U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Finding of No Significant Impact & FINAL Tiered Environmental Assessment

PUBLIC LAW 84-99 EMERGENCY LEVEE REHABILITATION PROGRAM & ADVANCED MEASURES CIVIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Missouri River Main Ditch 6, Hamburg Iowa Fremont County, Iowa October 2013 PROJECT DATE

Finding of No Significant Impact Main Ditch 6 PL 84-99 Levee Rehabilitation Project Fremont County, Iowa

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Corps), in cooperation with the project sponsor, the City of Hamburg, propose to repair Main Ditch 6 under the authority of Public Law 84-99 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. The proposed repairs are located in Fremont County, Iowa, along the Main Ditch 6 levee on the west side of the City of Hamburg, Iowa. A Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for PL 84-99 Levee Rehabilitation Projects and Advanced Measure Responses in the Corps was prepared in November 2011, and is incorporated by reference herein. The attached environmental assessment (EA) is tiered from the PEA and supports the conclusions in this finding.

The recommended plan consists of structural repairs as described in the attached EA. The overall flood risk management level achieved by the recommended plan would be the same as the original pre-flood condition. The recommended plan would result in no effect to any Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat. The recommended plan would result in no impacts to any properties listed, proposed for listing, eligible for listing, or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The recommended plan results in very minor impacts to wetlands located near and in the borrow sites which will be mitigated at a nearby location. Areas of the existing levee sections damaged by flooding will be temporarily disturbed by construction activity. The Structural Repairs Alternative meets the project purpose and need of rehabilitating the levee's flood risk management capability, and its associated social and economic benefits to the existing levee system. To ensure no significant impacts occur to wetlands, cultural resources, or species of concern and their habitats; best management practices during construction would be implemented. The standard operating procedures are included as an appendix to the December 2011 PEA. Migratory bird and raptor surveys will be conducted prior to construction as needed to ensure no migratory bird or raptor nesting activity is impacted in the areas of tree removal.

After evaluating the anticipated environmental, economic, and social effects of the proposed activity, it is my determination that rehabilitation of the Main Ditch 6 levee does not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The proposed action has been coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies, and there are no significant unresolved issues. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

Joel R Cross cqlonel, Corps of Engine~rs D1strict Commander

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Need ...... 2 1.2 Project Location ...... 3 2.0 Alternatives ...... 4 2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis ...... 5 2.2 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Evaluation ...... 5 2.3 (Recommended Plan) Main Ditch 6 Construct Adance Measures, Remove Advance Measures, and Return Levee to Pre-disaster Status ...... 6 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Impacts) ...... 9 3.1 Water Quality ...... 10 3.2 Wetlands ...... 11 3.3 Raptors and other Migratory Birds ...... 13 3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 14 3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 15 3.6 Socio Economics ...... 16 4.0 Cumulative Impacts ...... 16 5.0 Coordination and Comments ...... 17 6.0 Preparers……...... 18 7.0 References ...... 18

Figure 1 - Main Ditch 6, Hamburg, Iowa Location…………………………...... ……...... 4 Figure 2 – Main Ditch 6 Phase 2 Construction Areas and Borrow Source Locations……...... 7 Figure 3 - Main Ditch 6 Damage Area Locations……...... ……...………………………….…….9 Figure 4 – Main Ditch 6 NWI map of proposed project vicinity...... 12

Table 1 - PEA Alternatives ...... 5 Table 2 - Threatened and Endangered Species with Ranges in Project Area in Iowa …..………14 Table 3 - Cultural Resources File Search………....……………………...……………...……....15

Appendix A – Programmatic Environmental Assessment Appendix B – Correspondence Appendix C – Applicable Permits

1.0 Introduction In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations, a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for PL 84-99 Levee Rehabilitation Projects and Advanced Measure Responses in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District was started in November 2011, finalized on December 27, 2011, and is incorporated by reference herein. This project-specific NEPA review is tiered off of the programmatic document to determine if the proposed levee rehabilitation project meets the description and criteria of the Recommended Plan as described in the PEA. The PEA is attached under Appendix A of this document.

This assessment meets the requirements of the NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321 et seq.); the President’s Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 – 1508), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ER 200-2-2 (33 CFR 230) and is consistent with Engineer Regulation 500-1-1.

2011 Flood and Levee Impacts Background: The Main Ditch 6 levee protecting the City of Hamburg, IA came under major risk when a nearby levee, the L-575 levee, breached west of town during the 2011 flood. On June 4th, 2011the Missouri River levee unit L-575 (approximately 4.7 miles west of Hamburg, IA’s Main Ditch 6 levee and just south of the Missouri/Iowa border) developed a depressed portion approximately 10-15 feet in width. At 0900 CDT on June 5th , a second slump or partial breach occurred on L-575 near river mile 552.5 about 100 feet south of where the first slump occurred the previous day. It did not develop into a full breach as the levee collapsed on itself and shut off the flow. A contract was awarded by the Corps to implement advance flood fighting measures to raise the Main Ditch 6 levee at Hamburg (original elevation 911.0 feet mean sea level.) to an elevation of 915 feet mean sea level (MSL) (a raise of 4 ft.). A third partial breach on L-575, approximately 80 feet upstream of the first partial breach, occurred the morning of June 9th and was quickly repaired. At 1000 CDT on June 13th, a 10-15 foot wide full breach occurred in L- 575 near river mile 552 in the vicinity of the partial breaches. Within an hour the breach widened to 150 feet, raising the projected water level increases to 910 feet MSL within 48 hours and a peak elevation of 916 feet MSL within 4 days. Therefore, a decision was made to raise the Hamburg levee to an elevation of 919 feet MSL. Due to the rising water levels, Interstate 29 was closed at Hamburg on June 14th. The work to raise the Main Ditch 6 levee to elevation 919 feet MSL was completed that same day (a total of 8 ft). PL 84-99 assistance was requested on September 1st. The Main Ditch 6 emergency levee system was subject not only to a sustained period of high water levels, but also several rounds of severe storms. During the high water event, damages were sustained to the entire levee cross section, closure structures, and all drainage structures. The levee system also experienced seepage during the high water event.

The levee repairs conducted by the Corps under PL 84-99 program to implement advance measures and to return the levee to pre-existing flood conditions would take place in two phases. Phase 1 construction was comprised of the advance measures that were implemented during the 2011 flood event to prevent the city from flooding. During Phase 1, an increased level of risk reduction to the levee section was provided by raising it to an elevation of 919 feet MSL, seepage berms were installed, and the drainage structure at Area 2 was replaced (see Figure 3

Tiered Environmental Assessment 1 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

below). As required by the PL 84-99 program, advance measures must be removed after the threat of flooding; however, these levee fortifications remained in place until the L-575 breaches were fully repaired to provide protection incase another wet year threatened the community. Through discussions between the Omaha District staff and leadership conditions were established that would allow the fortifications to remain in place. For the fortifications to remain they had to be built up to federal levee standards and it was agreed that the City of Hamburg would have until L-575 repairs were finished to raise the necessary funds, which was approximately 2 years. Within this two year span Hamburg was not able to raise the funds required and so the City of Hamburg began removing the overburden (the temporary levee fortifications) in June 2013. Engineer Regulation 500-1-1 (the USACE regulation that contains the PL 84-99 language) states that all Advance Measure responses are temporary in nature; to be removed after the flood has passed and the area returned to pre-flood preparedness conditions. Typically, all levee rehabilitation under PL 84-99 is limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to a damaged area that existed prior to any flood damage. Phase 2 construction would include the removal of the levee fortifications constructed during the flood (in the process of being completed by the City of Hamburg), repair of the remaining drainage structures, closure structure, ditch sedimentation excavation, and topsoil and seeding of the final project features. The Corps proposes to initiate drainage structure repair, ditch sediment removal, and final grading of the levee features (Phase 2) after September 2013. By the end of Phase 2, the overburden would have been removed down to the pre-flood levee design elevation and the Corps would repair all other damaged levee features. Following all construction, the levee system would be restored to pre-disaster conditions.

During implementation of the advance measures described above, it was uncertain if the temporary levee fortifications would become permanent levee features or if they would be removed following the flood. In coordinating with the USACE, the city had two years to improve the levee to meet federal standards as a permanent levee, but the city could not acquire sufficient funds in time and the temporary levee must be removed. This environmental assessment (EA) was being prepared while this was still an uncertainty, was put on hold, and is being completed now that it is understood that the advance measure levee fortifications at Main Ditch 6 must be removed. This EA will evaluate the environmental effects of the advanced measures and of the construction implemented to return the levee to its pre-flood state.

1.1 Purpose and Need Purpose: The purpose of the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and Advance Measures Civil Emergency Management Program is to provide emergency assistance to levee districts and communities (project sponsors) in the form of levee repair and/or flood damage reduction.

Need: In 2011, heavy spring rains combined with higher than normal snow melt within the Missouri River Basin resulted in flows and reservoir releases of historic proportions and flooding along the Missouri River and many of its tributaries. These record flows caused extensive damage to multiple levees and created conditions where loss of property and human life was imminent. During the 2011 high water events, the decision was made to raise Main Ditch 6 to the elevation of 919 feet (an additional 8 feet) in order to protect the City of Hamburg, IA from

Tiered Environmental Assessment 2 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

breaches which occurred on the Missouri River Levee Unit L-575. The levee fortifications were required in order to help prevent the City of Hamburg from flooding, but now that the 2011 flood event is over the additional levee features must be removed and the levee returned to pre-disaster conditions.

1.2 Project Location Missouri River Levee Unit Main Ditch 6 is an Urban Federal Levee constructed under the Flood Control Act of 1948 (PL 858-80). The City of Hamburg, IA is the public sponsor. Levee Unit Main Ditch 6 is located in Fremont County, IA, along the left descending bank of Main Ditch 6 to the north and west of Hamburg (see Figure 1 below).

The levee is approximately 1.5 miles long and is a flood risk management (FRM) project that is separate from the nearby L-575 levee system; which in addition to Main Ditch 6, is designed to provide protection from flooding of the Missouri and Nishnabotna Rivers. It is approximately 4 miles east of the Missouri River and 1.5 miles west of the Nishnabotna River. The Ditch 6 levee is located in Fremont County, IA; however, the flood impact area extends slightly into Atchison County.

Major features of the unit include: • An earthen levee system, approximately 8,000 feet long, is located along the left bank of the Main Ditch 6 on the north and west sides of the City of Hamburg. The levee crest width is 10 feet with one vertical and three horizontal side slopes. • Two panel closure structures across U.S. Highway 333 and at the BNSF and Cargill railroad sidings. • Eight access ramps. • Drainage Structures – six total • Surfacing for levee top, including turnouts, access ramps and riverside ramps for maintenance purposes and flood fighting. • Bar gates and fencing to control unnecessary traffic throughout the project.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 3 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

Ditch 6 Levee

Nishnabotna River

Missouri River

Figure 1 - Main Ditch 6, Hamburg, Iowa Location

2.0 Alternatives The PEA examined a full range of alternative actions under the PL 84-99 and Advanced Measures Programs in order to determine which alternative best met the purpose and need on a programmatic level. The proposed Main Ditch 6 emergency rehabilitation is a PL 84-99 project; the PL 84-99 programmatic alternatives examined in the PEA are provided in Table 1 for reference.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 4 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

Table 1 - PEA Alternatives PEA Alternative Actions under PL 84-99 Description of Alternative Program Alternative 1 - No Action No levee repair assistance from the PL 84-99 Program

Local sponsor would repair levee to pre- disaster conditions at full cost. Alternative 2 – Structural Repairs Repair of damaged non-Federal and Federal levees after high flow events through in-place repairs and/or minor levee setbacks Repairs limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management that existed prior to damages Alternative 3 – Non-structural Responses Flood risk management provided by modifying structures and property to reduce damages during flood events Examples include: relocating structures, buyouts, elevating structures, and providing ring levees Alternative 4 – Combination of Structural Flexibility to use either structural repairs or Repairs and Non-structural Responses non-structural repairs (as described above), or a combination thereof depending on site- specific needs

2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis Non-structural measures were considered at this location; however, it was determined that implementation of non-structural measures would be constrained in the damaged areas because the local sponsor and present landowners desire to continue existing use of the associated land. The Non-structural Response and the Structural/ Non-structural Combination alternatives were therefore eliminated from detailed analysis for this project. The alternatives retained for detailed analysis include the No Action Alternative and the Structural Repair Alternative.

2.2 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Evaluation 2.2.1 Main Ditch 6 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Federal action (PL 84-99 assistance) would not occur. Without PL 84-99 assistance, it is anticipated that the local levee sponsor themselves would have built the levee fortifications necessary to keep the town from flooding (due to the high value of the protected property as well as a strong desire to prevent the town from flooding), would have ultimately repaired the Main Ditch 6 levee to pre-disaster conditions, and would have repaired the drainage structures at its own expense after the flood event. It is reasonable to assume the local levee sponsor would not choose to utilize non-structural repairs in the absence of Federal assistance due to the high value of protected land and infrastructure protected by the levee. If the government took no action during the 2011 flood event and was not involved in the post-flood repairs, it is assumed that the City of Hamburg would still not have acquired the necessary funds

Tiered Environmental Assessment 5 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

to bring the levee fortifications up to federal standards and the overburden material would still need to be removed and placed back into borrow pits (see Figure 2 below).

2.2.2 Main Ditch 6 Structural Repairs (Recommended Plan) The recommended plan consists of using structural responses to implement advance measures during the flood (this activity has already occurred) and to restore the levee to pre-disaster flood protection conditions. The PEA recommended alternative provides the greatest flexibility to repair levees by recommending a site-specific determination whether to implement structural repairs, non-structural repairs, or a combination thereof. The site-specific determination to use structural responses to rehabilitate Main Ditch 6 is therefore consistent with the PEA recommendation.

2.3 (Recommended Plan) Main Ditch 6 Construct Advance Measures, Remove Advance Measures, and Return Levee to Pre-disaster Status

The recommended plan used structural responses to implement advance measures during the 2011 flood (Phase 1) and proposes using structural responses to help the City of Hamburg remove the advance measure levee additions and repair drainage structures (Phase 2), returning the levee to pre-disaster conditions.

Structural repair components of Phase 2 include debris removal, removal of some of the fill material brought in to raise the levee (crest and slopes), repairs of drainage structures, and the removal of the landside seepage berm which extends along the entire length of levee (8,000 feet). Most of the material from the levee fortifications has already been removed by the City of Hamburg and the Corps would be removing the remaining 10,000 cubic yards (cy) during Phase 2 and would also remove approximately 1,000 cy of material from a ditch to the west of the levee as part of repairs to 6 drainage structures. Fine grading, seeding and surfacing consisting of a 6-inch layer of crushed rock along the 10-foot levee crest would be required for the entirety of the levee. Two major transportation corridors (HWY 333 and BNSF/Cargill Railroad) and two access points were closed with earthen levee sections during the flood. These routes were originally equipped with mechanical closure structures. To restore the corridors, the earthen material would be removed. The original gate closure systems would be serviced to return them to their operational condition.

Borrow material was required for the levee fortification that occurred during the 2011 flood event and was taken from the areas displayed in Figure 2 below; the City of Hamburg is responsible for placing the majority of this material back into the original borrow pits and the Corps would remove the remaining ~10,000 cy of overburden before repairing the drainage structures. Borrow material will not be required for any of the Phase 2 work.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 6 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

Attachment D Site Plan Rev. 1

Figure 2 – Main Ditch 6 Phase 2 Construction Areas and Phase 1 Borrow Source Locations

Tiered Environmental Assessment 7 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

Levee Damages: Seven damage sites were identified for Phase 1 and 2 construction and are described below. Six of these repairs are to damaged drainage structures. See Figure 3 for a map of the damage area locations.

Area 1 (Phase 2): Area 1 is a 10’ wide panel gate closure that was damaged during the placement of emergency material. The 10’ wide panel gate closure needs to be repaired to pre-disaster conditions to regain operational status.

Area 2 (Phase 1): Area 2 rehabilitation involved the replacement of a drainage structure composed of approximately 47’ of 48” Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) fitted with a gate and gate well. During the event this structure developed seepage through the joints and around the pipe creating failure situation on the levee system. A setback levee was constructed to mitigate. Phase 2 repairs also include the removal of the setback levee. This structure will require two relief wells to mitigate for seepage.

Area 3 (Phase 2): The structure at Area 3 is composed of approximately 175’ of 24” RCP fitted with a flap gate. Due to the flood event, the flared end section, concrete headwall, and initial pipe segments were damaged. Repair would include restoring structure to pre-existing flood conditions. This structure will require two relief wells to mitigate for seepage.

Area 5 (Phase 2): The structure at Area 5 is composed of approximately 132’ of 36” RCP fitted with a flap gate. Due to the flood event, the flared end section, concrete headwall, and initial pipe segments were damaged. Repair would include restoring structure to pre-existing flood conditions.

Area 7 (Phase 2): The structure at Area 7 is composed of approximately 34’ of 24” RCP fitted with a flap gate. Due to the flood event, the flared end section, concrete headwall, and initial pipe segments were damaged. Repair would include restoring structure to pre-existing flood conditions.

Area 9 (Phase 2): The structure at Area 9 is composed of approximately 180’ of 30” RCP fitted with a flap gate. It is located at the southern railroad closure. As part of the southern BSNF railroad and Hwy V closure, this structure suffered damages from the flood event to the flared end section, concrete headwall, and initial pipe segments were damaged. Repair would include restoring structure to pre- existing flood conditions.

Area 10 (Phase 2): The structure at Area 10 is composed of approximately 180’ of 36” RCP fitted with a flap gate. It is located at the southern railroad closure. As part of the southern BSNF railroad and Hwy V closure, this structure suffered damages from the flood event to the flared end section, concrete headwall, and initial pipe segments were damaged. Repair would include restoring structure to pre- existing flood conditions.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 8 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

Figure 3 - Main Ditch 6 Damage Area Locations

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Impacts) The PEA provides an impact analysis of a range of environmental resources from a regional/programmatic perspective. This document, tiered from the PEA, provides a more- detailed impact analysis where it was determined an additional site-specific analysis was needed to determine if the individual proposed project would have impacts beyond which were described in the PEA or if additional analysis was necessary to determine compliance with environmental laws and regulations. Water quality, wetlands, migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, and socioeconomics are included in this site-specific analysis. Other natural resources are either adequately addressed within the PEA or do not exist in the project’s affected environment.

This chapter presents the adverse and beneficial environmental effects of the recommended action and the No Action Alternative. The chapter is organized by resource category, with the effects of each alternatives described under each resource category. Impacts are quantified

Tiered Environmental Assessment 9 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

whenever possible. Qualitative descriptions of impacts are explained by accompanying text where used.

Qualitative definitions/descriptions of impacts as used in this section of the report include: • Intensity o Minor – noticeable impacts to the resource in the project area, but the resource is still mostly functional o Moderate – the resource is impaired, so that it cannot function normally o Major – the resource is severely impaired so that it is no longer functional in the project area • Duration o Short-term – temporary effects caused by the construction and/or implementation of a selected alternative o Long-term – caused by an alternative after the action has been completed and/or after the action is in full and complete operation

3.1 Water Quality 3.1.1 Water Quality Existing Conditions In the Missouri River, levels of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and nutrients tend to increase with distance downstream from the Gavins Point Dam (USGS, 2002). Fish collections have been made in the Missouri River that show elevated levels of pollutants in tissue samples. For example, the Nebraska Department of Health issued consumption advisories for the Missouri River from Omaha to Rulo due to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (industrial use), and dieldrin (agricultural pesticide) concentrations in fish (NDEQ, 2008). Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires States to evaluate water quality conditions in designated water bodies and list as impaired any water bodies not meeting water quality standards. As appropriate, States must develop and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs i.e., pollutant management plans) for water bodies identified as having a Category 5 impairment.

Iowa The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has placed the segment of the Missouri River between the Iowa/ Missouri state line to the Platte River confluence, which includes the construction project, on the state’s 303(d) list for 2008 (IDNR, 2008). This portion of the river is considered impaired due to habitat alterations and flow modifications that resulted from development of the river for navigation. This segment was also on the 2006 303(d) list (IDNR, 2008). In 2012, Iowa had this section of the Missouri River listed as a Category 4c impaired stream (at least one use impaired, but not caused by a pollutant) and the Nishnabotna River near the project area as a Category 5 impaired stream (impaired stream and requires TMDL) for high bacteria levels (IDNR, 2012).

Nebraska The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) has placed the segment of the Missouri River between the Platte River confluence and the Iowa/Missouri border on the state’s 303(d) list for 2010. In 2010 this segment was listed as impaired for recreation and aquatic life due to E. coli and cancer risks as well as fish consumption hazards (NDEQ, 2010). In 2008 this segment was listed as impaired for recreation and aquatic life because of PCBs and dieldrin (NDEQ, 2010). In 2012 the State of Nebraska listed this section of the Missouri River a Category 5 impaired for recreation and aquatic life due to E. coli, bacteria, and cancer risk (NEDQ, 2012).

Tiered Environmental Assessment 10 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

Missouri TMDLs have been established for chlordane and PCBs in fish tissue for the 533 miles of Missouri River in Missouri. Causes of chlordane and PCBs in fish tissue are listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as many different point and non-point sources of pollution. Chlordane has been banned from agricultural use and was withdrawn from the market in 1988 and production of PCBs ended in 1977, but persists in the environment. In 2010 the Missouri River in Atchison County, Missouri was listed as an impaired stream due to E.coli (MDNR, 2012).

3.1.2 Water Quality Environmental Consequences Structural Repair Alternative Environmental Consequences No construction or fill activities took place during Phase 1, nor are any construction or fill activities expected to take place in the Missouri River or the Nishnabotna River. Impacts to water quality from the structural repairs would be minor and short-term. The only water body encountered during construction would be the excavation of sediment in Main Ditch 6, approximately 1,000 cy of material would be removed from this ditch for drainage structure repairs and would be placed in the project right of way. The ditch excavation would use Nationwide Permit #3, Maintenance (NWP3), in order to maintain compliance with the Clean Water Act. The construction areas would be stabilized with a permanent seed mixture as soon as possible after construction is complete. Spillage of contaminants from the construction site into waterways is a potential effect that would be minor and short-term. The Clean Water Act requires preparation and submission of a general storm water permit and preparation of a Storm-water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) before construction activities can begin. The SWPPP would be based on Best Management Practices (BMP) such as seeding and mulching bare slopes as soon as practicable and measures to contain spillage of any contaminants into waterways. In the long term, there would essentially be no change to the water quality in the Missouri or Nishnabotna Rivers and nearby drainages from implementation of the structural response alternative.

No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative it is assumed that the levee would have been fortified during the flood, that the fortifications would have to be removed and the levee repaired to pre-flood conditions by the local levee sponsor. This would result in the potential for minor, short-term construction related impacts to water quality due to site runoff and increased potential for soil erosion from removing vegetation – similar to the structural alternative. Construction related impacts would last only until vegetation is re- established, either naturally or by seeding. Use of BMPs required by the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit would minimize the potential for these contaminants from entering waterways via non-point source runoff.

3.2 Wetlands 3.2.1 Wetlands Existing Conditions Due to the rapid pace of construction and emergency conditions it was not possible to conduct wetland delineation on the site prior to advance measure construction during the flood. Recent high-resolution (1m) aerial photography and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps were used for offsite determinations of potential impacts to wetlands and other terrestrial habitats. Approximately 3 acres of wetlands exist near the construction area according to the NWI map below. Contrary to what the NWI map shows (100% freshwater forested/shrub wetlands), post Phase 1 construction site visits reveal that this area is comprised of about half emergent wetlands and half forested/ shrub wetlands.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 11 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

Figure 4 – Main Ditch 6 NWI map of proposed project vicinity.

3.2.2 Wetlands Environmental Consequences Structural Repair Alternative Environmental Consequences Minor short-term wetland impacts occurred during Phase 1 of the Structural Repair Alternative. Approximately .63 acre of emergent wetland was temporarily disturbed during Phase 1 construction (see Figure 4); it is anticipated that this area will return to wetland condition once construction ends and the area vegetates. Additionally, the borrow pits were left open for approximately 2 years and during this time some wetland characteristic began to develop. On June 12, 2013 a wetland delineation was conducted by Corps staff biologists within the borrow sites as the City of Hamburg began filling the borrow pits back in with overburden. While wetland vegetation was scattered throughout the borrow site, only a .53 acre area exhibited full wetland characteristics (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology). This impact is not anticipated to be temporary, the private land used for borrow will return to agricultural uses once construction is finished. Mitigation for these impacts would not be conducted on site, but instead 2.32 acres of excess mitigation habitat created at L-575 would be utilized for mitigating the 1.16 acres of wetland impacts at the Main Ditch 6 levee. A NWP3 would be used for this project. The NWP3 authorizes the excavation and fill of wetlands and ditches for protection and/or repair of existing flood damaged structures, damaged land areas, and/or damaged fills when repairing levees to existing elevations and cross-section, as well as closing breaches and conducting borrow operations. Ditch excavation would also be conducted pursuant to the conditions required under a NWP3. Upon completion of construction, .63 acres

Tiered Environmental Assessment 12 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

of the impacted area would be allowed to re-establish to pre-flood conditions, thus, the potential impacts are not considered significant. No additional wetland impacts are anticipated during Phase 2 construction and best management practices would be used to avoid and minimize incidental wetland impacts.

No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative it is assumed that similar repairs would be undertaken to those described in the Structural Repair Alternative. It is therefore assumed that similar impacts to wetlands would have resulted during Phase 1 and 2 under the No Action Alternative.

3.3 Raptors and other Migratory Birds 3.3.1 Raptors and other Migratory Birds Existing Conditions Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), assessments are conducted to determine if there would be any potential effects to bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and other raptors that may begin nesting around the time of construction (February – July for raptors and April to July for song birds). Clearing and grubbing work for borrow mining during Phase 1 construction may have resulted in undocumented tree removal in the farm field; no bird surveys were conducted during Phase 1 construction if any trees were indeed removed. Phase 2 construction would take place outside of the normal bird nesting season (likely starting in October 2013) and trees would only need to be removed from the Main Ditch 6 if they have established in the ditch since the flood. If trees need to be removed during Phase 2, bird surveys would be conducted prior to construction and BMPs would be followed in order to avoid or minimize disturbance to trees and potential nesting birds nearby.

Raptor species likely to occur within and near the project area include red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), bald eagles, American kestrels (Falco sparverius), Swainson's hawks (Buteo swainsoni), peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), and several owl species including great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus) (USACE, 2003). Raptor species likely use the site primarily as roosting, nesting, feeding, and perching habitat.

3.3.2 Raptors and other Migratory Birds Environmental Consequences Structural Repair Alternative Environmental Consequences It is unknown if trees were removed during Phase 1 construction and it is very likely that no trees would need to be removed during Phase 2 construction. No bird surveys were performed during Phase 1 construction and prior to Phase 2 of construction a Corps biologist would visit the site to perform a bird survey if trees need to be removed. Regardless of tree removal requirements, BMPs would be followed during Phase 2 in order to avoid or minimize disturbance to trees and potential nesting birds nearby.

No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative it is assumed that similar repairs would be undertaken to those described in the Structural Repair Alternative. It is therefore assumed that similar clearing and grubbing activities would occur under the No Action Alternative, that little to no trees would

Tiered Environmental Assessment 13 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

need to be removed, and that the sponsors would conduct bird surveys as appropriate during nesting season.

3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Existing Conditions Consistent with recommendations contained in the PEA, a site-specific evaluation was conducted to determine if there could be potential effects to threatened or endangered species from the proposed Main Ditch 6 rehabilitation. A summary of threatened and endangered species that could occur in the proposed project area and a determination of effect are included in Table 2:

Table 2 - Threatened and Endangered Species with Ranges in Project Area in Iowa Common Name Effect States Present Determination Pallid Sturgeon NO EFFECT MO, IA, NE. Project-related activities are not (Scaphirynchus albus) expected to affect water quality or quantity in Endangered rivers where pallid sturgeon occur. Temporary, construction-related increases in turbidity (channel work only) could be beneficial. No construction would take place in the Missouri River so no impacts to pallid sturgeons are anticipated. Western Prairie-Fringed NO EFFECT IA, NE. Occurs in tall grass prairie areas. Does not Orchid (Platanthera occur on levees. No tall grass areas exist within praeclara) the project area. The area disturbed is primarily Threatened agricultural land. No impacts to the orchid are anticipated. Indiana Bat (Myotis NO EFFECT IA, MO. For hibernation, they require cool, humid sodalist) caves with stable temperatures, under 50° F but Endangered above freezing. Very few caves within the range of the species have these conditions. After hibernation, Indiana bats migrate to their summer (April to October) habitat in wooded areas where they usually roost under loose tree bark on dead or dying trees. Phase 1 construction did not disturb suitable roosting habitat and as such no impacts to the bat are anticipated from Phase 2 construction. Prairie Bush Clover NO EFFECT IA. The project area is adjacent to agricultural (Lespedeza fields that are regularly farmed so it is likely no leptostachya) prairie bush clovers occur in the project area. As a Threatened result, no impacts to the clover are anticipated.

3.4.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Environmental Consequences Structural Repair Alternative Environmental Consequences During the month of August, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was contacted regarding the potential for threatened and endangered species to be present in the project area and /or be impact by the construction. A response received from the USFWS on August 9th, 2013 stated that no Federally listed species are likely to occur in the work area. The project area

Tiered Environmental Assessment 14 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

is contained within previously disturbed land (e.g., farmland, neighborhoods, business, etc.) in the City of Hamburg, IA and as such no negative affects to Federally listed species are anticipated by the Corps.

No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed that similar repairs would be undertaken to those described in the Structural Repair Alternative. It is therefore assumed that no effect to the above listed species would occur under the No Action Alternative.

3.5 Cultural Resources 3.5.1 Cultural Resources Existing Conditions The project area was previously surveyed for historic properties in 1993, as part of the Section 205 Flood Control Study for the City of Hamburg. No sites were recorded within the area of potential effect (APE), and the report was forwarded to the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office. No comments were received. Other cultural resources surveys have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the APE, primarily in conjunction with the City’s waste water treatment system. File search results are summarized below:

Table 3: Cultural Resources File Search File Search Results T67N R42W Archaeological Historic Section National Register Locale Sites Structures APE is within 21 1 2 0 NE1/4, SE ¼, SW ¼ APE is within 28 0 5 0 N½ Within 1-mile 22 1 9 1 radius of APE Within 1-mile 27 1 5 0 radius of APE

Additional research revealed that the closest possible location for the wreck of steamboat Dakotah lies at the junction of the Nishnabotna River and the old Missouri River oxbow called the “Peru Cut-Off.” The location is approximately three miles south-southeast of the APE.

3.5.2 Cultural Resources Environmental Consequences Structural Repair Alternative Environmental Consequences As the work would be confined to areas previously surveyed, and disturbed by prior construction activities, the Corps believes the repair activities would have no potential to affect historic properties. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, work would be halted immediately and a district archeologist would be notified. The work would not be continued until the area is inspected by a Corps staff archeologist. If that individual determines that the discovery requires further consultation, the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office would be notified.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 15 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative it is assumed that similar repairs would be undertaken to those described in the Structural Repair Alternative. It is therefore assumed that no effect to cultural of historic properties would occur under the No Action Alternative.

3.6 Socioeconomics 3.6.1 Socioeconomic Existing Conditions The Main Ditch 6 levee system provides the City of Hamburg with a 99.7 percent chance of containing the 50-year flood event, 95.9 percent chance of containing the 100-year flood event, and a 45.6 percent chance of containing the 500-year flood event without overtopping from Main Ditch 6. The levee height is at 911.0 feet MSL.

The City of Hamburg in Fremont County, IA and a small portion of Atchison County, MO received flood protection from the Main Ditch 6 levee. These counties are predominantly rural, with populations of 7,441 and 5,685, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census). Using Google Earth imagery, it was estimated that 78 residences and several farmsteads are located in the 100-year floodplain, which is in the south end of Hamburg; with a population of 1,187 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census). Total land value for the 100-year flood plain (1,142 acres of agriculture and urban) is estimated at $5.3 million. The value of structures and contents in the 100-year flood plain is $45.8 million. With 832 acres of cropland in the 100- year flood plain, the market value of agricultural outputs for this area would be approximately $349,440 annually.

3.6.2 Socio Economics Environmental Consequences Structural Repair Alternative Environmental Consequences Phase 1 of the structural repair alternative prevented the City of Hamburg from severe flooding and significant property damage. If the levee fortifications would have been made permanent, it would have cost the City approximately five million dollars. The City will end up having spent less funds as a result of implementing Phase 2 to remove the new material and return the levee to its pre-disaster condition.

No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed that similar repairs would be undertaken to those described in the Structural Repair Alternative. It is therefore assumed that similar affects on the Hamburg socioeconomics would be the same under the No Action Alternative.

4.0 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts from the PL 84-99 program were addressed in the PEA and were not determined to be significant. The levee rehabilitation at the Main Ditch 6 levee will ultimately put the levee back to its pre-disaster flood protection condition, thereby having minimal impact on resources throughout the affected area and no new cumulative affects then those discussed in the PEA. The PEA cumulative impacts assessment includes potential cumulative impacts from site-specific projects such as the proposed Main Ditch 6 rehabilitation, therefore no additional cumulative impacts analysis was conducted for this site specific EA.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 16 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013 5.0 Coordination and Comments The proposed Main Ditch 6 rehabilitation project was reviewed to determine compliance with all applicable environmental laws in addition to NEPA. Findings from the compliance review are listed below.

Compliance with Programmatic EA and Applicable Environmental Laws NWO Programmatic EA Compliance SOP for Selection of Borrow Sites Full Compliance Regulatory Authorization Obtained Full Compliance Section 401 State Water Quality Certification Full Compliance Section 402 Storm water NPDES Permit Full Compliance

Federal Laws and Polices Compliance Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. 469, et. seq. Full Compliance Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470, est seq. Full Compliance Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Sect. 668. 668 note, 668a-66d) Full Compliance Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S. C. 7401-7671g, et seq. Full Compliance Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. Full Compliance Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. Full Compliance Federal Water Project Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-12, et seq. Full Compliance Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq. Full Compliance Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4, et seq. Not Applicable Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712: Ch. 128 as amended) Full Compliance National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. Full Compliance National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470a, et seq. Full Compliance Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 403, et seq. Full Compliance Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. Full Compliance Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4201 , et. seq. Full Compliance Protection & Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (Executive Order 11593) Full Compliance Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) Full Compliance Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) Full Compliance Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Full Compliance Invasive Species (Executive Order 13122) Full Compliance Responsibility of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (Executive Order 13186) Full Compliance

The proposed project has been evaluated and determined to be in compliance with the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Public Law 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and Advanced M~s Civil Emergency Management Program dated October 2011. p~~ - (6~)-1) Signature Date Env· onmental Resourc Specialist

ignature Chief, Environmental Resources Section

NOTES: a. Full compliance. Having met all requirements of the statute for the current stage of planning (either preauthorization or post authorization). B. Not applicable. No requirements for the statute requirement.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 17 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

6.0 Preparers

Development of this EA and FONSI was started by Cynthia Upah, Environmental Resources Specialist, during Phase 1 of construction and was completed and finalized by Dave Crane, Environmental Resources Specialist with cultural resource assistance provided by Sandra Barnum, District Archeologist after Phase 2 had been initiated. The address of the preparers is: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, District, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

7.0 References

Brodnicki, E. 1993. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance at Hamburg, Fremont County. Omaha, NE: Planning Division, COE.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2008. DRAFT 2010 Impaired Waters List. Last Accessed June 18, 2012. http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/ImpairedWaters/303d.html#2010

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2012. 2012 Impaired Waters List. Accessed August 9, 2013 http://www.iowadnr.gov/Environment/WaterQuality/WaterMonitoring/ImpairedWaters/Pre vious303dListings.aspx

Meseke, A. and Benton, C. 2002. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Wastewater Lagoon Expansion, Sections 22 and 27, T67N-R42W, Fremont CO, Iowa

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Missouri’s 303(d) Streams and Lakes. Last accessed August 9, 2013. http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/waterquality/303d.htm

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. 2008 Water Quality Integrated Report. Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Lincoln, NE

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. 2010. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Last accessed 6-18-2012. http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/ImpairedWaters/303d.html#2010

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. 2012. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Last accessed August 9, 2013. http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/Pages/WAT184

Otarola-Castillo, E. 2007. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Waste Water Expansion Project for the City of Hamburg, T67n-R42W, Fremont County, Iowa. Project Report 148. Iowa State University Archaeological Laboratory, Ames, Iowa.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 18 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Nishnabotna River and Main Ditch 6 At Hamburg, Iowa: Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment, Section 205. Omaha District.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program: Environmental Contaminants and their Effects on Fish in the Mississippi River Basin. Biological Science Report United States Geologic Survey/Biological Resources Division/BSR— 2002-0004. http://www.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/pubs/center/pdfDocs/BEST_1995.pdf.

Tiered Environmental Assessment 19 Main Ditch 6 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation October, 2013

APPENDIX A

Programmatic Environmental Assessment

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT PUBLIC LAW 84-99 EMERGENCY LEVEE REHABILITATION PROGRAM & ADVANCED MEASURES CIVIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DECEMBER 2011

Project Summary

A major mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Omaha District (NWO) is the Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and the Advanced Measures Civil Emergency Management Program under the authorities of33 U.S.C. 70ln (commonly referred to as Public Law 84-99 or PL 84-99); the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq); Army Regulation 500-60, Disaster Relief; and Engineer Regulation 1130-2-530, Flood Control Operations and Maintenance Policies. These laws and authorities allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to provide a levee rehabilitation program for repairing levees after flood events and perform Advanced Measures prior to flooding or flood fighting to protect against loss of life and significant damages to urban and/or public facilities.

To be included in the PL 84-99 program, levees must be routinely inspected and meet construction and maintenance standards set by the USACE. There are two main categories of levees included in the program; non-Federal and Federal levees, based on who constructed them. Both of these types oflevees can include agricultural and urban designed levees depending on the level of flood risk management they provide. Most of the levees enrolled in the NWO's PL 84-99 program are Federal levees designed to protect urban areas. All levee rehabilitation under PL 84-99 is limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to a damaged area that existed prior to any flood damage. All Advanced Measure responses are temporary in nature; to be removed after the flood has passed and the area returned to pre-flood preparedness conditions (ER 500-1-1; 7-1 a. (2) h). Permanent Advanced Measures may be considered when the permanent project costs less or is significantly more cost effective than the temporary solution.

This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) covers future levee rehabilitation and Advanced Measures for the next five years (20 11 through 20 16) and is intended to establish a framework for evaluating potential impacts to resources that may occur from site-specific activities during levee repair projects, helping to streamline the environmental review and documentation process for levee repairs under the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program. Individual projects will be evaluated in separate Tiered Environmental Assessment's to determine if their scope and impacts are within the scope and impact analysis of the PEA. Additional analysis to be included with the Tiered Environmental Assessment (EA) may be required if site-specific activities could result in adverse impacts not previously evaluated or anticipated, or not consistent with the PEA. Subsequent documentation will need to define the potential degree of impact to the resource and the measures to be taken to reduce impacts to less than a significant level. Alternatives

PL 84-99 Levee Alternatives: A total of four alternatives for the PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation program were evaluated. The structural alternative includes the two most common structural methods for levee repair, levee setback and in-place repair, and is discussed as one alternative.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 -"No-Action" Alternative: The "No-Action" alternative would result in no levee repair assistance from NWO's PL 84-99levee rehabilitation program. Selection of the "No Action" alternative is expected to result in a 'predictable action by others" as discussed in CEQ (1981). This "predicable action" would consist of the public sponsor repairing the levee without assistance through the PL 84-99 program because of the value of the farmland and the local infrastructure that the levee protects.

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would repair both damaged non-Federal and Federal levees after high flow events under PL 84-99. Repairs would be limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to the area that existed prior to any high flow damage. In-place repairs typically include lost protective vegetative cover, levee slope and/or toe failures, erosion along the levee slope and/or toe, damaged drainage structures, minor scour holes, and minor levee breaches. Levee setbacks, or reconstructing the levee landward on a new alignment, are typically used in locations that have been subject to more severe damages, such as a major levee breach, severe erosion of the levee, and large scour holes. Heavy equipment would be used to obtain, move, shape, and compact earthen materials in order to set the levee back. Earthen materials for this purpose may be obtained from previously used borrow sites, commercial sites, or silted-in recovery and mitigation sites, and would be selected in accordance with the Standard of Practice (SOP) for the Selection of Borrow Sites. The levee would be reseeded following construction. All levee rehabilitation projects under this alternative would undergo environmental and cultural resources reviews, an engineering review, and an economic benefit to cost analysis to determine the most acceptable repair method.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3- Non-Structural Responses: Non-structural responses must be requested by the public sponsor. Under this alternative, flood risk management would be provided by modifying structures and property to reduce damages during flood events, including buyouts of buildings and property, relocating structures, elevating structures, and providing ring levees. Levee setbacks undertaken for purposes of restoring the floodplain or floodway also wol!ld fit into the nonstructural category.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4- Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would include both setback and in-place levee repair actions. Non-structural responses would include relocating structures, elevating structures, acquisition and buyout of properties, and levee setbacks for purposes of restoring the floodplain and flood way as budgets allow. The USACE would coordinate PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation efforts with other programs (e.g., Missouri River Recovery Program, Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan, etc.). This alternative was selected as the Recommended Plan because it would best meet the technical, economic, and environmental objectives and provides flexibility to utilize the most appropriate method on a case-by-case basis.

2 Advanced Measures Alternatives: Advance Measures assistance may be technical and/or direct assistance. Direct assistance may only be provided as part of an approved Advance Measures project. A total of two alternatives for the Advanced Measures program were evaluated.

Advanced Measures Alternative 1 -"No-Action" Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Flood fight measures would likely consist of making sandbag materials available to local residents who would in tum be responsible for filling, placement, and protection. Additionally, flood proofing of infrastructure likely would be preformed.

Advanced Measures Alternative 2- Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): The preferred alternative consists of a combination of low-lying earthen embankments, sandbag structures, and/or innovative flood fight structures (e.g., Hesco Bastions) to minimize potential flood damages. The Advanced Measures are generally placed in locations where 'voids' in the existing flood management structures occur and are removed once the high flow event has passed. This alternative was selected as the Recommended Plan because it would best meet the technical, economic, and environmental objectives and provides flexibility to utilize the most appropriate method on a case-by-case basis.

Summary of Environmental Impacts

The flood risk management level achieved by the Recommended Plans will return damaged levee to the original pre-flood condition and/or provide flood fight assistance. Under the Recommended Plans, individual projects will be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, and other applicable laws/regulations. Areas of structural levee repair, non-structura1levee repair, and advanced flood fighting will have some temporary, minor disturbance by proposed construction activities resulting from noise, visual disturbance, and land disturbance to wetlands, terrestrial habitat, and fish and wildlife resources. The adverse effects associated with the proposed projects are short term/minor and will be greatly offset by restoring the flood risk management capability of the levee and its associated social and economic benefits. In the case of Advanced Measure responses, materials will be removed following the flood event and the areas returned to their pre-flood conditions. In limited circumstances, the Advanced Measures will be kept in place. In these instances, a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) document and environmental assessment will be performed as maintaining Advanced Measures in place for the long term is out of the scope of this PEA.

Mitigation Measures

The Recommended Plans will avoid and/or minimize any impacts to the environment by following the guidelines in the Standard Operating Procedures for Selection of Borrow Sites, by following conditions of Regional General Permits or applicable Nationwide Permits, and by incorporating Best Management Practices, as required, for Clean Water Act Section 401 and 402 permits. The NWO will review each individual levee repair and advanced measure project

3 to determine if additional NEP A compliance is required. If a levee repair is proposed that is not consistent with the general method ofPL 84-99 repairs included in this PEA, a supplemental EA will be prepared and sent to interested parties for coordination. Similarly, if an advanced measure response is deemed non-temporary, a supplemental EA will be prepared and serit to interested parties for coordination. For projects that meet the conditions described in the PEA, a tiered Environmental Assessment will be prepared to document that an environmental and cultural review was completed, and an appropriate decision document will be signed.

Public Availability

Prior to a decision on whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the USACE placed the Draft EA dated November 4, 2011, on https://w3.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/pd-e/Post flood 2011 EA.htm and provided a fifteen-day comment period for resource agency input. The comment period ended on November 18, 2011.

Conclusion

After evaluating the anticipated environmental, economic, and social effects of the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and the Advanced Measures Responses, it is my determination that these programs do not constitute major Federal actions that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, preparation of an EIS is not required.

Date:

4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

FINAL NEPA Review Programmatic Environmental Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact

PUBLIC LAW 84-99 EMERGENCY LEVEE REHABILITATION PROGRAM & ADVANCE MEASURES CIVIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 1.2 Project Location ...... 5 2.0 Recommended Plan and Alternatives Proposed ...... 5 2.1 PL 84-99 Alternative 1 – “No-Action” Alternative ...... 6 2.2 PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: ...... 6 2.3 PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: ...... 7 2.4 PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): ...... 8 2.5 Advance Measures Alternative 1 – “No-Action” Alternative: ...... 9 2.6 Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): ...... 9 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Impacts) ...... 9 3.1 Noise ...... 12 3.2 Air Quality ...... 15 3.3 Water Quality ...... 17 3.4 Wetlands ...... 21 3.6 Fish and Wildlife...... 27 3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 30 3.8 Invasive Species ...... 36 3.9 Floodplain ...... 37 3.10 Land Use ...... 39 3.11 Economics ...... 40 3.12 Environmental Justice ...... 41 3.13 Cultural Resources ...... 42 4.0 Cumulative Impacts ...... 43 5.0 Conclusion ...... 45 6.0 Coordination and Comments ...... 46 6.1 State Agency Responses ...... 46 6.2 Federal Agency Responses ...... 47 6.3 Public Responses ...... 47 7.0 Agency Compliance with Other Environmental Laws ...... 48 8.0 References ...... 49 9.0 List of Preparers ...... 50 10.0 Appendices APPENDIX I – FIGURES & PHOTOS APPENDIX II – AGENCY COORDINATION APPENDIX III – REGULATORY PERMITS APPENDIX VI – SOP FOR BORROW ACQUISITION APPENDIX V – INDIVIDUAL PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET APPENDIX V – BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Table 1. Total Federal and Non-Federal Levees by State Table 2. Species Likely to Occur in Projects Areas and Associated Mitigation Measures U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Final Environmental Assessment

PUBLIC LAW 84-99 EMERGENCY LEVEE REHABILITATION PROGRAM & ADVANCE MEASURES CIVIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 2011

1.0 Introduction

A major mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District (NWO) is the Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and the Advance Measures Civil Emergency Management Program under the authorities of 33 U.S.C. 701n (commonly referred to as Public Law 84-99 or PL 84-99); the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq); Army Regulation 500-60, Disaster Relief; and Engineer Regulation 1130-2-530, Flood Control Operations and Maintenance Policies. These laws and authorities allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to provide a levee rehabilitation program for repairing levees after flood events and perform Advance Measures prior to flooding or flood fighting to protect against loss of life and significant damages to urban and/or public facilities.

To be included in the PL 84-99 program, levees must be routinely inspected and meet construction and maintenance standards set by the USACE. There are two main categories of levees included in the program; non-Federal and Federal levees, based on who funded the construction. Both of these types of levees can include agricultural and urban designed levees depending on the level of flood risk management they provide. Most of the levees enrolled in the NWO’s PL 84-99 program are Federal levees designed to protect urban areas. All levee rehabilitation under PL 84-99 is limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to a damaged area that existed prior to any flood damage. All Advance Measure responses are temporary in nature; to be removed after the flood has passed and the area returned to pre-flood preparedness conditions (ER 500-1-1; 7-1 a. (2) h). Permanent Advance Measures may be considered when the permanent project costs less or is significantly more cost effective than the temporary solution.

Levee Rehabilitation Assistance To be eligible for rehabilitation assistance under the PL 84-99 program, the following conditions must be met (USACE, 2001): • Must be a primary levee or a Federally constructed flood risk reduction levee.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 1 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

• Non-Federal levees must provide a minimum level of protection (5-yr for agricultural levees, 10-yr for urban levees). • The levee unit must have a public sponsor (levee or drainage district, city, county, or other taxing district). • Must be damaged by flooding and the damages must exceed $15,000. • Must be properly maintained in accordance with USACE standards. • Must have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio, meaning that the annual benefit must exceed the total annualized cost of rehabilitation, including maintenance. Federal Levee rehabilitation is performed at 100% Federal cost, and non-Federal levee rehabilitation is performed at 80% Federal cost, and 20% public sponsor cost.

Advance Measures Advance Measures assistance may be technical and/or direct assistance. Direct assistance may only be provided as part of an approved Advance Measures project. Advance Measures will be in support of state and local ongoing or planned efforts, and are designed to deal with a specific threat. All activities will be coordinated with the State Emergency Management Agency or equivalent. A written request from the Governor of the requesting state is required in order to receive Advance Measure assistance. Both technical and direct assistance are defined below: a. Technical Assistance. Technical assistance consists of providing technical review, advice, and/or recommendations to state and local agencies before an anticipated flood event. The following are examples of technical assistance support: (1) Providing personnel to inspect existing Flood Control Works (FCW) to identify potential problems and solutions, to evaluate conditions to determine the requirements for additional flood control protection, and to recommend the most expedient construction methods. (2) Providing hydraulic, hydrologic, and/or geotechnical analysis. (3) Providing information readily available at USACE districts to local entities for use in the preparation of local evacuation and/or contingency flood plans, and providing assistance in the preparation of flood fight plans. b. Direct Assistance. Direct assistance is assistance USACE provides to supplement state and local resources, as part of an approved Advance Measures project. Direct Assistance may include supplies, equipment, and/or contracting for the construction of temporary and/or permanent flood control projects. Examples of emergency contracting work include the construction of temporary levees; the repair, strengthening, or temporary raising of levees, or other FCW; shore protection projects; or removal of stream obstructions, to include channel dredging of Federal projects to restore the design flow. c. Contingency Planning Efforts for Potential Advance Measures Activities. Occasionally weather phenomena occur which produce a much higher than normal probability or threat of flooding which may be predicted several months in advance of occurrence or significant impact,

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 2 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District but which may not reach the defined level of "imminent threat" or "unusual flooding". Impacts on specific locations may be unpredictable, but regional impacts may have a high likelihood of occurrence. In such situations, the Corps may provide technical and contingency planning assistance to tribal and state agencies, commensurate with the predicted weather phenomenon, based on requests for assistance from such tribal and State agencies. Based on a state-level request, assistance may also be provided to local agencies. A Governor's request is not required for contingency planning efforts. Potential Advance Measures projects that may emanate from such contingency planning assistance must be addressed as otherwise specified in ER 500-1-1, Chapter 7.

Programmatic Environmental Assessment This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) provides the necessary information to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of NWO’s PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation program and Advance Measure responses as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321 et seq.); the President’s Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 – 1508) (CEQ, 1992); the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ER 200-2-2 (33 CFR 230) (USACE, 2008); the Army Regulation 500-60, Disaster Relief; and Engineer Regulation 1130-2-530, Flood Control Operations and Maintenance Policies.

To date, NWO has completed its’ NEPA compliance for PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation and Advance Measures projects on a project by project basis, because each project provided independent utility. However, given the number of recent levee rehabilitation and Advance Measures flood preparedness projects as a result of the 2011 flooding, it was decided that a more comprehensive analysis would be more appropriate for NEPA compliance purposes. A programmatic approach was adopted as the most efficient manner to describe and evaluate levee rehabilitation and Advance Measures projects which share a strong similarity in terms of construction methods and likely environmental impacts. These projects can be characterized in a general (or programmatic) nature based on the observed and anticipated environmental impacts associated with past efforts in 2009 and 2010. This Programmatic EA covers future levee rehabilitation efforts that result from flood damage incurred from 2011 through 2016, as well as advanced flood preparedness over the same time frame. Individual projects would be evaluated to determine if their scope and impacts are within the scope and impact analysis of this programmatic document.

This Programmatic EA establishes a framework for evaluating potential impacts to resources that may occur from site-specific activities during levee repair projects. A Tiered EA will be prepared describing the environmental consequences for individual, site-specific projects. Documentation, at a minimum, will indicate that an environmental and cultural review was completed, that the conditions described in this Programmatic EA have been met, and that an evaluation was completed to determine if compensatory mitigation would be required (Appendix V). Proposed project activities must be in compliance with Federal and state laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, Executive Orders, and any other laws or regulations applicable to the proposed project.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 3 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Additional analysis to be included with the Tiered EA may be required if site-specific activities could result in adverse impacts not previously evaluated or anticipated, or not consistent with this Programmatic EA. Subsequent documentation will need to define the potential degree of impact to the resource and the measures to be taken to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Coordination with the appropriate Federal and/or state agencies may be necessary if additional alternatives or measures are needed to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate for adverse impacts to a specific resource. The proposed project must be in compliance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Areas that may require additional analysis include: 1. Alternatives that do not follow the guidelines presented in the Standard of Practice (SOP) for the Selection of Borrow Sites; 2. Alternatives that do not meet the work description or conditions of the appropriate General Permit or an applicable Nationwide Permit, and would need a project specific Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization; 3. Alternatives that may adversely affect any threatened or endangered species, including their critical habitat; or 4. Other circumstances as described in Section 4, Environmental Consequences.

In addition to this Programmatic EA for PL 84-99 levee repairs and Advance Measures, there is also a Programmatic EA for the Mainstem Missouri River Corps Projects, and a Programmatic EA for the PL 84-99 levee repairs in the Kansas City District. Individual Project Information Reports and Tiered EA’s are/will be completed for individual projects that fall under the two Omaha District Programmatic EAs and will be made available for public and resource agency review at: http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/pd-e/environmental.html. In addition, the potential effects of repairs to existing Missouri River Recovery Program projects, such as shallow water habitat or chute projects have already been assessed in the original Environmental Assessments developed for each of these projects. If repairs are pursued on such projects, the original coverage would likely apply. However, existing conditions and potential impacts would be assessed and any new information would be covered in a supplemental NEPA document, as required.

1.1 Purpose and Need for Action

Purpose: The purpose of the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program and Advance Measures Civil Emergency Management Program is to provide emergency assistance to levee districts and communities (project Sponsors) in the form of levee repair and/or flood damage reduction as directed by Congress (33 U.S.C. 701n). This program is described in detail in ER 500-1-1 (USACE, 2001).

Need: In 2011, heavy spring rains combined with higher than normal snow melt within the Missouri River Basin resulted in flows and reservoir releases of historic proportions and flooding along the Missouri River and many of its tributaries throughout Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri (USACE, 2011). These record flows caused damage to multiple levees and created conditions where loss of property and human life was

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 4 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

imminent. In anticipation of the numerous requests expected for levee rehabilitation, this Programmatic EA is intended to establish a framework for evaluating potential impacts to resources that may occur from site-specific activities during levee repair projects, helping to streamline the environmental review and documentation process for levee repairs under the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program.

1.2 Project Location

The Omaha District covers a wide geographic area and includes the states of Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming (Appendix I, Figure1). There are many levees throughout NWO that are enrolled in its PL 84-99 program. Currently, there are 15 non-Federal levees and 166 Federal levees, within the Omaha District that are eligible in the program. Of those, 71 levees (39%) protect agricultural lands while 110 levees (61%) protect urban areas. A “non-Federal levee” is a levee that was not designed, built, nor managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; however, some of these levees are approved under Public Law 84-99. Other private levees within the Omaha District have been constructed by individual landowners, but are not recorded by the Corps or within the dictates of PL 84-99. The Programmatic EA would be used to address all levees in the Omaha District boundary that are eligible for rehabilitation under the PL 84-99 program. As shown in Table 1, Nebraska and Iowa have the greatest number of levees within the boundaries of the Omaha District, with substantially fewer levees located in other states.

Table 1. Total Federal and Non-Federal Levees by State within the Omaha District (2011)

State Total Number Levee Type Federal Non-Federal Ag Urban Iowa 59 40 19 58 1 Missouri 14 12 2 14 --

Montana 9 -- 9 9 --

North Dakota 5 -- 5 5 -- Nebraska 78 19 59 64 14 South Dakota 13 -- 13 13 -- Wyoming 3 -- 3 3 --

TOTAL 181 71 110 166 15

2.0 Recommended Plan and Alternatives Proposed

The alternatives evaluated in this EA are not inclusive of every potential alternative, but include the most common structural repairs based on past experience, as well as non-structural methods. A total of four alternatives for the PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation program were evaluated in terms of individual and cumulative effects and are addressed below. The structural alternative includes

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 5 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

the two most common structural methods for levee repair, minor levee setback and in-place repair. These structural methods are discussed as one alternative.

2.1 PL 84-99 Alternative 1 – “No-Action” Alternative: The “No-Action” alternative would result in no levee repair assistance from NWO’s PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation program. Selection of the “No Action” alternative is expected to result in a “predictable action by others” as discussed in CEQ (1981). This “predicable action” would consist of the public sponsor repairing the levee without assistance through the PL 84-99 program. The Corps believes that it is not unreasonable to assume that private entities would work toward rehabilitation of levees in most cases. It is almost always in the sponsor’s best economic interest to repair levees, with or without assistance through the PL 84-99 program, because of the value of the farmland and/or infrastructure that the levees protect. In addition, the need to protect life, as well as the resiliency historically displayed by the American people when faced with disaster provide further reasoning as to why repairs would occur in the absence of assistance from the PL 84-99 program. It is understood though that in some cases, levees may not be repaired due to lack of funds or other reasons resulting in increased flood risk.

2.2 PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: Levees provide flood risk management by containing, controlling, or diverting flood waters for flows up to a certain amount. This alternative would repair both damaged non-Federal and Federal levees after high flow events under PL 84-99. Repairs would be limited to restoring the same level of flood risk management to the area that existed prior to any high flow damage.

Structural repairs typically consist of in-place repairs and/or minor levee setbacks. Examples of levee damage that would typically be repaired along the existing alignment include lost protective vegetative cover, side wash, slope and/or toe failures, erosion along the slope and/or toe, damaged drainage structures, minor scour holes, and minor breaches. Major damages can result when a levee is breached or overtopped. Levee setbacks, or reconstructing the levee landward on a new alignment, are typically used in locations that have been subject to excessive damage, such as large-scale erosion of the levee and large scour holes. It would not be considered technically feasible to repair a levee within the existing alignment if damage would be probable at that location during future flood events. In these situations, levee realignment would be the preferred repair method. Often, it is more economical to realign a levee when there is major damage located along the existing alignment. Damaged areas with substantial foundation scour, generally greater than 10 feet in depth, would often be repaired along a new alignment. This is because filling the scour would take more earthen material than it would to realign the levee in a new location. Heavy equipment would be used to obtain, move, shape, and compact earthen materials in order to set the levee back. Earthen materials for this purpose may be obtained from previously used borrow sites, new borrow sites (that would require Section 106 cultural resource clearance), commercial sites, the Missouri River, the Missouri River floodplain or silted-in Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) fish and wildlife mitigation sites such as side channels, backwaters, or wetlands. In areas along the Missouri River that are too wet to access with land based equipment, hydraulic dredges may be used to obtain borrow material from the floodplain or the Missouri River channel. If dredges are used,

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 6 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District they will access the borrow areas from the Missouri River. Borrow locations will be selected in accordance with NWO’s SOP for the Selection of Borrow Sites (Appendix IV). The levee would then be reseeded following construction to minimize soil erosion. Levee setbacks constructed on new alignment often benefit the environment by returning small portions of land to the floodplain. All levee rehabilitation projects under this alternative would undergo environmental and cultural resources reviews, an engineering review, and an economic benefit to cost analysis to determine the most acceptable repair method.

Dredging activities may be needed to obtain borrow material from silted-in Missouri River BSNP fish and wildlife mitigation sites (e.g., side channels, chutes) or the adjacent floodplains to be used for levee repairs. Dredges would access the borrow areas from the Missouri River. Main channel areas will be avoided. Dredging could directly affect adult and juvenile pallid sturgeon, and there is the possibility that take of pallid sturgeon could result as a result of dredging. However, dredging is temporary activity, and only anticipated to occur within shallow, silted in side channel areas (in order to reestablish shallow water habitat that was previously established under the recovery program) and within the floodplain. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be minimal, and no take is anticipated. Dredging from the main channel of the Missouri River is considered to be outside the scope of this BA and its associated PEA. Coordination with the USFWS would take place on a case-by-case basis for proposed levee repair projects that would require dredging activities. Tiered or additional site-specific NEPA documentation would be prepared and measures/recommendations would to be taken to avoid or minimize impacts to aquatic resources.

2.3 PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Under this alternative, flood risk management would be provided by modifying structures and property to reduce damages during flood events. Examples of non-structural responses include relocating structures, buyouts of buildings and property, elevating structures, and providing ring levees around individual structures. Levee setbacks undertaken for the purpose of restoring the floodplain or floodway would also fit into the nonstructural category. The majority of developed areas are protected by urban levees, which are highly engineered and provide a much higher level of flood risk management compared to agricultural levees. Most of the levees (61%) in NWO’s PL 84-99 program protect urban areas. The most practical non-structural solutions would likely include levee setbacks to restore floodplain connectivity and enhance ecological functions, and property buyouts (i.e., land acquisition). Borrow for levee setbacks would be obtained from the old levee alignment, and if additional material is needed, borrow sites would be selected using the existing SOP for borrow sites. Through the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program, non- structural options to levee repair must be requested in writing by the project sponsor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have the authority to require a non-structural option.

A levee sponsor may request up to an equal amount of Federal funding that would have been authorized for a structural repair of their levee, and apply it towards a one-time, non-structural response that restores - floodplain riverward of the levee. The Corps, in cooperation with the States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), has authorization to acquire flood damaged or frequently flooded lands from willing sellers along the Missouri River. Once a non-

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 7 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

structural option has been implemented, the USACE would not provide any flood-related assistance within the formerly protected area, except for rescue operations. One of the principal purposes of providing a non-structural option would be to reduce future flood damages and associated repair costs. In addition, the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Wetlands Reserve Program and other Department of Agriculture easement programs may also provide land use alternatives less vulnerable to damage by flooding. These two programs provide an option to interested landowners.

2.4 PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would provide the greatest flexibility to repair levees and would include both structural levee repairs and non-structural responses to levee damage. Structural repairs would include both setback and in-place levee repair actions. Non-structural responses would include relocating structures, elevating structures, acquisition and buyout of properties, and levee setbacks for purposes of restoring the floodplain and floodway as funding allows. The USACE would coordinate PL 84-99 levee rehabilitation efforts with other programs (e.g., Missouri River Recovery Program, Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan, etc.) so all feasible alternatives are considered. This alternative was selected as the Recommended Plan because it would best meet the technical, economic, and environmental objectives and provides flexibility to utilize the most appropriate method on a case-by-case basis.

Unless a non-structural option was requested by the public sponsor, each non-Federal levee would be repaired either within the existing alignment or along a new alignment based on what was most technically feasible and cost effective for that particular damaged area. Federal levees would also be repaired either within the existing alignment or along a new alignment depending on what is most economical. Any realignment of a Federal levee outside of the PL 84-99 repair would need to be approved by the Chief of Engineers as described in 33 U.S.C. 408, “Taking possession of, use of, or injury to harbor or river improvements”.

Habitat restoration is recognized as being a significant benefit that can be achieved with non- structural options and landward levee realignments. However, as described in ER 500-1-1, habitat restoration cannot be considered as a principal purpose for either non-structural options or landward levee realignment through the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program. USACE may utilize an Interagency Levee Task Force following major flood events to coordinate levee repairs with other Federal agencies that can offer levee sponsors non-structural options, or other opportunities to benefit fish and wildlife beyond those available through the PL 84-99 program.

Advance Measures Alternatives Advance measures are performed prior to flooding or flood fighting activities to protect against loss of life and significant damages to urban areas and/or public facilities. Advance measure assistance may be taken prior to a flood. An imminent threat of unusual flooding must exist to justify Advance Measures assistance from USACE. The threat must be established either by the National Weather Service or USACE determination of unusual flooding from adverse conditions. The threat must be such that substantial damages will be incurred if preventative/ protective

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 8 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

actions are not taken prior to the forecasted event. Further details on Advance Measures may be found under the Introduction section of this document.

A total of two alternatives for the Advance Measures program were evaluated in terms of individual and cumulative effects and are addressed below. The structural alternative includes the three most common structural methods for Advance Measures: Hesco Bastions, sandbags, and temporary low-lying earthen embankments. These methods are discussed as one alternative.

2.5 Advance Measures Alternative 1 – “No-Action” Alternative: Under the No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Given the small amount of warning time preceding the potential flood event, these entities would not likely be in a position to successfully complete engineering and design work for the temporary flood management measures. Flood fight measures would then likely consist of making sandbag materials available to local residents who would in turn be responsible for filling, placement, and protection. Additionally, flood proofing of infrastructure likely would be preformed. The various entities would not likely be in a position to handle large flood events.

2.6 Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Based on flood risk management prevention assessments by the Omaha District, the preferred alternative consists of a combination of low-lying earthen embankments, sandbag structures, and/or innovative flood fight structures (e.g., Hesco Bastions) to minimize potential flood damages. A single course of action is developed due to the emergency nature of the proposed projects. The Advance Measures are generally placed in locations where ‘voids’ in the existing flood management structures occur and are removed once the high flow event has passed.

The ability to place earthen levees in all locations may be restricted due to constructability and limited available space. There may be other infrastructure outside of the areas protected by flood control structures that may require flood fight assistance. In these instances, the Omaha District will provide the entities with flood fight and flood proofing techniques to be disseminated to the affected residents.

This alternative was selected as the Recommended Plan because it would best meet the technical, economic, and environmental objectives and provides flexibility to utilize the most appropriate method on a case-by-case basis.

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Impacts)

Missouri River Basin General Characteristics The Missouri River is the longest river in the United States, extending 2,321 miles from Three Forks, Montana where the Jefferson, Madison and Gallatin Rivers converge in southwestern Montana, near the town of Three Forks. The river flows generally east and south to join the Mississippi River just upstream from St. Louis, Missouri. The Missouri River basin has a total drainage area of approximately 530,000 square miles in 10 states and part of Canada. Figure-1,

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 9 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Appendix A shows a map depicting the shape of the Missouri River basin and identifies the location of the six Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System (System) dams: Fort Peck, Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point, including the major streams and tributaries.

The Missouri River basin’s total land area in the United States totals about 328 million acres. Agriculture accounts for 95 percent of this area, while the remainder is devoted to recreation, fish and wildlife, transportation, and urban uses. According to the 1990 census information, approximately 12 million people live in the Missouri River basin. The basin is primarily rural but contains several large population urban centers and medium sized cities. Many of the larger cities are located on the Missouri River (USACE, 2003).

Periodic flooding in the Missouri River basin is a regular occurrence. Ice jams, snowmelt, and intense rainfall are all causes of floods which have occurred historically on the Missouri River. The Missouri River has overflowed its banks nearly every year, and major floods were recorded in 1844, 1881, 1903, 1926, 1934, 1943, 1951, 1952, 1993, and 1997. The previous flood of record occurred in April, 1952, but was surpassed by record high flows which occurred during the spring and summer of 2011.

Federal levee construction, in accordance with the 1941 and 1944 Flood Control Acts, was started in 1947. Currently, the total length of levees along the Missouri River downstream of Gavins Point dam to Rulo, NE is approximately 240 miles. The whole system of Federal levees is constructed in individual units. Older levees were built of semi-compacted earth fill with a top width of 10 feet, side slopes of 1 on 3, and a freeboard of 2 to 3 feet above the water surface of the design flood. New construction of the levees remains similar, but the design is based on risk analysis at a 90 percent confidence level. Landside berms or seepage wells are provided where foundation conditions require such measures. Drainage structures extend through the levees to provide adequate internal drainage. At the end of 2001, 29 Federal units were either constructed or under construction. With the exception of two units between Kansas City and Boonville, Missouri, all Federal levees now constructed are in the reach located between Omaha and Kansas City. Based on GIS calculations approximate to Gavin’s Point 150,000 cfs release event, it is estimated that approximately 358,125 acres of Missouri River floodplain exist along the river in Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri, with approximately 220,730 acres (62%) contained within the Federal levee system.

Levee projects for the protection of large urban areas along the Missouri River in the Omaha District have been constructed at Omaha and Council Bluffs, Iowa. These projects are designed to operate in conjunction with the System and tributary reservoirs to prevent flooding of these localities from the most severe flood events of record. Design discharge of the Omaha-Council Bluffs project is 250,000 cfs. In addition, railroads, highways, bridges, and municipal developments within the floodplain increase the necessity for adequate flood protection in the non-urban Missouri River bottom areas. Local interests have built many miles of levees, comprising over 500 non-Federal levee units through this reach of the river. Most of these levees

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 10 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

provide protection during the majority of events, but are inadequate to withstand major floods (USACE, 2003).

Levees can fail as a result of damage to the levee itself, or if the foundation on which the levee is constructed fails. There are numerous failure mechanisms that result in the breaching of earthen levees and the flooding of protected areas. The principle causes of levee failures, as identified by EM 1110-2-1913: Design and Construction of Levees, includes overtopping, surface erosion, internal erosion (piping), and slides within the levee embankment or the foundation soils. In addition, there are locations along the Missouri River where the levee is located close to the river, narrowing the floodway and creating a constriction (or “pinch point”) during high flow events. Areas that create “pinch points” are currently being identified and analyzed as part of a 2011 Post-Flood Basin Impact Assessment in order to identify system level effects of levees, and associated benefits that could come from non-structural setbacks at specific locations.

Missouri River Recovery Efforts Many of the rivers within the NWO’s boundaries have been altered by human activities for nearly 200 years. These activities have included land use changes, bank stabilization, channelization, and levee construction. Much of the conversion of riparian habitat to agriculture lands occurred prior to construction of levees. In 1912, the USACE started constructing the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) which channelized and stabilized the Missouri River. It is estimated that 522,000 acres of aquatic and terrestrial habitat was lost in and along the Missouri River, between 1912 and 2003, due to the construction and operation of the BSNP (USACE, 1981). Additionally, many of the Missouri River tributaries were altered by human activities for the same reasons stated above.

In 1989, formal consultation was initiated by the Corps with the USFWS regarding operation of the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System. This consultation resulted in the 2000 and 2003 Amended Biological Opinion on the Operation of the Missouri River Main Stem System, Operation and Maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and Operation of the Kansas River Reservoir System. The USFWS determined that the Corps’ action would jeopardize the continued existence of the least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon. The USFWS provided the Corps a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) that, if accomplished, would likely avoid jeopardizing these species. Implementation efforts in response to the RPA from 2004-2010, resulted in completed and planned construction of 847 acres of emergent sandbar habitat to provide nesting habitat for the endangered least tern and threatened piping plover; construction of an estimated 3,443 acres of shallow water habitat for the endangered pallid sturgeon, and the finalization of a cottonwood management program for the regeneration of cottonwoods and the protection of the remaining cottonwood forest along the entire Missouri River with a focus on several high priority segments located between Garrison Dam and Kansas City, Missouri that were identified in the Biological Opinion.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 11 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Analysis of Environmental Impacts This section identifies the resources potentially affected by the proposed levee repair alternatives and activities described in Section 2.0. In describing and analyzing affected resources and environmental consequences, this section identifies current mitigation measures such as Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are integral to the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of identified resources due to site-specific activities. Resources that were considered, but not carried forward because no adverse impacts were identified or would have no effect on decision-making included: Climate and Meteorology (no measureable affect would occur from the proposed project), Hazardous Waste (these areas would always be avoided), and Transportation (no permanent affects to infrastructure or use).

Primary resources of concern identified during this Programmatic EA included: noise, air quality, water quality, wetlands, terrestrial habitat, fish and wildlife, threatened and endangered species, invasive species, floodplain, land use, economics, and cultural resources. The following discussion of impacts focuses on the most common structural repairs considered by the NWO under the PL 84-99 program; levee setbacks and in-place levee repairs. The discussion also focuses on the most common Advance Measures Responses; Hesco Bastions, sand bags, and low-lying earthen embankments. Current USACE construction guidelines for structural repairs of PL 84-99 levees and Advance Measures responses have been developed to avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts to the environment to the greatest extent practicable, and where possible, take advantage of borrow acquisition activities to enhance the ecosystem overall.

The impacts of future levee repairs and Advance Measures responses would be examined on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws. In all cases, BMPs would be implemented to reduce construction impacts. Practices would consist of operation of construction equipment during normal daylight hours and no idling of construction equipment when not in use to reduce noise impacts and reduce particulate matter, watering or mulching stock-piled materials to reduce wind-blown dust and particulates, use of silt fences to reduce sediment from entering area rivers and streams, washing construction equipment to prevent spread of noxious materials, maintaining construction equipment to prevent oil and other fluid leaks, and storing all potential hazardous materials (gasoline, hydraulic fluids, etc.) in upland areas and confined within berms to contain spills and prevent impacts to the surrounding environment. In addition, the SOP for Selection of Borrow Sites is to be used as a guideline in meeting the criteria set for determining appropriate borrows areas for levee repairs.

3.1 Noise

Noise is defined as unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities or in some way reduces the quality of the environment. Across the proposed project area, the magnitude and frequency of ambient noise varies considerably depending on the amount of development in a given area. In agricultural areas, which are typically open, noise may carry for some distance. Noise sources in agricultural areas are predominantly natural and include: wind, weather, and wildlife sounds. Traffic from highways and other roadways also are a common source of background noise. Seasonally, noise produced from farming activities create levels of noise similar to the types of

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 12 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

noises that might be produced by land moving activities associated with the proposed project. Noise impacts from the proposed project would be considered short term. Construction noise stemming from levee repairs or Advance Measures would be similar to noise generated from agricultural activities, although the daily duration likely would be longer.

In urban areas, most noise comes from transportation, construction, industrial, and human sources. Road traffic is the major source of noise. The most noise sensitive areas associated with levee repairs would include parks, recreational areas, and business associated with the river. Areas with a high sensitivity to noise, such as residences, schools and day care facilities, hospitals, places of worship, libraries, etc. are not usually directly adjacent to levee areas but they do occasionally occur adjacent to one another. Construction noise in urban areas is not atypical. Although construction will be short term, special consideration will need to be given to areas where construction may take place in noise sensitive areas. Considerations as to timing of construction would be considered where appropriate. This may include, but would not be limited to, limiting construction during certain times of day when noise may be more compatible with surrounding land use, or limiting construction to certain seasons where noise impacts to sensitive species might be an issue.

Sources of noise in or around areas further removed from urban development may include recreational boating, hunting, and other human activities (e.g., ATV’s). Noise from construction and movement of vehicles and workers may cause disturbance and temporary displacement of some wildlife and bird species; however, potential noise impacts would be of short duration, intermittent, and would occur in formerly disturbed areas (i.e., initial construction of the levee).

Isolated and more remote areas have a greater potential to contain desirable habitat for threatened and endangered species (e.g., less human disturbance), such as the least tern and piping plover, which utilize sandbars on the Missouri River, and to some extent, its tributaries (e.g., Niobrara). Preconstruction surveys may be required to determine if Federal and/or state listed threatened or endangered species or species of concern are found to be present in the project vicinity, including any staging or borrow areas. Please refer to the Biological Assessment in Appendix VI for a listing of threatened and endangered species that could potentially be located in the area of the proposed levee repair. Measures would be implemented if a determination is made that noise generated from construction activities may affect a listed species. Measures recommended by the USFWS to minimize noise impacts to listed species may include an appropriate buffer area around existing habitat, seasonal restrictions during nesting, or access restrictions. Construction- related displacement would be a short-term effect since activity and noise levels would return to normal upon the completion o construction.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: In the “No Action” Alternative, no noise would be produced in the project area as a result of a Federal activity. However, the local levee and drainage districts would likely repair the levees through other means because it is almost always in their best economic interest. This would result in the potential for minor, temporary construction related noise. BMPs to reduce noise may or may not be implemented so an increase in noise could occur.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 13 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would result in minor short term construction related noise impacts. These impacts would result from the operation of heavy machinery during project construction. These noise levels would be in addition, but similar to, noise produced by urban or agricultural activities which routinely occur in the project areas. There is a remote chance that the noise from project construction could disturb the occasional boater on nearby drainages or persons participating in outdoor recreation on lands in the project areas

BMPs, such as not idling machinery when not in use, conducting work during normal business hours, etc., would be implemented throughout the project to reduce noise when in noise-sensitive areas. Measures recommended by the USFWS or state game and wildlife agencies to minimize noise impacts to a listed species would be incorporated if necessary. As such, the noise produced by any of the proposed projects is not expected to be significant.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Most non-structural responses would produce some minor and temporary noise. This noise would be similar to everyday rural activities (house repairs, moving trucks, minor construction) and would be conducted during normal business hours when in noise-sensitive areas. Thus, noise generated from this alternative would not be considered significant. Conversion of agricultural lands to natural habitat would result in no agricultural equipment being used which would provide a peaceful environment for native and migratory species to feed, breed, and shelter. This, in turn, would have a beneficial impact to the environment.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would result in minor, temporary, construction-related noise. However, these impacts would be minimized to the greatest extent possible by the implementation of BMPs (as stated above) and/or additional measures recommended by USFWS or a state agency; thus, they would not be considered significant.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Minor noise related impacts would occur during mobilization of flood-prevention materials, such as sandbags. This noise would be temporary and would not be considered significant.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Under this alternative, minor increases in noise would occur at the project sites during the placement and removal of Advance measure responses. The expected increases in noise would be considered minor and temporary. Therefore, the expected increases in noise levels from this alternative would not be considered significant.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 14 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

3.2 Air Quality

This resource is considered institutionally important because of the Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended. Air quality is technically important because of the status of regional ambient air quality in relation to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. It is publicly important because of the desire for clean air expressed by virtually all citizens.

In accordance with the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pollutants considered harmful to the environment and public health. The six principal pollutants, also known as “criteria” pollutants, are: ozone, lead, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Counties where the levels of a particular pollutant exceed EPA standards are deemed ‘non-attainment counties’.

The states of Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota have no non-attainment counties, meaning that air quality is good throughout each state. The state of Missouri has four non- attainment counties where proposed projects may occur: St. Charles County is in non-attainment for Particulate Matter – 2.5 micrometers in size and Ozone (8-hour); Jefferson County is in non- attainment for Particulate Matter – 2.5 micrometers in size, Ozone (8 hour), and lead; Franklin County and St. Louis County are in non-attainment for Ozone (8 hour). The state of Montana has four non-attainment counties where proposed projects may occur: Rosebud County and Missoula County are in non-attainment for Particulate Matter – 10 micrometers in size (PM-10), and Yellowstone County and Lewis & Clark County are in non-attainment for sulfur dioxide. The state of Wyoming has one non-attainment county where proposed projects may occur: Sheridan County is in non-attainment for PM-.

PM-10 includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as construction activity and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or the transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and Volatile Organic Compounds are also considered particulate matter. PM exposure can affect breathing, aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alter the body's defense systems against foreign materials, and damage lung tissue, contributing to cancer and premature death. Individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, asthmatics, the elderly and children are most sensitive to the effects of PM.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: In the “No Action” Alternative with the absence of the Federal action addressing levee improvements, no adverse air quality impacts would be produced in the project area. However, the local levee and drainage districts would likely repair the levees through other means because it is almost always in their best economic interest. This would result in the potential for minor, temporary construction related air impacts similar to agricultural activities. If not conducted as part of a Federal project, it is possible that management measures to reduce impacts to air quality would not be implemented. This could contribute to higher levels of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide than is necessary, exacerbating air quality in counties where these pollutants are already in a non-attainment status.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 15 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would result in minor short term construction related contributions to PM-10. PM-10 contributions would result from the operation of heavy machinery, increases in dust in the project area during construction operations, and wind-blown particles stemming from stock-piled construction materials. The increase in PM-10 levels would be in addition, but similar, to that produced by activity which occurs in the project area. There is a remote chance that the increase in PM-10 from project construction would adversely affect individuals sensitive to air-borne particles or persons with breathing disabilities. BMPs to minimize PM-10 particles would be employed during construction activities. These techniques may include, but would not be limited to, wetting the construction area to minimize dust, avoiding idling of construction machinery when not performing needed tasks, and covering or mulching staging areas during or following construction activities. With these minimization techniques in place, the temporary construction related impacts to air quality are not expected to be significant.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: During construction, most non-structural responses would produce some minor and temporary air quality impacts. These impacts would be similar to everyday activities (minor construction, mobilization of automobiles). Thus, air quality impacts generated from this alternative would not be considered significant. In instances where a conversion of agricultural lands to a more natural setting would occur (e.g., easements that restore wetlands or buyouts that convert habitat from agriculture to a more natural setting), air quality would locally improve.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would result in minor, temporary, construction-related air quality impacts. However, these impacts would be minimized to the greatest extent possible by the implementation of BMPs (as stated in Alternative 2); thus, they would not be considered significant.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Minor air quality impacts would occur during mobilization of flood-prevention materials, such as sandbags and construction equipment. It is possible that management measures to reduce impacts to air quality would not be implemented, and thus could contribute to higher levels of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide than is necessary, exacerbating air quality in counties where these pollutants are already in a non-attainment status.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Under this alternative, impacts to air quality similar to those under the structural alternative would occur at project sites during the placement of Advance measure responses. However, similar BMPs would be implemented; therefore, the expected increases in air quality impacts would be considered minor and temporary. Impacts to air quality from this alternative would not be considered significant.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 16 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

3.3 Water Quality

This resource is institutionally important, and as such is regulated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act). The objective of this act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters by preventing point and non-point pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands. Water quality is technically important because of the need for a reliable drinking water supply, for swimming and recreating, for fish and shellfish consumption, for adequate agricultural supply, and for habitat for fish and wildlife. It is publicly important because of the desire for clean water expressed by virtually all citizens.

In determining water quality, one looks at how the beneficial uses of a particular water body are affected by pollution from point and non-point sources. Beneficial uses include such things as water supply for domestic and industrial purposes, propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life, recreation in and on the waters including the safe consumption of fish and shellfish, livestock watering and irrigation, navigation, generation of power, propagation and maintenance of wildlife, and the enjoyment of scenic and aesthetic qualities of waters. Differences in geology and land use also affect the hydrology and water quality of the particular water body. There is great variety in the geology and land use throughout the proposed project area, as well as great variety in point and non-point sources of pollution. As a result, water quality throughout the proposed project area ranges from somewhat pristine to greatly degraded depending on where the body of water is located. It would be exhaustive to describe the water quality of each individual water body within the proposed project area in this environmental assessment. However, it is important to know the quality of the water at each project site in order to determine any potential affects that may arise from the proposed projects. The USEPA has delegated authority to the states to assess causes of impaired water quality.

Each individual state has jurisdiction for managing water quality in its respective state. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters for which existing required pollution controls are not stringent enough to meet state water quality standards. States are required to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for these waters (40 CFR 130.7). Water quality impairments vary widely from state to state and from watershed to watershed. Generally, water quality deteriorates progressing downstream from headwaters to confluences with other water bodies due to pollution entering the system from tributaries and point and non- point sources. The USEPA maintains and reports a National Summary of impaired waters and TMDL information for each state. Please refer to the following website to obtain site-specific information on the water body of interest included in the proposed project area of concern: http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state

Chemical properties of the Missouri River water and its tributaries influence the presence, health, and survival of aquatic species (e.g., aquatic plants, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates). These chemical properties include nutrients, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 17 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District pollutants. The chemical and physical characteristics of the water within the Missouri River influence the reproduction, growth and survival of aquatic fauna and flora. Water chemistry impacts not only the mainstem river channel but also any backwater, secondary channel, or floodplain habitat that is hydrologically connected to the river through surface flows. All chemical parameters (nutrients, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and pollutants) generally range from less to more altered in a downstream direction. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and pollutants have increased, and dissolved oxygen and turbidity have decreased. Turbidity displays the greatest longitudinal difference, where differences are greatest from the Middle Great Plains and downstream (USACE, 2011).

Because of great diversity of landforms and terrain, sediment loading into the river and its tributaries varies greatly across the basin. The Missouri River historically received eroded sediment from several tributary streams including the Yellowstone, Niobrara, James, Platte, and Kansas rivers. Some of these tributaries drain highly erodible areas (e.g., the Sand Hills) and areas of loess (wind-deposited silt) in northeastern Nebraska and western Iowa (NAS, 2011). The Yellowstone River adds flow and sufficient sediment to the relatively clear water released from Fort Peck Dam, which provides successful reproduction of native fishes such as the pallid sturgeon and the paddlefish (NAS, 2002). In the very upper reaches of the Missouri River (above Fort Peck), turbidity was naturally low and remains within the range of natural conditions (USACE, 2011).

Construction activities could potentially impact water quality in the Missouri River and/or its tributaries by increasing sediment load or contributing pollutants to its waters. Stormwater runoff from construction activities can have a significant impact on water quality, as it can pick up pollutants such as sediment, debris, and chemicals, and transport these to a nearby waterbody (e.g., drainage, river or lake). Eroded soil from construction sites can also be carried to streams and lakes causing an excess in turbidity. This in turn, could potentially impact Federal and state listed threatened and endangered species (e.g., bull trout) that rely upon a less-turbid aquatic environment, as in contrast to the pallid sturgeon, which favors more turbid conditions.

Earthern materials for levee repairs may be obtained from previously used borrow sites, new borrow sites, and commercial sites. Borrow locations will be selected in accordance with NWO’s SOP for the Selection of Borrow Sites (Appendix IV), which provides guidelines to avoid and minimize adverse affects to fish and wildlife and their associated habitats. Borrow material for projects located along the Missouri River may be obtained from silted-in Missouri River BSNP fish and wildlife mitigation sites (e.g., side channels, chutes) or the adjacent floodplains to these sites, if feasible. Collection of accumulated sediment from existing mitigation sites or floodplain would most likely require dredging; however, the increased turbidity associated with bottom sediments being stirred up by the cutter head of the dredge would be temporary and localized. Applicable permits, such as Section 404 of the CWA and/or Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be obtained. General conditions stipulated in these permits would be complied with, thereby minimizing adverse effects on water quality.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 18 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Water quality impacts to aquatic species would be minimized with the implementation of the following measures: applying appropriate BMPs as discussed below for Alternative 2 –Structural Repairs, obtaining the appropriate permits/certifications, and complying with state requirements related to stormwater discharges from construction activities. These measures would limit the amount of erosion and associated pollutants generated from construction activities to less than a significant level and most likely would not cause adverse effects on aquatic species. If in-channel work is required, compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and other state regulations would be met.

If a proposed levee repair project will require dredging activities to obtain borrow material from existing recovery and mitigation projects or the adjacent floodplain, the SOP for Selection of Borrow Sites would be followed. It is anticipated that there would be no adverse effects to water quality as dredging material would be placed on the levee for repair. Dredged material to be used for the levee repair would most likely be placed in a confined upland disposal area at the levee or stockpile area. Return water from the disposal area is considered a discharge of dredged material by 33 CFR 323.2(d), even though the disposal itself occurs on the upland and does not require a section 404 permit. Nationwide Permit 16 for return water from an upland contained disposal area would satisfy the section 404 requirements for this activity. Water quality of return water is controlled by the state through the section 401 certification procedures. An NPDES permit would also be required for the activity. The proposed dredging permits will include special permit conditions to ensure avoidance or minimization of impacts on environmental resources. In addition, elutriate samples would be taken to check for contaminants.

Dredging from the active channel of the Missouri River will be avoided to the extent possible. Dredging in the main channel is outside the scope of this PEA; however, if dredging activities are proposed to occur in the active channel, further assessment and consultation with the USFWS will be required, and an individual Tiered EA prepared.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: In the “No Action” Alternative with the absence of the Federal action addressing levee improvements, a high water event could inundate water treatment plants, residential areas, commercial establishments, and businesses and result in the release of wastes such as raw sewage, nutrients, petroleum products, household chemicals, and a variety of industrial chemicals. An event such as this would substantially impact the natural and human environment within the project area and downstream.

However, the local levee and drainage districts would likely repair the levees through other means to protect valuable infrastructure and prevent non-point source contamination. This would result in the potential for minor, temporary construction related impacts to water quality due to site runoff and increased turbidity. Any construction related increases in turbidity would be unlikely to negatively impact water quality. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 404 and 401 permits may still be needed by the sponsors dependent on how they choose to repair the levees. Obtaining and abiding by the requirements of these permits would avoid any significant impacts to water quality. However, in some instances, the sponsor may unknowingly violate environmental

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 19 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

regulations by failing to obtain permits or have less experience implementing Best Management Practices, which could result in adverse impacts to water quality.

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative may result in potentially minor, temporary, construction-related adverse impacts to water quality resulting from site runoff and increased turbidity during levee repair activities. However, these impacts would be avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent possible by the implementation of BMPs and measures required under the NPDES permit. BMPs would minimize potential adverse sedimentation into aquatic resources during construction and would minimize the introduction of fuel, petroleum products, or other deleterious material from entering the waterway. Such practices may consist of erosion control fences; storing equipment, solid waste, and petroleum products above the ordinary high water mark and away from areas prone to runoff; and requiring that all construction equipment be clean, free of leaks, and refueled in designated areas with containment berms. To prevent fill from reaching water sources by wind or runoff, fill would be covered, stabilized or mulched, and silt fences would be used as required. Either NWO or the on-site contractors would be responsible for obtaining the NPDES permits. All appropriate measures would be taken to minimize erosion and storm water discharges during and after construction. Also, Section 401 state water quality certifications would be obtained for these repairs. As such, impacts to water quality under this alternative would not be considered significant.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Levee setback construction for purposes of restoring the floodplain would have short-term construction impacts similar to those mentioned under the structural alternative. Similar to the structural alternative, construction activities would likely require permits and authorizations to comply with Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act. All other non-structural responses would have no significant adverse impact on water quality and often would have beneficial impacts. Without any construction activities, there would be no construction-related adverse impacts to water quality during levee repair activities. Any conversion of agricultural land to natural habitat may result in some reduction in the application of agricultural chemicals on the floodplain but the relative acreage would likely be minor and any change in the water quality of the river would likely be minimal.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): As this is a combination of alternatives 2 and 3, the impacts are the same as described above. The construction aspects of this alternative may result in potentially minor, temporary, construction-related adverse impacts to water quality resulting from site runoff and increased turbidity during any structural levee repair activities. However, these impacts would be avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent possible by the implementation of BMPs and measures required under the NPDES permit; thus, they would not be considered significant. All non-structural activities would have no significant adverse impact on water quality, and could actually improve water quality if the floodplain is naturalized to some degree through available ecosystem restoration based programs.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 20 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. It is likely that the levee districts would not be able to fully protect their communities from the impending flood. This would likely result in the release of a variety of pollutants associated with urban areas that would substantially impact the natural and human environment within the project area and downstream. Unsuccessful flood fighting would result in adverse impacts to water quality from increased levels of nutrient loading and wastes, such as pollutants associated with industrial sources, waste and water treatment facilities, petroleum products, and household chemicals.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Advance Measures are placed atop existing lines of protection, are placed adjacent to existing lines of protection where low-lying areas occur, or are placed within residential areas away from rivers and streams. Sandbags and sand filled Hesco’s placed atop of, or adjacent to, existing levees could be damaged by flotsam or jetsam within the floodwater and cause a release of sand to the surrounding environment. This could have an adverse effect on water quality depending on the amount of material released.

3.4 Wetlands

Wetland resources are important to the nation, and as such, they are afforded protection under the Clean Water Act of 1977 as amended and Executive Order 11990 of 1977 (Protection of Wetlands). Wetlands and riparian areas are important because they provide habitat for various species of plants, fish, and wildlife; serve as ground water recharge areas; provide storage areas for storm and flood waters; serve as natural water filtration areas; provide protection from wave action, erosion, and storm damage; and provide various consumptive (i.e., not readily available for another use) and non-consumptive (i.e., renewable) recreational opportunities. Wetlands and riparian areas are publicly important because of the high value the public places on the functions and values that these habitats provide.

Generally, wetlands in the project areas primarily consist of freshwater forested/shrub wetlands and freshwater emergent wetlands located in the floodplains of the Missouri River and its tributaries or along the riverside and landside toes of levees where hydrology is favorable. In many cases, as a result of the flooding, water features, such as new channels, have been created on the floodplains where no such features previously occurred. These areas could be considered jurisdictional waters of the United States and could; therefore, be protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). On-site delineations would be conducted in these areas to identify, map, and ensure protection of the resources that fall under protection of Section 404 of the CWA. In other cases, scour holes may have developed at levee breach sites and may or may not be considered wetlands or waters of the United States. Delineations would be conducted to see if they meet the Corps definition of a wetland area (hydric soils, hydric plants, and hydrology of a sufficient frequency or duration) or a water of the United States. Depending on the outcome of conducted delineations, the newly created water features may or may not be protected; however, it is likely

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 21 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

that over time these features would develop plants and soil conditions and, in turn, would be considered jurisdictional.

For each site-specific project, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database would be consulted to determine the type and location of wetlands that occur in the project area of the proposed levee repair. It should be noted, that these maps may no longer be accurate due to the habitat-shaping process associated with high water events. As such, database reviews would be supplemented with post-flood aerial photo interpretations and on-site inspections in order to identify any waters of the U.S. or wetland sites. These steps would provide the information needed to accurately identify wetlands and waters of the United States that occur in the proposed project areas.

Wetlands provide habitat for many species of fish, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, plants, migratory birds, and other wildlife. Filling, draining, or dredging a wetland can cause a loss or shift in the aquatic life/biological diversity such as the vegetation and invertebrate community. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, BMP’s would be implemented to minimize impacts, and mitigation provided for any remaining wetland impacts, if required. BMP’s could include, but not be limited to, avoiding or limiting equipment entry into wetlands to the minimum necessary, applying an appropriate buffer zone, using proper erosion and sedimentation control standards, and replanting of native plant species that favor wetland areas after levee repairs have been completed. Compliance with the requirements to meet water quality standards as stipulated in the NPDES permit would be met. Applying the appropriate BMPs and permit requirements should reduce construction impacts to less than significant. Construction activities could potentially cause injury or mortality to species that utilize wetland areas, such as reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates; however, construction would be confined to a limited area, thereby minimizing impacts to these species. If threatened or endangered species are found to be present in wetlands within the proposed project area, USFWS coordination would be initiated, and measures to reduce direct or indirect impacts to these species incorporated (e.g., timing of construction, access restriction).

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under the “No Action” Alternative, it is likely that the levee and drainage districts would seek to restore their levees back to the extent that they would provide equivalent protection as previously provided. In those scenarios, newly created aquatic features would likely be converted back to agriculture or displaced by the levee footprint. Any wetland fill activities associated with repair of the levee would require a Section 404 permit. If a Federal permit were required, then the same environmental regulations and protections afforded via a Federal project would apply to the private activity, and wetland impacts would be required to be avoided where possible and mitigated if impacts were unavoidable. If the levee isn’t replaced, it is still likely that much of the land would continue to be used for agriculture. As such, many of the aquatic areas created by the high flow event would be restored back to agriculture, resulting in an environment much the same as existed prior to the high flow event. However, in the absence of a levee, the area would experience flooding on a more frequent basis, possibly resulting in a greater amount of wetlands in the floodplain landscape.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 22 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would have no significant adverse impact on wetlands. Wetlands are usually too wet to be used as sources of borrow material for structural repairs or for areas of new levee alignment. Often, depositional material from near the levee erosion site is used as a source of levee material depending on its suitability. These sites are usually old riverward borrow sites that have filled with depositional material from past high river stages or they are areas adjacent to the damaged levee where material eroded away from the levee and has been deposited. These areas have been identified as preferred borrow site locations in NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites. By removing the sediment deposits from these previous borrow sites, wetland habitats that were lost due to flood- related sedimentation are often restored or enhanced. As mentioned above, wetlands often exist at levee toes due to lack of drainage and favorable hydrology. Thus, minor impacts to these wetlands would be expected to occur as a result of incidental fill during levee repair activities; however, it is expected that wetlands would reestablish to the same condition as existed originally, as the hydrology of the sites (poor drainage at the toe of the restored levee) would reestablish to previous conditions. Any placement of fill material or inadvertent entry in wetlands would need to comply with the requirements of Nationwide or Regional General Permits issued by the Corps Regulatory Office in the state where the activity would occur (Appendix III). In implementing project alternatives, the Corps would avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts by adhering to special conditions attached to these permits. Any impacts to wetlands that would be larger in scope than typically covered by a General Permit would fall outside of the scope of this analysis, and would require further consideration and coordination.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural options would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if wetlands would be impacted by the project. If so, CWA Section 404 authorization would need to be obtained by either meeting the conditions of a General Permit or the appropriate Nationwide Permit. Non-structural responses would generally have beneficial impacts to wetlands if they restore floodplain connectivity. Any land acquisition or buy-out of a particular area, as a non-structural response, would likely have beneficial impacts for wetlands as they would reestablish a portion of the floodplain and likely remain undisturbed. By abiding by the conditions of the CWA, this alternative would have no significant impacts on wetlands.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): By applying NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, this alternative would have no significant adverse impacts on wetlands. Minor impacts (incidental fill and/or entry by construction equipment) would likely occur to wetlands adjacent to construction; however, these impacts would not be significant for the reasons described above. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to wetlands would be employed, as required, and use of Nationwide or Regional General Permits for repair of flood damaged structures would be used and any special conditions as part of those permits would be implemented. Additionally, following construction, wetlands would have the opportunity to reestablish just as they have established prior to construction. Beneficial impacts to wetlands would occur in cases of land acquisition or buy-outs for non-structural activities.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 23 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. It is likely that the communities would not be able to fully protect their communities from the impending flood. This would likely result in some recharge of area wetlands and low- lying areas. However, during a flood fight, a greater risk of adverse impacts to wetlands would likely occur because the borrow site selection would not necessarily be in accordance with the NWO’s SOP’s for selection of borrow sites.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Advance Measures by nature are placed in low-lying areas to reduce flood damages. Thus, it is likely that the Advance Measures would be placed within wetland areas. This would have an adverse impact on area wetlands. However, a condition of Advance Measures placement is that they must be removed after the flood event has passed, thus; only temporary impacts would be anticipated. If a site specific situation occurs where fill must be placed in a wetland, the Corps, or its contractor, would coordinate the needed action with the Regulatory Office in that state and establish mitigation as required. Overall, the proposed Advance Measures would not have significant long-term impacts on wetlands.

3.5 Terrestrial Habitat

Terrestrial habitat is institutionally significant and is provided specific attention in Water Resources Development Projects per Section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended. Terrestrial habitat is technically significant because: it provides necessary habitat for a variety of species of plants and wildlife; it often supports a variety of wetland functions and values; it is an important source of commercial products; and it provides various consumptive and non-consumptive recreational opportunities. Terrestrial habitat is publicly significant because of the high priority that the public places on its esthetic, recreational, and commercial value.

The Missouri River Basin contains diverse terrestrial habitat due to its vast size and the varied climatic conditions from its headwaters in Montana (cold and relatively arid) to its confluence with the Mississippi in Missouri (temperate and moist). Water levels and flows within the rivers and tributaries affect abundance, distribution, and composition of terrestrial species. The Missouri River and its floodplain support stands of grasslands, shrubs, and forests. The upper portion of the Missouri River between Fort Peck, Montana, and Ponca, Nebraska encompasses the ponderosa pine, prairie, and plains grassland ecosystems. Cottonwood regeneration along this portion of the Missouri River is restricted due to inundation by large reservoirs and channel incision along the open river reaches which has caused the river to become disconnected from the floodplain. Cottonwood forest along the Upper River currently appears largely restricted to narrow shoreline zones or the upstream end of deltas. The lower portion of the Missouri River between Ponca, Nebraska, and St. Louis, Missouri encompasses the plains grasslands and oak- hickory-maple forest ecosystems. In many instances, native floodplain habitats have been converted to crop land or developed for other uses. This is especially the case in areas where levees have provided protection for development of agriculture and urban uses. Levees

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 24 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District themselves are planted with various species of grass (brome, fescue, and rye) to provide ease-of- maintenance to these facilities. Regular maintenance of the levees ensures that trees and shrubs do not have the opportunity to fully grow or establish. The grasses are regularly mowed in order to better inspect levee conditions.

The mosaic of terrestrial habitat (woodland, grassland, shrubland, prairie, wetland, meadow) found along the Missouri River and its tributaries provide shading, food sources, bank stabilization, habitat diversity, and nesting, roosting, breeding and foraging habitat for many wildlife species. Direct and indirect impacts on Federally and/or state listed threatened and endangered species or species of concern from the removal or damage of terrestrial habitat include, but are not limited to, injury or mortality to a listed species, habitat fragmentation, reduced vegetative cover and increased temperature, an increase in runoff and erosion causing additional sediment to the river or tributary, and introduction of invasive species. Specific consideration with regard to terrestrial species includes a decrease in potential nesting, feeding, and loafing/resting habitat.

It is anticipated that proposed levee repairs would occur in areas previously disturbed by the construction of the original levee; however, construction activities, including borrow and staging areas, would include avoidance of areas that have the potential for a protected or listed species to use (e.g., sage-grouse habitat). Before vegetation removal or tree clearing, preconstruction surveys may be required if activities occur in a documented location where protected or listed species are known to occur, or critical habitat has been designated. Measures to avoid or minimize direct or indirect impacts may include BMPs (e.g., erosion control, replanting with specific seed type), and timing restrictions or buffers around sensitive habitat types and habitat features. If necessary, coordination with the USFWS and appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies would be initiated. A Biological Assessment included in Appendix VI contains a list of threatened and endangered species and their preferred habitat.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under the “No Action” Alternative, it is likely that the levee and drainage districts would seek to restore their levees back to the extent that they would provide previous protection. In those scenarios, grading, scraping and reshaping of the levees by construction equipment would occur and the existing grasses would be disturbed. Additionally, getting equipment to and from the constructions sites, staging materials, and conducting general construction activities could affect small stands of trees or other vegetation adjacent to the levees. Following the repairs, levees, staging areas, and incidental construction roads would be seeded with native vegetation or like species of grasses to prevent the establishment of weedy species, erosion, and/or to provide for ease-of-maintenance. Additionally, if private funds are used, there is a greater risk of adverse impacts to terrestrial vegetation because borrow site selection would not necessarily be in accordance with the NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, and areas may not be properly re-seeded which could result in establishment of undesirable vegetative species. In the event that the levee is not repaired at all, it is likely that much of the land would continue to be used for agriculture, which would prevent growth of any natural species.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 25 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would have minor short-term impacts to terrestrial habitat resulting from land disturbance during construction activities, staging of materials, or access to and from the construction site. As a result of using NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, most of the disturbed terrestrial habitat would be on agricultural land or land adjacent to the levee that has been previously disturbed. Site conditions (e.g., previously disturbed areas) would most likely determine an appropriate staging area, which would be returned to its original state upon completion of construction activities. Often, with levee set-backs, land riverward of the new levee alignment is returned to the floodplain, which could increase the quality of the terrestrial habitat in the area. In implementing project alternatives, the Corps, in consultation with the resource agencies, would avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts that occur to riparian areas.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural activities would have no significant adverse impacts on terrestrial vegetation. Any land acquisition or buy-out of a particular area, as a non-structural response, would likely have beneficial impacts to vegetation as it would reestablish in the area and likely remain protected from human disturbance. Levee setbacks, for the purpose of reconnecting river and floodplain areas would restore some of the natural ecosystem functions. These areas would remain vulnerable to flood disturbance, and any impact to terrestrial vegetation would be considered natural and non-significant.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Through use of NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, this alternative would have no significant adverse impacts on terrestrial habitat. Some short term, minor impacts may result from land disturbance during construction activities, staging areas, or driving to and from the construction areas; however, these areas would be seeded with native species or seed mixtures upon completion of construction activities. Any land acquisition for a non-structural activity would likely have beneficial impacts.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. There would be a greater risk of adverse impacts to terrestrial habitat because the flood fight techniques may not necessarily be removed following the flood event, which would stymie vegetation growth. Additionally, borrow site selection would not necessarily be in accordance with the NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites. Construction areas may also not be properly re-seeded.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Installation of Advance Measures would require some clearing and grubbing of vegetation to prepare areas for Hesco’s, sandbags, and/or low-lying earthen berms. Following the removal of the temporary structures, all areas disturbed by construction related activities would be top soiled and seeded to conditions that existed prior to the proposed Advance Measures project. Because the structures are temporary and the sites would be returned to pre-project conditions, the impacts to vegetation would not be considered significant.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 26 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

3.6 Fish and Wildlife

The Missouri River and its tributaries provide a combination of habitat types that provide feeding, resting and breeding areas for numerous fish and wildlife species. The Missouri River ecosystem creates and maintains important open water, sandbar, wetland, and forest habitat for a wide diversity of wildlife, including 156 species of fish, over 300 bird species, 60 species of mammals and 52 species of reptiles and amphibians (USACE, 2009).

Fish Numerous native and non-native fish are known to exist within the Missouri River and its tributaries; however, impoundment, channelization, degradation, and unnatural hydrologic conditions have changed the fish species composition in many rivers. The Missouri River’s native fish species evolved in environments with high turbidity, swift current, and an unstable sand-silt bottom. Decreases in specialized native big river fishes have been attributed to reductions in suspended sediment and turbidity in the lower Missouri River, including the now federally listed endangered pallid sturgeon, and imperiled paddlefish, blue sucker, and flathead chub (NAS, 2011). Populations of other native river fish, including catfish, sturgeon, and sauger have also declined (USACE, 2009). Non-native species or species not historically abundant in the Missouri River often are more tolerant of altered conditions of temperature, turbidity, and habitat (NAS, 2011), and include fish species such as common carp, rainbow smelt, rainbow trout, bluegill, white crappie, and large/smallmouth bass (Berry, 2004). Reduced turbidity after dam construction coincided with an increased abundance of native sight feeders such as the skipjack herring, walleye, white bass, and grass pickerel (Berry, 2004). Dams and levees built on the Missouri River and its tributaries also affected the ecological function of the associated floodplains by isolating them from the main stem river or stream, and restricting lateral fish passage onto the floodplain for feeding and reproduction (Ickes et al., 2005).

Reptile, Amphibians, and Macroinvertebrates Common reptiles and amphibians most likely to be found in the project areas include, but are not limited to, the common snapping turtle, false map turtle, painted turtle, great plains toad, woodhouses’s toad, western chorus frog, bullfrog, plains garter snake, common garter snake, prairie skink, and tiger salamander. Macroinverterbrates, a primary food base for many fishes, birds, amphibians, and reptiles, are found in abundance in the Missouri River and its tributaries and include insects, mussels, snails, worms and crustaceans (e.g., crayfish).

Mammals The increases in agriculture, along with the effects of bank stabilization and channelization, have reduced the wildlife habitat in the floodplain. However, remnant riparian areas and agricultural fields provide habitat for wildlife adapted to human presence and disturbance. Common mammals that would be expected to inhabit the project areas include gray squirrels, fox squirrels, white-tailed deer, raccoons, opossums, cottontail rabbits, skunks, mink, red foxes, otter, beavers, muskrats, and many other small mammals.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 27 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Birds The Missouri River and its tributaries offer a diverse array of habitats (e.g., woodland, wetland, shrubland) that attract a variety of bird species. Waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, passerines, and raptors are commonly found in the project areas. . The combination of open water, wetlands, and riparian vegetation is particularly important for the large number of waterfowl that stop along the Missouri River during spring and fall migration. Waterfowl use the Missouri River and its tributaries for resting, feeding, and nesting. Common dabbling ducks include mallard, northern shoveler, northern pintail, gadwall, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, wood ducks, and American widgeon. Common species of diving ducks are ring-necked, lesser scaup, ruddy, redhead, common golden-eye, and bufflehead. Other waterfowl in the study area include hooded merganser, common merganser, red-breasted mergansers, Canada geese, snow geese, and white- fronted geese. During migration stops, dabbling ducks and geese rest on islands and sandbars and forage in grain fields, whereas diving ducks use large open water areas for loafing and foraging. Wading birds such as the great blue heron, green heron, and black-crowned night heron use river corridors to forage for fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. Shorebirds that are regular breeders in the area include killdeer and American woodcock. Passerines are the largest group of migratory bird species within the proposed project areas and include thrushes, warblers, flycatchers, vireos, hummingbirds, swallows, wrens, tanagers, orioles, sparrows, robins, eastern kingbirds, American goldfinches, blue jays, and cardinals as well as others. Floodplain forests and wetlands are important breeding and migratory habitats for passerines. Hawks, falcons, eagles, vultures, and owls are also found in floodplain habitats.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Although the provisions of MBTA are applicable year-round, most migratory bird nesting activity within the project areas of levee repair would typically range between April 1 through July 31, and February 1 to July 31 for raptors. During this period, trees or grasslands with nests containing eggs, young, or adult birds engaged in nesting activities will be considered active. However, some migratory birds are known to nest outside of the aforementioned primary nesting period. Vegetation removal or tree clearing would be scheduled to occur outside the primary nesting period. If construction of the project has to occur during the primary nesting season or at any other time that may result in the 'take' of nesting migratory birds, a qualified biologist would conduct a field survey of the affected habitats to determine the absence or presence of nesting migratory birds. Surveys would be conducted during the nesting season and immediately preceding the proposed construction activities. Measures and recommendations (buffer distance, access restriction, timing of construction) by the USFWS to avoid adverse impacts would be implemented. In the event an occupied nest of species protected by the MBTA is observed during construction activities, construction would be stopped and consultation with the USFWS should be initiated to ensure compliance with the MBTA.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) The bald eagle has been de-listed from the ESA, but continues to be protected under the BGEPA, MBTA, and Lacey Act -16 U.S.C. § 701, May 25, 1900. The BGEPA prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts,

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 28 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District nests, or eggs. The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." This definition also covers impacts that result from human- induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present; if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment. A survey for eagle nests would be conducted by a qualified biologist if the proposed activities are to take place within the active nesting season of bald eagles, which is dependent on the location of the proposed levee repair.

To avoid disturbing nesting bald eagles and their young, USFWS guidelines would be followed. This includes conducting pre-construction nest surveys and maintaining a buffer of at least 660 feet between the project and any active nest, or restricting construction to August through mid- January when bald eagles are not nesting. The size and shape of effective buffers vary depending on the topography and other ecological characteristics surrounding the nest site, and serve to minimize visual and auditory impacts associated with human activities near nest sites. If these conditions cannot be met, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be consulted for further guidance. Measures and recommendations (buffer distance, access restriction, timing of construction) by the USFWS to avoid adverse impacts would be implemented. Relative to bald eagles in Montana, recommendations provided in the 2010 Montana Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: Addendum to the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan should be adhered to for distance and seasonal buffers. In the event an eagle nest is initiated or discovered during construction activities, construction would be stopped and consultation with the USFWS would be initiated to ensure compliance with the BGEPA.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: The “No Action” Alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source, or the project sponsor would repair the levee at their own expense. Construction related noise from machinery, dust generated from construction activities, and human presence would likely impact wildlife species. These impacts would be considered temporary and the species would likely return upon project completion. The use of silt fences to control sedimentation and runoff may not be used and this could impact fish species not accustomed to turbid conditions. Moreover, if private funds are used, there is a risk that some permanent impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats could occur. These impacts would result from the use of borrow sites that might not be in accordance with NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites. The No-Action Alternative is still subject to compliance under the MBTA and BGEPA.

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would result in minor short-term construction related impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The impacts to wildlife resources would be related to noise, visual, and land disturbance from construction activities. Most of the disturbed areas have adjacent lands where wildlife could temporarily relocate to minimize impacts. The potential impacts to fishery resources are primarily related to possible site runoff; however, the contribution of sediment from construction activities would be minimized through BMPs (e.g., erosion control measures) and would most likely be of a temporary nature and negligible with no anticipated adverse effects on fishes, reptiles, amphibians, or

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 29 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

macroinveterbrates. Additionally, the use of NWO’s SOPs for the selection of borrow sites would reduce impacts on fish and wildlife by using borrow areas that were previously disturbed while avoiding areas located in more pristine habitat areas. Dredging activities to remove excess material at silted-in recovery and mitigation projects or the adjacent floodplain could potentially benefit fish and wildlife by creating open areas where dredge cuts were made. These open areas would provide some connectivity between the river and newly created backwater areas if dredge cuts are left open to the river, as well as restore the ecological benefits of the recovery/mitigation site itself. Preconstruction surveys for compliance with the MBTA and BGEPA would be conducted if necessary, and applicable measures to minimize impacts to migratory birds and/or eagles implemented.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural activities would have no significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. Any land acquisition or buy-out of a particular area as a non-structural response would likely have beneficial impacts for wildlife as the area would likely remain undisturbed and could potentially reconnect a portion of the floodplain.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Impacts to fish and wildlife from this alternative would be the same as mentioned above for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. There would be a greater risk of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife, over that of the preferred alternative, because innovative flood fight structures, such as Hesco bastions would not be provided. As a result, entities would need to acquire borrow for the construction of berms. The borrow site selection would not necessarily be in accordance with NWO’s SOP for the selection of borrow sites, and this could impact otherwise non-disturbed habitat areas.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Advance Measures are constructed on the top of levees, on the landward side of levees, or in low- lying areas of town (at tunnels, road crossings, etc.) and not within any streams or rivers; thus, no impacts to fish would be anticipated. Wildlife inhabiting the area where Advance Measures would be placed would be temporarily displaced during construction activities but would likely return to the area after construction is completed. There are generally other areas of habitat through-out the project areas that these species could use, so mobile species likely would not be adversely affected. However, if construction of Advance Measures were to take place in wetland areas, there is potential for direct impacts to reptiles, amphibians, insects, or other wetland species that may be killed because they are not able to flee the area during construction.

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

These resources are institutionally important and protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Endangered or threatened species are technically important because the

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 30 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

status of such species provides an indication of the overall health of an ecosystem. These species are publicly important because of the desire of the public to protect them and their habitats.

Within the counties in the proposed project area, approximately 50 species of plants and animals have been federally listed as endangered or threatened, or as candidates for listing on the endangered species list. The Corps has determined that the proposed projects would have no affect on many of the 50 listed and candidate species because they avoid human disturbance, or they are not found in or along the streams where the proposed work would take place. For a complete list of the endangered, threatened, and candidate species that may occur in the counties where projects are proposed, and an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed projects on these species, please refer to the attached Biological Assessment in Appendix VI. Species likely to occur within the proposed project areas that may be affected by levee repairs or Advance Measures are provided in Table 2 in this Programmatic EA. Also included in the table are potential impacts associated with the proposed construction activities, and minimization/mitigation measures that would be implemented to alleviate these impacts.

General Construction Considerations The proposed levee repair projects and associated site-specific activities are not expected to generate appreciable change in habitat conditions as compared with conditions pre-existing the flood event. As with any construction project however, there will be some temporary and/or permanent impacts. For example, there is the potential for minor changes in water quality during and immediately after construction, or noise may temporarily disturb any wildlife in the project area. In order to implement any federal alternative (Alt 2-4, and Advance Measure Alt 2), the Corps must insure that the effect of any activity they undertake does not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat per section 7 of the ESA. As such, the Corps has completed a biological assessment for the preferred alternative that identifies the effects that may result if construction is generally conducted in the way that has been laid out in this EA. As part of this evaluation, mitigation measures, including BMPs have been suggested to minimize or avoid adverse impacts to Threatened and Endangered species. These measures are laid out in Table 2, and are considered applicable to all alternatives evaluated in this EA, and are thus considered in the impacts analysis. However, it is understood that this document is programmatic in nature, and thus, any site specific implementation would need to be revisited to investigate whether proposed activities fall within the scope of this evaluation, if a new species is listed or found to be present in the project area, or if new information is available with regard to a particular species that occurs in the project area. Where there is significant new information found to exist, impacts to T&E species would need to be revisited, further evaluation completed, and additional consultation with the USFWS would be required. For a more detailed description on individual species, potential impacts and conservation measures please refer to the Biological Assessment included as Appendix VI.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 31 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species That May be Affected and Associated Mitigation Measures.

Common Name State Location and Potential Determination Mitigation Affect Eastern Massasauga MO and IA. Construction may May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys prior to Candidate harm, harass or kill snakes that Likely to Adversely construction, and if sighted, occur within the project areas Affect. consult with USFWS. If especially during hibernation discovered during (October to April). construction, stop work and consult with the USFWS.

Greater Sage Grouse MT, ND, SD, WY. Construction May Affect, but Not In sage-brushed areas, Candidate may temporarily displace species Likely to Adversely conduct surveys prior to in sage-brush areas; affect Affect. construction, and if sighted feeding, breeding & sheltering. or if impacts to habitat Mating season begins in March, would occur, consult with with females laying eggs mid- USFWS. Avoid March – mid-May. Birds cannot disturbance to leks within ¼ survive where sagebrush no mile; avoid human activity longer exists. mid-March to mid-May (6pm-8am) within ¼ mile. If a lek is discovered during construction, stop work and consult with the USFWS.

Indiana Bat MO and IA. Summer May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys for Endangered construction activities may Likely to Adversely Affect potential habitat (trees with temporarily displace species. during summer exfoliating bark) prior to construction. construction, and if potential habitat is present, consult with USFWS. If bats or potential habitat is discovered during construction, stop work and consult with the USFWS.

Interior Least Tern MO, IA, NE, SD, ND, MT. The May Affect, but Not Avoid nesting season Endangered species is present in reaches Likely to Adversely (April-August). If work along the Missouri River during Affect. must occur during nesting the spring and summer months. season, a pre-construction Nesting and rearing typically nest survey would be occurs April-August. conducted. If nests are Construction activities could discovered within ½ mile of destroy nests or cause nest construction site, abandonment consultation with USFWS would occur. If terns initiate nesting in the vicinity (½mile) of construction activities, work would stop and USFWS would be contacted.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 32 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Pallid Sturgeon MO, IA, NE, SD, ND, MT. May Affect, but Not BMPs are placed to reduce Endangered Project-related activities are not Likely to Adversely terrestrial erosion and expected to affect water quality Affect. Potential beneficial impacts to water quality. If or quantity in rivers where pallid effects. construction requires sturgeon occur. Temporary, dredging activities, construction-related increases in consultation with the turbidity (channel work only) USFWS would be could be beneficial. conducted. Limit construction activities outside of spawning period (May 15-July 31).

Pink Mucket Mussel MO. Turbidity from construction May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Endangered may clog the species feeding Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion siphons or bury it. Affect. and associated turbidity. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.

Piping Plover NE, IA, SD, ND, MT. The May Affect, but Not Avoid nesting season Threatened species is present in Missouri Likely to Adversely (April-August). If nesting River reaches. Work is Affect. season cannot be avoided, scheduled to occur outside of conduct surveys prior to when birds use affected construction, and if nests shorelines or sandbars but may are discovered within ½ occur within that timeframe. mile, consult with USFWS. Riverwash/sands on agricultural If plovers initiate nesting in lands may be used by the species the vicinity (½mile) of the for nesting prior to levee work construction activities, being conducted. work would stop and USFWS would be contacted. Rabbits Foot Mussel MO. Turbidity from construction May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Candidate may clog the species feeding Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion siphons or bury it. Affect. and associated turbidity. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.

Scaleshell Mussel MO. Turbidity from construction May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Endangered may make feeding difficult or Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion may suffocate the species. Affect. and associated turbidity. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 33 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Sheep-Nose Mussel IA and MO. Turbidity from May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Proposed construction may make feeding Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion difficult or may suffocate the Affect. and associated turbidity. species. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.

Spectaclecase IA and MO. Turbidity from May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Mussel construction may make feeding Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion Proposed difficult or may suffocate the Affect. and associated turbidity. species. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in streams known to be used by this species.

Topeka Shiner SD, IA, NE, MO. Turbidity May Affect, but Not BMPs (silt fences) would Endangered from construction may affect Likely to Adversely be used to reduce erosion. feeding and breeding shiners. Affect. Avoid spawning period (late May to mid-July) Virginia MO. Occurs in seasonal ponds. May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys prior to Sneezeweed May be affected by Advance Likely to Adversely Advance Measures, and if Threatened Measures filling of wetland Affect. sighted, consult with areas. USFWS.

Western Prairie- IA, NE, and ND. Occurs in tall May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys of any tall Fringed Orchid grass prairie areas. Does not Likely to Adversely grass unbroken native Threatened occur on levees. Staging Affect. prairie areas used as staging materials in tall grass areas may prior to construction, and if crush the species. sighted, consult with USFWS.

Whooping Crane MT, NE, ND, and SD. Migrating May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys prior to Endangered cranes could stopover along Likely to Adversely construction, and if sighted, banks and sandbars of the Affect. consult with USFWS. If Missouri River within the discovered during project areas. Project construction, stop work and construction is unlikely to occur consult with the USFWS. during the migration season. If levee fixes are not made in time, construction related activities may harass the species.

Yellow-Billed Listed as candidate species in May Affect, but Not Conduct surveys prior to Cuckoo MT and WY. More commonly Likely to Adversely clearing vegetation and if Candidate found in the eastern states (NE, Affect. sighted, consult with IA, MO, SD) as a spring and fall USFWS. If discovered migrant and summer resident. during construction, stop Requires woody, shrubby work and consult with the vegetation which is not found on USFWS. Alternatively, levees. Clearing of cottonwoods clear vegetation outside of and willows for staging areas nesting season (April to could affect nesting habitat. September).

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 34 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: The No-Action Alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source, or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. Actions by private landowners may impact non-critical habitat used by threatened and endangered species. However, any “take” to listed species is regulated under the Endangered Species Act. Private entities would be required to comply with the Endangered Species Act so take of threatened and endangered species would likely be avoided. As such, impacts to threatened and endangered species would not be considered significant.

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: With this alternative, each project would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if it would potentially adversely affect any threatened or endangered species. These determinations would be coordinated with the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Offices. Generally, because this alternative would not result in substantial change in the footprint of the levee as it previously existed, it would not be expected to have adverse effects on any Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or any designated critical habitat. Also, because structural repair and borrow activities typically will occur on agricultural land or other previously disturbed sites, and because mitigation measures listed in table 2 will be implemented where appropriate, adverse impacts to T&E species would not be anticipated. The Corps would coordinate PL 84-99 levee repairs and Advance Measure responses with the USFWS when it determines that a site-specific action ‘may affect’ listed species to further insure that there are no adverse effects on any Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or any designated critical habitat.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Construction aspects of all non- structural activities would likely have similar effects on Federally-listed threatened or endangered species as the structural repairs described above in Alternative 2. However, non- structural alternatives that result in significant restoration of floodplain connectivity could actually benefit species, especially those whose life requisites are dependent on river/floodplain interaction.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would likely have no adverse impacts on any Federally- listed threatened or endangered species or any designated critical habitat due to the location of the proposed levee repairs. However, in some circumstances, listed species may occur on-site or be in close proximity to construction areas. These species have been identified in the attached Biological Assessment and are listed above. In instances where listed species may have the potential to occur, surveys for those particular species would be conducted and coordination/consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would occur. If work initiates because no species were found during the pre-construction surveys but are later found on-site or in close proximity to the proposed project, construction work would cease and consultation with Service would be re-initiated.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 35 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

damages. Actions by private landowners may impact non-critical habitat used by threatened and endangered species. However, any “take” to listed species is regulated under the Endangered Species Act. Private entities would be required to comply with the Endangered Species Act so take of threatened and endangered species would likely be avoided.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Past coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has generally resulted in “no affect” determinations on listed species due to the location where the Advance Measures are placed (within city limits). As such, no significant impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated. However, in some circumstances, listed species (as noted above) or their habitat may occur in close proximity to construction areas. Advance Measures are placed to avoid loss of life and are placed under emergency conditions. Thus, it is possible that adverse affects to listed-species habitat may occur. In these instances, after-the-fact consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur to determine if species have been affected and to establish mitigation to offset the impacts that may have occurred.

3.8 Invasive Species

Riparian vegetation along the Missouri River and its tributaries has been severely reduced by clearing for cities and towns, and for agriculture and levee construction. During this process, some areas of the cleared land were not properly reseeded or were left bare and abandoned. As a result, invasive species colonized and out-competed native vegetation. In other areas, people purposely planted ornamental vegetation for their enjoyment that was not endemic to the area. This resulted in the continued spread of non-native species. According to Executive Order 13122, Federal agencies may not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species.

Invasive aquatic species that are a concern and that have the potential to be introduced into new water bodies by contaminated construction equipment include zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis), New Zealand mudsnails (Potamogyrpus antiposarum), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), among others. Invasive terrestrial species that may also be transported to new locations from construction equipment include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), musk thistle (Cardus nutans), and bromegrass (Bromus sterilis). Other invasive species found within the project areas include red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), salt cedar (Tamarix spp.), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), hoary cress (Cardaria pubescens), and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) among others.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: The No-Action Alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source, or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. These actions could result in the introduction of invasive species if adequate measures are not taken to ensure that all equipment is free from soil residuals, egg deposits from plant pests, noxious weeds, plant seeds, and aquatic

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 36 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

nuisance species prior to its use. Additionally, if seed sources used for reseeding levees are not from reputable sources, the introduction of invasive species could occur on a large scale. In some circumstances, staging areas used for construction may be left bare or not returned to pre- construction conditions which would leave areas prime for invasion of unwanted species.

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative is not expected to introduce any new invasive species to levee repair sites. All construction equipment is required to be cleaned prior to being brought onto USACE construction sites. Construction contractors are also required to ensure that all equipment is free from soil residuals, egg deposits from plant pests, noxious weeds, plant seeds, and aquatic nuisance species prior to its use on the project. Disturbed land areas would be seeded with a native seed mixture and mulched, as required, to minimize the likelihood that invasive plants would become established on soils that have been disturbed.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural responses would likely have no significant impact on the introduction of invasive species. Land buy-outs, as a non-structural alternative, would likely re-vegetate with timber dominated by native cottonwood and willow species. Federal controls would ensure invasive species do not establish.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would likely have no significant impact on the introduction of invasive species for the reasons stated above in Alternatives 2 and 3.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. These actions could result in the introduction of invasive species if adequate measures are not taken to ensure that all equipment is free from soil residuals, egg deposits from plant pests, noxious weeds, plant seeds, and aquatic nuisance species prior to its use.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): A requirement of Advance Measure installation is that the structures be removed following the high flow event and that the area be returned to its pre-project condition. Thus, this alternative would likely have no significant impact on the introduction of invasive species.

3.9 Floodplain

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Guidelines, May 24, 1977 outlines the responsibilities of Federal agencies in the role of floodplain management. Each agency shall evaluate the potential effects of actions on floodplains and should avoid undertaking actions that directly or indirectly support floodplain development. The Omaha District’s Flood Risk and Floodplain Management Section will have the opportunity to review the proposed projects and each individual action for compliance with E.O. 11988.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 37 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Floodplains consist of the relatively flat land along one or both sides of a river channel. Floodplains serve critical roles if allowed to work without alteration. These roles consist of storing water when a river overflows its banks, slowing water velocity which reduces erosion, allowing groundwater recharge, creating fish and wildlife habitat, and most importantly, reducing the overall power of the flood which better protects downstream areas from flooding. Modified floodplains minimize or completely eliminate the natural functions of the floodplain and often change land use. Structures added to the floodplain incrementally reduce its ability to store water. In many areas, flood control projects, bank stabilization, and channelization of rivers have either completely or partially removed the connectivity of rivers with the floodplain. The majority of the floodplains are now used for either agriculture or urban development. It is expected that over time, more agricultural areas will be converted to urban/suburban uses, as urban populations continue to grow. Because the PL 84-99 Program is a form of maintenance designed to repair levees back to their original design specifications, no modification of the floodplain generally occurs. However, in some circumstances where the levee has blown out, the only logical fix is to set the levee back (landward) from its original location. In these instances, the floodplain is incrementally increased and better able to serve its critical roles. Advance Measures by nature either follow existing levees to shore-up low-lying areas or are placed in low-lying areas of cities and towns. Advance Measures are rarely placed and left within the floodplain. A condition of Advance Measures is that they are removed once the high flow event passes; thus, no long term impacts result. In instances where Advance Measures are to be left in place, individual assessments would be conducted to determine their impacts as leaving Advance Measures in place is out of the scope of this Environmental Assessment.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: The “No Action” Alternative would continue to expose all public and private infrastructures previously protected to a higher level risk of future flooding. There would be no foreseen adverse impact to the floodplain; actually, the floodplain would increase if no action were taken.

However, the local levee and drainage district would likely seek funding to repair the levees from some other source or the project sponsor would repair the levee at their own expense. Individual repairs would be evaluated to assess the urgency or critical nature of the repair. Sponsor related repairs would likely result in maintaining the same level of flood risk management which existed prior to the flood damage. No significant impact would therefore arise.

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would maintain the same level of flood risk management which existed prior to any flood damage as required by ER 500-1-1. With levee repairs that include setbacks, land is returned to the floodplain. Under PL 84-99, structural levee repairs do not support more development in the floodplain or encourage additional occupancy and/or modification of the base floodplain. The USACE has determined that structural repairs to levees damaged during flood events comply with the intent of Executive Order 11988.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 38 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: All non-structural responses would have no significant adverse impacts on the floodplain, and for any land buy-out or levee setback for the purposes of restoring the floodplain, beneficial impacts (increased flood storage, groundwater recharge, creation of fish and wildlife habitat, etc.) on floodplains would be expected.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): This alternative would have no significant adverse impacts on the floodplain and any land buy-out as a non-structural response would likely have beneficial impacts. Structural repairs would maintain the same level of flood risk reduction which existed prior to any flood damage as required by ER 500-1-1. USACE has determined that the structural repairs to the dams and levees comply with the intent of E.O. 11988.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Installation of flood fight structures would not necessarily be confined to levee tops or areas landward of the levees. Following the flood fight, the local community may keep some of the structures in-place, which could add to the floodplain and cause an incremental rise. This, in- turn, would have incremental adverse affects.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): The Advance Measures are generally placed on top of existing levees, landward of levees, and in low-lying areas within town. Because the Advance Measures are required to be removed after the flood event has passed, no increased rise to the floodplain would occur and the effects would not be considered significant. In instances where Advance Measures would be left in place, separate environmental documentation would be prepared to assess impacts as leaving Advance Measures in place is out of the scope of this Environmental Assessment.

3.10 Land Use

Land use in the surrounding areas of the proposed projects is either agricultural or residential. Land use at the proposed project sites has been dedicated to levee use, lies along previously constructed levees in low-lying areas, or occurs in low-lying areas of cities and towns. Land use would not change from its previous use for the majority of the proposed projects with the exception of when levees are set back. In these instances, land that was available to farmers for agriculture would be replaced by a newly constructed levee. This is to the advantage of the farmer as it allows agriculture to continue.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: This alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. This could result in increasing the level of flood risk management over that which existed prior to any high flow event, resulting in incremental changes in the land use.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 39 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would maintain the same level of flood risk management which existed prior to any high flow event, as required by ER 500-1-1. With levee repairs that include setbacks, some landward agricultural land would be occupied by the new levee while riverward land would be returned to the floodplain. The landward occupation resulting from a levee setback would not result in permanent conversion of farmland as farming would still occur. Under PL 84-99, structural levee repairs would not cause any significant change in land use.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Non-structural responses, such as land acquisition and buy-out, would return large areas of agricultural land back to the floodplain. This would change land use from agricultural land to open space. This in turn may have impacts to agriculture, but would not necessarily involve any permanent land conversion. This action would provide benefits to the ecosystem by providing undisturbed land for species to feed, breed, and shelter.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Structural repairs to levees under PL 84-99 would have no significant impact on land use. Any land acquisition or buy-out would return large areas of agricultural land back to the floodplain. This would change land use from agricultural land to open space. This in turn would have impacts to agriculture in the immediate area of the buy-out.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. If the flood fight structures are not removed, a change in land use could occur. Given the limited amount of flood fight structures that would likely be installed, the impact would not be considered significant.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Because all Advance Measures are required to be removed once the high flow event has passed, no long term impact to land use would occur. In instances where Advance Measures would be kept in place, individual assessments under NEPA would be conducted as that is out of the scope of this Environmental Assessment.

3.11 Economics

Repairing damaged levees is typically in the sponsor’s best financial interest, with or without Federal assistance. As demonstrated by past repairs through the PL 84-99 Emergency Levee Rehabilitation Program, the benefit to cost ratios for levee repair are almost always greater than one, meaning that the proposed project is justified or economically feasible. It is almost always more economical to repair damaged levees than to construct larger levees that provide higher levels of flood risk management or leave critical infrastructure exposed to future high flow events. Every levee rehabilitation project would go through an individual benefit to cost evaluation to ensure the project is economically feasible.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 40 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: This alternative would likely result in the project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levee from some other source or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. This would likely result in a larger portion of local financial resources being used for levee repairs and potential financial hardships to local communities that don’t have these resources available.

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: This alternative would maintain the same level of flood risk management that existed prior to the flood damage, as required by ER 500-1-1. This would result in no long term changes in economic conditions as a result of the levee repair. Public and private infrastructure protected by the levee prior to the flood damage would continue to have the same flood risk as existed prior to the levee being damaged. Thus, no change in economics would likely occur. PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non-Structural Responses: Non-structural responses, such as land acquisition or buy-out could have impacts on the local economy. If farmland is sold, taxes would not be collected. This, in turn, could affect the local tax base of the community.

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Structural repairs to levees under PL 84-99 would have no significant impact on the local economy. There would likely be no change in land use and public and private infrastructure protected by the levee prior to the flood damage would continue to have the same flood risk as existed prior to the flood event and resulting levee damage. Any land acquisition or buy-out could have impacts on the local economy. If farmland is sold, taxes would not be collected. This, in turn, could affect the local tax base of the community.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. This would likely result in a larger portion of local financial resources being used for Advance Measures and potential financial hardships to local communities that don’t have these resources available.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): The proposed project would benefit the local economy by protecting the city’s infrastructure.

3.12 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations directs federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice in their decision making process. Federal agencies are directed to identify and address as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.

No minority or low-income populations would be displaced or negatively affected by the proposed levee repair projects. Flood protection benefits provided by the proposed projects will equally benefit people of all socioeconomic conditions and ethnic backgrounds residing and

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 41 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

working in the flood protected area; therefore, no environmental justice issues exist for any of the alternatives.

3.13 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are a broad pattern of material and non-material sites or objects that represent contemporary, historic, and pre-historic human life ways or practices. River floodplains usually contain a variety of cultural resource types that span from the earliest Native American inhabitants of North America to the present. Common cultural resource sites include prehistoric Native American archeological sites, historic archeological sites, ship wrecks, and structures such as bridges and buildings. Projects involving Federal land, funds, or permitting are subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). NWO coordinates individual PL 84-99 levee repairs and Advance Measures responses with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) to ensure that there are no adverse effects on any cultural resources. Each project site would be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if cultural resources occur within the project vicinity including staging areas and borrow sites. Coordination with the respective State Historic Preservation Office in each state would be implemented to ensure protection of cultural, historical, and archeological resources. This coordination would include the results of archeological background reviews conducted by the District Archeologist, archeological field investigations (if required), and coordination with the SHPO.

PL 84-99 Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: This alternative would likely result in project sponsors seeking funding to repair the levees from some other source, or the project sponsor repairing the levee at their own expense. Actions undertaken and entirely funded by private landowners may not require Federal permits and, therefore, would not subject to NHPA compliance. As a result, this alternative could impact cultural resources.

PL 84-99 Alternative 2 - Structural Repairs: Under most circumstances, this alternative would have no adverse effects on historic properties as the work is limited to existing structures. However, repairs requiring new borrow sites, levee relocations, or dredging from rivers may have the potential to impact cultural resources. The USACE would continue to coordinate individual PL 84-99 levee repairs with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to ensure that all compliance is followed. Federally recognized Native American tribes (Tribes), with ties to the area, would be notified of the proposed project. This notification includes the results of archeological background reviews conducted by the District Archeologist, archeological field investigations (if required), and coordination with the SHPO. In addition, in the unlikely event that archeological material is discovered during project construction, work in the area of the discovery would cease until the discovery is investigated by a qualified archeologist and the find is coordinated with appropriate SHPO and the Tribes.

PL 84-99 Alternative 3 - Non Structural Responses: With this alternative, there would be little to no soil disturbance and therefore there would likely be no adverse effects on cultural resources. If any disturbance were anticipated, these actions would be coordinated with SHPO and the Tribes in compliance with the NHPA.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 42 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

PL 84-99 Alternative 4 - Combination of Structural Repairs and Non-Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): Requirements under this alternative would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. The USACE would continue to coordinate individual PL 84-99 levee repairs with the SHPO to ensure that all appropriate cultural resource requirements are conducted. Tribes would be notified of the proposed project and cultural resource background reviews and investigations. In the unlikely event that archeological material is discovered during project construction, work in the area of the discovery would cease until the discovery is investigated by a qualified archeologist and the find is coordinated with SHPO and the Tribes.

Advance Measures Alternative 1 - “No-Action” Alternative: Under this No Action alternative, entities would be required to proceed with a flood fight on their own to avoid flood damages. Actions undertaken and entirely funded by private landowners may not require Federal permits and, therefore, would not subject to NHPA compliance. As a result, this alternative could impact cultural resources.

Advance Measures Alternative 2 – Temporary Structural Responses (Recommended Plan): The proposed Advance Measures would occur in areas that have previously been cleared for potential impacts to cultural resources, namely within the town proper. Borrow material would be obtained from sites that have previously received cultural clearance. As such, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. However, if a discovery is made during construction, all activity would be halted around the discovery site and the contractor would notify a Corps archaeologist who would in turn inform the SHPO of the discovery. The Corps archaeologist would examine the discovery area as soon as possible and then consult with the SHPO about the nature and National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the area prior to resumption of any activity near the site. For these reasons, the proposed project is not likely to adversely impact cultural resources.

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations defines cumulative impacts as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (CEQ, 1997). These actions include on- or off-site projects conducted by government agencies, businesses, communities, or individuals that are within the spatial and temporal boundaries of the current actions being considered. The geographical areas of consideration are actions located within/along the floodplain of the Missouri River and its tributaries over the course of the last century.

The Missouri River and its tributaries have been altered by past actions such as bank stabilization, dams, roads/bridges, agricultural and urban levees, channelization, water withdrawal for human and agricultural use, urbanization and other human uses. These activities

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 43 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

have substantially altered the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem within the watersheds under consideration. Some examples of the alterations that have occurred include: wetland losses, development of the floodplain, conversion of riparian habitat to agriculture and urban development, and the cut-off of the floodplain from the river. Much of the conversion of riparian habitat to agriculture lands occurred prior to construction of levees with nearly 50 percent of the Missouri River floodplain being in agricultural production by 1937 (Bragg and Tatschl, 1977). In 1912, the USACE started constructing the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) which channelized and stabilized the Missouri River and significantly altered flows. It is estimated that 522,000 acres of aquatic and terrestrial habitat was lost in and along the Missouri River, between 1912 and 2003, due to the construction and operation of the BSNP (USACE, 1981). The USACE is authorized in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1986 and 1999 to mitigate for these impacts by purchasing and developing fish and wildlife habitat on 166,750 acres of land. To date, approximately 50,000 acres have been purchased and 40,000 acres of habitat developed. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) found that continued operation of the BSNP would jeopardize the continued existence of the least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon. As a result, a biological opinion in 2000, and amended in 2003, included a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) aimed at restoration projects such as Shallow Water Habitat and Emergent Sandbar Habitat creation, and Floodplain Restoration. The USFWS believes that if the RPA is constructed, the natural aspects of the Missouri River would be restored much to the benefit and recovery of fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species.

After flood events on the Missouri River, over the past 15 years or so, various environmental restoration programs purchased fee title, or easements, on large acreages of land in the Missouri River floodplain from willing sellers. In some cases, these acquisitions bought out entire levee districts and areas converted for habitat purposes. These levee districts typically contained very few landowners and often only had a single landowner. Many of the remaining levee districts now contain multiple landowners, many of which are not willing to sell their land for a non- structural alternative.

The Recommended Plan would continue to provide levee rehabilitation/Advance Measures assistance to Federal and non-Federal levee sponsors along the Missouri River and its tributaries which participate in the PL 84-99 Program. The Recommended Plan would not involve permanent or increased obstructions to the floodway. The rehabilitation of levees usually consists of repairs through minor levee setbacks and/or repairs of existing structures to their previous condition. Advance Measures responses consist of temporary structures that are removed once the flood has passed. These projects typically result in minor short-term construction related impacts to agricultural lands, wetlands, fish and wildlife and the habitats upon which they depend; however, there are no collectively significant cumulative environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan primarily because it restores the existing levee back to its pre-damaged condition. Potential adverse affects are construction-related (e.g., noise, visual and air quality) and of a minor and temporary nature. In cases of major levee setbacks where large blow holes in the levee have occurred, setting back the levee restores the floodplain to the benefit of fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species; increases

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 44 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

conveyance; lowers flood stages; re-introduces the floodplain/river interaction; and provides increased nutrient exchange. These activities have considerable beneficial effects to the ecology of the river similar to those being pursued under other programs meant to reverse past trends, and thus, such actions are compatible with restoration and recovery of species.

It is likely, even without assistance from the USACE’s PL 84-99 Program, that these levees would be repaired, or flood fight measures installed, either using some other source of public funding or with private funds from the sponsor. If private funds are used, there is greater risk of adverse impacts to terrestrial habitat, fish and wildlife, water resources, the floodplain, threatened or endangered species, cultural, and other resources.

The USACE, which administers Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, has issued and would continue to evaluate permits authorizing the placement of fill material in the waters of the United States and/or work on, in, over or under a navigable water of the United States including the Missouri River and its tributaries. Of the reasonably foreseeable projects and associated impacts that would be expected to occur, future development of the floodplain would probably have the greatest impact on these resources. Because these projects at most would merely restore the levee to its pre-existing state, it should not induce such development in any substantial way. The possibility of wetland conversion and the clearing of riparian habitat are ever present, and these activities also tend to impact these resources. Most of the floodplain is already protected by either agricultural levees, in rural areas, or urban levees, in metropolitan areas. There is a trend towards converting agricultural levees to urban levees as metropolitan areas continue to grow. Substantial, environmental restoration efforts are occurring on the Missouri River, and its tributaries, and structures that provide flood risk management have been removed and natural floodplain habitat restored, in some areas. No new major reservoir construction is likely on the Missouri River or its’ tributaries in the foreseeable future.

The cumulative impacts of the proposed actions when added to other present and future actions, and even when added to the past degradation actions on the Missouri River and its tributaries, do not result in a net increase in impacts because the proposed action does not result in an addition to flood heights or reduced floodplain area. Instead, they are merely a form of maintenance of the existing flood risk management capability. In addition, the minor, short-term adverse affects on natural resources are out-weighed by the long-term beneficial effects associated with the enhancement of the aquatic ecosystem through borrow activities and reconnecting the floodplain through levee setbacks. Thus, no significant negative cumulative impacts associated with the Recommended Plan have been identified.

5.0 Conclusion

The flood risk management level achieved by the Recommended Plan would be the same as the original pre-flood condition. Under the Recommended Plan, individual projects would be evaluated to ensure compliance with the ESA, Section 106, and CWA. Areas of structural levee repair would have some temporary, minor disturbance by proposed construction activities. The

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 45 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

adverse effects associated with the proposed projects are minor and would normally return to pre-construction conditions upon completion of construction activities.

The NWO would review each individual proposed levee repair or Advance Measure response in the future under the PL 84-99 program to determine if any mitigation is needed and if additional NEPA compliance is required. Each individual project would be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws, NWO’s Standard Operating Procedures for the Selection of Borrow Sites, and all appropriate Clean Water Act compliance requirements. In addition, the NWO would continue to coordinate individual PL 84-99 levee repairs and Advance Measure responses with the SHPO to ensure that all appropriate compliance is followed. Federally recognized Native American tribes (Tribes), with ties to the area, would continue to be notified of all proposed levee repair projects. This notification would include the results of archeological background reviews conducted by the District Archeologist, archeological field investigations (if required), and coordination with the SHPO. In addition, in the unlikely event that archeological material is discovered during project construction, work in the area of the discovery would cease until the discovery is investigated by a qualified archeologist and the find is coordinated with SHPO and the Tribes. These individual repair project reviews would tier off this EA and be documented by a Programmatic EA compliance worksheet (Appendix V) which would be placed in the project’s administrative record.

If a levee repair or Advance Measure is proposed that is not consistent with the general method of PL 84-99 repairs/responses included in this EA, a supplemental EA would be prepared and sent to interested parties including individuals, agencies, and businesses with interest in the proposed levee repair or Advance Measure.

6.0 Coordination and Comments

Levee rehabilitation and Advance Measures response projects completed by the Corps under authority of Public Law 84-99 generally do not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. These projects typically result in long-term social and economic benefits and the adverse environmental effects are typically minor/short-term construction related. The minor impacts associated with these projects are typically well outweighed by the overall long-term social and economic benefits of these projects. The recommended plans are consistent with this assessment of typical levee rehabilitation and Advance measure projects completed by the Corps under authority of Public Law 84-99 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. Coordination with the resource agencies was conducted to ensure compliance with NEPA regulations. Federal and state agency comment letters are included in Appendix II.

6.1 State Agency Responses

The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks stated in an August 26, 2011 letter that the likelihood of significantly impacting rare, threatened, and endangered species is improbable as the levees have been previously constructed, and therefore, are located in a formerly disturbed area. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the Nebraska Game and Parks

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 46 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Commission expressed similar comments in August 25, 2011 emails. In letters dated October 17, 2011 and November 17, 2011, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department recommended that no work be conducted during certain times of the year and that distance perimeters be established in order to minimize impacts to terrestrial species. These work windows and distances are provided in Appendix II. Additionally, to minimize impacts to aquatic species, the state recommended that BMPs be implemented to minimize sediments, prevent spillages of fuels, and prevent the spread of invasive species.

6.2 Federal Agency Responses

In response to the Corps August 8, 2011 email requesting comments on potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the proposed projects, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Nebraska and Iowa), in an August 30, 2011, letter stated that they are “generally in support of the Corps recommended alternative”. A subsequent letter was received from the USFWS Nebraska Ecological office on December 15, 2011 providing comments on the PEA’s Biological Assessment and included a list of Best Management Practices recommended by USFWS for proposed construction activities associated with streams and rivers (Appendix II). Comments were addressed and incorporated into the BA and Corps responses submitted to USFWS. An email dated September 12, 2011 was received from the Ecological Field Office in Montana stating that they were aware of the Nebraska and Iowa’s comments concerning the proposed levee fixes and were supportive of the comments submitted by that office. The USFWS Ecological Field Office in Rock Island, Illinois concurred that the proposed projects would not affect the Indiana bat, prairie bush clover, western prairie fringed orchid, and may affect, but not adversely affect the pallid sturgeon; however, these comments apply only to actions along the Iowa shoreline in Fremont County. Overall, the USFWS requested individual coordination for projects that ‘may affect’ threatened and endangered species. Individual coordination would occur in those instances. An email received December 2, 2011 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) recommended that cropland and pasture areas covered by floodwater be assessed for erosion problems and susceptibility to invasive species, and that flooded areas be repaired and reseeded accordingly. National Park Service responded via email on November 16, 2011 with no comment on the subject project. Comments were received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 18, 2011 and addressed in the PEA accordingly. Corps responses to comments were submitted to EPA on December 7, 2011. EPA and Corps correspondence is included in Appendix II.

6.3 Public Responses

Prior to a decision on whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, the USACE placed the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated November 4, 2011, on http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/pd- e/environmental.html and provided a fifteen-day comment period for public and resource agency input. The comment period ended on November 18, 2011.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 47 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

7.0 Agency Compliance with Other Environmental Laws

Compliance with other environmental laws is listed below.

Federal Polices Compliance

Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq. Full Compliance Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Sect. 668. 668 note, 668a-66d) Full Compliance Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S. C. 7401-7671g, et seq. Full Compliance Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. Full Compliance Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq. Not Applicable Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. Full Compliance Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Full Compliance Estuary Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1221, et seq. Not Applicable Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4201, et. seq. Full Compliance Federal Water Project Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-12, et seq. Full Compliance Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq. Full Compliance Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) Full Compliance Invasive Species (Executive Order 13122) Full Compliance Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4, et seq. Not Applicable Marine Protection Research and Sanctuary Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401, et seq. Not Applicable Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712: Ch. 128 as amended) Full Compliance National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. Full Compliance National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470a, et seq Full Compliance Protection & Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (Executive Order 11593) Full Compliance Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) Full Compliance Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (EO 13186) Full Compliance Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 403, et seq. Full Compliance Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. Full Compliance Wild and Scenic River Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq. Not Applicable

NOTES: a. Full compliance. Having met all requirements of the statute for the current stage of planning (either preauthorization or post authorization). b. Not applicable. No requirements for the statute required.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 48 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

8.0 References

Berry, Charles R Jr., B. Young. 2004. Fishes of the Missouri National Recreational River, South Dakota and Nebraska. Great Plains Research 14 (Spring 2004): pp. 89-114.

Blevins, D.W., 2006. The Response of Suspended Sediment, turbidity, and Velocity to Historical Alterations of the Missouri River: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1301, 8 p.

Bragg, T. B., and Tatschl, A. K. 1977. Changes in Flood-Plain Vegetation and Land Use Along the Missouri River from 1826 to 1972. Environmental Management 1: 343–348.

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1992. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, in accordance with 40 CFR 1507.3.

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. January, 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. pp ix-x, 28-29 and 49-57.

Flood Control Act of 1941 (FCA). 1941. 33 U.S.C. 701n, as amended (commonly referred to as Public Law 84-99, Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Act).

Ickes, B.S., J. Vallazza, J. Kalas, and B. Knights. 2005. River Floodplain Connectivity and Lateral Fish Passage: A Literature Review. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, June 2005. 25pp.

National Academies of Sciences (NAS). 2002. Committee on Missouri River Ecosystem Science, National Research Council. The Missouri River Ecosystem: Exploring the Prospects for Recovery. Publication available for viewing at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10277

National Academies of Sciences (NAS). 2011. Committee on Missouri River Recovery and Associated Sediment Management Issues; National Research Council. Missouri River Planning: Recognizing and Incorporating Sediment Management. Publication available for viewing at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13019

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. Civil Emergency Management Program. Engineer Regulation (ER) 500-1-1.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2000. Engineering and Design. Design and Construction of Levees. Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1913.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1981. Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project Final Feasibility Report and Final EIS for the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 49 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Engineer Regulation (ER) 200-2-2. 33 CFR 230.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Northwestern Division- Missouri River Basin. Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System. Master Water Control Manual.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Missouri River Recovery Program: Fish and Wildlife Protection-Key to a Healthy River. Paper 47. Available at: http://digitalcommons,unl.edu/usarmyceomaha/47

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. Operation Mighty Mo. Flood Fight. Issue 1.Pp.7.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan. Focal Natural Resources Provisional Baseline Assessment.

9.0 List of Preparers

This EA and FONSI were prepared by Mr. Matthew D. Vandenberg, Environmental Resources Specialist, with cultural resource assistance provided by Ms. Sandra Barnum, District Archeologist. The address of the preparers is: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, District, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 50 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Omaha District

Prepared By: Date: 12( 1<. ; 11 Matthew D. Vandenberg v Environmental Resource Specialist

ReviewedBy: ~~ h Date: l.

ApprovedBy: ~~ Date:;2;15 J Brad Thompson / ' I 11' Chief, Environmental Resources and Missouri River Recovery Program Plan and Formulation Section Planning Branch

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 51 PL 84-99 Program DECEMBER2011

APPENDIX B

Correspondence

Initial Coordination:

-USFWS comments:

-----Original Message----- From: Ledwin, Jane Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 3:40 PM To: Crane, David J NWO Subject: Re: Hamburg Levee (UNCLASSIFIED)

Hi David -

Thank you for the information and map on the Hamburg, IA levee work. Based on that information and the Corps July 30, 2013, letter and accompanying map of the project site, we have determine there or no federally listed species likely to occur in the work area. We appreciate your coordination, and please feel free to contact us if you need additional assistance.

Best regards -

Jane Ledwin

Jane Ledwin Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 101 Park DeVille Drive Columbia, Missouri 65203

-IDNR comments:

STATE OF IOWA

TERRY E. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES KIM REYNOLDS, LT. GOVERNOR CHUCK GIPP, DIRECTOR

August 28, 2013

MRERIC LAUX US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OMAHA DISTRICT 1616 CAPITOL AVE OMAHA NE 68102-4901

RE: City of Hamburg Temporary Flood Control Levee Removal S21 & 28, T67N, R42W, Fremont County, Iowa

Dear Mr. Laux:

This letter is in response to the July 30, 2013 letter concerning the removal of the temporary flood control levee on the west side of Hamburg, Iowa in Fremont County. Thank you for inviting our comments on the impact of the above referenced project.

I was wondering if any of the borrow areas have started to show wetland characteristics?

Waters of the United States (includes wetlands) should not be disturbed if a less environmentally damaging alternative exists. Unavoidable adverse impacts should be minimized to the extent practicable. Any remaining adverse impacts should be compensated for through restoration and creation activities (enhancement and/or preservation may be in addition to the restoration/creation). We would ask that Best Management Practices be used to control erosion and protect water quality near the project.

Any proposed placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (including jurisdictional wetlands) requires Department of the Army authorization. When detailed plans are available, please complete and submit the joint application form to the Rock Island District Corps of Engineers (1 copy) and Iowa Department of Natural Resources (2 copies- one for Flood Plains and one for Sovereign Lands) for processing.

The application form/instructions may be obtained at: http://www.iowadnr.gov/lnsideDNR/RegulatoryLand/FioodPiainManagemenVFioodPiainDevPermits.as ms or at http://www.iowadnr.gov/lnsideDNR/RegulatoryLand/SovereignLandsPermits.aspx

An electronic copy of the application form/instructions may also be obtained on the Corps' website: http://www.mvr.usace.army.mii/Missions/Regulatory/ApplicationFormslnstructions.aspx

A Sovereign Lands Construction Permit pursuant to Chapter 461A of the Iowa Code will be required for this project if construction extends onto the Draper Bottoms Wildlife Management Area adjacent to the project site. Information regarding this matter is available from the Department website:

http://www.iowadnr.gov/lnsideDNR/RegulatoryLand/SovereignLandsPerrnits.aspx

502 EAST 9th STREET I DES MOINES, IOWA 50319-0034 PHONE 515-281-5918 FAX 515-281-6794 www.iowadnr.gov

The Iowa DNR Wildlife staff reviewed this proposal and commented that these borrow areas provide excellent wetland and wildlife habitat just like the excavations that have been created on DNR areas. They want to make a request that the levee material is not placed back into these borrow areas in an effort to maintain the habitat conditions created by these borrow areas that were excavated out.

We would ask that Best Management Practices be used to control erosion and protect water quality. All disturbed areas should be seeded with native grasses.

If you have any questions, please call me at .

Sincerely,

Christine Schwake Environmental Specialist

DRAFT EA Review comments:

-----Original Message----- From: Ledwin, Jane Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 10:01 AM To: Crane, David J NWO Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Hamburg Levee (UNCLASSIFIED)

Hi David -

This email is in response to Randy Sellers August 29, 2013, letter requesting comments on Public Notice NWO-PM-A-13-007 regrading rehabilitation of a levee and ditch to pre-2011 Flood conditions at Hamburg, Iowa. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed that information and believes the Corps has minimized impacts as much as possible. It does not appear there will be any adverse effects to stream, wetlands or other aquatic resources. The area in question is primarily developed and agricultural lands. Below is a copy of our previous comments on federally listed species.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the project. If you have questions regarding our comments or need additional assistance, please contact me at the number below.

Best regards -

Jane Ledwin

Jane Ledwin Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 101 Park DeVille Drive Columbia, Missouri 65203

APPENDIX C

Applicable Permits

Nationwide Permit 3 - Maintenance (a) The repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable, structure, or fill, or of any currently serviceable structure or fill authorized by 33 CFR 330.3, provided that the structure or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those uses specified or contemplated for it in the original permit or the most recently authorized modification. Minor deviations in the structure’s configuration or filled area, including those due to changes in materials, construction techniques, or current construction codes or safety standards that are necessary to make the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement are authorized. This NWP authorizes the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of those structures or fills destroyed or damaged by storms, floods, fire or other discrete events, provided the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement is commenced, or is under contract to commence, within two years of the date of their destruction or damage. In cases of catastrophic events, such as hurricanes or tornadoes, this two-year limit may be waived by the district engineer, provided the permittee can demonstrate funding, contract, or other similar delays.

(b) This NWP also authorizes the removal of accumulated sediments and debris in the vicinity of and within existing structures (e.g., bridges, culverted road crossings, water intake structures, etc.) and the placement of new or additional riprap to protect the structure. The removal of sediment is limited to the minimum necessary to restore the waterway in the immediate vicinity of the structure to the approximate dimensions that existed when the structure was built, but cannot extend further than 200 feet in any direction from the structure. This 200 foot limit does not apply to maintenance dredging to remove accumulated sediments blocking or restricting outfall and intake structures or to maintenance dredging to remove accumulated sediments from canals associated with outfall and intake structures. All dredged or excavated materials must be deposited and retained in an upland area unless otherwise specifically approved by the district engineer under separate authorization. The placement of riprap must be the minimum necessary to protect the structure or to ensure the safety of the structure. Any bank stabilization measures not directly associated with the structure will require a separate authorization from the district engineer.

(c) This NWP also authorizes temporary structures, fills, and work necessary to conduct the maintenance activity. Appropriate measures must be taken to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable, when temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, are necessary for construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of construction sites. Temporary fills must consist of materials, and be placed in a manner, that will not be eroded by expected high flows. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to preconstruction elevations. The areas affected by temporary fills must be revegetated, as appropriate.

(d) This NWP does not authorize maintenance dredging for the primary purpose of navigation or beach restoration. This NWP does not authorize new stream channelization or stream relocation projects. Notification: For activities authorized by paragraph (b) of this NWP, the permittee must submit a preconstruction notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity (see general condition 27). Where maintenance dredging is proposed, the pre-construction notification must include information regarding the original design capacities and configurations of the outfalls, intakes, small impoundments, and canals. (Sections 10 and 404)

Note: This NWP authorizes the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized structure or fill that does not qualify for the Clean Water Act Section 404(f) exemption for maintenance.

,~Ill;" - ,_~ ~I fA-Z'- Fields of Opportunities STATE OF IOVVA

TERRY E . BRAN S TAD , GOV ERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES K IM REYNOLDS, LT. GOVERNOR C HUCK G IPP, D IRECT OR

September 25, 2013

MR DAVID CRANE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OMAHA DISTRICT 1616 CAPITOL AVE OMAHA NE 68102-4901

RE: NWO-PM-A-13-007 City of Hamburg Main Ditch 6 PL 84-99 S21 & 28, T67N, R42W, Fremont County, Iowa

Dear Mr. Crane:

This letter is in response to the August 30, 2013 public notice and the August 2013 FONSI & Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment concerning the Main Ditch 6 protecting Hamburg, Iowa in Fremont County. Thank you for inviting our comments on the impact of the above referenced project.

The last page of the August 2013 FONSI & Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment lists the 2012 Nationwide Permit Regional Conditions for Iowa. The buffer condition is different than what was certified by Iowa as a result of rule-making efforts. I am attaching the April 18, 2012 Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) for the 2012 Nationwide Permits. Please replace page 87 with the attached Section 401 WQC.

If you have any questions, please call me at

Sincerely,

Christine Schwake Environmental Specialist

Attachment

502 EAST 9th STREET I DES MOINES, IOWA 50319-0034 PHONE 515-281 -591 8 FAX 515-281 -6794 www.iowadnr.gov ,\1111'...: Vi! ~ ~ fA- "-.- I r,c... Fields of Opportunities STATE OF 10\NA

TERRY E. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES KIM REYNOLDS, LT. GOVERNOR ROGER L . LANDE, DIRECTOR Apri118, 2012

Mr. John Moeschen U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wehrspann Regulatory Field Office 8901 South 1541h Street, Suite 1 Omaha, NE 68138-3635

Subject: Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the 2012 Nationwide Permits

Dear Mr. Moeschen,

The Environmental Protection Commission granted Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the 2012 Nationwide P~rmits on April 17, 2012. An administrative rule reflecting the Commission's actions was adopted and has an effective date of June 20, 2012.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is issuing Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the 2012 Nationwide Permits with the following GOnditions:

(1) Side slopes of a newly constructed channel will be no steeper than 2:1 and planted to permanent, perennial, native vegetation if not armored.

(2) Nationwide permits with mitigation may require recording of the nationwide permit and pertinent drawings with the registrar of deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsibility for maintaining records of title to, or interest in, real property and may also require the permittee to provide proof of that recording to the Corps.

(3) Mitigation shall be scheduled prior to, or concurrent with, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

(4) For newly constructed channels through areas that are unvegetated, native grass filter strips, or a riparian buffer with native trees or shrubs a minimum of 35 feet wide from the top of bank must be planted along both sides of the new channel. A survival rate of 80 percent of desirable species shall be achieved within three years of establishment of the buffer strip.

(5) For single-family residences authorized under nationwide permit 29, the permanent loss of waters of the United States (including jurisdictional wetlands) must not exceed 1/4 acre. ·

(6) For nationwide 46, the discharge of dredged or fill material into ditches that would sever the jurisdiction of an upstream water of the United States from a downstream water of the United States is not allowed.

WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING /502 EAST 9th STREET I DES MOINES, IOWA 50319-0034 515-281-5918 FAX 515-281-679'4 www.iowadnr.gov (7) For projects that impact an outstanding national resource water, outstand{ng Iowa water, fens, bogs, seeps, or sedge meadows, an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required.

(8) For nationwide permits when the Corps' district engineer has issued a waiver to allow the permittee to exceed the limits of the nationwide permit, an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required.

(9) Heavy equipment shall not be used or operated within the stream channel. If in-stream work is unavoidable, it shall be performed in such a manner as to minimize the duration of the disturbance, turbidity increases, substrate disturbance, bank disturbance, and riparian vegetation. This condition does not further restrict otherwise authorized drainage ditch maintenance activities. ·

For any project that impacts the Missouri River on the Iowa side, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources requests that the Corps of Engineers contact us for project-specific comments/conditions to protect the water qualityI aquatic resources of the site prior to finalizing the permit decision. The request for comments may be sent to .

Best management practices must be used to prevent and control spills of hazardous substances and if there is a release, it must be immediately reported to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources at 515-281-8694.

We would like to ask the Corps to encourage applicants to use natural channel design principles and bioengineering techniques when the project involves reconstructing stream channels. This will help restore or enhance the habitat values of the reconstructed stream channel.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this Section 401 Water Quality Certification, please contact me at the address shown below or call .

Sincerely,

Christine M. Schwake Environmental Specialist