Affected Environment and
Environmental Impacts
| Chapter | Affected Environment and |
|
This chapter addresses the environmental consequences of the Title Transfer Alternative and the No Action Alternative.
The legal and regulatory environment within which the project would be operated would depend in part on project ownership and administration. This section describes key Federal and State laws, regulations, policies, and other requirements which govern or otherwise affect management and use of the project facilities.
Basic Authorities and Guidelines.--The United States presently owns and administers, through the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Middle Loup Division (Division) facilities; the Loup Basin Reclamation District (LBRD) is the entity which operates and maintains the water supply works. The LBRD was organized January 27, 1950.
No Action Alternative.--This alternative considers that the project land would continue to be administered and managed by the United States consistent with the project authorization and with all terms and conditions in existing leases, including current prohibitions on the use of project land for exclusive or private purposes. Plans and specifications for all major work at the project would remain subject to Reclamation review and approval.
Preferred Alternative.--This alternative considers transferring title to the LBRD. Transferred Federal assets would not be eligible for Federal assistance for project operation, maintenance, and replacement or capital construction purposes following completion of the transfer, except for assistance available to other non-Federal entities.
Dam Safety.--As the owner of Sherman Dam, Reclamation is responsible for all dam safety related activities at Sherman Dam. Reclamation's Safety of Dams program is a self-regulated program. The 1978 Reclamation Safety of Dams Act (P.L. 95-578), the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-404), the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, and other laws, policies, and guidelines, provide the authorization and guidance for Reclamation's Safety of Dams program.
All Reclamation dams that have the potential to cause loss of life or significant economic damages in the event of failure are included in Reclamation's Safety of Dams program. In the event that Sherman Dam should ever fail, approximately 2500 people living downstream would be threatened by flooding conditions. The resulting flood conditions could damage or destroy sections of various county roads, State Highways 11, 92, 58, 281, and 14, Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and the Farwell Canal system.
Reclamation performs numerous recurring activities to ensure the continued safe operations of Sherman Dam. These activities include:
Reclamation performs the above activities at no cost to the water users. If dam safety issues are identified, Reclamation performs studies to identify and implement remedial actions for identified dam safety concerns. In accordance with the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act and Amendments, 15 percent of the cost of Safety of Dams structural modifications must be repaid by the authorized project beneficiaries of the facility.
Reclamation completed a Comprehensive Facility Review (CFR) for Sherman Dam in 2000. The CFR included an on-site examination of the dam and appurtenant structures, as well as a review and analysis of the design, construction, and performance of the dam in comparison to state-of-the-art practices for dams. Specifically, Reclamation analyzed the potential performance of the dam under hydrologic, seismic, and static loading conditions. The CFR also included an assessment of risks associated with the continued operations of Sherman Dam. The risk posed by the dam can be defined as the product of the probability of a loading condition that could lead to failure, the probability of dam failure given the loading condition, and the consequences (in terms of loss of life and/or economic losses) of dam failure. The potential dam failure modes, results of the analyses, and ensuing recommendations are discussed in detail below.
Hydrologic Loading.--Dam safety concerns associated with hydrologic loading (floods) are primarily related to the ability of the dam to safely pass extreme flood events. Sherman Dam is an offstream storage reservoir. As such, there is a minimal drainage basin upstream of the dam which would contribute inflows to the reservoir in the event of an extreme flood. Analyses indicate that Sherman Dam would safely pass the probable maximum flood (PMF) for the dam. The PMF is defined as the maximum runoff condition resulting from the most severe combination of hydrologic and meteorologic conditions that are considered reasonably possible.
Risks associated with hydrologic loading at Sherman Dam are very low as a result of the extremely remote nature of the PMF and because the dam is unlikely to fail at even the most extreme hydrologic loading condition. The CFR report indicated that there was no need for further actions to reduce hydrologic risks.
Seismic Loading.--Sherman Dam is located in an area of low seismic activity. Seismicity in this area can be characterized as having small numbers of low-magnitude events. Sherman Dam is at low risk to fail as a result of seismic-induced liquefaction (loss of strength) of foundation materials leading to deformations in the embankment or sliding failure in the foundation of the dam. Also, potentially liquefiable sand layers in the foundation of the dam are at considerable depth, not extensive, and relatively competent. All of these factors would decrease the probability of liquefaction-induced dam failure during large magnitude seismic events.
The potential risks associated with seismic events at Sherman Dam are very low because of the unlikely nature of seismic events large enough in this area to induce liquefaction of the foundation materials and the low potential for failure of the dam if an earthquake large enough to induce liquefaction were to occur. The CFR report concludes that no actions are necessary to reduce seismic risks at Sherman Dam.
Static Loading.--Failure modes associated with static loading are associated with the potential for uncontrolled seepage through the embankment or foundation to move material, causing voids and leading to "piping" by erosion failure of the dam. There are three potential seepage-related failure modes identified for Sherman Dam:
Several incidents related to seepage and piping have occurred at Sherman Dam since construction of the dam was completed. Significant seepage occurred downstream of the dam when the reservoir was first filled in 1963. In 1979, a depression measuring 30 feet by 50 feet was noticed on the downstream face of the dam. The depression was caused by material being transported into the unfiltered toe drain. A new toe drain was constructed in 1980. In 1998, material was discovered in the outfall for toe drain No. 3. The materials had been transported into the pipe through a separated joint in the outfall pipe (approximately 10 feet up from the outfall). Repairs have been delayed pending a full evaluation of the condition of the toe drain. A depression along the alignment of toe drain No. 2 was noted during the CFR examination. Finally, analysis of instrumentation data indicates that the drainage features at the dam are becoming less effective with time.
The CFR Risk Analysis indicates that the static (loading) failure modes represent the most significant risks at Sherman Dam. The analysis indicates that additional actions are warranted to better define the dam safety issues and to help define appropriate risk reduction measures. Accordingly, the 2000 CFR contained the following two Safety of Dams recommendations to address these concerns.
In accordance with Reclamation's Policy on Dam Safety Decision Making, decisions in response to these recommendations were documented in the June 14, 2001, Decision Memorandum. The decisions and status of actions related to each recommendation are summarized below.
These issues were discussed during the October 10, 2001, meeting with the District, State, and Reclamation. All parties agreed that it would be beneficial to complete the recommendations prior to title transfer to ensure all parties had a thorough understanding of issues and potential future responsibilities. The risk analysis was initiated in the spring of 2002. Tom Knutson, Manager of the Loup Basin Reclamation District, and Mike Henderson of Olsson and Associates, engineering consultant for the District, participated in the risk analysis.
This section provides a summary of all dam safety issues and recommendations related to Sherman Dam, as documented in the 2000 CFR Report and the 2002 Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis and Report of Findings.
Discussion.-- Dam safety concerns associated with hydrologic loading (floods) are primarily related to the ability of the dam to safely pass extreme flood events. Sherman Dam is an offstream storage reservoir. As such, there is a minimal drainage basin upstream of the dam which would contribute inflows to the reservoir in the event of an extreme flood. Analyses indicate that Sherman Dam would safely pass the PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) for the dam. The PMF is defined as the maximum runoff condition resulting from the most severe combination of hydrologic and meteorologic conditions that are considered reasonably possible.
The 2000 CFR Report indicated that risks associated with hydrologic loading at Sherman Dam are very low as a result of the extremely remote nature of the PMF and the fact that the dam is unlikely to fail at even the most extreme hydrologic loading condition. The CFR Report concluded that there was no need for further actions to reduce hydrologic risks.
Hydrologic risks were revisited in the 2002 Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis. Updated information related to PAR (population at risk) was utilized in this re-evaluation. Information provided by Tom Knutson indicated that the number of people that would be impacted by dam failure would be higher than the estimate utilized in the 2000 CFR Report (the estimate of PAR increased from 3 to 10). The Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis also utilized very conservative estimates for flood frequencies that would result in dam failure. Estimates of hydrologic risk were still below Reclamation guidelines for risk reduction actions. As such, the 2002 Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis and Report of Findings supports the conclusion that there is no need to pursue further risk reduction actions related to hydrologic issues at Sherman Dam.
Recommended Actions and Schedules.-- None. Reclamation recommends that these issues be revisited during the next comprehensive review of the design, construction, and performance of the structure.
Discussion.-- Sherman Dam could fail as a result of seismic induced liquefaction (loss of strength) of foundation materials leading to deformations in the embankment or sliding failure in the foundation of the dam. Sherman Dam is located in an area of low seismic activity. Seismicity in this area can be characterized as having small numbers of low magnitude events. Also, potentially liquefiable sand layers in the foundation of the dam are at considerable depth, not extensive, and relatively competent. All of these factors would decrease the probability of liquefaction induced dam failure during large magnitude seismic events.
The CFR Report indicated that the risks associated with seismic events at Sherman Dam are very low. This is due to the unlikely nature of seismic events in this area large enough to induce liquefaction of the foundation materials and the low potential for failure of the dam if an earthquake were to occur that was large enough to induce liquefaction. The CFR Report concluded that no actions were necessary to reduce seismic risks at Sherman Dam.
Seismic issues were re-evaluated in the 2002 Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis. Adjustments were made for PAR (as discussed under hydrologic issues) and to account for a sand layer approximately 40 feet below the dam/foundation contact. This resulted in slightly higher estimates of seismic risk, but still below Reclamation guidelines for pursuing additional risk reduction actions. The 2002 Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis and Report of Findings supports the conclusion that there is no need to pursue further risk reduction actions related to seismic issues at Sherman Dam.
Recommended Actions.-- None. Reclamation recommends that these issues be revisited during the next comprehensive review of the design, construction, and performance of the structure.
Discussion.-- Static failure modes are associated with the potential for uncontrolled seepage through the embankment or foundation to move material, causing voids and leading to "piping" by erosion failure of the dam. The 2000 CFR indicated that the static failure modes represent the most significant risks at Sherman Dam. The analysis indicated that additional actions were warranted to better define the dam safety issues and to help define appropriate risk reduction measures.
As discussed above, there were two new Safety of Dams Recommendations in the 2000 CFR. Those recommendations have been addressed with the completion of the 2002 Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis and Report of Findings.
The 2002 Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis concluded that static risks associated with piping through the foundation of the dam and piping of the embankment into the foundation exceeded Reclamation's guidelines for implementation of risk reduction actions. The upper end estimates approached Reclamation's guideline for immediate implementation of risk reduction actions. The Risk Analysis Team stated that, although the estimates of risk were high, they believed that immediate actions were not necessary and that additional investigations, monitoring, and analyses were needed to verify assumptions utilized in the risk analyses.
The Issue Evaluation Risk Analyses identified five new Safety of Dams Recommendations and one new Operations and Maintenance Recommendation to better define static risks at Sherman Dam. The recommendations are summarized below.
As a result of this 2002 Risk Analysis the following new O&M recommendations were made:
Reclamation's Suggested Response and Schedule.-- As noted above, the estimates of risk related to static issues exceed Reclamation's guidelines for implementing risk reduction actions. The Risk Analysis Team recommended additional investigations, monitoring, and analyses to verify assumptions utilized in the risk analyses. Reclamation's suggested actions and schedules to address the recommendations are sequenced to allow evaluation of all issues prior to the next scheduled CFR in 2006.
Recommendations 2002-SOD-A, 2002-SOD-B, and 2002-2-A.-- It is necessary to complete these recommendations prior to initiation of the remainder of the recommendations. Reclamation recommends that these activities be initiated by approximately October 2002 and completed by October 2003.
Recommendation 2002-SOD-C.-- The Field Exploration Request plan for data collection and field drilling program) should be initiated in calendar year 2003 and the actual exploration program should be completed no later than September 2004 (earlier if possible to allow collection and analysis of data through two full operating seasons).
Recommendation 2002-SOD-D.-- This recommendation should be initiated after collection of sufficient data from the field exploration program. Reclamation recommends that this activity be initiated in the fall of 2005 and be completed by the end of 2005.
Recommendation 2002-SOD-E.-- Reclamation recommends that activity be completed before the next scheduled CFR in 2006. It should be initiated immediately upon completion of Recommendation 2002-SOD-D and completed by the spring of 2006.
In the interim, based on available evidence and information, on pursuit of the planned actions, and upon the assessed risk of dam failure, the continued operation of the Sherman Dam, in accordance with the current standing operating procedures and accepted standards of practice, can continue until further studies and analyses are completed. Unexpected site conditions or new information may warrant an earlier in-depth performance review or other actions.
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, the SOD activities detailed above would continue. There would be no change in regulatory responsibility, ownership, or liability for operation of Sherman Dam.
Preferred Alternative.-- If title to Sherman Dam were transferred to the LBRD, Reclamation would no longer have responsibility for activities related to Safety of Dams activities for the facility. The dam safety regulatory responsibility would be formally transferred to the State of Nebraska, and the dam safety ownership responsibilities would be transferred to the LBRD at the time of title transfer. Liability for the structure and its operation would become the sole responsibility of the LBRD.
Prior to title transfer, Reclamation would meet with the State and the LBRD to help facilitate an effective transfer of knowledge and responsibilities. Copies of all documents related to dam safety necessary for the LBRD and the State to assume their roles as owners and regulators of the facility would be made available before title transfer. Preceding title transfer, Reclamation would meet with the parties to provide a final summary of all dam safety issues and recom-mendations. At the completion of title transfer, the LBRD would assume responsibility for addressing all existing and future dam safety issues. The State would be responsible for assuring that the dam is in conformance with State Dam safety regulations.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands.-- An important Federal statute applying to fish and wildlife resources at the project is the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (FWCA) (P.L. 85-624). The objective of this act is to ensure that fish and wildlife conservation receives equal consideration and is coordinated with other features of water development programs. Before water development-related actions are taken, the responsible Federal official must consult and coordinate such actions and projects with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), whose recommendations on proposals must be given full consideration.
The primary statute regulating wetlands on the project is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (P.L. 92-500, as amended). This regulation requires a Federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for activities involving the excavation and discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
In addition to Federal statutes are the following Executive orders (E.O.):
Laws regulating hunting and fishing are enforced by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC).
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, Reclamation would continue to consult with the FWS for its actions falling under the FWCA and for those of the LBRD subject to Reclamation approval. All E.O., regulatory requirements for wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA, and State laws and regulations regarding wildlife management would continue to apply to the project.
Preferred Alternative.-- If title were transferred to the LBRD and the Sargent and Farwell Irrigation Districts (Irrigation Districts), E.O. and requirements to consult with the FWS under the FWCA would no longer apply unless permits are required from other Federal agencies. All regulatory requirements for wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA and all State laws and regulations regarding fish and wildlife management would continue to apply to the project, regardless of ownership. NGPC would continue to consult with the LBRD regarding wildlife management outlined in the Operating Agreement (attachment C).
Migratory Birds.-- E.O. 13186 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their programs, policies, and activities on migratory birds.
The Loup River Basin lies within the Central Flyway and provides important migration habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and neotropical migratory birds.
Migratory water birds passing through the area use natural and managed wetlands for forage and loafing habitat, waste grain from agricultural areas for high quality foods, and reservoirs like Sherman Reservoir for sanctuary and foraging and loafing habitat. Common migratory water birds include mallards, teal, shovelers, scaup, coots, Canada and snow geese, herons, egrets, sandpipers, phalaropes, gulls, plovers, terns, cormorants, and sandhill and whooping cranes. Depending on climatic conditions, much of the migratory waterfowl may stay through the winter.
Neotropical migratory birds passing through or breeding in the watershed include meadowlark, swallows, wrens, robin, vireos, sparrows, blackbirds, flycatchers, kingbirds, and warblers.
Riparian vegetation found at Sherman Reservoir provides critical foraging, roosting, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat for migrating songbirds. Grassland habitats provide these same attributes for ground-nesting species.
Other migratory birds include bald and golden eagles, hawks, osprey, and falcons. Raptor species associated with the Loup River Basin include red-tailed and Swainson's hawks and barn, screech, great-horned, and burrowing owls. Nonmigratory birds, such as turkeys, pheasant, quail, and greater prairie chicken, are widespread and associated with agricultural lands, shelterbelts, and grasslands.
No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative.-- Neither of the alternatives would adversely affect habitat. Selenium is present in the environment and in macroinvertebrates and fish eaten by some migratory shorebirds. To date, there has been no evidence of bird mortality or reproductive impairment. Following title transfer, the LBRD must still comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Endangered Species.-- Two sections of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (P.L. 93-205, as amended) apply to the project. Section 7 of the ESA requires consultation with the FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service for any Federal action that may affect designated critical habitat or species listed as threatened or endangered. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the taking of any listed species by any entity or person.
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, both Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA would continue to apply as at present.
Preferred Alternative.-- If title were transferred to the LBRD and the Irrigation Districts, Section 7 of the ESA would only apply to activities at the project which require approval or funding of Federal agencies other than Reclamation. Section 9 of the ESA would continue to prohibit the taking of endangered species.
Mineral Resources.-- The project area includes acquired Federal mineral estate, some of which is held in oil and gas leases administered by either the Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with Reclamation, or by previous owners. Under the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, Federal leases are issued for 10-year periods; if production is established, leases become valid for the life of production. Lease holders pay an annual lease rental fee and would also pay a royalty on produced minerals to the United States. Development, production, and abandonment activities on Federal leases are subject to applicable Federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the ESA.
Section 203(d) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that public land and mineral estate sales be made at a price not less than their fair market value as determined by the Secretary. Section 209 of FLPMA generally requires that, when Federal land is sold, the Federal mineral estate be retained by the United States. However, Section 209(b) permits Federal mineral rights to be conveyed under certain conditions.
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, there would be no change in the way that Federal minerals are administered and leased.
Preferred Alternative.-- If title to all project lands and facilities were transferred to the LBRD and the Irrigation Districts, all mineral interests would be retained by the United States. There would be no change in the way that Federal minerals are administered or leased.
Cultural Resources and Historic Properties.-- Cultural resources at the project are administered under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) (NHPA) and the Archeological Resources Protection Act (as amended) (ARPA). Each act has implementing regulations that specify consultation and protection procedures. A proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for protection of cultural resources is included as attachment D.
Under Section 106 of the NHPA, Reclamation must consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) when a proposal could affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Section 110 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to manage and maintain historic properties on Federal land in a way that considers their historic, archeological, architectural, and cultural values, and to consider the effects of proposed actions during project planning.
Archeological resources, or the remains of past human life or activity over 100 years old, are given special consideration under ARPA. An important protection measure is the requirement for a Federal permit to excavate or remove archeological resources. ARPA also provides for criminal and civil penalties against unauthorized resource damage.
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, there would be no change to the existing protection of cultural, historic, or archeological resources. Reclamation would continue to consult with the SHPO on resource inventory needs and assessment of the effects of Federally proposed or approved activities. If effects to historic properties or archeological resources resulted from such actions, Reclamation would work to reduce or eliminate impacts after further consultation with the affected parties.
Preferred Alternative.-- If title were transferred to the LBRD and the Irrigation Districts, application of the NHPA to historic properties at the project would be limited to activities involving funds or support from Federal agencies other than Reclamation, in which case Section 106 compliance would be the responsibility of the participating Federal agency. Similarly, all protection of archeological resources under ARPA would end if title were transferred since this law is linked to United States ownership.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation believes that the resulting reduction of Federal protection for cultural and historic properties at Sherman Reservoir and Arcadia Diversion Dam constitutes an adverse effect under regulations for implementing Section 106. This is based on the change in jurisdiction and applicability of Federal laws at the project. The LBRD's actions will be subject to additional procedures and commitments developed through agreement with Reclamation, the Advisory Council, and the SHPO. Such procedures and commitments will mitigate or eliminate such adverse effects (see chapter IV, "Potential Environmental Commitments").
Tribal and Native American Resources.-- Reclamation is responsible for the protection and final disposition of such remains and certain cultural objects located on Federal land under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990. Cultural objects under this act include funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. Any intentional removal of protected remains or objects requires consultation with American Indian (Indian) Tribes or Nations and Native Americans that might be culturally affiliated with these objects. Removal can take place only after consultation is completed and an ARPA permit is issued by the Federal agency administering the land. Inadvertent discoveries require protection of the remains and consultation with the relevant Indian Tribes. Material protected by NAGPRA is conveyed to the closest affiliated person or Tribe for final disposition.
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, there would be no change in the application of existing Federal law to the protection of Native American human remains or cultural objects. If effects to these resources resulted from federally proposed or approved activities, Reclamation would work to reduce or eliminate impacts after further consultation with the affected parties.
Preferred Alternative.-- If title were transferred to the LBRD and the Irrigation Districts, all protection of Native American human remains and cultural objects under NAGPRA would end since this law is linked to Federal land ownership. The primary result would be the elimination of the statutory requirement to consult with Indian Tribes and Native Americans when Native American human remains and cultural objects are encountered on project land. However, the LBRD's actions will be subject to consultation or other procedures developed through agreement with Reclamation, the Advisory Council, and the SHPO, or as specified in the Nebraska Unmarked Human Burial Sites and Skeletal Remains Protection Act. For example, any future ground-disturbing activity that may affect the known Native American grave site may require consultation with the SHPO. Such procedures are presently under consideration (see discussion in "Potential Environmental Commitments" section and attachment D).
Public involvement and disclosure of the effects of proposed actions requiring Federal funding or approval are governed primarily by NEPA. The regulations implementing NEPA require Federal agencies to involve affected Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian Tribes, project applicants or proponents, and other interested persons in environmental reviews, including those who might not be in accord with a Proposed Action. Federal agencies must solicit comments from those persons or organizations who may be interested in or affected by proposed Federal actions. Comments are typically solicited through scoping and circulating drafts of NEPA documents.
All activities of the LBRD are subject to State open meetings and open records legislation, which generally requires that all nonconfidential records of the LBRD be made available to the public upon request, and that meetings and deliberations of the LBRD's Board of Directors occur in public session.
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, major work at the project would remain subject to Reclamation review and approval, and therefore to the public involvement and disclosure requirements of NEPA. The LBRD activities which do not involve Federal review, approval, or funding would continue to be implemented in accordance with the LBRD rules, subject to State open meetings and open records laws.
Preferred Alternative.-- If title were transferred to the LBRD and the Irrigation Districts, public involvement and disclosure of proposed activities at the project would be provided in accordance with the LBRD rules, subject to State open meetings and open records laws. Public involvement and disclosure requirements under NEPA would not apply to the LBRD actions unless such actions require approval or funding from Federal agencies other than Reclamation.
The first criterion in Reclamation's policy framework for title transfer is protection of the Federal Treasury, and thereby the taxpayers' financial interest. Other economic concerns raised during scoping involve effects to county property taxes and to the rates paid by irrigators.
Repayment of Project Costs.-- The total United States capital investment costs for the Division are approximately $54,225,000. Of this total, approximately $46,604,000 are reimbursable costs (to be repaid to the U.S. Treasury), and approximately $7,621,000 are non- reimbursable costs incurred for recreation, fish and wildlife, flood control, or made non- reimbursable by P.L. 100-202 (irrigation drainage costs).
Through January 1, 2000, approximately $8,877,000 of the reimbursable costs were repaid, leaving a reimbursable balance of approximately $37,727,000. Approximately $4,332,000 of these costs were to be repaid by the Irrigation Districts to the United States over the next 17 years under terms of existing repayment contracts that have no expiration date. The LBRD and the Middle Loup Public Power and Irrigation District have existing water service contracts, which expire in 2002, under which an additional approximate $149,000 would be repaid. It was projected, based on contracts executed in the nearby Republican River Basin, that repayment of an additional approximate $4,198,000 over a 40-year period could be expected upon renewal of these two water service contracts. The remaining unpaid irrigation costs (approximately $29,048,000) would be repaid by Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program power revenues after power costs are repaid.
The present value of the above future revenue streams was calculated to be $3,803,360 for the amounts that would be repaid by the LBRD, Middle Loup Public Power and Irrigation District (MLPPID), and the Irrigation Districts and $2,600,000 for the amount to be repaid by power. In addition to the revenue streams for repayment of reimbursable costs outlined above, the United States would be relieved from certain future costs if title to project facilities were transferred. These costs and their resulting present values were outlined in an MOU between the LBRD, Irrigation Districts, and Reclamation and are restated in the following paragraphs. The present value of these future costs, $956,000, if offset against the present value of the projected future revenues to be received from the LBRD, MLPPID, and Irrigation Districts, results in a net present value of $2,847,360. These present values were calculated using the September 1999 30-year Federal Treasury rate of 6.07 percent. This $2,847,360 amount from the LBRD and Irrigation Districts, as well as the $2,600,000 amount from power revenues, were specified in P.L. 106-366.
The transfer of the Division was authorized by P.L. 106-366, 106th Congress. This legislation provides that the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of the act and in accordance with all applicable law, convey all right, title, and interest in and to the property comprising the assets of the Missouri River Basin Project, Middle Loup Division, Nebraska, in accordance with the MOU. The amount the Secretary shall accept as payment from the LBRD and the Irrigation Districts was based on the above-referenced MOU. The MOU, as amended, provides for the following:
Purchase Price.-- As authorized by legislation, the LBRD and Irrigation Districts will pay to the United States the purchase price. The purchase price is determined to be $2,847,360, which consists of $3,803,360 determined present value of revenues which, after title transfer, would no longer accrue to Reclamation less $956,000 determined allowable credits, outlined as follows:
In addition, the Districts shall be given a credit against the $2,847,360 for any capital payments made in the year 2000 or thereafter.
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, the present financial arrangement would continue. The United States would continue to receive payments annually for the reimbursable costs of the project with the Irrigation Districts and during the renewal terms of the water service contracts with the LBRD and the Middle Loup Public Power and Irrigation District. As currently scheduled, any remaining debt service allocated to irrigation would be paid by Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin power revenues prior to the expiration of the renewed contracts. There would be no change relating to the United States' future responsibility or liability concerning historical preservation or drainage associated with the Division.
Preferred Alternative.-- If title were transferred to the LBRD and the Irrigation Districts, the United States would receive a final payment for the Division. Thereafter, the United States would no longer make annual payments to the local governments for PILT and would have no future responsibility or liability for historical preservation or drainage associated with the Division. These issues are addressed in the above-referenced legislation and MOU under the headings of "Future Benefits," "Liability," and "Middle Loup Valley Drains," as follows.
Future Benefits.-- Upon payment by the LBRD and Irrigation Districts of consideration for the conveyance in accordance with the MOU, the Division of the Missouri River Basin Project (1) shall not be treated as a Federal reclamation project and (2) shall not be subject to the reclamation laws or entitled to receive any reclamation benefits under those laws.
Liability.-- Except as otherwise provided by law, effective on the date of conveyance of the assets under this section, the United States shall not be liable for damages of any kind arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence based on its prior ownership or operation of the assets.
Middle Loup Valley Drains.-- It is the intent of Reclamation, the LBRD, and the Irrigation Districts that a part of the assets to be transferred includes the facilities and land rights to which Reclamation has an interest in the valley of the Middle Loup River in Sherman County, Nebraska, in and around the city of Loup City, which facilities and land rights have been developed or acquired by Reclamation for the purposes of collecting and draining excess groundwater in the area. Any addition, modifications, and O&M of said facilities and land rights will be the responsibility of the LBRD and Irrigation Districts.
Property Taxes.-- The PILT Act (P.L. 94-565) provides for payments to local units of government containing certain federally owned land, including water resource projects administered by Reclamation. These payments are designed to reduce revenue loss to local governments from nontaxable Federal land within their jurisdiction. Payments received under the act may be used by the recipients for any governmental purpose. The United States' PILT payment to the counties in 1998 for the Division project lands was approximately $12,000. The amount of these payments is based on a formula provided in P.L. 94-565, subject to the annual appropriations by Congress.
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, the United States would continue to make PILT payments to the counties for Division project lands as provided in P.L. 94-55, subject to annual appropriations by Congress.
Preferred Alternative.-- As provided in the above-referenced MOU and as a basis for the above-referenced PILT credit in the amount of $170,000, if title is transferred, "the Districts will continue to make such payments in lieu of taxes to local governments and have provided that assurance to each of the counties impacted by Project facilities." The amount of future annual payments to be made by the LBRD and the Irrigation Districts to the counties for Division project lands will not be less than the PILT payments received by the counties in 1998.
Water rates for the LBRD customers are established from time to time by the Irrigation Districts' Boards of Directors and are based on the cost of service. Service costs considered when establishing water rates include: (1) the sum of principal and interest payments of the water-producing facility (reservoir), (2) project operating and maintenance expenses, and (3) bond repayment costs (if any). The sum of each of these costs is prorated to each customer by the acres served.
No Action Alternative.-- If title were retained by the United States, irrigation water rates for customers of the project would continue to be determined by the contracts negotiated between them and the LBRD. Water rates would not change unless factors other than project ownership affected the cost of service.
Preferred Alternative.-- The effect of title transfer on irrigation water rates depends on the purchase price for the project, or $2,847,360, and the financing/repayment option selected by the Irrigation Districts. Irrigation water rates to customers of the project would not change unless factors other than project ownership affected the cost of service.
The LBRD has indicated that, in order for title transfer to occur, it would be necessary to amend existing water supply contracts to substitute a new debt service component reflecting the costs associated with the issuance of new bonds. Thus, the effects of title transfer on water rates are not known at this time.
Recreational facilities, wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, and cultural resources of the project are described separately below.
Affected Environment.-- Reclamation's Sargent and Farwell Units divert water from central Nebraska's Middle Loup River to agricultural lands from Milburn to St. Paul. In the process, opportunities for flat water recreation within the region have been enhanced at Sherman Reservoir. Recreation use potentially affected by operation of the Sargent and Farwell Units occurs primarily at the following locations: along the Middle Loup River, particularly around the Milburn and Arcadia Diversion Dams; on or around Sherman Reservoir; and within the water distribution system consisting of the Sargent, Sherman Feeder, Farwell Main, Farwell Central, and Farwell South Canals.
Middle Loup River.-- While the Middle Loup River provides for a range of recreational activities, the only recent recreation use data for the stretch of the river from Milburn to St. Paul relates to fishing activity. Angler use surveys were conducted on the river from Milburn Diversion Dam to just upstream of the confluence with the North Loup River during 1996 and 1997 (Holland and King, 1997 and 1998). From May to October 1996, 3,100 anglers were estimated to use this reach of the Middle Loup. Nearly 70 percent of the fishing activity occurred between June and August. Channel catfish (72 percent), white bass (15.7 percent), and crappie (7.6 percent) were the most frequently caught fish. In 1997, the data collection period was extended to include April. During this April to October recreation season, nearly 3,960 anglers were estimated to use this reach of the river. Channel catfish (60 percent), crappie (13 percent), and carp (8.9 percent) proved to be the most frequently caught species in 1997.
Milburn Diversion Dam.-- The Milburn Diversion Dam, near the town of Milburn, Nebraska, diverts water into the Sargent Canal for use on agricultural lands within the Sargent Unit. The dam impounds water with a surface area of approximately 355 acres, with an additional 317 acres of recreational and wildlife lands surrounding the dam.
Recreation facilities at Milburn are limited to one campground and picnic tables.
Recreation use consists primarily of fishing, hunting, picnicking, and sightseeing/wildlife viewing. Based on the most recent data (obtained from Reclamation Recreation Visitation Summaries for 1991-94), visitation at the dam averaged 1,500 visits per year. Fishing was the most common activity, with channel catfish, carp, and bluegill being the most sought-after species.
Arcadia Diversion Dam.-- The Arcadia Diversion Dam, near the town of Arcadia, Nebraska, diverts water into the Sherman Feeder Canal. Water in the Sherman Feeder Canal flows into Sherman Reservoir before distribution via the Farwell Main, Central, and South Canals to agricultural lands within the Farwell Unit. The dam impounds approximately 109 surface acres of water, with an additional 838 acres of recreational and wildlife lands surrounding the dam.
Recreational facilities at Arcadia are limited to 2 campgrounds and picnic tables. Primary recreation activities include fishing, sightseeing/wildlife viewing, picnicking, and hunting. Based on the most recent data (Recreation Visitation Summaries, 1992 and 1993), visitation at the dam averaged less than 900 visits per year. Fishing was the most common activity, with channel catfish and crappie being the most sought-after species.
Sherman Reservoir.-- Sherman is an off-stream reservoir located just east of Loup City, Nebraska. When full (2,162.3 feet above mean sea level), Sherman Reservoir provides a surface area of approximately 2,868 acres and 65 miles of shoreline. Lands surrounding Sherman Reservoir provide nearly 4,700 acres for wildlife and land-based recreation (hunting, hiking, jogging, bicycling, etc.) opportunities.
Facilities at Sherman Reservoir include 6 boat ramps, 3 courtesy docks, 1 marina, 11 camp-grounds, and 14 picnic shelters. While no designated swimming beaches are provided, visitors still swim in the reservoir.
Sherman Reservoir provides a broad range of recreation activity, including fishing, both motorized and nonmotorized boating, water skiing, camping, sightseeing/wildlife viewing, picnicking, and hunting. The most recent 5 years of available visitation data, representing 1990-94, averaged nearly 95,000 annual visits. Visitation ranged from 69,500 visits in 1993 to more than 122,600 visits in 1994. While visitation fluctuated significantly across the 5-year period, the general trend was toward increased visitation. In addition to the Reclamation Recreation Visitation Summary data, angler surveys were conducted at the reservoir by NGPC during the summers of 1996 and 1997 (Holland and King, 1997 and 1998). Approximately 11,230 anglers were estimated to have used the reservoir from April through October 1996. Crappie (37.5 percent) and walleye (29.4 percent) were the most frequently caught species. Angler use was estimated at 25,835 in 1997, more than twice the 1996 levels for the same time period.
Again, crappie, walleye, white bass, and channel catfish proved to be the most abundant species caught. Based on the above information, Sherman Reservoir is the largest single site for recreation in the area.
Canal Systems.-- A water distribution system, consisting of the Sargent, Sherman Feeder, Farwell Main, Farwell Central, and Farwell South canals, distributes diverted water to agricultural lands within both the Sargent and Farwell Units. Some fishing occurs in these canals. While no data exist on the level of canal-based fishing, annual use levels are considered slight.
No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative.-- The LBRD and Irrigation Districts have signed an agreement with Reclamation which commits the districts to manage the project (following title transfer) in a manner substantially similar to the manner in which the project is managed at present (see attachment B). Therefore, under either alternative, operation and management of Milburn and Arcadia diversion dams, the canal systems, Sherman Reservoir, and surrounding recreation and wildlife lands would remain essentially unchanged from present operation and management. As a result, no identifiable recreational impacts are expected under either alternative.
Introduction.-- Mammals frequently found throughout the Middle Loup River basin include the deer mouse, white-footed mouse, meadow vole, pocket gopher, eastern mole, badger, raccoon, and eastern cottontail rabbit. Big game present in the basin include white-tailed and mule deer.
Additional information on fish and wildlife is in attachment C.
Wildlife Habitat.-- The project is located within the Northern Great Plains Ecoregion (Omernick, 1987), much of which has been altered by agriculture, particularly cropping, terracing, irrigation, and grazing. Wildlife abundance and species composition have changed correspondingly as a result of human-induced habitat changes. Species that favor open water (reservoirs), cropland, and mesic riparian woodlands have flourished, while those favoring native grass prairie and cottonwood-dominated flood plains are dwindling. The greatest biodiversity in the basin occurs along the river corridor; this is due in part to the wide variety of habitats available in the transition from grass and croplands in the uplands to the forested flood plain. Hubbard (1977) reported that wildlife use riparian areas more than any other kind of habitat, and 82 percent of native birds in similar areas depended on riparian areas for feeding, cover, and breeding. Beidleman (1978) reported that almost 250 species and subspecies of vertebrates were found in the riparian forests of eastern Colorado. In addition to their habitat and biodiversity benefits, riparian areas enhance recreation, water quality, flood storage, groundwater recharge, and landscape aesthetics (Brinson et al., 1981). The affected environment for wildlife focuses on those species that could be affected by changes in river/reservoir operations. This includes the waterfowl and shorebirds using the reservoirs and the diversity of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians that use the riparian woodlands along the river.
Migratory water birds passing through the area use natural and managed wetlands for forage and loafing habitat, waste grain from agricultural areas for high quality foods, and reservoirs like Sherman Reservoir for sanctuary and foraging and loafing habitat. Common migratory water birds include mallards, teal, shovelers, scaup, coots, Canada and snow geese, herons, egrets, sandpipers, phalaropes, gulls, plovers, terns, cormorants, and sandhill and whooping cranes. Depending on climatic conditions, much of the migratory waterfowl may stay through the winter.
Neotropical migratory birds passing through or breeding in the watershed include meadowlark, swallows, wrens, robin, vireos, sparrows, blackbirds, flycatchers, kingbirds, and warblers.
Other migratory birds include bald and golden eagles, hawks, osprey, and falcons. Raptor species associated with the Loup River Basin include red-tailed and Swainson's hawks and barn, screech, great-horned, and burrowing owls. Nonmigratory birds, such as turkeys, pheasant, quail, and greater prairie chicken, are widespread and associated with agricultural lands, shelterbelts, and grasslands.
Selenium is present in the environment and in macroinvertebrates and fish eaten by some migratory shorebirds. To date, there has been no evidence of bird mortality or reproductive impairment.
Fish Habitat.-- Sherman Reservoir and the Middle Loup River represent an important refuge for aquatic species in an otherwise dry region. The Middle Loup River's annual flow and temperature regime is more moderate than that of other rivers in the area owing to the Sandhills at its headwaters. The Sandhills' sandy soils allow for faster infiltration and less runoff reaching the river and more rapid groundwater recharge of the river to supplement periods of low flow. Since the advent of dams, diversions, terraced slopes, groundwater pumping, grazing, and cropping, the flow regime and water quality conditions have favored fish adapted to standing water.
Flows are dependent on irrigation demand, typically reduced in the spring to store water in reservoirs and fluctuating throughout the summer according to irrigation needs. These conditions did not favor small, native fish like the topeka shiner, sturgeon chub, plains topminnow, plains minnow, and flathead chub. Their distribution was reduced to areas where the flow regime was more favorable and piscivorous fish absent. Non-native sport fish stocked into the reservoir to provide recreation added to the diversity of species in the basin but contributed to the extirpation of native species. The current composition and abundance of aquatic resources is different from its pristine condition because of human intervention.
Sherman Reservoir.-- The reservoir provides approximately 2,868-acre surface areas of fish habitat. Shorelines composed of willows and submerged vegetation provide habitat for northern pike, bluegill, crappie, largemouth bass, and green sunfish. Deep, open waters are inhabited by walleye, yellow perch, white bass, and freshwater drum.
The reservoir is subjected to annual drawdowns during the growing season to meet irrigation demands. These releases impair shoreline habitats by desiccating submerged vegetation, impairing the growth of riparian cover, and increasing erosion and turbidity. NGPC, which is responsible for fisheries resource management at the reservoir, tries to mitigate these habitat impairments with a stocking program.
Middle Loup River.-- Habitats in the Middle Loup River are typical of rivers in similar agriculturally impacted areas of the Great Plains grassland ecosystem. It is relatively shallow with sandy bottoms, low current velocities, and impacted by strong rain events (NGPC, 1997). Red shiner, fathead minnow, river carpsucker, and channel catfish dominate the fish community with native species like the brassy minnow, longnose dace, and pearl dace having a more limited distribution.
No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative.-- This final environmental assessment analysis makes the following assumptions: (1) land use, cropping patterns, amount of acreage, and intensity of use will not change; (2) the title recipients will retain the project's current use; and (3) the quantity and quality of water diverted for irrigation will not change.
Regardless of which alternative is selected, operation and management of the Milburn and Arcadia Diversion Dams, the canal systems, Sherman Reservoir, and the surrounding recreation and wildlife lands would remain unchanged from existing conditions. Under title transfer, all facilities within the basin would continue to operate in full compliance with the MOU. No significant changes in distribution and abundance, habitat, or water quality are expected.
The effects of bioaccumulation of selenium would be similar under both alternatives.
Fish and wildlife would be administered under provisions of the agreement between the LBRD and the NGPC (attachment C).
Aquatic habitat would continue to be influenced by reservoir operations regardless of ownership, and future fishing and stocking activities would continue to be regulated by the NGPC.
The current list of federally listed threatened or endangered species and candidate species that reside in, migrate through, or otherwise may be affected by operations in the Middle Loup River basin is provided below. A total of eight species, including one mammal, four birds, one fish, one insect, and one plant, have been listed as threatened or endangered, or as a candidate, under the ESA. This section also describes proposed critical habitat for the piping plover.
| Threatened or endangered species | Current status |
| Bald eagle (Haliaeetus luecocephalus) | Threatened |
| Interior least tern (Sterna antillarium athalassos) | Endangered |
| Piping plover (Charadius melodis) | Threatened |
| Whooping crane (Grus americana) | Endangered |
| Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchis albus) | Endangered |
| American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) | Endangered |
| Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) | Threatened |
| Candidate species | |
| Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) |
Critical Habitat.-- Critical habitat for the piping plover has been proposed for the reach of the Loup River from the confluence of the North and Middle Loup Rivers at St. Paul to its confluence with the Platte River and that reach of the Platte River from its confluence with the Loup River to its confluence with the Missouri River (FWS, 2001a). Constituent elements of proposed critical habitat along the Loup and Platte Rivers include sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the interface with the river (FWS, 2001a).
Habitat Use and Status of Species.--
Threatened or Endangered Species.--
Bald Eagle.-- Bald eagles are large, opportunistic birds of prey that feed largely upon fish and waterfowl. Eagles tend to use rivers, lakes, and reservoirs where large trees provide perch sites for roosting and for locating and securing prey. Fish are the primary source of food. Under adverse conditions, bald eagles will search for prey in upland areas and feed on carrion. If severe conditions persist, eagles concentrate in areas of open water or migrate further south.
Nesting and wintering eagles are found in close association with water that provides a reliable food source and isolation from human activities. Bald eagles wintering in Nebraska are thought to originate in the central provinces of Canada and the Great Lake States. Migrant and wintering eagles begin to arrive in the Loup River basin in early to mid-October and begin to leave for breeding areas in the north by late March (NGPC, 1993a). Adult migrants tend to winter in the same area but remain mobile when seeking food during changing winter weather conditions. Wintering and migrating eagles can be expected to occur along both the Middle Loup and Loup Rivers (FWS, 2001b).
Bald eagles nest near rivers, lakes, and reservoirs where they select sites free from disturbance. Cottonwood trees are preferred nesting trees in the Loup River basin. Nests are large and re-used annually. Nesting activities begin in mid- to late March, eggs are laid in late March to early April, and both adults incubate the eggs (NGPC, 1993a). Eggs hatch in mid-May, and fledging takes place after 10 to 11 weeks, with immature birds remaining near the nest for another 6 weeks (NGPC, 1993a).
The number of active bald eagle nests is increasing in Nebraska. Active bald eagle nests are located along the Middle Loup River in the vicinity of Rockville and along the Loup River west of Columbus (FWS, 2001b). The bald eagle is listed as threatened and has been proposed for de-listing.
Whooping Crane.-- The whooping crane is one of the rarest North American birds and is the tallest North American bird (approximately 5 feet when standing erect). Its wingspan approaches 8 feet. The breeding population nests in Wood Buffalo National Park in the Northwest Territories and winters in Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and along the Gulf Coast of Texas (Lewis, 1995). Whooping cranes are known to migrate through central Nebraska and use portions of the Platte River between Kearney and Grand Island during their spring and fall migrations (NGPC, 1994). Cranes roost overnight on exposed bars or in shallow water on submerged bars and spend their days foraging for invertebrates, roots, tubers, and small grains in adjacent wet meadows and agricultural fields. The whooping crane is a regular spring (March-April) and fall (October-November) migrant through the Loup River basin where they use wetlands, open agricultural fields, and grasslands that provide open views of the surrounding terrain and are isolated from human disturbance (NGPC, 1994).
Numerous whooping crane sightings have been confirmed on and along the Middle Loup River between the Milburn diversion dam and St. Paul (FWS, 2001b). No whooping crane use has been confirmed on the Loup River downstream from its confluence with the North Loup River (FWS, 2001b). These visits are normally short-lived, ranging from 2 to 3 days. Collision with powerlines is the primary known cause of death for whooping cranes (Lewis, 1995). The frequent stopovers necessary along their migration route have become increasingly hazardous as more land is developed for agriculture, industry, and housing. Suitable resting sites along their migration routes decrease over time. The whooping crane is listed as endangered.
Interior Least Tern.-- The interior least tern is the smallest member of the tern family and occurs in the Loup River basin as a spring and fall migrant (NGPC, 1997). Breeding interior least terns are normally associated with unvegetated shorelines, sandbars, and mudflats of rivers and sand and gravel pits. The occurrence of breeding least terns is localized and highly dependent upon both the presence of dry, exposed sand and gravel bars and favorable river flows that support a forage base and that isolate bars from the banks. Characteristic riverine nesting sites are dry, flat, sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars within a wide, unobstructed, water-filled river channel. This swallow-like bird feeds primarily on small fish, such as shiners (Notropis spp.) and plains killifish (Fundulus kansae), from shallow water in rivers and lakes (NGPC, 1997). Nebraska supports one of the largest populations of least terns in the interior United States, with distribution scattered throughout the main stem Missouri, Platte, Loup, Niobrara, and Elkhorn Rivers (NGPC, 1997). The interior least tern has been observed using sandbars and sand piles from sand and gravel mining operations on and along the Loup River between St. Paul and Columbus (FWS, 2001b). Potential nesting habitat exists on the Middle Loup River between the Milburn diversion dam and St. Paul (FWS, 2001b). The interior least tern is listed as endangered.
Piping Plover.-- The piping plover is a migratory shorebird that breeds along prairie rivers, alkali lakes and ponds of the northern Great Plains, on sandy beaches along the Great Lakes, and on the beaches of the Atlantic coast. Its primary food is aquatic invertebrates. Piping plover populations have fluctuated drastically since 1900 primarily as the result of market hunting. Populations rebounded by the 1920s; however, human encroachment, an increase in the recreational use of sandbars and beaches, channelization and impoundment of rivers, and the resultant modification and destruction of habitat have caused numbers to decline again. Historic breeding habitat in Nebraska included the Missouri and Platte Rivers, parts of the Loup Rivers, and a portion of the Niobrara River (NGPC, 1995b). They can be found nesting with colonies of least terns on naturally occurring sandbars along the lower Niobrara, the lower Platte River, the Loup River between St. Paul and Columbus and potentially at a few sites along the Middle Loup River between the Milburn diversion dam and St. Paul (FWS, 2001b; NGPC, 1995b).
Artificially created and maintained sandbars along the unchannelized reach of the Missouri River and central Platte River provide limited nesting sites. Breeding also occurs on the shoreline of Lake McConaughy and on sand piles resulting from gravel mining along the South Platte, Platte, Loup, and Elkhorn Rivers (FWS, 2001b; NGPC, 1995b). It is believed that the northern Great Plains population winters along beaches and mudflats from Florida to northern Mexico (NGPC, 1995b).
Critical habitat for the piping plover has been proposed for the Loup River from the confluence of the North and Middle Loup Rivers at St. Paul downstream to its confluence with the Platte River and along the Platte River from its confluence with the Loup River to its confluence with the Missouri River (FWS, 2001a). Constituent elements of proposed critical habitat along the Loup and Platte Rivers include sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the interface with the river (FWS, 2001a). The piping plover is listed as threatened.
Pallid Sturgeon.-- Pallid sturgeon evolved from an ancient group of bony fish that were dominant during the Paleozoic era. Most species in this group became extinct during the Mesozoic era. The living descendants of this group in North America include the paddlefish and eight species of sturgeon (FWS, 1993).
Pallid sturgeon have a flattened, shovel-nosed snout; long, slender, and completely armored caudal peduncle; and lack a spiracle (Smith, 1979). As with other sturgeon, the mouth is toothless, protrusible, and ventrally positioned under the snout (FWS, 1993). The skeletal structure is primarily cartilaginous (Gilbraith et al., 1988). Pallid sturgeon are similar in appearance to the more common, darker shovelnose sturgeon. The principal features that distinguish the two sturgeon are the paucity of dermal ossifications on the belly, 24 or more anal ray fins, and 37 or more dorsal fin rays on the pallid sturgeon (Pflieger, 1975). Although pallid sturgeon are generally lighter in color than shovelnose sturgeon, coloration cannot consistently be relied upon as a means of separating the two species (Kallemeyn, 1983).
The pallid sturgeon is one of the largest fish species found in the Missouri/mississippi River drainage, with specimens reaching 86 pounds (Gilbraith et al., 1988). Adults collected from the upper Missouri River tend to be larger than those collected from the middle Missouri River and the Mississippi River. The maximum recorded weight of a pallid sturgeon collected from the Missouri River in Montana and North Dakota is 86 pounds (FWS, 1993). In the Mississippi River, the maximum recorded weight is 26 pounds (FWS, 1993).
Bailey and Cross (1954) described the range of the pallid sturgeon as encompassing the middle and lower Mississippi River, the Missouri River, and the lower reaches of the Platte, Kansas, and Yellowstone Rivers. Today, the pallid sturgeon is one of the rarest fish in the Missouri and Mississippi River basins (FWS, 1993). Forbes and Richardson (1905) and Bailey and Cross (1954) indicate that the species was always uncommon. Bailey and Cross (1954) also reported that of the 250 pallid sturgeon reported, 76 percent were collected from the Missouri River in Montana and the Dakotas. Most were collected from the headwaters of main stem reservoirs as they were filling. Since 1980, reports of the most frequent occurrence have included the lower 70 miles of the Yellowstone River (FWS, 1993). There have been no records of occurrence in the Loup River basin; however, there are records of occurrence from the lower Platte River (Jobman, 2001a). Young sturgeon have rarely been collected. It is assumed that this rarity results from low reproductive success throughout its range (FWS, 1993).
Pallid sturgeon are morphologically well adapted to life in swift waters on the bottom of large, turbid, free-flowing rivers (Forbes and Richardson, 1905; Kallemeyn, 1983; and Gilbraith et al., 1988). They evolved in the diverse environments of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers where the flood plain, backwaters, chutes, sloughs, islands, sandbars, and main channel provided microhabitats necessary for its survival (FWS, 1993). These habitats were constantly changing; however, today, man's actions have eliminated much of the dynamic nature of this once naturally functioning ecosystem.
Pallid sturgeon migrate both daily and seasonally. Bramblett (1996) found pallid sturgeon can move as much as 13 miles a day at a rate as fast as 6 miles per hour. Home range for the pallid sturgeon was found to be greatest during spring, presumably associated with spawning, and could be as large as 198 miles (Bramblett, 1996). The size of the home range during spring and summer was not found to be significantly different, but the size of the home range in fall and winter was found to be significantly different from that of spring (Bramblett, 1996).
It has been suggested that discharge and photoperiod may be important environmental cues for timing of migration and other movements (Bramblett, 1996). With increasing discharge, pallid sturgeon tend to be found further upstream (Bramblett, 1996). Because pallid sturgeon are not thought to spawn every year, Bramblett (1996) suggests that their relative location in the river from year to year may be indicative of whether individuals are spawning.
Late winter through mid-summer flows in the lower Platte River have been identified as important components affecting the life cycle of the pallid sturgeon. Discharge in the lower Platte River is generally highest from February through April. Spring high flows are important because they redistribute stream channel sand and gravel and create and/or maintain bars. Sand and gravel bars are associated with localized slower velocity flows and eddies used by sturgeon to escape higher channel flows (Jobman, 2001b). A second, smaller peak in discharge generally occurs during June. These higher flows are thought to be important for spawning and to provide access to side channels and other appropriate spawning habitat (Jobman, 2001b). To date, the FWS has not identified spawning areas in the lower Platte River (Jobman, 2001b). Larval sturgeon have been collected from the lower Platte River downstream of its confluence with the Elkhorn River; however, it is not known whether these were pallid sturgeon or shovelnose sturgeon larvae. The pallid sturgeon is listed as endangered.
American Burying Beetle.-- The American burying beetle is the largest carrion-frequenting insect in North America, reaching a length of 1½ inches. Adult beetles are nocturnal and search widely for carrion. Beetle reproduction is closely tied to carrion with larvae being housed within and feeding upon carrion. The American burying beetle is unique among insects outside of the social bees, wasps, and ants in that it cares for and feeds its young.
American burying beetles are known to occur in Rhode Island, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska and are thought to inhabit level areas in grasslands and open woodlands. The westernmost North American record for the American burying beetle comes from near North Platte, Nebraska, with the most recent sightings from Lincoln, Dawson, Custer, Gosper, Frontier, Thomas, Keya Paha, and Cherry Counties (FWS, 1997; NGPC, 1995a). A specimen was collected from near Milburn in 1970 (Ratcliffe, 1990). Vegetation does not appear to limit distribution; rather, it requires areas relatively undisturbed by human influence. Undisturbed habitat and the availability of carrion appear to most strongly influence distribution (FWS, 1991). Habitat fragmentation appears to adversely affect the beetle by altering species composition, lowering their reproductive success, and by introducing additional "edge" and competition from other scavengers. Specific habitat requirements are unknown; however, it is believed that carrion availability and abundance may be more important that structural habitat (NGPC, 1995a) There have been no recent collections of the American burying beetle in the project area; however, the beetle is known to occur within the Middle Loup River basin in Thomas and Custer Counties (FWS, 2001b; Ratcliffe, 1990). The American burying beetle is listed as endangered.
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid.-- The western prairie fringed orchid is a relatively tall, perennial plant occurring in swales and along the low edges of slopes in native tallgrass prairie. In eastern Nebraska, the orchid occurs in mesic upland prairies in glacial drift and calcium-rich loess soils (NGPC, 1993b). In central and northeast Nebraska, it occurs in wet-mesic prairies and sedge meadows in alluvial soils of river flood plains (NGPC, 1993b). In the Sandhills of central and western Nebraska, the orchid occurs in the sandy soils of subirrigated meadows and prairie swales (NGPC, 1993b). All sites are typified by tallgrass prairie habitat and abundant soil moisture. Populations of the western prairie fringed orchid are found primarily in high- to moderate-quality, unplowed prairies.
The major limiting factor for the western prairie fringed orchid is its dependency upon the limited habitat of mesic to wet-mesic tallgrass prairie (NGPC, 1993b). Long-term survival requires sites where near-surface groundwater maintains a relatively high and consistent level of saturation. Wetland drainage, stream channelization, ditching, and pumping from shallow aquifers pose threats to the orchid by depleting groundwater and reducing soil moisture. Reduced or interrupted streamflows also pose a threat through drying of adjacent meadows (NGPC, 1993b).
Historical records indicate the range of the western prairie fringed orchid lies primarily to the east and south of the Loup River basin (FWS, 1997). There are scattered populations in Loup County along the Middle Loup River (Jobman, 2001a). In addition, there are a number of populations in northeast Garfield County and along the Cedar River drainage (Jobman, 2001a). The western prairie fringed orchid is listed as threatened.
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog.-- The black-tailed prairie dog is a small, stout ground squirrel having an overall length of 14-17 inches, with weights ranging from 1 to 3 pounds. The black-tipped tail is characteristic of the species, with mixed body colors varying from brown, black, gray, and white (Hoogland, 1995). Black-tailed prairie dogs are diurnal, burrowing animals, spending most of their day above ground. They do not hibernate as do other North American prairie dog species (Hoogland, 1995). The species is very social, living in population aggregations that can contain thousands of individuals and extend for miles (Bailey, 1905; King, 1955). Within these colonies, prairie dogs live in territorial, harem-polygamous family groups called coteries (Hoogland, 1995).
The colonial nature of the black-tailed prairie dog is a significant characteristic of the species. Colonality offers an effective defense mechanism by aiding in the detection of predators and by deterring predators through mobbing behavior (Hoogland, 1995). It increases reproductive success through cooperative rearing of juveniles, and it aids parasite removal through shared grooming. Hoogland (1995) notes that colonality promotes transmission of disease which can suppress populations and may be a major factor in population dynamics.
Many authors have recognized the biological importance of the black-tailed prairie dog as a keystone species. Keystone species influence ecosystem function in unique and significant ways. Prairie dogs act in several roles inasmuch as they are prey, provide shelter, modify vegetation, and influence ecological processes in a manner not entirely duplicated by other prairie herbivores (Wuerthner, 1997). Although the black-tailed prairie dog creates habitat for itself and other species, it is also affected by other species. Prairie dogs can create preferential grazing oppor-tunities for herbivores who, in turn, create opportunities for expansion of prairie dog colonies along their perimeters. Habitat modified by black-tailed prairie dogs is especially important to the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), swift fox, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).
The historic range of the black-tailed prairie dog included portions of 11 States, Canada, and Mexico. Its current range occurs from extreme south-central Canada to northeastern Mexico from approximately the 98th meridian west to the Rocky Mountains (FWS, 2000). The species is found in scattered populations at much-reduced numbers throughout central and western Nebraska and continues to decline from conversion of grasslands to cropland, urban areas, and other vegetative communities; from structural deterioration of burrows; and from habitat fragmentation (FWS, 2000). There are no black-tailed prairie dog colonies on any Division lands within the Middle Loup River basin (Manring, 2001). The black-tailed prairie dog is a candidate species.
Methods.-- Information about these species was collected through a review of existing literature and contact with individuals from the FWS, Geological Survey (GS), NGPC, and Reclamation. The species addressed in this section were identified by the FWS in 2001 as possibly occurring within the Loup River basin or affected by Loup River flows.
There was little published technical or general literature available which pertained specifically to the Loup River basin. Where available, information was cited for areas thought to contain analogous habitat types or conditions.
Hydrologic analyses for flows affecting the pallid sturgeon were based on data obtained from established GS stream gages. Flows established for the Middle Loup River were obtained from a gage near St. Paul with flows from the South Loup River subtracted using gage data from near its confluence with the Middle Loup River. Platte River flows were established using the Duncan gage upstream of Columbus. Diversions to the Power Canal below the gage were added back to Loup River flows. Loup River flows were added to the Duncan data to arrive at flows at the confluence of the Platte and Loup Rivers. The Duncan gage was used because it provides the longest period of record in the vicinity of the Loup River confluence. Lower Platte River flows were taken from the Louisville station.
The cumulative effects analysis for pallid sturgeon was conducted in a similar manner. Flows from the North Loup River were combined with flows from the Middle Loup River to estimate effects all Reclamation projects in the Loup River basin have on flows in the Platte River.
Net depletions from the Middle Loup River associated with the irrigation districts were generated by:
Subtracting diversions to the farms from diversions to the canal and assuming 30 percent of the difference to be depletions lost to conveyance. Fifteen percent was attributed to nonbeneficial consumptive use and 15 percent to deep percolation. These values are acceptable standards for Reclamation and are similar to those used in other studies in the area.
Multiplying diversion to the farms by 80 percent for depletions associated with evapotranspiration. Many open ditches have been replaced with pipe, and conveyance efficiency has increased significantly in recent years.
Subtracting evapotranspiration from diversion to the farms and multiplying that by 15 percent to derive depletions due to on-farm conveyance.
Reservoir evaporation was derived from data presented in the annual operating plan for Sherman Reservoir.
These values were accumulated by month to arrive at an 18-year monthly average.
Selenium sampling and hazard characterization and assessment were determined according to Lemly (1995). Samples were collected in 1996 and 1997 from sites on surface drains on Dry and Turkey Creeks; a surface drain near St. Paul; Milburn diversion dam; the confluence of the Middle Loup and Loup Rivers; the Middle Loup River near Rockville; tributaries to Deer, Oak, and Turkey Creeks; Sherman Reservoir; and wetlands in the north and south portions of the Farwell Irrigation District. Attachment E contains a more detailed discussion of selenium sampling methodology.
Effects of Current Operations and Transfer of Title.--
Project Operation.-- Project operations would not be modified appreciably following transfer of title. Reclamation, the LBRD, and the Farwell and Sargent Irrigation Districts have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby it has been agreed that recipients of the title "...shall manage the Project in a manner substantially similar to the manner in which the Project was managed before conveyance and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws ..." (attachment B). Reclamation believes that transfer of title would not result in alteration of diversion schedules nor operation of diversion structures or Sherman Reservoir. Reclamation also believes that there would be no change in the range of hydrologic conditions within which the project is currently operated. Any potential future change in operations that may increase irrigated lands and water requirements would be subject to Nebraska water rights administration and limitations of the present storage and delivery facilities. With the existing water supply and present acreage being irrigated, the Division is likely to be at design capacity.
Selenium.-- Reclamation began investigating the presence of selenium in the Middle Loup River basin and its relative concentrations at representative sample sites in 1996. Reclamation used the saturated extraction method and found selenium concentrations ranging from less than 1 microgram per liter (µg/L) in Sherman Reservoir and the Middle Loup River at the Milburn diversion dam to 8.0 µg/L in an open drain near St. Paul. Average selenium concentration at the 12 sample sites is 4.2 µg/L. The Environmental Protection Agency has established a water quality criterion of 5 µg/L to protect freshwater aquatic life from chronic levels of selenium. Selenium concentrations at or below 5 µg/L in water are not considered harmful, but higher concentrations can cause birth defects, reproductive failures, and death in fish, wildlife, and livestock. Concentrations above 5 µg/L can occur naturally from the weathering process of seleniferous marine shales and/or may result from human activities, such as irrigation, that accelerate natural leaching.
Dr. A. Dennis Lemly (1995) has developed a threshold limit for determining whether an aquatic organism has elevated levels of selenium in its tissues. The threshold limit for fish has been determined to be 4 microgram per gram (µg/g) dry weight. The threshold limit for aquatic macroinvertebrates has been determined to be 3 µg/g.
Analysis indicates elevated selenium concentrations in water, sediments, aquatic macro-invertebrates, and fish in the Middle Loup River basin. Of the 118 individual fish samples, 42 percent were found to have selenium concentrations greater than the 4 µg/g Lemly threshold. The results suggest some fish species may be more sensitive to selenium than other species and can withstand higher tissue concentrations. This may be attributed, but not limited to, feeding habits, genetics, physiology, and/or location. Ninety-one percent of the 20 aquatic macro-invertebrate samples were found to be greater than the 3 µg/g Lemly threshold. Twenty-nine bottom sediment samples were collected, and 59 percent were found to exceed the 2 µg/g Lemly threshold. All drain site samples, except the September 1996 Turkey Creek sample, exceed the biotic toxicity threshold for selenium in water. Attachment E contains a more detailed discussion of selenium background and effects.
Direct Impacts of Current Operations and Transfer of Title.--
Bald Eagle.-- The number of active bald eagle nests is increasing in Nebraska. Active nests are located along the Middle Loup River in the vicinity of Rockville and along the Loup River west of Columbus (FWS, 2001b). The bald eagle winters along open reaches of the Middle Loup River where it feeds on fish, waterfowl, and carrion.
Samples of fathead minnow, brassy minnow, black bullhead, red shiner, creek chub, flathead chub, river carpsucker, common carp, and green sunfish from the Middle Loup River basin possess tissue with concentrations of selenium sufficient to be classified as a high hazard (figure III-1). Selenium may be bioaccumulating through the food chain. High concentrations of selenium in fish and other prey species expose eagles to a selenium hazard should individual birds consume large numbers of affected animals. It should be recognized that the Division is but one component of agricultural irrigation in the Loup River basin and is not accountable for all of the hazard that may result from high levels of selenium.
Whooping Crane.-- The whooping crane is a regular spring and fall migrant through the Middle Loup River basin where they use wetlands, open agricultural fields, and grasslands that provide open views of the surrounding terrain and are isolated from disturbance. Whooping cranes have been confirmed on and along the Middle Loup River between the Milburn diversion dam and St. Paul.
Some aquatic invertebrates and fish species in the Middle Loup River basin possess tissue containing concentrations of selenium sufficient to be classified as a high hazard. Selenium may be bioaccumulating through the food chain. Some of the highest selenium concentrations have been found in wetlands in the vicinity of the Farwell Irrigation District and Middle Loup River where cranes may forage (figure III-2). Common carp, fathead minnows, green sunfish, red shiners, and white crappie were sampled from these wetlands. Only white crappie were found to possess tissue that did not exceed the 4 µg/g dry weight threshold for fish. High concentrations of selenium in fish and invertebrate tissue expose cranes to a selenium hazard should individual birds consume large numbers of affected animals. It should be recognized again that the Division is but one component of agricultural irrigation in the Loup River basin and is not accountable for all hazards that may result from high levels of selenium.
Interior Least Tern/Piping Plover.-- These two species are addressed in common because of their similarity in habits and habitat requirements; however, food requirements differ for these birds. Terns feed on fish, whereas plovers seek out aquatic invertebrates.
Some aquatic invertebrate and fish species in the Middle Loup River basin possess tissue containing concentrations of selenium sufficient to be classified as a high hazard (figure III-3). Selenium may be bioaccumulating through the food chain. Of the samples collected that would be considered small enough to be used as prey by terns, fathead minnows, brassy minnows, red shiners, and green sunfish were found to contain selenium concentration that exceed the 4 µg/g threshold for fish. Largemouth bass, white crappie, and bluegill samples were at or below the threshold. Seventy-one percent of aquatic macroinvertebrates (n=24) collected exceeded the 3 µg/g threshold for invertebrates. High concentrations of selenium in fish and invertebrate tissue expose terns and plovers to a selenium hazard should individual birds consume large numbers of affected animals. In addition, water (figure III-4) and sediment (figure III-5) in the Middle Loup and Loup Rivers have been found to contain concentrations of selenium that may also expose these species to some degree of selenium hazard.
Constituent elements of proposed critical habitat for the piping plover on the Loup and Platte Rivers includes sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the interface with the river (FWS, 2001a). Because the LBRD must satisfy contractual obligations for irrigation water and senior water right demands downstream, Reclamation believes that the transfer of title would not alter diversion schedules nor the operation of diversion structures or Sherman Reservoir. There would be no change in the range of hydrologic conditions within which the project is currently operated. Bedload sediment would continue to be sluiced through the diversion structures in the manner which has been customary over the previous 40 years. Although diversions for irrigation result in a net depletion of water to the Middle Loup River, gains in streamflow on the Loup and Platte Rivers offset potential depletion effects on proposed critical habitat. The morphology of constituent elements would not be affected by the transfer of title.
Pallid Sturgeon.-- Pallid sturgeon may be found seasonally in the Platte River near its confluence with the Missouri River; however, they have not been recorded from the Loup River basin. Hydrologic data from 1944 - 2001 were analyzed to determine what effects completion of Division projects had on flows in the Middle Loup River at St. Paul and the Platte River at Columbus (table III-2). These data indicate that during September - June from 1963 - 2001 (or after Division projects were completed), the Platte River at Columbus conveyed more water than from 1940 - 1962 (or before Division projects were completed). Post-project average peak flows on the Platte River at Columbus occur at about the same time as pre-project peaks and are near the same magnitude (or even greater) (figure III-6).
Since 1963, flows in the Middle Loup River at St. Paul have been reduced by about 38 percent in July and about 26 percent in August. There is no conclusive method to apportion the flow reductions among their various causes. The Division is but one component of these reduced flows and is not accountable for all of the reductions.
Operation of the Sargent and Farwell irrigation districts results in an average annual net depletion of water to the Middle Loup, Loup, and Platte Rivers from February to July of 41,851 acre-feet (table III-3). Late winter through mid-summer flows in the lower Platte River have been identified as important components affecting the life cycle of the pallid sturgeon. Discharge in the lower Platte River is generally highest from February through April (figure III-7). High flows in the spring are important to the pallid sturgeon because they redistribute stream channel sand and gravel and create and/or maintain bars. Sand and gravel bars produce localized slower velocity flows and eddies used by sturgeon to escape higher channel flows (Jobman, 2001b). A second, smaller peak in discharge generally occurs during June. These higher flows are considered to be important for spawning and are necessary to provide access to side channels and other appropriate spawning habitat (Jobman, 2001b). To date, the FWS has not identified spawning areas in the lower Platte River (Jobman, 2001b). Larval sturgeon have been collected from the lower Platte River downstream of the Elkhorn River confluence during the month of July; however, it is not known whether these were pallid sturgeon or shovelnose sturgeon larvae.
Depending on weather and other factors, irrigation diversions are typically greatest in July and August. Irrigation return flows contribute to streamflows through the fall and most of the
winter. After Division projects were completed, the Platte River at Columbus conveyed 30 percent less water in July than before they were completed. There is no conclusive method to apportion flow reduction to their various causes; accordingly, such an analysis was not attempted. Reduced flows from the Middle Loup River comprise approximately 28 percent of the 30 percent reduction, or about 8 percent of the total July reduction to the Platte River at Columbus since 1944 (table III-2).
All of the hydrologic data Reclamation has examined indicate that contemporary flows in the lower Platte River at Louisville are greater than historic flows (table III-4). Most increases are substantial; however, the period of record at Louisville preceding the projects is relatively short (10 years before compared to 35 years after). The shape of the 1964-99 hydrograph at Louisville very closely mimics that of the 1954-63 hydrograph with peak flows of similar magnitude occurring in March and June (figure III-7).
Water in the Middle Loup River has been found to contain high levels of selenium (figure III-3). Selenium moving downstream to the lower Platte River may contribute to higher concentrations in water, sediments, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and fish which the pallid sturgeon use for subsistence.
In summary, operation of the Sargent and Farwell Irrigation Districts results in a net depletion to the Middle Loup River of 41,851 acre-feet from February through July. The effects of these net depletions on flows in the lower Platte River at Louisville, Nebraska, are more than offset by increased flows from other sources. The net effect of Division depletions from the Middle Loup River on pallid sturgeon habitat in the lower Platte River appears to be minimal.
American Burying Beetle.-- The American burying beetle requires habitat relatively undisturbed by human influence where carrion is readily available. Blocks of undisturbed land are uncommon within the Irrigation Districts, and it is unlikely the American burying beetle would find suitable habitat. Potentially suitable habitat for the American burying beetle may occur in isolated and undisturbed areas associated with the headwaters of Sherman Reservoir. These areas would not be physically disturbed by project operations or transfer of title; however, they may very infrequently be subject to inundation when the reservoir water levels uncontrollably rise into the surcharge pool. Portions of the surcharge pool now support
grasslands and riparian and upland forests and may provide potential habitat for the beetle. Adult beetles and subterranean larvae inhabiting areas in the surcharge pool during flood events may be subject to inundation and drowning.
A survey conducted in 1990 (Ratcliffe, 1990) documents one American burying beetle collected near Milburn in 1970; however, no beetles were collected during the Sargent Irrigation District survey in 1990. It is the collective opinion of Reclamation and the FWS (Jobman, 2001a) that viable populations of the beetle are unlikely to be found in the Loup River basin. Reclamation believes that the American burying beetle will not be affected by project operations and transfer of title.
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid.-- The western prairie fringed orchid is found in sites typified by tallgrass prairie and abundant soil moisture. A large percentage of the flood plain within the Middle Loup River basin has been converted to crop land, and very few native grasslands, wet meadows, and wet-mesic prairies remain. No known populations occur on project lands, and suitable habitat for the western prairie fringed orchid is limited on lands associated with the Division (Currier, 1990); however there are scattered populations in Loup County along the Middle Loup River (Jobman, 2001a). In addition, there are a number of populations in northeast Garfield County and along the Cedar River drainage (Jobman, 2001a). Reclamation believes that project operations and transfer of title will not affect the western prairie fringed orchid.
In summary, based on Reclamation's analysis of available information and informal consultation with the FWS, current and future operations of Division facilities may affect, but are not likely to adverely affect the pallid sturgeon, piping plover, least tern, American burying beetle, whooping crane, bald eagle, and proposed critical habitat for the piping plover. Consultation with the FWS is underway to determine the magnitude of the effects of project operation on pallid sturgeon and to determine appropriate corrective measures, if any.
No Action Alternative.-- Ongoing operation results in a net depletion of water from the Middle Loup River from February through July that may affect pallid sturgeon. Selenium concentrations may be affecting bald eagle, whooping crane, piping plover, and interior least tern.
If title is retained by the United States, Reclamation would implement corrective measures, if any, identified during consultation that are associated with project operation. Sections 7 and 9 would still be applicable to Reclamation actions.
Preferred Alternative.-- Ongoing operation results in a net depletion of water from the Middle Loup River from February through July that may affect pallid sturgeon. Selenium concentrations may be affecting bald eagle, whooping crane, piping plover, and interior least tern.
Reclamation would complete consultation on project operation before title is transferred and would ensure implementation of corrective measures, if any. Section 7 would not be applicable unless actions require funds or approval from other Federal agencies. Section 9 would remain in effect.
Operations of the Division are expected to continue unchanged. There would be no adverse impacts to wetlands or flood plains.
A Class III cultural resource survey was performed under the requirements of Section 110 (a)(2) of the NHPA (as amended) (1966, 1988) and the Department of the Interior's "Guidelines for Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act."
A Class III survey means that all lands were visited, and the ground surface was carefully inspected to locate any unrecorded historical sites.
There had been 16 previous surveys completed on portions of this project. These were primarily on small tracts examined in advance of construction activities. No sites were recorded in any of these reports. Other surveys in the general area include the surveys of Davis Creek (which also recorded no prehistoric archeological sites) and Calamus Reservoirs. There were also surveys for a number of canals in the North Loup canal system. A variety of other nearby research sites are also summarized in the above reports. Together, these earlier surveys indicate that, while prehistoric archeological sites do occur in this part of the State, they are generally sparse, particularly in the uplands and valley slopes where the canals in this project are commonly located.
A Class I records search for all of these lands was performed by the Archeology Department of the Nebraska State Historical Society. Files at Reclamation's Nebraska-Kansas Area Office in Grand Island were also carefully examined. This search identified 26 historical sites that had been recorded within the same section of land that is a portion of this project. It also found eight historical sites which had been recorded in adjacent sections. Three of these sites (25CU202, 25SM201, and 25SM202) are on Federal land. The remainder of the sites were not located on Federal land associated with this project and, therefore, were not affected by this action. Many of these nearby sites were recorded by surveys related to activities of this project, but are not now located on project land.
The ground survey was performed by the University of Nebraska State Museum (UNSM) on lands around Sherman Reservoir and Arcadia Diversion Dam. Reclamation archeologists completed the remaining surveys on lands around Milburn Diversion Dam and undisturbed portions of the canal systems associated with this project. A number of local residents and archeology/history buffs were also interviewed about their knowledge of any historic or prehistoric sites on the project.
A Class III survey was not done on most of the canal lands. Most of this land had been heavily modified by either cutting or filling during canal construction in 1957-62. Subsequently, much of the land which immediately adjoins the canal has been leveled and plowed for agricultural use. Therefore, these areas were reviewed by a qualified archeologist driving the access roads along the canal and watching for areas of undisturbed land or historic structures. All these undisturbed surface areas were surveyed as they were encountered. These were usually small tracts on the right-of-way, at the tops of ridges or hills that had been cut through by access roads. Most were less than 1 acre.
There were also some easements for the canal where a pipe was buried under agricultural fields. These areas were not driven, since there was no access road, and the right-of-way had obviously been heavily disturbed by pipe burial and subsequent agricultural activities. It was also felt that these areas fell outside the area of impact since they were not on Federal land and would not lose Federal protection because of the title transfer. Reclamation does not foresee that the proposed title transfer would have an effect on any cultural resources located on non-Federal land. No intensive inventory of sites has been done on surrounding private lands, but cultural sites are no doubt present there. These sites are protected now only if the actions which might damage them are funded or licensed by the Federal Government. That level of protection would still be in effect even after a title transfer; therefore, no cultural resource surveys were conducted on non-Federal land or on land where the Federal Government holds only an easement. However, all the easements were included in the Class I records search.
Three reports were produced for the archeological survey and site evaluation on all the Federal land within the potential area of impact. One, for the land at Milburn Diversion Dam and the canal systems proposed to be in the transfer, was produced by Reclamation. The other two, covering the lands around Sherman Reservoir and Arcadia Diversion Dam, were produced by the UNSM. During these surveys, 1 site was recorded at Milburn Diversion Dam, 18 sites were located at Arcadia Diversion Dam, and 42 sites were located at Sherman Reservoir. No significant sites were found on canal right-of-way, and only one (which was not eligible for the National Register) was at Milburn Diversion Dam. Of the sites found, one site at Sherman Reservoir is under water and could not be fully evaluated, and one was recommended as eligible for the National Register. The site recommended as eligible at Sherman Reservoir is from a dugout that is typical of the first-year dwellings built in the 1870s and 1880s and the remains of a cluster of small prehistoric houses occupied 800 to 900 years ago. At Arcadia Diversion Dam, eight sites were recommended as eligible for the National Register, and all were recommended to be included in a single national historic district. These eight sites represent most of the major human occupations of the area over the last 10,000 years. The earliest was occupied more than 10,000 years ago. There is also an occupation by a people, known as the Logan Creek culture, who lived there about 8,000 years ago. This is only the third site of this age found in Nebraska. Other sites span the entire Indian occupation, including Woodland (2,000 years ago) and Central Plains Tradition (800-900 years ago) sites, and a bison butchering site from the time of first Euro-American contacts. The most recent sites include a dugout depression, which was built by a Mr. Snell and then occupied by the Dowse family before they moved to their nearby sod house, and the foundations of the post office from a small community named Manchester which was formerly located near the diversion dam. The Dowse dugout is reported to be the first Euro-American structure built in the county. The fact that so many sites from such a range of time periods are located within sight of each other at Arcadia gives the group of sites a relationship and significance that they would not have had individually.
Reclamation felt that there were three ways of mitigating the potential effects of the proposed title transfer on these nine eligible sites. They include the following options:
Professionally excavate the sites to recover the scientific data they contain.
Create permanent preservation easements on the land which would be transferred to a historic preservation-oriented organization, such as the Nebraska State Historical Society, the UNSM, or the Archeological Conservancy. The easements would protect the sites from activities and occurrences which might be destructive and would allow the agency owning the easement to undertake future research projects to recover scientific data from the sites. This option would possibly include placement of riprap at the Central Plains Tradition site at Sherman Reservoir to protect it from ongoing shoreline erosion.
A combination of options 1 and 2. This would consist of excavating selected sites and establishing a permanent conservation easement on the remainder.
After consultation meetings, which included Reclamation, the Nebraska SHPO, UNSM , Nebraska Game and Parks, and the LBRD, it was decided to pursue option 3. The archeological site at Sherman Reservoir would be partially excavated to mitigate the potential for erosional damage to the site. The eight sites at Arcadia Dam would be protected by a historic preservation easement, which would be owned and administered by the UNSM. (The district and the UNSM are now consulting on the wording of the easement. When they agree on an easement, it will be sent to the Nebraska SHPO, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma for final consultation and concurrence). An MOU and Preservation Easement is included as attachment D.
No Action Alternative.-- In a contract renewal process, there generally would not be any new construction or change of use that would significantly affect cultural resources--all resources would remain on Federal land and under Federal protection.
Preferred Alternative.-- No ground-disturbing activities would be directly associated with the alternatives. However, in preparation for the transfer of title, Reclamation has determined that the transfer of title to the lands and facilities of the project would have an adverse effect on historic properties determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register. This adverse effect is the result of the loss of Federal protection under the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470f), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (16 U.S.C. 3001), and other Federal cultural resource laws and regulations. To mitigate this effect, Reclamation has consulted with the Nebraska SHPO pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800 (regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA) and developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Reclamation, SHPO, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and the LBRD. Under this MOA, among other things, the National Register eligible historic properties will be nominated to the National Register, and a permanent preservation easement will be developed for the protection of these historic sites. The UNSM will continue to monitor and conduct archeological research on the historic sites within the preservation easement. On September 21, 2001, and as stipulated in the MOA, the National Register nominations were presented to the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Board (NSHPB) for consideration to the National Register. The NSHPB approved the nominations with slight modification to the Arcadia Diversion Dam Archeological District form. The nomination form for the archeological site at Sherman Reservoir was sent to the National Park Service and the Keeper of the National Register for final evaluation and inclusion in the National Register. On February 12, 2002, Site 25SM20 was added to the National Register. The nomination form for the Arcadia Diversion Dam Archeological District requires additional information from the SHPO and will be completed by them and submitted to the Keeper of the National Register.
Sherman Dam and Reservoir.-- Sherman Dam and Reservoir is the principal feature of the Division. Sherman Dam is an off-stream storage facility located on Oak Creek, about 4 miles northeast of Loup City. Oak Creek is generally dry, having flows only following heavy rains. Inflow into Sherman Reservoir is provided by water diverted from the Middle Loup River at the Arcadia Diversion Dam and transported almost 20 miles to the reservoir by the Sherman Feeder Canal. Storage in Sherman Reservoir provides water for the Farwell Irrigation District, which serves 50,051 acres. The conservation pool begins at reservoir elevation 2129.0, extends to elevation 2162.3, and totals 58,580 acre-feet.
Sargent Unit.-- The Sargent Canal serves a total of 13,922 acres of the Sargent Irrigation District. The water supply for these lands is provided by flows from the Middle Loup River, which is diverted by the Milburn Diversion Dam and delivered by the Sargent Canal system under an appropriated natural-flow water right from the State of Nebraska.
Farwell Unit.-- The Farwell Canal system serves 50,051 acres of project lands located below Sherman Dam. Water supply for these lands comes from Oak Creek, from water diverted from the Middle Loup River at the Arcadia Diversion Dam through Sherman Feeder Canal, and from off-season storage in Sherman Reservoir. Additional diversions through the Arcadia Diversion Dam serve 15,000 acres of nonproject lands in the Middle Loup Public Power and Irrigation District under their appropriated natural-flow water rights.
Flows in the Middle Loup River would not change from current conditions. Based on discussions with the LBRD, this FEA assumes project operations would continue unchanged. Therefore, the Division water supplies and operations would continue as they have since 1964. Socioeconomic effects related to the water supply are in attachment F.
Both groundwater and surface water quality in the study area are generally good, with the exception of elevated selenium levels in some areas. More detailed information concerning water quality is presented in attachment E of this document.
Surface Water.-- Surface water was analyzed in both the Sargent and Farwell Irrigation Districts. No surface water quality problems were detected in the Sargent Irrigation District.
As stated in the Special Report Farwell Unit Water Conservation Study (Reclamation, 1992), the overall quality of water in the Middle Loup River is well within Nebraska standards for uses such as agricultural supply and fish and wildlife.
Three types of studies were conducted on surface water. These studies looked at pesticides, physiochemical constituents, and trace elements. No pesticides were found in elevated concentrations. One physiochemical constituent, fecal coliform, was found in elevated concentrations. One trace element, selenium, appeared in elevated concentrations sufficient to warrant further study.
The final aquatic hazard assessment of selenium in the Farwell Unit of the Middle Loup Basin is determined to be a high hazard and reflects a range of geographic locations reflecting differences in waterborne selenium concentrations and associated influences on the sediment food pathway and dietary exposure of fish. Corrective actions may be prescribed by the State of Nebraska and implemented at the high hazard sites such as irrigation return flow drainways and the Farwell North wetland.
Environmental impacts of the alternatives on water quality are as follows:
Groundwater.-- There are no groundwater problems currently in the study area. Because title transfer would not change project water supply or operations, impacts on water quality under the Title Transfer Alternative would be the same as under the No Action Alternative.
Surface Water.-- Based on review of prior water quality data, it is apparent that Middle Loup River water can continue to be used for irrigation of the existing crops in the project area with little likelihood that a soil salinity hazard or harmful levels of exchangeable sodium would develop. Normal irrigation practices and rainfall would provide adequate leaching of any salts that develop. No negative environmental impacts are expected under either alternative regarding physiochemical constituents and pesticides.
Selenium concentrations would not be affected by title transfer; therefore, impacts would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would coordinate with the State to address these issues. Under title transfer, the LBRD would coordinate with the State to address these issues.
The proposed action provides for the United States to transfer all water and water storage rights held by the United States relating to the respective project facilities to the LBRD.
As part of the transferring of title to the LBRD, Reclamation will notify the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) of the change in the ownership of the appropriations. As stated in the DNR's Surface Water Rules, "Notification shall be in the form of a petition or the filing of a document showing the assignment of the right." The LBRD and Reclamation will file an Assignment of Appropriation with DNR indicating the water rights that are to be transferred. The individual water rights, as contained in the Fifty-Second Biennial Report, Department of Water Resources, are listed in table III-5. The DNR will make the indicated water right transfers upon receipt of the filing. The water rights must be in good standing and must not impact any other water user. Following title transfer, the LBRD would be responsible for ensuring that project operations are in compliance with Nebraska water law.
Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) are legal interests in property held in trust by the United States for Indian Tribes, Nations, or individuals. The Secretary is the trustee for the United States on behalf of Indian Tribes. All Department of the Interior agencies share the Secretary's duty to act responsibly to protect and maintain ITAs reserved by or granted to Indian Tribes, Nations, or individuals by treaties, statutes, and Executive orders. These rights are sometimes further interpreted through court decisions and regulations. Examples of ITAs are lands, minerals, hunting and fishing rights, and water rights. The Department of the Interior carries out its activities in a manner that protects ITAs and avoids adverse impacts when possible. When adverse impacts cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation or compensation is to be provided in consultation with the affected Tribes and/or individuals.
Consultation initiated in 1995 identified no ITAs in the Division, nor did a more comprehensive consultation process begun in 2001.
Executive Order 12898 ("Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," published February 11, 1994) mandated that Federal agencies address potential environmental justice concerns. The specific requirements of the Executive order are that Federal agencies identify and address disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. In August 1994, the Secretary issued an environ-mental justice policy statement directing departmental action resulting in the Department of the Interior's Strategic Plan for Environmental Justice.
As part of the environmental compliance process for title transfer, environmental justice concerns were reviewed. Title transfer does not involve facility construction, population relocation, health hazards, hazardous waste, property takings, or substantial economic impacts. Also, the alternatives do not have an adverse human health or environmental effect as defined by environmental justice policies and directives. Therefore, no environmental justice impacts were identified.
| Table of Contents | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 |
| Chapter 5 | Tables | Figures | Attachments | FONSI |