Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Ada County, Idaho

Transcription

1 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Ada County, Idaho Draft Feasibility Report June 2013 Authority: Section 1135 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1986

2

3 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS... v SECTION INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report Project Location Study Authority and Scope General Authority Study Scope Project Background Prior Studies, Reports, and Existing Water Projects Prior Studies and Reports Existing Water Projects Non-Federal Project Sponsors SECTION PLAN FORMULATION 2.1 Assessment of Water and Related Land Resource Problems and Opportunities National Objectives Public Concerns Resource Significance Environmental Resources Institutional Recognition Public Recognition Technical Recognition Inventory of Existing Resource Conditions Boise River Watershed Water Management Surface Water Hydrology Floodplain Function and Stream Assessment Pit Capture Upland, Wetlands, and Riparian Habitat Aquatic Habitat Threatened and Endangered Species Water Quality Future without Project Conditions Problems and Opportunities Planning Goals and Objectives Planning Constraints Alternative Plans Restoration Measures Development of Alternative Plans Habitat Units Budgetary Cost Estimates Combining Measures to Formulate Alternative Plans Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Analysis DRAFT i

4 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Final Array of Alternatives Plans Comparison and Evaluation of Alternative Plans Summary of Environmental and Social Effects Plan Selection Risks and Uncertainties SECTION DESCRIPTION OF FINAL PLAN 3.1 Plan Components Design and Construction Considerations Construction Materials Stormwater Pollution and Erosion Control Construction Sequence Lands, Easements, Rights-of Way, Relocations, and Disposal Site Considerations Operation and Maintenance Considerations Wetland Weed Control Cottonwood Trees Protection from Beavers Irrigation Pests and Disease Rearing Channels Plan Accomplishments Summary of Economic, Environmental, and other Social Effects SECTION PROJECT COST SUMMARY 4.1 Baseline Construction Estimate Total Project Cost Summary SECTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Institutional Requirements Agreements Financial Analysis and Capability Division of Plan Responsibilities Cost Sharing Non-Federal Cooperation and Responsibilities Views of Non-Federal Sponsors and Other Agencies Having Implementation Responsibilities SECTION SUMMARY OF PUBLIC, AGENCY AND TRIBAL COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 6.1 Public, Agency, and Tribal Coordination Policy, Consultation, and Review Federal Statutes National Environmental Policy Act Clean Water Act Clean Air Act Endangered Species Act ii DRAFT

5 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report National Historic Preservation Act Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Federal Water Project Recreation Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Executive Orders Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, May 24, Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Executive Order Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order Invasive Species State and Local Permits SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION REFERENCES SECTION LIST OF DOCUMENTS PREPARED TO SUPPORT FEASIBILITY REPORT List of Tables Table 2-1. Summary of NEPA Scoping and Public Input Table 2-2. Resource Significance for Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Table 2-3. IDFG s Recommended Minimum Flows for Fish and Wildlife Table 2-4. Maximum and Minimum River Flow at Glenwood Bridge and South Channel Gages Table 2-5. Natural Floodplain Features Table 2-6. Types, Function, and Value of Wetlands and Waters of U.S. in the Project Area Table 2-7. Wetland and Open Water Delineation Summary Table 2-8. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species in Ada County, Idaho Table 2-9. Instantaneous Water Quality Measurements and Select Constituent Concentrations from Sites on the Lower Boise River, Southwestern Idaho, Table Description of Measures Carried Forward Table IWR-Plan Input Values Table IWR-Plan Best Buy Alternatives (April 2012 price levels) (All species were weighted equally) Table Alternatives Achievement of Planning Objectives Table Alternative Comparison Incremental Benefits and Incremental Costs (April 2012 price levels) Table 3-1. Probable Construction Sequence DRAFT iii

6 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table 4-1. Baseline Construction Estimate Table 4-2. Total Project Cost Summary Table 5-1. Cost-Share Breakdown Table 6-1. Key Public, Agency and Tribal Coordination Activities Table 6-2. Groups Providing Project Related Comments List of Figures Figure 1-1. Project Location Figure 1-2. Head of Eagle Island Figure 1-3. Topography of the Project Area Figure FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Figure 1-5. Lower Boise Basin Drainage Figure 2-1. Diversion Structures Figure 2-2. Boise River hydrograph of mean monthly discharge, unregulated ( ), and regulated ( ) flows Figure 2-3. Natural floodplain flow patterns Figure Aerial Photo (showing wide braided floodplain) Figure 2-5. Stream Assessment Study Area Habitat Map Figure 2-6. Conceptualized Schematic of Pit Capture Figure 2-7. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S Figure 2-8. IWR Results Figure 2-9. Incremental Cost Per Incremental Benefit for Alternatives 1 through Figure Alternative Figure Alternative Figure Alternative List of Photos Photo 2-1. Aerial view looking west toward the head of Eagle Island Photo 2-2. Aerial view looking north toward Boise River and Eagle Island Photo 2-3. Aerial view looking southeast toward gravel extraction ponds on Eagle Island Photo 2-4. View west toward North Channel and wetland habitat List of Appendices Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps Appendix B: Real Estate Plan Appendix C: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Appendix D: Total Project Cost Summary iv DRAFT

7 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym Definition AAHU average annual habitat unit ACHD Ada County Highway District ASWCD Ada Soil & Water Conservation District BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP best management practices BREN Boise River Enhancement Network CE/ICA cost effectiveness /incremental cost analysis CEQ Council on Environmental Quality cfs cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CFR Code of Federal Regulations CAA Clean Air Act CWA Clean Water Act DI design and implementation EA environmental assessment EIS environmental impact statement ER Engineering Regulation ESA Endangered Species Act FCD10 Boise River Flood Control District No. 10 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM flood insurance rate map FIS flood insurance study FONSI finding of no significant impact FY fiscal year GCP general construction permit GIS geographic information system HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. HEP habitat evaluation procedure HSI habitat suitability index IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDL Idaho Department of Lands IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources IFPL Idaho Foundation for Parks and Lands IRU Idaho Rivers United IWR Institute for Water Resources IWR-PLAN Institute of Water Resources-Planning Suite Decision Software IWRB Idaho Water Resource Board LERRD land, easement, rights-of-way, relocation, and disposal areas MCACES micro computer aided cost estimate system MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act msl mean sea level DRAFT v

8 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Acronym Definition NED national economic development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NER national ecosystem restoration NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOI notice of intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NWP nationwide permit OHWM ordinary high water mark OMRR&R operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement plan P.L. Public Law PPA Project Partnership Agreement RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation S&A supervision and administration SH state highway SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TBD to be determined TMDL total maximum daily load U.S.C. United States Code USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank WRDA Water Resource Development Act vi DRAFT

9 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report SECTION INTRODUCTION This feasibility report presents the analysis and recommendations for the proposed Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project (Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project), a project authorized under Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986), as amended. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted this study in accordance with Federal law, 33 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2309a, which authorizes the Corps to modify existing Corps projects to restore the environment and/or construct new projects at areas where Corps water resource projects have contributed to degradation of environmental quality. Operational flow discharged from Lucky Peak Dam, which was constructed by the Corps in 1955, contributes to ecosystem and environmental degradation in the Boise River and floodplain. This project would not result in physical or operational changes to a Corps project. The Boise River Flood Control District No. 10 (FCD10), Ada Soil and Water Conservation District (ASWCD), and Idaho Foundation for Parks and Lands (IFPL) are the project Non-Federal Sponsors (see section 1.6 for description of sponsors). 1.1 Purpose of Report This report presents the findings of a feasibility investigation conducted to determine Federal interest in preserving, restoring, or improving terrestrial and aquatic environmental quality at and near the eastern (upstream) boundary of Eagle Island, Ada County, Idaho, pursuant to Section 1135 of WRDA This report describes the problems and opportunities and expresses desired outcomes as planning objectives. Alternatives are developed to address these objectives. Project alternatives include a future without the project alternative (also referred to as the No-Action alternative) and various combinations of structural and non-structural restoration strategies or measures (measures). The report evaluates the economic and environmental impacts of the various alternatives and selects a feasible plan. Finally, the report presents details on Corps and sponsor participation needed to implement the recommended plan. 1.2 Project Location The project area is located on Eagle Island within the floodplain of the Boise River near the cities of Eagle, Garden City, and Boise, in Ada County, Idaho. Eagle Island is located approximately 18 river miles downstream from Lucky Peak Dam and is formed as the lower Boise River splits and flows in a North and South channel around the island (figures 1-1 and 1-2). The island is approximately 6 miles long and 1 mile wide. Lucky Peak Dam is located on the lower Boise River reach about 10 miles southeast of Boise and flows west for approximately 64 miles to the confluence with the Snake River. DRAFT 1-1

10 Figure 1-1. Project Location General Area Project Vicinity

11 EAGLE RD Thurman Drain CHINDEN BLVD GLENWOOD ST Farmers Union Canal STATE ST Lake Elmore Boise River Thurman Mill Canal Settlers Canal Spoil Banks Canal «55 «55 «44 Dry Creek Canal Channel North Lower Lemp Canal South Channel Ballentyne Canal Graham-Gilbert Canal Warm Springs Canal Zinger Lateral HWY 44 Imagery: Foot Resolution Source: COMPASS Other Data Sources: Ada County, INSIDE Idaho Map Date: 4/9/2012 Q:\USACE\EagleIsland\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_miles.mxd Miles LEGEND Flowing Water Project Area Study Area Figure 1-2. Head of Eagle Island Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2 Ê

12 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report The study area includes the Boise River reach from Glenwood Street Bridge to the two Eagle Road bridges within the floodplain for the 0.2-percent chance exceedance flood (figure 1-2). The Glenwood Street Bridge is located approximately 1.6 miles east (upstream) of Eagle Island and the Eagle Road bridges are approximately 2.5 miles west (downstream) of the head of the island. As measures and alternatives were refined, the project has focused on the reach containing the head of Eagle Island downstream on both the North and South channels, to approximately the west end of the gravel extraction ponds on the island (figure 1-2). The project area is approximately 235 acres. The topography in the project area has very little relief. The primary topographic features are man-made berms that surround the gravel ponds. The surface water elevation of the ponds decreases from east to west. Figure 1-3 shows the topography of the project area, including water surface elevations. 1.3 Study Authority and Scope This report was prepared under the authority of WRDA 1986 (Public Law [P.L.] ), Section 1135, as amended by WRDA 1996, Section 204 (P.L ) and codified at 33 U.S.C for Project Modifications for Improvement of Environment. This authorization includes: 2309a. Project modifications for improvement of environment a) Determination of Need The Secretary is authorized to review water resources projects constructed by the Secretary to determine the need for modifications in the structures and operations of such projects for the purpose of improving the quality of the environment in the public interest and to determine if the operation of such projects has contributed to the degradation of the quality of the environment. b) Authority to Make Modifications The Secretary is authorized to carry out a program for the purpose of making such modifications in the structures and operations of water resources projects constructed by the Secretary which the Secretary determines: 1) are feasible and consistent with the authorized project purposes, and 2) will improve the quality of the environment in the public interest. c) Restoration of Environmental Quality 1) In general, if the Secretary determines that construction of a water resources project by the Secretary or operation of a water resources project constructed by the Secretary has contributed to the degradation of the quality of the environment, the Secretary may undertake measures for restoration of environmental quality and measures for enhancement of environmental quality that are associated with the restoration, through modifications either at the project site or at other locations that have been affected by the construction or operation of the project, if such measures do not conflict with the authorized project purposes. 1-4 DRAFT

13 LEGEND Project Area 2 ft Contours Major Minor Pond 5 Elev= North Channel 2590 Pond 4 Elev= Pond 3 Elev= Pond 2 Elev= Pond 6 Elev= Pond 1 Elev= South Channel Imagery: Foot Resolution Contours: April 2000 Data; Source: COMPASS Topography: 2007 LiDAR referenced/used for analysis Other Data Sources: Ada County, INSIDE Idaho Map Date: 6/12/2013 Q:\USACE\EagleIsland\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_topo.mxd Feet Ê Boise River Figure 1-3. Topography of Project Area Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

14 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report General Authority The Secretary of the Army may carry out a Section 1135 project if it is determined that the project is technically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and provides costeffective environmental benefits. Measures must not conflict with authorized Corps project purposes. The Corps and the Non-Federal Sponsors share costs associated with the feasibility study and executing a selected alternative. This is a grandfathered Continuing Authority Program project, which means the Corps and Non-Federal Sponsors do not have a signed feasibility cost share agreement, and 100 percent of the feasibility study has been federally funded. Feasibility study costs, pre-construction engineering and design, acquisition of lands and easements, construction, and other associated costs will be shared 75 percent Federal and 25 percent by the Non-Federal Sponsors upon execution of a project partnership agreement (PPA) (anticipated prior to 2014) Study Scope Lucky Peak Dam, completed in and operated by the Corps since 1955, is one of three Federal dams that are operated as a system by the Corps and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The Lucky Peak Project was authorized to provide flood control and irrigation. Operation of the three Federal dams has altered flows, affecting river channel dynamics, negatively impacting riparian and aquatic ecosystem health, and facilitated development in the floodplain. Regulated flows have hindered natural regeneration of forested riparian habitat that supports wintering bald eagles and great blue heron rookeries and have negatively impacted the quality and quantity of other riparian and aquatic habitat. From the 1950s to the present, the project area has been affected by gravel mining, land development, irrigation diversion, and flood damage reduction projects. These activities occurred at the project area because upstream flow regulation that has enabled access to land areas that otherwise would be under water seasonally. The project objective is to improve aquatic and wildlife habitat while improving floodplain functions at the head of Eagle Island to a more naturallyfunctioning and self-sustaining state. 1.4 Project Background FCD10, the original Non-Federal Sponsor, and the Corps initiated the feasibility study in From 2002 to 2004, the Corps conducted baseline studies, including hydrology studies, and began to develop a plan to address identified water resources and associated land problems and opportunities. Feasibility study activities were suspended in 2005 due to Corps program funding shortages. The Corps received Federal funding in fiscal year (FY) 2009 to reinitiate the study. IFPL and ASWCD joined FCD10 as the Non-Federal Sponsors in DRAFT 1-6

15 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report 1.5 Prior Studies, Reports, and Existing Water Projects Prior Studies and Reports Other studies conducted in the vicinity of Eagle Island that were consulted for this report include, but are not limited to, the following: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995, Lower Boise River and Tributaries, Idaho, Reconnaissance Study - The Corps reviewed the water resource problems, needs, and opportunities in the lower Boise River. Problems identified include significant flood risk, degraded aquatic and riparian habitat, and need for additional water supply. The study identified potential plans to reduce flood risk and opportunities to restore the natural floodplain and associated habitat. Quadrant Consulting, et al. 1997, Boise and Payette Rivers Diversion Upgrade Project Task 1 Report, An Inventory of Irrigation Diversion Structures - The project examined and inventoried 62 diversion sites along the Boise and Payette rivers in 1996 to identify potential improvements. Input was gathered from irrigators, individual operators, and watermasters. The second phase of the study recommends improvements to ten diversions. Quadrant Consulting and Resource Systems Inc. 1997, Eagle Island Flow Split Study - The purpose of the study was to investigate North and South channel capacities for the Boise River near the head of Eagle Island, estimate impacts caused by various high flows in the channels, and provide alternatives for splitting flows between the channels. The study recommendations included developing a management plan for the head of Eagle Island and removing sediment accumulation in the vicinity of the Eagle Island check dam (Eagle Island Checks), located where the Boise River channel splits around Eagle Island and the upper reach of the North Channel. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2003, Flood Insurance Study (FIS) evaluated several regulatory peak flood flows for Boise River at the outlet of Lucky Peak Dam. The study used a range of percent chance exceedances for flooding. The FEMA study assumed that the flow split at the head of Eagle Island for the 1.0-percent chance exceedance flood was 70.0 percent in the North Channel and 30.0 percent in the South Channel. The study resulted in the development of a flood insurance rate map (FIRM), which includes base flood elevations, floodplain, and floodway delineations for the North and South channels. The FIRM illustrates the North and South channels as FEMA Zone AE (the base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided with regulatory floodways). In addition, the FIRM illustrates an overflow channel connecting the South Channel to the North Channel (figure 1-4). This overflow channel functions to transfer flood water from the South Channel to the North Channel during large flood events. DRAFT 1-7

16 EAGLE RD Thurman Drain CHINDEN BLVD GLENWOOD ST Farmers Union Canal STATE ST Lake Elmore Boise River Thurman Mill Canal Settlers Canal Spoil Banks Canal «55 «55 «44 Dry Creek Canal Channel North Lower Lemp Canal South Channel Ballentyne Canal Graham-Gilbert Canal Warm Springs Canal Zinger Lateral HWY 44 Imagery: Foot Resolution Source: COMPASS Other Data Sources: Ada County, INSIDE Idaho Map Date: 4/9/2012 Q:\USACE\EagleIsland\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_miles.mxd Miles LEGEND Flowing Water Project Area Study Area Flood Class AE Floodplain AE Floodway Figure FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2 Ê

17 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report FEMA maps are made for assigning flood insurance rates. While it is FEMA s goal to make these maps accurate to actual floodplain conditions, these maps represent a snapshot in time. As such, these maps offer no assurance that areas susceptible to flooding will not change as a result of erosion, deposition, movement of bed materials, changes in split flow, development, or pit capture. The FEMA maps also make simplifying assumptions that include no debris, bridge blockages, scour, or sand bagging. For additional information regarding floodplain functions, see section of this report. U.S. Geological Survey 2004, Conditions in Lower Boise River, Ada and Canyon Counties, The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studied water-quality and biological aspects of the lower Boise River to address water-quality concerns U.S. Geological Survey 2006, Fish Communities and Related Environmental Conditions of the Lower Boise River, Southwestern Idaho, Fish community data from USGS and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), collected between 1974 and 2004, and were analyzed to describe the status of fish communities in the lower Boise River. Analysis showed a decrease in biotic integrity in a downstream direction. Changes in land use, habitat, and water quality as well as regulated streamflow have affected the lower Boise River fish community U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2006, Boise River After Action Review 2006 High Water, Vicinity of the City of Eagle, Idaho - This study evaluated the conditions and factors associated with the 2006 high water in the Eagle Island area, including a description of Boise River reservoirs operations, the flow split at the head of Eagle Island, and the accuracy of FEMA FIRM maps. The study identified flood susceptible problem areas (particularly high flows experienced at the Glenwood Street Bridge), and made recommendations for future flood risk reduction along the Boise River in the Eagle Island area. Highlighted findings include the identification of high risk flood areas such as the pond/pit capture locations near Eagle Island, and the Linder Road and Eagle Road bridges. The study noted that FEMA FIRM maps offer no assurance that areas flooded will not change as a result of changing Boise River hydraulics. Ada County Highway District (ACHD) 2008, Three Cities River Crossing The Three Cities River Crossing study evaluated a roadway alignment across the Boise River that would connect the intersection of State Highway (SH) 55 and State Street (SH 44) to the north with Chinden Boulevard (U.S. 20/26) to the south. The proposed action would border or pass through three cities -- Boise, Eagle, and Garden City. The proposed alignment would cross the upper end of Eagle Island near the project. A draft environmental impact statement (EIS) was published for public comment in early 2008 and included nine alternatives; five were analyzed in detail. In 2010, the No-Action alternative was selected as the preferred alternative. Studies conducted to support the draft EIS included evaluations of natural resources along the North and South channels of the Boise River and near the head of Eagle Island. Data and environmental evaluations from the study are incorporated into this feasibility study, as appropriate. DRAFT 1-9

18 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2009 to present, Lower Boise River Feasibility Study In May 2009, the Corps initiated a feasibility study in partnership with the Idaho Water Resources Board (IWRB) to review various water resource problems, needs, and opportunities in the Lower Boise River, from Lucky Peak Dam downstream to the Snake River confluence. Significant development in the river corridor and population growth has sparked interest in flood risk management and water supply issues. The Corps and IWRB are currently identifying an initial array of alternatives. The feasibility study is scheduled to be completed in 2016, pending Congressional appropriations Existing Water Projects The Boise River reservoir system includes three major instream reservoirs (Anderson Ranch, Arrowrock, and Lucky Peak) associated with two Federal projects (figure 1-5). Lucky Peak Dam and Lake is a Corps project, authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 1944 and The project is authorized for flood control and irrigation. Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch dams and reservoirs are associated with Reclamation s Boise Project, authorized under the Reclamation Act of Project purposes include irrigation, flood control, and power. The Corps and Reclamation jointly operate the system under formal flood-control criteria and rule curves contained in the Water Control Manual for the Boise River Reservoirs (Corps 1985, revised 1988). Other Boise Project facilities include the Boise Diversion, a smaller dam downstream from Lucky Peak that directs water down the New York Canal and into Lake Lowell for irrigation purposes and to support the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge at Lake Lowell (figure 1-5). Surface water management is further described in section Non-Federal Project Sponsors As described above, the project has three non-federal Sponsors, which are briefly described below. FCD10 was organized in 1970 by the state of Idaho (Idaho Code Section ) to provide control of the Boise River and its tributaries in the affected area to protect life and property, preserve the public health and welfare and conserve and develop natural resources of the State of Idaho as they relate to potential flooding within FCD10 s boundaries. The downstream limit of FCD10 s boundary is approximately 1 mile upstream of where Interstate 84 crosses over the Boise River near Caldwell, Idaho, while the upstream limit is approximately 3.0 miles from the head of Eagle Island (figure 1-5). The ASWCD is a governmental subdivision of the state of Idaho and leads nonregulatory efforts to conserve, sustain, and enhance natural resources in Ada County since They provide technical, financial, and educational assistance to private landowners and community partners in promote the conservation and wise use of all natural resources DRAFT

19 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report The IFPL is a private nonprofit and nongovernmental organization whose mission is to preserve and protect open space lands and unique natural, scenic settings for public benefit through various flexible conservation methods. DRAFT 1-11

20 ADA ADA ELMORE Payette 95 «52 River Payette Sout h F ork Payette River LEGEND?> Boise River Dam Study Area Flowing Water 30 «72 PAYETTE GEM Payette River «52 Black Canyon Reservoir GEM BOISE «21 North Fork Boise River County Boundary City Limits Lower Boise Basin Upper Boise Basin MALHEUR COUNTY, OREGON 20 B oise Parma River 95 «19 PAYETTE CANYON Mora Canal Extension «55 84 «44 Caldwell Lake Lowell GEM CANYON Middleton Nampa Ne wyo Mora Canal Emmett 20 Star CANYON «16 Boise River r k Ca na l GEM ADA Meridian «69 Kuna Eagle 84 « Boise BOISE ADA New York Canal Lower Watershed Boise River BOISE DIVERSION Upper Watershed ARROWROCK «21 Lucky Peak Reservoir LUCKY PEAK Mores Arrowrock Reservoir Creek B o ise BOISE Rive r ELMORE Middle Fork Boise River S outh ForkBoise River 95 CANYON OWYHEE «78 «45 Indian Creek South Fork BoiseRiver Anderson Ranch Reservoir ANDERSON RANCH DAM Sn ake River Imagery: ESRI World Imagery Service Source: ESRI, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGPNRCS Digital Gateway Other Data Sources: Ada County, State of Idaho Geospatial Clearinghouse (INSIDE Idaho) Map Date: 3/8/2013 Q:\USACE\EagleIsland\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_Basin.mxd Miles Camas Creek Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community Ê Figure 1-5. Lower Boise Basin Drainage Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

21 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report SECTION PLAN FORMULATION This feasibility study followed the Corps six-step planning process specified in Engineering Regulation (ER) (Corps 2000a). This process identifies and responds to problems and opportunities associated with the Federal objective, as well as specified state and local concerns. The process provides a flexible, systematic, and rational framework to make determinations and decisions at each step. This allows the interested public and decision-makers to be fully aware of the basic assumptions used, the data and information analyzed, the areas of risk and uncertainty, and the significant implications of each alternative plan. The Corps developed three alternative plans and compared them to the No-Action alternative, allowing for the ultimate identification of the recommended national ecosystem restoration (NER) plan described in section 3.0 of this report. The Corps determined that the recommended NER plan reasonably maximizes ecosystem restoration benefits compared to costs, considering the cost effectiveness and incremental cost of implementing other restoration options. In addition to considering the system benefits and costs, the Corps also considered information that cannot be quantified, such as environmental significance and scarcity, socioeconomic impacts, and historic properties information. The plan formulation process includes the following steps: 1. Identify Problems and Opportunities. The specific problems and opportunities are identified, and the causes of the problems discussed and documented. Planning objectives and constraints are established and identified. 2. Inventory and Forecast Resource Conditions (Water and Land Related Resources). This step characterizes and assesses existing conditions in the project area and forecasts the most probable without-project condition (or No- Action alternative) over the period of analysis. The without-project condition describes anticipated conditions and uses in the area over a 50-year period of analysis without any restoration implemented as a result of this study. 3. Formulate Alternative Plans. Potential features are proposed to meet the identified planning objectives. Specific design measures are developed for these features. These measures are combined into alternative plans in a systematic manner to ensure that reasonable alternatives are evaluated. 4. Evaluate Alternative Plans. The evaluation of each alternative consists of measuring or estimating the environmental benefits, costs, technical considerations, and social and economic effects of each plan, and determining the difference between conditions with and without the project. A key measure for evaluating alternative plans is a cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis and evaluation of significance. 5. Compare Alternative Plans. Alternative plans are compared, focusing on the differences among the identified plans and issues identified by agencies and the public. As part of the evaluation, the Corps identifies those plans that provide the greatest increase in benefits for the least increase in cost ( best-buy plans). DRAFT 2-1

22 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report 6. Select Alternative Plan. The Corps recommends the NER plan or an alternative plan. If a viable plan is not identified, the selected plan would be the No-Action alternative. In most cases, the NER plan is selected from among the most cost-effective plans based on acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and reasonableness of costs. In addition to the planning process, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the nation s primary charter for protection of the environment. This act establishes policy, sets goals, and contains procedural provisions to ensure that Federal agencies act according to the letter and spirit of the act. It provides for integration of the requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law. 2.1 Assessment of Water and Related Land Resource Problems and Opportunities This section presents the first and second steps of the six-step planning process: 1) Identify water and related land resource problems and opportunities in the project area. 2) Inventory and forecast resource conditions. The section concludes with the establishment of planning objectives and constraints, which are the basis for the formulation of alternative plans National Objectives The national objective of water and related land resources planning is to contribute to national economic development (NED), consistent with protecting the nation s environment pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. Contributions to NED are increases in the net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed in monetary units, and the direct net benefits that accrue to the planning area and the rest of the nation. In response to legislation and administration policy, the Corps has added a second national objective contributions to NER (see ER , Civil Works Ecosystem Restoration Policy, 1999; and ER , Planning Guidance Notebook, 2000). This objective is to contribute to the nation s ecosystems through ecosystem restoration, with contributions measured by changes in habitat quantity and quality. The project falls under this national objective. Through the ecosystem restoration mission, it is critical that environmental operating principles are addressed. The operating principles look for ecosystem solutions that are sustainable, balance development and the need to preserve the environment, are responsible and accountable under the law, seek ways to assess and mitigate for impacts, and are produced in respect to individual and group views and interests so that an innovative win-win solution is achieved. 2-2 DRAFT

23 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Public Concerns A number of public concerns were identified during the course of this study. FCD10, the first Non-Federal Sponsor, expressed initial concerns in a letter requesting assistance from the Corps. Additional input was received through coordination with the Non- Federal Sponsors, coordination with other agencies and non-governmental organizations, public review of draft and interim products, and public meetings. A discussion of public involvement is included in section 6.0 of this report. The public concerns communicated during scoping are summarized in table 2-1. Comments are organized and summarized by general categories and themes. Some comments describe concerns that cannot be addressed within the study authorization. However, during the initial public review and comment period, the project was not deemed controversial and no strong opposition has formed. Table 2-1. Summary of NEPA Scoping and Public Input Topic Fish and Wildlife Vegetation and Wetlands Water Resources Problems and Issues Study/Planning Process Recreation Floodplain Management/Restoration Public Input Increase and improve habitat that supports fish and wildlife. Consider placement of fish screens at diversions. Create interconnecting side channels to address flow fluctuations and to create off-channel habitat. Coordinate with IDFG. Reestablish cottonwood and willow communities. Ensure a healthy riparian zone. Remove exotic and invasive plant species. Improve existing Boise River habitat instead of trying to create new habitat. Consider clearing existing dead vegetation and brush to allow new trees to grow. Consider water rights and the distribution of water between the North and South channels. When September and October flows in the North Channel are below normal, irrigators use a bulldozer to move in-stream gravel to adjust the flows to meet their irrigation needs in the North Channel. Don t restrict water flows in the Boise River. Consider alternatives that may be outside the authority of the Corps. Embrace strategies that can be implemented quicker at less cost. Consider ecosystem restoration at the larger watershed scale. Evaluate impacts on recreational activities. Increase recreational opportunities. Provide future recreation access into the area, including boating opportunities and fishing access to adjacent gravel ponds. Reconnect old river side channels. Remove or modify dikes and levees. Fill gravel pits with excess materials rather than storing gravel in the floodplain. Advise existing and future land owners in the area about the risks of living in the floodplain. Eagle Island river channels are overgrown with vegetation. Don t allow development so close to the Boise River. Consider modification of upstream irrigation diversion to improve channel DRAFT 2-3

24 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table 2-1. Summary of NEPA Scoping and Public Input Topic Water Quality Hydrology Coordination Post-Construction Issues Other Public Input stability and fish passage. Reclaim gravel pits to reduce risk of pit capture and to provide habitat. Shifts in flows from the South Channel to North Channel during low flows could impact operation of the West Boise wastewater treatment plant, located on the South Channel. Consider passive treatment of stormwater, irrigation return flows, and wastewater. Provide measures that would reduce fine sediment. Consider natural channel migration in a large gravel-bed river. Consider reintroducing regular bank full and out-of-bank flows. Consider replacing/modifying the New Dry Creek Diversion Dam. Involve locals in riparian plant selection. Involve local elected officials, floodplain managers, and emergency staff in the development of alternatives. Ensure long-term maintenance. Include funding for monitoring and adaptive management for 5 to 10 years. Purchase property or protective easements. Clearly show what the environmental benefits of this project are. Consider impacts west of Eagle Road where the split reconvenes. Remove gravel bars and stop digging gravel pits in the floodplain Resource Significance This section identifies and documents the range of potentially significant environmental resources for the recommended plan. Significant environmental resources are defined as those that are institutionally, publically, or technically recognized as important. Use of the term significance should not be confused with its use in the NEPA process when describing significant effects on a resource. The discussion below follows the guidelines presented in the document, Resource Significance Protocol for Environmental Project Planning (Corps 1997). The three bases for significance include the following: Institutional significance based on institutional recognition means that the importance of an environmental resource is acknowledged in law, approved plans, or other policy statements of public agencies, tribes, or private groups. An example of institutional recognition is the 1977 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Public significance based on public recognition means that some segment of the general public recognizes the importance of an environmental resource. An example of public recognition of a resource would be a volunteer group that conducts annual cleanup (trash) of a river segment because they value the river ecosystem resource. Technical significance based on technical recognition means that the importance of an environmental resource is based on scientific or technical knowledge or judgment of critical resource characteristics. An example of 2-4 DRAFT

25 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report technical recognition is a published scientific article on the decline of bald eagle habitat in a specific area. Table 2-2 presents the resource significance for the project in terms of institutional, public, and technical recognition Environmental Resources Resources include species, systems (plant or animal communities or ecosystems), and habitat type (wetlands, rivers, lakes) (Corps 1997). For the project area, the institutional, public, and technically recognized resources of significance are related to habitat and are focused on forested wetlands (cottonwood riparian forest), emergent wetlands, and rearing and spawning habitat for resident fish (see table 2-2). Forested wetlands Cottonwood riparian stands and associated understory are major components to large gravel-bedded river systems and are native to the lower Boise River. These wetlands provide for important ecological functions including providing habitat to many migratory bird species including the great blue heron and bald eagle (see section for description of riparian zones and the occurrence of forested wetlands for the project area). Emergent wetlands Historically, backwater sloughs and side channels were abundant in the lower Boise River and supported the presence of emergent wetlands. This wetland type provides for valuable habitat for aquatic and wildlife species, including nesting bird species such as the mallard duck (see section for description of emergent wetlands for the project area). Rearing and spawning habitat Prior to river alterations (e.g., placement of dams and levees), the lower reaches of the Boise River, including the project area, were a thriving, cold water fish community with a large number of salmon and trout. Today, the Boise River has limited areas with suitable water quality (especially temperature), bottom substrate, and spawning sized gravels to support natural reproduction of resident fish. DRAFT 2-5

26 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table 2-2. Resource Significance for Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Resource Species Benefited Location and Issue Sources of Significance Institutional Recognition Public Recognition Technical Recognition Forested wetlands (black cottonwood riparian forest) native to the Boise River, have become confined to a narrow corridor along Boise River. Most cottonwoods are mature and beginning to die off. Little or no natural recruitment (sexual regeneration) is occurring in project area. National Wetland Inventory, Executive Order 11990, Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404. Boise City River Ordinance. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan. Scoping comments support forested wetland restoration. Non-government organizations, such as the Idaho Native Plant Society and The Nature Conservancy, support wetland restoration and preservation in Idaho. Trout Unlimited has an active program on Boise River for planting cottonwood trees and willows, recognizing the importance of forested wetlands to aquatic habitat. Numerous scientific analyses and long-term monitoring of lower Boise River have documented the significance of the black cottonwood riparian forest. These forests provide important ecological functions in stabilizing streambanks, providing habitat, shading for instream habitat, and floodplain functions. Riparian habitat areas also provide an important transition habitat for upland areas and are crucial to the survival of many upland wildlife species. Forested Wetlands Great Blue Heron Life cycle of great blue heron depends upon healthy stands of forested wetlands. Active heron rookeries are within the project area on Eagle Island and the south side of the South Channel. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. IDFG has conservation easement for a portion of the project area for purpose of maintaining rookeries. Boise City River Ordinance. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Scoping comments demonstrate significant public support for preservation of rookeries and value the presence of herons along Boise River. Numerous scientific analyses and long-term monitoring of lower Boise River have documented the significance of the black cottonwood riparian forest, which is directly related to the existence of heron rookeries. IDFG has documented a declining number of rookeries on Boise River and there is evidence throughout the West of similar declines due to lost habitat. IDFG indicated that the rookeries in the project area are some of the most important rookery areas on lower Boise River and in Idaho (Ward- 2012). Rookeries are an important indicator of ecosystem health. Bald Eagle Bald eagles rely on forested wetland habitat for nesting and feeding. Bald eagles have been observed perching on trees throughout the project area. A new bald eagle nest was observed in the project area in March 2013 (Kaltenecker 2013). This is one of only a few nests known along the lower Boise River. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Boise City River Ordinance. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Scoping comments demonstrate significant public support for maintaining bald eagles along Boise River. Local chapter of Audubon Society participates in a volunteer program to count bald eagles during winter months. Boise State University s Raptor Research Center and Idaho Bird Observatory participate in bald eagle studies and surveys along Boise River as well as public outreach. Numerous scientific surveys have been conducted for the bald eagle along Boise River. Several nests have been identified in lower Boise River (Barber Pool area, in Canyon County, and recently in the project area). A roosting area has been identified at Barber Pool. Lower Boise River is recognized as an important wintering habitat for bald eagles. The bald eagle is recognized as an important indicator of ecosystem health. 2-6 DRAFT

27 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table 2-2. Resource Significance for Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Resource Species Benefited Location and Issue Sources of Significance Institutional Recognition Public Recognition Technical Recognition Emergent Wetlands Emergent wetlands are native to Boise River and have been associated with natural sloughs and off-channel marsh areas. These wetlands have declined with development along the river. For the project area, emergent wetlands are primarily limited to the gravel shorelines along the former extraction ponds. National Wetland Inventory, Executive Order 11990, Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404. Boise City River Ordinance. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan. Scoping comments support wetland/riparian restoration. Nongovernment organizations, such as the Idaho Native Plant Society and The Nature Conservancy, support wetland restoration and preservation in Idaho. These wetlands provide important ecological functions in stabilizing streambanks, providing habitat, shading for instream habitat, and floodplain functions. Riparian habitat areas also provide an important transition habitat for upland areas and are crucial to the survival of many upland wildlife species. Mallard Duck Mallards have been observed on gravel extraction ponds and on and near the river in the project area. Suitable duck habitat has declined in the project area due to the decline in emergent wetlands in the area. Aquatic habitat supporting rearing and spawning has dramatically changed, including armoring of substrate resulting in reduction of spawning areas throughout lower Boise River. Rearing habitat has also been reduced due to filling or removal of sloughs and side channels. Rainbow trout are found throughout study area but most are stocked fish. Suitable habitat for spawning and rearing is lacking. Migratory Bird Act of Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Ducks Unlimited is active in supporting water fowl habitat improvement along Boise River. Scoping comments indicate strong public support for preserving and enhancing bird habitat. Bird watching activities along Boise River are popular with the public. Numerous scientific surveys and studies have been conducted for birds, including migratory waterfowl species, along Boise River. These species rely on emergent wetlands and open water for nesting and foraging. These species are important indicators of ecosystem health. Rearing and Spawning Habitat for Resident Fish Rainbow Trout Clean Water Act Section 401, 319 and 303(d). Boise River System Ordinance. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. IDFG Boise River trout management program. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Scoping comments support instream improvements to Boise River, including improved water quality. Public participation in river cleanup activities organized by the city of Boise and other groups demonstrates public interest in aquatic habitat. Boise River is popular for recreation (floating, rafting, swimming, and fishing). Trout Unlimited conducts a program for rainbow trout habitat improvements to Boise River. Boise River is popular trout fishing stream. Scoping comments support improvements to fish habitat. Boise River is experiencing water quality degradation resulting in listing as a water quality limited stream (303d) and development of a total maximum daily loads (TMDL). IDFG and USGS conduct routine fish surveys on the river and participate in programs on fish habitat improvements (for example, day lighting project and trout spawning habitat improvement of Julia Creek, a tributary to lower Boise River). Numerous scientific surveys have been conducted for fish along lower Boise River. IDFG implemented urban trout fishery regulations along lower Boise River. Regulatory and non-profit groups have emphasized the importance of restoring native fish species in lower Boise River. IDFG supports the population of rainbow trout in portions of Boise River by regular stocking. Rainbow trout are recognized as an important indicator of ecosystem health. DRAFT 2-7

28 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Forested and emergent wetlands have been significantly reduced throughout the nation. More than half of Idaho s wetlands have been lost due to human actions (Dahl 1990). Tree/shrub wetland and riparian habitat constitute a very small percentage of acreage in Idaho (approximately 0.7 percent). IDFG has indicated that wetland restoration along the Boise River, particularly restoration of forested wetlands, is a high priority as it supports migratory bird species, including wintering bald eagles and great blue heron rookeries. The Boise River has the most robust heron rookeries in Idaho, but they are in decline as habitat is lost to land development and declining cottonwood forest habitat diversity (Ward 2012). The yellow-billed cuckoo, a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), may be a visitor to the area (Kibler 2011). The yellowbilled cuckoo uses robust, extensive riparian habitat. The project would improve wetland diversity at the project area, improving suitability for wildlife and waterfowl by providing a more complete ecosystem for key species. In addition, the project would improve aquatic habitat to support resident fish Institutional Recognition Table 2-2 summarizes the institutional recognition for forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and rearing and spawning habitat for resident fish. The importance of forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and fish habitat to river ecosystems is acknowledged nationally, statewide, and locally. Examples of institutional recognition include: Executive Order requires Federal agencies to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands when there is a practicable alternative, and to preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency s responsibility. IDFG ranks wetland restoration a high priority and believes the project supports the goals of the 2005 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Ward 2012). IDFG has an active fish management program for the Boise River described in Idaho s Fisheries Management Plan (IDFG 2007). IDFG has worked cooperatively with Trout Unlimited to improve rainbow trout spawning and rearing habitat along the Boise River. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe s Snake River policy supports projects on the Boise River that promote environmental restoration of wetlands, a healthy cottonwood corridor, natural floodplains, and protection of fish and wildlife habitat (Tuell 2011). The city of Boise s river ordinance and the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan both recognize the importance of wetlands and riparian habitat for wildlife, floodplain, and water quality. The city of Boise s Boise River Resource Management and Master Plan (adopted by the city of Boise in 1999) identified projects that aim to protect and improve riparian and river habitat for the watershed s fisheries and wildlife, as well as enhance water quality. The plan also encourages other habitat improvement 2-8 DRAFT

29 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report projects located outside of the city of Boise to the extent that they help restore beneficial uses within the lower Boise River. A Boise River Enhancement Workshop held in October 2011, which focused on ecosystem enhancement for the lower Boise River and identified habitat challenges, including the decline of wetlands, resulted in the formation of the Boise River Enhancement Network (BREN) Public Recognition Based on comments received during scoping periods and public forums, there is significant public concern about, support for, and value recognized in maintaining or enhancing environmental resources associated with lower Boise River. Examples of public recognition include: The Boise Greenbelt system includes over 25 miles of bicycle and pedestrian paths that stretch from Lucky Peak Dam to a short distance beyond Eagle Road, and links to over 850 acres of parks and natural areas along the river. The Golden Eagle Audubon Society routinely conducts bird watching field trips and surveys along the river, and this group has expressed support for preserving and restoring wetlands and aquatic habitat to support avian populations along the river corridor. Idaho Rivers United (IRU) is a non-profit conservation group with a full-time coordinator dedicated to river conservation activities, such as cleanup efforts and water quality sampling. Some level of significance of these resources to the public is measured through the actions of elected officials and policy makers who have enacted laws, policies, and plans to protect and enhance the Boise River (see section ) are also a measure of the public s (and their elected policy maker s) concern for river resources. For example, a goal of the Boise River System Ordinance (Chapters 11-16, Boise Municipal Code), which is an example of public support for regulations to endeavors to protect the Boise River and its riparian areas from development within the boundary of the city of Boise. An important goal of the ordinance is to, is to preserve the river s natural resource functions and floodplain values of the Boise River floodplain. Public input received during NEPA scoping for the project identified the following values: Preserve and restore cottonwood riparian areas to ensure a sustainable great blue heron rookery and encourage bald eagle wintering along the Boise River. Provide suitable habitat for mallards, wood ducks, and other water fowl found along the Boise River and in the ponds in the project area. Provide suitable aquatic habitat for rainbow trout spawning and rearing in the project area Technical Recognition Scientific analyses and long-term monitoring have documented the significance of Boise River ecological resources. Researchers, government agencies, and private groups DRAFT 2-9

30 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report have studied the Boise River floodplain and have proposed and/or initiated ecosystem restoration projects. The list below summarizes key research and resources: Tiedemann, Dr. Robert The Ecology, Effect of Dams, and Restoration of the Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Forest Community in the Intermountain West. Dissertation. Dr. Tiedemann s research shows the decline of Boise River forested wetlands directly impacts habitat for the bald eagle and the ESA-listed, yellow-billed cuckoo, and directly contributes to the decline in great blue heron rookeries. His research on the health of Boise River cottonwoods, which has been adversely affected by changes in river hydrology, also shows that cottonwoods remain capable of reproducing from seed even if the floodplain surface is artificially disturbed to prepare a proper seedbed. MacCoy, D. E Fish Communities and Related Environmental Conditions of the Lower Boise River, Southwestern Idaho, USGS Scientific Investigations Report MacCoy s research summarizes fishery investigations and water quality studies on Boise River from 1974 to The report concludes that changes in land use, habitat, water quality, and regulated streamflow have impacted lower Boise River fish communities. MacCoy, D.E. and Blew, D Impacts of Land-Use Changes and Hydrologic Modification on the Lower Boise River, Idaho, USA: Affects of Urbanization on Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 47, p MacCoy and Blew emphasize that prior to the placement of dams and diversions on Boise River (and downstream in Snake and Columbia rivers), the Boise River was described as the most renowned fishing place in the country due to presence of salmon, steelhead, and resident rainbow trout. Asbridge, G. and Bjornn, T.C Survey of Potential and Available Salmonid Habitat in the Lower Boise River: Idaho Department of Fish and Game Job Completion Report. Project F-71-R-12, Subproject 3, Job 3, 71p. Asbridge and Bjornn studied the potential and available salmonid habitat in lower Boise River. Their research indicated much of the needed spawning and rearing habitat has been lost because historic channel forms and parafluvial surfaces (coarse sediments within the active channel and outside the wetted stream) have mostly disappeared Inventory of Existing Resource Conditions This section presents an inventory of critical resources in the project area under existing conditions (at the time of the study) and provides forecasts of conditions (section 2.1.5) of the future without the project during the 50-year period of analysis. This assessment assisted in identifying the problems and opportunities for the feasibility study Boise River Watershed The Boise River originates in the Sawtooth Mountains and flows in a westerly direction, eventually joining the Snake River along the Idaho-Oregon border. The long basin axis trends east to west and includes large portions of Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties, and a small portion of Boise and Camas counties. From its headwaters in the Sawtooth Mountains to the mouth at the Snake River, the river flows about 200 river miles with a 2-10 DRAFT

31 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report total drainage area of approximately 4,130 square miles. Topography and runoff characteristics naturally divide the Boise River basin into an upper and lower watershed (figure 1-5). The project is located in the lower watershed. The upper watershed consists of approximately 2,680 square miles of drainage area upstream from Lucky Peak Dam. Elevation ranges from 3,000 to 10,600 feet above mean sea level (msl), with a mean elevation of about 5,800 feet above msl. Average annual precipitation ranges from 15 inches to over 52 inches at higher elevations. The upper watershed, composed of mountains with deep V-shaped valleys and narrow, sharp top ridges, contains the headwaters of the main tributaries to the Boise River and includes Mores Creek and the South, North, and Middle forks of the Boise (figure 1-5). These four tributaries comprise 92.0 percent of the drainage area upstream from Eagle Island. The lower watershed (figure 1-5) consists of approximately 1,450 square miles of drainage area downstream from Lucky Peak Dam. This area is composed of river bottoms, terraces, and low rolling to steep hills. Average annual precipitation ranges from 8 inches near the mouth of the Boise River to 22 inches at the highest elevations in the Boise foothills just north and northeast of Boise. Bottom land adjoining the Boise River varies from 1 to 3 miles in width, constituting the natural floodplain. Two terraces adjacent to this bottom land grade upward to the east to a ridge that divides the basin north and south near Lucky Peak Dam. This ridge, known as the Boise Front, forms the boundary between the upper and lower watersheds. Boise River tributaries within the lower watershed include Indian Creek, Willow Creek, and Dry Creek. Willow Creek and Dry Creek are intermittent streams that normally flow only during spring and early summer Water Management Reservoir Management Lucky Peak Dam is one of three Federal dams that are operated as a system by the Corps and Reclamation. It is located 15 miles upstream from Eagle Island on the Boise River and southeast of metropolitan Boise (figure 1-5). Operation of the Federal reservoirs is a balancing act between reducing flood risk and having sufficient irrigation water supply for crops in mid and late summer. Recreation, hydropower, and fish and wildlife functions are also authorized purposes but are secondary or incidental to achieving flood risk and water supply objectives. Water is not released for these purposes unless storage is assigned for that specific purpose. During the winter and early spring, enough storage space must be provided in the upper reservoirs to absorb flows from winter storms and spring snowmelt. If too much space is set aside in the reservoirs for flood risk reduction, there may not be enough remaining runoff to refill the reservoirs and provide sufficient water for irrigation in late summer. Reservoir storage is managed with the objective to provide enough space for flood control during the spring and early summer, and filling the reservoirs by July 1 for sufficient irrigation supply for late summer. The weather and snowpack are closely monitored and releases from Lucky Peak Dam to the lower Boise River are frequently adjusted based on runoff forecasts. DRAFT 2-11

32 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report During reservoir evacuation and refill, the regulatory objective is to limit the flow at Glenwood Bridge, approximately 1.5 miles upstream from Eagle Island, to 6,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less to minimize overbank flooding. The two periods most critical for water management of these reservoirs are: the transition between maximum flood-control storage and the beginning of refill (early spring timeframe). as the reservoirs approach full capacity (early July). Since 1993, Reclamation has released flows to the lower Boise River system to meet a portion of its requirement for salmon flow augmentation in the lower Snake and Columbia rivers. The delivery of flow augmentation water normally takes place during the spring in the Boise basin. The spring delivery of flow augmentation in the Boise Basin relies on two strategies. In years when the Boise system is assured to fill, some portion of the augmentation volume will be delivered by reserving an equivalent amount of system space that is not allowed to refill. As flood risk reduction operations near their end, releases are not cut. The resulting vacant space is considered to have been delivered as flow augmentation. The second strategy to deliver salmon flow augmentation water is to increase the rate of releases. This relies on the opportunity to make higher releases before the recreational floating season begins on the river. Floating season typically begins once streamflows through the city of Boise drop below 1,500 cfs. Once floating season begins, flows are limited to about 500 cfs above irrigation demand for public safety concerns. Reclamation will look for opportunities to make higher releases; during flood risk reduction operations this can easily be accomplished by maintaining higher releases rather than immediately ramping down at the end of flood operations. In non-flood control years, it can likely be accomplished by releasing in May (or early June) before the float season begins. The volume of water released from the Boise basin for salmon flow augmentation is approximately 41,000 acre-feet per year. During the non-irrigation season there is a minimum target flow of 150 cfs below the Boise Diversion Dam for water quality and instream flow maintenance for fish and wildlife. IDFG has indicated that the preferred minimum flow for fish and wildlife habitat is 240 cfs during average and high runoff years even if that would deplete their allocated storage and increase the probability of years when releases could be reduced to 80 cfs. Reclamation tries to provide the preferred minimum flow of 240 cfs and other preferred minimum flows identified by IDFG and summarized in table 2-3. For most years, winter time flows meet the minimum 240 cfs recommendation DRAFT

33 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table 2-3. IDFG s Recommended Minimum Flows for Fish and Wildlife Date Flows (cfs) Purpose January 1-February Fish rearing March 1 March 15 4,500 Water fowl nesting March 16 June 30 1,100 Rainbow trout spawning July 1-September Fish rearing October 1-November Brown trout spawning December Fish rearing Other water uses such as power generation and recreation are generally incidental to flood, irrigation operations, salmon flow augmentation, and minimum streamflow maintenance. However, Reclamation does consider releasing flows for other operations, if possible. Irrigation Diversions There are eleven irrigation diversions along the Boise River in the study area (Glenwood Street to Eagle Road reach); two on the main Boise River (includes Eagle Island Checks), two on the North Channel, and seven on the South Channel (figure 2-1). Diversion details, including ownership, diversion flow rates, and photographs are presented in the 1997 Boise and Payette Rivers Diversion Upgrade Project (Diversion Upgrade) report (Quadrant, et al. 1997). The Eagle Island check dam, sometimes called Eagle Island Checks, is located at the split of Eagle Island (photo 2-1). Operated by Water District 63, the structure was likely constructed in the 1930s or 1940s. The original structure is a concrete sill, approximately 400 feet long with concrete piers 20 feet apart. The structure runs eastwest and spans most of the entrance to the North Channel. The check dam was constructed to divert irrigation flows to the South Channel and supply water to the Phyllis Ditch and other diversions. In recent years, a gravel/cobble berm has been used in place of the check dam to divert flow into the South Channel (photo 2-1 shows this gravel berm). To control the amount of river flow into the North and South channels (flow split) to accomplish the necessary diversion, the berm is modified or reconstructed in the spring, requiring the use of heavy equipment in the river. In addition to irrigation flows, water diversion to the South Channel is needed to meet minimum recommended non-irrigation flows for water quality and instream flow maintenance for fish and wildlife. This minimum flow also helps with dilution of effluent discharge from west Boise wastewater treatment facility. The flow split is maintained by the Pioneer Irrigation District. DRAFT 2-13

34 E E E EAGLE RD E E E Warm Springs Canal E E E GLENWOOD ST Farmers Union Canal STATE ST Boise River «55 EE «55 «44 Channel North South Channel Ballentyne Div. Conway Hamming Div. Graham Gilbert Div. Lower Lemp Div. Upper Lemp Div. CHINDEN BLVD HWY 44 Mace Mace Div. Mace Catlin Div. Aiken Div. Warm Springs Div. Eagle Island Checks New Dry Creek Div. Lake Elmore Thurman Mill Canal Settlers Canal Spoil Banks Canal Dry Creek Canal Ballentyne Canal Lower Lemp Canal Graham-Gilbert Canal Thurman Drain Zinger Lateral Imagery: Foot Resolution Source: COMPASS Other Data Sources: Ada County, INSIDE Idaho Map Date: 4/9/2012 Q:\USACE\EagleIsland\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_MD3.mxd 0 1,000 2,000 Feet LEGEND E Diversion Structure Flowing Water Project Area Study Area Ê Figure 2-1. Diversion Structures Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

35 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Eagle Island South Channel Check Dam North Channel Gravel placement Photo 2-1. Aerial view looking west toward the head of Eagle Island (Photo provided by ACHD and taken by Idaho Airships, Inc., 2002) Surface Water Hydrology The lower Boise River does not follow a natural hydrologic pattern typical of streams in the region because of upstream reservoir management (see section for description of flow management). Daily discharge values are available from 1938 to present at the Glenwood Bridge gage (USGS , Glenwood Bridge NR, Boise, Idaho) with a gap in the record from October 1940 to March (The Capital Boulevard Bridge gage was in place during this time period but is not presented here due to its distance from the project area). Table 2-4 summarizes maximum and minimum flows at Glenwood bridge. DRAFT 2-15

36 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report For the Boise River South Channel gage (USGS Boise River South Channel at Eagle, Idaho) daily discharge values are available from 1999 to present (table 2-4). The maximum recorded flow rate was 3,560 cfs on May 16, The minimum flow rate recorded was 66 cfs on December 18, Table 2-4. Maximum and Minimum River Flow at Glenwood Bridge and South Channel Gages Station Maximum Flow Minimum Flow Unregulated 1 (cfs) Regulated (cfs) Unregulated (cfs) Regulated (cfs) Glenwood Bridge 13, , South Channel, Eagle Road NA 3 3,560 NA 66 1 Unregulated is prior to the three upstream reservoirs; regulated is with all three upstream reservoirs. 2 A flood in 1943 was estimated to have reached 21,000 cfs at Glenwood, however, the Glenwood Bridge gage was not in operation at the time so this is an estimate. 3 NA - not available (the gage was put in place in 1999). Figure 2-2 presents Boise River hydrographs from measurements immediately below Lucky Peak Dam (USGS gage ) for mean monthly flows from 1895 to 1915 (unregulated flows) with flows from 1986 to 2011 (regulated flows). Management of the upstream reservoirs has resulted in higher river flows during late summer while effectively reducing peak flood flows. Mean Monthly Discharge (cfs) 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Unregulated Flows Regulated Flows J F M A M J J A S O N D Months Figure 2-2. Boise River hydrograph of mean monthly discharge, unregulated ( ), and regulated ( ) flows Several studies have quantified the flow split percentages at the head of Eagle Island under various flows, including the Eagle Island Flow Split Study (Quadrant and Resource Systems 1997). The percentage of river flow between the South and North channels varies as a function of flow. Data indicates that between 1971 and 2002 flow splits ranged from 15.0 to 75.0 percent in the North Channel and 25.0 to 85.0 percent in the South Channel (Reclamation 2004). During summer (irrigation season), the split is unnaturally altered by the check dam/gravel berm at the head of the island. During 2-16 DRAFT

37 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report higher flow events, typically during spring runoff, the flow split trends toward greater than 50.0 percent in the North Channel. The split percentages between the two channels at high flows are somewhat unpredictable and have created flooding concerns for the South Channel (Corps 2007) Floodplain Function and Stream Assessment The lower Boise River upstream from Eagle Island is a single meandering channel with a gradient averaging 13 feet per mile. The gradient drops to 8 feet per mile as the river nears Eagle Island (photo 2-1). This gradient drop contributes to sediment deposition at the head of the island. Depositional areas can clog the main channel, forcing flow in alternate directions, thereby creating a wide, multi-channel, or braided system. The historic floodplain through the project site is typical of a braided, well-established floodplain with complex riparian form and function. Downstream from Lucky Peak Dam, the river channel continuously changes shape in response to the water s erosive forces as material is deposited by the river. The banks, including portions of the adjacent riparian forest, composed mainly of silts, sands and some gravel, erode easily at high flow, sloughing into the channel. Depending on the flow quantity and material size, the material is either transported completely out of the basin or deposited on bars or islands, at least temporarily. Water ponding is a common geomorphic impact from dams or detention basins in-line with streams, leading to subsequent deposition of transportable sediment load behind the dam. This sudden drop in sediment downstream of the dam creates an unnatural imbalance between sediment and water, creating clean water below the dam that has increased erosive capability. Often, there is significant scour downstream as the sediment-starved water tries to pick up sediment to balance this transportable load. By definition, a floodplain is an area adjacent to stream channels that is subject to recurring flooding. Flood frequency results in a complex ecosystem containing diverse habitats serving a variety of riparian functions. Major physical features of a natural floodplain include point bars, oxbow lakes, riparian forests and wetlands, meander scars, cutbank, and tributary channels (table 2-5 and figure 2-3). Table 2-5. Natural Floodplain Features Feature 1 Point Bar Deposits Oxbow Lakes Meander Scars Cutbank Description Sediment deposits at the inside bends of rivers where velocity is typically low, allowing sediment to drop out and deposit. As a river migrates laterally, these are the areas that revegetate with riparian habitat such as cottonwood trees. Old meander bends that have been cut off from the main channel, isolating them on the floodplain. These features still contain groundwater and are typified by wetland habitat. Depressions in the floodplain that are relic river channels formed when the river was in a different alignment. Many rivers are multichannel or braided in nature. Located opposite of a point bar, shaped like a small cliff and in an area of erosion. Tributary Alternate or side channels formed as flow breaks out of the main channel. Channels 1 See figure 2-3 for illustration of features DRAFT 2-17

38 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Figure 2-3. Natural floodplain flow patterns (From Physical Geology by Anatole Dolgoff, 1996) In a natural setting, floodplains dissipate energy associated with peak flow events, capture and store sediment and nutrients for riparian habitat development, and slow water down to help provide groundwater recharge. As water accesses the complex overbank area, floodplain landform and riparian vegetation slow water down and dissipate energy, allowing sediment and nutrients to settle and water to percolate through the soil. Complex flow patterns and multiple braided channels help distribute water across the floodplain, maintaining a high water table to support riparian habitat. Historically, the Eagle Island area was a wide, braided floodplain with active, laterallymigrating channels and frequent flooding. A 1939 aerial photo (figure 2-4) illustrates the high degree of channel sinuosity, multiple side channels, and meander scars associated with the North and South channels. These conditions indicate an active historic floodplain across the entire island. This photograph also illustrates the high degree of point bar development on the North Channel, indicating active sediment movement. As a result of upstream dam operations, summer flows downstream of Lucky Peak Dam are higher than pre-dam flows because of irrigation demand; the frequency and magnitude of major Boise River flooding is reduced; and areas adjacent to the river are not inundated during flood events as often. The rate and magnitude of fluctuating water levels resulting from upstream project operation may adversely affect riparian growth along the river banks such as reducing cottonwood regeneration and other riparian vegetation, which are vital in maintaining wintering areas for bald eagles, a wide variety of fish and wildlife habitat, and contributing to sustainable floodplain functions DRAFT

39 EAGLE RD HWY 55 South Channel GLENWOOD ST HWY 44 «55 LEGEND Project Area Study Area «44 North C hannel Eagle Island Checks STATE ST Boise River «55 CHINDEN BLVD Map Date: 4/9/2012 Q:\USACE\EagleIsland\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_MD3.mxd Miles Ê Figure Aerial Photo (showing wide braided floodplain) Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

40 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report In addition, the use of Boise River storage appears to modify natural fluvial processes (the processes associated with rivers and streams and the deposits and landforms they create). The lack of major flood events in the last 50 years, a result of upstream reservoir storage and flow management that has effectively attenuated peak flood flow in the lower Boise River, has induced development in the historic floodplain. Human impacts on floodplains, such as encroachment by development, stream channelization or dewatering, can disconnect a stream from its historic floodplain, thus limiting the frequency of flooding and reducing floodplain and habitat natural functions. Human impacts on floodplain functions in the project area include gravel-mining operations, irrigation agriculture activities, and commercial and residential development (figure 1-2, photos 2-1 and 2-2). Land use along the Boise River is also changing from agricultural to commercial and residential development, encroaching into the natural floodplain and reducing the floodplain function and riparian habitat along the river. These conditions are negatively impacting existing natural areas, floodplains, and water resources. North Channel Head of Eagle Island South Channel Photo 2-2. Aerial view looking north toward Boise River and Eagle Island (Photo provided by ACHD and taken by Idaho Airships, Inc., 2002) Despite these factors, the project area currently supports a narrow riparian forest corridor that provides valuable habitat to the great blue heron and a multitude of other wildlife species. In January and February 2011, the project team conducted a Boise River stream assessment and fluvial geomorphic classification within the study area from the New Dry Creek Diversion (upstream) to Eagle Road (downstream) (HDR 2011a). The assessment area was split into 18 sub-areas ( study reaches ) for study purposes. The 2-20 DRAFT

41 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report selection of the reaches was based on convenience for field survey activities and do not necessarily represent fluvial geomorphic reaches. Figure 2-5 presents a general habitat/land use map developed as part of the stream assessment study for the area. This mapping was completed based on field observations and the use of geographic information system (GIS). Components mapped included locations of berms/levees, wetlands, open water (ponds, rivers, and ditches), land use, and channel characteristics (riffles, pools, bars, and diversions). In general, the riparian area is a narrow band along the channels due to floodplain encroachment from residential development, gravel mining, the Boise River Greenbelt (pedestrian and bicycle trails along the Boise River), berms and levees, and livestock grazing. The head of the Eagle Island contains large tracts of wetlands, though this area has been disturbed by access roads, irrigation ditches, and berms. Details regarding wetland types and locations are described in section DRAFT 2-21

42 HWY 55 LEGEND EAGLE RD «55 E Mace Mace Div. Aiken Div. EE Mace Catlin Div E 8 16 E «55 Ballentyne Div. Conway Hamming Div. E HWY 44 7 Graham Gilbert Div. 15 North 14 Channel 6 5 Warm Springs Lower Lemp Div. 4 Div. E E STATE ST South Channel 3 E 11 Upper Lemp Div. «44 Eagle Island Checks E 2 Boise River E Diversion Structure Project Area Reach Berm/Levee Marsh/Emergent Open Water Open Water, Back Channel Open Water, Bar Open Water, Canal Open Water, Dam Open Water, Pond Open Water, Pool Open Water, Riffle Riparian Riparian, Disturbed Riparian, Island Riprap Upland Upland, Agriculture Upland, Developed Upland, Disturbed Upland, Mining New Dry Creek Div. 1 E Imagery: Foot Resolution Source: COMPASS Other Data Sources: Ada County, INSIDE Idaho Map Date: 4/10/2012 Q:\USACE\EagleIsland\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_ft.mxd 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Ê Figure 2-5. Stream Assessment Study Area Habitat Map Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

43 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Pit Capture Multiple gravel extraction ponds and residential neighborhood landscape ponds have been developed along the Boise River, typically bordered by push-up berms (photo 2-3). Berms are typically of an uncertain structural and erosion control design. Pit capture is a potential danger to river stability, which occurs when an active river channel erodes a strip of land separating the river from a pit (pond). The river then migrates into the pit and the off-channel pit becomes a part of the river channel (see figure 2-6). As the river migrates into a deeper ponded area, it lowers the base level (or channel invert) in a short section that used to be the pond. This discrepancy between the original bed elevation and the new lower bed elevation creates scour instability through localized increase in stream flow velocities, which translates upstream. This migration of scour and lowering of the streambed is known as a head cut, or channel incision. Scour can also occur downstream from the capture location. South Channel North Channel Photo 2-3. Aerial view looking southeast toward gravel extraction ponds on Eagle Island (Photo provided by ACHD and taken by Idaho Airships, Inc., 2002) DRAFT 2-23

44 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Figure 2-6. Conceptualized Schematic of Pit Capture Pit capture is of concern in the Eagle Island area for a number of reasons: The river has a history of meandering during flood events in the project area, which can erode berms and pond banks. The berms and pond banks in the project area are not constructed of stabilized and reinforced materials. Since the berms are not considered engineered levees, they are prone to failure during flood events. The Eagle Island area has a high density of ponds, including six gravel extraction ponds (no longer actively mined) near the head of Eagle Island in the project area and several gravel extraction ponds south and north of the channels adjacent to the Boise River and the project area (photos 2-2 and 2-3). During high water flows in spring 2006, an uncontrolled pit capture occurred in a neighborhood pond at the Laguna Pointe subdivision, located within the study area, (Corps 2007). The pond breach, which was along the South Channel just upstream (east) from Eagle Road, was quickly repaired. The extent of disturbance to the river has not been fully determined, but preliminary information indicates that bank and bed instability has been quantified along portions of the river at least 1 mile upstream from the pit (Sweet 2010) DRAFT

45 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report The six gravel extraction ponds at the head of Eagle Island comprise approximately 76 acres. If pit capture occurs in the ponds at the head of Eagle Island, the river would incorporate a large pool section into its stream length. Potential long-term problems associated with pit capture include: Vertical and horizontal streambank instability in the reaches upstream and downstream from the pit capture. Disruption of public utilities, including buried sewer mains and overhead electrical transmission and distribution lines. Destabilization of bridge piers and abutments, irrigation diversion structures, and roadway embankments. Interruption of sediment transport. Water quality decline and loss of riparian and aquatic habitat from streambank instabilities Upland, Wetlands, and Riparian Habitat A vegetation survey was conducted in spring 2011 for the project area. The results of the survey, including a list of observed plant species, are summarized in the Wetlands Delineation Report (HDR 2012b). This section summarizes information based on this survey and other available data. Riparian zones are long strips of vegetation adjacent to the streams, rivers, lakes, and other inland aquatic systems that affect or are affected by the presence of water (Fischer, et al. 2001). These zones are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. Riparian areas are important habitats for plants and animals. Wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al. 1979). Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3(b)), the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. In general, riparian areas contain wetlands, but not all wetlands areas are in riparian zones (e.g., wetlands may be present due to shallow groundwater saturating the soil but are not adjacent to surface water). Furthermore, a riparian area may not always meet the strict definition of wetlands. Upland areas refer to land that does not meet riparian or wetland criteria. Figure 2-5 illustrates riparian, upland, and aquatic habitat zones for the Eagle Island area mapped as part of the Stream Assessment (HDR 2011a) described in section A wildlife species list was compiled based on published information in the project area as well as spring 2011 site observations (HDR 2012b). The ponds on Eagle Island and north and south of the island in the project area contain a variety of birds, including geese, grebes, gulls, ducks, domestic swans, and small shore birds. The riparian corridor along the Boise River, as well as areas surrounding the gravel ponds, provide habitat for songbirds, deer, fox, raccoons, rodents, and snakes. Several birds of prey, including bald eagles and osprey, have been observed in the project area. Osprey DRAFT 2-25

46 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report nests, and more recently a single bald eagle nest, have been observed in the project area. Bald eagles, great blue herons, and yellow-billed cuckoo are significant resources that are described further in this section. Wetland Inventory The dams upstream of the project area have altered the flow of the river. Natural cottonwood regeneration frequency has greatly decreased on the Boise River (Kaltenecker, et al. 1994; Tiedemann 2011). Floodplain development, including gravel mining operations, agriculture, and residential and commercial development has resulted in the conversion of wetlands to other uses. Many of the remaining wetland communities are thin strips along the Boise River (photo 2-3). Wetlands in the project area lack vegetation and the habitat diversity. Table 2-6 summarizes values and functions provided by wetlands found in the project area. Table 2-6. Types, Function, and Value of Wetlands and Waters of U.S. in the Project Area Type Definition Function and Values Emergent Wetland Scrub-Shrub Wetland Characterized by erect, rooted, leafy plants that require water or water-logged soils to survive. Usually dominated by perennial plants. Cattails are a common plant found in emergent wetlands in the project area. Areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. Species include true shrubs, young trees (saplings), and trees or shrubs that are small or stunted. Willows are a common plant found in scrubshrub wetlands in the project area. Provides area for some aquifer discharge. Plants allow for infiltration of water to sub-soils and aquifer. Provides area for hunting, fishing, bird watching, and education opportunities. Reduces water velocity and allows for sediment deposition and nutrient/toxicant retention. Provides moderate quality habitat for wetlanddependent bird species. Provides valuable habitat for nesting mallards and other duck species. Supports invertebrate species. Reduces flood-water velocity. Diverse in wildlife support capabilities, including wintering habitat. Provides area for hunting, fishing, bird watching, and education opportunities. Allows for sediment deposition and nutrient/toxicant retention. Provides root systems for undercut streambanks. Provides moderate quality habitat for wetlanddependent bird species. Provides valuable habitat for nesting mallards and other duck species DRAFT

47 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table 2-6. Types, Function, and Value of Wetlands and Waters of U.S. in the Project Area Type Definition Function and Values Forested Wetland Open Water Characterized by woody vegetation that is at least 20 feet tall. Black cottonwood is the dominant forested wetland vegetation in the project area. Un-vegetated, open water. Supports invertebrate species. Reduces flood-water velocity. Diverse in wildlife support capabilities, including wintering habitat. Provides area for hunting, fishing, bird watching, and education opportunities. Allows for sediment deposition and nutrient/toxicant retention. Provides canopy cover. Provides moderate quality habitat for wetlanddependent bird species. Provides nesting for great blue heron and cormorants. A single bald eagle nest was observed in the project area in March 2013 within a forested wetlands area. Provides for waterfowl habitat, foraging, and fish habitat. In July 2011, a wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the Corps 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). The project area for the delineation included Eagle Island from its head to the western boundary of the gravel extraction ponds and included the banks of the North and South channels (figure 2-7). A summary of the wetland delineation is presented in the document Wetlands Delineation Report (HDR 2012b). In November 2012, the Corps regulatory branch provided an approved jurisdictional determination indicating there are waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the proposed project area (Corps 2012). Table 2-7 summarizes the acreages for each wetland type and open water, all considered to be jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Table 2-7. Wetland and Open Water Delineation Summary Type Quantity (acre) Percent of Project Area 1 Forested Wetland Scrub-shrub Wetland Emergent Wetland Seasonally Wet Meadow Open Water Other (roads/disturbed areas) Project area is 235 acres (see figure 2-7 for outline of project area and wetland locations). DRAFT 2-27

48 LEGEND E Diversion Structure Project Area Existing Open Water Existing Emergent Wetland Existing Forested Wetland Existing Scrub/Shrub Existing Seasonally Wet Meadow Pond 5 Bridge North Channel Pond 4 Pond 3 Main Access Road Pond 2 Lower Lemp Div. Pond 1 Pond 6 E Warm Springs Div. E South Channel Eagle Island Checks E E Upper Lemp Div. Boise River Imagery: Foot Resolution Source: COMPASS Other Data Sources: Ada County, INSIDE Idaho Map Date: 4/9/2012 Q:\USACE\EagleIsland\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_MD.mxd Feet Ê Figure 2-7. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

49 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report The dominant wetland type for the project area is forested wetlands with 81 acres, compared to only 3 acres of scrub-shrub. Open water gravel extraction ponds comprised 32.0 percent of the project area. The functions and values of undisturbed wetlands within the Boise River floodplain are generally high. The plant associations found in the riparian areas include: (1) forested wetland, dominated by black cottonwood with Wood s rose understory; (2) scrub-shrub wetland, dominated by willows; and (3) emergent wetland dominated by common rush and/or reed canary grass communities (see Wetlands Delineation Report [HDR 2012b] for plant species scientific names). The ponds found within the project area are man-made pits, created primarily by gravel extraction. The shorelines of these pits (riparian zones) tend to be berms that consist of overburden material that was removed prior to gravel extraction. These berms are not constructed with structural fill, are not considered engineered levees, and are prone to fail during a major flooding event. The ponds have a hydrologic connection to the groundwater and the shallow groundwater is hydrologically connected to the Boise River. Pond water elevations rise and fall in response to Boise River flows. Some emergent marsh areas have developed along the shoreline of these ponds (figure 2-5) but the majority of the shoreline is comprised of steep berms with little vegetation and often the vegetation is dominated by cheat grass and other invasive species. Invasive Species Invasive plant species can result in the loss of wetlands and riparian habitats (USGS 2013). Russian olive, for example, has been observed in the project area and is known to be a threat to wetlands by rapidly replacing native plants and trees, altering wetland and riparian habitats. The 2011 vegetation survey (HDR 2012b) identified invasive plant species in the project area, including noxious weeds (an invasive plant species that has been designated by county, state, or Federal authorities as injurious to agriculture, natural habitats, humans, or livestock). Past land use including livestock grazing, sand and gravel mining, and continuing vehicle traffic has resulted in disturbed areas where invasive plant species are proliferating. The noxious weed cheat grass dominates the upland vegetation in disturbed areas along access roads and berms. In lower lying areas, false indigo is prolific especially south of ponds 1 and 2 in areas of frequent flooding (figure 2-7 illustrate pond number identification). This weed was observed outcompeting new cottonwood trees in several areas. Russian olives, although not yet a prolific species in the project area, are establishing themselves, especially in the wetland areas south of ponds 1 and 2. Without weed control and the re-establishment of healthy riparian and upland areas, it is likely that invasive species and other undesirable plant species will invade and outcompete native vegetation in the project area. Riparian Habitat and Associated Wildlife Species Undisturbed portions of the riparian corridor along the Boise River in the project area are primarily made up of black cottonwood forest with a woody shrub understory (palustrine forested wetlands) (photos 2-1, 2-2, and 2-4). In general, black cottonwood forest habitat provides wildlife habitat, nutrient retention and removal, groundwater DRAFT 2-29

50 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report recharge, groundwater discharge, flood storage, shoreline anchoring, and sediment trapping. The cottonwood trees currently provide good and valuable habitat for great blue herons, which can be frequently observed in the project area. A bald eagle nest in a forested wetland area within the project area was observed in March Mallard ducks, which are prolific along Boise River, are rarely observed in the project area because the existing habitat does not provide full life cycle requirements. Photo 2-4. View west toward North Channel and wetland habitat Other wetlands found in the riparian zones in the project area include palustrine scrubshrub and palustrine emergent. The emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and open water in the project area provide only limited habitat to the mallard duck, because the wetlands are generally narrow, which provides limited cover from predators and the ponds have few shallow areas that would provide a source of food. The functions and values of undisturbed wetlands within the Boise River floodplain are generally high. A 2007 study (ACHD 2007) found that habitat fragmentation on Eagle Island was a concern to IDFG and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Habitat fragmentation is the splitting of natural habitats into smaller and more isolated patches. The agencies are concerned that fragmentation may be contributing to the decline of wildlife in the area. The most important habitat type identified in the project area is the black cottonwood forest that grows along the Boise River. IDFG and USEPA indicated that large contiguous areas of black cottonwood forest are needed for sustainable wildlife habitat. Cottonwood Regeneration Forested wetlands, specifically cottonwoods, play an important role in riverine systems throughout the western United States. Not only are they critical to the fish and wildlife 2-30 DRAFT

51 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report dependent on riparian and aquatic ecosystems, they often make up the only forested areas in otherwise treeless western landscapes. Because of water regulation and landuse practices throughout the West, the cottonwood forests are in decline and natural regeneration of cottonwoods is more problematic. It has been estimated that greater than 80.0 percent of cottonwood forests have been lost as a result of changing land use practices and the altered hydrology that results from dams and water diversions (Wheeler 2005). Successful cottonwood establishment requires the scouring of streambeds for sediments to be deposited along the streambanks. Most erosion and deposition events that affect channel morphology occur in high flow periods, typically during spring snowmelt and periodic stormflows (Braatne et al. 1996). After high flow events, water levels decline, and the sediments that are deposited provide the moist, bare, and alluvial mineral soil microsites that are required for the sexual reproduction of cottonwood species (D Amico 1997). However, cottonwoods can also reproduce asexually through suckering (a secondary shoot produced from the base or roots of a woody plant that gives rise to a new plant). While the relative contribution of sexual versus asexual reproduction in riparian cottonwood forests in the arid western U.S. is poorly studied, especially among different species, it is suggested that suckering may be the dominant form of reproduction in some river systems (D Amico 1997; Tiedemann 2011). Studies have shown that suckering typically occurs in middle-aged trees and declines in older trees. With native stands, the proportion of trees established from sexual versus asexual (clonal) propagation will vary with species, climatic conditions, and drainage basin. In some instances, asexual propagules may out-compete seedlings, though few studies have sought to document the relative role of sexual versus asexual propagation in native stands (Braatne, et al. 1996). While asexual reproduction provides a gradation of tree sizes and increases forest structure, it also decreases the genetic diversity and vigor of the stand (Wheeler 2005). Genetic diversity is important to the health and longterm viability of cottonwoods. Asexual reproduction can also cause a shift in the sex ratio of male to female trees that could lead to lower reproductive fitness (Jamieson and Braatne 2001). Asexual species can typically be identified in stands with small cottonwoods. Most of the cottonwood trees in the project area have reached maturity. As these trees die off, they are being replaced by asexually producing trees, because lower Boise River s modified fluvial processes have made sexual regeneration infrequent. Asexual regeneration produces smaller, less genetically diverse and less healthy trees (Corps 1995; Tiedemann 2011). Thus, these trees are more susceptible to disease and to invasive plant competition. Great Blue Heron The black cottonwood riparian forest along the Boise River in the study area is recognized by IDFG and others as critical for great blue heron rookeries. Three heron rookeries have been identified in the project area. Seventy four nests were found in the project area during a September 2004 field survey (19 in the northern island rookery, 11 in the southern island rookery, and 44 in the rookery south of the South Channel of the DRAFT 2-31

52 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Boise River) (ACHD 2007). The site of the northern rookery (south of the North Channel on Eagle Island) is in an area that is protected by a conservation easement with IDFG. The Boise River has the most robust heron rookeries in Idaho, but they are in decline as habitat is lost to land development and declining cottonwood forest habitat diversity (Ward 2012). Great blue herons congregate during the breeding season in rookeries for the purpose of courtship, nest building, egg-laying and incubation, and chick-rearing. Generally, great blue herons reuse nest sites from the previous year, and rookeries will often grow over time. The main determinant in rookery selection is proximity to emergent wetlands and open water, and secondarily to scrub-shrub and riverine wetlands for feeding habitat (Vermont 2002). Protection of these wetland feeding habitats and their buffers is imperative for maintaining the integrity of great blue heron rookeries. Buffers up to 300 feet may be required to prevent disturbance of critical feeding areas, depending on site conditions and project design (Vermont 2002). In addition, herons typically nest in areas isolated from human disturbance. The effects of human disturbance vary in response to a number of factors, including stage of nesting, degree of habituation to disturbance, rookery size, and surrounding habitat and land uses, and nature of disturbance. Repeated human disturbance can result in nest site abandonment by herons (Simpson and Kelsall 1979). Bald Eagle The bald eagle was removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species on August 9, The bald eagle remains protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) which prohibits disturbance to bald and golden eagles. USFWS developed the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide landowners, land managers, and others general recommendations for land management practices that uphold the provisions of BGEPA. Where feasible, the management solutions identified in this feasibility report will incorporate the recommendations of the management guidelines. Bald eagles are common on the Boise River during winter months and have been observed near the project area. The wintering period along the Boise River is generally from November 15 to March 15, with peak usage from December 15 through February 15 (Kaltenecker, et al. 1994). Bald eagles winter in the Barber Pool area (Barber Pool Communal Roost, located approximately 4 miles upstream of the project area) and can travel down the Boise River to perch or forage during the day (Kaltenecker et al. 1994). Based on information gathered in other environmental studies along the Boise River near the project area, IDFG concluded that eagles observed perching along the river can overnight in the general vicinity during the winter but do not form communal roosting areas. The Boise River Wintering Bald Eagle Study, Boise River Corridor (Kaltenecker et al. 1994) conducted a detailed literature review and bald eagle field survey of the Boise River that included the project area. Bald eagles were identified to perch during the winter in the black cottonwood forest along the North and South channels in the project area. The black cottonwood forest was identified by Kaltenecker et al. as the most important habitat for wintering bald eagles. Habitat conversion (either destruction from 2-32 DRAFT

53 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report development or transformation of black cottonwood riparian to scrub-shrub or emergent types of wetlands) along the lower Boise River, including Eagle Island, was cited as the most serious threat to wintering bald eagles. In March 2013, a bald eagle nest was observed in a forested wetlands area within the project area (Kaltenecker 2013). This is one of only a few current bald eagle nests identified along the lower Boise River Aquatic Habitat An aquatic species list was compiled based on published information in the project area as well as site observations (HDR 2011b and 2011a). This section focuses on Boise River fish community and its associated aquatic habitat. Twenty-two species of fish distributed among seven families have been identified in the lower Boise River (MacCoy 2006): 3 Salmonidae (2 trout and 1 whitefish) 2 Cottidae (sculpins) 3 Catostomidae (suckers) 7 Cyprinidae (minnows) 4 Centrarchidae (sunfishes) 2 Ictaluridae (catfishes) 1 Cobitidae (loach fish from Asia, invasive species). Most of the warm water species are found in the lower reaches of Boise River (below Middleton). Of the salmonid species, mountain whitefish are found throughout lower Boise River, where rainbow trout and brown trout are found upstream of Eagle Road and include the South and North channels in the project area. IDFG manages the lower Boise River as a put and take fishery. Within the city of Boise limits, IDFG has created an urban fishery by stocking the river with hatchery-reared rainbow trout. Surveys by IDFG along the North and South channels of the Boise River found no sculpins of this cold water, bottom-feeding fish downstream of Glenwood Bridge. The lack of sculpin was attributed to decreases in habitat and water quality (MacCoy 2006). Asbridge and Bjornn (1988) studied the potential and available salmonid habitat in the lower Boise River. They concluded that the lower Boise River was not ideally suited to trout due to high velocities (high spring time flows during rainbow trout spawning with limited natural spawning areas) in the upper reaches and high temperature in the lower reaches. Winter cover also was mentioned as affecting trout abundance. Mullins (1999) noted the absence of juvenile trout throughout the lower Boise River, which he concluded may be an indication of poor natural recruitment. Recent IDFG surveys in cooperation with Trout Unlimited provide evidence of rainbow trout spawning and rearing in the Boise River (Ward 2012). IDFG has worked cooperatively with Trout Unlimited in improving rainbow trout spawning and rearing habitat. Prior to the placement of dams and diversions on the Boise River and downstream in the Snake and Columbia rivers, the Boise River was described as the most renowned fishing place in the country due to presence of salmon, steelhead, and resident rainbow trout (MacCoy and Blew 2005; MacCoy 2006). The river naturally developed side channels and other habitat for refuge and areas ideal for salmonid spawning and DRAFT 2-33

54 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report rearing. Operation of the Boise River dams for irrigation and flood control created flow regimes with higher than natural flows during peak irrigation season and lower than natural flows during non-irrigation season. The change in the hydraulic regime and the construction of levees has caused the Boise River to incise such that depositional areas, backwater sloughs, and wetlands have diminished. For example, the average bankfull width of the South Channel of the Boise River in the project area has changed from 390 feet pre-dam period to 150 feet in 2004 (MacCoy 2006). The North Channel has changed from 790 feet width to 400 feet for the same time period. Furthermore, river bottom substrate has become armored and lacks spawning size gravels throughout much of the lower Boise River (Asbridge and Bjornn 1988). Historic channel forms and parafluvial surfaces (coarse sediments within the active channel and outside the wetted stream) have mostly disappeared from the lower Boise River. Thus, much of the habitat needed for spawning and rearing has been lost. In addition to the aquatic habitat of the Boise River, the project area includes six gravel extraction ponds. These ponds currently contain several fish species (sunfish and small mouth bass have been observed). The pond aquatic habitat to support invertebrates is somewhat lacking due to the steep shoreline and lack of vegetation and wetland habitat along much of the pond shorelines Threatened and Endangered Species The ESA of 1973, as amended, protects endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Endangered species are defined as any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and are listed as endangered under the ESA. A threatened species is any species which is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is listed as threatened under the ESA. Candidate species are those which are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. Candidate species have no protection under the act, but are often considered for planning purposes. USFWS has listed five species as threatened or endangered, or as a candidate or proposed species in Ada County (table 2-8). None of these species are known to occur in the project area, although the yellow-billed cuckoo has been observed in the lower Boise River corridor. Table 2-8. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species in Ada County, Idaho Species 1 Status Occurrences in Project Area Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Candidate Observed on lower Boise River, east of project site. Potential visitor to area. Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus Candidate Does not occur. No habitat present. urophasiunus) Slickspot Peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) Proposed Does not occur. No habitat present. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Threatened Does not occur. No habitat present. Snake River Physa Snail (Haitia (physa) natricinia) Endangered Does not occur. No habitat present. 1 Source: USFWS, Updated February 6, DRAFT

55 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report A 2003 survey of previously identified yellow-billed cuckoo nesting sites revealed no cuckoos in southwestern Idaho (Reynolds and Hinckley, 2005). However, in 2004, a yellow-billed cuckoo was observed on a tributary to Mores Creek in Boise County (upstream of Lucky Peak Reservoir). In addition, a bird was spotted on the lower Boise River at Barber Pool (about 4 miles east of Eagle Island) (Kibler 2011). The bird prefers robust and extensive riparian habitats, which is generally lacking along both the North and South channels of the Boise River (ACHD 2007). A yellow-billed cuckoo could be a visitor to riparian habitats along the river corridor Water Quality Section 303(d) of the Federal CWA (33 USC 1313(d)) requires Idaho to develop a list of water bodies, subject to USEPA approval, that do not meet water quality standards. When water quality fails to meet state water quality standards, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) determines the causes and sources of pollutants in a subbasin assessment and sets maximum pollutant levels called total maximum daily loads (TMDL). For waters identified on this list, states and tribes must develop water quality improvement plans for TMDLs that establish allowable pollutant loads set at levels to achieve water quality standards. A TMDL report was produced for the lower Boise River from Lucky Peak Dam to the Snake River (IDEQ 2000). The report identifies beneficial uses of the lower Boise River as cold water biota, salmonid spawning, recreation, and domestic and agricultural water supply. These beneficial uses (except for agricultural water supply) have been impaired due to sediment loading and the presence of high levels of bacteria in the river. Pollutants of concern were also identified that include nutrients, sediment, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and oil and grease. An implementation plan for the Boise River TMDL was developed in The plan outlines best management practices (BMPs) for reducing sediment and bacteria from point and non-point sources, and establishes a schedule for implementing the BMPs. Table 2-9 summarizes water quality measurements made by USGS for selected constituents from monitoring sites on the Boise River from 1994 through 2002 (MacCoy 2006). Increases in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids between the diversion dam and Parma likely reflect agricultural and urban activities. Of these water quality parameters, water temperature has a large influence on salmonid spawning and rearing. The Idaho maximum temperature standard for cold water biota is 22 degrees Celsius ( C) and for salmonid spawning is 13 C. The nearest water quality monitoring site presented in table 2-9 is Glenwood Bridge (upper end of study area), where the median temperature was 11.5 C with a range of 2.8 to 23 C. Temperature regimes can be influenced by channel width, riparian canopy, pool volume, runoff timing, and instream flow. Temperature is a water quality limited parameter on the lower Boise River (part of the TMDL described above) and during summer and fall, temperatures in the project area are often above maximum temperature standards for salmonid spawning (see section for discussion on salmonid spawning and rearing habitat). DRAFT 2-35

56 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table 2-9. Instantaneous Water Quality Measurements and Select Constituent Concentrations from Sites on the Lower Boise River, Southwestern Idaho, Waterquality sampling site 1 USGS station No. Subbasins Temperature ( C) Median (Min-Max) Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 2 Median (Min-Max) ph (standard units) Median (Min-Max) Specific conductance (µs/cm) Median (Min-Max) Suspended sediment (mg/l) Median (Min-Max) Total nitrogen (mg/l as N) Median (Min-Max) Total phosphorus (mg/l as P) Median (Min-Max) Diversion Upstream of Eagle Island Basin 9.2 ( ) 11.6 ( ) 7.6 ( ) 75 (51-107) 4 (1-38) 0.26 ( ) 0.04 ( ) Glenwood Upstream of Eagle Road Basin 11.5 ( ) 11.4 ( ) 8.0 ( ) 90 (52-197) 5 (1-107) 0.45 ( ) 0.09 ( ) Middleton Upstream of Middleton Basin 12 ( ) 11.7 ( ) 8.0 ( ) 136 (74-314) 6 (2-211) 0.89 ( ) 0.15 ( ) Parma Upstream of Boise River Mouth Basin 12.1 ( ) 10.2 ( ) 8.0 ( ) 343 ( ) 45 (8-245) 2.17 ( ) 0.3 ( ) 1 Derived from MacCoy (2006) 2 mg/l = milligrams per liter; µs/cm = microsiemen per centimeter; N = nitrogen; P = phosphorus 2-36 DRAFT

57 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Water quality issue in the lower Boise River are attributable to development activities that have resulted in encroachment in the floodplain resulting in loss of aquatic and riparian habitat as well as direct and indirect discharges of stormwater and pollutants to the river. For example, it is recognized that black cottonwood forest habitat provides water quality benefits through nutrient retention and removal, groundwater recharge, groundwater discharge, shoreline anchoring, canopy shading (cooling) of water, and sediment trapping. The continued loss of this habitat presents challenges in meeting water quality goals associated with the TMDL for the Boise River Future without Project Conditions The following descriptions outline future project area conditions without the implementation of the recommended plan. The floodplain in the project area would remain fragmented affecting floodplain function, and limiting floodwaters from interacting with the project area to support wetland diversity and quality. Degradation of wetlands would, in turn, diminish the ability of the project area to meet life cycle requirements for the great blue heron, leading to greater loss of heron rookeries; the bald eagle, which was observed nesting within the project area in March 2013; and other wildlife species that thrive in a healthy wetland/riparian ecosystem. Most of the site would remain unmanaged and no additional restoration activities would occur to improve the habitat or to respond to existing conditions, further contributing to decline of the riparian habitat and wetlands health. Disturbed areas would remain unchecked and invasive plant species would continue unchecked and compete with native vegetation, reducing vegetation diversity and eliminating native vegetation, including wetlands, in some portions of the project area. Areas that would be modified by the proposed measures would remain the same as under current conditions, and provide no suitable habitat (HU=0) for the three target species. The project area would continue to consist of large areas of open water, narrow emergent wetlands along the ponds shoreline, and emergent wetlands dominated by reed canary grass, which provide marginal waterfowl habitat. Cottonwood comprising the existing forested wetlands would continue to decline due to aging and lack of regeneration. Some asexual regeneration would occur, but species would not be as robust and long-lived as stands from sexual regeneration, and would not contribute to the genetic diversity necessary to ensure sustainability. Declines in forested wetland would affect wintering bald eagles and potentially nesting sites. Herons currently nesting in the area would likely need to seek suitable nesting habitat elsewhere, although this habitat is in decline throughout the Boise River drainage. The risk of pit capture would remain as the berms are not constructed of stable and reinforced materials and would be susceptible to water erosion, especially during times of high river flows. Berm failure during flood events would result in DRAFT 2-37

58 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report the re-routing of the river channel into the pit (pit capture) resulting in severe head cut and downstream scouring. Such scouring would result in loss of aquatic and riparian habitat. Property would also be at risk including city of Boise s wastewater treatment plant and residences. Reduction in forested riparian habitat would result in reduction of canopy cover and increased river water temperature, impacting aquatic biota and potential salmonid spawning and rearing. Regulated flows would continue to incise the Boise River resulting in continued decrease of bankfull width, loss of gravel and sand bars, and continued armoring of river bottom substrate resulting in the continued lack of suitable resident trout habitat Problems and Opportunities An evaluation of existing conditions, forecast of future without project, and public scoping comments identified a number of problems and opportunities. Ecosystem problems in the project area include: Gravel extraction and land development has created large quantities of open water habitat with limited emergent wetland habitat along the ponds shoreline, resulting in limited current use by waterfowl and other wildlife species. Black cottonwood trees (forested wetlands) are mature and are not naturally regenerating at a large scale due to an altered hydrologic regime. The project area and the Boise River have limited habitat for spawning and rearing resident trout due to changes in land use, habitat, and water quality resulting from regulated stream flow. Wetland and riparian acreage, diversity, and quality have declined because of regulated river discharges and floodplain encroachment. This includes fragmentation of wetlands along the banks of the North and South channels. Human-caused disturbances have promoted infestation of non-native invasive plant species. Gravel extraction ponds are at risk for pit capture during a flood event which would cause channel instability and severe stream channel erosion, impacting water quality and damaging lost riparian and aquatic habitat. Heron rookeries are threatened due to a decrease in forested wetlands that provide trees and buffer zones for rookeries, a decline in wetland feeding habitats, especially emergent wetlands, and human disturbances that can disrupt courtship, nest building, egg-laying and incubation, and chick-rearing activities. Opportunities include: Preserve (maintain) areas with existing high-quality floodplain and natural habitat. Re-establish a more naturally functioning floodplain and natural upland, wetland, and aquatic habitat. Create high quality wetlands and improve existing wetlands DRAFT

59 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Create conditions suitable for black cottonwood tree seedling recruitment or plant cottonwood trees. Control invasive plant species. Restore native vegetation. Create spawning and/or rearing channels. Improve aquatic habitat. Fill or partially fill existing ponds to re-establish a more naturally functioning floodplain and natural habitat. Re-vegetate the historic riparian areas with native vegetation in order to stabilize streambanks and reduce the risk of erosion and associated pit capture Planning Goals and Objectives The goals of this ecosystem restoration project are tied directly to the Corps ecosystem restoration program goals. The Corps ecosystem restoration objective is to restore degraded aquatic and wetland ecosystem structure, function, and dynamic processes to a less degraded, more natural condition. National objectives stated earlier (section 2.1.1) are broad statements and not specific enough to the project area problems and opportunities to guide plan formulation. Water and related land resource problems and opportunities described in the preceding sections are identified as specific planning objectives that are used in the formulation of alternatives. These planning objectives reflect potential concerns and desired positive changes that help to shape the goals of the project. The project area has been affected by flow regulation, irrigation diversion, flood control projects, gravel mining, and land development encroachment from the 1950s to the present day. The goal of the recommended plan is to restore emergent wetland, forested wetland, and aquatic habitat at and near the head of Eagle Island. Planning objectives for the Boise River at Eagle Island Environmental Restoration Project include: 1. Improve the quantity and quality of emergent wetland and gravel extraction ponds aquatic habitat over the 50-year project life. 2. Restore lost cottonwood forest habitat to improve genetic diversity and sustainability over the 50-year project life. 3. Improve spawning and rearing habitat for rainbow trout over the 50-year project live. 4. Protect the existing high quality riparian and wetland habitat in the project area over the 50-year project life. 5. Reduce riparian habitat fragmentation along the banks of the North and South channels of Boise River near the head of Eagle Island over the 50-year project life. 6. Reduce or eliminate invasive plant species to encourage growth of native vegetation over the 50-year project life. DRAFT 2-39

60 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report 7. Reduce the potential for ecologically damaging uncontrolled pit capture of gravel extraction ponds located within the project area over the 50-year project life. 8. Protect heron rookeries from human disturbance over the 50-year project life Planning Constraints Unlike planning objectives that represent desired positive changes, planning constraints represent restrictions that include laws, policy, site characteristics, or public desires that cannot or should not be violated. All Corps projects must comply with applicable Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies. Further, projects authorized under Section 1135 of WRDA 1986 must promote naturalistic, self sustaining solutions that do not exceed a Federal funding limit of $5 million. Additional planning constraints identified in this study include: 1. Cannot alter reservoir operations at Lucky Peak Project and other upstream reservoirs as it would violate State water law and contracts. 2. Cannot impact irrigation diversion structures, deliveries, or water rights. 3. Must maintain access to the head of Eagle Island for irrigation companies, Water District 63, and FCD Minimize need to alter or relocate infrastructure (power transmission lines, bridges, buried sewer lines, and irrigation systems). 5. Avoid adverse impacts to land uses and ecological resources. 6. Cannot increase flood risk to structures and infrastructure adjacent, upstream, or downstream of project. 7. Obtain necessary easements and lands from willing landowners. 8. Minimize operation and maintenance requirements without impacting the ability to maximize environmental benefits. 2.2 Alternative Plans Restoration Measures A measure is a feature or an activity that can be implemented at a specific geographic site to address one or more planning objectives. Alternative plans are combinations of one or more measures. Twenty-nine initial restoration measures were identified and developed based on input from project Non-Federal Sponsors, resource agencies, local government, and the general public (see table 1 located in appendix A for a description of these measures ). The measures were screened to identify measures that: Met at least one or more of the identified planning objectives described in section Did not violate planning constraints described in section including being consistent with Section 1135 WRDA 1986 authority. Measures that did not meet all of these criteria were eliminated from further consideration. Several of the measures that were not carried forward involved flood 2-40 DRAFT

61 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report management related projects. For example, one measure was constructing a structure to control the flow split at the head of Eagle Island. Such a measure was eliminated because it did not fit under the authority of Section 1135 and provided little habitat restoration benefit. The ten remaining restoration measures include A. Create emergent wetland islands within project area ponds. B. Create emergent wetlands by benching along pond shorelines. C. Create emergent wetlands by placing fill along pond shorelines. D. Rehabilitate existing Boise River channels for suitable rainbow trout rearing habitat. E. Construct a rainbow trout spawning channel in the Boise River. F. Plant cottonwood trees along the South Channel of the Boise River. G. Create areas with suitable conditions for cottonwood seedling recruitment and plant cottonwood groves. H. Stabilize streambanks along selected areas of the North and South channels of Boise River. I. Perform invasive weed control. J. Lower selected berms to create a non-fragmented floodplain. Table 2-10 presents a summary description of measures carried forward for evaluation. Appendix A further describes each measure design and presents maps illustrating measure locations Development of Alternative Plans Alternative plans were developed by combining one or more of the ten remaining measures described above. These alternatives were compared and evaluated with respect to ecosystem benefits, ability of an alternative to meet all planning objectives, and initial environmental and social effects. A cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis was also conducted Habitat Units Environmental outputs, quantified as average annual habitat units (AAHUs), were delineated for the project area to document habitat quantity and quality for existing conditions, future without project conditions, and with implementation of the restoration measures (HDR 2012a). Following guidelines in the USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Manual (1980), the HEP and habitat suitability index (HSI) were used to quantify environmental outputs as habitat units (HUs). HUs were calculated by multiplying the number of acres of habitat by an HSI, ranging from 0 and 1. An HSI value of 1 indicates optimal habitat and lower values indicate increasingly less ideal habitat; an HSI of 0 indicates conditions that are not suitable for a specific target species. HU gains are annualized by summing the HUs across all years in the period of analysis and dividing the total (cumulative HU) by the number of years in the life of the project (assumed to be 50-years), resulting in AAHUs. AAHUs were calculated for each proposed measure. The calculation of AAHUs is specific to the area that would be directly modified as a result of the measure. The net gain of habitat benefits is the DRAFT 2-41

62 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report difference between the future without project condition and the habitat benefits that would be achieved by the measures. The measures occur in areas that are not considered suitable habitat for the three target species, and are not expected to become suitable habitat under the future without project condition. Therefore, the HUs for the future without project condition for these areas are zero, and the net gain of habitat benefits is equal to the increase of habitat under each measure. Consultation with the USFWS identified three indicator species that represent habitat requirements and associated benefits applicable to multiple species in the project area: Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) - reflects life-cycle habitat requirements for emergent and open water habitats. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) reflects life-cycle habitat requirements for forested wetlands and riparian habitats. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) reflects life-cycle habitat requirements for a riverine aquatic habitat. For each measure, HSI models for these three species were applied to evaluate the habitat benefits to the project area over the 50-year period of analysis (HDR 2012a). Except for regenerating cottonwood trees, it is assumed that each of the management measures is fully functional within 3 years of implementation. Therefore, habitat units were weighted equally over the 50-year lifespan of the project. Environmental output, AAHUs, associated with measures to regenerate cottonwood trees increase over time as the trees mature. It was assumed that cottonwood trees reach minimum size requirements to support heron rookeries after 10 years. During the first 10 years, it was assumed that the HSI would increase linearly from 0 to 1, and for the remaining 40 years of the project, the HSI would remain DRAFT

63 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table Description of Measures Carried Forward Measures Measure A Create Emergent Wetland Islands Measure B Create Emergent Wetlands by Benching Measure C Create Emergent Wetlands by Placing Fill along the Shoreline of Ponds Measure D Rehabilitate Existing Channels for Suitable Rainbow Trout Rearing Habitat Measure E Construct a Spawning Channel for Rainbow Trout Measure F Plant Cottonwood Trees along Descriptions The project area has several zones of emergent wetlands associated with the ponds (see section ). This measure converts several of these emergent wetland areas into islands. The creation of islands improves nesting habitat for mallards and provide protection from terrestrial predators (many terrestrial predators would not be able to access these islands due the presence of water). Islands would be created in two locations on pond 3 and between ponds 4 and 5. Approximately 6,300 cubic yards of fill would be removed to create islands. Excavated materials would be used as fill material for measure C (create emergent wetlands by placing fill along pond shorelines). Island side slopes would be armored with rock rip-rap or planted with willows or similar vegetation to prevent sloughing and wave-benching. There would be no annual maintenance for this measure due to its isolation. Measure involves lowering pond shoreline elevations in select locations to allow for saturated soil conditions for emergent wetland creation. Excavation would create benches along the pond shoreline. Existing berms that surround many of the ponds would not be compromised (only shoreline areas would be disturbed). In general, benches would be excavated to within 6 to 18 inches of water table (pond surface during normal summer flows). Benches would allow for greater wetland plant diversity as lower benches would be saturated for a longer period than benches at higher elevations. Seasonally-flooded wetlands would increase food availability for mallards, great blue herons, and other wildlife species. Approximately 52,000 cubic yards of material would be removed. Excavated material would be used as fill for measure C (create emergent wetlands by placing fill along shoreline ponds). Following removal of fill, disturbed area would be graded, mulched, and reseeded with wetland seed mixture and planted with shrubs. Reclaimed area would require weed control maintenance. This measure would result in approximately 10.6 additional acres of emergent wetlands. The annual maintenance for this measure is estimated to be $1000. Measure involves placing fill along shoreline of ponds in selected locations to create additional shoreline for the establishment of emergent wetlands. Because ponds are up to 30 feet deep with steep (2:1) slopes, fill material placement would focus on shallow areas of ponds. Fill would be placed as benches to allow for seasonal flooding, creating a diverse population of wetland plants. Emergent wetlands created would increase food available to mallards and great blue herons. Measures A, B, E, G, and J create fill (involve excavation activities), which can be used for measure C. Using locally-generated fill is more cost-effective than importing fill. Measure would result in creation of up to 8.7 acres of emergent wetlands contingent upon the other measures that are selected (i.e., quantity of fill available from other measures). Measure C is a dependent measure (it is not a standalone measure) in that it relies on fill from other measures. The annual maintenance ranges from $250 to $750 for this measure depending on which of the five measures it is dependent on. Measure would rehabilitate existing Boise River side channels to create suitable rainbow trout rearing habitat. Activities within the side channels would include removing debris, minor grading, and placing in-stream habitat features, such as logs with rootwads, in channel and bank. Disturbed areas along banks would be hydro-seeded and re-vegetated. Measure does not depend upon any other measures. The annual maintenance for this measure is estimated to be $1250. A spawning channel would be constructed in a side channel connected to the North Channel of Boise River. A side channel location was identified adjacent to the North Channel where there is sufficient relief to create functioning and self-sustaining spawning channel, and existing topography would require least amount of earthwork. Fill removed under this measure would be used for measure C. The side channel is approximately 1,350 feet long and would require dewatering, excavation, importing spawning gravel, profile control, rock riffles, and in-stream habitat features, such as logs with rootwads. The gravel size and profile control would be designed to withstand 1.0-percent chance flood event to prevent channel capture. Disturbed areas would be hydroseeded and re-vegetated. The annual maintenance for this measure is estimated to be $750. Review of bank conditions in project area found several disturbed locations that would benefit from forested riparian habitat restoration. These locations would be planted with black cottonwood trees to support forested wetland re-establishment. Measure F DRAFT 2-43

64 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table Description of Measures Carried Forward Measures South Channel of the Boise River Measure G Create Areas with Suitable Conditions for Cottonwood Seedling Recruitment and Plant Cottonwood Groves Measure H Bank Stabilization along Selected Areas of the North and South Channels of the Boise River Measure I Perform Weed Control Measure J Lower Selected Berms to Create Non-Fragmented Floodplain Descriptions planting locations would be limited to several areas along South Channel. Nursery-grown seedlings (propagated from seed) would be planted. Plants would require irrigation until roots grow deep enough to tap into groundwater (generally 2 years of irrigation is required). Weed control would also be required. Measure would result in creation of 0.4 acres of forested wetlands. The annual maintenance for this measure is estimated at $250. Measure includes the planting of cottonwood trees in groves in selected locations and also the creation of soil scour conditions to provide an appropriate seed bed for the sexual regeneration of cottonwood trees. Use of these two methods would provide greater genetic cottonwood diversity. Split between two methods would be about 60.0 percent planting and 40.0 percent soil surface seed recruitment. Planted cottonwoods would be propagated from seeds obtained on-site or another location on the Boise River. Seedlings would be placed directly into small excavations. Areas would require irrigation until seedlings are established and plant roots grow deep enough to reach groundwater (generally 2 years of irrigation). Seed recruitment would involve excavation to lower soil bed elevation to within 1 or 2 feet of groundwater. The goal is for soils to be wet to saturated during high river flow period and moist during seed germination periods. Plots would be established for seed recruitment to determine optimum soil preparation conditions (depth to groundwater, surface soil texture, use of mulch, surface scouring). Seed recruitment sites would be prepared with appropriate mulch to help maintain soil moisture and provide seed germination and survival. Recruitment goal is for native cottonwood seeds in project area to deposit and germinate (currently most new cottonwoods in project area are from runners asexual reproduction). Fill material removed under this measure would be used for measure C. Weed control would be required so invasive species, such as Russian olive and false indigo, would not out-compete cottonwood seedlings. This measure would result in approximately 9.9 acres of forested wetlands. The annual maintenance for this measure is estimated to be $1000. Approximately 950 linear feet of eroded streambank would be rehabilitated and stabilized. Three locations in the project area require bank stabilization: (1) a 400-linear-foot segment just east of the Lower Lemp diversion; (2) a 300-foot segment north of the berm between ponds 3 and 4; and (3) an approximately 250-foot segment directly adjacent to the bridge (just to the east and west side of the bridge). Bank stabilization efforts would include bank protection using living and non-living vegetation and other bioengineering materials. Rip-rap would be placed in areas where flow conditions are causing significant erosion and scouring of streambanks. Measure does not depend on any other measures. There would be no annual maintenance for this measure. Measure involves control of invasive plant species. A 2011 vegetation survey revealed that invasive plants are generally found in disturbed areas, including berms and along access roads. False indigo is competing with cottonwood in several areas. Measure includes mechanical weed removal and limited pesticide use. Measure does not depend upon any other measures. The annual maintenance for this measure is estimated to be $1000. Measure would lower selected berms surrounding ponds 1 and 2. Lowering berms would allow flooding of these ponds, thus expanding the floodplain area (reduce floodplain fragmentation). The berms would be lowered to encourage flooding when the Boise River is near flood stage (approximately 7000 cfs as measured at Glenwood Bridge gage). Fill removed from berm lowering would be used for measure C. Measure would require relocation of power poles and lines that currently run between ponds 1 and 2. Also, access road to north and south of ponds would be lowered. Preliminary hydraulic modeling shows that by controlling berm height, it is possible to control flow splits between the North and South channels to minimize up and downstream impacts. The hydraulic model indicated that there would be a minor decrease in surface water elevation near the head of Eagle Island. Final design of berm lowering would depend on further modeling to reduce flood risk locally and minimize risks of downstream flooding. Lowered berms would be planted with approximately 3.6 acres of cottonwood trees and 0.7 acres of emergent wetland plants. West bank of pond 2 (main access road berm) would require protection by either armoring with rip-rap or a combination of bank reinforcement with plantings (e.g., willows). To ensure bank protection, existing emergent wetlands along this bank would be disturbed. The annual maintenance for this measure is estimated to be $ DRAFT

65 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Budgetary Cost Estimates Preliminary budget estimates (planning level estimates) for each measure were calculated based on April 2012 prices, including contingencies, engineering and design, construction, construction administration, and estimated real estate costs acquisition. Real estate acquisition costs were estimated from land valuation based on best professional judgment. Real estate costs assumed $10,000 per acre within the project area. A 2013 gross appraisal was conducted for the recommended plan and is described in appendix B. Average annual costs included the amortized initial construction cost over a 50-year project life at 4.0 percent interest (Federal discount rate for fiscal year 2012), plus annual maintenance costs Combining Measures to Formulate Alternative Plans The IWR Planning Suite Decision Support software (IWR-Plan) was used to combine the ten restoration measures into potential plans, calculate costs, and estimate environmental benefits for each potential plan. IWR-Plan software facilitates the following analytical functions: a. Derives every possible combination of solutions (measures) and calculates total cost and output for each combination of measures. b. Conducts a cost-effectiveness analysis that identifies the least-cost combination for every possible level of output. c. Identifies the most cost-effective combinations by screening out plans where more output could be provided by a different combination at the same or less cost. d. Calculates the incremental cost and incremental output of moving from each combination to the next larger combination. e. Identifies the subset of the cost-effective set (the best buys) to reveal changes in costs as output levels are increased. IWR-Plan generated a total of 512 potential plans, including a No-Action plan. Table 2-11 summarizes information input into IWR-Plan, including costs and AAHU input for each measure. The potential measures fall into two categories standalone or dependent. A standalone measure could be constructed independently of any other measure (e.g., it does not depend on implementation of another measure). A dependent measure requires that another specific measure is implemented. For example, measure C proposes to create emergent wetlands by filling portions of the six gravel ponds (see table 2-10 and appendix A). For this project, measure C is dependent on obtaining fill from one or more of the following measures: A, B, E, G, and J. Table 2-11 list the dependencies for each measure (first column in parentheses) Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Analysis After measures were combined to form alternative plans using IWR-Plan software, a cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis was conducted to identify the least cost combination for each possible different level of ecosystem outputs or benefits. An incremental cost analysis (ICA) was performed by determining the incremental cost per environmental DRAFT 2-45

66 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report output between successively larger plan alternatives and identifying best buy plans as those plans for which the incremental cost per environmental output is lowest for a particular output level. The CE/ICA identified 54 cost-effective alternatives; ten of these were identified as best buy plans. Figure 2-8 illustrates how the potential alternatives perform as a function of output (AAHUs) and cost (annual cost over the 50-year project life). The graph includes the best buy plans (red squares) as a subset of the 54 most cost-effective plans (blue triangles). Table 2-12 summarizes the ten best buy plans, the restoration measures comprising each plan, habitat benefits (AAHUs), and costs. Figure 2-8. IWR Results 2-46 DRAFT

67 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table IWR-Plan Input Values Measure Name 2 Annualized Total Cost 3 First Construction Cost 4 Rainbow Trout Benefits (AAHUs) 5 Great Blue Heron Benefits (AAHUs) 5 Mallard Benefits (AAHUs) 5 Combined Target Species Benefits (AAHUs) 6 A (C1) 1 Emergent Wetland Island $10,981 $235, B (C2) Emergent Wetland Benching $73,617 $1,559, C1 (A) Emergent Wetland - Fill $4,519 $91, C2 (B) Emergent Wetland - Fill $34,984 $735, C3 (E) Emergent Wetland - Fill $8,153 $169, C4 (G) Emergent Wetland - Fill $6,562 $135, C5 (J) Emergent Wetland - Fill $18,057 $377, D Rearing Channel $23,810 $484, E (C3) Spawning Channel $47,828 $1,011, F Cottonwood Planting $1,054 $17, G (C4) Cottonwood Grove $26,647 $550, H Bank Stabilization $12,761 $274, I Weed Control $9,912 $191, J (C5) Floodplain $47,988 $1,014, Dependencies are shown in parenthesis (). 2 See appendix A for detailed measure information. 3 The total annualized cost is the cost of construction and yearly maintenance over a 50-year project life at a percent annual interest rate. 4 The first construction cost is the cumulative cost of construction and includes screening-level pre-construction engineering and design (PED); lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas (LERRD); and supervision and administration (S&A). 5 Benefits are a cumulative sum of the physical acres improved multiplied by the HSI. 6 Combined target species benefits are a cumulative sum of all three target species. DRAFT 2-47

68 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table IWR-Plan Best Buy Alternatives (April 2012 price levels) (All species were weighted equally) Best Buy Alt. A: Emergent Wetland - Island (C1) B: Emergent Wetland - Benching (C2) C1: Emergent Wetland - Fill (A) C2: Emergent Wetland - Fill (B) C3: Emergent Wetland - Fill (E) Measures 1,2 C4: Emergent Wetland - Fill (G) C5: Emergent Wetland - Fill (J) D: Rearing Channel E: Spawning Channel (C3) F: Cottonwood Planting G: Cottonwood Grove (C4) H: Bank Stabilization I: Weed Control J: Floodplain (C5) Acres of Habitat 3 Rainbow Trout Benefit (AAHU) 4 Great Blue Heron Benefit (AAHU) 4 Mallard Benefit (AAHU) 4 1 No-Action $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 2 X $1,054 $3,032 $1, $3,032 $17,263 3 X X X $34,263 $3,393 $33, $3,406 $703,813 4 X X X X $44,175 $3,652 $9, $4,956 $895,254 5 X X X X X $67,985 $4,081 $23, $5,218 $1,379,899 6 X X X X X X X $83,485 $4,433 $15, $7,139 $1,707,513 7 X X X X X X X X X $192,086 $5,800 $108, $7,602 $4,002,911 8 X X X X X X X X X X X $258,131 $6,834 $66, $14,189 $5,394,853 9 X X X X X X X X X X X X X $314,112 $7,766 $55, $20,919 $6,575, X X X X X X X X X X X X X X $326,873 $8,077 $12, $585,125 $6,850,098 1 The columns highlighted in blue are the alternatives that were selected for further evaluation. 2 Dependencies are shown in parenthesis (). 3 Acres of improved habitat are the physical acres being improved. 4 Benefits are a cumulative sum of the physical acres improved multiplied by the habitat suitability index. 5 Combined target species benefits are a cumulative sum of all three target species. 6 The total annualized cost is the cost of construction and yearly maintenance over a 50-year project life at a percent annual interest rate. Combined Target Species Benefit (AAHU) 5 7 Average annualized cost per benefit is the total annualized cost divided by the combined target species benefits. 8 The incremental cost is the total annualized cost minus the previous alternative. 9 The incremental benefit is the combined target species benefit minus the previous alternative. 10 The incremental cost per incremental benefit is the incremental cost divided by the incremental benefit. 11 The first construction cost is the cumulative cost of construction and includes screening-level pre-construction engineering and design (PED); lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas (LERRD); and supervision and administration (S&A). But it does not include planning costs, which are estimated at approximately $1M. Total Annualized Cost 6 Average Annualized Cost per AAHUB 7 Incremental Cost 8 Incremental Benefit (AAHU ) 9 Incremental Cost per Incremental Benefit 10 Total First Construction Cost DRAFT

69 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Final Array of Alternatives Plans The ten best buy plans were screened to identify a final array of alternative plans. The screening analysis considered each best buy plan s ability to address the identified problems and opportunities, meet each planning objective, and estimated habitat benefits. Alternatives 8 through 10 were eliminated from further consideration because of the large incremental cost per incremental benefit values compared to the other alternatives (table 2-12). Figure 2-9 illustrates increment cost per increment benefit for each of the alternatives (note that alternative 10 is not included in the graph due to its large incremental cost per incremental benefit [$585,125]). The Corps and Non-Federal Sponsors screened the alternatives for those that included an invasive weed control (measure I). It was determined reducing or eliminating invasive weed control was a minimum project requirement, as it would defeat project goals to pursue restoration without including invasive weed control (see section for discussion of invasive species). Of the action alternatives (2 through 7), alternatives 2 and 3 were eliminated from further consideration because they did not include invasive weed control. The remaining action alternatives (4 through 7) were compared for ability to meet each planning objective (table 2-13). Alternatives 5 through 7 met all eight planning objectives and alternative 4 met seven of eight planning objectives. Alternative 7 was selected over alternative 6 because it provided almost twice as many habitat benefits compared to alternative 6 (33.12 AAHUs for alternative 7 compared to AAHUs for alternative 6) with minimal increase in incremental cost per incremental benefit. Further, alternative 6's ability to reduce the risk of pit capture was minimal compared to alternative 7. The three best buy action alternatives (alternative 4, 5, and 7) and the No-Action alternative (alternative 1) selected for further evaluation are shaded in tables 2-12 and Refer to table 2-12 for measures comprising each alternative. The No-Action alternative is depicted by figure 2-7. The three action alternatives are illustrated in figures 2-10 through DRAFT 2-49

70 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Incremental Cost per Incremental Benefit $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Incremental Cost per Incremental Benefit (Alternatives 1-9) Best Buy Alternative Figure 2-9. Incremental Cost Per Incremental Benefit for Alternatives 1 through 9. Alternative 10 is not included in this graph due to its large y-axis value ($584,125); however, it is included in table DRAFT

71 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table Alternatives Achievement of Planning Objectives Best Buy Alternatives Planning Objectives Best Buy Alternatives Measures Included Combined Target Species Benefit (AAHUs) Total First Construction Cost 1) Improve the quantity and quality of emergent wetland and improve gravel extraction ponds aquatic habitat over the 50-year project life. Measures that address this objective: A, B, C1-C5, I 2) Restore lost cottonwood forest habitat to improve genetic diversity and is sustainability over the 50-year project life. Measures that address this objective: F, G, H 3) Improve spawning and rearing habitat for rainbow trout over the 50-year project live. Measures that address this objective: D, E 4) Project the existing high quality riparian and wetland habitat in the project area over the 50- year project life. Measures that address this objective: All measures (including C1-C5) 5) Reduce riparian habitat fragmentation along the banks of the North and South channels of Boise River near the head of Eagle Island over the 50-year project life. Measures that address this objective: F, G, H, I, J 6) Reduce or eliminate invasive plant species to encourage growth of native vegetation over the 50-year project life. Measures that address this objective: B, C1- C5,G,I,J No- Action F C4,F,G C4,F,G,I C4,D,F,G,I A,C1,C4, D,F,G,I A,B,C1,C2, C4,D,F,G,I A,B,C1,C2, C4,C5,D,F, G,I,J A,B,C1-C5, D,E,F,G,I,J A,B,C1-C5, D,E,F,G,H,I,J $0 $17,263 $703,813 $895,254 $1,379,899 $1,707,513 $4,002,911 $5,394,853 $6,575,963 $6,850,098 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DRAFT 2-51

72 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table Alternatives Achievement of Planning Objectives Planning Objectives Best Buy Alternatives Measures Included Combined Target Species Benefit (AAHUs) Total First Construction Cost Best Buy Alternatives No- Action F C4,F,G C4,F,G,I C4,D,F,G,I A,C1,C4, D,F,G,I A,B,C1,C2, C4,D,F,G,I A,B,C1,C2, C4,C5,D,F, G,I,J A,B,C1-C5, D,E,F,G,I,J A,B,C1-C5, D,E,F,G,H,I,J $0 $17,263 $703,813 $895,254 $1,379,899 $1,707,513 $4,002,911 $5,394,853 $6,575,963 $6,850,098 7) Reduce the potential for ecologically damaging pit capture of the gravel extraction ponds located within project area over the 50- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No year project life. Measures that address this objective: C1- C5 2 8) Protect heron rookeries from human disturbance over the 50-year project life. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Measures that address this objective: F, G, H, I, J NUMBER OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES MET BY ALTERNATIVE: 1 The columns highlighted in blue are the alternatives that were selected for further evaluation. 2 The reduction in risk for pit capture by filling the ponds as proposed is minimal DRAFT

73 LEGEND E Diversion Structure Project Area Existing Open Water Existing Emergent Wetland Existing Forested Wetland Existing Scrub/Shrub Plant Existing Seasonally Wet Meadow Measure F: Proposed Cottonwood Plantings Measure G: Proposed Cottonwood Groves Pond 5 Bridge North Channel Pond 4 Pond 3 Main Access Road Pond 2 Pond 6 Plant E Lower Lemp Div. Scour Pond 1 Scour Scour E Warm Springs Div. Plant Scour Scour South Channel Upper Lemp Div. E Eagle Island Checks E Boise River Imagery: Foot Resolution Source: COMPASS Other Data Sources: Ada County, INSIDE Idaho Map Date: 4/17/2012 Q:\MidasGold\GoldenMeadows\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_alts.mxd Feet Ê Figure 10. Alternative 4 (Measures C4: Emergent Wetland - Fill and I: Weed Control are not shown graphically Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

74 LEGEND E Diversion Structure Project Area Existing Open Water Existing Emergent Wetland Existing Forested Wetland Existing Scrub/Shrub Plant Existing Seasonally Wet Meadow Measure D: Proposed Rearing Channel Measure F: Proposed Cottonwood Plantings Measure G: Proposed Cottonwood Groves Pond 5 Bridge North Channel Pond 4 Pond 3 Main Access Road Pond 2 Pond 6 Plant E Lower Lemp Div. Scour Pond 1 Scour Scour E Warm Springs Div. Plant Scour Scour South Channel Upper Lemp Div. E Eagle Island Checks E Boise River Imagery: Foot Resolution Source: COMPASS Other Data Sources: Ada County, INSIDE Idaho Map Date: 4/17/2012 Q:\MidasGold\GoldenMeadows\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_alts.mxd Feet Ê Figure 1. Alternative 5 (Measures C4: Emergent Wetland - Fill and I: Weed Control are not shown graphically Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

75 LEGEND E Diversion Structure Project Area Existing Open Water Existing Emergent Wetland Existing Forested Wetland Existing Scrub/Shrub Plant Existing Seasonally Wet Meadow Pond 5 Pond 4 Pond 3 Main Access Road Bridge Pond 2 North Channel Measure A: Proposed Removal of Berm Measure B: Proposed Emergent Wetland (Benching) Measures C1-C5: Proposed Emergent Wetland (Fill Pond) (Fill is dependent on measures A, B, E, G & J - the quantity shown graphically is for measure B) Measure D: Proposed Rearing Channel Measure F: Proposed Cottonwood Plantings Measure G: Proposed Cottonwood Groves Pond 6 Plant E Lower Lemp Div. Scour Pond 1 Scour Scour E Warm Springs Div. Plant Scour Scour South Channel Upper Lemp Div. E Eagle Island Checks E Boise River Imagery: Foot Resolution Source: COMPASS Other Data Sources: Ada County, INSIDE Idaho Map Date: 4/17/2012 Q:\MidasGold\GoldenMeadows\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_alts.mxd Feet Ê Figure 2. Alternative 7 (Measure I: Weed Control is not shown graphically Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

76 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Comparison and Evaluation of Alternative Plans The following alternatives were advanced for further comparison and evaluation: Alternative 1 (No Action) The No-Action alternative assumes the project would not be implemented. Alternative 4 includes the following measures: Create emergent wetlands by placing fill along pond shorelines. Plant cottonwood trees along the South Channel of Boise River. Create areas with suitable conditions for cottonwood seedling recruitment and plant cottonwood groves from nursery stock. Perform invasive weed control. Alternative 5 includes the following measures: Same measures described for alternative 4 plus rehabilitate existing Boise River channels for suitable rainbow trout rearing habitat. Alternative 7 includes the following measures: Same measures described for alternative 5 but with emergent wetlands created by benching and islands. Table 2-14 summarizes the incremental benefits and incremental costs for the final array of alternatives. Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative, serves as the reference point to compare the action alternatives with zero new AAHUs. Alternatives 4, 5, and 7 represent increasing AAHU output. In each case, increase in AAHU output corresponds to an increase in average annual cost and an increase in incremental cost per incremental benefit. Table Alternative Comparison Incremental Benefits and Incremental Costs (April 2012 price levels) Alternative Acres of Improved Habitat 1 2 Benefit (AAHU) Total Annualized Cost 3 Average Annualized Cost per Benefit Incremental Cost 4 Incremental Benefit (AAHU) 5 Incremental Cost per Incremental Benefit NA NA $44,175 $3,652 $44, $3, $67,985 $4,081 $23, $5, $192,086 $5,800 $124, $7,540 1 Acres of improved habitat are the physical acres being improved. 2 Benefit is the additional habitat acres that would be achieved by the alternative. 3 Average annual cost is the cost of construction and yearly maintenance over a 50-year project life at a 4.0 percent annual interest rate. 4 Incremental cost is the additional cost of an alternative compared to the previous alternative (i.e., the incremental cost of alternative 5 is $44,175 more than alternative 4). 5 Incremental benefit is the additional benefit of an alternative compared to the previous alternative (i.e., the incremental benefit of alternative 5 is 4.56 AAHUs more than alternative 4). 6 Incremental cost per incremental benefit is defined as the plan alternative s incremental cost divided by its incremental benefit DRAFT

77 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Under the No-Action alternative, no immediate gain or loss in AAHUs would be realized in the near term. However, AAHUs would decrease in the long-term due to further habitat deterioration, as invasive weeds are expected to increase in the project area and many of the cottonwood trees would expire over the next 50 years (see section for discussion of future without project conditions). While asexual regeneration would occur to some extent, this type of reproduction decreases the genetic diversity and vigor of the stand. This alternative would not meet the planning objectives. No project costs are involved with the No-Action alternative. Alternative 7 results in nearly twice as many improved habitat acres (41.6 acres) compared to alternatives 4 and 5 with 21.0 and 24.8 acres, respectively. Alternative 4 has the lowest AAHUs of all the action alternatives. Alternative 5 results in AAHUs compared to AAHUs for alternative 4, while alternative 7 provides 33.1 AAHUs. The primary difference between alternatives 5 and 7 is that alternative 7 has an increase of emergent wetland habitat (more acreage), which is reflected in the increase in AAHUs. Alternative 4 addresses seven of the eight planning objectives while alternatives 5 and 7 meet all eight objectives Summary of Environmental and Social Effects As required by NEPA and subsequent implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), an environmental assessment (EA) was prepared to determine whether the proposed action (recommended plan) constitutes a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and whether an EIS is required. The preliminary EA documents this evaluation of environmental effects for the project based upon the purpose and objectives (Corps 2013). For the four alternatives described above, potential impacts (both positive and negative) to environmental resources were evaluated and are summarized here. Refer to the EA for more detailed information: Hydrology and floodplains Hydraulic modeling of the 1.0-percent chance flood frequency was conducted for alternatives 4, 5, and 7 and compared to baseline conditions (without project conditions). The three alternatives resulted in minimal or no measureable net water surface elevation rise to the floodway compared to baseline conditions (HDR 2012c). The alternatives create and restore wetlands, which temporarily store flood water and slow its velocity. This is an overall net benefit to the floodplain. Water quality All three alternatives improve riparian habitat and would result in water quality improvement for the Boise River. Emergent and forested wetlands provide for nutrient retention and removal, shoreline anchoring, sediment trapping, and groundwater recharge and discharge. Some temporary impacts to water quality may occur as a result of stormwater runoff during construction activities as well as disturbance of sediments in the river for implementing measure D (Rearing Channel). These impacts would be temporary and would be minimized by implementation of BMPs during construction. Noise All three alternatives would temporarily create noise impacts, primarily from machinery and other equipment during construction activities. This impact DRAFT 2-57

78 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report could result in disturbance to the great blue heron rookery and nesting bald eagles and may disturb other wildlife in the area. These impacts would be temporary and would be minimized through use of noise reducing equipment (e.g., mufflers). Construction activities would be sequenced to minimize disturbance to wildlife to the extent practicable. For example, construction activities would be avoided or minimized during the nesting period for the great blue heron and bald eagle (if present). Riparian and wetland resources All three alternatives will result in net improvements to the riparian zone and wetlands in the project area. Some temporary impacts to riparian zones and wetlands could occur during construction, but such impacts would be temporary and BMPs would be implemented to minimize such impacts. Aquatic resources All three alternatives would result in net improvements or no change to aquatic resources. Alternatives 5 and 7 involve measures that would improve rearing channels for rainbow trout, and result in overall improvement to aquatic habitat. The overall creation and enhancement to wetlands results in water quality improvements to the Boise River and ponds, which translate to improvements to aquatic resources. Some temporary impacts to aquatic resources may occur during construction (e.g., stormwater runoff into the river) but would be temporary and BMPs would be implemented to minimize impacts Threatened and endangered species No species listed under the ESA are known to occur in the project area. Yellow-billed cuckoo is a candidate species that may benefit from improved riparian habitat health, if it were a visitor to the area. Wildlife All three alternatives would result in improved habitat quality benefiting wildlife. The creation of emergent wetlands and black cottonwood forest habitat provides wildlife habitat for the bald eagle, great blue heron, mallard ducks, and other species found along the Boise River corridor. Construction activities could temporary disturb wildlife. Scheduling of construction activities would be sequenced to minimize such disturbance. Cultural resources None of the three alternatives would impact identified cultural resource properties. A formal Section 106 cultural resource evaluation has been conducted for the recommended plan (HDR 2012f and 2011b). Land use and recreation Implementation of any of the three alternatives is consistent with the City of Eagle s Comprehensive Plan for the head of Eagle Island for habitat and floodplain preservation. Current recreation activities in the area (Boise River greenbelt pedestrian and bicycle paths, fishing, bird watching) would not be detrimentally impacted by any of the three alternatives, and might create indirect recreational benefits as improved habitat increases wildlife viewing opportunities along the Boise River corridor. Socioeconomics and environmental justice Implementation of any of the three alternatives would result in short-term economic benefits associated with job creation. Alternative 7 would have greater benefit because it involves the greater number of measures and higher construction costs. All three alternatives provide overall benefits 2-58 DRAFT

79 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report to the community in creating, restoring, and enhancing habitat in an otherwise disturbed area. No minority or low-income populations have been identified that would be adversely impacted by the action alternatives. No displacement would occur as a result of the project Plan Selection Alternative 7 is the recommended NER plan. It results in the greatest environmental benefits as measured by AAHUs, and restores the greatest number of acres. Alternative 7 would restore 41.6 acres of habitat, including 17.6 acres of emergent wetlands, 10.2 acres of cottonwood forest, 3.8 acres of rearing channel for resident fish, and 10 acres of implemented weed control. By comparison, alternative 4 would restore about 21.0 acres but would not provide improved rearing habitat for resident fish. Alternative 5 would provide rearing habitat and therefore restore about 24.8 acres, but substantially less mallard and great blue heron habitat as compared to alternative 7. Alternative 7 meets all eight planning objectives and has the largest increase in incremental benefits of the four best buy alternatives evaluated (and of all best buy alternatives) (tables 2-13 and 2-14). Alternative 4, 5, and 7 would reduce or eliminate the production and spread of invasive plant species. Alternative 7 meets the four criteria outlined in the Corps planning guidance: completeness, efficiency, effectiveness, and acceptability (ER ). Completeness is the extent to which the alternative plans provide and account for all necessary investments or other actions to ensure the realization of the planning objectives, including actions by other Federal and non-federal entities. Alternative 7 includes seven restoration measures and meets all planning objectives. The implementation of the alternative includes land acquisition, easements, and an operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement (OMRR&R) plan (see section 5.0 for plan implementation). Effectiveness is the extent to which the alternative plans contribute to achieve the planning objectives. Alternative 7 meets all 8 planning objectives. The measures to achieve the planning objectives are based on established restoration practices. Efficiency is the extent to which an alternative plan is the most cost effective means of achieving the objectives and is within the acceptable cost limits for the Section 1135 authority. Alternative 7 has the largest increase in incremental benefits of the four best buy alternatives evaluated (and of all best buy alternatives). Acceptability is the extent to which the alternative plans are acceptable in terms of applicable laws, regulations, and public policies. Alternative 7 is consistent with applicable laws and regulations and has public and local government support Risks and Uncertainties Scientific uncertainties and technological challenges are inherent with any large-scale ecosystem restoration project because available data and information about any project DRAFT 2-59

80 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report is never perfect or complete. Adaptive management (appendix C) provides a logical process for making decisions with regards to the inherent uncertainties associated with a project. Risk is defined as the probability of an undesirable consequence. In the context of ecosystem restoration, project risk exists because there is uncertainty about realizing positive net benefits from implementing a project. The dominant risks associated with the project are the potential for undesirable ecological outcomes that could result from natural hazards or human actions. Many risks can be avoided or minimized by proper design, appropriate site selection, signage, and correct seasonal timing for implementing the proposed measures associated with the recommended plan. Nevertheless, uncertainty and an associated level of risk have potential to influence the project and compel the need for monitoring and adaptation. A Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan that addresses risk is presented in appendix C. A risk assessment revealed the following areas of risk and uncertainty associated with project development and implementation. Habitat evaluation - The habitat evaluation used HSI models and an HEP analysis developed by USFWS to establish AAHUs. The methods and models used are well established and peer reviewed and an approved by the Corps. Professional judgments are involved in model application and, as such, there is always some degree of uncertainty. However, the wealth of information available for the Boise River, experience of the team applying these models, and consultation with USFWS and IDFG reduces the level of uncertainty. Success of measures - Emergent wetland areas have naturally established themselves in the project area. Properly designed emergent wetlands have a high rate of success and long-term viability on the Boise River. An unexpected change in pond water elevations could cause flood or drought conditions altering or eliminating the emergent wetland plant community. Risk associated with regenerating forested wetlands is higher than emergent wetlands, because the conditions for seedling recruitment have to be properly calibrated, which can be challenging with unpredictable weather and river flow patterns. Cottonwood trees are naturally regenerating (asexual) in the project area and baseline conditions are favorable. In addition to regeneration, the establishment of nursery-grown seedlings will ultimately rely on roots tapping into the shallow groundwater. Unexpected changes in groundwater elevation, which is directly related to river flows, could alter tree establishment success. With both emergent and forested wetland communities, there is a risk of unexpected plant die-off or low seeding success due to disease, drought (as described above), pests (e.g., beaver tree destruction), and human interference. With proper design, aquatic habitat rearing channels can be created successfully along the Boise River. These types of channels require some maintenance for their long-term viability and they are at risk of being damaged by river flooding events and unexpected changes in sedimentation and turbidity of the Boise River DRAFT

81 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Flow distribution in the North and South channels of the Boise River is variable and somewhat unpredictable. Dynamic river systems are inherently unpredictable over the long term, especially during spring runoff events, so there is some risk associated with changing physical features in the project area that could potentially change flood characteristics. However, a hydraulic model was used to inform decisions with the goal of not increasing flood risk (HDR 2012c and 2012d). Risk of pit capture is high during high (flood stage) river flow events in the project area due to the high density of ponds in the Eagle Island area. A pit capture event could substantially alter the river channel and flow characteristics resulting in direct impacts to the restoration measures. Private property - The project area is privately-owned. The Non-Federal Sponsors are working with multiple owners to acquire the land through land conveyance or purchase, which have not yet been finalized. There is risk that some of the land necessary may not be available to implement the selected alternative. There are five property owners, with the majority of the project area land owned by a single landowner. The majority landowner has publicly stated support for the project. Cost estimates Budgetary cost estimates were developed during plan formulation and were calculated using available field data, industry standard costs, and professional judgment. Basic assumptions were made about construction techniques, subsurface conditions, weather conditions, and constructability. Contingencies between 30.0 to 50.0 percent were used to compensate for assumptions and other unknowns. There is risk that budget cost estimates may not be accurate. The risk has been reduced as much as possible and feasibility cost estimates will be developed to reduce cost risk associated with the recommended plan. Future Without Project Conditions Forecast - The forecast of the future without project conditions considers all other actions that would be implemented in the future to address the problems and opportunities. There is a level of uncertainty and this forecast may be incorrect. If it is not forecasted adequately, the evaluation may overestimate the project benefits. Due to the amount of available information for the lower Boise River area, this risk is assumed to be minimal. DRAFT 2-61

82 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report This page left intentionally blank 2-62 DRAFT

83 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report SECTION DESCRIPTION OF FINAL PLAN 3.1 Plan Components The recommended plan (alternative 7) includes the following measures: Create emergent wetlands by placing fill along pond shorelines (5.56 acres). Create emergent wetland islands (1.38 acres). Create emergent wetland benches along ponds (10.64 acres) Plant cottonwood trees along the Boise River South Channel (0.38 acres). Create areas with suitable conditions for cottonwood seedling recruitment and plant cottonwood groves from nursery stock (9.86 acres). Perform invasive weed control (10 acres). Rehabilitate existing Boise River channels for suitable rainbow trout rearing habitat (3.80 acres). Total improved habitat: acres Figure 2-12 shows the graphic representation of the recommended plan. For additional details, maps, and schematics of each measure, refer to appendix A. Some measures require the removal and use of fill to create new wetland habitat areas. Fill removed for one purpose (e.g., creating islands) would be used for other purposes (e.g., benching) elsewhere in the project area. Following removal of fill in specific locations, the disturbed area would be graded, mulched, and reseeded with a wetland seed mixture and planted with shrubs to support an emergent wetland conditions. Cottonwood seed and plant recruitment sites would be prepared with appropriate mulch to help maintain soil moisture and provide seed and plant germination and survival. The recruitment goal is for native cottonwood seeds in the project area to deposit and germinate. Weed control would be required so invasive species such as Russian olive and false indigo would not out-compete cottonwood seedlings and other plantings. 3.2 Design and Construction Considerations The project area is mostly located within the floodplain of the Boise River with portions of the recommended plan measures located within the floodway (figure 1-4). Final design will require additional surveying (3-D surface modeling to support design is recommended) and an updated hydrologic modeling to verify that the final design measures will not significantly change the flow distribution in the North and South channels of the Boise River. Floodplain modeling indicates that the recommended plan (alternative 7) does not significantly change the 1.0 percent change exceedances flood in the project area (HDR 2012c and d). Conceptual level design details for alternative 7 (measures A, B, C, D, F, G, and I) are presented in appendix A Construction Materials The majority of construction material is fill that would be obtained on-site from excavation to support several measures. The excavated side slopes of the created islands associated with measure A would be armored with imported rock rip-rap or DRAFT 3-1

84 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report planted with willows or similar vegetation to prevent sloughing and wave-benching. Approximately 24 cubic yards of rip-rap would be imported from an off-site location. None of the measures would require disposal of excess or waste material since fill that is removed from one location would be used to create emergent wetlands within the project area. For example, the excavated materials from the created islands would be used to create shelved benches at the appropriate water level for wetland vegetation along the shorelines of the ponds (see figure 2-12). Wetland seedlings and plants would be imported and planted on the newly created benches Stormwater Pollution and Erosion Control Since the proposed site disturbance would be greater than 1 acre, stormwater management during construction activities would be regulated under the USEPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for discharges from construction activities (GCP). As part of permit requirements, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and notice of intent (NOI) would be developed. Any stormwater would be detained on-site during construction with the implementation of the SWPPP, which typically includes BMPs such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, sediment basins, dust control, and stabilized construction exits. Disturbed areas would be reseeded with appropriate native vegetation for wetland and upland areas. Based on the requirements set forth in the GCP, the potential for stormwater pollution discharges to surface water during construction activities would be minimized Construction Sequence Table 3-1 summarizes the anticipated project construction sequence. Construction activities are projected to be staged over 1 year. All management measures involving earthwork would be completed before re-establishing vegetation and beginning weed control. Measures that involve removal of fill (measures A, B, and G) would occur at the same time as measure C, which uses that material to create emergent wetlands along the shoreline of the ponds. This sequence would permit a progressive construction process. Earth work activities will be scheduled to avoid areas inundated during high water conditions. For example, earthwork for creating suitable conditions for cottonwood planting and natural cottonwood regeneration would be accomplished prior to high water but may also require additional earth work while water is receding. All construction activities would be completed within one construction season. Weed control (independent of measure I) of disturbed areas would continue for 3 years after the first sequence of seeding. 3-2 DRAFT

85 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table 3-1. Probable Construction Sequence Sequence Construction Work Item Instructions 1 Site Survey Perform site survey for all areas under the recommended plan. 2 Measures F and G cottonwood planting and groves 3 Measures A, B, C emergent wetlands associated with ponds. 4 Measure D Rearing Channel 5 Re-vegetate newly created wetlands Create temporary road access to the northwest location of measure G (cottonwood grove area in northwest section of project in figure 2-12). Excavate soil to create cottonwood groves and planting areas based on survey. Place excavated material along shoreline of ponds to support measures B and C. Plant trees in designated areas (measures F and G) and create scoured areas for natural regeneration. Install irrigation system for plantings as necessary (based on high water conditions). Perform earthwork associated with creating emergent wetlands including creating islands, benching, and filling. Activities occur during summer or winter low river flow conditions. Perform earthwork in river side-channels during winter months with low river flows. May require temporary coffer dam or dewatering activities to minimize sediment loss. Complete bank stabilization and revegetation prior to spring runoff. Mulch and wetland seeding and plantings of newly created wetland locations. 6 Measure I Perform weed control, including reseeding with appropriate upland and wetland seed mixtures. 3.3 Lands, Easements, Rights-of Way, Relocations, and Disposal Site Considerations The Non-Federal Sponsors do not currently own any lands in the project area. The project area, including staging areas, is approximately 164 acres. The land currently required for the project is owned by multiple entities. Landowners that donate lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas (LERRD) may be eligible for specific tax deductions or credits that incentivize the transference of land for other uses. The project area does not have any known mineral deposits of commercial (economical) value, nor are there any known hazardous materials present. No displacements or resettlements are anticipated under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (PL ). While the overall extent of facility/utility relocation has yet to be determined, there are no known utility relocations. The required easements for the project are approximately 155 acres of perpetual nonstandard easements, approximately 7 acres for perpetual access easement, and approximately 2 acres of temporary work area easement for construction staging. DRAFT 3-3

86 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Detailed information relating to the real estate aspects of the project can be found in the Real Estate Plan included as appendix B. 3.4 Operation and Maintenance Considerations An OMRR&R plan for the recommended plan (alternative 7) is outlined below and will be described in detail in an OMRR&R manual and will be part of the final design and implementation (DI) documents. DI documents are prepared after the Corps signs a feasibility report decision document and a project partnership agreement is negotiated between the Corps and Non-Federal Sponsors for executing the project. The Non-Federal Sponsors are responsible for 100 percent of all OMRR&R costs and actions needed to ensure project features are maintained per as-built conditions for the project life. Annual average OMRR&R costs are approximately $4,750 for the recommended plan. Following is a preliminary list of OMRR&R activities for the recommended plan components (measures): Measure A Create Emergent Wetland Islands o Erosion and sediment control of banks o Weed control of disturbed area (bank) Measure B Create Emergent Wetlands by Benching o Erosion and sediment control of banks and benches o Weed control o Replanting or reseeding o Installing protective barriers around individual plants or portions of sites to provide protection from animals (herbivory control methods) Measure C Create Emergent Wetlands by Placing Fill Along the Shoreline of Ponds o Erosion and sediment control of banks o Weed control o Replanting or reseeding o Installing protective barriers around individual plants or portions of sites to provide protection from herbivores. Measure D Rehabilitate Existing Channels for Suitable Rainbow Trout Rearing Habitat o Bank stabilization controls o Weed control o Replanting or reseeding o Installing protective barriers around individual plants or portions of sites to provide protection from herbivores o Sediment control/removal o Flood damage 3-4 DRAFT

87 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Measure F Plant Cottonwood Trees along the South Channel of the Boise River o Erosion and sediment control o Weed control o Replanting o Installing protective barriers around individual plants or portions of sites to provide protection from herbivores o Irrigation o Thinning Measure G Create Areas with Suitable Conditions for Cottonwood Seedling Recruitment and Plant Cottonwood Groves o Erosion control o Weed control o Replanting o Installing protective barriers around individual plants or portions of sites to provide protection from herbivores o Irrigation o Mulching o Thinning Measure I Perform Weed Control Other OMRR&R: Maintain access roads Maintain signs posted for keeping public out of reclamation areas Flood damage Specific OMRR&R considerations are described below and will be further addressed as part of the DI documentation Wetland Weed Control OMRR&R activities for the first 5 years after construction include weed control (measure I) and possible replanting of emergent wetland vegetation. Newly created wetland areas should be inspected at least annually to detect and remove undesirable or invasive vegetation. If necessary, a weed control program, independent of the weed control program under measure I, would be implemented. The weed control program should include mechanical removal of undesirable plants and/or an USEPA approved herbicide that is indicated for aquatic use. After 5 years, adaptive management may be required (see appendix C for success criteria) Cottonwood Trees Protection from Beavers Planted cottonwood trees and saplings should be protected from beavers by placing wire cylinders around the base of tree trunks. Generally, only trees that are 1-inch DRAFT 3-5

88 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report diameter or greater are protected with wire cylinders. Cottonwood tree planted areas should be inspected at least annually to verify that the wire cylinders are in good condition and are stable enough to prevent beavers from damaging trees. The annual inspection should also include surveying cottonwood groves for emerging trees. Replanting of cottonwood trees during the first 5 years is anticipated (see appendix C for success criteria for cottonwood tree measures). After 5 years, adaptive management may be required (appendix C) Irrigation Cottonwood seedling recruitment is dependent on key physical and ecological processes, including suitable site hydrology. The rate of water table decline during the seed release period will greatly influence successful recruitment. Temporary irrigation of germinated cottonwood tree seeds will increase their survival rate, especially if river flows are reduced rapidly. Irrigation efforts on seeded areas may be required during the first 5 years of the project, depending on recruitment rates and adaptation techniques implemented by the project Non-Federal Sponsors. Planted cottonwood trees would be irrigated for the first 3 years of the project to ensure that roots intercept groundwater. Irrigating cottonwood trees would require permissible diversion of water. Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) records indicate that there are no valid water rights within the project area. The temporary nature of the irrigation requirements for this project precludes obtaining a permanent water right, which may be difficult to obtain in this reach of the Boise River. IDWR issues temporary water rights (temporary approval of water appropriation). Water in the Boise River is fully allocated, so any temporary water right would have a junior priority date to the recorded water rights. A junior priority means that following spring runoff, diversion of water under a temporary water right could be curtailed following runoff. Similarly, obtaining water from the local rental pool could also limit water for irrigation during spring runoff. One option that would allow use of water following spring runoff would be to rent water from the water supply bank, which is operated by IWRB. Water right holders can offer unused water rights to the water supply bank, which can be rented to people who do not have adequate water rights to meet their needs. Water from the water supply bank is also subject to priority dates. Therefore, depending on the priority date of the water right that is rented from the water supply bank, it is also subject to curtailment to prevent injury to more senior rights. In the event that diversion of water is curtailed, water for irrigation purposes could be brought into the site from an off-site source by water truck Pests and Disease For the first 5 years, cottonwood trees should be surveyed for damage from pests or disease and should be treated with appropriate sprays that are indicated or approved for aquatic use Rearing Channels The rearing channels should be inspected at least annually for beaver dams, debris blocking the channels, solid waste, and other obstructions that could inhibit rainbow trout rearing success. Inspections and related OMRR&R would occur for a 5-year 3-6 DRAFT

89 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report period. The channels would be cleared as necessary to allow fish passage along its entire length. Following spring runoff, the rearing channels should be inspected for erosion and displaced gravels. Since all proposed measures are physical and not mechanical changes, extreme runoff events could potentially adversely impact implemented measures. Appendix C outlines success criteria for rearing channels and also defines adaptive management. 3.5 Plan Accomplishments The recommended plan would result in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem benefits without committing additional water supplies or changing management activities of reservoirs upstream. The project would benefit the three target species, which include the great blue heron, mallard duck, and rainbow trout in addition to other fish and wildlife communities associated with the lower Boise River riparian and aquatic habitats. Based on the HEP analysis, there would be a net gain of AAHUs for the three target species over the existing condition, as well as maintaining existing habitat values that would decline without the active weed control associated with the project. The recommended plan includes measures that would address the declining cottonwood population, which is a concern along the lower Boise River in general and provides provisions that would promote genetic diversity. 3.6 Summary of Economic, Environmental, and other Social Effects The environment effects associated with the action alternatives have been evaluated to display the potential long-term effects on significant environmental resources. Significant environmental resources are defined by the Water Resources Council as those components of the ecological, cultural and aesthetic environments which, if affected by the alternative plans, could have a material bearing on the decision-making process. The resources considered for this project are discussed in sections and of this report. The EA documents the evaluation and consideration of environmental effects throughout the study and planning process based upon the project purpose and objectives (Corps 2013). As part of the plan formulation process for ecosystem restoration projects, the Corps developed a range of alternative plans that were then screened down to four alternatives. These four alternatives were advanced for further evaluation in the EA. The Corps identified alternative 7 as the recommended plan (proposed action). This alternative results in the greatest environmental benefits as measured by AAHUs, and improves the greatest number of acres. Alternative 7 would improve 41.6 acres of habitat, including 17.6 acres of emergent wetlands, 10.2 acres of cottonwood forest, and includes 3.8 acres of rearing channels for rainbow trout. This alternative meets all eight planning objectives and results in the largest increase in incremental ecologicalbased benefits of the four alternatives evaluated. The recommended plan would reduce or eliminate the production and spread of invasive plant species. DRAFT 3-7

90 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report The proposed action provides for wetland restoration, including control of invasive plant species, which would result in long-term riparian habitat improvements for the Boise River and head of Eagle Island. Habitat improvement provides important ecological functions, including providing habitat to many migratory bird species such as the great blue heron and bald eagle, as well as providing long-term water quality improvements for the Boise River. This alternative includes pond shoreline fill and stabilization, which helps reduce the risk of pit capture associated with the gravel extraction ponds. The rehabilitation of river side channels for trout rearing habitat improves overall aquatic habitat conditions. Some minor, temporary impacts may occur with construction activities associated with implementing the proposed action. Such impacts could include increased sediment loads to surface water, as well as temporary disruption to wildlife and aquatic organisms. With the implementation of a SWPPP and BMPs, such impacts would be minimized and temporary. The long-term benefits and habitat improvements provided by the recommended plan offset any minimal short-term impacts caused by construction activities. Impacts of the proposed action on threatened, endangered or candidate species, land use, recreation, cultural resources, or environmental justice would be minimal. Implementation of the proposed action is consistent with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan for the head of Eagle Island. No residential homes or businesses exist in the direct project area, and as a result, no minority or low income populations would be impacted. The Corps coordinated this project with USFWS, USEPA, IDFG, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), IDEQ, Idaho Department of Lands (IDL), Native American tribes with interest in the geographic area, and the public. See Section 6 for the complete discussion on public agency and tribal coordination and consultation. The Corps will ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 3-8 DRAFT

91 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report SECTION PROJECT COST SUMMARY 4.1 Baseline Construction Estimate The preliminary budget estimate (baseline construction estimate) for the recommended plan (alternative 7) is summarized in table 4-1. The first construction cost includes contingencies, engineering and design, construction, construction administration, and budgetary real estate costs. The estimate was prepared to April 2012 price levels. The cost for monitoring and adaptive management is not included. Table 4-1. Baseline Construction Estimate Total First Construction Cost $ 4,003,000 Feasibility Study $ 1,146,000 TOTAL PLANNING LEVEL PROJECT COST $ 5,149, Total Project Cost Summary The total project cost summary (fully funded estimate) for the recommended plan (alternative 7) was developed by the Corps and is summarized in table 4-2. The construction costs were developed using Micro Computer Aided Cost Estimate System (MCACES) software to October 2013 price levels. For more detail regarding the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan see appendix C. For more detail regarding LERRD see appendix B. The detailed information for the costs, including a summary of MCACES, the abbreviated risk analysis, and the total project cost summary can be found in appendix D. Table 4-2. Total Project Cost Summary Construction Costs for Fish and Wildlife Facilities $ 2,934,000 Costs for Monitoring and Adaptive Management $ 198,000 Lands, Easement, Right-of-way, Relocations, and Disposals (LERRD) $ 583,000 Feasibility Study $ 1,146,000 Planning, Engineering, and Design $ 549,000 Construction Management $ 324,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 5,735,000 Based on October 2013 price levels, the estimated project first cost is $3,132,000, which includes monitoring and adaptive management costs of $198,000. In accordance with the cost share provisions in Section 103(c) of the WRDA 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213(c)), the Federal share of the project first cost is estimated to be $4,301,000 and the non-federal share is estimated to be $1,434,000, which equates to 75.0 percent Federal and 25.0 percent Non-Federal. The Non-Federal costs include the value of LERRD estimated to be $583,000. See Table 5.1 for the detailed cost share breakdown. DRAFT 4-1

92 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report This page left intentionally blank. 4-2 DRAFT

93 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report SECTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION This section presents the requirements for implementing the recommended plan, including Federal and Non-Federal cost sharing, and the division of responsibilities between the Corps and Non-Federal Sponsors. It also lists major milestones necessary for project approval, and a schedule of milestones associated with designing and constructing the recommended plan. 5.1 Institutional Requirements Agreements Prior to the start of construction, the Non-Federal Sponsors will be required to sign a PPA with the Corps and satisfy state laws and all applicable regulations. Feasibility study costs will be included in the total project costs and 25.0 percent of the total project costs will be reimbursed by the Non-Federal Sponsors upon execution of a PPA. The Non-Federal Sponsors would review a draft PPA and must accept the terms of the PPA prior to project implementation. Any deviations to the PPA would be submitted for approval by the appropriate Federal authority Financial Analysis and Capability Financial information on the Non-Federal Sponsors ability to fund their share of the plan is required to establish implementation of the project. The information includes a preliminary financing plan outlining the costs, schedule of expenditures, and a statement of financial capability by the Non-Federal Sponsors, including funds. During the time of this report, the Non-Federal Sponsors remain committed to the project. The sponsor will be required to commit to financial support of the project in the PPA; and this commitment must be verified prior to the execution of the PPA. 5.2 Division of Plan Responsibilities The project has three Non-Federal Sponsors: FCD10, ASWCD, and IFPL. This section describes the Non-Federal Sponsors responsibilities in conjunction with the Federal government to implement the recommended plan. Any third party agreements made by the Non-Federal Sponsors will undergo review by the Corps prior to approval of the PPA. The PPA package will be submitted as separate documentation to this report Cost Sharing The cost sharing requirements for a Section 1135 project state that the Non-Federal Sponsors are responsible for 25.0 percent of the total project costs during the design and implementation period, including recovering costs of the feasibility study. In accordance with the terms of the PPA, the Non-Federal Sponsors must provide all LERRDs required for the project. The Non-Federal Sponsors is also responsible for percent of the cost for OMRR&R of project features based on performance DRAFT 5-1

94 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report criteria described in appendix C. Table 5-1 depicts the fully funded cost sharing requirements necessary for implementation. Table 5-1. Cost-Share Breakdown Project Feature Non-Federal Federal % Cost % Cost Total Project Cost $1,434, $4,301,000 LERRD Credit $583, Not applicable Cash $851, $4,301,000 OMRR&R $237, Not applicable 1 Total project cost is summarized in table 4-2. Provisions of the Section 1135 program do allow for the Non-Federal Sponsors to perform work for in-kind crediting against the non-federal cost share up to 75.0 percent of the total amount of their 25.0 percent portion. The Non-Federal Sponsors in this project intend to provide services or material that will contribute to their in-kind credit. The actual items and estimated costs for the in-kind work that is possible in this project will be determined during the negotiation of the PPA between the Corps and the Non- Federal Sponsors. The following items could qualify for in-kind credit, but would need to be approved and agreed to by the Non-Federal Sponsors: provisions for any construction materials, performing pre-construction quantity surveys, or development of plans and specifications. Specific details and commitments to provide in-kind materials or activities for the project, or plant trees in support of the project, will be finalized in the PPA Non-Federal Cooperation and Responsibilities The non-federal local cooperation requirements and responsibilities are as follows: 1. Provide 25.0 percent of the project costs for environmental restoration, including the following: a. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas, and perform or assure the performance of all relocations determined by the Corps to be necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. b. Provide or pay to the Corps the cost of providing all construction materials required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project that are agreed to in the PPA. c. Provide work for in-kind crediting as discussed in this section, and as defined in the PPA. d. During construction provide any additional funds as necessary to make its total contribution equal to 25.0 percent of the project costs, including the costs of the study. 5-2 DRAFT

95 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report 2. OMRR&R the completed project or functional portions of the project during the time that the project is authorized. Assume responsibility for OMRR&R of the project or completed functional portions of the project without cost to the Corps, in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purpose and in accordance with applicable Federal and state laws and specific directions prescribed by the Corps in an OMRR&R manual and any subsequent amendments thereto. 3. Other requirements and responsibilities of the sponsor will be outlined in the PPA Views of Non-Federal Sponsors and Other Agencies Having Implementation Responsibilities The end goals for restoration of Eagle Island may be somewhat different among the three non-federal project sponsors. The FCD10 s primary goal in supporting the project would be the restoration of land (creation of wetlands) for flood control benefits. The ASWCD s primary goal is for improvement and preservation of water quality and restoration of trout rearing habitat. The IFPL supports restoration of the area to support wildlife habitat. Even though these end goals seems somewhat divergent, they all maintain the same common vision of ecosystem restoration and preservation. Restoration of the area has potential to provide interconnected benefits to each of these Non-Federal Sponsors. As a result, Non-Federal Sponsors have agreed to share implementation responsibilities (joint responsibilities). DRAFT 5-3

96 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report This page left intentionally blank. 5-4 DRAFT

97 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report SECTION SUMMARY OF PUBLIC, AGENCY AND TRIBAL COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 6.1 Public, Agency, and Tribal Coordination During initiation of the feasibility study (2002 to 2004), local and regional stakeholders participated in informational meetings with the Corps and FCD10. The stakeholders included representatives from city of Eagle, city of Boise, Garden City, the Eagle Pathways Committee, IDWR, ACHD, Ada County, and IDFG. The Corps met with experts familiar with the hydraulics and river mechanics of the Boise River, including representatives from the University of Idaho s Ecohydraulics group, USGS, ACHD, HDR Engineering, Inc., and FCD10. Since re-initiation of the feasibility study in 2009, continued coordination with stakeholders, agencies, and Tribes has occurred. As a result of the coordination the Corps led a site visit of the project area with representatives of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in August Key coordination activities are summarized in table 6-1. Table 6-1. Key Public, Agency, and Tribal Coordination Activities Date July 2010 November 2010 June 2011 July 2011 July 2011 August 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 January 2012 March 2013 Summer 2013 Coordination Activity Meeting with Federal, state and local governments to communicate re-initiation of study. NEPA Scoping Letter. Meeting and site visit with USFWS pursuant to Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Letter to Tribes and SHPO requesting information about cultural resources. Public information meeting. Response from SHPO regarding historic properties. Information meeting and site visit with Shoshone Bannock Tribes. Meeting with Federal and state agencies, and local governments to review problems and opportunities, initial restoration measures, and seek feedback. Meeting with USFWS to review HEP. Meeting with IDFG and USFWS to review restoration measures and discuss resource significance. Agency briefing meeting with Federal and state agencies, and local governments to discuss alternative and selected alternative. Feasibility Report and EA public review; Public information meeting Table 6-2 summarizes agencies and others that have provided comments or attended project related meetings for the feasibility report and the preparation of the EA. A detailed description of comments received and meeting notes are in the project record and are available upon request. DRAFT 6-1

98 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Table 6-2. Groups Providing Project Related Comments Group Tribes Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Federal State Local Government Non-Governmental Other Bureau of Land Management Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Represented Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Idaho Department of Fish and Game Idaho Department of Lands Idaho Department of Water Resources Idaho Historic Preservation Office Ada City-County Emergency Management City of Boise City of Eagle Garden City Audubon Society Idaho Conservation League Idaho Rivers United Land Trust of Treasure Valley Trout Unlimited Ballentyne Irrigation Ditch Company Water District 63 The feasibility report and preliminary EA will be distributed to interested Federal and state agencies, groups, local governments, and the public for a 30-day public review period. Comments received on the feasibility study and EA will also be included in the project record. The distribution list for the feasibility report and preliminary EA is provided in the EA document (Corps 2013). 6.2 Policy, Consultation, and Review Federal Statutes National Environmental Policy Act As required by NEPA of 1969 and subsequent implementing regulations promulgated by CEQ, an EA was prepared to determine whether the proposed action constitutes a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and whether an EIS is required. This assessment is presented in the Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (Corps 2013). The EA documents the evaluation and consideration of environmental effects throughout the study and planning process for the project. Various ecosystem restoration alternatives were developed, evaluated, and compared to the existing condition (No-Action alternative). A preliminary EA has been prepared and is being circulated to agencies and the public for review and comment pursuant to requirements 6-2 DRAFT

99 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report of NEPA. No impacts significantly affecting the quality of the human environment have been identified at this time. If no such impacts are identified during the public review process, compliance with NEPA would be achieved upon the signing of a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). However if such impacts are identified during the public review process, the Corps and the sponsors would prepare an EIS Clean Water Act The CWA sets national goals and policies to eliminate discharge of water pollutants, regulate discharge of toxic pollutants, and prohibit discharge of pollutants from point sources without permits. The CWA also authorizes USEPA to establish water quality criteria that are used by states to establish specific water quality standards. Section 404 of the CWA Section 404 of the CWA requires evaluation of activities involving discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Activities associated with the proposed action are subject to requirements of Section 404 because of in-water placement of dredging material (creating islands and rearing channel) and filling of pond banks to create emergent wetlands. Section 401 of the CWA requires water quality certification for activities authorized under Section 404. These certifications are issued by IDEQ when there is reasonable assurance that a proposed action would comply with applicable Federal or state effluent limitations, water quality standards, and other aquatic resource protection requirements. The Corps is responsible for Section 404 compliance for the construction of the project. The project would meet the requirements of a Nationwide Permit 27(NWP 27), which covers aquatic habitat restoration, establishment, and enhancement activities. Therefore, the Corps would not be required to prepare a Section 404(b)(1) evaluation (nor obtain a separate Section 401 water quality certification) for project construction, but would coordinate with state agencies (IDWR and IDL) regarding the project to ensure project activities meet the intent of these regulations. The permit and associated 401 certification from Idaho list BMP-type requirements for protection of existing wetlands and surface water. IDEQ has certified aquatic habitat restoration activities similar to those in the project as compliant with state water quality standards. However, the Non-Federal Sponsors, who are responsible for OMRR&R activities, may be required to obtain a Section 404 permit if they are placing dredged or fill material below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Some of the OMRR&R activities may be covered by the NWP 27. Section 402 of the CWA Section 402 authorizes USEPA to issue permits under procedures established to implement the NPDES program. Regulated categories of discharges generally include point-source discharges and stormwater runoff. In November 1990, USEPA adopted regulations pertaining to stormwater discharges into surface water bodies (40 CFR 122). At that time, the regulations required that NPDES permits be obtained for construction activities (including clearing, grading, and excavation) that disturb 1 or more acres of land. The applicable general permit for discharges from a construction site is dated February 16, DRAFT 6-3

100 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report The permittee (the Non-Federal Sponsors), the Walla Wall District Corps, or the Corps construction contractor would be required to obtain USEPA s stormwater permit and comply with the permit program requirements for construction activities, which include implementing a SWPPP that describes BMPs that would be used to protect water quality and ensure construction would not affect beneficial uses of waters of the U.S. The permittee must design, implement, maintain, monitor, and evaluate BMP effectiveness during project construction and modify BMPs as needed to protect water quality Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) establishes a comprehensive program for improving and maintaining air quality throughout the United States. The goals of the CAA are achieved through permitting of stationary sources, controlling the emission of toxic substances from stationary and mobile sources, and establishing National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The act required USEPA to adopt these air quality standards for priority pollutants, which include sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. These standards are designed to protect human health and welfare. Areas in which the air pollutant levels exceed adopted standards for one or more pollutants are considered to be in non-attainment. Those areas where pollutant levels do not exceed standards are considered to be in attainment. The project area is considered to be a maintenance area for carbon monoxide and attainment for coarse particulate matter. Construction activities have the potential to generate fugitive dust emissions. However, with the implementation of construction BMPs mentioned earlier, activities associated with the alternatives are not anticipated to adversely affect air quality Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the ESA requires the Corps to ensure that its actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of the species critical habitat. The Corps has determined threatened and endangered species will not be affected because no threatened or endangered species are known to occur at the project site (see section for description of ESA species and habitat) National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of Federal undertakings on historical, archaeological, and cultural resources, and to consult with SHPO and other interested parties on potential impacts to cultural resources from those undertakings. The Corps conducted cultural resource investigations and made a determination of no historic properties affected for this project (HDR 2012f and 2011b). This determination was based on the alternatives avoiding ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of known cultural resource sites. The Corps consulted with the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation were also provided copies of the survey reports and 6-4 DRAFT

101 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report determination of effects, but did not respond. The public was also engaged on the project through public scoping meetings. The Corps received concurrence with its determination from the Idaho SHPO in a letter dated (under review) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act The Boise River is not designated as a Wild and Scenic River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (National Wild and Scenic Rivers 2011). This act does not apply to the project because the project area does not impact any Wild and Scenic River Federal Water Project Recreation Act The Federal Water Project Recreation Act (P.L ), as amended, requires full consideration of fish and wildlife enhancement opportunities in investigating and planning Federal water resources projects. The ecosystem restoration project would restore degraded wetlands and riparian communities, which would provide opportunities for fish and wildlife enhancement. As part of the project, the sponsors may decide to install interpretive education signage. Although the area could be used for passive public recreation, recreation is not the focus of the project and would not interfere with or preclude habitat enhancement Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976 to address how to safely manage and dispose of municipal and industrial waste; regulate underground storage tanks (USTs) that store petroleum or hazardous substances; establish a system for managing solid (primarily nonhazardous) waste, including household waste; and set forth the framework for USEPA's comprehensive waste management program. The project area is not known to have any municipal and industrial waste or USTs. If abandoned or buried hazardous waste is discovered during construction, it would be managed in accordance with the RCRA, as applicable. Any hazardous materials used and waste generated during construction would also be managed in accordance with RCRA requirements Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act states that fish and wildlife resources should receive equal consideration with other values during the planning of water resources development projects. The act requires Corps to consult with USFWS and IDFG for projects that would modify any stream or water body. The Corps consulted with USFWS and IDFG during preparation of this EA and these agencies indicated that the project provides a net benefit to wildlife and fish resources in the lower Boise River. Documentation from the agencies is available upon request Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) requires that lands, waters, or interests acquired or reserved for purposes established under the act be administered under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. This act involves conservation and protection of migratory birds in accordance with treaties between the United States and DRAFT 6-5

102 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Mexico, Canada, Japan, and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The migratory birds protected under this act are specified in the respective treaties. In regulating these areas, the secretary of the interior is authorized to manage timber, range, agricultural crops, and other species of animals, and to enter into agreements with public and private entities. Active nests and nestlings cannot be harmed. Any project activities near potential migratory bird nesting sites would be monitored for active nesting prior to disturbance. If active nests are found, work in that area would be delayed until the birds leave the nest Executive Orders Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, May 24, 1977 Executive Order directs Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, any short- and long-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of the base floodplain whenever there is a practical alternative. The project results in enhancing floodplain function by creating or enhancing wetlands and riparian areas. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the objective of Executive Order because it does not decrease the carrying capacity of the base floodplain. Therefore, the project complies with the Executive Order Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977 Executive Order requires Federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. To meet these objectives, Federal agencies must consider alternatives to wetland sites and limit potential damage if an activity affecting a wetland cannot be avoided. The purpose of this project is to restore aquatic and riparian habitat. The Corps does not expect the project to cause a net loss of wetlands or to adversely affect the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. The project is consistent with the objective of Executive Order because it will create or restore wetlands to the area. Therefore, the project complies with the Executive Order Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Executive Order Executive Order directs every Federal agency to identify and address disproportionately high, adverse human health, or environmental effects of agency programs and activities on minority and low-income populations (environmental justice populations). No minority or low-income populations have been identified that would be adversely impacted by the action alternatives. No displacement would occur as a result of the project. Therefore, this project would not have disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority or low income populations per Executive Order DRAFT

103 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Executive Order Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments," sets forth guidelines for all Federal agencies to (1) establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications; (2) strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes; and (3) reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes. The Shoshone Bannock Tribes, Nez Perce Tribe, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes were introduced to the project in a letter dated November 19, A second letter was provided to the tribes on July 6, 2011, requesting consultation and specifically asking for their assistance in identifying historic properties within the project APE. As a result of this communication a project site visit was conducted with representatives of the Shoshone Bannock Tribes on August 26, Executive Order Invasive Species Executive Order directs Federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The purpose of this project is to restore aquatic and riparian habitat. An element of the proposed action is the control of invasive plant species in the project area to ensure a health riparian habitat. Control activities include implementation of BMPs during construction (e.g., requirements for weed free materials), a measure for direct control of invasive species of areas that have been identified to contain these species, and a weed control program as part of the OMRR&R for a 5-year period. The project complies with the Executive Order. 6.3 State and Local Permits The Corps is responsible for coordination with Federal, state, and local agencies for construction activities associated with the project. The project would meet the conditions of NWP 27, which covers aquatic habitat restoration, establishment, and enhancement. Therefore, the Corps would not prepare a Section 404(b)(1) evaluation (nor obtain a separate Section 401 water quality certification) for project construction. However, the Corps would coordinate with state agencies (IDWR and IDL) regarding the project to ensure project activities meet the intent of these regulations. Implementation of the project would result in a net increase in aquatic resource functions and services. However, the Non-Federal Sponsors, responsible for OMRR&R activities, would be required to comply with Section 404, including obtaining necessary permits, if they are placing dredged or fill material below the OHWM. The permit and associated 401 certification from Idaho lists BMP-type requirements for protection of existing wetlands and surface water. Non-Federal Sponsors are responsible for implementing OMRR&R, and as such, they are responsible for following Federal, state, and local permitting requirements. DRAFT 6-7

104 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report The only state permit applicable to the Non-Federal Sponsors is the Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act, which requires protection of state stream channels from alteration to protect fish and wildlife habitat, aquatic life, recreation, aesthetic beauty, and water quality. IDWR must approve any alteration of a state stream channel through its stream channel alteration permit program. This permitting requirement applies to any proposed work that is within the beds and banks of a continuously flowing stream. Land located below the ordinary high-water line is claimed by the State of Idaho and administered by the IDL. The stream channel alteration permit requires the concurrence of the IDL and would satisfy the requirements of both IDL and IDWR in one document (permit). 6-8 DRAFT

105 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS As district engineer, I have considered the environmental, social, and economic effects; the engineering feasibility; and the comments from other Federal and state resource agencies, local governments, and public. In reviewing and considering all this information, I have determined that the recommended plan presented in this report is in the overall public interest and is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically feasible and cost effective. I have reviewed the estimated benefits with implementation of this ecosystem restoration project against its estimated cost and have considered the various alternatives proposed, impacts identified, and overall scope. In my judgment, this project, as proposed, justifies expenditure of Federal funds. I recommend that the Secretary of the Army for Civil Works approve the proposed project to include constructing the Recommended Plan (alternative 7) to create forested and emergent wetlands and rainbow trout rearing channels, and perform invasive weed control, resulting in approximately 42 acres of restoration habitat improvements at the Boise River at Eagle Island project area. The total estimated fully-funded cost of the recommended plan is $5,735,000. The project first cost (in October 2013 price levels) is estimated at $4,589,000. The Federal portion of the total is $4,301,000 and a non-federal portion of $1,434,000. The estimated annualized OMRR&R costs are $237,500. This estimated total project cost includes construction of the project features, planning and engineering design, construction management, LERRD, and monitoring and adaptability. It is the sponsor s responsibility to provide 25.0 percent of project costs to include the LERRD, and conduct OMRR&R. The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at this time and current Corps policies governing formulation of individual projects. They do not reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of the national Civil Works construction program nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch. ANDREW D. KELLY LIEUTENANT COLONEL District Engineer DRAFT 7-1

106 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report This page left intentionally blank. 7-2 DRAFT

107 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report SECTION REFERENCES ACHD [Ada County Highway District] Three Cities River Crossing Environmental Impact Statement. Federal Highway Administration. Asbridge, G. and Bjornn, T.C Survey of Potential and Available Salmonid Habitat in the Lower Boise River: Idaho Department of Fish and Game Job Completion Report. Project F-71-R-12, Subproject 3, Job 3, 71p. Braatne, J., S. Rood, and P. Heilman Life History, Ecology and Conservation of Riparian Cottonwoods in North America. Biology of Populus. 67 p. Boise Parks and Recreation Department Boise River Resource Management and Master Plan. City of Eagle City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan. Corps [U. S. Army Corps of Engineers] Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment. Corps Approved Jurisdictional Determination. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. November 26, Corps HEC-RAS River Analysis System Users Manual Version 4.1. Hydrologic Engineering Center, CPD-68. Corps Lower Boise River Feasibility Study. Corps Boise River after Action Review, 2006 High Water, Vicinity of the City of Eagle, Idaho. Prepared for the City of Eagle, Idaho. Corps. 2000a. Engineering Regulation (ER) Corps. 2000b. Engineer Regulation Corps. 2000c. Planning Guidance Notebook. Available online at: Accessed September 24, Corps Civil Works Ecosystem Restoration Policy and Engineering Regulation Corps Resource Significance Protocol for Environmental Project Planning. IWR Report 97-R-4. Corps Lower Boise River and Tributaries, Idaho, Reconnaissance Study. Available online at: Accessed September 24, Corps. 1985, revised Water Control Manual for the Boise River Reservoirs. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31.Washington, D.C. DRAFT 8-1

108 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Dahl, Thomas E Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Available online at: Accessed September, D Amico, D Regeneration of Plains and Narrowleaf Cottonwood on South Boulder Creek, Boulder, CO. Prepared for City of Boulder Open Space Department. p.26. Dolgoff, Anatole Physical Geology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] Flood Insurance Study. Ada County, Idaho and Incorporated Areas. Community No 16001CV00B. Fischer, R.A., Martin, C.O., Ratti, J.T., Guidice, J Riparian Terminology: Confusion and Clarification. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg MS Research and Development Center. 7 p. HDR [HDR Engineering, Inc.]. 2012a. Habitat Evaluation Procedure. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Draft Report. HDR. 2012b. Wetlands Delineation Report. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Report. HDR. 2012c. Eagle Island Floodplain Alternatives Model Development. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Draft Report. HDR. 2012d. Eagle Island Floodplain Base Conditions Model Development. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Report. HDR. 2012e. Real Estate Plan. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Draft Report. HDR. 2012f. Cultural Resources Inventory. Section 106 Report. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Draft Report. HDR. 2011a. Stream Assessment. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Report. HDR. 2011b. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Report. IDEQ [Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] TMDL Report for the Lower Boise River from Lucky Peak Dam to the Snake River. IDFG [Idaho Department of Fish and Game] Yellow billed cuckoo (Conservation status/classification). Available online at: Accessed June 30, IDFG Yellow billed cuckoo (Conservation status/classification). Available online at: Accessed June 30, DRAFT

109 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report IDFG Idaho s Fisheries Management Plan Available online at: Accessed September 20, IDFG Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. Available online at: Accessed September 20, IDWR [Idaho Department of Water Resources] Boise Green LiDAR. maps.idwr.idaho.gov/arcgis/rest/services/lidar/mapserver Jamieson, B. and J. Braatne Riparian Cottonwood Ecosystems and Regulated Flows in Kootenai and Yakima Subbasins; Impacts of Flow Regulation on Riparian Cottonwood Forests of the Yakima River. Technical Report, Project No , 53 pages, BPA Report DOE/BP Kaltenecker, G.S. (Idaho Bird Observatory) Personal communication. Kaltenecker, G.S., M.J. Bechard, and R.B. Tiedemann Boise River wintering bald eagle study, Boise River Corridor, Lucky Peak Dam/Ada Canyon County Line. Unpublished report. 111 pp. Kibler, Bob Personal communication. MacCoy, D. E Fish Communities and Related Environmental Conditions of the Lower Boise River, Southwestern Idaho, USGS Scientific Investigations Report MacCoy, D.E. and Blew, D Impacts of Land-Use Changes and Hydrologic Modification on the Lower Boise River, Idaho, USA: Affects of Urbanization on Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 47, p Mullins, William Biotic Integrity of the Boise River Upstream and Downstream from Two Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Boise, Idaho, Quadrant Consulting, McLaughlin Water Engineers, LTD., and Resource Systems, Inc Task 1 Report, An Inventory of Irrigation Diversion Structures. Boise and Payette Rivers Diversion Upgrade Project. Quadrant Consulting and Resource Systems Inc Eagle Island Flow Split Study. Prepared for Boise River 2000, November 5, Reclamation [U.S. Bureau of Reclamation] Historical Data Access (Boise River at Glenwood Bridge). Available online at: Accessed July 8, Reynolds, Timothy D. and Hinckley Chad I A survey for Yellow-billed Cuckoo in recorded historic and other likely locations in Idaho. Available online at: Par File.dat/part1.pdf. Accessed July 8, Simpson, K. and J.P. Kelsal Capture and Banding of Adult Great Blue Herons at Pender Harbour, British Columbia, Proc Conf. Colonial Waterbird Group 2: DRAFT 8-3

110 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report Sweet, Steve Personal communication. Tiedemann, Dr. Robert Personal communication. Tuell, Yvette Personal communication. USFWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. September 19, Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species with Associated Proposed and Critical Habitats in Idaho. USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Manual (ESM 102). Available online at: Accessed February 8, USGS [U.S. Geological Survey] Invasive Species Research. Available online at: USGS Fish Communities and Related Environmental Conditions of the Lower Boise River, Southwestern Idaho, USGS Conditions in Lower Boise River, Ada and Canyon Counties: Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Guidelines for Protection & Mitigation of Impacts to Great Blue Heron Rookeries in Vermont. Ward, Rick Personal communication. Wheeler, M Cottonwood and Willow Management. Prepared for Colorado State Parks. 26 p. Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA) Public Law As Amended Through P.L , Dec. 29, DRAFT

111 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report SECTION LIST OF DOCUMENTS PREPARED TO SUPPORT FEASIBILITY REPORT HDR [HDR Engineering, Inc.]. 2012a. Habitat Evaluation Procedure. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Draft Report. HDR. 2012b. Wetlands Delineation Report. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Report. HDR. 2012c. Eagle Island Floodplain Alternatives Model Development. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Draft Report. HDR. 2012d. Eagle Island Floodplain Base Conditions Model Development. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Report. HDR. 2012e. Real Estate Plan. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Draft Report. HDR. 2012f. Cultural Resources Inventory. Section 106 Report. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Draft Report. HDR. 2011a. Stream Assessment. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Report. HDR. 2011b. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Report. DRAFT 9-1

112 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report This page left intentionally blank. 9-2 DRAFT

113 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Feasibility Report APPENDICES APPENDIX A: RESTORATION MEASURES: DEVELOPMENT, DESCRIPTIONS, AND MAPS APPENDIX B: REAL ESTATE PLAN APPENDIX C: MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX D: COST ESTIMATE DRAFT

114

115 DRAFT APPENDIX A: RESTORATION MEASURES: DEVELOPMENT, DESCRIPTIONS, AND MAPS

116

117 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Ada County, Idaho Appendix A: Restoration Measures - Development, Descriptions, and Maps March 2013

118

119 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps TABLE OF CONTENTS RESTORATION MEASURE DESCRIPTIONS USED TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE PLANS... 1 Measure A Create Emergent Wetland Islands... 1 Measure B Create Emergent Wetlands by Benching... 1 Measure C Create Emergent Wetlands by Placing Fill along Pond Shorelines... 4 Measure D Rehabilitate Existing Channels for Suitable Rainbow Trout Rearing Habitat... 4 Measure E Construct a Spawning Rainbow Trout Spawning Channel... 4 Measure F Plant Cottonwood Trees along the North and South Channel of the Boise River... 7 Measure G Create Areas with Suitable Conditions for Cottonwood Seedling Recruitment and Plant Cottonwood Groves... 7 Measure H Bank Stabilization along Selected Areas of the North and South Channels of the Boise River... 7 Measure I Perform Weed Control Measure J Lower Selected Berms to Create Non-Fragmented Floodplain List of Figures Figure 1. Measure A Typical Cross-Section... 1 Figure 2. Measure B Typical Cross-Section... 2 Figure 3. Measures A/B/C Proposed Emergent Wetlands... 3 Figure 4. Measure E Typical Section of Spawning Channel... 5 Figure 5. Measures D/E Proposed Rearing and Spawning Channels... 6 Figure 6. Measure F/G Proposed Cottonwood Areas... 8 Figure 7. Measure H Proposed Bank Stabilization... 9 Figure 8. Measure J Typical Cross-Sections Figure 9. Measure J Proposed Non-Fragmented Floodplain (Cottonwood and Emergent Wetlands) List of Photos Photo 1. Existing channel, northwest of the project area... 4 List of Tables Table 1. Initial Restoration Measures i

120 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps This page left intentionally blank. ii

121 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps RESTORATION MEASURE DESCRIPTIONS USED TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE PLANS Summarized below are descriptions of the 10 measures input into Institute of Water Resources-Planning Suite Decision Software (IWR-PLAN). Table 1 (at the end of this appendix) documents the 29 initial restoration measures, screening analysis results, and briefly describes the 10 remaining restoration measures. Measure A Create Emergent Wetland Islands Pockets of emergent wetlands are found in the project area, most located on the banks of the ponds (see section in the feasibility report). This measure would create emergent wetland islands from these existing emergent wetlands to improve nesting habitat for mallards and provide protection from terrestrial predators (many terrestrial predators would not be able to access these islands due to the presence of water). Figure 1 shows a typical cross-section of proposed excavation and surface elevations changes associated with this measure. Islands would be created in two locations, illustrated as black, cross-hatched areas in figure 3. The islands are located on pond 3 and between ponds 4 and 5. Approximately 6,300 cubic yards of fill would be removed to create these islands. The fill would be used to implement measure C (create emergent wetlands by placing fill along the shoreline of ponds). The excavated side slopes of the islands would be armored with rock rip-rap or planted with willows or similar vegetation to prevent sloughing and wave-benching. This measure does not create new wetlands, rather it creates islands for existing emergent wetlands. Measure A can be combined with measure B (create emergent wetlands by benching) and measure C (create emergent wetlands by placing fill along shoreline of ponds) to increase wetland acreage in the island areas. Figure 3 illustrates these three measures. Figure 1. Measure A Typical Cross-Section Measure B Create Emergent Wetlands by Benching This measure involves benching along the shoreline of the ponds to create new emergent wetlands (figure 3). Benching locations were selected where sufficient space existed between berms and the shoreline. Figure 2 shows a typical cross-section of the 1

122 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps proposed excavation to create the benches. The location of the cross-section is referenced in figure 3. In general, the benches would be excavated to within 6 to 18 inches of the water table (pond surface elevation during normal summer flows). The excavation of fill material would not steepen the berm slope or compromise the structural integrity of the berm. The benches would allow for greater wetland plant diversity as the lower benches would be saturated for a longer period than the higher elevated benches. To implement this measure, approximately 52,000 cubic yards of material would be removed. The excavated material would be used as fill for measure C (create emergent wetlands by placing fill along shoreline ponds). The reclaimed area would require weed control as part of its maintenance. The removal of fill would result in approximately 10.6 additional acres of emergent wetlands. Figure 2. Measure B Typical Cross-Section 2

123 Figure 3. Measures A/B/C Proposed Emergent Wetlands Appendix A: Management Measure Descriptions and Maps

124 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps Measure C Create Emergent Wetlands by Placing Fill along Pond Shorelines This measure would involve placing fill along the shoreline of the ponds to create emergent wetlands. Because the ponds are up to 30 feet deep with steep (2:1) slopes, the placement of fill material would focus on shallow areas of the ponds (figure 3). Fill areas were identified during site visits and from aerial photography. Fill would be placed as benches to allow for seasonal flooding creating a diverse population of wetland plants. Measures A, B, E, G, and J create fill (involve excavation activities), which can be used for Measure C. Using locally-generated fill is more cost-effective than importing fill. This measure would result in creation of up to 8.7 acres of emergent wetlands contingent upon which of the other measures are selected (i.e., how much fill is available from the other measures). Measure C is a dependent measure (it is not a standalone measure) in that it relies on fill from other measures. Flood Control District 10 (FCD10) (one of the project Non-Federal Sponsors) could elect to continually add to these wetlands using the gravel that is removed annually from the head of Eagle Island. Measure D Rehabilitate Existing Channels for Suitable Rainbow Trout Rearing Habitat This measure would rehabilitate existing Boise River side channels to create suitable rainbow trout rearing habitat. Activities would include removing debris, minor grading, and placing of stream habitat features, such as logs with rootwads in the channel and bank. Disturbed areas along the banks would be hydro-seeded and re-vegetated. Figure 5 illustrates the proposed rearing channel locations, which are along the North Channel of the Boise River. Photo 1 illustrates an existing channel that would be rehabilitated for rearing. This measure does not depend upon any other measures. Photo 1. Existing channel, northwest of the project area Measure E Construct a Spawning Rainbow Trout Spawning Channel Under this measure, a spawning channel would be constructed along the North Channel of Boise River (figure 5). The channel location was selected because the river has sufficient relief in this area to create a functioning and self-sustaining spawning channel and the existing topography would require the least amount of earthwork. The fill removed under this measure would be used under measure C to create wetlands by placing the fill in the ponds. A concept level design is shown in figure 4. This channel is approximately 1,350 feet long and would require dewatering, excavation, importing spawning gravel, profile control, rock riffles, and in stream habitat features such as logs with rootwads. The gravel size and profile control would be designed to withstand the 4

125 Appendix A: Management Measure Descriptions and Maps 100-year flood event to prevent channel capture. Disturbed areas would be hydroseeded and re-vegetated. Figure 4. Measure E Typical Section of Spawning Channel 5

126 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps Figure 5. Measures D/E Proposed Rearing and Spawning Channels

127 Appendix A: Management Measure Descriptions and Maps Measure F Plant Cottonwood Trees along the North and South Channel of the Boise River Review of the bank conditions in the project area found several disturbed locations that would benefit from forested riparian habitat restoration. These locations would be planted with black cottonwood trees to support forested wetland re-establishment. Measure F planting locations illustrated in figure 6 would be limited to areas along the South Channel. Nursery-grown seedlings (propagated from seed) would be planted in these areas. The plants would require irrigation until roots grow deep enough to tap into groundwater (generally 2 years of irrigation is required). Weed control would also be required. This measure would result in the creation of 0.4 acres of forested wetlands. Measure G Create Areas with Suitable Conditions for Cottonwood Seedling Recruitment and Plant Cottonwood Groves Measure includes the planting of cottonwood trees in groves in selected locations and also the creation of soil scour conditions to provide an appropriate seed bed for the sexual re-generation of cottonwood trees. The goal of these two approaches is to create greater genetic cottonwood diversity. Figure 6 illustrates proposed areas for measure G, which is approximately 9.9 acres. The split between the two methods would be about 60 percent planting and 40 percent seed recruitment. Planted cottonwoods would be propagated from seeds obtained on-site or on the Boise River. The seedlings will be placed directly into small excavations. Irrigation of plant would occur until seedlings are established and plant roots grow deep enough to reach groundwater (generally 2 years of irrigation). Seed recruitment would involve the excavation of soils to lower the seed bed elevation to within 1 or 2 feet of groundwater. The goal of setting the seed bed elevation is to allow wet to saturated conditions during the high river flow period and moist conditions during seed germination periods. Plots would be established for seed recruitment to determine optimum soil preparation conditions (depth to groundwater, surface soil texture, use of mulch, surface scouring). The seed recruitment sites would be prepared with appropriate mulch to help maintain soil moisture and provide seed germination and survival. The goal for recruitment is for native cottonwood seeds in the project area to deposit and germinate (currently most new cottonwoods in the area are from runners). Fill material removed under this measure would be used to support measure C. Weed control would be required so invasive species such as Russian olive and false indigo would not out-compete the cottonwood seedlings. Measure H Bank Stabilization along Selected Areas of the North and South Channels of the Boise River Approximately 950 linear feet of eroded streambank would be rehabilitated and stabilized. Three locations in the project area were determined to require bank stabilization: (1) a 400-linear-foot segment just east of the Lower Lemp diversion, (2) a 300-foot segment north of the berm between ponds 3 and 4, and (3) an approximately 250-foot segment directly adjacent to the bridge (just to the east and west side of the bridge). Figure 7 shows the locations of the proposed bank stabilization. Bank 7

128 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps Figure 6. Measure F/G Proposed Cottonwood Areas

129 Figure 7. Measure H Proposed Bank Stabilization Appendix A: Management Measure Descriptions and Maps

130 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps stabilization efforts would include bank protection using living and non-living vegetation and other bioengineering materials. Rip-rap would be placed in areas where flow conditions are causing significant erosion and scouring of the streambanks. This measure does not depend on any other measures. Measure I Perform Weed Control This measure involves control of invasive plant species. A vegetation survey in 2011 revealed that invasive plants are generally found in disturbed areas, including berms and along access roads (Wetlands Delineation Report Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, HDR 2012). False indigo was found to be competing with cottonwood in several areas. This measure would mostly use mechanical weed removal but would also include limited use of pesticides. This measure does not depend upon any other measures. Measure J Lower Selected Berms to Create Non-Fragmented Floodplain This measure would lower selected berms surrounding ponds 1 and 2. The purpose of lowering the berms would be to allow flooding of these ponds, thus increasing the floodplain area (less floodplain fragmentation). The berms would be lowered to encourage flooding when the Boise River is near flood stage (approximately 7000 cubic feet per second (cfs) as measured at the Glenwood Street Bridge gage). The fill removed from lowering the berms would be used under measure C. This measure would require the relocation of power poles and lines that currently run between ponds 1 and 2 (figure 9). Also, the access road to the north and south of the ponds would be lowered. Figure 8 shows a typical cross-section of existing and proposed surface elevations associated with this measure. The location of the cross-section is referenced in figure 9. Preliminary hydraulic modeling showed that by controlling berm height, it is possible to control flow splits between the North and South channels to minimize up and downstream impacts. The model indicated that there would be a minor decrease in surface water elevation near the head of Eagle Island. Final design of lowering the berms would depend on further modeling to reduce flood risk locally and minimize risks of flooding downstream. The lowered berms would be planted with approximately 3.6 acres of cottonwood trees and 0.7 acres of emergent wetland plants (figure 9). The west bank of pond 2 (main access road berm) would require protection by either armoring with rip-rap or a combination of bank reinforcement with plantings (e.g., willows). To ensure bank protection, the existing emergent wetlands along this bank would be disturbed. 10

131 Appendix A: Management Measure Descriptions and Maps Figure 8. Measure J Typical Cross-Sections 11

132 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps Figure 9. Measure J Proposed Non-Fragmented Floodplain (Cottonwood and Emergent Wetlands)

133 Appendix A: Management Measure Descriptions and Maps Table 1. Initial Restoration Measures (Measures A - J were input into IWR-PLAN. The other measures were eliminated during screening.) ID Measure Description of Measure A B C Emergent Wetlands - Islands Emergent Wetlands Benching Emergent Wetlands Fill along Shoreline of Ponds D Rearing Channel E F G H Spawning Channel Cottonwood along Boise River Planting Cottonwood Seedling Recruitment Cottonwood Grove Planting Bank Stabilization along Both Channels This measure involves creating islands within the project area. Islands would be beneficial to the mallard because they provide better protection from mammal predators. Two locations were identified based on existing conditions that would allow transforming these areas into emergent marsh wetlands with the least amount of earthwork. This measure involves benching along the shoreline of the ponds to tie in with the existing berms to create new emergent wetlands. These areas would be re-vegetated to establish desirable wetland vegetation. The majority of these areas are along the shoreline of the ponds, which would benefit mallards during reproduction, by increasing cover from predators and increasing availability of food. Benching areas would include creating wetlands that are seasonally partially submerged. This measure involves filling selected areas of the ponds sufficiently to establish and maintain emergent marsh wetlands. These areas would be re-vegetated to establish desirable wetland vegetation. These emergent marsh wetlands would benefit mallards during reproduction, by increasing cover from predators and increasing availability of food. Fill would be placed so a portion of the wetlands would be seasonally submerged. This measure involves creating suitable rearing habitat for rainbow trout. Two areas of existing backflow channels in the northern portion of the project area were identified as suitable locations to create rearing habitat for rainbow trout. This measure involves creating suitable spawning habitat for rainbow trout. One area of an existing backflow channel in the northern portion of the project area was identified as a suitable location to create spawning habitat for rainbow trout. Many of the cottonwoods along the Boise River are aging and soon will be dying off. Sexual regeneration is minimal, while asexual re-generation occurs but is often limited. This measure would involve direct planting of cottonwoods rather than relying on regeneration. Past land use, lack of flooding, and elevation above the groundwater table prevents natural seedling recruitment of cottonwood trees in portions of the project area. These areas could be lowered to improve seedling recruitment and establishing a root structure. These areas would be beneficial to the Great Blue Heron in the long term of the project life span as many of the existing cotton wood trees are of similar height and maturity and at risk of expiring over a similar time frame. Past land use, lack of flooding, and elevation above the groundwater table prevents natural seedling recruitment of cottonwood trees in portions of the project area. These areas could be prepared and cottonwood trees planted. These areas would be beneficial to the Great Blue Heron in the long term of the project life span as many of the existing cotton wood trees are of similar height and maturity and at risk of expiring over a similar time frame. This measure would repair and stabilize eroding river banks along the South and North channels. One approach is soft armoring bank protection using living and non-living vegetation and other bioengineering materials. If properly designed, these types of solutions work well under certain flow conditions. Where flow conditions can cause scour, a mix of hard and soft solutions can be a more environmentally friendly alternative then hard armoring. Another stabilization method is the installation of rip-rap barbs. These projections are typically constructed of large stones worked or placed into the river with heavy construction equipment. In general they work very well to retrain flow away from areas of river banks susceptible to failure. However, they do require careful engineering design and careful consideration for placement, including alignment and shape, size of the rock, and the range of flows under which these structures are intended to operate. 13 Does it meet planning objectives? 1 Screening Criteria Yes - 1, 4, 6 Yes - 1, 4, 6 Yes - 1, 4, 6, 7 Yes - 3, 4, 5, 6 Yes - 3, 4, 6, 8 Yes - 2, 4, 5, 8 Yes - 2, 4, 6, 8 Yes - 2, 4, 6, 8 Yes - 2, 4, 5, 8 Does measure violate planning constraint? 1 No No No No No No No No No

134 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps ID Measure Description of Measure I J Perform Weed Control Lower Selected Berms to Create Non-Fragmented Floodplain Acquire easements for floodplain and habitat conservation Reconfigure banks; lower banks Buffers from rookeries Create a channel (or improve existing flood channel) between North and South Channels on Island. This measure involves control of invasive plant species. A vegetation survey in 2011 revealed that invasive plants are generally found in disturbed areas, including berms and along access roads. False indigo was found to be competing with cottonwood in several areas. This measure would mostly use mechanical weed removal but would also include limited use of pesticides. This measure does not depend upon any other measures. This measure would lower selected berms surrounding ponds 1 and 2. The purpose of lowering the berms would be to allow flooding of these ponds, thus creating a greater floodplain area. The berms would be lowered to encourage flooding when the Boise River is near flood stage (approximately 7000 cfs as measured at the Glenwood Street Bridge gage). This measure would purchase/acquire an easement(s) for the study area so that the area and measures can be preserved and to prevent future development in the study area. This measure would take advantage of the City of Eagle s desire to make the head of Eagle Island a Special Use Area for recreation and habitat and floodplain preservation. Many communities across the country use these floodplain open space set asides for multiple purposes such as greenbelts, parks, wildlife refuges, etc. This measure would also include possible conservation easements along the North and South Channels to prevent development and ensure open space for floodplain functions and habitat. Rationale for Elimination: Acquiring easement or purchase would be required for measures A through J. This measure does not provide additional habitat units compared to the No Action Alternative and was dropped out by IWR-Plan. This measure would look at reconfiguring or lowering some of the banks along the South and North Channels to allow for a more natural floodplain function including more frequent flooding of the head of the island. Rationale for Elimination: This measure was revised to be incorporated as Measure J, which focused on lower berms for ponds 1 and 2. Nesting herons are sensitive to human disturbances and have been known to abandoned rookeries because of noise and other human activities. This measure would set up a buffer zone around existing rookeries and possibly around areas of continuous cottonwood forest. Measure would include creating various physical buffers using vegetation or landforms. Or could include easements which do not allow public access. Rational for Elimination: Measure does not provide additional habitat units compared to the No Action Alternative and was dropped out by IWR-Plan. However, the planning objective of creating buffers is covered under measures F, G, H, I and J in creating forested wetlands that would contribute to greater buffering. The conveyance channel west of the last Eagle Island Pond (near Lemp Ditch) is designed to convey flood water from the South Channel to the North Channel. This channel is designed for greater than 50-year flood events and is recognized in the 2003 FEMA FIRM map as a floodway. This floodway channel may not function as intended due to irrigation operations, modifications to the area, and quarry development. This measure would either make improvements to this dedicated floodway channel or would identify another area for a dedicated floodway channel. Improving this floodway conveyance channel would help reduce potential flooding on the South Channel and associated risk of pit capture and related environmental impacts. This measure does not address potential increase of flooding in the North Channel as a result of increase conveyance. Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority and would likely exceed funding limits. Does not create habitat benefit. Does it meet planning objectives? 1 Screening Criteria Yes - 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 Yes - 4, 8 Yes - 4 Yes - 2 Yes - 8 5, 6, Does measure violate planning constraint? 1 No No No, it can be designed to limit flood impacts No No No 14

135 Appendix A: Management Measure Descriptions and Maps ID Measure Description of Measure Add in-stream habitat features Induce sediment deposition above the head of the island Sediment transport mechanism to move gravel through project area. Flow augmentation (flushing flow) to enhance cottonwood regeneration and to flush gravels. Split flow control structure at head of island Setback Levees with terrace peak flow channels This measure would involve actions to improve aquatic habitat and in-stream water features such as large woody debris and boulders. Large woody debris and similar structures provides for fish habitat and provides for stream channel stabilization (at least at low flow conditions). Rationale for Elimination: This measure was revised to focus on fish rearing and spawning habitat (measures D and E). Sponsors not supportive adding features to main stream due to flood concerns, maintenance concerns, irrigation water rights, and overall liability to recreationalist. Sediment deposition at the Checks creates maintenance problems and has resulted in sediment buildup in the North Channel resulting in less water entering this channel. This measure would attempt to drop out sediment above the split area. A sediment trap structure would be build that would allow easy access to sediment removal. Such a measure would require modification of the riverbed elevations, and/or construction of barbs or J-hooks on to encourage sediment drop out. Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority and would like exceed funding limits. Does not create habitat benefit. This measure would increase velocities (locally) with in-stream structures to flush gravels through the project area. Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority and would like exceed funding limits. Does not create habitat benefit. This measure would require that flows released at Lucky Peak Dam be altered to benefit regeneration of cottonwoods along the Boise River. Flows favorable for cottonwoods are high volume, reduced duration, and earlier in the season than flows observed with dams in place. The receding high flows leave moist, freshly deposited alluvial substrate, which is favorable habitat for regeneration of cottonwood. Another flow augmentation for consideration would be high water flushing to manage gravel bars and debris from the river. Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority and violates planning constraints. This measure would construct a constantly maintained flow split at the head of Eagle Island. The structure would provide a predictable flow split around Eagle Island with equal benefit to the North and South channels during periods of more frequent floods. Possible structure options include leaf gates or an inflatable dam diversion works. The benefits of this measure is primarily related to flood control but does provide for improvements of floodplain function and has secondary environmental benefits, such as reduced risk of pit capture and associated environmental impacts. However, it violates the intent of Corps ecosystem restoration projects and policy which is to promote more naturalistic, self sustaining solutions. Would exceed $5 M Federal funding ceiling. Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority and violates planning constraints A setback levee would be a new levee constructed behind an existing levees (or push up berms), which allows for removal of a portion of the existing levees (push up berms) and creation of additional floodplain connected to the river. For this project, the levee would be created north of the North Channel and south of the South Channel. However, it violates the intent of Corps ecosystem restoration projects and policy which is to promote more naturalistic, self sustaining solutions. Would exceed $5 M Federal funding ceiling. Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority and violates planning constraints Does it meet planning objectives? 1 Screening Criteria Does measure violate planning constraint? 1 No Yes - 6 No No Yes - 4 Yes - 1, 2, 6 No Yes - 5 Yes - 4, 5 15

136 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps ID Measure Description of Measure Comprehensive Management Plan to address in-stream gravel maintenance Develop educational materials Develop a nonsteady state hydraulic model for the Eagle Island. Create public access to the head of the island Clear dead vegetation and brush to allow new trees to grow Finer sediment deposition induce finer deposition, sand bar creation This measure would develop a comprehensive management plan for in-river activities at the split at Eagle Island. As per the suggestion of Boise River 2000 (Quadrant and Resource Systems 1997), the plan would include the following elements: Articulate objectives for maintenance at the head of the island. Identify the subject area where the maintenance plan will apply. Develop a comprehensive scope of maintenance activities to be performed. Identify those regulatory agencies and public interest groups that will have an interest in the review of the management activities. Identify the entity, or entities, responsible for performing river maintenance in the vicinity of the Eagle Island Checks. Identify a source of funding for on-going maintenance activities. If necessary, support enabling legislation in order to accomplish the maintenance Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority Educational materials would be developed that describes the dynamics of the Eagle Island split, potential for pit capture, and the uses and limitations of the FEMA FIRM maps. Furthermore, these materials could define levees and certification requirements, habitat management in the floodplain, and recommendations for land use considerations in the floodplain including the importance of floodplain and habitat preservation. Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority A non-steady state hydraulic model would be developed that would incorporate features at Eagle Island including the split, flood channel, and updated cross-sections for South and North Channels. The model would be used to simulate different split scenarios and could also be used to simulate pit capture scenarios. This measure was suggested by a stakeholder at a public meeting. The recommendation was focused on a bridge that would cross the North Channel to allow public access to the island. Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority. This measure was suggested by a stakeholder at a public meeting. Based on vegetative and wetland surveys conducted in the project area, dead vegetation and brush does not appear to be an issue in prohibiting new plant growth. It also provides a habitat benefit. Rationale for Elimination: Does not meet planning objectives. However, weed control measure (Measure I was added). This measure would create local conditions to induce deposition of fine materials for sand bar deposition along the North and South channels. These sand bars would result in possible aquatic habitat improvement. Rationale for Elimination: This measure was revised to focus on fish rearing and spawning habitat (measures D and E). Sponsors not supportive adding features to main stream due to flood concerns, maintenance concerns, irrigation water rights, and overall liability to recreationalist. Does it meet planning objectives? 1 Screening Criteria Does measure violate planning constraint? 1 No No No, not a direct planning objective but modeling is being performed to support evaluations of measures. No, but depending upon future easements and ownership of the project area, public access may be allowed. However, as a measure this does not meet ecosystem restoration planning objectives. No No Yes - 6 (reduces flood capacity) 16

137 Appendix A: Management Measure Descriptions and Maps ID Measure Description of Measure Revise or improve channel geometry Public Recreation Berm west end of project area separate (levee) This measure would look at modifying the South and North channels to allow for greater flows and alleviate some of the flooding concerns because the split of flow at the head of the island can be unpredictable. This measure would include possibly deepening, armoring, and straightening portions of the channel. This measure could exceed the Federal funding ceiling limit of $5 million to implement. It may also not be self sustaining. Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority This measure involves creating public recreation area for the project area. This could include access to the island, signage, and walking paths. Depending upon future easements and ownership of the project area, public access may be allowed. However, as a measure this does not meet ecosystem restoration planning objectives. Rationale for Elimination: Does not meet planning objectives. Several stakeholders have expressed concern about protecting the residential neighborhoods downstream and west of the project area from flooding and have suggested constructing a levee at the downstream end of the project area across the island to achieve this goal (west end of the project area). Rationale for Elimination: Not consistent with Section 1135 authority. Does it meet planning objectives? 1 Screening Criteria Yes - possibly 7 Does measure violate planning constraint? 1 Yes - 5 No, but depending upon future easements and ownership of the project area, public access may be allowed. However, as a measure this does not meet ecosystem restoration planning objectives. No 17

138 Appendix A: Restoration Measures: Development, Descriptions, and Maps 1) Planning Objectives: 1. Improve the quantity and quality of emergent wetland and gravel extraction ponds aquatic habitat over the 50-year project life. 2. Restore lost cottonwood forest habitat to improve genetic diversity and sustainability over the 50-year project life. 3. Improve spawning and rearing habitat for rainbow trout over the 50-year project live. 4. Protect the existing high quality riparian and wetland habitat in the project area over the 50-year project life. 5. Reduce riparian habitat fragmentation along the banks of the North and South channels of Boise River near the head of Eagle Island over the 50-year project life. 6. Reduce or eliminate invasive plant species to encourage growth of native vegetation over the 50-year project life. 7. Reduce the potential for ecologically damaging uncontrolled pit capture of gravel extraction ponds located within the project area over the 50-year project life. 8. Protect heron rookeries from human disturbance over the 50-year project life. 2) Constraints: 1. Cannot alter reservoir operations at Lucky Peak Project and other upstream reservoirs as it would violate State water law and contracts 2. Cannot impact irrigation diversion structures, deliveries, or water rights. 3. Must maintain access to the head of Eagle Island for irrigation companies, Water District 63, and FCD Minimize need to alter or relocate infrastructure (power transmission lines, bridges, buried sewer lines, and irrigation systems). 5. Avoid adverse impacts to land uses and ecological resources. 6. Cannot increase flood risk to structures and infrastructure adjacent, upstream, or downstream of project. 7. Obtain necessary easements and lands from willing landowners. 8. Minimize operation and maintenance requirements without impacting the ability to maximize environmental benefits. 18

139 DRAFT APPENDIX B: REAL ESTATE PLAN

140

141 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Ada County, Idaho Appendix B: Draft Real Estate Plan June 2013 Authority: Section 1135 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1986

142

143 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION INTRODUCTION Real Estate Plan Purpose General Project Description... 2 SECTION PROJECT LOCATION... 3 SECTION ACCESS TO PROJECT SITE... 3 SECTION DESCRIPTION OF LANDS, EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY, RELOCATION AND DISPOSAL AREA(S)... 3 SECTION PROJECT LANDS ALREADY OWNED BY THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR... 5 SECTION PROJECT LANDS ACQUIRED WITH FEDERAL FUNDS... 5 SECTION EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE LERRD REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT... 5 SECTION ESTATES Standard Estates Temporary Work Area Easement Perpetual Non-exclusive Road Easement Non-standard Estates... 6 SECTION NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE... 6 SECTION REAL ESTATE MAP... 6 SECTION INDUCED FLOODING... 6 SECTION PUBLIC LAW AND LERRD ACQUISITION... 7 SECTION RELOCATION ASSISTANCE BENEFITS... 7 SECTION MINERALS... 7 SECTION ZONING... 7 SECTION FACILITY AND UTILITY RELOCATIONS... 8 SECTION HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE... 8 SECTION LANDOWNER S VIEWS AND PUBLIC OPPOSITION... 8 SECTION OUTSTANDING THIRD-PARTY INTERESTS... 8 SECTION RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ADVANCED LAND ACQUISITION... 9 SECTION COST ESTIMATE FOR LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF- WAY SECTION OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES SECTION ACQUISITION MILESTONES SCHEDULE SECTION REFERENCES i

144 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan List of Tables Table 1. Real Estate Summary... 4 Table 2. Baseline Cost Estimate for Real Estate (BCERE) Attachments Exhibit A Project Real Estate Map Exhibit B Assessment of Non-Federal Sponsor s Real Estate Acquisition Capability Exhibit C Parcel Data Summary Spreadsheet and Easement Map Exhibit D Section if the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act Exhibit E Draft Certification of Lands, Attorney s Certificate, Third-party Risk Analysis (not yet available) ii

145 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan 1.1 Real Estate Plan Purpose SECTION INTRODUCTION This real estate plan (REP) is presented in support of the June 2013 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report. The REP describes the minimum real property interests required to implement the project. As such, the purpose of the REP is (1) to identify the lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal sites (LERRD) necessary to support construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project elements described in the feasibility report (FR) and environmental assessment (EA); (2) to outline the costs and real estate considerations associated with project implementation; and (3) to assess the Non- Federal Sponsor s capability for LERRD acquisition. The Non-Federal Sponsors for this project are the Boise River Flood Control District #10 (FCD10), Ada Soil and Water Conservation District (ASWCD), and Idaho Foundation for Parks and Lands (IFPL). The project is authorized under Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986), as amended. Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Laws (WRDA 1986), provides the authority to modify existing USACE projects to restore the environment and construct new projects to restore areas degraded by USACE projects with the objective of restoring degraded ecosystem structure, function, and dynamic processes to a less degraded, more natural condition considering the ecosystem s natural integrity, productivity, stability and biological diversity. This authority is primarily used for manipulation of the hydrology in and along bodies of water, including wetlands and riparian areas. It is a Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) which focuses on water resource-related projects of relatively smaller scope, cost, and complexity. Traditional USACE civil works projects are of wider scope and complexity and are specifically authorized by Congress. The CAP is a delegated authority to plan, design, and construct certain types of water resource and environmental restoration projects without specific congressional authorization. Lucky Peak Dam, approximately 18 river miles upstream from the Eagle Island project area, is one of three Federal dams that are operated as a system by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The Lucky Peak Project, completed in 1955 and operated by the USACE since, was authorized to provide flood control, irrigation, and power development. Operation of the three Federal dams have altered flows, affecting river channel dynamics, negatively impacting riparian and aquatic ecosystem health, and facilitated development in the floodplain. Regulated flows have hindered natural regeneration of forested riparian habitat that supports wintering bald eagles and great blue heron rookeries and have negatively impacted the quality and quantity of other riparian and aquatic habitat. From the 1950s to the present, the project area has been affected by gravel mining, land development, irrigation diversion, and flood damage reduction projects. These activities were able to occur at the project area due to upstream flow regulation that has enabled access to land areas that otherwise would seasonally be under water. The project 1

146 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan objective is to improve aquatic and wildlife habitat while improving floodplain functions at the head of Eagle Island to a more naturally-functioning and self-sustaining state. The REP is tentative in nature; it is for planning purposes only and both the final real property acquisition lines and the real estate cost estimates provided are subject to change even after approval of the FR and EA. No previous REP has been written for the Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. 1.2 General Project Description The project area encompasses approximately 265 acres of land within the floodplain of the Boise River near the cities of Eagle, Garden City, and Boise in Ada County, Idaho. The project is focused on the reach containing the head of Eagle Island downstream on both the North and South channels, to approximately the west end of the gravel extraction ponds on the island. The project would improve aquatic and wildlife habitat while improving floodplain functions at the head of Eagle Island to a more naturallyfunctioning and self-sustaining state. The recommended plan involves creation of emergent wetlands as islands and along the shorelines of gravel extraction ponds, rehabilitation of existing Boise River side channels for rainbow trout rearing, creation of cottonwood groves and natural recruitment areas, and control invasive plant species. Specifically, the recommended plan (alternative 7) includes the following activities: Establishing 17.6 acres of emergent wetland habitat by creating islands, benching, and placing fill along pond shorelines. Planting cottonwood trees and/or creating areas suitable for seedlings recruitment to create 10.2 acres of forested wetland habitat. Constructing 3.8 acres of rainbow trout rearing habitat. Implementing weed control measures on approximately 10 acres. For additional details, maps, and schematics of this alternative, see the Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Report (HDR 2013). 2

147 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan SECTION PROJECT LOCATION The Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project is located approximately 18 river miles downstream of Lucky Peak Dam, where the lower Boise River splits into North and South channels, creating Eagle Island (see exhibit A). The project area is located within the floodplain of the Boise River, near the cities of Eagle, Garden City, and Boise, in Ada County, Idaho. The project is focused from the head of Eagle Island, downstream along both the North and South channels, to approximately the west end of the existing gravel ponds. Lands affected by the project footprint are located within Sections 15 and 22 of Township 4 North, Range 1 East, in Boise and Meridian. The project is bordered on the west by the Williamson tract, which is used for agricultural production. Gravel mining sites are located to the north and the south of the project. Residential neighborhoods are located to the northeast of the project. SECTION ACCESS TO PROJECT SITE Access to the project footprint is proposed via access easement across property owned by Oldcastle MMG, LLC (Idaho Concrete site) from the north. Access would be from State Highway 55 (SH 55). SECTION DESCRIPTION OF LANDS, EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS- OF-WAY, RELOCATION AND DISPOSAL AREA(S) The general project purpose as stated in the EA is to improve aquatic and wildlife habitat while improving floodplain functions at the head of Eagle Island to a more naturally-functioning and self-sustaining state. As a Section 1135 project, this action restores areas degraded by USACE projects, which is associated with the operation of the three upstream Federal dams that have altered flows, affecting river channel dynamics and negatively impacting riparian and aquatic ecosystem health, and induced development in the floodplain. All lands described in this REP are proposed to support that project purpose. Project LERRD include approximately 164 acres of private and public-owned land in and around Eagle Island. The Non-Federal Sponsors will certify available for the project approximately 155 acres of perpetual non-standard easements, approximately 8 acres for perpetual access easement, and approximately 2 acres of temporary work area easement for construction staging. Approximately 155 acres of the land is proposed to be acquired by a non-standard easement estate by the Non-Federal Sponsors. The non-standard easement estate being used by the Non-Federal Sponsors is a permanent ecosystem restoration easement, which is a perpetual and assignable right and easement in, on, over, and across the lands of the grantors. Temporary work areas (TWAs) are proposed to the north of the project footprint along the access road on property owned by Oldcastle MMG, LLC. The TWAs are approximately 2 acres in total size, 1.9 acres of which is located to the east of the access road, and 0.1acres of which is located to the west of the access road (see exhibit A). 3

148 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan Table 1. Real Estate Summary Map Key Parcel I.D. 1 S S Not Applicable 4 S S S S S S Not Applicable Owner Oldcastle MMG Inc. Oldcastle MMG Inc. State of Idaho Williamson Eagle Island B/S Ranch Family Ltd Partnership Oldcastle MMG Inc. Williamson Sylvan Oldcastle MMG Inc. Land Trust of the Treasure Valley Inc. Williamson Sylvan D. State of Idaho Total Acreage Not Applicable Not Applicable Estate Temporary Work Easement Access Road Easement Temporary Work Easement Access Road Easement Ecosystem Restoration Easement Access Road Easement Ecosystem Restoration Easement Ecosystem Restoration Easement Access Road Easement Access Road Easement Ecosystem Restoration Easement Access Road Easement Ecosystem Restoration Easement Access Road Easement Ecosystem Restoration Easement Access Road Easement Ecosystem Restoration Easement Access Road Easement Project Acreage Market Value $1, $33, $36, $10, $7, $ $82, $121, $ $3, $169, $2, $22, $ $19, $ $1, $36 TOTAL $514,639 4

149 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan SECTION PROJECT LANDS ALREADY OWNED BY THE NON- FEDERAL SPONSOR The Non-Federal Sponsors do not currently own any of the LERRD within the project boundary. However, it is important to note that the LERRD are subject to the jurisdiction of the Non-Federal Sponsors vis-à-vis an order from the Department of Water Administration, signed October 30, 1970, pursuant to Title 42, Chapter 31 of the Idaho Code. Title 42, Chapter 31 created the authority for petitioners to form a flood control district and the Non-Federal Sponsorship was formed under said authority. SECTION PROJECT LANDS ACQUIRED WITH FEDERAL FUNDS None of the project lands or real estate interests have been acquired by the Non- Federal Sponsors as a requirement of, or with the use of funds from another Federal program or project. SECTION EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE LERRD REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT No existing Federal projects lie fully or partially within the LERRD required for the project. 8.1 Standard Estates SECTION ESTATES Temporary Work Area Easement A temporary easement and right-of-way in, on, over and across the land described in Schedule A of the title report or a period not to exceed two (2) years, beginning with the date of possession of the land is granted to the United States, for use by the United States, its representatives, agents, and assigns/contractors as a (borrow area) and (work area), including the right to (borrow and/or deposit fill, spoil and waste material thereon) move, store and remove equipment and supplies, and erect and remove temporary structures on the land and to perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction of the Boise River at Eagle Island Restoration Project, together with the right to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the limits of the right-of-way; reserving, however, to the landowners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads, and pipelines Perpetual Non-exclusive Road Easement A perpetual and assignable easement and right-of-way in, on, over and across the land described, for the location, construction, operation, maintenance, alteration and replacement of a road and appurtenances thereto; together with the right to trim, cut, 5

150 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan fell, and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush, obstructions, and other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the limits of the right-of-way; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads, and pipelines. The Old Castle reclamation plan details leaving access roads in place. The final wording of easement language for the Old Castle MMG, LLC, Parcel 1 and 2 will incorporate a clause to allow for the relocation of reasonable access to the existing bridge in a manner to accommodate future development of this property. 8.2 Non-standard Estates The USACE policy generally requires a fee simple interest to be certified available for environmental restoration projects. The non-standard easement estate to be used by the Non-Federal Sponsors to acquire project land will require headquarters (HQ) approval. The non-standard easement was drafted by the USACE on behalf of the Non-Federal Sponsors to support the restoration purposes and authorized activities. The non-standard estate appears to provide sufficient property interests for the areas where the proposed easement areas are located. The non-standard easement will be made available by the Non-Federal Sponsors for use on the proposed Section 1135 project. A request for approval of the non-standard estate will be forwarded through Division to HQ for approval after the FR and EA have received Northwest Division approval, and upon receipt of sufficient real estate division funding to complete this task. SECTION NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE Federal Navigational Servitude is not available in this reach of the Boise River. Furthermore, there are no project features proposed on state aquatic lands below OHW on the banks or bed of the Boise River. Therefore, State Aquatic lands and /or water rights in the Boise River will not be affected, or required for the proposed project. SECTION REAL ESTATE MAP A real estate map prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated September 4, 2012, clearly delineates the real estate requirements to support the selected plan for the project. The map depicts project areas, the outlines of the various interests and estates required for the project, the configuration of the tracts that comprise the lands to be acquired or provided, significant utilities and facilities to be relocated (if applicable) and any known or potential hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) lands (see exhibit A). SECTION INDUCED FLOODING The USACE has investigated the potential for induced flooding that could be caused by the proposed project. As part of the feasibility study, hydraulic modeling was conducted at the 1-percent flood frequency level for the recommended plan and compared to baseline conditions (without project conditions) (HDR 2012 a and b). The recommended plan results in no measureable impact to the floodplain compared to baseline 6

151 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan conditions. The flood risk to parcels of land outside the project footprint is not expected to increase as a result of the proposed restoration project. SECTION PUBLIC LAW AND LERRD ACQUISITION The Non-Federal Sponsors have been advised of Public Law , as amended. The Non-Federal Sponsors have land acquisition experience and are fully capable of acquiring any lands necessary for the project. Exhibit B provides an assessment of the Non-Federal Sponsors real estate acquisition capability (needs to be completed). All lands necessary for project implementation shall be made available by the Non- Federal Sponsors to the USACE by a Certification of Lands and Authorization for Entry, Attorney s Certificate of Authority, and Outstanding Third Party Risk Analysis documents (see exhibit E). Within 180 days after certifying project lands available, the Non-Federal Sponsors shall provide to the USACE all LERRD crediting documentation necessary to support their claim for credit. SECTION RELOCATION ASSISTANCE BENEFITS No relocation assistance benefits are required for this proposal. SECTION MINERALS There are several mining operations in the project area and those existing uses have been factored into the valuation of the easement interests to be acquired on the properties that have mining activity. The relative values are shown in table 2. The project area has been extensively mined, as illustrated by the gravel extraction ponds in real estate maps in exhibit A. The current landowner, Oldcastle MMG Inc., has indicated that they have no plans for further gravel extraction on Eagle Island and that the remaining reserves are either not economical to extract or are within the regulatory floodway, which would prohibit such activity. The Non-Federal Sponsors are currently working with Oldcastle MMG to obtain proper reclamation plan closure approval and reclamation bond release from the IDL. The goal is to have closure approval by end of SECTION ZONING The subject properties on Eagle Island are located within Ada County and the City of Eagle Area of Impact. The Eagle Island subject properties are currently zoned RP (rural preservation) within Ada County. Based on the current zoning, lands located on Eagle Island have a minimum lot size of 40 acres required for a single residence. Beyond that, there is a minimum street frontage requirement of 100 frontage feet. There are no public streets identified on Eagle Island in the project area. Those subject properties between the North Channel of the Boise River and State Street are zoned MU (mixed use) within the City of Eagle. The subject properties that carry the MU zone have flexibility in the potential uses. The primary zoning of MU does not allow a big box retail on the subject site according to the City of Eagle. Those 7

152 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan mixed use areas immediately to the east and west along the State Street frontage provide a clear vision of this lands future use. Large office uses, limited retail, and higher density residential are allowed. The Eagle Island Special Use Area imposes additional limitations that make an annexation and re-zone for higher development very unlikely. No zone changes are anticipated for this proposal. SECTION FACILITY AND UTILITY RELOCATIONS There are no public facilities or utility relocations necessitated by the Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. ANY CONCLUSION OR CATEGORIZATION CONTAINED IN THIS REAL ESTATE PLAN, OR ELSEWHERE IN THIS PROJECT REPORT, THAT AN ITEM IS A UTILITY OR FACILITY RELOCATION TO BE PERFORMED BY THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR AS PART OF ITS LERRD RESPONSIBILITIES IS PRELIMINARY ONLY. THE GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE RELOCATIONS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, OR MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT AFTER FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPLETION AND APPROVAL OF FINAL ATTORNEY S OPINIONS OF COMPENSABILITY FOR EACH OF THE IMPACTED UTILITIES AND FACILITIES. SECTION HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE The USACE conducted a Level 1 initial HTRW screening study dated May 2010, updated in January 2013, during the feasibility study that involved searching publicly accessible records and databases from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) for information regarding known or suspected contaminated sites. The study concluded that the Eagle Island site appears free from obvious HTRW issues that may impact the proposed restoration project. Monitoring for evidence of contamination should be conducted during construction activities as excavation occurs. SECTION LANDOWNER S VIEWS AND PUBLIC OPPOSITION Comments were gathered as part of the project scoping process. The local community, residents and public stakeholders are generally supportive of the proposed project. There have been no reports of project opposition. SECTION OUTSTANDING THIRD-PARTY INTERESTS All property interests acquired in support of the proposed project must take priority over any competing third-party interests that could defeat or impair the Non-Federal Sponsors title to the property or interfere with construction, operation and maintenance of the project. Such third-party interests should be cleared from title, or subordinated to the interests being made available to the project by the Non-Federal Sponsors. 8

153 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan Oldcastle MMG Inc. (Oldcastle) holds a mine permit and associated reclamation plan issued by the IDL. The plan concerns Parcels 1, 2, 5 and 7. Oldcastle is currently using land to the north of the project area (north side of the North Channel of the Boise River) for gravel and sand processing and concrete manufacturing. While the mine permit remains active, there is no mining activity in the project area. Oldcastle has indicated that they have completed their reclamation obligations for the project area (Eagle Island) and that no further reclamation will occur. The Non-Federal Sponsors are currently working with Oldcastle MMG to obtain proper reclamation plan closure approval and reclamation bond release from the IDL. SECTION RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ADVANCED LAND ACQUISITION The Non-Federal Sponsors have been advised in writing of the risks associated with advance land acquisition activities. Risks associated with advanced land acquisition include, but are not limited to the following: Congress may not appropriate funds to construct the proposed project; The proposed project may otherwise not be funded or approved for construction; A project partnership agreement (PPA) mutually agreeable to the Non-Federal Sponsor and the government may not be executed and implemented; The Non-Federal Sponsors may incur liability and expense by virtue of their ownership of contaminated lands, or interests therein, whether such liability should arise out of local, state, or Federal laws or regulations, including liability arising out of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended; The Non-Federal Sponsors may acquire interests or estates that are later determined by the government to be inappropriate, insufficient, or otherwise not required for the project; The Non-Federal Sponsors may initially acquire insufficient or excessive real property acreage, which may result in additional negotiations and/or benefit payments under public law (P.L.) , as well as the payment of additional fair market value to affected landowners which could have been avoided by delaying acquisition until after PPA execution and the government s notice to commence acquisition and performance of LERRD; and The Non-Federal Sponsors may incur costs or expenses in connection with their decision to acquire or perform LERRD in advance of the executed PPA and the government s notice to proceed, which may not be creditable under the provisions of P.L or the PPA. 9

154 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan SECTION COST ESTIMATE FOR LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY The baseline cost estimate for real estate (BCERE) presented below provides a breakdown of the estimated costs for project LERRD, Non-Federal Sponsors administrative costs associated with LERRD acquisition activities, and Federal review and assistance costs. For lands acquired within five years preceding the execution date of the PPA, the Non-Federal Sponsors may claim credit for incidental acquisition costs, such as title, survey, appraisal, negotiation costs, recording fees, and legal fees. Federal review and assistance costs include those costs associated with providing the Non-Federal Sponsors with LERRD requirements, review of acquisition and crediting appraisals, coordination meetings, review of right-of-way documents, legal support, and crediting activities. The gross appraisal, dated (TBD), was prepared for the USACE by (TBD). The appraiser took into consideration the wetland characteristics exhibited by the subject parcels, municipal codes and ordinances, and the land use restrictions imposed by the gravel excavation reclamation plan. The appraiser used a hypothetical condition, as approved by USACE on August 22, 2012, of valuing submerged lands the same as adjacent uplands per IDAPA (see exhibit D). The land cost estimate level of effort was in accordance with USACE EC , Appendix 4-C (Gross Appraisals). The Gross Appraisal report will be reviewed and approved by NWS-Review Appraiser, K. Peterson on _(TBD), Table 2. Baseline Cost Estimate for Real Estate (BCERE) This table will be re-visited once approved lands and damages valuations are secured. Parcels per Estate Acres Non- Lands Federal Fed Total and Sponsors Admin LERRD Damages Admin 7 Non-standard (Ecosystem Restoration) Easements $424, Access Road Easements 7.3 $51, Temporary Work Area Easements for 6-month Term 2.0 $38, Non-Federal Sponsor LERRD Cost Subtotal $514,639 TBD - $514,639 10% Contingency $51,464 Non-Federal Sponsor Lands and Damages Total $566,103 Federal Review and Assistance Cost TBD - 15% Contingency TBD Federal Review and Assistance Total TBD Escalation at 3.5% - $19, $19,814 Inflation at 3.1% - $18, $18,163 Non-Federal Sponsor and Federal LERRD Cost Total $604,080 10

155 Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Draft Real Estate Plan SECTION OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES There are no other known issues relevant to the planning, designing or implementation of the subject Section 1135 project that are relevant to the proposed LERRD requirements. SECTION ACQUISITION MILESTONES SCHEDULE Real estate acquisitions for the project are proposed to be completed by the end of The proposed timeline is in anticipation of a construction timeline which is planned to commence April The non-standard estate must be in place and approved by USACE Head Quarters prior to any property acquisitions by the Non- Federal Sponsors. SECTION REFERENCES HDR Engineering, Inc Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Report. HDR. 2012a. Eagle Island Floodplain Alternatives Model Development. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Draft Report. HDR. 2012b. Eagle Island Floodplain Base Conditions Model Development. Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Report. 11

156

157 Exhibit A: Project Real Estate Map

158

159 9: :9 :9 :9 :9 :9 S ROCK CONTRACTORS INC :9 S WILLIAMSON EAGLE ISLAND B/S RANCH FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHP :9 2 ::99 :9 :9 4 - S WILLIAMSON EAGLE ISLAND B/S RANCH FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHP 4N1E21 4N1E22 Ø j G j Ø Ø Graham Gilbert D iv. S BOISE CITY PUBLIC WORKS jø Ø j Imagery: Foot Resolution; Source: Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) Land Ownership Source: Ada County Assessors Office Base Mapping Sources: Idaho Power Company; Boise City; State of Idaho; USGS Geospatial Gateway (INSIDE Idaho) Map Production Date: 3/27/2013 \\boi-srv1\gis\usace\eagleis land \map_docs\figures_landled_93_real_estate1.mxd Ø Pond 3 Pond 4 Ø Ø Ø j Ø j Ø j Pond 6 G Warm Springs Div. Ada County Taxlots A cc e ss 6S WILLI AMSON SYLVAN 7 - S OLDCASTLE MMG INC Ø j Pond 2 :9 :9 :9 :9 :9 9::9 600 Ø Ø 1,200 Feet :9 O F ID AHO :9 :9 :9 :9 :99: :9 :9 :99: 9 - S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN D G So uth Channe :9 Ø j 10 - S 10 TA TE :9 :9 :9 8 - S LAND TRUST OF THE TREASURE VALLEY INC Pond 1 :9 S CLEMENTS CONCRETE CO :9 9: 0 :9 :9 9:j:9Ø 9 : Ø 9: Ø Ø j jø G Lower:9 Lemp Div. :9 R STAKER & PARSON COMPANIES :9 4N 1E22 4N1E23 MMG INC Ma in S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN D Ro a d Bridg e S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN 9: 9: 9: 4N 1E16 4N1E N 1E15 4N1E14 :9 ::99 Ballentyne Div. 4N 1E16 4N 1E15 G 1 Duncan Ln R TAUNTON PROPERTIES LLC j j 9: :9 j jj j Ø :9 :9 j j :9 9 : j j :9 9::9 Permanent j j : 9 Ø 55 Perpetual Temporary j 9 : 9 : «9 : : 9 :9jj9: :9:9Uta9:h:9 9: :9 Ecosystem 55 S «:9 44 Ø Proper ty Work Area (2 Access :9 Ø jpond 9 : «n : 9 a j j 9 : R No. Property ID : 9 9 : on Restorati d OLDCASTLE : 9 9 : :9 9 : : 9 Acreage Acreage yr) Easement Easemen t j 9 : :9 :9 jj:9 :9 :9Ø :9 :9 :9 :9 :9:9 j:9 Acreage :9 :9 MMG j t j Easemen :9 :9 :9 INC :9 :9:9 :9 9: Acreage 9 : j j j 9 : : 9 9 : 9 : Acreage j : 9 Ø j : 9 9 : : 9 j 9 : j : 9 9 : : 9 9 : 9 : 9 : : 9 :9:9 :9 1 S : j :9:9: j9:9: 9: :9 Ø 9: Ø j j S : 9 : 9 : : 9 9 : 9 : S j 9 : 9 : MONROC INC Ø :9 :99: j:9:9 :9 :9 3A :9 9: j:9 Ø :9 9: :9 :9 :9 3B State of Idaho :9-9: j j :9 :9 : 9 9 : : 9 j 9 : Ø : 9 9 : Ø :9 :9 th Channel) - :9 :9 :9 :9Ø 9::9j :9(Nor C :9 :9 9 : j :9 :9 j D 9 : j 9 : : 9 Ø 9:9: :9 4 S :9 S S Ø :9 j:9:9 :9: j:9 9: j :9 j :9 KALDENBERG 9 : Ø ALI LLC : : 9 j 9 9 : : 9 j j S :9 MILAN 9 : : :9: j Ø : 9 6j S : : 9 : 44 Ø :9jj:9 7 :9S «j j 1 - S Ø S j t 9 : j a 9 : Ø OLDCASTLE :9St Ø te :9 j j : S : MMG INC 9 9 : 9 : S j j j j j j - j : jj j S Ø j Ø KALDENBERG j Ø : j : 9 j 9 MILAN 9 : :9 :9 9::9 State of Idaho Ø j : (South Channel) Ø 9 : :9 Ø 1 - The numbers shown are for best buy alternative Ø :9 :97,:9depending on the selectedj:9j j alternative these numbers may change. 9 : 9 : j :9Ø 3A Ø 9 :9: lands across the:9south 2 - The property acreage per the deed includes the submerged Ø Ø :9 h igh water mark :9:9 Channel. The Ecosystem Res toration Easement reflec ts the ordinary 3B :9i n :9 along the South Channel according to photogrammetry by COMPASS :9 Ø Ø : j 9 j jj :9 Ø 3 - STATE LEGEND OF IDAHO :9 :9:9:9 :9 Ø :9Ø Perpetual Access Pro ject Real Estate Footpr int :9 Easement Ø E14 1 N 4 9 : 2 - S :9 G Diversion Structure Temporary Work 4N 1E23 OLDCASTLE 4N 1E15 j MMG INC j Sewer Manho le Area Easement 4N1E22 9:9: Force Ma in Ø Sewer Permanent Ecosyst em 9 : :9 Rest ora tion Easemen t Ø Transm ission Pole Extg. IDFG Conservation Ø :9 Power Pole j :9 Pond 5 3C Easement acres l ne an Ch rth No Overhead D istribution :9 Section Line 5 - S : Ø Overhead Transm ission j 3D OLDCASTLE Horseshoe Bend Rd :9 :9 j 9:Ø :9 9: :9:9:9 9::9 9: 9: l S S Upper DECHAMBEAU CLEMENTS CONCRETE CO FAMILY LTD Lemp Di v. PARTNERSHP :9 Ê :9 :9 :9 :9 G Eagle Island Checks Bo ise Riv e r Real Estate Map (1 of 2) Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

160 Utahna R S KALDENBERG MILAN Bridg e Ro a d A cc e ss Pond 2 Ma in Pond 3 4N 1E22 4N1E23 Pond S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN D South Chann el AHO ID F Feet 1,200 O 600 G S CLEMENTS CONCRETE CO S TA TE Lower Lemp D iv. R STAKER & PARSON COMPANIES Warm Springs Div. Pond 6 G G 8 - S LAND TRUST OF THE TREASURE VALLEY INC Channel North 7 - S OLDCASTLE MMG INC Pond S OLDCASTLE MMG INC Pond 5 Duncan Ln 4N 1E14 4N 1E S OLDCASTLE MMG INC 4N1E21 4N1E22 Map Producti on Dat e: 3/ 27 / 2013 \\boi-srv1\gis\ USACE\Eag leisland\map_docs\figures_landled_93_real_estate2.mxd Imagery: Foot Resolution; Source: Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) Land Ownership Source: Ada County Assessors Office Base Mapping Sources: Idaho Power Company; Boise City; State of Idaho; USGS Geospatial Gateway (INSIDE Idaho) 4N 1E15 4N1E22 St S BOISE CITY PUBLIC WORKS G Sta te 6 S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN «S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN D AE Floodway 44 S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN AE Floodway Fringe 3 - STATE OF IDAHO Diversion Structure FEMA Flood Class Project Real Estat e Footprint Flowing Water 4N 1E15 4N1E14 4N 1E16 4N1E21 G 4N 1E16 4N 1E S WILLIAMSON EAGLE ISLAND B/S RANCH FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHP 1 - S OLDCASTLE MMG INC S KALDENBERG MILAN Graham Gilbert Div. S ALI LLC S WILLIAMSON EAGLE ISLAND B/S RANCH FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHP S ROCK CONTRACTORS INC Ada County Taxlo ts S MONROC INC Ballentyne Div. Section Line Horseshoe Bend Rd G d R TAUNTON PROPERTIES LLC «44 «S OLDCASTLE MMG INC LEGEND «S S Upper DECHAMBEAU CLEMENTS FAMILY LTD Lemp Di v. CONCRETE CO PARTNERSHP Ê G Eagle Island Checks Bo ise Riv e r Real Estate Map (2 of 2) Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2

161 Exhibit B: Assessment of Non-Federal Sponsor s Real Estate Acquisition Capability

162

163 EXHIBIT B REAL ESTATE PLAN BOISE RIVER AT EAGLE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SECTION 1135 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 1986 ASSESSMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR'S REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION CAPABILITY I. Legal Authority: a. Does the sponsor have legal authority to acquire and hold title to real property for project purposes? (yes/no) b. Does the sponsor have the power of eminent domain for this project? (yes/no) c. Does the sponsor have "quick-take" authority for this project? (yes/no) [Note: For most governmental agencies within a state such as WA the following applies. Before using these statements determine their application to the situation. d. Are any of the lands /interests in land required for the project located outside the sponsor's political boundary? (yes/no) e. Are any of the lands/interests in land required for the project owned by an entity whose property the sponsor cannot condemn? (yes/no) II. Human Resource Requirements: a. Will the sponsor's in-house staff require training to become familiar with the real estate requirements of Federal projects including P.L , as amended? (yes/no) b. If the answer to II.a. is yes," has a reasonable plan been developed to provide such training? (yes/no) c. Does the sponsor s in-house staff have sufficient real estate acquisition experience to meet its responsibilities for the project? (yes/no) d. Is the sponsor s projected in-house staff level sufficient considering its other work load, if any, and the project schedule? (yes/no) e. Can the sponsor obtain contractor support, if required, in a timely fashion? (yes/no) f. Will the sponsor likely request USACE assistance in acquiring real estate? (yes/no) (If yes," provide description).

164 III. Other Project Variables: a. Will the sponsor s staff be located within reasonable proximity to the project site? (yes/no) b. Has the sponsor approved the project/real estate schedule/milestones? (yes/no) IV. Overall Assessment: a. Has the sponsor performed satisfactorily on other USACE projects? (yes/no/not applicable) b. With regard to this project, the sponsor is anticipated to be: highly capable fully capable moderately capable marginally capable insufficiently capable. (If sponsor is believed to be insufficiently capable:, provide explanation). V. Coordination: a. Has this assessment been coordinated with the sponsor? (yes/no) b. Does the sponsor concur with this assessment? (yes/no) (If no," provide explanation). Prepared by: [INSERT NAME] Realty Specialist Reviewed and approved by: Christopher D. Borton Chief, Real Estate Division

165 Exhibit C: Parcel Data Summary Spreadsheet and Easement Map

166

167 Eagle Island Parcel No. 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 Property ID/Parcel ID S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S Owner (Grantor) Christopher Frank Karl Fischer E. L. Miller Orville Jacksoh Dwight Pline Williams Grantee Title Type Report Acres Instrument # File Name Mapped Comments Levi Smith et al. Access easement Irrigating ditch & headgate pdf NA 16' wide - no distances & bearings Mountain States T&T Co Mountain States T&T Co Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Power line easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Power line easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Power line easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Dwight Pline Leonard Schutte Warranty Deed tif NA No distances & bearings Fischer Pline Warranty Deed tif X OUTSIDE OF PROJECT AREA Shutte Williamson Easement Road Access tif X OUTSIDE OF PROJECT AREA Monroc Idaho Power Easement Power Line tif X Eagle Gravel Idaho State Easement Pedestrain Travel/Fishing tif X Easement #181 Williamson Monroc Deed Ingress/Egress tif NA Drainage Dist 2 Williamson Developer Williamson Eagle Sewer Agreement Construct 8" Sewer Line tif NA Pioneer Irrigation Williamson Private roadway/abandon easement Private roadway/abandon easement Pioneer Irrigation Easement ingress/egress Developer Williamson Supplement Abandonment Developer Williamson Supplement Abandonment Monroc Pioneer Irrigation Easement ingress/egress Retain Access tif NA Retain Access tif NA Ingress/egress to diversion structure Increase property for purchase WiIlliamson retains right to oppose road Re-alignment Ingress/egress to diversion structure tif X Includes an easement for ingress and egress through Williamson's. Agreement to contruct a sewer line under an existing ditch. No distances & bearings Agreement for Wiliamson to retain access through Island Woods. Outside of project area. Agreement for Wiliamson to retain access through Island Woods. Outside of project area. Goes from Williamson Farm to head of island; same as tif NA Island woods property. Outside of project area tif NA Island woods property. Outside of project area tif X Goes from Williamson Farm to head of island. This easement also covers Includes Pioneer Monroc Idaho State Warranty Deed 2 Access Points to SH tif NA Transportation Department. Monroc State of Idaho Easement Irrigation facilities tif X ITD 20' irrigation easement south of State St. Idaho State Monroc Dislaimer of Interest No. 101 Release of interest in parcels tif NA Monroc Idaho State Easement Greenbelt tif X Easement #347 Monroc Idaho State Easement Conservation easement tif X Fish and Game Monroc Idaho Power Easement Underground Power Line tif X

168 Eagle Island Parcel No. 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 Property ID/Parcel ID S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S Owner (Grantor) Idaho State Grantee Title Type Monroc Corrected Dislaimer of Interest No. 101 Williamson Idaho Power Right of Way Option Report Acres Instrument # File Name Mapped Comments Release of interest in parcels tif NA Options to purchase easement for power lines tif NA No distances & bearings. A 50 foot strip of land is noted for the easement. Monroc Idaho State Corporation Easement Irrigation Ditch tif NA ITD 20' easement south of State St. Monroc ros-3432.pdf NA Record of survey # IDL Disclaimer No. 101 ITD ROS 3923.pdf X Record of survey # ITD ROW Monroc City of Boise Right of Way Contract Sewer Lines tif X Same as Idaho State City of Boise Easement Sewer Lines tif X Monroc City of Boise Easement Sewer Lines tif X Monroc Idaho Power Easement Power Line tif X Monroc ros 4515.pdf NA Record of survey #4515, Monroc parcels 1 & 2 Monroc Idaho Power Easement Power Line tif X 50' transmission easement and other 10' strips Idaho State Idaho Power Easement Power Line tif X Williamson tif NA Record of survey #4923, survey prior to trade with IDL Monroc Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X Same as , easement no. 347 Williamson Williamson Woodhead/Benni on Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA Sundance Investment Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA Williamson Kiff Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA Monroc Monroc Old Castle Old Castle Assignment and Assumption Agreement Special Corporate Warranty Deed Assignment of rights tif NA No distances & bearings Property transfer VestDeed.pdf NA Recorded under ROS 3432 (IDL Disclaimer No. 101) Williamson Mahoney Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA Monroc Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X Same as , easement no. 347 Idaho Concrete City of Boise Irrevocable Easement Sewer System (NO BUILD ZONE) tif X Monroc Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X Same as , easement no. 347 Idaho Concrete Sylvan Williamson Williamson Memo of Agreement Ditch Maintenance tif X 1 parcel and 2 separate easements for ditch maintenance Record of Survey ROS 6864.pdf NA Record of survey #6864

169 Eagle Island Parcel No. 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 Property ID/Parcel ID S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S Owner (Grantor) Idaho Concrete Idaho Concrete Sylvan Williamson Snider & House Old Castle Old Castle Old Castle Old Castle 4 S Karl Fischer Grantee Title Type Pioneer Irrigation Easement ingress/egress Ingress/egress to diversion structure Report Acres Instrument # File Name Mapped Comments tif X Williamson Road and Access Easement Access to irrigation ditch tif X Idaho Concrete Access Easement Agreement Access to irrigation ditch tif X Same easement as State of Idaho ROW Deed pdf NA Highway ROW taxes- 1.pdf taxes- 2.pdf Commitment_Sn apshot.pdf Invoice_ _15-6.pdf Old Castle Overhead_2.pdf NA Old Castle Plat map.pdf NA Old Castle plats.pdf NA Old Castle Taxes.pdf NA Idaho Power Company Power line easement pdf NA No distances & bearings 4 S Shutte Williamson Easement Road Access tif X OUTSIDE OF PROJECT AREA 4 S Williamson Monroc Deed Ingress/Egress tif NA 4 S Drainage Dist 2 4 S Williamson Pioneer Irrigation 4 S Developer Williamson Eagle Sewer Agreement Construct 8" Sewer Line tif NA Private roadway/abandon easement Private roadway/abandon easement 4 S Williamson Pioneer Irrigation Easement ingress/egress 4 S Developer Williamson Supplement Abandonment 4 S Developer Williamson Supplement Abandonment 4 S Williamson Idaho Power Right of Way Option Retain Access tif NA Retain Access tif NA Ingress/egress to diversion structure Increase property for purchase WiIlliamson retains right to oppose road Re-alignment Options to purchase easement for power lines NA NA NA NA tif X Includes an easement for ingress and egress through Williamson's. Agreement to contruct a sewer line under an exisitng ditch. No distances & bearings Agreement for Wiliamson to retain access through Island Woods. Outside of project area. Agreement for Wiliamson to retain access through Island Woods. Outside of project area. Goes from Williamson Farm to head of island; same as tif NA Island woods property. Outside of project area tif NA Island woods property. Outside of project area tif NA No distances & bearings. Williamson Road is noted at a width of 20 feet for the easement. 4 S Williamson Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X State of Idaho acquired easement No S Williamson Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt security fencing tif X State of Idaho acquired easement No S Sylvan Williamson Williamson Ranch tif NA Record of survey #4923, survey prior to trade with IDL

170 Eagle Island Parcel No. Property ID/Parcel ID 4 S Owner (Grantor) Sylvan Williamson Grantee Title Type Report Acres Instrument # File Name Mapped Comments State of Idaho tif NA Record of survey #4923, survey after trade with IDL 4 S Williamson Idaho Concrete Access Agreement Easement Ingress and Egress to property tif NA Same as S S S S S S S &7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S Williamson Ranch Williamson Ranch Williamson Ranch Williamson Ranch Williamson Ranch Williamson Ranch Williamson Ranch Karl Fischer E. L. Miller Dwight Pline Williams Mountain States T&T Co Mountain States T&T Co Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company ROS 8541.pdf NA Commitment_Sn apshot_3.pdf NA Record of survey #8541, amendment to ROS No distances & bearings No distances & bearings Deed.tif NA Not an easement Invoice_ _15-40.pdf NA No distances & bearings map pdf NA No distances & bearings Plat.pdf NA No distances & bearings Taxes.pdf NA No distances & bearings Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Power line easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Power line easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Dwight Pline Leonard Schutte Warranty Deed tif NA No distances & bearings Fischer Pline Warranty Deed tif X OUTSIDE OF PROJECT AREA Shutte Williamson Easement Road Access tif X OUTSIDE OF PROJECT AREA Eagle Gravel Idaho State Easement Pedestrain Travel/Fishing tif X Easement #181 Williamson Monroc Deed Ingress/Egress tif NA Drainage Dist 2 Williamson Developer Williamson Eagle Sewer Agreement Construct 8" Sewer Line tif NA Pioneer Irrigation Williamson Private roadway/abandon easement Private roadway/abandon easement Pioneer Irrigation Easement ingress/egress Developer Williamson Supplement Abandonment Developer Williamson Supplement Abandonment Monroc Pioneer Irrigation Easement ingress/egress Retain Access tif NA Retain Access tif NA Ingress/egress to diversion structure Increase property for purchase WiIlliamson retains right to oppose road Re-alignment Ingress/egress to diversion structure tif X Includes an easement for ingress and egress through Williamson's. Agreement to contruct a sewer line under an existing ditch. No distances & bearings Agreement for Wiliamson to retain access through Island Woods. Outside of project area. Agreement for Wiliamson to retain access through Island Woods. Outside of project area. Goes from Williamson Farm to head of island; same as tif NA Island woods property. Outside of project area tif NA Island woods property. Outside of project area tif X Goes from Williamson Farm to head of island. This easement also covers Includes Pioneer

171 Eagle Island Parcel No. 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 Property ID/Parcel ID S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S Owner (Grantor) Grantee Title Type Report Acres Instrument # File Name Mapped Comments Wamhoff US Bank Assignment of Deed of Trust Record of Survey pdf NA Idaho State Monroc Dislaimer of Interest Release of interest in parcels tif NA Monroc Idaho State Easement Greenbelt tif X Easement #347 Monroc Idaho State Easement Conservation easement tif X Fish and Game Monroc Idaho Power Easement Underground Power Line tif X Idaho State Monroc Dislaimer of Interest Release of interest in parcels tif NA Williamson Idaho Power Right of Way Option Williamson Idaho Power Roadway Easement Agreement Options to purchase easement for power lines tif NA No distances & bearings. A 50 foot strip of land is noted for the easement. Private roadway use pdf NA Outside of project area in Island Woods Monroc ros-3432.pdf NA Record of survey # IDL Disclaimer No. 101 Monroc City of Boise Right of Way Contract Sewer Lines tif X Same as Idaho State City of Boise Easement Sewer Lines tif X Monroc City of Boise Easement Sewer Lines tif X Monroc ros 4515.pdf NA Record of survey #4515, Monroc parcels 1&3 Monroc Idaho Power Easement Power Line tif X 50' transmission easement and other 10' strips Idaho State Idaho Power Easement Power Line tif X Williamson tif NA Record of survey #4923. No distances & bearings Monroc Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X Same as , easement no. 347 Williamson Williamson Woodhead/Benni on Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA Sundance Investment Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA Williamson Kiff Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA Monroc Old Castle Assignment and Assumption Agreement Assignment of rights tif NA No distances & bearings Williamson Mahoney Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA Monroc Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X Same as , easement no. 347 Idaho Concrete City of Boise Irrevocable Easement Sewer System (NO BUILD ZONE) tif X Monroc Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X Same as , easement no. 347

172 Eagle Island Parcel No. 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 5&7 Property ID/Parcel ID S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S S & S Owner (Grantor) Sylvan Williamson Idaho Concrete Idaho Concrete Sylvan Williamson Grantee Title Type Report Acres Instrument # File Name Mapped Comments Record of Survey ROS 6864.pdf NA Record of survey #6864 Pioneer Irrigation Easement ingress/egress Ingress/egress to diversion structure tif X Williamson Road and Access Easement Access to irrigation ditch tif X Idaho Concrete Access Easement Agreement tif X Same easement as Old Castle Idaho Power Easement Underground electric pdf X Old Castle 6 S Karl Fischer 6 S E. L. Miller 6 S Williams NA Mountain States T&T Co Mountain States T&T Co Idaho Power Company Commitment for Title Insurance Commitment_Sn apshot_2.pdf Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Power line easement pdf NA No distances & bearings 6 S Dwight Pline Leonard Schutte Warranty Deed tif NA No distances & bearings 6 S Fischer Pline Warranty Deed tif X OUTSIDE OF PROJECT AREA 6 S Shutte Williamson Easement Road Access tif X OUTSIDE OF PROJECT AREA 6 S Williamson Monroc Deed Ingress/Egress tif NA 6 S Williamson Pioneer Irrigation 6 S Developer Williamson Private roadway/abandon easement Private roadway/abandon easement 6 S Williamson Pioneer Irrigation Easement ingress/egress 6 S Developer Williamson Supplement Abandonment 6 S Developer Williamson Supplement Abandonment 6 S Monroc Pioneer Irrigation Easement ingress/egress Retain Access tif NA Retain Access tif NA Ingress/egress to diversion structure Increase property for purchase WiIlliamson retains right to oppose road Re-alignment Ingress/egress to diversion structure NA tif X Includes an easement for ingress and egress through Williamson's. Agreement for Wiliamson to retain access through Island Woods. Outside of project area. Agreement for Wiliamson to retain access through Island Woods. Outside of project area. Goes from Williamson Farm to head of island; same as tif NA Island woods property. Outside of project area tif NA Island woods property. Outside of project area tif X 6 S Idaho State Monroc Dislaimer of Interest Release of interest in parcels tif NA 6 S Monroc Idaho State Easement Greenbelt tif X Easement #347 6 S Idaho State Monroc Dislaimer of Interest Release of interest in parcels tif NA Goes from Williamson Farm to head of island. This easement also covers Includes Pioneer 6 S Williamson Idaho Power Right of Way Option 6 S Williamson Idaho Power Roadway Easement Agreement Options to purchase easement for power lines tif NA No distances & bearings. A 50 foot strip of land is noted for the easement. Private roadway use pdf NA Outside of project area in Island Woods 6 S Monroc ros-3432.pdf NA Record of survey # IDL Disclaimer No. 101

173 Eagle Island Parcel No. Property ID/Parcel ID Owner (Grantor) Grantee Title Type Report Acres Instrument # File Name Mapped Comments 6 S Monroc City of Boise Right of Way Contract Sewer Lines tif X 4 segments of the Sewer line. 6 S Idaho State City of Boise Easement Sewer Lines tif X 6 S Monroc Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X Same as , easement no S Williamson Sundance Investment Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA 6 S Williamson Kiff Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA 6 S Williamson Mahoney Water Right Grant Deed Water Rights tif NA 6 S Monroc Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X Same as , easement no S Idaho Concrete City of Boise Irrevocable Easement Sewer System (NO BUILD ZONE) tif X 6 S Monroc Ada County Acquired Easement Greenbelt tif X Same as , easement no S S S S S Idaho Concrete Idaho Concrete Idaho Concrete Idaho Concrete Sylvan Williamson Williamson Memo of Agreement Ditch Maintenance tif X Williamson Settlement and Release Agreement 1 parcel and 2 separate easements for ditch maintenance Resolve Claim pdf NA Same parcel as Williamson Quitclaim Deed QCD.pdf NA Williamson Road and Access Easement Access to irrigation ditch tif X Idaho Concrete Access Easement Agreement tif X Same easement as S Williamson NA Quitclaim Deed Deed.pdf NA 6 S Williamson NA 6 S Sylvan Williamson Commitment for Title Insurance Commitment_Sn apshot(2).pdf Invoice_ _8-54.pdf NA NA 6 S Williamson NA Overhead.pdf NA 6 S Williamson NA Plat.pdf NA 8 S S Camillo Parani M. L. Anderson 8 S Land Trust Mountain States T&T Co Mountain States T&T Co Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Commitment_Sn apshot.pdf NA No distances & bearings 8 S Land Trust Deed.pdf NA Not an easement 8 S Land Trust Invoice_ _9-32.pdf NA No distances & bearings 8 S Land Trust map pdf NA No distances & bearings

174 Eagle Island Parcel No. Property ID/Parcel ID Owner (Grantor) Grantee Title Type Report Acres Instrument # File Name Mapped Comments 8 S Land Trust Plat.pdf NA No distances & bearings 8 S Land Trust Taxes.pdf NA No distances & bearings 9 S S Sylvan Williamson Sylvan Williamson 9 S McBride 9 S S S S S S S Sylvan Williamson Sylvan Williamson Sylvan Williamson Sylvan Williamson Sylvan Williamson Sylvan Williamson Sylvan Williamson Mountain States T&T Co Mountain States T&T Co Idaho Power Company Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Telephone easement pdf NA No distances & bearings Power line easement pdf NA No distances & bearings survey.pdf NA Commitment_Sn apshot_2.pdf NA Record of survey #4784 (DeChambeau property south of south channel) No distances & bearings Deed.pdf NA Not an easement Invoice_ _12-46.pdf NA No distances & bearings Overhead.pdf NA No distances & bearings Plat.pdf NA No distances & bearings Taxes.pdf NA No distances & bearings

175 4N1E16 4N1E15 4N1E21 4N1E22 4N1E22 4N1E23 «55 S «44 «55 OLDCASTLE R MMG INC TAUNTON PROPERTIES LLC S Ballentyne S MONROC INC Div. ROCK CONTRACTORS INC S S KALDENBERG ALI LLC S MILAN WILLIAMSON EAGLE ISLAND B/S RANCH 1 - S FAMILY LTD OLDCASTLE PARTNERSHP MMG INC G 4 - S WILLIAMSON EAGLE ISLAND B/S RANCH FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHP S KALDENBERG MILAN 3 - S TATE OF IDAHO Horseshoe Bend Rd 4N1E15 4N1E14 Utahna Rd State St LEGEND Section Line Ada County Taxlots Project Footprint G Diversion Structure j Sewer Manhole Sewer Force Main Ø Transmission Pole :9 Power Pole Overhead Distribution Overhead Transmission Instrument No « Duncan Ln N1E16 4N1E21 4N1E15 4N1E S OLDCASTLE MMG INC 4N1E14 4N1E23 S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN G Graham Gilbert Div. S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN D Pond S OLDCASTLE MMG INC 7 - S OLDCASTLE 6 - MMG INC S WILLIAMSON SYLVAN Pond 4 Pond 3 G Pond 6 G Main Access Road Lower Lemp Div. S Warm Springs 9 - S BOISE CITY Div. WILLIAMSON SYLVAN D PUBLIC WORKS S CLEMENTS - R STATE CONCRETE CO STAKER & S OF IDAHO S PARSON CLEMENTS DECHA MBEAU Upper Eagle Island COMPANIES CONCRETE CO FAM ILY LTD Lemp Div. PART NERSHP Checks Imagery: Foot Resolution; Source: Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) ,200 Land Ownership Source: Ada County Assessors Office Existing Easements Map Base Mapping Sources: Idaho Power Company; Boise City; State of Idaho; USGS Feet Geospatial Gateway (INSIDE Idaho) Map Production Date: 9/11/ inch = 600 feet Boise River at Eagle Island Ecosystem Restoration Project Phase 2 Q:\USACE\EagleIsland\map_docs\Figures_LandLed_93_Easements.mxd Bridge Pond 2 North Channel Pond 1 Ê South Chann el 8 - S LAND TRUST OF THE TREASURE VALLEY INC G G Boise River