5

REGULAR MEETING NOTICE Via Zoom Conferencing

September 10, 2020 1 p.m. AGENDA

Call to Order 1 p.m. Introductions

Minutes —August 2020 Financial Statement—August 2020 Outstanding Bills

Correspondence Public Comment Reports Printed reports are absolutely welcome. NRCS SRWG MRCDC WQPD LHWG Weed District Supervisor Reports MACD/SWCDMI Elk Creek Flood Task Force East Helena CTE Healthy Watershed Consortium Old Business Hiring status New Business Beaver Conflict Resolution presentation-Clark Fork Coalition 310 Permit Applications Extension request- PPLT EME-01-20 Ingersoll LC-20-20 Spring Creek LOA LC-21-20 Stockton LC-22-20 Wirth CP-03-20 Meyers (CP-01-18)

**Please note that some of these applications may not be acted upon due to needing inspections or other information. Other Business Discussion about upcoming planning needs Calendar of upcoming events Sep 23 MACD Area 6 meeting—via Zoom Conferencing Oct 8-Board meeting-Helena Oct 12-MACD Board Call Oct 14-16 MWCC Watershed Symposium-Copper King, Butte Nov 12 Board meeting-Helena Nov 17-19 MACD Convention-Bozeman Dec 10-Board meeting Helena Dec 14-MACD Board Call Announcements Next meeting—October 8, 2020 1pm, probably held virtually

HAUSER

LAKE

LAKE

HELENA

HELENA

REGULATING

RESERVOIR

CITY OF

HELENA

H

IG

H

W

A

Y

1

2

IN

TE

RS

TA

TE

15

HVID MAIN CANAL

LATERAL 11.9

HEADGATE

LAT. 46˚38'11.95”N

LONG. 111˚53'2.24”W

Y

O

R

K

R

O

A

D

L

A

K

E

H

E

L

E

N

A

D

R

IV

E

CANYON FERRY ROAD

LATERAL 11.9

CITY OF

EAST HELENA

K:\Helena\HVID\2020065 Pipeline Conversion PER\05CAD\Sheets\20065-EXHB-LOCT-FIG1.dwg 11.9 FIG 1 4/6/2020 11:56:48 AM

0

SCALE: 1" = 10000'

100005000

Missoula

Miles City

Malta

Kalispell

Helena

Hamilton

Great Falls

Glendive

Butte

Bozeman

Billings

CANADA

WYOMING

NO

RT

H D

AK

OT

A

I

D

A

H

O

Havre

Shelby

Wolf Point

2

2

2

94

94

90

90

90

15

15

15

FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP

T 11 N

T 10 N

R

3

W

R

2

W

T 11 N

T 10 N

R

4

W

R

3

W

31

32

33

6

5

4

7

8

9

LATERAL 11.9

HEADGATE

LAT. 46˚38'11.95”N

LONG. 111˚53'2.24”W

Y

O

R

K

R

O

A

D

LA

KE

H

ELE

NA

D

RIV

E

LATERAL 11.9

HELENA

REGULATING

RESERVOIR

HVID MAIN CANAL

EXHIBIT

1

K:\Helena\HVID\2020065 Pipeline Conversion PER\05CAD\Sheets\20065-EXHB1-LOCT.dwg PROJECT MAP 4/8/2020 2:51:29 PM

PREPARED FOR

1275 MAPLE STREET, SUITE F

HELENA, MT 59601

(406) 443-3962

www.wwcengineering.com

PREPARED BY

3840 N. Montana Ave.

Helena, MT 59602

ENGINEER ING

PROJECT MAP

LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, MONTANA

LATERAL 11.9 CANAL CONVERSION AND GATE

REHABILITATION

HELENA VALLEY

IRRIGATION DISTRICT

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

GJ

MJS

STH

4/6/20

0

SCALE: 1" = 2000'

20001000

T 11 N

T 10 N

R

2

W

R

3

W

24" PIPE TYPICAL

NOT TO SCALE

30" PIPE TYPICAL

NOT TO SCALE

24" Ø. PIPE (TYP.)

COMPACTED BEDDING

E

X

I

S

T

I

N

G

C

A

N

A

L

P

R

I

S

M

D + 2' (TYP.)

USE EXISTING BERM

AS NEEDED FOR FILL

USE EXISTING BERM

AS NEEDED FOR FILL

MOUND 4" TO 6"

WITH TOPSOIL ABOVE

NATURAL GROUND

E

X

I

S

T

I

N

G

C

A

N

A

L

P

R

I

S

M

30" Ø. PIPE (TYP.)

COMPACTED BEDDING

E

X

I

S

T

I

N

G

C

A

N

A

L

P

R

I

S

M

D + 2' (TYP.)

USE EXISTING BERM

AS NEEDED FOR FILL

USE EXISTING BERM

AS NEEDED FOR FILL

MOUND 4" TO 6"

WITH TOPSOIL ABOVE

NATURAL GROUND

E

X

I

S

T

I

N

G

C

A

N

A

L

P

R

I

S

M

CANAL CONVERSION

ALTERNATIVE NO. PIPE MATERIAL

1 N/A

2 PVC

3REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (RCP)

4 HDPE PIPE

5PLASTIC IRRIGATION PIPE (PIP)

NOTES:

1. 24" PIPE - 9,550LF

2. 30" PIPE - 8,000LF

3. PIPE LENGTHS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY

PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTED ENGINEER

TO WORK WITH HVID TO DETERMINE FINAL

DESIGN LENGTHS.

COMPACTED BACKFILL

COMPACTED BACKFILL

K:\H

ele

na

\H

VID

\2

02

00

65

P

ip

elin

e C

on

ve

rsio

n P

ER

\0

5C

AD

\S

he

ets\2

00

65

-A

LT

-S

EC

T.d

wg

C

AN

AL

C

ON

VE

RS

IO

N A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

4

/8

/2

02

0 2

:5

6:4

6 P

M

1275 M

AP

LE

S

TR

EE

T, S

UIT

E F

HE

LE

NA

, M

T 59601

(406) 443-3962

ww

w.w

wcen

gin

eerin

g.co

m

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

GJ

MJS

STH

4/6/20

EXHIBIT

2

NO

.D

AT

ER

EV

IS

IO

NP

RE

PA

RE

D B

YB

Y

CA

NA

L C

ON

VE

RS

IO

N A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

HE

LE

NA

V

AL

LE

Y IR

RIG

AT

IO

N D

IS

TR

IC

T

LE

WIS

A

ND

C

LA

RK

C

OU

NT

Y, M

ON

TA

NA

LA

TE

RA

L 1

1.9

C

AN

AL

C

ON

VE

RS

IO

N A

ND

G

AT

E R

EH

AB

IL

IT

AT

IO

N

ENGINEERING

PRELIMINARY

ALTERNATIVE C - RUBICON SLIPGATE WITH SCADA SYSTEM

NOT TO SCALE

FRAME WIDTH

PIPE INVERT

MAXIMUM

CHECKING

HEIGHT

PIPE

DIA.

EXHIBIT

4

K:\Helena\HVID\2020065 Pipeline Conversion PER\05CAD\Sheets\20065-ALT-SECT.dwg ALTERNATIVE C 4/8/2020 2:56:46 PM

PREPARED FOR

1275 MAPLE STREET, SUITE F

HELENA, MT 59601

(406) 443-3962

www.wwcengineering.com

PREPARED BY

3840 N. Montana Ave.

Helena, MT 59602

ENGINEER ING

ALTERNATIVE C

LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, MONTANA

LATERAL 11.9 CANAL CONVERSION AND GATE

REHABILITATION

HELENA VALLEY

IRRIGATION DISTRICT

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

GJ

MJS

STH

4/6/20

FRAME WIDTH

PIPE

DIA.

PIPE INVERT

MAXIMUM

CHECKING

HEIGHT

ALTERNATIVE E - WATERMAN GATE WITH SCADA SYSTEM

NOT TO SCALE

WATERMAN C-10 GATE WITH SCADA

AUTOMATION & ACTUATORS

EXHIBIT

6

K:\Helena\HVID\2020065 Pipeline Conversion PER\05CAD\Sheets\20065-ALT-SECT.dwg ALTERNATIVE E 4/8/2020 2:56:46 PM

PREPARED FOR

1275 MAPLE STREET, SUITE F

HELENA, MT 59601

(406) 443-3962

www.wwcengineering.com

PREPARED BY

3840 N. Montana Ave.

Helena, MT 59602

ENGINEER ING

ALTERNATIVE E

LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, MONTANA

LATERAL 11.9 CANAL CONVERSION AND GATE

REHABILITATION

HELENA VALLEY

IRRIGATION DISTRICT

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

GJ

MJS

STH

4/6/20

PO Box 7312 (406) 214 2868 Great Falls, MT 59406 tracy@sunriverwatershed.org

SEPTEMBER 2020 UPDATE TO LEWIS & CLARK

CONSERVATION DISTRICT FROM TRACY WENDT, COORDINATOR

GENERAL UPDATES

• Channel Migration Zone map and report are posted on the SRWG website. SRWG and Lewis &

Clark Conservation District were awarded the balance of the requested 223 funds for Phase II,

which extends the map to include Elk Creek and allow more in-depth analysis of high-risk

sections of the Sun River. This should be complete by the end of April.

o The CMZ project will be used in combination with past assessments and reports to help

guide SRWG’s work. Project prioritization will be a key topic at the SRWG board meeting

in October.

• The Sun River Water Management working group meeting will be October 22 at 10 am.

Location TBD, may be by phone. This meeting is to be followed by the SRWG fall board meeting;

both are open to the public.

• SRWG is providing a tour to NRCS representatives and conservation district staff to highlight

watershed resource concerns. The objective is to open discussion between these entities that

will form strategies for upcoming funding opportunities such as TIPs and RCPP. Elk Creek will

be included in this tour.

• If you haven’t already, please complete the Montana Stream Gage survey. This survey was

developed by a state-wide committee to help agencies learn how stream gages are used and the

results will inform prioritization and funding.

• FWP Hoot-Owl restrictions on Sun River have been lifted.

PROJECTS UPDATES

• SRWG’s Muddy Creek Master Planning project will kick off this fall. The project is funded by a

Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Cooperative Watershed Management Program grant.

• Emma is wrapping up the Rolling Rivers Trailer guide and SRWG’s 2020 water quality monitoring

project, as well as performing some outreach at Muddy Creek, before her term ends in November.

She can provide more information on those projects.

Stay healthy. “See” you in October!

PO Box 118 Winnett, MT 59087

Phone: (406) 454-0056

mrcdc@macdnet.org www.MissouriRiverCouncil.info

September 4, 2020 Re: August 2020 MRCDC Coordinator Report & Activity Summary MRCDC Council Members, Fellow District Board Members, and District Administrators: After speaking with one of our Council members this morning and hearing the aftermath the farmers and ranchers in eastern MT are currently facing - corral systems, equipment, buildings, fences, and grazing land lost with the last of many haystacks still smoldering – I thought it a bit trivial to be sharing a coordinator’s report today. Nevertheless, I have good things to report on for MRCDC and sometimes that’s what we need when sorting through the damage – some good news. Last month, I reported that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) had substantially cut releases from Fort Peck Dam leaving many irrigators out of water during prime irrigation season and without a hint of rain in the forecast. Through communication with Corps staff out of Omaha, we were able to convince them to increase releases to a minimum of 11,000 cfs through mid-September. They have recently notified us that releases will be cut significantly starting September 15 to restore the low reservoir. With wheat harvest finishing up and soybeans and beets following suit here shortly, the low river flow should have a minimal impact on crop yield. However, it’s important that farmers are aware of such changes so that they can make any necessary adjustments in their management. Richland County Conservation District’s administrator, Julie Goss, sent an email notifying the irrigators she had contact information for of the upcoming change, but there are likely irrigators who are not on the conservation districts’ lists. This is another topic that needs to be addressed during future annual operating plan discussions for Fort Peck Dam. How can the Corps notify irrigators of upcoming changes in a timely manner? How can we guarantee that all irrigators receive said notification? What role do conservation districts and MRCDC play in this? In other lower reach news, the second irrigation pump site survey took place August 24-31. The survey collected data and economic information on 42 additional pumps, bringing the total sample of surveyed irrigation pumps to 102, approximately 64% of the total pumps downstream of Fort Peck Dam. MT FWP coordinated this pump site survey and expressed willingness to do an additional survey if need be.

The CMR CWG planning committee met virtually to discuss their upcoming meeting scheduled for September 17. The group opted to postpone the meeting until October 22 and chose to host a virtual meeting in lieu of an in-person meeting. While the agenda has not been finalized, the meeting will address grasshopper management and how we can be better prepared for next season – an incredibly relevant topic after this summer’s grasshopper season. I will be sending out additional information to those subscribed to our email notification list and local conservation districts shortly. Last but not least, our grant application seeking assistance for River Rendezvous associated costs was fully funded during the most recent Resource Advisory Conservation Council meeting! While we were bummed to postpone the event this year, we are excited to be hosting it next summer in the Gallatin Valley.

I’ve included a list of last month’s activities as well as what my schedule looks like during the next few months. If you notice I’ll be in your area, please reach out as I’d love to connect with you. If you have any questions about the work I’m doing, I can be reached at 406-454-0056 and mrcdc@macdnet.org. Sincerely, Liv Stavick MRCDC Coordinator

Gallatin Conservation District

Broadwater Conservation District Lewis & Clark Conservation District

Cascade Conservation District Chouteau County Conservation District

Blaine County Conservation District Big Sandy Conservation District

Fergus County Conservation District Petroleum County Conservation District

Phillips Conservation District

Garfield County Conservation District Valley County Conservation District

McCone Conservation District Roosevelt County Conservation District Richland County Conservation District

MRCDC Coordinator Activities: August MRRIC/Ft. Peck Test Flows/Irrigation Issues

• MRRIC conference calls and webinars • Communication with USFWS/MT FWP, Agri-Industries and irrigators on pump site survey • Assisted local CDs in notifying irrigators of release changes at Fort Peck Dam • Regular correspondence with USACE, irrigators and local CDs on lowered releases at Fort Peck Dam

Rangeland Monitoring/ R4R:

• Communication with Autumn Christenson, Missouri River Watershed Program Coordinator CEMIST

• CEMIST Meeting on August 6, virtual CMR CWG:

• Held CMR CWG Planning Committee Meeting via Zoom on August 13 • Began planning/building agenda for October 22 CMR CWG Meeting

Council Operations:

• MRCDC Executive Committee Meeting on August 25 • Drafted and finalized annual report • Communication with Council Members

Miscellaneous:

• Gave report on MACD Board Meeting Call on August 10 • Email and phone correspondence with partners • Presented grant application at virtual RACC Meeting on August 19 • Joined Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Call on August 21

Upcoming Schedule of Events/Activities (tentative) September 2 – BSWC Member Info Webinar 3 – MISC Meeting, Zoom 8 – DEQ 319 Ranching for Rivers Grant Assessment Meeting, Conference Call 9 – CEMIST Meeting, Virtual 10-11 – Liv Off 14 – Cascade CD Meeting, Great Falls 15 – CORE Partners Meeting, Helena 16 – Meeting w/USACE on self-mitigation with YRCDC, Helena Meeting w/FSA and partners on CREP, Bozeman

October 1-2 – Liv Off; getting married! *date range subject to change; based off of COVID-related travel restrictions 20 – MRCDC Executive Committee Call 22 – CMR CWG Meeting, Zoom

September 9, 2020

Dear Chris:

Thank you for the email regarding the status of the Spring Creek Landowners Corporation’s (SCLC) recently submitted 310 permit application, which proposed the addition of a 60” arch culvert to provide a safe and ecologically healthful crossing over Skelly Gulch Creek on Skelly Gulch Road. We are writing to request that the denial of our proposed project is reconsidered by the Conservation District Board of Supervisors at the next meeting. The Spring Creek Landowner’s Corporation (SCLC) hired a professional engineer to analyze several alternatives to address a stream crossing and safety concern for year-round access that is utilized by a high number of the residents that live in our subdivision, with special focus on previously inhibited access by emergency vehicles. The arch culvert that was proposed in our application was the preferred alternative based on the engineer’s design and analysis. The SCLC Board requests reconsideration of the denial of our proposed project for the following reasons:

1) The project as proposed will eliminate an existing low water crossing (ford) that continuously causes sedimentation and turbidity issues to Skelly Gulch Creek and can be a source of other byproducts of vehicles including oil;

2) The arch culvert would allow year-round, safe access for emergency vehicles (fire engines, ambulances, etc.) to residences in the upper two thirds of the subdivision as the existing bridge is undersized and the ford is impassable in the winter months; and

3) There are already 3 culverts that are downstream of our proposed culvert that are the same size or smaller than the proposed arch culvert. The first culvert, that is 60” in diameter is located half a mile downstream of our proposed project and was recently permitted through the 310 process. The second one is one mile downstream of our proposal and is also 60” in diameter. It has not been determined when this culvert was installed, but it has been in place since at least 2010 and has not flooded or washed out since that time. The third culvert is two miles downstream and is 48” in diameter and is underneath Austin Road. This smaller culvert was installed and is maintained by Lewis and Clark County as Austin Road is a County road. It is also important to point out that a perennial tributary (Hamilton Gulch) reports to Skelly Gulch Creek downstream of our proposed work area, but upstream of the other three existing culverts described above.

Th SCLC Board is concerned that our proposal is being held to a higher standard than two private property owners as well as the County of Lewis and Clark that already maintain existing and untroubled culverts in Skelly Gulch Creek for reasons unspecified in the inspection report attached to the email notifying the SCLC Board about the status of the Permit. If concerns expressed by Fish, Wildlife and Parks would be alleviated by a larger culvert, we are prepared to increase the size of the proposed arch culvert to 72”, Please reconsider our proposal and inform us if we can provide more information to assist with your analysis.

Sincerely yours,

Jessica Wilkerson SCLC Board President and Petitioner