Notice of Availability of the Draft Missouri River Recovery Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 91151-91154 [2016-30294]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices
3. Identify and evaluate practicable
alternatives to locating in the base
floodplain, including alternative sites
outside of the floodplain.
4. Identify impacts of the proposed
action.
5. If impacts cannot be avoided,
develop measures to minimize the
impacts and restore and preserve the
floodplain, as appropriate.
6. Reevaluate alternatives.
7. Present the findings and a public
explanation.
8. Implement the action.
Following issuance of EO 11988 and
the corresponding interagency
Implementing Guidelines, USACE
developed Engineering Regulation (ER)
1165–2–26 for interpreting and
implementing the requirements of EO
11988. The regulation applies to all field
operating activities having Civil Works
responsibilities, with the exception of
the Regulatory Program which
implements EO 11988 through its
regulations. Section 14 of ER 1165–2–26
explains how EO 11988 applies to
specific Civil Works programs.
On January 30, 2015, the White House
issued Executive Order 13690—
Establishing a Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard and a Process for
Further Soliciting and Considering
Public Input. EO 13690 and the Federal
Flood Risk Management Standard
(FFRMS), implemented through
guidelines established by the Water
Resources Council (‘‘Implementing
Guidelines’’), updated EO 11988 to
include the following:
• Requires the use of an expanded
floodplain for some actions that are
federal investments.
• Requires that the elevation and
horizontal extent of the expanded
floodplain be determined using one of
three approaches: The climate-informed
science approach, the freeboard value
approach, and the 500-year flood
elevation approach.
• Requires agencies to use natural
and nature based approaches, where
possible.
• Establishes higher standards for
critical actions.
USACE established a Product
Development Team (PDT) to investigate
what impacts EO 13690 and the FFRMS
would have on its policies and programs
and, in particular, to develop revised
implementation guidance for EO 11988,
as amended. A draft Engineer Circular
(EC) that will ultimately rescind ER
1165–2–26 has been developed to
provide overarching guidance for the
implementation of EO 11988, as
amended. The EC will expire two years
from issuance, which will provide
USACE time to evaluate the guidance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 241001
provided, consider initial
implementation experience to identify
any necessary clarifications or changes,
and incorporate any changes introduced
by the reassessment of the FFRMS
required by EO 13690. After two years,
the EC will either be revised and
reissued or converted to an ER, which
does not expire and is more permanent
agency guidance.
The draft EC is intended to provide
overarching guidance to all USACE
Civil Works mission areas. As such, it
does not provide extensive detail about
how the requirements will be
implemented within specific program
areas or activities; instead it establishes
intended implementation principles
that will be clarified in greater detail in
individual program specific guidance
documents, to be developed or revised
at a later date. Generally, the new
requirements will be incorporated into
specific guidance documents as they are
updated through the agency’s regular
process and schedule, unless a new
guidance document needs to be
prepared to address some aspect of
implementation of the requirements.
USACE now invites review and
comment from our partners and
stakeholders on the proposed
implementation guidance contained
within the draft EC.
Instructions for Providing Comments
Online
USACE is requesting assistance in the
form of data, comments, literature
references, or field experiences, to help
clarify the policy requirements for
implementing EO 11988 and EO 13690
for agency activities. The draft EC is
available for review on the USACE EO
13690 Implementation Web site (https://
www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/
FloodRiskManagement/
FloodRiskManagementProgram/
AbouttheProgram/PolicyandGuidance/
FederalFloodRiskManagement
Standard.aspx). An Executive Summary
of the draft EC is also available on the
Web site to provide a high-level
overview of the document and summary
of the more substantial changes since
the original 1984 ER. Additionally, a list
of topics and issues for which feedback
would be especially helpful is posted
for reviewer’s consideration. While
USACE welcomes any and all feedback
on the draft EC, feedback responding to
the list of identified topics and issues
will be particularly helpful to USACE in
clarifying areas requiring new policy or
practice. The most useful comments are
from specific experiences and case
examples. Commenters should use their
knowledge of working with USACE on
various types of federal actions as well
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
91151
as their understanding of EO 11988 and
EO 13690. When comments are being
made on specific sections of the
document, USACE requests that
commenters identify the relevant page
and line numbers to which the comment
applies.
All comments, literature citations,
experiential references, data, other
relevant reports, and input in response
to the guiding topics and issues are
being accepted through email, or
through the postal service. All
comments submitted by the date
identified above will be compiled and
sent to the PDT for their consideration.
Future Actions
Feedback and comments provided in
response to this notice will be
considered and the draft EC will be
updated as appropriate. When the final
EC is published, a notice will be placed
in the Federal Register and on the
USACE EO 13690 Implementation Web
site, and the document itself will be
made available through the USACE
publications Web site (https://
www.publications.usace.army.mil/).
Dated: December 12, 2016.
Karen Durham-Aguilera,
Director of Contingency, Operations and
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2016–30240 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Missouri River Recovery Management
Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement
Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Kansas City and Omaha
Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), in cooperation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), have developed the Missouri
River Recovery Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
(MRRMP–EIS). This document is a
programmatic assessment of (1) major
federal actions necessary to avoid a
finding of jeopardy to the pallid
sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus),
interior least tern (Sterna antillarum
athalassos), and the Northern Great
Plains piping plover (Charadrius
melodus) caused by operation of the
Missouri River Mainstem and Kansas
River Reservoir System and operation
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
91152
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices
and maintenance of the Missouri River
Bank Stabilization and Navigation
Project (BSNP) in accordance with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended; and (2) the Missouri River
BSNP fish and wildlife mitigation plan
described in the 2003 Record of
Decision (ROD) and authorized by the
Water Resources Development Acts
(WRDA) of 1986, 1999, and 2007.
DATES: Submit written comments on the
draft EIS on or before February 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha
District, ATTN: CENWO–PM–AC—
MRRMP–EIS, 1616 Capitol Ave, Omaha,
NE 68102; or provide comments via an
online comment form (preferred
method) at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
MRRMP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
above address or email to cenwoplanning@usace.army.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
USACE is issuing this notice pursuant
to section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions
of NEPA (43 CFR parts 1500 through
1508). This notice announces the
availability of the draft MRRMP–EIS
and begins the public comment period.
The MRRMP–EIS, its appendices, and
other supporting documents can be
accessed at: www.moriverrecovery.org
under the ‘‘Management Plan’’ tab on
the Web site homepage.
Background Information. The
Missouri River flows for 2,341 miles
from Three Forks, Montana at the
confluence of the Gallatin, Madison,
and Jefferson Rivers in the Rocky
Mountains through the states of
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. It
is the longest river in the United States.
USACE operates the Missouri River
Mainstem Reservoir System (System)
consisting of six dams and reservoirs
with a capacity to store 72.4 million
acre-feet (MAF) of water, the largest
reservoir system in North America. The
System is operated as an integrated
system for eight congressionally
authorized purposes, which include
flood control, navigation, irrigation,
hydropower, water supply, water
quality, recreation, and fish and
wildlife. USACE operates the System in
accordance with the policies and
procedures prescribed in the Missouri
River Mainstem Reservoir System
Master Water Control Manual (Master
Manual) (USACE, 2006a). The Kansas
River Reservoir System includes the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 241001
primary downstream flood control
projects of Clinton, Perry, Tuttle Creek,
Milford, Waconda (U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation), Wilson, and Kanopolis.
USACE also constructed and maintains
the Missouri River Bank Stabilization
and Navigation Project which provides
a 9-foot deep navigation channel with a
minimum width of 300 feet during the
navigation season from April 1 to
November 30 between Sioux City, Iowa,
and the mouth near St. Louis, Missouri.
The BSNP consists mainly of rock pile
structures and revetments along the
outsides of bends and transverse dikes
along the insides of bends to force the
river into a channel alignment that is
self-maintaining or self-scouring.
During the course of the Master
Manual Review and Update Study,
developed from 1989 to 2004, USACE
entered into formal consultation with
USFWS on the effects of the operation
of the Missouri River Mainstem
Reservoir System, operation and
maintenance of the BSNP, and operation
of the Kansas River Reservoir System on
the pallid sturgeon, interior least tern,
and piping plover. A biological opinion
(BiOp) was issued by USFWS in 2000
with a finding of jeopardy for all the
listed species and a proposed
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
(RPA) that was accepted by the USACE.
In 2003, following additional
consultation, USFWS provided an
amended BiOp that determined the new
proposed action by USACE would avoid
jeopardizing the continued existence of
the two listed bird species, but would
continue to jeopardize the continued
existence of the pallid sturgeon in the
wild. The Missouri River Recovery
Program (MRRP) was established in
2005 to implement the RPA
requirements contained in the 2000 and
2003 BiOps and the BSNP fish and
wildlife mitigation plan.
A substantial amount of new
knowledge about the species, their
habitats, and management actions has
been developed since the 2003
Amended BiOp was completed. The
Independent Scientific Advisory Panel
(ISAP), established by the Missouri
River Recovery Implementation
Committee (MRRIC), issued a report in
2011 that recommended development of
an overarching adaptive management
(AM) plan that would anticipate
implementation of combined flow
management actions and mechanical
habitat construction. They
recommended an AM plan should be
used to guide future management
actions, monitoring, research, and
assessment. The ISAP report also
recommended basing the AM plan on an
effects analysis, which would precede
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the development of the AM plan and
incorporate new knowledge about the
species accrued since the 2003
Amended BiOp. Since the 2011 report,
the first phase of the effects analysis has
been completed and documented for
pallid sturgeon, interior least tern,
piping plover, and associated habitat
analyses.
The purpose of this draft MRRMP–EIS
is to develop a suite of actions that
allows the USACE to meet its
obligations under the Endangered
Species Act while still operating its
projects for the congressionally
authorized purposes. Authorities used
to meet this purpose may include
existing USACE authorities related to
Missouri River System operations for
listed species and acquisition and
development of land needed for creation
of habitat for listed species provided by
Section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, as modified
by Section 334(a) of WRDA 1999, and
further modified by Section 3176 of
WRDA 2007, although alternatives
formulation was not limited to these
authorities.
The draft MRRMP–EIS assesses the
programmatic effects of alternatives for
implementing the MRRP, which include
actions necessary to avoid a finding of
jeopardy to the federally-listed species
and associated actions which comply
with the BSNP mitigation plan during
the implementation timeframe for this
EIS. This EIS provides the necessary
information for the public to fully
evaluate a range of alternatives to best
meet the purpose and need of the
MRRMP–EIS and to provide thoughtful
and meaningful comment for the
Agency’s consideration. Six alternatives
were carried forward from the Effects
Analysis results for detailed evaluation
in the MRRMP–EIS (the no-action
alternative and five action alternatives).
The following management actions were
included in all six of the alternatives:
—Mechanical construction of emergent
sandbar habitat (ESH);
—Vegetation management, predator
management, and human restriction
measures on ESH;
—Pallid sturgeon propagation and
augmentation;
—Pallid early life stage habitat
construction downstream of Ponca,
Nebraska;
—Habitat development and
management of acquired lands; and
—Monitoring and evaluation of
management actions.
However the actual scale and extent of
mechanical ESH creation and pallid
early life stage habitat construction
would vary among the alternatives.
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices
Under the no-action alternative,
USACE would continue to implement
the MRRP as it is currently. In addition
to the actions common to all
alternatives, the USACE would
mechanically construct ESH at a rate of
107 acres per year in the Garrison and
Gavins Point reaches and construct
pallid early life stage habitat to achieve
an average of 20 acres of shallow water
habitat per river mile. The no-action
alternative would also continue to
implement the plenary spring pulse
included in the Master Manual.
Alternative 2 represents the USFWS’s
interpretation of the management
actions that could be ultimately
implemented as part of the 2003
Amended BiOp RPA. In addition to the
actions common to all alternatives, the
USACE would mechanically construct
ESH at a rate up to 3,546 acres per year
in the Garrison, Fort Randall, Lewis and
Clark Lake, and Gavins Point reaches
and pallid early life stage habitat to
achieve an average of 30 acres of
shallow water habitat per river mile.
Alternative 2 would also include a
spring pallid flow release consisting of
a bimodal pulse in March and May and
a low summer flow.
Under Alternatives 3–6, the USACE
would follow the processes and criteria
in the AM plan (companion document
to the MRRMP–EIS) that was developed
based on the results of the Effects
Analysis. The AM plan identifies the
process and criteria to implement initial
management actions, assess hypotheses,
and introduce new management actions
should they become necessary. Initial
management actions include specific
study efforts to fill data gaps in
knowledge of the pallid sturgeon life
cycle, creation of spawning habitat for
pallid sturgeon to monitor effectiveness,
and the construction of pallid early life
stage habitat following the interception
and rearing complex (IRC) concept
identified in the Effects Analysis.
In addition to the actions common to
Alternatives 3–6, Alternative 3 would
include mechanical construction of ESH
at an average rate of 391 acres per year
when construction is needed in the
Garrison, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point
reaches. Alternative 3 would not
implement the plenary spring pulse
included in the Master Manual.
However, as part of the AM plan the
potential for a one-time spawning cue
test release, if studies during the first 9–
10 years do not provide a clear answer
on whether a spawning cue is
important, is included in Alternative 3.
In addition to the actions common to
Alternatives 3–6, Alternative 4 would
include mechanical construction of ESH
at an average rate of 240 acres per year
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 241001
when construction is needed in the
Garrison, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point
reaches. Alternative 4 also includes
implementation of a spring ESH
creation release if System storage is at
42 MAF or greater on April 1, normal
flows that could create 250 acres of ESH
have not occurred in the previous four
years, and downstream flow is below
identified flood control constraints
specific to this alternative. Alternative 4
also includes, as part of the AM plan,
the potential for a one-time spawning
cue release as described for Alternative
3.
In addition to the actions common to
Alternatives 3–6, Alternative 5 would
include mechanical construction of ESH
at an average rate of 309 acres per year
when construction is needed in the
Garrison, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point
reaches. Alternative 5 also includes
implementation of a fall ESH creation
release if System storage is at 54.5 MAF
or greater on October 17, normal flows
that could create 250 acres of ESH have
not occurred in the previous four years,
and downstream flow is below
identified flood control constraints
specific to this alternative. Alternative
5, also includes, as part of the AM plan,
the potential for a one-time spawning
cue release as described for Alternative
3.
In addition to the actions common to
Alternatives 3–6, Alternative 6 would
include mechanical construction of ESH
at an average rate of 304 acres per year
when construction is needed in the
Garrison, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point
reaches. Alternative 6 also includes
implementation of a spawning cue
release, attempted every 3 years,
consisting of a bimodal pulse in March
and May. These spawning cue releases
would not be started or would be
terminated whenever downstream flow
is at identified flood control constraints
specific to this alternative.
The draft EIS evaluates the potential
effects on the human environment
associated with each of the above
alternatives. Resources and uses
evaluated include: River infrastructure
and hydrological processes; pallid
sturgeon; piping plover and interior
least tern; fish and wildlife habitat;
other special status species; water
quality; air quality; cultural resources;
land use and ownership; commercial
sand and gravel dredging; flood risk
management and interior drainage;
hydropower; irrigation; navigation;
recreation; thermal power; water
supply; wastewater facilities; tribal
interests (other); human health and
safety; environmental justice; ecosystem
services; and Mississippi River
resources.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
91153
Meetings. Six public meetings to share
information and to allow the public to
provide oral and written comments will
be held from 5:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. on:
• Tuesday, February 7, 2017—Fort
Peck Interpretive Center, Yellowstone
Road, Fort Peck, Montana 59223.
• Wednesday, February 8, 2017—
Bismarck State College, National Energy
Center of Excellence, 1500 Edwards
Ave., Bismarck, North Dakota 58506.
• Thursday, February 9, 2017—
Ramkota Hotel and Conference Center,
920 W Sioux Avenue, Pierre, South
Dakota 57501.
• Tuesday, February 14, 2017—
Thompson Alumni Center, Bootstrapper
Hall, 6705 Dodge Street, Omaha,
Nebraska 68612.
• Wednesday, February 15, 2017—
Hilton Kansas City Airport, Shawnee B,
8801 NW 112th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64153.
• Thursday, February 16, 2017—
Double Tree Inn by Hilton Hotel,
Ballroom A & B, 16625 Swingley Ridge
Road, Chesterfield, Missouri 63017.
Each public meeting will begin with
an open house at 5:00 p.m. A formal
presentation will be provided at 5:45
p.m. followed by a public hearing
session. Several different methods of
submitting comments will be available
at each public meeting. The public
meeting dates or locations may change
based on inclement weather or
exceptional circumstances. If the
meeting date or location is changed, the
USACE will issue a press release and
post it on www.moriverrecovery.org to
announce the updated meeting details.
Schedule. Public comments on the
draft MRRMP–EIS must be received by
February 24, 2017. The USACE will
consider and respond to all comments
received on the draft MRRMP–EIS when
preparing the final MRRMP–EIS. The
USACE expects to issue the final EIS in
the spring of 2018, at which time a
Notice of Availability will be published
in the Federal Register. A Record of
Decision is expected in the spring of
2018.
Special Assistance for Public Meeting.
The meeting facilities are physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
People needing special assistance to
attend and/or participate in the
meetings should contact: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Omaha District,
ATTN: CENWO–PM–AC, 1616 Capitol
Ave., Omaha, NE 68102 or email cenwoplanning@usace.army.mil. To allow
sufficient time to process special
requests, please contact no later than
one week before the public meeting.
Public Disclosure Statement. If you
wish to comment, you may mail your
comments as indicated under the
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
91154
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices
ADDRESSES section of this notice. Before
including your address, phone number,
email address, or any other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made available to the public at any
time. While you can request us to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: December 8, 2016.
Mark Harberg,
Missouri River Recovery Program Manager,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[FR Doc. 2016–30294 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of
Engineers
Notice of Availability—Final
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Update of the Water Control
Manuals and Water Supply Storage
Assessment for the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint River Basin
Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Mobile District (USACE), has released
the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the update of the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
(ACF) Water Control Master Manual
(Master Manual) Alabama, Florida, and
Georgia including a water supply
storage assessment addressing
reallocation of storage in Lake Sidney
Lanier (Lake Lanier).
A Notice of Availability was
published by the Environmental
Protection Agency on December 16,
2016. The review period will end 30
days after that date.
DATES: The review period of the FEIS
ends on January 14, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Lewis Sumner at telephone (251) 694–
3857.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Master Manual includes appendices
prepared for individual projects in the
ACF Basin and is the guide used by
USACE to operate a system of five
federal reservoir projects in the basin—
Buford Dam and Lake Lanier, West
Point Dam and Lake, Walter F. George
Lock and Dam and Lake, George W.
Andrews Lock and Dam and Lake, and
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 241001
Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam and Lake
Seminole.
The purpose and need for the federal
action is to determine how federal
projects in the ACF Basin should be
operated for their authorized purposes,
in light of current conditions and
applicable law, and to implement those
operations through updated water
control plans and manuals. The
proposed action will result in an
updated Master Manual and individual
project water control manuals (WCMs)
that comply with existing USACE
regulations and reflect operations under
existing congressional authorizations,
taking into account changes in basin
hydrology and demands from years of
growth and development, new/
rehabilitated structural features, legal
developments, and environmental
issues. The action includes updates to
account for a June 28, 2011, decision of
the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
On May 16, 2000, the Governor of the
State of Georgia submitted a formal
request to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works) to adjust the
operation of Lake Lanier, and to enter
into agreements with the state or water
supply providers to accommodate
increases in water supply withdrawals
from Lake Lanier and downstream at
Atlanta over the next 30 years,
culminating in total gross withdrawals
of 705 million gallons per day (mgd)—
297 mgd from Lake Lanier and 408 mgd
downstream—by the year 2030. The
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) in 2002 denied Georgia’s
request. The 2011 decision of the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals ordered
USACE to reconsider whether it has the
legal authority to operate the Buford
project to accommodate Georgia’s
request. USACE provided a legal
opinion concluding that it has sufficient
authority under applicable law to
accommodate that request, but noted
that any decision to take action on
Georgia’s request would require a
separate analysis. On January 11, 2013,
the Governor of the state of Georgia
provided updated demographic and
water demand data to confirm the
continued need for 705 mgd to meet
Georgia’s water needs from Lake Lanier
and the Chattahoochee River to
approximately the year 2040 rather than
2030 as specified in the 2000 request.
On December 4, 2015, after the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
had been published, the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division
(GAEPD), on behalf of the State of
Georgia, provided additional updated
demographic and water demand data
(referred to as Georgia’s 2015 request)
that reduced the state’s needs from a
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
total of 705 mgd to a range of 597–621
mgd—242 mgd from Lake Lanier
(instead of 297 mgd) and 355–379 mgd
downstream (instead of 408 mgd)—
through the year 2050 rather than 2040
as specified in the 2013 request.
USACE’s objectives for the Master
Manual are to develop a water control
plan that meets the existing water
resource needs of the basin, fulfills its
responsibilities in operating for the
authorized project purposes, and
complies with all pertinent laws. The
FEIS presents the results of USACE’s
analysis of the environmental effects of
the Proposed Action Alternative (PAA)
that the USACE believes accomplishes
these objectives.
USACE evaluated an array of
potential water management alternatives
and optional water supply amounts
during the Master Manual update
process, resulting in the selection of the
PAA. Additional information on the
components of the PAA can be found at
https://www.sam.usace.army.mil/
Missions/PlanningEnvironmental/
ACFMasterWaterControlManualUpdate/
ACFDocumentLibrary.aspx.
One alternative available to USACE is
to continue with current operations.
This approach is termed the No Action
Alternative (NAA). The PAA would
update the water control plans and
manuals for the ACF Basin as directed
by Secretary of the Army Pete Geren on
January 30, 2008. Additionally, the PAA
would provide for releases from Buford
Dam to satisfy Georgia’s 2015 request of
379 mgd from the Chattahoochee River
for Metro Atlanta and would reallocate
storage in Lake Lanier of 252,950 acrefeet to satisfy Georgia’s 2015 request and
support average annual water supply
withdrawals of up to 222 mgd.
The FEIS responds to, and
incorporates agency and public
comments received on the DEIS, which
was available for public review from
October 2, 2015, through January 15,
2016. Five open house style public
meetings were held on October 26th
through November 9th, 2015, and more
than 300 persons attended these
workshops, either representing various
agencies and organizations or as
interested individual citizens. Two
hundred seventy (270) comments on the
DEIS were submitted by agencies
(Federal, state, and local), private
organizations, and individuals. The
USACE responses to substantive agency
and public comments are provided in
appendix C of the FEIS.
USACE incorporated pertinent
revisions and updates to the EIS and the
WCM based on input received during
the public review process. The key
revisions and updates to the documents
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91151-91154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30294]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Notice of Availability of the Draft Missouri River Recovery
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Kansas City and Omaha Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), have developed the Missouri River Recovery Management
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (MRRMP-EIS). This document is a
programmatic assessment of (1) major federal actions necessary to avoid
a finding of jeopardy to the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus),
interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), and the Northern
Great Plains piping plover (Charadrius melodus) caused by operation of
the Missouri River Mainstem and Kansas River Reservoir System and
operation
[[Page 91152]]
and maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation
Project (BSNP) in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended; and (2) the Missouri River BSNP fish and wildlife
mitigation plan described in the 2003 Record of Decision (ROD) and
authorized by the Water Resources Development Acts (WRDA) of 1986,
1999, and 2007.
DATES: Submit written comments on the draft EIS on or before February
24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha
District, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AC--MRRMP-EIS, 1616 Capitol Ave, Omaha, NE
68102; or provide comments via an online comment form (preferred
method) at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/MRRMP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The above address or email to cenwo-planning@usace.army.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USACE is issuing this notice pursuant to
section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural
provisions of NEPA (43 CFR parts 1500 through 1508). This notice
announces the availability of the draft MRRMP-EIS and begins the public
comment period. The MRRMP-EIS, its appendices, and other supporting
documents can be accessed at: www.moriverrecovery.org under the
``Management Plan'' tab on the Web site homepage.
Background Information. The Missouri River flows for 2,341 miles
from Three Forks, Montana at the confluence of the Gallatin, Madison,
and Jefferson Rivers in the Rocky Mountains through the states of
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and
Missouri. It is the longest river in the United States. USACE operates
the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System (System) consisting of six
dams and reservoirs with a capacity to store 72.4 million acre-feet
(MAF) of water, the largest reservoir system in North America. The
System is operated as an integrated system for eight congressionally
authorized purposes, which include flood control, navigation,
irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality, recreation, and
fish and wildlife. USACE operates the System in accordance with the
policies and procedures prescribed in the Missouri River Mainstem
Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual (Master Manual) (USACE,
2006a). The Kansas River Reservoir System includes the primary
downstream flood control projects of Clinton, Perry, Tuttle Creek,
Milford, Waconda (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), Wilson, and Kanopolis.
USACE also constructed and maintains the Missouri River Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Project which provides a 9-foot deep
navigation channel with a minimum width of 300 feet during the
navigation season from April 1 to November 30 between Sioux City, Iowa,
and the mouth near St. Louis, Missouri. The BSNP consists mainly of
rock pile structures and revetments along the outsides of bends and
transverse dikes along the insides of bends to force the river into a
channel alignment that is self-maintaining or self-scouring.
During the course of the Master Manual Review and Update Study,
developed from 1989 to 2004, USACE entered into formal consultation
with USFWS on the effects of the operation of the Missouri River
Mainstem Reservoir System, operation and maintenance of the BSNP, and
operation of the Kansas River Reservoir System on the pallid sturgeon,
interior least tern, and piping plover. A biological opinion (BiOp) was
issued by USFWS in 2000 with a finding of jeopardy for all the listed
species and a proposed Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) that
was accepted by the USACE. In 2003, following additional consultation,
USFWS provided an amended BiOp that determined the new proposed action
by USACE would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the two
listed bird species, but would continue to jeopardize the continued
existence of the pallid sturgeon in the wild. The Missouri River
Recovery Program (MRRP) was established in 2005 to implement the RPA
requirements contained in the 2000 and 2003 BiOps and the BSNP fish and
wildlife mitigation plan.
A substantial amount of new knowledge about the species, their
habitats, and management actions has been developed since the 2003
Amended BiOp was completed. The Independent Scientific Advisory Panel
(ISAP), established by the Missouri River Recovery Implementation
Committee (MRRIC), issued a report in 2011 that recommended development
of an overarching adaptive management (AM) plan that would anticipate
implementation of combined flow management actions and mechanical
habitat construction. They recommended an AM plan should be used to
guide future management actions, monitoring, research, and assessment.
The ISAP report also recommended basing the AM plan on an effects
analysis, which would precede the development of the AM plan and
incorporate new knowledge about the species accrued since the 2003
Amended BiOp. Since the 2011 report, the first phase of the effects
analysis has been completed and documented for pallid sturgeon,
interior least tern, piping plover, and associated habitat analyses.
The purpose of this draft MRRMP-EIS is to develop a suite of
actions that allows the USACE to meet its obligations under the
Endangered Species Act while still operating its projects for the
congressionally authorized purposes. Authorities used to meet this
purpose may include existing USACE authorities related to Missouri
River System operations for listed species and acquisition and
development of land needed for creation of habitat for listed species
provided by Section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986, as modified by Section 334(a) of WRDA 1999, and further modified
by Section 3176 of WRDA 2007, although alternatives formulation was not
limited to these authorities.
The draft MRRMP-EIS assesses the programmatic effects of
alternatives for implementing the MRRP, which include actions necessary
to avoid a finding of jeopardy to the federally-listed species and
associated actions which comply with the BSNP mitigation plan during
the implementation timeframe for this EIS. This EIS provides the
necessary information for the public to fully evaluate a range of
alternatives to best meet the purpose and need of the MRRMP-EIS and to
provide thoughtful and meaningful comment for the Agency's
consideration. Six alternatives were carried forward from the Effects
Analysis results for detailed evaluation in the MRRMP-EIS (the no-
action alternative and five action alternatives). The following
management actions were included in all six of the alternatives:
--Mechanical construction of emergent sandbar habitat (ESH);
--Vegetation management, predator management, and human restriction
measures on ESH;
--Pallid sturgeon propagation and augmentation;
--Pallid early life stage habitat construction downstream of Ponca,
Nebraska;
--Habitat development and management of acquired lands; and
--Monitoring and evaluation of management actions.
However the actual scale and extent of mechanical ESH creation and
pallid early life stage habitat construction would vary among the
alternatives.
[[Page 91153]]
Under the no-action alternative, USACE would continue to implement
the MRRP as it is currently. In addition to the actions common to all
alternatives, the USACE would mechanically construct ESH at a rate of
107 acres per year in the Garrison and Gavins Point reaches and
construct pallid early life stage habitat to achieve an average of 20
acres of shallow water habitat per river mile. The no-action
alternative would also continue to implement the plenary spring pulse
included in the Master Manual.
Alternative 2 represents the USFWS's interpretation of the
management actions that could be ultimately implemented as part of the
2003 Amended BiOp RPA. In addition to the actions common to all
alternatives, the USACE would mechanically construct ESH at a rate up
to 3,546 acres per year in the Garrison, Fort Randall, Lewis and Clark
Lake, and Gavins Point reaches and pallid early life stage habitat to
achieve an average of 30 acres of shallow water habitat per river mile.
Alternative 2 would also include a spring pallid flow release
consisting of a bimodal pulse in March and May and a low summer flow.
Under Alternatives 3-6, the USACE would follow the processes and
criteria in the AM plan (companion document to the MRRMP-EIS) that was
developed based on the results of the Effects Analysis. The AM plan
identifies the process and criteria to implement initial management
actions, assess hypotheses, and introduce new management actions should
they become necessary. Initial management actions include specific
study efforts to fill data gaps in knowledge of the pallid sturgeon
life cycle, creation of spawning habitat for pallid sturgeon to monitor
effectiveness, and the construction of pallid early life stage habitat
following the interception and rearing complex (IRC) concept identified
in the Effects Analysis.
In addition to the actions common to Alternatives 3-6, Alternative
3 would include mechanical construction of ESH at an average rate of
391 acres per year when construction is needed in the Garrison, Fort
Randall, and Gavins Point reaches. Alternative 3 would not implement
the plenary spring pulse included in the Master Manual. However, as
part of the AM plan the potential for a one-time spawning cue test
release, if studies during the first 9-10 years do not provide a clear
answer on whether a spawning cue is important, is included in
Alternative 3.
In addition to the actions common to Alternatives 3-6, Alternative
4 would include mechanical construction of ESH at an average rate of
240 acres per year when construction is needed in the Garrison, Fort
Randall, and Gavins Point reaches. Alternative 4 also includes
implementation of a spring ESH creation release if System storage is at
42 MAF or greater on April 1, normal flows that could create 250 acres
of ESH have not occurred in the previous four years, and downstream
flow is below identified flood control constraints specific to this
alternative. Alternative 4 also includes, as part of the AM plan, the
potential for a one-time spawning cue release as described for
Alternative 3.
In addition to the actions common to Alternatives 3-6, Alternative
5 would include mechanical construction of ESH at an average rate of
309 acres per year when construction is needed in the Garrison, Fort
Randall, and Gavins Point reaches. Alternative 5 also includes
implementation of a fall ESH creation release if System storage is at
54.5 MAF or greater on October 17, normal flows that could create 250
acres of ESH have not occurred in the previous four years, and
downstream flow is below identified flood control constraints specific
to this alternative. Alternative 5, also includes, as part of the AM
plan, the potential for a one-time spawning cue release as described
for Alternative 3.
In addition to the actions common to Alternatives 3-6, Alternative
6 would include mechanical construction of ESH at an average rate of
304 acres per year when construction is needed in the Garrison, Fort
Randall, and Gavins Point reaches. Alternative 6 also includes
implementation of a spawning cue release, attempted every 3 years,
consisting of a bimodal pulse in March and May. These spawning cue
releases would not be started or would be terminated whenever
downstream flow is at identified flood control constraints specific to
this alternative.
The draft EIS evaluates the potential effects on the human
environment associated with each of the above alternatives. Resources
and uses evaluated include: River infrastructure and hydrological
processes; pallid sturgeon; piping plover and interior least tern; fish
and wildlife habitat; other special status species; water quality; air
quality; cultural resources; land use and ownership; commercial sand
and gravel dredging; flood risk management and interior drainage;
hydropower; irrigation; navigation; recreation; thermal power; water
supply; wastewater facilities; tribal interests (other); human health
and safety; environmental justice; ecosystem services; and Mississippi
River resources.
Meetings. Six public meetings to share information and to allow the
public to provide oral and written comments will be held from 5:00 p.m.
to 8:45 p.m. on:
Tuesday, February 7, 2017--Fort Peck Interpretive Center,
Yellowstone Road, Fort Peck, Montana 59223.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017--Bismarck State College,
National Energy Center of Excellence, 1500 Edwards Ave., Bismarck,
North Dakota 58506.
Thursday, February 9, 2017--Ramkota Hotel and Conference
Center, 920 W Sioux Avenue, Pierre, South Dakota 57501.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017--Thompson Alumni Center,
Bootstrapper Hall, 6705 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68612.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017--Hilton Kansas City Airport,
Shawnee B, 8801 NW 112th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64153.
Thursday, February 16, 2017--Double Tree Inn by Hilton
Hotel, Ballroom A & B, 16625 Swingley Ridge Road, Chesterfield,
Missouri 63017.
Each public meeting will begin with an open house at 5:00 p.m. A
formal presentation will be provided at 5:45 p.m. followed by a public
hearing session. Several different methods of submitting comments will
be available at each public meeting. The public meeting dates or
locations may change based on inclement weather or exceptional
circumstances. If the meeting date or location is changed, the USACE
will issue a press release and post it on www.moriverrecovery.org to
announce the updated meeting details.
Schedule. Public comments on the draft MRRMP-EIS must be received
by February 24, 2017. The USACE will consider and respond to all
comments received on the draft MRRMP-EIS when preparing the final
MRRMP-EIS. The USACE expects to issue the final EIS in the spring of
2018, at which time a Notice of Availability will be published in the
Federal Register. A Record of Decision is expected in the spring of
2018.
Special Assistance for Public Meeting. The meeting facilities are
physically accessible to people with disabilities. People needing
special assistance to attend and/or participate in the meetings should
contact: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, ATTN: CENWO-PM-
AC, 1616 Capitol Ave., Omaha, NE 68102 or email cenwo-planning@usace.army.mil. To allow sufficient time to process special
requests, please contact no later than one week before the public
meeting.
Public Disclosure Statement. If you wish to comment, you may mail
your comments as indicated under the
[[Page 91154]]
ADDRESSES section of this notice. Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or any other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including
your personal identifying information--may be made available to the
public at any time. While you can request us to withhold your personal
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Dated: December 8, 2016.
Mark Harberg,
Missouri River Recovery Program Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[FR Doc. 2016-30294 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P