Wagonseller Road Bridge Feasibility Report MDM Edits.Docx

Mackinaw River, Tazewell County Illinois Continuing Authorities Program Section 14 Emergency Streambank Protection

Wagonseller Road Bridge

Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment

Doc Version: Draft Feasibility Report November 2018

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by USACE. It does not represent and many not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Mackinaw River, Tazewell County Illinois Continuing Authorities Program Section 14 Emergency Streambank Protection

Wagonseller Road Bridge

Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Report ...... 1 1.2 Project Location ...... 1 1.3 Project Authority and Scope ...... 2 1.4 Problems, Opportunities, Objectives, and Constraints ...... 3 1.4.1 Problems ...... 3 1.4.2 Opportunities ...... 3 1.4.3 Objectives ...... 4 1.4.4 Planning Considerations and Constraints ...... 4

2.0 INVENTORY EXISTING AND FORECAST FUTURE CONDITIONS ...... 4 2.1 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Conditions ...... 4 2.2 Geologic Conditions ...... 6 2.3 Natural Resource Conditions ...... 7 2.3.1 Aquatic and Wetland Resources ...... 8 2.3.2 Terrestrial Natural Resources ...... 8 2.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 8 2.4 Cultural Resource Conditions ...... 9 2.5 Socio-economic Conditions ...... 9 2.5.1 Housing ...... 10 2.5.2 Employment ...... 10 2.5.3 Business and Industry ...... 11 2.5.4 Transportation ...... 11 2.5.5 Community Resources ...... 11 2.6 Future Without Project Conditions ...... 11

3.0 PLAN FORMULATION ...... 12 3.1 No Action ...... 12 3.2 Alternative 1 (Corps Design E) ...... 12 3.3 Alternative 2 (Corps Design F) ...... 13 3.4 Alternative 3 (Corps Design I) ...... 14

i Continuing Authorities Program Section 14 Wagonseller Road Bridge, Mackinaw River Tazewell County, Illinois

3.5 Considered But Rejected Alternatives ...... 15 3.5.1 Sponsor-Provided Design ...... 15 3.5.2 Corps Designs A, B & C ...... 16 3.5.3 Corps Design D ...... 16 3.5.4 Corps Design G ...... 17 3.5.5 Corps Design H ...... 18 3.5.6 Relocation of Wagonseller Road Bridge ...... 19 3.6 Comparison and Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 19 3.7 Description of Recommended Plan ...... 20 3.8 Recommended Plan Cost Estimate ...... 21 3.9 Economic Assessment ...... 22 3.9.1 Methodology ...... 22 3.9.2 Benefits of Protective Action ...... 22 3.9.3 Estimated Cost of Recommended Action ...... 24

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 24 4.1 Natural Resources Effects ...... 24 4.1.1 Air Quality...... 24 4.1.2 Surface Water Quality ...... 25 4.1.3 Aquatic and Wetland Resources ...... 25 4.1.4 Terrestrial Natural Resources ...... 26 4.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 26 4.2 Cultural Resource Effects ...... 26 4.3 Social and Economic Effects ...... 27 4.3.1 Noise ...... 27 4.3.2 Aesthetics ...... 27 4.3.3 Recreation ...... 27 4.3.4 Safety ...... 27 4.3.5 Economy and Employment ...... 28 4.3.6 Environmental Justice ...... 28 4.3.7 Public Facilities and Services ...... 28 4.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 28

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW ...... 30 5.1 Applicable Environmental Laws and Executive Orders ...... 30 5.2 Clean Water Act (Sections 404 and 401) ...... 30 5.3 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Endangered Species Act ...... 30 5.4 Cultural Resources Coordination ...... 30 5.5 Environmental Justice ...... 31 5.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...... 31 5.7 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...... 32

6.0 COORDINATION, PUBLIC VIEWS, AND COMMENTS...... 32

ii Continuing Authorities Program Section 14 Wagonseller Road Bridge, Mackinaw River Tazewell County, Illinois

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 32

8.0 WORKS CITED ...... 32

FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Location, Wagonseller Road Bridge, Tazewell County, Illinois ...... 2 Figure 2. Wagonseller Road Bridge CAP 14 Project Site ...... 3 Figure 3: Layout of HEC-RAS model for Mackinaw River in Vicinity of Wagonseller Road Bridge ...... 6 Figure 4. Features Layout for Alternative 1 (Corps Design E) ...... 13 Figure 5. Features Layout for Alternative 2 (Corps Design F) ...... 14 Figure 6. Features Layout for Alternative 3 (Corps Design I) ...... 15 Figure 7. Features Layout for the Sponsor Design ...... 16 Figure 8. Features Layout for Corps Design D ...... 17 Figure 9. Features Layout for Corps Design G...... 18 Figure 10. Features Layout for Corps Design H...... 19

TABLES

Table 1: Discharge-Frequency Relationships for the Mackinaw River near Green Valley, Illinois ...... 4 Table 2. Population of the State of Illinois and Tazewell County ...... 10 Table 3. Percentage of Population by Race ...... 10 Table 4. Unemployment Percentage of Illinois and Tazewell County ...... 10 Table 5. Project First Cost Estimate for Alternative 1 (Corps Design E)...... 13 Table 6. Project First Cost Estimate for Alternative 2 (Corps Design F) ...... 14 Table 7. Project First Cost Estimate for Alternative 3 (Corps Design I) ...... 15 Table 8. Project First Cost Estimate for Alternative Plans (March 2018 Dollars) ...... 20 Table 9. Summary of Recommended Plan Features and Quantities ...... 21 Table 10. Project First Cost Estimate ...... 22 Table 11. Estimated Annual O&M Costs for the Recommended Plan ...... 22 Table 12. Annual Traffic Analysis ...... 23 Table 13. Vehicle Operating Costs ...... 23 Table 14. Opportunity Cost of Time ...... 23 Table 15. First and Annualized Project Costs ...... 24 Table 16. Benefit and Cost Summary ...... 24 Table 17. Environmental Assessment Matrix ...... 29

iii Continuing Authorities Program Section 14 Wagonseller Road Bridge, Mackinaw River Tazewell County, Illinois

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Hydraulics and Hydrology Appendix B – Real Estate Appendix C – Civil Engineering Appendix D – Geotechnical Engineering and Geology Appendix E – Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Appendix F – Cost Engineering Appendix G – 404(b)(1) Evaluation Appendix H – Agency Coordination Appendix I – Public Involvement

This page intentionally left blank.

Mackinaw River, Tazewell County Illinois Continuing Authorities Program Section 14 Emergency Streambank Protection

Wagonseller Road Bridge

Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) feasibility report and integrated Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Wagonseller Road Bridge Project (Project) is to formulate a plan to stabilize the river bank of the Mackinaw River upstream of and adjacent to the Wagonseller Road Bridge and north and south bridge approaches in Tazewell County, Illinois and to evaluate the potential effects of such action. This report provides planning, engineering, and preliminary construction details of the recommended plan. Final design and construction to proceed subsequent to the approval of the plan and funding for construction.

The report documents existing conditions, Project future conditions, assesses the problem, provides and compares alternatives, and makes a recommendation to accomplish the emergency streambank protection.

1.2 Project Location

Wagonseller Road is a county road in Tazewell County, Illinois, west of IL Route 29 and approximately 20 miles southwest of Peoria, Illinois. The road runs north and south, starting southwest of Pekin, Illinois, at its intersection with County Road 1500 N, and combining with IL Route 29 at its intersection of US 136, north of Mason City, Illinois. Wagonseller Road is an important corridor, connecting travelers to US 136 and IL Route 29, which leads to Springfield, Illinois, the state capitol.

The Project area includes an upstream meander bend of the Mackinaw River (primarily a sand bed river), the Wagonseller Road Bridge, and north and south bridge approaches (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Project Location, Wagonseller Road Bridge, Tazewell County, Illinois

1.3 Project Authority and Scope

The Project is authorized under Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended; Emergency Streambank Protection. CAP is designed to implement projects to protect public or non- profit public facilities and/or services which are open to all on equal terms, have been properly maintained but are threatened by natural resources on streambanks and shorelines, and are essential and important enough to merit Federal participation in their protection (ER 1105-2-100, F3). The scope of the study will encompass a 50- year planning horizon (beginning in year 2020) for the Project area (Figure 2).

FLOW

Figure 2. Wagonseller Road Bridge CAP 14 Project Site

1.4 Problems, Opportunities, Objectives, and Constraints

The Wagonseller Road Bridge, north and south bridge approaches, and the upstream channel meander are threatened by river bank erosion. In the Project area, the Mackinaw River flows from east to west. The Mackinaw River has developed a meandering channel pattern, with the meander bends through this reach causing a significant change in the angle of flow through the Wagonseller Road Bridge. Additionally, the continuing meander and erosion threaten the upstream streambank and north and south bridge approaches. Recent flood events have caused the upstream meander to shift even closer to the south bridge approach. Upstream of the Wagonseller Road Bridge, the meandering has cut off two oxbows and formed a straighter channel. At the upstream end of the Project, a sand flat has formed at a stable bank location to begin the repairs and hopefully prevent further meandering that could threaten the Project.

1.4.1 Problems. Natural meandering of the Mackinaw River has caused the upstream channel to shift, causing a significant change in the river’s angle of approach through the bridge. This has led to severe scour at the north bridge pier, threatens the stability of the pier, and increases the susceptibility of scour at both bridge piers, despite riprap countermeasures installed by Tazewell County in 2014. Additionally, the continuing channel meander and erosion are threatening the upstream streambank, as well as the road’s approach to the bridge, especially the south bridge approach. The local community and Tazewell County (Project Sponsor) are concerned that the north and south bridge approaches may be compromised and unusable very soon, based on the uncertainty of when additional high flow events may occur on the Mackinaw River. If the area is left untreated and unprotected, the Bridge abutments and approaches may be lost, resulting in the closure of an important transportation route. Wagonseller Road and Bridge serve as a primary route for local travel and commerce and as a crossing for the agricultural industry.

1.4.2 Opportunities. The primary opportunity and overarching goal of the Project is to protect Wagonseller Road Bridge and the north and south bridge approaches from erosion processes. Wagonseller Road and Bridge serve as 3

a primary route for local travel and commerce, an important crossing for agricultural industry, and serves as a connection between major highways.

1.4.3 Objectives. Over the 50-year period of analysis (beginning in 2020), the objectives of the Project are to: • Reduce the risk of erosion and active scour at the Wagonseller Road Bridge and piers • Reduce the risk of erosion to the north and south bridge approaches • Protect the streambanks and upstream meander from the erosion occurring on the Mackinaw River in order to protect the Wagonseller Road Bridge and road approaches

1.4.4 Planning Constraints and Considerations. The authority that this Project is being conducted under is constrained by the implementation of measures to construct streambank and shoreline protection projects to prevent erosion damages to public infrastructure, so the measures that may be implemented with Federal funds will be required to connect to the streambank and result in greater stability of the streambank and protection of the public infrastructure. The Project area is not in a Resource Rich area or designated as a Wild and Scenic River. The aesthetic value of the river is a planning consideration, but there are no resource constraints. There are easements currently in place for land adjacent to the Project area, which need to be considered during land acquisition.

2.0 INVENTORY EXISTING AND FORECAST FUTURE CONDITIONS

The following describes the current conditions of the Project area as well as projections about the future without project conditions. The future without project conditions establish a baseline condition to compare the effects of potential bank stabilization alternatives.

2.1 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Conditions

Discharge-frequency relationships for the Mackinaw River near Green Valley, Illinois are shown in Table 1 from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report “Estimating Flood-Peak Discharge Magnitudes, Frequencies for Rural Streams in Illinois” and the countywide “Tazewell County, Illinois and Incorporated Areas, Flood Insurance Study”, and a Bulletin 17C flow frequency analysis. The flood insurance study (FIS) includes a hydrologic analysis of the Green Valley gage conducted in 1980. The USGS report includes (1) a discharge-frequency analysis of flood peak data collected from 1921 through 2003 at the Green Valley gage and (2) discharge-frequency relationships derived from regional regression equations based on drainage basin characteristics. The frequency curve based on the Bulletin 17C flow frequency analysis from 1922 to 2017 was selected for this feasibility study since the frequencies are based on historic data and the period of record is longer than that of the FIS.

Table 1. Discharge-Frequency Relationships for the Mackinaw River near Green Valley, Illinois

Annual Chance 50% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0.2% Exceedance Event (2-yr) (5-yr) (10-yr) (25-yr) (50-yr) (100-yr) (500-yr) Discharge (cfs), Bulletin 17C Analysis 8,900 15,360 20,190 25,140 31,970 37,370 50,780 Using HEC-SSP (Selected analysis) Discharge (cfs), Frequency Curve 8,330 15,100 21,000 30,500 39,000 49,000 79,200 (Ref 2) Discharge (cfs), based on Regional 9,480 16,000 20,700 26,800 31,400 36,100 47,100 Regression (Ref 2) Discharge (cfs), Tazewell County FIS 16,700 26,400 31,000 43,000

To analyze the hydraulics of the Mackinaw River in the area of the Wagonseller Road Bridge, a steady flow HEC- RAS model was created by Maurer-Stutz and reviewed and updated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock 4

Island District (District). A schematic of the model is shown in Figure 3. A topographic survey was completed in 2014 by Tazewell County and Maurer-Stutz.

The survey data and Illinois Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) images were combined to create the HEC-RAS cross sections. The extent of the channel survey was limited to 3,200 feet in length, so the model only extends a short distance upstream and downstream of Wagonseller Road. Maurer-Stutz also collected bridge design data, which was incorporated into the HEC-RAS geometry. The vertical datum used in the model was NAVD 88. The Manning’s “n” values (roughness coefficients) used for channel overbanks varied from 0.065 to .15 and 0.03 was used for the channel. The hydrologic data from the Bulletin 17C flow frequency analysis was used to specify HEC- RAS inflows. Normal depth was specified as the downstream boundary condition for the reach.

Additional information related to hydrology and hydraulics can be found in Appendix A, Hydrology and Hydraulics.

Figure 3: Layout of HEC-RAS model for Mackinaw River in Vicinity of Wagonseller Road Bridge

2.2 Geologic Conditions

The Project is located in the Peoria and Roxana Silts Formation of the Wisconsin Glacial Episode, the most recent glacial period experienced in the region. Deposits in the area consist primarily of silt to silt loam, including areas of thick loess (Illinois State Geological Survey). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey describes the soils similarly as silts, sandy clays, and clayey sands (SC, SC-SM, SM, ML, CL-ML, and CL). This is further supported by the erodibility of the soils on the river banks. Observational notes recorded during a site visit on September 6, 2017, indicated that riverbed soils at the Project site include fine sand, coarse sand, and gravel up to 2 inches. The left descending bank upstream of the bridge is a vertical bank approximately 12 feet high. The top three feet of this bank consists of silty clay and the lower nine feet consists of mainly coarse sand.

Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) 2003 surface topography maps for this area place the surface elevation between 440-480 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Similar bedrock topography maps place the bedrock surface between 360-400 feet above MSL, however, specific bedrock elevation points nearest the site range between 388 and 401 feet below MSL. Using these numbers, this means the bedrock could be anywhere from 39-92 feet below the ground surface. The nearest water well log showing bedrock is approximately 2,600 feet southwest of the bridge and shows shale at 87 feet below ground surface (ILWATER). The uppermost shale unit is part of the Pennsylvanian Age Carbondale Formation.

A contemporary LiDAR image of the Mackinaw River indicates a gradient drop of approximately 109 yards (approximately 100 meters) of elevation every 2.5 miles (approx. 4 kilometers) of surface distance in the general region of the Project area. This steep gradient has resulted in a very active floodplain within the glacial outwash, represented by numerous meander scars, braided channel scars, scroll bars, and cutbanks. Erosion is exacerbated by the friable nature of the prevalent, sandy loam soil. From 1998 to 2014, lateral meandering and erosion was extreme and may have been accelerated by flooding episodes. Site visits by the District personnel on September 6 and 12, 2017, documented existing erosional conditions along the Project area bankline with photographic images and maps.

The Project area is a rural context and within the view shed are farms, open fields, and a naturally meandering river. It is local common knowledge that Joshua Wagonseller and his family, very early settlers in the Pekin/Tazewell County area, are the source of their family’s surname for the naming of Wagonseller Road. Wagonseller Road is an important local secondary road, primarily located within Tazewell County, and transverses intensive agricultural and irrigated farmlands consisting of nearly level to low rolling hills. Corn and beans are the major row crops with limited but intermittent commercial truck market gardening of vegetables. The Mackinaw River watershed contains some of the most productive agricultural land in the United States.

The Mackinaw River flows through three natural divisions, including the Grand Prairie, Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Bottomlands, and Illinois and Mississippi Sand Areas. During the Pleistocene through the Holocene epochs, the river cut through several moraines, which influenced the structure of the riverbed. The many alternating ridges and plains in northeastern Illinois are comprised of the successive end moraines and till plains formed by the retreating Wisconsin Episode glaciers (about 25,000 to 13,500 years ago). The upper reach of the watershed is marked by a series of pools and fast-flowing riffles. The character of the river downstream of the moraines is markedly different, with a relatively wide floodplain, large meanders, and erosion-prone sandy banks. Its principal tributaries are Panther, Walnut, and Money creeks, and the Little Mackinaw River. The name Mackinaw is derived from the Ojibwe word mikinaak meaning "turtle" and evidence of Native Americans sites, villages, and burials are primarily located along the bluff line.

Additional information related to geologic conditions can be found in Appendix D, Geotechnical Engineering and Geology.

A Phase I Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the Project to determine if there is any risk of HTRW concerns within the Project area. The full report can be found in Appendix E, Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste. The assessment has revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) that could potentially affect the Project. No additional assessment or further investigation is recommended.

2.3 Natural Resource Conditions

The Project area is located in a riparian zone along and immediately downstream of a natural meander bend in the Mackinaw River. The following paragraphs describe the natural resources found in the Project area, vicinity and surrounding areas of the watershed. 7

2.3.1 Aquatic and Wetland Resources

The main channel of the Mackinaw River is the primary aquatic feature in the Project area and vicinity. The Mackinaw River is a major tributary of the Illinois River system, with its headwaters beginning near Sibley in Ford County and running approximately 130 miles (210 km) west to its confluence with the Illinois River at Pekin. The Mackinaw River basin covers about 1,136 square miles (3,000 km2) in portions of six Illinois counties. The Project area spans the main channel of the river within the Lower Mackinaw sub basin, one of 15 sub basins of the Mackinaw River basin as delineated by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IL EPA). The highly meandered, lower reach of the Mackinaw River channel carries heavy sediments load and lined with recent sandbars and intermittent tree falls and snags.

The Mackinaw River basin has only about 1.2 percent of its area in wetlands (8,257 acres). Approximately 1,849 acres of wetland cover (1,289 forested and 560 non-forested) was recorded for the Lower Mackinaw sub basin using satellite imagery conducted during 1991-1995. The Mackinaw River system is home to 66 species of fish, 31 species of mussels, and 9 species of crayfish. The lands in two sub basins in the middle portion of the Mackinaw (Panther Creek and the Middle Mackinaw), totaling 194.9 square miles, have been designated as State Resource Rich Areas due to their significant natural community diversity. This Resource Rich designated area ends several miles upstream of the Lower Mackinaw sub basin, where the Project is located.

2.3.2 Terrestrial Natural Resources

Most of the Mackinaw River basin falls within the physiographic division called the Bloomington Ridged Plain. However, the western one-quarter of the watershed, which includes the Project area, falls within the Springfield Plain division. The Springfield Plain represents a part of the State that lies beyond the maximum extent reached by glaciers of the Wisconsin Glacial Episode.

Soils immediately adjacent to the Mackinaw River are predominately sandy to clayey sands, well-drained, and highly erodible, and are subject to frequent flooding and overbank deposition. The portion of the Project area along the outside bend of the left descending bank of the Mackinaw River consists of non-native regularly mowed grasses on the overbank area to the edge of the slope. The right descending bank of the river, which is steep with a mix of bare ground, grasses, forbs, and trees and shrubs of varying size and age, also contain non-native regularly mowed grasses. The Project area and vicinity is a highly dynamic and erosive environment intermittently disturbed by human activity.

Due to the significant level of human activity and surrounding agricultural land use practices of the area, wildlife species expected to be present are those adapted to living in proximity of human settlement and intense agriculture. Coyotes, deer, small rodents and various species of resident and migratory birds may be present.

2.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally-listed endangered and threatened species known to occur or potentially occur in Tazewell County include: the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), currently listed as endangered; northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), currently listed as threatened; the decurrent false aster (Boltonia decurrens), currently listed as threatened; the eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), currently listed as threatened; and the lakeside daisy (Hymenopsis herbacea), currently listed as threatened.

State-listed endangered and threatened species recorded for Tazewell County were obtained from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IL DNR) website and are provided below. This list was last updated on October 27, 2016. 8

Status/#Occurrences/ Scientific Name Common Name Last Recorded Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon LE 1 2007-04-28 Anguilla rostrata American Eel LT 4 2014-08-24 Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl LE 1 2015-02-10 Aster furcatus Forked Aster LT 1 1987 Astragalus tennesseensis Tennessee Milk Vetch LE 1 2015-06-05 Besseya bullii Kittentails LT 3 2014-05-15 Boltonia decurrens Decurrent False Aster LT 2 2012-09-13 Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier LE 1 2015-02-10 Cypripedium parviflorum Small Yellow Lady's Slipper LE 1 1997-10-01 Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler LT 1 2010-06-06 Fundulus dispar Starhead Topminnow LT 2 1967-07-21 Fusconaia ebena Ebonyshell LE 1 2012-08-04 Heterodon nasicus Plains Hog-nosed Snake LT 1 2007 Kinosternon flavescens Yellow Mud Turtle LE 4 2009-07-14 Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike LE 2 1990-07-05 Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish LE 2 2010-10-20 Lethenteron appendix American Brook Lamprey LT 1 1996-08-01 Moxostoma carinatum River Redhorse LT 1 1985 Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner LT 1 1963-07-01 Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron LE 1 2003-07 Orobanche ludoviciana Broomrape LT 1 2014-08-15 Plantago cordata Heart-leaved Plantain LE 1 2000-06-02 Poa wolfii Wolf's Bluegrass LE 1 1998-05-28 Polanisia jamesii James' Clammyweed LE 1 2012-08-31 Pseudacris illinoensis Illinois Chorus Frog LT 3 2016-05-05 Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary LT 1 2005-09-20 Terrapene ornata Ornate Box Turtle LT 1 2008-06-06 Tetraneuris herbacea Lakeside Daisy LE 1 2013-05-02

2.4 Cultural Resource Conditions

The District archeologist consulted with the IL DNR online Illinois Inventory of Archaeological Sites geographic information systems site and survey database. The database noted two Phase I archeological survey locations on the Mackinaw River upstream of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) that may be associated with the construction of artificial meander cuts, but no reports or associated documents have been found on this action within the state records. The District Archeologist reviewed the online topographical maps in topoView’s Historical Topographic Mapping Collection (https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/). No cultural features were noted on the earliest topographical maps, except for the Wagonseller Road and Bridge being located further downstream from its present location. In 1961, the Wagonseller Road Bridge and Wagonseller Road were relocated eastward along the north/south section line to its present location following the road’s predominate north/south orientation and exiting corridor.

2.5 Socio-economic Conditions

As of 2015, Tazewell County had an estimated 135,697 residents. The population of Tazewell County grew by about 7,000 residents between 2000 and 2015, with only modest growth occurring between 2010 and 2015 (Table 2).

Table 2. Population of the State of Illinois and Tazewell County

2000 2010 2015 Illinois 12,419,293 12,830,632 12,873,761 Tazewell County 128,485 135,394 135,697 U.S. Census Bureau

Of these residents, an estimated 96 percent identified as white. This exceeds the state average by about 20 percentage points. Table 3 depicts the racial composition of Tazewell County and the State of Illinois between 2000 and 2015.

Table 3. Percentage of Population by Race American Indian White Black or African American and Alaska Native 2000 2010 2015 2000 2010 2015 2000 2010 2015 Illinois 73.5 71.5 72.3 15.1 14.5 14.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 Tazewell County 97.4 96.2 96 0.9 1 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.1

Native Hawaiian and Asian Other Pacific Islander Some Other Race 2000 2010 2015 2000 2010 2015 2000 2010 2015 Illinois 3.4 4.6 5 0 0 0 5.8 6.7 5.8 Tazewell County 0.5 0.7 0.9 0 0 0 0.3 0.5 0.4 U.S. Census Bureau

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows the population of Tazewell County growing progressively older over time. The average age of residents increased by three years and the percentage of residents over 65 increased by 1.6 percentage points between 2000 and 2015. This mimics the statewide trend, where the average age and percentage of residents over 65 increased at about the same rate.

2.5.1 Housing

Tazewell County has a home ownership rate exceeding that of the state average. In 2015, an estimated 76.5 percent of homes were owned by their occupants in Tazewell County, while only 66.4 percent were owned statewide. Tazewell County also has a lower vacancy rate (6.3 percent) than the statewide average of 9.8 percent.

2.5.2 Employment

The unemployment rate in Tazewell County has remained below the statewide average between the years 2000 and 2010. However, the unemployment rate has risen about four percentage points since 2000, and has continued upward through 2016, even as the statewide average has fallen between 2010 and 2016.

Table 4. Unemployment Percentage of Illinois and Tazewell County 2000 2005 2010 2016 Illinois 3.9 7.9 8.6 5.9 Tazewell County 2.6 5.8 6.2 6.3 U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics

2.5.3 Business and Industry

Tazewell County has a strong tie to the agricultural economy. Seventy-eight percent of the county’s land is classified as farmland and Caterpillar is the county’s largest employer. Caterpillar employs nearly three times the number of Tazewell County residents than Walmart, the county’s second largest employer. Twenty-seven percent of the county’s workforce is involved in manufacturing, likely due to Caterpillar’s large presence in the county (http://greaterpeoriaedc.org/data/counties/tazewell-county/).

2.5.4 Transportation

Pekin Municipal Airport is located northeast of Wagonseller Bridge, near the town of South Pekin. County Highway 15 intersects Wagonseller Road to the south and runs east until it intersects State Highway 29. State Highway 29 runs north and south to the east of Wagonseller Road and goes through the town of South Pekin. County Highway 7 also intersects Wagonseller Road, north of the bridge, and runs east and west.

2.5.5 Community Resources

South Pekin, located near Wagonseller Bridge, has multiple churches and one public grade school. Additionally, the town also has a fire department staffed entirely by volunteers that provides fire, rescue, and EMS services.

2.6 Future Without Project Conditions

The future without project would involve no Federal action to stabilize the Mackinaw River, the riverbank adjacent to the Wagonseller Road Bridge, and north and south bridge approaches. The future geologic and natural resource conditions assume that the land would continue to erode, which would result in the loss of streambank, vegetative cover, aquatic and terrestrial habitat types, as well as an increased sediment load into the Mackinaw River as the steep streambanks continue to erode. There are no significant architectural or archeological historic properties present in the Project area, so future without project conditions would not impact historic properties. The socio-economic impacts of future without project conditions would be significant, as the loss of the Bridge and its approaches would negatively impact the local and regional community since Wagonseller Road and Bridge is an important transportation route.

The future hydrologic condition assumes that there would be continued erosion of the Mackinaw River, near the Wagonseller Bridge and at the upstream meander, ultimately leading to bank failure and the loss of the Bridge and its approaches and the loss of an important transportation route for local travel, commerce, and the agricultural industry. The rate of erosion in the Project area from 1998 to 2014 is estimated to be approximately 6.65 feet per year. The amount of erosion is dependent on flood events and there may be significant differences in erosion rates from year to year. Further information on the analysis on streambank erosion, as well as a map showing historical alignments of the Mackinaw River, can be found in Appendix A, Hydraulics and Hydrology.

A qualitative assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology of the Mackinaw River and Lower Illinois River Basins were evaluated in accordance with USACE Engineering and Construction Bulletin (ECB) 2016-25, Guidance for Incorporating Climate Change Impacts to Inland Hydrology in Civil Works Studies, Designs and Projects (USACE, 2016), and USACE Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 1100-2-3 Guidance for Detection of Nonstationarities in Annual Maximum Discharges (Friedman D., et al.). The assessment showed the available literature and USACE Climate Assessment tools do not reach a consensus on observed and projected streamflow throughout the Mackinaw River Basin and Lower Illinois River Basin due to long-term persistent climate trends or anthropogenic climate change. Methods of translating climate change impact or long-term persistent climate trend uncertainty for an engineering-based analysis are not currently outlined in USACE guidance. Based on this qualitative assessment, which shows minimal significant impact from climate change, the 11

recommendation is to treat the potential effects of climate change as occurring within the uncertainty range calculated for the current hydrologic analysis. An example of adding resiliency to account for climate change impacts could be increased riprap sizing or altering streambank protection design due to higher projected streamflow. The full qualitative analysis can be found in Appendix A, Hydraulics and Hydrology.

3.0 PLAN FORMULATION

Potential measures are actions which contribute to achieving the Project objectives. The initial array of measures included stream barbs, riprap revetment, longitudinal peak stone toe protection (LPSTP), bendway weirs, willow plantings, and sheetpile armor. More in-depth descriptions of the potential measures can be found in Appendix C, Civil Engineering. Sheetpile armor was determined to be too costly and not aesthetically acceptable, compared to natural or riprap features, so this measure was not carried forward for comparison and evaluation. The remaining measures, which are all commonly and successfully used for streambank protection and erosion control, were carried forward to alternative formulation and combined into alternatives based on their ability to meet Project objectives and reduce ongoing erosion. The initial array of alternatives included 12 alternatives, including relocation of Wagonseller Road and Bridge and the No Action alternative. Eight of initial alternatives were screened out after further analysis showed that they would not meet Corps design criteria, effectively or efficiently meet Project objectives, or were too costly. More in-depth descriptions of these alternatives and the reasons they were eliminated can be found in Section 3.5 below.

The final array of alternatives included four alternatives, including three action alternatives and the No Action alternative. The final array of alternatives included those which would meet Project objectives with minimal impact and cost. Descriptions of the final array of alternatives and approximate costs are provided below. The value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged or excavated material disposal areas (LERRDs) was not calculated for each alternative, but it was assumed to be approximately the same for each alternative.

3.1 No Action

The No Action alternative is synonymous with no Federal Action. The No Action alternative would allow the erosion to continue and could potentially lead to failure of the Wagonseller Road Bridge and north and south bridge approaches, resulting in the loss of an important transportation route. Wagonseller Road and Bridge serve as a primary route for local travel and commerce and as a crossing for the agricultural industry. There is no cost estimate associated with the No Action alternative, as no action would be taken that would incur Federal costs.

3.2 Alternative 1 (Corps Design E)

Alternative 1 is the Corps Design E. This alternative involves the use of LPSTP (“LPSTP” in Legend), bendway weirs (“BW” in Legend), riprap revetment (“Stone Armor at Bridge” in Legend), and stream barbs (“SB” in Legend). The design starts with LPSTP on the left descending bank at the upstream end of the Project area, at a stable bank where deposition has been occurring, and continues to the third bendway weir. Around the curve, a series of twelve bendway weirs placed on the left descending bank would realign the thalweg and deter erosion from the bank. At the portion of the left descending bank that parallels Wagonseller Road, a series of four stream barbs would further direct flows away from the bank. All structures would be keyed (“Key” in legend) into the bank.

Across from the last stream barb, LPSTP would be placed on the right descending bank at a smoother curve to help direct flows under the bridge. The LPSTP ties into riprap revetment under the north side of Wagonseller Bridge. Along the LPSTP, a series of five bendway weirs would direct flows under the middle of the bridge opening. All structures would be keyed into the bank. Figure 4 shows the features layout for Alternative 1. Table 5 shows the project first cost estimate for Alternative 1.

Figure 4. Features Layout for Alternative 1 (Corps Design E)

Table 5. Project First Cost Estimate for Alternative 1 (Corps Design E)

Item Cost1 Contingency1 Project First Cost1 Construction $1,341,633 $266,782 $1,608,416 Preconstruction Engineering, and Design $373,000 $40,650 $413,650 Construction Management $161,000 $20,313 $181,313 Total $1,875,633 $327,745 $2,203,379 1LEERDs not included

3.3 Alternative 2 (Corps Design F)

Alternative 2 is the Corps Design F. This alternative involves the use of LPSTP, stream barbs, riprap revetment, and bendway weirs. The design starts with LPSTP on the left descending bank at the upstream end of the Project area, at a stable bank where deposition has been occurring, and continues to the first stream barb where the bank parallels Wagonseller Road. A series of four stream barbs placed along the bank parallel to Wagonseller Road would further direct flows away from the bank. All structures would be keyed into the bank.

Across from the last stream barb, LPSTP would be placed on the right descending bank at a smoother curve to help direct flows under the bridge. The LPSTP ties into riprap revetment under the north side of Wagonseller Bridge. Along the LPSTP, a series of five bendway weirs would direct flows under the middle of the bridge opening. All structures would keyed into the bank. Figure 5 shows the features layout for Alternative 2. Table 6 shows the project first cost estimate for Alternative 2.

Figure 5. Features Layout for Alternative 2 (Corps Design F)

Table 6. Project First Cost Estimate for Alternative 2 (Corps Design F) Item Cost1 Contingency1 Project First Cost1 Construction $1,182,083 $219,456 $1,401,539 Preconstruction Engineering, and Design $331,000 $29,453 $360,453 Construction Management $142,000 $15,076 $157,076 Total $1,655,083 $263,985 $1,919,067 1LEERDs not included

3.4 Alternative 3 (Corps Design I)

Alternative 3 is Corps Design I. This alternative involves the use of streambank repair (grading), bioengineering (willow stake plantings), and stream barbs. This design consists of grading the left descending bank around the main bend and the right descending bank immediately upstream of Wagonseller bridge to a 3:1 H:V slope, then planting with willow stakes. The grading on the left descending bank requires excavation to make the slope. The grading on the right descending bank requires fill material to make the slope. It may be possible to harvest willow stakes on site.

Additionally, a series of four stream barbs placed along the left descending bank to where it parallels Wagonseller Road would further direct flows away from the bank. All structures would be keyed into the bank. Figure 6 shows the features layout for Alternative 3. Table 7 shows the project first cost estimate for Alternative 3.

Figure 6. Features Layout for Alternative 3 (Corps Design I)

Table 7. Project First Cost Estimate for Alternative 3 (Corps Design I) Item Cost1 Contingency1 Project First Cost1 Construction $657,432 $140,664 $798,096 Preconstruction Engineering, and Design $187,000 $20,379 $207,379 Construction Management $79,000 $9,967 $88,967 Total $923,432 $171,010 $1,094,442 1LEERDs not included

3.5 Considered But Rejected Alternatives

Seven alternatives were considered but removed from further evaluation and analysis. These other alternatives considered are described in the following paragraphs.

3.5.1 Sponsor-Provided Design

The first alternative considered was the design provided by the Sponsor, Tazewell County. This design, shown in Figure 7, starts with LPSTP on the left descending bank at the upstream end of the Project area, at a stable bank where deposition has been occurring, and continues to the third bendway weir. Around the curve, a series of eleven bendway weirs placed on the left descending bank would realign the thalweg and deter erosion from the bank. At the portion of the left descending bank that parallels Wagonseller Road, a series of four stream barbs would further direct flows away from the bank. All structures would be keyed into the bank. On the right descending bank, upstream of the bridge, two stream barbs would direct flows toward the middle of the bridge opening. The bank under the north side of the bridge would be protected with riprap revetment. This design was removed from consideration because it did not meet Corps design criteria. Following Corps design criteria, the bendway weirs and stream barbs would have been laid out differently. Additionally, Corps design guidance included more robust feature designs including the geometry and sizing of stone structures.

Figure 7. Features Layout for the Sponsor Design

3.5.2 Corps Designs A, B & C

Three alternatives were conceptual designs prior to the 5 September 2017 site visit. These designs were named Corps Design A, Corps Design B, and Corps Design C. The three designs included use of LPSTP, bendway weirs, stream barbs, and riprap revetment, all with appropriate keys. The site visit helped confirm appropriate design features, start and stop locations, and extents of features layout. Because of this, these three designs were not considered as alternatives, but helped serve the basis of design for other alternatives.

3.5.3 Corps Design D

Corps Design D involves the use of LPSTP, bendway weirs, stream barbs, and riprap revetment. This design starts with LPSTP on the left descending bank at the upstream end of the Project area at a stable bank where deposition has been occurring, and continues to the second bendway weir. Around the curve, a series of eleven bendway weirs placed on the left descending bank would realign the thalweg and deter erosion from the bank. At the portion of the left descending bank that parallels Wagonseller Road, a series of four stream barbs would further direct flows away from the bank. All structures would be keyed into the bank. Across from the last stream barb, LPSTP would be placed on the right descending bank at a smoother curve to help direct flows under the bridge. The LPSTP would tie into riprap revetment under the north side of Wagonseller Bridge. Along the LPSTP, a series of five bendway weirs would direct flows under the middle of the bridge opening. All structures would be keyed into the bank.

This alternative is similar to Alternative 1, Corps Design E, but was removed from consideration because it does not 16

have the bendway weir at the upstream most end of the features, which would provide additional stability to the eroding bank and is set at a more stable tie-in location. The bendway weir in Alternative 1 is placed in a depositional area, so it may not redirect water during normal to low flows, but it will provide more erosion protection during higher flow events. Additionally, the estimated added cost for the bendway weir is not significant. Because of these reasons, it was decided that for the minimal added cost and the higher protection provided, Corps Design E should be considered over Corps Design D. Figure 8 shows the features layout for Corps Design D.

Figure 8. Features Layout for Corps Design D

3.5.4 Corps Design G

Another alternative considered was Corps Design G, which includes the use of LPSTP, stream barbs, and riprap revetment. This design starts with LPSTP on the left descending bank at the upstream end of the Project area at a stable bank where deposition has been occurring, and continues to the first stream barb where the bank parallels Wagonseller Road. A series of four stream barbs placed along the bank would further direct flows away from the bank. All structures would be keyed into the bank. Across from the last stream barb, LPSTP would be placed on the right descending bank at a smoother curve to help direct flows under the bridge. The LPSTP would tie into riprap revetment under the north side of Wagonseller Bridge. These structures would be keyed into the bank.

This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, Corps Design F, but was removed from consideration because it will not provide sufficient erosion protection. Alternative 2 includes bendway weirs tied into the LPSTP along the right descending bank and it is assumed that these bendway weirs will offer more erosion protection and realign the thalweg in this critical area, as compared to solely LPSTP. Additionally, the added cost for the bendway weirs is not significant. Because of these reasons, it was decided that for the minimal added cost and the higher protection provided, Corps Design F should be considered over Corps Design G. Figure 9 shows the features layout for Corps Design G.

Figure 9. Features Layout for Corps Design G

3.5.5 Corps Design H

An additional alternative considered was Corps Design H, which is similar to Corps Design G, but omits the stream barbs on the left descending bank and extends the LPSTP on the left descending bank up to the south side of the bridge. This alternative was removed from consideration because it lacks river training structures, specifically stream barbs, necessary for the proper erosion protection and thalweg realignment. River training structures are essential during higher flow events when the river is higher than the top of the LPSTP, and could erode behind the LPSTP near Wagonseller Road. This location is one of the most critical for this Project. Figure 10 shows the features layout for Corps Design H.

Figure 10. Features Layout for Corps Design H

3.5.6 Relocation of Wagonseller Road Bridge

This alternative includes re-routing Wagonseller Road and building a new bridge. The Sponsor estimated that the cost of replacing the bridge (in-kind) is $3,300,000 in 2016 dollars, which is estimated to be about $3,424,000 in February 2018 dollars. This alternative was considered too costly and does not provide erosion protection to the Project area. Without erosion protection in the Project area, it is possible that the Mackinaw River could continue to erode to the south and west, eventually causing concern for not only Wagonseller Road, but also Weir Road. For these reasons, this alternative was not carried forward for comparison and evaluation.

3.6 Comparison and Evaluation of Alternatives

In accordance with planning guidance, alternatives must be compared to consider their completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. Completeness refers to the extent that an alternative plan provides all necessary investments or actions to assure realization of the planned effect. Effectiveness refers to an alternative’s ability to alleviate the specified problems and achieve the opportunities. Efficiency refers to the extent of an alternative plan’s cost effectiveness in alleviating the problems and achieving the opportunities. Acceptability refers to the workability and viability of an alternative with respect to acceptance of Federal, state, and local entities and general public and compatibility of existing laws, regulations, and public policies. When considering efficiency, planning guidance requires that CAP Section 14 projects select the least cost alternative that will address the problems and meet the planning objectives. Following ER 1105-2-100 Appendix F section F- 23.d., he least cost alternative plan is considered justified if the total cost of the proposed alternative is less than the cost to relocate or replace the threatened infrastructure (ER 1105-2-100). Table 8 summarizes the cost estimates for each alternative.

Table 8. Project First Cost Estimate for Alternative Plans (March 2018 Dollars)

Alternative Project First Cost1 No Action $0 Alternative 1 $2,203,379 Alternative 2 $1,919,067 Alternative 3 $1,094,442 Relocation of Wagonseller Road and Bridge $3,424,000 1LEERDs not included

The No Action Alternative is an acceptable, complete, and efficient plan, although it is not an effective plan in addressing the Project objectives. Alternative 1, Corps Design E, is an acceptable, complete, efficient, and effective plan in addressing the Project objectives. Alternative 2, Corps Design F, is an acceptable, complete, efficient, and effective plan in addressing the Project objectives, but has a cheaper cost than Alternative 1. Alternative 3, Corps Design I, which contains willow stakes and stream barbs, is an acceptable, complete, and efficient plan, but after further analysis, was determined to be ineffective in achieving Project objectives. The risk for Alternative 3 was not fully captured in the initial analysis. This determination was based on the following considerations.

Project Authorization and Need: The intent of Section 14 is for emergency streambank restoration. As such, the repair needs to be constructed and start functioning in a timely manner. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 have estimated construction times of 731 man hours and 686 man hours respectively. Also, the riprap protection starts functioning immediately following placement. Alternative 3 has an estimated construction time of 1095 man hours, and may take years to start functioning to full capacity, depending on weather and river conditions.

Technical Feasibility: A report from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa Department of Natural Resources, & Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2006) states that the live stake method should not be used if immediate stabilization is required. Additionally, USDA-NRCS (Hoag, 2017) states that vegetation should not be used as erosion control where velocities are greater than 5 feet/second. The project was designed for bankfull conditions which includes bankfull velocity of 8-9 feet/second in the Project area. Since the velocity in the Project area is almost two times higher than the recommended maximum velocity for using vegetation as erosion control, this alternative is not technically feasible. The risks associated with Alternative 3 were determined to be too great to fully meet the planning objectives. Alternatives 1 and 2 were both considered to be acceptable, complete, efficient, and effective plans, and of the two, the least cost alternative, Alternative 2, became the recommended alternative. The Recommended Plan is described in detail below and consists of LPSTP, stream barbs, bendway weirs, and riprap revetment to protect eroding banks and redirect water away from Wagonseller Road and Bridge. Alternative 2 is the second least costly design, meets the planning objectives, and is a proven solution to this address this type of bank erosion.

3.7 Description of Recommended Plan

The Recommended Plan is Alternative 2 (Corps Design F). A system of LPSTP, stream barbs, bendway weirs, and riprap revetment will be installed to protect eroding banks and redirect water away from Wagonseller Road and Bridge. The design starts with LPSTP on the left descending bank at the upstream end of the Project area, at a stable bank where deposition has been occurring. The LPSTP follows the toe of the river bend bank for approximately 1,700 feet and consists of approximately 3,530 tons of riprap. The LPSTP is placed as a windrow of stone at a height of 4.7 feet and 1.5:1 H:V slopes. The LPSTP is keyed into the existing bank roughly every 100 feet.

At the downstream end of the LPSTP, the first stream barb will be installed. A series of four stream barbs, each 80 20

feet and spaced approximately 130 feet apart, will require approximately 932 tons of riprap. The stream barbs are designed to redirect flows away from the bank where it parallels dangerously close to Wagonseller Road. The stream barbs are keyed into the bank for flanking protection.

The design continues on the right descending bank with approximately 465 feet of LPSTP tied into a stable bank. The LPSTP follows the river bend to smooth out the approach to Wagonseller Bridge and consists of approximately 970 tons placed in a windrow of stone at a height of 4.7 feet and 1.5:1 H:V slopes. The area behind this LPSTP will be filled and graded using borrow material from digging in the keys in order to keep the material onsite.

The LPSTP transitions to riprap revetment approximately 90 feet upstream from the centerline of Wagonseller Road. The revetment continues on the right descending bank under Wagonseller Road Bridge, and ends approximately 85 feet downstream from the centerline of Wagonseller Road. The revetment will be placed two feet thick and 7.75 feet high, resulting in 848 tons of riprap.

In addition to the LPSTP to redirect flows, a series of five bendway weirs is included around the bend to point the thalweg towards the center of the river as it goes under the bridge. The bendway weirs are designed to be 45 feet long at the top and are spaced approximately 75-80 feet apart, requiring approximately 1,400 tons of riprap. The bendway weirs are keyed into the bank and two additional keys are placed at the beginning of the LPSTP and the end of the riprap revetment. The riprap used for all the structures in the Recommended Plan is IL DOT gradation RR-5. Table 9 summarizes these features, quantities, and locations (LBD = left descending bank, RDB = right descending bank).

Table 9. Summary of Recommended Plan Features and Quantities Feature Quantity Locations Total Length (ft) Riprap (CY) Riprap (TN) LPSTP 2 LDB, RDB 2165 2,647 4,500 Stream Barbs 4 LDB 320 548 932 Revetment 1 RDB 175 499 848 Bendway Weirs 5 RDB 225 823 1,400 Keys 28 LDB, RDB 950 2,560 4,352 Total 7,077 12,302

The Project will require the Sponsor to acquire Channel Improvement Easements from three private landowners, totaling 9.86 acres. It will also require the acquisition of Temporary Work Area Easements from one landowner, totaling 0.63 acres. The three landowners have expressed their support of the Project and it is estimated that it will take approximately 120 days for the Sponsor to acquire the necessary lands.

The Recommended Plan is assumed to be self-sustaining, but does have risks including damage to or movement of stone during large flood events, ice action, and other acts of nature. Complete project failure is not likely due to these risks, but the Sponsor will have continued operation and maintenance of the Project features to ensure long term success. Maintenance includes replacing damaged or moved riprap, removal of unwanted vegetation growth in the riprap, and reseeding after large flood events. Costs associated with operation and maintenance are explained in Section 3.8 and Table 11.

For additional details on the Recommended Plan, see Appendices A, Hydraulics and Hydrology; C, Civil Engineering; and D, Geotechnical Engineering and Geology. Detailed surveys, including soil borings, will be completed during plans and specifications and the design will be refined at that time.

3.8 Recommended Plan Cost Estimate

Based on March 2018 price levels, the project first cost is $2,006,067 for the Recommended Plan, including the 21

value of LEERDs. In accordance with the cost share provisions of Section 104 of the Water Resources development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213), the Federal share (65%) of the project first cost is estimated to be $1,303,944 and the non-Federal share (35%) is estimated to be $702,123 (including LEERDs). These estimates include the value of LERRDs, estimated at $87,000. Table 10 provides the cost breakdown for project first cost. Detailed information on Project costs can be found in Appendix F, Cost Engineering.

Table 10. Project First Cost Estimate Item Project First Cost LEERDs $87,000 Construction $1,401,538 Preconstruction Engineering and Design $360,453 Construction Management $157,076 Total $2,006,067

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) for the Project is considered minimal. Maintenance would include yearly inspections of the riprap, removal of unwanted vegetation growing within the riprap, and possibly minor riprap replacement and reseeding after large events. The estimated annual O&M costs for the Project would be approximately $6,377, which is estimated with the assumption that 5% of the Project materials (riprap, seeding) will need to be replaced every 10 years. Estimated Annual O&M is outlined in Table 11.

Table 11. Estimated Annual O&M Costs for the Recommended Plan Material/ Total Qty for 5% Replacement Budget Maintenance Activity Construction UOM Every 10 Years UOM Cost Unit Cost Cost LPSTP Riprap 2,157.00 LF 10.79 LF $391,150 $181 $1,956 Stream Barb Riprap 4.00 EA 0.02 EA $136,074 $34,019 $680 Bendway Weir Riprap 5.00 EA 0.03 EA $170,352 $34,070 $852 Riprap Revetment 848.00 TN 4.24 TN $98,838 $117 $494 Key-in Riprap 1.00 LS 0.01 LS $344,348 $344,348 $1,722 Seeding 10.00 AC 0.05 AC $69,778 $6,978 $349 Misc1 1.00 LS 0.01 LS $64,845 $64,845 $324 Total $6,377 1Erosion control during O&M, access road maintenance, etc.

3.9 Economic Assessment

3.9.1 Methodology. This study assessed the feasibility of providing protective action to curtail bank erosion threatening the Wagonseller Road and Bridge. The annual benefits and costs of the proposed action were computed using 2018 price levels and a 2.875 percent discount rate, with a 50 year period of analysis (beginning in year 2020).

3.9.2 Benefits of Protective Action. The benefits of protective action are derived from considering what would occur if no Federal Action were taken. The benefits were calculated by examining all potential detour costs avoided. The analysis was done according to guidance in ER 1105-2-100.

3.9.2.1. Detour Costs. Without protective action, continuing erosion will likely cause failure of the Wagonseller Road Bridge and north and south bridge approaches, resulting in the closure of an important transportation route. This will cause motorists to use detour routes, incurring additional costs for vehicle operation and opportunity of time. Benefits to be derived from avoided detour costs were estimated based on the following: 22

1. Average Daily Traffic Count. Table 12 shows the average daily traffic count for Wagonseller Bridge (IL Dept of Transportation, 2016), which would be subjected to detour under bridge failure conditions. Table 12. Annual Traffic Analysis

Vehicle Type Detour Days Per Year Daily Number of Trips Total Annual Number of Trips Passenger Car 365 750 273,750 Total Number of Trips Per Year 750 273,750

2. Average Detour Route. The shortest average detour route would require an additional distance of 3 miles. This detour would require an additional .075 hours of travel at an assumed average speed of 40 miles per hour.

3. 2016 Average Costs. The estimated 2017 average cost (variable expense) for operating passenger cars is $0.182 per mile (source: 2017 AAA). These cost estimates include fuel, tire and maintenance/ repair costs. Table 13 shows the detour costs for a one-year period.

Table 13. Vehicle Operating Costs Detour Miles Annual Number Costs Total Added Vehicle Type (One Way) of Trips Per Mile Operating Costs Passenger Car 3.0 273,750 $0.182 $149,500 Total Additional Yearly Operating Costs $149,500

4. Average Hourly Rate. According to the US Census Bureau, the median household income for Tazewell County in 2016 was $60,178/year. Dividing that by the number of hours per year (2080) yields an average hourly income of $28.93/hour. According to guidance found in ER 1105-2-100, the percent of hourly family income of the driver is valued at 6.4% for work trips, 1.3% for leisure trips and 0.1% for other trips. The value of time saved is $1.85/hour for work trips, $0.38 for leisure and $0.03 for other trips Table 14). This assumes a conservative estimate of 1 adult passenger per vehicle. The source for the annual number of trips per trip type was taken from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, June 2011 (FHWA-PL-11-022).

Table 14. Opportunity Cost of Time Time Per Annual Number Time Cost Opportunity Trip Type Trip (Hours) of Trips Per Hour of Time Costs Work .075 53,290 $1.85 $7,400 Leisure .075 127,020 $0.38 $3,600 Other .075 93,440 $0.03 $200 Total Yearly Opportunity Costs Added–All Vehicles $11,200

As shown in Tables 12 and 13, yearly detour costs resulting from increased vehicle operating costs and opportunity of time costs amount to $149,500 and $11,200, respectively, for a total of $160,700 in yearly additional costs.

3.9.2.4. Annualized Benefits. At the recent erosion rates, it is estimated that the failure of the bridge and north and south road approaches closure is imminent. Therefore, the benefits of Project implementation would be the annual detour costs avoided by Project construction over the period of analysis (50 years, beginning at year 2020). Total annual detour costs avoided are $154,700 (50-year period of analysis at 2.875%) This amount is the annual benefit of Project implementation.

3.9.3. Estimated Cost of Recommended Action. The estimated Project First Cost (at FY18 price level) of the Recommended Plan is $2,006,067.

3.9.3.1. Annual Costs. Total Project costs were annualized over a 50-year period at a 2.875 percent rate, as shown in Table 15. Interest during construction was not included due to the short construction period. Annual first costs are $76,100 ($2,006,067 times 0.03795) and annual O&M is $6,300 (rounded for economic analysis purposes).

Table 15. First and Annualized Project Costs (2018 Prices, 50-Year Period, 2.875 %) First Cost Annual First Cost O&M Total Annual Costs (Rounded) $2,006,067 $76,100 $6,300 $82,400

3.9.3.2. Benefit and Cost Summary. As shown in Table 16, the Project exhibits Federal interest with $72,300 in net benefits, and a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.9 to 1.0.

Table 16. Benefit and Cost Summary Total Annual Benefits Annual Costs Annual Net Benefits Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (Rounded) $154,700 $82,400 $72,300 1.9 to 1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

An environmental analysis has been conducted for the Recommended Plan and a discussion of the impacts follows. No significant adverse impacts would result from the construction of the Project. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, a Section 404(b)(1) evaluation has been completed to address the impacts associated with the placement of material in waters of the United States. Section 401 Water Quality Certification has been requested from the IL EPA. Table 17 summarizes the anticipated effects of the No Action alternative and Recommended Plan.

Based on the Recommended Plan, the most intense construction activities would occur along the left descending bank of the Mackinaw River, with a lesser extent on the right descending bank immediately upstream of the bridge. Both short- and long-term impacts of the proposed action would be similar in nature and intensity and would not differ substantially in magnitude. Consequently, impacts for each are not addressed separately in the following sections.

4.1 Natural Resources Effects

4.1.1 Air Quality

The operation of construction equipment may result in a short-term localized reduction in air quality. Adverse effects would be limited and short-term, as they are associated only with construction. It is estimated that construction could take up to one year, though additional time may be needed given site conditions and construction logistics.

Greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on climate change are global issues resulting from numerous and varied sources, with each source making a relatively small addition to global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Additionally, the ability to accurately predict the localized or short-term effects of changes in greenhouse gas emissions is extremely limited. Nevertheless, it is imperative for agencies to identify the potential emissions from project alternatives when it may inform the agency’s decision-making. 24

The Project would be expected to produce greenhouse gasses during construction activities in the form of exhaust from various types of machinery used for material transport placement. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) revised draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidance for consideration of the effects of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions in December 2014 (http://go.usa.gov/3KEyR). The guidance proposed a level of 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions annually as an indicator that detailed assessment of greenhouse gasses may be meaningful to decision makers and the public. Based on the scope of the Project and the amount of material required to move and construct the Project, it is expected that the metric tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions would be far below the threshold set by the CEQ guidance. Therefore, a detailed analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is not required, and has not been prepared for the Recommended Plan.

4.1.2 Surface Water Quality

Under the No Action Alternative, minor negative impacts to surface water quality (primarily localized increases in suspended solids) could occur due to unchecked erosion of the riverbank at this location. The proposed action would have no long-term negative effects on water quality of the Mackinaw River. Preventing future bank erosion at the Project site could have a minor positive effect on sediment deposition in the main channel downstream of the Project area, particularly in the long term. Water quality, especially water clarity, may be briefly reduced during construction. Any reduction in clarity would fade following construction. The Mackinaw River is listed on the IL EPA Section 303(d) list for 2018 as impaired for fish consumption, primary aquatic contact recreation, and public water supply due to mercury/PCBs, fecal coliform, and nitrogen/nitrate, respectively. Neither the proposed action nor the No Action alternative would be expected to change levels of these contaminants or to impact the current status of impairments.

4.1.3 Aquatic and Wetland Resources

Under the No Action alternative, no measurable impacts to aquatic and wetland resources would be anticipated. Construction activity is anticipated to result in some short-term negative impacts to aquatic resources in the immediate construction area. Invertebrates present in the Project footprint could be buried or crushed by the placement of riprap. However, other benthic and aquatic organisms would be expected to quickly recolonize the new rock substrate. Fish and other mobile aquatic life may avoid the area during construction but would return upon completion. The new riprap may attract fish and provide some low level of habitat value. No long-term adverse impacts would be anticipated to wetlands, aquatic habitat or biota. The Project would not contribute toward the long-term impairments for fish and invertebrates. The proposed action should stabilize the streambank, reduce probability of bank failure and erosion of bank materials, and benefit Mackinaw River aquatic habitat.

While the Project would reduce the likelihood of bank erosion on the steep bank on the south bank of the Mackinaw River at the Project site, it is possible that changes in flow velocity could result in channel adjustments to cross sectional areas at the Project site or downstream at rates different than current trends. The proposed action would harden the southern bank by adding riprap over the existing slope and to a small degree to the south bank portion of the channel bed. The addition of riprap in the channel would reduce the channel cross sectional area and could marginally speed up flows for a period of time. Induced higher velocities within the Project area would result in channel adjustments upstream and downstream as the reach achieves dynamic equilibrium. If this did happen, it would be relatively minor and would most likely occur in channel and towards the north bank of the river, which is not steep, currently stable, has a broad unvegetated foreshore along the bend with good ground cover beyond, and is not adjacent to any infrastructure that would be negatively impacted. The most likely scenario is that the river would adjust itself naturally, with very little impact to the north river bank, while the proposed riprap on the south bank will protect the area from continued erosion and 25

bank instability. A natural adjustment in this section of the river could result in increased sediment transport downstream of the Project.

4.1.4 Terrestrial Natural Resources

The aerial footprint extent of the Project, including the access corridor, is estimated at approximately 10.5 acres (planar area). The proposed action would result in the clearing of 3.0 acres of trees and understory vegetation within the area of riprap placement and slope above the riprap, to allow for both access for construction and allow the slope to be reduced to a lower grade. Trees to be lost range in size from 1-2” diameter saplings to several large silver maple with diameter over 10.” Some of these trees may be lost to erosion if no action was taken. Otherwise, long-term impacts of the Project would be minimal. Wildlife may temporarily avoid the Project area during construction, but would return following construction. The access corridor would be allowed to fully re-vegetate. No long-term adverse impacts to terrestrial habitat or biota would be anticipated outside of the immediate stabilization site.

4.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Indiana bat roosts in stream corridors with well-developed riparian woods, forages in floodplain and upland forests, and hibernates in caves and mines. There are no documented occurrences of the species and no designated critical habitats in Tazewell County. The northern long-eared bat roosts and forages in upland woods and forests during summer months, and hibernates in caves and mines during winter months, swarming in surrounding wooded areas in autumn. To avoid direct impacts to individuals of either species that could potentially occur in the Project vicinity, clearing of trees would be restricted to the period November 1 through March 31, when bats are unlikely to be present. For this reason, the District has determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect either the Indiana bat or the northern long-eared bat.

Suitable habitat for the lakeside daisy does not exist in the Project area or vicinity and the proposed bank stabilization is expected to have no effect on this species. The decurrent false aster is an early successional plant that grows in full sun in disturbed alluvial soils in the Illinois River drainage basin. The non-forested areas potentially affected by construction of the proposed bank stabilization are enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and are maintained as grassland habitat. The eastern prairie fringed orchid is found in mesic to wet prairies, which should not be adversely affected by the proposed bank stabilization. The District has determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any of the Federally-listed endangered or threatened plant species. By return stamp dated November 27, 2017 (Appendix H), the FWS indicated no objection to the District’s determinations.

The Project area lies several miles downstream of the portion of the Mackinaw River watershed designated as a Resource Rich area. The aquatic and terrestrial footprint of the Project is relatively small and located in areas subject to frequent disturbance by flooding. For these reasons, no significant adverse impacts to any State-listed plant or animal species are expected to result from the proposed bank stabilization activities.

4.2 Cultural Resource Effects

On September 12, 2017, Rock Island District archeologist and architectural historian Ron Deiss, Rock Island District archeologist Thomas Hale, and IL DNR, State Historic Preservation Office (IL DNR/SHPO) archeologist Joseph Phillippe, and architectural historian David Halpin made a preliminary assessment for significant archeological and architectural properties. The Mackinaw River exhibits a very steep gradient in this reach, producing a very active floodplain within the glacial outwash, dominated by numerous meander scars, active cut banks, braided channel scars, and scroll bars. Erosion is exacerbated by the friable characteristics of the prevalent sandy loam soil, resulting in a nearly vertical cut bank along the meander within the APE. It is this aggressive westward cutting of 26

the meander that is threatening the Project area. The Wagonseller Bridge over the Mackinaw River and a small deposit of historic artifacts within the cut bank of the Mackinaw River were discovered and documented by the archeologists and architectural historians as being located within the APE.

The Wagonseller Bridge, constructed in 1961, is in good condition and is a reinforced concrete “Through-Girder” bridge. Descriptive information on the concrete two-lane bridge can be found on the Illinois Department of Transportation’s (IL DOT) bridge inventory internet site: http://apps.dot.illinois.gov/bridgesinfosystem/main.aspx. The Wagonseller Bridge remains under the jurisdiction of Sand Prairie Road District and is over 50 years of age. The Wagonseller Bridge was determined ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places, due to its lack of architectural and historic significance.

Other than the bridge, the only cultural resource observed was an isolated deposit of artifacts located within the right descending bank at the extreme upstream end of the Project area. These artifacts consisted of barbed wire, charcoal from fence posts, and a fragment of cast iron. These artifacts were exposed within the cut bank of the Mackinaw River, approximately one meter below the ground surface. This is considered an isolated find and not significant, since it was not in a made feature but in natural fluvial strata and secondary deposit of agricultural related-artifacts. It is presumed that the fragment of iron is from a farm implement and dates to the 20th century, although no further diagnostics were observed.

4.3 Social and Economic Effects

4.3.1 Noise

Noise generated by heavy equipment used during construction may bother residents near the Project area. However, this impact would be short-term and relatively minor. No sensitive receptors are present in the Project vicinity and no noise ordinances would be violated.

4.3.2 Aesthetics

Site preparation and the placement of materials for bank stabilization activities would result in a minor intrusion on the visual environment. Construction activities would be short-term and relatively minor. While the post- construction presence of riprap would be a permanent intrusion, the area of placement is a relatively short stretch of the river, and the overall impact would be minor. Any reshaping of the slope above the riprap should allow more vegetation to grow than the existing steep and eroding slope, or under future without project conditions.

4.3.3 Recreation

Use of the Mackinaw River for fishing and canoeing near the Project could be disrupted during construction. Public shore fishing access is not accessible through the Project area expect for the bridge, but anglers using canoes could be minimally impacted during construction. The proposed action would have no permanent, long-term impacts on the recreational environment.

Under the No Action alternative, recreational activities such as fishing, canoeing and boating could be substantially and adversely impacted due to continued erosion of the bank and the threat of failure of the bridge and township road.

4.3.4 Safety

Construction activities would result in an increase in heavy equipment traffic adjacent to the Project area. To maintain safety, the Project area may need to be temporarily closed to public access during construction. These 27

effects would be attenuated through the appropriate placement of construction and safety signage or other safety measures. These effects would be short-lived and would cease when construction is complete.

Under the No Action alternative, public safety would be substantially and adversely impacted if continued streambank erosion undermines the bridge and north and south bridge approaches. The proposed action would not have long-term adverse effects on public safety at the site. The Project would help protect the integrity of the bridge and township road, which would provide an improvement to its safe use.

4.3.5 Economy and Employment

The proposed action will have negligible beneficial impacts on the socioeconomic environment of Tazewell County. It is possible that construction activity could result in a minor short-term infusion of income into the local economy due to purchase of materials from local vendors or employment of persons from the local area, particularly if the construction work is awarded to a local contractor.

4.3.6 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is a national goal and is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Public involvement, via distribution of information concerning the Project, has and will continue to be an integral part of planning to ensure that concerns of all people will be fully considered in the decision making process. No adverse economic or social effects would be anticipated under the proposed action or the No Action alternative.

4.3.7 Public Facilities and Services

The proposed action would have no long-term adverse effects on public facilities or services. The Project would help protect the integrity of the bridge and road, which would provide an improvement to its safe use. The No Action alternative could have a substantial adverse effect on public services if erosion were to continue to the point of failure of the bridge and/or road, resulting in their inability to continue as part of the county’s transportation network.

4.4 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impacts on the environment are the result of the incremental impacts of past actions, the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Significant changes to the environment were made through road construction and development within the Project area. This Project is intended to provide long-term stability to failing infrastructure. Effects of the construction would be minimal and mostly positive in maintaining the quality of the human environment. The proposed action would help protect the integrity of the county’s transportation network. The proposed action will not affect the biodiversity of the area or permanently fragment the habitat above existing conditions. It also would not contribute to any long-term adverse social or economic effects. Reasonably foreseeable future actions not associated with the Project include the management of the surrounding land parcels in conditions similar to the existing conditions. Tazewell County population trends suggest only modest growth over the next 30 years. For these reasons, no significant indirect or cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed bank stabilization. Refer to Table 17 for the Environmental Assessment Matrix.

Table 17. Environmental Assessment Matrix No Action Alternative Symbols: Proposed Alternative Future Effects Compared to Existing X = Long-Term Effect Effects of Project Compared to No-Action Conditions (Effects of Nature) T = Temporary Effect Effects (Effects of Project) BENEFICIAL ADVERSE BENEFICIAL ADVERSE

PARAMETER SIGNIFICANT SUBSTANTIAL MINOR MINOR SUBSTANTIAL SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SUBSTANTIAL MINOR EFFECT NO MINOR SUBSTANTIAL SIGNIFICANT O EFFECT A. Social Effects X 1. Noise levels T X 2. Aesthetic Values T X 3. Recreational Opportunities X X 4. Transportation T X 5. Public Health and Safety X 6. Community Cohesion (Sense of X Unity) X 7. Community Growth and X Development X X 8. Business and Home Relocations X X 9. Existing/Potential Land Use X X 10. Controversy X B. Economic Effects X 1. Property Values X X 2. Tax Revenue X X 3. Public Facilities and Services X X 4. Regional Growth X X 5. Employment X X 6. Business Activity X X 7. Farmland/Food Supply X X 8. Commercial Navigation X X 9. Flooding Effects X X 10. Energy Needs and Reserves X C. Natural Resources Effects X 1. Air Quality T X 2. Terrestrial Habitat T X 3. Wetlands T X 4. Aquatic Habitat T 5. Habitat Diversity and X X Interspersion X 6. Biological Productivity X X 7. Surface Water Quality X X 8. Water Supply X X 9. Groundwater X X 10. Soils X 11. Threatened or Endangered X X Species D. Cultural Resources Effects X 1. Historic Architectural Values X 2. Prehistoric & Historic X X Archeological Values

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW

5.1 Applicable Environmental Laws and Executive Orders The proposed action would comply with Federal environmental laws, Executive Orders (EO) and policies, and applicable State and local laws including but not limited to the Clean Air Act, as amended; the Clean Water Act, as amended; the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended; the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; the NEPA of 1969, as amended; EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands; EO 12898, Environmental Justice; the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (the proposed action would not result in the conversion of farmland, as defined by the Farmland Policy Act, to non- agricultural uses); and EO 11988, Floodplain Management. (The work would not encourage additional development in the floodplain).

5.2 Clean Water Act (Sections 404 and 401)

A 404 (b)(1) Evaluation has been prepared for the Project and is included with this report as Appendix G. Section 401 Water Quality Certification has been requested from the IL EPA and will be obtained prior to initiation of construction. As Project designs are refined, the Corps will continue to coordinate with the State to ensure compliance with State water quality and floodplain requirements. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is included in this feasibility report and environmental assessment.

5.3 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Endangered Species Act

As required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, this Project was coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The effort was also coordinated with the IL DNR. This process included the refinement of the Project features during the planning phase to minimize adverse effects. Coordination will continue during the development of plans and specifications for the Project, which will address construction methods and best management practices to avoid and minimize any turbidity issues. Agency coordination will continue through construction (Appendix H, Agency Coordination).

The District has determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect Federally-listed threatened and endangered animal and plant species. The IL DNR, Office of Water Resources (OWR), stated in correspondence with the District (email from Kristian Petersen, IL DNR-OWR, Appendix H) that the Project will require an OWR permit. The District has applied for this permit by submittal of a joint application package along with request for Section 401 certification from IL EPA as noted in Section 5.2 above. Coordination regarding the joint application is included in Appendix H, Agency Coordination.

5.4 Cultural Resources Coordination

Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and it’s implementing regulations 36 CFR Part 800: “Protection of Historic Properties,” establishes the primary policy and authority for preservation activities and compliance procedures (Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). The NHPA ensures early consideration of historic properties preservation in Federal undertakings and the integration of these values in to each agency’s mission. The Act declares Federal policy to protect historic sites and values in cooperation with other nations, states, and local governments. The identification of historic properties potentially affected by the implementation of this Project were fully described and documented under consultation with the Illinois SHPO, other state agencies, tribes, landowners, and other interested and consulting parties. Information concerning the absence of significant historic properties within the APE was shared within all parties, as promulgated under the NHPA and its implementing regulations. This EA review period allows for further comment and consultation relative to the protection of historic properties. 30

By letter dated October 12, 2017, the District contacted the IL DNR/SHPO, describing the Project, existing conditions and historic data, and defined the APE (Appendix H). Within this correspondence, it was documented that the isolated historic artifact deposit in the right descending bank at the extreme upstream end of the Project area was not significant, since it is unrelated to a habitation site and was naturally deposited by the meandering of the Mackinaw River (the deposit was not artificially buried or a made feature). The District also determined that even though the Wagonseller Bridge is over 50 years of age, by using the criteria set for in 36 CFR 60.4, this well-documented concrete bridge has little to no historic, engineering, architectural, or aesthetic significance. Also, the implementation of the Project would not affect the exterior of the bridge nor any relative aesthetics associated with the bridge. The District made a determination of no significant architectural or archeological historic properties affected by the proposed action.

Pursuant to Section 800.3 of the NHPA and to meet the responsibilities under the NEPA 1969, the Corps has developed a preliminary Consulting Parties Distribution List as part of this formal correspondence. The development and maintenance of the list allows agencies, tribes, individuals, organizations, and other interested parties an opportunity to provide views and consult on any effects of this undertaking on historic properties resulting from the Project, to participate in the review of the Project, and to provide comments during the Project review period. The Rock Island District’s intent it to keep this list, consisting of 31 addresses, updated throughout the all stages of the Project and keep those parties notified of changes or any inadvertent discoveries of historic properties, and to provide notices of availability of all formal correspondence, public notices, and reports.

By letter response dated November 3, 2017, the IL DNR/SHPO (Appendix H: SHPO Log #019101617) concurred with the District that no significant architectural or archeological historic properties would be affected by the Project, as proposed. One other comment was received from Caterpillar, Inc. of East Peoria, Illinois, that concurred with the determination (Appendix H; email dated 20 October 2017). It is the District’s opinion that the Project is in compliance with the NHPA and all notes, correspondence, letters, and reports generated during the Section 106 compliance procedures described within this report will be placed into the permanent files as evidence of compliance with the NHPA and its implementing regulations and guidance.

Although the District has made a determination of no significant architectural or archeological historic properties affected for the proposed Project, if any construction activities and ancillary actions result in the discovery of potentially significant historic properties, the undertaking will be discontinued, the IL DNR/SHPO will be formally notified, and coordination with agencies, tribes, and other interested parties on the list will be resumed to identify the significance of the historic property and determine any effects.

5.5 Environmental Justice

Compliance with EO 12898, Environmental Justice, requires consideration of social equity issues, particularly any potential disproportionate impacts to minority or low income groups. Environmental justice issues have been considered during the planning of this Project and no minority or low-income populations would be disproportionally affected.

5.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Potential effects to migratory birds were considered during the planning of this Project. Because of the low-quality and disturbed nature of the Project area, there would be little potential for migratory bird take as defined by the Act.

5.7 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

A bald eagle permit for take should not be required for the Project due to the lack of any currently active or historic bald eagle nest in the Project area. Coordination on best management practices are ongoing with the USFWS.

6.0 COORDINATION, PUBLIC VIEWS, AND COMMENTS

Throughout the planning process, the District has been coordinating with other Federal, state, and regional agencies, and Native American Tribes/Bands. The draft Feasibility Report and EA will be released for a 30-day public review and comment period. Additional information can be found in Appendix H, Agency Coordination and Appendix I, Public Involvement.

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The adverse impacts upon the affected environment would be minimal and short-lived compared to the benefits gained by the proposed action. The Project would have no long-term significant impacts to water quality in the Mackinaw River and infrastructure for Tazewell County, IL. However, there would be minor adverse impacts on aquatic habitat and minor temporary impacts on noise, terrestrial habitat, surface water quality, and air emissions associated with Project activities. The temporary adverse effects would cease when the Project is completed.

This EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA; the Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions for NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 – 1508); and the Corps of Engineers, Policy and Procedure for Implementing NEPA (33 CFR Part 230).

8.0 WORKS CITED

Biedenharn, D. S., Elliott, C. M., & Watson, C. C. (1997). The WES Stream Investigation and Streambank Stabilization Handbook. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Engineer Research and Development Center’s CHANLPRO.

Engineering Design: Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels, Engineer Manual No. 1110-2-1601, June 30, 1994, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Friedman, D., J. Schechter, B. Baker, C. Mueller, G. Villarini, K. D. White (2016) US Army Corps of Engineers Nonstationarity Detection. US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, D.C. Haring, C. (2016). Bank Stabilization Measures (PowerPoint Slides).

Haring, C. (2017). Streambank Stabilization Measures (PowerPoint Slides).

Hoag, J. Chris, How to Plant Willows and Cottonwoods for Riparian Restoration, Technical Note Plant Materials No. 23, January 2007, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Boise, Idaho.

Hydraulic Design Criteria: Stone Stability, Sheet 712-1, November 1987, Corps of Engineers.

Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), Version 5.0.3

Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Statistical Software Package (HEC-SSP), Version 2.1.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, & Natural Resource Conservation Service. (2006). How to Control Streambank Erosion (Publication).

Julien, P. Y., & Duncan, J. R. (2003). Optimal Design Criteria of Bendway Weirs from Numerical Simulations and Physical Model Studies (Tech.).

Sauer, Vernon B. and Fulford, Janice M., Floods of December 1982 and January 1983 in Central and Southern Mississippi River Basin, Open-File Report 83-213, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Scurlock, S. M., Baird, D. C., Cox, A. L., & Thornton, C. I. (2012). Bendway weir design - Rio Grande physical model (Publication).

Stone for Erosion Protection, Sediment Control, and Rockfill, January 1, 2004, Illinois Department of Transportation.

Tazewell County, Illinois and Incorporated Areas, Flood Insurance Study, February 17, 2017, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

US Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource Conservation Service. (2007). Flow Changing Techniques (Tech. Sup. 14H). US Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource Conservation Service. (2007). Streambank Armor Protection with Stone Structures (Tech. Sup. 14K).

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Estimating Flood-Peak Discharge Magnitudes and Frequencies for Rural Streams in Illinois, Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5103, 2004.

USACE (2016). Engineering and Construction Bulletin 2016-25: Guidance for Incorporating Climate Change Impacts to Inland Hydrology in Civil Works Studies, Designs, and Projects.

Vegetative Stream bank Stabilization, Standard and Specification 3.22, 1992, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM SECTION 14 WAGONSELLER ROAD BRIDGE, MACKINAW RIVER TAZEWELL COUNTY, ILLINOIS

I have reviewed the information provided by this Environmental Assessment, along with data obtained from cooperating Federal and State agencies having jurisdiction by law or special expertise. I find that the proposed stabilization of the Mackinaw River riverbank upstream of the Wagonseller Road Bridge in Tazewell County, Illinois, will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, it is my determination that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. This determination will be reevaluated if warranted by later developments.

Alternatives evaluated along with the preferred alternative were:

- No action

- Use of the same stabilization measures as the preferred alternative (longitudinal peak stone toe protection, riprap revetment, stream barbs, and bendway weirs) in a different design

Factors considered in making a determination that an EIS was not required are as follows:

a. The proposed action would have no significant impacts on natural resources, and would have only minor and short-term adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources and on water quality.

b. The proposed action would provide long-term protection for the bridge and associated roadway.

c. No effects to historic properties, and no adverse impacts to recreation or other social or economic activities are expected to result from the proposed action.

Date Steven M. Sattinger Colonel, U.S. Army Commander and District Engineer

This page intentionally left blank