ABOUT THE STUDY

Location: The study area includes the floodplain along roughly fifty Missouri River miles from Nishnabotna to St Joseph, Missouri. Federal levees in and around the project area include 512-513R-North, Missouri River Levee System (MRLS) 497-L, MRLS 488-L and MRLS 500-R. Non-Federal levee systems include Union Township Holt County Number 10, Holt County Number 9, Canon Drainage District and Kimsey Holley.

Description: The purpose of the study is to investigate methods to reduce/manage flood risk within the project area, evaluate measures and recommend a plan to reduce recurring damages and costs and improve resiliency of the flood risk infrastructure and protected investment for the future. 

Draft Report for Public Comment: October 2025

Study Completion: January 2028

Review plan for LoMo Holt County, MO and Doniphan County, KS Feasibility Study

PUBLIC MEETINGS

August 8, 2024 - Loess Hills Lodge at 406 State Street, Mound City, MO - Doors will open at 4:45 p.m. The meeting will conclude at 7:00 p.m. but MDNR will be available for questions until 8:00 p.m.

April 1, 2024, Holt County Public Meeting Slides 

August 8, 2024, Holt County Public Meeting Slides 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Below, you will find the answers to some frequently asked questions and feedback revied from stakeholders during the study process:

Feedback: Provide a complete, robust, coordinated level of protection.​

• System should resemble previously authorized MRLS 519-512-504L, constructed to ~10% completion in 1950s​. This would result in an extensive system of new / improved levees​

Response:  This type of plan is under consideration.​​

Feedback: If we can’t provide above, consider resiliency measures.​

• Flooding would still occur but provide a way for the water to get out quicker and minimize the damage, repair costs and time unprotected. ​

Response:  This type of plan is also under consideration.​​

Feedback: While stakeholders are generally receptive to levee setbacks, one size may not fit all.​

• Some may want to convert river-side land to conservation uses​, others may want to continue farming​

Response:  We are exploring potential uses for river-side land at potential levee setback locations, noting that what works for one area may not work for other areas.​

Feedback: Stakeholders generally like the speed L-536 setback was constructed.​

Response:  The L-536 setback was an emergency repair done under authority of PL84-99 to restore an existing Federal levee to its prior level of protection following damage sustained during a flood.  The setback was the least cost alternative. ​This study is authorized under Section 216 of Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2020 to perform feasibility level analysis. A USACE Feasibility Study is a formal process used to identify problem areas, develop solutions to address them, and determine if there's federal interest in investing in local infrastructure.​

Feedback: The process takes too long. Stakeholders want relief before it floods again.​

Response:  USACE needs to develop a technically feasible, implementable project that can be maintained by the sponsor successfully into the future and that is a sound federal investment.  A big part of the time required for planning of water projects is achieving support in the community.  ​

Feedback: Concern over fish and wildlife and management of the river. ​

• Stakeholders want flood control and navigation as primary interests. ​

Response:  We will formulate measures and alternatives to reduce flood risk in consideration of authorized purposes and how the river is operated but do not have authority to change authorized purposes or how the river is operated under this study.​ MRRP has not undertaken new construction or land acquisition in Holt County for a decade. These studies are focused on flood risk reduction.

Feedback: Corning is concerned with significant realignment of L536 and their vulnerability.​

• Would like to see the Mill Creek segment connected to L536 protection​.

Response:  This will be considered as measures and alternatives are developed and refined.​​

Feedback: Interest in using conservations lands (NRCS, MRRP etc) as sources of borrow.​

• Existing conservation could enhance/improve wetlands​. New conservation could create new wetlands​.

Response:  We have already been coordinating with NRCS and to explore use of conservation lands and / or easements to provide sources of borrow material, in exchange for enhancement or creation of wetlands.​The non-Federal sponsor will be responsible for acquiring borrow if a construction project is authorized. ​

Feedback: Concern with railroads and want to keep as much water in the river as possible.​

• If water gets out of the river, need to figure out where it’s most likely to breach and protect against breaching.​

Response:  BNSF is a stakeholder in this effort.  Measures and alternatives that could impact railroad infrastructure or operations will be closely coordinated with the railroad. ​​

Feedback: L488 had ~6” of freeboard in 2019; overtopped in 1993.​

Response:  Improvements to existing Federal units are included in potential measures, though we don’t expect to need extensive analysis since performance of these units is well documented.​​

Feedback: L497 Forest City segment nearly overtopped in 2019; was saved only by intense flood fight.​

Response:  Improvements to existing Federal units are included in potential measures, though we don’t expect to need extensive analysis since performance of these units is well documented.​

Feedback: Stakeholders have had many losses not covered by insurance since 1993.​

Response: We are engaging others, including the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) and USDA Risk Management Agency to better understand and reflect for losses, crop insurance rates, etc.

Feedback: Setbacks need to be looked at on a system-wide level to ensure that we don’t just move the problem downstream to another pinch point​

Response: Impacts from setbacks or any measures will be looked at upstream, downstream, and across the river. ​​

Question: How does aggradation/degradation in the channel and foreshore affect capacity?​

Response:  Based on long-term monitoring of stage trends along the river, channel degradation has had limited impact on flood stages in most cases. Severe degradation could reduce flood stages but would increase risk of bank failures. Floodplain aggradation can lead to higher flood stages over time.   Formulation will consider how cross-sectional geometry affects stages and velocities in the future.​​

Question: What are you doing in Doniphan County, KS?  What about Nebraska?​

Response:  The study extents are limited to Holt County, MO and parts of Doniphan County, KS most heavily impacted by Missouri River flooding, notably the areas near R500, K7 and White Cloud. While Nebraska is not within our stated authority, we are considering induced impacts at all locations, including Nebraska.​ The Lower Missouri River Flood Risk and Resiliency Study (System Plan) extends from Sioux City, IA to the mouth in St. Louis. Future spin-off studies are recommended in Nebraska under the System Plan.

Question: Have you considered dredging silt from interior drainage channels at L497 or Kimsey Holley for borrow material?​

Response:  This will be considered, along with other sources. Haul distance will also be considered as it can have a profound impact on cost. ​

Question: Have you considered dredging the Missouri River for borrow material?​

Response: Historically USACE has at times obtained sand material for levee construction from the Missouri River. Mining of river sands below Rulo, NE is regulated by USACE according to a 2011 EIS and other studies and assessments, which place emphasis on sustainable rates and locations of mining that minimize adverse impacts to private property and infrastructure. Given bed lowering that is ongoing in many reaches of the river, including downstream of Holt County, removal of sand for levee construction is likely to have adverse impacts. However, in areas where commercial mining from the river is still permitted, it is possible some sands, such as for pervious sand drain construction, could be purchased from Missouri River sand and gravel mining companies as regulated by their existing permits. Impervious borrow (clay and silt) must be obtained from sources other than the Missouri River and are necessary for levee construction.