Projects and Offices of the Great Plains Region
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Seminoe Reservoir Inflow
Annual Operating Plans Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................... 5 Introduction ............................................................................. 5 System Planning and Control ................................................ 7 System Operations Water Year 2018 ................................... 10 Seminoe Reservoir Inflow ........................................................................... 10 Seminoe Reservoir Storage and Releases .............................................. 10 Kortes Reservoir Storage and Releases .................................................. 12 Gains to the North Platte River from Kortes Dam to Pathfinder Dam .................................................................................................... 13 Pathfinder Reservoir Storage and Releases ........................................... 14 Alcova and Gray Reef Reservoirs Storage and Releases .................... 17 Gains to the North Platte River from Alcova Dam to Glendo Reservoir ........................................................................................... 18 Glendo Reservoir Storage and Releases ................................................. 18 Gains to the North Platte River from Glendo Dam to Guernsey Reservoir ........................................................................................... 21 Guernsey Reservoir Storage and Releases ............................................ 22 Precipitation Summary for Water Year 2018 .......................................... -
Floods in North and South Dakota Frequency and Magnitude
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FLOODS IN NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA FREQUENCY AND MAGNITUDE By John A. McCabe and Orlo A. Crosby Prepared in cooperation with the NORTH DAKOTA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AND THE SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Open-file report Bismarck, North Dakota May 1959 DEC 15 1967 PREFACE This report was prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the North Dakota State Highway Department and the South Dakota Department of Highways. The work was performed under the supervision of H. M. Erskine. District Engineer, Surface Water Branch. Water Resources Division, U. S. Geological Survey. The authors were assisted by R. E. West. Advice and review were furnished by the Floods Section. Surface Water Branch, Washington. D. C. The streamflow records used in this report were collected and compiled by the U. S. Geological Survey co operating with the following agencies: the North Dakota State Engineer and State Water Conservation Commission; pthe South Dakota State Engineer, State Geologist. State Fish and Game Commission, and State Water Resources Commission; the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army; the Department of State; the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; the Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture; and others. CONTENTS Page Page Abstract. .................. 1 Gaging-station records--Continued Introduction ................. 1 Red River of the North basin--Continued Description of the area .......... 1 Sheyenne River at West Fargo, Physiography ............ 1 N. Dak. (13). ........... 41 Climate ............... 1 Maple River at Mapleton, N. Dak. (14) . 42 Causes of floods ............. 1 Rush River at Amenia, N. -
North Dakota 2016 Integrated Section 305(B) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(D) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads
North Dakota 2016 Integrated Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads Submitted to the US EPA January 23, 2017 Approved February 21, 2017 North Dakota 2016 Integrated Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads Doug Burgum, Governor Arvy Smith and L. David Glatt, Co-acting State Health Officer North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Quality Gold Seal Center, 4th Floor 918 East Divide Ave. Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-1947 701.328.5210 . Cover Photograph Photograph of Gravel Lake located in the Turtle Mountain region of the state (Rolette County). Gravel Lake was sampled by the North Dakota Department of Health in 2012 as part of the US EPA sponsored National Lakes Assessment. i CONTENTS PART I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. I-1 PART II. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. II-1 A. Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report .......................................................... II-1 B. Section 303(d) TMDL List of Water Quality-limited Waters.......................................... II-1 PART III. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... III-1 A. Atlas ................................................................................................................................ -
Today's Missouri River
DID YOU KNOW? The Missouri River is the longest river in North America. The Missouri is the world’s 15th- TODAY’S longest river. The Missouri has the nickname MISSOURI RIVER “Big Muddy,” because of the large The Missouri River has been an important resource for amount of silt that it carries. people living along or near it for thousands of years. As time went on and the corridor of the Missouri River was developed and populations increased, efforts have been There are approximately 150 fish made to control flows, create storage, and prevent flooding. species in the Missouri River, and As a result, six mainstem dams have been in place for more about 300 species of birds live in the than half a century, with the goal of bringing substantial Missouri River’s region. economic, environmental, and social benefits to the people of North Dakota and nine other states. The Missouri’s aquatic and riparian Since the building of the mainstem dams, it has been habitats also support several species realized that for all of the benefits that were provided, the of mammals, such as mink, river dams have also brought controversy. They have created otter, beaver, muskrat, and raccoon. competition between water users, loss of riparian habitat, impacts to endangered species, stream bank erosion, and delta formation - which are only a few of the complex issues The major dams built on the river related to today’s Missouri River management. were Fort Peck, Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavin’s Point. This educational booklet will outline the many benefits that the Missouri River provides, and also summarize some of the biggest issues that are facing river managers and residents within the basin today. -
A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park
National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/228 ON THE COVER Rocky Mountain National Park Photograph by: Billy Schweiger A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/228 David M. Theobald1,2 Jill S. Baron2,3 Peter Newman1 Barry Noon4 John B. Norman III1,2 Ian Leinwand1 Sophia E. Linn1 Richard Sherer4 Katherine E. Williams2,5 Melannie Hartman2 1Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1480 2Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499 3U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO 80523 4Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1474 5Current address: Department of Biology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 This report was prepared under Task Order J2380060103 (Cooperative Agreement #H1200040001) July 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. -
Congressional Record—Senate S7813
July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7813 CONCLUSION OF MORNING committee of jurisdiction, my friend those who help pay for Corps projects BUSINESS from Montana, Senator BAUCUS, made either through their Federal tax dol- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning a commitment to me to address the lars or, in many cases, through taxes business is closed. issues that plagued the Corps. they pay at a local level as part of a At that time I sought to offer an non-Federal cost-sharing arrange- f amendment to WRDA 2000 to create an ment—can rest easy knowing that WATER RESOURCES independent peer review process for the their flood control projects are not DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005 Army Corps. In response to my amend- going to fail them, their ecosystem res- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under ment, the bill managers adopted lan- toration projects are going to protect the previous order, the Senate will re- guage to authorize the National Acad- our environmental treasures, and their sume consideration of S. 728, which the emy of Sciences to study peer review. navigation projects are based on sound clerk will report. This study has long been complete, and economics and reliable traffic projec- The assistant legislative clerk read the final recommendation was clear. In tions. as follows: a 2002 report—Review Procedures for Much of the work that has gone into A bill (S. 728) to provide for the consider- Water Resources Planning—the Na- reforming the Corps was done before ation and development of water and related tional Academy of Sciences rec- our Nation saw a major U.S. -
Bighorn River Basin, Wyoming
Environmental and Recreational Water Use Analysis for the Wind – Bighorn River Basin, Wyoming Wind – Bighorn River Basin Plan Update Prepared for: Wyoming Water Development Commission 6920 Yellowstone Rd Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 Prepared by: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 415 W. 17th St., Suite 200 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 September 7, 2017 Draft Pre-Decisional Document - Privileged and Confidential - Not For Distribution Wind – Bighorn River Basin Plan Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2010, the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) requested a study to develop more robust and consistent methods for defining environmental and recreational (E&R) water uses for the River Basin Planning program. The study outlined that recreational and environmental uses needed to be identified and mapped, in a way that would assess their interactions with traditional water uses throughout the state of Wyoming. Harvey Economics completed the study in 2012, with a report and handbook being produced to identify a consistent viewpoint and accounting process for E&R water demands and to help guide river basin planning efforts in moving forward. The methods developed in the handbook were implemented on the Wind-Bighorn River Basin (Basin), and the results of the Basin plan update are provided in this report. In addition to the handbook guidelines, Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. coordinated with the WWDC to further the analysis through the development of three models: 1) protection, 2) environmental, and 3) recreation. The Basin is located in central and northwestern Wyoming. Approximately 80% of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) is included in the Basin. Elevations in the Basin are variable as the Wind River and Bighorn Mountains funnel water from alpine areas to lower river corridors. -
Code of Colorado Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO. 94 COLORADO’S MONITORING AND EVALUATION LIST 5 CCR 1002-94 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] 94.1 Authority These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq C.R.S. as amended, and in particular, 25-8-202 (1) (a), (b), (i), (2) and (6); 25-8-203 and 25-8-204. 94.2 Purpose This regulation establishes Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List. This list identifies water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Water bodies that are impaired, but it is unclear whether the cause of impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution, are also placed on the Monitoring and Evaluation List. 94.3 Water Bodies Identified for Monitoring and Evaluation WBID Segment Description Portion Parameter COAR Arkansas River Basin . COARFO03 Tributaries to Fountain Fourmile Creek, on USFS sediment Creek on USFS or AFA Land lands, Monument Creek to Arkansas River COARFO03 Tributaries to Fountain Bear Creek on USFS sediment Creek on USFS or AFA Land lands, Monument Creek to Arkansas River COARFO03 Tributaries to Fountain Cheyenne Creek, on sediment Creek on USFS or AFA USFS Land lands, Monument Creek to Arkansas River COARLA07 Purgatoire River, I-25 to all sediment Arkansas River COARLA09a Mainstem of Adobe Horse Creek Cu Creek and Gageby Creek… COARLA09c Rule Creek, Muddy Rule Creek Zn Creek, Caddoa Creek, Clay Creek, Cat Creek… COARLA11 John Martin Reservoir all Se COARMA04a Wildhorse Creek all NO 2 , NO 3 COARMA18 Boggs Creek all NO 2 , NO 3 , D.O. -
Montana Fishing Regulations
MONTANA FISHING REGULATIONS 20March 1, 2018 — F1ebruary 828, 2019 Fly fishing the Missouri River. Photo by Jason Savage For details on how to use these regulations, see page 2 fwp.mt.gov/fishing With your help, we can reduce poaching. MAKE THE CALL: 1-800-TIP-MONT FISH IDENTIFICATION KEY If you don’t know, let it go! CUTTHROAT TROUT are frequently mistaken for Rainbow Trout (see pictures below): 1. Turn the fish over and look under the jaw. Does it have a red or orange stripe? If yes—the fish is a Cutthroat Trout. Carefully release all Cutthroat Trout that cannot be legally harvested (see page 10, releasing fish). BULL TROUT are frequently mistaken for Brook Trout, Lake Trout or Brown Trout (see below): 1. Look for white edges on the front of the lower fins. If yes—it may be a Bull Trout. 2. Check the shape of the tail. Bull Trout have only a slightly forked tail compared to the lake trout’s deeply forked tail. 3. Is the dorsal (top) fin a clear olive color with no black spots or dark wavy lines? If yes—the fish is a Bull Trout. Carefully release Bull Trout (see page 10, releasing fish). MONTANA LAW REQUIRES: n All Bull Trout must be released immediately in Montana unless authorized. See Western District regulations. n Cutthroat Trout must be released immediately in many Montana waters. Check the district standard regulations and exceptions to know where you can harvest Cutthroat Trout. NATIVE FISH Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species of Concern small irregularly shaped black spots, sparse on belly Average Size: 6”–12” cutthroat slash— spots -
Fort Peck Draft
US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District Draft Fort Peck Dam/Fort Peck Lake Project Montana Surplus Water Report Volume 1 Surplus Water Report Appendix A – Environmental Assessment August 2012 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FORT PECK DAM/FORT PECK LAKE PROJECT, MONTANA SURPLUS WATER REPORT Omaha District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers August 2012 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Fort Peck Dam / Fort Peck Lake, Montana FORT PECK DAM/FORT PECK LAKE MONTANA SURPLUS WATER REPORT August 2012 Prepared By: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Omaha, NE Abstract: The Omaha District is proposing to temporarily make available 6,932 acre-feet/year of surplus water (equivalent to 17,816 acre-feet of storage) from the system-wide irrigation storage available at the Fort Peck Dam/Fort Peck Lake Project, Montana to meet municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply needs. Under Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78-534), the Secretary of the Army is authorized to make agreements with states, municipalities, private concerns, or individuals for surplus water that may be available at any reservoir under the control of the Department. Terms of the agreements are normally for five (5) years, with an option for a five (5) year extension, subject to recalculation of reimbursement after the initial five (5) year period. This proposed action will allow the Omaha District to enter into surplus water agreements with interested water purveyors and to issue easements for up to the total amount of surplus water to meet regional water needs. -
Boysen Reservoir and Powerplant
Upper Missouri River Basin Water Year 2015 Summary of Actual Operations Water Year 2016 Annual Operating Plans U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Great Plains Region TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARIES OF OPERATION FOR WATER YEAR 2015 FOR RESERVOIRS IN MONTANA, WYOMING, AND THE DAKOTAS INTRODUCTION RESERVOIRS UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MONTANA AREA OFFICE SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS AND FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS DURING WY 2015 ........................................................................................................................ 1 FLOOD BENEFITS ...................................................................................................................... 13 UNIT OPERATIONAL SUMMARIES FOR WY 2015 .............................................................. 15 Clark Canyon Reservoir ............................................................................................................ 15 Canyon Ferry Lake and Powerplant .......................................................................................... 21 Helena Valley Reservoir ........................................................................................................... 32 Sun River Project ...................................................................................................................... 34 Gibson Reservoir ................................................................................................................... 34 Pishkun Reservoir ................................................................................................................ -
A. Platte River System Environmental Baseline
1 Biological Opinion on the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program June 16, 2006 2 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................2 LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................................5 LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................................7 LIST OF APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................................10 I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................11 II. CONSULTATION HISTORY ............................................................................................................................13 A. DEVELOPMENT OF A BASIN-WIDE RECOVERY PROGRAM ...................................................................................17 B. DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECTS FROM THE FEDERAL ACTION ..............................................................................20 III. SCOPE OF THE BIOLOGICAL OPINION...................................................................................................24 A. PROGRAM EFFECTS ON THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES.......................................................................24