EPA910/R-93-006
&EFA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Water Division
Surface Water Branch
February 1993
Clark Fork- Pend Oreille Basin
Water Quality Study
A Summary of Findings and a
Management Plan
Conducted Under Section 525 of The Clean Water Act of 1987
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 8 and 10,
State of Montana, State of Idaho, and State of Washington
-------
CLARK FORK - PEND OREILLE BASIN
WATER QUALITY STUDY
A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND A MANAGEMENT PLAN
Conducted Under
SECTION 525 OF
THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1987
January 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 8 and 10
State of Montana
State of Idaho
State of Washington
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction and Acknowledgements iii
Executive Summary 1
Response to Citizens' Concerns: The Purpose and Organization
of the Study 6
The State of the Basin 12
Previous Studies and Current Management Programs 16
Scoping the Sources: Research Objectives 21
Research Findings 27
Managing the Watershed: The Management Plan 34
Taking the First Steps: Priorities for Action 53
Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix B: Selected Bibliography
Appendix C: Response To Comments
Appendix D: Selected News Features and Articles
-------
Introduction and Acknowledgements
This document summarizes three years of water quality research in the Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Basin and provides a Management Plan for protection of the
basin's water quality. All work was conducted pursuant to Section 525 of the
1987 amendments to the federal Clean Water Act as a cooperative effort among
the states of Montana, Idaho, and Washington and with assistance from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report is a synthesis of the following three
documents completed for the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study:
• A Rationale and Alternatives for Controlling Nutrients and Eutrophication
Problems in the Clark Fork River Basin, by G. L. Ingman, Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena, 1992
• Phase I Diagnostic and Feasibility Analysis: A Strategy for Managing the
Water Quality of Pend Oreille Lake, Bonner and Kootenai Counties, Idaho,
1988-1992. by B. Hoelscher, J. Skille, G. Rothrock, Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, 1993.
• Pend Oreille River Management Plan, by R. Coots, Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, 1992.
State reports are available from each state's steering committee members.
This report is the fourth and final annual progress report for the Clark Fork-
Pend Oreille Water Quality Study. The first, second, and third annual reports are
available from any member of the Steering Committee.
in
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study Steering Committee
Gary Ingman
Loren Bahls
Brian Hoelscher
Jack Skille
Will Kendra
Randy Coots
Judith Leckrone
William Roberts
Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Water Quality Bureau
Post Office Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
2110 Ironwood Parkway
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Washington Department of Ecology
Watershed Assessments Section
Post Office Box 47710
Olympia, WA 98504-7710
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave, WD-139
Seattle, WA98101
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 449-5434
The Steering Committee acknowledges the important contributions of previous
Steering Committee members:
Mike Beckwith, U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho
Gwen Burr, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Mason Hewitt, EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Las Vegas
Sally Marquis, EPA, Region 10, Seattle
Don Martin, EPA, Idaho Operations Office
Lee Shanklin, EPA, Region 8, Montana Office
Lynn Singleton, Washington Department of Ecology.
IV
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
The Steering Committee thanks the following people for their assistance:
Diana Boquist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bronwyn Echols, Technical Writer
David Haire, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead
Reservation
Glen Rothrock, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Christopher Moffett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Peter Nielsen, Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition
Connie Robinson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ed Tulloch, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Ruth Watkins, Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition
-------
Executive Summary
The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin lies within western Montana, northern
Idaho and northeastern Washington. The basin encompasses about 25,000 square
miles and is the source of waters that enter and leave Pend Oreille Lake in Idaho.
The Clark Fork River begins near Butte, Montana and drains an extensive area of
western Montana before entering Pend Oreille Lake. The lake is the source of the
Pend Oreille River in northeastern Washington which in turn drains into the
Columbia River.
In response to concerns and complaints about the growing presence of algae
and water weeds in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin, Congress mandated the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a comprehensive
water quality study in the basin, and to report study findings and recommendations
to Congress. This mandate appeared as Section 525 of the 1987 amendments to
the federal Clean Water Act.1 The main objectives of the study were to
characterize water quality problems, identify sources and recommend actions for
maintaining and enhancing water quality throughout the basin. This report and
management plan are intended to meet the study and reporting requirements
mandated in Section 525.
Regions 8 and 10 of the EPA had the primary federal responsibility for
implementing the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study. The States of
Montana, Idaho and Washington identified research objectives within their
1 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.. as amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 100-4, February 4, 1987.
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
boundaries, conducted the research, wrote reports and recommended state-specific
management actions that would meet the basin-wide study objectives. The Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study Steering Committee, consisting of
representatives from EPA and the three states, oversaw the study and reviewed
and summarized the three state plans into this document, the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Basin Water Quality Studv: A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan.
The Steering Committee invited all interested persons and agencies to
comment on individual state management plans and the basin-wide management
plan. The Committee sponsored four public workshops in Deer Lodge and
Missoula, Montana, Sandpoint, Idaho and Newport, Washington. The Committee
also requested comments by mail from over five hundred individuals, agencies and
other groups on the mailing list. (Responses to these public comments are
included as Appendix C.)
Research Findings and Conclusions
The three-year Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Water Quality Study yielded the
following major research findings and conclusions:
Clark Fork River
• Excessive levels of algae caused water use impairment in up to 250 miles of
the Clark Fork River.
• About half of the soluble phosphorus derives from wastewater discharges,
with the other half contributed by nonpoint sources in tributary watersheds.
Three-fourths of the soluble nitrogen comes from tributaries, with the
remaining quarter from wastewater discharges.
• The most critical point sources are the municipal wastewater treatment
plants, particularly at Butte, Deer Lodge and Missoula. The Stone Container
Corporation's Missoula Mill is a major source of industrial wastewater
nutrient loading to the river, although the levels of nutrients in its effluent
over the past six years have been reduced several fold.
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
Phosphate detergent bans in several communities along the river have
decreased the phosphorus content of the effluent of the municipal
wastewater treatment plants.
The largest nonpoint sources of nutrient loading to the Clark Fork River are
the Flathead, Bitterroot, and Blackfoot rivers.
A nonpoint source stream reach assessment found that of 99 basin streams
with suspected problems, 65 percent have an impaired ability to support
designated beneficial water uses.
Pend Oreille Lake
• Open lake water quality has not changed statistically since the mid-1950s.
• There is a high correlation between total phosphorous loading from
nearshore and local tributaries and the degree of urban development.
• 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 that limits algae growth in the lake.
• Maintenance of open lake water quality is largely dependent on maintaining
nutrient loadings from the Clark Fork River at or below their present levels.
• Pack River, followed by Sand Creek, are the tributaries discharging the
highest phosphorus loads per unit of land area to the lake. Lightning Creek,
Pack River, and Sand Creek have the highest nitrogen levels.
Pend Oreille River
• The mainstem Pend Oreille River has water quality that is generally good and
in the oligo-mesotrophic range.
• The primary water quality concern on the Pend Oreille River is the
proliferation of Eurasian watermilfoil, an invasive and adaptable plant.
• Roughly 75 percent of the external nitrogen and phosphorus loading to this
reach of the river comes from the Newport wastewater treatment plant,
Calispell Creek, and Trimble Creek.
-------
Clark Fork - fend Ore/He Basin Water Quality Study
• Several tributaries exceed standards for fecal coliform bacteria content.
• 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.
Recommended Management Objectives, Actions and Priorities
Based on the research findings and conclusions, the Steering Committee of
the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study recommends the following
water quality management goals and objectives for the 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 Pend Oreille Lake water quality by maintaining or reducing current
rates of nutrient loading from the Clark Fork River.
• Reduce nearshore eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake by reducing nutrient
loading from local sources.
• Improve Pend Oreille River water quality through macrophyte management
and tributary nonpoint source controls.
Actions
Each state outlined numerous specific management actions to meet these
basin-wide objectives. These recommended management actions were
summarized into a an overall management plan for the entire basin. The
recommended management actions include a spectrum of activities that ranges
from mechanical harvesting of aquatic weeds, comprehensive public education
programs, control of agricultural and residential nonpoint sources, revised permit
limits on point sources, and developing and enforcing local zoning and stormwater
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
ordinances. For each recommended action, the plan identifies possible lead
agencies, assigns a priority, estimates costs whenever possible, and identifies
possible funding sources.
Priorities
The Steering Committee identified over 70 specific management actions.
From these, the Committee has identified several actions to be the highest priority.
Convene a Tri-State Implementation Council to implement the Management
Plan recommendations.
Establish a basin-wide phosphate detergent ban.
Establish numeric nutrient loading targets for the Clark Fork River and Pend
Oreille Lake.
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 Pend Oreille Lake.
Institute seasonal land application and other improvements at the Missoula
municipal wastewater treatment facility.
Enforce existing regulations and laws consistently and aggressively, in
particular state anti-degradation statutes.
Establish and maintain a water quality monitoring network to monitor
effectiveness and trends and to better identify sources of pollutants.
Develop and enforce stormwater control and erosion control plans and
county ordinances.
-------
Response to Citizens' Concerns: The Purpose and
Organization of the Study
Purpose
The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille basin encompasses about 25,000 square miles
of the intermountain Northwest in the states of Montana, Idaho, and Washington
(Figure 1). The Clark Fork River, Pend Oreille Lake, and the Pend Oreille River are
among 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 Pend Oreille Lake, Idaho's largest lake. Pend Oreille Lake
is the source of the Pend Oreille River in northeastern Washington.
The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin is characterized by highly valued
recreational and economic resources and is the central focus of nearly every major
urban, industrial and agricultural activity in the region. Vast resources of minerals,
timber, fish, wildlife, water, rangeland and croplands support a variety of human
uses, ranging from mining and agriculture to recreational fishing and boating.
In response to citizens' concerns about water quality in the basin, 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 a comprehensive water quality study in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Basin. Congress, however, did not immediately appropriate the necessary funds
for the study. Section 525 of the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act
states:
-------
Clark Fork • Fend Oreille Basin
Newport
~Lake
Albeni Falls / /& Pend
Dam c i Oreille
Figure 1
Study Area
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
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,
Concerns about environmental problems in the basin are longstanding. The
two greatest concerns are pollution from heavy metals from past mining and
smelting activities in the headwaters of the Clark Fork River and eutrophication
problems caused by excessive nutrients. Eutrophication manifests itself in the
Clark Fork River in Montana as abundant developments of nuisance attached algae
that impair most designated uses of the river. In Pend Oreille Lake, increasing
growths of algae and other water plants in nearshore areas and decreasing water
clarity are the primary concerns. In Washington, the Pend Oreille River is choked
with nearly continous growths of water plants that impede boat traffic and most
other uses. Increasing population in the inland Northwest are likely to exacerbate
these water quality problems in the near future.
In 1988, the Montana Governor's Office released the Clark Fork Basin
Project Status Report and Action Plan. The Action Plan provided specific
recommendations for addressing the nutrient problems in the basin and called for a
coordinated program to investigate the sources and fate of nutrients in the Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Basin. Encouraged by Congress' action and prompted by the
Governor's report, the citizen's group known as the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Coalition (formerly the Clark Fork Coalition) successfully pushed for appropriation
of funds to complete the comprehensive, basin-wide assessment authorized by
Section 525.
Although the Montana Governor's Office report identified the mining-related
heavy metals pollution in the headwaters area as the most acute problem in the
8
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
basin, the Steering Committee decided to restrict the water quality studies to
nutrient and eutrophication problems because they are the primary interstate water
quality issue and are affecting the largest portion of the basin. In addition,
investigations and remedial activities on the metals contamination were already
well underway through the federal Superfund Program.
This report, the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Water Quality Study: A Summary of
Findings and a Management Plan, summarizes the findings of three years of
research conducted pusuant to Section 525. It also provides a management plan
for the basin. This is the fourth and final report on the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Water Quality Study.
Organization
Though Section 525 of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to conduct the
study, the project was a joint effort of working teams from Montana, Idaho,
Washington, Regions 8 and 10 of the EPA and from EPA's Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory at Las Vegas (EMSL-LV). EPA convened the Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Steering Committee to oversee the study.
The Steering Committee comprises representatives from the two EPA regional
offices and the agency from each state responsible for water quality management:
the Water Quality Bureau of the Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences (MDHES), Idaho's Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and
Washington's Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Steering Committee met
regularly and communicated frequently to oversee progress and to coordinate the
three states' research.
Each of the state agencies worked with other agencies and organizations
within its state to carry out the research. In Montana, additional work was
conducted by EMSL-LV, the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) at the
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
Montana State Library, the University of Montana, the U.S. Geological Survey, and
several independent contractors.
In Idaho, DEQ managed a Clean Lakes Phase 1 Project for Pend Oreille Lake
which was funded through an EPA Clean Lakes Program grant as well as by
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
Pend Oreille Lake'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.
To implement the Management Plan developed as a result of the Clark Fork-
Pend Oreille Water Quality Study, EPA and the state agencies will have a guiding
role in 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, tribal, 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 River, Pend Oreille Lake, and Pend
Oreille River system. Citizens' groups have parts to play, also. The Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition was instrumental in bringing about the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Water Quality 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 Pend Oreille Lake. The
ultimate success of the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Management Plan will depend
10
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
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.
11
-------
The State of the Basin
Clark Fork River
The Clark Fork River watershed is the largest subunit of the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille research area, comprising some 22,000 square miles, or nearly 90 percent
of the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin. A wide range of human activity, from urban
centers to farming hamlets, is found within this region. Butte, at the Clark Fork
River's headwaters is a city of some 34,000. Copper mining has been the city's
major industry for decades. Missoula lies along the middle reaches of the river. It
is home to about 34,000 people and the University of Montana. Both these cities
are service and retail hubs for their regions. Between the hills that surround 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. Further downstream,
the mountainous terrain between Missoula and the Idaho border is sparsely settled.
Much of the western portion of the watershed is forested mountains,
predominantly national forest. Part is wilderness and the remainder is managed for
multiple uses, including logging and mineral extraction.
The economy of the region is predominantly natural resource based, with
forestry, mining, and agriculture the major industries. In recent years, recreation
and tourism have played an increasing role in the region's economy. In the valleys,
the largest farms and ranches grow various short season crops, such as hay and
winter wheat, as well as raise livestock. Vacation home development is occurring
as the region increases in popularity as a recreational destination for skiing, fishing,
hiking, and hunting. The cities and towns are more densely settled, but
12
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
development and accompanying sprawl are progressing at a fairly restrained pace.
The exception is the booming Flathead Valley which is attracting a large population
from outside the state.
These diverse land uses and economic activities in the Clark Fork River
drainage area have led to an associated range of water quality problems. Apart
from the heavy metals residual from mining wastes in the river's headwaters, the
most pressing of these are the excessive nutrients that promote the growth of
nuisance algae in the Clark Fork River. High concentrations of phosphorus and
nitrogen have led to blooms of filamentous algae in the Clark Fork River above
Missoula and heavy growths of slime, or diatom, algae below the city. Beside
being unattractive, 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 Pend Oreille Lake.
Pend Oreille Lake
The Pend Oreille Lake watershed is sparsely settled. Bonner County, which
almost entirely contains the lake, has a population of about 26,000. Sandpoint,
the county's largest city with about 5,200 residents, and the surrounding cities
and rural areas along the north shore of the lake hold about half the county's
population. In summer, an additional 5,000 people call the north shore their home.
Bonner County is predicted to have continuing strong growth as a nonmetropolitan
area. By the year 2010, the population may reach 35,000 -- an increase of nearly
one-third.
Like the rest of the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin, an array of land uses
characterize the Pend Oreille Lake watershed. Much of the northern and eastern
parts of the watershed are public lands comprise mountainous or hilly terrain
13
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
deeply cut by streams and mostly forested. The broad, fertile valleys and river
bottoms, predominately in the western part of the watershed, are mostly in private
ownership. Near the lake and on its shore, private lands account for more than
half of the ownership. Timber is the region's primary natural resource industry.
Until very recently, this and other natural resource based industries dominated the
region's economy. However, jobs in services and retail trade are increasing as the
region becomes more popular for second home development, tourism, and
recreation. It is estimated that recreation and tourism contribute about $20 million
annually to the local economy. Livestock grazing and short season crops, such as
hay, wheat, oats, and barley, are important land uses in the valleys and on the
lower slopes. Rarely are these operations very large.
Developed lands, primarily residential, are concentrated in a broad valley
stretching north of Sandpoint. In this area, semi-rural residential development is
gradually replacing agriculture. Almost half of all developable land in the
watershed 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.
Pend Oreille Lake is designated a Special Resource Water under Idaho's
Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements. No new point
source discharges are allowed, nor may existing sources increase discharges of
pollutants to the lake, a tributary, or an upstream segment if these discharges
would compromise water quality necessary to designated uses of the special
resource water. Pend Oreille Lake's designated uses are water supply, recreation,
salmonid spawning, cold-water biota, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.
Human activities in the basin have led to water quality concerns about Pend
Oreille Lake. Paramount among these are excessive nutrients that promote the
growth of slime (attached benthic algae) on shoreline rocks, structures, and boats.
14
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
If left unmanaged, the algae eventually could impair of the lake's aesthetic
qualities, recreational uses and domestic water supplies.
Pend Oreille River
The Pend Oreille River drains Pend Oreille Lake. 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 river 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. The
basin's topography consists of river-bottom flatlands in a long and narrow trough
between the Selkirk Mountains and Okanagan Highlands. Agriculture on the
lowland plains includes grain crops, hay, pasture, and livestock. The area is largely
forested with rough mountainous terrain. Private land ownership is concentrated
on river and lake shorelines as strip development.
Milfoil is the mainstem Pend Oreille River's most serious problem. If left
unchecked, this tenacious water weed could choke life from the river. In addition
to restricting human recreational access to the river, existing data suggest milfoil
may also be limiting to the fishery.
15
-------
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. Therefore, 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. The Clark Fork River is probably the most
thoroughly studied stream in the state. Research has ranged from examinations of
water chemistry, hydrology, and contaminants to characterizations of the flora and
fauna of the river and its tributaries. The effects of mining, logging, agriculture,
sewage treatment plants and industrial discharges have also been explored. More
recently, attention has turned to the high concentrations of nutrients in the upper
and middle Clark Fork 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 gathered fragmented information from the numerous studies of the Clark Fork
16
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
River. It 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. This report provided the framework
for the Section 525 Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Water Quality Study.
Current Management Activities
A number of water management activities are already in place in the Clark
Fork Basin. Management activities that include nutrient control 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; Montana's Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program and the Flathead Basin Phosphorus Control
Strategy. 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.
In addition, the Salish and Kootenai Tribes have begun an aggressive water
quality monitoring program on the Flathead Indian Reservation. The tribes have
enacted a water quality ordinance for controlling point and nonpoint sources of
pollution and are currently implementing the ordinance. The tribes also cooperated
with the State of Montana on Flathead River Basin data collection and monitoring
activities to determine nutrient sources in the Flathead Basin.
The upper Clark Fork River Basin has long suffered from the over-
appropriation of water. The result has been serious stream dewatering problems
during summer months which compromise all water uses. Low stream flows also
aggravate the nutrient problem, especially in reaches below wastewater
discharges, and promote the development of nuisance levels of algae. In 1991,
the Montana Legislature passed legislation which placed a moratorium on most
17
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
new surface water rights in the upper basin. It also created the Upper Clark Fork
River Basin Steering Committee and charged it with writing a management plan for
waters of the upper basin. This plan must consider and balance all beneficial uses
of water and develop recommendations to alleviate water shortages. The plan is
scheduled for completion in December 1994.
A century of mining and smelting has left the Upper Clark Fork River and its
tributaries severely polluted by toxic metals and other chemicals. EPA has listed
four Superfund sites in the upper Clark Fork River basin on the National Priority
List. Since 1982, EPA, MDHES, industries, and other agencies have worked
together to investigate and prescribe clean-up procedures. Efforts conducted
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund) are being organized through the Clark Fork Superfund
Master Plan.
Pend Oreille Lake
Other Studies
Pend Oreille Lake has also been the subject of considerable ^research since
the mid-1980s. In 1984, 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 River.
As a result of the sampling, researchers classified the lake as on the border
between nutrient poor (oligotrophic) and moderately fertile (mesotrophic).
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, researchers first reported increased attached algae levels in shallow bays
and nearshore waters.
18
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
Current Management Activities
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality has provided technical and
financial assistance 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. Bonner County's ban on phosphate
detergents, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System which controls
point source discharges of wastewater, the state's Antidegradation Policy applying
to new or increased sources of point sources of pollution to Special Resource
Waters, and nonpoint source programs designed to reduce pollution from forest
practices and state road construction and maintenance are nutrient control
measures that are already in place.
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 of Box Canyon Reservoir's water quality, fish,
wildlife and shoreline characteristics, and recreation and tourism opportunities.
That study was completed with funding from the Pend Oreille County Public Utility
District. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers investigated water flow through river
weed beds in an 1988 study, and is currently 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.
19
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Ore/He Basin Water Quality Study
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
(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 Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
20
-------
Scoping the Sources: Research Objectives
.. .. __ » .
The primary research objective for the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Water Quality
Study 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
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
problems of its part of the basin while keeping in mind the basin-wide nature of the
project. Each state then conducted studies to meet those objectives. Montana
studied the Clark Fork River. Idaho completed a federal Clean Lakes Phase I study
on Pend Oreille Lake in order to meet its commitment, and Washington focused its
research on the Pend Oreille River. Following completion of the third year of
research, each group wrote a management plan. The individual state plans were
then forged into the Management Plan that is included in this document.
Clark Fork River
Research Objectives
The concerns of Montana researchers were two-fold: 1) abundant growths
of attached algae in the Clark Fork River and their effects on beneficial water uses,
21
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
and 2) nutrient loading to Pend Oreille Lake 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;
«• 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
• Assimilate study results through use of a computerized Geographic
Information System (GIS).
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 point source discharges of wastewater. This work provided data and
information on the major sources of nutrients to the river. Section 525 research in
Montana:
• 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 Pend
Oreille Lake, documented and ranked nutrient contributions from
tributaries and wastewater discharges, and identified the sources that
can be most readily controlled;
• Compiled data on the nonpoint sources and causes of water quality
impairment within the tributary basins, along with information on the
geographical distribution of problem streams; and
22
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
• Evaluated the potential negative effects of nutrient controls on fish
production.
In addition to this research, EMSL-LV developed a CIS for the Blackfoot
River watershed. (A GIS integrates data from many sources and may be used to
analyze how various topographic, climatic, geologic, biotic, and land use factors
affect water quality.) The focus of the GIS work was nonpoint source pollution,
particularly from silvicultural practices and livestock production. The Blackfoot
River was selected as a demonstration project since it is a subbasin of the Clark
Fork River, and had all nonpoint source modeling requirements. EMSL-LV worked
directly with the Montana State Library and the Water Quality Bureau on remotely-
sensed data acquisition, GIS database layering, and development of a user
interface.
Concurrent with the Blackfoot River GIS project, the Natural Resource
Information System at the Montana State Library developed a GIS system for the
entire Clark Fork River watershed. The latter system was used extensively to help
evaluate the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Water Quality Study data and to display
results. Both the Clark Fork River and the Blackfoot River GIS systems are housed
at the Montana State Library where they will continue to be available for basin-
wide water quality management and planning purposes. Plans are underway to
increase the accessibility of the GIS systems to government and private
institutions.
Pend Oreille Lake
Research Objectives
For Pend Oreille Lake, the major charges were to investigate citizens'
concerns about increased growths of algae and the potential for lake eutrophication
23
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
caused by nutrients from the Clark Fork River and 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 portion of the 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 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 (USGS) 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.
• The USGS used an empirical nutrient load-lake response computer
model to simulate how the open, deep area of the lake would respond
to different rates of nutrient loading.
• University of Idaho researchers assessed nearshore water quality and
algae production, and identified the types of phytoplankton found in
the deeper waters of the lake.
24
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
• The Panhandle Health District inventoried all septic tanks 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 portion of the watershed.
• The DEQ and Idaho Department of Fish and Game compiled all
available knowledge on the lake's fishery, described its economic
value, provided general information on heavy metal accumulation in
fish tissue, and discussed the effects on fish populations of the
proposed water quality goals.
• 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 in Washington during all three years of
the project. Washington scientists addressed the question of the river's trophic
status and its effect on aquatic plant and fish life. The researchers:
• Evaluated the general water quality of the mainstem river and
determined pollutant loading from tributaries to Box Canyon Reservoir;
25
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Ore/He Basin Water Quality Study
• 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 for
management and control of Eurasian watermilfoil.
26
-------
Research Findings
Clark Fork River
The highest densities of attached algae in the upper Clark Fork River occur
between Drummond and the Blackfoot River inflow, and in the middle river
between Missoula and Harper Bridge. British Columbia, Canada, has proposed that
undesirable changes occur in river communities when algal densities go above 100
milligrams of chlorophyll a per square meter, and that aesthetics and recreational
uses are impaired at half this level. Upper river algal densities are four and eight
times these criteria, respectively, while middle river algal densities are three and six
times these criteria. Algal respiration causes dissolved oxygen levels in the river to
fall below applicable state water quality standards in a number of reaches between
the headwaters and the Flathead River confluence.
The nutrient source inventory project shows that about half of the soluble
phosphorus (the form of the nutrient most readily available for use by plants and
algae) derives 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 River. For the purposes of this study, with
its focus on excessive nutrients, the most critical point sources are the municipal
wastewater treatment plants, particularly at Butte, Deer Lodge, and Missoula.
Nutrient loading from these plants correlates directly with reaches in the river at
which nuisance algae problems are most prevalent. The Stone Container
27
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Ore/He Basin Water Quality Study
Corporation's Missoula Mill is a major source of industrial wastewater nutrient
loading to the river, although the levels of nutrients in its effluent over the past six
years have been reduced several fold. Phosphate detergent bans in several
communities along the river have decreased the phosphorus content of these
cities' municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Nonpoint sources of soluble nutrients were identified in a number of the
tributary watersheds in the Clark Fork Basin. The largest nonpoint sources of
nutrient loading to the Clark Fork River are the Flathead, Bitterroot, and Blackfoot
rivers. Groundwater seepage from the Missoula area contributes up to half of the
nitrogen in the lower Bitterroot River during summer. Three small tributaries to the
lower Flathead River that flow through the Flathead Reservation provide a large
share of the nutrients that river contributed to the Clark Fork River. Many other
creeks have high nutrient concentrations in their waters but smaller nutrient
discharges overall. Several tributaries whose waters are cleaner, as well as the
major rivers with considerable water volume, have a diluting effect on the Clark
Fork River'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, especially in reaches of the river below wastewater
discharges. However, the early 1990s have seen lower overall nutrient
concentrations as a result of more normal precipitation and the improved quality of
municipal and industrial discharges. The nonpoint source stream reach assessment
found that of 99 basin streams with suspected problems, 65 percent have an
impaired ability to support designated beneficial water uses. The largest number of
impaired streams are located in the upper Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River
basins.
28
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
Pend Oreille Lake
Pend Oreille Lake 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 problems. University researchers consistently found the highest nearshore
algae growth in areas adjacent to shorelines with significant residential
development. Attached algae levels at the most productive site are 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 that limits algae growth in the lake. Measurements of
nutrient loads entering the lake and exiting via the Pend Oreille River show that,
year to year, 55,000 kilograms of total phosphorus and about 750,000 kilograms
of total nitrogen remain in the lake.
A nutrient load-lake response model has been used to aid in predicting the
effect these and other nutrient levels could have on the lake. Computer
simulations indicate 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 come 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
29
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Ore/He Basin Water Quality Study
not quantify the effect, removal of septic tank nutrient sources would probably
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 maintaining nutrient discharges from the Clark Fork River at or below their
present levels. Reductions in nutrient contributions from the river would probably
result in corresponding reductions in nearshore nutrient concentrations. The exact
correlation is unknown as the rate of water exchange between the open lake and
nearshore waters was not quantified.
The lake's flora and biota are consistent with the trophic classification.
Phytoplankton species in Pend Oreille Lake 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 Pend Oreille Lake, though it is abundant
immediately downstream of Albeni Falls Dam in the Pend Oreille River. Winter
drawdown may prevent its gaining a foothold in the lake.
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 salmon and rainbow trout which have been
introduced into the system. Due to reduced numbers, westslope cutthroat trout
and bull 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, probably due 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.
30
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
Six point sources discharge treated wastewater into Pend Oreille Lake. Five
have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Nutrient
loadings from these sources represent less than three percent 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 the Sandpoint wastewater treatment
facility. Scientists concluded 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.
Nonpoint sources in the Pend Oreille Lake watershed are the result of land
uses activities that disturb or compact land, such as silviculture, agriculture,
grazing, septic tanks, and urban runoff. Scientists estimating total phosphorus
loading from nearshore and local tributaries found a high correlation between
phosphorus loadings and the degree of urban development. Monitoring of
tributaries flowing into and out of the lake allowed managers to estimate the
amount of pollutants per unit of land area transported to the lake. Pack River,
followed by Sand Creek, are the tributaries discharging the highest phosphorus
loads per unit of land area to the lake. Lightning Creek, Pack River, and Sand
Creek contribute the largest nitrogen loads. The Clark Fork River contributes the
least amount of nutrients per unit of land area drained. However, since it provides
most of the lake's water, the Clark Fork River contributes the lion's share of the
nutrient load.
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
Washington tributaries account for less than 4 percent of the Pend Oreille River
flow and nutrient load. Roughly 75 percent of the additional external nitrogen and
31
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
phosphorus loading to this reach of the river comes 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 exceed standards for fecal
coliform bacteria content. These tributaries are small enough that their effect on
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 are 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. 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 the Clark Fork-
Pend Oreille Water Quality Study. A CIS 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
32
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
gallons per day permitted) and the Newport wastewater treatment plant (permitted
monthly average discharge limit of 0.5 million gallons per day).
33
-------
Managing the Watershed: The Management Plan
Though the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study Steering
Committee completes its assigned mission with the release and distribution of this
document, all agencies represented on the Steering Committee are committed to
working with other agencies, tribes, and interested groups to convene a Tri-State
Implementation Council to implement the management actions outlined in the plan.
Ideally, the Council would include representatives from federal, tribal, state and
county agencies, along with citizens and special interest groups. Since most of
the recommended actions must be implemented at the local level, the Steering
Committee recommends that the local agencies, tribes and other locally-based
interest groups and citizens have a large role in the Council. The Tri-State
Implementation Council is discussed in more detail in the next chapter. The
Steering Committee envisions that this Management Plan will serve as a guide to
the Council.
Management Goals and Objectives
All management plans must begin with a stated goal. Therefore, the
Committee recommends the following:
Restore and Protect Designated Beneficial Water Uses Basin-Wide.
Often, a management plan involves selection of a single preferred
management alternative to achieve the desired water quality goals. The Clark
34
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Steering Committee decided that this
approach would be inappropriate, since the research and input from experts and
citizens established that numerous actions would need to be taken in order to
reach the water quality goals. In particular, the Policy Advisory Committee for the
Pend Oreille Lake Clean Lakes Project believes that any large, expensive project or
use of expensive in-lake restoration techniques are inappropriate at this time. Thus
the Management Plan for responsible management of the water quality of the Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Basin is cumulative.
Over 70 specific management actions are outlined in the management
matrixes that follow. Many are relatively inexpensive and fairly easy to implement.
Some rely on existing programs and authorities. For the most part, the Clark Fork-
Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Steering Committee recommendations rely on
voluntary approaches to nutrient controls and pollution reduction in the Clark Fork-
Pend Oreille Basin. However, the states would pursue the development of optional
nutrient wasteload allocations so that mandatory controls could be implemented if
voluntary measures fail to achieve the desired results.
The Steering Committee sees education as one of the most effective
methods of reducing the amount of nutrients that enter the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Basin. 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 other recommended tools
for controlling watershed activities that generate pollutants.
It should be noted that there are also other existing authorities on which to
rely to manage the water quality of the basin. The Clean Water Act provides
states with the broad authority to survey, report on, and to correct water quality
problems. In addition, individual state water quality statutes stipulate that their
35
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
respective water quality agencies provide a comprehensive program for the
prevention, abatement, and control of water pollution. Furthermore, each state's
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.
Clark Fork River: Management Objective
• Control nuisance algae in the Clark Fork River by reducing nutrient
concentrations.
The Steering Committee recommends that instream ambient nutrient
concentrations be reduced in the Clark Fork River from its headwaters to the
Flathead River confluence to achieve decreases in attached algae levels sufficient
to eliminate associated water quality standards violations, and to restore all
designated beneficial water uses. Furthermore, maintenance or reduction of
current rates of nutrient discharge in the Clark Fork River at the Montana-Idaho
border would provide reasonable protection against accelerated cultural
eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake.
Benefits that would derive from this management objective 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 Pend Oreille Lake.
Recommended Instream Conditions for the Clark Fork River
Many factors may promote or inhibit algae growth, however 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 River waters. Experiments showed that the levels of attached diatom algae in
36
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
the middle Clark Fork River 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
River seemed able to thrive even when phosphorus was well below 30 micrograms
per liter and nitrogen below 20 micrograms per liter. Its 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 per liter 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.
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 River's
trout fishery, a beneficial use and economic resource currently restricted by a
number of other problems.
Pend Oreille Lake: Management Objectives
• Protect Pend Oreille Lake Water Quality by Maintaining or Reducing Current
Rates of Nutrient Loading from the Clark Fork River.
• Reduce nearshore eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake by reducing nutrient
loading from local sources.
37
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
Desired water quality goals for Pend Oreille Lake are maintenance of lake
water quality and reduction of the rate of nearshore eutrophication. These two
management recommendations seek to protect and preserve the beneficial water
uses of Pend Oreille Lake by controlling pollutants, particularly phosphorus, that
enter the lake from natural, point, and nonpoint sources. Controlling nutrient
pollution from local nutrient sources, as well as from the Clark Fork River, is
expected to reduce the level of attached algae and prevent lake-wide
eutrophication. If nutrients are not controlled, algal growth can be expected to
increase. Eventually increased levels of algae would impair the beneficial water
uses of aesthetics, recreation, and domestic water supply.
Recommended Instream Conditions for Pend Oreille Lake
It was not possible to reach consensus on publicly acceptable levels of
attached algae and therefore determine target nutrient concentrations for
phosphorus in the lake. To resolve the issue, it was decided to set target nutrient
levels at concentrations found at "undeveloped" sites. These target levels are two
micrograms per liter for soluble phosphorus and five micrograms per liter for total
phosphorus. Proposed target nutrient levels were determined to have a potentially
small effect on the lake's fishery.
Pend Oreille River: Management Objective
• Improve Pend Ore/He River water quality through macrophyte management
and tributary nonpoint source controls.
The primary problem afflicting the Pend Oreille River water quality is
pervasive milfoil. Rotovation, as the most effective management tool, should
continue in high use areas of the river. One rotovator is able to maintain about
200 acres of macrophyte beds. An additional rotovator should be purchased to
double the amount of weed bed cleared. This additional machine could also be
38
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
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.
Since harvested aquatic plants could have beneficial uses, resource managers
should investigate alternatives to disposing of the harvested weeds on the banks of
the river (e.g. using harvested materials as fertilizer). Educating boat owners on
how they can prevent the spread of milfoil is also crucial. Pend Oreille County
could be the lead agency, with assistance from the county's Public Utility District,
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. Biological agents, particularly aquatic insects and fungi, the
subject of ongoing research, may also be an additional management method for the
future.
The two major wastewater discharge sources, the Ponderay Newsprint Plant
and the Newport sewage treatment plant, are adequately limited by NPDES
permits. No additional conventional pollutant controls are recommended at
present.
Since agricultural practices are likely a significant contributor of fecal
coliform bacteria and nutrients levels in Pend Oreille River tributaries,
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) would be the best way of
improving water quality in these streams. Additional sampling, however, would be
needed to better identify and prioritize problem areas and sources. 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 conducting additional monitoring and follow-up on
these nonpoint source problems. Education is crucial in this arena, since
39
-------
Clark Fork - Rend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
landowners who understand the deleterious effect of poor agricultural management
practices on the common water resource are more likely to accept and implement
BMPs.
Recommended Instream Conditions for 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 do not approach nuisance levels, and free-floating algae
indicates unpolluted waters in the main stem of the Pend Oreille River. Primary
productivity of the main river was in the middle to upper range of the values
reported in the scientific literature for larger rivers. In order to protect Box Canyon
Reservoir from accelerated eutrophication, however, several tributaries that have
elevated nutrient levels should meet a general guideline of less than 50 micrograms
of phosphorus per liter.
40
-------
Management Matrixes
The following matrixes outline the Steering Committee's recommended
actions for protection and restoration of Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin water
quality. The actions are organized according to the four management objectives
for the basin.
• Control nuisance algae in the Clark Fork River by reducing nutrient
concentra tions.
• Protect Pend Oreille Lake water quality by maintaining or reducing current
rates of nutrient loading from the Clark Fork River.
• Reduce nearshore eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake by reducing nutrient
loading from local sources.
• Improve Pend Oreille River water quality through macrophyte management
and tributary nonpoint source controls.
A key to the abbreviations and the recommended funding sources in the
matrixes can be found on page 52.
41
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Control Nuisance Algae in the Clark Fork River by Reducing Nutrient
Concentrations.
POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
===ss==-==s~==~=s===s====s==ss==s=i=^^
Management Action
Implement seasonal land application and/or other
improvements at the Missoula wastewater facility.
Implement seasonal land application of Deer Lodge
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
Establish numeric nutrient loading targets for the
Clark Fork River and implement the TMDL wasteload
allocation process if voluntary nutrient control
measures are unsuccessful.
Require nutrient monitoring as a condition of all
wastewater discharge permits
Change nutrient limits for Stone Container Corp. to
include surface and subsurface discharges
Implement nutrient removal or alternative disposal
methods for Butte municipal wastewater treatment
facility
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 Missoula
City of Deer Lodge
Municipalities, Counties
Upper Clark Fork Basin
Steering Committee
MDHES
MDHES
MDHES
MDHES
City of Butte
Municipalities, Industries
MDHES
ZISSS^=^Z^=£S=S£SS^SSSS=S^Z
Priority
High
. High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
=====
Cost
(thousands)
600
(construction only)
405
(construction only)
Low
Unknown
50-500
(development of
TMDL only)
Low
Unknown
Unknown
•
Funding
Source(s)
4, 23
4, 24
1
Unknown
27
1,2,27
29
27,29
4, 25, 26
1, 28, 29
27
42
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Control Nuisance Algae in the Clark Fork River by Reducing Nutrient
Concentrations.
NONPOINT 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.
Control groundwater sources of nitrogen loading to
the Bitterroot River.
Modify irrigation practices in the Gold Creek
drainage to reduce phosphorus loading
Implement additional nonpoint source reclamation
demonstration projects in the Clark Fork Basin
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
Missoula County, City of
Missoula
Powell County,
MDHES
MDHES
MDHES, USFS,
BLM, etc.
EPA, MDHES
MDHES
MDHES
Priority
High
High
High
High
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, 3, 27
1,3
Unknown
Unknown
3
3
1,3
1,3
1
43
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Protect Pend Oreille Lake Water Quality by Maintaining or Reducing
Current Rates of Nutrient Loading from the Clark Fork River
POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Management Action
Require nutrient monitoring as a condition of all wastewater discharge
permits
Enforce an aggressive antidegradation policy with respect to nutrient sources
Establish numeric nutrient loading targets for Pend Oreille Lake and
implement a nutrient allocation strategy if voluntary nutrient control
measures are unsuccessful in protecting water quality
Lead Agency
IDEQ, MDHES,
EPA
IDEQ, MDHES,
EPA
IDEQ, MDHES,
EPA
Priority
High
High
High
Cost
(dollars)
1,000 annually
per discharger
N.A.
40,000
(development only)
Funding
Source(s)
28, 29
27
1,2, 3
44
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce Nearshore Eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake by Reducing
Nutrient Loading from Local Sources.
POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Management Action
Implement nutrient removal or alternative disposal methods for Kootenay-
Ponderay municipal wastewater
Require nutrient monitoring as a condition of all wastewater discharge
permits
Enforce an aggressive antidegradation policy with respect to nutrient sources
Establish numeric nutrient loading targets for Pend Oreille Lake and
implement a nutrient allocation strategy for Pend Oreille Lake if voluntary
nutrient control measures are unsuccessful in protecting water quality
Lead Agency
IDEQ, Local Sewer
District
IDEQ, EPA
IDEQ, EPA
IDEQ, MDHES,
EPA
Priority
High
High
High
High
Cost
(dollars)
30,000
(evaluation only)
1,000 annually
per discharger
N.A.
40,000
(development only)
Funding
Source(s)
8, 28
28, 29
27
1,2,3
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Education
Management Action
Prepare brochures to support recommended ordinances and provide a
clearinghouse for information to interested and concerned lake and
watershed users.
Lead Agency
Clean Lakes
Council, Tri-State
Council
Priority
High
Cost
(dollars)
60,000
annually
Funding
Source(s)
1,2,5
45
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce Nearshore Eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake by Reducing
Nutrient Loading from Local Sources (continued).
Septic Systems
Management Action
Install centralized sewage treatment systems in developed areas
Identify areas and zone for more dense development with centralized sewage
treatment systems
Periodic mandatory maintenance and operation inspections of septic systems
Lead Agency
IDEQ, PHD, Local
Sewer Districts
Bonner County,
PHD, SCS
PHD, Local Sewer
Districts
Priority
High
High
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
Cost dependent
on site
Unknown
(Low)
25,000
annually
Funding
Source(s)
1,4,8
12
13
Stormwater
Management Action
Implement a county stormwater management plan
Lead Agency
Bonner County,
PHD, IDEQ
Priority
High
Cost
(dollars)
15,000
(development only)
Funding
Source(s)
l, 2,3,
12
Fertilizer Use
Management Action
Implement a county ordinance prohibiting the sale of phosphate lawn
fertilizers
Develop BMP's for methods and rates of application of fertilizers based on
soil type and slope
Implement a county ordinance requiring fertilizer BMP's within a lake or
stream protection zone
Lead Agency
Bonner County,
IDEQ
Bonner County,
SCS
Bonner County
Priority
Medium
Medium
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
2,000
(development only)
10,000
2,000
(development only)
Funding
Source(s)
1, 2, 12
1,2,3
2, 12
46
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce Nearshore Eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake by Reducing
Nutrient Loading from Local Sources (continued).
Development and construction
Management Action
Implement an county erosion control plan
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
Lead Agency
Bonner County,
IDEQ
Bonner County,
SCS, IDEQ
Bonner County,
SCS
Bonner County,
IDEQ
Bonner County,
IDEQ
Priority
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
15,000
(development only)
Unknown
(Low)
Unknown
(Low)
Unknown
30,000
annually
Funding
Source(s)
1 2 3
),/.,_>,
12
12
12
12
12, 13
Road construction
Management Action
Implement road construction and maintenance BMP's specific to Pend
Oreille Lake watershed and develop a Memorandum of Understanding with
Bonner County Road Department
Review travel corridor construction proposals within the Pend Oreille Lake
watershed
Lead Agency
Bonner County,
IDEQ
IDEQ, ITD
Priority
High
High
Cost
(dollars)
10,000
(development only)
N.A.
Funding
Source(s)
1,2,3
27
Agriculture
Management Action
Identify and control sources of nutrients in Pack River and Sand Creek
Lead Agency
IDEQ, SCO
Priority
High
Cost
(dollars)
30,000
(identification only)
Funding
Source(s)
1,2, 7
47
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce Nearshore Eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake by Reducing
Nutrient Loading from Local Sources (continued).
Forest practices
Management Action
Implement a cooperative road management program with federal, state, and
private landowners
Increase personnel for enforcement of the Forest Practices Act and operator
training
Encourage nomination of stream segments of concern to develop site specific
BMP's
Lead Agency
IDL
IDL
Priority
High
Medium
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
Unknown
60,000 annually
per new hire
N.A.
Funding
Source(s)
3
Unknown
6
Metals toxicity
Management Action
Technically review proposed mining activities in the basin
Implement 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.
Unknown
30,000
Funding
Source(s)
27
Unknown
Unknown
Motorized watercraft use
Management Action
Require marinas to install pump-out stations
Enforce the no sewage discharge standard
Implement a ban on phosphate detergents to clean watercraft
Lead Agency
Bonner County
County Marine
Division's
Bonner County,
IDEQ
Priority
High
High
High
Cost
(dollars)
Unknown
N.A.
1,000
(development only)
Funding
Source(s)
13
Unknown
1,2, 12
48
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Reduce Nearshore Eutrophication in Pend Ore/He Lake by Reducing
Nutrient Loading from Local Sources (continued).
Shoreline Burning
Management Action
Implement a county ordinance prohibiting shoreline burning
Lead Agency
Bonner County, IDL
Priority
Medium
Cost
(dollars)
2,000
(development only)
Funding
Source(s)
1,2, 12
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 County,
Private
Bonner County
Bonner County,
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(s)
12, 13
12
12, 13
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
Unknown
Funding
Source(s)
1, 12
10, 11,
12, 13
49
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Improve Pend Oreille River Water Quality Through Macrophyte
Management and Tributary Nonpoint Source Controls
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, like strip rotovation.
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 harvested milfoil as a
resource, in addition to herbicide application and biological agents as
alternative milfoil controls.
Tributaries exhibiting water quality problems from nonpoint sources should
be referred to the Conservation District for additional sampling (if
necessary), followed by 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 ^g P/L in any
tributary of the Pend Oreille River, nor 25 ^g P/L within Box Canyon
Reservoir.
Lead
Agency
County,
PUD
County,
PUD
County, PUD,
Ecology
County,
PUD
Conservation
District
Conservation
District
Priority
High
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Low
Cost
(thousands)
SDK/year
135K
lOK/year
Funding
Source(s)
1, 4, 16, 20
1,4, 16,
18, 19, 20
3, 4, 5,
16, 17,
18, 19
1, 16, 18,
20
3,4, 17,
21
3,4, 17,
21
Unknown
50
-------
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Improve Pend Oreille River Water Quality Through Macrophyte
Management and Tributary Nonpoint Source Controls (continued).
Management Action
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.
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 CIS system for
management of basin water resource data.
Lead
Agency
County
County
Ecology
PUD,
County
Priority
High
High
Medium
Medium
Cost
(thousands)
40K
10K
2K/year
15K/year
plus
equipment
Funding
Source(s)
3, 4, 17,
19,20
3, 4, 17,
19
1, 22
1, 19, 20
51
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
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
SCO 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. No 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 Idaho Antidegradation Policy
7 Agricultural Water Quality Management Program
8 Municipal Facilities Construction Grants Program
9 (Reserved)
10 Habitat Improvement Program (Idaho)
11 Forest Stewardship Program
1 2 Bonner County, Idaho
13 private landowner
14 (Reserved)
15 (Reserved)
16 Corps of Engineers Eurasian Watermilfoil Control Grants
17 Centennial Clean Water Fund (Washington)
18 Freshwater Weeds Account (Washington)
1 9 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
52
-------
Taking the First Steps: Priorities for Action
Recognizing that it would be difficult to immediately implement all of the
management actions outlined in the Management Matrixes, the Steering
Committee has identified the following actions to be of the highest priority.
• Convene a Tri-State Implementation Council to implement the Management
Plan recommendations.
The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Steering Committee is
committed to working with the appropriate agencies and groups to convene a Tri-
State Implementation Council to implement the management actions outlined in the
plan. The Council should include representatives from federal, tribal, state and
county agencies, along with citizens and special interest groups. The Council
could also include representation from the suggested local watershed management
committee in Pend Oreille County. (One of the management recommendations for
improving Pend Oreille River water quality is the establishment of a local watershed
committee fashioned after the Washington "nonpoint rule.") Since most of the
recommended actions must be implemented at the local level, the Steering
Committee recommends that the local agencies, tribes and other locally-based
interest groups have a large role in the Council.
In particular, the Council should include or consult with all interested and
affected Indian Tribes in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin and should ensure that
the appropriate tribes be included in the planning and use of any funds allocated
for water quality monitoring of reservation waters as well as other activities that
53
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
are necessary to implement the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality
Management Plan.
There are several federally recognized Indian Tribes in the basin and many
are developing resource management capabilities. Some have received federal
"treatment-as-a-state" status under the federal Clean Water Act which makes them
eligible to accept responsibility for developing and managing water quality
programs. In addition, some of the Idaho and Washington tribes have formed the
Upper Columbia United Tribes fishery research center with offices in Welipinit,
Washington, and on the campus of Eastern Washington University in Cheney.
Tribes likely to be most affected by this Management Plan are the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation in
western Montana and the Kalispel Tribe in Washington. Several miles of the
Kalispel Reservation are located directly on the banks of the Pend Oreille River.
The Flathead River flows through the Flathead Reservation and contributes
substantially to the nutrient loading in the lower Clark Fork River. Other tribes,
such as the Spokane Tribe and the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington and
the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, may not be directly affected by implementation
of the plan but may have cultural interests or aboriginal territories in the Clark Fork-
Pend Oreille Basin. The Council should be sure to keep these tribes apprised of its
activities and decisions.
The Council would have various roles and responsibilities. These include,
but may not be limited to, the following: building strong citizen, community and
agency support for the plan; coordinating the activities of the various agencies
implementing the plan; developing timetables; identifying funding; establishing
budgets; securing agreements among agencies; establishing criteria for success;
identifying or revising priority recommendations; communicating with appropriate
groups as needed (e.g., the Upper Clark Fork Basin Steering Committee); and
providing a forum for public input and support. The Council itself would not have
54
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
any regulatory or enforcement authority beyond the authorities of the individual
agencies represented on the Council.
• Establish a basin-wide phosphate detergent ban.
Studies by the University of Montana concluded that management of both
nitrogen and phosphorus could reduce nuisance algal levels in the Clark Fork River
and would be important in protecting reaches without current problems. Idaho
researchers concluded that phosphorus is the primary nutrient controlling algal and
plant growth in Pend Oreille Lake. In addition, the Montana Governor's Office in
its 1988 Clark Fork Basin Project Status Report and Management Plan stated that
"Regulatory agencies, industries, municipalities, and public interest groups should
work to reduce all forms of nutrient loading to the Clark Fork Basin."
Phosphate in detergents is the source of much of the phosphorus discharged
by municipal treatment plants, and approximately half of all soluble phosphorus
loading to the Clark Fork River originates from wastewater discharges. Bans on
the sale of high phosphate detergents are already in effect in Montana in the
Flathead River Basin and in the communities of Missoula, Superior and Alberton.
Bonner County, Idaho has also adopted a phosphate detergent ban. These actions
have been highly successful in reducing phosphorus discharges to the Clark Fork
River from the respective municipal wastewater treatment facilities. For example,
the phosphate detergent ban that was implemented by the City of Missoula in May
1989 has resulted in greater than a 40 percent reduction in phosphorus loading to
the Clark Fork River from the Missoula wastewater treatment plant.
Concentrations of phosphorus in the river downstream from this facility have
subsequently declined by a large margin. A modeling study conducted by the
University of Montana predicted a reduction in algal standing crops in 110 miles of
the Clark Fork River as a direct result of this action.
55
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
It seems clear that there have been very tangible water quality benefits
associated with the elimination of the sale of phosphate detergents in Missoula.
Therefore, the Steering Committee strongly recommends the adoption of similar
bans in other basin communities. Adoption of bans at Butte and Deer Lodge,
Montana, could achieve a 10 percent reduction in soluble phosphorus loading to
the upper Clark Fork River during summer. Adoption of bans at all remaining
communities would have even greater cumulative effects and could reduce annual
loading of soluble phosphorus to Pend Oreille Lake by five percent or more.
Low phosphate and phosphate free soap products are readily available to
consumers and their effectiveness is not substantially different from high
phosphate detergents.
• Establish numeric nutrient loading targets for the Clark Fork River and Pend
Oreille Lake.
The Steering Committee has recommended the following targets for
instream concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen in order to attain the stated
water quality objectives:
• Six micrograms per liter or less of soluble phosphorus and 30 micrograms
per liter or less of soluble nitrogen in Clark Fork River.
• Two micrograms per liter of soluble phosphorus and five micrograms per
liter of total phosphorus in Pend Oreille Lake.
• Fifty micrograms per liter of total phosphorus in several tributaries of the
Pend Oreille River.
• No special instream conditions are warranted for the mainstem Pend
Oreille River.
In order to meet these instream concentration targets of nutrients, it would
be necessary to establish numeric loading targets for various reaches of the Clark
Fork River and Pend Oreille Lake. Loads would then be allocated among the
56
-------
A Summery of Findings and a Management Plan
various sources contributing nutrients to those reaches. These numeric loading
targets and the associated nutrient source allocations would not have to be
regulatory but would provide voluntary reduction targets for the various point and
nonpoint sources in the basin.
The Steering Committee recommends a voluntary approach to nutrient
controls and pollution reduction in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin. However,
Montana and Idaho would consider the application of mandatory wasteload
allocations if voluntary measures fail to achieve the desired results.
• Develop and maintain programs to educate the public on their role in
protecting and maintaining water quality.
All three individual state plans as well as the overall Basin Management Plan
put a high priority on public education. A comprehensive and well targeted public
education program should have three main messages or components. First, inform
watershed users how their activities directly affect the body of water that they
depend on and value. The Steering Committee views this message as one of the
most effective methods of reducing the amount of nutrients that enter the water.
This component should include education about proper fertilizer and pesticide
application, proper maintenance of septic tank systems, better agricultural and
livestock management practices, and the benefits of low phosphate products.
Second, the public education program should clearly articulate water quality
goals and benefits of improving and protecting water quality. Users and residents
may be more willing to modify their activities to meet water quality goals that they
understand. Third, the program should educate the public about the need for and
benefits of any management action that is selected for implementation as a means
of building public support for the action. For example, the public should be
informed of the need for and benefits associated with stormwater and erosion
57
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study
control plans and how these plans would help to achieve the stated water quality
goals.
Public education should begin before implementation, but it is particularly
critical during implementation. Often nuisances are created and water uses are
restricted while restoration is in progress. Examples would be shoreline
stabilization, weed harvesting and stormwater improvements. People typically
respond positively when they understand what is occurring and why, and react
negatively when they are uninformed.
• Control Eurasian watermilfoil by education, rotovation, and research into
alternative methods.
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 and an additional rotovator should be purchased to
double the amount of weed beds cleared. Since harvested aquatic plants could
have beneficial uses, resource managers should investigate alternatives to
disposing of the harvested weeds on the banks of the river (e.g. using harvested
materials as compost).
' Local water quality managers may be able to experiment with herbicide
control of milfoil, with projected state and federal technical and financial
assistance. Biological agents, particularly aquatic insects and fungi, the subject of
ongoing research, may also be an additional management method for the future.
To date, Eurasian watermilfoil is a problem only in the Pend Oreille River
portion of the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin. Milfoil is an invasive and adaptable
plant that needs to be aggresively managed to prevent its spread into other parts
of the basin. One of the primary means of spreading milfoil is by boaters. The
milfoil is transported on the hulls of boats as boaters move from waterbody to
58
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
waterbody. Therefore, educating boat owners on how they can help prevent the
spread of milfoil is crucial.
• Install centralized sewer systems as part of development activities on Pend
Oreille Lake.
The Steering Committee recommends sewering in areas around Pend Oreille
Lake that are experiencing development pressures. Prime high density
development areas should be identified and zoned as such. Installation of
centralized sewer systems in these high density development zones should be
required before construction when the number of homes or commercial sites to be
developed will exceed a specified number of septic systems. The specified number
should be based on soil type and slope. Existing septic systems in developed areas
should be replaced with centralized sewer systems, but only when technically or
economically feasible.
Sewering will soon be underway at Hope and East Hope, Idaho. The
Steering Committee recommends that LaClede, Clark Fork and Trestle Creek be
targeted as the next areas for installation of centralized sewer systems.
» Institute seasonal land application and other improvements at the Missoula
municipal wastewater treatment facility.
Utilization of treated municipal wastewater for agricultural irrigation is one
potentially beneficial alternative for reducing the discharge of nutrients and other
pollutants to surface waters. Most of the water quality problems associated with
nuisance levels of algae in the Clark Fork River occur during the summer. During
this period, the largest share of nutrients that feed the algae come from
wastewater discharges.
If the entire volumes of municipal wastewater from the Deer Lodge and
Missoula municipal wastewater treatment facilities were utilized for irrigation
59
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Ore/He Basin Water Quality Study
purposes during the months of July through September, summer nutrient loading
to the upper and middle reaches of the Clark Fork River could decrease by as much
as 30 and 70 percent, respectively. Nutrient concentrations in the reaches of the
river below these discharges would decline by as much as 70 percent or more.
Target levels would be achieved for phosphorus and nitrogen in the middle Clark
Fork River and for phosphorus in the upper Clark Fork River. Lastly, annual
reductions in soluble nutrient loading to Pend Oreille Lake of from 3-10 percent
could be realized. Implementation of this alternative could reduce current summer
algal levels in 200 or more miles of the Clark Fork River.
The City of Missoula has evaluated the opportunities for land application of
its municipal wastewater. While a number of precautions are necessary, and legal
issues relative to downstream water rights have not yet been explored, land
application appears to be a viable option. Sewer rate increases of 31 percent were
projected in order to utilize land application, therefore strong support of this
alternative by the citizens of Missoula would be necessary for implementation.
• Better enforcement of existing regulations and laws, in particular states'
anti-degradation language.
A nutrient control strategy for the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin logically
should consider and build upon the pollution control measures that are already in
place. A number of programs, statutes, regulations, and planning efforts are in
effect now or will be implemented in the near future. There are too many to list
here and many are identified in the individual state plans, but some examples
include the NPDES program for control of point source discharges; the Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program which requires states to establish a framework
for controlling nonpoint sources; Tribal Water Quality Programs which are
developing comprehensive water quality management plans; Idaho's Nutrient
60
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
Management Act; the Upper Clark Fork River Basin Management Plan; and
Washington's Aquatic Plant Management Program.
A notable and important existing program is each state's Nondegradation
Rules. The Nondegradation Rules are part of each state's water quality standards
and apply to new or increased sources of pollution. The specific nondegradation
language is different in each state's laws. Generally, however, nondegradation
requirements state that if existing water quality is better than that which is
necessary to support the designated uses of the waterbody as defined in the water
quality standards, that level of water quality must be maintained. Montana, in
particular, should enforce a consistent and aggressive policy of nondegradation,
with respect to nutrient loading from new and enlarged point source discharges,
because of the well-documented water quality problems in the Clark Fork River. It
should be noted that MDHES has proposed legislative changes to the
nondegradation statute in order to clarify its intent and ensure its consistent
application.
One of the first steps that the Council should take to enforce existing
authorities is to compile a list of all pertinent laws and the agencies responsible for
their enforcement. From there, the issues and problems associated with their
enforcement should be identified and this information distributed to all appropriate
agencies.
• Establish and maintain a water quality monitoring network to monitor
effectiveness and trends and to better identify sources of pollutants.
Preliminary instream nutrient targets for the Clark Fork River, Pend Oreille
Lake, and tributaries to the Pend Oreille River have been proposed in this report. A
continuing basin-wide monitoring program to evaluate progress towards
achievement of these target concentrations will be an essential component of a
successful nutrient control strategy.
61
-------
Clark Fork - Pend Ore/lie Basin Water Quality Study
Presently all three states have some fixed station monitoring sites in the
basin. MDHES has maintained a network of fixed monitoring stations throughout
the Clark Fork River drainage since 1985. Idaho DEQ has contracted with the
USGS to continue monitoring tributaries and outflows of Pend Oreille Lake.
Washington maintains a routine monitoring station on the Pend Oreille River at
Newport. As long as funding remains available, all three states plan to continue
these programs in order to provide the needed information to assess trends in
nutrient concentrations and loads throughout various areas of the basin and to
evaluate overall progress toward water quality goals.
However, these programs will need to be expanded, or separate programs
initiated, to monitor the successful implementation and effectiveness of individual
management actions basin-wide. Anytime an implementation project is funded and
initiated, a portion of the project budget should be set aside for water quality
monitoring before and after implementation to evaluate the project's effectiveness.
In addition, citizen volunteer monitoring programs should be initiated or
modified as appropriate to collect information that would be useful to assess long
term trends or to provide information that is not available elsewhere. For example,
information on current land use in Pend Oreille County is needed. Available
information is over 20 years old. Detailed land use information would be a
significant contribution to the refinement of the watershed management plan.
Finally, the Steering Committee recommends that a larger Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Basin GJS System be developed and maintained by an appropriate agency or
group of agencies.
• Develop and enforce stormwater control and erosion control plans and
county ordinances.
Due to increased population and development around Pend Oreille Lake, the
Steering Committee recommends that the Tri-State Council work with Bonner
62
-------
A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan
County to incorporate stormwater and erosion control plans during the current
updating of the county's comprehensive plan. The recently completed Kootenai
County erosion control plan could be used as a model and revised as appropriate
for Bonner County.
63
-------
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.
benthic The bottom of lakes, streams or ponds.
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.
flow The rate of water discharged past a point expressed in water volume per unit time.
A-1
-------
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.
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.
A-2
-------
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, physical, and biological parameters for 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.
A-3
-------
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 1992.
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.
Lee, K.H. and R.S. Lunetta. 1990. Watershed Characterization Using Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM)
Satellite Imagery, Blackfoot River, Montana, U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab.
Las Vegas, Nevada.
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. An Assessment of the Sources and Effects of the
Pollution of the Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille. Environmental Research Laboratory -
Duluth. Duluth, MN. May 1987.
B-1
-------
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. 1 990. 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.
PEND OREILLE LAKE STUDIES
Beckwith, M. 1 989. Compilation of Water Quality Study Efforts on Pend Oreille Lake, 1 984-88. 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. 1993. Pend Oreille Lake Fishery Assessment: Bonner and Kootenai Counties, Idaho.
1951 - 1989. Water Quality Status Report 102. Idaho Department Health and Welfare,
Division Environmental Quality. Boise.
Hoelscher, B., Skille, J., and G. Rothrock. 1993. Phase I Diagnostic and Feasibility Analysis: A
Strategy for Managing the Water Quality of Pend Oreille Lake, Bonner and Kootenai Counties,
Idaho, 1988-1992. 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.P. I991a. Limnology of the Pelagic Zone, Pend Oreille Lake, Idaho, 1989-90. U.S.
Geological Survey. Boise, Idaho.
B-2
-------
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. 1991. Pend Oreille River Fish/Rotovation Study. Washington State
Department of Ecology report. 22 pages and appendices. March 1991.
Coots, R. and R. Willms. 1 991. 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. 1 992. 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.
B-3
-------
Appendix C: Response to Public Comments
-------
INTRODUCTION
This appendix contains public comments received on the draft Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Basin Water Quality Study: A Summary of Findings and a Management Plan.
The 30-day public comment period ended August 3, 1992. Public meetings were held
in Deer Lodge (July 13), Missoula (July 14), Sandpoint (July 15), and Newport (July
16), to hear comments and concerns. Those meetings were tape recorded and the
comments received are summarized (paraphrased) below. In addition, a notice that
the draft plan was available for review was sent to over 500 persons. Responses to
written comments follow the responses to comments at the public meetings.
Responses from the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Water Quality Study Steering Committee
are provided in bold.
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Deer Lodge, Montana, July 13, 1992
Registered Attendees
Peter Chapin Butte, Montana
Tom Neihart Deer Lodge, Montana
Ivan Wallgren Deer Lodge, Montana
Pat Hansen Avon, Montana
Dick Hafer Anaconda, Montana
Ron Kelley Deer Lodge, Montana
Pat McDonald Philipsburg, Montana
Dick Pederson Helena, Montana
Wayne Hadley Deer Lodge, Montana
Errol Hammond Deer Lodge, Montana
Frances B. Helton Deer Lodge, Montana
Sally Spear Anaconda, Montana
Comments and Responses
• The end of July does not allow enough time to comment on the draft management
plan.
The public comment period could not be extended beyond August 3,1992 due to the
publication deadline for the final draft report.
C-1
-------
EPA had a mandate from Congress to conduct a water quality assessment of the
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin with emphasis to be placed on nutrients and
eutrophication issues. Scientists and managers on the three-state steering committee
directed the scientific studies. Now that we have completed the investigations and
identified pollution sources, we are soliciting input from all interested parties with
regard to management alternatives. We are recommending that implementation of the
selected alternatives be directed by a Tri-State Council which will include
representatives of all potentially affected parties.
• Agriculture is the economic mainstay of the upper Clark Fork Basin. I am not
convinced agricultural activities are a significant source of nutrient pollution in the
basin, especially when tributaries with similar land use have different nutrient levels.
We should look more closely to pinpoint the sources of nutrients in tributary
drainages.
Approximately 75 percent of the soluble nitrogen loading to the Clark Fork River
originated from various nonpoint sources. The relative contribution from agricultural
activities was not determined. Recommended management actions include the
identification and control of nutrient sources in specific tributary watersheds,
regardless of the land uses that may be responsible.
• Clark Fork River streambanks should be stabilized so they don't erode into the river.
Eroding streambanks can be a significant source of phosphorus loading to streams.
The Superfund Program has placed a high priority on stabilizing streambanks and
tailings areas in the upper Clark Fork Basin to control metals inputs. These actions
will also serve to reduce nutrient inputs to the river.
• Will the cost-effectiveness of the management alternatives be considered?
Costs versus potential benefits of the various management alternatives was
considered in the assignment of priority ratings. It will continue to be an important
factor in the implementation process.
• Would aeration at the Deer Lodge sewage lagoon improve the quality of the
discharge to the Clark Fork River?
The lagoon is currently aerated. The design capacity of the system currently exceeds
the population served and treatment efficiency is high. A problem is that streamflows
in the Clark Fork River in this area are small during summer when the nuisance algae
are most prevalent and dilution rates for the wastewater are relatively low.
• Aren't nutrient loads to the upper Clark Fork River from tributaries fairly small during
the summer? It appears that the Butte and Deer Lodge municipal wastewater
C-2
-------
discharges account for the majority of nutrient loading to the upper Clark Fork River
during the summer.
Nutrient loads from upper Clark Fork River tributaries are individually rather small
during the summer, despite elevated nutrient concentrations in many of them. Many
of the tributaries are heavily utilized for irrigation and the total volume of water which
reaches the Clark Fork during summer is limited. However, tributary sources are
collectively important, accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the soluble nutrient
loading to the upper Clark Fork during the summer when algae problems are most
severe. The remaining 40 percent originates from municipal wastewater discharges,
with 80 percent of the total coming from the Deer Lodge sewage lagoon.
• Is nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, limiting to the growth potential of the
filamentous green alga Cladophora in the upper Clark Fork River? What is the role of
high spring streamflows on the development of nuisance levels of filamentous algae
in the upper Clark Fork?
Based on an examination of instream nitrogen to phosphorus ratios, it would appear
that nitrogen is most often the limiting nutrient with respect to algal growth potential
in the upper Clark Fork River (above the Blackfoot River confluence) during the
summer. However, both nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are currently high
enough in much of this reach of the river to support nuisance growths of algae.
Control of both nitrogen and phosphorus sources is warranted.
Periodic channel-scouring streamflows would be expected to provide some benefit
from the standpoint of controlling nuisance algal growths in the Clark Fork River. This
is especially true for diatom (slime) algae. However, experience has shown that the
basal holdfasts (or point of attachment to the stream bottom) of Cladophora are
capable of withstanding normal spring runoff water velocities and associated scouring
with no apparent detrimental effects. Filamentous algae "blooms" in the upper Clark
Fork have occurred in recent years immediately following the subsidence of "normal"
spring runoff conditions. Scouring flows of a magnitude sufficiently high to actually
tumble stream bottom rocks would probably destroy Cladophora holdfasts and reduce
the potential for algal blooms for several months.
• Why did Anaconda and Opportunity not appear as nutrient sources in the findings
of the Section 525 assessment?
Anaconda's municipal wastewater is treated in a lagoon system and stored in holding
ponds for seasonal irrigation usage. There is no direct discharge to the Clark Fork
River or any of its tributaries.
Opportunity has no central sewage treatment facility and residences are on individual
septic systems. The area has very shallow groundwater levels and serious problems
C-3
-------
Opportunity has no central sewage treatment facility and residences are on individual
septic systems. The area has very shallow groundwater levels and serious problems
with the operation of septic systems. Surfacing sewage is a common problem and
a recognized health hazard. Some of the groundwater enters the Mill and Willow
creeks bypass channel around the Warm Springs treatment ponds. Elevated nitrogen
levels in the Mill-Willow Bypass are believed to originate from septic systems in the
Opportunity area. This was discussed in several of Montana's Section 525 annual
reports. A sewage collection and treatment system for Opportunity is badly needed.
• The steering committee has recommended that Deer Lodge sewage effluent be
seasonally land-applied at an initial construction cost of $405,000. Is there a time
limit within which the city must do this?
The steering committee developed the various management alternatives from the
standpoint of which actions would achieve the greatest instream improvements in
water quality. They are recommendations only, recognizing it may well be impractical
for communities such as Deer Lodge to bear the cost of implementing major actions
such as land application. The proposed Tri-State Council will be responsible for
coordinating implementation of the plan, developing a timetable, and securing funding
for high priority alternatives. Even with adequate funding, the successful
implementation of the plan will require strong citizen, community and agency support.
Missoula, Montana, July 14, 1992
Registered Attendees
Wendy Moore Lolo, Montana
Barry L. Dutton Missoula, Montana
Jon Schulman Missoula, Montana
Peter Nielson Missoula, Montana
David Haire Pablo, Montana
Murray Carpenter Missoula, Montana
Gail Miller Missoula, Montana
Lorraine Gills Philipsburg, Montana
J. F. Schombel Missoula, Montana
Steve Schombel Missoula, Montana
Patti Hansen Gold Creek, Montana
C. B. Pearson Missoula, Montana
Stu Levit Missoula, Montana
Les Billingten Missoula, Montana
John Donahue Missoula, Montana
Terry & C. McLaughlen Missoula, Montana
Anne Stewart Missoula, Montana
C-4
-------
Esther J. McDonald Philipsburg, Montana
Mike Snavely Missoula, Montana
Hal Ort Missoula, Montana
Earl Reinsel Missoula, Montana
Mark Sanz Missoula, Montana
Liz Colantuono Missoula, Montana
Seth Makepeace Pablo, Montana
Ron Broker Missoula, Montana
Linda Lee Missoula, Montana
Comments and Responses
• What is the source of nonpoint pollutants in Clark Fork tributaries?
Numerous land use activities occur in the Clark Fork Basin and all have the potential
to cause nonpoint source pollution. An assessment of nonpoint sources was
conducted in 99 Clark Fork Basin tributary drainages as part of the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Basin Water Quality Study. It was learned that grazing, road development,
mining, logging and irrigation were the dominant land uses in tributary drainages rated
as having impaired water quality. More information on the Clark Fork Basin nonpoint
source assessment is available in Montana's draft management plan.
• Do you think streambank erosion is a significant concern from the standpoint of
nonpoint source pollution?
Yes. Eroding streambanks have a direct negative effect on downstream water quality
and beneficial water uses. Suspended sediment and turbidity levels may be increased.
Stream channels may become wider and shallower, thereby affecting water
temperature and fish habitat. Concentrations of nutrients, especially total
phosphorus, may increase. In the upper Clark Fork, eroding streambanks contribute
heavy metals to the river because of the abundance of streamside mine tailings
deposits.
• What is the source of phosphorus in Gold Creek?
Gold Creek drains the geologically phosphorus-rich Phosphoria formation and Cabbage
Patch Tertiary lake beds. Much of Gold Creek's phosphorus load is believed to come
from these natural sources, although irrigation practices may contribute to their
influence. This was the subject of a 1991 University of Montana M.S. thesis by
Jennifer Carey.
• Have you studied the contribution of irrigation return flows to late season instream
flows in the Clark Fork?
C-5
-------
No. It was a recommendation of the interstate steering committee to preserve
adequate streamflows in the Clark Fork. Our rationale was that any improvements in
the quality of wastewater discharges can quickly be reversed if dilutional streamflows
are not maintained. The Upper Clark Fork Basin Steering Committee is currently
developing a water management plan and has expressed an interest in exploring your
question. There may be some benefit to late season streamflows in certain reaches
of the river and in various tributaries resulting from land application of water
(irrigation) during earlier months.
• Isn't the algae problem in the river related to a prolonged drought and/or a lack of
scouring streamflows?
The nuisance algae problem in the Clark Fork River is a common occurrence dating
back at least to the early 1970's, or about the time that improved treatment of mine
discharges in the headwaters reduced copper levels in the river. Copper is highly toxic
to algae and some suspect that the former high copper concentrations prevented the
algae from reaching nuisance proportions. The recent drought years have undoubtedly
made the algae problem worse by increasing water temperatures and nutrient
concentrations and decreasing the frequency of scouring.
• There is a need to better coordinate local planning processes and subdivision review
with watershed protection efforts such as the Section 525 project.
The proposed Tri-State Council will include representatives from all levels of
government within the basin, as well as citizen's groups. This should improve
coordination and communication between entities in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin.
In addition, the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study has documented
surface water problems in the Missoula area resulting from subdivisions. The
Montana Department of Health will be meeting with local officials there to
formulate a new policy for future development proposals where surface waters may
be impacted.
• There is a problem with developers finding loopholes in the subdivision regulations.
I have heard that 90 percent of the rural lots in the Missoula area are developed
without ever going through the subdivision review process.
Subdivisions in Montana, defined as lots less than 20 acres in size, are regulated
under two acts. The Subdivision and Platting Act empowers the county commissions
and planning boards to review subdivisions for planning matters (impacts on services,
taxation, natural environment, wildlife, public health and safety...). The Sanitation in
Subdivisions Act requires that the State or contracted authority review subdivisions
for adequate sanitary facilities (water, wastewater, solid waste and storm drainage).
C-6
-------
There are exemptions available from each act. It is very common for land owners in
rural areas to divide off a single parcel for sale and exempt the division from planning
review. This exemption can be claimed once each 12 month period for a given parcel
of land. Such lots are, however, subject to sanitary review.
Attempts have been made in the past to change the legislation and will most likely be
proposed for the next legislative session as well.
• Action levels for nitrate in groundwater are being developed for the Missoula
aquifer. Can we develop nutrient action levels for surface waters?
Nutrient criteria for surface waters must be developed on a site-specific basis, if the
criteria are to be meaningful. This is essentially what we have done for the Clark Fork
River and Pend Oreille Lake through the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality
project. The response to the next question provides further explanation.
• We need to adopt firm, enforceable standards for nutrients in the Clark Fork River
rather than goals and develop a plan to meet those levels instream.
The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality project was successful in determining
nutrient concentrations for the Clark Fork below which algal densities can be
controlled. These are called "saturation" concentrations. Unfortunately, we cannot
at this time establish a defensible lower limit for nutrients where we can be assured
that all beneficial water uses will be protected all of the time. In the absence of these
standards, we have proposed nutrient concentration target levels for the river. These
numbers are 6 micrograms per liter (j/g/l) for soluble Phosphorus and 30 //g/l for
soluble Nitrogen and are comparable to nutrient concentrations found in reaches of
the Clark Fork that normally do not sustain nuisance growths of algae or experience
the related dissolved oxygen and aesthetics problems. The proposed management
actions have been developed to help achieve these target levels instream. As stream
modeling exercises and other work can be carried out, we anticipate that more
definitive nutrient standards will be developed and enforced.
• Can the Montana Department of Health, under the broad authority of the federal
Clean Water Act, develop administrative rules to ban the sale of phosphate detergents
throughout the Clark Fork Basin? This approach would be superior to having to pass
numerous local ordinances.
The Clean Water Act provides broad authority to survey, report on, and to correct
water quality problems. The Montana Water Quality Act is patterned after the Clean
Water Act but gives the state of Montana broader and stronger authority than the
federal legislation. The Department will examine its administrative rule-making
authority under the Act with regard to phosphate detergent bans as a means of
controlling a recognized pollution problem in the Clark Fork Basin.
C-7
-------
• Montana has a law against land application of treated wastewater within
floodplains. There may be opportunities for a variance from the law in situations
where the alternative is a direct discharge to the river. We need to take a critical look
at Missoula's land application feasibility study and come up with a practical
alternative.
Wastewater disposal systems discharging treated wastewater onto lands located
within a designated fioodplain are allowable as long as the land is not within the
designated floodway and the disposal systems meet standards and/or laws set by the
Montana Department of Health. Pollutants cannot be discharged to flood waters and
the systems for disposing of the wastes must be able to withstand damage caused
by flood conditions. The systems could only operate under prescribed operating
conditions.
• If a TMDL wasteload allocation process is implemented in the Clark Fork Basin,
communities with phosphate detergent bans already in place should receive extra
allocation credits.
A TMDL would be based on allowable pollutant loadings to a given reach of the river.
The allowable load would then be apportioned among all point and nonpoint source
contributors to that reach of river. The current degree of wastewater treatment,
including source controls such as phosphorus detergent bans, would be a major
consideration in the allocation process.
• Why was the correction of nonpoint sources of nutrients in upper Clark Fork
tributaries listed as a medium rather than a high priority action item?
Nutrient loads from upper Clark Fork tributaries are individually rather small but
collectively important. Together they provide about 60 percent of the soluble nutrient
loading to the upper Clark Fork during the. summer when algae problems are most
severe. The anticipated cost of nonpoint source controls in many miles of tributary
streams versus the benefits was a factor in the priority rating. Considering the
cumulative impact of these nutrient sources on water uses in the upper river, this
alternative has been elevated to a high priority rating in the final plan.
• You didn't mention the possibility of funding the various management alternatives
through a variety of sources. Perhaps we should seek implementation money through
a reauthorization of Section 525 of the Clean Water Act, especially for the more
expensive alternatives such as land application of the Missoula municipal wastewater.
A number of potential funding sources were identified for the proposed management
alternatives, including Section 525 of the Clean Water Act. The steering committee
recognizes that successful implementation of the management plan will depend upon
C-8
-------
meeting the challenge of securing adequate funding. We remain open to any funding
suggestions.
• What is the timetable for the proposed revisions to Montana's Nondegradation
Statute and how will that relate to the proposed alternatives outlined here tonight?
The Montana Department of Health is optimistic that revisions to the current
nondegradation rules can be finalized by early in 1993. Anticipated changes that may
be relevant to nutrient controls in the Clark Fork Basin include reduced limits for
nitrate in groundwater and new standards for groundwater that discharges to surface
waters. In particular, the proposed changes may help to control groundwater sources
of nitrogen loading to the Bitterroot River.
• There have been a lot of questions tonight but not many comments. I'd like to offer
my three point plan for the Clark Fork River. First, we need to continue and expand
monitoring programs on the river to document successes and to prove the validity of
our actions. Second, we need to do things to get results. We know enough about
the river to implement actions now. The public wants to see things happen. Taking
action does a lot to build public support for your programs. Lastly, we need to
continue to study the system through basin-wide and region-wide modeling of surface
and groundwater resources as well as through special smaller scale studies.
The steering committee fully concurs with your suggestions.
• What is the City of Missoula's position on land application of its municipal
wastewater as proposed in the draft management plan? The land which has been
identified as suitable for wastewater application has increasing subdivision potential.
The City should pursue a lease or purchase of this property while they still can
because costs can be expected to increase.
Joe Aldegarie, Missoula's Director of Public Works, has indicated that the city council
is environmentally concerned and will give serious consideration to alternatives that
could lesson the impact of the city's municipal wastewater on the Clark Fork River.
However, cost is a consideration. A 38 percent sewer rate increase is projected for
land application of nine million gallons per day of wastewater for six months of the
year. Some of the suitable land which may be available for land application is already
being subdivided. These lots are selling at high prices and it may be hard to convince
adjacent landowners to sell or enter into long-term lease agreements with the city.
There is no money in the city's Fiscal Year 1993 budget to purchase or lease land.
At the current time, the city has contracted with a private engineering firm to evaluate
alternative nutrient removal technologies and associated costs. No decision on land
application will be made until after this study is completed.
C-9
-------
• Have you looked at the potential effects of nutrient reductions on fisheries
resources in the Clark Fork River?
Yes. This area of concern was addressed in a project-related report entitled "Potential
Effects of Nutrient Control Measures in the Clark Fork Basin on Resident Fisheries"
(Knudson, 1992). The report concluded there was a low probability of reduced fish
production associated with the proposed management actions.
• Unless there is going to be tertiary treatment or land application, I don't see the
sense of requiring sewage collection and central treatment of Missoula subdivision
wastewater over septic tanks. There isn't a significant reduction in nutrients in
conventional treatment plants is there?
It is true that the conventional secondary sewage treatment process does not
markedly affect nutrient concentrations. However, point source discharges are easier
to treat, control and monitor than diffuse, nonpoint sources such as seepage from
septic tanks. Additionally, septic tanks are a major contributor to the increasing
nitrate levels in Missoula's sole source groundwater aquifer. When coupled with the
proposed disposal alternatives for the Missoula wastewater treatment facility,
sewering of Missoula's rural subdivision areas makes a lot of sense.
• Is the Department looking at revising the current 10 mg/l nitrate standard for
surface waters? The current standard is not doing a very good job of protecting
beneficial uses in the Clark Fork River.
The 10 mg/l nitrate standard is a health-based standard for drinking water supplies
(and for streams with designated drinking water supply usage) and will remain as
such. A universal surface water standard to protect against the growth-stimulating
effect of nitrogen has not been quantified because it must be developed on a site-
specific basis. This problem was discussed at length in Montana's Clark Fork Basin
nutrient management plan.
Sandpoint, Idaho, July 15, 1992
Registered Attendees
R. Hawkins Sandpoint, Idaho
Ken Heffner Sandpoint, Idaho
Charlton Mills Sandpoint, Idaho
Doug Worman Sandpoint, Idaho
Dennis Clark Sandpoint, Idaho
Bayview Chamber of
Commerce Bayview, Idaho
C-10
-------
E. H. Bobbins
Al Bricker
Ed Bittner
Kevin M. Laughlin
Tom & Nancy Renk
Daily Bee
Liz Sedler
Jim Hahn
Bill Middle-ton
Jerry Palmer
Lloyd Pierce
Robert Tate
Harold Riese
Gene Brown
Joel Petty
Pam Auman
Juanita Whitson
James D. Thomas
Kathie Hasselstrom
Norman Bonner
Jean Gerth
David Sawyer
Scott Engstrom
Comments and Responses
Sagle, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sagle, Idaho,
Hope, Idah
Sandpoint, Idaho
Bayview, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sagle, Idaho
Bayview, Idaho
Coeur D'Alene, Idaho
Ponderay, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sagle, Idaho
• When will the final Idaho plan be available?
Draft Pend Oreille Lake project reports are now being reviewed internally. The final
reports will be available late this fall. They will consist of three volumes; an executive
summary, a management plan, and a collection of contractor reports. The public can
receive a copy of the executive summary and management plan by signing the
"Request for Copy" sheet circulating this evening or by contacting our office. Due to
publication expenses, copies of the contractor reports will be on display at local
libraries or can be obtained at printing costs. This should be about $16.00.
• Is there any more detail in the Idaho management plan?
Yes, our management plan will give the rationale behind the recommendations for
controlling nutrients in Pend Oreille Lake. It will also elaborate on contractor findings.
• How was the Idaho plan put together?
C-11
-------
The formulation of management recommendations began nearly two years ago when
the Policy Advisory Committee identified priority issues and set management goals for
both open and near shore lake conditions. Then DEQ reviewed other state
management plans. Citizens Clean Lakes Council options, and drew upon their
experience in lakes management to develop a list of management options relating to
the priority issues. These options were then presented to the PAC who selected the
preferred recommendations.
• What is the status of the lake drawdown option?
The PAC decided to include the lake drawdown option for future consideration in the
event Eurasian water milfoil ever got established in Pend Oreille Lake. This is why it
does not appear in the management plan as an action item. Dr. Falter's work
indicates that the current drawdown may be preventing Eurasian water milfoil from
becoming established in Pend Oreille Lake.
• Does lake drawdown and its flushing action increase the flow of nutrients through
the system, thereby reducing eutrophication?
That type of information was not collected as part of the Pend Oreille Lake Project.
However, I would say no. Study of the vertical and horizontal distribution of the Clark
Fork River inflow revealed different patterns. In 1989, the turbid river-water plume
was routed into the northern part of the lake while in 1990 the turbid water extended
throughout the lake. Irrespective of the different distributions, net retention of total
phosphorus and total nitrogen in Pend Oreille Lake was about equal in both years.
• Is it possible to monitor for toxic metals, especially in the lower river and the lake's
near shore, before ASARCO builds its Rock Creek Project?
We have quite a bit of baseline information on the Clark Fork River. The Montana
Water Quality Bureau has been monitoring metals below Thompson Falls Dam, at
Noxon Bridge, and below Cabinet Gorge Dam from 15 to 17 times a year since
September 1985. We are also concerned about possible metals problems from the
ASARCO mine, so to establish a baseline, we started monitoring Rock Creek about
three years ago.
• Is it possible metals from the upper river could are getting into the lake?
As far as heavy metals getting to the lake from the upper river, studies have shown
metals being contained by the Milltown Dam. Cabinet Gorge and Noxon reservoirs
have also been studied. Metals enrichment was found but at much lower levels than
at Milltown. There may be some metals enrichment in the lake, but it is probably very
insignificant. Most of the metals in the system are moving with sediments. They are
not in solution and, therefore, would probably be very hard to detect in the lake.
C-12
-------
• A friend told me there is a hole in the Noxon Dam.
I work at Noxon Dam, and I can tell you there are no holes in the dam.
• Regarding your map that shows developable land, I live in one of those areas and
I would call it developed. What criteria was used for "developable?"
Eastern Washington University-Department of Urban and Regional Planning inventoried
land uses in the watershed. For the purpose of their inventories, developable lands
were parcels less than 10 acres which had no structures and were privately owned.
Unfortunately, the map does not provide the resolution to which the data was
interpreted and only general categorization of land development is possible.
• Regarding some of the options proposed, a lot of these are already on the books as
laws with state agencies, but they aren't enforced. Unless enforcement is a priority,
regulations and ordinances will not work.
The Steering Committee fully concurs.
• I understand that EPA Region 10 had to do some battling with headquarters to get
the money that had been appropriated by Congress. Has an accounting been done
to verify that all the money came through to Region 10?
No retrospective account audit has been done of the project, however, all money
appropriated by Congress for this study was received by the EPA Regions.
• The Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be coming out soon from the Idaho
Department of Transportation on the Highway 95 Sandpoint by-pass. If the by-pass
goes along the creek, it will cause a tremendous amount of sedimentation and erosion
into the creek and lake. Has DEQ had any input into the Draft EIS, and are you
concerned about the overall effect of this project on Pend Oreille Lake?
Yes, we are concerned about the effects of the by-pass on Pend Oreille Lake water
quality and have prepared two responses for consideration in formulating alternatives
in the Draft EIS. Of course, our primary concern is the protection of water quality
especially with the heightened public awareness generated by this project. One
recommendation was to upgrade existing roadways whenever possible to minimize
compacting and exposing new soils. We suggested a plan which addresses measures
to control erosion during all phases of construction and offered to review this plan on
the ground during construction. Other water quality concerns included alteration of
groundwater flow and maintaining public drinking water supplies, the destruction of
wetlands and aquatic habitat, and leakage from stored fuel. Your concern over the
accidental release of toxic substances is real. However, an emergency response
C-13
-------
action plan already exists. This plan provides a structure for response to emergency
situations. We will comment when the Draft EIS is available for review.
• I am disappointed in the turnout tonight. We have 35,000 people in this county.
Where are they? I believe there is a need to have a clearinghouse for information from
studies that have been done and other environmental information. I feel that the
agencies' right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. This is a frustration
for the public.
Comment noted.
• I am concerned about mining adits and the contamination of groundwater. Mining
adits around the lake need to be reclaimed. No one is willing to take care of this
problem. Who is responsible?
I understand your frustration. A local water quality task force has looked at past
mining activities near Lakeview to identify the extent of the problem and brainstorm
on what can be done. Who is responsible does not seem to be as big a question as
where do we find the money to fix the problem. Both of these questions are
compounded when we are talking about activities that occurred nearly a hundred
years ago. Idaho Department of Lands is the regulatory agency for all major surface
mining activities and DEQ for mining activities using cyanidation for recovery of
precious metals. I believe DEQ also regulates subsurface mining activities. Ultimately,
however, it is the landowner who would shoulder the costs of reclamation.
• What about Garfield Bay? Will mining problems be solved there before logging can
take place? I am concerned about how this will be done.
I agree there needs to be better coordination with regulators on mixed-ownership and
mixed-use areas. The problem is there are so many different programs. We are aware
of the problem, but also must prioritize it in light of the other issues concerning water
quality in the Pend Oreille Lake watershed.
• I am disturbed by impacts of heavy equipment in areas around eagles' nests. Near
our home, it drove eagles away. Now we only have one nest in the area.
We do not work with the agencies that deal with wildlife habitat. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service would be the agency to contact.
• Is EPA the coordinating body for all the other agencies working on habitat, water
quality, endangered species, etc.?
C-14
-------
While we are not mandated by Congress to play this role, we are doing more of it.
At Lake Roosevelt and several other major watersheds, we are taking on more of a
leadership role; working on interagency coordination.
• Who do we contact when we have a concern about a particular local project?
Where do we get answers to the problems, such as one I am concerned with on local
shoreline development?
There are a couple publications which identify who to call for a particular problem or
concern. These are Idaho Lake Management Guide and The Citizens Guide to Idaho
Water Policy. Local shoreline development is regulated by state and county rules. If
there are water quality issues involved, this is when federal and state standards would
come into play.
• Regarding sewer systems as an option in plan, it states these would be done where
feasible, Have criteria been developed to determine what is "feasible?"
No, this would be determined on a case by case basis.
• When and why was there a decision made not to monitor mining pollution during
the lake study?
Idaho residents have for some time been more concerned about increased growth of
algae on the rocks and the potential for lake eutrophication than mining pollution.
Also, a report from the Montana Governor's office in 1988 recommended a nutrient
study of the watershed. Metals were not looked at in Montana because of the
extensive Superfund Project already underway. In addition, Montana has a monitoring
program in place and our last station is actually below the Cabinet Gorge Dam in
Idaho. In Idaho, the Technical Advisory Committee decided early in the study that
sediment testing for metals would be too expensive given the budget, so this was
dropped from the project's scope of work. Finally, nutrients are considered the
primary interstate water quality problem.
• U.S. Geological Survey figures from 1984 and 1988 show toxic levels of heavy
metals in fish flesh.
I believe the data you are referring to indicate that cadmium was consistently above
chronic and acute toxicity criteria for freshwater aquatic life, and on occasion copper
and zinc exceeded EPA criteria. The researcher recommended further investigations
be made. So as part of the Pend Oreille Lake Project, a preliminary investigation of
metals concentrations in fish collected from the lower river and lake was conducted.
It showed that levels were below recommended action limits, but that the data base
should be expanded. The Policy Advisory Committee acted upon this recommendation
and has included a metals toxicity monitoring program and health risk assessment
C-15
-------
action items in the plan. No commitment for funding to complete these tasks has
been received. Cooper and zinc, that have caused fish kill problems in the upper river
and are of high concern, are not toxic to humans. These metals do not
bioaccumulate; they do not build up in the food chain.
• Regarding development around the lake, how much of the load is coming from
septic systems?
Wastewater contributes about 3% of the total phosphorus and 1% of the total
nitrogen to the lake annually. This includes septic-tank and Sandpoint and Priest River
wastewater treatment facilities effluent.
• Is there any way of knowing how much of this affects the near shore?
There is no easy way to separate wastewater effects lake-wide from effects near
shore. Even though the computer model indicated that 100% wastewater removal
would have little or no effect on lake water quality, common sense tells us since
septic-tank effluent are coming in at the near shore level they are likely to effect the
near shore area. The reason computer modeling showed little effect from wastewater
removal was because it represents a small percentage of the annual lake load and is
discharged into the Pend Oreille River.
• How does the goal of 5 parts per billion (ppb) of phosphorus near shore compare
with existing phosphorus levels in open water?
The average total phosphorus concentration in the upper water column was 7 ppb and
ranged from 3 to 13 ppb.
• Is not a goal of 5 ppb of phosphorus too minimal to detect?
The mean concentration of phosphorus in the near shore areas where the public is
perceiving a problem is 8 ppb, so there is a small window that accounts for nuisance
algal growth. Therefore, we do need to be very precise. The laboratory detection
limit for total phosphorus is 2 ppb.
• Have there been any studies done on contributions from road dust to water quality
and also road oiling?
I am sure there have been, but I am not familiar with any. Data collected for this
study indicates that about 5% of the annual phosphorus load to the lake comes from
the atmosphere. Since phosphorus is adsorbed to soil particles, I would suspect that
fugitive dust from roads contributes to the annual phosphorus load, especially when
the road is near a lake or stream. Falter did some studies on outboard engines and
contributions of nutrients from exhaust, and I suspect you probably get more
C-16
-------
contributions of phosphorus from road dust than you do from oil. Oiling does control
dirt and, therefore, nutrients but probably causes other problems.
• About half of Bottle Bay Sewer District is sewered. The other half just conducted
a survey and 50% of them did not want to add on to the system. It would only cost
them $35 a month, but they think their septic tanks are working since they got
permitted by Panhandle Health.
Comment noted.
• When folks change to other positions within the agency, is there some level of
continuity and coordination with new people?
Yes, we keep extensive computer files and there is coordination for transfer of
information.
• The By-pass is going to be a lot more important than DEQ thinks. DEQ needs to
come up to speed on this issue.
This would make a good recommendation as an option in the plan: that DEQ work
closely with ITD on water quality concerns of by-pass alternatives.
• Regarding work being done in the lake watershed by Bio/West for the Forest
Service, are they sampling sediments for heavy metals?
No, they are only sampling for sediment amounts.
• I am with the National Park Service, Coulee Dam Recreation Area, and I have been
impressed by your getting together and taking a basin-wide approach with the three
states. We have come a long way, and I really appreciate all the input from the
citizens. I represent one and a half million visitors who come to our recreation area.
This evening I have also received a little geographic lesson: Pend Oreille is part of the
Coulee Dam system.
Comment noted.
• Have we ever tried to get Canada involved in this project?
No, not in this project, but the basin-wide approach is getting more and more
common. Canada has been involved in the Lake Roosevelt project that John was just
referring to, and there is also a Kootenai River Network that I am involved in that
includes the province of British Columbia, state agencies in Idaho and Montana,
federal agencies, the Lower Kootenay Band, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and various
C-17
-------
environmental groups. Their focus is watershed management in the Kootenai River
Basin. We have also had some cooperation with the mining interests.
• Is there a phone number for calling someone with all of these concerns?
The public comment form has the phone numbers and addresses of contacts in each
state. They can help you sort out which agency you should be dealing with when you
have a problem. Earlier we mentioned two publications that identify what each state
agency is responsible for; Idaho Lake Management Guide and The Citizens Guide to
Idaho Water Policy.
• Five minute presentation given by Harold Riese. He is concerned about drug labs
in the watershed and their impact on water quality from pollutants.
Comment noted.
Newport, Washington, July 16
Registered Attendees
Dick L. Arkills Newport, Washington
Bill Kelley Cheney, Washington
Pam Tunnell Newport, Washington
Ken Rux Newport, Washington
Lori Blau Usk, Washington
Dorothy Sandvig Newport, Washington
Linda Lee Usk, Washington
Rick Donaldson Coeur D' Alene, Idaho
Do Hopp Newport, Washington
Clarence Soliday Usk, Washington
Harold Dilling Cusick, Washington
John W. Miller Spokane, Washington
John Krogh Newport, Washington
Comments and Responses
• How much of the Pend Oreille River study was performed by the Washington State
Department of Ecology?
All of the Ecology studies presented at the public workshop were performed by
Ecology. Some assistance from other associated groups was used on sub-projects like
popnetting and electrofishing. Additionally, we used information from other studies
done in the past. We also utilized aquatic plant surveys performed by a consultant
C-18
-------
for the Pend Oreille County Public Works Department for our GIS demonstration
project contained in Ecology's Draft Pend Oreille River Management Plan.
• How can the Pend Oreille County Conservation District obtain funding to perform
monitoring etc. identified in the draft plan?
In the back of Ecology's Draft Pend Oreille River Management Plan is a section on
funding sources. This section describes specifics of federal, state, and local monies
available. Reauthorization of Section 525 of the Clean Water Act is a high priority for
funding. Our goal is to get monies to locals for implementation of the management
plan.
• Washington and Idaho seem to be lax on their inspections of septic tanks and
sewers. Up and down the river there are developments in areas where the soil is a
problem for septics, and there are also areas where people don't even have septics
but are dumping their sewage directly into the river.
Septic systems are under the authority of county health agencies. If you know of
direct dumping of sewage, failed or failing septic systems, or other like potential
impacts to the river, you are encouraged to contact the Northeast Tri-County Health
District in Washington or the Panhandle Health District in Idaho.
• I live in Pend Oreille County and about 10 years ago I was told I had 30 days to do
something about my septic or else I'd get fined; within 3 months we had a sewage
lagoon that met their standards. So if you make the penalties stiff enough, it seems
you can force the issue and make people clean up their sewage in a hurry.
As previously stated, individual sewage disposal systems are under the jurisdiction of
the local Health Districts. However, this suggestion does have merit and should be
presented to the local Board of Health for consideration.
• What did you have in mind for the local "Watershed Management Committee"?
The Committee would be made up of diverse interests in the watershed who would
meet frequently to decide on priorities for work that is needed. The group would seek
grant money to fund and oversee water quality improvement projects. The Watershed
Management Committee would be a good candidate for representation on the
proposed Tri-State Council.
• Does the presence of Box Canyon Dam increase the milfoil problem?
When a river is impounded current velocities are lowered. This results in an increased
rate of sedimentation. Nutrients carried with the sediments settle out and are a
source of food for aquatic plants. The dam also increases shallow areas where you
C-19
-------
would expect nuisance plant growth. It is probably true that the impoundment
enhances the habitat for aquatic plants in general.
• The use of a rotovator to stir up the milfoil is a poor approach. The milfoil needs
to be removed, but there is a better way. There is a machine now available that
harvests the stems and leaves much like a hay field is harvested. The biomass is
removed to the shore for disposal. The rotovator system stirs up the roots, sets them
adrift to grow in new places. The machine I refer to does not do that. It is in wide
spread use in California and has proven its value. The use of a rotovator should be
excluded from your plan, however harvest of the milfoil plant should still be included.
Rotovation is a 3 step process. First debris is removed from the bottom area to be
rotovated. Then the bulk of the biomass is removed by a cutter bar, probably much
like the harvester referred to. The third step is bottom tillage. Bottom tillage is done
by a tiller head like rototillers for gardens, except that it is used underwater and on a
larger scale. The tilled roots and stem debris float to the surface for collection and
bank disposal, as does the plant material from the second step. The same machine
performs all three steps. A different detachable head is placed on the hydraulic boom
for each step. If rotovation is ever determined to be undesirable, the ability to harvest
is always there. One problem with just harvesting is that it does nothing to inhibit
regrowth. Rotovation sets back regrowth of milfoil, giving other opportunistic plant
species an opportunity to colonize first. One may not need to come back to rotovate
for 2 or 3 years.
• I wonder if we should look into ways of harvesting milfoil for use as fertilizer or
animal feed? We use it at our home as a fertilizer. In Japan they use it as animal
feed. There may be some uses for milfoil that would be beneficial.
The idea merits further investigation and has been incorporated into the basin
management plan.
• Regarding the statement in the management plan about freezing of milfoil, I have
a pond with milfoil and for five years it's frozen over in the winter and the milfoil
keeps coming back. I'll volunteer my pond as a test site.
Ecology appreciates the offer of the pond as a test site and will keep this idea in mind
for any future work done on the Pend Oreille River.
• If your going to look at management control options for milfoil, you're going to have
to go in there and manually harvest it. If you don't remove it before you put water
back over it, you haven't gained a thing. Also, if you operate the river under a FERC
license, you'd have to go through a lot of procedure to lower the river in order to
control milfoil. Why do you make recommendations for milfoil control options that
you haven't researched further?
C-20
-------
We are offering options that have been used elsewhere. There is not a lot of
background on milfoil control alternatives for the Pend Oreille River. It may be that
multiple approaches are needed to most effectively manage milfoil.
• Milfoil that is rotovated must be piled up away from the shoreline area so it doesn't
wash back into the river.
This is a good suggestion. The management plan has been modified to reflect the
need for resource managers to investigate alternatives to bank disposal of harvested
plant materials.
• I strongly oppose a winter drawdown of the Pend Oreille River. This idea does have
some merit concerning a reduction in the milfoil community, but it also has the
potential to seriously impact the fishery. The Box Canyon Reservoir is generally a
shallow reservoir and therefore the milfoil plants are able to grow and thrive in a large
percentage of the reservoir. In order to really impact the milfoil community a severe
drawdown would be required. A drawdown of this nature would completely dewater
the littoral areas, concentrating most of the fish in the main channel of the river. As
fish are not very active during the cold winter months, it is likely that a good
percentage of the fish would simply be flushed from the system.
It appears potential impacts from drawdown of the reservoir far outweigh possible
benefits. Based on the number of persons concerned about the negative impacts from
drawdown, and a general lack of support, the final management plan will remove the
recommendation to explore drawdown as a management option.
• There was a drawdown a few years back, and warm weather baked the milfoil; it
did slow its growth for awhile.
When drawdown of the reservoir was first investigated as a possible management
alternative, winter was assumed to be the season with the least potential impacts.
Summer was not considered because of the problems that would be created during
peak periods of recreation and tourism. It may be that desiccation rather than freezing
is a better method of milfoil management. Yet it is also likely that summer drawdown
would be even less well received than winter drawdown.
• I strongly recommend that rotovation of Eurasian watermilfoil in the Pend Oreille
River should include rotovating rows or paths through the dense beds. This would
enhance habitat for largemouth bass, as it would allow access to the small perch
which hide in the weed beds. Most of the bass captured during our studies were
associated with weed beds. According to Prince and Maughan (1979) prey (yellow
perch) that are attracted to structure become concentrated in vegetation, thereby
increasing encounter rates with, and vulnerability to, foragers (bass) that reside there.
C-21
-------
Open spaces or "trails" through the dense macrophyte beds would be advantageous
to predators (bass) as they would provide more area for ambushes.
This is a good suggestion and consistent with recommendations already in the
management plan. The ability to strip rotovate is contingent on local resource
managers acquiring an additional rotovator or utilizing other management options. At
present, the rotovator now used is only able to maintain high use areas of the river
(i.e. swimming beaches, boat launches etc.). With two rotovators, one machine could
maintain the high use areas while the other could be used for fishery habitat
enhancement.
• Shouldn't Washington seek funding through reauthorization of Section 525 or other
means to study biological agents for milfoil control?
We advocate staying abreast of current research on milfoil control methods and
evaluating it's applicability to the Pend Oreille River. At the present time, we do not
intend to pursue a site-specific study of biological controls for the Pend Oreille River.
• We encourage research on biological control methods; we do not support the use
of herbicides.
Biological controls may be many years away from use. Alternatives that have worked
elsewhere need to be looked at for applicability to the Pend Oreille River. Ecology is
not endorsing use of herbicides, but rather suggesting an alternative that should be
evaluated by local resource managers if and when it becomes available.
• Regarding the Newport wastewater treatment plant and the Ponderay Newsprint
Company, are they always in compliance with their wastewater discharge permits?
Compliance reports indicate there has not been a problem complying with NPDES
permit limits. Occasional exceedances of permit limits can happen to even the most
sophisticated treatment systems. The Newport wastewater treatment plant and
Ponderay Newsprint Company discharge about 0.5 millions gallons per day (mgd) and
4 mgd, respectively, which allows for ample dilution by the river, which has an
average annual flow of about 16,500 mgd.
• Please explain the units for attached algae in your presentation and give the source
of the guideline quoted.
One slide in Washington's presentation noted units for periphyton concentrations in
the Pend Oreille River in parts per billion (ppb). This was in error and should have read
in mg/M2. The recommended guideline comes from a report entitled Nuisance biomass
levels of periphvtic algae in streams, contained in Hydrobiologia 157:161-168, 1988,
by Welch, E.B., J.M. Jacoby, R.R. Horner, and M.R. Seeley.
C-22
-------
• Were dissolved oxygen (DO) measurements made over a 24 hour'period, and have
the lowest DO's of the summer been getting steadily higher?
The DO measurements referred to were for determination of primary productivity and
are based on 24 hour measurements. The methods and the data set used for
determination of primary productivity are described in Ecology's third annual report of
the Section 525 study entitled Pend Oreille River Primary Productivity And Water
Quality Of Selected Tributaries by Coots, R. and R. Willms, 1991. The DO was
measured specifically for determination of primary productivity and was only collected
during two weeks of the summer. From this limited data set, we are unable to
evaluate if the lowest DO's of the summer have been getting steadily higher.
• You indicated that most measures of water quality at the Newport station have
gotten better. Do you have long term flow and channel depth data? If so, have river
flows and channel depths in the Pend Oreille River been getting lower, and if so, what
are the causes and correctives - since this would encourage macrophytes.
We have long term river discharge data, but do not have data concerning channel
depth and current velocity. A trend analysis of river discharge indicated a significant
decrease has occurred over the past 15 years. While this decrease in discharge likely
improved conditions for aquatic plant growth, the decrease probably resulted from
circumstances beyond our control - i.e. natural changes in climate and run-off.
• Perhaps efforts to restore channel flows and some judicious dredging would have
less negative impacts and longer term benefits than herbicides and drawdown to
freeze macrophytes.
Restoring channel flow would require integrated water resources coordination
throughout the Pend Oreille Lake/River system. Dams would be potentially impacted
because by allowing more water to spill, less electricity would be produced. This
would likely be confronted with strong opposition by power generating and fisheries
interests. Restoring channel flows would impact water levels of Pend Oreille Lake and
Box Canyon Reservoir if dam gates are lowered, specifically by dewatering some
littoral areas and fishery habitat. Dredging does have merit, although it would be a
drastic change in direction requiring a substantial capital investment initially, besides
being more labor intensive. Dredge materials would need to be transported and
disposed of properly. Locally, habitat for native plants would be lessened. Dredging
below the optimal growth depth of milfoil {about 3.5 meters) is possible, but would
create deep pockets of water nearshore.
• I strongly support a water quality monitoring network. The Kalispel Tribe will be
monitoring water quality in waters on and adjacent to their Reservation. A network
with this type of information would be very beneficial to the Tribe and the whole
community of the Pend Oreille River.
C-23
-------
The development of a water quality monitoring network should be a product of the
proposed local Watershed Management Committee and the Tri-State Council. This
information would be essential to any group wanting to manage a waterbody or
determine priorities for restoration on a basin wide approach. The Kalispel Tribe should
be represented on the Watershed Management Committee and possibly the Tri-State
Council also. This is indeed an opportune time for coordination of efforts within the
basin.
• The newspaper article published in the Newport Miner officially announcing the
public workshops points the finger at livestock and stated 87% of the fecal coliform
in the Pend Oreille River came from Skookum Creek.
The article was somewhat inaccurate in referencing Ecology's third year report, which
stated five tributaries were studied for fecal coliform in the summer of 1990. Of
those five tributaries, Skookum Creek accounted for 87% of the load. There was
evidence of livestock directly accessing the creek. Ecology was not aware of the
newspaper article prior to the public workshop. In fact Ecology has sent a letter to
the editor of the Newport Miner, which was subsequently published, stating Ecology's
position that the article was misleading with its emphasis on "Domestic animals
adding to river pollution" instead of the most significant problem we identified, namely
proliferation of Eurasian watermilfoil. The newspaper article and Ecology's letter are
contained in the Appendices of this management plan. (See Appendix D, July, 1992.)
• What is the maximum level for fecal coliform in surface waters of Washington
State?
The maximum allowable fecal coliform bacteria in Class A surface waters is 100
colonies per 100 milliliters (about % cup) of water.
• Your third year report indicates 1200 colonies per 100 milliliters were found at SK5,
a site on Skookum Creek. Did you determine how much of that comes from
livestock?
No; livestock were identified as one possible source. Field observations, noted at the
time of sampling, identified livestock having direct access to Skookum Creek with
evidence of shore erosion. While it appeared from visual observations that livestock
were responsible for the high counts, other sources potentially impacting Skookum
Creek include wildlife and domestic wastes.
• Skookum Creek has been impacted by beavers for many years. Your samples from
SK5 were taken right on top of a known beaver pond. Doesn't this impact your
sampling?
C-24
-------
All samples taken for the survey were collected from flowing water. Samples from
the Skookum Creek site (SK5) were collected at a culvert crossing under Skookum
Creek Road. Wildlife are one potential source of bacterial contamination to surface
waters. Further sampling would be needed to determine the relative contribution from
beavers at this site.
• How do you account for some of the low bacterial readings from Skookum Creek?
Nonpoint source pollution tends to be highly variable in the environment. The low
bacterial counts at some sites are likely a result of dilution from higher quality
inflowing water as it moves down the system and natural die-off of bacteria. Other
potential bacteria inhibitors include sensitivity to light, temperature, and toxic
chemicals.
• Regarding Skookum Creek, the third year report states the fecal pollution problem
"appears to be related to animal keeping practices".
As stated earlier, we are not certain of the source of the fecal contamination. Field
observations taken at the time of sampling noted evidence of livestock directly
accessing the stream. Further sampling would be necessary to determine specific
sources. The management plan has been revised to indicate the need for additional
sampling.
• The newspaper article is very upsetting to local cattlemen because we've been
working hard to keep our cattle out of the stream and we're not happy about being
blamed for the pollution.
Ecology apologizes for any inconveniences resulting from the report and the
newspaper article. It was not the intent of the study to point the finger at anyone.
The focus was to better define sub-basin water quality based on sampling results
found in 1988. Ecology supports all efforts to keep animal wastes out of streams.
Any efforts over the last 2 years by cattlemen to better manage their animals would
not be recognized in this report because the survey the newspaper article referred to
was conducted during the summer of 1990.
• I've been working on a committee and we've got a dairy discharge permit plan
coming out; we're trying to work on our problems. You've done a lot of damage by
putting blame on us.
As mentioned earlier. Ecology has written a letter to the editor of the Newport Miner
in hopes of clarifying information which may have been misrepresented in the
newspaper article advertising the public workshop.
C-25
-------
• I'd like to propose that after the field season, you agency folks and your committee,
and the Idaho people, come over to Skookum Creek. We'd like to show you around
the creek and discuss our livestock management practices.
Thank you for the invitation; if the committee is able, we'd like to take you up on the
offer.
• I strongly support management of animal keeping practices and fencing of the
riparian zones in tributaries to the Pend Oreille River. The Kalispel Tribe is currently
applying for grant money to fund construction of some riparian fences. I have also
been working with the Pend Oreille Conservation District to educate private
landowners of the importance of animal keeping practices and proper fencing.
Part of the management plan identifies the need for development and implementation
of best management practices (BMPs). The formation of a local Watershed
Management Committee would provide better oversight of plan implementation. The
Kalispel Tribe and the Pend Oreille Conservation District would be good candidates for
representation on the Watershed Management Committee.
C-26
-------
WRITTEN COMMENTS
The following individuals, agencies or groups identified themselves in their written
comments to the Steering Committee. The Committee also received comments
from four unidentified sources.
Dick Arkillis, P.E., Director
Hydro Operations and Power Supply, Public Utility District #1
Pend Oreille County, Newport, WA
Becky Ashe, Fisheries Biologist
UCUT Fisheries Center, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA
Edward C. Bittner, U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N.
Environment Program 1985-86. Sandpoint, ID.
CDR James A. Blake (Ret), Sandpoint, ID
Stephanie Fries, Hope, Idaho
George Hetherington, Butte, MT
Earle A. Hussell, Trout Creek, MT
Hobart G. Jenkins, President
Bayview Chamber of Commerce, Bayview, ID
Shawn Keogh, Timber Information
Greater Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce
Robert G. Klatt, Sagle, ID
Gary J. Kuiper, Superintendent
Coulee Dam National Recreation Area, Coulee Dam, WA
Bill Middleton, Hope, Idaho
Michael T. Pablo, Chairman, Tribal Council
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation
Pablo, MT.
Steve Schombel, Trout Unlimited
Westslope Chapter, Missoula, MT
C-27
-------
Richard Sedlak, Technical Director
The Soap and Detergent Association, New York, NY
Robert M. Tate P.E., Coeur d'Alene, ID
Ruth Watkins, Pend Oreille Director
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition, Sandpoint, ID.
Vicki Watson, University of Montana, Missoula
Bruce Zander, Monitoring and Standards Section
U.S. EPA, Region VIII, Denver, CO
Comments and Responses
• Page 8 of the draft plan implies that the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
wasteload allocation process has already been implemented for control of nutrient
sources in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin.
The process described in the report is very much a TMDL process in that instream
or intake nutrient targets are established and alternative controls are developed
with the instream targets in mind. However, a regulatory wasteload allocation
process for nutrient sources has not yet been implemented in the basin, but
remains an option. The final management plan has been changed to clarify this.
• The discussion of water quality criteria for attached algae on page 18 should be
reworded for clarity.
The suggested changes have been incorporated in the final draft.
• The matrix of Clark Fork River nutrient point source control alternatives omits the
highest priority action-seasonal land application of the Missoula sewage effluent.
This alternative was inadvertently deleted during editing of the draft management
plan. It has been replaced in the final plan.
• Securing long-term protection for instream flows in the Clark Fork River should
be the highest priority management alternative, followed by seasonal land
application of Missoula wastewater.
The steering committee ranked both alternatives as high priority items. Relative
placement in the matrix of alternatives within a priority category (high, medium,
low) was not intended to suggest a preference for one over another.
C-28
-------
• Implementation of nutrient removal for the Butte municipal wastewater should
be a medium or low priority action.
It is true that most of Butte's nutrient load is removed in the Warm Springs
Treatment Ponds on Silver Bow Creek prior to reaching the Clark Fork. It is also
likely that this nutrient loading improves the metals treatment efficiency of the
ponds and that reductions in nutrients could increase metals loading to the Clark
Fork. However, concentrations of nutrients and ammonia in Silver Bow Creek
between the Butte wastewater discharge and the ponds are so high that beneficial
water uses will continue to be impaired even if all metals sources are controlled.
The Montana draft management plan recommends a cautious approach and the
examination of alternatives for reducing nutrients in Silver Bow Creek while
maintaining metal treatment efficiency in the ponds. Given the moderate
importance of the Butte wastewater as a source of nutrient loading to the Clark
Fork River, this alternative has been changed from a high to a medium priority
item.
• The Butte municipal wastewater should be seasonally land applied to enhance
revegetation efforts in Superfund reclamation sites along Silver Bow Creek.
This suggestion may be a practical alternative and is consistent with our proposal
to "implement nutrient removal or alternative disposal methods for Butte municipal
wastewater." However, the effect of summer land application on streamflows in
Silver Bow Creek and on downstream water rights would have to be carefully
examined.
• Controlling groundwater sources of nitrogen loading to the Bitterroot River
should be a high priority rather than a medium priority item.
The steering committee has reconsidered their priority rating for this alternative and
has changed it to a high priority item. The high cost of implementing this
alternative, the magnitude of the project, and the incremental benefits to be
expected were considerations in the former rating. However, when the importance
of protecting Missoula's municipal groundwater supply from contamination is
considered in addition to the existing impacts to surface water quality, a high
priority rating is easily justified.
• The alternative to organize wastewater discharge permits on a concurrent, five-
year cycle would facilitate basin-wide planning for nutrients but could decrease the
level of review for some permit-specific issues (e.g. toxics).
If this alternative is adopted, provisions would be included to insure that each
permit received at least as rigorous a review as under the current permit by permit
approach. It is not anticipated that all permits would be organized to expire on the
C-29
-------
same day, but perhaps only in the same year. This approach should facilitate
basin-wide permit reviews and planning for all issues.
• There are a number of planned subdivisions immediately adjacent to the lower
Clark Fork River in Sanders County, Montana. Each lot will have an individual
septic system and drainfield. Will this concentration of septic tanks adversely
affect water quality and do we have adequate existing information to detect future
degradation in this area?
The location of septic systems and drainfields in relation to surface and
groundwater is a criteria in the review of all subdivisions. Septic system distance
parameters have been established for seasonal high groundwater, surface waters,
and hundred-year floodplains. Additionally, any proposed subdivision of ten lots or
larger utilizing on-site sewage disposal requires that a nitrate sensitivity analysis be
preformed. All of these measures are intended to protect designated uses of
surface and ground waters from degradation. The Administrative Rules of Montana
that deal specifically with these issues are under current departmental review and
will probably be modified to afford increased protection to water resources.
The Montana Water Quality Bureau maintains a series of long-term water quality
monitoring stations throughout the entire length of the Clark Fork River.
Information from this program will continue to be available to evaluate water
quality trends as influenced by development activities in the lower river basin.
• The Section 525 assessment indicated the majority of nitrogen loading to the
Clark Fork River originated from nonpoint sources. The primary method of control
for nonpoint source pollution is the application of best management practices, or
BMP's. It seems obvious that current BMP's are not working and that changes are
in order, especially with regard to cattle grazing in riparian areas. We need to get
the cows out of the bottoms and reestablish native riparian vegetation which will
aid to narrow and deepen tributary channels and reduce nutrient, hydrologic and
fishery impacts.
The Montana Water Quality Bureau, under it's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program, is facilitating a process to examine, refine and/or completely revise as
needed the BMPs for grazing to ensure that the recommended BMPs are protecting
water quality. A technical committee of agency representatives and private
landowners has been established with the ultimate goal of adopting one set of
BMPs for all lands in Montana.
• Will regulations for control of nutrient sources in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Basin be mandatory or voluntary and what agency will have oversight
responsibility? Implementation of mandatory BMP's should be strongly considered.
C-30
-------
The State of Montana is proposing to adopt a voluntary approach to nutrient
source controls in the Clark Fork River Basin. Should this approach fail to achieve
the desired results, as indicated by a continuing monitoring program, a mandatory
approach will become necessary. The U.S. EPA and the Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences, Water Quality Bureau will have primary
oversight responsibility for nutrient controls in the Montana portion of the basin.
However, the proposed Tri-State Council will be charged with directing the
implementation of the various nutrient control alternatives.
Mandatory BMPs are a subject of much current debate, and one that is beyond the
scope of this management plan.
• The Westslope Chapter of Trout Unlimited supports the recommended nutrient
control alternatives presented in the draft Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water
Quality Management Plan. Two items of particular interest are the basin-wide
phosphate detergent ban and sewage treatment plant improvements. Please keep
us informed of continuing developments.
The Westslope Chapter of Trout Unlimited has been added to the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Basin Water Quality Study mailing list for receipt of the final management
plan, meeting notices, and any other mailings. The Westslope Chapter may be a
good candidate for representation on the proposed Tri-State Management Council.
• The plan should state clearly and unequivocally what nutrient concentration
targets should be for reducing algae in the Clark Fork River. The plan suggests 6
//g/l for soluble phosphorus and 30 ywg/l for soluble nitrogen. Based on the
saturation levels identified by Dr. Vicki Watson and researchers in British Columbia,
the plan should clearly state that in no case should phosphorus ever be over 30
//g/l or nitrogen over 250 //g/l in the river below Missoula. For the upper river,
where we're dealing with filamentations algae, the targets should be closer to 6
//g/l for phosphorus and 30 //g/l for nitrogen.
Proposed nutrient target levels in the draft plan are based on ambient summer
concentrations in reaches of the Clark Fork that normally do not support nuisance
developments of attached algae. The research conducted by Dr. Watson for the
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality assessment succeeded in establishing
"saturation" nutrient concentrations for diatom algae in the Clark Fork River.
These values are 30 //g/l for P and 250 //g/l for N and reflect concentrations above
which increased algal growth would not be expected with incremental increases in
nutrient concentrations. These values are not practical target levels because they
are in excess of current ambient concentrations found throughout much of the
Clark Fork and because these concentrations are capable of supporting the
maximum achievable standing crops of diatom algae. For algae control to be
realized, target levels must be appreciably less than the saturation concentrations.
C-31
-------
Nutrient criteria which would protect all beneficial water uses in the Clark Fork
Basin and eliminate nuisance algae and related problems such as dissolved oxygen
depletion are unavailable at this time. The Montana Department of Health has
requested the assistance of a contractor to EPA Region VIII to help us conduct the
necessary modeling studies to establish more definitive nutrient criteria for various
reaches of the Clark Fork. In the interim, the proposed nutrient target levels of 6
l/g/l for P and 30 //g/l for N have been adopted as instream goals in the final
management plan.
• A basin-wide phosphate detergent ban should be a high priority action item. The
methods for carrying out such a ban should be examined by the states. The
proposed Tri-State Management Council should consider taking a lead role in some
type of tri-state rule-making.
The states will examine their legislative and administrative rule-making authority
under the Clean Water Act and their respective state water quality statutes with
regard to phosphate detergent bans in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin. Guidance
in this area will be provided by the Tri-State Council.
• Mandatory nutrient loading allocations for point source dischargers and nonpoint
sources should only be developed if voluntary nutrient control measures fail to
control nutrient-related water quality problems in the basin.
The states favor a voluntary approach to nutrient controls and pollution reduction.
Most of the recommended nutrient control alternatives in the management plan are
voluntary in nature. However, Montana and Idaho will pursue the development of
optional nutrient wasteload allocations so that mandatory controls can be
implemented if voluntary measures fail to achieve the desired results.
• The agencies should develop a timetable and conditions criteria under which
nutrient allocations would be executed.
The development of a monitoring program, timetable, and criteria to evaluate the
success of nutrient control measures will be the responsibility of the Tri-State
Council.
• The high priority action item calling for seasonal land application of the Missoula
municipal wastewater should be reworded to read "Institute improvements at the
Missoula municipal wastewater treatment facility." This would allow for other
methods of pollution reduction at the plant should seasonal land application prove
unfeasible. Possibilities include combinations of land application with other options
such as denitrification technology or alternative disposal sites such as gravel pits
and constructed wetlands.
C-32
-------
This alternative was intended to mean any effluent disposal method other than
direct discharge to the Clark Fork River, including rapid infiltration, irrigation usage,
discharges to wetlands, etc. Other measures for improving wastewater treatment
and effluent quality are recommended under the alternative to "Evaluate and
implement additional measures to curb municipal and industrial wastewater nutrient
discharges." We have changed the first alternative to read "Implement seasonal
land application and/or other improvements at the Missoula municipal wastewater
treatment facility" to clarify our intent.
• Continued monitoring is a priority and must be designed to tie directly to the
priority actions being taken to reduce pollution. A specific plan is needed to show
how monitoring will influence the implementation process.
The Tri-State Council should place a high priority on designing and implementing a
basin-wide water quality trends monitoring network to evaluate the overall success
of the monitoring plan. This plan should build upon the monitoring programs that
are already in place. Additionally, a more focused implementation and
effectiveness monitoring program will need to be put in place to insure that
management alternatives are implemented and that they are working. The Council
should develop and utilize monitoring feedback loops to guide the implementation
process.
• The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition recommends that the list of eight highest
priority action items in the three-state management plan be expanded to include:
1) specific changes in the wastewater discharge permit for the Stone Container
Corporation kraft mill west of Missoula;
2) additional sewer hookups in unsewered portions of the Missoula Valley;
3) further analysis of opportunities for land application/alternative disposal
methods at the Deer Lodge municipal wastewater treatment plant; and
4) identifying and controlling nonpoint sources of pollution in upper Clark Fork
tributary drainages.
Each of these recommendations was included as a high priority management action
in the draft management plan. The "highest priority" short list was intended to
serve as a starting point in the implementation process and included only the very
highest priorities from each of the three states. The possibility of limited
implementation funding was a consideration in the development of the list of
highest priorities, as was anticipated costs versus benefits throughout the basin.
C-33
-------
Some of the comments relating to the Stone Container Corporation wastewater
discharge permit were not addressed in this management plan. They have been
forwarded to the Permits Section Supervisor of the Montana Water Quality Bureau
and will be addressed in the forthcoming permit review for this facility. Stone's
current permit expires on September 30, 1992.
• There are no scientific references contained in the draft management plan which
support the conclusions regarding water quality conditions and the potential effects
of management options.
A bibliography containing all pertinent scientific reports was included in the draft
management plan. Summaries of all the various project-related studies are
included in the individual state management plans. All of the supporting study
reports were available at the public meetings or upon request from the steering
committee. The three-state management plan was directed at the general public
and was not intended to have a scientific format.
• The Soap and Detergent Association opposes the proposed basin-wide
phosphate detergent ban on the following grounds: 1) There is no evidence that
the elimination of phosphorus from the affected products would result in any water
quality improvement in the river basin; 2) phosphate detergent bans are ineffective
in improving water quality; and 3) phosphate reductions of 20 percent or greater
are required before any measurable change in water quality can occur.
Approximately half of all soluble phosphorus loading to the Clark Fork River
originates from wastewater discharges. The phosphate detergent ban which was
implemented by the City of Missoula in May 1989 has resulted in a greater than 40
percent reduction in phosphorus loading to the Clark Fork River from the Missoula
wastewater treatment plant. Concentrations of phosphorus in the river
downstream from this facility have subsequently declined by a large margin. A
modeling study conducted by the University of Montana predicted a reduction in
algal standing crops in 110 miles of the Clark Fork as a direct result of this action.
It seems clear that there have been very tangible water quality benefits associated
with the elimination of the sale of phosphate detergents in Missoula. The steering
committee will continue to encourage the adoption of similar bans in other basin
communities.
• Nitrogen rather than phosphorus is the primary nutrient controlling algal growth
in the Clark Fork River.
Studies by the University of Montana suggested that nitrogen limitation,
phosphorus limitation or a balance between the two existed for significant periods
of time in almost all reaches of the Clark Fork River. It was concluded that
management of both N and P could reduce nuisance algal levels and would be
C-34
-------
important in protecting reaches without current problems. Furthermore, Idaho
researchers have concluded that Pend Oreille Lake is primarily phosphorus-limited.
As such, efforts to control phosphorus sources in the Clark Fork River basin will
have a direct benefit to Pend Oreille Lake. The Montana Governor's Office, in its
1988 Clark Fork Basin Project Status Report and Action Plan, stated that
"Regulatory agencies, industries, municipalities, and public interest groups should
work to reduce all forms of nutrient loading to the Clark Fork Basin."
• The potential adverse impacts on fisheries that may result from nutrient controls
in the Clark Fork Basin have been overlooked.
This area of concern was addressed in a project-related report entitled "Potential
Effects of Nutrient Control Measures in the Clark Fork Basin on Resident Fisheries"
(Knudson, 1992). The report concluded there was a low probability of reduced
fish production associated with the proposed management actions.
• ... A water quality management plan that does not consider the impact of this
planned highway (Sandpoint Bypass) construction is meaningless. The
environmental impact from nutrient loading is minor compared to the adverse
impact of construction of a bypass across the lake and along Sand Creek.
We admire your commitment to the protection of water quality in Pend Oreille Lake
and agree that an action item in Idaho's plan should identify coordination with
Idaho Department of Transportation on water quality concerns of the bypass
alternatives. However, we regret that you feel our management plan is
meaningless. The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study Steering
Committee realized from the beginning that water quality throughout the basin is
threatened by a wide range of human activity. Given the budget, however, we had
to focus our priorities. In response to the Montana Governors's office report and
Idaho resident's concern over increased algal growth on shoreline rocks, the
Committee decided to focus on the source and fate of nutrients in the basin. It is
the opinion of the Committee that nutrient loading has a major effect on attainment
of beneficial uses in the basin. The plan recommends actions which when
implemented will abate nutrients throughout the basin.
«... I am concerned about the lowering of Pend Oreille Lake and the impact on
spawning and pollution....
Hydropower development on the inlet and outlet of Pend Oreille Lake is likely the
single most important contributor to the decline in sport fish numbers. Idaho
Department of Fish and Game speculates that a change in operation policy of
Albeni Falls Dam forced kokanee to spawn in sub-optimum conditions. Recently, a
petition was initiated to circumvent this problem and allow greater access to the
C-35
-------
lake during fall months. Lake level management is a very complicated procedure.
It must maximize the benefits from all water uses.
Lower water levels in Pend Oreille Lake would likely have minimal effects on
pollution. The Clark Fork River mostly influences lake dynamics. Irrespective of
how the river inflow is distributed throughout the lake, net retention of nutrients
remains about the same.
• I feel the priority for a stormwater management plan should be increased.
Current stormwater discharges into the near shore area would exceed most
wastewater treatment plant yearly annual discharges....(EPA) requirements (for
permitting stormwater) should be passed to the communities that border the lake.
EPA is currently instituting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits
for stormwater discharges from communities over 100,000 in population. This
requirement does not strictly adhere to those communities but can be implemented
in any community. The need for a County stormwater management plan and
accompanying ordinances and enforcement measures to ensure compliance has
been realized. This action item has been identified in the tri-state management
plan to be of the highest priority and will be one of the first steps taken to reduce
nutrients in the basin.
• ... For the past six years, I have been trying to get the Clean Water Coalition to
take action on locally generated pollutants (e.g. crank case oil, gasoline) that have
been dumped into the lake.... I can not get anyone to do anything about it. I
would like your comments on what action would be appropriate when things like
this occur.
Idaho's Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements state
that in the case of an unauthorized release of hazardous materials or petroleum
products to state waters or to land such that there is a likelihood that it will enter
state waters, the responsible persons in charge must stop continuing spills, contain
the material, notify DEQ, and collect, remove and dispose of the material in a
manner approved by DEQ. The appropriate action would be to notify DEQ.
• ... The report states that "Recreation and tourism are at present mainstays of
the local economy." While to some extent that may be true, and certainly both
segments of the economy are growing, the timber industry continues to play a
strong role in our economy.... If this report is to go out to the public and elected
officials, it should be as accurate as possible.
Thank you for bringing this discrepancy to our attention. We strive to be as
accurate as possible and will research this further. Our information, as cited in the
report, is over a decade old and indicated a decline in employment related to the
C-36
-------
natural resources and a strong increase in service and retail trade jobs. We did not
intend to imply that timber industry was not an important component of the local
economy but that recreation, tourism, and second home development are growing
and will continue to grow.
• The activity that offers much benefit to the beneficial uses of ground and
surface water is the construction of wastewater treatment plants—especially those
using land application of the treated effluent.... My personal philosophy is not that
Government should throw money at every concept that might come along. In our
case, however, the area is increasingly intensively utilized by people who do not
live in the area. It makes sense to me that it is a legitimate expenditure of public
funds to help us who are residents to assure that the lake and drinking water of
the area remain pure.... the need is still here because many people are moving into
the non-urban areas unserved by sewers....
Your support of our management action to install centralized sewage treatment
systems in developed areas is appreciated. As you probably are aware, this is also
a priority for action in the tri-state management plan. When the development of
management actions began, the Policy Advisory Committee overwhelmingly
supported controlling septic systems to reduce water quality impacts. Federal
assistance to help reduce the cost incurred by private citizens will continue to be a
important factor. This assistance will have to be evaluated at the time a project is
proposed.
• ... One instance of the challenge facing the Tri-State Management Council is to
coordinate the law enforcement efforts of the many agencies involved. Making a
list of existing pertinent laws, the agencies and persons responsible for the
enforcement of each, and problems in the enforcement of each could be a useful
first step. Such a list distributed to all agencies could expedite enforcement....
We would like to thank you for your support of a Tri-State Management Council.
The specifics you mentioned were also voiced early in the process by the Policy
Advisory Committee. There is some information in the Idaho plan which identifies
agency authorities. Also, two documents exist which provide more information.
These are the Idaho Lake Management Guide and T_he Citizens Guide to Idaho
Water Policy. Compilation of existing information would be the first step of the
Council in coordinating enforcement efforts.
• ... We have great concern that parameters for nutrients could become statutory
limits in Lake Pend Oreille. We believe the 5 parts per billion of phosphorus is an
unrealistic and arbitrary figure that can not be achieved in the developed bays of
the lake. If that figure is allowed to become a ceiling it would preclude
development in the few areas that are privately owned.
C-37
-------
You are correct that 5 ppb total phosphorus near shore was arbitrarily selected.
However, the Policy Advisory Committee did not feel it was unrealistic. Target
concentrations at which algal growths would not be considered a nuisance were
not available. Therefore, this concentration was selected because it represented
the total phosphorus concentration in near shore areas which were the desired
future condition of the Committee. It should be clarified that 5 ppb is only a target
to gauge the attainment of a management goal: to reduce the rate of near shore
eutrophication. It is in no way meant to be a statutory limit.
• We likewise fear that dependence upon sewers will permit excessive
development of both riparian and upland areas which will contribute to a nutrient
runoff that will cause those areas to exceed the 5 ppb limit....
You are also correct in assuming that increases in urban runoff are often
associated with centralized sewage systems. This is because the areas are
typically developed to a higher level. This is why we have identified the need for '
stormwater and erosion control management plans. Like centralized sewage
systems, stormwater and erosion control management plans are also tri-state
priority actions.
• ... The use of a rotovator to stir up the milfoil is a poor approach. The milfoil
needs to be removed, but there is a better way....
Presently, no Eurasian water milfoil exists in Pend Oreille Lake and no large scale
aquatic weed control project is recommended. The management actions were in
response to the Policy Advisory Committee's concern regarding weed growth in
high use areas and near private boat docks. Even though mechanical harvesting is
recommended, rotovation is not identified as the preferred alternative.
• ... The nutrient levels in Lake Pend Oreille are very low and that does not
support a significant increase in fish populations. With increased fishing pressure,
the lake simply can not produce the number of fish that recreation demands would
like to have.... Some balance must be sought between the zero algae proponents
and the fishing proponents....
The trophic status of the pelagic zone of Pend Oreille Lake has not changed
statistically since the early 1950s. During that period sport fish harvests were
three to five times current harvest levels. Contrary to your statement, nutrient
levels in Pend Oreille Lake do allow increases in fish populations and water quality
management goals are supportive of fishery management goals, restoration to past
levels of production.
• ... Clark Fork River loading must be controlled because it has the potential to
degrade a stream and drinking water. Whereas the lake does not face that kind of
C-38
-------
pressure, nor is it likely to do so. We do not believe that nutrient load levels set as
low as proposed are necessary in the lake and that these levels will preclude future
development of private property....
Pend Oreille Lake does have the potential to decline in water quality. The Clark
Fork River contributes the vast majority of inflow into the lake and as such
maintenance of open lake water quality is largely dependent upon maintenance or
reductions in nutrient concentrations in the Clark Fork River. You are correct in
that modeling of open water responses to nutrient loading were relatively
insensitive to small to moderate changes in Clark Fork River nutrient loads.
However, researchers have shown an ascendancy of green and blue-green algae in
the open water. Researchers feel that this could be an indication of increased
pelagic productivity.
• ... Of course, we can not support growth that permits excessive discharges into
the lake and we support your call for sewer systems in the denser areas....
Comment noted.
• ... We believe that some fill in the lake between 2051 and 2062 MSL for the
development of boat basins is acceptable and is probably desirable in order to
provide the necessary pump out stations for boaters. The demand for boat slips is
growing by leaps and bounds and some accommodation for this recreational
potential must be included in your plan....
We agree that recreational use of the lake is increasing. Our management
recommendation to require pumpout stations is directed toward this expectation.
Hopefully, an indirect result of implementing this action would be compliance with
the no sewage discharge standard; another management action. As for your
request to include some provision in the plan for the increased demand for boat
slips and docks, the plan is directed toward controlling nutrient sources. We feel
the county comprehensive plan would be a better forum.
• ... The Coalition agrees that education is a key element to the management plan,
but we would like to see specific targets set for any education efforts.... the
Coalition believes that the education program should be reinforced with ordinances
and strong enforcement....
As originally proposed, numerous management actions had educational
components. For example, the Policy Advisory Committee felt it important to
educate the lake and watershed users as to the need for stormwater and erosion
control plans, the effects of shoreline burning, and about proper lawn fertilizer
application rates and methods. These educational components were combined into
an educational program. This program is intended to provide the information
C-39
-------
necessary to support recommended ordinances and to provide a clearinghouse for
information to interested and concerned lake and watershed residents.
• ... We support centralized sewer systems around Pend Oreille Lake. In fact,
because sewering of communities around the lake is occurring, this
recommendation is already a priority action. Once the proposed system at Hope
and East Hope is underway, the Coalition sees the sewering of Laclede, Clark Fork,
and Trestle Creek as the next targets....
• ... a top priority should be the instigation of strong erosion and stormwater
control plans and accompanying ordinances and enforcement measures to ensure
compliance....
Both of these recommendations were included as a priority action in the tri-state
management plan. The "highest priority" short list was intended to serve as a
starting point in the implementation process and included only the very highest
priorities from each of the three states. The possibility of limited implementation
funding was a consideration in the development of the list, as was anticipated
costs versus benefits throughout the basin.
C-40
-------
Appendix D: Selected News Features and Articles
-------
Articles from Montana, Idaho and Washington newspapers,
1986 to 1992
-------
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE 10/20/86
EPA lake study funded
President Reagan has signed legislation which
includes a line item budget for an Environmental
Protection Agency study of Lake Pend Oreille,
according to Ruth Watkins, Clark Fork Coalition
board member.
The legislation, under the HUD and Related
Agencies budget, was passed unanimously Fri-
day by Congress, and signed "probably Satur-
day." It ensures that the EPA will have enough
money to study the lake.
A proposal to study the lake was drawn up in
1985 by the U.S. Geological Survey. It calls for a
four-year study at a cost of about $800,000, but it is
not known if the EPA will go with that proposal or
let it out for bids, Watkins said.
The Clark Fork Coalition is a group of individ-
uals and groups concerned about the water quali-
ty in the Clark Fork River system, which includes
Lake Pend Oreille. The coalition is based in Mis-
soula and Watkins is the North Idaho board mem-
ber.
She said she will hopefully be working with the
EPA in the process of selecting which proposal is
funded/but; that the EPA may decide to go with
the USGS proposal already on band
-------
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE
n vow
11/10/86
to get water study
Two members of Idaho's con-
gressional delegation have vowed
to try again to get approval for a
comprehensive study by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency of
water quality in the Clark Fork
River and Lake Pend Oreille.
Authorization for the study was
included in a bill to extend the fed-
eral Clean Water Act of 1972, which
was vetoed Thursday by President
Reagan.
Sen. Steve Symms said Friday
that he expects a similar bill with
the Lake Pend Oreille amendment
will be approved by Congress in
early 1987. He said the issue should
be resolved by April.
Rep. Larry Craig agreed. He said
he would reintroduce legislation to
authorize the study as soon as Con-
gress reconvenes in January.
Both Symms and Craig said the
president's veto had nothing to do
with the Lake Pend Oreille study.
Craig said he knew when the bill
was passed that the president ob-
jected to the $18 billion allocated
nationwide under the bill over an
eight-year period. He said the Re-
agan administration had recom-
mended a funding level of $6 mil-
lion for the bill.
Both Symms and Craig said Con-
gress will try to work out a com-
promise on the funding for the bill.
If a compromise is not possible,
Symms said there is enough sup-
port for the bill in Congress to over-
ride a veto. He noted that the ori-
ginal version was approved unani-
mously in both the House and the
Senate.
Craig said the bill was "well
thought out" and included pro-
visions that are important to the
quality of water in every state in
the nation.
Both Symms and Craig said there
should be no objection in Congress
to adding the Lake Pend Oreille
study to the bill once again.
Neither the Clean Water Act ex-
tension nor this year's EPA ap-
propriations bill allocated any spe-
cific amount of money for the wa-
ter-quality study in the Clark Fork
River basin and Lake Pend Oreille.
-------
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE
THURSDAY. JANUARY 22. 1987
Lake study part
of approved act
North Idaho News Network
The Clean Water Act, with in-
structions for a study of Lake Pend
Oreille and the Clark Fork River,
and crucial to several North Idaho
sewer treatment plants, Wednes-
day passed the Senate at the $2Q
billion funding level over the op-
position of Idaho's Steve Synuns
, and five other Republican sena-
tors.
The measure passed Wednesday
directs that a study be done on pos-
sible : pollution of Lake Pend
Oreille from pulp mills on the
Clark Fork River. The industries
are suspected of causing; the lake
to age prematurely.
Symms voted against the act,
providing an $18 billion trust fund
to states for construction of sewer
treatment plants, favoring instead
an amendment that cut the funding
to $12 billion, said Symms' legisla-
tive aide Trent Clark.
The remaining $2 billion in the
congressional plan would cover a
variety of other features of the
clean water program, including
administrative costs at EPA and
$400 million to help states study
ways to combat non-point source
pollution. .
The $20 billion package, having
passed the Senate 93-6 and the
House 406-8, now heads to the desk
of President Reagan, who has
promised to veto as he did last
year.
Symms believes the $20 billion
program is too costly, in light of
the federal budget deficit, and that
the amended version would be ap-
proved by the president, thus al-
lowing the programs to proceed
more quickly, Clark said.
Sen. James McClure, R-Idaho,
voted with the majority in approv-
ing the $20 billion package.
Federal grants under, the Clean
Water Act have enabled a great
deal of construction in northern
Idaho over the past five years, said
Roger Tinkey, senior water quali-
ty engineer with the Idaho Division
of Environment in Couer d'Alene.
North Idaho treatment plant
projects currently on the priority
list for federal grants are ex-
pansions at Coeur d'Alene and Post
Falls and new plants at Rathdrum,
Hope, East Hope and Bayview. All
of the cities are on a lake, a river oc
over the Rathdrum Aquifer.
• .Idaho is slated to receive about
Vt of a percent of the money, or
$59.6imillion through 1990.
-------
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE 7/28/87
cr/\ study of Clark Fork, lake urged
Idaho Congressman Larry Craig says he wants to
know why the Environmental Protection Agency has
not yet begun its study of pollution in the Clark Fork
River and Lake Pend Oreille.
Craig said the study was mandated in an amend-
ment, which he introduced, to the Clean Water Act.
That act was passed by Congress in January.
The First District congressman said the EPA
informed him last month that a research plan for the
river and lake was under way. Now, be said, he has
learned that work has not begun on the project.
In a letter to EPA Denver Administrator Jim
Scherer, Craig said: "I view this lack of response by
the EPA to be'less than satisfactory, and it runs.
contrary to my amendment that as adopted in the
Clean Water Act
"Since EPA has shown an unwillingness to move
expeditiously on their own accord, I am now request-
ing an in-depth update on the status of the study and
the reasons for delay."
Craig said his letter reminded the administrator
of "the importance the project holds for the people
of Idaho and Montana alike."
A press release by Craig said*- bis amendment
addressed the deterioration of>water quality in the
lake and the river system and provided federal mon-
ey for a comprehensive study, a report and a public
education program.
Because much of the watershed in the system is
federally owned, Craig said,'the federal government
has a responsibility to take the Jead^ in ensuring its
water quality.
-------
EPA visits Lake Pend Oreille
By TED NELSON
The Daily Bee
Water quality in Lake Pend
Oreille and the Clark Fork River is
now being studied in Duluth, Minn.
Two biologists from the En-
vironmental Protection Agency's
environmental research
laboratory in Duluth recently com-
pleted a tmhweek trip to Idaho and
Montana-*to' learn;all, they, could
about the lake and thejiver.
According to state officials in
Idaho and Montana, the purpose of
the visit was to obtain information
needed to formulate plans for a
; much more extensive water-quali-
' ty study than has yet been con-
ducted in the Clark Fork drainage.
Mike Beckwith of the Idaho
Division of Environment office in
Coeur d'Alene reported that he
spent much of last week with re-
search biologist Bill Sanville and
research aquatic biologist Jack
Arthur of the EPA Office of Re-
search and Development in
Duluth.
"I think they got their eyes
opened to the size of this lake and
the nature of this area," Beckwith
said. "I think they now see why
there is the level of concern here
that there is."
Sanville and Arthur have npw re-
turned JUfc'Duluth but were un-
available for comment today.
Beckwith said he took the two
federal biologists on a boat tour of
the developed and undeveloped
shoreline of Lake Pend Oreille and
the Pend Oreille River. He said the
EPA has computer access to all
data already collected on water
quality in both rivers and the lake.
Beckwith said he does not
believe the EPA intended that the
two-week trip would constitute the
water-quality study mandated in
the 1987 Water Quality Act ap-
proved by Congress in January.
In July, Peter Nielsen, ex-
ecutive director of .the Clark Fork
Coalition, expressed disappoint-
ment that plans for these studies
had not yet been completed. He
said he was concerned that the
EP,A might use the two-week trip
to satisfy the Congressional man-
date.
Nielsen met with Sanville and
Arthur in Missoula Aug. 27. He said
it appears that the biologist's trip
was a planning exercise aimed at
the development of a com-
prehensive two or three-year study
to be started next summer.
But he added, "I am still con-
cerned that this could be the end of
the line if we don't keep working. I
think we; need to remain ever
vigilant to make sure that they
follow through on this."
Loren Bahls of the Montana
Water Quality Bureau reported
that he met with Sanville and
Arthur during the last week of
August. He; said the biologists
spent one day in Helena, one day in
Missoula andione day on the Clark
Fork River.
Bahls said 'the EPA officials
were given data that had been pre-
viously collected * during: other
studies. But he said he was under
the impression that the data would
be used for planning studies on a
much larger scale.?? ' :
Both Bahls and 'Beckwith said
they are still waiting for more
specific information: about the
scope and estimated post of the
proposed EPA study.: They both
said the biologists ^apparently
agreed that mudf" more work
should be done jjtojdefennine the
causes of pollution in the drainage.
"I talked with-them for quite
some time about; the: data gaps and
what it would take to fill those
gaps," Beckwith said.fVWe'irould
never let them get away with call-
ing this their study. I think they
were just on a reconnaissance mis-
sion to find out just what was
available here."
; Nielsen said two recent develop-
PAGEi2^SANDPOINT DAILY BEE-THURS.. SEPT. 10. 1987
Water quality—
Continued from page 1
ments have caused him to become
more' optimistic about the
possibilities for a comprehensive
study. He said the Region 8 EPA
office in Denver recently reported
that it has $102,000 available for
water-quality studies on the Clark
Fork.
Nielsen noted that the EPA Re-
gion 8 includes Montana, but North
Idaho is in Region 10, which has
headquarters in Seattle.
;The Clark Fork Coalition direc-
tor said he was also glad to see the
awarding of a $77,000 Clean Lakes
grant from the EPA to the state of
Idaho for aerial, infrared photo-
graphy studies of the shoreline of.
seven North Idaho lakes, including
Pend Oreille.
Nielsen said officials from the
EPA's Duluth office visited Idaho
and Montana in February and said
they would have a final proposal or
assessment completed by May.
Nielsen said he no such report has
yet been made public.
In a letter to the Sandpoint Daily
Bee dated Aug. 18, EPA Region 10
Administrator Robie G. Russell
said the biologists from Duluth
would prepare a final report after
their visit, "which will set the
stage for a complete assessment of
the entire lake and river system."
"Just as you don't begin to build
a house without a blueprint,"
Russell said, "you don't begin a
study as important was the Lake
Pend Oreille-Clark Fork effort
without a carefully planned de-
sign.
Russell said the focus of the
biologist's work on Lake Pend
Oreille "is to identify what the pro-
blems on the lake are and where
they are coming from."
-------
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE
9/24/87
Solons unite to urge
study of water quality
WASHINGTON (AP) - Six
Northwest senators are pushing
for a $415,000 federal appropria-
tion to study water quality in the
Idaho Panhandle's Lake Pend
Oreille and Clark Fork and
Pend Oreille rivers.
Idaho Republicans James
McClure and Steve Symras
were joined by Republican Dan
Evans and Democrat Brock
Adams of Washington, and
Montana Democrats John
Melcher and Max Baucus in
signing a letter requesting the
funding from Sen. William Pro-
xmire.
The Wisconsin Democrat
chairs the Senate Appropria-
tions subcommittee that re-
views funding requests for the
Environmental Protection
Agency. The panel is scheduled
to discuss EPA budget pro-
posals for fiscal 1988 on Friday.
"This money is needed so we
can diagnose and treat the
lake's problems before cleanup
becomes a major undertak-
ing," McClure said Wednesday:
The senators'asked that
1315,000 of the money be
.earmarked for continuation of a
study begun earlier this year on
nutrient loading and heavy
metal concentrations in the
lake and Clark Fork River,
which drains into the lake.
• The money would be in addi-
;tion to $77,000 the EPA de-
signated five weeks ago for
; water quality studies in the lake
•and river.
The senators urged that
another $100,000 be allocated
for study of Eurasian milfoil in
the Pend Oreille River, which
flows out of Lake Pend Oreille
and cuts across northeastern
Washington/ The study would
involve discovering the source
of the aquatic weed and de-
termining ways to remove it
from the river.
McClure said Eurasian
milfoil is so prolific that it has
destroyed more than 80 percent
of the' Pend Oreille River's
sport fishery. :
-------
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE
11/5/87
Clark Fork River study
by UM gets
MISSOULA - Nuisance
algae growths in the Clark Fork
River,will be studied during the
next 14 months under a; grant to
the University of Montana.
Montana's Department of
Health and Environmental
Sciences awarded the $100,000
study grant to determine the
cause of the growths in the
Clark Fork.
Algae are present in the river
naturally, but too much algae
can cause unsightly growths,
reduce the amount of oxygen
dissolved in water, make the
water taste and smell bad and
snag fishing lines, a news re-
lease from the department said.
Excess algae have been a pro-
blem in the Clark Fork since
discharges of'toxic metals to
the river first were treated ef-
fectively in the early 1970s, the
department reported.
The department's Water
Quality Bureau will use results
of the study to determine
whether it will be feasible to
reduce algae levels in the river
by limiting the discharge of
nutrients or by controlling other
factors.
The .study will run through
December 1988. It will be
directed by Dr. Vicki Watson,
anassociate professor of botany
at;: the universityt who, has;; ]
spoken in Sandpoint about the
quality of water in the Clark ,
Fork and Lake Pend Oreille. V
Dr.;Max Bothwell, chief of
the aquatic ecology division of
the National Hydrology Re-
search Institute in Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, will serve as
special consultant for the study.
Researchers will analyze
samples of algae collected from./
: 15 river^ locations- and conduct
fertilization experiments in
artificial streams to be con-
structed at the Missoula
wastewater treatment plant.
Watson will develop a model to
predict algal growth-based on
nutrient concentrations and
other variables.
Funds f or.the study were pro-
vided by the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. The
Water Quality Bureau will sup-
ply necessary river nutrient
data to the study through .a .-
monitoring project funded by
the Montana Legislature in
1987.
-------
Guv also seeks
study landing
CecUAn-
drasas seeking the help of Ida-
ho's congressional delegation to
win release of $1 million in fed-
eral money earmarked for two
water projects critical to the
Panhandle.
Andrus told the members of
theidejegation in a letter sent
was "very "dis-
-.-•-•-!
and Budget; ignoring con-
gressional intent'by withhold-
ing 5700,000 for blocking con-
tamination of the Spokane-
RathdruiB Prairie Aquifer and
^oOCKOOOrfor the Clark Fork
Rivei>Lake Pend Oreille
.degradation study.
;;fe" Although I fully recognize
k-tne need for fiscal restraint in
pe,iederal budget, I feel that
th!ej» two projects are absolute-
ly; critical for the protection of
the Environment in North Idaho
at this time," the governor said.
Since the federal money was
allocated, Andrus said the state
had devoted considerable re-
sources to developing coopera-
tive work plans with Washing-
ton and Montana on the two
projects.
^Protection of the acquifer is
critical! to a third .pra million
people sin, .the PaBhandle and
-c^llife"'L-lv--i[Hi fee said,
euro: water
in! lake
itrof'the Oark Fork
^intensifies.
"^extremely .relunctant
,... ,-..ih*55 (state) resources
have'^lbeen; wasted by being
unable to implement these pro-
grams," the governor said.
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE
5/4/88
Chaney: Pollution
of lake disgraceful
By MALCOLM HALL
The Daily Bee
An angry Sandpoint Mayor Ron
Chaney today said the shoreline of
Lake Pend Oreille here is knee-
deep in foam and he wants some-
thing done about it.
He is so angry he is writing to
President .Ronald Reagan and
Gov. Cecil Andrus to urge release
of $300,000 in federal money
earmarked for a water quality
study of the Clark Fork and Pend
. Oi»iUftjiyera*nd the lake.,.,... -
"We must Identify the source of
this pollution," said Chaney.
"Lake Pend Oreille is the lifeblood
of our community. It not only gen-
erates a great deaVof income
through tourism but it is also one of
blip primary'sources of pleasure.
To se? it polluted is disgraceful."
Chaney said the shoreline on the
south side of the city was covered
with more than a foot of foam.
The federal money was al-
located by Congress this year but is
being held up by the Office of Man-
agement and Budget. It is part of $1
million earmarked to study the
river and lake and the Spokane-
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
Andrus and the Idaho con-
gressional delegation have been
applying pressure for release of
the funds to no avail yet. Rep.
Larry Craig, R-Idaho, has said he
will introduce hew legislation for
the already'approved funding if
necessary.
L '• .-
, ",Although. Wully,recognize the
need for fiscal restraint in the fed-
eral budget;-r feel these two
projects are absolutely critical for
the protection of the environment
in North Idaho at this time," said
the governor.
"Lake Pend Oreille has always
been a beautiful, pristine body of
water. We must find this source of
pollution and only the federal gov-
ernment can'help us in this en-
deavor," said Cbaney. "Please re-
lease the water quality funds
before it's too late."
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE
5/3/88
-------
PAGETZ^SANDPOINT OM-Y BEE-TCES^AY 3(^988
•;-£:&**-•• •. ~~»^i»i=-a.,i,;.^-^ ..• -',,.,.-ii?.=i8iS*iSE£*iS*=--C-•
Water-quality ffflli too important for this
It's been said before and probably
will be again, but the point has to be
made as many times as possible when,
it comes to talking the federal goveirn-
ment into releasing approved funding.
for Pend Oreille and Clark Fork waterf
quality studies: Let our money go.*-;®
First, $300,000 in funding was tiecfup
by "the Environmental Protection
Agency after people who care about
water quality in North Idaho, eastern
Washington and western Montana had
been told the money would be coming.
Now, it's the Office of Management
and Budget that has opted to not re-
lease the water-quality study funding.;
Our people in Congress—Rep. Larry
Craig and Sens. Jim McClure and Steve
Symms^"agree that that money should
be released by the federal government
.spjt can do some good. Gov. Cecil Aih
dru^alsp has lent his support to the
effort to get the money freed up". ;
.Thanks to bureaucrats making de-
cisions after elected officials have
mandated it;- however, the funding
could not do any good this year. It's
May, and that's too late to begin mean-
ingful data collecting for this season.
~_The congressional delegation should
be encouraged to keep up the fight to
get the funding needed to gather water-
quality data on the Pend Oreille and
Clark Fork rivers and Lake Pend
.Oreille.-: Too much' time has been lost
already as these waters become "more
polluted with each passing day.
-"Even the EPA has logged onto the
support side of theledgei*. And if all this
wrangling does no good,.Craig has
promised to introduce new legislation
to get the funding. •. ~::~
But he shouldn't have to do that. The
funding has been approved. Again: Let
our money go. Our water is top precious
to be lost over infighting in Washing-
ton, D.C. ••-—.- -~~:4~-: .-:^--~ '-•-'•- :
-------
Funding salvaged lor Lake Pend Orcille study
By Dean Miller
5I*H wril«r
SANpPOINT - Last week's meeting be-
tween the heads of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the Office of Manage-
m$nt and Budget appears to have salvaged
funding for the Lake Pend Orellle/Clark
Fork River pollution study. '
• But « $700,000 study of pollution in the
RatbdrunvSpokane aquifer- Is still held up
and the money may not be freed. • _•, •
Officials in Washington, D.C., and Idaho
said Wednesday that EPA administrator
Lee Thomas was able to convince OMB di-
reqtor James C. Miller III to release the
$300,009 Congress set aside to study algae
growth here, ..-.;,.- •.•"V:"?J" ':';•"
- "You've beard it before, the check's in
the mail," said Mike Beckwith, the Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality, staffer
who will direct the project here, j- • -&•—• -
Rep. Larry Craig, R-IdahO, said hf and
Thomas were able to convince Miller that
the study was not a "pork barrel" project
of Interest to a single congressman.-•'.
"It is a trl-state Issue, said Craig, who
pointed out that the study will affect Idaho,
Montana and Washington. -
"That, plus the fact that It is not an on-
going appropriation, are the reasons they
felt they could pull this water quality study
out of the group," he said. -r •••'.:.- ^.
Craig said that because this, study was
written Into the EPA's budget and not sim-
ply appended to It, as many special inter,-,
est projects are, the OMB felt it was a le-
gitimate way to spend EPA money. ••. ~r
The Rathdrum-Spokane aquifer study
needs to move ahead In tandem with the
Lake Pend Oreitle/Ciark Fork River pro]-
ect, said Craig, who said be is still lobbying
Miller to release those funds.. ..'..--' •>,
Beckwith said that most of the study
season is already lost, but that some work.
will get under way, including a study in
which tiles are bung In the lake to see how
fast 'algae grows in different parts of the
lake: •;/.'. : . ;
• An aide to Craig said the congressman
, spoke with Miller Wednesday morning,
when Miller announced the funds would be
released,--': ' , .
', •'. Congress funded both studies last year,
but OMB held up the funds as part of a
. review of the federal budget.
,iTbomas^went to bat for the two local'
. projects and three others In a meeting last
week. •••_•--.....
,. The budget-pinching OMB has been bat-.
.tllng with Congress for more than a month
over 246 projects In a number of agencies.
At stake is $6.9 billion. ' •-
Miller claims that since the directions
for spending the money were in accompa-
nying "committee report*," never formal-
ly adopted by Congress, they do not have
the force of law.." • ; «• r
But Sen. Jim McClure, R-ldaho, said
Wednesday that Miller is exercising budg-
eting powers that administration agency
heads do not have.
"I think if Congress has the power of the
purse, we ought to insist that they spend
the money," said McClure. '
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1988
THE SPOKESMAN-REVIEW
PACat B
THE NORTH
REGIONAL NEWS
HANDLE
BUSINESS
ON PAGE B3
-------
Spokesman REVIEW 7/22/88
3-year study will focus on Peiid Ofeille, Clark Fork
By Dean Miller
Stafl writer
The patient, which lies stretched
across three states, will be sampled,
poked, prodded and photographed. In
three years, researchers hope to have
enough information for a diagnosis.
At a standing-room-only meeting
Wednesday night, the Clark Fork Coali-
tion and a bevy of scientists laid out for
the public their plans for a three-year
study of the Clark Fork River, Lake
.Fend Oreille and the Pend Oreille Riv-
er.
Armed with $300,000 in federal
grants this year, they are hoping to
team more about what makes algae
grow in the water and slime coat shore-
line rocks in the big lake.
In the Pend Oreille River, they will
seek the cause of a Eurasian Milfoil
plague. In the Clark Fork River, they
will keep an eye on how Missoula sew-
age, heavy-metal mine waste and paper
mill waste affect fish and other aquatic
life.
"This is the beginning of a lifelong
job," said Mike Beckwith, the Division
of Environmental Quality limnologist
who will oversee the half-dozen agen-
cies studying Lake Pend Oreille. Beck-
with told the crowd that after scientists
get a better idea what is causing pollu-
tion problems in Lake Pend Oreflle, the
public will be asked to choose a plan to
maintain high water quality here.
About 100 people packed the Edge-
water Lodge conference room, which
has a wall of windows overlooking the
lake.
"Lake Pend Oreille is aging faster
than it should due to man's activities;
we need to find out what all those activ-
ities are," said Ruth Watkins, a Sand-
point woman active in the Clark Fork
Coalition's three-year battle to win
funding for the study.
Lacking the staff to take on the study
of Idaho's largest lake and the rivers
that flow into and out of it, Beckwith's
agency has contracted with other agen-
cies to compile data on the lake's health
and other characteristics.
The U.S. Geological Survey will sam-
ple the lake's water at five locations
and will keep track of the amount of
water and its nutrient content flowing
from the following streams: Clark Fork
River, Lightning Creek, Rapid Light-
ning Creek, Pack River, Sand Creek,
Priest River, and the Pend Oreille Riv-
er at Newport. ;
University of Idaho researchers
working under Professor Mike Falter:
will continue hanging unglazed ceramic
tiles in 20 shallow areas of the lake to'
see where algae grows fastest.
Bonner County's Planning Depart-
ment wijl provide researchers with an
inventory of how land around the lake is
used, said county planner Lorin Morgan.
-------
Fridav
SERVINC3 BONDER COUNtY FftQM SANDPOINTrlpAHQSlNCg|S^
SEPTEMBER 16, 1988 Vol. xxm No: 76
Cocolallaman
•«•< ft, A _> '"t»?*i* * •*» *•* •"* J *
Carl Hddeich of Cocolalla
announqeCSI the top.win-
Thursday In the Montana
Lottery's ^Million Dollar Big
Be and his wife Neomi went
to Butte Thursday to pick up
their check for $5,000. ' *
Mtfuj Heidenreich said said
the cotfple Bid bought the ticket
"somewhere in Montana" when
they stopped to get gas while
returning from; a family reunion
She said they learned of their
windfall a week ago. Amounts
$5,000 and under are not taxed
so "we got the whole thing", she
said. I?.-.- • •• „. ,
• Heidenreich indicated .much
of the money would go for bills
since-'we've been unemployed
for a lolilpime". :, :i««^ ~- ,
Peggy thurston of Missoula
won |4,000 and Linda Meyer of
/^•.m.kt.tl ttr... —__ »0 /VIA
Water quality public forum set
A question and answer session about the upcoming
Lake Pend Oreille water quality study will be held at
7:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Edgewater Lodge meet-
ing room.
The meeting is sponsored by the Clark Fork Coali-
tion and Greater Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce.
The three-year water quality study of Lake Pend
Oreille will begin next month.
"For the next three years, our lake will be the
subject of an intensive study. At Wednesday's meet-
ing the public can find out exactly what the re-
searchers will be looking for, and what they'll do with
the data once they get it," coalition member Ruth
Watkins said.
The meeting's purpose is to inform people about
the study. Information will be provided on what re-
searchers are looking for; what they'll do with
gathered information; how the public can get in-
volved; and how the study will affect recreation and
people who live in the county.
"We are looking for citizens who are interested in
doing some limited technical water quality sampling
in the bays of Pend Oreille," Watkins said.
After the stildy is completed, the public will be
given the opportunity to have a say in management of
the resource.
The agenda will include:
• A slide show, "Crossroads of a Troubled River",
about the issues facing Lake Pend Oreille and the
Clark Fork River.
• A lake study overview by project coordinator
Mike Beckwith of the Idaho Division of Environmen-
tal Quality.
• Goals and roles of agencies involved with the
study. Included are Paul Woods, U.S. Geological
Survey; Dr. Mike Falter, University of Idaho; Lorin
Morgan, Bonner County planner; Bob Camp, Pan-
handle Health District; and Watkins, Clark Fork
Coalition.
• Coalition researcher Bruce Fading also will
discuss the Rock Creek mining project in western
Montana and what it could mean to Lake Pend
Oreille.
"What we have here is an outstanding opportunity.
It is essential that the business community and the
public at large become involved in this process if we
are to have a meaningful effect on the lake's water
quality," Watkins said.
The study is funded by federal Clean Water Act
money from EPA. Estimated total funding could
reach $400,000. EPA grant money also is being used to
study the Clark Fork River in Montana and the Pend
Oreille River in Washington.
-------
••'"-"• "SPOKESMAN REVIEW SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1988
NORTH IDAHO ROUNDUP
• At a standing-room-only meet-
ing- Wednesday night, the Clark
Fork Coalition and a bevy of scien-
tists laid out for the public their
plans for a three-year study of the
Clark Fork River, Lake Pend
Oreille, and the Pend Oreille River.
Armed with $300,000 in federal
grants this year, they are hoping to
learn more about what makes al-
gae/grow in the water and slime
coat shoreline rocks in the big lake.
In the Pend Oreille River, they
will seek,the cause of a Eurasian
Milfoil plague. In the Clark Fork
Riyer, they will keep an eye on how
Missoula sewage, heavy metal
mine waste, and paper mill waste
af fject fish and other aquatic life.
"This is the beginning of a life-
long job," said Mike Beckwith, the
Division of Environmental Quality
limnologist who will oversee the
half-dozen agencies studying Lake
Pend Oreille.
The big lake got about $152,000
of the $300,000 set aside for the
project this year. Beckwith told the
crowd that after scientists get a
better idea what is causing pollu-
tion problems in lake Pend Oreille,
the public will be asked to choose a
plan to maintain high water quality
here. :
If Wednesday's crowd was any
indication of public interest, the
study will be closely watched and
government officiate should have
little difficulty gathering citizens'
opinions on how the lake should be
managed.
About 100 people packed the
Edgewater Lodge conference room,
which has a wall of windows over-
looking the lake. •
"Lake Pend Oreille is aging fast-
er than it should due to man's activ-
ities; we need to find out what all
those activities are," said Ruth
Watkins, a Sandpoint woman active
in the Clark Fork Coalition's three-
year battle to win funding for the
study.
Researchers will take to the lake
in October.
-------
JANUARY 17,1990
35CEN
Funds guarantee lake study completion
ByBILLBULEY
Staff writer
SANDPOINT - A three-year
study of local waters should be
completed on time in 1991 thanks to
a financial present from Uncle
Sami'
The Environmental Protection
Agency water quality study of
Lake Pend Oreille and the Clark
Fork and Pend Oreille Rivers will
receive $339,750 for fiscal year
1990,. according to Idaho. Con-
gressman Larry Craig.
Mandated in an amendment he
helped attach to the Clean Water
Act passed in January 1987, the
comprehensive, tri-state study has
received similar installments in
fiscal years 1988 and 1989.
Section 525 of the Clean Water
Act requires the EPA to conduct a
comprehensive study of the
sources of the pollution in Lake
Pend Oreille; M the Clark Fork
River and its tributaries in Idaho,
Montana and Washington. ^
Ruth Watkins, representative of
the Clark Fprk Coautibn and local
water quality,' ad voca te, ,«aid the
funds' will bringj»b$ut the comple-
tion of the'three^year study"begun
fc '
This chunk "of money will com*
plete the fjj&'f|8f.pf thejffiidy,"
she said. £ We knew all along it was
'
going to get the money to finish it
up — we were all expecting it."
But according to Craig, the funds
were not easy to come by. Even
after Congress passed the Clean
Water Act with the amendment,
Idaho Senator'Jim McClure and
Craig had to convince the White
House to release fiscal year 1988's
portion; ' A'';;': '
The Clark Fork Coalition has
been participating on the technical
and and policy, "advisory commit-
tees during the iehgth'y study.
Watkins said the "whole Idea (of
the study) is to find out the amount
of nuiHeriU going to the system'
and wfiere they're coming from"
to develop a water management
plan. -
She noted the results of the
study, along with public input, will
comprise the completed manage-
ment plan for the three states..
Watkins said water quality agen-
cies from the three states — the
Department of Ecology from
Washington, the Division of En-
vironmental Quality from Idaho,
and a Montana water quality de-
partment have "meshed together
well" on the project. '.-••;
A United States Geological Sur-
vey team and the University, of
• Idaho are the two main organiza-',.
tions "out on the water doing the;:
sampling^ according to Watkins.
3he said officials from" ihe Bon-
ner County Planning; Department,
Eastern Washington^ University
and the Panhawfle Health District
':
sma^$mm^-^
.': "Idahbtoir*^'^*'•-••••' - --
^^M^
results
to be
[FUNDS
- CONTINUED from page 1
^complete and presented to Con-
• gress by late 1991.
^^comprehensive look at the
problem Is necessary so we can
avoid'patchwork solutions to re-
"rional water quality problems,"
hi said. "Idaho, Montana,
'Washington, the EPA and other
federal and local entities must
move as quickly as possible to im-
- piement long term solutions."
-------
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE
4/7/91
Pend Oreille Lake nutrient loading studied
By MIKE McLEAN
Staff writer
SAXDPOINT - A U.S. Geologi-
cal Sun vy study indicates that most
of the phosphorous and nitrogen
m;;ri
-------
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE
5/1/91
Study reveals Pend Oreille is really two lakes
By CAROLINE LOBSINGER
Staff writer" ;-
SANPPQINT r- Lake Pend
OreilleJs more than it seems at
first glance. In fact, a recent study
shows the lake really has two sep-
arate identities.
The Initjal.study of the lake,
completed last year, shows that
Lake Pend Oreille is really two
different lakes, said Ruth Watkins
of the Clark Fork Coalition.
Watkins is the chair of the Idaho
policy committee, which is study-
ing the lake.
Ruth Watkins
The report brt the Clark
Fork/Pend, Oreille Basin was
recently released by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. It
details efforts by groups and
agencies in Washington, Idaho
and Montana to preserve the
60,000-square-mile basin.
Lake Pend Oreille is not only a
open, deep water lake, it is also a
shallow, near-shore bay, Watkins
said.
The shallow, near-shore areas
of the lake are highly degraded
and show signs of high use.
"Thafs.'evidenced by the algae
we see.there and the heavy weed
growth,"jhe said.".,
The areas where the lake is the
most affected are also the areas
where there's been the most
development
"I think we can draw some con-
clusions from that," she said.
The more development there is,
the more the area is affected and
we see more impact on the water
quality." ' • .
While the near-sh,9re areas of
the lake show signs of high use,
Lakes
Continued from Page 1
The agency has completed 8-10
surveys of the open, deep water
areas of the lake and has to com-
plete any of the shallow, near-
shore sections, Watkins said.
Watkins said she would like to
see a lot more simulations done
on the shallow, near-shore areas.
The remaining simulations could
be completed by late spring or
earlysunilher., -,,. • ':-.•'-,'•;' •'•
"I feelthe simulations for the
near-shore areas are the ones
the deep sections of the lake are
in good shape, Watkins said.
"The open waters are really in
very good shape and are of very
high quality," she added.
The information gathered by
the policy committee and the var-
ious agencies involved in the pro-
ject is being feed into a computer
simulation program by the U.S.
Geological Survey. The simula-
tions will help the group deter-
mine what could be done to pre-
serve the hasin.
See LAKES, Page 12
most likely to give us the direc- •
tiori we need to come up with a
lake management plan," she said.
The management plan needs to
be developed and approved by
the public before the end of the
year, she said.
The goal of the Idaho policy
committee is to develop a twofold
approach to a lake management
plan.
"We want to maintain the high
quality water we're seeing in the
open Waters and at the same time
we need to make every effort to
improve the degraded conditions
-------
Water expert points finger
MISSOULIAN
11/22/91
Sewage plants staining river
By SHERRY DEVUN
of the Missoulian
Sewage treatment plants in Missoula, Deer
I-odgc and Butte are the biggest sourccs'of the
oollution that strangles the Clark Fork River with
algae each summer, a state water quality specialist
said Thursday.
Gary Ingman said a three-year study of
nutrient pollution along 320 miles of the Clark
Fork — from Butte to Idaho's Lake Pcnd Orcille
- traced the river-greening algae to phosphorus
and nitrogen discharged by the sewer plants.
Other polluters included Stone Container
Corp.'s pulp mill at Frenchtown and the many
farms and ranches along the Clark Fork and its
tributaries.
In worst shape is the upper river from Warm
Springs to Missoula, where Ingman said heavy
growths of algae likely are caused by a
combination of high sewage loads (from Butte and
Deer Lodge), agricultural runoff and low stream
flows (from irrigation).
Ingman's research, presented to an evening
meeting of the Clark Fork Coalition, was part of
a Si-million, three-state effort to pinpoint sources
of phosphorus and nitrogen in the Clark Fork
River basin. It will be included in a draft
management plan for the basin to be released
early next year.
River
(continued)
While Missoula's sewer plant
remains the largest single source
of phosphorus and nitrogen in the
Clark Fork, Ingman applauded a
.local phosphate detergent ban for
reducing tjie plant's phosphorus
discharges by 44 percent,
Missoula banned phosphate de-
tergents in May 1989; Superior
and Alberton have similar restric-
tions.
Because phosphorus is dis-
solved in water and not tied to soil
particles, it encourages the rapid
growth of algae in the river. When
the algae decomposes, it uses oxy-
gen needed by fish.
The result, Ingman said, is a
river that often "turns green from
b'ank to bank in the summer,"
when stream flows are low and
algae growth is quick. It smells,
kills fish and is a menace to fish-
ermen and floaters.
Downstream, the worry is that
nutrients will flow into Lake Fend
Oreille and ruin its transparent
water quality, Ingman said. The
lake is now algae-free.
Thus, Ingman's preliminary
recommendations:
• Enact bans on the sale of
phosphate detergents in Butte and
Deer Lodge.
• Establish a consistent and
aggressive policy within the state
Water Quality Bureau that prohib-
its new or enlarged sources of nu-
trient pollution along the Clark
Fork.
• Encourage cities, including
Missoula, to consider new ways to
reduce nutrient pollution — such
as irrigating ana fertilizing, fields
with sewage effluent.
• Control the agricultural
sources contributing nutrients to
-------
INDEPENDENT RECORD
Helena. MT 59601
'3.200XSun 13.760)
• MT 59105-0789
Cities sewage greens Clark Fork • ~~
MONTANA STANDARD
Butte. MT 59701
(Daily l7.500XSun. 17800)
NOV 2 4 199|
SUPERIOR CUPPING SERVICE
. MT 591050789
GREAT FALLS TRIBUNE
Great Foils, MT 59403
(Daily 33.964XSun. 40.955)
NOV 2 4 1991
SUPERIOR CLIPPING SERVICE
Billings, MT 59105-0789
Sewage plants clog Clark Fork
&/ MISSOULA (AP) — Sewage treatment plants in Missoula, Deer Lodge
and Butte are the biggest sources of the pollution that strangle the Clark
Fork River with algae each summer, a state water quality specialist says
Gary Ingman said a three-year study of nutrient pollution along 320
miles of the dark Fork - from Butte to Idaho's Lake Pend Oreille -
traced the river-greening algae to phosphorus and nitrogen discharged by
the sewer plants.
Other polluters included Stone Container Corp.'s pulp mill at Frenchtown
and the many farms and ranches along the Clark Fork and its tributaries.
In worst shape is the upper river from Warm Springs to Missoula, where
Ingman said heavy growths of algae likely are caused by a combination of
high sewage loads from Butte and Deer Lodge, agricultural runoff and low
stream flows because of irrigation.
logman's research, presented to an evening meeting of the Clark Fork
Coalition Thursday, was part of a $1 million, three-state effort to pinpoint
sources of phosphorous and nitrogen in the Clark Fork River basin. It will
be included in a draft management plan for the basin to be released early
next year.
Sewage plants tagged as big polluters
MISSOULA (AP) - Sewage treat-
ment plants in Missoula, Deer Lodge
and Butte are the biggest sources of
the pollution that strangle the dark
Fork River with algae each summer,
a state water quality specialist says.
Gary fngman said a three-year
rtrient pollution along 320
miles of the river traced the algae to
phosphorus and nitrogen dis-
charged by the sewer plants.
Other polluters included Stone
Container Corp.'s pub) mill at
Frenchtown and die many farms
and randies along the Clark Fork
and its tributaries.
BILLINGS GAZETTE
Saunas. MT 59103
(Daily S6.554XSun. 59.452)
NOV 2 5 1991
SUPERIOR CLIPPING SERVICE
Billings. MT 5910&0789
Sewage plants blamed for clogging Clark Fork
HELENA (AP)-Sewage treat-
ment plants in Missoula, Deer Lodge
and Butte are the biggest sources of
the pollution that strangle the Clark
Fork River with algae each summer,
a state water quality specialist says.
Gary Ingman said a three-year
study of nutrient pollution along 320
miles of the Clark Fork—from Butte
to Idaho's Lake Pend Oreille — tra-
ced the river-greening algae to phos-
phorus and nitrogen discharged by
the sewer plants.
Other polluters included Stone
Container Corp.'s pulp mill at
Frenchtown and the many farms and
ranches along the Clark Fork and its
tributaries.
In worst shape is the upper river
from Warm Springs to Missoula,
where Ingman said heavy growths of
algae are probably caused by a com-
bination of high sewage loads from
Butte and Deer Lodge, agricultural
runoff and low stream flows because
of irrigation.
-------
VOL. 26 NO. 162
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 8,1991
ONE DOLLAR
Pend Oreille Lake
workshops Dec. 18
SANDPOINT — Informational
workshops on a proposed list of
Pend Oreille Lake management
alternatives have been scheduled
for Wednesday, Dec. 18 at the
Athol Elementary School
Library, and Thursday, Dec.19 at
the Federal Building off Dover
Highway in Sandpoint.
The workshops will begin at 7
p.m. Residents of the Pend
Oreille Lake watershed and/or
all interested citizens are encour-
aged to attend one of these meet-
ings.
The workshops are sponsored
by the Idaho Division of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ). The pur-
pose is to present the final results
of studies from the three year
Lake Pend Oreille Project, and
importantly, to elicit public
response and comments on man-
agement alternatives which could
be applied within the lake water-
shed to protect and preserve the
quality of Pend Oreille Lake.
Public input from the meetings
will be incorporated into the
development and implementation
of a Lake Management Plan.
The list of management alter-
natives focus on public education.
guidelines, and enforceable regu-
lations to control lake pollutants
within the following areas: Road
construction; forest practices;
agriculture; fertilizer use; septic
systems; stormwater; boat use;
shoreline burning; metals toxid-
ty; construction; development
density; point source.
For any questions regarding
the workshops call Glen
Rothrock, DEQ, Coeur d'Alene,
667-3524.
-------
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE
12/11/91
Guest Opinion
'Prescription' coming for our
patient, Lake Pend Oreille
By RUTH WATKINS
Consider for a moment this scenario: a
patient goes tovthe doctor for help :with
an ailment after ar^full examination, the
prognosis is good, but the doctor pre-
scribes jsome remedies to ease the
patient's symptoms and to prevent future
problems. . •
Now imagine this patient as a body of
water — Lake Pend Oreille, to be exact
— which has been examined from one
end to the other over the last few years
by state and federal researchers. These
"doctors" have declared our "patient's"
open, waters to be hi good health. How-
ever, signs of degradation have been
found in the lake's nearshore areas, hi
the form of a heavy algae, weeds and
scum. So a prescription has been written
to maintain the patient's good health and
to help improve the trouble spots.
Who has a say in how the prescription
will read? You do!
In mid-December, the state Division of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) will hold
public workshops to unveil the "prescrip-
tion" — the long-awaited Lake Pend
Oreille Management Plan. The impor-
tance of this plan cannot be overstated: if
properly written and enforced, it will be
a powerful tool for protecting the lake
for ourselves and future generations.
So what is this lake management plan?
The plan is a document that will set spe-
cific measures for controlling polluting
activities in the lake's watershed. The
plan will address such things as septic
systems, erosion, stormwater, fertilizers,
development, construction and forest
and agricultural practices. While com-
munity education will play a key role in
carrying out the plan, certain control
measures in the plan will be adopted by
local governments and will be enforce-
able.
A sampling of the options possible for
our lakes prescription include:
• setting specific guidelines for road
construction, general construction, set-
backs, fertilizer use, boat use and other
high-impact activities;
• improving requirements for dense
development;
• inspecting septic systems on a
mandatory basis in lakeshore and
streamside areas;
• developing county-wide erosion and
stormwater ordinances;
• providing tax incentives for
improved agricultural practices in sensi-
tive areas.
DEQ, with the help of an advisory
committee comprised of local organiza-.
tions, citizens and elected officials, has
put together a draft plan and wants your
opinions. Mark your calendar now and
help do your part to protect Lake Pend
Oreille for future generations. Attend the
workshop nearest you:
Wednesday, Dec. 18, 7-9 p.m., Athol
Elementary School Library;
Thursday, Dec. 19, 7-9 p.m.. Federal
Bldg., SandpoinL
Ruth Watkins is Pend Oreille Director
for the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition.
-------
BONNER COUNTY DAILY BEE
7/2/92
Water quality plan
ignores state borders
Focuses on needs of Lake Pend Oreille system
.By CAROLINE LOBSINGER
Staff writer
SANDPOINT — The most
unique part of the Clark Fork-
Pend Oreille Basin Management
Plan is how the plan hopes to
improve water quality in the In-
state area.
- "I think we're really onto some-
thing here," said Ruth' Watkins,
Pend Oreille director of the
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coali-
tion. "It's a good plan because it
looks at (the basin) as a system."
The approach attempts to
ignore the boundaries of the
three states which encompass
the system, Watkins said.
Instead, it focuses on the needs
of the system and coordinates
what needs to be done to
improve water quality.
The basin-wide plan was
recently completed by agencies
and groups in the three states.
Public hearings are scheduled
for mid-July to gather public tes-
timony on die plan.
Hearings are: July 13, Deer
Lodge Community Center, 416
Cottonwood, Deer Lodge, Mont.;
July 14, Holiday Inn Parkside,
200 South Pattee, Missoula, Mont; July 15, Federal
: Building, Highway 2, Sandpoint; July 16, Newport
. fire Hall, W. 309 2nd Ave., Newport, Wash.
The basin-wide plan
was recently complet-
ed by agencies and
groups in the three
states.
Coalition study
sets goals ;
Based on state findings and
recommendations, the steering
committee of the Clark' Fork-
Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality
Study recommended the follow-
ing water quality management
goals and objectives for the basin:
Goal: • • .••'• • <.-"
Restore and protect designated
,, beneficial water uses basin-wide.
Objectives: ••••\i-f\'^^':i'^^'-
. • • Control nuisance algae in the
See GOALS, Page 8
All workshops will •li.'irt
with a review period Cor
maps, reading malerials and
displays at 6:30 p.m. Discus-
sion will be heard from 7-
9:30 p.m.
The Clark Fork-Pond
Oreille Basin Management
Plan began as a response to
the concerns and complaints
about the growing presence
of weeds and algae in the
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Basin. Following the com-
plaints, Congress directed
the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to conduct a
comprehensive water quality
study in the basin.
The basin encompasses
26,000 square miles of land
and waters in Idaho, Mon-
tana and Washington. The
Clark Fork River begins near
Butte, Mont., and flows into
Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho.
The lake is the source of the
Pend Oreille River in north-
eastern Washington.
Each state took responsi-
bility for identifying research
objectives within its bound-
aries and recommending
See PLAN, Pago. 8
Plan
Continued from Page 1
state-specific management
actions that would meet the
basin-wide study objectives.
The main objectives of the
study were to characterize water
quality problems, identify
pollution sources and
recommend actions for
protecting and restoring water
quality throughout the basin.
In order to restore the basin, a
number of measures were
proposed in the plans to reduce
nutrient concentrations in the
Clark Fork River, reduce local
sources of nutrients around Lake
Pend Oreille and control milfoil
infestations in the Pend OreiDe
River.
Condition of the lake depends
on the area discussed, Watkins
said. The same is true of the
svstem as a whole.
Goals
Continued from Page 1
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 the degradation of
nearshore water quality in Lake
Pend Oreille by reducing local
nutrient sources.
• Improve Pend Oreille River
water quality through
macrophyte management-and
tributary non-point source
controls.
Actions:
The recommended
management actions range from
mechanical harvesting of aquatic
weeds, comprehensive public
education programs, control of
agricultural and residential rion-
point sources, revised permit
limits on point sources and
developing and enforcing local
zoning and storm-water
ordinances.
-------
B4 THE SPOKESMAN-REVIEW km SPOKANE CHRONICLE Thursday. July 9, 1992, Spokane. Wash.
Public gets first ioofe j
ait proposal to protect
- - A A A
three-state waterway
By Julie Titone
Staff writer
After three years of study, the En-
vironmental Protection Agency will
unveil a draft management plan to
protect the water quality of the Clark
Fork-Pcnd Oreille Basin.
A scries of public workshops sched-
uled this month is a benchmark in ef-
forts to protect the three-state water-
way from pollution.
For activists like Ruth Watkins —
wjiojive years ago began fighting for
tfHW to pay for the study — this is
: to rest up before going back to
in search of more funds to
___ ; plan into action.
r23here's a new Clean Water Act
cgnlpg up. I understand we've al-
feJlJjy got language in there to contin-
Bg-wth the project,'1 said. the Sand-
pom? staff member of the Clark
fijr£Pend Oreille Coalition.
act passes with that language
intact, she said, "then we have to
sjart'another campaign to raise mon-
eyjor implementation."
l^Dae study was prompted by con-
cjjJCover the growing presence of al-
ga^and weeds in the waterways of
tfjp^26,000-square-mile basin. The
Clai* Fork River begins near Butte,
&G&., and flows into Idaho's Lake
Ee5d Oreille. The lake is the source
Cfcvlhe Pend Oreille River in
£ie(ftheastern Washington.
"""Workshops to describe the draft
management plan and accept public
comment are scheduled for Monday
at the Deer Lodge (Mont.) Commu-
nity Center, Tuesday at the Holiday
Inn Parksidc in Missoula, July 15 at
the Federal Building in Sand point,
and July 16 at the Newport Fire
Hall. Each will begin at 7 p.m.
The plan recommends many ac-
tions. Among them: mechanical har-
vesting of aquatic weeds, comprehen-
sive public education programs
revised permit limits on sources of
pollution; developing and enforcing
local zoning and stormwater ordi-
nances; control of agricultural and
residential pollution.
One priority that may be contro-
versial, Watkins said, is installing
sewers to serve new developments and
to replace septic tanks in lakeside
communities.
The plan also calls for instituting
phosphate detergent bans in any com-
munities that don't already have
them. Phosphates are nutrients that
promote weed and algae growth.
The main recommendation is es-
tablishment of a tri-state council that
will implement the management plan.
"I like the way EPA is trying to
look at the entire river-lake-river sys-
tem as a system," Watkins said.
"They're not trying to chop it up, say-
ing this is Montana's problem, this is
Idaho's problem, this is Washington's
problem."
-------
BONNER COUNTY DAILY BEE 7/14/92
Guest opinion
MMUU* Upmiliii
EPA wants to hear opinions
on how to manage lake
H lAfft%Av%* "7 r\ m \l\lf\f4r\£\f*s4+\\g Kinor tfiA WQfriar rtf fifo^ciictaiTV
• When: 7 p.m., Wednesday
• Where: Federal Building
By RUTH WATKINS
On July 15, the .Environmental Protec-
tion Agency is coming to Sandpoint with
a mission.
After five years of studying and theo-
rizing over the Clark Fork River, Lake
Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River,
EPA is finally ready to unveil a basinwide
plan for reducing nutrient pollution in
the Clark Fork/Pend Oreille watershed
of western Montana, northern Idaho and
eastern Washington. A draft of this plan
will be presented in Sandpoint, as in oth-
er basin communities, giving area resi-
dents an unprecedented opportunity to
help shape first-hand, a strategy for
improving water quality. :
Here's our chance to voice our ideas
on how to reduce the pollution of Lake
Pend Oreille. Excessive nutrients come
to the lake from a variety of sources:
from upstream industrial dischargers
like the Frenchtown pulp mill; from
sewage plants like the Missoula facility
that alone provides over half the nutri-
ents coming to the lake from the riven
and — let's not forget! — from local
activities around the lake itself.
Why should we care about nutrients?
Because nutrients stimulate the growth
of algae and weeds, which in abundance
can choke the lake's bays. Too much
algae and weed growth makes the lake
less appealing for recreational use and
can adversely affect aquatic life by rob-
bing the water of life-sustaining oxygen.
So HOW'S the time to speak up. At the
workshop, representatives from the
three states-water quality agencies will
explain their-part in the plan for dealing
with nutrient pollution.-Luckily, the plan
takes a basmwideapproach, so that each
state is not just operating in its own little
w>rld. For instance, Montana has devel-
oped recommendations that control nui-
sance levels of algae in the Clark Fork
River and reduce the nutrient pollution
that the river^dumps; into 'Lake Pend
Oreille. Idaho plans to work with Mon-
tana to reduce the river's nutrient pollu-
tion/but will also emphasize controlling
local nutrient sources. Washington will
stress control of.Eurasian milfoil, the
aggressive aquatic weed that is march-
ing up the Pend Oreilie River toward the
lake, and will also seek to reduce
sources of pollution in that river's tribu-
taries. ^ -- '':;'-:
Put simply, EPA has compiled a three-
state plan to help facilitate an upstream
state's pollution-reducing efforts to bene-
fit a downstream statevThis is a concept
worthy of our attention.
As moderator of the workshop, EPA
wants to hear our opinions on the man-
agement strategies" and'will incorporate
our ideas into the"final plan and the
report going to Oongress'ihis fall. Come
to the workshop and have some say on
the future health of the lake.
The Wednesday workshop will begin
at 7 p.m. at the Federal Building.
Watkins is the Pend Oreille director of
the Clark Fork/Pend Oreille Coalition.
-------
MISSQULIAN 7/14/92
MISSOULIAN EDITORIAL.
A statewide ban is better
Montanans can do just fine
without phosphate detergents
Authorities from three states and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency want to
broaden local bans on phosphate detergents
in an effort to reduce the flow of nutrients that
promote the growth of algae in the Clark Fork
River and Lake Pend Orielle. It's a fine idea, as far
as it goes.
But why stop with a basinwide phosphate ban?
Given the plentiful supply of economical and
elf^tiye_alternatiyesJo_phosphate-detergents, why „
not do away with phosphate detergents altogether?
Rather than tackle the problem on a piecemeal
basis, one city or one county at a time, the ban on
phosphate detergents ought to be made statewide,
at least.
Some producers of phosphate detergents argue
that phosphate-free detergents are more expensive,
less effective at cleaning and don't reduce pollution
much anyway. However, experience has proved
such claims unfounded.
Requiring consumers to buy phosphate-free
detergents has cut the amount of phosphorus the
city's sewage treatment plant spews into the Clark
•Fork River by about 40 percent — without causing
an epidemic of ring around the collar. Kalispell's
switch to phosphate-free detergents also has
substantially reduced the amount of algae-
promoting phosphorus flowing into Flathead Lake.
If there's been any increase in cost, it's been so
slight we haven't noticed it at the checkout counter.
Even if there were a significantly higher cost, it
would most certainly be cheaper (not to mention
more logical) than installing facilities necessary to
remove phosphorus from sewage.
Phosphates in detergent end up in rivers, lakes
or ground water when you pour them down the
drain. Normal sewage treatment doesn't remove
much phosphorus from the waste stream.
Phosphorus acts as a fertilizer for plants, which is
why it stimulates algae growth. Huge blooms of
algae not only are unsightly, but they also affect a
river or lake's ability to support other aquatic life.
Localized experiments with phosphate bans in
several western Montana communities have
confirmed what 40 percent of the nation alteady
knew from firsthand experience — banning
phosphate detergents is a cheap, easy and effective
means of reducing pollution. What more could we
ask for? Let's apply what we've learned.
-------
6—The Montana Standard, Butte, Tuesday, July 14, 1992
Montana
Study says phosphate detergent
ban needed in Western Montana
MISSOULA (AP) — State and
federal officials in Montana, Idaho
and Washington are pushing for a
ban on phosphate detergents in the
26,000-square-mile Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille watershed.
A new study by the states and the
Environmental Protection Agency
found sewage treatment plants in
Missoula, Deer Lodge and Butte as
the biggest sources of algae-produc-
ing nutrient pollution in the Clark
Fork River.
Nutrients, including phosphorus
and nitrogen, are stimulating the
growth of algae that chokes the
water and uses oxygen needed by
fish, according to the report.
Missoula's 1989 ban on the sale of
phosphate detergents has been a
success, the tri-state report says.
Phosphorus pollution from the city's
sewage treatment plant has
dropped by 40 percent.
Superior and Alberton in Montana
also have bans on phosphate deter-
gents.
The success has prompted a rec-
ommendation that the phosphate
detergent ban go basinwide, from
the Clark Fork River's headwaters
in Butte to Lake Pend Oreille in
Idaho and the Pend Oreille River in
northeastern Washington.
Also proposed are seasonal land
application of wastewater from the
Missoula sewage treatment plant,
centralized sewer systems for de-
veloped areas on Lake Pend Oreille,
and a tri-state watershed manage-
ment council.
"The problems have been identi-
fied. Now let's solve them," said
C.B. Pearson, executive director of
the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coali-
tion.
The new study includes several
surprising — and troubling — find-
ings, said Bruce Farling, conserva-
tion director at the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Coalition.
The lower Bitterroot River, for
example, gets half its nitrogen from
groundwater seepage in the Missou-
la area. The nitrogen is pollution
from leaky septic tanks in the MIS'-
soula Valley) Farling said.
Relative to their size, upper Clark
Fork and Flathead river tributaries
also contribute high concentrations
of nutrients to the river. The tribu-
taries are polluted by ranching,
agriculture, mining and timber.
Farling said the study empha-
sizes that "Idahoans also aren't tak-
ing care of their lakeshore. Leaky
septic tanks and poor landscaping
and construction practices are hav-
ing an impact at Lake Pend
Oreille," he said.
Sandpoint, Idaho, and its lake are
booming, "and that's hard on water
quality," said Farling.
Stone .Container Corp. near Mis-
soula is the good news in the just-
released report. The company's
pulp mill "has steadily reduced the
nutrient content of fts jyastewater
discharge over the past six y£3rs,"
the report says.
Farling said the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Coalition will work for fi-
nancing to act on the report's find-
ings.
"We want to work with ranchers
to promote better grazing habits,"
he said. "We want to talk about
more sophisticated technology at
the Missoula sewage plant. We want
to talk about phosphate bans. But
we need a few nickels to get the ball
rolling."
-------
BONNER COUNTY DAILY BEE Wednesday, July 15, 1992 5
Basin-wide phosphate ban sought
Watkins: Measure already working in North Idaho
By staff and
The Associated Press
MISSOULA — State and federal officials
in Montana, Idaho and Washington are
pushing for a ban on phosphate detergents in
the 26,000-square-mile Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille watershed.
A ban is already in effect in the North
Idaho portion of the watershed.
A new study by the states and the
Environmental Protection Agency found
sewage treatment plants in Missoula, Deer
Lodge and Butte as the biggest sources of
algae-producing nutrient pollution in the
Clark Fork River.
Phosphate detergent bans in Bonner and
Kootenai counties and a ban that keeps
distributors from selling phosphate
detergents in Spokane County has helped
reduce nutrient loading to North Idaho lakes,
said Ruth Watkins, Pend Oreille director for
the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition.
Nutrients, including phosphorus and
nitrogen, are stimulating the growth of algae
that chokes the water and uses oxygen
needed by fish, according to the report.
Missoula's 1989 ban on the sale of
phosphate detergents has been a success, the
tri-state report says. Phosphorus pollution
from the city's sewage treatment plant has
dropped by 40 percent.
Superior and Alberton in Montana also
have bans on phosphate detergents.
The success has prompted a
recommendation that the phosphate
detergent ban go basinwide, from the Clark
Fork River's headwaters in Butte to Lake
Pend Oreille in Idaho and the Pend Oreille
River in northeastern Washington.
Also proposed are seasonal land
application of wastewater from the Missoula
sewage treatment plant, centralized sewer
systems for developed areas on Lake Pend
Oreille, and a tri-state watershed
management council.
"The problems have been identified. Now
let's solve them," said C.B. Pearson,
executive director of the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Coalition.
The new study includes several surprising
— and troubling — findings, said Bruce
Farling, conservation director at the Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition.
The lower Bitterroot River, for example,
gets half its nitrogen from groundwater
seepage in the MissouIa.area.The nitrogen is
pollution from leaky septic tanks in the
Missoula Valley, Farling said.
-------
SPOKANE REVIEW
7/16/92
int
EPA brings basin plan to
Most pleased with agency's goals to protect wafequality
By Kevin Keating
Soffwriter - •
SANDPOINT— Community sew-
er systems for river and lakeshore de-
velopments, a three-state phosphate
ban and harvesting aquatic weeds are
all part of an EPA plan to protect
water quality in the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Basin.
The plan, a result of three years of
studies on the dark Fork River, Lake
Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille
River, was unveiled in Sandpoint
Wednesday for public opinion.
About 50 residents attended the
meeting, and most were pleased with
the plan to preserve the 22,000-
square-mile basin that winds through
Montana, Idaho and Washington.
"I think on the whole it's a good
document," said Ruth Watkins direc-
tor of the Sandpoint Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Coalition, a water-quality
watchdog group. "The key is looking
at the whole system and not segment-
ing it up by .states."
One resident, however, wss disap-
pointed with the small turnout and
another was skeptical that new regu-
lations wQl be enforced.
"A lot of these ideas are already on
the books but are not being enforced
now," he said.
Judith Lecfcrone, ran~EPA official
from Seattle disagreed. She said the
plan is practical and can and will be
enforced by local or federal agencies.
The EPA's eight goals include an
extensive public education program
and formation of a tri-state manage-
ment council. The council would over-
see and enforce the recommendations
and set up a water quality monitoring
network to see if the plan is working.
"Education is an important part,"
Watkins said. "We can't just tell peo-
ple they have to do this, this and this.
The public needs to undtstand the
problems and then tjat solutions will
become more acceptable."
One important goi' is to require
new developments on tMXwater to use
central sewer systems.
"We "have areas arourxT^h* lake
with high density developments, like
Hope, East Hope .and ''Clark Fork
where everyone" is still usng septics,"
Watkins said. := ;V "'^ vc-
The septic tanks" teach into the wa-
ter and promote weed _and algae
growth. The Idaho portion of the plan
suggests a county ordinance to re-
quire community wastewater treat-
ment systems ;£e ;in'place before
shoreline areas can be developed.
Other recommendations in the
three-state plan include controlling
eurasian milfoil, an aquatic weed that
has choked the Pend Oreille River on
the Washington; side of the Albeni
Falls Dam!
The plan suggests mechanically
harvesting the weed and researching
other ways to control it -
A three-state'phosphate ban is also
a high priority. Most communities
have already- banned phosphates ex-
cept for Butte, Moat, near the head-
waters of the dark Fork River.
Public comments on .the EPA plan
wffl be taken until Aug. 30,
-------
VOL 27 NO. 38
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1992
50 CENTS
Heavy metal, bypass
top lake concerns
By CAROLINE LOBSINGER
Staff writer
SANDPOINT — Questions
about how a proposed Highway
95 bypass would impact Lake
Pend Oreille highlighted con-
cerns of how to protect the
entire watershed during discus-
sion of the Clark Fork-Pend
Oreille Basin water quality
study Wednesday.
Heavy metal sediment in the
lake, near shore water quality
and impact of development in
the watershed were brought
out as concern during the two-
hour meeting. More than 50
people attended the meeting
hosted by the Environmental
Protection Agency on the tri-
state study.
See LAKE, Page 10
Coalition
proposal:
The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Basin water quality.study is;
-among a growtag.basin-wide
approach to water quality
improvement. Below is a
breakdown of the proposal
Goal:
Restore and protect desig-
nated beneficial water .'uses
basin-wide.
Objectives:
• Control nuisance algae in
the Clark Fork River by reduc-
ing nutrient concentrations.
See PROPOSAL, Page 10
—Daily Bee file photo
Bil! Middleton, a volunteer with the Lake Pend Oreille Pro-
ject, collects water samples last summer.
-------
Lake
Continued from Page 1
Residents said the impact of
the bypass if it goes through
Sand Creek from environmental
damage would be worse than
impact from nutrient loading and
other problems studied in the
report The outcome could affect
"the whole future of the lake,"
said one resident.
EPA representative Judith
Leckrone told residents the
concern could be included as a
priority in the study. That would
require the Idaho Transportation
Department work closely with
the Division of Environmental
Quality.
DEQ representative Brian
Hoelscher said the agency had
responded to any requests by the
ITD for input into the proposed
bypass. However, they were
asked only for concerns on the
Sand Creek route and not any
proposed alternatives, he said.
Possible heavy metal deposits
in Lake Pend Oreille also drew
concern as several residents
questioned whether any studies
had been done to determine what
levels, if any. exist in the lake.
Residents said recent studies on
near shore areas in Lake Coeur
d'Alene had discovered heavy
metal concentrations.
Heavy metal concentrations
were not included because of the
expense, said Ruth Watkins, local
director of the Clark Fork-Lake
Pend Oreille Coalition. Study for
the matter is expensive and the
decision was made to concentrate
on getting the most items
covered.
"We couldn't do the study with
the money we had," she said.
With several different sources
of water between the headwaters
of the basin and Lake Pend
Oreille, it's unlikely the
concentration is very high, said
Gary Ingman of the Montana
Water Quality Bureau.
Development near the lake is
a problem, residents said. The
results can be seen in septic tank
leaching, oiling of dirt roads near
the lake and an increasing
number of timber sales in the
region.
"[)e
-------
SPOKESMAN R&VIEW
7/16/92
EPA brings basin plan to Sandpoint
Most pleased with agency's goals to protect water quality
ty Kevin Keating
tiff writer
SANDPOINT — Community sew-
r systems for river and lakeshore de-
elopments, a three-state phosphate
an and harvesting aquatic weeds are
II part of an EPA plan to protect
•ater quality in the Clark Fork-Pend
toille Basin.
The plan, a result of three years of
.udies on the Clark Fork River, Lake
end Oreille and the Pend Oreille
jver, was unveiled in Sandpoint
/ednesday for public opinion.
About 50 residents attended the
leeting, and most were pleased with
te plan to preserve the 22,000-
luare-mile basin that winds through
(ontana, Idaho and Washington.
"I think on the whole it's a good
icument," said Ruth Watkins direc-
r of the Sandpoint Clark Fork-Pend
reille Coalition, a water-quality
itchdog group. "The key is looking
the whole system and not segment-
g it up by states."
One resident, however, was disap-
pointed with the small turnout and
another was skeptical that new regu-
lations will be enforced.
"A lot of these ideas are already on
the books but are not being enforced
now," he said.
Judith Leckrone, an EPA official
from Seattle disagreed. She said the
plan is practical and can and will be
enforced by local or federal agencies.
The EPA's eight goals include an
extensive public education program
and formation of a tri-state manage-
ment council. The council would over-
see and enforce the recommendations
and set up a water quality monitoring
network to see if the plan is working.
"Education is an important part,"
Watkins said. "We can't just tell peo-
ple they have to do this, this and this.
The public needs to understand the
problems and then the solutions will
become more acceptable."
One important goal is to require
new developments on the water to use
central sewer systems.
"We have areas around the lake
with high density developments, like
Hope, East Hope and Clark Fork
where everyone is stilt using septics,"
Watkins said.
The septic tanks leach into the wa-
ter and promote weed and algae
growth. The Idaho portion of the plan
suggests a county ordinance to re-
quire community wastewater treat-
ment systems be in place before
shoreline areas can be developed.
Other recommendations in the
three-state plan include controlling
eurasian milfoil, an aquatic weed that
has choked the Pend Oreille River on
the Washington side of the Albeni
Falls Dam.
The plan suggests mechanically
harvesting the weed and researching
other ways to control it.
A three-state phosphate ban is also
a high priority. Most communities
have already banned phosphates ex-
cept for Butte, Mont., near the head-
waters of the Clark Fork River.
Public comments on the EPA plan
will be taken until Aug. 30.
Conservationist
praises timber firms
for logging work
By Julie Titone
Staffwriier
A North Idaho conservationist known for his criti-
cism of logging practices is praising the work of two
companies in the Little North Fork of the Clear-
water River drainage.
Mark Solomon of Moscow belongs to a commit-
tee that came up with a list of logging rules specifi-
cally to protect the river, which the state has desig-
nated a "stream segment of concern." Last Friday
committee members visited three sites there: two op-
erations on land owned by Plum Creek Timber Co.,
and one by DAW Forest Products on land managed
by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
"DAW did a rather excellent job," Solomon said.
"There has been a marked improvement in Plum
Creek's timber practices on those two pieces of
ground," he added.
The Fish and Game land is within the Snow Peak
Wildlife Management Area. As part of a complex
land trade in which the state acquired land from
Plum Creek, DAW ended up with rights to remove
about half the volume of the old-growth timber from
one 64(fcacre section.
Please see LOQQINQ: B2
-------
THE MONTANA STANDARD JULY 17, 1992
AnacoiuUmiNfil
Quality of Clark Fork water
Reducing Butte's Metro Sewer discharge considered
Basinwide ban
on high-phosphorous
detergents among
ideas mentioned
By Peter Chapln
Standard Staff Writer
DEEH LODCJK - Modifying sew-
age disposal in Bulte and agricul-
tural practices in the Deer Lodge
area are included in 20 recommen-
dations proposed by the slate De-
partment of Health and Environ-
mental Science tor controlling algae
in Ihc Clark Fork River.
Representatives of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the state
Health Department and its counter-
park in Idaho and Washington con-
ducted a public meeting Monday in
Deer Lodge to discuss and take
comments on a study for cleaning
the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille water-
shed.
About a dozen people attended
(he meeting.
Plan by next fall
Reports from the three states will
be consolidated Into a management
plan by September 1993, along with
public comments taken through
Aug. 3.
Excessive nutrients — nitrogen
and phosphorus — fed into the
Clark Fork is blamed for its algae
problem, which In turn contributes
to similar problems In Lake Pend
Oreille, Idaho.
Gary ingman of the state Health
Department's Water Quality Bu-
reau outlined 20 recommendation
made by the department that fol-
lowed three years of study on the
Clark Fork River Basin, from Deer
Lodge to the Idaho state line, to
determine the types and sources of
nutrients that produce nuisance
algae each summer.
Clogs, oxygen, algae
Complaints about the algae that
started in the early 1970s Include
clogged Intakes, oxygen depletion
that threatens fish, and the nui-
sance of algae when it rots as the
river level falls.
Recommendations are divided
into point source controls — those
pertaining to specific sources of
concentrated nutrient loading —
and nonpoint controls, involving
generalized sources of contamina-
tion.
Disposal methods
One of the recommended point
source controls is to consider reduc-
ing nutrients from Ihe Butte Metro
wastewater discharge into Silver
Bow Creek, or to consider alterna-
tive disposal methods.
According to the study, Butte
wasiewatcr, which is responsible
for as much as half of the stream-
flow of Silver Bow Creek, is respon-
sible for the creek's high concentra-
tions of nutrients.
Although the Warm Springs treat-
ment ponds remove much of those
nutrients, Ihe study says discharge
from the ponds "still constitutes a
significant source of nutrient load-
ing to the upper Clark Fork."
Problem foreseen
I Contamination from mine waste
Currently controls algae levels in
JJilver Bow Creek, but when the
jicreek is reclaimed under the Super-
jfund program, algae growth is ex-
pected to become a big problem.
' Complicating Ihe problem, those
(nutrients are believed, to be Impor-
tant in the ponds' effectiveness in
removing metal contaminants from
the water. Immediate elimination of
those nutrients might therefore in-
crease toxic levels released from
Ihe ponds.
Wastewater irrigation
Another recommendation on
treating municipal wastewater is (o
consider summer land application
— using the wastewaler for agricul-
tural irrigation when the algae
problem is most accute.
Wastewater is responsible for
about 40 percent of the nutrients
found In Ihe upper and middle Clark
Fork, the study says, with Deer
Lodge and Missoula being the main
contributors.
Land application of Deer Lodge's
discharges from July through Sep-
tember could cut nutrients in Ihe
upper Clark Fork by up to 30 per-
cent.
Cost would be high
But because of the community's
small population, the cost of land
application could be significant, Ihe
study points out. Such a project in
Missoula would increase sewer
rates by an estimated 31 percent.
A basinwide ban on the sale of
high-phosphorus laundry detergents
is another proposal. A ban in Butte
and Deer Lodge could cut phospho-
rus levels" by 10 percent, Ingman
said. He said the majority of states
already ban the substance, and a
nationwide ban appears imminent.
Other recommended point-source
controls are:
• To encourage municipalities
and Industry to evaluate additional
means for reducing wastewater dis-
charges.
• To enforce an aggressive nutri-
ent-loading policy for new or en-
larged discharge sources.
• To adopt a basinwide dis-
charge permitting policy on a five-
year cycle rather than permitting
at scattered times, as is the present
practice. Having all permits due at
the same time would allow for a
more comprehensive environmental
review.
• To require nutrient monitoring
as a condition of all wastewaler dis-
charge permits.
• To evaluate nutrient loading
rates from groundwater seepage
from Missoula's Stone Container
• To conduct a nutrient waste-
load allocation study in the basin,
which would determine the maxi-
mum amount of nutrients allowable
from each area.
• To protect instream flows in
the river and key tributaries to pro-
vide sufficient dilution of wastewa-
ter discharges.
Nonpoint source control recom-
mendations include reducing nitro-
gen sources in creeks around the
Deer Lodge area and altering agri-
cultural practices in the Gold Creek
drainage to reduce phosphorus
sources.
Nonp(>Int,plan advised
The-teadifecommendalion. how-
ever, concerns funding a nonpoint
source management plan for Ihe
basin, realizing that there are limit-
ed resources for all of the state's
management plans, limiting even
farther funding likely for Clark
Fork management.
The study says that the Dempsey.
Lost, Mill, Willow and Racetrack
creeks contribute excessively high
concentrations of nitrogen to the
basin compared to other streams.
Ingman suggested that crop fertili-
sation may be a contributing factor.
funding for further studies into
'.hat problem are recommended.
High phosphorus
High amounts of phosphorus from
the Gold Creek area are attributed
to natural deposits that are aggra-
vated by irrigation and cattle dam-
age.
According to University of Mon-
tana studies, "Irrigation dewatering
of lower Gold Creek appeared to en-
hance the inflow of phosphorus-rich
groundwater into the dewatered
channel. Erosion by cattle and irri-
gation practices in Gold Creek trib-
utaries (Griffen and Blum creeks)
were also found to be contributing
factors."
Several recommendations al-
ready have been made, the study
says, and should be explored in
greater detail.
Other recommendations are:
• To evaluate nitrogen sources in
Fish and Trout creeks and the Bull
River, which feed into the lower
Clark Fork.
• To encourage tribal and Soil
Conservation Service cooperation in
controlling nutrient loading into the
lower Flathead River tributaries.
• To continue the city sewage
project in the Missoula area to re-
duce septic tank contamination.
• To continue studies in the
Blackfoot River drainage.
• To secure long-term funding
for use of the Blackfoot River and
Clark Fork Basin Geographic Infor-
mation Systems .(computer data-
bases) to help control nonpoinl
source pollution.
• To use existing Clark Fork
River Basin studies (the Section 525
project) to build support for Imple-
menting nonpoinl source reclama-
tion deir.inslration projects in key
drainages.
Agricultural issues
addressed at meeting
Questions and comments by those attending the public meeting
about Clark Fork River Basin water quality study centered on agri-
culture.
One concern pertained to the effect the water quality plan would
have on irrigation practices in the Upper Clark Pork area.
Gary Ingman of the state Department of Health and Environmen-
tal Sciences said Ihe control of water use is one consideration. More
water remaining in the Clark Fork means more dilution of nitrogen
and phosphorus contaminants.
He said the 1995 Legislature will be asked to act on a dewatering
plan, which would be preceded by numerous public meetings next
winter.
There was criticism about the lack of representatives of agricul-
ture — those who own the water rights — or of the timber and min-
ing industries involved in the study.
Ingman said he has presented information to agricultural groups.
To the concern about agriculture's role in increasing nitrogen
concentrations in the Deer Lodge-area tributaries, it was pointed
out that the high cost of fertilizer requires that farmers and ranch-
ers make the mos(, efficient use of fertilizer, and that there is un-
likely to be enough excess to contaminate the streams.
A related comment questioned the practice of saving fish at the
expense of cattle. Ingman said he believes there can be both — im-
proved fish habitat without Infringing on cattle production.
The small attendance at Monday's meeting was mentioned as a
sign of local apathy about the Clark Fork water study.
Ingman replied that his department has received scores of letters
complaining about the algae problem, which also creates water
quality violations. i
-------
HELENA IR
7/22/92
Why not total phosphate-soap ban?
Excerpted from the Missoulian
A
uthorities from three states and the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency want to broaden local bans
on phosphate detergents in an effort
to reduce the flow of nutrients that
promote the growth of algae in the Clark Fork
River and Lake Pend Orielle. It's a fine idea, as
far as it goes.
But why stop with a basinwide phosphate
ban? Given the plentiful supply of economical
and effective alternatives to phosphate deter-
gents, why not do away with phosphate deter-
gents altogether? , ,
Rather than tackle the problem on a piece-
meal basis, one city or one county at a time, the
ban on phosphate detergents ought to be made
statewide, at least.
MONTANA EDITORS SAY
Some producers of phosphate detergents
argue that phosphate-free detergents are more
expensive, less effective at cleaning and don't
reduce pollution much anyway. However, expe-
rience has proven such claims are unfounded.
Requiring consumers to buy phosphate-free
detergents has cut the amount of phosphorous
the city's sewage treatment plant spews into the
Clark Fork River by about 40 percent — without
cause an epidemic of ring around the collar.
Kalispell's switch to phosphate-free detergents
also has substantially reduced the amount of
algae-promoting phosphorous flowing into Flat-
head Lake.
If there's been any increase in cost, it has
been so slight we haven't noticed it at the check-
out counter. Even if there were a significantly
higher cost, it would most certainly be cheaper
(not to mention more logical) than installing fa-
cilities necessary to remove phosphorous from
sewage.
Localized experiments with phosphate bans in
several western Montana communities have
confirmed what 40 percent of the nation already
knew from firsthand experience — banning
phosphate detergents is a cheap, easy and effec-
tive means of reducing pollution. What more
could we ask for? Let's apply what we've
learned.
-------
Letters
BONNER COUNTY
DAILY BEE 7/21/92
Headlines missed boat
with management plan
The importantgrbund breaking Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality
Management Plan, in draft form; Was .-
presented, by representatives of Idaho,'
Montana, Washington, and'the EPA at a
public wdrkshop in Sandpbinton July 15.
Both the Spokesman Review and the
Daily Bee headlined the workshop in
July 16 editions in ways that seem detri-
mental to public understanding of the
complexities and challenges involved.
For example, the sub-heading in the
Spokesman Review read, "Most pleased
with agency's goals to protect water qual-
ity." I heard no displeasure whatsoever
with the goals. All who spoke seemed
quite serious in their support for the
goals. Information from the research and
possible problems in the plan's imple-
mentation were discussed. After all, the
meeting was a workshop. This is a
remarkable tri-state plan that documents
problems from pollution sources and
recommends actions for protecting and
restoring water quality in the basin. Pro-
viding coordination and continuity of the
work of the many agenctes, public inter-,
est groups, and citizens in three states is"
a tremendous challenge., '.V..j
One instance of the challenge facing
the proposed Tri-State Management
Council is to coordinate the law enforce-
ment efforts of the many agencies
involved. Making a list of existing perti-
nent laws, the agencies and persons
responsible for the enforcement of each,
and problems in the enforcement of each
could be a useful first step. Such a list
distributed to all agencies could expedite
enforcement. In Mountain in the Clouds,
Bruce Broyra- chronicles Washington,
state's^ jack of Enforcement of environ*
toenteiiaws^&s they affect salmon;
regardless of plans arid mitigation
efforts, and th? sorry result. Likewise, to
be effective, tfife Tri-State Management
Council needs(" to promote workable
enforcement practices jjid influences.
A second^e^M^pf debiment to pub-
lic under^J^sfrigJsi tfie Daily Bee head-
Ime^j(eM^t^bypass top lake con-
cerns,"- OMjXjirson' did suggest strongly
that both rou
-------
NEWPORT MINER - JULY 15, 1992
MISSOULIAN
7/28/92
Domestic animals
adding to river polution
LETTERS
NEWPORT—Domestic animals
are being blamed for polluting creeks
feeding into the Pend Oreille River,
particularly in the Skookum Creek
area of central Pend Oreille County.
That was one finding of a three-
state water quality study coordi-
nated by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA).
A public meeting will be held at 7
p.m. July 16, at the Newport Fire
Hall to take public comment on the
management plans that were de-
veloped from that study.
The added nutrients from domes-
tic animal manure contribute to the
milfoil problem on the river, said
Pend Oreille Soil and Water Con-
servation District Manger Helen
Keane.
"Nutrient loadings from these
creeks are a food source for the
milfoil," she said. Testing in the
Skookum Creek showed that 87
percent of the fecal coliform that
enters the mainstream Pend OReille
River comes from there.
Erosion may also result from
keeping domestic animals near
creeks. This results in siltation, or
the filling in of streams with dirt
from the banks. This causes the
stream beds to rise and the water to
spill out of its natural flow areas,
flooding the surrounding land.
The Soil and Water Conservation
District has been recommended as
the agency to work with landowners
to correct the problem.
"Basically, we act as a buffer zone
between landowners and the gov-
ernment regulating agencies," she
said.
The Pend Oreille Soil and Water
Conservation District can help
landowners find the best way to
protect the streams, said Keane.
These mainly involve identifying
potential funding sources for things
like fencing and alternative water
supplies, she said.
"(Corrective measures in) The
Skookum Creek area will be com-
pletely funded," she said. The district
wants to work with landowners to
protect the water resources and
doesn't want to deny property own-
ers the use of their water rights, she
said.
"We're not asking that they not
use their water resources, only that
they use them wisely," said Keane.
"It is important for landowners to
get first hand information them-
selves, rather than relying on
hearsay. I strongly urge them to
attend this meeting."
Representatives from the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Ecology and other
government agencies will be present
at the July 16 meeting.
Phosphate ban is long overdue
I agree wholeheartedly with your recent editorial
endorsing a statewide ban on the sale of phosphate j
detergents. Not only is this an idea whose time has
come, its trip around the political block in Montana
began quite some while ago.
In 1079 the House passed and the Senate then
killed a bill outlawing the sale of phosphate
detergents anywhere in Montana. Two years later, an
essentially identical proposal was introduced and
defeated in the House. In both sessions, industry
representatives were aligned against environmentalists
in opposition, including spokesmen for detergent
manufacturers from as far away as New York state,
and were instrumental in blocking the very legislation
proposed by your editorial,
In '85, believing that a piecemeal approach to
the problems of eutrofication was preferable to
resurrecting only to see killed all over again a more
ambitious bill, environmentalists proposed and the
Legislature approved the local-option approach that
is currently on the books.
"Why not do away with phosphate detergents
altogether?" Indeed. It was a good idea 13 years ago,
and if anything it has grown more compelling since
then, as the clogging of our waterways and the
relative success of phosphate bans in a number of
western Montana counties have shown.
But the history of anti-phosphate legislation in
Montana is only a subtle illustration of the hazards
connected with a toe-in-the-water approach to
protecting its natural resources. The integrity of our
environment is the heritage and the lifeblood of all
Montanans. I'm sure that we can allow it to be
assaulted and degraded for commercial purposes for
another113 years or so, while we continue to swaddle
it in Band-Aids, but by the year 2005 even Pulitzer
Prize-winning ideas may not be enough to repair the
damage.
— Michael H. Keedy,
P.O. Box 839, Kalispell
-------
Article said to be
misleading
To the Editor:
Severa) weeks ago, your paper was
sent an' announcement of public
workshops concerning a draft water
quality management plan for the
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin.
Shortly afterward, an article ap-
peared in The Miner to advertise
the July 16 workshop in Newport
-•White'£*ppreciated your paper's
help io •preading.the word of our
protect. I felt that the accompany^.
NEWPORT MINER - JULY, 1992
ing article was misleading with its
emphasis on 'domestic animals
'adding to river pollution*
/ Ecology's three-year study of the
Pend Oreille River and its tributar-
ies identified several water quality
of your readers missed the work-
shop but would still like to review
the draft plan, I encourage them to
contactmeat7171Cleanwaterlane, '
Building 8, P. O. Box 47710, Olym-
pia.Wa. 98504-7710.
mainBtreaol river. Infect, the major
wate/qufuKy issue throughout the
'
.gasin'was nuisance growth's :
lunatic (plants,^ including algae?
flCffipaoyaK most of the recommen-
datibnafh the d^rafj^ management
plarfw.ere
•
j
• Watershed Assessments Section
ibfEcolA^
Olympia
calro found evidence of
.uv^^.Jiipal bacteria pollution
on sonwT tributary 'streams. Land
use activities near our sampling sites
led us to believe that livestock were
a likely stiurce of the bacteria, but
other sources may well include
wildlife and failing septic systems.
In the draft management plan, wif
recommended that the Pend Oreille
Conservation District conduct fur:
ther investigations on the problem
streams. As a result of public input
at the workshop, we wffl modify this
recommendation to specify that
additional bacteria samples be col-
lected to better identify potential
sources of fecal pollution.
I was disappointed thatThe Miner
did not send a reporter to cover the
workshopinNewport. More than 30
local fesidenSrturned out to listen
to presentations by the three states
and the U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. We received lots of
suggestions on the management
plan from the audience, and will
consider these carefully as we pre-
pare the final plan for presentation
to Congress in October 1992. If any
-------
Articles from Currents, published by the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Coalition, 1989 to 1992
-------
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
OCTOBER 1989
Nutrient Pollution Ties Us Together
A his special issue of Currents focuses on the
most pervasive water quality problems in the Clark
Fork - Pend Oreille basin - nutrient pollution, algae
growth and eutrophication. They are common to all
three basin states, and tie the Coalition together more
than other pollution issues.
The dictionary defines a nutrient as "something
that nourishes, especially a nourishing ingredient in a
food." Conjures up pictures of good health and sounds
down right wholesome, doesn't it? So why then is the
Clark Fork Coalition fussing about nutrients ?
Like many good things, too much nutrients can
cause problems. In rivers and lakes, the nutrients
nitrogen and phosphorus stimulate the growth of
aquatic plants and algae. When too much phosphorus
or nitrogen gets into water bodies excessive and often
uncontrollable plant growth results. Parts of the Clark
Fork, Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River are
overgrown with dense mats of algae and weeds that N
damage water quality, recreation, aesthetics, and even
fish habitat. Shorelines are covered with rotting green
slime, causing rank odors and making swimming un-
pleasant. Heavy plant growth depletes dissolved oxy-
gen in the water, endangering fish. Nutrients spur eu-
trophication, a process in which plants are over-fertil-
ized, causing lakes to age rapidly and fill with sedi-
ments and marshy vegetation.
The Coalition has made nutrient pollution a prior-
ity issue since 1986, when we negotiated with the
Frenchtown pulp mill to limit discharges to the Clark
Fork River. The control of nutrients in our river basin
is complex because the sources are widespread. Nutri-
ents enter the lake and river from many sources
throughout the watershed. Thus our activities on land
directly influence water quality.
We can begin controlling nutrients in our own
backyards by changing our use of detergents and prop-
erly caring for septic systems. Outside our back yards,
the solutions are more complex. Pollution also comes
from sewage plants, industries, mines, farmland, log-
ging roads and runoff from city streets and storm
sewers. Research, education, planning, and people are
needed to control these sources and protect water qual-
ity. The fact that our basin lies within the jurisdiction of
tliree states, two EPA regional offices and myriad local
governments, further complicates solutions.
Bringing solutions together under one plan is
called watershed management. Luckily, in the Clark
Fork - Pend Oreille basin such a plan is in the works.
Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1986 by
calling for a comprehensive evaluation of polution in
the basin. It should lead to a long-term plan for
protecting the river and lake.
We are approaching a turning point in nutrient
control hi the basin. It is up to each of us to understand
the problems and their solutions. And that's why we've
produced this special newsletter. Examine the status of
nutrient pollution and research in the basin and find out
what you can do to help protect the Clark Fork River,
Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River!
Progress in Montana; pg. 4
Lake study begins pg. 6.
Milfoil Clogs River pg. 8
Phosphate ban works! pg. 10
-------
OCX 89
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
Nutrient pollution picture improving
State pinpoints pollution sources
Af you think the pulp mill is to blame for all of the
river's problems, the results of a study of pollution
along the Clark Fork River may change your thinking.
The real polluters are you and I. The study shows
the pulp mill was not the largest single source of
phosphorus and nitrogen pollution in the river during
the last half of 1988. In fact, the mill ranked fourth
among polluters, behind sewage discharges from Mis-
soula, Butte and Deer Lodge. Its human waste. You and
I and our neighbors appear to be the majority of the
problem. There is no longer an easy scapegoat.
The State of Montana began to take a hard look at
the Clark Fork's nutrient pollution and algae growth
problems in 1988 when it received its first grant from
the EPA for the Section 525 Clean Water Act studies.
The Water Quality Bureau monitored all of the major
sources of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution from
Butte to Pend Oreille, ranked them and began to
prepare a nutrient budget for the Montana portion of the
basin. The results are enlightening and extremely
valuable for protecting water quality in the Clark Fork
and Lake Pend Oreille. Key findings include:
• Ten dischargers, including Missoula, Butte, and
Deer Lodge, accounted for 79 percent of the bio-
available phosphorus and 48 percent of the bioavailable
nitrogen in the river during the last half of 1988, a low
river flow period. Bio-available nutrients are dissolved
in water, rather than tied to soil particles, and are of the
most concern because they can feed rapid plant growth.
• The remainder of the nutrients came from diffuse
sources, such as agricultural and forest land runoff,
septic tanks, natural sources and point-sources on tribu-
tary streams. Runoff pollutants were probably underes-
timated during this study because of low stream flow,
which resulted in less soil erosion in the watershed.
• The Missoula, Butte, and Deer Lodge sewage
plants and Stone Container's pulp mill made up about
98 percent of the nutrient loading from point source
discharges in the entire river basin.
• The largest source was Missoula's sewage plant,
accounting for 56 percent of the bio-available phospho-
rus and 53 percent of the bio-available nitrogen. Butte's
sewage plant was the second largest source, folowed by
Deer Lodge and Stone Container, (see pie chart).
• Thestudy was done before passage of Missoula's
phosphate detergent ban, which will significantly re-
duce the largest phosphorus source in the basin. It was
also done when Stone could not discharge much waste
due to low flows. Future results will show Stone to be
a larger part of the problem, but its pollution will
probably remain below levels for Butte and Missoula.
• The upper river from Butte to Missoula was in
ihe worst shape, plagued by1 heavy growths of algae.
The upper river's problems may be a result of high
sewage loads, small stream size, and diffuse sources of
sediments and nutrients.
POINT SOURCES OF BIOAVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS
PERCENT COHTWBUTIOH BY SOURCE
UISSOUL* (SS.»)
BUTTE (33.»)
MIR LODGE <*.«)
OTHtH WWTP-S (1.*0
STOUT CONUIW* CORP. <15*>
• The Flathead River contributed more nutrients
than any other tributary in the basin. In fact, the
Flathead's phosphorus loading ranked only behind
Missoula and Butte. The Flathead adds many pounds of
nutrients to the Clark Fork, but its large flow dilutes the
pollutants. Hence the Flathead, and the lower Clark
Fork, are fairly free of heavy algae blooms.
• The Clark Fork River carried about 11 tons of
bio-available phosphorus and 90 tons of bio-available
nitrogen into Idaho during the last six months of 1988.
We don't know what percentage oi'the lake's total load
this is because the state of Idaho has not yet completed
its study of local pollution sources.
The Bureau's will continue the study through
June, 1990. When it's done the results will be a solid
foundation for our efforts to regulate Montana's pollu-
tion sources and protect the river and Lake Pend Oreille.
-PN
-------
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
OCX 89
Pulp mill review shows progress
As required by the permit we negotiated with
Stone Container in 1986, the pulp mill's permit is going
through a "mid-term review" in 1989. State-issued
permits normally run for five years. One of the key
subjects of the review is progress toward permit condi-
tions for reductions in phosphorus and nitrogen.
According to a September report issued by the
Montana Water Quality Bureau, Stone has made im-
pressive reductions in nutrient pollution since 1985,
and the pulp mill now accounts for only two percent of
the nutrients that the Clark Fork carries into Lake Pend
Oreille.
Based on data collected by stale employees, the
amount of phosphorus in Stone's wastewater has been
reduced more than six-fold since 1984, and nitrogen has
been reduced nearly four-fold, (see bar graph).
In 1984-85, the mill's discharge contributed about
10 percent of the total nitrogen and 15 percent of the
total phosphorus in the river below the mill. By 1989,
Stone's contribution had been reduced to only 2 percent
of the river's nitrogen and 4 percent of its phosphorus.
In 1984-85 the mill's discharge was responsible
for 5 percent of the total nitrogen and 14 percent of the
total phosphorus in the river at the Idaho border. By
1989 that had been reduced to only about 2 percent for
both phosphorus and nitrogen.
Gary Ingman and Mark Kerr, authors of the
bureau's report, wrote, "Stone's efforts when coupled
with other actions, such as a recently implemented
phosphorus detergent ban in Missoula County and new
nonpoint source pollution control programs, would be
expected to have long-term significance toward main-
taining or improving the lake's (Pend Oreille) water
quality."
A public meeting will be held in Missoula on the
mid-term review later this year. Subjects covered will
include stale color standard violations, possible im-
pacts of chemicals in the mill's new color removal proc-
ess, pond and dike stability, the national dioxin study
for paper mills, and new bio-monitoring requirements.
STONE DISCHARGE NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION
. YCiRS 1983 -19H8
a
•t
I!
:
VA lotA
I
University Study Shows Importance of Controlling Nutrients
Another study, by Dr. Vicki Watson of the Uni-
versity of Montana, looked at algae growth and accu-
mulation in the river to see if cutting back nutrient
pollution could cause major reductions in algae.
This important study was needed because some
specialists suspected that the river already carried much
higher levels of nutrients than algae need to grow,
therefore pollution sources might never be reduced
enough to make a dent in the river's considerable algae
crop. The project also studied whether phosphorus or
nitrogen was the most important factor controlling
algae growth.
Watson measured the effects of different nutrient
levels on algae growth rates and accumulation, using
artificial streams in the river. Her conclusions include:
• Phosphorus and nitrogen reductions could result
in reductions in algae accumulations in the river.
• Phosphorus and nitrogen were both important in
limiting algae in various parts of the river, and both
nutrients should be controlled lo achieve the greatest
reduction. Since many plants can "fix" atmospheric
nitrogen for their own use, nitrogen control would be
less effective.
• Phosphorus is more easily controlled than nitro-
gen, particularly at point sources such as sewage plants.
If initial control efforts focus on phosphorus, that nutri-
ent will become less abundant for plants and its role in
controlling algae growth will bz more important.
- A i\
-------
OCT 59
IDAHO
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
Pend Oreille study to end with management plan
The
ic Lake Pend Oreille portion of the tri-state
pollution study got rolling in 1989. Unlike Montana,
where studies began in 1988, Idaho has not yet pro-
duced any significant results. But the state Water Quality
Bureau has received extra EPA funds to develop an
ambitious lake management plan once the studies are
complete, and the agency has started an unusual pro-
gram to give the public a strong voice in determining the
lake's future.
The State of Idaho received a $ 150,500 grant from
the EPA for Section 525 Clean Water Act studies in
1988, and another $114,000 in 1989. But due to delays
in getting the funds through the Reagan Administration's
Office of Management and Budget, 1988 funds were
not received in time to begin work before the spring
runoff season. So the bulk of the studies were post-
poned until last spring, when researchers from the
Water Quality Bureau, U.S. Geological Survey, Uni-
versity of Idaho and others began collecting informa-
tion needed to protect the lake's water quality.
Researchers are now back at their desks putting the
first year's results into reports that will be available this
winter. Meanwhile, the state has formed two unusual
advisory committees to guide the lake study and man-
agement plan. This can be done in Idaho because the
state received a $75,000 "Clean Lakes" grant from the
EPA to use the study results to prepare a mangement
plan to protect the lake's quality. The Coalition is now
active in the two groups, known as Ihe Technical and
Policy Advisory Committees. The committees allow
the public to track the study and shape the recommen-
dations that result. We're the only basin-wide interest
group on the committees, and our job is to make sure the
agencies hi all three states work together to solve an
interstate water quality problem.
The objectives of the Lake Pend Oreille study are
to:
• Collect information about the lake's physical,
chemical and biological status;
• Identify pollution sources to the lake, including
the Clark Fork River;
• Determine which pollution sources arc causing
the most problems;
• Use a computer model to see how the lake would
benefit from controlling various pollution sources;
• List management alternatives to protect water
quality;
• Select a long-term water quality management
plan for the lake (here's where the public comes in!)
Several groups and agencies are involved in the
lake study.
The Idaho Water Quality Bureau is reviewing all
existing studies on the lake so researchers will have
some idea of historic conditions. Until the mid-1980s
only limited testing was done in the deep, open waters
of the lake. Since Pend Oreille is so large and deep this
sampling never detected significant changes in water
quality. But in the mid-1980s researchers from the
University of Idaho looked more carefully at water
quality near the lake's shoreline. These studies found
that algae and plant growth was much greater than
expected for a large lake such as Pend Oreille. Row
data from the Clark Fork River profoundly effected the
lake's water quality: 287 tons of suspended sediments
enter the lake every day, on average, from this source
according to research by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Researchers also discovered that amounts of phospho-
rus entering the lake from the river was significantly
LESS than that leaving at Albeni Falls, meaning that
local pollution is also harming the lake.
Gathering this background has been but a small
-------
OCT 89
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
step along the lake study road. During the past year
researchers have been working on other tasks, includ-
ing:
• Open Water Testing: From Oct. 88-Oct. 89 the
US Geological Survey sampled water quality 13 times
at five sites.
• Near-shore testing and attached algae studies: A
Universityy of Idaho team sampled algae and water
quality at 17 lake sites.
• Volunteer monitoring: This projectt, under Co-
aliiton direction, includes eight volunteers who sample
water clarity at 14 sites. Results indicate the clearest
water is found at the southern end of lake, near Bayview
and Idlewilde Bay.
• Fishery analysis: The Idaho Fish and Game
Dept. will evaluate the fishery this winter, and will
analyze fish tissue for heavy metals and organic chemi-
cals.
• Land-use surveys: Bonner County will complete
several types of land use surveys in the Pend Oreille
watershed. Eastern Washington University will pre-
pare a socio-economic report. And Panhandle Health
District will inventory septic systems around the lake.
Satellite and high-altitude photographs of the water-
shed were taken this summer by EPA, and they will be
compared to photos taken in 1985 to see how land uses
have changed.
• Tributary Monitoring: The Geologicalcal Sur-
vey is monitoring six tributaries to assess their contribu-
tion of pollutants to the lake.
Results from the first year of study will be pre-
sented to the Technical and Policy Advisory Commit-
tees in January, 1990. The Coalition will hold its annual
convention in Sandpoint in March, 1989, including a
full day conference to present the results of studies in
Montana, Idaho and Washington.
For more information or to receive future coalition
newsletters on the studies please contact Peter at 406-
542-0539 or Ruth at 208-263-0347.
- RW AND PN
daho has best plan to involve public
Of the three states conducting studies in the Clark
ork/Pend Oreille basin, only the Idaho project has
sveloped a Policy Advisory Conjrmttee and a Techni-
al Advisory Committee. The Coalition is represented
n both committees. The Policyi?group is comprised of
ipresentatives from:local agencies, governments and
rganizations with an interest ;in;keeping tabs on the
ake study.; Later in me study;iproject (1991): the
ornmittee will be asked to draw up its own version of
lake management plan. At that time, familiarity with
he study and lake: water quality: issues will enable this
roup to come up with a well thought*out plan for the
uture health of Lake Pend Oreille:- apian which will,
n turn, be scrutinized by the public.
Members of this committee Include:
• Ruth Watkins, Clark Fork Coalition
- • Bob Klatt, Bonner County Shoreline Owners
• Jim Waikins, Lake Pend Oreille Idaho Club
• Jonathan Coe, Sandpoint Chamber^Commerce
• Paul Vogel, Idaho Conservation League
• Ron Chaney, Mayor of Sandpoint;
• Clark Cowley,; Mayor of Clark-Fork
• Elona Yaryan, Mayor of East Hope;
;;• Rep. Jim;Stoicheff, State Legislature
• Sen, Karen Cooke, State Senate
• Ron Campbell, Bonner Cty. Planning;;
• Tom Baker, Idaho Transportation Dept.
• Rick Cummins, Idaho Parks and Recr.
• Bob Haynes, Idaho Dept of Water Resources-
'•• Warren McFall, EPA, Bqisej
• Randy Shroll, Idaho Depi. of Commerce
• Mike Smith, Idaho Mining Assoc.
• Joe Hinson, Intermountain Forest Industry Ass.
• Dave Suhr, Idaho Assc. Commerce and Industry
• Dave Williamson, Kootenai Cty. Commission
•• Leonard Kucera, Idaho Assc. Soil Conservation
Districts
-------
OCT 89
WASHINGTON
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
River studies focus
on Milfoil
Or the Continuing Saga of the Plant
that Ate the Pend Oreille
E,
EACH LEA1-'
LEAVES ARRANGED "AS '- OR
IN WHORLS MOKE
Of- FOUR
LEAI-LEl'S
/urasian milfoil is an aggressive, non-native
aquatic weed. The Washington Dept. of Ecology is
studying Eurasian milfoil on the Pend Oreille River
between Albeni Falls Dam and Box Canyon as part of
the tri-state studies of water pollution. Why is one plant
getting so much attention? Because milfoil grows and
spreads rapidly in rivers and lakes. It forms dense weed
beds, interferes with
swimming, boating, fish-
ing, and degrades fish
habitat and water quality.
Fifty miles of the Pend
Oreille River are infested
with heavy growths of
Eurasian milfoil and the
weed is rapidly moving
upstream towards the
upper Pend Oreille River
and Lake Pend Oreille.
The Pend Oreille
River is very large, but it
is also shallow. It provides an ideal environment for
Eurasian milfoil. 200 acres of the river were infested in
1984 and that grew to 956 acres in 1988.
The Washington Department of Ecology is look-
ing at how milfoil impacts water quality. It is known
that milfoil is responsible for increased pH and dis-
solved gases, and reduced dissolved oxygen during the
summer growing season, even to the extent of violating
state standards.
The 1989 study has also looked at ways milfoil
affects fish habitat in the river. Researchers cut paths
through dense weed beds with huge aquatic tillers and
studied how these clearings affected fish movement
and productivity.
Next year the state will coordinate with two other
river studies: one by the University of Idaho for Pend
Oreille County and the other by Eastern Washington
University for the Upper Columbia United Tribes.
It is important to note that once a river or lake is
infested with milfoil. THERE IS NO FEASIBLE WAY
TO ERADICATE IT. Studies on the river are simply a
tool to determine how best to manage and control the
weed. Control methods generally include tilling of the
weed beds, dredging, screening the bottom with black
mats to prohibit plant growth, and sometimes chemical
use. According to authorities on the milfoil problem,
preventionor Eurasian
Milfoil. The only
chance is to keep it from
becoming established
in non-infested waters.
MILFOIL
WATCHERS
It is frightening to
think that just one small
stem or root broken
from a milfoil plant and
carried to a new body
of water by a boat or birds can re-root and start a new
colony.
Recognizing the potential threat this weed poses
to Lake Pend Oreille and the upper Pend Oreille River,
the Coalition will start a milfoil education program in
1990 which will include pamphlets, articles, and public
service announcements to alert residents, boaters, marina
owners, and other water users to milfoil prevention.
The Coalition will also start a Milfoil Watchers
Program next year to train volunteers to identify Eura-
sian milfoil and report any sitings of the plant in the
river or lake. When Eurasian milfoil sitings are veri-
fied, scuba divers can come in to pull out the weeds
before they get firmly established. These volunteers
will also help educate lake users about weeds. If you are
interested in taking a role in preventing the spread of
milfoil and being trained as a Milfoil Watcher, contact
Ruth (208-263-0347).
-RW
-------
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENT
September 1991
Study recommends action to protect
Clark Fork and Pend Oreille
by Peter
Proposals to reduce pollution from waste dis-
chargers, phosphate detergents and polluted tributary
streams are among the important recommendations found
in the Montana Water Quality Bureau's recent interim
report on nutrient pollution in the Clark Fork River basin.
The report is an important step in an effort that
began in the mid-1980s to reduce nutrient pollution in the
Clark Fork-Lake Pend Oreille basin.
Montana began closely scrutinizing nutrient
pollution and algal growth in the Clark Fork in 1988 after
EPA, under the authority of Section 525 of 1987's Clean
Water Act amendments, awarded the state its first grant
to study the river's woes. This marked the beginning of
a $ 1 million effort to pinpoint nutrient sources in the river
basin and prepare management plans for the Clark Fork,
as well as for Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille
River in Idaho and Washington (see Ruth Watkins' story,
this issue). The study follows years of complaints to the
bureau from a public that insisted the Clark Fork be clean
instead of clogged with pollution-related foam and al-
gae. The public's concern has been highlighted by Coa-
lition-sparked campaigns to push agencies and lawmak-
ers to reduce nutrient pollution in the river.
Among the successes, besides lobbying Con-
gress for the Section 525 study money: seeing to it that
the state issued a discharge permit to Stone Container's
pulp mill that significantly reduced phosphorus and
nitrogen dumping, and prodding local governments to
ban the sale of phosphate detergents in Missoula, Alber-
ton and Superior.
Since 1988, the bureaujias_b^ejijnvestigating
nutrient pollution sources along 320 miles of the Clark
1Fork~fTofrrSutte to Pend Oreille. The effort has been
Nielsen
aided by the dedication of water quality specialist Gary
Ingman, who authored this year's report. He sometimes
spent seven days a week on the Clark Fork and its
tributaries, taking water samples and watching for prob-
lems.
In early 1992, a draft management plan for the
entire Clark Fork River drainage will be completed, after
state agencies and EPA coordinate similar plans that will
be developed for the Pend Oreille watershed in Idaho and
Washington. Montana is the first of the three states to
issue a report that makes recommendations for interim
management.
Key findings of the report include:
•Ten dischargers, including Missoula, Butte, Deer Lodge
and the Stone Container pulp mill, accounted for 48
percent of the phosphorus and 26 percent of the nitrogen
available for biological production in the river in 1989
and 1990. Bioavailable nutrients are dissolved in water
and not tied to soil particles, thus they can promote rapid
plant (i.e. algae) growth. Decomposition of the plants
depletes oxygen needed by fish.
continued on page eleven
Wetlands ax proposed
Hope gets bucks
Lake study results
Stone p-ermit eyed
-------
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
Study . .continued from page one
•The remainder of the nutrients came from diffuse point sources along the river.
sources, such as agricultural and forest land runoff, 2. Implement bans on the sale of phosphate deter-
septic tanks, natural sources and tributary point sources, gents in Butte and Deer Lodge.
Tributaries that contribute unusually high amounts of 3. Encourage cities and industry to evaluate and
nutrients to the Clark Fork include Gold, Lost, Race- take steps that reduce nutrient pollution, including irrigat-
track, and Dempsey Creeks on the upper river; Mission ing and fertilizing hay fields with sewage effluent.
and Crow Creeks, and the Little Bitterroot River on the 4. Control the sources contributing nutrients to
RatheadReservation;andFishCreekandBullRiveron lower Flathead River tributaries, including Mission and
the middle and lower river. Crow Creeks and the Little Bitterroot River.
5. Control pollution sources in Lost, Dempsey,
•The Missoula, Butte and Deer Lodge sewage plants Racetrack, Hint and Warm Springs Creeks.
and the Stone Container mill contribute about 99 per- 6. Continue evaluating and, if possible, control
cent of the nutrients from all point-source dischargers nutrient sources on Gold Creek.
along the river. 7- Control sources of nitrogen pollution on Fish
Creek and Bull River.
•TheupperriverfromWarmSpringsPondstoMissoula 8. Protect in-stream flows in the river and its
was in the worst shape, plagued by heavy growths of tributaries to provide dilution for wastewater discharges.
algae that may be caused by a combination of high 9. Carefully evaluate the nutrient pollution from
sewage loads, irrigation-caused low stream flows and groundwater seepage at the Stone Container pulp mill.
pollution from tributaries. 10- Continue long-term nutrient monitoring in the
watershed.
•Phosphate detergent bans in Missoula and other river Water qual ity specialist Ingman said the recom-
communities, nutrient pollution reductions at the Stone mendations represent reasonable, common sense and low-
Container pulp mill, and steadier streamflows helped cost approaches that can be taken as first steps to protect
improve water quality in the river in 1990. the river and Lake Pend Oreille."We'll have a better idea
of what additional steps are needed when the final project
These findings and the high public interest in report is complete next year," Ingman said.
restoring the river prompted the bureau to make interim Ifwaterqualitydoesn'timprovemarkedlywiththe
management recommendations. They could be ex- interim steps, he said it's possible more expensive options
panded in the final 1992 report. They include: may be needed including advanced wastewater treatment
1. Establish within the Water Quality Bureau a at sewage plants and industry, as well as a process that
consistent and aggressive policy of nondegradation allocates alowable nutrient wastes among sources basin-
with respect to nutrient pollution from new or enlarged wide. -PN
Wetlands.. .continued from page two
like a duck it needs somewhere to live. Don't let are to the economy and way of life around Pend Oreille
politicians and developers destroy wetlands. and along the Clark Fork.
It's critical that you write the EPA today and tell Send comments on the proposed manual changes to:
them to reject the revisions because they are not scien- Gregory Peck, Chief
tifically based and will cause the loss of valuable Wetlands and Aquatic Resources
wildlife habitat, pollution control and flood protection. Regulatory Branch
Write President Bush and remind him of his pledge. Mail Code (A-104)
Contact your Congressional delegation and tell them U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
not to support a weakened wetlands policy (Several 404 M Street N.E.
bills are now floating in Congress to do just that. More Washington, D.C. 20036
. on them next issue.) Tell them how valuable wetlands — Bruce Farling
Sept.1991 • 1
-------
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
Lake study says local sources also pollute
The federally funded Lake Pend Oreille study
hasn't uncovered major surprises about lake water qual-
ity, but results indicate that the Clark Fork River is not the
only culprit contributing to declining water quality of the
lake's near-shore areas. The time has come for lakeshore
communities to examine just how they contribute to lake
pollution.
The Clark Fork River supplies the lake with 90
percent of its water and nearly 75 percent of its incoming
nutrients. The lake study indicates that these nutrients
from Montana mostly affect the deep, open waters of the
lake where water quality remains high.
Meanwhile, the lake's near-shore areas are expe-
riencing increased weed and algal growth, in some areas
at an alarming rate. The study has linked this degradation
to pollution sources in the lake's immediate watershed,
including septic systems and fertilized developed areas.
Urban runoff and erosion caused by land-use activities
are also polluting the lake. The study shows that the
sections of the lake with the most degraded conditions
are those next to developed areas such as Hope and
Bay view.
This information clearly shows that the focus for
protecting Lake Pend Oreille needs to shift more towards
preventing local pollution.
This doesn't mean we should forget about the
river. Its influence on the lake is tremendous and there-
fore Montana must send only the cleanest water to Idaho.
But Pend Oreille residents must now also look closer at
their own backyards.
Midway through the lake study, a policy advi-
sory committee representing citizens' groups, agencies
and elected officials, established this management goal
for the lake: Maintain the quality of the deep open waters
and improve that of the near-shore areas. To achieve this,
the committee and Idaho Division of Environmental
Quality have begun developing a plan to protect the lake.
Its approach is two-fold: Establish limits on the
amount of nutrients allowed into the lake from the Clark
Fork River, and minimize impacts from local activities
through education and enforceable ordinances. Consid-
eration will be given to measures that reduce pollution
from septic systems, fertilizer use, construction, storm-
water run-off, roads, boat use, and forest and agricultural
practices. Issues involving development density and
wetlands protection will also be addressed.
As an active member of the advisory committee,
the Coalition will be encouraging strong measures that
reduce river pollution and local impacts. A draft manage-
ment plan will be available for public scrutiny and
meetings on it scheduled in lake communities this winter.
— RW
Hope in Hope: Sewer bucks available
Good news has finally arrived for the Hope sewer
project. At a Sept. 18 meeting, the Ellisport Bay
sewer district board learned that the state's Water
Pollution Control Account has $ 14.8 million it hadn't
originally counted on. Some of that money is now
available for the Hope sewer project. The state will
contribute $3.1 million of the fund, in the form of a
low-interest loan and a supplemental grant, to
finance roughly 80 percent of the cost for collection,
treatment and disposal of all sewage from Hope and
East Hope. An additional $710,000 will have to be
raised through local funding. The sewer board will
hold a public hearing in October to explain local
funding options and to take public comment on how to
raise the money. Contact Ruth at 263-0347.
— RW
Sept.1991
-------
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
Lake Plan workshops scheduled
Lake area residents should attend important De-
cember workshops sponsored by the Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality on its long-awaited protection
plan for Lake Pend Oreille. The importance of the plan
cannot be overstated: If properly designed and enforced,
it could be a powerful tool for protecting Lake Pend
Oreille today and into the future.
Because results of the plan will only be as good
as the plan itself, the Coalition is pushing for strong pol-
lution prevention measures, public education and en-
forcement of water quality regulations. The Coalition
supports the following options developed by the DEQ
and the policy advisory committee:
•amend zoning ordinances to decrease develop-
ment in environmentally sensitive areas and allow dense
development in more acceptable areas where centralized
sewer systems are required;
•make mandatory inspections of septic systems
in lakeshore and streamside areas;
•increase the allowable distances from water for
new construction and septic systems;
•establish best managment practices for road
construction, general construction, fertilizer use and
other high-impact activities;
•develop countywide erosion and stormwaler
control ordinances;
•restrict boat use in shallow water,
•hold Montana to specific amounts of nutrients
allowed to enter the lake from the Clark Fork River;
•increase enforcement of the Idaho Forest Prac-
tices Act;
•increase the amount of review Idaho gives min-
ing proposals in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille watershed;
•provide tax incentives for farmers who protect
riparian areas.
To help ensure the plan is a solid conservation
document, we urge Coalition members in the Pend
Oreille area to become involved in lake protection plan-
ning. At the workshops, DEQ will explain the plan and
take comments. After that, the lake study committee will
help the agency shape the final plan, which will then be
the focus for public hearings in 1992.
Attend the workshop nearest you!
Wednesday, Dec. 18, 7-9 p.m., Athol Elementary
School Library, Highway 95 South, Athol.
Thursday, Dec. 19, 7-9 p.m., Federal Building Meet-
ins Room, Dover Highway, Sandpoint.
-RW
Coalition aims to protect Alberton Gorge
The Coalition has begun an ambitious project to
protect the Alberton Gorge, a stretch of the Clark Fork
that includes 16 miles of the river's most challenging
rapids and beautiful canyon scenery.
The gorge is located about
40 miles west of Missoula in
Mineral County. It is isolated
from roads and most human
intrusions, and is popular with
anglers, campers, rafters and
kayakers. The river flows
through a narrow canyon, boil-
ing up in challenging rapids: Tum-
bleweed, Fang, Boat-eater and Thunder
Rock. It is the only stretch of Whitewater left on the Clark
Fork, which had once featured the powerful rapids of
A/a/'
Cabinet Gorge, now drowned by a dam constructed in the
1950s by the Washington Water and Power Company.
Because the lower Clark Fork has healthy flows through-
out the summer, the gorge has become
one of the few Whitewater areas in
the state where people can count
on sufficient water to float a
boat in August. In fact, the
gorge often has enough wa-
ter in late summer to drench
most Whitewater raft passen-
gers.
A float trip through the gorge is
an exhilarating and enchanting experi-
ence enjoyed by thousands of visitors every year. But
continued on page six
^.1991
-------
Clark Fork — Pend Oreille Coalition
March 1992
Lake shore joins list of polluting culprits
Study finds development spawns algae
by Ruth Watkins
When I started working on Lake Pend Oreille water
quality issues six years ago, most of my lime was
focused on eliminating pollution coming down the Clark
Fork River from sources such as the Frenchtown pulp
mill and Missoula sewage treatment plant. Like most
folks around the lake, I assumed Montana's negligence
was responsible for the increased weed and algal growth
in Pend Oreille. Surely, I thought, if we cleaned up the
river Idaho's largest lake would be in better shape. After
all, the Clark Fork supplies Pend Oreille with 90 percent
of its water, making it the obvious cause of the lake's
woes.
But the lake study funded by the federal govern-
ment between 1988-91 has revealed other culprits.
The study indicates that the deep open waters of
the lake, where the Clark Fork's in-flow has the most
influence, have maintained a consistent high quality for
the last 40 years. Mike Falter, of the University of
Idaho's lake research team, says water quality measure-
ments found in the open water do not account for the
vigorous populations of algae, weeds, bacteria and slime
found in the lake's near-shore areas. After studying algae
near developed and undeveloped areas around the lake's
• edse Falter found that deteriorated near-shore areas of
O '
the lake were often next to highly developed property or
in the bays with most human activity.
This tells us it is time to stop blaming Montana
for all of Pend Oreille's woes and begin accepting more
responsibility for what we residents are doing to the lake.
But where do we start? A critical first stop is the
doors of local government. It's clear that counties will be
instrumental in lake quality decisions. In fact, it's no
accident that the Lake Pend Oreille Management Plan,
produced by the 3-year study and authored by Idaho's
Division of Environmental Quality, names Bonner County
as the key player needed for the plan to succeed. Because
the county can institute rules to protect water quality, it
is the logical body to create and enforce land -use
planning activities such as stormwater and erosion con-
trol strategies, wetlands mapping, development-density
continued on page five
Damage claim study extended
Dumps no more
Schweitzer slop
Conference news
-------
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
Lake.. .continued from page one
planning and lake protection ordinances.
The opportunity for Bonner County to assume a
leadership role in lake protection is opportune because it
will rewrite its comprehensive plan this year. As the
blueprint for countywide land-use planning, the plan
could and should target water quality protection as a top
priority. Planning and zoning can be the engine that
drives many of the pollution-reduction measures recom-
mended in the lake study, such as tightening controls on
septic systems, containing stormwaler runoff, requiring
erosion control mea-
We would be wise to think about how
much, where and what kind of growth
is compatible with a clean lake
sures for road construction and developing conservation
guidelines for densely developed
areas.
We could, for example, better manage wasiewa-
ter by requiring areas of dense development (such as the
burgeoning communities on the Pend Oreille River or
bumper-to-bumper RV parks at Trestle Creek) to use
community sewer systems. In critical areas with less
density, periodic monitoring of septic systems could
help detect pollution before it severely damages water
quality.
A fundamental question with important implica-
tions for water quality is how to deal with growth.
Specifically, how much, where and what kind. Attracted
by north Idaho's high quality of life, people are moving
to the Pend Oreille watershed in droves. More people
means more development and more pressure on water
resources.
Development produces more asphalt and con-
crete, and therefore more hardened surfaces to funnel
polluted stormwater into streams and the lake. Residen-
tial and commercial development causes erosion, in-
creasing sediment and nutrient pollution. Development
also eats up open space, wetlands and other important
natural areas that contribute to the area's attractiveness
and help filter polluted runoff. Development means
more septic systems, and more potential nutrient pollu-
tion to groundwater and the lake.
We would be wise to think about how much,
where and what kind of growth is compatible with a clean
lake at the same time a new comprehensive plan is
developed.
With lake study results now almost complete,
Bonner County pondering a comprehensive plan rewrite
and growth issues coming to the forefront around Lake
Pend Oreille, the theme for the Coalition's 1992 annual
conference will be how lake protection and land use
planning can work together. We hope the April 11
Sandpoinlgatheringencoui ages lake-area residents, plan-
ners, realtors and developers to find common ground on
which to build a future that ensures we don't love this
wonderful lake to death.
Does the attention on local land uses mean we
forget about the Clark Fork River's impact on the lake?
Definitely not. The river is a very real polluter to the lake.
Recognizing that, the lake management plan recom-
mends limiting the nutrients the river dumps into the
lake. The lake plan, in fact, will be coordinated with a
study plan being developed for reducing nutrient pollu-
tion of the Clark Fork. The culmination of the river and
lake studies, we hope, will prod Idahoans to pollute their
backyard less and remind Montana that its pollution
problems can also be Idaho's.
March 1992
-------
Clark Fork Coalition
CURRENTS
Lake plan headed in right direction
December workshops exploring management op-
tions for protecting Lake Pend Oreille netted mostly
positive public responses, sending a message to Idaho's
Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and its advi-
sory committee that the lake plan is heading in the right
direction.
The plan, the result of several years of study and
funded through the last authorization of the federal Clean
Water Act, will be submitted to EPA in late January. It
contains more than 40 options for protecting the lake
from pollution contributors such as septic drainfields,
stormwater runoff, road construction, boats, logging,
agriculture and Clark Fork River point sources. Control
measures being mulled range from increased public
education and local ordinances to special zoning and tax
incentives.
Implementation of these measures may be par-
tially funded through the federal Clean Lakes Program.
Before these funds can be applied for, however, DEQ is
required to develop specific limits on nutrients (such as
phosphorus and nitrogen) in the lake. These limits will
restrict the amount of nutrients allowed to enter the lake
from the Clark Fork River. DEQ also hopes to set similar
limits for nutrients coming from the bay areas around the
lake.
Meanwhile, a three-state management plan that
covers the entire Clark Fork/Pend Oreille watershed is in
the works and will be ready for public review in June.
This larger plan incorporates the lake plan plus control
measures for the Clark Fork and Pend Oreille rivers.
After public review, the final plan will be presented to
Congress for its blessing.
— RW
Fear of Mining
New video shows why mining alarms communities
An unfortunate consequence of mining in the West
is that it often pits neighbor against neighbor, or com-
munity against community. More often than not those
fearful of the social and economic upheaval posed by the
short-term promises of metals mining remain silent,
fearful of being bashed by local mining boosters. But
that's not the case in Cooke City, Montana, where most
residents oppose Canadian-based Noranda Minerals'
proposal to mine gold in an open pit near the tourism-
based community.
In a new video, Undermining Yellowstone, local
residents express their fears how the mining will affect
community solidarity, Yellowstone Park and local wildlife
and water quality. Produced by World Wide Film Expe-
dition, an independent Missoula film company, this 21-
minute vignette on the environmental and social risks of
large-scale gold mining could — if not should — have
been made in any of the many communities in the West
facing the consequences of the new gold rush.
6
In the case of mis proposal, community interest
extends beyond Cooke City, though. It includes the
millions of Americans who should be worried about how
this mine — proposed for a site that will be practically
impossible to reclaim and which already produces
pollution from historical mining — will affect the
surrounding environment. At risk are Yellowstone Park,
its grizzly population and water quality in the Stillwater
River and the Wild and Scenic Clark's Fork of the
Yellowstone.
Though the production quality of the video is a
little rough because of a small budget, its message is big.
And important.
Undermining Yellowstone is available from World
Wide Film Expedition, Box 7391, Missoula, MT 59807.
The cost is $10, loaners are available for $3. Proceeds
will go to the Beartooth Alliance, a grass-roots
organization in Cooke City opposed to irresponsible
mining. Contact them: Box 1141, Cooke City, MT59020.
_ Currents
------- |