DOCSLIB.ORG

Missouri River Basin : Final Environmental Impact Statement For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

S Missouri Biver 33^*91 Basin final r<I7rorpfw environmentai 1992 impact statement for water reservation applications above URI RIVER BASIN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR WATER RESERVATION APPLICATIONS ABOVE FORT PECK DAM MONTANA STATE LIBRARY"nn i S 333.9 1 N7mrptw 1 992 c. 1 Missouri River basin :finar environmenta FEB 9 tW4 Tr. ABBREVIATIONS XT 2 5 2004 af acre-feet af/y acre-feet per year ARM Administrative Rules of Montana BHES Montana Board of Health and Environmental Sciences BLM United States Bureau of Land Management Board Montana Board of Natural Resources and Conservation BOD biological oxygen demand BUREC United States Bureau of Reclamation cfs cubic feet per second cm centimeter COD chemical OJQ^gen demand Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers DFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks DHES Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation EIS environmental impact statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GW gigawatt GWh gigawatt-hour kV kllovolt kW kilowatt kWh kUowatt-hour MCA Montana Code Annotated MEPA Montana Environmental Policy Act mg/1 milligrams per liter MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program MNRIS Montana Natural Resources Information System MFC Montana Power Company MW megawatt MWh megawatt-hour ppm parts per million SCS United States SoU Conservation Service SHPO Montana Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office TDS total dissolved solids TSS total suspended solids micrograms per liter USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of the Interior USES United States Forest Service uses United States Geological Survey : DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION LEE METCALF STAN STEPHENS, GOVERNOR BUILDING 1520 EAST SIXTH AVENUE STATE OF MONTANA' DIRECTOR'S OFFICE (406) 444-6699 HELENA, MONTANA S9620-2301 TELEFAX NUMBER (406) 444-6721 January 8, 1992 TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) on behalf of the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation (Board) . The EIS and supporting environmental assessments analyze the impacts on the environment from the proposed reservations of water in the Missouri River Basin above Fort Peck Dam. Reservations of water have been sought by the following state and federal agencies and state subdivisions: Conservation Districts: Municipalities Big Sandy Belgrade Broadwater Bozeman Cascade County Chester Chouteau County Choteau Fergus County Conrad Gallatin Cut Bank Glacier County Dillon Hill County East Helena Jefferson Valley Fairfield Judith Basin Fort Benton Lewis and Clark County Great Falls Liberty County Helena Meagher County Lewistown Lower Musselshell Power Pondera County Shelby Teton County Three Forks Toole County West Yellowstone Valley County Winifred State Agencies; Federal Agencies: Montana Department of Health and United States Bureau of Environmental Sciences Reclamation Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife United States Bureau of and Parks Land Management CENTHAUZED SERVICES I On July 3, 1991, DNRC released a draft EIS. Informational meetings and public hearing on the draft EIS were held in Helena, Roundup, and Big Sandy on August 5, 1991; in Great Falls, Ennis and Valier on August 6, 1991; in Lewistown and Bozeman on August 7, 1991; and in Glasgow and Dillon on August 8, 1991. The 60-day comment period, originally scheduled to end September 2, 1991, was extended to September 16, 1991. DNRC received 121 written and oral responses on the draft EIS. While not including any major changes from the draft EIS, the final EIS includes corrections, clarifications, and additions to the original text. Two new alternatives were considered - a municipal alternative and a water quality alternative - as the result of public comments. Public comments and DNRC' s responses to the comments are also included. The EIS does not recommend a course of action to the Board. The Board has appointed a hearing examiner to conduct a contested case hearing, which will begin in February 1992. Hearing times and locations where the public can give testimony will be published in newspapers of general circulation. Based on information in the applications, the EIS, and on testimony at the hearing, the hearing examiner will present findings and recommendations to the Board. The Board has until July 1, 1992, to make a final decision on the water reservation applications. Further information, including additional copies of the final EIS, can be obtained by calling (406) 444-6627, or by writing to DNRC at 1520 E. Sixth Ave., Helena, MT, 59620-2301. Sincerely, OU^jJii-dLy— Karen L. Barclay Director MISSOURI RIVER BASIN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR WATER RESERVATION APPLICATIONS ABOVE FORT PECK DAM Biizcre Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation January 1992 , S-1 SUMMARY In July 199 1 . the Montana Department ofNatural vation districts requested 388.137 af/yr, primarily Resources and Conservation (DNRC) released Its draft for 2 19 proposed irrigation projects covering 1 54,604 environmental Impact statement (EIS) for water res- acres. The Montana Department of Health and En- ervation applications above Fort Peck Dam. Informa- vironmental Sciences (DHE^) applied to reserve half tional meetings and public hearings on the draft EIS the average annual flow at four points on the Mis- were held in 10 Missouri basin communities from souri River (near Toston, Ulm, Vlrgelle, and August 5 through August 8. The public had until LanduslQ^) to maintain dilution of arsenic in the river September 2 to comment on the draft EIS, with this water. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife deadline later extended to September 16. This final and Parks (DFWP) applied to reserve Instream flows EIS responds to comments and questions pertaining on 283 streams or stream reaches, one lake, and one to the draft EIS and summarizes and updates the wetland, to protect fish, wildlife, recreation, and water draft. quality. The U.S. Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) requested instream flows on 31 streams for fish, MISSOURI RIVER WATER wildlife, recreation, and to maintain channel form. RESERVATION STATUTE The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC) applied to reserve a maximum of280 cubic feet per second (cfs) up to a yearly total of 89,000 acre-feet (af) from the In 1985, the Montana Legislature directed DNRC Missouri River. This water would be diverted into the to begin a basinwide water reservation proceeding for Milk River basin to relieve water shortages and pro- the Missouri River basin above Fort Peck Dam. The vide for some new Irrigation. legislature felt that implementation of a water reser- vation procedure would encourage more coordinated development of the water resources in the basin and EIS PROCESS would help form a strong and unified basis for pro- tecting Montana's share of the Missouri River water The Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEP^^ from downstream states. Reservations granted in requires preparation of an environmental Impact this process have a priority date of July 1, 1985. statement for major state government actions that Under Montana water law, reservations allow for have the potential to significantly affect the human existing or future consumptive uses of water and for and natural environment. An EIS examines the en- maintaining Instream flows to protect aquatic life, vironmental, social, and economic impacts of the recreation, and water quality. Only public entitles proposed action and is generally prepared in two such as local governments, conservation districts, phases—a "draft" and "final" EIS. Because the Mis- and state and federal agencies can apply for and hold souri basin water reservation proceeding is a major water reservations. DNRC was assigned by statute to state action that could have substantial effects on coordinate the process and to provide technical and the environment, an EIS was prepared. financial assistance to conservation districts and municipalities in preparing their applications. The In the summer of 1989, DNRC held 10 public Board ofNatural Resources and Conservation (Board) meetings at different locations throughout the basin must reach a decision on water reservation applica- to identity Important issues for analysis and inclu- tions above Fort Peck Dam by July 1, 1992. sion in the draft EIS. DNRC also developed a com- puter model of the Missouri River basin to assess the availability of water. The draft EIS included discus- APPLICATIONS sion of issues raised by meeting participants, along with analysis based on the computer modeling. Fur- DNRC received 40 reservation applications. Eigh- ther information, research, and analysis was pro- teen municipalities applied for 34,689 acre-feet per vided by DNRC staff and consultants. The draft EIS year (af/yr) to meet future growth. Eighteen conser- was distributed In July 1991. S-2 Information meetings followed by hearings were held in 10 Missouri basin communities during Au- gust 5, 6, 7, and 8. 1991. to take comments and questions on the draft EIS (Table S- 1). Distribution of the draft EIS was followed by a 60-day comment period during which DNRC accepted written com- ments on the draft EIS. This comment period was extended two weeks to end on September 16, 1991. DNRC received 86 written comments in response to the draft EIS. This final EIS was then prepared to respond to comments
Recommended publications
  • Today's Missouri River

    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.
  • Lake Elwell (Tiber Dam)

    Lake Elwell (Tiber Dam)

    Upper Missouri River Basin Water Year 2013 Summary of Actual Operations Water Year 2014 Annual Operating Plans U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Great Plains Region TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARIES OF OPERATION FOR WATER YEAR 2013 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 2013 ........................................................................................................................ 1 FLOOD BENEFITS...................................................................................................................... 12 UNIT OPERATIONAL SUMMARIES FOR WY 2013 .............................................................. 14 Clark Canyon Reservoir ............................................................................................................ 14 Canyon Ferry Lake and Powerplant ......................................................................................... 21 Helena Valley Reservoir ........................................................................................................... 32 Sun River Project ...................................................................................................................... 34 Gibson Reservoir .................................................................................................................. 34 Pishkun Reservoir ................................................................................................................
  • Missouri-Madison Project

    Missouri-Madison Project

    Hydropower Project Summary MISSOURI AND MADISON RIVERS, MONTANA MISSOURI-MADISON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2188) Hauser Dam Morony Dam Photos: PPL Montana This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Missouri and Madison Rivers, Montana MISSOURI AND MADISON RIVERS, MONTANA MISSOURI-MADISON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2188) DESCRIPTION: This hydropower license includes nine developments, of which eight were constructed between 1906 and 1930, and the ninth- the Cochrane dam- began operation in 1958. The projects are spread over 324 river-miles on the Missouri and Madison rivers. The Hebgen and Madison developments are located on the Madison River whereas the other seven- Hauser, Holter, Black Eagle, Rainbow, Cochrane, Ryan, and Morony- are located on the Missouri River. The Madison River flows into the Missouri River near the city of Three Forks, approximately 33 miles northwest of Bozeman. While this summary was being prepared, Northwestern Energy, a company based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and serving the Upper Midwest and Northwest, is in the process of acquiring this project. Read more at http://www.northwesternenergy.com/hydroelectric-facilities. A. SUMMARY 1. License application filed: November 25, 1992 2. License issued: September 27, 2000 3. License expiration: August 31, 2040 4. Waterway: Missouri and Madison Rivers 5. Capacity: 326.9 MW 6. Licensee: PPL Montana 7. Counties: Gallatin, Madison, Lewis and Clark, and Cascade Counties 8. Project area: Portions of the project are located on federal lands, including lands within the Gallatin and Helena National Forests 9. Project Website: http://www.pplmontana.com/producing+power/power+plants/PPL+Montana+Hyd ro.htm 10.
  • Congressional Record—Senate S7813

    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.
  • Samuel T. Hauser and Hydroelectric Development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912

    Samuel T. Hauser and Hydroelectric Development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1979 Victim of monopoly| Samuel T. Hauser and hydroelectric development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912 Alan S. Newell The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Newell, Alan S., "Victim of monopoly| Samuel T. Hauser and hydroelectric development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912" (1979). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4013. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4013 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUB­ SISTS. ANY FURTHER REPRINTING OF ITS CONTENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE AUTHOR. MANSFIELD LIBRARY 7' UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA DATE: 1979 A VICTIM OF MONOPOLY: SAMUEL T. HAUSER AND HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE MISSOURI RIVER, 1898-1912 By Alan S. Newell B.A., University of Montana, 1970 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1979 Approved by: VuOiAxi Chairman,lairman, Board of Examiners De^n, Graduate SctooI /A- 7*? Date UMI Number: EP36398 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
  • Montana Fishing Regulations

    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

    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.
  • An Evaluation of Walleye in the Missouri River Between Holter Dam and Great Falls, Montana

    An Evaluation of Walleye in the Missouri River Between Holter Dam and Great Falls, Montana

    An Evaluation of Walleye in the Missouri River between Holter Dam and Great Falls, Montana PPL-Montana MOTAC projects 771-09, 771-10, 759-11, 771-11 and Fisheries Bureau Federal Aid Job Progress Report Federal Aid Project Number F-113-R9, R10, R11, R12 Montana Statewide Fisheries Management Submitted to PPL-Montana 336 Rainbow Dam Great Falls, Mt. 59404 Prepared by Grant Grisak, Brad Tribby and Adam Strainer Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 4600 Giant Springs Road Great Falls, Mt. 49505 January 2012 1 Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 5 Study Area……………………………………………………………………………. 5 Creel survey………………………………………………………………… 10 Angling……………………………………………………………………... 10 Fish Abundance………………………………………………………………………. 11 Tagging……………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Radio Telemetry……………………………………………………………………… 17 Early Life History…………………………………………………………………….. 28 Diet…………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 34 References……………………………………………………………………………. 37 2 List of Tables No. Page 1. Angler use statistics for Missouri River section 9, 1991-2009………………... 8 2. Economic statistics for the Missouri River section 9, 1995-2009……………... 9 3. Angler use statistics for Missouri River section 8, combined angler days with 9 section 9, and economic statistics for section 8 and section 9, 1991- 2009……………………………………………………………………………. 4. Landmarks and associated river miles in the Missouri River between Holter 18 Dam and Black Eagle Dam……………………………………………………. 5. Meristics of radio tagged walleye in Missouri River, total miles traveled and 26 total days radio transmitter was active, 2008-2011……………………………. 6. Locations in the Missouri River and proportional use by radio tagged walleye 27 2008-10. Missouri River, Montana……………………………………………. 7. Young of the year walleye seined at sites in the Missouri River between 30 Cascade and Great Falls……………………………………………………….. 8. Number of fish species sampled by year and total number of sites where 31 found.
  • Fort Randall Power Plant Development Plan

    Fort Randall Power Plant Development Plan

    Omaha District Hydropower Master Plan Final Submittal Aug 2016 1 Team Omaha, I am pleased to present the Omaha District Hydropower Master Plan. The Hydropower Master Plan provides a guide for future development decisions. The plan outlines the future requirements that will sustain our hydropower mission capability. Our purpose is to develop a strategic master plan that will guide future programming and funding for all hydropower sustainment, rehabilitation, and modernization requirements in a way that provides predictable funding and maximizes efficiencies to ensure the long-term resilience and reliability of this critical national infrastructure. There are several key tasks essential to our success: Plan for the future with a comprehensive, feasible, and efficient master plan. Program and secure predictable funding to sustain, rehabilitate, and modernize power plant infrastructure according to an established master plan. Prioritize repairs and improvements through risk-informed decisions and communication. Execute funding and complete programmed and funded projects according to contracts and agreements. Our desired end state is to ensure Omaha District hydropower infrastructure is rehabilitated and modernized no later than 2035 to maximize resilience and provide renewable, reliable energy production to the nation for an additional 50 years. I encourage you to become familiar with this plan and to foster greater partnership with every organization whose activities impact the physical development of hydropower in support of the larger U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mission. John W. Henderson, P.E. Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander 2 Charter PARTNERING CHARTER We are committed to work together through a positive, effective, and enduring partnership to ensure success of the ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ goals and objectives as outlined in the Omaha District JOHN W.
  • Failed National Parks in the Last Best Places

    Failed National Parks in the Last Best Places

    Contents MONTANA THE MAGAZINE OF WESTERN HISTORY f AUTUMN 2009 f VOLUME 59 , NUMBER 3 3 Failed National Parks in the Last Best Place Lary M. Dilsaver and William Wyckoff 25 Dying in the West PART 1: HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CARE IN MONTANA AND ALBERTA, 1880-1950 Dawn Nickel 46 Cromwell Dixon THE WORLD'S YOUNGEST AVIATOR Del Phillips ON THE COVER The front cover features Maynard Dixon's Oncoming Storm (1941, oil on canvas,36" x 40"), courtesy Gerald Peters Gallery, Santa Fe, New Mexico. On the back cover is The History ofMontana: Exploration and Settlement (1943-44 , oil on canvas), one of the murals in the History of Montana series painted by John W. "Jack" Beauchamp, an artist and the director of the Helena Art Center at Carroll College in the 1940s. Saloon manager Kenny Egan commissioned the artist to paint the murals for the Mint Cigar Store and Tavern located in downtown Helena in 1943· Before the building was demolished in i960, the murals were removed and donated to the Montana Historical Society by the Dennis and Vivian Connors family. Three of the panels are currently on loan to Helena's City County Building, where they hang in the main meeting room. The History ofMontana: Exploration and Settlement depicts people and places central to the state's story, including the Lewis and Clark Expedition and St. Mary's Mission and its founders, Fathers Pierre-] ean De Smet and Anthony Ravalli. The mission and a number of other Montana natural, historic, and recreational sites were proposed as inclusions to the national park system.
  • Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout Movements Between the Missouri River, Sun River and Smith River, Montana

    Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout Movements Between the Missouri River, Sun River and Smith River, Montana

    Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout Movements Between the Missouri River, Sun River and Smith River, Montana PPL-Montana MOTAC projects 021-08, 771-09, 771-10, 771-11 Submitted to PPL-Montana 336 Rainbow Dam Great Falls, Mt. 59404 Prepared by Grant Grisak, Adam Strainer and Brad Tribby Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 4600 Giant Springs Road Great Falls, Mt. 49505 January 2012 Introduction From 2008-2011 Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) conducted studies to evaluate rainbow trout and brown trout behavior in the Missouri River near Great Falls and the level of interaction these fish have between the Missouri, Sun and Smith rivers. These studies were funded by PPL-Montana MOTAC projects 021-08, 771-09, 771-10, 771-11 as part of FERC license 2188. Segments of all three rivers are considered good habitat for trout. The Missouri River segment includes the upper 30 miles of river from Holter Dam to Cascade. In the Sun River, the upper 39.2 miles from Diversion Dam downstream to the Crown Butte Canal headgate is considered good trout habitat. In the Smith River, the upper 98.9 miles from the North and South forks confluence downstream to Eden Bridge is considered good trout habitat. Although trout are present in the lower reaches of these rivers, those areas would not be considered good trout habitat due to low gradient channel, high turbidity, high water temperatures and predominantly sand and silt substrate. The purpose of this study was to 1) determine the importance of these segments of rivers to the overall trout populations, 2) determine the interconnectivity of these three rivers, and 3) generalize the behavior of trout found in these sections of river.
  • Foundation Document Missouri National Recreational River Nebraska and South Dakota August 2017

    Foundation Document Missouri National Recreational River Nebraska and South Dakota August 2017

    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Missouri National Recreational River Nebraska and South Dakota August 2017 MNRR_FD_PRINT.indd 1 9/22/17 11:20 AM To 90 and Chamberlain To 90 To 90 and Mitchell To 90 To 90 and Sioux Falls Foundation Document 18 18 North 50 0 5 10 Kilometers 281 J a 0 5 10 Miles s m e e d s n A R Lake iv Missouri National Campground Canoe access e r Andes e Recreational River Lake Franc Lak is 37 C a 281 18 50 Unpaved road Primitive campsite Boat launch s e 81 NORTH POINT STATE YANKTON SIOUX RECREATION AREA Lewis and Clark Hiking trail Marina INDIAN RESERVATION National Historic Trail driving route Fort Randall Dam 46 46 50 Visitor Center Fort Pickstown 39-MILE DISTRICTWagner Randall Missouri National Recreational RiverC (Information summer only) Dam h Spillway o te a SOUTH DAKOTA ek Overlook u 59-MILE DISTRICT re Missouri National Recreational River To Winner C C l Fort Randall r 18 l e 29 SOUTH DAKOTA a e Historic Site r d k e NEBRASKA n v a 50 i KARL Avon R R Tyndall k Marty e MUNDT O re 12 ya C NATIONAL te Tr 19 11 ail le WILDLIFE u r x Po REFUGE 37 B u nc Tabor io a Yankton Sioux S C re ek Old Baldy Treaty Monument 281 Gavins Point National Fish 12 Overlook N Hatchery and Aquarium Yankton 11 Sunshine a g Butte tive Missouri National Recreational River Headquarters i Bottom A B me SPRINGFIELD STATE 52 50 Historic Meridian Bridge rica n S RECREATION AREA LEWIS AND CLARK STATE Riverside Park cen 0 ic RECREATION AREA M By Springfield 52 SPIRIT MOUND Spencer ISS wa James River IOWA OU y HISTORIC PRAIRIE Ni R Gavins Island ob I Le Lake ra R w Point 48 ra IV Santee is a ake n R Lynch E nd Clark L Dam 121 St.