ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Transcription

1 Version 8/08rev ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to preparers: This form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board s website at: EQB Website: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for but should not complete the final worksheet. The complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project title: Fargo-Moorhead Flood Risk Management Project 2. Proposer: Flood Diversion Board of Authority Robert Zimmerman City Engineer City of Moorhead PO Box 779 Moorhead, MN (218) bob.zimmerman@ci.moorhead.mn.us 3. RGU Stuart Arkley EIS Project Manager Minnesota DNR 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN (651) environmentalrev.dnr@state.mn.us 4. Reason for EAW Preparation EIS Scoping Mandatory EAW Citizen Petition Proposer Volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and subpart name: Mandatory EIS , subpart 18, Construction of a Class I dam. The information contained in this Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is supplemented by the Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement, Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management, July 2011, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter referred to as the FFREIS). 5. Project location The Fargo-Moorhead Flood Risk Management Project (Project) would be located in Cass County, North Dakota and Clay County, Minnesota with some impacts in Richland County, North Dakota and Wilkin County, Minnesota. See attached maps (Figures 1-4) for Project feature locations. The Project s construction design features include, but are not limited to, a 30-mile long diversion channel, a 6-mile long connecting channel, 12 miles of tie-back embankments, 4 miles of overflow embankment, levee/floodwall features in Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota. Operation of the constructed features would raise flood stages on approximately 33,000-acres within a 60-square mile (38,400-acre) staging area. The Project features and affected areas are located within the following townships: 1

2 State County City/Township ND Richland Eagle ND Richland Walcott ND Cass Pleasant ND Cass Stanley ND Cass Warren ND Cass Barnes ND Cass Mapleton ND Cass Reed ND Cass Raymond ND Cass Harwood ND Cass Berlin ND Cass Wiser MN Wilkin Wolverton MN Clay Holy Cross MN Clay Kurtz MN Clay Moorhead MN Clay Oakport GPS Coordinates Tax Parcel Number N/A N/A Attach each of the following to the EAW: County map showing the general location of the project; See Figure 1 U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); See Figure 2 Site plan showing all significant project and natural features. See Figure 3 and 4 List of Figures: Figure 1 Project Location Map Figure 2 USGS Quadrangle Map Figure 3 Project Plan Figure 4 Project Features at Staging Area Figure 5 Control Structure Concept Red and Wild Rice Rivers Figure 6 Maple River Hydraulic Structure Overflow Figure 7 Maple River Hydraulic Structure Concept Figure 8 10% Event Staging Area Flood Outlines and Stage Hydrographs Figure 9 5% Event Staging Area Flood Outlines and Stage Hydrographs Figure 10 2% Event Staging Area Flood Outlines and Stage Hydrographs Figure 11 1% Event Staging Area Flood Outlines and Stage Hydrographs Figure 12 In Town Levee Locations 6. Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. The Project would be located in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. It would include a diversion channel, connecting channel, tie-back levee/dam embankments, river control structures on the Red and Wild Rice (ND) Rivers, upstream floodwater staging area, levees and floodwalls, non-structural features, recreational features and environmental mitigation. 2

3 b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. This Project would be federally-sponsored and would be designed and constructed to Federal standards by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Project would be owned and operated by a local government unit or group of local government units anticipated to be under a joint powers agreement. The Project consists of a diversion channel system including, but not limited to, excavated channels, a channel inlet control structure, tie-back levee/dam embankments, river control structures on the Red and Wild Rice (ND) Rivers, an upstream floodwater staging area (staging area), hydraulic structures on tributaries, levees and floodwalls in the Fargo Moorhead metro area, non-structural features (such as buyout, relocation, or raising individual structures), recreation features (such as multipurpose trails), and environmental mitigation projects located inside and outside the Project area. When operated, the Project would divert a portion of the Red River flow upstream of the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area (metropolitan area), intercept flow at the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush Rivers, and return it to the Red River downstream of the metropolitan area. The Project would minimize the need for emergency flood-fighting up to a 1-percent chance (100-year) flood event on the Red River in the metropolitan area, and it would reduce 0.2-percent (500-year) flood stages to approximately 40 feet on the U.S.G.S. Fargo gage. Subject to approvals and appropriation of funds, construction could potentially begin in Construction is expected to take a minimum of 8.5 years, if sufficient funding is appropriated. The Project can be described as having the following two components within its geographical range: (1) those areas that will be affected by construction of Project features; and (2) those areas that will be affected by operation of the Project (e.g. staging area and areas that would be protected from flooding). A brief explanation of the Project features (see Figures 3 and 4 for locations) is provided below. Additional information will be provided in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Diversion Channel This is a 30-mile long channel that would be located west of the metropolitan area. (A separate 6-mile long connecting channel from the Red River to the diversion inlet control structure is described further below.) The diversion channel would extend from the inlet control structure near Cass County Road 17, just southeast of Horace, ND, downstream to its outlet near Georgetown, Minnesota. The path of the diversion would take it west of Horace, West Fargo, and Harwood. The capacity of the diversion channel at the inlet control structure is 20,000 cfs, with increases in capacity at and beyond the tributary crossings to account for the additional flow from those tributaries. The diversion channel would have a maximum bottom width of 300 feet and a variable-width low-flow channel that would meander within a 200-foot belt width within the 300-foot bottom width. The maximum depth of the low-flow channel within the diversion channel would be approximately 30 feet below existing ground. Soil excavated from the diversion channel would be placed into excavated material berms adjacent to the channel. The maximum width of the Project footprint along the diversion is approximately one half mile including the diversion channel and excavated material berms. Where flows in the diversion are expected to be higher than the existing ground, the right-bank berms (east side of diversion channel) would incorporate engineered levee sections. Drainage ditches adjacent to the berms would be necessary to intercept local drainage and direct it to the nearest inlet structure. The Rush River and Lower Rush River would be diverted into the diversion channel, thus flows downstream of the diversion intersection would cease in the existing channels, except for local drainage. The low flow portion of the diversion channel is proposed to be constructed with sinuosity as a way of 3

4 mitigating for lost habitat in the Lower Rush and Rush River channels between the diversion channel and the Sheyenne River. County road, highway and railroad relocations would include crossings over the diversion channel. County road crossings would be spaced at approximately three mile intervals. Other roads intersected by the diversion would be terminated at the diversion or reconnected to the local road network. Within the staging area I-29, U.S. Highway 75, and the railroad near U.S. Highway 75 would be raised slightly above the 1% chance flood elevation. Proposed fill activities associated with construction of the Project would include: partially filling the portions of river channels abandoned to construct the structures on the Red, Wild Rice, Sheyenne, and Maple Rivers; excavation for the diversion channel and sidecasting excavated material within approximately 600 feet along both sides of the diversion channel (including wetland areas); and placing fill into wetlands along the excavated material berm alignments. Material would be moved and placed mechanically. Cranes, backhoes, scrapers, dump trucks and other heavy machinery suited to working with rock would be used to deliver and place rock materials and other embankment fill during construction. Riprap would generally be placed in a systematic manner to ensure a continuous uniform layer of well-graded stone. Stone placed underwater would not be cast across the surface of the water. Control Structures Gated structures on the Red and Wild Rice Rivers would be operated during flood events (see Project Operation below), limiting flows downstream in the natural channels and causing the water to rise upstream into the 60 square mile staging area. A gated control structure would be constructed adjacent to the Red River in the northeast quarter of Section 6, Holy Cross Township, Clay County, Minnesota. A similar control structure would be constructed adjacent to the Wild Rice River in the northeast quarter of Section 2, Pleasant Township, Cass County, North Dakota. See Figure 5, depicting the control structure concept. The structures would be constructed adjacent to the existing channels in order to keep the sites dry during construction. Once the control structures are built, the Red River and Wild Rice River would be re-routed through the control structures. The connecting channel would have a weir just east of the Wild Rice River crossing to prevent a connection between the Red River and Wild Rice River until the Project operation begins. The diversion channel inlet control structure would be located where the diversion channel crosses Cass County Highway 17 in the southeast quarter of Section 31, Stanley Township, Cass County, North Dakota. The diversion inlet control structure would consist of a 135-foot wide spillway with operable gates to control flows going into the diversion channel. Additional hydraulic structures would be located along the diversion at each tributary crossing. At the Maple River and Sheyenne River crossings, there would be open aqueducts that cross over the top of the diversion channel to allow continuous connectivity of these two rivers and fixed-crest weir spillways that would direct flood flows into the diversion channel. See Item 12 for more information on tributary water control structures. Figures 6 and 7 depict the hydraulic structure design concept that would be employed at the Maple River. The same design concept would be used where the diversion channel crosses the Sheyenne River. These structures would also be built in the dry (construction off-channel then diverting the river across the structure upon completion). At the Lower Rush River and Rush River, rock ramp spillways would be used to divert the entire flow into the diversion channel. The remaining Lower Rush and Rush River channels between the diversion channel and the Sheyenne River would receive only local inflows after the diversion is constructed. The diversion channel outlet would be located where the diversion returns to the Red River in the northwest quarter of Section 36, Wiser Township, Cass County, North Dakota, and would incorporate a rock ramp spillway with a crest width of 300 feet. 4

5 Ditches and smaller hydraulic structures would be required along the diversion to handle existing drains and ditches cut off by the diversion. Ditches running outside and parallel to the diversion would direct local drainage to a reasonable number of diversion inlet locations. Existing ditches, field swales, and drain tile would be directed into these parallel ditches. The larger inlets, such as Drain 14 (a drainage ditch which runs generally south to north from Davenport to the Maple River near its mouth), would be open inlets like the Lower Rush River and Rush River. These larger inlets would be either concrete drop structures or rock ramps. The smaller inlets would be culvert structures with flap gates and energy dissipation chambers at the outlet of the culvert in the diversion channel. The culvert flap gates would prevent water from backing up out of the diversion after the local peaks have passed. Uncontrolled inlets (inlets without flap gates) would be placed at rivers and drains that have either natural levees or spoil piles along them which would prevent widespread back-up flooding from the diversion for events up through the 1% event. The Project goal is to maintain the existing 100-year floodplain outside the diversion channel. Hydraulic structure and inlet design will be further discussed in the EIS. Project Operation- The Project would go into operation by partially closing the Red River and Wild Rice River control structure gates so that a stage of 35.0 feet is not exceeded at the USGS gage in Fargo. At this stage, the flow through Fargo would be approximately 17,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). A flow of 17,000 cfs at the Fargo gage is approximately a 10% chance or 10-year flood event. Stage gages and stage-discharge rating curves will be developed at the Red River and Wild Rice River control structures to determine when the combined flow of the two rivers reaches 17,000 cfs. At this combined discharge the gates would be partially closed and inundation of the staging area would begin. The connecting channel between the diversion inlet and the Wild Rice River may or may not be allowed to fill prior to closing the Red River and Wild Rice River control structure gates. This has yet to be determined. Regardless, flow would not be allowed out of the Wild Rice River into the connecting channel, between the Wild Rice River and the Red River, until the Red River and Wild Rice River control structure gates are partially closed. The diversion inlet control structure gates would not be opened prior to partially closing the Red River and Wild Rice River control structure gates. Since it takes time for water to travel from the Red River and Wild Rice River control structures to the Fargo gage, the stage at the Fargo gage will be less than 35.0 feet when the Red River and Wild Rice River control structure gates are partially closed and the diversion inlet control structure gates are opened. Modeling completed to date indicates that the stage at the Fargo gage will likely be around 30 feet when the control structure gates are operated, but the exact stage will depend on the shape of the inflow hydrographs. Operation of the diversion inlet control structure gates (timing and flow) will depend on what is observed on the Maple River, with the goal of having reduced diversion flows during peak Maple River flows at the diversion. A stage of 35.0 feet would be maintained at the USGS Fargo gage through the use of the Red River and Wild Rice River control structure gates until the staging area elevation reaches elevation NAVD 88 (the staging elevation would just reach elevation for the 1% (100-year) event). Once the staging elevation reaches 922.2, the Red and Wild Rice River control structures would be fully or partially opened as necessary to maintain the upstream staging elevation of while not exceeding a stage of 40.0 feet at the Fargo gage (a USGS stage of 40.0 would occur for the expected 0.2% (500-yr) event). Once a stage of 40.0 feet is achieved at the Fargo gage, a stage of 40.0 feet would be maintained by allowing flow to exit the staging area over the overflow embankment and being routed overland to the west, eventually entering the Sheyenne River and its floodplain. The staging area water surface elevation would be allowed to rise to an elevation that provides a minimum acceptable height of freeboard on the tie-back embankments. The minimum acceptable height of freeboard has yet to be determined, but it is anticipated to be between 4 and 5 feet. The inflow design flood (IDF) discharge has yet to be determined and therefore the exact pool elevation for the IDF has yet 5

6 to be determined. Modeling completed to date indicates the IDF pool elevation will be between and Given the uncertainty in the minimum acceptable height of freeboard and the IDF pool elevation, the tie-back embankment elevation is expected to be between and Emergency measures would be employed within the risk reduction area to reduce flood damages when the stage is between 35.0 and 40.0 feet. If the upstream staging water surface elevation is forecasted to reach the point of minimum acceptable freeboard, an evacuation order would be issued for the metropolitan area. Once water is flowing over the overflow embankment and the upstream staging elevation reaches the point of minimum acceptable freeboard, the Red and Wild Rice River control structures would be opened further to maintain the minimum freeboard, and stages would rise above 40.0 feet at the USGS Fargo gage. Levees and Floodwalls Levees would include planned earthen embankments and floodwall structures in the metropolitan area in low areas adjacent to the Red River. Levees and floodwalls would be constructed and existing levees would be improved in the risk reduction area (metropolitan area) such that the levee/floodwall system would be FEMA-accredited for a flood causing a stage of 35.0 feet at the USGS gage in Fargo. With the Project in place, the 100-yr flood stage at the USGS gage in Fargo would be 35.0 feet. Freeboard for floodwall segments is four feet and for earthen levee segments is three feet plus one foot for settlement/topsoil. Interior drainage facilities would be required to handle both open and blocked drainage conditions. One storm sewer lift station would be modified in Moorhead and three existing levee projects would be accredited per FEMA standards. The locations of levees, floodwalls and non-structural measures in Fargo include the following: El Zagal golf course near 3 rd Street North, between 14 th Avenue and 15 th Avenue North Mickelson Field levee extension near North Terrace and North River Road 2 nd Street North from NP Avenue to 5 th Avenue North 2 nd Street South at Main Avenue (non-structural measures) Linden Avenue in the Belmont neighborhood (non-structural measures) Conceptual alignments for these features are presented in the Final Technical Memorandum AWD Flows Through Flood Damage Reduction Area (Houston-Moore Group, July 16, 2012). See Figure 12 for maps showing the locations of the proposed in-town levees. Additional information on these features, their impacts and mitigation will be developed for the EIS. Real estate interests required for Project features would be acquired and landowners would be compensated (buyout and/or relocation) in accordance with applicable state and federal law. Connecting Channel The diversion channel system would include a six mile long connecting channel between the Red River and the diversion channel inlet control structure. Upstream of the tie-back embankments, water would be stored in order to minimize downstream impacts. The connecting channel is smaller than, and separate from, the diversion channel. The proposed design of the connecting channel is lower than ground level, so it will be the first area inundated when the Project goes into operation. The bottom width of the connecting channel is expected to be approximately 100 feet and will slope back toward the Wild Rice and Red Rivers to help drain the staging area when flood flows have receded. Tie-back Levee/Dam Embankments These are earthen embankments that would impound water in the staging area. Approximately 12 miles of earthen tie-back levee/dam embankments and four miles of overflow embankment (Figure 3 and 4) would be constructed to connect the Red River and Wild Rice 6

7 River control structures and the diversion inlet control structure to high ground and prevent water from circumventing the Project. These features together fall within the definition of a Class I dam under Minnesota Rules Approximately 6 miles of tie-back levees would be located in Minnesota and 6 miles in North Dakota. The four mile long overflow embankment would be located along Cass County Highway 17 (ND) south of the diversion inlet control structure. Staging Area This is a 60-square mile area upstream of the Red and Wild Rice River control structure and tie-back levee/dam embankment where floodwater would be staged when the Project is in operation. The Flood Diversion Board of Authority (Diversion Authority) has policies in place that would be applied to land acquisition and mitigation within the defined staging area. These policies are described in the Land Management Plan Fargo-Moorhead (FM) Area Flood Risk Reduction Project, Version 1 (Plan) (available for viewing at: Fargo Moorhead Diversion Authority website, Library section: Federal funding is involved in portions of the Project. Therefore, as described in the Plan, all real estate transactions would have to comply with federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and Title IV, Uniform Relocations Act Amendments of 1987 where applicable. State law also applies to real estate acquisitions. Additional background information and answers to frequently asked questions regarding land acquisition have been made available by the Diversion Authority at: Fargo Moorhead Diversion Authority website: The Plan is a living document that would be updated periodically as appropriate during development of the Project. The policies as described in the current Plan are as follows: Residential and commercial structures (not associated with specific active farmsteads) Homes, structures, and businesses that would experience greater than three feet of inundation for the 1 percent chance event would be acquired or relocated. Areas having 1-3 feet of inundation would be evaluated for non-structural measures, such as ring levees, relocation, or elevating structures. Acquisition may also be considered in these areas should a risk and safety analysis indicate these measures to be inappropriate. The impacts of relocations and acquisitions will be discussed in the EIS. Flowage easements are proposed to be purchased for areas that would have inundation less than one foot. The purpose of the flowage easements would be to compensate for use limitations during project induced periods of inundation. The inundation thresholds for decision making described above are subject to ongoing review and may be updated in future versions of the Plan. Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11 are maps outlining the areas to be impacted with the Project in place based on the 10%, 5%, 2% and 1% flood events, respectively. The blue shading indicates areas that would be inundated with water without the Project and the red shading shows the additional areas that would be inundated with the Project in place. See Item 14 for more information on floodplain impacts. Farmsteads The criteria outlined above would generally apply to active farmsteads. However, farmsteads tend to be tied to their existing location to a greater extent than other structures due to the necessity of multiple associated buildings to create a viable operating unit. Vegetative shelters and direct access to farm lands are also needed. These characteristics warrant the consideration of nonstructural measures to allow active farmsteads to remain in operation within the staging area. The Diversion Authority would assess the depth of flooding, duration of the flood event, and access to the site when making decisions regarding the appropriate use of nonstructural measures. In any event where farmsteads would experience greater than 3 feet of flooding, a buyout would be offered to the landowner prior to consideration of other options. Agricultural Lands 7

8 It is anticipated that flowage easements would be acquired over most land within the staging area. A property-by-property analysis would be conducted to ensure that the specifics of each parcel are taken into consideration when determining the appropriate mitigation. All agricultural land not within the footprint of the diversion and associated infrastructure could continue to be farmed. Non-structural Features These are measures that would protect structures. They include ring levees, relocation, acquisition/buyout or elevating structures. Mitigation would occur to homes/properties impacted by floodwater as outlined in Table 5. Environmental Mitigation The Diversion Authority has proposed a number of actions that would reduce Project impacts to wetlands, cultural resources, fish passage, channel abandonment, turbidity, aquatic habitat, and other resources. Several features would be constructed to mitigate for unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. These features would be constructed at various sites, some of which have not yet been selected and would be determined during the design phase of the Project as additional coordination is completed. Mitigation would be accomplished in a watershed context, within the same watershed as the impact to the fullest extent possible. A detailed description of the basis for mitigation can be found in Attachment 6 of the FFREIS. The approximate magnitude of the Project s environmental impacts and the proposed mitigation actions are discussed in various sections (see Questions 11, 17, 25). Additional detail on mitigation measures and plans will be presented in the EIS. Recreation features Recreation features may include multipurpose trails, parking areas, benches, interpretive signage, fishing structures, and trailheads with restrooms, potable water and picnic facilities. Recreation features will be located along the diversion channel on land purchased to construct project features. a. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The Project would be federally-funded and would be designed and constructed by the USACE in partnership with the Project s non-federal sponsors. Upon completion of the Project, all features (including mitigation features) would be owned, operated and maintained in perpetuity by the non-federal sponsors. Need - The Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan area is located within the area from approximately 12 miles west to 5 miles east of the Red River and from 20 miles north to 20 miles south of Interstate Highway 94. This area has a high risk of flooding. The Red River, Wild Rice River (N.D.), Sheyenne River, Maple River, Lower Rush River and the Rush River all contribute to the flood risk. Average annual national economic flood damages in the metropolitan area are estimated to be more than $194.8 million (FFREIS, Section 2.3, History and Future without Project Conditions), and a failure of emergency flood measures could result in loss of life. Flooding in Fargo-Moorhead typically occurs in late March and early April as a result of spring snowmelt. Flooding poses a significant risk of damage to urban and rural infrastructure and disrupts transportation throughout the metropolitan area. The Fargo-Moorhead area is a regional center for healthcare, education, government, and commerce. Infrastructure at risk in the Fargo-Moorhead area includes several Regional medical centers, three college campuses, and city and county government headquarters offices. The Red River has exceeded the National Weather Service flood stage of 18 feet in 49 of the past 111 years (1902 through 2012), and recently every year from 1993 through The record-setting Red River flood stage in 2009 at Fargo was feet on the Fargo gage. Official estimates vary for the 1- percent chance event flow and stage. The hydrologic record of the Red River shows a trend of increasing magnitude and frequency of flooding in recent decades. 8

9 During preparation of the FFREIS, a panel of experts in hydrology and climate change was convened to elicit opinions on how to appropriately reflect this trend (FFREIS Appendix A, Hydrology). The panel concluded that the hydrologic record showed a dry period in the early decades of the 20 th Century and a wet period in later years continuing to the present and recommended developing revised flow frequency curves separately for the dry and wet periods. The revised flow frequency curves showed the 1-percent chance event flow to be approximately 34,700 cfs at present; 32,900 cfs in 2035; and 31,300 cfs in The hydraulic modeling developed for the FFREIS and calibrated to the 2009 flood event indicated that a flow of 34,700 cfs at the Fargo gage would produce a stage of 42.4 feet (FFREIS Appendix B, Hydraulic Engineering). The analyses described in the FFREIS were based upon the Expert Opinion Elicitation panel s hydrologic recommendations, which result in significantly higher stages for the 1-percent chance event than on the current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The DNR concurs with this approach and will utilize the recommendations of the EOE in the EIS. Purpose - The purpose of the Project is to reduce flood risk, flood damages and flood protection costs related to flooding in the metropolitan area. To the extent technically and fiscally feasible, the Project would: reduce flood risk potential associated with a long history of frequent flooding on local streams including the Red River of the North, Sheyenne, Wild Rice, Maple, Rush and Lower Rush Rivers passing through or into the metropolitan area, qualify substantial portions of the metropolitan area for 100-year flood accreditation by FEMA under the National Flood Insurance Program, and reduce flood risk for floods exceeding the 1% event (100-year flood or greater), given the importance of the metropolitan area to the region and recent frequencies of potentially catastrophic flood events. 7. Project magnitude data A total of 8,200 acres would be directly impacted by diversion channel, connecting channel, tieback levees, and control structure construction. Approximately 60 square miles would be adversely affected by temporary staging of floodwater upstream in the staging area. (TABLE BELOW NOT APPLICABLE) Number of residential units: NA; Unattached: NA; Attached: NA; Maximum units per building: NA Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet): Office Manufacturing Retail Other industrial Warehouse Institutional Light industrial Agricultural Other commercial (specify) Building height If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings 9

10 8. Permits and approvals required List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. Certain final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter No permits/approvals for the project have been applied for to-date. Permits and approvals that may be required for the Project include, but may not be limited to, the following: Table 1. Permits and Approvals PERMIT/APPROVAL GOVERNING AGENCY Responsibility Clean Water Act-Section 404 USACE Federal Government (unless feature is constructed by Local Sponsors) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899-Section 9 and 10 Clean Water Act-Section 401 Certification, Water Quality ND USACE USACE ND Department of Health Federal Government Federal Government(unless feature is constructed by Local Sponsors) Federal Government Clean Water Act-Section 401 Certification, Water Quality MN Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Federal Government Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FEMA Local Sponsors Local Sponsors Floodplain Permit City of Fargo Local Sponsors Floodplain Permit City of Moorhead Local Sponsors Dewatering ND Department of Health Contractor Dewatering MN Department of Natural Resources Contractor NPDES Storm water ND Department of Health Contractor/Owner 10

11 PERMIT/APPROVAL GOVERNING AGENCY Responsibility NPDES Storm water MPCA Contractor/Owner Storm water Permit City of Fargo Contractor/Owner Storm water Permit City of Moorhead Contractors/Owner Sovereign Lands ND State Water Commission Local Sponsors Construction ND State Water Commission Local Sponsors Application to Drain Construction/Floodplain Approval ND State Water Commission and Cass County Joint WRD Buffalo-Red River Watershed District Local Sponsors Local Sponsors Subsurface Drain Cass County Joint WRD Local Sponsors Memorandum of Understanding Cooperative Construction Agreement ND Department of Transportation MN Department of Transportation Local Sponsors Local Sponsors Section 106 Clearance ND State Historical Society Federal Government Section 106 Consultation MN State Historic Preservation Office Federal Government Dam Safety MN Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Local Sponsors Public/Protected Waters MNDNR Local Sponsors MN Wetland Conservation Act Minnesota Local Government Unit Local Sponsors Floodplain Harwood Township Contractor Floodplain Clay County Local Sponsors Building Harwood Township Contractor Two Rivers WRD Application Two Rivers WRD Local Sponsors Zoning/Rezoning? Clay County, MN Local Sponsors Zoning/Rezoning? Cass County, ND Local Sponsors 11

12 PERMIT/APPROVAL GOVERNING AGENCY Responsibility Aquatic Nuisance Species Rule ND Game and Fish Department Contractor Prime and Unique Farmlands Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Government 9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The majority of the land that would be affected by the Project is currently used to plant row crops and for other agricultural uses. The Project would affect approximately farmsteads and rural residences directly within the Project footprint and in the staging area. Land use changes would occur along and near the proposed diversion alignments with the purchase of Project right-of-way, although agricultural uses would be allowed within the staging area and potentially on some portions of the diversion channel excavated material berms. Land affected by the levee/floodwall system within the flood risk reduction area is currently residential, commercially developed, or existing public infrastructure. Some of the staging area that is currently zoned residential or retail would no longer be available for those uses. There are opportunities to convert agricultural portions to wetlands, grasslands, wooded areas or other uses (a significant part of the staging area is currently farmland). Land in the diversion channel right-of-way would be impacted. An estimated 6,000 acres of prime and unique farmland would be directly or indirectly impacted with the construction of the Project. Owners of agricultural lands purchased for the Project would be compensated at fair market value. The Project is expected to split or divide some farms into separate parcels. In some cases, farmers would have to detour around the diversion channel using established roadways or specially constructed access roads to access their property and conduct farming operations. The number of farms under active use that would be divided by the proposed diversion channel route is unknown at this time. In general, agricultural land within the staging area would continue to be farmable. Farmers would still qualify for multi-peril crop insurance to provide coverage related to naturally occurring risks. However, crop insurance would not cover losses occurring due to operation of the Project. According to the USDA, if farmers can plant before the late planting date then federal crop insurance would be available as it is now for impacts not related to operation of the Project. Rules for a crop planted after the final planting date are in accordance with federal crop insurance policies. If farmers cannot plant because of operation of the Project, they would not qualify for crop insurance. The Diversion Authority is researching the availability of insurance that could mitigate the risks of not being able to plant because of operation of the Project. Using existing data sources to identify existing or potential environmental contamination, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) are currently in progress for the proposed diversion alignment. Additional Phase 1 ESAs would be conducted at all Project locations. The results from those assessments will inform any Phase 2 investigations that may be necessary to obtain additional data about the nature and extent of potential contamination sources identified as part of the Phase I ESAs. All construction activities would require an approved spill containment program. As properties are purchased and inventoried, any hazardous or toxic substances would be disposed of per applicable regulations by a qualified contractor. The number, location, size, etc. of any above or below ground storage tanks would 12

13 be mostly defined by the Phase 1 ESAs. If any additional tanks or other environmental hazards are discovered during the purchase process they would be addressed at that time. The work done in a Phase I ESA is defined by ASTM E Impacts and mitigation measures for land use are potentially significant. However, the FFREIS and this EAW adequately address the state s concerns. 10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. Table 2. Land Cover Land Cover Type Wetlands (Types 1-8) Before (acres) Open Water 1 63 Type 1 1,477* After (acres) Type ,200-2,000** Type Type 6 1 Minimal Type Lawn/Landscaping <100 0 Wooded/Forest 71 0 Impervious Surface 50 (approx.) 50 (approx.) Brush/Grassland 100 2,000-2,200 Storm water Pond Same as Open Water Cropland 6,000 1,900*** (approx.) TOTAL 8,086 5,213-7,013 Table Notes: Much of the Type 1 wetland was double-counted as cropland, which accounts for the acreage discrepancy. Note for Type 2 After, the current wetland mitigation plan uses the bottom of the diversion channel for wetland creation. Additional detail on wetland replacement will be provided in the EIS. Note for Cropland After, this indicates the area on the outside ( left bank ) of the diversion channel excavated material berms may include cutting and bailing of vegetation for hay after the Project is constructed. Tilling of the left bank would not be permitted. Other (describe): The staging area is approximately 60 square miles and is defined by the red outline in Figures 2, 3 and 4. There are approximately 33,000 acres within this area that would be impacted by an additional one foot or more of water at the 100-year event. Wetlands within this area have not been 13

14 delineated because the areas that are wetland now would remain wetland with the Project. The areas that are farmed would continue to be farmed. Some homes and farmsteads and the lawn/landscaping associated with them would be transformed to either farmland or wetland once they were bought out and removed. If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: The before and after totals are not equal because some acres are double counted. For example, the majority of the impacted wetlands are also cropland and/or grasslands. Cover type impacts are not considered to be potentially significant; however, additional analysis and detail beyond that provided in the Scoping EAW and FFREIS will be provided in the EIS. 11. Fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. Type of Site/Type of Habitat Wetland habitat affected by the Project is a mix of wet meadow, shallow marsh, shallow open water, floodplain forest, and farmed seasonally flooded wetland. Farmed seasonally flooded wetlands constitute the vast majority of the affected acreage (1,477 acres). The aquatic habitats located within the Project area consist of riverine habitat and are typical of the Red, Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Rush, Lower Rush and Maple Rivers. Depths on the Red River and the tributaries generally vary from 1 to 2 feet near shoreline areas to about 5-20 feet at mid-channel locations, depending on the tributary and season. Substrates present include a mixture of silt, sand, and clay. The river channel is approximately 100 feet wide in the vicinity of the Red River control structure. Tributary river channels are approximately feet wide where the diversion channel would cross the other tributaries. Upland habitat in the Project area is mainly cropland, with a mixture of hay ground, pasture, hobby farms and suburban dwellings. Wooded areas include mostly a mixture of bottomland hardwood tree species and low vegetation. The small percentage of upland wooded area is made up of shelter belts planted near farmsteads and homes or along field edges. These shelter belts include some coniferous trees but mostly small shrubs and fast growing tree species. Birds and mammals that inhabit the rural portions of the Project area include raptors, gray partridge, pheasant, mourning dove, waterfowl, fox squirrel, white-tailed deer, red fox, raccoon, mink, badger, striped skunk, white-tailed jackrabbit, beaver, muskrat, and numerous song birds. The riparian vegetation (forested floodplain) associated with the Red, Wild Rice and Sheyenne Rivers represents most of the terrestrial wildlife habitat that presently exists within the Project area. Other than this limited riparian habitat, wildlife resources in the Project area are limited to those species that can reside in drainage ways, shelterbelts, cultivated fields and road right-of-ways. Habitat within the urban areas is limited primarily to manicured lawns and landscaped areas. These areas provide limited habitat for wildlife species. Therefore, wildlife resources are mostly limited to songbirds, reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. The total surface area that would be directly impacted by Project features includes approximately 8,200 acres. Of these areas, disturbance caused by Project-related construction would be limited to the diversion channel, connecting channel, excavated material berms, tie-back levee footprints, and construction areas of the river crossing structures. Forested land in the staging area would be inundated with water while the Project operates (greater than a 10 year event). Some tree loss may occur in the staging area depending on the frequency, depth and duration of flooding, and operation relative to the 14

15 growing season. The majority of tree species in the Project area are floodplain tree species (such species generally have a high tolerance to flooding). There would be some areas where upland forest and riparian forested areas would be cleared or otherwise impacted. The diversion channel and Project features would impact approximately 60 acres of forested wetland and 71 acres of upland forest. The loss of these wooded areas would be permanent but would be mitigated for by converting farmed wetland along the Red River into floodplain forest at a 2:1 ratio (262 acres). There would also be tree plantings as part of the recreational features. A table identifying proposed mitigation measures is included in response to Item 30 of this Scoping EAW. The other upland areas to be disturbed are currently farmed and have reduced natural resource value. Portions of the excavated material berms would be available for farming after completion. All other disturbed upland areas would be replanted with native species, primarily grasses that would have positive impacts on the area s overall habitat value. Overall, the Project would have a permanent impact on the terrestrial habitat identified but the eventual changes in vegetative cover through the proposed mitigation measures would have some long term beneficial impacts on the avian and small mammal groups. As part of the assessment of impacts to wetland resources and based on recommendations from an interagency mitigation team that was convened by the USACE, the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.3) was used to assess the functions of wetlands within the diversion channel corridors. The primary functions assessed as part of the MnRAM include: Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime, Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality, Maintenance of Character of Wildlife Habitat, Aesthetics/Recreation/Education/Cultural Benefit, Flood/Storm-water Attenuation, and Downstream Water Quality. Due to the similarity of the identified wetlands, functionality was not assessed on every wetland. Instead, at least one randomly-chosen basin representative of each type of wetland found within the diversion channel alignment was assessed for typical functionality. The types of wetlands found within the diversion channel corridor, in accordance with the Eggers & Reed wetland classification system, are farmed seasonally flooded basin (PEMAf is the corresponding Cowardin classification), fresh wet meadow (PEMB), shallow marsh (PEMC), floodplain forest (PFO1A) and shallow open water (PUBH). European settlement of the Project area involved extensive drainage in order to make production of agricultural crops possible, and much of the land within the proposed diversion channel alignment is currently used for agricultural purposes. Although the surface drainage systems (ditches) make agricultural production possible in many areas in most years, the ditches have not effectively removed hydrology from the surface in those areas determined to be wetland. These wetlands are farmed in most years, although crops are often lost, especially in the deepest parts of these shallow depressions. Wetlands in this area have been significantly impacted by agricultural practices, including the drainage of the natural hydrology, tilling of the soils and loss of the natural vegetation. The shallow marsh and floodplain forest wetland types, although usually left untouched by direct agricultural activity, have been affected by land uses in the area. Farmed Seasonally Flooded Wetlands 15

16 Wetlands found within active agricultural lands provide limited levels of functionality due to the extensive drainage and overall alteration that has taken place in the region. Over eighty percent of wetlands within the Project area are depressional field ditches and depressional isolated wetlands of the seasonally flooded basin type. Due to the extensive drainage systems, these seasonally flooded wetlands generally function at a low level for Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime and Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality (per MnRAM). When drainage moves water off the landscape more quickly than in a natural setting, wetlands do not have the opportunity to continually feed the downstream system with a supply of water, and the agricultural impacts directly affect the ability of the wetlands to maintain water quality within the basin. Because the wetlands are found within agricultural fields where many are regularly farmed, they also function at a low level for Maintenance of Character of Wildlife Habitat, and Aesthetics/Recreation/Education/Cultural Benefit (per MnRAM). Without natural vegetation, there is limited opportunity to provide wildlife habitat, but they do provide some resting habitat for migrating water birds. Theses wetlands provide limited aesthetic or recreational value. The depressional wetlands within agricultural fields do, however, generally provide moderate to high functionality for Flood/Storm-water Attenuation and Downstream Water Quality (per MnRAM). Those wetlands that have been shaped into shallow field ditches provide a moderate level of flood/storm water attenuation because they are able to hold some of the water on the landscape for at least a short period of time. Shallow isolated depressional wetlands provide a high level of functionality for flood/storm water attenuation, as they are able to hold the water on the landscape until it can evaporate or infiltrate, rather than run off to nearby over-stressed water courses. All crop field wetlands provide a moderate level of functionality for protection of downstream water quality because they are able to filter at least some of the nutrients from the agricultural runoff before the water enters nearby waterways. The seasonally flooded depressional wetlands generally do not provide any level of function for amphibian or fish habitat or shoreline protection; therefore MnRAM analysis was not applicable for these functions. Fresh Wet Meadow and Shallow Marsh Wetlands Fresh wet meadow and shallow marsh wetlands that are not actively farmed within the diversion corridor provide similar levels of functionality as those described above for farmed seasonally flooded wetlands, with a few noted differences. For Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality (per MnRAM), wet meadows and shallow marshes provide a moderate level of functionality. With natural vegetation present, such as cattails (Typha sp.), the water quality within the wetland is treated through the plants uptake of nutrients. These wetlands also provide a moderate level of wildlife habitat because of the natural vegetation. Floodplain Forest Wetlands Floodplain forest wetlands provide a moderate level of functionality for maintenance of the hydrologic regime, as they are able to gradually feed the river system with water stored in the soils following flood events. In addition, the forest canopy provides a moderate level of function for wildlife habitat. Floodplain forest restoration is planned as mitigation for impacted stream riparian areas consisting of floodplain forest wetlands. Shallow Open Water Wetlands In the proposed diversion channel corridor, there are two areas classified as shallow open water. One is a constructed storm water retention pond at the west edge of Prairie Rose, and the other is located adjacent to the Wild Rice River and is surrounded by a floodplain forest on private property. The storm water retention pond functions at a high level for flood and storm water attenuation as well as protection of downstream water quality, and it functions at a low to moderate level for most other functions, such as amphibian and wildlife habitat and maintenance of hydrologic regime. The shallow open water basin adjacent to the Wild Rice River performs at a low to moderate level for all measured functions. While it 16