Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AO-A12O 264 CORPS OF EN61NEERS ST PAUL MN ST PAUL DISTRICT FiQ 13/2
8MODIFICATION PROJECT, BIG STONE LAKE - WHETSTONE RIVER. (U)
UNCLASSIFIED N
4IFINAL SUPPLEMENT
SENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT4 STATEMENT
MODIFICATION PROJECT
BIG STONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER
"Me,
IL
DEPART.ENT OF THE ARMYSt. Paul District, Corps of Engineers1135 U.S. Post Office and Custom House
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 kd
82 10 12 308
UNCLASSIFI .D .,,SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Mani Deo Enereds _&
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS4 ~ BEFRE COMPLETUC'IORM
I. REPORT .NMeR , GOVT ACWSSI 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
4. TITLE (and Subttle) 5 TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED
MODIFICATION PROJECT, BIG STONE LAKE-WHETSTONE Final supplement - EIS
RIVER, Final supplement, Environmental Impact
Statement. 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTHOR(s) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS i0. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK
AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Paul
1135 U.S. Post O4fice and CUstom House
St. Paul, MN 55101 12. REPORT DATE
It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
1980?I3. NUMBER OF PAGES
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME a ADDRESS(if diffeent from Controling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)
Unclassified
1Sa. DECL ASSI FI CATION/ DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE
IS. DISTRIUTION STATEMENT (of thls Report)
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetract ntered in Block 20, If different from Report)
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
See also Draft supplement - EIS
19. KEY WORDS (Contiue an reverse side It noceoeary and Identify by block number)
Environmental impact statements
Environmental assessment
Big Stone LakeWhetstone River
AS, ABSVTACT' ( -.-ie matowen aNAR N n "my--n Ideity by block mbr )
The Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River Modification Project was authorized by the
Flood Control Act Approved 27 October 1965. The Final Environmental Impact
Statement was filed with the President's Council on Environmental Quality on
18 December 1971. Construction has been completed for all project features
except for the upstream works on the Minnesota River and the areas of rechannel-
ization and bank stabilization on the lower 4 miles of the Whetstone River.
O0 W, ff4TO o r I, ov s is 0,,,o,. T 1JAN 79 3UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)
UNCLASSIFIED
SECUPTY CL.ASIFICATION OF TmS PAOEthm 00 4desqs4
This supplement has been prepared to, ddress a significant alignment changefor the proposed diversion chann~l i o the project U.S. Highway 75 Reservoirin the Big StontNational Wildlife Refuge and to fulfill requirements whichwere established subsequent to the nreparation of the final EIS.
UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Iehn Data Enter*Q
I.
.. .... . .. ... . . . . . ... .. .•6'-i " - . . .lr . . .. :. .. . . . r. ... .. . . . . . . 1 .. . . I ... .. . .. .|I l -" . ..
FINAL SUPPLEMENTENV IRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MODIFICATION PROS'ECTBIG' STONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER
BIG STONE AND LAC QUI PARLE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA, ANDGRANT COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
Abstract: The Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River i4odification Project was authori-
zed by the Flood Control Act approved 27 October 1965. The Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement was filed with the President's Council on Environmental Qualityon 18 December 1971. Construction has been completed for all project featuresexcept for the upstream works on the Minnesota River and the areas of rechannel-zation and bank stabilization on the lower 4 miles of the Whetstone River.
his supplement has been prepared to address a significant alignment changefor the proposed diversion channel into the project U.S. Highway 75 Reservoirin the Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge and to fulfill requirements whichwere established subsequent to preparation of the final EIS: (1) the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973, as amended, and (2) Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Actof 1977 and applicable Corps of Engineers regulations and guidance. The supple-ment itself consists of three parts: (1) an evaluation of the significant environ-mental impacts which would be expected to result from construction of the alter-
native diversion channels along the new alignment; (2) a Section 404(b)(1)
evaluation of all remaining fill activities associated with work on the Whetstoneand Minnesota Rivers; and (3) a biological assessment which addresses the impactsof remaining work on all currently listed threatened and endangered species.
AOOS~t~nFor -
NTIS GRA&IDTIC TAB
S SO
SDistribution/ .1.---
Avllity'
Dis
w -,4 0U))
u r -4I'-4 a w 1-4
,4 -4U 14.. 0 m E0 . 4-4 -4 0- 0 4
4-41 tZJ w))~
Aj -.. o (U
-4- cc-4
L44 fl
Q)4 0 r. rm 0
410 ) W 4
4-4 0 l ( n 0 5 4
.0 cnC 4 C- a 4n.uC0) 4-. 0) . . Z . 0 t 4--
C-4 . 4 r
14 4.4 .,U)~~~~U $40)0. n 4E
"-4 mO to-
a)) U) 4)0)-H >4 h
-4.-4.
'-4 f
-,-H U2(-4 W U0-c tdJ~ 4-L Q)- >C
0H wO bJ.- -64 M
U) ., t
$4 0)0- 1--4a -4
F4 "44 C6 Q )?0t 0
-4 0) " 14
U) ba410
(n CdU -.
0 4 M
lr01-i ,. 0.0 41 >. ~
-~ ~ 4 C caC)) C -4 l
FINAL SUPPLEMENTENVIRONMENTAL IMPkCT STATEMENT
MODIFICATION PROJECTBIG STONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER
BIG STONE AND LAC QUI PARLECOUNTIES, MINNESOTA, AND
GRANT COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
Part I: Impact Analysis of New Diversion Channel, Big Stone and
Lac qui Parle Counties, Minnesota I
1. Summary 12. Need for and Objectives of Action 4
3. Alternatives 54. Affected Environment 75. Environmental Effects 86. Public Involvement 12
Part II' Section 404(b) Evaluation of Upstream Works on the Big StoneLake-Whetstone River Project, Big Stone and Lac qui Parle Counties,Minnesota, and Grant County, South Dakota 13
1. Project Description 13
2. Physical Effects 14
3. Chemical-Biological Interactive Effects 17
4. Description of Site Comparison 175. Applicable Water Quality Standards 17
6. Selection of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material 18
7. Statement as to Contamination cf Fill Material if from aLand Source 21
8. Mixing Zone 21
9. Determinations 21
10. Findings 22
Part III: Biological Assessment, Upstream Works on the Big Stone Lake-
,.etstone River Project, Big Stone and Lac qui Parle Counties, Minnesota,and Grant County, South Dakota 23
1. Project Description 23
2. Environmental Setting 23
3. Impacts of the Project on Threatened or Endangered Species 23
References Cited 24
iii
LIST OF PLATES
No. Page
I General Plan 252 Alternative Alignments 263 Typical Channel Sections 274 Upstream Works - Whetstone River 285 Upstream Works - Whetstone River 296 Upstream Works - Whetstone River 307 Upstream Works - Whetstone River 318 Upstream Works - Whetstone River 329 Typical Cross Section 33
LIST OF TABLES
No . Page
I Relationship of Plans to Environmental Requirements 2
LIST OF EXHIBITS
No. Page
1 Sediment Analysis 34
LIST OF APPENDIXES
No. Page
1 Letters of Comment 1-1
2 Recipient; of the Draft Supplement 2-13 Flood Control, Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River, Minnesota
and South Dakota, Design Memorandum No. 1, General, Supple-ment No. 2 3-1
4 Cost fatimate 4-15 Cultural Resource Coordination Letters 5-1
iv
PART I: IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NEW DIVERSION CHANNELBIG STONE AND LAC QUI PARLE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
1. 00 SU IMARY
Major Conclusions and Findines
1.01 The proposed change in the diversion channel alignment represents a signi-ficant design change from the plan discussed in the Final Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS); and, as a result, no specific National Economic Development (NED)or Environmental Quality (EQ) alternatives were developed. In the opinion of con-
cerned Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, tile proposed alignment does,however, represent the least envirorunentally-damaging plan. The proposed planhas been reviewed for compliance with Section 404, Executive Order (EO) 11988 andEO 11990; an analysis of impacts on prime and unique farmlands has also been made.Filing this final supplement with Congress, as required by Section 404(r) willcomplete compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed diver-sion alternative is considered to be in compliance with both EO 11988 and EO
11990, as it is the only practicable )Iternative for diverting flood flows tothe Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge. An analysis of impacts on prime and uniquefarmland indicates that the selected plan would not affect these resources.
Areas of Controver'y
1.02 To date, no areas of controversy have developed concerning selection of theproposed diversion channel alignment east of the Minnesota River.
Unresolved Issues
1.03 The primary unresolved issue which developed during the diversion channel
study relates to the acquisition of lands and rights-of-way for the originaldiversion alignment (West 3 Alternative) discussed in the Final EIS and DesignMemorandum No. 3. The local sponsor has not been able to obtain the required
lands and rights-of-way from the Big Stone Canning Company. It was primarilythis issue which prompted the Corps of Engineers to investigate an alternativealignment east of the Minnesota River that would be acceptable to all parties
concerned.
1.04 A second unresolved issue relates to the construction of a portion of theproposed diversion channel in the Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge and the require-ment that the local sponsor obtain a right-of-way permit from the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (FWS). Upon completion of this Final Supplement and prior toconstruction of the refuge portion of the diversion channel, the local sponsormust apply for a permit from the FWS. This action would likely be subject to addi-tional and separate evaluation by the FWS at the time of application. Under theoriginally proposed alignment west of the Minnesota River, no such permit wasrequired since the Corps of Engineers retained ownership through the refuge
when lands were transferred to the FWS.
Relationship to Znvironmental Requirements
1.05 Table 1 describes the relationship to applicable environmental regula-tions of the two feasible alternatives that were developed in detail (seesection 3.00 for a discussion of all the alternatives considered).
Table 1Relationships of Plans toEnvironmental Requirements
Plan East 2Federal Statutes (Selected Plan) Plan West 3
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, Full I Fullas amended, 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, Full Fullet seq.
Clean Water Act, as amended (Federal Water Partial 2 PartialPollution Control Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.
Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, 16 N/A 3 N/AU.S.C. 1451, et seq.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Full Full16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.
Estuary Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1221, et seq. N/A N/A
Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended, Full Full
16 U.S.C. 460-1(12), et seq.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, Full FullU.S.C. 661, et seq.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended, N/A N/A16 U.S.C. 4601-4601-11, et seq.
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, N/A N/A22 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as Partial Partialamended, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Full Fullamended, 16 U.S.C. 470a, et seq.
Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq. N/A N/A
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, N/A N/A16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.
Notes - The compliance categories used in this table were assigned based on thefollowing definitions:I. Full compliance - All requirements of the statute, EO, or other policy and relatedregulations have been met.2. Partial compliance - Full compliance will be achieved upon completion of thisdocument.3. Not applicable (N/A) - The statute, EO, or other policy is not applicable.4. Partial compliance - The local sponsor will be required to obtain permit priorto initiation of construction.
2
Plan East 2Federal Statutes (Selected Plan) Plan West 3
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; as amended, 16 Full Full
U.S.C. 1001, et seq.
Executive Orders, MemorandaFloodplain Management (Eo 11988) Full Full
Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) Full Full
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal N/A N/AActions (E.O. 12114)
Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique Farm- Full Fulllands, CEQ Memorandum 30 August 1976
State and Local Policies Full Full
Land Use Plans Full Full
Required Federal EntitlementsU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Use Partial4 Partial
Permit
I.
3I
2.00 NEED FOK~ ;,ND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION
Study Authority
2.01 The Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River Modification Project was authorizedby the Flood Control Act of 1965.
Project Purpose and Status
2.02 The project purposes are flood control, general recreation, and fish andwildlife resource conservation. The Highway 75 Dam and Reservoir is completedand functioning. Actions yet to be completed are the upstream works on theWhetstone River; the upstream works on the Minnesota River, including the siltbarrier and control structure modification; and the upstream works on theMinnesota River, including channel modification and the diversion channel dis-cussed in this supplement.
Public C'rncerns
2.03 Throughout the course of studies for the Big Stone Lake-Whetstone RiverProject, public concerns, problems, and needs identified in relationship tothe total project and the modifications discussed in this supplement include(1) fish and wildlife resource management and the Big Stone National WildlifeRef uge, (2) sedimentation and pollution of Big Stone Lake, (3) erosion control
of tne Minnesota and Whetstone Rivers, and (4) flood control in the Minnesotaand Whetstone River area. These concerns have been addressed, resource managemerneeds discussed, and management plans formulated in the following documents:Final Environmental Impact Statement, Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River ModificatioProject, Minnesota and South Dakota, 18 December 1971; Flood Control, Big StoneLake-Whetstone River, Minnesota-South Dakota, Design Memorandum No. 3, UpstreamWorks on the Minnesota River, June 1973; Design Memorandum No. 4, Master Planfor Resource Management,. June 1973; Design Memorandum No. 1, General, SupplementNo. 2, November 1979; and this supplement.
Planning ObJec tives
2.04 Development of the alternative plans for the Minnesota River diversionchannel considered the public concerns mentioned above and incorporated the re-source management needs of the area and national planning objectives of NationalEconomic Development (NED) and enhancement of Environmental Quality (EQ).
2.05 The planning objectives developed for the Minnesota River state that adiversion plan:
a. Must provide a safe, dependable channel for passage of flood flows.
4
b. Must redace adverse i:Mpac ts 0I sed L:felta t 011 011 te it ig Stone National
Wildlife Refuge.
C. ilust KedLCC adverse imli',its ii ja- d te L; StOfle ianning (o.:yai y
d. M ust tulct oon as part rn to e 1 ,':0 e C i D i St 11. .1aKL--. ; t t0:i C iV(- r iCon tro 1 )ro j2c t .
e. M ast not adversely aI IeCL tie eilviroiiment to a s i;,ii iia;it degree.
In the development of plans for ti M,inllesota NRiver divers ion, tii, plan-
ning objectives listed above were satisf ied to tile maximum extent practicable.
3.o0 ALTERNA [ IV cS
Alternatives Considered
3.01 ile alternatives being considered in tahis supp lerient art, five diversionalignments (including the or iginal design discussed in tile Final iilS, and theproposed alignment plan) plus the no action alternative.
Alignment Plans Eliminated During Earlv Planning
3.02 During early planning stages, five alignments were identified forpossible diversion channel locations (see Plate 2). Three of these alternativeswere not carried forth into advance planning efforts for the reasons describedbelow.
a. East I - This alternative would divert flood flows via a channel fromtie east side of the Minnesota River. It would divert water to a low area througha wetland, then bacK to a Minnesota River channel crossing where it would followthe same lower new channel alignment as East 2. This plan was eliminated earlybecause it had the highest cost, would require tile most rock excavation, andwould destroy the most wetland habitat.
b. West I and West 2 - These alternatives would divert water frot. rLie MinnesotaRiver on the west side about one-halt mile below the ulversion point of the twoeast alternatives. From the diversion point, both alternatives would use tnesame channel for about one-half mile. West 1 would then run easterly, cross theMinnesota River channel one-fifth mile above the -roposed East 2 crossing,make another crossing of the Minnesota River at the proposed East 2 crossing point,and then generally follow the proposed East 2 lower channel into the refuge. Thisplan was eliminated because of excessive cost and the amount of wetland destroyed.West 2 would run south at its diversion from West 1, cut through a meander wetlandarea, and flow south for about 1 mile until it terminated in the refuge ditch s\'stem.Fhis plan was eliminated because of adverse imparts to the meander wetland area.
J~
Plans Develo:r"'d in Detail
3.03 The following discussion will describe plans that were developed indetail.
a. East 2 - This alternative diversion channel alignment would consist ofa new channel as shown on Plate 1. At the point of diversion, a riprapped re-striction would be placed in the existing river channel and a weir would beplaced across the new channel. The weir would restrict normal flows up to eleva-tion 957 msl to the existing channel. Steel sheetpiling, fill, and gabion protec-tion would provide a weir height of about 2-1/2 feet. Riprap would be placedupstream and downstream of the weir and on the channel nose separating the newchannel from the riprapped restriction on the existing channel. At approximatelyI mile downstream of the diversion structure, the new channel would cross theexisting channel. Riprap would be placed at the intersection of the two channels,and a riprapped restriction would be placed on the continuation of the existingchannel (which is about 4 feet lower than the new channel would be at this point).The plan also includes an additional weir in the diversion channel just downstreamof the existing river channel to divert up to 200 cubic feet per second of flows intothe existing river channel under low-pool conditions of the Highway 75 Reservoir.A concrete paved crossing of the new channel would also be provided downstream of theintersection. The crossing would be used for maintenance, public access, andoperation and maintenance in the wildlife refuge. The diversion channel wouldenter the Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge on the north boundary, one-eighthmile north of the intersection of the channel alignment with the Minnesota River.The channel would then continue into the refuge for approximately 1 mile where itwould terminate in an existing ditch. New channel width in reaches above theM4innesota River intersection would gradually increase from about 50 feet to 100feet. Above the intersection, the total width, including the disposal mounds,would average 400 feet. Below the intersection, the channel would be about 200feet wide (400 feet including levees) to its end at the drainage ditch.
b. West 3 (Original Design Memorandum No. 3 Plan) - The original DesignM4emorandum No. 3 plan consisted of channel improvement with primarily one-sideexcavation. The plan provided for a channel plug and culvert in the existingriver channel and a new channel extending to the Highway 75 reservoir C(see Plate2). The plan provided for a weir in the new channel to assure continued passageof normal flows in the existing river channel. A roadway was proposed across theexisting channel plug and a concrete paved Texas crossing of the new channel formaintenance purposes and for access to severed land. Channel width would increasefrom about 100 feet at the upper reaches of the channel to 230 feet at its end.The total width, including the disposal mounds, would average about 350 feet.
No Federal Action
3.04 This alternative implies that the Federal Government, acting throughthe Corps of Engineers, would take no further action to complete the BigStone Lake-Whetstone River flood control project.
6r
4.00 AFrzCTED ENVIRONIENT
Environmental Conditions
4.01 Within the project area, the Minnesota River Valley is a broad alluvialplain averaging about 2 miles wide, broken by prominent granite knolls andelongated ridges of glacial drift that lie approximately parallel to the axisof the valley. In tile Ainnesota River Valley above U.S. Hfighiway 75 is a two-pool retarding basin built for flood control and wildlife benefits as part ofthe dig Stone Lake-Whetstone River Modification Project. This 10,000-acrereservoir forms part of tile Big Stone National vildlife Refuge.
4.02 Land in ttie private sector of the valley is used for cultivation and live-stock pasture. Riparian timberland is found along tile Minnesota River channel inscattered patches in the valley. Urban land uses are associated with Big StoneCity, South Dakota, and Ortonville, Minnesota. Big Stone Canning Company is themajor industrial land user of the area.
4.03 Prior to construction of the Highway 75 Dam and Reservoir, much of the sedi-ment carried by the Minnesota and Yellow Bank Rivers was deposited in Marsh Lake.The existing average annual sediment load for these two rivers was computed tobe 17.0 acre-feet for the Minnesota River at Ortonville and 20.4 acre-feet for theYellow Bank River near Odessa. Land treatment measures proposed by the Soil Con-servation Service for tile hetstone and Yellow Bank Watersheds would reduce theseamounts. During flood events, some of this sediment load would have been depo-sited in overbank areas upstream of Marsh Lake and, therefore, would not have
reacned the lake.
4.04 Construction of the ilighway 75 Dam reduced the sediment load reachingMarsh Lake. It was estimated that initially tihe Highway 75 Reservoir wouldtrap 86 percent of the incoming sediment load. The project would not changethe Yellow Bank River sediment load and would have only a minor effect on theMinnesota River sediment load. T'herefore, the sediment load passing throughthe Highway 75 Dam would initially be only about 14 percent of the pre-projectsediment load. The trap efficiency of the reservoir will slowly decrease; how-ever, a long reservoir life is expected because the conservation pool storageof 11,700 acre-feet is many times larger than the total sediment load enteringthe reservoir. Sedimentation in the reservoir will be monitored every 5 years.Because of the nature of the terrain and shape of the pool, the sediment would
not be deposited uniformly in tile pool. The sediment transported by the WhetstoneRiver to the Minnesota River would form a delta in the upper end of tile reservoirwhile the sediment carried by the Yellow Bank River would be deposited in a deltaat the mouth of the Yellow Bank River in the lower reaches of the reservoir.
4.05 Aithough no recent studies have been conducted, the benthic habitat ofthe Minnesota River below Big Stone Lake for a distance of 14.5 miles was studiedduring 1959. These studies indicated that the river was polluted and that thebenthic populations were of low diversity. Principal species collected wereTendipedids and Oligochaetes. These studies did not reveal the presence ofany valuable assemblages of benthic organisms or threatened or endangered species.
7
4.06 The terr..zrial fauna found in trie project area include white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagusfloridanus), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), gray squirrel (S. carolinensis),raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), shrews, mink (Mustelavison), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus coichicus), songbirds, various reptiles,and amphibians.
4.07 The resources of the National Wildlife Refuge would be affected by theremaining work on the Minnesota River. (The impacts are discussed in section 5.00below.) The project area lies within tile range of tue endangered Arctic pere-grine falcon. An assessment of the impacts of the project upon the peregrinefalcon is given in Part III of this report. The ball cactus (Mamillaria vivipara),
listed as endangered by the St: e of Minnesota, is considered a significant localresource by some area residents and agencies. The ball cactus is protected inthe Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge and was determined not to be a significantresource which would be impacted by the proposed diversion channel.
4.08 As of 2 September 1980, no sites listed on the National Register of Historic
Places or eligible for inclusion on the Register were located in or near theproject area.
4.09 Resources of the project area that are of concern to local interests in-clude the cultivated and pasture land and the recreational uses of the rivercorridor. Potential undesirable impacts on river valley use could occur duringconstruction of the project.
5.00 ENVIRONIENTAL EFFECTS
General
5.01 This section discusses the significant environmental effects of the two alter-native channel alignment plans studied in detail. It is divided into two majorsubsections: (1) tae immediate effects of construction which are essentially thesame for both alternatives, and (2) the possible long-term impacts on the projectarea and region.
Short-Term Impacts
5.02 Effects on Water Quality, Air Quality, Aesthetic Values, and Noise - Con-struction of the East 2 diversion structure and associated entrance channel to theMinnesota River, the weir at the downstream confluence of the bypass channel withthe river, and the West 3 diversion structure would temporarily increase turbidityand siltation. A majority of the new channel construction for both alternativeswould be accomplisned in the dry. The entrance channel works for both alternativesand the weir and downstream confluence works for the East alternative are the onlysegments of the project in which work may not be possible in the dry. These acti-vities could temporarily increase the silt load entering the Big Stone National Wild-life Refuge via the natural river channel. Every effort will be made to accomplish
these activities during low water periods to keep impacts to a minimum.
8
5.03 In addition, minor amounts of runoff and sedimentation from land areasduring construction could also increase turbidity levels. Short-term effectson air quality and increases in noise would occur from operation of constructionequipment during construction operations. '[ile project would have no significantlong-term effect on aesthetic values, alttnougi some short-term adverse effectswould occur during construction.
5.04 The East 2 alternative alignment would pass through anl area of scatteredhardrock outcroppings. If surface or underground solid rock is encountered dur-ing construction of the new ctiannel, somae blasting would be required. Thie blast-ing would adversely affect the local area by introducing additional noise vibra-tion impacts on local residences, livestock, and wildlife. Blasting could alsoincrease construction time by 3 to 6 months.
5.05 Community Cohesion, Growth, and Displacement of People - The diversion alter-natives would have no significant impact on the local community cohesion or growthor on regional growth. No displacement of househlolds will result from any of thealternatives.
5.06 'Effects on Property Values and Tax Revenues - Both diversion alternativeswould have no significant impact on property value. Land use in the immediateproject area is mostly agricultural. Land values may go up slightly due to theincreased flood protection afforded by the completed project. Likewise, littlesignificant impact on tax revenues is expected.
5.07 Effects on Public Facilities and Public Services - The Big Stone NationalWildlife Refuge is the major public facility impacted by the project. Effects ofthe alternatives on the Big, Stone National Wildlife Refuge are discussed in para-graphs 5.02-5.04 and 5.09-5.20. The project will have no other significant impacton any public facilities or public services in the region.
5.08 Effects on Business and Labor - Implementation of either alternative wouldhave a short-term beneficial impact on the region's labor force by creating con-struction and support jobs. The West 3 alignment would require lands of the BigStone Canning Company. The canning company has expressed some opposition to theWest 3 alignment. Their canning factory has effluent discharges in the area whichrequire EPA permits. Their discharge apparently has poor water quality now and aclose channel alignment would present additional problems in obtaining a permit.Therefore, implementation of the West 3 alternative would adversely affect theirbusiness activities.
Possible Long-Term Impacts
5.09 No Action - The primary long-term effect of the no action alternative wouldbe continued flooding in the upstream area along the Minnesota River. if theproposed diversion channel were not completed, the other features (such as thesift barrier, the channel works, and those already constructed) would be essentiallyuseless because the flood control project is designed to be a system that requiresthe functional operation of all its parts. Adverse and beneficial effects assoc-iated with the proposed diversion plan would not occur under the no actionalternative.
9
5.10 Diversion .%lternatives - The primary positive long-term effect of constructionof either diversion channel would be a reduction of flooding in the upstream areaalong the Minnesota River. Flooding in that area of the Big Stone National Wild-life Refuge along the natural Minnesota River channel would also be reduced, be-cause floodwaters would pass directly into the pool area instead of following thewinding natural river channel.
5.ll Construction activities within the right-of-way limits of the East 2 diver-sion channel and disposal of excavated materials would adversely impact about 65
acres of habitat in the Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge: 45 acres of old fielddominated by quackgrass, bromegrass, and exotic annual and perennial herbs; 15acres of floodplain woodland, composed chiefly of mature cottonwood, willow, elm,ash, boxelder, and silver maple; and 5 acres of sedge and grass wetland. Abovethe wildlife refuge, about 55 acres would be adversely impacted. About 25acres is old field, which is infrequently used for pasture. Beyond these fields,the channel would pass through about 30 acres of grazed floodplain woodlands.
5.12 Construction of the West 3 alternative would adversely impact about 25acres of old field and 5 acres of floodplain woodland consisting of dense standsof willows in the refuge and about 35 acres above the refuge; 25 acres ofcultivated land and 10 acres of grazed floodplain woodland.
5.13 Frequent flooding and livestock grazing have diminished the wildlife valueof the privately-owned floodplain above the refuge woodland; however, it doesprovide good furbearer denning habitat, nesting habitat for cavity-nesting birdspecies, and a travel lane for numerous species of mammals and birds. Construc-tion of the East 2 channel would also prevent the stream-woodland ecotone fromreturning. Since the wildlife displaced by the construction cannot simply moveto another area, there could be a net reduction in wildlife numbers and speciesin the immediate project area.
5.14 The old fields are presently covered with dense stands of annual forbsand grasses which provide food and cover for game birds, songbirds, and smallmammals. Construction activities in these areas would result in an immediate
loss of habitat with associated adverse wildlife impacts. In addition, the oldfield areas within the East 2 alignment are being considered for possible con-version to tall grass prairie by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The existenceof a channel would not preclude this conversion; however, planting plans whichwould not interfere with the transport of floodwaters would need to be developed.
5.15 Construction of the East 2 channel would eliminate about half of the 5-acresedge and grass wetland. In addition, the raised elevation of the levee wouldlikely eliminate the growth of wetland plants. The upland area of the leveeswould be revegetated and could be included as part of the tall grass prairiemanagement program. The channel itself would be near the water level of therefuge pool and, as such, sedges and wetland grass communities should establishnaturally from surrounding areas. Natural vegetation would be allowed to establishin the channel as long as channel function is not impaired.
10
5.16 As discussed above, the East 2 alignment would impact about 65 acres inthe refuge as compared to 30 acres for the West 3 alignment. In general, habitatalong tile West 3 alignment is much more diverse and remote than the East 2 align-ment. As a result, impacts associated with construction of tile West 3 alternativethrough the refuge are expected to be significantly greater than witio the East 2alternative. In addition, boto the Fish and Wildlife Service and tile MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources have indicated a preference for tile Last 2 alignmentsince it would avoid disturbance of tile higher quality West 3 habitat.
5.17 In addition to natural revegetation in wet areas, loss of habitat andadverse impacts to wildlife associated with the habitat would be mitigated somewhatby planting the levees, channel banks, and bottoms with native grasses and otherprairie plants compatible with the ecological conditions and project operation.
5.13 Construction of the entrance channel works and of the downstream confluenceof the East 2 channel with the river and placement of riprap around the downstreamconfluence would eliminate about 1,500 feet of bentnic habitat. Although somebenthic organisms would be destroyed, long-term impacts would be minimal becausethe river almost yearly, during dry periods, becomes a series of disconnected poolswith flow, if any, being subsurface. Disturbed areas with suitable habitat wouldquickly become repopulated through recruitment from adjacent areas as soon asconstruction is completed.
5.19 The bottom elevation of both diversion channel alignments would likely bebelow the existing water table in many areas; therefore, ideal conditions foremergent aquatic vegetation, such as cattail (Typha sp.) and sedges (Carex) wouldbe created. Emergent vegetation would not present a problem unless channel capa-city or velocity were affected, which would require the vegetation to be removed.If such a situation did occur, any use of ciaemical herbicides for control purposeswould result in stiort-term adverse impacts on the environment.
5.20 Both channel alignments, in conjunction with overall project operation, couldnave some adverse iampacts on tile Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge. Wildlifeand recreation resources of the refuge are closely related to water levels on therefuge pools. Waterfowl generally construct their nests, beginning in early May,with the bottom of the nest bowl approximately 6 inches above the water surface.A possible adverse impact to waterfowl populations could be expected if suddenrises of more than 6 inches occur during May and June. High water flows whichwould have enough volume to raise the pool water level occur early in springduring snowmnelt before nesting time. Spring and summer rainstorms also couldraise pool elevation, but impacts on waterfowl would be similar regardless ofproject alternatives and plans.
5.21 Proposed modifications of the Big Stone Lake outlet structure and silt barrierwould have a minor effect on the sediment load down the Minnesota River. Althoughthe total amount of sediment entering the Highway 75 Reservoir would be the samefor the approved diversion channel alignment (West 3) shown in Design MemorandumNo. 3 and the presently proposed East 2 aligmaent, the different diversion alignmentcould cause some minor change in the location of the delta formed. For both align-ments, however, tile amount of sediment going down the existing Minnesota River chan-nel would be much less than that going down the diversion channel since the majority
III
of flood flows would follow the diversion channel and since flood flows carry mostof the sediment load. For example, in the Whetstone River, the highest 5 percentof the flows transport over 90 percent of the sediment load. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service has expressed concern that the sediment storage in the Highway75 Reservoir would be exhausted before the project reached its design life. Theirconcern was based on the earlier sediment volume estimates. As discissed in sec-tion 4.04 above, the present study indicates that the storage capacity is morethan adequate.
5.22 In general, less sediment would be transported down the natural Minne-sota River bed below the downstream confluence with either diversion alter-native during periods of high water. This would have a possible long-termimpact by scouring and washing away the riverbed sediments without an approxi-mately equal amount of sediment being deposited in the riverbed after eachflood event: the natural cyclic process of erosion and sedimentation wouldbe altered. The East 2 and West 3 alternatives would not affect flows or sedi-mentation patterns during periods of normal and low water flow (200 cfs andbelow) in the Minnesota River channel. Post-project conditions would be thesame as existing conditions for flows below 200 cfs.
5.23 Cultural Resources - Reconnaissance level cultural resources surveys wereundertaken in the Big Stone-Whetstone Flood Control Project Area in 1974 and 1975by arcnaeologists from the University of Minnesota. One site was located duringthe 1974 survey but was deemed too disturbed to warrant further attention. Nosites or structures of historic or prehistoric significance were located duringthe 1975 survey. Another reconnaissance level survey was undertaken in May 1980in the area of the proposed channel realignment to the east of the MinnesotaRiver. No archaeological sites or historic structures were located during thatsurvey.
5.24 Tne National Register of Historic Places has been consulted;and, as of 2September 1980, no sites listed on or determined eligible for the Register were in theproject area. Coordination with the State Archaeologist, the State Histo'ricPreservation Officer, and tile Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service ,'asbeen initiated.
6.00 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
6.01 The proposed channel realignment has been coordinated with Federal, State,and other interested agencies, and they have indicated a general concurrence withthe study findings. Representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv 4ie and theMinnesota Department of Natural Resources participated in a field insp'ction andmeetings during the analysis of the feasible alternative sites.
6.02 This final supplement will be coordinated with all agencies, conservationgroups, and interested citizens who received the draft supplement for review andconunent. Concerned Federal, State, and key local agencies, plus individuals andgroups who have commented upon the draft or who have requested this final, willbe sent copies of this document. Other interests who received copies of the
draft will be notified of the availability of this supplement and will be sentcopies upon request. A listing of those individuals who received the draft supple-ment is presented in Appendix 2. All letters of comment and the responses thereto
are piesented as Appendix I.
12
PART ii:
SECTION 404(b) EVALUATION OF UeSTREAM WORKS ON THEBIG STONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER PROJECT
6IG STONE AND LAC QUI PARLE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA,ANI) GRANT COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
'The following is an evaluation of the proposed construction and fil] activityin accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344).
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. Fill Activities Associated with Project Work
(1) Modification of a silt barrier on the Minnesota River, includingplacement of Cofferdams (A) during construction (see Plate 7 for the locationof Cofferdams (A)).
(2) Alodification of I mile of the Minnesota River downstream of its
confluence wits tne Whetstone River (see Plates 1 and 3 for typical sections).
(3) Construction of a bypass high-flow channel parallel to the Minne-
sota River, including placement of a temporary channel plug in the old channel
a weir at the upstream end of the new channel, and channel intersection construc-
tion at the downstream confluence with the Minnesota River (see Plates 1 and 3
for typical sections).
(4) Modification of a control structure on the Minnesota River,including placement of upstream and downstream Cofferdams (B) during construc-
tion (see Plate 7).
(5) Excavation work of the Whetstone River (see Plates 4, 5, 6,and 7).
(6) Bank stabilization in an upstream reach of the Whetstone River(see Plate 8).
b. Description of the Proposed Discharge of Dredged or Fill Materials
(1) General Characteristics of Material - Fill material would consistof rock for riprap, derrick stone, bedding material, and sand fill selectedfrom channel excavation.
(2) Quantity of Material Proposed for Discharge - Modification of thesilt barrier would require placement of 830 cubic yards (cv) of bedding, 1655 ryof derrick stone, and 545 cy of riprap into the Minnesota River. An unknown
quantity of random fill would he used for two cofferdams needed during silt bar-rier construction; the quantity would depend on the amount of flow in the MinnesotaRiver. Fill for control structure modification would require 510 cy of bedding,135 cy of derrick stone, and 910 cy of riprap, as well as 3,000 cy of silty sandfill for two cofferdams needed during construction. Access roads and a culvertfor a parking area near the control structure would require placement of 40 cyof riprap and 20 ry of bedding into the Minnesota River, after the control
structure modification is complete. Enlargement of the Minnesota River wouldrequire placement of 420 cy of rlprap, 200 cy of bedding, and 350 cv of siltysand fill. Realignment of the Minnpsota River would require 11,600 cy of silty sandfill, 2,870 cy of riprap, and 1,435 cy of bedding for channel restrictions andchannel intersection construction. Work on the Whetstone River would requireplacement of 1,460 cy of riprap, 690 cy of bedding, and 2,730 cy of sand fillin the river for bank stabilization. The Whetstone River diversion channel wouldrequire placement of 1,200 cy of riprap, 560 cy of bedding over slope areasprepared with at least 2,000 cy of silty sand fill, and placement of at least14,00 cy of silty sand fill to shape the channel slopes.
13
1
(3) Source Of Material - Rock for riprap, derrick stone, and suitableheddin' material is available from areas located between 5.0 and 7.0 milesfrom the Wnetstone River project area. >uarried granite for riprap and beddingmd concrete aggregate for work on the Minnesota River are available from acommercial source located V-2 miles west of Odessa, Minnesota. Natural sandAnd gravel are available from a commercial gravel pit in South atkot a I oc at ed20 milecs west of Odessa, Minnesota, is well ats from others near Ortonville,Minnesota, and Big Stone City, South Dakota. Random and channel fill materialswould be obtained from channel excavation. Material placed in water would be
composed of clean gravel, sand, and siltv sands.
c. Description of the Proposed Disposal Sites for Dredged or F I Material
(1) Location - The upstream works on the W/hetstone River ar,,located on the eastern boundary of South Dakota near Big Stone City and on thewestern boundary of Minnesota near the City of Ortonville. The upstream workson the Minnesota River are located in a reach of the river extending about 3miies downstream from Big Stone Lake (Plate 1).
(2) Type of Disposal Sites - Most fill activities, other than cofferdamconstruction, would be done in the dry after the water has been redirectedto the opposite side of the channel. Water wouid not cover the material untilafter construction and riprapping. In most cases, fill would bp placed on thesides of existing banks. Temporary cofferdams would be constructed by placingfill material directly into the river channels at various points. Modificationof the silt barrier and control structure would require placement of fill atexisting structures, in a dry state.
(3) Method of Discharge - Fill placed in water would be placed by dump-trucks, dozers, and cranes equipped with clamshell buckets and draglines.
(4) When ','ill Disposal Occur? - Dlsposal would occur during calendaryears 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984.
(5) Projected Life of )isposal ,ites - The life of the project is 100years.
(6) Bathymetry - The rivers are generally shallow with uneven sandybottoms. Silt deposits occur in areas of little current. High silt loads are
characteristic of the rivers, and sedimentation in both the rivers and Big StoneLake is a problem to local landowners.
2. PIWSICAL EFFECTS
a. Potential Destruction of Wetlands - Effects on (40 CFR 230.4-1(a) (1)
(1) Foodchain Production - Invertebrate habitat would be destroyedwhen fill and riprap are placed in the rivers. Recolonization by new speciesadapted to living on gravel and rock substratea probably would occur afterconstruction is completed. Terrestrial animals in riparian habitat destroyedby channelization would be displaced. Revegetation after construction iscompleted would reduce the long-term effects.
14
(2) General Habitat - General habitat in channelized areas and thoseareas covered with fill and riprap would be altered. Temporary increasesin turbidity during cofferdam construction would adversely affect aquaticbiota, especially algae and invertebrates which form the base of the foodchain.Rock and gravel placed during project construction would provide habitat forsome aqdatic species after construction is completed, thus reducing long-termadverse impacts. Revegetation of upland areas altered by construction wouldreduce the long-term impacts on terrestrial species.
(3) Nesting, Spawning, Rearing and Resting Sites for Aquatic or LandSpecies - Yellow perch spawning sites in rooted vegetation could be coveredwith fill. Disposal banks in channelized areas would be unstable for burrowingactivities of muskrat and other mammals. Removal of streamside vegetation onone side could eliminate some snading over tne river wnich might be required
by some fishes and invertebrates.
(4) Areas Set Aside for Aquatic Environmental Study or Sanctuaries orRefuges - Suspended material entering Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge could re-duete utility of this refuge as an area for waterfowl, although this reductionwould not be substantial and the life of the refuge would not be reduced by the
fill actions.
(5) Natural Drainage Characteristics - Drainage would be acceleratedin the channelized portion of the Whetstone and Minnesota Rivers. Realignmentof the lower Minnesota River provides for drainage of low flows along theexisting Minnesota River channel and for drainage of high flood flows along thenew channel to the existing drainage ditch system lea,'in' to the project reservoir.High flows (above 10-year flood level) would enter the reservoir via the newchannel work and the existing ditch system at the upper end of the reservoir.Normal flows would enter the reservoir via the existing Minnesota River channelat about the midpoint of the reservoir.
(6) Sedimentation Patterns - The change in operating plan andmodifications to the silt barrier would reduce sedimentation downstream.The amount of silt deposited into Big Stone Lake from the Whetstone River isvery small and no significant change will occur. Sediment load to the Highway 75Reservoir would be slightly reduced by the proposed project.
(7) Salinity Distribution - Not applicable.
(8) Flushing Characteristics - Base flow characteristics of theriver systems would not be changed. Water, however, would flow faster inchannelized areas, and 90 percent of the mixing and settling in Big StoneLake near the outlet would be eliminated.
(9) Current Patterns - Current would be accelerated in channelizedareas, but base flow characteristics in the river channels would not be changedsignificantly by the project due to modifications of the outlet controlstructure.
(10) Wave Action, Erosion, or Storm Damage Protection - The channelslopes, 20-toot berm, disposal banks, sand fill areas, channel plugs, and the
channel bottom of the new diversion channel would be seeded with native prairiegrasses to reduce erosion. Riprap would be placed on the top and slopes of thechannel restriction used to divert floodwaters down the new channel instead of theMinnesota River to provide protection from storm damage and erosion.
(I) .;_.ryae Areas for Storm Waters and Floodwaters - Fill
activit ies themselves would not have an effect on storage areas for storm
• 7aters and floodwaters.
(12) _lrirsc Nit,-11 Ri hr,_cAreas - Groundwater and prime natural re-
, har:c areas irt, not cxp,, tl to ht ifffect(,d significant ly by the propused prok et.
'he, source of the muni, ipati w.ter supply at (rtonvi lie is groundwater pumped from
a nar-surface :qand and grave , io, i fer. The groundwater is a more than adequate
supply for the citv"s need s as the aquifer is recharged from Big Stone Lake.
b. lppact on 'ater '"olumn (40 CFR 2 30.4-1(a) (2))
1 ) Rctd, t i : __ n Light Transmission - Increased turbidity during and
shortly aIftr co'ns tirut ion in chaunel ized areas would have minor effects onlight transmission. Riprap and seeding would stabilize banks and reduce erosion
oI silt and otuer bank :aateria.ls into tne water.
(2) Acsthet i Va1les - placement of fill materials would cause an increase
in turbiditv durino const rotion and would temporarily make the rivers aosthetically
aisp leasing to rec rea tional users.
(3) 1) i rct Dest ruct ie Effects on Nektonic and Planktonic Populat ions -
Minor adverse impacts would occur as a result of increased turbidity during con-
str [nt ion. Th,)se organisms dependent on large amounts of light would be a,'versely
affected by turbid conditions. Planktonic populations could decline or be elimin-
ated in the affected area as i result of reduced light penetration.
c. Cover inc. of Bentlhic Cemmunit ies (40 CPR 23n.4- I(a) (3))
(1) Actual Covering of Benthic Comnunities - Although no recent studies
have been conducted, the benthic habitat of tile Minnesota River below tig Stone
Lake for a distance of 14.5 miles was studied during 1959. These studies indi-
cated that tie river was polluted and that the benthic populations were repre-
sentative of polluted conditions and of low diversity. Principal species collected
were Tendipedids and Oligochaetes. These studies did not reveal the presence ofay valuable assemblages of benthic organisms or threatened or endangered species.rile benthic -oimunities in the construction area would be destroyed when covered
with fill. This adverse impact would be felt until recolonization occurs through
recrulitmnent from adjacent areas.
(2) Chanqes in Community Structure or Function - Fill and ripran activ-
ities would cover and eliminate some benthic communities. Recolonization from
adjacent communities would occur after construction if the new substrate is suit-
able habitat. It Is likely that new snecies would be attracted to the riprap
material.
d. Other Effects (40 CFR 230.4-1(a))
(I) Changes in Bottom Ceometrv and Substrate Comnosition - Riprap would
cover the existing uneven sandy and silty surface of the riverbanks with a flat
surface of rocks with slones of I vertical on 3 horizontal. Bank stabilization
would hielp decrease the amount of silt settling to the bottom of the rivers in areas
of little current.
(2) Water Circulation - Modification of the outlet control structure
on Big Stone Lake would permit 90 percent of the water from the Whetstone River to
pass directly into the Minnesota River without first circulating in Big Stone
Lake, if storage Is available in the Highway 75 Reservoir.
16
(3) Salinity Gradients - Not applicable.
(4) Exchange of Constituents Between Sediments and Overlying Water
with Alterations of Biological Communities - Fill activities would cover the
existing sandy bottom sediments. Present benthic communities, as described in
2ic.(i) above, are low in species diversity and poor in spatial development. lilenew conditions will not provide a means for exchange of constituents with ove-r-
lying water in areas that recolonize with similar organisms from surrounding
areas, or areas that do not recolonize.
3. CHEMICAL-BIOL.OfICAL. INTERACTIVF EFFECTS (40 CFR 230.4-1(b))
a. Does the Material '4eet the Exclusion Criteria?
Most fill material would meet the exclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria
state that dredged or fill material mav be excluded from this evaluation if itis composed predominantly of sand, gravel, or anv other naturallv occurring
sedimentarv material with particle sizes larger than silt, characteristic ofand generally found in areas of high current or wave energy such as streamswith large bed loads. Ripran, derrick stone, bedding materials, and concretemeet the exclusion criteria because of their non-liquid and clean nature. The
exclusion criteria also state that fill material may be excluded if it is
substantially the same as the substrate at the nroposed disposal site, issufficiently removed from sources of pollution to Provide reasonable assurance
that the material has not been contaminated by nollution, and is dischargedso that material will not be moved by currents in a manner damaging to the
environment outside the disnosal site. Sand fill selected from dredged material
and used for bank stabilization and enlargement activities meets these criteria.
4. DESCRIPTION OF SITE COMPARISON (40 CFR 230.4-1(c))
a. Total Sediment Analysis (40 CFR 230.4-I(c)(1))
Sediment samples from the proposed construction sites were collected in Tanuarv
1979 (see Exhibit 1). These samples were analyzed by the United States CeologicalSurvev in February 1979 for heav metals, organics, and nutrients. Analysis
down to 1 part per billion shows no detectable levels of lb ditterent organics
in five of the samples. Sample number 4 shows 0.7 part per billion of both I)DT
and Dieldrin. Sample number 7 shows 1.7 parts per billion of DDE and 2.8 parts
per billion of DDT. The use of tested river bottom fill material and clean rock,
gravel, and sand presents no major environmental impact in regard to concentration
differences of critical constituents between the fill site and the fill material.
b. Biological Community Structure Analysis (40 CFR 230.4-1(c)(2))
Fill material would either be non-aquatic or would be selected from the stream
channel adjacent to the fill site and orobablv would not contribute any species
to the biological community structure at the fill sites.
5. APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
a. Compare Constituent Concentrations
The constituent concentrations of the fill material are related to the source
of the fill material. The ripran and bedding and some fill will be clean sand,gravel, and rock, minimizing the potential for constituent exchange. Some
17
lit
small amounts of oxchane could occur with the introduction of such fill itemsas abfons and Concrete. Thv dredged fill material will be silty sand similarto that of the fill si te. Fill will come from tested, clean deposits only.Const ituent exchate il the fill material would be similar to the exchanges
it, urrent lv' ,, ' ir ) nt tirI lv ,riW ind denositing material in the areai.
*. 'hi i X .i 1 '.1 n
" '" I i., Aibcl . No Iiq i 'i()u d I . i siharved ilto h , r iv.r
Based n a. a nd b, AbOVe, V ill I Fl to I Oe rat i ons _e in Conformance withA",, Lable Sqtandi rdIs'
The nroiect would not afrec t ho, river's ambient oualiLv and is in conformanr ewith inol icabl, st imdmirds.
SHI.ECTION OF DISP'OSAL > I'ES (40 CFR 230.5) FOR DRKDCtD OR FILL MATERIML
.i. Need for the I'roposod ALct ivi
Modification of the existing silt barrier would help prevent sediment from enter-ing Big Stone Lake, would improve recreation, and would be the only item of con-struction not required for flood control. Lakeshore interests at the lower end ofBig Stone Lake claim that serious property devaluations would result if the silta-tion were to continue unchecked. Conservation interests report that damage to fishlife results from the present siltation problem, and recreation interests note that
the lake is becoming less desirable for boating and swimming. Social gains as aresult of this project would be a reduction in flood damages and the maintenance of.1 optimum elevation in Big Stone Lake.
). Alternatives Considered
Alternative channel alignraents, site barrier locations, and control structurelocations could not be functional without some type of fill activity. There-",,ro, an; location alternatives would have impacts similar to the impactsi.octated witti time fill activities of the proposed plans. The sites forill and riprap activity are required in order to meet the desired project
ob ectives.
. O iectivesto be Considered in Discharge Determination (40 CrR 230.5(a))
(1) Impact on Chemical, Physical, and Biological Integrity of AquaticEcosystem (40 CFR 230.5(a)(1) - Fill activity would not have a significant effecton the integrity of the aquatic ecosystem. Clean rock, sand, and gravel wouldcause little change in water chemistry. Flow rates in channelized areas would bemrkelerated slightly. Fill material would cover some invertebrates, buthabitat for new species may be provided at the same time.
18
(2) Impact on Foodcihain - Plankton and invertebrate populations ofthe 6ig Stone Lake watershed in general and t:ie fill areas on the Minnesotaand Whetstone Rivers in particular are indicative of a eutrophic system. 1he,watershed is a major source of nutrients and organics that perpetuate tltneutrophic condition and that li iit the base of the foodchain to algaL, adapt.dto eutropnic conditions. Fill activities would have no impact on algae pro-duction. ilowever, benthic invertebrate communities in the construction areawould be destroyed when covered witn fill. Recolonization bly new ,)CcliXu ada,
to living on gravel and rock substrates should occur after construction is com-pleted. Organisms directly dependent on benthic populations covered by I Ill acti-
vities would be forced to migrate to otner areas or be lost.
(3) Impact on Diversitv o-f Plant and Animal Species - Aquatic vvet a-tion would be lost, and associated animal life would probablv leave the arcta.The impact on diversity is not expected to be significant.
(4) lmnact on Movement Into and Out of Feedini , Snianing, Breedin ,and Nursery Areas - Channel izat ion and rinrap placement m,,v cover vegetationand nrevent vellow perch from using traditional snawning sites.
(5) Impac t on 4et land Areas HavinP Signif icant Functions of '.,aterOualitv Maintenance - Fill activities would have an adverse impact on approxi-mately i acres of wetlands wnich perform water quality maintenance functions.
(6) Impact on Areas that Serve to Retain Natural High Waters orFloodwaters - Provisions would be made for reducing floodwaters retained in BigStone Lake by providing for storage in the Highway 75 Reservoir. Fill activitieswould have no impact on floodwater retention.
(7) Methods to Minimize Turbiditv - Construction would he accompl ishedduring low-flow neriods. Water would be temporarilv diverted bv cofferdams sothat fill placement could be done in a dry state.
(3) Methods to Minimize Degradation of Aesthetic, Recreational__idEconomic Values - Channelization would affect the aesthetics of the projectarea bv altering natural forested areas during realignment of the MinnesotaiRiver and by removing, streambank vegetation during bank stabilization con-struction and riprap placement. R~verbanks would be replanted with treesand native grasses. The project should aid fishing in Bik Stone L.ake whichIs the most important use of the lake in terms of recreation and economicvalues. Fill activities would be conducted in a manner which would prevent Lusightlverosion of riverbanks. (See Plate 9.)
(9) Threatened and Endangered Species - In a lett:er dated 30 April1919, the U.S. rish and Wildlife Service identified one endangered speciesthat mav be found in the area: the Arctic peregrine falcon. Fill activitieswould have no effect on the continued existence of this falcon.
19
(10) investigate Measures that Avoid Degradation of Aesthetic,
i\ecreational, and Economic Values of Navigable Waters - Filled portions of
ttie Project would not significantly iimpact aesthetic, recreational, or eco-nomaic values of tne navigable waters. Streambank cihannelization work has
k.':n designed to avoid aestiietic and recreational degradation by keeping. tCitiOn intaCt on ont, -idt o' te bank and b. replacing destroved vegetation.
I Ir ats <on ,,t r 1t-i :it Pro iosed Fill Sitts (-AO CVR 230. 5 )(h 1-!1,1
1) 'I,'ini _ 1. 1tr 1 1Tlv Intak.s - Const rit ion of te r nro ,
t t would have no si ,niticant t 0 mnorarv or long-rance effects on the ground-(Ier of the area. Tlt source of the munic ipal water sunpI'. at Ortonville,
, , ('r, ,,..ttr um oed tor ,i ntar-surface sand and cravel aquifer)* m're than ,iequate for the , itv's neels.
(2) Shellfish - Little is known of shellfish populations in the,: ~tarea, and none are known to be hlarvested commercially. Most of the
,.'. i es of mussels wxichi inixabit streams of tic region are intolerant of sub-
: rates composed of shifting sand, which occurs in the Whetstone and Minnesota:ivers; and tnis condition limits their distribution. Fill activities are not-xpecred to have a significant impact on shellfish numbers.
(3) Fisheries - No significant fish habitat, other than the vegetative
o.r buried bv fill material, would he affected bv construction activities.
(Al ,ildIift - Construction equinment would temorarilv disturb some
ecsies, and removal of streambank vegetation would adversely affect
t snecies. Revevetation after construiction is comnleted would reduce long-
,'r ;idv-r-e effects.
(5) Recreational Activities - No siotnificant water-related recreation
i: tities are available in the fill areas. The unner Minnesota River nrovides
ishinr,, canoein2, and hunting, recreation, but only a few localized areas
,alonc the river are considered to be of significant value.
(6) Threatened and Endangered Snecies - No known threatened or endan-
.red snecies would be adversely affected bv the nronosed action.
(7) 6enthic Life - Some benthic inverteorates would be destroyed by
.ill activities. However, recolonization by recruitment from adjacent areaswould occur slortly after construction is completed and new species may beAttracted to the new substrate.
(8) Wetlands - Five acres of palustrine emergent wetland would be
adversely affected by the fill activities.
(9) Submersed Vegetation - Submersed vegetation is not present indense concentrations in fill areas but probably would nrt become established onthe new substrate.
(10) Size of Disposal Site - The sites for fill and rinrap activityare the s-',llest possible that still meet the desired project objectives.
20
--------------------------------- -i--. -.-.-
'11) Coastal Zone Management ProgR rams (40 CFR 230.3(e)) - Not annlicahl.Fill sites do not conflict with any coastal zone manaigement nroprams.
e. Considerations to .hnimi Ze iarrnf iiI Ff fects (40 ('FR 230. (c) (1-7))
(I) .'.itcr _ltitv Criteria - liI activit is woul no t affect th-Ah i ont n ,,1 it ies ,f t eit r i verS, Is oit Iined in c'l, !) .t; t .S rt.iil at ion', '
t urb id ity dV Ar in' ,ons, ruc t i on is kept to a mi in inim .
2 l [nt vtI9,ILte Al ternat ives to Open Water Disposal - Open waterSsT),sa I is n, sst Irv t,) const ri t the haneI restrictions and cofferdams.
(3) Investiate Phvsical Characteristics of Alternative Disnos,;i t, r, -IhuCre arc no ."easibilc ilternative sites. Channel location dictates where tht -iW.,Inl.i he )lAI L 'd.
4) Oce111_mning.- Not applicable.
I5) '.0herc Possible, Investiigate Coverin. Contorinated Dredged Material,ith (1' v,. r -Mater i. I - Drekced i terial to he used as a channel restriction to dit rtt,, t.r int- tb. new ,h,innel would be ,covered with clean rinran to orovent potential
do\,Ostrean movement of any contaminated material released during dredging.
(f) Investiitate Xlethods to Minimize Pffects of Runoff from Confinedrt,,is on tlhe _KAtatic Environment - No confined disnosal areas would be used.
(7) Coordinate Potential Yonitorin, Activities at Disnosal Site with
'A - No monitor inc a, t vities art, nianned for the disposal areas.
STATE MENT AS O C('ONTA.!INATION OF FIl. 'fATERTA. TV FRO A LAND SOURCF (40
CFrr 230.5(d))
Land source fill Miteri.a would be commerciallv nurchased ciean rock, grave ,
sand, and concrete.
8. MIXING ZONE
Not applicable. Jo liquids would be discharged into the rivers.
9. OETEtM INATIONS
The following determinations are those contained in the Section 404(b)(1)k;uidelines, dated 5 September 1975, which are considered the most importantin arriving at the findings required by Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean WaterAct.
a. An ecological evaluation has been made following the evaluation guid-ance in 4J CFR 230.4, in conjunction with "he evaluation considerations in40 CFR 230.5.
21
b. Appropriate neasures - sucn as using clean fill and riprap for con-r uction teat ure s and s ci id li g work diring the drv time of year - have.'.* iniorporatud in tue proposed plan to %,inimize adverse effect:; on thie
ikuj t ic t rflVirO11't'lt,
con,, idr. iti :i :u " , von to tiE ic i, ed for tik pro,)oo d act ivitY, t:i,
availability of a! teratu s ites and aethod; (see section 6, ?age 18 oi this404(b ) 1) evlat ion) ot d ispo;al that are less damaging to tile environment, and; tc.: w'ater qa1 i ty staindard., (see soct ion 5, page 17 of this 404 (1) (1) evalua-tion) as are appropriate and applicable by law.
d. The fill attivities must be associated with the Whietstone and Minnesota; ivors and adjacent lands in order to fulfill the basic project purpose. Itwas determined that the proposed plan was the only practicable alternative.The proposed fill and associated activity will not cause significant permanentdisruption to the beneficial water quality uses of the affected Whetstone andM(innesoto liivers ecosvsten.
13. FINDLN(;S
Ba-;ed on the above determinations, I find that the fill sites discussed above*or the flood control project at Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River, Minnesota-.kti DaKota Iave been specified through the application of the Section 404(b)(1)(;uideliaes.
WILLIAM 4. BADGER
DATE Colonel, Corps of EngineersDistrict Engineer
22
-- ,-B
PART III:BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
UPSTREAM WORKS ON THE BIG STONE
LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER PROJECT
BIG STONE AND LAC qUI PARLE COUNTIES t MINNESOTA,AND GRANT COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
1.3 PiROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location
1.01 Tile upstream works project on the .0hetstone and Minnesota Rivers islocated on tile eastern boundary of South Dakota near Big Stone City andon tile western boundary of Minnesota near the city of Ortonville.
Description of Proposed Project and Purpose
1.02 The project will include alteration of the existing control structureand a silt barrier at tile outlet of Big Stone Lake, channel enlargement of thelinnesota River channel for a distance of about I mile below tile Big StoneLake outlet control dam, construction of about 2 miles of new channel fromtile lower limit of the improved channel downstream into the upper reaches oftile Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge, all In Minnesota; and construction oferosion control works in the downstream reach of the Whetstone River in SouthDakota. The project will meet area needs for flood control, recreation, and
wildlife management purposes.
Alternatives
1.03 Alternatives to the proposed action include (1) no action; (2) providingfor flood storage in Big Stone Lake; and (3) transfer of floodwater downstream
into existing impoundments at Marsh Lake and Lac qui Parle.
2.00 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.01 Within the project area, the Minnesota River Valley is a broad alluvialplain averaging about 2 miles wide and broken by prominent granite knolls and
elongated ridges of glacial drift that lie approximately parallel to the axisof the valley. In the Minnesota River Valley above U.S. Highway 75 is a two-pool retarding basin built for flood control and wildlife benefits as part of
the Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River Modification Project. This 10,000-acre reser-voir forms part of the Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge.
2.02 Land in the private sector of the valley is used for cultivation and live-stock pasture. Ripar.an timberland is found along tle Minnesota River channeland in scattered patches in the valley. Urban land uses are associated with6ig Stone City, South Dakota, and Ortonville, Minnesota. Big Stone CanningCompany is the major industrial land user of the area.
3.00 IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
3.01 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a letter dated 30 April 1979 (AFA-SE),identified one endangered species that may be found in the area: the Arcticperegrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius).
23
3.02 The peregrine falcon, with a historic breeding distribution throughout
the United States, has apparently been extirpated from Minnesota and South
Dakota (Whitney et al., 1978). The highly migratory Arctic peregrine falcon breeds
in the tundra areas of North America (White, 1968). Occasional sightings of the
Arctic peregrine falcon may occur in northeastern South Dakota and western
Minnesota during its migration (Whitney et al., 1978; Midwest Research Institute,
1974). The upstream works on the Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River Project would
inave no effect on the continued existence of the peregrine falcon.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Midwest Research Institute, 1974. Natural Resourc s Study to Determine
Causes and Alternative Solutions to the Siltation and Pollution Problems of
6ig Stone Lake. Contract No. DACW37-74-C-0107. Kansas City, Missouri.
2. White, C.M., 1968. Diagnosis and Relationships of the North American
Tundra-Inhabiting Peregrine Falcon. The Auk. 85(2): 179-19'..
3. Whitney, N.R., et. al., 1978. The Birds of South Dakota. South Dakota
Ornithologists Union with the Cooperation of the W.H. Over Museum, Vermillion,
S.D.
24
S j
MODIFY SILT BARRIER!5 ; ' +' .4
MODIFY CONTROL DAM-- - ORTONVILLE MINN
BIG . -- ,12BG... " --,CHANNEL MODIFICATION
• = 'Z , S D
,41~ SA - \,EC NON
elI RRPSAW MOTCTIO DIVERSION EXCAVATION
IN
K~~~ ~~~~~ I ----- CNNENRESCC1OL
<-CUTOFF CHANNEL0 °-CHANNEL RESTRICTION
LCANNEL FILL
LOCh? *
OiCCfi Sli~ O?A OC iORA
VICINITA MAP .. PL
_ _ _ _ I I2! lVICINITA PLAT
25
ORTONVILLE FLOOD CONTROLBIG STONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER
MINNESOTA RIVERCHANNEL MODIFICATIONALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
an STONE ClT
• .1"\WEST 2 ," .
"19 STONE NATIONALWILOLIPE REFUSE" * ! "B w LKl o.*
1 "1 s ..
•,"6WEST I
0 ,x . +0
PLATE 2 26 '
t p Mn w .4 A-IM TN LAq -*E-O kRI
"N4 TA 4k S 4Y4 D4 4
4-c'-',-'.
.4--- . "ft 4-.
-- -. 427
44 r a'- ~ a' ~ .~ g ~ a' , *44.44 45 ~ r '.73 a"-"~-4mod"
\a\ l
MINST &N OT* D 0?
t..
/
S -'
UPSREA WK- WHTON RIVEU m so -A m . T - 40
1 - AUU A metumm m9
2LW I MtUOfthOUU SO I 4'O00 COS L
LAO U INI4(SOT* £N0 $OUTH OASOTA" D IuPSTNrEAM WORKS -WHETSThNE RIVER
f jftP0.-5ThI iO 5 Th 4.*10
S M34-UW-ll-S/3
.=,i 28 'PLATE 4
V _
I I
'C
ala~t iI 141l
I I I
tu 1vOn WIT" 094 1 4
44I
+ , , 0-"-:61-
I T
o \0 I
30- Mt- 0
o,, .'0 , ,,,"'"
COFFER
LI
UPSTRE AM *O"-9)MN f E
i. 'U wo . .. . sw_ R
as s-I-
31 PLAIE
7,_,
4- -
I,.
. , I PLAN
Pf1
.... RTINT, or r-. -A -
A n d t p * Pla
ai Oa 1 /
d-
- , G
STONEI LAKE -WHETSTONE RIVER
PSTREAM WORKS-WHETSTONE RIVER
p'~o-dc ~ d .. ~e e / ~ . ... .~
I wism~m BAN STABILIZ ATION
- M E - _--- -W
/ - _ _ _,
M4 -4 -s = R-5/7
32 PLATE 8
t ........ ..
....2
Typical Cross Section
AB
C.$.A.H, 25
scale in feet
13 Plate 9
EXHIBIT 1 - SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
SITE
PARAMETER 1 2 3 4 6 7
Arsenic 2 2 3 4 1 3 3Barium 700 600 500 500 200 200 700Cadmium 410 4 10 <10 .410 410 1o 410Chromium (Tot) 10 10 10 '10 . 10 I0 .10COD (mg/kg) 35000 54000 98000 37000 14000 21000 58000Copper 20 20 20 10 410 410 20Cyanide 1 0 0 0 0 1 1Iron 10000 9000 8200 9200 4100 5300 10000Lead 40 40 20 20 20 20 30Manganese 1400 1500 600 130 390 470 1400Mercury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01N KJD (mg/kQ 4800 6200 7200 4200 460 2400 5100N, NH4 as N (mg/kg) 38 6.1 48 7.3 5.2 4.4 3.5Nickel 40 40 20 20 20 20 30Oil and grease (mg/kq) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Phos. Todt. (mg/kg) 700 640 700 780 200 530 670Res. LOI mg/kq) 40300 41500 50500 3$60Q 14400 12600 43000Zinc 40 40 40 50 20 20 40Pesticides
Aidrin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Chlordane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0DDD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0DDE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7DDT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.8Dieldrin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 o0n n0Endosulfin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0)0 0.0 0.0 0j0Endrin 0.0 0 00 0.0.0 0.0 ._0 0)-Hept. Epox. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. f) f) 0i0Heptachlor 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lindane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 .0 0-0Mirex 0.0 O. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0PCB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PCN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Perthane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Toxaphene 0 0 0 0 00
* Note: Unless otherwise stated, values are in lg/kg.
34
VT
APPENDIX 1:
LETTERS OF COKMENTAND ST. PAUL DISTRICT RESPONSES
j , V
c C I~ C', 't Ci 2
0 2 4 0 C .2 .t. 4 ' .
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 a w' '"' 'Z . 4 .C. C.4. ..
- 4, 0 - . . 2 4 44" C C ~-~~~~ C4'' 4 .. , . 0 - C V44,
4,~~~= 0 CC 44 a,.. 4 , 4 0 , 4-
to 0 0 4 UC la4 L.....14
-C 1 a 4, 2.
4o 0 ,4 2 4.4
-~ ~~~~~ 44 4 . 4 ~ O 14w = 4 ' , 8
000 r-0 A.~ C,4 .C,
all 44 C .4 t
44 1 3.. cm 1.E.23 quo ZC~ I . z4 .
-~~~~ 44 ~ ~ ~ b 0. 44 4. . a 4 a- , , . * 4 , -f v . 000 4 U . > 4 4 , . 2 . 4
c.' I00 I I C -140 0 004 l
4.444a 44. 0 .1 1. 1.>
z 0. .. 0 go 1 .. 00 v
4 -3 '-4 4.l a &1..'a.O0.
.4' 444 4.Q 4 1 x'. - 4 ' 1 4 0 -'
-4 " 504-44 (0 1 . u4l 4 ' 0V"1 . -0 so 4. 1i -. 0' '( 430
4444044 - 0 ' - 00'1-2.
CD C
4,4 ~.
-C 0 4, 4,
1 0m0 CLCL-
t! 0 0~..l
a. '.-2 C00
>- -C C',f
o~' "C'J C
C.'. n--- 2 A.
r. 0, oY wo
~~S1 0. > - 0 '
C~~~4 0C~-C-- 0
I. .-0.C03C"W'm 'o Wv
C
4-~I .- "-.- .. t0
o~~S owtC
-~4
so a w O
4-' & a )d 0.c r
4- ~.C C4- >-4IL
-~~~ z-4.CC .
.2 0 0
o~o
>.4( CLiCL
C v c
>- - 8 -
41 i
o o-J~ o
146 ~ ~ C u n-
* .*-1-4
@ C
~uw 9 or
al c
o~o oLm o
4. r
S .,* C 4
C,..i
o 4)
a*,-0 0, o o
IL IL
U
U 3 Q, 0
In, r_ 0 <--
00 ol 00 0
w 0 u u 0 c( , t 0 )
c .0 0CoC.. oo0 rca,
a, E . .~ 'a - 0
0 0 oj 0 4)aza, z xa,.
U) 4-)0 4 (Ca 0 10
a, 4,2 v
-0 m,0 , vc aV~0.0 0 w ' a4 .0.Cra v L 0.05
(00 (d = 9 v C (0.!- I-ca( -'-aw a 0I 0m
0010- 0 k E0 u m(
c~ ~ I >14 - ( I00
00 C 0
m G.2 ~ . ' W, 0 ECU-c0 I 0.. 400 C 0. U "I- fl4 U .
~.1 , .. .CCI. >.C(4 *-31U.0hU~ 0o0 I0(. DU >
4 11 1 1 d1-6
0 '
., 0
u c)
C,..-" "...
C'~ m0
Co CD
C,, -, ,$... . .v 0
w 4-
4 W" .. . . ..
0~~1 0 0 CC r'
a'-
-ZO 0
W- 0, m
.0~ o1.00.-.04 u.. - .1-
£0 t0, > -c
0.01. 0
o'e2
Vt 010..0-.00
0W Z--o Wo Co.. C0 .. oU
ou 0.3 0 2-0 .
I u
O5 0 0
m.c 0
u u0
00 x
*1 -l
1-
--- -, - II'E I ~I ~ -
[II
I
($7
L $7 $7'
a ra. r
Wa-
C) C ~ 'C
- - -
"~0
C C)a-nc 00 0 4-'
'2 4' 2 'C C S.
ar).-'.- $7 -'--' a ' ,£2 .' 4' C~ 0 0
C) Cc - '~' tC4$.4-'C C.
- Co SC"' 'V .5 $7
-- C.t ' 4- r, c
44 4- 2~.c .7~
*r a,.0
4, _o 1 1
o o r
41 S4. ~ mCC 1o-rM
un on 1. U t:
C, 0,
C~~ 00
EC 0 ' ~ >>
H~C = .'))
I -44Ca
1..1004so LfC, 0)>c
c IS. c) Ca
-4 ), 0 ).4001f 4
CC, -3 m - I) 4.-
-0 - 0 CC 44' Ic.C
mC. I a m>0)
ka1 3m a.-..O.0 w
.0C CO 0 C:) Q
14L), .1'0= - 0
r= CUOE a 6- m l)44
C ... ,.C a0C: 4.0)C4 vi 0v- CO cc0 O43A"I
,~.40 C0)4'O a.- C aC'-CC> 010).4 a' C .1-12S 0
-~~~ C C3N- ) 0
Cz-03k3)r ~~ 0 .0 0
w u 0 0 .2 w m
. - r C o o ,. ~ w o. v .- * - 3 a4 - o .0 -0f .* .- 0 > 0 C 303
0 CL0 W 3.-w
-M0 0 4 rf(vl
c3 0 3 0 a L. 4).. S. Q0
>30= 0~ 0 - - c 'ma0M.0a034>3.u 0 mC0m - 000-
O 0w0-.00030030- 4 0 033.033 .-
go . m00 C0 T 3'
.0.-'--ow u-
3.4~~I MD0 0 - 353.
w w
0 0 C w .
I"0 41 m)-I CIu1 4 )1- 01-100) 0 =) 0- 3)-
0)0 IA ra > ItC *IA 04 0)
u0 a C'IA 0) C >
IA CC C- -. 0 > CL40
CC~ M- - - . '.00 .0003 * 04 CC 00 *' -
4.0)~ 00 -ow
VC C'-0 m 4. ex)
CI. C'1-0 C9z Z= 1 u
F 0) - m4 wV 09 3C IVA 0-
5 3. 01 0-4 c Q )-1-I 3 40 wAC 40aI u-
K ?3 14) . .0411 00)IA..1 0~) W).4 5) 0
-~~~~ M4 -C0. 000- 101) I C
V w0CL.. M4)a. 0) 0. 90-
IAm _4.I I0 T 1-4. 0)14 cc0)0 0.4.-~a IA V V0-4 01II 1
Cr 0 M - G u1 . w. a0)C
0) 16 -0).1 0) 414, w )0)MV!!l40
C CC - 1-14-I~l0) 44-'1-144
F C ~
Io o
o 0
£
C 0,0) C
C41 .4 0).~ LA 4
0) .40) 0' 0JC 0 '
4-, 0~ C
"4 41 C .4 4-4.4 * 4-43 C) 0
.4 - 43CCU 0 W*fl
4-'41a a LA
LA C C - -o 41
C 41 '0 .4Qc - 1- U 0
00, 4141LA V *,- ., -~ ~
C) 0, .4 C C410)C-O0 ~4I '0 0
0 0 .0 4) 0E"441.44' 41 41 C LA
I--
0 0~ 4-' 41
O0,C~*'- '- *'- C C41 '0 0 41C .4.-04 0 4-' 41
4~4 A) o41aLg~ 41 ~ 43a. -,
8~8-Sn ~ 3 ui K -
I 1-Is
A
0 0 1
c~2 2.(*j a
0 '0u 1
LC)W a 3
m-0 0 a C 3MC
20 : m .- (d) 23)
> 2 10. 4 0 0
U2.) 0 U m a 33 Lo3
'A~~
40 24 c) M4.. -o j. M
w ))) 0(.0. M. M4v >
0 2- 0.0 4). 4444. -
4. -2 ). -4 .04 . 40 4440.444) 00 w Mr
>1.0 >0 9444-s W4..
44 M -4
)t--v r - 4
0r 0044. 044
040 M4 0.. (
.0 ( 4 41 Ix-c z.0 0
4)0~ ~~~ 4)44)- 04) mt .4...
4) ( 4 ) .. . .4 4 cm0 > 0 .-4 4 4
'4~ 4.)4~ 5~~ a~4 U.0
0 0 .4. 04 4)0 '.... 0t
AA 0. M40 0444 .0.0 z= 4)Fol
>4 4)4) z' 0 4) 0
04)2 cu)( w0 04
'a444 .0aWC44~0. 044 M'0' >4.
044 0 (4U 00. .:
04) c)4 Q0 004 0 0. 4
'4 40. 4 4 0 a4) 4)0> ')4.0 - -0 ~~ 44 0.. 4.4u 2,4 (4- cu. 00(44) 44.4mm4 c w
4. 4)4 4)4004.44 0.44 04. 064) to ' 4 . 4 4 O O 0 0 4E 0 c) 0 0 4
44~~~~~~~ u4)0 04
(->0s. .0'-6 00 44 4.. . 0 U44.0 4
4M).0(am
0-tO~~ 44 1020. w( 04) >0 dl3 zV)t 0 . 00 '44 0 (
0 ~ ~~~ 000 1o0 044 (4 '0 0 0
4).~ ~~~ 0444 M.0' W.'.40 402
(444.44.4m 44 (4W 4 4
(Uc u ) 4 L.-M40. w 00 0 C
04 m1 01)024450 >1 . .W .004.
w 4ln caw.. W. 44.-.444. 1 .4.40 0... 0
440, 442 z4C4Z4.4
enl z2 2 >4) 44. 0wz~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ K4 .4 4444...244 .4 . , 304- 44 4.4> b 41"4.4 4-4 .. 43 .. 444 4 2024.044 4.4040 '
4.40~ ~ ~~ L44a>OIA 44440 111 -4- 44~~~~~~~1 1 44444(. 4..0~C 44 -
-I .00 &-,I; A444. V4..4> C44
l 3 .
1-17 4 14>34 .44. >
i-I- 0 a
c 0- wc
V.0 40 4
05' 4,
.W E,4
'. 4, > 0 -, 44o 0 '. . ii
.44 o 41
-04-1
w r
'0, = a 0owlU-- w ' 0 - . 0
m4- , 04S
, 0)0 , 0a, m40 L 00 c 0 a, t
31 W!;; ~ )4 s. Q0m)
II
0 ~
4'
.2 . - ~ ZE ~-~ ~ 63
'I~E
~>0
0 u. -4 woc -00 E~ftE 00 2~0.
-0" ~ b L
00 -~ .~ F (5 .- '~ ~'C)* ~'o.
0 ~
-, ~ ~- ~0 044-~
o '-~* ~ 1L~J.I ~~
U ~
* ~-' ~ 5 I~ * *.. 0.~II.iJ~i~
~ ipEl ~j ~P1
1-19
I
*
lie 0.0 . 0,
=1 .100 0. 60 0.
v04 0.06 0 0)
X wn C ).0 m )
C0 0> >* 00
to 0 6 . 0-. v 0 w
z >' 60~6
0)00)> 0600 0E 0
u0 0.0 0.0.4 > .. 1 0)0.
0 -0 x 0 >. - 00
6 00)- r mCO o'6. .. 0 m
MI 02 -1 aIm.0 1 0 .0'W 1:C. 6
w n c 0 0 00 0 0 000 v
6.6 4 0 w4, ow0 u
00 00..0 00- '000 00 00 ...-. A
- 6 6 '40.6.0 6 0- -
t- 7
0014- 0a,~ 4 q -
0 l0. 0 C
;A 0 Ca I
0 Ca dl . 0
12 ,-; :v W TOi; 00 , . $I.
CLa
C U.C~ Z41 4C .U~C Ca 44 C'a 0 '
0 in U. C ' '
Ca Cab 4'
v 'S inL.
114' 1-21
APPENDIX 2:
RECIPIENTS OF THE
DRAFT SUPPLEMENT
r
io l'i.~ IS oF}. fI '
BI ; I.l)Ni- I,,, - iKI'lt)N* RIVERo]R.\F S/Pl' tl, l L I.S
I liLod 5"t.litc~or~.
Iilo . ;0orge ,'f ;ovurii - :>'koutto I),iko taIilon. Lar ry Press Ir - South Dakotaton. (tidy nosciwit.z - ,\lnesota
lion. David Oirerlherg r - Ailhsota
United States hLouSe of lepresentatives
iton. Thomas A. i)aschle - South DakotaHon. Richard Nolan - 'M inneso tailon. Arln Stma~clland - inesOtLI
lonorable William .1. .lanklow, CoyO\'rror of Souti Dakota
lionorabLe Albert it. Luie, C;overnor of Ainneso ta
tI.S. iDepartment of the Interior
.\ssistant Secretary tr Program Policy, ashington, D.C.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Caicago, IllinoisU.S. Fish and 4ildlife Service, Regional Office, Denver, ColoradoU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Paul, MinnesotaU.S. Fisii and Wildlife Service, Pierre, South DakotaOffice of Archeology and Historic Preservation, ashington, D.C.[leritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Ann Arbor, Michigan,teritage Conservation ad Recreation Service, Denver, ColoradoInteragency Archeological Services, Denver, Colorado3areau of I1adian Affairs, Minneapolis, MinnesotaBureau of indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South DakotaU.S. G;eological Survey, Reston, VirginiaU.S. ;eologicat Survey, Denver, ColoradoNational Park Service, Denver, ColoradoiBureau of Land ,Iana)einent, Alexandria, Virginia
U.S. Department oC Transportation
Federal tiighway Administration, Homewood, IllinoisFederal Hignway Administration, 0enver, Colorado -
Second Coast Guard District, St. Louis, MissouriNinti Coast Guard District, Cleveland, OhioMarine Safety Office, St. Paul, MinnesotaFederal Aviation Administration, Aurora, Colorado
2-I
F~Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
Department of Energy
Division of NEPA Affairs, Washington, D.C.Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Chicago, IllinoisFederal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, Minneapolis, Minnesota
International Joint Commission, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D.C.Region V, Chicago, IllinoisRegion VIII, Denver, Colorado
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, Region 9, Milwaukee, WisconsinForest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood,ColoradoForest Service, Broomall, PennsylvaniaSoil Conservation Service, Minnesota State ConservationistSoil Conservation Service, South Dakota State ConservationistSoil Conservation Service, River Basin Planning Board, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, Washington, D.C.Economic Development Representative, Duluth, MinnesotaNOAA - National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WashingtonNOAA - National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MassachusettsFederal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C.Maritime Administration, Cleveland, Ohio
U.S. Department of Health and Welfare
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, Washington, D.C.Region V, Chicago, IllinoisRegion VIII, Deaver, Colorado
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Region V, Chicago, Illinois
Region VIII, Denver, Colorado
2-2
A'innesota State Agenci,,s
Department oi Agriculturei)epar tllent 01 Economic D)evelopment
Ener gv A ;encvfI ron0menotal Qua titv Board
State ilistorical SocietyState Historic Preservation OfficerState ArcheologistPollution (ontrol AgencyState Planning AgencyD)epartment of Natural ResourcesDepartment of Health
Department ot rransportationWater Resources BoardOffice of Economnic Opportunity
State Senate
State House of Representatives
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Commission
South Dakota State .\gencies
Department of (;ame, Fish, and ParksDepartaent of Natural Resources
State ilistor.- Preservation OfficerState ArcheologistOffice of Cultural Affairs
State Planning AgencyCommittee on Water Pollution
Archeological Commission
Regional, County, Local Agencies - Minnesota
Upper Minnesota Valley Regional Development Commission
Lac qui Parle-Yellow River Watershed District
Upper Minnesota River Waterstned District
Lac qui Parle County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)Swift County SWCD
Stevens County SWCD
Traverse County SWCD
dig Stone County SWCD
Big Stone County Commissioners
Stevens County CommissionersTraverse County Commissioners
Lac qui Parle County Commissioners
Swift County Cormnissioners
dig Stone County Zoning Office
Stevens County Zoning Office
Lac qui Parle County Zoning Office
Swift County Zoning Office VCity of Odessa, Minnesota
City of Ortonville, Minnesota
Traverse County Zoning Office
2-3
Regional, Couniy, iocal Agencies - South DakotaI First Planning and Development DistrictFourth Planning and Development DistrictEast Dakota Conservancy SubdistrictGrant County CommissionersRoberts County CommissionersGrant County Zoning OfficeRoberts County Zoning officeB~ig Stone City, South Dakota
Libraries - Minnesota
Benson Public LibraryEnvironmental Conservation Library, MinneapolisHill Reference Library, St. PaulMadison Carnegie Public LibraryMetropolitan Council Library, St. PaulMinneapolis Public LibraryMinnesota Legislative Library, St. PaulMorris Public LibraryOrtonville Public LibrarySt. Paul Public LibraryUniversity of Minnesota, MinneapolisUniversity of Minnesota, MorrisUniversity of Minnesota, St. Paul
Libraries - South Dakota
Carnegie Library, PierreGrant County Public LibrarySisseton LibrarySouth Dakota State University LibraryUniversity of South Dakota
Newspapers and Wire Services
Associated PressBig Stone County IndependentGrant County ReviewLac qui Parle County Western GuardMontevideo American NewsRoberts County CourierStevens County TribuneTraverse Coiqnty GazetteUnited Press InternationalWaterways Journal
2-4
Interest Groups and Other Organizations
Dakota Environmental CouncilDefenders of Wildlife, Great Lakes Region
Ducks UnlimitedEnvironfllental Defense Fund, Inc.
Friends of the Earth, Minnesota Branchlzaak Walton League of America
Midwstern Gas TransmissionMinnusota Conservation Federation
Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens Association
Minnesota League of Women Voters
Minnesota Public interest Research Group!ational Audubon Society, North Midwest Region
National Safe Boating AssociationNational Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Federation, North Central Region
Sierra Club, Dacotah ChapterSierra Club, Nortih Star Chapter
South Dakota Association of Conservation DistrictsSouth Dakota Water Developers Association
South Dakota Wildlife Federation
The Wildlife Society, South Dakota Chapter
Individuals
Robert V. Bartlett
Dennis Dragt
H. Paul FriesemaD.J. McQueen
Robert R. PflugerR.D. Schreiner
t
2- 5
APPENDIX 3:
FLOOD CONTROL, BIG STONE
LAKE-WIIETSTONE RIVER, MINNESOTA
ANO SOUTH DAiOTA, DESIGN
MEMORANDUM NO. 1, GENERAL,
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2
I ' tI
APPENDIX 3::LO0) CONTROL, Th , 3"JTiL LA,.In-WdETSTONE RIVER,
MINNLSJTA AND SOUTLH DAKOTA, DESIGN MEMORANDUM
NO. 1, GENERAL, SUPPLEMENT NO. 2
I. [his supplez:vent to L:ii subj ct !;::ora!:(Jum is furnished in accord-ancte with Memo for Record NCSLD-D, 0 Septenber 1973, regarding sedi-
mentation problems in Ltic higstone lake - Whetstone River vicinity.
2. During August 1973, a field investigation and office meeting were
held concerning proposed modifications to features of the Bigstone -Whetstone Project. Personnel in attendance included representatives
from OCE, NCD and the St. Paul District. One item discussed concernedmodification of the Bigstone Lake silt barrier and outlet control
structure and its effect on sediment deposition in the Lake and the
Highway 75 reservoir. Results of a previous study indicated thatlarge quantities of sediment from the Whetstone River were being di-
verted into Bigstone Lake as a result of the outlet works operations.
Concern was expressed about the possibility of this sediment beingrouted into the Highway 75 reservoir as a result of the proposed mod-ifications. It was decided to establish sediment monitoring stationson the Whetstone and Yellowbank Rivers in an effort to more accurately
determine the quantities of sediment involved and their distribution.
The following paragraphs describe the methods used to analyze the sedi-ment problems and the results obtained. In general, it was determined
that the volume of sediment discharging into the Highway 75 reservoiris considerably less than previously estimated and that the reservoir'ssediment storage capacity is more than adequate for the design life of
the project, and it is not necessary to provide for excessive sediment
in the reservoir.
3. In order to determine sediment volumes it was first necessary to
develop sediment vs. discharge rating curves. Sediment gaging stationswere established by the USGS at Bigstone City on the Whetstone River and
near Odessa on the Yellowbank River. Measurements used in this study
were obtained during 1974, 1975 and 1976. Sediment rating curves were
developed from these measurements (Plates 1 and 2). The measured values,when plotted on log-log paper, show a fairly wide band. A graphical method,
developed by the USGS, was used to determine the line of best fit (see
Ref. 1). It can be seen from the resulting curves that measurements at
high discharges were not obtained. While this is admittedly a weak point,attempts were made to verify the assumed curve by correlating with otherstreams having longer records. Sediment vs. discharge measurements from
several small streams in eastern South Dakota were plotted on the Yellow-
bank curve. A similar curve was developed for the Cottonwood River atNew Ulm using the same procedures (Plate 3). The purpose of the Cotton-
wood curve was primarily to verify the procedure rather than correlatewith the Yellowbank and Whetstone curves. The USGS had conducted a
study of sediment yield in some Minnesota streams (Ref. 2), and the
Cottonwood River at New Ulm was included. The sediment yield value ob-
3-1
tained by the methods used in this study agree with that determinedby the USCS. This close agreement with the Cottonwood River and thegeneral pattern of agreement with other streams in eastern South Dako-ta lend some degree of confidence to the results of the current study.In the absence of a longer record including higher discharge measure-ments, we believe the sediment rating curves derived for this study doaccurately reflect conditions that exist on the Whetstone and Yellow-bank Rivers.
4. Once the sediment rating curves were developed, the next step wasto determine sediment yield. A Flow-Duration-Sediment Rating Curve
Procedure used by the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, andothers, was used (Ref. 3). For the Yellowbank River, this method couldbe used directly. The results are shown as Plate 4. They show theaverage annual yield on the Yellowbank River as 21,075 tons/year or0.05 acre-feet/sq. mile/year. The latter figure falls within the rangepredicted by the USGS study for west central Minnesota. From this, itwas estimated that an average annual sediment volume of 20.4 acre-feet
will enter the Highway 75 pool from the Yellowbank River. The mathemat-ics and assumptions used to obtain this value are as follows:
The sediment was assumed to be 50% clay and 50X silt
based on analysis of boring sample taken from Bigstone Lake.From the table in Plate 5, unit weights of 65 pcf for siltand 30 pcf for clay were used.
.5(65)+.5(30) - 32.5 + 15 - 47.5 pcf
1 acre-foot - 43560 cu. ft.(43560)(47.5) / 2000 - 1035 tons/acre-foot21075 / 1035 - 20.4 acre-feet
5. Because of the complex flow relationships between the Whetstone
River and Bigstone Lake, a somewhat different approach to the sedimentanalysis was taken. Initially the annual volume of sediment at Big-stone City was computed by the same method as that of the YellowbankRiver (Plate 6). The computed volume of 19,525 tons/year convertsto 18.9 acre-feet/year, considerably less than the 136 acre-feet/yearvalue estimated in earlier reports. The problem was to determine thedistribution of this sediment between Bigstone Lake and the MinnesotaRiver and what effect proposed modifications to the lake outlet workswould have on this distribution. The procedure for analysis is de-
scribed.
6. Flow-Duration Curves were prepared for the Whetstone River at Big-stone City and the Minnesota River at Ortonville. The period of recordused included the years 1947-1969. This period was chosen because theBigstone Lake outlet control structure was not operated and both lakeand river flow conditions were assumed to be "natural" (The same periodwas used for the Yellowbank River for consistency.). The MinnesotaRiver flow-duration curve was superimposed on the Whetstone River curve(Plate 7). It was assumed that when Whetstone values exceeded Minnesota
values a rortion of the flows were diverting Into Bigstone Lake. Sedi-
3-2
ment %yield for this differential flow was computed using the Bureau'~Reclamation procedure (Plate 8). This produced an average annual
yiteld of 1962 tons or 1.9 acre-feet of Whetstone sediment divertedInto Bigstone Take under existing conditions. Again this is far lessthan previous estimatus. Possible reasons for this discrepancy willbe discussed in later paragraphs.
7. For proposed conditions, with the silt barrier raised one foot,historic lake stages were used to evaluate flow distribution. Aver-age monthly lake stages, as measured by the USGS, over the period ofrecord, were tabulated. Average monthly values for the entire periodwere calculated (Plate 9). For this analysis, it was assumed thatwhenever the lake stage was above elevation 964.7 (proposed top of siltbarrier) all Whetstone flow would be passed down the Minnesota River,according to the proposed operating plan. These assumptions are notexactly correct, however, since the analysis deals with "average"conditions, some simplifying assumptions had to be made. From this,it was determined that flow would be diverted into the lake from Julythrough March. To compute sediment volume a flow-duration curve isagain required. Since it would be easier to develop the curve forthree months instead of nine, the curve was developed for April, Mayand June (Plate 10). From this, the Bureau of Reclamation procedurewas applied again (Plate 11) and by subtraction, the sediment volumediverted into Bigstone Lake was calculated. The volume calculated is4093 tons or 4.0 acre-feet. This is about twice the volume divertedunder existing conditions but again much less than previously estimated.
8. Based on the preceeding analysis the average annual volume of sedi-ment entering the Highway 75 pool would be 35.3 acre-feet (20.4 fromthe Yellowbank River and 14.9 acre-feet from the Minnesota River). Thereservoir has a design sediment storage capacity of 11,000 acre-feet.The Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed concern that the sedimentstorage would be exhausted before the project reached its design life.Their concern was based on the earlier sediment volume estimates. Thepresent study indicates that the storage capacity is more than adequate.
9. Attempts were made to determine the exact distribution of sedimentwithin the Highway 75 reservoir using computer program HEC-6. The topo-graphy of the reservoir and generally low discharges of the Minnesota andYellowbank Rivers are not well suited to analysis by computer. Thepool is wide and shallow with many islands, some of which are very large.At low conservation pool, the portion above County Road 15 is dry. Forthese reasons and because of the relatively low volume of sediment in-volved, further attempts at detailed distribution analysis do not seemnecessary at this time. A reasonable assumption can be made that thebedload, which is approximately 10% of the total, will drop out and forma delta where the streams enter the reservoir. The suspended sedimentwill be evenly distributed throughout the pool. If the Yellowbank isdiverted to the upper part of the pool, its bedload will form a deltathere. The suspended load will still be distributed. Sediment rangeswere established in 1974 and are scheduled to be resurveyed in 1981.
3-3V
If that survey indicates a higher degree of sedimentation than anti-cipated, additional studies may be warranted.
10. As mentioned earlier, results indicate that the total sedimentvolume expected is considerably less than previously estimated. Theearlier estimates were preliminary in nature and were based entirely
on soundings of Bigstone Lake taken in 1956 and 1967. Sedimentationdata was not available for the Whetstone River, and sediment contrib-uted by the lake drainage basin itself was not considered. Followingare some specific reasons why we believe that earlier estimates areinaccurate:
a. The 1956 and 1967 soundings were not necessarily surveyed
along the same control lines. Control hubs were not established foreither set.
b. Volume was computed by end area planimeter measurements.
These measurements included areas possibly attributable to bank caving.c. Sediment moved down the lake by littoral drift and wind ac-
tion was overlooked. The entire lake was not sounded. The northwestto southeast orientation of the lake and its length (25 miles) make itappear likely that widd and wave action will have a significant effect
on sediment movement. It is possible that the silt barriqr acts moreto retain this drift material in the lake than to keep sediment fromthe Whetstone River out.
References:.
1. "Extending Streamflow Data," W.B. Langbein and C.H. Hardison, Pro-ceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 81, Paper No. 826,
November, 1955.
2. "An Approximation of Sediment Yields from Watersheds in Minnesota,"C.R. Collier, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No. 74-
2506, December, 1974.
3. "Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yieldsand Sources," (ARS-5-40), Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, June, 1975.
3-4
10,000
Ip0--
100-
00
0.10
011.0 10 100 1000 10000SUSPENDED SEDIMENT DISCHARGE
IN TONS / DAY
LEGENDSWATER YEAR 1974
WATER YEAR 1975WATER YEAR 1976
GENERAL, DESIGN MEMORANDUM NO.1 SUPPLEMENT NO.2
BIGSTONE LAKE - WHETSTONE RIVER MINNESOTAAND SOUTH DAKOTA
SEDIMENT- RATION CURVE, WHETSTONE RIVERNEAR BIGSTONE CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA DISTRICT
3-5PLATE I
1, , .14 1
1001
4+ 410 4It
I i~1% CONCENTRATION
0.1 LEGEND 1.0 10 100 lpoo 10,0000 WAER EAR 974 SUSPENDED SEDIMENT DISCHARGEo WAER EAR 974IN TONS / DAY
6~ WATER YEAR 19756.WELLOW CREEK NEAR WATERTOWN D.A,= 125sq. mi.@1STRAY MORSE CREEK NEAR CASTLEWOOD DA.= 74sq. mi.
Q 4HIflE OOOD CREEK NEAR FSTELLINE DA.z 164sq. mi.El6BIG SOUIX RIVER NLAR BROOKINGS D.A. 4420sq.ml
Eo SIXMILE CREEK NEAR BROOKINGS D.A. 54sqmi.
GENERAL, DESIGN MEMORANDUM NQ I SUPPLEMENT NO.2PGSTONE LAKE~f WHETSTONE RIVER MINNESOTA
.%'SOUTH DAKOTASED)IMENT-FATING CURVE YiELLOW BANK RIVER
NEAR ODESSA, MINNESOTASTr. PAULe MINNESOTA DISTRICT
3-6 PLATE 2
o z- Li> U
* L I0
*r ZO1 o
o 3
~VTP4 4 u.i,
*.t.CL
4-11
+4z
4- . . I.
CL: v 'I4J N. 3oVH0S
3-7
PLT z
Yllo",L,-ik Rie~r neacr Odessa, Monv~v.F e c:od Recorc( 194-V-q9
I .F - V+- Daul/ A, PO"Ii Avq
,o : .... __ ..... 3C0 3,4- g
I0 _ 10 A700- , 00 _ _. 5_
,____ _ ___ ___ .I q-.~ -.1
_ 30 .. L0 ___ . 3.q (0,. N O_.. .. . . ..l .. . .. I . . . .. " _,_/_ _.___
50 I0 I0 I. I5 .. d5
70 it) .. 00 .oO
10 LOS1-.,2
A~~L~ L143'X3(5Xii2'r35' _33(.00A..
.A~1~4iQ~ ~L X x3 5 /9 i 59 +o0%; 4earr
Y75K S/Ya ot~s.i 53.0 '? o Aimy f
-~ L2or .r.l.m1./il~erFlood Control, Bigstone Lake - Whetstone RiverMinuesota and !outh Dakota, Design Memorandum
No. 1, General, Supplement No. 2
.3-8
0 t' 0
1~ 4-) 4J
0' 0 :5
ci
'I'1- 3' -
H0
>1~~~~~U C -l - cr,
Ca 0) r.-4 u
0~ 10 0004£'
0 v) D 0 CdoC-)- 0- '00
O,- C4 c0
0~~ aO0 '0,
U) F-
0 00 C) to
.- 40 t-(- 0
'0$
0 ~ :j k. 4.)0 oO
C)'~( -,-V~.
43 C Ia t,~ 71.0
UL n 4 (.1
S0 -,4
U) '0 24-~(
co A) 0 i 00)
3-9~ P I c +e 5
FeI Y¥clr I /-9
3 0 . ' 19 ,1_ .0
Ic 0 _ ____0 1' q.o ..
3 c 10J -5.7 3.9 .57... _ .. 19 _7___. _ ,
Licy - '17S__
1o _ ._ _ .. /.oc, 0.73 .... 1
L0 -- Oc 0.7_ _
70. . . ____- .o _ _
_ 0 .. ... 0 O.. q
_ i 1, _l ._ .1 .. .0O00_ 1- ... .0 0. _ .oc,
e__.., __L _.__.._"_L , ____o _ __._ = ___ _ 7_. 0. _m ,_
- 17 7S5-
Fl!ood Control., Bigi~tone Lake - Whetstone River............. Minnesota and South Dakota, Design Memorandum
No. 1, General, Supplement No. 2
3-10
nrx... ... I Any
.... ... ... . I III'e ier
''- :' .. ... ; " : : F:.;. -.- -ii- i.-.... -
LEGEND ,- ..o WHETSTONE RIVER NEAR BIGSTONE CITY * .
MINNESOTA RIVER NEAR ORTONVILLE
'" .. .. . ... .,..-... i..! , '.... .. .,....... .. .. ....
.. . ...... 1.... . .. .... . . . .. .... ,
10 I I . ..." " I -"T" " I .I V I..... . ........ ...
0-
-- . lil + T
Uf)
II
-.0
10 .. . . ---... . . - ..
-~1~ -:; :!: -
T T'Y .. ... T f....... .. .. "
'T'h i jjl. _,
.. 95 90 80 60 40 20 10 I 0.1 0.01EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY IN PERCENT
t GENERAL, DESIGN MEMORANDUM NO.I SUPPLEMENT NO. 2
BIGSTONE LAKE - WHETSTONE RIVER MINNESOTA0.1 - AND SOUTH DAKOTA
9 FLOW- DURATION CURVESPERIOD OF RECORD 1947- 1969
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA DISTRICT3-11 PLATE 7
-1M CI 0- -1IC E Lnl'P%.IATIO,4 I DATIIpU
tICE LCELj
COaMPITED LT CICKED sy ~ IiJ~R vIm
Pe *O- ce -' Q., Q.5 y. A, fi.
- 0-4. lo~re-e (,ke LifAM- 3 _Qvfl x. . .__)
.±J.2~~~~~~~ .- k~ ~ ~ -7 L _ _
Ar 7 LQ3 1 h3 z2
_; _3 _l_$z
No. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v 1,Gnrl uplmn o
_l o Co t.l _is oi a e Ei.fstn ie
NCS Form 15 22 Dec. 5 3-12
_ _ _r5 cc
x' z
4444 D-
0l(it
M AV7 ~ U!
_____ 1 4
__ __ _ N J7
,.TV
NW'~LAT 9,1- 13 ~.
-- -------.- -- I
7r 7&14,1VJ 4
I4, 1 1 V. Lit 771 i
I I i
.,4 -r -
7
ITI7t A go '0I~ 6- 0 10 5 2 1Q n
TEERL DEIN EOANU O UPLMNTN
BISOE AE-WHTTN IVE INST
341
Af,2II r' 1 ) -J4 4~ e- qL 7- 199
P____ DaI / Aq P.~2~ Avi
3.0 ~ 0 J'6 1Z0 Cy __
lo_ /0 __ A) _ _
_ /0 130 T__ /3.0 _
/00 303.70 36) -05'_
/0 h7 ? 1L
__ __ _ _37 .00
=-fL1 ( ' .77 10 -X Xo _-t .
X 31 X /.5c35 = 3QQO C)/Z,
Flood Centrol, Bigstonc Lake - hetstone RiverMinnenotn nd South I ct11 ; n'enoorandun
No. 1, Concral, Supplement No. 2
P&lotte II3-15
APPENDIX 4:COST ESTIMATE
APPENDIX 4: 4pril 1990COST ESTIMATE (October 1980
Price Level)
III. SI'Il LAKE - 'H Isr't)N RIER PRiOJECT
'inn' i ,'l tLi' 1 wn-.rt im ,t Stition 60+0):.n , r.id , ,. A' -II l
I'v .\I Al nm-nt (East)
I , .. , I1 1,470 78,368
I 1 .I y I7,42 91 *6791 000 81 o (
il-ill,. 0. )i 28 49,000
W..) . 36, 100 130,680
"A s.d , ,i ) 78 62,400- , . II I3. ) )f ,600
.. )'t rt 2 I fl Ch it I I I I. 1:Ilt nd %,. " r
I x ,it 105' 1.I5 6, 091 7,348k I rip I 2C%. ) ) 890 1 7,800li,,,dd i n C) ( ] . 00( 4 75 7,600(
'ihcn~t piIira, S 7.)00 560 9,520
iIl, ion, SY 26.00 90 2,340
.Y 1.15 751 862
'51d.0 I L 1 (). 80 800t , t, I. D5 IO. 00 214 21,400
r~iv,.Y 1-tl iris. ('Y .OI 20 300
)0. 1 0 210 4,200'-O l i n. ('Y I .00 115 1 ,681
-" .1' T¢,.ir;2 ))- ni,lln+ .rt' . )ln,
, , nt tro I
I o ) l 1.15 6,260 7,199
(Y 20.00o 2,020 40,400. 1' h.00 1,010 16, 160
, I2nc '1'I (5' .C))) 11,600 1 1,600
Ji -,wrlt rw.i weir
R i r) 2p. . )) 455 9,100
Baid in 5 I h .00 360 5,760' t,c .I Il iial In1 7 . 00) 3,640 61 ,8801 .0,5 2h. )1) 410 10,660
1,048,724(Sntin,s - IS. 157,276
Total 1,206,000
1)1.1 -t', ! ( t s
n., 1 notr i n4l alndl JIII- i n 96'(1m)
Snttrv i ,in ind Admin i , t ra ti . 97 000
Tol I l .rec t 193,000
Il. FIs1IM.\ ' F E) FFERAT. CO t". . 1,399,001
' , - )"'d nar; I
I.Inld At qi'l it ion 26,000
1in. t net, r i ng 15,()1i0
.r \ F I'rIIATEI) \.N- IRA l ' S F I06,0(01/
lI)]lAl E) 'l.51l0 1()I ' I' AN]) NON-I'IO RAI. (51IST . i. .,5 ,nol0
)). d -. n I un p.. ,nit .. p -,vl .iI b' I.\ n'h. Il i.r p MinnT t i River Iatru! ,',l Iii'trit .
-80
4-1
APPENDIX 5:
CULTURAL RESOURCES
COORDINATION LETTERS
€ F.
Z)L.) A.A17 Juac 1933
Aa..aciarti Diractor for Culia llro~rama.Iivrita.eo a. :rvatioa. a~j L-craatioai S~rviceAi3iA;0L L;.. iJ2AJ
Izic1osed f or your review auu. c,)arn&At -are two co,)i~k of a report entitled "&aAruuloia flcoaxuissac Survey of tite Proposed Cnaawci ALii;caunt Area&L Di Stoa-- fa;ttoaa Flood Control Project, ii. Scoue a.& Lac quL, 1arJiCouati"., .1-LAugoi4." I-a.s ri~port was praparud by a ',ialifi4J arca-aolo;;isior tua St. iaul di3trict, W.rj~s of LflC~tie.tri.
la orijar to maaiutaia our scuaadule for Cads oroject, v-3 raquest tutac you submit,'u.ar co a-maa by Lj july 1 oJ. If you raqu.ire aJUioaa Laforaation, jilaecoatact dr. JaviU a.trwick~, 4rcLuaolo;ist, kLavirowwiutal Rasosrces 3raacia at(%uL) 72.Y-74.j4 or FIS 74)-7 .b4.
1 Ianc1 RUI4..T F. I'OZTAn statow Cuafg, 1.aviroam- ual A060rzuzt ulcaacta
".iueriua. Jivisiou
I.;u.cai 1. tara ws
State Arc aolo4iai
;)opt. of 5cio1o.-y/Aataropo1o,,y
Ar. itusse1l W. Frid.leyStLace .dstoric Pros. Of ficer*Li"aesora State d"s. Society
5-1
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY690 Ceda ieet. St. Paul, Minnesota 5101 *672-296 274
June 25, 1980
Mr. Robert F. PostChief, Environmental Resources BranchEngineering DivisionDepartment of the Army1135 U.S. Post Office & Custom HouseSt. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Mr. Post:
RE: Review of the Archaeological ReconnaissahceSurvey of the Proposed Channel RealignmentArea at Big Stone - Whetstone Flood ControlProject, Big Stone and Lac Qui Parle Counties.
MHS Referral File Number: K 763
We have received and reviewed the above referenced survey report. Noarchaeological sites were discovered during the course of the survey.Consequently there are no sites of historic, architectural, cultural, orarchaeological significance listed on the National Register, or eligiblefor inclusion on the National Register, which will be affected by yourproposal.
Thank you for your participation in this important effort to identifyand preserve Minnesota's cultural resources.
Sincerely,
Russell W. Fri ey
R mpact e ntate Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Karhbleng--oetzelImpact Services, Inc.
5-2
Founded 1849 The oldest institution in the state
I
. .7N United 60 tes Department of the InteriorHERITAGE CONSEIVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
INTERA(GENCY ARCHEOIA)GICAL SERVICES-DENVERP.O. BOX 2537. DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
IN R..LY II.I.k To JUL i TOi
1201-05(W530)
Mr. Robert F. Post, ChiefEnvironmental Resources BranchDepartment of the ArmySt. Paul DistrictCorps of Engineers1135 U. S. Post Office and Custom HouseSt. Paul, MN 55101
Attention: Mr. David Berwick
Dear Mr. Post:
We acknowledge receipt in two copies of the technical report entitled,
"An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Channel
Real'gnment Area at Big Stone-Whetstone Flood Control Project, Big Stone
and Lac Qul Parle Counties, Minnesota." We regret that we are unable to
review this report i. response to your request of June 17, .80o. The
impending regionalization of Interagency Archeological Services has
effectively curtailed our capabilities for peer review and coordination
activities. Enclosed please find one copy of the subject report.
Sincerely,
1 Jack R RudyChief, InteragencyArcheological Services - Denver
Enclosures
5-3
