Water Resources Development

US Army Corps of Engineers in Montana 1991 Missouri River Division

MONTANA

TC 423 .AL5 Montana 1991 c. 1 This publication is authorized by the Secretary of the Army as required by PL 99-662 US Army Corps of Engineers To Our Readers: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a long and proud history of applying its expertise in engineering and related disciplines to meet the Nation’s needs. Over the years, those needs have evolved from such 19th cen­ tury activities as exploration, pathfinding, and lighthouse construction to such modern missions as hazardous and toxic waste removal and environmental improvement. The central focus of its Civil Works mission, how­ ever, has, from its earliest days, been development of the Nation’s water resources. The water resource projects, developed by the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with Statfe and local project sponsors, have proven themselves time and again as wise investments of public funds, returning to the public in benefits — low cost transportation, flood damages prevented, etc. — far more than their cost to plan, build, and operate. As a result, the Civil Works program enjoys a high degree of credibility within the Admin­ istration and with Congress. With a program of more than $3.5 billion in Fiscal Year 1991, the Civil Works program was one of the very few “domestic discretionary” activities of the Federal government to receive an increase in funding that year. Yet, proud as we are of the respect this program commands within the Federal government, we are even prouder of the trust that our partners — the States, local governments, port authorities, water management districts, and other local project sponsors — place in us. Each Corps of Engineers project is the product of an orderly study and design process. Under provisions of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, sponsors demonstrate their commitment early in the project development process by agreeing to join funding of the feasibility study upon which a project’s construction authorization will be based, and to cost sharing of the project’s construction once it is authorized. To date, more than 150 non-Federal sponsors have signed Local Cooperation Agreements for studies or congression- ally authorized projects. The engineering expertise and responsiveness of the Corps of Engineers gained in the Civil Works and Support for Others programs, as well as in its military construction role, have stood the Nation in good stead: from Alaska, where it participated in the oil spill cleanup; to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Southeastern States, where it spearheaded recovery efforts after Hurricane Hugo; to California, in the aftermath of the Loma Prieta Earthquake; to the Midwest and California, as they deal with continuing drought; to Panama and the Middle East in Operations JUST CAUSE and DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM; to dozens of other locations. Whatever challenge’s arise in the years and decades ahead, I have no doubt that the Army Corps of Engineers will be equal to the task.

G. EDWARD DICKEY

1

US Army Corps of Engineers

To Our Readers: For more than 216 years, the missions and accomplishments of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have closely reflected the needs and wants of a growing, changing Nation. For much of this time, the Corps has played a major role in our Nation’s water resources development, including navigation, flood control, water quality and supply, recreation, and related projects. Although the driving force behind our water resources development mission has remained constant — providing quality service to the Nation — there have been several challenging adjustments in how we meet this requirement. One such change was the introduction of non-Federal cost sharing in the Water Resources Development Act. Though legislatively reaffirmed in the subsequent acts of 1988 and 1990, the true value of cost-shared develop­ ment can be measured by the many successful projects of this partnership and the healthy water resources program it ensures for the future. Another challenge we have faced recently is the increased public concern for their environment. We have always complied with environmental laws and regulations and managed our projects as a trust we hold for the future. Compliance, however, is no longer enough. We are taking an active position to not only protect, but to enhance our fragile environment. The Secretary of the Army has been directed to include environmental protection as one of our primary missions. The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 established a “no net loss” policy as an essential part of all water resources development. In addition to making environmental considerations as important as engineering and economic considerations for new start projects, we are taking a new look at existing projects to determine how they can be environmentally improved. Looking ahead to the needs of our Nation, we are taking a lead role in helping rebuild our Nation’s aging infrastructure. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has always been at the forefront of infrastructure develop­ ment in the United States, exploring new territory for settlement, surveying transportation routes, and opening rivers to navigation. While we work to restore and strengthen the vital links in our infrastructure, we are also exploring new methods to meet increasing and varying national requirements. One such effort is a joint Federal, non-Federal demonstration project to determine the feasibility of a U.S. developed and built high-speed magnetic levitation transportation system. We have also been working actively with the construction industry on a cost-shared Construction Productivity Advancement Research Program. This program has the double benefits of increasing the U.S. construction industry’s competitive ability in the international market, while providing more effective techniques, equipment, and processes for Federal and non-Federal projects in the United States. With these initiatives, we are building on the Corps’ tradition of professionalism and service to meet the needs of our Nation for another 200 years. We are proud of the partnership we have forged and look forward to an exciting, rewarding future in water resources development. This booklet is one in a series detailing water resources programs in the 50 states and U.S. possessions. I hope you find it interesting and feel some pride of ownership.

H.J. HATCH Lieutenant General, USA Chief of Engineers

3 US Army Corps of Engineers Missouri River Division

The address of each Corps of Engineers office in­ volved in the State is given below, and the area of 1991 responsibility of each is indicated on the map in Chapter I of this booklet. Inquiries regarding the work of the Corps should be addressed to the ap­ MONTANA propriate office. DIVISION ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WATER MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 103, Downtown Station RESOURCES Omaha, Nebraska 68101-0103 DISTRICT ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Omaha District, Corps of Engineers DEVELOPMENT 215 North 17th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4978

DIVISION ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2870 Portland, Oregon 97208-2870

DISTRICT ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Seattle District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 Table of Contents Chapter I: Civil Works Overview Chapter III: Yellowstone River Basin Introduction ...... 7 Completed Flood Control Projects...... 25 Authorization and Planning Process Forsyth Local Protection Project...... 25 for Water Resources Projects...... 7 Special Projects...... 25 Navigation...... 7 Streambank Erosion Control...... 25 Flood Control and Flood Plain Management...... 8 Associated Projects of Other Agencies...... 25 Shore and Hurricane Protection...... 8 Yellowtail Reservoir...... 25 Hydropower...... 8 Continuing Authorities Program...... 26 Water Supply ...... 10 Small Flood Control Projects...... 26 Environmental Quality...... 10 Emergency Bank Protection...... 26 Regulatory Programs...... 10 Technical Assistance Programs...... 26 Recreation...... 10 Flood Plain Management Services Program...... 26 Emergency Response and Recovery...... 10 Flood Plain Information Reports...... 27 Chapter II: Upper Missouri River Basin Chapter IV: Columbia River Basin Multiple-Purpose Projects...... 13 (Clark Fork-Kootenai River Basins) Comprehensive Plan, Missouri River Basin...... 13 Completed Multiple-Purpose Projects...... 29 Completed Multiple-Purpose Projects...... 14 Libby Dam and Lake Koocanusa...... 29 Fort Peck Project...... 14 Completed Flood Control Projects...... 30 Completed Flood Control Projects...... 15 Clark Fork at Missoula...... 30 Glasgow Local Protection Project...... 15 Completed Navigation Projects...... 30 Havre Local Protection Project...... 16 Kootenai River...... 30 Saco Local Protection Project...... 16 Flathead River...... 30 Great Falls Local Protection Project...... 16 Poison Bay, Flathead Lake...... 30 Completed Navigation Projects...... 17 Partially Completed Multiple-Purpose Projects...... 30 Missouri River Navigation and Erosion Libby Additional Units and Reregulating Dam .. .30 Control Project, Sioux City, Iowa, to Fort Benton, Montana...... 17 Associated Projects of Other Agencies...... 31 Special Projects...... 17 Hungry Horse Reservoir...... 31 Streambank Erosion Control...... 17 Flathead Lake...... 31 Associated Projects of Other Agencies...... 17 Technical Assistance Programs...... 31 Canyon Ferry Reservoir...... 17 Flood Plain Management Services Program...... 31 Tiber Reservoir...... 17 Flood Plain Information Reports...... 31 Clark Canyon Reservoir...... 17 Special Flood Hazard Information Reports...... 31 Other Bureau of Reclamation Projects...... 17 Planning Assistance to States Program...... 32 Continuing Authorities Program...... 17 Emergency Authorities...... 32 Small Flood Control Projects...... 18 Survey Investigations...... 32 Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control...... 18 Clark Fork-Flathead River Basin Study...... 32 Emergency Bank Protection...... 18 Index ...... 33 Technical Assistance Programs...... 18 Flood Plain Management Services Program...... 18 Glossary...... 35 Flood Plain Information Reports...... 18 Planning Assistance to States Program...... 19 Emergency Authorities...... 19 Public Law 99, 84th Congress— Flood-Associated Assistance...... 19 Major Flood Emergency Operations...... 19 Survey Investigations...... 22 Projects Constructed by the Corps for Other Federal Agencies...... 22 Missouri River Channel Rectification at Frazer-Wolf Point Irrigation Pumping Plant... 22 Missouri River Bank Protection at Woodland Estates near Great Falls...... 22

5 Hole-In- The-Rock

Chapter I Civil Works Overview

6 may then authorize the Corps of Engineers to investigate the Civil Works Overview problems and submit a report. Water resources studies, ex­ Introduction cept studies of the inland waterway navigation system, are conducted in partnership with a local sponsor, with the The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers traces its history back to Corps and the sponsor jointly funding and managing the June 18, 1775, when Congress appointed Colonel Richard study. Gridley as Chief of Engineers of the Continental Army, For inland navigation and waterway projects, which are by under George Washington. The original Corps of Engineers their nature not “local,” Congress has established, in the was created in 1779 and mustered out of service at the close Water Resources Development Act of 1986, an Inland Water­ of the Revolutionary War in 1783. way Users Board, comprised of waterway transportation In 1802, Congress established a separate Corps of Engineers companies and shippers of major commodities. This Board within the Army and, at the same time, established the U.S. advises the Secretary of the Army and makes recommenda­ Military Academy at West Point, the country’s first—and for tions on priorities for new navigation projects (e.g., locks 20 years its only—engineering school. With the Army having and dams, channel improvements, and so forth). Such proj­ the Nation’s most readily available engineering talent, suc­ ects are funded in part from the Inland Waterway Trust cessive Congresses and Administrations established a role Fund, which in turn is fed by waterway fuel taxes. for the Corps as an organization to carry out both military Normally, the study process for a water resource problem construction and works “of a civil nature.” will include public meetings to determine the views of local Throughout the 19th century, the Corps supervised the con­ interests on the extent and type of improvements desired. struction of coastal fortifications, lighthouses, several early The desires of local interests and the views of Federal, State, railroads, and many of the public buildings in Washington, and other agencies receive full consideration during the D.C., and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Corps of Topograph­ planning process. ical Engineers, which enjoyed a separate existence for 25 Considerations which enter into recommendations to Con­ years (1838-1863), mapped much of the American West. The gress for project authorization include determinations that Army Engineers served with distinction in war, with many benefits will exceed costs and that the engineering design of Engineer officers rising to prominence during the Civil War. the project is sound, best serves the needs of the people con­ In its civil role, the Corps of Engineers became increasingly cerned, makes the wisest possible use of the natural resources involved with river and harbor improvements, carrying out involved, and adequately protects the environment. its first harbor and jetty work in the first quarter of the 19th A report, along with a final environmental impact statement, century. The Corps’ ongoing responsibility for Federal river is then submitted to higher authority for review and recom­ and harbor improvements dates from 1824, when Congress mendations. After review and coordination with all inter­ passed two acts authorizing the Corps to survey roads and ested Federal agencies and Governors of affected States, the canals and to remove obstacles on the Ohio and Mississippi Chief of Engineers forwards the report and environmental Rivers. Over the years since, the expertise gained by the impact statement to the Secretary of the Army, who obtains Corps in navigation projects made it a natural to assume new the views of the Office of Management and Budget before water-related missions in such areas as flood control, shore transmitting the documents to Congress. and hurricane protection, hydropower, recreation, water, supply and quality, and wetland protection. If Congress includes the project in an authorization bill, enactment of the bill constitutes authorization of the project. Today’s Corps of Engineers carries out missions in three Before construction can get underway, however, both the broad areas: military construction and engineering support Federal Government and the local project sponsor must pro­ to military installations; reimbursable support to other Fed­ vide funds. Budget recommendations are based on evidence eral agencies (such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s of support by the State and by the ability and willingness of “Superfund” program to clean up hazardous and toxic waste non-Federal sponsors to provide their share of the project sites); and the Civil Works mission, centered around naviga­ cost. tion, flood control, and—under the Water Resources Devel­ opment Acts of 1986 and 1990—a growing role in environ­ Appropriation of money to build a particular project is usually mental protection. included in the annual Energy and Water Development Ap­ propriation Bill, which must be approved by both Houses of Authorization and Planning Process the Congress and the President. for Water Resources Projects Water resources activities are initiated by local interests, Navigation authorized by Congress, funded by Federal and non-Federal Rivers and waterways were the primary paths of commerce sources, and constructed by the Corps under the Civil Works in the new country. They provided routes from western Program. farms to eastern markets. They promised a new life to the The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 made nu­ seaboard emigre’ and financial reward for the Mississippi merous changes in the way potential new water resources Valley merchant. Without its great rivers, the vast, thickly projects are studied, evaluated, and funded. The major forested region west of the Appalachians would have re­ change is that the law now specifies non-Federal cost-sharing mained impenetrable to all but the most resourceful early for most Corps water resources projects. pioneers. When local interests feel that a need exists for improved Consequently, western politicians such as Henry Clay agi­ navigation, flood protection, or other water resources devel­ tated for Federal assistance to improve rivers. At the same opment, they may petition their representatives in Congress. time, the War of 1812 showed the importance of a reliable A congressional committee resolution or an act of Congress inland navigation system to national defense. Thus, both

7 commercial development and military needs required atten­ dividuals. This information is designed to aid in planning for tion to river and harbor development. There was, however, a floods and regulation of flood plain areas, thus avoiding question as to whether transportation was, under the Consti­ unwise development in flood-prone areas. Once community tution, a legitimate Federal activity. This question was re­ officials know the flood-prone areas in their communities solved when the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce and how often floods would be likely to occur, they can take Clause of the Constitution granted the Federal Government necessary action to prevent or minimize damages to existing the authority to not only regulate navigation and commerce and new buildings and facilities by adopting and enforcing but also to make necessary navigation improvements. zoning ordinances, building codes, and subdivision regula­ The system of harbors and waterways maintained by the tions. The Flood Plain Management Services Program also Corps of Engineers remains one of the most important parts provides assistance to other Federal agencies and to State of the Nation’s transportation system. Without constant agencies in the same manner. In many cases, fees are col­ supervision, rivers and other waterways collect soil, debris, lected to cover a portion of the costs of these services. and other obstacles, which lead to groundings and wrecks. New channels and cutoffs appear frequently, and the main Shore and Hurricane Protection traffic lanes require continual surveillance. The Corps’ work in shore protection began in 1930, when Where authorized to do so, the Corps maintains the Nation’s Congress directed the Corps to study ways to reduce erosion waterways as a safe, reliable, and economically efficient nav­ along U.S. seacoasts and the Great Lakes. Corps of Engi­ igation system. Inland waterways carry one-sixth of the neers hurricane protection work began in 1955, when Con­ Nation’s intercity cargo, and one job in five in the United gress directed the Corps to conduct general investigations States is dependent, to some extent, on the commerce along tfie Atlantic and gulf coasts to identify problem areas handled by the Nation’s ports. and determine the feasibility of protection. While each situation the Corps studies requires different considerations, engineers look at each one with structural Flood Control and Flood and nonstructural solutions in mind. Engineering feasibility Plain Management and economic efficiency are considered along with the envi­ ronmental and social impacts. A recommendation for Fed­ Federal interest in flood control began in the alluvial valley eral participation is normally based on shore ownership, use, of the Mississippi River in the 19th century. As the relation­ and type and frequency of benefits—if there is no public use ship of flood control and navigation became apparent, Con­ or benefit, Federal participation is not recommended. Once a gress called on the Corps of Engineers to use its expertise in shore protection project is completed, non-Federal interests navigational work to devise solutions to flooding problems assume responsibility for its operation and maintenance. along the river. Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of After a series of disastrous floods affecting wide areas, in­ 1976 authorizes placement of beach quality sand from our cluding transportation systems, in the 1920’s and 1930’s, it dredging projects on adjacent beaches with local interests was recognized that the Federal Government should partic­ picking up the additional costs of the disposal. Section 933 of ipate in the solution of problems affecting the public interest the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 reduces this when they are too large or complex to be handled by States local cost-share from 100 to 50 percent of additional costs. or localities. As a result, Corps authority for flood control work was extended in 1936 to embrace the entire country. Hydropower The purpose of flood control work is to prevent flood dam­ The Corps has played a significant role in meeting the age through floodflow regulation and other means. In addi­ Nation’s electric power generation needs by building and tion, the Flood Control Act of 1944 provided that “flood operating hydropower plants in connection with its large multiple- control” shall include major drainage of land. These objec­ purpose dams. The Corps’ involvement in hydropower tives are accomplished with structural measures, such as res­ generation began with the River and Harbor Acts of 1890 ervoirs, levees, channels, and flood walls, or nonstructural and 1899, which required the Secretary of War and the measures which alter the way people would otherwise occupy Corps of Engineers to approve the sites and plans for all or use the flood plain. Levees, channel improvements, and dams and to issue permits for their construction. The River floodwalls built for flood control by the Corps of Engineers and Harbor Act of 1909 directed the Corps to consider var­ are turned over to non-Federal authorities for operation and ious water uses, including waterpower, when submitting pre­ maintenance. liminary reports on potential projects. Reservoirs constructed for flood control storage often in­ The Corps continues to consider the potential for hydro­ clude additional storage capacity for multiple-purpose uses, electric power development during the planning process for such as the storage of water for municipal and industrial use, all water resources projects involving dams and reservoirs. In navigation, irrigation, development of hydroelectric power, most instances, hydropower facilities at Corps projects are conservation of fish and wildlife, and recreation. now developed by non-Federal interests without Federal as­ The Corps fights the Nation’s flood problems by not only sistance, but the Corps becomes involved with the planning, constructing and maintaining flood control structures but construction, and operation of hydropower projects when it also by providing detailed technical information on flood is impractical for non-Federal interests to do so. Today, the hazards. Under the Flood Plain Management Services Pro­ more than 20,000 megawatts of capacity at Corps-operated gram, the Corps provides, on request, flood hazard informa­ powerplants provide approximately 30 percent of the tion, technical assistance, and planning guidance to other Nation’s hydroelectric power, or 3.5 percent of its total elec­ Federal agencies, States, local governments, and private in­ tric energy supply.

8 9 Water Supply The Water Supply Act of 1958 authorized the Corps to pro­ sure protection of the aquatic environment while allowing vide additional storage in its reservoirs for municipal and for environmentally sustainable development. industrial water supply at the request of local interests, pro­ The standard permit evaluation process includes a public vided those interests agree to pay the cost. For irrigation, the notice with a public comment period and an opportunity for Flood Control Act of 1944 provided that the Secretary of a public hearing before the Corps makes a permit decision. War, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the In­ In its evaluation of permit applications, the Corps considers terior, may utilize Corps reservoirs, provided that water all the relevant factors, including conservation, economics, users agree to repay the Government for the water in accord­ esthetics, general environmental concerns, historical values, ance with the 1902 Reclamation Law, as amended. wetland values, fish and wildlife values, flood damage preven­ Reservoir capacity can also be used for water quality and tion, land use classifications, navigation, recreation, water streamflow regulation, as authorized by the Federal Water supply, water quality, energy needs, food production, and Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961. the general welfare of the public. The Corps of Engineers has issued a number of nationwide Environmental Quality general permits for minor activities which require little or no In conducting its Civil Works Programs, the Corps must individual review. Individual Corps Districts have also comply with many environmental laws and executive orders issued regional permits for certain types of minor work in and numerous regulations relating to the environment. Con­ specific areas. Corps Districts have also issued State Pro­ sideration of the environmental impact of a Corps project gram General Permits in States with comprehensive wetland begins in the early stages and continues through design, con­ protection programs. These permits allow applicants to do struction, and operation of the project. The Corps must also work for which a State permit has been issued. These general comply with many of these environmental regulations in permits reduce delays and paperwork for applicants and al­ conducting its regulatory programs as discussed in the next low the Corps to devote its resources to the most significant section. cases while maintaining the environmental safeguards of the The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is Clean Water Act. the national charter for the protection of the environment, and its procedures ensure that public officials and private Recreation citizens may obtain and provide environmental information The Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended, provides au­ before Federal agencies make decisions concerning the en­ vironment. Corps of Engineers project planning procedures thority to construct, maintain, and operate public park and under NEPA often point out the need for more extensive recreational facilities at water resources development proj­ environmental studies; namely, the preparation of environ­ ects under the control of the Secretary of the Army and to mental impact statements. In selecting alternative project de­ permit the construction, maintenance, and operation of such signs, the Corps strives to choose options with minimum facilities. It also provides that the water areas of projects environmental impact. shall be open to public use—generally for boating, fishing, and other recreational purposes. The Corps of Engineers Under Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the Corps is authorized to modify its existing today is one of the Federal Government’s largest providers of projects—many of them built before current environmental outdoor recreational opportunities, operating more than requirements were in effect—for environmental improve­ 2,000 sites at its lakes and other water resource projects and ment. Proposed modifications under this authority range receiving more than 600 million visits per year. from the use of dredged material to create nesting sites for waterfowl to the modification of water control structures to Emergency Response and Recovery improve downstream water quality for fisheries. Several of Corps assistance for emergency/disaster response and re­ these proposals were specifically designed to help meet the covery is provided under Public Law 99, 84th Congress, goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. covering Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies, or in sup­ The Corps is working to select additional projects for port of other agencies, particularly the Federal Emergency modification. Management Agency (FEM A) under Public Law 93-288 (the Stafford Act), as amended. Regulatory Programs Under Public Law 99, 84th Congress, the Chief of Engineers, The Corps of Engineers has regulatory authority over any acting for the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to under­ construction or other work in navigable waterways under take activities including disaster preparedness, advance meas­ Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and authority ures, emergency operations (e.g., flood fighting, rescue, and over the discharge of dredged or fill material into the “waters emergency relief activities), rehabilitation of flood control of the United States”— a term which includes wetlands and works threatened or destroyed by flood, protection or repair all other aquatic areas—under Section 404 of the Federal of federally authorized shore protection works threatened or Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public damaged by coastal storms, and providing emergency sup­ Law 92-500, the “Clean Water Act”). plies of clean water in cases of drought or contaminated The Corps’ regulatory program is the principal way by which water supply. In post-flood response activities, the Corps the Federal Government protects wetlands and other aquatic provides temporary construction and repairs to essential environments and ensures the continued navigability of the public utilities and facilities and emergency access for a 10- Nation’s waterways. The regulatory program’s goal is to en­ day period, at the request of the Governor.

10 Under the Stafford Act and the Federal Disaster Response bridges, and utilities; temporary shelter; debris removal and Plan, the Corps of Engineers has a standing mission assign­ demolition; water supply; and so forth. ment to provide public works and engineering support in In addition to its mission under the Federal Disaster Re­ response to a major disaster or catastrophic earthquake. sponse Plan, the Corps is one of the Federal agencies tasked Under this plan, the Corps will work directly with the State by FEMA to provide engineering, design, construction, and in providing temporary repair and construction of roads, contract management in support of recovery operations.

STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL Q _____

HAVRE©

KOOTENAI RIVER IMPROVEMENT O VAUGHN ©;

POLSONOi BH35EBH3 MISSOULA O m m a m s n n EISlB!1ŒŒÏï > -*

MISSOULA FORSYTH O

BILLINGS

Authorized Corps of Engineers Projects

Completed

Protection Under Construction

Channel improvements Not Started EVSJ

Levees Partially Completed | Other Improvements ★ Rereguiatmg Dam ■ ■ ■ Other Projects Congressional Districts _LD

11 Authorized Corps of Engineers Projects

C o m p le t e d L a k e MONTANA Local Protection Under Construction lannel Improvements *• • % * *# Not Started

L e v e e s j- Other Improvements Other Projects Rereguiating Dam

CANADA

f Refern

S H i lB Y TIBER ' RESERVOIR

,NASHUA L FORT PECK O]

FOR7 PECK LAKE

WOODLAND ESTATES

CANYON FERRY ^.RESERVOIR

BOZEMAN ' TWIN .BRIDGES I /CLARK 1 * MONTANA ' CANYONE- RESERVOIR WYOMING

Chapter II Upper Missouri River Basin Upper Missouri River Basin Multiple-Purpose Projects (Missouri River Division—Omaha District) Comprehensive Plan, Missouri River Basin The sprawling Missouri River basin drains 513,300 square (Missouri River Division) miles in the United States and 9,700 square miles in Canada. The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (Pick-Sloan plan) Because of its size and significantly different characteristics, began when the Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized a the Missouri basin has been divided into eight areas for ease comprehensive basin plan formed from separate proposals of discussion. The northernmost area, the Upper Missouri recommended by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps River basin, is quite varied. It possesses a large array of of Engineers. Projects in the plan included flood control, environmental values; its streams are clear and relatively free irrigation, hydroelectric power, improved navigation on the of sediments and flow through deep scenic gorges. lower Missouri River, water supply for cities and industry, Rugged landforms offer forests, natural parks abounding in water quality control, conservation of fish and wildlife, pub­ big game, and nationally famous trout streams. Vast por­ lic recreation, and land treatment and enhancement. tions of the basin are so arid they support neither crops nor At the start, the plan involved projects authorized in pre­ livestock, though agriculture flourishes where water is avail­ vious acts. For example, the lakes at Fort Peck, Montana; able. Harlan County, Nebraska; Tuttle Creek, Kansas; Pomme de The 82,800-square-mile Upper Missouri River basin has a Terre, Missouri; and Cherry Creek, Colorado, are parts of population of slightly more than 300,000, or less than four the Pick-Sloan plan authorized before 1944. The Kansas persons per square mile. The Missouri in its journey east­ City levees and the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and ward through Montana forms Fort Peck Lake, a vast oasis Navigation project are also part of the plan despite their in an arid land. The lake is impounded by Fort Peck Dam, earlier authorizations. the first of six huge multipurpose projects which harness the Just as the Pick-Sloan plan has roots reaching back before waters of the main stem of the Missouri. Fort Peck Dam was 1944, it later grew beyond the first comprehensive plan de­ constructed by the Corps of Engineers in the 1930’s; concur­ scribed in the legislation. Some of the projects authorized in rent with this work, the Corps also built a major local flood the Missouri River basin after 1944 bear the Pick-Sloan des­ protection project at Glasgow. In ensuing years, the Corps ignation, while other projects in the basin contribute to water constructed local protection projects at several other com­ resources development as independent units. In 1970, Con­ munities within the Upper Missouri River basin and per­ gress enacted Public Law 95-576 which officially attached formed extensive emergency work in the repair and restora­ the Pick-Sloan name to the comprehensive plan composed of tion of flood-damages structures. all those projects that wee part of either of the separate plans merged in 1944. The original blueprint for the basin featured 98 reservoirs reports, an operating plan will be recommended for the storing about 85 million acre-feet of water for multiple uses. future that best meets the needs of all who rely on the main The plan also provided for levees and floodwalls to protect stem lakes and the open river downstream. municipalities and industrial areas plus levees on both banks Besides meeting the project purposes identified in the author­ of the Missouri River from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth izing acts, the main stem lakes have a special relationship near St. Louis, Missouri. The levees would protect hundreds with two bird species. The least tern is federally listed as of thousands of acres of bottom land from floods. endangered and the piping plover is federally listed as threat­ While the Pick-Sloan plan is historic for its recognition of ened. Sandbars downstream from some of the main stem the role of tributary basins and comprehensive planning, the dams provide nesting habitat for these birds. However, the projects on the main stem of the Missouri River are the sandbars are exposed only when releases are low. From mid- centerpiece of the plan’s success. Six Corps of Engineers May through August, since 1986, releases have been adjusted lakes on the main stem regulate the runoff from the entire at Garrison, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Dams in an upper half of the basin. The system composed of Fort Peck effort not to disturb nests or inundate the sandbars before Dam in Montana; Garrison Dam in North Dakota; Oahe, chicks are fledged. Big Bend, and Fort Randall Dams in South Dakota; and By the end of 1990, the Corps and the Bureau of Reclama­ Gavins Point Dam in Nebraska and South Dakota can store tion had 55 Pick-Sloan lakes either complete or under con­ 73.9 million acre-feet of water. Within that storage space, struction. Considering other Missouri River basin projects as 16.3 million acre-feet is devoted to flood control. Other uses well, the two agencies had more than 100 lake projects either of storage include irrigation, hydropower, and navigation complete or under construction. The Corps also completed downstream from Sioux City. In an average year, power- 76 local flood protection projects and 29 units of the Mis­ plants in the main stem dams produce about 10 billion kilo- souri River Levee system. Supplementing the planned devel­ watthours of hydroelectric power. The control these lakes opment, the Corps has completed about 165 small erosion provide over downstream flow is the key to dependable and flood control projects under continuing authorities. navigation. The Reservoir Control Center at the Missouri River Division office in Omaha coordinates the operation of the six main Completed Multiple-Purpose Projects stem projects. Semiannual public meetings provide a forum Fort Peck Project (Omaha District) for State and Federal representatives and private interests to The Corps of Engineers initiated construction of the Fort recommend goals for the plan that guides regulation of the Peck project in 1933. It was originally planned for the pri­ lakes through each year. mary purpose of improving navigation on the Missouri Flood control projects in the Missouri River basin prevented River and the secondary purpose of flood control. Subse­ over $10.5 billion in flood damages through Fiscal Year quent authorization included hydroelectric power as a proj­ 1990. Visitors spent almost 161 million hours at the lake ect purpose. The original authorization was modified by the projects in the Missouri River Division in Fiscal Year 1990, Flood Control Act of 1944 to provide for substantial irri­ including more than 47 million hours at the six main stem gation waters. Provisions of Section 861 of the Water Re­ lakes. The main stem hydroelectric plants produced 7.1 bil­ sources Development Act of 1986 added recreation as a proj­ lion kilowatthours in the same year. Cumulative power rev­ ect purpose. enues from the entire main stem system through Fiscal Year The Fort Peck project was placed in operation in 1938. 1990 amount to nearly $1.8 billion. Also in 1990, 1.4 million tons of commerce traveled on the Missouri River from Sioux When constructed, it was the largest hydraulic earthfill dam in the world, measuring about 4 miles long and 250 feet high. City to the mouth. The embankment contains approximately 126 million cubic The six-lake main stem system filled for the first time in yards of earth and is about 3,500 feet thick at the base, 1967. Over the next 20 years, inflow to the system was near tapering to 50 feet at the top. The project has an outlet normal, and the pools fluctuated near the ideal level. In 1987, system with four tunnels, a mile-long spillway with a release a drought began that persists into the 1990’s. This shortage capacity of 250,000 cubic feet per second, and two power- of inflow forced the lakes to record low levels. By the end of plants with a total installed generating capacity of 185,250 1990, the Corps had drained about 40 percent of the system’s kilowatts. Water releases are normally made through the space for storing water from year to year to counteract powerplant using two of the diversion tunnels to carry water droughts. From the 60 percent that still contained water, for power generation and for use downstream. The remain­ service was maintained to all the lake and river users, but the ing two tunnels and the spillway are used primarily for flood service was less than what is maintained when the drought control; however, when there is a requirement for additional storage is full. All the users of Missouri River water shared release capability, releases can be made through these the impact of the drought. tunnels and through 16 gates, each 40 by 25 feet, located at The Corps operates the main stem lakes for all their purposes the head of the spillway. At full capacity, the lake will store according to the Missouri River Master Water Control approximately 19 million acre-feet of water, covering an area Manual. In November 1*989, to respond to numerous in­ of 249,000 acres. Maximum depth of the lake is 220 feet. The quiries inspired by the drought, the Corps began to re­ lake is 134 miles long with a shoreline of 1,520 miles at examine the manual’s operating criteria. The Missouri River normal operating pool level. The lake impounds the runoff Division published a report on the first of two phases of that from approximately 57,500 square miles of the Upper Mis­ study in May 1990. The Phase 1 report identifies the eco­ souri River drainage basin. To facilitate efficient operation nomic factors that any change to the operating criteria could of this multiple-purpose project, the Fort Peck Inter-Agency affect. A draft Phase 2 report should be published in January Council, composed of Federal, State, and local govern­ 1992 and a final report in October 1992. In the Phase 2 mental agencies, meets twice a year to coordinate mutual

14 Fort Peck Powerhouses activities and to resolve problems relative to fish and wildlife, project is complete. The total cost of construction at the Fort campsites, access roads, sanitation, and other public use Peck project was $158.4 million. The maintenance cost facilities. through Fiscal Year 1990 was $66.3 million. The power installations at the project were updated in 1979. Since the project began operation, revenue earned from land These two powerplants are located near the east end of the rentals has amounted to $584,816. In accordance with the dam at the outlet end of the diversion tunnels. The first provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1946, 75 percent of powerplant, containing two 43,500-kilowatt units and one the revenue is returned to the State. Revenue returned to the 18,300-kilowatt unit, began generating power in 1943. The State to date amounted to $438,612. second powerplant, containing two 40,000-kilowatt units,' began generating power in 1961. Through December 1990, the facility had generated about 42.4 billion kilowatthours of Completed Flood Control Projects electricity. Glasgow Local Protection Project A master development plan provides for public recreation (Omaha District) facilities at several sites around the lake. Facilities already One of the first flood control projects built by the Corps of built are located at Fort Peck West, Hell Creek, Rock Creek, Engineers in Montana is still providing substantial flood the Pines, James Kipp Park, Fourchette Creek, Nelson protection to business, industrial, and residential areas of Creek, Crooked Creek, Duck Creek, Flat Lake, and Devils Glasgow. This levee project on the Milk River was author­ Creek. Recreation areas downstream from the dam include ized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1936. the Dredge Cuts, Downstream Recreation Area, and Trout The project, designed to pass a flow of 57,000 cubic feet per Pond. second, consists of about 12,300 feet of earthen levee built The State leases and maintains the Hell Creek, Rock Creek, along the left banks of the Milk River and Cherry Creek, a and Duck Creek recreation areas. Improvements in these tributary entering the river just upstream from Glasgow. areas may include access roads; water supply and sanitary Completed in 1938 at a Federal cost of $16,832 and a non- installations; shelters; and boating, picnicking, and camping Federal cost of $8,000 for lands, easements, and rights-of- facilities. way, the project was turned over to the city at that time for Future plans contemplate new recreation development at operation and maintenance. Bone Trail, McGuire Creek, and Scott Island Park, as well A sound public investment, the Glasgow project has pre­ as additional facilities at existing recreation areas to include vented flood damages estimated to be $1,326,000 through roads, picnicking and camping facilities, water supply, sani­ Fiscal Year 1990. Of this total, about $277,500 was prevented tary facilities, and tree plantings. The project visitation to­ during the record flood of March-April 1952 when the proj­ talled about 3,400,400 visitor-hours in Fiscal Year 1990. The ect kept the high water out of the city. 15 Scott Coulee Dam

Havre Local Protection Project fighting and operation and maintenance of the levee. The (Omaha District) project was built to provide residents of Saco with protection Residents of Havre have been assured a high degree of pro­ from high flows on Beaver Creek, a tributary to the Milk tection from floods on two streams, which have plagued their River. city for many years, by construction of the Havre flood con­ Construction was initiated in October 1956 and completed in trol project authorized by Congress in 1944. The Bull Hook September 1957. The total cost of the project to the Federal Unit, consisting of two dams south of the city, and the Milk Government was $67,793 and the cost to local interests was River Unit, consisting of a system of levees along the Milk $1,500. River, comprise the project which was completed in 1957. Subsequent flood, erosion, and slide problems on Beaver Features of the Bull Hook Unit include two diversion dams, Creek resulted in concern over the adequacy of the project, one on Scott Coulee and one on Bull Hook Creek, with and a review of the existing project was completed in Octo­ facilities for release of low flows. This unit provides protec­ ber 1980 under the authority of Section 216 of Public Law tion to business establishments, residences, public buildings, 91-611. The recommended plan to resolve the erosion and and adjacent highways, streets, bridges, railways, and public slide problem was approved for construction by the Office of utilities. the Chief of Engineers on 15 January 1981 under the pro­ The south levee of the Milk River Unit extends about 15,430 visions of Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, as feet along the right bank of the river from a high bluff at the amended. The plan involved excavating and backfilling the west edge of the city to a levee on the Bull Hook Unit of the slide area. Total Federal construction costs for the Section project on the east side of the city. A pumping installation 14 project were $15,500. and a ponding area handle interior drainage during flood Through Fiscal Year 1990, the local protection project at periods on the Milk River. This levee also protects a major Saco has prevented flood damages estimated to be $975,000. portion of the city. Great Falls Local Protection Project The north levee of the Milk River Unit extends about 5,150 (Omaha District) feet from a high bluff northwest of Havre to a high bluff northeast of the city. Gated outlets through the levee handle Since 1908, the Sun River has been above flood stage at interior drainage during the low flows of the Milk River. Great Falls 17 times. In 1953, flooding caused more than This levee protects an area that is almost entirely residential. $400,000 in damages in West Great Falls. Following that flood, the Corps of Engineers, at the request of local inter­ The Federal cost of the Havre project was $1,837,167 and the ests, developed a local protection plan. The pioject, author­ non-Federal cost was $212,300. Through Fiscal Year 1990, ized by the Flood Control Act of 1958, would consist essen­ the project has prevented flood damages estimated to be tially of 8 miles of levee along the Sun and Missouri Rivers $20,664,000. Of this total, about $3,848,000 was prevented and channel realignment on the Sun River. In addition, in­ during record high stages in early 1972. terceptor ditches would protect the west portion of the city Saco Local Protection Project against flood runoff from small drainage areas to the north. (Omaha District) Because of the lack of local support, the authorized project The Flood Control Act of 1936 authorized the Corps of was declared inactive in 1963. Engineers to build a flood control project at Saco. Improve­ Local interest in flood protection was revived by the June ments included (1) raising and strengthening the existing 1964 flood which caused an estimated $4,470,000 in damages protective works to provide a levee about 8,400 feet in length at Great Falls. On the basis of a resolution adopted by city with a 10-foot top width and (2) graveling the crest of the officials to provide local cooperation, the project was re­ existing south levee to provide a roadway to facilitate flood turned to active status. 16 Detailed project designs were completed and cost estimates erosion and related problems associated with reservoir re­ were made. A Final Environmental Impact Statement for the leases along the Missouri River between Fort Peck Dam, project was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality Montana, and a point 58 miles downstream from Gavins in 1971. A series of court actions, however, delayed construc­ Point Dam, South Dakota and Nebraska. Up to $3 million tion. per fiscal year was authorized for the measures, which in­ In June 1975, the Upper Missouri River basin in Montana cluded land acquisition from willing sellers in lieu of struc­ again experienced major flooding. The most serious flooding tural measures. occurred along the Sun River from its headwaters to its con­ fluence with the Missouri River. Major urban damages were concentrated in the vicinity of West Great Falls and were Associated Projects of Other Agencies estimated to be in excess of $9,400,000. Had the project been The Flood Control Act of 1944 assigned the Corps of Engi­ constructed at that time, the city of Great Falls would not neers the responsibility of prescribing regulations for the use have been affected by the flooding. of storage capacity allocated to flood control at reservoirs Drainage district boundaries were changed and legal prob­ constructed wholly or in part with Federal funds. The Corps lems were resolved in 1976. After notifying the Omaha Dis­ directs releases of water from the flood storage zones. trict of this the following year, the project was reevaluated. Storage requirements for flood control have been found to Four of the five levee elements of the authorized project were be applicable to the Bureau’s Canyon Ferry, Tiber, and placed in an inactive status because of economic infeasibility, Clark Canyon Reservoirs, which are located in the Upper lack of local support, or environmental considerations. The Missouri River basin. Brief descriptions of these reservoirs remaining levee was constructed on the left bank of the Sun follow. River. This levee will prevent 98 percent of the damages that could occur from Sun River flooding in West Great Falls. A Canyon Ferry Reservoir Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Canyon Ferry Reservoir is located on the Missouri River revised project was published in May 1979. approximately 17 miles northeast of Helena; it was com­ pleted in 1954. The dam is a concrete gravity structure meas­ This levee project, including beautification, was completed in uring 1,000 feet long with a structural height of 225 feet. The 1987. The Federal cost was $11,912,000 and the non-Federal reservoir has a storage capacity of 104,300 acre-feet exclu­ cost was $2,050,000. sively for flood control and 799,100 acre-feet for joint use. Hydroelectric power is produced by three generators with a Completed Navigation Projects combined capacity of 50,000 kilowatts. Flood damages pre­ Missouri River Navigation and Erosion vented by the project through Fiscal Year 1990 are estimated to be $71,755,500. Control Project, Sioux City, Iowa, to Fort Benton, Montana (Omaha District) Tiber Reservoir The removal of snags and rocks from the Missouri River Tiber Reservoir is located on the Marias River approxi­ channel was one of the earliest functions of the Corps of mately 15 miles southwest of Chester; it was completed in Engineers in the Missouri River basin, dating back to the 1956. The dam is a rolled earthfill structure with a structural steamboating days of the last century. This work accom­ height of 201 feet. The main section has a crest length of plished much for early traffic on the river. 4,526 feet and a 17,000-foot dike section extends from the right abutment. The reservoir has a capacity of 400,900 acre- In July 1912, Congress enacted a River and Harbor Act feet for flood control and 268,000 acre-feet for joint use. which included a project known as the Missouri River Nav­ Flood control benefits credited to the reservoir through igation and Erosion Control Project, Sioux City, Iowa, to Fiscal Year 1990 total $37,758,100. Fort Benton, Montana. It provided for the removal of snags and rocks from the channel and for bank protection. The Clark Canyon Reservoir total cost of work under this authorization was $3,768,000. Clark Canyon Reservoir was completed in 1964; it is located The channel work has prevented damages to the limited river on the Beaverhead River approximately 18 miles southwest transportation activities in this reach of the river, and the of Dillon. The dam is a rolled earthfill embankment with a bank protection works have prevented loss of land through crest length of 2,950 feet and a structural height of 147.5 feet. bank erosion. The reservoir is zoned for storage capacity of 79,100 acre- feet, exclusively for flood control, and joint-use storage of Special Projects 50,400 acre-feet. Flood damages prevented by the project through Fiscal Year 1990 are estimated to be $6,781,000. Streambank Erosion Control Other Bureau of Reclamation Projects Section 603 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized the Corps to plan, design, and construct Some Bureau of Reclamation projects have provided inci­ streambank erosion control projects along four reaches of dental flood control benefits without authorized flood con­ the Missouri River: between Fort Randall and Oahe Dams, trol storage. These projects, with the benefits provided between Oahe and Garrison Dams, between Garrison and through 1990, are as follows: Gibson Reservoir, $2,108,000, Fort Peck Dams, and between Fort Peck Dam and the con­ and Fresno Reservoir, $5,311,000. fluence of the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers. Section 33 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 Continuing Authorities Program authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake measures, Work performed by the Corps of Engineers under the Con­ including maintenance and rehabilitation of existing struc­ tinuing Authorities Program in the Upper Missouri River tures, which are determined to be needed to alleviate bank basin in Montana is discussed in the following paragraphs.

17 Small Flood Control Projects ities that are in imminent danger of failure due to erosion. A Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, feasibility study is conducted at Federal expense to deter­ authorized the construction of small flood control projects mine the feasibility of erosion protection. If a project is con­ such as levees, small dams, channel improvements, diver­ structed, the non-Federal sponsor contributes at least 25 per­ sions, flood warning systems, and flood proofing measures. cent but not more than 50 percent of the total project cost. First, a reconnaissance study is conducted at Federal ex­ The Federal investment is limited to a maximum of $500,000 pense to determine if there is at least one feasible solution to per project. the flood problem. If it is determined that a feasible solution A list of the Section 14 projects completed since 1986 in the exists, the Federal Government and a non-Federal sponsor Upper Missouri River basin follows. conduct a more detailed feasibility study to determine if a Location Year Amount project should be constructed. One-half the cost of the feas­ ibility study is cost-shared by the non-Federal sponsor. If a Madison River, Quake Lake project is constructed, the non-Federal sponsor contributes (U.S. Highway 287)...... 1989 $ 60,100 at least 25 percent but not more than 50 percent of the total Milk River, Blaine County project cost. The Federal investment is limited to a maxi­ (Two County Bridges)...... 1989 48,800 mum of $5 million per project. Milk River, Malta (Levee, Vaughn, Sun River (Omaha District). The city of Vaughn City Sewer, Water Mains)...... 1989 129,600 sustained an estimated $340,000 in flood damages from the 1 June 1964 Sun River flood. The affected area included resi­ dential and business properties and the municipal water and sewer system. The Section 205 flood control project constructed at Vaughn consists of channel relocation and improvements on Muddy Creek and 12,570 feet of levee and appurtenant structures on both the Sun River and Muddy Creek. Construction of the project was started in July 1968 and completed in 1971 at an estimated Federal cost of $457,600 and a non-Federal cost of $16,500. Through Fiscal Year 1990, the project has pre­ vented an estimated $485,000 in damages. Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, as amended, authorized channel clearing and limited excavation to in­ crease flow capacity and decrease flooding. A reconnaissance study is conducted at Federal expense to determine the feasi­ bility of channel clearing. If the project is feasible and the Technical Assistance Programs cost is less than $250,000, the Corps can proceed directly to Assistance provided to Montana under the Corps’Technical the construction phase. If the cost is over $250,000, a feasi­ Assistance Programs is described in the following bility study is required. One-half the cost of the feasibility paragraphs. study is provided by a non-Federal sponsor. If a project is Flood Plain Management Services Program constructed, the non-Federal sponsor contributes at least 25 percent but not more than 50 percent of the total project The Flood Plain Management Services Program has pro­ cost. The Federal investment is limited to a maximum of vided for numerous services over the years to public and $500,000 per project. private entities in an effort to achieve flood damage reduc­ tion. This effort has been in the form of published studies Currently, there are no Section 208 projects in the Upper such as the flood plain information reports that follow and Missouri River basin. numerous unpublished studies and technical assistance. Emergency Bank Protection The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 requires that Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended, all services to Federal agencies and private entities be on a authorizes the construction of emergency streambank and 100-percent reimbursable basis. Services to non-Federal pub­ shoreline protection measures to prevent damage to public lic entities are provided free of charge. facilities such as highways, roads, streets, bridges, utilities, The following reports have been completed for streams in the parks, schools, hospitals, and other nonprofit public facil- Upper Missouri River basin. Flood Plain Information Reports Locality Sponsoring Agency Status Great Falls Metropolitan Region Great Falls, Cascade County City- Vol. I, Sun River; completed County Planning Board February 1973

Great Falls Metropolitan Region Great Falls, Cascade County City- Vol. II, Missouri River; completed County Planning Board June 1974

West Gallatin and Gallatin Rivers, Gallatin County and City of Bozeman Completed May 1973 Gallatin County

Dillon, Beaverhead County, City of Dillon and Beaverhead Completed June 1975 Beaverhead River County Planning Assistance to States Program The emergency work was completed in November 1959 at a cost to the Federal Government of $1,715,000. The operation The Planning Assistance to States Program was authorized involved the movement of several million cubic yards of by Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of material and the construction of 20 miles of access and haul 1974 (Public Law 93-251), as amended. The Section 22 pro­ roads. gram was established by Congress to enable States to utilize Corps of Engineers’ planning expertise in the preparation of Operation Foresight—1969 (Omaha District). The Omaha comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, and District activated its Emergency Control Center on 25 Feb­ conservation of the water and related land resources of ruary 1969 because of the flood potential created by a heavy drainage basins located within the boundaries of a State. The snowpack in the upper Great Plains region of the Missouri assistance can be provided to any public entity as long as it is River basin. The President, on 1 March 1969, called for a consistent with the State’s water resources planning objec­ coordinated effprt by all Federal agencies operating under tives. The priority of the work is established by the State. the direction of the Office of Emergency Preparedness (now the Federal Emergency Management Agency). The result The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 requires that was “Operation Foresight” under which the Corps of Engi­ this program be cost-shared between the Corps of Engineers neers, using Public Law 99, 84th Congress authority, assisted and a non-Federal public entity. Fiscal Year 1991 efforts local communities by furnishing technical assistance, provid­ require 10-percent cost-sharing by non-Federal interests. The ing for the hire of construction equipment with operators to cost-sharing requirement increases to 30 percent in Fiscal construct protective works, and supplementing local supplies Year 1992 and to 50 percent in Fiscal Year 1993 and beyond. of needed emergency materials. In the Omaha District, re­ The Omaha and Seattle Districts serve the State of Montana. connaissance teams advised authorities at 165 localities of The Omaha District has been designated as the lead District the flood potential and of the help available to them under for the Section 22 program in Montana. Operation Foresight. The District built protective works at Fiscal Year 1990 efforts included (1) evaluation of the feasi­ 50 locations in Montana, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, bility of additional storage sites in the Musselshell River and South Dakota. The Governors, county and local offi­ basin downstream from Deadman’s Basin Reservoir, (2) eval­ cials, and many individuals of the affected States expressed uation of canal lining concepts for Deadman’s Basin Reser­ their gratitude to the President and to the Federal agencies voir supply canal, and (3) development of an inventory of for their foresight in providing the protective works. These historical ice-jam locations on the Missouri River between works prevented $6,625,000 in flood damages and an im­ Fort Peck Dam and Lake Sakakawea. measurable amount of human suffering and misery. The Efforts for Fiscal Year 1991 and beyond depend on the total cost to the Federal Government was $1,557,900. State’s willingness to provide cost-shared funds. Major Flood Emergency Operations Montana Flood Disaster, June 1964 (Omaha District). Dur­ Emergency Authorities ing the period 7 through 18 June 1964, northwestern Mon­ The Corps of Engineers has given emergency assistance to tana, on both sides of the Continental Divide, experienced the State of Montana as described below. the worst natural disaster in the State’s history. Heavy rain­ fall along the Divide combined with high snowmelt runoff to Public Law 99, 84th Congress—Flood-Associated cause unprecedented flooding in the Sun River and Marias Assistance River basins, along with moderate flooding in other areas of Since 1945, the Corps has spent a total of $4,244,240 in the Upper Missouri River basin. Montana under the authority of Public Law 99, 84th Con­ Thirty-eight lives were lost and the flood caused more than gress. Included in this amount are funds which were ex­ $30 million in damages. At the direction of the Office of pended as a result of the major disaster discussed below. Emergency Planning (now the Federal Emergency Manage­ Madison River Slide (Earthquake Emergency) (Omaha Dis­ ment Agency) under authority of Public Law 875, 81st Con­ trict). Late in the evening of 17 August 1959, a severe earth­ gress, the Corps of Engineers supervised extensive restora­ quake struck the Rocky Mountain region in the vicinity of tion work, including the repair of a waterplant and sewers in Yellowstone National Park. A massive slide completely the city of Shelby, repair of sewers and streets in Choteau, blocked the Madison River just upstream from the mouth of restoration of 19 bridges and a county road, and emergency Madison Canyon, which is about 6 miles downstream from bank stabilization of the Missouri River near Fort Benton. the Montana Power Company’s Hebgen Dam. This work encompassed five counties and was accomplished Critical faults which appeared in and around Hebgen Dam at a cost to the Federal Government of more than $630,000. and Reservoir and the rapid impoundment of water behind Montana Flood Disaster, May 1978 (Omaha District). the dam formed by the earthquake slide threatened destruc­ Heavy snowmelt and large amounts of rainfall in the south­ tion of the dam, which would have released a devastating ern part of Montana caused lowland flooding from 16 flood throughout the valley. It was estimated that failure of through 23 May 1978. The most extensive flooding occurred the dam could have caused damages up to $15 million and on the Milk River from Havre to the mouth, on Beaver extensive loss of life. Creek at Saco, and in the Yellowstone River basin. Seven In response to an urgent request from the Governor of Mon­ counties were included in the Presidentially declared dis­ tana, the Corps of Engineers took steps to eliminate the aster. In cooperation with the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (now the Federal Emergency Management flood threat. A spillway was cut across the slide to permit controlled release of water from the slide-formed lake—the Agency), the Omaha District completed 78 damage surveys recommending reimbursement in the amount of $365,716 to slide mass was stabilized. public entities that sustained flood damages. 19 6 Steps to a Civil Works Project 1 . Problem Perception Local community and/or local government perceives or experi­ ences water and related land resource problems that are beyond the local communlty’s/government’s capabilities to alleviate or solve. 2 . Request for Federal Action Local officials talk to the Corps about available Federal programs. Technical assistance and some small projects can be accomp­ lished without congressional authorization. Local officials contact the congressional delegation if study author­ ization is required. Member of Congress requests study authorization through Public Works Committees. Committee resolution is adopted if report was previously prepared on water problems in the area. Legislation is normally required if no Corps report exists. 3 . Study Problem and Report Preparation Study is assigned to a Corps District office. Funds to complete a reconnaissance study (12-18 months) are in­ cluded in the President’s budget. Appropriations for the reconnaissance phase are provided in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. District conducts the reconnaissance study, leading to a reconnais­ sance report. If study continues beyond reconnaissance phase, local sponsors will be required to share the costs of the feasibility phase. Public involvement is an integral part of the planning process, includ­ ing review of the draft feasibility report and draft environmental im­ pact statement (EIS). Study is conducted under Federal Principles and Guidelines. Funds are included annually in the President’s budget; annual ap­ propriations and non-Federal monies are needed to continue the study. Study results in a feasibility report and EIS which are submitted to a Corps Division (regional) office. 4 . Report Review and Approval Division office, which reviews District work during the planning proc­ ess, completes technical review of the final District feasibility report and EIS. Division Engineer submits the report to the Washington Level Re­ view Center (CEWRC-WLR) and issues a public notice inviting comments. CEWRC-WLR conducts the Washington review. Final EIS is filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and is made available to the public. Proposed report of the Chief of Engineers and a final EIS are sent to the heads of Federal agencies and Governors of affected States for comment. Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors (CEBRH) or the Missis­ Try* roiiow .'ij «. a o* „ n.ei o* o'ví - j o . o o 'f lc if e * Bro* n o r n sippi River Commission (CEMRC) submits views and recommenda­ -■feti Anv<«wn ■> ;»unS of •« ,. r«pdeny of *r«» and tions to the Chief of Engineers. 'Cl oni-n^rviatiorw fo<- c - * e * in § a reíim on dfa» o 7 fo r ttv* D ià- .xvp.t .í* - ’ 0 " an d £ u 'rO vnû n g +e> Comments from the public are fully considered in CEBRH or . n 'Vkv,- a p p i n z i f r * fT' ^ o n ç r e \ s g, * rv» '-«rr» fp lO ff fer CRMRC action. o +Vif* t Mvf hf* ’ " *1 ■* ri'' j «Jr-rr(■•**> r -, I ^ *u-1> ■ * ■'V A A t — i Chief of Engineers considers comments on the proposed report and ■n ■>,*. -t V*' ¡tu EIS, prepares the final report, and submits it to the Secretary of the Army.

20 Chief of Engineers' report is reviewed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Office of Management and Budget comments on the report as it relates to the President's programs Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) transmits the Chief of Engineers' report to Congress. In most cases, the Corps continues preconstruction engineering and design following issuance of the Division Engineer's Notice. Funds are included in the President's budget, and Congress acts on each item in the appropriations bill 5. Congressional Authorization Chief of Engineers’ reports are referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation in the House and to the Committee on Environment and Public Works in the Senate. Civil Works projects are normally authorized by the Water Resources Development Act (Omnibus Bill) following committee hearings. Occasionally, the Corps' proposal is authorized by separate legisla­ tion or as part of another bill. 6 . Project Implementation New projects are included in the President’s budget based on na­ tional priorities and anticipated completion of design and plans and specifications so that the construction contract can be awarded. Budget recommendations are based on evidence of support by the State and on the ability and willingness of non-Federal sponsors to provide their share of the project cost. Congress appropriates the Federal share of funds for new starts; normally, this occurs in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Secretary of the Army and appropriate non-Federal sponsors sign a formal Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) once Congress has ap­ propriated funds for project implementation to begin. The LCA obligates non-Federal sponsors and the Corps to partic­ ipate jn implementing, operating, and maintaining the project accord­ ing to requirements established by Congress and the Administration. The LCA outlines the specific cost-sharing responsibilities for the Corps and the project sponsors. District completes enough engineering and design for developing plans and specifications for initial project implementation. Engineering and design continue during the implementation proc­ ess; plans and specifications are reviewed by Division offices and sometimes by Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Funds are included in the President’s annual budget for the Federal share of the project; appropriations are required to continue design and implementation. Construction is managed by the Corps but is done by private contractors. Most projects are operated and maintained by non-Federal spon­ sors as part of the LCA signed prior to implementation. However, funds are requested in the President’s annual budget for the Federal share where there is a need for continuing Federal financing of project operation and maintenance; congressional appropriations are required for such funds. Corps periodically inspects projects, including those for which non- Federal sponsors have assumed an operation and maintenance responsibility.

21 Montana Flood Disaster, March 1979 (Omaha District). Ex­ tives by Congress or by the Senate or House Public Works tensive flooding occurred in Montana during March 1979. Committee. These directives generally result from action This flooding occurred following a warm period during taken by the people living in the affected areas. The study is which most of the water in an extremely heavy snowpack assigned to the District Engineer concerned, who holds pub­ was released into the streams. lic meetings at the beginning of, during, and at the conclu­ sion of his investigation to ensure that the views and desires On 10 and 11 March, an ice jam occurred on the Sun River of the local interests are fully considered. Also, during the near Vaughn which caused extensive lowland flooding. As a precautionary measure, 100 families were evacuated from course of each investigation, the Corps study is coordinated West Great Falls; however, little flooding occurred in that with all interested State and Federal agencies as well as with community. Also on 10 and 11 March, ice-jam flooding oc­ the local people. curred on the Musselshell River at Roundup which resulted The findings and recommendations of the District Engineer in the inundation of much of that community and the con­ are submitted to the Division Engineer. After successive re­ tamination if the city’s wells. Approximately 200 persons views by the Division Engineer, the Board of Engineers for were evacuated from the community. Rivers and Harbors, and Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of On 16 March, extensive flooding occurred on Beaver Creek Engineers, the report of the Chief of Engineers is prepared. in the vicinity of Saco, with flood stages equaling those ex­ The views and comments of local interests are again solicited perienced in 1978. Also on 16 March, flood stages in the during the review by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and lower portions of the Milk River necessitated the evacuation Harbors, which may also hold public meetings in special of families from 30 to 50 ranches. One life was lost near cases. The report of the Chief of Engineers is subjected to Glasgow. further reviews by the affected States, other Federal agen­ cies, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Secre­ On 17 March, an ice jam occurred on the Yellowstone River tary of the Army before it is transmitted to Congress. A near Miles City which caused a levee to breach and neces­ summary of the congressional authorization process entitled sitated evacuation of 100 families. “6 Steps to a Civil Works Project” is presented elsewhere in Lowland flooding continued along the downstream reaches this booklet. of the Milk River until the latter part of April. Releases from The following study has been assigned to the Corps of Engi­ Fort Peck Reservoir were reduced to zero during much of neers within the Upper Missouri River basin. that period to alleviate potential flood conditions along the Missouri River downstream from its confluence with the Projects Constructed by the Corps Milk River. for Other Federal Agencies Montana Flood Disasters—1986 (Omaha District). In Missouri River Channel Rectification at March 1986, warm temperatures caused ice-jam flooding at Saco on the Milk River to below Nashua. Several families Frazer-Wolf Point Irrigation Pumping Plant were evacuated. The Omaha District helped to construct a The River Basin Monetary Authorization Act of 1971 author­ levee extension in Nashua to prevent flooding of the sewer ized the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the Bureau pumps and lagoon system. of Indian Affairs, to construct channel rectification struc­ tures on the Missouri River at the Frazer-Wolf Point irriga­ On 24 and 25 September 1986, a severe thunderstorm with tion intake. The project was completed in 1980 at a cost of strong wind crossed eastern Montana. From 7 to 8 inches of $435,000. The 630 linear feet of stone or gabion core dike rain and a 75-mile-per-hour wind occurred in the Milk River and the 690 linear feet of stonefill or gabion core revetment basin. Record flooding occurred from Chinook downstream are designed to maintain the river channel along the left to the confluence with the Missouri River. Over 350 people bank. This prevents river migration away from the intake. were evacuated, one life was lost near Harlem, and extensive The Bureau of Indian Affairs provided the construction agricultural losses occurred. Technical advice and 65,000 rights-of-way and is responsible for project maintenance. sandbags were furnished to strengthen the levee around Malta. This operation saved $1,568,168 in damages. Missouri River Bank Protection at Montana Drought Disaster—1988 (Omaha District). The Woodland Estates Near Great Falls Omaha District investigated five requests for drought emer­ The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Serv­ gency water assistance. The communities involved were ice, authorized and provided the funding for construction by Scobey, Roundup, Ryegate, Musselshell, and Ingomar. In the Corps of Engineers of bank stabilization structures on all cases, the problems, deficiencies, and water-right issues the Missouri River near Great Falls under Section 216 of the were solved internally with close coordination between the Flood Control Act of 1950. The work consisted of construct­ Omaha District, State, and local agencies; therefore, no ing approximately 3,000 feet of bankline revetment to pre­ emergency assistance authorities were implemented. vent continuing bank erosion in the vicinity of Woodland Estates at a cost of $210,000. The Cascade County Conserva­ Survey Investigations tion District was the local sponsor and was responsible for Studies of flood and related water resources problems are acquisition of the construction rights-of-way. The project conducted by the Corps of Engineers in response to direc- was completed in May 1979. Locality Purpose______Status

Missouri River, South Dakota, To investigate a wide range of water Completed in 1990. Currently under Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana resources problems and opportunities Washington-level review. Report makes (Omaha District) along the Missouri River main stem no recommendation for congressional (including hydropower, flood control, authorization of improvements along bank erosion, sediment control, recrea­ the Missouri River between Three Forks, tion, fish and wildlife preservation, Montana, and Sioux City, Iowa. 22 and waterlogging) in response to many congressional resolutions 23 Authorized Corps of Engineers Projects

Lake Completed □ Local Protection Under Construction ^/c) Channel Improvements Hot Storted Levees Partially Completed Other Improvements Other Projects " Reregulating Dam

STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL O

FORSYTH

ONTANA WYOMING

Chapter III Yellowstone River Basin Yellowstone River Basin Federal cost of the completed project was $255,200, with local interests providing all necessary lands, easements, and (Missouri River Division— Omaha District) rights-of-way at a cost of $15,800. It is estimated that The Yellowstone basin, 70,600 square miles in area, resem­ through Fiscal Year 1990, the project has prevented flood bles the Upper Missouri River basin in many respects. It, damages in excess of $1,814,000. too, has exceptional scenic, fish, and wildlife values and rec­ reation potential. The population, overall, is even more sparsely scattered, with a fourth of it concentrated in Billings, which Special Projects has a population of about 68,300. Agriculture is equally in­ Streambank Erosion Control hibited because of the same problem—a shortage of water. Section 32 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 Ironically, the Montana portion of the Yellowstone basin established the National Streambank Erosion Prevention almost annually experiences spring flooding caused by mas­ and Control Demonstration Program. The 1974 act was sive ice jams and runoff from snowmelt or rainfall. The Yel­ amended by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 lowstone valley, however, has relatively few sites suitable for to include work along the Yellowstone River from Intake, the development of water storage and, because of the lack of Montana, to its mouth. The intent of Section 32 work is to population and agricultural development, only local protec­ develop a demonstration of structural means for controlling tion projects for urban areas have proven to be economically bank erosion with a view toward developing the most cost- feasible. effective and environmentally acceptable means. In 1947, the Corps of Engineers constructed a levee and In 1978, three sites were selected by a task group composed floodwall project to protect Forsyth from floods on the of interested Federal and State agencies and local organiza­ Yellowstone River. In subsequent years, the Corps also con­ tions. Two sites, River Road in Montana and Cheney Creek structed protection projects near Clyde Park on the Shields in North Dakota, were completed and transferred to the River and at West Glendive on the Yellowstone River. The local sponsor in September 1982. current status of the Corps of Engineers water resources de­ velopment program in the Yellowstone basin is described in the following paragraphs. Associated Projects of Other Agencies Storage requirements for flood control have been found to be applicable to the Bureau of Reclamation’s Yellowtail Res­ Completed Flood Control Projects ervoir located in the Montana portion of the Yellowstone Forsyth Local Protection Project basin. The reservoir is briefly described in the following (Omaha District) paragraph. The turbulent Yellowstone River has more than once caused Yellowtail Reservoir considerable flood damage to the business, residential, and Yellowtail Reservoir was essentially completed in 1966; it is a commercial areas of Forsyth. The Flood Control Act of 1936 multiple-purpose unit located on the Bighorn River 45 miles authorized the Corps of Engineers to construct a flood con­ southwest of Hardin. The dam is a concrete thin-arch struc­ trol project to relieve this southeastern Montana town from ture with a height of 524 feet. The reservoir has 1,375,000 such periodic flood damage. Construction of the project was acre-feet of storage including 259,000 acre-feet of exclusive started in 1947 and completed the following year. Project flood control storage and 250,000 acre-feet for joint use. features include a 12,974-foot earthfill levee, a concrete re­ Hydroelectric power is produced by four generators with a taining wall, and a concrete floodwall at constricted points combined generating capacity of 250,000 kilowatts. Flood along the right bank of the Yellowstone River. These struc­ control benefits credited to the reservoir through Fiscal Year tures can contain a floodflow of 140,000 cubic feet per 1990 total $32,555,700. second, thus protecting highly developed residential, busi­ ness, and industrial areas.

Forsyth Local Protection Project

25 Continuing Authorities Program Work performed by the Corps of Engineers under the Con­ tinuing Authorities Program in the Montana portion of the Yellowstone River basin is discussed in the following paragraphs. Small Flood Control Projects A description of the Section 205 authority is presented in the Upper Missouri River Basin chapter of this booklet. Work under this authority in the Yellowstone River basin is de­ scribed as follows. Shields River Near Clyde Park (Omaha District). A Section 205 project to provide flood protection along the Shields River at the U.S. Highway 89 crossing near Clyde Park was completed in 1950 at a Federal cost of $25,750. The non- Federal cost was $1,400. The project consists of 2,800 feet of levee and 2,350 feet of channel improvement. To date, the project has prevented an estimated $156,000 in flood damages. West Glendive, Yellowstone River (Omaha District). The main portion of Glendive lies on the right (east) bank of the Yellowstone River and, being on high ground, is generally not affected by floods. Because the city’s boundaries are limited by the “badlands” on the north, east, and south, expansion has taken place in West Glendive on the left bank of the river. This area was subject to frequent flooding, partic­ ularly from ice-jam floods. In 1959, the Corps of Engineers constructed a diversion channel, enlarged an existing levee, and provided 6,500 feet of new levee under Section 205 authority. Constructed at a Federal cost of $230,294 and a non-Federal cost of $19,600, the project has prevented flood damages estimated to be $387,000. At the request of local interests, a Section 205 reconnais­ sance study was again initiated in December 1987. Based on additional development which has occurred, the reconnais­ sance study concluded it would be economically feasible to raise the West Glendive levee. Consideration of cost-shared feasibility studies, however, has been deferred until the city reestablishes its eligibility for the National Flood Insurance Program. Emergency Bank Protection A description of the Section 14 authority is presented in the Upper Missouri River Basin chapter of this booklet. A list of Technical Assistance Programs the Section 14 projects completed since 1985 in the Yellow­ Assistance provided to the State under the Corps Technical stone River basin follows. Assistance Programs is discussed below. Location Year Amount Flood Plain Management Services Program Yellowstone River, Cottonwood Grove A description of the Flood Plain Management Services Pro­ near Glendive (Levee)...... 1985 $214,000 gram is presented in the Upper Missouri River Basin chapter Yellowstone River, Livingston of this booklet. Work under this program in the Yellowstone (Interstate 90 Bridges)...... 1990 69,800 River basin is described as follows.

26 Flood Plain Information Reports Locality Sponsoring Agency Status

Billings Metropolitan Region City of Billings Voi. I, Yellowstone River, and Voi. II, Alkali Creek; completed October 1969

Livingston, Park County, City of Livingston and Park County Completed November 1974 Yellowstone River

27 Chapter IV Columbia River Basin

28 The Federal investment was $484,753,143. Approximately 75 Columbia River Basin percent of the project cost is allocated to power and will be (Clark Fork-Kootenai River Basins) reimbursed over a 50-year period by power revenues. The (North Pacific Division—Seattle District) dam and reservoir were ready for raising of the 90-mile-long The Kootenai River basin is located in southeastern British lake behind the dam in the spring of 1972. Initial power-on- Columbia, northwestern Montana, and northern Idaho. The line occurred 24 August 1975 when President Ford and Min­ river is primarily a Canadian stream, with three-fourths of its ister MacDonald of Canada dedicated the project. drainage area and two-thirds of its length in British Colum­ Libby Dam was authorized by Congress in 1950 as a major bia. From the standpoint of total basin area, the Kootenai is unit in the Corps of Engineers comprehensive plan for devel­ the third largest tributary to the Columbia River and drains opment of the water resources of the Columbia River basin. an area of 19,300 square miles. Its major tributaries are the Public benefits received from this Federal investment include St. Mary, Bull, Elk, Fisher, Yaak, Moyie, and Slocan Rivers. local and downstream flood control, at-site and downstream The Kootenai basin is largely mountainous and is dominated power generation, extensive outdoor recreation activities, by three major ranges. The Rocky Mountain Range and its and related water uses. offshoot, the Flathead Range, constitute the eastern bound­ The dam has a crest length of 3,055 feet and a maximum ary; the Purcell Range roughly bisects it from north to south; height of 420 feet. The at-site power installation consists of and the Selkirk and Cabinet Ranges mark the western bound­ five generating units, each rated at a 105,000-kilowatt ca­ ary. Except for a few areas, the entire basin is heavily pacity. The powerhouse is designed for installation of three forested. more turbine-generator units. The lake provides 4,965,000 The only extensive areas adapted to agriculture without pre­ acre-feet of usable storage. liminary clearing are along Tobacco River and in the broad A primary concern in the design and construction of the flood plain of the Kootenai extending north from Bonners Libby project was the protection of the natural environment Ferry, Idaho, to Kootenay Lake, British Columbia. This and the blending of project features with that environment. flood plain is the most important agricultural area in the Restoration of the natural landscape is a continuing pro­ basin. It consists of about 73,000 acres of fertile, deep al­ gram. Water quality of the river is monitored and the Corps, luvial soil, about 50,000 acres of which are protected from in cooperation with State and Federal agencies, initiated normal high waters by inadequate locally constructed dikes. programs to reduce the impact on fish and wildlife in the The mean annual precipitation for the basin is 30 inches. project area. A barrier dam was built on Young Creek, a Annual snowfall varies from about 300 inches in some parts tributary to the lake, to increase the stocks of the westslope of the mountain areas to 40 inches at the lower elevations. cutthroat trout. To provide more natural stream conditions, Most of the snow falls during the November-March period, rock groins were built in the altered Fisher River, a tributary but heavy snowstorms can occur as early as mid-September downstream from Libby Dam. Critical big game winter hab­ or as late as 1 May. The 15-year average, on 1 April, for itat lands were replaced by suitable land that was acquired, water content of the snow varies from 6 inches at Sinclair and a hatchery has been constructed for the mitigation of Pass to nearly 50 inches at Smith Creek and Baree fish losses. Mountain. Because Lake Koocanusa extends 42 miles into British Columbia, the United States and Canada signed a protocol 16 September 1964 consummating a treaty which assured Completed Multiple-Purpose Projects cooperative international development of the water re­ Libby Dam and Lake Koocanusa (Seattle District) sources in the Columbia River basin. Construction of the Libby Dam and Lake Koocanusa proj­ Libby flood storage, in combination with 8,450,000 acre-feet ect, located on the Kootenai River about 17 miles upstream of Canadian storage made available under the treaty, and from Libby, was complete as of February 1987. Initial con­ existing Columbia basin storage could reduce the peak dis­ tract work, involving road and railroad relocations, was charge of 1,240,000 cubic feet per second on the lower started in April 1966. Columbia River at The Dalles, Oregon, (the flood of re-

Libby Dam 29 cord—1894) to less than 800,000 cubic feet per second. When consisting entirely of logs, amounted to 58,500 tons for the included in a system of projects existing and under construc­ years 1930 to 1949. The volume of commercial traffic has not tion, and considering the Kootenai-Columbia diversion been reported since 1949. which Canada could exercise as provided in the treaty, the Kerr Dam, constructed by the Montana Power Company, Libby project will generate about 2,128,000,000 kilowatt- regulates the level of Flathead Lake so that adequate depths hours annually and be credited with about 2,076,000,000 kilo- are assured for any foreseeable commerce. watthours annually at downstream plants. Operation of the project in combination with the existing levee system on the Kootenai River completely controls Partially Completed floods as large as those of 1894 and 1948 and practically Multiple-Purpose Projects eliminates flood damages along the Kootenai River down­ stream from Libby Dam. The areas principally affected are Libby Additional Units and Reregulating Dam the towns of Troy, Montana, and Bonners Ferry, Idaho; the (Seattle District) area downstream to the United States-Canada border; and a Construction on the Libby Additional Units and Reregulat­ considerable area in British Columbia. ing Dam project began in 1976. The Libby Additional Units project would provide four additional generating units at Completed Flood Control Projects Libby Dam. With a reregulating dam downstream, all eight Clark Fork at Missoula (Seattle District) generating units would provide peaking power for the Pacific Improvements providing local protection for the city of Mis­ Northwest. soula are located along two reaches of the Clark Fork River. The U.S. District Court of Montana enjoined the construc­ The work consisted of raising existing flood protection struc­ tion of the additional units and the reregulating dam in 1978 tures and constructing additional works along the right bank because of the lack of congressional authorization and the of the Clark Fork River from the Madison Street Bridge to failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy the Parkway Bridge, a distance of approximately 3,800 feet, Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunc­ and from the abandoned University Street Bridge to the tion of the reregulating dam but not the additional units. Russell Street Bridge, a distance of approximately 1,300 feet. Installation of units 5 through 8 continued through Fiscal The total cost of improvements amounted to $375,000. Year 1981. Congressional action for Fiscal Year 1982 appro­ priations restricted work on this project to unit 5 only. Work Completed Navigation Projects has been completed on this unit, and power went on-line 11 December 1984. In the absence of further congressional guid­ Kootenai River (Seattle District) ance, no additional work will be accomplished. Through The Kootenai River project, completed by the Corps of En­ September 1990, the Federal investment totaled $58,477,965. gineers in 1899, provided for the removal of dangerous rocks Libby Recreation Areas. Recreation areas developed by the in the river canyon 5 miles upstream from Jennings. Corps at Libby Dam and Lake Koocanusa include a visitor Flathead River (Seattle District) center at the dam and several day-use areas, as well as devel­ The Flathead River snagging and clearing project, completed oped, primitive, and boat-access campgrounds. The Souse by the Corps of Engineers in 1901, contributed materially to Gulch Day-Use Area includes picnic shelters, trails, a boat the improvement of log and lumber movement on the river. ramp and moorage dock, water, and restrooms. The area is located on the west bank, just upstream from Libby Dam. Poison Bay, Flathead Lake (Seattle District) Several dispersed recreation sites located downstream from The Poison Bay project, completed by the Corps of Engi­ the dam include Alexander Creek, Dunn Creek Flats, and neers in 1910, contributed materially to the encouragement Blackwell Terrace. These areas offer boat access to the river, of the lumber industry in the Flathead Lake area of western primitive camping, and excellent fishing. All areas are oper­ Montana by providing freedom from the hazards of shallow ated by the Corps. water and other navigation obstructions. The Yarnell Islands, developed by the Corps and operated by A channel 100 feet wide and 6 feet deep was included in the the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), are located 3 miles above project, which involved the removal of boulders and other the dam and offer boat-access camping. obstacles interfering with log movement and small boat ap­ On the west shore of Libby Dam, along USFS Road 228, proaches to the landing wharves. McGillivray Campground hosts a developed campground Federal costs were $4,490 for new work and $260 for main­ facility including picnic shelters, a swimming beach, rest­ tenance. The average annual volume of commercial traffic, rooms, and boat launch facilities. Barron Creek Day-Use

Clark Fork at Missoula 30 Area offers a boat ramp and sanitary facilities. These areas, arch-gravity structure 564 feet high, with a crest length of which are located 7.5 and 12 miles upstream from the dam, 2,115 feet, a crest width of 39 feet, and a maximum base respectively, were developed by the Corps and are operated width of 330 feet. by the USFS. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 3,468,000 acre-feet Canyon Creek is located on the east shore of Libby Dam, with a surface area of 22,500 acres. Approximately 2,000,000 along State Highway 37. Operated by the USFS, this pop­ acre-feet of storage is available for flood control. Operated in ular area is located 4 miles upstream from the dam and coordination with downstream dams and powerplants, the provides dispersed primitive camping, boat access, and vault Hungry Horse project adds more than 1 million kilowatts of toilets. Seven miles above the dam is Koocanusa Marina and prime power to the Columbia River system in the United Resort. Operating under a concession permit from the States. USFS, this facility furnishes a developed campground, a res­ taurant and store, cabins, a free boat ramp, a marina, and Flathead Lake marine and auto fuel. The Koocanusa Marina and Resort The Federal Power Commission issued the Kerr Hydroelec­ was jointly developed by private industry, the USFS, and the tric Project license to the Montana Power Company in May Corps. Another popular area operated by the USFS is War- 1930 with the condition that the water storage controlled by land Flats, which offers dispersed primitive camping. This the project in Flathead Lake be operated for flood control. area is located 1 mile beyond the resort and offers dispersed In February 1966, reregulating principles and procedures primitive camping and vault toilets. were agreed to providing that the licensee and the Corps of Peck Gulch Campground is located 28 miles upstream from Engineers cooperate in exchanging data and coordinating the dam and supports boat launching, picnicking, and water­ operations for flood control. If conditions permit, the lake is front campsites. Rexford Bench, 40 miles upstream, provides drawn down to elevation 2883 feet mean sea level by 15 April a boat ramp and moorage, a trailer dump station, swimming, and raised to elevation 2890 feet mean sea level by 30 May. picnicking, and camping. The Tobacco Plains and Gateway The lake is then raised to reach elevation 2893 feet mean sea Day-Use Areas, which offer boat launch facilities, picnick­ level by 15 June. ing, and restrooms, are located approximately 8 miles above the town of Rexford. These areas were developed by the Corps and are operated by the USFS. Technical Assistance Programs Assistance provided to the State under the Corps Technical Associated Projects of Other Agencies Assistance Programs is discussed below. The Flood Control Act of 1944 assigned to the Corps of Engineers the responsibility of prescribing regulations for the Flood Plain Management Services Program use of storage capacity allocated to flood control at reser­ A description of the Flood Plain Management Services Pro­ voirs constructed wholly or in part with Federal funds. The gram is presented in the Upper Missouri River Basin chapter Corps directs releases of water from the flood storage zones. of this booklet. Hungry Horse Reservoir Hungry Horse Reservoir is located on the South Fork of the The following reports have been prepared by the Seattle Dis­ Flathead River; it was completed in 1953. The dam is an trict for the Clark Fork River and Kootenai River basins. Flood Plain Information Reports Locality Sponsoring Agency Status Clark Fork River at Missoula City of Missoula Completed

Flathead River, Columbia Falls to Montana Water Resources Board, Completed Kalispell Flathead County

Clark Fork (Confluence of Bitterroot Montana Water Resources Board, Completed River Downstream to Alberton) Missoula County Special Flood Hazard Information Reports Locality Sponsoring Agency Status Cottonwood Creek at Deer Lodge Montana Water Resources Board, Completed Deer Lodge

Bitterroot River and Lolo Creek, Montana Department of Natural Re­ Completed Vicinity of Lolo, Missoula County, sources and Conservation, Missoula Montana County

Clark Fork River and Rock Creek Montana Department of Natural Re­ Completed Floodway Study, Vicinity of Clinton, sources and Conservation, Missoula Missoula, and Granite Counties, and Granite Counties Montana

Rattlesnake Creek, Vicinity of Montana Department of Natural Completed Missoula, Missoula County, Montana Resources and Conservation, 31 Missoula and Granite Counties Planning Assistance to States Program The Planning Assistance to States Program is described in the Upper Missouri River Basin chapter of this booklet. There are currently no planning assistance studies scheduled to be conducted within the Columbia River basin portion of Montana. The Flathead River basin in Montana is a sub­ basin of the Columbia River basin. A small amount has been budgeted to continue coordination with the Flathead River Basin Commission. Emergency Authorities During June of 1975, heavy rainfall and melting snowpack resulted in considerable flood damage. The Seattle District assisted the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (now the Federal Emergency Management Agency) in re­ pairing damaged flood control structures in the area. The majority of the damage was in Flathead County. The pro­ jects varied in size and purpose from repairing levees to pro­ viding protection for bridges and critical roads. Survey Investigations Clark Fork-Flathead River Basin Study (Seattle District) This study was authorized to review previous reports to de­ termine whether any modification should be made for flood control or other purposes. In participation with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Seattle District prepared a report on potential storage sites. The report was forwarded to the Fed­ eral Energy Regulatory Commission in 1967 for its use in considering a license request for power dams on the lower Flathead River. In 1974, an interim report was completed that recommended levee protection for developed areas near Kalispell and flood plain zoning for the remainder of the upper Flathead River flood plain. Advance engineering and design began in Octo­ ber 1978 but was discontinued in June 1981 because of the lack of firm sponsorship. Studies of hydropower potential on the lower Flathead River concluded that no further consideration of hydropower de­ velopment is warranted at this time.

32 Index Beaver Creek...... 16 Libby Dam and Lake Koocanusa...... 29 Billings...... 27 Livingston...... 27 Bitterroot River and Lolo Creek ...... 31 Livingston, Yellowstone R iver...... 26 Bull Hook Creek...... 16 Madison River Slide...... 19 Canyon Ferry Reservoir ...... 17 Madison River, Quake Lake...... 18 Cherry Creek...... 15 Milk River...... 15, 16, 18 Clark Canyon Reservoir...... 17 Missouri River Bank Protection at Woodland Estates Clark Fork-Flathead River Basin Study...... 32 near Great Falls ...... 22 Clark Fork-Kootenai River Basins...... 29 Missouri River Channel Rectification at Clark Fork at Missoula...... 30, 31 Frazer-Wolf Point Irrigation Pumping Plant...... 22 Clark Fork-Rock Creek...... 31 Missouri River Master Water Control M anual...... 14 Columbia River Basin...... 29 Missouri River Navigation and Erosion Control Project, Sioux City, Iowa, to Fort Benton, M ontana...... 17 Comprehensive Plan, Missouri River Basin...... 13 Missouri River, South Dakota, Nebraska, Congressional Authorization Process...... 20-21 North Dakota, M ontana...... 22 Cottonwood Creek at Deer Lodge...... 31 Montana Drought Disaster—1988 ...... 22 Cottonwood Grove, Yellowstone River...... 26 Montana Flood Disaster, June 1964 ...... 19 Deadman’s Basin Reservoir...... 19 Montana Flood Disaster, May 1978 ...... 19 Dillon, Beaverhead R iv er...... 17, 18 Montana Flood Disaster, March 1979...... 22 Flathead Lake...... 30, 31 Montana Flood Disasters—1986 ...... 22 Flathead River ...... 30, 32 Musselshell R iver...... 19 Forsyth Local Protection Project...... 25 Operation Foresight—1969...... 19 Fort Benton...... 17 Poison Bay, Flathead Lake...... 30 Fort Peck...... 13, 14-15, 19 Rattlesnake Creek, Missoula...... 31 Fresno Reservoir...... 17 Saco Local Protection Project...... 16 Gallatin River...... 18 Scott Coulee...... 16 Gibson Reservoir...... 17 Shields River near Clyde P a rk ...... 25, 26 Glasgow Local Protection Project...... 13, 15 Streambank Erosion C ontrol...... 17, 25 Glendive...... 26 Sun River...... 16-17 Great Falls...... 18 Tiber Reservoir...... 17 Great Falls Local Protection Project...... 16-17 Upper Missouri River Basin...... 13 Havre Local Protection Project...... 16 Vaughn, Sun River...... 18 Hungry Horse Reservoir...... 31 West Gallatin R iver...... 18 Kootenai River...... 29, 30 West Glendive, Yellowstone River...... 26 Lake Sakakawea...... 19 Yellowstone River Basin...... 25 Libby Additional Units and Reregulating. Dam ...... 30 Yellowtail Reservoir...... 25

33

GLOSSARY

Acre-foot: A volume of water equivalent to 1 acre of land covered to a depth of 1 Habitat: The total of the environmental conditions which affect the life of plants foot. and animals.

Advance engineering and design work: Work done by Corps of Engineers in Headwaters: (1) The upper reaches of a stream near its source. (2) The region where ground waters emerge to form a surface stream. (3) The water upstream preparation of a project for construction. from a structure. Agricultural levee: A levee that protects agricultural areas where the degree of Hydraulic earthfill dam: An embankment built up from waterborne clay, sand, protection is usually less than that of a flood control levee. and gravel carried through a pipe or flume.

Alluvial: Of, pertaining to, or composed of sediment deposited by flowing water, Ice jam: Accumulation of ice packed together and piled up, choking the stream as in a riverbed, flood plain, or delta. channel, and causing a rise in water level above the jam.

Appropriation: The setting aside of money by Congress, through legislation, for a Jetty: A structure similar to a groin built on a seashore or riverbank to prevent specific use. erosion due to currents and/or tide.

Arch-gravity structure: A structure which derives its resistance to the pressure Joint-use storage: Reservoir storage space which is used for more than one pur­ of water from both an arching effect and its own weight. pose. The operation may fbflow a fixed predetermined schedule or may be flexible and subject to adjustment, depending on particular hydrologic conditions. Authorization: House and Senate Public Works Committees resolutions or spe­ cific legislation which provides the legal basis for conducting studies or construct­ Left or right bank of river: The left-hand or right-hand bank of a stream when ing projects. The money necessary for accomplishing the work is not a part of the the observer faces downstream. authorization but must come from an appropriation by Congress. Levee: A dike or embankment, generally constructed close to the banks of the Bank and channel stabilization: A process to prevent bank erosion and stream, lake, or other body of water, intended to protect the landside from inunda­ channel degradation. tion or to confine the streamflow to its regular channel.

Basin: (1) Drainage area of a lake or stream, such as a river basin. (2) A naturally Mouth of river: The exit or point of discharge of a stream into another stream, a or artificially enclosed harbor for small craft, such as a yacht basin. lake, or the sea.

Concrete gravity structure: A type of concrete structure in which resistance to Oxbow lake: A lake formed in the meander of a stream, resulting from the overturning is provided only by its own weight. abandonment of the meandering course due to the formation of a new channel course. Confluence: The place where streams meet. Paleontology: The study of fossils and ancient life forms. Control dam: A dam or structure with gates to control the discharge from the up­ stream reservoir or lake. Reach: A length, distance, or leg of a channel or other watercourse.

Crest length: The length of a dam along its top (crest). Refusal: An extension of revetment that runs back into a channel bank to prevent a revetment structure from being outflanked. Dam: A barrier constructed across a valley for impounding water or creating a reservoir. Reservoir: A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space, either natural or created in whole or in part by the building of a structure such as a dam, which is used for Damages prevented: The difference between damages without the project and storage, regulation, and control of water. the damages with the project in place. Revetment: (1) A facing of stone, concrete, or sandbags to protect a bank of Degree of protection: The amount of protection that a flood control measure is earth from erosion. (2) A retaining wall. designed for, as determined by engineering feasibility; economic criteria; and social, environmental, and other considerations. Revetted levee: A stone- or concrete-faced embankment to prevent a river from overflowing. Dike: An embankment to confine or control water. Riprap: A layer, facing, or protective mound of randomly placed stones to prevent Diversion channel: (1) An artificial channel constructed around a town or other erosion, scour, or sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone so point of high potential flood damages to divert floodwater from the main channel to used. minimize flood damages. (2) A channel carrying water from a diversion dam. Rock dike: An embankment built principally of rock. Eartlrfill dam: A dam with its main section composed principally of earth, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Sill: (1) A horizontal beam forming the bottom of the entrance to a lock. (2) A low, submerged dam-like structure built to control riverbed scour and current speeds. Flood capacity: (1) The flow carried by a stream or floodway at bankfull water level. (2) The storage capacity of the flood pool at a reservoir. Spillway: A waterway on a dam or other hydraulic structure used to discharge ex­ cess water to avoid overtopping of a dam. Flood plain: Valley land along the course of a stream which is subject to inunda­ tion during periods of high water that exceed normal bankfull elevation. Stage: The elevation of the water surface above or below an arbitrary datum.

Flood proofing: Techniques for preventing flood damage to the structure and Standard project flood: A flood that may be expected from the most severe com­ contents of buildings in a flood hazard area. bination of meteorological and hydrological conditions that are reasonably char­ acteristic of the geographical region involved, excluding extremely rare combina­ Floodwall: A wall, usually built of reinforced concrete, to confine a stream to pre­ tions. vent flooding. Tributary: A stream or other body of water that contributes its water to another Gilsonite: A natural black bitumen used in the manufacture of acid, alkali, and stream or body of water. waterproof coatings. Visitor-hour: The presence of one or more persons in an area of land or water for Groin: A wall-like structure built perpendicular to the bank to prevent beach the purpose of engaging in one or more recreation activities during continuous, erosion. intermittent, or simultaneous periods of time totaling 60 minutes.

35 3023300400908

o u¿J3 0040090 8 -U S'-ARMY C0RPS OF ENGINEERS