Final Environmental Assessment.pdf

Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Construction of Plant Genetics Research Unit and Anticipated Future Development within Columbia, Missouri

Prepared for:

United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

Prepared by:

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Kansas City District

February 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 OBJECTIVE OF PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 Project Background

1.2 Purpose and Need

1.3 Project Location

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

2.2 Alternatives Carried Forward

2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

2.4 Alternative 2 – New Construction at Current USDA Research Site

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS

3.1 NEPA Evaluation

3.2 NEPA Evaluation Applied to the Alternatives

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Recommended Alternative

4.2 Proposed Project Recommendation

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

6.0 REFERENCES

List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed Project Location Figure 2. Proposed MU Campus Sites Figure 3. Proposed Project Footprint and Vicinity Including Alternate Location for Future Development (Project Area/Project Site)

List of Tables Table 1. Project Site Criteria

This page intentionally left blank

1.0 OBJECTIVE OF PROPOSED ACTION

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has established general regulations governing all NEPA actions, which can be found at 40 CFR § 1500 - 1518. In addition, 40 CFR § 1507.3 requires federal agencies to establish procedures that implement the CEQ regulations.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), to consider the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions and any reasonable alternatives before undertaking a major federal action, as defined by 40 C.F.R. §

1508.18. Engineering Regulation (ER) 200-2-2 provides guidance for implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA for the USACE Civil Works Program. ER 200-2-2 supplements CEQ regulations 40 CFR § 1500-1508, November 29, 1978, in accordance with 40 CFR § 1507.3, and is intended to be used only in conjunction with the CEQ regulations.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), with assistance from the USACE is conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order that it may assess and consider the environmental impacts of constructing a new Agricultural Research Service (ARS) National Plant and Research laboratory in Columbia, Missouri (MO). This proposed action would consolidate existing Plant Genetics Research Unit (PGRU) personnel, equipment, and functions into one location within the University of Missouri (MU) campus in Columbia, MO. The proposed action would ideally consolidate the existing USDA ARS laboratory and office space into a single, federally owned building, collectively referred to as the USDA Research Commons, that has the potential for future expansion and use of adjacent greenhouse facilities.

1.1 Project Background

The USDA ARS facilities conduct research to find solutions to national and global agricultural problems through nationwide programs and grants. The current office space serving the PGRU is currently located across three separate MU campus buildings in Columbia, MO, including Waters Hall, Curtis Hall, and Mumford Hall, with the additional off-site location, the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St.

Louis, Missouri. The total office space of the combined existing PGRU facilities is 4,568 square feet (SF), and the total laboratory space is 6,591 SF. The existing office and laboratory spaces, additional administrative space and conference room space measure a total of approximately 20,000 SF.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The USDA determined that additional office space was needed to meet future USDA research needs.

Additionally, the USDA has identified the need to condense PGRU functions, staff, and equipment to a single facility adjacent to the MU campus. The proposed construction and new build site would be required to have capacity for an approximate 25,000 SF USDA facility. This new facility would combine and consolidate the different locations of PGRU across the MU campus and St. Louis into one facility.

The proposed facility is intended to meet future USDA research needs. An additional consideration for alternative site selection is the ability for potential future development.

1.3 Project Location

The proposed project would be located within the MU campus. The University of Missouri is located in Columbia, Missouri within in Boone County, just south of Interstate Highway 70, as shown in Figure 1, below.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

During initial planning efforts, multiple site alternatives were identified by USDA and MU staff for the potential project location and consolidation of the PGRU. This section describes the Action and No Action alternatives, as well as alternatives dismissed from consideration.

Criteria used to identify, and screen proposed alternatives included availability of MU campus lands, site implementation costs, adjacent land constraints, availability of utilities, land ownership, area available for future expansion, likelihood of hazardous materials, and other considerations. Primary site criteria included:

• Building capacity for required PGRU staff, equipment, and functions

• Land area/acreage for approximately 34,400 GSF plant Genetics research laboratory/office building and supporting structures

• Utility availability, either existing or ability to easily establish utility connections

• Whether or not demolition is needed for project construction

• Cold storage space in laboratory for seed storage

• Adjacent land area for future expansion or greenhouses

• Emergency generator capability for equipment and seed storage

The Project Development Team (PDT) identified 6 potential PGRU sites across the MU campus (Figure 2). These site options were evaluated based on the criteria listed in Section 2.0 to help identify a Proposed Action Alternative and were used to help screen out less viable alternatives (Table 1).

Table 1. Project Site Criteria Criteria East

Campus North Site

East Campus South Site

East of Stewart Hall

Waters Hall Replacement

Bond Life Sciences Center

Current USDA Research Commons

Acreage .9 acres 4 acres .4-.6 acres .7-.9 acres .5-.6 acres ~1.25 Provide necessary building capacity

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Appropriate land area

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cold Storage capacity

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Generator capacity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Utility Availability Some Some Some Some Yes Some Utility relocation needed

Yes No Electrical rerouting

Yes No No

Demolition needed Yes No No Yes No No Greenhouse allowed

Yes Yes No No Rooftop Yes

Future Expansion No No No No No Yes

2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

Sites with increased risks, high mitigation needs, decreased feasibility of implementation due to cost or conflict with the MU master plan, or sites that did not meet basic site requirements were screened from further consideration. Each site was evaluated on the ability to meet the present and anticipated future needs of the USDA ARS. Ultimately, five potential sites were eliminated from consideration due to not meeting the project needs or due to undesirable factors. These eliminated sites are:

• East Campus North Site

• East Camus South Site

• East of Steward Hall

• Waters Hall Replacement

• Bond Life Sciences Center

2.2 Alternatives Carried Forward

Based on the comparison of alternatives with the assessment criteria in Table 1, Alternative 2 – New Construction at Current USDA Research Commons was chosen as the proposed action and was carried forward with the No Action Alternative for further analysis in the EA. The No Action Alternative was retained for further consideration and evaluation to allow a comparison with Alternative 2 – New Construction at the Current USDA Research Site.

2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

This alternative would not result in the construction of a new facility and would not condense PGRU functions, staff, and equipment to a single facility adjacent to the MU campus. This alternative is not considered a viable solution to the project need but is included so that a comparison can be made between the baseline existing conditions, conditions without project and conditions under an action alternative.

The differences between these conditions are what determine the potential effects to the human and natural environment.

2.4 Alternative 2 – New Construction at the Current USDA Research Commons Alternative 2 proposes the use of a 10-acre site where existing USDA research structures, equipment and staff are currently located. This site is located near the intersection of Research Park Drive and Carrie Francke Drive in Columbia, MO (Figure 3). There are several structures within the Commons including an existing building that houses 4 USDA scientists and equipment. This alternative would be advantageous to USDA by condensing PGRU functions, staff, and equipment to a single facility. In addition to areas adjacent to the Commons, there is also available area for future expansion within the alternative location for future development (Figure 3). These areas collectively comprise the proposed project area/project site.

Alternative 2 would consist of the following characteristics: A new 25,000 gross square foot (GSF) Plant Genetics Research Laboratory/Office building, growth chambers (2,000 GSF), greenhouse (3,400 GSF), headhouse/seed drying (2,000 GSF) and seed storage (2,000 GSF) to consolidate ARS researchers’ laboratory and office spaces into a single site already federally owned and occupied by the USDA.

Alternative 2 also provides acreage for anticipated future development compared to the eliminated alternative sites.

Figure 3 outlines the 10-acre proposed project area, which includes the new construction layout and delineation of the alternative location for future development. The alternative location for future development is currently comprised of a green house and eight buildings used as a carpenter shop, machine shed, safety storage and a modular building formerly used for office space. There is also a concrete foundation, manicured green space with two mature trees, unpaved parking access for maintenance vehicles and a secondary access road that connects to the existing agricultural research center. Greenhouse operations primarily occur in this location.

Figure 3: Proposed Project Footprint and Vicinity Including Alternate Location for Future Development (Project Area/Project Site).

Although no demolition to existing structures would occur due to new construction, the demolition of the existing greenhouse and eight associated buildings is proposed within the alternate location for future development. These existing structures are currently underutilized and unneeded as a result of pending new construction. The USDA is considering improving this area as greenspace following demolition as there are no current future development plans for this area and this location and the remaining open space of the project area would only be used if a need for this space arises in the future.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS

The USDA Research, Education, and Economics Manual, Title: ARS Facilities Design Standards, Number: ARS-242.1, May 1, 2012, provides guidance for assessing potential environmental impacts during the development of an EA (USDA REE Manual ARS-242.1, 2012). This section of the EA describes the existing conditions and potential impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed action, Alternative 2 – Current area of the existing USDA Research Commons measuring approximately 10-acres, which includes the alternative location for future development (project area/ project site).

In accordance with the NEPA and 7 CFR § 520.6, Agricultural Research Service Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, the related environmental documents have been reviewed by a USACE NEPA Specialist. Using CEQ NEPA and ARS guidelines, the proposed project area was examined for environmental issues based on known conditions and information available as of this date. The following NEPA evaluation in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 detail this review.

3.1 NEPA Evaluation

The analyses presented in this section help to quantify the potential beneficial or adverse effects of the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2). Where impacts cannot be quantified, the analyses used qualitative assessments for potential impacts. This EA generally describes impacts as either being temporary, (intermittent or only during construction periods) or “long-term” (beyond construction or permanent). In addition, a subset of temporary impacts could include areas disturbed intermittently or for shorter periods during a construction or maintenance phase. The NEPA evaluation determined the potential impact to various resource categories.

The following questions to evaluate potential for environmental impacts are from the ARS 242.1 Manual ARS Facilities Design Standards, section 1.3 Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act.

Will the proposed and potential future project:

1. Cause or contribute to soil erosion by wind or water?

-Potentially. Soil disturbance would be temporary and limited to the construction activities of the new facilities and potential future development within the proposed project area. Exposed soils would be minimally disturbed from construction activities and subject to typical erosion factors. These same factors would be true for future development within the proposed project area. Best management practices (BMPs) associated with stormwater controls would reduce soil erosion and sedimentation prior to, during, and immediately following construction activities. BMPs would be encouraged for the current project and potential future development within the proposed project area.

2. Affect soil surface stability?

-Potentially. Soils would be minimally disturbed from general construction activities of the new construction building footprint within the proposed project area which is subject to typical surface instability. BMPs associated with stormwater controls would typically stabilize disturbed soil until sufficient vegetation re-growth occurs. The contractor would be required to re-seed disturbed areas to restore them to preconstruction conditions, where applicable. Re-seeding would also be done for any future development within the proposed project area.

3. Degrade water quality in a sole source aquifer?

-No. Based on information from the US Environmental Protection Agency, there is no sole source aquifer within or adjacent to the proposed project area. Therefore, there would be no impact from the proposed action or from potential future development within the proposed project area.

4. Decrease aquifer yield or affect water rights?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development would not prohibit precipitation from recharging typical groundwater conditions. There are also no water rights within the project area.

5. Affect aquatic life?

-Potentially. The nearest known surface waterbody is a small, impounded catchment pond (0.4 acres), that is located approximately 300 feet to the northwest of the existing facility. This pond is buffered by woody vegetation and observed nutrient rich and hypereutrophic in the summer as shown in Figure 3.

Therefore, aquatic life is likely limited to few common and exotic species. Current proposed construction activities are not anticipated to disturb any aquatic life in the pond. Stormwater runoff is unlikely to enter the nearest surface waters based on general location and elevation, and appropriate BMPs would be implemented to direct stormwater runoff. Future projects within the proposed project area have the potential to impact the pond.

6. Cause or contribute flow variation in a stream or spring?

-No. There are no streams or springs within or adjacent to the project area. The proposed project would not affect recharge areas for streams or springs.

7. Degrade the aesthetic properties and / or potential uses of either ground or surface waters?

-Potentially. The small pond to the west of the site would not be anticipated to be aesthetically degraded by development of the proposed project area. The USDA development option leaves open the potential for future development of the proposed project area including the pond. Potential future development of the pond may cause long-term degradation of the aesthetic properties or potential use of surface waters.

A site visit determined that the pond does not act as a catchment basin for runoff or drainage, as it is situated at a higher elevation than the rest of the site. There is no other current existing use for the pond except for aquatic species tolerant of hypereutrophic water quality conditions. There is no other surface or groundwater on or adjacent to the site. The current proposed project would have no impact that would degrade the aesthetic properties or use of ground or surface water. Demolition of the existing greenhouse and associated buildings and conversion to temporary or permanent greenspace or new buildings within the proposed project area would result in long-term, beneficial aesthetic properties due to the degraded condition of existing structures.

8. Affect chemical quality of ground or surface waters (pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, dissolved solids, pesticides, etc.)?

-Potentially. The small pond to the west of the project area would not be affected by the current proposed project. The USDA leaves open the potential for future development of the pond within the project footprint. Potential future development of the pond would result in a permanent impact to surface water chemical quality although the pond is hypereutrophic with poor water quality. The proposed project has no activities inherent to alteration of chemical water quality.

9. Affect physical quality of ground or surface waters (suspended solids, turbidity, color, oil, temperature, etc.)?

-No. Although potential future development of the proposed project area could potentially contribute temporary turbidity to the adjacent pond through soil disturbance, BMPs would be in place to keep soil erosion and water runoff controlled. The existing pond is currently hypereutrophic and there are no current proposed activities that would affect the physical quality of ground, surface waters or water quality.

10. Cause odors or release odoriferous substances to air or water?

-Potentially. Odors may be temporarily released during construction of the proposed project and during potential future development within the project footprint.

11. Release toxic substances to the air in quantities that could affect human health or safety, or environmental quality?

-No. Air or ground toxic substances are not anticipated to be released during construction of the proposed project or potential future projects as none are known to exist within the proposed project area.

Temporary air quality impacts would result from fossil fuel combustion in construction vehicles and equipment (EPA, 2018). The quantity released would not be in quantities that could affect human health, safety or environmental quality The proposed project would not emit toxic substances during operation or cause long-term effects to ambient air quality.

12. Release particulate matter to the air?

-Potentially. Some temporary air emissions of particulate matter are anticipated during proposed project construction as well as any future development within the proposed project area; however, air quality would return to normal after construction.

13. Change local meteorological conditions or air movement patterns?

-No. The current project nor potential future development within the proposed project area is and would not be of the magnitude or type of project that would alter local meteorological conditions or air movement. Therefore, there would be no impacts to meteorological conditions or air movement patterns.

14. Release substances for which there is a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (i.e., sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, etc.)?

-No. Criteria pollutants are expected to be generated during construction of the new Commons and from potential future development within the proposed project area due to fuel combustion of construction equipment and from soil disturbance. Air emissions from construction vary on the number and types of construction equipment used at any given point in time as well as duration of use. Construction emissions would be temporary in nature and would cease following construction. Columbia, MO is in attainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for every criteria pollutant (EPA, 2019). Because air quality is in attainment in Boone County, emissions from short-term construction are not expected to have a long-term, negative impact on ambient air quality in the area surrounding the project.

15. Affect undisturbed natural areas or a wild and scenic river?

-No. There are no natural areas or wild and scenic rivers near the project area.

16. Affect game animals or fish or their taking?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project footprint would have no impact to game animals or fish taking. Hunting and fishing is currently prohibited on the property and game animals are not known to inhabit the property. Wildlife may be disturbed during construction but not directly impacted. Any disturbance to wildlife during construction would cease after construction is complete.

17. Affect rare, threatened, or endangered species, migratory birds, or a critical habitat?

-Potentially. The proposed project would involve tree removal for new construction for the proposed project and potential future development, which could have an impact on migratory birds that seasonally utilize the proposed project area. The federally listed species potentially present in the project area include the gray, northern long-eared, and Indiana bats. No critical habitats are listed in the area. The USACE conducted a bat habitat assessment within the proposed project area on September 15, 2021, and concluded that no suitable habitat was present for the federally listed species. Therefore, “no effect” to rare, threatened or endangered species. The USFWS concurred with the USACE determination in their response letter dated September 17, 2021. USFWS coordination is included in the attachments package.

18. Affect species balance, especially among predators?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area are not anticipated to impact species balance due to the relatively small area of impact, construction conducted primarily on an existing facility, lack of suitable habitat, and proximity to previously developed area. The proposed project activities would not impact species balance.

19. Involve special hazards, such as radioactivity or electromagnetic radiation?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project footprint are limited in scope to the construction of a new building. The proposed project activity would not involve any special hazards as there are none used at the current facilities, and none proposed within the project area. The new Commons would follow USDA facility guidelines to minimize risk of stray voltage and protect against lightning strikes. If contaminated soil tailings are found, project work must stop, and the Facilities, Safety, and Real Property Team contacted, in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Act, as amended.

20. Affect or to be located in a wetland, flood plain, or the coastal zone?

-No. The proposed project area is not located in a wetland, flood plain, or coastal zone. A site visit was conducted on September 15, 2021, to determine if any wetlands were present on site. A water retention pond is within the proposed project area and was evaluated for wetland characteristics. The site visit found that the retention pond is steeply elevated to the top of a terrace and has no transitional shoreline or wetlands. The pond was determined to be a manmade feature and is shored and impounded by riprap. A wetland analysis with the conclusion that there are no wetlands on site is attached in Appendix A: Phase I Habitat Assessments located within the attachment package. The site visit also evaluated the footprint of the potential access road, as it crosses a current drainage ditch. Wetlands were not determined to be present within the drainage ditch.

21. Affect a known or potential cultural, historical, or archaeological site, district, or area?

-No. A cultural background review and shovel testing survey was performed by USACE archeologists on September 14, 2021, indicate that the single archeological site within the project area is highly disturbed and not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Consultation letters were sent to federally recognized tribes with interest in the project area and the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in September of 2021. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma was the only tribe who responded with no objection in a letter dated September 28, 2021. The SHPO responded in a letter dated October 20, 2021, and concurred with USACE that no historic properties would be affected. An additional coordination letter was mailed to the SHPO on December 17, 2021, requesting concurrence with the Corp’s determination that an existing greenhouse and eight storage outbuildings proposed to be demolished would result in no effect on historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO concurred with the Corp’s determination on January 12, 2021. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma response and Missouri SHPO’s coordination letters and responses are included in the attachments package.

The proposed project would have no impact to any known or potential cultural, historical, or archaeological site, district, or area. No facilities eligible for listing, or listed on, the National Register of Historic Places are present. If any cultural materials or human remains are found during construction, project work must stop and the Facilities, Safety and Real Property Team contacted, in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470), as amended.

22. Affect local or regional systems related to:

1) Transportation?

-Potentially. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would increase traffic on local roads during construction. Traffic to and from the site at project completion would be minimal and is anticipated to have a negligible effect on traffic pattens.

2) Water supply?

-Potentially. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would have minimal impact to local or regional water supply. The proposed project is anticipated to be a consumer of water, however the proposed project would not affect water supply facilities or infrastructure in the immediate location or region, as there are no water supply facilities in or adjacent to the proposed project area.

3) Power and heating?

-Potentially. The proposed project and potential future development within the project footprint would be a consumer of power and heating. The property currently has utility connections and would not need to have additional transmission lines installed. The proposed project would not impact transmission lines or heating serving the local or regional area.

4) Solid waste management?

-Potentially. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would cause a small increase in the amount of solid waste generated but would not affect the transport or disposal of solid waste.

5) Sewer or storm drainage?

-Potentially. A minor increase in local sewer and storm drainage may occur as a result of the proposed project and potential future development within the project area due to an increase of impermeable surface contributing to an increase in runoff to the immediate area. Sewer and drainage utilities are already present on the proposed project area and have the capacity to manage a potential minor increase in drainage.

23. Affect local land use through effects on:

1) Flood plains or wetlands?

-No. Wetlands are defined by the USACE (33 CFR § 328.3, 1986) and the U.S. EPA (40 CFR § 230.3, 1980) as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Many wetlands and other aquatic features, including ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, are considered Waters of the U.S. by the USACE and deemed “jurisdictional” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. No wetlands exist within or adjacent to the proposed project area; therefore, the project would not affect wetlands. The proposed project would not alter or impact existing flood plains.

2) Location land use?

-Potentially. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would permanently alter the immediate project area through the construction of a new building but would not affect adjacent or nearby land use. Existing facilities adjacent to the project area would continue existing land uses. The land use of the constructed project area would be consistent with the land use of the existing project area, and zoning changes would not be required.

3) Aesthetics?

-Potentially. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would alter the appearance of the property. However, the project area is located within an urbanized area and within the location of an existing USDA Research Commons. Therefore, future development within the project area would be considered minor and not result in a major change in aesthetics.

4) Access to minerals?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project footprint would not affect access to minerals. Mineral mining does not occur onsite and is not anticipated to occur onsite in the future.

24. Affect socioeconomic aspects of an area including:

1) Population?

-Potentially. The proposed project and potential future development within the project footprint would not meaningfully impact the population of the area. The proposed project area does not contain housing but may cause a small population growth of the area through employment.

2) Housing supply or demand?

-Potentially. The proposed project and potential future development within the project footprint would have negligible impact to housing supply or demand. The proposed project area does not contain housing and would cause the demand for a small number of living quarters in the area. This small increase is not anticipated to stress housing supply.

3) Employment?

-Potentially. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would have a minor impact to employment. The proposed project would consolidate employment from other parts of the state to this area and may provide additional jobs for maintenance purposes.

4) Commercial activities?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would have no impact to commercial activities because no commercial activities take place in the proposed project area. Some increases in sales of materials and supplies to construction workers may occur but these would be temporary and relatively minor compared to the overall economic activity in the area.

5) Industrial activities?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would have no impact to industrial activities as no industrial activities take place within the proposed project area.

6) Cultural patterns?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would not impact cultural patterns. The proposed project area does not contain any historic landmarks, culturally significant items that would attract tourist attention, or places eligible for listing or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project would not create tourist attractions or potential to develop or alter cultural patterns.

7) Environmental justice?

-No. The EPA online tool “EJScreen” was used to determine the demographics of the area to evaluate the potential for environmental justice related impacts. The review showed that the proposed project and potential future development within the project area would not impact environmental justice. There would be no adverse environmental effects that impact socioeconomically disadvantaged populations as a result the proposed action. A report of the EJScreen can be found in the attachments package.

25. Cause or contribute to unacceptable noise level?

-No. Construction of the proposed project and potential future development within the project area would result in increased noise compared to ambient levels. This noise would be temporary in nature and cease following construction.

26. Affect public health or safety?

-Potentially. Construction of the proposed project and potential future development within the project area would require the use of heavy machinery and installation equipment. The construction site would be monitored to minimize the safety risk to the public. The operation of greenhouses and associated activities would not affect public health or safety.

27. Cause public reaction or controversy?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area is not expected to cause public reaction or controversy. The net effect is to construct a new Commons.

28. Cause Climate Change?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area is not of the magnitude or type that would be necessary to change climate conditions.

29. Have impacts from energy usage or alternative energy?

-No. The proposed project and potential future development within the project area would consume electricity and utilities during construction and after construction is complete during routine operations and maintenance. However, regular energy and utility consumption are not anticipated to be impactful.

3.2 NEPA Evaluation Applied to the Alternatives

This section discusses those resources listed in Section 3.1 that had the potential to be impacted by the proposed project in further detail.

1. Cause or contribute to soil erosion by wind or water?

Existing Conditions Construction of a new Commons and potential future development within the project area is anticipated to cause or contribute to soil erosion by wind or water. The existing vegetation limits soil erosion from project construction activities.

Alternatives No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would not result in any soil disturbance, subject to erosion.

Action Alternative: Construction activities of the proposed project and potential future development would temporarily disturb the ground surface. The proposed project would involve tree and vegetation removal which could expose the soil to erosion by wind and water. Until the disturbed ground is re-stabilized and revegetated following project construction, soils would be exposed to wind and water erosion. Potential future development could include the removal of existing structures and a concrete foundation that is left over from a previous facility. Potential future development could include pond disturbance within the proposed project area and would leave soil conditions exposed to erosion until the disturbed ground is re-stabilized and revegetated following construction.

Mitigation Appropriate BMPs that properly manage and reduce soil erosion by temporarily stabilizing and controlling runoff and sedimentation should be implemented. Example BMPs include the use of silt fencing, erosion control blankets, straw bales and mulch. Disturbance would be limited to that necessary for the construction of the new Commons and staging areas. Once project construction is completed, all disturbed ground surfaces that have not been converted to impervious surface (i.e., pavement), would be revegetated to an extent that sufficiently stabilizes the project area as directed by USDA. Similar mitigation methods to stabilize erosion would be used should the USDA decide to develop additional portions of the proposed project area including the pond.

2. Affect soil surface stability?

Existing Conditions The project area for current proposed and future development is comprised of some impervious surface with surrounding herbaceous vegetation, woody vegetation, or grass. There are no existing exposed soil piles in the project area and the ground surface is level with the exception of the elevated pond.

Accordingly, the proposed project area is considered to have a high level of soil stability.

Alternatives No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would result in no change in soil stability.

Action Alternative: Construction activities within the proposed project area, which includes the alternative location for future development would temporarily disturb the vegetated ground surface, exposing soils and therefore decreasing soil stability. This could contribute to and cause erosion at the project site.

Mitigation Appropriate BMPs would stabilize the disturbed ground surface throughout project construction. Once the proposed project construction is completed, all disturbed ground surfaces that have not been converted to impervious surface (i.e., pavement), would be revegetated to an extent that sufficiently stabilizes the proposed project area as directed by USDA.

3. Affect aquatic life?

Existing Conditions A man-made pond is present within the northwest portion of the proposed project area. The pond sits on top of an elevated terrace and does not receive drainage or runoff from the project site. The shoreline consists of riprap without wetland habitat. Some aquatic species likely reside in the pond although it is hypereutrophic during the summer season.

Alternatives No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would not impact the pond or aquatic life, as existing conditions would remain undisturbed.

Action Alternative: The current proposed project would not impact the pond, as the footprint of the developed area does not utilize the pond area. Potential future development could possibly impact the pond. Development of the pond would require that the pond be drained, thus resulting in a permanent adverse impact to aquatic life that resides in the pond.

Mitigation The USDA may choose to seek consultation from the USFWS should it decide to develop the pond to evaluate for the potential to impact aquatic life endangered species, although it is very doubtful that any endangered species exist in a manmade, urban, impounded hypereutrophic pond. Potential future development of the pond would involve draining and filling the pond and is considered a permanent impact. Any potential future project in which the pond is developed would follow USDA ARS guidelines on mitigation and development of waterbodies.

4. Degrade the aesthetic properties and / or potential uses of either ground or surface waters?

Existing Conditions The existing aesthetic conditions of the project area include the existing USDA Agricultural Research Center facility with associated parking area, outbuildings, greenhouse operations, manicured and unmanicured green space with trees and shrubs.

Alternatives No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would not degrade the aesthetic properties or potential use of surface or ground water as existing conditions would remain.

Action Alternative: The current proposed action would not degrade the aesthetic properties or potential use of surface or ground water as the pond within the project footprint would not be impacted. The USDA may choose in the future to develop the pond, which would degrade the existing properties of the pond.

The pond does not serve as drainage or runoff catchment due to its higher elevation than the rest of the project footprint. Potential future development of the pond would involve draining and filling the pond and is considered a permanent impact. The pond is man-made but no longer has active use and is hypereutrophic in the summer. The action alternative would not impact the potential use of ground water.

Aesthetic properties would improve as a result of demolishing the existing greenhouse and eight associated buildings due to their degraded condition.

Mitigation No mitigation is planned for the current proposed project as it does not adversely impact the aesthetic properties or uses of surface or ground water. Any potential future project in which the pond is developed would follow USDA ARS guidelines on mitigation and development of waterbodies.

5. Affect chemical quality of ground or surface waters (pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, dissolved solids, pesticides, etc.)?

Alternatives No Action Alternative:

The No Action Alternative would not affect chemical quality of ground or surface waters as no project would be implemented.

Action Alternative:

The proposed project would not impact chemical quality of ground or surface waters as no actions would take place within surface or ground water on site. Future development of the project area could result in a permanent impact due to draining and filling the pond.

Mitigation No mitigation is planned for the current proposed project as it does not impact the aesthetic properties or uses of surface or ground water. Any potential future project in which the pond is developed would follow USDA ARS guidelines on mitigation and development of waterbodies.

6. Cause odors or release odoriferous substances to air or water?

Existing Conditions The proposed project area for current proposed and future development is comprised of an existing USDA Research Commons, green house and eight associated buildings. There is also a concrete foundation, manicured green space with two mature trees, unpaved parking access for maintenance vehicles and a secondary access road that connects to the existing agricultural research center.

concrete an unused, mowed field with adjacent wooded vegetation. The project footprint for the new USDA Research Commons is generally greenspace and consists of trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Odors may be generated by traffic activity.

Alternatives No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would not generate any new odors as no construction would occur.

Action Alternative: The proposed and potential future development of the project area may generate odors due to construction. Odors may be generated by construction vehicle emissions and associated onsite equipment, paints, solvents, or adhesives necessary for installation of the proposed project. These odors would be temporary in nature and intermittent. Also, odors generated during construction would not likely be noticeable outside the construction area. No odors are anticipated during the operation of the proposed project.

Mitigation Contractors will be required to turn off vehicles and equipment when not in use to reduce emissions odors from idling.

7. Release particulate matter (PM) to the air?

Existing Conditions The existing structures in the proposed project area are not currently releasing PM during or following operation. The parking lots and roads at the existing nearby structures are paved and do not release PM into the air.

Alternatives No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would not generate PM as no construction would occur.

Action Alternative: The proposed and potential future project development may release fugitive dust, a form of PM, into the air during construction. The proposed project would require ground disturbing activities during construction of the new Commons. These effects are considered to be temporary in nature and would return to ambient, pre-construction conditions following construction.

Mitigation Contractors would take steps to minimize fugitive dust generated by the proposed project during construction and any potential future development. These steps may include wetting, sweeping, covering, or otherwise controlling loose soils that could become airborne. Any disturbed ground not converted to imperviable material would be revegetated to minimize additional fugitive dust generation following construction.

8. Affect listed threatened or endangered species?

Existing Conditions The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides protection and conservation for threatened and endangered wildlife and plants. The protection of birds is regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and requires that all project proponents be responsible for complying with these regulations when planning and developing a project. The USFWS online tool Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) was used to generate a list of potentially present threatened or endangered species and migratory birds. The IPaC listed the gray (Myotis grisescens), northern long-eared (Myotis septentrionalis), and Indiana (Myotis sodalis) bats as potentially present within the project footprint. Eleven migratory birds were also listed as potentially present.

A site visit and habitat assessment were conducted on September 15, 2021, to determine if suitable habitat was present for federally listed endangered bat species. A preliminary desktop assessment used Google Earth imagery and showed that the proposed project area was a maintained field until approximately 2010, when regular maintenance appears to have stopped and trees began to establish.

The project footprint was not intentionally seeded or planted with woody vegetation, and the area did not take on dominant tree cover until 2017. Existing tree growth on the project site consists of predominantly young, invasive species. The dominant invasive tree species was determined to be Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana). Additional trees composing of less than 5% of the total tree cover were sapling honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), black walnut (Juglans nigra), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), and Osage orange (Maclura pomifera). The dominant species of the midstory of the project footprint was bush honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), with bush clover (Lespedeza striata) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) as the dominant shrub layer.

No snag trees were found on site. No trees with exfoliating bark were found. The findings were coordinated with the USFWS, which concurred with the determination of no affect in a September 17, 2021, agency coordination letter. USFWS coordination is included in the attachments package.

Alternatives No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would not affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or migratory birds as no action would be implemented and no construction would take place.

Action Alternative: The proposed and potential future project actions within the project area would involve some tree clearing. In compliance with the ESA, the USFWS was consulted for the proposed project and agreed with the USACE determination that the proposed project will have no effect on gray, northern long-eared or Indiana bats. USFWS coordination is included in the attachments package.

Mitigation No suitable bat habitat was found. If federally listed threatened or endangered species are found, work must stop and the Facilities, Safety, and Real Property Team contacted, in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended.

9) Affect local or regional systems related to:

1)Transportation?

Existing Conditions The project footprint is near the intersection of Research Park Drive and Carrie Francke Drive in Columbia, MO. These roads service the University of Missouri campus buildings and golf course west of the proposed project area. These roads are not major through ways and only service the campus buildings and current USDA research site.

Alternatives No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would not impact transportation facilities as no construction would occur.

Action Alternative: The proposed project and potential future project development within the project area would increase traffic on local roads during construction due to construction equipment being moved to the area and materials being delivered to the site. This increase in traffic would be temporary and would cease after construction is complete. Increased traffic to the newly constructed site by workers is anticipated to have a negligible effect on local traffic patterns. No long-term impacts or changes to transportation and traffic patterns are anticipated.

Mitigation Contractors would coordinate proper construction signage near the project site as necessary to make drivers aware of the potential for increased hazards associated with construction vehicles.

2) Water Supply?

Existing Conditions Facilities near the project footprint are supplied with municipal water supply. Columbia, MO, gets its water from the McBaine alluvial aquifer. No wells, water supply intakes, or water reservoirs are located on or adjacent to the proposed project area.

Alternatives No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would not affect water supply as no project would occur and there would be no addition of a facility to consume water supply.

Action Alternative The proposed project and potential future development within the project footprint would be consumers of municipal water supply. Columbia, MO uses approximately 5 billion gallons from the aquifer annually.

The proposed project would not consume an adverse amount of additional water supply above existing conditions. Therefore, minimal impact is anticipated to water supply.

Mitigation Water saving…