DESIGN MEMORANDUM NO. JP-2C
MASTER PLAN
JAMES RIVER PIPESTEM LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA
UPDATED OCTOBER 1987
US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District CENWO-OD-TN ( 111 0-2-240a) 3 April2006
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: James River, Pipestem Lake, North Dakota, Design Memorandum No.JP2C, Supplement 1
1. The above supplement is an update of specific pages in the above titled Design Memorandum. The listing below identifies the pages that have been updated. The updated pages are enclosed.
a. Page iv- updates the Surface Area (acres) Spillway Design Flood and Flood Control- "Full Pool."
b. Page v- updates the Surface Area (acres) Multipurpose Pool.
c. Page II-6 -updates 11. CULTURAL RESOURCES paragraph by adding "Cultural Resources Management Plan" for Pipestem Dam and Lake, North Dakota.
d. Page II-7- updates paragraph 13.1, second line to read "flows in excess of 1,250 c.f.s."
e. Page Il-9- updates TABLE 1.
f. Page II-14- updates TABLE 2 to include 2005 Visitors and Visitor Hours information.
g. Page Il-15- update~ TABLE 3. y "-''<1''-rt IL<+V-· 2. The subject Design Memorandum No. JP-2C, Supplement I, is approved.
7 Encls ~~?-y--~- as ~ Commanding FIFE STEM CREEK DAM AND LAKE, JAMES RIVER J\ASIN, NORTH DAKOTA.
PERTINENT DATA
(All elevations given are feet above mean sea level)
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
Flood Control Act of 1965, Public Law 89-298.
Specific Purposes, Flood Control, Recreation, and Fish and t{ildlife .
LOCATION .
On Pipestem Creek about 4 miles north~T e st of Jamesto~· n , North Dako ta! and approximately the same distance above the confluence ~ith the James River. The dam is located in Stutsman County, North Dakota, with the. r ight abutment being in Section 9 and the left abutment in Section lOl T l ~ ON, R 6~W .
DRAINAGE AREA CONTROLLED - 594 square mil e s
LAND AND VATER
Total Lnnds Acquired
Fee 4194.51 Acres Flowage Easement 3134.33 Acres Ro ad and Utility Easement 7.41 Acres Total 7336.25 Acres
Sepnrn.ble Lande
Recreation 40.0 Acres Fish and Wi l dlife None
Acquisition rolicy in Effect Five feet vertica l freeboard or 300 fee t horizontal from guide control eleva t i on, ~h ic h eve r 1s greates t.
Guide Control Elevation 1501.03
Lake Ch;:~.racteriatica Storage Capacity Surf.'lce. Klev .. Top ·. (Acre-Feet) Aren of Zone Initial 100-year (Acre~) Maximum Surchar ge -
Spillway De s i gn Flood 1502.8 183' 73 0 185, 500 6, 000 11 Flood Control - "Full Pool l l~96. 3 146, 880 144, 500 4, 728
l.V Updated 4/ 4/05 Hultipurpo s e Pool 1442 .5 9,370 5, 000 840
Length of lake at multipurpose pool 5. 5 miles Shoreline miles a t multipurpose pool - 14.5 mi l es Maximum Elevation: - 5 year frequency - 1461 ft. - 10 year frequency - 1466 f t. - 20 year frequency - 1470 ft. - SO year frequency - 1475 ft. - 100 year frequency - 1479 f t.
STRUCTURAL DATA
D~.
Ty p e ••.••••••...... Rolled Ea rth Fill Height .•.••.•...... •. 99 . 5 ft. Crest Elevation ...... 1507 .5 ft. Len g th .•••••••..•.•.• 4 , 000 ft. WicHh a t Top •• ,,, .• ,. 30 ft. Maximum Width at Bas e 940 ft.
Outlet Works
ype •....••...• . •.••. Ungat ed Drop Inlet Elevati on la42. s ax i mum Capaci ty .•.•• 2, 300 c . f . s . at el eva t ion 1496 . 3 Con du i t .••..•...... •. One - 8ft. inside di ameter x 675 ft . Ga t es .....•...... Two - 4x7 f eet hyd raulic slide One - 36-inch val ve with 3x3 ft . slide
Spillv::a.y
Type •...... •...• • . Unga ted eart h chan nel El evat ion 149 6.3 Wid t h and Length ....· • 1,500 f t. x 3,100 f t . Capacity ...... 56 , 20 0 c . f.s . at Elevation 1502 . 8
S tilling Basin
Type - Conventional Hydr aul i c Jump . Width and Length .•... 26 ft. x 55 ft . F l oor El evation ...... 1395 . 8 End Sill Elevation ••• 1398 .4
Updated 4/ 4/ 05
v of adjusting habitat conditions for the benefit of rare species, especially the swift fox and greater prairie chicken.
10.6 Manipulation of lake water levels in order to create improved conditions for fish or wildlife during critical periods such as spa~o.'l1ing or migration is encouraged. Water level management plans for fish and wildlife purposes will be devised with the assistance of the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and ~o.·ill be approved by the District Engineer.
11. CULTURAL RESOURCES. At leas't one-half of the pr.oject fee lands have been visually surveyed for cultural resources. The lakebed was examined by a Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys crew in 1966. Portions of the shoreline and uplands were subsequently surveyed by Corps archaeologists. All surveyors indicate that dense ground cover or other conditions limited their results to preliminary or reconnaissance level effectiveness. No soil disturbing activity will be planned without providing for an intensive survey for cultural resources well in advance of the disturbing activity. The presence of cultural resources may require modification of initial plans, as determined by the District Engineer in coordination with other agencies as required by law. Specific proje.ct cultural resources considerations are found in the Operational Management Plan "Historic Properties Hanagement Plan, Pipestem Lake, North Dakota 11 andinthe"CulturalResourcesManacrement ::::> Plan" for Pipestem Dam _aJ2sLI,ake,)'foJ1h_:pakgt~. .
11.1 The interpretive and educational values of project cultural resources- ~ill be exploited to the max~mum level consistent with good management and the integrity·of the resource.
11.2 Prehistoric Sites. There are currently (1987) three kno\.;n prehistoric sites on fee lands which may be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. De terminations of el igib il ity are not yet completed. These sites are 32SN70, 100, and 102. Site 32SN100 is a conical mound situated l 11.3 Historic Sites. One farmstead site/ foundation-ruin has been recorded as site 32SN47. Significance has not been determined. 11.4 General. The potential for locating additional significant cultural resources at Pipestem appears to be quite high. 12. WATER QUALITY. Five sampling stations have been es tab 1 ished to r.~oni tor the water quality of the reservoir's tributary inflow, reservoir water, and release water from the dam . Samples are routinely collected from each station. 12.1 Water Quality Requirements. Public Law 89-234, the 19 65 lolater Quality Act, Section lO(c) established the National Water Quality Standards Program. Executive Order 12088, dated October 1978, requ~res that all necessary actions be taken for the prevention, control, and abatement of II-6 Updated 4/4/05 envir onmental pollution with respec t t o Federal facilities , and that they comply wi t h all pollution contr ol standards. Applicable State standards '''ere. adopted March 1973 and amended in April 1985. 12.1.1 'Excer p t s from t he State of North Dakota '"ater quality standards are shown in 'Exhibit E . Pipestem Lake falls into a 3C classifi cation. The water. is classified as capable of supporting grot.rth and propa gation of nonsalmonid fishes and associat ed aquat ic life. Class "C'' lakes a r e pr esen tly some,.,.hat degr aded and pr ogressing to1...a.rd further degradation. 12. 1 . 2 Water s from Pipestem Creek flowing into the reservoir periodically deviat e from North Dakota's standards for the follo1,ring paramet ers: fecal coliform bacteria, sulphates, and phosphates. B.igh phosphorous loading is a par t i cular pr oblem. Released waters also deviate from t11e standards for phosphates and sulphates . 12.1.3 Water i n the reservoir is eutrophic. During calm periods, the water tends to stratify into layer s but only on an intermittent basis . During summer months, dissolved oxygen is adequate 1n the upper portions of the water column but lo~.,. 1n the. bottcm portions. b -.-inter months, low dissolved oxygen levels are known to exist in areas of the reservoir. No fish kills have been reported, but the potential exists especially during winter ice cover. Algal blooms may be extensive during the summer roonths . The concentrations of ammonia, phosphates and dissolved oxygen in the lake periodically do not neet State water quality stc.ndards. 13. RESERVOIR PLAN OF OPERATIONS . Pipestem Dam is operated in po.ralld ;.;-ith the James to,vn Dam to regulate flooding from the James Ri,~e::: th.rcugh Jamestown , North Dakota . 13. 1 Although the design capacity of the. channel through ..Ta:ne~tc,.-n ~ s 1800 cubic feet per second (c . f.s . ), flows in excess of 1, 250 c . f.~ . cause urban flooding damage . The desirable combined releases for flood control from both Jamestown and Pipestem Lakes is 450 c . f.s. This objectiYe is not practical when significant flood storage amounts ha,re accur..ulatsd. The normal reservoir regulation plan for Pipestem Lake is dependent upon storage accumulations in both reservoi rs . Flood control storage is evacuated first to a maximum of 1800 c . f . s . from both reservoirs . The flood control space is evacuated prior to the onset of winter season. Evacuation of '''ater nored in the flood zone of Jamesto1•rn Reservoir is given priority over the e,·acuation of Pipestem Reservoir . As a result., the Pipestem pool will rise hi~he r and be retained longer than flood storAge in Jamestown Reservoir. 13 . 2 Reservoir operation guidelines are found in the. Project Reser·v-o ir Regulation 1-fanual. 13. 3 Reservoir Area-Capacity and Elevation Probabilit)r ar-e $ho•-'n Figure 1 and Table 1. II-7 Update d 4/4/05 TABLE 1 PIPESTEM LAKE 1990 RESURVEY EFFECT IVE 01 -JAN- 1993 AREA IN ACRES 1990 SURVEY ELEV 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1410 0 0 0 0 G 5 12 19 30 ~5 1620 59 69 81 102 130 161 1137 213 281 1430 318 351 386 426 1.70 517 562 606 650 1U.O 731. 772 514 866 925 996 1062. 1123 1181 1237 1294 1352 1409 1463 1512 1560 160'1 1660 170'? 1758 ,.,- 1460 1806 11352 1901 1954 2010 2068 2i23 21 79 c._.,)( 2?.99 1t.70 2360 2417 2477 2618 269<'. 2165 2837 1480 3077 3157 3236 3319 34C4 3l.88 3570 3653 31G3 1490 3929 4004 4094 42Hl 4375 l.540 !.684 ~832 5003 5213 1500 5430 5633 5032 6042 6262 6487 6709 6928 11~6 1510 7582 0 0 0 !) 0 0 0 0 0 PIPESTEM LAKE 1990 RESURVEY EFFECTIVE 01 - JAN-1993 CAPACITY IN ACRE·FEET ( 1990 SURVEY 5 6 8 ELEV 0 2 3 0 10 25 85 1410 0 0 0 0 G t.[\0 627 802 1"0u .. 1t·20 133 203 276 366 4381 t.965 sse:; 6265 1791 2127 2899 33t.6 3{]40 11 220 12251 133t.t. 1t.t.O 6981 7734 8525 9363 10258 24139 25723 27358 2<;'063 :30777 11.50 16972 18295 19677 21116 22603 G2213 41.310 46t.60 G8668 50935 1<'.60 32560 3G309 36265 3[1192 40173 713<6 7t.251 1670 53266 55655 58101 60609 63188· 65[1<'.5 68576 77205 107t.76 1450 80241 83359 86555 89832 93193 96640 1001i0 103i80 111267 1503l6 155~t.9 1<'.90 115157 119125 123165 127313 131601 136064 100682 197100 203919 210951 1500 160773 166310 172040 177975 10<'.125 190500 213212 1510 225686 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II-9 Updated 4/4/05 Federal funds for state and local programs and development. Additionally, facility maintcnru1ce & renovation are consuming a larger percentage of park & recreation budgets. Many communities are struggling to acconunodate increased visitation with greater limitatious ou funding. 17.5 Tilis Master Plan places a Federal project in a regional conteA-1 for public use and resource management. Project management policy is fonnalized as a composite of Federal, 5tate, and regional interest and local need, and of natural resource capacity. 18. PROJECT VISITATION. The pre-project estimate of ultimate visitation levels at Pipestem Lake was 62,000 annual visitors. Corps of Engineers totals of actual visitation derived from surveys and traffic counters are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 Pipestem Lake Project Visitation FYYear Visitors Visitor Hours FYYcar Visitors Visitor Hours 1974 45,544 1990 90,935 272,805 1975 26,442 1991 100,260 300,780 1976 90,723 1992 94,386 337,868 1977 79,721 1993 85,548 288,461 1978 104,928 1994 87,828 310,921 1979 113,745 1995 90,815 285,040 1980 174,825 524,475 1996 61,872 149,852 1981 121,575 364,725 1997 68,794 153,122 1982 122,688 368,064 1998 63,624 155,180 1983 145,290. 435,870 1999 80,759 200,050 1984 131,637 394,911 2000 80,206 207,049 1985 119,691 359,073 2001 64,739 162,072 1986 103,128 309,384 2002 81,039 198,760 1987 114,567 343,701 2003 75,342 184,254 1988 109,815 329,445 2004 67,699 169,670 1989 97,190 291,570 xns 67,924 173,370 FIGURE 2 PIPESTO~ LAKE Recr~tion Surv@y Vi~itor Origin 360 300 VJ ~ 0 JoJ 240 >VJ ..._ 0 180 \... Q) .0 E 120 z::J 60 0 July 1984 Oct. 1984 Feb. 1985 Origin of Visitors E3 Local I] Other North Dobto • Non -Resident II-14 ------~Updated 3/06 18.1 A recreation use survey was conducted in July 1984. Weather conditions were somewhat atypically hot, dry, and windy. Even so, the distribution of activities and the array of visitor origins are considered roughly valid for midsummer visitation. The representation by regional and out-of-state visitors is a surprisingly high 28 percent of the survey sample. (Figure 2). Three quarters of the nonresidents were sightseeing, which implies that they were in the area for some other purpose and not traveling through. However, 14.8 percent of the nonresidents were fishing. During the late 1990's and into the early 2000's, Pipestem has indeed become a destination fishing hotspot especially for crappie fishing in the winter months. In tum, the recreational resources are by themselves drawing nonresident visitation to the area. TA!LE 3 PIPESTEM !..An UCXUTIOK SURVKY SAKP'l.E JULY 1984 Pereent of AetiTity Participation, by Visitor Origin Total Visitors SnrTeyed • 340 Total ActiTity Days Recorded • 344) OriKi'ft Local (25 Miles) Worth Dakota I'on-h& id~nt A.ll Vieitors A.ctiTiti (71.8%) 02.5%) (lS. 7%) (100%) Sightseeing 54.2% 23.37. 77.87. 54.U: Fishing (Shore) 13.8% 18.6% 11.1i. 13.9r. Fishing (Boat) 8.57. 41. 9i: 3. 7% 11.9% Camping 3. H o. 6% Picnicking 3.2% 9.3% 3. 5% Swimming 12.6% 6.9i. 9. 9 7. Rifle Range 4.5% 3. 77. 3. 8 i. Archery 0.4% 0.34 Dog Training/Exercise 2.8% 2.0% Total 100% 10 0% 100% l60f. II-15 Updated 4/4/05 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OMAHA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1612 U.S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68102·4978 REPLY TO ATTENnON OF CEMRO-PD-A (1110-2-240a) " . NOV 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Commander, Missouri River Division, ATTN: CEMRD-PD-ER SUBJECT: Updated Master Plan, DM No. JP-22, Pipestem Lake, Pipestem Creek, North Dakota 1. The enclosed DM, subject as above, is recommended for approval. 2. MRD comments and recommendations on the draft have been incorporated. FOR THE COMMANDER: Encl CHARLES W. JONES (10 cys) LTC, Corps of Engineers Deputy Commander PIPESTEM DAM ARD LAD PllO.JECT JAIIES RIVER. BASIR BORTH DAKOTA UPDADD MASTER. PLAR • DESIGN IIEIIORARDUK JP-2C TABLE OF CORTERTS Paragraph Title PERTINENT DATA iv I. INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION I-1 2 THE PROJECT I-1 3 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION I-1 4 PROJECT PURPOSES I-1 5 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE MASTER PLAN I-1 6 PREVIOUSLY ISSUED MASTER PLANS I-1 7 PROJECT RESOURCE USE OBJECTIVES I-2 II. FACTORS INFLUENCING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 1 THE PROJECT SETTING II-1 2 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY II-1 3 GENERAL GEOLOGY II-2 4 SOILS II-2 5 CLIMATE II-3 6 ACCESSIBILITY II-3 7 SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS II-3 8 MINERALS AND TIMBER II-4 9 PROJECT VEGETATION II-4 10 FISH AND WILDLIFE II-5 11 CULTURAL RESOURCES II-6 12 WATER QUALITY II-6 13 RESERVOIR PLAN OF OPERATIONS II-7 14 ADAPTABILITY OF PROJECT STRUCTURES FOR PUBLIC USE II-10 15 APPLICATION OF PERTINENT PUBLIC LAWS II-10 16 RELATED RECREATIONAL-HISTORICAL-SCIENTIFIC AREAS II-11 17 RECREATION AND MANAGEMENT TRENDS II-13 18 PROJECT VISITATION II-14 19 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM ASSESSMENT OF INFLUENCING FACTORS II-20 i Paragraph Title III. COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 1 PUBLIC WORKSHOPS III-1 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES III-2 3 STATE AGENCIES III-3 4 LOCAL AGENCIES III-3 IV. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS AND RESOURCE USE OBJECTIVES 1 INTRODUCTION IV-1 2 PIPESTEM LAKE LAND USE ALLOCATIONS IV-1 V. DEVELOPMENT NEEDS DEVELOPMENT NEEDS V-1 VI. SPECIAL PROBLEMS 'GARRISON DIVERSION PROJECT VI-1 VII. CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS VII-1 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS VIII-1 'fABLES 'fable Title 1 PIPESTEM LAKE AREA/CAPACITY DATA II-9 2 PIPESTEM LAKE PROJECT VISITATION II-14 3 PIPESTEM LAKE RECREATION SURVEY SAMPLE II-15 I'I CUDS Figure Title Pase 1 POOL ELEVATION PROBABILITY CURVE II-8 2 RECREATION SURVEY - VISITOR ORIGIN II-14 3 VISITOR DISTRIBUTION, BY MONTH II-17 4 ACTIVITY DISTRIBUTION OF THREE SURVEY SAMPLES II-18 5 ACTIVITY DISTRIBUTION BY ORIGIN - COMPOSITE SAMPLES II-19 6 ACTIVITY DISTRIBUTION - COMPOSITE OF ALL SAMPLES II-20 ii PLATES Plate Title 1 PIPESTEM CREEK BASIN 2 PIPESTEM DAM AND LAKE 3 LAND USE ALLOCA~IONS 4 PARKHURST PARK BXIIIBITS A. Environmental Assessment B. Project Authorization and Purposes c. Socioeconomic Characteristics D. Soil Associations E. North Dakota Water Quality Standards F. Land Use Allocation Descriptions iii PIPESTEM CREEK DAM AliD LAD, .JAKES RIVER BASIB, BOR.TB. DAKOTA PEB.TIBEB'r DATA (All elevations given are feet above mean sea level) PJIO.JEC'r A1JTIIORIZATIOB Flood Control Act of 1965, Public Law 89-298. Specific Purposes. Flood Control, Recreation, and Fish and Wildlife. LOCATIOB On Pipestem Creek about 4 miles northwest of Jamestown, North Dakota, and approximately the same distance above the confluence with the James River. The dam is located in Stutsman County, North Dakota, with the right abutment being in Section 9 and the left abutment in Section 10, T140N, R64W. DRATRAGE AREA COBTROLLED - 594 square miles LABD ABD WATER Total Landa Acquired Fee 4194.51 Acres Flowage Easement 3134.33 Acres Road and Utility Easement 7.41 Acres Total 7336.25 Acres Separable Landa Recreation 40.0 Acres Fish and Wildlife None Acquisition Policy in Effect Five feet vertical freeboard or 300 feet horizontal from guide control elevation, whichever is greatest. Guide Control Elevation 1501.03 Lake Characteristics Storage Capacity Surface Elev. Top (Acre-Feet) Area of Zone Initial 100-year (Acres) Maximum Surcharge - Spillway Design Flood 1502.8 183,730 185,500 7,105 Flood Control - "Full Pool'' 1496.3 146,880 144,500 4,754 iv Multipurpose Pool 1442.4 9,370 5,000 885 Length of lake at multipurpose pool 5.5 miles Shoreline miles at multipurpose pool - 14.5 miles Maximum Elevation: - 5 year frequency - 1461 ft. - 10 year frequency - 1466 ft. - 20 year frequency - 1470 ft. - 50 year frequency - 1475 ft. - 100 year frequency - 1479 ft. STRUCTURAL DATA Type Rolled Earth Fill Height ...... 99.5 ft. Crest Elevation •••••• 1507.5 ft. Length •••••••• , •••••• 4,000 ft. Width at Top ••..•.... 30 ft. Maximum Width at Base 940 ft. Outlet Works Type •••••••••••.••..• Ungated Drop Inlet Elevation 1442.4 Maximum Capacity ••••• 2,300 c.f.s. at elevation 1496.3 Conduit •.•••••.•••••• One-8ft. inside diameter x 675ft. Gates •••••••••••.•.•• Two- 4x7 feet hydraulic slide One - 36-inch valve with 3x3 ft. slide Spillway Type ••••.•••••••••••• Ungated .earth channel Elevation 1496.3 Width and Length ••••• 1,500 ft. x 3,100 ft. Capacity ••••••••••••• 56,200 c.f.s. at Elevation 1502.8 Stilling Basin Type - Conventional Hydraulic Jump Width and Length ••••• 26 ft. x 55 ft. Floor Elevation •••••• 1395.8 End Sill Elevation ••• 1398.4 v PIPESTEH LAKE - VIEW \.J'EST , UPSTREM1 PARKHURST PARK IN THE RIGHT MIDDLE GROUND VIEH OVER PARKHURST PARK 'rOWARD PIPESTEM DAN SECTIOR I 1. IBTIODUCTIOR. This updated project" Master Plan is consistent with experimental revised guidelines authorized by the Missouri River Division Engineer on 29 December 1982. The three main purposes for authorizing the experimental guidelines were: (a) to clarify the status and function of the Master Plan as related to other design memoranda, (b) to streamline the format of the Master Plan for clarity and elimination of redundancy, and (c) to relegate all or nearly all aspects of construction design or routine management detail to specific design memoranda. 1.1 In accordance with the above guidelines, this Master Plan constitutes the policy for management of resources at Pipestem Dam and Lake. It is intended primarily for District-level application as opposed to having day-to-day usefulness at the project level. Project-level action plans will conform to the policies of this Master Plan. 2. Till PII.O.JECT. Pipestem Dam and Lake project is located in south-central North Dakota about 100 miles west of the Minnesota border. There are 4,195 acres of fee lands and 3,134 acres of flowage easement lands. The multi purpose pool occupies almost 900 acres of the fee lands; the flood control pool occupies nearly 4,800 acres. 3. PII.O.JECT ADTBORIZATIOR. The Pipestem Dam and Lake Project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved 27 October 1965, Public Law 89-298, substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi neers in House Document 266 (89th Congress, 1st Session). 4. PROJECT PUIPOSES. The Pipestem Dam and Lake Project was authorized as a component of the comprehensive program for flood control in the Missouri River Basin. Specific project purposes are flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation. An historical review of project authority is given in Exhibit B. Program authorities are cited in appropriate sections. 5. PUIPOSE AliD SCOPE OF Till MASTEl. PLAII. This updated Master Plan consti tutes the District Engineers 1 specific policy governing the operation and management of project resources at Pipestem Dam and Lake Project. This policy is consistent with Engineer Regulations 1105-2-167, 1120-2-400, 1130-2-400, and 1165-2-400. 5.1 Specific management requirements to carry out the policy herein are described in the Project Operational Management Plans. 5.2 Reservoir water management is conducted according to the project Reservoir Regulation Manual. 6. PREVIOUSLY ISSUED MASTER PLAJIS. A preliminary Master Plan, DM JP-2A, was completed in 1968 and a Recreation Development Program DM No. JP-2B, was completed in 1971. I-1 7. PROJECT RESOURCE USE OB.JECTIVES. On a holistic basis, project resources will be managed to achieve the following objectives: 7.1 Flood Control. All other project purposes and authorized functions are subject to temporary subordination to the flood control mission of the project. Flood water storage will be released as soon as possible, consistent with public safety and good management practice, in order to minimize adverse impacts on other project purposes and to renew capacity for flood storage. Reservoir operation guidelines are contained in the project Reservoir Regulation Manual. 7.2 Recreation. As one of the project purposes, recreational public use of project resources is encouraged. Public use will be managed to pro vide high quality outdoor recreation experience, as opposed to managing for greatest diversity or density of use. Recreational planning and improvements will be consistent with the North Dakota Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 7.3 Fish and Wildlife. This project purpose is considered to have a high priority on all project lands, regardless of land use allocation. 7. 3.1 On lands not allocated to wildlife management, vegetation management alternatives should be selected to favor wildlife, where possible and feasible. 7.4 Cultural and Scientific Resources. These resources are valuable public assets gener~lly protected by law and regulation. They will be managed as such in accordance with applicable guidelines. Where these resources can be made available for public use and enjoyment without significant detriment to the resources themselves, or where results of research concerning these resources can be made available for popular use, such uses will be encouraged. In many cases, protection and preservation will be the most appropriate strategy to assure long term public benefit from specific resources. Where applicable, that conclusion will be explained to the public and the preservation theme enforced. 7.5 Use Objectives specific to particular resources are given in Section IV. I-2 SECTIOR II FACTORS IRFLUERCIRG RESOURCE MARAGIIIERT ARD DEVELOPMENT 1. TilE PJIO.JECT SETTIRG. 1.1 Borth Dakota.· North Dakota has traditionally been an agricul- tural state. As such, a great deal of land is devoted to farming and ranch ing ope rat ions. Currently, over 60 percent of the state 1 s acreage is in cropland, 30 percent in pasture, and 5 percent for cities, roads, farmstead, etc. Hence, about 95 percent of North Dakota is actively used by man to some extent, and that percentage is increasing annually. 1.2 Energy resources development has increased dramatically in recent years, most of it in the western part of the state. Continued development is virtually assured. Major impacts can be expected to accompany the growth of the energy industry in North Dakota. 1.3 The increasing intensity of land use has exerted great pressure on many of the state 1 s recreational resources. Even though North Dakota contains the least amount of forested land of any state, many acres of native woodland are being cleared for cropland and other uses. Similarly, remaining native pralrle is being converted at a rapid rate. Water quality and quantity in many of the lakes and streams has deteriorated due to inadequate land conservation practices. Continued population growth will intensify many of the impacts on natural resources. 1.4 The land surface of North Dakota resembles three broad steps of prairie, r1s1ng a half mile in altitude from the eastern to the western boundary. Pipestem Lake is located on the middle "step." These three steps, the Red River Valley, the Drift Prairie, and the Missouri Plateau, differ in origin, climate, surface features, soils, and native vegetation. These variations have traditionally marked off economic and even political and ethnic differences. 1.5 The lowest step is the fertile, floor-like Red River Valley, once the bed of glacial Lake Agassiz. It extends from the Canadian border to the South Dakota line, 30 to 40 miles westward from the Red River. 1.6 The Pembina Escarpment, a rise of 300 to 400 feet along the western edge of the valley, defines the beginning of the central "step," the Drift Prairie. (Source: North Dakota Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan [SCORP] 1980) 2. PHYSIOGRAPHY ARD TOPOGRAPHY. Pipestem Lake lies within the Drift Prairie section of the Central Lowlands province (the middle "step" as indicated above). This area is best described as a gently rolling glacial plain with many lakes and marshes, and a youthful drainage system. Major II-1 landforms contiguous to the Pipestem Creek valley consist mainly of low rolling topographic features associated with the ground moraine, together with several end moraines and melt-water channels which tend to break the uniformity of the glacial plain. All of these landforms were formed in association with an active, rather than a stagnating ice sheet. Being an active ice sheet, it possessed a margin which retreated in an orderly manner and which, occasionally hal ted or readvanced. The end moraines were formed during halts or minor readvances of the ice margin as it retreated to the north. Numerous melt-water channels were developed during the recession of glacial activity, one of which is the Pipestem Creek valley. This valley ranges from a quarter of a mile to a half mile in width with the valley bottom 50 to 100 feet below the average elevation of the rolling plain. The basin slopes from about elevation 1,650 feet mean sea level (msl) near the headwaters to 1,400 feet msl near the dam. The gradient of Pipestem Creek ranges from 6.0 feet per mile in the upper reaches to 2.8 feet per mile near its confluence with the James River, about 4 miles downstream from the project, 3. GERERAL GEOLOGY. Glacial drift overlies the bedrock in most of Stutsman County, North Dakota. Bedrock is composed of Late Cretaceous Age rocks, represented in descending order by the Fox Hills, Pierre, and Niobrara formations. Within the Pipestem Creek drainage basin, only the Pierre shale outcrops and most of these exposures are in the immediate vicinity of the project. Although not apparent from the outcrops just mentioned, the formations have a westward regional dip of approximately 15 feet per mile, reflecting the eastward extension of a structurally large, gently sloping trough, known as the Dakota Basin. 3.1 The bedrock surface underlying the glacial drift (till and glacio fluvial deposits) is characterized by considerable relief. Several isolated bedrock highs exceed 1,600 feet but much of the bedrock is at an altitude of 1,400 to 1,500 feet. This surface is interrupted by valleys that have been eroded into bedrock prior to glaciation. It is believed that most of these preglacial drainages were oriented north to Hudson Bay, but Pleistocene glaciation resulted in reversing the drainage direction. Although the bedrock surface is irregular, these features have been thoroughly masked by the glacial mantle that forms the present day topography. Deposits of glacial origin, consisting of glacial till and glaciofluvial material are the most abundant surficial Pleistocene deposits in the area. Other deposits occurring in lesser amounts include glacial-lake sediments, colluvium, and recent alluvium. 4. SOILS. Soil development at the surface of the glacial drift material has typically produced deep, fertile loams and clay loams. Ten predominant soil associations are found in the vicinity of the project. The general suitabilities of these are noted in Exhibit D. The Ecksman loam has a sandy substrate and the Buse-Sioux complex is a shallow gravelly soil. Planting plans or construction plans will take into account the capabilities and limitations of the specific soils affected. A detailed map of soils in the project area is on file in the Omaha District Office (MROPD) and is available from the USDA Soil Conservation Service office in Jamestown. II-2 5. CL~. North Dakota has a continental climate. There are cold winters, hot summers, warm days and cool nights, light rainfall, low humidity, and much sunshine. It is a climate of extremes where the mercury may reach 100 degrees F. during the summer, whereas 30 degrees F. or 40 degrees F. below zero is not uncommon in winter. January, the coldest month, has an average temperature of 7 degrees F.; and July, the warmest, averages 68 degrees F. The average annual temperature in North Dakota is 40.7 degrees F. 5.1 The average annual temperature at the project is near the State average about 41 degrees F. The average precipitation in the project vicinity is about 18 inches, most falling as showers during the summer months. Winds are frequent and of relatively high velocity. In the April to October period, there is some wind about 98 percent of the time. The average growing season is about 130 days but there are only about 18 days during the summer when the temperature ranges to 90 degrees F. or above. Around 195 days will be 32 degrees F. or below, and about 45 days will feature snow depths of 6 inches or more. 6. ACCESSIBILITY. The Pipestem Dam and Lake Project is easily accessible from Interstate Highway 94 which crosses the state in an East/West direction. From I-94, it is necessary to pass through the city of Jamestown and follow State Highway 52/281 for about 4 miles to reach the project. Jamestown is located along I-94 half-way between the state capitol at Bismarck and the city of Fargo on the eastern border. 6.1 The dam and project office are accessed by paved roadway from Highway 52/281. The Parkhurst Recreation area and other lake access points are reached from county roads which surround the project. The portions of the project best-suited to highest levels of visitation (the dam and vicinity, and the Parkhurst area) are fortunately located nearest to the population center (Jamestown) and to the paved, all-weather road (North Dakota Highway 52/281). Access from Highway 52/281 is paved to the Parkhurst Area launch ramp. 7. SOCIOECOROMIC FACTORS. Agriculture produces about 8 5 percent of the wealth in the project area. Small grains, sunflowers, and livestock are the principal products. The total number of farms is decreasing and the average size is increasing to 1,000 acres or more. The regional population is nearly all Caucasian, of northern or central European descent. The majority of these are descended from immigrants who settled the region in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Although the region is highly dependent on agricul ture, retail and wholesale trades provide a slightly greater number of people with employment than does agriculture. Professional and other services constitute the third major occupational group, especially in Stutsman County with its relatively large urban population. 7.1 Economic and social conditions are relatively stable, resulting in fairly high rate of outmigration for employment by young adults. Stutsman County is the only South Central Region county which has not had a continuous gradual decline in population since 1930. Even there, the population decline of 3,000 persons during the depression years has not been entirely recovered. II-3 Jamestown, the major source of Pipestem Lake visitation, has grown from 10,697 in 1950 to 16,280 in 1980, with a 5.8 percent increase from 1970 to 1980. Additional discussion is found in Exhibit C. 8. MIJ!IEllALS Aim TIMBER, Sand, gravel and cobblestone are the only common commerc1a1 m1neral resources at and near the project. With the District Engineers' approval, a number of small gravel pits have been operated on the project's flowage easement lands since project construction. 8.1 Gravel extraction at the south end of the Parkhurst area before and during project construction improved conditions for boat launching. Lowering the land surface elevation in the vicinity, however, also increased the frequency and extent of inundation in this part of Parkhurst Park. 8.2 The Operational Management Plan will assess the potential for creating wildlife habitat improvement by means of controlled gravel mining, and may include specific plans to do so. Determination of the fair market value of mineral products removed will be consistent with the special requirements for removal under the plan. 8.3 As a general rule, the removal of sand, gravel, stones, or other earth products from project fee lands is discouraged unless (1) it is clearly in the interest of the government, or (2) the applicant has no feasible alternative source of material and the removal of material would not have a significant adverse effect on project resources or purposes. 8.4 Any oil and gas exploration or production will be conducted under specific departmental guidelines then in effect. 8.5 Surplus woody plant materials will be minimal at this project. Those that are available from thinning or clearing activities will be used to contribute to the wildlife or recreation purposes of the project. 9. P:RO.JEC'r VEGETATION. The project 1s located in the mid-grass prairie blame. The cl1max nat1ve vegetation is grass with shrubs and trees along the water courses and on the steep north slopes. The dominant species in the grassland areas are Kentucky bluegrass, western wheatgrass, big bluestem, and green need legras s. The major species on the wooded areas are wild plum, chokecherry, buffaloberry, Juneberry, American elm, and green ash. A majority of the project lands were cultivated prior to acquisition, and the remainder heavily grazed. Upland woody vegetation was primarily limited to a few farmstead shelter-belts. Most of the cultivated areas were planted with alfalfa and introduced wheatgrasses shortly after acqu1s1t1on. These areas were later invaded by smooth bromegrass and are now primarily covered by bromegrass and alfalfa. The noncultivated areas have been protected from grazing and have shown steadily improving condition. The Corps has planted trees in blocks to prevent wind erosion, create winter and escape cover for wildlife, and to improve the visual diversity of the project. A variety of tree and shrub species including green ash, Russian olive, ponderosa pine, Colorado blue spruce, rocky mountain juniper, wild plum, chokecherry, cottonwood and willow have been planted. II-4 10. FISH ARD WILDLIFE. 10.1 Fish. The intermittent streamflow of Pipestem Creek prior to project con~tion did not permit a significant fishery to develop. The North Dakota Department of Game and Fish stocks Pipestem Lake periodically. Gamefish and panfish species currently found in the lake include walleye, smallmouth bass, northern pike, muskellunge, bullhead, perch, crappie, and bluegill. 10.1.1 Sportfishing success has been variable, with "on" years, and "off" years seemingly occurring in cycles. A similar situation exists at Jamestown Reservoir and often a poor year at one lake will be offset by a good year at the other. Fishing pressure is fairly heavy, partly because of the proximity to Jamestown. Some natural reproduction of sportfish occurs but is limited by water level variability and other factors. 10.2 Wildlife. White-tailed deer, turkey, pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, Hungarian partridge, mourning dove, raccoon, coyote, red fox, weasel, badger, mink, muskrat, beaver, fox squirrel, striped skunk, jack rabbit, and cottontail constitute the principal upland game and fur-bearing species found at Pipestem. All these, except turkey, were locally present before project construction. The project is located along the James River sub-flyway and waterfowl are common, particularly in the upper reaches during migration periods. Terrestrial habitat has been managed for the wildlife purpose since project construction and general conditions for wildlife have improved steadily. Waterfowl production is less significant than anticipated prior to construction. This is apparently due to lake fluctuation and the limited available supply of emergent aquatic vegetation needed by juveniles for escape and feeding habitat. 10.3 Rare or Endangered Species. Whooping cranes have been sighted in Stutsman County but not near Pipestem Lake. Incidental use of the project by whooping cranes is possible but unlikely. Bald eagles occasionally visit the area but suitable perching trees near a food source are virtually non existent at present. Pipestem is not within the known historic range for the blackfooted ferret. 10.3.1 The interior least tern is included on the Federal List of endangered species, and the p1p1ng plover is on the Federal list of threatened species. Either species could visit the project but the proba bility is low since they prefer sand bars and running water habitat such as along the Missouri and Platte Rivers. 10.4 Various listings regard some or all of the following species which might occur in the project area as rare or uncommon within the state: swift fox, greater prairie chicken, green heron, least bittern, turkey vulture, king rail, banded killifish, silver redhorse, pearl dace, and hornyhead chub. Rare wetland plants reported from Stutsman County are brook flatsedge (Cyperus rivularis) and clearweed (Pilea fontana). 10.5 Plans for fish and wildlife management will be coordinated with the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and will consider the feasibility II-5 of adjusting habitat conditions for the benefit of rare species, especially the swift fox and greater prairie chicken. 10.6 Manipulation of lake water levels in order to create improved conditions for fish or wildlife during critical periods such as spawning or migration is encouraged. Water level management plans for fish and wildlife purposes will be devised with the assistance of the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and will be approved by the District Engineer. ll. CUL'lOBAL IIESOOilCES. At least one-half of the project fee lands have been visually surveyed for cultural resources. The lakebed was examined by a Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys crew in 1966. Portions of the shoreline and uplands were subsequently surveyed by Corps archaeologists. All surveyors indicate that dense ground cover or other conditions limited their results to preliminary or reconnaissance level effectiveness. No soil disturbing activity will be planned without providing for an intensive survey for cultural resources well in advance of the disturbing activity. The presence of cultural resources may require modification of initial plans, as determined by the District Engineer in coordination with other agencies as required by law. Specific project cultural resources c·onsiderations are found in the Operational Management Plan "Historic Properties Management Plan, Pipestem Lake, North Dakota." 11.1 The interpretive and educational values of project cultural resources will be exploited to the max1.mum level consistent with good management and the integrity of the resource. 11.2 Prehistoric Sites. There are currently (1987) three known prehistoric sites on fee lands which may be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Determinations of eligibility are not yet completed. These sites are 32SN70, 100, and 102. Site 32SN100 is a conical mound situated within Parkhurst Park which may be of prehistoric origin. If so, it has a high potential for interpretation because of the location. 11.3 Historic Sites. One farmstead site/foundation-ruin has been recorded as site 32SN47. Significance has not been determined. ll.4 General. The potential for locating additional significant cultural resources at Pipestem appears to be quite high. 12. WATER QUALITY. Five sampling stations have been established to monitor the water quality of the reservoir's tributary inflow, reservoir water, and release water from the dam. Samples are routinely collected from each station. 12.1 Water Quality Requirements. Public Law 89-234, the 1965 Water Quality Act, Section lO(c) established the National Water Quality Standards Program. Executive Order 12088, dated October 1978, requires that all necessary actions be taken for the prevention, control, and abatement of II-6 environmental pollution with respect to Federal facilities, and that they comply with all pollution control standards. Applicable State standards were adopted March 1973 and amended in April 1985. 12.1.1 Excerpts from the State of North Dakota water quality standards are shown in Exhibit E. Pipestem Lake falls into a 3C classifi cation. The water is classified as capable of supporting growth and propa gation of nonsalmonid fishes and associated aquatic life. Class "C" lakes are presently somewhat degraded and progressing toward further degradation. 12.1.2 Waters ·from Pipestem Creek flowing into the reservoir periodically deviate from North Dakota's standards for the following parameters: fecal coliform bacteria, sulphates, and phosphates. High phosphorous loading is a particular problem. Released waters also deviate from the standards for phosphates and sulphates. 12.1.3 Water in the reservoir is eutrophic. During calm periods, the water tends to stratify into layers but only on an intermittent basis. During summer months, dissolved oxygen is adequate in the upper portions of the water column but low in the bottom portions. In winter months, low dissolved oxygen levels are known to exist in areas of the reservoir. No fish kills have been reported, but the potential exists especially during winter ice cover. Algal blooms may be extensive during the summer months. The concentrations of ammonia, phosphates and dissolved oxygen in the lake periodically do not meet State water quality standards. 13. RESERVOIR. PLAR OF OPERATIORS. Pipestem Dam is operated in parallel with the Jamestown Dam to regulate flooding from the James River through Jamestown, North Dakota. 13.1 Although the design capacity of the channel through Jamestown is 1800 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.), flows in excess of 750 c.f.s. cause urban flooding damage. The desirable combined releases for flood control from both Jamestown and Pipestem Lakes is 450 c.f.s. This objective is not practical when significant flood storage amounts have accumulated. The normal reservoir regulation plan for Pipestem Lake is dependent upon storage accumulations in both reservoirs. Flood control storage is evacuated first to a maximum of 1800 c.f.s. from both reservoirs. The flood control space is evacuated prior to the onset of winter season. Evacuation of water stored in the flood zone of Jamestown Reservoir is given priority over the evacuation of Pipestem Reservoir. As a result, the Pipestem pool will rise higher and be retained longer than flood storage in Jamestown Reservoir. 13.2 Reservoir operation guidelines are found in the Project Reservoir Regulation Manual. 13.3 Reservoir Area-Capacity and Elevation Probability are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. II-7 118.98 9Q.a 99.8 119.5 a8 ae 85 ao 80 70 &0 50 40 30 20 10 6 2 1500 ~ 1480 " t"- ~ ~ ~ ~1480 ~ ~ ~ ::i f'. t- 1-' liJ 1470 .... liJ .... 1.1.. I 00 z "' z 1410 "' 0 ['... ,.~ "' " liJ !"... NOTE: ..JI450 t'-..... liJ [""... Curve ls based on 0:: 0:: 0:: > > ,. recent htstorlcal ll) ~ a ~ ' "' -- 1440 "" records(1t7a-1t84J 0.01 0.()5 0.1 0.2 0.6 I 2 6 10 20 30 40 50 10 70 80 80 115 M EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY IN PERCENT PIPESTEM DAM AND LAKE POOL ELEVATION PROBABILITY CUBVE PIPESTEM CREEK PROJECT AREA IN ACRES (1971 SURVEY) ELEV 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1400 0 0 1 2 3 4 7 10 14 20 1410 25 31 38 45 53 62 73 84 95 106 1420 116 123 127 132 142 159 186 221 260 301 1430 340 378 416 454 492 530 569 606 645 689 1440 738 795 858 925 994 1060 1126 1193 1259 1323 1450 1384 1442 1498 1551 1604 1657 1709 1760 1810 1860 1460 1910 1958 2007 2055 2103 2153 2203 2255 2306 2360 1470 2417 2475 2535 2598 2663 2730 2800 2872 2946 3022 1480 3100 3179 3259 3342 3429 3522 3623 3730 3840 3950 1490 4052 4142 4222 4305 4409 4543 4700 4879 5090 5356 1-1 1500 5700 6135 6652 7218 7791 1-1 I \Q PIPESTEM CREEK PROJECT e t-4 CAPACITY IN ACRE FEET tzJ (1971 SURVEY) ...... ·ELEV 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1400 0 0 0 2 4 7 12 21 33 50 1410 73 101 135 177 226 283 350 428 518 618 1420 730 851 976 1105 1241 1390 1560 1762 2002 2283 1430 2605 2964 3361 3796 4269 4780 5330 5918 6543 7209 1440 7921 8685 9511 10402 11362 12390 13483 14643 15869 17160 1450 18515 19929 21400 22925 24503 26134 27817 29552 31337 33172 1460 35058 36992 38975 41006 43085 45213 47391 49620 51901 54233 1470 56621 59067 61572 64138 66769 69465 72230 75065 77974 80958 1480 84019 87158 90377 93677 97062 100535 104106 107781 111566 115462 1490 119466 123567 127751 132012 136362 140831 145448 150232 155206 160413 1500 165919 171813 178189 185117 192625 200700 I 14. ADAPTABILITY or PRO.JECT STR.UCTUIIES lOR PUBLIC USE. The spillway structure offers a ta1riy extens1ve area of tlat grouna suitable for a variety of day uses, including a shooting range, model aircraft flying, or open playfields. A shooting range has been located there for several years. The principal limiting factor for activities here is the potential for undesirable effects to carry beyond the spillway proper. Engine noises could reduce experience quality for other recreationists on the lake, at the Parkhurst Area or downstream, for example. Some level of disturbance to wildlife may be unavoidable, but might be minimized or moderated by appropriate planning and management. If new incidental use of the spillway is considered, effects on other project activities and purposes will be evaluated, and the activity approved by the District Engineer. Any sanitation facilities required will be located outside the waterway unless specifically excepted by the District Engineer. 14.1 Some fishing, primarily for perch, occurs at the outlet works and is compatible with project operations. 15. APPLICATIOB or PERTIJ.IIIlll' PUBLIC LAWS. Among the public laws affecting the authorization, construction, or operation and management of the Pipestem Dam and Lake project, the following are of special significance: 15.1 Public Law 89-72, the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act of 1965, as amended. Provides that recreation and fish and wildlife be consid ered equally with other purposes when formulating Federal Water Resources development projects, limits benefits from recreation, and fish and wildlife to one-half of total project benefits, limits Federal participation in recreation development and separable lands to 50 percent of the separable costs, limits Federal fish and wildlife enhancement costs to 75 percent of separable costs. Separable lands for these purposes may be acquired at Federal cost to preserve their potential but unless a sponsor is found within ten years the need must be reevaluated. Reaffirmation of project need for such a tract of separable recreation land is given in Section IV, paragraph 2.3.1.2. 15.1.1 This legislation was before the Congress at the same time as the Flood Control Act of 1965, which authorized Pipestem Lake. The Chief of Engineers forwarded the District Engineer's report on the proposed Pipestem Dam project to the Secretary of the Army on 9 July 1965, with specific provision for application of the cost-sharing requirements of the pending Federal Water Projects Recreation Act. 15.1.2 Stutsman County has assumed the responsibility of cost sharing sponsorship and management of the Parkhurst Park area. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department intended to sponsor fish and wildlife lands, but did not agree with the outgrant terms which were standard for the Corps. The potential remains for State management of fish and wildlife lands and formalization of a General Plan, as provided by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, will preserve that potential. II-10 15.2 Public Law 85-624 1 the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended. This rather complex law provides, among other things, authority for Federal Water Resources development agencies to compensate for damages rendered to fish and wildlife resources through the development of water resources projects, and to mitigate the adverse effects upon fish and wildlife. It is concluded to have been the intent of all principals concerned with project authorization to manage a minimum of 780 acres of Pipestem lands and waters primarily for wildlife in order to compensate for the loss of 830 acres of wildlife habitat and to minimally carry out the project purpose of wildlife management. The subject lands are herein allo cated to fish and wildlife management, with the special objectives of providing for wildlife species displaced from inundated areas of the project, and for rare species, including Federally listed species if found. See Exhibit B for discussion of the project authorization documents, and Section IV, paragraph 2.5.2 for discussion of this area. 15.3 Public Law 86-717 1 the Forest Conservation Act of 1960. Provides for the development and maintenance of forest resources on Corps of Engineers lands to improve future supplies of timber; provides for establishment and management of vegetative cover for soil erosion control, and the benefit of wildlife. 15.3.1 Past and future plantings of trees, shrubs and grass or other ground cover at Pipestem Lake are invariably for multiple objectives, including reduction of wind erosion effect, improving ground cover as protection from wind or water erosion, improvement of wildlife habitat conditions coincident with soil conservation and timber supply plantings, and to improve visual diversity of project lands. Absent other specific authority, plans for such multiple objective vegetative establishment and management programs which are not specifically for wildlife mitigation, wildlife enhancement, or recreation, should cite P.L. 86-717 as funding authority and demonstrate the multiple objectives. Vegetation management designed specifically to maintain existing wildlife populations without enhancement may be funded as a general operations cost or under P.L. 86-717 authority, as appropriate. Single purpose improvements for the betterment of wildlife constitute enhancement and is subject to costsharing under the provisions of P.L. 89-72 and the Pipestem project authorization documents. 15.4 Public Law 89-665, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect proposed undertakings may have on significant cultural resources; provides authority and guidelines for carrying out this objective. 16. IBLA'I'ED IICUATIORAL-BISTOJUCAI.-SCIERTII'IC AUAS. The Jamestown Dam and Reservoir is located two miles from Pipestem Lake and offers a variety of general recreation opportunity. This project was construe ted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the recreational resources are managed by the Stutsman County Park Board. This project is actually nearer Jamestown than is Pipestem and is better suited to general recreation than is Pipestem. II-11 Facilities are superior to those presently (1987) at Pipestem. Jamestown Reservoir should continue to serve as the principal neighborhood water-based recreation opportunity for Jamestown residents throughout the long-term future, Estimated current annual visitation is about 99,000. 16.1 Lake Aahtabula/Baldhill o... Lake Ashtabula/Baldhill Dam is located north of Valley City, about 50 miles from Jamestown. This is a Corps of Engineers project under the jurisdiction of the St. Paul District. It is the largest lake in the southeastern part of the state and a major general recreation resource in the region. There are eight developed recreation areas on the project, all having boat launching and picnic facilities. Annual visitation is about 400,000. 16.2 Arrowwood Rational Wildlife Kefuge. Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS), is located on the James River immediately upstream from Jamestown Reservoir, and about thirty miles from Jamestown. Wildlife oriented recreation is popular, and public use management is skillfully dovetailed with the primary function of the refuge, the protection and management of wildlife. The James River passes through four main water areas on the refuge: Arrowwood, Mud, and Jim Lakes and De Puy Marsh. Subject to limitations commensurate with the refuge function, various activities are permitted including berry picking, bird watching, boating, snow skiing, motor touring, and fishing. Some fox, deer, and upland bird hunting is permitted when and where suitable. Estimated annual visitation on the refuge proper is about 10,000. Waterfowl hunting activity in the general area is stimulated considerably by the large numbers of birds using refuge waters. Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) provides the point of focus for nonconsumptive and incidental consumptive wildlife use in the vicinity; however, Slade NWR, the Chase Lake component of Arrowwood NWR, and the Valley City Federal Fish Hatchery are also available. Within Stutsman County and the immediately surrounding counties, the USF&WS administers 271 waterfowl production areas containing an aggregate of 51,238 acres. 16.3 State Wildlife Manageaent Areas open to public hunting and other public uses within 50 miles of Pipestem Lake include Dawson, Alkaline Lake, McPhail, Frettum Township, Chase Lake, Koldak, Valley City, Ray Holland Marsh, Sibley Lake, Rusten Slough, and Howard Stone Hemorial. These units include a total of 5, 242 acres, the Dawson WMA being much the largest with 2,951 acres. 16.4 Other major fishing waters available to the public within 50 miles include Lakes Hiawatha, Juanita, Frettum, Williams, Round, Barnes, Spiritwood, Isabel, La Moure, and Moon. Heinrich-Martin Dam, Schlect Dam, Lehr Dam, Clausen Springs and Crystal Springs areas are also available as well as the waters of the James and Sheyenne Rivers. 16.5 Other notable features in the 50 mile radius include Fort Seward Historic Site, Fort Ransom Historic Site, Standing Rock Historic Site, Camps Arnold, Corning, Sheardown, Weiser, Atchison, Kimball, Grant, and Whitney II-12 Historic Sites, Birch Creek Campsite Historic Site, Wadeson Historic Site, Lake Johnson Historic Site, Lake Jessie Historic Site, McPhails Butte Historic Site, Burman Historic Site, Fort Ransom State Park, Little Yellowstone Park, Streeter Memorial State Park, Spiritwood Lake Fish Hatchery, and the Stutsman County Memorial Museum. 17. UCBEATIOB ABD MARAGIMEJ!IT TllEBDS. The mechanization of agriculture and increasing economic diversification in the state will have numerous ripple effects on leisure and on outdoor recreation. The most significant of these "ripples" will be increasing demand for recreational opportunity over time. This will be generated from (1) an increase in population density, (2) greater amounts of discretionary time (and perhaps money), and (3) probable continued reduction of wildlife space and non-public open space available for leisure activity. 17.1 Past recreational activity patterns at Pipestem have deviated widely from the anticipated mix, with a much larger than expected percentage of visitors interested primarily in fishing or sightseeing only. A significant portion of the camping and boating activity is incidental to fishing. Since Pipestem Lake features neither especially good fishing nor especially outstanding scenic attributes, it is apparent that Pipestem fishermen like the shoreline characteristics, the relative isolation from other activities, and the short travel distance from Jamestown. The shore+ine characteristics, either fairly steep or fairly shallow, tend to discourage general recreationists and to isolate possible facility location away from the water's edge. Much of the sightseeing activity at Pipestem is incidental to driving-for-pleasure, and a number of local landmarks may be visited during a short recreational drive. 17.2 If nearby Jamestown Dam and Reservoir had not been present, the recreational activity trends at Pipestem Lake would undoubtedly have been more typical of those at other Corps lakes. Since Pipestem is not subject to "typical" demands, its uniqueness is more evident to visitors and can be more fully emphasized by managers than at most Corps lakes. This in turn can contribute to the variety of recreational opportunity in the region and encourage regional tourism. 17.3 Recreation resources managers have become more conscious of efficiency factors in facilities design since Pipestem Dam was constructed. Facilities development needs identified in this plan are intended to make efficient use of all resources including land, waters, space, vegetation, materials, and equipment in both construction and management. It is recog nized that regional residents tend to be very space-conscious and to expect more elbow room than in many parts of the country. Facilities design and "people management" at Pipestem Lake will retain awareness of this factor. 17.4 The 1985 North Dakota Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) notes several changes that have become apparent since the 1980 SCORP. Changes in Federal grant programs have reduced availability of II-13 Federal funds for state and local programs and development. Additionally, facility maintenance and renovation are now consuming a larger percentage of park and recreation budgets. Many communities are struggling to accommodate increased visitation with greater limitations on funding. 17.5 This Master Plan places a Federal project in a regional context for public use and resource management. Project management policy is formalized as a composite of Federal, State, and regional interest and local need, and of natural resource capability. 18. PBOJBCT VISIU'I'IOR. The pre-project estimate of ultimate visitation levels at Pipestem Lake was 62,000 annual visitors. Corps of Engineers estimates of actual visitation derived from surveys and traffic counters are shown in Table 1. TABLB 2 PIPESTEM LAKE PBOJBCT VISITATIOR 1974 45,400 1978 104,900 1982 126,400 1975 26,400 1979 113,800 1983 145,400 1976 90,700 1980 153,800 1984 131,620 1977 79,700 1981 121,500 1985 119,715 1986 103,100 FIGURE 2 PIPESTEM LN 300 ...Ill 0 240 1111111_1111111 Ill >------0 180 -... Ql .0 E 120 z~ 60 0 July 1984 Oct. 1984 Feb. 1985 Origin of Visitors 8 Local (] Other North Dakota • Non-Resident II-14 18.1 A recreation use survey was conducted in July 1984. Weather conditions were somewhat atypically hot, dry, and windy. Even so, the distribution of activities and the array of visitor origins is considered roughly valid for midsummer visitation. The representation by regional and out-of-state visitors is a surprisingly high 28 percent of the survey sample. (Figure 2). Three quarters of the nonresidents were sightseeing, which implies that they were in the area for some other purpose and not travelling through. Although Pipestem Lake could hardly be classified as a destination fishing hotspot that would draw nonresidents for that purpose, 14.8 percent of the nonresi dents were fishing. Thus, roughly 92 percent of nonresidents (sightseeing and fishing) could not reasonably be considered destination visitors, yet they had leisure available to spend locally. It is suspected that many of these were former residents who were returning to Jamestown to visit relatives or for business reasons. While this is real tourism of a sort, it should not be inferred that the recreational resources are by themselves drawing nonresident visitation. TABLE 3 PIPESTEM LAD UCDATIOR SURVEY SAMPLI JULY 1984 Percent of Activity Participation. by ViBitor Origin Total Visitors Sur.eyed • 340 Total Activity Days Recorded • 344) Origia Local (25 ail.) Borth Dakota Bon-Resident All Visitors Activity (72.0%) (5.4%) (22.6%) (100%) Sightseeing 54.2% 23.3% 77.8% 54.1% Fishing (Shore) 13.8% 18.6% 11.1% 13.9% Fishing (Boat) 8.5% 41.9% 3.7% 11.9% Camping 3.7% 0.6% Picnicking 3.2% 9.3% 3.5% Swimming 12.6% 6.9% 9.9% Rifle Range 4.5% 3.7% 3.8% Archery 0.4% 0.3% Dog Training/Exercise 2.8% 2.0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% II-15 18.2 North Dakota residents from beyond the 25 mile radius were from within a 100-mile radius and most of these apparently did regard the Jamestown area as a recreational destination. Sixty percent of them were fishing, a logical destination activity in this case. Most were evidently on one-day trips, since none reported camping. About 23 percent of those beyond the 25-mile radius were sightseeing only, which suggests at least two reasonable explanations for their presence: (a) they were on sightseeing circuits of some length and probably visited several points of interest in the "Jamestown Complex," or (b) were casual spillover visitors from Jamestown Reservoir or some other primary destination nearby. 18.3 Together, the nonresidents and the residents beyond 25 miles make up Pipestem Lake's current "tourism" clientele. Both groups should be better understood in order to better provide desired services in the community, and to establish their economic significance to the region. A need for better interpretive measures at Pipestem is fairly clear. These need not be elaborate but should enable most casual visitors to go away with specific impressions. 18.4 Local visitors from within 25 miles made up 72 percent of the survey sample. Over half of these were sightseeing and a number of them would have undoubtedly used interpretive exhibits or other measures had they been available. About 22 percent of the locals were fishing, in spite of the windy weather. 18.5 The July survey sample is generally representative of summer visitation. Pipestem visitation peaks with the early fishing activity in May, then declines steadily until late August or September. A minor second peak occurs in October and November when fishing improves and hunting seasons are open. 18.6 The October 1984 survey sample consisted of 219 respondents. Of these, 94 percent were from within 25 miles and 4 percent were nonresidents. Forty-eight percent of the locals fished, 22 percent were sightseeing, 22 per cent used the rifle range, and 6 percent were hunting. Most hunters would not logically be found at the locations surveyed. No camping was reported. 18.7 Only two respondents in the February 1985 survey were from beyond 25 miles and they were sightseeing. The other 70 respondents were local, and evenly divided between sightseeing and fishing. (A number of weekday v1.sHors were checking their ice-fishing "houses" rather than actively fishing, but were considered "fishermen" for survey purposes). 18.8 A realistic breakdown of annual visitation by activity is not possible with present information. Reasons for current lack of precision include the scheduling of survey samples (see Figure 3), and variations in estimating methods for Natural Resources Management System (NRMS) reporting. As an example, the 1983 NRMS estimate of fishing plus boating at Pipestem was 52 percent of annual activity days; the 1985 and 1986 estimate was 75 per cent. While not critical, additional information is desirable, particularly for the May peak period and for the entire project during the autumn peak. II-16 FIGURE 3 VISITOR OISTRIBUTION,BY MONTH, PIPESTEM LAKE, 1985 & 1986 D 0 u u u e c 0 e y n I 9 p t v c - 1985 --1986 18.9 Distribution of activity by survey respondents is shown in Table 3 and Figure 4. Figures 5 and 6 represent composites of respondents actually surveyed during the three seasons, but are not indicators of true activity distribution for any period. 18.10 A notable factor revealed by the surveys is that, with less than a dozen exceptions, respondents did not claim to participate in more than one activity per visit, 18.11 On an annual basis, fishing draws the largest number of visitors. As noted elsewhere, most boating at Pipestem is incidental to fishing. Most campers are fishermen staying overnight, and most of those classified as picnickers also fish. Unclassified activities included use of the rifle range, dog training, roving archery, wildlife photography and wildlife observation. The majority of Pipestem Lake visitation is clearly related to ''fish and wildlife recreation." II-17 FIGURE 4 PlPESTE~ ~I 0 9 ~ Wort J.S:C A PIPESTE~ ~E Recreolion Sul'\ley October 1984 Siqhlseeing 23. 7:c Hunting 5.8:C - Oo9• 1.8:C Rille Ronge 20.!>:C AI I 'Jisltort B PlPESTE~ ~E Recreation Survey February 1985 Sightseeing Other . 2.4:C Rifle Ronge J. 7:C Fishing 4 7.6:11: A I I 'Jisiton c II-18 NOTE• Theee charte repreeent compoeitee of actual eurvey eamplea ONLY. They do not neceeaarily reflect year-long pattern• and are given ONLY to illuetrate correlation of Pipeetem viaitor interest and dietance from reaidence. Jh{if 'if .fl ''I ~i ~! Cl> - ~! ~ . . .. ~~ ~ iii ~ : b tj 1 J" 1 I !? II ll I I I ~ if:i .... 'J .... ;11 ...... a'""'... "" PIPESTEM LAKE Activities Sightseeing 42.8% HIJnlill.o 0.87. Rille t-<"tlnge 1. 77. E Other 1.97. Work Dogs 2.37. 5.37. Fishing 35.87. Swimming 9.57. =-=~~or,:// Gild OctoMr 0ttw • .trretl4f)o, eom,...., .11: OlfV. 19. GDIJW. COBCLDSIORS ROM ASSESSMEllr OP IIIPLUEIICIBG rACTORS. In attempting to identify a state/regional perspective of related recreational resources, the resources within about a 50-mile radius of Jamestown are loosely and arbitrarily referred to here as "the Jamestown Complex." Jamestown Reservoir and Lake Ashtabula are easily the most important general recreation resources in the complex and have the capacity for significant additional development, The capacity for general recreation at Pipestem Lake is restricted by size and shoreline characteristics, The neighboring Jamestown Reservoir is larger and much better suited for general recreation development. 19.1 The position of the Pipestem Lake project in the projected future is seen as one of several outdoor recreation resources in the vicinity of Jamestown. This "Jamestown complex:" is, in turn, of wider importance. to the state and the region. Most of the visitation throughout project life is likely to be from within a 25-mile radius. The SCORP projects a Region 6 population increase of about 14 percent by the year 2000, and a concomitant increase in outdoor recreation participation in the Region. U.S. Department of CoiiDDerce OBERS projections estimate 11 to 12 percent for the State. We anticipate a gradual increase in visitation from the eastern half of the state in response to development of wildlife and interpretive features. A similar modest increase in visitation from the western half of the state may be expected because of more rapid population increase there and ease of access by Interstate Highway 94. The expected rate of increase is low, and anticipated more as a response to greater awareness of the "complex" than to any single component of the complex. II-20 19.2 Management of the Pipestem Lake resources will be ~eared to complement the regional recreational and wildlife resources of the 'Jamestown complex." It will thus contribute to in-state and regional tourism. Although near Interstate Highway 94, Pipestem Lake is unsuited for significant contribution to interstate tourism. In general, nondestination camping opportunity in the vicinity of Jamestown can be appropriately provided by others, including private enterprise near I-94. 19.3 The majority of project visitation will continue to be from Jamestown and the immediate neighborhood. Pipestem Lake management should not try to duplicate or compete with the superior existing and potential capacity for general recreation at Jamestown Reservoir. Pipestem's role as a distinctive alternative for the local and regional wildlife-oriented recreationist should be maintained and improved throughout the life of the project, II-21 SECTION III COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 1. PUBLIC WOBSBOPS. Two public workshops were conducted for the updated Master Plan on 6 March 1984 in Jamestown, North Dakota. The afternoon ses sion was held in the Whitney Room of the Stutsman County Courthouse; the evening session was held at the Community Room of the Montana-Dakota Utilities Office. Discussion at the workshops focused on the following issues: 1.1 Reservoir Fluctuations. Two landowners expressed dissatisfaction with the frequency of reservoir fluctuations on easement lands at the Pipestem project. These landowners reported that they derive minimal econo mic benefit from the property because the area is often muddy. When the water recedes, exposed land is inundated too soon to become completely dry. The Omaha District reviewed these complaints and recommended acquisition of additional interest in the subject lands. The Missouri River Division approved acquisition of permanent flowage easement in lieu of fee interest. 1.2 Flood Zone Boaters. As the reservoir elevation fluctuates and flooding rights are exercued on easement land, boaters pass beyond the fee boundaries of project land. Two landowners owning property with flooding easements feel these boaters are trespassing. The District has evaluated this question since the public meeting and concludes that flowage easements are subject to navigational servitude and are thus available to public recreational navigation when inundated. 1.3 Boat Dock. A temporary boat ramp is located on the Parkhurst Recreation Area. During cold weather, this temporary boat ramp is removed from the water. Two individuals felt a better permanent structure would be more desirable than the current structure. The sponsor may upgrade the launch facility as necessary in the future. 1.4 Camping Facilities. Permanently constructed recreation facilities are located at an elevation which minimizes the impact of reservoir fluctuations. As a result, camping facilities are not in close proximity to the water. One camper felt that camping facilities should be located more closely to the water. The District generally agrees with this view and it is proposed that any significant rev1.s1.ons of the camp area layout should include relocation closer to the water as shown conceptually on Plate 4. The sponsor, the Stutsman County Park Board, has expressed the opinion that revision of the camping area is not economically feasible, and not particularly desirable from their management point of view. The sponsor's share of initial costs for the camping facilities have been paid and the reasonable beneficial life of the initial camping facilities is essentially accomplished. In view of management experience and project resource use objectives, the sponsor may propose alternative management themes in the future. One such possible alternative is conversion of Parkhurst Park to day use only, and replacement of the Parkhurst campsites III-1 with others at Jamestown Reservoir. Any such proposals should be directed to the Omaha District Engineer, and should be consistent with the Parkhurst Park and project-wide Resource use objectives stated in the Master Plan. 1.5 Off-Road Vehicles. Representatives of the Beaver Creek Racing Association, off-road {ORV) vehicle enthusiasts, were interested in using the Pipestem project lands as a . track for their activities. Other meeting participants indicated the incompatibility between off-road vehicles and wildlife. The club representatives recognized the problem. The District generally agrees that ORV use is incompatible with the highest and best use of project resources as selected in the resource use objectives shown in Section IV of this plan. 1.6 Seaplane Landings. One member of the racing association asked about using the reservoir to land ultra-light airplanes. This practice is allowable subject to ER 1130-2-411, the Omaha District Seaplane Landing Plan, and Federal Aviation Administration requirements. 1.7 Hunting. Two members of the Stutsman County Wildlife Federation were present at the evening meeting. Both spoke in favor of present wildlife habitat management practices. Project lands are used by many visitors for hunting, especially pheasant hunting. 1.8 Fishing. Fishing and boating are closely allied activities at the Pipestem project. A better boat ramp at the peninsula near the dam is desirable. Many of the meeting participants agreed that fishing is the primary recreational pursuit at the project. 1.9 Vandaliaa. From time to time, project facilities receive a significant amount of vandalism. Those in attendance felt that the incidents of vandalism were unacceptable. The ensuing discussion dwelled on ways to prevent further damage. Vandalism and its control are essentially management issues rather than issues requiring policy direction in the Master Plan. Future management means and methods were considered in arriving at the selected plan, however, and vandalism was a factor taken into account. 2. FIDEKAL AGERCIES. 2.1 The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation provided data on Jamestown Reservoir, pertinent background information, and reviewed a draft copy of this Master Plan. No comments on the Draft were received. 2.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided relevant information on Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge and other USF&WS areas and activities in the region, commented on endangered species, and reviewed a draft copy of this Master Plan. No comments on the Draft were received. 2.3 The u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, Colorado, reviewed this Master Plan in Draft. No comments were received. III-2 2.4 The U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Jamestown, provided project soils information and reviewed this Master Plan in draft. No comments on the Draft were received. 3. S'U'll AGEBCIES. 3.1 The North Dakota Game and Fish Department provided general comments and recommended continuation of project management along the same lines as in the past. That Department also reviewed a draft copy of this Master Plan. The Department generally commended the Corps' natural resources stewardship performance at Pipestem, and expressed enthusiasm for improving water level management practices for the benefit of fish and wildlife as indicated in Section II, Paragraph 10.6 of this plan. It also suggested that fee acquisition to a higher elevation would support greater flexibility of water level management, and that prov1s1ons for stream flow maintenance downstream are desirable. These water management issues will be addressed administratively between the agencies involved. Additional fee acquisition for the entire project would require additional authority and will not be requested in the foreseeable future. 3.2 The North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department provided a copy of the SCORP and reviewed a draft copy of this Master Plan. No comments on the Draft were received. 3.3 The North Dakota Department of Health reviewed a copy of this Master Plan in draft and provided updated water quality standard information. See Exhibit E. 4. LOCAL AGEBCIIS. 4.1 The Stutsman County Park Board is the sponsoring agency for the Parkhurst Park Area. The Stutsman County Commission, which has five members on the Park Board, assisted with the March 1984 public meetings. A draft copy of this Master Plan was sent to each member of the Board with a request for a single response. The Board recommended approval of the plan presented except for the proposal to move the Parkhurst Park campground nearer the water. The Board feels that demand for formal camping opportunity is too low to justify moving the campground. The District has no objection to postpon ing the change indefinitely or to considering other options, but the concept is retained as a future option as shown on Plate 4. III-3 SECTION IV LARD USE ALLOCATIONS AliiD RESOURCE USE OBJECTIVES 1. IRTJlODUCnON. A fundamental purpose of the project Master Plan 1.s to identify the best ways to use the project resources with respect to the purposes specifically or generally authorized, and the pub lie needs identi fied in the preparation of the plan. Land use allocations are commitments to the management goals appropriate to a particular allocation. Each allocated unit represents a main management purpose selected over the available alternatives. Selections are made on the best evidence available and are intended to be valid for the life of the project, Changing conditions and unforeseen developments usually require some modification of original direc tions, and project master plans are more or less continuously evaluated for applicability of existing policy. When it appears that significant changes in policy may be needed, a complete reevaluation is undertaken in an updated Master Plan. Authorized land use allocations are given in paragraph 12 of Engineer Regulation 1120-2-400, and are reproduced in Exhibit F. 1.1 Land use allocations define the general category of primary use selected, while "resource use objectives" are statements of particular goals to be achieved within specific allocated areas, 2. PIPESTEM LAD LARD USE ALLOCATIORS. Selected allocations are shown on Plate 3. A number of locations were identified for intensive development in the 1968 preliminary Master Plan. Reevaluation of these in terms of site capability and reassessed project need led to conclusions to modify the original plans. 2.1 Project Operations. Lands which directly support project struc- tures. These lands are needed primarily for safe and effie ient operation of the project for purposes other than fish and wildlife and recreation. 2.1.1 Alternatives Evaluated. None. 2.1.2 Resource Use Objectives. Project operations lands will be used primarily for maintenance and operation of project water control structures and for project administration. Incidental public use will be permitted as appropriate but may be limited at any time. 2.1.2.1 The lobby at the project administration build- ing will be used as an information center for visitor orientation to the project. Informational exhibits will be available, and one or more interpre tive exhibits provided in accordance with the project interpretive plan. 2.2 Operations: Recreation-Intensive Use/Recreation Lands. Only the southern portion of the Parkhurst Park area is assigned to this allocation. Initial development has taken place under cost-share agreement and the park is operated by the Stutsman County Park Board. This is the best location on the project for general recreation activity. Gravel extraction before and IV-1 during project construction has helped to create a protected embayment suitable for boat launching and retrieval. The area is readily accessible by paved road and the terrain and soils are generally suitable for facilities development. The overall size of the allocation is adequate to meet foreseeable demand for facility-dependent activity while encouraging wildlife-oriented recreation as a primary project direction. If the option of relocation and improvement of camping facilities should result in increased demand for camping in connection with wildlife-oriented activity, the allocation could be extended westward to accommodate another camping loop overlooking the lake, subject to approval by the Division Engineer. Alternative management themes may be proposed by the sponsor in the future, including possible management for day-use only. See Section III, paragraph 1.4. As noted elsewhere in this plan, it is cone luded that non-wildlife associated general recreation development will be more advantageously encouraged at Jamestown Reservoir or Lake Ashtabula. 2.2.1 Alternatives Considered. It is reasonably obvious that no other area on the lake has as many general recreation attributes as Parkhurst Park. No alternative land use was seriously considered. A portion of these lands was acquired specifically for recreation purposes, hence the dual allocation designation. 2.2.2 Resource Use Objectives (RUO). 2.2.2.1 This portion of Parkhurst Park will be used to provide general recreation opportunity including picnicking and boating as well as wildlife-oriented activity, including fishing. 2.2.2.2 Development and management will maintain a wildlife/natural resources theme and avoid unnecessary modernization. Even the most intensive management and careful development here should, by design, give a crisp impression of "roughing it." 2.3 Operations: Recreation Low Density/Recreation Lands. This allocation unit makes up the northern portion of Parkhurst Park and extends eastward to the project boundary. It is bounded on the north by a county road, and divided by the access road to the Recreation-Intensive Use area. It is thus easily accessible to a majority of project v1s1tors. This allocation is sufficiently removed from the lake that intensive recreation development is not needed or desirable, yet is well located to offer dispersed opportunity, particularly for hiking. Most of the allocation is fairly level, but the tract is divided by a small marshy drainage. The present vegetative cover is prairie grass interspersed with young shelterbelt or scalp-plantings of trees and shrubs, and denser grass/ alfalfa plantings for upland bird nesting cover and erosion control. 2.3.1 Alternatives Evaluated. 2.3.1.1 The initial Master Plan anticipated development in this area to be fairly extensive, including a golf course and riding facilities which would be appropriately allocated for Recreation-Intensive IV-2 Use. The city of Jamestown examined the feasibility of a golf course at this location but reached a negative cone lus ion. Distance from the lake reduces the feasibility of most other kinds of intensive use. 2.3.1.2 Dedicating these lands to the Operations: Wildlife Management allocation would be reasonable in view of the resource base and project purpose. Portions were acquired specifically for the other project purpose of recreation, however, showing clear intent to provide for the recreational potential of this land. These separable lands continue to serve the recreational purpose and will become increasingly important to the accomplishment of that purpose. The five acre tract of separable recreation land in this allocation which is not currently managed by a sponsor is thus identified, in accordance with P.L. 89-72, Section 3(b)(2), as suitable and necessary for continued accomplishment of project purposes. 2.3.2 Resource Use Objectives. 2.3.2.1 Provide an exhibition and study area which demonstrates vegetation management practices for wildlife benefit. 2.3.2.2 Provide a strong emphasis on interpretation of methods and techniques of habitat manipulation which are suitable to this part of North Dakota. The beneficiaries are anticipated to range from general recreationists who may have never heard of the subject before, to landowners in the region who may want technical information and visible examples. 2.3.2.3 Provide interpretation of the ways in which wildlife utilize habitat types and demonstrate the interrelationship between the several different kinds of habitat needed by a single species. The concept of "limiting" habitat should be made clear. 2.3.2.4 Provide trail ways or hiking routes (not neces sarily all-weather trails) which will encourage general hiking or nature watching by project visitors, including visitors to the Intensive Use area. These hiking routes should be designed to maximize interpretive opportunity for those who wish to take advantage of it, and to provide a maximum of visual diversity along the route. Bicycle access is at the option of the sponsor. 2.3.2.5 Provide the maximum density and diversity of resident wildlife possible under the constraints of the site limitations and the above resource use objectives. The presence of readily observable wildlife will encourage casual visitors to use the trails and will interpret the theme of this allocation in an obvious way. 2.3.3 Special Policy. 2.3.3.1 A portion of this allocation is within the cost share recreation lease operated and managed by the Stutsman County Park Board, and the Park Board will retain management authority and responsibility IV-3 under the outgrant. Costs associated with habitat manipulation demonstration and interpretation are significantly different from the original plans under which the lease was formalized. Benefits derived from interpretation of wildlife management will apply to the total project and to administration of the total project. Benefits derived from demonstration of soil conservation, erosion control, and habitat improvement methods could extend over a much wider area if application of similar methods by others is encouraged. Most of the direct costs associated with establishing this plan are in the Federal interest and appropriately funded under P.L. 86-717 authority. 2.3.3.2 Detailed plans and work items for this area will be derived with the assistance of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, and the Stutsman County Park Board. 2.3.3.3 Provisions will be made to assure access to the physically handicapped sufficient to understand the theme of this allocation and provide the sighted handicapped with good opportunity to view wildlife. 2.3.4 All lands in this allocation contribute to project purposes, benefits, and potential and are deemed necessary to carry out project purposes. 2.4 Operations: Recreation - Low Density. The only lands assigned to this allocation are on the right bank near the dam. The peninsula near the dam is popular for fishing. Most of the peninsula lies below the 20-year pool frequency and intensive development is not proposed. The soil is rocky and not significantly affected by the numerous fishermen driving on it. The only facilities provided to date have been a vault toilet, a courtesy dock, a picnic table, grill, and refuse container. Nearly half of project "camping" visitation consists of fishermen who simply park overnight in this area. The adverse impacts of this informality are negligible in the rocky, treeless context, and there is no obvious need to formalize it. One additional vault toilet is proposed as essential to public health and safety. Unless unfettered selfsufficiency becomes an adverse factor in visitor experience quality, physical conditions should remain essentially primitive. 2.4.1 Alternatives Evaluated. 2.4.1.1 The initial Recreational Development DM pro posed intensive development of this area for general day use. In view of the conclusion reached elsewhere in this DM that general recreation emphasis would be more effectively placed at Jamestown Reservoir, the intensive use proposal is not carried forward here. 2.4.1.2 The addition of dispersed picnic facilities and/or formalizing the overnight parkers into an approved parking area was considered. A significant element in the popularity of the area, and thus to visitor (essentially, the single-purpose fisherman) satisfaction, 1s its openness and lack of restriction. Regulation beyond that necessary for maintaining public order and health and safety would adversely affect the unique "pioneering" element in Pipestem Lake Recreation experience quality. IV-4 2.4.2 Resource Use Objectives. 2.4.2.1 To provide the least restrictive environment possible for lake access visitors, consisting primarily of fishermen, consistent with public health and safety, public order, and resource integrity. 2.4.2.2 To improve vegetative cover at elevations above the 20-year pool as appropriate, in order to increase visual diversity, prevent soil erosion, and improve conditions for wildlife. 2.5 Operations: Wildlife Management. The majority of project lands are dedicated to this primary allocation in order to carry out both the recreation and the fish and wildlife purposes of the project. The major allocated areas are described verbally here; the assignment of area names or other designation is deferred to the Operational Management Plan. 2.5.1 The Downstre- Wildlife Maaageaent Area extends from the dam to the project boundary downstream. This area is unique on the project, consisting of a segment of the unaltered Pipestem Creek Valley which has not been used for agricultural purposes since project construction. A strong community of trees and shrubs exists in the valley bottom and up many side draws. Grass cover elsewhere is good, although excessively represented by bromegrass. 2.5.1.1 Alternatives Evaluated. The mature trees along the creek would provide a pleasant picnicking or camping environment if managed for intensive recreation use, however, values for wildlife would be considerably compromised - both through disturbance by the summer activities and the reduction of vegetation for winter cover. The wild turkey population could not be maintained and wood duck nesting success would be reduced, Again, the need for general recreation opportunity at Pipestem is greatly diminished by the alternative existing and potential supply. 2.5.1.2 Resource Use Objectives. 2.5.1.2.1 To maintain a valley habitat which encourages natural production and maintenance of suitable wildlife species. 2.5.1.2.2 To encourage public use and enjoyment of the area in its primitive condition. 2.5.1.2.3 To provide minimally improved nature trails which highlight the natural communities of the valley habitat. 2.5.1.2.4 To provide interpretive devices, materials, or techniques in accordance with the project interpretive plan. 2.5.1.2.5 All lands in this area are needed to carry out the project purposes and there are no lands unsuited to contributing to these purposes. IV-5 2.5.2 Opstre- Wildlife Management Area. The u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service report in House Document 266, 89th Congress, 1st Session, recommended intensive wildlife management on a m1n1mum of 780 acres of designated project lands and waters in compensation for 830 acres to be inundated and to realize the fish and wildlife project purpose (for discussion of project authorization, see Exhibit B). The designated lands are essentially included in this area, which on the left bank has been extended eastward to achieve improved management configuration and add improvable upland acreage, 2.5.2.1 All lands in this area are needed to carry out the project purposes and there are no lands unsuited to contributing to these purposes. 2.5.2.2 Alternatives Evaluated. No alternative land use potential was examined • .::Th;;:1;=.s:.==:b:;a:.s::.;1:;:..c::..-a.:r:.:e:;:a=::w:.a:.s=recommended for fish and wildlife management by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the authorizing document. 2.5.2.3 Resource Use Objectives. 2.5.2.3.1 To improve or provide usable habitat conditions for wildlife species which were displaced from the inundated areas of the project, 2.5.2.3.2 To improve and maintain habitat conditions for all wildlife, with particular notice of rare or endangered species, including plants and other forms of life. 2.5.2.3.3 To provide opportunity for public hunting and nonconsumptive uses of wildlife consistent with the maintenance of optimum wildlife populations. 2.5.2.3.4 To provide opportunity for other forms of nature oriented recreational activity consistent with the above objectives. 2.5.2.3.5 To provide for public lake access with minimum facilities provided for health and safety. 2.5.3 South Shore Wildlife Management Area. This area lies on the right bank, extending from the upstream area to the spillway. Two areas which were previously designated for ultimate public use area development are included. These consist essentially of the two land projections forming bends in the lake. Further evaluation of both areas indicates the shoreline characteristics of both areas to be unsuited to significant development. The banks are either too steep or too flat without much "in between." There is some spring-bog development at the upstream end, along with willow growth and pioneer vegetation from past lake inundation. Side draws in the narrower land mass are developing reasonably good woody growth, and the uplands are mainly grass covered. The control of noxious weeds, particularly leafy IV-6 spurge, has been a management problem in the Woodbury Flats district west of the spillway. Successful weed control and replacement with desirable plants for control of wind and water erosion is a current goal which will signifi cantly benefit wildlife. Established woody plantings in the area immediately west of the spillway provide substantial habitat which will improve with time. 2.5.3.1 All lands in this allocation contribute to successful accomplishment of the allocation purpose and there are no lands which could be lost without diminishment of project benefits. Some areas adjacent to the spillway on the west side were acquired because they were uneconomic remnants. Another area was acquired for dike construction to contain proposed flood pool, but redesign of the dam precluded its use for this purposes. The dike was never constructed. The reclaimed dike area and remnant areas would have been converted to the project wildlife purpose and present application of the area to project purposes is the same as it would have been under the original expectation. 2.5.3.2 Alternatives Evaluated. Both the Prominence Point (upstream) and Woodbury Flats (downstream) areas were initially examined for recreational development potential in accord with the previous plan. Both have marginal potential if significant need were identified, but would require contending with mud flat problems and forced-siting of facili ties. The foreseeable need for general recreation opportunity at Pipestem can be accommodated at Parkhurst Park. 2.5.3.3 Resource Use Objectives. 2.5.3.3.1 To provide opportunity for public hunting and nonconsumptive wildlife use consistent with the carrying capacity of the land and with responsible stewardship. 2.5.3.3.2 To provide for public lake access at Prominence Point with minimum facilities provided for health and safety. 2.5.3.3.3 To provide vegetative cover which will protect the soil from wind and water erosion and which will provide habitat for upland game birds and other species. 2.5.3.3.4 To provide for known habitat needs of rare or endangered species which may become established thereby, with particular consideration of the swift fox and the greater prairie chicken. 2.5.3.3.5 To maintain or improve the carrying capacity for all wildlife as opportunity may present. 2.5.4 Borth Shore Wildlife M!nagement Area. This area extends along the left (north) bank from the upstream wildlife management area to Parkhurst Park. It generally complements the south shore area in overall character, with the overriding difference being a south-facing slope rather than a north-facing one. IV-7 2.5.4.1 All lands in this area contribute to project purposes. It should be noted in particular that the triangle of land divided from the rest of the project by the county road is being successfully reclaimed for wildlife use and provides an island of cover and winter food adjacent to a farmed field. 2.5.4.2 Alternatives Evaluated. Earlier plans anticipated potential recreational development needs in this area also. Shoreline limitations and alternative opportunity for general recreation preclude continuing that plan here. 2.5.4.2.1 It was noted in paragraph 2.2 that some possibility exists for future expansion of camping slightly to the west of Parkhurst Park. This would require reallocation of a portion of the eastern extremity of the north shore wildlife management allocation. The potential would be reevaluated at that time but appears to be consistent with project purposes if needed. 2.5.4.3 Resource Use Objectives. The same as the south shore wildlife management allocation objectives except that no public lake access point will be provided. 2.5.5 Borth D- Wildlife Management Area. This area lies on the left bank between Parkhurst Park and Pipestem Dam. Woody cover in the side draws, shelterbelt and scalp plantings, grassy uplands and some ground cover manipulation has initiated a diversity of habitat that will improve with time. 2.5.5.1 All lands in this allocation contribute to successful accomplishment of project purposes. 2.5.5.2 Alternatives Evaluated. The shoreline is generally too steep for significant recreational development in this area, however, the potential need for a variety of low density recreation activities and a low density recreation allocation was considered. Most of the activity demand expressed in this area in the past has been for hunting (pheasants), hiking, and nature-watching, all of which are compatible with the wildlife allocation. Since there is no conflict between project purposes and none is anticipated, a wildlife management allocation is affirmed. 2.5.5.3 Resource Use Objectives. The same as the south shore wildlife management objectives except that no public lake access point will be provided. IV-8 SECTIOR V DEVELOPMENT JJEEDS 1. Public use development needs at Pipestem Lake do not appear to be typical of anywhere else, nor do the visitors -- who seem to get along reasonably well on their own initiative. What might be a "need" at some other project could well be an unnecessary nuisance at Pipestem. The only facilities development needs clearly identifiable at this time are: 1.1 One additional vault toilet should be added in the low density recreation area near the dam as a minimum health facility. Considerable care will be necessary in the siting of the facility because of the barren terrain. 1.2 One lake access point at Prominence Point and one at the existing north shore access road should be developed for reasonable public access to the water and minimum health and safety. The existing Prominence Point road (a vacated county road) leads directly into the water and at least one diversionary barricade is required. Both roads should be shaped and well gravelled. Minimum needed on-site facilities at each location are a gravel parking space for 15 vehicles, and one vault toilet. Trash cans might be needed if a "pack-it-out" management emphasis does not work. A specific DM will be prepared for ~he access point improvements. 1.3 An eventual decision will have to be made whether to upgrade existing camping facilities at Parkhurst Park, to move the camping area, or to divert Parkhurst Park camping activity to Jamestown Reservoir (managed by the same sponsor). Any of these options and perhaps others are potentially compatible with Pipestem Lake resource use objectives (see Section II, paragraph l.4 for additional discussion). Relocation within Parkhurst Park should improve proximity to the lake and provide a clear separation from other activities. A design layout similar to that shown in the original development plan is suggested (Plate 4). 2. All vegetation management plans and habitat development facilities will be prepared as Operational Management Plans. Specific DMs may be required for construction of identified facilities needs such as subimpoundments. 3. A project Interpretive Plan will be prepared in accordance with this updated Master Plan prior to development of permanent interpretive measures or installations. 4. This section of the Master Plan will be reevaluated as needed and a supplement to the Master Plan or a revised "Development Needs" section will be submitted to the Division Engineer for approval. V-l SECTIOR VI SPECIAL PROBLEMS 1. GAKIUSOR DIVEBSIOR PBO.JECT. The Bureau of Reclamation's Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) will divert water for irrigation from the Missouri River which will ultimately flow into the James River drainage. Under the pre sently proposed operational alternative, the annual flow base into Jamestown Reservoir could increase by up to 12,000 acre-feet during the irrigation season. At the present time it does not appear that this modification of James River flow will have a significant effect on reservoir operation at Pipestem. Slower release of flood water from Pipestem could be required on occasion, but would not affect land use allocation. VI-1 SBCTIOR VII CORCLUSIORS 1. The majority of active project visitors are oriented to fish and wildlife based recreation activity. 2~ Significant development efforts for general recreation in the area can be more effectively and efficiently carried out at Jamestown Reservoir or Lake Ashtabula. 3. Pipestem Lake constitutes a significant alternative to developments which are oriented to general recreation. The project thus complements a wide variety of recreational opportunity in the region and contributes to the attractiveness of the entire area. 4. Traditional public use development at Pipestem Lake will be minimized in favor of emphasizing the project's wildlife and natural history attributes, and the public use and enjoyment thereof. VII-1 SECTIOR VIII BECOIIMBRDATIORS It is recommended that this updated Master Plan be approved as the Corps of Engineers project-specific policy guidance for Pipestem Lake, North Dakota. VIII-1 CORPS OF ENGINEERS U S A R MY --....___ ~m ~ rt J\.l an 1ta '-- Gu p t ill~ 0 '----~ . , ~-- ' ' ~I --1 1 '\ () n T II . r -~' "!,..:._q---, I '"' ,:"\ i PIPISTUI ~~ CUll 1,..,"'::~ ' "o USIM __..-<1\-\ ~ BOUNDlRY , \~ _ J A .... t5T0W P.. F 0 s .. R·A.. ll Bordulac .\ " l- l __ c 0 _:_ _j~ ~ c 0 u .~ ~~t N - -(9 .------~ ~\ (' \!.) :t.:;:Ke nsal - ~_} PIPESTEM CREEK BASIN BOUNDARY K I D D E R ~-~ ,-_~..-.:: ..!2... Pf?U,Hf l !:l --""/ _.,. ~- Woodwort h · ~ ""--- - ·p / ,._._ Pett1bone I y I s T u T s M A T N T y I c 0 u I IN FE ET TOP 10000 10000 20000 Fr i ed m•• ~ I 0 I f $$-THINK VALUE ENGINEERING-$$ Aevlalons I SymbOl O.t erlpl lons Date ) App~ I L_l U S ARMY ENGINEE:A OISTFUCT I CORPS OF ENGINEERS OMAHA, NEBRASKA I DetlgMd by. J AMES R I V ER BASIN i PI PEST EM LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA I UPDATED MASTER PLAN UARCH IUS BASIN MAP & LOCATION MAP Se• le. A>s-.. Date: lA l..) Daw~son ~ - -~ - 'i]Tapp e~ DESIGN MEMORANDUM NO. JP-2C PLATE I '\-----: ' ./;g;~r6 () s LcolhD. ~ ----- 'ROJEC' f[( BOuNGARr --- - - F O'l.t....,t fA~t"t~NI -~ l ll+~'J . .S .'~~\ I).~ -' ll .'40 , 000 - --- ~l'l:" CC~IROL VCOL L. !',% ; --- .. lr-URhJst POOL -rL Jltll} 4 / ~' -,- ~~. ·-·--· Gllflf -')NT~ Oll! "' f t11N A~ Elh'ATJ.Jr~ Ll f.!E i I •J H RChD fihRRIER . (" -----., J\4----l ../ ~·~i,t ..:-...· --!--- /'/ ~ ---~'\',t7, ~ /i ~-~~v \_IE •• ..r"__ )l -y--- /r--l ,, J'~ I \~ ,, _j~--~ -t- ' ) . ' .::--r;. . _N 1 ~II ..r • ~ 1~.r.Qtll. ~------1 v-r2., \ . z, • / & 19 [)\('"'"\~ '0 '\l> ~. - ~ 'OODBURY FLATSl \\~\ l ,.-/ . I I ,;.'' /"\_; ct~~~• - . *\> ~· ------_r-~ ~- \ -l)L - ' -- ...... ,...-..... ~ ~'- --,-...... --- 1 30 ?9 + I !1 I / ~---. I -, I ~ J ~ _ 1 "'..I szoooo_ ~ __7._ -,------~- __.. "-- 20 Jl \ . 32 ,. 21 '-""--- .r----- WINO ROSE / v ""-, ~ / +-I ~/" ,...... 29 28 2 7 I . .-J s w -·------1\1 510,COO --,-~--,-, + t_____ ..... -/ ~ "" "'' 32 33 3 4 '"' ~,...,_.,,,._OILI!CcM_ o.. ooca•[ '" nc~.-M,..rw.r-sr- ,.,~ ~ $$- TH INK VALUE ENGINEERING- $$ Aevlstons ~ ~i SymbOl Oescrlpt lona; Oalt I Ap proved ,. IS U S ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINHR!> -+- OUAHA NEBRASKA Oes•gnedtly JAM£5 R IVE:R BAS IN I 11 /-K I - - ---t P I PESTEM LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA D rawn b)' ~ JLH UPDATED MASTER PLAN t SCALE IN fEET -..ARCH 1083 1000 0 1000 400C 'I .,-,- cneeked Dy AREA MAP 21 " . Aev1e wDd by Sc•le OaUl IIIII , .., s-n '\~ Soec No Orawii"'CC Code I ~ - Suomlued bv = _ tr.AATCH LINE THIS J.OWG. 0 Ch•el DESIGN MEMORANDUM NO. J P- 2C PLATE 2 N ,, ~===:---~·~=~======~==~=0-====== ,, ,, " I NvD liSE AI I OCATIONS lli(JiJ) tmmmuuj PROJECT OPERATIOMS ------PROJECT FEE BOl'NDARY OPERATJONS~ RECREATION - INTENSIVE USE/RECREATJON LANJS mm ----- PAVED ROAD OPERATJONS: RECREATION - LOt.' DENSJTY/R!:CREATJDN LANDS GRMF:L RO~D OPERATIDNS: RECREATION - LQ\,' DENSITY :::::.::::::_::c::_-=----::..:.~ UNIMPROVED ROAD llil!ml SCALE IN FEET IODO 0 1000 2000 OPERAH)NS· ~ILK!FE MANAGEMENT U.S. DISTRICT !:::::::::::l -+--~~-+ RAILROAD =rFfB_E~- --~~ AAMY ENGINEER CORPS OF ENGINEERS OPERATIONS WILDLIFE MANA:iEME•H WRIGINAL UPSTREAM AREA) OMAHA, NEBRASKA w. ----- FLOWA.G[ EASi:ME~ T BOU-~DARY JAMES RIVER BASIN -...__1442.4-TCP OF MULTI-PURPOSE POOL THIS UR.liiiKG KAS BHH ~{DU~£0 lO PIPESTEM LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA TKHE·EIG~TKS TME ORIGIMi" SCHL --lffli:J- TOP OF FLOOD CONTROL POOL UPDATED MASTER PLAN c.:n>;:::JSEPflRABLE RECREATION LAND ~~~ ------OUTGRANT EOUfW,1RY 11 'il ' 0~--- 3 COUNTY ROAD PROJECT BOUNDARY N I I I J I L BOUNDARY OF STUTSMAN COUNTY LEASE ---- IIJLTI-PURPOSE POOL - EL. 1_,2,4 5-VEAA POOL • EL. 1455.0 U.S. AIWY ~n DIS1'ACf CXJII'S Of EltGINURS 20-YEAR POOL • El. 11168.0 OloWIA. N£llRASKA JAMES RIVER BASIN - SO-YEAR POOL • El. 1476.0 PIPESTEM LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA UPDATED MASTER PLAN I.IAIICH .1885 --- FLOOD CONTROL POOL • El. 1496.3 PARKHURST PARK AREA • VAULT TOILET .. _ Dolo: 0 ·PICNIC SHELTER ¢ GROUf' PICNIC SHELTER Qllol: EXHIBIT A ERVIB.OIIHDTAL ASSESSMEIIT A-1 FIBDIRG OF RO SIGRIFICAB'T DIPACT Updat:ed Hast:er Plan DK Bo. JP-2C Pipest:e. D.. and Lake Project Septellber 1987 An environmental assessment has been prepared for a proposal to update the Pipestem Dam and Lake Project Master Plan and modify the management guidelines therein. This environmental assessment includes a review of several environmental statutes and analyses of several economic, social, and environmental parameters. These analyses were completed in accordance with pertinent CEQ guidelines and applicable Corps policy, guidelines, and regulations. A biological assessment has been undertaken separately in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and pertinent policy, guide lines, and regulations. These analyses indicated there would be generally beneficial impacts derived from the selected alternative. The proposal would positively affect aquatic and terrestrial habitats and air and water quality, No endangered or threatened species would be adversely affected. The attached environmental assessment and this Finding of No Significant Impact complete the necessary documentation for the proposed action, It is my finding that the proposed project is not a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. STEVEN G. WEST Date Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commanding EBVIRORIIERTAL ASSESSHEft Updated Master Plan DK l!lo. JP-2C Pipestea D8B and Lake Project Septellber 1987 I. PROPOSED FEDERAL ActiON. A. The project Master Plan for Pipestem Dam and Lake Project, North Dakota, is being updated in accordance with Engineer Regulation (ER) 1120-2-400. Selected guidelines in the updated plan will modify project natural resources management directions established by the original Master Plan. B. The proposed plan establishes project land use allocation and resource use objectives based on review and analysis of project and regional resources and needs, and specific project authority. Conclusions reached in the preceding Master Plan are reevaluated from a perspective of local and regional needs. Alternatives are examined in terms of resource capability and other pertinent criteria or testimony. C. The proposed plan redirects the project long term resource management direction. The change is from a broad-based general recreation/ wildlife management orientation to a more specialized wildlife and wildlife oriented recreation concept. D. Selected land use allocations and resource use objectives are presented as the management guidelines for the Pipestem Lake project. Selected alternatives and the other alternatives evaluated are discussed in Section IV of the Master Plan. Section II-19 and Section VII of the Master Plan will describe the basis for most conclusions reached. E. Changes of land use allocation are as follows: (all figures are approximations and not precise) Original Kaster Plan Percentage of Total Lands Public Use 400 acres 12% Public Use Reserve 1960 acres 60% Wildlife Management 950 acres 28% 3310 acres 100% Updated Master Plan Operations: Recreation - Intensive Use 210 acres 6% Operations: Recreation Low Density/Recreation 260 acres 8% Operations: Recreation - Low Density 80 acres 2% Operations: Wildlife Management 2560 acres 78% Project Operations 200 acres 6% Tilo acres 100% A-1 F. Development needs for wildlife management will be specified in the Operational Management Plan within the guidelines established by the Master Plan. Recreational facilities development needs identified under the selected alternatives are rather m~nor and will be detailed in specific design memoranda as appropriate. II. DVIBOIIMEIITAL EFFECTS OF mE PIOPOSED ACTIOB. A. Physical Effects. 1. Previously proposed intensive recreation development on 1960 acres of marginally suitable terrain is no longer anticipated. Reduced soil erosion and wildlife displacement through construction and operations activities are considered to be minor beneficial effects. a. Non-traditional management of low density recreation activity on the pennisula may result in minor changes in the terrain through compaction from vehicle use. Since there is no soil development, this poten tial effect is considered negligible and neutral. Alternatives evaluated were (a) continuation of the original proposal for intensive development in this area, and (b) low density management with restriction of traditional vehicle use. b. Alternatives considered would reduce the potential for compaction but would not produce significant benefit from soils improvement or increased visitor satisfaction in return for added cost. A. Biological Effects. 1. Multiobjective vegetation management, for purposes of wind and water erosion control, wildlife habitat, aesthetic improvement, and noxious weed control, would be beneficial to terrestrial wildlife under all alterna tives reviewed. Reduced erosion and siltation effected by vegetation management is expected to be moderately beneficial to aquatic species. 2. Selected alternative land use allocations are consistent with the conclusion to emphasize wildlife-oriented recreational opportunity at Pipestem. These selected alternatives provide for relatively minor recrea tion facilities development levels, which in turn maximizes space available for wildlife use. 3. Management of wildlife lands to improve conditions for species displaced by the lake and for species which have become uncommon in the region will encourage wildlife diversity on and near the project. 4. Interpretation and demonstration of wildlife and vegetation management techniques, and the potential educational use of project resources by local schools are all expected to have minor but far-reaching beneficial effects in the region. These effects may include increased experimentation with wildlife habitat improvements on private lands in the region. A-2 C. Social Effects. 1. Continuation of the projected project uses in the original master plan would retain an emphasis on general recreation at Pipestem Lake. The main result would be to increase the locally available alternatives for general recreation activity. General recreation facilities development at Jamestown Reservoir would likely be less complete, O&M efforts at both projects less concentrated, and overall recreation experience quality somewhat poorer than under the selected alternative. The social effect of the selected alternative is considered mildly positive. 2. The selected alternative enables management focus on wildlife oriented recreation at Pipestem and on general recreation at Jamestown Reservoir, thus improving management efficiency and investment feasibility at both areas. Recreation experience quality at both projects should be improved. A mildly beneficial social effect is presumed to result from the improved experience quality, improved management efficiency and effective ness, and from increased public perception of Pipestem Lake's resources as unique. D. Econoaic Effects. The selected alternative(s) project minimal costs for development of recreation facilities at Pipestem and presumes consequent improved cost effectiveness of construction/development and management efforts at Pipestem Lake and other areas affected, particularly Jamestown Reservoir. Specific recreational development costs will shift to Jamestown Reservoir, serving the same visitation base as would general recreation development at both lakes. The selected plan is considered beneficial both in terms of total cost and in cost-effectiveness. A-3 <:k£.~:. £_[! :=4J ,;·/ Prepared by:/,):!A,RK C. liARBERG 1 j Environmental Resources 1 Specialist ·, August 25, 1987 Approved by: ~ ~~ Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch August 25, 1987 A-4 CORSULTIHG AGERCIES Consulting and reviewing agencies are listed in Section Ill of the Updated Master Plan (attached). A-5 EHVIRORMENTAL STATUTES a. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 16 u.s.c. 469, .!!.:_ .!!9..:.. Cultural resources are managed in accordance with all applicable law and policy. b. Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857h-7, .!!.:_ .!!9..:.. The proposed project would involve minimal use of fossil fuel-driven machinery which, when combined with the pollution-free air present in the area, would result in an insignificant increase in particulate and gaseous material. c. Clean Water Act, as amended, (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 33 u.s.c. 1251, .!!.:_ .!!9..:.. The action does not involve the placement of fill material in a water body and therefore will have no adverse impacts to water quality. d. Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451, et • .!!9..:,. Not applicable. The proposed action does not involve a coastal zone. e. Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16 u.s.c. 1531, et • .!!9..:.. The proposed action will have no adverse impacts to Federally listed endangered or threatened species. f. Estuary Protection Act, 16 u.s.c. 1221, et • .!!9..:.. Not applicable. The proposed action does not involve an estuary. g. Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended, 16 u.s. c. 460- 1(12), .!!.:.. ~ The Pipestem Lake Project was initiated in accordance with the requirements of this act. h. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661, .!!.:_ .!!9..:.. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was contacted for comments concerning the proposed action. Joint project lands are recommended for mitigation management. 1.. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended, 16 u.s.c. 4601- 4601-11, .!!.:_ ~ The proposed project does not involve property acquired or developed with assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department provided a copy of the SCORP and reviewed the proposed project. j. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 u.s.c. 1401, et. ~ Not applicable. The proposed action does not involve the discharge--of materials into the ocean. k. National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C 470a, .!!.:_ ~ The Corps is in the process of completing the pedestrian survey of Pipestem project lands. The vegetation is quite dense and surveys are being coordinated with prescribed burns to max1m1ze visibility. Surveys are completed prior to any development or earth-moving activities. The Corps is in compliance with this legislation. A-6 1. National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et. ~ The attached environmental assessment and this review of environmental statutes were prepared pursuant to this act. No significant impacts to the human environment are foreseen. m. Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C 401, ~ ~ This statute imposes no requirements on the proposed action. n. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 u.s.c. 1101, et. ~ This statute ~mposes no requirements on the proposed action. o. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et. ~ The proposed action does not involve a wild or scenic river. p. Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988). No flood plain development is included in the proposed project, q. Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990). The proposed project does not involve the placement of fill into any wetlands. r. CEQ Memorandum, August 11, 1980, Analysis of Impacts on Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands in Implementing NEPA. The proposed action would not involve lands in this category. s. CEQ Memorandum, August 10, 1980, Interagency Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the Nationwide Inventory. The proposed action does not involve rivers in the Nationwide Inventory. A-7 EXHIBIT B Project Authorization and Purposes The Pipestem Dam and Lake project was generally described in House Document 266, 89th Congress, 1st Session, and authorized for flood control, fish and wildlife and recreation by the Flood Control Act of 1965, Public Law 89-298. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was specifically mentioned in H. Doc. 266 only in introducing the USF & WS report and there is some confu sion with regard to recreation, fish and wildlife cost estimates in the Chief of Engineer's recommendations. A review of project authorization history follows and conclusions sup porting the above are given. Project Authority Pipestem Dam and Lake, North Dakota The project is authorized by the Flood Control Act of 27 October 1965, 79 Stat. 1080 (Public Law 89-298), as follows: "The project for flood protection on the James River and tributaries, North Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 266, Eighty-ninth Congress, at an estimated cost of $3,083,000.'' The particulars given below are derived from House Document 266, Eighty ninth Congress, 1st Session, which contained the Omaha District Engineer's November 1964 Report. Earlier reports are cited as background to the 1964 report: "a. Prior reports pertinent to this investigation are described in the following subparagraphs. " ( 1) A report on the James River, North and South Dakota, published as House Document Number 83, Seventy-third Congress, 1st Session, was prepared by the Corps of Engineers in 1933. The report concluded that the James River was not susceptible to improvements for navigation or hydroelectric power development, and that irrigation and flood control were impracticable or economically infeasible at that time. "(2) A report on the Missouri River Basin, published as House Document 475, Seventy-eighth Congress, 2nd Session, was prepared by the Corps of Engineers in 1943. The report presented a B-1 feasible plan for the Missouri River basin. This report was subsequently coordinated with the Bureau of Reclamation's plan as published in Senate Document 191, Seventy-eighth Congress, 2nd Session. These plans for the Missouri River basin, as revised and coordinated by Senate Document Number 247, Seventy-eighth Congress, 2nd Sesseion, were approved by the Flood Control Act adopted on 22 December 1944. The adopted plan is generally referred to as the Pick-Sloan Plan. None of the improvements authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers are in the James River basin. Further discussion of the Bureau of Reclamation's portion of the plan, as it pertains to this investigation, is included in paragraph 13 [of the House Document]." "b. Bureau of Reclamation. Senate Document Number 191, Seventy-eighth Congress, 2nd Seas ion, presented the Bureau of Reclamation's plan for the Missouri River basin. As coordinated by Senate Document Number 247 with the Corps of Engineers' plan for the Missouri River basin, the Bureau of Reclamation's plan provided for the irrigation of lands in the James River basin by diversion of water from the Missouri River." "c. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared several reports recommending that improvements for fish and wildlife be incorporated in the Bureau of Reclamation's projects in the James River basin." "d. State of North Dakota, In 1927, the State Engineer submitted a re~t to the Gover.nor of North Dakota which proposed the diversion of Missouri River water to the James and Sheyenne Rivers. In essence, the Bureau of Reclamation's potential Missouri River Diversion Project includes this early proposal." Authority for the 1964 report is cited as the congressional resolutions, adopted 10 November 1943 and 2 June 1953, respectively: "RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ,-Thatthe Board of Engineers for Rivera and Harbors created under Section 3 of the River and Harbor Act approved June 13, 1902, be, and is hereby, requested to review the report on James River, North and South . Dakota, published as House Document Number 83, Seventy-third Congress, 1st Session, with a view to determining the advisability of improvements for flood control on the James River and tributaries at this time." "RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-;- UNITED STATES, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, be, and is hereby, requested to review the reports on the Missouri River, submitted in House Document Number 238, Seventy-third Congress, and other prior and subsequent reports, with a view to determining whether improvements for flood control on the James River and its tributaries in North and South Dakota are advisable at this time." B-2 Authority for preparation of an interim report on flood control for Jamestown, North Dakota, is contained in the 1st Indorsement by the Office of the Chief of Engineers, dated 13 May 1963, subject, "James River, North and South Dakota, Investigation." The District Engineer summarized (paragraph 21) the perceived problems and opportunities as follows: "The James River basin of North Dakota contains little or no potential for the development of navigation or hydroelectric power production. Water supply and pollution problems are virtually nonexistent. Fish and wildlife conservation and recreational development are not keeping pace with the area needs. The principal water problems of the area are extensive flooding and insufficient water supply to develop the irrigation potential of the James River area. The irrigation potentials of the area would be developed by the Bureau of Reclamation as a part of the Garrison Diversion Unit if that project should be authorized." Several alternatives to resolving the problem of flood damage at Jamestown were investigated but the most feasible plan, and the one supported by local interests, was a reservoir alternative. The District Engineer discussed his proposed plan and the general philosophy behind it in paragraphs 23 and 24: "23. PROJECT FORMULATION "In formulating a plan for reservoir development on Pipestem Creek near Jamestown, the basic objective has been to provide flood protection for Jamestown. However, consideration was given also to providing for other potential water uses and to the principle that the project would be a logical step in basin development. "24. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS "In view of the limited number of damsites on Pipestem Creek, and the limited storage capacity at these sites, it was determined that consideration should be given to developing the site selected to its full potential consistent with basic needs and economic considerations. Since the primary need of the area is urban flood control, it was further determined that any reservoir developed should provide, as a minimum, adequate storage for sediment and for control of a flood of standard project flood magnitude. Additional storage capacity for the only other fore seeable needs, fish and wildlife conservation and recreation, would be based on site capacity, would be consistent with the flood control needs, and would have to be economically justified. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the National Park B-3 Service reviewed development plans and recommended acquisition of specific lands for wildlife management and recreation purposes. These recommendations were considered in formulating the proposed plan of improvement." The issue of local cooperation requirements is addressed in paragraph 31: "a. General. The proposed improvement is basically for flood control in the urban area of Jamestown and the rural areas along the James River below the city for a distance of about 95 miles. Beneficiaries, therefore, are widespread and not confined to any single locality. Accordingly, it is considered that the provisions of Section 2 of the 1938 Flood Control Act are applicable and that all costs associated with flood control are non-reimbursable. Current policy with respect to cost sharing for reservoir projects providing recreation benefits is based on the provisions outlined in H.R. 9032, 88th Congress [for which P.L. 89-72 was later substituted.] Application of this policy indicates that all project costs would be borne by the Federal Government. However, in view of the probable local nature of recreation usage and benefits, it is considered that the annual costs for operation, maintenance, replacement, and management of recreational facilities should properly be borne by local interests. Similarly, local interests should bear operation, maintenance and replacement costs associated with the wildlife management area and also the first cost of associated improvements in this area. Under North Dakota law, a storage permit will be required for water to be used for recreation purposes. According to the State Engineer of North Dakota, the Stutsman County Park Board would be logical local entity to obtain the required permit. "b. Specific requirements. The estimated cost of annual operation, maintenance, and replacement of recreational facilities is $10,000. The Stutsman County Park Board has agreed to assume these costs. The estimated first cost of fencing, cattle guards, tree planting and similar improvements associated with the. proposed wildlife management area is $17,000. The estimated annual cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement of these facilities is estimated at $300. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has agreed to assume these costs associated with the wildlife management area. It is anticipated that Stutsman county will have no difficulty in securing a permit for storage of water in the conservation pool." Thus, the District Engineer concluded that first costs of recreation facil ities should be project costs borne by the Government, while operation, main tenance, and replacement (OM&R) of recreation and wildlife facilities and management should be borne by local interests. The project cost estimate included $17,000 for "improvements in the wildlife management area to be provided by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department," and $40,000 for additional wildlife lands to be provided by the Government. B-4 The benefit-cost ratio of the proposed plan was estimated to be 1.9, yielded from these estimated average annual benefits: Flood Control - $206,000 Recreation 30,000 Wildlife 5,500 Total $241,500 Paragraphs 48 and 49 consist of the District Engineers conclusions and recommendations as follows: "48. CONCLUSIONS "Based on the findings of this investigation, it is concluded that: "a. A relatively serious flood problem exists in Jamestown and along the James river from Jamestown to the North Dakota-South Dakota state line. "b. The proposed Pipestem Dam and Reservoir would provide a high degree of protection for the area and would afford an opportunity to develop facilities for recreation and fish and wildlife. "c. Local interests concur in the findings of this investigation and have furnished satisfactory preliminary assurances of local cooperation. "49. RECOMMENDATIONS "It is recommended that the general plan of improvement for the Missouri River basin, approved by Section 9 of the 1944 Flood Control Act and prior and subsequent acts, be expanded to include the Pipestem Dam Reservoir on Pipestem Creek near James town, North Dakota, for flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation generally in accordance with the plans of the District Engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated Federal cost of $3,083,000 for construction and $8,000 annually for opera tion, maintenance, and replacement, provided that local interests furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: "a. Obtain water rights needed for storage and use of water, resolve any conflicts in water rights as necessary to assure effective operation of the project, and use the water in a manner consistent with Federal and State laws; "b. Operate, maintain, and replace as becomes necessary, the basic recreation facilities and finance and construct any and B-5 additions to the basic recreation facilities provided in the original authorization; and "c. Install at their own expense all improvements within the wildlife management area, and maintain, operate, and replace these improvements." The Missouri River Division Engineer concurred in the District's findings and forwarded the report to the Chief of Engineers on 25 January 1965. On 25 February 1965, the Board of Engineers of Rivers and Harbors (BERH) recommended approval of the plan essentially as submitted by the District Engineer, but recommended that 780 acres of designated wildlife lands be considered as mitigation for 830 acres of wildlife habitat lost. On 19 March 1965, the Chief of Engineer sent copies of the report and the BERH recommendations to agency level offices for review and comment, and on 9 July 1965, he submitted the report to the Secretary of the Army. The Chief's letter of transmittal to the Secretary is essential to understanding possible points of confusion regarding cost sharing principles authorized and is reproduced in its entirety: ENGCW-PD 9 July 1965 SUBJECT: James River and Tributaries, Jamestown, North Dakota TO: THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 1. I submit for transmission to Congress the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, accompanied by reports of the District and Division Engineers, in partial response to resolutions of the Committee on Flood Control and the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, United States, adopted 10 November 1943 and 2 June 1953, respectively, concerning the advisability of improvements for flood control on the James River and tributaries. 2. The District and Division Engineers recommend construction of a dam and reservoir on Pipestem Creek near Jamestown for flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation. They estimate the first cost of construction at $3,100,000 of which $3,083,000 would be Federal and $17,000 would be the non-Federal cost for improvements within the wildlife management area. The annual charges are estimated at $127,500 and the average annual benefits at $241,500. The benefit-cost ratio is 1. 9. 3. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, noting that the wildlife management area would be primarily a mitigation measure, concurs generally in the findings 'of the reporting officers and recommends construction of the proposed dam and reservoir for flood control and recreation subject to certain requirements of local cooperation. B-6 4. Policies and procedures with respect to division of responsi bility between Federal and non-Federal interests regarding recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement features of Federal multiple-purpose reservoirs have been in a continuing state of transition for some time, The District Engineer's report is based on the guidelines set forth in the House of Representatives Bill Numbered 9032, introduced in the 88th Congress, First Session, on 6 November 1963. The Congress did not act on this bill. As most recent action in this transition, proposed legis lation concerning this matter was introduced with Administration sponsorship, as House of Representatives Bill Numbered 5269, 89th Congress, First Session, cited as the "Federal Water Project Recreation Act." The Bureau of the Budget has advised that it would expect the agencies concerned with water resource development to base their recommendations to Congress on the policies set forth therein. 5. Fundamentally, the proposed Act provides for a substantial level of Federal participation in the cost of development for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement at projects such as the proposed Pipestem Reservoir if non-Federal interests agree to administer project land and water areas for these purposes, bear not less than one-half of the separable project costs allocated thereto, and bear all the costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities. The proposed Act includes prov1s1ons responsive to problems of adjustment to a new policy in the case of projects for which pre-authorization planning is well advanced, and for adoption of plans to reflect the intentions of non-Federal interests with respect to participation in the cost of recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement activities at various stages of project planning and implementation. 6. Accordingly, I concur generally in the views and recommendations of the Board, with exception that on the basis of the Administration's position I recommend that prior to construction of Pipestem Dam and Reservoir local interests furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that, in accordance with the proposed Federal Water Project Recreation Act cited above, they will: a. Administer project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement; b. Pay, contribute in kind, or repay, which may be through user fees, with interest, one-half of the separable cost of the project allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, the amount involved currently being estimated at $136,000; and c. 'Bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities, the amount involved currently being estimated at $10,300 on an average annual basis. B-7 Provide further, that the sizing and responsibility for development, operation, maintenance, and replacement of the recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement features of the reservoir may be modified in accordance with the alternatives provided in the proposed Federal Water Project Recreation Act cited above, depending upon the intentions of non-Federal interests regarding participation in the costs of these features at the time of reservior construction and subsequent thereto, and that appropriate adjustments reflecting such modifications may be made in the allocation of costs to other project purposes, 7. On the foregoing basis and on the presently planned level of development, the net cost to the United States for Pipestem Dam and Reservoir is estimated at $2,947,000 for construction and $8,000 annually for operation, maintenance, and major replacements. WILLIAM F. CASSIDY Lieutenant General, USA Chief of Engineers General Cassidy evidently provided a draft copy of his letter to the Secretary of the Interior. In a 4 June 1965 letter of comment on the report, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior erroneously refers to subparagraphs 6b and c of General Cassidy's 9 July letter as " •• according to your proposed report ...... The 4 June letter from Interior and the Chief of Engineers 1 response do not reveal why the $136,000 figure deviates from the $96,000 estimate by the District Engineer ($79,000 recreation facilities plus $17,000 fish and wild life facilities). The difference of $40,000 coincides with the District Engineers' estimated cost (page 30, paragraph 30.b) for additional lands for wildlife management. This cost, evidently intended as a mitigation cost, may have been inadvertently or mistakenly included as cost sharable by the Chief 1 s staff. Interior 1 s 4 June letter indicates some confusion as to the cost allocation, and the Chief's response iterates the $136,000 figure and even implies that $136,000 is the "repayment" figure rather than the total cost: 4 June 1965 Comments from the Assistant Secretary£!~ InteriOr""Texcerpt): "We recommend that the project economic analysis be revised to show recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement separately. According to your proposed report, local interests would be required to: B-8 .b. Pay, contribute in kind, or repay, which may be through user fees, with interest, one-half of the separable cost of the project allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhance ment, the amount involved currently being estimated at $136,000; and 'c. Bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replace ment of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities, the amount involved currently being estimated at $10,300 on an average annual basis.' "It is our understanding that the $136,000 represents the amount of repayment to be required and that this cost is related to recreation only. Costs associated with fish and wildlife are solely for mitigation and are, therefore, assigned among all pro ject purposes as a joint cost. This circumstance underscores the desirability of maintaining the separation of the two purposes is economic analysis, since differing non-Federal entities are usually involved in recreation and fish and wildlife repayment. In this case only general recreation features are proposed for cost sharing." 2. July Response ~ ~ Chief of Engineers: "With regard to the Assistant Secretary's recommendation that the project economic analysis be revised, he states it is his under standing that the $136,000 repayment required of local interests is related to recreation only. He states further that costs associ ated with fish and wildlife are solely for mitigation and cite this circumstance as underscoring the desirability of maintaining the separation of the two purposes in economic analysis. "It is true that the $136,000 repayment is related to recrea tion only, but recreation includes fishing, hunting, and other fish and wildlife-associated activities. These fish and wildlife enhancement features, as distinguished from mitigation measures." The Secretary of the Army transmitted the report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 12 August 1965 without further significant comment. Conclusions. 1. Pipestem Dam and Reservoir was authorized to be constructed for pur poses of flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation. 2. The District Engineer concluded that there was no specific need to consider the project for navigation, domes tic water supply, water quality, or irrigation and no possibility of development for hydroelectric power. B-9 3. The Chief of Engineers intended for the project to be in compliance with conditions of the pending Federal Water Projects Recreation Act, and to be consistent with other relevant legislation, including the Fish and Wild life Coordination Act. Paragraph 3 of the Chief's 9 July 1965 transmittal letter to the Secretary of the Army appears to agree with the BERH view of wildlife mitigation. His .response to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior on the same date, however, refers to an incorrect cost figure for "fish and wildlife enhancement features, as distinguished from mitigation measures." 4. The confused cost figures and variable references to fish and wildlife mitigation are only important, at this late date, in determining whether mitigation at full Federal cost is permitted by the authorizing document. The Chief's intent with regard to cost is clear: All initial recreation development, and initial development of fish and wildlife features were subject to the cost sharing conditions of (then pending) P.L. 89-72. Mitigation at full Federal cost is considered to be precluded in this intent. 5, Both the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior recommended a fish and wildlife mitigation objec tive. The Chief's single dissenting statement appears to have been concerned primarily with cost sharing, and defending the Government from obligation for 100 percent funding. Mitigation as a project purpose has not be authorized, and full Federal funding of features for fish and wildlife mitigation is not appropriate. 6. Federal participation in development of new recreation facilities is subject to the cost sharing requirements of the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act. Minimum facilities required for public health and safety are to be provided at Federal cost. Other facilities consistent with this Master Plan may be provided by other public entities under authority of the Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended, B-10 EXHIBIT C SOCIOECOROIIIC CBAllACTERISTICS OJ' Till PIPESTEM LAD AllEA The 1980 census of North Dakota identified 652,717 persons in the state, a growth of 5.7% from 1970. Of these, 234,335 (35.9%) live within three SMSA's (Bismarck, Grand Forks, and FargoMoorhead). The rural population, identified as those living in places of 2,500 or less, makes up 51.2% of the population. North Dakota residents are conscious of rural values and rural ways of life. Agriculture is the leading industry. The population of North Dakota is one of the most racially and cultur ally homogeneous in the nation. North Dakota consistently ranks in the three states having the lowest rates of serious crime. Nearly 96% of the population is classified as "white" by the Bureau of the Census; slightly over 3% are American Indian. Both of these general groups tend to identify strongly with a North Dakota heritage, and with an ethnic or tribal subgroup. Iunnigrants from northern and eastern Europe made up the vast majority of the non-Indian population first settling the state. Regardless of language and social differences among themselves, they shared the secret of survival and success in an inhospitable frontier. They unflinchingly believed in and carried out the values of thrift, endurance, honesty, and hard work, a legacy of spirit that is still prominent. Stutsman County, in which the project is located, has a population of 24,154. Of these, 16,280 live in Jamestown. Less than 1% are classified as belonging to racial minorities. Of the county population, 13.4% are over age 65, as compared to the state average of 12.3%; 27.9% are less than 18 years old compared to the state average of 29.3%. Stutsman County residents are thus slightly "older" than the state average. The median Stutsman County family income in 1979 was $18,300, very close to the $18,000 for the State as a whole. C-1 BXIIIBIT D SOIL ~SOCUTIOIIS l"IHSTBH l"IOJEC'I SOIL ASSOCIAriOII IWII COIH>li AGiliCUL'liJRAL USES LDIIDriOIJS 1. Svea-Barnes Loam Cropland 2. Barnes-Svea Loam Cropland 3. llammerly-Svea Loam Cropland 4. LaPrarie Loam Cropland 5. Vallers Silty Clay Loam Cropland High Water Table ? 6. Fordvill-Renahaw Loam Cropland, Pasture Unsuitable for construction ..... in highly sloped areas. 7. Eckman Lo81a Cropland, Pasture Unsuitable for construction in highly sloped areas. 8. Barnes-Renshaw Loam Cropland, Pasture 9. Barnes-Buse Loam Pasture 10. Buse-Sioux Complex Pasture, Range EXHIBIT E Material excerpted from: STANDARDS OF WATER QUALITY FOR STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA RULE 33-16-02 ADOPTED BY NORTH DAKOTA STATE HEALTH COUNCIL JANUARY 16, 1985 EFFECTIVE DATE APRIL 1, 1985 E-1 STANDARDS OF WATER QUALITY 33·16·02·06. Specific standards of quality for designated classes of waters of the state. The following standards are prescribed as spe~ific water quality for designated classes of waters to protect beneficial water uses as set forth in the following water use descriptions and classifications. It is recognized that during certain periods of the year, some waters may contain certain natural chemical, physical, and biological characteristics or properties equaling or exceeding the limits set forth in these standards. The department may use the natural background level as the standard for any particular parameters and as a base for controlling the addition of wastes from controllable sources. When the flow in the stream is less than the ten-year, seven-day low flow level, the department reserves the right to make a case-by-case evaluation of application of these standards. However, no substances shall be present in concentrations or combinations that materially interfere with, or that prove hazardous to, the intended water usage. The magnitude of any specific parameter violation or the intrinsic nature and potential damage caused by any specific parameter violation will be considered by the department in evaluating whether a single parameter violation shall result In administrative action. 1. Class t strea.s. The quality of waters in this class shall be such as to pemit the propagation or life, or both, of resident fish species and shall be suitable for boating, swimming, and other water recreation. The quality shall be such that after treatment consisting of coagulation, settling, filtration and chlorination, or equivalent treatment processes,' the treated water shall meet the bacteriological, physical, and chemical requirements of the state department of health for municipal use. The quality of water shall be such as to permit its use for irrigation, stock watering, and wildlife use without Injurious effects. The requirements of this class of water shall be as follows: E-2 Storet Code Substance or Characteristic Lfmftatfon 00608 Ammonia (un-Ionized) u (N) (Diss.) No .ore than S days per 30-day period after acc1f•ation ••• .1 ~~~g/1 No more than 20 days per 30-day period .OS mg/1 For any discharge continuing beyond 20 days .02 mg/1 01002 Arsenic (Total) .OS mg/1 0100S Barium (Oiss.) 1. 0 mg/1 01020 Boron (Diss.) .7S 119/l 01027 Cadmium (Tota 1) . 01 mg/1 00940 Chlorides (Total) 100 mg/1 01034 Chr~mium (Total) .OS mg/1 01042 Copper (Total) ** .OS mg/1 00720 Cyanides (Total) .OOSmg/1 01049 Lead (Dhs.) •• .OS mg/1 00618 Nitrates (N) (Oiss.) • 1.0 mg/1 00666 Phosphates (P) (Diss.) * 0.1 mg/1 01092 Zinc (Total) •• 1. 0 mg/1 01147 Selenium (Total) .01 mg/1 39516 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Total) .15 ug/1 00300 Dissolved oxygen not less than 5.0 mg/1 00403 pH 7.0-S.S 00010 Temperature Ei9hty-five degrees Fahrenheit [29.44 degrees Celsius] The maximum Increase shall not be greater than five degrees Fahrenheit [2.78 degrees Celsius] E-3 above natural bac~ground conditions. 31616 Fecal coliform ZOO fecal coliforms per 100 ml This standard shall apply only during the recreation season, May 1, to September 30. 00929 Sodium SO percent of total cations 1$ IIEq/1. 32730 Phenols .01 mg/1 00945 Sulfates (Oiss.) 250 mg/1 50060 Total chlorine residual . 2 mg/ 1 71900 Mercury ( Tota 1) .002 mg/1 CoMbined radium 226 and radium 228 5 pCi/L Gross alpha particle activity, including radium 226, but excluding radon and uranium 15 pCi/L * The standards for nitrates (N) and phosphates (P) are intended as interim guideline limits. Since each stream or 1a~e has unique characteristics which determine the level~ of these constituents that ~ill cause excessive plant growth (eutrophication), the department reserves the right to review these standards after additional study and to set specific limitations on any waters of the state. However, in ~o case shall the standard for nitrates (N) exceed ten milligrams per liter for any waters used as a municipal or domestic drinking water supply. •• More restrictive criteria than specified may be necessary to protect fish and aquatic biota. These criteria will be developed according to the procedures in subdivision b of subsection 2 of section 33-16-02-07. ••• No concentrations greater than .02 mg/1 will be permitted until the department has monitored chemical and physical parameters in the receiving water and its aquatic biota to ensure sensitive aquatic species are allowed to acclimate to increased un-ionized ammonia concentrations. 33·16·02·09. Lake classification. The following lakes are classified according to the water characteristics which are to be maintained in the specified la~es. Generally, the beneficial water uses and parameter limitations designated for Class I streams shall apply to E-4 all classified lalr.es. However, specific background studies and information may requ1re that the department apply a standard for any specific parameter which may diverge from those listed for Class I streams. In addition, it is intended that these nutrient parameter guidelines be used as a goal in any lalr.e improvement or maintenance program: Parameter Umit .375 mg/1 .OZS mg/1 1. Numerical classification. The numerical classification rehrs to the type of ffshery a lalr.e ~ay be capable of supporting based on the lake's geophysical characteristics. However, the capability of the lake to support a fishery may be affected by seasonal variations or other natural occurrences which may alter the lalr.e characteristics. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS 1 Cold water fishery. Waters capable of supporting growth of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic biota. z Cool water fishery. Waters capable of supporting growth and propagation of nonsalmonid fishes and marginal growth of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic biota. 3 Warm water fishery. Waters capable of supporting growth and propagation of nonsalmonid fishes and associated aquatic biota. 4 Marginal fishery. Water capable of supporting a fishery on a seasonal basis. 5 Not capable of supporting a fishery. 2. Alphabetical classification. The a 1ph abet ica 1 class i fi cation refers to the present value of the lake for fishery and recreation, coupled with the trophic state of the lair.e. CHARACTERISTICS Lalr.es which are presently of satisfactory quality for fisheries lind recreation. B Lalr.es which are presently somewhat degraded but have long-term potential for fisheries and re-=.reat f on. E-5 La~es whf~h ar• presently somewhat degraded and progressing toward further degradation. D La~es whf~h h&ve a restricted capability to support a fishery due to major degradation or physical limitations, or both. E S.liAe la~es with recreationa_l value but no fishery potent! &i . E-6 EXHIBIT F LARD USE ALLOCATIORS All of the Corps of Engineers land use allocatins authorized at lake projects are listed here for the information of nonCorps readers. Allocation for "Natural Area," "Reserve Forest Land", "Intensive Forest Management," or "Fish and Wildlife Lands" are not proposed in Pipestem Lake. 1. Project Operations. Lands acquired and allocated to provide for safe, efficient operation of the project for those authorized purposes other than recreation and fish and wildlife. In all cases this will include, but is not limited to, the land on which project operational structures are located. Lands on navigation projects which are required for industrial and public port terminals will be included in this allocation. Agricultural use of these lands will be permitted on an interim basis when not in conflict with use for authorized purposes, recreation use or wildlife habitat. 2. Operations: Recreation-Intensive Use. Lands acquired for project operations and allocated for use as developed public use areas for intensive recreational activities by the v1s1t1ng public, including areas for concession and quasi-public development. No agricultural uses are permitted on these lands except on an interim basis for terrain adaptable for maintenance of open space and/or scenic values. 3. Operations: Recreation-Low Density Use. Lands acquired for project operations and allocated for low density recreation activities by the visiting public as required as open space between intensive recreational developments or between an intensive recreational development and land which, by virtue of use, is incompatible with the recreational development and would detract from the quality of the public use. Such incompatible land may be located either on the project or adjacent to the project. Land required for ecological workshops and forums, hiking trails, primitive camping, or similar low density recreational use available for a significant role in shaping public understanding of the environment will be under this allocation. No agricultural uses are permitted on this land except on an interim basis for terrain adaptable for maintenance of open space and/or scenic values. 4. Operations: Natural Area. Land acquired for project operations and allocated for preservation of scientific, ecological, historical, archeological or visual values, Lands managed to protect rare and endangered species of flora or fauna will be allocated as natural areas. Normally limited or no development is contemplated on land in this allocation. Narrow bands of project land located between the normal recreation pool and the project boundary generally fall within this category. Project operational land may be a dual allocation. No agricultural uses are permitted on this land. S. Operations: Wildlife Management. Lands acquired for project operations and allocated as habitat for fish and wildlife or for propagation of such species. Such lands should be continuously available for low density recreational activities. F-1 6. Operations: Reserve Forest Land. Lands acquired for project operations and allocated for vegetation control to support management objectives not compatible with sustained yield based on established harvest rotation. Timber will be harvested only when required to achieve other management objectives such as wildlife habitat improvement. Forest improvement measures may be paramount on this land such as timber planting or vegetation manipulation for erosion control. Such lands should be continuously available for low density recreational acitivites. 7. Operations: Intensive Forest Management. Lands acquired for project operations and allocated for multiple purpose low density recreational use, and/or wildlife use, and for the maximum yield of timber or other forest products, This allocation will generally be applied to relatively large tracts of sufficient volume to support a viable timber management program. 8. Recreation Lands. Lands acquired specifically for recreation purposes and allocated for any recreation use. No agricultural uses are permitted on these lands except on an interim basis for terrain adaptable for maintenance of open space and/or scenic values. 9, Fish and Wildlife Lands. Lands acquired specifically for fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement purposes, and allocated for the respective use, F-2 illl !" M -M M- M- n = > FIGURE ~