Water Resources Development

US Army Corps of Engineers in Nebraska 1991 Missouri River Division This publication is authorized by the Secretary of the Army as required by PL 99-662 re tAtt

! 9 ‘9 ,/

US Army Corps of Engineers

To Our Readers: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a long and proud history of applying its expertise in engineering and related disciplines to meet the Nation’s needs. Over the years, those needs have evolved from such 19th cen­ tury activities as exploration, pathfinding, and lighthouse construction to such modern missions as hazardous and toxic waste removal and environmental improvement. The central focus of its Civil Works mission, how­ ever, has, from its earliest days, been development of the Nation’s water resources. The water resource projects, developed by the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with State and local project sponsors, have proven themselves time and again as wise investments of public funds, returning to the public in benefits — low cost transportation, flood damages prevented, etc. — far more than their cost to plan, build, and operate. As a result, the Civil Works program enjoys a high degree of credibility within the Admin­ istration and with Congress. With a program of more than $3.5 billion in Fiscal Year 1991, the Civil Works program was one of the very few “domestic discretionary” activities of the Federal government to receive an increase in funding that year. Yet, proud as we are of the respect this program commands within the Federal government, we are even prouder of the trust that our partners — the States, local governments, port authorities, water management districts, and other local project sponsors — place in us. Each Corps of Engineers project is the product of an orderly study and design process. Under provisions of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, sponsors demonstrate their commitment early in the project development process by agreeing to join funding of the feasibility study upon which a project’s construction authorization will be based, and to cost sharing of the project’s construction once it is authorized. To date, more than 150 non-Federal sponsors have signed Local Cooperation Agreements for studies or congression- ally authorized projects. The engineering expertise and responsiveness of the Corps of Engineers gained in the Civil Works and Support for Others programs, as well as in its military construction role, have stood the Nation in good stead: from Alaska, where it participated in the oil spill cleanup; to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Southeastern States, where it spearheaded recovery efforts after Hurricane Hugo; to California, in the aftermath of the Loma Prieta Earthquake; to the Midwest and California, as they deal with continuing drought; to Panama and the Middle East in Operations JUST CAUSE and DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM; to dozens of other locations. Whatever challenges arise in the years and decades ahead, I have no doubt that the Army Corps of Engineers will be equal to the task.

G. EDWARD DICKEY Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Arn

1

US Army Corps of Engineers To Our Readers: For more than 216 years, the missions and accomplishments of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have closely reflected the needs and wants of a growing, changing Nation. For much of this time, the Corps has played a major role in our Nation’s water resources development, including navigation, flood control, water quality and supply, recreation, and related projects. Although the driving force behind our water resources development mission has remained constant — providing quality service to the Nation — there have been several challenging adjustments in how we meet this requirement. One such change was the introduction of non-Federal cost sharing in the Water Resources Development Act. Though legislatively reaffirmed in the subsequent acts of 1988 and 1990, the true value of cost-shared develop­ ment can be measured by the many successful projects of this partnership and the healthy water resources program it ensures for the future. Another challenge we have faced recently is the increased public concern for their environment. We have always complied with environmental laws and regulations and managed our projects as a trust we hold for the future. Compliance, however, is no longer enough. We are taking an active position to not only protect, but to enhance our fragile environment. The Secretary of the Army has been directed to include environmental protection as one of our primary missions. The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 established a “no net loss” policy as an essential part of all water resources development. In addition to making environmental considerations as important as engineering and economic considerations for new start projects, we are taking a new look at existing projects to determine how they can be environmentally improved. Looking ahead to the needs of our Nation, we are taking a lead role in helping rebuild our Nation’s aging infrastructure. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has always been at the forefront of infrastructure develop­ ment in the United States, exploring new territory for settlement, surveying transportation routes, and opening rivers to navigation. While we work to restore and strengthen the vital links in our infrastructure, we are also exploring new methods to meet increasing and varying national requirements. One such effort is a joint Federal, non-Federal demonstration project to determine the feasibility of a U.S. developed and built high-speed magnetic levitation transportation system. We have also been working actively with the construction industry on a cost-shared Construction Productivity Advancement Research Program. This program has the double benefits of increasing the U.S. construction industry’s competitive ability in the international market, while providing more effective techniques, equipment, and processes for Federal and non-Federal projects in the United States. With these initiatives, we are building on the Corps’ tradition of professionalism and service to meet the needs of our Nation for another 200 years. We are proud of the partnership we have forged and look forward to an exciting, rewarding future in water resources development. This booklet is one in a series detailing water resources programs in the 50 states and U.S. possessions..! hope you find it interesting and feel some pride of ownership.

H.J. HATCH Lieutenant General, USA Chief of Engineers

3 US Army Corps of Engineers Missouri River Division The address of each Corps of Engineers office in­ volved in the State is given below, and the area of 1991 responsibility of each is indicated on the map in Chapter I of this booklet. Inquiries regarding the work of the Corps should be addressed to the ap­ NEBRASKA propriate office. DIVISION ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WATER MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 103, Downtown Station RESOURCES Omaha, Nebraska 68101-0103 DISTRICT ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Omaha District, Corps of Engineers DEVELOPMENT 215 North 17th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4978 DISTRICT ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896

4 Table of Contents Chapter I: Civil Works Overview Chapter III: Platte River and Niobrara River Basins Introduction...... 7 Completed Flood Control Projects...... 27 Authorization and Planning Process Elkhorn River Basin...... 27 for Water Resources Projects...... 7 Platte River in the Vicinity of Schuyler...... 28 Navigation...... 7 Gering Valley...... 28 Flood Control and Salt Creek and Tributaries...... 29 Flood Plain Management...... 8 Relocation of Niobrara...... 30 Shore and Hurricane Protection...... 8 Continuing Authorities Program...... 30 H ydropow er...... 8 Small Flood Control Projects...... 30 Water S u p p ly ...... 10 Emergency Bank Protection...... 31 Environmental Quality...... 10 Technical Assistance Programs...... 31 Regulatory Programs...... 10 Flood Plain Management Services Program ...... 31 Recreation...... 10 Flood Plain Information Reports...... 32 Emergency Response and Recovery...... 10 Special Flood Hazard Information Reports...... 32 Chapter II: Middle Missouri River Basin Planning Assistance to States Program...... 32 Multiple-Purpose Projects...... 13 Emergency Authorities...... 32 Comprehensive Plan, Missouri River Basin 13 Survey Investigations...... 33 Completed Multiple-Purpose Projects...... 14 Special Studies...... 34 Gavins Point Project...... 14 Platte River Cumulative Effects S tudy...... 34 Completed Flood Control Projects...... 15 Chapter IV: Kansas River Basin Omaha Levee Project...... 15 Completed Multiple-Purpose Projects...... 37 Missouri River Erosion Control Project— Harlan County Lake ...... 37 Sioux City, Iowa, to Kenslers and Miners Bends...... 16 Completed Flood Control Projects...... 38 Little Papillion Creek...... 16 Indianola Local Protection Project...... 38 Missouri River Levee System, Sioux City, Bartley Local Protection Project...... 38 Iowa, to the M o u th ...... 17 Associated Projects of Other Agencies...... 38 Completed Navigation P rojects...... 17 Harry L. Strunk L ak e...... 38 Missouri River Stabilization Enders Dam and Reservoir...... 38 and Navigation Project...... 17 Swanson Lake...... 39 Flood Control Projects Underway...... 18 Butler L ake...... 39 Papillion Creek and Tributaries Lakes___ 18 Continuing Authorities Program ...... 39 Authorized Projects Not Started...... 18 Small Flood Control Projects...... 39 Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Emergency Bank Protection...... 39 Mitigation, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Technical Assistance Programs...... 40 and Missouri...... 18 Flood Plain Management Services Program ...... 40 Special Projects...... 19 Flood Plain Information Reports...... 40 Streambank Erosion C ontrol...... 19 Planning Assistance to States Program...... 40 Platte River Erosion C ontrol...... 19 DeSoto Bend...... 19 Index ...... 41 Missouri National Recreational River...... 19 G lossary...... 43 Continuing Authorities Program ...... 19 Small Flood Control Projects...... 19 Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control.. 20 Emergency Bank Protection...... 20 Technical Assistance Programs...... 21 Flood Plain Management Services Program 21 Flood Plain Information Reports...... 21 Special Flood Hazard Information Reports 21 Planning Assistance to States Program___ 22 Emergency Authorities...... 22 Survey Investigations...... 25 Special Studies...... 25 Missouri River Endangered Species...... 25

5 Chapter I Civil Works Overview

6 may then authorize the Corps of Engineers to investigate the Civil Works Overview problems and submit a report. Water resources studies, ex­ Introduction cept studies of the inland waterway navigation system, are conducted in partnership with a local sponsor, with the The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers traces its history back to Corps and the sponsor jointly funding and managing the June 18, 1775, when Congress appointed Colonel Richard study. Gridley as Chief of Engineers of the Continental Army, For inland navigation and waterway projects, which are by under George Washington. The original Corps of Engineers their nature not “local,” Congress has established, in the was created in 1779 and mustered out of service at the close Water Resources Development Act of 1986, an Inland Water­ of the Revolutionary War in 1783. way Users Board, comprised of waterway transportation In 1802, Congress established a separate Corps of Engineers companies and shippers of major commodities. This Board within the Army and, at the same time, established the U.S. advises the Secretary of the Army and makes recommenda­ Military Academy at West Point, the country’s first—and for tions on priorities for new navigation projects (e.g., locks 20 years its only—engineering school. With the Army having and dams, channel improvements, and so forth). Such proj­ the Nation’s most readily available engineering talent, suc­ ects are funded in part from the Inland Waterway Trust cessive Congresses and Administrations established a role Fund, which in turn is fed by waterway fuel taxes. for the Corps as an organization to carry out both military Normally, the study process for a water resource problem construction and works “of a civil nature.” will include public meetings to determine the views of local Throughout the 19th century, the Corps supervised the con­ interests on the extent and type of improvements desired. struction of coastal fortifications, lighthouses, several early The desires of local interests and the views of Federal, State, railroads, and many of the public buildings in Washington, and other agencies receive full consideration during the D.C., and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Corps of Topograph­ planning process. ical Engineers, which enjoyed a separate existence for 25 Considerations which enter into recommendations to Con­ years (1838-1863), mapped much of the American West. The gress for project authorization include determinations that Army Engineers served with distinction in war, with many benefits will exceed costs and that the engineering design of Engineer officers rising to prominence during the Civil War. the project is sound, best serves the needs of the people con­ In its civil role, the Corps of Engineers became increasingly cerned, makes the wisest possible use of the natural resources involved with river and harbor improvements, carrying out involved, and adequately protects the environment. its first harbor and jetty work in the first quarter of the 19th A report, along with a final environmental impact statement, century. The Corps’ ongoing responsibility for Federal river is then submitted to higher authority for review and recom­ and harbor improvements dates from 1824, when Congress mendations. After review and coordination with all inter­ passed two acts authorizing the Corps to survey roads and ested Federal agencies and Governors of affected States, the canals and to remove obstacles on the Ohio and Mississippi Chief of Engineers forwards the report and environmental Rivers. Over the years since, the expertise gained by the impact statement to the Secretary of the Army, who obtains Corps in navigation projects made it a natural to assume new the views of the Office of Management and Budget before water-related missions in such areas as flood control, shore transmitting the documents to Congress. and hurricane protection, hydropower, recreation, water supply and quality, and wetland protection. If Congress includes the project in an authorization bill, enactment of the bill constitutes authorization of the project. Today’s Corps of Engineers carries out missions in three Before construction can get underway, however, both the broad areas: military construction and engineering support Federal Government and the local project sponsor must pro­ to military installations; reimbursable support to other Fed­ vide funds. Budget recommendations are based on evidence eral agencies (such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s of support by the State and by the ability and willingness of “Superfund” program to clean up hazardous and toxic waste non-Federal sponsors to provide their share of the project sites); and the Civil Works mission, centered around naviga­ cost. tion, flood control, and—under the Water Resources Devel­ opment Acts of 1986 and 1990—a growing role in environ­ Appropriation of money to build a particular project is usually mental protection. included in the annual Energy and Water Development Ap­ propriation Bill, which must be approved by both Houses of Authorization and Planning Process the Congress and the President. for Water Resources Projects Water resources activities are initiated by local interests, Navigation authorized by Congress, funded by Federal and non-Federal Rivers and waterways were the primary paths of commerce sources, and constructed by the Corps under the Civil Works in the new country. They provided routes from western Program. farms to eastern markets. They promised a new life to the The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 made nu­ seaboard emigre’ and financial reward for the Mississippi merous changes in the way potential new water resources Valley merchant. Without its great rivers, the vast, thickly projects are studied, evaluated, and funded. The major forested region west of the Appalachians would have re­ change is that the law now specifies non-Federal cost-sharing mained impenetrable to all but the most resourceful early for most Corps water resources projects. pioneers. When local interests feel that a need exists for improved Consequently, western politicians such as Henry Clay agi­ navigation, flood protection, or other water resources devel­ tated for Federal assistance to improve rivers. At the same opment, they may petition their representatives in Congress. time, the War of 1812 showed the importance of a reliable A congressional committee resolution or an act of Congress inland navigation system to national defense. Thus, both

7 commercial development and military needs required atten­ dividuals. This information is designed to aid in planning for tion to river and harbor development. There was, however, a floods and regulation of flood plain areas, thus avoiding question as to whether transportation was, under the Consti­ unwise development in flood-prone areas. Once community tution, a legitimate Federal activity. This question was re­ officials know the flood-prone areas in their communities solved when the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce and how often floods would be likely to occur, they can take Clause of the Constitution granted the Federal Government necessary action to prevent or minimize damages to existing the authority to not only regulate navigation and commerce and new buildings and facilities by adopting and enforcing but also to make necessary navigation improvements. zoning ordinances, building codes, and subdivision regula­ The system of harbors and waterways maintained by the tions. The Flood Plain Management Services Program also Corps of Engineers remains one of the most important parts provides assistance to other Federal agencies and to State of the Nation’s transportation system. Without constant agencies in the same manner. In many cases, fees are col­ supervision, rivers and other waterways collect soil, debris, lected to cover a portion of the costs of these services. and other obstacles, which lead to groundings and wrecks. New channels and cutoffs appear frequently, and the main Shore and Hurricane Protection traffic lanes require continual surveillance. The Corps’ work in shore protection began in 1930, when Where authorized to do so, the Corps maintains the Nation’s Congress directed the Corps to study ways to reduce erosion waterways as a safe, reliable, and economically efficient nav­ along U.S. seacoasts and the Great Lakes. Corps of Engi­ igation system. Inland waterways carry one-sixth of the neers hurricane protection work began in 1955, when Con­ Nation’s intercity cargo, and one job in five in the United gress directed the Corps to conduct general investigations States is dependent, to some extent, on the commerce along the Atlantic and gulf coasts to identify problem areas handled by the Nation’s ports. and determine the feasibility of protection. While each situation the Corps studies requires different considerations, engineers look at each one with structural Flood Control and Flood and nonstructural solutions in mind. Engineering feasibility Plain Management and economic efficiency are considered along with the envi­ ronmental and social impacts. A recommendation for Fed­ Federal interest in flood control began in the alluvial valley eral participation is normally based on shore ownership, use, of the Mississippi River in the 19th century. As the relation­ and type and frequency of benefits—if there is no public use ship of flood control and navigation became apparent, Con­ or benefit, Federal participation is not recommended. Once a gress called on the Corps of Engineers to use its expertise in shore protection project is completed, non-Federal interests navigational work to devise solutions to flooding problems assume responsibility for its operation and maintenance. along the river. Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of After a series of disastrous floods affecting wide areas, in­ 1976 authorizes placement of beach quality sand from our cluding transportation systems, in the 1920’s and 1930’s, it dredging projects on adjacent beaches with local interests was recognized that the Federal Government should partic­ picking up the additional costs of the disposal. Section 933 of ipate in the solution of problems affecting the public interest the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 reduces this when they are too large or complex to be handled by States local cost-share from 100 to 50 percent of additional costs. or localities. As a result, Corps authority for flood control work was extended in 1936 to embrace the entire country. Hydropower The purpose of flood control work is to prevent flood dam­ The Corps has played a significant role in meeting the age through floodflow regulation and other means. In addi­ Nation’s electric power generation needs by building and tion, the Flood Control Act of 1944 provided that “flood operating hydropower plants in connection with its large multiple- control” shall include major drainage of land. These objec­ purpose dams. The Corps’ involvement in hydropower tives are accomplished with structural measures, such as res­ generation began with the River and Harbor Acts of 1890 ervoirs, levees, channels, and floodwalls, or nonstructural and 1899, which required the Secretary of War and the measures which alter the way people would otherwise occupy Corps of Engineers to approve the sites and plans for all or use the flood plain. Levees, channel improvements, and dams and to issue permits for their construction. The River floodwalls built for flood control by the Corps of Engineers and Harbor Act of 1909 directed the Corps to consider var­ are turned over to non-Federal authorities for operation and ious water uses, including waterpower, when submitting pre­ maintenance. liminary reports on potential projects. Reservoirs constructed for flood control storage often in­ The Corps continues to consider the potential for hydro­ clude additional storage capacity for multiple-purpose uses, electric power development during the planning process for such as the storage of water for municipal and industrial use, all water resources projects involving dams and reservoirs. In navigation, irrigation, development of hydroelectric power, most instances, hydropower facilities at Corps projects are conservation of fish and wildlife, and recreation. now developed by non-Federal interests without Federal as­ The Corps fights the Nation’s flood problems by not only sistance, but the Corps becomes involved with the planning, constructing and maintaining flood control structures but construction, and operation of hydropower projects when it also by providing detailed technical information on flood is impractical for non-Federal interests to do so. Today, the hazards. Under the Flood Plain Management Services Pro­ more than 20,000 megawatts of capacity at Corps-operated gram, the Corps provides, on request, flood hazard informa­ powerplants provide approximately 30 percent of the tion, technical assistance, and planning guidance to other Nation’s hydroelectric power, or 3.5 percent of its total elec­ Federal agencies, States, local governments, and private in­ tric energy supply.

8 9 Water Supply The Water Supply Act of 1958 authorized the Corps to pro­ sure protection of the aquatic environment while allowing vide additional storage in its reservoirs for municipal and for environmentally sustainable development. industrial water supply at the request of local interests, pro­ The standard permit evaluation process includes a public vided those interests agree to pay the cost. For irrigation, the notice with a public comment period and an opportunity for Flood Control Act of 1944 provided that the Secretary of a public hearing before the Corps makes a permit decision. War, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the In­ In its evaluation of permit applications, the Corps considers terior, may utilize Corps reservoirs, provided that water all the relevant factors, including conservation, economics, users agree to repay the Government for the water in accord­ esthetics, general environmental concerns, historical values, ance with the 1902 Reclamation Law, as amended. wetland values, fish and wildlife values, flood damage preven­ Reservoir capacity can also be used for water quality and tion, land use classifications, navigation, recreation, water streamflow regulation, as authorized by the Federal Water supply, water quality, energy needs, food production, and Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961. the general welfare of the public. The Corps of Engineers has issued a number of nationwide Environmental Quality general permits for minor activities which require little or no In conducting its Civil Works Programs, the Corps must individual review. Individual Corps Districts have also comply with many environmental laws and executive orders issued regional permits for certain types of minor work in and numerous regulations relating to the environment. Con­ specific areas. Corps Districts have also issued State Pro­ sideration of the environmental impact of a Corps project gram General Permits in States with comprehensive wetland begins in the early stages and continues through design, con­ protection programs. These permits allow applicants to do struction, and operation of the project. The Corps must also work for which a State permit has been issued. These general comply with many of these environmental regulations in permits reduce delays and paperwork for applicants and al­ conducting its regulatory programs as discussed in the next low the Corps to devote its resources to the most significant section. cases while maintaining the environmental safeguards of the The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is Clean Water Act. the national charter for the protection of the environment, and its procedures ensure that public officials and private Recreation citizens may obtain and provide environmental information The Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended, provides au­ before Federal agencies make decisions concerning the en­ thority to construct, maintain, and operate public park and vironment. Corps of Engineers project planning procedures under NEPA often point out the need for more extensive recreational facilities at water resources development proj­ environmental studies; namely, the preparation of environ­ ects under the control of the Secretary of the Army and to mental impact statements. In selecting alternative project de­ permit the construction, maintenance, and operation of such signs, the Corps strives to choose options with minimum facilities. It also provides that the water areas of projects environmental impact. shall be open to public use—generally for boating, fishing, Under Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development and other recreational purposes. The Corps of Engineers Act of 1986, the Corps is authorized to modify its existing today is one of the Federal Government’s largest providers of projects—many of them built before current environmental outdoor recreational opportunities, operating more than requirements were in effect—for environmental improve­ 2,000 sites at its lakes and other water resource projects and ment. Proposed modifications under this authority range receiving more than 600 million visits per year. from the use of dredged material to create nesting sites for waterfowl to the modification of water control structures to Emergency Response and Recovery improve downstream water quality for fisheries. Several of Corps assistance for emergency/disaster response and re­ these proposals were specifically designed to help meet the covery is provided under Public Law 99, 84th Congress, goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. covering Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies, or in sup­ The Corps is working to select additional projects for port of other agencies, particularly the Federal Emergency modification. Management Agency (FEM A) under Public Law 93-288 (the Stafford Act), as amended. Regulatory Programs Under Public Law 99, 84th Congress, the Chief of Engineers, The Corps of Engineers has regulatory authority over any acting for the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to under­ construction or other work in navigable waterways under take activities including disaster preparedness, advance meas­ Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and authority ures, emergency operations (e.g., flood fighting, rescue, and over the discharge of dredged or fill material into the “waters emergency relief activities), rehabilitation of flood control of the United States”— a term which includes wetlands and works threatened or destroyed by flood, protection or repair all other aquatic areas—under Section 404 of the Federal of federally authorized shore protection works threatened or Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public damaged by coastal storms, and providing emergency sup­ Law 92-500, the “Clean Water Act”). plies of clean water in cases of drought or contaminated The Corps’ regulatory program is the principal way by which water supply. In post-flood response activities, the Corps the Federal Government protects wetlands and other aquatic provides temporary construction and repairs to essential environments and ensures the continued navigability of the public utilities and facilities and emergency access for a 10- Nation’s waterways. The regulatory program’s goal is to en­ day period, at the request of the Governor.

10 Under the Stafford Act and the Federal Disaster Response bridges, and utilities; temporary shelter; debris removal and Plan, the Corps of Engineers has a standing mission assign­ demolition; water supply; and so forth. ment to provide public works and engineering support in In addition to its mission under the Federal Disaster Re­ response to a major disaster or catastrophic earthquake. sponse Plan, the Corps is one of the Federal agencies tasked Under this plan, the Corps will work directly with the State by FEMA to provide engineering, design, construction, and in providing temporary repair and construction of roads, contract management in support of recovery operations.

GAVINS POINT Q H STREAMBANK EROSION ------^ ''''»ITROL Q

Snakt |Q NIOBRARA MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PLAN C)

OESOTO BEND Q|

GERING VALLEY Q| OMAHA Q |

|Q BROKEN BOW LITTLE PAPILLION SIDNEY Q\ CREEK O IQ HOOPER

COUIMBUSQHBwATERLbpQ

GRAND ISLAND

IQ s e w a r d

NAVIGATION PROJECTQ

BARTLEY Q|

MISSOURI RIVER A uthorized Corps of Engineers Projects LEVEE SYSTEM Q

Com pit ltd □ Unétr Construction

Hot Storto4 0 Levees Other Improvements ir Othtr Pro/octs K 3 Reregulating Dam Congressional Districts C T ^

11 SOUTH GAVINS POINT Q DAKOTA

SIOUX CITY MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PLAN

IOWA

BLACKBIRD CREEK 0

DESOTO BEND© NEBRASKA O OMAHA

PAPILLION CREEK & TRIBUTARIES LAKES

LITTLE PAPILLION CREEK O

».laHTOHilTU

Authorized Corps of Engineers Projects atgs.v:. v « r Uke Com pie ltd Local Protection Under Construction \ u c \ NSr Channel Improvements Not Storied [/V i] Levees MISSOURI Other Improvements ' ' ^ r Other Projects Reregulating Dam ■ ■ ■ ■

NEBRASKA KANSAS

Chapter II Middle Missouri River Basin

12 Harlan County, Nebraska; Tuttle Creek, Kansas; Pomme de Middle Missouri River Basin Terre, Missouri; and Cherry Creek, Colorado, are parts of (Missouri River Division— Omaha and Kansas City Districts) the Pick-Sloan plan authorized before 1944. The Kansas The Middle Missouri River basin is located in the east- City levees and the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and central portion of the greater Missouri River basin. It en­ Navigation project are also part of the plan despite their compasses an area of 24,600 square miles and contains a earlier authorizations. number of relatively small tributaries to the Missouri. In Just as the Pick-Sloan plan has roots reaching back before Nebraska, the Middle Missouri River basin includes about 1944, it later grew beyond the first comprehensive plan de­ 5,770 square miles in a narrow strip of the extreme eastern scribed in the legislation. Some of the projects authorized in edge of the State from its northern boundary, formed by the the Missouri River basin after 1944 bear the Pick-Sloan des­ Missouri River, to its southern boundary with the State of ignation, while other projects in the basin contribute to water Kansas. resources development as independent units. In 1970, Con­ The Middle Missouri River basin is devoted principally to gress enacted Public Law 95-576 which officially attached agriculture, especially livestock production and feeding. The the Pick-Sloan name to the comprehensive plan composed of basin’s highest concentration of population is located in all those projects that were part of either of the separate Nebraska; the State’s largest city, Omaha, is located in this plans merged in 1944. area. The original blueprint for the basin featured 98 reservoirs All the tributary streams in the basin are small, and stream- storing about 85 million acre-feet of water for multiple uses. flow variations are extreme. Omaha and the other river- The plan also provided for levees and floodwalls to protect oriented communities, however, have easy access to the municipalities and industrial areas plus levees on both banks ample water supplies of the Missouri River. Although the of the Missouri River from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth smallest of the basins, the Middle Missouri River basin con­ near St. Louis, Missouri. The levees would protect hundreds tains major projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers. of thousands of acres of bottom land from floods. Gavins Point Dam/Lewis and Clark Lake forms the bound­ While the Pick-Sloan plan is historic for its recognition of ary between South Dakota and Nebraska at the northern the role of tributary basins and comprehensive planning, the end of the basin. This project anchors the downstream end of projects on the main stem of the Missouri River are the the Corps’ system of six main stem dams. From Sioux City, centerpiece of the plan’s success. Six Corps of Engineers Iowa, to Rulo, Nebraska, the Missouri River has been stabil­ lakes on the main stem regulate the runoff from the entire ized to protect rich farmlands from the river’s erosive forces. upper half of the basin. The system composed of Fort Peck Downstream from Omaha, a system of levees protects rural Dam in Montana; Garrison Dam in North Dakota; Oahe, communities and thousands of acres of highly productive Big Bend, and Fort Randall Dams in South Dakota; and bottom land from high stages on the Missouri River caused Gavins Point Dam in Nebraska and South Dakota can store by uncontrolled tributary streams. 73.9 million acre-feet of water. Within that storage space, Stabilization of the river has also provided a navigable chan­ 16.3 million acre-feet is devoted to flood control. Other uses nel reaching from Sioux City to the Missouri’s mouth near of storage include irrigation, hydropower, and navigation St. Louis, Missouri. Commercial tows have carried millions downstream from Sioux City. In an average year, power- of tons of commodities up and down the river. plants in the main stem dams produce about 10 billion kilo- At Omaha, a levee and a reinforced concrete floodwall pro­ watthours of hydroelectric power. The control these lakes tect the city from high stages on the Missouri. The effective­ provide over downstream flow is the key to dependable ness of this project was overwhelmingly demonstrated in the navigation. 1952 flood. The Corps has also constructed local protection projects on other tributaries in the Middle Missouri River The Reservoir Control Center at the Missouri River Division basin and has completed major studies of the Metropolitan office in Omaha coordinates the operation of the six main Omaha-Council Bluffs and Metropolitan Sioux City regions. stem projects. Semiannual public meetings provide a forum These urban studies identify the water and related land re­ for State and Federal representatives and private interests to sources problems and needs of the regions. recommend goals for the plan that guides regulation of the lakes through each year. Flood control projects in the Missouri River basin prevented Multiple-Purpose Projects over $10.5 billion in flood damages through Fiscal Year 1990. Visitors spent almost 161 million hours at the lake Comprehensive Plan, Missouri River Basin projects in the Missouri River Division in Fiscal Year 1990, (Missouri River Division) including more than 47 million hours at the six main stem The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (Pick-Sloan plan) lakes. The main stem hydroelectric plants produced 7.1 bil­ began when the Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized a lion kilowatthours in the same year. Cumulative power rev­ comprehensive basin plan formed from separate proposals enues from the entire main stem system through Fiscal Year recommended by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps 1990 amount to nearly $1.8 billion. Also in 1990, 1.4 million of Engineers. Projects in the plan included flood control, tons of commerce traveled on the Missouri River from Sioux irrigation, hydroelectric power, improved navigation on the City to the mouth. lower Missouri River, water supply for cities and industry, The six-lake main stem system filled for the first time in water quality control, conservation of fish and wildlife, pub­ 1967. Over the next 20 years, inflow to the system was near lic recreation, and land treatment and enhancement. normal, and the pools fluctuated near the ideal level. In 1987, At the start, the plan involved projects authorized in pre­ a drought began that persists into the 1990’s. This shortage vious acts. For example, the lakes at Fort Peck, Montana; of inflow forced the lakes to record low levels. By the end of

13 1990, the Corps had drained about 40 percent of the system’s By the end of 1990, the Corps and the Bureau of Reclama­ space for storing water from year to year to counteract tion had 55 Pick-Sloan lakes either complete or under con­ droughts. From the 60 percent that still contained water, struction. Considering other Missouri River basin projects as service was maintained to all the lake and river users, but the well, the two agencies had more than 100 lake projects either service was less than what is maintained when the drought complete or under construction. The Corps also completed storage is full. All the users of Missouri River water shared 76 local flood protection projects and 29 units of the Mis­ the impact of the drought. souri River Levee system. Supplementing the planned devel­ The Corps operates the main stem lakes for all their purposes opment, the Corps has completed about 165 small erosion according to the Missouri River Master Water Control and flood control projects under continuing authorities. Manual. In November 1989, to respond to numerous in­ quiries inspired by the drought, the Corps began to re­ Completed Multiple-Purpose Projects examine the manual’s operating criteria. The Missouri River Gavins Point Project (Omaha District) Division published a report on the first of two phases of that study in May 1990. The Phase 1 report identifies the eco­ The Gavins Point (Lewis and Clark Lake) project is the nomic factors that any change to the operating criteria could smallest but nevertheless an important unit in the Missouri affect. A draft Phase 2 report should be published in January River system of multiple-purpose dams. Located near Yank­ 1992 and a final report in October 1992. In the Phase 2 ton, South Dakota, this project was started in 1952, closed in reports, an operating plan will be recommended for the 1955, and completed in 1964 except for the development of future that best meets the needs of all who rely on the main additional recreation facilities. One of its chief functions is to stem lakes and the open river downstream. smooth out the intermittent surges of water released up­ stream at the Fort Randall project during peak periods of Besides meeting the project purposes identified in the author­ power generation, thereby enabling the project to operate at izing acts, the main stem lakes have a special relationship full generating capacity. In effect, Gavins Point Reservoir with two bird species. The least tern is federally listed as stores and reuses Fort Randall releases to produce additional endangered and the piping plover is federally listed as threat­ hydroelectric power, minimize bank erosion, and provide ened. Sandbars downstream from some of the main stem better control over the release of water for downstream river dams provide nesting habitat for these birds. However, the stabilization and navigation. sandbars are exposed only when releases are low. From mid- May through August, since 1986, releases have been adjusted The dam is built of compacted earth and extends 8,700 feet at Garrison, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Dams in an across the Missouri River valley between the States of South effort not to disturb nests or inundate the sandbars before Dakota and Nebraska. It is 74 feet high and contains more chicks are fledged. than 7 million cubic yards of earth and native chalk exca­ vated from the site. A 664-foot-wide concrete spillway and a

14 powerhouse enclosing three generators are located on the Lake Visitor Center was opened. The center has 8,400 square Nebraska side of the river. feet of floor space; its exterior surface is a combination of Gavins Point’s three generators have a capacity of 107,100 textured concrete and cedar siding. Three massive windows kilowatts. These generators are interconnected with a re­ provide visitors sweeping views of the Missouri valley. A gional power grid and provide electric energy to South Da­ 50-seat theater offers a variety of informational films and kota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska. Through December slide presentations. 1990, the facility had produced more than 23.5 billion The project substantially benefits Fort Randall’s power pro­ kilowatthours of electric energy. duction by providing reregulation of Fort Randall’s peaking The reservoir is known as Lewis and Clark Lake. It extends power releases. Since the project began operations, gross 25 miles upstream from the dam, covers 31,000 acres at the revenue to the Federal Government from the rental of lands maximum operating pool level, and stores 492,000 acre-feet has amounted to $230,300, of which $172,725 has been re­ of water. Approximately 152,000 acre-feet of storage capac­ turned to adjacent counties through the States of Nebraska ity has been set aside to contain floods originating in the and South Dakota. The total cost of the Gavins Point proj­ 16,000-square-mile drainage area between Gavins Point and ect is approximately $49,617,000. Fort Randall Dams. The lake has a relatively stable level subject to variations of less than 6 feet throughout the year. This stable lake level and the scenic beauty of the lands bordering the lake have made the Gavins Point project an attractive recreation area as demonstrated by the total of 9,405,563 visitor-hours spent at the project during Fiscal Year 1990. The major portion of the shoreline of Lewis and Clark Lake is leased to the States of Nebraska and South Dakota for fish and wildlife management and recreation purposes. Corps of Engineers development in leased areas has been limited to basic facilities such as access roads, picnic and parking areas, boat basins and ramps, water wells, shelterbelt tree plant­ ings, and sanitary facilities. The States have provided exten­ sive additional facilities, including swimming and camping areas, picnic and playground equipment, additional sanitary Completed Flood Control Projects facilities, and concrete plank and landing mat boat ramps. Omaha Levee Project (Omaha District) Three golf courses have been provided by local communities. Because the Missouri River was a main artery of travel in Concessionaire facilities on the leased lands provide cafe serv­ Nebraska’s pioneering era, towns sprang up on the river’s ice, boat sales and services, boat docks, bait and sporting banks. Later, the railroads followed water routes where pos­ goods sales, and excursion boat rides. sible. Developing industry, dependent on both water and Seventeen recreation areas were developed initially by the transportation, pushed out to the river’s edge and en­ Corps of Engineers. In October 1976, the Lewis and Clark croached upon the natural floodway. This was the picture at

15 Lewis and Clark Lake Visitor Center Omaha in 1943 when a major flood rolled down the Missouri completed in 1949. It consists of 12.3 miles of earth levee and River. Much of the city’s major industrial area, as well as a mile of concrete floodwall. The total cost of the Omaha sizable residential areas, was behind a locally built levee; but levee project was $6,266,000, of which $5,904,000 was Fed­ in spite of a valiant fight to save the levee, it was breached, eral and $362,000 was non-Federal. and damages amounting to several million dollars resulted. Missouri River Erosion Control Project— The flood drove 1,200 families from their homes, inundated Sioux City, Iowa, to Kenslers and Miners Bends the municipal airport to a depth of 7 feet, and spread into a large industrial area. It also gave impetus to the plans then (Omaha District) being formulated for basinwide river control. Before it was controlled, the Missouri River in the reach The 1943 flood was only a prelude to the record-breaking frpHi'Sioux City, Iowa, to Kenslers and Miners Bends threat­ flood of April 1952, a flood which would have brought dis­ ened to damage or destroy by erosion a broad, fertile area of aster upon Omaha had it not been for the timely completion agricultural lands. The cities of South Sioux City, Nebraska, of the city’s new levee and floodwall system. The story of the and Sioux City, Iowa, as well as railroads, highways, and successful fight to keep the raging river out of Omaha in recreation facilities at both McCook and Crystal Lakes, are 1952, made possible by the new protection system, is an epic located in this area. Had erosion continued unchecked, the in the history of flood fighting. river might have cut channels back through these lakes, flooding lands and improvements having an estimated value In the 1952 flood, the Missouri River rose to a stage of 30.2 in excess of $46 million, and might have eventually attacked feet at Omaha, almost 6 feet higher than the previous all-time densely populated areas along the Big Sioux River. record of 1881. The levee system was designed to protect the city from a flood stage of 26.5 feet, with an additional 5 feet The Flood Control Acts of 1941 and 1948 authorized con­ as freeboard. This is the stage that could occur at Omaha struction of an extensive system of erosion control structures with the major upstream main stem storage reservoirs com­ to stabilize the river’s banks and to protect the valuable area. pleted and with severe flood-producing events downstream Construction of these protective works was begun in June from the reservoirs. However, only one reservoir—Fort Peck 1946 and completed in June 1961. in Montana—was operating in 1952. As the flood ap­ The project consists of a system of dikes, revetments, and proached Omaha and its neighboring city of Council Bluffs, channel improvements at a cost of approximately Iowa, 34,000 people were evacuated from the low-lying $11,300,000. Average annual benefits are $914,000; through areas. Industrial plants were closed, and a citizen army of Fiscal Year 1990, benefits of approximately $32,670,000 flood fighters was recruited. These forces, augmented by have accumulated. Fifth Army troops, National Guardsmen, seasoned Corps of Engineers flood fighters, and others, manned the levees. Little Papillion Creek (Omaha District) The levees held. The cities were saved. Omahans agreed that Papillion Creek and Little Papillion Creek represent serious their levee system had been a sound investment indeed. It flood problems for the city of Omaha and for surrounding prevented flood damages in the city of Omaha estimated to urban and agricultural areas. Extensive development of the be $25 million in one flood. Through Fiscal Year 1990, the flood plain area in recent years has materially increased the Omaha levee project has prevented an estimated potential for severe flood damage. $354,819,000 in flood damages. The flood protection af­ A project for flood control on Little Papillion Creek was forded by the levees and by upstream reservoirs is of tre­ authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962. The major mendous value to the flood plain areas of Omaha and Council feature of the project is the enlargement and realignment of Bluffs. the existing channel for 6.5 miles upstream from the mouth The Omaha protection project, authorized by the Flood of Little Papillion Creek. Appurtenant works include short Control Act of 1944 as a unit in the basinwide plan, was tieback levees downstream from L Street, intermittent riprap-

16 ping of the channel where necessary to protect the banks mated at more than $32.7 million through Fiscal Year 1990. from erosion or scour by high water velocities, and necessary In accordance with the Water Resources Development Act bridge modifications. of 1986, all unconstructed Missouri River agricultural levee Stage I construction, consisting of levees and channel im­ units were deauthorized in December 1989. provements between the mouth of Little Papillion Creek and Grover Street, was completed in December 1966. Construction of Stage II improvements, consisting of chan­ Completed Navigation Projects nel realignment and enlargement upstream from Grover Missouri River Stabilization and Navigation Project Street to 72nd and Pacific Streets, was completed in June 1968. (Omaha and Kansas City Districts) The unimproved Missouri River was a wild, unpredictable Stage III, which completed the overall improvements, in­ stream, many-channeled and meandering, a hazard to com­ cluded the portion of the stream from 72nd and Pacific mercial navigation, and a constant threat to improvements Streets to one-half mile north and east of 90th and Maple along its banks. The bank stabilization and navigation proj­ Streets. Construction was completed in 1973. ect stops meandering and prevents erosion that would aver­ The estimated costs of the project are $3,643,000 Federal and age more than 9,000 acres of land annually. The resulting $1,880,000 non-Federal. stable conditions support low-cost transportation which en­ hances economic development in the region. Commercial shipping as far upstream as Omaha began in 1953 with two private barge operations. Since then, com­ modities ranging from grain and molasses to chemicals and fertilizers, from petroleum products to vegetable and animal products, and from building materials to machinery have begun to travel the river. In a single year, shippers have moved up to 3.3 million tons of goods on the Missouri River. The Missouri River’s potential capacity for commercial traf­ fic is between 12 and 20 million tons without traffic conges­ tion or significant delays. Congress modified earlier authorities for bank stabilization and navigation improvements in passing the River and Har­ bor Act of 1945. The project described in the 1945 Act pro­ vides a channel 9 feet deep and 300 feet wide from the mouth of the river near St. Louis, Missouri, to Sioux City, Iowa. In straightening the river channel for efficient navigation, the project also reduced the river’s length. In 1960, the Corps of Engineers adjusted earlier river surveys. By that most recent adjustment, the bank stabilization and navigation project is 735 miles long. The design of the Missouri River project avoids dams or other barriers used to form the pools common to streams improved for navigation. Instead, the river is open and flow­ Kenslers Bend ing for the entire length of the project. With the riverbanks permanently secured in the desired alignment by dikes and Missouri River Levee System, Sioux City, Iowa, revetments, the energy of the flowing river scours the river­ to the Mouth (Omaha and Kansas City Districts) bed rather than the banks. Nearly 1,500 miles of levees along both banks of the Mis­ souri River from Sioux City to the mouth were authorized In 1965, the Corps began planning to develop public use sites by the Flood Control Act of 1944. These levees were to on both banks of the Missouri River from Sioux City to the operate in conjunction with the main stem reservoir system mouth. Under Section 207 of the Flood Control Act of 1962, on the upper Missouri River and with the tributary reser­ the Corps planned and constructed 22 sites. Today, addi­ voirs in the lower portion of the basin. Many tributary reser­ tional recreational facilities require a non-Federal sponsor to voirs have been completed. share the construction cost and to operate and maintain the completed facilities. The levees that make up the Missouri River Levee System are constructed of semicompacted earthfill. The average The Corps completed the final authorized bank stabilization height of the levees is 12.6 feet and the top width is 10 feet. and navigation structures in 1982. Along most of the project, Drainage structures through the levees are provided to min­ the natural scour maintains the navigation channel at the imize ponding water on the protected land. proper width and depth. Occasionally, particularly when Of the 150 units originally contemplated in the entire system, flow in the river is low, the Corps dredges shallow areas to 8 have been completed in Nebraska. The operational levee keep the navigation channel open. The total Federal project units within the State have a combined length of 72.4 miles, cost to date is approximately $427 million. protect 27,660 acres, and have prevented flood damages esti­

17 Flood Control Projects Underway Construction of Dam 20, Wehrspann Lake, began in July 1981 and was completed in October 1983 at a final project Papillion Creek and Tributaries Lakes cost of $15,446,000. Recreation facilities at Dam 20 are (Omaha District) under the sponsorship of the Papio-Missouri River Natural The plan of improvement for the Papillion Creek basin was Resources District. Facilities were open to the public in authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1968. It consists August 1988. During 1990, people spent a total of 3,690,300 essentially of a system of 21 dams and reservoirs on tribu­ visitor-hours at Wehrspann Lake. Construction of Dam 18 taries of Papillion Creek, a right-bank tributary to the Mis­ began in May 1983 and was completed in September 1985. souri River. The basin is occupied by a major expanding Dam 18 recreation facilities, which are under the sponsor­ portion of the city of Omaha, large industrial and commer­ ship of the City of Omaha, are under construction and are cial developments, and a number of smaller but growing scheduled to be completed by the fall of 1991. The estimated urban communities. The Corps of Engineers’ plan was coor­ final project cost is $19,882,000. dinated with the Soil Conservation Service, the Bureau of Dams 10 and 15 were classified as inactive in October 1981. Outdoor Recreation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the En­ The Papillion Watershed Coordinating Committee was vironmental Protection Agency, and local interests. The ma­ formed in March 1981. Its 11 members represented the jor benefits of this project would be in the areas of flood PVPA, the PFPA, and governmental bodies in the Papillion control and water-based recreation. Creek basin. Its goal was to secure a comprehensive plan for Construction of Dam 16, Standing Bear Lake, was com­ adequate flood protection in the Papillion Creek basin. As a pleted in mid-1973 at an estimated total cost of $4,495,000. result of renewed local interest in flood control, Congress Work on Dam 11, Glenn Cunningham Lake, was completed authorized a réévaluation of the 1975 report on Dam 3 A and in early 1975 at an estimated total cost of $11,636,000. De­ all other pertinent reports. The réévaluation was completed velopment of recreation facilities at Dam 16 has been com­ in March 1984, and it was found that the unconstructed pleted and the site was opened to the public in June 1976 dams, including Dam 3 A, were either not economically feas­ under sponsorship of the City of Omaha. Recreation devel­ ible or were highly controversial. The report recommended opment at Dam 11 was completed in 1978. During 1990, construction of an improved channel with a hiking and people spent 2,049,825 visitor-hours at Standing Bear Lake biking trail between West Center Road and L Street on Big and 2,938,724 visitor-hours at Glenn Cunningham Lake. Papillion Creek in Omaha, a basinwide flood warning sys­ Because of rapidly rising costs and new legislation dealing tem, and nonstructural measures that could be implemented with regulation of flood plain development, a réévaluation by the non-Federal interests. The estimated total cost of the study was undertaken in July 1974. The results of the study channel improvement, trail, and flood warning system is $8.2 were presented in a Plan Evaluation Report submitted in million. The improved channel was authorized by the Water September 1975 to higher authority for review. The report Resources Development Act of 1986. Construction started in recommended that Dam 10 be constructed as originally March 1991 and is scheduled to be completed in the fall of authorized to provide flood control in the Little Papillion 1992. This act also deauthorized the remaining uncon­ Creek basin; that the authorized plan for Big Papillion Creek structed dams. be modified by construction of one large dam, designated as 3 A, in lieu of Dams 1 through 9; and that construction of the eight dams in the West Branch Papillion Creek basin be Authorized Projects Not Started postponed pending an indepth réévaluation of that basin. Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, In January 1975, local interests opposed to the flood control Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri project filed suit to permanently enjoin the Corps of Engi­ (Kansas City and Omaha Districts) neers from proceeding with the authorized project. Subse­ The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Section quently, a preliminary injunction was granted to halt land 601a, authorized mitigation of fish and wildlife lost to the acquisition for and construction of Dam 10. construction and operation of the Missouri River Bank Sta­ Dam 3A was conditionally authorized for Phase I planning bilization and Navigation Project. The mitigation actions by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976. would occur along the river in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Réévaluation studies of the eight dams that were authorized Missouri. for the West Branch basin were completed in March 1979. Since December 1989, the Kansas City and Omaha Districts Five dams, Dams 12, 13, 14, 19, and 21, no longer econom­ have been identifying mitigation sites, designing fish and ically feasible, were reclassified as inactive in November wildlife habitat development, and conducting preliminary 1976, as were Dams 1 through 9. The remaining three dams, real estate activities. The work in the current phase, called Dams 15, 18, and 20, were found to be feasible however. preconstruction engineering and design, should be complete Dam 20 was reclassified to the inactive category because the in September 1991. Following that completion and review of cost allocated to recreation exceeded the 50-percent limita­ the project at the Washington level, the project would be tion as stipulated by Public Law 89-72. Dams 15 and 18, eligible for construction. Following the appropriation of along with Dam 10, were retained in an active status. funds for construction, both Districts would begin to acquire In March 1980, two local and opposing organizations, the sites selected for early development and to construct the proj­ Papillion Valley Preservation Association (PVPA) and the ect. The acquisition and construction would require from 7 Papio Flood Protection Association (PFPA), agreed on a to 8 years and cost an estimated $65,500,000 including the resolution which included seeking funds for construction of preconstruction costs. Dams 18 and 20 as wëll as other Federal and non-Federal Land acquisition makes up about half the project cost. The actions. In November 1980, Dam 20 was reclassified to the other half of the cost is for habitat improvements. The mit­ active category and funds were appropriated by Congress for igation project would require acquisition of about 29,900 the initiation of construction of Dams 18 and 20. acres. Acquiring the land from willing sellers as much as 18 possible will minimize the impacts of that acquisition. Of the The total project cost is $4 million, and construction will be nonpublic land identified for acquisition, the project would spread over at least an approximate 5-year period. restore and preserve 1,900 acres of aquatic lands together In Fiscal Year 1991, the Omaha District is developing a with 28,000 acres of other lands. The project would also Local Cost-Sharing Agreement for the project with the Twin develop 16,900 acres of public lands and restore and preserve Plattes Natural Resource District. 1,300 acres of public aquatic lands. (Omaha District) Because the authorizing act provides that the Federal Govern­ DeSoto Bend ment will bear the entire cost, the mitigation project does not The 85th Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to require a non-Federal sponsor as a condition for construc­ make a cutoff of the Missouri River at DeSoto Bend near tion. Although the four affected States are not financial Blair. The primary purpose of development in this area was sponsors, they participate regularly on a coordinating com­ the establishment of a wildlife refuge along the Central Fly­ mittee involved in the identification and evaluation of mit­ way. When not in use for migratory waterfowl, the refuge igation sites. area is opened to the public for fishing, hunting, boating, and related activities. The Corps completed the cutoff and other The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 also author­ pertinent control structures necessary for establishing the ized a study of the need for additional measures for fish and oxbow lake in the fall of 1960. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife wildlife mitigation in the project area. The reconnaissance Service (FWS) has developed the recreation and refuge fea­ phase of this study would cost an estimated $75,000. The tures of the project and is planning expansion of the recrea­ study will be automatically deauthorized if Congress does tion facilities. Visitation at the DeSoto National Wildlife not provide funds in Fiscal Year 1992 to begin the study. Refuge during 1990 was approximately 388,300 visitor- hours. One of the largest cooperative fish restocking pro­ Special Projects grams in the Midwest was undertaken at DeSoto Bend dur­ Streambank Erosion Control ing the summer of 1985. This multiagency effort involving the States of Iowa and Nebraska, the Corps of Engineers, Section 32 of the Water Resources Development Act of and the FWS will greatly improve the sport fishing at the 1974, as amended by the Water Resources Development Act refuge area. of 1976, established the National Streambank Erosion Pre­ vention and Control Demonstration Program. The intent of Missouri National Recreational River Section 32 work is to develop a demonstration of structural (Omaha District) means for controlling bank erosion with a view toward de­ Because of its rare scenic beauty, the Missouri River from veloping the most cost-effective and environmentally accept­ Gavins Point Dam, west of Yankton, South Dakota, to able means. The 1974 act authorized construction of erosion Ponca State Park was designated a National Recreational control demonstration projects at multiple sites on the Mis­ River under Section 3(a) of the National Wild and Scenic souri River between Fort Randall Dam and Sioux City, Rivers Act of 1968. This act was amended by Section 707 of Iowa. As of August 1980, six projects in Nebraska were the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 and author­ completed—Ryan Bend Area near Newcastle, Mulberry ized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a cooperative Bend Area near Masked, Brooky Bottom Road Area near agreement with the Secretary of the Army for construction Obert, Cedar County Park near St. Helena, Sunshine Bot­ and maintenance of bank stabilization work and appropriate tom Area near Lynch, and Ionia Bend near Ponca. All have recreation development. The Department of the Interior and been transferred to local sponsors for operation and main­ the Department of the Army signed a Cooperative Agree­ tenance. ment in February 1980 which specifies the responsibilities of Section 33 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 each agency in implementing this project. Funds for con­ authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake measures, struction of the Missouri National Recreational River were including maintenance and rehabilitation of existing struc­ appropriated under Public Law 99-88, which included new tures, which are determined to be needed to alleviate bank cost-sharing provisions. The Myron Grove river access point erosion and related problems associated with reservoir re­ was completed in May 1987 under the new cost-sharing pro­ leases along the Missouri River between Fort Peck Dam, visions. Construction of recreation facilities at Yankton’s Montana, and a point 58 miles downstream from Gavins Riverside Park were completed during Fiscal Year 1991. Point Dam, South Dakota and Nebraska. Up to $3 million per fiscal year was authorized for the measures, which in­ Continuing Authorities Program cluded land acquisition from willing sellers in lieu of struc­ Work performed by the Corps of Engineers under the Con­ tural measures. tinuing Authorities Program in the Middle Missouri River Platte River Erosion Control basin in Nebraska is discussed in the following paragraphs. The Platte River Streambank Erosion Control project is a Small Flood Control Projects plan for erosion control using locally available materials and Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, self-help methods in Lincoln County. It was authorized by authorized the construction of small flood control projects Section 603 of the Water Resources Development Act of such as levees, small dams, channel improvements, diver­ 1986. sions, flood warning systems, and flood proofing measures. The Platte River Streambank Erosion Control, Lincoln First, a reconnaissance study is conducted at Federal ex­ County, Nebraska, report was completed in October 1989. pense to determine if there is at least one feasible solution to The report presented a demonstration plan that is consistent the flood problem. If it is determined that a feasible solution with the authorizing legislation and the Fiscal Year 1988 exists, the Federal Government and a non-Federal sponsor appropriations bill. Preconstruction engineering and design conduct a more detailed feasibility study to determine if a has been substantially completed for approximately 60 sites. project should be constructed. One-half the cost of the feas-

19 DeSoto Bend ibility study is cost-shared by the non-Federal sponsor. If a Omaha. In response to a request from the Sarpy County project is constructed, the non-Federal sponsor contriubtes Board of Supervisors, the Corps of Engineers developed a at least 25 percent but not more than 50 percent of the total Section 208 plan of improvement for 6 miles of Papillion project cost. The Federal investment is limited to a max­ Creek downstream from Offutt Air Force Base. This con­ imum of $5 million per project. sisted of snagging and clearing the existing channel and relo­ Blackbird Creek, Macy (Omaha District). Recurring floods cating the lower 2 miles of the outlet. The improvement was along the outlet of Blackbird Creek, a right-bank tributary to completed in 1964 at a cost of approximately $117,000, of the Missouri River, have caused damages to 2,000 acres of which $98,000 was a Federal cost. improved agricultural land. A Section 205 project consisting Emergency Bank Protection of channel realignment and levees along both banks of Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended, Blackbird Creek was completed in 1967. The estimated costs authorizes the construction of emergency streambank and of the project are $262,500 Federal and $37,000 non-Federal. shoreline protection measures to prevent damage to public The project has prevented an estimated $269,000 in flood facilities such as highways, roads, streets, bridges, utilities, damages through Fiscal Year 1990. parks, schools, hospitals, and other nonprofit public facil­ Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control ities that are in imminent danger of failure due to erosion. A Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, as amended, feasibility study is conducted at Federal expense to deter­ authorized channel clearing and limited excavation to in­ mine the feasibility of erosion protection. If a project is con­ crease flow capacity and decrease flooding. A reconnaissance structed, the non-Federal sponsor contributes at least 25 per­ study is conducted at Federal expense to determine the feas­ cent but not more than 50 percent of the total project cost. ibility of channel clearing. If the project is feasible and the The Federal investment is limited to a maximum of $500,000 cost is less than $250,000, the Corps can proceed directly to per project. the construction phase. If the cost is over $250,000, a feas­ A list of the Section 14 projects completed since 1985 in the ibility study is required. One-half the cost of the feasibility Middle Missouri River basin follows. study is provided by a non-Federal sponsor. If a project is Location Year Amount constructed, the non-Federal sponsor contributes at least 25 percent but not more than 50 percent of the total project Big Nemaha River, Richardson County cost. The Federal investment is limited to a maximum of (County Road)...... 1985 $ 64,000 $500,000 per project. North Fork Big Nemaha, Papillion Creek (Omaha District). Papillion Creek is a right- Elk Creek, Johnson County bank tributary to the Missouri River in the vicinity of (Sewage Lagoon)...... 1985 69,600

20 Elm Creek, Burt County (County Bridge)...... 1986 42,700 Elk Creek, Near Jackson (County Bridge)...... 1986 47,200 West Papillion Creek, Douglas County (Drainage Structure)...... 1987 250,000

Technical Assistance Programs Assistance provided to the State under the Corps’ Technical Assistance Programs is described in the following paragraphs. Flood Plain Management Services Program Example of a Completed Section 14 Project The Flood Plain Management Services Program has pro­ vided for numerous services over the years to public and South Fork Big Nemaha, private entities in an effort to achieve flood damage reduc­ Pawnee County tion. This effort for the Middle Missouri River basin has (DuBois Bridge)...... ,.. 1985 109,700 been in the form of published studies such as the flood plain Yankee Creek, Johnson County information and other reports and numerous unpublished (West Tecumseh Bridge)...... 1986 17,500 studies and technical assistance. Yankee Creek, Johnson County The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 requires that (Vesta Bridge) ...... 1986 31,900 all services to Federal agencies and private entities be on a Elk Creek, Near Willis 100-percent reimbursable basis. Services to non-Federal pub­ (County Road)...... 1986 47,400 lic entities are provided free of charge. South Creek, Near Martinsburg The following reports have been completed for streams in the (County Bridges)...... 1986 50,100 Middle Missouri River basin. Flood Plain Information Reports Locality Sponsoring Agency Status

Papillion, Big Papillion, and Papio Watershed Board Vol. I, completed November 1967 West Papillion Creeks

Little Papillion Creek and Papio Watershed Board Vol. II, completed April 1968 South Branch

Thomas Creek, Cole Creek, Papio Watershed Board Vol. Ill, completed May 1969 Hell Creek, West Branch Papillion Creek Extension, Big Papillion Creek Extension Special Flood Hazard Information Reports Locality Sponsoring Agency Status

Betz Road Ditch at Bellevue City of Bellevue Completed June 1972

Missouri River, River Miles Nebraska Natural Resources Vol. 1, completed October 1977 659.4 to 581.3 Commission,/Iowa Natural Resources Council

Missouri River, River Miles Nebraska Natural Resources Vol. II, completed June 1978 746.3 to 659.4 Commission/Iowa Natural Resources Council/South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources Missouri River, River Miles Nebraska Natural Resources Vol. Ill, completed September 1979 581.8 to 498.0 Commission/Iowa Natural Resources Council/Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Missouri River, River Miles Nebraska Natural Resources Vol. IV, completed March 1981 811 to 746.3 Commission/ South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources A special flood hazard information report was also done for 21 the North Fork of the Nemaha River at Tecumseh by the Kansas City District. Planning Assistance to States Program tive works at 50 locations in Montana, Nebraska, Iowa, The Planning Assistance to States Program was authorized North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Governors, county by Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of and local officials, and many individuals of the affected 1974 (Public Law 93-251), as amended. The Section 22 pro­ States expressed their gratitude to the President and to the gram was established by Congress to enable States to utilize Federal agencies for their foresight in providing the protec­ Corps of Engineers’ planning expertise in the preparation of tive works. These works prevented $6,625,000 in flood dam­ comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, and ages and an immeasurable amount of human suffering and conservation of the water and related land resources of misery. The total cost to the Federal Government was drainage basins located within the boundaries of a State. The $1,557,900. assistance can be provided to any public entity as long as it is Storms, ice jams, and snowmelt caused flooding in eastern consistent with the State’s water resources planning objec­ Nebraska during March 1978. Preliminary damage assess­ tives. The priority of the work is established by the State. ments for 12 counties were made by the Omaha District. On The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 requires that 24 March, the President declared a 17-county region in the program be cost-shared between the Corps of Engineers Nebraska as a disaster area and, subsequently, detailed dam­ and a non-Federal public entity. Fiscal Year 1991 efforts age surveys were made for 15 counties. require 10-percent cost-sharing by non-Federal interests. The The Omaha District also received 60 requests for repair of cost-sharing requirement increases to 30 percent in Fiscal levees in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Year 1992 and to 50 percent in Fiscal Year 1993 and beyond. Montana. Such levee repairs are authorized under Public The Omaha and Kansas City Districts serve the State of Law 99, 84th Congress. Nebraska. The Omaha District has been designated as the In May and June of 1984, large areas of the Missouri River lead District for the Section 22 program in Nebraska. basin experienced intermittent heavy rainstorms. Above- Fiscal Year 1990 efforts within the Middle Missouri River average precipitation had occurred during the preceding basin included Missouri River corridor studies for recrea­ months. The prolonged wet spring culminated with flooding tional and cultural/historical sites, instream flow modeling in June. Along the Missouri River from Omaha to Rulo, the below Fort Randall and Gavins Point Dams, instream flow data analysis, and backwater restoration project design along the Missouri River. Efforts for Fiscal Year 1991 and beyond depend on the State’s willingness to provide cost-shared funds.

Emergency Authorities The Corps of Engineers has given emergency assistance to the State of Nebraska as follows. An outstanding example of emergency operations in Nebraska occurred in connection with the record flood on the Missouri River in April 1952. In cooperation with the Red Cross and other agencies, the Corps of Engineers pro­ flooding was the worst since the disastrous 1952 flood. Nu­ vided boats and rescue parties, removed marooned families merous towns and riverfront developments were flooded or and livestock, maintained patrols to issue advance warning threatened with flooding, and many roads and bridges were of flooding, assisted in strengthening and raising both pri­ washed out or damaged. Farmers were not able to plant vate and Federal levees threatened by high water, and per­ thousands of acres of cropland because of the magnitude and formed other flood fighting services. timing of the flooding. Flooding in the Salt Creek basin contributed to the deaths of two people in Lincoln. Rare Following the flood, all damaged levees were repaired or event high flows on the rivers upstream from the reservoirs in restored. In this emergency, the Corps not only used all the North Platte River basin in Wyoming occurred; these available personnel in the Missouri River Division but also flows added to the problems in Nebraska. The Salt Creek, called in hundreds of skilled flood fighters from other Divi­ Papillion Creek, Elkhorn River, North Platte River, and sion and Districts. Platte River basins, as well as the smaller tributary basins, all On 25 February 1969, the Omaha District activated its experienced flooding or high flows which, in turn, con­ Emergency Control Center because of the flood potential tributed to high flood stages on the Missouri River. created by a heavy snowpack in the upper Great Plains re­ A Category C flood emergency for the Omaha District was gion of the Missouri River basin. The President, on 1 March declared on 17 May 1984. A Presidential Disaster Declara­ 1969, called for a coordinated effort by all Federal agencies tion was made on 26 June 1984. This latter action permitted operating under the direction of the Office of Emergency the Federal Emergency Management Agency, acting through Preparedness (now the Federal Emergency Management the Missouri River Division, to assign to the Omaha District Agency). The result was “Operation Foresight” under which disaster recovery assistance activities authorized by Public the Corps of Engineers, using Public Law 99, 84th Congress Law 93-288. The Category C flood emergency was termi­ authority, assisted local communities by furnishing technical nated on 9 July 1984, and on 10 July, the Omaha District assistance, providing for the hire of construction equipment issued a Public Notice to inform the public of rehabilitation with operators to construct protective works, and supple­ assistance available under Public Law 99, 84th Congress, to menting local supplies of needed materials. In the Omaha restore flood control structures to predisaster conditions. District, reconnaissance teams advised authorities at 165 lo­ The Omaha District received 175 requests for assistance, 26 calities of the flood potential and of the help available to of which met the definition of flood control structures and them under Operation Foresight. The District built protec­ were determined eligible for assistance. 22 6 Steps to a Civil Works Project 1 . Problem Perception Local community and/or local government perceives or experi­ ences water and related land resource problems that are beyond the local community’s/government’s capabilities to alleviate or solve. 2 . Request for Federal Action Local officials talk to the Corps about available Federal programs. Technical assistance and some small projects can be accomp­ lished without congressional authorization. Local officials contact the congressional delegation if study author­ ization is required. Member of Congress requests study authorization through Public Works Committees. Committee resolution is adopted if report was previously prepared on water problems in the area. Legislation is normally required if no Corps report exists. 3 . Study Problem and Report Preparation Study is assigned to a Corps District office. Funds to complete a reconnaissance study (12-18 months) are in­ cluded in the President’s budget. Appropriations for the reconnaissance phase are provided in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. District conducts the reconnaissance study, leading to a reconnais­ sance report. If study continues beyond reconnaissance phase, local sponsors will be required to share the costs of the feasibility phase. Public involvement is an integral part of the planning process, includ­ ing review of the draft feasibility report and draft environmental im­ pact statement (EIS). Study is conducted under Federal Principles and Guidelines. Funds are included annually in the President’s budget; annual ap­ propriations and non-Federal monies are needed to continue the study. Study results in a feasibility report and EIS which are submitted to a Corps Division (regional) office. 4 . Report Review and Approval Division office, which reviews District work during the planning proc­ ess, completes technical review of the final District feasibility report and EIS. Division Engineer submits the report to the Washington Level Re­ view Center (CEWRC-WLR) and issues a public notice inviting comments. CEWRC-WLR conducts the Washington review. Final EIS is filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and is made available to the public. Proposed report of the Chief of Engineers and a final EIS are sent to the heads of Federal agencies and Governors of affected States for comment. T r y t o ilo w in j * re p o rt 0 t t r y Cruet o* E n j v y e r a ^orv-errvng (he dean-up and development Brown bottom Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors (CEBRH) or the Missis­ L >ee k o&ar Any*t>wn .n »he counSj of S cioxtc ftlotk M*Chi£*n The follow ing report contd«ns studies done of th e »re» and sippi River Commission (CEMRC) submits views and recommenda­ rpcommeivijtions for creating a recreation a r e a for j%e. b j tions to the Chief of Engineers. -tnd ft>r t+y* lotdl p rp v le rip n and s u rrou ry i.q g persons to whu h r^we apply A fo r to and hove oeen freiT+etl t * y <- j JcOC fo r .rnprbvr Comments from the public are fully considered in CEBRH or o tk*, tflvf t>r* i n rfcT >j Orr-ee**» > • K v tdllf f yy t tot CRMRC action. * n v*- r * s». Chief of Engineers considers comments on the proposed report and EIS, prepares the final report, and submits it to the Secretary of the Army.

23 10^,0^ a '(TOO'-' o ’ me ^OiCt o ’ t^g>rteers ■r-'r'9, :ri* c'ftar -jo j deve'o&mcn# 0* B rown tot-torn Chief of Engineers’ report is reviewed by the Assistant Secretary of Any*ow n .<1 *r\£ fo g n N of SeiiA**-« & lo c A M *O v£ *n £ repoft r&nT£,r*s V a d r t clone o f th e are a afvd the Army (Civil Works). fion^ fo»- freezing a r ec'CAboo area for *rse of ■ ■v) h>r ftV i / : on and surrourvj.ng pcr^otr* to Office of Management and Budget comments on the report as it a o pi»*

:i >n- r-. Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) transmits the Chief of Engineers’ report to Congress. In most cases, the Corps continues preconstruction engineering and design following issuance of the Division Engineer’s Notice. Funds are included in the President’s budget, and Congress acts on each item in the appropriations bill. 5. Congressional Authorization Chief of Engineers’ reports are referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation in the House and to the Committee on Environment and Public Works in the Senate. Civil Works projects are normally authorized by the Water Resources Development Act (Omnibus Bill) following committee hearings. Occasionally, the Corps’ proposal is authorized by separate legisla­ tion or as part of another bill. 6 . Project Implementation New projects are included in the President’s budget based on na­ tional priorities and anticipated completion of design and plans and specifications so that the construction contract can be awarded. Budget recommendations are based on evidence of support by the State and on the ability and willingness of non-Federal sponsors to provide their share of the project cost. Congress appropriates the Federal share of funds for new starts; normally, this occurs in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Secretary of the Army and appropriate non-Federal sponsors sign a formal Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) once Congress has ap­ propriated funds for project implementation to begin. The LCA obligates non-Federal sponsors and the Corps to partic­ ipate in implementing, operating, and maintaining the project accord­ ing to requirements established by Congress and the Administration. The LCA outlines the specific cost-sharing responsibilities for the fl?arty of the first Part ag'rees Corps and the project sponsors. V i lh Rirty of tfoe Seci»«?d the District completes enough engineering and design for developing plans and specifications for initial project implementation. Engineering and design continue during the implementation proc­ ess; plans and specifications are reviewed by Division offices and sometimes by Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Funds are included in the President’s annual budget for the Federal share of the project; appropriations are required to continue design and implementation. Construction is managed by the Corps but is done by private contractors. Most projects are operated and maintained by non-Federal spon­ sors as part of the LCA signed prior to implementation. However, funds are requested in the President’s annual budget for the Federal share where there is a need for continuing Federal financing of project operation and maintenance; congressional appropriations are required for such funds. Corps periodically inspects projects, including those for which non- Federal sponsors have assumed an operation and maintenance responsibility. Survey Investigations views by the Division Engineer, the Washington Level Re­ view Center, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Studies of flood and related water resources problems are and Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the re­ conducted by the Corps of Engineers in response to direc­ port of the Chief of Engineers is prepared. tives by Congress or by the Senate or House Public Works Committee. These directives generally result from action The views and comments of local interests are again solicited taken by the people living in the affected areas. The study is during the review by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and assigned to the District Engineer concerned, who holds pub­ Harbors, which may also hold public meetings in special lic meetings at the beginning of, during, and at the conclu­ cases. The report of the Chief of Engineers is subjected to sion of his investigation to ensure that the views and desires further reviews by the affected States, other Federal agen­ of the local interests are fully considered. Also, during the cies, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Secre­ course of each investigation, the Corps’ study is coordinated tary of the Army before it is transmitted to Congress. A with all interested State and Federal Agencies as well as with summary of the congressional authorization process entitled the local people. “6 Steps to a Civil Works Project” is presented elsewhere in this booklet. The findings and recommendations of the District Engineer are submitted to the Division Engineer. After successive re­ The following survey study was assigned to the Corps of Engineers within the Middle Missouri River basin.

Locality Purpose Status

Missouri River, South Dakota, To investigate a wide range of water Completed in 1990. Currently under Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana resources problems and opportunities Washington-level review. Report (Omaha District) along the Missouri River main stem makes no recommendation for (including hydropower, flood control, congressional authorization of bank erosion, sediment control, rec­ improvements along the Missouri reation, fish and wildlife preserva­ River between Three Forks, Montana, tion, and waterlogging) in response to and Sioux City, Iowa. many congressional resolutions

Special Studies Missouri River Endangered Species (Omaha District) On 27 June 1985 and 10 January 1986, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the interior least tern and the piping plover, as endangered and threatened species, respec­ tively, under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. These species are summer residents in the Missouri River basin and nest in open sandy areas, many of which exist on the Missouri River main stem projects and in the open river downstream from them. Beginning in 1988, the Corps ini­ tiated studies to determine the extent of tern and plover nesting on the Missouri River and what factors may be affect­ ing the success or extent of that nesting. Included in this effort are investigations into the clearing of vegetation from islands in the Missouri River to provide nesting habitat for the terns and plovers. The intent of these studies is to identify actions which can be taken to reduce the impact that the listing of these species has had and will have on the main stem projects and to help ensure the continued existence of these species. The pallid sturgeon was listed by the FWS as an endangered species in September 1990. The FWS is also contemplating listing the sturgeon chub and the sicklefin chub as threatened and endangered species. The Corps has also begun studies on these species to determine the extent of their use of the main stem system and to identify methods of ensuring their con­ tinued survival in a manner which minimizes their effect on the main stem projects.

25 f ï s l □ [¡/g] « 3 Completed Not Sterted Other Projects Under Construction

U K e Levees Local Protection Reregulating Dam uthorized Corps of Engineers Projects Other Improvements A Channel Improvements 1 Chapter III Platte River and Niobrara River Basins NEBRASKA

ONIWOAM 26 Platte River and Completed Flood Control Projects Niobrara River Basins Elkhorn River Basin (Omaha District) (Missouri River Division—Omaha District) As a result of recommendations by the Corps of Engineers, local flood protection projects at four communities in the The Platte River basin is the largest in the greater Missouri Elkhorn River basin were authorized by the Flood Control River basin; it encompasses 86,300 square miles. The region Act of 1950. Descriptions of the completed projects follow. is dominated by the Platte River—the largest tributary to the Missouri River—and by its South and North forks, each West Point. West Point is located on the Elkhorn River. with an independent valley. During 1962, the town sustained more than $75,000 in flood damages. This and prior floods could have been prevented The North Platte and South Platte Rivers enter Nebraska by the project which now protects low-lying sections of the from the west, the North Platte from Wyoming and the city. The principal feature of the project is a 9,600-foot-long South Platte from Colorado. At North Platte, the two rivers levee which was completed in June 1964. Project construc­ meet to form the main stem of the Platte River. The Platte tion costs were $150,000 Federal and $8,000 non-Federal. follows a roller coaster course to its confluence with the Through Fiscal Year 1990, the project has prevented Missouri River just north of Plattsmouth. $2,689,000 in flood damages. The waters of both the South Platte and the North Platte Pierce. Pierce is on the North Fork of the Elkhorn River. Rivers have long been completely appropriated; thus, there is Flood protection is provided by a 2.5-mile-long levee that an acute need to develop additional water supply capabil­ was completed in May 1964. Construction of this levee re­ ities. In the main Platte River valley, the use of ground water quired the relocation of 3,000 feet of the North Fork channel exceeds that of the erratic surface flows. This is due to the presence of a vast aquifer which provides the greatest ground water resource in the Missouri basin. Local ground water levels have been seriously depleted in some areas, however. The Loup River, with its many tributaries, and the Elkhorn River originate in Nebraska and are major tributaries to the Platte River. Kearney, Grand Island, Columbus, North Platte, and Lincoln (the State capital) are major population centers in the Platte basin. The Niobrara River originates in eastern Wyoming near the Nebraska border and flows parallel to the northern bound­ ary of Nebraska to enter the Missouri River at the upper end of Lewis and Clark Lake. Its basin, which contains 13,200 square miles, is quite different from the Platte River basin. It is both sparsely populated and sparsely developed. The de­ mands on water supplies in this agricultural area are not expected to be great enough to put serious pressure on avail­ able sources. The village of Niobrara, situated near the mouth of the Nio­ brara River, had a recurring problem of high ground water caused, in part, by the impoundment of water in Lewis and Clark Lake. In the Flood Control Act of 1970, Congress authorized the relocation of the village and the purchase of the adjoining Niobrara State Park as the most feasible solu­ tion to the problem. The entire relocation process was com­ pleted in May 1980. From Gering in western Nebraska to Lincoln in the eastern part of the basin, the Corps of Engineers has constructed numerous flood protection projects in the Platte River basin. In heavily populated eastern Nebraska, structures ranging from a small, local protection project to a system of multiuse dams encircling Lincoln provide needed protection to resi­ dents of the Cornhusker State. Other authorized projects are either under construction or in the planning stage. The Corps of Engineers also has completed an extensive investigation program in the State. Under the concept of comprehensive water management planning, a number of separate studies of the Platte River basin were consolidated into one study which considered all of the water and related land resources problems and needs of the region.

27 in the vicinity of the city’s park. The project costs were $297,000 Federal and $20,000 non-Federal. Through Fiscal Year 1990, the project has prevented flood damages esti­ mated to be $496,000. Waterloo. The town of Waterloo is located on the Elkhorn River 11 miles upstream from its confluence with the Platte River. The Waterloo project consists of about 4 miles of levee along the north, east, and south sides of the town and provides a high degree of protection to the urban area and to an adjacent agricultural area. Construction was completed in April 1967. The Federal cost was approximately $238,000; $40,000 was borne by local interests. The levee has prevented an estimated $470,000 in flood damages through Fiscal Year 1990. Norfolk. Norfolk is on the North Fork of the Elkhorn River a mile upstream from the junction of the two streams. The major features of the project that protects the city are levees, a diversion channel, and channel improvements covering a distance of 4.5 miles from the north city limits, east and south around the city proper to the existing channel down­ stream from the south city limits. The project was completed Elkhorn River in 1968 at a cost of $3,400,500 Federal and $960,000 non- Gering Valley (Omaha District) Federal. Through Fiscal Year 1990, the project has pre­ Gering Valley, in western Nebraska, is a relatively steep, vented an estimated $6,985,000 in flood damages. intensively irrigated area bordered on three sides by bluffs. Platte River in the Vicinity of Schuyler The water problems of the valley included flooding, erosion, (Omaha District) and inadequate drainage. Without corrective measures, the One of the first local flood protection projects in Nebraska productive capacity of this area would have deteriorated and was completed on the Platte River near Schuyler in 1947. eventually reached a point where farming would have be­ Authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1941, this project come unprofitable. The project to solve these problems was provides protection for the left bank of the river 3.5 miles developed jointly by the Corps of Engineers and the Soil upstream from Schuyler. Active cutting of the bank threat­ Conservation Service in close cooperation with the valley ened to permit at least partial diversion of the Platte River residents. The overall project consists of the installed land into the channel of Lost Creek at this location. The town of treatment measures, a runoff collection system, and channel Schuyler and adjacent agricultural areas are also protected control structures. by the project. The Soil Conservation Service plan of improvement was ap­ The project consisted of constructing 3,600 linear feet of proved by Congress in 1962 and consists of land treatment revetment, leveling spoil banks, and planting willows. Fed­ measures to include reservoir control. A major feature of this eral cost of the project was $74,940. Through Fiscal Year plan is a system of nine flood control dams. 1990, the project has prevented estimated flood damages of The Corps of Engineers’ portion of the project was author­ $665,000. ized by the Flood Control Act of 1958 and modified by the

Gering Valley

28 Flood Control Act of 1960. It consists of the runoff collec­ tion system and the channel control structures. The principal features are concrete drop structures and rock sills. Con­ struction was completed in April 1969. The total cost of the project was approximately $11,184,700. The Corps’ portion was $5,989,700 and $273,000 was borne by local interests. The local interests’ share in the overall costs of the project amounts to about $1,600,000. Through Fiscal Year 1990, the project has prevented $520,000 in flood damages. Salt Creek and Tributaries (Omaha District) The Flood Control Act of 1958 authorized a plan which included a system of 12 reservoirs on tributaries of Salt and Wahoo Creeks, channel improvements on Olive and Hick­ man Branches upstream from Lincoln, and channel im­ provements and levees on Salt Creek through and down­ stream from Lincoln and along the downstream reaches of the major tributaries. The completed project consists of 10 reservoirs on Salt Creek tributaries and channel improve­ ments and levees on Salt Creek through and in the vicinity of Lincoln. Construction of the project was completed in 1969. Elements of the Corps of Engineers’ project have been coor­ dinated with the watershed program of the Soil Conserva­ tion Service and with local organizations. The Wahoo Creek elements of the project have been deauthorized.

Salt Creek — Holmes Dam 29 New Niobrara Townsite The improvements will prevent a recurrence of past floods Continuing Authorities Program which caused damage to both rural and urban areas. The Work performed under the Corps of Engineers’ Continuing most disastrous of these occurred in 1950; it caused damages Authorities Program in the Platte River basin in Nebraska is estimated to be $2,880,000 and claimed nine lives. discussed in the following paragraphs. The development of recreation facilities by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission transformed the reservoirs Small Flood Control Projects into major attractions. One, Holmes Lake, is managed by the A description of the Section 205 authority is presented in the City of Lincoln. Attendance at the lakes totaled 12,338,819 Middle Missouri River Basin chapter of this booklet. Work visitor-hours during Fiscal Year 1990. under this authority in the Platte River basin is described as The project costs were approximately $12,200,000 Federal follows. and $171,000 non-Federal. The average annual benefits from Clarkson (Omaha District). In past years, the town of Clark­ tlood control and the recreation features are $1,128,300. son was subject to damaging floods from the Middle Fork of Through Fiscal Year 1990, the system of dams prevented Maple Creek, a right-bank tributary to the Elkhorn River. $45,811,600 in flood damages. Under the small projects authority, the Corps of Engineers developed a plan for the protection of Clarkson. It consisted Relocation of Niobrara (Omaha District) of channel improvement and 9,840 feet of levee along the The village of Niobrara is on the right bank of the Niobrara right bank of the creek. The project was completed in 1965. River at its confluence with the Missouri River near the Project costs were $191,300 Federal and $7,400 non-Federal. upstream end of Lewis and Clark Lake. Water-surface levels Through Fiscal Year 1990, the project has prevented near the mouth of the Niobrara had risen because of the $407,000 in flood damages. accumulation of sediment in the Missouri River and Nio­ Madison (Omaha District). The town of Madison was sub­ brara River channels since the closure of Fort Randall Dam ject to damaging floods from Union Creek and its tributary, in 1952. These conditions increased the flood threat to the Taylor Creek. Union Creek is a right-bank tributary to the village of Niobrara; to the Niobrara State Park, which lies on the left bank of the Niobrara River near its mouth; and to Elkhorn River. Construction of a Section 205 project con­ sisting of 10,600 feet of channel improvements on both farmlands near the confluence of the Niobrara and Missouri Union and Taylor Creeks was completed in 1966. Project Rivers. Also, high ground water levels occurred in the areas affected by flooding. costs were approximately $234,800 Federal and $50,000 non- Federal. Through Fiscal Year 1990, the project prevented A study by the Omaha District in 1970 recommended reloca­ about $100,000 in flood damages. tion of the village and acquisition of Niobrara State Park. Hooper (Omaha District). In past years, damaging floods Resolution of the problems was authorized by the Flood from the Elkhorn River periodically struck Hooper. Studies Control Act of 1970. The relocation was completed in May conducted under Section 205 authority indicated that the 1980. The total cost was $13,516,460. The new townsite is most feasible solution to the problem would be construction located on high ground immediately adjacent to the old of a 2-mile-long earth levee and appurtenant works. The townsite.

30 project was built in 1966 and 1967 at a Federal cost of consists of a 5-mile diversion channel on Lost Creek to the $326,700. The non-Federal cost was $34,000. This project Loup Power District’s Tailrace Canal. Other features are a has prevented $541,000 in flood damages through Fiscal mile-long training levee on the upstream end and a concrete Year 1990. baffle-chute drop structure on the downstream end. The esti­ Platte River and Lost Creek, Schuyler (Omaha District). mated costs of the project are $3,620,000 Federal and During June 1967, high flood stages on the Platte River $860,000 non-Federal. spilled over into Lost Creek 3 miles west of Schuyler. The Elkhorn River and Pebble Creek at Scribner (Omaha Dis­ overflow followed along Lost Creek and damaged residences trict). The city of Scribner has been flooded repeatedly by the on the southern edge of Schuyler and the agricultural areas Elkhorn River and Pebble Creek. A detailed project study of south of Schuyler. A Section 205 project consisting of a the flood problem recommended construction of a levee sys­ stonefill dike and revetment along the left bank of the Platte tem. Plans and specifications for the recommended plan River and two levee segments between the Platte River and were completed in 1987. Construction was initiated in Sep­ Lost Creek was constructed in 1970. The total cost of the tember 1988 and completed in the fall of 1989. The project project is $257,400, of which $21,000 is non-Federal. The costs were $1.3 million Federal and $450,000 non-Federal. project has prevented damages of $394,000 through Fiscal An additional 1.1-mile segment of levee is being added to Year 1990. prevent flooding at Scribner from the Elkhorn River. The Loup River, Columbus (Omaha District). Low-lying areas of estimated cost of the additional segment of levee is $700,000. Columbus were at one time subject to floods from the Loup Construction is scheduled to be initiated in October 1991. River. The affected properties included residential and Other 205 Studies (Omaha District). Studies of other poten­ commercial development, a city park, a golf course, and a tial flood control projects are underway at Cedar Creek, highly developed lakeshore area. The Section 205 project Mitchell, and Lincoln. built to protect those areas consists of a 28,450-foot levee Emergency Bank Protection and appurtenant structures. The total estimated project costs are $1,000,000 Federal and $969,000 non-Federal. Construc­ A description of the Section 14 authority is presented in the tion was completed in October 1972. Through Fiscal Year Middle Missouri River Basin chapter of this booklet. Work 1990, the project has prevented $1,709,000 in flood damages. completed under this authority since 1986 in the Platte River and Niobrara River basins is described as follows. Buffalo Creek, Meadow Grove (Omaha District). Ninety percent of Meadow Grove was subject to damaging floods Location Year Amount from Buffalo Creek, a right-bank tributary to the Elkhorn Redbird Creek, Holt County River. Affected properties included 134 homes and 16 busi­ (County Bridge)...... 1986 $ 59,500 nesses. The Section 205 project built to protect the affected Platte River, Hansen Lake area consists of 5,700 feet of channel improvement, a 445- (County Road)...... 1986 61,700 foot-long earth training dike, and an overflow ditch. The estimated costs of the project are $293,000 Federal and Platte River, Camp Ashland $40,000 non-Federal. Construction was completed in May (National Guard 1973. This project has prevented $49,000 in flood damages Training Facilities)...... 1986 145,100 through Fiscal Year 1990. Logan Creek, Near Bancroft Mud Creek at Broken Bow (Omaha District). Broken Bow (County Road)...... 1988 37,400 suffered recurring floods from the North Branch and South Niobrara River, Near Bassett Branch of Mud Creek and from Mud Creek, a minor tribu­ (County Road and Bridge)...... 1988 98,800 tary to the Loup River. Property subject to flooding includes Platte River, Near North Bend the business district and a portion of the residential area. The (City Levee)...... 1988 132,900 authorized Section 205 project consists of levees, a diversion South Fork Elkhorn River, channel, and 3 miles of channel improvement. The estimated Holt County costs of the project are $1,000,000 Federal and $452,000 non- (County Road)...... 1990 54,000 Federal. Construction was completed in April 1975. Dam­ ages prevented through Fiscal Year 1990 are $108,000. Elkhorn River, Cuming County (County Bridge)...... 1990 33,400 Lodgepole Creek and Deadwood Draw at Sidney (Omaha District). Sidney has experienced serious flooding from Platte River, Ginger Cove Lodgepole Creek and Deadwood Draw. Because of the (Sewage Lagoons)...... 1990 35,500 nature of the flooding and the location of Sidney in relation South Fork Elkhorn River, Ewing to the streams, most of the town, including the commercial (County Road)...... 1990 48,500 area, is flooded during major storms. A detailed project South Table Creek, Nebraska City study of potential solutions to the flood problem was com­ (Sewage Grit Building)...... 1991 37,800 pleted in 1985. A project consisting of channel modifications and levees was recommended to provide 100-year protection to the town of Sidney. Plans and specifications were com­ Technical Assistance Programs pleted in December 1990 and construction is scheduled for Assistance provided to Nebraska under the Corps’ Technical initiation in May 1992. Assistance Programs is described in the following Lost Creek at Columbus (Omaha District). A residential paragraphs. area in the northern section of Columbus is subject to recur­ Flood Plain Management Services Program ring floods from Lost Creek, a left-bank tributary to the A description of the Flood Plain Management Services Pro­ Platte River. The project was completed in October 1986 and gram is presented in the Middle Missouri River Basin chap-

31 ter of this booklet. Work under this program in the Platte River basin is described as follows.

Flood Plain Information Reports Locality Sponsoring Agency Status Salt Creek, Haines Branch, and Beal Lincoln City-Lancaster County Vol. I, completed August 1964 Slough, Salt Creek Basin Planning Commission

Wood River at Grand Island City of Grand Island Completed August 1964

Antelope Creek, Dead Mans Run, Lincoln City-Lancaster County Vol. II, completed April 1966 and Middle Creek, Salt Creek Basin Planning Commission

Little Salt, Oak, Salt, and Stevens Lincoln City-Lancaster County Vol. Ill, completed September 1967 Creeks, Salt Creek Basin Planning Commission

Loup River Basin, Columbus City of Columbus and the Nebraska Completed May 1969 Metropolitan Region Soil and Water Conservation Commission

Wahoo Creek, Cottonwood Creek, City of Wahoo Completed January 1971 Dry Run Creek, and Sand Creek, Wahoo

Lodgepole Creek, Sidney City of Sidney and the Nebraska Soil Completed May 1971 and Water Conservation Commission

North Platte River and South Platte City of North Platte and Nebraska Completed June 1973 River, North Platte Natural Resources Commission

North Platte River, Scottsbluff City of Scottsbluff Completed February 1975

Platte River, Warm Slough, City of Central City and Nebraska Completed September 1975 Trouble Creek, Central City Natural Resources Commission

Ashland, Salt Creek, Wahoo Creek City of Ashland and State of Completed July 1976 Nebraska Special Flood Hazard Information Reports Locality Sponsoring Agency Status Buffalo Creek, Meadow Grove Village of Meadow Grove and the Completed June 1971 Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission

Mud Creek, Broken Bow City of Broken Bow and the State Completed October 1972 of Nebraska

Beaver Creek, St. Edward City of St. Edward and the State Completed December 1972 of Nebraska

Planning Assistance to States Program Emergency Authorities The Planning Assistance to States Program is described in The Corps of Engineers has given emergency assistance to the Middle Missouri River Basin chapter of this booklet. the State of Nebraska as described below. Fiscal Year 1990 efforts in the Platte River and Niobrara In the spring of 1978, a flood emergency developed as a River basins included an evaluation of streambank erosion result of runoff from moderately heavy rainfall in the central control measures on the Loup River and development of portion of Nebraska, chiefly over the Loup River basin. The public use maps on selected reservoirs. Efforts for Fiscal antecedent conditions involved a light snow cover with a Year 1991 and beyond depend on the State’s willingness to deeply penetrating ground frost and tributary streams heav- provide cost-shared funds.

32 ily choked with ice that had formed as a result of a severe Following the 1978 flood, a 17-county region in Nebraska winter. Runoff from March rainfall freed the ice cover on the was declared a major disaster area. Omaha District provided streams; this resulted in heavy ice floes and numerous ice assistance to the Federal Emergency Management Agency jams and ice bridges in the Loup River basin streams. As the (FEM A) in preparing detailed damage estimates authorizing ice-choked waters moved downstream, ice jams formed in reimbursement of disaster costs. Public and private flood the Platte River and caused extensive flooding in the reach control works damaged by flooding were rehabilitated under between Columbus and Louisville. The communities of Public Law 99, 84th Congress, authority. North Bend and Valley sustained extensive flood damages In the spring of 1979, ice jams on the Platte River breached and one life was lost at North Bend. Valley and the housing levees at North Bend and Morse Bluff, and the District re­ developments of Ginger Cove and Ginger Woods were sponded to a request from Governor Thone to prevent flooded as a result of the failure of a portion of Union Dike further damage in these communities. The District awarded (a left-bank, non-Federal levee); this levee is located 5 miles emergency contracts to reinforce weakened levees at North south of Fremont. Residents of Valley, Ginger Cove, and Bend and to close breached levees at Morse Bluff. Damages Ginger Woods were evacuated by the Nebraska National prevented by this action are estimated at $400,000. After this Guard and other local interests. Five days after the failure of spring flood, repairs were made to damaged flood control Union Dike, assistance from the Corps of Engineers was structures. requested. Within 24 hours, a contract was awarded for the Following the severe storms and tornadoes of 3 June 1980, repair of Union Dike. The levee was repaired and Platte the city of Grand Island and Hall County were declared River flows were restored to the channel; necessary flood major disaster areas. The District assisted FEMA in prepar­ recovery operations were initiated in the stricken com­ ing damage estimates totaling $2.5 million in reimburse­ munities. Approximately 60,000 acres of agricultural, indus­ ments to State, county, and city governments. trial, commercial, and municipal lands were flooded as a result of the failure of Union Dike. In the spring of 1984, severe flooding again occurred in the Platte River basin. A description of this flooding is included Floodflows on the Elkhorn River inundated the unincorpo­ in the writeup concerning the Middle Missouri River basin rated town of King Lake, a short distance upstream from under “Emergency Authorities.” Waterloo. A Corps-constructed levee at Waterloo, however, In June 1990, major storms rampaged across the State. As a prevented an estimated $100,000 in flood damages to that result, a 23-county area was declared as a Presidential dis­ city. As the crest moved downstream, cabin sites along both aster area. The Corps assisted FEMA under the authority of banks of the Platte River were flooded. Cabins on the right Public Law 93-288 in the preparation of Hazard Mitigation bank of the Missouri River a short distance upstream from Reports with other State and Federal agencies. its confluence with the Platte River were also flooded. Addi­ tionally, an estimated 12,000 acres of Nebraska farmland Survey Investigations along the Missouri River between Omaha and Rulo were Information regarding the processing of survey investigation flooded. Potentially worse flood conditions along the Mis­ reports is presented in the Middle Missouri River Basin souri River were avoided by reduced releases from the up­ chapter of this booklet. Following is a list of studies that stream Missouri River dam system. have been assigned to the Corps of Engineers within the Platte River and Niobrara River basins.

Locality Purpose Status North Platte River, Nebraska, To determine the advisability of de­ Study reclassified from inactive to Wyoming, and Colorado veloping a comprehensive plan for the active status in February 1984. (Omaha District) use and conservation of water and re­ Study completed in 1989 as part of lated land resources of the lower North the Platte River Basin, Colorado, Platte River basin Nebraska, and Wyoming study.

Platte River Basin, Colorado, To determine the feasibility of pro­ Reconnaissance phase of the study Nebraska, and Wyoming (Omaha viding flood control measures in the completed in Fiscal Year 1989. District) Platte River basin and to determine the level of Federal interest in de­ velopment of these measures

Wood River and Upper Warm Slough To determine the feasibility of flood Reconnaissance study completed in at Grand Island (Omaha District) control for Grand Island. Study 1988. Ongoing feasibility study currently focusing on a 5-mile diver­ scheduled for completion in Fiscal sion channel to divert floodwaters Year 1991. Feasibility study being from the Wood River and Upper cost-shared with the City of Grand Warm Slough into the Platte River. Island, the Central Platte Natural Estimated project cost is $9 million, Resource District, Hall County, and 35 percent of which would be local cost Merrit County. Together, study sponsors are paying 50 percent of study cost.

33 tection of the environment without undue curtailment of Special Studies future bank stabilization. Public scoping meetings were held Platte River Cumulative Effects Study at several locations in the Platte River valley in June 1987. In April 1987, the Omaha District initiated a cumulative Existing structures were inventoried and categorized during impact study of bank stabilization activities on the Platte 1987 and 1988. Engineering studies to determine the effects River between North Platte and the mouth. Many agencies, of structures were conducted throughout the study process. including the State of Nebraska, participated in the study Study results show that those types of structures that do not process. The purpose of the study was to determine poten­ project into the river more than 5 percent of the channel tially significant impacts of all past, present, and future bank width at that point do not cause significant impacts to the stabilization activities. This study was also designed to de­ river environment. The study is scheduled for completion in velop Section 404 permit criteria that would ensure the pro­ the fall of 1991.

. t * * >- * ✓ > , - t y ' t »

► V -* * „

V » -V ir¿fm ■ 1 J W u f ' ' •* . i -'issi, ■

34 35 36 “

COLORADO î hpe IV Chapter ass ie Basin River Kansas toie Crso nier Projects Engineers of Corps uthorized A annel mpr s ts n e m e v ro p Im l e n n la her I ovements n e m e v ro p Im r e th O egul i i ■ ■ ■ m a D g tin la u g re e R Pr ecton tio c te ro P l a c o L s e e v e L e k a L ^ Constucton tio c tru s n o C r e d n U her Proj ts c je o r P r e th O St ed te r ta S t o N et d te le p m o C

| j C ^

. M i b The project was started in 1946 and completed in 1952. The Kansas River Basin total Federal cost to date for construction and rehabilitation (Missouri River Division—Kansas City District) is $51.2 million. The Kansas River basin encompasses portions of north­ Prolonged drought conditions delayed filling of the irriga­ eastern Colorado, southern Nebraska, and most of the north­ tion multiple-purpose pool until 1957. Water management, ern half of Kansas. The basin lies between the Platte and however, made it possible to provide releases which supplied Nemaha Rivers on the north and the Arkansas and Osage- the needs of the Kansas and Nebraska Bostwick Irrigation Marias Des Cygnes Rivers on the south. This sprawling District and minimum water supply and stream sanitation 60,700-square-mile basin is an east-west 220- by 500-mile requirements as far as Topeka, Kansas. oblong made up of the Kansas River and its principal tribu­ taries—the Republican, Big Blue, Little Blue, Saline, and Several potential major floods have been reduced or pre­ Smoky Hill Rivers. Upstream from the junction of the Re­ vented by operation of the project. Rapid melting of abnor­ publican and Smoky Hill Rivers, the Solomon and Saline mally heavy, late snow cover in the spring of 1960 resulted in Rivers are major tributaries to the Smoky Hill River; the severe flooding on many Nebraska streams. Impoundment North Fork, Arikaree, South Fork, Frenchman River, Med­ of the runoff in Harlan County Lake prevented flood dam­ icine Creek, Beaver Creek, Sappa Creek, Red Willow Creek, ages estimated to be $4,810,000. Total flood damages pre­ and Prairie Dog Creek are tributaries to the Republican vented by the reservoir are estimated at $26,524,000 to date. River. Public recreation, improved municipal water supply, fish In Nebraska, the Republican, Big Blue, and Little Blue trib­ and wildlife, and abatement of stream pollution are col­ utaries drain a total of 10.7 million acres of land, over 90 lateral benefits resulting from the stabilized downstream percent of which is agricultural. About 1.7 million acres are flow provided by Harlan County Lake. The multiple- irrigated, mostly from ground water sources. Depletions purpose pool and surrounding Government-owned lands from those sources have lowered the water table by more offer opportunities for such forms of recreation as fishing, than 30 feet in parts of the Republican and Blue River boating, water sports, hunting, camping, and picnicking. basins. Such depletions are now contributing to a reduction Normally, Harlan County Lake extends 13 miles upstream in surface streamflows, especially in parts of the Republican and has a shoreline of 75 miles. River basin. Recreation visitation in 1990 approached 400,000 recreation days. Fluctuation in visitation seems to be correlated with Completed Multiple-Purpose Projects the lake elevation during the recreation season. The initial development of outdoor recreation facilities was completed Harlan County Lake (Kansas City District) in accordance with the original Master Plan of 1966. The Located on the Republican River in south-central Nebraska, Master Plan has been updated three times since then. the Harlan County Lake project, in conjunction with other The 1987 Master Plan, prepared in cooperation with Federal upstream reservoirs, controls a drainage area of approx­ and State agencies and local governments, provides for the imately 7,200 square miles. The upstream reservoirs are proper and best use of all project lands and ensures the Bureau of Reclamation projects which are operated in coop­ orderly development of outdoor recreation facilities for pub­ eration with the Corps of Engineers. lic use, health, and safety. The plan calls for nine established Harlan County Lake provides 500,000 acre-feet of storage recreation areas. Areas have been developed for water- space for flood control and 350,000 acre-feet for irrigation, oriented outdoor recreation; they contain boat-launching conservation, fish and wildlife, recreation, and silting re­ ramps, shelter houses, sanitary facilities, potable water, and serve, for a total capacity of 850,000 acre-feet. picnicking and camping sites. Two swimming beaches have The surface area of the flood control pool is 22,800 acres, been developed, each with change houses, and two conces­ and the surface area of the multipurpose and irrigation pool sionaires have been granted leases to sell supplies and to is 13,240 acres. Including the 850-foot spillway, the gross furnish necessary marina facilities and services. length of the dam is 11,800 feet. The height of the embank­ A special appropriation of $1 million was made available in ment above the streambed is 107 feet. The crest of the em­ 1978 to increase the accessibility of Harlan County Lake for bankment is 30 feet wide; the maximum base width is 750 boaters and to improve some of the recreation facilities. feet. All discharges at the Harlan County project are released Construction of two new boat ramps, diked dredge material through 18 electrically controlled tainter gates or 9 gate- disposal areas, and two new breakwaters was started in May controlled conduits.

37 Harlan County Dam Spillway of 1978. A small portable dredge was purchased to keep The flood control project on Dry Creek was started in 1950 marina areas and boat ramp accesses clear and usable, even when funds for construction were provided by Congress. during periods of low lake elevations. Completed in 1952, the project consists of 7,010 feet of earth In September 1977, the Corps entered into agreements with levee, 7,228 feet of new channel, and channel modifications the University of Nebraska (Nebraska Forest Service) and that provide an improved floodway at bridges. The improve­ the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission to improve vege­ ments protect 54 city blocks which include two schools, two tative resources on project lands. A contract between the churches, a city park, and business and industrial areas. Cost Corps and the Nebraska Forest Service provides primarily of the project was $127,800, of which $118,300 was the Fed­ for vegetation improvement work in park areas at the lake, eral cost and $9,500 the non-Federal cost. Total flood dam­ and a Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps, ages prevented by the project are estimated at $19,000 to the Commission, and the Nebraska Forest Service provides date. for wildlife habitat improvement work on other project lands. The Commission spent about $897,000 through Fiscal Associated Projects of Other Agencies Year 1990. Major work includes boundary fencing, marsh The Flood Control Act of 1944 assigned the Corps of Engi­ development, native grass seeding, and tree and shrub plant­ neers the responsibility of prescribing regulations for the use ing projects. of storage capacity allocated to flood control at reservoirs constructed wholly or in part with Federal funds. The act Completed Flood Control Projects further provided that the Corps should have the responsi­ Indianola Local Protection Project bility for determining flood control capacities in all reser­ voirs included in the comprehensive plan for the Missouri (Kansas City District) River basin. These responsibilities have been fulfilled, or are Indianola, located adjacent to the Republican River and being prosecuted, for the following Bureau of Reclamation Coon Creek, had flooded repeatedly. Local protection was reservoirs in the Frenchman-Cambridge Division of the Mis­ built in cooperation with the local people under provisions of souri basin project in the Republican River basin of southern the Flood Control Act of 1941. Nebraska. The project, on Coon Creek, was completed in July 1959 and Harry L. Strunk Lake consists of 4,430 feet of earth levee, 5,110 feet of new and improved channel, and enlarged and improved floodways at Harry L. Strunk Lake was started in 1948 and completed in highway and railroad bridges. 1949. It has a total storage capacity of 89,300 acre-feet, of which 52,170 acre-feet is assigned to flood control operation. Cost of the project was $74,900, of which $67,300 was borne Medicine Creek Dam, an earthfill structure 7 miles north of by the Federal Government and $7,600 by local interests. Cambridge, rises 165 feet above the bed of Medicine Creek, a Flood damages prevented by the project are estimated at tributary to the Republican River. The project has prevented $23,000 to date. $381,000 in flood damages to date. Bartley Local Protection Project Enders Dam and Reservoir (Kansas City District) Enders Dam and Reservoir on the Frenchman River near The town of Bartley, which is on the left bank of the Repub­ Enders was started in 1947 and completed in 1951. The dam lican River at the mouth of Dry Creek, is another of the is an earthfill structure. The total storage capacity of the smaller communities in Nebraska for which local protection reservoir is 74,500 acre-feet; 30,000 acre-feet is allocated for was accomplished under provisions of the Flood Control Act flood control, 34,400 acre-feet for irrigation, and 10,000 of 1941.

38 acre-feet for sediment control and wildlife protection. The Seward, Big Blue River (Kansas City District). Recurring dam is credited with preventing $953,000 in flood damages to floods on the Big Blue River and Lincoln Creek have been date. particularly damaging to important industrial plants in Seward that have national defense contracts, as well as to Swanson Lake transportation, business, residential, and park improvements Swanson Lake, the third major storage reservoir in the in the city. Lives have been imperiled and the city’s water Frenchman-Cambridge Division, was completed in early supply and sanitation facilities have been endangered. After 1953 on the Republican River 2 miles west of Trenton. The a damaging flood in 1949, a request for Federal assistance Trenton Dam, an earthfill structure, can impound 254,000 was initiated by the Seward City Council, individual prop­ acre-feet of water. Allocations of 133,800 acre-feet for flood erty owners, and the Congressman from the Third District. control and 120,200 acre-feet for conservation and sediment This resulted in the construction of a Section 205 project for reserve, including irrigation, have been made. Total flood protection of the city. The project consists of 8,600 feet of damages prevented by the project are estimated at $1,969,000 earth levees on the west and northwest sides of Seward, 950 to date. feet of diversion channel for Bayou Creek, and a cutoff Butler Lake channel 1,000 feet long in the Big Blue River. The project Butler Lake is the fourth and last of the multiple-purpose cost $326,900, of which $126,900 was the Federal cost. It was storage reservoirs in the Frenchman-Cambridge Division. transferred to local interests for maintenance in August 1953. Originally a Corps project, the Red Willow Dam Unit was The improvement protects a 104-acre area within the city. transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation. In July 1960, con­ The area covers 34 city blocks which include 16 business and struction of the dam was started. It is located 10 miles north 74 residential properties, the municipal waterworks and of McCook on Red Willow Creek. The earthfill dam is 3,150 swimming pool, and the Hughes Manufacturing Company. feet long, 126 feet high, and adds 50,000 acre-feet of flood All these properties were inundated by both the 1949 and control capacity to the basin reservoir system. The project 1951 floods. The Seward project has prevented flood dam­ has prevented an estimated $181,000 in flood damages to ages estimated at $2,009,000 to date, including $650,000 in date. damages prevented in the June 1967 flood. Effective flood control is now provided by all four reservoirs, Fairbury (Kansas City District). Low-lying areas of Fairbury and releases are made for irrigation of new and supplemental- had been flooded by the Little Blue River. Property subject need lands. Eventually, irrigation water will be delivered to to flooding included the municipal powerplant and water­ 66,090 acres through a system of diversion structures, 205 works, the city park, a grade school, 4 business concerns, and miles of canals, and 181 miles of laterals. Use is being made of the recreation facilities at the reservoirs.

Continuing Authorities Program Work performed by the Corps of Engineers under the Con­ 4 tinuing Authorities Program in the Nebraska portion of the Kansas River basin is discussed in the following paragraphs. Small Flood Control Projects A description of the Section 205 authority is presented in the Middle Missouri River Basin chapter of this booklet. Work under this authority in the Kansas River basin is described as follows.

169 residences. The Section 205 project built to protect the low-lying areas consists of a 9,300-foot levee and appurte­ nant structures. The total cost was $727,000 Federal and $20,000 non-Federal. Construction of the project was com­ pleted in mid-1970. The Fairbury project has prevented flood damages estimated at $280,000 to date, including $10,000 in damages prevented in the March-April 1969 flood. Emergency Bank Protection A description of the Section 14 authority is presented in the Middle Missouri River Basin chapter of this booklet. Work completed under this authority by the Corps in 1991 in the Kansas River basin in Nebraska is described as follows.

39 Location Year Amount ter of this booklet. Work under this program in the Kansas River basin is described as follows. Little Blue River, Thayer County (Gilead North Bridge)...... 1991 $ 60,100 In addition, special flood hazard information reports have Big Blue River, Blue Springs been completed for Pawnee Creek and the West Fork of the (City Sewerline and Road)...... 1991 59,000 Big Blue River at Hastings and the Republican River at Red Cloud. Planning Assistance to States Program Technical Assistance Programs The Planning Assistance to States Program is described in Assistance provided to the State under the Corps’ Technical the Middle Missouri River Basin chapter of this booklet. Assistance Programs is discussed below. Fiscal Year 1990 efforts in the Kansas River basin included continuation of the study of potential management impacts Flood Plain Management Services Program on Rainwater basin wetlands. Efforts for Fiscal Year 1991 A description of the Flood Plain Management Services Pro­ and beyond depend on the State’s willingness to provide gram is presented in the Middle Missouri River Basin chap­ cost-shared funds.

Flood Plain Information Reports Locality Sponsoring Agency Status Big Blue River at Beatrice City of Beatrice Completed June 1970

Little Blue River at Fairbury City of Fairbury Completed January 1971; a reanalysis of the flood information for Fairbury is scheduled for completion early in 1990

Republican River at Franklin City of Franklin Completed March 1973

Republican River at McCook City of McCook Completed October 1974

Big Blue River at Crete City of Crete Completed May 1977

40 Index Antelope Creek...... 32 Harlan County Lake ...... 37 Ashland...... 32 Harry L. Strunk L ak e...... 38 Bancroft...... 31 Hell Creek...... 21 Bartley...... 38 Holmes Lake...... 30 Bassett...... 31 Holt County ...... 31 Beatrice ...... 40 Hooper...... 30 Beaver Creek...... 32 Indianola...... 38 Bellevue...... 21 Jackson ...... 21 Betz Road Ditch...... 21 Johnson County...... 21 Big Blue River...... 39, 40 Kansas River Basin...... 37, 39 Lewis and Clark L ak e...... , ...... 13, 14, 27, 30 Big Nemaha River ...... 20-21 Lincoln...... 29, 30, 31 Big Papillion Creek ...... 18,21 Little Blue River...... 39, 40 Blackbird C reek...... 20 Little Papillion Creek...... 16, 18, 21 Blue Springs ...... 40 Little Salt Creek...... 32 Broken Bow...... 31,32 Lodgepole Creek and Deadwood Draw, Sidney...... 31 Buffalo Creek, Meadow Grove...... 31,32 Logan C reek...... 31 Burt County...... 21 Lost Creek, Columbus...... 31 Butler L ake...... 39 Loup River, Columbus ...... 31,32 Camp Ashland ...... 31 Macy...... 20 Cedar Creek...... 31 Madison...... 30 Central City...... 32 Martinsburg...... 21 Clarkson...... 30 McCook...... 40 Cole Creek...... 21 Meadow Grove...... 31, 32 Columbus...... 31 Middle Missouri River B asin...... 13 Comprehensive Plan, Missouri River Basin...... 13-14 Missouri National Recreational River...... 19 Congressional Authorization Process...... 23-24 Missouri River Endangered Species...... 25 Crete...... 40 Missouri River Erosion Control Project Cuming County...... 31 Sioux City, Iowa, to Kenslers and Miners Bends...... 16 DeSoto Bend...... 19 Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation...... 18 Douglas County...... 21 Missouri River Levee System, Sioux City, Iowa, to the M outh...... 17 DuBois Bridge...... 21 Missouri River Master Water Control M anual...... 14 Elk Creek...... 20-21 Missouri River, South Dakota, Nebraska, Elkhorn River...... 22, 30, 31 North Dakota, M ontana...... 25 Elkhorn River and Pebble Creek, Scribner...... 31 Missouri River Stabilization Elm C reek...... 21 and Navigation Project ...... 17, 18-19 Enders Dam and Reservoir...... 38 M itchell...... 31 Ewing...... 31 Mud Creek...... 31,32 Fairbury...... 39, 40 Myron Grove...... 19 Nebraska C ity...... 31 Franklin...... 40 Niobrara Relocation...... 30 Gavins Point Dam and Norfolk...... 28 Lewis and Clark L ak e...... 14-15, 19 North B end...... 31 Gering Valley...... 28 North Platte R iver...... 22, 27, 32 Ginger Cove...... 31,33 North Platte River, Nebraska, Glenn Cunningham Lake...... 18 Wyoming, and Colorado...... 33 Grand Island...... 32, 33 Om aha...... 13, 16 Hansen Lake...... 31 Omaha Levee Project...... 15-16

41 Operation Foresight...... 22 Papillion Creek...... 16, 20, 21, 22 Papillion Creek and Tributaries L akes...... 18 Pawnee County...... 21 Pawnee C reek...... 40 Pebble Creek...... 31 Pierce...... 27 Platte River...... 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34 Platte River and Lost Creek, Schuyler...... 31 Platte River and Niobrara River Basins...... 27 Platte River Cumulative Effects S tu d y ...... 34 Platte River Erosion Control...... 19 Redbird Creek...... 31 Republican R iv er...... 37, 38, 40 Richardson C o u n ty ...... 20 St. Edward...... 32 Salt Creek Basin...... 22, 32 Salt Creek and Tributaries ...... 29 Schuyler...... 28,31 Scottsbluff...... 32 Scribner...... 31 Seward...... 39 Sidney...... 31,32 South Branch ...... 21 South Creek...... 21 South Platte R iv er...... 27 South Table C reek...... 31 Standing Bear Lake ...... 18 Streambank Erosion Control...... 19 Swanson Lake...... 39 Taylor Creek...... 30 Thayer C o u n ty ...... 40 Thomas Creek...... 21 Union C reek ...... 30, 33 Upper Warm Slough, Grand Island...... 33 Vesta Bridge ...... 21 Wahoo Creek ...... 29, 32 Warm S lough...... 32 W aterloo...... 28, 33 Wehrspann Lake...... 18 West Papillion C reek...... 18, 21 West Point...... 27 Willis ...... 21 Wood River and Upper Warm Slough at Grand Island...... 33 Wood River, Grand Islan d ...... 32 Yankee C reek ...... 21

42 GLOSSARY

Acre-foot: A volume of water equivalent to 1 acre of land covered to a depth of 1 Habitat: The total of the environmental conditions which affect the life of plants foot. and animals.

Advance engineering and design work: Work done by Corps of Engineers in Headwaters: (1) The upper reaches of a stream near its source. (2) The region where ground waters emerge to form a surface stream. (3) The water upstream preparation of a project for construction. from a structure. Agricultural levee: A levee that protects agricultural areas where the degree of Hydraulic earthfill dam: An embankment built up from waterborne clay, sand, protection is usually less than that of a flood control levee. and gravel carried through a pipe or flume.

Alluvial: Of, pertaining to, or composed of sediment deposited by flowing water, Ice jam: Accumulation of ice packed together and piled up, choking the stream as in a riverbed, flood plain, or delta. channel, and causing a rise in water level above the jam.

Appropriation: The setting aside of money by Congress, through legislation, for a Jetty: A structure similar to a groin built on a seashore or riverbank to prevent specific use. erosion due to currents and/or tide.

Arch-gravity structure: A structure which derives its resistance to the pressure Joint-use storage: Reservoir storage space which is used for more than one pur­ of water from both an arching effect and its own weight. pose. The operation may follow a fixed predetermined schedule or may be flexible and subject to adjustment, depending on particular hydrologic conditions. Authorization: House and Senate Public Works Committees resolutions or spe­ cific legislation which provides the legal basis for conducting studies or construct­ Left or right bank of river: The left-hand or right-hand bank of a stream when ing projects. The money necessary for accomplishing the work is not a part of the the observer faces downstream. authorization but must come from an appropriation by Congress. Levee: A dike or embankment, generally constructed close to the banks of the Bank and channel stabilization: A process to prevent bank erosion and stream, lake, or other body of water, intended to protect the landside from inunda­ channel degradation. tion or to confine the streamflow to its regular channel.

Basin: (1) Drainage area of a lake or stream, such as a river basin. (2) A naturally Mouth of river: The exit or point of discharge of a stream into another stream, a or artificially enclosed harbor for small craft, such as a yacht basin. lake, or the sea.

Concrete gravity structure: A type of concrete structure in which resistance to Oxbow lake: A lake formed in the meander of a stream, resulting from the overturning is provided only by its own weight. abandonment of the meandering course due to the formation of a new channel course. Confluence: The place where streams meet. Paleontology: The study of fossils and ancient life forms. Control dam: A dam or structure with gates to control the discharge from the up­ stream reservoir or lake. Reach: A length, distance, or leg of a channel or other watercourse.

Crest length: The length of a dam along its top (crest). Refusal: An extension of revetment that runs back into a channel bank to prevent a revetment structure from being outflanked. Dam: A barrier constructed across a valley for impounding water or creating a reservoir. Reservoir: A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space, either natural or created in whole or in part by the building of a structure such as a dam, which is used for Damages prevented: The difference between damages without the project and storage, regulation, and control of water. the damages with the project in place. Revetment: (1) A facing of stone, concrete, or sandbags to protect a bank of Degree of protection: The amount of protection that a flood control measure is earth from erosion. (2) A retaining wall. designed for, as determined by engineering feasibility; economic criteria; and social, environmental, and other considerations. Revetted levee: A stone- or concrete-faced embankment to prevent a river from overflowing. Dike: An embankment to confine or control water. Riprap: A layer, facing, or protective mound of randomly placed stones to prevent Diversion channel: (1) An artificial channel constructed around a town or other erosion, scour, or sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone so point of high potential flood damages to divert floodwater from the main channel to used. minimize flood damages. (2) A channel carrying water from a diversion dam. Rock dike: An embankment built principally of rock. Earthfill dam: A dam with its main section composed principally of earth, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Sill: (1) A horizontal beam forming the bottom of the entrance to a lock. (2) A low, submerged dam-like structure built to control riverbed scour and current speeds. Flood capacity: (1) The flow carried by a stream or floodway at bankfull water level. (2) The storage capacity of the flood pool at a reservoir. Spillway: A waterway on a dam or other hydraulic structure used to discharge ex­ cess water to avoid overtopping of a dam. Flood plain: Valley land along the course of a stream which is subject to inunda­ tion during periods of high water that exceed normal bankfull elevation. Stage: The elevation of the water surface above or below an arbitrary datum.

Flood proofing: Techniques for preventing flood damage to the structure and Standard project flood: A flood that may be expected from the most severe com­ contents of buildings in a flood hazard area. bination of meteorological and hydrological conditions that are reasonably char­ acteristic of the geographical region involved, excluding extremely rare combina­ Floodwall: A wall, usually built of reinforced concrete, to confine a stream to pre­ tions. vent flooding. Tributary: A stream or other body of water that contributes its water to another Gilsonite: A natural black bitumen used in the manufacture of acid, alkali, and stream or body of water. waterproof coatings. Visitor-hour: The presence of one or more persons in an area of land or water for Groin: A wall-like structure built perpendicular to the bank to prevent beach the purpose of engaging in one or more recreation activities during continuous, erosion. intermittent, or simultaneous periods of time totaling 60 minutes.

43 3023300400917

3 0233 0040091 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS