yr)~~

~~Dry Creek IS~~

~~Smith River Drainage (continued) 16~~

~~Judith River Drainage (continued)~~

East Fork Big Spring Cl<. l-leadwaters to Big Spring Creek Jan 1 Dec 31 7.5 5,430 5,430 Judith River #1 SF and MF to Big Spring Creek Jan 1 Dec 31 25 18,099 18,099 Judith River #2 Big Spring Creek to Missouri River Jan 1 Dec 31 160 115,835 115,835 Lost Forl< Judith River SF and WF to MF Judith River Jan 1 Dec 31 14 10,136 10,136 Middle Forl< Judith River Headwaters to South Fork Jan 1 Dec 31 22 15,928 15,928 South Fork Judith River l-leadwaters to Middle Fork Jan 1 Dec 31 3.5 2,534 2,534

~~Warm Spring Creek Springs to Judith River Jan 1 Dec 31 110 79.636 79,636 Yogo Creek l-ieadwaters to MF Judith River Jan 1 Dec 31 3 2,172 2,172~~

~~MUSSELSHELL RIVER DRAINAGE DATES AMOUNT REQUESTED STREAM REAtH DESCRIPTION REQUESTED (cfs) (at) (af/yr)~~

~~Alabaugh Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 12~~

American Fork South Fork to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 Big Elk Creek Origin of Lebo Fori< to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31 Careless Creek Headwaters to Roberts Creek Jan 1 - Dec 31 Checkerboard Creek East and West Forks to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31

~~Collar Gulch Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Cottonwood Creek WF, MF, and Loco Creek to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Flatwillow Creek NF and SF to Petrolia Reservoir Jein 1 - Dec 31 Musselshell River #1 NF and SF to Deadmans Basin Div Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Musselshell River #2 Deadmans Basin Div to Musselshell Div Jain 1 - Dec 31 Musselshell River #3 Musselshell Diversion Dam Jan 1 - Dec 31 at town of Musselshell to mouth~~

~~NF Musselshell #1 Headwaters to Bair Reservoir Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~NF Musselshell #2 Bair Reservoir to SF Musselshell R. Jan 1 - Dec 31 SF Musselshell Headwaters to North Fork Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Spring Creek Headwaters to mouth Jan 1 - Dec 31~~

~~Swimming Woman Ck. Headwaters to Cty road crossing 8 Jan 1 - Dec 31 linear miles upstream from mouth ?~~

~~ooc ^cc . JCC "- -s li^ ; ^ g Vs i= ro "D i5 £ « o '^ -J O - CO O CO zzo5a.O-2u3lcncDi—~~

~~-^ (/) I C*5 CO CO ^ ^ * O UJ oc UJm s 3 > ^ O o o~~

~~Ol >- UJ 18~~

~~3 (0 3 O Mca~~

~~o 3 8"~~

~~> a M o. ^1 o~~

~~c(0 <^ (0 « o E o~~

~~(/) u>~~

~~a. (0 19~~

~~s CO~~

~~I 20~~

~~c « nn JO3 (A~~

~~Z ® o a>~~

~~« 3 8" c~~

~~> £(0 (0 o «!!! E (0 £ c •~~

~~E (0 a>~~

~~(0 a (0 21~~

~~Table 1-3. Amounts requested by DHES to protect water quality~~

~~-Amount- Stream cfs acre-feet/year~~

~~Missouri River at Toston 2,596 1.879,504 Missouri River at Dim 3,204 2,319,696 Missouri River at Virgelle 4,390 3,178,360 Missouri River at Landusky 4,815 3,486,060~~

~~Source: DHES 1989~~

~~Table 1-4. Reservations requested by municipalities 22~~

~~> a> !S~~

~~I aQ. CQ M £10 (/> XLU a a t~~

~~s o C o (0 c o Q.~~

~~S 23~~

~~"SI 2~~

~~I 24~~

~~Table 1-5. Reservations requested by BLM for maintenance of aquatic habitat and stream channels~~

~~Stream~~

Bear Creek near Grant Bear Creek near Wise River Big Sheep Creek near Dell Black Canyon Creek near Grant Bloody Dick Creek near Grant Cabin Creek near Dell Canyon Creek near Divide Camp Creek near Melrose Corral Creek near Lakeview Deadman Creek near Dell Deep Creek near Wise River East Fork Blacktail Deer Creek near Dillon East Fork Dyce Creek near Dillon Frying Pan Creek near Grant Hell Roaring Creek Indian Creek near Dell Jones Creek near Lakeview Long Creek near Lakeview Medicine Lodge Creek near Grant Moose Creek near Divide North Fork Greenhorn Creek near Alder Odell Creek near Lakeview Peet Creek near Lakeview Rape Creek near Grant Shenon Creek near Grant Simpson Creek near Dell Tom Creek near Lakeview Trapper Creek near Grant West Fork Blacktail Deer Creek near Dillon West Fork Dyce Creek near Dillon Willow Creek near Glen

~~Source: BLM 1 989 25~~

~~<^ olJI c~~

~~I i "5~~

~~E a I a~~

~~I 26~~

~~MONTANA WATER LAW Further, the act established a new administrative permit system for obtaining a water right after~~

July 1, 1973. Water use In Montana is generally guided by the prior appropriation doctrine. One of the legal principles under the prior appropriation doctrine is "first WATER RESERVATIONS in time is first in right." The first person to use water right, the second from a source establishes the first Montana has created an additional class ofwater is divert flows from what is left, and so person free to rights labeled water reservations. Under the water dry year, the person with the earliest on. During a reservation system, water is appropriated for in- priority date first chance at the available water to has stream or future water-consuming uses. Essen- the limit of his or her established right. The holder of tially, water reservations are very similar to water the second earliest priority date has the next chance, right permits. However, there are important distinc- on. and so tions in who can hold reservations, the requirements for establishing the reserved rights, the process for Another central element of the prior appropria- obtaining them, and in some cases the possibility of is the water must be put to benefi- tion doctrine that having the rights reallocated to another use. Under Supreme Court has stated cial use. The Montana the water reservation statute, only state or federal that beneficial use is the "basis, measure, and limit" agencies or political subdivisions of the state may of water right. McDonald v. State, 220 Mont. 519 a apply for a water reservation (§85-2-316(1). MCA). uses Include, (1986). Under Montana law. beneficial The water reservation statute allows water to be agriculture (including stock but are not limited to, appropriated in the present for consumptive use in water), domestic, fish and wildlife, industrial, irriga- the future. By appropriating the water now. the municipal, power, and recreational tion, mining, reservant maintains an early priority date, even uses. The nature and extent of a water right is though it may be years or decades before the water is defined how water has been beneficially used in by actually developed. the past. Once a water right is established, it can be lost through abandonment if the beneficial use is not The water reservation statute is the only means continued. to acquire a water right for instream flows to protect water quality, fish, wildlife, and recreation. The pur- Under the prior appropriation doctrine in Mon- pose of instream flows is to maintain a minimum tana, there are various "types" of water rights, de- flow, level, or quality ofwater throughout the year, or pending on what procedure for obtaining a water a period, or for a length of time designated by the in force the time the right was estab- right was at Board. These flows can be reserved without the lished. However, the basic principles of first In time, usual requirement for withdrawal, impoundment, or first in right, and beneficial use apply to all types of diversion of the water and implemented immediate^ water rights acquired under state law. upon being granted.

The most significant change In how water rights Water reservations cannot adversely affect the are created and administered occurred in 1973 when amount of water legally available to holders of water the legislature enacted the Montana Water Use Act. rights with a priority date earlier than July 1. 1985. The Water Use Act. effective July 1, 1973. recognized However, if an existing water right user wishes to confirmed water rights that had been used in the and change the point of diversion, place of use. purpose past. But. because there were only incomplete of use. or place of storage, all senior and junior water records to determine what water had been used, the right holders.including those with water reserva- act also created a system for filing claims and adju- tions, have a right to object to the change if they feel dicating those historical rights. This adjudication that the exercise of their water rights would be ad- process also includes water rights claimed under versely affected. This same legal right allows holders federal law by Indian tribes and the federal govern- of water reservations to object to water right claims ment. submitted in the statewide adjudication proceeding. Holders of water reservations, like all other water right holders, may seek relief from the district cotirt to protect their water rights. .

The Board of Natural Resources and Conserva- tion are not being met, the Board can later modify or tion Is responsible for Issuing orders adopting water revoke It. The Board must review water reservations reservations. Before an order reserving water may be at least once every 10 years to ensure that the objec- adopted, each applicant must establish to the tives of the reservation are being met. In the case of Board's satisfaction: Instream flows granted by the Board, all or a portion of the flow maybe reallocated to a different use if the 1. The purpose of the reservation; applicant for reallocation is a qualified reservant and 2. The need for the reservation; can show that the Instream flow is not required for Its 3. The amount of water necessary for the purpose of purpose and that the need for reallocation to the the reservation; and applicant outweighs the need shown by the original 4. That the reservation Is In the public Interest. reservant (§85-2-316(11). MCA).

The Board's decision-making process regarding All water reservations granted In the Missouri water reservations is covered by the Administrative River basin under the present reservation process Procedure Act (APA). Under APA, appeal forjudicial will have a priority date of July 1, 1985 (§85-2-316. review by the district court Is provided for any party MCA). However, the Board must set the relative who fully participates In the contested case hearing priorities within the July 1 , 1985. date for the differ- (typically not persons oflertng public testimony only) ent reservations. In other reservation proceedings and who Is aggrieved by the Board's final decision (on the Yellowstone River), the Board accomplished (§2-4-704(1). MCA). this by granting different reservations at different times of the day. Reservations granted at 8 a.m.

However, the district court is limited In what It would be senior to those granted at 8:01, for ex- can review. The court will review only the record ample. established by the Board and will not consider new evidence or testimony unless the appellant can show Persons who receive a water use permit on the good reason why it was not presented to the Board. Missouri River with a priority date between Jufy 1 The court cannot substitute its judgment for the 1985, and the date the Board adopts an order grant- Board's, but can modify or reverse the Board's deci- ing a water reservation, may seek to have any or all sion if: reservations subordinated to the permit. However, for the Board to subordinate a reservation to a per-

~~1. The administrative findings. Inferences, conclu- mit, the permit holder must show that the subordi- sions, or decisions are: nation will not Interfere substantially with the pur-~~

~~(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory propose of the reservation. visions; (b) In excess of the statutory authority of the ALTERNATIVES agency;~~

(c) Made upon unlawful procedure; To address the full range of potential impacts (d) Affected by other error of law; and options available to the Board, DNRC selected (e) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, pro- four alternatives to analyze in the draft EIS; the bative, and substantial evidence on the whole Consumptive Use. Instream. Combination, and No record; Action alternatives. (f) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted Municipal reservations were given highest prior- exercise of discretion; or ity under all but the No Action Alternative because of 2. Findings of fact upon Issues essential to the deci- the relatively small amount of water requested for sion were not made, though they were requested municipal use and the importance of sufficient water (§2-4-704(2)(a,b), MCA). supplies for communities.

The district court's decision can be appealed to The Consumptive Use Alternative emphasizes the Montana Supreme Court. the use of water for Irrigation and municipal purposes. First preference in this alternative goes to A water reservation, when granted, becomes a municipalities, followed by proposed irrigation water right. However, if the objectives of the reserva- 28

projects, and then Instream uses. All irrigation proposed irrigation projects, and third to instream projects proposed in the reservation applications uses. It differs prlmarify in that proposed irrigation were included in this alternative. projects are only Included if they are economically and financially feasible at least 50 percent of the The Instream Alternative gives first priority to time. A few other projects were excluded or reduced municipal uses, but emphasizes instream reserva- in size based on concerns about land use or other tions for the protection of fish, wildlife, recreation, environmental considerations. and water quality. Irrigation would have third priority. Under the NoActionAltemative, DNRC describes trends that might unfold through the year 2025 if no To some extent, the Combination Alternative is water is reserved for ar^r purpose. similar to the Consumptive Use Alternative in that it gives first preference to municipalities, second to 29

~~CHAPTER TWO PROJECT UPDATE AND NEW INFORMATION~~

INTRODUCTION ceived on the draft EIS regarding this topic. DNRC now feels that information presented In the draft EIS This chapter provides Information that was ob- regarding this subject was adequate because the tained or developed by DNRC subsequent to prepara- scenarios examined encompass the range ofpossible tion of the draft EIS. Information regarding two ad- impacts. No further such analysis is Included in the ditional alternatives—one emphasizing water quality final EIS. protection and another that would grant only municipal and instream reservations—is included at the WATER QUALITY ALTERNATIVE request of people who commented on the draft EIS. Updated information pertaining to the listing and distribution Several commenters expressed concern that any of threatened or endangered fish also is presented. new consumptive use would increase arsenic concentrations in the Missouri River and some tributaries. They therefore requested consideration of In Its relicenslng application to the Federal En- a water quality alternative that would ergy Regulatory Commission, Montana Power Com- include only reservations for instream flows. They reasoned that such pany proposes to upgrade its hydroelectric genera- an alternative would avoid adverse water quality im- tion facilities on the Missouri and Madison rivers. pacts associated with consumptive water use. These upgrades would provide about 68 additional DNRC has included a water quality alternative in the MW of generating capacity. The draft EIS did not final EIS. This alternative includes only instream examine possible effects ofthe proposed reservations reservations. Instream reservation requests that exceed on upgraded hydroelectric generation at MFC's dams. 50 percent of the average annual flow of record The possible effects of reservations on the upgrades have been reduced as required proposed by MFC are Included. by law. The impacts of this alternative are described as follows.

Several ofthe assumptions used to determine the Water Availability benefits and costs of the alternatives in Chapter Seven of the draft EIS have since been refined. The The Water Quality Alternative costs and benefits of the alternatives analyzed in the would not affect existing streamflows or water draft EIS have been revised on the basis of these rights before July 1. 1 985. However, it would reduce the refinements. Costs and benefits of the two new alter- amount ofwater for appropriation by new permits. natives also have been estimated using the revised Small increases in assumptions. flows could occur on some streams if instream reservations reduce water use associated with permits issued after July 1, 1985. In the draft EIS. DNRC used the Missouri River The streamflow distributions for this alternative would the water availability model to investigate the possibility be same as those for baseline conditions presented in of altering operations of Canyon Ferry Reservoir to Appendix C of the draft EIS. maintain or enhance MFC headwater benefits. This analysis was performed for the 1986 level of irrigation development and for the conditions that would Water Quality result from the Consumptive Use Alternative. The Under the Water Quality AltemaUve. existing draft EIS stated that further such analysis would be water quality in the Missouri River and its tributaries included in the final EIS. Few comments were re- would not change substantially. However, the ;

30 alternative would limit further flow depletions, Social and economic Effects thereby helping to prevent increases in arsenic, sus- Economic benefits to agriculture that could pended sediments, total dissolved solids (TDS), and realized under the Consumptive Use, Combinatii water temperatures, and decreases in dissolved oxy- or Instream alternatives as described in the draft 1 gen levels, especially during times of low flow. In- would not occur. The establishment of some stream reservations also would help to maintain di- stream flow reservations would not noticeably chai lution of discharges of acid and toxic metals from the character of Missouri River basin communitl operating and abandoned mines that contaminate There would be no direct effect on population or m streams in the upper Wise River, Boulder River, Belt community services. Municipal water supp] Creek, and Grasshopper Creek drainages. By main- would have to be obtained from other sources, or taining the streams* abilities to dilute pollutants, condemnation of existing water rights. The rec instream flow reservations granted under the Water atlon and tourism-related services still would con Quality Alternative also would help to protect hold- tute a growing segment of the basin econonty. ers of wastewater discharge permits from added treatment costs. MUNICIPAL ALTERNATIVE Soils and Land Use Several commenters suggested the addition ol Instream reservations under the Water Quality alternative limited to municipal and Instream rej

Alternative would not directly affect soils or land use, vations because they felt it would provide the m but might indirectly affect soils and land use by economic benefit of any alternative. In respor limiting future consumptive uses. DNRC developed the Municipal Alternative, wh includes reservations for municipal purposes w Fisheries first priority of use, and reservations for instre flow with second priority of use. No reservations Instream reservations Included in the Water irrigation use are included in this alternative, Quality Alternative would help preserve existing required by statute, requests for instream resei aquatic habitat and fisheries as described in Chapter tions have been limited to 50 percent of the aver Four of the draft EIS. Reservation of instream flows annual flow on gauged streams. This altema would not limit the exercise of existing water rights or does not result in greater economic benefits than offer protection from natural conditions that already Instream Alternative, as explained at the end oft cause severe low flows that adversely affect aquatic chapter. Impacts of the Municipal Alternative habitat. described below. Wildlife, Vegetation, and recreation Water Availability Existing vegetation and wfldlife populations would not be adversely affected under the Water The Missouri River water availability model i Quality Alternative. Instream flow reservations used to assess how streamflows would change ur would help maintain existing opportunities for recre- the Municipal Alternative (see Appendix B). Foi ation. 35 locations examined in the model, streamflow ductions would be less than 1 percent for all mor Historical, Archaeological, and during wet, average, and dry years. Paleontological Resources Streamflow patterns in Sourdough Creek wc The reservation of water for instream flow pur- altered with the completion ofthe proposed rei poses would have no foreseeable effects on historical, be However, the timing archaeological, or paleontological resources. voir by the City ofBozeman. difficult magnitude of these alterations are to ] POWER PRODUCTION diet, given the lack of detail regarding reservoir erations in the city's application. The Water Quality Alternative would not allow reservations for consumptive uses, so existing levels WATER Quality of hydropower production would be maintained . No reservation for projects that consumptively use water People in communities that use Missouri River w; would be approved, so there would be no increase in could face a small increased risk of developing s electrical demand for such use. cancer due to slight arsenic Increases in their drl 31

ing water. As with municipal users under all alterna- below the proposed dam. In Sourdough Creek near tives, this increase, should it cx;cur. would be small the National Forest boundary, the reservation might since cities use relatively small amounts of water, reduce flows below 1 1 cfs, which Is thought neces- and water treatment by some cities actually de- sary to maintain food-producing riffle areas (DFWP creases arsenic. Affected communities are shown in 1989). Flows already fall below 1 1 cfs during the fall Table 6-8 of the draft EIS. Health risks would be less and winter (USGS 1989). under the Municipal Alternative than for any other alternative except the Water Quality Alternative. As with the Consumptive Use, Instream, and Under the Municipal Alternative, reservations for Combination alternatives, the slight reductions in instream flows would have the same Impacts as those flow in the Beaverhead River from Dillon's request described under the Water Quality Alternative. would have a minor effect on already-poor, downstream aquatic habitat conditions during dry years. SOILS Reservations for Instream flow would help main- Municipal requests generally would have minor tain aquatic habitat as described under the Water adverse efifects on soils. Soil erosion and compaction Quality Alternative. would occur at well sites, at storage tank construction sites, and along pipeline routes. Short-term Wildlife and Vegetation losses in soil productivity would occur until reveg- etation stabilizes disturbed areas. Impacts of reser- Impacts of municipal reservations on wildlife vations for instream flows are the same as those would be small except for Bozeman's proposed dam described under the Water Quality Alternative. on Sourdough Creek. Approximately 1.25 miles of streamslde riparian habitat used by moose and Land Use white-tailed deer would be flooded. Approximately 118 acres of elk winter range also would be flooded Municipal water reservations generally would by the reservoir. This impact would be the same as require development of a water source (well or water that described for the Consumptive Use, Instream, intake structure) and a pipeline to the municipal and Combination alternatives in the draft EIS. water treatment facility. In most cases, these developments involve short-term construction activities, The reservoir proposed by Bozeman would flood with the bulk of the affected land returning to former about 118 acres of native plant communities. Ripar- uses. The exception would be the City of Bozeman's ian and upland communities would be lost, and proposed reservoir on Sourdough Creek south of unvegetated mudflats would be created by reservoir Bozeman. This project would change land use In the drawdown. These unvegetated areas would have a Gallatin National Forest and on other private and high potential for invasion by weeds when reservoir municipal land, inundating up to 118 acres. Devel- levels are lowered. There would be little potential for opment of water under the municipal reservation growth of desirable shoreline plants such as willows, also could Involve modifications or construction of sedges, and rushes, due to the seasonal fluctuations electric lines Just south of Bozeman. in water levels. Control of noxious weeds may be required on and along reservoir shorelines. Instream reservations generally would have little direct effect on land use, but might constrain future Impacts of reservations for Instream flow on veg- irrigation development in some areas. etation and wildlife would be the same as those described under the Water Quality Alternative. Fisheries

With the exception of Bozeman's reservation re- Historical, archaeological, and quest, most municipal reservations would have only Paleontological resources and flsh popula- minor effects on aquatic habitat No known archaeological, historical, or paleon- proposed dam tions. Fishery impacts of Bozeman's tological sites would be affected under the Municipal of uncertainties are difficult to estimate because Alternative. Both Bozeman and Belgrade have sites However, about 1.25 about reservoir operations. listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but It is not miles of stream habitat would be flooded. none of these would be directly affected. Several sites sustain a long- known If reservoir operation would are located near the City of Bozeman's proposed term fishery In the reservoir or in Sourdough Creek 32

project, but additional field work would be required The total power losses In Montana under the to determine the importance and whether retrieval of Municipal Alternative would be 8.67 GWh per year, information and artifacts is necessaiy. Other mu- about .07 percent of Montana's annual consump- nicipal reservations would not affect known re- tion. The cost of replacing this power would be sources. around $88,900 to $522,800. For comparison, this amounts to approximately 0.02 to 0. 10 percent of The reservation of water for instream flow pur- current Montana sales of electricity. The total imposes would have no foreseeable effects on historical, pact to all ratepayers of full development under the archaeological, or paleontological resources beyond Municipal Alternative would be from $90,000 per occurring present. those at year, assuming a power replacement cost of 50 mills/ year, assuming power replace- Recreation kWh, to $530,000 per ment costs of 100 mllls/kWh. Assuming a 70-year Except as noted below, municipal water reserva- life for the projects and a 4.6 percent discount rate, tions would have little effect on instream flows and total cost to ratepayers would be $1.9 to $11.0 water-based recreation. Similarly, instream reserva- million. tions would not reduce flows below present levels and would help maintain existing opportunities for Social and Economic Effects recreation. The Municipal Alternative would preclude some economic benefits and costs to agriculture that could Bozeman's municipal reservation would affect with reservations for new Irrigation. These recreation on Sourdough Creek under the Municipal be realized benefits are indicated in Tables 6-44, 6-45, 6-46, 6- Alternative, but impacts would depend on reservoir 47 and 6-48 of the draft EIS. operation and release patterns as described in the draft EIS. These variables are not clearly defined in There would be no direct effect on population or the application. The potential for recreation at the most community services. Municipal water sup- proposed reservoir site cannot be predicted until on plies would be secure where reservations are ob- project design is complete. Recreation use on lower Prickly Pear Creek might decrease as a result of tained.

Helena's reservation If well pumping affects flows In resulting from reservations for instream the creek. Impacts flow under the Municipal Alternative would be the Power Production same as those described in the draft EIS.

DNRC estimated that water use under the Mu- nicipal Alternative would reduce generation at dams THREATENED AND above Fort Peck an average of 0.037 gigawatt-hours ENDANGERED FISH (GWh) per year. Generation at Fort Peck would be reduced by 0.017 GWh, and the output of the five Fluvial Arctic Grayling lower Missouri dams in downstream states would be reduced by 0.059 GWh. If replacement power costs On October 3, 1991, USFWS received a petition 50 mllls/kWh (5 cents kWh), the cost to utility from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Geoige ratepayers would average $5,650 per year. If re- Wuerthner (Carlton 1991) to list the stream-dwelling placement power costs 100 mllls/kWh (10 cents/ arctic grayling as an endangered species. The peti- kWh), the annual costs to ratepayers would be tioners seek the endangered listing throughout the $11,300. Society would have to bear the environ- stream-dwelling arctic grayling's known historical mental costs of approximately 0. 1 13 GWh per year of range in the lower 48 states. Also sought is a desig- new generation. nation of critical habitat.

Projects in the Municipal Alternative would use In the petition, three threats to the stream-dwell- about 8.62 GWh per year. The costs that would be ing arctic grayling and its habitat were identified. imposed on all other electricity consumers would be First is the fact that the grayling is easily caught by $86,200 per year if the cost of replacement power fishermen. Past harvest by fishermen may have were 50 mills/kWh (5 cents/kWh). or $5 1 7,400 ifthe reduced grayling numbers. The second threat is replacement cost were 100 mllls/kWh (10 cents/ competition from introduced trout species. The third kWh). 33 threat is agricultural practices Including overgrazing and from 39 to 47 GWh at Ryan Dam. Increases in and irrigation water use. energy production would result from Increased turbine capacity and improved efficiency or power factor. As described in the draft EIS, the original range of the arctic grayling in the lower 48 states included Assuming the hydropower facilities are upgraded Michigan and rivers and streams in the Missouri under the current electrical rate structure, reserva- River drainage above Great Falls. Stream-dwelling tions for consumptive use would have greater im- arctic grayling are now absent from Michigan, and pacts on power production than would occur under the only confirmed, genetically distinct stream-dwell- existing conditions fTable 2-2). Due to the uncer- ing population in Montana is in the Big Hole River. tainty of the rate structure that may accompany the Lake-dwelling populations of arctic grayling are se- upgrade, the costs resulting from reduced power pro- cure in Montana. duction at the upgraded facilities carmot be accurately estimated. However, If there is a rate Increase, USFWS must determine whether the petition has replacement costs will be less than those estimated. merit. If the petition has merit, USFWS must start the formal listing procedures. It is unlikely that PUBLIC INTEREST these procedures will be completed before the Board's contested case hearing takes place. In this section. DNRC presents two comparisons Pallid Sturgeon to assist the Board in its evaluation of the reservation requests. The first compares the relative costs and Since preparation of the draft EIS, additional benefits ofconsumptive use and Instream use consid- information has become available regarding distri- ered under the five action alternatives. The second bution of pallid sturgeon above Fort Peck Dam. comparison examines whether the benefits exceed Gardner (1990) searched published documents and the costs for individual water reservations based on Interviewed residents to help determine the past dis- the value of an acre-foot ofwater for consumptive use tribution of pallid sturgeon. This effort found records or instream use in each subbasin. of 35 observations of the pallid sturgeon In the Mis- souri River between Fort Benton and Fort Peck Dam. benefits and costs under the This contrasts with the 12 sightings noted by Alternatives Keenlyne (1989) that were reported in the draft EIS. The analysis ofthe five alternatives focuses on the DFWP captured five pallid sturgeon during 1990 in consequences ofgranting the different water reserva- the Missouri River between Cow Island and Fort Peck tions. This analj^ls Is general because actual costs Reservoir using set lines and trammel nets (Gardner 1991). DFWP's analysis of these five sturgeon indicates that they have not hybridized with shovelnose sturgeon.

~~Table 2-1 . Proposed modifications to MPC's hydroelectric generating facilities that would be affected by EFFECTS OF PROPOSED reservations RESERVATIONS ON Turbine Capacity* Power Factor~~

HYDROELECTRIC Existing'' Planned Existing^ PlannecP GENERATION WITH PROPOSED Site (cfs) (cfs) (MW/1000cfsKMW/1000cfs) MPC UPGRADES Hauser MPC proposes to upgrade Its hydroelectric generation facilities on the Missouri and Madison rivers as part of its rellcensing application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Table 2-1 Indicates the proposed modifications to MPC's facilities. Based on these changes, average monthly energy production would Increase from 1 1 GWh to 13 GWh at Hauser Dam, from 24 to 32 GWh at Rainbow Dam, 34

~~Table 2-2 Costs of replacement power due to reduced hydroelectric production and Increased electric loads for each aHernatlve~~

Existing Operations 35 and benefits cannot be known until after the Board existing conditions, the total value of recreation in determines which reservations are to be granted. the basin is $144 million per year (Duflleld et al. Also, costs and benefits could change following grant- 1990). Current armual hydropower production In ing of the reservations if the Board subsequently the Missouri basin under average water conditions Is approves changes to the conservation districts' man- 12,710 GWh per year. Of this amount, 3.550 GWh agement plans, or modifies Instream flows, or if per year Is produced at dams In Montana, and 9, 160 DNRC approves changes In existing water rights. GWh per year Is produced at federal dams in down- The estimated net present values for benefits and stream states. costs in these analyses are based on a 4.6 percent real discount rate over a 70-year period. Note that in The value of hydroelectric power production, the draft EIS, hydropower production, additional based on replacement costs of 50 or 100 mills per power use, recreation and municipal values were kWh, Is $180 to $355 million per year In Montana calculated with a 4.3 percent real discount rate. This and $460 to $920 million per year in downstream has been changed to 4.6 percent. states. The power from Pick-Sloan dams is currentty sold at cost-based rates that are around 10.5 mills per kWh. MPC does not market its hydropower BENEFITS separately, but the cost of production is about 22.6 New Irrigation mills per kWh averaged over all MPC hydroelectric dams (MPC 1990). Leaving water instream also has DNRC analyzed the economic and financial fea- value for preserving water quality, but this value has sibility of the irrigation proposals. Information used not been quantified. in the analysis included recorded crop yields, prices, and production costs. DNRC estimated net present Municipal Use values for 300 scenarios accounting for variability in future crop prices, production costs, and crop yields Water for municipal uses is worth at least what for irrigation proposal. All but one of each individual people are now paying for it. DNRC used Helena's the proposed projects (GA-20 1 ) was assumed to have rate of $2.47 per thousand gallons as an estimate of production costs and revenues associated with an this value (see Appendix K of the draft EIS). The alfalfa and barley rotation operation. The other municipal benefits shown in Table 2-3 are the value project was assumed to have a rotation of seed pota- today of 70 years of the proposed municipal use toes, grain, and alfalfa. DNRC's analysis is described valued at $2.47 per thousand gallons, less costs. in Tubbs et al. (1989), with the exception of a slight Municipal benefits are $324.0 million using a 4.6 deviation in deriving net present values. The net percent real Interest rate under all but the Water present values used In this analysis and in the draft QualityAlternative. Since no municipal reservations EIS include all direct costs associated with produc- are granted under the Water Quality Alternative, ing, operating, maintaining, and developing irriga- there are no net benefits. tion projects. The irrigation benefits shown in Table 2-3 are the median value today of 70 years of returns less costs, meaning that half of the 300 scenarios COSTS analyzed have higher net returns and half have lower Reduced recreation net returns. All of the net present values used in this analysis remain the same as those in the draft EIS. Every alternative except the Water Quality Alter- values not account for net returns accrued These do native could reduce future water-based recreation from existing farm operations; therefore, the esti- below its present levels. The estimated annual value mated net present values for irrigation may be slightly of lost recreation due to lower flows under each alter- inflated. native is shown in Table 2-4, which Is an update of 6-42 draft EIS. Table 2-3 shows the cost Instream Uses Table in the today of 70 years of lost recreation. Costs for lost recreation are highest under the Consumptive Use None of the reservations included under the five Alternative ($78.3 million) and lowest under the alternatives would increase the value of instream Water Quality Alternative ($0). uses but could prevent future depletions, thereby helping to maintain existing Instream uses. Under 36

~~Table 2-3. Benefits and Costs under five alternatives ($ million)"''' 37~~

~~Table 2-4. Reductions In annual value of recreation due to change In average flows (rounded to nearest 1,000 dollars)" 38~~

provide legal protection for fish, wildlife, recreation, Appendix B) estimates the amount of water con- and water quality. In both cases, granting a reserva- sumed for each project by taking into account an-

tion imposes costs because it may preclude other nual diversions as estimated in the conservation dis- uses of reserved water. The benefits of granting a trict applications, irrigation system efllciencies for

reservation exceed the costs if the value of the water each project and other losses, and assumes that 10 in its proposed use is greater than its value in uses percent of the return flows would come back to the that would be precluded by the reservation. stream after the irrigation season. Method No. 3 (the fourth column ofAppendix B) uses estimates ofwater All of the consumptive requests have at least consumed by each project as estimated by DNRC's potential competing uses. Mary streams have two or Missouri River water availability model. The model more consumptive use requests, and in some cases considers crop water requirements and irrigation there is not enough water to satisfy all proposed efQciencies for each subbasin as described In Appen- reservations. All the consumptive requests compete dix C of the draft EIS. Both methods No. 2 and No. with instream requests, either on the stream reach 3 included the further assumption that there would where the water is being requested, or downstream. be no return flows for 65 proposed irrigation projects Consumptive use requests on a tributary also can located on higher benchlands. Of these methods, compete with other consumptive use requests and DNRC believes method No. 3 provides the most rea- existing hydropower uses downstream. Instream sonable estimates. requests can compete with consumptive use requests on the same stream or on tributaries upstream. The cost of replacement power was estimated based on two different values, 50 and 100 mills (5 On 239 stream segments, reservations were re- and 1 cents) per kWh. This affected the replacement quested for both instream and consumptive uses. power costs associated with reductions in hy- When two reservation requests cannot both be dropower production and Increased electrical power granted because they compete, the cost of granting loads. It should be noted that the costs attributed to one request is the value ofthe foregone benefits ofthe increased power loads were not included in the draft other. On streams with three or more requests, the EIS's consumptive use values, but are accounted for net benefits will be greatest from granting as many in this analysis in Appendix B. The instream flow requests, starting with the highest valued, for which values that are a summation of the recreational and there is water. hydropower values also are Impacted by the cost of replacement power. The difference is in the hy- Table K-4 in Appendix K in the draft EIS com- dropowervalues. Further, hydropower values in this pared competing consumptive use values with in- analysis are specific to dam location rather than by stream values. This information has been revised subbasin. The recreational values are the same as and is included in Appendix B. The values of water those in the draft EIS. The value of water for In- estimated in the draft EIS used one set of assump- stream uses is shown in Tables 2-5 and 2-6. tions. Commenters requested DNRC to determine how sensitive the results of the analysis in the draft At least 10 and as many as 59 of the 219 pro- EIS are to changes in this set of assumptions. As- posed irrigation projects would have a value per acre- sumptions regarding variables that influence the value of water for irrigation and replacement power have been changed as follows. Table 2-5. Recreation values per acre-foot at 1989 flows

The consumptive use values for irrigation were Year derived using three different assumptions. Method Subbasin Juiy-August Rest of No. 1 (indicated in the second column ofAppendix B) assumed that 50 percent of the water diverted would Headwaters return to the source. This assumption would overes- timate the value of proposed irrigation that would use efficient sprinkler systems, while underestimat-

~~ing the value of projects with less efllcient flood irrigation systems. Method No. 2 (the third column of 39~~

~~Table 2-6. Hydropower values per acre-foot~~

~~Subbasin/dams 40 41~~

~~CHAPTER THREE COMMENTS, RESPONSES AND CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS~~

~~INTRODUCTION Pat Simmons and Dick Krawiec, Gallatin Gateway David Sail~~

This chapter presents DNRC's responses to pub- Betty Humbert, Twin Bridges Erling Tufte, Director, Public lic comments on the draft EIS. Changes to the draft Works Department, EIS also are included in this chapter. City of Great Falls Peter Lesica, University of Montana M. Chris Imhoff, Helena A 60-day comment period that began July 3, William "Blondy" Patrick, President, Skyline 199 1 , was extended an additional 14 days and ended September 16. 1991. Ten informational meetings Sportsmen's Association, Butte and public hearings were held fromAugust 5 through Jim Peterson, President, American Fisheries Soci- ety, Great Falls 8, 199 1 , to take comments on the draft EIS. Table 3- William Howell, President. Town Council, Yel- 1 lists the locations of these meetings, the number of West people attending, and the niamber of people making lowstone formal comments. Joe Gutkoski, Bozeman Monte J. Boettger, City Attorney, Lewistown Dr. JoHn P. Humphrey, Lewistown The following list includes the names of individu- Turner, Jackson als who made oral comments on the draft EIS at the Wayne public hearings: Sharon Turner, Jackson Paul F. Berg. Chairman. Legislative Committee, Rich Day A. Miller Southeastern Montana Sportsmen Association, B. Miller J. Ramirez Billings Charles Swysgood M. Doken J.B. Anderson W. Stender D. Moss R Smith Monte Clemow RayTflman Table 3-1. Public participation in hearings held to take B. Holdorf R Gosman comments on draft EIS D. Bryant Dick Kennedy Stan Bradshaw Tony Schoonen K. Stensva M.O. Spec Alvin Hensvold Tim Brunner Mark Solmosky Gordon Ekland Betty Jo Bergin William Bergin Claria Spek John Rouanne Dianne McDermand Boettger Jack Humphry Fry

~~The following list includes the names of individuals or organizations that submitted written comments to DNRC on the draft EIS: 42~~

Gunnar and Elaine Kalsta, Glen Douglas H. Parrott, President; Frank Goffena, J. Blaine Anderson, Jr., Attorney at Law, Dillon Heniy Bedford, Robert Goffena, directors; Max A. Hansen, Max A. Hansen & Associates, P.C, Walter Newton, Secretary; Deadman's Basin Dillon Water Users Association Andy Epple, Planning Director, City-County Plan- Sue M. Olson. Chairman. Musselshell County ning Office, Bozeman Commissioners. Roundup Phillip J. Forbes, Director of Public Service. Boze- Vernon Petersen. Chairman. Fergus County Com- man missioners, Lewistown Tom R Johnson, Chairman, Glacier County Con- Frank Goffena. VIce-Chalrman. Lower Musselshell servation District, Cut Bank Conservation District. Roundup Margie and Harold Petersen, Wisdom Lloyd Berry, Secretary, Upper Musselshell Conser- Walter A. and Louise Steingruber, Willow Creek vation District, Harlowton Monte Clemow, Chairman, Headwaters RC&D Ag Vernon R. Ballaiti, Chairman, Golden Valley Water Committee, Butte County Commissionei^ Mike Wendlan, Chairman, HUl County Conserva- Sally J. Armstrong, Mayor, Roundup tion District, Havre Carl M. Davis, Schulz, Davis & Warren, Dillon Randall P. Smith, Glen Holly J. Franz, Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Bill Davison, President, Garrison Ranches Inc., Waterman, Helena Glen Peggy L. Parmelee, Executive Vice-President, Donald P. Taylor, Wicks Ranch Corporation, Montana Association of Conservation Districts, Lewistown Helena Jim L. Wedeward, Project Manager, U.S. Bureau of M.K. Botz, Hydrometrlcs, Helena Reclamation, Montana Projects Office, Billings Leah Stanford. Dell Bernard J. Harkness, Dell Dixie Nugent, Administrative Secretary, Cascade Jennifer Smith, President, Madison/Gallatin County Conservation District, Great Falls Chapter Trout Unlimited, Bozeman Mark Clemow Jr., Mark Clemow Ranches Inc., Joy Reeder Wicks, Secretary/Treasurer, Wicks Wisdom Ranch Corporation, Lewistown Edi Hodges, Administrative Secretary. Liberty Dianne L. McDermand, Vice-President, Medicine County Conservation District, Chester River Canoe Club, Great Falls Hugh Zackheim, Helena Richard H. Kennedy, East Bench Unit, Dillon Kathy Hadley, President, Montana WUdllfe Federa- George Wold. Butte tion, Bozeman Ben C. and Faye F. Holland, Dillon Elsie Laden. President, and Charles Laden. Bea- Robert Van Deren, President, Beaverhead County verhead Seven Up F?anch. DUlon Farm Bureau. Dillon Jo Brunner. Executive Secretary. Montana Water Charles W. Proff. Chairman. Teton County Conser- Resources Association. Helena vation District, Choteau John W. Mumma. Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Tony Schoonen, Dillon Service, Missoula Robert A Sisk Jr.. Galata Gary Ermeberg. Chairman. Toole County Conser- Charles Hahnkamp. Cherry Creek Angus Ranch, vation District. Shelby Melrose Marge Jappe, Chairman. Beaverhead People for Eva Stanford. Stanford Ranch. Dell the West. Dillon James BInando. Acting Deputy State Director, Di- Walter Van Deren. President. Open A Ranch Inc., vision of Lands and Renewable Resources, U.S. Dillon Bureau of Land Management, Billings Dorothy Stout. Sheridan James Coflfman, Public Works Director, Chester Ole M. Ueland. Silver Bow Gary L. Spaeth, Spaeth Law Firm, Joliet Robert Lane. Supervisor. Gallatin Conservation Barry T. Wharram, Chairman, Chouteau County District. Bozeman Conservation District, Fort Benton Stan Bradshaw. Resource Director, Trout Unlim- Edward F. Amott. Steve Halstrom, Larry Hodge. ited Montana Council, Helena David Kohn. John Metcalf, Gerald Evans, Peter J. Chamberlain PhD, Benton City, Washington Judith Basin Conservation District. Stanford Liter Spence, Water Resources Supervisor. Fisher- ies Division, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena 43

~~COMMENTS AND RESPONSES applicants requested instream flows for these times, but also for throughout the entire year.~~

The following pages present written and oral com- 2. draft EIS fails to show the avail- ments and DNRC's responses to them for each re- Comment: The abflity of unappropriated waters on the stream source type. To avoid duplication, similar comments 85-2-308, or deal made by several parties were combined and an- sources required by § MCA, how to with the fact that requested flow rates are far in swered only once. In some cases, the response to a excess of available water. comment is shown merely as "comment noted." This means either that DNRC acknowledges the com- Response: Section 83-2-308, MCA, sets out the ment, or that the comment is the opinion of the procedure for objections to permit applications and commenter. Changes and corrections to the draft reservation applications. The criteria the Board will EIS are shown at the end of this chapter. use In making decisions regarding water reservation LEGAL CONCERNS applications are found In § 85-2-316. See response to comment 3 regarding water availability. Water availability 3. Comment: Can a water reservation be issued

1 . Comment: The basic fallacy of the entire water when the water Is not always available? reservation process is the presupposition that water is legally available for appropriation. Granted, there Response: The water reservation statutes do not may be legally available water at times when the require that water always be available in order for the demand for consumptive use of water is low and the Board to grant a reservation. The applicants, how- demand for instream flows is low. Unfortunately, the ever, are required to submit an analysis of the physi- demand for consumptive use of water—i.e.. irriga- cal availability of flows for their water reservation tion—and the demand for instream flows occur at requests [ARM 36.16.105B). Data on the physical the same point, usually June through September. availability of flows for the reservation requests also It appears from a review of the draft EIS and tables were provided in appendices C and D ofthe draft EIS. contained In it that applicants for reservations con- The contested case hearing wUl provide the forum for cluded that water is legally available for reservation the Board to determine whether reservation applica- appropriations by averaging monthly streamflows. tions would have adverse effects on existing rights. The fallacy of this is that when high monthly flows occur, usually during May and June, there Is a low 4. Comment: Irrigators are starting to use water demand for consumptive use of the water, and any from the Musselshell River during March and April instream flow demand is satisfied by high runoff when water quality is better. If DFWP obtains an water. instream flow reservation, will this water be available for irrigation? Will the reservations for instream Response: No presumption is made In the water flows affect our [Musselshell Water Users) ability to reservation process that water is legally available for use our contract water from storage and to divert appropriation. The reservation statute, § 85-2-316, water from the Musselshell River and tributaries MCA, requires that all water users who may be af- before May 1? fected by reservations be given notice and provided with the opportunity to object to water reservation Response: The priority date for contract water from applications. A contested case hearing must follow, Deadman's Basin Reservoir is June 5, 1934, which Is with the hearings examiner submitting findings of senior to that of any reservation. Reservations fact and conclusions of law to the Board for its use in granted to DFWP could not affect the availability of reaching a decision on the reservation applications. this contract water. The methods used by the applicants to determine DFWP is requesting 80 cfs instream flows in the their reservation requests are outlined In Chapter Musselshell River from its head to the Musselshell Three of the draft EIS. The applicants did not use diversion between Musselshell and Melstone, and 70 average monthly streamflows to determine that water cfs from the Musselshell diversion to the mouth. was legally available for their reservations; no such Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show monthly percentile statement appears in the draft EIS. exceedance flows for the Musselshell River at Harlow- Consumptive use demands generally are highest ton and Mosby. Flows in the Musselshell River near during the summer and early fall. Not only have Harlowton are below the 80 cfs requested by DFWP 44

during the 2 driest years out of 10 in April. In May, 5. Comment: We [Skyline Sportsmen's Associa- flows at Harlowton are below 80 cfs during the driest tion, Inc.] are opposed to the Consumptive Use, Com- 1 year in 10. At Mosby, average flows In April and bination, and No Action alternatives for the following May are below 70 cfs during the driest 1 year in 10. reason: The Missouri River basin already is Because flows In the Musselshell River are some- overapproprtated, with irrigation now controlling 97 times below those requested by DFWP in the spring, percent of the public water. water from the Musselshell River and many tributaries would not be available for new appropriation in Response: Your opposition to the referenced alter- the spring of some years if DFWP's reservation re- natives is noted. In the Missouri basin, a laiige quests are granted in fuU. Contracts for water in amount of water is claimed for irrigation, but hy- Deadman's Basin Reservoir are valid from May 1 dropower claims also are extensive. through September 30.

~~Figure 3-1. Average monthly flows In the Musselshell River at Harlowton~~

~~OCT NOV DEC MMJAN FEB 45~~

6. Comment: The existence of water rights and 9. Comment: How will the Board know how much use permits and upstream and downstream reaches, water is available for Instream flow reservations when including recharges, offstream storage, supplemen- the adjudication process is not complete? tal flows, etc., inherently maintain varjdng degrees of flow that contribute to the instream flow needs iden- Response: Montanans have been appropriating and tified by DFWP and DHES. The levels of these flows using water without a completed statewide adjudica- and the amount contributed to their identified needs tion since the late 19th century. In 1973, the Mon- could be subtracted from the reservation requests tana Legislature initiated an adjudication of existing and stUl offer a significant contribution to the need. water rights and two processes for issuing new water rights, water reservations, and provisional water use Response: When a shortage occurs, senior water permits. Chief Water Judge C. Bruce Loble (Loble rights—those with a priority date before July 1, 1991) estimates that the adjudication will take at 1985—^would be satisfied before the water reserva- least 1 5 more years to complete. The Board must tions. Return flows from existing irrigation and re- reach Its decision on water reservation applications leases from storage would, in some instances, help by July 1, 1992. satisfy the instream flow requests of DHES and Under the prior appropriation doctrine, the pro- DFWP. It is Important to remember, however, that posed Instream reservations would not affect exist- existing water users with claims and permits before ing water rights with a priority date earlier than Jufy

July 1, 1985, still would have priority over the in- 1, 1985. As with provisional water use permits is- stream reservations. Instream reservants would be sued throughout the past 20 years, these reserva- "riding the coattalls" of existing water right holders tions recognize and cannot adversely affect senior and would share the same water until a shortage water rights. occurs. When a shortage occurs, senior water rights—those with a priority date before July 1, 10. Comment: Previously adjudicated (decreed) 1985—^would be satisfied before the water reserva- streams do not have water available for instream flow tions. reservations.

7. Comment: On page 4 ofthe draft environmental Response: Regardless of the decreed status of a assessment for the City of Belgrade, DNRC states: stream, prospective water users have a continuing "Discussions with Bozeman water resources regional right to apply for water reservations. Even if a stream office personnel (Compton and Mack 1989) suggest is decreed, further appropriations through water res- that water for the reservation Is physically and le- ervations are possible tf the criteria for issuing a gally available." This statement appears to contra- reservation are met. ff the stream is not closed to dict the draft EIS, which shows an absence of appropriation, the Board is obligated by law to pro- unappropriated water above Morony Dam. Please cess applications for reservations. Easting water explain. right holders who feel that their water use may be adversely affected can object to proposed new uses Response: According to the Missouri River water under reservations. availability model, some water is In excess of existing claims during some years and during some months. 11. Comment: The draft EIS states on page S-3:

Please refer to pages 57 and 59 and Table 4- 10 (p. 58) "The exact amount of water legally available for fu- in the draft EIS for specific time periods. Nowhere in ture consumptive appropriation, ff arty, will not be the draft EIS Is the conclusion reached that no water known for some time." This statement begs the is available for appropriation. question, ff instream flow reservations are granted in the amount and during the time requested, there 8. Comment: On pages 23-28, we [BUREC] note wlU be no future appropriation for consumptive uses. that some of the requested flows exceed the "50 Any attempt to reduce Instream flows, once granted, percent of the average annual flow of record" limit set will surely result in lengthy litigation. by §85-2-316(6), MCA. Response: This statement is Included in the draft

Response: In Table 5-1 of the draft EIS (p. 135), EIS primarily because the large Instream water right instream flow requests that exceed half the average claims held by MPC and BUREC have not been adju- annual flow of gauged streams are Identified and dicated, ff these rights are adjudicated as claimed. reduced to half the average annual flow. ,

and If it can be demonstrated that additional water Response: The amount of water used under water use would cause adverse impacts on these rights, rights in existence before July 1, 1985, would not be little water may be available for future appropriation, afiected. Under Montana law, a reservation cannot regardless of Board action. In most cases, Instream be granted if the record of the contested case hearing flow reservation requests are considerably less than shows that the use of senior water rights would be hydropower water rights claimed by MPC and adversely affected. If granted, the instream flow res- BUREC. Further, the large instream water right ervations requested by DFWP would be junior to all claims of BLM for the wild and scenic river stretch of pre-July 1, 1985, water rights. the Missouri and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' hydropower claims at Fort Peck could limit water 16. Comment: Would the granting of reservations availability in the mainstem Missouri and tributaries affect uses after July 1, 1985? above Fort Peck Reservoir.

Response: Appropriation ofwater after July 1, 1985, 12a. Comment: One of the arguments for passage would be junior to any water reservation granted. of the 1 979 adj udlcation law was that most streams, Granting water reservations could leave less water like the Beaverhead, were overappropriated and avaflable for future appropriation and use, with the water was not available to satisfy existing water amount of water varying by stream. Refer to page 7 rights. If sufficient water were available, the water of the draft EIS for a discussion of the effect of reser- users and BUREC would not have constructed the vations on provisional water use permits issued be-

Clark Canyon Dam or the state its storage projects. tween July 1 , 1 985, and the date the Board makes its decision on the reservation applications. 12b. Comment: The draft EIS is based on the assumption that water is available to reserve. We 17. Comment: The Montana Legislature set a July already are overappropriated on many streams, in- 1, 1985, priority date for the reservations. What's to cluding the Red Rock/ Beaverhead and the Big Hole. stop the legislature from setting an 1885 or 1785 priority date for reservations? Response: The adjudication statute was passed In 1973 (amended In 1979) to systematically quantify Response: The Montana Legislature has never at- and determine water rights in existence prior to 1 973. tempted to retroactively establish an earlier priority Before then, Montana had no formalized statewide date for water rights and may not have the authority process to determine the quantity of existing water to do so. rights. The reservations are based on the prior appro- 18. Comment: Although those with old water rights priation doctrine. The reservants—as with all other are not supposed to be affected by these reserva- water users—can use water only when it is available. tions. It appears that the old water right holders still may be forced to go to court to use their rights in Priority Dates drought years.

13. Comment: If more than one department or Response: During times of shortage, senior water municipality asks for a July 1, 1985, reservation, rights are entitled to receive water before junior who has priority? rights, ff senior water right holders are not getting the water to which they are entitled, they may seek a Response: The Board will establish the priorities remedy in district court. among reservations it grants within that date (July 1

1985) as required by statute (§ 85-2-331 MCA). 19. Comment: As noted on page 254 of the draft EIS, DNRC did not examine the effects that the res- 14. Comment: What happens to provisional water ervation applications would have on water use per- use permits issued after July 1, 1985? mits issued since 1985. We (Deadman's Basin Water Users Association] recommend that these effects be Response: See page 7 of the draft EIS. analyzed. We also recommend analysis of those permit requests filed but not yet acted upon before 15. Comment: How would Instream flow reserva- the Board makes Its reservation decisions. All of tions aflect Irrigation water rights in existence before

July 1. 1985? 47 those permits and requests could cumulatively Response: Your water service contract with BUREC amount to a significant measure of benefit, espe- for water from Lake Elwell has a priority date before cially If they are subordinate to pending reservation July 1, 1985. Therefore, no reservation would affect requests. This would not be significant If the reser- your ability to use this water. vation process could have been concluded in a short time Instead of seven-plus years. LEGAL STANDING FOR INSTREAM FLOWS

22a. Comment: Granting instream flow requests Response: DNRC notified all holders of provisional will give DFWP standing to object to new uses and permits Issued after July 1, 1985, that their permits changes in use. Additionally, an Instream flow res- would be junior to any water reservation applica- ervation appropriation grants the approprlator legal tions granted by the Board. Permits and permit standing to sue. The net result is that any activity applications issued or appliedfor before July 1, 1985, contemplated on the stream, such as installing a are summarized by subbasln and major drainage in new diversion system, may be delayed unreasonably Appendix A. More than 400 post- 1985 permits and due to objections by the instream flow reservants. permit applications would be junior to reservations unless the Board subordinates reservations to them. 22b. Comment: The instream flow reservations The Board may subordinate a reservation to a permit will provide DFWP with legal objector status during if it finds that the subordination would not interfere the adjudication of existing water rights. They will be substantially with the purpose of the reservations. able to use this standing against existing water right Because the Board could subordinate the reserva- holders. Existing water right holders will be required tions to some, none, or all of these permits, it is not to put up a legal defense to protect their valid, exist- possible at this time to analyze the eflects that reser- ing water rights against DFWP, DHES. and BLM. vations would have on these permits. The resources of an existing water right holder are no match for DFWP, DHES, or the United States govern- 20. Comment: I [George Wold] have a ranch at 160 ment. This mismatch In size will allow these agen- District Road In Sheridan, Montana. This Duncan cies to take existing water rights by exhausting the ranch is Mill Creek. 1 dependent Mill Creek on am on resources of existing water right holders. We are water for irrigation and storage water. Mill Creek opposed to this situation. was measured at the Forest Service boundary above any user turnouts. This impact statement proposal Response : DFWP believes it already has standing In will leave all irrigators without water except during the adjudication process and has objected to a num- the high-water season. ber of claims In the Missouri River basin above Fort Peck Dam. DFWP also feels that it has standing to Response: Assuming your water right permit or object to new permits and changes in use in these claim is , the instream flow water before July 1 1985, same areas. DNRC, however, has not allowed DFWP reservation if granted—^would be junior to your — to have standing on streams to contest new uses or right. You would be able to use your existing water changes in use unless DFWP could show it has water right have in the past. as you rights that would be affected. If the Board grants DFWP's requested reservations, DFWP would gain 21. [Robert A. Sisk, Jr.) are writing Comment: We legal standing to object to new uses and changes in this letter with over the possible loss of our concern use In more streams in the Missouri River basin essen- water service contract. These water rights are above Fort Peck Dam. DFWP would be required to tial operations on the to our farming and ranching follow the same objection process as any other water Willow Creek of Lake Elwell. Without the water, arm right holder. For its objection to be upheld, DFWP the irrigation system currently have would be we would have to show that its reservations would be only hay useless. We live In a dry area, and our adversely affected. See page 179 of the draft EIS. production is under irrigation. Having spent more Irrigation system, a loss of than $300 per acre on the 23. Comment: On page 179, column one, fourth this enterprise would be detrimental to our ranching paragraph, the discussion of legal standing with res- operations financial stability. We definitely and ervations is true only if the government entity apply- reduce our would be against any ruling that would ing for a reservation doesn't already have standing to water availability. object. DFWP's existing rights (pre- 1973) such as 48

Murphy rights provide standing for objecting to ... for which water has been reserved" (§ 85-2- changes and new permits in a number of drainages. 402(2){a), MC^. DFWP would be required to follow The draft EIS suggests that a reservation will give the same objection process as any other water right DFWP first-time standing to object in the adjudica- holder. For Its objection to be upheld, DFWP would tion process that is addressing pre- 1 973 water rights. have to show that its reservation would be adversely Existing statutes and the fact that DFWP is a pre- affected. 1973 water right holder in many basins already give General DFWP standing in the adjudication process. This standing is independent of any reservation that may 26. Comment: The draft EIS does not fulfill the be granted. There is a misconception that DFWP will requirements for an environmental impact state- now acquire standing in the adjudication process if it ment. There are few. If any, definitive conclusions on receives reservations, whereas in many instances how any given action would affect the environment DFWP already has such standing. or on water usage in the basin.

Response: In many Instances, DFWP already may Response: The draft EIS does meet the require- have standing to object to new permits and in the ments of an EIS under MEPA The draft EIS de- adjudication process. The draft EIS points out that scribes the existing environment In the upper Mis- a water reservation is an appropriation of water. souri River and identifies the Impacts or possible Approprlators acquire standing to object In proceed- impacts of granting or denying all or some of the ings that may affect the exercise of their water rights. reservation requests. Because ofthe large number of Standing also may be created by other situations, applications and the diversity of beneficial uses ap- however, such as holding another type ofwater right, plied for, the draft EIS analyzes a range of alternate or it can be authorized specifically by statute. Board actions. Since the authority to grant or deny water reservation applications rests with the Board, 24. Comment: If DFWP obtains a reservation with a the EIS Is not a decision-making document. Nor

1985 priority date, it may have little effect on in- does the EIS identify a preferred alternative or make stream flows but would give DFWP standing to be- aity conclusions as to whether any applicant has met come involved in the dally operation of every stream the criteria for the Board to grant a reservation. The and river in the state at great expense to the public EIS only presents facts, information, and known or and the water users with rights prior to 1985. potential Impacts for the Board to consider In making its decision. Response: An instream flow reservation would give DFWP additional standing in a water right proceed- 27. Comment: There is no statement of cost as ing only if it does not already have standing. It is not required by state law on the draft EIS. All state known whether DFWP would become involved In the agencies are supposed to show the cost of preparing, daily "operation" of every stream for which It has printing, and distributing a document. Who is re- applied for a reservation. sponsible for this, and what will be done to correct this situation? How much did the EIS cost, and why

25. Comment: If a reservation is granted to DFWP, was it not sent to aU potentially affected parties? it [DFWPl should not have the legal right to object to requests of existing water right users to change their Response: DNRC made an error In not disclosing places of diversion, places of use, or storage, if printing and distribution costs as required by law. DFWP's right with a 1985 priority date is clearly not One thousand copies of the draft EIS were printed at affected. These matters are governed by DNRC un- a cost of $12,324.28. or about $12.32 per copy. It der existing law and rules to safeguard the public cost approximately $1.91 to send each copy In the without adding another department to the process. mail. This amount added to the printing cost totals $14.23 per copy. The reservation requests could Response: Montana statute provides that an appro- affect many Montanans—users of electricity, irriga- prlator may make a change in the place of diversion, tors, and recreatlonists. to name a few. If the draft the place of use. the purpose of use, or the place of EIS were sent only to existing water right holders, the storage if the appropriator proves, in part, that the cost would exceed $170,000. Because of this cost, change will "not adversely affect the water rights of the EIS was not sent to all potentially affected par- other persons or other planned uses or developments ties. Instead, DNRC published notice of the avail- 49 ability of the draft EIS three times in 11 newspapers Response: DFWP could not petition for the appoint- of general circulation in the basin and sent copies to ment of a water commissioner under present de- everyone who requested them. Additional copies crees. Under § 85-5-101(1), MCA, the district court were sent to local libraries. Also see response to may appoint a water commissioner "upon the appli- comment 280. cation of at least 15 percent of the water rights affected by the decree." Since any water reservation 28. Comment: Overall, what has been presented as awarded to DFWP would not be Included In the exist- an EIS does not meet the requirements. The purpose ing decrees, DFWP would not have a right affected by of an EIS is to analyze a major action to determine its the decrees and therefore could not petition. Even impact on the environment. Certainly, the reserva- though DFWP cannot request appointment ofa water tion of water baslnwide meets the requirement of a commissioner without being included in a decree, if major action. However, the analysis rarely comes to a commissioner is appointed by petition from other any definitive conclusion on environmental impact. water users, DFWP probably would be required to The basic Intent in the draft EIS. It seems, is to help pay for the commissioner If DFWP's water reser- assemble water reservation requests submitted by vation right is distributed by the commissioner. various government bodies and propose to the Board After an enforceable decree Is entered by the Water a course of action It should follow. There is no Court under the adjudication process, a water com- problem in an EIS summarizing facts and figures. missioner may be appointed by the district court There is, however, a difficulty in not outlining specific upon application by DNRC and one or more water environmental consequences based on that sum- right holder(s), which would include water reserv- mary and In tr3^Ing to direct policy decisions through ants. Once appointed, the water commissioner the EIS mechanism. would distribute water to all appropriators, including water reservants, according to their rights and Response: The draft EIS does not propose a course priorities. of action to the Board. It is not known whether the Board has the authority to condition a water reservation specifically to 29. Comment: The draft EIS fails to adequately preclude the reservant from petitioning for a water consider or discuss the cumulative effect of the nu- commissioner. This issue must be addressed by the merous reservation applications on prior existing Board. appropriated rights and the need or ability to appropriate water for future consumptive use. 31. Comment: The draft EIS falls to state the costs that have been and will be incurred in considering

Response: By statute (§ 85-2-316), water reserva- DFWP's application, what administrative plans tions cannot adversely affect water rights in exist- DFWP has, and the costs that wUl be Involved to ence before July 1 , 1985. This Is addressed on page administer Its reservation. If granted. 175 of the draft EIS. The effects that reservations could have on permits issued between July 1, 1985, Response: The costs of giving notice, holding the and the date the Board makes its decision are dis- hearing, conducting Investigations, and making cussed on page 179. Also discussed on page 179 are records Incurred in acting upon the applications to the amounts of water that would be available for reserve water—except salaries—are paid by the ap- future appropriation ff reservations are granted. plicants. A reasonable proportion of DNRC's cost of Public entities were given the opportunity to submit preparing an EIS also must be paid by the appli- applications to reserve water for future consumptive cants. The total cost ofthe notice and contested case use. Eighteen conservation districts, 18 municipali- hearing paid by the applicants will be $194,724, of ties, and BUREC submitted applications for this which DFWP will pay $82,626. The total cost of the purpose. EIS paid by the applicants is $278,250, of which DFWP paid $120,000. Although DFWP's manage- 30. Comment: Any reservation granted to DFWP ment plan describes how reservations might be en- should specfflcally preclude DFWP from having forced if granted, DFWP has not identified the costs standing to put a water commissioner on any river or of administering Its reservation. stream at the expense of the water users with prior rights. 32. Comment: On page 242 of the draft EIS, Table 6-50, DNRC identffles measures that could be 50 adopted to reduce impacts. To reduce conflicts be- the Board can grant On some gauged streams, tween reseivants and existing water users over avail- DFWP applied for instream flows that exceed half the able water, DNRC suggests the installation of mea- average annual flow of record. DFWP identifies these suring devices and the hiring of a water commis- streams on pages 1-30 and 1-31 of its reservation sioner to monitor diversions and allocate water in application (DFWP 1989). accordance with water rights. If water is legally unavailable, as it is in the Missouri River basin above 35. Comment: Where in this document does it say Morony Dam, consumptive water reservation appli- that the government will not take my water rights? cations must be denied. Because water commissioner fees are paid according to the amount ofwater Response: See the "Legal WaterAvaUability" section received, existing water users—^who will receive most ofthedraftElS(p. 175). of the water based on their priority dates—^will be primarily responsible for paying the water 36. Comment: DNRC will take over water rights. commissioner's fees. It is unfair to put this additional expense on senior water users when Response: DNRC did not apply for a reservation and unappropriated water is not legally available. has no legislative authority to take over existing water rights under the reservation system. Response: The EIS suggests possible measures that could be adopted to reduce conflicts between reserv- 37. Comment: The reservation process is complex, ants and existing water users over available water. and an attorney is needed to protect water rights. In Under the prior appropriation doctrine, senior water addition, the EIS doesn't mention the adverse finan- right holders exercise their rights first. To avoid cial Impact of these reservations on senior water controversy, a water commissioner sometimes is re- right holders, nor the cost in time and money that quested to distribute water according to priority. will be needed to defend existing water rights from water reservations. 33. Comment: The draft EIS fails to adequately describe existing or future beneficial uses plarmed in Response: The reservation process is complex, and connection with the reservation as required by § 85- individuals will need to decide whether the reserva- 2-316, MCA. tions would affect any aspects of their existing water uses. The scope of the upper Missouri River water Response: of beneficial The types uses allowed by reservation proceeding and the process required to law include, are limited to, (in- but not agriculture be followed were established by the legislature. See cluding stock water), domestic, fish wildlife, and in- response to comment 38. dustrial, irrigation, mining, municipal, power, and recreational 85-2- uses (§ 102(2)(a), MCA). The water 38. Comment: This EIS doesn't mention the ad- uses planned by the reservation applicants are de- verse financial impact ofthese reservations on senior scribed in Chapter Three of the draft EIS. water right holders. The cost in time and money to defend an existing water right from water reserva- 34. Comment: [Ben C. and Faye F. Holland] are We tions should be cited. opposed to the DFWP reservations because the applicant has failed to with sufficient speci- document Response: The time and money required to defend ficity that its reservations on gauged streams amount senior water rights will depend on the number of to 50 percent of baseline flow. people who object to the proposed reservations and a water right holder's level of participation in the pro- Response: The reservation 85-2- water statute (§ cess. Time commitments and costs are not known at limits 316, MCA) the Board to granting a maximum this time. of 50 percent of the average annual flow of record on gauged streams for tnstream flow reservations. In 39. Comment: Could the U.S. Congress require Table 5-1 of the draft EIS 135), instream flow (p. Montana to allow a certain amount of water to meet requests that exceed this limitation are identified the needs of downstream states? and have been reduced to meet the statutory limitation. The water reservation statute prohibit does not Response: Water fiowing from one state to another applicants from applyiiy for instream flows that ex- can be apportioned by Congress among the states. ceed this limitation, but the statute limits the amount 51

40. Comment: Will the reservation process help and issuance of permits for water rights at the time keep water in Montana? a demonstrated need for water arises. Failure to show that the reservation process is a superior Response: According to Frank Trelease (Trelease et method of water allocation amounts to a breach of

all 982) , a noted western water law expert , the water the requirement that the reservation be in the public reservation process is surpassed only by the actual interest. development of water as the best means to protect water for Montana in an interstate proceeding to Response: Applications for reservations of water in divide the waters of the Missouri River among the the upper Missouri River basin are authorized by §§ basin states. The strength ofthe reservation process 85-2-316 and 85-2-331, MCA. Other "methods of is that it requires a contested case hearing; an EIS for water allocation" available to reservants are consid- assessing economic feasibility and environmental ered by the Board under the criteria of need. In order impacts; an identification of the point of diversion, to be granted a reservation, the applicant must es- place of use, and other relevant information for each tablish to the satisfaction of the Board that the res-

~~project; and criteria for establishing due diligence in ervation is needed (§ 85-2-316{4)(a)(lii), MCA). To do development of the water. this:~~

~~(a) the applicant has demonstrated that there is~~

4 1 . Comment: If there Is future conflict between a reasonable bkellhood that future instate or irrigation users and state agencies with reservations, out-of-state competing water uses would who will decide the matter? consume, degrade, or otherwise affect the water available for the purpose of the reser- Response: Conflicts among water right holders are vation; or

decided by the district court. (b) where information regarding the effect of future water uses on a proposed reservation is 42. Comment: The Gallatin River is dewatered ev- not available, or where the applicant may not ery year, and, in fact, a court case is now in progress be eligible to apply for a water use permit, the over the Baker Ditch Company being cut off. applicant has demonstrated that the water resource values warrant reserving water for Response: Low flows are a problem in the lower the requested purpose; or

Gallatin River during dry years, but they do not (c) where the applicant could otherwise seek a occur every year. There was a case in district court water right permit, there are constraints that involving the Baker Ditch Company and diversions would restrict the applicant from perfecting a from the lower Gallatin River. This case was decided water permit for the intended purpose of the by the court (Baker Ditch Co. v. District Court, 48 St. reservaUon. ARM 36.16. 107B(2). Rep. 972 (Mont. 1991)1. Water reservations are the only method for obtaining instream flow rights. Because there is no 43. Comment: The requested reservations are for withdrawal, impoundment, or diversion of water, flows of extremely high magnitude. It is not clear applicants are not eligible to apply for a water use that enforcement of the priority system will provide permit (see Chapter Two of the draft EIS, pg. 6). The sufficient protection for existing rights, given the draft EIS assesses the water resource values and scale of the requested reservations. The draft EIS also addresses the impacts of granting the proposed does not adequately address this problem. It does reservations on future water availability. Although not include sufliclent information on how the reser- no water right is obtained, the possIbUity of leasing vations will affect the protection and continued use instream flows is being studied as described In Chap- of existing water rights on each ofthe stream reaches ter Two of the draft EIS, pg. 7. The 1991 Legislature for which a reservation is sought. extended the study period to 1999. To date, no leases have been entered Into. Response: See response to comment 18.

45. Comment: On page 179, the draft EIS discusses 44. Comment: The draft EIS fails to adequately the relationship between BUREC and MPC concern- explore how reservations of large blocks of instream ing the annual headwater benefit at Canyon Ferry flows represent a better method of water allocation Reservoir. Headwater benefit calculations indicate a than the present system that allows stream leasing relationship between decreases in power generation 52

and Increased flow depletions. However, the report the priority date is the date of application. However, does not state whether DNRC actually calculated the in order to receive a July 1 , 1 985, priority date, water headwater benefits under additional depletions, or reservation applications had to be submitted by July whether other methods were used. This should be 1, 1989. Individuals and entitles also may apply for stated in the report. Any potential impacts on headwater use permits for new development. water benefits should be reviewed by MPC and

~~BUREC prior to publication. 49a. Comment: If, under Board review, a water~~

reservant (l.e., DFWP) meets provisions of the Mon- Response: DNRC used one approach to calculate all tana Water Act, how could a need for reallocation be changes In headwater benefits. As described In proven In the future? Chapters Four and Six of the draft EIS, DNRC calculated the changes in headwater benefits caused by 49b. Comment: Page 243 of the draft EIS states: consumptive use depletions upstream of Canyon The Board may reallocate part or all of an Ferry Reservoir between 1955 and 1986. DNRC also Instream flow reservation to another quali- calculated the changes In headwater benefits caused fied reservant ifthe Board finds that the water by consumptive use depletions at the 1986 level and is not required for its original purpose .... at the levels that would occur with the Consumptive Use and Combination alternatives. Does this mean that future applications for reservations wlU be permitted when the deadline for 46. Comment: Underthe Montana Constitution, all applying has passed, or simply that down the road, of the water requested by DFWP. DHES. and BLM without public notification and opportunity for ob- is for uses. already reserved future consumptive jections, the Board can switch water around among existing reservants? Response: The Montana Constitution recognizes and confirms existing rights. It also directed the Response: Before the Board can reallocate all or a legislature to provide for the administration, control, portion of an Instream flow reservation. It must pro- regulation and of water rights and to establish a vide notice to the public and an opportunity to object, system of centralized records. Mont. Const.. Art DC, followed by a hearing. A qualified reservant seeking 3(1) and (4). To this end, the legislature the § began reallocation must show that all or part ofthe reserva- adjudication process to determine existing water tion Is not required for its purpose and that the need rights established permitting and a process for ob- for the reallocation to the applicant outweighs the taining new water rights. It also instituted the reser- need shown by the original reservant. Further, the vation process for public entities to reserve water for Board must consider each of the criteria for granting existing or future beneficial uses or to maintain a a water reservation established by statute and ad- minimum flow, level, or quality of water. The Mon- ministrative rules. If the Board orders reallocation, tana Constitution does not Include any provision the reservation will retain its original priority date that reserves water for future consumptive uses. despite reallocation to a different entity for a different

use (§ 85-2-316(1 1), MCA). The procedure for reallo- 47. I Comment: [Robert Van Deren) feel very cation applies only to instream flow reservations. strongly that the control of Montana water should remain in the of the of federal hands state and out 50. Comment: We (Deadman's Basin Water Users hands. Association] certainly recommend that any water reserved to DFWP and DHE^ be a shared reservation Response: The reservation statute water authorizes when a given flow can accomplish the purposes of federal agencies to apply for water reservations 85- (§ both agencies. If water quality and fishery concerns 2-316(1), MCA). can both be served by the same quantity of water, a single or shared reservation should be appropriate. 48. Comment: If all of the water reservations are The same principle may apply to other agency re- objected to and thrown out, this means no develop- quests. ment of any streams. Not a nice thing to think about!

Response: Both DFWP and DHES have applied for Response: Qualified reservants apply for may water water reservations to maintain a minimum flow, level, reservations If at any time. a reservation is granted. or quality of water, and their flow requests overlap -

only on the Missouri River malnstem. If the Board ation. DFWP states that if water is not reserved now grants both reservation requests, the reservants may and instead allowed to be appropriated for consvunp- be using the same water, but for different purposes tive use, little water may be avaUable for fish and and with different priority dates. However, instream wildlife In the future. DFWP's reservation request flow reservations on the Missouri River, individualfy would not enhance the fishery but only help main- or combined, cannot exceed 50 percent of the aver- tain the status quo. The Board will decide whether age annual flow of that stream. DFWP has met the need and public Interest criteria. Although few new permits have been issued for the 51. Comment: DFWP states that its reservation Beaverhead/Red Rock drainage basin since 1973, request is In the public Interest for the following this does not guarantee that changes In existing reasons: water rights would not affect the fishery in the future. DFWP's application did not address the issue of stor- a. The perpetuation of fish and wildlife is in the age for enhancing low streamflows. DNRC felt that it public interest. was beyond the scope ofthe draft EIS to speculate on b. The reservation would prevent the gradual deple- storage sites and the costs of developing them to tion of streamflows and the dimlnlshment of rec- maintain instream flows. reational use by the public.

52. The present leasing program may There is nothing In the EIS to show how a reser- Comment: solve the flow problems and should given an vation with a priority date of 1985 will perpetuate low be opportunity to work. fish and wildlife unless the high water is stored for later release when needed to maintain instream water leasing established flows. No plans were submitted regarding storage to Response: The program Legislature solve the low take care of low flows in drought years. by the 1989 Montana may flow problems on some streams. However, the legis- There is nothing in the EIS to show that there wfll streams be a gradual, or any, depletion of streamflow without lature has limited the leasing program to 10 the 1999. Instream flow reservations a reservation by DFWP or any dimlnlshment of rec- untU year solve existing low flow problems but would reational activities. would not streamflows. Since the passage of the Water Use Act in 1973, help maintain existing there can be no new appropriations without a permit 53. Comment: The state could obtain by purchase from DNRC. Since that date, DNRC has Issued only or condemnation early water rights that could main- three permits for Irrigation totaling 3. 1 cfs and 603 af tain instream flows if water is not otherwise avail- for 2 1 6 acres in the Beaverhead/Red Rock drainage, able. while issuing two permits for 542 af for fish and wildlife (see Appendix of the draft EIS). A Response: The state has no express statutory au- There is nothing in the EIS to show any diminish thority to purchase or condemn water rights to main- ment of recreational values over the past years other tain instream flows. than problems caused by the drought, or that without a reservation recreational values will decrease in 54. Comment: On page 60 of the draft EIS, DNRC the future. refers to the agreement between MPC and BUREC The EIS fails to support DFWP's claims that there concerning construction of the Canyon Ferry Dam. is a need for a reservation. DFWP states that if water As the draft EIS says, MPC originally had a much is allowed not reserved now and is instead to be smaller storage and hydropower project near the appropriated for consumptive use, little water may Canyon Ferry site. MPC originally had an October be available for fish wildlife in the future. As and 1898 water right at Canyon Ferry for 5,100 cfs for stated previously, any appropriations are con- new power generation and 23,980 cfs (47.500 af/yr) for trolled by the permit system under DNRC, and per- storage. MPC transferred the 5, 100 cfs water right to mits for only 603 af for consumptive use have been BUREC but kept the 23,980 cfs (47.500 af) storage issued in the on the Beaverhead/ Red past 18 years right. Rock subbasln. MPC does not have an agreement with BUREC for the release of 5.000 cfs of water through Canyon Response: water reservation proceeding is an A Ferry. MPC has an agreement with BUREC for the accepted water law to mechanism under Montana release of water through Canyon Ferry Dam in the protect Instream fish, wildlife, and recre- flows for amount necessary to prevent injury to MPC's down- 54 stream water rights and to maximize conservation River. BUREC has assured BLM that any water and efficient use of water. While the long-term an- diverted from the Missouri to the Milk River under nual flow of the Missouri River and Canyon Ferry this reservation would be replaced by a like amount may be approximately 5,000 cfs, there is not a mini- of water from Canyon Ferry or Tiber reservoirs. mum flow requirement. Response: According to Information in BUREC's Response: Your comment Is noted. application. BUREC plans to make up water that is diverted from the Missouri River into the Virgelle 55. Comment: On page 26 of the draft EIS fTable 3- Canal from the Tiber Reservofr when flows fall below 2), DNRC refers to MFC's total storage capacity on the 90th percentile level. During high flows, enough the Madison and Missouri rivers. This total appears water may be available to satisfy both BLM's federal to exclude MFC's storage at Canyon Ferry. reserved rights and BUREC's reservation.

~~Response: No such statement appears on page 26 60. Comment: The purpose of water reservation or in Table 3-2 of the draft EIS. systems is to evaluate the amount of water available~~

and not allocate more than there Is; the public doc- 56. Comment: On page 179 of the draft EIS. DNRC trine says that the people own the waters of Montana refers to BUREC's water right claims for Canyon and, therefore, we [Fat Simmons and Dick Krawiec] Ferry Reservoir and MFC's claims at Hauser and have a right to keep minimum Instream flows. Holter dams. To be accurate, DNRC also may want to mention MFC's storage claim at Canyon Ferry Response: The Montana Constitution provides that Reservoir. all waters within the state "are the property of the state for the use of its people and are subject to Response: DNRC acknowledges that MFC has a appropriation for beneficial uses as provided by law." clciimed water right for storage of 47,500 af within Mont. Const, art. IX. § 3(3). The definition of "benefi- Canyon Ferry Reservoir. BUREC's storage rights are cial use" under Montana law Includes uses accom- much larger and are summarized in Table 4-11 ofthe plished through maintenance of Instream flows such draft EIS (p. 59). as fish, w^dlife, and recreation. Through the water reservation system, state and federal agencies and 57. Comment: Is it possible that the existing hy- subdivisions of the state may appropriate a mini- dropower facilities already provide an adequate in- mum flow level or quality of water to accomplish stream flow? these beneficial uses.

Response: Above Great Falls. Instream reservants 61. Comment: There is nothing in the EIS to show could be "riding the coattaUs" of existing hydropower how a DFWF reservation ofwater with a 1 985 priority water right holders and sharing the same water un- date will contribute to a clean and healthful environ- less changes in the purpose and place of these hy- ment for citizens of the state and the nation. dropower rights take place. Response: The protection of Instream flows with a

58. Comment: I [Dorothy Stout] feel that water res- 1985 priority date could in some cases help maintain ervations are being deliberately rushed through prior the existing riparian and aquatic environment by to the adjudication proceedings without sufficient preventing new depletions during low flows. In- time for senior water right holders to prepare objec- stream flows also could help preserve water quality. tions in an attempt to adversely affect the position of these senior water right holders. 62. Comment: On page 61 of the draft EIS. under Murphy rights, there should be some indication of

Response: As explained on page 1 of the draft EIS, the 1970 and 1971 priority dates of the Murphy the legislature established the time frames and pro- rights. None Is listed in the paragraph, and there is cedures for the upper Missouri River water reserva- no reference to priority dates in Table 4- 13. tion process. Response: The Murphy rights listed in Table 4- 13 of 59. Comment: BLM did not object to BUREC's res- the draft EIS have December 1970 priority dates. ervation to divert water from the Missouri to the Milk ,

WATER QUANTITY AND DISTRIBUTION earth. The water that runs into the ground from RETURN Flows irrigation goes into a type of unseen storage. Reser- voirs and ground storage are two storage possibilities 63. Comment: What are the benefits ofreturn flows? available to people In Montana during warm weather.

Response: The benefits of return flows depend on Response: Generally, full-service irrigation in the local aquifer and hydrologic characteristics, timing Missouri basin begins In May, with some farmers and size of diversions, efficiency of canals and irriga- and ranchers diverting water into canals and onto tion systems, management methods of individual fields as early as late April. Some systems operate as irrigation systems within a drainage, and how close soon as runoff is available—as early as March in the the return flows are to other diversions. An analysis lower Missouri basin. Much of the water diverted for of local hydrologic conditions would be required to irrigation will enter the groundwater, where it may determine the extent of the following benefits, which remain for a period of months ("ground storage") might occur as a result of return flows: before returning to a stream. a. Increased Instream flows after the peak irriga- 67. Comment: If Montana had more reservoirs and tion season more irrigated land, more water would be stored for b. Creation of wetlands the dry summer seasons and drought years, and the c. Changes in the timing of hydropower production streainflows would be more even throughout the seasons and years. If these storage techniques are not 64. Comment: Flood Irrigation actually Increases used, streamflows are very high during the spring water in our creeks by charging springs that feed and very low (many large streams entirely dry) dur- them. If we didn't Irrigate, the streams would dry up ing the summer and fall. early in the summer. Response: Reservoirs could be used to store more Response: Some of the water diverted for flood Irri- water in the spring for release during the summer gation is evaporated or used by plants. The excess and fall. A site-specific analysis would have to be water diverted for flood irrigation can seep into the conducted to examine the feasibility of each possible ground or flow on the surface and may later return to storage project. See response to comment 64 for a the stream. If the amount of water withdrawn from discussion of the effects of irrigation on streamflows. a stream is greater than the amount of water returning (return flows) , the result will be a net reduction In 68. Comment: To keep the water in our streams streamflows. This usually is the case for an unregu- would cause a major change in our state and a doubt- lated stream during the peak irrigation season, usu- ful one. It also appears Impossible, as without Irriga- ally June through mid-September. When irrigation tion the number of dry streams in August and Sep- fall, however, streamflows may increase stops in the tember would increase appreciably and the fishery as some of the water earlier diverted for irrigation would suffer. returns to the stream. Response: This comment Incorrectly implies that 65. Comment: Irrigation return flows provide flows the instream flow reservations would cause all water throughout the year in the Red Rock River. that is legally appropriated for consumptive uses to be returned to the stream and that irrigation main- Response: of the water diverted for irrigation Much tains August and September streamflows. Elxisting in the Red Rock drainage eventually wUl return to water rights with priority dates earlier than July 1 streams. During the peak irrigation season, stream- 1985. would not be affected by the reservations. See flow withdrawals usually exceed returning flows. The response to comment 64 for a discussion of the ef- result is a net reduction of flow in streams such as fects of irrigation return flows. the River. After the irrigation season, Red Rock The reservations for both consumptive and In- return flows from irriga- during the fall and winter, stream uses would be senior to water use permits tion will Increase streamflows. issued since July 1. 1985. and during periods of low flows, enforcement could cause water Included in 66. Comment: During the spring season, Montana's post- 1 985 permits to be left in the stream. The Board, land. Much of irrigators are spreading water over the however, could subordinate the reservations to per- this irrigation water runs into the thawed, warm mits Issued since 1985 if it finds that the permits 56

~~would not Interfere substantially with the purpose of a thorough Investigation of all factors that influence the reservations. water flows.~~

69. Comment: Each year, 200 significant streams Response: Much of the water diverted for irrigation are completely dried by irrigators in Montana—2 , 500 that is not used by crops eventually will return to the miles of streams are severely dewatered annually. stream. The amount of water available for ground- Irrigation uses 97.6 percent of diverted water from water return flows (recharge) depends on the type of streams. Less than 5 percent of Montanans hold irrigation system. Table 3-3 compares acre-feet of water rights for Irrigation but control 97.6 percent of water diverted from the stream to that returned to the diverted water. Montana's irrigators are waste- the stream as surface water and groundwater return ful. Of the 97.6 percent of the diverted irrigation flows. The figures represent each acre-foot consump- water, only 20 percent is used by the plants—80 tively used by an alfalfa crop by irrigation system percent is wasted. type. These efficiencies were used in DNRC's Mis- souri River basin water availability model. Response: Stream reaches in the Missouri basin where low flow problems have been identified by

DNRC are listed In Tables 4-2, 4-4. 4-6, and 4-8 of Table 3-3. Amount of water that must be diverted from the draft EIS. Approximately 95 percent of the water a stream compared to that which is returned to stream diverted from streams and consumptively used in by surface water and groundwater return flows (for the Missouri basin of Montana is for Irrigation. each acre-foot used by an alfalfa crop) Montana has approximately 140,000 water right holders. Approximately 35,000 hold water rights for Amount Irrigation, or about 4 percent of all Montanans. The percentage of water diverted for irrigation that is consumptively used varies by irrigation system. For the EIS, DNRC assumed the following efllciencles for existing Irrigation in the Missouri basin of Montana (see Table 3-2). Of the water that was diverted but not consumptively used, DNRC assumed that 1 5 percent is lost to evaporation, deep aquifers, or use by plants other than crops. The rest eventually will return to the stream as surface water or groundwater return flows. 57

~~Table 3-4. Groundwater return flow patterns used by DNRC for the Big Hole River valley~~

~~Month following 58~~

78. Comment: Pages 46-47 of the draft EIS Ust the oped for irrigation. Big Sheep Creek Is formed by the cause of low flows on Big Sheep, Cabin, and Nicholia junction of Cabin and Nicholia creeks. From there, it creeks as irrigation. This is a completely false state- flows through a canyon section before entering the ment, and I (Bernard J. Harkness] am enclosing the Red Rock River valley. This lower portion of the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in Case No. stream in the valley Is referred to as the "lower basin." 3808 in the District Court of the Fifth Judicial Dis- Canals divert water from Big Sheep Creek near the trict. According to pages 8, 9. 10, and 11 of the point where it leaves the canyon to irrigate land in Findings of Fact, irrigation in Big Sheep basin and the lower basin. the canyon has no effect on the flow in Sheep Creek The outcome ofthe case was that Irrigation in the and its tributaries and does not diminish the supply upper basin and canyon section was not detrimental of water. to flows in Big Sheep Creek and its tributaries and,

1 am sending you the Findings of Fact and Con- hence, the water supply for irrigators In the lower clusion of Law only, but the complete trial transcript basin. The findings of facts and conclusions of law is available at the county courthouse in Dillon. The from the case further stated that irrigation in the testimony of the witness and the county surveyor upper basin has the effect of stabilizing flows in Big unequivocally shows that the type of irrigation prac- Sheep Creek and its tributaries so that larger quan- ticed in the upper basin has increased the flow of all tities of water are later found in the stream and for the streams mentioned. Paragraph V on page 9 longer periods of time than would occur without states that since irrigation in the upper basin be- such irrigation. These conclusions were based on came general, a constant flow has been maintained the testimony of the defendants and their witnesses. in Big Sheep Creek, thereby supplying and furnish- However, few data on measured streamflows were ing water to the lower users, which—except for the available at the time of the trial. use of the upper users—^would be lost during the A stream gauging station was operated by USGS early season runoff. onBig Sheep Creek from 1936 to 1979, although the The same type of Irrigation is being practiced records are not continuous for this period. This today, and any increase in the type of irrigation stream gauging station was located in the canyon should increase and stabilize the flow of the above- section of the creek below the confluence of Muddy mentioned creeks. Creek (see Map 3-1). Based on records from this Paragraph IX, page 10. lists the creeks that do stream gauge, USGS estimates the average annual not empty Into Sheep Creek except In the spring flow of Big Sheep Creek to be 65 cfs (USGS 1979). runoff. Cabin Creek and Simpson Creek are among Average monthly flows were found to be highest in those listed. Indian Creek is not listed, but the same June during spring runoff (94 cfs) and lowest during condition exists there. Indian Creek is in the Cabin the winter In February (41 cfs) (USGS 1989). For Creek drainage. comparison, DFWP has requested instream flows of There Is no water left In these streams for any 48 cfs but is limited by statute to half the average additional appropriation, and the reservation re- annual flow, or 32.5 cfs. BLM has requested a mini- quests on these streams are well above the flow ofthe mum instream flow of 40 cfs and a peak discharge streams. every other year of 300 cfs but also Is limited by Under the No Action Alternative in this area (Big statute to half the average annual flow. Sheep Creek and tributaries), there would be litUe The University of Montana monitored Big Sheep change in any of the general conditions. Irrigated Creek streamflows at the upper and lower portions of agriculture would remain the same as long as the its canyon (University of Montana 1978) (see Map 3- method of irrigation is unchanged. 1). Comparing this data indicates that streamflows throughout the year are substantially greater at the Response: The case cited came to trial in 1938 and lower portion of the canyon than the upper (see Table involved a dispute between water users in the upper 3-5). The likely sources of this additional water are and lower portions of the Big Sheep Creek drainage springs, runoff, and groundwater inflows originating (In the Red Rock River drainage above Clark Canyon from the mountains surrounding the canyon. There Reservoir). The upper portion of the drainage, or is a limited amount of irrigated land In the canyon, "upper basin," encompasses Cabin, Nicholia, and and its effects on streamflows here probably are Meadow creeks and their tributaries (see Map 3-1). small. Much of the land In the upper basin has been devel- 59

~~Map 3-1. Streams in the Big Sheep Creel( drainage~~

~~LOWER MEASURING STATION~~

~~UPPER MEASURING STATION~~

~~J) 60~~

~~Table 3-5. Comparison of streamflows at upper and lower portions of BIgSheep Creel< Canyon as measured by the University of Montana~~

~~Streamflow Streamflow Percent at upper at lower increase from Date of Big Sheep Creeic Big Sheep Creel( upper to measurement station (cfs) station (cfs) lower station~~

~~10/27/76 61~~

82. Comment: On page 46, Table 4-2, some stream basin. Instream reservants are limited by statute to reaches where low flows occur are identified only as half the average annual flow on gauged streams. "portions of creek." This is an inadequate descrip- This is equivalent to 3.5 million ai/yr on the Missouri tion of the location or extent of the dewatering prob- River near Landusky. The average flow for the Mis- lems on those streams. Even on those stream sec- souri River near Landusky is more than 7 million af/ tions where a reach is identified more specifically, yr. Reservation applications for consumptive use the extent of the dewatering is not shown. What a total 511 ,796 af/yr. If all consumptive use requests low flow represents may be a state of mind with were granted, August flows in the Missouri River at different individuals, and it may be difficult to con- Landusky would be reduced 24 percent in the driest vince the Board that new water uses should not be 1 year in 10. issued on these streams without some better definition of how low the streamflow actually gets. There 86. Comment: DFWP is asking for more water in the should be some language in the dreift EIS that states Musselshell River than there usually is. There are 80 that no new diversionary water uses should be al- cfs in the spring, but people are starting to irrigate lowed on these stream sections, including reserva- with this water. tions of water, until a more specific water availability analysis is made. Response: DFWP has requested 80 cfs year-round in the reach of the main-stem Musselshell from the Response: Tables 4-2 and 4-4 of the draft EIS confluence of the headwaters to the Musselshell di- present a partial list of streams that exhibit low flow version dam above Melstone, and 70 cfs yeeir-round conditions to portray an overall picture of the condi- from the reach between the Musselshell diversion tion in the subbasins. Sufficient data are not avail- dam and the mouth. Flows are frequently below the able to determine how low a particular stream is at a DFWP reservation requests during the summer, fall, given place and time and what degree of dewatering and winter ofaverage and dry years. Figures 3- 1 and is critical to all streams considering available water 3-2 (see response to comment 4) show monthly per- quality parameters and conditions. Streams exhib- centile exceedance flows for the Musselshell River at iting critical low flows and other water quality im- Harlowton and Mosby. These figures illustrate that pairments as determined from available data are flows usually are greater than the reservation re- listed in Appendix E of the draft EIS. quests during the spring months, but below them during the summer, fall, and winter of dry years. 83. Comment: On page 46, under "East Gallatin River," we [DFWP] are not certain that Thompson 87. Comment: DFWP Is requesting more water for Spring Creek has a dewatering problem. instream flows than is available in Swimming Woman and Careless creeks. Response: Information from DFWP (1990) indicates that the stream bottom in Thompson Spring Creek is Response: For all months except May, June, and periodically exposed due to bank erosion and chan- July, streamflows usually are lower than those re- nel filling. quested by DFWP on Swimming Woman Creek and on Careless Creek. DFWP is requesting 2.5 cfs year- 84. Comment: On pages 46 through 54, Tables 4-2, round for instream flows in SwimmingWoman Creek, 4-4, 4-6, and 4-8, the dewatering discussion should and 2 cfs year-round in Careless Creek. Appendix D, include a caveat that these are some of the low flow pages D- 1 9 and D-20 ofthe draft EIS, shows monthly problem areas and may not be an all-inclusive list. flows for these streams.

Response: DNRC recognizes in the draft EIS (p. 45) 88. Comment: BLM did not object to municipal that these tables are not all-inclusive. water reservations due to the higher priority granted municipal use in comparison to instream flows. Water availability to BLM feels, however, that the cumulative reserva- 85. Comment: How can these agencies reserve more tions for municipal use could reduce necessary in- water for instream flow than actually exists in the stream flows in the wild and scenic portion of the state of Montana? river and, therefore, impact the United States's senior federal reserved water right on the Upper Mis- could not reserve more Response: The reservants souri Wild and Scenic FUver. We [BLM] therefore water than exists in the state or the Missouri River —

62 request that you consider the potential cumulative quests. See response to comment 64 for a discussion Impact of these municipal uses on existing down- ofthe effects of Irrigation return flows on streamflow. stream water rights. ff granted, reservations would be junior to pre-July

1 , 1985, water rights and, therefore, would diminish Response: Impacts to streamflows on the wild and UtUe if any upstream irrigation. Only one water use scenic portion of the Missouri River attributable to permit application has been submitted to DNRC for municipal requests would be small. As shown in new water use in the Beaverhead River drainage Appendix A. streamflows in the Missouri River at since July 1, 1985; under this permit, 50 acres would Fort Benton, Virgelle, and Landusky (near the wild be Irrigated. and scenic portion ofthe Missouri) would be reduced less than one-tenth of a percent in all months during 91. Comment: Did DNRC evaluate each proposed wet, average, and dry years if only municipal re- reservation In the field and talk to local people about quests were granted. water availability for all proposed reservations?

89. Comment: Page 1 1 of the draft EIS states: "By Response: DNRC did not evaluate each proposed law, the instream reservations together cannot ex- reservation in the field and did not talk to local people ceed 50 percent of the average annual flow of record regarding water availability for each reservation re- on gauged streams." As an example: On the Mussel- quest. Forty public entities applied to reserve water, shell River near Roundup, Table D- 1 in Appendix D and their applications Include 559 individual reser- shows an annual average flow of 2 10 cfs. DFWP has vation requests. DNRC did not feel It was possible requested an instream reservation at that point of 80 given available time and resources—to evaluate each cfs. This appears to comply with the law. However, of these in the field for the draft EIS. DNRC did average flows are a statistical aberration that masks conduct field evaluations of nearly all of the projects what may be normal. Four out of five years, histori- proposed by 1 5 conservation districts below Canyon cal flow rates only are stifTicient to provide for this Ferry Dam and spoke with landowners regarding reservation at lawful percentages, one month each water availability for them. DNRC also used infor- year (June). This month has flow supplemented by mation on local conditions determined by Its employ- offstream storage release. Normally, expected flows ees working In regional oflices throughout the Mis- not only are too small to lawfully provide for such a souri basin. large reservation, but they don't even flow at rates sufficient to provide 100 percent of the reservation 92. Comment: The draft EIS does not adequately request. This statistical occurrence needs to be fur- address the impact one reservation has upon an- ther analyzed since it does not meet the intent of the other. An upstream water reservation removes that law. water from consideration for downstream use. A downstream reservation also limits the amount taken Response: The reservation statute (§ 85-2-316, by upstream reservations. The draft EIS makes no MCA) states that the Board shall limit any reserva- analysis ofthe effects ofone specific reservation upon tions It to of percent of the awards a maximum 50 all others. average annual flow of record on gauged streams. No other statistical limitations are required or suggested Response: The impacts that one water reservation by the statute. request may have on another are addressed in the draft EIS. The Missouri River water availability model 90. Comment: DFWP's application fails to show a was used to simulate the effects that granting reser- need for instream flow reservations on the Beaver- vation requests would have on streamflows and the head River and its tributaries. The streamflows in availability of water for other reservation requests the summer and fall are presently maintained by both upstream and downstream. In addition, draft storage release and by return flows resulting from environmental assessments are available for each upstream irrigation. Any diminishment of upstream reservation application and show the effects that irrigation would adversely affect the ability to main- Individual consumptive use projects would have on tain downstream minimum flows. streamflows.

Response: The Board will determine whether DFWP 93. Comment: The draft EIS inadequately ad- has shown sufficient need for its reservation re- dresses BUREC's diversion of Missouri River water to the MUk River. There Is no discussion as to the 63

effect this diversion might have on upstream water River drainage, the same amount ofwater is removed requirements. from associated streamflows. Please explain the basis of this assumption. Is the same assumption Response: If granted a reservation, the Viigelle di- applied to all other areas for which groundwater version project would have a priority date of July 1, wells have been proposed? For example, on pages 1985. The project would divert a maximum of 280 158 and 159, DNRC refers to the Impact from pro- cfs, leaving less water available to any upstream posed groundwater wells near the Boulder and Bea- appropriators with a later priority date. Upstream or verhead rivers. Are the conclusions presented by downstream water users with an earlier priority date DNRC based on the same assumption as those for would not be affected by the project. BUFiEC would the Gallatin valley? If not, please state DNRC's as- prepare a separate EIS before constructing this sumptions concerning groundwater withdrawal in project. each subbasin and explain why the assumptions are different. 94. Comment: The reservation flows requested by DFWP passing Clark Canyon Dam on the Beaver- Response: In the draft EIS, DNRC assumed that head River exceed the 50 percent limitation of an- groundwater withdrawals would result in direct and nual river flows as established by the legislature. immediate depletions to surface water flows; this The reserved flows exceed the total flows of the Bea- assumption is made for all groundwater withdraw- verhead River for 1988. 1989. and 1990. als. DNRC made this assumption because of the complexity of predicting depletions to surface water Response: DFWP has requested a water reservation sources from groundwater pumping. Because of the of 200 cfs and 144,793 af/yr in the Beaverhead River use of this assumption, impacts to streamflows asso- from Clark Canyon Dam to the mouth. The Beaver- ciated with groundwater withdrawals stated in the head River is measured at Barretts and Twin Bridges. draft EIS are worst-case scenarios. In reality, im- Average annual flows to the year 1990 are 319,500 pacts usually would be less. Impacts to streamflows af/yr at Barretts and 303,600 af/yr at Twin Bridges. from groundwater pumping would depend on the DFWP's reservation requests do not exceed half the well's distance from a stream and the aquffer's average annual flow of the stream. hydrogeologic characteristics. Continuous streamflow gauge records are available for the years 1988, 1989, and 1990 for the 97. Comment: You should drill wells to satisfy Beaverhead River at Twin Bridges. Here, average municipal reservations rather than take surface annual flows were less than DFWP's reservation re- water from agriculture. quest on an annual basis in 1990 when they were 132,600 af, and in 1989 when they were 136,000 af. Response: Any reservations granted would be jun- Flows in 1988 were 164,500 cfs, greater on an an- ior to and not affect agricultural water uses estab- nual basis than those requested by DFWP. lished prior to July 1 , 1985. Many of the municipalities have applied for groundwater as their reserva- 95. Comment: DFWP and DHES do not recognize tion source (see Table 3-4 of the draft EIS, p. 35). In the large differences in natural flows from year to many cases, groundwater withdrawals would reduce year in the headwater streams and rivers and, there- streamflows. fore, do not explain the source of water for their reservations during extended drought periods. Flow Estimates

98. Comment: On page 13 of the draft EIS, you say Response: Appendix D of the draft EIS presents some streamflows were estimated. This is an incom- streamflows for wet, average, and dry years where petent way of measuring water. reservations are requested. In dry years, streamflows may not be available to satisfy reservation requests Response: Historical streamflow records were un- on some streams. available for many streemis for which reservations are requested. In these instances, DNRC and the Groundwater applictmts found it necessary to provide streamflow 96. Comment: On page 157 of the draft EIS, DNRC estimates. See response to comment 339 for a dis- describes its assumption that when water is pumped cussion of the flow estimation techniques used. from proposed groundwater wells in the Gallatin —

99. Comment: There are many Inaccuracies in the of 1937 to 1986. Because Canyon Ferry Reservoir draft EIS tables as I [Randall P. Smith] read them. I was not completed until 1953, estimates of monthly would like to point out the following: streamflows before that year were used. BUREC's Hydromet records are based only on the time that the Appendix I, Table I-l, Big Hole River Drainage. reservoir has been in operation. Therefore, calculat- Divide Creek ing average and percentile flows using these records different results than those presented in These average monthly flows are absurd; the would yield Table 4-3. only reason for these flows is the addition of ditch water from an irrigation ditch that comes out of the 102. Comment: The period used tn the EIS to Big Hole River. This river water is co-mingled with average river flows does not Include the Divide Creek water above the point of flow measure- determine of drought recorded on ment. most serious extended period the Beaverhead River—the period from 1986 through

. not including this period in the EIS, the EIS Response: The monthly average and percentile 199 1 By average is considerably above the true average. streamflows for Divide Creek presented in Appendix D of the draft EIS were estimated by USGS (1989) used the period of record for each because long-term flow records were not available for Response: DNRC gauging station until 1990 to determine whether this stream. Streamflows for Divide Creek were esti- reservation requests exceed half the average annual mated using flow records for other gauged streams in flow. For the Beaverhead River at Twin Bridges, the the basin, measured characteristics of the Divide average annual flow calculated for the period of Creek basin, and channel width and streamflow record from 1935 to 1990 is 303,600 af/yr. The measurements. The estimates are for Divide Creek average annual flow calculated for the period of streamflows that originate from its basin above Di- record from 1935 to 1985. before the drought, is vide. They do not Include canal flows from the Big cfs. or only 4 percent greater. Hole River that are diverted into the lowermost por- 315,200 tion of the stream. 103. Comment: In computing average stream-

flows, it appears that the drought years of the early 100. Comment: I [Garrison Ranches. Inc.] feel that four drought years were elimi- the estimated flow rates used and charted tn the 1930s and the past nated; however, the 1984 year of a 100- to 500-year draft EIS are not presented in a very understandable flood runoff was included. This clearly distorts the manner, jmd they do not verify very many of the real average and unrealistically raises the limitation reservations requested. Nor is the source of these of percent ofthe average annual flow as required figures clearly stated. 50 by §85-5-331, MCA. Response: An explanation of the way flow rates are presented in the draft EIS is found on page 43 (also Response: In determining whether reservation re- see responses to comments 109 and 339). The draft quests on gauged streams exceeded average annual EIS was prepared to analyze impacts that could re- flows, streamflows for the period of record through sult from the Board's action on the reservation appli- 1990 were used. For gauging stations with relatively cations—not to verify reservation requests. The long periods of record, flood flows—although dra- source of these figures (USGS 1989) is stated in the matic—^generally wffl have small effects on long-term draft EIS. average streamflows. In this example, flood flows

during 1 984 were thought by the commenter to have 101. Comment: On page 48 ofthe draft EIS. Table distorted flow records. The commenter represents 4-3, the monthly Inflows to Canyon Feny Reservoir water users in the Big Hole, Red Rock, and Ruby are inconsistent with BUREC's Hydromet records. drainages. The outflows from the reservoir also are inconsistent Table 3-6 compares average annual flows as com- with our [BUREC] records. Please address these puted for the period of record ending in 1983—prior Inconsistencies and provide the period of record that to the high flows—to those as computed for the peri- was used. od of record ending in 1984—after the high flows for selected stream gauging stations. As the table Response: The average and percentfle streamflows Illustrates, changes between the years are small. presented in Table 4-3 were calculated for the period 65

Table 3-6. Average flows computed for periods of Response: An explanation ofDNRC's Missouri basin record ending 1983 and 1984, and percentage change hydrology model is presented In Appendix C of the between years draft EIS. The model estimates streamflows at 35 locations throughout the basin, assuming a 1986 Station 1983 (cfs) 1984 (cfs) Change % level of irrigation development and the effects that each alternative would have on streamflows. Page C- Beaverhead River 3 of the draft EIS provides an explanation of inputs at Barretts 311.500 318,100 2.1 and their sources. Big Hole River at Melrose 849,800 852,700 0.3 107. Comment: Since this study (the EIS) Is de- Ruby River above pendent on the results of the hydrology model, more information reservoir 131,100 133,300 1.7 should be provided In Appendix C concerning study methodologies, assumptions, special

Note: Periods of record are 1907 to present for Beaverhead River at criteria, input parameters, consumptive use of new Barretts, 1923 to present for Big Hole River at [Melrose, and 1938 irrigation, reservoir operations, allocation of future to present for Ruby River aljove tfie reservoir. demands against existing rights, and other pertinent information necessary to determine whether the modeling and results were handled correctly. A detailed, step-by-step description of all procedures 104. Comment: In Appendix 1-5. Mill Creek is should be provided, along with assumptions and measured at the forest boundary, which is above all data used in the development ofthe hydrology model. senior water rights. The stream is overadjudicated, We [BUREC] will provide additional comments after and there obviously is no water for reservations. receiving this Information. At this time, we cannot fully evaluate the adequacy of the hydrology model. Response: DFWP has requested a reservation on We are not sure of the accuracy of the results and, Mill Creek from the outlet of Branham Lake to the hence, of the draft EIS as a whole. mouth. Approximately a third of the stream reach for which a reservation is requested is above the Response: The commenter [BUREC] was involved in Beaverhead National Forest boundary. Flow esti- the model development from the beginning and, as mates for Mill Creek at the National Forest boundary such, has the technical information requested and are presented in Appendix D of the draft EIS. Below has had sufficient time in which to evaluate it. Pro- the forest boundary, streamflows are likely to be less viding a detailed, step-by-step procedure of the model at times due to irrigation withdrawals and stream along with all assumptions, special criteria, future channel seepage. Your comments regarding the le-

demands, reservoir operations, data used, etc. , would gal availability of water in this stream for appropria- be too lengthy and technical for the EIS. The model tion are noted. and aU Infonnation concerning It are available from Missouri River Water availability Model DNRC. DNRC appreciates comments on the model, even if received too late to be incorporated in the EIS 105. Comment: What does the computer model process. show? 108. Comment: In several cases, the draft EIS Response: The Missouri River water availability discussed the operation of Fort Peck Reservoir. How- model was used to analyze phj^ical and legal water ever, the report does not mention whether the reser- availability in the Missouri basin emd to assess im- voir was operated Independently or as a portion of pacts that the proposed reservation requests could the entire mainstem system coordinated by the Corps have on streamflows. reservoir levels, and hy- of Engineers. The Corps operates all six reservoirs dropower production. A more detailed description of on the Missouri River as a single unit. The EIS the model is presented in Appendix C ofthe draft EIS. should state how Fort Peck was operated and whether the Corps agreed to the operation. 106. Comment: The DNRC computer model is not explained. What exactly does it show? How were the Response: Fort Peck Reservoir operations were inputs determined? modeled using a modified version of BUREC's Can- yon Ferry Reservoir operations model. Information 66 on Fort Peck Reservoir operations provided by the not Included In the model. This should be corrected Corps of Engineers was used In this modeling. The because the presence of reservoirs In a drainage modeled operations then were adjusted so that pre- basin has a large impact on the basin's hydrology. If dicted reservoir outflows approximated recorded reservoir effects are Ignored In a hydrologic analysis, outflows. DNRC did not model operations of down- results are not valid. If the draft EIS conclusions for stream reservoirs outside of Montana; this was con- Tiber Reservoir are based on historical operations, sidered beyond the scope of the EIS. The Corps was they may not be valid. Before 1982, Tiber was oper- not contacted to determine whether It agreed with ated at lower levels until dam safety problems were the operation model used by DNRC. rectified.

109. Comment: The use of percentile exceedance Response: This Information has been provided to flows to represent model results Is not adequate. BUREC. Because of technical and time constraints, Flow values for each month of each year should be DNRC modeled reservoir operations on the Madison, presented for all stations. Without these values. It Is Missouri, and Marias rivers only. In other drainages, not possible to verify model results. Since many of reservoirs were not modeled, even though they do the conclusions in the draft EIS are based on the have a large Impact on streamflows in many in- results of this model, the lack of monthly reservoir stances. Because DNRC used streamflow records as operation output In the draft EIS makes It dllllcult to Input to the model, however, reservoir operations adequately evaluate the results and conclusions. were taken into account indirectly. Tiber Reservoir operations were modeled using operation criteria Response: In the modeling eflbrt, streamflows were presently used by BUREC. simulated for 58 years at 35 locations for four scenarios (baseline conditions and Consumptive Use, 111. Comment: The model apparently does not Instream, and Combination alternatives). Present- consider existing water rights. We [BURECl cannot ing flow values for each month of each year for determine whether shortages are properly appropri- all stations would amount to 8,120 lines of In- ated and accounted for throughout the basin in formation—or more than 100 pages of text. The water-short years. value of presenting such Information In an EIS Is questionable. Response: DNRC feels that the flow reductions from Using statistical techniques to summarize data existing water rights are adequately accounted for In and results Is appropriate for a document with the the model because these uses are reflected In the scope of the EIS. An accepted method for summariz- historical streamflow records and Irrigated acreages ing hydrologic data Is presenting average and used as input data for the model. percentile exceedance streamflows (see p. 43 of the draft EIS for a description of percentile exceedance 112. Comment: Appendix C of the draft EIS In- flows). Information such as that presented In the cludes a section titled "Climate Change." Depending draft EIS gives the reader an Idea of the status of on the global climatic model used, effects on the streamflows during wet, average, and dry years. If Missouri River basin could be much more than those only monthly data were Included, readers would be stated on page C-5, some of which could be benefi- left on their own to summarize the Information Into a cial. Also, since global climate change modeling useful format. techniques and scenarios are still being developed, Raw data to verify model results are available the value of Including this section Is questionable. from DNRC. Response: Because of uncertainties, the draft EIS 1 10. Comment: In order to properly address the does not account for anticipated effects of global operation of BUREC reservoirs, It Is necessary to climate change. However, it remains important to review monthly output of the study's scenarios and recognize that future climate and water availability to know what Input assumptions were made. Please conditions may differ from those upon which the provide us [BUREC] with this Information. In addi- draft EIS is based. tion, the selection of reservoirs used in the model Is While some areas of North America are likely to not adequate. Major reservoirs such as Clark Can- experience extended growing seasons and Improved yon and Gibson, along with several smaller state and moisture conditions, much of the Rocky Mountain private reservoirs for which data are available, were region Is likely to become warmer and drier. If the 67

Missouri basin in Montana becomes warmer and some low flow problems occur in the basin. The drier, the types of conflicts that were experienced description of dewatering is more specific for some during the drought of the 1980s would become more streams than for others. EVen though the dewater- widespread. ing cannot be quantified as it is at points where nodes are established, the draft EIS needs to make 1 13. Comment: Were existing municipal and in- evident to the Board that such dewatering may be dustrial demands included in baseline model runs? quite significant even on smaller streams. Other-

If not, these should be accounted for. wise, it would be easy to overlook the Impacts of new water uses on these stream reaches, which do not Response: Municipal and industrial uses account have the benefit of more specific quantification of for less than 3 percent of the water consumptively flow conditions. used in Montana's Missouri River basin (see Figure

4- 1 in the draft EIS, p. 42). DNRC did not feel it was Response: Technical constraints limited the num- necessary to isolate the relatively small amounts of ber ofpoints where DNRC could examine water avaU- water consumed by these uses. Instead, DNRC felt ability and the effects of water reservations on that any flow reductions from these uses would be streamflows using the Missouri River water avail- reflected adequately in the historical streamflow ability model. For each model node and for each year records used as input data to the model. of the 1929-to- 1986 base period, streamflow records had to be obtained or streamflows simulated, infor- 114. Comment: On page 238 of the draft EIS, mation had to be complied on irrigated acreage by Figure 6-23 indicates negative reservoir storage (in irrigation system type, and information had to be Canyon Ferry Reservoir). Also, in Figure 6-24, "Ebc- obtained for crop consumptive use requirements. All isting Conditions" contents are sometimes less than of this information then had to be entered into the "Consumptive Use Alternative" contents. Please ad- model. Adding more nodes to the model adds com- dress these apparent errors. plexity that makes running and troubleshooting the model more time-consuming and difficult. DNRC felt Response: Canyon Ferry Reservoir was completed that the 35 nodes identified and modeled were ad- in 1953, and hydropower production started in 1955. equate for the purpose of the EIS. DNRC modeled streamflows, reservoir operations, Depletions and low flows that would result from and hydropower production for the 1929-to-1986 reservations for consumptive use on streams and base period. Figures 6-23 and 6-24 are Intended stream reaches not included in the Missouri River only to show that In the event of another drought water availability model also were estimated by cycle such as that of the 1930-40s, it would not be DNRC. The results can be found In Chapter Six of possible, using Canyon Ferry Reservoir, to maintain the draft EIS and in the individual environmental MFC's headwater benefits at the 1955 or 1986 level assessments. However, DNRC's examination fo- of development under the Consumptive Use Alterna- cused only on streams in which diversions by reser- tive. In fact, the reservoir would have been nearly vations would lower flows. Streams with existing low drained. flow problems were identified in Tables 4-2, 4-4, 4-6, The reason the reservoir level is lower in some and 4-8 of the draft EIS. years under existing conditions than it would be under the Consumptive Use Alternative is that late 116. Comment: On page 154, column one, para- fall and winter return flows from increased Irrigation graph two, last sentence, although model results under the Consumptive Use Alternative would pre- may show that in some cases irrigation return flows vent the reservoir from dropping as far. lessen impacts of irrigation withdrawals during cer-

tain time periods, it should be mentioned that during 115. Comment: The water quantity model used to other time periods during the summer irrigation sea- determine the availability ofwater on certain streams son, water withdrawals cause low flows that have and the impacts of projects on water avaUabUity is significant adverse impacts on fisheries in certain limited In that there are not enough nodes on impor- stream reaches. tant streams or tributary streams to allow much specificity in quantifying the impacts of projects on Response: Impacts of irrigation projects on the flow regimes. In Chapter Four, the draft EIS streamflows and fisheries are discussed throughout does. In a narrative fashion, briefly describe where Chapter Six of the draft EIS. 68

General Response: DNRC did assess the effects of requestec reservations on other requested reservations wltt 117. Comment: If the instream requests for the regard to water supply in the draft EIS. The fact thai Ruby, Beaverhead. Big Hole, and Jeflferson rivers many reservation requests are competing with each were added together, more than 4 million af/yr would other for a limited amount of water was one of tht go to fish in North Dakota. reasons for developing the alternatives. Where noi enough water Is available for all requests, some pro Response: The most water that could leave the posed reservations were given priority over others ir Jefierson drainage as a result of reservations would the alternatives. be 796,363 af/)T because this is the volume requested at the most downstream reach. 121. Comment: We question the use of the tern "consumptive use" in the draft EIS, since evapora 118. Comment: It is stated that requests may not tion from reservoirs and streams also depletes water be for more than 50 percent of flow, yet reservation requests add up to probably more water than exists Response: As used in the draft EIS, "consumptive in the state of Montana: use" generally refers to diversion and use ofwater foi

~~Cities and towns 34.659 af/yr irrigation or by municipalities. This Is opposed tc~~

Conservation districts 399 , 1 99 af/yr instream flows that require no actual diversion ol Bureau of Land Management 143.924 af/yr water. Evaporation of water from stream channels DHES 10.863.620 af/yr and reservoirs removes water from other uses, anc DFWP 31.961.260 af/vr this Is a form of consumption. The amount of watei TOTAL 43.402,662 af/yr lost to evaporation In reservoirs can be large, as

illustrated in Figure 4-1 of the drafl; EIS (p. 42) Response: Reservation requests for consumptive Streams also lose water through evaporation anc use can be added. Adding instream reservation re- use by streamslde vegetation. quests, however, produces meaningless results. Because Instream uses are nonconsumptlve. the 122. Comment: How was consumptive use deter- same water can be reserved at several locations. mined? Is it multiple use? Consumptive use has

Instream reservations are only for the stream reach very little impact on instream flow during periods ol requested—they do not continually add up as one high runoff. moves downstream. Response: Consumptive use for Irrigation projects 119. Comment: Irrigators should attempt to in- was determined by calculating crop irrigation re- crease irrigation efficiency before they divert more quirements and dividing this by the efficiency of the water for consumptive uses. proposed irrigation system. Consumptive use foi municipal reservation requests was determined by Response: Increasing irrigation efficiencies would, comparing the amount of water diverted by each city in many Instances, allow irrigators to maintain crop to that leaving the wastewater treatment plants and yields while diverting less water from streams. A that which leaks from the distribution system. Irri- tjTJical example of this would be an irrigator switch- gation and municipal uses are considered single uses ing from a flood irrigation sj^tem. where often four In the draft EIS. DNRC agrees that the proposed times as much water must be diverted as is needed consumptive uses have little Impact on streamflows by crops, to a sprinkler system, where only twice as during periods of high runoff unless the water is much water must be diverted as Is needed by crops. stored for later use. However, excess water returning to the groundwater system or stream (return flows) would be less with 123. Comment: On page 249, the draft EIS says the sprinkler Irrigation system than with the flood that "Milk River irrigators face water shortages In 4 system. In some instances, this could cause reduced years out of 10." The 1990 Milk River Water Supply fall flows, lower water table levels, and the drying of Study concluded that shortages exceeded 10 percent previously wet surface areas. of demand in 6 years out of 10.

120. Comment: The EIS did not assess the effects Response: The statement on page 249 regarding of reservation requests on other reservation requests water shortages in the Milk River basin was taken with regard to water supply. 69

~~from the pamphlet titled The Milk Rtver—Making It efilclency. This would provide more water for In-~~

Meet The Need (Milk River Irrigation Districts un- stream uses or new withdrawals. We feel that It Is dated). The Information Included in this brochure Important to explore how water conservation could represents a cooperative effort among the Milk River be applied to existing rights. The saved water then Irrigation districts. DNRC. the 49th Parallel Insti- could be used for future planning and reservations. tute, and BUREC. Information sources Included results from a DNRC/BUREC hydrologic model of Response: In some Instances, Implementing water the Milk River basin. conservation measures would increase streamflows and provide water for reservation requests. None of 124. Comment: Evaporation losses shown in Fig- the applicants, however, proposed to use water con- ure 4-1 of the draft EIS (p. 42) seem high. Please servation measures to satisfy their reservation re- provide backup data that support this information. quests. To determine whether water conservation measures would provide benefits to reservants, these Response: Two types of Information were used to measures would need to be examined on a case-by- calculate evaporation losses. First, information from case basis. This type of examination Is beyond the the Missouri River Basin Commission (1981) and scope of this EIS. DNRC's dam safety data base (summarized in Table 4-14 ofthe draft EIS) was used to determine reservoir 127. Comment: On page 61 ofthe draft EIS, DNRC surface areas. Expected evaporation rates from the refers to the 1987 DeLuca study concerning modifi- reservoirs were derived from U.S. Weather Bureau cation of Canyon Ferry Reservoir operations. The evaporation maps (U.S. Department of Commerce DeLuca study is a master's thesis written by Denise 1959). These maps provide a series of local area DeLuca and is based on a simplified system of Can- estimated evaporation rates, averaging about 3-1/3 yon Ferry operation. Before the study can be used as af of water evaporation per acre of reservoir surface a decision-making document, a more definitive annually. analysis is necessary.

125. Comment: How can the Board know whether Response: The objective of the DeLuca study was to water is even available In the Beaverhead subbasin determine whether BUREC could modify Canyon before the groundwater study is completed? Ferry operations and allow more consumptive use while at the same time maintaining existing levels of Response: In the Beaverhead subbasin, the only hydroelectric production. As of the draft EIS's pub- request for consumptive use that may alter lication date, this study was the most extensive mod- streamflows in the Beaverhead River is a well pro- eling effort completed on Canyon Feny Dam and posed by the City of Dillon that would pump 202 af/ Reservoir operations. Nowhere Is it suggested that

~~)T at a maximum rate of 1 . 1 cfs from alluvial deposits this study be used as a decision-making document. In the Beaverhead River valley.~~

The purpose of the groundwater study is to ex- 128. Comment: 1 [Mark ClemowJ don't feel there is amine the effects that pumping by high-capacity enough time spent in the draft EIS about what effects irrigation wells on upland benches near the Beaver- a drought has on the Missouri River and its sub- head River may have on flows In that stream. DNRC basins. Is participating in this study. The groundwater study will not be finished until Response: One of the bases for analyzing impacts of 1995. By statute, the Board must reach a decision reservation requests in the draft EIS was the Mis- on the water reservation applications by July 1, 1992. souri River water availability model. This model predicts streamflows for wet (20th percentile), aver- 126. Comment: The draft EIS fails to recognize the age (50th percentile), and dry (80th percentile) years, potential benefits of expanded water conservation along with the effects that water reservations would programs. While this issue may be outside of the have on these flows. Impacts to the existing environ- [Teton County Conservation] District's scope of the ment, including those during dry years, are pre- reservation process, it v/lH have an effect on water sented in Chapter Six. Other streamflows and anafy- availability for both Instream and consumptive uses. ses presented in the draft EIS also are for wet, aver- The District feels that an effort should be made to age, and dry years. assist current water right holders to increase their —

River 129. Comment: On page 1-3. Table I-l, on four 131. Comment: On page 1-7 under Marias incorrect streams in the Gallatin River drainage. DFWP re- drainage, the flows for Badger Creek are quested all of the remaining unappropriated flow. (too low). The table shows flows remaining on these streams Response: The amounts listed in Table I-l for this after the instream flows are subtracted. Since DFWP stream are correct. requested all of the remaining flow for each month of the year, the table should show zero remaining flow 132. Comment: On page 1-8 under Musselshell at the following: Bridger Creek near Bozeman. East River drainage, the flows for Collar Gulch Creek are Gallatin River at Bozeman, Rocky Creek near Boze- incorrect (too low). man, and Sourdough Creek near Bozeman. Also, in the Table 1-1 under the Madison River drainage, Response: The amounts listed in Table I-l for this three same comment above applies to the following stream are correct. streams: Beaver Creek near West Yellowstone. Cabin Madi- Creek near West Yellowstone, and West Fork 133. Comment: On page 61. Table 4-12. last col-

son River near Cameron. umn, it appears that the fourth and fifth entries in that column are in error, since the same entries in Response: The title of Appendix I should read "Av- column E are negative numbers that would indicate, after erage Monthly and Armual Flows Remaining in the last column, that the number 20 should be 18 Requested Instream Flows or the Maximum Instream and the number 32 should be -18. Flows Allowed by Statute are Subtracted." On Bridger Creek and the East Gallatin River at Boze- Response: The numbers are correct. For example, man. the instream flow requests were reduced to half the difference between a gain of 19 GWh per year at the average annual flow before being subtracted, and the 1955 level of development (LOD) and a loss of -1 the amounts presented in Table 1-1 are correct. GWh per year at the 1986 LOD is a total difference or Mention is made in DFWP's application that all decrease of 20 GWh per year between the two dates. unappropriated water should remain in Rocky Creek and Sourdough Creek. Elsewhere in the application, WATER STORAGE however, and in the 61 OB R/788 forms that accom- instream reservations application, DFWP requested flow Effects of pany a reservation ON storage rates of 51 cfs for Rocky Creek and 35.9 cfs for Sourdough Creek. The values listed in Table I- 1 for 134.69. Comment: Instream flow water reser- these streams are correct. vations could prevent future upstream development Flows remaining for Beaver Creek. Cabin Creek, of water for irrigation, storage, supplemental irriga- and the West Fork of the Madison in Table I-l are tion needs, or associated benefits such as additional incorrect. The values in Table 1- 1 have been cor- instream flows for fishery, recreation, flood control, rected to reflect zero flows available after instream groundwater recharge, power generation, etc. requests are subtracted. See "Changes to the Draft EIS." Response: Granting instream reservations in some instances could prevent the development ofupstream 130. Comment: On page 1-4, underJefferson River irrigation and new storage that would require new drainage. Black Sand Spring Creek is a Madison water rights. The amounts of water unavailable River tributary—not a tributary to the Jefferson would have to be determined on a site-specific basis.

and the flows listed are incorrect. Halfway Creek and Appendix I in the draft EIS includes the average Willow Spring Creek flows are incorrect. Under the monthly and annual flows remaining by stream after Big Hole River drainage, the flows are incorrect for instream flow requests are subtracted. Appendix I Delano Creek or Rock Creek. Under the Beaverhead does not take into account the water that already River and Red Rock River drainage, the flows for might be appropriated by MPC. BUREC, BLM, and Poindexter Slough are incorrect. All of these flows other senior water right holders, ff these rights are are too low. DFWP can provide the correct numbers. adjudicated as claimed, water availability for storage will be severely limited. Response: The amounts listed in Table I- 1 for these streams are correct. Your comment that Black Sand 135. Comment: Instream flow reservations in the Creek is a Madison River tributary is noted. See volumes requested exempt any future offstream stor- "Changes to the Draft EIS." 71 age development other than that currently applied desire of the public to this end. The question of for multiple for. This is in direct conflict with at least one stated management and financing of projects objective in the water storage section of the Montana uses should be more adequately addressed. water plan recently adopted by the Montana Legisla- ture. 139b. Comment: It appears foolish to consider stream reservations. Storage should be considered Response: Appendix I of the draft EIS lists the instead. The draft EIS should consider further the average amounts ofwater available for future storage matter of both kinds of water storage. or other uses if the Board grants all instream requests in full or to the maximum amount allowed by Response: MEPA requires DNRC to analyze the statute. A review of the state water plan's water impacts of reservation requests as proposed and to storage section uncovered no objectives that conflict evaluate the impacts of the proposed reservations or with instream flow reservations. any other reasonably foreseeable actions. The only storage project in the Headwaters subbasin that met 136. Comment: Instream flows should be main- these criteria was that proposed by the City of Boze- tained through the development of new storage. man. DNRC also is required to analyze reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. New onstream Response: No reservation applicants proposed new and ofl'stream storage projects in the Missouri River's storage reservoirs to supply water to maintain in- headwaters have been studied and evaluated nu- stream flows. A site-specific analysis would be nec- merous times throughout the past 50 years. For essary to determine whether it would be feasible to example, because of low flow conditions in the Big buUd storage projects to satisfy instream flows. Hole drainage. DNRC evaluated 120 potential storage sites during the 1970s. Twenty-two of these were 137. Comment: DFWP maintains that the reserva- studied in more detail between 1978 and 1982, and tion is necessary to maintain quality angling, but the none were considered economically or financially fea- EIS fails to demonstrate how a reservation of high sible. water with a 1985 priority date will ensure quality The Water Storage Financing Steering Commit- angling. If DFWP were granted a reservation of the tee spent more than a year during 1989-90 address- unappropriated (high) water, it would have to store ing the issue of financing water storage through the the water for later release to maintain the instream state water planning process. Because of this effort flow when senior rights have first call on the water. and those of the State Water Plan Advisory Council. Governor Stephens, and the legislature, significant Response: DFWP has requested year-round In- changes were made for financing water storage stream flows. There are no requirements in the projects during 1991. For example, a special water reservation statutes that Instream or other reserv- storage account was set up to fund water storage ants store water to meet their reservation requests. activities. The legislature also set a preference for using state funds: first preference to rehabilitate 138. Comment: DFWP should build a reservoir to existing facilities, second preference to enlarge and provide water for its instream flow request on the rehabilitate existing facilities, and third preference to Musselshell River. How about a site near Ryegate? construct new storage projects. Further, the storage legislation requires DNRC and DFWP to initiate a Response: In its reservation application. DFWP did study in 1991 to evaluate financing and manage- not propose to build a storage reservoir to supply ment of storage projects for multiple use. For these water for its reservation requests on the Musselshell reasons, DNRC did not feel it was again necessary to River. address multiple use. financing, and management of storage projects unless they concerned a specific 139a. Comment: Instream flow rights, particularly project in one of the reservation applications or exist- in the headwater tributary streams to rivers, should ing storage projects such as Canyon Ferry and Tiber be conditioned toward water conservation and stor- reservoirs. age projects that can contribute directly or indirectly to more stable instream flows throughout the year. 140. Comment: Ruby Reservoir and Clark Canyon The EIS should emphasize the upstream, oflstream Dam would store less water If the instream flow water conservation and storage Impacts. Almost all requests are granted by the Board. of the scoping meetings held by DNRC evidenced the 72

~~Response: Instream reservations would have a July between $ 100 and $ 1 50 million. Most of this cost Is~~

1 , 1985, priority date and would bejunior to existing associated with repairs needed on the Tongue River rights for storage in the Ruby and Clark Canyon Dam. The costs of rehabilitating dams are to be paid reservoirs. They would not affect the storage, in- from revenue earned by selling water from state- flows, or outflows of these reservoirs. owned dams. (This revenue comes from irrigators and municipalities that use the water, along with

141. Comment: 1 [Charles Hahnkampl feel that all federal and state contributions.) This is briefly ex- of the water in Cherry Creek and the Big Hole River plained on page 67 of the draft EIS and In further Is adequately used up. The only way to ensure in- detail in the state water plan's water storage section. stream flow would be to store water during flood DNRC evaluated the feasibility of proposed irri- waters. gation storage projects. Five of the 15 proposed

It seems quite clear to me that we cannot acquire projects listed in Table 6-7 of the draft EIS (p. 181) more water in the streams by making more claims on are estimated to be at least economically feasible and them. financially marginally feasible with water In 8 of 10 years. These same projects, which are estimated to Response: Comment noted. See response to com- have higher consumptive values (dollars/acre-foot) 139. ment when compared to instream flow values, have a posi- General tive net benefit. In some Instances, storage projects may be viable. 142. Comment: The draft EIS does not address new storage. 145. Comment: The EIS should address the issue of storage In greater detail and Its impacts, pro and Response: See pages 66-67 and 18 1-182 of the draft con, including economics, social, and environmen- EIS. tal. The question of management and financing for storage for multiple uses should be more adequately 143a. Comment: There is no mention of how to addressed as well as priorities in the public interest. satisfy the water reservations when there is no water available for the reservations. Shouldn't we be look- Response: The EIS addressed the impacts of the ing at storage facilities to help satisfy these reserva- environment. tions? reservation applications on the existing Those storage projects In the reservation applica- Response: As with any other water right, when tions and others proposed in the basin in the foresee- water is not available, reservations cannot be satis- able future are discussed In Chapters Four and Six of fled. A number of storage projects were included in the draft EIS. conservation district reservation applications and are summarized in Table 6-7 of the draft EIS. 146. Comment: The EIS (p. 45) states that the Clark Canyon Reservoir on the Beaverhead and other 143b. Comment: If anyone wants more water, the storage facilities create more unfform streamflows only answer is to buUd more storage. than would naturally occur, and that BUREC and DFWP have informal agreements to coordinate op- Response: Reservation that include stor- requests erations of Clark Canyon, etc., to benefit reservoir age prefects are summarized In Table 6-7 of the draft and stream fisheries, wildlife, and recreation (p. 59), EIS (p. 181). Your comment that applicants request- and the recreational use of the Clark Ctinyon Reser- ing reservations for more water should be required to voir and Beaverhead/Red Rock, Big Hole, and Ruby build storage Is noted. rivers. Because the river was overapproprlated and 144. Comment: It Is estimated that it wUl cost without adequate streamflows to satisfy the appro- $500 million to correct failures on existing state- priations, the water users on the Beaverhead worked In owned dams Montana. Irrigators carmot afford to for years to get approval from Congress for the Clark pay these costs, which eventually will fall on the Canyon Dam. Despite opposition from the then Fish shoulders of the taxpayer. Additional water storage and Game Department, the dam was constructed by dams are not a viable alternative for irrigators. BUREC and a minimum streamflow established where none existed before. The Beaverhead River Response: The current estimated for rehabili- cost now is one of Montana's premier trout streams. tating existing state-owned dams In Montana ranges 73

If It weren't for the storage In the Clark Canyon 149. Comment: Glacier County is encouraging Reservoir during the severe drought of the past live Industry to relocate here to stimulate the economy years, the Beaverhead River would have become de- and keep life at a reasonable level. We [Glacier watered and without water for either the water users County Conservation District] need water to be able or the fish by late summer. to encourage life of any type. Granted, the instream Despite the drought, most of the water users flow is needed for hydroelectric power, ff left to survived along with most ofthe fish as a result of the Mother Nature alone without Interference of man, dam. most water would disappear as high Instream flows Any reservation by DFWP would not have pro- during high runoff, leaving much lesser amounts of vided a minimum streamflow during dry years and water for Instream flows during the low precipitation will not solve Its purpose, however commendable it and low snowmelt seasons ofthe year, thus defeating may be, as all ofthe water has been appropriated and the purposes of more stable water availability these appropriations are to be protected both by throughout the year (for all uses) that diversionary statute and constitution. uses now help to mitigate. Consumptive uses have very little impact on In-

Response: Storage in Clark Canyon Reservoir has stream flow during periods of high runoff. It is dur- provided Instream flows that have benefitted the lo- ing the low precipitation periods of the year that cal fishery during dry years. The instream flow res- consumptive use has an impact only because most ervations as requested would not alleviate existing of the water has run away and what Is left Is problems during dry years. overappropriated. So what is the answer? Storing water upstream,

147. Comment: How will the reservation requests is it not? Irrigators on tributary streams generally afliect the operation, releases, and levels of Fort Peck always are short of water during low precipitation Reservoir? times and greatly in need of supplemental water to satisfy their rights. This only has an impact on Response: In general, the reservations would have Instream flows and other uses that only storage with small effects on Fort Peck Reservoir. Based on the proper management can mitigate. 1929-to-1986 period of record, these effects would be greatest under the Consumptive Use Alternative, Response: See responses to comment 139 on stor- where average annual electricity production would age and comments 64 and 70 for the effects of con- be reduced by 3.5 percent, average annual reservoir sumptive use on streamflows. contents would be reduced by 0.3 percent, and average annual reservoir elevations would drop about 1 1 50. Comment: On page S-4 is the statement that foot. In the driest year out of 10, armual energy "Stored water could be released from Tiber Reservoir production would be reduced by 3.8 percent, reser- to offset most water depletions in the lower Marias voir contents would be reduced by 0.5 percent, and River." Similar statements are made on pages 239- reservoir elevations would still drop by about 1 foot. 24 1 . No commitments have been made to use stored

water for this purpose, and it may not be available in 148. Comment: The draft EIS does not adequately the future. BUREC's Lower Marias Unit must be address pending federal decisions on proposed water operated in accordance with congressionally autho- reservations. There is no discussion as to pending rized purposes. water use from Fort Peck Reservoir for power generation and required barge flow on the Mississippi. Fed- Response: DNRC recognizes that no commitments eral action may well limit upstream water use. have been made on how water stored in Tiber Reser- voir might be used in the future. DNRC examined Response: To speculate on the outcome of any the use of water stored in Tiber as a means of offset- pending federal decisions is beyond the scope of this ting depletions elsewhere in the basin. The original EIS. The effects of the reservation requests on hy- irrigation project used to justify construction of the dropower production at Fort Peck Dam and major reservoir has not been built, but a modified version of downstream dams were addressed in Chapter Six it is included in the Big Sandy Conservation District's under "Power Production" (p. 230). Also considered water reservation application (BSS-2) . Congressional beyond the scope of this EIS is an assessment offlow action probably would be necessary before such a for downstream barge trafllc. change in operations would take place. 74

151. Comment: Reservoirs on the Beaverhead and and reverse osmosis treatment facility that would be Madison rivers have contributed to the cooler water able to treat only the 60 to 70 percentile flow. Be- temperatures required by cold-water aquatic life. A cause this sj^tem would remove beneficial nutrients study by DFWP on the Beaverhead concluded that and biota, nutrients and biota would have to be added flow depletion caused much less warming of river to the river at additional cost to sustain a fishery and water than was caused by high air temperatures. river ecosystem. If the drinking water standard is reduced from 50 micrograms/liter to a lower num- Response: The comment generally is correct. Solar ber, as suggested by EPA, some ofthe municipalities warming ofwater in Ennis Lake, however, has caused that depend on Missouri River water upstream from water temperatures in the Madison River below the Fort Peck Reservoir may have to modify their treat- reservoir to sometimes reach levels lethal to trout. ment facilities to meet this new standard. It is impossible to project these costs at this time. WATER QUALITY 155. Comment: Perhaps a filtration system in- Arsenic stalled at the Madison Dam below Ennis Lake or a similar site that only filters a portion of the river flow 1 52. Comment: It is not clear from the discussion to remove arsenic leaving portion in its natural on page 69 of the draft EIS whether the Board of — a state as regarding the bio-organic life, etc.—^would be Health and Environmental Sciences intends to re- lowering arsenic levels allowing for tain the 20 nanograms/liter arsenic standard or a means to and more water consumption and reservation. I sug- adopt a revised EPA standard when available. The am gesting filters such as those that "Chromato Chem" standard adopted by the state will be a critical factor in Missoula is working developing. Perhaps in determining whether arsenic concentrations in now on a filtering station could be sited on the Gallatin, too. waters ofthe upper Missouri basin are in compliance It would seem that perhaps federal funding might be with state standards. The basis for the state's standard should be explained. available for such a project.

Response: Treating water and returning it to the Response: The Board of Health adopted the recom- Madison or Missouri river channels for subsequent mended EPA instream standard for arsenic in 1988; downstream use (domestic, instream, or consump- this level was 2.2 nanograms/liter. Subsequently, tive uses) are impractical for several reasons. During the EPA revised the level upward to 20 nanograms the summer and winter months when arsenic con- per liter. As of December 1991, the Board of Health centrations are highest (80 micrograms/liter) and has not adopted the revised 20 nanogram level. Be- streamflow is lowest (1,500 cfs), most of the flow cause either concentration is very small, whichever would require treatment to substantially affect down- is used makes little difference in interpreting the stream arsenic concentration. For example, to re- instream standard. duce the concentration to the federal drinking water standard (50 micrograms/liter) would require the 153. Comment: What is the source of arsenic in diversion and treatment (complete removal of arse- the Missouri drainage? nic) of 940 cfs, equal to 63 percent of the river's flow. The cost to treat this volume of flow is prohibitive, Response: See page 69 of the draft EIS. and the effect on overall water quality (removal of other constituents essential to a healthy aquatic en- 154. Comment: The draft EIS does not identify vironment) would be deleterious. ways to treat water at its source to remove arsenic. Water treatment to remove arsenic currently Is practiced on a small scale (Individual domestic sup- Response: Arsenic can be removed from a water plies) In the Madison drainage. There, commercially source through a number of ways. Individual fami- available, reverse-osmosis units are used to treat lies can treat arsenic with a reverse osmosis system small volumes of water for household use. at a cost of about $500 for the system and $200 for The Gallatin River does not have elevated con- annueil maintenance. According to DHES (1991), centrations of arsenic. the cost to treat a major portion of the Madison River—the primary source of the arsenic—^would be 156. Comment: How much more skin cancer is hundreds of millions of dollars. This system would caused by arsenic In the drinking water in Great Falls consist of a coagulation, sedimentation, filtration. than in Billings? 75

Response: Arsenic concentrations In the Missouri upper Missouri waters presently are in a noncompli- River near Great Falls typically are 20 micrograms/ ance status due to naturally occurring, elevated ar- liter, compared with 10 mlcrograms/llter In the Yel- senic concentrations. Therefore, recognizing that lowstone River near Billings. Arsenic concentrations enforcement of the arsenic standard is Impossible, In the Great Falls municipal water supply—serving a DHES should consider amending its reservation population of about 72.000—are about 10 mlcro- claim to reflect that realistic flows are required to grams/llter after treatment. BlUlngs serves a similar protect human health and maintain water quality in population, but no data are available on arsenic con- concert with EPA public water supply criteria. Re- centrations in treated water supplies. If conven- sults ofthe Interagency arsenic modeling effort would tional treatment reduces Billings concentrations by provide quantification as to the extent and magni- 50 percent (from 10 to 5 mlcrograms/llter), the frac- tude various water diversion scenarios may have on tion of skin cancer due to arsenic In public water upper Missouri arsenic concentrations. Model re- supplies would be roughly one-half that in Great sults then could be applied to an enforceable and FaUs. detectlble arsenic standard as recognized by EPA.

157. Comment: The high arsenic concentrations Response: An important goal of the ambient surface In the Missouri River are a major "stumbling block" water standard for arsenic is to prevent further deg- for future consumptive uses. radation where existing arsenic concentrations exceed 2.2 nanograms/liter. No technical or legal limi- Response: High arsenic concentrations in the Mis- tations prevent enforcement of the standard. The souri River present a substantial human health risk ongoing Interagency arsenic modeling effort will pro- and already exceed federal and state standards. In- vide additional Insights into the effect of resource creased arsenic concentrations and health risks are management on arsenic water quality. Revision or costs associated with further consumptive deple- modification of state and federal arsenic water qual- tions. The Board wUl have to determine what level of ity standards Is beyond the scope of the EIS. The consumptive depletion. If any, is In the public Inter- Board is limited by law to granting DHES and all est. other instream reservants a maximum of one-half the average annual flow on gauged streams. 158. Comment: There should have been an instream flow alternative that would deny all future 161. Comment: The arsenic and salt problems uses if they could Increase the already-high arsenic brought on by Irrigation are poor treatments of the concentrations. land and should not be allowed to continue.

Response: An instream flow alternative is presented Response: Refer to the "Water Quality" section (p. and analyzed in Chapter Two of this EIS. 68) in Chapter Four of the draft EIS for a discussion of existing arsenic and salinity problems In the Mis- 159. Comment: Because the concentration of ar- souri basin. Reservations for Instream flows would senic already is so high in the Madison and Missouri not correct existing arsenic problems. rivers, DHES should not be limited to half of the recorded average annual streamflow. 162. Comment: The draft EIS inadequately addresses arsenic contamination. The data on the Response: By law, the Board cannot grant reserva- carcinogenicity of arsenic still are subject to debate. tions ofwater for Instream flows that exceed one-half Arsenic concentrations at each reservation location the average annual flow of record on gauged streams need to be delineated pre- and post-reservation. (§85-2-316(6), MCA). Removing heavily arsenic-laden waters for treatment. Impounding, or irrigation could have a beneficial 160. Comment: The draft EIS discusses the arse- effect baslnwide. nic issue in a qualitative manner. This approach was expected in light of the extremely rigorous 2.2 nano- Response: DNRC recognizes the uncertainty con- grams/liter standard the state has elected to adopt. cerning health risks from arsenic ingestion. DHES Even if DHES's request to reserve one-half the aver- has Informed DNRC that the basis for establishing age annual flow of the Missouri River at Toston, Ulm, the " 1 per million" risk level for arsenic is adequate Virgelle, and Landusky were granted, the 2.2 nano- (DHES 1989). As the state government water quality grams/liter state standard would not be met since agency, DHES sets standards with EPA oversight. 76

The state legally Is bound to comply with the arsenic additional Information regarding how the "non-deg- standard. There Is not siifflclent data available to radation rules" established by the Montana BoEird of analyze arsenic concentrations at each reservation Health and Environmental Sciences (BHES) (p. 10) location. Ek;onomIc costs of large-scale water treat- and the Board's Instream standard (that does not ment to remove arsenic are prohibitive. Irrigating allow activities that Increase arsenic concentrations with or storing arsenic-laden water may alter the beyond 10 nanograms/liter) interface with the "maxi- seasonal concentration of arsenic and cause local, mum allowable changes" for surface water quality short-term decreases in arsenic concentrations. In promulgated by DHES. general, consumptive use and evaporation from storage will Increase arsenic concentrations on an aver- Response: The State of Montana water quality clas- age annual basis. sification system is based on existing beneficial uses and a number of water quality criteria. Maximum 1 63. Comment: The draft EIS does not state where allowable changes in surface water quality param- arsenic reaches acceptable limits on the Missouri eters are based on whether such changes allow main- River. tenance of existing beneficial uses. An action vio-

lates the water quality standard if existing beneficial Response: Arsenic concentrations in the Madison uses are adversely affected. Any reservation or ap- and Missouri rivers exceed the state surface water propriation of water that results in a depletion in the standard (2.2 nanograms/llter) at all points in Mon- average flow of the Madison or Missouri rivers will tana: arsenic concentrations In the Madison River violate the Montana Surface Water Quality Stan- commonly exceed the state drinking water standard dards (16.20.618(h)) and the Montana Non-degrada- (50 micrograms /liter). In the Missouri River between tion Rules (16.20.701 etseq.). Taken together, these Three Forks and Canyon Ferry Reservoir, arsenic two sets of rules prohibit increases in the concentra- concentrations are elevated near the drinking water tion of substances for which there are drinking water standard in summer months. Only the Missouri limits (16.20.618(h)(i)) and for "deleterious sub- below Canyon Ferry and most tributaries are in com- stances." pliance with the drinking water standard on a year- For contaminants that have a Maximum Con- round basis. Only the tributary streams with no taminant Level (MCL) set by EPA, degradation means natural sources ofarsenic are in compliance with the that the concentration of that contaminant has In- surface water standard. creased. For contaminants for which there is no MCL, the concentration must increase, and the pres- 164. Comment: In Chapter Two, the draft EIS ence of the contaminant in the water must adversely to clarify the Inter-relatlonship State needs between affect an existing or future beneficial use before it Is of Montana water quality standards and the arsenic considered degradation (ARM 16.20.1011(2)). issue. The Montana Water Quality Act's surface water Arsenic clearly falls In both categories. Since quality standards and water use classification sys- depletions wUl cause an Increase In the arsenic con- tem states: centrations in the Madison and Missouri rivers and wUl result in an Increase In the expected number of . . . Department of Health and Environmental cancers In the population that is dependent on these Sciences (DHES) has adopted water quality rivers for Its drinking water supply, any such deple- standards that establish maximum allow- tions will violate state law. able changes In surface water quality parameters for each stream on the basis of Its clas- 165. Comment: Page 188 of the draft EIS states sification. that an increase In arsenic concentrations in the It Is not entirely clear from this discussion MUk River from 4 micrograms/liter to 6 micrograms/ whether the water use classification system Is based liter would violate the BHES surface water instream strictly on existing beneficial uses of the state's wa- standard of2.2 neinograms/llter. The Initial 4 mlcro- terways, or whether additional criteria are used In grams/llter level already Is in violation of this stan- the classification. If degradation of a stream were to dard. The discussion should be revised to recognize occur, what Is the magnitude of the maximum allow- the 2.2 nanograms/llter standard. able change In surface water quality parameters for each stream? And do the allowable changes pre- Response: In surface water that already exceeds 2.2 clude a change in a stream's water use classifica- nanograms/liter, no further Increase in arsenic con- tion? We [BURECl request that the state provide centration Is allowed. Therefore, an increase from 4 77 to 6 micrograms/Uter In the Milk River as a result of studies have not been conducted in the Madison/ interbasin transfer of Missouri River water would be Missouri basin, largely because of the expenses and a violation of the state's surface water standard. problems involved with designing such a study.

1 66. Comment: In our [BURECJ view, the draft EIS 169. Comment: Is the information provided by poses a potential critical dilemma. Water quality DHES accurate and long-lasting? Technology and standards and constraints adopted by DHES and standards change. BHE^S and promulgated in the Montana Water Use Act and Montana Water Quality Act could. In fact, Response: Water quality data provided by DHES preclude much of the proposed activity under the and the U.S. Geological Survey are collected and water reservation process. Page 134 of the draft EIS analyzed by standard methods to ensure reliability. states: "The concentration of arsenic in the Madison The data, however, especially for trace elements such and Missouri rivers far exceeds the state instream as arsenic, are expensive to collect. This limits the water quality standard." Few of the proposed con- frequency and geographic scope ofwater quality data sumptive use projects could be operated without collection and makes prediction of arsenic Impacts further violating this standard. This situation could difficult. It is not possible to predict whether arsenic undermine the state's claim for consumptive use standards will change in the future. (See response to reservations In the Missouri River and restrict Mon- comment 152.) tana's share of water to instream augmentation (instream flow). 170. Comment: The reservation request of DHES is based on the premise that Instream flows are nec- Response: Dr>JRC agrees that the arsenic standards essary to reduce the concentrations of water pollut- defined under the Federal Clean Water Act and the ants (arsenic). The Teton County Conservation Dis- standard adopted by BHES pose a dUemma for addi- trict feels that the final EIS would Include alterna- tional consumptive uses of water in the Missouri tives to dilution of pollutants, including Improved River basin. If BHES had not adopted a standard treatment of withdrawals from the basin, use of ex- that complies with federal instream guidelines (20 isting water storage facilities to act as pollutant traps, nanograms/ liter). EPA would adopt and enforce it construction of artificial wetlands to act as pollutant within Montana as it has done in other states. traps, and another feasible alternative to the pre- When the Montana Legislature passed the Mis- ferred method of dilution through maintenance of souri River reservation statute, little information was Instream flow. The analysis of these alternatives available on the high concentrations of arsenic in the should Include not only the cost of the alternatives, Missouri River basin. but also the cost of not providing for development of other reservation requests.

167. Comment: It seems unconscionable to export arsenic to the Milk River basin. Won't this create Response: DNRC and DHES have examined a vari- problems there that don't exist now? ety of alternatives for management of arsenic concentrations. Maintenance of dilution flows appears of draft EIS. Response: See pages 187-188 the to be the only cost-elTectlve method and Is required to comply with recent changes In state and federal water 168. Comment: DHES's reservation for arsenic quality standards for arsenic. DNRC and DHES dilution is based on questionable, unproved, theo- have examined and continue to investigate a variety retical projections of the incidence of skin cancer of ways to reduce health risks associated with arse- caused by arsenic. DHES has not proved the need nic Ingestion in the Missouri basin. The alternatives for the amount of water required to obtain the de- are briefly described below. sired dilution. DHES has not shown there is an Water Treatment near Source : Treating surface epidemic of skin cancer among domestic water users flow to reduce basinwide arsenic concentrations ap- on the Missouri River. DHES has not shown there is pears to be Impractical because of the relatively large a higher Incidence of skin cancer in the domestic volume of flow, even near the source of arsenic (see water user on the Missouri than on the Yellowstone response to comment 155). In addition to costing River. several hundred million dollars, the most eflectlve treatment methods would remove other nutrients Response: DHES and EPA believe that data relating and chemical constituents and alter downstream arsenic ingestion to occurrence of skin cancer are water quality, which are critical for maintaining adequate to set standards. Detailed epidemiological 78

aquatic habitat and the fishery in the Madison River. cessed at the plant, it Is at 13 ppb. This Is well below Further, arsenic in stream channels, reservoir sedi- the accepted rate. The reference to cancer-causing ments, and shallow groundwater in the Madison agents also needs to be examined much closer. Ac- Valley would remain to contaminate streamflows cording to the same water treatment plant, there is downstream of the treatment facility. no federal standard; It Is too hard to measure. In

Domestic Treatment : Individual household treat- addition to drinking arsenic-laden water, you would ment systems work by distillation or reverse osmosis have to eat one ounce of arsenic-laden fish every day and are capable of achieving arsenic concentrations ofyour life to contract cancer. Based on the table for of 1 microgram /liter. These are available at an initial the Cascade County Conservation District, It was cost of about $500 each and require about $200 of determined that the proposed projects would not annual maintenance. have any Impact on heavy metals and current arse-

Municipal Treatment Facilities : Upgrading mu- nic levels. nicipal facilities to reduce arsenic concentrations Response: See responses to comments 163, 170, would lower health risks for domestic users reljong and 173. on municipal facilities; rural water users would not benefit. Reliable estimates of the cost of upgrading 172. Comment: Each project, such as the Virgelle existing treatment facilities to meet a particular arse- diversion project, should be addressed on whether nic concentration level presently are not available. arsenic concentration would Increase. Each municipal system is unique in design and op- erational characteristics and would require a pre- In general, all projects that deplete sur- liminary engineering design/feasibility study to ar- Response: face flows will increase arsenic concentrations to rive at the Increased treatment costs. This was not Virgelle project would possible within the time and funding constraints of some degree. The diversion water from the Missouri River the EIS. divert arsenic-laden (median concentration 15micrograms/liter) into the Pollutant Traps : All reservoirs on the Madison Milk River (median concentration 3 micrograms/ll- and Missouri rivers trap and store sediment cind ter). Increasing the concentration of arsenic in the associated arsenic. Based on preliminary studies, Milk River. the existing reservoir sediments contain arsenic at or near stream sediment levels found upstream and 173. Comment: How will direct diversions from downstream of the reservoirs. The effect of reservoir the Missouri River for consumptive uses increase operations on sediment and arsenic storage is poorly arsenic concentrations? understood, but it is unlikely that any of the reservoirs could be managed solely for arsenic reduction Response: Direct diversions from the Missouri River in downstream water supplies. for consumptive uses will Lnfluence arsenic concen- The creation of artificial wetlands provides a way trations in three principal ways. First, projects that to trap arsenic associated with sediments but would apply water to well-drained, coarse-textured soils allow dissolved arsenic (most arsenic in the Missouri will generate return flows with elevated arsenic con- basin above Canyon Ferry is dissolved) to pass. In centrations and thereby Increase arsenic concentra- addition, the intentional creation of wetlands using tions in the Missouri River. In this situation, the arsenic-contaminated water and sediments may cre- same amount of arsenic will return to the river as ate further problems. was removed, but will be concentrated. This is because water is lost by evaporation and plant use 171. Comment: While researching the question of during irrigation, but arsenic generally is not. arsenic levels In the water, I [Dixie Nugent] found In the second situation, projects that irrigate that proposed projects would not affect this problem. fine-textured soils with a particular combination of Again, since the water reservation only concerns ex- clay mineralogy and metallic oxides (aluminum, iron, cess water flow, it would in no way affect the current etc.) will store arsenic temporarily (months) or over concentration. There are several lakes between Yel- the long term (years). SoUs that store arsenic will lowstone Park and Great Falls that might serve as continue to do so until storage sites are filled or until settling ponds for the arsenic. This is an area that changing geochemical conditions favor remobll- definitely needs much more research. The Great ization of arsenic. While the arsenic is stored, return Falls Water Treatment Plant tells me that the federal flows with reduced arsenic concentrations will enter maximum contaminant level is 50 parts per billion the Missouri River, and arsenic concentrations in (ppb) for arsenic. When the water has been pro- the river as a whole will be slightly reduced. 79

In cases where Missouri River water is supplied also may erode sediment from fields and canals and to parcels far removed and not hydraulically con- transport it to a stream. See Table 6-14 of the draft nected to the Missouri River, diverted arsenic and EIS for a list of projects with canals. water may never return to the Missouri River. These Most of the Irrigation projects proposed by the projects would cause little change in Missouri River conservation districts would involve elllcient sprin- arsenic concentrations, although the total load in kler irrigation systems. With these systems, surface the river would decline. return flows would be small, as application rates can be controlled so as not to exceed the rate at which the Suspended sediment soil can absorb water. A few sprinkler irrigation systems on steep slopes may create localized sedi- 174. Comment: Suspended sediments caused by ment problems. Project I>CI-20 is the only such irrigation return flows are not adequately addressed. project identified by DNRC. It would contribute sediment to the Dearborn River. Response: When the amount of water applied to a For flood irrigation systems, excess water often is field for irrigation exceeds that which can be ab- applied at the head of a field to ensure that adequate sorbed by the soil, water will begin to flow on the water reaches crops at the lower end. Sediment surface. Some ofthis water, or "surface return flows." could be eroded and carried to a stream by this may eventually reach a stream or stream channel excess water. Table 3-7 summarizes proposed flood either directly or via canals. Surface return flows irrigation projects that may add sediment to streams.

~~Table 3-7. Irrigation projects that may add sediment to streams~~

~~Acres to be Stream that Project flood irrigated would be affected Comments~~

~~BR-29 30 iDeep Creel< May contribute some sediment to Deep Creek.~~

~~BR-101 987^~~

~~BR-104 .~~

Sediment that blankets stream bottoms can 242-243, Tables 2-2, 4-19, and in Appendix E of the damage invertebrate populations and block spawn- draft; EIS. Also see response to comment 174. ing gravels, preventing the successful development

~~of fish eggs and larvae (U.S. Environmental Protec- 176. Comment: I believe if we [Cascade County tion Agency 1986). Conservation District] were granted water reserva-~~

~~tions, it would be up to us to set certain standards for~~

175. Comment: 1 [Trout Unlimited] have some con- issuing the projects. Of course, 310s (permits re- cerns about water quality. Discussion is very sparse quired of project developers under the Montana Stre- in the draft EIS about pollution by total suspended ambed Preservation Act) would come into play with solids (sedimentation). Sediment could be a major any disturbance in or near a streambed. This would pollutant coming off many of the projects. Beyond mean that some projects might not pass our crite- acknowledging the severe sedimentation problem in rion. We also have rules about replacing vegetation Muddy Creek caused by return flows from when any is disturbed near a streambed. We must

Greenfields Irrigation District (p. 187), there is little keep the land from eroding. The conservation dis- discussion of sedimentation. Yet on a number of trict would be willing to mandate each producer occasions in the individual project environmental granted a water reservation the assistance to develop assessments, you allude to sedimentation as one of an intensive irrigation water management plan that the adverse consequences of irrigation projects. addresses nutrient and pesticide management. One example in particular illustrates the point Plans such as these help attain the goals of all parties especially well. The environmental assessment for concerned with this issue and are directly related to Lewis and Clark County Conservation District indi- the mission of the conservation district. Best man- cates that LCl-20 on the Dearborn River will have agement practices are the key to these plans and by moderately adverse impacts of turbidity (sedimenta- utilizing information available from SCS and the tion) and moderate impacts on fish habitat. Beyond university system, the plan basically could guaran- the obvious dewatering problem caused by more tee that any water quality hazard due to these pro- withdrawals from the Dearborn, increased sedimen- posed projects would be kept to an absolute mini- tation will likely degrade spawning habitat in what is mum. Many projects actually could enhance the

one of the most important rainbow spawning tribu- water quality concern if these plans are implemented taries of the Missouri. The draft EIS should specifi- We must realize that if we do not control the use ol

~~cally address this problem. Further, it specifically this water with great care, we will just be in the~~

should examine the influence of other projects on "water giving away business." I truly believe that sedimentation. It also should discuss in more gen- with the right planning and rules we can preserve, eral terms the impact of sedimentation on water protect, and utfiize our natural resources. quality and fisheries habitat. Response: DNRC agrees that the measures stated Response: Total suspended solids (TSS) data are above, if implemented, could reduce Impacts associ- reported irregularly at USGS monitoring stations and ated with the conservation districts' water reserva- on only a few tributaries in the Missouri basin. Mon- tion requests. The Board could consider requiring tana water quality standards limit TSS to protect such plans. beneficial uses for aquatic life but not for pubUc Project LM-20 water supplies. Since no agency regularly gathers TSS data, sufficient data is lacking to analyze each 177. Comment: Discharging pentachlorophenol project's effect on sedimentation. Further, sedimen- found in the coal mine (Project LM-20) to the Mussel-

tation is a natural process accelerated by human shell River could be avoided if this water Is pumped and animal activities, and often its adverse impacts directly to fields for irrigation. are not recognized or readily apparent. The Dear- bom River is listed in the upper Missouri subbasin Response: Discharging water containing pentachlo- as one of several tributaries to the Missouri River rophenol to fields for Irrigation is likely to cause with a sedimentation problem (see p. 72 of the draft increased concentrations of the materials In the EIS and Appendix E). Sedimentation, erosion, and groundwater supply. Irrigation return flows and turbidity caused by individual projects are identified surface water runoff containing this carcinogen also on pages S-3, 37, 68, 70, 72-73, 76, 89, 90-95, 98, would contaminate nearby streams and eventually 102, 182, 184, 186-189, 191-195, 202. 211, 224, adveiTsely affect the Musselshell River. Discharge ol 81

this material would require permits from DHES and or municipal activities before it would substantially likely would require treatment prior to discharge. deteriorate. Overall comparison of this stream with most upper Missouri River streams does not distin- 1 1 78. Comment: The Roundup mine project cannot guish Big Spring Creek as "A- " or among the highest be done because of water quality. quality streams as classified by DHES (see Appendix E of the draft EIS for all classifications). Big Spring Response: Please refer to response to comment 1 77 serves as the water source for the City of Lewlstown and to page 188 In the draft EIS. and a growing water bottling company.

Other 181. Comment: In the draft EIS, inadequate impact consideration is given 179. Comment: Since water quality of the Mussel- to the quality of water being reserved. Water that is anticipated for munici- shell River is so poor. Is it desirable for DFWP to pal use is lumped In with that required for irrigation, reserve an tnstream flow reservation for fish and wildlife? stock watering, and maintaining Instream flows.

Response: According to DHES (1985). water quality Response: For discussions of existing water quality is moderately Impaired along 309 miles ofthe Mussel- in the Missouri basin, see pages 68-70 and Appendix shell River below the Deadman's Basin Reservoir E of the draft EIS. For a discussion of the effects diversion. Causes of impairment include sediment, reservations would have on water quality, see pages salts, nutrients, streambank erosion, grazing, and 182-188 of the draft EIS. Granting Instream flow flow alteration from irrigation. reservations will not change existing water quality. Fewer trout are found below Deadman's Basin Reservoir diversion; however, the river is used by 182. Comment: The draft EIS does not adequately other fish species more tolerant of this impaired water address the quality ofwater that would be discharged quality. These species are indicated in Appendix G of from the municipal project. It is conceivable that the draft EIS. DFWP (1989) reported a spring spawn- water quality might even Improve after municipal ing run of channel catfish and possibly sauger from treatment, thus improving water quality downstream Fort Peck Reservoir up the lower portion of the in the basin. Musselshell River. The spawning migration extends upstream at least as far as the Musselshell diversion. Response: DNRC recognizes that properly treated Sauger ripe for spawning have been found In the wastewater could help dilute pollutants in some sur- Musselshell in May. Evidently, DFWP felt that the face water and groundwater discharge areas (see p. fishery in the Musselshell River, Including the lower 72 ofthe draft EIS). portion of the river, warranted an instream flow reservation. 183. Comment: A strong case is presented in the report for the need to prevent further concentrations 180. Comment: The draft EIS does not adequately of arsenic in Missouri basin streams. Similar con- address the very high quality ofBig Spring Creek and cern is expressed for inorganic chemical pollutants. its potential uses. Potential water quality degradation in the subbasins due to pesticides is mentioned only in passing. In Response: Big Spring Creek is different from most view of the substantial percentage of consumptive

Montana streams in that it is mostly spring-fed from water use attributed to irrigated agriculture and pro- a limestone aquifer, which discharges large volumes jected water reservations resulting from future irri- ofhigh-quality water into the creek. Big Spring Creek gation development, a more detailed discussion of is 44 miles long and suffers from naturally unstable pesticide levels and anticipated Impacts should be streambanks, housing development along the stream included. channel, agricultural activities, flood control dikes, sewage treatment, and industrial discharge into the Response: DNRC considered pesticide mobility in a stream. In Fergus County, Big Spring Creek is clas- computer model that considered soils, cropping sys- sified B- 1 /B-2 by DHES. This classification means tems, irrigation, shallow bedrock, shallow ground- that the stream could absorb additional Impairments water, and types of pesticides. This modeling effort such as Increased sediment from unstable stream- identified projects that have the potential to cause banks, changes in pH, or nutrients from agricultural pesticide contamination. Table 6-9 of the draft EIS .

(p. 184) lists potential problem projects. Data on maintain flows, while consumptive reservations existing pesticide levels throughout the four sub- would decrease flows. See response to comment 187. basins are limited; consequently, the level ofincrease in pesticide contamination as a result of reservation 187. Comment: The draft EIS should address the projects cannot be determined. Influence of the nondegradatlon provisions of the Clean Water Act. Section 75-5-503. MCA, says, in 184. Comment: Categories B- 1 and B-2 listed on pertinent part: page 8 of the draft EIS. Table 2-1, under Montana

~~. . . the board [of Health and Environmental water classifications for specific uses, appear to be~~

Sciences] shall require . . . that any state wa- the same. The classification of B- 1 and B-2 waters ters whose existing quality is higher than the should be corrected. established water quality standards be main-

tained at that high quality unless it has been Response: In Table 2- 1 on page 8 ofthe draft EIS, no affirmatively demonstrated to the board that distinction is made between classifications B- 1 and a change IsJ ustlfiable as a result ofnecessary B-2. Table 2-1 describes specific uses of classified economic or social development and will not streams and not the variable standards of the stream preclude present and anticipated use ofthese classification. In general, the B- 1 classification Is a

waters . . higher classification than B-2 and has more restric- tive standards for parameters such as temperature, It appears that many of the proposed consump- dissolved turbidity, toxicity, metals. oxygen, Ph, and tive use projects might be covered by this section. If distinguishing for all of the classifi- These standards so, how would this requirement affect the feasibility cations are found In pages 16-935 through 16-967 of of these projects? And what is it likely to do to the ARM 16.20.603 through 624, Surface Water Quality cost-benefit ratio of those projects? Can they be Standards, State of distinction IS Montana. No made allowed at all without some BHES approval? Given between the specific uses of B- 1 and B-2 classified recent publicity over the nondegradatlon section, it is streams, although a distinction made among the is especially appropriate for the draft EIS to address allowable classifica- parameters in streams of each its influence on this process. tion. Response: See pages 7-10 and S-6 and S-7 of the 185. Comment: We [Medicine River Canoe Club] draft EIS. along with Chapter Seven, for the Board's feel that DFWP's requests do not provide for ad- responsibilities concerning water reservations. Re- equate Is levels ofwater quality. There a tremendous fer to page 5 for an explanation of beneficial uses problem In of our rivers with nonpoint source many under Montana water law. The arsenic issue Is ad- pollution. We need adequate flows to dilute these dressed on pages S-3, 69, 184, 186, and 188, and In pollutants. We suspect that if rivers flowed for ex- Tables 4-18 (p. 69), 4-19 (p. 71). and 6-12 (p. 188). tended periods only at levels requested by DFWP, these pollutants would not be appropriately diluted. LAND USE

Response: DFWP based most of Its water reserva- 188. Comment: Page 196 of the draft EIS states tion requests on streamflows necessary to maintain the following: certain aspects of aquatic habitat, not those needed to dilute pollutants. Montana cattle numbers are projected to remain stable (or decline slightly), while beef 186. Comment: The [Montana Wildlife] Federation production efficiency is expected to increase feels that the final EIS should follow the Intent of the (USDA 1989), reducing the demand for al-

Clean Water Act (§ 75-5-503, MCA), which deals with falfa. maintaining water quality. With the amount of her- If the numbers remain stable, the demand for alfalfa bicides and fertilizers draining into the basin each certainly would not decline. year, increased water flows are needed to comply with the Clean Water Act. Response: As described In the draft EIS (pp. 196- 97). the average production of Missouri basin irri- Response: In general, reservations would not In- gated alfalfa Is expected to increase from about 3 crease flows. Instream reservations would help tons per acre to almost 4 tons per acre over the next 83

30 years. Beef cattle breeding Is continuing to Im- 190c. Comment: Why did DNRC use the WETP prove cattle feeding efficiency that uses less sUage method rather than some other method to calculate and feedstocks (particularly alfalfa and hay) to pro- the Instream flows necessary for instream purposes? duce larger animals (USDA 1989). Finally, beef demand Is expected to stabilize during the coming de- 190d. Comment: The WETP method used by DFWP cades. The net effect of these three factors—(1) In- produces recommendations for too much water for creasing alfalfa productivity, (2) improved livestock instream use. feed efficiency, and (3) stable beef demand—^will be to put substantial downward pressure on alfalfa pro- 190e. Comment: The EIS should address in greater duction. The U.S. Department ofAgriculture (1989) detail the different methods that can be used to projects that alfalfa needs will decrease by more than determine tnstream flows. 40 percent over the next 40 years. 190r Comment: We [Medicine River Canoe Club] 189. Comment: Gallatin County Conservation Dis- feel that the WETP method used in most Instances trict questions the methodology used by DNRC to produces far too low a volume of water to satisfy Its establish values for water for various uses. In the [DFWP's] intent. As a DFWP employee stated, "It will section on the agricultural economy, the writers say furnish just enough water to keep the backs of the there will be a gradual decrease In irrigated land, due fish wet." Due to shortages ofmoney and manpower, evidently to development. The District feels this is a another employee Implied that WETP was a rather positive reason for the Board to grant the District's cursory method of getting the Job done. (This is not application for water for irrigation. As this land is a criticism of the DFWP and does not necessarily being developed in and around Bozeman, water for- indicate a lack of concern or commitment on its part, merly used for Irrigation will become available for but just the constraints of time and budget under other uses. which most state agencies labor.)

Response: The agricultural economy section does Response: The methods DFWP used were summa- Indicate that the amount of irrigated land in the rized in Appendix B of the draft EIS. In Appendix C basin is likely to decrease gradually, along with the (in this final EIS), alternate methodologies are de- percentage of agricultural employment (see re- scribed, studies comparing results from alternate sponses to comments 269 and 188). Long-term irri- methodologies are reviewed, results from one com- gation declines (U.S. Department of Agriculture monly used method are compared to DFWP's re- 1989) and further residential developments in the sults, the validity of DFWP's assumptions are exam- Gallatin valley could make some current irrigation ined, and some of the methods used by DFWP are water available for other uses. described further. Readers interested In more detailed discussions of methods should read papers by FISHERIES Trihey and Stalnaker (1985), Loar and Sale (1981), Methods Wesche and Rechard (1980), Lamb (1989), EA Engi- neering, Science and Technology, Inc. (1986), or 190a. Comment: The [HUl County Conservation) DFWP's review of methods related to the WETP District is concerned about the methodology used in method (Leathe and Nelson 1989). determining factors such as tnstream flows, etc., and why difTerent methods of calculating these factors 191. Comment: Page 22 of the draft EIS says that were not used. These different methods of calcula- three different methods were used to determine res- tion could have been used in comparison with one ervation requests. If the primary need to be served is another for a more balanced look at the water avail- to reserve flows sufficient to ensure survival of ability of a particular water source. aquatic organisms to maintain fisheries, how do "the lowest average monthly flow" and "all remaining 190b. Comment: The EIS should address in greater unappropriated water" methods compare to needed detaU the different methodologies that may be used flow rates? to determine instream flows. Granted, it would be impossible to conclude as to the result of each meth- Response: DFWP requested streamflows that It felt odology, but does the methodology chosen have some represented all remaining unappropriated water on basis, or was it chosen on the basis of it resulting in four streams In the East Gallatin drainage to dilute the highest yield? 84 present and future pollutants from the Bozeman area. Including the Bozeman wastewater treatment plant. Table 3-8 compares flows corresponding to high and low levels of aquatic habitat found using the WETP method to DFWP's requests on these four streams. The WETP method is described briefly in Appendix B of the draft EIS.

~~Table 3-8. Comparison of flow rates corresponding to high and low levels of aquatic habitat protection to DFWP's requested reservations on four streams in the East Gallatin drainage~~

~~Approxitnate flow (cfs) correspotiding to:~~

~~High levels of Low levels of Requested aquatic habitat aquatic habitat instream protection (high protection (low Stream flow (cfs) inflection point) inflection point)~~

~~Sourdough Creek 85~~

~~words, the low inflection point. We feel that this level Table 3-10. Irrigation projects for which reservations~~

will provide the needed protection yet not preclude are sought that would be water-short In dry years if other reservations. the Board grants instream reservations based on low inflection points (low levels of aquatic habitat

Response: The low inflection point flows are listed in protection) Appendix C. Your opinion that the low inflection point flows will provide the needed level of protection to aquatic habitat is noted. If Instream reservations were to be granted at flows corresponding to the low inflection point year-round, aquatic habitat in some streams would be reduced substantially from existing conditions. When expressed as a percentage of the estimated average annual flow, the lower and upper Inflection points can be compared. The median low inflection point is equal to about 20 percent of the average annual flow, while the median upper inflection point is equivalent to about 43 percent of the average armual flow. This Indicates that. In general, the lower inflection point flow is somewhat less than 30 percent of the average annual flow suggested by Annear and Conder (1983) as a good starting point for making Instream recommendations, and the upper inflection point flow Is somewhat higher. Instream flow reservations based on the lower Inflection point could preclude other reservations in some cases. If reservations for instream flow are granted at the lower inflection point and given priority over reservations for consumptive use. the con-

~~sumptive use reservations listed in Table 3-10 still would be water-short at times. Note that low inflection points cannot be identified on a number of streams for which reservations are requested.~~

194. Comment: Is the methodology used by DFWP the best one to use In determining the instream flow necessary for maintaining a fishery? Other methodologies may be more appropriate than the one used by DFWP.

Response: The Board will have to determine whether the methods used by DFWP are accurate and suitable for making its decision. Additional information on alternate methods to determine instream flow needs is presented in Appendix C.

195. Comment: We [DFWP] disagree with how the term "professionaljudgment" is used to describe how instream flows are estimated by the wetted perimeter method. Instream flows are determined from the wetted perimeter/ discharge relationship derived by the WETP computer program from field observations. Any professional judgment by the biologists would 86

be from tiielr knowledge of the stream's fisheries, the additional candidates for upper Inflection relative value of each stream, and the need for In- point recommendations. Both of these cat- stream flows to maintain those fisheries. egories describe some streams in this application. Response: The language from DFWP's application Amounts (DFWP 1989) is reprinted below. 196. Comment: DFWP should be allowed no more The final flow recommendation Is generally than 5 cfs for instream flows to maintain water qual- selected from this range offlows by a consen- ity and fishery in the Musselshell River. sus of the biologists who collected, summarized, and analyzed all relevant field data for Response : DFWP applied for an amount ofwater the the stream of interest. The biologists' analy- agency considered necessary to support aquatic life. ses of the stream resource form the basis of The Board will have to decide whether the flow re- the flow selection process. Factors consid- quested by DFWP is appropriate. ered in the evaluation include: (1) level of

recreational use, (2) existing level of environ- 197. Comment: The instream flow request for the mental degradation, (3) water availability, Sun River should be higher than 100 cfs. This river and (4) size and composition of existing fish has the potential to be a Blue Ribbon fishery. populations. Fish population information is a major consideration for all streams. A Response: The commenter's opinion that the Sun marginal or poor fishery may only justiiy a River has the potential to become a Blue Ribbon flow recommendation at or near the lower fishery is noted. inflection point unless other considerations, such as the presence of "Species of Special 198. Comment: On page 97, column 2, first para- Concern" (arctic grayling and westslope cut- graph, the discussion of the occurrence of pallid throat trout, for example) warrant a higher sturgeon above Fort Peck Lake is very brief. DFWP flow. In general, streams with exceptional has additional information that could expand the resident fish populations, those providing discussion of the pallid stui^eon, which has been crucial spawning and/or rearing habitats for listed as an endangered species under federal law. migratory populations, and those supporting significant populations of "Species ofSpe- Response: Additional information is included in cial Concern" should be considered for flow Chapter Two of the final EIS. recommendations that are at or near the upper Inflection point. The Missouri basin General streams in this application are generally those with the highest resident fishery and/ 199. Comment: What would be the effects of the or spawning values and, consequently, for drawdowns on Lake Elwell? This did not seem to be most of these streams upper inflection point addressed in the EIS. flows are requested. Other streams considered for upper Inflec- Response: DNRC examined the expected draw- tion point recommendations are streams that downs at Lake Elwell and found that If the reservoir have the capacity to provide an outstanding were operated using existing guidelines during the fishery, but are prevented from reaching their period modeled, the lake would be drawn down by potential because of stream dewatering. roughly 1 foot during August and September of wet Flows at the upper Inflection point provide a years and by less than 0.5 foot the rest of the time goal to strive for should the means become under the Consumptive Use Alternative. The result- available to improve streamflows through ing environmental effects of the three alternatives such measures as water storage projects or are considered minor. However, If storage in Lake the purchase and/or lease of irrigation rights. Elwell is used to mitigate for proposed diversions Streams that are subjected to other forms of from the Marias and Missouri Rivers, reservoir draw- environmental degradation, such as mining downs would be much greater (see pp. 239-241 of pollution, and which have the potential (as- the draft EIS). Because minimum pool elevations suming other habitat factors are suitable) to could decline as much as 77 feet at times, impacts to

~~support significant fisheries if reclaimed, are recreation could be severe. 87~~

200. Comment: DFWP has not submitted evidence from other states, and those Montana busi- that the amount of water requested for reservations nesses which depend upon the fisheries re- actually is needed. DFWP has not defined at what sources for their livelihood and economic well- level it wishes to sustain fishery and wildlife. Is it to being. Other benefits accrue to those non- keep a minimum live stream, or is it to enhance fishermen who merely wish to enjoy the fishery and wildlife? streamside setting and the associated animal and bird life provided by fiowing waters. Response: Rather than try to paraphrase the pur- Maintaining flows in stream channels also pose of DFWP's reservation request, its own sum- indirectfy benefits divert mary is reprinted below. those persons who water for consumptive uses by protecting PURPOSE OF THE RESERVATIONS them against upstream water users who may have lower water use priority dates than the Section 85-2- 102. MCA, and ARM 36. 16. 102 reservations. At the same time, the reserva- define beneficial use of water to include tions honor and support all existing water "...but not limited to agricultural (including rights. stock water), domestic, Jish and wildlife, industrial, irrigation, mining, municipal, During the contested case hearing, each applicant ." power, and recreational uses: . . (Emphasis wUl be given the opportunity to present additional added) evidence to show that its reservations are needed.

The purpose of the reservations is to reserve 201. Comment: How much water asked for by flows for existing and future beneficial uses DFWP is for actual maintenance of the fishery, and so as to maintain a minimum flow, level or how much is for aesthetic values? We [Montana quality of water by month and throughout Water Resources Association] would like that defined. each year to attain and serve those beneficial uses as follows: Response: DFWP's application does not Indicate (1) for the benefit of the public for fish that water Is requested for aesthetic purposes. A and wUdllfe uses: and summary of DFWP's stated purpose and need is de- (2) for the benefit of the public for recre- scribed in greater detail in response to comment 200. ational uses. The amount requested and the reason DFWP believes The attainment and service of such uses its request is In the public Interest were published on are to: page 22 of the draft EIS.

~~(1) provide fish and wildlife habitat sufficient to accommodate a diversity of 202. Comment: What is the purpose of Instream~~

~~species comprising this natural re- flows? Is it to maintain fisheries in their present~~

~~source at levels comparable to exist- condition or to improve them? Is it to maintain big ing levels: fish or lots of fish?~~

~~(2) contribute to. and maintain a clean, healthful and desirable environment: Response: DFWP, BLM, and DHES have applied to~~

~~(3) sustain adequate levels ofwater qual- reserve flows for instream purposes, as summarized ity: and in Chapter Three of the draft EIS. DHES has applied~~

(4) honor and support all existing water for Instream flows to maintain water quality. DFWP's use rights. and BLM's purposes are to maintain, not enhance, The beneficiaries of the reservations will be the fisheries. These applicants did not indicate the numerous and varied fish and other whether they Intend to maintain big fish or lots offish. aquatic species currently inhabiting the streams and waters of the Missouri basin as 203. Comment: The draft EIS only assumes that well as those wildlife species which depend in good fisheries are now established. There Is no treat- one form or another on the flows and adja- ment as to the impact each water reservation will cent riparian areas along those streams. have upon fish and wUdllfe habitat. There are many Other beneficiaries are the people of Mon- factors that influence the quality of a fishery: water tana, resident and non-resident fishermen, temperature, food supply, adequate spawning beds, other stream-based recreationists who visit diversions, stream velocity, competition of species. 88

DFWP stocking practices, and fishing pressure, just these conditions from getting worse. Where stream- to mention a few. A more detailed analysis Is needed flow is adequate and other habitat factors such as before an overall statement can be made about water quality, cover, and food production are suit- streamflow and adequate fisheries. able, fish might survive despite the diversion of irrigation water. Where streams are completely dry year

Response: The draft EIS does not assume that after year due to irrigation, it is doubtful that sub- "good" fisheries now are established. As Table G-1 stantial populations of gameflsh would continue to (Appendix G of the draft EIS) indicates, fisheries exist. On streams experiencing periodic low flows due resource value class ratings range from class 1 , out- to irrigation, fish populations could decline during standing, to class 5, limited value fisheries, for the dry period with the surviving fish possibly streams affected by these reservations. In addition. repopulating the affected stream reach. Tables 6-23, 6-24, and 6-26 In the draft EIS (pp. 206- It Is Important to note that the long-term effects of 212) indicate that some of the afiected streams do repeated low flows on fish populations are unlikely to not support populations of gameflsh. be the same as Infrequent occurrences of short-term As stated in the draft EIS, environmental assess- low flows. According to Trlhey and Stalnaker (1985): ments (EAs) were prepared for each reservation re- The ability offish populations to compensate quest in order to present a more detailed analysis of for a one-in-ten-year low flow event may give individual project Impacts. These EAs were available the false impression that the fish population for public review and comment during the same peri- will remain viable if this minimum flow od that the draft EIS was circulated for comment. (drought) condition were imposed year after Using the EAs to document impacts of individual year. projects allowed the draft EIS to focus Instead on the combined eflects of the proposed projects and on 206. Comment: The assessments of instream flow Individual projects where substantial Impacts would required to maintain fisheries indicate that there must occvir. Except as noted in the draft EIS, reductions be a constant amount of water in the streams. Fish- in flow due to individual projects, when considered eries can be maintained with Intermittent flows. by themselves, would have only minor effects on aquatic habitat. Response: DNRC did not assume that existing fish- DNRC concurs that many factors influence fish eries could be maintained only with constant flows. populations and, on page 202 of the draft EIS, lists Flows could be reduced for short periods of time to some of the same factors mentioned in your com- very low rates, and some fish still may survive. It is ment. DNRC also believes that a more detailed anafy- important to note, however, that the long-term effects sis of a few specific projects Is needed before an of repeated low flows on fish populations are likely to overall statement of impacts can be made. These be more detrimental than the effects of infrequent projects and the specific Information that would be occurrences of short-term low flows (see response to needed to assess impacts are described both in the comment 205). draft EIS and individual EAs. 207. Comment: More fish die during the winter than during the summer. 204. Comment: What kind of fish would be protected by DFWP's Instream flow application on the Response: In general, winter is a stressful time for Musselshell River? trout, and many do die during this period. However, extensive study required relative Response: See page G- 14 of the draft EIS. would be before the importance of one cause of mortality over another could be determined within a given year on a given 205. Comment: How have the fish survived all stream. these years despite irrigation? DFWP does not explain the need for a reservation when, historically, stretches of streams that have gone dry during 208. Comment: The information included In Ap- pendix G indicates to the [Teton County Conserva- drought periods have normal fishery and wildlife tion] District that some, if not many, of the requests when rivers and streamflows return to normal. for instream flows are based on fish populations that have little value from a recreation standpoint. There Response: It is known that withdrawal of water for is also a great deal of doubt in the District's mind irrigation can affect fish populations, and the In- about how the charts in Appendix were developed. stream flow reservations are intended to prevent G There is no indication on how the numbers of 89 individual varieties were determined and how the humans and machines operating within sight or value of the fishery was determined. However, we are sound of an active nest could abandon the nest and concerned that these values were determined by young. Some raptors develop tolerance of human DFWP. Since DFWP also is requesting a reservation, activities, particularly if activities are predictable and this provides for the potential that DFWP would pro- routine. vide information that would be most beneficial to its Irrigation ditches can increase habitat for breed- application. ing waterfowl if there is sufficient vegetation adjacent to the ditch to allow secure nesting cover. Activities Response: Appendix G was included to show that in fields adjacent to ditches such as mowing hay or not all streams for which reservations are requested plowing could destroy waterfowl nests and young. have the same value as fisheries. The Board may Reductions In streamflow from irrigation diversion this information in Its deci- wish to consider making could Increase mortality of waterfowl nesting on Is- reservations for flow. sion on requested instream lands in rivers. Reduction of water depth around The complete methodology is described by Gra- nesting islands would render the nest more suscep-

( 1 986) . One exception to the methodology should ham tible to predation by raccoons, foxes, and coyotes. be noted. When a discrepancy was found between the relative abundance offish In the Rivers Study Reports 211. Comment: Statements on page s-4 of the for streams in the Montana Rivers Information Sys- "Summary" In the draft EIS in regard to effects of tem (MRIS 1989, 1990) and Information In DFWP's reservations for irrigation on wildlife habitat are application, the presence of fish species was noted wrong. Ducks and raptor populations increase along with a "P" (present) In Table G- 1 , rather than with the Irrigation canals. relative abundance as indicated in each source. DNRC feels that this study received sufficient review Response: ff irrigation canals are filled during the from state and federal agencies to serve as a compari- waterfowl breeding season, it is possible that local son of the relative values of streams as fisheries. duck and goose populations could increase once consumptive use reservations are developed. Sixteen of 209. Comment: The Jefferson River was severely the 219 irrigation projects incorporate new canals affected by the drought of 1990 and has not recov- into the project design. Table 3-11 lists these projects. ered. Pipelines would be used to transport water on most of the remaining projects, while a few projects would Response: Beglrmlng about 1985, brown trout popu- call for cleaning or upgrading existing canals. lations in the Jefferson River have declined possibly due to drought. The brown trout populations, however, could rebound with Improved flows. In the Hell's Canyon section of the Jefferson River, there still are Table 3-11. Proposed irrigation projects requiring about 400 brown trout per mile (Spoon 1991). construction of new canals

~~WILDLIFE Project~~

210. Comment: Page 214 of the draft EIS states: "Birds of prey (raptors) could be affected by development of irrigation projects through disturbance during the nesting and brood rearing period (May through August)." Also, "Reductions In streamflow due to Increased irrigation could Increase waterfowl deaths by predation." As ditch rider for the Vigilante Canal.

I [Dorothy Stout] have watched several pairs of nesting raptors and their broods throughout this period and hundreds of ducks and ducklings enjoying the security of the canal. It is my opinion that Irrigation aids wildlife.

~~Response: Irrigation aids some species of wildlife, but It also can displace wildlife not accustomed to farming activities. Raptors not accustomed to ,~~

Raptors are especially sensitive to disturbance The wildlife section in the EIS was not authored during the nesting season and may abandon nests by DFWP. It was authored by a private consultant and young if human activities such as plowing fields under contract to DNRC. or operating machinery take place within sight and sound of nests. Overtime, it is possible that raptors 214. Comment: Page 99 of the draft EIS states: may become habituated to farming or other human Winter range is the most important seasonal activities and show minimal adverse response to rou- habitat because it is limited in area and has tine and predictable disturbances. been eliminated or reduced by competing land uses such as residential subdivisions 212. Comment: The draft EIS does not include and agriculture. sufficient documentation of fish and wildlife resources on each of the stream reaches for which the Mark Petroni of the U.S. Forest Service In Ennls applicants seek instream reservations. and Sheridan has repeatedly lectured that without the base land in the Madison valley, the elk herd Response: In the draft EIS, pages 86-98 and Appen- could not possibly survive, and that if ranchers are dix fisheries G document resources on the streams sufficiently discouraged by the actions of govern- for which instream reservations are requested. Wild- ment agencies, the majority of the ranch land will fall life are resources summarized on pages 98-101 and into subdivision, leaving no winter range for approxi- described in greater detail in the environmental as- mately two-thirds of the herd. sessment prepared for DFWP's water reservation application. Response: Winter range is essential to elk in the Madison valley and throughout Montana. Conver- 213. Comment: The elfects of irrigated agriculture sion of agricultural land or native vegetation to sub- wildlife in on as stated the EIS are inaccurate and divisions in elk winter range would adversely affect biased. Admittedly, there is in wildlife with a change wintering elk. the introduction of irrigated agriculture, but the change benefits wildlife. An extended survey of wild- VEGETATION life within and adjacent to irrigated agriculture clearly would show an increase and diversification of wild- WETLANDS life. DFWP has not made this survey. The EIS does 215. Comment: Irrigation creates wetlands, which not state why a change from native grasses to other the draft EIS does not address. types of feed is detrimental to wildlife or that an increase in wildlife because of irrigated agriculture is Response: Wetlands may be created by seepage not desirable. The detail in which irrigated agricul- from canals or seepage of excess water from irrigated ture has an adverse effect on wUdlife, as stated in the fields. This seepage could cause soils to become EIS, clearly shows that this part of the EIS was saturated. Prediction of the precise number, size, authored by DFWP. and location of wetlands resulting from proposed irrigation projects is beyond the scope of this analy- Response: Irrigated land can increase the numbers sis. and types of some wildlife such as pheasant, hungarian partridge, small mammals, and deer. 216. Comment: What are the long-term implica- However, converting land to irrigation decreases tions of instream water reservations on wetlands other species such as sage grouse, meadowlark, created as a result of irrigation, irrigation projects sharp-tailed grouse, prairie dog, burrowing owl. and and canals, and other existing water uses? others dependent on native plant communities for breeding, food, and cover. Response: Water reservations cannot preclude se- The change from native grass to crops is not nior water right holders—those with a priority date necessarily harmful to wildlife. As stated in the draft earlier than July 1, 1985—from using water to the EIS, irrigated land may attract deer, antelope, and extent of their existing rights. Therefore, wetlands elk, often causing landowners to request that DFWP created as a result of irrigation uses prior to July 1 control the animals because ofdepredation on crops. 1985, would not be affected by water reservations. Control of damage to crops often leads to killing of animals. ,

~~Riparian General~~

217. Comment: We (Medicine River Canoe Club] 220. Comment: Increased water for irrigation is wonder whether the instream requests are adequate one possible result of water reservations. Thus, any for maintenance of healthy riparian vegetation. rare plants that occur In valley bottom habitats could These corridors provide such a rich habitat for wild- be affected. Your list on page 103 includes a few of life that any degradation ofthem ultimately will cause these species but does not include many others.

~~displacement or loss of many forms of animal life, from insects to birds to mammals. Response: Based on habitat characteristics and dis-~~

tribution records, it is possible that additional rare Response: In order to determine the flows needed to plants such as Ammonia coccinea (scarlet ammania) protect riparian vegetation, the relationship between Bacopa rotundifolia (roundleaf water-hyssep), and flow rate and water table levels in aquifers adjacent Elymus inTWvatus (northern wild-rye) could be af-

to rivers and streams would have to be determined fected by irrigation projects; however, it is unlikely along with the frequency of flooding necessary to that such Impacts would occur. According to Leslca provide freshly exposed alluvium allowing propaga- and Shelly (1991), none of these plants has been tion ofwillows and cottonwoods. Such an analysis is collected in Montana for more than 50 years. Also

beyond the scope of this EIS. The requested in- according to Leslca and Shelly ( 1 99 1 ), both Ammania stream flows may or may not be adequate to main- coccinea (scarlet ammania) and Bacopa rotundifolia tain the riparian community. (roundleafwater-hyssep) are found on muddy shores

and shallow ponds. It is unlikely that such habitats 218. Comment: Stream diversions result in low- would be converted to irrigated cropland. ered water tables and increased stress on riparian Elymus innovatus (northern wild-rye) is known vegetation (Smith et al. 1991). Thus, species that from Cascade and Glacier counties In habitats at occur in riparian communities and the riparian com- elevations of about 4,600 feet. Most proposed irriga- munities themselves will be more directly affected. tion projects In Cascade and Glacier counties are below this elevation. Response: For a discussion of the effect of the pro- Thelypodium paniculatum (northwestern posed reservations on riparian communities, see thelopody) and Thelypodium^ sagittatum (slender page 217 of the draft EIS. thelopody) probably would not be affected because they are present In wet, boggy meadows over 6,000

219. Comment: I [Peter Leslca) feel that your re- feet. It is unlikely that wet, boggy meadows would be port gives short shrift to the loss of riparian plant converted to irrigated agriculture. Also, no irrigation communities. These communities are essential for projects are proposed in Beaverhead County, the loan enormous number of plant and animal species. cation of a known population of Thelypodium This storehouse of biological diversity already is un- paniculatum der pressure from agricultural development, livestock grazing, and encroachment by exotic weeds. 221. Comment: Following is a list ofvascular plants Any loss of riparian communities should be scruti- considered rare In Montana that could occur in ripar- nized carefully and avoided if possible. ian areas in the upper Missouri River Basin: Ammania coccinea, Bacoparotundifolia, Carexcrawel Response: Page 102 of the draft EIS states: Cyperus acuminatus, Elymus innovatus, Rorippa calycina, Thelypodiumpaniculatum, and Thelypodium Riparian plant communities have distinctive sagittatum. Rorippa calycina Is a candidate for listing vegetation and soils and are characterized by as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and the combination of high species diversity, Wildlife Service; all others are considered sensitive in high species density, high productivity. and Montana (Leslca and Shelly 1991).

It Is agreed that riparian communities are under Response: Carex: crawei (craw's sedge), Cyperus pressure from agricultural development, livestock acuminatus (short-pointed flatsedge), and Rorippa grazing, and encroachment by exotic weeds. If the calycina (persistent-sepal yellowcress) are listed as Board approves irrigation projects, it could add con- potentially being affected by the proposed projects ditions that would protect riparian communities as (see Table 4-33 In the draft EIS. p. 103). It Is unlikely projects are developed. that the other species would be affected (see response to comment 220). ,

RECREATION Economics DNRC'S SURVEY 225. Comment: The economic study to determine 222. Comment: Why did the survey address recre- the value of instream flows on the basis of fishery is ation and not include industrial, municipal, and ag- not acceptable. The method used cannot guarantee ricultural uses? an accurate and realistic value. In-field, personal interviews would guarantee a more accurate and Response: The recreation survey was Intended only realistic value. There is no way to determine the to provide comprehensive basinwide information on degree, if any, of collusion in the responses to the use levels, trip expenditures, and the value of in- questionnaire that would be of benefit to instream stream flows for recreation. The value of water for advocates. The method used invites collusion. The municipal, agricultural, and hydropower uses was economic study does not include individual value obtained from other sources. and priority or food and fiber versus recreation.

223. Comment: The public opinion survey on page Response: The scope and design of the Missouri 108 of the draft EIS is slanted toward instream flows. River basin recreation survey and economic study To be fair, the survey should also ask, "I enjoy know- produced valid estimates of the values of instream ing that my friends and family can be fed and clothed flows for recreation. The method selected for valua- if they want to," and "I enjoy knowing that, as a tion ofwater-related recreation in the basin—contin- percentage of Income, my friends and family spend gent valuation—is widely recognized as an appropri- less on food than any place else." If popular opinion ate methodology (U.S. Water Resources Council is to be the guiding force in Montana water law, we 1983). Eight thousand Montanans were randomly need to be honest and close up the government build- surveyed. Appropriate survey techniques were used ings in Helena, because what we have is mob rule. to limit possible bias In responses (Duffield et al.

We are supposed to have majority rule with minority 1 990) . The sample size and methods used are appro- rights. priate to the Information needs and are consistent with accepted professional practice. Alimited project Response: The recreation survey designed was to budget necessitated a mail survey rather than an on- provide comprehensive basinwide information on use site survey. levels, trip expenditures, and the value of Instream flows for recreation. The survey also touched on GENERAL attitudes of Montanans on water quality and irriga- 226. Comment: The draft EIS does not include tion. Also see response to comment 225. sufficient information regarding the effect the reser- Irrigation Impacts on Recreation vations will have on recreational use by the public on each of the stream reaches for which a reservation Is 224. Comment: The EIS is supposed to determine sought. the impacts of the actions examined. However, the Response: The environmental assessments pre- draft EIS (p. 229) states that the long-term efl'ects of applications FEI -50 and FE-41 are unknown. Thus, pared for each application address effects of indi- how or when will the Impacts from these applications vidual projects (or requests) on recreation. Informa- be determined, given an alternative, or be mitigated? tion included In each environmental assessment was specific to the source stream of the reservation. Be-

Response: Summer floating typically ends in late cause this information is lengthy, the draft EIS ad- July on the Judith River (Gardner 1991). Project dressed only additive effects on recreation for drain- FEI-50 would divert up to 63.5 cfs from the Judith ages and subbasins. River, while project FE-41 would divert up to 0.9 cfs. 227. Comment: To that providing just Diversions primarily for irrigation proj ect FEI - 50 and, assume to a much lesser extent, project FE-41, might ad- enough water to maintain the fishery protects other versely affect late-summer floating. These Impacts recreational opportunities is a fallacy. These mini- would occur under the Consumptive Use Alterna- mal flows may not even protect the angling experi- tive. Project FEI-50 is included In the Combination ence itself, to say nothing of other water-related Alternative, but FE-41 is not. Neither of these activities. As an example, some canoeists—whose projects is included in the Instream, Water Quality, experiences on the Sun River date to 1973—feel that cfs or Municipal alternatives. No mitigation is proposed 500 would provide the minimum necessary for for reductions in flow caused by these projects. 93

passage of rafts, while DF'WP has requested only 100 Gulch to the Forest Service boundary (Section 15. to 1 30 cfs. On reading other requests in the draft, we Township 7 North. Range 3 West), and from the [Medicine River Canoe Club] get the impression that Forest Service boundary to East Helena. Estimated the Sun River request is not an aberration but, in all angler days per year from the headwaters to the likelihood, is indicative that DFWP has requested too mouth are approximately 2,600. little flow on most streams to even minimally support Although low flows occur on Prickly Pear Creek water recreation, especially boating. below East Helena, recreational fishing has not been eliminated. Irrigation return flows in lower reaches Response: The draft EIS states that instream flow of the creek help support a resident brown trout reservations would help protect existing recreation population and sustain recreational fishing (Lere opportunities on streams but may not fully preserve 1991). The draft environmental assessment points them if additional water development were to occur. out the potential for adverse efliects to this resource The wetted perimeter inflection points that helped from the water reservation for the City of Helena. establish DFWP Instream flow requests would help maintain fisheries and aquatic habitat but would not 229. Comment: In reviewing the discussion of necessarily provide flows satisfactory for recreation. angler use beginning on page 111 of the draft EIS under "Headwaters Subbasin," we [DFWPl noticed 228. Comment: During the irrigation season. discrepancies in the angler use numbers used Prickly Pear Creek is periodically dewatered down- throughout the section. stream of East Helena to furnish irrigation water. a. It is not clear whether 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, Two miles downstream from East Helena, the stream Maps and 4-11 refer to fishing only or total recreation use. receives a relatively constant Inflow of treated efflu- since the title is "recreation," but the legend sa)rs ent from the Helena wastewater treatment plant. "angler days." The recreational fishing value of the stream is very b. 4-8, the Boulder basin does not low downstream of this discharge. The recreational On Map add up If it is fishing pressure. values described in the table in the draft EIS must c. Sectional pressure for rivers is extremely hard to refer to the segment of Prickly Pear Creek upstream allocate accurately from year to year and may of East Helena and not to the lower stream segment. fluctuate wildly. Total angler pressure for any The combination of summer dewatering for irri- given river is a more accurate number. This gation and the presence of treated wastewater efflu- applies to the Gallatin. Missouri. Sun. Madison, ent has eliminated recreational fishing in the lower and Big Hole rivers. stream segment of Prickly Pear Creek. Streamflows d. Under "The Jefferson/Boulder River Drainage" in the draft EIS document refer to a gauging station section, page 114 of the draft EIS, the first para- considerably upstream of the Helena valley, and the graph does not make sense. Angler days averag- summer flows at this station are much higher than ing from 21,125 are too low. flows downstream of East Helena. As correctly described on page 8 of the draft Response: environmental assessment for the City of Helena a. Maps 4-8 through 4-11 estimate both angler and concerning the connection between Prickly Pear non-angler recreation use on subbasin streams. Creek and the well field, "If a poor hydraulic connec- Numbers indicate average angler days per year tion exists, adverse effects on recreational fishing between 1982 and 1986. Letters H, M, or L would be negligible." If a good hydraulic cormection indicate heavy, moderate, or limited non-angler exists between the City of Helena's well field and use. Prickly Pear Creek, it is expected there still would be b. Angler use numbers between 1982 and 1986 on no adverse impacts on recreational fishing because the Boulder River do show an average of 2,543 ofthe previously described streamflow and wastewa- angler days per year as shown in the draft EIS. ter discharge conditions in the stream segment most c. Total angler use for basin rivers is shown in Table likely to be aflected by pumpage (i.e., the lower seg- 3-12. This Information supplements angler use ment of Prickly Pear Creek). on river segments presented in the draft EIS. d. As shown in Table 3-11, angler use numbers on Response: Recreational values and use information the Jefferson River between 1982 and 1986 show shown for Prickly Pear Creek in Appendix H of the an average of 21,125 angler days per year as draft EIS are for segments extending from Rabbit shown in the draft EIS. 94

~~Table 3-1 2. Total angler use for basin rivers~~

~~River 1982 1983 1984 1985 Average~~

~~Gallatin 95~~

$1.8 mUUon/$.05 per kWh = 36,000.000 kWh tlon opportunities are uncertain. These replacement the lost hy- (36 GWh). resources would still cost more than $11.1 million/$. 10 per kWh =111 .000.000 kWh dropower from existing dams. DNRC did not try to (HI GWh). predict the cost of replacement resources; instead, the analysis used the values of 5 cents/kWh and 10 The same question is asked for the remaining cents/kWh as reasonable estimates. two paragraphs of this section. SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERNS Response: The cost to other users of the 185 GWh electric power requirements of projects in the Con- 233. Comment: The draft EIS does not adequately sumptive Use Alternative is due to the difference address the economic and sociological impacts of between the cost of new generation and the average specific or overall reservations. No attempt Is made cost rates at which power is sold. DNRC's feasibility within the draft EIS to address the economic Impacts analysis assumed that power would be sold at 4 each reservation will have. Nor does it address the cents (40 mills) per kWh in real ternis (adjusted for consequences of granting or denying the requested Inflation). If new power costs 5 cents/kWh and irri- reservations. Population growth and economic de- gators pay 4 cents/kWh. there is a 1 cent/kWh short- velopment may be inhibited drastically by water fall that must be made up by all electric consumersr— availability. 185 GWh times $0.01 equals $1.85 million per year. If new power costs 10 cents/kWh and irrigators pay Response: The economic impact that would result 4 cents/kWh. there is a 6 cent/kWh shortfall— 185 from the development of an individual reservation Is GWh times $0.06 equals $11.1 million per year. detailed in the environmental assessment prepared These estimates may be low in some cases. For for that application. As stated on the first page ofthe instance, projects under the Pick-Sloan program draft EIS. these environmental assessments are would pay about 11 to 12 mills/kWh (1.1 cents/ available upon request from DNRC. Economic and kWh) under current Pick-Sloan rates. For the pro- sociological impacts also are addressed in Chapters posed Milk River diversion. BUREC assumed it would Six and Seven of the draft EIS. get Pick-Sloan power at 2.5 mills/kWh. The irriga- Agriculture's contribution to population growth tion subsidy from other power users would be much and economic development is not likely to be affected greater in such cases. much by a lack of water for future consumptive use because relative employment and Income from agri- 232. Comment: The discussion of all of the alter- culture have been declining for four decades. This natives includes a review of estimated increased trend has been largely independent of the supply of power costs. However, there is no discussion of Irrigation water. Also see response to comment 237. alternatives to hydropower generation. The [Teton County Conservation] District feels that before an 234. Comment: The draft EIS makes no reference accurate assessment of power costs of the alterna- to potential water use in coal development, which tives can be made, there needs to be a discussion of wUl require considerable water. Coal development the possibility and costs of other power sources such from Roundup (Musselshell drainage) to Lewistown as conservation and cogeneratlon. (Judith drainage) to Belt (Belt drainage) has considerable potential in the 40-year time span of the draft pro- Response: The existing hydropower system EIS. If coal gasification is the route ofchoice for these vides extremely low-cost power. Operating costs for deposits, water will undergo true consumptive use. hydropower are lower than for almost any other form Water would be chemically reacted and gone forever. of generation, and the capital repayment costs for the existing installations have been eroded by Infla- Response: Coal production from Cascade. Fergus, tion since they were built. Replacement of existing and Musselshell counties has seen substantial de- hydropower lost to consumptive water uses will be In clines over the past 40 years (Figure 3-3). If coal addition to the search for new power required by gasification Is chosen for these deposits, coal pro- utilities to serve growing loads. Low-cost alterna- duction may again increase. However, the public tives such as conservation and cogeneratlon wOl. of entities that are eligible to apply for reservations did course, be the first choices of utilities. However, the not prepare water reservation requests for this pos- esti- amount of low-cost conservation is finite, while sibility. DNRC believes that coal gasification is specu- mates of the amount and cost of avaUable cogenera- lative at this time. 96

~~Figure 3-3. The history of coal production in Cascade, Fergus, and Musselsheii counties~~

~~Coal Production by county from 1950 to 1989 (siiort tons)~~

~~700~~

~~1950 1960 1970 1980 1990~~

~~D Cascade County • Fergus County O Musselshell County~~

235a. Comment: I [Wayne Turner) object to the 236. Comment: There is no mention of the zer upper Missouri River EIS because some of the parts years water flow [drought] and how it will affect an that will affect my ranching business are so vague parts thereafter, either sociological or economical c that It Is unclear what will be done. 1 feel that the way environmental, as one would expect to see in an EIJ the Information and statistics for the water in the Response: The effects of drought years on physic? creeks were lumped together and averaged is wrong water flows are catalogued in the draft EIS on page because every one of them is different and has to be throug treated that way. 154 through 175; in Appendix C, pages C-1 C-65; and in Appendix D, pages D-1 through D-2(

235b. Comment: I feel that some more data should As described In these pages, during most drougt be gathered about the individual streams so that we years water Is still flowing In most major riven could talk about site-specific situations. The draft though at substantially reduced rates. EIS deals with a broad area, and the northern part of The social and economic effects of the propose

Montana is much different than the southern part. I consumptive uses are discussed on pages 234-23 feel that we should deal with each stream on a case- of the draft EIS. Generally, the social and economJ by-case basis instead of one big area. effects of the consumptive use proposals are ver small. The economics of instream flows are dis Response: Specific information for each stream re- cussed on pages 229-230. garding streamflows, fisheries, recreation, econom- The environmental effects of all of the reserve ics, quality is and water provided throughout the tions or specific alternate combinations of the resei draft EIS. More specific information on each stream vation proposals, particularly their effects on wate is tn pre- presented the environmental assessment quality, soil, land use, fishery, wildlife, vegetatlor pared for each project. DNRC did not feel it was recreation, power production, agriculture econom} reasonable to evaluate impacts specific to each and socioeconomic conditions, are discussed o ranching business in the basin. pages 153-244 of the draft EIS. —

237. Comment: At no place In the docimient is it wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, recreation, mentioned that there might be some form of eco- hydropower production, and socioeconomics. The nomic growth other than recreation. We [Wicks first section ofthe chapter describes the effects of the Ranch Corporation] gather that there shall be no reservations on water quantity and distribution and future mining or industry in the state, much less the existing water users. Also see response to comment newly proposed ethanol plant in Great Falls. The 235. Analyzing the effects on individuals is beyond document assumes only that at present good fisher- the scope of this EIS, but aggregate effects on people ies have been established and the livelihood of all are addressed. who reside here are directly dependent thereon. This is a misconception. 239. Comment: In Judith Basin County, agriculture is the primary industry. We [Judith Basin Con- Response: Future mining or other industrial devel- servation District] feel these people are stewards of opment In the Missouri River basin is likely. How- the land and are initiating and implementing im- ever, only public entities—not private businesses proved management practices of our water re- may apply to reserve water. The EIS addresses reser- sources, such as water quality and water conserva- vation requests for municipal, irrigation, and in- tion. Agriculture consumptive water use cannot and stream uses. should not be considered as a secondary faction.

238. Comment: It seems that the basic intent of Response: As shown in Figure 3-4, agriculture pro- t'lis draft EIS is to assemble water requests from the vides roughly half ofJudith Basin County's employ- \ arled state and federal agencies and propose what ment. As measured by personal earnings, the eco- will benefit those agencies, with no consideration for nomic situation is substantially different. Agricul- existing nongovernmental entities. As one peruses ture has declined from providing half of all personal this document, one has trouble locating the social, income in the early 1970s to about one-tenth of all economic, or environmental impacts that the water Income at present (see Figure 3-5). Agriculture Is reservations will have on those individuals most di- likely to continue to be an important part of the rectly affected. Judith Basin economy for the foreseeable future. The draft EIS did not consider agricultural con- Response: Chapter Six of draft describes the EIS the sumptive use to be secondary. The Board will have impacts of granting the reservations proposed on to establish the relative priorities among any reser- streamflows, water quality, soils, land use, fish and vation requests it grants.

~~Figure 3-4. Employment by sector in Judith Basin county~~

~~100~~

~~n Services, finance, and other~~

~~Government~~

~~Wholesale and retail trade~~

~~Transportation and utilities~~

~~Manufacturing, minerals, and construction~~

~~Agriculture and agricultural services~~

~~1969-1972 1973-1977 1978-1982 1983-1987 (~~

~~Figure 3-5. Personal income by empioyment sector In Judith Basin county~~

~~100~~

~~Services, finance, and E nonagricultural proprietor~~

~~I Government and 8 government enterprises S t Wholesale and retail trade~~

~~1 Transportation and utilities~~

~~Manufacturing, minerals, and construction~~

~~Agriculture and agricultural services~~

~~1969-1972 1973-1977 1978-1982 1983-1987~~

~~Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1989~~

240. Comment: On page 233, "Employment, In- Indicate that our [Bozeman City-County Plannii come, Agricultural Sales, and Taxation," the draft Office) previous projections (which in 1983 project EIS states: a 1990 population of 26. 190) were overly optimisU We now believe that a "basic" population growl Development of the irrigation projects . . . rate of 1 percent per year should carry us into tl would cause farm-related employment to in- next centuiy. Continuing that trend all the way crease by 30 to 106 employees . . . However, the year 2025 would lead to a Bozeman populatic this increase would be offset by the decline in estimate of 32,100. However, Bozeman can axpe labor required to work, gradually decreasing to annex certain areas which would add a signlfica the amount of irrigated land in the basin. number of people (2,000) to the population ba; This statement makes no sense at all. described above. Bozeman is currently experiencing a rapid rate Response: While some additional jobs would be growth and this current trend along with a 1% p created by development of the proposed irrigation year growth rate and expected armexation could ea employed in projects, the overaR number of persons ily push Bozeman's population up to 37,000 by 202 agriculture is hkety to continue to slowly decrease. Planning for growth and providing water for f This decrease in agricultural employment is due ture growth are the goals of the water reservati( increases in farm efficiency; see page 127 of largely to procedure. To this end, the City of Bozeman feels i the draft EIS. request for an additional 6,000 af/yr [8.3 cfs] to ser Population an expected population of 37,000 in 2025 Is a val request based on realistic data and projections. 241. Comment: [Bozeman's projected] 37,000 population figure for the year 2025 does indeed ap- Response: The City of Bozeman's comments rai

~~pear somewhat high, although it reflects the think- two related issues: ( 1 ) What is a reasonable esUma~~

ing of planners and others who developed detailed of city population growth to the year 2025? and I population projections for the community as part of What additional water will be needed for this i the 1983 Bozenum Area Master Plan. Census data creased population? The 1983 Bozeman Area Mc that sets Bozeman's population for 1990 at 22,660 ter Plan projected an average armual population i 99

~~Figure 3-6. Historical popuiation and population forecasts for Bozeman~~

~~45,000~~

~~»? 40,000~~

~~35,000 -~~

~~30,000 - e _o « 25,000 a3 o °' 20,000~~

~~15,000 -~~

~~10,000~~

~~5,000 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 100~~

~~Table 3-13. Present and projected water use for the City of Bozeman~~

~~City of Bozemar water supply Average Peak Average Peak Total year-round surplus with day day day day water needs Hyalite expanslor~~

~~(gpcd)" (gpcd)'^'* (mgd) (mgd) (cfs) (af/yr) (cfs) (af/yr]~~

(1990) Present Consumption (22,660 people) 198 494 4.5 112 6.9 5,019 8.9 6,477 (1990) Present City Diversions (22,660 people) 344 861 7.8 19.5 12.1 8.737 3.8 2.75£ (2025) Projected Future Use (32,000 people with efficient water system'^) 250 625 8.0 20.0 12.4 8,976 3.5 2,52C (2025) Application Future Population (37,000 people with efficient water system'^) 250 625 9.3 23.1 14.3 10,379 1.5 1,11£

~~PRESENT CITY OF BOZEIVIAN RELIABLE FiRiVI WATER SUPPLIES (cfs) (af/yr)~~

~~Present City Water Reservoir Sources (from City of Bozeman 1987, and DNRC Water Contract Records 1991) 12.96 9,399~~

~~City of Bozeman share of Hyalite Reservoir expansion (1992) (A DNRC dam on Middle Creek) 2.89 2,097~~

~~Total City reservoir supply, including Hyalite Reservoir expansion 15.86 11,496~~

* Gallons per capita per day *> The City of Bozeman uses a daily peaking factor of 2.5, which is about average for area cities. " Average of 250 gallons daily per person assumes water system efficiencies using improved reservoir regulation, improved diversion con- trols, and less leaky water mains.

242. Comment: DNRC should consider factors water use to estimate the water needs ofthe commu other than per capita water use and population nity" (City of Lewistown 1988, 12). The appUcatlor growth in the draft EIS when assessing future water states: needs of municipalities. For Lewistown. the poten- "Commercial demand would likely grow in tial exists to export large amounts of Big Spring proportion to population growth. For this water, new industries may move in, and city lot sizes reservation, it is assumed that the commer- are Increasing. All of these factors should be taken cial uses wUl expand in direct relationship to into consideration. population growth. The Comprehensive Plan for Lewistown Identifies no large Industrial Response: The applicant requesting a water reser- users of water. The reservation does not In- vation is responsible for demonstrating that the re- clude a provision for a large industrial de- quested water reservation Is needed, using "accurate mand over and above the commercial use" and suitable" methods (§ 85-2-36(4)(A)(III). MCA). (City of Lewistown 1988. 29-30). The City of Lewlstown*s water reservation application, developed by Lewlstown's consultant in co- Because the city did not request specific commercia operation with the City, was based on "the forecasted or Industrial water, these other factors were no

~~population . . . multiplied by the expected per capita evaluated. 101~~

243. Comment: The 1987 application forecast of and multiplied this by the projected peak one-day the city's [Great Falls) population is higher than can population for the year 2025 (of 11,172 residents, be Justified when using 1990 census data. The city which included both residents and tourists) to esti- submitted a revised population forecast and a re- mate Its water reservation request. Using the "peak" vised water reservation request in comments on the daily use rate rather than the "average" daily use rate draft EIS. Increases the town's demands by approximately 37 percent as compared to methods used by other mu- Response: The revised Great Falls projected popu- nicipalities, suggesting that West Yellowstone's relation of 65.605 in the year 2025 appears plausible, quest would be 1 .66 cfs using normal water demand including an additional 13 percent for water users at estimation methods based on a metered water ^^- Malmstrom Air Force Base and Black Eagle and those tem. The city also assumes that tourists use the using standpipes. The revised City of Great Falls's same amount of water as residents. municipal peak reservation request of 1 1 . 5 cfs, which The Town of West Yellowstone projects a year- is based in part on this new projection, appears round resident population of 2,246 and a summer plausible. tourist population of 9,736 for the year 2025 ( 1 1 , 1 72 The revised Table 1 and Figure 2 for the Great total persons). Normal daily residential water use Falls environmental assessment reflect this update. rates (250 gallons per capita per day) would be .9 cfs for the town's projected resident population of 2,246 244. Comment: We [Town of West Yellowstone) In the year 2025, or .5 cfs for a town population of now have almost two years of experience with the 1,270 residents based on historical population operation ofthe [West Yellowstone) water system and growth rates (see Figure 3-7). The remaining water find that our water usage is commensurate with the requested by the city would be available for the pro- levels we anticipated [for the new metered water sys- jected 9,736 tourists and seasonal visitors. tem). Sign-up for use of our system's water was The town presently has a 1986 Montana water voluntary. However, approximately 85 percent ofthe use permit for 2.67 cfs from the Whiskey Spring residents are currently signed up and using the water source. The town's existing permits are suffi- water, and we anticipate that most of the remaining cient to meet the projected water needs of 2.65 cfs In residents will do the same in the near future as their the year 2025, assuming a metered water system as Individual wells and water systems experience main- described In the town's application. A reservation In tenance difiiculties. the amount of 2.67 cfs would provide West Yellow-

We continue to support our request for a water stone with a slightly earlier (July 1, 1985) water use reservation of 3.53 cfs. We already are seeing priority date for the same water. changes in our community and subsequent growth that would indicate that this figure is realistic and 245. Comment: They [out-of-staters] want to move should be supported in all agency actions. here mostly for the beautiful environment, but if you allow these wells (proposed by municipalities) and Response: The Town of West Yellowstone (1987) the reservoir (Bozeman's), the environment Is nega- projected that it would need a future peak use rate of tively affected. The wells deplete the aquifers. Includ- 2.65 cfs for its metered water system (3.52 cfs for an ing the Jefferson and Gallatin rivers, and the reser- unmetered water system), assuming its forecasted voir floods wildlife habitat. Towns should limit popu- residential and tourism growth occurs. The town has lations based on the resources available, and not two years of experience with a new metered water further deplete resources. system, and its water use is "commensurate" with expectations for a metered water system. Actual Response: Most Missouri basin cities (Chester, records of recent system usage would be the most Choteau, Conrad, Dillon, East Helena, Fairfield, Fort Falls, accurate basis for estimating present and future Benton, Great Power, Three Forks, and Winifred) similar of water use rates (Town of West Yellowstone Environ- have populations to those 30 mental Assessment 1991). years ago. Belgrade, Bozeman, Helena, and West Yellowstone have experienced substantial popula- Most municipalities identified their normal per tion increases, while Cut Bank, Glasgow, Lewlstown, capita average dally water rate and multiplied this and Shelby have seen substantial population de- rate by their projected population to estimate their creases over the past years. future water needs. In contrast, the Town of West 30 The need for municipal water reservations is dis- Yellowstone used its "peak" daily per capita use rate cussed on page 249 ofthe draft EIS. Without a water 102

~~Figure 3-7. Population trends and projections for West Yellowstone~~

~~2,600~~

~~2,400 -~~

~~2,200~~

~~2.000~~

~~1,800~~

~~1,600 c 5 1,400 1,270~~

~~1,200 £ 1,102 1,000~~

~~7S6 800 A—~~

~~600~~

~~400~~

~~200~~

~~1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year~~

~~Historical growth rate A Applicant's population forecasts~~

~~reservation, municipalities may have to go through a must ensure that the reservation applicants make costly process of buying or condemning existing progress toward development of the proposed use~~

." water rights to meet increased future needs. with reasonable diligence . . . Because of the need to make progress, reservation requests for long-term 246. Comment: The municipalities requesting unforeseen water needs on behalf of the whole state water want the water because of the projected popu- are nonexistent. Montana is one of the richest states lation growth of out-of-staters and other Montanans In natural resources in the United States. Clean air wanting to move in. beautiful scenery, and an attractive lifestyle add tc the wealth of this state. This EIS does not acknowl- Response : Municipalities requesting water reserva- edge that as promotion of these attributes continues tions are doing so for the purposes listed in Table awareness becomes more widespread, the po- 3-14. and tential for an explosion in population and/or devel- The overall population of the 26 Missouri River opment demands exists. Nor does It acknowledge basin counties is expected to increase from 336.000 what impact water reservations at the volumes re- in 1 990 to 385.000 in the year 2020 (see Figure 6-22 quested particularly by DFWP—would have In the of the draft EIS). This annual growth rate of .45 — future for Montana to deal with that potential. percent is less than the annual natural population Do statewide activities in economic development survival rate of .70 percent, indicating that popula- business recruitment, subdivision development tion migration out of the basin is expected over the tourism promotion, etc., constitute progress towarc next 30 years. Only four counties (Gallatin. development with reasonable diligence that may re Jefferson, Broadwater, and Lewis and Clark) are pro- suit in future unpredictable water needs for which jected to grow at annual rates greater than one per- no water reservation Is being considered? cent for the next 30 years. The municipalities in Although we [Deadman's Basin Water Users As these four counties are most Ukely to experience in- sociation] strongly disagree with the quantity of the mlgration of "out-of-staters" and other Montanans. water reservation requested by DFWP, if in fact thai reservation is granted, we suggest an absolute condl 247. Comment: On page S-2 under "Board's Au- tlon on the reservation that leaves the flexibility tc thority." the draft EIS says that "... the Board also address the potential for future unforeseen needs. 103

~~Table 3-14. Purposes for which municipalities are requesting reservations~~

~~Municipality Purposes~~

~~Belgrade Future munk:ipal use Bozeman Future municipal use~~

~~Chester Alternate water right and future municipal use Choteau Future municipal and industrial uses and provide alternate water source Conrad Future municipal and industrial uses~~

~~Cut Bank Future municipal and industrial uses Dillon Municipal use~~

~~East Helena Future municipal and industrial uses Fairfield Future municipal and industrial uses~~

~~Fort Benton Future municipal and industrial uses and irrigation of parks and other city grounds~~

~~Great Falls Future municipal and industrial uses and irrigation of parks and other city grounds Helena Future municipal and industrial uses~~

~~Lewistown Future municipal and industrial uses Power-Teton County Water and Sewer District Alternate water source and future water users~~

~~Shelby Future municipal and industrial uses Three Forks Future municipal uses West Yellowstone Existing and future municipal uses Winifred Municipal and industrial uses and supply better quality water~~

Response: As described in the response to comment bution systems would be more cost-effective than 246, the overall population of the 26 Missouri basin obtaining reservations for additional water. counties is expected to Increase by less than one-half Response: Upgrading or renovating existing distri- percent annually (.45 percent), which is less than the bution systems may be more cost-effective than ob- natural survival rate of .70 percent. These long-term taining additional water through a reservation. How- population projections (NPA Data Inc. 1990) suggest ever, this would require engineering and economic that all but four of the Missouri basin counties will analyses that are not reasonably available. experience a population out-migration, not a population "explosion." Gallatin, Four counties— 249. Comment: How do you put more value on Jefferson, Broadwater, and Lewis and Clark^are recreation (i.e., boating, fishing, floating, swimming) expected to have population increases greater than 1 and hydropower than on cites and towns that depend percent annually. The prediction is that these four on the rivers as their only sources of drinking water? counties will experience population growth rates Water reservations for municipalities must be given similar to those of the past 30 years. It's always priority. possible, however, that these or other areas could grow more rapidly than expected due to unforesee- Response: In Table K-4 of the draft EIS (p. K-10). able circumstances. All reservations are reviewed note that the value of water for municipal use is every 10 years by the Board to ensure that the objec- estimated at $590/af, whUe the value (from recre- tives of the reservations are being met. ation and hydropower) ofwater left instream—^for the Chester location—is estimated at $32.7 1/af. E>en ECONOMICS for upstream municipalities such as Bozeman, where Municipalities instream flow has a much higher value than it does at downstream withdrawal points, municipal use is val- 248. Comment: DNRC should do a cost-benefit ued more than seven times as high as instream use. analysis for all municipalities that have applied for reservations, including the City of Lewristown, to see 250. Comment: On page 254 ofthe draft EIS, DNRC whether saving water by renovating existing distri- calculates the benefits and costs of reservations for 104 municipal water use. Please explain how the ben- 253. Comment: EVenifcost-beneflt figures appear efits and costs for municipal water use were deter- to be favorable for the Virgelle diversion project, they mined. would be suspect because cost overruns are entirely too common on such projects. Such projects have a Response: The municipal benefits on page 254 are history of chronically underestimating costs, often direct net benefits of municipal water uses that are an Intentional deception to win approval for the esti- discussed on page 253 of the draft EIS. These project. Then, once the initial investment is made, it mated direct net benefits of reservations for munici- turns into a case ofthrowing good money after bad so pal water use were measured by the total willingness the project can be completed. to pay less direct costs. The cost figures listed in Appendix K, Table K-6. are estimates associated with Response: DNRC did not make an independent cost providing requested water to each of the municipali- estimate for the Virgelle project. Instead, the ties. Total willingness to pay by consumers in each applicant's construction cost estimates were used. U of the municipalities, however, is not known. Be- the project costs are understated, true project feasi- cause of time and budget constraints. DNRC used bility would be less favorable than projected. Helena's $2.47 per thousand gallons as a substitute value for total willingness to pay for all municipali- 254. Comment: On pages 251-252 of the drafl indirect ties. The municipal costs on page 254 are EIS. BUREC's proposed Virgelle diversion project is costs associated with instream flow reductions, discussed. This project would provide an adequate which results in losses to recreation and hydropower water supply to landowners with junior water rights production, and with increased electrical power tribes on the Fort Belknap Reservation, BLM stock- loads, which results In higher subsidized power rates. water ponds, the Bowdotn National Wildlife Refuge and the town of Chinook. BUREC performed on-the- 251. Comment: The consumptive value of water ground Investigations ofthe suitability ofthese lands for municipalities is shown to be $590 per acre-foot for sustained Irrigation and found that 25.000 acres across the board for all municipalities and for any are arable out of a potential 33,000 acres within the type of water, whether surface water or groundwater boundaries of the districts and reservation. Is this (see Table K-4). However, in Table K-6, the cost per 8.000-acre difference the same 8.000 acres thai water to each thousand gallons of providing this DNRC refers to in paragraph 1 on page 252 undei municipality varies considerably among municipali- "U.S. Bureau of Reclamation"? Or is the 8.000 acres ties. We [DFWP] would like to know how the $590 part of the 25.000 acres that BUREC classified as value was derived. arable? If so. an explanation of why DNRC's lane classification differs from BUREC's should be pro

~~Response: See response to comment 250. vided. If DNRC refused a water right to the 8.00(~~

acres it (DNRC) classifies as nonirrigable. this actior VIRGELLE could make the entire Virgelle project infeasible fo: repajmien 252. Comment: How can the Virgelle diversion construction due to a lack of benefits and question as to th( project have a positive cost-benefit ratio? capability. This also raises a appropriateness of acreage determined by DNRC t( Response: The proposed project is likely to have be nonirrigable in Montana developed under the fed direct benefits greater than direct costs. However, a eral reclamation program. It is not clear from th( significant financial risk exists that net revenue from paragraph how these 8.000 acres are treated in th( the project would be insuificient to repay a 15-year analysis. loan covering from half to all of the project's costs. Financing for this project may be difficult to obtain Response: The 8,000 acres referred to on page; because of the risk. Further, when comparing the 251-252 are from the 33,000 acres of land BUREC value of water used consumptively for the proposed has applied for in its reservation application. In it: project with the value ofwater use instream (see p. K- application, BUREC (1989) states: 11 of the draft EIS). and therefore comparing both This reservation Is for 33,000 acres ofjunior direct and indirect benefits and costs, costs are likely lands in the MUk River Valley. The PFWD to exceed benefits. It should be noted, however, that [MUk River Water Supply Study: Plan For- because few project details are known after the water mulation Working Document), which pre- reaches the Milk Ftiver. a complete analysis of envi- plan to Implement the reservation. ronmental impacts could not be made. sents the 105

is based on 25,000 acres ofJunior water right value ofan acre-foot ofwater $38. 10. Ifwe raised hay lands. Eight thousand acres were not in- on the irrigated land, the gross income attributed to cluded in the plan because the lands do not irrigation would be considerably higher (3 tons times meet the Bureau of Reclamation land class $80.00 times 95 acres divided by 315 af equals standards. These lands were classified as $72.38/aO. class 6 [not likely to be irrigable] due to drain-

age, topography, or soils. If the state or any Response: The consumptive value for FE-1 1 1, as for political subdivision other than the Federal all proposed irrigation reservations, was calculated Government is willing to pay full cost to pro- in the draft EIS by multiplying the annualized net vide reserved water to these 8,000 acres, the present value for each project by the number of total canal in the plan would be increased in size acres in the proposal and then dividing by the re- to serve the additional acres. quested water amount. An average 50 percent return flow was assumed, thus doubling the consump- The Board, not DNRC, wUl decide on granting a tive value. The consumptive value, therefore. Is a reservation for these 8,000 acres. Questions con- direct function of the net present value, which was cerning the federal reclamation program are beyond calculated by using the methodology developed by the scope of this EIS. Tubbsetal. (1989). The consumptive values of Irrigationreservatlons 255. Comment: On page 255 of the draft EIS, the take relevant production and investment costs into second paragraph under "Reasonable Alternatives consideration and are calculated using net revenues. with Greater Net Benefits" suggests dropping 1 ,000 The $38. 10 and $72.38 per-acre-foot values quoted acres that are not suitable for irrigated alfalfa from by the commenter are gross revenues, not net rev- the VirgeUe project. Is this acres included In 1,000 enues. the 8,000 acres discussed in comment 255, or is it an additional 1,000 acres? This needs to be clarified. 257. Comment: There are a number of irrigation projects that the draft EIS indicates wUl have bad Response: The 1 ,000 acres referred to on page 255 drainage and likely will have saline seep problems are In addition to the 8,000 acres. In the Milk River that may require the construction ofdrainage ditches Water Supply Study: Plan Formulation Working Docu- or the installation of drainage tiles. It is my [Trout ment (DNRC and Undated) , this acreage was BUREC Unlimited] understanding that these costs were not classified as unacceptable for Irrigated alfalfa pro- factored into the cost-benefit ratio. To give a true duction. It could be used to produce bluejolnt hay. picture of the potential cost of the projects, these DNRC's analysis of bluejolnt hay production indi- costs should be estimated and included in the final cates that this part of the VirgeUe project is neither EIS. These additional costs may well paint a different economically nor financially feasible. picture of the feasibility of some of the projects.

Agricultural Value Response: DNRC agrees that the potential costs associated with poor drainage and saline seep may 256. Comment: The numbers In Table K-4, page significantly alfect the feasibility of some projects. K- 1 1 , concerning application FE- 111 probably are Without a complete soil analysis of the proposed erroneous. The consumptive value in dollars per projects, however, the magnitude of the drainage acre-foot should be at a minimum of $38.00 per problems cannot be established, and the need for acre-foot. Errors of this magnitude negate the valid- drainage systems can be only estimated. Therefore, ity of the whole document. If this is not an error, the cost estimates for such systems would not be useful derivation of given statistics needs explanation. for individual project analysis at this time. The Board Note: We [Wicks Ranch Corporation] run an may wrlsh to consider such an analysis prior to project additional 80 cows because we do irrigate 80 acres development. from Big Spring Creek and 15 acres from Wolverine Creek. The cattle graze on this acreage four months 258. Comment: How is the value of fisheries ver- out of the year, so the Income from the irrigated acres sus irrigation determined? would be a third of the income from the 80 head of cattle. At today's prices, that is $12,000 derived from Response: The draft EIS (pp. 108-110) briefly the acres of irrigated land. water right lists 95 Our describes how the values for recreation, including our permitted at af. That makes the volume 315 those for fisheries, were determined, and a detailed 106 description of the recreational valuation method can that entailed more planning and greater expense, be found in Duffleld et al. (1990). The method used Because a mail survey was used, it is impossible tc to determine the value ofproposed irrigation projects determine whether this type of bias affected the re- is briefly described on page K-3 of the draft EIS and sponses. updated in Chapter Two of this EIS, whUe a more detailed description can be found in Tubbs et al. 261. Comment: The draft EIS mentions values ol

(1989). Instream flow for recreation. I [Randall P. Smith] take exception to these values; there are no estab- 259. Comment: Table K-4 (Appendix K) presents lished water values. an application number GA-201 for irrigation that shows a consumptive value per acre-foot of $389.49. Response: The recreational values used in the drafi This project Is for irrigating new ground for seed EIS were estimated using a contingent valuatior potato production. While this particular crop does method (CVM), which is one of the methods recom- have a high return, the investment required for the mended by the U.S. Water Resources Council foi project is substantial. Without an analysis of the valuing recreation in federal cost-benefit analysis costs and returns associated with this project, we Under the CVM approach, individuals are direcUj [DFWP] have some questions about the high net surveyed on their willingness to pay for the services return per acre-foot of water used. of a given resource contingent on the existence of £ hjT)othetIcal market situation. This technique has Response: DNRC's analysis included all relevant been applied to a wide range of environmental anc production costs and investment costs associated resource issues, including air and water qualltj with developing the potato project (Tubbs et al. 1989). changes, scenic beauty, wildlife, and Instream flows See response to comment 256. Water Is a public good with no market-establishec value, and CVM is one of the widely accepted anc Recreation recommended methods ofestimating values for watei uses. 260. Comment: The values derived from the recreation questionnaire regarding the amount of money 262. Comment: The economic values of recreatior fishermen spend each day are too high. In the Missouri River basin draft EIS appear low.

Response: The estimated per-day angler expendi- Response: In the draft EIS, the amount of money £ tures for this study that were derived by DulTleld et person would be willing to spend per day for a recre al. (1990) Included transportation, lodging, food and ation trip over and above what he or she actuallj beverages, and equipment. These values ranged spent (net economic value) was based on a surve) from $36. 15 per day for resident anglers to $188.06 study completed in 1990 (Duffleld et al.). The estl per day for nonresident anglers, resulting in an aver- mated net economic values per day of all comblnec age $69.21 per-day expenditure for all anglers on river activities can be compared to previous estl Missouri basin waters. This $69.2 1 per-day expen- mates of values associated with river recreation diture can be compared with estimates in two recent Walsh et al. (1989) reviewed 120 studies of outdooi studies: The 1985 National Survey ofFishing, Hunt- recreation demand completed between 1968 anc ing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (USDI and 1988 for various U.S. sites. Their review reportec USDC 1988) and The Net Economic Value ofFishir^ average values of $30.62 per day (1987 dollars) foi in Montana (Duffleld et al. 1987). Per-day expendi- cold-water fishing, $48.68 per day for nonmotorizec tures (adjusted to 1989 dollars) for all anglers In all boating, and $20. 14 per day for camping, picnicking Montana waters were $38.60 for the USFWS study and swimming. These values are less than the aver and $48.79 for the Duffield et al. (1987) study. The age values of all combined river activities from the difference in values may be due to different study 1990 survey study, which are estimated at $52. 5c years, angler population sampled, and estimated per day for the headwaters subbasin, $60. 20 per da) expenditures of Missouri basin waters versus all for the upper Missouri subbasin, and $65.73 per daj Montana waters. Another source of the difference for the middle Missouri and Marias/Teton subbasins between these estimates may be a memory bias. The for river recreation by Montana residents. Mear 1990 study asked respondents to answer questions values of $193.30 for river recreation by nonresldeni about their trip most proximate to a certain date. anglers estimated from the current study are wel People may have tended to remember longer trips above previously reported means. 107

263. Comment: The draft EIS says that recreation value. Other examples are the recreational values values are lower in the basin downstream of Great shown in Table 6-40 (p. 229). Falls. However, an untapped potential exists for more recreation in that part ofthe basin. This poten- Response: The DNRC recreation survey was de- tial needs to be addressed. signed to establish a value for instream flows for each subbasin based on all water-related recreational uses Response: The potential exists for more recreation and to complement existing studies such as the one throughout the Missouri River basin, including the cited (Duffleld et al. 1990) that established the net lower basin. The degree to which this potential would economic value of fishing on certain Montana affect future recreation value is beyond the scope of streams. It was not practical to collect site-specific this study. values on an acre-foot of flow on all of the stream reaches in the Missouri basin with requested reser- 264. Comment: Your economic feasibility studies vations. do not consider affected Instream flows, wUdlife habitat, and recreation, but they should—even if difllcult 267. Comment: On page 229, Table 6-41 lists the to calculate. average flow reductions In acre-feet for the three alternatives. Under the Instream Alternative, 0.0 af Response: The economic and financial feasibility will be depleted during July and August in the head- studies analyzed only the direct benefits and costs of waters subbasin. This figure addresses only the individual proposals in order to determine whether impacts ofthe reservation requests, not the potential 85-2- the applications were of beneficial use (§ depletions caused by new water use permits. In the 16(2)(a), MCA). The direct net benefits from these case of the instream reservations, new permits could studies then Interest" were combined in the "Public deplete flows down to the granted Instream reserva- secUon 247) of Chapter Seven of the draft EIS. It (p. tions. Theoretically, even If DFWP obtains priority should be noted that some environmental impacts over agriculture, flows still could be depleted down to discussed In Six draft Chapter ofthe EIS either could the instream flow requests, or flows could be de- not be determined or were assumed to have zero net pleted on streams where DFWP has no reservations, benefits and, therefore, were not included in the possibly affecting flows In the reservation streams. "Public Interest" section. Consequently, the 0.0 figure (and perhaps the others as well) is misleading and does not truly reflect pos- 265. recreation-oriented Comment: Tourism and sible future streamflows. Also in Table 6-41 on page activities would be adversely affected by the Con- 229 and Table 6-42 on page 230. the July-August sumptive Use and Combination alternatives. If this flow reduction for the upper Missouri subbasin un- Is so, how can they constitute a visible and growing der the Combination Alternative (20,470.5 afi ex- segment of basin economy? ceeds the value for the Consumptive Alternative

(20, 163. 1 afi. Is this possible? Response: Overall recreation and tourism-related services stUl would constitute a growing segment of Response: The discussion of impacts in this EIS the local economy, though the use of some rivers cind focuses on those that would result from the requested streams could decline as flows decrease. reservations. While it is recognized that other factors such as new water use permits could affect Instream 266. Comment: The economic Information for rec- resources (see "Fisheries," p. 202, and "Recreation," reation Is presented by geographical area and not by p. 224), this document does not attempt to quantify individual waters. This tends to hide the economic future streamflow reductions from all new water de- value for highly valued waters. Also, the Instream velopment, but only those from development of re- values shown in Table K-4 are the same for the served water. The figure in Table 6-41 for flow reduc- Gallatin, Jefferson, and Madison rivers. However, tions in the upper Missouri subbasin under the Con- the net economic values associated with fishing these sumptive Use Alternative (20, 163. 1 afi Is Incorrect. It waters are not the same and, In fact, are quite differ- should be 49.608.7 af. ent. I.e., Madison River - $160 per day, Jefferson River - $79 per day. The draft EIS analysis dilutes 268. Comment: The Information on Page 109 de- the value of instream use on more important waters tails the expenditures per day (see Table 4-41), while by presenting the values on a geographical basis and the information for the net economic value (see Table by combining all types of recreation use into one 108

4-43) is for all recreational trips, not a per-trip basis 270. Comment: If water reservations ultimately or per-day basis. Appendix K provides recreational destroy agriculture in the state, it soon will be appar- values on an acre-foot basis but does not provide the ent how erroneous the statements are in the EIS necessary information on how the net economic value regarding agriculture income, employment, taxation, per trip was converted to net economic value per and economic Impact. acre-foot of water. Response: Water reservations would not affect the Response: The methodology needed to derive recre- operations of agricultural water users with priority net value of ational expenditures per day, economic dates before July 1, 1985. all recreational trips, and recreational value per acre- foot comes directly from Instream Flows in the Mis- 271. Comment: There are many benefits to irriga- souri River Basin: A Recreation Survey and Economic tion, such as increases in state, county, and commu- Study (DuiTield et al. 1990). nity revenues. These projects are economically feasible and should increase revenue. This profit ther Taxes and Employment would generate growth In the local communities and state. Brester et al. (1986) estimated that for every 269a. Comment: At present, our economy is sup- $1.00 increase in net revenue, an additional $1.5E ported heavily by livestock and crops. If this should may be generated. be changed to recreation, it would be difficult for cafes, motels, outfitters, and gas stations to support Response: DNRC's primary analysis focused on the taxes for roads, bridges, weed control, airports, dis- financial and economic feasibility of each proposed trict courts, law enforcement, government salaries, project. Ebdemal factors such as impacts to loca schools, and universities. On the other hand, we government. Indirect and Induced employment anc don't want to lose the tax base from recreational with the multiplier analysis businesses. income effects, along were included as part of the environmental anal5^1j of the draft EIS). These factors, however 269b. Comment: On page 127 of the draft EIS, you (see p. 233 feasibility analysis of eact say that agriculture does not put much into the were not considered in the avoid double-counting Indlrecl economy. Without agriculture, Montana would be a project In order to costs and benefits In the basinwide analysis. national park. I [Margie and Harold Petersen] know Irrigation districts, which may have to be formec this Is what some people want. to facilitate the development of larger projects, paj taxes their project works 85-7 Response: The discussion of the Montana socioeco- no property on (§ 2011, MCA). Further, on-farm sprinkler systemj nomic environment (p. 127) provides an overview of taxation 15-6-206, MC^. Ii the ongoing changes In Montana's economy through- also are exempt from (§ is that appraisals and tax collections out the past 40 years. This information from the U.S. quite possible projects ar( Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic will go down—not up—after irrigation Installed because of the way farm land is taxed. Analysis { 1 989) shows that Montana has shifted from the agriculture-based economy of 40 years ago to the OTHER present economy, where the service sectors com- prise the single largest economic sector (as mea- 272. Comment: The alternatives provide an eco sured by employment or earnings). nomic analysis of each constituent of the plan, sucl The draft EIS predicts no abrupt future economic as agronomic impacts, recreation costs, and powei changes. The relative decline in the contribution of generation costs. However, there does not appear tc the agriculture sector Is Independent ofthe proposed be a single place that combines this information. W( water reservations and likely will continue. The [Teton County Conservation District) feel that th( commenters suggest that both agriculture and rec- final EIS should Include the total economic benefit oi reation are important parts of the Missouri basin cost of each alternative. We feel that when this is economy. This is correct, and both will continue to done, the Combined Alternative will show the mosi be Important in the foreseeable future. The proposed beneficial economic return for use of the water. reservations would not have substantial effects on existing tax receipts (see pp. 233-235 of the draft Response: This Information was combined in twc EIS). places in the draft EIS: Table S-1 In the summarj and in Chapter Seven. Summary Table S-1 In th( .

~~109~~

draft EIS is In error and has been corrected (see Montana's economy and the production of crops in "Changes to Draft EIS"). The "Public Interest" sec- the future is not addressed. A complete economic tion in Chapter Seven of the draft EIS lists not only analysis that analyzes long-term effects is warranted the direct net benefits to each constituent but also each alternative's total net benefits. Total net ben- Response: If instream flows are granted by the efits are derived by adding together each constituent's Board, the development of new irrigated crop land direct net benefits. As illustrated in Table 7-1 (p. might be limited (see Appendix I ofthe draft EIS). The 253) of the draft EIS, the Instream Alternative shows long-term effects of instream flow reservations on a slight advantage in net economic benefits when Montana's economy are examined in Chapter Six compared to the Combination Alternative. The alter- and in Chapter Seven's "Public Interest" section natives presented are only three of the many ways (p. 247). the Board could allocate water among the reserva- subbasins were tion applicants. Two additional alternatives also have 275. Comment: Basins and lumped together for much of the agriculture statis- been examined in Chapter Two of this EIS. Some for fishery and other combination of reservations could produce tics and were addressed separately recreation uses. greater net benefits than any of the five alternatives examined by DNRC. Response: Agricultural statistics (pp. 83-86 of the draft EIS) were lumped together to show trends over 273. Comment: We (Sl^Une Sportsmen's Associa- time for discussion of the affected environment. tion] oppose the Consumptive Use, Combination, Specific information on impacts to agricultural land and No Action alternatives for the following reason: use is indicated on pages 195-201 of the draft EIS. The Consumptive Use and Combination alternatives Since Impacts to agricultural economics were small, have an unacceptable cost to the taxpayers to build the impacts were lumped together for impact discus- irrigation projects for consumptive users. The cost sions in the draft EIS. Agricultural statistics were does notjustify the benefits to a select few. The cost broken down for each conservation district and in- of producing power with these alternatives seems to cluded in the environmental assessments of the be prohibitive to the rate payers on the power sys- water reservation applications for each of the 18 tems. conservation districts. These statistics were not re- Response: As pointed out in Chapter Five of the iterated in the draft EIS. draft EIS, the four alternatives analj^zed are purely statistics on hypothetical and intended solely for the purpose of 276. Comment: There are not enough multiple-use develop- illustrating a range of environmental effects and cost-sharing and benefits of tradeoffs among the proposed reservations. These ment. alternatives do not limit the Board's discretion in Response: Section 85-2-3 16(4) (a), MCA, requires approving, denying, or prioritizing the requests for the Board to determine whether the expected ben- reservations. efits of applying the reserved water to beneficial use Many ofthe proposed irrigation projects are small are reasonably likely to exceed the costs. Because of and, if built, probably will be financed with private, this, DNRC's analysis focused on overall project fea- market-competitive funds. DNRC's analysis, there- sibility and did not address alternate cost-sharing fore, placed the cost of building these projects solely arrangements. on those who will benefit. In response to your statement that the cost does not justify the benefits to a few, net public benefits of the Consumptive Use and GENERAL Combination alternatives relative to the No Action Procedures Alternative are positive. This does not necessarily 277. Comment: We request an extension ofthe 60- mean that these alternatives maximize net public day comment period on the draft EIS because of the benefits. complexities of the document and the two weeks it took for some individuals to receive the document in 274. Comment: The draft EIS does not address the the maU. question of instream flow rights versus development rights. What impact would instream flows have on Response: The comment period was extended an the development of new lands for crop production? additional two weeks, ending September 16, 1991. The issue of how instream flow would affect . no

benefits to a business or othei 278. Comment: It seems that DNRC always holds standing economic in which he or she has a substantia its public meetings during the haying or calving sea- undertaking participation mus sons. financial interest. However, this be necessary to the administration of the statute Response: Because of statutory deadlines for com- and the board member must voluntarily disclose th( pleting the reservation process, DNRC held public nature of his or her private interest that creates th( EIS. meetings shortly after releasing the draft conflict (§§ 2-2-121(3) and 131).

279. Comment: Who paid for the draft EIS? 282. Comment: The draft EIS fails to adequate! correlate the relationship between the proposed res The EIS was partly paid for by federal Response: ervations and necessary minimum streamflow level agencies and partly wiih funds appropriated by the for the specific stream reaches included in the resei Montana Legislature. Legislative funding was pro- vation. vided to DNRC to cover the portion ofthe costs attributable to conservation district and municipal appli- Response: See response to Appendix C for an addi cations. DFWP, DHES. BUREC. and BLM used their tlonal discussion of methods to determine instrear own appropriated funds to reimburse DNRC for their flow needs. Additional documentation of impacts fc shares ofthe EIS's cost. This procedure is consistent proposed consumptive use reservations can be foun with the water reservaUons statute (§ 85-2-3 1 6 MCA) in environmental assessments specific to each resei which requires the applicants to provide a reason- vation application. In some Instances described i able proportion of DNRC's costs of preparing an EIS. the environmental assessments and draft EIS, add tional investigation would be necessary to determin 280. Comment: DNRC could have used a better Impacts from specific projects. method of informing the public of the meetings. 283. Comment: We [Margie and Harold Petersei Response: The public hearings on the draft EIS received your answer telling us that it would co: throughout were held August 5-8, 1 99 1 , in locations $14.32 (the printing and mailing cost ofthe draft EI the Missouri River basin. Notice of the public hear- is $ 12.32 per copy) to mail each EIS on the Missou ings was published in 11 regional and local newspa- River basin reservations. That book could be trimme pers. Legal notice was published concurrently three down to much less, and it is ridiculous to waste tt times in the Billings Gazette, Bozeman Daily taxpayers' money this way. There are so many ui Chronicle, Butte Montana Standard. Great Falls Tri- truths In this book that some people more respoi bune, Havre Daily News, Helena Independent Record, sible should have viTitten it. DillonTribune Examiner, Glasgow Courier, Lewtstown News Argus, Roundup Record Tribune, and Meagher Response: Your comments are noted. DNRC h£ County News. News releases announcing the avail- responded to specific concerns of these commente ability of the draft EIS and the public hearing sched- elsewhere in this document. ule were sent to all newspapers in the basin above Fort Peck Dam. The draft EIS also Included the Montana Environmental Policy Act public hearing schedule. 284. Comment: On page 1. under "EIS Process the draft EIS states: 281. Comment: The Skyline Sportsmen [Associa- tion] believes there is a serious conflict of interest This EIS addresses all pending water reser- within the Board, as several members are actual vations requested in the basin above Fort water users on the Missouri River basin. How can Peck Dam and describes in general terms the we. the sportsmen, get a fair and Impartial view from reservation requests and the parties and re- financial interest in people on the Board who have a sources that would be affected if the requests the water in the basin? The Board of Natural Re- are granted. sources and Conservation appears to overly repre- inc sent agricultural interests. Oior [BUREC] review of the subject document cates that it analyzes the associated impacts in ge of proposi Response: Public officers have public trust respon- eral terms because specific details each were not available. Thus, the subje sibilities (§ 2-2-103, MCA). A member of a quasi- development programmatic doc judicial board may perform an official act notwith- document serves primarily as a —

~~Ill~~

merit, meaning that additional Montana Environ- other western states. The original concept for the mental Policy Act (MEPA) compliance would be re- reservation process was to protect Montana water for quired prior to site-specific development. Thus, we future irrigation development. The EIS does not are somewhat puzzled by the statement on page 1 53, reflect or even mention this concept. which states: The requests for reservations for instream flows are contrary to the original purpose of the reserva- To comply with MEPA, additional environ- tion concept and are providing the downstream states mental review may be required before large the water the reservation concept was to protect. projects can be developed and. in some cases, this may involve the preparation of a project- Response: The concept that Montana water reser- specific EIS. vations would protect Montana water from down-

We offer the observation that because site-specific stream threats was strongly supported by the late details were not analyzed in the draft EIS for ariy of Frank Trelease, considered a leading authority on the proposed projects, additional MEPA compliance western water law. Trelease wrote the legal section in will need to be initiated for each project at some a report titled A Water Protection Strategy: Missouri future time. We suggest that a commitment to per- River Basin (1982) for the Montana Legislature. In form such environmental analyses on each be made this report, he argued that the best way to protect and included in the section titled "Measures That Montana's share of Missouri River water is to use the Could Be Adopted to Reduce Adverse Effects" on water and to adjudicate existing rights. The second page 237. best way is with water reservations for consumptive use because they Identify purposes and places of use Response: The Montana Environmental Policy Act and show that projects are economically feasible and (MEP;^ requires that an EIS be prepared for major in the public interest. The water reservation statute state actions that significantly affect the quality of also requires reservants to show diligence in putting the human environment (§ 75-l-201(b)(iii), MCA). A reservations to use. A number of other states—New programmatic review is done when a series ofagency- Mexico, for example—have adopted a reservation Initiated actions, programs, or policies—which in process to protect water for future use. part or in total may constitute a major state action The protection of instream flows was part of the significantly affect the human environment. Al- original concept of water reservations as enacted by though the draft EIS Is programmatic In nature, site- the Montana Legislature. specific Impacts from individual projects were included to the extent possible with current Informa- 286. Comment: It is obvious that representatives tion. Individual environmental assessments also from irrigated agriculture and the general public had were prepared for each reservation application, and no opportunity to participate in the preparation of they Include more site analyses. For many projects the EIS. Only BLM, DFWP, and DHES were allowed especially large projects—detailed design informa- input into the draft EIS. Municipalities, individuals, tion was not completed; thus, site-specific Impacts and agriculture were excluded. could not be assessed. Before any projects can be developed, an envi- Response: The general public and representatives ronmental assessment may be required if state ac- of all groups had several opportunities to participate tions are involved or If the Board orders the review. A in preparation of the EIS. Public meetings were held project-specific EIS analysis may be required if the during July 1989 in Bozeman. Dillon. Ennls. Fort project—either individually or cumulatively with Benton. Glasgow. Great Falls. Helena. Lewistown. other development—significantly affects the human Roundup, and Whitehall to help determine issues environment and if information regarding Its impact that should be examined in the dreift EIS. The draft Is not adequately addressed in the draft EIS. For the EIS was distributed to the public in July 1991 to give larger projects, however, it is anticipated that a people an opportunity to review and comment on it. project-specific environmental analysis will need to DNRC held 10 public meetings and hearings address site-specific Impacts prior to development. throughout the basin during August 1991 to gather written and oral comments on the draft EIS and 285. Comment: The concept that Montana water accepted written comments until September 16. The reservations would protect Montana water from use final EIS Includes DNRC's responses to public com- and development by downstream states is an uncer- ments on the draft. tain legal concept and not an established doctrine In 112

EIS states: 287. Comment: Under the current schedule, the 290. Comment: Page S-1 of the draft Board will have to make decisions without knowing The legislature felt that implementation of a the availability of water. water reservation procedure would encourage more coordinated development of the Response: Information regarding the physical avail- water resources in the basin and would help ability of water for reservations is provided In the form a strong and unified basis for protecting draft EIS and the reservation applications. The con- Montana's share of the Missouri River water tested case hearing may provide the Board with ad- from downstream states. ditional information to determine whether reservations will affect existing water rights. This water reservation process is a step toward the first stated legislative intent; however, if this process 288. Comment: The size of the draft EIS and water leads to a decision allowing instream flow reserva- reservation requests is too big. The whole process tions anywhere near those requested by DFWP. the should be broken down into subbasins, including second stated intent will be unattainable because the EIS process, the reservation requests, and the the sheer volumes requested by DFWP will in fad contested case hearings. How will changes in one guarantee substantial flows to downstream states basin affect other basins? These volumes will additionally be restricted to £ single ordained use while in the state of Montana. Response: DNRC implemented the Missouri basin water reservation proceeding as directed by the legis- Response: See reponse to comment 11. lature. The legislature requested the proceeding be split into two parts, above and below Fort Peck Dam. 291. Comment: Page S- 7 of the draft EIS states: The EIS addresses those applications to reserve water or stream reach, the number above Fort Peck Dam. On each stream the greatest net Because the basin above Fort Peck Dam is so of requests that will give benefit is based, in part, on the amount of large, the draft EIS used a subbasin approach to available. However, water availability examine effects of reservations on the existing envi- water definitely known before the Board ronment. Also examined in the draft EIS is how may not be reservation requests. reservations in one subbasin would affect the envi- acts on the ronment In others. It should be noted and analyzed in the EIS proces; Separate contested case hearings will not be held what effect each alternative would have on (a) exist for each subbasin. However, the hearings examiner ing, unresolved streamflow loss studies, (b) request will hold public hearings in communities around the for moratoriums on issuing permits, and (c) indi basin where objectors can present testimony specific vidual water district policies about selling share to their areas. and share availability. Such analyses may partiall resolve the often-stated, "Water availability may no 289. Comment: Judith Basin Conservation Dis- be definitely known before the Board acts on th trict objects to the draft EIS insofar as it states or reservation requests." implies that the Judith Basin Conservation District's application for reservation ofwater does not meet the Response: These are legal issues that caimot b criteria contained in § 85-2-311(1), MCA. for the addressed in the EIS. They likely will be raised an granting of applications for permits to appropriate addressed in more detail during the contested cas waters. hearing.

Response: Section 85-2-311. MCA. includes the 292. Comment: There is no way any individual ca criteria for issuance of a water use permit. The Judith check or digest the computer models and the volum Basin Conservation District has applied for a water nous studies, statistics, and materials included i reservation as governed by § 85-2-316. MCA The the draft EIS within the time frame scheduled, c Board wUl decide whether a reservation application perhaps at all, without a staff and budget equal t meets the criteria outlined in this statute. Nowhere DNRC's. in the draft EIS is it stated that the Judith Basin prepai Conservation District's water reservation application Response: DNRC was directed by statute to reservatio does or does not meet the reservation criteria. an EIS on the upper Missouri River water 113

applicaUons (§§ 85-2-316(3) and 75-1-201(1), MCA). Response: DNRC developed the alternatives to The scope ofthe proposed actions required that many bracket the range of possible actions the Board could studies be done to analyze the potential impacts. take on the pending water reservation applications. The standard comment period for an EIS is 30 days. In all but the No Action Alternative, municipal reser- DNRC originally allowed 60 days for comments on vations were given first priority. Second priority was the draft EIS and later extended this deadline an given to irrigation projects in the Consumptive Use additional two weeks. ARM 36.2.532. Alternative, with instream requests given third priority. In the Combination Alternative, second priority 293. Comment: On page 2. under the "Contested generally was given to irrigation projects considered Case Hearing" section, the draft EIS states: to be at least marginally feasible, with instream requests given third priority. Only in the Instream After the final EIS is distributed to the public, Alternative were instream flow requests given prior-

DNRC . . . accepts written objections. If valid, ity over all requests for Irrigation. The No Action objections are received, the Board appoints a Alternative was defined as no action by the Board in hearings examiner, and a formal contested granting reservations. Two new alternatives have case hearing is held. been developed by DNRC (see Chapter Two). However, the Notice ofApplications, postmarked July 30, 1991, states: 295. Comment: There does not seem to be any stated basis in the draft EIS for classification of irri- Formal objections to the issuance of a reser- gation uses in order of priority behind municipal or vation the application, with reasons under other uses. therefore, must be fUed on an Objection to Application form (Form 611) with the Depart- Response: Under the Consumptive Use, Instream, ment ofNatural Resources and Conservation and Combination alternatives presented in the draft ... on or before Friday, August 30, 1991. EIS, municipal reservations would be given priority over reservations for irrigation and instream flows. It is our [U.S. Forest Service] understanding that The reasons for giving municipal reservations first the correct due date for objections was the August 30 priority are stated on page 133. Under the Con- date. Thus, erroneous direction In the draft provides sumptive Use Alternative, irrigation projects are given for confusion and could lead people with valid objec- priority over requests for instream flows. Under the tions to miss the objection period. We suggest re- Instream Alternative, instream requests are given opening the objection period, noting the conflicting priority over irrigation projects. Irrigation projects direction and explaining the differing timetable, to that are at least marginally feasible generally are allow the public to object in a timely fashion. given priority over instream requests under the Com-

Response: The deadline set by the legislature for the bination Alternative. these alternatives illustrate Board to act on these water reservation applications DNRC developed to the effects of different water use emphasis, encom- is July 1 , 1992. DNRC felt it was necessary to notify of actions that could existing water right holders about the water reserva- passing a reasonable range be the Board. These alternatives not limit tion applications before distribution of the final EIS taken by do Board's discretion in approving, modifying, de- in order to allow time for the contested case hearing. the nying, or giving priority to one reservation request The statement in the draft EIS saying that the final over another. EIS would be distributed before noticing for the contested case hearing was in error. should not have consid- Notification of the deadline for submitting objec- 296. Comment: DNRC ered the Consumptive Use Alternative, as it is not a tions was sent to 1 1 ,000 water right holders and option is the Instream Alter- published in newspapers throughout the basin. viable option. The best native. DNRC does not feel that the error in the draft caused Five discusses various alternatives for interested parties to miss an opportunity to partici- Chapter reservations. Under the Consump- pate in the contested case hearing. granting water tive Use Alternative, all reservations, whether mu- Alternatives nicipal or irrigation, would be granted whether they were economically viable projects or not. It is dis- 294. Comment: The alternatives seem to be turbing that such projects would be considered slanted toward instream Hows requested by DFWP and BLM. 114

Comment: The Sltyline Sportsmen [Assocla- where the benefit-cost ratio is less than one. Under 299. supports another alternative to be considered the Instream and Combination alternatives, irrigation] that would combine the attributes of the municipal tion projects are scrutinized as to their economic and instream flow alternatives. These altemaUves viability. It is difllcult to understand why economic are mutually compatible and still provide jobs and viability is not also a requirement in the Consump- benefits to most of the public. The positive effects tc tive Use Alternative. the taxpayers, recreating pubUc, fish, wildlife, and Response: DNRC developed the alternatives to water quality are overwhelming. The combination ol bracket the range of possible actions the Board could these alternatives would not adversely affect the cur- take on the pending water reservation applications. rent water users. We also endorse the comments a all appli- Because it is in the Board's power to grant Stan Bradshaw of Trout Unlimited. cations for consumptive use. DNRC felt it was appro- presentee priate to develop this type of a scenario—the Con- Response: No mur^cipal alternative was o sumptive Use Alternative—and assess its potential in the draft EIS. See Chapter Two for a descripUon impacts. Your comment regarding the Instream Al- a new municipal alternative and impacts associatec

~~ternative is noted. with it.~~

297. Comment: Why are irrigaUon and municipal 300. Comment: We [American Fisheries Society reservations included in the Instream Flow Alterna- Montana Chapter) feel there is a need for an environ tive? mental quality or water quaUty alternative. We com to this conclusion for several reasons: In the draft EIS, DNRC developed three several irriga Response: a. The Instream Alternative includes that were wathin the prob- hypothetical alternatives tlon projects that have the potential to caus Board might take. An in- able range of action the nutrient and pesticide contamination (see Tabl alternative with no consumptive uses is con- stream 6-9. p. 184). in Chapter Two of this document. irrlgatio sidered b. The Instream Alternative includes projects that may damage aquatic Iffe by increaj (Sl^rline Sportmen's Associa- 298. Comment: We Ing water temperatures and decreasing dissolve Consumptive Use. Combina- tion] are opposed to the oxygen (see Table 6-10, p. 185). tion, No Action altemaUves for the following quality degn and c. Other projects that lead to water reasons: dation such as VAS-1, JBS-3. and FE-141 ai not address the resource a. These alternatives do included in the Instream Alternative. In the cas values ofrecreational use. fish, wildlife, and water increasing the concentr; ofVAS- 1 . this includes are non-existent as values now i quality. These tions of nutrients, salts, and possibly arsenic basin are consistently dewatered the rivers in the the Milk River. the point of fish kills; not water for water altematlv( to d. The economic benefits of the three wading the puddles for recreation. quality, and increase as consumptive reservations are r Use Alternative is single use b. The ConsumpUve duced or given lower priority and instream rese multiple use mandated by the instead of the vaUons are increased or given higher priorit Montana Constitution. This relationship should be explored further wii the development of an environmental or wat Response: quality alternative to determine whether ec recreational use, fish, a. The resource values of nomic benefits continue to increase. wildlife, and water quality do exist, and impacts all of the on these resources are addressed for Response: See Chapter Two of this final EIS for the draft EIS. Further, instream alternatives in description of the suggested Water Quality Altem dollar values, including those for recreation, were live. calculated and used in the economic impacts decision crite- analysis and discussion of Board draft EIS makes no analysis 30 1 . Comment: The ria. alternatives to specffic reservation requests. Sin Consumptive Use Alternative is not a single- resen, b. The the Board mustjudge each individual water

~~It includes municipal, irrigation, i use alternative. tlon request, the environmental impact of each requests. and instream flow quest must be made before a decision can be reache 115~~

Alternatives to the proposed reservations and their Recreation and tourism-related services for all consequences also must be ascertained. facets ofrecreation in Montana still would constitute a growing segment of the local economy under these Response: Four alternatives were identified and alternatives. analyzed in the draft EIS. A description of the alter- Wealth transfers or subsidies to the agricultural natives is presented in Chapter Five, and Chapter sector may contribute net benefits to the public. Six discusses impacts of the alternatives. Potential Your opinion regarding the No Action Alternative is impacts of each reservation project were analyzed noted. and are included in the environmental assessment of each reservation application. Environmental assess- 305. Comment: On page 181. first column, under ments are available from DNRC upon request. "Impacts to Other Reservants." last sentence regarding priority ofproposed reservations, this conclusion 302. Comment: Aspects of the Instream Alterna- applies onty to those 50 or so stream reaches where tive are troubling because our [Medicine River Canoe irrigation and instream reservation requests conflict.

Club] interpretation is that it would still allow some For the 23 1 stream reaches where there are no con- consumptive uses. sumptive reservation requests, granting instream a higher priority over irrigation will have no influence Response: The Instream Alternative does include on water availability for the other requested irriga- consumptive use projects (see Table 5-1 of the draft tion projects. EIS. p. 135). Response: Under the Instream Alternative, pro-

303 . Comment: Who put together the alternatives? posed consumptive use reservations would be junior It appears that DNRC included only DFWP, DHES, to reservations for instream flows. Streamflows on MPC, and BLM. the lower Missouri River sometimes drop below those requested by DFWP and DHES. Because depletions Response: DNRC put together the alternatives, anywhere in the basin could affect flows downstream, which include reservation requests by municipali- projects for irrigation in the headwaters could not ties, conservation districts, DFWP, DHES. BLM, and divert water when flows in the lower Missouri drop BUREC. MPC has not applied for and cannot be below the instream requests under this alternative. granted a water reservation and, therefore, is not included in the alternatives. For a detailed discus- Role of the Applicants sion of the alternatives, see page 133 of the draft EIS. 306. Comment: DFWP said that granting instream reservations would protect existing water users and, 304. Comment: We [Skyline Sportsmen's Associa- therefore, would be in the public interest. Please tion] are opposed to the Consumptive Use. Combina- explain how, where, and why? tion, and No Action alternatives for the following reason: The alternatives would have a negative effect Response: In its Missouri River reservation applica- on the recreational revenue to the state, which is tion, DFWP states: "Existing agricultural water right grossly undervalued within the draft EIS. The money holders would benefit from the DFWP reservation being spent on recreation within the state makes because of increased legal and physical assurances recreation the second largest industry within the about future delivery and supply of water for their state, and it is still growing. Approval of any of these crops and livestock." For those streams that are alternatives would only subsidize the agriculture overapproprlated, establishing a minimum Instream users to a greater extent with taxpayer money. right may alleviate the need for existing water right holders to continually object to new appropriations Response: The estimated annual value of lost recre- that would adversely affect their existing rights. ation due to lower flows under the Consumptive Use, Instream, and Combination alternatives is based on 307. Comment: Did conservation districts apply the net willingness to pay for an acre-foot of flow in for instream flows? If not, why? rivers and streams and average flow reductions from the different alternatives (see Tables 6-40. 6-41. and Response: Conservation districts did not apply for 6-42 in the draft EIS. 229-230), not on recre- pp. instream flow reservations. While they could have ational revenue to the state. done so. they chose not to. 116

308. Comment: The 18 conservation districts that In Chapter Three, DNRC summarized state applied for water did not even consider ments from each application pertaining to pur nonconsumptive uses, Just more irrigation. Where pose, need, amount, and public interest. Thesi does the conservation come in? should be viewed as summaries of opinions c the applicants. Response: The nwjority of conservation district res- b) Listings of streams with low flow problem area ervation requests are for irrigation. Table 6-7 in the (see Tables 4-2, 4-4. 4-6, and 4-8). draft EIS lists three storage projects proposed by the Information included in these tables came fron conservation districts that are for purposes other at least two of the following sources: than irrigation. - Information provided by DFWP (1985-1991) - Information obtained from DHES (1984,1986 309. Comment: The draft EIS does not adequately - Information gathered from DNRC's water address municipal irrigation needs. The basis for resources regional offices (DISfRC 1985-1991 municipal water consumption Is based upon popu- Because the information corresponded wiO lation growth. For most older communities, lot sizes information from at least one other source, i are rather small. The trend today is toward larger reasonably unbiased result was expected. lots, thus requiring considerably more irrigation. c) Types and numbers of fish present in a stream Family water consumption also has increased due to This information was provided in the draft EI! new appliances (washers, dishwashers, ice ma- to give an indication of the relative importance c chines, etc.) over the past 40 years. a stream in providing an opportunity to catcl fish. The information shows that some stream Response: As outlined in the response to comment have different types of fish and some stream 242, the reservation applicant is responsible for dem- support many more gameflsh than others. Th onstrating that the reservation is needed. All of the information was obtained from the DFWP appli municipal applicants used population-based meth- cation and the Montana Filvers database. DFW ods to project their future water system needs. None is not thought to be biased in reporting the rela of the municipal applications presented any infor- tlve number of fish in a stream. mation concerning the effects of Increasing lot sizes, d) Fisheries value class rating. so lot size effects have not been examined. In regard This information also was provided to indlcat to appliance use effects, one city states that "al- the relative Importance of streams as fisheries though more people will purchase water-using de- The methods used to determine the rankings ar vices such as dishwashers and water softeners, the described by Graham (1986). These method city does not expect this change to increase use were reviewed by other state and federal agen slgniftcantly" (City of Lewlstown 1988). cies. For the EIS's purpose, the labels assignei to the value classes probably are less Importan 310a. Comment: Much of the information used in than the numeric rankings that show difference your EIS came from DFWP. Since DFWP Is a party to among streams. The intent of the ranking i the reservations being claimed, I [Kalsta Ranch Co.] being interpreted correctly as long as the reade question the legality ofusing said information. At the understands that value class 1 streams are na very least, it has a chance to be biased and therefore tionally known, while the value class 5 stream should not be used. have relatively low fish densities, smaller propoi tlons of large flsh, lower recreational use, fe\

310b. Comment: I [RandaU P. Smith) feel that the rare fish, or are not judged to have special aes very agency requesting reservations (DFWP) had a lot thetic values. to do with writing the EIS, and this is a direct conflict e) Information concerning the use of certaii of interest. streams for spawning. This information is included In DFWP's appli Response: Several types of information included In cation and simply states which tributary stream the draft EIS were obtained from DFWP. Each is are used for spawning by fish from other stream described below. and reservoirs. This listing describes known oc a) Paraphrasing of DFWP's statements concerning currences of spawning and may not be complet the purpose and need for the reservation, the because streams that have not been inventoriei amount necessary, and that the reservation is In are not listed. the public interest. 117

fl Amount ofwater necessary to maintain riffle and from 1982 to 1986. Because the survey is a side channel habitat. random survey of resident anglers, the potential The amount of water necessary to maintain for bias appears low. riffles, as determined by DFWP, was used as an h) Estimates of non-angler use levels. indicator of aquatic habitat conditions. Potential The probability of bias in this information ap-

for misleading results does exist as described pears low since it has been reviewed by federal below and in Appendix C. agencies with recreation management responsi- The wetted perimeter method is based on the biliUes.

~~assumptions that aquatic organisms making up i) Location of recreation sites.~~

the majority offood for gamefish are produced in This information appears unbiased since little riffle areas and that food supply for fish is a maj or is to be gained from trying to hide recreation factor in determining the number and weight of sites. fish stream support. a can However, as noted on J) Anecdotal information for specific river segments. page 202 of the draft EIS, many factors interact Anecdotal information was used in the recre- to determine the number of fish a stream can ation sections of Chapters Four and Six of the support. The WETP method directly addresses draft EIS. The potential exists for some of this only one of the factors that determine the num- information to be biased, but often the best ber of fish a stream would produce. source of descriptive information is from those On each of the seven streams for which DNRC DFWP representatives chained with managing adopted the WETP method to analyze impacts in the resource who have firsthand knowledge of the draft EIS, more than one riffle cross-section activities and water levels on a given stream, was used to demonstrate the relationship be- k) Estimates of fishing use of Montana River sub- tween the amount of wetted perimeter in riffles basins. and flow. Because usually there are differences Because this information came from a random in riffle shape and size, it is not unusual to find sample of resident anglers, the potential for bias differences in the flow-versus-wetted-perimeter is low.

curves for each riffle cross-section. Using one 1) Effects of changes in water levels at Canyon riffle cross-section to show the amount of flow Ferry. needed to maintain aquatic habitat will be rea- This information came from the Hauser Reser- sonable for that cross-section but may be either voir ManagementPlan[DFWP 1989), a published high or low for other riffles on a stream reach. document that has been reviewed and com- Table 3-15 indicates the number of riffle cross- mented on by other agencies and the public, sections used on these seven streams, m) Crop damage by wildlife. g) Estimates of fishing pressure. See response to comment 312. The source of this information is statewide

angler surveys conducted by DFWP for the years 311. Comment: It is obvious that DFWP and DHES have been deeply Involved in the preparation of the EIS for the past several years. Members of the public, particularfy those involved with irrigated agriculture, have been given two months to comment on the Table 3-1 5. Number of riffle cross-sections used to statement. The state agencies also have had years to determine the flow-versus-wetted-perimeter curve on prepare for the "case hearing," whereas agriculture streams for which the WETP method was adopted for has been given few months. the draft EIS a Number of Riffle Stream Cross-Sections Response: DISTRC obtained information for inclusion in the draft from many sources, including DHES and DFWP. Conservation districts (which represent Gallatin River near Logan 2 agriculture) and municipalities have been involved Dearborn River 4 In the reservation process since at least 1985, and Smith River above Hound Creek 7 many prepared applications. They were aware from Sun River above mouth 2 the beginning of the process, as were state and fed- Marias River 4 eral agencies, that an EIS would be prepared and a Judith River 5 contested case hearing held. Scoping meetings were Hound Creek 6 118

held in July 1989 to allow the public an opportunity project (see p. 154 ofthe draft EIS). Recognizing this to identify issues to be addressed in the draft EIS. fact, DNRC did not analyze all ofthe project's potential impacts. 312. Comment: Who put together the analysis in the draft EIS? What was DFWP's role in putting 315. Comment: BLM has surmised that instreani together the analysis (e.g., they noted impacts to reservations could "limit possible future consump- natural vegetation and damage to crops)? tive water uses, such as industrial or agricultural diversions in situations where water would be fullji Response: DNRC and its consultants prepared the appropriated." However, the draft EIS does not ful^ analysis presented in the draft EIS. Because DFWP explore what the possible effects could be on existing is the state agency responsible ftjr managing wildlife or future agricultural practices. in Montana, DNRC requested certain information from DFWP concerning wildlife populations that Response: See pages 175 and 179 ofthe draft EIS might be affected as a result of proposed irrigation projects. This and additional information from Other project-specific environmental assessments and 316. Comment: The City of Lewistown does nol DNRC's consultant were used to prepare the wildlife want the Board to allocate all ofthe Big Spring Creel and vegetation sections in the draft EIS. flow to DFWP for instream flow purposes. TTie Citj feels that if the Board does so, the City may have tc 313. Comment: DFWP has had four years to pre- purchase or condemn water rights in the future. pare this document, and existing water right holders had only 60 days during the fall harvest season to Response: DFWP has applied to reserve 1 10 cfs foi read, understand, and comment on the entire docu- instream flows in Big Spring Creek from the state fisl ment. hatchery to the confluence of Cottonwood Creek, anc It is a particularly incestuous situation that 100 cfs from the confluence of Cottonwood Creek tc DNfRC and DFWP have with this document. DNRC's the mouth. The water reservation statute, however responsibility is to provide a fair, unbiased, and ac- allows only one-haff of the average annual flow o curate draft EIS. Instead of doing this, DNRC simply gauged streams to be reserved. This limits the Boarc went to DFWP and asked them to support DFWP's to granting a maximum of 53. 5 cfs for Instream flows position. DFWP then had four years to create studies in the gauged upper reach of Big Spring Creek. Th( supporting its position. DNRC relied on DFWP per- data in Table D- 1 ofthe draft EIS (pp. D-3 through D sonnel using DFWP methods to create DFWP studies 20) Indicate that streamflows in the section of Bl^ to support DFWP's position Instead of drafting what Spring Creek above Cottonwood Creek do not droj should be an unbiased draft EIS. below 53.5 cfs, the maximum amount the Boarc could grant to DFWP. Response: As preparer ofthe draft EIS, DNRC made The lower section of Big Spring Creek, when every effort to produce a fair, unbiased, and accurate DFWP has applied for 100 cfs, is ungauged. Table D document. Because DFWP is the agency responsible 1 also indicates that flows in this lower stream read for managing the state's fisheries, wildlife, and recre- sometimes are less than DFWP's request, especiallj ation resources, DNRC relied on DFWP in some in- during the fall. Therefore, DFWP's request, if granted stances for associated data. Also see response to could preclude future appropriations of water up comment 310. stream. Lewistown would have to purchase or con demn water ff its water rights were insufficient tc 314. Comment: The draft EIS is based on what is, cover its future needs. in some instances, pure conjecture. By BUREC's own admission, "Sufficient information is not avail- 317. Comment: I [Joe Gutkoskl] recommend nc able on project design, location, or operation to con- further irrigation diversion from the Jefferson, Madi duct a thorough evaluation of Impacts at this time" son, and Gallatin rivers. The purpose of the watei [Draft Environmental Assessment of the Application reservation prcx;ess is to evaluate the levels of th( for Reservation of Waterfor the U.S. Bureau ofRecla- water (existing supplies) and not overallocate th( mation, 6). stream. Salt and nutrient water problems caused bj irrigation should not allowed. Response: BUREC Intends to prepare a separate be federal EIS before constructing the Vlrgelle diversion 119

Response: Your comment is noted. Seepage 1 ofthe are so large that development of future groundwater draft EIS for a discussion of the purpose of the Mis- or surface rights by private parties will be virtually souri basin water reservation proceeding. impossible.

318. Comment: We [Glacier County Conservation Response: A discussion of how reservations may District] object to DFWP's applications for reserva- affect the availability of water for future appropriations on streams in the Missouri River basin that are tion Is provided on page 179 of the draft EIS. filed on streams that already may be fully appropriated, and to those appUed-for reservations that would 321. Comment: The applications for water reser- preempt any potential water reservations that conser- vations and the EIS should conform to provisions of vation districts have found to be feasible. a comprehensive water management plan for the headwaters portion of the Missouri River basin.

Response: Nowhere in the draft EIS is the statement Without a comprehensive plan. It Is impossible to made that reservation requests from DFWP wUl pre- administer the basin or address the effects of the empt those of the conservation districts. The Board is applications. A comprehensive plan first should be responsible for setting the priority among any com- approved by the governing bodies of the counties,

peting applications that It may approve (§ 85-2-331, cities, towns, and conservation districts and then MCA). submitted to DNRC and the state legislature to be made part of the state water plan. Based on the 319. Comment: While I [Monte J. Boettger, Lewis- approved comprehensive plan, a thorough EIS can town City Attorney] agree that planning for the future be prepared and applications can be analyzed and Is important, no plan can be accurate without having granted or rejected. the basic ingredients. In this case, how much water The upper Missouri River basin and the uses of Is there that can be reserved? Depending onwhat this its water are so important to the citizens of Montana answer Is will greatly affect any public entity's future and. in fact, to the entire nation, that the process plans and, hence, proposed reservations. The EIS should not be rushed or addressed without a com- does not address this, to put It mildly, rather impor- prehensive understanding of all factors and their tant point. More importantly, the whole reservation environmental, economic, and social Impacts. process fails to adequatety deal with this. Response: The legislature has required the Board to Response: Information regarding streamflows in the reach a decision on the applications by July 1 . 1992. Missouri River basin is presented in Chapter Four The Missouri River reservation process is a compre- under "Water Quantity and Distribution" 41) and (p. hensive basin plan. Preparing the applications in- in Appendix D of the draft EIS. The effects reserva- volved active participation by most user groups such tions would have on streamflows are discussed in as agriculture through their local conservation and Chapter Six under "Water Quantity and Distribution" irrigation districts, municipalities, and federal and (p. 154) and in Appendix C. Chapter Four, "Legal state agencies. The process also Includes a review of Water Availability in the Missouri Basin" 54), and (p. and comments on a comprehensive EIS for the reser- Appendix A provide information on existing claims to vation applications, extensive public Involvement, a water in the basin. Also, Chapter Six, "Legal Water contested case hearing that involves all affected par- Availability" (p. 175), discusses the legal availability of ties, and a decision by the Board, which has to con- water for reservations and effects on existing water users. sider a number of clearly defined criteria—including The Board will decide whether the proposed reser- those related to public interest. vations would have any adverse effects on the use of existing rights. The reservation process requires that 322. Comment: How will the Instream flow re- existing water right holders be notified of any reserva- quests fit into the statewide water plan? tion applications that may affect them and that they be given the opportunity to voice their objections or Response: One section of the state water plan ad- concerns at a contested case hearing. Findings offact dresses Instream flows. Water reservations for in- and conclusions of law from the contested case hear- stream purposes are recognized in this section as ing wUl be provided to the Board to help It reach a final being the best way to protect unappropriated in- decision. stream flows.

~~320. Comment: The draft EIS does not adequately 323. Comment: The Teton County Conservation take into consideration the fact that requested flows District believes that with a modicum of common 120~~

sense, the goals of all of the reservation requests can Response: In its application, DFWP requests reser- be met. It will require a concerted effort from all ofthe vations for streamflows in Big Spring Creek from the parties involved to identify this solution, but we be- outflow from the state fish hatchery (Section 5, Town-

lieve it wUl be worth the effort to find it. ship 14 North, Range 19 East) to the confluence with the Judith River (Section 76, Township 17 North, Response: noted. Comment Range 16East). The request is for streamflows in the natural channel of Big Spring Creek. DFWP did not 324. Comment: Water reservation plans should be request a reservation for flows from Big Spring itself, analyzed consistent with various other to make them for flows passing through pipes from the spring, oi plans and perhaps be contingent on state-level plans. for flows passing through the state flsh hatchery.

Response: Your comment is noted. The reservation 328. Comment: The mining pimiplng project (LM- process and its implementation in the Yellowstone 20) should be considered for municipal and Indus- River basin is a basin management plan. The Yellow- trial uses Instead of irrigation. stone River reservation process considered existing water rights along with economical, social, and envi- Response: The Lower Musselshell Conservatlor issues. It for ronmental recognized water uses indus- District applied to reserve water from the Roundup try, irrigation, recreation, fish wildlife and habitat, mines for irrigation only. Notice to the public was water quality, and municipal use. The state water given based on the present application, and affected planning process would consider the same types of persons were given the opportunity to object to the issues water the Missouri and use as basin water proposed reservation. No request to alter the appli- reservation process. cation has been received. If such a request Is made the hearing examiner appointed by the Board musi 325. Comment: Are the methods used in the analy- rule on whether the application may be altered tc sis for the draft EIS "state of the art"? The methods substitute new proposed uses. Public notice and should be described in the EIS and included as an opportunity to object would be required if such £ appendix—specifically, a description of the water request were granted. availability model. 329. Comment: We [Skyline Sportsmen's Associa- Response: The methods used in the draft EIS analy- tion] feel it is inappropriate that this process Is betn^ sis are those felt by DNRC to be most appropriate, pushed forward before a complete adjudication ol given the number of applications to assess and tech- water rights is completed on the entire Missouri Rivei nical and time constraints. The appendices include basin. The entire basin Is beset with a water short- information on some of the analysis methods used in age year after year. The basin would be much bettei the draft EIS, including the methods used to deter- served with the implementation of measuring de- mine instream flows needed to protect aquatic habi- vices to keep the use of water to the amount allowed tat, the Missouri River water availability model, and by the rights—not whatever the user decides to take information from the recreation survey and economic from the rivers. analysis. More detailed explanations of the methods used in the Missouri water availability model, the Response: See response to comment 9 regarding recreation survey, and economic analysis are avail- the adjudication process. Your comment regarding able from DNRC. measuring devices is noted.

326. Comment: Is all Why this new irrigation 330. Comment: The draft EIS does not address needed in the Missouri River Falls? basin above Great alternatives to irrigation projects proposed in the basin. Crop choice definitely impacts irrigation watei Response: DNRC's analysis focused on the eco- needs and should be addressed. nomic and financial feasibility of the irrigation projects. The Board wUl make the final decision on Response: DNRC thought it resonable to use the whether the reservations are needed. crop irrigation requirements for alfalfa because It is commonly grown In the basin. In most Instances, 327. Comment: Clarify where DFWP Instream flow the conservation districts based their requests on requests begin and end on Big Spring Creek. Does the consumptive use requirements for an alfalfa crop. the request Include flows from the Big Spring, in Two exceptions should be noted. Project GA-201 pipes from the spring, or flows passing through the Included a rotation of potatoes, small grains, and state fish hatchery? ,

~~121~~

alfalfa (see response to comment 259). BUREC's Instream reservations would tend to maintain the project may include irrigation of bluejolnt hay in status quo, except that permits Issued since July 1 addition to alfalfa. Also see response to comment 1985, would be junior to these reservations. The 339. benefits that would arise from proposed consumptive uses were described in the EIS, as were the

33 1 . Comment: There is no basis for the statement impacts that would result from the reservations for on page 180 regarding the applications by federal consumptive use. In the environmental assess- agencies that "... It Is unlikely there would be con- ments, DNRC examined local effects of using reser- flicts with the proposed new consumptive uses, most vations for Individual municipal and irrigation of which would be at lower elevations." projects. The effects of many Individual irrigation and municipal reservations on the aquatic environ- Response: DNRC examined the locations ofreserva- ment, when considered by themselves, are small. tion requests for consumptive use and found few that requested water from stream segments on or 335. Comment: Environmental impacts were not above National Forest land. assessed, in our [Montana Water Resources Associa- tion] opinion, as beneficial—only detrimental. 332. Comment: The draft EIS does not adequately explore whether there Is a "reasonable likelihood Response: Chapter Six of the draft EIS discusses that future In-state or out-of-state competing water impacts that proposed reservations may have on the users would consume, degrade, or otherwise affect affected environment. The Impacts discussed in- the water available for the purpose of the reserva- clude those that could be considered beneficial along tions." with those that could be thought of as detrimental.

Response: This issue is described Three in Chapter 336. Comment: In reference to page S-2 of the ofthe draft for application in EIS each and evaluated summary, how are Impacts looked at or assessed? Chapter Seven. In addition, the Montana Legislature Only as negative? Or as both negative and positive? initiated the Missouri basin reservation process in Whose point ofview? It is suggested that more posi-

1 reports: ( ) report titled 98 5 based on two 1 a lengthy tive than negative attitudes be conveyed so far as Missouri A Water Protection Strategy for Montana: being able to address all interest groups. Individual River al. Basin (Trelease et 1982), and (2) a report of interest groups tend to be against concerns that the Select submitted Committee on Water Marketing impact against them initially. We [Ole M. Ueland] the 1985. to 49th Montana Legislature in January need a better explanation of how Montana citizens, Both reports concluded that Montana should begin society, and consumers of water use products ben- a reservation process in the Missouri basin to protect efit in the long run. Montana's water from downstream appropriation. Response: DNRC attempted to identify short- and 333. Comment: Throughout the draft EIS, it is long-term Impacts—^whether positive or negative—In impossible to cross-reference any of the data as It is the draft EIS. Many reservation requests show both presented (to determine where the data came from]. positive and negative Impacts. Chapter Six of the draft EIS explains these impacts in detail. Response: The reference section of the draft EIS gives all not gener- sources of information that were 337. Comment: Is combination use multiple use? ated to acquire by DNRC. Methods DNRC used data How are return flows related to the above? What Is are explained throughout the EIS and appendices. the percentage of depletion ofwater that originates In

the Missouri basin to where It leaves Its borders? 334. Comment: The draft EIS seems to be more What management strategies can be devised to put sensitive emphasizing to Instream flow applications, this water to more beneficial uses before it leaves the their status quo character and minimizing the ben- basin and Montana? efits that might arise from additional consumptive uses without actually equating the Incremental ef- Response: The Combination Alternative includes fects on the aquatic environment. reservations for municipal use. Irrigation, and instream flows and could, as with other alternatives, Response: The Intent of the EIS was not to empha- be considered a "multiple use" alternative. Return size one type of reservation over another. One con- flows from projects Included under the Combination clusion that could be drawn from the draft EIS Is that 122

Alternative would be available for Instream or other consumptive uses. Excluding reservoir evaporation, approximately 9 percent of the water originating in the Missouri basin ofMontana is consvunptlvely used In Montana. Water In the Missouri basin can be put to such consumptive beneficial uses as irrigation and municipal, or it can be used beneficially instream for fish , wildlife, and recreation before it leaves the state. The water reservation proceeding is one management strategy that can be used to allocate water in the Missouri basin for beneficial uses.

338. Comment: An additional table should be added to the draft EIS. This table would list those streams and stream reaches where conflicts occur among the applicants. The table should list who is in conflict, e.g., Instream and irrigation; or instream and municipal; or instream, municipal, and irrigation. This addition would make it much easier to identify where conflicts do or do not occur and to measure the impacts ofthe reservation applications.

Response: The revised Appendix Table K-3 (see "Changes to Draft EIS") lists all instream reservation requests that have no competing consumptive reservation requests (irrigation or municipal). This table shows that about 85 percent of the instream requests have no competing consumptive requests. Appendix B lists consumptive reservation requests that may compete with other consumptive requests. Revised Appendix Table K-5 (see "Changes to Draft EIS"), which lists Instream flow reservation requests that have competing consumptive requests, shows that about 15 percent of the instream requests have competing consumptive requests. The following table (Table 3-16) summarizes this Information.

~~Table 3-16. Summary of reservation requests with competing requests by subbasin~~

~~Number of 123~~

a mean of 135 micrograms per liter fTable 6-11, draft range of values exists) and rerunning the models, EIS, p. 187) is increased by about 25 percent when or—If possible—determining numeric or analytic the (underestimated) prediction error s.d. of the con- derivatives of the results with respect to the param- centration model Is Included. It would increase fur- eter changes. Also, discrete changes may be made ther after considering the additional sources of vari- such as altering choices of models or their ability. Furthermore, since river flows can themselves subcomponents and rerunning the overall system. be considered to have long-term, non-stationary These sensitivity results may then be amenable to characteristics and since flows may also change describing in terms of a response surface as a func- consequential to climate variation (draft EIS, p. C-5), tion of the parameters or model choices. The total the 58 years of historic data do not necessarily con- (instead of partial) sensitivity of an estimate to tain a significant portio of the variability in the flow. changes in the parameters/models could be obtained Last, positive correlations among the above compo- by treating the selections as random variables and nents of uncertainty may further augment the vari- doing an uncertainty analysis as described above. ability in concentration estimates; e.g., low stream- Selection of Scenarios flows in the past may have worsened the ability to do The choices of scenarios seem to be "bounding" river sampling using the "equal width" or "equal cases, but not representative of the decisions that flows" method. will occur. Consequently, the actual distribution of There are obviously many potential sources of resulting costs and benefits from actual decisions variability in the estimates of Impacts of permitting are not reflected in the three primary scenarios. It is decisions on recreation, irrigation, and hydropower understood that other scenarios were examined. as well as the arsenic concentrations. Rather than However, they were selectively chosen. It appears attempting to identify all of the sources and quantify plausible to cast the determination of projects into their contributions, an uncertainty anafysis could be an optimization framework where constraints on the done by randomly sampling the major random vari- selections could include costs, potential health ef- ables, each time computing the results associated fects, and other of the decision criteria examined, as with the sampled components/model terms, and well as constraints on variabilities of each of them. assessing the distribution of the output results after all the runs have been made. An efficient approach Specific Comments to this sampling is to construct individual probability The following are comments that relate to spe- distributions (using opinion, anecdotal infor- expert cific modules/efforts that support the draft EIS. mation, etc.) for each of the random components and sample from distinct sub-Intervals of each distribu- Water Quality tion using a latin-hypercube design. Furthermore, Sampling for Arsenic. The sampling design for this method can impose user-specified correlations arsenic does not support the estimation of spa- between the random components to achieve corre- tial, vertical compositing, or analytical batch lated sampling. The final result ofthese runs Is often components of variability. expressed as either a cumulative distribution function (CDF) or Its complement, the complementary Arsenic-Flow Relation. CDF, (CCDF = 1-CDF) (reference 5). — The Induced uncertainties of the arsenic estimates from uncertainty in flows, estima- Sensitivity to Assumptions tion, and data sampling and analysis should As with the understatement or absence of varl- be quantified. abUities of the criteria results, there is neither a clear — The empirical model appears to fit fairly well, qualitative nor quantitative assessment of the sensi- but it does not account for the return of arse- tivity of the results to changes in assumptions, mod- nic through the irrigation-charged ground- els, or approaches. One is "left cold" after looking at water. 1 recommend the use of a conservative the results. Although It Is not necessarily dubious to transport model to account for this return make simplifying or "complexifying" assumptions, it "source" to the river, such as MEPAS. is incumbent upon the modeler to provide the deci- — The conservative (no-interactive) transport sion-maker with indications of the quality of the assumption may be reasonable for use in results (both in terms of uncertainty and sensitivity). upper-bounding the arsenic concentrations, This sensitivity or sturdiness ("robustness") of but this, like other modeling assumptions, the results is often determined by making differential should be examined through the use of the changes In pre-speclfied parameters (e.g., param- sensitivity analysis. eters that are known only Imprecisely, or for which a 124

~~Arsenic Health Risks. A corresponding table of Uncertainty Analjrsis. An uncertainty analysis~~

~~arsenic health risks should be presented with the should be done. This analysis should (1) reflect concentration estimates. randomization of all/major parameters that are~~

subject to random fluctuation and (2) be done by Recreation Valuation simultaneously randomizing these components The variation in estimates of recreational values within each module and across modules (also does not include the variation attributable to the simultaneously). The latin hypercube sampling uncertainty in flow nor the variation associated with (LHS) technique is an eflTicient approach to per- sampling in the survey. forming this analysis. The output from such a — The prediction error variability should have been method Is N alternative sets of parameter values. used In equation 24 (and done with the inclusion The system of model/modules is then run using of the flow uncertainty). each of these sets of parameter values. After the — If actual reduced flows were available in lieu of N model runs are made, a discrete cumulative hypothetical ones, the standard deviations In probability distribution function is tabulated for Table 41 would be underestimated, since flows each of the decision criteria. This will provide the are random processes. Since the responses at decision-maker with an indication of (approxi- the alternate hypothetical (unrealized) flows were mate) potential variability and extremeness in themselves hypothetical, then either (1) the pa- the criteria estimates, and the results can be rameter estimates are very likely biased and/ or conditioned accordingly. (2) the uncertainty associated with the estima- tors is understated. A statistical Bayes frame- Sensitivity Analysis. The sensitivity of the de- work might be more appropriate for both the cision criteria estimates to changes In (non-ran- parameter estimation and qualitatively assess- dom) parameters or model/module approach

~~ing the parameter uncertainties (e.g. , by respec- alternatives can be assessed as previously de-~~

~~tively using the posterior expectation and poste- scribed. This wUl provide both (1) a basis for~~

rior variance. specifying qualifications on the results and (2) a foundation for making model improvements Economic Benefits to Agriculture where they are most eflective. — The sensitivity and uncertainty of the economic

benefit estimates (Table 6-44, draft EIS. p. 233) Arsenic Grotmdwater Transport Model. I [Dr. are not given. Presumably, an input-output Peter Chamberlain] recommend that a conserva- model was used to make these assessments; tive transport model be included to account for such a model has intrinsic uncertainties and the groundwater return of arsenic to the river. inaccuracies that should be brought forward with The MEPAS model has been used by state agen- the results. Furthermore, the variability in the cies for a variety of sites and has potential appli- financial results from the irrigation model should cation here. also be propagated through in quantifying the Selection of Specific Projects. uncertainty of the economic benefit estimates. The model should be modified to accommodate range of — The uncertainties associated with the financial a alternative permitting projects. optimal results from running the irrigation model are The set of projects could identified through con- underestimated in that variability in the average be a strained optimization algorithm as qua- yield curve is not considered, and variabilities in such dratic or linear programming. If constructed most of the model regressor terms and their as- properly, such models can adequately consider sociated parameter estimates are not considered. spatial and temporal features of the problem as Recommendations well as consider risk constraints. Model Integration. Each module/eflbrt should

be put into model form (if it has not been done) Response: and all models integrated or coupled Into a large Introduction model. This format is preferable to a linkage of Estimates of streamflows, costs, benefits, and impacts to the environment are uncertain. In an spreadsheet or hand calculations In that (1) the ideal "quality assurance" level of Integrity Is improved world where analyses are without cost, assess- of follow through better traceabUity of results (e.g., for ments environmental impacts would paths similar to those recommended. Probability distribu- audits), and (2) rerunning the model is many times more efficient. tions would be determined, sensitivity analyses 125

carried out, and analyses of risk would be made to trations (see Table 6-11) are based on an empirical assess the consequences that Incorrect decisions may regression model that relates arsenic concentration have on people and their environment. DNRC did not to streamflow. An exponential model was fit to 53 feel it was necessary for this EIS to make all of these paired observations of discharge and concentration analyses. Those done are adequate to assess impacts using non-Unear, least-squares methods. Confidence of proposed actions. However, many of Dr. Cham- intervals (95 percent) for thevalues shown In Table 6- berlain's comments and concerns are addressed, and 1 1 are large due to the variability ofthe concentration these are presented for each resource area. data and the limited number of observations for discharges of less than 3,000 cfs. For example, 95 Water Quality percent confidence Intervals on arsenic for the me- DNRC agrees that the arsenic estimates presented dian (50 percent) baseline flow reported In Table 6-11 in the draft EIS (see Table 6- 1 are subject to consid- 1) in the draft EIS extend from 88 ng/L to 25 jig/L. erable estimation error and uncertainty. Potential Because of the broad confidence limits, the absolute sources of uncertainty include sampling variability values of the estimates are less meaningful than (spatial cross-section variability), analytical variabil- comparison of the relative magnitude of the esti- ity (lab methods, procedures), and arsenic concentra- mated Increase In concentration. Rather than report tion model prediction error (e.g., regression model confidence limits for all estimates, the estimated per- uncertainty). Arsenic data were collected by USGS. centage increase in arsenic concentration for the The equal-discharge or equal-width increment sam- median (middle) regression estimates is given. pling were to provide cross- sectional methods used a The empirical model described above does not and depth-integrated sample that accounts for spa- explicitly route arsenic In Irrigation return flow. How- tial variability. ever, the concentration effect of consumptive deple- The Missouri River at Toston Is part of the USGS tion is implicitfy accounted for In the estimates of National Stream Quality Accounting Network. Water depleted flow. The analysis assumes that arsenic is quality data for this network are collected at a fixed nonreactlve and that arsenic load Is constant. Under station sampling frequency designed to minimize tem- these assumptions, reduction in streamflow results poral sampling problems such as serial correlation. in a proportional increase in dissolved arsenic con- Dissolved arsenic concentrations that form the basis centrations. for Table 6-11 the National were determined by USGS Increases In TDS as a result of new irrigation Water Quality Laboratory. The laboratory partici- development were based on data for existing TDS pates In several quality assurance programs designed concentrations, which were sparse, estimates of to levels of accuracy monitor and maintain specified water use by crops, and formulas for estimating sa- for parameters. Quality assur- and precision various linity concentrations in Irrigation return flows Quality ance data for USGS's National Water (Novotry and Chesters 1981). These data were not the follow- Laboratory's Blind Sample Project provide sufficient for in-depth statistical analysis. The pur- ing precision of arsenic Information on the laboratory pose of the calculations was to determine whether analj^es. the proposed irrigation projects would cause TDS to Total dissolved arsenic samples from 1985 exceed the public drinking water standards. The through 1990 were analyzed by graphite-furnace, results of this analysis are presented in Figures 6-19 atomic absorption spectrometry. For combined total and 6-20 of the draft EIS. They show that the Sun and dissolved arsenic analyses, the relative standard River Is the only major stream where new irrigation deviation concentrations ranges from (RSD) ofarsenic may increase salinity levels above the standard, and to 40 percent of the mean over the concentration only if reservations are granted for all irrigation typi- range of 1 to 15 mlcrograms/liter. Lab samples projects. cally are dUuted as as five-fold for analysis with much It was recommended that the multimedia envi- a target concentration range that provides the small- ronmental pollution assessment system (MEPAS) be est standard deviation and greatest precision. A re- included to account for the groundwater return of ported concentration of 25 micrograms/llter, with a arsenic from Irrigation return flows to the Missouri five-fold dilution, a of 20 percent. would have RSD River. MEPAS is a comprehensive Integrated meth- This indicates that about two-thirds of samples ana- odology used to assess health risks resulting from lyzed in this range are within +5 micrograms of the actual or potential releases of hazardous materials reported mean value (25 micrograms/llter). into the environment. MEPAS was developed for the Estimates of the effect that the Consumptive Use purpose of modeling relatively site-speclfic Impacts Alternative would have on dissolved arsenic concen- 126

(I.e., effect of waste repository on Immediate environ- The commenter is correct that variation In flov ment), and not basinwide watershed processes con- levels was not taken Into account. Variation occurs trolling agricultural nonpoint pollution. Data require- from day to day, season to season, year to year, and ments and spatial resolution required to model the point to point along the river. We would not expect Missouri basin preclude application ofMEPAS. Com- day-to-day variability to be a signfflcant source ol ponents of the overall MEPAS model (e.g., groundwa- error. We attempted to account for seasonal variabil- ter contaminant routing) may have application In ity by dividing the year into "July-August" and the ongoing efforts to develop an arsenic water quality rest of the year. We did not have enough detailed model. information on the location of individual respon- We agree that determining uncertainty is an Im- dents' recreation or on flow to account for point-to- portant aspect of decision-making, especially regard- point variability. We assume this Is not a signiflcant ing effects on water quality. Given the time and source of error. Also, we did not attempt to account funding constraints and the availability of informa- for the year-to-year variability In flows and therefore tion in the various resource areas, a detailed uncer- In marginal values. Our data are for one year only, tainty analysis was not done. Numeric arsenic and and Individuals' responses reflect the actual flows dissolved solids estimates given In the EIS represent experienced that year. Our estimates and standard the best estimates possible with available data. In errors are for extrapolation to that year only. Since many situations, data deflciencies precluded numeric we do not have data on other years, we cannot assess estimates of water quality Impacts, and professional how year-to-year variability In flows will affect re- judgment was used to make qualitative assessments. sponses. Since this year was not unusually low oi high in terms of flows, the values derived probably Recreation Survey would represent something near the average. (The following three sections refer to the report The estimated standard errors on the marginal Instream Flows in the Missouri River Basirv A Recre- value estimates In Tables 42-45 are therefore verj ation Survey and Ek:onoTnic Study (Duffield et al. conservative for extrapolation to future values. How- 1990).) ever, we don't see a reasonable way to come up with UNCERTAINTY IN VALUE ESTIMATES DUE TO more reasonable estimates given the nature of the VARIATIONS IN FLOW AND SURVEY SAMPLING data. The sampling variability In recreation estimates VALUE OF INSTREAM FLOW FOR RECREATION Is Included In all recreation value estimates in Chap- We assume that the comment regarding predic- ter Five—that Is the source of variability in the logit tion error variability In equation 24 refers to the use model used to derive these estimates. In Chapter Six, of the prediction error in predicting an individual the variability In the derivative of the flow/visitation response at a particular x In regression Instead of the equation estimates was not Included in the estimates standard error of the mean response at a particulai ofmarginal values (Tables 42-45), as was pointed out x. The purpose of our study was not prediction of ar on p. 40. This is because of the nature of the data. individual future value. In general, it seems more The points to which the curve was fitted (Figure 2, p. appropriate to calculate standard errors for an aver- 39) are dependent since they represent cumulative age response rather than for an Individual predic- responses. In addition, the estimated parameters of tion. the flow curve are correlated with the economic value estimates since they are based on the same Individu- FLOW VARIABILITY EFFECTS ON THE NUMBER AND als. Although it might be possible to develop a convo- QUALITY OF RIVER TRIPS luted method to attach standard errors to the deriva- This comment has been partially addressed ir tives, it does not seem necessary in view ofthe quality the response above on uncertainty In value esti- of the responses to these questions. As we point out mates due to variations In flow. The suggestion of a on p. 42 in "Limitations of the Flow Analysis," many Bayesian analysis for the flow data is a good one respondents may not have understood the flow ques- However, we suggest the following framework: vari- tion. It is also probable that many people aren't ous experts, including recreation specialists, guides certain what different flow levels really look like. Fi- and experienced users, would be polled as to theii nally, these responses reflect only hypothetical be- guesses about the effect of reduced flows on visita-

havior. Observed behavior (i.e. , on-site use data) over tion and the quality of trips on various rivers (per- several years would provide much better estimates of haps panels of these individuals could meet jointly) responses to various flow levels, but this procedure was beyond the scope of this study. 127

From these opinions, prior distributions on the pa- In general, model results are quite sensitive to rameters ofInterest would be developed. These would changes in Irrigated acres. For example, in the be combined with on-site and/or mail survey data to Jefferson River, estimated streamflows changed by arrive at posterior estimates and distributions. 23 to 82 percent in July, and by 39 to 1 76 percent In August. Canyon Ferry outflows varied Economics by up to 24 percent In July and 15 percent In August. In the In Chapter Two, the sensitivity of the economic Missouri River at Fort Benton, estimated streamflows model to changes In power costs and assumptions varied up to 23 percent In July and 19 percent In made regarding return flows Is examined. Ekionomic August. Inflows to Fort Peck Reservoir also changed analyses also were conducted for two additional al- by up to 23 percent in July. ternatives In this chapter. Other assumptions that could be subject to change in the economic model IRRIGATION efficiencies Include labor costs, crop type, total Income, and The efficiency of the Irrigation system determines taxation. No sensitivity analysis was conducted for how much water must be diverted for each acre-foot these assumptions because they were calculated needed by crops. The sensitivity of model results to using the best available information as described changes in Irrigation efficiencies was examined. Irri- below. gation efficiencies were raised and lowered from those 3-17. Labor requirements were determined using in- used in the draft EIS as presented in Table formation from the SCS Montana Irrigation guide Selected results from this analysis are presented In (SCS 1973), assuming a four-month irrigation sea- Table 6 of Appendix A. son and labor costs of $5.00 per hour. Agriculture sales were estimated assuming a crop rotation with seven years of an alfalfa crop and barley planted Table 3-17. Irrigation efficiencies used in thie draft EIS every eighth year. Total income was estimated using and the sensitivity analysis the median (middle) net income figure as computed by DNRC. State taxable valuations were estimated by computing the average taxable valuation of Irri- Efficiencies gated acreage, less the average taxable valuation for Used in IHIgiier Lower nonlrrigated acreage, and multiplying this by project Type of irrigation draft EIS value value acreage. The change in county tax receipts was estimated by multiplying county operations and school mUl levies by percentage Increases in state tax Furrow/Border Flood 0.18 0.22 0.14 valuations as calculated above. Center Pivot Sprinkler 0.49 0.61 0.37 Other Sprinkler 0.34 0.42 0.26 Missouri River water Availability Model Water Spreading 0.15 0.19 0.11 DNRC conducted sensitivity analyses for the Missouri River water availability model to determine how model results would change if the Input data In general, model results were found to be rela- were Inaccurate. Examined was the sensitivity of tively insensitive In Irrigation efficiencies. model results to changes in the values of four Input to changes The largest percentage change in estimated files: irrigated acres. Irrigation efficiencies, crop irri- percent for the Jefferson River In gation requirements, and groundwater return flow streamflows was 33 large Is factors. The following are results of these analyses. August. This percentage change, however. due primarily to severe low flow conditions during dry irrigated acres years In August. Because the flows already are so Irrigated acres were entered into the model for low, a small increase or decrease In flows would rep- each irrigation system type at each of the 35 loca- resent a large percentage change. Monthly outflows tions where streamflows were modeled, and for each from Canyon Ferry Reservoir varied less than 1 peryear of the 1929-to- 1986 base period. For the sensi- cent, and average annual flows also varied less than tivity analysis. Irrigated acres used In the baseline 1 percent. For the Missouri River near Fort Benton, model run presented in the draft EIS were raised 10 monthly streamflows varied by no more than 2 per- percent and then lowered 10 percent. Output data cent, and average annual flows varied by less than 1 from these model runs then were compared with percent. Inflows to Fort Peck Reservoir varied less those for the baseline run. Table 5 of Appendix A than 4 percent for any month and less than 1 percent presents selected results of this analysis. on an average annual basis. 128

CROP IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS 1986 and were made using several techniques. O Crop irrigation requirements, the amount of the 312 sites. 100 had gauging station records rang water needed by crops, were entered into the model Ing from 2 to 81 years duration. Miscellaneou for each location and for each month of the 58 years streamflow measurement records were available a of record used. For this analysis, crop irrigation 139 sites, and 73 had no streamflow records. requirements used in the draft EIS baseline run were For sites where gauging station records wer raised and then lowered 20 percent, and changes in available, all incomplete records were extended to th model results were examined. Selected results from 1937-to- 1986 base period. A curve fitting techniqu this analysis are presented in Table 7 ofAppendix A. was used to develop equations relating commo In general, model results were relatively insensi- monthly data at a site with incomplete records to the tive to changes in crop irrigation requirements. The of one with a complete record. This equation the highest percentage changes for the resiolts presented was used to fill in the missing data at the site wit occurred during August of dry years in the Jefferson incomplete records. The best station from those aval

River. But again, these large percentage changes— able in a region was chosen to fill in each month ( as much as 41 percent—are due partly to existing missing data for a station. Fifty-four gauged sit€ low flow conditions in that stream during dry years. with more complete records were used for correlatio For the Missouri River below Canyon Ferry Reser- and record-extension purposes. The same techniqu voir, at Fort Benton, and above Fort Peck Reservoir, was used to develop streamflows that served as inpi maximum monthly changes were about 1 percent. to the Missouri basin water availability model, exce] Average armual changes were 1 percent or less at all that the period of record used here was 1929 to 198( of these stations. USGS used five methods to estimate month ungauged sites. Regression equ; GROUNDWATER RETURN FLOW FACTORS streamflows at tions based on basin characteristics (drainage are Groundwater return flow factors determine the and mean annual precipitation) at gauged sites wei rate at which much of the excess water diverted for used to provide preliminary estimates of streamflov irrigation will return to a stream. Return flow factors at 179 ungauged sites and to provide final estlmat( were entered into the model for each of the 35 loca- at 52 sites. The standard error of estimates mac tions where streamflows were estimated. The factors using this technique ranged from 35 to 97 percer used in the draft EIS were multiplied and then di- Regression equations relating charmel width vided by 10, and model results were analyzed for streamflows at gauged sites also were used to provic sensitivity to these changes. Selected results from preliminary estimates of streamflows at 138 site this analysis are presented in Table 8 ofAppendix A. The standard error of estimates made using this ted Although groundwater return flow factors were nlque ranged from 36 to 103 percent. In anoth raised and lowered dramatically, model results usu- method used, streamflow measurements were ma< ally did not change much. The largest changes in at ungauged sites and compared with recorded flov predicted streamflows occurred for the Jefferson at similar gauged sites. Equations then were dev( River in August of dry years—as much as 55 percent. oped on the basis of these comparisons and usi But again, these large percentage changes are due along with streamflow records at the gauge locati< partly to existing low flows in the stream in August. to estimate monthly streamflows at the ungaug Otherwise, monthly changes for the Jefferson River site. This technique was used to provide prelimina were 5 percent or less. Monthly changes were less estimates at 139 sites and to provide final estimat than 4 percent for the other stations presented in for 14 sites. The standard error of estimates mai Table 8 of Appendix A. using this technique were estimated to range from I OTHER STREAMFLOW ESTIMATES to 1 1 1 percent. A fourth method used a weight uses estimates ofexisting streamflows were pre- average estimate of two or more of the three estim sented in Chapter Four and Appendix D of the draft tlon procedures described above. This method w EIS. Streamflows estimated by USGS also were used used to provide final estimates at 139 of the u as input data for the Missouri basin water availabil- gauged sites. The standard errors of these estimat ity model. ranged from 24 to 63 percent. Monthly mean and percentile streamflows were Seven sites without recorded flows were local estimated by USGS for 312 sites in the Missouri on streams close to gauged sites or other sites whe basin above Fort Peck Dam (USGS 1989). The esti- flows were previously estimated. In these instance mates were based on data for the water years 1 937 to estimates of streamflows at the site of interest we 129

made by multiplying the estimated streamflows for ActionAlternative) . Two other alternatives presented the known site by the ratio ofdrainage area of the two in the final EIS (the Instream and Combination alter- sites. Standard errors were not determined for esti- natives) represent what could be thought of as inter- mates made using this method. mediate approaches. In addition. Chapter Two of Streamflows for some of the streams presented this final EIS analyzes two additional alternatives in Tables 6-23. 6-24, and 6-26 of the draH EIS. and (the Municipal and Water Quality alternatives). The some of those used to calculate flow reductions used alternatives were not Intended to try to direct the in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 ofthe draft EIS. were estimated Board's decision or to speculate on what that deci- by DNRC. DNRC used a regional equation developed sion may be. by USGS (1984) for streams in the eastern portions of the basin, and those described by Potts (1983) to The following statements represent commenters' estimate average annual flows in the western por- opinions, and DNRC is not offering responses. tions of the basin. These equations estimated average annual streamflows based on geography, drain- 340. Comment: I [Rich Day] support the instream age area, and average annual precipitation. Stan- flow requests of DFWP, DHES. and BLM. dard errors of these estimates ranged from 51 to 64 percent for the USGS method, and average absolute 34 1 . Comment: I oppose BUREC's pro) ect for tak- errors were 12.5 percent for the methods described ing water from the Missouri River to the Milk River by Potts. Monthly average and percentile drainage. streamflows then were derived by using the average annual flows and comparing them to average and 342. Comment: I [J. Ramirez] oppose any action percentile distributions for similar, nearby streams that would decrease my opportunities to divert and with gauges. use more water for hay production. Streamflow distributions for a few other streams described in the text were derived by using USGS 343. Comment: Irrigation and municipalities gauging station records for periods of record other should receive priority over DFWP's instream flow than for the 1937-to-1986 or 1929-to-1986 base requests. periods. These flows were derived from gauging station records that usually are accurate. 344. Comment: The request by DFWP for instream flow reservations for flsh. wildlife, and recreation is Other Concerns unreasonable and should be disallowed. A recommendation was made that all models used in the EIS be integrated into one master model 345. Comment: Putting into place instream flow to improve quality and efl"iciency. This was not done reservations that could be used by well-meaning but for practical reasons. First. DNRC stan"used micro- misinformed environmentalists would lead to a state- computers for modeling. These machines don't have wide environmental disaster. If it works, don't fix it. the memory that would be needed to store and run all models simultaneously. Also, a specialist on staff 346. Comment: Our headwater streams are so is responsible for developing and running each overapproprlated with 97 percent controlled by irri- model. Integrating the models would require hiring gators that it doesn't make sense to continue adding a computer programmer who thoroughly under- new projects to a water rights system that is not stands all of the models. DNRC does not have the working. The cost to the taxpayers is too high on the budget to hire a programmer to Integrate all models. Consumptive Use Alternative and the Combination The concern also was raised that the scenarios Alternative. The No Action Alternative allows a bro- [alternatives] examined seem to be "bounding" cases ken system to continue forever. but not representative of the decisions that will be made. As stated In Chapter Five of the draft EIS. 347. Comment: Through the reservation process, DNRC developed the alternatives to illustrate the we have the opportunity to slow the decline of our effects of different water use emphases on the exist- aquatic resources and perhaps begin to turn the ing environment, encompassing a reasonable range comer on developing a rational policy on the man- of actions that could be taken by the Board. These agement of our flowing water systems. Unless you hypothetical actions range from the Board's granting take significant conservation action now. this De- all reservation requests (the Consumptive Use Alter- partment and this Board wUl be remembered as the native) to the Board's denjdng all reservations (the No 130

bureaucratic tandem that dealt a final death blow to 356. Comment: We [Hill County Conservation Dls Montana's irreplaceable rivers and streams. trict] feel that some of the water requested by DFW could be put to more multi-purpose uses. 348. Comment: The Pondera County Canal and Reservoir Company objects to the City of Conrad's 357. Comment: We [Hill County Conservation Dis application for a water reservation from Lake Francis. trict] would like to give our support to the farmer and ranchers who are applying for these water resei 349. Comment: We [Pat Simmons and Dick vations in our area through their local conservatioi Krawlecl oppose the issuance of reservations to irri- districts. Agriculture is a large part of our locc gators: Gallatin County Conservation District and economy, and we hope to promote its survival. Jefferson Valley Conservation District; and municipalities: City of Bozeman, City of Three Forks, and 358. Comment: During the first 100 or years or s City of Belgrade. We are in favor of reservations of of Montana's allocation of its water, only offstream c instream flows by the Department of Fish, Wildlife Impounded water had legal protection. Water re and Parks, the Department of Health and Environ- malning in a stream was seen as valueless. B mental Sciences, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Man- enacting the Water Use Act of 1973, Montana finall

agement. recognized instream water as a beneficial use. I: authorizing water reservations (modified wate 350. Comment: The Madison River arsenic levels rights) for streamflow, the act legally acknowledge and the low water flows of the Jefferson and Gallatin that Montana's instream waters provided an ecc rivers do not justify more water diverted for irriga- nomic benefit to its citizens.

~~tion. Today, that benefit is far greater than it was 2 years ago. It has since been quantified, at least 1~~

351. Comment: We [Pat Simmons and Dick part, to Montana's residents and visitors in terms c Krawiec] are very pleased that the three public agen- land values, environmental health, water quality cies applied for instream flows on various streams wildlife, and visual or psychic pleasure. We [Trou throughout Montana. They shouldn't have to do Unlimited, Madison-Gallatin Chapter] submit tha

this, but it should be an inalienable right for fish to protection of instream flow by means of water resei have a place to live, because the public owns the vations is not only highlyjustified, but long overdue water, and the Constitution ofMontana requires that we protect our resources. But since you have de- 359. Comment: We [Trout Unlimited, Madisor cided they have to apply, we wholeheartedly support Gallatin Chapter] urge the Board to grant water res their reservations above all of the other requests. ervations to the 18 municipalities that have applie for them. 352. Comment: We [City of Great Falls] agree that municipalities should be given first priority. The 360. Comment: By granting the instream reserva

high benefit-to-cost ratios for municipalities pre- Uons in the upper Missouri basin that DFWP, DHE J sented in the draft EIS justifies this rating. and BLM have applied for, the Board will neithe increase instream flows nor diminish existing with

353. Comment: Agriculture is important, but it drawals for the state's important agricultural Indus must not be allowed to destroy or adversely affect our try. These reservations would merely "stop the bleec public basic living natural resources. ing," so to speak, and help perpetuate the very si| nificant benefits that living rivers and streams pre 354. Comment: DHES's request to reserve one- vide at current flow levels. The very late priority dat half of the average annual flow of the Missouri River of reservations, their 10-year review, and their pe to maintain water quality would unrealistically affect tential reve)cabLlity absolutely guarantee that the any future water uses in this basin. cainnot threaten the health and viability of Montan agriculture. 355. Comment: It seems to us [Walter A. and Louise Steingruberl that more fingers in the pie, 361. Comment: We [Medicine River Canoe Glut when already there are too many claims for the avail- basically support the requests by municipalitiej able water, wUl only aggravate the situation. However, we feel that all municipalities should fin seek more efficient methods of water distributio ,

~~131~~

and use and should encourage conservation by their 368. Comment: Municipalities requesting water residents so that any Increased water consumption reservations should plan carefully by avoiding waste- Is truly needed for population growth and/ or sup- ful practices associated with lawns, golf courses, port of commercial and industrial demands. private swimming pools, vehicle washing, and other Imprudent practices. Private weUs dewatering aqui- 362. Comment: We [Ben C. and Faye F. Holland] fers for private and municipal uses must be strictly feel that the Instream flow requests should be denied regulated by stringent state permitting and restric- until the existing water rights adjudication process Is tions. complete, and that reservants should not have a standing to object to any non-consumptive uses, i.e. 369. Comment: In the headwaters subbasin, water headgate replacements, changes In the places of di- quality, streamflows, and land uses should remain versions, storage projects, or temporary water right about the same as now ifthe No Action Alternative is transfers. adopted because the frost-free season (approximately 40 days) prohibits any change in the crops, native 363. Comment: DFWP's, DHES's, and BLM's re- grass for hay and pasture, only being raised. quested Instream flow reservations should be denied. It is In the public Interest that all of Montana's 370. Comment: The No Action Alternative is not water be reserved for future consumptive uses. Res- acceptable because we [Medicine River Canoe Club] ervations for consumptive uses will ensure that Mon- really do need to plan for the future and address tana is In a better position to protect this water In the some of our water problems now. future Interstate water adjudication process.

37 1 . Comment: Neither the Consumptive Use Al- 364. Comment: Ifthe Board should grant a reser- ternative nor the Combination Use Alternative Is ac- vation for DFWP, the reservation should not become ceptable because of further Impairment of water effective until the present adjudication process is quality and exacerbation of dewatering problems. completed. 372. Comment: Teton County Conservation Dis-

365. Comment: One ofthe crucial elements of the trict supports the Combination Alternative. It Is our Board's decision will be whether proposed projects feeling that this alternative provides the best combi- are in the public interest. Maintenance of water nation of future economic development while main- quality Is an important element of any sane public taining the quality ofthe water resource. policy and is therefore In the public Interest. Any- thing that exacerbates the existing violation of water 373. Comment: My [Bernard J. Harkness] com- quality standards, such as the arsenic standard, ments will be confined to the headwaters subbasin, should not be allowed. particularly the Red Rock and Beaverhead drainage—specifically Big Sheep Creek, Cabin Creek, 366. Comment: We [Wicks Ranch Corporation] Deadman Creek, Indian Creek, NIcholia Creek, and fully agree that the water should not be overallocated. Simpson Creek In Big Sheep basin near Dell.

New water projects, be they irrigation, recreational, I believe that on these streams and the Big Sheep or Industrial, should be limited to prevent drying up drainage that the No Action Alternative would be the of streamflow. best for the Board to pursue at the present time and deny all reservation applications. 367. Comment: Throughout Chapter Six. refer-

ences are made to consumptive use projects that, if 374. Comment: Montana has been hailed as hav- implemented, would reduce the flows In some ing world-class trout fisheries, and the annual Influx streams to zero because those streams already are of tourists and tourist dollars to the state attests to subject to extremely low flows. In our [DF'WP] opin- the value of our river resource. Unfortunately, it is ion, streamflows should not be allowed to be reduced becoming very clear to residents and tourists alike any further in these low flow situations, and projects that our stressed river systems are not what they that would further reduce current low flows should used to be, and they are deteriorating each year. The not be approved. reason is the lack of water due to agricultural withdrawals that have displayed little or no sensIUvity to our aquatic resources. 132

375. Comment: In reference to pages 22-32, "Mon- (§ 85-2-316(6)) to 50 percent of the average annuE tana Department ofFish, Wildlife and Parks Applica- flow ofrecord on gauged streams. On gauged stream tion," the Northern Region [U.S. Forest Service] sup- within National Forest boundaries, 50 percent of th ports the purpose of DFWP*s application and recom- average armual flow may not be sufllcient to meet th mends a favorable response by the Board on its needs for management or protection of National Foi [DFWP's] application. Many of the streams Included est resources. in the application have their headwaters in national forests, and the reservation in part will protect fish 376. Comment: The EIS drafters obviously have and wildlife habitat in national forests. However, strong bias against irrigation in favor of quality fish DFWP has been constrained by administrative rule ing.

~~CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS~~

In the following section, changes are made to the draft EIS in response to public comments. Comment pointing out Incorrect statements in the draft EIS are followed by an excerpt from the draft EIS showing th corrections. Incorrect language has been crossed out, and new language is shaded.

377. Comment: Please refer to page 2 of the draft EIS, "Agencies vdth Additional Permitting Authority." W (the U.S. Forest Service] feel that this section, as well as the actual reservation document, needs to pu the potential applicants for reservations and the public on notice that the reservation of water approve by the Board conveys no implied consent by other permitting agencies or landowners. We suggest the a disclaimer be added to this paragraph to make this perfectly clear. The fact that an entity holds a water reservation does not guarantee that other regulatory agencle

will grant the necessary permits for actual water development, nor does it give the water reservatio holder an advantageous position relative to the management of other competing natural and publi resources.

~~Response: AGENCIES WITH ADDITIONAL PERMITTING AUTHORITY~~

If the Board grants reservations, other agencies may have additional regulatory jurisdiction over project development. These agencies are listed in Table 1-1. By granting water reservations, the Board does'^^nd cannot gr

~~378. Comment: On page 7, under "Water Leasing for Instream Flows," the four-year pUot program mentione in the paragraph is out of date. The pilot program is now for 10 years.~~

~~Response: WATER LEASING FOR INSTREAM FLOWS~~

The 1989 legislature authorized DFWP to lease existing water rights for Instream flows (§85-2-436, MCA) as part of a study program. The purpose of the legislation is to examine the feasibility of leasing existing water rights to maintain and enhance streamflow for fisheries. This f9tM^|||||year pilot program allows DFWP to lease water from willing water right holders. 133

~~379. Comment: The Sand Coulee project (LM- 10) should not be In the draft EIS.~~

~~Response: The Lower Musselshell Conservation District withdrew LM- 10 from the reservation process. Project JV-56 was also withdrawn, and Table 3-1 has been revised to reflect these exclusions.~~

~~Table 3-1 . Conservation district reservation requests 134~~

~~Response: DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT~~

DFWP used several methods to determine the amoiant of its instream flow requests. A thorough discussion of these methods is presented in DFWP's application. Gauge data were available for some streams, and flows were estimated in others. The Wetted Perimeter Inflection Point Method was used to determine most reservation requests. Several other methods were used in situations where the wetted perimeter method could not be used or where better methods were applicable. A variation of the wetted perimeter ^lbced percentage method that was cieveloj)ed by Tennant (1976) from the results of llie wetted perimeter method was used to derive instream flow requests for 27 high quality stream segments. In segments of 1 7 high quality spring creeks, the lowest average monthly flow or "base flow" was requested. For seven other stream segments in the Madison and Gallatin watersheds, all remaining unappropriated water was requested. The relationship of stream flows to populations of aquatic organisms was used to determine the instream requests in a few other stream reaches. DFWP's methods are explained in more detail in Appendix B.

~~382. Comment: On page 24, Table 3-2, under Jefferson and Boulder River Drainages, the reach descriptio: for North Willow Creek should read Hollow Top Lake to mouth.~~

~~Response:~~

~~Table 3-2. DFWP instream flow requests~~

~~JEFFERSON AND BOULDER RIVER DRAINAGES DATES STREAM REACH DESCRIPTION 135~~

~~DEARBORN RIVER DRAINAGE 136~~

~~385. Comment: On page 43, under "Flow Records," the USGS reference should be USGS 1989b. In that same paragraph, the reference to 341 measuring sites should be 321 sites.~~

~~Response: Flow records~~

To help provide a common basis for assessing flow conditions in streams throughout the basin, the USGS, in cooperation with DFWP, estimated the average monthly streamflow records at 34i-|;^i; sites for the 50-year period from 1937 to 1986. USGS then computed new average monthly means and 20th, 50th, 80th, and 90th percentile exceedance flows for each site. The results are published in the Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4082 (USGS -1969 liilll and are used extensively in this draft EIS (Appendix D) and in many of the reservation applications.

386. Comment: On page 46, Table 4-2, the stream reach for the Beaverhead Riv^er should read Clark Canyor Dam to Mouth. Big Sheep Creek and Long Creek (under the Beaverhead River) belong under the Rec Rock River and should be eliminated from the Beaverhead River section. Also, under Big Hole River, the following streams should be added: Pintlar Creek, Swamp Creek, Trail Creek, North Fork Big Hole River and Governor Creek.

~~Response:~~

~~Table 4-2. Headwaters Subbasin— low-flow problem areas~~

~~Stream/tributary Stream reaches where low flow occurs Cause of low flows~~

~~Beaverhead River 137~~

~~Stream/tributary Stream reaches where low flow occurs Cause of low flows~~

~~Red Rock River Lima Dam to Clark Canyon Reservoir Reservoir, Irrigation~~

~~' Big Sheep Creek Port i ono of orook l Irrigation Odell Creek Portions of creek Irrigation Sage Creek Portions of creek Irrigation~~

~~Long Creek P ort i ono of oroolUon^S Cr66k t» mOtrtH Irrigation Little Sheep Creek Portions of creek Irrigation~~

~~387. Comment: On page 46. Table 4-2. Baker Creek. South Cottonwood Creek, Camp Creek, and Big Bear Creek are not tributaries to the East Gallatin River. They are tributaries to the Gallatin River.~~

~~Response:~~

~~Table 4-2. Headwaters Subbasin— low-flow problem areas~~

~~Stream/tributary Stream reaches where low flow occurs Cause of low flows~~

East Gallatin River Near confluence with Gallatin River rrlgation Thompson Springs Creek Portions of creek rrigation Ross Creek Portions of creek Natural Reese Creek Portions of creek rrigation Dry Creek Portions of creek rrigation

~~Baker Crook Lane bri dge to mouth rrigation Bridger Creek Headwaters to mouth rrigation Hyalite Creek Middle Creek ditch to 1-90 bridge rrigation~~

~~South Cottonwood Crock J i m Crook to t l art D i toh hoadgato rr i gat i on Sourdough Creek Portions of creek rrigation Smith Creek Portions of creek rrigation~~

~~Camp Crock Port i ono of crook rr i gation~~

~~B ig Boar Crock Be l ow foroot boundary rr i got i on~~

Gallatin River Woot Fork and Eoot Ga ll at i n Hivcr to mouth Shedd's Bridge to mouth rrigation Baker Creek Lane Bridge to moulh rrigation South Cottonwood Cre^ Jim Creek to Hart Ditch headgate rrigation Camp Creek Portions ot creek rrigation

~~Big Bear CreeK - . ^ipw toresiboundary imgauon~~

~~388. Comment: On page 46. Table 4-2. under Gallatin River, the stream reach where low flow occurs should be changed from that showoi to Shedd's Bridge to mouth.~~

~~Response: See the response to comment 387.~~

~~389. Comment: On page 47, Table 4-2. under Madison River, change stream reach to Hebgen Dam to Quake Lake.~~

~~Response:~~

~~Table 4-2. Headwaters Subbasin— low-flow problem areas~~

~~Stream/tributary Stream reaches where low flow occurs Cause of low flows~~

~~Madison River Hebgen Dam to Woot Fork^JtiS^^MP Reservoir 138~~

~~390. Comment: On page 49, the draft EIS states:~~

~~Both dams [Hauser and Holter] are generally operated as run-of-the-rlver~~

~~facilities; they have little storage, and water runs out as fast as It flows in. However, Holter Reservoir has enough storage to significantly alter streamflows on a daily to weekly basis.~~

This statement needs clarification. The text states that the two reservoirs together have "little storage but on the other hand, Holter Reservoir alone can "significantly alter" the streamflows. This paragraj

~~should be reworded. Also on page 49, it probably should be added to the first paragraph that flood conti operations at Canyon Ferry are done In cooperation with the Corps of Engineers.~~

Response: The operation of Canyon Ferry Dam, a multi-purpose facility used to store water for irrigation, hydropower, flood control, and recreation, has the biggest influence on the Missouri River's monthly flow. Operations are

aimed at storing high spring flows to fill the reservoir by the end ofJune and then releasing water gradually over the summer, fall, and winter to reach maximum drawdown by the end of February. BUREC plans releases in cooperation with MPC and DFWP to maximize benefits in hydropower production and recreation. Figure 4-4 presents average monthly inflow and outflow for Canyon Ferry Lake to Illustrate the dam's regulating effects on main-stem river flows. Flood control operailons at Canyon Ferry Reserv^jjli^ ^re dCHie to cOOpcraUon with the U.S. Arrny Corps of Engincer%^

MFC's Hauser and Holter dams, located just downstream from Canyon Ferry, also alter main-stem streamflows, but to a much lesser degree than Canyon Ferry. Both dams are generally operated as run-of-the-rlver facilities; they have little storage, and water runs out as fast that ^^^^^^^^M !s released from the reservoir at about the same rate as it flows in. However, Holter Reservoir has enough storage to sigruficantly alter streamflows on a daify to weekly basis. Neither facility is large enough to alter monthly streamflow patterns to any significant degree. MPC operates five run-of-the- river dams near Great Falls—Rainbow, Black Eagle, I^n, Cochran, and Morony—for hydropower generation. As with the Hauser and Holter facilities, these dams can be used to alter flows on a daily basis, but not on a

~~monthly scale. ;~~

391. Comment: On page 50, Table 4-4, under Missouri River, the Missouri River Itself from its headwate at Three Forks to Canyon Ferry Reservoir should be added to the list as a stream with a dewatert problem due to irrigation.

~~Response:~~

~~Table 4-4. Upper Missouri Subbasin—low flow problem areas~~

~~Stream-Tributary Stream Reaches Cause~~

Missouri River HefidWalers at Three Forks to Canyfi (Three Torio to Canyon fe rry) Avalanche Creek Cooney Gulch to Canyon Ferry Reservoir Irrigation, Natural Beaver Creek Headwaters to Canyon Ferry Reservoir Irrigation Confederate Gulch Debauch Gulch to mouth Irrigation, Natural 139

~~392. Comment: On page 51. under "Marias/Teton Subbasln." it should be added to the last paragraph that flood control operations at Tiber are performed In cooperation with the Corps of Engineers.~~

~~Response: Marias/Teton Subbasin~~

Though many small Irrigation dams are located on the headwater tributaries. BUREC's Tiber Reservoir on the Marias River has the greatest Impact on monthly streamflow patterns in the subbasln. Tiber Reservoir, originally designed to supply water to the proposed Lower Marias Irrigation Unit and potentially to support new hydropower development. Is currently used for flood control, recreation, and streamflow maintenance, with a small portion of the water used for Irrigation and municipal supplies. Operation of this facility is guided by the intention to All the reservoir by the end of June and draw the reservoir down by the end ofFebruary (BUREC 1986). Flood control^ Operations &i Tiber Reservoir are done in co()peralkjn with the U.S. Amt^' *Corps of Eiigmeers. The average montlily inflow and outflow hydrographs for Tiber are presented in Figure 4-5.

393. Comment: On page 53, Table 4-7. the sections showing flows for the Missouri River at Virgelle and the Judith River near Winifred £ire missing the 20th percentile Eind historical header data. Please add this information.

~~Response: The figures have been moved to align with the proper columns.~~

~~Table 4-7. Monthly average and percentile exceedance streamflows (cfs) for selected USGS gauges In the Middle Missouri Subbasin~~

~~USGS GAUGE NAME 140~~

395. Comment: On page 55. under "Status of Water Right Permits," last paragraph, in addition to thi discussion in that paragraph, a statement should be included as to how many applications have beei received for new water use permits since 1987. This would clarify the confusion in the last sentence c the paragraph in which the phrase "the 75 remaining applications ..." is used with no reference to thi original number of applications.

Response: Since 1987. DNRC has received 145 permit applicattoas I 3i^QMSS^feupstrcani(){ MPCs Great Falls fecllities. Ofthese. DNRC has issued 70 provisional permits in the basin with 45 of these for water above Canyon Ferry Reservoir. Ten of the 70 permits, which are intended for irrigation use, resulted In the purchase oftemporary water service contracts from BUREC after obj ectlons were received from MPC. Sixty permits were for nonconsumpUve uses such as mining, power generation, and fisheries and wildlife purposes and were not objected to by MPC. The 75 remaining applications for provisional water use permits are pending because objections have been filed by MPC and the applicants have chosen not to acquire water-service contracts.

~~396. Comment: On page 57. we suggest the following changes to the last half of the first paragraph.~~

Response: The suggested changes have been made as follows: In April 1989. DHES informed BUREC that the Issuance of a water service contract for a consumptive use would violate existing water quality standards for arsenic. Because of this. BUREC plans to prepare an EIS on marketing water for consumptive uses from Canyon Ferry Reservoir over the next few years. Until the EIS is completed. BUFIEC is informing each poten-

tial applicant that it must pay the co3t(s) for preparing an environmental review;;i|ii|^ bi Irequiif^ determine «tyi|iii; effect of the project may have on arsenic concentrations in the Missouri River. BUREC illiliestiinated that the cost for each assessment would probably exceed $10,000. Since April 1989. no consumptive use permit or long-term water service contract has been issued. .i

~~397. Comment: On page 60, fourth paragraph, the second halfofthe third sentence is not correct and shouL be changed.~~

~~Response: The suggested changes have been made as follows:~~

BUREC has claimed water rights for power generation (direct flow and storage rights), irrigation, flood control, municipal, fish and wildlife, recreation, storage for future use or sale, and river regulation for power generation at Canyon Feny and MPC's downstream power plants. BUREC's claimed water right for hydropower generation is 6,390 cfs, which is based on 5, 100 cfs from MPC's original 1898 Lake Sewell water right and an additional 1,290 cfs to meet the capacity of its hydropower turbines. Helena Valley Irrigation District has claimed an additional 800 cfs which runs through a separate penstock at Canyon Ferry: 420 cfs of this total gees-Is released through a pump turbine to generate electricity to run the pump that diverts 380 cfs to the Helena Valley Irrigation Project. It is quite common for flows through the Canyon Ferry turbines to exceed 6,000 cfs when water is available. In recent years (1985-1991), water has spilled over the spillway without generating electricity only once, and that was for a two-week period in 1986. 141

398. Comment: On page 62, Table 4-13. under West Gallatin River, the reach should be changed from Yellowstone Park to Shedd's Bridge. Also, the reach for Big Spring Creek should be changed from state fish hatchery to mouth. There also should be the following addition to Table 4-13: Missouri River, Holter Dam to mouth of Smith River. 1/1-12/31, 3,000 cfs.

~~Response: Table 4-13. Summary of DFWP "Murphy rights" In the Missouri basin 142~~

399. Comment: This comment concerns the reference In the draft EIS to the Montana Rivers Informatioi System (MRIS). On Page 86, under "Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat." the second paragraph explains th origin of the data as the "Rivers Study Fisheries Database located at the Montana Natural Resource Information System " The Montana Rivers Study has been renamed the Montana Rivers Informatioi

System. The Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) disseminates the information contained ii MRIS. The "fisheries database" is a portion of MRIS and is not a data set that stands alone. On page 86 the second paragraph under "Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat" should be changed.

~~Response: FISHERIES AND AQUATIC HABITAT~~

Information presented in the following sections comes primarily from the iDsherles portion of the Montana Rivers Study Fiahcrics Database located at |infbnnation System housed by the Montana Natural Resources Information

System (MNRIS) in :.at: the Montana State Library. Fisheries value class ratings, species composition, and relative abundance of fish were obtained from this source. DFWP's reservation application (DFWP 1989) was used to determine habitat conditions and additional Information on species composition. Other information sources are cited in the text.

~~400. Comment: On page 86, under "Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat," 80 species offish should be changed t 85 species.~~

~~Response: FISHERIES AND AQUATIC HABITAT~~

~~streams and rivers in the Missouri River basin support a diverse fish~~

population. Of the 60 |i|i; species of fish found in Montana, about 55 are found in lakes and streams of the Missouri River basin above Fort Peck Dam. Between Morony Dam near Great Falls and Fort Peck Reservoir, the river makes a transition from a cold water fishery to a warm water fishery. The warm water fishery of the lower river contains the greatest diversity of fish with 39 species. In contrast, headwater tributaries often support onfy two to four fish species.

~~401. Comment: On page 88, under "Paddlefish." the state record paddlefish weighed 142.5 pounds.~~

~~Response: Paddlefish~~

The paddlefish is another boneless fish native to the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers in Montana (Figure 4-14). The largest paddlefish on record In Montana weighed 464- 142.5 pounds {DFWP 1991). although they average 20 pounds and 50 inches in length (Brown 1971). During spring runoff, paddlefish migrate from Fort Peck Reservoir up the Missouri River presumably to spawn. Berg (DFWP 1989) idenUfled nine such paddlefish concentration areas between Virgelle and Fort Peck Reservoir.

402. Comment: On page 89, under "Arctic Grayling," arctic grayling are known to reach lengths of 20 inches. Distribution of grayling in the Sun River now is limited to those found in the Sunny Slope Canal below Plshkun Reservoir. Grayling no longer are found in the Sun River or its tributaries. Grayling found in the Red Rock River may be drifters from the Red Rock Lakes area. 143

~~Response: Arctic Grayling~~

~~The arctic grayling Is a member of the trout family and native to Mon-~~

~~tana. Its lai^e. colorful dorsal fin distinguishes it from other Montana tniut. The arctic grayling is valued as a game fish, reaching lengths up to +*:^~~

~~Inches in Montana . Food requirements of the arctic grayling are similar to~~

~~other trout except that it rarely eats other fish.~~

~~The arctic grayling was native to two areas In the lower 48 states:~~

~~Michigan, where it is now extinct, and in the Missouri River drainage above~~

Great Falls, where It was once abundant. The original range of the stream- dwelling grayling has been greatly reduced and is now limited to the Big Hole River, possibly some ofits tributaries, the Sunny Stope Canal below Pishkun Itesen-olr. and the Sun, Red Rock, and possibly Uie Madison rivers River and

Odell Creek in Montana (Drown 1071) . Arctic grayling also live in lakes but depend on flowing water for spawning. Lake-dwelling grayling are abundant and apparently secure in Montana and other western states (Clark et al. 1989). Although the cause of decline in stream-dwelling arctic grayling populations has not been identified, low streamfiows, changes In land use, and the Introduction of non-native species may be among the contributing factors (McMIchael 1990).

403. Comment: On page 89, under "Westslope Cutthroat Trout." although Brown (1971) states that a westslope cutthroat trout can grow as large as 16 pounds, this may be somewhat misleading. A three- to four-pound maximum weight Is more likely to occur.

~~Response: Westslope cutthroat Trout~~

~~The westslope cutthroat trout is an important game fish in Montana. It can grow as large as 10 pounds grows to a three- to four-pound welj^jtj^~~

~~plontana where habitat conditions arc favorable (Drown 1971) .~~

~~404. Comment: On page 89. under "Blue Sucker," the state record weight for a blue sucker Is 1 1 .5 pounds.~~

~~Response: Blue Sucker~~

Though secure globally, the blue sucker Is rare In Montana. It has been found In the Missouri River below Fort Benton, the Marias River, the lower Judith River, and the lower portion of the Yellowstone River. Specimens weighing 16 pounds have been reported elsewhere, but most In Montana weigh less than 7 7 pounds (Brown 1971). The state record weJght for a blue

~~sucker is U .5 pounds {DFWP 199 1). The blue sucker is not a game fish in Montana, though It is said to be highly prized as a food fish in some areas (Brown 1971).~~

~~405. Comment: On page 89, under "Headwaters Subbasin - Gallatin River Drainage," the number 25 should be changed to 24 streams. 144~~

~~Response: HEADWATERS SUBBASIN GALLATIN River Drainage~~

Reservations for Instream use, consumptive use. or both have been requested on SSliji streams in the Gallatin River drainage. These streams support populations of trout and whiteflsh (Appendix G). Nongame species frequently found in these streams include longnose dace, mottled sculpin, and three species of suckers.

406. Comment: On page 90, under "Madison River Drainage." first paragraph, reservations have be< requested on 29 stream reaches rather than 26 reaches. Also in that paragraph, beginning with line only one stream supports arctic grayling.

~~Response: MADISON RIVER DRAINAGE~~

Reservations are requested on 26 stream rcachca|ii^|i||is|in the Madi- son River drainage. Appendix G shows the relative abundance offish found in this drainage and the fisheries value class rating for each stream. The Madison River drainage supports populations of rainbow, brown, brook, and a few cutthroat trout. Nine streams have mountain whiteflsh. and four have :pne has arctic grayling. Other nongame fish species found in the drainage include mottled sculplns in most streams, two species of dace, three sucker species, a few stonecats. and an occasional perch.

~~407. Comment: On page 90. under "Madison River Drainage," third paragraph, the first sentence should 1 changed.~~

Response: This information updates material found in DFWP's application and has been changed follows. Stream - dwelling Arctic grayling are found year-round in Standard Creek and-the Madison River. Lake-dwelling arctic grayling spawn in Moore Creek the Madison River and ix)ssibly Moore Creek and the South Fork of Meadow Creek. Genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout are believed to occur in Standard Creek, but laboratory analysis has not been performed to verify their genetic purity.

~~408. Comment: On page 91, under 'Jeflerson and Boulder River Drainages," first paragraph, 11 strea reaches should be changed to 13 stream reaches.~~

~~Response: JEFFERSON AND BOULDER RIVER DRAINAGES~~

Reservations have been requested on -H- Hi? stream reaches in the Jefi"erson and Boulder River drainages. Appendix G shows that trout are common or abundant in most ofthese streams. Nongame fish found in these streams include mottled sculplns, three species of suckers, and three members of the minnow family. Halfway Creek is the only stream in this drainage known to support native, genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout.

~~409. Comment: On page 9 1 , under "Jeflerson and Boulder River Drainages," third paragraph, the follows sentence should be added to the paragraph. 145~~

~~Response: Jefferson and Boulder River Drainages~~

Beginning in 1986 and continuing each year for three years. Trout Unlimited and DFWP planted a wild strain of rainbow trout in Willow Spring Creek. It is hoped that the young fish will move down into the Jefierson River to mature and eventually return to the creek to spawn. In i99U ralntoow |||wt||tg||ii:p^ (be stockJjig elJbrts

~~410. Comment: On page 92, Table 4-25. footnote "a" should be deleted.~~

~~Response:~~

~~Table 4-25. Jefferson River tributaries providing spawning and rearing habitat for game fish~~

~~Lake or stream where Fish species spawning spawning run originates Tributary stream In tributary streams~~

~~Jefferson River Helis Canyon Creei< Rainbow trout Willow Spring Creel<* Rainbow trout Boulder River (Reach 3) Brown trout~~

~~Wiiiow Creek Reservoir South Willow Creek Rainbow trout, brown trout North Willow Creek Rainbow trout, brown trout Willow Creek Rainbow trout, brown trout~~

~~Drwn i s try i ng (o cstab il ah a ra i nbow trout apawn i ng run i n th i s alrcom. I t \ a too ear ly to detorm i nc the sueecoo o( th i o effort.~~

411. Comment: On page 92 , under "Big Hole River Drainage," first paragraph, brown trout should be added to the sentence beglrmlng with line 5. In the second paragraph, line 6, Terry Creek should read Jerry Creek. However, Deep Creek and Jerry Creek should be eliminated from that listing because Deep Creek provides only winter habitat for grayling, and Jerry Creek does not support a grayling population at all. Also, in the last sentence ofthat paragraph. Deep and Jerry creeks do not provide spawning habitat for grayling.

~~Response: Big Hole River Drainage~~

Instream reservations are sought on 46 streams in the Big Hole River drainage. Appendix G lists fish species, their relative abundance, and the fisheries value class rating for each stream In this drainage. In general, the Big Hole River and its tributaries support abundant populations of brook, browti, rainbow, and cutthroat trout. Burbot, also known as ling, are present In many streams. Pure strain westslope cutthroat trout, a species of special concern, have been reported in Delano Creek. Arctic grayling, another species of special concern, are present in several streams.

The Big Hole River drainage supports a renowned fishery and is highly valued for Its population ofnative stream-dwelling arctic grayling. Spawning by arctic grayling has been documented in the following streams in the Big Hole River drainage: Big Hole River and Big Lake, Rock, Steel, Deep, Terry, and Swamp creeks. Swamp, Big Lake, and Rock creeks provide spawning areas for grayling that live in the Big Hole River (Spence 1990). Besides providing spawning habitat for grayling. Deep and Terry^|^|||| creeks both provide spawning habitat for rainbow trout from the Big Hole River. 146

~~412. Comment: On page 92. under "Ruby River Drainage." first paragraph, the first sentence should read 1 stream segments rather than 10 stream segments. Response: RUBY RIVER DRAINAGE~~

Instream reservations are sought on iQ iistream segments in the Ruby River drainage. Appendix G identifies the fish species present in these streams, their relative abundance, and the fisheries value class rating for each stream in this drainage. Trout and whitefish are the primary game fish found in this drainage. Nongame species Include stonecats. long-nose dace, mottled sculpins, three species of suckers, and carp. Westslope cutthroat trout pO&stbh|f are found In Coal and U|^^^^m|Greenhom creeks ^^g^ but laboratory analysis has not been performed to determine their geneuc punty.

~~413. Comment: On page 92. under "Ruby River Drainage." westslope cutthroat trout are found in Coal Cree and the North Fork of Greenhorn Creek.~~

~~Response: DNRC contacted the genetics lab at the University of Montana to determine whether genetJ~~

testing had been completed (Sage 199 1). Genetic testing by electrophoresis is used to determine whethe westslope cutthroat trout have hybridized with rainbow or Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Records at th university indicate that trout in Coal Creek are hybrids. The university has no records to indicate th genetic purity of westslope cutthroat trout in the North Fork of Greenhorn Creek. Page G-7 has bee corrected (see response to comment 412 and following page).

414. Comment: On page 93. under "Red Rock and Beaverhead Drainage." first paragraph. 35 stream reache should read 37 stream reaches. In the second paragraph, we are not aware of any stream-dwelling arcti grayling that reside in the Beaverhead River below the East Bench Diversion Dam. Grayling may exij in the reach of the Red Rock River upstream from Lima Reservoir, but these fish may be drifters from th Red Rock Lakes area.

~~Response: RED ROCK AND BEAVERHEAD DRAINAGE~~

Appendix G identifies fish species present in the Red Rock and Beaver- head river drainages, their relative abundance, and the fisheries value class rating for each of the 95 ^^ stream reaches where reservations are requested. Trout, whitefish, and arctic grayling are the most common game fish in this drainage, though a few burbot also are found. Nongame species include mottled sculpins, longnose dace, stonecats. four species of suckers, and carp. Two species of special concern are found In this drainage: westslope cutthroat trout and arctic grayling.

~~Most arctic grayling in the drainage live in Red Rock lakes and spawn in their tributaries. Stream-dwelling arctic grayling are thought to exist in~~

~~Odell Creek, a tributary to Red Rock lakes, and in the reach of the Beaver -~~

~~head River below East Bench diversion dam .~~

~~415. Comment: On page 93. under "Upper Missouri Subbasin. Missouri River - Three Forks to Holler Dam the first and second sentences are incorrect and should be changed. (formerly page G-7) 147~~

~~)f»qa|ip!is H38q9|i|a,isitoojg~~

~~~5^tws ujdinas paiiioh uruo Lump J8;BMqs8i;j~~

~~jauep BAAOi afeiiBM qsJSd jaBnBS q3J3d M0||3X BMen >(3B|g~~

~~aiddejs aiiijM sseq q;nouja6jEi~~

~~ijssuns sseq qinouj|{EUJS~~

~~0|B|tnq gmouiBig~~

~~qB)jnq ninouj||EU)S ja){3nsan|g je)|onsdjBO jaAiy WBpasouBuoT Mouutu pBag;B:j~~

~~Mouujuj Xia/vis~~

~~: MOUUjLU XjaA||S/SU{E|(j~~

~~MOUUjUJ SUjEld Mouujiu AssBjg~~

~~jaujifs puBS jaujqs apjspay jauiqs p|EJaui3 MOUUin qnqs ui|a{)|3;s~~

~~qnqo a>(Bn qni)3 uoaBjnis~~

~~qngs pE8L|iE|j qnipgEifi s3ep9|e3S8U||xX||sqpay'N~~

~~A«)uu|y\| djEQ~~

~~8>ld ajiaTDeipON 6ui{XBj6 3|pjv moji noojg 3 inoj; u«u)jg < OO o s:"" O inoJiMoqujEy oo. y aAap|03~~

~~MsyeippBd najaiPPBd uoeBjnis 8SOU|aAoqs uoa6jnis uoa6jnis pHiEj AlWVd 3WVN NOWHOO~~

~~JS8J »- •* ^ OCT"** CO O to CNJ <~~

3 c s i c o u 5^ 1; " lU 9 V "IT IT m -«» tn o s ^ o) O a> I n O ill OJ:! s c= .a I £ ff t= O O = « c ' o sil II II 11 c oc otr »- PJ o 5 o J2 (0 g Sir J I 2o 2 « « §5 1 i^ : S 55 mm CD 0< 148

~~Response: Upper Missouri Subbasin~~

~~Missouri River - Three Forks to Holter dam~~

~~Rcservationa liiSlreartiresieivaliCins are sought on 1 1 tributaries. I loiter~~

~~Reservoir, Canyon Fcrrv' Reservoir, and the Missouri River for two reaches ot~~

' the Missotin FiivtT above Holter Dam and for 18 tribufanes of Holler JReser- vqir, Hauser Rei>ervoir. Canyon Ferry Reservoir, mid the upper Missouri lUver, The predominant game fish in the Missouri River above Carbon Ferry

~~are still whiteflsh and trout , but walleye ^^^^^a"d kokanee salmon have~~

been introduced Into Holter and Hauser reservoirs, and kokanee , Kokanee salmon are found in Canyon Feny. Holter: and Hauser reservoirs (Appendix G). Perch also are found in all three reservoirs. Smallmouth bass are being planted in Lake Helena, which is connected to Hauser Reservoir.

~~416. Comment: On page 93. Table 4-26, the following should be added to Red Rock Lakes: Hell Roarir Creek - cutthroat trout, possibly arctic grayling, and Corral Creek - possibly arctic grayling.~~

~~Response: Regarding the presence of arctic grayling in Hell Roaring Creek. DFWP's applicatiion(DFW 1989) states:~~

No arctic grayling were captured during the 1975 surveys. It appears that this stream, although historically used by both resident and adfluvlal grayling, is no longer suitable for this species. Barriers are apparently not the problem since Hell Roaring Creek is accessible to spawning cutthroat trout residing in the lake.

~~For Corral Creek. DFWP's application states:~~

Corral Creek appears to no longer support a resident population of stream- dwelling (fluvial) grayling. There are indications that grayling from Upper Red Rock Lake still enter the creek each year to spawn. However, the reproductive contribution of Corral Creek is unknown.

However, Oswald (1991) confirmed the presence of runs of arctic grayling from Upper Red Rock Lake both Hell Roaring and Corral creeks last spring. The creeks also are used for rearing, and young graylir move downstream to the lake In response to current in the stream.

~~Cutthroat trout and arctic grayling have been added to Hell Roaring Creek, and arctic grayling have bee added to Corral Creek.~~

~~Table 4-26. Red Rock and Beaverhead drainage tributary streams providing spawning and rearing habitat for game fish~~

~~Lake or stream where Fish species spawning spawning run originates Tributary stream in tributary streams~~

~~Red Rocl< Lakes Red Rock Creek Arctic grayling, cutthroat trout, rainbow/ cutthroat hybrid tro Tom Creek Arctic grayling Odeli Creek Arctic grayling~~

~~Flllefr Roan rig"C reiki prctic gray] ing IcuttRro^~~

~~liCafraiOreek::::~~

~~417. Comment: On page 94. first paragraph, line 10. the sentence is incorrect and should be changed. 149~~

Response: Most rainbow trout caught from Canyon Ferry are stocked, but about 5 percent are produced naturally from spawning in tributaries to the reservofr (Lere 1990). About 95 percent of the rainbow trout caught in gill nets set by DFWP in Hauser Reservofr are stocked (Lere 1990), with the remaining 5 percent originating from spawning in the tributaries. Brown trout reach trophy size in the three reservoirs. Brown trout are not stocked and depend on spawning in tributaries. Kokanee salmon have been stocked in the past, but the present populatIori|1 In Hauser Reservoir and BoJtXSr reseiv«tts^ depends on natural reproduction. A lai]ge number of kokanee also spawn In the Missouri River immediately below Canyon Ferry and Hauser dams during the fall. Table 4-27 indicates the tributary streams used for spawning by fish from the reservoirs.

~~418. Comment: On page 94, Table 4-27, Beaver Creek under Hauser Reservofr should be listed under Hotter Reservofr instead.~~

~~Response:~~

~~Table 4-27. Missouri River tributary streams providing spawning and rearing habitat for game fish In Canyon Ferry, Hauser, and Holter reservoirs~~

~~Lake or stream where Fish species spawning spawning run originates Tributary stream In tributary streams~~

~~Hauser Reservoir Spokane Creel< Brown trout, kokanee salmon, mountain wiiitefishi McGuire Creei< Brown trout, kokanee salmon Trout Creei< Rainbow trout, brown trout, kokanee salmon~~

~~Pricl~~

~~Beaver Crcc i t Rainbow trout, brown trout~~

~~Holter Reservoir Cottonwood Creek Rainbow trout Willow Creek Rainbow trout, brown trout Missouri River Brown trout, rainbow trout, kokanee salmon~~

~~verCre^ iRainbow trout, . brown trout~~

~~419. Comment: On page 95, under "Smith River Drainage." first paragraph, the 1 1 stream reaches stated may be in error. DFWP alone has filed for 13 stream reaches in the Smith River drainage.~~

~~Response: Smith RIVER Drainage~~

~~Applications have been filed for consumptive or Instream water reserva-~~

tions on 1 1 stream reaches il|i||iiin the Smith River drainage. Appendix G indicates streams that support populations of trout, whiteflsh, and a few burbot. Nongame species include longnose dace, mottled sculpins, three species of suckers, and an occasional carp and stonecat.

420. Comment: On page 95, under "Smith River Drainage." third paragraph. Tenderfoot Creek is the only stream where documented spawning has occurred to date. Other tributary streams may serve this purpose. 150

Response: Tenderfoot Creek Is the onl^ tributary stream used for i||i|||:jspawntng by trout from the Smith River I^^^^^^^^^P Walsh (1 990) reports that both rainbow and brown trout from the Smith River spawn In the lower portion of Tenderfoot Creek.

42 1. Comment: On page 95, Table 4-28. white suckers and longnose suckers are not gamefish and shouli be eliminated from the table. Also, the following streams should be added to Table 4-28: Dearborn rive - rainbow trout; South Fork Dearborn River - rainbow trout; Middle Fork Dearborn River - rainbow trout Sheep Creek - rainbow trout, brown trout, mountain whitefish.

Response: Table 4-28 has been revised to include the additional streams in the Dearborn drainage Although the two sucker species listed in the table are not game fish, they do spawn In Little Prickly Pea Creek.

~~Table 4-28. Missouri River tributary streams providing spawning and rearing habitat for geme fish between Holter Dam and Great Fails~~

~~Lake or stream where FIsli species spawning~~

~~spawning run originates Tributary stream In tributary streams~~

Missouri River Little Prickly Pear Creek Rainbow trout, brown trout, white suckers, longnose suckers mountain whitefish Lyons Creek Rainbow trout, brown trout Wolf Creek Rainbow trout Wegner Creek Rainbow trout Stickney Creek Rainbow trout Fiatnbow trout ISoulh Fork Dearborn Ffl^l Ratnbow trout liMiddle Fork Dearborn i|i|||| fiainbow {{(Att

~~Rainbow trcftut browrt trout motrfjtdn whitefish~~

~~422. Comment: On page 96, under "Belt Creek Drainage," second paragraph, only the lower five miles of Be] Creek above Otter Creek are stocked with rainbow trout.~~

~~Response: Belt Creek Drainage~~

~~The lower portion of Belt Creek is used for spawning by limited numbers of rainbow trout, brown trout, mountain whitefish, and sauger from the~~

Missouri River. Tlie lower five. m8es of Belt Creek above Otter Creek are stocked with rainbow trout The 13-mile stretch of Belt Creek above Big Otter Creek does not maintain an adequate self-sustaining trout population

~~and is stocked with rainbow trout . This reach has severe low flows and substantial fishing pressure.~~

~~423. Comment: On page 98, under "Musselshell River Drainage." the 13 stream reaches stated in the firs sentence may be in error. DFWP alone has filed on 16 stream reaches in the Musselshell drainage.~~

~~Response: Musselshell River drainage~~

~~Reservations are sought on 13 stream reaches stjieartJS in the Mussel- shell River drainage. Above the Deadmans Basin diversion, the drainage 151~~

supports fish characteristic of cold water streams; trout and mountain whltefish predominate. A transition from a cold water to a warm water flsheiy takes place between the Deadmans Basin diversion and the Musselshell diversion about 80 miles to the east. This portion ofthe river supports sparse populations of brown trout, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish. Below the Musselshell diversion, the river supports warm water species. Including sauger. channel catfish, smallmouth bass, black bullhead, northern pike, and walleye. Appendix G identifies the fish species found in streams in the Musselshell drainage where reservations are requested, the relative abundance offish in each stream, and the fisheries value class of each stream.

424. Comment: In reviewing the discussion of angler use beginning on page 1 1 1 of the draft EIS under "Headwaters Subbasln," we noticed discrepancies in the angler use numbers used throughout the section. Our corrections that we believe necessary are listed below.

~~a. Rivers and streams In 1985 had 355,090 angler days of use, not 349,820.~~

~~b. Angler days statewide in 1985 were 2,443,438, not 1,193.000. Statewide stream use in 1985 was 1.324.277 angler days; 1.322.566 of these days can be assigned to specific drainages.~~

~~c. Angler use Is licensed angling pressure. This presstire does not includejuveniles. which account for 10 to 25 percent of the pressure, or any pressure on Indian reservations or national parks.~~

~~d. Percentage of pressure in headwaters basin is 14.5 percent if based on total statewide angling pressure, or 26.8 percent if based on total statewide stream/river angling pressure.~~

e. On page 111, under "Headwaters Subbasln," second paragraph, DFWP has available fishing pressure information for 1 988-89 that could be used to supplement the angler use data presented on this and succeeding pages, including Table 4-47.

~~f. On page 1 12, Map 4-7, the subbasln percentages are wrong based on statewide stream use that can be assigned to specific drainages.~~

~~g. On page 112, Map 4-7, some ofthe percentages shown are not the same percentages shown In "DFWP 1989," which probably refers to our [DFWP] reservation application, pages 1 through 35.~~

h. On page 1 12, Table 4-47 should be revised based on coding errors when doing survey (i.e., Clark Canyon and Clark Canyon Reservoir are the same, and Hyalite Lake and Hyalite Reservoir should be added since Hyalite Lake receives very little pressure).

~~1. The sources ofdataforTables 4-47 (page 112), 4-49 (page 118), 4-51 (page 121), and 4-53 (page 123) are shown as DFWP 1989. The reference probably should read McFarland 1989.~~

~~Is j. On page 1 15, angler use (total) for the upper Missouri subbasln for streams/rivers only 205,743 angler days or 15.6 percent of total use.~~

~~Response: The following changes have been made:~~

a.b.C.d. HEADWATERS SUBBASIN DFWP estimated annual licensed angler use on Montana waters from 1982 to 1986. Thi.s use 6ws not include national parks, Indian rcson^ations, or use byjuveniles, ravers and streams in the Headwaters Subbasln during 1985 had a total of 349.020 355.090 angler days of use. representing ftSbe ^6.8 percent of the total 1.103.000 1.322.566 angler days on iMscs .lipiil. 1

~~152~~

streains tavartotts subbaslns statewide. An angler day is one fisherman fishing one body of water for any length of time on one day. Map 4-7 shows that the Headwaters Subbasln receives the most angler use of any subbasln In Montana. Map 4-8 shows angler use, selected recreation sites, and estimated nonangler use on selected streams tn the Headwaters Subbasln. Table 4-47 lists angler use on selected reservoirs in this subbasln.

~~e. Angler use information for 1988-89 has been Incorporated Into the revised Appendix H: Recreatloi Information for Rivers and Streams with Reservation Requests (see pages 153 through 162).~~

~~f,g. Map 4-7 has been revised (see below).~~

~~h,l. Table 4-47 has been revised (see page 163). The source has also been revised to read "McFarlanc 1989" for Tables 4-49, 4-51, and 4-53.~~

). Angler use in the Upper Missouri Subbasln is significant, totaling 104,73 205>7'45 days during 1985 This represents ^^tS IB! ig'percent ofthe total 1,193,000 days of statewide uac 1.322.566 angler davb on rtV6m?in.d .^ ,_ .. .^.^..^ ^„,^^ ^^^„_^ . jggg ^^p ^_^j

~~Map 4-7. Fishing use of Montana river subbasins~~

~~Notes:~~

~~Numbers shown are the percentage of total statewide fishing days occurring In each river subbasln determined during the 1985 DFWP fisheries survey.~~

~~Upper Missouri subbasin includes the main stem and tributaries from the Sun to the Marias. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Sowee:Aria«Sttid from DFWP 1989 153~~

~~R»vldi~~

~~BIG HOLE RIVER DRAINAGE 154~~

~~Big Hole River drainage (continued) 155~~

~~Gallatin River drainage (continued) 156~~

~~Jefferson River Drainage (continued) 1 t& 2 7 8 9 10 11 1~~

~~nM i n it m t M tt~~

~~Soutfi Willow Creek Granite Lake-Forest Service Boundary~~

~~Wliitetail Creek Willow Creek Willow Spring Creek ,~~

~~157~~

~~RED ROCK-BEAVERHEAD DRAINAGES~~

~~STREAM 10 11 12~~

~~Bear Creek Beaverhead River (Headwaters-Mouth) 22,356 22,690 ' 283 Clark Canyon Dam-Dillon~~

~~Dillon-Big Hole River Big Sheep Creek 735 Nicholia-Red Rock River Black Canyon Creek~~

~~Headwaters-Horse Prairie Creek~~

~~Blacktail Deer Creek 1 Confluence MF & WF-Beaverhead River Bkwdy Dick Creek Headwaters-Horse Prairie Creek Browns Canyon Creek Cabin Creek Corral Creek Deadman Creek Headwaters-Big Sheep Creek~~

EF Blacktail Deer Creek Two Meadows-Blacktail Deer Creek EF Clover Creek Headwaters-Ctover Creek EF Dyce Creek Frying Pan Creek Grasshopper Creek Headwaters-Forest Boundary Forest Boundary-Bannack Bannack-Beaverhead River

~~Hell Roaring Creek Headwaters-Red Rock Creek~~

~~Horse Prairie Creek Headwaters-Clark Canyon Dam Indian Creek Jones Creek Long Creek Lone Butte-Red Rock River Medicine Lodge Creek~~

~~Headwaters-Horse Prairie Creek Narrows Creek Odell Creek Slide Mountain-Lower Red Rock Lake Peet Creek Poindexter Slough Rape Creek Red Rock Creek Headwaters-Red Rock Refuge~~

Red Rock River (Lima Dam-Upper Red Rock Lake) Lower Red Rock Lake-Brundage Bridge Brundage Bridge-Lima Reservoir Red Rock River (Lima Dam-Mouth) Lima Reservoir-Clark Canyon Reservoir Reservoir Creek Shenon Creek Simpson Creek Tom Creek Trapper Creek WF Blacktail Deer Creek Headwaters-Blacktail Creek WF Dyce Creek 158

~~RUBY RIVER DRAINAGE 159~~

~~MISSOURI RIVER DRAINAGE-Holter Dam to Belt Creek~~

~~STREAM 10 11 12~~

~~H ll H ltt*»tt H *»*-~~

~~Canyon Creek Muddy Creek-Moutt Willow Creek Willow Creek Gorge~~

~~JUDFTH RIVER DRA~~

~~STREAM~~

~~Beaver Creek Big Spring Creek (He Headwaters-Highwc Big Spring Creek (Co Hwy. 87 Lewistown- Campbell Coulee Cottonwood Creek Cow Creek EF Big Spring Creek Judith River (Headwa~~

~~MF&SF Judith Riv( Judith River (Plum Cr Danvers Bridge-And Anderson Bridge-Mi~~

~~Little Trout Creek Lost Fork Judith Rive Louse Creek McCarthy Creek MF Judith River Olsen Creek Running Wolf Creek NF & SF-Forest Ser SF Judith River~~

~~Unnamed tributary of Warm Spring Creek Maiden-Judith River Yogo Creek Headwaters-MF Jud~~

~~BELT CREEK/MISSOURI DRAINAGE~~

~~STREAM 1A IB 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1~~

~~Belt Creek (Headwaters-Mouth) 161~~

~~Belt Creek drainage (continued) 162~~

~~TETON RIVER DRAINAGE~~

~~STREAM~~

Antelope Butte Swamp >. Deep Creek McDonald Creek NF Deep Creek Slim Gulch-BLM Bdry. Sec. 18 SF Deep Creek T23N R9W Sec. 22-NF Deep Creek Spring Creek Teton River (Headwaters-Choteau) NF & SF Teton River-Choteau/Deep Creek Teton River (Choteau-Mouth) Choteau-Hwy.91(l-15) Hwy.91(l-15)-CouleeFork Coulee Fork-Marias River )

~~163~~

~~Table 4-47. Angler use of reservoirs and lakes In the Headwaters Subbasin from 1982 to 1986~~

~~Annual Angler Days"~~

~~1982- 1983- 1984- 1985- Avg.1982- (n) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1986~~

~~Clark Canyon Reservoir (n=4)~~

~~Quake Lake (n=4)~~

~~Ennis (Meadow) Lake (n=4)~~

~~Hebgen Lake (n=4)~~

~~Hyalite Reservoir (n=4)~~

~~Lima Reservoir (n=0)~~

~~Lower Red Rock Lake (n=2)~~

~~Ruby River Reservoir (n=4)~~

~~Upper Red Rock Lake (n=1~~

~~Willow Creek Reservoir (n=4) 18,665~~

~~n = number of years out of four with reported fishing pressure * Angler day = one fisherman fishing one body of water for any length of time on one day *> No data available~~

~~Source: ©fWP Mtp^ilawt 1 989.~~

425. Comment: On page 116, the description of recreational effects is misleading. The reservoir [Canyon Ferry] normally Is drafted to its lowest level in March orApril to allow for storage ofthe spring runoff. The March 1989 low elevation occurred when the lake was ice-covered and the boat landings were not needed. Canyon Ferry Reservoir normally is free of ice by April 7.

~~Response: The discussion on page 116 of the draft EIS of effects on recreation from low water levels at Canyon Ferry has been clarified as follows.~~

Low reservoir levels from 1987 through 1990 have affected recreation at Canyon Ferry Reservoir. In the spring of 1989, the surface water level was more than 20 feet below the normal operating elevation of 3.797 feet. Boat access was difficult because some ramps did not reach the water. Water suriace|j||^^^i|^enx|^S;gryQi^^^ 1989 at 3,774 ifeet—23 feet below full pool. Most boat ramps on Canyon Ferry are unusable below 3,777 feet (Campbell 1990). The 3,777*foot elevation was reached in May 1989 as the reservoir filled. Low water also caused problems for private cabin owners when docks became unusable. Exposure of rocks and sand bars created nuisances and hazards for motor boats and watersklers.

~~426. Comment: It appears that the references to angler days In the text (page 1 18) should read McFarland 1989c, not DFWP 1989.~~

~~Response: The cite has been changed to "McFarland 1989" on page 118. column 2. in the second complete paragraph. 164~~

~~427. Comment: On page 1 19. Table 4-50, 1991 floating data on the Smith River are available for inclusic in this discussion.~~

~~Response: Table 4-50. Smith River floating~~

~~1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 ^^~~

~~Number of registered floaters 1,971 854 1,962 1,242 1,462 2,395 2,654 a»874'»~~

~~Date when river bacame generally July June August June June June July Jj^y~~

~~unfloatablea 15 15 1 17 6 25 9 iZ~~

~~' 1 00 cfs at Camp Baker~~

~~Sourc»srHeiE^ney ^^^^ Cheek 1989, tfltW i9&t^ H«t»$tmt^ 199f~~

~~428. Comment: On page 1 24, Ackley Lake is said to be in the Musselshell River basin. It is in the Judith Riv basin.~~

~~Response: Musselshell River Drainage~~

Several reservoirs are used for fishing and other water-related recreation (Table 4-53). These include Bair Reservoir on the North Fork of the Mussel- shell River, Martinsdale Reservoir near Martinsdale, Deadmans Basin Res- ervoir near Shawmut, Ackley Lake west ofLcwistown, and Petrolia Reservoir on Flatwillow Creek. Deadmans Basin and Martinsdale reservoirs have developed facilities for shoreline activities, including several summer cabins at Deadmans Basin.

429. Comment: On page 126, Table 4-56 outlines MFC's planned modifications to its Missouri River bas hydroelectric facilities. The table states that no modifications will be made to the historic release patten

~~at Holter. It is more accurate to say that no modifications will be made to the recent release patterns at Holte~~

The table also states that the dam at Cochrane wUl be raised to produce additional head. This incorrect. The dam at Cochrane will not be raised. Cochrane has not been filled to capacity because would result In flooding at the upstream Rainbow Dam. The new construction at Rainbow, which w; anticipated when Cochrane was built, will allow the full head at Cochrane to be used without modific; tlon to the Cochrane Dam. The operations at Cochrane will be modified to allow for load shaping at I^c Dam and Cochrane Dam. Morony Dam will then be operated to maintain stable releases downstrea In the Missouri River.

~~Response: Table 4-56. Planned modifications to MFC's Missouri basin hydroelectric facilities.~~

~~HOLTER: No modifications to the facilities or to hiotori eei^lp release patterns.~~

~~COCHRANE: riaioo dom to produce more hood. Th i o~~

~~would bo done I n conjunct i on w i th ta il raoo~~

~~mod i f i cat i ono at Ra i nbow Dam. Modify operations to allow for load shaping at S^ne fUTKl Ryan 9affl||||. 165~~

430. Comment: On page 1 26. under "Federal Rellcensing of MFC's Dams." DNRC states that MFC's planned changes to its Missouri River dams "Vould provide about 63 additional MW of capacity." This sentence would be more accurate If It were changed.

~~Response: Federal relicensing of MFC's Dams~~

MFC operates these facilities under a 50-year license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). and the license is due to expire in 1994. MFC must submit an application for a new license by 1992. In this application. MFC plans to propose that several of the dams be repaired, upgraded, and expanded (Table 4-56). Upgrading the generation facilities would provide about 63 iiiladditlonal MW of capacity iiil"

~~431. Comment: On page 150. Table 5-1. BUREC's Virgelle application is excluded from the Combination Alternative. Pages 153 and 180 Indicate that it should have been Included.~~

~~Response:~~

~~Table 5-1 . Reservation requests Included under each alternative~~

~~MIDDLE MISSOURI SUBBASIN ALTERNATIVES~~

~~Missouri River Drainage- Belt Creek to Fort Peck Reservoir~~

~~APPLICANT/ TYPE OF PROJECT SOURCE RESERVATION 166~~

433. Comment: On page 181. Table 6-7. the figures accumulated In the table do not match the figures In th narrative. If there is a reason for the difference, please note. Otherwise, these values should match.

Response: As listed in Table 6-7, the City of Bozeman proposes a reserv^oir on Sourdough Creek wit a total storage of approximately 6.000 af. The city estimates that this proposed reservoir would have a annual reliable yield of approximately 4.000 af (City of Bozeman 1987). The figures used In the narrativ represent the reservoir's reliable yield rather than its total capacity. The narrative numbers should b increased by approximately 2.000 af to agree with the table. The correction is made as follows. STORAGE

Fifteen storage projects are included in the reservation applications as summarized in Table 6-7. Of these, the City of Bozeman's proposed 6.000 acre-foot reservoir on Sourdough Creek is the lai^gest. The total volume

stored by all 15 projects would be 9.357 i||jjii|i acre-feet imder the Con- sumptive Use Alternative. 97490 i!9,47Sac:re-ieet under the Combination Alternative, and TrW? 9^165 acre-feet under the Instream Alternative. This increase in volume is small in comparison to the estimated 26 million acre- feet presently stored in the basin.

434. Comment: I [Trout Unlimited] suggest one correction to Table 6-10 on page 185. This table purport to identUy consumptive reservations that may damage aquatic life by Increasing water temperatures an

decreasing dissolved oxygen. Noticeably absent from this table Is project GA-20 1 . which on page 204 yo acknowledge may Increase water temperatures and adversely affect fisheries. GA-20 1 should b included in Table 6- 10.

~~Response: '~~

~~Table 6-10. Requested consumptive use reservations that might damage aquatic life by Increasing water temperatures and decreasing dissolved oxygen under the different alternatives~~

~~Consumptive Use Instream Combination Subbasin/Streams 1~~

~~167~~

~~435. Comment: On page 202, fifth paragraph, change 47 to 48 percent.~~

~~Response:~~

In this analysis, streamflow rates that maintain riffle areas and side- channel habitat are used as indicators of aquatic habitat condition. These rates were determined by DFWP after field investigations. Generally, flows necessary to maintain good riffle habitat average 27 to 47 |i|:jpercent of the average annual flow (see Appendix B). Other methods are available to ap- proximate the amount of flow necessary to support aquatic habitat on a given stream. The methods used by DFWP and BLM are discussed in Appendix B.

436. Comment: On page 204, third paragraph, the reference USGS 1989b may not be correct for the statement that 1 1 cfs is necessary to maintain good amounts offood-producing riffle areas. The reference probably should be DFWP 1989.

Response: Fishery impacts of Bozeman's proposed dam are dlff"icult to estimate because of uncertainties about reservoir operations. However, under all the alternatives, about 1.25 mfles of stream habitat would be inundated. It is unknown if reservoir operation would sustain a long-term fishery in the reservoir or Sourdough Creekbelow the proposed dam. In Sourdough Creek near the National Forest boundary, the reservation might reduce flows to 11

~~cfs or less. Flows greater than 1 1 cfs are thought necessary to maintain good~~

~~amounts of food-producing riffle areas (USGS 1909b DFWP 1989). Flows now fall below 1 1 cfs during the fall and winter (USGS 1989b).~~

437. Comment: In Table 6-41, the July-August flow reduction for the upper Missouri subbasln under the combination alternative (20,470.5 acre-feet) exceeds the value for the consumptive alternative (20, 163. acre-feet). Is this possible?

~~Response: Table 6-41 has been revised.~~

~~Table 6-41 . Average flow reductions (acre-feet) from different alternatives~~

~~Flow reductions Row reductions Altemalive 168~~

~~438. Comment: On page 250. under "Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks," fourth paragraph the second sentence should be changed.~~

~~Response: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FiSH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS~~

The Fixed Percentage Method was used on 27 streams. Desirable flow amounts are assumed to equal a fixed percentage of the estimated average ^Jtmual flow. While this method can be used as a general indicator of flows

~~necessary to protect aquatic habitat, the assessment it provides is less sensitive to conditions in individual streams than the WETP method.~~

~~439. Comment: On page B-3. under "Wetted Perimeter Inflection Point Method," the first paragraph shoulc be changed.~~

~~Response: WETTED PERIMETER INFLECTION POINT METHOD~~

In determining the amount of Instream flow necessary to protect habitat in riflle areas of most streams, DFWP and BLM used the Wetted Perimeter Inflection Point (WETP) method of calculation (DFWP 1989). This method is based on the assumptions that aquatic organisms making up contributing the majority of food for game fish are produced in riffle areas, and that food supply for the fish is a major factor in determining the number and weight offish a stream can support during vt^arraer the months when fish grow and . •new fish ai^^^Uited into tJic popuLuion. Riffles also are used by many game fish for spawning and rearing of their young. Wetted perimeter is the linear distance along the bottom and sides of a stream that is in contact with

water when the stream is viewed in cross section (see Figure B- 1) . As flows change, the wetted perimeter changes. If water is maintained in riffles, a substantial amount of stream width wiU extend near enough to streamside vegetation to provide shade and protection to pools and runs where adult fish reside.

~~440. Comment: On page B-4, under "Base Flow Approach," the second sentence in the flrst paragrapl should be changed.~~

~~Response: BASE FLOW APPROACH~~

The WEHP method and fixed percentage approach do not work very well on spring creeks. On 17 highlquality spring creeks (Table B-SJfDFWP is requesting that the lowest average monthly flow for the year (the base flow) lllll typically occurs du ring the ja winter be allocated for Instream purposes year-round.

~~441. Comment: On page B-5, under "Other Approaches," the last sentence in the paragraph should b( changed.~~

~~Response: OTHER APPROACHES~~

DFWP also requested reservation of all remaining unappropriated water on four streams (Table B-4) to protect water quality and fisheries of the East GaUatin River. All remaining unappropriated water was requested on three 169

tributaries (Table B-4) of the Madison River below Hebgen Dam to ensure adequate flow In the Madison when water Is not being released from the dam. Lastly, orijiilitwo Intermittent tributaries of the Missouri River (Table B-4), one - half the average annual the mestti KIDoQjly flow was requested during four months each year to protect a rainbow trout spawning run.

~~442. Comment: On page B-5, Table B-4, under the request column for Stickney Creek and Wegner Creek, mean annual flow should read mean monthly flow.~~

~~Response:~~

~~Table B-4. Streams where DFWP used other approaches to determine Instream flow requests~~

~~Stream Reach Request Reason~~

~~East Gallatin River-Reach 1 All remaining To protect water quality Bridger Creek unappropriated water in the East Gallatin River Rocky Creek for fisheries purposes Sourdough Creek~~

~~Beaver Creek All remaining To offset flow reductions Cabin Creek unappropriated water due to storage at Hebgen Resen/oir West Fork Madison River~~

~~Stickney Creek Mean amwerf moflftlijf flow for To allow rainbow trout from Wegner Creek four months of the year the Missouri to spawn in these intermittent streams~~

443. Comment: On page D-3, the following streams are missing from Table D-1: Under Red Rock and Beaverhead drainage: Poindexter Slough; Jefferson drainage: Willow Spring Creek; Madison drainage: Black Sand Spring Creek; Big Hole drainage: Rock Creek at mouth near Wisdom and Delano Creek at mouth near Wise River; Jefferson drainage: Halfway Creek at mouth near Whitehall; Smith River drainage: North Fork Deep Creek at mouth near MlU^an; Musselshell River drainage: Collar Gulch at mouth near Maiden; Marias River drainage: Badger Creek below forks near Browning.

~~Response: The flow records on the following page have been added to Table D-1.~~

~~444. Comment: On page D- 15, under the Dearborn River drainage. Sheep Creek at mouth near Cascade Is not a tributary to the Dearborn.~~

~~Response:~~

~~Table D-1. Estimated flows (cfs) for the 50-year period from 1937 to 1986 where reservations are requested~~

~~OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG~~

~~DEARBORN RIVER DRAINAGE 170~~

~~Table D-1 (continued) Oa NOV DEC 1~~

~~171~~

~~attached. 445. Comment: For page E-3. Table E- 1 , corrected copies of this table from the draft EIS are~~

Response: For the draft EIS. DNRC queried BLM. DFWP, DHES, and DNRC's regional oft^ices for information about water quality impairments and streams with critical low flows. In January 1991. DFWP submitted revised data designating "chronic" and "periodic" low flow streams. Tables E-1. 4-2. and 4-4 have been changed to reflect new Information and to correct nomenclature errors. Hot Springs Creek is not indicated In DFWP's January 1 99 lllst. Red Caityon Creek and Cow Creek were not shown to have Impairments to water quality during DNRC's review of the data. Hell's Canyon Creek is listed in the periodic dewatering section of the DFWP list and Is removed from the critical low flow list. Swamp Creek Is not listed as chronic or critical low flow, but Is listed as a periodic low flow problem In the DFWP January 1991 submittal. Also see response to comment 85. DNRC chose to use the term "critical low flow" on those streams for which published documentation existed or for which more than one agency Indicated the existence of severe dewatering problems.

~~Table E-1. Water quality classifications and impairments for streams where reservations are requested~~

~~Gallatin Drainage Missouri River - Holter Dam to Belt Creek~~

~~Water Quality Water Quality Stream/Reach^ Classification Impairments'' Stream/Reach^ Classification Impairments"~~

E Gallatin River #1 B-1 Sediment, nutrients, ethef -belev^i^l wastewater treatment plant Gallatin River #1 B-1 Critical low flow Non» Hell ftearngsiilill Creek A-1/B-1 None Middle Fork Hyalte Creek #1 A-1/B-1 Middle Fork Hyaite Creek #2 B-1 Sediment, pH, nutrients.

~~Madison Drainage~~

~~Water CXjality Stream/Reach* Classification Impairments''~~

~~" N^orth Meadow Creek B- Critical low flow S Fork Madison River B-1 Nonep~~

~~Jefferson and Boulder Drainages~~

~~Water Quafity Stream/Reach^ Classification Impairments''~~

~~Hells Canyon Creek B-1 Gfit i cQ l low f l ow Nor>e S Willow Creek B-1 Nene Cnttcat Sow ftow~~

~~Willow Springs Creek B-1 Critica l tow f low N0f1»~~

~~Big Hole and Ruby Drainages~~

~~Water QuaFity Stream/Reach^ Classification Impairments''~~

~~A lder Cre et ( fr+ Critica l low flow E Fork Ruby River B-1 Sedimentr~~

~~Ruby River #2 B-1 Sediment|||i|ca! jow f fc»|~~

~~l l f l etoG i Crook e-+ Critica ow ow~~

~~Worm Springo Croo l t A-+ rfOn© .~~

~~172~~

~~446 a. Comment: There are many inaccuracies In these draft EIS tables as I read them. I would like to point out the following:~~

~~Appendix G, Table G-1, Big Hole River #3 - This table lists the brown trout as being rare in this stretch of the river; brown trout are what everyone fishes for.~~

~~b. Comment: We have attached copies of Table G-1 (pp. G-4, G-9, and G-10) with the necessary corrections.~~

~~Response: Revised pages G-4, G-5, G-9, and G-10 are on the following four pages.~~

447. Comment: In Appendix H. Table H- 1 , the recreation data from MRIS are cited Incorrectly. Sources for columns 4 through 12 should read "Recreation portion of the Montana Rivers Information System," not the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS). NRIS houses and disseminates data from a variety of data bases, including MRIS.

~~Response: The following change has been made to all pages in Appendix H, Table H- 1~~

~~Table H-1 . Recreation information for rivers and streams with reservation requests~~

~~Sources: Columns 1 through 3: DFWP 1989.~~

Columns 4 through 12: Natu ral ricaauree Info rmatien Oyatom iiii hensive recreation information is not available for all streams. (formerly page G-4) 173 "^t^^iwl^t^ ujdinaspeiuoifii I3 0Q.00 O < << Q- OO OOO Q. TiiQa uwipajMimwij jsuepBMOi «*1I8M iP«d J96nes q3J8dM0||ax

~~sssq q)nouje6jr| qstjuns f$^ qinciulieLUS ilBenig paastjn(duihd~~

~~ljS|)Un5 U88J0~~

~~iWJPOO loqinfl~~

~~wn) 4S|KS)|8UU8IO >«j|nq)pB|g~~

~~wpns UjBjunoifj jopns e(B0S86jr|~~

~~j0)|3(isei{i^ j«|3ns 8sou6uoi << 333 jsipns 8sx>qpej pesqvoqs ojBj^q qviouj6|g~~

~~::;i:|||pqmnoui|Eius J8)(onsBn|g~~

~~asep ssoubuoi MouujUipeeqiej~~

~~Mouujui XjeA|is~~

~~Mouufuj Xsseig MU^S pUBS ;MU!ijs spjspey MWUN Mums pieisui^ qnipuuappis qmp«(ri qnqsuoefiinis qnip pesqiEij qnipqein nipa^auilx^sqpey'N~~

~~dreo •U """"^""^ BCfjteBopiv . < 3 tnoJUtowa a. a.3 3 ft, a 3 => IP Q. 3 3 030. )noi;uMQjQ 300 33<~~

~~: inoflnwqgrea 33PLQ. 33 moii pijq^ lEOjquns/Moquiey 0.0. mojiiBojiflmo o. a. o. ;d 3':\3: .di.,:3::. fill Muin|0)| )»nu!B|unom «^a S.'* << OO. eA6uoo|i\| sXepiog M^epped uoefijnis 8$ou|8M)qs~~

~~uoafijfiis AlHVd 3WVN NOWNOO~~

~~P> T- ^ ^ CM '^ ^ to (D~~

~~flo~~

OO ^ '^ M -:. SSI 83 C3 IP- i«&^S! ^ K! $ M II. T a, c o iCCCC cc tr. I O : oM go's ' )ir > % Wo- is c/5 X 5OT z o "5 u_ I ill as uul >UJ(9X \sr 11 Occazo)s,. 174 (formerly page G-5) ipeWPiS ^aeqappjtsiioojg uwinos uidifPspamoH Q.O- n. 30 o oog; o- < Q- 13 < uiruQ ujnipwtBMtjsaij mepwo\

~~ped jaBnes y7J8dM0||8X ejooejoijaeig 8!ddeJ3a;{i|M sseq quKxua6jr| iiajuns~~

~~: pSMunidujnd ija)uns uaejs WPOO loqing p Jjo ogJ teoeuois W»0 peaqinqipBis ».»;; jsipns a|Eosa6j7] jsaisnieimM => ffg oo P O J8){3n; asouSuc^ 30 03 o o ooo isifins asjOMpaj peaquoqs~~

~~0|«||nq L|inau6ig qejinq mnouj|eu>s •;-!W; ^r-?;^-;-;-:- : jaifonsanig~~

~~eoep asouBuoi iMouufw peaqiej~~

~~MOUUMI Xi8A||S MOUUjlU ^IM||S/9UeM AMuuuisueid JMUUIuAtSOS wuqspues jsutqsapispeti Mujgs p|sjaui3 qnipuijappjs S;?^! jij^i^^p:! ^~~

~~qntpuoe&nig ' qnqopeeMieij~~

~~MOUUIIII dJBO end aiKlUMquoN Bajxae'sp?' CCZJCC~~

~~inoj|)|oaig =5 O :3 tit CO :><:Oi:=>« pocp :0- Qoc:;:::;! •PS>f^ poii PiX^ ieoji|nn3/Moqu|eu << 0L3 3 < mojuwjiflmo eg a 3 O (C 33 a~~

~~en CO " en «> m V- V- «- n CO o CO~~

~~it tii oe o 1^ - 5z cog OOli y (formerly page G-9) 175 ifwWVIlS i(aeqap(3i>8)tooi9 UW|t»S ujdiros peiBOHi O 3 Z> OD O ujfuO Lunjp jeiawjsa)j jeuepeMO( 8fe(|EM IfWd j86nES~~

~~eiaaaioijwjg~~

~~odder oiimvt sseq ginoujsdiri~~

~~Msp>S ::)!!f8qmnoui||8uiS~~

~~poesuniduind~~

~~M«l>00 wng leseuois W»0 M»(IK)|90UW(0 peeqinqipeig J8I|0(K uisiunon Mipns e|S3S86;E') J8))3nS 8)mM S 33 r>30 joisns e$ou6uoi 3 13 3 = jeipns ssioqpaj pesqiioqs oieunq mnouBiQ~~

~~MOUUjUJ ^8/\|IS~~

~~Mouuiuj suieicj HOUUUJ ^SSEJS Mums pueg Mums epjspey p|«J8ui3 MOUUN jeujqs qnipujjsppis~~

~~<|ng3 uoefiintg qnno peaqiBij ?af aaiip a|e3S8u| x ^aqpay N~~

~~diBo~~

~~e>ld OfidiusquoN~~

mojDtoojg 3:3 pooo Op 0^3 3 3 "VK P OO 3 3 3 0- inoiiuMQjg 3(r OL a. oc OCX. oo< < ^ ItMutMoqujey i> 5> .a.::-- w a.3 003 OO 3:p|PO=>a. p.p.<;. o < 3 0- moij pixytq |EOjqnn3'Moqu|eti 3 O. moniBojmino O 33, "ttp Mueito)! 3 qsjsyqM uieuinofi <

~~uoefljrus AlNVd 3NVN Nonnoo~~

~~^ CO <0 'tf CMCM -« <0~~

~~SSI OO~~

~~I io 'o as |o ii Si-iJ3 ,~~

~~176 (formerly page G-10) ipeqwis 3^^^^^ "Sajnas uidinas petuo|i^ ooo o uiiuo mnipwiwmiaij jeuepeMOj 3:3 OC-.OC 3 ipaj jefoes op =>:ao. 3~~

~~sseq mnouiafijri iwns $$eqmnauj||cuis~~

paefiniduind qsfuns uaejo p. 1!C:0 M«!IP<>0 loqina D.3 D leoeuois 003 19J180 pwminqipBig ™s«ft:i» ^^^^^^355 iSS»;5S:ft*:?B(^ jeipns 8|e3S86jr| jaians ev.qM So 000 OOP p o-P J8)(3ns esouSuon ^o 000 000 o o o jeifms esjoqpej peaquoqs oteDnq quKuBig qeunq i^inoujgeujs jAlsnssnig

~~nep esoubuon <•<< o Mouujuj pesqie^j P 3 P AWUUIUI ^OAIIS~~

~~Mouuiui sineid wouuiui Xssejg jsuiqs puEs Wiqsspispeti tei? Muiqs piejeui^ Mouuini qnipu!|8pP!S~~

~~qnqs uoefijnig~~

~~qnqo peaqisi^j~~

~~«9Bp«|KIS8U}xA|a(|l8tJ'N~~

~~dJBO 333 3 •fd ajmnsqu^ Buipfeje^pvr~~

~~inoioioojg << : 3 33 a. o; 33~~

~~U09ft«llS u(»8jnii pi|B() A1WVd BfUVN Nonwoo~~

~~C7 CO CO CO~~

~~p ^1 «> S w UJ O 0) I mfi| ^ i I o .1 S AT -Ss lis ^ I i fe I il«^ill. .. _ il -15 00 o«i1.5: Ill' >o_ -^ i &i ill Sill xz 177~~

~~448. Comment:~~

a. Page 1-3. Table I- 1 - On four streams In the Gallatin River drainage, DFWP requested all the remaining unappropriated flow. The table shows flows remaining on these streams after the instream flows are subtracted. Since DFWP requested aU. of the remaining flow for each month of the year, the table should show zero remaining flow at the following: Bridger Creek near Bozeman, East Gallatin River at Bozeman. Rocky Creek near Bozeman, Sourdough Creek near Bozeman. Also, in Table I-l under the Madison River drainage, the same comments above apply to the following three streams: Beaver Creek near West Yellowstone; Cabin Creek near West Yellowstone; West Fork Madison River near Cameron.

b. Page 1-4, imder Jefferson River drainage - Black Sand Spring Creek is a Madison River tributary, not a tributary to the Jefferson and the flows listed are not correct. Halfway Creek and Willow Spring Creek flows are not correct. Under the Big Hole River drainage, the flows are not correct for Delano Creek or Rock Creek. Under the Beaverhead River and Red Rock River drainage, the flows for Poindexter Slough are not correct. All these flows are too low. DFWP can provide the correct numbers.

~~c. Page 1-6. imder Smith River drainage, the North Fork of Deep Creek is missing fixim the list.~~

~~d. Page 1-7. under Marias River drainage, the flows for Badger Creek are not correct (too low).~~

~~e. Page 1-8, under Musselshell River drainage, the flows for Collar Gulch Creek are not correct (too low).~~

~~Response: The following changes have been made to Table I-l.~~

~~Table 1-1 . Average monthly and annual flow (cfs) remaining after requested Instream flows are subtracted~~

~~OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG~~

~~MADISON RIVER DRAINAGE~~

(

~~JEFFERSON RIVER DRAINAGE Halfway Creek~~

~~1 4.4 17.4 Q o,',,,,,,, ,0 .0 P, ia^9; 2,8 iiiiiA, ..,..,,,.,,,, q q q q n n Q. o Q q \J.\J V.U Kf-V O.O tT.V U.U Willow Spring Creek~~

~~e e e~~

~~BIG HOLE RIVER DRAINAGE Delano Creek~~

~~ft fi ft fl Rock Creek IS ^Hiiii:4 26 $1.5 2\./ 9.e 5,4 loi lU.r iV.r IV. r lU.r 49^~~

~~BEAVERHEAD RIVER DRAINAGE Poindexter Slough S^i » e ft ft ft ft 9 ft~~

~~SMITH RIVER DRAINAGE North Fork Deep Creek , 10^ ii Oit~~

~~MARIAS RIVER DRAINAGE Badger Creek 22 1$ 5 2 94- &1- W- &1- 94- 94- 94 91- 91- 91- 94 94- 94~~

~~TETON RIVER DRAINAGE Spring Creek IP 0,2 2 02 2 2 6i •'v v>v tLA.w«v U.O U.O V>w u.u Q Q 178~~

~~453. Comment: On page K- 13, Table K-7, the City of Great Falls's water system is now 100 percent metered.~~

~~Response: Table K-7. Municipal water system characteristics~~

~~Water Distribution Percent of Municipal Systems with Service Unmetered Requests Substantial Leaiuge Metered Service~~

~~Great Falls 96%iHi~~

~~DNRC STAFF CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS~~

~~The following section presents changes made to the draft EIS by DNRC staff during its review of public~~

~~comments. Deleted material is shown with lines through it. New material is shaded.~~

~~The following changes to the summary in the draft EIS were made in the final EIS. SUMMARY~~

fjuly 1991,TG^f|fli^i^niPDep;irtnicnt of Natu- recreation, and water quality. Only public entities ral Rii$om-c^{ijiidCoilservaiioti {DXRC") R'lcasfd its such as local governments, conservation districts,

draft environmental Impact st a t t"i ntiiit ( KIS) for Water and state and federal agencies can apply for and hold Reservation Applicaliuns jIkwc Fort Peck Dam. In-, water reservations. DNRC was assigned by statute formatlonal meetings and public tir.irmgs. on the to coordinate the process and to provide technical draft EIS were held to 10 Missouri 1)asin communi- and financial assistance to conservation districts and ties lroraAugUSt5throvgh August 7, Thr public had municipalities in preparing their applications. The until Septembers tocomment on ihc (iraii icis, with Board of Natural Resources and Conservation this deadline later extended to September 16, This (Board) must reach a decision on water reservation ftoal EIS re^caxds to coumients and questions pcr- applications above Fort Peck Dam by July 1, 1992. taintngto the and updates -^k^ draft. ^^^^^^ APPLICATIONS

MISSOURI RIVER WATER DNRC received 40 reservation applications. Eigh- RESERVATION STATUTE teen municipalities applied for 34,689 acre-feet per year to meet future growth. Eighteen conservation districts requested 137 acre-feet per year, pri- In 1985. the Montana Legislature directed DNRC 388. cov- to begin a basinwide water reservation proceeding marily for aa© 2X9 proposed irrigation projects Depart- for the Missouri River basin above Fort Peck Dam. ering ^&4-t5tH: 154.604 acres. The Montana ment of Health and Environmental Sciences (DHES) The legislature felt that implementation of a water applied reserve half the average annual flow at reservation procedure would encourage more coor- to Missouri River (near Toston, Ulm, dinated development of the water resources in the four points on the Virgelle, maintain dilution of arse- basin and would help form a strong and unified basis and Landusky) to river water. Department of for protecting Montana's share of the Missouri River nic in the The Montana Fish, Wildlife Parks (DFWP) applied to reserve water from downstream states. Reservations granted and instream flows on 283 streams or stream reaches, in this process have a priority date of July 1. 1985. lake, and one wetland, to protect fish, wildlife, Under Montana water law, reservations allow for one recreation, water quality. The U.S. Bureau of existing or future consiomptive uses of water and for and Land Management (BLM) requested instream flows maintaining instream flows to protect aquatic life. ,

179 on 31 streams for fish, wildlife, recreation, and to Jeling. ^m maintain channel form. The U.S. Bureau of Recla- ther informauon, reseaitih, and anafysis was ptti^ mation (BUREC) applied to reserve a maximum of vided by DNRC ^aff and consultants, the draft M^-

~~280 cfs, up to a yearly total of 89,000 acre-feet from was distributed to July 1 99 1 the Missouri River. This water would be diverted into~~

^ the Milk River basin to relieve water shortages and Iti^^^roili^^ followed by hearings provide for some new irrigation. Ijdd In 10 MissotJrt foastn communities duiing - gust 5. 6, 7, and S, 1991, to talce comments tjuesttons on the draft EIS fTable 8-1). Distrtbutio EIS PROCESS «f the draft EIS was followed by a 60-day cotninej: period during which DNHC accepted written cor The Montana Environmental Policy Act requires tnents on the draft EIS. Tlits comment period w^ preparation of an environmental impact statement extended two weeks to end on September 16, 199| (EIS) for major actions of state government that have UmiC received a total of B6 written comments i the potential to affect significantly the human and letters in response to the draff EIS. Tins final B^ natural environment. This EIS examines the envi - was then prepared to respond to conanents ronmental, social, and economic impacts of the pro- questions pertaining to the draft, and to summarize posed reservation requests. In the summer of 1000. and update Infomiatlon in it* DNRC held 10 public meetings at different locations throughout the basin to identify important issues for analyses and inclusion in the EIS. An environmental assessment was prepared for each reservation appli - Table S-li. PubHc participation in meetings held to cation to provide the basis for the analyses and con - take comments on dratt EIS clusions contained in this EIS. DNRC also developed a computer model of the Missouri River Basin to assess physical and legal availability of water. This Meettr^ draft EIS is based on the above information and research and analysis by DNRC staff and consult - ants. Following release of the draft EIS, there will be a GO - day period during which time written comments on the draft EIS can be submitted to DrmC. DNRC also win hold public meetings across the basin to receive comments on the draft EIS. The final EIS will address all substantive comments responding to the draft EIS.

~~Hie Montana Environmental I^H~~

tathe'&^trfer bri§i§§:'t>NI?C held 10 pubBe meetings at different locations throu^oul the basin lu identify Important issues for analyses and inclusion in the draft EIS DKRC also developed a computer model ol Llie Missoun i^verbasinto assess the H\ ailability of water. The draft EIS included discus- ii|»e^fe^ participants, along 180

tle«s||P||;fbr the protection offish, wildlife, recre ation, and water quality. Irrigation would have thirc priority. rUver hyditfelectffc Reiterating fjfuittltl^, increasing genemting capacily Eflects ofeach alter* hy 68 MW. To some extent, the Combination Alternative is native on ijydroel^ttlo generation at the upgn&de^l similar to the Consumptive Use Alternative in that 11

gives first preference to municipalities, second tc proposed irrigation projects, and third to Instrean Since publtcatlod Ofm^ i^l^^l Â^rm uses. It differs primarily in that proposed irrigatior iftnd WUaliTc fit Service ha^receivtd petition to Ust the pro|ects are only included if they are|||||^M|^ fhivial {streain-dwilling) arctic grajdir^ as kncndan~ ||||:;economically and financially feasible at least 5C gered»pceiesancl lo designate allwatersinttsibnnftr percent of the time . A few other projects were ex- jTange a* critical habitat Hie cm% known population cluded or reduced in size on the basis of concerns of flt?vlai arctic grayling tti the im^-îî^ iwd^ about land use impacts or other environmental con- i(Stn the eigHok Fiver dratnagft,' siderations.

ALTERNATIVES The Wdtir Quali^ Alternative indudes onlyre$- ervatiiHib lur requested instream flows and, there- To address the full range of potential impacts and icfte, v.ouid nut have any adverse effects on watei options available to the Board. DNRC selected four quality 1 1 1 Ls allemative was developed in response alternatives to analyze in the draft EIS. They are: the to comments on the draft EIS* Consumptive Use, Instream, Combination, and No Action alternatives. Two aclditionalaltematives-~the wasdi'vclupedir Water Quality and Municipal altematlves~-were de» response to comments on the draft i:iS, which sug- veloped and anaJped m the final EIS to response to gested benefits would be maximized if an alternative requests by a nturober of cortxtnentem; were developed tiiat included all instream and municipal requests, but no new irrigation prefects. Un-

~~^ DNHc also recalculated the benefits and costs~~

~~181~~

rights. To make its decision, the Board will have to rivers and streams, late summer streamflows would abide by the decision criteria described In Chapter be reduced to zero or near zero during dry years. Seven of the draft EIS and rely on information in the Impacts to streamflows would be less under the Com- applications, draft and final EIS. Individual environ- bination Alternative and least under the Instream mental assessments, and on testimony presented at Alternative. Streamflows would decrease less under the contested case hearing. the C<«nb{natlon Altematlv^e than ttnder the Con- suniplive Use Altemalive. Streamflow reductions IMPACTS UNDER would be even Jess under ihe Instream Alteuiative, Uw Muiucip-il .-Mtei native. USE, and only minor under CONSUMPTIVE Flowswouldnot be affected under the Water Quality COMBINATION, ANB INSTREAMflPDNIClPAL,^ AND WATER QUALITYl Legal Water availj^bility ALTERNATIVES By law, water reservations carmot adversely affect the amount of water legally available to holders General Considerations of water rights with a priority date earlier than July 1, 1985. However, if an existing water right user Impacts on the existing environment arc gener- wishes to change the point of diversion, place of use, ally greatest under the Consumptive Use Alternative, purpose of use, or place of storage, all senior and less under the Combination Alternative and least junior water right holders, including those with water under the Instrcam Alternative.—Some proposed reservations, have a right to object to the change if projects included in all three alternatives would have they feel that the exercise of their water rights would substantial impacts. Impacts were not assessed for be adversely affected. This same legal right allows some of the larger projects where information was holders of water reservations to object to water right not required nor available in the applications.— claims submitted in the statewide adjudication pro- separate environmental review may be required be - ceeding. Holders of water reservations, like all other fore some of these projects could be constructed. water right holders, may seek relief from the district court to protect their water rights. liil^ra^ |;|f decreasing impacts! While water physically available for a to the fedsliiig em'{roiim|^ Consumptivel may be reservation the point of diversion, it may already Use AlLematlve, Comb|5|i||||||lp^ Instream;; at Alternative, Municlpa||i|||||iiti^,^|^ Water Qual|; be appropriated by a water user downstream. Exist- ing water users such as irrigators, Montana Power ity Alteniative. Soni|||ii|||i|i||i!i|iu us|| (MPC), BLM, Indian tribes, and projects iixduded;l|i:;i|;|||||||B Company BUREC, the Corps of Engineers already claim most of the flow native would haveiilippiiiiplpi||.^ ixnii in the Missouri River and its tributaries. The exact pacts were not assessed for lat;^|ipf|icts wheri;:; ofwater legally available for future consump- information was not available. A separate environl amount tive appropriation, if any, will not be known for some iinenta] review niight be recivjired.b||ar|:SQm||^gi^ time. The statewide water rights adjudication pro- ^lojects, could be coiisu^gledi cess will determine the size and extent of these water rights. Hipoaxd will need to:f^ Water Quantity and Distribution ^IPIlillllld not be adversely ailected by thejl^ Many rivers, streams, reservoirs, and groundwa- liiiiiiatiiiiil ter systems have been altered by existing water uses Canyon Ferry Dam was built to provide water for and could be further modified by any consumptive consumptive uses, primarily for irrigation, while at use project developed through the use of reserva- the same time maintaining the level of hydropower tions. On some Some streams there is not enough production at MFC's downstream facilities. Soon llave loo lltUe water in dry years to satisfy all existing after Canyon Ferry Dam went into operation, re- water users. Impacts to streamflows would be great- leases from the reservoir Increased MFC's down- est under the Consumptive Use Alternative which stream electricity generation by an annual average of would reduce flows substantially in the Jefferson, 106 gigavvatt -hours (1 gigawatt = 1,000 megawatt- Smith, Sun, Marias, and Teton rivers and in at least hours) (GWh) above ttie pre-Canyon Ferry- level. As a dozen smaller tributary streams. In several of the more water was consumed for other purposes, the 182

Increase above the 1955 level decreased to an aver- water for drinking would increase unless the arseni( age of 84 GWh peryear by 1986, and would decrease is removed through special treatment. Such treat further to an average of 54 GWh per year under the m&Di is ej^^dssKis^ s^r^tx^^^f^ive processing Consumptive Use Alternative. In the two lowest fjacililies, PiX)posed irrigation projects diverting wate power years in 10 under the present operating re- from the Madison River into the Gallatin dralnagi gime, MPC would receive no additional benefits from and from the Missouri River into the Milk drainag( the reservoir at either the 1986 level of irrigation would increase arsenic levels In the Gallatin anc development or under the Consumptive Use Alterna- MUk rivers. Instream reservations would not chang( tive. However, The problem of high arsenic concen- water quality but may and would not be adequate t( trations in the Missouri River drainage still must be preserve flows for arsenic dUutions :|||||i||i;i|i|!i|i addressed before BUREC will market water stored in nic to meet EPA standards. Canyon Ferry Reservoir for consumptive uses (see Water Quality). Soils and Stream Channel Form

In general, reservations that would result In th( The Blackfeet Tribes have substantial federal re- conversion of rangeland to Irrigation would affec served water right claims on the Meirlas River and its soils through the loss of organic matter, reduce( tributaries, with, a priority date ofMay 1, 1888, This water holding capacity, and Increased susceptlbillt; special class of water rights might affect future erosion. effects offset ^Jpact use of water reservations and f«a«y existing to These would be somewha water users. once an alfalfa crop is established. Where reserva tions convert dry cropland to irrigation, soil struc Water Quality ture will improve, erosion will decrease, and nitrogei and organic fertility will increase. Forty-threi Water reservations for consumptive use would projects might have substantial soil Impacts an( cause a decline in water quality In some streams and these are identified in Chapter Six of the draft EIS groundwater systems. Higher concentrations of Other effects ofconsumptive use projects on soUs an nutrients, pesticides, seduiR-iiLs, and salts would be generally minor. noticeable in some waters, but in most Instances the increases would be minor. Short-term increases in Impacts to stream channels generally would bi sediments would result from construction of reser- minor. In some Instances, consumptive water use; voirs and diversion structures. could decrease channel capacity by increasing thi deposition of sediment. Instream reservations woult

Arsenic concentrations exceed the federal and not change existing stream channel forms. state instream standard in the Madison and Mis- souri rivers in Montana. These concentrations also Land Use exceed the federal drinking water standard In the Proposed Irrigation reservations would conver Madison River and the portion of the Missouri River nonlrrigated cropland, pasture, and rangeland t( upstream from Toston Dam. Arsenic is a known irrigated fields. The amount ofTlew^ Irrigated crop carcinogen. EPA's standard for carcinogens is based land would increase In the basin by about 24 1' on a risk level that would result in one case of skin percent ( 206,000 160,248 acres) under the Con cancer per million people. Based on this standard sumptive Use Alternative, +5 9 percent ( 129.00( and assumptions on arsenic concentrations in the 77,759 acres) under the Combination Alternative MtsgQurl River, Ihf FAW sfandar

would generally worsen conditions on these rivers VEGErrATION and streams. Streams most severely affected by the Impacts to vegetation would result from replace- proposed consumptive use reservations include the ment of natural plant communities with agricultural Jefferson River near Waterloo and Three Forks, the crops. Inundation of riparian and upland plant com- Boulder River above Cold Springs, the Marias River, munities by reservoirs, reduced stream flows, and the lower portions of the Sun and Teton rivers, and Increased proliferation ofnoxious weeds. However, It eight tributaries. Streams where iJiere would also be Is difficult to predict the level of impacts on riparian ^llllillllthougH: the eflects could be less Include and wetland plant species such as cottonwoods, the Gallatin, Missouri, Judith, Dearborn, and Smith sedges, rushes, and dominant tree species. No Mon- rivers and seven smaller tributary streams. Stored tana plants are federally listed as threatened or en- water could be released from Tiber Reservoir to offset dangered species. Probably the most significant veg- most water depletions in the lower Marias River. etation effect is the increased risk of spreading nox- Reservations for instream flows would help maintain ious weeds. the existing aquatic habitat and fisheries. HISTORICAL, Archaeological, and The effects of flow reductions on the pallid stur- Paleontological Sites geon, a federally listed endangered species, are not known. Tlie arclic grayling lias been proposed as a Proposed consumptive use reservations would '^Jandidale for listing as an endangered species, affect 60 known historical, archaeological, or paleon- pearly all reserv-alions for con&umjMive use are lo- tological sites. Most sites are located on private land icated downstream frtan the present range of the where formal evaluation is not required to determine

grayling. if some sites might be eligible for listing on the Na- tional Register of Historic Places. It is possible that four of the proposed storage projects could support a fishery. On large irrigation Storage projects, fish could be killed In the diversion structures, though this could be minimized through Reservations may reduce water available for fu- proper design. ture storage projects. Reservations generally would not preclude storage of spring runoff flows, but might Wildlife make some storage projects less economically feasible. Easting water rights could be a greater con- Proposed irrigation projects could affect wildlife straint to the development of new storage than water by altering habitat. Thlrty-slx Irrigation projects reservations. Development of consumptive use res- would convert native grassland to Irrigated cropland ervations would slightly;;decrease reservoir levels in on big game winter range and would reduce the Canyon Ferry, Fort Peck, and Tiber reservoirs. The amount of native forage available to wintering elk reservation applications Include 15 water storage and deer. Losses ofwinter range could stress wildlife projects, and together they would store a relatively during the winter and early spring and increase dep- small amount of water. redation on crops and hay. DFWP has identified 70 proposed irrigation projects with a high potential for Recreation crop damage from wildlife. Most of these projects are near or within existing winter ranges. Instream reservations would help maintain streamflows on streams and rivers that are Impor- Birds of prey (raptors), waterfowl such as ducks tant to recreation and tourism. Recreational use of and geese, and aquatic mammals such as mink and water in the Missouri River Basin in Montana totaled river otter could be affected by consumptive use res- over 2 million recreation days in 1989. About 61 ervations. However, in most cases, site specific infor- percent of the total water-based recreation use is on mation Is not available to determine the extent of the rivers and streams and 39 percent on reservoirs. The effect, if any. Grouse and birds of prey would be most important recreational resources in the basin affected by local disturbance during nesting and from an economic perspective are the streams In the brood rearing periods. Reduced streamflows would Headwaters Subbasin such as the Beaverhead, Big make waterfowl more vulnerable to predation and Hole, Gallatin, and Madison rivers. The total net also would limit food supplies for aquatic mammals, economic value of water-based recreation in the which would render them more susceptible to basin above Fort Peck Dam is $144 million per year. predation. 184

Recreational u8C could decline under all three AGRICULTURE altcmativea as flows decrease in rivers and atreams. Development of irrigation projects in the basin jRecreatlonal use could decline under all alternatives under any alternative would have a posltl\pc that include consumptive use. The effects would rnmH benefit ial effect onjobs. personal income, taxes, and become more severe as additional water is with- agricultural sales. Beneflts would be greater In the drawn from streams that already have low flows Marias/Teton and Middle Missouri subbaslns than during dry years, such as the Gallatin, Jefferson. In the upper Missouri and Headwater subbaslns. Boulder, Smith, Dearborn, Sun, Teton, Judith, and About 30 jobs would be created In ihe basin under Musselshell rivers. Belt Creek, and the Marias River the Instream Alternative^ above Tiber Reservoir. about 53 under the Combl- Jl»a!l3tot* Alternative, and about 106 under the Con- sumptive Use Alternative. No new Jobs would Estimated recreational instream values range b« created in the agricultural sector under theMunlct-^ from $35 an acre-foot per year on headwater rivers pal or Water Quality alternatives. Total personal and streams during July and August to $2 an acre- income in the basin would increase between foot per 3rcar on Middle Missouri and Marias/Teton $1,749,723 in the Instream Alternative and subbasln streams during the rest of the year. Esti- $6,066,878 per year under the Consuniptive Use mated recreation losses are $3,100,000 $3,754,000 Altemative. County tax receipts would Increase be- per year under the Consumptive Use Alternative; tween $59,563 for the Instream Alternative and $1,021,000 $1,616,000 per year under the Combi- $158,440 per year under the Consumptive Use Al- nation Alternative; $3 1 0,000 WofXKyb per year un- ternative. Agricultural sales would Increase between der the Instream Alternative: and $3,930 per yecir 1.0 percent and 3 5 percent Agricultural sales, under the Municipal Alternative. No recreation per« sonal income, and county tax receipts would losses aj|r.^^8i|M^|^;;y|ij;^i||i^^ not --<--y^-->. .v...... „v...... ™^^^ increase under the Water Quality Alternative. iiative. I Social Effects Hydropower The reservations would not noticeably change Consumptive use of water under the requested the social character of communities in the Missouri reservations eventually would increase the cost of River basin. The agriculture community would re- electricity to ratepayers by: (1) increasing the use of main stable, and the recreation and tourism-related electricity to operate municipal and irrigation; services would stili constitute a growing segment of pumps, and (2) decreasing streamflows that are used the teeai basin economy. to generate electricity, and (2) requiring production of additional electricity . These two actions would require production of replacement power from new NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE sources that would be considerably more expensive than existing power supplies. The total monetary If the Board were to deny all reservation applications, consumptive water users could still apply Impact to ratepayers would range from -HtS $1 1 .0 to 36r+ $29.2 million per year under the Consumptive through the water use permitting process to appro- Use Alternative; 4T6;;i|iito -t^TB $13.4 million per priate water for beneficial uses. If most or all direct flows year under the Combination Alternative; 4t?$1.4 to are appropriated by water users such as MPC 57+ $4.4 million per year under the Instream Alter- and Irrigators, a potential user could buy an existing native; and $0.09 to $0.5 million per year under the water right and change the use. Municipalities could Municipal Alternative, The Water Quality ^"Uterua- condemn existing water rights to meet future needs. live would not dire<':tly affect ratepayers. The cost of replacing power used under the Consumptive Use Irrigated agriculture probably would remain Alternative (in excess of revenue received for irriga- stable. Some new irrigation projects would be built tion and in the basin. This new development robably would municii)al pumping to municipalities ) p would range from 5:9 $1.S to +9:3 $11.0 million per be offset by the amount of irrigated land going out of production - year; ^76 $1.0 to 6r* $6. 1 million under the Combi- because of low fai m prices brought on by nation Alternative; +$0.4 to 4 $2.4 million under the high yields on more productive land. Instream Alternative; and $.09 to $0.52 niilliOft under the Municipal AlteniaUve. If instream reservations are not granted, instream flows In many streams and rivers would not 185

is appropriated by be protected by a water right. In some Instances, tural production before the water increased consumptive uses could lead to streams other users in Montana or by downstream states. becoming very low or going dry, resulting In adverse They also want to have the option to develop this climate Improves. Munici- Impacts to water quality, aquatic life, recreation, and water when the economic to future wildlife. Murphy water rights, large hydropower palities want to appropriate water meet - water rights, and federal and state water quality growth when available water supplies are diminish standards for arsenic would provide some level of Ing-In the basin. DFWP and BLM want to have secure Instream flow protection In some streams and rivers. Instream flows to protect flsh, wildlife, recreation, and water quality. DHE^S wants to secure instream flows the public from Increased risk of cancer If and when Mlasouri River flows arc divided to protect are already high. among basin states. Montana claims for future use from arsenic concentrations which divert Missouri River water to re- would be stronger with consumptive use reserva- BUREC intends to tions in place. duce shortages in the Milk River basin.

If present trends hold, few large storage projects AMOUNT will be built over the next 25 years. Emphasis during The Board must determine the amount needed to this period wtH probably will be on rehabilitation and fulfill the purpose of the reservations. This amount enlargement of existing facilities as defined in the must be based on accurate and suitable measuring state water plan. methods and determinations that no reasonable cost- effective measures could be taken within the reserva- BOARD DECISION CRITERIA tion term to increase efliciency and lessen the amount of water required. The decision ofwhether to grant, modify, or deny the reservation applications rests with the Board, Conservation districts' requests are based on re- which must abide by several criteria which are dis- corded crop requirements and efliciency of proposed cussed below. The ability of the requested reserva- irrigation systems. Most of the projects were de- tions to meet these criteria is examined in DNRC's signed for efficient sprinkler irrigation. research and analyses of the reservation applications, as explained in Chapter Seven of the draft EIS. The three agencies that requested Instream flows These results are preliminary and do not represent used variuusnif Ujods for deLermining their requested recommendations conclusions on whether any res- water reservaUons. DFWP employed several meth- ervation request satisfies any of these criteria. Such ods, but used moat frequently primarily used the determinations are made by the Board. Wetted Perimeter Inflection Point Method (WETP). This method provides an indication of streamflows Qualification and purpose necessary to maintain aquatic habitat in riffle areas. BLM used the same wetted perimeter method to de- All those who applied for reservations were found termine yearly minimum flows, but also used chan- to be qualified to reserve water through the Missouri nel geometry methods developed by theillnit^dStatM: River Basin water reservation proceeding. The pur- Geological Survey lUSGSlfbr determining flows nec- pose for all reservation requests are beneficlcil uses essary to maintain channel stability. DUES feels under Montana law. DHES's position Is that any new consumptive use development would Increase the risk to cancer based Need on the higher arsenic concentration in the Missouri River arsenic conrenfrallons and the consequent cart--^ reservation is needed if "there is a rea- A water cer nsk iVoni Missouri P^ver water, and that all resonable likelihood that future instate or out-of-state maining unappropriated flows are needed to protect degrade, or competing water users would consume, public health. Under the law, however, DHES cAn for the purpose of otherwise affect the water available request no inore than haH" the average annual flow on the reservations" or if "there are constraints that gauged streams, llils l.s the amount DHES requested would restrict the applicant from perfecting a water at four points on the MLssourl River. DIICS, howeve r , permit for the Intended purpose of the reservation." is liimlcd by statute to request hail" the average an - All applicants claimed a need to reserve water. Con- nual flow on gauged streams and this is the amount servation districts to secure water for agricul- want requested at 4 points on the Missouri River. 186

Municipalities requested enough water to service tifies the total net benefits and costs of water uses estimated population growth to the year 2025. The under the three five alternatives. Total net benefits amount of water needed was normally calculated by per year are greatest under the Instream Alternative wjultlplytng the per capita rate of coui>uinption times ($327.17 mUlion), slightly less under the Municipal the estimated population* Per capita use rates were Alternative ($32 1 .98 million) and CombinationAlter- generally based on actual use requirements for each native ($305.13 million), considerably lower under community. Increased population multiplied by per the Consumptive Use Alternative ($151.30 million), capita rate of consumption was used to calculate the and zero under the Water Quality Alternative. total amount requested in the applications. The 1990 Long-term census information indicates that 1 1 of Net benefits per year are greatest under the Com- the 18 municipal i)rojectlons of population growth, bination Alternative ($351.0 million), slightly less and the associated amounts ofwater requested, may under the Instrcam Alternative ($336. 5 million) and be higher than actually wiH ;|||||||:occur. considerably lower under the Consumptive Use Al - ternative ($152.7 million). DUriEC based the amount of its request on supplemental water requirements for existing iiTi- Municipal water developments have benefits that gatcd lands along the Milk River and on the Fort exceed costs by $341.3 million because of the small Belknap Indian Reservation, and the water ncccssaiy amount ofwater consumed and the high value of this for full - service irrigation of lands on the Rocky Boy's use under all three alternatives (Tables S - 2).—in Indian Reservation and lands adjacent to the pro- contrast, proposed irrigation projects consume laigc posed canal. BUREC based llie ainounl of iis request amounts of water. Total costs associated with the on estimated Suppleiuenlal water requirements for depletions would exceed total benefits by $100.6 land that is already inlgaled when water is available million per year under the Consumptive Use Alterna- alon^ the Milk River and on the rorl Belknap Indian tive, $27.2 million per year under the Combination Reservation, and the water needed to irrigate land Alternative and $2.0 million per year under the In-

(hat is not now irrigated on the Rtx'ky Boys Indian strcam Alternative (Table G - 2). Re.ser\'ation and along the projiosed canal. Present value of acre-foot of for Instream and future water conservation measures will relieve The an water and consumptive uses can be compared when reser- some of the water shortages in the basin. Since it is vations for the are requesting the not known how much water will be saved through two uses both same water. Sixty- proposed irrigation projects conservation nor the actual amount the Tribes will two would value an acre - foot of water at a greater level than the need to satisfy their federal reserved water rights. It is difilcult to determine the adequacy of the amount instrcam values, and 157 proposed irrigation projects that BUREC requested in its application for the would value water less than the instrcam values. - Vlrgelle diversion project. The value of an acre foot of water for all municipal reservations exceeds the instrcam flow and proposed irrigation roject values. "Instream values include Public Interest p the x'alue ofwater used for recreation, plus thevaltie

Ttie public interest criteria require in pari that of water used for hydroclecuic generation. In deter- the benefits of the reservation exceed the co.sls. Res- mining ilic value of water for the proposed irrigation ervations for mumcipal water supplies and irrigation projects. DXRC examined three ways the timing d would provide monetary benefits to basin communi- return flows ailect the value of water. DNRC as» ties. However, they would have result in costs by sumed that replacement power used to replace that decreasing strcamflows causing streaniflow reduc- lost due to reduced flows and to satisfy increased tions which could adversely aOect recreation and power loads for consumptive use projects would cost hydropower production. Reservations for consump- between 5 and 10 cents/kwh. tive uses also would use additional increase the elec- At least 10 and as many as 59 of the 219 pro- trical power load, which eventually would reciuire the posed irrigation proj ects would have a value per acre- production of h ighcr cost electricity from new sources. foot of water that is greater than the value of water Newsounes ofpOwcrtend to ccjst mure tlian eMsLmg used for instream purposes, given a 5 cent/kWh power sources. Therefore, decreased Imhoflednc power cost. The value of water for at least 1 and as generation couil^ined \\ith increased power loads many as 4 of the proposed Irrigation projects would would raise electricity costs loi

estimated value of an acre-foot of water for all mu- '(Oi^^lK6PWif*^^Kim reach, the potential nicipal reservations exceeds the estimated value for net benefit is based on the assumption that water is instream flow and proposed irrigation projects. In- available. However, in some instcmces. water nii^ stream flow values are greatest in the Headwaters not atv«^î|^^^||||^ subbasin where the recreation value is the highest and where each acre-foot of water can be passed IRECOMMIN DATrONS along to be used to generate hydroelectrlcity at downstream hydropower facilities. Instream values de- ;;p»??M!l:is tmt^tieec^^ a oou rê ofaction to cline progressively with distance downstream, but Hiipoard. The Board has appouiied a heannfis the value ofwater for irrigation remains more consis- êxaminer to conduct a formal contested case hearing; tent throughout the basin. ;|vhich will begin in February 1991. Based on inibr-:; ilnation in the applications and the EIS and on testl-| On each stream or stream reach, the number of mony at Ihe hearing, the hearings examiner will:; requests that will give the greatest net benefit is present findings and recommendations to the Board. ;; based, in part, on the amount of water available. The Board then has until July 1, 1992, to make|iy5| However, water availability may not be definitely decision on the water reservat ion application^ known before the Board acts on the reservation re - quests.

~~rable S-2. Economic benefits and costs under live alternatives ($ million)* ffl .~~

~~188~~

~~The following change was made on pages 44, 48, 51. and 53.~~

~~Source: USGS1989K~~

~~The following change was made on page 61~~

~~Table 4-12. Headwaters benefits to MFC's seven mainstem facilities from Canyon Ferry Reservoir (annual GWh)~~

Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E Headwater Headwater Power Loss Benefits Benefits Between Frequency of 1955100" 1955 LOD 1986 LOD at 1955 LOD at 1986 LOD 1955 and 1986 Occurence' Pre-CF": Post-CF Post-CF (Column B-ColumnA) (Column C-Column A) (Column D-Column E

~~2 years in 10 2,145 2.291 2.260 146 115 24-31~~

~~The following changes were made on page 69. Arsenic~~

~~Arsenic, a trace element known for its short-term and long-term health~~

effects, is a carcinogen. Recently it has come under increasing regulatory attention from both EPA and DHES. A confusing aspect of arsenic involves two apparently contradictory water quality standards. Based on human health studies, federal drinking water standards limit arsenic to 50 micrograms per liter (jxg/L or parts per billion) in treated water supplies. This standard, initially adopted in 1 946, is being reviewed by EPA. It is likely that the concentration allowed in drinking water will be significantly reduced, but to what level is not known at this time. At the other end ofthe spectrum, the Board of Health and Environmental Sciences in 1990 adopted an instream standard that is of 2.2 luuiotframs or less based on EPA's one-case-per- million risk level for carcinogens. In cont rast to the 50 micrograms per liter (parts per billion) standard for d rinking water, this standard will not allow activities that increase arsenic in surface water with an arsenic concentra-

~~tion exceeding 20 nanofirams per l i lc r (parts per trillion). At the time this 2 2~~

~~nanogram per liter standard was adopted, it was felt thai it would not allow arsenic conccnlralion.s in surface water toexceed a level which wouldcause~~

more thiin one additional cancer c^tse {>er ot:ie nuUioii people, Recent research indicates that a cotKcntration of 20 nanograms per liter more accurately rellects the cancer risk rate of one case ])er niillion people. EPA lias raised its j^uidelniei, from 2 2 to 20 mxnoiirams per liter, but Bf-IES has not yet ichanged Montana's standard.

~~Table 4-18. Summary of arsenic concentrations in the upper Madison and Missouri rivers~~

~~Arsenic concentration (pgl) Mnimum Median Maximum~~

~~10 189~~

~~The following changes were made on page 82.~~

~~Table 4-22. Missouri basin iand use 190~~

~~The following changes were made on page 140.~~

~~Table 5-1 . Reservation requests included under each alternative ALTERNATIVES~~

~~Beaverhead River Drainage~~

~~APPLICANT/ PROJECT SOURCE . —~~

~~191~~

~~The following change was made on page 191~~

~~Table 6-14. Soil disturbance due to canal construction~~

~~Alternative Consumptive Combi- Subbasin/Drainage Use Instream nation~~

~~Project (miles) (miles) (miles)~~

~~Marlas/Teton Marias BSS-?il 16.9 16.9~~

~~The following changes were made on page 196.~~

~~Table 6-1 5. Projects requiring electric lines 5 or more miles In length~~

~~Electric line lengtli (miles) Consumptive Combi- Use Instream nation Project Alternative Alternative Alternative~~

~~Upper Missouri Subbasin KBR-104 8.1~~

The conservation districts have indicated that alfalfa is the crop most likely to be irrigated with reserved water. This is because alfalfa is considered a highly profitable crop for repaying irrigation investments. Alfalfa yields

from irrigated land (described in Chapter Four - Land Use) are expected to continue increasing, going from the present average 3.0 tons per acre to 3.9 tons per acre by the year 2020 (Figure 6-21), resulting in a 31 percent Increase in allalla production paer:||i|;;iacre. Virtually all alfalfa is used for livestock feed. Montana cattle numbers are projected to remain stable (or decline slightly), while beef production efficiency is expected to increase (USDA 1989), reducing the demand for alfalfa. Existing alfalfa acreage with

~~high production costs may go out of production if less expensive production occurs elsewhere as a result of water reservations.~~

~~Table 6-42 in the draft EIS has been replaced by Table 2-4 in this final EIS.~~

~~The following changes were made on page 234.~~

~~Table 6-46. Economic benefits to agriculture Upper l\Alssourl Subbasin~~

~~;|!^irperfti Category 1987 Actual* Increase" Irxa-ease''~~

~~Instream Alternative Jobs 73,327 7 <0.1% Total Personal Income $1,761,056,000 $349,000 <0.1% Agricutture Sales $ 112,298,000 $1,180,000 1.1% Taxable Valuation $ 175,828,000 $ 41,000 'dM~~

~~The following changes were made on page 235.~~

~~Figure 6-22. Missouri River basin population trends and projections 193~~

~~The following change was made on page 236.~~

~~Table 6-49. Summary of population projections for municipalities requesting reservations~~

~~Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 4«9ft|i||§~~

~~The following change was made on page 253. REDUCED HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION~~

Streamflow would be reduced under all three alternatives. Lower flows would reduce power production at dams In the Missouri River basin. Annual losses of hydropower production under each alternative are shown In Table

6-43. Table 7-1 shows what it would cost today to replace 70 years of lost generation under the three alternatives. These values range from $213.4 million under the Consumptive Use Alternative to $27.6 million under the Instream Alternative. As explained on page -144si|||. the cost ofreplacement power is likely to rise over time. The values In Table 7-1 are therefore conservative.

~~Table 7- 1 of the draft EIS has been replaced by Table 2-3 in this final EIS.~~

~~The following change was made on page C-3.~~

~~MISSOURI RIVER WATER AVAILABILITY MODEL~~

DNRC developed a computer model to analyze physical and legal water availability in the Missouri basin and to assess the impacts that the proposed reservation requests could have on streamflows, reservoir levels, and

~~hydropower production (DNRC 1990c) . The model has three major compo-~~

~~nents: (1) the streamflow component, (2) the irrigation component, and (3) the dam and reservoir operations component. A diagram of the model is~~

~~: presented In Figure C-1.~~

~~The following changes were made to Appendix D to correct stream names and to eliminate streams where DFWP has not requested reservations.~~

~~Table D-1 . Estimated flows (ofs) for the 50-year period from 1 937 to 1 986 where reservations are requested lay DFVt^ 194~~

~~Table D-1 (continued)~~

~~OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR HAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG~~

~~JEFFERSON RIVER DRAINAGE 195~~

~~Table D-1 (continued)~~

~~OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR HAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG~~

~~RUBY RIVER DRAINAGE~~

~~Ruby n i vor above tho forko noof AMor sWTTW & O & ^ 5 5 44 49 33 42 80-% 8 7 3 S 6 6 44 59 44 S©-% 4+977 7 8 as 75 77 ae-% +4 42 9 8 AV6 44 49 8 7 7 9 25 79 83 196~~

~~Table D-1 (continued) —~~

~~197~~

~~Table K-4 in Appendix K in the draft EIS has been replaced with Table B-1 in this final EIS.~~

~~The following changes were made on pages K-12 and K-13.~~

~~Table K-5. Value of instream flows on streams with competing consumptive use requests~~

~~Instream Fisheries Value Value Drainage Stream Applicant $ per acre-foot Class^"~~

~~HEADWATERS SUBBASIN -7~7 f\r% Gallatin River Eoat Ga ll at i n R i ve r # 1 BFWP~~

~~Ga ll at i n R i ve r # 1 DFWP~~

~~TT f\0 Madison River Madi9on R i vor #g OfWP~~

~~Mod i oon R i ve r #3 DFWP~~

~~UPPER MISSOURI SUBBASIN Missouri River Pfiddy P0$f Cfeetc*^ DFWP 66-20 a^4~~

~~MARIAS/TETON SUBBASIN Marias River BtF(^ * iHS MIDDLE MISSOURI SUBBASIN Missouri River Highwood Creek DFWP Belt Creek to Shonkin Crook DFWP 32r?4- a Fort Peck Reservoir~~

~~Judith River ^^ FOJtt Bl^ ^ptie^ Creek DFWP « l$lfpBSp)ln$Ore<^ DFWP VAN •,S\s\'.S^Wh.'>.\V . ^\ V, ssv^Ws~~

~~The following changes were made on page K-13.~~

~~Table K-7. Municipal water system characteristics~~

~~Water Distribution Percent of Municipal Systems with Senrlce Unmetered Requests Substantial Leakage Metered Senrice~~

~~Belgrade 4«S«ii6Si 198 A-1~~

~~Appendix A~~

~~MODEL RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A-2 A-3~~

~~Table A-1 . Monthly streamflow percentile distributions (cfs)~~

~~BASEUNE CONOmONS~~

~~MODEL % NODE FLOW OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVQ~~

~~BIG HOLE 1 A-4~~

~~Baseline conditions (continued) MODEL % NODE FLOW OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG~~

HEBGEN 9 Average 1462 1405 872 783 705 815 991 1053 1193 973 883 1102 102( RESERVOIR 10 1955 1815 1106 923 837 1046 1373 1594 1684 1366 1273 1511 137'i OUTFLOWS TO 20 1688 1596 990 898 781 923 1138 1265 1389 1233 1226 1438 12V MADISON RIVER 50 1308 1290 853 762 712 796 963 1037 1100 1023 851 998 80 1204 1098 700 672 611 684 811 715 968 642 536 780 90 1175 1044 638 611 564 565 710 703 913 413 472 735

MADISON RIVER 10 Average 2016 2079 1412 1280 1240 1429 1561 2130 2798 1773 1382 1579 172 BELOW 10 2778 2708 1713 1565 1486 1715 2075 2972 3842 2382 1772 2054 2255 ENNISLAKE 20 2374 2476 1631 1502 1438 1548 1781 2571 3638 1980 1763 2023 206C 50 1877 1949 1381 1247 1270 1456 1600 1872 2606 1844 1408 1437 1665 80 1712 1706 1208 1064 1063 1265 1328 1723 2098 1329 959 1261 139: 90 1646 1557 1127 999 1020 1131 1107 1388 1659 932 791 1183 1215

MADISION RIVER 11 Average 2046 1897 1604 1313 1269 1432 1662 2204 2848 1679 1238 1495 172^ NEAR 10 2845 2446 2040 1577 1536 1731 2167 3033 4044 2523 1707 1952 230( THREE FORKS 20 2446 2023 1959 1549 1489 1548 1853 2602 3756 1933 1647 1898 2055 50 1924 1794 1609 1302 1302 1451 1646 2011 2731 1715 1227 1393 167! 80 1739 1590 1265 1102 1045 1262 1432 1759 2020 1223 724 1189 1362 90 1676 1525 1176 1033 969 1078 1160 1636 1690 823 602 1124 12a

MISSOURI 12 Average 4538 4769 3717 3263 3606 3967 5656 8681 11502 4719 2310 3240 499'; RIVER AT 10 5957 5896 4334 4031 4270 4786 7377 13161 17817 8133 3741 4715 701J TOSTON 20 5531 5491 4160 3708 3959 4614 6839 11225 16582 6289 3065 4167 6300 50 4240 4500 3680 3246 3566 3909 5242 8320 11468 4410 2251 3113 482< 80 3382 3943 3245 2748 3240 3368 4290 5378 6627 2154 1280 2269 349^ 90 3120 3747 3041 2570 2935 2957 3835 4771 5536 1824 829 1846 308^

MISSOURI RIVER 13 Average 4665 4875 3742 3353 3702 4386 5751 8945 11561 4658 2193 3342 509< INFLOWS TO 10 6560 6135 4592 4203 4585 5430 7494 14144 18762 7870 3736 4878 736( CANYON FERRY 20 5790 5658 4218 3912 4206 5012 7076 11776 16385 7075 3136 4484 656- RESERVOIR 50 4459 4695 3779 3389 3759 4301 5323 8320 11365 4175 2087 3159 490" 80 3320 4139 3233 2725 3061 3723 4546 5570 5971 2095 1071 2313 3481 90 3219 3572 2546 2322 2446 3440 3710 4547 4785 1377 692 1808 2875

CANYON FEERY 14 Average 4619 4668 4689 4172 4356 5360 5795 6205 6049 4959 3718 3812 486^ RESERVOIR 10 5511 5628 5846 5880 6000 8170 8810 9457 9214 7837 5460 5473 694- OUTFLOWS TO 20 5373 5459 5577 5362 5591 6807 7399 8003 7750 6416 4603 4695 608( MISSOURI RIVER 50 4831 4830 4835 4080 4172 5289 5777 6276 6067 4357 2928 3026 470( 80 3901 3900 3905 2928 3242 2928 3142 3373 3287 2928 2928 3026 329" 90 2928 3026 2928 2928 3242 2928 3026 2928 3026 2928 2928 3026 298:

~~HAUSERLAKE 15 A-5~~

~~Baseline conditions (continued) MODEL % NODE FLOW OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVQ~~

~~HOLIER LAKE A-6~~

~~Baseline conditions (continued) MODEL % NODE FLOW OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG~~

~~TETON RIVER 25 y A-7~~

~~Baseline conditions (continued) MODEL % NODE FLOW OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG~~

~~BIG DRY 33 A-8~~

~~MUNICIPAL ALTERNATIVE~~

~~MODEL % NODE FLOW OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVQ~~

~~BIG HOLE 1 y A-9~~