PLAN FORMULATION REPORT AND GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM March 1987 LOWER MERAMEC RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT ST. LOUIS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, MISSOURI VOLUME ONE 355%339?3? MAIN REPORT St. Louis District ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOWER MERAMEC RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT PLAN FORMULATION REPORT AND GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM VOLUME ONE MAIN REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARCH 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District Lower Mississippi Valley Division EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY This study was authorized by Public Law 97-128, Section 2(h) which reads as follows: "The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed to undertake such structural and nonstructural measures as he determines to be economically and engineeringly feasible to prevent flood damage to communities along the route of the Meramec River in Saint Louis and Jefferson Counties, Missouri. Such structural measures shall not include the construction of any dams or reservoirs. There is authorized to be appropriated for those fiscal years which begin on or after October 1, 1982, not to exceed $20,000,000 to carry out the provisions of this subsection." PROJECT SCOPE The project area is comprised of the lowermost 51 miles of the Meramec River flood plain. Within this reach, 21 communities (8 incorporated and 13 unincorporated) were identified as meeting the definition of a "community." These communities sustained roughly $50 million in damages during the December 1982 flood, the most damaging flood on record. Perhaps more significantly, these communities average flood damages of $2.7 million annually. The study has included the entire City of Pacific even though only a portion of it is situated in St. Louis County. To have done otherwise would have resulted in a piecemeal approach which would have precluded those solutions with the greatest potential. On the other hand, this study does not address the flooding problems in the City of Times Beach since a buy-out of the entire city is currently underway using both Federal and State Superfund monies. STUDY FINDINGS A full range of structural and nonstructural measures were examined for the study area communities. In the great majority of communities, no solution could be found which met the law?s requirement of economic feasibility (plan benefits equaling or exceeding plan costs). Three plans were determined to be economically feasible: 3 levee in Valley Park, a buy-out of a mobile.home park in Eureka, and a flood forecasting and warning system which, to some degree, benefits all study area communities. The City of Valley Park has indicated its willingness to act as the non-Federal sponsor for the levee project. At the time of this report, no qualified potential sponsor had volunteered to cost-share fully on the Eureka buy-out plan or on the flood forecasting and warning system. These two components are therefore not recommended for implementation. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS For the City of Valley Park, it is recommended that a levee be constructed roughly 3 miles long, 15 to 20 feet high in most areas, and offering protection against the loo?Year Flood event. As well as flood control features such as pumps, drains, pending areas and closure structures, the levee will include recreation features such as playgrounds and fishing lakes (developed from levee borrow areas). The total project cost is estimated at $11.8 million (October 1984 Price Level). In accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (PL 99-662), the City of Valley Park would be required to contribute funds and provide property and services having a combined estimated value of $3.73 million. PERTINENT DATA AUTHORIZATION AND PURPOSE ?6 The project was authorized by Public Law 97-128, Section "to prevent flood damages to communities along the route of the Meramec River in St. Louis and Jefferson Counties, Missouri." The preposed project consists of two major components which are described separately below. VALLEY PARK LEVEE Location: Level of Protection: Levee Embankment: Length Net grade, Station 2+54 Net grade, Station 120+00 Net grade, Station 162+00 Side slopes Crown width Average-height Gravity Drains 0n left bank of river between Heramec River Miles 20.5 and 22.1. IOU-year Flood plus 3 feet of freeboard. Location Diamter (Levee Station) ginchesg 19+00 48 51+50 72 85+75 48 117+80 72 Closure Structures: Location (Levee Station) Type 11+00 swing gate 36+70 panel 85+40 swing gate 102+00 swing gate 3.1 miles 437 feet 434 feet N.G.V.D. h38 feet N.G.V.D. 1 Vertical on 3 Horizontal 10 feet 22 feet Inlet- Outlet- Invert Invert Length Elevation Elevation gfeet) 200 411 409 200 406 404 200 ?ll 409 200 h01 399 Height Width (feet! {feetPumg Station: Location Capacity (high head) Number of pumps Discharge pipe (number and size) Discharge pipe invert elevation Pending Areas: Area Location Designation gstationing} 106+50 to 128+00 to 66+00 Relief Wells: Location Number gstationing} Of wells 48+00 to 66+00 10 106+50 to 128+00 9 Sta 185i 10 one 1-24" 414 ft. N.G.V.D. Area acres 2 11 11 Spacing between wells gfeetg 175 175 Max. Pending Elev. (feet, NGVD) 410 h15 Average Depth of wells (feet) 50 50 SHEET FOR RECOMMENDED LEVEE PLAN l/ Benefits: Avarage Annual Damages Reduced 1,104,600 Average Annual Damages Induced -7,200 Insurance Overhead Reduced 26,900 Enhanced Land Value 78,200 Recreational Opportunities 152,500 Total Annual Benefits $1,355,000 Costs: Levee and Drainage Facilities First Costs 3 9,850,000 Real Estate First Costs 1,376,000 Interior Drainage Features (Ditching) Costs 2/ 178,000 Subtotal 11,40h,000 Interest During Construction g/ 1,023,300 Total First Costs $12,427,300 Average Annual First Costs 1,103,100 Recreation Loss 1,500 Operation and Maintenance 18,700 Replacements 8,200 Recreational Facilities 49,500 Total Annual Cost 1,181,000 Net Annual Benefits 174,000 Annual Benefit~to-Cost Ratio 1.15 l/ The presentation and plan formulation of this report is based on an interest rate of 8-3/8% and an Oct. ?84 Price Level. the recommended plan using an 8-7/8% interest rate and Oct. This summary presents '86 Price Levels. The results may be compared to those in TABLE Ah of APPENDIX G. g/ Represents acquisition costs of obtaining interior drainage lands. g/ Calculated on estimated total financial costs. LOWER MERAMEC RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT PLAN FORMULATION REPORT AND GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM MAIN REPORT VOLUME ONE VOLUME TWO VOLUME THREE -Main Report LOWER MERAMEC RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT VOLUME INDEX -Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -APPENDIX -PLATES Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Hydrology and Hydraulics Economic and Social Analysis Design and Cost Estimates Soils and Foundation: Investigation and Design (Reserved) Recreation Resources Endangered Species Coordination Nonstructural Plan Formulation Clean Water Act Evaluation Public Involvement and Correspondence LOWER MERAMEC RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT: PLAN FORMULLATION REPORT AND GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM MAIN REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION INTRODUCTION Study Purpose and Authority Scope of Study Prior Studies and Reports Study Participants and Coordination Public Involvement Scoping Meetings Plan Formulation Meetings Ongoing Efforts The Report and Study Process BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Existing Conditions Future Conditions Without a Corps Project Flooding Problems Flood Damages Planning Objectives PLAN FORMULATION OVERVIEW Plan Formulation Constraints and Rationale Measures Considered Levee Formulation Approach Nonstructural Plan Formulation Considerations PLAN FORMULATION Introduction Plans Considered for the City of Arnold Plans Considered for USLC #1 Plans Considered for USLC #2 Plans Considered for USLC #3 Plans Considered for UJC #1 Plans Considered for Springdale Plans Considered for USLC #4 Plans Considered for the City of Fenton Plans Considered for the City of Sunset Hills Plans Considered for USLC #6 PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Plans Considered for the City of Kirkwood Plans Considered for USLC #7 Plans Considered for the City of Valley Park Plans Considered for the Village of Peerless Park Plans Considered for USLC #5 Plans Considered for Jedburgh and Sherman Plans Considered for Glencoe Plans Considered for the City of Eureka Plans Considered for the City of Pacific Plans Considered for UJC #2 Flood Emergency Response System Bridge Modifications Considered ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE PLANS Introduction Levee Optimization Hydraulic Impacts of Levee Buy-out Potential for Unprotected Structures Formulation of Recreation Plans Evaluation of Levee Impacts Evaluation Criteria Selection of Recommended Plan DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED PLAN Introduction Design and Construction Considerations Operation and Maintenance Considerations Plan Accomplishments and Impacts PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Plan Responsibilities Cost-Sharing Design and Construction Schedule SUMMARY OF PUBLIC VIEWS AND COMMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ii 2:322 LOWER MERAMEC RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT MAIN REPORT TABLES Table No Title 1 Interdisciplinary Planning Team and Other Contributors 2 Population of Incorporated Communities Within The Study Area 3 Flood Effects for Selected Events, Existing Conditions 4 Flood Damage By County and Community 5 Cost and Benefit Summary, Arnold Levee Plans 6 Cost and Benefit Summary, Springdale Levee Plans 7 Screening Summary: Valley Park Levee Alinements 8 Eureka, Missouri, Levee Plans 9 Pacific Missouri, Levee Plans 10 Flood Emergency Response System - Implementation Options for Gaging System 11 Valley Park Levee Height Optimization 12 Summary of Structures Riverside of Valley Park Levee 13 Comparison of Valley Park Levee Heights Using Specified Evaluation Criteria 14 Valley Park Levee Plan Description 15 Valley Park Emergency Evacuation Plan 16 Summary of Valley Park Levee 17 Valley Park Levee Division of Plan Costs 18 Agency Review Comments FIGURES Figure Title 1-15 Flood Photographs 16 Valley Park Levee Design and Contruction Schedule Page 467-68 72-73 76 79-80 PLATE N0LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT: PLAN FORMULATION REPORT AND GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM PLATES (Contained in Volume 3) PLATE TITLE Project Area Index Map: December 1982 Flood December 1982 Area Flooded Map December 1982 Area Flooded Map December 1982 Area Flooded Map December 1982 Area Flooded Map Arnold, MO: lOO-Year Flood Arnold, MO: Levee Plan A Arnold, MO: Levee Plan Arnold, MO: Levee Plans Springdale, MO: lOO-Year Flood Springdale Levees Fenton, MO: lOO-Year Flood Fenton Levee Sunset Hills: lOO-Year Flood Valley Park: SPF, lOO-and lO-Year Floods Valley Park Levee Alinements Considered General Plan: Valley Park Levee Valley Park Subareas and Cross Section Locations Valley Park Levee: Power, Telephone and Gas Line Alterations iv Valley Park Levee: Water and Wastewater Alterations Valley Park Levee: Storm Sewer Alterations Valley Park Levee: Recreation Plan Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitats: Valley Park, M0. Valley Park Levee Profile and Typical Sections Valley Park Borings Peerless Park: SPF and lOO-Year Floods Glencoe: SPF and loo-Year Floods Glencoe Levee Eureka, M0: SPF and 100-Year Floods Eureka Levee Plans A and Eureka Levee Plan Pacific, MO: SPF and lOO-Year Floods Pacific, MO, Levee Existing Parks in Lower Meramec Basin (Unused) (Unused) Meramec River Stage Hydrograph Meramec River Stage Hydrograph Meramec River Design Profiles (River Mile 0-12) Meramec River Design Profiles (River Mile 10-22) Meramec River Design Profiles (River Mile 20-32) Meramec River Profiles (with and without Valley Park Levee) Meramec River Design Profiles (River Mile 30-42) Meramec River Design Profiles (River Mile 40-52) 45 46 47 Meramec River Profiles: December 1982 Flood with REC-2 Calibration Meramec River Profiles: With and Without Highway 30 Bridge Section 404 Jurisdiction Limits vi INTRODUCTION STUDY PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY This study was authorized by Public Law 97~128, Section 2(h) which reads as follows: "The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed to undertake such structural and nonstructural measures as he determines to be economically and engineeringly feasible to prevent flood damage to communities along the route of the Meramec River in Saint Louis and Jefferson Counties, Missouri. Such structural measures shall not include the construction of any dams or reservoirs. There is authorized to be appropriated for those fiscal years which begin on or after October.l, 1982, not to exceed $20,000,000 to carry out the provisions of this subsection." SCOPE OF STUDY As specified in the authorizing law, the objective of this study was to reduce flood damages in that portion of the Meramec River flood plain which lies in Jefferson and St. Louis Counties. Basically this encompassed a Sl~mile reach of the river immediately above its mouth (see Plate 1). The law also specified that the objective was "to prevent flood damages to communities." In addressing this, the study team adopted a broad interpretation of the word "communities" which included both incorporated and unincorporated municipalities. Consequently, the team attempted to investigate flooding solutions for all clusters of flood plain develoPment containing more than twenty residences. The study team found it necessary to make one exception to the geographic area as outlined in the Public Law. The City of Pacific lies partly within St. Louis County and partly within Franklin County. In the course of addressing the flooding problems in the city's St. Louis County portion, the team felt that SOme of the best solutions would be overlooked, Or would suffer a reduction in economic feasibility, if only the St. Louis County portion were examined. For that reason, the entire City of Pacific was included in the investigation. (Ultimately, the study findings and recommendations were unaffected by this decision. Including the entire city within the analysis failed to produce an economically feasible solution fer the community.) It should also be mentioned that in the course of coordinating with county gOVernments on the development of a flood forecasting/flood warning system, officials of Franklin County were invited to participate in the discussions. This was done for two reasons. First of all, any forecasting system developed for Jefferson and St. Louis Counties would necessarily benefit Franklin County to some degree. Secondly, Franklin County expressly requested to be included in the discussions, and since at that time, a bill had been introduced to include Franklin County within the authorized area (House Resolution 3678), it appeared wise to invite their participation. Ultimately, the Congressional session ended without the bill being acted upon. Special mention must also be made in regard to the City of Times Beach. This community does lie within the Specified study area (see Plate 1). However, prior to funding of this investigation, it was discovered that dioxin, which is extremely toxic to humans, had been spread throughout major portions of the town as a result of street work. Even before initiation of this study, the Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had embarked upon a buy?out of the town's residents using the Super Fund. As of this writing, offers have been made to all owners of homes and commercial establishments, and purchase contracts have been reached on all but a handful of these properties. Negotiations on vacant lots and mobile homes have progressed more slowly. Because of this ongoing effort and because the city no longer exists in any practical sense, the study team did not include it in this investigation. Finally, it is important to note that Public Law 97?128 specifically precludes "the construction of any dams or reservoirs" under its authority. The Public Law did not explicitly state that formulation of other structural and nonstructural measures should ignore the fact that four reservoirs are currently authorized within the Meramec Basin (See the following section PRIOR STUDIES AND REPORTS). A case could be made that any selectiOn and sizing of flood damage prevention measures on the lower Meramec River should consider the flood stage reductions which would occur if one or more of the authorized reservoirs were to be constructed at sometime in the future. This report does not attempt to do that for the following reasons: a. Given the overall nature of Public Law 97?128 (it deauthorized Meramec Park Lake, the largest reservoir within the proposed system) and the law's legislative history, it appeared that the language of Section 2(h) was directed at searching for alternatives to reservoirs. b. Given the political climate and the public attitudes regarding reservoir censtruction at the time of this study, it appeared questionable that any of the remaining authorized reservoirs would ever be constructed. It did not appear wise to extend the study in terms of time or cost to address combinations of authorized reservoirs and local flood damage prevention measures. PRIOR STUDIES AND REPORTS Flooding problems within the Meramec River Basin are well documented having been the subject of various Federal studies beginning with a first report of 1881. Other studies of flooding and various water related problems have been prepared by State agencies and private interest groups. For the sake of brevity, only the most current and still pertinent documents are listed below: a. Comprehensive Basin Study Heramec River, January 1964, Main Report with appendices A prepared by the St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers. This report proposed a comprehensive water resources plan for the Meramec River Basin. The proposed plan consisted of five major reservoirs and l9 angler use sites. The recommendations of this report served as the basis for House Document 525 (below). b. Summary Report, June 1965; prepared by the St. Louis Distriet, Corps of Engineers. c. House Document No. 525, eighty?ninth Congress, Second Session, authorized 3 major Meramec River basin reservoirs and 19 angler use sites. It also confirmed the need for two basin reservoirs previously authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938. d. "Out of Harm's Way," Lower Meremec Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, November 1981, prepared by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission. e. "Lower Meramec River Management Study," August 1980, prepared by the St. Louis County Department of Parks and Recreation. f. "Lower Meramec Greenway Study- Water Quality Considerations," 1980, prepared by the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council. g. "St. Louis County Water Pollution Control Study Phase I: Areas Tributary to the Meramec River", prepared for the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, September, 1972. h. 'Final Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Lower Meramec River Basin Wastewater Treatment Facilities prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V11, 1978. STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION Corps of Engineers personnel who were members of the interdisciplinary planning team and others who made significant contributions to this report are listed in TABLE 1 by name, field of expertise, experience and professional discipline. The Federal agencies with which the study was coordinated include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the National Weather Service; the U.S. Geological Survey; and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Courdinating state agencies included the Missouri Department of Natural Resources; the Missouri Department of Conservation; and the Missouri State Highway Department. Also participating in the study effort were officials from Jefferson, St. Louis and Franklin Counties, and from most of the incorporated communities within the study area. Finally, considerable coordination and exchange of information took place between the Corps and the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District. NAME John F. Akery John T. Brady John K. Brown Donald M. Coleman Patrick J. Conroy Michael E. Dace, P.E. Janet E. Davis TABLE 1 INTERDISCIPLINARY PLANNING TEAM AND OTHER CONTRIBUTORS Economist Wildlife Biologist Civil Engineer Hydraulic Engineer Geotechnical Engineer Civil Engineer Real Estate Appraiser Lee R. Dellenbaugh, P.E. Civil Engineer EXPERIENCE 6 years economic investigations, SLD, corl/ 11 years environ? mental studies, SLD, COE 2 years Environ? mental engineering and hazardous waste mgmt., Private Firm; 2 years Cost esti~ mating, SLD, COE 3?1/2 years Hydro? logic Engineering, 1 year Civil Engineering SLD, COE 5 years Geotechnical engineering, SLD, COE 8 years project management, 7 years engineering design] cost estimating, SLD, COE a years economic analysis, 2 years Real Estate appraisals, SLD, COB, Licensed Broker, State of Missouri 19 Years Civil Engineering Design, 5 years Civil Works Planning, SLD, COE 99w Economic Analyses Environmental Studies Cost Estimates Design of Gaging Network Exploration, Stability Analysis, Underseepage Analysis Expeditor, Funding Management Real Estate appraisals, acquisition and reloca? tion cost estimates Coordination of structural plan design Phillip S. Eydmann, P.E. Hydraulic Engineer 10 years Hydrologic Hydrologic Engineering, 4 years modeling, Soils Engineering, Hydraulic SLD, COB profiles, Analysis of FERS Gaging Network Thomas J. Furdek Chemist 13 years environ? Water quality mental chemistry, SLD, COE, 10 years analytical chemistry Thomas M. Keevin Fishery Biologist a years environmental Environmental studies, SLD, COE Studies David E. Leaks, P.E. Civil Engineer 10 years Civil Works Study Manage- Study Manager' planning, 2 years ment, Plan construction manage- Formulation, ment, 1/2 year Public structural design, Involvement SLD, COE Roy M. Mathiesen Landscape Recreation Planning: Recreation Architect 11 SLD, COE Plan Formula- 5 State of CA tion and 2 - St. Louis Co Benefit 16 Private Analysis Practice, Landscape Architect Albert Hoffmeister Electrical 11 years reloca? Utilities Technician tions experience, Relocation SLD, COE F. Terry NOrris Archaeologist 7 years archaeo- Archaeological logical studies, Investigations SLD, COE, 7 years contract, archaeo? logical studies, various agencies and institutions M. Oitman Attorney 1 year Private Valley Park Practice, 1 year Financial Attorney Advisor, Analysis Real Estate Division SLD, COE Carol A. Plambeck, P.E. Sanitary Engineer 4 years environmental Environmental engineering investi? Engineering gations, SLD, COE Investigations Daniel V. Ragland Natural Resources 7 years, Fisheries Environmental Planner Research Biologist, Impact Assess- MDOC 11 years, ment and EQ environmental and Planning natural resources planning, SLD, COE Hilliam E. Rammert, P.E. Civil Engineer 18 years, General Nonstructural civil engineering, Plan SLD, COB Formulation Lee 3. Robinson, P.E. Mechanical 22 years, General Pump stations, Engineer Mechanical Engineer utility ing, SLD, COE relocations John C. Scanlon Civil Engineer 3 years Civil Civil Engineering Design, Engineering SLD, cor Design St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers Flood Emergency Response System Missouri Department of Conservation IN PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Considerable effort was made to inform and involve the affected general public in this study effort. Within the first month of the study a mass mailing was made to distribute a Public Notice which detailed the following: Study Purpose and Authority Description of Flooding Problems Potential Solutions Study and Implementation Process Opportunities for Public Comments/Participation Multiple copies of the notice were also sent to each city hall for public dissemination. Scoping Meetings. Several scoping meetings were held to better define the issues and to determine the range of these issues. The first scoping meeting included officials from the affected counties and communities as well as representatives from the offices of two U.S. Congressmen and one U.S. SenatOr. The second scoping meeting included representatives from Federal, state and county agencies, regional planning commissions and area utilities. Other seeping meetings were held for individual communities and included the general public and city officials. Although the study's basic objectiVe reduction of flood damages - and the study's geographic area were defined by the authorizing legislation, the scoping meetings did serve to identify several public concerns. These concerns are detailed later in the PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION portion of this main report and in Appendix K. Plan Formulation Meetings. After flood damages were quantified, solutions were develoPed, in a preliminary manner, for each community. At that stage of the inVestigation, a plan formulation meeting was held to share those results with the citizens of each community. Given the large number of COmmunities, most public meetings were designed to address more than one community. Five meetings were held as follows: Location Date Valley Park 30 November 1983 Arnold 31 January 1984 Pacific 26 March 1984 Fenton 30 May 1984 Eureka 26 June 1984 These meetings identified considerable support for those plans which the Corps study team had determined to be economically feasible (a requirement of the authorizing law). They also served to register considerable disappointment in those communities where no economically feasible plan could be formulated. Report Review and Final Public Meeting. 0n 3 July 1985, the draft report was forwarded to various Federal, state and local agencies and governmental units. A partial listing of report recipients is contained in the Environmental Assessment at the end of this volume. At the same time copies of the report were mailed to various public libraries to be made available fOr public examination. The general public was apprised of the report?s availability in the public notice announcing the final public meeting. The final public meeting was held 25 July 1985 in Valley Park. At the meeting, Corps officials briefly summarized the study findings and made detailed presentations on those plan cemponents included in the tentative recdmmendations. Questions and comments, generally favorable, were extensive. See SUMMARY OF PUBLIC VIEWS AND COMMENTS in this volume and APPENDIX for a more extensive discussion of the meeting proceedings. THE REPORT AND THE STUDY PROCESS This report has been organized into three volumes: a main report, a series of technical appendices, and the report plates. The main report is intended to be of interest to the general reader and to the policy and decision maker. The technical appendices contain detailed information that will be most useful to technical reviewers and to Specialists in the various disciplines. The-main report is organized to document each successive step in the planning process beginning with specifying problems, needs and opportunities; continuing through formulation of alternative plans; evaluations of the effects of the various plans, and ending with the selection of a plan for implementation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION EXISTING CONDITIONS - Physical Description. The Meramec River and its two principal tributaries, the Big River and the Bourbeuse River, drain 3,980 square miles of the northeastern Ozark Highlands. The watershed comprises all or portions of 15 Missouri counties and converges toward the St. Louis Metropolitan area where it empties into the Mississippi River near River Mile 161 (approximately 11 miles south of the City of St. Louis). The northern portion of the basin is gently rolling and largely agricultural. The land surface becomes progressively rougher and more wooded to the south. The streambed is generally stable, being composed chiefly of rock and gravel. Over its length of roughly 220 miles, the Meramec River drops 1,025 feet in elevation. The specific area of interest in this study is the lower 51 miles of the Meramec River. The river's slope within this reach is much more gentle, dropping roughly 70 feet in its final 51 miles. The flood plain is considerably more urbanized than it is upstream. Twenty?one incorporated and unincorporated communities have significant portions of development within the river?s loo-Year Flood plain (See PLATE 1). However, even within this reach, over three?fourths of the flood plain is comprised of forest, crepland or grasslands of some type. Climate. The study area?s climate is of the interior continental type characterized by large temperature shifts in the daily, and seasonal values. The average annual temperature is about 56?Fahrenheit (F) although temperatures as low as and as high as 115?? have been recorded in the basin. The average annual precipitation for the basin is about 39 inches. The normal growing season in the basin is from mid?April to mid?October, and approximately 23 inches of rain, or 59 percent of the annual total, normally falls in this period. Fish and Wildlife Resources. The flood plain forest in the lower Meramec River Basin has a good diversity of tree species such as oak, sycamore, boxelder, silver maple, green ash, and hackberry. A well-developed understory is often present, containing poison ivy, elm, nettle, and honeysuckle. Their communities provide food and cover for numerous wildlife species such as fax, squirrels, eastern cottontail rabbit, raccoon, and skunk. Urban areas in the flood plain are vegetated by mostly cultivated lawn grasses, shrubs, and trees. Urban tolerant wildlife species such as squirrels, rabbits, moles, starlings, and house sparrows are common. The ?eramec River is moderately clear and of good water quality. It is attractive to both bank and float fishermen, with catfish, suckers, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and other sunfish comprising the preferred species. Two endangered species have been identified by the 0.5. Fish and wildlife Service as possibly occurring in the project area: the bald eagle, and the Indiana bat. A third species, the pink mucket pearly mussel, occurs within riffle areas of the Meramec River between River Miles 5 and 55. Human Resources and Economic Development. Population. The population residing within the lower Meramec flood plain was difficult to estimate. Assuming that each residence houses the national average of 2.7 people, the population residing in homes damaged by the Standard Project Flood (SPF) would be approximately 8,500. This figure reflects only the flood plain pOpulation within cemmunities, not the total flood plain population of the lower 51 miles. The 1980 populations of the eight incorporated communities is displayed in TABLE 2. The 1980 populations of St. Louis County and Jefferson County are 974,000 and 146,000, respectively. TABLE 2 POPULATIONS 0F INCORPORATED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Population Community (1980 Census) Arnold 19,141 Fenton 2,417 Sunset Hills 4,363 Kirkwood 27,987 Valley Park 3,232 Peerless Park 79 Eureka 3,862 Pacific 4,410 Flood Insurance Program. Within the study area, participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has been fairly high. All of the incorporated communities within the flood plain are participating in the NFIP regular program with the exception of Peerless Park which withdrew from the program. Both St. Louis County and Jefferson County have qualified for the program thereby making coverage for the uninc0rporated areas possible. The significance of program participation extends beyond merely enabling homeowners and businessmen to insure flood plain structures and their contents. The program?s requirements for flood plain regulations have far reaching implications with respect to future flood plain development. Although the requirements are many, perhaps the most significant requirement is embodied in the following excerpt from a FEMA {Federal Emergency Management Agency) regulation: ?all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures (must) (1) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level and (2) all new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures (must) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated or floodproofed to or above the base flood level;" The base flood is defined as that flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year and is commonly referred to as the loo-Year Flood. FEMA Buy-outs. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been authorized by Section 1362 of Public Law 90-448 to purchase flood damaged structures and property which meet certain criteria. Once acquired, preperty titles are transferred to local government (usually, a state, county or city). For its part, the local government must agree to remove the damaged structure and to manage the land subject to specific deed restrictions. These restrictions normally include, among other things, that the land be dedicated in perpetuity to open space purposes. In 1980 FEMA conducted a pilot program under this authority in Arnold, Missouri, where it purchased 50 parcels of land containing 43 structures. One parcel of land was also purchased in unincorporated St. Louis County. In 1983, FEMA was again appropriated funds under Section 1362 which enabled the buy-out of 61 additional structures: 43 in Arnold, 4 in Fenton and 14 in St. Louis County. In 1984 funds in the amount of $900,000 were appropriated for the Meramec Basin. Using those funds, 14 properties were purchased in St. Louis County in 1986. An additional 20 properties were under consideration for 1987 at the time of this report. Recreation. For most of this century, the lower Meramec River has been an important recreational resource for the St. Louis Metropolitan area. Indeed, many study area communities such as Valley Park, Sherman and Glencoe experienced rapid growth as resort towns in the early 1900's. Today the river continues to serve such activities as swimming, picnicking, hiking, canoeing and fishing. Even boating and waterskiing have become popular at St. Louis County?s Winter Park (a worked?out gravel mine near Fenton). Recent studies by the ?iesouri Department of Conservation (Fleener, 1980-1981) indicate that the lower Meramec River is one of the most heavily used recreation rivers in the state of Missouri. A 1981 survey conducted by the University of Missouri for the St. Louis County Parks Department identified the following as the most requested recreation facilities: 0 Fishing 0 Swimming 11 Golfing Open space Additional neighborhood parks with water related recreation Camping facilities Equestrian trails Lighted athletic fields Improved access for the elderly Special mention should be made of two organizations which have been particularly active in the lower Meramec Basin. The Open Space Foundation is dedicated to the preservation of open space in the St. Louis region and has been active since 1965. The Meramec River Recreation Association (MRRA) was founded in 1981 as a notwfor-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the lower Meramec River. Members include representatives from the state of MiSSouri, the counties and cities along the lower river, Washington University, Missouri Botanical Garden and private citizens. Largely through the efferts of these two organizations, public ownership of land within the lower river's corridor has increased by approximately 3,000 acres since 1975. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT A CORPS PROJECT For the most part, changes within the flood plain are not expected to be significant within the foreseeable future. Populations within the two-county area will continue to grow, although St. Louis County will probably grow more slowly than the more sparsely developed Jefferson County. Population within the flood plain is not expected to grow. The existing flood plain regulations should serve to stem any new residential develoPment within the loo?Year Flood plain. There are indications, however, that the zone between the 100~Year Flood and the Standard Project Flood will continue to exPerience residential and commercial development. There does appear to be a trend toward institutional acquisition of flood plain properties in the lowest zones of the flood plain, particularly on lands directly bordering the river. As a result of this, it appears that there could be a gradual shift to open space and recreatiOnal use of the lower portions of the flood plain. Given the offsetting nature or these two trends, no significant change is projected for average flood damages within the forseeable future. FLOODING PROBLEMS Floods along the lower Meramec River have been a frequent acourrence in this century. Major floods were recorded in 1915, 1916, 1942, 1945, 1950, 1957, 1961, 1969, 1979, 1982, 1983, and 1985. The December 1982 flood produced the highest recorded stage for each of the study area communities. (See PLATES 2 through 6.) However, it was estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey that the August 1915, in all likelihood, produced larger flows. The apparent discrepancy between the floods may be the result of post 1915 flood plain development such as bridge crossings. However, from the standpoint of stage frequency, neither flood was estimated to equal what is commonly referred to as the lOO-Year Flood (that flood having a one percent chance of 12 being equaled or exceeded in any given year). A thorough discussion of historic floods is contained in APPENDIX B. A listing of major floods at different locations is provided in TABLE BmlA. The source of floodwaters is also important to note for the lowermost portion of the study area. Approximately 20 miles of the 51?mile study reach is subject to floodwaters from two different directions: floodwater resulting from precipitation within the basin and backwater resulting from_high Mississippi River stages. Many floods represent a c0mbination of the two. This study's damage computations and benefit analysis has attempted to account for both mechanisms of flooding, including the probability of their simultaneous occurrence. The major floods along the lower Heramec River have produced catastrophic social effects for flood plain residents. High velocities have washed away numerous homes. In recent floods, mobile homes have been reduced to a mass of twisted metal. Roads, railroads and bridges have been washed out, making travel in certain areas all but impossible. In December 1982 even Interstate Highway 44 was inundated to a depth where it was impassible for.several hours. The ultimate social consequence has been loss of life. Newspaper reports of the 1915 Meramec Flood indicate that twelve lives were lost. During December 1982 four lives were lost due to flooding along the lower Meramec River. FIGURES 1 through 15 contain scenes from recent floods. FLOOD DAMAGES- In keeping with the language of Public Law 97?128, the damage quantification concentrated on those-damages cocurring in communities. No attempt was made to quantify crop damages or other agricultural losses caused by floods within the study reach. Similarly, damages which occur to roads, bridges and railroads were also not quantified outside of communities. TABLE 3 displays damages for all communities within the study reach for selected flood events. TABLE 4 displays, by community and by county, flood damages for selected events and average annual flood damages. A community by community discussion of flooding problems is included in the PLAN FORMULATION section of this report. 13 FIGURE. 1. ARNOLD, MO 23 APRIL 1973 This scene shows homes along Convair Drive near the flood's crest. The majority of floodwaters came from Mississippi River backwater. 1he slow rise of this flood permitted emergency actions by the Corps and the city which prevented inundation of these homes. Many of these homes were later acquired under FEMA's Section 1362 rogram. 14 FIGURE 2. ARNOLD, MO 3 MAY 1973 This portion of the city lies within the floodway near Meramec River Mile 4.0. Several of the properties shown here were later acquired under FEMA's Section 1362 Program. FIGURE ARNOLD, M0 6 DECEMBER 1982 .5. The rapid rise of the Flood of Record (primarily from the basin's headwaters) permitted few emergenCy actions which could Prevent the inundation of homes. This scene shows evacuation effOrts along Convair Drive the day before the flood's crest. 16 4. ARNOLD, 1'10 7 ?19-?71? gaters nadr tne of the Flood of Rezord inundate homes on both si?es of Canvaiz Drive. 17 I marvel-a 1m? .cnard moons no ?rm Mean: chm} a was! Fenton tummy maan msf??im? W. mm 2? sgnpoui (log mu a: van-ms and Mum Gum mad. is- {warms} ?comical; a: ?19 ?gunner. we . Figure 5. FENTON, MO 7 DECEMBER 1982 This photo, copied from the St. Louis Post Dispatch, depicts an "eleventh hour" evacuation effort near the flood's Crest. Currents in some areas made boat travel nearly impossible. 18 FIGURE 6. FENTON, M0 7 DECEMBER 1982 This scene shows flooding within the Fenton business district along Fenton Creek. Highway 30 bridge is at the upper left. 19 er?s Cruel Exchane 05w: Sixcm of Fenton shows Dan Boyd of the fades] Emergencz Management Agency, which adm?nistexs Nation! ?ood {meme hogan, the foundation Where ., Boyd both his home and the home on the to! next door were taken down liver, and that the house show in this photo had not been theta prim to the ?ood. FIGURE, 7. FENTON, M0 DECEMBER 1982 The above photo, copied from the Press Journal, shows the effects of the flood?s swift currents. This scene is along Larkin-Wi11iams Road immediately upstream of the Highway 30 Bridge. 20 is house once stood. Dixon . FIGURE 8. VALLEY PARK, M0 7 DECEMBER 1982 This scene shows the western portion of the city (looking north along Highway 141) the day after the flood?s crest. 21 FIGURE 9. VALLEY PARK, M0 7 DECEMBER 1982 This scene shows the area between the Missouri Pacific Railroad (cutting diagonally accross the photo) and the Burlington Northern Railroad. Floodwaters have receded from their crest. FIGURE 10. VALLEY PARK, MO DECEMBER 1982 Water near the flood's crest inundates businesses along Highway 141. The View is to the north. FIGURE 11. PEERLESS PARK, M0 7 DECEMBER 1982 This scene displays water the day after the crest in Peerless Park (foreground and center) and in Valley Park Interstate Highway 44 (cutting diagonally accross photo) was inundated for the first time in its existence. 24 FIGURE 12. GLENCOE, M0 3 MAY 1983 The floodwaters displayed here are approximately those of a lo-Year Flood event. The December 1982 flood stood 7 to 8 feet higher on these buildings. 25 FIGURE 13. EUREKA, MO 3 MAY 1983 This scene shows Stonebridge Manor Mobile Home Park sustaining approximately a 10?Year Flood. In this particular event, waters have "backed up" Flat Creek (tree line near center of photo) from the Meramec River. In December 1982, flood waters were roughly 8 feet higher. 26 The Meramec flood washed these trailers 1mm a trader park Eureka mm a week had under interstate 44. FIGURE 14. EUREKA, MO DECEMBER 1982 This photo, copied from the St. Louis Post Dispatch, shows the effects of strong currents during the December 1982 Flood. These trailers were washed from Stonebridge Manor Mobile Home Park when Metamec River floodwaters swept overland and used Flat Creek as a secondary channel. 27 QTY 5MB When {mewaters 'mm mu woman Wamec mm mm Mme quay 5am. epptoximamy ow 96780415 we :91! barium 7207 an south 0! the mum who ?ooded. immune about 125 names and 20m 25 bussnsuas accoan to . M5: polka. in ma: macaw? be mar-won: 11006:? the W's mszow Tm .s awewot 3a} w; an. Suit Aw Pm FIGURE 15. PACIFIC, M0 DECEMBER 1982 The above photo, copied from a local newspaper, shows a major pertion of the city under water. The entire area south of the Burlington Northern Railroad was inundated as well as some areas north of the railroad. 28 TABLE 3 FLOOD EFFECTS FOR SELECTED EVENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS (Meramec River Communities between Miles 0 and 51) Number of Commercial Residential Flood Structures Damage Damage Event-V Flooded ($000) ($000) 2 123 21.5 152.9 5 361 83.7 778.1 10 890 2,024.3 3,107.6 25 1,Sh9 9,085.4 8,187.9 50 1,979 100 2,323 32,775.0 19,177.2 500 3,064 59,751.4 31,141.3 SPF 3,889 76,596.6 42,332.3 l/ Numbers indicate the flood's average recurrence interval in years. PLANNING OBJECTIVES To focus and guide the efforts of the Corps' study team, specific planning objectives were developed. These objectives evolved directly (and fairly simply) frOm the specific language of the authorizing law, the problems and opportunities previously identified, and the Federal objective as set forth in the Water Resource Council?s Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. This latter document, which was signed by President Reagan 3 February 1983 and which became effective 3 July 1983, states: "The Federal objective of water and related land resources project planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the Nation's environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements.? The primary study objective, and the driving force for all plan f0rmulation, was: 0 TO REDUCE FLOOD DAMAGES WITHIN COMMUNITIES ALONG THE MERAMEC RIVER IN ST. LOUIS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES (INCLUDING THAT PORTION OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC WITHIN FRANKLIN COUNTY). In addition to the primary study objective, three secondary objectives were developed. These objectives were secondary in the sense that efforts were made to address them only if it was possible to do so in the course of 29 addressing the primary objective. No individual plans were formulated Specifically for these objectives. A measure addressing the primary objective had to be capable of addressing the secondary objective as formulated or with slight modification. The secondary objectives were: 0 TO REDUCE FLOOD DAMAGES ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN, 0 TO DEVELOP RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES WHICH TIE IN WITH THE PLANS OF OTHERS. 0 TO ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT WHEREVER POSSIBLE. 30 4 FLOOD DAMAGES BY ?00011 AND COMMUNITY County . Mama 0MP . . Comnunity . .. . St. Louis County FenLon 151,600 21.300 924.700 721.900 00.300 56.600 136.900 500561 01116 30.700 0 364.700 56.900 22.200 2.300 24.500 Kirkwoud 61.400 19.300 06.700 20.600 22.600 10.300 32.900 Va1ley Park 993,100 l,b41.300 6.310.300 24.996 600 416,600 1.079.700 1.496.300 Peer1ess Park 0 175.900 0 1.316.300 0 70.700 70.700 Eureka 921.500 50.600 1,710,000 000.200 175.100 36.300 211.400 Pacific" 50.500 0 1.80 .800 3.615.100 84.400 97.800 182.200 21? 50.600 0 206.500 196.000 22.100 9.100 31.200 02 119.000 0 555.300 26.600 46.200 000 47.000 03 66.400 0 201.100 0 22.100 100 22.200 *0510 04 132,400 3.300 201.300 3.400 59.200 1.000 61.000 05 66.300 0 204.700 0 - 22.600 0 22.300 #6 121.600 1.300 715.600 6.600 45,700 000 46.100 ~0510 07 77.400 34,100 156,600 106,600 26.200 19.700 46.000 1.800 (1 130 . 300 0 4 .800 0 4 .800 ?Glencoe 15.400 0 230.000 26.000 11.500 1,000 12,500 31 500101015?? 2.005.500 1.955.100 13.934.300 31.902.400 1.061.800 1.386.600 2.448.500 0rno10 92,000 18.300 2,676,600 349.000 93.900 13.600 112,600 01?? 17.600 0 189.000 0 11.600 0 11,600 ?Springdale 06.500 50.400 2.215.400 443.200 90.100 26,600 124,800 #2 27.000 0 161.400 0 11.100 0 11.100 SuhLotaIs? 222.100 69.200 5.242.400 792.600 219.700 40.400 260.100 T01ALS 2,024,300 19,177,200 32.775.000 1,281,500 1,427,000 2.708.600 IncIudes portion in Franklin Co. USLC Unincorporated St. Louis County Canumnity. UJC Unincorporated Jefferson County Cmnnunity. Flood events are expres5ed in terms or average inLerva1. Reunding of figures has resulted 1n apparent discrepancies in some 101315. Indicate5 those connmnities wh1ch are uninc0rporated. PLAN FORMULATION OVERVIEW Several considerations served to "set the stage" and direct how the formulation of plans was to take place. This section of the report discusses the most important considerations. PLAN FORMULATION CONSTRAINTS AND RATIONALE The formulation of plans have been both guided and constrained by the following three factors: 0 The language of the authorizing law 0 The federal objective to maximize net economic benefits. 0 Compliance with Executive Order 11988. The following paragraphs briefly outline the significance of each. Public Law 97*123 The public law directed the Corps to undertake only plans which were ?economically and engineeringly feasible". The "economically feasible" portion of this phraSe turned out to be the constraining criteria in almost all cases. In a very real sense, the driving force of the study became the task of finding plans which produced NED (National EconOmic Development) benefits in excess of plan costs. For most communities. this was simply not possible. in such cases, infeasible plans were not develOped to the same level of detail as in communities where plans demonstrated economic feasibility. In this same vein, no effort was made to gather extensive sociological, biological and archaeological data in communities where the economic findings clearly indicated that the Corps could implement nothing. It should also be noted that the spending ceiling of $20 million established in the Public Law did not constrain the range or size of plans investigated. The study team viewed this as a limit on the amount of funds which could be expended to study and implement projects. However, the study team felt that to constrain the formulation of plans with respect to a dollar amount could very well preclude the best plans from eVen being identified. The approach towards plan fOrmulatiOn then was to proceed in the development of plans without regard to a dollar limit and identify the best solutions to the flooding problems. At that point, if the total Federal cost of the selected plans exceeded $20 million, it was recognized that a choice would have to be made regarding which of the proposed plans would be recommended for implementation. It is also possible that the Congress. at that point, could have chosen to raise the limit. In fact, no such decisions were necessary because the unconstrained formulation still did not identify a sufficient number of economically feasible plans to exceed the legal limit. Federal Objective As earlier discussed under PLANNING OBJECTIVES, the water Resource Council?s Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines fOr Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies establishes the contribution to national economic development as the Federal objective. Consistent with this, Principles and Guidelines further specifies: plan recommending Federal action is to be the alternative plan with the greatest net economic benefit consistent with protecting the Nation?s 1 environment (the NED plan), unless the Secretary of a department or head of an independent agency grants an exception to this rule." Complying with the above, the study team has attempted to develop one plan in every community which maximizes net benefits (a plan's gross benefits minus its costs). In most cases, the necessity to produce economically feasible plans has required a configuration very close to the NED plan anyway. Consequently, the study team has attempted to test each separable plan component and to include within the plan only those components which yielded incremental benefits in excess of their costs. In cases where there was a choice between components (as in the case of alternative levee alinements) the component producing the greater net benefits was selected. Compliance With Executive Orde5_ll988. Executive Order 11988 (ED 11988), signed 24 May 1977, has as its objective the avoidance of long-and short?term adverse impacts to the flood plain and the avoidance of direct and indirect support of development in the base flood plain (that land having a one percent chance of flooding in any given year) unless there is no practicable alternative. The test of practicability applies to both the proposed Corps action and to any induced development likely to be caused by the action. This policy affected the manner in which levees were formulated in this study. During the course of formulation in some communities, local officials requested that the levee alinement be modified to encompass undeveloped areas which, if protected, would prove good sites for future development. The study team, however, did not include such areas unless it could be shown that there were no practical alternative sites, or that this particular site held economic advantages over all other sites. MEASURES CONSIDERED In the course of this investigation, the following flood damage prevention measures were examined where conditions were deemed appropriate for their application: a. Elevating floodprone structures. This measure involves jacking the structure and then either constructing a new supporting system of columns or laying new courses of contrete block to existing foundation walls. The latter method was considered the cheaper of the two. There was a practical limit on the height of raises since extending beyond 8 feet high would require lateral bracing. Not every building is conducive to this type of measure, however. Homes with a first floor constructed as a slab on grade were judged to be unlikely candidates for this meaSUre because floor joists would have to be constructed before the structure was elevated. b. Constructing small floodwalls and levees. It is possible to construct low walls or levees around individual structures or small groups of structures. Walls are normally constructed of poured concrete or masonry block. Levees are constructed of semi?compacted impervious soil. In either construction method, openings must be left for walkways and driveways, and a pump and drain must be included to provide for rainfall and underseepage. There also appears to be a practical limit of a or 5 feet to the height of this measure. Above that height levees began to require large amounts of real estate and walls tend to require strengthening to withstand the hydrostatic pressures. c. Relocating floodprone This meaSure involves inserting beams under the building, jacking it up, lowering it on special trailers, and moving it to a flood free site. Actually, in most instances, this is considerably more involved (and expensive) than it first appears. The utilities at the old site must be disconnected and permanently closed off. The old feundation must be broken up and the site must be regraded. Many moves require disc0nnecting traffic lights (to achieve necessary clearance) and other temporary route modifications. The new site requires a new foundation, new utility hook~ups, construction of stoops, sidewalks, storm drains, and other miscellaneous items. In applying this measure, there are practical limitations on the size of buildings which can be moved, and the building itself must be structurally sound. Again slab?on-grade construction is not conducive to this method, and m0ving masonry buildings, while possible, tends to be more expensive than moving frame buildings. d. Purchasing_floodorone structures. This alternative includes buying the floodprone building and the associated land, tearing down the building and regrading the lot. Relocation assistance would be available to help affected families obtain replacement housing and to assist businesses by compensating for certain losses incurred in moving. This and the preceding meaSure will permit new uses of the land which are not susceptible to flood damages. e. Parks/open space. Insofar as this study is concerned, this measure represents a wise use of flood plain lands vacated by the two preceding measures. As such, recreational use of these lands can offer quantifiable benefits which help offset the costs of the other two measures. In a broader sense, however, local governments should, in their long range plans, give consideration to dedicating larger portions of the flood plain to this type of use. f. Flood Emergency Response System (FERS). This somewhat expansive title encompasses the following components: 0 an improved river stage forecasting system 0 a warning system 0 an emergency reSponse plan for each community. This measure does not reduce damages to floodprone structures so much as it reduces damages to readily movable property. Most important, however, it reduces the threat to human life. A more complete description of this alternative is furnished in later sections of this report. g. Levees/floodwalls. Levees -- and floodwalls where space is at a minimum can provide protection both from upstream flooding and from backwater flooding. Although quite effective, levees in urban areas tend to be expensive. The reasons are many. The earthen material needed to construct a levee must come from somewhere. Either it is hauled in from some distance or, if open land is available, it is excavated from "borrow areas" nearby. The former method is usually more costly, but even the latter Option can be quite expensive given the high real estate prices in most urban areas. High urban land prices also push up the cost of rightwofeway needed for the levee. .Floodwalls, while minimizing the coSts associated with real estate, tend to be many times more expensive to construct than earthen levees. Both levees and floodwalls require expensive closure structures at points where roads and railroads must pass through the line of protection. In most cases, however, the most expensive levee features are those associated with the maintenance of interior drainage. Gravity drains (pipes through the levee embankment) can provide drainage of stormwater at times when the Meramec River is not at flood stage. However, when the river reaches higher stages, these drains must be closed to prevent flood waters from backing through the drains into the protected area behind the levee. In this condition, rain falling on the levee?s interior and seep water which percolates through and under the levee must be handled either by pumps or by ponding areas located in vacant areas within the levee?s protected area. h. Culvert Closures. There are cases within a flood plain where an existing highway or railroad embankment could act as a levee if some type of closure structure were provided for the drainage culvert passing through the embankment. Two such cases were identified in this study and are discussed later in the PLAN FORMULATION section. i. Bridge Modifications. Bridges, and the road fill which accompanies them, tend to restrict the natural flood conveyance capacity of the stream and flood plain. In some cases, the resulting effect is to raise the water levels of major floods by a foot or even more. It is possible, at a considerable expense, to widen and raise bridge approaches. However, because the construction of such modifications disrupt traffic for months or even years, it is more efficient to implement these changes at times when bridges are scheduled for normal replacement. UI j. Channelization. Channelization can involve enlarging the cross-sectional area of a stream, as well as straightening the alinement of .the stream. As such, it can increase the stream?s ability to transmit flood flows. However, this measure was not considered for the lower Meramec River for several reasons. First of all, channelization can severely damage the biological elements within and along the stream. As earlier cited, an endangered species of mussel resides in certain reaches of the lower river and would be adversely impacted by channelization. Secondly, channelization of a scenic stream such as the Meramec degrades many of its esthetic qualities. In this sense, channelization would conflict with the long range plans of groups such as the Meramec River Recreation Association and the Open Space Foundation. Finally, it should be pointed out that channelization can address only one of the major sources of flooding, runoff from upstream. It leaves the other major source, Mississippi River backwater, undiminished for all practical purposes. LEVEE FORMULATION APPROACH In the fermulation of levee plans for various communities, certain practical considerations guided the process. First of all, levees were not considered for communities with less than $50,000 average annual damages since the annualized cost of even a very inexpensive levee with interior drainage features would easily exceed this. (The community of Glencoe was an exception to this guideline, since the preliminary design of the levee took place before damage quantification was complete.) Secondly, insofar as practical, levee alinements were laid out to avoid any encroachments in the regulatory floodway. Doing otherwise would not only have violated county and city flood ordinances but also would have increased the probability of signifiCant increases in flood levels on the opposite bank or upstream. Consequently, levees were not examined for communities situated entirely within the?floodway regardless of their damages. When levees were formulated, certain assumptiOns and procedures were employed. For the purposes of the initial screening, a level of protection equal to the loo?Year Flood (plus three feet of freeboard) was chosen. Exceptions to this took place when natural?and man-made topographic features indicated that a lower level of protection might be vastly cheaper. If the 100~year height appeared promising from an economic standpoint produced a benefit-to-cost ratio exceeding 0.5 to 1.0), then other heights were examined. However, the determination of the best alinement and design floodwall versus levee) was achieved before the height of the levee was optimized. It should also be pointed out that until the lOO?year levee plan passed the initial economic screening, no foundation explorations were conducted, nor were any costs included fOr foundation or underseepage treatments. NONSTRUCTURAL PLAN FORMULATION CONSIDERATIONS Several practical engineering and policy considerations served to guide the formulation of nonstructural plans. None was more important than the 36 policy set ferth in the Corps? Engineering Regulation ER 1105?2?20, which states: "There is no minimum level of protection for nonstructural plans. The level of protection may vary in order to achieve a more coherent and cohesive plan. Measures necessary to achieve the selected level of protection must be carried out in the entire community or portion of the community for which that level of protection has been designated. Plans that would leave occupied buildings inaccessible during a flood are normally not recommended." Among other things, the regulation emphasizes the need to deveIOp plans which are socially acceptable. For this reason, a nonstructural measure was not considered to be in the Federal interest if it offered economically feasible flood damage relief to one or two residents, while it left their neighbors suffering comparable damages simply because the application of nonstructural measures to their homes was economically infeasible. This study?s nonstructural plan formulation has confined itself to those structures which are damaged by the lO?Year Flood (that flood whose height has a 10 percent probability of being equalled or exceeded in any given year). The reason for this is quite simple. Past experience and research has demonstrated that nonstructural measures are seldom economically justified fer structures situated above the 10? Or lS-Year Floods. It was therefore decided that the preliminary nonstructural plan formulation should examine the 10~Year Flood plain and be expanded to zones of less frequent flooding only if results for the 10?year screening showed promise. Predictably, this did not prove to be the case. To conduct the preliminary nonstructural formulation, screening criteria and screening costs for various types and sizes of measures were developed. These considerations are discussed in detail in APPENDIX 1. The results of both nonstructural and structural plan formulation are presented in the following section of this main report, PLAN FORMULATION. PLAN FORMULATION INTRODUCTION For clarity of presentation, the results of the formulation process are presented separately for each community, beginning at the river?s mouth and proceeding upstream. Two measures, bridge modifications and the Flood Emergency Response System (FERS), are exceptions to this approach simply because their intended effects are not limited to a single community. The formulation of these measures are discussed in sections following the community analyses. All plan formulation has employed the current Federal interest rate of 8?3/8 percent and a lOO~year period of analysis. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR THE CITY OF ARNOLD Problem DeScription The City of Arnold (1980 pOpulation: 19,141) is the largest city in Jeffers0n County. It is also the study area community most susceptible to both mechanisms of flooding: Mississippi River backwater and Meramec River headwater. As discussed earlier, the city has been the subject of 3 separate FEMA buyouts. As a result, some 86 structures have been removed from the flood plain. Most of the remaining Structures are either scattered throughout the floodway or else are situated at or above the height of the 50-year flood. PLATE 7 displays the.floodway and the approximate loo?year flood plain. As can be seen from TABLE 4, the great majority of damages are residential. Residential damages Outside the floodway are concentrated primarily in five locations: Starling Estates subdivision, Arnold Ranch Estates subdivision, Starling Community Trailer Court, and in 2 trailer courts near the Highway 61/67 bridge. Levee Plans Four different levee plans were formulated to protect the major concentrations of floodprone residences. Two different levee plans, each affording lOO?year level of protection, were examined for Starling Estates, Arnold Ranch Estates and Starling Community Trailer Court. Levee Plan A (Shown in PLATE 8) encompassed the entire area. Levee Plan 8 (Shown in PLATE 9) protected essentially the same area but reduced the size of interior drainage components (pumps, drains and ponding areas) by flanking Muddy Creek. It should be noted that the area protected has been constrained to avoid encroachment into the floodway. As can be seen from TABLE 5, the costs of each of these plans far outweighed its benefits. In an attempt to reduce the cost of Plan B, the level of protection was reduced to a 50?year height and the area protected was reduced as shown in PLATE 10. Plans and examine the north and south sides of Muddy Creek respectively. As shown in TABLE 5, both plans were economically infeasible. Because of the extremely low benefit?to-cost ratio of all levee plans examined, no efforts were made to develop additional levee plans for Arnold or to refine those already examined. 38 TABLE 5 COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY, ARNOLD LEVEE PLANS Benefit?To?Cost Plan First Costs Total Annual Costs Total Annual Benefits Ratio A $11,337,200 $1,121,600 $32,600 0.03 a $9,664,000 $947,500 $34,500 0.04 $3,426,900 $308,900 $3,400 0.01 $3,494,700 $315,100 $4,900 0.02 Nonstructural Plans. Four nonstructural measures were examined for the 72 Arnold residences located within the 10~Year Flood plain: Raising structures by extending their foundations, Constructing small levees and floodwalls around individual homes, Purchasing homes, Moving houses to flood free sites. As explained earlier, for various reasons, not all of these measures are applicable to each home. The investigation indicated that none of the meaSures were economically feasible on any significant scale (a scale which could be recommended for Corps of Engineers participation). In fact, the buy-out of one home was the only instance where the benefits gained from a measure appeared to exceed the costs of implementing the measure. It is interesting to note, however, that in this particular community, with its hOmes scattered throughout a large area of the flood plain, purchasing properties appears to be cheaper than providing levees. Based on a cursory real estate appraisal, it is estimated that all remaining homes within the 50-year flood plain of Arnold eculd be purchased for roughly $5 million. Unfortunately, flood damages reduced and other benefits are not sufficient to offset this cost. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR USLC #1 The cluster of structures which, for lack of a better name, is referred to as USLC #1 (Unincorporated St, Louis County Community Number One) is located on the left bank of the Meramec River along Telegraph Road (Highway 231). Its location is indicated on PLATE 1. The community contains 27 structures, 23 of 39 which are residences. The entire community is located within the loo-year flood plain and sustains average annual damages of roughly $31,000 (see TABLE 4). Because community damages were obviously unable to justify the costs of a levee, only nonstructural measures were examined for this community. The four measures of raising homes on their foundations, moving homes, buying out homes and constructing small levees or floodwalls around individual homes were examined. Only two measures were economically feasible: one buy?out and one house-raising. However, because of the lack of a feasible plan which could alleviate any significant portion of the community's damages, no plan was carried forward for detailed analysis. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR USLC #2 The community designated USLC #2 (Unincorporated St. Louis County Number Two) is located along LeMay Ferry Road (Highways 61/6?) as shOwn in PLATE 1. The community contains 61 structures, 60 of which would be damaged by a loo-year flood. Only two of the 61 structures are commercial, the remainder being residential. As shown in TABLE a, the community's average annual damages are $37,000. A major portion of the community is located within the FEMA designated floodway. That fact, coupled with its fairly low total damages, ruled out the possibility of levee protection. The four nonstructural meaSures (raising houses, moving houses, buy-outs and small floodwalls/levees) were examined. All measures except buy?outs were determined to be either impractical for a variety of reasons or else economically infeasible. There were three instances where preliminary analysis indicated that buysouts of homes would be feasible. However, since these homes represented such a Small portion of the total number having equal or greater flood damages, no further planning was conducted for the community. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR USLC #3 The community referred to as USLC #3 is located on the Meramec River?s left bank between River Miles eight and nine. The community has 6a structures within the Standard Project Floodplain. All but one of those structures are residential. Thirty-nine of the 64 structures would be damaged by a 25~year flood. TOtal average annual damages are $22,200 (see TABLE 4). Given USLC #3'5 low total damages, levee plans were dismissed as being too expensive. The four nonstructural measures investigated for other unincorporated communities were also examined for USLC All were determined to be economically infeasible except for the buy?Out of one home. Since this measure did not feasibly address the problems of other homes with equal or greater flood damages, it was dismissed from further consideration. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR UJC #1 The community designated as UJC #1 (Uninc0rporated Jefferson County Number One) is situated along a small creek which flows into the Meramec River near River Mile 9.5 (See PLATE 1). The community consists of 58 residential structures, only 18 of which are within the loo-year flood plain. Total average annual flood damages are $11,600. The community had experienced few serious flooding problems until December 1982 when Meramec River floodwaters backed through a large box culvert within the embankment of new Highway 141. The low flood damages for UJC #1 obviously ruled out levee construction as an economically feasible solution. Two different methods were investigated as a means of providing a closure structure to the triple 10 feet by 10.5 feet concrete box culvert which provides passage of Meramec River floodwaters into the residential area. The initial cost of the plans varied from $700,000 to $1,200,000. The plans? average annual benefits of approximately $6,000 were far too small to equal the plans' average annual costs. The benefit?to~cost ratio for the best plan was only 0.1 to 1.0. The four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy?outs and providing small levees 0r floodwalls) were also analyzed as a means of preventing flood damages. All measures were determined to be economically infeasible for homes in this community. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR SPRINGDALE Problem Description Springdale, located on the river?s right bank between River Miles 10 and 11, is the largest unincorporated community in the study area. The majority of its residents live in mobile homes, although there is a significant number of permanent dwellings within the flood plain. PLATE 11 displays the approximate area inundated by the loo-year flood a flood having a one percent probability of occurring in any given year). The community has 445 structures in the Standard Project Floodplain: 405 residential and no commercial. Total average annual damages within the community are 12d,800 (See TABLE 4). Levee Pl ans This community which has so much develOpment located in close proximity to various waterways (See PLATE 11) presented special problems with respect to levee furmulation. Brief consideration was given to constructing a levee across Saline Creek near its mouth to prevent Meramec River backwaters from reaching the community. However, given the large combined drainage area of Sugar, Romaine and Saline Creeks (rOughly 30 square miles), it became obvious that any adequate combination of pumps, drains and ponding areas needed for blocked tributary runoff would Prove prohibitively expensive. Less ambitious levee alinements were therefore investigated. Although several alinements 'were considered, only two appeared to protect sufficient development to warrant a quantitative analysis. These two levee alinements are shown in PLATE 12. Both levee plans were formulated for a 100?year level of protection. Neither plan produced benefits sufficient to justify its cost. Results of the analyses are shown in TABLE 6. ?5 _a TABLE 6 COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY, SPRINGDALE LEVER PLANS Total Annual Benefit?To?Cost Plan First Costs Total Annual Costs Benefits Ratio A $2,500,000 $253,500 $36,800 0.15 $1,800,000 $189,700 $6,700 01.04 Given the poor economic showing of these plans, no further levee investigations were made for the community. Nonstructural Plans. Four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy-outs and small levees or floodwalls) were examined for the community of Springdale. None proved to be economically feasible when examined on a structure by structure basis. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR USLC #4 The unincorporated community referred to as USLC #4 is also known locally as "Club City." The local name probably reflects the large number of recreation dwellings, or "clubhouses", within the community. The community is located in an oxbow of the river as sh0wn in PLATE 1 and is comprised of 45 residential structures and one commercial structure, all of which are susceptible to damage from a 10?year flood. Total average annual damages within USLC #4 are $61,000. A levee plan was not considered for USLC #4 because the community is located entirely within the FEMA designated floodway. All four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy?outs and small levees/floodwalls) were-considered fOr each residence within the community. Although the buy?out of two homes appeared economically feasible, none of the measures were feasible on any significant scale. Therefore, no further plans were formulated for USLC PLANS CONSIDERED FOR THE CITY OF FENTON Problem Descriotion. Fenton's importance from the standpoint of commerce and industry far surpasses normal expectations for a community of its small population (1980 population: 2,417). The city's 5,2 square miles include more than 500 businesses, which provide over 15,000 jobs (Source: City of Fenton). From a flooding standpoint, the city is somewhat similar to Arnold in that the majority of its developed area is relatively flood free with only its fringes 1?2 extending into the flood plain. PLATE 13 displays the approximate limits of the loo-year flood within the city's boundaries. Within the Standard Project Floodplain, the city has 718 structures, 468 of which are residential. The loo-year flood plain, by contrast, includes 174 structures, 132 of which are residential. Total average annual damages are $136,900 (See TABLE Although the flood damages are scattered throughout a large flood plain, the single largest concentration probably occurs in the "old town? business district along Fenton Creek. Discussions with Fenton city officials indicated that damages to structures and their contents represented only one of the city's-major flood problems. A second majOr concern related to the tendency of relatively minor flood events (floods having an average recurrence interval of 2 years or less) to inundate One of the city's arterial north?south streets, Larkin?williams Road. The road, with a traffic count of over 9,000 vehicles per day, is extensively used by workers in the commercial/industrial area in the northern portion of the city. Major traffic tiewups result during periods of inundation. Levee Plans. Given the city's 6?mile?long riverfront and the wide dispersion of flood damages throughout the flood plain, it was recognized that formulating an economically feasible levee would be difficult. The "old tOwn" business district was selected as the most likely candidate because it not only offered one of the largest concentrations of damages but also afforded convenient tieein points to high ground. The levee, with appurtenant features, would afford a loo-year level of protection and is shown in PLATE 14. The initial cost of the levee was estimated to be roughly $a million. Average annual costs-were calculated at $395,000, but average annual benefits were estimated to be only $15,000. The resulting benefit?to?cost ratio of 0.0a to one indicated the futility of further pursuing levees for the city of Fenton. Nonstructural Plans. Four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy-outs and small floodwalls/levees) were investigated for :hose structures within the city's 10~year flood plain. As in other communities, an economically feasible plan of any significant scale could not be developed. One measure, buy-outs, produced two homes which appeared to be economically feasible for purchasing. Given these results, no further nonstructural plans were developed for the city. Road Raising Plan. A plan was developed to raise Larkin?williams Road by placing up to 7 feet (in the lowest points) of additional fill. This would elevate the road surface to one foot ab0ve the five?year flood. The initial cos: of the road raise was estimated to be $850,000 not including the road surface. It was assumed that the existing road would have to be reSurfaced anyway within the 43 same time frame. Benefits were quantified for reduction in commuter delay times and elimination of increased operating costs. A negative benefit was quantified to account for the induced raise in upstream water levels for all floods up to the height of the five?year flood event. When costs and benefits were compared, average annual costs exceeded average annual benefits by a factor of ten. Consequently, no further formulation took place on raising Larkin?Williams Road. Instead, city officials were advised that a more practical solution would probably be for the city to elevate the fOur lowest points in the roadbed by a couple of feet during their future resurfacing project. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR THE CITY OF SUNSET HILLS Problem Description. The city of Sunset Hills (1980 population: 4,363) has only a small portion of its development within the 100-year flood plain (See PLATE 15). Only 21 structures lie within the loo-year flood plain, and only 49 lie within the Standard Project Floodplain. Total average annual flood damages for the community are $2h,500. Plans Considered. Given Sunset Hill's relatively low total damages, no effort was made to formulate a levee plan. Instead, the four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy?outs and small levees/floodwalls) were examined for individual homes within the 10-year flood plain. However, none of the meaSures were economically feasible. Hence no further formulation was conducted for the city. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR USLC #6 This unincorporated community lies just upstream of Interstate Highway 44 near what is often referred to as "the big bend? in the river. As can be seen frOm PLATE 13, the entire community lies well within the loowyear lood plain. The community contains as structures, all but one of which are residences. Its average annual flood damages total $a6,100. In light of USLC #6'5 location within the floodway and its relatively low total damages, a levee plan was not investigated. The four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy-outs and small levees/floodwalls) were investigated for each home within the 10-year flood plain. All measures were determined to be economically infeasible except the buy?out of two homes. Since it was apparent that no economically feasible plan of a significant scale could be developed for the community, plan formulation for USLC #6 was discontinued. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR THE CITY OF KIRKWOOD Actually, no plans were considered specifically for the City of Kirkwood because the city is addressing its Own flooding problems. Kirkwood (1980 I: population: 27,987) has only a very small portion of its area within the flood plain. For the most part, that area is devoted to parks and ball fields. There are, however, 17 residences within the Standard Project Flood plain. Following the December 1982 flood the City of Kirkwood executed a contract to purchase all of those dwellings from their owner. When the present leases expire, the current tenants will move out and the houses will be razed. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR USLC #7 This uninCOrporated St. Louis County Community is wedged between the two incorporated communities of Kirkwood and Valley Park. It is comprised of an assortment of homes and businesses. Except for 13 homes and a few businesses which are damaged by the lovyear flood, most residential and commercial structures are damaged only by events which exceed the height of the loo-year flood. Total flood damages for USLC #7 are $46,000. In view of this community's relatively 10w total damages, 3 levee plan was considered to have no chance for economic feasibility. Instead, the four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy?outs and small levees/floodwalls) were investigated for those homes within the lO?Year Flood plain. Raising One home by adding to the height of its foundation appeared to be economically feasible. All measures for all other homes were not. Given the absence of a plan of any significant scale, no further plan formulation was conducted. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR THE CITY OF VALLEY PARK Problem Description. The City of Valley Park (1980 population: 3,232) sustains flood damages significantly higher than those of any other community within the study area. In fact, its total average annual flood damages of $l,h96,300 represents over 55 percent of total flood damages within the study area. The reason for this anomaly is simple. The city has the great majority of its development within fairly low zones of the flood plain. A total of 679 Structures (510 residential, 169 nonresidential) are located within the Standard Project Flood plain. Roughly half of these structures, including 293 residential buildings, are also damaged by the lO-Year Flood. This fact is illustrated in PLATE 16 which delineates the area inundated for various floods. Included within the loonyear flood plain are all of the city's essential facilities including: its city hall, the police station, the fire station, its library, the post office, and all of its primary and secondary school buildings. The majority of these facilities are rendered inaccessible by a 10?Year Flood. Nonstructural Plans. The four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy?outs and small levees/floodwalls) were investigated for those residences within the lO-Year Flood plain. Application of all measures were determined to be economically infeasible except for elevating houses by extending their foundations. Eleven cases of elevating residences were found to return more in benefits (flood damages reduced) than the costs of raising them. The feasible structures represented only a small portion of the total number of structures sustaining comparable flood damages. Furthermore, the feasible structures were not located in one portion of the community but rather were scattered throughout the city. A plan was also examined which grouped five homes with high damages on Leonard Street in an attempt to justify the construction of a single 4-feet high floodwall/levee system around the grOup. However, the initial cost of $58,000 yielded an average annual cost of $5,500 which compared unfavorably with the plan's average annual benefits of $2,500. A plan was also considered which entailed purchasing all structures along River Drive and converting the area into a linear park along the river. The city of Valley Park has already implemented this plan in a few locations where buildings have been condemned. Purchasing the remaining buildings (including land costs, structure costs, acquisition costs, relocation costs and site clearing) would require roughly $1,000,000. To purchase vacant lots (not included in the above figure) would require an estimated $600,000 more. Minimal recreation facilities consisting chiefly of a trail system would require $25,000 to $30,000 more. Totalling all the costs and comparing the annualized costs to the annualized recreatibn and flood related benefits indicated that the plan was ec0nomically infeasible. In summary, then, no economically feasible nonestructural plan, which addressed a significant portion of the city's flooding problems, could be develOped. Levee Formulation. The first step in the formulation of a levee for Valley Park was to test various alinements and areas of protection. Two major constraints emerged upon initial examination of the city's location within the flood plain: a. The alinement had to avoid encompassing Fishpot Creek near the city's western border and Grand Glaize Creek along its northern and eastern border. Bringing the flow of either of these streams through the levee?s protected area would require prohibitively large pumping facilities to maintain interior drainage during flood periods. For this reason, the levee had to either flank these streams or provide fer diversions of the streams in some manner. b. Secondly, the alinement had to avoid extending into the regulatory floodway to prevent a significant induced raise in the elevation of large flood flows. Actually, the city?s flood ordinance, specified that any fill within the floodway was prohibited. However, there are provisions within FEMA's regulations for modifying the designated floodway for Sufficient cause. Therefore, every effort was made to avoid excending the alinement into the floodway except in instances where minor infringements could significantly increase the overall plan's efficiency. In the early stages of plan development, several alinements were tested. As can be seen in PLATE 17, each alternative ?leg? of potential alinements has been assigned a letter from A through L. The designation of a particular alinement, then, is accomplished by sequentially listing the various ?legs? of the alinement. All of the alinements considered are listed in TABLE 7 along with a brief discussion as to why each was dismissed or selected. As can be seen from the "Rationale" column of TABLE 7, the selectiOn of alinement was dominated by the goal to maximize net National Economic Development (NED) benefits. If should be pointed out that while city officials found the.se1ected alinement acceptable, some alderman favored the Alinement ABDGL because it would make available for-development land which had previously been within the loo-Year Floodplain. However, this alinement would have cost considerably more than the selected one, because of the need to reroute Grand Glaize Creek through the two railroad embankments (thus maintaining the creek's flows on the levee's exterior). Given the creek's drainage area of 21 square miles, each railroad would have required an opening equivalent to fifteen culverts, each 10 feet 15 feet. All evidence indicated that the alinement's increase in benefits was not nearly as great as its increase in cost. An analysis of the selected levee alinement at a height sufficient to protect against a loo-Year Flood indicated that the levee was economically feasible. A summary of that analysis is included in TABLE 38 of APPENDIX C. The hydraulic effects of this levee alinement on major floods was also modeled and found to be acceptable. The next major section of this report, ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE PLANS, discusses the detailed features of the levee plan, the optimization.of its level of protection, and other social, economic and environmental considerations. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR THE VILLAGE OF PEERLESS PARK Problem Description. In the recent past, the Village of Peerless Park had 20 to 25 homes located in the 10wer levels of the flood plain. However, within the last 2 years all flood plain homes within the village have been acquired either by St. Louis County (to expand their existing park system) or by the State of Missouri (to acquire right?of-way for new Highway 141 currently under construction). All 23 structures within the Standard Project Floodplain are commercial buildings. Their total average annual flood damage is $70,700. The Village of Peerless Park also holds the distinction of being the only incorporated community within the study area which is not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. Plans Considered. The village of Peerless Park is-transected by many highways, major roads and railroads. Large portions of its area are also comprised of a worked-out 48 3? ?mnt ABEGHK ASDGIK ABOGL TASLE 7 SCREENING SUMMARY: VALLEY PARK LEVEE ALINEMENTS Protects virtually all damage prone areas except those structures within Floodway. Requires modifi- cations to sewage treatment plant outfall and road. Extends into the floodway to protect Sports complex. Protects 2 more residences than selected plan. Requires buy?out of 3 additional homes. Requires modification to sewage treatment plant outfall. Significantly lower casts than above 3 alinements. fewer benefits. Avoids relocating 3 businesses (valued in excess of $500,000) by substituting a floodwall For the levee. A floodwall in this reach. however. costs $5,000,000 more than a comparable levee. Protects considerably larger area, although relatively Few additional structures. Costs considerably nmre than selected alinenwnt because it reQuires the rerouting of Grand Blaize Creek under 2 railroads. Avoids relocating 3 major businesses. Reduces storage capacity or la900n Includes 1 additional business. 0 i i Drapoed Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped Dropped Selected Rationale Produced rouyhly $100.000 fewer net benefits than selected alinement. 8. Fewer net benefits than selected alinement. b. Increased height of loo-Year Flood by feet. c. Violated city's Flood ordinance. Fewer net benefits than selected alinement. Produces roughly $20,000 fewer annual net benefits than selected alinement. Fewer net benefits than selected alinement. Fewer net benefits than selected alinement. Greatest net benefits of all aline- ments examined. gravel pit and lands within the floodway. Given these obstacles and the relatively low average annual damages, no levee alinements could be fashioned which could protect major portions of the community without being prohibitively expensive. A levee plan was formulated for a group of four businesses bounded on the east by Highway 141, on the south by the West Outer Road and on the north by the Burlington Northern Railroad. These four businesses sustained roughly 35 percent of the village's total damages. The levee was alined to tie into Interstate Highway 44 on the south. As formulated, the levee afforded protection from the 25wyear flood plus three feet of freeboard (This was the maximum level of protection achievable given the height of the Interstate Highway 44 embankment. The initial cost of the levee was $1,290,000 yielding an average annual cost of $134,900. The leVee?s average annual benefits were $11,100, thus producing a benefit-to?cost ratio of 0.08 to 1.0. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR USLC #5 The community designated as Unincorporated St. Louis COunty Number Five consists of 37 structures lining the right bank of the river between River Miles 22.5 and 25. The cemmunity is a mix of permanent residences and recreational cabins, all having first floor elevations below the height of the 25?year flood. The community's average annual flood damages total $22,800. Four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buyeouts and small levees/floodwalls) were considered for USLC All proved to be either impractical or economically infeasible. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR JEDBURGH AND SHERMAN For purposes of analysis and presentation, these two unincorporated communities have been lumped together because they are both small and it is difficult to discern where one ends and the other starts. Combined, the two communities have a total of 18 Structures, all residential, within the Standard Project Floodplain. Combined average annual damages for the two communities are $4,800. Four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buywouts and small levees/floodwalls) were examined for those homes within the 10?year flood plain. All proved to be either impractical or economically infeasible. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR GLENCOE Glencoe is a small unincorporated community located on the left bank of the Meramec near River Mile 30.5. The community has ?8 structures in the Standard Projec: Floodplain, 42 of which are residential. The approximate limits of the 100-year and Standard Project Floods are shown in PLATE 27. The community's total average annual flood damages are $12,500. Ordinarily, a community sustaining this low level of damages would not be examined for a levee since the minimal costs of a levee would exceed its potential benefits. However, a 100~year height levee was formulated for the community prior to completion of the damage survey. The levee and appurtenances (shown in PLATE 28) was estimated to cost $2,500,000 which translates to an avarage annual cost of $239,000. The average annual benefits were calculated at $10,000 annually yielding a benefit-to-cost ratio of .04 to 1.0. Therefore, no additional levee formulation was conducted for the community. Four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy-outs and small levees/floodwalls) were examined for those homes within the 10-year flood plain. However, all were econowically infeasible. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR THE CITY OF EUREKA Problem Description. Although the City of Eureka includes a large area, its population is relatively small (1980 census: 3,862). The city is exPeriencing considerable growth both residentially and commercially. In large part, the city's develoPed areas are situated above the flood plain. However, as can be seen from PLATE 29, a significant portion of the city is affected by the Standard Project Flood. Over 400 structures are damaged by the Standard Project Flood. Average annual flood damages within the city total $211,400 (See TABLE 4 for a further breakdown). More significantly, the 10-year flood plain includes 146 residential and 9 commercial structures. The great majority of these are located in or near Stonebridge Manor Mobile Home Park. The mobile home park contains 114 pads, roughly 90 percent of which are occupied at any given time. The develoPment is subject not only to flooding from the Meramec River but to flash flooding from Flat Creek as well. Nonstructural Plans Considered. The four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy-Outs and small levees/floodwalls) Were examined for structures within the 10~year flood plain of Eureka. All nonstructural applications proved to be economically infeasible except for a Special grouping of buyouts and the moving of mobile homes from the flood plain. The feasible plan included: relocating families and their mobile hOmes from Stonebridge Manor to mobile home parks of their choice within a 50-mile radius. (Residents leasing trailers from the owner of Stonebridge Manor would be provided assistance in finding and relocating to another dwelling). Stonebridge Manor Mobile Home Park and a nearby filling station would be purchased from their present owners. The area thus acquired would total roughly 21 aores. Most existing facilities such as buildings, pads, electrical hook~ups, and some streets would be razed to allow for alternative uses of the land which would be compatible with good flood plain management. An optional recreation plan was developed to utilize the area as a city park. The total cost of the above plan was roughly $1,350,000 (including $185,000 for recreation facilities). The plan?s average annual costs were $94,000, leaving the area as open Space; or $118,000, utilizing the acquired area as a city park. The plan's average annual benefits were $122,000 if the 50 acquired area remained merely as open space, or roughly $200,000 if the acquired area was deveIOped as a city park. Obviously, the plan, either with or without recreation facilities, was economically feasible. A problem arose, however, with reSpect to finding a non-Federal sponsor willing to cost share the plan. The City of Eureka, while endorsing the concept and merits of the plan, declined to act as a sponsor because the city was unable or unwilling to assume the local cost share estimated to be between $300,000 and $500,000. Both St. Louis County and the State of Missouri were also contacted to determine their willingness to sponsor the plan. At the time of this rep0rt, neither had indicated an interest in cost sharing on the plan. Levee Plans Considered. Three levee plans were considered which protected different areas of the city. The levee alinements and appurtances are shown in PLATES 30 and 31. Levee Plan A afforded the major business district protection from a Standard Project Flood (SPF). Levee Plan afforded protection from a loo-year flood to all areas upstream of Interstate Highway 44. This plan, however, required extensive pending and pumping facilities to accommodate Flat Creek flows which would be blocked at times when the Meramec River was at flood stage. Levee Plan offered SPF protection for two residential subdivisions. As can be seen from TABLE 8, all plans were economically infeasible by a wide margin. TABLE 8 EUREKA, M0., LEVEE PLANS Average Benefit Average Annual to Cost Plan Initial Cost Annual Cost Benefits Ratio Levee A 2,000,000 226,300 54,300 0.2 Levee $23,600,000 $2,200,200 $198,400 0.1 Levee $1,020,000 $122,000 $200 0.002 PLANS CONSIDERED FOR THE CITY OF PACIFIC Problem Description. As noted earlier, the City of Pacific (1980 population: 4,410} is situated with portions in two different counties. During the identification of problems within the St. Louis County portion, it became obvious that some of the best solutions would be precluded if the city's Franklin County portion were ignored. The study team elected to extend the study boundaries far enough to examine the entire City of Pacific. Congressmen of the affected districts (Young and Volkmer) were notified of this decision. 51 The City of Pacific does not sustain significant flood damages from flood .events up to and including the IO?Year Flood which damages only 18 structures. For floodwaters above that height, damages climb rapidly. The Standard Project Floodplain includes 297 residential buildings and 110 commercial structures. The aerial extent of the Standard Project Flood and the lOO?Year Flood is displayed in PLATE 32. The city's average annual flood damages total $182,200. Levee Plans Considered. A cursory examination of the terrain and the nature of flooding within the City of Pacific identified one levee alinement which appeared superior to all others. While it is possible to shift the alinement (shown in PLATE 33) in one direction or the other, an alinement of this nature appears to be the only real solution to Meramec River flooding. The alinement does extend into the FEMA designated floodway on the eastern edge of the city, but this encroachment appeared to be the only practical solution. It was felt that if this alinement proved feasible, then perhaps modifications could be made to the floodway on the levee's exterior to compensate for that portion displaced by the levee. Unfortunately, Such refinements were not necessary. Two levee heights were examined: one sufficient to protect against a loo-Year Flood and a second sufficient to protect against a 50?Year Flood. The second was approximately two feet lower than the first and required a closure structure Only at the Highway Route crossing. The results of economic analyses indicated that both were infeasible as shown in TABLE 9. Given these plans' margin of infeasibility and the fact that the average annual damages remaining with the loo?year plan in place were only $83,000, it was deduced that any levee offering a higher level of protection would also be economically infeasible. TABLE 9 PACIFIC, MO., LEVEE PLANS Average Benefit Level of Average Annual to Cost Protection Initial Cost Annual Cost Benefits Ratio SO-Year $2,264,000 $202,800 $75,300 0.37 lOO-Year $3,356,000 $295,600 $99,200 0.34 It should be noted that the levee alinement discussed above protects only that portion of the city north of Brush Creek. The development south of Brush Creek is not nearly as floodprone although the Alton Packaging Company, the town's single largest employer, does experience flooding for events greater than the SO?Year Flood. HOwever, given its isolated location, the best solution for this company appeared to be a ring levee or a combination levee/floodwall. Given the infeasibility of the levees around the major pOrtion of the city, however, there did not appear to be a Federal interest in providing protection to a single firm. Therefore, no individual plans were investigated for the Alton Packaging Company's plant. Culvert Closures. When it became obvious that levees were not an economically feasible solution, a plan of more modest proportions was investigated. One area which experienced flooding was Pacific Plaza, a shopping center in the northeastern portion of the city. The only avenue for Meramec River floodwaters to reach this area (until the railroad embankment itself is overtopped by approximately a loo-Year Flood) is via a culVert through the railroad embankment. The possibility of providing a closure structure was investigated. However, a preliminary economic analysis indicated that the plan's average annual costs exceeded its average annual benefits by roughly 10 to one. Nonstructural Plans. The four nonstructural measures (raising houses, moving houses, buy-outs and small levees/floodwalls) were investigated for those structures within the lO-Year Flood plain. All applications were determined to be economically infeasible except for the raising of one home. Since no plan of significant proportions could be justified, no further refinements were conducted for nonstructural measures. PLANS CONSIDERED FOR UJC #2 The community referred to as UJC #2 (Unincorporated Jefferson County NUmber Two) lies on the opposite side of the river from the City of Pacific. The community contains 34 structures, all residential, within the Standard Project Floodplain. Total average annual flood damages are $11,100. Given this low damage-total, levees were immediately dismissed as being too expensive. The four nonstructural measures (raising homes, moving homes, buy-outs and small levees/floodwalls) were examined for the nine homes within the 10-Year Flood plain. All applications except one buy-out were economically infeasible. Hence no further plan formulation was conducted for FLOOD EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM (FERS) Problem Description. The need for a more accurate flood forecasting and warning system was brought out by county and community officials in this study?s early scoping meetings. This need was later reinforced by comments at many of the five plan formulation public meetings. Most of those who had recently experienced the flood of record in December 1982 and another major flood in May 1983 felt that the accuracy of the National Weather Service's river stage-forecasts should be imPIOVed. The public's other major criticism was that, as forecasts were revised, word of the new forecast was not reaching flood plain residents in a 53 timely fashion. This, coupled with the fact that many residents did not understand what the stage forecasts meant in relation to their homes, served to create an emergency situation where flood plain residents were often making wrong decisions concerning their need to evacuate and their ability to fight the flood by such measures as sandbagging. Plan Formulation. The foregoing problems were discussed with the National Weather Service (NUS) and the county offices of emergency preparedness. Both agreed that the accuracies and lead times associated with river stage forecasts and the methods of disseminating those forecasts could be improved. A series of seven interagency meetings were held to address the problem. Attendees included representatives of the counties, the National Weather Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the State of Missouri, and the Corps. It should be pointed out that not only Jefferson and St. Louis Counties were represented, but also Franklin County. Officials of Franklin County had, at the Pacific Public Meeting, indicated a desire to participate in the discussion even though the language of the Public Law did not authorize the design of the system to directly address Franklin County's flooding problems. The product of the interagency meetings was as follows: a. Two different systems of precipitation and river stage gages designed to provide input to the NWS North Central River Forecast Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, were developed. The chief differences were the number of gages, their methods of transmitting data, and the resulting accuracies of forecasted stages. b. A network was developed to ensure better dissemination of the forecast from the NWS to county and municipal officials and ultimately to the flood plain resident. Included within the network were voice capability sirens and information exchange Via microcomputers located at the St. Charles Weather Service Forecast Office and the counties' offices of civil preparedness. c. The final component of the FERS, community reaponse plans, were not defined in detail, but were left flexible so that they could be shaped to fit the needs of individual communities. However, it was generally agreed that both the counties and incorporated communities could benefit greatly from a Corps report or reports which document, in detail, the height, frequency and extent of flooding for variOus reaches of the river. d. Several options for implementing and maintaining the gaging system were discussed. Those options are listed in TABLE 10. As would be expected, the counties favored Option 6, but were also quite interested in Option 7. (Option 7 was later included as part of the tentative recommendation.) Economic Feasibility of a FERS. Considerable effort was expended in trying to determine the economic feasibility of a Flood Emergency Response System. The Costs of the system 54 were estimated to range from $680,000 (for a system producing a forecast of i 2 feet accuracy) to $7h0,000 (for a system producing a forecast of 1 foot accuracy). Following considerable effort to determine the benefits associated with these two plans, it was finally concluded that not enough was known about the nature of the flood plain resident's response to reliably predict the extent of the damages reduced. However, comparing the average annual costs of the most expensive system, $103,300, to the total average annual damages $2,709,000 indicated that even a moderately improved response would most likely produce benefits greater than the costs of the plan. Most importantly, it appeared that the FERS could contribute significantly in preventing loss of life (12 died in 1915, 4 in 1982). From that standpoint alone, implementation of a FERS appeared justified. Plan Sponsorship. Given the apparent viability of a FERS, the plan was included as part of this study's tentative recommendations. During the review of the draft report, repeated efforts were made to secure the financial support of state and/or county governments. Although each of the potential non-Federal sponsors continued to support the concept, none were willing to cost share fully on the implementation or operation of the plan (See APPENDIX K). Given the lack of financial support, the plan was deleted from the report's recommendations and has been given no further consideration. BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS CONSIDERED Two bridges causing significant increases in upstream flood levels were examined to determine the advisability of modifying them to increase their conveyance capacity. The first of these was the Highway 30 bridge east of Fenton. Quite predictably, increasing the conveyance capacity of this bridge reduced flood heights and flood damages upstream, but it also increased flood heights and flood damages Overall, damages remained roughly the same. The second bridge examined was the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge near Valley Park, Missouri. Here the results were similar. Overall, flood damages remained roughly the same. Modification of this bridge, in fact, would not have significant water level impacts unless the Highway 141 bridge immediately upstream was modified at the same time. However, doing this would almost certainly increase damages more in Valley Park and areas than it would reduce damages in upstream areas. 55 56 Opt 1 FLOOD EMERGENCY RESPONSE TABLE 10 IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS FOR BAGING SYSTEM InstallaLtOn-Reseaostb?Jities NNS would install qaoes by using their own personnei or by contracting. 0565 would instaii gages by using their own personnei or by Contracting. a to II This option was suggested by St. Louis Caunty. Emdinmof. Ins tall on Corps wouid obtain Funds through its budget and transfer Funds to NHS. Corps wOuid obtain funds through its budget and transfer funds to USGS. This option was suggested by the U.S. Geologicai Survey and the Nationai NW3 and Countieq would execute a contract whereby the taunties wouid suopty funds and NHS oerSOnnei would perform the maintenance. The Corps and the taunties wouid exeCUte a contract whereby the Counties wouid suon1y funds to the Corns who in turn would transfer them to nus for maintenance. NUS and the Counties wouid execute a centract whereby the Counties wouid supo1y funds to NHS who in turn wouid transfer them to USGS for maintenance. USGS and the Counties woutd execute a contract whereby the Counties wouid suppiy funds to USGS who wouid perform the maintenance. The Corns and the Counties would execute a contract whereby the Counties wouid suppiy funds to the Corps who in turn wouid transfer them to USGS for maintenance. Federai agencies wouid coliaborate to totaiiy fund the operation and maintenance of both precipitation and stage gages. For GOES stage and combination gages wouid be funded 50/50 by the USGS and a iegaiiy constituted body representing the 3 Counties. HHS uouid fund the of the 2 gages being updated to "criteria't status. The 3 Counties wOuid Jointiy fund the of the 3 GOES rainfaii gage piatforms. Weather Service. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE PLANS INTRODUCTION This portion of the report describes the efforts to refine and evaluate those plans which appeared to meet the basic test of economic feasibility. As described in the previous section, PLAN FORMULATION, three plans were feasible, although the considerable efforts to refine the Flood Emergency ResPonse System and the Stonebridge Manor buyout plans are not discussed here because non-federal sponsors could not be found for these plans. This section will concentrate on the third plan: the Valley Park Levee. LEVER OPTIMIZATION. Given that the best alinement was selected in the earlier stages of plan formulation, the next task was to determine the optimum height of the levee (that height which maximized the difference between the levee's annual benefits and its annualized costs). To do this, 4 different levee heights were examined ranging from a 50?Year level of protection to a Standard Project Flood level of protection. Recreation costs and benefits were ignored in the optimization analysis. They did not vary significantly from one levee height to another. TABLE 11 displays the results of the optimization analysis. As with all other analyses in this report, a IOU?year project life, an October 1984 Price Level, and an 8 3/8 percent interest rate were employed. TABLE 11 LEVEE HEIGHT OPTIMIZATION Level of Total First Total Average Total Annual Average Annual Protectioni/ Annual Costs Project Benefits Net Benefits 50 $10,758,000 929,900 849,000 ?$80,900 100 $11,775,000 $1,015,100 $1,193,100 $178,000 300 $16 ,603,000 $1 ,463 800 $1 379 ,600 434,200 SPF $23,929,000 $2,101,200 -$607,000 i? Numbers refer to the flood against which the levee was designed to protect. Floods are stated in terms of average recurrence intervals. 1/ Economic First Costs include interest during construction. ReCreation costs are not included. 57 TABLE ll shows that the lOO?Year levee height was clearly the best of the four heights examined. Given only this information, it was still possible that a levee height less than or somewhat greater than the lOO?Year level might be even better yield greater net benefits). How?her, an examination of the various benefit categories (see TABLE 38 of APPENDIX C) served to dismiss the likelihood that a lower height might yield greater net benefits. Two benefit categories, insurance cost reductions and location benefits, which together represented roughly $100,000, were realized only for those levels of protection loo-Years and higher. An analysis was then conducted to determine if a greater levee height yielded better results. A mathematical curve fit to the four points (plotted on a graph of annual net benefits versus the associated flood recurrence interval) indicated that the lZO-Year recurrence interval height might represent an optimum. This height which was roughly one half foot higher than the loo-Year height was examined in detail. The results, shown in TABLE 39 of A2PENDIX C, indicated that the net benefits were significantly less than those of the loo-Year height. One of the major reasons for this was the necessity to go "off-site" for more expensive borrow material once the lOO-Year height was exceeded. Hence, for all practical purposes, the loo-Year level of protection represents the optimum height. HYDRAULIC IMPACTS OF LEVEE. The construction of a Valley Park levee would produce minor changes in the heights and velocities of flood waters within this reach of the Meramec River. With a 100sYear height levee in place, the water levels of a lOO-Year flood would vary from no change (near the levee's portion) to a maximum of roughly 0.3 feet at a distance of approximately one-quarter mile upstream of Highway 141. PLATE &2 displays water level effects for the entire affected reach. With a lOO-Year levee in place, average water Velocities produced during passage of a loo-Year Flood would increase by as much as 1.6 feet per second (1.1 miles per hour) within the river?s channel. Average water velocities within the river's overbenk would increase by as much as 1.4 feet per second (1 mile per hour) in some areas. TABLE 3-10 of APPENDIX displays the levee's velocity effects for the affected reach. Neither velocity nor water level impacts were felt to represent a serious increased threat to life or property. Since the levee does extend into the regulatory floodway, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was notified of the anticipated hydraulic impacts at an early stage of the formulation process. The Region VII Office of FEMA responded that regardless of the slight encroachments, it supported the Valley Park levee since it represented the only viable solution for avoiding frequent flood damages. However, FEMA did indicate that those residents unprotected by the levee should be relocated as an integral part of the project. The next section examines the study team's attempts to formulate such a plan. 58 BUY-OUT POTENTIAL FOR UNPROTECTED STRUCTURES. As formulated, the Valley Park levee provides protection to all but approximately 50 floodprone structures within the city. As briefly discussed in the PLAN FORMULATION section, the study team investigated plans to purchase those structures left unprotected. Those plans are presented here in more detail to provide the reader a better appreciation of their merits. For discussion purposes, it is convenient to divide the exterior structures into three groups as follows. a. Group A consists of the 12 residences near the southwest "corner" of the levee along Arnold Drive and intersecting streets. These structures are currently an integral part of the community, but with the construction of the levee, they will become somewhat isolated from the remainder of the city. One of these owners has currently made.application for FEMA's Section 1362 Buy-out pregram. b. Group consists of 30 structures along River Drive which are not acquired as part of the right-of-way needed for the levee or the borrow areas. These structures, roughly 50 percent permanent residences and 50 percent recreational cabins, extend from just of the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge eastward to the mouth of Grand Glaize Creek. Eleven of these owners have applied for FEMA's Section 1362 Buy-out program. c. Group consists of 8 structures near the levee?s southeast "corner" along Pyramid Drive and Marshall Road. All structures are residential except for the Lion's Club meeting hall. These structures are currently an integral part of the community, but with the construction of the levee, they will become somewhat isolated from the remainder of the city. At least one of the residences has been condemned by the city. Each of these structure groups was analyzed to assess the levee's hydraulic effects on its structures and residents. Each was also analyzed to determine the economic feasibility of purchasing the land and structures, razing the structures, and utilizing the land for recreation. TABLE 12 summarizes both these analyses. The results of these analyses indicated, first of all, that while the construction of the levee would adversely affect each of these structure groups, the effects would be slight and would cause only minor increases in flood damages-~on the average, less than $4000 annually. (Note: The levee's total induced damages, including areas outside Valley Park, are $7,200 annually.) Also, from a comparison of average annual costs and average annual damages, it can be seen that the flood related benefits, by themselves, did not produce an economically feasible project. Moreover, utilizing the land for recreation did not provide enough additional net benefits to make any of the buy-out groups economically feasible. 59 FORMULATION 0F RECREATION PLANS. Certain features of the Valley Park levee lent themselves to recreational development. With the c00peration of the City of Valley Park and the St. Louis County Parks Department, a recreation plan was developed to utilize lands acquired for the levee project. That plan is shown in PLATE 22. Details of the formulation are discussed in APPENDIX G. Basically, the plan utilizes two borrow areas on the levee?s interior for development of sports, exercise and playground facilities. The playgrounds and athletic fields will be inundated during Meramec River flooding when these borrow areas are utilized for ponding areas. Major portions of the levee crown will be used as a hiking and biking trail. The three borrow areas on the levee's exterior will be developed as fishing lakes. The two lakes along the riverfront will require pumping from the alluvial acquifer to maintain adequate water levels at all times. The lake/Wetland to be developed from the borrow area along Grand Glaize Creek will not require a pump. The flows from the creek will be sufficient to maintain its water levels. This borrow area will require an embankment across Grand Glaize Creek to provide adequate depths of water. The study team did not view this as a violation of Public Law 97-128 which states: measures shall not include the construction of any dams or reservoirs." It was felt that the law's language was not directed at small structures erected on levee project lands for the purposes of mitigating habitat losses associated with the levee's construction. It should also be pointed out that the embankment is so low (10 feet high at its maximum section) and the impounded body of water so small (15 acres) that it does not even fall within the purview of the National Dam Safety program. The economic feasibility of the recreation facilities was examined incrementally as an addition to the basic levee plan. The initial costs of the recreation facilities totalled $220,400 which produced an average annual cost of $45,900. This compared quite favorably to the recreation benefits which totalled $152,500 annually. The incremental feasibility of each recreation site was examined separately and was also found to be economically feasible. The completed recreation plans were furnished the City of Valley Park and St. Louis county. The city has indicated its interest in pursuing recreational development on levee project lands, possibly in cooperation with St. Louis County in certain areas. Based on the incremental feasibility of recreation facilities and the presence of a willing recreation sponsor, the decision was made to provide recreation facilities on levee project lands. EVALUATION OF LEVEE IMPACTS. An extensive evaluation of social, cultural and environmental impacts of the lOO-Year height levee is presented in the ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT follows the MAIN REPORT. These impacts are also quantified and summarized in the SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS presented at the end of APPENDIX C. Since positive impacts tend to be related directly or 60 61 TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF STRUCTURES RIVERSIDE 0F VALLEY PARK LEVEE Average Average Hydrauiic EFFects" Number of Purchase Razing Annua] Annua1 Potentia1 For Qcoup Stcuctucesz/ C0?t__ QamagcsS/ EecceaLipn 5? A Flood Heights no increase 12 449.000 60,000 29.900 5 9.900 Low Velocities - s1ight increases regidentiaI} F1ood Height - 0 to 3 30 3 953,000 $150,000 5 78,900 $35,500 Low inches increase (50% residences. Velocities 51ight increases 50% cabins) c. Flood heights - no increase a 290.000 5 40,000 19,500 3 5,300 Lew Velocities - s1ight intreases (7 residences. i semi public) TOTALS 50 $1,692,000 $250,000 $123,300 $50,700 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 6/ The described conditions occur at crest of ion?Year F1ood. A portion of these structures have been either condemned or abandoned. Inctudes cost of land and structures. severance damages. acquisition costs and reiocation costs. Includes interest during construction but does not include PL 91-646 re1ocation costs. Average annua1 damages reaghly apprOximate average annua1 F1ood benefits. Low potentia1 indicates an unsuitable site or 1ack of marginai economic Feasibi1ity. indirectly to flood damage reduction which has already been discussed, and adverse impacts are generally not significant, no effort is made here to duplicate discussion presented elsewhere. Instead this section will briefly discuss the significant differences in the impacts associated with the four levee heights used in the optimization analysis. Differences in Land Requirements. Basically, the higher the levee, the greater the amount of real estate required to construct the levee. Overall land requirements are as follows: 50?year levee 162 acres loo-year levee - 168 acres 300-year levee 192 acres SPF levee - 241 acres As can be seen, land requirements are not significantly different between the SO-Year levee and the 100~Year levee. However, the amount of land required increases significantly when the level of protection is increased to the flood and then again when it is increased to the Standard Project Flood level. Hampered Growth Due to Flooding. The community?s growth is significantly affected by its flooding hazard. Although any degree of flood protection would somewhat increase the community?s attractiveness to investors, protection must reach the lOO-Year level before the majority of the city would be subject to less stringent flood plain regulations and hence available for development or major redevelopment. Therefore, from the standpoint of community growth, all levels of protection less than the lGO-Year Flood height do not perform nearly so well as do heights equal to the loo-Year Flood or greater. Human Safety. Health and Welfare. Each of these factors increases directly with the levee?s level of protection. Certainly a SO-Year level of protection is better than the status quo, a lOG-Year better than SO-Year, etc., if some means of risk management is employed to address the eventuality of the levee's level of protection being exceeded. Later sections discuss risk management and contingency planning in more detail. EVALUATION CRITERIA. The Water Rescurces Council's Principles and Guidelines recommend that alternative plans be formulated in consideration of four criteria: Completeness; effectiveness; efficiency; and acceptability. Completeness is the extent to which a given alternative plan provides and accounts for all necessary investments or other actions to ensure the realization of the planned effects. 62 Effectiveness is the extent to which an alternative plan alleviates the specified problems and achieves the specified opportunities. Efficiency is the extent to which an alternative plan is the most cost effective means of alleviating the specified problems and realizing the specified opportunities, consistent with protecting the Nation's environment. Acceptability is the workability and viability of the alternative plan with respect to acceptance by state and local entities and the public and compatibility with existing laws, regulations, and public policies. TABLE 13 displays the performance of the four different levee heights in addressing these measures. As indicated, all levee heights below the Standard Project Flood (SPF) height would require a means of adequately forecasting a flood which exceeds the levee's design height and also a plan for evacuation of the town's residents. Discussions with Valley Park city officials indicate that any levee below the lOO-Year flood height would not be acceptable, because it would not remove the restrictions imposed by the city?s flood ordinance (mandatory for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program). Plan effectiveness in preventing flood damages (the study's primary objective) increases directly with levee height. However, plan efficiency clearly peaks at the loo-Year level with net benefits decreasing rapidly as levee height is increased to the and SPF levels. 63 64 TABLE 13 OF VALLEY PARK LEVEE HEIGHTS USING SPECIFIED EWMLUATION CRITERIA LEVEL OF PROTECT ION Eva We?! on Or Her [on I OO-YEAR 59 Comp I efeness Comp I ete? Comp I Comp I Comp Ie'rei/ Efflciencyi/ $?80,900 (0.91) $178,000 (1.18) $434,200 (0.94) Effec?venessi/ 57: (321) 74: 871 94: keep-fab! I Hy accepfab I Pccep+ab I ?ccephab [e Accep?l'abl if Mefhods for financing +he loca! share of ?I'he projecf are being analyzed. Expressed In 'l'erms of he? beneflfs and ra+lo (parenfhesls). Nel+her ne'? beneflfs nor 801's Inciude recreaflon beneflfs and cos?rs. 3/ Expressed as a percenf of ?#01111 damages reduced In Valley Park and In The lower basin as a whole (paren?esls). SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN Based on the preceding evaluation, a levee plan offering protection against a 100~Year Flood was selected for the city of Valley Park. The selected plan also included recreation facilities on project lands. The rationale for the selected plan was as follows: The lOO-year Flood height was the optimum levee height andI hence, was the NED plan. The hydraulic effects (increased velocities and flood heights) are small as are the induced flood damages ($7200 annually). The risk of floods higher than the levee's design height can be managed through the use of an emergency response plan developed for the city of Valley Park which would rely on Stage forecasts from the National Weather Service. Acquisition of Valley Park residences riverside of the levee have not been included because analyses indicate that induced damages to these structures are minor, and because their acquisition is not an incrementally feasible component. Recreation facilities on levee project lands have been included because they were incrementally justified from an economic standpoint. Both flood control and recreation components are aCCeptable to the city of Valley Park whose officials haVe furnished a letter of intent indicating their support for the project and their interest in acting as project sponsor (See APPENDIX K). Sensitivity analyses of the selected plan with respect to varying interest rates are presented C. 65 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED PLAN INTRODUCTION This section of the report describes in detail the components of the selected plan, shown in TABLE 14, and the plan's accomplishments and other effects. In addition, Special considerations regarding design, construction and operations are discussed. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS There are several special considerations involved in both the design and construction of the levee. The following paragraphs detail these considerations. Levee Embankment through Lagoon. As discussed under PLAN FORMULATION, it is cost effective to route a small portion of the levee through the Valley Park Sewage lagoon (See PLATE 18). Discussions with the lagoon's owner, the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District, indicated that this was acceptable so long as the lagoon's capacity wasn't significantly reduced. It was thus agreed that the sludge lying within the limits of the levee embankment would be excavated, rather than ?pushed? further out into the lagoon. Correspondence with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and subsequent testing of the lagoon sludge indicated that the sludge could be used in thin layers on the levee's Surface. Easement for Borrow Area B. To obtain enough on?site borrow material for the levee, it prOVed necessary to utilize, as a borrow area, land currently Owned by Johnny Mac's Sports Complex. That land is currently used for athletic fields. In preliminary discussions with the owner, it was agreed that, if at all possible, an easement would be sought on this land, and that, after borrow operations, the land would be left in a condition such that the owner could again utilize it for athletic fields. The locally constructed levee around the complex would not be utilized for borrow. Biological Considerations. To offset terrestrial habitat losses associated with the construction of the leVee and to prevent potential disruption to endangered species, the following special provisions were incorporated into the design of the levee project: a. Clearing of trees along Grand Glaize and Fishpot Creeks would be scheduled to take place between September 15 and April 1. This would avoid destroying any maternity colony of Indiana bats that may be present in the area. 66 67 TABLE I4 VALLEY PPRK LEVEE PLAN DESCRIPTION Levee Bab ankmen'l' Borrow Areas Closure Sl'ruclrures G'avl?l'y D?alns Rel 161? He! Is Pimp S?l?a'l'lon a. b. d. e. f. a. compacted earfh HI I a. Slde Slopes: Verf. on 3 Her. I-blgh?r: Mosf commonly 15?25 fee?r (rown Wld?l'h: [0 Feel b. Lengfh: 16,200 Fee'l' (SJ mllesl Levee Righ'r-of-Way: 58 acres Two borrow areas fofal 34 6. acres are on fhe levee's Inferior borrow areas fo+a 73 acres are,0n fhe levee's exferlor c. Three roadway closure sfrucfures (swing ga?l'es, each 34 feef wide) One ral [road closure sfrucl'ure (panel ?l?ype, l8 feef wide) Two 7'2-lnch dlamel'er drains a. Two ?ls-Inch dlamel'er drains Nlnefeen wells averaging 50 feel a. In 'dep?l'h {hpacl'l'w seoond I0 cublc fee+ per 4,000 lineal feef of new a. on fhe levee's lnferlor (2 acres righf?of-way required). Levee afford profeC'l'lon againsf? loo-Year flood plus 3 feel of freeboard. Advanced flood forecasting and warning sysl?em will anew for evacua?lion In even?f of higher floods. ln+erlor borrow areas all! be used as acres roughly [30 acre-feet of sforage. They also be used as recreaflon areas. Three exferlor borrow areas Nil 5 be conver'l'ed +0 fishing lakes 43 acres. One ex?l?erior borrow area I return 1'0 H?s exls?ng use: ball flelds Drains will be corruga1'ed mafal pipes wl?l?h g-al?ewell closure In fhe levee's ex+erlor slope. Hal ls would be placed In fhe of +he borrow areas. diver'l' wafer 1?0 pending areas and pump. 68 TABLE I4 VALLEY PARK LEVEE PLAN DESCRIPTION GENERAL EATURE SPECIAL AND IMENSIUNS COMMENTS Sform Sewers Relocaflons Recreaflon Fealures a. b. C. Borrow Areas Riverside Borrow Areas Trail (I. 3,500 llneal feel of new slorm sewer on +he levee's ln+erlor (I acre in easemenls required). [,500 lineal feel of pressure sewer Varlous wa+er, gas, and sanl+ary sewer Foofbell/soccer fleld (I) Sof+ball fields (2) Playground Mulfluse Gourf (55 fee? 90 feef) 8. Open play area (200 fee+ 300 fee+l Open play area (200 feel 720 fee+1 Nafure Trail (0.85 mile} Plenlc Yables (l5) Oynforf S+a+lons (2) Parking (one-20 cars) 00mf0r+ Slaflons l3) Tables (l0) Parking sprayer heads (2) Hlke and Bike Trall (2.3 miles) Sform sewers will diver+ wafer +0 pending areas and pump. Pressure sewer will lnfercepf runoff and draln +0 Ievee's ex+erlor. will be required where pafh of levee lnfersec+s Pbr+lons of +hese recreaflon areas be used as areas during periods of floodlng. These would be provlded 3+ lhose rlverslde borrow areas uhlch were developed as lakes. Tb+al surface area of lakes would be roughly 43 acres. Trall would of compac+ed crushed s+one on fhe levee?s crown. b. An embankment across Grand Glaize Creek has been designed for the end of Borrow Area to create a wetland. The southern edge of Borrow Area would be excavated to shallow depths to create a wetland containing both marsh and pond habitat. The embankment would not be constructed until approximately 1990, however, to allow Grand Glaize Creek to flush itself of sludge deposited from upstream sewage treatment plants which have only recently been shut down. i c. Borrow Areas A and would also be maintained as wetlands. (Pumps with sprayer heads would also be employed to maintain sufficient water depths to accommodate a fish population for recreation purposes.) Borrow Areas A and would also have a minimum of 30 feet of riparian buffer between the excavated area and the nearest road shoulder. These areas would have 50 feet of buffer between the excavated area and the toe of the levee, as would Area H. d. Borrow Areas and would be fertilized and seeded with a mixture of wildlife-preferred vegetation. Because of their low elevation, these areas will probably revert over time to swamp or marsh habitat. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS Valley Park Levee. The overriding consideration of the levee concerns the possibility that the levee could be overtopped. The levee has been designed to protect against the occurrence of the lOO-Year Flood (a flood height having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year). This f100d is approximately one foot higher than the highest flood on record: the December 1982 Flood. Moreover, the levee incorporates three feet of freeboard over and above the height of the lOO-Year Flood. It is possible then, that given this freeboard, the levee could hold out a flood having a recurrence interval of less than 300 years. However, even accounting for the freeboard's additional protection, there would be a 28 percent chance that the levee would be overtopped at least once within its lOO-year project life. Following are some of the planning considerations designed to deal with this threat: a. Flood Forecasting and Warning. The safe, efficient operation of the proposed Valley Park levee is contingent upon the National Weather Service?s (NUS) ability to forecast the heights of major floods. The NW5 would develop a forecast and transmit it to the St. Louis County Emergency Operations Center (EGG) via weather wire. Assuming that the forecasted stage represented a threat of overtopping, the County would telephone the Valley Park Police Office and reach a decision in regard to broadcasting an announcement through the County's siren system. The Chief of Police who also serves as the city?s Emergency Operations Officer would then weigh the need for other localized methods of warning. Meanwhile, the National weather Service would initiate broadcasts over Weather Radio. Local radio and TV stations would also be notified through weather wire drops in regard to specific danger spots such as Valley Park. 69 b. Emergency Response Actions. While detailed evacuation procedures will be developed as a portion of the project operations manual, discussions with the city's emergency operations officer and other city officials have already identified many of the plan's more prominent features. Basically, there are four principal routes which could be utilized to evacuate the city's residents and their mobile possessions. Three of these routes proceed northward from the city and tie back into State Highway 141. The three routes are Main Street-to-Jefferson, Highway 141, and The fourth route is Highway 141 South. This route would be usable up to a flood height of elevation 430 feet N.G.V.D. (between a 25-year and a 50-year recurrence interval flood). The plans would also call for notifying the Superintendent of schools so that the primary and secondary schools located in the flood plain could be dismissed during the evacuation period. No hospitals or nursing homes are located in the flood plain. Emergency lodging could most likely be provided within the city at the Christian, Methodist and Catholic Churches as well as the Masonic Lodge (all on high ground). Tentative plans call for the use of nearby shopping center parking lots for the temporary storage of vehicles. TABLE 15 lists the more prominent features for the phased evacuation plan. c. Residual Damages. For a SOD-year or Standard Project Flood, the resulting damages on the levee's interior would be roughly the same as if there were no levee in place, although the levee may induce some additional development within its interior. For the BOO-year Flood, damages would total approximately $47 million; for the Standard Project Flood, approximately $50 million. In each case, residential damages represent roughly 18 percent of the total with commercial and institutional comprising the remainder. Current velocities would not be expected to be greater than the "without levee" condition. The damages resulting from an overtopping event such as the BOO-year Flood could be significantly less. Because the crest of the 300-year Flood is only .5 to 1.0 feet above the levee's crown, the levee's interior does not completely fill before the water elevation subsides below the crown elevation. The net result is an interior water elevation roughly 2 feet lower than that which would occur in the without-levee condition. TABLE B-9A of APPENDIX displays overtopping effects for a variety of conditions. PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND IMPACTS TABLE 16 summarizes the Valley Park levee plan's costs, its damage reduction and other benefits, and its various impacts. 70 71 River Siages Which a. Trigger Each Phase 2/ Aciions To Be Taken a. By The Ci?l?y 0f Valley Park TABLE l5 VALLEY PARK EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN )1 (wll?h fhe proposed levee In piaCe) PHASE I 27' or higher forecasfed 20' aclual a. rising rapidly hb?lify Pyramid Ave. residenls fhaf 31'. Louis Ave. S?l?rucfure til be closed 6+ 26'. a. PHASE I i 4 2' or higher forecasfed 32' aclual rising rapidly Sound first general alerl' pofenfial need for evacuafion) Recommend residenfs 8? businesses make advanca prepara'l' lons. Call off school for following dayis}. Alerl? designe+ed churches of polenlial need 1'0 house evacuees. Aler?r Red Cross of polen?ilal need for emergency services. Al erl' area shopping ceni'ers of need +0 park evacuafed vehicles. a. PHASE I ll 43' or hlgh'er a. forecasl'ed 37' actual in. rising rapidly Sound second general a. aleri evacuafe movable properly.) Mark evacua?i'ion rou+es b. inlfla?l?e ?traffic conlrols. Require hUSinesses 1'0 c. cease normal opera?ons. nl+ia+e evacuafion d. of household goods and business lnvenlorles. Aler?l? TV and radio 9. sfaflons regarding avallabill?l'y of housing, meals, mail service and cl?i?y services. PHASE i 44 or higher forecas+ed 40' actual and rising rapidly Sound ?l'hird general aler'l' evacuale all people). Begin final evacu- of residen?is. Churches begin housing people. Red Cross assisl?s in feeding people. Ci?l'y relocafes We own emergency vehicleshour wafch over evacuated area. The crown elevation of ?l'he proposed Valley Park levee is roughly equivalenl lo a 44' reading on 'l'he Valley Park gage. 2/ llem In each case refers +0 lhe Na'l?lonai Weather Service {va6) forecast and should be used as 'l'he primary indica?lor. Ts supplied as a Safeguard +0 be used only if fhe NW5 forecasf is missing or ls obviously incorrect 3/ A general aler?l' would employ, 51'. Louis Oouni?y?s siren sysl?em which has public address capabilily. Hem TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF VALLEY PARK LEVER PHYSICAL DATA: Level of protection: lOO-Year Flood plus 3 feet of freeboard Residences Protected: 418 Business and other structures protected: 161 Structures displaced by levee: 13 residences, 1 business Structures (within Valley Park) left unprotected: 81 residential, 7 others Project land required: 168 Ac. DAMAGE REDUCTION: Average annual damages reduced: $1,100,600 Annual damages induced elsewhere: -$7,200 Percent reduction of total Valley Park damages: Percent reduction of total lower basin damages: hl% COST DATA: Flood Control Recreation Total Initial Cost: $11,579,200 $220,800 $11,800,000 1/ Annual $26,900 $26,800 53,700 2/ Total Annualized Cost 1,077,000 BENEFIT DATA: Average Annual Damages Reduced: $1,100,600 Average Annual Damages Induced: -7,200 Annual Insurance Overhead Reduced: 25,900 Enhanced Land Value (annualized): 73,800 Annual Recreation Benefit: 152,500 TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS: $1,345,600 BENEFIT TO COST RATIO: 1.25 to 1.0 HYDRAULIC EFFECTS: 10-year loo-year Maximum increase in flood heights: 0,11 ft. 0.29 ft. 0.90 ft. Maximum increase in average velocities: North bank: 0.4 1.4 0.4 Within Channel: 0.2 1.6 1.8 South.bank: 0;2 0.3 0.6 SOCIAL IMPACTS: a) Improvement in overall community cohesion b) Removes flood plain regulations for majority of city c) Requires relocation of 13 families, 1 business d) To a degree, isolates 19 families from remaining community. CULTURAL IMPACTS: No Significant impacts. 72 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Endangered species: IN Water Quality: Groundwater: Wildlife Habitat: TABLE 16 (Cent.) SUMMARY OF VALLEY PARK LEVEE Not adversely impacted Short term turbidity increases during construction No significant effects a) Losses - 105 Ac. bottomland forest, 20.5 Ac. old field. 3.5 Ac. of streams b) Gains - 65 Ac. grasslands, 18 Ac. marsh, 25 Ac. pond c) Gains are considered to offset losses with a greater diversity of habitats resulting. Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Costs. Includes interest during construction. 73 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Valley Park, by letters dated May 17, 1985, August 26, 1985 and February 18, 1987, has indicated its support for the levee and associated recreation features (See APPENDIX K). As local sponSOr, the city would ultimately have to agree to do the following: 3. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights?of?way necessary for the construction of the project. These lands include those needed for the levee, for borrow areas and for ditching and storm sewers within the protected area of the levee. b. Actomplish without cost to the United States, all alterations and relocation of buildings, transportation facilities, and certain utilities, made necessary by construction of the project. Building relocations include the 13 residential structures and one commercial structure displaced by the levee and borrow areas. Utility alterations include relocations of water, sewer, telephone and electric lines as well as the capping of a gas pipeline. c. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction, operation and maintenance of the project; provided damages are not due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractor. d. Pay 5 percent of the cost of the project's flood control components during construction. A payment in excess of 5 percent will be required, if necessary, to bring the total value of the sponsor's share to 25 percent. e. Pay, or contribute in kind, oneehalf of the separable costs for recreational facilities in accordance with the Federal water Project Recreation Act of 1965. f. Adopt and enforce appropriate measures to control development of floodway fringe areas to prevent obstruction or encroachment of flood plain storage areas. g. Maintain and operate the project after completion, in accordance with regulations preseribed by the Secretary of the Army. h. Comply with all applicable provisions in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. i. At least annually publicize information to inform affected interests that the project will not provide complete protection against flooding. The sponsor must also keep updated an emergency response plan which includes provisions for emergency evacuation of the protected area in the event of a forecasted flood higher than the loomYear design flood. 74 j. Comply with Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in connection with the project on the grounds of race, creed or national origin. COST SHARING Cost sharing policies for implementation of this project were established by the Water Resources Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662). The provisions of that Act were summarized in Subparagraphs and e. of the preceding section, PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES. TABLE 17 delineates the resulting Federal and non-Federal cost shares. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Previous sections of this report have discussed special design and construction considerations associated with the Valley Park levee. APPENDIX discusses the design of levee features and presents a cost estimate for the OVerall 1eVee plan. FIGURE 16 displays the proposed funding schedule for the levee's design and construction. 75 TABLE 17 VALLEY PARK LEVEE DIVISION OF PLAN COSTS l/ (October 1984 Price Level) FEDERAL FIRST COSTS: Flood Control Features $7,960,600 Recreation Features 110,400 Total Federal Implementation Cost $8,071,000 NONFEDERAL FIRST COSTS: Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way and Relocations $2,367,000 Alterations to Utilities and TransportatiOn Facilities 672,600 Cash Contribution for Flood Control Features 579,000 Cash Contribution for Recreation Features 110,400 Total Non?Federal Implementation Cost 3,729,000 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $11,800,000 NONFEDERAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENTS R) Annual 0, for Flood Control Features 26,900 Annual 0, for Recreation Features 26,800 Total Annual 0, a Costs 53,700 As established by Public Law 99~662. 76 '77 FIGURE .16 ITEM IISIGN Emma: sites int. HEN OF CONSI. SEER PLAIG 8 was ILEVEF. WINS. scum auamnws 6 OF now} MP6 6 SPECS WING SMTIW (10 VALLEY LEVEE DESIGN LOWER RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT Imus-s SFECS LEVEL WVITY WIN EEK ILTWTIM (F mm mun Emma" ncmlasINCLUDING EEOFEDERAL . AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FY-s FY3 .. 1 1000 19.4 REAL ESTATE '4.i5?7.si . 3,935.4 764.5" his .12. .1394 ALL EXPmetunEs ARE IN mousmos 0F nonman IS assueo THAT LOCAL INTERESTS HOULD BE HIGHI OF HIV AND ACCOPPILISHING THE NESSESSAHY RELOCATIONSEXPENDITURES BASED ON ADMINISTRATION POLICY . I . . I I. {1.50.0u?w. -.., TOTALS 400.0 50.0 350.0 11.8%.0 9.671%: SWARY OF PUBLIC VIEWS ANT) COMMENTS PLAN FORMULATION PUBLIC MEETING As outlined in the earlier section PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT and detailed in APPENDIX K, a rather intensive public involvement program was conducted as part of the problem identification and plan formulation phases of this study. A Plan Formulation Public Meeting was held NOvember 30, 1983 in Valley Park with attendance estimated at 250 to 300 people. Support for the proposed levee was overwhelming. Response forms employed at that meeting indicated 88 percent of the responding attendees were in favor of the levee, while less than 5 percent opposed it. (The remaining 7 percent was comprised of those who gave no reaponse). Most attendees who appeared to oppose the levee were either concerned about the levee's hydraulic effects on flood flows or were interested in extending the levee into the regulatory floodway. A more extensive summary of the meeting is included in APPENDIX K. FINAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC MEETING The draft report was forwarded to various Federal, state and local governmental entities on 3 July 1985. A partial listing of report recipients is provided in the Environmental Assessment near the end of this volume. At the same time the report was made available to the general public through diStributions to area libraries. Copies of all review comments are provided in APPENDIX K. A summary of major review comments pertaining to the recommended plan is provided in TABLE 18. The final public meeting was held in Valley Park on 25 July 1985. Overall, there appeared to be support for the Valley Park levee. The major concern in regard to the levee centered around the "high" local cost?share. There were also some concerns voiced in regard to the minor hydraulic effects the levee could have across stream and upstream. A more complete discussion of meeting comments is included in APPENDIX K. 78 79 RESPONDING AGENCY FEDERAL AGENCIES Federal Emergency Managemenf Region Vii Advisory Council on Hisforlc Preservaflon U.S. Dep+. of Agricuifure, Soil Conservaflon Service U.S. Environmenfal Profecfion Agency U.S. Deparfmenf of lbusing and Urban Developmenf, Region Vii U.S. Deparfmenf of +he inferior, Fish and Wildlife Services STATE AGENCIES Missouri Depar+men+ of Nafural Resources DATE 8-9-85 8-5-85 7-25-85 8-13-85 7-i8?85 i0-i7-85 8-7-85, 8-8-85 TABLE i8 AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS MAJOR COMMENTS l. Supporfs +he Valley Park levee. 2. Recommends buysouf'of s+rucfures riverside of levee as par+ of overall proJ ecf . Requesfs addifionai documenfafion as a basis for Oarps' conclusions regarding and archaelogical resources. Reporf "adequafeiy addresses +he concerns of prime farmland and soil and wafer conservaflon." I. Generally concurs In sfudy findings. 2. Cifes +wo pofenfial sources of addifional lnformafion. 3. Cifes +hree lnsfances where minor clarificafions or elaborafions are needed. No commenfs I. lndicafes fhaf fhe recommended plan will have a posi+lve lmpacf on fish and wildlife' resources. 2. Recommends cerfaln consfrucfion procedures and managemenf measures which will elfher reduce or compensafe for habifaf losses. l. Accepis economic analysis and ldenfificaflon of fhree feasible plans. 2. Argues fhaf all plans should be underfaken of fill Federal expense. 3. No sludge should be released from Valley Park lagoon during cons+ruc+ion. 4. Recommends fhaf lmpacfs of creek channelizaflons be bef?er defermined. T0 COMMENTS Oomnenf nofed. Riverside s+ruc+unes were no+ incorporafed due +0 lack of economic feasibllify. Addf+ional documenfallon was supplied prior 1'0 repor?r disseminafion {See Appendix i. i. 2- Cbmmen+ nofed. Oomnenf nored. Reporf revised To include cifed sources. Reporf revised To clarify issues. Cbncur. Recommended measures Hill be employed wherever pracficable. {See Appendix A for compiefe discussion of recommended measures). Cbnmen+ holed. Common? nofed. Represenfs Lagoon berm will no+ be cut. See Appendix K. Defalled design will defermine If grade confrol sfrucfure ls necessary. 80 Missvuri Department of Conservation Missouri Emergency Management Agency Missouri Ciearinghouse LOCAL St. Louis Caunty City of Ua11ey Park Metropoiitan St. Louis Sewer District (M50) 8?13?85 8?8-85 8-12-85 ??25?85 8?26~35 8?13-85 5. Requires specification of erosion controi measures before water quaiity certification. 6. Provides Channei Modification Guideiines. 7. Maintains that Environmentai Assessment does not adequateiy address potentiai impacts to archaeiogica] sites. 1. Concurs in fish and wiidiife aspect Findings. 2. Questions whether normai Federai cost? sharing poiicy is the intent of Congress in this case. 3. Indicates that 1imited number of economicaliy Feasible pians impiy that a green space corridor is the best Dian for remaining areas. 4. Recommends speedy impiementation of feasibie pians. i. Accepts report's economic anaiyses. 2. Disagrees that any non?Federai cost- sharing is reduired for any of the plans. None of the contacted agencies had comments. I. not sponSOr recreation pian. 2. Cannot provide assurance that no fioodpiain deveiopment wi11 acour across stream from the 1evee. 3. Concerned with current effects caused by ievee. Forwarded a Resoiution of the Board of Aidermen indicating its interest in pursuing construction of the 1evee and in pursuing any reasonabie means of satisfying iocai cost? sharing requirements but aiso cited iimited financiai resources. 1. Cites need for continuing coordination between the Corps and M50 because of each's potentiai construction within Vaiiey Park. 2. Provides corrected wording in regard to Vaiiey Park iagoon operatioo. 3. Requests a Memo of Understanding regarding water quaiity goals. 5. Appendix specified erosion controi measures. Also see Appendix X. 6. Guidelines, where app1icab1e. wili be considered in detaiied design. 7. See Appendix for correspondence - resoiving issue. 1. Comment noted. 2. Comment noted. 3. Camment noted. 4. Cannent noted. 1 . Coment noted. 2. Coonmnt noted. 1 . Coment noted. 2. County's pianned recreationai deveiopment shouid have iittie or no effect. See Appendix K. 3. current effects are not expected to be significant. See Appendix K. noted. 1. Corps continue to coordinate through detaiied design and construction. 2. Report revised to ref1ect cmnnents. 3. Response to this request is currentiy underway. RECOMMENDATIONS I have reviewed the findings of this study and have given careful consideration to all significant aspects in the overall public interest. Aspects considered include the engineering and economic feasibility of selected plans and alternatives to those plans, as well as the environmental and social impacts associated with these plans. In view of the above, I recommend that the Valley Park levee plan selected herein for the purposes of flood damage reduction and outdoor recreation, be approved for implementation as a Federal project, with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. The total first cost of the plan is currently estimated at $11,800,000 (October 1984 Price Levels), with annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs estimated at $53,700. .I further recommend that, during detailed design of the levee, close coordination be maintained with the City of Valley Park to minimize the number of structures evacuated and to avoid isolating structures in the flood plain to the extent that is practical, economical, and acceptable to the City of Valley Park. Construction of the recommended water resource project would be contingent upon the willingness of the local sponsor to provide designated items of local cooperation. The City of Valley Park shall, prior to the plan's implementation, agree to perform the f0110wing items of local cooperation: a. Provide without cost to the United States, all lands, easements and rights-ofuway necessary for the construction of the project; b. Accomplish without cost to the United States, all alterations and relocation of buildings, transportation facilities, and certain utilities, made necessary by construction of the project; c. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction, operation and maintenance of the project; provided damages are not due to the fault or negligence of the United States 0r its contractor; d. In accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99~662), pay 5 percent of the cost of the project assigned to flood control during construction of the project and pay such additional amounts as are necessary to bring the sponsor's total share to 25 percent of the project's flood control costs. e. Pay, or contribute in kind, one?half of the separable costs for recreational facilities in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. f. Adopt and enforce appropriate measures to control development of floodway fringe.areas to prevent obstruction or encroachment of flood plain sterage areas. 81 g. Maintain and operate the project after completion, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; h. Comply with all applicable provisions in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and with Section 221 of Public Law 91?611; 1. At least annually publicize information to inform affected interests that the project will not provide complete protection against flooding and maintain an up to date emergency evacuation plan; j. Comply with Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in connection with the Project on the grounds of race, creed or national origin. Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at this time and current Departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. They do net reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch. Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to the Congress as proposals for implementation funding. 82 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT LOWER MERAMEC RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT MERAMEC RIVER BASIN ST. LOUIS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, MISSOURI PARAGRAPH INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TABLE OF CONTENTS NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION STUDY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE LOCATION OF PROJECT PLANNING OBJECTIVES ALTERNATIVES PLANS CONSIDERED FOR EACH COMMUNITY RECOMMENDED PLAN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PHYSICAL RESOURCES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES AESTHETIC RESOURCES RECREATION RESOURCES SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS RELATIONSHIP PHYSICAL RESOURCES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES AESTHETIC RESOURCES RECREATION RESOURCES SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT LIST OF TABLES TABLE INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL FACILITIES EA-Z PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN MERAMEC RIVER FISH TISSUES PAGE I I I I I (ANN PAGE EA-19 EA-20 TABLE EA-3 EA-S EA-6 EA-9 EA-ll LIST OF TABLES(continued) VIOLATIONS OF STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, MERAMEC RIVER INTENSIVE, JUNE 21-23, 1983 METALS DATA - SEDIMENT (mg/kg) DRY SEDIMENT QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR VALLEY PARK SEWAGE LAGOON HABITAT CHANGES IN ACRES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES NET ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS AT VALLEY PARK HABITAT CHANGES IN ACRES FOR THE RECOMMENDED PLAN MDC-SHEP STREAM HABITAT QUALITY INDEX FOR EXISTING, FUTURE WITHOUT, AND FUTURE WITH RECOMMENDED PLAN CONDITIONS FWS-HEP CHANGE IN TERRESTRIAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE RECOMMENDED PLAN RELATIONSHIP OF RECOMMENDED PLAN TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS EA-ii EA-21 EA-22 EA-23 EA-24 EA-26 EA-29 EA-30 EA-32 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION A plan consisting of an earthen levee is proposed to provide protection from loo-year recurrence interval floods for the City of Valley Park in St. Louis County, Missouri. This Environmental Assessment (EA) was conducted to evaluate the impacts of the recommended plan and alternatives on significant physical, biological, cultural, aesthetic, recreation, and socioeconomic resources. It was determined that the recommended plan would cause only minor impacts or adverse impacts that are sufficiently offset by appropriate mitigation measures to be considered insignificant. NOTE: Detailed data, TABLES, and PLATES discussed in the Main Report and Appendixes are incorporated by reference in the EA. NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION STUDY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE This study was authorized by Public Law 97-128, Section This law directs the Corps of Engineers to undertake structural and nonstructural measures to prevent flood damages to communities along the Meramec River in St. Louis and Jefferson Counties, Missouri. LOCATION OF PROJECT The authorizing legislation specifies that the study area encompass communities along the lower 51 miles of the Meramec River in St. Louis and Jefferson Counties, Missouri (PLATE 1). The study was restricted to communities, both incorporated and unincorporated, in those counties for most study purposes. Of all plans examined, only the Valley Park Levee was found to be economically, engineeringly, and environmentally feasible and supported by a willing local sponsor. The levee is located on the flood plain between Meramec River Miles 21 and 22 (PLATE 1). It is bounded on the south and east by the Meramec River, on the north and east by Grand Glaize Creek, and on the west by Fishpot Creek. Over 60 percent of the city of Valley Park is flood prone, either from the Meramec River or from the two tributaries. PLANNING OBJECTIVES Several general and specific objectives were adhered to in planning this project. As general guidance, the Federal objective set forth in the Principles and Guidelines was followed. This law states the following: The Federal objective of water and related land resources project planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the Nation's environment. Specific to this project, the primary study objective, and the key principle for all plan formulation, was as follows: - To reduce flood damages within communities along the Meramec River in St. Louis and Jefferson Counties (including that portion of the City of Pacific within Franklin County). Three secondary objectives were developed for which efforts were made to address as long as it was possible in the course of addressing the primary objective. - To reduce flood damages within the two-county flood plain. - To develop recreational opportunities which tie in with the plans of others. - To enhance the quality of the environment wherever possible. A broad interpretation of the definition of "communities" was used during this planning process. For purposes of this study, each cluster of flood plain development having 20 or more residences was regarded as a community. Thus, plans were evaluated for 8 incorporated and 13 unincorporated communities within the study area. ALTERNATIVES PLANS CONSIDERED FOR EACH COMMUNITY A variety of alternative plans was considered for the reduction of flood damages at each community in the study area. In addition to focusing on those planning objectives just listed, because the communities are located in a flood plain, compliance with Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, was given full consideration. Nonstructural alternatives, or plans that restrict construction in the flood plain, were given priority consideration for each community (See APPENDIX 1). The emphasis was on communities for most alternatives, with two exceptions. Enlargement of bridge openings, and development of a flood emergency response system did not lend themselves to this site-specific emphasis, but were more general in application. A detailed discussion of the alternatives that were considered for each community is given in the Main Report, PLAN FORMULATION section. A list of those alternative is as follows: - Buying out flood prone residences and relocating the occupants. EA-2 - Moving flood prone structures from the flood plain. - Raising structures by constructing higher foundations. - Providing closure structures for highway and railroad drainage culverts. - Enlarging bridge openings. - Flood forecasting, warning, and evacuation systems. - Ploodwalls or small levees around individual structures or small groups of structures. - Levees and floodwalls protecting major portions of communities. RECOMMENDED PLAN Due to lack of economic feasibility and lack of willing local sponsors, the recommended plan consists of a single structural alternative: a levee which provides protection from lOO-year recurrence interval flooding for the City of Valley Park, Missouri. The features of this plan are given in TABLE 14 in the Main Report. A detailed discussion of this plan is located in the Main Report, DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED PLAN section. The proposed levee would be aligned so as to protect against flooding from the Meramec River and from the two tributaries that flank the city, Grand Glaize and Fishpot creeks. The levee alignment has been designed to derive the maximum net reduction in damages to residential, industrial, commercial, and recreational properties. The opportunity has been taken to develOp recreational facilities which tie in with local agency plans. The two landside borrow areas totalling 34 acres, in addition to their use as borrow areas and ponding areas, will be developed for recreational purposes such as picnicking, ball fields, and playgrounds. One of the riverside borrow areas will revert to its existing use as ball fields. Three of the riverside borrow areas totalling 50 acres would be developed as marshes/fishing lakes. This would address both the outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife mitigation objectives. For implementation of the recommended plan, the Federal government would be responsible for planning and constructing the Valley Park levee. Under current cost sharing policies, the City of Valley Park - the local sponsor - would be responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations and contribute additional specified amounts in cash. (See TABLE 17 of the Main Report). After construction, the local sponsor would be responsible for operation and maintenance of project components. EA-3 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES For purposes of this EA, during the problem identification and inventory phases of this study, an effort was made to identify the significant environmental resources in the study area. Significance was based on institutional, public, or technical recognition. The evaluation of effects was then concentrated on significant resources. A list of the significant resources, the rationale behind their significance, and a brief discussion of existing conditions for those resources follows. For some resources, reference is made to other sections of this report for a detailed discussion of existing conditions. PHYSICAL RESOURCES Prime Farmland. Coordination has been completed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in accordance with the 1984 Farmland Protection Policy Act. This has resulted in a determination that there is no prime farmland in the project area. Documentation of this coordination is in APPENDIX K. Groundwater. The following discussion has been taken in part from the Water Resources of the St. Louis Area, Water Resources Report #30, Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources. Water from the Meramec alluvial aquifer is generally of good quality being a calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type; however, in the Valley Park area a more mineralized, sodium-chloride type of water has been found. This anomaly may be caused in part by natural upward leakage of saline water from the underlying bedrock formations and upward leakage occuring through nonplugged abandoned wells. Water Quality. Water quality is significant primarily in terms of required compliance with the Clean Water Act. A Clean Water Act, Section 404(b)(l) evaluation has been prepared for this project, and it is presented in APPENDIX J. It will be circulated for public review along with this EA. A separate public notice requesting comments on a Section 401, Clean Water Certification, will be distributed shortly after distribution of the draft EA and Section 404 evaluation. A brief discussion of water quality concerns for this project is discussed in this section of the EA. The streams and groundwater in the Valley Park project area contain water of poor quality. There are three separate surface watersheds coming together in Valley Park: Grand Glaize Creek, Fishpot Creek, and the Meramec River. These watersheds are impacted by numerous small sewage treatment plants (See TABLE which cause serious quality problems in the two creeks and contribute to degradation of the river. The Meramec River generally does not contain water which violates state water quality standards except for iron and manganese. The river in this area receives treated sewage effluent and non point source industrial and urban runoff. Valley Park is also 12 miles of the abandoned dioxin contaminated town of Times Beach. Meramec River fish contain detectable concentrations of dioxin and other priority pollutants (See TABLE EA-2) in the vicinity of Valley Park. Most contaminants are below F.D.A. action levels and will not be impacted by this project. Numerous heavy metals and other priority pollutants also show up in the sediments of Valley Park. These sediments will not be impacted by this project. Chlordane was found in concentrations above F.D.A. action limits in fish taken from areas upstream of and 20 miles of the project area. No chlordane was found in the immediate project vicinity according to the EPA Study. The two creeks, Fishpot and Grand Glaize, carry water that is mostly treated sewage effluent. Violations of state water quality standards are shown in TABLE EA-3. This indicates the creeks are not very suitable for any normal water use. The sediments in the creeks are also contaminated with high concentrations of toluene and BIS phthalate. There were also detectable concentrations of most heavy metals (see TABLE The primary source of most of the pollutants is sewage effluent. The STP discharging into Grand Glaize and Fishpot creeks cause serious problems. The various discharges are now being consolidated and a much higher level of treatment being provided by a new Regional STP which will go into operation in the next 2 years. Water Intakes. There are three water intakes from the Valley Park levee project: Kirkwood - 1 mile St. Louis County South - 4 miles St. Louis County Meramec - 12 miles These water treatment plants handle rapidly changing turbidity levels on a regular basis and would have no problem dealing with minor increases in turbidity associated with levee construction. The levee construction activities have the potential to cause localized increases in turbidity in Grand Glaize and Fishpot creeks, depending on weather conditions. However, measures will be incorporated into the construction contract to minimize runoff from levee and borrow areas. The construction should take place during dry summer months which would further reduce the potential of turbid runoff. The water intakes from the project will not be significantly impacted by construction of the levee. Sewage Lagoons/Wastewater Treatment Facilities. There is a two stage sewage lagoon that discharges into Grand Glaize Creek in the project area. There is also a new regional sewage treatment plant being built just outside the proposed levee near the mouth of Grand Glaize Creek. The levee will not impact the new sewage treatment plant, but will be built through the corner of the existing lagoon. This will not be a significact impact because the new plant will be in operation before the levee is built. At that point, the lagoon will not be used as a treatment facility but rather as a holding area EA-S for dilute wastewater received during storm events. The sewage sludge on the bottom of the lagoon has been sampled for contaminants and found to be suitable for incorporation into the levee. Table EA-S gives the sediment data for the lagoon. Air Quality. Air quality in the project area currently meets federal and state standards. Contract provisions will require contractors to comply with these standards, in accordance with Section 309 of the Clear Air Act. Flood Plain Management. Location of the levee project on the flood plain falls within the guidelines of Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management. The Valley Park area has been mapped by the study team using 2-foot contours to delineate the base flood plain. This is depicted on PLATE l7. Roughly 60 percent of the city's incorporated area is subject to the base flood (also known as the lOO-year flood). In fact, the area subject to the base flood represents nearly all the commercial-industrial zone and the majority of the town?s residences. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Several environmental guidelines, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, require that project impacts on fish and wildlife habitats be assessed and that the need for mitigation to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse impacts be determined. On June 23, 1983, a team of biologists from the St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) conducted a field reconnaissance of the Valley Park levee project area. Notes were made on the fish and wildlife resources located at each borrow site and along the levee alignment. A complete discussion of each of these tracts in the project area is given in the FWS's August 26, 1983, Planning Aid Letter, which has been included in APPENDIX A. The number of acres by habitat type included in each tract is displayed in TABLE EA-6. The fish and wildlife habitats are shown in PLATE 23. A general discussion of the project area is included in the following paragraphs. Aquatic Habitats. The Meramec River and Grand Glaize and Fishpot creeks are the flowing water systems in the study area. The Meramec River runs deep in many sections and its waters are generally clear and of good quality. The Meramec and its tributaries are characterized by extensive scenic and aesthetic values. The variety and quality of the fishery, in combination with the scenic aspects of the river, make the river an attractive area for bank and float fishermen. Fishing pressure is moderate to heavy, with catfish, suckers, rock bass, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and other sunfish comprising the preferred species. EA-6 Grand Glaize Creek is located north of the City of Valley Park. The creek is approximately 10.76 miles in length and flows through Valley Park into the Meramec. The creek receives pollutants from urban areas and commercial and industrial facilities that are located upstream. The introduction of toxic substances has resulted in poor water quality and the loss of valuable fishery resources in the creek. Fishpot Creek, located east of the study area, is approximately 9.25 miles in length. This creek also receives sewage effluents from an upstream source. Fishpot Creek contains a considerable amount of solid waste material. Everything from concrete rubble to old refrigerators can be found in portions of the stream. The combination of human refuse and pollution has degraded sections of the creek and imposed severe limitations to aquatic resource productivity and diversity in the creek. Wetland/Terrestrial Habitats. The area's terrestrial habitat is basically divided among residential areas, bottomland hardwoods, and old fields. A considerable degree of diversity in types and quality of wildlife habitats and species exists in the project area because the area exhibits varying degrees of human disturbance. The residential areas support a variety of urban tolerant species such as squirrels, eastern cottontail rabbit, oppossum, eastern mole, gopher and raccoon. The existence of these species depends on the density of development and the amount of plantings in developed areas. On occasion, reptiles and amphibians may pass through the developed areas; however, life is somewhat restricted due to habitat modifications and high mortality factors road kills, etc.). Birds such as Starling, grackle, robin, blue jay, cardinal, sparrow and nighthawks are also common. A number of the proposed borrow areas and most of the levee alignment contain bottomland hardwood species with a well developed understory. These bottomland communities occur along the flood plain of the Meramec River and Fishpot and Grand Glaize creeks. These communities have a good diversity of species such as oak, sycamore, boxelder, silver maple, green ash, black walnut, pin oak, black locust, hackberry and sassafras. A significant amount of mulberry may also appear in these areas. Understory vegetation in well-developed areas of this type contained poison ivy, elm, multiflora rose, Virginia creeper, nettle, and honeysuckle. These communities may provide cover, food, and travel routes between adjacent habitats. Numerous mammalian species of recreational and economic value are inhabitants of bottomland communities. In particular, fox, squirrels, eastern cottontail rabbit, opossum, raccoon, and striped skunk occur in the area. In general, vegetation within the old field habitat is characterized by grasses, forbs, and shrubs. These fields provide breeding and wintering areas for birds such as mourning dove, common crow, eastern meadowlark and numerous species of sparrows. The floral diversity of these neglected fields provides cover and available food types for wildlife species such as shrew, eastern mole, house mouse, and eastern cottontail rabbit. EA-7 Endangered Species. Consultation on endangered species was intiated with the FWS in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The bald eagle and Indiana bat were noted by the FWS as possible inhabitants of the project area. The FWS, in their letter providing this list, concluded that the project will not affect the bald eagle. A biological assessment was compeleted by the SLD for the Indiana bat, concluding that the project is unlikely to have a signifcant effect on the Indiana bat. The complete assessment is included in APPENDIX H. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological and historical investigations within the Lower Meramec River Valley have documented the existence of a long and complex cultural history. These investigations suggest that prior to the appearance of Europeans, various North American Indian groups inhabited this area for more than 13,000 years. Beginning about 1700, non-Indian French explorers began to penetrate this frontier. These men were soon followed by increasing numbers of Euro-American settlers. Initial interest in the area was fostered by the promise of lead and silver deposits, and during the 18th century, numerous lead deposits were commercially exploited on the headwaters of the Meramec River Basin. As the 18th century came to a close, increasing numbers of American settlers migrated into the Meramec River Valley. This trend continued steadily throughout the 19th century. Shortly after the turn of the century, a large manufacturing firm was established in Valley Park. This event was to have a profound effect upon the community. Construction of this factory was described in a survey report prepared for the St. Louis District by American Resources Group, Ltd. in 1984. Selected excerpts from that report include the following narrative description of the facility: In 1902, eastern industrialists invested $2,000,000 in the Valley Park area and established the St. Louis Plate Glass Company in Valley Park along the Meramec River, east of Highway 141. The facility covered 20 acres, including the 7-acre factory building, and represented one of the most modern and preeminent glassworks in the country (Anonymous 1909; Thomas l9llz7). Although still unincorporated, Valley Park boomed as a "late factory town" (Sherrill 1981210), attracting workers from the St. Louis area and recent immigrants. The company, working in conjunction with the Valley Park Land Company, laid out much of what is now Valley Park, then referred to as "New Town" (Browning and Carlson The St. Louis Plate Glass Company employed about 450 personnel as the town boomed to over 2,100 people by 1909 (Anonymous 1909) to about 2,500 by 1915 (cf. Wippold 1976). EA-8 In August 1915, Valley Park was devastated by the flooding Meramec River. The glass company was nearly destroyed (Jones 1933:4), and over 80% of the population (approximately 2,000 people) were left homeless (Browning and Carlson Although the St. Louis Plate Glass Company soon rebuilt and was back in business, a fire in February 1916 destroyed the plant, which today remains only in overgrown concrete and brick ruins. Valley Park was reduced to a small resort town of approximately 500 people. Although its industrial base was nearly destroyed (Anonymous 1915), Valley Park still thrived as a resort town. The population returned to about 2,000 by the early 19305 (Jones 1933), and the famed Paddle and Saddle Club reached its zenith in the 19205 and 19305. The Frisco and Missouri-Pacific railroads brought tourists to the town's hotels and resorts until the late 19305, when the tourism industry waned as more people took advantage of new mobility offered by the automobile (Wippold 1976). Since 1915, the growth of Valley Park has been slow. The town has had repeated floods, including significant floods in 1945 and 1956 et al. 1973:Appendix A). Two recent floods, including record high water in December 1982 and a May 1983 flood, have caused serious damage in the town. Several historic buildings have been razed in the last year, and part of a previously recorded prehistoric site (235L230) appears to have been impacted in conjunction with nearby land-leveling activities (Moore Results of St. Louis District sponsored investigations conducted in 1983 have determined that no significant prehistoric or historic archaeological remains and only one historical architectural site are situated within the limits of the project area. These architectural remains are located in an undeveloped wooded context. AESTHETIC RESOURCES The Lower Meramec River Basin was not subjected to an intensive survey of aesthetic resources. Observations were made by SLD personnel during site visits to each community and during two boat trips on the Meramec River. The aesthetic quality is mixed. The river itself is Ozarkian in nature, with a pleasing mixture of pools, riffles, and gravel bars. In some reaches the bankline is heavily wooded and somewhat pristine in nature. However, the major portion of the river valley, as viewed from the river, would be classified as moderate at best in aesthetic quality, with progressive degradation as one proceeds toward the mouth. The river bank becomes increasingly developed right to the edge of the river. Even in many non-urbanized reaches, a variety of vacation cottages, most in an advanced state of disrepair, can be seen. Industrial development, in the form of active or abandoned sand and gravel operations, dominate the view in several reaches. EA-9 At Valley Park, the aesthetic quality of the project area would be considered moderate in nature. The urban-suburban and old field cover types certainly exhibit a "disturbed" appearance. Additionally, even the bottomland forest areas where the levee and borrow areas would be located exhibit somewhat of a disturbed appearance. For example, the understory in Borrow Area A is basically absent because fishermen use the area to dig earthworms for bait. In other areas, the vegetation is thinned and mixed with some form of human development. Grand Glaize and Fishpot creeks have previously been described as low in aesthetic quality by virtue of the pollution found in Grand Glaize Creek and the pollution and litter in Fishpot Creek. RECREATION RESOURCES A complete discussion of existing recreation resources in the project area is located in APPENDIX C. To avoid unnecessary duplication, these data are not repeated in the EA. A discussion of impacts of the recommended plan on recreation resources is given in the next section of the EA. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES A complete discussion of existing socioeconomic resources is given in APPENDIX C. These data are not repeated in the EA. A discussion of impacts of the recommended plan on the following resources, as required by Public Law 91-611, Section 122, is included in the next section of the EA: Displacements - Community cohesion - Community and regional growth and business activity - Tax revenue - Public facilities - Employment/labor force ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The projected environmental effects of the recommended plan on significant resources, along with the projected future with no project, is briefly discussed in this chapter of the EA. Anticipated effects are quantified insofar as possible, or described in qualitative terms where quantification is not practicable. The adverse and beneficial effects of the Valley Park levee and the effects of no project at Valley Park are discussed in the following paragraphs. The net effects are displayed in TABLE EA-7. IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL RESOURCES Groundwater. a. No Project. No effect. b. Valley Park Levee. The movement of ground water in alluvial aquifers is generally toward the major stream with which it is hydraulically connected although this flow may be reversed during floods or sustained high-river stages. If high-river stages persist for an extended period of time, portions of the mineralized groundwater in the aquifer between the well line and the river will be infused with riverwater. Construction of the levee, borrow areas and relief wells will not adversely affect the groundwater quality in the Valley Park area. Water Quality. a. No Project. The water and sediment quality in the Valley Park area will gradually improve when the source of contaminants is cleaned up in the future by the regional sewage treatment plant (STP). The water quality standards violations will probably no longer occur as the sludge materials in the creek bottoms break down and disappear. This will be a gradual process that will take a long time and there will still be non point source discharges into the creek. b. Valley Park Levee. The recommended plan will probably not cause serious water quality impacts. The main adverse impact will be stirring up contaminated sediments in Grand Glaize and Fishpot creeks when borrowing material for the levee. There will be short term increases in turbidity and remobilization of contaminants in runoff water to the creeks. These impacts will probably not last long and would be minimized by levee construction in the dry months. The levee would be seeded to stabilize materials and prevent er051on. The beneficial impacts would be to remove undesirable sediments and immobilize them under the clay cover of the levee. This would shorten the time it takes for the creeks to clean up after the regional STP goes into operation. The net impact is predominately beneficial. The adverse impacts are short term and localized to the area of levee construction. These can be minimized by proper construction techniques. The beneficial impacts are longer lasting and will allow the creeks to become less contaminated sooner. Water Intakes. a. No Project. No effect. b. Valley Park Levee. No significant effect. EA-ll Sewage Lagoons/Wastewater Treatment Facilities. a. No Project. A new regional sewage treatment plant will be constructed and put in operation within the next year or so. An existing sewage lagoon adjacent to Grand Glaize Creek will no longer be used for sewage treatment. b. Valley Park Levee. Building a segment of the levee across the southwest corner of the sewage lagoon would result in no significant adverse impacts. This conclusion is based on sediment analysis done by the SLD and data evaluation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (See TABLE EA-S). Air Quality. a. No Pro ect. No effect. b. Valley Park Levee. Construction of the levee would result in a temporary increase in dust and exhaust fumes from construction equipment. Flood Plain Management. a. No Project. The City of Valley Park and St. Louis County will continue to participate in the Flood Insurance Program. This will likely result in removal without replacement of the dilapidated cottages along the Meramec River, as well as certain other structures that have received extensive damage in recent floods. b. Valley Park Levee. (1) Flood Losses. The Valley Park levee will provide protection against 100 year flood events. In keeping with the goals of E.O. 11988, this is not urban design flood protection (generally SOO-year protection). The lOO-year levee uses less of the flood plain as rights-of-way, and provides less incentive for development in the protected area. Even the lOO-year levee will probably induce development of small vacant tracts of land within the protected area. Average annual damage reduction will be $1,100,000 (approximately 74 percent of the city's total flood damages). Except for a few minor. unavoidable encroachments, the levee will be constructed outside the regulatory floodway. The construction of the levee would produce minor changes in the heights and velocities of flood waters within this reach of the Meramec River. With a lOO-Year height levee in place, the water levels of a lOO-Year Flood would vary from no change (near the levee's portion) to a maximum of roughly 0.3 feet at a distance of approximately one-quarter mile upstream of Highway 141. With a lOO-Year levee in place, average water velocities produced during passage of a lOO-Year Flood would increase by as much as 1.6 feet per second (1.1 miles per hour) within the river's channel. Average water velocities within the river's overbank would increase by as much as 1.4 feet per second (1 mile per hour) in some areas. Neither velocity nor water level impacts were felt to represent a serious increased threat to life or property. Average annual induced damages riverside of the levee would be approximately $7,200 ($4,000 at Valley Park). Since the levee does extend into the regulatory floodway, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was notified of the anticipated hydraulic impacts at an early stage of the formulation process. The Region VII Office of FEMA responded that regardless of the slight encroachments, it supported the Valley Park levee since it represented the only viable solution for avoiding frequent flood damages. However, FEMA did indicate that those residents unprotected by the levee should be relocated as an integral part of the project. Several buy-out schemes for unprotected structures subject to induced damages from the Valley Park levee were investigated, but none was found to be economically feasible. (2) Human Safety, Health, and Welfare. Human safety will be enhanced for most residents of Valley Park. National Weather Service forecasts and employment of the city's emergency response plan will allow a minimum of 24 hours for evacuation of residents in the event of a flood capable of overtopping the 100-year levee. (3) Natural and Beneficial Values Served by the Flood Plain. Construction of the Valley Park levee will require the degradation of natural values as they currently exist on the flood plain. Levee rights-of-way and borrow areas will require the clearing of 105 acres of bottomland forest and 20.5 acres of old field habitat. Approximately 2,000 feet of Grand Glaize Creek and 1,200 feet of Fishpot Creek will be channelized. However, these adverse effects will be effectively offset by the construction of wetlands and recreation fields at borrow sites. Three exterior borrow areas totalling 50 acres will be converted to marshes/fishing lakes. Six hundred feet of Fishpot Creek will remain as cutoff oxbows after construction. These features will add to the diversity of fish and wildlife habitat in the project area, as well as providing valuable outdoor recreation areas. Two interior borrow areas totalling 34 acres will be used as ponding areas, preserving that natural amenity of the flood plain. These same borrow areas will also be developed for outdoor recreation, such as ball fields and picnicking. One exterior borrow area will be returned to its existing use as ball fields. (4) Conformance to State and Local Flood Plain Protection Standards. The State of Missouri has no statutory requirements for development in flood plain areas. The state only has authority to review and comment on proposed plans. State representatives have attended various public meetings and have been apprised of this report. The National Flood Insurance Program requires state and local governments to adopt sound flood plain management programs. Both St. Louis and Jefferson counties and all incorporated communities, with the exception of Peerless Park, are in the Regular Flood Insurance Program. IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Three approaches have been taken to assess the impacts of alternative actions at Valley Park. For one, a simple tabulation of projected habitat changes was completed to compare the impacts of the Valley Park levee and the future with no project. TABLE EA-6 shows the projected habitat changes for the levee alignment and each borrow area. These data have been combined and the net impacts (change in acres for each habitat type) shown in TABLE EA-8. The results of each of these procedures is discussed in the next few paragraphs. A second method for the assessment of impacts on aquatic habitats is discussed in detail in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, APPENDIX A. This involved the completion of Stream Habitat Evaluation Procedures (SHEP) by a team of biologists from the SLD, FWS, and MDC. Using this methodology, projected changes in habitat quality for Grand Glaize and Fishpot creeks, using Habitat Index units, was calculated. These data are summarized in TABLE EA-9. A third methodology for the evaluation of impacts on wildlife habitats is also discussed in detail in APPENDIX A. This involved the completion of Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) for the project area by a SLD, FWS and MDC team of biologists. These results, in Habitat Units, are summarized in TABLE EA-10. Aquatic Habitats. a. No Project. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District is expected to make improvements in their sewage treatment facilities that will eliminate some pollution in Grand Glaize and Fishpot creeks. This will increase the Habitat Index to around 2.0 (TABLE EA-9). However, this is still indicative of a stream of poor habitat quality, on a scale from 0 (lowest quality) to 10 (highest quality). b. Valley Park Levee. Construction of the levee will involve excavating a borrow pit on about 2,000 feet of Grand Glaize Creek. It will also involve channelization of approximately 1,200 feet of Fishpot Creek (PLATE 18). Approximately 600 feet of Fishpot Creek will remain as cutoff oxbows, and 400 feet of new channel will be constructed. These actions will eliminate approximately 3.5 acres of existing stream (TABLE EA-8). However, the net effect in Habitat Index units would not be significant. The Habitat Index would remain around 2.0 (TABLE EA-9). Wetland/Terrestrial Habitats. a. No Project. No significant changes in habitat acreage or quality has been projected for wetland/terrestrial habitats under the future without the project conditions. b. Valley Park Levee. A total of 168 acres would be required as levee and borrow area rights-of-way for the Valley Park levee (TABLE EA-8). This includes 105 acres of bottomland forest and 20.5 acres of old field habitat that would be cleared. However, several features would be included in the recommended plan as mitigation to offset those losses, including the following: EA-lh - The levee would be planted to mixed cool season grasses and legumes, representing a gain in grassland. - Borrow areas and would be partly planted with trees and shrubs (in picnic areas), replacing some of the lost bottomland forest. - Borrow areas and would be fertilized and seeded with a mixture of wildlife-preferred vegetation. Because of their low elevation, particularly after excavation, these borrow areas will probably revert over time to swamp or marsh habitat. - Borrow area will be excavated with one side shallow and the other side deep, providing 7 acres of marsh and 8 acres of pond habitat. An embankment will be constructed across the end to maintain water levels during dry weather periods. Two acres of riparian border will be allowed to revert to bottomland forest. - Borrow areas A and would also be maintained as wetlands. (Pumps with sprayer heads would also be employed to maintain sufficient water depths to accommodate a fish population for recreation purposes.) Borrow areas A and would also have a minimum of 30 feet of riparian buffer between the excavated area and the nearest road shoulder. These areas would have 50 feet of buffer between the excavated area and the toe of the levee, as would area H. There will be a shift in Habitat Units from almost exclusively terrestrial units to a greater diversity of Habitat Units, including wetlands that support species such as ducks, geese, herons, and muskrats (TABLE The newly-created, non-forested wetlands would provide habitat of greater quality than expected in the future without the project. Thus, construction of the Valley Park levee would have a net beneficial impact on wetland/terrestrial habitats. Endangered Species. Clearing of trees along Grand Glaize and Fishpot creeks would be scheduled to take place between September 15 and April 1. This would avoid destroying any maternity colony of Indiana bats that may be present in the area. IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES a. No Project. No effect. b. Valley Park Levee. No impacts on significant cultural resources. IMPACTS ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES a. No Project. No effect. b. Valley Park Levee. A minor adverse effect, both in terms of noise and visual perceptions, would occur during the construction process. The long-term effect will likely be insignificant or moderately improved in visual quality. The newly-created habitats would provide added diversity to the landscape and, given proper management (as expected), would likely provide some improvement in aesthetic quality. IMPACTS ON RECREATION RESOURCES a. No Project. Assuming no project is forthcoming at Valley Park, the changes in recreation space and opportunities becomes questionable. The city administration at Valley Park has indicated an interest in increasing the quantity and facilities for recreation within the city. The administration has no funds earmarked for this effort. Therefore, there is no way of stating an increase in recreation until plans and funds are targeted for this purpose. b. Valley Park Levee. The construction of the levee will destroy an existing baseball field at Fifth and Leonard Park. The recommended plan will replace this facility. Therefore, there are no net adverse impacts on recreation. The proposed recreation components of the recommended plan contribute positive benefits to the recommended plan. For further discussion on this matter, see APPENDIX C. In summary, the recreation components include 43 acres of fishing lakes, 2.3 miles of hiking and biking trail, 25 picnic tables, a nature trail, 2 softball fields (net increase of 1), multi-use court, 1 football/soccer field, 2 playgrounds, and provisions for public health and safety. IMPACTS 0N SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES The environmental impacts on socioeconomic resources are thoroughly discussed in APPENDIX C. A brief summary is inserted here in the EA. Noise. a. No Project. No effect. b. Valley Park Levee. There would be temporary local increased levels at the construction site. Displacements. a. No Pro ect. No effect. b. Valley Park Levee. A total of 14 structures would be removed for levee construction. Residents would be given assistance in relocating out of the flood plain. Community Cohesion. a. No Project. Community cohesion will continue to be disrupted due to flooding. b. Valley Park Levee. Disruptions due to flooding would be mostly eliminated. Average annual damages reduction to the City of Valley Park would be $1,100,000 (a 74% reduction), while induced damages riverside of the levee would be $7,200. Community cohesion would be signficantly improved. Community and Regional Growth and Business Activity. a. No Project. Business will continue to be lost and future growth hampered due to flooding. b. Valley Park Levee. Regional growth and business activity would be stimulated. Business and industry would derive $15,510,000 annually in new income regionally. Tax Revenue. a. No Project. No effect. b. Valley Park Levee. Annual increased sales taxes in the region would be $155,100. Employment/Labor Force. a. No Project. Welfare and unemployment benefit expenses likely need to be paid to persons put out of work by flooding. b. Valley Park Levee. The welfare and unemployment costs required by frequent flooding would be substantially reduced. In addition, a total of 226.9 man-years of labor would be generated in the region by levee construction activities. After completion of construction, operation and maintenance of the flood control and public recreation facilities will annually provide 269 man-days of employment. RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS The recommended plan was subjected to a review as to the degree of compliance with environmental guidelines. The proposed action was found to be in full compliance with applicable guidelines, with the exception of the Clean Water Act (See TABLE EA-ll). Full compliance with the Clean Water Act will be achieved by coordination of the Section 401, Clean Water Certification, notice for public review. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A complete discussion of public meetings and coordination of this study is located in the Main Report, "Study Participants and Coordination" section, and in APPENDIX K. The draft Plan Formulation Report and General Design Memorandum and Environmental Assessment have been furnished to the following agencies, organizations, and individuals for review. Comments were received from those marked with an asterisk The final Plan Formulation Report and General Design Memorandum and Environmental Assessment will be distributed to all agencies organizations, and individuals known to have an interest in the project. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation* U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service* U.S. Department of Commerce Water Resource Coordinator National Weather Service* . Department of Health and Human Services . Department of Housing and Urban Development . Department of Interior Office of Environmental Project Review Fish and Wildlife Service* Geological Survey* National Park Service U.S. Department of Transportation Regional Representative of the Secretary Federal Highway Administration Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Activities (A-104) Regional Administrator* Federal Emergency Management Agency* U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Governor of Missouri Missouri Department of Natural Resources* Missouri Department of Conservation* Missouri Division of Health Missouri Highway and Transportation Department Missouri State Clearinghouse County Clerk, Franklin County* County Clerk, Jefferson County* County Executive, St. Louis County* Mayors, Arnold Eureka Fenton Kirkwood Pacific Peerless Park Sunset Hills Valley Park* St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District* East-West Gateway Coordinating Council Coalition for the Environment Meramec River Recreation Association Sierra Club American Fisheries Society, Missouri Chapter The Wildlife Society, Missouri Chapter CCU: vaunm EA-18 EA- 19 FACILITY NAME AVG. DAILY 015* AND ADDRESS Spenter 1enlron Valley Park. Mo. Absorbent Cotton Valley Park, No. western titho Plate Creek Plant Valley Park Valley Park. Mo. Manchester STP Manchester. M0. Barrett Station LIP Manchester, M0. Sugar Creek Kirkwood. M0. Carmen Road STP Manchester. M0. Bemis Company St. Louis County Sewer City of Va11ey Park St. Louis MSO St. Louis MSD St. Lauis MSD St. Louis MSD TABLE EA I LONFR MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT INOUUIRIAL AND MUNICIPAL FACILITIES LEGAL TYPE OF No treatment Pietveatment A equal-znlinn pond Physica) chemica) ploceua Cnntacl zation aelivaled sludqe Three ce11 waste stabi1ization 1nqoon 1rick1inq fi1ter Aerated 1agoon Activated s1udge aerated Iagoon Contact stabi1i 2ation activated x'udge RECEIVING STREAM Meramec Rive: via Valley Sewer 0.5 (0.77) Metnmev Rivet v?a 0.35 (0.54) PM): Munv (1Un' bywtem Grand G1ai2e Creek 0.014 (0.02) Fiuhpul Lveek 3.5 (5.42) Grand Glaize Creek 0.5 (0.77) Grand G1aize Creek 1.0 (1.55) Grand G1ai2e Creek 0.75 (1.16) Sugar Creek. 1.91 (2.96) tlibutarv to Grand G'aize Cluck Grand Glaize Creek 0.5 (0.77) Sec.17 RSE. St. Louis Caunty Sec. 17 T44N. RSE. St. Louis County Sec. 9. T44N. RSE. St. Louis County Nw1/4. Nw1/4. Nw1/4. Sec. 13. IdaN, R4E St. Louis County Sec. 17. T44N RSE. St. Louis County Sec. 32. T45N. RSE. St. Louis County Sec. 32. TGSN RSE, St. Louis County 51/2. Sec. 3, T44N, RSE. St. Louis County Nw1/4. Nw1/4. Sec. 9, 144N. St. Louis County CHARGE IN M0-0000183 M0-0086461 MO-0055166 MO-0025143 MO-OOSQIOI EA-ZO TABLE EA-2 LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN MERAMEC RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPARED WITH FISH ANALYSES FROM THE 1982 MISSOURI BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM Priority Pollutant (mg/kg) Toluene TCDD (ng/kg) Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Zinc Meramec River Intensive Stations 4 Miles Below Times Beach 0.021 8.96 0.05 0.189 0.390 1.030 0.900 0.05 0.344 0.45 52.6 5:3 1 Mile Below Times Beach 0.016 13.0 0.10 0.101 0.408 0.943 0.770 0.01 0.496 0.46 31.4 Basic Water Monitoring Program No. of Quantifiable Concentrations Range 0.011-1.50 0.066-0.236 0.051-0.208 0.258-0.584 0.226-1.33 0.599-3.77 0.01-0.12 0.132-0.831 0.14-1.14 10.0-150.0 Mean 0.386 0.124 0.083 0.433 0.770 2.184 0.04 0.292 0.36 45.1 ISA-21 Slalio Station Location Number Use TABLE LOWER HERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY VIULATIUNS UP STATE QUALITY STANARUS HERAHEC RIVER JUNE 198] Parameter Mean Conc. (us/l) No. 01 Analyses Standard (us/1) Violations Min. Max. Remarks Fishpot Creek - Aquatlt near Manna Road Bridge Grand immedi stream Manche- Sugar tribut Creek - Glalze Creek 00-! alely up- ui llII' ster STP Aqualic None ary of Grand Glaize Cr. Grand (Zn-ck Sugar Cr and at mou Glaize 66-2 - below Creek Aquatic Glaize Creek 60-3 Lh Aquatic Lile Lite Lile Lite Dissolved Oxygen Mercury Ammonia Nitrogen, Un-iunized Mercury Dissolved Anuunia Nitrogen, Uu-ionlzed lron Mercury 2 5.35 mg/l 5.0 mg/l 3 -0.05 0.05 1 0.21 lug/l 0.1mg/l 3 0.10 0.05 2 6.4 mg/l 5.0 mg/l 3 0.14 ng/l 0.1 mg/l 3 1073 1000 3 -o.05 0.05 6.1 IUSU 0.28 0.15 0.20 Assumed Aquatic Life 09? signaliun for stand- ards Com- parison - Sugar Crk. TABLE EA-4 LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY METALS DATA SEDIMENT (mg/kg) DRY Sample Number Compound M-4 GG-3 Silver mg/kg 0.10 0.10 Aluminum mg/kg 6010.0 7940.0 Arsenic mg/kg 12.6 15.6 Barium mg/kg 252.0 263.0 Beryllium mg/kg .5 .5 Cadium mg/kg 2.4 2.8 Cobalt mg/kg 9.7 10.0 Chromium mg/kg 11.1 11.0 Copper mg/kg 16.1 19.0 Iron mg/kg 12000.0 13700.0 Manganese mg/kg 946.0 645.0 Molybdenum mg/kg 4.3 5.2 Nickel mg/kg 12.4 12.2 Lead mg/kg 231.0 296.0 Antimony mg/kg 1.00 1.00 Selenium mg/kg 12.6 15.6 Titanium mg/kg 42.2 56.1 Thallium mg/kg No data - erratic channel Vanadium mg/kg 20.7 22.1 Zinc mg/kg 117.0 149.0 Calcium mg/kg 3670.0 5520.0 Magnesium mg/kg 2510.0 3110.0 Sodium mg/kg 154.0 403.0 Potassium mg/kg 705.0 958.0 Mercury mg/kg 0.06 0.07 Phenol 320.U 320.U EA-22 TABLE EA-S LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PRO SEDIMENT QUALITY ANALYSIS VALLEY PARK LAGOON Reported as wet weight* JECT solids 15 Total Phosphate as 63 Ammonia as 192 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen as 2600 Nitrate/nitrite as 1.43 Potassium 24S Antimony 0.84 Arsenic 22.1 Beryllium <0.01 Cadmium 0.90 Chromium 32.3 Copper 104 Lead 43.3 Mercury <0.2 Nickel <2.0 Selenium 0.001 Silver 0.028 Thallium ?0.30 Zinc 0.29 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg *Results in ug/gm, except as noted. EA-23 TABLE EA-6 LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT HABITAT CHANGES IN ACRES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES Future Future Existing Without With Site/Habitat Conditions Project Project Levee Right-of-wax Urban (incl 2.0a sewage lagoon) 19 19 0 Bottomland Forest 34 34 0 01d Field 4.5 4.5 0 Aquatic (Creek) 0.5 0.5 Levee (Grassland) 0 0 58 Borrow Area A Bottomland Forest 15 2 Marsh 0 0 4 Aquatic (Pond) 0 9 Borrow Area Recreation Field (Grassland) 16 16 16 Borrow Area Bottomland Forest 18 18 3 Marsh 0 7 Aquatic (Pond) 0 8 Borrow Area Bottomland Forest 5 5 0 Old Field 10 lb 0 Light Use Recreation (Forest) 0 0 16 High Use Recreation (Grassland) 0 5 Borrow Area Bottomland Forest 2.5 2.5 2.5 TABLE EA-6 (Concluded) Future Future Existing Without With Site/Habitat Conditions Project Project Borrow Area Bottomland Forest 4.5 4.5 3.5 Aquatic (Creek) 0 1 Borrow Area Bottomland Forest 13 13 2 Aquatic; Creek 4 4 Pond 0 8 Marsh 0 0 7 Borrow Area Bottomland Forest 13 13 0 Light Use Recreation (Forest) 0 0 11 High Use Recreation (Grassland) 0 2 Storm Sewer Easement and Ditch Right-of-Way Urban 3 3 3 EA-25 TABLE EA-7 LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT NET ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS AT VALLEY PARK Environmental Alternative Resource No Action Levee Physical Resources Groundwater No effect. No effect. Water Quality Air Quality Flood Plain Management Biological Resources Aquatic Habitats Unquantified improvement due to new sewage treat- ment facilities. No Effect. Participation in Flood Insurance Program: removal of structures from floodway. No significant effect. EA-26 Increased rate of improvement in quality of area streams because of removal of contaminated sediments. Temporary increase in dust and exhaust fumes during construction. Protection of City of Valley Park from lOO-year flood. 2,000 feet Grand Glaize Creek and 1,200 feet Fishpot Creek channelized; effect not significant, as measured by MDC-SHEP methodology. TABLE EA-7 (Continued) Environmental Alternative Resource No Action Levee Wetland/Terrestrial No effect. Loss of 65 acres bottomland Habitats forest and 20.5 acres old field; offset by creation of 43 acres wetlands. Shift from primarily terrestrial to wetland wildlife species. Endangered Species No effect. No significant effect. Cultural Resources No effect. No effect on significant cultural resources. Aesthetic Resources No effect. Minor improvement in visual Recreation Resources Socioeconomic Resources Noise Displacements Community Cohesion Community and Regional Growth and Business Activity Tax Revenue Employment/Labor Force Not quantifiable. No effect. No effect. Disrupted due to flooding. Business lost and growth hampered due to flooding. No effect. Potential relief and unemployment costs. EA-27 quality due to increased habitat diversity and better management. Creation of 22 acres playing fields/picnic grounds, 3 fishing ponds, and 2.3 miles hiking-biking trail. No effect. 14 structures removed for levee construction. Improved; flood damages reduced 74%. $15,510,000 increase in regional business. $155,100 increased recreation sales taxes. Construction-generated 226.9 man-years regional employment; generated 269 man-days annual employment. TABLE EA-7 (Concluded) Environmental Alternative Resource No Action Levee Economics (8 3/8% Interest Rate) Average annual benefits Not applicable $1,345,600 Average annual costs Not applicable 1,078,000 Net benefits Not applicable 267,600 Benefitzcost ratio Not applicable 1.25 EA-28 TABLE EA-8 LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT HABITAT CHANGES IN ACRES FOR THE RECOMMENDED PLAN Change Future Future From Existing Without With Future Habitat Type Conditions Project Project Without Urban 22 22 3 -19 Bottomland Forest 105 105 40 -65 Old Field 20.5 20.5 0 -20.5 Grassland* 16 16 81 +65 Marsh 0 18 +18 Pond 0 0 25 +25 Creek 4.5 4.5 1 -3.5 Total 168 168 168 *This includes high use recreation areas, such as ball fields, as well as the proposed levee. EA-29 TABLE EA-9 LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT MDC-SHEP STREAM HABITAT QUALITY INDEX FOR EXISTING, FUTURE WITHOUT, AND FUTURE WITH RECOMMENDED PLAN CONDITIONS Habitat Index Existing Without With Stream Conditions Project Project Grand Glaize Creek 0 2.09 2.0 Fishpot Creek 1.91 2.0 2.1 EA-3O TABLE LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT FWS-HEP CHANGE IN TERRESTRIAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE RECOMMENDED PLAN Habitat Index Without With Species Project Project Change Deer 62.75 53.50 -9.25 Pileated woodpecker 29.45 17.36 -11.99 Fox Squirrel 50.35 21.08 -29.27 Gray Squirrel 41.80 17.98 -23.82 Kentucky Warbler 37.05 16.74 -20.31 Wood Duck 38.95 20.46 -l8.49 Bobwhite Quail 73.42 73.83 +0.41 Cottontail Rabbit 66.75 68.48 +1.73 Grasshopper Sparrow 19.20 49.40 +30.20 Muskrat 0 17.23 +17.23 Mallard Duck 0 17.76 +17.76 Green-backed Heron 0 14.57 +14.57 Canada Goose 0 13.25 +13.25 EA-31 TABLE EA-ll LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT RELATIONSHIP OF RECOMMENDED PLAN TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Guidance Degree of Compliance Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, as Amended, 16 U.S.C. 469, et seg. Clean Air Act, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. 7609. Clean Water Act, as Amended, 33 U.S.C. 466, et seg. Coastal Zone Management Act, as Amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seg. Endangered Species Act, as Amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seg. Estuary Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1221, et seg. Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4201, et seg. Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as Amended, 16 U.S.C. 9t seg. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as Amended, l6 U.S.C. 661, et seg. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as Amended, 16 U.S.C. 4601, et seg. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401, et seg. National Environmental Policy Act, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seg. National Historic Preservation Act, as Amended, l6 U.S.C. 470a, et seg. Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401, et seg. EA-32 Full Full Partial (A) Not Applicable Full Not Applicable Full Full Full Full Not applicable Full Full Full TABLE EA-ll (Concluded) Guidance Degree of Compliance Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. 1001 et seg. Not Applicable Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as Amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et seg. Not Applicable Flood Plain Management, E.O. 11988. Full Protection of Wetlands, E.O. 11990. Full Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, E.O. 12114. Not Applicable Analysis of Impacts on Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands In Implementing NEPA, CEQ Memorandum, August 11, 1980. Full Interagency Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the Nationwide Inventory, CEQ Memorandum, August 10, 1980. Not Applicable A - A Clean Water Act, Section 404 evaluation is being circulated for public review with this GDM and EA. A Department of Army permit will be issued when that review process is complete. A Section 401 application for clean water certification from the state will be issued for separate review. These processes must be complete in order to achieve full compliance with the Clean Water Act. EA-33 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT LOWER MERAMEC FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT MERAMEC RIVER BASIN ST. LOUIS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, MISSOURI l. I have reviewed and evaluated the documents concerning the implementation of a plan to reduce flood damages within the City of Valley Park, Missouri. The recommended plan proposes one structural measure, an earthen levee, to provide protection from lOO-year recurrence interval flood events for the major portion of the city. 2. The recommended plan was developed after consideration of a number of alternatives, with special emphasis on nonstructural measures, in addition to the "No Action" alternative. The "No Action" alternative would not accomplish the planning objectives. The lOO-year levee proposed for the City of Valley Park is the only measure economically, engineeringly, and environmentally feasible for which a local sponsor could be found. 3. The possible consequences of this alternative on significant social and economic, environmental, and recreational resources have been investigated. Major findings of this investigation include the following: a. Flood damages in the Meramec River Basin would be reduced 40.4 percent; at Valley Park, flood damages would be reduced 74 percent. b. The recommended plan may have a positive impact on the water quality of Grand Glaize Creek, by removing polluted sediments. c. The recommended plan emphasizes good flood plain management, preserving certain natural amenities, providing minimum development from this project, and providing incentive for limited future development for other purposes. d. The recommended plan will require the clearing of 105 acres of bottomland forest and 20.5 acres of old field habitat. However, these losses will be offset by the creation of 43 acres of wetlands at three borrow sites. The wetlands are considered more valuable habitat than the lost terrestrial habitats. e. No Federally endangered species will be adversely impacted by implementation of the plan. f. Recreation resources would increase in the area by the creation of 22 acres of playing fields and 2.3 miles of hiking and biking trails in borrow areas and along the levee. The wetlands mentioned in paragraph above would provide fishing opportunities. EA-34 g. The recommended plan would have no effect upon significant cultural resources. The four prehistoric and historic archaeological sites identified within the project area limits contained neither subsurface features or temporally diagnostic artifacts. The single historic architectural site identified represents the former location of the St. Louis Plate Glass Factory (1902-1916), a regionally important industrial business. This factory was devastated in 1915 by Meramec River flooding and ultimately destroyed in 1916 by a severe fire. Subsequent to these events the factory was salvaged and dismantled. A11 functional machinery and transportable building material were removed from the site. Today all that remains of the plant are spacially discrete concrete and brick footings and vestiges of wall remnants interspersed among mature bottomland trees. 4. Based on my review and evaluation of the alternative courses of action presented in the Environmental Assessment, I have determined that the implementation of the recommended plan will not have significant adverse effects on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, no Environmental Impact Statement is required and none will be prepared prior to proceeding with this action. EM My DATE Daniel . Wilson Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer EA-35