Attachment A_Final RPEA.pdf

Restoration on the Big River at Calico Creek Southeast Missouri Lead Mining District

Big River and Southwest Jefferson County Mine Sites, MO

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration:

Stream, Riparian, Floodplain and Upland Habitats

Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment

Final

September 21, 2020

Table of Contents 1 Introduction

2 Summary of Natural Resource Damage Assessment at Superfund Sites

3 Restoration Alternatives

4 Environmental Assessment

4.2.1 Big River Watershed

4.2.2 Terrestrial Environments

4.2.3 Demographics

4.2.4 Executive Order 12898 Analysis

4.2.5 Recreation

4.2.6 Cultural and Historic Resources

4.4.1 Conclusion on Alternative A

4.5.1 Physical and Biological Environment Impacts

4.5.2 Conclusion on Alternative B

4.6.1 Physical and Biological Environment Impacts

4.6.2 Conclusion on Alternative C

4.7.1 Conclusion on Alternative D

4.8.1 Conclusion on Alternative E

5 Implementation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management

6 Agencies, Organizations, and Parties Consulted for Information

7 Literature Cited

8 Figures

Appendix – Comments and Responses to Comments

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Map showing Big River watershed and tailings piles Figure 2. Map of Meramec FS Study Area and Tentatively Selected Plan Restoration Features from U.S. Corps of Engineers Figure 3. Overview of project area encompassed by Selected Alternative (Alternative E) Figure 4. Project elements of Selected Alternative (Alternative E)

1 Introduction

The U.S. Department of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State of Missouri, acting through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR), acting in their capacity as natural resource trustees (Trustees) have prepared this Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (RP/EA) to evaluate and select restoration actions along the Big River located in southeastern Missouri. The restoration actions are meant to compensate the public for natural resources injured and ecological services lost due to releases of hazardous substances, including heavy metals at and from mines, mills, smelters, and tailings impoundments of the Big River Mine Tailings and Southwest Jefferson County Lead Mine Superfund Sites (collectively called “Big River” or “Superfund Sites”) within the Old Lead Belt of southeast Missouri. Pursuant to applicable regulations, the Trustees have initiated natural resource damage assessment and restoration (NRDAR) processes at different sites throughout the Southeast Missouri Lead Mining District (SEMOLMD or SEMO) and have successfully recovered monetary damages to use to restore impacted natural resources and their services. These restoration actions analyzed and selected herein complement planned response actions by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the Superfund Sites.

For over a century, heavy metals, including, but not limited to lead and zinc were mined, milled, and smelted in the Old Lead Belt. Lead mining, milling, and smelting no longer occur in the Old Lead Belt, though past and ongoing releases of hazardous substances into nearby soils, sediments, and surrounding waters, in particular, the Big River watershed, have led to natural resource injuries. Several natural resources, including surface water, sediments, geologic resources, fish, mussels (including species listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act “ESA”), crayfish, and migratory birds, have been exposed to and adversely affected by hazardous substances released from the mining associated facilities in the Big River watershed (Allert et al. 2010, Besser et al.

2009, McKee et al. 2010, and Roberts et al. 2016). Big River sediment and floodplain soils are contaminated with lead, zinc and cadmium for over 100 miles below the first large industrial scale lead mining and milling facility in Leadwood, St. Francois County, MO. (Pavlowsky et al.2010;

see Figure 1 below). Contaminated floodplain soils have been shown to have adverse effects on migratory songbirds and plant communities. (Beyer et al. 2013; Struckhoff et al. 2013).

1.1 Purpose and Need for Restoration

The purpose of this Final RP/EA, in accordance with the analysis contained in the Southeast Missouri Ozarks Regional Restoration Plan (SEMORRP), is to address injured natural resources/services lost due to release(s) of hazardous substances including heavy metals in the Big River. The need for this RP/EA is to describe the restoration actions or projects that have been proposed by the Trustees to address those natural resource injuries.

To date, the response actions proposed and implemented by the EPA and the MoDNR in the Old Lead Belt have focused on the reduction of threats to human health including the removal and disposal of contaminated yard soils and stabilizing eroding mine tailings piles within the Superfund Sites. EPA is currently conducting Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) to investigate the impacts of heavy metals and the ecological risks they pose in and around the Big River. The remedial investigation (RI) serves as the mechanism for collecting data to characterize https://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/ec/nrda/SEMONRDA/index.html https://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/ec/nrda/SEMONRDA/index.html site conditions, determine the nature of the waste, assess risk to human health and the environment, and conduct treatability testing to evaluate the potential performance and cost of the treatment technologies that are being considered. The feasibility study (FS) is the mechanism for the development, screening, and detailed evaluation of alternative remedial actions. In conjunction with the RI/FS, EPA is conducting pilot projects to develop remedial strategies for addressing risks from lead contamination in and around the Big River but not to restore natural resources and their services. Thus, there is an opportunity to efficiently integrate natural resource restoration under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) with EPA’s pilot remedial projects to enhance the ecological outcomes from remedial actions.

As a result, the Trustees propose to undertake the restoration activities described in this Final RP/EA. Specifically, the Trustees are proposing to fund restoration activities including replanting and management of trees and other native vegetation in riparian corridors, floodplains, and upland areas and preservation of lands at and surrounding the EPA Pilot Project at Calico Creek. The pilot project is located at the confluence of Calico Creek and the Big River. The project area comprises a section of rapidly eroding stream bank determined to be inputting large quantities of metals-impacted soil to the Big River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) estimated the erosion rate for this particular site is 12,000 tons/year of soil eroded annually (from 1990 and 2018), carrying 15 tons/year of lead into the river, which is one of the worst sites measured in Jefferson County. EPA’s proposed actions include bank reshaping, channel re-orientation and bioengineered bank stabilization utilizing large trees and natural materials to stabilize the eroding banks and prevent contaminated soil from eroding and being deposited into the river.

In addition to EPA activities within the Big River watershed, the Corps has completed the St. Louis Riverfront-Meramec River Basin Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study with Integrated Environmental Assessment (Meramec FS), which provides an evaluation and recommended plan of habitat restoration projects along the Big River and within the Meramec River Basin pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Meramec FS identifies contaminated sediment and eroding contaminated soil from stream banks as targets for restoration due to impacts on federally listed endangered freshwater mussels.

The recommended plan within the Meramec FS focuses on bank instability, erosion, excessive suspended and bedded sediments, riparian zone loss, altered stream geomorphology, and freshwater habitat decline at approximately 50 sites along the Big River in an effort to reestablish a more natural, stable river. The selected riparian and floodplain restoration projects under consideration in this Final RP/EA are contemplated in the Meramec FS. These restoration projects would occur in conjunction with the EPA Pilot Project discussed above, and the Corps' ecosystem restoration project as described in the Meramec FS.

This Final RP/EA has been developed in accordance with CERCLA and NEPA to inform the public as to the types and scale of restoration to be undertaken towards compensating for injuries to natural resources and their associated services. The Trustees released the Draft RP/EA for public review and comment for a 45-day period (June 17, 2020 through July 31, 2020). Comments received from the public during the comment period, and responses to those comments, are provided in the Appendix of this document. Following review and consideration of the public comments, the Trustees have selected Alternative E in this Final RP/EA.

1.2 Relationship to the Southeast Missouri Regional Restoration Plan

In 2014, the Trustees produced the SEMORRP, which provides a process framework governing the approach for restoration project identification, evaluation, selection and implementation. In the SEMORRP, the Trustees selected Alternative D as the Preferred Alternative (see Section 3.5, pages 23 and 24 of SEMORRP for a description), where the Trustees will consider a combination of restoration actions and projects to accomplish restoration goals at or near the site(s) of injury.

The goal of this Final RP/EA is to improve or protect water quality, the quality of aquatic and riparian, floodplain, and upland habitats, and the species and communities dependent on those natural resources in and around the Big River near the confluence with Calico Creek. This Final RP/EA tiers (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28, and 43 CFR 46.140) from and incorporates by reference (40 CFR 1502.21 and 43 CFR 46.135) portions of the SEMORRP for expediency and efficiency, as appropriate. Specific sections of the SEMORRP are identified, including a brief summary description of the incorporated material, where incorporation by reference is used below.

The selected activities associated with this Final RP/EA are in alignment with the goals of the SEMORRP, and compliant with the Preferred Alternative selected in the SEMORRP.

1.3 Restoration Goals

Based on the nature of the natural resource injuries and losses, the restoration goals listed below were identified by the Trustees and guided development of this plan. These goals are in alignment with project types described under the Preferred Alternative of the SEMORRP.

Goal 1: Enhance or restore portions of the adversely affected stream segments and associated fish, wildlife, and supporting habitats;

Goal 2: Enhance or restore portions of the adversely affected terrestrial habitat, particularly those supportive of migratory birds and sensitive species; and

Goal 3: Enhance and protect, via conservation easements, the conservation value of upland or aquatic habitats supportive of species injured by hazardous substances originating from the Superfund Sites.

1.4 Natural Resource Trustee Authority

Under federal law, the natural resource trustees are authorized to act on behalf of the public to assess injuries to natural resources and services resulting from the release of hazardous substances into the environment. The NRDAR process allows trustees to pursue claims against responsible parties for monetary damages based on these injuries in order to compensate the public. Pursuant to CERCLA, the goal of this process is to plan and implement actions to restore, replace, or rehabilitate the natural resources that were injured or lost as a result of the release of a hazardous substance, or to acquire the equivalent resources or their services (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.; 43 C.F.R. Part 11). The Trustees for the Big River NRDAR are the State of Missouri, represented by the MoDNR, and the Department of the Interior, represented by the USFWS. See also the National Contingency Plan 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.600 et seq.

1.5 National Environmental Policy Act Considerations

NEPA applies to federal agency actions that affect the human environment. Federal agencies are obligated to comply with NEPA regulations adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). NEPA requires that an Environmental Assessment (EA) be prepared in order to determine whether the proposed restoration actions will have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. If an impact is considered significant, then an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. If the impact is considered not significant, then a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued. In accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations, this RP/EA summarizes the current environmental setting; describes the purpose and need for restoration actions; identifies alternative actions; assesses their applicability and potential impact on the quality of the physical, biological, and cultural environment; and outlines public participation in the decision-making process.

Tiering is permissible under NEPA provided that the proposed activity is within the range of alternatives and nature of potential environmental consequences considered in the programmatic document (40 C.F.R. §1502.20). The selected activities associated with this Final RP/EA are in alignment with the goals of the SEMORRP, and compliant with the Preferred Alternative selected in the SEMORRP. Further, this Final RP/EA tiers (40 C.F.R. §1502.20 and 40 C.F.R. §1508.28) from and incorporates by reference (40 C.F.R. §1502.21) portions of the SEMORRP for expediency and efficiency, as appropriate.

Consistent with federal laws, the Federal Trustees are continuing to evaluate the Selected Alternative identified in this Final RP/EA for compliance with other applicable laws, which may include:

• Endangered Species Act

• National Historic Preservation Act

1.6 Summary of NRDAR Settlement

The Trustees recovered monetary damages from ASARCO LLC as a part of bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 to settle certain legal claims concerning injuries to natural resources and their services associated with releases of hazardous substances from the Federal Mine and Mill Complex, part of the Big River Mine Tailings Superfund Site in St. Francois County. Since that settlement, the Trustees have expended restoration funds to restore injured natural resources.

Currently, there are approximately $24.7 million available from the Big River ASARCO settlement. The Trustees propose to fund the restoration projects described in this Final RP/EA from these remaining settlement funds. The expected cost of the Selected Alternative to the Trustees is approximately $1.225 million. The EPA’s and the Corps’ portion of the pilot project is estimated at $2.521 million, putting the total cost of the project at $3.746 million.

1.7 Public Participation

Public participation and review are integral parts of the restoration planning process, and are specifically required in the CERCLA NRDAR regulations (e.g., 43 C.F.R. §11.81(d) (2)). In addition, NEPA and its implementing regulations require that federal agencies fully consider the environmental impacts of their proposed decisions and that such information is made available to the public. The Draft RP/EA was available for public comment for 45 days from the date of publication of a notice of availability in the Jefferson County Leader and the St. Francois County Daily Journal. The Trustees received responses from two commenters, Doe Run Company and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The two commenters submitted seven unique comments in total. Based on these comments, the Trustees determined that no substantial amendments to the Draft RP/EA were warranted. Public comments and the Trustees’ responses to those comments are provided in the Appendix.

Copies of this document are available online at:

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Southeast Missouri Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Website and

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Website

Physical copies of the document are also available for review by interested members of the public at the USFWS Missouri Field Office in Columbia, MO and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ office in Jefferson City, MO. Arrangements must be made in advance to review or obtain copies of physical records at the USFWS Missouri Field Office by contacting the USFWS representative listed above.

The Trustees have also maintained records documenting the information considered and actions taken during this NRDAR process. These records are available on the Southeast Missouri Lead Mining District NRDAR website:

(https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/es/ec/nrda/SEMONRDA/index.html).

2 Summary of Natural Resource Damage Assessment at Superfund Sites

The Trustees initiated the NRDAR process at numerous sites within the Southeast Missouri Lead Mining District (SEMOLMD), including Big River Mine Tailings and Southwest Jefferson County Lead Mine Superfund Sites. The Trustees completed a Damage Assessment Plan in 2009, summarizing existing information on natural resource injuries and describing proposed studies to evaluate past, current, and future impacts to natural resources and the services they provide. In addition, the Damage Assessment Plan outlined how information gathered from the studies would be used to determine the types and scale of restoration needed to address these injuries. The https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/es/ec/nrda/SEMONRDA/index.html https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/es/ec/nrda/SEMONRDA/index.html https://dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/sfund/nrda.htm https://dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/sfund/nrda.htm https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/es/ec/nrda/SEMONRDA/index.html

Trustees conducted a series of site-specific studies assessing the exposure of natural resources, such as songbirds, sediments, geologic resources, mussels, crayfish, plant communities, and mammals, to hazardous substances and potential effects resulting from that exposure. These Trustees’ assessment studies have shown heavy metals contamination potentially caused injuries to geologic resources (sediment and soil), aquatic resources (mussels, crayfish, macro invertebrates, and benthic fish), and terrestrial resources (songbirds and floristic habitat). Evidence to support injury determination in the Big River and its floodplains (See Figure 1) includes:

• exceedances of water quality criteria - established for the protection of aquatic biota -due to elevated heavy metals in sediment;

• sediment and soil contamination at concentrations that may adversely affect geologic resources;

• reduction in mussel density and community richness;

• reduction in crayfish density;

• lead concentrations in benthic fish exceeding World Health Organization consumption advisories;

• lead concentrations in songbird tissues in exceedance of adverse effect thresholds; and evidence of phytotoxicity and reduced floristic quality.

Please see Section 2.2 of the SEMORRP, as well as our websites, for further information related to the history of lead mining and NRDA in the SEMOLMD:

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/sfund/nrda-se.htm or http://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/ec/nrda/SEMONRDA/index.html

The selected projects described in this Final RP/EA lie adjacent to the Big River and downstream of its confluence with Calico Creek, and surrounding riparian, floodplain, and upland areas.

(Figure 1).

The Trustees restoration goals are prioritized within the Big River (discussed above), which conform to the Trustees’ preferred Alternative D for restoration presented in the SEMORRP.

Figure 2 represents the Corps’ Meramec FS Tentatively Selected Plan projects and generalized representation of the Trustees’ priority restoration area for this Final RP/EA.

Summary information about physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources of the Southeast Missouri Ozarks is contained in Section 4 of the SEMORRP. Summary information about Big River, which makes up part of the Meramec River Watershed of the Southeast Missouri Ozarks --including physical resources (geology, topography, soil, surface water, and groundwater), aquatic habitat, and biological resources -- is contained in Appendix D of the SEMORRP (see pages 14 – 17, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 32). These sections of the SEMORRP are incorporated by reference herein.

3 Restoration Alternatives

To compensate the public for injuries to natural resources resulting from releases of metals from facilities in the Big River watershed, the Trustees are required to develop alternatives for the

“restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, and/or acquisition of the equivalent of the natural resources and the services those resources provide” (42 C.F.R. §11.82 (a)). The Trustees developed the SEMORRP and identified broad categories of restoration types. As described in Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) of the SEMORRP, the Trustees presented a suite of restoration project types that would be considered for implementation, including riparian corridor and stream bank restoration or enhancement. Except for Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, all restoration alternatives considered by the Trustees in this Final RP/EA are consistent with the Preferred Alternative in the SEMORRP. The selected restoration actions discussed in this Final RP/EA fall into categories of floodplain and riparian corridor enhancement; surface water quality and aquatic resource improvement; and terrestrial habitat protection and enhancement.

3.1 Restoration Evaluation Criteria

To ensure the appropriateness and acceptability of restoration options addressing ecological losses, the Trustees evaluated each option against restoration evaluation criteria.

Below are the criteria used to evaluate the potential restoration alternatives described in this Final RP/EA as part of the NRDAR process. The criteria reflect the “factors to consider when selecting the alternative to pursue” (NRDAR factors) as described in 43 C.F.R. § 11.82(d)(1-10).

Specifically, the Trustees have considered the following factors in evaluating the alternatives presented in this Final RP/EA:

• Relationship to the Injured Resource and Services;

• Technical Feasibility (43 CFR 11.82(d)(1);

• Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Policies (43 CFR 11.82(d)(9-10);

• Consistency with the Trustees’ Restoration Goals;

• Public Health and Safety (43 CFR 11.82(d)(8);

• Avoidance of Further Injury (43 CFR 1.82(d)(5);

• Time to Provide Benefits

• Duration of Benefits

The Trustees’ evaluation of these criteria is consistent with the criteria identified in Sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the SEMORRP, incorporated by reference herein. Additional criteria that the Trustees use in evaluating restoration projects contained in Appendix A of the SEMORRP include:

• Benefits federal- and state-listed species;

• Restores lost human uses;

• Creates connectivity between habitat areas;

• Conservation cost-effectiveness;

• Measures of performance success; and

• Inclusion of contingency plans or adaptive management.

3.2 Alternative A-No Action Alternative (Natural Recovery)

Under this alternative, the Trustees would rely on natural recovery and would take no direct action to restore natural resources or compensate for interim lost natural resource services. This alternative would include the continuance of ongoing monitoring programs, such as those initiated by the MoDNR for benthic macroinvertebrates, but would not include additional activities aimed at reducing contamination, reducing potential exposure to contaminants, or enhancing ecosystem biota or processes. Under this alternative, no compensation would be provided for lost resource services pending restoration.

Under the No Action Alternative, no habitats would be preserved, restored, or enhanced beyond what agencies and organizations are already doing in the area with limited existing resources.

Aquatic and riparian habitats would continue to be degraded along Big River, and in adjacent habitats. Water and sediment quality would continue to be impaired. Migratory bird individuals and/or populations would continue to be adversely impacted by degradation of resting, foraging, and nesting habitat. Local citizens and visitors recreating in the affected areas would not benefit from improved ecological resources, such as fish populations and wildlife habitat providing wildlife viewing opportunities. Agricultural land would continue to be lost due to stream bank erosion.

3.3 Alternative B – Big River and Calico Creek Riparian Restoration

This alternative focuses on the restoration and protection of stream banks through planting riparian forests along Big River and Calico Creek on private property. This alternative involves integration of restoration activities with the EPA’s Pilot Project in Calico Creek and with the Corps’ proposed projects as described in the Meramec FS. Riparian corridor work along the Big River would be implemented after access road construction and bank stabilization activities. Specific projects will include:

• Re-forestation of approximately 3.5 acres of riparian corridor through the establishment of native grasses, shrubs and trees appropriate for the area in a zone extending 50 to 150 feet perpendicular to the streams (depending on stream size);

• Preservation of project areas and 71 acres of existing riparian corridor through establishment of a conservation easements with willing landowners will ensure long-term protection; and.

• Adaptive management and monitoring of the restoration for 30 years will further ensure ecological integrity of the restoration.

Specific benefits provided by this alternative include:

• Restores native habitat to the riparian zones of contaminated streams;

• Improves water quality by preventing erosion of silt and soil into streams through bank stabilization and runoff filtration;

• Reduces land lost due to erosional processes;

• Replaces non-native plants with native plants and trees which will increase wildlife habitat diversity and robustness, including important habitat for migratory birds and other trust species;

• Stabilizes in-stream habitat necessary to support aquatic species and their habitats, including non-game and sport fish;

• Collaboration with EPA/Corps bank stabilization project will help prevent continued erosion of the bank that would de-stabilize riparian restoration, release contaminated soil, and degrade riverine habitat; and

• Land protections will ensure the longevity of the project and its benefits.

The Trustees used the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (2019) cost guide to estimate commonly implemented conservation practices. The Trustees outline the anticipated costs of the projects in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Cost estimates for riparian corridor restoration (Alternative B).

Cost Description Quantity Estimated Costs

Riparian Buffer Revegetation 3.5 acres $3,000

Easements and Preservation of Existing Corridor 75 acres $170,000

Implementation, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring

75 acres for 30 years $34,000

Total $207,000

3.4 Alternative C - Big River Floodplain Soil Restoration

This alternative focuses on restoring floodplain soils and revegetating fields currently planted in non-native grasses on private property to restore natural resources and associated services.

Components of this alternative include restoration of 125 acres in total and are described further below:

• Pilot phosphate treatment study and potential stabilization of up to 25 acres of contaminated floodplain soils through application of high phosphate soil amendments and lime. Research on contaminated Big River floodplain soils and other metals-contaminated areas demonstrates that application of high phosphate fertilizer can change the form of lead in the soil and significantly reduce its bioavailability and toxicity (Mosby et al. 2006; Tang et al. 2009; Weber et al. 2015). Beyer et al. (2016) demonstrated reduced bioavailability to Japanese quail dosed with Big River floodplain soils and other Missouri soils treated with phosphate. Soil amendments would consist of four to six tons of high phosphate fertilizer and three to five tons of lime per acre followed by mulching with natural material or covering with a biodegradable landscape fabric. Soil amendments will be added in relatively small increments (one to two-acre plots) to ensure proper management of nutrients. Revegetation of this area with native grasses, shrubs and/or trees would follow soil treatment. Monitoring activities will evaluate the effectiveness of the Pilot Study and its potential for broader implementation in other areas of the Big River.

• Planting native bottomland forest or wet meadow species in 75 acres old field floodplain in Big River and Calico Creek bottomland;

• Forest management of approximately 25 acres of bottomland forest by thinning and removal of undesirable overstocked species and allowing black walnut, other nut producing hardwood species, and bottomland forest tree species to thrive;

• Preservation of all project areas through establishment of a conservation easement with willing landowners to ensure long-term protection;

• Monitoring and adaptive management of the restoration will further ensure ecological integrity of the restoration.

Specific benefits provided by this alternative include:

• Restores native habitat to the floodplain zones of contaminated streams;

• Improves water quality by preventing erosion of silt and soil into streams through runoff filtration;

• Reduce land lost due to erosional processes;

• Replaces non-native plants with native plants and trees which will increase wildlife habitat diversity and robustness, including important habitat for migratory birds and other trust species;

• Restored floodplain will provide further protection of bank stabilization and riparian corridor restoration and indirectly support aquatic species and their habitats, including non-game and sport fish.

• Collaboration with EPA/Corps bank stabilization project will: help ensure continued erosion of banks will not de-stabilize riparian restoration; reduce releases of contaminated soil from eroding banks; and provide additional enhancements of riverine habitat.

Table 2. Cost Estimates for Big River Floodplain Restoration (Alternative C)

Cost Description Quantity Estimated Costs

Floodplain Forest and Wet Meadow Revegetation 75 acres $115,000

Existing Bottomland Forest Management 25 acres $5,000

Phosphate and Lime Treatment of Soil 25 acres $100,000

Conservation Easement 125 acres $175,000

Implementation, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring

125 acres for 30 years $129,000

Total $524,000

3.5 Alternative D - Upland Forest, Woodland, and Glade Restoration

This alternative focuses on upland forest and woodland management of currently unmanaged forest and woodland areas. Components of this alternative include:

• Upland forest enhancement of approximately 385 acres through mechanical thinning and burning of overstocked trees to enhance wildlife habitat. Forest in the proposed restoration area is variably overstocked with many poor quality, even-aged stands in some locations. This alternative would thin overstocked areas, selecting for quality native oaks, hickories and pine species with a mix of dogwoods, cherry, persimmons and other understory trees. Other areas could be burned to thin overstocked understory trees and restore native glade and woodland habitats.

• Thirty-year management of the forest, including periodic burning or herbicide application to control invasive species, would be additional components of this alternative.

• Preservation of all project areas through the establishment of a conservation easement with willing landowners will ensure long-term protection. The upland forest and woodland in this proposed restoration area are in private ownership. The existing quality of the forest and woodland under consideration is variable.

Specific benefits provided by this alternative include:

• Restores native habitat to the upland areas near Big River benefitting certain migratory bird species, federally listed bats and other terrestrial species;

• Improves water quality by preventing erosion of silt and soil into lowland areas through runoff filtration and watershed protection;

• Reduces erosion by preventing conversion of forested uplands to agricultural or residential uses;

• Replaces non-native plants with native plants and trees, which will increase wildlife habitat diversity;

• Restored upland will provide indirect and limited benefits in the form of protection of bank stabilization, riparian corridor, and floodplain restoration projects.

Table 3. Cost Estimates for Upland, Woodland and Glade restoration (Alternative D)

Cost Description Quantity Estimated Costs

Burning woodland and glades 195 acres $15,000

Timber stand improvement (thinning) 190 acres $80,000

Easements 385 acres $335,000

Implementation, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring 385 acres for 30 years $64,000

Total $494,000

3.6 Alternative E- Riparian Corridor, Floodplain, and Upland Restoration, Enhancement, and Conservation (Selected)

This project alternative encompasses all the components of Alternatives B through D and involves the preservation of lands, pilot treatment of impacted soils, enhancement of riparian corridor, floodplain forests, and uplands in and around Big River and Calico Creek. Figure 3 and Figure 4 (a, b, and c) show selected projects separated by property ownership.

This Alternative provides greater geographic benefits than Alternatives A - D. Alternative E is a more comprehensive approach to habitat restoration and streambank stabilization than the other alternatives individually. Maintaining native vegetation in a larger part of the watershed (e.g. the floodplain and uplands) will reduce impacts from extreme rainfall events within the watershed that cause erosive degradation of riparian areas. These indirect effects will significantly increase the effectiveness of riparian corridor projects intended to support bank stabilization efforts.

Additionally, selection of an alternative that revegetates the upland and floodplain without revegetating the riparian corridor will have only indirect effects on controlling erosion in the Big River or Calico Creek. It will not prevent direct erosion of soil critical to the success of the project site.

From a terrestrial perspective, the larger blocks of protected and restored forest and woodlands presented in this Alternative are more effective at establishing ecosystem function by restoring both upland and bottomland migratory bird habitat, than smaller patchwork restoration proposed by other alternatives. Many bat species need diverse forested habitat that has access to streams for foraging. A diversity of habitats, as proposed under this alternative, would also be beneficial to a wider diversity of wildlife. The total area of restored and preserved forested habitat under this alternative is over 430 acres.

Specific benefits provided by these proposed projects include:

• Restores native habitat to the upland areas near Big River benefitting certain migratory bird species, federally listed bats and other terrestrial species;

• Water quality improvements by preventing erosion of silt and soil into lowland areas through runoff filtration and watershed protection;

• Indirectly reduces land lost due to erosional processes;

• Replaces non-native plants with native plants and trees which will increase wildlife habitat diversity and robustness including important habitat for migratory birds and other trust species;

• Restored upland will provide indirect and limited benefits in protection of bank stabilization, riparian corridor, and floodplain restoration projects by increasing infiltration in the watershed;

• Reduces bioavailability of metals and exposure on flora and fauna to elevated lead concentrations through the stabilization of contaminated floodplain soils via application of high phosphate soil amendments and lime; and

• Increases efficiency and success of remedial and restoration efforts through coordination with EPA and the Corps.

Table 4. Cost Estimate of Alternative E (Selected)

Cost Description Quantity Estimated Costs

Riparian Corridor Restoration 75 acres $207,000

Floodplain Forest and Wet Meadow Restoration 125 acres $524,000

Upland Forest Restoration 385 acres $494,000

Total* 585 acres $1,225,000 *Implementation, adaptive management, and monitoring account for $227,000 of the total

4 Environmental Assessment

Actions undertaken by a federal agency to restore natural resources or services under CERCLA are subject to the NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) and other federal laws, including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). NEPA requires an assessment of any federal action that may impact the human environment. To the extent additional analysis is warranted and as appropriate, the public will have the opportunity to comment.

4.1 Environmental Assessment

In this section, the Trustees analyze the environmental consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E to determine whether implementation of any of these alternatives may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, particularly with respect to physical, biological, socio-economic, or cultural environments. This section also identifies the Selected Alternative.

The Corps also completed an EA of the projects identified in the Meramec FS. Restoration Alternatives B and portions of the selected Alternative E are evaluated within the Meramec FS/EA.

As identified more fully herein, the Trustees incorporate by reference portions of the Corps’ Meramec FS/EA, as appropriate.

The following definitions will be used to characterize the nature of the various environmental consequences evaluated in this Final RP/EA:

• Short-term or long-term impacts. In general, short-term impacts are those that would occur only with respect to a particular activity or for a finite period. Long-term impacts are those that are more likely to be persistent and chronic.

• Direct or indirect impacts. A direct impact is caused by a proposed action and occurs contemporaneously at or near the location of the action. An indirect impact is caused by a proposed action and might occur later in time or be farther removed in distance but still be a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the action.

• Negligible, minor, moderate, or major impacts. These relative terms are used to characterize the magnitude of an impact. Negligible impacts are generally not quantifiable and do not have perceptible impacts on the human environment. Minor impacts are generally those that might be perceptible but, in their context, are not amenable to measurement because of their relatively inconsequential effect. Moderate impacts are those that are more perceptible and, typically, more amenable to quantification or measurement. Major impacts are those that, in their context and due to their intensity (severity), have the potential to meet the thresholds for significance set forth under NEPA (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27) and, thus, warrant heightened attention and examination for potential means for mitigation to fulfill the requirements of NEPA.

• Adverse or beneficial impacts. An adverse impact is one having unfavorable or undesirable outcomes on the man-made or natural environment. A beneficial impact is one having positive outcomes on the man-made or natural environment. A single act might result in adverse impacts on one environmental resource and beneficial impacts on another resource.

• Cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are defined as the “impacts on the environment which result 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” (40 C.F.R. § 1508.7).

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time within a geographic area.

4.2 Affected Environment

This section describes the current physical, biological, socio-economic, and cultural resources of the Big River watershed area that may be affected by the restoration alternatives under consideration. This information will ensure that potential restoration projects are designed to maximize ecological benefits while minimizing or eliminate project-related adverse environmental consequences.

4.2.1 Big River Watershed

The Big River lies within the Meramec River Watershed and is the largest tributary to the Meramec River. Summary information about Southeast Missouri Ozarks’ physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources are contained in Section 4 of the SEMORRP. Summary information about the Meramec River Watershed of the Southeast Missouri Ozarks, including physical resources (geology, topography, soil, surface water, and groundwater), aquatic habitat, and biological resources, including sensitive species, is contained in Appendix D of the SEMORRP (see pages 14 – 17, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 32). These sections of the SEMORRP are incorporated by reference herein.

Prior to implementing restoration practices described by this RP/EA additional Endangered Species Act consultation will be completed due to the potential presence of federally-listed species, such as Indiana bats or pink mucket mussels. In addition, National Historic Preservation Act consultation will also be completed prior to construction activities.

There are several areas in Big River affected by one more or more environmental stressors.

Stressors in the Big River include not only hazardous substances released from hard rock mining, but also effluent from wastewater treatment facilities and other point source discharges and sedimentation and erosion from agricultural and logging practices.

When evaluating restoration projects and areas, it is essential to identify stressors in order to determine the locations and types of projects to prioritize (e.g., areas by watershed; areas most in need of restoration; areas most at risk; areas where restoration will be most likely to succeed, etc.).

The existing stressors are also considered in the evaluation of injury when establishing the baseline conditions of the area.

4.2.2 Terrestrial Environments

Terrestrial restoration projects are proposed within the Big River watershed. These projects will be planned for upland areas (hill sides and ridgetops). Summary information about physical and biological resources of terrestrial environments is contained in Section 4 of the SEMORRP and in Appendix D. These sections of the SEMORRP are incorporated by reference herein.

4.2.3 Demographics

A summary of demographic data is provided in the Meramec FS and is incorporated herein by reference. In general, the project area is rural and agricultural land, with pasture cattle, hay cropping, and timber production. The closest towns to the project area are Richwoods in Washington County, approximately 5 miles away, and De Soto in Jefferson County, approximately 10 miles away. De Soto is a larger municipality than Richwoods and correspondingly contains more developed commercial and light industrial districts. Whereas, Richwoods has very few businesses or amenities. Additional information on demographics of the areas within which the Trustees propose restoration activities in this Final RP/EA are discussed in SEMORRP section 4.3.2, page 30 and are incorporated by reference herein.

4.2.4 Executive Order 12898 Analysis

The Meramec Feasibility Study evaluated project effects of restoration in Jefferson County under Executive Order 12898, which analyzes environmental justice to low-income or minority populations. This analysis within Section 2.10.3, pages 46 and 47, is incorporated by reference herein.

4.2.5 Recreation

Recreational resources are highlighted in the SEMORRP in Section 4.3.1 and a list of public lands in the SEMO provided in Appendix F. These sections of the SEMORRP are incorporated by reference herein.

Impacts to recreation are anticipated to be beneficial for the property owners within the project area, and marginally enhanced to the general public. The conservation easements would not allow public access to the property. The project is located between Missouri Department of Conservation boat accesses. Therefore, boat-based recreational activities are expected to be marginally enhanced due to improved scenic and habitat features within the river due to the project construction.

4.2.6 Cultural and Historic Resources

The selected projects are in Jefferson County, Missouri. Significant historical and cultural resources, including Native American cultural and archeological sites, some of which are protected through the Missouri State Parks system are found in the vicinity of the restoration areas; however, there are no known cultural or historic resources within the boundaries of the selected restoration sites.

Prior to the implementation of the selected restoration projects, potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources will be reviewed. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of preferred alternatives on historic properties. Historic properties must also be given consideration under NEPA.

The Trustees will consult with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office to complete Section 106 review and compliance prior to taking on-the-ground restoration actions.

4.3 Components Not Affected or Not Analyzed in this Document

The following components, identified as not being present, affected, or analyzed are not brought forward for additional analysis in this Final RP/EA:

• Social/Economic/Environmental Justice – No social or economic impacts are expected from the restoration projects because of the remote location and types of projects planned. There are low-income populations near project areas, but these populations will not be adversely affected due to the intended beneficial environmental outcomes of the projects and use of some of the areas for recreation. The restoration projects are expected to be performed by Trustee contractors. The Trustees’ contracting process can encourage local employment opportunities through the companies to conduct restoration activities.

• Recreation – Impacts to recreation are anticipated to be marginally beneficial in the vicinity of the project areas where public access will be allowed, such as boating on the Big River. The project is located between Missouri Department of Conservation boat accesses. Therefore, boat-based recreational activities are expected to be enhanced.

Other types of recreation to be benefited by the property owners include forest-based recreation, such as hunting, where allowed, other wildlife-associated activities, and hiking; however, public access will not be allowed on private property where the restoration projects would be constructed.

• Cultural and Historic Resource Concerns – The Trustees will consult with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office prior to implementing any restoration activities.

• Air and Climate – Proposed activities, including operation of heavy construction equipment, are not expected to produce air pollutants at levels to exceed state air quality standards.

4.4 Evaluation of Alternative A: No Action/Natural Recovery

The No Action/Natural Recovery Alternative in this Final RP/EA (Alternative A) is similar to the No Action from the SEMORRP (see SEMORRP p. 16, 25, and 26). Environmental consequences of the No Action alternative are described on pages 35 and 36 of the SEMORRP, incorporated by reference herein.

4.4.1 Conclusion on Alternative A

The Trustees found that the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for restoration under this Final RP/EA, the Restoration Evaluation Criteria, or CERCLA, including as defined by CERCLA NRDAR procedures. Therefore, the No Action Alternative is not a preferred restoration alternative when evaluated against the NRDAR evaluation criteria.

4.5 Evaluation of Alternative B: Big River and Calico Creek Riparian Corridor Restoration

Environmental consequences associated with implementation of Alternative B have been evaluated at a programmatic level on pages 37 through 40 of the SEMORRP, which discusses restoration, enhancement or protecting floodplain resources, as well as other related topics. These sections of the SEMORRP are incorporated by reference herein. The analysis of riparian corridor and related stream bank restoration is discussed in the Meramec FS/EA on pages 84-97, Section

4.0. That analysis is incorporated by reference herein.

4.5.1 Physical and Biological Environment Impacts

Some restoration activities within this category may cause minor to moderate, short-term, direct or indirect adverse impacts; however, the long-term benefits listed above are expected to outweigh any of these adverse impacts. During project implementation, there would be minor to moderate short-term, direct disruptions to habitat due to the movement of soils as a result of tree planting, and other related actions. These impacts are expected to be localized, temporary and minor. Long-term beneficial impacts to aquatic resources and riparian plants and animals would occur due to the reduced contaminant burdens, reduced erosion, and increased shelter provided by new plantings, and beneficial impacts would span a large geographic area downstream.

4.5.2 Conclusion on Alternative B

The Trustees found Alternative B to meet the purpose and need for this Final RP/EA and all the Restoration Evaluation Criteria, including alignment of the proposed project and the Trustees’ restoration goal of improving stream condition and supporting native aquatic communities.