U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District Finding of No Significant Impact & Revision to: December, 2011 Tiered Environmental Assessment
PUBLIC LAW 84-99 EMERGENCY LEVEE REHABILITATION PROGRAM
View of the setback near Highway-2, showing the setback, borrow pit wetlands, and the Missouri River. Oriented north.
Missouri River Missouri River Unit, L-575 Fremont County, Iowa Atchison County, MO May, 2013 PROJECT DATE
Finding of No Significant Impact Missouri River Levee Unit L-575
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Corps), in cooperation with the project sponsors, propose to implement levee repairs, including two large-scale levee setbacks, on the Missouri River Levee Unit L-575 under the authority of Public Law 84-99. The setbacks are located in Fremont County, Iowa, along the left descending bank of the Missouri River between river miles 566 and 555. A Programmatic Environmental Assessment for PL 84-99 Levee Rehabilitation Projects and Advanced Measure Responses in the Corps was finalized in December 2011 and is incorporated by reference herein. In addition, a tiered Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in December of 2011 for the non-setback levee repairs that were initially identified as the recommended plan. Upon further planning and design considerations, setback alternatives were incorporated into a new recommended plan. As such, this EA serves to revise the original tiered EA to include the additional large-scale setback construction activities. Due to emergency conditions, necessity to complete levee fixes in a timely manner, and the many planning uncertainties and coordination involved with this project, preparation of this revised EA occurred during construction of the setbacks. All unavoidable wetland impacts were concurrently mitigated by grading and treating for wetland establishment the borrow pits associated with the large-scale setbacks.
The attached EA supports the conclusions found in the programmatic and original tiered EA. The overall flood risk management level of the affected area would not be negatively impacted by the construction activities. The recommended plan would result in no adverse impacts to any Federally listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat. The recommended plan would result in no adverse impacts to any properties listed, proposed for listing, eligible for listing, or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The recommended plan would result in minor impacts to noise and air quality. The recommended plan would result in impacts to wetlands; however, these impacts would be mitigated for and the project would result in a no net-loss of wetlands in the project area. Areas of the existing levee sections damaged by flooding are to be either temporarily disturbed by construction activity or be demolished and used to create the setbacks; the disturbed areas used for borrow mining have been used to create wetland mitigation areas. Wetlands impacted are primarily of the emergent type, though some riparian forested wetlands were impacted. Approximately 104 acres of wetland were impacted during construction; approximately 320 acres of land was treated for wetland establishment as part of compensatory wetland impact mitigation. Emergency construction meets the project purpose and need of rehabilitating the flood risk management capability and its associated socioeconomic benefits of the existing levee system. Best Management Practices (such as using cleaned construction equipment, not idling equipment when not immediately needed, containing fuels and storing them in upland areas, minimizing dust, and replanting disturbed areas) were implemented. To ensure no significant impacts occur to wetlands, cultural resources, species of concern and their habitats during borrow operations, the standard operating procedures for the Selection and Restoration of Borrow Sites were implemented. The Standard Operating Procedures are included as Appendix F in this EA.
After evaluating the anticipated environmental, economic, and social effects of the construction activity, it is my determination that the construction project does not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The construction action has been coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies, and there are no significant unresolved issues. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
______Date Joel R. Cross Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Need ...... 4 1.2 Project Location ...... 4 2.0 Alternatives ...... 7 2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis ...... 7 2.2 No Action Alternative ...... 8 2.3 Structural/ Non-Structural Combination Repair Alternative (Recommended Plan) ...... 8 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Impacts) ...... 13 3.1 Water Quality Existing Conditions ...... 13 3.2 Wetlands/Waterbodies Existing Conditions ...... 14 3.3 Raptors and other Migratory Birds Existing Conditions ...... 19 3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 20 3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 21 4.0 Cumulative Impacts ...... 23 5.0 Coordination and Comments ...... 23 6.0 Compliance with Other Environmental Laws ...... 25 7.0 Preparers ...... 26 8.0 References ...... 26
Figure 1a. Missouri River Levee Unit L-575 Location Figure 1b. Setback Location Maps Figure 2. General Location of Damage/ Repair Areas Figure 3. General Areas of All L-575 Construction Borrow Sources
Table 1 - L-575 Levee Setback Around Highway-2 Cost Comparison (north of HWY-2) Table 2 - L-575 Levee Setback Around Highway-2 Cost Comparison (south of HWY-2) Table 3 - PEA Alternatives Table 4 - Damage Areas and Recommended Repairs Table 5 - Threatened and Endangered Species in the Project Area Table 6 - Recorded Locations of Known Riverboat Wrecks Near L-575 Levee Table 7 - Recorded Locations of Known Riverboat Wrecks Near Frazers Bend Setback
Appendix A – Migratory Bird Treaty Act Survey Results Appendix B – Applicable Permits Appendix C - Biological Assessment and USFWS Concurrence Appendix D – Borrow Site Reclamation Guidance for Contractor Construction Crew Appendix E – Programmatic Environmental Assessment Appendix F – 404 (b) (1) Analysis
Tiered Environmental Assessment Revision
Public Law 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program Missouri River Levee Unit L-575
1.0 Introduction In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations, a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Public Law (PL) 84-99 Levee Rehabilitation Projects and Advanced Measure Responses in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Corps) was completed on December 27, 2011, and is incorporated by reference herein. Concurrently, a project- specific Environmental Assessment (EA) of the levee rehab activities was prepared for levee L-575 (“L” meaning along the left bank of the Missouri River and “575” meaning it begins near river mile (RM) 575) and tiered off of the PEA to determine if the levee rehabilitation project met the description and criteria of the Recommended Plan as described in the PEA. Following the completion of the tiered EA and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated December 2011, new flood control alternatives (i.e., two large-scale levee setbacks) were proposed because of increased sponsor interest in non-structural alternatives on severely damaged sections of the levee. Instead of evaluating these alternatives separately within a supplemental EA, the original tiered EA has been revised to include analysis of all actions associated with all flood repair activities at L-575. The content of this EA is meant to supersede and replace the tiered EA dated December 2011.
To help aid the readers’ understanding of this EA, a brief description of the construction history and associated environmental compliance documentation is provided below:
Extensive flooding occurred on the Missouri River in 2011, damaging much of the Flood Risk Management infrastructure along the river, especially between Omaha, Nebraska and Kansas City, Missouri. A large scale response to the flooding by the Corps of Engineers was necessary. This included implementation of advanced measures to prevent further damages during the 2011 flood, as well as fixing damaged infrastructure through various construction methods following the flood event. Initial NEPA documentation to cover the general impacts of the overall large scale response along the Missouri River occurred via a PEA for Public Law (PL) 84-99 Levee Rehabilitation Projects and Advanced Measure Responses in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District, which was completed on December 27, 2011.
Damage to the L-575 levee sustained during the flood of 2011 consisted of three breaches and extensive damage in 20 specific locations. In-line structural repairs were made to most of the 20 damage locations (all except those occurring along the large-scale setback portions of the levee) and the three breaches were repaired by realigning the levee around the breaches and associated scour holes. “In-line” means repairs were placed generally at the same location the levee existed prior to the flood event. These structural repair construction activities began in December of 2011. Site specific impacts of these activities that were not captured in the PEA were captured in an EA that was tiered off of the PEA. The tiered EA was also completed in December, 2011, but did not address the large-scale
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 1 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation
setbacks which were not anticipated at that time. This revision to the tiered EA includes analysis of the large-scale setback activities.
Initially, in-line structural repairs were implemented at all damage and breach locations, except those at the large-scale setback areas. By February of 2012, all the breaches had been closed and by October 2012 the other non-breach structural repairs had been completed. In the meantime, sand and riprap was stockpiled by the setback location in case flood fighting needed to be initiated; the damage at the setback segments was not repaired prior to construction of the setbacks due to the need for further engineering assessments to determine how best to address extensive scour and seepage damage. Drought conditions during the 2012 construction timeframe allowed the damage at setback locations to go unrepaired as the setback levees were constructed. Ultimately, the old levee would be used to construct the setback levee.
The two large scale setbacks were determined to be the most cost effective approach to permanently fixing the levee to a flood protection level that was originally intended at that site. The first large-scale setback near Iowa Highway-2 (hereinafter referred to as HWY-2 setback) began in March of 2012, concurrently with development of this revised EA. In late October 2012 a large-scale setback across the River from the OPPD coal-fired power plant, south of Nebraska City, NE in Otoe County (hereinafter referred to as Frazers Bend setback), was initiated. Both setbacks are substantially complete at the time this EA was finalized due to the emergency nature of quickly re-establishing levee protection.
Detailed plan formulation typically is not part of PL 84-99 response, but an expedited planning and economic analysis process documented in a Project Information Report (PIR) was conducted. Following development of the PIR for the L-575 levee system, a sub-study was initiated on the concept of constructing large-scale levee setbacks as part of the emergency levee rehabilitation. Furthermore, a PEA was prepared to assess potential levee rehabilitation alternatives. The PIR, PEA, and the Conceptual Levee Setback Report involved initial screening that lead to the detailed examination of in-line repairs versus non-structural repairs (to include potential construction of large-scale levee setbacks). Technical viability and cost effectiveness was the driving factor in selecting which construction alternative to implement, in-line repairs were implemented by default as the more cost effective measures and levee setbacks were implemented where doing in- line repairs were less feasible and more expensive. Most in-line repairs from the 2011 flood were implemented at L-575 as they have been conducted in the past, by restoring the levee to its exact pre-flood condition or by constructing the levee with a slight realignment around breach-created scour holes. However, two large-scale setbacks, not typical of PL 84-99 repair efforts, were determined to be the most technically viable and cost effective means of repairing the levee in two severely damaged sections. The Corps was unable to complete revised NEPA documentation to include assessment of the large-scale setbacks prior to initiation of construction; Engineer Regulation 200-2-2 Section 8 directs the Corps to conduct NEPA documentation after the project has begun if it cannot be completed before the construction associated with PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation begins, as was the case for the two large-scale setbacks. While some project related construction and related activities are still ongoing, this EA will refer to activities already substantially complete. The tables below contain details of an analysis conducted to determine if setting back the levee at HWY-2 would be cost effective:
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 2 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation
Table 1 – L-575 Levee Setback Around Highway-2 Cost Comparison (north of HWY-2)
Table 2 – L-575 Levee Setback Around Highway-2 Cost Comparison (south of HWY-2)
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 3 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation
To comply with NEPA and related environmental laws and regulations, the Corps must thoroughly consider the potential effects on the human environment of its decisions and actions undertaken within the PL 84-99 Levee Rehabilitation Program. This EA meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321 et seq.); the President’s Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 – 1508) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Regulation 200-2-2 (33 CFR 230). Following the analysis, the Corps must evaluate the proposed action and determine if a FONSI is appropriate or if the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be considered.
1.1 Purpose and Need During the 2011 flood event along the Missouri River, the Missouri River Levee Unit L-575 sustained substantial damage at 21 sites, including three breached areas. Damages included levee seepage and piping, sand and pin boil formation, breaches, erosion of the riverside and landside levee slope with corresponding loss of vegetation, landside berm damage, riverside and landside levee scouring, and damage to pump stations.
Purpose: The purpose of the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program is to provide emergency assistance to levee districts and communities (whom are the project Sponsors) in the form of post-flood levee repair and/or pre-flood damage reduction. The purpose of the levee rehab activities at L-575 is to repair the levee to pre-flood level of protection and to minimize the need for future maintenance and repair in areas where severe damage has occurred and could occur again in future major flood events.
Need: In 2011, extremely heavy spring rains combined with higher than normal snow melt runoff within the Missouri River Basin resulted in an unprecedented quantity of water in Corps managed reservoirs. As reservoirs filled to record levels, very high releases were required to avoid overtopping; the high amount of runoff in the basin caused historic flooding along the Missouri River and many of its tributaries. These record flows caused damage to multiple levees and created conditions that increased risk to property and human life. The L-575 Levee Unit consists of 45.73 miles of earthen levee that protects primarily agricultural land. Severe levee breeches occurred at two locations. All of the alternatives evaluated within this EA would restore flood protection along the entire 45.73 miles of L-575; however, rebuilding the levee on its original footprint at the severely breached locations could leave the levee more vulnerable to future flood damage than before the 2011 flood. Opportunities to setback the levee from the river at severely breached locations were evaluated to determine benefits and impacts to the human environment.
1.2 Project Location The Missouri River Levee Unit L-575 starts close to the southwest corner of Thurman, Iowa, and then continues westward to the Missouri River channel. The levee then proceeds south along the Missouri River channel to its terminus with a tie back levee along the right bank of the Nishnabotna (see Figure 1a).
Major features of the unit generally include: a length of approximately 45.73 miles, a height of approximately 9 feet, a crown width of 15 feet, side slopes at 3 Horizontal to 1 Vertical, landside berms with widths ranging from 70 to 100 feet in locations, erosion protection consisting of sod cover and rock riprap, a surfaced levee top (including turn-outs, access ramps, and riverside ramps) for maintenance purposes and flood-fighting, and bar gates and fencing to control unnecessary traffic throughout the project. The levee was designed to stand 2 feet higher than an expected 100 year flood stage (i.e., have 2 feet of “freeboard”).
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 4 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation
Figure 1a. Missouri River Levee Unit L 5-75 Location Aerial imagery from the USDA’s National Agriculture Imagery Program (2012)
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 5 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation
Figure 1b. Missouri River Levee Unit L-575 Iowa Highway 2 Setback (upper) and Frazers Bend Setback (lower) locations. Aerial imagery from the USDA’s National Agriculture Imagery Program (2012)
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 6 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation
2.0 Alternatives Alternatives were evaluated in order to identify the action that would minimize potential impacts to the environment and meet the purpose and need of the project. The PEA examined a full range of alternative actions under the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program in order to determine which alternative best met the purpose and need on a programmatic level. The alternatives examined in the PEA and definitions of non-structural and structural repairs are provided in Table 3 for reference. Non- structural, structural and a combination thereof were considered for this project.
Table 3 - PEA Alternatives PEA Alternative Actions under PL 84-99 Description of Alternative Program Alternative 1 - No Action No levee repair assistance from the PL 84-99 Program
Local Sponsor would repair levee to pre-disaster conditions at full cost and would not construct levee setbacks except around levee breaches. Alternative 2 – Structural Repairs Repair of damaged non-Federal and Federal levees after high flow events through in-place repairs and/or minor levee setbacks around breaches and associated scour holes
Repairs limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management that existed prior to damages Alternative 3 – Non-Structural Repairs or Flood risk management provided by modifying Responses structures and property to reduce damages during flood events. Although minor realignments around breaches are considered a structural repair, levee setbacks undertaken for the purpose of restoring the floodplain or floodway would also fit into the nonstructural category.
Examples include: relocating structures, buyouts, elevating structures, levee setbacks, and providing ring levees Alternative 4 – Combination of Structural Repairs Flexibility to use either structural repairs or non- and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended structural repairs (as described above), or a Plan) combination thereof depending on site-specific needs
2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis In the PEA, all alternatives presented above are discussed. Alternative 4 is the recommended plan in the PEA. For this EA, Alternative 2 - Structural Repair and Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Repairs were considered as standalone alternatives, but eliminated from detailed analysis as alternatives by themselves. Due to extensive foundation damage, the structural repair alternative was determined to be more expensive than the large-scale levee setback construction, primarily due to required sheet piling costs for in-line repairs. Additionally, in-line repairs at the setback locations may have resulted in some levee
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 7 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
sections remaining highly vulnerable to further damage or possible failure due to extensive under seepage and other damage inflicted by the 2011 flood. Similarly, an entirely non-structural repair alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because non-structural repairs would not have been a necessary or desirable solution for most of the damaged levee sections where in-line structural repairs were needed. Therefore, Alternative 4, the combination of structural and non-structural responses, was selected as the recommended plan as this alternative allowed the Corps to utilize either structural or non-structural solutions to repair the levee based on levee section-specific conditions. In-line structural repairs were implemented at the breach and at most of the levee damage locations, whereas non-structural large-scale levee setbacks were implemented at locations of highly damaged levee sections at the request of surrounding landowners. In summary, the above alternatives were eliminated from detailed analysis for one or more of the following reasons: increased flood risk, increased costs and lack of community support. The alternatives retained for detailed analysis include the No Action Alternative and the Structural/Non-structural Repair Combination Alternative.
2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the federal action (PL 84-99 assistance) would not occur. Without PL 84-99 assistance it is anticipated that the local levee sponsors would repair the L-575 levee to pre-disaster flood protection conditions at their own expense, assumingly without the ability to construct large-scale setbacks due to lack of funds, manpower, and equipment. As indicated in the PEA, it is reasonable to assume the local levee sponsors would choose to repair the levee to pre-disaster flood protection conditions in the absence of federal assistance due to the high value of protected land and infrastructure located behind the levee. It is assumed that under the no action alterative Best Management Practices required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be implemented by the levee sponsor to minimize the amount of non-point source runoff from the construction areas minimizing the potential for contaminants from entering waterways.
2.3 Structural/ Non-Structural Combination Repair Alternative (Recommended Plan) The recommended plan would use structural and non-structural responses to restore the levee to pre- disaster flood protection conditions depending on the severity of the damage at individual locations; in- line repairs and small realignments around levee breaches are considered to be structural repairs and large-scale levee setbacks are considered non-structural repairs. One setback activity sets back the levee between RM 566 through RM 560 (HWY-2 setback) and calls for the removal of the old Iowa Highway 2 bridge approach. The HWY-2 setback will cause a 1.5 foot flood stage reduction during a 100-year flood event. The second setback takes place between RM 559 through RM555 (Frazers Bend setback). The setbacks take place largely on Corps land that was purchased for the purposes of Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) wildlife habitat mitigation, habitat lost due to implementation of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP), and also on land provided by the levee sponsors. The setback activities will result in a levee that provides the pre-disaster level of protection to landward properties. See Figure 1b for a map of the two large-scale setbacks.
The PEA recommended alternative provides the greatest flexibility to repair levees by recommending a site-specific determination whether to implement structural repairs, non-structural repairs, or a combination thereof. The site-specific determination to use a combination of repair options is consistent with the PEA recommendation. These repairs would still include fine grading of the riverside and landside of the levee, followed by topsoil placement, and seeding to secure the levee toe and slope and construction of seepage berms. Table 4 summarizes all of the damage areas and recommended repairs to the entire L-575 system, and Figure 2 provides a map of the general repair areas. The repairs (structural and nonstructural) and their environmental impacts are described in detail below in section 3.1.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 8 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Borrow material would be required for constructing the setbacks. Borrow material would be obtained from MRRP land, the original levee, and provided by the levee sponsors. Wetland impacts would be concurrently mitigated for during construction by leaving borrow pits in a condition that is conducive to wetland habitat establishment. Irregular shorelines with gently sloping banks (~1H:10V) that surround shallow pools of water would be the general guidelines provided to construction crews for leaving borrow pits once mining is complete. See Figure 3 for a map of borrow material mining locations.
Table 4 – All L-575 Levee Damage Areas and Repairs Damage/ Description of Length of Repair Implemented Repair Repair damage Area 1 extensive seepage 1,100 linear feet installation of new relief wells and boils (prior to breaches) 2 riverside scour 7,200 linear feet piggyback section and reinforcement of the riverside embankment and add riprap along the toe; reshaping the side slopes, placing topsoil as necessary and seeding 3 full levee breach 2,400 linear feet (breach); repaired with a levee realignment 1400 feet upstream and 200 approximately 500-feet landward feet downstream (additional of the pre-flood alignment to erosion) avoid scour hole 4 extensive seepage 1,550 linear feet installation of new relief wells and boils (prior to breaches) 5 extensive seepage 3,700 linear feet installation of new relief wells and boils (prior to and construction of large berm breaches) 6 extensive seepage 18,500 linear feet installation of new relief wells and boils (prior to and construction of large berm breaches) 7 riverside scour 200 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- 2)* 8 riverside scour 1,200 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- 2)*
9 riverside scour(due to 1,000 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- large whirlpool) 2)*
10 riverside scour 400 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- 2)*
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 9 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
11 extensive seepage 200 linear feet; large-scale levee setback (HWY- and boils (prior to 2)* breaches); riverside scour 12 boil field Not calculated large-scale levee setback (HWY- 2)*
13 extensive seepage 5,100 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- and boils (prior to 2)* breaches) 14 landside scour 200 linear feet large-scale levee setback (Frazers Bend)*
15 extensive seepage 2,200 linear feet large-scale levee setback (Frazers and boils (prior to Bend)* breaches) 16 full levee breach 1,300 linear feet of breach repaired with a levee realignment and 1,700 linear feet of approximately 500-feet landward scour of the pre-flood alignment to avoid scour hole 17 severe damage to 30,800 linear feet rebuilding of the landside slope, the landside of the levee crest resurfaced, rebuilding embankment of 1 mile of levee 18 full levee breach 950 linear feet of breach repaired with a levee realignment and scour approximately 500-feet landward of the pre-flood alignment to avoid scour hole 19 severe damage to 35,850 linear feet rebuilding of the landside slope, the landside of the levee crest resurfaced embankment 20 (pump damage from interior Not calculated full replacement of pump station station) wave action
21 (pump damage from interior Not calculated full replacement of pump station station) wave action
* Indicates non-structural repair
Best Management Practices required by the NPDES permit would minimize the amount of non-point source runoff from the construction areas minimizing the potential for contaminants from entering waterways.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 10 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Figure 2. General Location of Damage/Repair Areas Aerial imagery from the USDA’s National Agriculture Imagery Program (2011)
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 11 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Figure 3. General Areas of all L-575 Construction Borrow Sources as of October, 2012. In addition to showing the two large-scale setback alignments (large red lines) relative to the original levee alignment (yellow line), this figure also shows the location of the 3 smaller levee realignments (smaller red lines) constructed around the 3 levee breaches. Aerial imagery from the USDA’s National Agriculture Imagery Program (2012)
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 12 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Impacts) The PEA provides an impact analysis of a range of environmental resources from a regional/programmatic perspective. This document provides a more detailed impact analysis where it was determined site-specific analysis was needed to assess if the individual project would have impacts beyond what was described in the PEA or if additional analysis was necessary to determine compliance with environmental laws and regulations. Water quality, wetlands, migratory birds, threatened and endangered species and cultural resources are included in this site specific analysis. Other natural resources either do not exist in the project’s affected environment or are adequately addressed within the PEA.
This section presents the adverse and beneficial environmental effects (direct and indirect) of the preferred action (structural/non-structural combination alternative) and the No Action Alternative. The section is organized by resource topic, with the effects of alternatives discussed under each resource topic. Impacts are quantified whenever possible. Qualitative descriptions of impacts are explained by the accompanying text:
Qualitative definitions/descriptions of impacts as used in this section of the report include: • Intensity o No Effect – the resource is not affected or is negligibly affected as to not noticeably affect function o Minor – noticeable impacts to the resource in the project area, but the resource still mostly functions the same o Moderate – the resource is affected so that it cannot function normally o Major – the resource is severely affected so that it is no longer functional in the same way within the project area • Duration o Short term – temporary effects caused by the construction and/or implementation of a selected alternative o Long term – caused by an alternative after the action has been completed and/or after the action is in full and complete operation.
3.1 Water Quality Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences
3.1.1 Water Quality Existing Conditions In the Missouri River, levels of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and nutrients tend to increase with distance downstream from the Gavins Point Dam (USGS 2002). Fish collections have been made in the Missouri River that show elevated levels of pollutants in tissue samples. For example, the Nebraska Department of Health issued consumption advisories for the Missouri River from Omaha to Rulo due to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (industrial use), and dieldrin (agricultural pesticide) concentrations in fish (NDEQ 2008). Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires States to evaluate water quality conditions in designated water bodies, and list as impaired any water bodies not meeting water quality standards. As appropriate, states must develop and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs i.e., pollutant management plans) for water bodies identified as impaired. Iowa The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has placed the segment of the Missouri River between the Iowa/ Missouri state line to the Platte River confluence, which includes the construction project, on the state’s draft 303(d) list for 2008 (IDNR 2008). This portion of the river is considered
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 13 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
impaired due to habitat alterations and flow modifications that resulted from development of the river for navigation. This segment was also on the 2006 303(d) list (IDNR 2008).
Nebraska The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) has placed the segment of the Missouri River between the Platte River confluence and the Iowa/Missouri border on the state’s 303(d) list for 2010. In 2010 this segment was listed as impaired for recreation and aquatic life due to E. coli and cancer risks as well as fish consumption hazards (NDEQ, 2010). In 2008 this segment was listed as impaired for recreation and aquatic life because of PCBs and dieldrin (NDEQ, 2010).
Missouri TMDLs have been established for chlordane and PCBs in fish tissue for the 533 miles of Missouri River in Missouri. Causes of chlordane and PCBs in fish tissue are listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as many different point and non-point sources of pollution. Chlordane has been banned from agricultural use and was withdrawn from the market in 1988 and production of PCBs ended in 1977, but persists in the environment.
3.1.2 Water Quality Environmental Consequences Structural/Non-Structural Repair Combination Alternative Environmental Consequences No construction or fill activities are expected to take place in the Missouri River. Impacts to water quality from the structural/ non-structural repair combination would be minor and short-term. The construction areas would be stabilized with a permanent seed mixture as soon as possible after construction is complete. Spillage of contaminants from the construction site into waterways is a potential effect that would be minor and short term. The Clean Water Act requires preparation and submission of a general storm water permit and preparation of a Storm-water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) before construction activities can begin. The SWPPP would be based on Best Management Practices (BMP) such as seeding and mulching bare slopes as soon as practicable and measures to contain spillage of any contaminants into waterways. In the long term, there would essentially be no change to the water quality in the Missouri River and nearby drainages from implementation of the structural/non- structural response combination alternative.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative it is assumed that levees would be repaired by the local levee drainage district. This would result in the potential for minor, short-term construction related impacts to water quality due to site runoff and increased potential for soil erosion from removing vegetation – similar to the structural/non-structural combination alternative. Construction related impacts would last only until vegetation is re-established, either naturally or by seeding.
3.2 Wetlands/Waterbodies Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences
3.2.1 Wetlands/Waterbodies Existing Conditions The flood of 2011 altered the physical and vegetative landscape of the floodplain within the project area. Many scour hole habitats were either newly formed or were expanded; some very large, especially as a result of levee breaches. Patches of young riparian trees were decimated by the long duration of inundation. Moreover, it is likely that many of the mature trees along the river’s riparian corridor, as well as others on the floodplain, could die within the next few years due to stress incurred during the 2011 flood.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 14 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Onsite visits were conducted to verify the presence/ absence of potentially affected habitats during the winter months of 2011and 2012 prior to construction of in-line repairs and before setting back levees at severely breeched locations. Due to the timing of the site visit, vegetation was difficult to identify and it was determined that wetlands were not present. Also, in-line repairs primarily impacted land that had already had a levee on it so the level of scrutiny was commensurate with the potential impacts of the action.
Following the completion of in-line repairs, consideration of setting back levees at the severely breeched locations became a feasible alternative. As construction of these setbacks would traverse on land outside the original levee alignment, a more intensive effort to evaluate the presence of wetlands was undertaken. Using recent high-resolution (1 meter) aerial photography, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS layers, and Fremont County, Iowa Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Surveys it was determined that potential impacts to wetlands and other terrestrial habitats may have occurred during in- line repairs and may occur by constructing the setback levees . Through this “desktop survey,” areas likely to be wetlands were identified. The areas impacted by constructing in-line repairs were not able to be confirmed in situ, but were added to the inventory of impacted wetland acreage.
Where possible, wetland delineations were conducted prior to construction along the right-of-ways for the HWY-2 setback and Frazers Bend setback levees. The wetland delineations revealed that wetlands did exist along both setback right-of-ways and within some of the borrow sites. The identified wetlands along both setbacks were classified according to the Cowardin Classification System.
Wetlands along the HWY-2 setback were dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, and displayed wetland hydrology indicators (e.g., cracked soil, iron deposits in the soil, dead aquatic invertebrates present, silt deposits on plants) and hydric soil indicators (e.g., high amounts of mottling and low-chroma soils). Wetlands along the Frazers Bend setback had similar hydrology and hydric soil indicators; however, the vegetation community in this area was comprised of a mosaic of hydrophytic and upland species and wetland/upland boundaries were not as discernible. A wetland delineation was completed using wetland/non-wetland mosaic routine methodology and it was determined that the southern, non- government owned portion of the Frazers Bend setback area surveyed was likely to be comprised of approximately 20% wetland habitat. Additionally, soil samples along the Frazers Bend setback revealed that approximately 1 to 3 feet of sand, which was likely deposited during the 2011 flood, covered native silty-clay soils.
3.2.2 Wetlands and Waterbodies Environmental Consequences Structural/Non-Structural Repair Combination Alternative Environmental Consequences Minor long-term wetland impacts are anticipated under the structural/non-structural repair combination alternative. Approximately 104 acres of wetland impacts resulted from the implementation of the preferred alternative during construction of levee setbacks, seepage berms, during borrow material excavation, and during the shaping and grading of those features. Approximately 320 acres of land were treated for wetland establishment as part of compensatory wetland impact mitigation using setback borrow pits. The borrow pit slopes were graded to 10H:1V gradient, have irregular shapes, are no more than 5 feet deep, and were seeded with native wetland and upland buffer seed mixes calibrated to the specific soil and hydrologic conditions of the Missouri River floodplain in this area. Additionally, approximated 2,000 acres of land is now riverward of the levee due to the setbacks and will receive periodic flooding from the River which will further encourage the development of new wetlands.
The following fill activities are associated with implementation of the recommended levee alignments:
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 15 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
• Large Seepage Berm: Two and a half miles of seepage berm were constructed along damage locations 5 and 6 (approximately between RM 568.5 – 564.7, terminating at the northern tie in of the HWY-2 setback). Placement of sand on top of 5.77 acres of emergent wetland habitat occurred during construction of this seepage berm. • HWY-2 borrow pits: During borrow material mining, 17.37 acres of emergent wetlands were disturbed. All of this excavated area that disturbed (including non-wetland area) was graded and treated for wetland establishment as compensatory mitigation area. • HWY-2 setback centerline: 37.7 acres of emergent and 27.1 acres of forested/ unconsolidated bottoms wetlands were filled with construction of the HWY-2 setback levee. It should be noted that all of the small trees in this forested/ unconsolidated bottoms wetland were killed by the 2011 flood. • HWY-2 Ditch Realignments: The HWY-2 centerline crossing West Benton ditch and Horse Creek ditch, necessitating their rerouting. A combined 2.96 acres of unconsolidated bottom ditch wetlands were filled and the ditches were realigned to run through the levee and in the case of West Benton ditch though mitigation wetlands, providing for more ecologically sound runoff management as well as hydrological diversity in the mitigation area (i.e., pond and stream habitat connected directly to the Missouri River for aquatic fauna access). • Frazer Bend Setback Centerline: 1.97 acres of emergent wetlands were impacted by construction of the levee centerline. • Frazers Bend Borrow Pits: During borrow material mining, 5.5 acres of emergent wetlands were disturbed. All of this excavated area that disturbed (including non-wetland area) was graded and treated for wetland establishment as compensatory mitigation area. • Frazers Scour Fill: 1.31 acres of emergent and 1.96 acres of unconsolidated bottom wetlands (a 15 acres large scour hole formed by the 2011 flood) was filled with material during demolition of the old levee. The filled portion of the scour hole was graded with gentle slopes conducive to wetland establishment. • Frazers Bend Ditch Realignments: The Frazer Bend setback centerline needs to cross ditches in the project area and as a result ditches had to be realigned. 2.35 acres of unconsolidated bottom ditch wetlands were filled and the ditches were realigned to flow under the new setback levee and though borrow area wetlands, providing for more ecologically sound runoff management as well as hydrological diversity in the mitigation area (i.e., pond and stream habitat connected directly to the Missouri River for aquatic fauna access).
Construction resulted in the impact of 103.98acres of wetlands. All construction that resulted in wetland impacts was accompanied by concurrent mitigation construction. 320.01 acres of borrow pits used for material mining were treated for wetland establishment as part of this project.
Some impacted wetlands occurred within borrow mining areas which were treated for wetland habitat establishment (i.e., 10H:1V side slopes, irregular shaped shoreline, wetland seed mix application). The placement of seepage berms are designed to alleviate through seepage concerns to the landside of the levee during periods of high flow. The construction of landward levee setbacks are designed to rehabilitate severely damaged sections of the levee. Borrow areas are designed to obtain the necessary sand and clay materials needed for the construction of the seepage berms and levee repairs. The shaping and grading of all construction features is the final step required to ensure the structures are designed as planned. Although all structures were designed to have the minimum necessary footprint while alleviating seepage concerns and providing landward protection from future high waters, long-term impacts to wetlands could not be avoided.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 16 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
In addition to the mitigation wetlands mechanically created at borrow sites, it is likely that floodplain inundation will scour and maintain additional wetlands naturally. The Corps coordinated with state and federal trust agencies and have ensured that the borrow areas would have shallow side slopes and irregular bottom depths and edges. These features are important for the proper establishment of emergent, scrub-shrub, and/or forested wetlands. These reshaped borrow pits can immediately become functioning wetland habitats. Based on field observations, within one week of creation they can become colonized/ visited by: algae, whirligig beetles (Gyrinus sp.), water striders (Geeris remigis), odonates (e.g., variegated meadow hawk dragonflies, coenagrionid damselflies), and plains leopard frog (Rana blairi), among others; they are eventually (one week and later) populated by all of the above in addition to: hydrophytic vascular vegetation, bloodworms (chironomidae), mayfly larvae (ephemeroptera), freshwater clams, tadpoles, bull frogs (Rana catesbeiana), ground beetles (carabidae), many species of wasps, many butterfly species, Canada Geese (Branta canadensis), and herons, among others; hydrophitic vegetation may naturally establish as early as one year following construction. The gently sloped banks facilitate use by shorebirds, frogs, and toads for foraging and provide mudflat-type habitat for a multitude of macroinvertebrates to flourish.
Although 152 acres of floodplain was reconnected with the three smaller levee realignments around the breaches, these breach realignment setbacks would not necessarily provide the long-term environmental benefits that the two large-scale setbacks will. The HWY-2 setback reconnects approximately 757 acres of the previously landward floodplain to the river and once fully constructed will reduce the flood stage of the 100-year flood event by 1.5 feet in the project area. The Frazers Bend levee setback reconnects approximately 1,100 acres of the previously landward floodplain to the river and will reduce the flood stage of the 100-year flood event 0.16 feet at the downstream end and up to 1.5 feet at the upstream end and will reduce velocities of a 100 year flood event by 2.6 feet/ second. The Frazers Bend setback will also reduce scouring in the adjacent channel during high water events. Both of these setbacks combined add up to an approximate total of 1,857 acres of reconnected floodplain. The setback activities establish the opportunity for more large-scale, natural ecosystem functions to occur (such as creation of scour hole habitat which is similar to wetlands created form borrow pits). While some literature (Dixon et al., 2010) states that the Missouri River floods the riverward side of this area almost annually, it’s probably closer to 3 to 5 times every 10 years (IDNR, personal communication, 10-19-2012). This frequent river-floodplain interaction provides for a multitude of ecologically beneficial effects. The beneficial functions of these setbacks include, but are not limited to:
• Hydrologic effects: Periodic inundation can fill temporary ponds or other depressional areas on the floodplain; hyporheic (i.e., groundwater) exchange and groundwater recharge is improved as flood water can travel across the floodplain latitudinally and seep into the subsurface soils; floodwaters can be stored within and slowly released from reconnected floodplain soils as opposed to being quickly flushed downstream. • Geomorphic effects: Deposition of sediment onto the floodplain can create topographic diversity for which a mosaic of vegetative types can exist; excavation of floodplain soil by heavy flows can create scour holes on the floodplain that fill with water due to groundwater connectivity. • Trophic effects: Nutrients (either dissolved in the water or attached to suspended particles) can be delivered directly to the floodplain soil, vegetation, and other soil biota during inundation; nutrients in the floodplain soil can be picked up by scouring flows and transported downstream; particulate forms of detritus (e.g., fine particulate organic matter and coarse particulate organic matter), large woody debris, and moribund flora and fauna can be deposited onto the floodplain and would decompose into nutrients; aquatic fauna can be transported into and out of river or inland aquatic habitats during inundation.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 17 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
• Biological effects: Inundation allows fish access to foraging and refuge areas within the floodplain as the water carries food from the river onto the floodplain; fish and other aquatic life entering the flooded floodplain can provide foraging opportunities for birds and other fauna; inundated floodplains also provide spawning and nursery habitat for some fish. • Habitat effects: Scouring flows can create off-channel aquatic habitat on the floodplain, like those created from borrow pits; inundation can help sustain and create wetland types (by creating a diversity of soil and vegetation conditions); water table presence and movement allows for wetland soil establishment.
Prior to the setback, the landward floodplain would only be inundated during flash flooding or if the levee was breached or overtopped. With the improved hydrologic connectivity (groundwater connectivity as well as above ground inundation and rainwater ponding), new wetlands may become established and existing wetlands would benefit from more consistent hyporheic connectivity.
An additional wetland habitat feature would be implemented as part of the setback at HWY-2 involving the necessary redirection of a drainage ditch. West Benton Ditch would be redirected through an excavated borrow pit, exit this borrow site and flow underneath the new levee alignment through a culvert into another borrow pit, and then flow into the Missouri River. The ditch realignment would help evacuate flash flood waters on the agricultural lands landward of the setback levee and would also provide additional aquatic habitat and connectivity between wetland pits. A pump would be installed in the culvert that runs through the setback levee to help alleviate flash flooding on the landward side. The local Drainage District would be responsible for installing and operating the pump. The pump would only be operated during the threat of landward flooding. It would likely be too costly and difficult for the pump operator to run the pump long enough to negatively affect the wetlands in this area after they establish. Due to their large size (30+ acres) and the fact that they are groundwater fed and that surrounding groundwater can easily percolate back into the wetland pits, negative effects to wetlands due to pump operation are not anticipated. If issues with pump operation arise that negatively affect the Corps’ wetland impact mitigation efforts, the levee sponsors and Drainage District would be contacted by Corps personal to review the sponsor’s pump operation plan and resolve the issue. Another ditch (Horse Creek Ditch) is to be realigned through the southern portion of the HWY-2 setback levee, but would not flow through borrow pit wetlands.
Construction activities associated with the L-575 levee rehabilitation wetland impacts are anticipated to be consistent with an individual permit issued from the State of Iowa. Coordination with the IDNR regarding an individual permit was initiated at the release of the DRAFT EA. The IDNR is expected to respond during the public comment period of this EA.
As described above, impacts to wetlands or waterways were concurrently mitigated and permanent long term adverse impacts are not anticipated by implementing the recommended alternative. Long term beneficial environmental impacts are anticipated in the form of mechanically constructed wetlands and re- establishment of floodplain connectivity.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative it is assumed that levees would be minimally repaired by the local levee drainage district. This would likely result in the minor, short-term construction related impacts to wetlands and/ or water bodies due to the mobilization of equipment, borrow material excavation and other construction activities; however, it cannot be definitely assumed that wetlands would be properly identified, delineated, and mitigated for. Therefore, the No Action alternative may result in more unmitigated impacts to wetlands than compared to the preferred alternative. On wetlands that were only
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 18 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
minimally disturbed, construction related impacts would likely last only until vegetation is re-established. Use of BMPs required by the NPDES permit would minimize the potential for contaminants to enter waterways via non-point source runoff.
3.3 Raptors and other Migratory Birds Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences 3.3.1 Raptors and other Migratory Birds Existing Conditions Raptor species likely to occur within and near the project area include red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), Swainson's hawks (Buteo swainsoni), peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), and several owl species including great- horned owls (Bubo virginianus). Raptor species likely use the site for roosting, nesting, feeding, and perching habitat. There is suitable habitat in the vicinity of the project area located on both the riverward and landward side of the existing levee.
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), multiple assessments have been conducted and would continue in order to determine if there would be any potential effects to nesting bald eagles and other raptors during construction (February to July for raptors and April to July for song birds). One assessment was conducted to determine if there would be any potential effects to nesting bald eagles and other raptors around the time construction was initiated during February 2012. Several bird surveys were conducted during construction of the HWY-2 levee setback and reports of those surveys can be found in Appendix A.
3.3.2 Raptors and other Migratory Birds Environmental Consequences Structural/Non-Structural Repair Combination Alternative Environmental Consequences Two clusters of trees slated for removal were assessed and cleared by a Corps biologist in February 2012 to ensure that no active raptor nests would be disturbed. Approximately 18 acres of trees and shrubs were cleared during construction of the HWY-2 setback alignment. Included in these 18 acres was the old HWY-2 bridge approach to be used as random fill material for the HWY-2 setback. This embankment had approximately 2 acres of trees, but the western side of the embankment itself also provided nesting habitat for bank dwelling birds. During a bird survey on March 28, 2012, the embankment contained a nesting pair of belted kingfishers (Megaceryle alcyon). Upon subsequent inspection by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) staff member, the nest was declared abandoned and the embankment was removed. Fifteen acres of dead trees, no more than 3 to 4 inches in diameter, were also removed between the new and old Highway-2 for the HWY-2 setback tie-in to Highway-2; these trees were all killed by the long duration of floodwater inundation in the area. A bird survey conducted on July 18, 2012 confirmed no active nests. The remaining 1 acre of trees removed consists of multiple smaller areas where between 1 and 12 trees were removed.
All trees cleared were assessed by a Corps biologist to ensure that no active raptor or songbird nests would be disturbed. Trees that were removed consisted of small trees and shrubs approximately 2 to 3 inches in diameter and larger trees (in excess of 9 inches diameter mean breast height). Raptors prefer larger mature trees (9 inches in diameter or greater) for nesting habitat. The migratory bird and raptor surveys performed indicated that construction areas were currently free of active nests. The areas were authorized for clearing and grubbing activities. MBTA survey reports are included in Appendix A. As uncompleted work continues during the February to August timeframe, surveys for nesting raptors and songbirds would be conducted as needed, and results shared with the pertinent resource agencies in order to assess potential impacts before construction can continue. No negative impacts to birds protected under the MBTA and the BGEPA would occur as a result of implementing the recommended alternative.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 19 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative it is assumed that tree removal would not be as extensive as under the preferred alternative. However, if landowners required the removal of trees and the necessary migratory bird surveys were not conducted, take of raptors or other migratory birds could occur. It is therefore assumed that impacts to tree habitat from clearing and grubbing activities occurring under the No Action Alternative would be less than the impacts incurred under the preferred alternative, but impact to raptors or songbirds and their active nests would be the same or worse under the No Action Alternative.
3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Consistent with recommendations contained in the PEA, no site-specific evaluations for endangered or threatened species are currently needed at the project area because the species are currently not using these areas or other areas adjacent to the construction sites; however, the USFWS was consulted with regarding the in-line repairs and both setback activities and did not anticipate effects on listed species as documented in the PEA. See Appendix C for documented correspondence with the USFWS. A summary of threatened and endangered species that could occur in the project area and a determination of effect are included in Table 5. A biological Assessment was prepared for both the L-575 and L-550 construction activities and is included as Appendix C.
Table 5 - Threatened and Endangered Species in the Project Area Common Name Effect States Present Determination Pallid Sturgeon MAY AFFECT, MO, IA, NE, SD, ND, MT. Project-related (Scaphirynchus albus) NOT LIKELY TO activities are not expected to affect water quality or Endangered ADVERSELY quantity in rivers where pallid sturgeon occur. AFFECT Temporary, construction-related increases in turbidity (channel work only) could be beneficial. Western Prairie-Fringed NO EFFECT IA, NE, KS, and ND. Occurs in tall grass prairie Orchid (Platanthera areas. Does not occur on levees. No tall grass praeclara) areas exist within the project area. Additionally, Threatened water had remained on site for approximately four months due to the levee breaches. Thus, if orchids had occurred on site, it is likely that the species would have been inundated and killed. As a result, no impacts to the orchid are anticipated. Indiana Bat (Myotis NO EFFECT IA and MO. For hibernation, they require cool, sodalist) humid caves with stable temperatures, under 50° F Endangered but above freezing. Very few caves within the range of the species have these conditions. After hibernation, Indiana bats migrate to their summer (April to October) habitat in wooded areas where they usually roost under loose tree bark on dead or dying trees. Construction of the setbacks did not disturb suitable roosting habitat and as such no impacts to the bat are anticipated. Prairie Bush Clover NO EFFECT IA, MN, WI, IL. The project area is adjacent to (Lespedeza leptostachya) agricultural fields that are regularly farmed so it is Threatened likely no prairie bush clovers occur in the project area. Additionally, water had remained on site for
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 20 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
approximately four months due to the levee breaches. Thus, if clovers had occurred on site, it is likely that the species would have been inundated and killed. As a result, no impacts to the clover are anticipated.
Structural/Non-Structural Repair Combination Alternative Environmental Consequences Construction would only occur on the floodplain and not in the Missouri River and is not anticipated to impact the critical habitat of these species; it is likely that these species do not occur onsite. No adverse impacts to listed species would occur as a result of the preferred alternative. As uncompleted work continues surveys for listed species would be conducted as needed and results shared with the resource agencies in order to assess potential impacts.
No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative it is assumed that similar repairs would be undertaken to those described in the structural repair alternative. It is assumed that no effects to the above listed species would occur under the No Action Alternative assuming only in-line structural repairs are made to the levee.
3.5 Cultural Resources Structural/Non-Structural Repair Combination Alternative Environmental Consequences L-575 cultural resources inventory: A cultural resources file search on March 5, 2012 revealed no recorded historic properties within the L- 575 levee setback alignments. One river boat wreck, the Henry S. Turner, is recorded within a one-mile radius of the HWY-2 levee setback on the east bank of the Missouri River at approximately river mile 569.1. No other shipwrecks are reported for the HWY-2 setback. Three river boat wrecks are recorded within the one-mile radius of levee setback at damage area 18, on the east bank of the Missouri River: the Ontario, the Bishop and the Kansas are recorded between RM 544.2 and at approximately RM 544.9. As the construction and borrow areas would avoid these locations and their vicinity, the project would have No Potential to Affect Historic Properties.
Table 6. Recorded Locations of Known Riverboat Wrecks Near L-575 Levee River Mile Heading From RM Ship Name Year Type
569.1 E Henry S. Turner 1869 Sidewheel 567.2 E Nick Wall 1887 Unknown
564.6 NE Glencoe 1887 Sidewheel
564.0 E Gem 1869 Sternwheel
563.5 E Mud Hen 1872 Centerwheel ferry
563.5 E Edgar 1884 Centerwheel ferry
563.1 E Keystone 1856 Unknown
563.0 E Lizzy Campbell 1883 Sternwheel ferry
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 21 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
556.3 E Dakotah 1852 Sidewheel
545.1 E Kansas 1853 Sidewheel
544.8 E Bishop 1865 Sternwheel
544.7 E Ontario 1866 Sternwheel
Frazers Bend Cultural Resources Inventory: An additional cultural resources file search was conducted on October 10, 2012 for the Frazers Bend setback alignment and revealed no recorded historic properties between the Missouri River and the setback alignment. One steamboat wreck, the Dakotah, is recorded in the Corps database as lying immediately adjacent to the borrow sites, as depicted on the east bank of the Missouri River at approximately RM 556.3. However a more in-depth study of multiple historic records indicates that the most likely resting place of the Dakotah wreck is further downstream at the old Peru Cutoff near RM 545. This is in line with the purported locations of the Kansas, Bishop, and Ontario wrecks. Construction and borrow areas would avoid the area earlier alleged to be the resting place of the steamboat. Any removal of earth would be limited to depths too shallow to impact submerged resources. The project would have No Potential to Affect Historic Properties.
Table 7. Recorded Locations of Known Riverboat Wrecks Near Frazers Bend Setback
River Mile Heading From RM Ship Name Year Type
556.3 Recorded E Dakotah 1852 Sidewheel 545.0 Likely
545.1 E Kansas 1853 Sidewheel
544.8 E Bishop 1865 Sternwheel
544.7 E Ontario 1866 Sternwheel
In the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, work would be halted immediately and a district archeologist would be notified. The work would not be continued until the area is inspected and cleared by a Corps staff archeologist. If that individual determines that the discovery requires further consultation, the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office would be notified.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, borrow would likely have been or would be obtained from different, private sources. As cultural resource inventories have shown, the impacts to historic properties occurring under the No Action Alternative would likely be the same as or greater than impacts incurred under the preferred repair alternative.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 22 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
4.0 Cumulative Impacts This Cumulative Impacts section describes the collective effects of the L-575 PL 84-99 efforts (the HWY-2 setback, the Frazers Bend setback, and all other construction occurring prior to the setbacks) on the affected resources in the area combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Flood risk management measures have been restored allowing the areas to return to prior socio- economic uses.
To mitigate the habitat losses that occurred along the lower river from the BSNP during the 1800’s to the 1980’s, Congress authorized the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Program (Mitigation Program) in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986), as modified by WRDA 1999 and 2007. These WRDA bills authorized the Corps to purchase real estate and construct habitat loss mitigation projects on 166,750 acres along the Missouri River floodplain. The procurement of contiguous tracts of real estate for purposes of BSNP mitigation within the L-575 levee system has afforded the Corps an opportunity to setback multiple miles of levee as part of this levee rehabilitation effort. Setbacks at this levee system have reconnected a total of over 2,000 acres of floodplain to the River and treated approximately 320 acres to create wetlands.
The HWY-2 setback is also within the vicinity of the Copeland Bend Wildlife Management Area. The HWY-2 setback would provide more room for construction and maturation of a shallow water habitat project if one is constructed at this site in the future. The HWY-2 setback would help remove the tightest flood water conveyance constriction point along the Missouri River, which was the old Highway 2 bridge approach, likely leading to reduced levee stress during future floods in the area. The Frazers Bend setback would assist with flood risk reduction at the site of the OPPD coal-fired power plant. By allowing future flood waters to be conveyed further into the setback area on the Iowa side of the floodplain, the OPPD coal-fired power plant (on the Nebraska side of the River) would experience lower flood stages and its structures would experience less stress, likely improving the safety of operating the OPPD coal-fired power plant under flood conditions.
This section of the River, as well as the entire stretch below Gavins Point Dam, would likely continue to be an area where the Corps focuses on purchasing land for wildlife habitat purposes. Other large levee setbacks could occur, either under PL 84-99 authority or under the Missouri River Recovery Program’s habitat creation authorities. If permanent NRCS wetland/ floodplain easements increase along the River in Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri then more floodplain land could continue to be allowed to naturally establish wetlands over time. As the Corps works towards fulfilling the congressionally mandated procurement of 166,750 acres along the Missouri River floodplain, land sold to the Corps by willing sellers will lead to more and more contiguous tracts of public land which will be managed for fish and wildlife and some could be used to conduct other large-scale levee setback projects.
For more detail regarding potential cumulative impacts as a result of implementing PL 84-99 construction activities, please reference Section 4 of the PEA.
5.0 Coordination and Comments Coordination was conducted with state and federal resource agencies through the PEA to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, policies, and regulations.
The NRCS, USFWS, the IDNR and the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) were coordinated with during construction of in-line repairs as well as the HWY-2 and Frazers Bend setbacks. Multiple site
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 23 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
visits were conducted during construction to ensure any issues were addressed as quickly as possible. The seed mixes developed for wetland and buffer planting were coordinated with the Iowa NRCS, the IDNR, and the MDC and where applicable local landowners.
Coordination with the Corps Omaha District Archeologist was conducted to ensure no impacts to cultural resources from borrow operations. A copy of this EA and corresponding FONSI will be sent to applicable state and Federal agencies to show that compliance with all applicable laws, policies, and regulations have been followed.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 24 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 6.0 Compliance with Other Environmental Laws NWO Programmatic EA Compliance SOP for Selection of Borrow Sites Full Compliance Regulatory Authorization Obtained Full Compliance Section 401 State Water Quality Certification PENDING Section 402 Storrnwater NPDES Permit Full Compliance
Federal Laws and Polices Compliance Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 4 70, est seq. Full Compliance Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Sect. 668. 668 note, 668a-66d) Full Compliance Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S. C. 7401-7671g, et seq. Full Compliance Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. Full Compliance Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. Full Compliance Federal Water Project Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-12, et seq. Full Compliance Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq. Full Compliance Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4, et seq. Not Applicable Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. C. 703-712: Ch. 128 as amended) Full Compliance National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. Full Compliance National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470a, et seq. Full Compliance Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S. C. 403, et seq. Full Compliance Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. Full Compliance Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4201 , et. seq. Full Compliance Protection & Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (Executive Order 11593) Full Compliance Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) Full Compliance Protection ofWetlands (Executive Order 11990) Full Compliance Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Full Compliance Invasive Species (Executive Order 13122) Full Compliance Responsibility of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (Executive Order 13186) Full Compliance
The project has been evaluated and determined to be in compliance with the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Public Law 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and Advanced Measures Civil Emergency Management Program dated October 2011.
Signature Date Environmental Resources Specialist
Signature Date Reviewer L·t~;?e_ Signature Chief, Environmental Resources Section
NOTES: a. Full compliance- Having met all requirements of the statute for the current stage of planning (either preauthorization or post authorization). b. Not applicable- No requirements for the statute requirement.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 25 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
7.0 Preparers This EA and FONSI were prepared by Mr. Dave Crane, Environmental Resources Specialists, with cultural resource assistance provided by Ms. Sandra Barnum, District Archeologist. The address of the preparers is: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, District, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.
8.0 References Dixon, M., Johnson, W.C., Scott, M., Bowen, D. 2010. Status and Trend of Cottonwood Forest along the Missouri River. Final Report- Cottonwood Project. US Army Corps of Engineers Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2008. DRAFT 2010 Impaired Waters List. Last Accessed June 18, 2012. http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/ImpairedWaters/303d.html#2010 Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. 2010. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Last accessed 6-18-2012. http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/ImpairedWaters/303d.html#2010 U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Bio-monitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program: Environmental Contaminants and their Effects on Fish in the Mississippi River Basin. Biological Science Report United States Geologic Survey/Biological Resources Division/BSR—2002-0004.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment 26 L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
APPENDIX A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Survey Results
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Migratory Bird Survey Report Prepared by Dave Crane U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Specialist Project Information: Project Title: Levee System L-575 Rehabilitation- HWY-2 Levee Setback Project Description: Clearing and grubbing of dirt embankment that was the former bridge approach for the old Highway 2 alignment (to be degraded for setback random fill material), also walked along setback footprint to determine if any trees in the path contained nesting birds. This area consists of approximately 2 acres of trees to be cleared.
Survey Conditions: Date Conducted: 3-28-2012 Time Started: 10:00 Time Ended: 15:30 Weather Conditions: The temperature was approximately 62° F, calm, and sunny. Notes: Conditions were favorable for conducting a nesting survey.
Survey Methods: The project area slated for clearing and grubbing was surveyed on foot. Birds were identified by sight and by sound. Equipment used to view birds from afar included one pair of Leupold 10X50 binoculars, one pair of Pentax 8X42 binoculars, and a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro/Telephoto USM Lens on a Canon T2i body. Surveyors: Staff present to conduct the bird survey included Luke Wallace (USACE, environmental resources specialist) and Dave Crane (USACE, environmental resources specialist).
Survey Results: The entire area of tree clearing was surveyed, though the vast majority of trees were at the embankment site. Trees had just barely begun to “leaf-out” so it was relatively easy to observe the trees from top to bottom. At the time of the survey, the non-embankment areas were free of active nests and clearing and grubbing is scheduled to commence as soon as possible. Trees surrounding the embankment were also clear of active nests, however the embankment itself contained an active belted kingfisher nest. Worth mentioning was the fact that a pair of kingfishers were present, which is indicative of nesting behavior as they are solitary outside of nesting season. Birds observed in areas to be cleared and grubbed: Redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) Eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens) Starling (family: Sturnidae) American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) auritus) Black capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) Wood duck (Aix sponsa) American robin (Turdus migratorius) Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) Cardinal (family: Cardinalidae) Downey woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus)
Confirmed Nesting Species in areas to be cleared and grubbed: -Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) Confirmed Nesting Species in areas NOT to be cleared and grubbed:
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
- Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor)
Findings and Recommendations: A kingfisher nest was found on the sheer, northwest facing side of the embankment approximately 15 feet from the ground. The nest was determined to be active due to the following factors: a pair of kingfishers were watching over the nest (they are solitary unless nesting), the birds flew in and out of the nest multiple times during the survey, and there were piles of fresh dirt just outside of the opening as well as on the ground below of the nest opening (presumably indicating that digging the nest had been accomplished). The kingfishers were observed flying in and out of the nest, and would fly away from the nest when approached by the surveyors.
The Project Manager was notified of the presence of a kingfisher nest in the embankment on 3-29-2012 and to avoid the area entirely until the USFWS was contacted and consulted with. Justin Mays of the USFWS staff visited the embankment on April 3, 2012 and notified the USACE that the nest appeared to be abandoned and so to commence with clearing, grubbing, and demolishing the embankment immediately. The next day the Corps cleared, grubbed, and demolished the embankment and associated trees.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Migratory Bird Survey Report Prepared by Dave Crane U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Specialist Project Information: Project Title: Levee System L-575 Rehabilitation- HWY-2 Levee Setback Project Description: Clearing and grubbing of trees south of the Iowa Highway 2 interstate along levee setback alignment. This area consists of approximately 1,000 feet with about a dozen trees to be removed.
Survey Conditions: Date Conducted: 4-20-2012 Time Started: 8:00 Time Ended: 9:00 Weather Conditions: The temperature was approximately 43° F, calm, and sunny. Notes: Conditions were favorable for conducting a nesting survey.
Survey Methods: The project area slated for clearing and grubbing was surveyed on foot. Birds were identified by sight and by sound. Equipment used to view birds from afar included one pair of Leupold 10X50 binoculars and a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro/Telephoto USM Lens on a Canon T2i body. Surveyors: Staff present to conduct the bird survey included Ruth Bentzinger (USACE, environmental resources specialist) and Dave Crane (USACE, environmental resources specialist).
Survey Results: The entire area of proposed tree clearing was surveyed. Trees in the area had been “leafing-out” for approximately 3-4 weeks now so it was slightly difficult to observe the trees from top to bottom; however the low amount of trees to survey in the area allowed for additional time to be spent per tree as needed. At the time of the survey, all of the trees surveyed were free of active nests and clearing and grubbing commenced immediately following the survey. Birds observed in areas to be cleared and grubbed: Blue-wing teal (Anas discors) Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) Tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) American white pelican (Pelecanus Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax erythrorhynchos) auritus)
Confirmed Nesting Species in areas to be cleared and grubbed: -None Confirmed Nesting Species in areas NOT to be cleared and grubbed: - none
Findings and Recommendations: No active nests were found being used or constructed. Minutes after the survey an excavator began knocking down the surveyed trees.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Migratory Bird Survey Report Prepared by Dave Crane U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Specialist Project Information: Project Title: Levee System L-575 Rehabilitation- HWY-2 Levee Setback Project Description: Clearing and grubbing of trees just east of the levee near river mile 568.
Survey Conditions: Date Conducted: 7-10-12 Time Started: 9:00 Time Ended: 9:30 Weather Conditions: The temperature was approximately 77° F, calm, and sunny. Notes: Conditions were favorable for conducting a nesting survey.
Survey Methods: The project area slated for clearing and grubbing was surveyed on foot. Birds were identified by sight and by sound. Equipment used to view birds from afar included one pair of Leupold 10X50 binoculars and a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro/Telephoto USM Lens on a Canon T2i body. Surveyors: Staff present to conduct the bird survey included Dave Crane (USACE, environmental resources specialist).
Survey Results: The entire area of proposed tree clearing was surveyed. Trees had “leafed out” by this time, but they were not dense and were easy to see up into. There were only 6 trees to be removed. Very few birds were seen around this area during the time of the survey. At the time of the survey, all of the trees surveyed were free of active nests on braches or tree hollows.
Confirmed Nesting Species in areas to be cleared and grubbed: -None Confirmed Nesting Species in areas NOT to be cleared and grubbed: - none
Findings and Recommendations: No active nests were found being used or constructed. Within one week after the bird survey was conducted the trees were cleared and the area was prepared for the construction activities.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Migratory Bird Survey Report Prepared by Dave Crane U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Specialist Project Information: Project Title: Levee System L-575 Rehabilitation- HWY-2 Levee Setback Project Description: Clearing and grubbing of trees between the Iowa Highway 2 interstate and 250th street along levee setback alignment. This area consists of approximately 15 acres of dead trees, killed by the long duration of flood water inundation during the 2011 flood.
Survey Conditions: Date Conducted: 7-18-12 Time Started: 8:00 Time Ended: 9:00 Weather Conditions: The temperature was approximately 77° F, calm, and sunny. Notes: Conditions were favorable for conducting a nesting survey.
Survey Methods: The project area slated for clearing and grubbing was surveyed on foot. Birds were identified by sight and by sound. Equipment used to view birds from afar included one pair of Leupold 10X50 binoculars and a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro/Telephoto USM Lens on a Canon T2i body. Surveyors: Staff present to conduct the bird survey included Dave Crane (USACE, environmental resources specialist).
Survey Results: The entire area of proposed tree clearing was surveyed. No trees in the area had “leafed out” during spring or summer and were clearly dead, this made for very easy observation of any potential nests of nesting activity. Birds were generally very scarce in this area and were only seen flying above or perching nearby this patch of dead trees. Very few birds were seen around this area during the time of the survey and it could be assumed that birds were avoiding the patch of dead trees. At the time of the survey, all of the trees surveyed were free of active nests on braches or tree hollows.
Confirmed Nesting Species in areas to be cleared and grubbed: -None Confirmed Nesting Species in areas NOT to be cleared and grubbed: - none
Findings and Recommendations: No active nests were found being used or constructed. One week after the bird survey was conducted the trees were cleared and the area was prepared for the construction of the HWY-2 setback.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
APPENDIX B
Applicable Permits
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
The finalized EA will contain content here pertaining to applicable permits.
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
APPENDIX C
Biological Assessment and USFWS Concurrence
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
USFWS HWY-2 setback correspondence:
Crane, David J NWO
From: Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 2:39 PM To: Crane. David J NWO Cc: Subject: RE: (UNCLASSIFIED)
That sounds good Davi d. The Servi ce st rongl y support s t he proj ect . I l ook forward to revi ewi ng t he revi sed document s.
Thanks again -
Jane ••*•*•*•*••••*•*•*•*••*•*•*•*••••*•*•*•*••••*•*• Jane Led'wi n Fish and Wil dl ife Bi ologi st u . s . Fi sh and lii l dlife Ser-vi ce 101 Park DeVil l e Dri ve Col umbi a, 1-ii ssouri 65203 Phone emai l
Inact i ve hide det ails f or "Crane, Davi d J Nl\0'' >"' Crane 1 Davi d J Nl,4Q ''
11 (rane, Davi d J Nl.. 'O '' < >
05/ 07/2012 02: 35 P~l
To
cc
Subj ect
RE: (UNCLASSIFIED)
Cl a ssif i cat i or~ : UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
Jane ,
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
To
•
cc
Subj ect
RE: (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classifi cati on: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
Good afternoon, Jane. I have been assi gned to fol low up wi t h s uppl ement al NEPA document at ion on a major set back, one not origi nal ly concei ved duri ng i ni t i al pl anning of t he L-575 Pl 84- 99 rehab eff orts, t o occur near the I owa Highway 2 br i dge . Att ached i s a map depicti ng t he cent er l i ne of t he setback l evee (i n addi t i on to a pl anned S~M cr eat ion proj ect i n t he area ), whi ch basi call y f ollows t he border of t he j'>1RRP mi t igat ion l and i n t he area (al l of whi ch al so i ncludes NRCS easements whi ch exists befor e t he USACE purchased t he property for BSNP mit i gat i on purposes).
I want ed t o coordi nat e with you to see if you had any questi ons about t he set back or if you/ your agency want ed t o submi t any addi t ional comment s on t he setback ali gnment . Curr ent l y it
i s pl anned t o t ake borrow from exi st i ng borrow areas 1 though new borrow pi t s may be sel ect ed as mat eri al is needed . Please l et me know if you requi re any mor e i nformat i on. I am i n t he middl e of prepar i ng a suppl ement t o t he or i gi nal L- 575 EA, but want ed t o t ouch bases wi th you now since the set back ali gnment has essent i al ly been f i nal ized.
TnankS1 Dave
Dave Cr ane (CENI«>- 1'1'1-AC) Environmental Resour ces Speciali st U.S. Ar my Corps of Engi neer s 1616 Capi t ol Ave. Omaha, NE 68102 T: F:
-- -- -Or i gi nal 1-iessage- ---- Fr om : [ ] Sent : Wednesday, February 01, 2012 8 : 30 Not To : Vandenber g, Mat t hew 0 N~.IO
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
USFWS Frazers Bend setback correspondence: Crane, David J NWO
From: Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:08PM To: Crane, David J NWO Cc: Subject: RE: L-575 Levee Rehab Update (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: L-575 1185 setback map.pdf
Hi Dave -
Thanks very much for the email and update. What a great project. When constructing borrow areas, we recommend they be designed to maximize environmental benefits (i.e, shallow, wide edges, multiple depths, etc.) to herps, waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds. Also, please pass along a copy of the EA when available. This is an exciting project. Good luck!
Best regards -
Jane Ledwin ************************************************ Jane Ledwin Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 101 Park DeVille Drive Columbia, Mi ssouri 6S203 Phone email *********************************************** Inactive hide details for "Crane, David J NWO" Crane, David J NWO"
"Crane, David J NWO"
10/03/2012 08:31 AM
To
cc
Subject
RE: L- 575 Levee Rehab Update (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASS IFIED
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
Caveats: NONE
Good morning, Jane. I wanted to follow up with you on the continuing construction that's occurring along the l-575 levee system. We are going to conduct another large setback about 3 miles south of the Iowa Highway 2 setback we discussed earlier i n the year. The IA-2 setback is nearing completion, by the way. Attached is a map of the proposed new levee centerline for the "1185 setback." This setback area is currently all on private land, however the Corps is in nearing the end of the real estate acquisition process to purchase most of that land within the new setback area; the Corps all but owns it at this point (all but where the proposed borrow pits lie). Please see the attached map. Regarding the Draft supplemental NEPA documentation, I am still in the process of writing the supplemental Environmental Assessment and will not be f inalizing it until this "1185 setback" is complete since the EA will be the primary, if not only, environmental record of the setback activities being conducted along this levee system.
A few proposed borrow areas have been identified (see the attached map), but it's l ikely that additional pits as well as the existing levee will also be used to construct the 1185 setback. Do you have any additional comments for my agency regarding this setback action in light of Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, etc.? Do you require any more information about this setback? If not, I will use this correspondence and the comments/ concurrence of determination of no effect you sent to us on the original L-575 Pl 84-99 Environmental Assessment.
Thanks, Dave
Dave Crane (CENWO-PM-AC) Environmental Resources Specialist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1616 Capitol Ave. Omaha, NE 68102 T: F:
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013
APPENDIX D
Borrow Site Reclamation Guidance for Contractor Construction Crew
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 27 March 2012 (Names Updated 13 June 2012)
Levee Rehabilitation Borrow Site Reclamation – Guidance
This document is designed to give broad guidance on how to reclaim borrow areas used for levee rehabilitation on Federal Lands or were mitigation is required. It should be viewed as general reference. NOTE: Additional site specific criteria may be required by other land managers (e.g. Compatible Use Agreements from NRCS, Leases/Licenses with States, etc.).
Major Points: • Coordination: Prior to initiating borrow activities and throughout the process meet with assigned environmental staff (PDT meeting, DLL, etc.) who will work coordination with any other applicable land managers (see attached contact list). Provide an opportunity for site visit by environmental staff and land managers prior to demobilizing equipment from the site.
• Slopes: In general, borrow areas should not have slopes steeper than 6H on 1V and should have variability with areas of lower slope (similar to Upper L550 borrow area). Where site conditions and borrow equipment allow shallower slopes of 10H on 1V to 20H on 1V are preferred (similar to middle L550 cohesive/landside borrow).
• Shaping and Grading: Attempt to create irregular wetland shapes (avoid rectangular shapes) to increase shoreline area. Leave a rough finish grade to maximize depth variation. Smooth finish grading is not desired. See attached Figures 1 and 2 for general guidelines.
• Depths: Variable depths of excavation between 0-7 feet are desired with no excavation depths greater than 7 feet. See attached Figure 2 for an example.
• Substrate: If the borrow area contains clay (cohesive soils), leaving a clay layer is desired to retain hydrology. If this is not possible, the borrow area should be lined with clay once borrow removal is complete if feasible and suitable material is available. Borrow areas that contain only sand do not need to be lined.
• Seeding: Recommendations will be provided by environmental staff. In general a 50-100 foot seeded upland buffer surrounding reclaimed sites is desired although site conditions will dictate what is necessary or achievable. The preferred seed mix for upland buffer areas is native tallgrass/mixed grass prairie and for wetland basins includes a variety of wetland species to account for the seasonably variable water depths. See attached example seeding mixes and potential seed sources. Some land managers may request no seeding.
• Avoid Levees and River Structures: Avoid borrow and/or wetland excavations within 300 feet riverward of the levee centerline or 500 ft landward of the levee centerline. Do not excavate within 100 feet of any dike structures and maintain a minimum distance of 150 feet from the top of the river bank.
• Floodway: Borrow sites occurring within the floodway (contact CENWO-ED-HB if questions) are required to be graded back to not exceed their original topography (no berms or elevated haul roads left above ground).
1
27 March 2012 (Names Updated 13 June 2012)
Environmental Missouri River Levee Land Manager MRRP Site Contact (Central Env Recovery Program Project Contact POC*) POC Deroin Bend Aaron Quinn Mark Harberg MDC & NRCS
John Skelton L536 Nisnabotna Cons. Dave Crane Luke Wallace NRCS Area John Skelton L550 Copeland Dave Crane Luke Wallace IADNR-Carl Priebe Bend/Lower Luke Wallace L575 Hamburg MDC&NRCS NA Cindy Upah NA NA Ditch 6 Auldon Bar Cindy Upah Luke Wallace IADNR-Carl Priebe L594 Nottleman Island Aaron Quinn Lynn Heng IADNR-Carl Priebe L601 St Mary’s Bend Matt Vandenberg Mark Harberg IADNR-Carl Priebe L611-614 NA Matt Vandenberg NA NA L624-627 R520 NA Matt Vandenberg NA NA
Brownville Bend Matt Vandenberg Lynn Heng NGPC-Mike Remund R548 Kansas Bend Matt Vandenberg Lynn Heng NGPC-Mike Remund
NRCS - Don Doty, R562 Upper Hamburg Matt Vandenberg Luke Wallace NGPC-Neil Van Bend Winkle & NRCS Don R573 Doty, Private Land Van Horn Matt Vandenberg Lynn Heng MR Project Office- COE- Lynn Heng & Lake WCD NRCS Potential Cindy Upah Lynn Heng NA R613 NA Cindy Upah NA NA R616 NA Matt Vandenberg NA NA Omaha/R627 NA Matt Vandenberg NA NA OFWC NA Matt Vandenberg NA NA Sidney, NE NA Matt Vandenberg NA NA Howells, NE
2
27 March 2012 (Names Updated 13 June 2012)
Figures 1&2: The following are provided as general examples. These can be adapted to fit sight conditions, type of borrow needed, type of equipment available, etc. Please coordinate any questions with the Environmental Team Member.
3
27 March 2012 (Names Updated 13 June 2012)
Figure 1: Examples of Irregular Basin Shapes
Sinple Depression- generally oval shaped
Oxbow- kidney shr~ped with two lobes
Amoeba - multiple lobes with random Shape, high perimeter to surface ratio
Swa le - mimics an abandoned river meander
Example Aerial View and Cross-section
'
'
.______, ~ ~ - ~ ------.. ------~ - - - -
Variable Excavation Depths
4
27 March 2012 (Names Updated 13 June 2012)
Example Seed Mixes
WETLAND BASIN MIX Lbs. of PLS/acre Species Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) 2 Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus) 2
Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) 1 Prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) 1 Fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea) 0.5 Arrowhead (Sagittaria cuneata or Sagittaria latifolia) 4 Water plantain (Alisma triviale) 1.5
UPLAND BUFFER AREA MIX Lbs. of PLS/acre Species
Canada wildrye (Elymus canadensis) 4 Slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus) 4
Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) 4 Sand lovegrass (Eragrostis trichodes) 0.25 Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) 3 Prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) 0.6 Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) 1 Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) 2.5 Sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) 3 Little bluestem (Schizachryium scoparium) 2 Oats or wheat Oats 12 Wheat 19
Potential Seed Sources The below contacts are offered only for reference. The contractor is not limited to these seed providers.
5
27 March 2012 (Names Updated 13 June 2012)
Iowa Pheasants Forever (563) 926-2357 2880 Thunder Road, Hopkinton, Iowa 52237 Fax: (563) 926-2357 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.iowapf.org/page/1100/Native-Seed-Program.jsp
Ion Exchange (800) 291-2143 1878 Old Mission Drive, Harpers Ferry, Iowa 52146 Fax: (563) 535-7362 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.ionxchange.com
J & J Seed (660) 663-3165 29341 210th, Gallatin MO 64640 Fax: 660-663-2301 or 660-663-4350 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://jandjseed.com
Grace Native Seed (660) 726-5884 5790 Hwy J., Albany, MO 64402 Email: [email protected]
Stock Seed Farms (402) 867-3771 28008 Mill Rd., Murdock, Nebraska 68407-2350. Fax: 402/867-2442 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.stockseed.com
Prairie Plains Resource Institute (402) 694-5535 1307 L Street., Aurora, NE 68818. Fax: 402/694-5576 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.prairieplains.org
6
APPENDIX E
Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT PUBLIC LAW 84-99 EMERGENCY LEVEE REHABILITATION PROGRAM & ADVANCED MEASURES CIVIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
DECEMBER 2011
Project Summary
A major mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Omaha District (NWO) is the Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and the Advanced Measures Civil Emergency Management Program under the authorities of33 U.S.C. 70ln (commonly referred to as Public Law 84-99 or PL 84-99); the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq); Army Regulation 500-60, Disaster Relief; and Engineer Regulation 1130-2-530, Flood Control Operations and Maintenance Policies. These laws and authorities allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to provide a levee rehabilitation program for repairing levees after flood events and perform Advanced Measures prior to flooding or flood fighting to protect against loss of life and significant damages to urban and/or public facilities.
To be included in the PL 84-99 program, levees must be routinely inspected and meet construction and maintenance standards set by the USACE. There are two main categories of levees included in the program; non-Federal and Federal levees, based on who constructed them. Both of these types oflevees can include agricultural and urban designed levees depending on the level of flood risk management they provide. Most of the levees enrolled in the NWO's PL 84-99 program are Federal levees designed to protect urban areas. All levee rehabilitation under PL 84-99 is limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to a damaged area that existed prior to any flood damage. All Advanced Measure responses are temporary in nature; to be removed after the flood has passed and the area returned to pre-flood preparedness conditions (ER 500-1-1; 7-1 a. (2) h). Permanent Advanced Measures may be considered when the permanent project costs less or is significantly more cost effective than the temporary solution.
This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) covers future levee rehabilitation and Advanced Measures for the next five years (20 11 through 20 16) and is intended to establish a framework for evaluating potential impacts to resources that may occur from site-specific activities during levee repair projects, helping to streamline the environmental review and documentation process for levee repairs under the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program. Individual projects will be evaluated in separate Tiered Environmental Assessment's to determine if their scope and impacts are within the scope and impact analysis of the PEA. Additional analysis to be included with the Tiered Environmental Assessment (EA) may be required if site-specific activities could result in adverse impacts not previously evaluated or anticipated, or not consistent with the PEA. Subsequent documentation will need to define the potential degree of impact to the resource and the measures to be taken to reduce impacts to less than a significant level. Alternatives
PL 84-99 Levee Alternatives: A total of four alternatives for the PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation program were evaluated. The structural alternative includes the two most common structural methods for levee repair, levee setback and in-place repair, and is discussed as one alternative.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 -"No-Action" Alternative: The "No-Action" alternative would result in no levee repair assistance from NWO's PL 84-99levee rehabilitation program. Selection of the "No Action" alternative is expected to result in a 'predictable action by others" as discussed in CEQ (1981). This "predicable action" would consist of the public sponsor repairing the levee without assistance through the PL 84-99 program because of the value of the farmland and the local infrastructure that the levee protects.
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would repair both damaged non-Federal and Federal levees after high flow events under PL 84-99. Repairs would be limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to the area that existed prior to any high flow damage. In-place repairs typically include lost protective vegetative cover, levee slope and/or toe failures, erosion along the levee slope and/or toe, damaged drainage structures, minor scour holes, and minor levee breaches. Levee setbacks, or reconstructing the levee landward on a new alignment, are typically used in locations that have been subject to more severe damages, such as a major levee breach, severe erosion of the levee, and large scour holes. Heavy equipment would be used to obtain, move, shape, and compact earthen materials in order to set the levee back. Earthen materials for this purpose may be obtained from previously used borrow sites, commercial sites, or silted-in recovery and mitigation sites, and would be selected in accordance with the Standard of Practice (SOP) for the Selection of Borrow Sites. The levee would be reseeded following construction. All levee rehabilitation projects under this alternative would undergo environmental and cultural resources reviews, an engineering review, and an economic benefit to cost analysis to determine the most acceptable repair method.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3- Non-Structural Responses: Non-structural responses must be requested by the public sponsor. Under this alternative, flood risk management would be provided by modifying structures and property to reduce damages during flood events, including buyouts of buildings and property, relocating structures, elevating structures, and providing ring levees. Levee setbacks undertaken for purposes of restoring the floodplain or floodway also wol!ld fit into the nonstructural category.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4- Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would include both setback and in-place levee repair actions. Non-structural responses would include relocating structures, elevating structures, acquisition and buyout of properties, and levee setbacks for purposes of restoring the floodplain and flood way as budgets allow. The USACE would coordinate PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation efforts with other programs (e.g., Missouri River Recovery Program, Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan, etc.). This alternative was selected as the Recommended Plan because it would best meet the technical, economic, and environmental objectives and provides flexibility to utilize the most appropriate method on a case-by-case basis.
2 Advanced Measures Alternatives: Advance Measures assistance may be technical and/or direct assistance. Direct assistance may only be provided as part of an approved Advance Measures project. A total of two alternatives for the Advanced Measures program were evaluated.
Advanced Measures Alternative 1 -"No-Action" Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Flood fight measures would likely consist of making sandbag materials available to local residents who would in tum be responsible for filling, placement, and protection. Additionally, flood proofing of infrastructure likely would be preformed.
Advanced Measures Alternative 2- Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): The preferred alternative consists of a combination of low-lying earthen embankments, sandbag structures, and/or innovative flood fight structures (e.g., Hesco Bastions) to minimize potential flood damages. The Advanced Measures are generally placed in locations where 'voids' in the existing flood management structures occur and are removed once the high flow event has passed. This alternative was selected as the Recommended Plan because it would best meet the technical, economic, and environmental objectives and provides flexibility to utilize the most appropriate method on a case-by-case basis.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
The flood risk management level achieved by the Recommended Plans will return damaged levee to the original pre-flood condition and/or provide flood fight assistance. Under the Recommended Plans, individual projects will be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, and other applicable laws/regulations. Areas of structural levee repair, non-structura1levee repair, and advanced flood fighting will have some temporary, minor disturbance by proposed construction activities resulting from noise, visual disturbance, and land disturbance to wetlands, terrestrial habitat, and fish and wildlife resources. The adverse effects associated with the proposed projects are short term/minor and will be greatly offset by restoring the flood risk management capability of the levee and its associated social and economic benefits. In the case of Advanced Measure responses, materials will be removed following the flood event and the areas returned to their pre-flood conditions. In limited circumstances, the Advanced Measures will be kept in place. In these instances, a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) document and environmental assessment will be performed as maintaining Advanced Measures in place for the long term is out of the scope of this PEA.
Mitigation Measures
The Recommended Plans will avoid and/or minimize any impacts to the environment by following the guidelines in the Standard Operating Procedures for Selection of Borrow Sites, by following conditions of Regional General Permits or applicable Nationwide Permits, and by incorporating Best Management Practices, as required, for Clean Water Act Section 401 and 402 permits. The NWO will review each individual levee repair and advanced measure project
3 to determine if additional NEP A compliance is required. If a levee repair is proposed that is not consistent with the general method ofPL 84-99 repairs included in this PEA, a supplemental EA will be prepared and sent to interested parties for coordination. Similarly, if an advanced measure response is deemed non-temporary, a supplemental EA will be prepared and serit to interested parties for coordination. For projects that meet the conditions described in the PEA, a tiered Environmental Assessment will be prepared to document that an environmental and cultural review was completed, and an appropriate decision document will be signed.
Public Availability
Prior to a decision on whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the USACE placed the Draft EA dated November 4, 2011, on https://w3.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/pd-e/Post flood 2011 EA.htm and provided a fifteen-day comment period for resource agency input. The comment period ended on November 18, 2011.
Conclusion
After evaluating the anticipated environmental, economic, and social effects of the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and the Advanced Measures Responses, it is my determination that these programs do not constitute major Federal actions that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, preparation of an EIS is not required.
Date:
4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
FINAL NEPA Review Programmatic Environmental Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact
PUBLIC LAW 84-99 EMERGENCY LEVEE REHABILITATION PROGRAM & ADVANCE MEASURES CIVIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 1.2 Project Location ...... 5 2.0 Recommended Plan and Alternatives Proposed ...... 5 2.1 PL 84-99 Alternative 1 – “No-Action” Alternative ...... 6 2.2 PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: ...... 6 2.3 PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: ...... 7 2.4 PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): ...... 8 2.5 Advance Measures Alternative 1 – “No-Action” Alternative: ...... 9 2.6 Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): ...... 9 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Impacts) ...... 9 3.1 Noise ...... 12 3.2 Air Quality ...... 15 3.3 Water Quality ...... 17 3.4 Wetlands ...... 21 3.6 Fish and Wildlife...... 27 3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 30 3.8 Invasive Species ...... 36 3.9 Floodplain ...... 37 3.10 Land Use ...... 39 3.11 Economics ...... 40 3.12 Environmental Justice ...... 41 3.13 Cultural Resources ...... 42 4.0 Cumulative Impacts ...... 43 5.0 Conclusion ...... 45 6.0 Coordination and Comments ...... 46 6.1 State Agency Responses ...... 46 6.2 Federal Agency Responses ...... 47 6.3 Public Responses ...... 47 7.0 Agency Compliance with Other Environmental Laws ...... 48 8.0 References ...... 49 9.0 List of Preparers ...... 50 10.0 Appendices APPENDIX I – FIGURES & PHOTOS APPENDIX II – AGENCY COORDINATION APPENDIX III – REGULATORY PERMITS APPENDIX VI – SOP FOR BORROW ACQUISITION APPENDIX V – INDIVIDUAL PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET APPENDIX V – BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Table 1. Total Federal and Non-Federal Levees by State Table 2. Species Likely to Occur in Projects Areas and Associated Mitigation Measures U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Final Environmental Assessment
PUBLIC LAW 84-99 EMERGENCY LEVEE REHABILITATION PROGRAM & ADVANCE MEASURES CIVIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 2011
1.0 Introduction
A major mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District (NWO) is the Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and the Advance Measures Civil Emergency Management Program under the authorities of 33 U.S.C. 701n (commonly referred to as Public Law 84-99 or PL 84-99); the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq); Army Regulation 500-60, Disaster Relief; and Engineer Regulation 1130-2-530, Flood Control Operations and Maintenance Policies. These laws and authorities allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to provide a levee rehabilitation program for repairing levees after flood events and perform Advance Measures prior to flooding or flood fighting to protect against loss of life and significant damages to urban and/or public facilities.
To be included in the PL 84-99 program, levees must be routinely inspected and meet construction and maintenance standards set by the USACE. There are two main categories of levees included in the program; non-Federal and Federal levees, based on who funded the construction. Both of these types of levees can include agricultural and urban designed levees depending on the level of flood risk management they provide. Most of the levees enrolled in the NWO’s PL 84-99 program are Federal levees designed to protect urban areas. All levee rehabilitation under PL 84-99 is limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to a damaged area that existed prior to any flood damage. All Advance Measure responses are temporary in nature; to be removed after the flood has passed and the area returned to pre-flood preparedness conditions (ER 500-1-1; 7-1 a. (2) h). Permanent Advance Measures may be considered when the permanent project costs less or is significantly more cost effective than the temporary solution.
Levee Rehabilitation Assistance To be eligible for rehabilitation assistance under the PL 84-99 program, the following conditions must be met (USACE, 2001): • Must be a primary levee or a Federally constructed flood risk reduction levee.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 1 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
• Non-Federal levees must provide a minimum level of protection (5-yr for agricultural levees, 10-yr for urban levees). • The levee unit must have a public sponsor (levee or drainage district, city, county, or other taxing district). • Must be damaged by flooding and the damages must exceed $15,000. • Must be properly maintained in accordance with USACE standards. • Must have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio, meaning that the annual benefit must exceed the total annualized cost of rehabilitation, including maintenance. Federal Levee rehabilitation is performed at 100% Federal cost, and non-Federal levee rehabilitation is performed at 80% Federal cost, and 20% public sponsor cost.
Advance Measures Advance Measures assistance may be technical and/or direct assistance. Direct assistance may only be provided as part of an approved Advance Measures project. Advance Measures will be in support of state and local ongoing or planned efforts, and are designed to deal with a specific threat. All activities will be coordinated with the State Emergency Management Agency or equivalent. A written request from the Governor of the requesting state is required in order to receive Advance Measure assistance. Both technical and direct assistance are defined below: a. Technical Assistance. Technical assistance consists of providing technical review, advice, and/or recommendations to state and local agencies before an anticipated flood event. The following are examples of technical assistance support: (1) Providing personnel to inspect existing Flood Control Works (FCW) to identify potential problems and solutions, to evaluate conditions to determine the requirements for additional flood control protection, and to recommend the most expedient construction methods. (2) Providing hydraulic, hydrologic, and/or geotechnical analysis. (3) Providing information readily available at USACE districts to local entities for use in the preparation of local evacuation and/or contingency flood plans, and providing assistance in the preparation of flood fight plans. b. Direct Assistance. Direct assistance is assistance USACE provides to supplement state and local resources, as part of an approved Advance Measures project. Direct Assistance may include supplies, equipment, and/or contracting for the construction of temporary and/or permanent flood control projects. Examples of emergency contracting work include the construction of temporary levees; the repair, strengthening, or temporary raising of levees, or other FCW; shore protection projects; or removal of stream obstructions, to include channel dredging of Federal projects to restore the design flow. c. Contingency Planning Efforts for Potential Advance Measures Activities. Occasionally weather phenomena occur which produce a much higher than normal probability or threat of flooding which may be predicted several months in advance of occurrence or significant impact,
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 2 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District but which may not reach the defined level of "imminent threat" or "unusual flooding". Impacts on specific locations may be unpredictable, but regional impacts may have a high likelihood of occurrence. In such situations, the Corps may provide technical and contingency planning assistance to tribal and state agencies, commensurate with the predicted weather phenomenon, based on requests for assistance from such tribal and State agencies. Based on a state-level request, assistance may also be provided to local agencies. A Governor's request is not required for contingency planning efforts. Potential Advance Measures projects that may emanate from such contingency planning assistance must be addressed as otherwise specified in ER 500-1-1, Chapter 7.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) provides the necessary information to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of NWO’s PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation program and Advance Measure responses as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321 et seq.); the President’s Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 – 1508) (CEQ, 1992); the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ER 200-2-2 (33 CFR 230) (USACE, 2008); the Army Regulation 500-60, Disaster Relief; and Engineer Regulation 1130-2-530, Flood Control Operations and Maintenance Policies.
To date, NWO has completed its’ NEPA compliance for PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation and Advance Measures projects on a project by project basis, because each project provided independent utility. However, given the number of recent levee rehabilitation and Advance Measures flood preparedness projects as a result of the 2011 flooding, it was decided that a more comprehensive analysis would be more appropriate for NEPA compliance purposes. A programmatic approach was adopted as the most efficient manner to describe and evaluate levee rehabilitation and Advance Measures projects which share a strong similarity in terms of construction methods and likely environmental impacts. These projects can be characterized in a general (or programmatic) nature based on the observed and anticipated environmental impacts associated with past efforts in 2009 and 2010. This Programmatic EA covers future levee rehabilitation efforts that result from flood damage incurred from 2011 through 2016, as well as advanced flood preparedness over the same time frame. Individual projects would be evaluated to determine if their scope and impacts are within the scope and impact analysis of this programmatic document.
This Programmatic EA establishes a framework for evaluating potential impacts to resources that may occur from site-specific activities during levee repair projects. A Tiered EA will be prepared describing the environmental consequences for individual, site-specific projects. Documentation, at a minimum, will indicate that an environmental and cultural review was completed, that the conditions described in this Programmatic EA have been met, and that an evaluation was completed to determine if compensatory mitigation would be required (Appendix V). Proposed project activities must be in compliance with Federal and state laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, Executive Orders, and any other laws or regulations applicable to the proposed project.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 3 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Additional analysis to be included with the Tiered EA may be required if site-specific activities could result in adverse impacts not previously evaluated or anticipated, or not consistent with this Programmatic EA. Subsequent documentation will need to define the potential degree of impact to the resource and the measures to be taken to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Coordination with the appropriate Federal and/or state agencies may be necessary if additional alternatives or measures are needed to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate for adverse impacts to a specific resource. The proposed project must be in compliance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Areas that may require additional analysis include: 1. Alternatives that do not follow the guidelines presented in the Standard of Practice (SOP) for the Selection of Borrow Sites; 2. Alternatives that do not meet the work description or conditions of the appropriate General Permit or an applicable Nationwide Permit, and would need a project specific Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization; 3. Alternatives that may adversely affect any threatened or endangered species, including their critical habitat; or 4. Other circumstances as described in Section 4, Environmental Consequences.
In addition to this Programmatic EA for PL 84-99 levee repairs and Advance Measures, there is also a Programmatic EA for the Mainstem Missouri River Corps Projects, and a Programmatic EA for the PL 84-99 levee repairs in the Kansas City District. Individual Project Information Reports and Tiered EA’s are/will be completed for individual projects that fall under the two Omaha District Programmatic EAs and will be made available for public and resource agency review at: http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/pd-e/environmental.html. In addition, the potential effects of repairs to existing Missouri River Recovery Program projects, such as shallow water habitat or chute projects have already been assessed in the original Environmental Assessments developed for each of these projects. If repairs are pursued on such projects, the original coverage would likely apply. However, existing conditions and potential impacts would be assessed and any new information would be covered in a supplemental NEPA document, as required.
1.1 Purpose and Need for Action
Purpose: The purpose of the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and Advance Measures Civil Emergency Management Program is to provide emergency assistance to levee districts and communities (project Sponsors) in the form of levee repair and/or flood damage reduction as directed by Congress (33 U.S.C. 701n). This program is described in detail in ER 500-1-1 (USACE, 2001).
Need: In 2011, heavy spring rains combined with higher than normal snow melt within the Missouri River Basin resulted in flows and reservoir releases of historic proportions and flooding along the Missouri River and many of its tributaries throughout Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri (USACE, 2011). These record flows caused damage to multiple levees and created conditions where loss of property and human life was
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 4 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
imminent. In anticipation of the numerous requests expected for levee rehabilitation, this Programmatic EA is intended to establish a framework for evaluating potential impacts to resources that may occur from site-specific activities during levee repair projects, helping to streamline the environmental review and documentation process for levee repairs under the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program.
1.2 Project Location
The Omaha District covers a wide geographic area and includes the states of Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming (Appendix I, Figure1). There are many levees throughout NWO that are enrolled in its PL 84-99 program. Currently, there are 15 non-Federal levees and 166 Federal levees, within the Omaha District that are eligible in the program. Of those, 71 levees (39%) protect agricultural lands while 110 levees (61%) protect urban areas. A “non-Federal levee” is a levee that was not designed, built, nor managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; however, some of these levees are approved under Public Law 84-99. Other private levees within the Omaha District have been constructed by individual landowners, but are not recorded by the Corps or within the dictates of PL 84-99. The Programmatic EA would be used to address all levees in the Omaha District boundary that are eligible for rehabilitation under the PL 84-99 program. As shown in Table 1, Nebraska and Iowa have the greatest number of levees within the boundaries of the Omaha District, with substantially fewer levees located in other states.
Table 1. Total Federal and Non-Federal Levees by State within the Omaha District (2011)
State Total Number Levee Type Federal Non-Federal Ag Urban Iowa 59 40 19 58 1 Missouri 14 12 2 14 --
Montana 9 -- 9 9 --
North Dakota 5 -- 5 5 -- Nebraska 78 19 59 64 14 South Dakota 13 -- 13 13 -- Wyoming 3 -- 3 3 --
TOTAL 181 71 110 166 15
2.0 Recommended Plan and Alternatives Proposed
The alternatives evaluated in this EA are not inclusive of every potential alternative, but include the most common structural repairs based on past experience, as well as non-structural methods. A total of four alternatives for the PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation program were evaluated in terms of individual and cumulative effects and are addressed below. The structural alternative includes
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 5 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
the two most common structural methods for levee repair, minor levee setback and in-place repair. These structural methods are discussed as one alternative.
2.1 PL 84-99 Alternative 1 – “No-Action” Alternative: The “No-Action” alternative would result in no levee repair assistance from NWO’s PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation program. Selection of the “No Action” alternative is expected to result in a “predictable action by others” as discussed in CEQ (1981). This “predicable action” would consist of the public sponsor repairing the levee without assistance through the PL 84-99 program. The Corps believes that it is not unreasonable to assume that private entities would work toward rehabilitation of levees in most cases. It is almost always in the sponsor’s best economic interest to repair levees, with or without assistance through the PL 84-99 program, because of the value of the farmland and/or infrastructure that the levees protect. In addition, the need to protect life, as well as the resiliency historically displayed by the American people when faced with disaster provide further reasoning as to why repairs would occur in the absence of assistance from the PL 84-99 program. It is understood though that in some cases, levees may not be repaired due to lack of funds or other reasons resulting in increased flood risk.
2.2 PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: Levees provide flood risk management by containing, controlling, or diverting flood waters for flows up to a certain amount. This alternative would repair both damaged non-Federal and Federal levees after high flow events under PL 84-99. Repairs would be limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to the area that existed prior to any high flow damage.
Structural repairs typically consist of in-place repairs and/or minor levee setbacks. Examples of levee damage that would typically be repaired along the existing alignment include lost protective vegetative cover, side wash, slope and/or toe failures, erosion along the slope and/or toe, damaged drainage structures, minor scour holes, and minor breaches. Major damages can result when a levee is breached or overtopped. Levee setbacks, or reconstructing the levee landward on a new alignment, are typically used in locations that have been subject to excessive damage, such as large-scale erosion of the levee and large scour holes. It would not be considered technically feasible to repair a levee within the existing alignment if damage would be probable at that location during future flood events. In these situations, levee realignment would be the preferred repair method. Often, it is more economical to realign a levee when there is major damage located along the existing alignment. Damaged areas with substantial foundation scour, generally greater than 10 feet in depth, would often be repaired along a new alignment. This is because filling the scour would take more earthen material than it would to realign the levee in a new location. Heavy equipment would be used to obtain, move, shape, and compact earthen materials in order to set the levee back. Earthen materials for this purpose may be obtained from previously used borrow sites, new borrow sites (that would require Section 106 cultural resource clearance), commercial sites, the Missouri River, the Missouri River floodplain or silted-in Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) fish and wildlife mitigation sites such as side channels, backwaters, or wetlands. In areas along the Missouri River that are too wet to access with land based equipment, hydraulic dredges may be used to obtain borrow material from the floodplain or the Missouri River channel. If dredges are used,
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 6 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District they will access the borrow areas from the Missouri River. Borrow locations will be selected in accordance with NWO’s SOP for the Selection of Borrow Sites (Appendix IV). The levee would then be reseeded following construction to minimize soil erosion. Levee setbacks constructed on new alignment often benefit the environment by returning small portions of land to the floodplain. All levee rehabilitation projects under this alternative would undergo environmental and cultural resources reviews, an engineering review, and an economic benefit to cost analysis to determine the most acceptable repair method.
Dredging activities may be needed to obtain borrow material from silted-in Missouri River BSNP fish and wildlife mitigation sites (e.g., side channels, chutes) or the adjacent floodplains to be used for levee repairs. Dredges would access the borrow areas from the Missouri River. Main channel areas will be avoided. Dredging could directly affect adult and juvenile pallid sturgeon, and there is the possibility that take of pallid sturgeon could result as a result of dredging. However, dredging is temporary activity, and only anticipated to occur within shallow, silted in side channel areas (in order to reestablish shallow water habitat that was previously established under the recovery program) and within the floodplain. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be minimal, and no take is anticipated. Dredging from the main channel of the Missouri River is considered to be outside the scope of this BA and its associated PEA. Coordination with the USFWS would take place on a case-by-case basis for proposed levee repair projects that would require dredging activities. Tiered or additional site-specific NEPA documentation would be prepared and measures/recommendations would to be taken to avoid or minimize impacts to aquatic resources.
2.3 PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Under this alternative, flood risk management would be provided by modifying structures and property to reduce damages during flood events. Examples of non-structural responses include relocating structures, buyouts of buildings and property, elevating structures, and providing ring levees around individual structures. Levee setbacks undertaken for the purpose of restoring the floodplain or floodway would also fit into the nonstructural category. The majority of developed areas are protected by urban levees, which are highly engineered and provide a much higher level of flood risk management compared to agricultural levees. Most of the levees (61%) in NWO’s PL 84-99 program protect urban areas. The most practical non-structural solutions would likely include levee setbacks to restore floodplain connectivity and enhance ecological functions, and property buyouts (i.e., land acquisition). Borrow for levee setbacks would be obtained from the old levee alignment, and if additional material is needed, borrow sites would be selected using the existing SOP for borrow sites. Through the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program, non- structural options to levee repair must be requested in writing by the project sponsor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have the authority to require a non-structural option.
A levee sponsor may request up to an equal amount of Federal funding that would have been authorized for a structural repair of their levee, and apply it towards a one-time, non-structural response that restores - floodplain riverward of the levee. The Corps, in cooperation with the States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), has authorization to acquire flood damaged or frequently flooded lands from willing sellers along the Missouri River. Once a non-
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 7 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
structural option has been implemented, the USACE would not provide any flood-related assistance within the formerly protected area, except for rescue operations. One of the principal purposes of providing a non-structural option would be to reduce future flood damages and associated repair costs. In addition, the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Wetlands Reserve Program and other Department of Agriculture easement programs may also provide land use alternatives less vulnerable to damage by flooding. These two programs provide an option to interested landowners.
2.4 PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would provide the greatest flexibility to repair levees and would include both structural levee repairs and non-structural responses to levee damage. Structural repairs would include both setback and in-place levee repair actions. Non-structural responses would include relocating structures, elevating structures, acquisition and buyout of properties, and levee setbacks for purposes of restoring the floodplain and floodway as funding allows. The USACE would coordinate PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation efforts with other programs (e.g., Missouri River Recovery Program, Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan, etc.) so all feasible alternatives are considered. This alternative was selected as the Recommended Plan because it would best meet the technical, economic, and environmental objectives and provides flexibility to utilize the most appropriate method on a case-by-case basis.
Unless a non-structural option was requested by the public sponsor, each non-Federal levee would be repaired either within the existing alignment or along a new alignment based on what was most technically feasible and cost effective for that particular damaged area. Federal levees would also be repaired either within the existing alignment or along a new alignment depending on what is most economical. Any realignment of a Federal levee outside of the PL 84-99 repair would need to be approved by the Chief of Engineers as described in 33 U.S.C. 408, “Taking possession of, use of, or injury to harbor or river improvements”.
Habitat restoration is recognized as being a significant benefit that can be achieved with non- structural options and landward levee realignments. However, as described in ER 500-1-1, habitat restoration cannot be considered as a principal purpose for either non-structural options or landward levee realignment through the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program. USACE may utilize an Interagency Levee Task Force following major flood events to coordinate levee repairs with other Federal agencies that can offer levee sponsors non-structural options, or other opportunities to benefit fish and wildlife beyond those available through the PL 84-99 program.
Advance Measures Alternatives Advance measures are performed prior to flooding or flood fighting activities to protect against loss of life and significant damages to urban areas and/or public facilities. Advance measure assistance may be taken prior to a flood. An imminent threat of unusual flooding must exist to justify Advance Measures assistance from USACE. The threat must be established either by the National Weather Service or USACE determination of unusual flooding from adverse conditions. The threat must be such that substantial damages will be incurred if preventative/ protective
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 8 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
actions are not taken prior to the forecasted event. Further details on Advance Measures may be found under the Introduction section of this document.
A total of two alternatives for the Advance Measures program were evaluated in terms of individual and cumulative effects and are addressed below. The structural alternative includes the three most common structural methods for Advance Measures: Hesco Bastions, sandbags, and temporary low-lying earthen embankments. These methods are discussed as one alternative.
2.5 Advance Measures Alternative 1 – “No-Action” Alternative: Under the No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Given the small amount of warning time preceding the potential flood event, these entities would not likely be in a position to successfully complete engineering and design work for the temporary flood management measures. Flood fight measures would then likely consist of making sandbag materials available to local residents who would in turn be responsible for filling, placement, and protection. Additionally, flood proofing of infrastructure likely would be preformed. The various entities would not likely be in a position to handle large flood events.
2.6 Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Based on flood risk management prevention assessments by the Omaha District, the preferred alternative consists of a combination of low-lying earthen embankments, sandbag structures, and/or innovative flood fight structures (e.g., Hesco Bastions) to minimize potential flood damages. A single course of action is developed due to the emergency nature of the proposed projects. The Advance Measures are generally placed in locations where ‘voids’ in the existing flood management structures occur and are removed once the high flow event has passed.
The ability to place earthen levees in all locations may be restricted due to constructability and limited available space. There may be other infrastructure outside of the areas protected by flood control structures that may require flood fight assistance. In these instances, the Omaha District will provide the entities with flood fight and flood proofing techniques to be disseminated to the affected residents.
This alternative was selected as the Recommended Plan because it would best meet the technical, economic, and environmental objectives and provides flexibility to utilize the most appropriate method on a case-by-case basis.
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Impacts)
Missouri River Basin General Characteristics The Missouri River is the longest river in the United States, extending 2,321 miles from Three Forks, Montana where the Jefferson, Madison and Gallatin Rivers converge in southwestern Montana, near the town of Three Forks. The river flows generally east and south to join the Mississippi River just upstream from St. Louis, Missouri. The Missouri River basin has a total drainage area of approximately 530,000 square miles in 10 states and part of Canada. Figure-1,
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 9 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Appendix A shows a map depicting the shape of the Missouri River basin and identifies the location of the six Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System (System) dams: Fort Peck, Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point, including the major streams and tributaries.
The Missouri River basin’s total land area in the United States totals about 328 million acres. Agriculture accounts for 95 percent of this area, while the remainder is devoted to recreation, fish and wildlife, transportation, and urban uses. According to the 1990 census information, approximately 12 million people live in the Missouri River basin. The basin is primarily rural but contains several large population urban centers and medium sized cities. Many of the larger cities are located on the Missouri River (USACE, 2003).
Periodic flooding in the Missouri River basin is a regular occurrence. Ice jams, snowmelt, and intense rainfall are all causes of floods which have occurred historically on the Missouri River. The Missouri River has overflowed its banks nearly every year, and major floods were recorded in 1844, 1881, 1903, 1926, 1934, 1943, 1951, 1952, 1993, and 1997. The previous flood of record occurred in April, 1952, but was surpassed by record high flows which occurred during the spring and summer of 2011.
Federal levee construction, in accordance with the 1941 and 1944 Flood Control Acts, was started in 1947. Currently, the total length of levees along the Missouri River downstream of Gavins Point dam to Rulo, NE is approximately 240 miles. The whole system of Federal levees is constructed in individual units. Older levees were built of semi-compacted earth fill with a top width of 10 feet, side slopes of 1 on 3, and a freeboard of 2 to 3 feet above the water surface of the design flood. New construction of the levees remains similar, but the design is based on risk analysis at a 90 percent confidence level. Landside berms or seepage wells are provided where foundation conditions require such measures. Drainage structures extend through the levees to provide adequate internal drainage. At the end of 2001, 29 Federal units were either constructed or under construction. With the exception of two units between Kansas City and Boonville, Missouri, all Federal levees now constructed are in the reach located between Omaha and Kansas City. Based on GIS calculations approximate to Gavin’s Point 150,000 cfs release event, it is estimated that approximately 358,125 acres of Missouri River floodplain exist along the river in Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri, with approximately 220,730 acres (62%) contained within the Federal levee system.
Levee projects for the protection of large urban areas along the Missouri River in the Omaha District have been constructed at Omaha and Council Bluffs, Iowa. These projects are designed to operate in conjunction with the System and tributary reservoirs to prevent flooding of these localities from the most severe flood events of record. Design discharge of the Omaha-Council Bluffs project is 250,000 cfs. In addition, railroads, highways, bridges, and municipal developments within the floodplain increase the necessity for adequate flood protection in the non-urban Missouri River bottom areas. Local interests have built many miles of levees, comprising over 500 non-Federal levee units through this reach of the river. Most of these levees
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 10 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
provide protection during the majority of events, but are inadequate to withstand major floods (USACE, 2003).
Levees can fail as a result of damage to the levee itself, or if the foundation on which the levee is constructed fails. There are numerous failure mechanisms that result in the breaching of earthen levees and the flooding of protected areas. The principle causes of levee failures, as identified by EM 1110-2-1913: Design and Construction of Levees, includes overtopping, surface erosion, internal erosion (piping), and slides within the levee embankment or the foundation soils. In addition, there are locations along the Missouri River where the levee is located close to the river, narrowing the floodway and creating a constriction (or “pinch point”) during high flow events. Areas that create “pinch points” are currently being identified and analyzed as part of a 2011 Post-Flood Basin Impact Assessment in order to identify system level effects of levees, and associated benefits that could come from non-structural setbacks at specific locations.
Missouri River Recovery Efforts Many of the rivers within the NWO’s boundaries have been altered by human activities for nearly 200 years. These activities have included land use changes, bank stabilization, channelization, and levee construction. Much of the conversion of riparian habitat to agriculture lands occurred prior to construction of levees. In 1912, the USACE started constructing the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) which channelized and stabilized the Missouri River. It is estimated that 522,000 acres of aquatic and terrestrial habitat was lost in and along the Missouri River, between 1912 and 2003, due to the construction and operation of the BSNP (USACE, 1981). Additionally, many of the Missouri River tributaries were altered by human activities for the same reasons stated above.
In 1989, formal consultation was initiated by the Corps with the USFWS regarding operation of the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System. This consultation resulted in the 2000 and 2003 Amended Biological Opinion on the Operation of the Missouri River Main Stem System, Operation and Maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and Operation of the Kansas River Reservoir System. The USFWS determined that the Corps’ action would jeopardize the continued existence of the least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon. The USFWS provided the Corps a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) that, if accomplished, would likely avoid jeopardizing these species. Implementation efforts in response to the RPA from 2004-2010, resulted in completed and planned construction of 847 acres of emergent sandbar habitat to provide nesting habitat for the endangered least tern and threatened piping plover; construction of an estimated 3,443 acres of shallow water habitat for the endangered pallid sturgeon, and the finalization of a cottonwood management program for the regeneration of cottonwoods and the protection of the remaining cottonwood forest along the entire Missouri River with a focus on several high priority segments located between Garrison Dam and Kansas City, Missouri that were identified in the Biological Opinion.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 11 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Analysis of Environmental Impacts This section identifies the resources potentially affected by the proposed levee repair alternatives and activities described in Section 2.0. In describing and analyzing affected resources and environmental consequences, this section identifies current mitigation measures such as Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are integral to the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of identified resources due to site-specific activities. Resources that were considered, but not carried forward because no adverse impacts were identified or would have no effect on decision-making included: Climate and Meteorology (no measureable affect would occur from the proposed project), Hazardous Waste (these areas would always be avoided), and Transportation (no permanent affects to infrastructure or use).
Primary resources of concern identified during this Programmatic EA included: noise, air quality, water quality, wetlands, terrestrial habitat, fish and wildlife, threatened and endangered species, invasive species, floodplain, land use, economics, and cultural resources. The following discussion of impacts focuses on the most common structural repairs considered by the NWO under the PL 84-99 program; levee setbacks and in-place levee repairs. The discussion also focuses on the most common Advance Measures Responses; Hesco Bastions, sand bags, and low-lying earthen embankments. Current USACE construction guidelines for structural repairs of PL 84-99 levees and Advance Measures responses have been developed to avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts to the environment to the greatest extent practicable, and where possible, take advantage of borrow acquisition activities to enhance the ecosystem overall.
The impacts of future levee repairs and Advance Measures responses would be examined on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws. In all cases, BMPs would be implemented to reduce construction impacts. Practices would consist of operation of construction equipment during normal daylight hours and no idling of construction equipment when not in use to reduce noise impacts and reduce particulate matter, watering or mulching stock-piled materials to reduce wind-blown dust and particulates, use of silt fences to reduce sediment from entering area rivers and streams, washing construction equipment to prevent spread of noxious materials, maintaining construction equipment to prevent oil and other fluid leaks, and storing all potential hazardous materials (gasoline, hydraulic fluids, etc.) in upland areas and confined within berms to contain spills and prevent impacts to the surrounding environment. In addition, the SOP for Selection of Borrow Sites is to be used as a guideline in meeting the criteria set for determining appropriate borrows areas for levee repairs.
3.1 Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities or in some way reduces the quality of the environment. Across the proposed project area, the magnitude and frequency of ambient noise varies considerably depending on the amount of development in a given area. In agricultural areas, which are typically open, noise may carry for some distance. Noise sources in agricultural areas are predominantly natural and include: wind, weather, and wildlife sounds. Traffic from highways and other roadways also are a common source of background noise. Seasonally, noise produced from farming activities create levels of noise similar to the types of
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 12 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
noises that might be produced by land moving activities associated with the proposed project. Noise impacts from the proposed project would be considered short term. Construction noise stemming from levee repairs or Advance Measures would be similar to noise generated from agricultural activities, although the daily duration likely would be longer.
In urban areas, most noise comes from transportation, construction, industrial, and human sources. Road traffic is the major source of noise. The most noise sensitive areas associated with levee repairs would include parks, recreational areas, and business associated with the river. Areas with a high sensitivity to noise, such as residences, schools and day care facilities, hospitals, places of worship, libraries, etc. are not usually directly adjacent to levee areas but they do occasionally occur adjacent to one another. Construction noise in urban areas is not atypical. Although construction will be short term, special consideration will need to be given to areas where construction may take place in noise sensitive areas. Considerations as to timing of construction would be considered where appropriate. This may include, but would not be limited to, limiting construction during certain times of day when noise may be more compatible with surrounding land use, or limiting construction to certain seasons where noise impacts to sensitive species might be an issue.
Sources of noise in or around areas further removed from urban development may include recreational boating, hunting, and other human activities (e.g., ATV’s). Noise from construction and movement of vehicles and workers may cause disturbance and temporary displacement of some wildlife and bird species; however, potential noise impacts would be of short duration, intermittent, and would occur in formerly disturbed areas (i.e., initial construction of the levee).
Isolated and more remote areas have a greater potential to contain desirable habitat for threatened and endangered species (e.g., less human disturbance), such as the least tern and piping plover, which utilize sandbars on the Missouri River, and to some extent, its tributaries (e.g., Niobrara). Preconstruction surveys may be required to determine if Federal and/or state listed threatened or endangered species or species of concern are found to be present in the project vicinity, including any staging or borrow areas. Please refer to the Biological Assessment in Appendix VI for a listing of threatened and endangered species that could potentially be located in the area of the proposed levee repair. Measures would be implemented if a determination is made that noise generated from construction activities may affect a listed species. Measures recommended by the USFWS to minimize noise impacts to listed species may include an appropriate buffer area around existing habitat, seasonal restrictions during nesting, or access restrictions. Construction- related displacement would be a short-term effect since activity and noise levels would return to normal upon the completion o construction.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: In the “No Action” Alternative, no noise would be produced in the project area as a result of a Federal activity. However, the local levee and drainage districts would likely repair the levees through other means because it is almost always in their best economic interest. This would result in the potential for minor, temporary construction related noise. BMPs to reduce noise may or may not be implemented so an increase in noise could occur.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 13 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would result in minor short term construction related noise impacts. These impacts would result from the operation of heavy machinery during project construction. These noise levels would be in addition, but similar to, noise produced by urban or agricultural activities which routinely occur in the project areas. There is a remote chance that the noise from project construction could disturb the occasional boater on nearby drainages or persons participating in outdoor recreation on lands in the project areas
BMPs, such as not idling machinery when not in use, conducting work during normal business hours, etc., would be implemented throughout the project to reduce noise when in noise-sensitive areas. Measures recommended by the USFWS or state game and wildlife agencies to minimize noise impacts to a listed species would be incorporated if necessary. As such, the noise produced by any of the proposed projects is not expected to be significant.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Most non-structural responses would produce some minor and temporary noise. This noise would be similar to everyday rural activities (house repairs, moving trucks, minor construction) and would be conducted during normal business hours when in noise-sensitive areas. Thus, noise generated from this alternative would not be considered significant. Conversion of agricultural lands to natural habitat would result in no agricultural equipment being used which would provide a peaceful environment for native and migratory species to feed, breed, and shelter. This, in turn, would have a beneficial impact to the environment.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would result in minor, temporary, construction-related noise. However, these impacts would be minimized to the greatest extent possible by the implementation of BMPs (as stated above) and/or additional measures recommended by USFWS or a state agency; thus, they would not be considered significant.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Minor noise related impacts would occur during mobilization of flood-prevention materials, such as sandbags. This noise would be temporary and would not be considered significant.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Under this alternative, minor increases in noise would occur at the project sites during the placement and removal of Advance measure responses. The expected increases in noise would be considered minor and temporary. Therefore, the expected increases in noise levels from this alternative would not be considered significant.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 14 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
3.2 Air Quality
This resource is considered institutionally important because of the Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended. Air quality is technically important because of the status of regional ambient air quality in relation to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. It is publicly important because of the desire for clean air expressed by virtually all citizens.
In accordance with the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pollutants considered harmful to the environment and public health. The six principal pollutants, also known as “criteria” pollutants, are: ozone, lead, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Counties where the levels of a particular pollutant exceed EPA standards are deemed ‘non-attainment counties’.
The states of Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota have no non-attainment counties, meaning that air quality is good throughout each state. The state of Missouri has four non- attainment counties where proposed projects may occur: St. Charles County is in non-attainment for Particulate Matter – 2.5 micrometers in size and Ozone (8-hour); Jefferson County is in non- attainment for Particulate Matter – 2.5 micrometers in size, Ozone (8 hour), and lead; Franklin County and St. Louis County are in non-attainment for Ozone (8 hour). The state of Montana has four non-attainment counties where proposed projects may occur: Rosebud County and Missoula County are in non-attainment for Particulate Matter – 10 micrometers in size (PM-10), and Yellowstone County and Lewis & Clark County are in non-attainment for sulfur dioxide. The state of Wyoming has one non-attainment county where proposed projects may occur: Sheridan County is in non-attainment for PM-.
PM-10 includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as construction activity and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or the transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and Volatile Organic Compounds are also considered particulate matter. PM exposure can affect breathing, aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alter the body's defense systems against foreign materials, and damage lung tissue, contributing to cancer and premature death. Individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, asthmatics, the elderly and children are most sensitive to the effects of PM.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: In the “No Action” Alternative with the absence of the Federal action addressing levee improvements, no adverse air quality impacts would be produced in the project area. However, the local levee and drainage districts would likely repair the levees through other means because it is almost always in their best economic interest. This would result in the potential for minor, temporary construction related air impacts similar to agricultural activities. If not conducted as part of a Federal project, it is possible that management measures to reduce impacts to air quality would not be implemented. This could contribute to higher levels of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide than is necessary, exacerbating air quality in counties where these pollutants are already in a non-attainment status.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 15 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would result in minor short term construction related contributions to PM-10. PM-10 contributions would result from the operation of heavy machinery, increases in dust in the project area during construction operations, and wind-blown particles stemming from stock-piled construction materials. The increase in PM-10 levels would be in addition, but similar, to that produced by activity which occurs in the project area. There is a remote chance that the increase in PM-10 from project construction would adversely affect individuals sensitive to air-borne particles or persons with breathing disabilities. BMPs to minimize PM-10 particles would be employed during construction activities. These techniques may include, but would not be limited to, wetting the construction area to minimize dust, avoiding idling of construction machinery when not performing needed tasks, and covering or mulching staging areas during or following construction activities. With these minimization techniques in place, the temporary construction related impacts to air quality are not expected to be significant.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: During construction, most non-structural responses would produce some minor and temporary air quality impacts. These impacts would be similar to everyday activities (minor construction, mobilization of automobiles). Thus, air quality impacts generated from this alternative would not be considered significant. In instances where a conversion of agricultural lands to a more natural setting would occur (e.g., easements that restore wetlands or buyouts that convert habitat from agriculture to a more natural setting), air quality would locally improve.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would result in minor, temporary, construction-related air quality impacts. However, these impacts would be minimized to the greatest extent possible by the implementation of BMPs (as stated in Alternative 2); thus, they would not be considered significant.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Minor air quality impacts would occur during mobilization of flood-prevention materials, such as sandbags and construction equipment. It is possible that management measures to reduce impacts to air quality would not be implemented, and thus could contribute to higher levels of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide than is necessary, exacerbating air quality in counties where these pollutants are already in a non-attainment status.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Under this alternative, impacts to air quality similar to those under the structural alternative would occur at project sites during the placement of Advance measure responses. However, similar BMPs would be implemented; therefore, the expected increases in air quality impacts would be considered minor and temporary. Impacts to air quality from this alternative would not be considered significant.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 16 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
3.3 Water Quality
This resource is institutionally important, and as such is regulated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act). The objective of this act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters by preventing point and non-point pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands. Water quality is technically important because of the need for a reliable drinking water supply, for swimming and recreating, for fish and shellfish consumption, for adequate agricultural supply, and for habitat for fish and wildlife. It is publicly important because of the desire for clean water expressed by virtually all citizens.
In determining water quality, one looks at how the beneficial uses of a particular water body are affected by pollution from point and non-point sources. Beneficial uses include such things as water supply for domestic and industrial purposes, propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life, recreation in and on the waters including the safe consumption of fish and shellfish, livestock watering and irrigation, navigation, generation of power, propagation and maintenance of wildlife, and the enjoyment of scenic and aesthetic qualities of waters. Differences in geology and land use also affect the hydrology and water quality of the particular water body. There is great variety in the geology and land use throughout the proposed project area, as well as great variety in point and non-point sources of pollution. As a result, water quality throughout the proposed project area ranges from somewhat pristine to greatly degraded depending on where the body of water is located. It would be exhaustive to describe the water quality of each individual water body within the proposed project area in this environmental assessment. However, it is important to know the quality of the water at each project site in order to determine any potential affects that may arise from the proposed projects. The USEPA has delegated authority to the states to assess causes of impaired water quality.
Each individual state has jurisdiction for managing water quality in its respective state. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters for which existing required pollution controls are not stringent enough to meet state water quality standards. States are required to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for these waters (40 CFR 130.7). Water quality impairments vary widely from state to state and from watershed to watershed. Generally, water quality deteriorates progressing downstream from headwaters to confluences with other water bodies due to pollution entering the system from tributaries and point and non- point sources. The USEPA maintains and reports a National Summary of impaired waters and TMDL information for each state. Please refer to the following website to obtain site-specific information on the water body of interest included in the proposed project area of concern: http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state
Chemical properties of the Missouri River water and its tributaries influence the presence, health, and survival of aquatic species (e.g., aquatic plants, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates). These chemical properties include nutrients, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 17 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District pollutants. The chemical and physical characteristics of the water within the Missouri River influence the reproduction, growth and survival of aquatic fauna and flora. Water chemistry impacts not only the mainstem river channel but also any backwater, secondary channel, or floodplain habitat that is hydrologically connected to the river through surface flows. All chemical parameters (nutrients, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and pollutants) generally range from less to more altered in a downstream direction. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and pollutants have increased, and dissolved oxygen and turbidity have decreased. Turbidity displays the greatest longitudinal difference, where differences are greatest from the Middle Great Plains and downstream (USACE, 2011).
Because of great diversity of landforms and terrain, sediment loading into the river and its tributaries varies greatly across the basin. The Missouri River historically received eroded sediment from several tributary streams including the Yellowstone, Niobrara, James, Platte, and Kansas rivers. Some of these tributaries drain highly erodible areas (e.g., the Sand Hills) and areas of loess (wind-deposited silt) in northeastern Nebraska and western Iowa (NAS, 2011). The Yellowstone River adds flow and sufficient sediment to the relatively clear water released from Fort Peck Dam, which provides successful reproduction of native fishes such as the pallid sturgeon and the paddlefish (NAS, 2002). In the very upper reaches of the Missouri River (above Fort Peck), turbidity was naturally low and remains within the range of natural conditions (USACE, 2011).
Construction activities could potentially impact water quality in the Missouri River and/or its tributaries by increasing sediment load or contributing pollutants to its waters. Stormwater runoff from construction activities can have a significant impact on water quality, as it can pick up pollutants such as sediment, debris, and chemicals, and transport these to a nearby waterbody (e.g., drainage, river or lake). Eroded soil from construction sites can also be carried to streams and lakes causing an excess in turbidity. This in turn, could potentially impact Federal and state listed threatened and endangered species (e.g., bull trout) that rely upon a less-turbid aquatic environment, as in contrast to the pallid sturgeon, which favors more turbid conditions.
Earthern materials for levee repairs may be obtained from previously used borrow sites, new borrow sites, and commercial sites. Borrow locations will be selected in accordance with NWO’s SOP for the Selection of Borrow Sites (Appendix IV), which provides guidelines to avoid and minimize adverse affects to fish and wildlife and their associated habitats. Borrow material for projects located along the Missouri River may be obtained from silted-in Missouri River BSNP fish and wildlife mitigation sites (e.g., side channels, chutes) or the adjacent floodplains to these sites, if feasible. Collection of accumulated sediment from existing mitigation sites or floodplain would most likely require dredging; however, the increased turbidity associated with bottom sediments being stirred up by the cutter head of the dredge would be temporary and localized. Applicable permits, such as Section 404 of the CWA and/or Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be obtained. General conditions stipulated in these permits would be complied with, thereby minimizing adverse effects on water quality.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 18 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Water quality impacts to aquatic species would be minimized with the implementation of the following measures: applying appropriate BMPs as discussed below for Alternative 2 –Structural Repairs, obtaining the appropriate permits/certifications, and complying with state requirements related to stormwater discharges from construction activities. These measures would limit the amount of erosion and associated pollutants generated from construction activities to less than a significant level and most likely would not cause adverse effects on aquatic species. If in-channel work is required, compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and other state regulations would be met.
If a proposed levee repair project will require dredging activities to obtain borrow material from existing recovery and mitigation projects or the adjacent floodplain, the SOP for Selection of Borrow Sites would be followed. It is anticipated that there would be no adverse effects to water quality as dredging material would be placed on the levee for repair. Dredged material to be used for the levee repair would most likely be placed in a confined upland disposal area at the levee or stockpile area. Return water from the disposal area is considered a discharge of dredged material by 33 CFR 323.2(d), even though the disposal itself occurs on the upland and does not require a section 404 permit. Nationwide Permit 16 for return water from an upland contained disposal area would satisfy the section 404 requirements for this activity. Water quality of return water is controlled by the state through the section 401 certification procedures. An NPDES permit would also be required for the activity. The proposed dredging permits will include special permit conditions to ensure avoidance or minimization of impacts on environmental resources. In addition, elutriate samples would be taken to check for contaminants.
Dredging from the active channel of the Missouri River will be avoided to the extent possible. Dredging in the main channel is outside the scope of this PEA; however, if dredging activities are proposed to occur in the active channel, further assessment and consultation with the USFWS will be required, and an individual Tiered EA prepared.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: In the “No Action” Alternative with the absence of the Federal action addressing levee improvements, a high water event could inundate water treatment plants, residential areas, commercial establishments, and businesses and result in the release of wastes such as raw sewage, nutrients, petroleum products, household chemicals, and a variety of industrial chemicals. An event such as this would substantially impact the natural and human environment within the project area and downstream.
However, the local levee and drainage districts would likely repair the levees through other means to protect valuable infrastructure and prevent non-point source contamination. This would result in the potential for minor, temporary construction related impacts to water quality due to site runoff and increased turbidity. Any construction related increases in turbidity would be unlikely to negatively impact water quality. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 404 and 401 permits may still be needed by the sponsors dependent on how they choose to repair the levees. Obtaining and abiding by the requirements of these permits would avoid any significant impacts to water quality. However, in some instances, the sponsor may unknowingly violate environmental
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 19 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
regulations by failing to obtain permits or have less experience implementing Best Management Practices, which could result in adverse impacts to water quality.
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative may result in potentially minor, temporary, construction-related adverse impacts to water quality resulting from site runoff and increased turbidity during levee repair activities. However, these impacts would be avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent possible by the implementation of BMPs and measures required under the NPDES permit. BMPs would minimize potential adverse sedimentation into aquatic resources during construction and would minimize the introduction of fuel, petroleum products, or other deleterious material from entering the waterway. Such practices may consist of erosion control fences; storing equipment, solid waste, and petroleum products above the ordinary high water mark and away from areas prone to runoff; and requiring that all construction equipment be clean, free of leaks, and refueled in designated areas with containment berms. To prevent fill from reaching water sources by wind or runoff, fill would be covered, stabilized or mulched, and silt fences would be used as required. Either NWO or the on-site contractors would be responsible for obtaining the NPDES permits. All appropriate measures would be taken to minimize erosion and storm water discharges during and after construction. Also, Section 401 state water quality certifications would be obtained for these repairs. As such, impacts to water quality under this alternative would not be considered significant.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Levee setback construction for purposes of restoring the floodplain would have short-term construction impacts similar to those mentioned under the structural alternative. Similar to the structural alternative, construction activities would likely require permits and authorizations to comply with Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act. All other non-structural responses would have no significant adverse impact on water quality and often would have beneficial impacts. Without any construction activities, there would be no construction-related adverse impacts to water quality during levee repair activities. Any conversion of agricultural land to natural habitat may result in some reduction in the application of agricultural chemicals on the floodplain but the relative acreage would likely be minor and any change in the water quality of the river would likely be minimal.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): As this is a combination of alternatives 2 and 3, the impacts are the same as described above. The construction aspects of this alternative may result in potentially minor, temporary, construction-related adverse impacts to water quality resulting from site runoff and increased turbidity during any structural levee repair activities. However, these impacts would be avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent possible by the implementation of BMPs and measures required under the NPDES permit; thus, they would not be considered significant. All non-structural activities would have no significant adverse impact on water quality, and could actually improve water quality if the floodplain is naturalized to some degree through available ecosystem restoration based programs.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 20 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. It is likely that the levee districts would not be able to fully protect their communities from the impending flood. This would likely result in the release of a variety of pollutants associated with urban areas that would substantially impact the natural and human environment within the project area and downstream. Unsuccessful flood fighting would result in adverse impacts to water quality from increased levels of nutrient loading and wastes, such as pollutants associated with industrial sources, waste and water treatment facilities, petroleum products, and household chemicals.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Advance Measures are placed atop existing lines of protection, are placed adjacent to existing lines of protection where low-lying areas occur, or are placed within residential areas away from rivers and streams. Sandbags and sand filled Hesco’s placed atop of, or adjacent to, existing levees could be damaged by flotsam or jetsam within the floodwater and cause a release of sand to the surrounding environment. This could have an adverse effect on water quality depending on the amount of material released.
3.4 Wetlands
Wetland resources are important to the nation, and as such, they are afforded protection under the Clean Water Act of 1977 as amended and Executive Order 11990 of 1977 (Protection of Wetlands). Wetlands and riparian areas are important because they provide habitat for various species of plants, fish, and wildlife; serve as ground water recharge areas; provide storage areas for storm and flood waters; serve as natural water filtration areas; provide protection from wave action, erosion, and storm damage; and provide various consumptive (i.e., not readily available for another use) and non-consumptive (i.e., renewable) recreational opportunities. Wetlands and riparian areas are publicly important because of the high value the public places on the functions and values that these habitats provide.
Generally, wetlands in the project areas primarily consist of freshwater forested/shrub wetlands and freshwater emergent wetlands located in the floodplains of the Missouri River and its tributaries or along the riverside and landside toes of levees where hydrology is favorable. In many cases, as a result of the flooding, water features, such as new channels, have been created on the floodplains where no such features previously occurred. These areas could be considered jurisdictional waters of the United States and could; therefore, be protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). On-site delineations would be conducted in these areas to identify, map, and ensure protection of the resources that fall under protection of Section 404 of the CWA. In other cases, scour holes may have developed at levee breach sites and may or may not be considered wetlands or waters of the United States. Delineations would be conducted to see if they meet the Corps definition of a wetland area (hydric soils, hydric plants, and hydrology of a sufficient frequency or duration) or a water of the United States. Depending on the outcome of conducted delineations, the newly created water features may or may not be protected; however, it is likely
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 21 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
that over time these features would develop plants and soil conditions and, in turn, would be considered jurisdictional.
For each site-specific project, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database would be consulted to determine the type and location of wetlands that occur in the project area of the proposed levee repair. It should be noted, that these maps may no longer be accurate due to the habitat-shaping process associated with high water events. As such, database reviews would be supplemented with post-flood aerial photo interpretations and on-site inspections in order to identify any waters of the U.S. or wetland sites. These steps would provide the information needed to accurately identify wetlands and waters of the United States that occur in the proposed project areas.
Wetlands provide habitat for many species of fish, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, plants, migratory birds, and other wildlife. Filling, draining, or dredging a wetland can cause a loss or shift in the aquatic life/biological diversity such as the vegetation and invertebrate community. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, BMP’s would be implemented to minimize impacts, and mitigation provided for any remaining wetland impacts, if required. BMP’s could include, but not be limited to, avoiding or limiting equipment entry into wetlands to the minimum necessary, applying an appropriate buffer zone, using proper erosion and sedimentation control standards, and replanting of native plant species that favor wetland areas after levee repairs have been completed. Compliance with the requirements to meet water quality standards as stipulated in the NPDES permit would be met. Applying the appropriate BMPs and permit requirements should reduce construction impacts to less than significant. Construction activities could potentially cause injury or mortality to species that utilize wetland areas, such as reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates; however, construction would be confined to a limited area, thereby minimizing impacts to these species. If threatened or endangered species are found to be present in wetlands within the proposed project area, USFWS coordination would be initiated, and measures to reduce direct or indirect impacts to these species incorporated (e.g., timing of construction, access restriction).
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under the “No Action” Alternative, it is likely that the levee and drainage districts would seek to restore their levees back to the extent that they would provide equivalent protection as previously provided. In those scenarios, newly created aquatic features would likely be converted back to agriculture or displaced by the levee footprint. Any wetland fill activities associated with repair of the levee would require a Section 404 permit. If a Federal permit were required, then the same environmental regulations and protections afforded via a Federal project would apply to the private activity, and wetland impacts would be required to be avoided where possible and mitigated if impacts were unavoidable. If the levee isn’t replaced, it is still likely that much of the land would continue to be used for agriculture. As such, many of the aquatic areas created by the high flow event would be restored back to agriculture, resulting in an environment much the same as existed prior to the high flow event. However, in the absence of a levee, the area would experience flooding on a more frequent basis, possibly resulting in a greater amount of wetlands in the floodplain landscape.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 22 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would have no significant adverse impact on wetlands. Wetlands are usually too wet to be used as sources of borrow material for structural repairs or for areas of new levee alignment. Often, depositional material from near the levee erosion site is used as a source of levee material depending on its suitability. These sites are usually old riverward borrow sites that have filled with depositional material from past high river stages or they are areas adjacent to the damaged levee where material eroded away from the levee and has been deposited. These areas have been identified as preferred borrow site locations in NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites. By removing the sediment deposits from these previous borrow sites, wetland habitats that were lost due to flood- related sedimentation are often restored or enhanced. As mentioned above, wetlands often exist at levee toes due to lack of drainage and favorable hydrology. Thus, minor impacts to these wetlands would be expected to occur as a result of incidental fill during levee repair activities; however, it is expected that wetlands would reestablish to the same condition as existed originally, as the hydrology of the sites (poor drainage at the toe of the restored levee) would reestablish to previous conditions. Any placement of fill material or inadvertent entry in wetlands would need to comply with the requirements of Nationwide or Regional General Permits issued by the Corps Regulatory Office in the state where the activity would occur (Appendix III). In implementing project alternatives, the Corps would avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts by adhering to special conditions attached to these permits. Any impacts to wetlands that would be larger in scope than typically covered by a General Permit would fall outside of the scope of this analysis, and would require further consideration and coordination.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural options would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if wetlands would be impacted by the project. If so, CWA Section 404 authorization would need to be obtained by either meeting the conditions of a General Permit or the appropriate Nationwide Permit. Non-structural responses would generally have beneficial impacts to wetlands if they restore floodplain connectivity. Any land acquisition or buy-out of a particular area, as a non-structural response, would likely have beneficial impacts for wetlands as they would reestablish a portion of the floodplain and likely remain undisturbed. By abiding by the conditions of the CWA, this alternative would have no significant impacts on wetlands.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): By applying NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, this alternative would have no significant adverse impacts on wetlands. Minor impacts (incidental fill and/or entry by construction equipment) would likely occur to wetlands adjacent to construction; however, these impacts would not be significant for the reasons described above. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to wetlands would be employed, as required, and use of Nationwide or Regional General Permits for repair of flood damaged structures would be used and any special conditions as part of those permits would be implemented. Additionally, following construction, wetlands would have the opportunity to reestablish just as they have established prior to construction. Beneficial impacts to wetlands would occur in cases of land acquisition or buy-outs for non-structural activities.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 23 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. It is likely that the communities would not be able to fully protect their communities from the impending flood. This would likely result in some recharge of area wetlands and low- lying areas. However, during a flood fight, a greater risk of adverse impacts to wetlands would likely occur because the borrow site selection would not necessarily be in accordance with the NWO’s SOP’s for selection of borrow sites.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Advance Measures by nature are placed in low-lying areas to reduce flood damages. Thus, it is likely that the Advance Measures would be placed within wetland areas. This would have an adverse impact on area wetlands. However, a condition of Advance Measures placement is that they must be removed after the flood event has passed, thus; only temporary impacts would be anticipated. If a site specific situation occurs where fill must be placed in a wetland, the Corps, or its contractor, would coordinate the needed action with the Regulatory Office in that state and establish mitigation as required. Overall, the proposed Advance Measures would not have significant long-term impacts on wetlands.
3.5 Terrestrial Habitat
Terrestrial habitat is institutionally significant and is provided specific attention in Water Resources Development Projects per Section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended. Terrestrial habitat is technically significant because: it provides necessary habitat for a variety of species of plants and wildlife; it often supports a variety of wetland functions and values; it is an important source of commercial products; and it provides various consumptive and non-consumptive recreational opportunities. Terrestrial habitat is publicly significant because of the high priority that the public places on its esthetic, recreational, and commercial value.
The Missouri River Basin contains diverse terrestrial habitat due to its vast size and the varied climatic conditions from its headwaters in Montana (cold and relatively arid) to its confluence with the Mississippi in Missouri (temperate and moist). Water levels and flows within the rivers and tributaries affect abundance, distribution, and composition of terrestrial species. The Missouri River and its floodplain support stands of grasslands, shrubs, and forests. The upper portion of the Missouri River between Fort Peck, Montana, and Ponca, Nebraska encompasses the ponderosa pine, prairie, and plains grassland ecosystems. Cottonwood regeneration along this portion of the Missouri River is restricted due to inundation by large reservoirs and channel incision along the open river reaches which has caused the river to become disconnected from the floodplain. Cottonwood forest along the Upper River currently appears largely restricted to narrow shoreline zones or the upstream end of deltas. The lower portion of the Missouri River between Ponca, Nebraska, and St. Louis, Missouri encompasses the plains grasslands and oak- hickory-maple forest ecosystems. In many instances, native floodplain habitats have been converted to crop land or developed for other uses. This is especially the case in areas where levees have provided protection for development of agriculture and urban uses. Levees
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 24 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District themselves are planted with various species of grass (brome, fescue, and rye) to provide ease-of- maintenance to these facilities. Regular maintenance of the levees ensures that trees and shrubs do not have the opportunity to fully grow or establish. The grasses are regularly mowed in order to better inspect levee conditions.
The mosaic of terrestrial habitat (woodland, grassland, shrubland, prairie, wetland, meadow) found along the Missouri River and its tributaries provide shading, food sources, bank stabilization, habitat diversity, and nesting, roosting, breeding and foraging habitat for many wildlife species. Direct and indirect impacts on Federally and/or state listed threatened and endangered species or species of concern from the removal or damage of terrestrial habitat include, but are not limited to, injury or mortality to a listed species, habitat fragmentation, reduced vegetative cover and increased temperature, an increase in runoff and erosion causing additional sediment to the river or tributary, and introduction of invasive species. Specific consideration with regard to terrestrial species includes a decrease in potential nesting, feeding, and loafing/resting habitat.
It is anticipated that proposed levee repairs would occur in areas previously disturbed by the construction of the original levee; however, construction activities, including borrow and staging areas, would include avoidance of areas that have the potential for a protected or listed species to use (e.g., sage-grouse habitat). Before vegetation removal or tree clearing, preconstruction surveys may be required if activities occur in a documented location where protected or listed species are known to occur, or critical habitat has been designated. Measures to avoid or minimize direct or indirect impacts may include BMPs (e.g., erosion control, replanting with specific seed type), and timing restrictions or buffers around sensitive habitat types and habitat features. If necessary, coordination with the USFWS and appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies would be initiated. A Biological Assessment included in Appendix VI contains a list of threatened and endangered species and their preferred habitat.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under the “No Action” Alternative, it is likely that the levee and drainage districts would seek to restore their levees back to the extent that they would provide previous protection. In those scenarios, grading, scraping and reshaping of the levees by construction equipment would occur and the existing grasses would be disturbed. Additionally, getting equipment to and from the constructions sites, staging materials, and conducting general construction activities could affect small stands of trees or other vegetation adjacent to the levees. Following the repairs, levees, staging areas, and incidental construction roads would be seeded with native vegetation or like species of grasses to prevent the establishment of weedy species, erosion, and/or to provide for ease-of-maintenance. Additionally, if private funds are used, there is a greater risk of adverse impacts to terrestrial vegetation because borrow site selection would not necessarily be in accordance with the NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, and areas may not be properly re-seeded which could result in establishment of undesirable vegetative species. In the event that the levee is not repaired at all, it is likely that much of the land would continue to be used for agriculture, which would prevent growth of any natural species.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 25 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would have minor short-term impacts to terrestrial habitat resulting from land disturbance during construction activities, staging of materials, or access to and from the construction site. As a result of using NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, most of the disturbed terrestrial habitat would be on agricultural land or land adjacent to the levee that has been previously disturbed. Site conditions (e.g., previously disturbed areas) would most likely determine an appropriate staging area, which would be returned to its original state upon completion of construction activities. Often, with levee set-backs, land riverward of the new levee alignment is returned to the floodplain, which could increase the quality of the terrestrial habitat in the area. In implementing project alternatives, the Corps, in consultation with the resource agencies, would avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts that occur to riparian areas.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural activities would have no significant adverse impacts on terrestrial vegetation. Any land acquisition or buy-out of a particular area, as a non-structural response, would likely have beneficial impacts to vegetation as it would reestablish in the area and likely remain protected from human disturbance. Levee setbacks, for the purpose of reconnecting river and floodplain areas would restore some of the natural ecosystem functions. These areas would remain vulnerable to flood disturbance, and any impact to terrestrial vegetation would be considered natural and non-significant.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Through use of NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, this alternative would have no significant adverse impacts on terrestrial habitat. Some short term, minor impacts may result from land disturbance during construction activities, staging areas, or driving to and from the construction areas; however, these areas would be seeded with native species or seed mixtures upon completion of construction activities. Any land acquisition for a non-structural activity would likely have beneficial impacts.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. There would be a greater risk of adverse impacts to terrestrial habitat because the flood fight techniques may not necessarily be removed following the flood event, which would stymie vegetation growth. Additionally, borrow site selection would not necessarily be in accordance with the NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites. Construction areas may also not be properly re-seeded.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Installation of Advance Measures would require some clearing and grubbing of vegetation to prepare areas for Hesco’s, sandbags, and/or low-lying earthen berms. Following the removal of the temporary structures, all areas disturbed by construction related activities would be top soiled and seeded to conditions that existed prior to the proposed Advance Measures project. Because the structures are temporary and the sites would be returned to pre-project conditions, the impacts to vegetation would not be considered significant.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 26 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
3.6 Fish and Wildlife
The Missouri River and its tributaries provide a combination of habitat types that provide feeding, resting and breeding areas for numerous fish and wildlife species. The Missouri River ecosystem creates and maintains important open water, sandbar, wetland, and forest habitat for a wide diversity of wildlife, including 156 species of fish, over 300 bird species, 60 species of mammals and 52 species of reptiles and amphibians (USACE, 2009).
Fish Numerous native and non-native fish are known to exist within the Missouri River and its tributaries; however, impoundment, channelization, degradation, and unnatural hydrologic conditions have changed the fish species composition in many rivers. The Missouri River’s native fish species evolved in environments with high turbidity, swift current, and an unstable sand-silt bottom. Decreases in specialized native big river fishes have been attributed to reductions in suspended sediment and turbidity in the lower Missouri River, including the now federally listed endangered pallid sturgeon, and imperiled paddlefish, blue sucker, and flathead chub (NAS, 2011). Populations of other native river fish, including catfish, sturgeon, and sauger have also declined (USACE, 2009). Non-native species or species not historically abundant in the Missouri River often are more tolerant of altered conditions of temperature, turbidity, and habitat (NAS, 2011), and include fish species such as common carp, rainbow smelt, rainbow trout, bluegill, white crappie, and large/smallmouth bass (Berry, 2004). Reduced turbidity after dam construction coincided with an increased abundance of native sight feeders such as the skipjack herring, walleye, white bass, and grass pickerel (Berry, 2004). Dams and levees built on the Missouri River and its tributaries also affected the ecological function of the associated floodplains by isolating them from the main stem river or stream, and restricting lateral fish passage onto the floodplain for feeding and reproduction (Ickes et al., 2005).
Reptile, Amphibians, and Macroinvertebrates Common reptiles and amphibians most likely to be found in the project areas include, but are not limited to, the common snapping turtle, false map turtle, painted turtle, great plains toad, woodhouses’s toad, western chorus frog, bullfrog, plains garter snake, common garter snake, prairie skink, and tiger salamander. Macroinverterbrates, a primary food base for many fishes, birds, amphibians, and reptiles, are found in abundance in the Missouri River and its tributaries and include insects, mussels, snails, worms and crustaceans (e.g., crayfish).
Mammals The increases in agriculture, along with the effects of bank stabilization and channelization, have reduced the wildlife habitat in the floodplain. However, remnant riparian areas and agricultural fields provide habitat for wildlife adapted to human presence and disturbance. Common mammals that would be expected to inhabit the project areas include gray squirrels, fox squirrels, white-tailed deer, raccoons, opossums, cottontail rabbits, skunks, mink, red foxes, otter, beavers, muskrats, and many other small mammals.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 27 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Birds The Missouri River and its tributaries offer a diverse array of habitats (e.g., woodland, wetland, shrubland) that attract a variety of bird species. Waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, passerines, and raptors are commonly found in the project areas. . The combination of open water, wetlands, and riparian vegetation is particularly important for the large number of waterfowl that stop along the Missouri River during spring and fall migration. Waterfowl use the Missouri River and its tributaries for resting, feeding, and nesting. Common dabbling ducks include mallard, northern shoveler, northern pintail, gadwall, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, wood ducks, and American widgeon. Common species of diving ducks are ring-necked, lesser scaup, ruddy, redhead, common golden-eye, and bufflehead. Other waterfowl in the study area include hooded merganser, common merganser, red-breasted mergansers, Canada geese, snow geese, and white- fronted geese. During migration stops, dabbling ducks and geese rest on islands and sandbars and forage in grain fields, whereas diving ducks use large open water areas for loafing and foraging. Wading birds such as the great blue heron, green heron, and black-crowned night heron use river corridors to forage for fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. Shorebirds that are regular breeders in the area include killdeer and American woodcock. Passerines are the largest group of migratory bird species within the proposed project areas and include thrushes, warblers, flycatchers, vireos, hummingbirds, swallows, wrens, tanagers, orioles, sparrows, robins, eastern kingbirds, American goldfinches, blue jays, and cardinals as well as others. Floodplain forests and wetlands are important breeding and migratory habitats for passerines. Hawks, falcons, eagles, vultures, and owls are also found in floodplain habitats.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Although the provisions of MBTA are applicable year-round, most migratory bird nesting activity within the project areas of levee repair would typically range between April 1 through July 31, and February 1 to July 31 for raptors. During this period, trees or grasslands with nests containing eggs, young, or adult birds engaged in nesting activities will be considered active. However, some migratory birds are known to nest outside of the aforementioned primary nesting period. Vegetation removal or tree clearing would be scheduled to occur outside the primary nesting period. If construction of the project has to occur during the primary nesting season or at any other time that may result in the 'take' of nesting migratory birds, a qualified biologist would conduct a field survey of the affected habitats to determine the absence or presence of nesting migratory birds. Surveys would be conducted during the nesting season and immediately preceding the proposed construction activities. Measures and recommendations (buffer distance, access restriction, timing of construction) by the USFWS to avoid adverse impacts would be implemented. In the event an occupied nest of species protected by the MBTA is observed during construction activities, construction would be stopped and consultation with the USFWS should be initiated to ensure compliance with the MBTA.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) The bald eagle has been de-listed from the ESA, but continues to be protected under the BGEPA, MBTA, and Lacey Act -16 U.S.C. § 701, May 25, 1900. The BGEPA prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts,
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 28 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District nests, or eggs. The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." This definition also covers impacts that result from human- induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present; if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment. A survey for eagle nests would be conducted by a qualified biologist if the proposed activities are to take place within the active nesting season of bald eagles, which is dependent on the location of the proposed levee repair.
To avoid disturbing nesting bald eagles and their young, USFWS guidelines would be followed. This includes conducting pre-construction nest surveys and maintaining a buffer of at least 660 feet between the project and any active nest, or restricting construction to August through mid- January when bald eagles are not nesting. The size and shape of effective buffers vary depending on the topography and other ecological characteristics surrounding the nest site, and serve to minimize visual and auditory impacts associated with human activities near nest sites. If these conditions cannot be met, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be consulted for further guidance. Measures and recommendations (buffer distance, access restriction, timing of construction) by the USFWS to avoid adverse impacts would be implemented. Relative to bald eagles in Montana, recommendations provided in the 2010 Montana Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: Addendum to the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan should be adhered to for distance and seasonal buffers. In the event an eagle nest is initiated or discovered during construction activities, construction would be stopped and consultation with the USFWS would be initiated to ensure compliance with the BGEPA.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: The “No Action” Alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source, or the project sponsor would repair the levee at their own expense. Construction related noise from machinery, dust generated from construction activities, and human presence would likely impact wildlife species. These impacts would be considered temporary and the species would likely return upon project completion. The use of silt fences to control sedimentation and runoff may not be used and this could impact fish species not accustomed to turbid conditions. Moreover, if private funds are used, there is a risk that some permanent impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats could occur. These impacts would result from the use of borrow sites that might not be in accordance with NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites. The No-Action Alternative is still subject to compliance under the MBTA and BGEPA.
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would result in minor short-term construction related impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The impacts to wildlife resources would be related to noise, visual, and land disturbance from construction activities. Most of the disturbed areas have adjacent lands where wildlife could temporarily relocate to minimize impacts. The potential impacts to fishery resources are primarily related to possible site runoff; however, the contribution of sediment from construction activities would be minimized through BMPs (e.g., erosion control measures) and would most likely be of a temporary nature and negligible with no anticipated adverse effects on fishes, reptiles, amphibians, or
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 29 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
macroinveterbrates. Additionally, the use of NWO’s SOPs for the selection of borrow sites would reduce impacts on fish and wildlife by using borrow areas that were previously disturbed while avoiding areas located in more pristine habitat areas. Dredging activities to remove excess material at silted-in recovery and mitigation projects or the adjacent floodplain could potentially benefit fish and wildlife by creating open areas where dredge cuts were made. These open areas would provide some connectivity between the river and newly created backwater areas if dredge cuts are left open to the river, as well as restore the ecological benefits of the recovery/mitigation site itself. Preconstruction surveys for compliance with the MBTA and BGEPA would be conducted if necessary, and applicable measures to minimize impacts to migratory birds and/or eagles implemented.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural activities would have no significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. Any land acquisition or buy-out of a particular area as a non-structural response would likely have beneficial impacts for wildlife as the area would likely remain undisturbed and could potentially reconnect a portion of the floodplain.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Impacts to fish and wildlife from this alternative would be the same as mentioned above for Alternatives 2 and 3.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. There would be a greater risk of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife, over that of the preferred alternative, because innovative flood fight structures, such as Hesco bastions would not be provided. As a result, entities would need to acquire borrow for the construction of berms. The borrow site selection would not necessarily be in accordance with NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, and this could impact otherwise non-disturbed habitat areas.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Advance Measures are constructed on the top of levees, on the landward side of levees, or in low- lying areas of town (at tunnels, road crossings, etc.) and not within any streams or rivers; thus, no impacts to fish would be anticipated. Wildlife inhabiting the area where Advance Measures would be placed would be temporarily displaced during construction activities but would likely return to the area after construction is completed. There are generally other areas of habitat through-out the project areas that these species could use, so mobile species likely would not be adversely affected. However, if construction of Advance Measures were to take place in wetland areas, there is potential for direct impacts to reptiles, amphibians, insects, or other wetland species that may be killed because they are not able to flee the area during construction.
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
These resources are institutionally important and protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Endangered or threatened species are technically important because the
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 30 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
status of such species provides an indication of the overall health of an ecosystem. These species are publicly important because of the desire of the public to protect them and their habitats.
Within the counties in the proposed project area, approximately 50 species of plants and animals have been federally listed as endangered or threatened, or as candidates for listing on the endangered species list. The Corps has determined that the proposed projects would have no affect on many of the 50 listed and candidate species because they avoid human disturbance, or they are not found in or along the streams where the proposed work would take place. For a complete list of the endangered, threatened, and candidate species that may occur in the counties where projects are proposed, and an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed projects on these species, please refer to the attached Biological Assessment in Appendix VI. Species likely to occur within the proposed project areas that may be affected by levee repairs or Advance Measures are provided in Table 2 in this Programmatic EA. Also included in the table are potential impacts associated with the proposed construction activities, and minimization/mitigation measures that would be implemented to alleviate these impacts.
General Construction Considerations The proposed levee repair projects and associated site-specific activities are not expected to generate appreciable change in habitat conditions as compared with conditions pre-existing the flood event. As with any construction project however, there will be some temporary and/or permanent impacts. For example, there is the potential for minor changes in water quality during and immediately after construction, or noise may temporarily disturb any wildlife in the project area. In order to implement any federal alternative (Alt 2-4, and Advance Measure Alt 2), the Corps must insure that the effect of any activity they undertake does not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat per section 7 of the ESA. As such, the Corps has completed a biological assessment for the preferred alternative that identifies the effects that may result if construction is generally conducted in the way that has been laid out in this EA. As part of this evaluation, mitigation measures, including BMPs have been suggested to minimize or avoid adverse impacts to Threatened and Endangered species. These measures are laid out in Table 2, and are considered applicable to all alternatives evaluated in this EA, and are thus considered in the impacts analysis. However, it is understood that this document is programmatic in nature, and thus, any site specific implementation would need to be revisited to investigate whether proposed activities fall within the scope of this evaluation, if a new species is listed or found to be present in the project area, or if new information is available with regard to a particular species that occurs in the project area. Where there is significant new information found to exist, impacts to T&E species would need to be revisited, further evaluation completed, and additional consultation with the USFWS would be required. For a more detailed description on individual species, potential impacts and conservation measures please refer to the Biological Assessment included as Appendix VI.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 31 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species That May be Affected and Associated Mitigation Measures.
Common Name State Location and Potential Determination Mitigation Affect Eastern Massasauga MO and IA. Construction may May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys prior to Candidate harm, harass or kill snakes that Likely to Adversely construction, and if sighted, occur within the project areas Affect. consult with USFWS. If especially during hibernation discovered during (October to April). construction, stop work and consult with the USFWS.
Greater Sage Grouse MT, ND, SD, WY. Construction May Affect, but Not In sage-brushed areas, Candidate may temporarily displace species Likely to Adversely conduct surveys prior to in sage-brush areas; affect Affect. construction, and if sighted feeding, breeding & sheltering. or if impacts to habitat Mating season begins in March, would occur, consult with with females laying eggs mid- USFWS. Avoid March – mid-May. Birds cannot disturbance to leks within ¼ survive where sagebrush no mile; avoid human activity longer exists. mid-March to mid-May (6pm-8am) within ¼ mile. If a lek is discovered during construction, stop work and consult with the USFWS.
Indiana Bat MO and IA. Summer May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys for Endangered construction activities may Likely to Adversely Affect potential habitat (trees with temporarily displace species. during summer exfoliating bark) prior to construction. construction, and if potential habitat is present, consult with USFWS. If bats or potential habitat is discovered during construction, stop work and consult with the USFWS.
Interior Least Tern MO, IA, NE, SD, ND, MT. The May Affect, but Not Avoid nesting season Endangered species is present in reaches Likely to Adversely (April-August). If work along the Missouri River during Affect. must occur during nesting the spring and summer months. season, a pre-construction Nesting and rearing typically nest survey would be occurs April-August. conducted. If nests are Construction activities could discovered within ½ mile of destroy nests or cause nest construction site, abandonment consultation with USFWS would occur. If terns initiate nesting in the vicinity (½mile) of construction activities, work would stop and USFWS would be contacted.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 32 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Pallid Sturgeon MO, IA, NE, SD, ND, MT. May Affect, but Not BMPs are placed to reduce Endangered Project-related activities are not Likely to Adversely terrestrial erosion and expected to affect water quality Affect. Potential beneficial impacts to water quality. If or quantity in rivers where pallid effects. construction requires sturgeon occur. Temporary, dredging activities, construction-related increases in consultation with the turbidity (channel work only) USFWS would be could be beneficial. conducted. Limit construction activities outside of spawning period (May 15-July 31).
Pink Mucket Mussel MO. Turbidity from construction May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Endangered may clog the species feeding Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion siphons or bury it. Affect. and associated turbidity. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.
Piping Plover NE, IA, SD, ND, MT. The May Affect, but Not Avoid nesting season Threatened species is present in Missouri Likely to Adversely (April-August). If nesting River reaches. Work is Affect. season cannot be avoided, scheduled to occur outside of conduct surveys prior to when birds use affected construction, and if nests shorelines or sandbars but may are discovered within ½ occur within that timeframe. mile, consult with USFWS. Riverwash/sands on agricultural If plovers initiate nesting in lands may be used by the species the vicinity (½mile) of the for nesting prior to levee work construction activities, being conducted. work would stop and USFWS would be contacted. Rabbits Foot Mussel MO. Turbidity from construction May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Candidate may clog the species feeding Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion siphons or bury it. Affect. and associated turbidity. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.
Scaleshell Mussel MO. Turbidity from construction May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Endangered may make feeding difficult or Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion may suffocate the species. Affect. and associated turbidity. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 33 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Sheep-Nose Mussel IA and MO. Turbidity from May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Proposed construction may make feeding Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion difficult or may suffocate the Affect. and associated turbidity. species. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.
Spectaclecase IA and MO. Turbidity from May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Mussel construction may make feeding Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion Proposed difficult or may suffocate the Affect. and associated turbidity. species. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.
Topeka Shiner SD, IA, NE, MO. Turbidity May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Endangered from construction may affect Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion. feeding and breeding shiners. Affect. Avoid spawning period (late May to mid-July) Virginia MO. Occurs in seasonal ponds. May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys prior to Sneezeweed May be affected by Advance Likely to Adversely Advance Measures, and if Threatened Measures filling of wetland Affect. sighted, consult with areas. USFWS.
Western Prairie- IA, NE, and ND. Occurs in tall May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys of any tall Fringed Orchid grass prairie areas. Does not Likely to Adversely grass unbroken native Threatened occur on levees. Staging Affect. prairie areas used as staging materials in tall grass areas may prior to construction, and if crush the species. sighted, consult with USFWS.
Whooping Crane MT, NE, ND, and SD. Migrating May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys prior to Endangered cranes could stopover along Likely to Adversely construction, and if sighted, banks and sandbars of the Affect. consult with USFWS. If Missouri River within the discovered during project areas. Project construction, stop work and construction is unlikely to occur consult with the USFWS. during the migration season. If levee fixes are not made in time, construction related activities may harass the species.
Yellow-Billed Listed as candidate species in May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys prior to Cuckoo MT and WY. More commonly Likely to Adversely clearing vegetation and if Candidate found in the eastern states (NE, Affect. sighted, consult with IA, MO, SD) as a spring and fall USFWS. If discovered migrant and summer resident. during construction, stop Requires woody, shrubby work and consult with the vegetation which is not found on USFWS. Alternatively, levees. Clearing of cottonwoods clear vegetation outside of and willows for staging areas nesting season (April to could affect nesting habitat. September).
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 34 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: The No-Action Alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source, or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. Actions by private landowners may impact non-critical habitat used by threatened and endangered species. However, any “take” to listed species is regulated under the Endangered Species Act. Private entities would be required to comply with the Endangered Species Act so take of threatened and endangered species would likely be avoided. As such, impacts to threatened and endangered species would not be considered significant.
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: With this alternative, each project would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if it would potentially adversely affect any threatened or endangered species. These determinations would be coordinated with the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Offices. Generally, because this alternative would not result in substantial change in the footprint of the levee as it previously existed, it would not be expected to have adverse effects on any Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or any designated critical habitat. Also, because structural repair and borrow activities typically will occur on agricultural land or other previously disturbed sites, and because mitigation measures listed in table 2 will be implemented where appropriate, adverse impacts to T&E species would not be anticipated. The Corps would coordinate PL 84-99 levee repairs and Advance Measure responses with the USFWS when it determines that a site-specific action ‘may affect’ listed species to further insure that there are no adverse effects on any Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or any designated critical habitat.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Construction aspects of all non- structural activities would likely have similar effects on Federally-listed threatened or endangered species as the structural repairs described above in Alternative 2. However, non- structural alternatives that result in significant restoration of floodplain connectivity could actually benefit species, especially those whose life requisites are dependent on river/floodplain interaction.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would likely have no adverse impacts on any Federally- listed threatened or endangered species or any designated critical habitat due to the location of the proposed levee repairs. However, in some circumstances, listed species may occur on-site or be in close proximity to construction areas. These species have been identified in the attached Biological Assessment and are listed above. In instances where listed species may have the potential to occur, surveys for those particular species would be conducted and coordination/consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would occur. If work initiates because no species were found during the pre-construction surveys but are later found on-site or in close proximity to the proposed project, construction work would cease and consultation with Service would be re-initiated.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 35 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
damages. Actions by private landowners may impact non-critical habitat used by threatened and endangered species. However, any “take” to listed species is regulated under the Endangered Species Act. Private entities would be required to comply with the Endangered Species Act so take of threatened and endangered species would likely be avoided.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Past coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has generally resulted in “no affect” determinations on listed species due to the location where the Advance Measures are placed (within city limits). As such, no significant impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated. However, in some circumstances, listed species (as noted above) or their habitat may occur in close proximity to construction areas. Advance Measures are placed to avoid loss of life and are placed under emergency conditions. Thus, it is possible that adverse affects to listed-species habitat may occur. In these instances, after-the-fact consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur to determine if species have been affected and to establish mitigation to offset the impacts that may have occurred.
3.8 Invasive Species
Riparian vegetation along the Missouri River and its tributaries has been severely reduced by clearing for cities and towns, and for agriculture and levee construction. During this process, some areas of the cleared land were not properly reseeded or were left bare and abandoned. As a result, invasive species colonized and out-competed native vegetation. In other areas, people purposely planted ornamental vegetation for their enjoyment that was not endemic to the area. This resulted in the continued spread of non-native species. According to Executive Order 13122, Federal agencies may not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species.
Invasive aquatic species that are a concern and that have the potential to be introduced into new water bodies by contaminated construction equipment include zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis), New Zealand mudsnails (Potamogyrpus antiposarum), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), among others. Invasive terrestrial species that may also be transported to new locations from construction equipment include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), musk thistle (Cardus nutans), and bromegrass (Bromus sterilis). Other invasive species found within the project areas include red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), salt cedar (Tamarix spp.), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), hoary cress (Cardaria pubescens), and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) among others.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: The No-Action Alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source, or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. These actions could result in the introduction of invasive species if adequate measures are not taken to ensure that all equipment is free from soil residuals, egg deposits from plant pests, noxious weeds, plant seeds, and aquatic
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 36 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
nuisance species prior to its use. Additionally, if seed sources used for reseeding levees are not from reputable sources, the introduction of invasive species could occur on a large scale. In some circumstances, staging areas used for construction may be left bare or not returned to pre- construction conditions which would leave areas prime for invasion of unwanted species.
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative is not expected to introduce any new invasive species to levee repair sites. All construction equipment is required to be cleaned prior to being brought onto USACE construction sites. Construction contractors are also required to ensure that all equipment is free from soil residuals, egg deposits from plant pests, noxious weeds, plant seeds, and aquatic nuisance species prior to its use on the project. Disturbed land areas would be seeded with a native seed mixture and mulched, as required, to minimize the likelihood that invasive plants would become established on soils that have been disturbed.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural responses would likely have no significant impact on the introduction of invasive species. Land buy-outs, as a non-structural alternative, would likely re-vegetate with timber dominated by native cottonwood and willow species. Federal controls would ensure invasive species do not establish.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would likely have no significant impact on the introduction of invasive species for the reasons stated above in Alternatives 2 and 3.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. These actions could result in the introduction of invasive species if adequate measures are not taken to ensure that all equipment is free from soil residuals, egg deposits from plant pests, noxious weeds, plant seeds, and aquatic nuisance species prior to its use.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): A requirement of Advance Measure installation is that the structures be removed following the high flow event and that the area be returned to its pre-project condition. Thus, this alternative would likely have no significant impact on the introduction of invasive species.
3.9 Floodplain
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Guidelines, May 24, 1977 outlines the responsibilities of Federal agencies in the role of floodplain management. Each agency shall evaluate the potential effects of actions on floodplains and should avoid undertaking actions that directly or indirectly support floodplain development. The Omaha District’s Flood Risk and Floodplain Management Section will have the opportunity to review the proposed projects and each individual action for compliance with E.O. 11988.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 37 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Floodplains consist of the relatively flat land along one or both sides of a river channel. Floodplains serve critical roles if allowed to work without alteration. These roles consist of storing water when a river overflows its banks, slowing water velocity which reduces erosion, allowing groundwater recharge, creating fish and wildlife habitat, and most importantly, reducing the overall power of the flood which better protects downstream areas from flooding. Modified floodplains minimize or completely eliminate the natural functions of the floodplain and often change land use. Structures added to the floodplain incrementally reduce its ability to store water. In many areas, flood control projects, bank stabilization, and channelization of rivers have either completely or partially removed the connectivity of rivers with the floodplain. The majority of the floodplains are now used for either agriculture or urban development. It is expected that over time, more agricultural areas will be converted to urban/suburban uses, as urban populations continue to grow. Because the PL 84-99 Program is a form of maintenance designed to repair levees back to their original design specifications, no modification of the floodplain generally occurs. However, in some circumstances where the levee has blown out, the only logical fix is to set the levee back (landward) from its original location. In these instances, the floodplain is incrementally increased and better able to serve its critical roles. Advance Measures by nature either follow existing levees to shore-up low-lying areas or are placed in low-lying areas of cities and towns. Advance Measures are rarely placed and left within the floodplain. A condition of Advance Measures is that they are removed once the high flow event passes; thus, no long term impacts result. In instances where Advance Measures are to be left in place, individual assessments would be conducted to determine their impacts as leaving Advance Measures in place is out of the scope of this Environmental Assessment.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: The “No Action” Alternative would continue to expose all public and private infrastructures previously protected to a higher level risk of future flooding. There would be no foreseen adverse impact to the floodplain; actually, the floodplain would increase if no action were taken.
However, the local levee and drainage district would likely seek funding to repair the levees from some other source or the project sponsor would repair the levee at their own expense. Individual repairs would be evaluated to assess the urgency or critical nature of the repair. Sponsor related repairs would likely result in maintaining the same level of flood risk management which existed prior to the flood damage. No significant impact would therefore arise.
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would maintain the same level of flood risk management which existed prior to any flood damage as required by ER 500-1-1. With levee repairs that include setbacks, land is returned to the floodplain. Under PL 84-99, structural levee repairs do not support more development in the floodplain or encourage additional occupancy and/or modification of the base floodplain. The USACE has determined that structural repairs to levees damaged during flood events comply with the intent of Executive Order 11988.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 38 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural responses would have no significant adverse impacts on the floodplain, and for any land buy-out or levee setback for the purposes of restoring the floodplain, beneficial impacts (increased flood storage, groundwater recharge, creation of fish and wildlife habitat, etc.) on floodplains would be expected.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would have no significant adverse impacts on the floodplain and any land buy-out as a non-structural response would likely have beneficial impacts. Structural repairs would maintain the same level of flood risk reduction which existed prior to any flood damage as required by ER 500-1-1. USACE has determined that the structural repairs to the dams and levees comply with the intent of E.O. 11988.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Installation of flood fight structures would not necessarily be confined to levee tops or areas landward of the levees. Following the flood fight, the local community may keep some of the structures in-place, which could add to the floodplain and cause an incremental rise. This, in- turn, would have incremental adverse affects.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): The Advance Measures are generally placed on top of existing levees, landward of levees, and in low-lying areas within town. Because the Advance Measures are required to be removed after the flood event has passed, no increased rise to the floodplain would occur and the effects would not be considered significant. In instances where Advance Measures would be left in place, separate environmental documentation would be prepared to assess impacts as leaving Advance Measures in place is out of the scope of this Environmental Assessment.
3.10 Land Use
Land use in the surrounding areas of the proposed projects is either agricultural or residential. Land use at the proposed project sites has been dedicated to levee use, lies along previously constructed levees in low-lying areas, or occurs in low-lying areas of cities and towns. Land use would not change from its previous use for the majority of the proposed projects with the exception of when levees are set back. In these instances, land that was available to farmers for agriculture would be replaced by a newly constructed levee. This is to the advantage of the farmer as it allows agriculture to continue.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: This alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. This could result in increasing the level of flood risk management over that which existed prior to any high flow event, resulting in incremental changes in the land use.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 39 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would maintain the same level of flood risk management which existed prior to any high flow event, as required by ER 500-1-1. With levee repairs that include setbacks, some landward agricultural land would be occupied by the new levee while riverward land would be returned to the floodplain. The landward occupation resulting from a levee setback would not result in permanent conversion of farmland as farming would still occur. Under PL 84-99, structural levee repairs would not cause any significant change in land use.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Non-structural responses, such as land acquisition and buy-out, would return large areas of agricultural land back to the floodplain. This would change land use from agricultural land to open space. This in turn may have impacts to agriculture, but would not necessarily involve any permanent land conversion. This action would provide benefits to the ecosystem by providing undisturbed land for species to feed, breed, and shelter.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Structural repairs to levees under PL 84-99 would have no significant impact on land use. Any land acquisition or buy-out would return large areas of agricultural land back to the floodplain. This would change land use from agricultural land to open space. This in turn would have impacts to agriculture in the immediate area of the buy-out.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. If the flood fight structures are not removed, a change in land use could occur. Given the limited amount of flood fight structures that would likely be installed, the impact would not be considered significant.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Because all Advance Measures are required to be removed once the high flow event has passed, no long term impact to land use would occur. In instances where Advance Measures would be kept in place, individual assessments under NEPA would be conducted as that is out of the scope of this Environmental Assessment.
3.11 Economics
Repairing damaged levees is typically in the sponsor’s best financial interest, with or without Federal assistance. As demonstrated by past repairs through the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program, the benefit to cost ratios for levee repair are almost always greater than one, meaning that the proposed project is justified or economically feasible. It is almost always more economical to repair damaged levees than to construct larger levees that provide higher levels of flood risk management or leave critical infrastructure exposed to future high flow events. Every levee rehabilitation project would go through an individual benefit to cost evaluation to ensure the project is economically feasible.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 40 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: This alternative would likely result in the project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levee from some other source or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. This would likely result in a larger portion of local financial resources being used for levee repairs and potential financial hardships to local communities that don’t have these resources available.
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would maintain the same level of flood risk management that existed prior to the flood damage, as required by ER 500-1-1. This would result in no long term changes in economic conditions as a result of the levee repair. Public and private infrastructure protected by the levee prior to the flood damage would continue to have the same flood risk as existed prior to the levee being damaged. Thus, no change in economics would likely occur. PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Non-structural responses, such as land acquisition or buy-out could have impacts on the local economy. If farmland is sold, taxes would not be collected. This, in turn, could affect the local tax base of the community.
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Structural repairs to levees under PL 84-99 would have no significant impact on the local economy. There would likely be no change in land use and public and private infrastructure protected by the levee prior to the flood damage would continue to have the same flood risk as existed prior to the flood event and resulting levee damage. Any land acquisition or buy-out could have impacts on the local economy. If farmland is sold, taxes would not be collected. This, in turn, could affect the local tax base of the community.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. This would likely result in a larger portion of local financial resources being used for Advance Measures and potential financial hardships to local communities that don’t have these resources available.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): The proposed project would benefit the local economy by protecting the city’s infrastructure.
3.12 Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations directs federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice in their decision making process. Federal agencies are directed to identify and address as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.
No minority or low-income populations would be displaced or negatively affected by the proposed levee repair projects. Flood protection benefits provided by the proposed projects will equally benefit people of all socioeconomic conditions and ethnic backgrounds residing and
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 41 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
working in the flood protected area; therefore, no environmental justice issues exist for any of the alternatives.
3.13 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are a broad pattern of material and non-material sites or objects that represent contemporary, historic, and pre-historic human life ways or practices. River floodplains usually contain a variety of cultural resource types that span from the earliest Native American inhabitants of North America to the present. Common cultural resource sites include prehistoric Native American archeological sites, historic archeological sites, ship wrecks, and structures such as bridges and buildings. Projects involving Federal land, funds, or permitting are subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). NWO coordinates individual PL 84-99 levee repairs and Advance Measures responses with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) to ensure that there are no adverse effects on any cultural resources. Each project site would be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if cultural resources occur within the project vicinity including staging areas and borrow sites. Coordination with the respective State Historic Preservation Office in each state would be implemented to ensure protection of cultural, historical, and archeological resources. This coordination would include the results of archeological background reviews conducted by the District Archeologist, archeological field investigations (if required), and coordination with the SHPO.
PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: This alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source, or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. Actions undertaken and entirely funded by private landowners may not require Federal permits and, therefore, would not subject to NHPA compliance. As a result, this alternative could impact cultural resources.
PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: Under most circumstances, this alternative would have no adverse effects on historic properties as the work is limited to existing structures. However, repairs requiring new borrow sites, levee relocations, or dredging from rivers may have the potential to impact cultural resources. The USACE would continue to coordinate individual PL 84-99 levee repairs with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to ensure that all compliance is followed. Federally recognized Native American tribes (Tribes), with ties to the area, would be notified of the proposed project. This notification includes the results of archeological background reviews conducted by the District Archeologist, archeological field investigations (if required), and coordination with the SHPO. In addition, in the unlikely event that archeological material is discovered during project construction, work in the area of the discovery would cease until the discovery is investigated by a qualified archeologist and the find is coordinated with appropriate SHPO and the Tribes.
PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non Structural Responses: With this alternative, there would be little to no soil disturbance and therefore there would likely be no adverse effects on cultural resources. If any disturbance were anticipated, these actions would be coordinated with SHPO and the Tribes in compliance with the NHPA.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 42 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Requirements under this alternative would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. The USACE would continue to coordinate individual PL 84-99 levee repairs with the SHPO to ensure that all appropriate cultural resource requirements are conducted. Tribes would be notified of the proposed project and cultural resource background reviews and investigations. In the unlikely event that archeological material is discovered during project construction, work in the area of the discovery would cease until the discovery is investigated by a qualified archeologist and the find is coordinated with SHPO and the Tribes.
Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Actions undertaken and entirely funded by private landowners may not require Federal permits and, therefore, would not subject to NHPA compliance. As a result, this alternative could impact cultural resources.
Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): The proposed Advance Measures would occur in areas that have previously been cleared for potential impacts to cultural resources, namely within the town proper. Borrow material would be obtained from sites that have previously received cultural clearance. As such, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. However, if a discovery is made during construction, all activity would be halted around the discovery site and the contractor would notify a Corps archaeologist who would in turn inform the SHPO of the discovery. The Corps archaeologist would examine the discovery area as soon as possible and then consult with the SHPO about the nature and National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the area prior to resumption of any activity near the site. For these reasons, the proposed project is not likely to adversely impact cultural resources.
4.0 Cumulative Impacts
The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations defines cumulative impacts as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (CEQ, 1997). These actions include on- or off-site projects conducted by government agencies, businesses, communities, or individuals that are within the spatial and temporal boundaries of the current actions being considered. The geographical areas of consideration are actions located within/along the floodplain of the Missouri River and its tributaries over the course of the last century.
The Missouri River and its tributaries have been altered by past actions such as bank stabilization, dams, roads/bridges, agricultural and urban levees, channelization, water withdrawal for human and agricultural use, urbanization and other human uses. These activities
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 43 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
have substantially altered the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem within the watersheds under consideration. Some examples of the alterations that have occurred include: wetland losses, development of the floodplain, conversion of riparian habitat to agriculture and urban development, and the cut-off of the floodplain from the river. Much of the conversion of riparian habitat to agriculture lands occurred prior to construction of levees with nearly 50 percent of the Missouri River floodplain being in agricultural production by 1937 (Bragg and Tatschl, 1977). In 1912, the USACE started constructing the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) which channelized and stabilized the Missouri River and significantly altered flows. It is estimated that 522,000 acres of aquatic and terrestrial habitat was lost in and along the Missouri River, between 1912 and 2003, due to the construction and operation of the BSNP (USACE, 1981). The USACE is authorized in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1986 and 1999 to mitigate for these impacts by purchasing and developing fish and wildlife habitat on 166,750 acres of land. To date, approximately 50,000 acres have been purchased and 40,000 acres of habitat developed. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) found that continued operation of the BSNP would jeopardize the continued existence of the least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon. As a result, a biological opinion in 2000, and amended in 2003, included a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) aimed at restoration projects such as Shallow Water Habitat and Emergent Sandbar Habitat creation, and Floodplain Restoration. The USFWS believes that if the RPA is constructed, the natural aspects of the Missouri River would be restored much to the benefit and recovery of fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species.
After flood events on the Missouri River, over the past 15 years or so, various environmental restoration programs purchased fee title, or easements, on large acreages of land in the Missouri River floodplain from willing sellers. In some cases, these acquisitions bought out entire levee districts and areas converted for habitat purposes. These levee districts typically contained very few landowners and often only had a single landowner. Many of the remaining levee districts now contain multiple landowners, many of which are not willing to sell their land for a non- structural alternative.
The Recommended Plan would continue to provide levee rehabilitation/Advance Measures assistance to Federal and non-Federal levee sponsors along the Missouri River and its tributaries which participate in the PL 84-99 Program. The Recommended Plan would not involve permanent or increased obstructions to the floodway. The rehabilitation of levees usually consists of repairs through minor levee setbacks and/or repairs of existing structures to their previous condition. Advance Measures responses consist of temporary structures that are removed once the flood has passed. These projects typically result in minor short-term construction related impacts to agricultural lands, wetlands, fish and wildlife and the habitats upon which they depend; however, there are no collectively significant cumulative environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan primarily because it restores the existing levee back to its pre-damaged condition. Potential adverse affects are construction-related (e.g., noise, visual and air quality) and of a minor and temporary nature. In cases of major levee setbacks where large blow holes in the levee have occurred, setting back the levee restores the floodplain to the benefit of fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species; increases
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 44 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
conveyance; lowers flood stages; re-introduces the floodplain/river interaction; and provides increased nutrient exchange. These activities have considerable beneficial effects to the ecology of the river similar to those being pursued under other programs meant to reverse past trends, and thus, such actions are compatible with restoration and recovery of species.
It is likely, even without assistance from the USACE’s PL 84-99 Program, that these levees would be repaired, or flood fight measures installed, either using some other source of public funding or with private funds from the sponsor. If private funds are used, there is greater risk of adverse impacts to terrestrial habitat, fish and wildlife, water resources, the floodplain, threatened or endangered species, cultural, and other resources.
The USACE, which administers Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, has issued and would continue to evaluate permits authorizing the placement of fill material in the waters of the United States and/or work on, in, over or under a navigable water of the United States including the Missouri River and its tributaries. Of the reasonably foreseeable projects and associated impacts that would be expected to occur, future development of the floodplain would probably have the greatest impact on these resources. Because these projects at most would merely restore the levee to its pre-existing state, it should not induce such development in any substantial way. The possibility of wetland conversion and the clearing of riparian habitat are ever present, and these activities also tend to impact these resources. Most of the floodplain is already protected by either agricultural levees, in rural areas, or urban levees, in metropolitan areas. There is a trend towards converting agricultural levees to urban levees as metropolitan areas continue to grow. Substantial, environmental restoration efforts are occurring on the Missouri River, and its tributaries, and structures that provide flood risk management have been removed and natural floodplain habitat restored, in some areas. No new major reservoir construction is likely on the Missouri River or its’ tributaries in the foreseeable future.
The cumulative impacts of the proposed actions when added to other present and future actions, and even when added to the past degradation actions on the Missouri River and its tributaries, do not result in a net increase in impacts because the proposed action does not result in an addition to flood heights or reduced floodplain area. Instead, they are merely a form of maintenance of the existing flood risk management capability. In addition, the minor, short-term adverse affects on natural resources are out-weighed by the long-term beneficial effects associated with the enhancement of the aquatic ecosystem through borrow activities and reconnecting the floodplain through levee setbacks. Thus, no significant negative cumulative impacts associated with the Recommended Plan have been identified.
5.0 Conclusion
The flood risk management level achieved by the Recommended Plan would be the same as the original pre-flood condition. Under the Recommended Plan, individual projects would be evaluated to ensure compliance with the ESA, Section 106, and CWA. Areas of structural levee repair would have some temporary, minor disturbance by proposed construction activities. The
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 45 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
adverse effects associated with the proposed projects are minor and would normally return to pre-construction conditions upon completion of construction activities.
The NWO would review each individual proposed levee repair or Advance Measure response in the future under the PL 84-99 program to determine if any mitigation is needed and if additional NEPA compliance is required. Each individual project would be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws, NWO’s Standard Operating Procedures for the Selection of Borrow Sites, and all appropriate Clean Water Act compliance requirements. In addition, the NWO would continue to coordinate individual PL 84-99 levee repairs and Advance Measure responses with the SHPO to ensure that all appropriate compliance is followed. Federally recognized Native American tribes (Tribes), with ties to the area, would continue to be notified of all proposed levee repair projects. This notification would include the results of archeological background reviews conducted by the District Archeologist, archeological field investigations (if required), and coordination with the SHPO. In addition, in the unlikely event that archeological material is discovered during project construction, work in the area of the discovery would cease until the discovery is investigated by a qualified archeologist and the find is coordinated with SHPO and the Tribes. These individual repair project reviews would tier off this EA and be documented by a Programmatic EA compliance worksheet (Appendix V) which would be placed in the project’s administrative record.
If a levee repair or Advance Measure is proposed that is not consistent with the general method of PL 84-99 repairs/responses included in this EA, a supplemental EA would be prepared and sent to interested parties including individuals, agencies, and businesses with interest in the proposed levee repair or Advance Measure.
6.0 Coordination and Comments
Levee rehabilitation and Advance Measures response projects completed by the Corps under authority of Public Law 84-99 generally do not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. These projects typically result in long-term social and economic benefits and the adverse environmental effects are typically minor/short-term construction related. The minor impacts associated with these projects are typically well outweighed by the overall long-term social and economic benefits of these projects. The recommended plans are consistent with this assessment of typical levee rehabilitation and Advance measure projects completed by the Corps under authority of Public Law 84-99 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. Coordination with the resource agencies was conducted to ensure compliance with NEPA regulations. Federal and state agency comment letters are included in Appendix II.
6.1 State Agency Responses
The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks stated in an August 26, 2011 letter that the likelihood of significantly impacting rare, threatened, and endangered species is improbable as the levees have been previously constructed, and therefore, are located in a formerly disturbed area. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the Nebraska Game and Parks
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 46 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
Commission expressed similar comments in August 25, 2011 emails. In letters dated October 17, 2011 and November 17, 2011, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department recommended that no work be conducted during certain times of the year and that distance perimeters be established in order to minimize impacts to terrestrial species. These work windows and distances are provided in Appendix II. Additionally, to minimize impacts to aquatic species, the state recommended that BMPs be implemented to minimize sediments, prevent spillages of fuels, and prevent the spread of invasive species.
6.2 Federal Agency Responses
In response to the Corps August 8, 2011 email requesting comments on potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the proposed projects, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Nebraska and Iowa), in an August 30, 2011, letter stated that they are “generally in support of the Corps recommended alternative”. A subsequent letter was received from the USFWS Nebraska Ecological office on December 15, 2011 providing comments on the PEA’s Biological Assessment and included a list of Best Management Practices recommended by USFWS for proposed construction activities associated with streams and rivers (Appendix II). Comments were addressed and incorporated into the BA and Corps responses submitted to USFWS. An email dated September 12, 2011 was received from the Ecological Field Office in Montana stating that they were aware of the Nebraska and Iowa’s comments concerning the proposed levee fixes and were supportive of the comments submitted by that office. The USFWS Ecological Field Office in Rock Island, Illinois concurred that the proposed projects would not affect the Indiana bat, prairie bush clover, western prairie fringed orchid, and may affect, but not adversely affect the pallid sturgeon; however, these comments apply only to actions along the Iowa shoreline in Fremont County. Overall, the USFWS requested individual coordination for projects that ‘may affect’ threatened and endangered species. Individual coordination would occur in those instances. An email received December 2, 2011 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) recommended that cropland and pasture areas covered by floodwater be assessed for erosion problems and susceptibility to invasive species, and that flooded areas be repaired and reseeded accordingly. National Park Service responded via email on November 16, 2011 with no comment on the subject project. Comments were received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 18, 2011 and addressed in the PEA accordingly. Corps responses to comments were submitted to EPA on December 7, 2011. EPA and Corps correspondence is included in Appendix II.
6.3 Public Responses
Prior to a decision on whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, the USACE placed the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated November 4, 2011, on http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/pd- e/environmental.html and provided a fifteen-day comment period for public and resource agency input. The comment period ended on November 18, 2011.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 47 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
7.0 Agency Compliance with Other Environmental Laws
Compliance with other environmental laws is listed below.
Federal Polices Compliance
Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq. Full Compliance Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Sect. 668. 668 note, 668a-66d) Full Compliance Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S. C. 7401-7671g, et seq. Full Compliance Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. Full Compliance Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq. Not Applicable Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. Full Compliance Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Full Compliance Estuary Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1221, et seq. Not Applicable Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4201, et. seq. Full Compliance Federal Water Project Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-12, et seq. Full Compliance Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq. Full Compliance Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) Full Compliance Invasive Species (Executive Order 13122) Full Compliance Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4, et seq. Not Applicable Marine Protection Research and Sanctuary Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401, et seq. Not Applicable Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712: Ch. 128 as amended) Full Compliance National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. Full Compliance National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470a, et seq Full Compliance Protection & Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (Executive Order 11593) Full Compliance Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) Full Compliance Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (EO 13186) Full Compliance Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 403, et seq. Full Compliance Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. Full Compliance Wild and Scenic River Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq. Not Applicable
NOTES: a. Full compliance. Having met all requirements of the statute for the current stage of planning (either preauthorization or post authorization). b. Not applicable. No requirements for the statute required.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 48 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
8.0 References
Berry, Charles R Jr., B. Young. 2004. Fishes of the Missouri National Recreational River, South Dakota and Nebraska. Great Plains Research 14 (Spring 2004): pp. 89-114.
Blevins, D.W., 2006. The Response of Suspended Sediment, turbidity, and Velocity to Historical Alterations of the Missouri River: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1301, 8 p.
Bragg, T. B., and Tatschl, A. K. 1977. Changes in Flood-Plain Vegetation and Land Use Along the Missouri River from 1826 to 1972. Environmental Management 1: 343–348.
Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1992. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, in accordance with 40 CFR 1507.3.
Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. January, 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. pp ix-x, 28-29 and 49-57.
Flood Control Act of 1941 (FCA). 1941. 33 U.S.C. 701n, as amended (commonly referred to as Public Law 84-99, Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Act).
Ickes, B.S., J. Vallazza, J. Kalas, and B. Knights. 2005. River Floodplain Connectivity and Lateral Fish Passage: A Literature Review. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, June 2005. 25pp.
National Academies of Sciences (NAS). 2002. Committee on Missouri River Ecosystem Science, National Research Council. The Missouri River Ecosystem: Exploring the Prospects for Recovery. Publication available for viewing at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10277
National Academies of Sciences (NAS). 2011. Committee on Missouri River Recovery and Associated Sediment Management Issues; National Research Council. Missouri River Planning: Recognizing and Incorporating Sediment Management. Publication available for viewing at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13019
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. Civil Emergency Management Program. Engineer Regulation (ER) 500-1-1.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2000. Engineering and Design. Design and Construction of Levees. Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1913.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1981. Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project Final Feasibility Report and Final EIS for the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 49 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Engineer Regulation (ER) 200-2-2. 33 CFR 230.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Northwestern Division- Missouri River Basin. Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System. Master Water Control Manual.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Missouri River Recovery Program: Fish and Wildlife Protection-Key to a Healthy River. Paper 47. Available at: http://digitalcommons,unl.edu/usarmyceomaha/47
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. Operation Mighty Mo. Flood Fight. Issue 1.Pp.7.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan. Focal Natural Resources Provisional Baseline Assessment.
9.0 List of Preparers
This EA and FONSI were prepared by Mr. Matthew D. Vandenberg, Environmental Resources Specialist, with cultural resource assistance provided by Ms. Sandra Barnum, District Archeologist. The address of the preparers is: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, District, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 50 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Omaha District
Prepared By: Date: 12( 1<. ; 11 Matthew D. Vandenberg v Environmental Resource Specialist
ReviewedBy: ~~ h Date: l. ApprovedBy: ~~ Date:;2;15 J Brad Thompson / ' I 11' Chief, Environmental Resources and Missouri River Recovery Program Plan and Formulation Section Planning Branch Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 51 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER2011 APPENDIX F 404 (b) (1) Analysis Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation (40 CFR 230) L-575 Levee Emergency Rehabilitation Construction Fremont County, Iowa 1.0 Introduction Extensive flooding occurred on the Missouri River in 2011, damaging much of the Flood Risk Management infrastructure along the river, especially between Omaha, Nebraska and Kansas City, Missouri. of the Corps responded by implementing advanced measures to prevent further damages during the 2011 flood, as well as fixing damaged infrastructure through various construction methods following the flood event. Initial compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyzed the general impacts of the overall large scale response along the Missouri River occurred via a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Public Law (PL) 84-99 Levee Rehabilitation Projects and Advanced Measure Responses in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District, which was completed on December 27, 2011. Damage to the L-575 levee sustained during the flood of 2011 consisted of three breaches (two flood breaches and 1 hydraulic breach to evacuate flood waters) and extensive damage in 20 specific locations (see figure 2). In-line structural repairs were made to most of the 20 damage locations (all except those occurring along the large-scale setback portions of the levee) and the three breaches were repaired by realigning the levee around the breaches and associated scour holes. “In-line” means repairs were placed generally at the same location the levee existed prior to the flood event. These structural repair construction activities began in December of 2011. Site specific impacts of these activities that were not captured in the PEA were captured in an Environmental Assessment (EA) that was tiered off of the PEA. The tiered EA was also completed in December, 2011, but did not address the large-scale setbacks. Revisions to the tiered EA include analysis of the large-scale setback activities. By February of 2012, all the breaches had been closed and by October 2012 the other non-breach in-line structural repairs had been completed. Prior to setback construction, sand and riprap was stockpiled by the setback location in case flood fighting needed to be initiated; the damage at the setback segments was not repaired prior to construction of the setbacks. Drought conditions during the 2012 construction timeframe allowed the damage at setback locations to go unrepaired as the setback levees were constructed. Ultimately, the old levee was be used to construct the setback levees. The two large scale setbacks were determined to be the most cost effective approach to permanently fixing the extensive amount of damage at the two setback sites. The first large-scale setback near Iowa Highway-2 (hereinafter referred to as HWY-2 setback) began in March of 2012 (see figure 7), concurrently with development of the revised EA. In late October 2012 a large-scale setback across the River from the OPPD coal-fired power plant, south of Nebraska City, NE (hereinafter referred to as Frazers Bend setback), was initiated (see figure 8). Construction on both setbacks was substantially complete by March 1st, 2013. Construction for compensatory wetland impact mitigation occurred concurrently with construction of the setbacks and other levee repairs. 1.1 Purpose of Evaluation An important aspect of the Environmental Assessment prepared for this effort is the evaluation of the Recommended Alternative consistent with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) are the substantive criteria used in evaluating discharges of dredged or Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 fill materials in waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Fundamental to these Guidelines is the precept that dredged or fill materials should not be discharged into an aquatic ecosystem unless it can be demonstrated that such discharges would not have unacceptable adverse impacts either individually or in combination with known or probable impacts of other activities affecting the ecosystem of concern. The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate that the Recommended Alternative (combination of structural and non-structural levee repairs) did not have unacceptable adverse impacts either individually or in combination with known or probable impacts of other activities affecting the aquatic resources in the project area, thus satisfying compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. 1.2 Authority and Scope of Analysis This project is being conducted under the USACE Public Law 84-99 (PL 84-99) Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program which provides emergency assistance to levee districts and communities in the form of post-flood levee repair and/or pre-flood damage reduction. The purpose of the levee rehab activities at L-575 is to repair the levee to pre-flood level of protection and to setback sections of the levee where severe damage has occurred and in-line repairs do not offer adequate levels of flood protection. In the course of emergency construction, consideration of Department of the Army regulatory programs (especially Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972) would occur, though after the fact in some case. Evaluation of the effects of the discharge of dredged or fill material, including consideration of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, is included in an EA, EIS or EIS Supplement prepared for all Corps actions in planning, design and construction where the recommended plan or approved project involves the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. 1.3 Project Location and General Description The project area includes the L-575 levee and its surrounding environs which were impacted by flooding from the Missouri River in 2011. The Missouri River Levee Unit L-575 starts close to the southwest corner of Thurman, Iowa, and then continues westward to the Missouri River channel. The levee then proceeds south along the Missouri River channel to its terminus with a tie back levee along the right bank of the Nishnabotna River. The levee spans an area along the Missouri River between river miles 575-544 and the levee itself has a length of approximately 45.73 miles. Much of the floodplain riverward of the existing levee in this area has a propensity to become inundated with flood waters 3-5 times every 10 years. Levee breaches have occurred along this levee in the past and the most constrictive conveyance point on the entire Missouri River exists near the Highway-2 bridge connecting Iowa to Nebraska City, NE. Based on the cost effectiveness of available PL 84-99 measures and the need to protect life and property safety, rehabilitation consisting of a combination of structural and non-structural measures was selected as the recommended plan. The recommended plan used structural and non-structural responses to rehabilitate the levee depending on the severity of the damage at individual locations; in-line repairs and small realignments around levee breaches are considered to be structural repairs and large-scale levee setbacks are considered non-structural repairs. One setback activity sets back the levee between RM 566 through RM 560 (HWY-2 setback) and calls for the removal of the old Iowa Highway 2 bridge approach. The HWY-2 setback will cause a 1.5 foot flood stage reduction during a 100-year flood event. The second setback takes place between RM 559 through RM555 (Frazers Bend setback). The setbacks take Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 place largely on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land that was purchased for the purposes of Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) wildlife habitat mitigation, habitat lost due to implementation of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP), and also on land provided by the levee sponsors. See Figure 1b for a map of the two large-scale setbacks. The PEA recommended alternative provides the greatest flexibility to repair levees by recommending a site-specific determination whether to implement structural repairs, non-structural repairs, or a combination thereof. The site-specific determination to use a combination of repair options is consistent with the PEA recommendation. These repairs included fine grading of the riverside and landside of the levee, followed by topsoil placement, and seeding to secure the levee toe and slope and construction of seepage berms. Table 2 summarizes all of the damage areas and recommended repairs to the entire L-575 system, and Figure 2 provides a map of the general repair areas. The repairs (structural and nonstructural) and their environmental impacts are described in detail below in section 3.1. Borrow material was required for constructing the setbacks. Borrow material was obtained from Corps owned Missouri River Recovery program (MRRP) land, the original levee, and provided by the levee sponsors. Wetland impacts were concurrently mitigated for during construction by leaving borrow pits in a condition that is conducive to wetland habitat establishment. Irregular shorelines with gently sloping banks (~1H:10V) that surround shallow pools of water were the general guidelines provided to construction crews for leaving borrow pits once mining was complete. Native hydrophytic vegetation was planted around the borrow pits and an upland buffer of native plants was planted around the outside of each wetland. See Figure 3 for a map of borrow material mining locations. Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Original Levee Centerline Missouri River Levee Unit L-575 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OMAHA DISTRICT OMAHA, NEBRASKA 5,500 11,000 Figure 1. General Project Area Location- displaying entire L-575 levee system Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 2.0 Alternatives Considered in the Environmental Assessment 2.1 Initial Plan Formulation Traditional plan formulation typically isn’t part of PL 84-99 response, but an expedited planning and economic analysis process documented in a Project Information Report (PIR) was conducted. Following development of the PIR for the L-575 levee system, a sub-study was initiated on the concept of constructing large-scale levee setbacks as part of the emergency levee rehabilitation. Furthermore, a Programmatic Environmental Assessment was prepared to assess potential levee rehabilitation alternatives. The PIR, Programmatic EA, and the Conceptual Levee Setback Report involved initial screening that lead to the detailed examination of in-line repairs vs. non-structural repairs (to include potential construction large-scale levee setbacks). Cost effectiveness was the driving factor in selecting which construction alternative to implement, in-line repairs were implemented by default as the more cost effective measures and levee setbacks were implemented where doing in-line repairs were more expensive. Most in-line repairs from the 2011 flood were implemented at L-575 as they have been conducted in the past, by restoring the levee to its exact pre-flood condition or by constructing the levee with a slight realignment around breach-created scour holes. However, two large-scale setbacks, not typical of PL 84-99 repair efforts, were determined to be the most cost-effective means of repairing the levee in two severely damaged sections. The table below contains details of an analysis conducted to determine if setting back levee at HWY-2 would be cost effective: Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Table 1 – L-575 Levee Setback Around Highway-2 Cost Comparison (north of HWY-2) Repair In-Place Levee Setback Item Quantity Quantity Riprap 15,000 tons 5,400 tons T empormy Stockpiling of Riprap 0 5,400 tons Stripping 56,500 cy 95,500 cy Sand Fill 350,000 cy 303,000 cy Temporary Stockpiling of Sand For later Reuse in Bem1 0 97,000 cy Random Fill 23,400 cy 571 ,000 cy Unde1water Fill 50,000 cy Geotextile 11,000 sy 7,400 sy Cohesive Fill 30,000 cy 295,000 cy Topsoil 70,000 cy 115,400 cy Levee Surfacing 5,000 tons 6,100 tons Seeding 83 acres 117 acres Rehabilitation of Existing Wells 40 0 Abandon Existing Wells 0 40 Sheet Pile 170,000 sf 0 Pennanent erosion control mat (annor max) 200,000 sf 0 New ReliefWells 128 40 Total Cost $14,220,644.00 $10,884,244 Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Table 2 – L-575 Levee Setback Around Highway-2 Cost Comparison (south of HWY-2) 2.2 Alternatives Considered in the Programmatic Environmental Assessment All construction activities conducted on the L-575 levee system were consistent with the alternatives analyzed in the PL 84-99 2011 Flood Programmatic EA. The alternatives evaluated in the PEA are described below: PL 84-99 Alternative 1 – “No-Action” Alternative: The “No-Action” alternative would result in no levee repair assistance from NWO’s PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation program. Selection of the “No Action” alternative is expected to result in a “predictable action by others” as discussed in CEQ (1981). This “predicable action” would consist of the public sponsor repairing the levee without assistance through the PL 84-99 program. The Corps believes that it is not unreasonable to assume that private entities would work toward rehabilitation of levees in most cases. It is almost always in the sponsor’s best economic interest to repair levees, with or without assistance through the PL 84-99 program, because of the value of the farmland and/or infrastructure that the levees protect. In addition, the need to protect life, as well as the resiliency historically displayed by the American people when faced with disaster provide further reasoning as to why repairs would occur in the absence of assistance from the PL 84-99 program. It is understood though that in some cases, levees may not be repaired due to lack of funds or other reasons resulting in increased flood risk. PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: Levees provide flood risk management by containing, controlling, or diverting flood waters for flows up to a certain amount. This alternative would repair both damaged non-Federal and Federal levees after high flow events under PL 84-99. Repairs would be limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to the area that existed prior to any high flow damage. Structural repairs typically consist of in-place repairs and/or minor levee setbacks around levee breaches. Examples of levee damage that would typically be repaired along the existing alignment include lost protective vegetative cover, side wash, slope and/or toe failures, erosion along the slope and/or toe, damaged drainage structures, minor scour holes, and minor breaches. Major damages can result when a levee is breached or overtopped. Levee setbacks, or reconstructing the levee landward on a new Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 alignment, are typically used in locations that have been subject to excessive damage, such as large-scale erosion of the levee and large scour holes. PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Under this alternative, flood risk management would be provided by modifying structures and property to reduce damages during flood events. Examples of non-structural responses include relocating structures, buyouts of buildings and property, elevating structures, and providing ring levees around individual structures. Levee setbacks undertaken for the purpose of restoring the floodplain or floodway would also fit into the nonstructural category. The majority of developed areas are protected by urban levees, which are highly engineered and provide a much higher level of flood risk management compared to agricultural levees. Most of the levees (61%) in NWO’s PL 84-99 program protect urban areas. The most practical non-structural solutions would likely include levee setbacks to restore floodplain connectivity and enhance ecological functions, and property buyouts (i.e., land acquisition). Borrow for levee setbacks would be obtained from the old levee alignment, and if additional material is needed, borrow sites would be where required material is present. Through the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program, nonstructural options to levee repair must be requested in writing by the project sponsor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have the authority to require a non-structural option. A levee sponsor may request up to an equal amount of Federal funding that would have been authorized for a structural repair of their levee, and apply it towards a one-time, non-structural response that restores - floodplain riverward of the levee. The Corps, in cooperation with the States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), has authorization to acquire flood damaged or frequently flooded lands from willing sellers along the Missouri River. Once a non structural option has been implemented, the USACE would not provide any flood-related assistance within the formerly protected area, except for rescue operations. One of the principal purposes of providing a non-structural option would be to reduce future flood damages and associated repair costs. In addition, the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Wetlands Reserve Program and other Department of Agriculture easement programs may also provide land use alternatives less vulnerable to damage by flooding. These two programs provide an option to interested landowners. It would not be considered technically feasible to repair a levee within the existing alignment if damage would be probable at that location during future flood events. In these situations, levee realignment would be the preferred repair method. Often, it is more economical to realign a levee when there is major damage located along the existing alignment. Damaged areas with substantial foundation scour, generally greater than 10 feet in depth, would often be repaired along a new alignment. This is because filling the scour would take more earthen material than it would to realign the levee in a new location. Heavy equipment would be used to obtain, move, shape, and compact earthen materials in order to set the levee back. Earthen materials for this purpose may be obtained from previously used borrow sites, new borrow sites (that would require Section 106 cultural resource clearance), commercial sites, the Missouri River, the Missouri River floodplain or silted-in Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) fish and wildlife mitigation sites such as side channels, backwaters, or wetlands. The levee would be reseeded following construction to minimize soil erosion. Levee setbacks constructed on new alignment often benefit the environment by returning small portions of land to the floodplain. All levee rehabilitation projects under this alternative would undergo environmental and cultural resources reviews, an engineering review, and an economic benefit to cost analysis to determine the most acceptable repair method. PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would provide the greatest flexibility to repair levees and would Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 include both structural levee repairs and non-structural responses to levee damage. Structural repairs would include both setback and in-place levee repair actions. Non-structural responses would include relocating structures, elevating structures, acquisition and buyout of properties, and levee setbacks for purposes of restoring the floodplain and floodway as funding allows. The USACE would coordinate PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation efforts with other programs (e.g., Missouri River Recovery Program, etc.) so all feasible alternatives are considered. This alternative was selected as the Recommended Plan because it would best meet the technical, economic, and environmental objectives and provides flexibility to utilize the most appropriate method on a case-by-case basis. Unless a non-structural option was requested by the public sponsor, each non-Federal levee would be repaired either within the existing alignment or along a new alignment based on what was most technically feasible and cost effective for that particular damaged area. Federal levees would also be repaired either within the existing alignment or along a new alignment depending on what is most economical. Any realignment of a Federal levee outside of the PL 84-99 repair would need to be approved by the Chief of Engineers as described in 33 U.S.C. 408, “Taking possession of, use of, or injury to harbor or river improvements”. Habitat restoration is recognized as being a significant benefit that can be achieved with nonstructural options and landward levee realignments. However, as described in ER 500-1-1, habitat restoration cannot be considered as a principal purpose for either non-structural options or landward levee realignment through the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program. USACE may utilize an Interagency Levee Task Force following major flood events to coordinate levee repairs with other Federal agencies that can offer levee sponsors non-structural options, or other opportunities to benefit fish and wildlife beyond those available through the PL 84-99 program. 3.0 RECOMMENDED PLAN PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses The components of the recommended combination plan are listed in the table below. Table 3 – All L-575 Levee Damage Areas and Repairs Damage/ Description of damage Length of Repair Implemented Repair Repair Area 1 extensive seepage 1,100 linear feet installation of new relief wells and boils (prior to breaches) 2 riverside scour. 7,200 linear feet piggyback section and reinforcement of the riverside embankment and add riprap along the toe; reshaping the side slopes, placing topsoil as necessary and seeding 3 full levee breach 2,400 linear feet (breach); repaired with a levee realignment 1400 feet upstream and 200 approximately 500-feet landward feet downstream (additional of the pre-flood alignment to Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 erosion) avoid scour hole 4 extensive seepage 1,550 linear feet installation of new relief wells and boils (prior to breaches) 5 extensive seepage 3,700 linear feet installation of new relief wells, and boils (prior to large seepage berm construction breaches) 6 extensive seepage 18,500 linear feet installation of new relief wells, and boils (prior to large seepage berm construction breaches) 7 riverside scour. 200 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- 2) 8 riverside scour. 1,200 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- 2) 9 riverside scour.(due to 1,000 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- large whirlpool) 2) 10 riverside scour. 400 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- 2) 11 extensive seepage 200 linear feet; large-scale levee setback (HWY- and boils (prior to 2) breaches); riverside scour. 12 Boil field Not calculated large-scale levee setback (HWY- 2) 13 extensive seepage 5,100 linear feet large-scale levee setback (HWY- and boils (prior to 2) breaches) 14 Landside scour 200 linear feet large-scale levee setback (Frazers Bend) 15 extensive seepage 2,200 linear feet large-scale levee setback (Frazers and boils (prior to Bend) breaches) 16 full levee breach 1,300 linear feet of breach repaired with a levee realignment and 1,700 linear feet of approximately 500-feet landward scour of the pre-flood alignment to avoid scour hole 17 severe damage to 30,800 linear feet rebuilding of the landside slope, the landside of the levee crest resurfaced, rebuilding embankment of 1 mile of levee 18 full levee breach 950 linear feet of breach repaired with a levee realignment and scour approximately 500-feet landward of the pre-flood alignment to avoid scour hole 19 severe damage to 35,850 linear feet rebuilding of the landside slope, the landside of the levee crest resurfaced embankment Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 20 (pump Damage from interior Not calculated full replacement of pump station station) wave action 21 (pump Damage from interior Not calculated full replacement of pump station station) wave action Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 • levee_damage_areas e L575_pump_station_point L575_ levee_cen terline L575_1 eveed_area River_Miles Missouri River Levee Unit L-575 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OMAHA DISTRICT OMAHA, NEBRASKA 0 5,000 10,000 m US Am'Y eo.ps ol Engln~&ers Clmilhill O.:Sn:t Figure 2. Repair Areas Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Figure 3. L-575 Upper Breach Repair Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Figure 4. General Location of Large Berm Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Figure 5. Highway-2 Setback Design (North of HWY-2) Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Figure 6. Highway-2 Setback Design (South of HWY-2) Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Figure 7. Borrow Site/ Wetland Mitigation Locations Near HWY-2 Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 C) Open Water - Wetland Seeding c::::J Upland "Buffer" S . - Setback PJ. eechng ~gnment - Original Levee c - - Dikes enter'ne 0 RiverMiles Figure 8. Borrow Sites/ Wetland Mitigation Areas Near Frazers Bend Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Figure 9. Frazers Bend Setback Figure 10. L-575 Middle Breach Repair Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Figure 11. L-575 Lower Breach Repair 4.0 General Description of Fill Activities Associated with Construction of Recommended Alternative The following fill activities are associated with implementation of the recommended levee alignments: • Large Seepage Berm: Two and a half miles of seepage berm were constructed along damage locations 5 and 6 (approximately between river miles 568.5 – 564.7, terminating at the northern tie in of the HWY-2 setback). Placement of sand on top of 5.77 acres of emergent wetland habitat occurred during construction of this seepage berm. • HWY-2 borrow pits: During borrow material mining, 17.37 acres of emergent wetlands were disturbed. All of this excavated area that disturbed (including non-wetland area) was graded and treated for wetland establishment as compensatory mitigation area. • HWY-2 setback centerline: 37.7 acres of emergent and 27.1 acres of forested/ unconsolidated bottoms wetlands were filled with construction of the HWY-2 setback levee. Note that all of the small trees in this forested/ unconsolidated bottoms wetland were killed by the 2011 flood. • HWY-2 Ditch Realignments: The HWY-2 centerline crosses the West Benton ditch and Horse Creek ditch, necessitating their rerouting. A combined 2.96 acres of unconsolidated bottom ditch wetlands were filled and the ditches were be realigned to run through the levee and in the case of West Benton ditch though mitigation wetlands, providing for more ecologically sound runoff management as well as hydrological diversity in the mitigation area (i.e., pond and stream habitat connected directly to the Missouri River for aquatic fauna access). • Frazers Bend Setback Centerline: 1.97 acres of emergent wetlands were impacted by construction of the levee centerline. Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 • Frazers Bend Borrow Pits: During borrow material mining, 5.5 acres of emergent wetlands were disturbed. All of this excavated area that disturbed (including non-wetland area) was graded and treated for wetland establishment as compensatory mitigation area. • Frazers Scour Fill: 1.31 acres of emergent and 1.96 acres of unconsolidated bottom wetlands (a 15 acres large scour hole formed by the 2011 flood) was filled with material during demolition of the old levee. The filled portion of the scour hole was grade with gentle slopes conducive to wetland establishment. • Frazers Bend Ditch Realignments: The Frazer Bend setback centerline needs to cross ditches in the project area and as a result ditches had to be realigned. 2.35 acres of unconsolidated bottom ditch wetlands were filled and the ditches were realigned to flow under the new setback levee and though borrow area wetlands, providing for more ecologically sound runoff management as well as hydrological diversity in the mitigation area (i.e., pond and stream habitat connected directly to the Missouri River for aquatic fauna access). Construction resulted in the impact of 103.98 acres of wetland in the State of Iowa. All construction that resulted in wetland impacts was accompanied by concurrent mitigation construction. To mitigate impacts, 320.01 acres of borrow pits used for material mining were treated for wetland establishment in the state of Iowa as part of this project. The wetlands impacted were of generally low quality and diversity that would typically have a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1 – 3:1. These ratios were based on existing guidance from state water quality agencies and the Corps Regulatory Branch. The acreage of creation, restoration, and enhancement that is required by regulatory agencies, including local governments, to compensate for impacts to wetlands is usually greater than the acreage of impact. 5.0 Factual Determinations – Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Proposed Dredge and Fill Materials 5.1 Subpart C – Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem 5.1.1 Physical Substrate The substrate of the aquatic ecosystem underlies open waters and constitutes the surface of wetlands. It consists of organic and inorganic solid materials and includes water and other liquids or gases that fill the spaces between solid particles. Minor impacts to the benthic environment did occur to unconsolidated bottoms wetlands during ditch realignments, to emergent wetlands during borrow activities, berm construction, and levee setback construction; and forested wetlands during setback construction. The substrate in these locations consists primarily of stream channel deposits of silts and sands. Permanent effects to the benthos and physical substrate were localized to the immediate project area as fill material placed during construction was permanently stabilized as part of the levee infrastructure. Temporary impacts to the physical substrate could have occurred from causing benthic organisms to relocate during construction activities. Impacts to the physical substrate were mitigated for concurrently through the shaping and seeding of borrow pits to encourage wetland establishment. 5.1.2 Suspended particulate/turbidity determinations A temporary localized increase in turbidity was anticipated to occur during ditch rerouting and associated levee construction. This effect was minor and short term. All of these effects would last only until bare soils are stabilized and construction activities have ceased. Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 5.1.3 Water Quality Placement of fill material for the levee repairs was not anticipated to have a significant effect on the chemistry and/or physical characteristics of receiving waters (i.e., the Missouri River). Fill materials was not anticipated to introduce a significant amount of organic material or nutrients given that fill material consisted of the old levee itself, sandy mixed soils obtained from the project area, and impervious clays. The fill activities had little effect on the water quality of any of the drainages due to the fact that no material was discharged, but was placed over wetlands in the project area. 5.1.4 Water Circulation, Pattern, and fluctuation Current patterns and water circulation are the physical movements of water in the aquatic ecosystem. Currents and circulation respond to natural forces as modified by basin shape and cover, physical and chemical characteristics of water strata and masses, and energy dissipating factors. Minor changes to the physical movement of water during ditch rerouting was anticipated from placement of the levee setbacks and associated levee features. The structures do not obstruct flow and the direction of flow will not change, flap gate structures were installed on the riverward side of the drainage structure flowing through the levee. Minor increases in the velocity of flow could occur at the outlets of the flap gate structures; however this effect (i.e., scouring and outflow channel meandering) would likely contribute to desirable habitat diversity on the riverwards government owned land. The normal water- level fluctuations are not expected to change given that the flap gate structures are designed to let water flow through the levee; in some cases a pump will be installed (by the local Drainage District) to assist with evacuation of excessive landward flooding. 5.2 Subpart D – Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem 5.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species No direct effects to threatened or endangered species resulted from the emergency levee rehabilitation construction. While the piping plover, least tern, and pallid sturgeon and their critical habitats exist on the Missouri River in the vicinity of the project area, this project did not include in-channel construction. The USFWS did not anticipate negative effects to engendered species in the project area and acknowledged the Corps’ determination of no effect. The USFWS generally had positive comments about and supported the large-scale setback portion of the project. 5.2.2 Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic organisms in the food web The wetland disturbance activities are not anticipated to significantly affect fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other organisms in the aquatic food web. Construction was primarily limited to emergent wetlands on the Missouri River floodplain or drainage ditches. Almost all borrow pits in the area (which were eventually treated for wetland establishment) will contain at least some open water year round, likely contributing to increased productivity of macroinvertebrates (e.g. , insects) throughout future years in the project area. Installation of flap gates will not allow the passage of fish up the ditches beyond the riverward side of the levee. The additional open water area provided by the borrow pits that the rerouted ditches pass through are anticipated to be more diverse habitat for fish to forage in than the ditch habitat previously available. Considering the limited area of disturbance, a significant reduction of detrital feeding species or other lower trophic levels that could impair the flow of energy from primary consumers to higher trophic levels was not anticipated. The overall productivity and nutrient export capability of the aquatic ecosystem will remain intact, if not improved by the ditch rerouting through borrow pits wetlands. Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 5.2.3 Other Wildlife Impacts to birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles would mainly be caused by vegetation removal associated with levee rehabilitation construction. Long-term operation and maintenance of the levee would not cause ongoing adverse impacts to wildlife species that inhabit the area. All disturbed areas are being reseeded with native grass mix, except those at the government owned land at the Frazers Bend setback; the disturbed land in this area not used for wetland mitigation will be open to farming during 2013, afterwards the IDNR will take over as land manager and will set up agricultural leases as appropriate. Disturbance impacts would last until construction activities have ceased and vegetation is re- established. Clearing of trees and brush was scheduled to occur outside of the primary nesting season of migratory birds to minimize impact to nesting birds, or otherwise surveys were conducted by Corps biologists to ensure no active nests or nesting behavior were taking place in or around the trees to be cleared. 5.3 Subpart E – Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites 5.3.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges No sanctuaries or refuges are located in the project area 5.3.2 Wetlands Emergent, forested, and unconsolidated bottom wetland types were disturbed during construction. The floristic quality of these wetlands was low, though they may serve to provide many of the same beneficial functions as other riparian vegetation such as filtering pollutants, nutrients, pesticides, trapping sediment, and stabilizing soils as well as providing habitat for wetland species including amphibians and turtles. Wetland impacts during construction include 69.62 acres to emergent wetlands, 27.1 acres to forested wetlands (of which all trees were actually killed during the 2011 flood), and 7.27 acres of unconsolidated bottom wetlands (through ditch realignments). Mitigation of these wetlands occurred concurrently with levee rehab construction. Construction of mitigation features resulted in 78.04 acres of unconsolidated bottom wetlands (i.e., vegetated areas intermixed with area of open water) all containing varied bottom depth and 233.97 acres of emergent wetlands with irregular shapes and 1V:10H or greater side slopes. 5.3.3 Mud Flats No mud flats were identified in the project area. 5.3.4 Vegetated shallows No vegetated shallows were identified in the project area. 5.3.5 Riffle and Pool Complexes No riffle-pool complexes were identified in the project area. 5.4 Subpart F – Potential effects on Human Use Characteristics 5.4.1 Municipal and private water Supplies Material was not discharged into the Missouri River, as such no municipal or private water supplies were affected by the construction project. Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 5.4.2 Recreational and commercial fisheries No commercial fishing takes place in any of the receiving waters; however a recreational fishing takes place in and around the construction sites. Manmade lakes near the Highway-2 setback are utilized by locals as fishing areas, and new scours made by the 2011 flood are also fished at. The manmade lakes are far enough away from construction sites that they were not impacted by construction. 5.4.3 Water related recreation and Aesthetics In addition to recreational fishing, water related recreation on along the Missouri River and on the floodplain could include sight –seeing or wildlife viewing. Water related recreation and aesthetics are not anticipated to be adversely affected by the construction or wetland disturbance. 5.4.4 Parks, national and historical monuments, national seashores, wilderness areas, research sites, and similar preserves The vast majority of wetland impacts occurred on government owned land, acquired to be operated as Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) in response to Congressional authorization to mitigate for habitat lost during construction of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP). Two “Mitigation” tracts exist in the project area for L-575 levee rehabilitation; Copeland Bend and Frazers Bend. The Mitigation tracts are likely to benefit from these large-scale setbacks as well as the borrow pits treated for wetland establishment as part of compensatory mitigation. The construction activities are not expected to have long lasting negative impacts to any scientific, aesthetic, educational, historical, recreational and/or scientific qualities that may exist in these WMAs, but in fact would ultimately improve the sites’ hydrological connectivity with the River. 5.5 Source and Description of Fill Material (Subpart G) The fill material included mixed sands and impervious clays from the adjacent floodplain and from the existing levee (during levee setback construction) for construction of the levee and associated features. Excavated material was anticipated to be free from chemical, biological, or other pollutants where it is composed primarily of sand, gravel, or other naturally occurring inert material, especially on the Mitigation tracts, as the Corps does not procure BSNP Mitigation real estate with existing contaminant issues. 5.6 Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem Secondary effects are effects on an aquatic ecosystem that are associated with placement of fill materials, but do not result from the actual placement of the fill material. A discussion of secondary impacts has been included where applicable in the above Factual Determination Sections. Secondary impacts associated with the wetland disturbances included clearing and grubbing of vegetation prior to construction of the levees. Long-term operation and maintenance of the levee would not cause ongoing adverse impacts to wildlife species that inhabit the area. Vegetation impacts were mitigated. All disturbed land was mitigated by planting a native grass mixture on all disturbed areas. All temporary disturbance related impacts will last until construction activities have ceased and vegetation is re-established. Clearing of trees and brush was scheduled to occur outside of the primary nesting season of migratory birds to minimize impact to nesting birds, otherwise, Corps biologists conducted bird surveys to ensure no nesting birds or nests were disturbed. The levee alignments avoid and minimize impacts to trees, shrubs, and wetlands to the extent practicable. Removal of the old Highway-2 bridge approach (to be used as random fill for the Highway-2 levee setback) eliminated the most constrictive water conveyance point on the entire Missouri River and is Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 expected to improve flow and alleviate flooding in the immediate upstream area. Removal of the embankment accounted for 2 acres (66% of the 3 acres removed) of tree and shrub impacts. Of the total disturbed land across the construction sites, 66 acres along the bank of the Missouri River will be left unseeded to allow for natural recruitment of cottonwood trees. Additionally, food plots with bur oak, swamp white oak, red oak and black walnut will be planted by IDNR staff in Spring of 2014. The Copeland and Frazer Bend Mitigation tracts alone support hundreds of acres of trees and shrubs in the vicinity of the project area. The area of trees and shrubs impacted by the project is proportionately small relative to available similar habitat in the vicinity. 5.7 Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem Cumulative impacts are the changes in an aquatic ecosystem that are attributable to the collective effect of a number of individual discharges of dredged or fill material. Although the impact of a particular wetland disturbance may constitute a minor change in itself, the cumulative effect of numerous piecemeal changes can result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the productivity and water quality of existing aquatic ecosystems. The construction activities, in total, will have major short term impact on the local environment, but the long term indirect benefits of large-scale levee setbacks to the aquatic system far outweigh these short term impacts; the mitigation is expected to establish at least as much wetland habitat in the area as was disturbed during construction, and the areas of levee setback will allow for more natural river-floodplain connectivity- a feature this segment of the River greatly lacks. The setbacks will reduce stage of the 100 year flood event by up to 1.5 feet in both locations and will reduce the velocity of the 100 year event by up to 2.1 feet/ second at the Frazer Bend setback area. The setback areas will also provide the Corps with additional room to safely construct shallow water habitat projects on the newly reconnected floodplain. 6.0 Findings of Compliance or Non-Compliance with Restrictions on Discharge 6.1 Adaptation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines to the Evaluation There were no significant deviations from the applicable guidelines made in the preparation of the evaluation. However, due to emergency conditions and construction and planning uncertainty this evaluation was prepared following much of the construction activities. 6.2 Evaluation of Available Practicable Alternatives to the Proposed Discharge Site Which Would Have a Less Adverse Impact on the Aquatic Ecosystem A number of different levee locations and configurations were considered taking into account cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purpose and emergency conditions. With the construction of large-scale levee setbacks the project ends up providing a considerable amount of permanent, long-term environmental benefit. Projects constructed under the PL 84-99 authority don’t go through the typical USACE planning process, but go through an expedited planning and economic analysis process documented in a Project Information Report (PIR). Following development of the PIR for the L-575 levee system, a sub-study was initiated on the concept of constructing large-scale levee setbacks as part of the emergency levee rehabilitation. Furthermore, a Programmatic Environmental Assessment was prepared to assess potential levee rehabilitation alternatives. The PIR, Programmatic EAs, and the Conceptual Levee Setback Report involved initial screening that lead to the detailed examination of in-line repairs vs. non-structural repairs (to include potentially construction large-scale levee setbacks). Cost effectiveness was the driving factor in selecting which construction alternative to Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 implement, in-line repairs were implemented by default as the more cost effective measures and levee setbacks were implemented where doing in-line repairs would have been more expensive. The preferred alternative selected allowed for a combination of doing in-line repairs and setbacks based on site-by-site conditions. Incidentally, with the inclusion of a levee setback component, the preferred alternative was the most beneficial to the aquatic ecosystem because it maximizes the amount of land re-connected to the floodplain. Given the rapid pace of construction activities required to address issues of life safety and infrastructure protection, the opportunity for impact avoidance or minimization was not always available. Wetlands were identified either in the field immediately prior to construction or through desktop means (multiple years of aerial photos, soil maps, etc.). Construction of compensatory mitigation wetlands occurred concurrently as mining for borrow material was ending. All aspects of PL 84-99 construction at L-575 were determined to be essential features of the recommended alternative. The large-scale setback alignments were determined by the extent of USACE owned MRRP land and crossed very little privately owned land. 6.3 Compliance with Applicable State Water Quality Standards The wetland disturbances were not anticipated to violate any State water quality standards when mitigation is factored in. 6.4 Compliance with Applicable Toxic Effluent Standard or Prohibition Under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act Wetland disturbances associated with the Recommended Plan did not violate any Toxic Effluent Standard or Prohibition under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. 6.5 Evaluation of Extent of Degradation of the Waters of the United States Wetland disturbances associated with the Recommended Plan did not degrade Waters of the United States. 6.6 Appropriate and Practicable Steps Taken to Minimize Potential Adverse Impacts of the Discharge on the Aquatic Ecosystem Given the rapid pace of construction activities required to address issues of life safety and infrastructure protection, the opportunity for impact avoidance or minimization was not always available. Similarly, availability of material required for levee repair/ construction determined locations of borrow sites and in some cases wetlands were excavated during borrow mining. However, some measures were able to be taken to avoid wetland impact during construction including: • Avoiding borrow sites with identified wetlands • Shifting levee setback centerline around wetlands • Selecting setback centerlines along higher elevations • Not fully degrading some sections of the old levee to avoid the need to place unusable material in a scour hole/ depression/ etc. • Providing a Standard Operating Procedure to the construction crews directing them how to excavate material such that it would leave an area conducive to wetland establishment Impacts to the physical substrate were minimized by designing the flapgate structures to maintain the current substrate elevation, to allow the re-establishment of natural substrate in the bottom of the structures, and to allow establishment of natural substrates in the realigned portions of the ditches. The flapgate structures on the ditches are located in sections of the channels that are already highly modified. Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013 Changes to the physical movement of water in these drainages have been minimized by re-routing only the lower portions of the drainages; thereby leaving the majority of the drainages in their pre-construction state. Changes to the physical movement of water in the ditches have been minimized by sitting the levee crossings at perpendicular angles to the channels, thereby minimizing the length of channel routed under the levee. Clearing of trees and brush either occurred outside of the primary nesting season of migratory birds to minimize impact to nesting birds, or bird surveys were performed by Corps biologists to ensure no nesting activity or active nests were present in or near trees to be cleared. Unavoidable impacts to 103.98 acres of wetlands were mitigated by treatment of 320.01 acres of borrow mining areas for wetland establishment. The clearing of approximately 3 acres of trees were mitigated by the planting of approximately 17 acres of planted trees as well as in leaving 66 acres of disturbed land along an existing riparian forest for natural recruitment of cottonwood trees and natural encroachment of the riparian buffer into the reopened floodplain. Revised Tiered Environmental Assessment L-575 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation May, 2013