LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

SYSTEM REHABILITATION

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

GLACIER NATIONAL PARK

A PORTION OF WATERTON – GLACIER INTERNATIONAL PEACE PARK

FLATHEAD AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

January 2000
Contents

1.0 Purpose and Need........................................................................1

1.1 Background..............................................................................6

1.2 Issues and Scoping....................................................................6

Facility Operation.........................................................................7

Water Quality..............................................................................7

Floodplain ....................................................................................7

Wild and Scenic Rivers.................................................................7

Wildlife........................................................................................7

Aquatic Life ................................................................................7

Threatened, Endangered and State Sensitive Plants and Wildlife......8

Socioeconomics...........................................................................8

Cultural Resources.......................................................................8

1.3 Impact Topics...........................................................................8

Impacts Topics Selected for Detailed Analysis...............................9

Impact Topics Dismissed from Detailed Study ...............................9

2.0 Alternatives Including the Preferred............................................ 10

2.1 Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field ...........................................................11

2.2 Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage.................................................................14

2.3 Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge ...................................................18

2.4 Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative  Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge...........................................20

2.5 Alternative 4 — No Action......................................................23

2.6 Alternatives Eliminated from Study...........................................23

2.7 Alternative Selection Process...................................................28

2.8 Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives......................30

3.0 Affected Environment ................................................................ 30

3.1 Natural Resources ..................................................................30

Soils..........................................................................................30

Water Resources and Floodplains................................................31

Wild and Scenic Rivers...............................................................32

Vegetation.................................................................................32

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources..................................................33

Threatened, Endangered and State Sensitive Species....................34

Visual Resources.......................................................................41

Noise ........................................................................................41

3.2 Socioeconomic Resources.......................................................41

Park Visitation and Use..............................................................41

Land Use ..................................................................................42

Regional Use and Economy........................................................42
Contents continued

4.0 Environmental Consequences...................................................... 44

4.1 Natural Resources ..................................................................44

Soils..........................................................................................44

Water Resources and Floodplains................................................46

Wild and Scenic River................................................................50

Vegetation.................................................................................51

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources..................................................53

Threatened and Endangered and State Sensitive Species..............57

Visual Resources.......................................................................66

Noise and Odor..........................................................................68

4.2 Socioeconomic Environment ....................................................70

Visitor Use and Experience ........................................................70

Land Use ..................................................................................71

Local and Regional Economy......................................................72

4.3 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term

Productivity..........................................................................73

4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources............74

4.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.................................................74

5.0 Consultation and Coordination ..................................................... 75

6.0 Compliance with Federal and State Regulations............................ 75

7.0 References................................................................................ 78

8.0 List of Preparers........................................................................ 79

Figures

Figure 1. Project vicinity.....................................................................2

Figure 2. Project area.........................................................................5

Figure 3. Alternative 1A — Lagoon treatment, sprinkler discharge,

additional spray field........................................................... 13

Figure 4. Alternative 1B — Lagoon treatment, sprinkler discharge,

additional storage............................................................... 15

Figure 5. Alternative 2 — Advanced wastewater treatment, rapid

infiltration basin discharge................................................... 19

Figure 6. Alternative 3 — Advanced wastewater treatment, land

discharge........................................................................... 21
Tables

Table 1. Comparison of alternative characteristics.............................. 16

Table 2. Comparison of effects by alternative.................................... 24

Table 3. Value analysis summary...................................................... 29

Table 4. Federal wildlife and aquatic species of concern..................... 36

Appendices

Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names of Plants and Animals

Referenced in the Environmental Impact Statement
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1

1.0 Purpose and Need

Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park is a 4,506 square kilometer

National Park that consists of spectacular scenery, designated historic

landmarks and cultural properties, proposed wilderness, and a relatively

undisturbed ecosystem (Figure 1). The National Park Service (NPS)

manages the 4,087-square kilometer Glacier National Park (Park) as a

portion of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park.

In 1932, the Canadian Parliament and United States Congress designated

Glacier National Park and Waterton Lakes National Park as WatertonGlacier International Peace Park. In 1974, about 95 percent of Glacier

National Park was identified as suitable for preservation as wilderness in

the National Wilderness Preservation System. Although Congress has

not formally designated it as wilderness, the Park is managed as

wilderness until Congress formally designates or rejects it. In 1976, the

United Nations designated Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park as

a biosphere reserve. In 1995, the United Nations designated WatertonGlacier International Peace Park a World Heritage Site.

The purposes of Glacier National Park are to:

• Preserve and protect natural and cultural resources unimpaired for

future generations.

• Provide opportunities to experience, understand, appreciate, and enjoy

Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park consistent with the

preservation of resources in a state of nature.

• Celebrate the ongoing peace, friendship, and goodwill among nations,

recognizing the need for cooperation in a world of shared resources

(NPS 1998a).

The purpose of the proposed project is to rehabilitate and improve the

existing wastewater treatment facility to meet Park needs in the Lake

McDonald, Apgar, and Park Headquarter areas. The existing

wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was built in 1973 and is no longer

meeting its original treatment objective or operating at design capacity.

Current project objectives include meeting the demand for wastewater

treatment in the Park and reducing potential adverse environmental

effects associated with the existing WWTP.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2

Figure 1. Project vicinity.

Click here for link to figure 1
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3

Current visitor use in Glacier National Park is about 1.7 million people per

year, with a peak demand on the wastewater treatment system of

410,000 visitors per month. The existing wastewater treatment system is

not adequate to meet current demands and lacks the capacity and

flexibility to maintain and operate in an efficient manner in the future.

The existing sewage lagoon does not have the capacity to store winter

flows and precipitation during wet years. Snow cover or a high water

table prevent early spring applications of treated effluent to the spray

field. In the spring of 1992, the spray field was covered with snow and

effluent and the lagoon exceeded storage capacity. This resulted in a

breach in the sewage lagoon dike and the discharge of partially treated

sewage effluent to the environment. In addition, the existing spray field is

not operating efficiently and requires rehabilitation. Failure to improve the

existing wastewater facility may result in surface and ground water

contamination, harm to aquatic and other natural resources, and

restrictions in the operation of Park Headquarters, residences, and

concessioner businesses during the winter and early spring. The

proposed project and alternatives discussed in this Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS) would correct these deficiencies with the

existing wastewater facility.

Glacier National Park proposes to replace the existing wastewater

treatment system with an advanced wastewater treatment facility that

achieves a greater level of nutrient and pathogen removal. The proposed

improvements would accommodate existing services, a planned visitor

facility discussed in the Park General Management Plan (NPS 1999a),

and existing private inholdings in the Lake McDonald area. All proposed

improvements are in the vicinity of the existing wastewater facility

(Figure 2).

This DEIS analyzes the potential effects to the environment from the

preferred alternative, alternative actions, and no action. The DEIS has

been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 and the NEPA regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500). The DEIS will be made available

to the public for a 60-day review and comment period. Public comments

will be used in completing the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS).

This DEIS is divided into eight chapters. The following sections in the

Purpose and Need chapter discuss the background for this project, issues

identified during scoping, and impact topics covered in this DEIS.

Chapter 2 addresses alternatives that were considered to meet the

purpose and need of this project. Chapter 3 discusses the affected

environment, and Chapter 4 discusses the environmental consequences of

the alternative actions. Chapter 5 covers consultation and coordination

with the public and resource agencies. Chapter 6 addresses compliance
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4

with federal and state regulations. Chapter 7 includes references, and

Chapter 8 lists the preparers of this DEIS.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5

Figure 2. Project area.

Click here for link to figure 2
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6

1.1 Background

Glacier National Park attracts over 2 million visitors annually.

Approximately 60 percent of these visitors enter and receive information

on the west side of the Park and are served by the Lake McDonald

wastewater treatment facility. The Lake McDonald wastewater

treatment facility also currently serves about 300 concession employees,

200 Park employees and their families, concession operations, Lake

McDonald Lodge, Apgar Village, Sprague Creek, Apgar, and Fish Creek

Campgrounds, Park Headquarters, and maintenance areas.

In 1973, the Park identified a number of improvements that were needed

to address pollution sources to Lake McDonald from the seepage of raw

sewage from existing septic systems, inadequate secondary treatment

facilities, and deficiencies in the wastewater collection system. The

existing aerated lagoon and effluent disposal spray field were constructed

as part of the 1973 improvements. The original system was designed for

a peak demand of 250,000 gallons per day (gpd).

In 1996, the Park determined that improvements and upgrades to the

wastewater facility and collection system were needed to meet Park

demands and protect resources from potential damage from accidental

wastewater discharges. A number of needed improvements to the

wastewater system were identified, including improving treatment and

increasing storage capacity of the treatment system, replacing or

rehabilitating older service-intensive lift stations, and slip lining or

replacing failed or damaged collection lines. Since 1997, the Park has

upgraded lift stations at Lake McDonald and Sprague Creek, and has

replaced several lines. The Park’s ongoing maintenance program is

continuing sewage collection line inspections and improvements as

necessary. This DEIS addresses proposed improvements to the

wastewater treatment facility, but does not address all of the anticipated

future improvements to the sewage collection system. Future actions to

repair damaged sewage collection lines and other lift station

improvements will be addressed during on-going maintenance and

replacement activities as funding allows.

1.2 Issues and Scoping

Scoping meetings were held with an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of Park

staff, consultants, state and local agencies to identify potential alternatives

and issues. Two public open houses were held in Kalispell and West

Glacier, Montana to solicit input on the project. The scoping and planning

process resulted in the identification of a number of issues, concerns, and

opportunities to be addressed in the DEIS. A summary of these issues is

discussed below. Chapter 5.0 provides additional information on scoping

and identification of issues.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7

Facility Operation

The existing 27-year old WWTP does not have the capacity or design to

operate year-round. WWTP discharges to the spray field in the spring

often are not possible due to saturated ground conditions. The aging

facility is no longer meeting its original treatment objectives.

Water Quality

The potential effect to water quality from alternative methods of

wastewater treatment is an issue of concern. The public is concerned

with using the best available technology to treat wastewater and maintain

high water quality in receiving waters. Potential downstream effects to

Flathead Lake water quality also is an issue. Continued operation of the

existing facility may result in periodic breaches of the sewage lagoon,

which could affect water quality in lower McDonald Creek and the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River.

Floodplain

Floods or saturated conditions in the floodplain prevent the use of the

existing spray field and can affect the operation of the wastewater

treatment system. Current state regulations do not allow new effluent

spray fields to be located within a 100-year floodplain.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Middle Fork of the Flathead River is a Wild and Scenic River

adjacent to the existing WWTP. An issue of concern is potential impacts

to the scenic and natural resource values of this segment of the Wild and

Scenic River.

Wildlife

Additional land is needed to construct more sewage lagoons or a new

spray field. Project actions could affect habitat used by elk, deer, black

bear, and a variety of other mammals, birds and wildlife.

Aquatic Life

Subaquatic organisms, referred to as the hyporheic community, are likely

present in the alluvial ground water of lower McDonald Creek and the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River. Continued use of the existing spray

field, new spray fields or discharge basins in the vicinity of the these

drainages would introduce nutrients that may affect the hyporheic

community.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8

Threatened, Endangered and State Sensitive Plants and

Wildlife

Glacier National Park is one of the most ecologically intact areas in the

world and provides habitat for a wide diversity of plant and animal life.

Five federally listed threatened and endangered species—grizzly bear,

bald eagle, peregrine falcon, gray wolf and bull trout—are found in the

Park and use habitat in the vicinity of the wastewater treatment facility.

Lynx, a species proposed for federal listing, and cutthroat trout, a species

petitioned for listing, also use habitat in the project area. Velvetleaf

blueberry, a state threatened plant, is found in the vicinity of the existing

sewage lagoon and potential expansion sites. There is concern that

construction activity and a loss or change in habitat could affect

threatened or endangered wildlife or state sensitive plants.

Socioeconomics

The continued operation of Park west side facilities including

campgrounds, the Discovery Center, concessions, Lake McDonald

Lodge, Park Headquarters, Park operations, and private businesses in

Apgar are dependent on a reliable wastewater treatment facility. In

addition, the west-side Park employee residences require service from

the wastewater treatment facility.

Current limitations in effluent treatment capacity could result in restricted

use of some Park facilities in the winter to reduce the wastewater

treatment demand. This could affect Park operations. In addition,

economic impacts to Park concessioners and private businesses in the

Park are possible with the existing wastewater treatment facility. This is

most likely to occur during operational startup in the spring.

Cultural Resources

Known cultural resources near the project area were considered by Park

staff, with the examination of existing cultural resource inventories, to

determine whether cultural resources would be an issue. No cultural

resources were found in the project area.

1.3 Impact Topics

Major issues that relate to the purpose and need of the proposed project

to improve the wastewater treatment system are discussed in detail in the

DEIS. Resource issues or concerns with minor or no effects are not

discussed in detail in the DEIS. Impact topics selected or eliminated from

detailed discussion are listed below.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9

Impacts Topics Selected for Detailed Analysis

Impact topics that were selected for detailed analysis include soils, water

resources and floodplains, Wild and Scenic Rivers, vegetation, wildlife

and aquatic resources, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species,

visual resources, noise and odor, visitor use and experience, land use, and

local and regional economy.

Impact Topics Dismissed from Detailed Study

Air Quality

Air quality is not discussed in detail in this document because potential

effects are expected to be minor. There would be a small increase in

hydrocarbon emissions associated with construction equipment during

construction. This would be a short-term effect and would not adversely

affect air quality in the Park. An air quality monitoring station is located

near the existing wastewater facility, but construction activities or

operation of any of the alternatives would not affect monitoring activities.

Spray field applied effluent could potentially contain air-borne pathogens

not killed during the treatment process. Spray field sites would be fenced

to prevent access to these areas. No effects to air quality would occur

under the no action alternative, and none of the alternatives would result

in long-term or cumulative adverse effects.

Wetlands

No wetlands are located in the potential area of disturbance for this

project (USFWS 1992). The floodplain area is generally well drained

although surface water is present during spring snowmelt or flood events.

Project lands on the terrace slopes above the floodplain support upland

vegetation. McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the Flathead River

are a waters of the U.S. subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

Construction of a new sewage lagoon, spray field, pipelines or buildings in

the action alternatives would not affect wetlands or waters of the U.S.

There are no wetlands in the vicinity of disturbances associated with the

action alternatives. Construction of a surface water discharge outlet on

the Middle Fork of the Flathead River under Alternative 3 potentially

could occur within or near a water of the U.S. The potential effect

would be minor due to the limited area of surface disturbance for

installing a discharge outlet. A Nationwide 404 permit may be required

for this component of this alternative. Under the no action alternative,

wetlands or waters of the U.S. would not be affected. No cumulative

wetland effects were identified for any of the alternatives.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

10

Prime or Unique Farmland

No prime or unique farmland is present in Glacier National Park. There

would be no impact to this resource for any of the alternatives.

Cultural Resources

Intensive cultural resource surveys by Park archeologists of the project

area did not locate any cultural resources. There are two known sites in

the vicinity of the project, but they are outside any anticipated disturbance

areas for any of the alternatives. These sites are unlikely to be eligible

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed

project would not be an “undertaking” that would require Section 106 of

the National Historic Preservation Act review. No long-term or

cumulative effects would be associated with the alternative actions.

Environmental Justice

None of the alternatives would adversely affect environmental justice

because potential actions would not affect minority or low income

populations disproportionately. All populations would be affected equally.

Energy Consumption

Construction equipment use would result in increased energy consumption

during construction. Pumps and machinery associated with treatment

plant operation would result in minor long-term increases in energy

consumption for each of the alternatives. The advanced wastewater

treatment alternatives would have the highest energy demand and the

new sewage lagoons and spray fields would have the lowest energy

demand. There are no known cumulative impacts on energy consumption

from alternative actions.

2.0 Alternatives Including the Preferred

The project area is located in the lower McDonald Valley at an elevation

of about 965 meters (3,150 feet) (Figure 2). The project area includes

the relatively flat floodplain of lower McDonald Creek and the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River and the upland stream terrace located above

the floodplain. The existing wastewater treatment sewage lagoon and

associated structures are located on the upper terrace and the spray field

is located in the floodplain. Alternative wastewater treatment plant

facilities would be located in the upper terrace.

Development of alternatives for improvements to the existing wastewater

facility involved the efforts of an interdisciplinary team of Park scientists,

engineers, consultants, and input from the public. Through this process,

four alternatives were identified for evaluation as part of the DEIS and
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

11

are discussed below. The lack of storage capacity in the existing sewage

lagoon and seasonal limitations in the application of treated effluent to the

spray field has reduced the original treatment capacity. Each of the four

action alternatives would meet the purpose and need for improvements to

the wastewater treatment plant and would have a design capacity of

250,000 gpd, which is similar to the original design capacity of the existing

operation. The key characteristics of each alternative are summarized in

Table 1. Additional alternatives that were considered, but eliminated

from detailed study for various reasons, are also briefly discussed. A

discussion of the alternative selection process is included in Section 2.7.

Mitigation measures common to all alternatives are included in Section

2.8.

2.1 Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Spray Field

This alternative would use the existing treatment plant in its current layout

and discharge configuration, and incorporate the addition of one aerated

treatment lagoon and an additional spray irrigation area. The existing

spray field in the 100-year floodplain would remain in use. The new 4.3-

million gallon aerated lagoon (1.2 hectares [3 acres] fenced) would be

located immediately to the east of the existing treatment plant (Figure 3).

However, with this option, a new 5.3-hectares (13-acre) spray irrigation

site would be located north of the existing plant site to minimize impact to

the state threatened velvetleaf blueberry. A wooden or smooth wire

fence would be used to prevent unauthorized access. The fence would

not restrict access for most wildlife. The new lagoon would serve as

additional storage for early season flows when discharge to the existing

spray irrigation system within the floodplain is not possible due to

saturated ground conditions. In addition, the new lagoon would also

provide a greater level of treatment while providing operational flexibility

during dry season conditions. The new spray irrigation system area

would allow land application of wastewater effluent at a reduced capacity

when early spring conditions prohibit the use of the existing spray

irrigation field. Treated effluent discharges would be in compliance with

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requirements.

This treatment alternative also would include replacing the existing

sewage lagoon liner, installing new spray heads for the existing irrigation

system, constructing a new headworks facility, and upgrading the existing

blower and pumping systems. Construction of this alternative would take

about 2 years beginning in 2001.

Estimated capital and annual operating costs for the alternatives are

shown in Table 1. The design life used in the cost estimates is 20 years

for mechanical equipment and 50 years for structures. A new spray field

and lagoon under Alternative 1A would cost bout $2.15 million. Annual
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

12

operating costs for this facility would be about $161,700 per year and 1.5

staff operators would be required.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

13

Figure 3. Alternative 1A — Lagoon treatment, sprinkler

discharge, additional spray field.

Click here for link to figure 3
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

14

2.2 Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Storage

This treatment alternative would continue to use the existing treatment

lagoon and spray field in the 100-year floodplain for discharge of

wastewater effluent. No additional spray irrigation fields are proposed

and there would be no change in the size of the existing spray field.

Treated effluent discharges would be in compliance with Montana DEQ

requirements. To correct limitations in the use of the existing spray field

during the early spring, three additional storage and aerated lagoons

would be constructed. Two new seasonal storage lagoons, each with a

5-million gallon storage capacity, would be located directly west and north

of the existing treatment site (Figure 4). The new seasonal storage

lagoons would increase the storage capacity of the system and capture

high inflows during the summer months. In addition, a new 4.3 milliongallon aerated lagoon would be located immediately east of the existing

treatment plant (Figure 4). This new aerated lagoon would provide a

greater level of treatment while providing operational flexibility. The new

lagoons would require 3.6 hectares (9 acres) of land to construct and

would be sited to minimize impacts to the state threatened velvetleaf

blueberry located in the vicinity.

This alternative also would include replacing the existing sewage lagoon

liner and spray heads for the irrigation system, installing a new headworks

facility, and upgrading of the existing blower and pumping systems. A 2-

meter (6-foot) chain link fence would be constructed around the

perimeter of each lagoon to prevent unauthorized access. About 3.6

hectares (9 acres) would be included within the perimeter of the fenced

lagoons. Construction of this alternative would take about 2 years

beginning in 2001.

The estimated cost of a new sewage lagoon and rehabilitation of the

existing spray field for Alternative 1B is $2.06 million (Table 1). Annual

operating costs would be $155,400 and 1.5 staff operators would be

required. This is similar to staff requirements for the existing facility.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

15

Figure 4. Alternative 1B — Lagoon treatment, sprinkler

discharge, additional storage.

Click here for link to figure 4
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

16

Table 1. Comparison of alternative characteristics.

Resource

Alternative 1A

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Spray

Field

Alternative 1B

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Storage

Alternative 2

Advanced WWTP, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Alternative 3

Preferred Alternative

Advanced WWTP, Land

Discharge

Alternative 4

No Action

TREATMENT TYPE Lagoon Lagoon Advanced WWTP

• Activated sludge

• UV disinfection

Advanced WWTP

• Activated sludge

• UV disinfection

• Chemical and filtration

treatment

Lagoon

DISCHARGE TYPE Spray field Spray field Infiltration basin Land discharge:

• Percolation

stream/pond

• Constructed wetland

• Exfiltration gallery

• Existing spray field

Surface water discharge:

• Middle Fork of

Flathead River

Spray field

STATUS OF EXISTING

SPRAY FIELD

Remains in operation Remains in operation No longer used No longer used or remains in

operation depending on

discharge site

Remains in operation

NEW DISTURBED AREA

(HA)

6.5 3.6 3.6 0.04 (up to 4 ha of temporary

disturbance, depending on

discharge outlet).

0

NEW SPRAY FIELD AREA

(HA)

5.3 0 0 0 0

TOTAL AREA REQUIRED

INCLUDING EXISTING

SPRAY FIELD (HA)

32 26 3.6 2 (up to 4 ha of temporary

disturbance, depending on

discharge outlet).

24

TOTAL CAPITAL COST $2,148,900 $2,063,100 $2,999,900 $3,702,600 N/A
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

17

Resource

Alternative 1A

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Spray

Field

Alternative 1B

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Storage

Alternative 2

Advanced WWTP, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Alternative 3

Preferred Alternative

Advanced WWTP, Land

Discharge

Alternative 4

No Action

TOTAL ANNUAL

OPERATING COST†

$161,700 $155,400 $207,900 $223,000 $26,000

†Annual costs are based on the midpoint operating costs applied over 20 years.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

18

2.3 Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant,

Rapid Infiltration Basin Discharge

This treatment option departs significantly from the previous alternatives

in that treated effluent would be disposed of via rapid infiltration basins

(RIB). An advanced wastewater treatment process employing

sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technology would be used to achieve a

high level of total nitrogen removal to prevent any increase in the existing

background nitrate levels in ground water. This treatment would use an

activated sludge process in a single vessel to remove total nitrogen to

required limits. In addition, UV disinfection would be incorporated in the

design to kill pathogens prior to discharge. A 18-meter by 24-meter (60-

feet by 80-feet) treatment building would house at least two SBR tanks

and all necessary pumps, blowers, piping, valves and controls for a

complete working system.

Effluent from the treatment process would be applied to three different

rapid infiltration basins where the wastewater would percolate through

subsurface soils before contacting ground water (Figure 5). Two 0.56-

hectare (1.4-acre) and one 0.60-hectare (1.5-acre) infiltration basins

would be constructed. Three RIBs are required to provide adequate rest

periods between effluent applications to each basin. Treated effluent

discharges would be in compliance with Montana DEQ requirements. In

this alternative, the RIBs would be located north of the existing plant to

minimize effects to the state threatened velvetleaf blueberry plant (Figure

5). A 2-meter (6-foot) chain-link fence around the perimeter of the

infiltration basins would encompass 3.6 hectares (9 acres).

The existing lagoons would be used as waste holding and equalization

ponds to hold waste sludge generated from the SBR process.

Wastewater low in solids concentration would be decanted off the ponds

and processed with the raw wastewater through the SBR process.

Waste sludge accumulating in the bottom of the pond would be removed

on an annual basis through the use of a floating sludge dredge and hauled

out of the Park to be disposed of at an approved land fill. Additional

pipelines would be installed to connect different facility components. The

existing spray field would no longer be used. Construction of this

alternative would take about 2 years beginning in 2001.

Construction of an advanced WWTP and rapid infiltration basin in

Alternative 2 would cost about $3.0 million (Table 1). Increased costs for

this facility are related to the construction of a new building with batch

reactors, UV disinfection system, and the infiltration basins. This facility

would require two full-time operators and would have an annual operating

expense of $207,900.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

19

Figure 5. Alternative 2 — Advanced wastewater treatment,

rapid infiltration basin discharge.

Click here for link to figure 5
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

20

2.4 Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced

Wastewater Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

This treatment option would incorporate the highest level of treatment of

all the alternatives discussed (Figure 6). Under Alternative 3, SBR

technology for nitrogen removal (discussed under Alternative 2) would be

combined with chemical additions and filtration to remove nitrogen and

phosphorous.

Water treatment plant modules would be used to treat effluent. Installing

water treatment plant modules would require enlarging the existing

treatment plant building to 18 meters by 30 meters (60 feet by 100 feet)

to house and protect all the treatment equipment for year-round

operations.

In addition, UV disinfection would be used to kill pathogens before

discharge. As in the case with all the previous alternatives, this treatment

alternative also would include replacing the existing sewage lagoon liner,

constructing a new headworks facility, and upgrading of the existing

blower and pumping systems. Construction of this alternative would take

about 2 years beginning in 2001.

Several options for discharge of treated effluent are under consideration

for Alternative 3. The preferred alternative is to use a land discharge

site. The four design options under consideration include use of a

percolation stream/pond, a constructed wetland, an exfiltration gallery, or

the existing spray field. In addition, a surface water discharge to the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River is a secondary option. The discharge

options are discussed below.

Percolation Stream or Pond. Effluent from the WWTP would be

piped to the existing spray field where a meandering stream or

percolation bed would be constructed. This stream or pond would be less

than 4 hectares (10 acres) and constructed to prevent effluent flow

directly to McDonald Creek. Effluent would percolate into the gravel and

soil of the floodplain.

Constructed Wetlands. Effluent discharge from the WWTP would be

piped south of the intersection of the WWTP access road and the

Quarter Circle Bridge road. A wetland of less than 0.8 hectares (2

acres) would be constructed in the floodplain area of the Middle Fork of

the Flathead River, south and parallel to the Quarter Circle Bridge road.

Depending on ground saturation, WWTP effluent would either infiltrate

into the ground or continue to flow overland until it reached the river

bank, where it would flow into the Middle Fork.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

21

Figure 6. Alternative 3 — Advanced wastewater treatment,

land discharge.

Click here for link to figure 6
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

22

Exfiltration Gallery. A buried exfiltration gallery of less than 0.4

hectares (1 acre) would be located above the ordinary high water mark

and outside the 10-year floodplain of the Middle Fork of the Flathead

River. Effluent from the WWTP would be piped to the exfiltration

gallery about 100 feet south of the Quarter Circle Bridge road. WWTP

effluent would infiltrate into the surrounding gravel and soil prior to mixing

with ground water adjacent to the Middle Fork of the Flathead River.

The site would be revegetated following installation of the subsurface

exfiltration gallery.

Spray Irrigation. A new pumping system would deliver effluent under

pressure from the WWTP to the existing spray field in the floodplain.

This option also would require that the spray field be refurbished to

replace the existing spray heads, control system for the spray field, and

modifications to the system to allow the spray field to operate year-round.

Surface Water Discharge. A pipeline would be used to convey treated

effluent from the WWTP to the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. The

approximate 1,070-meter (3,500-foot) buried pipeline would follow

existing roads for most of the route to the discharge point south of the

Quarter Circle Bridge road.

Construction of Alternative 3, a new advanced WWTP, is estimated at

$3.7 million (Table 1). Costs for this facility include a new treatment

building and associated controls, plumbing, batch reactors, and UV

disinfection system. Annual operation costs are about $223,000 per year

and includes cost for two full-time operators. The cost for a surface

water discharge site is included within the $3.7 million total cost.

Additional cost for construction of a treated effluent land discharge site

depends on the location. Estimated costs for these discharge options are:

• Percolation stream or pond in the existing spray field = $25,000

• Constructed wetland = $35,000

• Exfiltration gallery = $50,000

• Spray irrigation = $350,000.

Spray irrigation using the existing spray field also would increase annual

operating costs.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

23

2.5 Alternative 4 — No Action

The no action alternative would continue operation of the existing sewage

treatment lagoon and spray field. The existing plant is no longer treating

to original design criteria. Without rehabilitating the facilities, Biological

oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended sediment concentrations would

continue to increase. Periodic maintenance of these facilities would

occur as necessary for operation. There would be no change in land use

or additional land disturbance. Occasional sewage spills from the lagoon

may occur during wet springs when capacity is exceeded and the spray

field cannot be operated. To reduce the potential for spills, it may be

necessary to restrict Park or concession operations in the winter and

early spring.

A summary of effects from the alternatives is shown in Table 2.

2.6 Alternatives Eliminated from Study

Several additional alternatives were considered during the planning

process for this project. These alternatives would meet the purpose and

need of the project, but were eliminated from further consideration due to

potential adverse environmental effects or other constraints. The

previously discussed alternatives were developed from modifications of

these alternatives.

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge, Additional Spray Field.

This alternative is similar in function to Alternative 1A and would result in

the creation of a new 6-hectare (15-acre) spray field located south of the

existing sewage lagoon. A new 4.3-mgd aerated lagoon would be

constructed east of the existing lagoon at the same location as Alternative

1A. Plant surveys of the project area discovered velvetleaf blueberry, a

state threatened plant species, in the vicinity of the proposed spray field

location. This alternative was eliminated because of impacts to the state

threatened plant and the large affected area.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid Infiltration Basin

Discharge. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 and would include

construction of three rapid infiltration basins on the south and east sides

of the existing wastewater sewage lagoon. This alternative was

eliminated from further consideration due to the presence of the state

threatened velvetleaf blueberry south of the project area.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

24

Table 2. Comparison of effects by alternative.

Resource

Alternative 1A

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Spray

Field

Alternative 1B

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Storage

Alternative 2

Advanced WWTP, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Alternative 3

Preferred Alternative

Advanced WWTP, Land

Discharge

Alternative 4

No Action

SOILS Long-term loss of soil

productivity from

construction of new lagoon.

Temporary soil disturbance

for construction of spray

field.

Long-term loss of soil

productivity from

construction of new lagoons.

Long-term loss of soil

productivity at the

infiltration basins.

Minor soil impact in area of

existing disturbance for

construction of WWTP, and

temporary disturbance for

construction of discharge

outlet.

No effect.

WATER RESOURCES AND

FLOODPLAINS

No new effect to floodplains,

existing spray field remains in

floodplain. New spray field

allows discharge in the

spring. Improved treated

effluent water quality. No

adverse effect to water

resources. Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) criteria

would be met for Flathead

Lake.

No new effect to floodplains,

existing spray field remains in

floodplain. Improved treated

effluent water quality. No

adverse effect to water

resources. TMDL criteria

would be met for Flathead

Lake.

Existing floodplain spray

field no longer used.

Nitrogen concentration in

treated effluent = < 7.5 mg/l.

No adverse effect to water

resources. TMDL criteria

would be met for Flathead

Lake.

Existing floodplain spray

field no longer used.

Nitrogen concentration in

treated effluent = < 1.0 mg/l.

Phosphorous

concentrations = < 0.1 mg/l.

No adverse effect to water

resources. TMDL criteria

would be met for Flathead

Lake.

Existing spray field remains in

floodplain. Water quality of

treated effluent continues to

deteriorate with aging WWTP.

Under current operation, no

adverse effect to water

resources and TMDL criteria

would be met for Flathead Lake.

Occasional raw sewage spills

possible.

WILD AND S CENIC

RIVERS

No adverse effect to Wild and

Scenic River designation of

Middle Fork of the Flathead

River.

No adverse effect to Wild and

Scenic River designation of

Middle Fork of the Flathead

River.

No adverse effect to Wild

and Scenic River

designation of Middle Fork

of the Flathead River.

No adverse effect to Wild

and Scenic River

designation of Middle Fork

of the Flathead River.

No adverse effect to Wild and

Scenic River designation of

Middle Fork of the Flathead

River.

VEGETATION Long-term loss of 6.5 ha of

forested plant community at

lagoon site. Change in

natural forest composition at

new spray field from forest to

meadow.

Long-term loss of 3.6 ha of

forested plant community at

lagoon sites.

Long-term loss of 3.6 ha of

forested plant community at

infiltration basins.

Minimal vegetation

disturbance with new

WWTP. Temporary

vegetation disturbance for

installation of discharge

outlet.

No effect.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

25

Resource

Alternative 1A

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Spray

Field

Alternative 1B

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Storage

Alternative 2

Advanced WWTP, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Alternative 3

Preferred Alternative

Advanced WWTP, Land

Discharge

Alternative 4

No Action

WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC

RESOURCES

Long-term loss and

fragmentation of habitat at

lagoon site. Change from

forest to meadow in spray

field would affect the types of

wildlife using this area.

Minor disruptions in animal

movement. No effect to

fisheries. Potential continued

effect to subaquatic

invertebrates below existing

and new spray field.

Long-term loss and

fragmentation of habitat at

lagoon sites. Minor

disruptions in animal

movement. No effect to

fisheries. Potential continued

effect to subaquatic

invertebrates below existing

spray field.

Long-term loss and

fragmentation of habitat at

infiltration basins. Minor

disruptions in animal

movement. No effect to

fisheries. Potential

continued effect to

subaquatic invertebrates

below discharge basins.

Potential recovery of

subaquatic invertebrates

below existing spray field.

Minimal effect on wildlife

due to limited ground

disturbance. No effect on

fisheries. Potential

beneficial effect to

subaquatic invertebrates.

No adverse effect to wildlife or

fisheries from continued

operation of the existing

facility. Subaquatic

invertebrates may continue to

be affected by spray field

effluent discharges. A failure in

the existing sewage lagoon

could adversely impact aquatic

resources.

THREATENED,

ENDANGERED, AND

STATE SENSITIVE

SPECIES

No adverse effects to

threatened or endangered

species. Potential loss of few

individual velvetleaf

blueberry plants, a state

threatened species. Unlikely

to adversely affect the Park

population or lead to a federal

listing.

No adverse effects to

threatened or endangered

species. Potential loss of few

individual velvetleaf

blueberry plants, a state

threatened species. Unlikely

to adversely affect the Park

population or lead to a federal

listing.

No adverse effects to

threatened or endangered

species. No effect on

velvetleaf blueberry.

No adverse effects to

threatened or endangered

species. No effect on

velvetleaf blueberry.

No adverse effects to

threatened or endangered

species. No effect on velvetleaf

blueberry.

VISUAL RESOURCES Change in visual landscape

with new lagoon and spray

field, but minimal effect on

scenic value of Park due to

site location.

Change in visual landscape

with new lagoons, but

minimal effect on scenic value

of Park due to site location.

Change in visual landscape

with new infiltration basins,

but minimal effect on scenic

value of Park due to site

location.

Minimal effect to landscape

and scenic value of the Park

with construction of new

building and discharge

outlet.

No change in the existing visual

quality of the landscape.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

26

Resource

Alternative 1A

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Spray

Field

Alternative 1B

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Storage

Alternative 2

Advanced WWTP, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Alternative 3

Preferred Alternative

Advanced WWTP, Land

Discharge

Alternative 4

No Action

NOISE AND ODOR Minor noise and odor similar

to existing conditions.

Unlikely to be perceptible to

Park visitors under normal

operations. Temporary noise

increase during construction.

Minor noise and odor similar

to existing conditions.

Unlikely to be perceptible to

Park visitors under normal

operations. Temporary noise

increase during construction.

Minor noise and odor similar

to existing conditions. New

building would contain

mechanical noise. Unlikely

to be perceptible to Park

visitors under normal

operations. Temporary noise

increase during

construction.

Minor noise and odor similar

to existing conditions. New

building would contain

mechanical noise. Unlikely

to be perceptible to Park

visitors under normal

operations. Temporary

noise increase during

construction.

No change in existing noise and

odor. Generally not perceptible

to Park visitors under normal

operations.

VISITOR USE AND

EXPERIENCE

Minimal direct effect due to

location of WWTP. A

horse/foot trail would need to

be relocated. Visitors would

benefit from a year-round

operational WWTP.

Minimal direct effect due to

location of WWTP. A

horse/foot trail would need to

be relocated. Visitors would

benefit from a year-round

operational WWTP.

Minimal direct effect due to

location of WWTP. A

horse/foot trail would need

to be relocated. Visitors

would benefit from a yearround operational WWTP.

Minimal direct effect due to

location of WWTP.

Temporary restricted access

to Quarter Circle Bridge area

during construction of

discharge outlet possible.

Visitors would benefit from a

year-round operational

WWTP.

Minimal direct effect due to

location of WWTP. Potential

indirect impact to visitor use if

WWTP is unable to meet

demand.

LAND USE Change in land use on 6.5 ha

from undeveloped forest to

sewage lagoon and grassland

spray field.

Change in land use from 3.6

ha of undeveloped forest to

sewage lagoons.

Change in land use from 3.6

ha of undeveloped forest to

infiltration basins. Land use

of spray field would remain a

livestock pasture.

Minimal change in land use

from disturbed parking area

to WWTP building. Land

use of spray field would

remain a livestock pasture.

No effect.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

27

Resource

Alternative 1A

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Spray

Field

Alternative 1B

Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler

Discharge, Additional Storage

Alternative 2

Advanced WWTP, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Alternative 3

Preferred Alternative

Advanced WWTP, Land

Discharge

Alternative 4

No Action

LOCAL AND REGIONAL

ECONOMY

Improved facility would allow

for continued operation of

existing Park facilities and

anticipated growth. Shortterm construction related

spending would be minor

relative to local and regional

economies.

Improved facility would allow

for continued operation of

existing Park facilities and

anticipated growth. Shortterm construction related

spending would be minor

relative to local and regional

economies.

Improved facility would

allow for continued

operation of existing Park

facilities and anticipated

growth. Short-term

construction related

spending would be minor

relative to local and regional

economies.

Improved facility would

allow for continued

operation of existing Park

facilities and anticipated

growth. Short-term

construction related

spending would be minor

relative to local and regional

economies.

Existing WWTP may not be

able to meet future wastewater

demands. Limited storage

capacity could affect winter and

early spring Park and

concession operations.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

28

Replacement Spray Field out of the Floodplain. This alternative

considered replacing the existing spray field with a new site located

outside of the floodplain. A new spray field would be 22 to 81 hectares

(55 to 200 acres) in size depending on vegetation cover. Because there

are no existing large open meadows in the vicinity of the WWTP, about

22 hectares (55 acres) of forest would need to be cleared to provide

sufficient capacity for a new spray field. If a forest spray field is used,

about 81 hectares (200 acres) of irrigation pipe would need to be

installed. This alternative was eliminated due to the large area of

disturbance required and the presence of the state threatened velvetleaf

blueberry plant in the area.

Golf Course Spray Field. This option considered potential use of the

West Glacier Golf Course located outside of the Park, but within the 100-

year floodplain of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. This alternative

was eliminated because regulations do not allow placement of new

sewage treatment spray fields within a 100-year floodplain.

Wastewater Treatment Outside the Park. Another option considered

was Park Service participation in a regional advanced wastewater

treatment system located outside of the Park. Discussions with Flathead

County Commissioners and the Flathead County Health Department

indicated that there are no current or reasonably foreseeable plans to

construct a regional wastewater facility. The Park may participate in a

future regional WWTP, but current needs required a more immediate

solution.

2.7 Alternative Selection Process

The process of evaluating alternatives included a value analysis workshop

conducted by Rothberg, Tamburini and Winsor (RTW 1999). Options

identified during the value analysis workshop included four action

alternatives using two types of treatment—lagoon treatment or advanced

wastewater treatment. Lagoon treatments involve use of aerated lagoons

and spray fields to achieve secondary levels of wastewater treatment.

Alternatives 1A and 1B are lagoon treatments. Potential environmental

concerns with the location of the existing spray field in the lower

McDonald Creek and Middle Fork of the Flathead River floodplains and

the presence of a state sensitive plant species in the forested areas

surrounding the existing lagoon prompted the addition of advanced

wastewater treatment systems to the list of potential alternatives.

Alternative 2 is an advanced wastewater treatment facility that would

discharge treated effluent through infiltration basins and would not require

the use of the existing spray field. This alternative would require

construction of infiltration basins near the existing lagoon. Alternative 3 is

an advanced wastewater treatment facility that would include treatment

to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus levels and has several optional land
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

29

discharge locations. This alternative requires minimal new disturbance

with construction of a new treatment building.

The value analysis included a nonmonetary evaluation of the alternatives.

A list of nonmonetary criteria to evaluate the relative effects of each

alternative was identified. Natural resource criteria considered included:

threatened, endangered and sensitive species, wildlife, vegetation, water

quality, aquatic invertebrates, floodplain, Wild and Scenic River status,

soils, noise, and odor. Other operational considerations included:

simplicity and reliability of plant operation, operational flexibility, ability to

operate seasonally, and ability for future expansion. Each of these

criteria were assigned a weighting factor. Alternatives were then given a

relative ranking for each of the criteria based on the anticipated effects.

Composite nonmonetary scores were calculated for each alternative

(Table 3).

Results of the nonmonetary evaluation gave the highest rating to

Alternative 3, the advanced WWTP. This alternative has the highest

level of water treatment and the least impact on natural resources.

Alternative 1B ranked second followed by Alternative 2 and Alternative

1A.

An additional component of the value analysis was consideration of the

capital construction costs and annual operating costs, for each of the

action alternatives. Alternative 3 would have the highest capital and

operating cost and Alternative 1B and 1A would have the lowest. A ratio

of the nonmonetary factors to cost was used to develop an overall

cost/benefit of the different alternatives (Table 3). Alternative 1B rated

best, followed by Alternatives 1A, 3, and 2.

Table 3. Value analysis summary.

Alternatives Component

1A 1B 2 3

Total capital cost ($) 2,148,900 2,063,100 2,999,900 3,702,600

Total annual operating cost† ($) 161,700 155,400 207,900 223,000

Present worth of annual cost ($) 2,015,100 1,936,600 2,590,900 2,779,100

Total present worth cost ($) 4,164,000 3,999,700 5,590,800 6,481,700

Total present worth cost (millions of dollars) 4.2 4.0 5.6 6.5

Nonmonetary score 154 166 165 232

Nonmonetary/Cost Ratio‡37 42 30 36

†Annual costs are based on the midpoint operating costs applied over 20 years.

‡Nonmonetary score divided by total present worth cost in millions of dollars.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

30

Alternative 3 was selected as the preferred alternative for several

reasons. This alternative would have substantially fewer adverse effects

on the environment than other alternatives. Construction of the new

facility would require minimal new surface disturbance and would

eliminate the current use of the McDonald Creek/Middle Fork of the

Flathead River floodplain as an effluent spray field. Alternative 3 would

produce the highest quality of treated effluent and would minimize effects

to downstream water quality and aquatic resources. This facility would

improve seasonal operation and could be expanded to accommodate

future needs.

2.8 Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives

A number of conservation measures would be incorporated into the

design and construction of the selected facility to minimize potential

environmental impacts. The following mitigation measures would be

applicable to all of the action alternatives.

• Restricting construction activity to the period between 7:00 a.m.

and 8:00 p.m. to minimize potential disturbance to wildlife.

• Limiting outdoor construction to the period between June 1 and

December 1 to minimize effects to wildlife. Indoor activities

such as painting, wiring, and plumbing could occur year-round.

• Placing barriers around velvetleaf blueberry plants in the vicinity

of the project site to minimize the risk of accidental injury.

• Conserving any topsoil disturbed.

• Developing a hazardous spill plan prior to construction

• Not operating or storing equipment or vehicles leaking oil, gas or

anti-freeze.

• Prohibiting draining of oil, hydraulic fluids, anti-freeze, or other

chemicals in the Park.

• Not allowing vehicles or equipment outside the work limits or on

topsoil areas.

• Prohibiting the use of explosive materials.

• Prohibiting feeding or disturbing wildlife.

• Maintaining bear-proof refuse containers.

3.0 Affected Environment

3.1 Natural Resources

Soils

The floodplain soils in the project area are composed of gravel, cobbles

and boulders derived from glacial outwash and alluvial stream deposits.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

31

Parent materials include quartzite, argillite and some limestone and

granitic rock fragments in stratified layers (Land and Water Consulting

1995). These soils are extremely variable but, generally have sandy to

loamy sand surface textures with very high concentrations of coarse

fragments throughout the soil profile. Clay soils are also present within

the floodplain due to recent alluvial deposits (Glacier National Park 1973).

Permeability is high and nutrient-holding capacity is low due to the coarse

texture of the soils.

Soils in the upper terrace outside of the 100-year floodplain are classified

as silty over alluvial soils (Land and Water Consulting 1995). These soils

are derived from cobbly alluvium and glacial outwash. Volcanic ash may

be present in some locations. Parent material is similar to the floodplain

soils. The surface texture is silty and subsoils are silty loams or silty clay

loams. Stratified layers of glacial till and gravel deposits are found at

depths to over 7.6 meters (25 feet) (GMT Consultants 1999).

Water Resources and Floodplains

The project area is located adjacent to McDonald Creek and the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River (Figure 2). McDonald Creek flows for about

975 meters below Lake McDonald before entering the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River. The McDonald Creek drainage originates near the

Continental Divide and is a tributary to the Middle Fork of the Flathead

River. The existing spray field is within the McDonald Creek 100-year

floodplain and the 50-year floodplain of the Middle Fork of the Flathead

River. Proposed and alternative project facilities would be located

outside of the 100-year floodplain, with the exception of several of the

discharge outlet options.

The 50-year peak flow estimate for McDonald Creek is 334 cubic meters

per second and the 100-year peak flow estimate is 469 cubic meters per

second. The 50-year peak flow estimate for the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River is 1,765 cubic meters per second.

Existing water quality in McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River near the proposed project area is good due to the lack of

development and disturbance in the area. Nutrient concentrations for

these drainages are low (Hauer 1988). Previous studies in McDonald

Creek and the Middle Fork of the Flathead River below the existing spray

field found no indication of septic leachates entering the shoreline of these

drainages (Hauer 1988). Monitoring data for ground water wells below

the spray field indicate low concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous

(Glacier National Park 1992).

The Flathead Basin Commission is in the process of determining Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) targets to protect water quality in

Flathead Lake. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

32

identified Flathead Lake as a waterbody that is not fully meeting state

water quality standards. Flathead Lake is located downstream from the

project area and the Middle Fork of the Flathead River is a tributary to

the lake. Interim target levels for discharges from wastewater treatment

plants in the Flathead Lake watershed are 1.0 mg/l of phosphorus

(Flathead Lakes 1997).

Wild and Scenic Rivers

In 1976, Congress designated the three forks of the Flathead River as

part of the national scenic river system. Under the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act, The Middle Fork of the Flathead River was designated

“recreation” for the entire length bordering Glacier National Park. The

Middle Fork provides boating, fishing, and scenic recreation opportunities.

The U.S. Forest Service is the primary management agency for the

Flathead Wild and Scenic River, and the National Park Service has

secondary responsibility.

Vegetation

Vegetation composition in the floodplain portion of the project area is the

result of current and historical use of the meadow as pasture for Park

mules and horses. Summer grazing of this meadow and irrigation from

the spray field has altered the native vegetation present at this site. The

floodplain grassland is characterized by introduced grass species such as

timothy, brome grass, blue grasses and wheatgrass (Morrison-Maierle,

Inc. 1973). Riparian vegetation adjacent to lower McDonald Creek and

the Middle Fork of the Flathead River includes forest stands of black

cottonwood, paper birch, lodgepole pine, and spruce. Willow, alders,

dogwood, chokecherry and serviceberry are common shrubs in this area.

A forb/grass understory consists of native and exotic grass and forb

species including goldenrod, aster, arnica, spotted knapweed and common

dandelion.

Vegetation in the upper terrace portion of the project area is currently

dominated by lodgepole pine forest with a snowberry and huckleberry

understory. Prior to a wildfire in 1929, this site supported a western red

cedar/western hemlock forest. Because of the abundant precipitation this

area receives, the habitat type and potential for this area is HemlockQueens cup bead lily. Currently the site supports a diversity of native and

exotic plant species. Tree species found in association with the lodgepole

pine overstory include Engelmann spruce, aspen, black cottonwood,

western larch, western red cedar and western hemlock. Common shrubs

include snowberry, tall huckleberry, grouseberry and thimbleberry.

Understory grass and forbs include pinegrass, western ryegrass, roughleaf ricegrass, yarrow, rosy pussy-toes, harebell, strawberry, and Canada

violet. Ferns include lady’s fern, bracken fern and common horsetail.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

33

Round-leaved rein-orchid, a unique plant with a small distribution in

Montana, is found in the northern portion of the project area. A number

of exotic grasses and forbs not native to the site are present, including

bluegrass, timothy, hop clover, bull thistle, and dandelion. Appendix A

includes a partial list of plant species found in the project area.

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Waterton-Glacier Park provides habitat for a diversity of wildlife including

approximately 261 bird species, 63 mammals, and 172 native resident

aquatic species (NPS 1998a). Wildlife are distributed throughout the

Park according to specific habitat preferences and seasonal use patterns.

The project area is used by over 30 species of mammals and 125 bird

species. River otters, beaver, muskrats, and mink use lower McDonald

Creek and the oxbow ponds and channels upstream from the wastewater

treatment facility. A variety of water birds, such as great-blue herons,

trumpeter swans, tundra swans, Canada geese, Harlequin ducks, wood

ducks, hooded mergansers, bufflehead, common goldeneye, Barrows

goldeneye, killdeer and spotted sandpiper, use the river and riparian

habitat.

Forests and meadows in the project area and vicinity support a large

number of Columbian ground squirrels, which in turn support a variety of

predators, including coyotes, great-horned owls, northern goshawks, and

other raptors. Sharp-shinned hawks and Cooper’s hawks have been

observed in the area during migration. Other raptors likely present in the

vicinity include osprey, red-tailed hawk, northern pygmy owl, northern

saw-whet owl, and barred owl.

Corvids, woodpeckers and an abundance of songbirds nest and forage in

the varied habitat types surrounding the project area. Habitats with

highest diversity include the riparian zone of cottonwoods, willows,

hawthorn and other deciduous shrubs. Common breeding birds in the

area include: rufous hummingbird, belted kingfisher, northern flicker, hairy

woodpecker, willow flycatcher, tree swallow, common crow, blackcapped chickadee, American dipper, American robin, ruby-crowned

kinglet, yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, pine siskin, red-winged

blackbird, dark-eyed junco, western tanager, black-headed grosbeak and

fox sparrow.

Forested areas in and surrounding the project area provide an important

elk calving area during late May and June. Calving sites are on the

oxbow islands, other riparian areas and forested sites near the sewage

lagoon. There is elk movement through the area during the spring (AprilJune) and fall (September-October). Elk feed in the wastewater

treatment plant spray field and other meadows. Mule deer and whitetailed deer also move through the area during the spring and fall. Deer

may give birth to fawns in the area and some may remain year-round.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

34

Coyotes probably prey on the elk calves and deer fawns. Coyotes have

denned in the vicinity of the project area in the past, but there are no

known currently active den sites.

Black bears may forage and travel through the area. Prey species,

especially deer, attract mountain lions that may be present throughout the

year. Tracks of fisher and wolverines have been observed in the area

and other mammals such as marten, short-tailed weasel, long-tailed

weasel, and an occasional least weasel or striped skunk also may be

present.

McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the Flathead River support four

native salmonid species—bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, mountain

whitefish and pygmy whitefish. Introduced fish include rainbow trout,

brook trout, lake trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout.

The substrate of Middle Fork of the Flathead River and lower McDonald

Creek are composed of cobbles and boulder derived from glacial outwash

and alluvial processes. Research by the Flathead Lake Biological Station

indicates that these alluvial sediments are saturated to bedrock by river

water (Stanford 1999). The aquifer associated with the alluvium in the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River supports a community of subaquatic

invertebrates referred to as the hyporheic community (Stanford and Ward

1988). This biotic community contains many different species of

invertebrates including large (3-cm) stoneflies. Observations in Flathead

River alluvial aquifers indicate that these species are numerous and

similar species have been found at other locations in Montana and

Washington (Stanford 1999). Insufficient information is available to

determine the distribution, species diversity, and relative rarity of the

hyporheic community. Studies on the Flathead River indicate the

hyporheic community is very sensitive to sewage effluent (Noble and

Stanford 1986). The existing spray field contains suitable habitat for

supporting a hyporheic community unless it has been affected by existing

spray field operations (Stanford 1999). No information is available on the

presence or condition of the hyporheic community in the project area.

Threatened, Endangered and State Sensitive Species

Threatened, endangered, and state sensitive species are found throughout

the Park. These resources are discussed below.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Glacier National Park provides habitat for five threatened and

endangered species—bald eagle, gray wolf, grizzly bear, peregrine falcon

and bull trout (Table 4). In addition, lynx is proposed as a federally listed

species and cutthroat trout has been petitioned for possible listing.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

35

Several of these species have wide ranges and may be found throughout

the Park.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

36

Table 4. Federal wildlife and aquatic species of concern.

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened

Gray wolf Canis lupus Endangered

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Delisted

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened

Lynx Lynx canadensis Proposed for listing

Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki Petitioned for listing

Bald eagle. Bald eagles are both year-round residents and seasonal

visitors to the Park. Prior to the collapse of the kokanee salmon

spawning runs in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as many as 600 bald

eagles concentrated along lower McDonald Creek from mid September

to mid-December. Although bald eagle activity has declined in lower

McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the Flathead River, the area is

still used for foraging by resident bald eagles nesting at Lake McDonald

and non-nesting migrant and wintering eagles. Resident bald eagles from

the Lake McDonald nesting territory use the area most frequently during

the winter and spring and less frequently in the summer. Bald eagle use

of the area increases during migration (primarily March-April and

October-November). Resident and migrant eagles continue to forage

along the river during the winter. Bald eagles may forage for fish from

tree perches or by flying along the stream.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to delist the bald eagle

due to recovery of the population. A final decision is not expected until

July 2000. Even if the bald eagle is removed from the threatened and

endangered species list, it would still be protected under the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act as well as

the NPS Organic Act.

Gray wolf. Gray wolves are wide-ranging and their distribution is tied

primarily to that of their principal prey (deer, elk, and moose). Key

components of wolf habitat are: 1) a sufficient, year-round prey base of

ungulates and alternate prey; 2) suitable and somewhat secluded denning

and rendezvous sites; and 3) sufficient space with minimal exposure to

humans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987).

Principal wolf habitat is located in the northwest corner of the Park in the

North Fork area. After a long absence, wolves from Canada began

recolonizing the Park in the 1980s (Rockwell 1995). Wolves have been

reported from all of the major drainages in the Park, but their activity
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

37

appears to be primarily in the northern portions of the Park. Wolves that

occasionally move through the project area are known mostly from

records in the winter. White-tailed deer, mule deer, elk calves in the

spring, and other small prey may attract wolves to the area. There are no

known den sites or pack activity near the project area.

Grizzly bear. Grizzly bears have home ranges of 130 to 1,300 square

kilometers and use a mixture of forests, moist meadows, grasslands, and

riparian habitats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). The grizzly bear

population in the Park is not known, but bear habitat is found throughout

the Park. Seasonal movement and habitat use are tied to the availability

of different food sources. In the spring, bears feed on dead ungulates

and herbaceous vegetation at lower elevations. During the summer,

some bears move to higher elevations in search of berries, glacier lilies,

roots, and in some cases army cutworm moths (NPS 1998a). Avalanche

chutes provide an important source of herbaceous forage for grizzly bears

in the summer and fall (Rockwell 1995). Fish may have been an

important component of the diets of some grizzly bears when kokanee

salmon were present along lower McDonald Creek, but now probably

play a minor role. Winter hibernation dens are away from human

disturbance, typically on steep slopes at high elevations.

The potential for grizzly bear/human interaction is an important concern

for Park management. Habituation of bears to human presence can

result in increased risk to visitors and relocation or removal of bears.

Management actions focus on minimizing the potential for bear/human

encounters.

The lands surrounding the project area provide foraging habitat for grizzly

bears primarily during the spring and summer and to a lesser extent

during the fall. There are no known den sites in the area. Grizzlies are

probably attracted to the area in the spring and early summer by the

succulent herbaceous vegetation in the wastewater spray field and

floodplain riparian areas along lower McDonald Creek. Grizzlies also

may be attracted to elk calves in late May and June. Huckleberries

attract bears to the area in late July and August. Operation of the

existing wastewater facility and stables in the project area may

discourage grizzly bear activity during the daylight hours when people are

present.

Peregrine falcon. Peregrines use a variety of different habitats for

nesting, hunting, and migration and wintering areas. The peregrine’s

preferred nest site is rugged, remote cliffs 30 to 90 meters (100 to 300

feet) high, usually overlooking water or marshy areas where prey is

abundant (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). The peregrines primary

diet includes medium size birds such as jays, doves, flickers, shorebirds,

and songbirds. Preferred hunting areas include cropland, meadows, river

bottoms, marshes, and lakes that attract abundant bird life.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

38

The Park contains potential habitat for peregrine falcons, but there are no

known nest sites (NPS 1998a). Peregrine observations in the Park are

rare, although they are likely intermittent visitors. There are no known

peregrine falcon eyries in the project area.

Bull trout. Bull trout seasonally move throughout river basins, with

spawning and juvenile rearing limited to the coldest streams (USFWS

1998). Bull trout have multiple life histories consisting of two distinct

forms: resident and migratory. Resident populations usually spend their

entire lives in small headwater streams, whereas migratory bull trout are

born and reared in small tributary streams before migrating to lakes and

rivers. Spawning occurs from August through November with hatching

in early winter or spring. Substrate composition is an important factor in

spawning site selection, and fine sediments can affect incubation and

survival.

Bull trout are found in the North and Middle Forks of Flathead River as

well as several tributaries (NPS 1998b). Bull trout are known to move

upriver from Flathead Lake during periods of high flow in the spring.

Most of the migration occurs during the night or when light levels are low

to avoid detection and predation. Bull trout move up lower McDonald

Creek as far as Lake McDonald. The fish population in Lake McDonald

is dominated by lake trout. Bull trout are present, but uncommon. No bull

trout are known to spawn in the vicinity of the project area.

Lynx. In 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed lynx for

listing as either a threatened or endangered species. A final rule decision

is due by January 2000. Lynx habitat generally is described as climax

boreal forest with a dense undercover of thickets and windfalls

(DeStefano 1987). Advanced successional stages of forests and dense

conifer stands often are preferred habitats of lynx for denning and

foraging respectively. Large amounts of woody debris and minimal

human disturbance are important features of denning sites (Brittell 1989).

Lynx generally forage in young conifer forests, especially where their

primary prey—snowshoe hare—is abundant. Travel corridors are

thought to be an important factor in lynx habitat because of their large

home ranges, generally 15 to 21 square kilometers (9 to 13 square miles)

(Butts 1992). Travel cover includes contiguous vegetation cover over 2

meters (6 feet) tall (Brittell 1989). Lynx generally do not cross openings

greater than 90 meters (300 feet) wide (Koehler 1990).

Lynx in the Park are known from observations and tracks in coniferous

forest both east and west of the Continental Divide although most records

are from the east side. However, no intensive surveys to document lynx

distribution and abundance have occurred in the Park. Lynx tracks have

been observed in the vicinity of the project area during the winter.

Lodgepole forests in the project area and riparian habitat along lower
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

39

McDonald Creek provides habitat for snowshoe hare, the lynx’s principal

prey.

Cutthroat trout. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting a

status review of cutthroat trout to determine whether listing as a

threatened or endangered species is warranted. Westslope cutthroats are

found in all major lakes and streams west of the Continental Divide within

the Park (NPS 1998a). They often travel up tributaries to spawn in the

spring and return afterward to Lake McDonald (Rockwell 1995). Some

populations reside in streams and do not migrate. Rainbow trout and

Yellowstone cutthroat trout may hybridize with westslope cutthroat trout,

reducing genetic purity. The Park has become an important refuge for

protecting genetically pure populations of westslope cutthroat trout.

Native cutthroat trout populations in Lake McDonald have declined

drastically since the early 1950s, in part due to the introduction of

competing non-native fish. Current management operations are seeking

to maximize the co-existence of westslope cutthroat with invasive

species. Stream spawning habitat is extremely limited in the Lake

McDonald system. Although there is no data on record, there may be

incidental westslope cutthroat trout spawning in lower McDonald Creek.

Plants. There are no known federally listed or threatened plant species

in Glacier National Park (NPS 1998a). Habitat for the federally

threatened water howellia (Howellia aquatilus), a wetland-dependent

species, may be present in the Park, but there are no recorded

observations or potential habitat in the project area. There are three plant

“species at risk” in the Park that were formerly listed as Category 2

species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. None of these species are

known from locations near proposed project activities.

State Sensitive Species

The Montana Natural Heritage Program has identified 32 state sensitive

wildlife species with potential occurrence in the Park (NPS 1998a).

Several of these species may be present or use habitat in the vicinity of

the project area. According to the Montana Natural Heritage Program,

there are 45 state sensitive plant species known to be present in the Park

(NPS 1998a). Many of these species are found in wetland or alpine

habitat not present in the project area. These species are discussed

below.

Marten (Martes americana), fisher (Martes pennanti), and

wolverine (Gulo gulo). Martens are fairly common residents in

coniferous forests, with breeding documented in the Park. Fishers are

rare residents in conifer forests and riparian areas. Wolverines are rare

residents of conifer and alpine forests, with documented breeding in the
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

40

Park. Each of these species has been observed in the vicinity of the

project area and may use habitat near the project area.

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator). Rare spring and fall migrants

to the Park, trumpeter swans may use habitat along lower McDonald

Creek.

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus). Harlequin ducks are

common migrants from spring to fall in the Park where they breed in fast

moving streams. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park provides

breeding habitat for about 20 percent the harlequin ducks in Montana

(NPS 1998a). Breeding habitat includes the lower McDonald Creek

drainage. There is little documented use of lower McDonald Creek

during the summer by harlequin ducks, but potential periods of use are

from late April to mid-September, with most use declining during August

and September.

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). Osprey are fairly common in the spring

and fall along rivers and lakes in the Park and may use habitat in the

project area.

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). Northern goshawks are not

known to nest in the project area although no intensive nesting surveys

have been conducted. Goshawks from a known nesting area about 2

kilometers (1.2 miles) southeast of the project area, as well as migrant or

other resident goshawks, may forage on Columbian ground squirrels in

the wastewater spray field.

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Cooper’s hawks are uncommon

from spring to fall in forested areas. They have been observed near the

project area primarily during migration.

Northern pygmy owl (Glaucidium gnoma). Northern pygmy owls are

fairly common year-round forest residents in the Park and may use

habitat near the project area.

Barred owl (Strix varia). Barred owls are uncommon year-round

residents of conifer forest and riparian areas that may use habitat in the

vicinity of the project area.

Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus). Northern saw-whet

owls are uncommon residents in conifer or mixed forests that may be

found in the project area.

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Pileated woodpeckers

are fairly common in the Park in mature forest areas and could be found

in habitat near the project area.

Velvetleaf blueberry (Vaccinium myrtilloides). Velvetleaf blueberry

is a state threatened species found in forested areas near the Park’s
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

41

existing wastewater lagoon. This is primarily a Canadian species with

only four recorded observations in Montana, all within Flathead County

(Montana Natural Heritage Program 1999). At least two of the known

populations are within Glacier National Park. Velvetleaf blueberry is

globally secure, but critically imperiled in the state (Montana Natural

Heritage Program 1999). There are no other known state sensitive plant

species in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Visual Resources

The project area is located in the southern corner of the Park, in an area

that receives a limited number of visitors. McDonald Creek and the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River are the dominant visual features in the

vicinity of the project area. Surrounding forestlands and meadows

provide a pleasant landscape, although there are numerous land

alterations in the area. Man-made features in this area include the

existing sewage lagoon, spray field and structures, a materials storage

area, an explosives magazine, horse stables and corral, air quality

sampling site, gravel roads and utility line corridors. The existing fenced

spray field is visible to Park users along the Quarter Circle Bridge Road

and has a relatively natural appearance although sprinkler heads and the

electric fence are visible. A portion of the project area is viewed by

visitors on the hiking and horseback trails north of the existing sewage

lagoon. Preservation of the Park’s scenic values is an essential

component of any management activity.

Noise

The natural sounds of wind, water, and animals resonate throughout the

Park. Artificial noise in the Park is generated from human activities such

as traffic, motorboats, scenic air tours, and general maintenance and

administrative activities. Elevated noise levels are most closely

associated with visitor service zones near campgrounds, lodges, roads and

developed areas. Noise levels in the vicinity of the project area are low

to moderate, due to existing Park operations. Park staff, equipment and

vehicles regularly access the wastewater treatment facilities and storage

yard for maintenance and operations. Noise from Park visitor use is low

and primarily includes traffic to Quarter Circle Bridge to access fishing,

trails, and boating.

3.2 Socioeconomic Resources

Park Visitation and Use

In recent years, visitation to Glacier National Park has ranged between

1.7 and 1.8 million. The highest recorded visitation, 2,204,131, was in

1983. The overall trend is for increasing visitors.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

42

A 1991 visitor survey found that most of the Park’s visitors were families

or friends who came to view the scenery and wildlife and for recreational

opportunities such as hiking, fishing, and biking. Another 11 percent were

just passing through on their way to another primary destination.

Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park lies within a day’s drive of

several notable areas with natural, cultural, and recreational opportunities

including Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks to the south, and

the Banff, Jasper, Yoho, and Kootenai National Parks to the north. Most

Park visitors contacted were from the U.S., with 12 percent from Canada

and 4 percent from other countries. Forty percent of all visitors reported

that they would spend less than 1 day in the Park, while 33 percent would

stay 1 to 3 days, and 27 percent would stay 4 days or more.

Park visitor activities in the vicinity of the project area occur primarily

near the Quarter Circle Bridge. A gravel road borders the existing spray

field and provides access to the Bridge. This site is used for fishing and

boating, and provides access for hiking, horseback riding, cross-country

skiing, and snowshoeing. Anglers fish from the bridge and the banks

along lower McDonald Creek. Quarter Circle Bridge also is a take out

point for kayakers and rafters originating from Lake McDonald. During

the summer, the bridge allows access by a private concessionaire for

horseback trail rides. In the winter, cross-country skiers and snowshoers

use the bridge to access the west side of lower McDonald Creek. A

horse trail runs through the north end of the project area. It receives

seasonal use by horseback riders and joggers. There are no other visitor

attractions in the project area. Vehicle traffic into Park wastewater and

storage facilities is restricted.

Land Use

Glacier National Park totals 4,087 square kilometers, of which 170

hectares are privately held. Private lands in the Park are undeveloped or

used for residential, recreational, or commercial purposes. All of the

property in the project area is owned and managed by the National Park

Service. Land use in the project area includes the existing sewage

lagoon, pump house and spray field, a materials storage area, a horse/foot

trail and explosives magazine. Other developed areas include buried

utility corridors, gravel roads and parking areas. Facilities in the vicinity

include the Park’s stable, the existing spray field, which is used as horse

and mule pasture, and an air quality monitoring station. The remainder of

the project area is natural lodgepole pine forest.

Regional Use and Economy

Tourism is an important part of the Montana economy, and has

dramatically increased in the region during the last several years. The

trend in tourism has been estimated by examining visits to the Park,
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

43

traffic counts on U.S. Highway 2, and accommodations tax revenue. All

three show steady growth from 1980 to the mid 1990s. About 20 percent

of all non-resident visitor groups in the state travel through the FlatheadGlacier area, and about 50 percent visit the Park. Visitor estimates

translate to about 750,000 non-resident Park visitors, assuming 7.7 million

non-residents visited Montana in 1993-1994 (NPS 1998a).

The Park is a key component of the regional and state tourism

economies. Tourism in Montana generates $1.2 billion annually and

directly employs 32,000 workers. Tourism, the service industry, and

transfer payments (money paid to employees in Montana but earned

elsewhere, such as social security and pensions) are the only expanding

areas of the region’s economy. Montana incomes are 82 percent of the

national average. Regionally, Flathead and Missoula Counties have the

highest per capita incomes and Glacier County has the lowest.

Historically, the wood products industry has been important in Flathead

and Missoula Counties, but the industry is on the decline. Farming is also

an important source of income in Lake and Glacier Counties (NPS

1998a).

The amenities that the Park offers attract business and industry to the

region. The Park also offers amenities that are important to individuals

deciding to relocate or retire in the area (NPS 1998a).

During the last several years, the population has grown considerably on

the west side of the Continental Divide; growth has been slow on the east

side. If growth continues at the current rate, it is estimated that Flathead

and Missoula Counties will exceed 100,000 people by 2010. If population

growth continues in Flathead County, 11,000 new housing units will be

needed and increased commercial and private traffic can be expected

(NPS 1998a).

Population centers within a day’s drive of the Park include Great Falls,

Bozeman, Billings, Missoula, and Kalispell, Montana. Other areas are

Spokane, Washington, Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta, and Boise, Idaho.

Continued population and economic growth in these areas would affect

visitation to the Park.

The existing wastewater treatment facility serves Apgar Village, Fish

Creek, Sprague Creek and Apgar campgrounds, Lake McDonald Lodge,

Park Headquarters, maintenance facilities, and residences. The

wastewater system serves approximately 60 percent of the visitors to the

Park. Continued operation of the Park wastewater system is important to

maintaining the local and regional economy.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

44

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.1 Natural Resources

Soils

Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field

Construction of a new seasonal sewage lagoon east of the existing lagoon

would affect about 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of soil resources. There would

be long-term loss in soil productivity from this site and temporary

disturbance from pipeline installation. A new spray field would require

removal of the forest cover and grading to create a meadow for

installation of a new sprinkler spray field on 5.3 hectares (13 acres). Soil

disturbance on the spray field site would be a temporary disturbance and

the site would be revegetated with grass and forb species. Soil

productivity at the spray field would increase with the application of

treated effluent. Soil chemical properties also may change with a

different ground cover and the application of effluent. Soil erosion would

be minimized with use of erosion and sediment control measures.

Continued application of effluent to the existing and new spray field could

change the nutrient and chemical properties of the soil.

Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage

Construction of two new seasonal storage lagoons and an aerated lagoon

would require excavation and disturbance of about 3.6 hectares (9 acres)

soil resources. Excavated soil material likely would be used for lagoon

embankments. There would be a long-term loss of soil productivity at the

lagoon sites. Pipeline installation would temporarily affect soil resources

during construction, but would have no long-term effect. Terrain at the

lagoon locations is generally flat, so erosion from proposed project

activities is likely to be minor. Planned use of erosion and sediment

control best management practices, including revegetation of disturbed

areas, would minimize the potential for soil loss. Continued application of

effluent to the spray field could change the nutrient and chemical

properties of the soil.

Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Construction of a series of three rapid infiltration basins would result in

the disturbance of about 3.6 hectares (9 acres) of soil. There would be a

long-term loss of soil productivity at this site. Pipeline installation would

temporarily affect soil resources during construction, but would have no
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

45

long-term effect. Excavation for the basins would expose coarse

textured subsurface materials with high hydraulic conductivity suitable for

infiltration of treated effluent. Loss of soil resources would be minimal

with use of erosion and sediment control measures. A 445-square meter

(4,800-square foot) treatment building would be located within the existing

disturbed parking area with minimal disturbance to soil resources.

Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

A new 560 square meter (6,000-square feet) wastewater treatment

building would be located on existing disturbed parking areas with minimal

impact on soil resources. Pipeline installation to the selected discharge

point would follow existing roads where possible. Pipeline installation

would be a temporary disturbance with limited potential for soil loss and

erosion with use of sediment and erosion control measures.

Construction of a percolation stream or pond in the existing spray field

would disrupt up to 4 hectares (10 acres) of soil resources and result in a

minor change to the topography. If a constructed wetland discharge site

is used, about 0.8 hectares (2 acres) of soils would be disturbed. Existing

and imported soil and organic material may be used to construct the

wetlands. Use of an exfiltration gallery would disturb temporarily less

than 0.4 hectares (1 acre) of soils during construction, but there would be

minimal long-term effect to soils. If the existing spray field is used for

application of effluent, there would be minor continued effects to the

nutrient and chemical properties of the soil.

Construction of a pipeline for a surface water discharge would mostly

follow existing roads with the exception of 120 meters (400 feet) through

undeveloped land. This would be a temporary disturbance with limited

potential for soil loss and with use of sediment and erosion control

measures.

Alternative 4 — No Action

Continued operation of the existing WWTP may result in occasional spills

that would result in the application of untreated sewage to soils

surrounding the lagoon. Concentrations of untreated sewage could

temporarily affect the chemical and nutrient status of these soils and the

biological processes and productivity of these areas. To a lesser degree,

the continued application of effluent to the spray field also could affect

the nutrient and chemical status of the soils.

Cumulative Effects

Future actions to repair damaged sewage collection lines in the Park

would temporarily disturb soil resources for all alternatives. No other
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

46

cumulative effects to soil resources are expected from the action

alternatives. Under the no action alternative, there would be increased

contributions of effluent to soils in the spray field due to inefficient

WWTP operation and increased treatment demands.

Water Resources and Floodplains

Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field

The new lagoon and spray field would be located outside of the 100-year

floodplain of lower McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the Flathead

River. The existing spray field, which is mostly within the 50-year

floodplain, would remain in operation. Spray field facilities still would be

subject to periodic flooding, but no effluent would be discharged when the

field is inundated or saturated to minimize impacts to water quality.

Treated effluent would be applied to the existing spray field when

conditions are appropriate at rates up to 250,000 gpd. The continued

surface application of treated effluent would recharge the alluvial aquifer

and contribute to streamflow in lower McDonald Creek and the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River. There would be no substantial change in the

net contribution of runoff to these drainages or hydrologic conditions from

existing WWTP operations.

Water quality in lower McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River would continue to meet state water quality standards.

Based on historical data (Hauer 1988; NPS 1992), nutrients would not

affect ground water downgradient of the disposal areas. A periodic

sampling program would be used to monitor ground water quality below

the spray fields and ensure that state water quality standard are met.

Based on historical data (NPS 1992), phosphorus levels in ground water

monitoring wells would meet TMDL criteria and would not adversely

affect Flathead Lake.

No effects to water quality are likely from proposed construction

disturbance with planned erosion control measures.

Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage

The new lagoons would be located on the upper terrace above the 100-

year floodplain of lower McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River. The existing spray field, which is mostly within the 50-

year floodplain, would remain in operation. Planned rehabilitation of the

spray field would result in only minor work to facilities currently present

within the floodplain. Periodic flooding of the spray field would occur, but

no effluent would be discharged when the field is inundated or saturated.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

47

Spray field applications would be up to 250,000 gpd and would be similar

to existing conditions. The continued surface application of treated

effluent would recharge the alluvial aquifer and contribute to streamflow

in lower McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the Flathead River.

There would be no change in the net contribution of runoff to these

drainages or hydrologic conditions from existing WWTP operations.

Improvements in the water quality of treated effluent are expected with

construction of new lagoons. An additional aerated lagoon would

increase operational flexibility. Planned improvements to the existing

sewage lagoon would restore operation of the lagoon to design criteria

and reduce biological oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended sediments in

treated effluent. Water quality in lower McDonald Creek and the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River would meet state water quality standards.

Based on historical data (Hauer 1988; NPS 1992), nutrients would not

affect ground water downgradient of the disposal areas. A periodic

sampling program required by the state would be used to monitor ground

water quality below the spray fields to ensure that state water quality

standards are met. Based on historical data (NPS 1992), phosphorus

levels in ground water would meet TMDL criteria and would not

adversely affect Flathead Lake. The risk of sewage pond leakage or

spillage into lower McDonald Creek or the adjacent oxbow is expected to

be minimal due to the durability of the lining material and periodic

maintenance.

No adverse effects to water quality are likely from proposed construction

disturbance with planned erosion control measures.

Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

The infiltration basins would be located outside of the 100-year floodplain

of lower McDonald Creek/Middle Fork of the Flathead River and the

existing spray field in the floodplain would be abandoned. All WWTP

facilities would be located outside of the floodplain. The infiltration basins

would discharge up to 250,000 gpd of treated effluent into the ground

water. Return flow to McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River may be greater than the spray field alternatives because

there would be less loss to evapotranspiration. The timing of discharge

would be different than spray fields because the infiltration basins would

operate year-round.

Advanced wastewater treatment would reduce nitrogen levels of the

treated effluent more than spray field alternatives. Nitrogen

concentrations in treated effluent would be less than 7.5 mg/l (Montana

DEQ ground water discharge standard). Discharges to ground water are

not expected to adversely affect water quality in lower McDonald Creek

or the Middle Fork of the Flathead River because nutrient removal would
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

48

exceed existing WWTP discharges. Based on historical sampling data

(Hauer 1988; NPS 1992), nutrients would not affect ground water

downgradient of the disposal areas. State water quality standards in

these drainages would be meet. Periodic state-required sampling below

the infiltration basins would be used to ensure that state water quality

standards are met. Based on historical data (NPS 1992), phosphorus

levels in ground water would meet TMDL criteria and would not

adversely affect Flathead Lake.

Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

A new advanced wastewater treatment system building would be located

outside of the 100-year floodplain of lower McDonald Creek and the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River. Optional treated effluent discharge

sites would be located within the 50-year floodplain.

Because the treatment plant would operate year-round, effluent would be

released throughout the year. Releases would be greatest (up to 250,000

gpd) during the summer months when visitor use is highest. Return flow

to the river would be greater than the spray field and infiltration basin

alternatives because there would be no evaporation or transpiration

losses. However, one discharge option includes use of the existing spray

field. Maximum discharges of 0.25 million gpd would be less than 0.1

percent of 30-year low flows in the Middle Fork of the Flathead River.

This alternative would produce the highest quality of treated effluent of

the alternatives under consideration. In addition to improved nitrogen

removal described for the rapid infiltration basins, chemical treatment

would reduce phosphorus levels. Anticipated treated effluent discharge

would have total phosphorus concentrations of less than 0.1 mg/l and total

nitrogen concentrations of less than 1.0 mg/l. Predicted water quality in

the Middle Fork of the Flathead River with contributions from the new

WWTP would be less than non-degradation trigger levels of 0.001 mg/l of

total phosphorus, and 0.01 mg/l of total nitrogen. Specific discharge

limitations would be determined by the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality. Treated effluent discharges for Alternative 3

would be well below TMDL target levels and would not adversely affect

water quality in Flathead Lake.

No adverse effects to water quality are likely from proposed construction

disturbance with planned erosion control measures.

Alternative 4 — No Action

There would be no change in facilities located in the floodplain, discharge

volume, or effluent water quality under the no action alternative. The

existing spray field would continue to operate within the 100-year
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

49

floodplain of lower McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the Flathead

River. High spring flows or saturated soils would limit the ability to apply

effluent during wet years. Because the volume of effluent applied to the

spray field would be similar to existing operations (up to 250,000 gpd),

there would be no change in the volume or timing of runoff to McDonald

Creek.

Treated effluent water quality would be similar to existing conditions and

would not adversely affect water quality in lower McDonald Creek or the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River. Water quality discharges would

continue to meet state water quality standards. Based on historical data

(NPS 1992), phosphorus levels in ground water would meet TMDL

criteria and would not adversely affect Flathead Lake. Deterioration of

the operational efficiency of the plant has resulted in an increase in the

BOD and suspended sediment in the discharged effluent since the original

WWTP was constructed. Continued deterioration of the facilities’ ability

to treat up to original design standards would occur without rehabilitation.

An adverse effect to water quality is possible under the no action

alternative due to increased demand on the current system to handle an

increasing amount of effluent, especially as the existing facility ages and

becomes less efficient. Accidental spills from the lagoon may occur

during wet springs when effluent cannot be discharged to the spray field.

Partially treated sewage effluent could reach lower McDonald Creek and

the Middle Fork of the Flathead River during these events. Such

discharges would violate state water quality standards.

Cumulative Effects

Planned future improvements to the Park’s wastewater collection system

in addition to the proposed wastewater plant rehabilitation would improve

the water quality resources in lower McDonald Creek and the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River. Potential future connection of sewer lines

and abandonment of existing septic systems on private residences in the

Park near Lake McDonald would improve water quality. Previous work

on pump stations at Lake McDonald Lodge, Sprague Creek, and Apgar,

and elimination of Park septic systems has also contributed to improved

water quality in lower McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River. Cumulative impacts to water quality in the Flathead

River system are possible with other nutrient introductions from sources

outside the Park.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

50

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Alternative 1A 3⁄4 Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field

The existing spray field is the only component of this alternative that

would be located in the Wild and Scenic River corridor and 50-year

floodplain. There would be no change to existing physical features and

no impacts to hydrological or biological resources in the Middle Fork of

the Flathead River. Water quality discharge would meet state standards.

Improvements to the wastewater system under this alternative would not

lessen the values and qualities inherent with the Middle Fork segment of

the Wild and Scenic River and would not affect the free-flowing status of

the river.

Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage

As with Alternative 1A, the existing spray field is the only component of

this alternative that would be located in the Wild and Scenic River

corridor. Improvements to the wastewater system under Alternative 1B

would not lessen the values and qualities inherent with the Middle Fork

segment of the Wild and Scenic River and would not affect the freeflowing status of the river.

Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

None of the components of this alternative would be located in the Wild

and Scenic River corridor. Discharge of treated effluent to the ground

water may reach the Middle Fork of the Flathead River, but the quality of

discharges would not adversely affect water quality in the river.

Improvements to the wastewater system under Alternative 2 would not

lessen the values and qualities inherent with the Middle Fork segment of

the Wild and Scenic River and would not affect the free-flowing status of

the river.

Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

The discharge outlet is the only portion of this alternative that would be

located within the Wild and Scenic River corridor of the Middle Fork of

the Flathead River. Use of a constructed wetland or exfiltration gallery

would result in disturbances to upland grassland meadows in the Middle

Fork 50-year floodplain. The constructed wetland discharge outlet would

create less than 0.8 hectare (2 acres) of wetland. The exfiltration gallery

would temporarily disturb less than 0.4 hectare (1 acre) of vegetation and
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

51

soils during construction. Hydrologic properties at each of these sites

would change over existing conditions with the discharge of up to 250,000

gpd of treated effluent. There would be no impact to channel

morphology, streambank erosion, sediment routing or debris loading. The

timing of discharges would differ slightly from existing conditions because

the WWTP would operate year-round. Biological processes in the

Middle Fork would not be adversely affected due to the high quality of

effluent discharges.

Use of the existing spray field for either surface application or spray

effluent application of WWTP discharge would be similar to existing

conditions. The spray field is located in the 50-year floodplain of the

Middle Fork, but would not substantially change hydrological or biological

processes. Proposed wastewater system improvements would not

appreciably lessen the values and qualities inherent with this segment of

the Wild and Scenic River and would not affect the free-flowing status of

the river.

A surface water discharge to the Middle Fork would have a minor effect

on the free-flowing status of the river. Because of the small volume and

high water quality of treated effluent, the discharge is unlikely to

substantially change hydrological or biological processes. If a surface

water discharge directly to the Middle Fork of the Flathead River is used,

a Wild and Scenic River Section 7(b) Determination would be submitted

to the U.S. Forest Service documenting that no adverse effects to the

Wild and Scenic River designation are likely.

Alternative 4 — No Action

Continued use of the existing spray field would occur within the Middle

Fork Wild and Scenic River corridor under the no action alternative.

There would be no effect to Wild and Scenic River values on the Middle

fork of the Flathead River because the existing operation does not

adversely affect water quality.

Vegetation

Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field

A long-term loss of 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of vegetation would occur with

the construction of a new lagoon. Creation of an additional spray field

would require removal of lodgepole pine forest and understory on 5.3

hectares (13 acres). Existing vegetation in the spray field would be

replaced with native grassland species suitable for uptake of nutrients in

the treated effluent. The application of treated effluent would increase

forage production. Increased weed or exotic plant invasion is possible,
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

52

but use of native plants for revegetation and monitoring would minimize

weed establishment. There would be a long-term change in the plant

community at the spray field site. Creation of a new meadow would add

to the plant and habitat diversity of the area, but would modify the existing

naturally occurring plant communities and succession to a hemlock forest.

Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage

Construction of new lagoons would require the removal and long-term

loss of vegetation resources on 3.6 hectares (9 acres) of land. The

existing lodgepole pine forest would be harvested and all understory

vegetation removed to excavate the lagoons. The lagoon sites would be

near the existing lagoon, parking area, and utility rights-of-ways that are

cleared of forest overstory. The loss of vegetation in proximity to

previously disturbed areas is relatively minor; however, loss of vegetation

resources would reduce available habitat for wildlife and fragment

surrounding habitat. Pipeline construction would result in temporary

disturbance to vegetation. Disturbed areas would be promptly

revegetated following construction with suitable native plant material.

Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Construction of three infiltration basins would result in the long-term loss

of 3.6 hectares (9 acres) of vegetation. The lodgepole pine forest

community would be removed from production and succession to

hemlock forest would not occur. The infiltration basins would be located

adjacent to an existing cleared utility line. The loss of vegetation

resources would reduce available habitat for wildlife and fragment

surrounding habitat. Pipeline construction would result in minor

temporary disturbance to vegetation. Disturbed areas would be

revegetated with native plants following construction.

Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

Minor disturbance to vegetation resources would occur from

implementation of this alternative. A new wastewater treatment building

would be located in an existing unvegetated parking area and would not

affect vegetation.

Long-term disturbance to vegetation is possible depending on which

discharge method is selected. Construction of a percolation stream or

pond in the existing spray field would disturb up to 4 hectares (10 acres)

of grassland meadow. A constructed wetland discharge outlet would

replace about 0.8 hectares (2 acres) of upland grassland with a wetland
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

53

plant community. Installation of an exfiltration gallery would disturb

temporarily about 0.4 hectares (1 acre) of upland grassland in the

floodplain adjacent to the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. Following

construction of the exfiltration gallery, the site would be revegetated with

native plant species. Increased plant production at the exfiltration site is

possible if the water table at the site rises. Continued discharge of

effluent using the existing spray field would not result in any substantial

change in existing vegetation communities. Temporary disturbance to

vegetation may occur with installation of pipelines for land or surface

water discharge outlets, although existing roads would be used to the

extent possible. Disturbed areas would be revegetated with native plants

following construction.

Alternative 4 — No Action

There would be no change in vegetation resources in the vicinity of the

existing wastewater treatment facilities.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions to construct the existing sewage treatment facility,

maintenance storage yard, utility line corridor, roads and explosive

magazine have contributed to the modified condition of the existing

vegetation communities in the area. Alternative improvements to the

wastewater treatment facility would add varying degrees of additional

disturbance to this area. There are no other known planned disturbances

to vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the project area. A new

Discovery Center proposed in the General Management Plan (NPS 1999)

would require vegetation clearing about 1.5 kilometers (1 mile) north of

the project area between Apgar Village and the Apgar Campground.

Future replacement of sewage collection lines in the Park could

temporarily disturb vegetation for all alternatives.

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field

Construction of a new lagoon would result in the loss of 1.2 hectares (3

acres) of wildlife habitat. Vegetation at a new 5.3-hectare (13-acre)

spray field would change from lodgepole pine forest to a grassland

meadow. The change in habitat may be beneficial to some species such

as foraging elk and deer and grassland birds, and less favorable to cavity

nesting birds and forest dwelling species. The loss of forest cover may

reduce potential sites for elk calving. The spray field would be fenced to

prevent human access, but this would not be a barrier for most wildlife
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

54

movement into the spray field. The spray field also would have a minor

effect on wildlife movement in the area.

Construction-related disturbances to wildlife would be temporary and

limitations in the seasonal and daily construction schedule would minimize

effects. Outside construction would occur between June 1 and

December 1 to minimize disturbance during elk calving season in the

area. Indoor construction could occur year-round. Restricting

construction activities to daylight hours would minimize impacts to wildlife

use at night. Overall, minor adverse effects to wildlife may occur with

this alternative.

Potential effects to fisheries would be similar to current conditions. Spray

field applications of treated effluent in the existing and new spray field

would meet water quality standards and would not affect fisheries in

lower McDonald Creek or the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. The

new spray field, which is located upstream from the existing spray field

(Figure 3) would discharge treated effluent into lower McDonald Creek

alluvial ground water in an area not previously receiving effluent.

Hyporheic communities in the vicinity of the lower McDonald Creek

oxbow may be adversely affected by these discharges, based on results

at other sites (Noble and Stanford 1986; Gilbert et al. 1994).

Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage

Proposed construction of a new lagoon would result in the long-term loss

of 3.6 hectares (9 acres) of forested wildlife habitat. The new lagoons

would be fenced to exclude wildlife for their protection. There would be

a loss in wildlife habitat for foraging, nesting, breeding, and cover.

Fragmentation of wildlife habitat would occur with construction of three

separate lagoons, and wildlife activity in the area may decrease due to the

loss of habitat and additional human activity in the area. Due to their

proximity to existing facilities, the new lagoons are unlikely to have a

substantial effect on wildlife movement. Overall, minor adverse effects

to wildlife populations or use of the area may occur. Wildlife would need

to make local adjustments to the loss of habitat. Unnatural habitat

alterations from use of the existing wastewater spray field would

continue.

Wildlife activity near the lagoon may be reduced during construction due

to noise and the level activity at the site. Existing activities at the existing

wastewater facility currently limit wildlife activity during the day.

Temporary impacts to wildlife during construction would be minimized by

restrictions in the season and timing of construction as described for

Alternative 1A.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

55

The proposed new lagoons are not likely to adversely affect fisheries

because proposed improvements would not directly affect fishery habitat

in lower McDonald Creek or the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. The

increased storage and efficiency of an improved wastewater treatment

facility and the reduced potential for accidental untreated sewage spills

would benefit fisheries. Stream water quality would be similar to existing

conditions and would meet state water quality standards. There would be

no impairment to the current Montana DEQ aquatic life use designation

of lower McDonald Creek or the Middle Fork of the Flathead River.

There would be no change in streamflow, channel substrate, water

temperature or other parameters that would affect fisheries.

There would be no substantial change in subaquatic invertebrates that

may be present in the alluvial ground water of lower McDonald Creek

and the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. The existing spray field

would continue to be used for effluent discharge at application rates and

water quality similar to historical levels. It is possible that the hyporheic

community has been adversely affected by previous effluent discharges

in the existing spray field (Stanford 1999), but this has not been studied.

The hyporheic community is extremely sensitive to nutrient pollution.

Studies on the Flathead River, near Kalispell, Montana indicate that the

hyporheic community was eliminated at sewage-affected areas of the

riverine aquifer (Noble and Stanford 1986). Similar results have been

documented at other locations (Gilbert et al. 1994). Any adverse effects

to the hyporheic community at the existing spray field by past effluent

discharge would continue.

Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

The construction of rapid infiltration basins would result in the long-term

loss of about 3.6-hectare (9 acres) of wildlife habitat. Potential effects to

wildlife would be similar to Alternative 1B except the basins would be

located in an area with less existing disturbance (Figure 5). The fenced

basins would prevent most wildlife from entering the site for their

protection. The configuration of the basins would result in a minor

change in wildlife movement in the area. Overall, a minor effect to

wildlife would occur due primarily to the loss in habitat. Temporary

impacts to wildlife during construction would be minimized by restrictions

in the season and timing of construction as described for Alternative 1A.

Substantial adverse effects to wildlife populations or use of the area are

unlikely.

Adverse effects to fishery resources are unlikely from this alternative due

to the high quality of the effluent discharge and the discharge to ground

water. Advanced wastewater treatment would reduce the amount of
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

56

nutrients in the effluent and water quality in lower McDonald Creek

would meet state water quality standards.

Potential effects to subaquatic invertebrates are possible within the zone

of influence downstream from the infiltration basin. The extent and

severity of this impact would be similar to Alternatives 1A and 1B, but

effluent discharges to ground water would be more rapid and

concentrated at a smaller location than spray field applications.

Discontinued use of the existing spray field could improve the water

quality and habitat conditions for hyporheic communities in this area.

Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

This alternative would have the least adverse effect of all alternatives on

wildlife resources due to the lack of ground disturbance and the removal

of the wastewater spray field. There would be no loss of wildlife habitat

from construction of a new wastewater treatment building. Small areas

of disturbance or change in wildlife habitat would occur depending on

which wastewater discharge option is selected. The option to construct a

percolation stream or pond in the existing meadow spray field would have

minimal impact to wildlife habitat or activity. A constructed wetland

discharge site would replace upland grassland habitat with wetland

habitat, which may attract a diversity of wildlife. The exfiltration gallery

site would disturb grassland habitat temporarily, but would not

substantially affect existing wildlife habitat. The use of the existing spray

field for discharge from a new wastewater treatment plant would

continue the unnatural habitat alteration of the irrigated meadow.

Installation of a surface water discharge outlet would temporarily disturb

wildlife during construction.

Outside construction would occur between June 1 and December 1 to

minimize disturbance during elk calving season in the area. Indoor

construction could occur year-round. Restricting construction activities to

daylight hours would minimize impacts to wildlife use at night.

Fishery resources and subaquatic invertebrates are unlikely to be

adversely affected due the high level of treatment and dilution flows in

the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. Effluent discharges would meet

state water quality standards. The treated effluent quality for this

alternative would have the least potential impact to the hyporheic

community. Abandonment of the existing spray field may result in

improved conditions for hyporheic communities in this area.

Alternative 4 — No Action

There would be no change in existing wildlife habitat under the no action

alternative. Wildlife would continue to use habitat in the spray field and
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

57

surrounding areas as they have in the past and other wildlife would

continue to be displaced. Existing facilities and human activity in the area

would continue to have an adverse effect on wildlife.

There would be no change in the existing aquatic habitat or quality of

treated effluent under the no action alternative. Fishery resources would

not be adversely affected because existing discharges meet state water

quality standards and increased nutrient concentrations have not been

detectable in the ground water or surface water (Hauer 1988; Glacier

National Park 1992). Subaquatic invertebrate habitat may continue to be

affected by use of the existing spray field.

Cumulative Effects

Planned future lining of the wastewater collection system may improve

the water quality in the lower McDonald Creek drainage. This would be

a beneficial effect to aquatic resources for all of the alternatives.

Existing private land development in the Middle Fork and other tributaries

of the Flathead River also contribute nutrients from septic systems,

municipal wastewater treatment plants, as well as other point and nonpoint sources. Future residential and commercial growth in the region is

likely to increase the amount wastewater discharges to the Flathead

basin. Incremental discharges to the Flathead basin could potentially

affect aquatic resources in the future. However, planned nutrient

discharges associated with any of the WWTP alternatives are less than

or equal to historical discharges from the Park.

Threatened and Endangered and State Sensitive Species

Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Bald eagle. Bald eagles may be affected, but are unlikely to be

adversely affected due to the timing of construction and the location of

project facilities away from potential eagle use areas on lower McDonald

Creek.

Gray wolf. There would be a loss of about 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of

habitat with little anticipated change in ungulate prey populations under

this alternative. Wastewater treatment plant improvements may affect,

but are not likely to adversely affect gray wolves because there is

minimal use of the project area and minimal loss of suitable habitat.

Grizzly bear. The project area includes suitable habitat for grizzly bears

and there would be a loss of about 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of habitat from

construction of new lagoons and a change in habitat on 5.3 hectares (13
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

58

acres), where a new spray field meadow would be created. Grizzlies

may be attracted to the new spray field due to the herbaceous growth in

an irrigated meadow. Construction-related effects would be mitigated in

a similar manner as the preferred alternative. Grizzly bears may be

affected by the loss of habitat, but are unlikely to be adversely affected

due to the existing disturbance and activity in the area and mitigation

measures.

Peregrine falcon. There would be no effect to peregrine falcons under

Alternative 1A because of their rare use of the Park.

Bull trout. There would be no change in habitat elements or direct

impacts to physical features in the Middle Fork or lower McDonald

Creek. Hydrologic conditions and flows in these drainages would be

similar to existing conditions. Anticipated spray application of

wastewater effluent would not adversely affect water quality in lower

McDonald Creek or the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. As a result,

actions under this alternative may affect, but are not likely to adversely

affect bull trout use of lower McDonald Creek or other habitat in the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River.

Lynx. The 1.2 hectare (3-acre) loss in habitat would have a minor effect

on snowshoe hares, lynx principal prey. This alternative is unlikely to

adversely affect lynx movement, hunting or other activities due to their

limited use of the project area and small area of impact. Alternative 1A

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, lynx activity in the project

area.

Westslope cutthroat trout. There would be no change in habitat

elements or direct impacts to physical features in the Middle Fork or

lower McDonald Creek. Hydrologic conditions and flows in these

drainages would be similar to existing conditions. Westslope cutthroat

trout may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected by

lagoon construction because there would be no adverse effects to stream

water quality or habitat.

Marten, fisher and wolverine. These mammals may use habitat in the

vicinity of the project area. The 5.3 hectare (13-acre) change in habitat

from forest to meadow would reduce the habitat available for these

woodland species. The construction of the new 1.2-hectare (3-acre)

lagoon also would contribute to the loss of habitat. Loss of habitat is an

adverse effect, but it is anticipated to be minimal as these species are

wide ranging and no construction would occur at night when they are

most active. This alternative is not likely to lead to a federal listing or loss

in species viability.

Trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, osprey, northern goshawk,

Cooper’s hawk, northern pygmy owl, barred owl, northern saw-
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

59

whet owl, and pileated woodpecker. The lands surrounding the

project area provide potential habitat for all of these species. There are

no known nest sites in the vicinity of the wastewater facility. These

species may limit their use of foraging habitat in the area during

construction, but this is not likely to result in an adverse effect. This

alternative is not likely to lead to a federal listing or loss in species

viability.

Plant Species

There would be no effect to federally listed threatened or endangered

plant species under this alternative because there are no known listed

plant species in the Park. A population of the state threatened velvetleaf

blueberry is located near the existing lagoon. Although the new lagoons

would be sited to minimize impacts to the velvetleaf blueberry,

construction of the new lagoon east of the existing lagoon could result in

the loss of a few individual velvetleaf blueberry plants. The loss of fewer

than 10 of these plants would not substantially affect the viability of the

Park population or lead to a federal threatened or endangered species

listing according to Park ecologists. Velvetleaf blueberry in the vicinity of

the lagoon and spray field would be marked and barricaded to prevent

any accidental disturbance during construction.

Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Bald eagle. Bald eagles may be affected, but are not likely to be

adversely affected by this alternative due to the timing of construction

and the location of project facilities away from potential eagle use areas

on lower McDonald Creek. The highest use period for bald eagles in the

vicinity of the project area is in the spring and fall. Construction activity

would be restricted between June 1 and December 1 and to the hours of

7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. to minimize potential effects to bald eagles.

Gray wolf. There would be a loss of about 5.3 hectares (9 acres) of

habitat with little anticipated change in ungulate prey populations as a

result of the preferred alternative. Wastewater treatment plant

improvements may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect gray

wolves because there is minimal use of the project area.

Grizzly bear. The project area includes suitable habitat for grizzly bears

and there would be a loss of about 5.3 hectares (9 acres) of habitat from

construction of new lagoons. The loss of habitat due to lagoon

construction may affect, but is not likely to adversely effect grizzly bears.

Construction-related effects would be mitigated in a manner similar to the

preferred alternative.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

60

Peregrine falcon. There would be no effect to peregrine falcons from

Alternative 1B because of their rare use of the Park.

Bull trout. There would be no change in habitat elements or direct

impacts to physical features in the Middle Fork or lower McDonald

Creek. Hydrologic conditions and flows in these drainages would be

similar to existing conditions. Anticipated spray application of

wastewater effluent would be similar to existing use and would not

adversely affect water quality in lower McDonald Creek or the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River. This alternative may affect, but is not likely

to adversely affect bull trout use of lower McDonald Creek or other

habitat in the Middle Fork of the Flathead River or Lake McDonald.

Lynx. The 3.6 hectare (9-acre) loss in habitat would have a minor effect

to snowshoe hares, lynx principal prey. Preferred alternatives are

unlikely to affect lynx movement, hunting or other activities due to their

limited use of the project area and the small area of disturbance.

Alternative 1B may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect lynx activity

in the project area.

Westslope cutthroat trout. There would be no change in habitat

elements or direct impacts to physical features in the Middle Fork or

lower McDonald Creek. Hydrologic conditions and flows in these

drainages would be similar to existing conditions. Westslope cutthroat

trout are unlikely to be adversely affected by lagoon construction because

there would be no adverse effects to stream water quality or habitat.

Alternative 1B may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect westslope

cutthroat trout.

Marten, fisher and wolverine. These mammals may use habitat in the

vicinity of the project area. Adverse effects to these species are not

likely because the project would result in a minor loss of habitat 3.6

hectare (9 acres) and no construction would occur at night when they are

most active. This alternative is not likely to lead to a federal listing or loss

in species viability.

Trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, osprey, northern goshawk,

Cooper’s hawk, northern pygmy owl, barred owl, northern sawwhet owl, and pileated woodpecker. The lands surrounding the

project area provide potential habitat for all of these species. There are

no known nest sites in the vicinity of the wastewater facility. These

species may limit their use of foraging habitat in the area during

construction, but this is not likely to result in an adverse effect. This

alternative is not likely to lead to a federal listing or loss in species

viability.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

61

Plant Species

There would be no effect to threatened or endangered plant species from

this alternative because there are no known federally listed plant species

in the Park. A population of state threatened velvetleaf blueberry is

located near the existing lagoon. Although the location of new lagoons

were sited to minimize impacts to velvetleaf blueberry, construction of the

new aerated lagoon east of the existing lagoon could result in the loss of a

few individual velvetleaf blueberry plants. The loss of fewer than 10

plants would not substantially reduce the number of plants in the Park or

adversely affect the viability of the population according to Park

ecologists. This loss would not lead toward federal listing of velvetleaf

blueberry as threatened or endangered because the species is globally

secure. New storage lagoons would not affect the velvetleaf blueberry.

Velvetleaf blueberry in the vicinity of the lagoon sites would be marked

and barricaded to prevent any accidental disturbance during construction.

Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Bald eagle. This alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely

affect bald eagles due to the lack of habitat in the project area and

anticipated mitigation measures discussed for the preferred alternative.

Gray wolf. There would be a loss of about 5.3-hectare (9 acres) of

habitat and no change in ungulate prey base populations from the

preferred alternative. Construction of infiltration basins may affect, but is

not likely to adversely affect gray wolves because there is minimal use of

the project area.

Grizzly bear. There would be a loss of about 5.3-hectare (9 acres) of

habitat from construction of infiltration basins. Grizzly bear attraction to

the abandoned spray field may diminish when irrigation is discontinued.

Adverse effects to grizzly bears are unlikely as discussed under the

preferred alternative. Construction-related effects would be mitigated in

a similar manner to the preferred alternative. The loss and change in

habitat under Alternative 2 may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect

grizzly bear.

Peregrine falcon. No effect to peregrine falcons are likely under

Alternative 2 due to their rare use of the Park.

Bull trout. There would be no change in habitat elements or direct

impacts to physical features in the Middle Fork or lower McDonald

Creek. Hydrologic conditions and flows in these drainages would be

similar to existing conditions. Anticipated infiltration releases of

wastewater effluent would not adversely affect water quality in lower
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

62

McDonald Creek or the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. As a result,

bull trout use of lower McDonald Creek or other habitat in the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River or Lake McDonald may be affected, but is not

likely to be adversely affected. Advanced wastewater treatment would

improve water quality of treated discharge above existing conditions.

Lynx. Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect lynx

movement, hunting or other activities due to the small area of disturbance

and limited lynx activity in the vicinity of the project area. The 3.6

hectare (9-acre) loss in habitat from infiltration basin construction would

have a minor effect on snowshoe hares, lynx principal prey.

Westslope cutthroat trout. There would be no change in habitat

elements or direct impacts to physical features in the Middle Fork or

lower McDonald Creek. Hydrologic conditions and flows in these

drainages would be similar to existing conditions. Westslope cutthroat

trout may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected by

lagoon construction because there would be no adverse effects to stream

water quality or habitat. Advanced wastewater treatment would

improve the quality of treated discharge above existing conditions.

Marten, fisher and wolverine. These mammals may use habitat in the

vicinity of the project area. Adverse effects to these species are not

likely because the project would result in a minor loss of 5.3 hectare (9

acres) of habitat and no construction would occur at night when they are

most active. Alternative 2 is not likely to lead to a federal listing or a loss

in species viability.

Trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, osprey, northern goshawk,

Cooper’s hawk, northern pygmy owl, barred owl, northern sawwhet owl, and pileated woodpecker. The lands surrounding the

project area provide potential habitat for all of these species. There are

no known nest sites in the vicinity of the infiltration basins. These species

may limit their use of foraging habitat in the area during construction, but

this is not likely to result in an adverse effect. Alternative 2 is not likely

to lead to a federal listing or a loss in species viability.

Plant Species

There would be no effect to threatened or endangered plant species

under this alternative because there are no known federally listed plant

species in the Park. A population of the state threatened velvetleaf

blueberry plants is located south of the existing lagoon, but outside of the

construction area. Velvetleaf blueberry in the vicinity of the project area

would be marked and barricaded to prevent any accidental disturbance

during construction.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

63

Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

The proposed improvements to the wastewater treatment facility are not

likely to adversely affect threatened, endangered or state sensitive plant

or animal species. The following discussion addresses potential effects to

each species.

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

Bald eagle. This alternative may affect but is not likely to adversely

affect bald eagles because there would be no loss of habitat or long-term

disturbance near bald eagle use areas. Construction would occur

between June 1 and December 1 to minimize any potential effects to

wintering bald eagles. Daily outdoor construction activity would be

limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. to minimize impacts to

morning and evening bald eagle foraging.

Gray wolf. The project area is not located within known gray wolf home

range. Wolves may occasionally hunt or roam through the project area,

but their activity appears to be limited. There would be no loss of habitat

and no change in ungulate prey base populations under this alternative.

Construction of a new wastewater treatment building and installation of a

discharge outlet may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect gray

wolves because of their limited activity in the project area and the

minimal habitat disturbance.

Grizzly bear. Grizzlies are wide-ranging species and construction is

proposed for a small site in an existing area of development and human

presence. Grizzly bears foraging in the area at night would not be

displaced by planned daytime construction activities, but bears that use

the area during the day could be displaced.

Temporary construction activities may add to existing human activities in

the area that displace or habituate grizzlies, but the potential to affect

grizzly bears is expected to be minor. Although grizzly bears typically

avoid areas of human activity, they are attracted to food, the scent of

some petroleum products, and human waste. Bear attraction to the

existing sewage lagoon has not been a problem and is unlikely to change

with additional lagoons.

Several management measures would be used to minimize the potential

for bear/human conflicts during construction. Specifications for storage

and disposal of food, construction materials, petroleum products, and

human waste and other possible attractants would be incorporated into

the construction contract to minimize the potential for impacts.

Construction personnel would be trained in how to behave in the presence

of bears. Should a habituated bear frequent the area, construction
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

64

activities may be temporarily suspended while management actions are

implemented.

There would be no loss of grizzly bear habitat from construction of the

wastewater treatment building and the discharge outlet. Grizzly bear

attraction to the spray field may diminish if irrigation is discontinued. The

preferred alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the

grizzly bear because there would be no loss in habitat and mitigation

measures would reduce the potential for substantial impacts.

Peregrine falcon. There would be no effect to peregrine falcons from

the preferred alternative due to their rare use of the Park.

Bull trout. Bull trout are known to use lower McDonald Creek as a

travel corridor between the Middle Fork of the Flathead River and Lake

McDonald, although there is no known spawning in lower McDonald

Creek or the Middle Fork in the vicinity of the project area. There would

be no change in habitat elements or direct impacts to physical features in

the Middle Fork or lower McDonald Creek. Hydrologic conditions and

flows in these drainages would be similar to existing conditions.

Anticipated discharges of wastewater effluent would meet state water

quality standards and not adversely affect water quality in the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River or lower McDonald Creek. Advanced

wastewater treatment would improve the quality of water discharged

over existing conditions. Bull trout use of these streams or other habitat

in the Flathead River watershed may be affected, but is not likely to be

adversely affected by the preferred alternative.

Lynx. Lynx are wide-ranging species with unknown population numbers

in the Park. Sightings and track reports are rare in the vicinity of the

project area but there have been no intensive surveys to document lynx

use in this area. Because lynx are generally nocturnal and construction

activities would occur during the daylight hours, any lynx that may

periodically use the area are unlikely to be adversely affected by

construction of an enlarged WWTP building and discharge outlet. This

alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect lynx

movement, hunting or other activities due the small area of disturbance

and their limited use of the project area. There would be no loss in

habitat from wastewater treatment facility location or discharge outlet

installation.

Westslope cutthroat trout. Westslope cutthroat trout are known to

use lower McDonald Creek as a travel corridor between the Middle Fork

of the Flathead River and Lake McDonald and cutthroats also reside in

the creek year-round. There would be no change in habitat elements or

direct impacts to physical features in the Middle Fork or lower McDonald

Creek. Hydrologic conditions and flows in these drainages would be
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

65

similar to existing conditions. Westslope cutthroat trout may be affected,

but are not likely to be adversely affected by this alternative because

there would be no adverse effects to stream water quality or habitat.

Advanced wastewater treatment would improve the quality of water

discharged over existing conditions.

Marten, fisher and wolverine. These mammals may use habitat in the

vicinity of the project area. Adverse effects to these species are not

likely because the project would not result in a loss of habitat and no

construction would occur at night when they are most active. The

preferred alternative is not likely to lead to a federal listing or a loss in

species viability.

Trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, osprey, northern goshawk,

Cooper’s hawk, northern pygmy owl, barred owl, northern sawwhet owl, and pileated woodpecker. The lands surrounding the

project area provide potential habitat for all of these species. There are

no known nest sites in the vicinity of the project area. These species may

limit their use of foraging habitat in the area during construction, but this is

not likely to result in an adverse effect leading to a federal listing or loss

of species viability.

Plant Species

There would be no effect to threatened or endangered plant species

under the preferred alternative because there are no known federally

listed plant species in the Park. A population of the state threatened

velvetleaf blueberry is located near the existing lagoon, but outside of the

proposed area for construction. Velvetleaf blueberry in the vicinity of the

project area would be marked and barricaded to prevent any accidental

disturbance during construction.

Alternative 4 — No Action

Under the no action alternative, there would be no change in the current

use of habitat in the project area by bald eagles, grizzly bear, gray wolf,

peregrine falcon, bull trout, lynx or westslope cutthroat trout. Continued

operation of the existing wastewater treatment facility is unlikely to

adversely affect these species. Water quality from spray field

applications of effluent would continue to meet state water quality

standards. However, occasional accidental spills of partially treated

sewage effluent during wet years could reach lower McDonald Creek

and the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. This potentially could

adversely affect bull trout or westslope cutthroat trout for short periods of

time.

No state sensitive wildlife species are adversely affected by existing

WWTP operations. No effect to federal threatened or endangered or
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

66

state sensitive plant species is expected under no action because there

would not be any ground-disturbing activities.

Cumulative Effects

There are no known adverse long-term or cumulative effects to

threatened, endangered, or rare state species associated with action or no

action alternatives, with the exception of bull trout and westslope

cutthroat trout. Previous wastewater system improvements in the Park

have improved the quality of water in the Lake McDonald and lower

McDonald Creek drainages. Cumulative actions from future wastewater

collection system improvements in the Park may result in a long-term

benefit to these species in Lake McDonald and lower McDonald Creek.

Wastewater or other discharges from private lands outside of the Park

may decrease water quality that could affect bull trout and westslope

cutthroat trout in the Flathead River drainage.

Visual Resources

Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field

Impacts to visual quality would occur with construction of a new 1.2-

hectare (3-acre) lagoon. The addition of a new 5.3-hectare (13-acre)

spray field would require clearing the forest vegetation and establishing a

grassland meadow. Creation of a new meadow would add some

diversity to the landscape, although the site would be fenced and may

appear artificial rather than natural. Mitigation could include selective

harvesting to create a more natural appearing opening. Existing forest

cover would screen this site from lower McDonald Creek and

surrounding lands. The new lagoon and spray field may be visible from

trails in the project area.

Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage

Construction of new lagoons requires clearing the existing forest and

would result in the addition of 3.6 hectares (9 acres) of constructed

features into the landscape. The visual quality of the site would be

diminished, but placement of the site near the existing facilities would

minimize the effect. Surrounding forest screens this area from adjacent

lands. The new lagoons may be visible from trails in the project area.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

67

Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Construction of rapid infiltration basins would require clearing 3.6

hectares (9 acres) of forest. The three excavated basins would be

surrounded by earthen berms and would be fenced. Visual quality of the

area would be diminished, but existing disturbances, including the current

sewage lagoon, is located nearby. The new infiltration basins may be

visible from trails in the project area.

Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

Minimal effect to the existing landscape would occur with this alternative.

A new larger building would be constructed near existing disturbed areas

and would not substantially change the visual quality of the area. Use of

the existing spray field for discharge or construction of a percolation

stream or pond would not be visible to most Park visitors and would not

substantially change the visual quality of the site. A constructed wetland

discharge outlet adjacent to the Quarter Circle Bridge road would be

visible to visitors from the road. A natural wetland configuration could be

designed to blend the site into the landscape. If the exfiltration discharge

outlet is constructed, there would be a temporary surface disturbance, but

no long-term change to visual quality. A buried pipeline to either the

constructed wetland, exfiltration gallery, or surface water discharge site

would result in a temporary visual disturbance during construction,

although the majority of the pipeline would be within existing roads. A

discharge outlet on the Middle Fork of the Flathead River may be visible

to recreationists along the river. Landscaping could be used to screen the

discharge outlet.

Alternative 4 — No Action

There would be no change in the existing visual quality of the landscape

under the no action alternative. The existing spray field and lagoon would

stay in operation and would be visible to visitors along the Quarter Circle

Bridge Road.

Cumulative Effects

All modifications to the landscape from action alternatives result in a

minor long-term change to the visual quality of the land. Existing

disturbances in the project area are part of the cumulative effects to the

visual quality of the site. There are no known future activities that would

add to the cumulative effects of the alternatives.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

68

Noise and Odor

Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field

Noise levels at the new lagoon would be similar to existing conditions. A

new spray field would have minor increases in noise during the operation

of sprinklers and periodic maintenance visits. Sound from the spray field

may be detected by Park visitors and nearby trails. A temporary

increase in noise levels would occur during construction of the lagoon,

clearing the forest, and installation of pipelines. These temporary

increases in noise levels during construction may be perceptible to

recreationists along lower McDonald Creek. Planned restrictions in

construction activities would limit the increased noise levels to daylight

hours.

Odors from a new lagoon would sometimes be perceptible in the

immediate area surrounding the lagoon depending on climatic conditions

and operating factors. Maintenance workers would monitor odors and

lagoon operation to minimize odor problems. Recreation users on lower

McDonald Creek or near Quarter Circle Bridge are unlikely to detect

odors from the lagoon during normal operations. There would be minimal

odor associated with the new spray field.

Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage

Noise associated with new lagoons would be similar to the existing

lagoon. Generally, noise levels are low and include primarily the aeration

pumps. The noise from the operation of the lagoons and WWTP is not

likely to adversely affect wildlife or human activities. There would be a

temporary increase in noise levels during construction that may be

perceptible to recreationists along lower McDonald Creek and the nearby

horse trail. Planned restrictions in construction activities would limit the

increased noise levels to daylight hours.

Odors from the new lagoon would be similar to those described for

Alternative 1A although additional lagoon storage increases the potential

for odors.

Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

No substantial change in noise levels are anticipated with the operation of

the infiltration basins. A new advanced wastewater treatment building

would house new facilities and contain mechanical noises. Park visitors

are unlikely to perceive any noise associated with this facility.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

69

Temporary noise increases and mitigation during construction would be

similar to Alternatives 1A and 1B.

Odors from operation of the infiltration basins and treatment facility are

expected to be minor. Odors from a new lagoon would sometimes be

perceptible in the immediate area surrounding the lagoon depending on

climatic conditions and operating factors. Sludge from the operation of the

advanced wastewater facility can generate obnoxious odors if not

properly disposed. Wastewater treatment plant operations would dispose

of sludge at a suitable facility, capable of handling such waste, outside of

the Park.

Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

There would be limited noise associated with this alternative. Treatment

facilities would be located within a building that would contain mechanical

noise. No sound from the facility would be detectable by Park visitors.

Construction of the WWTP and discharge outlet would result in a

temporary increase in noise.

Odors from this wastewater treatment facility are expected to be minor.

The advanced biological treatment of waste would not generate

substantial odors. Sludge from the operation of the advanced wastewater

facility can generate obnoxious odors if not properly disposed.

Wastewater treatment plant operations would dispose of sludge at a

suitable facility, capable of handling such waste, outside of the Park.

Alternative 4 — No Action

Under no action, there would be no change in existing noise levels.

Motor and pumping noise from the lagoon would be minor and generally

not detectable to Park visitors.

Odors from the lagoon would be minimal under normal operating

conditions.

Cumulative Effects

Noise from each of the alternatives would result in long-term

contributions to the ambient noise levels. Maintenance activities and

traffic in the vicinity of the project contribute to the existing noise level.

There are no known future activities that would result in cumulative

effects to sound levels in the region.

Odor from alternative wastewater treatment plant options would occur

over the long-term. No cumulative effects to odor in the area were

identified.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

70

4.2 Socioeconomic Environment

Visitor Use and Experience

All Action Alternatives

The preferred alternative and other action alternatives would have

minimal direct effects on visitor use and experience. Proposed project

facilities would be located in an area not generally accessible or used by

Park visitors. Construction of the discharge outlet for Alternative 3 may

require a temporary closure of the Quarter Circle Bridge Road if

wetlands or an exfiltration gallery are constructed. This action may

restrict visitor access for several weeks to hiking trails, fishing and boater

take-out on lower McDonald Creek. Horseback trail rides to the

abandoned Flathead River Ranger Station or Apgar Lookout would be

suspended during construction. Hikers, anglers, and boaters most likely

would use another area of the Park for recreation until construction

activities are completed.

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 would require rerouting a segment of a horse

and concessioner/foot trail that is located within the disturbance zone for

a new lagoon, spray field, or infiltration basin. Relocation of the trail

would result in additional land disturbance and may affect the quality of

the visitor experience for trail users.

Construction of wastewater treatment improvements would indirectly

benefit Park visitor and experience by allowing continued operation of

Park facilities, campgrounds and lodges dependent on an adequate

sewage disposal facility. This alternative would not affect Park

concession operations.

Alternative 4 — No Action

Continued operation of the existing wastewater treatment system is not

expected to directly affect visitor use and experience. However, if the

existing WWTP is unable to meet demand, operation of some Park

facilities or concessions could be restricted to reduce water use. This

could affect visitor use and experience in the early spring.

Cumulative Effects

Proposed and alternative wastewater treatment system improvements

would provide long-term benefits to Park visitor use and experience by

being able to meet sewage treatment demands as currently envisioned in

the Park General Management Plan (NPS 1999). The rehabilitation of

the wastewater treatment facility would allow future construction of a

new Discovery Center. Cumulative future benefits to visitors are

possible from improvements in Lake McDonald water quality because the
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

71

new facility would allow for discontinued use of private septic systems

around the lake in association with other planned wastewater collection

system improvements.

Land Use

Alternative 1A — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Spray Field

This alternative would result in a change in land use from 1.2 hectares (3

acres) of natural forest to an aerated sewage storage lagoon. The new

spray field would change of 5.3 hectares (13 acres) of natural forest to

grassland meadow. Both of these facilities would be fenced to prevent

unauthorized access. There would be no change in the land use of the

existing spray field, which would continue to be used for application of

wastewater and as pasture for Park livestock. The horse/foot trail near

the new spray field would need to be relocated.

Alternative 1B — Lagoon Treatment, Sprinkler Discharge,

Additional Storage

The preferred alternative would result in a long-term change in land use

from 3.6 hectares (9 acres) of natural forest to three sewage lagoons.

The change in land use would be near existing facilities. The new

lagoons would be fenced to prevent unauthorized access. There would

be no change in the land use of the existing spray field, which would

continue to be used for application of wastewater and as pasture for Park

livestock. The horse/foot trail near the new sewage lagoon would need

to be relocated.

Alternative 2 — Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid

Infiltration Basin Discharge

Construction of rapid infiltration basins would convert 3.6 hectares (9

acres) of existing natural forest to a series of infiltration basins. The site

would be fenced to prevent unauthorized access. The existing spray field

would be abandoned, but the meadow would continue to be used as

pasture for Park livestock. The horse/foot trail near the new infiltration

basins would need to be relocated.

Alternative 3 — Preferred Alternative 3⁄4 Advanced Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Land Discharge

A minor change in land use would occur with the construction of new

advanced wastewater treatment building. About 56 square meters (600

square feet) of existing disturbed parking areas would be used for the

new facility. The selection of a discharge outlet may have a minor effect
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

72

on existing land uses. A percolation stream or pond in the existing spray

field or continued use of the spray field irrigation system would not

substantially change land use. The meadow would continue to be used as

pasture for Park livestock. Construction of a wetland discharge outlet or

exfiltration gallery would require some land disturbance with a change in

vegetation cover for the constructed wetland. These sites would receive

periodic maintenance, but remain as open areas for wildlife use.

Alternative 4 — No Action

There would be no change in current land use with the no action

alternative. The existing lagoon and spray field would continue to operate

as it has in the past. The spray field meadow would continue to be used

as pasture for Park livestock.

Cumulative Effects

Each of the action and no action alternatives would have a long-term

effect on land use. Proposed facilities are expected to be used for the

foreseeable future, although improvements or additions to these facilities

are possible in the future.

Local and Regional Economy

All Action Alternatives

Construction of any of the action alternatives would benefit tourism, local

communities, and the regional economy. An improved wastewater

treatment facility would allow for the continued operation of existing Park

facilities, including campgrounds, Apgar lodging and businesses, Lake

McDonald Lodge and Park residences, headquarters and operations.

Local businesses would benefit from tourist visits. An improved facility

would meet anticipated growth as discussed in the General Management

Plan (1999) including a new Discovery Center.

Alternatives 1B and 1A could be funded with existing Park Service line

item construction allocations for this project. Construction of Alternatives

2 or 3 would require additional Congressional funding. The Park Service

Development Advisory Board approved seeking additional funding if

Alternative 3 is selected.

Construction contractors and the local economy would benefit from

proposed spending over the 2-year construction period for all action

alternatives. However, both the direct and indirect benefits would be

minimal relative to the local and regional economics. The addition of a

half-time staff operator would be a minor effect to the employment base

for Alternatives 2 or 3.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

73

Alternative 4 — No Action

Park facilities would continue to operate with the existing WWTP.

Inadequate lagoon storage capacity could lead to occasional closure of

some Park facilities and could affect concession operations in the early

spring. Adverse economic effects to local businesses are possible if the

WWTP is not operational during the tourist season.

Continued operation of the existing WWTP would require annual

operating and maintenance costs of at least $26,000. Additional capital

expenditures may be necessary to rehabilitate the existing spray field or

repair equipment. The existing staff would continue to operate the

facility. Additional cleanup costs may be incurred if there is a spill at the

lagoon.

Cumulative Effects

All of the action alternatives would result in a long-term beneficial effect

to the local and regional economy. An improved wastewater treatment

system would meet existing demand and anticipated future demand.

4.3 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and LongTerm Productivity

Short-term uses associated with alternatives under consideration include

each of the specific actions necessary to implement a particular

alternative. Long-term productivity is construed as the continued

existence of the natural resources of the Park at a sustainable and high

level of quality so that those natural resources can retain their inherent

value and be enjoyed by the public.

The analysis in this DEIS has disclosed impacts from possible short-term

uses that would affect long-term productivity as defined. Potential longterm changes in productivity identified in the analysis include:

• The clearing of undisturbed land and loss of natural vegetation and

wildlife habitat to construct: additional storage lagoons for

Alternatives 1A and 1B; infiltration basins for Alternative 2; and

an additional spray field for Alternative 1A.

• The potential loss of several individual state threatened velvetleaf

blueberry plants with lagoon construction under Alternatives 1A

and 1B.

• A significant long-term improvement in the quality of treated

effluent would occur with Alternative 3 and, to a lesser degree,

with other action alternatives.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

74

4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

An irreversible commitment of resources is defined as the loss of future

options. The term applies primarily to the effects of non-renewable

resources such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors such

as soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods.

An irretrievable commitment of resources is defined as the loss of

production, harvest, or use of natural resources. The amount of

production foregone is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. If

the use changes, it is possible to resume production.

One irreversible commitment of resources under Alternatives 1A or 1B

would be the potential loss of individual velvetleaf blueberry plants with

construction of sewage lagoons. The excavation of soils for lagoon or

infiltration basin construction under Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 would be

an irreversible loss in soil resources due to the long period of time that

would be necessary to restore productivity at those sites.

The proposed action and alternatives to it prescribe changes from the

existing conditions in the project area to construct new wastewater

treatment facilities. Construction of sewage lagoons or infiltration basins

for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 require forest and vegetation removal.

This is an irretrievable commitment of vegetation and timber productivity

as well as a loss in wildlife habitat in exchange for the benefit of an

improved wastewater treatment facility. The same is true for the

construction of an additional spray field for Alternative 1A, although there

would be some vegetation production and wildlife values associated with

the new spray field. The only potential irretrievable loss in resources for

Alternative 3 is a possible change in vegetation composition for a

constructed wetland discharge site or percolation stream/pond. Changes

in the scenic or aesthetic value of lands with construction of project

facilities would occur for each of the action alternatives based on the

level of disturbance.

4.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Every alternative including the no action alternative would result in some

impact. Impacts of each alternative are discussed in Chapter 4 of this

DEIS and are summarized in Table 2. Potential unavoidable adverse

impacts on physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources are

discussed below for each alternative.

To summarize, the preferred alternative and other action alternatives

would result in unavoidable minor temporary impacts during construction.

No long-term adverse impacts are expected for the preferred alternative

and there would be a beneficial impact to water quality. Clearing needed

to construct either sewage lagoons, infiltration basins, or an additional

spray field under Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 would adversely impact
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

75

native vegetation communities. Each of these alternatives also would

result in beneficial impact to water quality. Alternatives 1A and 1B

would adversely affect less than 10 state threatened velvetleaf blueberry

plants.

The no action alternative could adversely impact soil, water, and

biological resources if additional sewage lagoon spills occur. Park

operations or concession businesses may be adversely impacted if

sewage lagoon capacity is reached and conditions prevent use of the

spray field in the spring.

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

An interdisciplinary team of Park biologists, facility managers, engineers,

consultants, and Montana Department of Environmental Quality and

Flathead County Health Department representatives conducted

preliminary scoping of the project to identify the range of potential

alternatives and potential resource issues. Additionally, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, State Historic Preservation Office,

and Jack Stanford, Director of the Flathead Biological Station were

consulted.

Two public open houses were held to solicit input from the community on

improvements to the wastewater treatment facility. The first open house

was held on October 26, 1999 at the West Glacier Community Building.

A second open house was held on October 28, 1999 in Kalispell, Montana

at the Fish and Wildlife Service Office. Five individuals attended these

meetings. Public comments expressed concern about maintaining high

water quality and urged the National Park Service to use the best

technology available in designing the wastewater treatment system.

The Park will coordinate permitting requirements with the Montana

Department of Environmental Quality, the Flathead County Health

Department, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

The NPS will conduct informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service as discussed below.

6.0 Compliance with Federal and State

Regulations

The NPS will comply with all applicable federal and state regulations

when implementing improvements to the wastewater treatment facility.

Regulatory requirements for this project are expected to include the

following permits and approvals:

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Regulations of the

Council on Environmental Quality—The National Environmental

Policy Act applies to major federal actions that may significantly affect
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

76

the quality of the human environment. This generally includes major

construction activities that involve the use of federal lands or facilities,

federal funding, or federal authorizations.

This Environmental Impact Statement meets the requirements of the

NEPA and regulations on the Council on Environmental Quality in

evaluating potential effects associated with activities on federal lands.

The DEIS will be released for a 60-day public comment period. A Final

EIS will be prepared to address any changes in the preferred alternative,

disclose any additional information and address comments received on the

DEIS. The NPS will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) to disclose

the decision on the proposed project and any modifications in the selected

alternative.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.)—Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is designed to ensure

that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency

likely would not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or

threatened plant or animal species. If a federal action may affect

threatened or endangered species, then consultation with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service is required. A Biological Assessment will be

submitted to the USFWS to address potential effects to federally

threatened and endangered species before completion of the Final EIS.

The NPS determined that the preferred alternative is unlikely to adversely

affect threatened or endangered species and will seek concurrence from

the USFWS on the determination.

Clean Water Act and State and Local Water Quality and

Floodplain Regulations—The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is

responsible for authorizing the discharge of dredged or fill materials into

waters of the U.S. including wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act. The preferred alternative would not require a 404 permit to

address impacts to jurisdictional water of the U.S. or special aquatic sites.

There would be no impact to wetlands for any of the alternatives.

In compliance with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ), the Park will submit a site application to construct a WWTP.

A Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permit

would be needed for treated effluent discharges under the preferred

alternative. The MDEQ will determine discharge limitations for the

WWTP and consistency with any established TMDL targets for Flathead

Lake. A MPDES permit also may be needed for spray field or infiltration

discharges of wastewater in Alternatives 1B, 1A, or 2. The State would

establish a monitoring program to sample ground water quality below

spray fields or infiltration basins for these alternatives. MPDES

permitting may not be necessary under the no action alternative.
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

77

A MPDES stormwater discharge permit for construction activity would

be needed for clearing, grading, and excavating with disturbances greater

than 2 hectares (5 acres), or greater than 0.4 hectare (1 acre) if within 30

meters (100 feet) of a surface water body. Alternatives 1B and 2 may

need a stormwater discharge permit for construction of sewage lagoons

or infiltration basins. Alternative 1A would need a stormwater discharge

permit to construct an additional spray field. Alternative 3 may require a

stormwater discharge permit depending on which discharge outlet option

is selected.

Wild and Scenic River Act—In 1976, Congress designated the North

Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead River as a part of the national Wild

and Scenic River system. The Middle Fork is designated as

“recreational” for the entire length bordering Glacier National Park. The

Middle Fork of the Flathead River is jointly administered by the Forest

Service and the NPS under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In

accordance with Section 7(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16

U.S.C.), the administering agency of the river is responsible to determine

if a “water resources project” has “direct and adverse” effects on the

values for which a river is recommended for designation. The preferred

alternative would not have a direct and adverse effect for which the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River was designated as a Wild and Scenic

River. Land discharge of treated effluent under Alternative 3 would not

require submission of a Section 7(b) determination to the U.S. Forest

Service, but a surface water discharge would.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management—This order

requires all federal agencies to avoid the construction of certain types of

facilities in 100-year and 500-year floodplains unless no other practical

alternatives exist. No new facilities would be located within the

floodplain for Alternatives 1A, 1B, or 2. The existing spray field would

remain within the floodplain of lower McDonald Creek and the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River under Alternatives 1A, 1B, and the no action

alternative. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 3), a discharge

outlet would be located in the lower McDonald Creek and Middle Fork of

the Flathead River 50-year floodplain.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands—This order

requires federal agencies to avoid, where possible, impacts to wetlands.

No wetlands would be affected by the preferred or alternative actions

according to USFWS (1992) National Wetland Inventory Mapping.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16

U.S.C. 470, et. seq.)— Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) requires all federal agencies to

consider effects from any federal action on cultural resources eligible for

or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP), prior to

initiating such actions. The preferred alternative would not affect any
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

78

known cultural resources eligible for NHRP listing and would not be

considered an “undertaking” that would require Section 106 review.

7.0 References

Brittell, J. D. 1989. Native cats of Washington - Section III: Lynx.

Washington State Department of Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.

Butts, T.W. 1992. Lynx (Felis lynx) Biology and Management. A literature

review and annotated bibliography. USDA Forest Service, Northern

Region. Missoula, MT. 77 pp.

DeStefano, S. 1987. The Lynx. Pp. 411-422 In: DiSilvestro, R. L., W. L.

Chandler, K. Barton, and L. Labate (eds.). 1987 Audubon wildlife report.

The National Audubon Society, New York, Academic Press, New York.

697 pp.

Flathead Lakes. 1997. Flathead lake Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

A Project of the Flathead Basin Commission, the Technical Committee’s

Report to the Commission, Polson, MT.

www.flatheadlakes.org/TMDL/TMDL_rpt/report_1

Gilbert, J., D.L. Danielopol and J.A. Stanford. 1994. Groundwater Ecology.

Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California. 571 pp.

Glacier National Park. 1973. Lake McDonald Master Sewage System Plan,

Glacier National Park, MT. Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Glacier National Park. 1992. Lagoon and spray field testing results, 1992

Glacier National Park Headquarters System.

GMT Consultants. 1999. Geotechnical investigation, Proposed wastewater

treatment area, Lake McDonald, Glacier National Park. Missoula,

Montana.

Hauer, F. Richard. 1988. A survey of selected surface waters in Glacier

National Park for septic leachates as potential contamination sources.

Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Poison, MT.

Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and

snowshoe hares in north central Washington. Can. J. Zool. 68:845-851.

In: Washington Department of Wildlife 1993. Status of North American

lynx in Washington. Draft unpubl. Report. Olympia, WA. 112 pp.

Land and Water Consulting. 1995. Soils of the McDonald Drainage, Glacier

National Park, MT.

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Personal communication.

Margaret Beer. Helena, MT.

Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 1973. The potential effects on range and associated

wildlife from sprinkled sewage effluent. Glacier National Park, MT.

Noble, R. A. and J. A. Stanford. 1986. Groundwater resources and water

quality of the unconfined aquifers in the Kalispell Valley, Montana, Polson.

Open File report 093-86, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. Open
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

79

File Report No. 177. Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of

Montana, Polson, Montana. 61pp.

NPS. 1998a. National Park Service Draft General Management

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Waterton-Glacier International

Peace Park, Montana.

NPS. 1998b. National Park Service wildlife considerations map for

Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park.

Rockwell, David. 1995. A Natural History Guide: Waterton-Glacier

International Peace Park. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rothberg, Tamburini and Winsor (RTW). 1999. Lake McDonald WWTP

Value Analysis/Schematic Design Report.

Stanford, J. A. 1999. Personal communication. Jessie M. Bierman Professor

of Ecology and Director of Flathead Biological Station.

Stanford, J. A. and J.V. Ward. 1988. The hyporheic habitat of river

ecosystems. Nature 335(6185):64-66.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. A framework to assist in making

Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped

action at the bull trout subpopulation watershed scale.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Grizzly bear, (Ursus arctos

horribilis). www.fws.gov/r9extaff/biologues/bio_griz.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. National Wetland Inventory Mapping.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf

recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American peregrine falcon recovery

plan (Rocky Mountain/Southwest population) Prepared in cooperation with

the American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Denver, CO.

8.0 List of Preparers

Management Team

Dave Mihalic, Superintendent, Glacier National Park

Fred Babb, Project Manager, Glacier National Park

John Kilpatrick, Chief Facility Management, Glacier National Park

Paul Zenisek, Engineer, Denver Service Center

Consultant Team

Mark DeHaven, Natural Resource Specialist, ERO Resources Corporation

Anjie Saunders, Natural Resource Planner, ERO Resources Corporation

Joe Tamburini, Engineer, Rothberg, Tamburini & Windsor

Bob Orsatii, Engineer, Rothberg, Tamburini & Windsor

Other Participants
LAKE MCDONALD/PARK HEADQUARTERS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REHABILITATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

80

Mary Riddle, Assistant Chief of Interpretation/Compliance Coordinator, Glacier

National Park

Jerry Burgess, Engineer, Glacier National Park

Steve Frye, Chief, Division of Resources Management, Glacier National Park

Jack Potter, Assistant Chief, Division of Resources Management, Glacier National Park

Ron Johnson, Senior Planner/A&E Manger, Denver Service Center

Steve Gniadek, Wildlife Biologist, Glacier National Park

Tara Williams, Ecologist, Glacier National Park

Leo Marnell, Senior Scientist, Glacier National Park

Bill Michels, Resources Management Specialist, Glacier National Park

Joyce Lapp, Resources Management Specialist, Glacier National Park

Dave Lange, Resources Management Specialist, Glacier National Park

Bruce Fladmark, Cultural Resources Specialist, Glacier National Park

Richard Menicke, GIS Specialist, Glacier National Park

Rick Yates, Biological Technician, Glacier National Park
Appendix A

Common and Scientific Names of Plants and

Animals Referenced in the Environmental Impact

Statement

Common Name Scientific Name

Animals, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians and Fish

American dipper Cinclus mexicanus

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Barred owl Strix varia

Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica

Beaver Castor canadensis

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Black bear Ursus americanus

Black–capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus

Canada goose Branta canadensis

Chestnut-backed chickadee Poecile rufescens

Columbian ground squirrel Spermophilus columbianus

Common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii

Coyote Canis latrans

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis

Elk Cervus elaphus

Fisher Martes pennanti

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis

Gray wolf Canis lupus

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus

Great blue heron Ardea herodias

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis
Common Name Scientific Name

Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Hooded mergansers Lophodytes cucullatus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Kokanee salmon Oncorhynchus nerka

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush

Least weasel Mustela nivalis

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

Lynx Lynx canadensis

Marten Martes americana

Mink Mustela vison

Mountain lion Felis concolor

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni

Mule deer Odocoileus hermionus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Northern pygmy owl Glaucidium gnoma

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus

Pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteri

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

River otter Lutra canadensis

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus

Short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis
Common Name Scientific Name

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi

White sucker Catostomus commersoni

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Wolverine Gulo gulo

Wood duck Aix sponsa

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri

Plants

American vetch Vicia americana

Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa

Beargrass Xerophyllum tenax

Big chickweed† Cerastium vulgatum

Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa

Black hawthorne Crataegus douglasii

Blake Prince’s pine Chimaphila umbellata

Blue wildrye Elymus glaucus

Blueleaf strawberry Fragaria virginiana

Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum

Bull thistle † Cirisium vulgare

Bunchberry Cornus canadensis

Canada violet Viola canadensis

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Christmas tree moss Polytrichum juniperinum

Common dandelion† Taraxacum officianale

Common horesetail Equisetum arvense

Common plantain† Plantago major

Common scorpion-grass† Myosotis scorpioides

Common snowberry Symphoricarpos albus

Common timothy† Phleum pratense

Cow-wheat Melampyrum lineare
Common Name Scientific Name

Crawford’s sedge Carex crawfordii

Darkwoods violet Viola orbiculata

Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

Dwarf rattlesnake -plantain Goodyera oblongifolia

Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii

English plantain† Plantago lanceolata

Feather moss Hylocomium splendens

Field pussy-toes Antennaria neglecta

Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium

Fool’s huckleberry Menziesia ferruginea

Goldenrod Solidago spp.

Grand Fir Abies grandis

Grouseberry Vaccinium scoparium

Harebell Campanula rotundifolia

Heart-leaf arnica Arnica cordifolia

Heart-leaf twayblade Listera cordata

Hop clover† Medicago lupulina

Kentucky bluegrass† Poa pratensis

Lady fern Athryrium filix-femina

Large-leaved avens Geum macrophyllum

Little buttercup Ranunculus uncinatus

Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta

Mountain sweet-cicely Osmorhiza chilensis

Ocean-spray Holodiscus discolor

Oregon grape Mahonia repens

Ox-eye daisy† Leucanthemum vulgare

Paper birch Betula papyrifera

Pathfinder Adenocaulon bicolor

Paul’s betony† Veronica officianalis

Pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea

Pinedrops Pterospora andromedea

Pinegrass Calamagrostis rubescens

Pink wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

Queen’s cup Clintonia uniflora

Red clover† Trifolium pratense
Common Name Scientific Name

Red raspberry Rubus idaeus

Redtop† Agrostis stolonifera

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera

Rosy pussy-toes Antennaria microphylla

Rough-leaf ricegrass Oryzopsis asperifolia

Round-leaved rein-orchid Habenaria orbiculata

Scared cat-tail moss Rhytidiadelphus triquestrus

Sedge Carex spp

Self-heal† Prunella vulgaris

Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifola

Shiny-leaf spiraea Spirea betulifolia

Silvery cinquefoil† Potentilla argentea

Sitka alder Alnus sinuata

Small bedstraw Galium trifidum

Solomon’s-plume Smilacina stellata

Spotted knapweed† Centaurea maculosa

Spreading dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium

St. John’s wort † Hypericum perforatum

Streambank butterweed Senecio pseudaureus

Striped coral-root Corallorhiza striata

Sweep’s brush Luzula campestris

Tall huckleberry Vaccinium membranaceum

Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus

Thyme-leaved speedwell† Veronica serpyllifolia

Trappers tea Ledum glandulosum

Trefoil-foamflower Tiarella trifoliata

Twinflower Linnaea borealis

Upland larkspur Delphinium nuttallianum

Velvetleaf blueberry Vaccinium myrtilloides

Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla

Western larch Larix occidentalis

Western red cedar Thuja plicata

Western white pine Pinus monticola

White –flowered hawkweed Hieracium albiflorum

White lady-slipper Cypripedium montanum

Wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis
Common Name Scientific Name

Willow Salix spp.

Woods strawberry Fragaria vesca

Yarrow Achillea millefolium

Yellow coral-root Corallorhiza trifida

†Non-native