PEMBINA-EMERSON PORT OF ENTRY COMMERCIAL BYPASS - State · PDF fileENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PEMBINA-EMERSON PORT OF ENTRY COMMERCIAL BYPASS Project No. IM-6-029(120)216 . PCN . 20330

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL A

SSE

SSM

EN

T

PEMBINA-EMERSON PORT OF

ENTRY COMMERCIAL BYPASS

Project No.

IM-6-029(120)216

PCN

20330

Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry Pembina County, North Dakota

29

Prepared by

NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA

http://www.dot.nd.gov/

DIRECTOR

Grant Levi, P.E.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Robert A. Fode, P.E.

February 2016

23 USC § 409 NDDOT Reserves All Objections

http://www.dot.nd.gov/

FEBRUARY 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry

Commercial Bypass

Project No. IM-6-029(120)216, PCN 20330

Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 303

_______________________________ ___2/17/16___ Date

Kevin Michel Engineering Services Team Leader Federal Highway Administration

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need For The Action .............................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Description of the Proposed Project ...................................................................... 1 1.3 Need for the Project ............................................................................................... 3 1.4 Purpose of the Project ............................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2 Alternatives .............................................................................................. 8

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Description of the Proposed Build Alternatives ..................................................... 8

2.2.1 Alternative A: No Build Alternative .................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Alternative B: Build Alternative: Single-Lane Commercial Bypass ..................... 9

2.2.2.1 Access Control .......................................................... 13 2.3 Description of the Proposed Options ................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Option 1: Dynamic Message Signs .................................................................... 13 2.3.2 Option 2: Electronic Plaques ............................................................................ 14 2.3.3 Option 3: Automated Queue Detection Warning System ................................. 14

2.4 Estimated Construction Cost: Alternative B ......................................................... 15 2.5 Alternatives and Options Considered but Discarded from Further Analysis ........ 15

2.5.1 Option 4: Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossing .............................................. 15 2.5.2 Option 5: Border Wait Time Dynamic Message Signs ...................................... 15

Chapter 3 Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences ............................... 17

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 Land Use Impacts/Mitigation ........................................................................... 17 3.3 Prime and Unique Farmland................................................................................. 20

3.3.1 Prime and Unique Farmland Impacts .............................................................. 20 3.4 Social .................................................................................................................... 21

3.4.1 Social Impacts/Mitigation ................................................................................ 23 3.5 Pedestrians and Bicyclists ..................................................................................... 24

3.5.1 Pedestrians and Bicyclists Impacts/Mitigation ................................................ 24 3.6 Economic .............................................................................................................. 25

3.6.1 Economic Impacts/Mitigation .......................................................................... 25 3.7 Highway Traffic Noise ........................................................................................... 26

3.7.1 Highway Traffic Noise Impacts/Mitigation ...................................................... 27 3.8 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 28

3.8.1 Water Quality Impacts/Mitigation ................................................................... 29 3.9 Wetlands .............................................................................................................. 31

3.9.1 Wetlands Impacts/Mitigation .......................................................................... 33 3.10 Wildlife and Vegetation ........................................................................................ 36

3.10.1 Wildlife and Vegetation Impacts/Mitigation ................................................... 37 3.11 Invasive Species .................................................................................................... 39

3.11.1 Invasive Plant Species Impacts/Mitigation ...................................................... 40

North Dakota Department of Transportation IM-6-029(120)216 PCN 20330 | Environmental Assessment February 2016

i

3.12 Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 40 3.12.1 Floodplains Impacts/Mitigation ....................................................................... 41

3.13 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................... 41 3.13.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts/Mitigation ............................... 45

3.14 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 49 3.14.1 Cultural Resource Impacts/Mitigation ............................................................. 49

3.15 Hazardous Waste ................................................................................................. 50 3.15.1 Hazardous Waste Impacts/Mitigation ............................................................. 50

3.16 Visual .................................................................................................................... 51 3.16.1 Visual Impacts/Mitigation ................................................................................ 53

3.17 Energy ................................................................................................................... 54 3.17.1 Energy Impacts/Mitigation .............................................................................. 55

3.18 Construction ......................................................................................................... 55 3.18.1 Construction Impacts/Mitigation ..................................................................... 55

3.19 Cumulative and Indirect Impacts.......................................................................... 57 3.19.1 Alternative A: No Build .................................................................................... 58 3.19.2 Alternative B: Single-Lane Commercial Bypass ................................................ 58

3.20 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................. 62 3.21 Environmental Consequences Not Relevant to the Project ................................. 62

3.21.1 Relocations ...................................................................................................... 62 3.21.2 Joint Development ........................................................................................... 62 3.21.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 62 3.21.4 Water Body Modification ................................................................................ 62 3.21.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................................... 63 3.21.6 Coastal Barriers ................................................................................................ 63 3.21.7 Coastal Zone .................................................................................................... 63 3.21.8 Low Income and Minority Living Areas ............................................................ 63 3.21.9 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Involvement .................................................................... 63

3.22 Permits ................................................................................................................. 63 3.23 Environmental Commitments .............................................................................. 63 3.24 Summary .............................................................................................................. 65

Chapter 4 List of Preparers, Comments and Coordination ......................................... 69

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 69 4.2 Preparers .............................................................................................................. 69 4.3 Coordination with Agencies and Organizations ................................................... 69 4.4 Public Involvement ............................................................................................... 71

4.4.1 Agency Coordination Package ......................................................................... 71 4.4.2 Public Hearing .................................................................................................. 71

Chapter 5 References .............................................................................................. 72


ii

FIGURES

Figure 1-1, Project Location Map ....................................................................................................... 2

Figure 1-2, Typical POE Congestion .................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1-3, Northbound Delay Duration by Hour ............................................................................... 4

Figure 1-4, Mid-Continent Trade Corridor System ............................................................................. 5

Figure 1-5, Associated Projects ......................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2-1, Existing Northbound Interstate Lanes Typical Section...................................................... 9

Figure 2-2, Proposed Single Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section ............................................... 9

Figure 2-3, Proposed Three-Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section ............................................. 10

Figure 2-4, Proposed Single Lane Layout and Gore Area .................................................................. 10

Figure 2-5, Proposed Build Alternative Layout................................................................................. 12

Figure 2-6, Example of Electronic Plaque ......................................................................................... 14

Figure 3-1, Required Right of Way ................................................................................................... 18

Figure 3-2, Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 19

Figure 3-3, Soils ............................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 3-4, Surface Waters Resources .............................................................................................. 30

Figure 3-5, Groundwater Resources ................................................................................................ 32

Figure 3-6, Northern Long-eared Bat Potential Habitat ................................................................... 46

Figure 3-7, Whooping Crane Migration Corridor & Sightings ........................................................... 48

Figure 3-8, Whooping Crane Migration Corridor & Sightings ........................................................... 48

Figure 3-9, Developed Corridor in Study Area, View North .............................................................. 52

Figure 3-10, View East/West from Project Area............................................................................... 53

Figure 3-11, Example of DMS Technology ........................................................................................ 54

TABLES

Table 2-1, Cost of Options ............................................................................................................... 15

Table 3-1, Construction Impacts and ROW within Project Area ....................................................... 18

Table 3-2, Land Use within Project Area .......................................................................................... 18

Table 3-3, Soils in Project Area ........................................................................................................ 21

Table 3-4, NAC Land Use Descriptions ............................................................................................. 26

Table 3-5, FHWA Noise Model Results ............................................................................................. 28

Table 3-6, Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................................. 34

Table 3-7, North Dakota Noxious Weeds ......................................................................................... 39


iii

Table 3-8, Pembina County Noxious Weeds .................................................................................... 39

Table 3-9, North Dakota Aquatic Nuisance Species ......................................................................... 40

Table 3-10, NDDOT Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate Species and Critical Habitat Affect Determination Table ............................................................................................................. 43

Table 3-11, Environmental Commitments Summary ....................................................................... 64

Table 3-12, Summary of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................. 65

Table 4-1, Preparers ........................................................................................................................ 70

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Agency Coordination Package Materials

Appendix B: Solicitation of Views Package & Responses

Appendix C: Alternative Figures and Diagrams

Appendix D: Section 7 Endangered Species Act Affect Determination Package

Appendix E: Public Hearing Materials

Appendix F: NRCS Farmland Protection Policy Act Coordination

Appendix G: Environmental Assessment Comments and Responses

APPENDICES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry Transportation Study; Gannett Fleming; February 2013

Wetland Delineation Report; KLJ; Border Crossing Improvements; June 2014

Noise Study Memorandum; KLJ; Traffic Sound Level Screening Pembina Border Crossing Memo to NDDOT; July 2015

Cultural Report; KLJ; Pembina Border Crossing Project No. 6-029(120), PCN 20330: A Class III Cultural Resource Investigation in Pembina County, North Dakota; February 2014

Traffic Operations Report; KLJ; Interstate Highway 29 Pembina Border Crossing; Revised July, 2015

Traffic Operations Report Memorandum - Pembina Border Crossing Traffic Analysis for Proposed Commercial Bypass; KLJ; October 2015

Geotechnical Evaluation Report; Braun Intertec; Proposed Pembina Border Crossing 49th Parallel between the US & Canada; Pembina, North Dakota; June 2014

Final Concept of Operations Report (CONOPS); KLJ; Pembina Border Crossing; December 2015


iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

A Area of Potential Effect (APE) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (AAQM) American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) B Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) Best Management Practices (BMPs) Beyond the Border Working Group (BBWG) Border Wait Times (BWT) C Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) Canada-United States Trusted Traveler Program (NEXUS) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Concept of Operations Report (CONOPS) Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) D Decibel(s) (dBA) Documented Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) E Endangered Species Act (ESA) Environmental Assessment (EA) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Executive Order (EO) F Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Free and Secured Trade (FAST) G General Services Administration (GSA) I Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) L Leaking underground storage tank (LUST) M Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)


v

N National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) North Dakota Game and Fish (NDGF) North Dakota Parks and Recreation (NDPR) North Dakota Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES) Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) Not Applicable (NA) P Port of Entry (POE) Primary Inspection Lanes (PIL) Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) R Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Right-of-way (ROW) Regional Service Area (RSA) S Square feet (SF) State Historical Society of North Dakota (SHSND) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) T Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) U Underground storage tank (UST) United States (US) US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) US Department of Agriculture (USDA) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) US Geological Survey (USGS)


vi

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

1 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 771, which prescribes the policies and procedures of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. An EA is prepared when there is uncertainty as to the significance of the impacts of the project. The EA is an informational document which discloses potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of a proposed project to the public and interested parties. The EA will also serve as a decision-making tool for the project’s decision makers.

1 . 2 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t

Port of Entries (POE), or locations where goods or people may enter or leave a country under legal supervision, are essential to recreation, tourism and economics between the United States and its bordering countries. The Pembina-Emerson POE is located 70 miles south of Winnipeg, Manitoba and 80 miles north of Grand Forks, North Dakota. The Pembina-Emerson POE is an important transportation element in the economic and trade initiatives of Canada and the US, as well as Manitoba and North Dakota. In 2011, the Pembina-Emerson POE processed nearly $17 billion in two-way truck based trade, and this figure is expected to grow to $27.5 billion per year by 2035. The Pembina-Emerson POE is the fifth largest port in terms of trade value between the United States (US) and Canada. It is also one of only three 24-hour POE’s within North Dakota and Manitoba (Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013). The proposed project is expected to begin construction in the early spring of 2017 and end construction in the fall/winter of 2017.

The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT), in cooperation with the lead federal agency, FHWA, is proposing the following improvements at the Pembina-Emerson POE: construct new dedicated lanes to segregate commercial traffic and primary automobile traffic; relocate the outbound inspection area and duty free pick-up building to a location accessible to commercial and primary automobile traffic; construct auto and truck parking areas, install Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology and a pedestrian crossing to accommodate users. Please refer to Figure 1-1, Project Location Map. In Figure 1, the term “project area” is used to define the boundary that encompasses impacts associated with the proposed project.


1

Figure 1-1, Project Location Map


2

1 . 3 N e e d f o r t h e P r o j e c t

The Pembina-Emerson POE was last updated in the 1990s. Problems in effectiveness and safety were apparent once the POE was opened to traffic. These problems have been amplified by increased traffic, security and border protection policies (Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013).

Project improvements are needed to meet transportation demands, safety, system linkage and legislation needs at the POE.

Figure 1-2, Typical POE Congestion

Transportation Demand:

More than 500,000 northbound vehicles travel through the POE annually, and numbers are expected to exceed one million vehicles by the year 2035 (Magnusson et al., 2013). Auto and commercial vehicle traffic is not physically separated, causing traffic congestion and long queues leading up to the border. Ideal delay time at the POE is 10 minutes or less for autos and 30 minutes or less for commercial vehicles; however, a common delay lasts 2 to 4 hours, and maximum delay has been 11 hours (Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013). Lack of commercial primary inspection lanes,

no separated dedicated Free and Secured Trade (FAST) lanes for commercial vehicles and limited NEXUS (Canada-US Trusted Traveler Program) lanes are the primary cause of delays.

Accelerating tourism and commerce along the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor and through the POE have increased traffic and negatively impacted crossing

Mid-Continent

Trade Corridor

This corridor links Manitoba with the

central North American market of 100 million people. Key Cities along the

Corridor include: Winnipeg,

Minneapolis, Kansas City,

Oklahoma City, Dallas-Fort Worth,

Austin, San Antonio,

Monterrey, Guadalajara and

Mexico City. At the northern limit, the Port of Churchill in Manitoba provides North America with

seasonal marine access to and from global markets, and

is linked to southern

transportation routes by rail. The Corridor connects Manitoba with the

United States Interstate system, including I-29, I-35, and I-94; Pembina-

Emerson POE Transportation Study (2013).

TRAFFIC QUEUE: A LINE OF VEHICLES AWAITING

THEIR TURN TO PROCEED


3

efficiency. Please refer to Figure 1-4, Mid-Continent Trade Corridor System on page 11. In 2012, 20+ minute northbound delay periods were estimated at 541 automobile occurrences per day. Without improvements to the existing POE, by 2035 this number is projected to increase to 2,957 automobile occurrences per day waiting 20+ minutes (Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013). Please refer to Figure 1-3, Northbound Delay Duration by Hour. These increased frequencies of wait times would greatly contribute to the dissatisfaction of travelers, slow down economic benefits and greatly increase traffic congestion at the border.

*Figure taken from Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013

Figure 1-3, Northbound Delay Duration by Hour

Safety:

The Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study (2013) raised multiple safety concerns within the existing POE. The current location of the duty-free pick-up building forces both commercial truck and auto traffic to exit and re-enter the traffic stream to the left side of the roadway, causing commercial vehicles to block traffic flow both inbound to, and outbound from the duty-free building. Truck drivers park alongside the road and walk across traffic to the duty-free pick-up building due to lack of adequate parking and a specified pedestrian crossing. These actions amplify traffic congestion, debilitate traffic flow and raise safety concerns.

During extended traffic delays with long queues, POE personnel need to manually manage traffic flows, which reduces the number of staff that are able to process travelers. This can cause a reduction in the number of PILs that can be open increasing overall border wait times. Manually managing traffic also increases the likelihood of a staff member being struck by a vehicle.


4

In addition, implementation of the proposed action would create a need to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians across both the commercial and northbound interstate lanes. Pedestrian data has been obtained from CBP, which indicated that 30 pedestrians per day would use the crossing to access proposed facilities between the northbound interstate lanes and the commercial lanes. There are currently no designated pedestrian crossings to facilitate safe travel across lanes. The existing layout jeopardizes individual safety of the traveling public when drivers leave their vehicles and cross traffic lanes in search of restroom facilities during unexpectedly long traffic queues.

System Linkage:

System linkage is defined as the manner in which the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor functions as a whole, across international boundaries. Please refer to Figure 1-4, Mid-Continent Trade Corridor System. The POE is a key border crossing along the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. Traffic congestion and long queues at the POE negatively impact the ability to transport goods and people along the Corridor. A more efficient crossing between the US and Canada is needed to improve system linkage and support the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. In relation to the need to keep and improve the Trade Corridor system linkage as a whole, Canada is planning a future, similar project on the southbound portion of the POE to improve access into the US. Please refer to Figure 1-5, Associated Projects on page 12.

Figure 1-4, Mid-Continent Trade Corridor System

Legislation:

The Mid-Continent Trade Corridor is also designated as a High Priority Corridor (Section 1105(c); 23) under the National Highway System Congressional High Priority Corridor List under the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

The proposed project is part of US President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 2011 US and Canada joint declaration; Beyond the Border: Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness. The 2011 Beyond the Border declaration established four areas of cooperation, three of which the proposed project would address:

Promoting trade facilitation, economic growth, and jobs; Strengthening cross-border law enforcement; and Protection of shared critical infrastructure, including enhancing continental and global

cybersecurity


5

Figure 1-5, Associated Projects


6

The US and Canada also established a Beyond the Border Working Group (BBWG) composed of representatives from appropriate departments that have developed an action plan. The action plan sets priorities and specific initiatives and goals for reaching the defined vision. The BBWG will report progress to the president and prime minister on an annual basis (Department of Homeland Security, 2011).

1 . 4 P u r p o s e o f t h e P r o j e c t

The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce traffic congestion and border wait times for northbound traffic, address transportation demand, improve system linkage and safety for Pembina-Emerson POE staff and travelers and meet legislative priorities, as well as facilitate international trade.


7

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES


This chapter provides information on the development and evaluation of project alternatives. The development of project alternatives is directly tied to the purpose and need for the project. Included in this evaluation are analyses of the build and no-build alternatives. The no-build alternative would leave the existing border crossing in place as it is today; the build alternative would include the improvements defined herein. The proposed improvements are for the northbound traffic only. CBSA is developing an associated project north of the International Boundary to receive traffic from the proposed commercial lanes, as further described in Section 2.2, The Development Process of Alternatives.

2 . 2 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e P r o p o s e d B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s

Build and no-build alternatives were considered for addressing transportation demands, safety, system linkage and legislation needs at the POE. The build alternative would consist of:

Constructing a commercial bypass that diverges from Interstate 29 via a single lane off-ramp;

Relocating the outbound inspection area to a location accessible to commercial and primary automobile traffic;

Providing a site location for the relocated duty free pick-up building;

Constructing auto and truck parking areas and;

Constructing a pedestrian crossing across Interstate 29 and the proposed commercial lanes.

The above elements of the build alternative were ultimately developed through a process beginning with the build recommendations in the Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study (2013). The build alternative was then further developed through agency and international coordination.

The build alternative was also developed to address current inefficiencies at the POE. The proposed project would utilize existing facilities, technology and infrastructure to the fullest practical extent, while incorporating design enhancements and new technology where current facilities, technology and infrastructure are lacking.

2.2.1 Alternative A: No Build Alternative

The northbound lanes of Interstate 29 at the Pembina-Emerson POE consists of a three-lane, paved roadway with 12-foot driving lanes, 4-foot shoulder on the west and a 10-foot shoulder on the east. The existing lane configuration consists of two automobile driving lanes and one commercial driving lane. The current duty free pick-up building is located on the west side of the roadway, with minimal room for traffic queues on the roadway. For existing lane details, please refer to Figure 2-1, Existing Northbound Interstate Lanes Typical Section.


8

Figure 2-1, Existing Northbound Interstate Lanes Typical Section

The no-build alternative (Alternative A) would leave the existing lanes in place with no improvements planned. This alternative would not address: transportation demands, safety, system linkage or legislation.

This alternative has not been selected as the preferred alternative because it does not meet the purpose or need of the proposed project. This alternative has been evaluated in order to provide a baseline for the build alternative being considered.

2.2.2 Alternative B: Build Alternative: Single-Lane Commercial Bypass

The build alternative would consist of constructing a 0.89 mile auxiliary lane on Interstate 29 with a single lane off-ramp separating commercial vehicle and automobile traffic. The commercial bypass would split from a single lane in to three lanes, as well as direct traffic to the site location for a new duty free pick-up building, parking for commercial vehicles and parking for public restroom facilities. For lane details, please refer to Figure 2-2, Proposed Single Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section and Figure 2-3, Proposed Three-Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section.

Figure 2-2, Proposed Single Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section


9

Figure 2-3, Proposed Three-Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section

Under the proposed configuration, a gore would split the existing three-lane section of Interstate 29 from the proposed commercial bypass lanes. Where the commercial bypass lanes splits from

one lane to three lanes, the western lane will provide access to the duty free pick-up building. The two west lanes will continue as a commercial bypass for non-FAST commercial vehicles, while the east-most lane will serve as a dedicated lane for FAST vehicles. Please refer to Figure 2-4, Proposed

GORE: A TRIANGULAR PIECE OF LAND FOUND WHERE ROADS MERGE OR SPLIT

Figure 2-4, Proposed Single Lane Layout and Gore Area

Single Lane Layout and Gore Area

Located at the start of the off-ramp, just north of the gore area would be an approximately 24,000 square foot (SF) CBP outbound inspection area. An approximately 57,750 SF commercial vehicle parking lot would be located on the north side of duty free pick-up building. An at-grade pedestrian crossing would provide a connection from the POE plaza, to the termination of NDDOT right-of-way (ROW) just to the west of Old Highway 81. Please refer to Figure 2-5, Proposed Build Alternative Layout and in Appendix C, Proposed Commercial Bypass Configuration.

Currently, there is not pedestrian facilities along Old Highway 81, however the NDDOT understands that there is strong local support for a shared-use path to be constructed between Pembina, North Dakota and Emerson, Manitoba. This future trail would likely be constructed by the City of Pembina or a joint effort between the cities of Pembina/Emerson at an unknown date.

A signed crosswalk would be constructed across both the northbound lanes of Interstate 29 and the proposed commercial bypass lanes. The speed limit prior to the location of the proposed crosswalk would be reduced from standard

SHARED-USE PATH: A MULTI-USE TRAIL OR PATH, PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FORM VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. CAN BE USED BY PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS AND OTHER NON-MOTORIZED TRAVELERS - FHWA


10

interstate speeds to 25 mph. The crossing would be used by CBP employees, duty free pick-up employees and any public pedestrian traffic that would require access to the CBP building, located on the west side of the Pembina POE. The pedestrian crossing would also provide a connection point (near old highway 81) for a future non-motorized trail between Pembina, ND and Emerson, MB. This connection will end within the proposed ROW. The Cities of Pembina and Emerson have discussed this trail and are in the early discussion/planning phase to determine how they may fund this future project. Sidewalks would be installed to provide connections, as necessary, to project components located within the proposed project. For an overview of the proposed build alternative, please refer to Figure 2-5, Proposed Build Alternative Layout.

Currently, non-motorized users (pedestrians, bicycles, horses, etc.) cross the border through an automobile PIL. According to CBSA, when staff is available, an employee will escort the non-motorized user to a PIL where they are processed for entry in to Canada. NDDOT will maintain access for these users during construction as well as after construction. Canada currently allows non-motorized users to cross the border in this manner. The proposed project will not alter CBSA's procedures for processing non-motorized users.

Existing drainage structures (culverts) would remain in place and be extended to accommodate the larger roadway width. New drainage structures will be added according to NDDOT design standards (NDDOT, 2013).

The build alternative would include additional lighting to be installed, consisting of three 140 foot and fifteen 40 foot high light poles installed along the proposed commercial lanes, from the beginning of the commercial auxiliary lane to the international border. Please refer to the figure in Appendix C, Proposed Commercial Bypass Highway Lighting.

The duty free pick-up building, CBP outbound inspection building and highway lighting would require underground utilities such as water, sewer, electrical and fiber optic to be installed. Coordination with Ottertail Power has been ongoing and the existing overhead line will be relocated underground during the project. Please refer to the figure in Appendix C, Power Pole Schematic.

Traffic would be maintained during project construction. Barriers and appropriate traffic control and directional signs would be used as needed.


11

Figure 2-5, Proposed Build Alternative Layout


12

2.2.2.1 Access Control

The build alternative would create three new access points to the existing northbound interstate lanes. Please refer to Appendix C, Proposed Interstate Access Control. These new access points consist of the following:

1. Off-ramp (Exit) of the commercial lanes from Interstate 29 northbound to access the relocated duty free pick-up building and public restrooms, outbound inspection parking area and the new CBSA commercial PILs and “Last Turnoff before Canada” for commercial vehicles

2. Off-ramp (Exit) of the auto lanes to access the relocated duty free pick-up building and the public restrooms

3. On-ramp (Access) of the auto lanes to access the interstate from the duty free pick-up building and the public restrooms

In an effort to minimize access points, the access from the parking lot and duty free pick-up building would be shared with the exit for the last turnoff before Canada lane. Although the build alternative would create three new access points along the Interstate 29 northbound lanes, two access points would be eliminated, as follows:

1. Complete closure of the existing CBP outbound inspection area from Interstate 29 northbound

2. Complete closure of the existing duty free pick-up building parking access

The access and exit points to the existing facilities would be closed by either installing boulevards or removing the existing pavement and installing a ditch along Interstate 29 northbound.

Two existing access points would be modified to promote safer conditions as follows:

1. The opening of the “Last Turnoff before Canada” access will be modified to better identify permissible and impermissible movements

2. The existing CBP outbound inspection building would be relocated or removed to extend the existing concrete to allow commercial vehicles to make turns

2 . 3 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e P r o p o s e d O p t i o n s

Three ITS options include Dynamic Messaging Signs (DMS), electronic plaques and automated queue detection warning systems. For all three options, please refer to the figure in Appendix C, Proposed ITS Options.

2.3.1 Option 1: Dynamic Message Signs

DMS will allow flexibility in being able to change lane assignments or post informational messages to the traveling public. DMS would provide multiple benefits to the traveling public and the employees at the border. A few benefits would include the ability to efficiently shut down the commercial and/or the automobile plazas in the event of unforeseen circumstances and to alert the traveling public in advance. In the event of a full border closure, proper warning would be provided to the traveling public before passing the Pembina interchange, allowing them to safely exit the Interstate without creating additional congestion at the border.


13

Consideration is being given to construct four DMS with this project. DMS, if constructed, are expected to be located at these locations:

• Prior to Pembina exit;

• After the Pembina exit (Existing DMS);

• Prior to the Historic Turnout; and

• Approaching the Pembina-Emerson POE before the commercial bypass exit

2.3.2 Option 2: Electronic Plaques

Electronic plaques are small electronic panels placed below static lane signs to indicate simple directions to travelers. Please refer to Figure 2-6, Example of Electronic Plaque. Electronic plaques may display symbols, such as red “X”, green “O” or short messages such as “NEXUS” or “FAST”. The electronic plaques are a way to relay limited supplemental information to static signs such as lane assignments. Compared to DMS technology, electronic plaques do not display dynamic messages. Electronic plaques would show which lane(s) should be used by NEXUS/FAST capable vehicles, as well as indicate open/closed lanes.

Static signs with electronic plaques may be installed at the following locations:

• North of the historic turnout to show upcoming lane assignments

• North of the commercial bypass off-ramp, along the automobile lanes

Figure 2-6, Example of Electronic Plaque

2.3.3 Option 3: Automated Queue Detection Warning System

During high traffic periods, this warning system would alert approaching drivers of stopped vehicles ahead. The system would exist in the form of pavement or radar sensors. The traffic detection system could either alert travelers in advance through either stand-alone signing with electronic features such as flashing lights, and/or messages could be displayed on DMS (Option 1). Messages could be displayed through either of these two methods, such as “Stopped Vehicles Ahead” or “Reduce Speed” alerting drivers of stopped traffic leading up to the POE which could reduce rear end crash potential.


14

2 . 4 E s t i m a t e d C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t : A l t e r n a t i v e B

Estimated baseline construction costs 1

Estimated construction costs include contingencies.

associated with the build alternative is $8.5 million. Options 1 through 3 would add costs listed in Table 2-1, Cost of Options.

Table 2-1, Cost of Options

Baseline $8.5 million Option Cost Added to Baseline Total Construction Cost

ITS Technology Options Option 1: DMS $1.1 million $9.6 million Option 2: Electronic Plaques $0.5 million $9.0 million Option 3: Automated Queue Detection

$0.5 million $9.0 million

All Options added to Baseline $10.6 million

2.5 A l t e r n a t i v e s a n d O p t i o n s C o n s i d e r e d b u t D i s c a r d e d f r o m F u r t h e r A n a l y s i s

2.5.1 Option 4: Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossing

This option consisted of a grade separated pedestrian crossing either over or under both the northbound lanes of Interstate 29 and the proposed commercial bypass lanes, and would have been used in lieu of the at-grade crossings described in Alternative B.

Multiple concerns were associated with the grade separated crossing. Pedestrian separated grade crossings are often ignored by users, due to the increased travel distance (FHWA, 2012). This could cause an increase in crash potential and decrease safety as motorized vehicles would not be expecting pedestrian traffic across Interstate 29 or the commercial bypass lanes. An underground option was eliminated due to seasonal flooding and geotechnical engineering concerns. In comparison with the at-grade pedestrian crossing, additional site maintenance would have been required with the separated grade crossing. CBP also identified safety concerns associated with additional patrols needed for a separated grade crossing.

2.5.2 Option 5: Border Wait Time Dynamic Message Signs

The NDDOT considered installing Border Wait Time (BWT) ITS components as a part of the proposed project. The BWT components would be utilized to collect data regarding the amount of time that users wait to cross the international border.

1


15

During the Concept of Operations phase, the NDDOT has coordinated with Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT). Both agencies have agreed that it would be most beneficial to install BWT technology at the border that analyzes traffic data in both the northbound and southbound direction and should be done in unison; however, based on technology recently used and tested at other POEs, many forms of BWT technology are expensive and unreliable. Furthermore, some of the BWT devices used did not meet the 85% accuracy threshold, set as a standard through the Beyond the Border initiative. For this reason, the NDDOT has decided to discard Border Wait Time technology from the current project.


16

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES


This chapter addresses positive and negative environmental impacts of the alternatives, including options, presented in Chapter 2. The inventory and evaluation of the existing environment provides the necessary baseline from which to determine the impacts of the proposed project alternative. The potential effects of the improvements at the Pembina-Emerson POE to the human environment, physical environment and natural environment are discussed, as well as potential mitigation measures for adverse impacts.

For the purpose of this document, the majority of the impact categories do not distinguish between the build alternative and options due to their similar footprint; however, impacts contingent upon design are discussed where applicable.

3 . 2 L a n d U s e

The major land resource area in the project area is classified by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as the Red River Valley of the North. The area is the bed of glacial Lake Agassiz. Soils are generally grassland soils with thick dark surfaces composed of high levels of organic materials and/or heavy clay soils with a frigid temperature regime. This area is characterized by native prairie vegetation such as big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), switch grass (Panicum virgatum) and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium). Much of the native land has been converted to agricultural or ranchlands supported by crops such as soybeans, spring wheat and sugar beets (USDA NRCS, 2006).

The project area occurs south of the Pembina/Emerson, US/Canada border within and adjacent to an existing POE and developed transportation corridor, Interstate 29. The project area predominantly consists of cultivated land, grasslands, wetlands, developed lands and a riparian corridor associated with the Red River.

3.2.1 Land Use Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – Alternative A would not affect land use within or around the project area.

Alternative B – The build alternative would require the permanent incorporation of adjacent land from its existing uses into a transportation corridor due to proposed construction and ROW acquisition. Approximately 8.5 acres would be purchased as ROW for the proposed project. Please refer to Figure 3-1, Required Right of Way for details. Approximately 5.0 acres of temporary construction easement would be acquired from GSA for construction activity between the existing northbound and southbound interstate lanes at the POE.


17

Figure 3-1, Required Right of Way

STUDY AREA: AN AREA 0.5 MILES SURROUNDING, AND INCLUDING, THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA.

Land use patterns would not be substantially impacted by construction since areas temporarily affected would be allowed to return to their existing state following construction activities. The amount of land that would be impacted by the construction footprint

within the project area is approximately 16 acres. Since the project area consists largely (67 percent or 57.3 acres) of previously developed and agricultural areas, the land use impacts and land ownership changes within the study area would be minimal. Land use acreage impacts are listed in Table 3-1, Construction Impacts and ROW within Project Area . Please also refer to Table 3-2, Land Use within Project Area and Figure 3-2, Land Use.

Table 3-1, Construction Impacts and ROW within Project Area

ALTERNATIVE ACRES OF TEMPORARY

CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT

ACRES OF PERMANENT ROW

ACRES OF CONSTRUCTION

IMPACT

Alternative B 5.0 8.5 16.3

Table 3-2, Land Use within Project Area

LAND USE TYPE ACRES IN PROJECT AREA PERCENT OF AREA Cultivated 35.6 43 Developed 21.7 26 Grassland 9.30 11 Water 1.55 2 Wetland 6.20 8 Forested 7.75 10 Total 82.1 100.0


18

Figure 3-2, Land Use


19

3 . 3 P r i m e a n d U n i q u e F a r m l a n d

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 provides protection to prime and unique farmlands. The FPPA defines prime farmland as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). Prime farmland includes land that possesses the above characteristics and could be or is being used currently to produce livestock and timber. It does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific high-value food and fiber crops, as determined by the Secretary. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Section 658.5 of the FPPA provides criteria for federal agencies to identify and take into account the adverse effects of federal programs on the protection of farmland. Federal agencies are to consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could lessen adverse effects and to ensure that such federal programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with state and local government, as well as private programs and policies to protect farmland.

The NRCS Web Soil Survey identified 14.2 acres of soils classified as “prime and unique farmland” located within the project area.

3.3.1 Prime and Unique Farmland Impacts

Alternative A – Alternative A would not affect prime or unique farmland.

Alternative B – The build alternative would result in impact to land classified as prime and unique farmland; however, portions of the prime and unique farmland are already functioning as a developed transportation corridor. These areas would incur no significant impacts to prime and unique farmlands. Please refer to Table 3-3, Soils in and Figure 3-3, Soils on page 28.

Through the appropriate coordination with the NRCS, an AD-1006 form was completed. Based on the coordination, there would be no significant impact to prime and unique farmland. Please Refer to Appendix F, NRCS Farmland Protection Policy Act Coordination.


20

Table 3-3, Soils in Project Area

Map Unit Symbol Soil Name

Percent Slope

Composition in Upper 60 Inches

Erosion Factor

Farmland Classification

% Sand

% Silt

% Clay

T

Kf

I119A Bearden silty clay loam

0 to 1 6.9 64.4 28.7 5 0.28 Prime Farmland

I130A Hegne-Fargo silty clays

0 to 2 5.3 44.7 50 5 0.24 Prime Farmland if drained

I234B Nutley-Fargo, dry, silty clays


I248A Wahpeton silty clay


I906F Orthernts-Aquents-Urban land highway complex

0 to 35 8.2 54.8 37 5 0.28 Not Prime Farmland

3 . 4 S o c i a l

Social impacts are those that affect the quality of life for persons who live and work in the communities along a project study area and travelers utilizing the route. Impacts to the social environment may include changes in community cohesion for various social groups; changes in travel patterns and accessibility; impacts on school districts, recreation areas, churches, businesses, police and fire protection; and/or impacts on highway, traffic and overall public safety.

Accelerating tourism and commerce along the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor and through the POE have increased traffic and negatively impacted crossing efficiency. More than 500,000 northbound vehicles travel through the POE annually and numbers are expected to exceed one million vehicles by the year 2035 (Magnusson et al., 2013). Auto and commercial vehicle traffic are not physically separated, causing traffic congestion and long queues leading up to the border. Ideal delay time at the POE is 10 minutes or less for autos and 30 minutes or less for commercial vehicles; however, a common delay lasts 4 hours and maximum delay has been 11 hours (Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013). In 2012, 20+ minute northbound delay periods were estimated at 541 total occurrences (all autos) per day. Without improvements to the existing POE, by 2035 this number is projected to increase to 2,957 autos per day waiting 20+ minutes (Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013). The increased frequency of wait times would greatly contribute to the dissatisfaction of travelers, slow down economic benefits, and greatly increase traffic congestion at the border.


21

Figure 3-3, Soils


22

The current location of the duty-free building forces both commercial vehicle and auto traffic to exit and re-enter the traffic stream to the left side of the roadway, causing commercial vehicles to block traffic flow both inbound to and outbound from the duty-free building. No public restrooms are available for northbound traffic until they enter Canada and passengers have been known to relieve themselves on the side of the road or cross traffic without designated crosswalks in search of restroom facilities, raising safety concerns for both drivers and pedestrians.

During extended traffic delays, border security staff must manually manage traffic flows, which removes border staff from conducting regular duties at the port and could have national security implications. Individual safety and national security is jeopardized when drivers leave their vehicles and cross commercial lanes in search of restroom facilities during unexpectedly long traffic queues.

3.4.1 Social Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – The no-build alternative would leave the current roadway and POE facilities in place as they exist today. This alternative would not address the increasing social demand for an efficient highway facility, would not meet the NDDOT, FHWA and US and Canadian goals for an efficient and reliable international trade corridor, and would not address long queue wait times. Furthermore, this alternative would not improve safety for travelers or POE staff, or provide a higher degree of reliability along the corridor.

Alternative B – There would be temporary additional traffic delays at the POE during construction of the new facilities; however, the project would have long-term, beneficial impacts on travel patterns and accessibility. The work zone is off the existing roadway alignment and would be closed to traffic during construction. The proposed commercial lanes would be opened after completion of construction, but would not function at capacity until projects on both sides of the international border are completed. Access to the historical site south of the project area would be maintained throughout construction. Signs will be placed as needed to indicate the access points to travelers.

Following project completion, traffic flow, traffic safety and highway accessibility would be improved compared to existing baseline conditions. These improvements would be achieved through the addition of commercial bypass lane(s) as well as a new location for the duty free pick-up building. These improvements would reduce the need for POE staff to manually direct traffic, further increasing safety.

The CBSA project will enhance PIL capabilities by adding three commercial PILs to receive commercial vehicle traffic from the proposed bypass. The new PILs will be FAST capable, promoting less interruption to traffic flow during processing. The proposed project would facilitate international trade, reduce traffic congestion and border wait times, promote regional business development and increase safety for POE staff and travelers. The proposed project would utilize existing facilities, technology and infrastructure to the fullest practical extent, while incorporating design enhancements and new technology where current facilities, technology and infrastructure are lacking.

The relocation of the duty free pick-up building would eliminate commercial vehicles crossing the traffic lanes making traffic flow more efficient and safe. Staff of the duty free business would


23

temporarily experience displacement during the move to the new duty free pick-up building. In addition, all goods from the existing building would be transferred to the new creating temporary extra work and potential stress on the employees; however, these effects would be temporary until after the move to the new building. Long term benefits of the relocation would include more safe and efficient access to restroom and parking facilities, and improved traffic flows at the POE.

The at-grade pedestrian crossing would provide a safe crossing for pedestrians across Interstate 29 and the commercial bypass lanes by utilizing flashing beacons, crosswalks and stoplights. There are inherent safety concerns with an at-grade crossing of an interstate; however, the nature of the site and the slowed/stopped conditions of traffic (25 mph speed limit) provide an exception. In addition, CBP does not have any additional security concerns with an at-grade pedestrian crossing; with the ability to see the entire crossing at all times, there is no location that could become a blind-spot from easy visual inspections.

The proposed project would result in net benefit to the social environment of both the direct project area and surrounding areas and no mitigation is proposed.

Options 1, 2, and 3 - Installation of ITS technology options such as DMS, electronic plaques and/or automated queue detection warning systems would provide safety benefits to travelers and employees. Employees could shut down the commercial or the auto plazas lanes in the event of unforeseen circumstances, such as a crash, increasing site security. Proper notifications of changing speed limits and lane configurations would give traffic adequate time to adjust their speeds or locations on the highway, increasing safety for travelers.

3 . 5 P e d e s t r i a n s a n d B i c y c l i s t s

Numerous federal laws are in place that encourage the consideration of non-motorized modes of transportation during planning and construction of transportation facilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation of Act of 1973, ensures that pedestrians with disabilities have opportunity to use the transportation system in an accessible and safe manner. In addition, the 2012 TransAction III, North Dakota’s Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan, discusses NDDOT’s desire to maintain a safe relationship between motorized and non-motorized users of the roadway system. All projects should work towards the goal of incorporating walking and biking facilities into transportation planning and encourage planning that goes beyond the minimum design requirements.

Pedestrian data has been obtained from CBP, which indicated that 30 pedestrians per day would utilize the proposed pedestrian facilities that would provide a connection from the POE plaza to Old Highway 81 crossing both the automotive and commercial bypass lanes.

3.5.1 Pedestrians and Bicyclists Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – Alternative A would not construct a pedestrian crossing or provide improvements at the POE. This Alternative would not meet ADA regulations or the NDDOT’s desire to have a safe relationship between motorized and non-motorized travelers. The lack of a designated crossing point and unsafe conditions for non-motorized travelers would continue.


24

Alternative B – Non-motorized travelers would experience a positive impact from the proposed pedestrian crossing. Pedestrians and POE staff would experience increased safety. A safe crossing would be provided across from the POE plaza to Old Highway 81.

VIEWSHED: GEOGRAPHICAL AREA THAT IS VISIBLE FROM A LOCATION. IT EXCLUDES PORTIONS BEYOND THE HORIZON OR OBSTRUCTED FROM VIEW BY TERRAIN OR OTHER FEATURES.

The pedestrian crossing would meet all NDDOT, FHWA and State regulations.

Pedestrians may experience temporary delays at the POE

during construction. Dust and noise levels, and the viewshed for pedestrians would be affected by construction temporarily; however, the overall impact of the proposed project would be positive for non-motorized travelers.

3 . 6 E c o n o m i c

The need for the proposed project is driven by increased traffic counts at the POE, which is the fifth largest port in terms of trade value between the US and Canada (projected $19.1 billion US dollars in 2015). The POE’s significance to North America’s economy and national security is reflected in a 2011 joint US-Canada Beyond the Border Presidential Declaration, the binational 5-year Border Infrastructure Investment Plan, and the National Highway System Congressional High Priority Corridor List under the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. More than 500,000 northbound vehicles are processed through the POE on an annual basis and numbers are expected to exceed one million vehicles by the year 2035. Two-way truck-based trade is anticipated to grow to $27.5 billion by the year 2035 (Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013).

Although increased traffic counts and trade volumes are healthy for US and Canada’s economies, the increases have amplified infrastructure, operational and national security deficiencies at the POE.

3.6.1 Economic Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – The no-build alternative would leave the existing roadway in place as it exists today. This alternative would not address the demand for an efficient highway system that can facilitate economic growth in the US and Canada, would not meet the NDDOT goals for an interregional system and would not improve driver safety along the roadway.

Alternative B – The proposed project would result in positive economic impacts to the US and Canada. This transportation corridor, the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor, stretching from Mexico to Canada is the fifth largest port based on trade value between the US and Canada and is essential in bringing commodities to the market. Anticipated improved traffic flows would allow the Pembina-Emerson POE to effectively manage the projected bi-directional traffic of two million autos and vehicles by 2035. The increased capacity capabilities and efficiency of the POE would also facilitate the economic growth of truck-based trade to an anticipated $27.5 billion. Once completed, the project would provide an efficient and reliable means of over-the-road transport of goods, services and people.

Project construction would also provide a net economic benefit to the region in the form of jobs and the purchase of various equipment, goods and materials from local and regional vendors. In


25

addition, project construction would generate indirect benefits to the local economy via factors such as worker expenditures on lodging, food, and personal goods and services.

An immediate impact due the project would be the upfront cost of constructing the chosen alternative and option; however, the long term benefits from updating the POE would outweigh the immediate cost of construction. Due to the economic benefits of project construction and post-construction function, no significant adverse economic impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is proposed.

3 . 7 H i g h w a y T r a f f i c N o i s e

The requirements of CFR 772.17 were completed through a screening analysis study and memorandum. The procedures for completing a noise study did not follow NDDOT’s guidelines for Type 1 projects. The project is classified as a Type 1 project because it alters the existing highway and includes adding additional interstate lanes through the commercial bypass. Although this classification technically suits this project, the only adjacent property classified as residential land-use are on Canadian property. Due to this unique situation, FHWA and NDDOT required a noise screening analysis to be completed using FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model. KLJ completed this analysis and provided the results to the NDDOT, FHWA, and all Canadian Agencies governing the residential property.

A noise analysis model was completed consisting of 21 modeled receivers placed in three land use categories located in the study area. Noise abatement criteria (NAC) thresholds vary by land use type. Please refer to Table 3-4, NAC Land Use Descriptions. The resulting decibel (dBA) levels were analyzed for the existing 2012 layout, proposed layout using 2012 traffic levels and proposed layout using 2035 traffic levels, then compared to NAC thresholds to determine noise levels. Traffic levels utilized for the noise analyses were bi-directional levels stated in the Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study (2013). Noise sensitive areas in the study area include residential, trails, developed lands, retail facilities and undeveloped lands that are not permitted. The full analysis and results can be found in the report on file at the NDDOT office in Bismarck, North Dakota and is appended by reference to this document (KLJ, 2015).

Table 3-4, NAC Land Use Descriptions

Noise

Category

Description

FHWA Noise Abatement

Criteria (dBA)

B Residential 67

E Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other

developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A-D or F

72

F

Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities,

manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water

treatment, electrical), and warehousing

___


26

3.7.1 Highway Traffic Noise Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – If the no-build alternative is chosen, noise levels in the study area along existing Pembina-Emerson POE would increase as future traffic volumes and congestion increase. The no-build alternative would not improve traffic through-flow (i.e., the rate at which traffic passes a given point) which would result in receptors being exposed to a given traffic noise source for a longer periods of time.

Alternative B – Traffic noise impacts can occur under either of the following conditions:

1. Traffic noise levels are within one dBA of the FHWA NAC thresholds; or

2. When an increase of 15 dBA is projected to occur upon project completion or 20 years hence, regardless of the absolute noise level (NDDOT, 2012).

The residential area of Emerson, Manitoba is projected to only have an increase of 4.65 dBA at year 2035 traffic levels of one million northbound vehicles; well below the 15 dBA guidance level of impact. All proposed 2035 traffic levels would be more than one dBA below the FHWA NAC thresholds. The NDDOT, FHWA and Canadian governing authorities all confirmed that no further studies or mitigation are necessary since the Canadian territory harboring the residential properties does not fall under the requirements of 23 CFR 772 nor NDDOT’s Noise Policy. Please see Table 3-5, FHWA Noise Model Results.


27

Table 3-5, FHWA Noise Model Results

Receiver

Existing 2012

Traffic (dBA)

Proposed 2012

Traffic (dBA)

Proposed 2035

Traffic (dBA)

Sound Levels +/-Existing

Proposed 2012

Traffic (dBA)

Sound Levels +/-Existing

Proposed 2035

Traffic (dBA)

Noise Category

FHWA NAC

(dBA)

Proposed 2035

Traffic dBA

deviation from

FHWA NAC

1 59.8 59.7 63.5 -0.1 3.7 E 72 8.5

2 62.5 62.3 67.4 -0.2 4.9 E 72 4.6

3 56.6 56.5 61.5 -0.1 4.9 F — —

4 57.6 61.7 64.9 4.1 7.3 E 72 7.1

5 48.6 51.3 54.6 2.7 6 F — —

6 58.5 59 62.2 0.5 3.7 E 72 9.8

7 51 57.5 60.6 6.5 9.6 F — —

8 60.9 58.3 61.4 -2.6 0.5 E 72 10.6

9 48.5 52.5 55.6 4 7.1 F — —

10 54.7 65 68.1 10.3 13.4 F — —

11 49.9 55.1 58.2 5.2 8.3 F — —

12 49.7 55.5 58.6 5.8 8.9 E 72 13.4

13 44.6 47.8 50.8 3.2 6.2 F — —

14 59 56.5 59.5 -2.5 0.5 E 72 12.5

15 39 40.3 43.4 1.3 4.4 F — —

16 46.4 49.7 52.8 3.3 6.4 E 72 19.2

17 41.4 43.2 46.3 1.8 4.9 B 67 20.7

18 56.8 56.6 59.2 -0.2 2.4 E 72 12.8

19 58.1 58.1 60.9 0 2.8 E 72 11.1

20 61.5 60.9 64.7 -0.6 3.2 E 72 7.3

21 67.8 67.7 70.6 -0.1 2.8 E 72 1.4

3 . 8 W a t e r Q u a l i t y

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, provides the authority to establish water quality standards, control discharges into surface and subsurface waters, develop waste treatment management plans and practices, and issue permits for discharges (Section 402) and for dredged or fill material (Section 404). Water bodies in the study area include several wetlands.

The project is located in the Lower Red River watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 09020311). The Red River is approximately 400 feet east of the study area and drainage from the study area would travel approximately 1,345 feet east, or by National Hydrography Dataset (NDH) flowline, 3,266 feet northeast into the Red River (USGS, 2014). The nearest domestic water well is located 3.8 miles


28

southwest of the study area. Please refer to Figure 3-4, Surface Waters Resources and to page 38 for Figure 3-5, Groundwater Resources.

3.8.1 Water Quality Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – Under the no-build alternative, existing water quality conditions would continue, there would be no additional degradation of water quality in the study area, and there would be no modifications of water bodies or impacts to water resources.

Alternative B – Construction activities have the potential to temporarily degrade water quality as a result of sedimentation and soil erosion during construction activities (i.e., roadway construction, culvert installation, parking lot construction, etc.) adjacent to wetlands or water bodies within or adjacent to the study area. Several types of construction equipment and vehicles, such as earth-moving equipment, dump trucks, concrete trucks and cranes would be used during construction, and associated fuels and lubricants for the equipment would be stored in staging areas. Fuel and oil from this equipment may be spilled or leaked into the study area, surface water or groundwater; although practices would be put in place to prevent this from occurring.

A Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be obtained from the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) Division of Water Quality to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. This Certification is necessary when construction or operation of facilities may result in any discharge into navigable waters, such as the Red River. This Certification would require a multi-disciplinary approach to achieve solutions and is essential for protection of water quality and enhancement of aquatic ecological health.

The implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the design of the proposed project would be utilized to reduce water quality impacts to negligible levels. The contractor would be required to obtain a North Dakota Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES) Permit from the NDDH prior to commencement of construction. As part of the NDPDES permit, the contractor must have a plan for erosion and sediment control pre-and post-construction that reflects the BMPs discussed below. In addition, waste material would be disposed of in accordance with State and Federal laws and in a manner which avoids impacts to the river channel and associated riparian areas.


29

Figure 3-4, Surface Waters Resources


30

As part of the BMPs, NDDOT would require the construction contractor to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would locate secure and contained refueling areas away from surface waters and implement maintenance and monitoring measures to reduce the potential for spills and leaks. NDDOT would require the construction contractor to minimize the amount of stockpiled material and locate stockpiles away from surface waters. Disturbed soils in construction areas and borrow sites have heightened erosion concerns which could lead to sedimentation and turbidity issues in local waters. To mitigate the erosion concerns of the proposed project, BMPs would include measure such as the following: mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric fencing; sediment traps and ponds; or surface water interceptor swales and ditches may be used to intercept and slow storm water runoff and thus protect surface waters. Long-term water quality impacts are not expected if BMPs are properly implemented, monitored, and maintained during construction; however; even with BMPs some short-term, minor water quality impacts for sediment are possible. Such impacts are anticipated to be minor.

Due to the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures identified above, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to water quality.

3 . 9 W e t l a n d s

Wetlands are defined both in the 1977 Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as areas inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency to support, and under normal circumstances do or would support, a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Three parameters that define a wetland, as outlined in the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual are hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology (USACE, 1987). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and other similar areas. Wetlands are an important natural resource serving many functions, such as providing habitat for wildlife, storing floodwaters, recharging groundwater and improving water quality through purification.

KLJ conducted a field wetland delineation for the proposed project on May 22, 2014. Nine wetlands totaling 25.52 acres were identified within the project area. A wetland delineation report was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on June 26, 2014 and a jurisdictional determination was received on August 18, 2014. Of the nine wetlands identified within the project area, one (Wetland 4) was determined to be jurisdictional by the USACE.


31

Figure 3-5, Groundwater Resources


32

3.9.1 Wetlands Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – Alternative A would have no impact on the identified wetlands.

Alternative B – Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated at a USACE approved NDDOT Mitigation Bank (Kirkeby/Schuster Mitigation Bank) located in the Red River Regional Service Area (RSA). The proposed project build alternative would permanently impact approximately 5.25 acres of natural/ jurisdictional, zero acres of natural,/non-jurisdictional, zero acres of artificial/jurisdictional and approximately 0.36 acres of artificial/non-jurisdictional wetlands; (i.e., produced as a result of man-induced alterations to the landscape); for a total of approximately 5.61 acres of permanent wetland impacts. All impacts are considered permanent and no temporary impacts would occur with the build alternative. Please refer to Table 3-6, Wetland Impacts.

Wetland mitigation is defined as the actions taken to avoid, minimize or completely eliminate the need to impact wetlands. Mitigation sequencing defined by the NDDOT (2014) and USACE include avoidance, minimization and mitigation. Adverse impacts to wetlands were avoided or minimized where possible by adjusting the alignments, slopes and geometry of the proposed build alternative. Where avoidance and minimization were not possible, impacts would be mitigated. Mitigation occurs in the form of either wetland restoration, creation, enhancement and/or preservation when impacts cannot be avoided or minimized.

Permanent impacts to wetlands would be mitigated at a USACE approved NDDOT mitigation bank. Mitigation is anticipated to occur in the Kirkeby/Schuster Mitigation Bank in the Red River RSA. Bank selection is dependent on credit availability and USACE approval of release of credits at the time of Section 404 permitting.


33

Table 3-6, Wetland Impacts

Wetland Impact Table

Wetland Number Location

Cowardin Class Type Size Feature

USACE Jurisdictional

Wetlands*

Wetland Impacts (acres)

USFWS Easement Impacts (acres)

Wetland Mitigation

Mitigation Required Location; Acreage; Wetland#;

Ratio

Onsite Mitigation

Acres Temp Perm Temp Perm EO

11990 USACE USFWS

1 Sec. 33, T164N, R51W

PEMA Basin 0.46 Natural N 0 0 0 0 N N N NA NA

2 Sec. 33, T164N, R51W


3a Sec. 33, T164N, R51W

PEMCx Ditch 0.06 Artificial N 0 0 0 0 N N N NA NA

3b Sec. 33, T164N, R51W

PEMCx Ditch 0.19 Artificial N 0 0 0 0 N N N NA NA

3c Sec. 33, T164N, R51W


4a Sec. 33, T164N, R51W

PEMCx Ditch 1.26 Artificial Y 0 0 0 0 N N N NA NA

4b Sec. 33, T164N, R51W

PEMCx Ditch 0.83 Artificial Y 0 0 0 0 N N N NA NA

4c Sec. 28, T164N, R51W

PEMC Drainage 17.97 Natural Y 0 5.25 0 0 Y Y N

Kirkeby/ Schuster Mitigation Bank; 5.25

acres; 1:1 Ratio

NA


34

Wetland Impact Table

Wetland Number Location

Cowardin Class Type Size Feature

USACE Jurisdictional

Wetlands*

Wetland Impacts (acres)

USFWS Easement Impacts (acres)

Wetland Mitigation

Mitigation Required Location; Acreage; Wetland#;

Ratio

Onsite Mitigation

Acres Temp Perm Temp Perm EO

11990 USACE USFWS

4d Sec. 28, T164N, R51W

PEMA Drainage 0.84 Natural Y 0 0 0 0 N N N NA NA

5** Sec. 28, T164N, R51W

PEMAx Ditch 2.61 Artificial N 0 0.01 0 0 N N N NA NA

6** Sec. 28, T164N, R51W


7** Sec. 28, T164N, R51W


8** Sec. 28, T164N, R51W


9** Sec. 28, T164N, R51W


Totals 22.52 0 5.61 0 0 NA * All impacts to wetlands (natural/jurisdictional and natural/non-jurisdictional), regardless of size, as well as impacts greater than 0.10 acre to artificial/jurisdictional wetlands require mitigation. ** All artificial/non-jurisdictional, deep water, other waters less than 300 linear feet (determined by USACE case by case), Preamble Wetlands, and temporary impacts do not require mitigation.


35

3 . 1 0 W i l d l i f e a n d V e g e t a t i o n

Wildlife

The Red River is located within the tallgrass prairie region of the Northern Great Plains, which provides habitat for many wildlife species. Some wildlife species in this area are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and rabbit and squirrel species. The species of fish in the area include yellow perch (Perca flavescens), bullhead (Ameiurus spp.), northern pike (Esox lucius), walleye (Sander vitreus) and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (NRCS, 2006). In addition, the riparian areas along the Red River provide suitable habitat for waterfowl and other migrating species. Nesting waterfowl include cavity nesting wood ducks (Aix sponsa) and hooded mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus), which require riparian habitat. Other nesting waterfowl species include, but are not limited to, the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), blue-winged teal (Anas discors) and Canada goose (Branta canadensis).

Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 916 U.S.C. 703–711, provides protection for 1,026 migratory bird species, 58 of which are legally hunted. The MBTA regulates impacts to these species such as direct mortality, habitat degradation and/or displacement of individual birds. The MBTA defines ”taking” to include by any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, killing, possessing, or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof, except when specifically permitted by regulations.

The proposed study area lies in the Central Flyway of North America. As such, this area is used as resting grounds for many birds on their spring and fall migrations, as well as nesting and breeding grounds. The Red River Valley riparian areas also provide both nesting and migration habitat for migratory bird species including many passerine and warbler species (Red River Basin Board, 2000).

Bald and Golden Eagles

Additional protection is provided for the bald and golden eagles through the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) of 1940. 16 U.S.C. 668–668d, as amended, was written with the intent to protect and preserve bald and golden eagles, both of which are treated as species of concern within the Department of the Interior (DOI). Under the BGEPA, “take” includes to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb, wherein “disturb” means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to the degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, causing injury, death or nest abandonment.

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has been sighted in North Dakota along the Missouri River during spring and fall migration periods and periodically in other places in the state such as the Devils Lake and Red River areas. Preferred habitat for the bald eagle includes open areas, forests, rivers and large lakes. Bald eagle pairs tend to use the same nest year after year, building atop the previous year’s nest (USFWS, 2007).

The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) can be spotted in North Dakota throughout the Badlands and along the upper reaches of the Missouri River in the western part of the state. Golden eagle pairs


36

maintain territories that can be as large as 60 square miles and nest in high places including cliffs, trees, and human-made structures. They perch on ledges and rocky outcrops and use soaring to search for prey. Golden eagle preferred habitat includes open prairie, plains and forested areas (NDGF, 2012).

The North Dakota Game and Fish (NDGF) maintains a historical and current database of bald and golden eagle and other sensitive raptor nest locations. The North Dakota Gap Analysis Project was conducted by the USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) to map the predicted distribution for wildlife species in North Dakota, including both the bald and golden eagle. According to the predicted distribution maps, there is sparse areas of potential breeding habitat for the bald eagle occurring within the study area. There are no instances of golden eagle habitat within the study area (USGS, 2005).

Aquatic Resources

The US Geological Survey (USGS), in conjunction with the NDGF, identified the Red River as a Class I Fishery (1978). Habitat was evaluated by rating the hydrological system including permanent streams, their tributaries and those protected by or proposed for protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A Class I Fishery is considered the highest valued fishery resource in the state of North Dakota, has documented occurrences of state or federally listed threatened or endangered species and would have very low potential for reclamation to existing conditions if the resource was damaged.

Two North Dakota Parks and Recreation (NDPR) North Dakota Natural Heritage Biological Conservation Database aquatic species of concern were identified within a one-mile radius of the project. These species include two freshwater mussel species; Wabash pigtoe (Fusconaia flava) and Maple leaf (Quadrula quadrula). Please refer to Appendix B, Solicitation of Views Package and Responses for a visual representation of these resources.

Vegetation

The study area consists primarily of agricultural land, trees, wetlands and previously developed land. The vegetation directly adjacent to the existing road is consistent with typical road ROW. One NDPR North Dakota Natural Heritage Biological Conservation Database plant community of concern was identified within a one-mile radius of the project area. The area of concern identified included a Cottonwood-willow floodplain area (Populus deltoides, Salix amygdaloides/S. exigua floodplain). Please refer to Appendix B, Solicitation of Views Package & Responses for a visual representation of these resources.

3.10.1 Wildlife and Vegetation Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – If the no-build alternative is chosen, there would be no direct construction impacts to wildlife or vegetation within the study area.

Alternative B – Due to the nature of the proposed project, there is potential to impact both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife resources.


37

Wildlife

Minor impacts to ground-dwelling wildlife would occur as existing habitat is fragmented and incorporated into an existing transportation corridor. The proposed project would increase the width of the existing roadway, requiring dirt work to occur adjacent to the existing corridor. Construction related activities would convert potentially suitable habitat into a transportation network and may also result in direct wildlife mortality through collisions with equipment.

A total of 9.9 acres of land would be permanently converted to a transportation corridor as a result of the proposed project. Some of this land to be permanently converted may be currently functioning as suitable wildlife habitat; however, more than 60 percent of the project area is currently classified as developed or agricultural; therefore, the overall project impact to wildlife habitat would be minor. The impacts discussed would not be new to the study area as the Pembina-Emerson POE and Interstate 29 transportation corridor are already existing.

Migratory Birds

The proposed project would require construction to occur during the migratory bird nesting and breeding season (approximately February 1 through July 15). In an effort to avoid impacts to migratory birds during the breeding and nesting season, a qualified biologist 2

A biologist is considered qualified if they have obtained a four year degree in a natural sciences field from an accredited university and is active in a professional environmental organization.

would conduct pre-construction surveys for migratory birds and their nests within five days prior to the initiation of all construction activities. Placement of nesting barriers, such as nets, on structures and mowing/grubbing (removal of and disposal of trees, shrubs, stumps, roots, brush and other surface objects) of the site prior to and throughout the nesting and breeding season may be completed in lieu of the pre-construction surveys to deter birds from nesting in the project area 3

Mowing/grubbing “throughout” the nesting/breeding season would be limited to those areas that had been grubbed prior to the nesting season.

. Measures to avoid or minimize harm to migratory bird species would be implemented. This may include suspending construction activities where necessary and/or maintaining adequate buffers to protect birds until the young have fledged from the nest. Due to the above mentioned BMPs and time restrictions, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a negative impact on migratory birds.

Bald and Golden Eagles

The proposed project is located within areas of sparse suitable bald eagle habitat; in addition, no nest sightings have been recorded within 0.5 mile of the project area. The nearest recorded nest in North Dakota is located 143 miles west of the study area; therefore, no impacts to bald or golden eagles are anticipated to result from the proposed project.

Aquatic Resources

The study area is located within one watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 0902032118), which is within the Red River region (USGS, 2014). Runoff within the watershed is generally by sheet flow until collected by perennial streams draining to the Red River or its tributaries. Potential impacts to the Red River watershed during construction as a result of erosion and sedimentation would be minimized by implementing BMPs such as fiber rolls, straw waddles, erosion mats, silt fences and

2

3


38

turbidity barriers. Permanent erosion control devices, such as silt fence and fiber rolls, would also be installed where appropriate. Spill prevention and containment measures would also be implemented.

Vegetation

The NDPR North Dakota Natural Heritage biological conservation database did not list any sensitive plant species within the project area; however, a sensitive plant community was listed within one mile of the project area. This plant community would not be impacted by the proposed project as it is approximately one mile from the proposed project area.

An approved NDDOT standard specification seed mixture would be used upon project completion for reclamation of disturbed areas.

Due to the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures identified above, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to wildlife or vegetation.

3 . 1 1 I n v a s i v e S p e c i e s

North Dakota has identified the following 11 noxious weeds within the state (NDDA, 2015), shown in Table 3-7, North Dakota Noxious Weeds.

Table 3-7, North Dakota Noxious Weeds

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Artemesia absinthium L. Absinth wormwood Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop Canada thistle Centaurea diffusa Lam Diffuse knapweed Euphorbia esula L. Leafy spurge Carduus nutans L. Musk thistle Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Acroptilon repens (L) DC. Russian knapweed Centaurea maculosa Lam. Spotted knapweed Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp. Dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax Tamarix ramosissima Saltcedar

Cities and counties are also able to list additional noxious weeds for control within their jurisdiction (NDDA, 2013). Pembina County’s additionally listed species are located in Table 3-8, Pembina County Noxious Weeds.

Table 3-8, Pembina County Noxious Weeds

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy Bassia scoparia Kochia

In addition to the state, county, and city listed noxious weeds, four aquatic nuisance species have been observed within the state. Please refer to Table 3-9, North Dakota Aquatic Nuisance Species.


39

Table 3-9, North Dakota Aquatic Nuisance Species

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Potamogeton crispus Curlyleaf pondweed Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil Hypophthalmichtyhs molitrix Silver carp Dreissena polymorpha Zebra mussel

According to the NDGF, zebra mussel veligers, or early, larval stages of mussels, have been found within the Red River since 2010. On a survey completed in June 2015 zebra mussel veligers were found near Pembina, North Dakota (NDGF, 2015).

3.11.1 Invasive Plant Species Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – If the no-build alternative is chosen, the study area would not be exposed to the possible introduction of new invasive plant species.

Alternative B – The spread of noxious weeds and aquatic nuisance species can have a detrimental effect to native vegetation and local wildlife. Invasive species tend to colonize quickly in disturbed areas and also out-compete their native counterparts for resources. To minimize the spread of these species, NDDOT standard specification approved seed mixtures consistent with the surrounding landscape and appropriate season, either late or early season mixes, would be used for reclamation activities.

No work within the channel of the Red River or other aquatic resources is expected. If work would occur within an aquatic resource, no equipment may be placed within any water of the state until NDGF approval has been obtained. In order to comply with North Dakota Administrative Rules 30-03-06 the contractor would provide the NDGF a minimum 72-hour notice prior to placing any vessels, vehicles, pumps and equipment in or on waters of the state to allow the NDGF an opportunity to inspect any and all such vessels, vehicles, pumps and equipment for the presence of aquatic nuisance species.

Considering the measures described above for minimizing the spread of nuisance species, it is unlikely that the project would introduce new or additional nuisance species to the study area. Consequently, project-related impacts from invasive plant species are considered to be negligible.

3 . 1 2 F l o o d p l a i n s

Floodplains constitute land situated along rivers and their tributaries that are subject to periodic flooding with a 1 percent chance of being flooded in any given year, on the average interval of 100 years or less. EO 11988, Floodplain Management, issued in 1977, requires federal agencies to avoid adverse impacts to floodplains whenever possible. Pursuant to EO 11988, potential effects on floodplains must be evaluated and alternatives that avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in floodplains must be evaluated. If it is found that the only practicable alternatives require siting in a floodplain, it is necessary to design or modify the project in order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain.

These flood protection measures are to be applied to new construction or rehabilitation. In addition, EO 11988 states that wherever practicable, structures are to be elevated above base flood level.


40

The North Dakota Floodplain Management Act of 1981 stipulates that the 100-year base flood elevations cannot be increased as a result of the proposed project.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 61-16.2 Floodplain Management requires that before issuing a permit or authorization to allow a use in a regulatory floodplain, the community responsible for permitting (Pembina County) or authorizing such use shall notify the state engineer of the proposed use. The state engineer shall assist communities and districts in their floodplain management activities. The state engineer must also grant notification of compliance with state and federal law prior to construction of this project.

3.12.1 Floodplains Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – Alternative A would have no associated floodplain impacts.

Alternative B – The proposed project is located within an area mapped as Zone A (no base flood elevations determined) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center. A non-building general floodplain permit and a Floodplain Development Permit Application for a walled or roofed building would be required from Pembina County.

The roadway has been designed to remain at generally the same elevation throughout the Red River floodplain and is not anticipated to alter flow and/or sediment transfer during high flow events. Some borrow and fill would be placed within the floodplain but in negligible levels in comparison to the watershed area and would not in levels high enough to impact the 100-year base flood elevation. The 100-year floodwater surface elevation is not anticipated to increase as a result of the proposed project.

Due to the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures identified above, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to floodplains.

3 . 1 3 T h r e a t e n e d a n d E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s

In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 50 CFR Part 402, as amended, each federal agency is required to ensure the following two criteria: first, any action funded or carried out by such agency must not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed endangered or threatened species or species proposed to be listed. Second, no such action can result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical by the Secretary of the US Department of Interior Secretary.

An endangered (E) species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened (T) species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Critical habitat for listed species consists of areas designated for protection that contain the necessary habitat features essential to conservation of a listed species. Formal consultation with the USFWS is required when an action may affect threatened or endangered species, or designated critical habitat. Proposed (P) species or critical habitat are those that are officially proposed for listing under the ESA as threatened or endangered; conferencing with USFWS is required if a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species, or adversely affect proposed critical habitat. Candidate (C) species are those that are under consideration for official listing and for which there is sufficient information to support listing. While candidate species are


41

not legally protected under the ESA, it is within the spirit of the ESA to consider said species as having significant value and worth protecting.

The following resources that may occur in Pembina County: gray wolf (E), whooping crane (E), Northern long-eared bat (T) and Sprague’s pipit (C). None of these species were observed in the field during field surveys (USFWS, 2015). Please refer to Table 3-10, NDDOT Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate Species and Critical Habitat Affect Determination Table.

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)

The gray wolf is the largest wild canine species in North America. It is found throughout northern Canada, Alaska, and the forested areas of Northern Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and has been re-introduced to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. While the gray wolf is not common in North Dakota, occasionally individual wolves do pass through the state. Historically, preferred habitat includes biomes such as boreal forest, temperate deciduous forest and temperate grassland. (USFWS, 2012).

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

The whooping crane is the tallest bird in North America. In the United States, the species ranges through the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions from North Dakota south to Texas and west into Colorado. Whooping cranes migrate through North Dakota along a band running from the south central to the northwest parts of the state. They use shallow, seasonally and semi-permanently flooded palustrine (marshy) wetlands for roosting and various cropland and emergent wetlands for feeding. During migration (typically from April 1 to May 15 and from September 10 to October 31), whooping cranes are often recorded in riverine habitats, with occasional recording near the Red River. Currently there are three wild populations of whooping cranes. Of these flocks, only one is self-sustaining (USFWS, 2012).

Whooping cranes will alter their landing and flight patterns to avoid areas of human disturbance including roadways, cities, and structures. Studies have shown whooping crane avoidance distances to roadways range from 2,021 feet (Johns et al, 1997) to 3,838 feet (Ward and Anderson, 1987).

The proposed project is adjacent to the Red River and is also adjacent to cropland and wetlands that could be used for feeding and roosting purposes. The proposed project is located far outside of the Central Flyway where 95 percent of whooping crane sightings within North Dakota have occurred.


42

Table 3-10, NDDOT Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate Species and Critical Habitat Affect Determination Table

Species Listing Guidance

FHWA Review Required? Determination Additional

Documentation Included Yes No Not

Present No

Effect Interior Least Tern E FHWA Review required for work in or along the shoreline of the Missouri River

System including reservoirs from April 15 through August 1. X

Whooping Crane E

FHWA Review required for the adjustment (raising, relocating) of existing above-ground utility lines; or for newly placed poles/towers that require overhead lines/guy wires; unless the adjustments or new installations are located in a highly developed or urban area.

X X X

Black-footed Ferret

E FHWA Review required for ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of prairie dog towns of at least 80 acres in size. Projects within the existing right-of-way will not require FHWA review.

X

Pallid Sturgeon E FHWA Review required for work in or along the shoreline of the Missouri River

(including reservoirs) and Yellowstone River Systems. X

Gray Wolf E FHWA Review required for roadway projects of 2 or more lanes on a new location (i.e. construction of a new roadway). X X

Poweshiek Skipperling E FHWA Review required for work occurring outside of the right of way in

undisturbed native tall grass prairie and wet swales. X

Piping Plover T

FHWA Review required for ground disturbing activities within ½ mile of designated piping plover critical habitat or known nesting sites. See link for piping plover designated critical habitat maps: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/pipingplover/

X

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid

T

FHWA Review required for all ground disturbing activities on non-flooded, undisturbed ground, known habitat, and native prairie. High probability of species in or near the Sheyenne National Grassland. X

Dakota Skipper T FHWA Review required for work occurring outside of the right of way in high

quality native prairie containing a high diversity of wildflowers and grasses. X


43

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/pipingplover/

Rufa Red Knot T

FHWA Review required for work activities impacting Piping Plover Critical Habitat or sewage lagoons. See link for piping plover designated critical habitat maps: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/pipingplover/

X

Northern Long-Eared Bat

T

FHWA Review required for work involving the removal of trees or buildings, ground disturbance in areas with caves, mines, and rock crevices, or work on structures. FHWA and USFWS have prepared a Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) for No Effect and May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect Determinations for this species. See following link for information on how to use PBA for NDDOT projects. http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/designmanual/reference-forms.htm

X X X

Sprague’s Pipit C

FHWA Review Required for work activities occurring outside the right of way in large native short-to-mixed grass prairie patches of approximately 72 acres or greater.

X X

Piping Plover Critical Habitat

D

FHWA Review required for ground disturbing activities within ½ mile of designated piping plover critical habitat or known nesting sites. See link for piping plover designated critical habitat maps: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/pipingplover/

X

Poweshiek Skipperling Critical Habitat

D

FHWA Review required for ground disturbing activities within 0.6 mile of proposed Poweshiek Skipperling critical habitat. See link for Poweshiek Skipperling proposed critical habitat maps: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/posk/CHmaps/poskNDchUnitMaps.pdf

X

Dakota Skipper Critical Habitat

D

FHWA Review required for ground disturbing activities within 0.6 mile of proposed Dakota Skipper critical habitat. See link for Dakota Skipper proposed critical habitat maps: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/dask/CHmaps/daskNDCHmaps24Oct2013.pdf

X


44


http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/designmanual/reference-forms.htm


http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/posk/CHmaps/poskNDchUnitMaps.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/dask/CHmaps/daskNDCHmaps24Oct2013.pdf

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

The northern long-eared bat is a medium to dark brown bat with wingspans of 9 to 10 inches. They are found in much of the eastern and central US (39 states) and Canada. They spend their winters hibernating in caves and mines, while the summer is spent in slightly warmer locations such as underneath tree bark or in live and dead trees. Breeding occurs in late summer/early fall prior to hibernation. Pregnant females migrate to summer areas to give birth between May to July. The northern long-eared bat feeds throughout the night on moths, flies, and other insects. The main threat to the species is from a disease known as white-nose syndrome. In addition, reduced access to caves and mines, wind farm operations and degradation to summering habitat are all contributing sources of bat mortality.

The study area largely consists of cropland and previously developed lands with few trees that would provide suitable habitat for the northern long-eared bat. A small patch of trees exists within the project area and the Red River riparian corridor to the east of the study area may provide suitable habitat for the Northern long-eared bat. The Northern long-eared bat study area contains a two mile radius surrounding the project area, per NDDOT Northern long-eared bat guidance (NDDOT, 2014). Please refer to Figure 3-6, Northern Long-eared Bat Potential Habitat.

Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)

The Sprague’s pipit is a small ground nesting bird that breeds and winters on open grasslands throughout the northern Great Plains. It feeds primarily on insects, spiders and seeds. The Sprague’s pipit is closely associated with native grassland habitat and breeds in Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota and south-central Canada. During the breeding season, Sprague’s pipits prefer large patches of native grassland with a minimum size requirement thought to be approximately 360 acres; Sprague’s pipits have not been observed in patches of grassland less than approximately 72 acres. The species prefers to breed in well-drained, open grasslands, and avoids grasslands with excessive shrubs. Preferred grass height is estimated to be between 10 and 30 centimeters. They may avoid roads, trails and habitat edges (USFWS, 2010).

Very little contiguous habitat is located adjacent to the study area due to existing ditches, roads, agricultural land and residential/urban developments.

3.13.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts/Mitigation

A Section 7 ESA Package was completed in cooperation with FHWA and the NDDOT to determine threatened or endangered species effects as a result of the proposed project. The Section 7 ESA Package was completed in lieu of typical agency coordination seen with EAs because this document started as a Documented Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). This package analyzed potential impacts associated with the various aspects of construction and operation to all of the above identified species. The effect determinations as proposed in the Section 7 Package for these species can be seen in Appendix D, Section 7 Endangered Species Act Affect Determination Package.

Explanation of these impact determinations as proposed and potential mitigation and conservation measures for each species are discussed in the following sections.


45

Figure 3-6, Northern Long-eared Bat Potential Habitat


46

Gray Wolf

While the gray wolf is not common in North Dakota, occasionally individual wolves do pass through the state. The proposed study area is located far from other known wolf populations and does not contain significant forested areas. The grassland areas present are small and fragmented by agricultural fields and would be unlikely to provide habitat for gray wolves. Although unlikely, there is potential for a transient gray wolf to pass through the study area and could be impacted similar to other ground dwelling mammals.

Due to the lack of potential habitat and the existing urban transportation corridor, the project is anticipated to have no effect on the gray wolf.

Whooping Crane

Whooping cranes migrate through North Dakota along a band running from the south central to the northwest parts of the state. The study area is well outside of the migration corridor where 95% of all confirmed whooping crane sightings in North Dakota have been documented. The closest known whooping crane sighting is approximately 40 miles southwest of the proposed project. Please refer to Figure 3-7, Whooping Crane Migration Corridor & Sightings.

As sited above, whooping cranes will alter their landing and flight patterns to avoid areas of human disturbance including roadways and buildings/structures. The roadway corridor is heavily used by auto and truck traffic which would deter whooping crane use of the cultivated crop fields and wetlands that are located within approximate 2,000 to 4,000 feet of the proposed project. Due to location of the project outside the whooping crane migration corridor (the nearest sighting occurred 40 miles southwest of the study area), high level of human activity near the proposed project as well as avoidance ranges of the whooping crane to developed areas; the construction of overhead signs and updated lighting is expected to have no effect on whooping cranes. Please refer to Appendix D, Section 7 Endangered Species Act Affect Determination Package.

Northern Long-Eared Bat

While the study area may contain a limited amount of potential habitat for the northern long-eared bat, tree removal associated with the project would be limited to approximately 10 isolated trees. According to the USFWS Northern long-eared bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance (2014), trees found in highly-developed urban areas are extremely unlikely to be suitable NLEB habitat. In addition, the riparian area to the east of the POE would not be impacted.

Tree removals would occur in the inactive season between October 1st and March 31st when bats are not likely to be present in the area. Due to the lack of suitable habitat in the direct study area, time of year restrictions and the urban nature of the project site, a determination of no effect has been made for the northern long-eared bat as a result of the proposed project. Please refer to Appendix D, Section 7 Endangered Species Act Affect Determination Package.


47

Figure 3-8, Whooping Crane Migration Corridor & Sightings

Figure 3-7, Whooping Crane Migration Corridor & Sightings


48

Sprague’s Pipit

A determination of no effect has been made for the Sprague’s pipit as a result of the proposed project. Small amounts of native grassland habitat are located within the study area; however, those areas are already characterized as edge habitat due to the existing roadway and are considered too small to support Sprague’s pipit populations. No additional habitat fragmentation would result from proposed roadway construction activities, as the activities would follow the existing alignment of Interstate 29 and the Pembina-Emerson POE.

3 . 1 4 C u l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470), as amended, requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; Public Law 96-95) provides protection to archeological sites located on public lands and also provides Federal officials increased authority to better manage archeological sites on public lands.

A literature review (Class I survey) of the State Historical Society of North Dakota (SHSND) site and manuscript files was conducted by KLJ on October 9, 2013. The Area of Potential Effect (APE), or cultural survey area, evaluated consisted of 85 acres. The APE includes all of the project area and may include areas outside of the project area which were surveyed for cultural resources. The literature review of the APE indicated that there are 17 previously recorded sites within one-mile of the APE, one site and five site leads within the APE.

The Class III pedestrian cultural resource inventory of the APE took place November 5, 2013. During the course of the inventory, two previously undocumented cultural resources were identified. One previously recorded site and five site leads were updated.

3.14.1 Cultural Resource Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – The no-build alternative would have no cultural resource impacts.

Alternative B – During the Class III inventory, one previously recorded site and five site leads and two newly recorded sites were encountered within the APE. Of these, one site lead and one newly recorded historic site are unevaluated but, have great potential for buried material relating directly to the Dumoulin Church. These sites would be avoided. The remaining site leads remain unevaluated as they were not field verified. No avoidance is required. The newly recorded railroad segment is recommended as Not Eligible for inclusion to NRHP thus, no avoidance is required. Provided that the unevaluated sites are avoided by the proposed project, KLJ recommends a finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the proposed project. In areas in which there is a high possibility of disturbing buried cultural materials, KLJ recommends that both a cultural and tribal monitor be present to ensure that historic properties are avoided.

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the determination of No Historic Properties Affected on April 11, 2014.


49

If previously undefined cultural resources are identified during the construction process, construction will halt until KLJ and NDDOT archaeologists can advise on how to precede. An Inadvertent Discovery Plan would also be created and submitted to NDDOT. This plan would include details regarding the procedures that would be followed in the event subsurface cultural resources are found during excavation work necessary for the proposed project. Work would not resume until written authorization to proceed was received from NDDOT. All project workers would be prohibited from collecting artifacts or disturbing cultural resources in any area under any circumstances.

Due to the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures identified above, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources.

3 . 1 5 H a z a r d o u s W a s t e

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulate hazardous materials, wastes and environmentally contaminated sites. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Enviromapper website was searched for RCRA and CERCLA sites within the project area. No RCRA or CERCLA sites are located within the project area; however, one Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) site is located adjacent to the project area.

The TRI is defined by the EPA as:

“…the management of over 650 toxic chemicals that pose a threat to human health and the environment. U.S. facilities in certain industry sectors that manufacture, process, or otherwise use these chemicals in amounts above established levels must report how each chemical is managed through recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and releases to the environment. A ‘release’ of a chemical means that it is emitted to the air or water, or placed in some type of land disposal.”

The NDDH also maintains databases of underground storage tanks (UST) and leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). The UST and LUST databases revealed no underground tanks or leaking underground tanks within the proposed project area.

3.15.1 Hazardous Waste Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – The no-build alternative would not create or encounter hazardous waste or materials.

Alternative B – The TRI facility is described as the US CBP Pembina Port of Entry and contains an ancillary use of lead. Ancillary use indicates the lead is used at the facility for purposes other than as a manufacturing aid or chemical processing aid, such as cleaners, degreasers, lubricants, fuels, toxic chemicals used for treating wastes, and toxic chemicals used to treat water at the facility. Information from the EPA TRI report indicates that the lead is a non-point air emission source, has not been discharged into receiving streams or waterbodies and is currently recycled offsite.

The NDDH operates a network of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (AAQM) stations. According to the 2013 North Dakota Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary Annual Report, none of AAQM stations reported exceedances of state or federal pollutant levels. This indicates that the current TRI facility non-point air emissions are falling within state and federal regulations. The proposed project would


50

not contribute to further release of lead from the facility, therefore, no significant impacts resulting from toxic releases are anticipated with the proposed project.

No substantive hazardous waste material impacts are expected to result from the project. Any wastes generated during the project such as batteries, fossil fuel use and oil and gas use are considered delisted by RCRA. NDDOT would require the construction contractor to develop a SWPPP that would locate secure and contained refueling areas away from surface waters and implement maintenance and monitoring measures to reduce the potential for spills and leaks. Although the potential for minor releases through accidental chemical spills, leaking equipment etc. exists, any inadvertent discharges would be contained using standard control procedures and thus, adverse effects avoided. No RCRA, CERCLA sites or underground storage tanks would be impacted by the proposed project.

In conjunction with the proposed project, the CBP Inspection Building and existing duty-free buildings may be removed by demolition. Prior to demolition, a certified asbestos inspector would survey the structure for asbestos containing material (ACM). If ACM is identified within the structure, a certified asbestos abatement contractor would remove and properly dispose of all ACM. An SFN 17987 Asbestos Notification of Demolition and Renovation form would be submitted to the North Dakota Department of Health at least 10 days prior to the commencement of demolition activities. Other hazardous materials potentially inside the buildings include leftover batteries, motor oils, household cleaners, fluorescent lightbulbs or lead based paints (if buildings were renovated or constructed prior to 1980). All hazardous materials previously identified or discovered during demolition would be handled and disposed of under applicable federal and state standards. This assessment would be made available to employees, demolition contractors, and abatement/demolition workers associated with the demolition project. Project demolition specifications would note any findings, address concerns identified and where appropriate, require the contractor to submit a work-plan for approval.

Due to the implementation of minimization measures identified above, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant hazardous waste related impacts.

3 . 1 6 V i s u a l

Visual impacts involve the viewer’s response to a resource change and the degree of change or influence an action or modification has on a view, scenic resource or man-made feature. The extent of potential visual contrast/compatibility effect with adjacent landforms and land uses are addressed from two vantage points; the roadway user traversing the system and those looking to the roadway from outside the system.

The current landscape of the study area can be divided into three separate landscape types. The area directly north and south of the proposed study area is the most developed and urbanized segment of the study area consisting of the Interstate 29 transportation corridor, the existing Pembina-Emerson POE and the City of Pembina. The area west of the proposed project is characterized by flat topography with agricultural fields and tree rows. East of the proposed project is the Red River and associated riparian area. This landscape transitions into forested riparian corridor along agricultural fields. Please refer to Figure 3-8, Figure 3-9, and Figure 3-10.


51

Figure 3-8, Developed Corridor in Study area View South

Figure 3-9, Developed Corridor in Study Area, View North


52

Figure 3-10, View East/West from Project Area

3.16.1 Visual Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – The no-build alternative would have no visual impacts on users of the roadway or those living near to the roadway because the project would not be developed.

Alternative B – The proposed project is located along the existing Interstate 29 North/South corridor. No visually sensitive or outstanding elements occur within the study area. Visual elements that have been and continue to be present in the area are primarily related to transportation, commercial land uses, residential areas, cropped fields, farmsteads, and undeveloped areas. The build alternative would consist of: (1) constructing a one lane off-ramp that diverges from Interstate 29 including a three-lane commercial bypass (2) relocating the outbound inspection area to a location accessible to commercial and primary automobile traffic; (3) providing a site location for the relocated duty free pick-up building; (4) construct auto and truck parking areas and; (5) constructing a pedestrian crossing across Interstate 29 and the proposed commercial bypass lane(s).

Lighting within the POE exists in the form of 140-foot high light poles in CBP areas. Additional 140-foot high lighting would be continued within the new construction areas and 40-foot street lights would be placed along the proposed auxiliary lane of the proposed off-ramp. The additional lighting may cause the POE to appear more visually illuminated from a distance, but due to the existing and similar form of lighting, no significant impacts are anticipated from the proposed lighting.

The additional roadway width and duty free pick-up building would increase the visual presence of the Interstate 29 corridor and the Pembina-Emerson POE. Distant views of the plains and Red River corridor to the east and west of the proposed project would be similar to existing conditions. Following project completion, disturbed areas would be re-vegetated.


53

Construction-related activities would temporarily affect the views of the POE corridor for users and adjacent residents during construction. Potential temporary effects include:

Temporary lighting used for nighttime construction and the associated light and glare from this lighting.

Temporary clutter (equipment, workers, debris, materials, and signs) would appear in some foreground and background views because of the presence of construction activities.

Due to the current visual placement of the study area and the nature of the project, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant visual impacts and no mitigation measures are proposed.

Options 1, 2 and 3 - Proposed DMS, electronic plaques and ITS technology would also be incorporated into the design of the roadway; a feature which is not currently present. DMS signs would alter the views of the transportation corridor for users, adjacent residents and POE employees by creating overhead signs and structures. These signs may block the views of the surrounding plains temporarily while traveling into the POE. Please refer to Figure 3-11, Example of DMS Technology.

Due to the current visual placement of the study area and the nature of the project and surrounding visual elements, Options 1, 2 and 3 are not anticipated to result in significant visual impacts. No mitigation measures are proposed.

Figure 3-11, Example of DMS Technology

3 . 1 7 E n e r g y

The Pembina-Emerson POE is an important transportation element in the economic and trade initiatives of Canada and the US, as well as Manitoba and North Dakota. In 2011, the Pembina-Emerson POE processed nearly $17 billion in two-way truck based trade and this figure is expected to grow to $27.5 billion by 2035. Because of this, the roadway must maintain a high degree of safety, mobility and reliability in order to support economic activity. According to the NDDOT Design Manual, accommodation of truck traffic is a priority along these roads. Traffic estimates indicate upwards of 600 commercial vehicles travel northbound through the POE on weekdays.


54

The proposed project is necessary to accommodate the demands of transportation of product and personnel to through the POE in a timely and efficient manner. More than 500,000 northbound vehicles travel through the POE annually and numbers are expected to exceed one million vehicles by the year 2035 (Magnusson et al., 2013). The proposed project is necessary to accommodate the associated economic demands within the region.

3.17.1 Energy Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – The existing POE was not designed to handle current or future traffic demands. Consequently, traffic flow has become restricted, resulting in less efficient energy use by vehicles and less efficient transportation of energy resources and other resources to and from the region. The no-build alternative would leave the existing roadway in place as it exists today, with a continuation of current conditions and an inefficient usage of energy.

Alternative B – Project construction would require the consumption of energy and resources that would not otherwise be used in absence of the proposed project; however, if the proposed project is completed, the energy use efficiencies of vehicles using the roadway may increase due to improved traffic flows (i.e., fewer slow-down areas, less congestion, fewer starts and stops, and more passing opportunities).

Due to the anticipated post-construction benefits identified above, no significant adverse energy related impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is proposed.

3 . 1 8 C o n s t r u c t i o n

If the build alternative is selected, there would be temporary effects to people and the environment that occur during construction. Construction would consist of:

Constructing a commercial bypass that diverges from Interstate 29 via a single lane off-ramp;

Relocating the outbound inspection area to a location accessible to commercial and primary automobile traffic;

Providing a site location for the relocated duty free pick-up building;

Constructing auto and truck parking areas and;

Constructing pedestrian crossings across Interstate 29 and the proposed commercial lanes.

The build alternative would create 0.89 miles of new roadway for the off-ramp and commercial bypass lanes, and approximately 81,750 square feet of parking lot for the CBP inspection area and duty free pick-up building.

3.18.1 Construction Impacts/Mitigation

Alternative A – Under the no-build alternative, construction would not occur; thus, no construction-related impacts would occur.

Alternative B – The proposed project would incur construction-related impacts; however, the impacts are expected to be localized to the project area and largely temporary in nature.


55

Construction activities associated with the proposed project area could have a short-term impact on air quality, primarily during site preparation. Dust, or particulate matter, is the pollutant of primary concern during the construction period. The amount of dust generated would vary throughout the construction season, depending on the construction activity and local weather conditions. Where excessive dust is anticipated to be a problem, effective dust control measures would be implemented in accordance with standard NDDOT procedures. Dust control would be the responsibility of the contractor. The use of chemicals for dust control would be prohibited; water would be the only approved dust control palliative.

Construction would result in temporary increases in noise levels within the vicinity of the proposed project. Noise would be generated primarily from heavy equipment used to transport materials and to construct the proposed project. Measures to control noise emissions during construction would include equipping vehicles and equipment with properly operating noise mufflers, proper equipment maintenance, and avoiding equipment idling when not in use, as feasible.

In general, portions of the proposed project would require cuts, while other portions would require the placement of fill. To the extent feasible, the earthen materials from the cuts would be trucked to portions requiring use of material (fill). The contractor would haul all excess material that cannot be used as fill off-site for disposal in an approved facility.

Construction activities have the potential to temporarily degrade water quality as a result of sedimentation and soil erosion during construction adjacent to water bodies. An increase in turbidity of surface waters due to sedimentation could be harmful to aquatic resources since it may block light transmission and slow biochemical and natural purification processes. Disturbance of waterway bottom sediment could also occur. Implementation of BMPs into the design of the proposed project would be utilized to control water quality impacts. The contractor would be required to obtain a NDPDES Permit from the NDDH prior to construction. As part of the NDPDES Permit, the contractor must have a plan for erosion and sediment control during and post construction. In addition, waste material would be disposed of in accordance with state and federal laws and in a manner that avoids impacts to water channels and riparian areas.

Construction BMPs would prevent sediment, debris, and contaminants from entering project area waters. The NDDOT would require its contractor(s) to implement and monitor such BMPs to protect project area waters.

The following BMPs are examples of such measures:

Minimize the potential for erosion by balancing cuts and fills to the extent feasible, hauling all excess material that cannot be used for fill off-site for disposal in an approved facility, and limiting and clearly marking the area of construction disturbance.

Minimize construction activities, such as staging, stockpiling, and refueling, near wetlands and streams; prohibit construction activities within the boundaries of these features unless allowed by permit.

Prevent leaks and spills from construction equipment and vehicles by daily inspecting and repairing those operated near project area waters and by cleaning equipment prior to operation within project area waters.

Prevent sediment-laden storm water runoff from entering project area waters by using mulch, matting, netting, filter fabric fencing and sediment traps.


56

Reduce the risk of contaminants entering project area waters by developing and implementing a spill prevention and containment plan and by having the necessary materials on site prior to and during construction.

By employing and properly maintaining these BMPs, NDDOT would avoid or minimize construction effects to project area wetlands and nearby riparian areas.

During construction, traffic would be maintained on the existing roadway alignment, although speeds would be reduced as necessary for construction worker and traveler safety. Construction may require temporary lane or shoulder reductions or closures. The NDDOT, FHWA and its contractor(s) would work together to ensure the greatest access through and around the project area during construction. These disruptions and inconveniences can be minimized because much of the project would be constructed without major alteration to use of the existing roadway. No detours are anticipated for the proposed project. Shoulder widening would be constructed with minimal disruption to the traveling public. The commercial bypass would remain closed throughout construction. They would be opened after completion of construction, but would not function at capacity until projects on both sides of the international border are completed.

Due to the implementation of BMPs and mitigation measure addressed above, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant construction related impacts.

3 . 1 9 C u m u l a t i v e a n d I n d i r e c t I m p a c t s

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental consequences of an action “when added to other past, present and reasonable foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Effects of an action may be insignificant when evaluated in an individual context, but these effects can add to other disturbances and cumulatively may lead to a measurable environmental change. By evaluating the impacts of the proposed project with the effect of other actions, the relative contribution of the proposed project to a projected cumulative impact can be estimated.

Indirect impacts are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR 1508.8). The great increase of activity and development along the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor has put a strain on the existing transportation infrastructure and exposed inefficiencies at the Pembina-Emerson POE. The proposed project is intended to address transportation and international trade demands; however, there may be indirect impacts associated with the proposed project that may cause additional strain on the below listed areas.

In addition to the proposed project, two additional major transportation project are proposed to occur within a 20-mile radius. They are as follows:

1. Canada (MIT and CBSA would function as the lead agencies) is proposing to reconstruct the north portion of the Emerson POE directly north of the proposed project. This project, which coordination is tied to the proposed project, would include a commercial inspection plaza for northbound commercial vehicles received from the proposed commercial bypass.


57

Three PIL lanes, which will all be FAST capable, will receive commercial traffic from the NDDOT commercial bypass lanes.

2. Canada and the United States (MIT, CBSA, and GSA are functioning as the lead planning agencies) are planning an expansion of the Pembina POE servicing vehicles in the southbound direction on Interstate 29. The expansion of the POE would include a new service plaza with dedicated employee, duty free pick-up and public restroom access points, new outbound inspection area, and expanded CBP facilities. Expanded facilities would include six PIL lanes (three new), four commercial lanes, bus and FAST lanes and expanded commercial inspection area. The project is in the initial planning phase, and a schedule has not yet been established.

Please refer to Figure 1-5, Associated Projects located in Chapter 1.

Although not much is known about the procurement/bidding process for the planned project enhancing the southbound interstate lanes at this time, the procurement/bidding process for the Canadian and United States projects enhancing the northbound lanes will be different between the projects. The Canadian led portion of the POE is expected to begin construction in 2016, while the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2017. The projects would largely act independently throughout the construction process; although the projects may overlap, the majority of work will be done during different timeframes. The following discussion reflects the combined effects of the proposed project with those of the above-listed projects.

3.19.1 Alternative A: No Build

The no-build alternative (Alternative A) could result in a number of indirect and cumulative impacts. Not building the proposed project could indirectly impact economics of the surrounding areas and communities by not providing job opportunities. In addition, indirect economic losses through trade would occur, and continue to increase throughout time, due to increasing traffic and queue times, and slowed trade travel ability at the border. Alternative A may not result in immediate, increased delays in travel time and traveler dissatisfaction, but as the traffic increases through the years, as anticipated, these deficiencies will be increasingly problematic. This may indirectly negatively impact air quality at the border as longer queue lines result in automobiles idling for longer periods.

In the future, with the completion of the associated southbound project, Alternative A would be inadequate to handle any additional traffic as a result of the more efficient, southbound associated project.

3.19.2 Alternative B: Single-Lane Commercial Bypass

The following discussion of cumulative and indirect impacts is relevant to the build alternative.

Land Use

As a result of the proposed project, some land would be converted from its existing use into a transportation network. While the exact acreages of all land conversion with the entire region are not quantifiable, there is a possibility that this land use conversion could have an effect on wildlife habitat, agricultural crop production and wetlands. Total permanent land conversion associated with the three POE projects would be approximately 50 acres total.


58

The majority of existing land use types to be converted as a result of transportation projects along the Interstate 29 corridor consists of cultivated agricultural land, wetlands and areas which are classified as currently developed. Land use avoidance and mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the proposed project and the projects discussed above include utilizing existing transportation corridors where possible, reducing in-slopes and back-slopes within ecologically sensitive areas to reduce project footprint, avoiding ecologically sensitive areas through site design, mitigating wetland impacts through use of wetland banking credits, and restoring all temporarily impacted areas to preconstruction conditions.

Prime and Unique Farmland

When other projects in the surrounding area and along the existing transportation corridor are taken into account, there could be cumulative impacts to prime and unique farmland. As surrounding areas are developed, increasing amounts of farmland may be converted to transportation, urban and residential uses.

The FPPA provides criteria for federal agencies to identify and take into account the adverse effects of federal programs on the protection of farmland. Federal agencies are to consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could lessen adverse effects and to ensure that such federal programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with state and local government, as well as private programs and policies to protect farmland.

Social

When taken into account with other projects in the area, this project may have a beneficial cumulative social impact. With increased development and trade opportunities, as well as increased security measures at the border, traffic and traffic congestion along Interstate 29 and Pembina-Emerson POE has increased. Drivers that travel this corridor, as well as local residents and agencies with jurisdiction, have voiced their concerns regarding appropriate speed limits, passing and turning restrictions and difficulty for pedestrians to cross the highway. The proposed project would improve the POE’s capacity to efficiently handle increasing daily traffic loads and keep queue lines to a minimum. In addition, pedestrians would be provided a safe crossing point and easier access to POE facilities such as the duty Free building; all of the above reasons would contribute to positive social impacts.

Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Indirect positive effects would result from the proposed build alternative. The pedestrian crosswalk included in the build alternative would tie into a future shared-use path along Old Highway 81 which would cross international borders. This future project would provide indirect positive benefits to pedestrian by allowing access to the POE, and would make traveling conditions more efficient and safe for non-motorized traffic utilizing this shared-use path.

Economic

An indirect impact of the proposed project would be to place additional strain on an already strained workforce. North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the United States at 2.8 percent as of October 2015 (US Department of Labor, 2015). This project could take away potential workers


59

from other projects and industries that are in need of employees to properly function. Even though the proposed project may place additional strain on the construction industry, the chances that the Canadian proposed project would be completed by a US contractor is unlikely. Cumulative impacts to the North Dakota construction industry or workforce are not anticipated.

Construction of the proposed project would not likely have an effect on the overall level of future commercial or residential development in the area; however, it may have an indirect effect on the distribution of these activities and associated impacts. Improving roadway function and capacity would increase the appeal of the transportation corridor making it a preferred route within the area. This could in turn have an indirect impact on the distribution of future commercial and residential developments.

Highway Traffic Noise

No indirect or cumulative impacts associated with traffic noise are anticipated with the proposed build alternative.

Water Quality, Surface and Groundwater

Surface waters and groundwater have the potential to be affected by past, present and future actions within the region of the project. Urban development and construction has the potential to leak or spill wastes into waterbodies or leach into groundwater sources. Single instances of these occurrences may be handled relatively quickly and efficiently, but compounded by multiple events in the same region or timeframe may negatively impact surface and groundwater quality.

Wetlands

While the amount of wetland conversion occurring within the total Lower Red River watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 09020311) because of development projects is not known, it is plausible that the cumulative effect of projects in the area could have an adverse effect on the watershed and wetlands along with the beneficial functions they provide to the environment. The proposed project would permanently impact approximately 5.25 acres of natural/jurisdictional wetlands and approximately 0.36 acres of artificial/non-jurisdictional wetlands. To offset permanent impacts to natural/jurisdictional wetlands, mitigation would occur at a USACE approved NDDOT Mitigation Bank in the Red River Basin Regional Service Area. The overall hydrological and ecological function of the onsite mitigation location was analyzed in depth and determined to be appropriate for wetland creation mitigation, if needed.

Wildlife and Vegetation

Direct impacts to wildlife as a result of the proposed project are anticipated to be minor. All construction related activities would occur adjacent to the existing alignment where disturbance and activity are already present. Land to be converted is not currently functioning as prime habitat due to its location adjacent to the Interstate 29 corridor and existing POE. Direct impacts may include collisions with vehicles and direct avoidance of the transportation corridor.

In addition to minor direct impacts, the proposed project could result in indirect impacts to wildlife. The proposed project has the potential to impact the habitat of surrounding wildlife through fragmentation and land conversion. The North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department notes in its


60

undated publication, “North Dakota Prairie: Our Natural Heritage” that approximately 80 percent of the state’s native prairie has been lost to agriculture, with most of the remaining areas found in the arid west where ongoing oil and gas activity has a high potential to threaten remaining native prairie resources. The wider roadway may function as a barrier limiting wildlife movement. This conversion and fragmentation could affect the behavior, survival, reproduction, and distribution of individuals within the region. Behavioral effects on wildlife as a result of construction could include displacement from the area, which could result in utilization of marginal habitat, exposure to predators, reduction in food sources and, as a result, overall reduced fitness.

Floodplains

No cumulative impacts to floodplains are anticipated to occur from the proposed project.

Threatened and Endangered Species

While wildlife, including any threatened and endangered species, in the area are expected to adapt to the roadway widening, if substantial amounts of their habitat or movement corridors are impacted by other developments (commercial/residential in surrounding areas), wildlife may be forced to move from the area. This could cause indirect impacts to wildlife populations as species compete to secure habitat in locations where other wildlife currently exist. Impact to these species may be further magnified as a result of other land conversion activities occurring within the region.

Of the four federally listed threatened and endangered species in Pembina County, it has been determined that the proposed project would have no effect on any of the four species. Significant cumulative or indirect effects are not anticipated with the build alternative.

Cultural Resources

No cumulative or indirect impacts to cultural resources are anticipated to occur from the proposed project.

Hazardous Waste

The potential for minor releases through accidental chemical spills, leaking equipment etc. exists with the proposed project and any construction project. Cumulative impacts may result if many projects in the surrounding area experience spills or generate large quantities of hazardous materials at the same time as the proposed project; although, the chances of this are remote. Any inadvertent discharges would be contained using standard control procedures and thus, adverse cumulative effects avoided.

Visual

Agriculture, urban, residential and transportation development continue to affect the visual characteristics of the study area, with or without the proposed upgrades to the roadway and POE. Due to increased efficiency and traffic capacity generated with the build alternative, development may increase in the surrounding areas and throughout the Interstate 29 transportation corridor. Additional development along the corridor and within the communities of Pembina and Emerson would alter the visual landscape to users of the roadway and those viewing the roadway from outside the system.


61

Construction

Temporary cumulative impacts may occur in the proposed project surrounding area if construction of the north and south portions of the POE overlap. Temporary cumulative impacts could include increased noise levels, dust and traffic delays. These effects would be temporary and would return to baseline conditions following completion of construction.

3 . 2 0 I r r e v e r s i b l e a n d I r r e t r i e v a b l e C o m m i t m e n t s o f R e s o u r c e s

As with any construction project, certain irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources, manpower, material and fiscal resources are required. Lands within the ROW would be converted from their present use to transportation use. Use of the lands is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for a transportation facility. However, if a greater need arises for the use of the land, or if the transportation facility is no longer needed, the land could be converted to another use. At present, there is no reason to believe that such a conversion would be necessary or desirable.

Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor and highway materials such as steel, cement, aggregate and bituminous material would be expended to complete the project. Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable once used. Any construction would require a substantial one-time expenditure of local, state and federal funds, which are not retrievable. However, the anticipated beneficial effects would balance the irretrievable commitment of resources caused by any build alternative.

3 . 2 1 E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s e q u e n c e s N o t R e l e v a n t t o t h e P r o j e c t

The following environmental impact categories were reviewed and found to be not relevant to the proposed project:

3.21.1 Relocations

No relocations would be associated with any of the proposed project alternatives.

3.21.2 Joint Development

This project would not obtain any joint development measures.

3.21.3 Air Quality

This project is in an area where the North Dakota State Implementation Plan does not contain any transportation control measures. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 770 do not apply to this project. Temporary air quality impacts associated with project construction have been addressed in previous sections of this document.

3.21.4 Water Body Modification

No water body modification would occur with the proposed project alternatives.


62

3.21.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers

No wild or scenic rivers are located in the study area.

3.21.6 Coastal Barriers

The project is not located in a coastal barrier area.

3.21.7 Coastal Zone

The project is not located in a coastal zone area.

3.21.8 Low Income and Minority Living Areas

The project does not occur in and would not impact any low income or minority living areas.

3.21.9 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Involvement

The project does not occur in and would not impact any Section 4(f) or 6(f) sites.

3 . 2 2 P e r m i t s

Presidential Permit for Border Crossing – US Department of State Section 404 Individual Permit – US Army Corps of Engineers Section 401 Certification – North Dakota Department of Health Asbestos Notification of Demolition and Renovation form (SFN 17987) – North Dakota

Department of Health; Contractor responsibility Lead-Based Paint Notification of Abatement and Demolition Clearance (SFN 53479) – North

Dakota Department of Health; Contractor responsibility North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (to be obtained by the

contractor) – North Dakota Department of Health Drain Permit – North Dakota State Water Commission Floodplain Permits (Building and Non-Building) - Pembina County

3 . 2 3 E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o m m i t m e n t s

Environmental commitments for the proposed project are summarized below in Table 3-11, Environmental Commitments Summary. Commitments in the form of NDDOT Standard Specifications discussed throughout this document have not been included in the below table. These commitments would be incorporated into plan documents where appropriate to ensure compliance throughout the duration of the project.


63

Table 3-11, Environmental Commitments Summary

NO. COMMITMENT RESPONSIBLE ENTITY

TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CATEGORY

CONSTRUCTION

1 Tree removal would be avoided where appropriate and possible during construction. If tree removal is necessary, it would occur during the Northern long-eared bat inactive season between October 1st and March 31st.

Contractor Between October 1st and March 31st

Threatened and Endangered Species

2 The proposed project would require construction to occur during the migratory bird nesting and breeding season (approximately February 1 through July 15). In an effort to avoid impacts to migratory birds during the breeding and nesting season, a qualified biologist would conduct pre-construction surveys for migratory birds and their nests within five days prior to the initiation of all construction activities. Mowing and grubbing (removal of and disposal of trees, shrubs, stumps, roots, brush and other surface objects) of the site prior to and throughout the nesting and breeding season may be completed in lieu of the pre-construction surveys to deter birds from nesting in project.

Contractor/KLJ Prior to and Throughout Construction between February 1st and July 15th.

Wildlife

3 If work would occur within an aquatic resource, no equipment may be placed within any water of the state until NDGF approval has been obtained. In order to comply with North Dakota Administrative Rules 30-03-06 the contractor would provide the NDGF a minimum 72-hour notice prior to placing any vessels, vehicles, pumps and equipment in or on waters of the state to allow the NDGF an opportunity to inspect any and all such vessels, vehicles, pumps and equipment for the presence of aquatic nuisance species.

Contractor Throughout Construction

Invasive Species

4 Cultural resources classified as Unevaluated during the Class III inventory would be avoided during project construction.

Contractor Throughout Construction

Cultural Resources

5 In areas in which there is a high possibility of disturbing buried cultural materials, both a cultural and tribal cultural monitor would be present during construction to ensure that historic properties are avoided.

NDDOT Throughout Construction

Cultural Resources

6 An SFN 17987 Asbestos Notification of Demolition and Renovation form would be submitted to the NDDH at least 10 days prior to the commencement for structure removal at the POE such as the old Duty Free building.

Contractor Prior (at least 10 days) to Demolition of Buildings

Hazardous Waste


64

NO. COMMITMENT RESPONSIBLE ENTITY

TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CATEGORY

7 Permanently impacted wetlands would be mitigated at an USACE approved NDDOT Mitigation Bank.

NDDOT Prior to Completion of Construction

Wetlands

3 . 2 4 S u m m a r y

The NDDOT, in cooperation with the lead federal agency, FHWA, is proposing the following improvements at the Pembina-Emerson POE: construct new dedicated lanes to segregate commercial vehicle and primary automobile traffic; relocate the outbound inspection area and duty free pick-up building to a location accessible to commercial and primary automobile traffic; construct auto and truck parking areas and install Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology. The improvements would provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and commerce through promotion of a reliable transportation system. The proposed project would provide the public, personnel and pedestrians with a safe, efficient and reliable link between the US and Canada. The build alternative and three ITS options (1, 2 and 3) were evaluated in this EA document, including a no build alternative (Alternative A). Alternatives for the proposed project are located within Pembina, North Dakota. For a summary of information discussed in this chapter, please refer to Table 3-12, Summary of Environmental Impacts.

Table 3-12, Summary of Environmental Impacts

ALTERNATIVE B

ITS ELEMENTS Options 1, 2 & 3

ALTERNATIVE A No Build

Land Use 9.9 acres of permanent ROW acquisition; 16.3 acres of permanent construction impacts to primarily agriculture and previously developed land uses

Possible permanent easement acquired from GSA

No Impact

Prime and Unique Farmland

No impact No impact No Impact


65

ALTERNATIVE B



Social Reduction in travel and delay time at the POE; better dispersal of traffic; safe crossing for pedestrians and POE personnel; efficient ITS options for added direction and safety; temporary travel delays during construction

Provide safety benefits and flexibility to travelers and employees by ability to shut down the commercial bypass or primary auto lanes at night or during accidents, unforeseen circumstances increasing site security; Proper warnings of changing speed limits and lane configurations increasing safety for travelers

Continued conditions of long delays at the POE; no safe, signed pedestrian crossing


Would result in increased safety and access for non-motorized travelers and POE staff; Would meet state and federal regulations

Provide proper warnings at crosswalks for automobiles; display decreased speed limits for safety of pedestrian and automobile traffic

Would not provide a safe access to the POE for pedestrian traffic; The transportation corridor would continue to function below legal standards for pedestrians

Economic Would result in positive economic impacts to local and national economies of both the US and Canada; provide work for construction firms

Improved efficiency at the POE would facilitate international trade

Would not provide a safe, efficient, and reliable link between the US and Canada trade systems; Deficiencies in ability to process truck and auto traffic would remain


Temporary impacts during construction; long-term beneficial impacts by providing a safe crossing of the interstate and commercial lanes

No impact No Impact

Noise No impact; all projected levels within allowable thresholds

No impact No Impact

Water Quality Temporary impacts to water quality from turbidity or sedimentation but controlled by application of BMPs to minimize runoff during construction

Temporary impacts to water quality from turbidity or sedimentation but controlled by application of BMPs to minimize runoff during construction

No Impact


66

ALTERNATIVE B



Wetlands 5.6 acres of permanent impacts No impact No Impact

Wildlife Direct impacts in the form of possible wildlife-automobile collisions and conversion of 9.9 acres of potential habitat to a transportation corridor leading to possible fragmentation; indirect effects include habitat fragmentation leading to reduction in population or ability to migrate

No impact as all ITS options would be contained in highway ROW obtained for the alternatives

No impact

Invasive Species

Disturbed areas reseeded with a native grass and forb mixture free of noxious weeds

Disturbed areas reseeded with a native grass and forb mixture free of noxious weeds

No Impact

Threatened or Endangered Species

No effect to the Whooping crane, Northern long-eared bat, Sprague’s pipit or Grey Wolf due to lack of suitable habitats in the area and the urban/heavy transportation nature of the project

No effect to the Whooping crane, Northern long-eared bat, Sprague’s pipit or Grey Wolf due to lack of suitable habitats in the area and the urban/heavy transportation nature of the project

No Effect

Floodplains Small amounts of fill placed in Zone A floodplain; no impact to base flood elevations

No impact No impact

Cultural Resources

No impact if resources as outlined in report are avoided and cultural and tribal monitors are present during construction in high risk areas outlined in report

No impact if resources as outlined in report are avoided and cultural and tribal monitors are present during construction in high risk areas outlined in report

No Impact

Hazardous Waste

No impact; if contaminated soils are encountered, they would be mitigated and properly disposed of

No impact No Impact

Visuals Temporary visual impacts during construction such as dust and lighting; added roadway width and duty free pick-up building would increase visual presence of the POE from a distance; added lighting may increase brightness of POE from a distance; no impact to surrounding landscape views from the roadway

Signs may temporarily block the views of the surrounding plains while traveling into the POE; alter views of the transportation corridor for users, adjacent residents and POE employees

No Impact


67

ALTERNATIVE B



Energy Temporary impacts due to consumption of energy for construction of the project; potential long term benefits in reducing emissions from stopping/starting, and queued vehicles at the POE

Temporary impacts during construction of ITS elements; small usages of electricity to power the signs after construction

No Impact

Construction Temporary impacts, mitigated with BMPs Temporary impacts, mitigated with BMPs No Impact


68

CHAPTER 4 LIST OF PREPARERS, COMMENTS AND COORDINATION


The names and qualifications of the principal people contributing information to this EA are identified in this chapter. In accordance with Part 1502.6 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, the efforts of an interdisciplinary team comprising technicians and experts in various fields were required to accomplish this study.

This chapter also provides information about consultation and coordination efforts with agencies and interested parties and public input, which has been ongoing throughout the development of this EA.

4 . 2 P r e p a r e r s

This EA was prepared by KLJ under a contractual agreement with the NDDOT. The lead federal agency for the project is FHWA.

A list of individuals with the primary responsibility for conducting this study, preparing documentation and providing technical reviews is contained in Table 4-1, Preparers.

4 . 3 C o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h A g e n c i e s a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n s

Pursuant to Section 102(2) (D) (IV) of NEPA, a solicitation of views package was sent to tribal, federal, state and local agencies and other interested parties on November 8, 2013. This scoping package included a brief description of the proposed project, as well as a location map. Please refer to Appendix B, Solicitation of Views Package & Responses.

By the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, 17 responses had been received. These comments provide valuable insight into the evaluation of potential environmental impacts and help ensure that social, economic and environmental effects were taken into consideration in the development of this project. The comments were referenced and incorporated where appropriate within the environmental impact categories addressed in this document. Please refer to Appendix B, Solicitation of Views Package & Responses.

In addition, any comments received throughout the development of this document and/or during the 30 day review period will be included in Appendix G, Environmental Assessment Comments and Responses.


69

Table 4-1, Preparers

AFFILIATION NAME TITLE PROJECT ROLE

KLJ Matt Settergren, PE Project Engineer Project Design, QA/QC

Nick Anderson Environmental Planner Environmental Lead, Wetland Delineation &

Mitigation Jessica Aasand Environmental Planner Primary Document

Author Ryan Sundberg, EI Project Engineer Project Design

Jon Markusen, PE Project Manager Project Manager

Timothy Dodson Archaeologist Cultural Resource Surveys

Kailee Murphy GIS Analyst Impact Assessment, Exhibit Creation

Charlotte Brett Environmental Planner Document Review

Alex Nisbet Environmental Planner ESA Section 7 Package Author

Edland Soil Consulting

Lawrence Edland Soil Scientist Wetland Delineation

FHWA Sheri Lares Environmental Program Manager and Planning

Specialist

Document Review

David Ferrell, PE Safety and Traffic Operations Program

Engineer; Project Manager

Project Coordination; Document Review

Stephanie Hickman Planning and Program Development Team

Leader

Project Coordination

NDDOT Paul Moch Technical Support Project Coordination; Document Review

Justin Schlosser, PE Project Manager; Technical Contact

Project Coordination; Document Review

Les Noehre, PE District Engineer Project Coordination; Document Review

Pete Christensen Environmental Scientist Document Review

Cory Lawson Environmental Planner Document Review


70

4 . 4 P u b l i c I n v o l v e m e n t

4.4.1 Agency Coordination Package

An Agency Coordination Packet was assembled summarizing the various coordination efforts, all major agency/stakeholder correspondence and contacts throughout the life of the project. This packet also included up to date meeting minutes. The package was submitted to the NDDOT via email on February 24, 2015 and from there, distributed to FHWA. An updated Agency Coordination Package was submitted to the NDDOT on May 21, 2015, via the NDDOT File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site. Please refer to Appendix A, Agency Coordination Package Materials.

4.4.2 Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held in March 2016 in Pembina, North Dakota. The hearing will be designed to allow for public input which is required for compliance with NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Please refer to Appendix E, Public Hearing Materials which will be updated to include the hearing details and materials in the final version of this environmental document.


71

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES

Coordinated effort between the United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) was created from a variety of sources from each state and aggregated into a standard national layer for use in strategic planning and accountability. Watershed Boundary Dataset for North Dakota. Retrieved from http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov

Davis, S.K. (2004). Area Sensitivity in Grassland Passerines: Effects of Patch Size, Patch Shape, and Vegetation Structure on Bird Abundance and occurrence in Southern Saskatchewan. The Auk, 121(4)1130-1145

Department of Homeland Security. (2011). White House; Declaration by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper of Canada. Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness and Action Plan. PDF. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/wh/us-canada-btb-action-plan.pdf

Gannett Fleming in conjunction with NDDOT, US Customs and Border Protection, Canada Border Services

Agency, General Services Agency, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation & Transport Canada. (2013). Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study. PDF.

Geological Survey Staff. (2010). USGS Digital Elevation Models for North Dakota. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from http://www.nd.gov/gis/

Gillam, E. and P. Barnhart. (2011). Distribution of Habitat Use of the Bats of North Dakota. North Dakota State University. PDF.

Gomes, Scott. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/hawks/index.htm>. (Version 16JUL97).

Johns, B., Woodsworth, E., and Driver, E. (1997). Habitat use by migrant whooping cranes in Saskatchewan. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 7:123–131.

Magnusson, B.P, et al. (2013). Traffic Operation Improvements at the Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry. Road Traffic Operations and Management Session; Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada. Pages 1-20. Retrieved from http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2013/session13/magnusson.pdf

Meine, Curt D. and Archibald, G.W. (1996). The cranes: - Status survey and conservation action plan(Version 02MAR98). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. 294pp. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Retrieved from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/cranes/index.htm.

National Highway Institute Given by Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Designing for Pedestrian Safety. Bismarck, North Dakota. September 18-19, 2012. Webinar Course.

North Dakota Department of Agriculture. (2015). Noxious Weeds. Retrieved from http://www.nd.gov/ndda/program/noxious-weeds

North Dakota Department of Agriculture. (2013). North Dakota County and City Listed Noxious Weeds. PDF. Retrieved from www.nd.gov/ndda/files/resource/CountyandCityListedNoxiousWeedsSeptember2013.pdf

North Dakota Department of Health. (2014). Annual Report: North Dakota Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary 2013. 3 October 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ndhealth.gov/AQ/ambient/nwrev_13.pdf


72

http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/wh/us-canada-btb-action-plan.pdf

http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2013/session13/magnusson.pdf

http://www.nd.gov/ndda/program/noxious-weeds

http://www.ndhealth.gov/AQ/ambient/nwrev_13.pdf

http://www.nd.gov/gis/

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/hawks/index.htm

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/cranes/index.htm

http://www.nd.gov/ndda/files/resource/CountyandCityListedNoxiousWeedsSeptember2013.pdf

North Dakota Department of Health. (1997). Updated: North Dakota Geographic Targeting System for Groundwater Monitoring; Appendix B-7. North Dakota Geographic Targeting System Scoring; All Aquifer Data; updated 2015. Accessed on March 5, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ndhealth.gov/WQ/GW/pubs/GWT_B7.HTM#Results

North Dakota Department of Health. (2014). Underground Storage Tank Program. North Dakota Department of Health; Waste Management. Retrieved from https://www.ndhealth.gov/wm/UndergroundStorageTankProgram/

North Dakota Game and Fish Department. (2015). Zebra Mussel Vieligers Found at Several Red River Locations. NDGFD. Retrieved from: http://gf.nd.gov/news/zebra-mussel-veligers-found-several-red-river-locations

North Dakota Game and Fish Department. (2012). Golden Eagle. North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Retrieved from gf.nd.gov/wildlife/fish-wildlife/id/birds/birds-of-prey/g-eagle

North Dakota Game and Fish Department. (2013). Midwinter Bald Eagle Survey Conducted. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. Retrieved from: http://gf.nd.gov/news/midwinter-bald-eagle-survey-conducted

North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Historical Bald and Golden Eagle Nest Locations [shapefiles]. NDGF; Bismarck, North Dakota. Received for KLJ via GIS data sharing agreement (Jan. 2013) Sandra Johnson to Nick Anderson email correspondence. Available via KLJ, Bismarck, ND. [August 20, 2014].

North Dakota Department of Transportation. (2007). TransAction II, North Dakota’s Statewide Strategic

Transportation Plan. PDF.

North Dakota Department of Transportation (2014). Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Vol. 1 & 2. PDF. Retrieved from: www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/environmental/2008-Vol01.pdf

North Dakota Department of Transportation (2012). Noise Policy and guidance. Bismarck, North Dakota. PDF. Retrieved from https://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/designmanual/wordfiles_design/NDDOT%20Noise%20Policy%20and%20Guidance%20(2011).pdf

North Dakota Department of Transportation. (2013). Design Manual. NDDOT. Accessed October 13, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/designmanual/designmanual.htm

North Dakota Department of Transportation. (2014). Northern Long-eared bat (NLEB) Guidance for NDDOT Projects. Accessed online April 2, 2015. Retrieved from www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/designmanual/

North Dakota Game and Fish. (2015). Zebra Mussel Veligers Found at Several Red River Locations. Official

Portal for North Dakota State Government; North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Retrieved from http://gf.nd.gov/news/zebra-mussel-veligers-found-several-red-river-locations

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. North Dakota prairie: Our natural heritage. North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pembina, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/heritage/index.htm> (Version 05MAY99).

North Dakota State Water Commission. (2013, June 14). Ground and Survey Water Data Query. Retrieved from http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink2/4dcgi/wellsearchform/Map%20and%20Data%20Resource

US Census Bureau. (2010). American Fact Finder: 2010 Census Data. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov


73

https://www.ndhealth.gov/WQ/GW/pubs/GWT_B7.HTM%23Results

https://www.ndhealth.gov/wm/UndergroundStorageTankProgram/

http://gf.nd.gov/news/zebra-mussel-veligers-found-several-red-river-locations

http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/environmental/2008-Vol01.pdf

http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/designmanual/

http://gf.nd.gov/news/zebra-mussel-veligers-found-several-red-river-locations

http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink2/4dcgi/wellsearchform/Map%20and%20Data%20Resource

http://gf.nd.gov/wildlife/fish-wildlife/id/birds/birds-of-prey/g-eagle

http://gf.nd.gov/news/midwinter-bald-egle-survey-conducted

https://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/designmanual/wordfiles_design/NDDOT%20Noise%20Policy%20and%20Guidance%20(2011).pdf

http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/designmanual/designmanual.htm

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/heritage/index.htm

http://www.census.gov

US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. National Agriculture Imagery Program. (2012). North Dakota 2012 Imagery. Retrieved from http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. National Agriculture Imagery Program. (2014). North Dakota 2014 Imagery. Retrieved from http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

US Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Program. Cropland Data Layer. (2013). North Dakota Cropland Data Layer. Retrieved from http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/

US Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2006). Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. PDF. US Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. Retrieved from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050898.pdf

US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. (1994). STATSGO Data. Retrieved from http://web.apps.state.nd.us/FME_ArcIMS/html/fmeDownloadMDE.html?SSFunction=remoteFetch&lowerLeftX=725000.0&lowerLeftY=-400000.0&upperRightX=3200000.0&upperRightY=1300000.0&userSelectedThemes=NDHUB.SoilsSTATSGO_Poly^ndgisp

US Department of Homeland Security. (2011). Beyond the Border. Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness. Accessed on October 12, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/beyond-border

US Department of Homeland Security. (2011). United States-Canada Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness; Action Plan. PDF. Retrieved from: https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/wh/us-canada-btb-action-plan.pdf

US Department of Homeland Security. (2013). United States-Canada Binational Border Infrastructure Investment Plan: Beyond the Border. Retrieved from www.dhs.gov/publication/united-states-canada-binational-border-infrastructure-investment-plan

US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007). Dakota Skipper Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/dask.html

US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). Whooping crane (Grus Americana). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B003

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2012). Fact Sheet: Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphiryhynchus albus). Midwest Region. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/fishes/palld_fc.html

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2012). Least Tern (Interior Population). Midwest Region. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/birds/tern.html

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2010). Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/spraguespipit/index.html

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2010, September 1). Bald Eagle Fact Sheet: Natural History, Ecology, and History of Recovery. Midwest Region. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/recovery/biologue.html

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2012). Piping Plover. Mountain-Prairie Region. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/pipingplover/

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2012). Gray Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Mountain-Prairie Region.Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf


74


http://web.apps.state.nd.us/FME_ArcIMS/html/fmeDownloadMDE.html?SSFunction=remoteFetch&lowerLeftX=725000.0&lowerLeftY=-400000.0&upperRightX=3200000.0&upperRightY=1300000.0&userSelectedThemes=NDHUB.SoilsSTATSGO_Poly%5endgisp

http://www.dhs.gov/beyond-border

http://www.dhs.gov/publication/united-states-canada-binational-border-infrastructure-investment-plan


http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050898.pdf

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/wh/us-canada-btb-action-plan.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/dask.html

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B003

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/fishes/palld_fc.html

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/birds/tern.html

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/spraguespipit/index.html

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/recovery/biologue.html


http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2011). Black-footed Ferret Fact Sheet. North Dakota Field Office.Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/endspecies/species/black-footed_ferret.htm

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service (2012). County Occurrence of Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat in North Dakota. North Dakota Field Office. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/county_list.htm

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service (2012). Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). North Dakota Field Office. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/endspecies/species/least_tern.htm

US Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2015). County Occurrence of Endangered Threatened, and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat in North Dakota. Mountain-Prairie Region; North Dakota Field Office. Retrieved from www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/county_list.htm

US Department of Labor (2015). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics; “Unemployment Rates for States”. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. (2014). Hydrography: National Hydrography Dataset and Watershed Boundary Dataset. USGS. Retrieved from nhd.usgs.gov/index/html.

US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey. (2012). USGS Digital Elevation Models for North Dakota. Retrieved from http://www.nd.gov/gis/

US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey. (2012). USGS Hydrography Dataset for North Dakota. Retrieved from http://nhd.usgs.gov/

US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey. (1978). Stream Evaluation Map State of North Dakota. PDF.

US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. (2006). The Cranes Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan Whooping Crane (Grus americana). Retrieved from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/cranes/grusamer.htm

US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. (2006). Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North Dakota. Retrieved from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/hawks/index.htm

US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey. (2005). North Dakota's federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species - 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. (Version 16JUL97). http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wildlife/nddanger/index.htm

US Department of Transportation. (1999). Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects. Federal Highway Administration. PDF. Retrieved from: https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/nhswt/reader?agency=Federal%20Lands%20Highways&fn=Federal+Lands+Highways+Std+Specs.pdf&type=standard

US Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

US Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Enviromapper for Envirofacts; Search place; Pembina, North Dakota. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home

Ward, J. and S. Anderson. (1987). Roost site use versus preference by two migrating whooping cranes. Pp. 283–288 in Proceedings of the 1985 International Crane Workshop, J.C. Lewis, ed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, Nebraska.


75

http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/endspecies/species/least_tern.htm

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

http://nhd.usgs.gov/

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/hawks/index.htm

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wildlife/nddanger/index.htm

https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/nhswt/reader?agency=Federal%20Lands%20Highways&fn=Federal+Lands+Highways+Std+Specs.pdf&type=standard

http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/endspecies/species/black-footed_ferret.htm

http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/county_list.htm

http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/county_list.htm

http://nhd.usgs.gov/index/html

http://www.nd.gov/gis/

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/cranes/grusamer.htm

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home

* “Maps throughout this document were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the

intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri® software, please visit www.esri.com.”


76

http://www.esri.com/

Documents

PEMBINA-EMERSON PORT OF ENTRY COMMERCIAL BYPASS - State · PDF fileENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PEMBINA-EMERSON PORT OF ENTRY COMMERCIAL BYPASS Project No. IM-6-029(120)216 . PCN . 20330