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. 3. The removal of 500 feet of shelterbelt would cause at least a temporary reduction in the amount of escape or resting cover presently available to wildlife. The permanency of the habitat reduction depends on the type and volume of tree planting that is accomplished.
D. Remedial, protective and mitigation measures.
Since very little clearing would be required for the proposed project, beautification and mitigation measures would be limited to seeding the slopes of the levee, ramps, turnouts and collector ditch with native grasses to prevent erosion and to improve the appearance. Borrow areas totaling about 18 acres would be cleaned up, dressed and if necessary seeded to restore as nearly as possible the conditions prevailing before construction. Replacement of 500 feet of recently planted shelterbelt would depend upon the desires of the landowners at the time of construction However, a plan for the replacement of trees and shrubs would be included in the proposed project. Selection would be made to favor wildlife.
IV. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.
A. The loss of alternative land use on 28 acres of land would be required for project construction.
B. The collector ditch could serve as a medium for transferring pollution from the local drainage area to the Jefferson River via the Jefferson Slough.
C. A few native cottonwood trees would be destroyed as would the 500 feet of shelterbelt. The effect of this loss would be mitigated to some extent by the revegetation plan.
V . Alternatives to the proposed action.
One alternative to the proposed action would be to recommend no flood control measures near the town of Three Forks, Montana. Under this course of action, current environmental conditions in the immediate area would continually be subjected to the changes induced by nature and man. The average annual flood damage is estimated to be $13,500 for existing conditions at Three Forks. The estimated damage is expected to increase by the year 2020 to $61,290. The density of fish and wildlife populations would continue to be a reflection of land and water uses by man and would probably continue to decline. The human miseries associated with flooding would continue without the proposed project.
Other alternatives considered for the project included floodplain zoning, evacuation, flood proofing, reservoir construction, channel improvement and levee protection. A. Floodplain Zoning. Floodplain zoning would not eliminate the current average annual flood damages of $13,500. Neither would it be effective in reducing potential future damages, since the entire town and the area immediately surrounding it are located in the floodplain. Ecologically, zoning is more effective when applied and enforced before a town has developed in the floodplain. In this case, the ecosystem as a functioning whole in nature has included the existing town for many years. Zoning now could only be beneficial if applied after the town has been flood protected. In so doing, a tolerable balance of human develop- ment would become a part of the ecosystem in the town's present location.
B. Evacuation. Relocation of the existing developments threatened by floods would be so extensive as to require relocation of the entire town. This would cost in excess of $6,800,000 market value of the town and would not be a practical or feasible solution to the flood problem. The ecological gain of restoring the town site to its original terrestrial conditon would not be significantly worthwhile. Terrestrial acreage abounds in this floodplain. It is replicated many times over throughout the basin. Although such a plan would eliminate all mental anxiety of flooding and the threat of flooding for the residents of Three Forks, the restoration of terrestrial acreage does not Justify the cost of evacuation and relocation.
C. Flood Proofing. Without extensive modifications the average residence in Three Forks would not have the structural stability to withstand the forces of flood flows. The cost of flood proofing structures subject to flooding was estimated at $1,000,000 and is not economically feasible. The ecological aspects of this plan would not change the terrestrial or riparian conditions beyond man's existing influence in the floodplain. Therefore, its cost was the limiting factor.
D. Reservoir. A dam and reservoir on the Jefferson River to provide flood protection for Three Forks would be beyond the scope of a Section 205 project and would cost several times the $1,000,000 limitation of Federal participation. A multiple-purpose dam and reservoir on the Big Hole River, one of the major tributaries of the Jefferson River, has been proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation in its report on the Jefferson-Whitehall Unit. If constructed; however, it would not completely eliminate the flood problem at Three Forks. The ecological considerations of the reservoir were not considered. However, the biological impacts would be significantly greater than the proposed project. A free flowing stream changed to the conditions of a lake would affect the existing fishery , especially when the headwaters and lower reaches of these mountainous streams are valued reproduction eco's for trout.
E. Channel Improvements. Preliminary examination of a channel improvement project indicated that improvements would have to extend about 5 miles above Three Forks to prevent the escape of floodwaters upstream. The proposal would cost in excess of $2,000,000 and is not considered *cononically feasible. The proposal would alter both the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem significantly, while the proposed project would to a lesser degree affect only the terrestrial ecosystem. The project selected calls for the construction of a levee to protect the community against the flood waters of the Jefferson River augmented by the construction of a collector ditch to handle drainage from behind the levee. The environmental impacts of such a proposal are discussed in detail in this statement.
VI. The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
"Short-term use" consists of the allocation of agricultural land for the construction of the proposed levee which was assumed to have an economic life of 50 years, but could have an actual useful life extending well beyond this period. Construction of the proposed project would preclude the agricultural productivity of the land on which the levee would be built. However, since this land is of low productivity, the economic loss would be negligible and would be more than offset by economic gains which would result from the protection provided by the project.
The long-term productivity would be increased by the protection of the urban area from periodic flooding. Although no drastic changes are expected in land use patterns adjacent to Three Forks, possible expansion of the town site could occur as a direct result of this project. Urban expansion could have a positive effect on the economic stability of the town of Three Forks. If urbanization takes place, it would modify the existing landscape and environment.
VII. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
The major irreversible commitments of resources for the proposed project would be the labor and capital expenditures for construction of the project. These would be more than returned in the form of tangible project benefits. The small amounts of miscellaneous materials required for construction of drainage structures, bar gates and fences, right- of-way markers, and levee Surfacing would be irretrievable.
It is not anticipated, within the life of the project, that the return of the project land to agriculture, or its use for any other purpose, would be of greater value than its use for the proposed flood protection project. However, should this occur in the long-term future, the project lands could be restored to their existing condition by removal of the levee embankment, filling the collector ditch and reseeding the area to native grasses. VIII. Coordination vlth others.
A. Public Participation.
A meeting of the Three Forks Town Council was held on U May 1970. A resolution was passed indorsing the plan of improvement for the local flood protection project and expressed an opinion of their willingness and ability to cooperate in the construction of the proposed project. The environmental aspects of the proposed plan were discussed. The environmental statement has been prepared. Copies are available from the District Engineer.
B. Government Agencies.
A review and comment of the draft environmental statement was requested from governmental agencies. Agency replies are appended with their comments summarized as follows:
1. Mayor of Three Forks.
Comment: The environmental statement was found acceptable to the Town Council. They indicated the proposal afforded flood protection and encouraged future growth. They concurred with the comments contained in the Detailed Project Report from coordinating agencies regarding the development of public access for fishermen and the general public.
Response: The comments were considered in general agreement with the present statement, except the matter of "public access." The Corps agrees that public access should be developed, but the responsibility to obtain the necessary land lies with the local sponsor.
2. Montana Fish and Game Department.
Comment: The statement seems to be very complete and accurately portrays the situation at Three Forks.
3. Montana Department of Health.
Comment: The proposed levee could cause the groundwater elevations to rise, thus intensifying the problem with groundwater infiltration into the existing sever system. A problem that now exists without the levee.
Response: Geelogy and foundation tests indicate that this Is extremely unlikely as the proposed project is designed to drain water from the area; thereby, reducing infiltration rather than increasing it.
Comment: The landward side collector ditch should be designed and constructed to eliminate possible contribution to the existing mosquito problem. Response; The intent of the comment vould be accomplished by the purpose and design of the collector ditch.
Comment: Creation of conditions favorable for the increased propagation of rats is not pertinent.
Response: The comment was considered valid and the reference was eliminated from the present statement.
Montana Highway Commission.
Comment: The statement was reviewed and the project proposal endorsed.
5. Soil Conservation Service, USDA.
Comment: If the collector ditch retains pockets of water, the adverse effects of mosquitoes may be greater than the beneficial effects of any additional aquatic habitat.
Response: The comment on the collector ditch drainage has been acknowledged in the statement. The comment on aquatic habitat is Justified and the statement reflects its unlikely probability.
Comment: The proposed project would not intensify existing pollution of the Jefferson River or groundwater.
Response: Groundwater pollution is not expected to intensify. However, as a result of the collector ditch, runoff from the area would enter the Jefferson Slough at a selected point rather than in several directions under existing conditions. This would in effect intensify the pollution at the point of discharge into the river via the slough.
6. Montana Water Resources Board.
Comment; It is hoped that the long levee can be developed to be compatible with the natural setting of the Jefferson River without scarring the existing terrain.
Response; The statement depicts the beautification and mitigative measures which will be taken.
7. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. USDI.
Comment: Recognition of the potential wildlife habitat in the collector ditch and the desirability of providing public access comprised the Bureau's principal recommendations. A concern wais expressed that the collector ditch might intensify pollution in the Jefferson River and negate its value for wildlife. Response: The Corps agrees with the desirability of providing public access; however, acquisition of land is the responsibility of the local sponsor. Although polluted waters in the collector ditch are a likelihood during periods of runoff; it is anticipated that these periods would be infrequent enough to have little adverse effect on the ditch's potential as a wildlife habitat.
8. Bureau of Reclamation, USDI.
Comment; The construction of the project would be compatible with the Bureau's plans for development of the water and related land resources of the Jefferson River.
Comment; The probable cost of the levee was not reported.
Response: The statement has been revised to include its cost.
Comment: What construction and maintenance measures would be taken to prevent water pollution in the collector ditch, borrow areas, or other works?
Response: Borrow areas would be selected so as not to be condusive to pollution. Pollution in the collector ditch would be an unavoidable result of the interior drainage. This problem is not felt to be significant due to the seasonal nature of the area's runoff.
9. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI.
Comment; How will the borrow operations affect the aesthetics of the surrotmding landscape?
Response; Borrow would more than likely be from an existing borrow site. The site would be revegetated, unless the project sponsor requested the borrow site be left open for their own ongoing use.
Comment; How much land would be affected?
Response: Acreage has been added to the statement.
Comment; How long would it take to revegetate this lend?
Response; Revegetation would normally require one to two growing seasons.
Comment; To what degree would pollution be intensified?
Response: The amount of pollutant to be concentrated by the collector ditch was not predicted. 10. ifavironmental Protection Agency.
Conanent: The statement should discuss the effect of the pollution on the town's wells, any private wells in the area and the downstream users of the Jefferson River.
Response; This possibility has been discussed in the statement.
Comment: The creation of additional aquatic habitat is doubtful.
Response; This comment was incorporated in the text of the statement.
Comment; Collector ditch could also serve as a prime breeding ground for mosquitoes as well as having vector possibilities.
Response: This possibility has been mentioned previously and is discussed in the statement.
11. Rational Park Service, USDI.
Comment: A clarification was indicated regarding the town not being frequently flooded, being a-aile from the river and being flooded periodically.
Response: A clarification has been made regarding the above comment.
Comment; While the proposal would allay the dangers of flooding to the residents, it unfortunately appears to have no definite effect upon the local surface pollution described under Part II.
Response; The comment is valid as the proposed project would not control the off-project sources of pollution. Their control is a local responsibility.
12. Bureau of Mines, USDI.
Consent: It is evident that the flood control project at Three Forks would not prove detrimental to mineral resources and mineral processing plants in the area, and could be beneficial.
C. Citizen Groups.
No known environmental conflicts or issues have been raised by citizen or conservation groups.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF MINES
Intermountain Field Operation Center build,NG M
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER DENVER, COLORADO 60225
February 4, 1971
Mr. Charles L. Hipp Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 7410 U.S. Post Office and Court House Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Dear Mr. Hipp:
This is in reply to the January 25 letter, written by M. G. Ellis, in which it was requested that this office review and prepare comments on an environmental statement for the Jefferson River project at Three Forks, Mont.
The project locale is a small part of the area covered in Preliminary Report 176, 'Mineral Resources of Three Forks Division in Southwestern Montana," published by the Bureau of Mines in February 1970. A copy of that report was sent to the District Engineer at Omaha.
It appears that the environmental statement treats the mineral and mineral-processing industry of Three Forks and the immediately adjacent area sufficiently on page 3 when it refers to the talc plant in Three Forks itself and to the cement plant of Ideal Cement Co. at Trident. Preliminary Report 176 also contains data on sand and gravel resources south of Three Forks.
It is evident that the flood control project at Three Forks would not prove detrimental to mineral resources and mineral processing plants in the area and could be beneficial.
0. M. Bishop Chief, Intermountain Field Operation Center UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MIDWEST REGION 1709 Jackson Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 District Engineer Department of the Army Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 7U10 U.S. Post Office and Court House Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Sir: Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the Preliminary Environmental Statement, Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana. Based upon field knowledge of the concerned area, the statement generally appears to be well prepared and objective. We are submitting the follow ing comments for your consideration. No existing or studied units of the National Park System would be affected by the proposal. The Registered National Historic Landmark, Three Forks of the Missouri, is downstream at the confluence of the Gallatin River with the Jefferson-Madison Rivers, and apparently would not be affected by this proposal. Since a review copy was furnished the Director of the Montana Fish and Game Department, we assume that Mr. Wesley Woodgerd, Chief of Recreation and Parks Division, has reviewed it relative to historic and archeological values are they pertain to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665). Mr. Woodgerd is the State Liaison Officer for this program. The following comments refer to specific items in the statement. Page 2, II, paragraph 1: We feel that this paragraph could be clarified. It is stated that the town has not been subjected to frequent flooding, the river being a mile distant, but the town is subject to periodic flooding. Page 6, C and D: While the proposal would allay the dangers of flooding to the residence, it unfortunately appears to have no definite effect upon the local surface pollution described under Part II. Sincerely yours, 23ill W. Dean / Acting Director, Midwest Region ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING 19TH AND STOUT STREETS DENVER, COIORADO 80202 April 20, 1971 Mr. Charles L. Hlpp, Chief Engineering Division Department of the Army Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 7410 U. S. Post Office and Court House Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Mr. Hlpp: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the "Jefferson River Project at Three Forks, Montana." The proposed project will consist of a leveq constructed between Three Forks and the Jefferson River to prevent periodic flooding of the town which lies completely in the flood plain. The Environmental Statement is thorough and describes the project and the expected effects quite well^...... From the description, it is apparent that major environmental problems exist in the Three Forks area. Unfortunately, the proposed project will do nothing to remedy these problems which face the community. Inasmuch as it appears that the project would actually intensify water pollution problems we feel that the Corps of Engineers should consider deferring the levee construction until the pollution sources are controlled. Specifically we would like to offer the following comments concerning the Statement: 1• Under Section D, Detrimental Effects of the Proposed Project, it is stated that the project could intensify pollution of existing groundwater and the Jefferson River by concentration of livestock wastes, sewage and other noxious residues in the collector ditch. This is of particular concern since Three Forks obtains its water supply from four wells. The Corps should Include in the Environmental Statement a discussion of the effect of the pollution on the town's wells, any private wells in the area and the downstream users of the Jefferson River. This emphasizes the need for controlling the pollution sources before project construction commences. page 2 ...... 2. The statement that a beneficial effect of the project (Section C) would be the creation of additional aquatic habitat is doubtful. As described in Section D the collector ditch would be little more than an open sewer. 3. The collector ditch could also serve as a prime breeding ground for mosquitoes. This could pose serious public health and nuisance problems for the town since the ditch would run the full length of the town and be quite close to the town. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should be contacted concerning this situation. The vector possibilities should be mentioned in the Environmental Statement. If we may be of further assistance please advise. Sincerely yours, V—Donald P. Dubois Interim Regional Coordinator EPA, Region VIII UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION lOOO SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 Colonel B. P. Pendergrass District Engineer Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 7410 U. S. Post Office and Court House Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Colonel Pendergrass: We have reviewed the preliminary Environmental Statement for the Jefferson River project at Thiv'e Forks, Montana, as requested in Mr. Hipp's letter of January 25, 1971. Our review and analysis pertaining to the outdoor recreational resources and aesthetic aspects of the proposal are in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91-190. Our comments are based upon information contained in the Environmental Statement. Contacts have been made with representatives of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife; National Park Service; Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office; and the Montana State Depart ment of Fish and Came. We understand that the proposed project would consist of an earth fill levee averaging 6 to 7 feet in height with a 10-foot top width. It would be approximately 14,700 feet long and would be constructed on the northwest side of Three Forks to protect the town against overbank flows from the Jefferson River. In addition, a ditch averaging 15 feet in width and l*s feet in depth will traverse most of the levee line. We believe that, in general, the statement presents an objective assessment of the essential information required under Section 102(2)(C) of P.L. 91-190 However, it could be strengthened by expanding the discussion of the following: 1. From reading the statement, we cannot determine just how the necessary borrowing operations will affect the aesthetics of the surrounding landscape. How much land would be affected and how long would it take to return this land to what is described as "nearly as possible the conditions prevailing before construction 2. It is stated that "The detrimental effects of the proposed project would include the possibility of intensifying pollution of existing groundwater and the Jefferson River ..." To what degree would pollution be intensified? We can envision an effect that would be quite minor or one that could have a major impact on out door recreation resources and the aesthetics of the area. A quantitative comparison,with and without the project, might be more meaningful. With the addition of the above considerations, we believe that the statement will more clearly portray the favorable and un favorable environmental effects of thi6 proposal. Sincerely yours, Fred J. Overly Regional Director United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Regional Office, Region 6 P. O. Box 2553 Billings, Montana 59103 February 1, 1971 COMMENTS OF REGION 6, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ON PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT JEFFERSON RIVER PROJECT, THREE FORKS, MONTANA In compliance with Section 102 of the Environmental Act of 1969, the Bureau of Reclamation has reviewed the Preliminary Environmental Statement of the Corps of Engineers, dated January 18, 1971, and find that construction of the project would be compatible with plans of the Bureau of Reclamation for development of the water and related land resources of the Jefferson River. United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Regional Office, Region 6 P. O. Box 2553 Billings, Montana 59103 FEB 2 1971 District Engineer Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 7410 U. S. Post Office & Court House Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Sir: The Preliminary Environmental Statement for the potential Jefferson River Project at Three Forks, Montana, sent to us by your letter of January 25, 1971, has been reviewed by this office. We are enclosing a statement of comment of Region 6 of the Bureau of Reclamation for use in further processing of the statement. This office commented on the preliminary plan for the levee project, as noted on page 12 of the environmental statement, by letter of February 13, 1970, We assume that there have been no substantial changes in plan, and would like a copy of your report when completed. In reviewing the preliminary statement, we noted that you did not indicate the probable cost of the levee; this is needed for compari son with costs of alternatives on pages9 and 10. You may also want to discuss in more detail the construction and maintenance measures that would be taken to prevent pollution from water that might be impounded by the collector ditch, borrow areas, or other works. Sincerely yours, Regional Director United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, Minresota 55111 Col. B. P. Pendergrass, District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District, Omaha Corps of Engineers 7*0.0 U. S. Post Office and Court House Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Colonel Pendergrass: This is in response to Mr. Hipp's letter of January 2^, 1971, which requested our views on the preliminary environmental statement for the proposed levee project at Three Forks, Montana. The five points in your preliminary environmental statement are well covered and adequately describe the situation at Three Forks with and without the levee project. ! . We are pleased that you mention the potential wildlife habitat that the collector ditch would provide, and the need and desirability of providing public access to the Jefferson River for hunting and fishing. These two items comprised the principal recommendations in our report to you dated April 27, 1970, on this project. However, in your pre liminary environmental statement, page 6, item D, first sentence, you point out that the collector ditch might intensify pollution to the Jefferson River by concentrating livestock wastes, sewage, and other noxious residues in the ditch and providing a direct route to the river. Pollution of tlie collector ditch would negate its value for wildlife. Consequently, we believe that if this project is authorized, a firm stand should be taken by your agency to avoid this type of accelerated pollution from occurring. On page 5, paragraph 2, last sentence, you point out very well that implementing thi* project should give the local people incentive to improve the existing environment in the area. Considering the many sources of pollution at Three Forks, including the livestock feed lot, egg production plant, talc plant, and cement plant, correcting these areas of pollution would have considerable environmental value. We appreciate the opportunity to review your preliminary environmental statement. Sincerely^\ Director MOXTAM W-VjI'KK ISKHOgTl** !KS HOARD h am if. MirriiKij. m ;iu n .\ < ] UK(,K\A, .MONTANA SIHtOl GOVERNOR FORREST H ANDERSON. CHAIRMAN February 5, 1971 Mr. Charles L. Hipp, Chief Engineering Division Department of Army Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 7410 U. S. Post Office Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Mr. Hipp: We have received your environmental statement for the Jefferson River project at Three Forks, Montana. Basically, the project appears to benefit Three Forks, but it is hoped that this 14,700 foot long levee can be developed to be com- patable with the natural setting of the Jefferson River. Scarring of the exist ing terrain, misplaced borrow pits, long straight alignments, and removal of vegetation should be kept to a minimum. To blend with the existing environment is not always the proper guideline; but to improve on it, is. Sincerely, MONTANA WATER RESOURCES BOARD '/ ' \ / t Douglas^G. Smith Direcjifxr UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE______P. 0. Box 970, Bozeman, Montana 59715 February 17, 1971 Mr. Charles L. Hlpp Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Mr. Hipp: /** We have reviewed the Environmental Statement for the Jefferson River Project at Three Forks, Montana. The statement is well prepared and reflects the actual situation at Three Forks. If the Collector ditch retains pockets of water, the adverse effects of mosquitoes may be greater than the beneficial effects of any additional aquatic habit. We do not believe the proposed project would intensify existing pollution of the Jefferson River or ground water; the flood protection and drainage planned would have the opposite effect. Sincerely, .. " ‘ ' v - t A. B. Linford State Conservat ionist MONTANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION February 5, 1971 Subject: Jefferson River Project Mr. Charles L. Hipp Three Forks Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Ar m y Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 7410 U. S. Post Office & Court House Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Mr. Hipp: The Montana State Highway Department as a me m b e r of the Governor's Council on Natural Resources and Development has been requested to comment on the preliminary detailed Environmental Statement for the Jefferr son River project at Three Forks, Montana as prepared by your office. W e are pleased to advise you that we have reviewed your environ- /<3 ' mental statement for this project and endorse your proposal. Should you require any additional information on this topic, please advise. Very truly yours, LEWIS M. CHITTIM, P. E. State Highway Engineer Jack R. Beckert, P. E., Assistant State Highway Engineer - Engineering jitale of (JHontana department of JHealtfy H e l e n a , M o n t a n a 59601 February 11, 1971 Hr. Charles L. llipp, Chief engineering Division Department of the Army Omaha District, Corps of Engineers . , 7410 U. S. Post Office and Courthouse - ' Omaha, Nebraska Dear Mr. Hipp: We have reviewed the preliminary environmental statement prepared by the Omaha District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers en titled "Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana." The proposed project will undoubtedly be beneficial to the community of Three Forks, however, problems relating to sewage disposal and mosquito propagation could be compounded unless they are given proper consideration. Groundwater infiltration into the existing sewer system is causing significant problems in providing sewage treatment for Three Forks. The proposed levee could cause the groundwater elevation to rise, thus intensifying the problem with infiltration. If this is a potential problem, perhaps the collector ditch on the landward side of the levee could be made deeper to serve both as a ground- water drain and a surface drain. Three Forks and the surrounding area currently experiences mosquito problems due largely to the close proximity of numerous sloughs and stagnant bodies of water. The landward side collector ditch should be designed and constructed to eliminate possible contribu tion to the existing mosquito problem. Ditch banks should have a relatively steep slope, collected water should flow and not create bodies of free-standing water, and dense growths of vege tation should not be established in the ditch. Creation of conditions favorable for the increased propagation of rats, as mentioned on page 5 of the report, is not pertinent since there are no Norway rats in this area. - 2 - 4 Mr. Charles L. Hipp, Chief February 10, 1971 Engineering Division Department of the Army Omaha District, Corps of Engineers We appreciated having an opportunity to review this environmental statement. Sincerely yours, Claiborne W, Brinck, P.E., Director Division of Environmental Sanitation STATE o f M O^TTzV^TA I>EI*iVUT?lKST OF R s h ^ ii ( r ,t ? iE Helena, Montana 59601 February 5, 1971 Mr. Charles L. Hipp Chief, Engineering Division Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 74J-0 U. S. Post Office and Court House Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Mr. Hipp: i 1 We have reviewed the preliminary Environmental State ment prepared for the proposed dike project along the Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana. The report seems to be very complete and accurately portrays the situation at Three Forks. Consequently we have nothing to add. Our compliments for a statement well done. Sincerely, ✓ / .• FRANK H. DllNKLE ^ STATE FISH AND GAME DIRECTOR City of Ohree Oorhs 206 MAIN THREE FORKS. MONTANA 59752 PHONE: 285-3431 12 February 1971 Mr. Charles L. Hlpp Chief, Engineering Division Corp of Army Eneineors 7^10 U. S. Post Office Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of 2 $ January requesting comments regarding your preliminary detailed five-point Environmental Statement for the Jefferson River project at Three Forks, Montana: This agency, the Town Council for the Town of Three Forks, having reviewed the preliminary detailed statement finds the proposed project acceptable with the following comments: (a) The proposed levee would afford the Town of Three Forks needed protection against high flows on the Jefferson river that in years past have flooded the western areas of the community. (b) The proposed levee would not adversly affect the future develonment and growth of the community but would in actuality encourage the future growth and development of the Town of Three Forks by giving flood protection. (c) The Town Council concurs with the comments of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Montana Water Resources Board. Further, we feel that such proposals as providing an area for public access for fishermen and the general public to and along the banks of the Jefferson River, be developed within the overall project. CiUj ofOLee 3 o r L 206 MAIN THREE FORKS, MONTANA 59752 PHONE: 265-3431 We greatly aporeciate the assistance of the Corps of Engineers— Department of the Army, for their efforts on behalf of our community. We would at this time request that the project be continued toward the final Environmental Statement. Sincerely William A. Fairhurst jMayor Town of Three Forks DETAILED PROJECT REPORT JEFFERSON RIVER AT THREE FORKS, MONTANA PERTINENT DATA LOCATION: Along Jefferson River in Gallatin County, Montana FLOODDISCHARGES Standard project flood in cubic feet per second 64,300 Design flood in cubic feet per second (100-year) 35,000 Percent design flood is of standard project flood 54 LEVEE Length in feet 14,680 Average height in feet 6.5 Top width in feet 10 Side slopes 1 on 3 Minima freeboard in feet above design water surface 3 Embantanent in cubic yards 119,000 AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOOD DAMAGES AND BENEFITS damages without project $24,400 Damages with project $3,900 x Project benefits $20,500 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION In percent 84 PROJECT POSTS Federal (including $39,000 for preparation of DPR) $241,000 Non-Federal $16,000 Total project first cost $257,000 ANNUAL ECONOMIC POSTS Federal Interest and amortization $10,800 Non-Federal Interest and amortization $900 Operation and maintenance $3,000 Total annual costs $14,700 INTEREST RATE In percent 4.875 BENEFIT-COST RATIO 1.4 part of the town but would overtop the railroad and flow through the main part of Three Forks. ‘ b. Related water problems. Water problems, other than the need for flood control, are not evident at Three Forks. The municipal water supply is drawn from wells and is sufficient for foreseeable needs. The town is currently without a sewage treatment system but has plans for a sewage lagoon to be located on the Jefferson River about 1.5 miles northeast of the town. Although erosion and channel shifting have occurred along the Jefferson River, the river, as it passes Three Forks, is more than 1 mile from the town, and erosion does not pose a threat other than at the site of the proposed sewage lagoon. The town is aware of the potential problem in this area. Corps of Engineers' representatives have suggested to town officials that erosion protective measures and flood proofing be incorporated into the design of the proposed treatment facilities. • c. Desires of local interests. Local interests have expressed a' desire for a flood protection levee to protect the town from the Jefferson River. The town has also requested assistance from the Corps of Engineers in diverting the flow from one of the channels of the Jefferson River, known locally as Jefferson Slough, into the main channel. The abandoned channel could then be used for a sewage lagoon. Town officials have been advised that the work for their proposed sewage lagoon is not eligible for Corps of Engineers participation under the flood control authorities currently available to the Corps. Officials of the town have been offered technical assistance and guidance available under the Flood Plain Management Program. 18. PLAN FORMULATION a. General. Formulation of a project for Three Forks was guided by the following concepts: (1) The project should provide a practical and economic .means for resolving the flood, and if applicable, related water problems; (2) Consideration should be given to both the benefi cial and detrimental effects of any project developed; (3) The views of local interests should be given careful consideration; and (4) The project should, insofar as practicable, maxi mize net benefits over costs. b. Solutions considered. Within the framework of project formulation concepts, solutions considered were flood plain zoning, evacuation, flood proofing, reservoir storage, channel improvement, and levees. (1) Flood plain zoning. Flood plain zoning would not eliminate the indicated average annual flood damage of $13,500 which, under current prices and existing level of development, would occur at Three Forks. Neither would it be effective in reducing potential future damages, since the entire town and the area immediately surrounding it are located in the flood plain. (2) Evacuation. Relocation of the existing develop ments threatened by floods would be so extensive as to require relocation of the entire town. This would cost in excess of the $6,800,000 market value of the town and would not be a practical nor feasible solution to the flood problem. (3) Flood proofing. Without extensive modification, the average residence in Three Forks would not have the structural stability to withstand the forces of floodflows. The cost of flood proofing structures subject to flooding was estimated at $1,000,000 and is not economically feasible. (4) Reservoir. A dam and reservoir on the Jefferson River to provide flood protection for Three Forks would be beyond the scope of a Section 205 project and would cost several times the $1,000,000 limitation on Federal participation. A multiple-purpose dam and reservoir an the Big Hole River, one of the major tributaries of the Jefferson River, has been proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation in its report on the Jefferson- Whitehall Unit. If authorized and constructed, operation r? this dam coordinated with the operation of Clark Canyon Dam, as proposed by the Bureau, would reduce the average annual flood damages at Three Forks by 82 percent. The estimated cost of the proposed dam and reservoir is about $13,000,000. (5) Channel improvement. Preliminary examination of a channel improvement project indicated that improvements would have to extend about 5 miles upstream to prevent the escape of floodwaters upstream. Such a project would cost in excess of $2,000,000 ar.' is not economically feasible. (6j Levees. Preliminary studies indicated that a levee project would cost $238,000 and could be economically justified. Consideration was given to combining nonstructural measures with the levee project and to combinations including the other structural alternatives. Such combinations were found to be impractical because their costs would exceed the cost of the levee project alone. c. Summary. Since a levee project appeared the most practical of the solutions considered, it was selected for detailed study.