DOCSLIB.ORG

Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT JEFFERSON RIVER AT THREE FORKS, MONTANA Prepared by U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, OMAHA, NEBRASKA December 1971 Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, Nebraska 1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: The proposed project would consist of the construction of an earth filled levee and a drainage collector ditch approximately lU ,700 feet in length along the northwest side of a small community. The location is at Three Forks in Gallatin County, Montana. 3. a. Environmental Impacts; Flood protection would be provided for a flood having a frequency of occurrence of once in a 100 years. A 28 acre loss of alternate land use would be required for levee alignment. A possibilit would exist for pollutants from adjacent land to accumulate in the collector ditch. A potential would exist for the collector ditch to develop aquatic growth. Five hundred feet of shelterbelt would be lost to levee construction. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Construction would effect the removal of 28 acres of land from alternative land use; collector ditch could act as a collector of pollutants; and construction of the levee would necessitate the removal of 500 feet of shelterbelt. Alternatives; Floodplain zoning, evacuation, flood proofing, reservoir construction, channel improvement, and ”no development” were considered. 5• Comments Received: City of Three Forks Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, USDI Montana Department of Fish Bureau of Reclamation, USDI and Game Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI Montana Department of Health Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Montana Highway Commission Bureau of Mines, USDI Soil Conservation Service, USDA Montana Water Resources Board National Park Service, USDI 6. Draft statement to CEQ 22 March. 1211. Final statement to CEQ I. Project description. The proposed Jefferson River flood control project at Three Forks, Montana was studied tinder authority of Section 205 of the Flood Control Act, approved 30 June 191*8, as amended by Section 205 of the Flood Control Act, approved 23 October 1962. The proposed project would consist of a compacted earth fill levee with a 10-foot top width and one on three side slopes. It would be approximately lU,700 feet long and be constructed on the northwest side of Three Forks to protect the town against over'oank flows from the Jefferson River. Project location and features are shown on plate 1. The levee would average 6 to 7 feet in height, including 3 feet of freeboard above the design water surface for a flood having an average frequency of occurrence of once in a 100 years. A small portion of the material for the construction of this levee would be obtained from the excavation of a collector ditch along the landside of the levee. The bulk of the random materials necessary for preparation of the levee core would be obtained from either young alluvium in the river valley or older allivium deposits on the valley slopes nearby. The collector ditch would traverse practically all of the levee alignment and would average 15 feet in width and 1 1/2 feet in depth. It would serve as a collector for runoff occurring on the landside of the proposed levee. The town of Three Forks has a borrow pit in proximity to the proposed levee, and severed other borrow pits, opened for construction of Interstate Highway 90, are available nearby. The proposed flood control project for Three Forks, Montana is under review by higher authority. The benefit-cost ratio for this project was estimated to be 1.1) to 1. It was amortized over a 50 year period at an interest rate of U.875 percent. II. Environmental setting without the project. The entire town of Three Forks lies between the Jefferson and Madison Rivers. This is about 3.5 miles upstream from the confluence of the Jefferson, Madison and Gallatin Rivers, which marks the beginning of the Missouri River. Historically, the town has not been subjected to frequent flooding from the Jefferson River, but because of the broad, flat natui**“Of the floodplain, the threat of flooding exists. The floodplain lands surrounding the town are agricultural, consisting mostly of hay and pasture lands. The area is semiarld which requires some of the agricultural land in the valley to be irrigated by a system of canals and ditches drawing water from the Jefferson River. The water table throughout a large portion of this basin lies within 8 to 10 feet of ground surface; seeps and springs are a common occurrence. The Jefferson River, like most of the streams in the area, supports a good trout fishery. Major fish species found along this stretch of the Jefferson River include rainhov and brown trout, mountain whitefish, suckers, dace, carp and mottled sculpin. The channel banks and adjacent lowlands abound in excellent vegetation which provides cover and needed shade to maintain cold water temperatures necessary for the protection and perpetuation of this fishery. Major plant types found in this area consist primarily of snowberry, willow, cottonwood, red dogwood, wild rose and buffalo-berry. Grasses of significance include cheatgrass, Junegrass, western wheatgrass and needlegrass. As a composite, these vegetative communities provide prime ■* feeding, resting, nesting and escape cover areas for deer, rabbits, marsh furbearers, pheasants and other species of upland game birds and song birds indigenous to the project area. The town of Thr«e Forks is currently discharging untreated sewage into the Jefferson River via Jefferson Slough. This is the result of an inadequate sewage lagoon constructed in 1962. A new treatment facility is in the planning stage. Other forms of environmental pollutants are evident. A large livestock feeding operation is located adjacent to the proposed levee in the northwest part of town. No facilities have been provided for disposal of associated animal wastes. Obnoxious odors originate from this facility and from an egg production plant adjacent to it. Large dust plumes are evident as they discharge from the stacks of a talc plant located in the town of Three Forks and from a cement plant located at Trident which lies five miles to the east. The town garbage dumo lies adjacent to the livestock feeding operation and adjacent to the proposed levee site. Although garbage is presently being burned here, this site is to be converted to a sanitary landfill in the future. Three Forks is surrounded by scenic and historic sites, although none fall within the immediate boundaries of the proposed flood control project. Ill. The environmental impact of the proposed action. A. Impacts Identified. 1. Flood control provided for a 100-year frequency flood. 2. A potential for establishing wildlife habitat along collector ditch. 3. Alternative land use vonld be lost on the 28 acres required for levee alignment. U The collector ditch could transfer a portion of the existing pollution problems to the Jefferson Slough. 5. There would be 500 feet of recently planted shelterbelt lost. B. Beneficial impacts discussed. 1. The project would control a 100-year frequency flood, thereby reducing the undesirable effects of flooding. These undesirable aspects go beyond the monetary losses of property and include deposition of water, silt, debris and waste which, in turn, create conditions favorable to the increased propagation of mosquitoes, flies and other pests and associated disease carriers. They also include psychological factors such as the anxiety created by the threat of flooding and the despair of seeing homes and property damaged or destroyed. In addition to reducing the undesirable effects, the project should provide added incentive to the local citizenry to maintain and improve their properties, and provide the impetus necessary to further improve the existing environment of the area by control of air and water pollutants. 2. A potential for wildlife habitat exists along the collector ditch. Under dry conditions the replanted vegetative growth would be readily available for gallinaceous birds. However, in the event a portion of the collector ditch develops a wet condition, in the form of a seepage or permanent flow, then the possibility exists for an aquatic habitat to develop that would favor marsh animals. The hydrological study indicated a wet condition is highly improbable. Nevertheless, many of the existing road ditches, borrow sites and lowlands in the immediate area are saturated with groundwater and support aquatic plant growth. The collector ditch would, even with water in the ditch, reduce mosquito reproduction by draining a number of existing puddles along the area of levee alignment. C. Detrimental impacts discussed. 1. The levee and collector ditch would remove 28 acres from alternative land use. The area currently provides medium grade pasture. 2. The collector ditch along the landside of the levee would serve as a vector for concentration of pollutants originating along the project alignment. This could result in concentrated pollution discharges into the Jefferson Slough downstream of the project. A review of the hydrological study indicated that very little runoff would occur behind the levee, so that the volume of polluted water entering the river via the slough would most likely be small. In any event, the proposed project would cause little change in the total volume of polluted water ultimately reaching the river. Groundwater pollution at a depth that would affect the town’s potable water supply has not been recorded to date by the Montana Health Department. Since the proposed project would most likely result in the faster transport of drainage water from the area, groundwater pollution should not be a problem. In fact, it is possible that less groundwater pollution would occur. However, with or without the project, pollution sources will remain until control action is taken locally.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Big Hole River Fluvial Arctic Grayling
    FLUVIAL ARCTIC GRAYLING MONITORING REPORT 2003 James Magee and Peter Lamothe Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Dillon, Montana Submitted To: Fluvial Arctic Grayling Workgroup And Beaverhead National Forest Bureau of Land Management Montana Chapter, American Fisheries Society Montana Council, Trout Unlimited Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 2004 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following individuals and organizations contributed valuable assistance to the project in 2003. Scott Lula, Greg Gibbons, Zachary Byram, Tracy Elam, Tim Mosolf, and Dick Oswald of Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP), provided able field assistance. Ken Staigmiller (FWP) collected samples for disease testing. Ken McDonald (FWP), provided administrative support, chaired the Fluvial Arctic Grayling Workgroup, reviewed progress reports and assisted funding efforts. Bob Snyder provided support as Native Species Coordinator. Dick Oswald (FWP) provided technical advice and expertise. Bruce Rich (FWP) provided direction as regional fisheries supervisor. Jim Brammer, Dennis Havig, Dan Downing, and Chris Riley (USFS) assisted with funding, provided housing for FWP technicians, and assisted with fieldwork. Bill Krise, and Ron Zitzow, Matt Toner, and the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bozeman Fish Technology Center maintained the brood reserve stock and transported grayling to the upper Ruby River. Jack Boyce, Mark Kornick and Jim Drissell, and crew of Big Springs Hatchery assisted with egg takes at Axolotl and Green Hollow II brood lakes, and transported eyed grayling eggs for RSI use in the upper Ruby River and to Bluewater State Fish Hatchery for rearing reaches. Gary Shaver, Bob Braund, and Dave Ellis from Bluewater State Hatchery raised and transported grayling to the Ruby River and the Missouri Headwaters restoration reaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Montana Arctic
    Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Montana Arctic Grayling Restoration August 2007 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING among: MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS (FWP) U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS) MONTANA COUNCIL TROUT UNLIMITED (TU) MONTANA CHAPTER AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY (AFS) YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK (YNP) MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING RECOVERY PROGRAM (AGRP) USDA NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS) MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION (DNRC) concerning MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING RESTORATION BACKGROUND Montana’s Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus is a unique native species that comprises an important component of Montana’s history and natural heritage. Fluvial (river dwelling) Arctic grayling were once widespread in the Missouri River drainage, but currently wild grayling persist only in the Big Hole River, representing approximately 4% of their native range in Montana. Native lacustrine/adfluvial populations historically distributed in the Red Rock drainage and possibly the Big Hole drainage have also been reduced in abundance and distribution. Arctic grayling have a long history of being petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Most recently (in April 2007) the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that listing of Arctic grayling in Montana under ESA was not warranted because it does not constitute a distinct population segment as defined by the ESA. On May 15th 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity announced its 60-day Intent to Sue the USFWS regarding the recent grayling decision. The Montana Arctic Grayling Recovery Program (AGRP) was formed in 1987 following declines in the Big Hole River Arctic grayling population, and over concerns for the Red Rock population.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Beaverhead River and Upper Jefferson River Temperature Tmdls – Attachment A
    Lower Beaverhead River and Upper Jefferson River Temperature TMDLs – Attachment A ATTACHMENT A – EVALUATION OF FISHERY TRENDS IN THE JEFFERSON RIVER DRAINAGE RELATED TO CHANGES IN STREAMFLOW PATTERN AND HABITAT RESTORATION ACTIVITIES 11/13/2014 Final Attachment A-1 Lower Beaverhead River and Upper Jefferson River Temperature TMDLs – Attachment A 11/13/2014 Final Attachment A-2 EVALUATION OF FISHERY TRENDS IN THE JEFFERSON RIVER DRAINAGE RELATED TO CHANGES IN STREAMFLOW PATTERN AND HABITAT RESTORATION ACTIVITIES Ron Spoon Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks March 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Fishery and Stream Flow Trends in the Jefferson River……………………….3 Chapter II Projects to Enhance Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitat……………………..21 Chapter III Evaluation of Fishery Trends in Tributaries of the Jefferson and Upper Missouri River……………………………………………..……….22 Chapter IV Boulder River Fishery Evaluation……………………………………………..38 Chapter V Stream Flow Protection and Enhancement Efforts for the Jefferson River…………………………………………………………………42 Chapter VI Fish Loss to Irrigation Canals…………………………………………………58 Chapter VII Water Temperature Measurements in the Jefferson River and Associated Tributaries on 31 July 2007………………………………………64 Chapter VIII Fishing Pressure and Angler Use of the Jefferson River……………………..73 Appendix A: Daily Flow Records at Waterloo (2000-2007)………………..77 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Information in this report is a product of over 20 years of attention provided to one of Montana’s great rivers. Compiling information to better understand the water and fishery resource is intended to help citizens in the valley make decisions on the fate of the Jefferson River. Once dubbed the “Forgotten Fork” of the headwaters of the Missouri, the past eight years of citizen involvement to protect and improve habitat have raised the profile of the river, and it is clear that the river can no longer be considered forgotten or dismissed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruby River Access Sites Secured by Bruce Farling Hen the Topic of Stream Access Families, There Would Be No Formal Fishing Ago
    SPRING TROUT LINE 2016 Newsletter from the Montana Council of Trout Unlimited Ruby River access sites secured by Bruce Farling hen the topic of stream access families, there would be no formal fishing ago. Because of budget constraints, and the Ruby River is raised access sites for 40-plus river miles below some caused by limits imposed by Win Montana it’s often related the Vigilante Fishing Access Site a couple the Legislature, as well as demands at to absentee landowner James Cox miles downstream of the Ruby River Dam. some of the other 330 sites in FWP’s Kennedy from Atlanta and his 15-year Three county bridge popular fishing access legal and political efforts to prevent the rights-of-way provide site program, the public from accessing this great fishery. the only other points department didn’t However, not all stories about stream of access on the lower have adequate funding access coming from the Ruby Valley river. But the bridges to renew the leases for are as distressing as the Kennedy tale. have limited parking. the previous agreed Recently we can thank some civic-minded Plus, Mr. Kennedy upon price. The ranchers and, in part, Montana TU and has contested bridge Doornbos, Barnosky three of its chapters for a bit of good access in court and and Guillame families, news about the Ruby. made getting to the however, graciously Since the mid-1990s, three long- river at those spots agreed to lease the time ranching families in the valley have physically difficult access sites at a much- been leasing portions of their properties with his fencing schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana
    Report of Investigation 23 Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana Richard B. Berg 2015 Cover photo by Richard Berg. Sapphires (very pale green and colorless) concentrated by panning. The small red grains are garnets, commonly found with sapphires in western Montana, and the black sand is mainly magnetite. Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences, RI 23 Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana Richard B. Berg Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology MBMG Report of Investigation 23 2015 i Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences, RI 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Descriptions of Occurrences ..................................................................................................7 Selected Bibliography of Articles on Montana Sapphires ................................................... 75 General Montana ............................................................................................................75 Yogo ................................................................................................................................ 75 Southwestern Montana Alluvial Deposits........................................................................ 76 Specifi cally Rock Creek sapphire district ........................................................................ 76 Specifi cally Dry Cottonwood Creek deposit and the Butte area ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • DROUGHT RESILIENCE PLAN Jefferson River Watershed Council PO Box 550 Whitehall MT 59759
    JEFFERSON RIVER WATERSHED DROUGHT RESILIENCE PLAN Jefferson River Watershed Council PO Box 550 Whitehall MT 59759 September 2019 Prepared for the Jefferson River water users as an educational guide to drought impacts, drought vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies to proactively plan for drought. Compiled by Evan Norman [email protected] Jefferson River Watershed Drought Resiliency Plan Contents Drought Resiliency ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Project Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Drought Mitigation ................................................................................................................................... 4 Defining Drought ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Utilization of Resources for Defining Drought Resilience Efforts ............................................................. 6 Jefferson River Watershed Characteristics ................................................................................................... 7 Land and Soil Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 10 Agrimet – JVWM, Jefferson Valley, MT ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Jefferson River Canyon
    Montana Department of Transportation TheA JeffersonPassage River Canyon Through Time he four-mile long Jefferson River Canyon was cut into Geo-Facts: the Tobacco Root Mountains between LaHood Park and • The high-quality Madison limestone was used as flux in the Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park relatively recently in Butte smelters during the height of that city’s prominence as geologic time. The canyon exposes rocks that span over a billion a mining town. A limestone quarry from the turn of the last T century is located just north of the highway at mile marker 5.5. years of geologic history. The rocks indicate times when the area The Madison limestone is also an important aquifer in much of was covered by shallow seas in which fine-grained sediment was Montana. deposited, and other times when rocks were exposed and eroded. The rocks also record times of volcanic activity and when stresses • Placer gold was discovered about a mile and a half upstream from in the earth caused rocks to contort into folds or break into com- the entrance to Lewis and Clark Caverns in the late 1800’s, but the placer mining operation was short-lived. plex and significant faults. Entering the canyon from the east will take you backward in time. Most of the rocks at the east end of • Acidic water caused the limestone to dissolve along cracks, the canyon are sedimentary and volcanic rocks from the age of di- forming the caves of Lewis and Clark Caverns. When the water nosaurs and younger. Gray cliffs of Madison limestone mark the table dropped as the Jefferson Canyon was cut, the caves became dry and their ceilings collapsed.
    [Show full text]
  • East Gallatin Nutrient Monitoring Project: Summary Report, 2017 Data Collection and ‘Site H’ Algal Spike
    East Gallatin Nutrient Monitoring Project: Summary Report, 2017 Data Collection and ‘Site H’ Algal Spike 215 W. Mendenhall, Suite 300 Bozeman, MT 59715 406.582.3168 www.glwqd.org Prepared by Torie Haraldson, Water Quality Tech. Specialist January, 2019 Project Background The Gallatin Local Water Quality District (GLWQD) led water quality data collection for a modeling effort by the City of Bozeman (the City) from 2014-2016. The purpose of the model is to understand the potential implications of Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Total Maximum Daily Load assessment on the City’s Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for their water reclamation facility (WRF) that discharges to the East Gallatin River, just north of Bozeman, Montana. Modeling (by HDR of Missoula) has provided insight into nutrient processing within the river system and its potential responses to nutrient management activities. The modeling process employs the river and stream water quality model QUAL2K, which couples nutrient data with light, weather, topography, and other inputs to predict algal growth in reaches along the river continuum. A project progress report by City of Bozeman staff at the GLWQD Board of Directors May 4, 2017 meeting included results that indicated a spike in algal density at ‘Site H’, a site on the main stem of the East Gallatin River approximately 13 miles downstream of the WRF (Figure 1). Chlorophyll-a is a photosynthetic pigment that is isolated from algae samples and used to quantify algal density. Mean Algal Chlorophyll-a at Main Stem Sites, 2014-2016 200 ) 180 2 160 140 120 July August Area Area (mg/m Density 100 a - September 80 Overall Mean 60 40 Mean Chlorophyll 20 0 ← Site ID ← River mi.
    [Show full text]
  • East Bench Unit History
    East Bench Unit Three Forks Division Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program Jedediah S. Rogers Bureau of Reclamation 2008 Table of Contents East Bench Unit...............................................................2 Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program .........................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Investigations...........................................................7 Project Authorization....................................................10 Construction History ....................................................10 Post Construction History ................................................15 Settlement of Project Lands ...............................................19 Project Benefits and Uses of Project Water...................................20 Conclusion............................................................21 Bibliography ................................................................23 Archival Sources .......................................................23 Government Documents .................................................23 Books ................................................................24 Other Sources..........................................................24 1 East Bench Unit Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program Located in rural southwest Montana, the East Bench Unit of the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program provides water to 21,800 acres along the Beaverhead River in
    [Show full text]
  • June 2021 Meeting Minutes
    Big Hole Watershed Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes June 16th, 2021 – 7:00 pm at the Divide Grange Zoom option also provided In Attendance In-person: Pedro Marques, BHWC; Tana Nulph, BHWC; Ben LaPorte, BHWC; Jarrett Payne, MFWP; Jim Hagenbarth, Rancher/BHWC; Max Hanson, UM/BHWC Intern; Paul Cleary, Resident/BHWC; Sandy Cleary, Resident; Matt Norberg, DNRC; Betty Bowler, Resident; Tom Bowler, Resident; Hans Humbert, Rancher/BHWC; Randy Smith, Rancher/BHWC; Jim Dennehy, Butte-Silver Bow Water Dept./BHWC; Thomas Woolf, MFWP; Scott Reynolds, Resident; Steve Luebeck, Sportsman/BHWC; and John Reinhardt, Rancher/BHWC. Zoom: Charley (no last name given); Chris Edgington, MTU; and Paul Siddoway. Meeting Minutes BHWC monthly meetings are now held at the Divide Grange with a virtual (Zoom) option provided thanks to Southern Montana Telephone Company, who donated the internet service. Meeting minutes and recordings are available at https://bhwc.org/monthly-meetings/ (scroll down for meeting minutes archive). Printed copies are available during in-person meetings. Contact Tana Nulph, BHWC Associate Director, at [email protected] or (406) 267-3421 to suggest additions or corrections. Reports Streamflow/Snowpack Report as of June 16, 2021 – Matt Norberg, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation • Streamflows: Streamflows in the Big Hole River have generally been below to well below average since the start of April. The bulk of the snowpack has melted off and the river peaked earlier and lower than normal. Daily average flows for this time of year are well below normal Big Hole Watershed Committee, 2021 Page 1 levels with most of the gages reporting streamflow’s well below the 25th percentile with some even below the 10th percentile.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Permit Application for the Clark
    20150421-5044 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 4/20/2015 5:32:03 PM PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE CLARK CANYON DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PREPARED BY: Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC. 2184 Channing Way, #131 Idaho Falls ID 83404 April 20, 2015 20150421-5044 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 4/20/2015 5:32:03 PM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) ) Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC ) Project No. ___________ ) ) Application for the Preliminary Permit for the Clark Canyon Dam Hydroelectric Project A. Initial Statement 1. Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC (Clark Canyon Hydro) applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) for a preliminary permit for the proposed Clark Canyon Dam Hydroelectric Project (Project), as described in the attached exhibits. This application is made in order that the applicant may secure and maintain priority of application for a license for the Project under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA) while obtaining the data and performing the acts required to determine the feasibility of the project and to support an application for a license. 2. The location of the proposed project is: State: Montana County: Beaverhead Nearby Town: Dillon, MT Stream: Beaverhead River 3. The exact name, business address, and telephone number of the applicant is: Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC. 2184 Channing Way, #131 Idaho Falls ID 83404 1 20150421-5044 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 4/20/2015 5:32:03 PM The exact legal name and business address of each person authorized to act as agent for the applicant in this application are: Alina Osorio Aquila Infrastructure Management Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • BIG HOLE National Battlefield
    BIG HOLE National Battlefield Historical Research Management Plan & Bibliography of the ERCE WAR, 1877 F 737 .B48H35 November 1967 Historical Research Management Plan BIG HOLE NATI ONAL for .BATILEFIELD LI BRP..RY BIG HOLE Na tional Battlefield & Bibliog raphy of the N E Z PERCE WAR, 1877 By AUBREY L. HAINES DIVISION OF HISTORY Office of Archeology and Historic Preservatio.n November 1967 U.S. Department of the Interior NATI ONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORICAL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG HOLE NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD November 1968 Recommended Superintendent Date Reviewed Division of History Date Approved Chief, Office of Archeology Date and Historic Preservation i TABLE OF CONTENTS Historical Research Management Plan Approval Sheet I. The Park Story and Purpose . • • • 1 A. The Main His torical Theme ••••••• 1 B. Sub sidiary Historical Theme • • • • • 1 1 c. Relationship of Historical Themes to Natural History and Anthropology • • • • • • • • 12 D. Statement of Historical Significance •• 14 E. Reasons for Establishment of the Park • • • • • 15 II. Historical Resources of the Battlefield 1 7 A. Tangible Resources • • • • 17 1. Sites and Remains 1 7 a. Those Related to the Main Park Theme • • . 1 7 b. Those Related to Subsidiary Themes • 25 2. Historic Structures 27 B. Intangible Resources • 2 7 c. Other Resources 2 8 III.Status of Research •• 2 9 A. Research Accomplished 29 H. Research in Progress • • • • • 3o c. Cooperation with Non-Service Institutions 36 IV. Research Needs ••••••••••••••••• 37 A. Site Identification and Evaluation Studies 37 H. General Background Studies and Survey Histories 40 c. Studies for Interpretive Development • • • • • 4 1 D. Development Studies • • • • • • • • • 4 1 E.
    [Show full text]