Draft programmatic environmental assessment : Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System, Fort Peck Reservation and Dry Prairie service areas

204 Pages·2002·6.9 MB·English

by  Montana. Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation

331.9114
N7dfpr
2002
I
Pragrammatic
Draft
C A N A D A
UNITED STATES B M"|
piB
I
Assessment
EnYifpnmental
<
Daniels Co ISheridan Co-
Valley Ca Roosevelt Co.
<
c
I
£
FOFT PECK INDIAN RESERVATION o
u Z
Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System
Fort Peck Reservation and Dry Prairie Service Areas
HT Of V :3CU!VIENTS COLLECTION
.
2002
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
</. '^'^l^ -LE1N5A1,5IWEO.IM6Tt.h'NAAVE5.9520
Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
May 2DDZ Montana state library
-w^s]^;^fM^"*fr
3 0864 1001 6890 8
JOE C. ELLIOTT Ph.D.
rCOLOGICAL CO.NJSUI.TA.NJT
3918 Lincoln Road
Missoula, Montana 59802
406- 542-5014
Dear Reviewer:
Enclosed is a copy ofthe Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Fort Peck
Reservation Rural Water System that is proposed for development in northeastern
Montana. This Draft EA has been prepared in compliance with National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Ifyou have comments or questions concerning the Draft EA, please
send them in writing, by May 31, 2002 to:
Rick Blaskovich
Bureau ofReclamation
2900 4"' Ave. North, Suite 501
P.O. Box 30137
MT
Billings, 59107-0137
or
Joe C. Elliott
Ecological Consultant
3918 Lincoln Road
MT
Missoula, 59802
After receipt, comments will be addressed and incorporated into the final EA that will be
completed by June 15, 2002. Ifthere are no significant impacts expected as a result of
the analysis in this EA, the Bureau ofReclamation will prepare a Finding ofNo
Significant Impact (FONSI) by July 1, 2002 and the project will proceed. Thank you for
your participation in this review.
Sincerely,
Joe C. ElUiott

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
S-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
Purpose 1-1
Need forthe Project 1-1
Background 1-2
Fort Peck Rural Water System Act of2000 1-2
Contaminant Survey 1-2
Issues Discussed in This EA 1-5
Assumptions ofAnalysis 1-5
2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2-1
Development ofAlternatives 2-1
Alternatives Considered But Rejected 2-1
No Action 2-2
Proposed Action 2-2
Intake Structure Near Poplar 2-3
Water Treatment Plant 2-3
Pumping Stations and Reservoirs 2-4
.t.
Pipeline Transmission System 2-4
Supervisory Control and Acquisition (SCADA) Instrumentation 2-4
Electricity Supply 2-9
Cathodic Protection 2-9
Service Areas 2-9
Right-of-Way (ROW) Easements 2-11
Water Conservation Plan 2-11
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
General Description ofthe ProjectArea „ 3-1
Description of Existing Water Supply System 3-1
Topography, Geology, and Soils 3-1
Water Resources 3-2
Vegetation 3-3
Plant Species ofSpecial Concern 3-3
Ethnobotany 3-4
Noxious Weeds 3-4
Wetlands 3-4
Wildlife 3-10
Animal Species of Special Concern 3-11
Fish 3-11
Missouri River 3-12
Milk River 3-13
Poplar River 3-13
Big Muddy Creek 3-13
WolfCreek 3-13
Medicine Lake 3-14
Threatened and Endangered Species 3-14
Pallid Sturgeon 3-14
Piping Plover 3-15
Interior Least Tern 3-15
Bald Eagle 3-16
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Whooping Crane 3-17
Socioeconomic Conditions 3-17
Social Life and Demographics 3-17
Community Services 3-18
Temporary Housing 3-18
Highway Traffic 3-19
Cultural Resources 3-20
Fort Peck Reservation Service Area 3-20
Dry Prairie Service Area 3-20
Land Use 3-21
Environmental Justice 3-21
Indian Trust Assets 3-21
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
Topography, Geology, and Soils 4-1
Effects of Proposed Action 4-1
Effects of No Action 4-1
Water Resources ^ 4-1
Effects of Proposed Action 4-1
Effects of No Action 4-2
Vegetation 4-2
Effects of Proposed Action 4-2
Effects of No Action 4-2
Wetlands 4-3
:
Effects of Proposed Action 4-3
Effects of No Action 4-3
Wildlife 4-3
Effects of Proposed Action 4-3
Effects of No Action - 4-4
Fisheries 4-4
Effects of Proposed Action 4-4
Effects of No Action 4-5
Threatened and Endangered Species 4-5
Effects of Proposed Action 4-5
Effects of No Action 4-7
Socioeconomic Resources 4-7
Effects of Proposed Action 4-7
Effects of No Action 4-9
Cultural Resources 4-9
Effects of Proposed Action 4-9
Effects of No Action 4-10
Land Use 4-10
Effects of Proposed Action 4-10
Effects of No Action 4-11
Environmental Justice 4-11
Effects of Proposed Action 4-1
Effects of No Action 4-11
Indian Trust Assets 4-11
Effects of Proposed Action 4-11
Effects of No Action 4-12
Cumulative Impacts 4-12
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Release ofWater From Fort Peck Dam 4-12
Highway Construction and Expansion 4-12
Irrigation Intakes and Diversions 4-13
5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5-1
Public Involvement 5-1
Agencies and Individuals Contacted 5-1
Scoping Meetings 5-1
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 5-3
Environmental Compliance 5-4
Federal Regulation and Policies 5-4
State Regulations, Authorizations, and Policies 5-7
Environmental Commitments 5-8
Topography, Geology, and Soils 5-8
Water Resources 5-9
Wetlands 5-9
Vegetation 5-9
Fish and Wildlife 5-9
Threatened and Endangered Species - 5-9
Land Use and Ownership 5-9
Cultural Resources 5-9
Socioeconomic Resources 5-11
List of Preparers 5-11
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY TABLE S-2
TABLE 1 Miles of Pipeline by Diameterforthe Fort Peck Reservation 2-9
TABLE 2 Plant Species of Special Concern Foundjn the ProjectArea 3-4
TABLE 3 Animal Species of Special Concern 3-12
TABLE 4 Privately Owned Mobile Home/RV Park Spaces and Motel/Hotel/Tourist Rooms 3-19
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux RWSS Project Location 1-3
FIGURE 2 Missouri River Intake Schematic 2-5
FIGURE 3 Project Study Area 2-7
FIGURE 4 Vegetation Types 3-5
FIGURE 5 Wetlands 3-7
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Contaminant Survey Forms
APPENDIX B State and Federal Lands Likely to be Crossed in the Project Area
APPENDIX C Wetlands Likely to be Crossed in the ProjectArea
APPENDIX D Fish Present in Waters ofthe ProjectArea
APPENDIX E Scoping Letter
APPENDIX F Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Planning Assistance Letter
APPENDIX G Fort Peck Tribes Wetland Mitigation Policy
APPENDIX H Biological Assessment

Summary S-1
SUMMARY
This environmental assessment (EA) discloses use about 6,202 acre-feet per year, about 0.09
the effects of construction of the Fort Peck percent ofthe annual Missouri River discharge.
Reservation Rural Water System (FPRRWS), a
municipal, rural, and industrial project in four Adverse effects from the proposed project would
counties of northeastern Montana. The be avoided or mitigated and would be negligible
proposed project would provide an adequate for resources in the project area. Environmental
supply of good-quality water for domestic and commitments that will be implemented to avoid
industrial use and for livestock water in the Fort or mitigate potential adverse effects of
Peck Reservation and Dry Prairie service areas. construction and operation of the project are
The proposed project would consist of a water presented in this EA. Measures include those
withdrawal intake and treatment plant near the recommended in the Fish and Wildlife
community of Poplar, pumping stations, Coordination Act Report prepared by the
pipelines, storage tanks, power lines, and other USFWS.
ancillary facilities. The proposed project would
serve a future population of about 30,000 people Where practicable, wetlands would be avoided;
with water being pumped from the Missouri however, short-term losses in wetland functions
River. Major Features of the project are and values would occur in the project area
presented in Summary Table. during and shortly after construction primarily as
a result of construction of the pipeline
This EA is a programmatic document because distribution system. Replacement of topsoil and
some pipeline alignments and other project reseeding with native species would restore
components have not been finalized. Additional affected wetlands over the short term.
compliance with the National Environmental Additional wetlands mitigation would be
Policy Act (NEPA) may be required and would developed to compensate for wetlands that do
tier to this EA. not respond adequately to topsoil replacement
and seeding.
The proposed project would not be likely to
adversely affect threatened and endangered Degradation of water quality from sediment
species (i.e., pallid sturgeon, bald eagle, piping generated during construction would have a
plover, least tern and whooping crane) or critical negligible effect on the aquatic biota. Prairie
habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and streams in the project area typically have high
Wildlife Service (USFWS) was conducted under levels of suspended and deposited sediment to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and which native fishes have adapted. Timing
there was concurrence that the project would not construction to take place during low-flow
be likely to adversely affect federally listed periods would minimize the downstream
species with implementation of avoidance, transport of sediment and would avoid sensitive
mitigation, and monitoring. spawning periods forfish.
Viability of populations of species of special Pipeline installation on prime farmland soils
concern (both plants and animals) would not be could cause short-term soil erosion and
jeopardized by the proposed action. Areas of compaction during construction. These effects
important habitat would be avoided or would be short term and eliminated by
construction would be timed to avoid sensitive cultivation and natural freeze-thaw cycles.
life-history stages of species ofspecial concern. Because pipeline depth would be approximately
seven feet, prime farmland soils could continue
Losses of larval fish and eggs as a result of to be farmed without affecting their prime
entrainment at the water intake would have a farmland status. The presence of pipelines
negligible effect on fish populations in the would not affect the designation of prime
Missouri River. Average annual discharge ofthe farmlands.
Missouri River in the project area is about 6.5
million acre-feet per year. The FPRRWS would Native prairie would be disturbed as a result of
construction of the distribution pipelines,
Draft Programmatic EA
S-2 Summary