2 weeks Ago By DUNCAN ADAMS [email protected]
Submit any photos, videos or drone images of algae blooms on the Big Hole River. Already submitted or collected by the state. That’s according to the petitioners.
Submit data about the aquatic macroinvertebrates fish like to eat. This class includes nymph and larval stages of a host of critters, such as dragonflies, caddisflies, stoneflies, midges and mayflies. Already submitted, according to the petitioners.
In a letter dated April 14, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality rejected a petition from Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation asking DEQ for an impairment designation tied to nutrients pollution in the Big Hole River. The petition cited years of water quality data collected by the Big Hole River Foundation and the injurious effects to fish and other aquatic life of associated algae blooms nurtured by nutrients pollution. On Tuesday, Guy Alsentzer, executive director of the Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, reacted to DEQ’s rejection of the impairment petition.
“Obviously, everyone is disappointed and confused and getting angry,” he said. He cited DEQ’s request for more documentation of algae blooms. “You might recall the petition called on DEQ to assess all that information it already had in its possession, which included separate instances of miles-long algal blooms along reaches of the Big Hole within the past five years, events that DEQ staff investigated and documented,” Alsentzer said.
“It is troubling that DEQ would request third-party documentation of pollution events it already investigated.” As for the stream’s macroinvertebrates, the bugs that help feed trout, Alsentzer said DEQ already has that data too. “Petitioners submitted a robust, five-year bug study on the Big Hole, demonstrating through metrics far more robust than DEQ metrics that bug health is seriously compromised at the same locations demonstrating chronic nutrient violations,” Alsentzer said.
DEQ responded Monday to the petition, within the 60-day deadline. The agency said it was unable to base assessment of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous, on “numeric content criteria.” DEQ’s letter cited Senate Bill 358, passed during the 2021 legislative session, which favored narrative instead of numeric water quality criteria.
Many conservation groups in Montana said the narrative standards were less precise and protective than numeric standards. EPA later rejected several sections of SB358. DEQ provides these definitions: Numeric standards — amounts of specific pollutants allowed in a body of water that still protect it for beneficial uses; narrative standards — statements of unacceptable conditions in and on the water.
Alsentzer weighed in. “There is no reasonable dispute that EPA’s May 20, 2022, letter striking down SB358 resulted in settled law: DEQ must apply numeric nutrient criteria in every aspect of its implementation of federal Clean Water Act programs, from pollution permit decisions to river health assessments and corollary impairment determinations,” he said. “Shifting the goalposts only creates more hoops to jump through and delays unlocking resources for real action on the ground,” Alsentzer said.
“The law of the land is still making decisions based on numeric nutrient criteria, and the best available science confirms an impairment designation is warranted.” Brian Wheeler, executive director of the Big Hole River Foundation, shared similar comments. “In light of five years of state-approved data, showing chronic exceedances, why is DEQ choosing to skirt the issue and not apply numeric standards, which are the law of the land for nutrient impairment, affirmed by the EPA in 2022?” Wheeler asked.
“That's the heart of the matter here,” he said. “And the onus is really not on us anymore.” Last week, DEQ said the Big Hole River Foundation’s water chemistry data collection efforts “follow yearly predetermined sampling plans, use an accredited lab and meet DEQ’s requirements for beneficial use assessment program.
A review of their data did not indicate any quality assurance problems.” And the agency acknowledged it has collected its own data about algae growth events on the Big Hole River. “DEQ has been responding to algae growth events on the Big Hole River with algae monitoring since 2020,” the agency said.
“Monitoring responses occurred in 2020, 2023 and 2024. After DEQ spotted and monitored the 2023 bloom, those data will be utilized for future assessments of the river.” Algal blooms have the potential to rob dissolved oxygen from fish and other aquatic organisms.
Wheeler has collected water quality data for about five years. In a news release, he responded to DEQ’s rejection of the petition. “We’ll be working with DEQ to provide the additional data requested,” he said.
“While we’ll supplement the petition based on the agency’s response, the data are quite clear and confirm the need for an impairment designation consistent with the Clean Water Act and the numeric standards that remain the best science-based thresholds for nutrient pollution.” Wheeler said an impairment determination tied to nutrients pollution could unlock the funding necessary to address excess nutrient inflow. “Doing so helps ensure the long-term sustainability of this valuable resource, to better support all its beneficial uses,” he said.
The Big Hole River is already considered an impaired water for other pollution listings such as sediment, temperature, flow, metals and fish habitat. Irrigation supporting agriculture is considered a beneficial use. Cattle ranches along the Big Hole River help preserve open space and wildlife corridors.
But livestock manure is also believed to contribute nutrients to the Big Hole River. Sampling sites near Wisdom, Jackson and Mudd Creek exceeded standards nearly every time sampling occurred, “indicating a persistent nutrient pollution problem that warrants attention and action,” the petitioners reported last week. Pedro Marques, executive director of the Big Hole Watershed Committee, said last week that he has supported the water quality monitoring conducted by the Big Hole River Foundation.
“They are doing good work,” he said. Yet Marques said he believes nutrient pollution and algal blooms have a lot to do with the lower river volume in recent years. And that, in turn, is tied to a host of factors, he said, including diminished snowpack and other precipitation, overallocation of water rights and more.
“To me, this is just the same groups focusing on the same targets,” he said, such as cattle ranchers. Anglers who favor the Big Hole River have expressed alarm in recent years about declining populations of brown and rainbow trout in a river renowned as a blue-ribbon trout stream. Those declines have spurred research by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Montana State University and others to try to understand the forces at play.
The river’s low flows and warm temperatures in mid-to-late summer have led, at times, to hard feelings between anglers and irrigators. Deteriorating river conditions also have prompted FWP restrictions on fishing. Meanwhile, DEQ was asked about Alsentzer’s allegations that the agency already has much of the information it seeks and should not be rejecting numeric standards.
DEQ provided a general statement that did not address Wheeler’s or Alsentzer’s specific complaints. “After completing its 60-day review, DEQ determined more information is necessary. We remain committed to reviewing further data in order to proceed with an assessment.
DEQ has been responding to events on the Big Hole River with monitoring since 2020.” Alsentzer described a commitment of his own. “We are actively reviewing the response and will be taking all necessary action to ensure the Big Hole River is properly reviewed by DEQ with the correct measuring stick — so we can move forward with the steps needed to restore a river we all value,” he said.
.
