DRAFT
CLARK FORK-PEND OREILLE BASIN
WATER QUALITY STUDY
Conducted Under
SECTION 525 OF
THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1987
A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND A MANAGEMENT PLAN
JUL Y 1992
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions VIII and X
State of Montana
State of Idaho
State of Washington
-------
Table of Contents
Section 525 Steering Committee iii
Study Area Map v
Response to Citizens' Concerns: The Purpose of Section 525
The State of the Basin 3
Previous Studies and Current Management Programs 7
Placing the Team: Organization of the Section 525 Study 11
Scoping the Sources: Research Objectives 13
Section 525 Research Findings 18
Managing the Watershed: The Action Plan 23
Taking the First Steps: Priorities for Action 41
Appendix A: Glossary 43
Appendix B: Selected Bibliography 46
-------
Section 525 Steering Committee
Gary Ingman
Loren Bahls
Brian Hoelscher
Jack Skille
Will Kendra
Randy Coots
Judith Leckrone
Lee Roberts
Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT. 59602
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
2110 Iron wood Parkway
Coeur d'Alene, ID. 83814
Washington Department of Ecology
Watershed Assessments Section
Post Off ice Box47710
Olympia, WA. 98504
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave, WD-139
Seattle, WA. 98101
U.S. EPA, Region 8
Montana Office
301 South Park
Drawer 10096
Helena, MT. 59626
(406) 444-2406
FAX 444-1374
(208) 667-3524
FAX 667-4869
(206) 586-0803
FAX 586-5497
(206) 553-6911
FAX 553-0165
(406) 449-5414
FAX 449-543
The Section 525 Steering Committee acknowledges the important contributions of previous
Steering Committee Members:
Gwen Burr, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Mason Hewitt, EPA EMSL-LV
Sally Marquis, EPA Region 10, Seattle
Don Martin, EPA Idaho Office
Lee Shanklin, EPA Region 8, Montana Office
Lynn Singleton, Washington Department of Ecology.
The Steering Committee would also like to thank the following people for their assistance to the
Committee:
Bronwyn Echols, Technical Writer
Glen Rothrock, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Peter Nielsen, Clark Fork Coalition
Ed Tulloch, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Ruth Watkins, Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition
III
-------
IV
-------
Sandpoint, Idaho
Lake Pend Oreille
Study Location
F lath fad
River
Missoula, Montana
/ Blackfoot River
) Upper
{ Clark Fork
J River
Butte, Montana
-------
Response to Citizens' Concerns: The Purpose of Section 525
The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille basin encompasses about 26,000 square miles
of the intermountain Northwest in the states of Montana, Idaho, and Washington.
The Clark Fork River, Lake Pend Oreille, and the Pend Oreille River are the main
bodies of water in the basin. The Clark Fork River has its headwaters near Butte,
Montana, is fed by the Flathead, Bitterroot, and Blackfoot rivers and then flows
into Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho's largest lake. Lake Pend Orielle is the source of the
Pend Oreille River in northeastern Washington. Minerals, timber, fish, wildlife and
rangeland characterize the basin's lands and waters, making possible a variety of
human uses, ranging from mining and agriculture to recreational fishing and
boating.
The basin has experienced declines in water quality owing in part to human
uses of the watershed's rich natural resources. For instance, toxic mining wastes
on the upper Clark Fork have reduced fish populations. Heavy growths of algae
impair water uses on the mainstem Clark Fork. Excessive nutrients from the Clark
Fork River and from lake shoreline development may be affecting Lake Pend
Oreille's water quality. Persistent Eurasian watermilfoil, a nuisance aquatic weed,
hampers recreational opportunities on the Pend Oreille River. Increasing population
in the inland Northwest could exacerbate these water quality problems in the near
future.
Concern about declining water quality prompted the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Coalition (formerly the Clark Fork Coalition), a citizens' group, to recommend to
their Congressional representatives that a comprehensive, basin-wide assessment
be made to find ways to identify pollution sources and propose methods for
improving water quality. In response, members of the three states' Congressional
delegations added Section 525 to the Clean Water Act of 1987 which directed the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct such a study.
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
Section 525 states:
STUDY OF POLLUTION IN LAKE PEND OREILLE, IDAHO.
The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive study of the sources of
pollution in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, and the Clark Fork River and its
tributaries, Idaho, Montana, and Washington, for the purpose of identifying
the sources of such pollution. In conducting such study, the Administrator
shall consider existing studies, surveys, and test results concerning such
pollution. The Administrator shall report to Congress the findings and
recommendations concerning the study conducted under this section.
To meet the requirements of Section 525, EPA brought together the states
of Montana, Idaho and Washington to plan and conduct the research. EPA
coordinated the study, and each state took responsibility for research within its
own state. This report summarizes the findings of three years of research
conducted by each state. It also provides a management plan for the basin that is
based on each state's findings and management recommendations. This is the
fourth and final report on the Section 525 project.
-------
The State of the Basin
The Clark Fork River
The Clark Fork watershed is the largest subunit of the Section 525 research
area, comprising some 22,000 square miles, or nearly 90 percent of the Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Basin. Within this territory is found a wide range of human
activity, from urban centers to farming hamlets. Butte, at the Clark Fork's
headwaters, a city of some 34,000, is still a center of copper mining, which for
decades has been its major industry. Farther downstream, along the middle
reaches of the river, lies Missoula, also with about 34,000 people and the home of
the University of Montana. Both these cities are service and retail hubs for their
regions. Between the hills around Butte and the mountains that begin to rise near
Missoula lies the Deer Lodge Valley, a broad and fertile swale with numerous farms
and ranches. The mountainous terrain between Missoula and the Idaho border is
sparsely settled. The economics of the Clark Fork region have been predominantly
natural resource based, with forestry, mining, and agriculture the major industries.
However, in recent years recreation and tourism have played an ever larger role in
the watershed's economy.
A broad range of land uses characterizes the Clark Fork watershed. Much of
the western portion of the watershed is forested mountains, predominantly
national forest, of which part is wilderness and the remainder subject to logging
and mining. In the valleys, such as Deer Lodge, the largest farms and ranches
grow various short season crops, such as hay and winter wheat, as well as
livestock. Vacation home development is occurring as the region increases in
popularity as a recreation destination for skiing, fishing, hiking, and hunting. The
cities and towns are more densely settled, but development and accompanying
sprawl are as yet progressing at a fairly restrained pace, with the exception of the
booming Flathead Valley.
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
Diverse land uses and economic activities in the Clark Fork drainage area
have led to an associated range of water quality problems. The most pressing of
these, apart from the heavy metals residual from mining wastes on the river's
headwaters, are the excessive nutrients that promote the growth of nuisance algae
in the Clark Fork itself and that were suspected as one cause of the increased algal
growth in Lake Pend Oreille. In the upper and middle Clark Fork, high
concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen have led to blooms of filamentous algae
in the Clark Fork above Missoula and heavy growths of slime, or diatom, algae
below the city. Not only aesthetically unattractive, the algae impair beneficial uses
of the river water, such as irrigation and recreation. Dead and decaying algae form
sludge that clouds the water and produces nuisance river foam. Algal respiration
also depletes dissolved oxygen required for healthy and balanced populations of
fish and other aquatic life. On the lower river, the primary concern is the discharge
of nutrients to Lake Pend Oreille.
Lake Pend Oreille
Bonner County, which almost entirely contains Lake Pend Oreille, has a
population of about 26,000, a 10-percent increase since 1980. Sandpoint, the
county's largest city, has about 5,200 residents, and Priest River, the next largest,
has about 1,600. Incorporated cities and surrounding rural areas along the north
shore of the lake hold about half the county's population. In summer, an additional
5,000 residents call the north shore of the lake home. Bonner County is predicted
to have continuing strong growth as a nonmetropolitan area.
Services and retail trade constitute about half of the county's employment
indicating a strong dependence on tourism and seasonal residents. Jobs in areas
related to development of seasonal and year-round homes and recreation sites
grew about one-third between 1970 and 1980. However, employment in forestry
and mining has declined dramatically. Recreation and tourism are at present
mainstays of the local economy.
Lake Pend Oreille was designated a Special Resource Water under Idaho's
Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements (Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, 1985). No new point source discharges are
allowed nor may any existing sources increase discharges of pollutants to the lake,
-------
A Summary of Findings and A Management Plan DRAFT
a tributary, or an upstream segment if these discharges will compromise water
quality necessary to designated uses of the special resource water. Lake Pend
Oreille's designated uses are water supply, recreation, salmonid spawning,
cold-water biota, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. With intensive activity occurring
in each of these uses, the lake amounts to a major economic and natural resource
for the intermountain Northwest with a projected value to the local community of
$5.5 million.
The Lake Pend Oreille basin lies in mostly mountainous or hilly terrain deeply
cut by streams and mostly forested, with broad, fertile valleys and river bottoms
between the mountain ridges. Public lands comprise 59 percent of the
watershed's area, mostly in the Kaniksu National Forest in the northern and eastern
parts of the watershed, while private ownership predominates in the lowlands and
western parts of the watershed. Near the lake and on its shore, private lands
account for more than 50 percent of ownership. Land uses in the watershed
include: forest cover (66 percent), grazing and agriculture (8 percent), urban areas
(1 percent), and barren lands (2 percent). Developed and developable lands,
primarily residential, are concentrated in the Purcell Trench, a broad valley
stretching north of Sandpoint. In this area, semi-rural residential development is
gradually replacing agriculture. Almost one-half of all developable land in the basin
is located within one mile of the lake shore, indicating that the development
pressure predicted by population growth figures will be concentrated fairly close to
the lake.
The Pend Oreille River
The Pend Oreille River drains Lake Pend Oreille and its basin lies mainly in
Pend Oreille County, a sparsely settled rural region in northeast Washington. The
largest city, Newport, has fewer than 1600 residents. The next largest town,
lone, has about 500 residents. Local, state, and federal government jobs account
for 43 percent of employment, with the remaining 57 percent split between retail,
manufacturing, and service jobs.
Much of the basin's land falls within the boundaries of the Kaniksu or
Colville national forests. Two-thirds of the northern and central parts of the
county are government owned; the southern portion is mostly privately owned.
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
The basin's topography is made up of river-bottom flatlands in a long and narrow
trough between the Selkirk Mountains and Okanogan Highlands. Agriculture on
the lowland plains comprises grain crops, hay, pasture, and livestock. The varied
mountain terrain, some hilly, some quite rough, is largely forested. Private land
ownership is concentrated on river and lake shorelines in a pattern of strip
development.
6
-------
Previous Studies and Current Management Programs
The language of Section 525 of the Clean Water Act specifically directs the
EPA to "... consider existing studies, surveys, and test results concerning such
pollution" in the course of the study. Therefqre, before discussing the Section 525
research, findings and management recommendations, it is important to briefly
describe previously conducted studies and current water quality management
activities in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin. The management plan developed for
the watershed under Section 525 takes into account and builds upon these efforts.
Clark Fork River
Other Studies
The Clark Fork River has been the subject of water quality concern for many
years, primarily because of the residues of heavy metals left behind by the
intensive mining around its headwaters. These toxic wastes have earned
Superfund site status for the upper river and its tributary Silver Bow Creek. More
recently, attention has turned to the high concentrations of nutrients in the upper
and middle Clark Fork. These nutrients promote the growth of nuisance levels of
attached algae that threaten or impair such beneficial water uses as irrigation,
recreation, and fish production. Nutrient discharges to Lake Pend Oreille are the
primary concern on the lower river.
A long-range comprehensive study of the Clark Fork basin was inaugurated
in 1984. Its final report, the Clark Fork Basin Project Status Report and Action
Plan (Johnson and Schmidt, 1988), drew together fragmented information from
the multitude of studies that had been completed or were in progress on the Clark
Fork. The report reviewed the history of water and land uses in the basin,
surveyed previous and current research directed at solving water quality problems,
and made recommendations for future study and action. It was this report that
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
recommended a three-state study to examine the sources and fates of nutrients in
the basin.
Current Management Activities
A number of nutrient control measures are already in place in the Clark Fork
basin. Such measures include: the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System to control point source discharges of wastewater to protect stream quality;
the state's Nondegradation Rules applying to new or increased sources of
pollution; the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process through which allowable
pollutant discharge levels are apportioned among various wastewater sources;
various financial and technical assistance programs to help communities reduce
wastewater nutrient contributions to surface waters; Montana's Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program; the Upper Clark Fork Water Allocation Management
Plan; and Superfund. The communities of Missoula, Superior, and Alberton have
adopted bans on phosphate-containing detergents, and the Stone Container
Corporation kraft mill has steadily reduced the nutrient content of its wastewater
discharge over the past six years.
Lake Pend Oreille
Other Studies
Lake Pend Oreille has also been the subject of considerable additional
research since the mid-1980s. In 1984, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
researchers began monitoring the lake and the Clark Fork River to measure
nutrients, sediments, and heavy metals. This was in response to the temporary
discharge permit that allowed the Stone Container Corporation plant at Missoula to
increase industrial wastewater outflows into the Clark Fork. As a result of the
sampling, researchers classified the lake as on the border between oligotrophy and
mesotrophy. Phosphorus was found to be the nutrient most often limiting to
aquatic plants and algae, and some evidence indicated that heavy metals inhibited
algal growth. In 1986, University of Idaho researchers were the first to report
finding increased attached algae levels in shallow bays and nearshore waters.
8
-------
A Summary of Findings and A Management Plan DRAFT
Current Management Activities
The Division of Environmental Quality has provided technical and financial
assistance to local governments for management of the lake's watershed.
Particularly, the creation of several sewer districts around the lake has resulted in
the planning and upgrading of wastewater treatment systems. Nutrient reductions
could occur in Ellisport Bay with the planned construction in 1993 of a sewer
system by the Ellisport Bay Regional Sewer District. Bonner County Planning and
Development Department has included lake water quality as a factor in the
county's comprehensive land use plan. Bonner County's ban on phosphate
detergents, which took effect in September 1989, may have caused the downward
trend in phosphorus loads from the city of Sandpoint, but it is still too early to
assess adequately the ban's effectiveness; nitrogen loads also decreased during
the same period.
Pend Oreille River
Other Studies
Besides the Section 525 research, other Pend Oreille River projects include:
1) yearly studies of fisheries improvement opportunities conducted by the Upper
Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Center at Eastern Washington University and
funded by the Bonneville Power Administration; and 2) a two-year study by
University of Idaho researchers with funding from Pend Oreille County Public Utility
District of Box Canyon Reservoir's water quality, fish, wildlife and shoreline
characteristics, and recreation and tourism opportunities. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers investigated water flow through river weed beds in an 1988 study, and
currently is experimenting with the use of the aquatic herbicide trichlopyr for milfoil
control. Additional water quality work on the river has focused on weed beds and
rotovation in yearly evaluations of the Pend Oreille River Eurasian watermilfoil
control program by consultants for the Pend Oreille County Public Works
Department.
Current Management Activities
Since 1984, Pend Oreille County has tried several methods to control the
spread of Eurasian watermilfoil, first through the application of the herbicide 2,4-D
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Ore/He Basin Water Quality Study
(the use of which is no longer allowed by EPA) and subsequently via the
mechanical bottom tillage method known as rotovation, originally pioneered by the
British Columbia Ministry of Environment for the Okanagan lakes. (Rotovation is
the mechanical harvesting of aquatic weeds.) The rotovator in use since 1988
was purchased by the county's Public Works Department under a joint funding
arrangement with the State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
10
-------
Placing The Team: The Organization of Section 525
Though Section 525 directs EPA to conduct a study, the project has been a
joint effort of working teams from Montana, Idaho, Washington, Regions 8 and 10
of the EPA and from EPA's Environmental Mpnitoring Systems Laboratory at Las
Vegas (EMSL-LV). The project is supervised by a Steering Committee comprised
of representatives from the two EPA regional offices and from the state agencies
charged with water quality management: Montana's Water Quality Bureau in the
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Idaho's Division of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Washington's Department of Ecology. The
Steering Committee meets regularly and communicates frequently to oversee
progress and to coordinate the three states' research.
Each state agency responsible for Section 525 worked with other agencies
and organizations to carry out the research. In Montana, additional work was
conducted by EMSL-LV, the Natural Resource Information System at the Montana
State Library, the University of Montana, and several independent contractors.
In Idaho, DEQ managed the Pend Oreille Lake Water Quality Management
Project, which was funded through an EPA Clean Lakes Program Grant as well as
Section 525. The U.S. Geological Survey, EMSL-LV, the University of Idaho, the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Eastern Washington University, the Bonner
County Planning and Development Department, and the Panhandle Health District
also contributed research to the project. The DEQ project team-also convened a
Technical Advisory Committee to coordinate and integrate research elements and
to review subcontractor results, and a Policy Advisory Committee representing
agencies, industries, and interest groups with direct involvement in or concern for
Lake Pend Oreille's water quality.
In Washington, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the University of Idaho,
and the Pend Oreille County Public Works Department contributed research.
11
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
To implement the watershed management plans developed through Section
525, the state agencies will have a supervisory role: directing future research,
coordinating management regulations, and continuing the interstate links forged
through the project. Many other agencies and organizations will be active
participants in the success of the management plans. Federal, state, and local
units of government, each with oversight of part of the basin's water quality
equation, will be working together for years to come to ensure clean water in the
Clark Fork, Lake Pend Oreille, and Pend Oreille River system. Citizens' groups have
parts to play, also. The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition was instrumental in
bringing about the Section 525 study and will maintain active participation in basin
water quality efforts. In Idaho the Clean Lakes Coordinating Council will continue
to work with the agencies responsible for the management of Lake Pend Oreille
The ultimate success of the Clark Fork/Pend Oreille Basin management plan will
depend upon how well all of these agencies and organizations can frame common
goals for water quality, agree upon the methods to be used in meeting these goals,
and work together to take necessary actions to protect basin waters.
12
-------
Scoping the Sources: Research Objectives
The primary research objective for Section 525 was to evaluate the major
interstate water quality issue: eutrophication problems caused by excessive
quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Two broad challenges were tackled by researchers during the three-year
Section 525 study:
• Document water quality problems caused by pollution sources in the
watershed; and
• Recommend actions for protecting and restoring water resources
throughout the basin.
Each state team outlined research objectives specific to the water quality
problem(s) of its part of the basin, within the context of the basin-wide nature of
the project, and conducted studies to meet those objectives. Following completion
of the third year of research, each group wrote a management plan. Montana
studied the Clark Fork River. Idaho completed a federal Clean Lakes Phase I study
on Lake Pend Oreille in order to meet its commitment, and Washington focused its
research on the Pend Oreille River.
Clark Fork River
Research Objectives
The concerns for Montana researchers were two-fold: 1) abundant growths
of attached algae in the Clark Fork River and their effects on beneficial water uses,
and 2) nutrient loading to Lake Pend Oreille from the river.
Specific research tasks were:
• Identify the sources of nutrients in Montana's portion of the
watershed, develop a nutrient budget, and formulate a nutrient control
strategy;
13
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
• Document the extent and severity of nuisance algae in the Clark Fork
River, evaluate the role of instream nutrients in promoting algae
growth, and determine what effect nutrient controls would have on
the algae, fisheries, and riverine ecosystem; and
• Develop a computerized Geographic Information System (GIS).
The Clark Fork Basin Project Status Report and Action Plan, published by the
Montana Governor's Office in 1988 (Johnson and Schmidt, 1988), stated that
nutrients and algae were the second highest priority problem facing the Clark Fork
River. The most acute water quality problem in the Clark Fork, the heavy metals
pollution in the upper basin that has resulted from decades of intensive mining and
smelting in the mountains around Butte and Anaconda, was not addressed under
Section 525 because it is the responsibility of the federal Superfund program.
Research Conducted
Montana researchers intensively monitored the 350 miles of the Clark Fork
River from its headwaters to the Idaho border, many of its tributaries, and most of
the wastewater dischargers. This work has provided data and information on the
major sources of nutrients to the river.
Section 525 research in Montana has:
• Assessed the extent and severity of nuisance algae in the river and
developed nutrient criteria for the control of algae growth;
• Determined instream nutrient concentrations from headwaters to Lake
Pend Oreille, documented and ranked nutrient contributions from
tributaries and wastewater discharges, and identified the sources that
can be most readily controlled;
• Compiled data on the sources and causes of water quality impairment
within the tributary basins, along with information on the geographical
distribution of problem streams; and
• Evaluated the potential negative effects of nutrient controls on fish
production.
EMSL-LV assisted Montana research efforts by creating a Geographic
Information System (GIS) for the Blackfoot River as a pilot application of this
relatively new technology as a water quality management tool. The particular
14
-------
A Summary of Findings and A Management Plan DRAFT
focus for GIS use was nonpoint source pollution, particularly from forestry
practices and livestock production. The Montana State Library's Natural Resource
Information System developed a GIS for the Clark Fork. These complex computer
systems integrate data from many sources and are useful for cause and effect
analysis of how various topographic, climatic, geologic, biotic, and land use factors
may affect river and stream water quality.
Lake Pend Oreille
Research Objectives
For Lake Pend Oreille, the major charges were to investigate citizens'
concerns about declining water quality and the potential for lake eutrophication
caused by nutrients from the Clark Fork River and by rapid population growth and
development in the immediate lake basin. Specific research objectives included:
• Assess current water quality and characterize the trophic status of the
littoral, pelagic, and riverine zones of the lake;
• Identify and quantify nutrient inputs from natural, point, and nonpoint
sources and prepare a mass balance nutrient budget for the lake;
• Conduct a land use inventory of the Idaho watershed;
• Develop a predictive computer model of the lake's response to
nutrient loads; and
• Formulate alternative water quality management strategies and select
and initiate a comprehensive, long-term water quality management
plan.
Research Conducted
The Idaho project team and its subcontractors used several methods,
including water quality monitoring in the lake and its tributaries and outflow,
creating computer models, measuring organic productivity, and listing and mapping
various land uses. Specific research accomplishments were:
• The U.S. Geological Survey collected limnological and hydrological
data from the lake and its tributaries and outflow to describe the
lake's trophic status and develop nutrient and hydrological budgets for
the lake.
15
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
• The U.S. Geological Survey used an empirical nutrient load-lake
response computer model to simulate how the open, deep-water lake
would respond to different rates of nutrient loading.
• University of Idaho researchers surveyed nearshore water quality to
assess algae production, and identified the types of phytoplankton
found in the deeper waters of the lake.
• The Panhandle Health District inventoried all septic tanks serving
dwellings close to the lake for use in the nutrient load-lake response
computer model.
• The Bonner County Planning and Development Department and
Eastern Washington University listed all current and anticipated land
use practices in the Idaho watershed.
• The DEQ and Idaho Department of Fish and Game compiled all
available knowledge on the lake's fishery and described its economic
value provided information on heavy metal accumulation in fish tissue,
and discussed the effects on fish populations of the proposed water
quality goals; and
• EMSL-LV used satellite imagery to identify vegetative cover in the
Idaho watershed and aerial photographs to map aquatic macrophytes
and potential nonpoint nutrient sources.
Pend Oreille River
Research Objectives
The Pend Oreille River research centered around overall water quality and
point and nonpoint pollution sources on the mainstem river and selected tributaries,
in order to determine how to maintain the river's generally good water quality and
to manage the worsening Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) invasion.
Research Conducted
Sampling of water, aquatic plants, and fish as chemical and biological
indicators was the primary research method for Section 525 in Washington during
all three years of the project. During the three-year Section 525 study,
16
-------
A Summary of Findings and A Management Plan DRAFT
Washington scientists addressed the question of the river's trophic status and its
effect on aquatic plant and fish life. They:
• Evaluated the general water quality of the mainstem river and
determined loading from tributaries to Box Canyon Reservoir;
• Assessed fish communities and water quality within and outside weed
beds; and
• Estimated primary productivity in the river mainstem and conducted
further studies on the water quality and pollution sources of selected
problem tributaries.
Researchers also conducted experiments with a variety of rotovation
techniques and looked at several patterns of rotovation as methods of controlling
Eurasian watermilfoil.
17
-------
Section 525 Research Findings
Clark Fork River
The highest densities of attached algae in the upper Clark Fork occurred
between Drummond and the Blackfoot River inflow, and in the middle river
between Missoula and Harper Bridge. Measured against the maximum algal
populations above which undesirable biotic change occurs, upper river densities
were four times greater than standard. When the standard necessary to preserve
water quality for recreational and aesthetic uses is considered, algal levels were
eight times greater than desirable. In the middle river, algal levels were three and
six times these recommended values, respectively. Algal respiration caused
dissolved oxygen levels in the river to fall below applicable state water quality
standards in a number of reaches between the head-waters and the Flathead River
confluence.
The nutrient source inventory project showed that about half of the soluble
phosphorus (the form of the nutrient most readily available for use by plants and
algae) derived from wastewater discharges, with the other half contributed by
nonpoint sources in tributary watersheds. Three-fourths of the soluble nitrogen
came from tributaries, with the remaining quarter from wastewater discharges. A
number of wastewater discharges, or point sources of potential pollutants, occur
along the Clark Fork. For the purposes of this study, with its focus on excessive
nutrients, the most critical point sources were the municipal wastewater treatment
plants, particularly at Butte, Deer Lodge, and Missoula. Nutrient loading from these
plants correlated directly with reaches in the river at which nuisance algae
problems were most prevalent. The Stone Container Corporation's Missoula mill,
though a major source of industrial wastewater nutrient loading to the river, has
reduced the levels of nutrients in its effluent over the past six years, and
phosphate detergent bans in several communities are lowering phosphorus content
of these cities' municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent.
18
-------
A Summary of Findings and A Management Plan DRAFT
Nonpoint sources of soluble nutrients were located in the watersheds of the
numerous rivers and streams that join the Clark Fork or its major tributaries. The
largest sources were the Flathead, Bitterroot, and Blackfoot Rivers. Groundwater
seepage in the Missoula area contributed up to half of the nitrogen in the Bitterroot
River during summer. Three small tributaries to the lower Flathead River provided
a large share of the nutrients that river contributed to the Clark Fork. Many other
creeks had high nutrient concentrations in their waters but smaller nutrient
discharges overall. Several tributaries whose waters were cleaner, as well as the
major rivers with considerable water volume, had a diluting effect on the Clark
Fork's nutrient concentrations. During several years of drought in the late 1980s,
smaller volumes of spring runoff and summer rains meant higher amounts of
nutrients per unit of water. However, the early 1990s have seen lower overall
nutrient concentrations with a return to normal precipitation. The nonpoint source
stream reach assessment found that, of the 99 basin streams surveyed, 65
percent were rated as having impaired water quality; the largest number of
impaired streams were located in the upper Clark Fork and Blackfoot River basins.
Lake Pend Oreille
Lake Pend Oreille comprises two different aquatic regimes in one water
body. The pelagic region, generally in the central and southern portions of the
lake, is deep, clear, and cold, and is classified as oligotrophic. Researchers have
found that water quality in this region of the lake has not changed since the
mid-1950s. The nearshore littoral zone, which accounts for about 11 percent of
lake volume, is classified as meso-oligotrophic and is the primary location for water
quality concerns. University researchers reported consistently finding the highest
nearshore algae growth at "developed" sites. Attached algae levels at the most
productive site were one-third to one-half those that other Northwest researchers
have reported as constituting nuisance conditions.
The greatest share (more than 90 percent) of water entering the lake comes
from the Clark Fork river inflow, as does about 85 percent of the total loading of
phosphorus, the nutrient limiting algae growth in the lake. Measurements of
nutrient loads entering the lake and exiting via the Pend Oreille River show that,
19
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
year to year, 55,000 kilograms of total phosphorus and about 750,000 kilograms
of total nitrogen (allowing for a total error in nitrogen budget of about 50 percent)
remain in the lake. A nutrient load-lake response model has been used to aid in
predicting the effect these nutrient levels could have on the lake.
Computer simulations indicated that the trophic state of the lake's pelagic
waters would be little changed by small to moderate alterations in how much
nitrogen and phosphorus entered the lake. The smallest responses came from
complete removal of phosphorus and nitrogen inputs from nearshore septic tanks
and discharges from the Sandpoint and Priest River wastewater treatment plants.
This is not surprising, since wastewater contributes only about 3 percent of the
lake's nutrient budget, and since the treatment plants discharge into the Pend
Oreille River downstream from Sandpoint and do not enter the lake. Although the
research did not quantify the effect, probably removal of these nutrient sources
would improve nearshore water quality. Scientists found a correlation between
higher nearshore algae growth and areas with higher phosphorus loadings. The
largest responses were produced by alterations in nutrients contributed by the
Clark Fork River. Therefore, maintenance of open lake water quality is largely
dependent upon reductions in nutrient concentrations in the Clark Fork.
The lake's flora and biota are consistent with the trophic classification. The
sport fishery, a valuable resource to the state and local economy, is characterized
by the native fishes westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout and mountain whitefish
and by kokanee and rainbow trout which have been introduced into the system.
The native trout are listed as state species of special concern and federal sensitive
species. Generally, the lake's fish catch in recent years has been one-fifth to
one-third of past levels of production, possibly owing to hydropower development
on the rivers flowing into and out of the lake and to land use practices that have
damaged tributaries. Restoration to past levels of production is compatible with
the water quality goals set for the lake.
Phytoplankton species in Lake Pend Oreille indicate conditions to be
oligotrophic but tending toward mesotrophy. The ascendancy of green and
blue-green algae blooms in recent years may be an early indicator of
eutrophication. Eurasian watermilfoil is not currently present in Lake Pend Oreille,
20
-------
A Summary of Findings and A Management Plan DRAFT
though it is abundant immediately downstream of Albeni Falls Dam. Winter
drawdown may prevent its gaining a foothold in the lake.
Six point sources discharge treated wastewater into Lake Pend Oreille. Five
have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits: Cabinet
Gorge Hatchery, Clark Fork Hatchery, and the Kootenai-Ponderay Sewer District,
Sandpoint, and Priest River sewage treatment facilities. Because of the small
amounts of pollutants discharged, the Cabinet Gorge wastewater treatment facility
on the Idaho-Montana state line has not been required to obtain an NPDES permit,
though a memorandum of understanding with Idaho's DEQ does spell out pollutant
limits and monitoring. Nutrient loadings from these sources represent a small
fraction of the total load to the lake. Bonner County's recent ban on phosphate
detergents may contribute to an observed decline in phosphorus loads from
Sandpoint. Scientists' conclusions were that these discharges likely have minimal
impact on the lake's pelagic water quality, and are more likely to affect nearshore
areas and the Pend Oreille River.
Controllable nonpoint sources in the Lake Pend Oreille basin are the result of
land uses activities such as silviculture, agriculture, grazing, septic tanks, and
urban runoff that disturb or compact land. Monitoring of tributaries flowing into
and out of the lake allowed managers to estimate the amount of pollutant per land
area transported from the watershed to the lake. Pack River, followed by Sand
Creek, were the tributaries carrying the highest phosphorus loads per unit of land
area to the lake. Lightning Creek, Pack River, and Sand Creek had the highest
nitrogen levels. The Clark Fork River contributed the least amount of nutrients per
unit of land area drained. However, since it provides most of the lake's water, the
Clark Fork contributes the lion's share of the nutrient load. Scientists estimating
total phosphorus loading from nearshore and local tributaries found a correlation
between higher loadings and a higher percentage of urban development.
Pend Oreille River
The mainstem Pend Oreille River has water quality that is generally good and
in the oligo-mesotrophic range, based on nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations,
chlorophyll a, and Secchi disk transparency. Water and nutrient inputs from
21
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
Washington tributaries accounted for less than 4 percent of the Pend Oreille River
flow and nutrient load. Roughly 75 percent of external nitrogen and phosphorus
loading to the river came from the Newport wastewater treatment plant, Calispell
Creek, and Trimble Creek. Nitrogen appears to be the limiting nutrient to plant
growth during the late winter, while phosphorus may be limiting during the rest of
the year.
Department of Ecology surveys show no violations of state water quality
standards on the river, though several tributaries exceeded standards for fecal
coliform content, most likely due to livestock management practices. These
tributaries are small enough that their effect oh the main river's water quality is
minimal at present because of high dilution ratios.
The primary water quality concern on the Pend Oreille River is the
proliferation of Eurasian watermilfoil, an invasive and adaptable plant. Although
the river appears to be dominated by milfoil, limited data suggest that other plants
in the community, like pondweed, may be co-dominant. Milfoil's dense growth
slows water velocities, so that nutrients and sediment precipitate out of the water
column, thus promoting further macrophyte growth. Water column nutrients do
not appear to be a factor in milfoil proliferation: phosphorus concentrations in the
Pend Oreille River were well below the eutrophication threshold guideline of 25
micrograms per liter. However, water quality within the weed beds was found to
be different from that of open water on the Pend Oreille River, and primary
productivity in the river is fairly high, though fish numbers were quite low in the
weed beds where sampling was done during the second year of Section 525. A
GIS is assisting resource managers in tracking the expansion or upstream migration
of macrophyte beds.
Nonpoint sources of pollutants in the Pend Oreille River basin that potentially
affect the river are: animal keeping practices, agriculture, on-site sewage disposal,
stormwater and highway runoff, forest practices, land development, landfills, and
gravel extraction. The two permitted point sources, both within the Box Canyon
Reservoir, are the Ponderay Newsprint Company plant at Usk (about 4.0 million
gallons per day permitted) and the Newport wastewater treatment plant (permitted
monthly average discharge limit of 0.5 million gallons per day).
22
-------
Managing the Watershed: The Action Plan
Based on each state's findings and recommendations, the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Steering Committee recommends the following water quality management
goals and objectives for the overall basin.
Goal
Restore and Protect Designated Beneficial Water Uses Basin-Wide.
Objectives
• Control nuisance algae in the Clark Fork River by reducing nutrient
concentrations.
• Protect Lake Pend Oreille open water quality by maintaining or reducing
current rates of nutrient loading from the Clark Fork River.
• Reduce nearshore eutrophication in Lake Pend Oreille by reducing local
nutrient sources.
• Improve Pend Oreille River water quality through macropyhte management
and tributary nonpoint source controls.
To meet these objectives, each state has outlined numerous management
actions which are summarized below and detailed in the tables that follow. These
goals, objectives and recommended management actions-constitute the
recommended Action Plan for the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin.
Clark Fork River
Montana's management recommendations are directed toward two goals:
1) "reduce instream ambient nutrient concentrations in the Clark Fork from its
headwaters to the Flathead River confluence to achieve decreases in attached
algae levels sufficient to eliminate associated water quality standards violations,
23
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
and to restore all designated beneficial water uses . . ."; and 2) "maintain or
reduce current rates of nutrient discharge in the Clark Fork River at the
Montana-Idaho border in order to provide reasonable protection against accelerated
cultural eutrophication in Lake Pend Oreille" (Ingman, 1992b).
Benefits that would derive from accomplishment of these goals include:
reductions in algae growth and lessening of algal impacts on cold-water biota,
recreation, and irrigation; improved water clarity and aesthetics; lessened surface
foam; increases in dissolved oxygen levels; and a reduced threat of eutrophication
in Lake Pend Oreille.
Though many factors may promote or inhibit algae growth, those other than
nutrient levels may be very difficult to control. Hence, criteria for water quality
focus on the nutrients that will achieve the desired improvements in Clark Fork
waters. Experiments showed that the levels of attached diatom algae in the middle
Clark Fork would be reduced with concentrations below 30 micrograms per liter for
soluble phosphorus and 250 micrograms per liter for soluble nitrogen. The
filamentous alga Cladophora dominating the upper Clark Fork seemed able to thrive
even when phosphorus was well below 30 micrograms per liter and nitrogen below
20 micrograms per liter. Cladophora's ability to persist in low nutrient
environments may mean that its abundance can only be controlled, but not
eliminated.
While algal level decreases can be expected with nutrient concentrations
below the figures given, target concentrations at which all beneficial uses would be
protected throughout the river are not available. Regardless, it would be
appropriate to set summer nutrient target levels at concentrations found in river
reaches where algae are not a problem. These goals are 6 micrograms per liter or
less for phosphorus and 30 micrograms or less for nitrogen. While controls
necessary to meet these restrictive levels may not be feasible everywhere on the
river, even lesser reductions, or restoration of beneficial uses in fewer river miles,
would constitute a worthy goal.
Also, nutrient reductions may affect other flora and biota as well as nuisance
algae. However, a study designed to address this question concluded that
proposed target nutrient levels would have a small impact on the Clark Fork's trout
24
-------
A Summary of Findings and A Management Plan DRAFT
fishery, a beneficial use and economic resource currently restricted by a number of
other problems.
Specific management actions to meet these nutrient reduction goals for the
Clark Fork River are outlined in the tables that follow. However, it should be noted
that there are existing authorities on which to rely on to manage the water quality
of the basin. The Clean Water Act of 1987 gives states a broad mandate to
survey, report on, and to correct water quality problems. Montana's Water Quality
Act stipulates that the Montana Department of Health will provide a
comprehensive program for the prevention, abatement, and control of water
pollution. Montana Surface Water Quality Standards designate water use
classifications for all surface waters in the state and establish standards for
protecting, maintaining, and improving their quality and potability.
Provisions of the Clean Water Act also give states the authority to further
control or restrict sources of pollution beyond what is achievable through the
application of conventional wastewater treatment technology and nonpoint source
controls. This is applicable to the Clark Fork River, where water quality standards
are violated and beneficial uses impaired despite the presence of numerous controls
on pollution sources.
Lake Pend Oreille
The management recommendations for Lake Pend Oreille seek to protect and
preserve the water quality of the lake by controlling pollutants, particularly
phosphorus, that enter the lake from natural, point, and nonpoint sources. The
plan also identifies agencies or regulatory bodies responsible for implementing
recommended actions. Desired water quality goals for Lake Pend Oreille are
maintenance of open lake water quality and reduction of the rate of nearshore
eutrophication. To accomplish this, total phosphorus concentrations would be
reduced to 5 micrograms per liter in the littoral zone.
Normally, a management plan involves selection of a single preferred
alternative to achieve the desired standard. The Lake Pend Oreille project's Policy
Advisory Committee, convened under Section 525, decided that this approach
would be inappropriate, since the research and input from experts and citizens had
25
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
established that numerous actions would need to be taken in order to reach the
water quality goals.
Thus the action plan for responsible management of Lake Pend Oreille's
water quality is cumulative. Many small tasks can be undertaken now, when
water quality is still generally very good. These recommended steps are also
relatively inexpensive and fairly easy to implement. The Policy Advisory
Committee believes that any large, expensive project or use of expensive in-lake
restoration techniques are inappropriate at this time.
Idaho resource managers see education as one of the most effective
methods of reducing the amount of nutrients that enter the lake. Informed
watershed and lake users will be more conscious of how their activities affect the
body of water they depend on and value, and will be more willing to modify these
activities to meet water quality goals they understand. Enforceable regulations
such as local zoning and planning ordinances, and rules governing sale and use of
detergents and fertilizers, are the other major tool for controlling watershed
activities that generate pollutants.
Pend Oreille River
No special instream conditions are warranted for the mainstem Pend Oreille
River, since no obvious problems related to excessive nutrients occur. Attached
algae communities did not approach nuisance levels, and free-floating algae were
indicative of unpolluted waters. Primary productivity of the main river was in the
middle to upper range of the values reported in the scientific literature for larger
rivers. However, several tributaries that have elevated nutrient levels should meet
a general guideline of less than 50 micrograms of phosphorus per liter, in order to
protect Box Canyon Reservoir from accelerated eutrophication.
The primary problem afflicting Pend Oreille River water quality is pervasive
milfoil. Rotovation, as the most effective management tool, should continue in
high use areas of the river. An additional rotovator should be purchased, to
double the amount of weed bed cleared. This additional machine could also be
used to strip-rotovate milfoil beds in less-used parts of the river to improve fish
habitat, since strip rotovation provides a more diverse fishery habitat in weed beds.
Educating boat owners on ways they can help to prevent the spread of milfoil is
26
-------
A Summary of Findings and A Management Plan DRAFT
also crucial. Pend Oreille County could be the lead agency, with assistance from
the county's Public Utility District, the state's Department of Ecology, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Herbicide applications in high use areas may be feasible, though more
research is needed on application rates in flowing waters. With possible approval
of trichlopyr by the EPA, local water quality managers may be able to experiment
with herbicide control of milfoil, with projected state and federal technical and
financial assistance.
Other potential control methods include:
• Drawdown of Box Canyon Reservoir for short periods during winter by
the county's Public Utility District. This would freeze exposed milfoil,
but could have adverse effects on beneficial native plants and fish;
• Biological agents, particularly aquatic insects and fungi, the subject of
ongoing research, may be additional management methods in the
future.
The two major wastewater discharge sources, the Ponderay newsprint plant
and the Newport sewage treatment plant, are adequately limited by National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. No additional
conventional pollutant controls are recommended at present.
Since animal keeping practices are likely the primary cause of elevated fecal
coliform bacteria and nutrient levels in Pend Oreille River tributaries,
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) would be the best way of
improving water quality in these streams. Specific methods to reduce the amount
of livestock wastes reaching the tributaries include: maintaining dry facilities for
manure storage; using concrete manure bunkers; minimizing wash water use; using
walled barriers with collection pipe, waste management systems, waste storage
pond or structures, and solids separators in waste storage; and land applications of
wastes. Along stream corridors, livestock owners should maintain vegetation filter
strips between streams and pastures, fence and bridge streams and ditches, and
use stream vegetation.
The Pend Oreille Conservation District, as the responsible agency for BMP
development and implementation related to agricultural water quality protection
and management, could be the lead agency in resolving nonpoint source problems.
27
-------
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
Education is crucial in this arena, since landowners who understand the deleterious
effect of poor livestock management practices on the common water resource are
more likely to accept and implement BMPs.
28
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Control Nuisance Algae in the Clark Fork River by Reducing Nutrient
Concentrations.
POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Management Action
Implement seasonal land application of Deer Lodge
municipal wastewater
Implement nutrient removal or alternative disposal
methods for Butte municipal wastewater
Adopt basin-wide phosphorus detergent bans
Secure long-term protection for instream flows in the
Clark Fork River
Enforce an aggressive nondegradation policy with
respect to nutrient sources
Implement the TMDL wasteload allocation process for
control of nutrient sources basin-wide
Require nutrient monitoring as a condition of all
wastewater discharge permits
Refine nutrient limits for Stone Container Corporation
to include surface and subsurface discharges
Evaluate and implement additional measures to curb
municipal and industrial wastewater nutrient
discharges
Organize wastewater discharge permits on a
concurrent, five-year cycle
Lead Agency
City of Deer Lodge
City of Butte
Municipalities, Counties
Upper Clark Fork
Water Allocation Steering
Committee
MDHES
MDHES
MDHES
MDHES
Municipalities, Industries
MDHES
Priority
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Cost
(thousands)
405
(construction only)
Unknown
Low
Unknown
50-500
(development of
TMDL only)
Low
Unknown
Funding
Source(s)
4,24
4, 25, 26
1
Unknown
27
1, 2, 27
30
27,29
1, 28, 29
27
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Control Nuisance Algae in the Clark Fork River by Reducing Nutrient
Concentrations
NON POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Management Action
Develop and implement a nonpoint source
management plan specifically for the Clark Fork
Basin
Identify and control sources of nutrients in Mission
and Crow creeks, Coleman Coulee, and the Little
Bitterroot River
Identify and control sources of nitrogen in the
Dempsey, Lost, Mill, Willow, and Racetrack creeks
drainages
Modify irrigation practices in the Gold Creek
drainage to reduce phosphorus loading
Implement additional nonpoint source reclamation
demonstration projects in the Clark Fork Basin
Control groundwater sources of nitrogen loading to
the lower Bitterroot River
Identify nonpoint sources and causes of water quality
impairment in the Blackfoot River drainage
Implement the use of the Blackfoot Geographic
Information System in nonpoint source pollution
control
Implement the use of the Clark Fork Geographic
Information System in nonpoint source pollution
control
Evaluate sources of nitrogen in Fish Creek, Trout
Creek and the Bull River
Lead Agency
MDHES
Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes
MDHES
Powell County,
MDHES
MDHES
Missoula County, City of
Missoula, MDHES
MDHES, USFS,
BLM, etc.
EPA, MDHES
MHDES
MDHES
Priority
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Cost
(thousands)
1000
50
(Identification only)
25
(Identification only)
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
100
50- 100
50-100
10
Funding
Source(s)
1,3
1
1,3
Unknown
3
Unknown
3
1,3
1,3
1
-------
MAN A GEMENT OBJECTIVE: Protect Lake Pend Oreille Open Water Quality by Maintaining or Reducing
Current Rates of Nutrient Loading from Clark Fork River
POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Management action
Develop a nutrient allocation strategy for Pend
Oreille Lake
Revise current NPDES permits to include total and
ortho-phosphorus effluent limits
Limit total and ortho-phosphorus from all new point
sources
Lead
agency
EPA, IDEQ,
MDHES
EPA, IDEQ,
MDHES
EPA, IDEQ,
MDHES
Priority
High
High
High
Cost
(dollars)
20,000
N.A.
N.A.
Funding
source
1,9
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce near shore eutrophication by reducing local nutrient sources.
Management action
Develop a nutrient allocation strategy for Pend
Oreille Lake
Revise current NPDES permits to include total and
ortho-phosphorus effluent limits
Limit total and ortho-phosphorus from all new point
sources
Evaluate effects of Kootenay-Ponderay WWTP on near
shore water quality and feasibility of nutrient
removal or diverting flow to Sandpoint
Lead
agency
EPA, IDEQ,
MDHES
EPA, IDEQ
EPA, IDEQ
IDEQ, Local
Sewer
District
Priority
High
High
High
High
Cost
(dollars)
20,000
N.A.
N.A.
30,000
Funding
source
1,9
8,13
NONPOINT SOURCES
Education
Management action
Education
Lead
agency
Clean Lakes
Council
Priority
High
Cost
(dollars)
60,000
annually
Funding
source
1,2,5
Aquatic macrophytes
Management action
Selective removal of aquatic plants
by hand
Remove aquatic plants periodically
using mechanical harvesting
Cover lake bottom with fabric
barrier
Lead
agency
Bonner Co . ,
private
Bonner Co.
Bonner Co. ,
private
Priority
Low
Low
Low
Cost
(dollars)
100-1,500
for hand-
held cutter
500-800
per acre
biannually
0.06-1.25
per sq.ft.
with annual
maintenance
Funding
source
12,13
12
12,13
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce near shore eutrophication by reducing local nutrient sources.
Shoreline burning
Management action
Develop and enforce a County ordinance prohibiting
shoreline burning
Lead
agency
Bonner Co . ,
IDL
Priority
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
2,000
Funding
source
1,2,12
Septic systems
Management action
Identify areas and zone for more dense development
with centralized sewage treatment systems
Install centralized sewage treatment systems in
developed areas
Periodic mandatory maintenance and operation
inspections of septic systems
Evaluate need for increasing septic set backs
Lead
agency
Bonner Co . ,
PHD
IDEQ, PHD,
Local Sewer
Districts
PHD, Local
Sewer
Districts
PHD
Priority
High
High
Medium
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
N.A.
Cost
dependant
on site
25,000
annually
N.A.
Funding
source
1,4,8
Fertilizer use
Management action
Develop and enforce a County ordinance prohibiting
the sale of phosphate lawn fertilizers
Develop BMP's for methods and rates of application
of fertilizer based on soil type and slope
Develop and enforce a County ordinance requiring
ordinance requiring fertilizer BMP's within a lake
or stream protection zone
Lead
agency
Bonner Co . ,
IDEQ
Bonner Co . ,
SCS
Bonner Co.
Priority
Medium
Medium
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
2,000
10,000
2,000
Funding
source
1,2,12
1,2,3
2,12
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce near shore eutrophication by reducing local nutrient sources.
Development and construction
Management action
Develop and enforce an erosion control plan and
County ordinance
Amend zoning ordinances to set residential density
based on land and lake capabilities
Amend zoning ordinances to restrict development in
environmentally sensitive and unstable areas
Increase set backs between development and
watercourses
Allow individuals and developers to design erosion
control plans based on soil type and slope
Encourage legislation to exempt land developed as
riparian areas from taxation
Lead
agency
Bonner Co.
Bonner Co. ,
SCS, IDEQ
Bonner Co. ,
SCS
Bonner Co.
Bonner Co . ,
IDEQ
Bonner Co .
Priority
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
15,000
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
30,000
annually
N.A.
Funding
source
1,2,12
12
Environmentally sensitive or critical areas
Management action
Map environmentally sensitive areas with high water
.tables (wetlands)
Purchase or dedicate environmentally sensitive or
critical areas
Lead
agency
COE, SCS
Priority
Medium
Low
Cost
(dollars)
1,000
Cost
dependant
on area
Funding
source
1,12
10,11,12,15
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce near shore eutrophication by reducing local nutrient sources.
Motorized watercraft use
Management action
Require new marinas to install pumpout stations
Enforce the no sewage discharge standard
Require phosphate-free detergents to clean
watercraft
Restrict motorized watercraft use in shallow areas
and near shore
Lead
agency
Bonner Co.
County
Marine
Division's
Bonner Co . ,
IDEQ
Bonner Co . ,
Bonner Co.
Marine
Division
Priority
High
High
High
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Funding
source
Road construction
Management action
Modify or develop road construction and maintenance
BMP's specific to Pend Oreille Lake watershed
Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with Bonner
County Road Department regarding road construction
Lead
agency
ITD, IDEQ
Bonner Co.
Priority
High
High
Cost
(dollars)
10,000
N.A.
Funding
source
1,2,3
Stonmrater
Management action
Develop and enforce a stormwater management plan and
County ordinance
Lead
agency
Bonner Co. ,
PHD
Priority
High
Cost
(dollars)
15,000
Funding
source
1,2,12
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce near shore eutrophication by reducing local nutrient sources.
Forest practices
Management action
Develop a cooperative road management program with
federal, state, private, and industrial landowners
Encourage legislature to increase personnel for
enforcement and operator training
Encourage nomination of stream segments of concern
to develop site specific BMP's
Lead
agency
IDL, SCS
IDL
Priority
High
Medium
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Funding
source
Agriculture
Management action
Implement a state agriculture water quality project
on lower Pack River
Encourage legislation to exempt land developed as
riparian areas from taxation
Lead
agency
SCO
Bonner Co.
Priority
High
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
30,000
N.A.
Funding
source
1,2,7
Metals toxicity
Management action
Technically review proposed mining activities in the
basin
Develop a metals toxicity monitoring program
Complete a health risk assessment based on available
literature
Lead
agency
IDEQ, IDL
IDEQ
IDHW, PHD
Priority
High
Medium
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
N.A.
Funding
source
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Improve Pend Ore Hie River Water Quality Through Macrophyte
Management and Tributary Nonpoint Source Controls
NONPOINT SOURCES
Milfoil Control
Management Action
Rotovation of milfoil in high use areas of the Pend
Oreille River should continue, with additional emphasis
on control of upstream pioneer colonies.
Purchase an additional rotovator to increase area
coverage and enable alternative methods of harvesting and
rot ovation.
Develop and maintain programs to educate the public on
their role in preventing the migration of milfoil.
Resource managers should explore the possible use of
reservoir drawdown, herbicide application, and biological
agents as alternative milfoil control.
Tributaries exhibiting water quality problems from
nonpoint sources should be refereed to the Conservation
District for BMP development and implementation.
Grants secured by the Conservation District for BMP
implementation should include post implementation
monitoring to evaluate effectiveness of nonpoint source
controls.
As a general guideline, total phosphorus should not
exceed 50 ug P/L in any tributary of the Pend Oreille
River, nor 25 ug P/L within Box Canyon Reservoir
Pend Oreille County should establish a local watershed
management committee fashioned after the "nonpoint rule"
(WAC 400-12)
Pend Oreille County should form and manage a citizen
monitoring program to gather current land use information
in the Pend Oreille River basin.
Lead
Agency
County,
PUD
County,
PUD
County,
PUD,
Ecology
County,
PUD
Conservat
ion
District
Conservat
ion
District
County
County
Priority
High
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Low
High
High
Cost
(Thousand)
80K/year
135K
lOK/year
40K
10K
Funding
Source
If 4, 9,
16, 20
1, 4, 16,
18, 19,
20
3, 4, 5,
16, 17,
18, 19
If 16,
18, 20
3, 4, 17,
21
3, 4, 17,
21
Unknown
3, 4, 17,
19, 20
3, 4, 17,
19
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Improve Pend Oreille River Water Quality Through Macrophyte
Management and Tributary Nonpoint Source Controls
NONPOINT SOURCES
Milfoil Control
Management Action
Ecology should maintain the Pend Oreille River at
Newport as a core monitoring station and re-establish
Metaline Falls as a rotating station to be sampled one
year of every three.
Pend Oreille River resource managers should utilize a
GIS system for management of basin water resource data
The Clark Fork/Pend Oreille Coalition should be
facilitator for the development and maintenance of a
larger Clark Fork/Pend Oreille Basin GIS system.
Lead
Agency
Ecology
PUD,
County
CF/POC
Priority
Medium
Medium
Low
Cost
2K/year
15K/year
plus
equipment
20K/year
plus
equipment
Funding
Source
1, 22
1, 19, 20
1
-------
ABBRRVIATIONS
BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management
COE U.S. Corp of Engineers
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IDEQ Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
IDHW Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
IDL Idaho Department of Lands
ITD Idaho Transportation Department
MDHES Montana Department Health and Environmental Sciences
N.A. Not Applicable. Implementation is possible under current programs.
PHD Panhandle Health District
SCD Soil Conservation District
SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USFS U.S. Forest Service
FUNDING SOURCES All funding sources are possible funding sources. Wo commitment for funding has been
received from of any of the identified sources.
1 Clean Water Act Section 525 Reauthorization
2 Clean Water Act Section 314 (Clean Lakes Program)
3 Clean Water Act Section 319 (Nonpoint Source Program)
4 State Revolving Fund
5 National Environmental Education Act
6 Small Watershed Program (PL 566)
7 Agricultural Water Quality Management Program
8 Municipal Facilities Construction Grants Program
9 Nutrient Management Act (Idaho)
10 Habitat Improvement Program (Idaho)
11 Forest Stewardship Program
12 Bonner County, Idaho
13 private landowner/user fees
14 Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Research Center
15 Duck's Unlimited
16 Corps of Engineers Eurasian Watermilfoil Control Grants
17 Centennial Clean Water Fund (Washington)
18 Freshwater Weeds Account (Washington)
19 Pend Oreille County, Washington
20 Pend Oreille County Public Utility District, Washington
21 Pend Oreille Conservation District, Washington
22 State General Fund (Washington)
23 City of Missoula, Montana
24 City of Deer Lodge,'Montana
25 City of Butte, Montana
26 Superfund Program
27 Clean Water Act Section 106 Funds
28 Municipalities
29 Industries/Dischargers
-------
Taking the First Steps: Priorities for Action
Recognizing that it would be difficult to implement all of management
actions outlined in the Action Plan in the immediate future, the Steering Committee
has identified the following actions to of be the highest priority.
• Convene a Tri-State Management Council of senior managers from federal,
state, and county agencies to implement the Management Plan
recommendations.
• Establish a basin-wide phosphate detergent ban.
• Establish numeric nutrient loading targets.
• Develop and maintain programs to educate the public on their role in
protecting and maintaining water quality.
• Control Eurasian watermilfoil by education, rotovation, and research into
alternative methods.
• Install centralized sewer systems for developed areas on Lake Pend Oreille.
• Institute seasonal land application at the Missoula municipal wastewater
treatment facility.
• Establish a water quality monitoring network to monitor effectiveness and
trends.
41
-------
Appendix A: Glossary
algae Small aquatic plants lacking stems, roots, or leaves which occur as single cells, colonies, or
filaments.
algal bloom Rapid, even explosive growth of algae on the surface of lakes, streams, or ponds;
stimulated by nutrient enrichment.
beneficial use Any of the various uses which may be made of the water, including, but not limited
to, domestic water supplies, industrial and agricultural water supplies, recreation in and on the
water, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. Any use may not lower the ambient water quality.
best management practices Accepted methods for controlling nonpoint source pollution; may
include one or more conservation practices.
chlorophyll a The dominant green, photosynthetic pigment in plants; a measure of aquatic plant
production.
coliform bacteria A group of bacteria found in the colons of animals and humans, but also in
natural soil and water where organic content is high. The presence of coliform bacteria in water is
an indicator of possible pollution by fecal material.
cultural eutrophication An accelerated rate of lake aging induced by human sources of nutrients,
sediment, and organic matter.
discharge In the simplest form, discharge means outflow of water. The use of this term is not
restricted as to course or location and it can be used to describe the flow of water from a pipe or
from a drainage basin. Other words related to discharge are runoff, flow, and yield.
dissolved oxygen Molecular oxygen freely available in water and necessary for the respiration of
aquatic life and the oxidation of organic materials.
drainage area The land area contributing runoff to a stream or other body of water, and generally
defined in terms of acres, square miles, or square kilometers.
effluent The sewage or industrial liquid waste which is released into natural waters by sewage
treatment plants, industry, or septic tanks.
erosion The wearing away of the landscape by water, wind, ice, or gravity to smaller particles,
usually sediment.
eutrophic Literally, "nutrient rich." Generally refers to a fertile, productive body of water.
Contrasts with oligotrophic.
eutrophication The natural process by which lakes and ponds become enriched with dissolved
nutrients, resulting in increased growth of algae and other microscopic plants and reduced water
clarity.
-------
Appendix A: Glossary
flow The rate of water discharged past a point expressed in water volume per unit time.
littoral zone That portion of a lake or pond extending from the shoreline lakeward to the greatest
depth occupied by rooted aquatic plants.
load The amount of substance, usually nutrients or sediment, discharged past a point; expressed
in weight per unit time.
mesotrophic Literally, "moderate nutrients." Generally refers to a moderately fertile body of water.
nitrogen An essential nutrient for aquatic organisms, comprising 80% of the earth's atmosphere.
nonpoint source pollution Pollution discharged over a wide land area, not from one specific
location.
nutrient loading The addition of nutrients, usually nitrogen or phosphorus, to a water body (often
expressed as g/m2 of lake surface area per year) . The majority of nutrient loading in a lake usually
comes from its tributaries.
nutrients Elements or compounds essential to life, including but not limited to oxygen, carbon,
nitrogen, and phosphorus.
oligotrophic Literally, "nutrient poor." Generally refers to an infertile, unproductive body of water.
Contrasts with eutrophic.
pelagic zone The open area of a lake from the littoral zone to the center of the lake.
Phosphorus An essential nutrient for aquatic organisms derived from weathered rock and human
sources.
phytoplankton Usually microscopic aquatic plants (sometimes consisting of only a cell).
point source pollution Pollutants discharged from any identifiable point, including pipes, ditches,
channels, sewers, tunnels, and containers of various types.
pollution Any alteration in the character or quality of the environment which renders it unfit or less
suited for beneficial uses.
primary production The synthesis of organic compounds by green plants in the presence of
elements (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus) and light energy.
secchi depth The mean depth at which a black and white disk 20 centimeters in diameter is no
longer visible from the water surface; a measure of water transparency.
44
-------
Appendix A: Glossary
sediment Fragmented organic and inorganic material derived from the weathering of soil, alluvial,
and rock materials removed by erosion and transported by water, wind, ice, and gravity.
sewage The water-carried human and animal waste from residences, buildings, industrial
establishments, or other places, together with groundwater infiltration and surface water.
stormwater runoff Surface water runoff, usually associated with urban development, which carries
both natural and human-caused pollutants. Stormwater runoff can be conveyed to lakes, ponds,
and streams either through point or nonpoint sources.
trophic status Referring to the nourishment status of a water body, e.g. oligotrophic, eutrophic.
wastewater Treated or untreated sewage, industrial waste, or agricultural waste with such water
as is present. Sometimes referred to as effluent.
water clarity The ability of water to transmit light; often reported as secchi depth.
water quality standard Legally mandated and enforceable maximum contaminant levels of chemical
parameters of water. These parameters are established for water used by municipalities,
industries, agriculture, and recreation.
water quality A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of
water with respect to its suitability for a beneficial use.
watershed An area of land that contributes surface runoff to a given point in a drainage system.
wetlands Lands where water saturation of the soil for at least part of the year is the dominant
factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities
living in the surrounding environment. Other common names for wetlands are sloughs, ponds,
swamps, marshes, and riparian areas.
45
-------
Appendix B: Selected Bibliography
CLARK FORK RIVER STUDIES
Ingman, G.L. and M.A. Kerr. 1989. Clark Fork River Basin Nutrient Pollution Source
Assessment - Interim Report to the Section 525 Clean Water Act Study Steering
Committee. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. Helena, MT.
April 1989.
Ingman, G.L. 1990. Clark Fork River Basin Nutrient Pollution Source Assessment - Second Interim
Report. Section 525 of the 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments. Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences. Helena, MT. June 1990.
Ingman, G.L. 1991. Clark Fork River Basin Nutrient Pollution Source Assessment- Third Interim Report.
Section 525 of the 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments. Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences. Helena, MT.
June 1991.
Ingman, G.L. 1992a. Assessment of Phosphorus and Nitrogen Sources in the Clark Fork River
Basin, 1988-1991 - Final Report. Section 525 of the 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments.
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. Helena, MT. January 1992.
Ingman, G.L. 1992b. A Rationale and Alternatives for Controlling Nutrients and Eutrophication
Problems in the Clark Fork River Basin. Section 525 of the 1987 Clean Water Act
Amendments. Draft. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. Helena,
MT. April 1992.
Jarvie, J. 1991. Clark Fork Nutrient Assessment Geographic Information System - Annual Report.
Montana State Library, Natural Resource Information System. Helena, MT. April 1991.
Jarvie, J. 1992. Clark Fork Nutrient Assessment Geographic Information System - Annual Report.
Montana State Library, Natural Resource Information System. Helena, MT. April 1991.
Johnson, H. E. and C. L. Schmidt. 1988. Clark Fork Basin Project Status Report and Action Plan.
Clark Fork Basin Project. Montana Governor's Office. Helena, MT. December 1988.
Knudson, K. 1992. Potential Effects of Nutrient Control Measures in the Clark Fork Basin on Resident
Fisheries. Prepared for the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences.
Ecological Resource Consulting. Helena, MT. January 1992.
Tralles, S. 1992. Results of Nonpoint Source Stream Reach Assessments for Clark Fork River Basin
Tributary Watersheds. Unpublished report. Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences. Helena, MT. April 1992.
46
-------
Appendix B: Selected Bibliography
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. An Assessment of the Sources and Effects of the
Pollution of the Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Orielle. Environmental Research Laboratory -
Duluth. Duluth, MN. May 1987.
Watson, V. 1989. Maximum Levels of Attached Algae in the Clark Fork River. Report prepared for
the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. In Proc. Mont. Acad. Sci.
49. Missoula, MT. 1989.
Watson, V. 1990. Control of Algal Standing Crop by P and N in the Clark Fork River. Report prepared
for the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. In Proc. Clark Fork River
Symposium, Mont. Acad. Sci. Missoula, MT. April 1990.
Watson, V. 1991. Evaluation of the Benefits of Nutrient Reductions on Algal Levels in the Clark Fork
River. Final Report to the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences.
University of Montana, Missoula, MT. June 1991.
LAKE PEND OREILLE STUDIES
Beckwith, M. 1989. Compilation of water quality study efforts on Pend oreille Lake, 1984-88. Idaho
Department Health and Welfare, Division Environmental Quality, Water Quality Status Report
#90. Boise.
Eastern Washington University. 1991. Land use inventory of Lake Pend Oreille watershed.
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Eastern Washington University. Cheney.
Falter, C.M., D. Olson, and J. Carlson. 1992. The nearshore trophic status of Pend Oreille Lake, Idaho.
Department Fish and Wildlife, University of Idaho. Moscow.
Frenzel, S.A. 1991 a. Hydrologic budgets, Pend Oreille Lake, Idaho, 1989-90. U.S. Geological Survey.
Boise, Idaho.
Frenzel, S.A. 1991b. Nutrient budgets, Pend Oreille Lake, Idaho, 1989-90. U.S. Geological Survey.
Boise, Idaho.
Hoelscher, B. 1992. Pend Oreille Lake Fishery Assessment: 1951 to 1989. Water Quality Status
Report 102. Idaho Department Health and Welfare, Division Environmental Quality. Boise.
Hoelscher, B., Skille, J., and G. Rothrock. 1992. Pend Oreille Lake Water Quality Management Plan.
Idaho Department Health and Welfare, Division Environmental Quality. Boise.
Lawlor, J. 1990. Lake Pend Oreille subsurface sewage impact study: 1977-1989. Panhandle Health
District I. Sandpoint, Idaho.
Lee, K.H. and R.S. Lunetta. 1990. Watershed characterization using Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM)
satellite imagery. Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab.
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Woods, P.F. 1991 a. Limnology of the pelagic zone, Pend Oreille Lake, Idaho, 1989-90. U.S.
Geological Survey. Boise, Idaho.
47
-------
Appendix B: Selected Bibliography
Woods, P.P. 1991b. Nutrient load/lake response model, Pend Oreille Lake, Idaho, 1989-90. U.S.
Geological Survey. Boise, Idaho.
PEND OREILLE RIVER STUDIES
Coots, R. and B. Carey. Pend Oreille River Fish/Rotovation Study. Washington State Department of
Ecology report. 22 pages and appendices. March 1991.
Coots, R. and R. Willms. Pend Oreille River Primary Productivity And Water Quality Of Selected
Tributaries. Washington State Department of Ecology report. 35 pages plus appendices.
November 1991.
Coots, R. Draft Pend Oreille River Management Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology report.
32 pages plus appendices. July 1992.
Pelletier, G. and R. Coots, 1990. Progress Report No. 1 Pend Oreille River Water Quality Study.
Washington State Department of Ecology report. 61 pages.
48
------- |