DOCSLIB.ORG

1.0 INTRODUCTION Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1.0 INTRODUCTION Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc. (System), a nonprofit corporation composed of 22 municipalities and rural water systems, proposes to construct a water supply pipeline and associated well field, pump stations, treatment plant, and storage reservoirs throughout southeastern South Dakota, southwestern Minnesota, and northwestern Iowa. Maps 1.1 and 1.2 show the general location of the proposed Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project (Project). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the lead federal agency for funding portions of Project construction and is responsible for Project regulatory oversight and for ensuring compliance with environmental and other related laws. The Project pipeline would run from a well field to be developed beside the Missouri River in southeastern South Dakota to various existing water system connection points located throughout the region and is a modification of the system proposed in 1993 (Banner Associates, Inc. [Banner] et al. 1993). The pipeline system would be approximately 400 miles in length (Map 1.3). Pipeline diameters would range from approximately 6 to 54 inches. Average flow within the system is expected to be approximately 22 to 23 million gallons per day (MGD) (Table 1.1); whereas maximum flow would be approximately 29 to 32 MGD. The System was organized in 1989. In 1990, a needs assessment study was initiated, and a Project feasibility study (Banner et al. 1991, 1993) and an environmental report (Mariah Associates Inc. [Mariah] 1993a) were completed. Federal authorization and funding efforts began in the early 1990s, and the Project was authorized by Congress in 2000. Public Law (P.L.) 106-246 authorized expenditures in the form of a federal grant for Project planning and construction. Approximately 78% of Project planning and construction costs would be funded by a federal grant under P.L. 106-246. The remaining costs necessary to complete construction would be provided by local and state Project sponsors. The Project would provide a high-quality, reliable domestic water supply to residents of 14 counties in southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa, and southwestern Minnesota. The 2 Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /// / / / /1 / //// / / / / / / I / / // / / / I // / / / / I / / / / LAKE / / / / / / Co. / / / / I / / / I / T / / I HcCO(JKI MINNEHAHA~I ROCK I NOBLES / / / I Co. I co. ~I co. I... Co. / / I .-.~I ~nnesot~ I ---I \ ~Y~NIO'W~ ~SCEOLA D[CKINSON II TURNER I LINCOLN..' CO. CO. I Co. I Co. Co. s--- -1- I :S I, ~-~ SIOUX I O'BRIEN I CLAY I r-j CO. Co. Co. I CLAY UNION CO. I CO. 274B7\LO~TION-L1 Map 1.1 General Location, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project, 2002. Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project 3 LAKE Madisan Lake~ . Herman- ~ ~ Madison -- 1--West GrahamLake "J I East Graham Lake I NOBLES pirit ake SON boji e Lake nd~ ake SIOUX O'BRIEN t REGIONALPROJECT AREA BOUNDARY o 10 20 30ml 0 10 20 30 .0 50km 27487\REGK)HAl Map 1.2 Project Region, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project, 2002. ~ 4 Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project .-E IN E ~ ..,o ."o ~ o I-LoJ N ::> ..,o ~0 LoJ z -~ -LoJ -~ ---~~LoJ o 0N -'LoJQ. QQ.::> ->- -!D ...LoJLoJ...Q. 0 -J 0 VI -' ~; u LoJo- "' VI Q.~ O 001 O Q. ~ 0 ~, 0 Q. ...: , " ~ , ~ Q. <:I: ... LoJ ~!= u > <~ Q) -.."., ,<>-LoJ O 1- 01- '""' z ::>::> " LoJ 1-0 - 1- VI~ >- - p. p. ~ r/) '""' Q) ... ~ ~ ~ '""' ~ - U ~ >- = = ~ u ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ ... = 0 ~ = 0 ... u Q) = = o U ~ = ~ w ~ ~ Q) < ... -J = o .n ~ Q) = - Q) p. ~ ~ Cf') - p. ~ ~ Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project 5 Table 1.1 Projected Water Demand Summary, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project, 2002. Total Affected County Projected County Projected Average Project Population Population Water Demand (MGD)3 State (2000)1 (2025) 2 (2030) South Dakota 224,490 257,584 14.8-15.5 Iowa 99,253 103,109 3.4-3.5 Minnesota 30,553 32,810 3.8-4.0 Total 354,296 393,466 22.0-23.0 1 Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001a). 2 County information derived from state projections (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b). Growth rates for all affected counties assumed to be the same as for their respective states: Iowa growth rate = 1.039; Minnesota growth rate = 1.074; South Dakota growth rate = 1.147. See Table 3.6 for detailed county projections. 3 MGD = million gallons per day. counties proposed for Project construction include (in South Dakota) Lake, Minnehaha, Turner, Lincoln, Clay, and Union; (in Iowa) Lyon, Osceola, Dickinson, Sioux, O'Brien, and Clay; and (in Minnesota) Rock and Nobles (see Maps 1.1 and 1.2). Most lands along the proposed route are used for agriculture, transportation (state, county, and local roads), utilities (pipelines, power lines, telecommunications cables), wildlife habitat, and recreation. 1.1 FEDERAL ACTION The proposed federal action is to provide Project funding and construction oversight of water supply pipelines and associated well field and other facility construction. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) and the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, Reclamation has determined that an environmental assessment (EA) is required to evaluate the proposed 6 Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project Project. The purpose of the EA is to identify impacts associated with Project alternatives and allow the responsible federal official to determine whether the Project would have any significant impacts on the human and natural environment. If no significant impacts are identified, Reclamation will issue a final EA and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If any significant impacts are identified, Reclamation would proceed with the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). This EA also is intended to be used for scoping/consultation with Native American Tribes and other interested parties in partial fulfillment of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requirements using the consultation and compliance processes described in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 800.8 - Coordination with the NEPA. This EA is intended to be programmatic since various Project components (e.g., final pipeline alignments, facility locations) may be modified during the estimated 10 to 15 years required to complete Project construction. Comprehensive site-specific inventories would be conducted annually during Project construction (see Appendix A) to minimize the potential for adverse environmental effects. These multi-agency site-specific inventories would be conducted to assess the reclamation status of past construction actions, to identify appropriate remedial actions where problems may be found, and to develop appropriate location and design criteria for upcoming Project construction actions. 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED The Project would provide adequate supplies of good-quality drinking water to areas where current water supplies are insufficient, are at risk of contamination, or are of inferior quality. Project water would supplement or replace water used in existing water systems. The alluvial aquifers of the Missouri River south of Vermillion, South Dakota, would serve as the raw water source, and the Project would furnish water via pipelines connected to currently operational water supply systems to serve the current and projected needs of the System's current 22 member entities (water user groups) (Table 1.2). The pipeline system allows for projected increases in Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project 7 Table 1.2 Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Member Entities, 2002. State Water User Group South Dakota Beresford Centerville Harrisburg Lennox Lincoln County RWS1 Madison Minnehaha CWC2 Parker Sioux Falls South Lincoln RWS1 Tea Iowa Boyden Clay Regional RWS1 Hull Sheldon Sibley Sioux Center Rural Water No. 1 Rock Rapids3 Minnesota Lincoln-Pipestone County RWS1 Luverne Rock County RWS1 Worthington 1 RWS = Rural Water System. 2 CWC = Community Water Corporation. 3 Rock Rapids is currently negotiating to become a System member. the consumptive water demands of its users until the year 2030, thus allowing area residents and businesses to maintain existing conditions (quality of life) while sustaining anticipated regional population growth. The Project has been designed to address concerns expressed by local residents regarding the low quality, vulnerability, and insufficient supply of water throughout the area. Water quantity problems are presently experienced by at least 12 of the 22 System member entities (Banner et al. 1993); however, as regional population increases, water quantity concerns will likely become more prevalent. Many member entities already impose water use restrictions on their customers during the hotter and drier months of the year when water demands can exceed current supply capacities. At the present time, member entities obtaining water from the Sioux Falls Management Unit portion of the Big Sioux River and its aquifer system (e.g., Sioux Falls) cannot develop further capacity since water rights in this aquifer system are fully appropriated; projections by the City of Sioux Falls show that water needs will exceed available supplies by 8 Finding of No Significant Impact and Final EA, Lewis and Clark Water Supply Project 2012. Furthermore, the City of Worthington acquires its water from the Lake Bella well field, and on average, Worthington withdrawals exceed recharge in 3 out of 10 years. Implementation of restrictions and guidelines proposed in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are making water quality issues increasingly important to rural water system operators and users. Banner et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 7050 Minnesota Pollutant Control Agency Waters of the State
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. July 10, 2020 In addition to the criteria provided in this document, EPA has approved site-specific standards for the following waters: Water Parameter(s) Rule Site Specific Standard EPA Approval Date Sauk River Flowage Eutrophication: 7050.0220 subp. 7 TP: < 90 µg/L 2/12/2020 Lakes including Total phosphorus Site-specific Chl-a: < 45 µg/L Horseshoe North, Chl-a modifications of Secchi depth: ≥ 0.8 m East Cedar Island, Secchi depth standards Koetter, Zumwalde, Great Northern, Krays, and Knaus/Park Sauk River Non- Eutrophication: 7050.0220 subp. 7 TP: < 55 µg/L 2/12/2020 flowage lakes Total phosphorus Site-specific Chl-a: < 32 µg/L including Chl-a modifications of Secchi depth: ≥ 1.4 m Horseshoe West, Secchi depth standards Horseshoe South, Cedar Island, and Bolfing Lower Minnesota Selenium 7050.0222 subp. 4 Selenium: 11 µg/L 10/21/2019 River Main Channel, Site-specific starting at modifications of approximately River standards Mile 6, at the discharge for the Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant, and ending at the confluence of the Minnesota River with the Mississippi River Lower Minnesota Selenium 7050.0222 subp. 4 Selenium: 5.7 µg/L 10/21/2019 River Oxbow and Site-specific Floodplain Lakes modifications of (19-0078-00 and standards 27-0002-00) Lake Zumbro, Eutrophication: 7050.0220 subp.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
    STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.391, Subd. 1, the Commissioner of Natural Resources hereby publishes the final inventory of Protected (i.e. Public) Waters and Wetlands for Nobles County. This list is to be used in conjunction with the Protected Waters and Wetlands Map prepared for Nobles County. Copies of the final map and list are available for inspection at the following state and county offices: DNR Regional Office, New Ulm DNR Area Office, Marshall Nobles SWCD Nobles County Auditor Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES JOSEPH N. ALEXANDER, Commissioner DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATERS FINAL DESIGNATION OF PROTECTED WATERS AND WETLANDS WITHIN NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA. A. Listed below are the townships of Nobles County and the township/range numbers in which they occur. Township Name Township # Range # Bigelow 101 40 Bloom 104 41 Dewald 102 41 Elk 103 40 Graham Lakes 104 39 Grand Prairie 101 43 Hersey 103 39 Indian Lake 101 39 Larkin 103 42 Leota 104 43 Lismore 103 43 Little Rock 101 42 Lorain 102 39 Olney 102 42 Ransom 101 41 Seward 104 40 Summit Lake 103 41 Westside 102 43 Wilmont 104 42 Worthington 102 40 B. PROTECTED WATERS 1. The following are protected waters: Number and Name Section Township Range 53-7 : Indian Lake 27,34 101 39 53-9 : Maroney(Woolsten- 32 102 39 croft) Slough 53-16 : Kinbrae Lake (Clear) 11 104 39 Page 1 Number and Name Section Township Range 53-18 : Kinbrae Slough 11,14 104 39 53-19 : Jack Lake 14,15 104 39 53-20 : East Graham Lake 14,22,23,26,27 104 39 53-21 : West Graham Lake 15,16,21,22 104 39 53-22 : Fury Marsh 22 104 39 53-24 : Ocheda Lake various 101;102 39;40 53-26 : Peterson Slough 21,22 101 40 53-27 : Wachter Marsh 23 101 40 53-28 : Okabena Lake 22,23,26,27,28 102 40 53-31 : Sieverding Marsh 2 104 40 53-32 : Bigelow Slough NE 36 101 41 53-33 : Boote-Herlein Marsh 6,7;1,12 102 40;41 53-37 : Groth Marsh NW 2 103 41 53-45 : Bella Lake 26,27,34 101 40 *32-84 : Iowa Lake 31;36 101 38;39 *51-48 : Willow Lake 5;33 104;105 41 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7050 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Water Quality Division Waters of the State
    MINNESOTA RULES 1989 6711 WATERS OF THE STATE 7050.0130 CHAPTER 7050 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY WATER QUALITY DIVISION WATERS OF THE STATE STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE 7050.0214 REQUIREMENTS FOR POINT QUALITY AND PURITY OF THE WATERS OF SOURCE DISCHARGERS TO THE STATE LIMITED RESOURCE VALUE 7050.0110 SCOPE. WATERS. 7050.0130 DEFINITIONS. 7050.0215 REQUIREMENTS FOR ANIMAL 7050.0140 USES OF WATERS OF THE STATE. FEEDLOTS. 7050.0150 DETERMINATION OF 7050.0220 SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF COMPLIANCE. QUALITY AND PURITY FOR 7050.0170 NATURAL WATER QUALITY. DESIGNATED CLASSES OF 7050.0180 NONDEGRADATION FOR WATERS OF THE STATE. OUTSTANDING RESOURCE CLASSIFICATIONS OF WATERS OF THE VALUE WATERS. STATE 7050.0185 NONDEGRADATION FOR ALL 7050.0400 PURPOSE. WATERS. 7050.0410 LISTED WATERS. 7050.0190 VARIANCE FROM STANDARDS. 7050.0420 TROUT WATERS. 7050.0200 WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS 7050.0430 UNLISTED WATERS. FOR WATERS OF THE STATE. 7050.0440 OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS 7050.0210 GENERAL STANDARDS FOR SUPERSEDED. DISCHARGERS TO WATERS OF 7050.0450 MULTI-CLASSIFICATIONS. THE STATE. 7050.0460 WATERS SPECIFICALLY 7050.0211 FACILITY STANDARDS. CLASSIFIED. 7050.0212 REQUIREMENTS FOR POINT 7050.0465 MAP: MAJOR SURFACE WATER SOURCE DISCHARGERS OF DRAINAGE BASINS. INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER WASTES. 7050.0470 CLASSIFICATIONS FOR WATERS 7050.0213 ADVANCED WASTEWATER IN MAJOR SURFACE WATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS. DRAINAGE BASINS. 7050.0100 [Repealed, 9 SR 913] STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY AND PURITY OF THE WATERS OF THE STATE 7050.0110 SCOPE. Parts 7050.0130 to 7050.0220 apply to all waters of the state, both surface and underground, and include general provisions applicable to the maintenance of water quality and aquatic habitats; definitions of water use classes; standards for dischargers of sewage, industrial, and other wastes; and standards of quality and purity for specific water use classes.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Work Plan
    Attachment A Project Work Plan Doc Type: Contract MPCA Use Only Swift #: 103180 CR #: 8623 Project Title: Mississippi River Brainerd Watershed Restoration & Protection Project (Phase 1) 1. Project Summary: Organization: Aitkin SWCD Contractor contact name: Janet Smude Address: 130 Southgate Drive Aitkin, MN 56431 Phone: 218-927-6565 E-mail: [email protected] Partner(s) Local Partner Team (LPT): Organization: Morrison Soil & Water Conservation District Project manager: Helen McLennan Phone: 320-616-2479 E-mail: [email protected] Organization: Crow Wing Soil & Water Conservation District Project manager: Melissa Barrick Phone: 218-828-6197 E-mail: [email protected] Organization: Todd Soil & Water Conservation District Project manager: Shannon Wettstein Phone: 320-732-2644 E-mail: [email protected] Organization: Mississippi River Headwaters Board Project manager: Tim Terrill Phone: 218-824-1189 E-mail: [email protected] MPCA contact(s): MPCA project manager: Bonnie Finnerty Title: Watershed Project Manager Address: 7678 College Road, Suite 105 Baxter, MN 56425 Phone: 218-316-3897 E-mail: [email protected] www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats e-admin9-38 • 12/2/13 Page 1 of 4 Project information Latitude/Longitude: N/A *County: Multiple Counties – Aitkin, Crow Wing, Morrison & Todd Start date: 2/10/2016 End date: 6/30/2019 Total cost: 44,678.00 *Full time equivalents: .35 *Major watershed(s): Statewide Kettle River Miss Rvr – GrandRpds Rainy Rvr – Baudette So Fork Crow River Big Fork River Lac Qui Parle River Miss Rvr –Headwaters Rainy Rvr – Black Rvr Lower St.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Summaries of Selected Iowa Streamflow Data--Table 1
    Table 1 1 Table 1. Streamgages in Iowa included in this study. [no., number] Map Streamgage number Streamgage name Link to streamflow statistics for streamgage number (fig. 1) 1 05387440 Upper Iowa River at Bluffton, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05387440_stats.docx 2 05387500 Upper Iowa River at Decorah, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05387500_stats.docx 3 05388000 Upper Iowa River near Decorah, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05388000_stats.docx 4 05388250 Upper Iowa River near Dorchester, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05388250_stats.docx 5 05388500 Paint Creek at Waterville, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05388500_stats.docx 6 05389000 Yellow River near Ion, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05389000_stats.docx 7 05389400 Bloody Run Creek near Marquette, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05389400_stats.docx 8 05389500 Mississippi River at McGregor, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05389500_stats.docx 9 05411400 Sny Magill Creek near Clayton, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05411400_stats.docx 10 05411600 Turkey River at Spillville, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05411600_stats.docx 11 05411850 Turkey River near Eldorado, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05411850_stats.docx 12 05412000 Turkey River at Elkader, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05412000_stats.docx 13 05412020 Turkey River above French Hollow Creek at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05412020_stats.docx
    [Show full text]
  • CONTROL STRUCTURE LITTLE SIOUX RIVER, IOWA Hydraulic Model Investigation By
    TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 2-762 CONTROL STRUCTURE LITTLE SIOUX RIVER, IOWA Hydraulic Model Investigation by T. E. Murphy February 1967 Sponsored by U. S. Army Engineer District Omaha Conducted by U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station CORPS OF ENGINEERS TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 2-762 CONTROL STRUCTURE LITTLE SIOUX RIVER, IOWA Hydraulic Model Investigation by T. 2. Murphy February 1967 Sponsored by U. S. Army Engineer District Omaha Conducted by U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station CORPS OF ENGINEERS Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. FOREWORD Model investigation of the control structure for Little Sioux River was authorized by the Office, Chief of Engineers on 25 May 1962, at the request of the U. S. Army Engineer District, Omaha. The study was conducted in the Hydraulics Division of the Waterways Experiment Station during the period July to December 1962. The investigation was conducted under the general supervision of Mr. E. P. Fortson, Jr., Chief of the Hydraulics Division, and Mr. F. R. Brown, Chief of the Hydrodynamics Branch, and under the direct supervision of Mr. T. E. Murphy, Chief of the Structures Section. The engineer in immediate charge of the model was Mr. E. S. Melsheimer, who was assisted by Mr. B. P. Fletcher. This report was prepared by Mr. Murphy. During the course of the investigation Messrs. E. R. Bloomquist, W. M. Linder, H. E.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Sioux River Watershed Biotic Stressor Identification Report
    Little Sioux River Watershed Biotic Stressor Identification Report April 2015 Authors Editing and Graphic Design Paul Marston Sherry Mottonen Jennifer Holstad Contributors/acknowledgements Michael Koschak Kim Laing The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by Chandra Carter using the Internet to distribute reports and Chuck Regan information to wider audience. Visit our website Mark Hanson for more information. Katherine Pekarek-Scott MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer Colton Cummings recycled content paper manufactured without Tim Larson chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Chessa Frahm Brooke Hacker Jon Lore Cover photo: Clockwise from Top Left: Little Sioux River at site 11MS010; County Ditch 11 at site 11MS078; Cattle around Unnamed Creek at site 11MS067 Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (From the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us Document number: wq-ws5-10230003a Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Monitoring and assessment ...........................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Up the Minnesota Valley to Fort Ridgely in 1853
    MINNESOTA AS SEEN BY TRAVELERS UP THE MINNESOTA VALLEY TO FORT RIDGELY IN 1853 The treaties of Traverse des Sioux and Mendota in the summer of 1851 greatly simplified the problem of providing homes for the thousands of immigrants who were flocking to Minnesota Territory. Prior to that date legal settlement had been confined to the region east of the Mississippi below the mouth of the Crow Wing River, but as James M. Goodhue, the editor of the Minnesota Pioneer, wrote in the issue for August 16, 1849, " These Sioux lands [west of the Missis­ sippi] are the admiration of every body, and the mouth of many a stranger and citizen waters while he looks beyond the Mississippi's flood upon the fair Canaan beyond." Small wonder, then, that Governor Alexander Ramsey worked for a treaty that would open these lands to white settlement. There was much opposition to the treaties in the Senate dur­ ing the spring of 1852, and they were not ratified until June 23 of that year. Henry H. Sibley, the territorial delegate in Congress, wrote to Ramsey that " never did any measures have a tighter squeeze through."^ Even after they were ratified, the eager settlers legally should have waited until the Indians could be removed and surveys made by the general land office. The land speculator and the settler, however, were not to be balked by such minor details as the presence of Indians and the lack of surveys. They went into the region before it was legally open to settlement and some even planted crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:17-Cv-01889-RA-SLC Document 28-6
    6/28/2017 Case 1:17-cv-01889-RA-SLCMinnehaha Document County, Luxembour 28-6g - GoogleFiled Search 06/29/17 Page 1 of 6 . Minnehaha County, Luxembourg 2 All Maps News Images Shopping More Settings Tools About 27,300 results (0.74 seconds) Minnehaha County, South Dakota Ocial Website www.minnehahacounty.org/ Main County Contact Information Minnehaha County Commission Oce 415 N. Dakota Ave. Sioux Falls, SD 57104. Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Accessibility ... Missing: luxembourg You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 6/28/17 Minnehaha County - South Dakota State Courts - State of South Dakota ujs.sd.gov/County_Information/minnehaha.aspx If you would like to take a visual tour of a typical courtroom in Minnehaha County (and many other state and federal courts across the country) you're welcome to ... Missing: luxembourg Find A Grave Search Results www.ndagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr...GSln... Records 41 - 80 - Luxembourg Luxembourg. Gengler ... Caledonia Houston County Minnesota, USA. Gengler ... Minnehaha County South Dakota, USA. Gengler ... Search Newspapers - Find A Grave Search Results https://www.ndagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr... Records 41 - 80 - Luxembourg. Pirsch, August 42110155 b. ... Sioux Falls Minnehaha County South Dakota, USA ... Luxembourg. Pirsch, Dorothea 153728909 b. Haverhill, Marshall County, Iowa - WorldConnect Project - Ancestry.com wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=SHOW&db=haverhill%5Fiowa... Jan 15, 2012 - Even, Alvina b: 3 JUL 1900 in Minnehaha County, South Dakota d: 15 JAN ... Luxembourg d: 15 JAN 1906 in Bancroft, Kossuth County, Iowa Haverhill, Marshall County, Iowa - WorldConnect Project - Ancestry.com worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=SHOW&db..
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water in Alluvial Channel Deposits Nobles County, Minnesota
    Bulletin No. 14 DIVISION OF WATERS MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION GROUND WATER IN ALLUVIAL CHANNEL DEPOSITS NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA By Ralph F. Norvitch U. S. Geological Survey Prepared cooperatively by the Geological Survey, U. S. Department of the Interior and the Division of Waters, Minnesota Department of Conservation St. Paul, Minn. September 1960 1 CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………3 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..4 Geology……………………………………………………………………………………4 History of the valleys……………………………………………………………...5 Thickness of the alluvium…………………………………………………………7 Texture of the alluvium…………………………………………………………..10 Ground water conditions…………………………………………………………………11 Significant factors for locating wells…………………………………………………….13 Quality of water………………………………………………………………………….14 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………14 References………………………………………………………………………………..15 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map of Nobles County, Minn., showing alluvial deposits, morainal fronts, auger holes, selected municipal wells, and the Missouri-Mississippi River divide …………………………………………16 2. Generalized cross section of Little Rock River valley, Nobles County………..9 TABLES Table 1. Data from auger holes bored in the alluvial deposits in Nobles County, Minn. ………………………………………….8 2. Summary of data from auger holes bored in the alluvial deposits in Nobles County………………………………………………………………………….10 2 GROUND WATER IN ALLUVIAL CHANNEL DEPOSITS NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA By Ralph F. Norvitch ABSTRACT The alluvial channel deposits described in this report are in Nobles County, Minn., about 150 miles southwest of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Although four municipalities and many farms obtain part or all of their water needs from the alluvium, it has not yet been fully developed for ground water. The extent of the alluvial channel deposits was mapped on high-altitude aerial photographs, and a power auger was used to bore 43 test holes to determine the thickness of alluvium and the water level at each of the test sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Iowa Area Solid Waste Agency Hazardous Household Materials Regional Collection Center Hhmrcc
    Con 12-1-1 Doc # 46067 SDP AMENDMENT #-_4-..:...-- __ Date: 0e--h> 6-r 17)"2..0 09 81- SD(-1- () J- 74 - J11 L~ NORTHWEST IOWA AREA SOLID WASTE AGENCY HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD MATERIALS REGIONAL COLLECTION CENTER HHMRCC FIVE STATES ENGINEERING cO'MPAN¥ ELLIOT WADDELL, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CONSULTING ENGINEERS 19481 ECHO ROAD CONSlRUcnON SERVICES LAND SURVEYORS PROJECT MANAGEMENT SANITARY LANDRLL ENGINEERING WESTFIELD, IOWA 51062-8502 RURAL UTILITIES SOLID W ASTI:MANAGEMENT (712) 568-2162 MUNICIPAL SERVICES Fax (712) 568-3852 Nina Koger August 6, 2009 Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Land Quality Bureau Wallace State Office Building 502 East 9th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Re: Renewal of HHM RCC permit, Northwest Iowa Area SolidW aste Agency Permit Number 84 - SDP - 07 - 06P - HHM Dear Nina, Please find attached three copies ofthe application and supporting documents for renewal of the permit for the Northwest Iowa Area Solid Waste Agency Household Hazardous Material Regional Collection Center. All materials are included in the three ring notebooks as required to process the permit renewal. The copy with original signatures on the application form is marked with tabs. The facility was permitted at the time of the grant submittal and has now been in operation for one year. The materials as submitted are updated to reflect the current operation and facilities used. Mr. Larry Oldenkamp, the assistant manager ofNIASWA is certified for operation of the facility. Please call if you have qu~~tions we may answer. Sincerely, SDP AMENDMENT #__ -1.-4 _ Five States Engineering Daite: f)cA·v ~ IZ \? ()O~ Elliot WUtidell, PE i.tLANS AND SPECIFICATION~ ;:::0 APPURTENANT TO PE~M:IT FOR SANITARY DISPOSAL PROJECT 1'~~.
    [Show full text]
  • West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan
    West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan September 2009 Submitted by: Heron Lake Watershed District In cooperation with the TMDL Advisory and Technical Committees Preface This implementation plan was written by the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD), with the assistance of the Advisory Committee, and Technical Committee, and guidance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) based on the report West Fork Des Moines River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Final Report: Excess Nutrients (North and South Heron Lake), Turbidity, and Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impairments. Advisory Committee and Technical Committee members that helped develop this plan are: Advisory Committee Karen Johansen City of Currie Jeff Like Taylor Co-op Clark Lingbeek Pheasants Forever Don Louwagie Minnesota Soybean Growers Rich Perrine Martin County SWCD Randy Schmitz City of Brewster Michael Hanson Cottonwood County Tom Kresko Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Windom Technical Committee Kelli Daberkow Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Jan Voit Heron Lake Watershed District Ross Behrends Heron Lake Watershed District Melanie Raine Heron Lake Watershed District Wayne Smith Nobles County Gordon Olson Jackson County Chris Hansen Murray County Pam Flitter Martin County Roger Schroeder Lyon County Kyle Krier Pipestone County and Soil and Water Conservation District Ed Lenz Nobles Soil and Water Conservation District Brian Nyborg Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District Howard Konkol Murray Soil and Water Conservation District Kay Clark Cottonwood Soil and Water Conservation District Rose Anderson Lyon Soil and Water Conservation District Kathy Smith Martin Soil and Water Conservation District Steve Beckel City of Jackson Mike Haugen City of Windom Jason Rossow City of Lakefield Kevin Nelson City of Okabena Dwayne Haffield City of Worthington Bob Krebs Swift Brands, Inc.
    [Show full text]