Flathead Basin Commission -- Local Solutions To Local Problems The Flathead Basin Commission was created in 1983 to coordinate Lake management and protect water quality in Flathead Lake. Shortly after the Flathead Basin Commission was established, it became apparent that declining water quality threatened the health of the Lake. The Commission and DEQ responded by developing and implementing a Phosphorus Control (lake management) Strategy. Recent signs of declining water quality point to the need to revise, strengthen and update that plan. Flathead River Basin Environmental Impact Study The Flathead region has a rich history of efforts to protect and maintain its natural heritage and the quality of Flathead Lake. In the mid-1970's, the threat of a proposed open-pit coal mine within the Canadian portion of the North Fork Flathead River Basin became a rallying point for citizens in the Basin. Responding to citizen's concerns, Congress mandated to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency conduct a Þve year Environmental Impact Study. This study for the Þrst time evaluated water quality conditions, Þsheries and aquatic organisms in the Flathead Basin. The study found a strong linkage between land use activities and the condition of water quality and aquatic resources. At the completion of the study, the steering committee realized the protection of the region's water quality depended on a concerted effort and the cooperation of all land managers in the basin. The study recommended the creation of a permanent basin commission to assure protection of the Lake. The Montana legislature created the 22 member commission to assure that all of the stakeholders in the Basin are represented. The major land management agencies, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, state resource agencies, federal agencies, local governments, British Columbia, and the public each play critical roles in making the Commission a success. The legislation creating the Commission states: "The purpose of the Flathead Basin Commission is to protect the existing high quality of the Flathead Lake aquatic environment; the waters that þow into, out of, or are tributary to the lake; and the natural resources and environment of the Flathead basin." The Commission is charged with "protecting the existing high quality" of water as it existed in 1983. The legislature clariÞed their intent by deÞning "aquatic resources" as all beneÞcial use of water including but not limited to water quality and water supply, recreational, scenic, and aesthetic values. Top of page Prevention -- Protecting Flathead Lake Within a few months of the creation of the Flathead Basin Commission, people came face-to-face with a water quality crisis. Flathead Lake experienced its Þrst recorded algae bloom, an indisputable sign of deteriorating water quality. During mid-July of 1983, large standing crops of blue-green algae appeared. This clear sign of degrading water quality raised immediate concerns. The potentially toxic blue-green algae associated with polluted waters, Anabaena þos-aquae, reached an alarming 24 percent of the total standing crop in surface samples taken that year. Top of page 1984 Phosphorous Strategy --- A Foundation For Future Action The Department of Health and Environmental Sciences (DHES), relying upon data collected by the Flathead Basin Commission, developed a strategy for limiting phosphorus in Flathead Lake. Implementation of that strategy, published in April of 1984, began almost immediately. The initial effort to maintain water quality focused on phosphorus since this was the nutrient recognized as the primary control the rate of eutrophication in Flathead Lake. The then current annual phosphorus level was identiÞed as 0.49 grams of phosphorous per square meter by DEQ. This quantity of phosphorus became the target for lake management. The largest point sources of pollution are discharges from municipal waste water treatment plants. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus include run-off from forested and agricultural lands, urban storm water and seepage from individual sewage disposal systems. Total phosphorous loading from the four municipal wastewater treatment facilities (Kalispell, WhiteÞsh, Columbia Falls, and Bigfork) upstream from the lake were estimated to be 20.5 metric tons per year (Stanford, J. A., et al., 1983). Using self-monitoring data gathered from each facility, DEQ arrived at almost the same phosphorous loading estimate (20.8 metric tons per year) (Table III-1). Using community growth estimates and assuming the then current levels of treatment, DEQ estimated that the total amount of phosphorous entering Flathead Lake from the four municipalities could double to 41.7 metric tons per year by the year 2000 if steps to protect the lake were not taken. After a series of scenarios were developed, DEQ determined that if pollution levels from community waste water treatment facilities were reduced to a 1 mg/L of phosphorous, lake water quality would be maintained, so long as nonpoint sources were kept under control. The lake protection strategy also considered run-off from agriculture, forestry, rural subdivisions and all the sources of pollution associated with human activities. Stanford et al. (1983) estimated that about 75 percent of the total phosphorous entering Flathead Lake originates from nonpoint sources (includes airshed source pollutants as part of nonpoint load). Separating nonpoint pollution sources from point sources left approximately 20 to 25 percent of the pollution load as coming from point sources associated with community waste water treatment discharges. Table III-1
Total Phosphorous Loading to Flathead Lake from
Point Source Municipal Wastewater Treatment FacilitiesSource: MT DHES, 1984 | Town | Year 1983 Phosphorous | Year 2000 Phosphorous | Flow | mg/L | MT/yr | Flow | mg/L | MT/yr
w/p | MT/yr
w/P
removal | Kalispell | 1.3 | 4.7 | 8.4 | 2.88 | 6.0 | 23.8 | 4.0 | Whitefish | 0.7 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 1.20 | 6.0 | 9.9 | 1.7 | Columbia Falls | 0.3 | 9.5 | 3.9 | 0.55 | 7.0 | 5.3 | 0.8 | Bigfork | 0.2 | 9.9 | 2.7 | 0.38 | 7.0 | 2.7 | 0.5 | Totals | 2.50 | 30.1 | 20.8 | 5.0 | 26.0 | 41.7 | 7.0 |
Top of page Taking into account whether or not the phosphorus is in a form that will directly inþuence water quality, it was found in the 1984 strategy that about 55 percent of the biologically active phosphorous loading to the Lake comes from nonpoint pollution sources. Precipitation and dry-fall accounted for an additional 25 percent and point sources contribute 20 percent (MT DHES, 1984)(Table III-2). The principal man-caused sediment sources (1984) in the basin upstream from the Lake outlet were attributed to the principal land use categories and associated sediment-producing activities (Seastedt and Tibbs, 1974; Nunnallee, et al., 1976). The loads of sediment and phosphorous generated by human activities were then superimposed over natural loads of sediment and phosphorous delivered to the Lake. Table III-2
Estimated Percent Bio-active Phosphorous
Source: MT DHES, 1985 | Source | Percent Bio-active | Percent Human Origin | Point sources | 100 | 100 | Atmospheric precipitation | 80 | 30 | Nonpoint sources | 5-20 | 1-10* | *A small portion of nonpoint phosphorous load, represented by domestic wastewater from households on individual sewage treatment systems, is essentially all bio-active and of cultural origin. |
Top of page Estimates of phosphorous deposition and export for the entire Flathead Basin (1984) based upon DEQ calculations are presented in Table III-3. The numbers in this table demonstrate the importance of forest land as a source of phosphorous to Flathead Lake. Potentially, forest lands could contribute about 82 percent of the nonpoint source phosphorous entering the lake, excluding direct precipitation and dry fall-out. An average annual phosphorous export coefÞcient for the Flathead River drainage above Columbia Falls was calculated by DEQ as 0.041 kilograms of phosphorus per hectare per year (1984). This estimate was based on discharge and total phosphorous data recorded for water years 1979 through 1982 at the U. S. Geological Survey Water Quality Station in Columbia Falls (U. S. Geological Survey, 1979-1982). This Þgure is well below the average among North American forested watersheds in terms of phosphorous export per unit area. In spite of this low export coefÞcient, forested areas still were thought to contribute the largest share of phosphorous (66 percent) of all land cover types in the Basin from human activities due to the large acreage in this category excluding direct precipitation and dry fallout on lakes. Applying the phosphorous export value of 0.041 kg phosphorous per hectare per year to the estimate of forested areas in the Flathead drainage (Table III-3) yields a phosphorous export value of about 77 tons per year. Controlling Phosphorus A key strategy component of the lake management plan is to control phosphorous delivery from community waste water treatment facilities. Municipal wastewater treatment plants have already implemented a discharge limitation of 1 mg/L of phosphorous. In addition, the phosphorus in detergent was a major nutrient source in both individual on-site facilities and community systems. Flathead and Lake Counties were the Þrst counties in the State to adopt a ban on the sale of phosphate-containing detergents. Table III-3
1984 Estimates Of Net Phosphorus Export From Major Land Cover Types | . | Area (ha)1 | Phosphorus Export | . | Flathead
County | Flathead
Basin2 | Percent
Basin | kg/ha/yr | kg/yr | Percent | Forest | 1,235,000 | 1,708,600 | 93 | 0.041 | 70,000 | 41 | Agriculture | 40,000 | 55,100 | 3 | 0.5 | 27,550 | 16 | Urban | 5,000 | 9,200 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 9,200 | 5 | Lakes3 | 50,000 | 64,300 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 64,300 | 38 | Totals | 1,330,000 | 1,837,200 | 100 | --- | 171,050 | 100 | 1. Sources: Seastedt and Tibbs; 1974, Mohn, J. E., April 6, 1984 personal communication Flathead Regional Development OfÞce; Stanford, et. al., 1983; anonymous, 1974. 2. Source: Rast and Lee, 1978 and direct calculation for forested areas based upon USGS data. 3. Includes direct precipitation and dry fall. |
Top of page Efforts to reduce nonpoint sources of phosphorous pollution have also been important, but less dramatic. The 1984 phosphorus control strategy called for the adoption of a large number of recommendations for controlling nonpoint source pollution developed by the Flathead Drainage 208 Project. For the most part, these recommendations called for voluntary cooperation and coordination among resource managers, compliance with existing laws and regulations and application of "best management practices." Steps Implemented To Manage Nonpoint Pollution On Private Lands By the time the strategy was adopted, the Flathead 208 Board and staff had dis-banded. Without an active nonpoint source water quality management agency in the Basin, responsibility for implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) fell directly on individual land owners and on public land management agencies. The one exception was for the review of activities subject to Montana 310 stream-crossing law and farm plans developed to meet the requirements of the federal farm program. The Flathead Conservation District has played a leading role in this on-going nonpoint source control effort. As an agency authorized by the state, the conservation district has played an important role in undertaking projects to control nonpoint source pollution control problems. The Flathead Conservation District sponsored a nonpoint source control project for East Spring Creek which was a degraded water body. This stream restoration project was highly successful. Two years of water quality sampling shows a dramatic improvement in water quality in this stream. The other major nonpoint source control program that has been widely implemented throughout the valley is the requirement of the federal farm program participation. Each farm located on highly erodible soils is required to develop and implement a farm management program. An important goal of this plan is to protect water quality. This program is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Services Agency. The recently enacted federal Farm Bill has added a program known as the EQUIP program to address water quality related issues directly. Top of page Managing Shoreline Nonpoint Pollution The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have implemented a shoreline protection code to protect water quality around the lake. Individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations and governmental entities proposing to undertake projects that may have an adverse effect on natural streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquatic lands within the Flathead Indian Reservation must submit an application and obtain an approved permit before disturbance of waterways and aquatic land may occur. This protection is afforded to the Tribal Shoreline Protection Ordinance 64-A (revised and Ordinance 87A (ALCO)). The original shoreline protection ordinance was enacted in 1972. The Tribal Council, aware of the incomplete coverage afforded Reservation waterways, sought to implement a Reservation-wide program of streambed protection. The second ordinance 87A (ALCO) was approved by the Secretary of Interior in 1987. This ordinance gave responsibility for streambed protection to the Shoreline Protection OfÞce. The Shoreline Protection Board was established in 1982. The Tribal Council appoints seven members to the board (four Tribal members, and three non-Tribal members) to oversee implementation of the shoreline protection ordinances. A decision to approve or disapprove a permit is based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts of the proposed project on the aquatic lands, Þsh and wildlife. In an effort to compensate for the absence of local regulation prior to 1983, the Shoreline Board established a Þve foot depth regulation for "grandfathered" existing docks. All landowners with docks or structures that protrude beyond the bank of the lake must register their structures with the Shoreline Protection ofÞce. Permits are issued for lake-ward construction for a period of ten years. The Shoreline OfÞce then monitors, inspects and controls the environmental standards required by the Shoreline ordinances. The purpose of these efforts is to maintain the vital link between land and water for present and future generations. Top of page Steps Implemented To Manage Nonpoint Pollution Associated With Timber Harvest On forested watersheds, the strategy called for (1) cooperative management among landowners within a drainage in order to minimize stream channel instability and (2) a cooperative water quality monitoring program. More than half of the land in the basin is managed by the U. S. Forest Service. Voluntary BMPs, and Streamside Management regulations are each part of the forestry control strategy. The Flathead Basin Commission (FBC) followed up on concerns about potential effects from forested areas of the basin. The FBC looked at the question of the impact of forest practices on water quality through a cooperative project that began in 1988. This effort known as the "Flathead Basin Forest Practices/ Water Quality and Fisheries Cooperative Program" involved the major public and private forestry land owners, the University of Montana and the Flathead Basin Commission. An analysis of data collected in the historical record, water quality and Þsheries research modules revealed that timber harvest activities resulted in: - changes in the spring run-off pattern;
| - increased sediment loading in streams and lakes;
| - increased nutrient loading to streams and lakes (since sediments represent a signiÞcant source of nutrients);
| - increased attached algae biomass in streams (algae growth responds to increased nutrients);
| - increased percentage of Þne sediments in trout spawning gravel; and,
| - increased substrate embeddedness.
|
The largest source of sediments appears to be from new road construction and existence of unstable roads.Supporting evidence for the conclusion linking roads to sediment delivery levels comes from the BMP audits that showed the greatest number of departures were related to road drainage and road maintenance, followed by failure to recognize and modify practices in the stream management zone (Flathead Basin Forest Practices Water Quality and Fisheries Cooperative Program, 1991). During a formal audit process, individual BMPs are evaluated in a qualitative way by an interdisciplinary team. There is no demonstrated correlation between "effective" application of individual BMPs, as rated in the audit process and a reduction in nonpoint source pollution entering the State's streams. As MacDonald and others (1991) state succinctly, "..the monitoring of individual BMPs is quite different from monitoring to determine whether the cumulative effect of all the BMPs results in adequate water quality protection. We would like to explicitly determine, through this monitoring program, if water quality is being adequately protected" (MacDonald, EPA). Beschta, (1991), reached a similar conclusion. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Trust Land Management Division (formerly Department of State Lands) has taken steps to ensure the maintenance of water quality on their land in the Flathead Basin. The major components of their water quality program are: - Long-term monitoring in the Stillwater State Forest. Water quality monitoring in the Stillwater began in 1976 and has been conducted every year since. The data are analyzed and reported biennially in an attempt to detect trends in water quality.
| - Statewide watershed inventory. In the recently approved State Forest Land Management Plan, DNRC committed to conducting an inventory of watershed conditions on all of the forested trust land.
| - More comprehensive monitoring. Also in the State Forest Land Management Plan, DNRC committed to presenting a more comprehensive, technically sound, water quality monitoring strategy. This strategy must be approved by the Board of Land Commissioners and the legislature may need to approve funding and will be available for public comment during the summer of 1997.
| - Commitment to bull trout protection. DNRC was the only major timberland owner to commit to the Governor's Bull Trout Immediate Actions.
|
In 1988, 1989, 1990,1992,1994 and 1996, teams of resource professionals visited timber harvest sites to audit how well streams were being protected from water quality damage associated with logging. The result of these audits was adoption of the Streamside Management Act in 1991. Fifty foot zones along each side of a perennial or intermittent stream is protected from seven activities that could adversely impact water quality. These activities are broadcast burning, operation of wheeled or tracked vehicle, clear-cutting, road construction except to cross streams or wetlands, use of hazardous materials, side-casting of road material and depositing slash in streams. Top of page Managing On-site Waste Disposal - Subdivisions Much of the growth and housing in the Flathead Valley occurs outside of communities served by community treatment facilities. Neither county has a comprehensive waste water management plan to address the pollution concerns associated with growth. New community systems are developed as local community leaders identify a need and garner the support for a community system. Outside of developed communities, individual houses depend upon on-site sewage and waste disposal. Analysis is required for any septic system proposed to be located within 1000 feet of a stream to determine it's potential to reach surface water. A phosphorus break-through calculation must show that phosphorous will not reach surface waters for a minimum of Þfty years. DEQ reviews "major" subdivisions (i. e., greater than Þve lot) subdivisions in Flathead and Lake Counties. The two counties review fewer than Þve lot subdivisions. Both Flathead and Lake counties have on-site septic tank regulations and can require the replacement of any septic system that fails. Top of page Managing Storm Water Another major source of pollution comes from storm related run-off. Currently, every industrial source of storm water where the discharge is through a 10" to 12" discharge pipe must be permitted by DEQ in Flathead County. Each permittee is required to develop a pollution prevention plan as part of the permit. Monitoring is required of phosphorous in the storm water discharge. This monitoring has only recently begun so results are not yet available. New or increased sources of storm water discharge are reviewed under the Montana non-degradation rules. Much of the responsibility for reviewing these new sources including recommendations for appropriate "Best Management Practices" to control pollution is the responsibility of local cities or the county. The federal law does not require a community to have a storm water plan in effect until the city's population exceeds 100,000 people, a threshold far above the population of communities in the Basin. Top of page Managing Community Sewage --- Point Source Pollution The foundation of the current Flathead Lake protection strategy is the control of phosphorous from the community waste water treatment plants. Each community, through their discharge permit, must meet a maximum concentration limit of 1 mg/L phosphorus. Communities were required to make changes in the design of their facilities; change the way they were operated and increase capital and operating budgets for their sewage treatment plants to meet this stringent requirement. Bigfork, Columbia Falls, Kalispell, WhiteÞsh and Yellow Bay are each subjected to this requirement. Lakeside and Somers have since opened a new community system that discharges directly to the ground. Currently all of the communities affected by this requirement meet the state limits. The publicly owned Kalispell treatment facility became operational in the fall of 1992. The plant successfully removes phosphorous as required by DEQ, and voluntarily removes nitrogen. Recently, the facility was recognized by the Flathead Basin Commission and has received the honor of being the best-run plant in U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII. The facility routinely achieves phosphorous concentration in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/L of phosphorus or a level 80 to 90% better than what the state requires and 300 to 600% less than before implementation of the Lake protection strategy. People living in Kalispell have invested over $14,400,000 and a bonded debt until 2011 to achieve this level of treatment. In addition to the reduction in phosphorus from the city of Kalispell, the facility now treats efþuent from part of the previously unsewered community of Evergreen. However, Ashley Creek, the stream used as the discharge point for the Kalispell community facility continues to degrade, in spite of this enhanced treatment. Large quantities of residual phosphorous remain in the bottom sediments of the lower stretch of Ashley Creek. The water quality in Ashley Creek above the treatment plant continues to degrade. The community of Bigfork plant operates well below the 1 milligram requirement. The collection system has been extended into neighboring areas to the south of town. Columbia Falls treatment facility meets the state 1 milligram standard although in the past, upsets have occurred. The University of Montana has constructed a facility to treat efþuent from the Flathead Lake Biological Station and the adjoining state campground. The plant also meets or exceeds the current state standard. The city of WhiteÞsh meets or exceeds the current state phosphorous standard. As part of a strategy to protect water quality in WhiteÞsh Lake, WhiteÞsh attempts to bring all development east of WhiteÞsh Lake into the community treatment system. If all the lots approved were built upon, the system would require additional capacity. The facility has experienced periods when due to storms, more water was delivered to the system than the system could adequately treat. WhiteÞsh is working to remove storm water from the system through the development of settling ponds and storm water collection areas. WhiteÞsh annually spends between $225,000 and $260,000 on operation and debt service for their community treatment facility. Sewage treated has risen annually from 271 million gallons to over 400 million gallons of efþuent. Two types of phosphorus removal are utilized at the plant. The aerated lagoons in 1996 removed 4.787 pounds of phosphorus at a cost of $14.00 per pound. The other removal method employed is a phosphorus clariÞer. The clariÞer removed an additional 10,566 pounds of phosphorous at a cost of $25.00 per pound of phosphorus. The area directly around Big Mountain now relies upon its own treatment facility. The community of Lakeside relied on individual on-site waste water treatment at the time the DHES Flathead Lake Phosphorous Control Strategy was adopted. Much of the community is served by the community system that includes the Somers area, although shoreline homes between the two communities continue to rely upon individual on-site sewage disposal. Unlike the other community systems in the basin, this facility uses land application after treatment. It does not requires a point source permit from DEQ, but the State does require monitoring wells around the facility. The monitoring wells have been unable to detect pollutant migration from the disposal area. The State phosphorous limitation of 1 mg/L of phosphorous in water discharged has been implemented at each community facility in the Basin. The improved treatment performance at each of these facilities resulted in signiÞcant reductions in the removal of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) in addition to phosphorous. Total pollutant loading is at far lower levels than prior to implementation of the Flathead Lake Phosphorous Control Strategy. Top of page Pollution Control --- Shifting To Loads Population growth is increasing the demands on each community facility. As new houses and businesses are added to the systems, the total amount of pollutants discharged increases. The current approach relies entirely upon the amount of pollutant in a volume of water or concentration. While treating that waste will continue to be the best alternative to control phosphorous, continued community growth suggests a need to shift from concentration limits to load limits. This type of approach better reþects the fact that the Lake can only handle a limited quantity of pollutants and maintain its high quality condition. Over time each new activity or individual source will need to control a larger volume of its contribution to the pollution load to the lake. This concept can be thought of as the "holding capacity" of the stream. The streams and rivers þowing through the valley bottom above the lake have each moved beyond their capacity to contain or process pollution naturally. Ashley Creek is a prime example of a stream where capacity has been exceeded both above and below the treatment plant. Concentration limits are no longer useful in this situation. The key to successful water quality protection is to develop management strategies that trap and hold nutrients along the þoodplains and riparian areas of rivers and streams. As pollution loading has increased throughout the Basin, the importance of nitrogen in addition to phosphorus is increasingly being recognized. Kalispell is the only community in the Basin actively removing nitrogen as part of the treatment process. Each community is required to monitor nitrogen discharges. It is likely in the future that this source of pollution will require additional attention. Top of page IV. Protecting Flathead LakeBuilding On The 1984 Phosphorous Strategy The next phase of the effort will focus on choosing a path to a future that maintains and restores water quality in Flathead Lake and the Basin. This phase is an extension and updating of the lake management strategy adopted in 1984. The current strategy is in place. It is up to the people living in the Flathead Basin to chose a path to water quality protection. This report is the technical step in this process. The health of Flathead Lake is the ultimate true measure of success. Lowering of concentrations of pollutants, having less algae present on the rocks around the lake and freedom from nuisance algal blooms will determine if the nutrient reduction strategy adequately protects Flathead Lake. The goals of the voluntary nutrient reduction strategy are to: - Result in an overall comprehensive watershed protection framework and implementation strategy to protect water quality in Flathead Lake and its watershed;
| - Recommend a fair distribution for pollution clean-up to those stakeholders contributing to the problem;
| - Adopt a strategy to meet water quality targets;
| - Identify community-based implementation mechanisms;
| - Encourage cooperative agreements that recognize the responsibilities and need for each stakeholder to assume an equitable share of water quality protection; and
| - Propose methods to fund implementation of the strategy.
|
List of Sources Consulted Bahls, L., 1984, Flathead Lake Phosphorus Control Strategy, MT. Department of Environmental Quality. Makepeace, S. and B. Mladenich, 1996. Contribution of Nearshore Nutrient Loads to Flathead Lake, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Natural Resources Department. Montana 305(b) Report, 1996, Montana Department of Environmental Quality Stanford J., et. al., 1997, Water Quality Data and Analyses to Aid in the Development of Revised Water Quality Targets for Flathead Lake, Montana Phase I of a cooperative study to determine Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorus. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process, EPA 440/4-91-001. NOTE: Information on point and nonpoint water pollution control measures were provided by members of the TMDL Team. Top of page. | 
