US Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District
NORTH BRANCH ECORSE CREEK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FEBRUARY 2017
NORTH BRANCH ECORSE CREEK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Cover Photo: North Branch Ecorse Creek, River Mile 5.8, southeast of Shenandoah Avenue, Allen Park, October 2010
Prepared for:
Wayne County Drain Commissioner 400 Monroe Street, Suite 400 Detroit, MI 48226
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District (CELRE) 477 Michigan Avenue, 6th Floor Detroit, MI 48226
Prepared by:
AECOM 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2000 Southfield, MI 48034
Abstract
Environmental Assessment North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study
Abstract
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, and Wayne County, Michigan, are preparing a flood risk management plan for the North Branch Ecorse Creek (NBEC). The purpose of this plan is to evaluate flooding issues in the NBEC and provide effective flood damage reduction measures to reduce flood hazards and flood damage costs for the project area. A number of possible measures and alternative plans for reducing flood risk along the NBEC were considered. The recommended alternative includes construction of a single optimized detention basin, and greenway channel improvements of varying widths in the lower nine miles of the creek downstream from US-24 (Telegraph Road) to the Detroit River. Positive effects of the proposed action include improvements to public health and safety, traffic and transportation, and socioeconomics, through reduced flooding; increased infiltration of detained floodwater into the ground and reduced peak flows within the NBEC; improvements in water quality through reduced flooding and a widened and naturalized riparian corridor; increased hydrologic stability and improved wildlife habitat; and an increase in aesthetic values of the NBEC. Expected adverse effects of the proposed action include minor temporary construction impacts on air quality, existing riparian vegetation and habitat, infrastructure, noise, soils, traffic and transportation, and utilities. Permanent impacts include removal of homes and businesses within the greenway channel widening footprint and loss of existing riverine vegetation, which is generally of low quality and would be replaced with higher quality vegetation. A number of areas within the proposed channel widening would be evaluated during the design phase to determine if contaminants are present in concentrations requiring special handling and/or remediation and to identify appropriate disposal options for such material. The proposed action would result in temporary and permanent changes to land use, open space, and parks and recreational facilities in the immediate path of construction and as a result of land acquisition for detention basins and channel improvements. Based on this Environmental Assessment, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant short term, long term or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and does not result in significant effects on the quality of the human environment; therefore, it appears that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. After completion of agency/public review of this Environmental Assessment and evaluation of the comments received, a final decision will be made regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page i Table of Contents
Contents
Abstract ...... i
1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Study Authority ...... 1-1 1.2 Scope and Study Area ...... 1-1 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 1-3
2 Alternatives and Proposed Action ...... 2-1 2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ...... 2-2 2.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative ...... 2-2 2.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative ...... 2-2 2.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative ...... 2-5 2.5 Alternative 5: Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative . 2-5 2.6 Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative .. 2-5 2.7 Proposed Action ...... 2-8
3 Affected Environment ...... 3-1 3.1 General Characteristics of the Study Area ...... 3-1 3.2 Physical and Natural Resources ...... 3-2 3.3 Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 3-14 3.4 Socioeconomic Resources ...... 3-18
4 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.2 Physical and Natural Resources ...... 4-1 4.3 Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 4-10 4.4 Socioeconomic Resources ...... 4-14 4.5 Other Effects ...... 4-26 4.6 Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-27
5 Compliance with Federal Statutes and Executive Orders ...... 5-1 5.1 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 ...... 5-1 5.2 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 ...... 5-1 5.3 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ...... 5-1 5.4 Endangered Species Act of 1973 ...... 5-1 5.5 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ...... 5-2 5.6 Clean Water Act of 1972 ...... 5-2 5.7 Clean Air Act of 1972 ...... 5-2 5.8 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ...... 5-3 5.9 Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 ...... 5-3 5.10 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management ...... 5-3 5.11 Executive Order 11514, Protection of Environment ...... 5-3 5.12 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands ...... 5-4 5.13 Executive Order 13186, Migratory Bird Habitat Protection ...... 5-4 5.14 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice ...... 5-4
North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page ii Table of Contents
5.15 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species ...... 5-4
6 Public Involvement ...... 6-1 6.1 General ...... 6-1 6.2 Agency Coordination ...... 6-1 6.3 Public Involvement Activities to Date ...... 6-1 6.4 Communications Plan ...... 6-2
7 Conclusions ...... 7-1
8 Public Review and Final Determination ...... 8-1
9 Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact ...... 9-1
10 References ...... 10-1
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of Alternatives ...... 2-1 Table 4-1 Summary of Potential Bridge Impacts ...... 4-22
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Study Area ...... 1-2 Figure 2-1 Alternative 2 – Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin ...... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Alternative 3 – Wayne County 2008 Greenway ...... 2-4 Figure 2-3 Alternative 4 – Optimized Powers Basin ...... 2-6 Figure 2-4 Alternative 5 – Detention Basin with Limited Channel Improvements ...... 2-7 Figure 2-5 Alternative 6 – Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements ...... 2-9 Figure 3-1 Water Resources ...... 3-5 Figure 3-2 Recreation ...... 3-20 Figure 3-3 Potential Areas of Environmental Concern ...... 3-25
List of Appendices
Appendix A Plant and Animal Lists Appendix B Agency and Tribal Correspondence and Coordination
North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page iii Table of Contents
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
ADW Alliance of Downriver Watersheds AOC area of concern APE Area of Potential Effect BMP best management practice CAA Clean Air Act of 1972 CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CWA Clean Water Act of 1972 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 dBA A-weighted decibel dbh diameter at breast height (4.5 feet off the ground on high side of any slope) DO dissolved oxygen DWSD Detroit Water and Sewerage Department EA Environmental Assessment ECIC Ecorse Creek Inter Municipality Committee ECT Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. ECWAG Ecorse Creek Watershed Advisory Group EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 FTA Federal Transit Administration GRR General Revaluation Report GSI Geologic Strength Index HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HTRW hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste I-75 Interstate 75 I-94 Interstate 94 Ldn day-night average sound level M-39 Michigan Highway 39 MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation MichCon Michigan Consolidated Gas Company MIRIS Michigan Resource Information System MNFI Michigan Natural Features Inventory NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page iv Table of Contents
NBEC North Branch Ecorse Creek NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory O3 ozone PA Public Act PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PEM palustrine emergent wetland Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm part per million PSS palustrine scrub-shrub wetland RM river mile SESC soil erosion and sedimentation controls SEMCOG Southeast Michigan Council of Governments SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 sulfur dioxide SRHP Michigan’s State Register of Historic Places SSURGO State Soil Survey Geographic database TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USBLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WCDC Wayne County Drain Commissioner WRDA Water Resources Development Act
North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page v Section 1 Introduction
1 Introduction
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Detroit District, and Wayne County, Michigan, are preparing a flood risk management plan for the North Branch Ecorse Creek (NBEC). The purpose of this plan is to reevaluate flooding issues in the NBEC and provide effective flood damage reduction measures to reduce flood hazards and flood damage costs for the project area. Flooding along the NBEC has occurred repeatedly over the last 40 years, and impacts as many as 9,100 properties in a large flood event, including property damage and sewage backups into homes and businesses.
In addition to the preparation of this Environmental Assessment (EA), a General Revaluation Report (GRR) (USACE, 2017) has been prepared to evaluate the current feasibility of providing a flood risk management project in the NBEC watershed. If the EA results in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and upon approval and funding for design phase activities, detailed plans and specifications would be developed for project construction. Further approvals and funding would be required for project construction, including submission of project plans to the State of Michigan for review and permitting.
1.1 Study Authority This flood risk management study for the NBEC, its watershed, and tributaries was authorized by Section 102 of the River and Harbor Act of 1966 (U.S. Congress, 1966). The authorized flood risk management study on Ecorse Creek is documented in a USACE feasibility report (USACE, 1988). Construction of the plan recommended in the feasibility study was further authorized by Section 101(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1990 (U.S. Congress, 1990). The project was not constructed because of increased cost associated with design complexity and logistical and constructability challenges, and a lack of non-Federal funding. The project authorization was extended in the WRDA of 2007 (U.S. Congress, 2007), which led to the present study.
1.2 Scope and Study Area The authorized study, currently under evaluation, is a flood risk management plan for the affected area in the NBEC watershed, which is in the south central portion of Wayne County in southeastern Michigan (see Figure 1-1). The NBEC watershed includes portions of the following communities: Romulus, Westland, Inkster, Dearborn Heights, Taylor, Allen Park, Melvindale, Lincoln Park, and Ecorse. Dearborn is also considered in this study because it is impacted by flooding of the NBEC, although it is not within the NBEC watershed. The identified nonfederal study sponsor is Wayne County.
The NBEC watershed is approximately 19,200 acres (30 square miles) and includes 21 tributary drains. The NBEC flows across central Wayne County generally eastward from the headwaters north of Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport near Venoy Road, continuing for
North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 1-1 Wayne County, Michigan
c:::J Study Area North Branch Ecorse Creek 0 RiverMile STUDY AREA North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study Environmental Assessment 0 Wayne County, Michigan SOURCE: Background: ESRI USA USGS Topo Maps 2,250 4,500 9,000 Feet 0 AE'COM FIGURE 1 ·1 ....-======------Section 1 Introduction approximately 17 miles to its confluence with the Le Blanc Drain and the Sexton-Kilfoil Drain (a.k.a. South Branch Ecorse Creek), which join to form the Ecorse Creek. Ecorse Creek flows for approximately 0.5 mile to its terminus at the Detroit River. The majority of the NBEC is an open channel watercourse, except for two segments in Romulus that have been enclosed: from river miles (RM) 14.4 through 15.3 (circular culvert) and 16.8 through 16.9 (tall box culvert).
1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of the NBEC flood risk management plan is to reduce flood hazards and flood damage costs by providing effective flood damage reduction measures for the NBEC. The need for the project is derived from the high level of flood hazard and flood damages that occur frequently in the project area. Flooding along the NBEC has occurred repeatedly over the last 40 years and has previously prompted Presidential declarations of disaster in the region. In a large flood event, it is estimated that NBEC flooding impacts as many as 9,100 properties. Repetitive flood damage to property and sewage backups into homes and businesses occur along the NBEC.
North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 1-3 Section 2 Alternatives and Proposed Action
2 Alternatives and Proposed Action
A number of alternatives were fonnulated and screened for potential to manage flood risk in the NBEC study area. The fonnulation of these alternative plans is presented in the General Revaluation Report (GRR) (USACE, 2017). The final an ay of alternative plans that passed screening are summarized in Table 2-1 and are outlined in the following sections. The Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements (Alternative 6) is the prefeITed alternative (see Section 2.7 [Proposed Action]).
Table 2-1 Summary of Alternatives
Channel Other Structure Alternative Detention Basin Improvements B1idge Work Removals 1: No Action NIA None None None Alternative 2: Corps' 1988 Powers basin using None None 10 residential Retention Basin only east side of Alternative available site per 1988 site resti·ictions 3: Wayne County Powers basin using Greenway sections Approximately 61 161 residential, 12 2008 Greenway entire site, two varied in width from bridge replacements, commercial Alternative detention sites near 25 to 132 feet, channel 13 bridge removals, the Powers Basin, sections ranged from and 10 bridges with two farther upstream 4 feet at the headwaters sediment cleaning near I-94, and one in to 80 feet at the mouth the vicinity ofM-39 oftheNBEC 4: Optimized Powers basin using None Bayham bridge 16 residential Powers Basin entire site replacement Alternative 5: Detention Basins Powers basin using 35-foot greenway from Approximately five 65 residential, 1 with Limited entire site, Pelham Madison to westbou.nd bridge replacements, commercial Channel basin, and five basins I-94, 15-foot greenway three bridge Improvements arou.nd I-94 from westbom1d I-94 to removals, and 11 Alternative Allen Road bridges impacted by improvements 6: Optimized Powers basin using 35-foot greenway from Approximately five 120 residential, 5 Powers Basin with entire site Madison to westbou.nd bridge replacements, commercial Channel I-94, westbom1d I-94 to one bridge removal, Improvements Deti·oit River channel and 14 bridges improvements varying impacted by in width and contained improvements within/or near the existing top of bank Notes: I-94 = Interstate 94; M-39 = Michigan Highway 39; NBEC = North Branch Ecorse Creek
North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 2-1 Section 2 Alternatives and Proposed Action
2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline for evaluating the environmental impacts of the action alternatives. The No Action Alternative examines the future without project conditions; that is, the future if the Proposed Action is not implemented or constructed. The No Action Alternative assumes that no project would be implemented by either the federal government or local communities to achieve flood risk management objectives in the NBEC. The No Action Alternative would involve ongoing maintenance (such as cleanout of all the crossings), and flows from expected future development in the project area. Future development takes into consideration the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance (Chapter 95 of the Wayne County Code), which requires onsite detention to alleviate downstream impacts (Wayne County, 2016).
2.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative The recommended alternative in the USACE feasibility study was to construct a detention basin just east of Butler Drain along Powers Road in Dearborn Heights (USACE, 1988). The detention basin would collect and store floodwaters in excess of the bank-full capacities of the NBEC. This detention basin would be constructed of earth, with side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. A 6-foot chain-link fence would be provided around the perimeter of the detention basin, and trees and fruit-bearing shrubs would be planted. The approximately 13-acre detention basin would have a depth of 30 feet and a storage volume of 275 acre-feet. Construction of the detention basin would require the removal of approximately 10 properties (see Figure 2-1).
2.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative The alternative recommended in the NBEC flood control study was to reconstruct the open channel, replace undersized bridges and culverts, install a parallel drain enclosure near Merriam Road, relocate portions of the NBEC, and construct three regional stormwater detention basins (WCDC, 2008). Channel improvements consisting of a vegetated trapezoid or a two-shelf vegetated greenway would be constructed along the entire 17-mile length of the NBEC. Improvements would be made at 81 drain crossings (bridges or culverts), consisting of 50 public roads, eight railroads, 13 footbridges, nine private drives, and one enclosure. Six stormwater detention basins would be constructed in the NBEC watershed, and a new parallel enclosure would be located along Smith Road. The stormwater detention basins include three regional in- line detention and three smaller and shallower detention basins. These six basins have a total area of 111 acres and storage volume of 385 acre-feet. This alternative requires the acquisition and demolition of approximately 161 residential properties and 12 commercial buildings (see Figure 2-2).
North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 2-2 c:::J Study Area North Branch Ecorse Creek ALTERNATIVE 2 • River Mile CORPS 1988 RETENTION BASIN :.-··-··-. i Alternative 2 Preliminary North Branch Ecorse Creek l--··-·· Construction Footprint Flood Risk Management Study Environmental Assessment 0 Wayne County, Michigan
SOURCE: 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 Feet Bad SOURCE: 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 Feet Bad 2.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative This alternative involves construction of a single optimized detention basin just northeast of Powers Avenue and Inkster Road, in the same general vicinity as Alternative 2 (Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative). This 29-acre (approx.) detention basin would provide approximately 245 acre-feet of storage volume, with an approximate depth of 8 feet and a bottom elevation slightly above the NBEC. The depth of the basin was selected so that it would drain by gravity. Construction of the detention basin would require removal of approximately 10 acres of urban woodland along the north and east sides of the site. The detention basin would provide detention of flood flows from both the NBEC and Butler Drain. A multi-stage weir structure along the NBEC would be configured to divert flood flows towards the detention basin by essentially constricting the NBEC, thereby diverting approximately 75 percent of all flood flows up to the 2-year event into the detention basin. The 2-year event was selected based on maximizing the impact of the detention basin, given the available storage capacity in the detention basin. In addition, a substantial amount of the overbank flooding observed along the NBEC begins to occur during events approximated by the 2-year storm. An outflow conduit would connect the detention basin to the NBEC. This alternative requires the acquisition and demolition of approximately 16 residential buildings (see Figure 2-3). 2.5 Alternative 5: Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative This alternative involves construction of a detention basin just northeast of Powers Avenue and Inkster Road, as presented in Alternative 4 (Optimized Powers Basin Alternative); five additional detention storage facilities in Dearborn Heights and Allen Park; and greenway channel improvements of varying widths. The channel improvements involve constructing a 35-foot- wide greenway channel from Madison Street (approximately four blocks east of U.S. Route 24) to westbound Interstate 94 (I-94) and a 15-foot-wide greenway channel from westbound I-94 to Allen Road. As part of the channel improvements, five bridges would be replaced to accommodate improved conveyance. Three bridges would be removed to accommodate detention basins. Six detention basins in Dearborn Heights and Allen Park would provide a total storage volume of 360 acre-feet; these basins, combined with the Powers Basin, include approximately 180 acres and provide a basin-wide storage volume of 605 acre-feet. This alternative requires the acquisition and demolition of approximately 65 residential buildings and one commercial building (see Figure 2-4). 2.6 Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative This alternative involves constructing a single 29-acre (approx.) detention basin (approximately 245 acre-feet of storage volume) just northeast of Powers Avenue and Inkster Road, as presented in Alternative 4 (Optimized Powers Basin Alternative), and greenway channel improvements of varying widths. The channel improvements would involve constructing a 35-foot-wide North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 2-5 c:::J Study Area North Branch Ecorse Creek ALTERNATIVE 4 • River Mile OPTIMIZED POWERS BASIN :.-··-··-. i Alternative 4 Preliminary North Branch Ecorse Creek l--··-·· Construction Footprint Flood Risk Management Study Environmental Assessment 0 Wayne County, Michigan SOURCE: 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 Feet Bad SOURCE: 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 Feet Bad 2.7 Proposed Action The recommended alternative is Alternative 6 (Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative).1 This alternative meets the project purpose and need, provides the highest net benefits, and meets the formulation and evaluation criteria of being technically effective, environmentally sound, socially/politically acceptable, cost-effective (implementation cost, and operation and maintenance cost) and constructible. This alternative is described in more detail in Section 2.6 (Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative) and the GRR (USACE, 2017). Project Construction requires upland placement of material excavated from the detention site and from channel widening. Two former landfill sites have been identified by the non-Federal project sponsor. These are the Beverly Site (56.5 acres) and the German Drain Site (20.7 acres): 1 The GRR (USACE, 2017) includes an evaluation of the final array of alternatives and a basis for identification of the recommended alternative. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 2-8 c:::J Study Area ALTERNATIVE 6 • North Branch Ecorse Creek OPTIMIZED POWERS BASIN WITH 0 River Mile CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS :.-··-··-. i Alternative 6 Preliminary North Branch Ecorse Creek l--··-·· Construction Footprint Flood Risk Management Study Environmental Assessment 0 Wayne County, Michigan SOURCE: 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 Feet Bad 3 Affected Environment 3.1 General Characteristics of the Study Area The NBEC study area is entirely within Wayne County, Michigan, is nearly 17 miles long, and serves as the primary storm water conveyance channel for a 19,200-acre urbanized watershed. The nine cities in the NBEC watershed include Ecorse, Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Inkster, Romulus, Lincoln Park, Melvindale, Taylor, and Westland. The NBEC is the primary stormwater conveyance system for 52,450 properties including approximately 48,700 residential properties, 2,980 commercial properties, and 770 industrial properties. The location and the limits of the NBEC watershed (study area) is presented on Figure 1-1. The land use characteristics of the NBEC project area consist of a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and limited open space except in the upper reaches. The watershed also includes three limited-access highways (I-94, Interstate 75 [I-75], and Michigan Highway 39 [M-39]) and many local roads and railroads (see Figure 1-1). The NBEC watershed is approximately 30 square miles; its 21 other drains include: Trouton Drain, McGee Drain, Freeman Drain, Ganong Bridge Drain, Lamareau Drain, McConologue Drain, Milo Drain, Godfrey Drain, Leverance Drain, Goroionnier Drain, Freeman Drain (2), Butler Drain, Lucas Storm Drain, Douglas and Kelly Drain, Penine Storm Drain, Kennedy Drain, Lehigh Drain, Presley Storm Drain, Reeck Drain, Snow Tile Drain, and Le Blanc Drain. The NBEC flows across central Wayne County generally eastward from the headwaters near Venoy Road, continuing for about 17 miles to its confluence with the Detroit River. The geology of the study area is post-glacial. The landscape has been much more recently influenced by the historic fluctuation of water levels along the NBEC and fill placement associated with urban development over the past century. The NBEC watershed is underlain by dolomite bedrock that ranges from 40 feet to 110 feet below the surface. Immediately over the bedrock is a clay layer varying in depth from 35 feet to 65 feet (USACE, 1990). The uppermost unconsolidated geologic deposits consist of coarse- to fine-grained glacial till atop multiple beds of lake-derived clay deposits. Topography of the NBEC watershed ranges from mostly flat to gently sloping to the east, toward the Detroit River, with a gradient of approximately 5.3 feet per mile. General elevations vary from 670 feet (204 meters) at the northwestern corner of the watershed to approximately 575 feet (175 meters) at the Detroit River (United States Geological Survey [USGS] datum). The risk of the project area experiencing landslides, earthquakes, volcanic hazards, karst activity, or mass wasting is low. USGS maps suggest that Wayne County is located in a low seismic risk zone (USGS 2008a). There are no active faults mapped in the project area (USGS 2008b). Geologic or economic mineral resources would not be impacted by the No Action Alternative or the action alternatives. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-1 Section 3 Affected Environment The construction of a detention basin and channel improvements under the action alternatives require shallow near-surface activities that would involve disturbance of surficial glacial deposits; however, no impacts would occur to current known geologic or economic mineral resources. Therefore, no further analysis of geologic or economic mineral resources is provided within this EA. 3.2 Physical and Natural Resources 3.2.1 Soils The land surface and stream channels of the NBEC watershed are gently sloping and composed primarily of very deep, generally somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained, loamy or clayey soils. The soils on the western half of the watershed generally are sandy loam, and those on the eastern half generally consist of clayey loam. Poorly drained surface soils coupled with a permanent or seasonably high groundwater table provide for inadequate drainage in this urban setting; as a result, the area is prone to damaging floods. The clay soils also contribute to the NBEC and its tributaries being turbid throughout the year and extremely turbid during wet weather events. Stream flows in the watershed are very flashy and erratic, partly because of the low percolation rates of clay soils and the effects of urbanization. The high and low rates of flow are dictated primarily by the frequency of precipitation, with very little groundwater contribution. The soil survey for Wayne County indicates that approximately half of the watershed is classified as cut-and-fill land (original soils are impossible to identify) or that no soil survey data are available (USDA, 2010). The soils in the NBEC watershed, although favorable for agriculture, are primarily disturbed as a result of the extensive urban, industrial, commercial, and residential development in Wayne County. Prime farmland, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is available for these uses. Prime farmland includes cultivated land, pastureland, forestland, or other land, but not urban or built-up land or water areas. The FPPA also covers unique farmland and land of statewide or local importance. Because lands already in urban development are not subject to the FPPA, consideration of FPPA is not required for this project. The characteristics of the soils in the study area were identified using the State Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database (USDA, 2010). The SSURGO database provides soil series level information, similar to traditional county soil surveys, for all of Wayne County. According to the SSURGO database, of the 19,200 acres in the NBEC watershed, 9,540 acres (49.7 percent) contain soils not mapped due to the urban developed land uses. 3.2.2 Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA), amended in 1990, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. NAAQS have been established for the following six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-2 Section 3 Affected Environment particulate matter smaller than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The CAA also requires the U.S. EPA to provide a designation for each area of the United States regarding compliance with the NAAQS. U.S. EPA categorizes the level of compliance or noncompliance as follows: Attainment – area currently meets the NAAQS; Maintenance – area currently meets the NAAQS, but has previously been out of compliance; and Nonattainment – area currently does not meet the NAAQS. Wayne County is currently designated as an attainment area for lead and NO2, and is designated as a maintenance area for O3 and PM2.5. Portions of the county are also designated as maintenance areas for CO and PM10. Wayne County is designated as a partial nonattainment area for SO2. The O3 NAAQS was revised by the U.S. EPA on October 1, 2015, to 0.070 parts per million (ppm), and became effective on December 28, 2015. To attain this 2015 standard, the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration in an area must not exceed 0.070 ppm. Attainment designations will be made by the U.S. EPA by October 1, 2017, for the 2015 standard. 3.2.3 Water Resources 3.2.3.1 Groundwater Two major aquifers occur in the project area: a surficial aquifer system and the Silurian-Devonian aquifer (USGS, 1992). The surficial aquifer system was formed by glacial deposits and is the most extensively used and easily accessible source of groundwater in the area. Water can be withdrawn from easily installed shallow wells for domestic and stock-watering uses, and from deeper and larger wells for public supply, agricultural, and industrial uses. The surficial aquifer system stores water and transmits it either along short flow paths to streams, sustaining base flow; or downward to underlying aquifers, providing recharge. The surficial aquifer is generally highly permeable and vulnerable to contamination from human activities. The Silurian-Devonian aquifer is primarily a dolomite or limestone that yields water from solutionally enlarged fractures and karst features. In Michigan, the Silurian-Devonian aquifer is unconfined where it forms the bedrock surface or is covered by the surficial aquifer system. The average thickness of the carbonate rocks that comprise most of the Silurian-Devonian aquifer is about 300 to 400 feet. Where the Silurian- Devonian aquifer is unconfined but is overlain by the surficial aquifer system, dissolution has resulted in extensive development of karst features, and the aquifer is susceptible to contamination from the land surface. Contaminated water can either move downward through the overlying glacial deposits or enter the Silurian-Devonian aquifer directly in outcrop areas (USGS, 1992). Groundwater in the Ecorse Creek watershed is perched above an impervious clay layer varying in depth from 35 to 65 feet (USACE, 1988). According to the Michigan Department of Environmental North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-3 Section 3 Affected Environment Quality’s (MDEQ) Groundwater Mapper, there are only 14 water wells within a 1-mile radius of the NBEC, and all are near the western end of the drain. Twelve of the wells are associated with Sun Oil Company, one is classified as a household well owned by Great Lakes Aggregates, and the last well is used for irrigation (MDEQ, 2011). Therefore, there appear to be no recorded drinking water wells, sole-source aquifers, or wellhead protection areas within a 1-mile radius of the NBEC. 3.2.3.2 Surface Water The NBEC watershed provides stormwater conveyance for nine communities in the drainage district: Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse, Inkster, Lincoln Park, Melvindale, Taylor, Romulus, and Westland. Figure 3-1 depicts the waterways associated with the NBEC watershed. The NBEC is one of three primary water courses in the Ecorse Creek watershed. It is located in central Wayne County and extends west to east for 16.4 miles to its confluence with the other major tributaries of Ecorse Creek—the Le Blanc and Sexton-Kilfoil Drains. Ecorse Creek then flows for approximately 0.5 mile to its terminus at the Detroit River. The 21 other drains of the NBEC drainage area include: Trouton Drain, McGee Drain, Freeman Drain, Ganong Bridge Drain, Lamareau Drain, McConologue Drain, Milo Drain, Godfrey Drain, Leverance Drain, Goroionnier Drain, Freeman Drain (2), Butler Drain, Lucas Storm Drain, Douglas and Kelly Drain, Penine Storm Drain, Kennedy Drain, Lehigh Drain, Presley Storm Drain, Reeck Drain, Snow Tile Drain, and LeBlanc Drain. The drainage area has little gradient and limited hydraulic capacity, and many nearby cities experience flooding problems (ECIC, 2006). Prior to 1830, much of the NBEC sub-watershed was beech-sugar maple forest, although extensive areas in the headwaters and elsewhere were mixed hardwood swamp or other types of wetland. Today, single-family residential development is the dominant land use in the sub- watershed. Wetlands, woodland, and undeveloped open land make up 20 percent of the NBEC sub-watershed by area (ECIC, 2006); these areas are located primarily in the upper reaches of the watershed. The LeBlanc Drain, a second major tributary of Ecorse Creek, enters the NBEC immediately upstream of the confluence of the NBEC and Sexton-Kilfoil Drain, near Council Pointe Park in Lincoln Park. The LeBlanc Drain sub-watershed is approximately 7,500 acres and provides for stormwater runoff from the central portion of the Ecorse Creek watershed. The LeBlanc Drain is approximately 9.6 miles long and is mostly an enclosed (piped) system. The LeBlanc Drain was originally constructed as a combined sewer system; however, storm sewers have since been separated from the sanitary sewer system and the LeBlanc Drain is now dedicated to the collection and delivery of stormwater flows only (ECIC, 2006). The Sexton-Kilfoil Drain, which is also known as the South Branch Ecorse Creek, is the main watercourse for the southerly areas of the watershed. It is a 13-mile-long open-channel watercourse and drains an area of approximately 7,600 acres. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-4 - Nath Branch Ecorse Creek ~RiverMile liiiiilEcorse Creek Walershed --Drainage Nelw0!1t WATER RESOURCES E'.ZLJ Floodplain (FEMA Dfirm) North Branch Ecorse Creek - Floodway (Q3Firm Da1a) Flood Risk Management Study - Detroit River Area d Concern Environmental Assessment Wetlands Wayne County, Michigan c:Jcoastal Zone Management Areas 0 SOURCE: Background: ESRI USA USGS Topo Maps 0 2.250 4,500 9,000 Feet Par1<, Open Space & Recreation: SEMCOG, 2008 Generalized Land Use ....-===:::::...... AE'COM FIGU RE 3·1 Section 3 Affected Environment Prior to 1830, much of the Sexton-Kilfoil sub-watershed was beech-sugar maple forest and mixed-oak savanna; areas in the headwaters and near the confluence with the NBEC were mixed-hardwood swamp. Today, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport is at the headwaters of the Sexton-Kilfoil Drain, and single family residential development is the dominant land use in the sub-watershed. Wetlands, woodland, and open land now make up 15.7 percent of the Sexton-Kilfoil sub-watershed (ECIC, 2006). The Ecorse Creek watershed, in its entirety, is identified on Michigan’s list of water-quality limited or threatened waters (MDEQ Clean Water Act Section 303[d] List) as failing to meet Michigan water quality standards for pathogens (bacteria) and for the protection of warm water aquatic life. The MDEQ has developed a total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation, water quality targets, and quantifiable pollutant load reductions to protect aquatic biota in the Ecorse Creek watershed. In 2008, the MDEQ finalized a TMDL for E. coli in the Ecorse Creek watershed (ECWAG and ADW, 2012). The NBEC is a tributary to Ecorse Creek, which flows into the Detroit River. The Detroit River, including the confluence of Ecorse Creek with the Detroit River, is listed by the United States and Canadian governments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987, as an area of concern (AOC) for degraded water quality that result in beneficial use impairments. The AOC extends west to West Jefferson Avenue in Ecorse, as shown on Figure 3-1. The Detroit River is a connecting channel between the upper and lower Great Lakes and drains approximately 700 square miles of land in Michigan and Ontario, including the 108-square-mile of Detroit. Eleven beneficial use impairments have been identified on the Detroit River. Municipal and industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, and tributaries in Michigan are major sources of contaminants in the Detroit River AOC (U.S. EPA, 2010). The NBEC is characterized by sluggish flow during low discharge periods. Hydraulic capacity of the NBEC is severely limited, especially in the middle reaches, particularly through Dearborn Heights. The slope of the channel bottom is relatively flat, resulting in the deposition of sediment during low flows, which further reduces the capacity of the channel (USACE, 1988). Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are depressed in the lower reaches of the NBEC as a result of the combined biological oxygen demand of bottom sediments, suspended organic material, and algal respiration. Because of the depressed DO levels, benthic life is limited to sludge worms, and a sport fishery is nonexistent (USACE, 1988). Previous studies have found the Ecorse Creek watershed discharge to have a measurable adverse impact on Detroit River benthic invertebrates near the mouth of Ecorse Creek (USACE, 1988). This condition likely persists to date, because biological surveys conducted in 2001 by the MDEQ also found that macroinvertebrate communities in the NBEC were dominated by species that are tolerant of low DO levels and poor water quality (ECIC, 2006). Section 3.2.8 (Protected Species) contains additional information regarding macroinvertebrate communities in the NBEC. Field surveys were conducted on October 6 through 8, 2010, to assess the condition of the NBEC and identify other waters of the U.S. in the project area. Prior to conducting field surveys, the WCDC, USACE, North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-6 Section 3 Affected Environment and their contractors reviewed existing county drain maps, aerial photographs, and topographic maps to identify the general locations of waters of the U.S. Wetlands are described in Section 3.2.6 (Wetlands). There are no lakes or ponds in the project area. The majority of the NBEC is characterized by a narrow riparian corridor. Numerous residences, other buildings, fences, and landscaped areas have been constructed close to the NBEC, and some are likely encroaching on the drain easement. At the time of the October 2010 field survey, stream flow varied from slow to no flow, and stagnant water was observed in some areas along the NBEC. There is debris, such as limbs, brush, and trash, in many areas of the NBEC, presenting flow obstructions and further diminishing the hydraulic capacity of the drain. A notable area of debris buildup was found on the western side of I-94 near RM 5.5, where a buildup of branches and trash has blocked flow through the culvert under the highway. This condition of debris in the NBEC was a common occurrence noted at bridge crossings and areas where culverts and multiple drains entered the creek. Silt and sediment deposits were noted from RMs 5.4 through 16.9. Water odors and surface sheens were not noted for the majority of the NBEC; however, a slight odor was found near RM 7.25, and surface oil sheens were noted at RMs 5.5 and 14.4. Minor areas of bank erosion and undercut banks were noted along the NBEC. Many culverts and bank stabilization structures at road crossings were cracked or broken. 3.2.4 Floodplains Delineations of the 100-year floodplain (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]), the Floodway (FEMA), and Flood-Prone Areas (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments [SEMCOG]) were obtained for the watershed. The 100-year floodplain is the area adjoining a river, stream, or watercourse covered by water in the event of a 100-year flood. A 100-year flood event is a flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in magnitude in any given year; in other words, the 100-year-flood is that flood level that would be expected to occur on average, once every 100 years, based on historical flood data and current analysis. Along the NBEC, the 100-year floodplain is most extensive in Dearborn Heights and in Taylor, north of I-94 (ECIC, 2006). According to the Q3 Flood Data (a digital representation of certain features of FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps), of the 19,200 acres in the NBEC watershed, 1,665 acres (8.7 percent) are in the 100-year floodplain. Q3 Flood Data were used to overlay 100-year floodplain information in relation to the study area along RMs of the NBEC depicted on Figure 3-1. Where FEMA has prepared detailed engineering studies, floodways are often designated. Unlike floodplains, floodways do not reflect a recognizable geologic feature. Floodways are defined as the channel of a river or stream, and the overbank areas adjacent to the channel. The floodway carries the bulk of the floodwater downstream and is usually the area where water velocities and forces are the greatest (NOAA, 2011). The floodway is the area of the floodplain that should be kept free of obstructions to allow floodwaters to move downstream. A portion of the NBEC, beginning east of Inkster in Dearborn Heights and continuing into Allen Park, has a designated North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-7 Section 3 Affected Environment floodway (ECIC, 2006). According to the Q3 Flood Data, of the 19,200 acres in the NBEC watershed, 192 acres (1.0 percent) are in the floodway. Q3 Flood Data were used to overlay floodway information in relation to the study area along RMs of the NBEC depicted on Figure 3-1. 3.2.5 Coastal Zone Coastal areas often contain sensitive shoreline resources. Sensitive fish and wildlife habitats along the shorelines of the Great Lakes, connecting waterways, and river mouths have been adversely impacted and/or destroyed through the effects (direct and indirect) of intensive residential and commercial development. The coastal zone in Michigan generally extends a minimum of 1,000 feet inland from the ordinary high water mark of the Great Lakes and connecting channels, and includes coastal lakes, river mouths, bays, floodplains, coastal wetlands, designated sand dune areas, public parks, recreation and natural areas, and urban areas (MDEQ, 2010a). The coastal zone in the project area includes approximately 0.45 mile of NBEC and 0.55 mile of Ecorse Creek to the Detroit River (see Figure 3-1). 3.2.6 Wetlands Wetland habitat in the study area is restricted to small pockets. This is a result of the extensive urban, industrial, commercial, and residential development along the NBEC in Wayne County. Prior to conducting wetland delineations for this study, the WCDC, USACE, and their contractors reviewed NWI maps, MDEQ’s Final Wetland Inventory maps, Natural Resources Conservation Service soils survey data, existing county drain maps, aerial photographs, and topographic maps, to identify the general locations of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. State of Michigan Wetland Inventory mapping indicates that both wetlands and hydric soils are present in parts of the project area, especially along and around the NBEC between RMs 0 and 3 and RMs 12 and 16.9. These areas of potential wetlands and hydric soils are for the most part not consistent with the existing land uses. For example, areas of wetlands and hydric soils are mapped along the NBEC where parking lot and commercial properties currently exist. Therefore, although these areas may have had the potential to support wetland habitat in the past, they have since been converted to developed land uses. Wetland delineations were conducted on October 6 through 8, 2010 within the 100-foot-wide drain easement to identify waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Identified waters of the U.S., including wetlands within the 100-foot-wide drain easement, are shown on Figure 3-1. These wetland delineations were completed in accordance with the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the USACE Interim Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (USACE, 2009). A total of 1.9 acres of wetland were identified in the project area. Of these, 1.49 acres were classified as palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland areas and 0.41 acre was classified as palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetland, following the Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979). The majority of the wetlands in the study area were classified as PEM, occurred in North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-8 Section 3 Affected Environment roadside ditches, and were dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis) and narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia). Wetlands within the 100-foot-wide drain easement are further described in the Wetland Assessment Report prepared for the project (URS, 2011a). No NWI-mapped wetlands exist in the NBEC corridor (assumed 100-foot-wide drain easement). One mapped NWI wetland is near RM 14.25 north of NBEC, in Section 11 (T3S, R9E) in Romulus. However, this wetland is more than 150 feet north of the NBEC, most likely outside of the study area. Another wetland is indicated under the NWI at approximately 3.5 acres in the wooded northeastern portion of the Powers Basin and is classified as Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland. A preliminary wetlands delineation of the Powers Basin was completed by the USACE on November 8 through 10, 2016 (USACE, 2016b). The USACE identified four separate wetland areas totaling approximately 1.93 acres (two forested wetlands and two emergent wetlands) and a drainage feature within the wooded area of the Powers Basin (see Figure 3-1). A reconnaissance survey of two potential excavated materials deposition sites (56.5 acre Beverly site and 20.7 acre German Drain site) was conducted on December 28, 2016 (AECOM, 2017). The German Drain site was predominantly composed of non-wetland habitat. One potential stream and one potential wetland were identified at the German Drain site. This potential wetland is likely a low-quality wetland area, due to the presence of anthropogenic disturbances, dominance of invasive species, and limited size. Extensive areas of the Beverly site were dominated by common reed, a hydrophytic plant species. However, this species has also been known to dominate significantly disturbed non-wetland areas. The majority of the area dominated by hydrophytic species did not feature visible signs of wetland hydrology. However, potential wetland areas are located along the eastern and southern boundary, as well as sporadically throughout the Beverly site. All potential wetland areas are likely of low quality due to the extent of historic disturbance and the dominance of invasive species. 3.2.7 Fish and Wildlife Resources Because of the industrial and urban nature of the project area, the vast majority of the NBEC’s natural habitat has been eliminated. The original vegetation along most of NBEC was most likely cleared prior to or during the 1920s when the area was first developed. Vegetation of lower quality, including invasive species, has colonized the area. Some larger areas of woodland habitat still exist along the river, especially near RM 14.3 and a smaller area (approximately 10 acres) at the Powers detention site. Trees and shrubs commonly present at the Powers Site are listed in Appendix A (Tables A-7 & A-8). Riparian vegetation commonly found along the NBEC is listed in Appendix A (Table A-1). The lack of natural habitat has limited the presence of wildlife in the area. However, limited riparian habitat is present around the NBEC that could provide a degree of support for some species of fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-9 Section 3 Affected Environment This is especially true from RMs 1 through 3.25, where approximately 1.38 miles are in agricultural areas and 0.74 mile is wooded or undeveloped. The entire Ecorse Creek watershed does not attain designated uses for the protection of aquatic life (Creal and Wuycheck, 2002). Urban runoff, past combined sewer overflow, unpermitted connections, industrial point source pollution, habitat modifications, flashy hydrology, and other impacts have adversely affected the fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in NBEC. Additionally, periodic low stream flow rates, high suspended solids concentrations, low DO concentrations, and sediment deposition has limited the diversity of fish and macroinvertebrate species that can inhabit the NBEC. Much of NBEC has also been channelized, further limiting aquatic habitat. Biological surveys were conducted by the MDEQ on the NBEC in 1969, 1991, 2001, 2006, and 2007. Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shows that biological surveys and assessments were also conducted in 1992 and 2002. These surveys identified several areas of the NBEC with severely degraded benthic invertebrate and fish communities; characterizations in these surveys were fair to poor. Additionally, USFWS reported that the 1992 and 2002 studies found that the NBEC is characterized by unstable flow regimes, urban runoff, and heavy siltation. In the 2001 biological surveys, habitat assessments and macroinvertebrate sampling were conducted on the NBEC at Beverly Road, Beech Daly Road, Pelham Road, Southfield Road, and I-75. Of the sites evaluated, habitat was rated best at the I-75 site (good – slightly impaired). Habitat quality was rated fair (moderately impaired) at Beech Daly Road, Pelham Road, and Southfield Road; and poor (severely impaired) at Beverly Road. Macroinvertebrate communities scored poor at all sites on the NBEC. Macroinvertebrate communities, while exhibiting numerous individuals, were dominated by taxa that are tolerant of low DO levels and typically dominate streams with poor water quality. All sites exhibited a low abundance of sensitive insect species. Fish were only sampled at one location on the NBEC, at Telegraph Road in 2001. Only ten individuals were collected representing two fish species. Both species observed— fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)—are tolerant of degraded conditions. Consequently, the fish community was rated poor (ECIC, 2006). The field data collected were analyzed from the 2006 and 2007 biological surveys performed by MDEQ on the NBEC at Polk Road, Stanley Road, Van Born Road, Southfield Road, Edgewood Street, and Council Point Park. Habitat quality was rated marginal (moderately impaired) at Edgewood Street, Polk Road, Stanley Road, Van Born Road (in 2006 and 2007), and Southfield Road. The NBEC aquatic habitat at Council Point Park was rated good. Macroinvertebrate communities scored poor at Council Point Park and Southfield Road; and acceptable, tending toward poor, at Polk Road, Van Born Road (in 2006 and 2007), and Stanley Road. The macroinvertebrate communities, although consisting of several taxa, were dominated by leeches (Hirudinea), crayfish (Decapoda), scuds (Amphipoda), and phantom midges (Chaoboridae). North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-10 Section 3 Affected Environment Leech species are generally considered to be pollution tolerant, while scuds and crayfish are somewhat pollution-tolerant. Most phantom midge species are surface-dependent macroinvertebrates and engage in direct atmospheric exchange, usually at the air/water interface. High numbers or percentages of surface breathers may indicate large diurnal DO shifts or other biological or chemical-oxygen-demanding constraints. Areas subject to elevated temperatures or low or erratic flows may also show disproportionately high percentages of surface-dependent macroinvertebrates (MDEQ, 2002). Similar to the fish and macroinvertebrate communities, the wildlife associated with the NBEC has been greatly affected by urbanization and development. The fauna likely to inhabit the NBEC corridor consist of species commonly found in predominantly urban settings. However, other mammal species may be in the project area by virtue of their habitation range. Commonly found mammals are listed in Appendix A (Table A-2). The western portion of the NBEC has some adjacent wooded and agricultural lands and may support larger mammal species, including white-tailed deer, coyote, and red fox. Birds are also common inhabitants of urban settings. Birds such as wading birds, ducks, and geese that depend on a water habitat can also be found in the NBEC corridor. Common bird species in the NBEC area are listed in Appendix A (Table A-3). These species may use the NBEC area for feeding, resting, cover from predators, breeding, roosting, and foraging. Reptiles and amphibians may also be present in the project area, including snakes, frogs, and toads. Common urban reptile/amphibian species found in the area are listed in Appendix A (Table A- 4). In general, the wildlife associated with the NBEC are urban species adapted to living in industrial and residential areas with routine disturbances by human activity. 3.2.8 Protected Species A threatened and endangered species habitat assessment was conducted from October 6 to 8, 2010. This assessment included an investigation into the presence of both federal and state-listed species and their associated habitat throughout the project area. No threatened, endangered, or candidate species or associated habitat were identified in the project area. 3.2.8.1 Federally Listed Species According to the USFWS online county listings, six species are federally listed for Wayne County. The following discussions provide information on distribution, habitat preference, natural history, and potential of occurrence of each of these species. Indiana Bat and Northern Long‐Eared Bat The Indiana bat (status: endangered) and northern long-eared bat (status: threatened) are small- to medium-sized bats, weighing only one-quarter of an ounce, although in flight they have a wingspan of 9 to 11 inches. Their fur ranges from medium-brown to black above and tawny to pinkish white coloration below. Both bat species are migratory and hibernate colonially in caves and mines in the winter, generally in karst areas of the east-central United States. There are no North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-11 Section 3 Affected Environment known bat hibernacula near the project area. In spring, reproductive females migrate and form maternity colonies in wooded areas. In Michigan, summering bats of both species roost in trees in riparian, bottomland, and upland forests from approximately April 15 to September 15. Roost trees generally are live trees and/or snags greater than 3 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities) greater than 13 feet tall and at least 3 inches dbh (USFWS, 2007a; USFWS, 2007b; USFWS, 2015). Both bats have the potential to occur in the project area while roosting in the summer months. According to the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), the Indiana bat has not been observed in Wayne County, Michigan since 1865 (MNFI, 2017a). The northern long-eared bat is not listed as occurring in Wayne County, Michigan by MNFI (MNFI, 2017b). Additionally, no suitable maternity roost trees (greater than 9 inches dbh) were found in the project area during the habitat assessment that was conducted from October 6 to 8, 2010. Northern Riffleshell The northern riffleshell (status: endangered) is a small to medium-sized mussel, up to 3 inches in length, and occurs in small to large freshwater streams, preferring swiftly moving, well- oxygenated water and riffle and run areas with a bottom composed of firmly packed sand and fine to coarse gravel. The shell exterior is brownish yellow to yellowish green with distinct, fine green rays (USFWS, 1993). Over the past 20 years, northern riffleshells have only been found in the Black, St. Clair, and Detroit Rivers (MNFI, 2004). No known populations or suitable habitat for this species have been identified in the project area by the USFWS or MDEQ. Additionally, no suitable habitat was found in the project area during the habitat assessment that was conducted from October 6 to 8, 2010. Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid The eastern prairie fringed orchid (status: threatened) is characterized by an upright leafy stem with a single flower spike composed of 5 to 40 creamy white flowers, with a three-parted fringed lip. It occurs in mesic prairies to wetland communities such as sedge meadows, marsh edges, and bogs. Areas with full sunlight and neutral to mildly calcareous substrates are preferred (USFWS, 1999). No known populations of the eastern prairie fringed orchid have been identified in the project area by the USFWS or MDEQ. Additionally, no suitable habitat for this species was identified in the project area during the habitat assessment that was conducted from October 6 to 8, 2010. Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake The eastern massasauga (status: threatened) is a small snake with a thick body, heart-shaped head, and vertical pupils. It is gray or light brown in color with large, light-edged chocolate brown blotches on the back and smaller blotches on the side. This species uses shallow wetland habitats, such as peatlands, marshes, sedge meadows, and swamp forests, and adjacent upland savannas, prairies, or old fields (USFWS, 2010). No known populations of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake have been identified in the project area by the USFWS or MDEQ. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-12 Section 3 Affected Environment Additionally, no suitable habitat for this species was identified in the project area during the habitat assessment that was conducted from October 6 to 8, 2010. Rufa Red Knot The rufa red knot (status: threatened) is a migratory coastal shorebird species that typically nests in tundra north of the Arctic Circle and then migrates more than 9,000 miles to the tip of South America—passing through parts of Michigan on its journey. Wintering grounds are along coastal areas from the southern United States to southern South America and Australia. Migratory habitat consists of coastal mudflats, intertidal areas, and occasionally on open sand beaches. The USFWS limits its concern for this species in Wayne County, Michigan, only to actions that occur along coastal areas during the rufa red knot migratory window of May 1 to September 30. No suitable habitat for this species was identified in the project area during the habitat assessment that was conducted from October 6 to 8, 2010. 3.2.8.2 State‐Listed Species An inquiry of potential state-listed threatened and endangered species in the project area was submitted to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) by letter dated September 28, 2010. A response letter dated November 1, 2010, was received from the MDNR, which listed two species that are known to occur in the township, range, and sections crossed by the proposed project. These species were three-awned grass (Aristida longespica, state threatened) and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum, state special concern). Three‐Awned Grass Three-awned grass is a small, slender grass species that grows in loose clumps and typically attains a height of approximately 1 to 2 decimeters (MNFI, 2011). This grass produces a narrow flowering stem of crowded, upright spikelets and is found in sandy substrates in lakeplain wet prairies or lakeplain wet-mesic prairies. These habitats are characterized by a fluctuating water table, with cyclical flooding and periodic drawdowns that expose the seed bank of this graminoid by late season (MNFI, 2011). Three-awned grass is restricted to southeastern Lower Michigan, where it has been documented primarily from Wayne County (seven sites) and St. Clair County (two sites), with single localities known for Gratiot, Midland, Monroe, and Oakland counties (MNFI, 2011). However, no three-awned grass or associated suitable habitat were identified in the project area during the habitat assessment performed from October 6 to 8, 2010. Grasshopper Sparrow The grasshopper sparrow is a small sparrow 4 to 5 inches (10.3 to 13 centimeters) in length, with an unmarked buffy breast and white belly and a flat head with a white stripe running from the bill to the back of the head. This secretive bird is easily identified from a distance by its high pitch insect-like buzzy song. Grasshopper sparrows may be found in a wide variety of grasslands, cultivated fields, hayfields, and old fields, and seem to prefer drier sites as long as there is tall dense grassy vegetation (MNFI, 2011). However, no grasshopper sparrows or North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-13 Section 3 Affected Environment associated suitable habitat were identified in the project area during the habitat assessment performed from October 6 to 8, 2010. 3.2.9 Exotic/Nuisance Species With the industrial and urban nature of the project area, most of the NBEC’s natural habitat has been eliminated. Past disturbances from development and human activity along most of NBEC have eradicated the native vegetation and allowed other vegetation of lower quality, including exotic and invasive species, to colonize the area. A list of these exotic and invasive species commonly found along NBEC is included in Appendix A (Table A-6). Because a majority of the upland area around the NBEC has been developed, most of the exotic/nuisance species reside in wetland areas. The majority of the wetland habitat in the study area was classified as emergent, and occurred in roadside ditches or depressions associated with the NBEC. Most of these wetlands were dominated by the invasive and highly aggressive common reed. Common reed creates tall, dense stands which degrade wetlands by crowding out native plants and animals, reducing access for recreational activities, and possibly creating fire hazards from dry plant material (MDEQ, 2010b). Although not as aggressive or as locally dominant as common reed, several other exotic wetland plants are present in the NBEC area. Narrowleaf cattail exists in the NBEC area and is the dominant plant species in several wetlands. This plant species can rapidly reproduce and transform a wetland diverse in wetland plant species into a single monoclonal stand. Reed canary grass and purple loosestrife are two more exotic species that can easily take over wetland habitat. Reed canary grass was observed along the banks of the NBEC. Purple loosestrife, although not detected during site visits in the study area, is most likely present in the project vicinity. Like narrowleaf cattail, these exotics can become established quickly and displace the native plant populations that support wildlife habitat. Garlic mustard is an upland invasive that has been known to inhabit the project area. It is predominantly a woodland species and has been observed in the limited upland forested riparian areas along the NBEC. Because there is limited suitable habitat for garlic mustard, it will not be as widespread as some of the wetland invasive species; however, there may be small, localized areas of dominance that may need management. Other exotic plants noted during field surveys include Queen Anne’s lace, crack willow, weeping willow, and common teasel. 3.3 Historic and Cultural Resources On October 5, 2010, URS conducted archival research into the known historic and prehistoric occupation of the region. This research focused on the records maintained by the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Lansing, Michigan. Inventoried cultural resources in the state can be found in the database of archaeological sites, the state archives of extant aboveground historic resources, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the locations of Michigan’s State Register of Historic Places (SRHP) listings. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-14 Section 3 Affected Environment Previous cultural resource management-related reports on file at the Michigan SHPO for areas in or near the Area of Potential Effect (APE) were also examined. Synthesis of these data provided a clearer picture of cultural resource sensitivity in the project area, as well as an overview of the previous investigations undertaken in the region. Special attention was given to the 1985 archaeological and literature search (Weir et al., 1985) and the USACE feasibility report (USACE, 1988) conducted for the NBEC project. The APE for cultural resources involves two different types of potential impacts: those involving ground disturbance (direct APE) associated with the project, and those involving visual effects on the viewshed (indirect APE) of the project. The direct APE for the NBEC defined for the purpose of conducting background research includes the land directly impacted by ground disturbance, which in turn includes the 16.9-mile-long (27.2-kilometer-long) route of potential channel improvements (measuring no more than 132 feet [40 meters] in width) along the NBEC, as well as the potential stormwater detention sites for all of the alternatives. The viewshed (or indirect APE) includes any aboveground cultural resources that may be visually impacted by the proposed undertaking. Stormwater detention sites, bridge replacements, bridge removals, or bridge improvements could potentially present visual effects on aboveground cultural resources, depending on which alternative is used (see Section 4.4 [Socioeconomic Resources]). The project is generally located in an urban to suburban setting, primarily along the NBEC. It is bordered by residential and commercial properties, with paved parking lots and buildings constructed right up to the bank of the NBEC. The NBEC has mostly been channelized in the project area. The soil data for Wayne County (USDA, 2010) indicate that approximately 50 percent of the Ecorse Creek watershed is classified as cut-and-fill land (original soils are impossible to identify), and that these soils are dispersed throughout the entire direct APE. In addition to the soil survey, Weir et al. (1985) also documented “extensive fill and re- channelization” throughout their field survey. Background research identified eight previously surveyed areas, 74 archaeological/historic resources, and 12 aboveground historic resources listed in the Michigan SRHP and the NRHP within 2 miles of the NBEC project. One of the previously surveyed areas (ER-7472, which combines the Weir et al. [1985] and Shott [1986] surveys) was an archaeological reconnaissance associated with the project that follows Ecorse Creek for 11 miles (RM 0.0 to RM 0.5 and from RM 1.75 to RM 13.5), except for a small portion from RM 0.5 to RM 1.75. Weir et al. (1985) surveyed a majority of ER-7472, while Shott (1986) surveyed a 7-acre (2.8-hectare) retention basin associated with the project. Of the 74 archaeological/historic resources, 32 were exclusively prehistoric in temporal component, 39 were exclusively historic, and three contained both prehistoric and historic cultural deposits. The prehistoric sites consist of artifact scatters, burials/mounds, and camps, North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-15 Section 3 Affected Environment and are listed primarily as unassigned prehistoric (n = 22). Sites that do have a temporal affiliation assigned date to either the Late Archaic (n = 2) or Woodland (n = 11) periods. Historic sites include cemeteries, artifact scatters, and aboveground structures that date to the 19th and 20th centuries. Eight archaeological sites have been previously identified either in or immediately adjacent to the direct APE. These sites include: 20WN119: This site is documented as an unassigned prehistoric camp with artifacts on the surface. Pedestrian survey, creek bank observation, and shovel testing did not reveal cultural material associated with this site during the Weir et al. (1985) survey. Weir et al. (1985:33) suggested that “continued urban development and creek channelization have destroyed any evidence of these sites (also referring to site 20WN224)”; however, Weir et al. (1985:Table 3) also indicates that there is a potential for subsurface features at site 20WN119. 20WN224: This site is documented as an unassigned prehistoric lithic scatter. Similar to site 20WN119, pedestrian survey, creek bank observation, and shovel testing did not reveal cultural material associated with this site during the Weir et al. (1985) survey. Weir et al. (1985:33) suggested that disturbance associated with urban development and creek channelization may have destroyed the site, but there was some possibility that subsurface features were still present. 20WN498: This site is documented as a 19th-century farmstead, and was recommended for further archival research and Phase II NRHP testing by Weir et al. (1985). 20WN499: This is an unassigned prehistoric site. 20WN500: This is an unassigned prehistoric site. 20WN565: This resource is recorded as a 19th-century dwelling named Austin’s House, and appears to date prior to 1852. 20WN603: This site is documented as a 19th-century dwelling named Goodell’s House. 20WN783: This site is documented as a 19th-century family cemetery, listed as abandoned, under the name Riopelle. Of the 12 aboveground resources listed in the Michigan SRHP and NRHP, three are in the Wyandotte Historical District (P25370, the Marx House; P25369, the MacNichol House; and P25368, the Ford-Bacon House) and three (P25364, the Armstrong House; P25372, the Michigan Alkali Company Administration Building; and P25367, the Ford Village Museum Building) are in proximity to the Wyandotte Historic District. The Wyandotte Historical District and these resources are not within the APE. Seven are listed in the Michigan SRHP, and five are North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-16 Section 3 Affected Environment listed in both the Michigan SRHP and the NRHP. None of these resources have been recorded within the limits of the direct APE. 3.3.1 Archaeological Evaluations Based on data from archival research, the Weir et al. (1985) Phase I field effort surveyed a construction corridor that was 200 feet (61 meters) in width and 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) long centered along the NBEC. Given that the direct APE associated with channel widening is based on a maximum greenway width of 132 feet, the width of the direct APE would be encompassed in the Weir et al. survey area. The field methodology used for this survey appears to have been adequate for this type of urban setting. For example, an initial pedestrian survey was conducted across the construction corridor, which involved a walkover to examine creek banks to determine prior filling or disturbance, and to look for exposed cultural materials. The walkover also appears to have been used to re-investigate previously recorded sites identified during background research. A more formal pedestrian reconnaissance survey was also conducted in 15-meter parallel transects across the construction corridor at the same time as the walkover (Weir et al., 1985:19). Areas that appeared undisturbed or contained some archaeological potential were documented on project mapping, and were subsequently shovel-tested. In addition to these areas, all vacant lots and open areas were also shovel-tested. Sites 20WN119, 20WN224, 20WN499, and 20WN500 were revisited during the pedestrian walkover as part of the Weir et al. (1985) survey. Pedestrian survey, creek bank observation, and shovel testing in the Dearborn Heights section did not reveal cultural material associated with sites 20WN119 and 20WN224. Weir et al. (1985:33) stated that “continued urban development and creek channelization have destroyed any evidence of these sites.” However, Weir et al. (1985) also indicated that there was a potential for subsurface features at these two sites. Sites 20WN499 and 20WN500 could not be located, and were thought to be impacted by existing housing in the area. It is unclear from the Weir et al. (1985) report if archaeological sites (20WN119, 20WN224, 20WN499, and 20WN500) were fully investigated during their survey. For example, in Weir et al. (1985:Table 3), both sites 20WN119 and 20WN224 are listed as “sand ridge removed, no surface evidence,” with the potential for subsurface features. On page 33 in Weir et al. (1985), it is stated that “pedestrian survey, creek bank observation, and shovel testing did not reveal cultural material associated with sites 20WN119 and 20WN224.” It is unclear from the Weir et al. (1985) report if archaeological deposits associated with these sites still exist. No evidence of these sites was identified during the Phase I survey; however, the report indicates a potential for subsurface deposits. It is possible the report was referring to deeply buried deposits, but this is not directly specified. The probability of identifying cultural resources is extremely low for the small portion of the NBEC (RM 0.5 to RM 1.75) that has not been previously subject to a Phase I cultural resources survey. This assessment is based on the location of the NBEC project setting in urban to suburban environments, the presence of cut-and-fill soils along half of the direct APE, and channelization of the NBEC, which suggests that the landscape has been significantly altered North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-17 Section 3 Affected Environment from its pre-modern state. In the application for Section 106 review it was recommended that no further cultural resources work was needed for this section of the APE. The SHPO agreed with this recommendation in a letter dated January 12, 2012. 3.3.2 Architectural History Evaluations The architectural survey conducted by Weir et al. (1985:Table 6) documented 54 historic residential structures; 26 of these were in the immediate vicinity of the survey corridor that was 200 feet (61 meters) in width and 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) long, centered along the NBEC. These structures mostly appear to be in Dearborn Heights. Weir et al. (1985:54) suggests that individually, these structures are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, but may have the potential to be listed as a district. However, these structures do not appear to be in the direct APE, and would not be directly impacted. No visual impacts are expected because the ground disturbance proposed for the project is limited to the NBEC channel. However, given the potential for some of these structures to be eligible for listing in the NRHP as a district (not specified by Weir et al., 1985 as to which ones) and that the Weir et al. (1985) survey was conducted over 31 years ago, an architectural history field reconnaissance of the NBEC project area may be warranted, to photograph and document historic structures in the Dearborn Heights area to identify new historic structures; verify that the Weir et al. (1985) recommendations are still valid; and verify whether structures may be eligible as a historic district. Bridge and culvert replacements, culvert improvements, and bridge removals have the potential to result in visual impacts. None of these bridges appear to be more than 50 years old and none are currently listed on MDOT’s historic bridge website. Considering that the bridges and culverts are being replaced with similar structures and that the improvements proposed for the other culverts and bridges are minor, impacts to the viewshed are expected to be minimal. 3.4 Socioeconomic Resources The study area was defined to include the nine communities in the NBEC watershed to summarize existing socioeconomic conditions. 3.4.1 Land Use, Population, and Housing Existing land use for the NBEC watershed was determined using data from SEMCOG geographic information system maps. Land uses in the NBEC watershed are primarily urban, and single-family residential is the dominant land use, averaging 43 percent for the watershed and ranging from 35 to 56 percent over the basin. Multi-family residential averages less than 1 percent for the basin, ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 percent over the basin. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and government land uses occupy approximately 26 percent of the watershed. Transportation, communication, and utilities occupy about 26 percent of the watershed. Parks, recreation, agriculture, and open spaces occupy about 4 percent of the watershed. Population and housing data were analyzed at the community level, including the nine communities in Wayne County that are in the NBEC watershed study area (AECOM, 2016a). The North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-18 Section 3 Affected Environment populations of Michigan and Wayne County decreased between 2000 and 2010 by 0.6 percent and 11.7 percent, respectively. Dearborn is the only community in the study area that experienced population growth (0.4 percent) between 2000 and 2010, and the largest decline occurred in Inkster (15.8 percent). However, employment has increased in all communities in the study area; however, data were not available for Ecorse and Melvindale (AECOM, 2016a; USBLS, 2016). In total, there were 187,353 total housing units listed in 2010 for communities in the study area. 3.4.2 Recreation A range of regional, community, and local recreational opportunities are available on private and public lands in the NBEC watershed. These resources include recreational golf courses and regional, community, and neighborhood parks, all of which provide active and passive recreation opportunities. Park, recreation, and open space land uses account for approximately 408 acres (2.1 percent) of the NBEC watershed (see Figure 3-2). The recreational opportunities existing on the NBEC are limited, because surrounding lands are mostly privately owned and built out for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. No county parks exist along the approximately 16-mile length of the NBEC; however, there are various local parks, recreation, and open space resources along the NBEC. 3.4.3 Environmental Justice Executive Order (EO) 12898, Environmental Justice, requires each federal agency to address disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. A location is considered a potential environmental justice AOC if the minority population of the area is meaningfully greater than that of the respective county, or if the minority population meets the select poverty guidelines. Any census tract/block group with a percentage of residents above the minority thresholds established for the county, or with an income level below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Poverty Guidelines (HHS, 2009), is identified as a potential environmental justice AOC. An analysis was completed of minority populations and low-income populations in the nine communities in the NBEC watershed that could potentially be impacted by the project (AECOM, 2016a). The minority population in census tracts along project areas is greater than two times the county minority population percentage. In block group 5761006, 100 percent of the population is a minority. However, this block group is in a nonresidential land use area (no residential uses) and is therefore not an environmental justice AOC based on minority population (AECOM, 2016a). North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-19 c:::J Study Area North Branch Ecorse Creek River Mile RECREATION :p••-··~ i Parks, Open Space, North Branch Ecorse Creek l--··-·· Recreational Land Use Flood Risk Management Study Environmental Assessment 0 Wayne County, Michigan SOURCE: Background: ESRI USA USGS Topo Maps 0 2,250 4,500 9,000 Feet Park, Open Space & Recreation: SEMCOG, 2008 Generalized Land Use ....-====------AE'COM FIGURE 3·2 Section 3 Affected Environment For the purpose of the environmental justice analysis, low-income was defined based on the HHS poverty guidelines (HHS, 2009) for a family of four in the 48 contiguous states. To identify low- income populations, this value was compared to the median household income values for census tracts/block groups along project areas. The median household income for all of the census tracts/ block groups exceeded the HHS poverty guidelines, except for block group 5786004. However, block group 5786004 is in a nonresidential land use area (no residential uses) and is therefore not an environmental justice AOC based on low-income population (AECOM, 2016a). 3.4.4 Aesthetic Resources Land surrounding the NBEC includes visual resources that are representative of an urban setting, including industry, commercial businesses, urban residences, agricultural fields, and transportation facilities such as roads, railroads, and the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. Parks and green spaces are intermittent throughout the study area. Nearly 77 percent of the land is developed, with only 23 percent remaining as open space (ECIC, 2006). The urbanization of the NBEC watershed is expected to continue, with 97 percent of the land being developed and 3 percent remaining as open space by the year 2030 (ECIC, 2006). The aesthetic value of much of the land surrounding the NBEC is currently limited by degraded conditions in the stream channel, including disturbed banks; debris in and around the creek; and stagnant, turbid water. Due to the industrial and urban nature of the study area, the vast majority of the NBEC’s natural habitat has been eliminated. Past disturbances from development and human activity along most of NBEC has resulted in removal of native vegetation and has allowed other vegetation of lower quality, including exotic and invasive species, to colonize the area. Nonetheless, even low quality vegetation can still provide aesthetic values compared to no vegetation. Some larger areas of woodland habitat still exist along the NBEC, especially near RM 14.3 and a smaller area (approximately 10 acres) at the Powers Basin. This woodlot is prominent in the view from at least a dozen nearby houses along the north and east sides of the proposed Powers Basin. 3.4.5 Noise The study area is urbanized and is primarily developed with residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses. Possible noise-sensitive receptors, including schools, hospitals, and churches, are scattered in the NBEC watershed; multiple schools and one hospital are near the NBEC. Major noise sources in the study area would be highways (I-94 and I-75), Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, and railroads. According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines, residences within 100 feet of highways would be affected by noise levels of 70 A-weighted decibels (dBA) day-night average sound level (Ldn) or more. Residences located within 60 feet of railroad lines would be affected by noise levels of 70 dBA Ldn or more. Some residences in Romulus would be affected by airport noise. Existing noise levels of between 50 and 60 dBA Ldn were estimated for communities within the NBEC watershed, based on FTA guidelines (URS, 2011b). North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-21 Section 3 Affected Environment 3.4.6 Utilities 3.4.6.1 Potable Water Supply The City of Detroit, through its Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD), provides regional potable water service to the ten communities in the study area. The Detroit River is the source for the public water system. The water distribution system includes transmission mains and distribution mains owned by DWSD, and connected mains owned by wholesale customers. The water distribution system also includes pump stations, water storage reservoirs, and auxiliary facilities in the NBEC watershed. In general, the current DWSD water system has transmission mains crossing beneath the NBEC at four locations. 3.4.6.2 Sanitary Sewer The City of Detroit, through its Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD), provides wastewater services to the ten communities in the study area. Each municipality in the NBEC watershed owns and maintains a sewer system. Generally, the sanitary sewers in the project area are at a depth beyond that which would be impacted by project activities. Locations and depths will be evaluated during design phase. Sanitary sewers are parallel to the NBEC in a limited number of areas and numerous perpendicular sanitary sewer crossings occur within the study area. Sanitary sewers in the vicinity of proposed changes will need to be evaluated for proper cover and incased in concrete or moved if impacted by the project. 3.4.6.3 Energy Gas and electric services in the NBEC watershed are provided by the Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (MichCon) and Detroit Edison, respectively. MichCon and Detroit Edison are subsidiaries of DTE Energy. MichCon primarily serves the project area with underground gas lines in the road right-of-way. These gas lines cross the NBEC in approximately 28 locations. Detroit Edison primarily serves the project area with overhead electrical transmission lines. An overhead electrical transmission line crosses the NBEC in Lincoln Park; however, the associated towers are outside of the creek. A number of other gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines and associated tanks are in the NBEC watershed (PHMSA, 2011); these facilities are owned by a number of companies. 3.4.6.4 Communications AT&T is a fiber-optic phone service provider in the NBEC watershed. Comcast and Wide Open West are fiber-optic cable providers in the NBEC watershed. There are several radio towers in the NBEC watershed, including near Exit 202 (Telegraph) off I-94, and at the intersection of Venoy Road/Ruff Road and Ecorse Road. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-22 Section 3 Affected Environment 3.4.7 Traffic and Transportation The NBEC watershed includes three limited-access highways (I-75, I-94, and M-39) and numerous arterial roads. The NBEC parallels I-94 for much of its upper reach and then crosses under I-94 in Allen Park. The NBEC crosses primary arterials at Middlebelt Road, Beverly Road, Van Born Road, Inkster Road, Beech Daly Road, Telegraph Road, and Southfield Road. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport is south of the NBEC watershed in Romulus (see Figure 1-1). The transportation network in the NBEC watershed also comprises a number of railroads that cross the NBEC, including CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern, Amtrak, and Consolidated Rail Corporation. 3.4.8 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Sampling of the NBEC was conducted for the Wayne County flood control study (WCDC, 2008). This sampling activity was completed to evaluate the potential for channel dredging to restore the NBEC to its original design grade between the confluence of the NBEC with the Sexton-Kilfoil Drain and Fort Street (Michigan Highway 85). The study involved sampling of the following parameters: Metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc); Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and Particle size distribution. Sediment samples were collected at four locations spaced at approximately 0.5-mile intervals between the confluence of the NBEC with the Sexton-Kilfoil Drain and Fort Street (Michigan Highway 85). Petroleum impacts were indicated by the traces of PAHs detected in the samples and by the elevated detection limits. Trace metals were present at concentrations exceeding the statewide default background concentrations. In most cases, the concentrations also exceeded the drinking water protection criteria. Arsenic also exceeded the direct contact criterion in all four samples. PCBs were detected in three of the four samples, with concentrations below all applicable criteria. Laboratory results showed that the sediments were likely to leach barium at concentrations exceeding the geologic strength index (GSI) criterion. Additionally, because of the analytical methods used in the analysis of leachate samples, the mercury detection limit was higher than the GSI criterion. As part of the environmental evaluation of NBEC, sediment sampling pursuant to Part 301 (Inland Lakes and Streams) and Part 325 (Great Lakes Bottom Lands) of the Natural Resource Protection Act, Public Act (PA) 451, as amended, would be conducted in accordance with any potential channel dredging proposed in the project alternatives. Sediments would be tested for North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-23 Section 3 Affected Environment the presence of PCBs, PAHs, and metals, and the results used to determine appropriate disposal options and any conditions necessary for their removal from the NBEC channel. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA), completed for the project in June 2016, provides details on potential hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes (HTRW) in the project area (AECOM, 2016b). The Phase I ESA included a site reconnaissance and survey of the NBEC and associated 200-foot wide easement, conducted in the weeks of April 4 and April 11, 2016. A visual survey of the adjoining properties from the study area and public right- of-way was also completed. Access to make observations of the study area and its immediately adjoining properties was limited by the presence of walls, buildings, fencing, vegetation, roadways, and private property. Historical aerial photographs and a database report of federal and state regulatory agency listings were also reviewed to identify potential areas of environmental concern. The Phase I ESA identified potential sites of environmental concern based on site reconnaissance observations, and historical use as indicated by aerial photographs and/or regulatory database listings. These sites of potential environmental concern are shown in Figure 3-3. The Phase I ESA also included an evaluation of 14 potential storage basin locations. The following five potential storage basin locations were identified as possible sites of environmental concern: Basin No. 6 – Buhl Field Area, Grand Trunk and Norfolk & Western Railroad, Allen Park. This property is currently used as Buhl Field, a baseball field sports park. Impacted soils may be present because of the adjoining industrial properties and onsite disturbed soils associated with one of the adjoining properties in 1957. Basin No. 7 – Baker College Area, I-94 and Grand Trunk Railroad, Allen Park. Historical aerial photographs indicate that this property was disturbed land in 1937 and 1967. These indiscernible land disturbances represent a potential environmental concern. Basin No. 8 – Enterprise Drive Area, Enterprise Drive and Norfolk & Western Railroad, Allen Park. The industrial facility adjacent to and southwest of this property, which has been present since prior to 1961, represents a potential environmental concern. Basin No. 20 – Powers Avenue and Inkster Road, Sanitation Authority property in Dearborn Heights. Historical aerial photographs indicate that this property was developed with an industrial facility/incinerator prior to 1967. This complex was demolished in 2005. The former presence of an industrial facility/incinerator represents an environmental concern in the area of potential detention basin No. 20. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-24 ...... ~- Study Area North Branch Ecorse creek POTENTIAL AREAS OF 0 River Mile ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN Environmental Concerns North Branch Ecorse Creek • Flood Risk Management Study Environmental Assessment 0 Wayne County, Michigan SOURCE: Background: ESRI USA USGS Topo Maps o...... 2•. 2 cso=====4~5:1.• ...... i~ 9,0001 Feet AE'COM FIGURE 3.3 Section 3 Affected Environment Basin No. 22 – Romulus Area 2, South of Van Born Road and West of Inkster Road, Dearborn Heights. Soils in this area may be impacted with petroleum products and other hazardous materials, based on federal and state regulatory agency listings and historical use of the adjoining properties. Phase II investigations would be carried out during design phase for areas identified in the Phase I ESA that correspond with the work areas of the preferred alternative along the creek and at the detention and/or disposal sites as needed. The Phase II investigations will include subsurface soil, groundwater, or sediment sampling and analysis, as applicable. Based on the results from Phase II sampling, options for material disposition would be evaluated. These could include various disposal options, such as upland with deed restriction, or Type II landfill. Any areas of HTRW, if present, would be required to be remediated by the nonfederal sponsor prior to project construction. 3.4.9 Public Health and Safety Flooding along the NBEC has occurred repeatedly over the last 40 years and has resulted in the inundation of streets and basements, causing extensive property damage and creating a chaotic atmosphere for the region (USACE, 2016a). Flooding of freeways and streets has led to temporary closures, limited access to homes and businesses, caused school cancellations, and hindered emergency response. Flooding may impair the ability and functionality of local hospitals, emergency vehicles, fire departments, and police departments in the project area, which may be affected either by flooding of their facilities or by difficulty in accessing the project area for their service as a result of flooding. Sewage backed up into many homes as a result of the 2000 flood, causing significant damage to basements and leading to health concerns related to viruses, fungal contaminants, and other pathogens. The 1979 and 2000 flood events prompted Presidential declarations of disaster in the region. Contamination of the NBEC also poses public health risks and limits recreational use of the watercourse. In 2007, monitoring data collected by the MDEQ confirmed numerous exceedances of the state’s E. coli water quality standard at multiple sampling locations, leading to Wayne County health officials warning the public against all waterbody contact in the entire NBEC watershed (Wayne County, 2008). North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 3-26 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4 Environmental Consequences 4.1 Introduction The environmental consequences section provides a description of the potential environmental effects of the alternatives on the quality of the human environment. 4.2 Physical and Natural Resources 4.2.1 Soils The action alternatives would have temporary impacts to soils; however, no permanent impacts to soils in the project area would result from the action alternatives. Topsoil would be removed and replaced in areas of excavation for detention basins or greenway construction. Any potential temporary construction impacts such as soil erosion and sedimentation runoff into local waterways would be minimized under the conditions of a required soil erosion and sedimentation controls (SESC) permit. SESC permits are required for earth disturbance greater than 1 acre or within 500 feet of a waterway, per Part 91, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, PA 451 of 1994 as amended, which would apply to all the action alternatives. 4.2.2 Air Quality Effects on air quality would arise from emissions of motorized construction equipment and fugitive dust emissions associated with earth-disturbing activities. All equipment would be required to meet emission standards, and fugitive dust would be minimized through the adherence to best management practices (BMPs) during construction. Therefore, emissions would be minor and temporary, would be exempted as de minimis (Latin for “of minimal importance”), and would meet the Conformity Requirements under Section 176(c) of the CAA, as amended, and 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2). Once constructed, there would be no emissions, with the exception of periodic maintenance activities that would be considered exempt actions per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93.153(c)(2). No ongoing air pollutant emissions would result from the implementation of any of the action alternatives, because the project would not include installation of pollutant-emitting processes or process equipment. A completed flood risk management project would reduce emissions related to flood response activities since the magnitude of future responses would be much smaller with the project. 4.2.3 Water Resources Construction of the project would impact the surface water resources of the NBEC both temporarily and permanently, while not significantly affecting groundwater resources. Long- term effects would be positive, including a stable hydrology, water quality benefits, and flood retention. Several of the action alternatives include detention basins or flood storage areas, these structures would improve water quality by filtering and settling out particulates and contaminants. Additionally, they would alleviate the “flashy” hydrology of the stream, which North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-1 Section 4 Environmental Consequences contributes to flooding, erosion, and the introduction of contaminants through sewer/septic backups. Several action alternatives also include new or improved culverts and stream crossings. These structures, appropriately sized, would also improve the hydrology of the NBEC, and potentially reduce flooding. Improved water quality and hydrology would make the NBEC more habitable for dependent aquatic organisms like fish and macroinvertebrates by lowering turbidity, increasing DO, and improving aquatic habitat. The greatest potential for negative water resource impacts would be from construction activities. Short term construction impacts, when unmanaged, include temporary water quality degradation due to increased turbidity, soil erosion, and sedimentation, and contaminated runoff. Increased erosion during storm events from soils disturbed by construction activities would result in more sedimentation and increased turbidity in the NBEC, while the use of construction equipment increases the risk of spills or contaminated runoff entering the NBEC. Increased turbidity and excessive sediment are not aesthetically pleasing, and can potentially injure and/or kill fish and other aquatic organisms, and destroy their habitat. Additionally, if large amounts of organic material are released, it can cause a drop in DO levels, and kill fish. Similar effects can be produced by major storm events, and an implemented flood management project would benefit water quality by reducing the frequency and intensity of such effects from storm events. However, BMPs, including installing and maintaining SESC, would be used during construction to prevent sediment and organic material from escaping downstream. Potential SESC that may be implemented include silt fencing, stilling basins, silt sacks, erosion control blankets, dewatering structures, native seed mixes, and turbidity curtains. Nonstructural controls can also be used to minimize potential impacts, including project scheduling (working during the summer low-flow period) and instream construction techniques like the dam-and-pump/pump-around method. 4.2.4 Floodplains Temporary floodplain impacts would occur from construction activities. Bridge removals and/or replacements would be designed to avoid adverse effects on the floodplain and/or floodway. Construction of detention basins and channel improvements under implementation would result in beneficial effects on the floodplain and floodway by reducing the flashiness of flood flows and associated erosion and sedimentation effects. Reduced flooding impacts along the NBEC would result in beneficial reductions in National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) costs and flood insurance costs for residential and commercial properties in the NBEC watershed. 4.2.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, floodplains and floodways would remain in their existing conditions. The floodplains and floodways are primarily disturbed due to the urbanization of the study area. Continued development can be guided by local planning and zoning from communities in the study area, and State floodplain permitting, to protect floodplains and floodways. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-2 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.2.4.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative Existing floodplains and floodways under the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative would only be affected temporarily in areas of the construction footprint for the detention basin in the vicinity of Powers Avenue and Inkster Road. This alternative would have no permanent negative impacts on the floodplains. Any potential temporary construction effects on the channel would be limited to the direct connection to the detention basin. This would be necessary to provide improvements to the floodplain capacity along the NBEC. Beneficial floodplain and floodway impacts would occur because flooding would be reduced through increased floodwater detention, storage, and infiltration. 4.2.4.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative Existing floodplains and floodways under the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative would be temporarily affected in areas of the construction footprint for the channel improvements, one detention site, and one flood storage area. The detention site affected is the Powers Avenue basin, and the flood storage facility affected is in the area just north of the M-39 and I-94 interchange. Channel improvements, including dredging and floodway/greenway construction, were proposed for the entire length of the NBEC and represent permanent improvement of the floodway for better stormwater flow conveyance. Beneficial floodplain and floodway impacts would occur because flooding would be reduced through increased floodwater detention, storage, and infiltration, and channel capacity of the NBEC. 4.2.4.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative Existing floodplains and floodways under the Optimized Powers Basin Alternative would only be affected in areas of the construction footprint for the detention basin, similar to the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative, and would also be optimized at the lateral weir and outlet structures to maximize peak flow reduction for the 2-year design event. This alternative would have no permanent impacts to floodplains other than providing improvements to the floodplain capacity. Any potential temporary construction effects during detention basin construction would be avoided with construction BMPs. Beneficial floodplain and floodway impacts would occur because flooding would be reduced through increased floodwater detention, storage, and infiltration. 4.2.4.5 Alternative 5 and 6: Detention with Channel Improvements Alternatives Existing floodplains and floodways under these alternatives would be temporarily affected in areas of the construction footprint for the channel improvements and five detention sites. The detention sites temporarily affected are in Allen Park and Dearborn Heights, near the vicinity of M-39 and I-94; the Powers Avenue basin; channel improvements; and five additional storage facilities through Dearborn Heights and Allen Park. Channel improvements, including dredging and floodway/greenway construction, were proposed for the NBEC downstream of US-24 and represent permanent improvement of the floodway for better stormwater flow conveyance. Beneficial floodplain and North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-3 Section 4 Environmental Consequences floodway impacts would occur because flooding would be reduced through increased floodwater detention, storage, and infiltration, and channel capacity of the NBEC. 4.2.5 Coastal Zone The proposed action, Alternative 6, is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Michigan Coastal Management Plan. The study is within the area where the State of Michigan has assumed 404 permitting under the Clean Water Act. The State has indicated that for project under the State permit process (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) “the Coastal Zone Management certification will be handled part and parcel with the state permit process through the applicant.” As the applicant for this project would be Wayne County and the State permit review requires project plans, this cannot occur until the plans are prepared in the design phase of the project. The proposed action provides benefits to the coastal zone through reduced sediment loads and improved water quality of the NBEC discharge into the coastal zone; therefore, coastal evaluation during permitting is expected to focus on construction BMPs to avoid significant adverse effects during project construction. The implementation of some alternatives would include channel improvements in the coastal zone that remain in or near the existing top-of-bank of the existing channel. These construction activities in the river channel would temporarily impair water quality, and disturb or remove wildlife habitats in the riparian areas of the NBEC. In the long term, coastal zone habitat would be improved as a result of the channel improvements, reduction in flood events, and improved water quality of the NBEC discharge to the coastal zone. 4.2.5.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The coastal zone of the NBEC extends approximately from the Detroit River to 1 mile upstream and includes adjacent shoreland areas. These areas include wooded banks and an industrial site on the north, a marina storage area on the north, docks on both sides of the river the first 1/3-mile in from the Detroit River, and residential properties and a city park on the south. The No Action Alternative would not impact the existing coastal zone. 4.2.5.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative Construction of the detention basin at Powers Avenue and Inkster Road would have no direct effect on the coastal zone because it is inland of the Detroit River. However, positive indirect effects of the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative include reduced sediment loads and improved water quality of the NBEC discharge into the coastal zone. 4.2.5.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative Construction of the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative would include dredging and floodway/greenway construction for the entire length of the NBEC. The greenway could be as wide as 132 feet, and 80 feet at the mouth of the NBEC. These initial construction activities in the river channel would temporarily affect water quality, and disturb or remove wildlife habitats in the riparian areas of the NBEC. Long-term direct impacts of the Wayne County 2008 North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-4 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Greenway Alternative would include improving coastal zone habitat with a green channel and a reduction in flood events that contribute to the degradation of the NBEC and the Detroit River. Positive indirect effects include reduced sediment loads and improved water quality of the NBEC discharge to the coastal zone. 4.2.5.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative The implementation of the Optimized Powers Basin Alternative would have no direct effect on the coastal zone, because it is inland of the Detroit River. However, positive indirect effects of the Optimized Powers Basin include reduced sediment loads and improved water quality of the NBEC discharge into the coastal zone. 4.2.5.5 Alternative 5: Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative The implementation of the Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative would have no direct effect on the coastal zone, because the channel improvements end about 3.5 miles upstream from the coastal zone limit on NBEC. However, positive indirect effects would include reduced sediment loads and improved water quality of the NBEC discharge into the coastal zone. 4.2.5.6 Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative The implementation of the Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative would include channel improvements that remain in or near the existing top-of-bank of the existing channel in the coastal zone. However, long-term direct impacts of the Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative would include improving coastal zone habitat with a green channel and a reduction in flood events that contribute to the degradation of the NBEC and the Detroit River. Positive indirect effects include reduced sediment loads and improved water quality of the NBEC discharge to the coastal zone. 4.2.6 Wetland Resources The Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative has the potential to impact a combined total of 0.036 acre with the implementation of the greenway channel. Preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 1.93 acres of forested wetlands and emergent wetlands would be impacted as a result of construction of the Powers Basin under all of the action alternatives. The Beverly and German Drain disposal sites under the action alternatives may include some low-quality wetlands, though most of this area did not have indication of wetland hydrology at the time of the site visit (December 2016). In the design phase these potential wetland areas would be further investigated and delineated, preferably during the growing season. Impacts to identified wetlands would be avoided and/or minimized during the design phase to the extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands that could not be avoided would be mitigated through mitigation banks, in lieu funds, and/or permittee responsible mitigation, if required. In this way, there would be no net loss of wetlands. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-5 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.2.7 Fish and Wildlife Resources Construction of the project would temporarily and permanently impact fish and wildlife resources of the NBEC. Long-term effects would be predominantly positive; the existing habitat is in a degraded condition and would be replaced over time by higher quality vegetation in a widened and more-natural floodplain, and the project would result in stabilized hydrology and improved water quality, making the NBEC more habitable for fish and macroinvertebrates by lowering turbidity, increasing DO, and improving aquatic habitat. A stable flow regime improves aquatic habitat by potentially eliminating periods of intermittent flow during summer months, increasing DO levels, and reducing flash flooding, which results in erosion. Additionally, a more constant flow through the stream channel would improve fish access, and depress water temperatures, making the NBEC more habitable for river fish to colonize. Decreased erosion would prevent sedimentation and the destruction of aquatic habitat allowing fish and macroinvertebrates to use available substrate for foraging and reproduction. If water quality improves and appropriate water depths can be sustained through the NBEC during the summer months, a fishery could develop, including such warm-water species as chubs, minnows, daces, bullheads, mudminnows, darters, shiners, pickerel, pirate perch, and sunfishes. Negative permanent impacts may also occur, including the potential destruction of non-mobile animals and wildlife habitat. This includes wooded areas along the river banks and within the Powers Avenue retention basin, used by mammals, birds, and other animals typical of fragmented urban woodlands. However, a majority of the wildlife habitat that would be impacted under many of the project alternatives is low quality, due to urbanization and human disturbances, and fisheries are nearly nonexistent. Additionally, there is higher-quality fish and wildlife habitat in areas adjacent to the project area for the movement of displaced animals. One area in particular is the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, the only international wildlife refuge in North America, located at the mouth of Ecorse Creek. The permanent indirect impacts of the project on the refuge would be positive because of reduced sediment loads and improved water quality of the NBEC discharge into the Detroit River and the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, which would benefit fish and wildlife resources. Negative water resource impacts would mostly be associated with construction activities. Short- term construction impacts to the NBEC include water quality degradation due to increased turbidity, soil erosion and sedimentation, and contaminated runoff. Increased erosion during storm events from soils disturbed by construction activities would result in more sedimentation and increased turbidity in the NBEC; while the use of construction equipment increases the risk of spills or contaminated runoff entering the stream. Increased turbidity and excessive sediment can blanket fish spawning beds and foraging habitat, making them unusable; and can also suffocate newly hatched fish and invertebrate larvae, and clog or damage sensitive fish gill structures. This can decrease their resistance to disease, prevent proper egg and larval North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-6 Section 4 Environmental Consequences development, and potentially interfere with particle feeding activities. Additionally, if large amounts of organic material are released, this can cause drops in DO levels and kill fish. These effects already occur in the NBEC watershed following storm events, especially major flood events. During construction, these negative effects would be controlled and/or limited through the implementation of BMPs to limit exposure of soils and the movement of soil materials downstream and into the NBEC. 4.2.7.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The existing fish and wildlife habitat associated with the NBEC would remain under the No Action Alternative. 4.2.7.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative The Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative would have a minimal positive effect on fish habitat by improving the water quality of the NBEC by decreasing turbidity, sedimentation, and erosion. Construction of the detention basin would result in approximately 3 acres of permanent woodland impacts out of a total 10 wooded acres at the site. Mammals, birds, and other animals typical of fragmented urban wooded areas would be displaced to nearby suitable habitat. 4.2.7.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative The Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative would have a moderately positive effect on fish habitat by improving the water quality of the NBEC by decreasing turbidity, sedimentation, and erosion. Additionally, the NBEC would have a more stable hydrology that would potentially prevent intermittent flows through channel improvements. Construction of a greenway would result in negative impacts associated with disturbance or removal of riparian wildlife habitat. These impacts would occur along the 17-mile NBEC; the greenway would vary in width from approximately 25 to 132 feet. Although wildlife could recolonize the greenway, the habitat type would most likely change due to the disturbance from construction activities. Construction of flood detention areas would result in approximately 50 acres of permanent impacts to wooded areas. Mammals, birds, and other animals typical of fragmented urban wooded areas would be displaced to nearby suitable habitat. Over time, the widened greenway, revegetated with higher quality plants and trees, would provide improved habitat over the existing riverbank habitat. 4.2.7.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative Construction of detention basins under the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative would have limited impact to wildlife because of the urbanized nature of the project area. Minimal improvements to the fish resources of the NBEC would occur because of increased flood detention and improvements in water quality. Construction of the detention basin would eliminate approximately 10 acres of permanent woodland, which is most of the woodland at the site. Mammals, birds, and other animals typical of fragmented urban wooded areas would be displaced to nearby suitable habitat. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-7 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.2.7.5 Alternative 5: Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative The Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative would have a moderately positive effect on fish habitat by improving the water quality of the NBEC by decreasing turbidity, sedimentation, and erosion. Additionally, the NBEC would have more stable hydrology that would potentially prevent intermittent flows through channel improvements. Construction of flood detention areas would result in approximately 25 acres of permanent woodland impacts. Mammals, birds, and other animals typical of fragmented urban wooded areas would be displaced to nearby suitable habitat. Construction of a greenway would result in negative impacts associated with disturbance or removal of riparian wildlife habitat. These impacts would occur along approximately 4.75 miles of the NBEC; the greenway would vary in width from approximately 15 to 35 feet. Over time, the widened floodplain, revegetated with higher quality plants and trees, would provide improved habitat over the existing riverbank habitat. 4.2.7.6 Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative The Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative would have a moderately positive effect on fish habitat by improving the water quality of the NBEC by decreasing turbidity, sedimentation, and erosion. The NBEC would also have a more stable hydrology that would potentially prevent intermittent flows through channel improvements. Construction of the detention basin would eliminate approximately 10 acres of woodland, which is most of the woodland at the site. Mammals, birds, and other animals typical of fragmented urban wooded areas would be displaced to nearby suitable habitat. Construction of a greenway would result in negative impacts associated with disturbance or removal of riparian wildlife habitat. These impacts would occur along approximately 9.5 miles of the NBEC; the greenway would vary in width from approximately 15 to 35 feet between Madison Street and Allen Road, and be contained within or near the existing top of bank from Allen Road to the Detroit River channel. Over time, the widened floodplain, revegetated with higher quality plants and trees, would provide improved habitat over the existing riverbank habitat. 4.2.8 Protected Species No threatened, endangered, or candidate species or associated habitat (including suitable Indiana bat maternity roost trees greater than 9 inches dbh) were identified during a habitat assessment of the project area conducted in 2010. However, no information is available for male roost trees with a dbh of greater than 3 inches. Tree clearing activities would be restricted to the USFWS- recommended clearing season, and a new maternity roost survey would be conducted if required by USFWS as detailed design progresses for the selected alternative. The project action alternatives would have “No Effect” on state or federally protected species, with the exception of Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat. For the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat, the project action alternatives “may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect” these species North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-8 Section 4 Environmental Consequences because of the potential presence of maternity roost trees and measures that would be taken to avoid impacting bats during project construction. These determinations were provided to USFWS on December 2, 2016 (see Section 5.4 [Endangered Species Act of 1973]). All attempts would be made to minimize the disturbance to the ecosystem when designing, scheduling, and completing construction activities. To protect migratory bird species, it is recommended that any habitat disturbances occur before April 15 or after August 15 to minimize potential effects on nesting birds. This schedule would allow for potential habitat or nesting structures to be removed before birds initiate spring nesting, or after the breeding season has ended, to avoid take of migratory birds, eggs, young, and/or active nests. Additionally, the USFWS recommended avoiding clearing trees larger than 9 inches dbh between April 1 and October 31 to minimize any potential effects to the Indiana bat. All tree clearing and construction schedules would be coordinated with the USFWS prior to commencement of these activities. 4.2.9 Exotic/Nuisance Species Because of the abundance of invasive plants in the NBEC area and the potential for construction activities to further spread species found in the NBEC area, the management of these exotic and nuisance plant species is a concern in the construction of any of the action alternatives. Soils disturbed by construction activities and the creation of detention basins and flood storage areas provide an excellent opportunity for invasive species colonization. Soil disturbed during channel improvements can also allow invasive species to colonize streambanks. Invasive species can crowd out native species and multiply to occupy large portions of disturbed areas and newly created aquatic environments, thereby substantially diminishing the habitat quality through loss of diversity and quality of plant and animal components. Controlling the establishment, colonization, and spread of invasive species, especially wetland plant species like Phragmites, is important to restoring NBEC wildlife and wetland habitat. Invasive species risks and impacts can be minimized through the use of appropriate SESC, seed mixes, and invasive species monitoring. The impact of exotic fish, macroinvertebrate, and wildlife species is limited because the existing habitat along the NBEC is in a degraded condition. The existing degraded condition of habitat along the NBEC would be expected to favor exotic species; the project may result in minor beneficial impacts by improving habitat for natural species. The nonfederal project sponsor is responsible for project maintenance, including controlling the establishment and spread of exotic and nuisance species. Control methods may include extensive plantings of native vegetation to assist in limiting the establishment of exotic and nuisance species under implementation of the recommended alternative. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-9 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.3 Historic and Cultural Resources Cultural resource evaluation of the alternatives is summarized below. In all action alternatives there is potential to impact unknown cultural resources during project construction. Project construction specifications will include language protective of such discoveries, requiring reporting and coordination with the SHPO to determine how to handle the discovered resources. 4.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Future flood events could impact known and unknown cultural resources through inundation and or erosion effects. 4.3.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative The entire area that would be disturbed for construction of the detention facility under the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative was subjected to a Phase I cultural resources survey by Shott (1986), and no significant prehistoric or historic resources were identified. Therefore, no cultural resources are expected to be impacted by this alternative. This alternative requires acquisition and demolition of 10 structures. 4.3.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative Considerable investigation has been done in the areas affected by this alternative, but not all areas were addressed as discussed below. Therefore, if this alternative were selected, additional Section 106 coordination and likely further research and/or some field work would likely be needed. Of the three detention basins proposed under the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative, the basin along Powers Avenue was subjected to a Phase I cultural resources survey as part of the USACE feasibility study (USACE, 1988); however, the Wayne County study depicts a much larger basin, so not all of the basin area may have been covered by that survey. The two other detention basins proposed under the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative are outside of the survey boundaries of Weir et al. (1985). In addition, a literature review conducted for the NBEC project indicates that no previously recorded cultural resources have been defined in the two detention basins proposed near M-39 and I-94. Most of the channel improvements under the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative would fall within the limits of the Weir et al. (1985) Phase I cultural resources survey. Eight known cultural resources sites (see complete listings in Section 3.3 [Historic and Cultural Resources]) have been identified in the area that potentially could be disturbed under this alternative. Sites 20WN565, 498, 500, and 603 are near the work area but unlikely to be disturbed. Sites 20WN119, 224, 499, and 783 are potentially impacted by this alternative and would require further evaluation and coordination if this alternative were to be pursued. For the small portion of the NBEC (RM 0.5 to RM 1.75) that has not been previously subject to a Phase I survey, there are no known cultural resources in the vicinity that would be impacted North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-10 Section 4 Environmental Consequences under the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative. The project setting is urban to suburban, containing cut-and-fill soils along half of the NBEC project area; and the creek appears to have been channelized, suggesting that the landscape has been altered from its natural state. Therefore, the probability of identifying new cultural resources in this section of channel improvements proposed under the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative is considered extremely low. The architectural history survey conducted by Weir et al. (1985:Table 6) along the NBEC documented 54 historic residential structures, mostly in Dearborn Heights. Weir et al. (1985:54) suggested that, individually, these structures are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, but may have the potential to be listed as a district. However, these structures do not appear to be within the channel improvements proposed under the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative, and would not be directly impacted by construction. No visual impacts are expected because channel improvements are limited to the NBEC channel. Considering the presence of these historic structures, and that approximately 161 residential structures and 12 commercial structures would be acquired and demolished to provide space for project construction, further evaluation and Section 7 coordination would be done if this alternative were to be pursued. Of the 84 creek crossings associated with the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative, there would be 61 bridge replacements and 13 bridge removals, which has the potential to result in visual effects on above ground historic resources. None of the bridges appear to be older than 50 years, and none are currently listed on the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) historic bridge website. Considering that the bridge s would be replaced with similar structures, impacts to the viewshed are considered to be minimal. Further evaluation and Section 106 coordination would be conducted if this alternative were to be pursued. 4.3.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative Similar to the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative, this alternative uses the detention facility near Powers Avenue surveyed by Shott in 1986. As described in detail in Section 4.3.2 (Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative), no cultural resources are expected to be impacted by construction of this basin. Approximately 16 residential buildings would be acquired and demolished to construct the basin. Additionally, Powers Avenue will be closed and excavated to construct the inlet and outlet culverts for the detention site. However, the Bayham Street bridge is to be replaced because it is an undersized culvert and creates a backwater effect upstream. The existing bridge does not appear to be older than 50 years, and is not currently listed on MDOT’s historic bridge website. Considering that the bridge is being replaced with a similar structure, impacts to the viewshed are expected to be minimal. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-11 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.3.5 Alternative 5: Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative Of the six detention basins and storage areas proposed under the Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative in Dearborn Heights and Allen Park, two areas were subjected to Phase I survey by Weir et al. (1985) and Shott (1986) as part of the USACE feasibility study (USACE, 1988). No cultural resources were identified in the areas that would be disturbed for the Powers Avenue (Shott, 1986) and Allen Park (Weir et al., 1985) detention basins. Therefore, no cultural resources are expected to be impacted at either detention basin under the Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative. Of the other four detention basin and storage areas outside the limits of the previous Phase I survey (Weir et al., 1985; Shott, 1986), only one area, just west of M-39, could impact a previously documented cultural resource (site 20WN499). No other known cultural resources would be impacted by the use of the detention basins. Further evaluation and coordination would be conducted if this alternative were to be pursued. All of the proposed channel improvements under the Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative fall within limits of the Weir et al. (1985) cultural resources survey. Four previously recorded archaeological sites (20WN119, 20WN224, 20WN499, and 20WN500) were identified in the vicinity of the area from Madison Road to westbound I-94 that would be disturbed under the Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative. These sites would be further evaluated and coordinated if this alternative were to be pursued. The architectural history survey conducted by Weir et al. (1985:Table 6) along the NBEC documented 54 historic residential structures, mostly in Dearborn Heights. Weir et al. (1985:54) suggested that, individually, these structures are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, but may have the potential to be listed as a district. However, these structures do not appear to be within the channel improvements proposed under the Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative, and would not be directly impacted by construction. Because channel improvements are limited to the NBEC, no visual impacts are expected. Considering the presence of these historic structures, and that approximately 1,000 homes, accessory and other buildings would be acquired and demolished to provide space for project construction, further evaluation and Section 7 coordination would be done if this alternative were to be pursued. The bridge replacements at five locations, bridge removals at three locations, and bridge improvements at nine crossings have the potential to impact above ground historic resources. Five bridges would be replaced with similar structures. The remaining bridges that would be removed are not documented as historic, are not listed on the MDOT historic bridges website, and do not appear to be 50 years or older; therefore, minimal impacts are expected. In addition, the improvements proposed for the other nine bridges are minor, and effects on the visual landscape are expected to be minimal. Associated construction areas used during the bridge replacements, improvements, and removals could impact undocumented archaeological sites and North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-12 Section 4 Environmental Consequences temporarily impact the viewshed. Site 20WN499 has been defined in the vicinity of the Bedford Street bridge removal work areas, and may be impacted by construction activities. 4.3.6 Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative This alternative also involves construction of the Powers Avenue detention basin proposed under the Optimized Powers Basin Alternative (Alternative #4). Surveyed entirely by Shott in 1986, no cultural resources would be impacted by the use of this detention facility. Most of the channel improvements proposed under this alternative are in the Weir et al. (1985) cultural resources survey area. Four previously recorded archaeological sites (20WN119, 20WN224, 20WN499, and 20WN500) have been defined in the vicinity of this alternative, from Madison Road to westbound I-94 and one previously recorded archaeological site (20WN783) has been identified in the vicinity of this alternative, in the section from westbound I-94 to the Detroit River. A small portion of the NBEC (RM 0.5 to RM 1.75) has not been subjected to Phase I survey. This area is urban to suburban, contains cut-and-fill along 50 percent of the NBEC area, and the NBEC appears to have been channelized suggesting that the landscape has been altered from its natural state. Therefore, the probability of identifying new, significant, cultural resources in this section of channel improvements is considered very low, especially because the channel improvements are limited to the width of the top of the creek banks. The architectural history survey conducted by Weir et al. (1985:Table 6) along the NBEC documented 54 historic residential structures, mostly in the Dearborn Heights area. Weir et al. (1985:54) suggested that, individually, these structures are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, but may have the potential to be listed as a district. However, these structures are not expected to be within the channel improvements proposed under the Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative, and would not be directly impacted by construction. No visual impacts are expected because channel improvements are limited to the NBEC. Considering the presence of these historic structures, and that approximately 90 residential buildings and 5 commercial buildings would be acquired and demolished to provide space for project construction, further evaluation and Section 7 coordination would be done if this alternative were to be pursued. The bridge replacements at five locations, bridge removal at one location, and the bridge improvements at 12 crossings proposed under the Optimized Powers Basin Alternative have the potential to result in some visual effects on aboveground historic resources. Five bridges are being replaced with similar structures, and the other bridge being removed is not documented as historic on the MDOT historic bridges website, and does not appear to be 50 years or older; therefore, impacts are expected to be minimal. In addition, the improvements proposed for the other 12 bridge crossings are minor; therefore, effects on the visual landscape are expected to be North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-13 Section 4 Environmental Consequences minimal. Associated construction areas used during the bridge replacements, improvements, and removals, could impact unknown archaeological sites and temporally impact the viewshed. 4.4 Socioeconomic Resources 4.4.1 Land Use, Population, and Housing Under the No Action Alternative, population and employment trends would continue. This is characterized by decreasing population for the project area. Construction of the action alternatives would result in beneficial population and housing impacts in surrounding areas because of reduced flooding. More homeowners would be likely to improve their properties, and businesses would likely be more willing to remain in their current locations. Temporary impacts during the construction of detention sites, flood storage areas, and channel improvements would be associated with access and use limitations for commercial and residential areas. Temporary and permanent impacts would occur to land use with the construction of the action alternatives. Construction of detention basins would result in temporary and permanent land use impacts in the construction footprint for the detention basins. Temporary and permanent land use changes would be associated with action alternatives involving channel improvements. Temporary impacts during the construction of detention basins, flood storage areas, and channel improvements include limiting access and use to government/institutional, industrial, and single- family residential land uses. Permanent land use impacts would be associated with channel improvements for floodways and greenways that involve property outside the public right-of-way. Economic analysis associated with these permanent impacts is included in the GRR (USACE, 2017). All action alternatives involve reducing flooding impacts along the NBEC that would result in beneficial reductions in NFIP costs and flood insurance costs for residential and commercial properties in the NBEC watershed. The action alternatives would decrease flooding and provide positive environmental enhancements that are expected to result in long-term beneficial impacts to population, employment, and businesses. The purchase of lands as a result of this project in which persons will be displaced, shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646). These benefits are in addition to acquisition payments for real property. Landowners and tenants are to be offered decent, safe, and sanitary (DSS) housing. A cursory review of available housing within the project area suggests there is no shortage of replacement housing available in the area. 4.4.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is based on the implementation of community master plans, and incorporates development pressures in the study, based on the scenario of future land use planned approximately 20 years from now, but not necessarily currently regulated through zoning for the designated future land uses. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-14 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4.1.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative Existing land uses under the Corps’ 1988 Report Retention Basin Alternative would be affected temporarily during construction in areas surrounding the detention basin construction footprint. Permanent land use impacts would be associated with construction of the detention basin, which would require limited demolition of existing residential buildings. 4.4.1.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative Implementation of the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative would likely result in temporary and permanent changes in land uses of approximately 192 acres associated with various detention sited and channel widening along the entire 16 miles of NBEC. Temporary project construction impacts would include restricted access to some homes, businesses, and facilities. Permanent impacts would occur to properties that have buildings located in the areas where channel improvements for floodways and greenways are planned. Implementing this alternative would result in the acquisition and demolition of approximately 161 residential properties and 12 commercial buildings. However, implementation of this alternative would not substantially change land use in the NBEC watershed; and detention, storage, and channel improvements would reduce overall flooding frequency. 4.4.1.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative Impacts to existing land use under the Optimized Powers Basin Alternative would be similar to effects associated with construction of the detention basin under the Corps’ 1988 Report Detention Basin Alternative. Approximately 16 residential buildings would be acquired and demolished for construction of the detention basin. In the long term, reduced flooding impacts would be expected to increase property values and have beneficial impacts on the tax roll. Implementation of the Optimized Powers Basin Alternative would not substantially change land use in the NBEC watershed, which is mostly urbanized. Beneficial land use impacts would be associated with reductions in flooding frequency in the NBEC watershed. 4.4.1.5 Alternative 5: Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative Implementation of the Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative would result in temporary and permanent effects on land use, including approximately 58 acres of government/institutional, 27 acres of industrial, and 50 acres of single-family residential lands. Impacts would also occur to 14 acres of land currently used for parks, recreation, and open space (see discussion of impacts in Section 4.4.2 [Recreation]). Impacts to 65 residential buildings and one commercial building would occur from the construction of this alternative. Areas proposed for detention, storage, and channel improvements that currently contain buildings would be acquired, and existing structures would be demolished. Minor short-term effects to the Dearborn Heights and Allen Park tax bases would occur as properties are acquired and taken off the tax roll. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-15 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4.1.6 Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative Implementation of the Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative would result in approximately 86 acres of temporary and permanent land use impacts. Minor, temporary impacts would occur to land uses surrounding the detention basin and channel improvement areas during construction. Land use impacts would occur to approximately 36 acres of governmental/institutional, 14 acres of single-family residential, 11 acres of parks, recreation, and open space (see discussion of impacts in Section 4.4.2 [Recreation]), 5 acres of commercial, and 3 acres of industrial lands. Impacts to approximately 120 residential buildings and five commercial buildings would occur from the construction of this alternative. The acquisition and demolition of 120 residential buildings represents less than 0.05 percent of total housing units of the ten communities in the NBEC study area. 4.4.2 Recreation Temporary recreational impacts would occur during construction of detention sites, flood storage areas, and channel improvements associated with construction activities and access limitations for some recreational areas during construction. Permanent impacts to open space, parks, and recreation resources would occur from construction of detention sites and channel improvements under Alternative 5, Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements, and Alternative 6, Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements. Increases in open space and a reduction in flooding frequencies associated with action alternatives may result in minor, positive recreational impacts. 4.4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The Wayne County Parks and Recreation Master Plan does not identify any significant new park development projects in the study area. Therefore, recreation opportunities in the study area are not expected to increase under the No Action Alternative. 4.4.2.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative The detention basin proposed under the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative would not result in impacts to recreation resources. 4.4.2.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative Minor, temporary recreation impacts would occur during construction of detention sites, flood storage areas, and channel improvements under the Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative associated with construction activities, and access limitations to recreational areas. These impacts may be associated with NBEC channel improvements between RM 6.5 and RM 8, and in the vicinity of RM 5.5. In addition, recreational resources adjoining the flood storage area proposed south of I-94 may be impacted by temporary construction impacts. Increases in open space and a reduction in flooding frequencies under this alternative may result in minor, positive recreational impacts. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-16 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4.2.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative Similar to the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative, no recreational impacts would occur under the Optimized Powers Basin Alternative with construction of the detention basin in the vicinity of Powers Avenue and Inkster Road. 4.4.2.5 Alternative 5: Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative Implementation of the Limited Channel Improvements Alternative would result in impacts to approximately 14 acres of open space, parks, and recreation resources, including to John F. Kennedy Park and recreational facilities west of Allen Road (Allen Park). Project induced changes (use as a detention basin) to John F. Kennedy Park in Allen Park would affect the public use of a ball field, picnic shelter, barbeques, and play structures. A pedestrian bridge over NBEC on Bedford Street and two roadway bridges (Kingston and Edgewood Streets) would be permanently removed as the entire neighborhood around it would be removed and replaced with a detention basin under this alternative. These impacts would be associated with construction of detention sites, flood storage areas, and channel improvements. Minor, temporary recreational impacts would occur during construction as a result of construction activities, and access limitations to recreational areas. Increases in open space and a reduction in flooding frequencies under this alternative may result in minor, positive recreational impacts. 4.4.2.6 Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative The Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative would result in recreational impacts to approximately 11 acres associated with channel improvements along the NBEC. Minor, temporary recreational impacts would occur during construction of detention basins and channel improvements associated with construction activities, and access limitations to recreational areas. Minor, positive impacts would occur to recreation associated with increases in pedestrian activity, active living, and protecting wildlife, people, and properties from flood damage. An area at the mouth of Ecorse creek includes docks on both sides of the creek for about 650 feet from Jefferson Avenue (Biddle Street) bridge upstream to a cluster of four railroad bridges. Under required channel widening for this Alternative, it appears that most if not all of these docks would be impacted. They likely would have to be removed. Whether they can be reinstalled later would depend on the flood water conveyance capacity of the newly widened in- water channel and the amount that any docks would block such flow. There is a marina on the Detroit River immediately at the mouth of Ecorse Creek and two marinas to the south about 1/2- mile down the Detroit River, so the impact on recreation if the docks along the river cannot be replaced is limited. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-17 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4.3 Environmental Justice Environmental justice was evaluated pursuant to EO 12898. Results of the evaluation show that there is one neighborhood block identified as low income, and one identified as minority (but lacking any residential uses) in the area of project effects (AECOM, 2016a). These represent approximately 2 percent of the developed area that would be impacted by the project. Because the project would not disproportionately affect the identified low-income and/or minority populations compared to other populations in the area of project effects, the project is in compliance with EO 12898. 4.4.4 Aesthetic Resources Channel improvements and detention site construction would result in impacts to aesthetic resources associated with clearing of existing riparian vegetation and fragmented urban wooded areas. However, aesthetics would improve over time through the restoration of disturbed, reconfigured channel banks with high-quality vegetation and native species. 4.4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no substantial changes or impacts would occur to aesthetic resources. 4.4.4.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative An approximately 13-acre detention basin would be constructed on the northern side of the NBEC between RM 11.2 and 11.3 under the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative. Approximately 3 acres of an existing 10 acres of woodland would be cleared. Therefore, implementation of the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative would have minor impacts on aesthetic resources. 4.4.4.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative The Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative would result in impacts to aesthetic resources associated with clearing of existing riparian vegetation along the NBEC for channel improvements and greenways and fragmented urban wooded areas for detention sites. Riverbank areas would be restored with high-quality vegetation and native species. Ground cover and shrubs would establish more quickly; however, trees would take a number of years to regrow. In the long term, with restoration and replanting, these areas would produce positive aesthetic impacts. 4.4.4.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative Similar to the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative, localized aesthetic resource impacts would occur by removal of part or all of the approximately 10 acres of woodland in the north and east part of the site. A smaller wooded area (approximately 1 acre) exists north of Annapolis Street. Additionally a vegetated buffer could be left along the edges of the site as well as allowing quality vegetation to develop within the basin. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-18 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4.4.5 Alternative 5 and 6: Detention Basins with Channel Improvements Alternative These two alternatives would have the same impacts as described for Alternative 4, above, at the Powers detention site. Additionally, the Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative and the Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative would result in impacts to aesthetic resources associated with clearing of existing riparian vegetation along the NBEC for channel improvements and greenways, and fragmented urban wooded areas for detention sites. These areas would be restored with high-quality vegetation and native species. Ground cover and shrubs would establish more quickly; however, trees would take a number of years to regrow. Restoration and replanting of these areas would result in improved aesthetics over the longer term along the river corridor. 4.4.5 Noise and Vibration A noise and vibration impact assessment was completed for the project, addressing potential noise and vibration impacts associated with construction activities (URS, 2011b). No noise and vibration impacts would result from the No Action Alternative. Noise and vibration impacts would result from temporary construction activities associated with the action alternatives, and would not be long term or significant. 4.4.5.1 Noise The action alternatives would generate noise and vibration during construction activities; these impacts would be temporary. These construction activities would also take place during daytime construction hours established under local noise laws and ordinances. With the exception of pile drivers, the noisiest equipment that would be used during construction activities is expected to include bulldozers, graders, and scrapers, which result in noise levels of approximately 85 dBA at 50 feet. When two pieces of 85-dBA equipment are running, the aggregated noise level at 50 feet would be 88 dBA. Residential and institutional land uses within 45 feet of construction equipment would be expected to be exposed to noise levels exceeding 90 dBA, and would potentially be temporarily impacted by construction activities. The number of residential and institutional receivers that would be impacted by noise associated with construction equipment is outlined in the noise assessment report (URS, 2011b). Pile-driving activities may occur where the action alternatives cross a bridge. The typical maximum noise level of pile driving is 95 dBA at 50 feet. The combined noise level of 95 dBA for pile driving and 85 dBA for other equipment would be 95 dBA, due to logarithmical addition of the decibel values. Noise-sensitive receivers within 95 feet of pile-driving activities would likely be temporarily impacted by noise levels exceeding 90 dBA. Noise impacts would be temporary because of the limited duration of the construction activities. BMPs to minimize construction noise are identified in the noise assessment report prepared for the project (URS, 2011b). North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-19 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4.5.2 Vibration Most vibration impacts would be associated with pile drivers and vibratory rollers. This can result in human annoyance and, at closer distances, structural damage. Depending upon proximity of residences and intuitional facilities, vibratory pile-driving would be used, as applicable, to reduce intensity of effects to acceptable levels, well below that typical of impact pile-driving. The noise assessment report includes the vibration noise impacts due to the typical vibratory-pile driving (URS, 2011b). Vibrations will be monitored to ensure that they stay under levels that could cause damage to nearby structures. The number of dwelling units that would be affected by vibratory rollers is outlined in the noise assessment report (URS, 2011b). 4.4.6 Infrastructure and Utilities No significant changes are expected to be made under the No Action Alternative to public and private infrastructure, including the potable water and wastewater system. Impacts to public and private infrastructure under the action alternatives would likely result in temporary impacts during project construction. Existing infrastructure in the construction footprint would be protected, repaired, and/or relocated as necessary. Potential minor, temporary impacts may be associated with relocation of existing infrastructure to accommodate detention basins. No increase in service capacity or modifications to infrastructure service areas is anticipated under the action alternatives. Utilities within the working limits of construction include water mains, storm and sanitary sewers, gas transmission mains, hazardous liquid pipelines, electric, telephone, fiber optic, and cable lines. Approximate locations of utilities in the area of the action alternatives have been identified on project plan view drawings. The location, size, and depth of buried utilities would be identified during the final design phase. The lower portion of the channel improvements would likely have limited utility conflicts, because the channel shaping would not result in significantly changed grades. Most of the utility impacts are likely to be associated with greenway channel improvements, and would vary based on the length and channel width of the improvements. Utilities that would be impacted by construction activities would either be protected or relocated, as required. Utility relocations are expected to have minimal effects, but would need to be coordinated with the utility companies to avoid schedule delays. 4.4.6.1 Public Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer crossings would need to be surveyed, and adequate cover would need to be maintained. Generally, no lowering of the sanitary sewers that cross perpendicular to the NBEC would be required if the current channel bottom elevations are maintained. If adequate cover cannot be achieved for the sanitary sewers paralleling the NBEC improvements, those reaches would need to be relocated a small distance away from the improvements. Impacts to sanitary sewers would mostly be associated with sanitary sewers that parallel the NBEC in areas that would be improved with a 35-foot-wide greenway channel. In Melvindale, the proposed in- channel improvements would be confined to the current top-of-bank. It is not anticipated that North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-20 Section 4 Environmental Consequences any modifications to the existing sanitary sewers would be required. In Lincoln Park, the removal and replacement of culverts would not impact the existing sanitary sewers. The proposed in-channel improvements would be confined to the current top-of-bank. It is not anticipated that any modifications to the existing sanitary sewers would be required. 4.4.6.2 Public Storm Sewer In Dearborn Heights, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, and Wyandotte the existing storm sewer would be removed to the new edge-of-bank, and end sections and erosion control would be installed as necessary. In Melvindale, no major impacts to the storm sewer system are anticipated. In Lincoln Park and Wyandotte, flow from the existing storm drains would need to be maintained during construction. 4.4.6.3 Public Water Main There would be impacts to the public water main in Dearborn, Allen Park, and Lincoln Park, as discussed below. No impacts would occur to water mains in Melvindale. No hydrants or other water-main fixtures are noted on the city water-main plans in the proposed improvement area in Dearborn Heights. The existing 8-inch water main in Bayham Street would be located and protected from contamination during the removal and replacement of the Bayham Bridge. No channel widening is proposed at this drain; therefore, the water main would not need to be lowered or relocated. The water-main system in Dearborn Heights would primarily by impacted by the installation of a 35-foot-wide greenway channel. For this widening, 17 water-main crossings would be lowered to maintain the required depth below the new channel cross-section. A hydrant is noted on the Allen Park water-main plans adjacent to the NBEC in the vicinity of the Wabash railroad crossing. The existing hydrant and the three water-main crossings would be located and protected from contamination during the in-channel improvements. The water-main system in Allen Park would primarily be impacted by the installation of a 35-foot-wide greenway channel. For this widening, four water-main crossings would be lowered to maintain the required depth below the new channel cross-section. The Lincoln Park water-main plans east of the Detroit Edison corridor note a blow-off valve, which would be used to facilitate line draining and to allow the removal of sediment. The existing storage tanks, blow-off valve, and water-main crossing would be located and protected from contamination during in-channel improvements. The impacts to the water-main system in Lincoln Park would primarily be associated with the existing 6-inch water main in the Fort Street right-of-way that runs parallel to the NBEC. The in-channel improvements in this area may require this water main to be relocated or abandoned, and for service to be provided by an alternate water main. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-21 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4.6.4 Public Utilities Minor impacts would be associated with power lines owned by DTE Energy, Detroit Edison. A DTE coni.dor in Lincoln Park includes overhead power lines and large towers outside of the NBEC. A pole is adjacent to the NBEC in the DTE coni.dor, in the area of in-channel improvements. Restoration of the channel cross-section would not require relocation of this utility pole. There are two major effects on DTE lines. First, in the 35-foot-wide greenway channel from Madison Street to Pardee A venue, the line rnns parallel to the NBEC: the poles would need to be relocated to the new top-of-bank. Second, an underground transfonner is in the vicinity of the Victoria A venue box culve1t removals- this transfo1mer may need to be relocated. The DTE Energy, MichCon, gas mains would need to be located, and care would need to be taken during constrnction activities in the NBEC to maintain cover at all times during in-channel improvements. 4.4. 7 Traffic and Transportation Constrnction of the project would result in short-te1m and long-term impacts on traffic and transpo1tation. Long-te1m transpo1iation and traffic disrnptions would result from road crossing closures and bridge replacement and removals; potential impacts to bridges associated with replacements, removals, and improvements are summarized in Table 4-1. Temporaiy disrnptions would result from an increase in the use of roads and freeways by constiuction related equipment. This study has been coordinated with MDOT. The MDOT comments ai·e discussed in Section 6.0 (Public Involvement). Table 4-1 Summary of Potential Bridge Impacts Alternative Replacements Permanent Removals Improvements 1: No Action Altemative None None None 2: Corps' 1988 Retention None None; however, Powers None Basin Altemative Road (not a bridge) would be pennanently closed at the retention basin site 3: Wayne County 2008 61 [see repo1t (WCDC, 13 [see report (WCDC, 10 (sediment cleaning) Greenway Altemative 2008)] 2008)] 4: Optimized Powers 1 (Bayham bridge) None None Basin Altemative 5: Detention Basins with 5 (Bayham, Russell, 3 (Kingston, Edgewood, 11 (Williams, Hanover (x3), Limited Channel Larme/Keppen, Parker and Bedford bridges). Campbell, Gertrude, Harding, Improvements (pedestrian), and Pardee Polk, Hipp, Jackson, and Pelham Altemative bridges) bridges) 6: Optimized Powers 5 (Bayham, Russell, 1 (Victoria box culvert 14 (Williams, Hanover (x3), Basin with Channel La1me/Keppen, Parker section) Campbell, Gertrude, Harding, Improvements (pedestrian), and Pardee Polk, Hipp, Jackson, Pelham, bridges) Southfield Road, Stanley Road, and Allen Road bridges) North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-22 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4.7.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Area roads could be flooded during flood events under the No Action Alternative, which may impair local evacuation and rescue activities. Therefore, the No Action Alternative may result in negative effects on transportation. 4.4.7.2 Alternative 2: Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative Construction of the Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative would result in long-term change in local traffic through the proposed basin area, because Powers Avenue (a local street that, in the vicinity of the detention site, only extends 2 miles) would be permanently closed at the detention site to allow for a canal to fill/discharge the site. Temporary traffic disruptions would result from an increase in the use of roads and freeways by construction-related equipment. Construction traffic impacts would mostly be associated with trucks hauling excavated material from the proposed basin area to the disposal site(s). 4.4.7.3 Alternative 3: Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative Approximately 61 crossings would be replaced, including highway, road, and railroad bridges, and would require detouring traffic—some for extended periods of time. In addition, 13 bridges/ culverts would be removed, creating long-term impacts on local traffic. Over time, residents would become accustomed to the revised routes, and the reduced flooding should decrease flood- associated traffic impacts. An increase in truck traffic would also be expected during construction because of the higher volume of excavated material to be transported to the disposal site(s). 4.4.7.4 Alternative 4: Optimized Powers Basin Alternative Construction of this alternative would result in minor disruptions of traffic through the proposed basin area associated with an increase in the use of roads and freeways by construction-related equipment. Powers Road would be temporarily closed for construction of the inlet/outlet connections between the basin and NBEC. Construction traffic impacts would mostly be due to trucks hauling excavated material from the proposed basin area to the disposal site(s). 4.4.7.5 Alternative 5: Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative Construction of this alternative would result in minor disruptions of traffic through the proposed basin and channel improvement areas. These disruptions would result from an increase in the use of roads and freeways by construction-related equipment. Construction traffic impacts would primarily be associated with trucks hauling excavated material from the proposed basin area to the disposal site(s). Powers Road would be temporarily closed for construction of the inlet/outlet connections between the basin and NBEC. The removal of three bridges (Kingston, Edgewood, and the Bedford pedestrian bridge) for construction of a detention basin would have long-term traffic impacts; however, impacts would be limited because these are residential streets and there would be little need for crossings in what would become a detention basin under this alternative. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-23 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4.7.6 Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative Construction of this alternative would result in minor disruptions of traffic through the NBEC study area. These disruptions would result from a temporary increase in the use of roads and freeways by construction-related equipment. Construction traffic impacts would mostly be associated with trucks hauling excavated material from the improvement areas to the disposal site(s). Other impacts would result from temporary road closures (including Powers Avenue) for construction of new crossings (bridge or culverts). Detour routes for temporary road closures would be posted. These disruptions are expected to be temporary and minor. After project completion, area roads are expected to experience minimal to no flooding during the 100-year event. Therefore, the Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative would result in positive traffic impacts. There would be traffic impacts as a result of the Recommended Alternative with the replacement of five bridges (Bayham, Russell, Larma/Keppen, Pardee, and Parker [pedestrian]) and the removal of one crossing (Victoria Street extended, which is a ~240-foot enclosed box culvert section of the creek that runs under a parking lot behind a building on Fort Street near West Outer Drive in Lincoln Park). However, these impacts would not result in permanent operational impacts, and the bridges carry local secondary roads and, in the case of the Victoria location, part of a parking lot. The project would provide an overall beneficial effect on traffic in the area by reducing impacts as a result of flooding. 4.4.8 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Any existing HTRW that may be in the areas where a flood risk management project would be constructed would remain in place under the No Action Alternative unless remediated by others at some future time. Existing and/or potential sources of HTRW, as well as other potential areas of adverse environmental impact to the soils and/or groundwater in the project area, may be encountered during construction of the action alternatives. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed along the study reach extending 17 miles upstream from the Detroit River. A records review, site reconnaissance, regulatory inquiries, and subsurface soil and groundwater sampling were conducted in select locations identified as representing recognized environmental conditions that may be impacted by construction activities under the action alternatives. Materials to be excavated (on land or in-water) for project construction would be sampled pursuant to Part 301 (Inland Lakes and Streams) and Part 325 (Great Lakes Bottom Lands) of the Natural Resource Protection Act, PA 451, as amended. Excavated materials would be tested for the presence of PCBs, PAHs, and metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc). The construction of detention basins and the removal of soils and sediments from the NBEC corridor under the action alternatives would generate material requiring disposal. Based on North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-24 Section 4 Environmental Consequences preliminary analytical results, sediments/soils are expected to be disposed in a Type II, landfill and/or be placed on property purchased for the sole purpose of sediment disposal (ECT, 2006). Some of the material may require a clean soil cover to be placed over it, depending on the contaminant character and criteria in state regulations. In addition, a restrictive covenant may be required to ensure that the clean soil cover would not be disturbed, and that the site could not be used for any purpose that could potentially cause the sediments to be exposed or disturbed. Any material encountered that is suitable for reuse (chemically and physically) may be reused during construction of the project. The Powers Road detention basin site includes a Former Industrial Facility/Incinerator that has been demolished but the site remains a potential site of concern that may be impacted by construction of the detention basin under the various action alternatives including the preferred alternative, Alternative 6. Future Investigations All the action alternatives include at least one potential site of environmental concern. Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are being conducted in 2017 for the identified sites that could be affected by construction of a project. The results of the Phase II investigations will be complete prior to completion of the NEPA process. For any sites that require remediation, the non-Federal sponsor would be responsible to complete the remediation at 100 percent non- Federal cost prior to any construction activity. For more detailed discussion of HTRW policy and procedure see the GRR Report. 4.4.9 Safety The action alternatives provide opportunities to improve public safety in the project area. Considering the NBEC is the primary stormwater conveyance for 52,450 properties, including residential, commercial, and industrial properties, and over 9,000 properties are impacted by large flood events, a reduction in flood events has the potential to increase public safety in terms of health, transportation, property damage, and physical injury risks. High bacterial counts from basement flooding, and sewage backing up into homes causing health concerns related to viruses, fungal contaminants, and other pathogens, would be reduced by lower flood levels and improved stormwater management practices included in all of the action alternatives. Additionally, the action alternatives reduce the likelihood of contamination of the NBEC, and increase the ability for communities to use the watercourse for recreational purposes. MDEQ data have confirmed numerous exceedances of the state’s E. coli water quality standard at multiple sampling locations, leading to Wayne County health officials warning the public against all waterbody contact within the entire Ecorse Creek watershed (Wayne County, 2008). Warnings of this type would be reduced with the reduction of flooding of the NBEC. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-25 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Traffic and transportation impacts posing risks to public health would be reduced with the implementation of any of the action alternatives. Lower flooding levels under the action alternatives would reduce flooding of freeways and streets that has previously led to temporary closures; limited access to homes and businesses; caused school cancellations; and hindered emergency response. Increased reliability on local traffic routes, new bridges, and increased stormwater detention would improve the public safety of the NBEC. This improvement in public safety would be beneficial to hospitals, emergency vehicles, fire departments, and police departments in the project area that may be affected by flooding—either of their facilities—or by their inability to access locations in the community to obtain or provide service. The most obvious concern is for the physical well-being of the surrounding population during flooding events, when injuries could occur. The action alternatives would constrain floodwaters largely within the channel and detention basins, resulting in a reduction of contact with surrounding industrial and residential areas. The presence of equipment and vehicles associated with construction of the action alternatives on local roads and highways could potentially temporarily increase the risk of traffic accidents. The presence of large equipment in proximity to communities and business districts also temporarily increases the risk of personal injury and property damage. Construction personnel would be on site to direct traffic, when necessary, and to aid construction vehicles entering and exiting construction sites. Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations applying to construction and employee safety would be implemented. 4.5 Other Effects Removal of existing vegetation along the NBEC cannot be avoided if a more natural channel configuration is to be implemented for better floodwater storage and conveyance. However, this vegetation would be replaced with higher quality vegetation, appropriate for a riparian corridor, in a more natural riparian habitat. The Recommended Alternative would change current land use in portions of the project area, and would require the acquisition of numerous residential parcels, including: 11 residential parcels for the retention basin, and approximately 300 parcels (primarily residential; some with structures) for the channel improvements. Under the Recommended Alternative, the approximately 37.5-acre retention basin would be at the site of a former Wayne County waste incinerator. The incinerator site has been remediated of contamination. The Recommended Alternative would result in the direct and indirect commitments of resources, primarily associated with construction: energy, construction materials, capital, and labor hours. Energy typically associated with construction activities would be expended and irretrievably lost under all of the action alternatives. Fuels used during the operation of construction equipment would constitute an irretrievable commitment of fuel resources. However, all of the action alternatives would reduce flooding impacts in the NBEC watershed. Reduced flooding would North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-26 Section 4 Environmental Consequences reduce the direct and indirect commitments of irreversible and irretrievable resources associated with flood protection, cleanup, and restoration activities that occur under the No Action Alternative. The Recommended Alternative include short-term use of construction resources: monetary expenditures, and labor expended during the project construction; and short-term construction- related impacts to vegetation and wildlife, land use, and other features discussed in this document. Long-term enhancements in productivity relate to the decrease in the amount of damage sustained by local businesses and residents during flood events; and the overall improved water quality and wildlife conditions. Construction of the Recommended Alternative would result in short-term construction-related impacts in parts of the project area, and would include interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, and increases in ambient noise levels. These impacts would be temporary, and would occur only during construction, and are not expected to alter the long-term productivity of the natural environment. 4.6 Cumulative Impacts No significant cumulative effects to resources would occur with implementation of the preferred alternative. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively substantial actions undertaken over a period of time. Only those resources that may realize cumulative effects from the incremental impact of implementation of the Recommended Alternative are described below. These include water resources and land use. Urbanization has been taking place in the project area for more than 100 years, and the area is now nearly completely urbanized; the cumulative effects of urbanization on natural resources such as soils, wetlands, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and vegetation have resulted in the current degraded condition of the NBEC ecosystem. The action alternatives would reduce flooding, result in a more stable flow regime, and improve the NBEC channel, which would reduce historic adverse cumulative effects. The uses of resources such as fuel and oil, construction materials, and equipment emissions associated with project construction are cumulative. However, the use of these resources would not result in significant effects on the depletion of such resources, nor would it have significant cumulative effects on air quality or climate conditions. The amounts of these resources used in project construction are small compared to the savings on these same resources through reduction of major flood damages and associated flood protection and restoration activities in the project area. The minor cumulative effects of project construction are necessary to complete the project, which would result in important improvements to flood management, water quality, and the overall ecosystem. In general, the majority of the effects on other resources are temporary in nature. Additionally, the project would aid in the reduction of past cumulative impacts. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-27 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.6.1 Other Actions A watershed management plan was developed for Ecorse Creek as an initial requirement for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under Michigan’s Phase II Storm Water regulations (ECIC, 2006). The plan describes several goals, including water quality improvement, flood reduction, stream flow variability reduction, and the protection, enhancement, and restoration of riparian and in-stream habitat. The management alternatives described in the plan are organized by individual community or entity, and include elements that are required to be included in all NPDES Phase II stormwater permits issued in the Ecorse Creek watershed. Some of the plan goals and objectives complement the purpose and need for the proposed action, and would provide cumulative beneficial effects on the NBEC. Any of the action alternatives would improve water quality, reduce floodplain damages, and improve public safety to varying degrees. These beneficial effects would be in addition to future anticipated actions that would be implemented under the Ecorse Creek Watershed Management Plan (ECIC, 2006). All the action alternatives would result in minor effects on overall land uses in the project area. It is anticipated that the project area would experience development over the next 20 years, according to the community master plans. However, the project area is urbanized and the action alternatives would primarily impact land uses in flood-prone areas that are not necessarily suitable for future development; therefore, cumulative effects on land use would be would be minor. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 4-28 Section 5 Compliance with Federal Statutes and Executive Orders 5 Compliance with Federal Statutes and Executive Orders 5.1 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) enables coastal states, including Great Lake states, to develop a coastal management program to improve protection of sensitive shoreline resources, to identify coastal areas appropriate for development, to designate areas hazardous to development, and to improve public access to the coastline. Only the last mile of the project is in the coastal zone (approximately 0.45 mile of NBEC and 0.55 mile of Ecorse Creek to the Rouge River); however, the upstream project reaches are reviewed for indirect effects on the coastal zone, which for this project generally includes temporary negative impacts during construction and long-term positive impacts after construction. In Michigan, activities of federal agencies are reviewed for consistency with Michigan’s approved coastal management program by the Great Lakes Shorelands Section in the Land and Water Management Division of the MDNR. This would occur during State permit review, which requires inclusion of project construction plans with the permit application. Coordination with the MDNR is ongoing, and the project is being evaluated for compliance with the CZMA. 5.2 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 The FPPA is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The FPPA is implemented under Department of Agriculture final rule effective August 6, 1984 (7 CFR 658). Projects are subject to FPPA requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal agency. Projects on land already in urban development are not subject to the FPPA); therefore, the proposed flood risk management project for NBEC is not subject to the FPPA, and the preferred alternative would comply with the FPPA. 5.3 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The USFWS provided comments in a report dated September 30, 2011 (Appendix B). The report includes a description of the fish and wildlife resources and habitats in the project area; a discussion of potential impacts to these resources; and suggested mitigation, conservation, or enhancement measures deemed appropriate by the USFWS. Responses to the recommendations of the USFWS report are provided in Section 6.4.1 (Early Coordination Agency/Tribal Comments). The USFWS will also be provided with a copy of this EA for review and comment. 5.4 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA states that “Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary [of the Interior], insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency … is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 5-1 Section 5 Compliance with Federal Statutes and Executive Orders species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species…unless such agency has been granted an exemption” in accordance with subsection 7(h) of the Act. The USACE’s Federal determinations on Federally listed species are summarized in section 4.2.9 (Protected Species) of this EA. On December 2, 2016, the USACE mailed these determinations to the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. The USFWS responded on December 22, 2016 (Appendix B), and concurs with the USACE determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect for Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat. Determinations on the other listed species occurring in Wayne County, Michigan, were no effect and therefore did not require concurrence of the USFWS. 5.5 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The purpose of NHPA is to preserve historical and archaeological sites. Federal agencies are required to evaluate the impact of all federally funded or permitted projects on sites listed on, or eligible for listing on, the NRHP. On January 12, 2012, the USACE received a letter response from the SHPO regarding the application for Section 106 review for the project (see Appendix B). The SHPO concurred with the USACE determination that based on the information from the application for Section 106 review, that no historic properties would be affected in the APE. The project is in compliance with the NHPA. 5.6 Clean Water Act of 1972 The Clean Water Act (CWA) governs water pollution, and established the goals of eliminating releases of high amounts of toxic substances into water and ensuring that surface waters would meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation. Section 401 of the CWA requires that a State certification that any discharges into the waters of the United States will comply with State water quality standards as promulgated by the state pursuant to the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA was established to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material in waters of the U.S., including waterbodies and wetlands. Under Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. must be the least damaging practicable alternative, as long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. Most of the NBEC project (about 98 percent of the project length but for a short section near the mouth) is in the area where the State of Michigan has assumed Section 404 permitting under the CWA; therefore, the nonfederal project sponsor would be required to obtain a State permit under Section 404 for most of the project. Therefore, the State permit review will evaluate the entire project and no separate 404(b)(1) analysis is being generated for the approximately 0.20 mile near the mouth that is in USACE Regulatory jurisdiction. 5.7 Clean Air Act of 1972 Under the CAA, the U.S. EPA sets limits on what quantity of certain air pollutants can be in the air in a particular area, and gives the U.S. EPA the authority to limit emissions of air pollutants North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 5-2 Section 5 Compliance with Federal Statutes and Executive Orders coming from a particular source. This EA includes a statement compliance by de minimis exemption for effects on air quality. 5.8 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 River and Harbors Act Section 10 prohibits the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any waters of the U.S. The project would not obstruct navigable waters of the U.S., and the project is in compliance with the River and Harbors Act. The USACE Regulatory navigable waters extend about 0.3 mile up Ecorse creek to the series of railroad tracks a short distance upstream from Jefferson Avenue (Biddle Street). River and Harbors Act Section 9 requires approval of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) for bridge work or new bridges in USCG navigable waters. USCG navigable waters extend up Ecorse Creek to the Jefferson Avenue (Biddle Street) bridge at the mouth of Ecorse Creek. While the downstream limit of channel modifications include the area under the Jefferson Street bridge, no modification are proposed to this bridge. A copy of this EA will be provided to the USCG for their review and comment. 5.9 Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 The Wild and Scenic River Act established a National Wild and Scenic River System to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition. No designated National Wild and Scenic river reaches are in the project area or would be affected by project-related activities. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic River Act. 5.10 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains; and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. The project has been evaluated in accordance with EO 11988. Many of the improvements that would be implemented under the action alternatives are in the 100-year floodplain. The proposed action complies with EO 11988 because there is no practicable alternative to construction in the floodplain that would meet the project’s purpose and need. The project would not promote floodplain development, and it would not result in increased flood elevations; rather it would result in the removal of some existing floodplain development, and reduce flood impacts to other structures along the NBEC. 5.11 Executive Order 11514, Protection of Environment EO 11514 requires federal agencies to monitor, evaluate, and control their activities to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. Environmental evaluations of the project have been completed in accordance with NEPA; therefore, the project is in compliance with EO 11514. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 5-3 Section 5 Compliance with Federal Statutes and Executive Orders 5.12 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands EO 11990 requires federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities. The project has been evaluated in accordance with EO 11990 and is in compliance because any wetland impacts would be minimized and mitigated if they cannot be avoided. See discussion in 4.2.7 (Wetland Resources) above. 5.13 Executive Order 13186, Migratory Bird Habitat Protection EO 13186 requires federal agencies that are taking actions that have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations to develop and implement a Memorandum of Understanding with the USFWS that shall promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. No measurable negative effects on migratory bird populations due to project activities are expected. Tree cutting would be outside of the migratory bird nesting season, adjacent areas contain ample available habitat for these bird species, and some migratory bird habitat would be replaced with improved habitat in the affected areas. The project is in compliance with EO 13186. 5.14 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice EO 12898 is designed to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low-income communities with the goal of achieving environmental justice. EO 12898 requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects, of federal actions. EO 12898 also requires that projects do not disproportionately affect minority communities and low-income communities in the project area. The project has been evaluated in accordance with EO 12898 and does not have the effect of excluding, discriminating, or denying persons or populations the participation in or the benefits of the NBEC flood control project, nor does it disproportionately affect one person or population based on economic status, race, color, or national origin. 5.15 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species EO 13112 requires federal agencies to not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. The project would not introduce any recognized invasive species into the NBEC project area. Native plant species would be used for revegetation following construction activities. The project is in compliance with EO 13112. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 5-4 Section 6 Public Involvement 6 Public Involvement 6.1 General A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the NBEC Flood Risk Management General Reevaluation Study was published in the Federal Register (Volume 75, Number 185) on September 24, 2010. The NOI described the purpose and intent of the study and announced a Public Scoping meeting was planned for October 28, 2010. Work on the study commenced again in 2016, and this EA was prepared under NEPA. Based on intensive agency, stakeholder, and public involvement efforts in 2010 and 2011, and site visits and evaluations completed in support of the environmental analysis, a determination was made that an EA would be more appropriate at this time. The purpose of the EA is to determine whether an EIS would be needed based on the analysis in the EA and the responses from agency and public review of the EA. 6.2 Agency Coordination The following local, state, and federal agencies have been contacted for coordination or assistance in 2010, 2011, and/or 2016 (responses received can be found in Appendix B). USFWS; USACE; MDEQ; Wayne County Department of Environment; Michigan SHPO; Tribes and Tribal Concerns; and MDOT. 6.3 Public Involvement Activities to Date A comprehensive public involvement program was designed to provide the general public and affected stakeholders multiple opportunities to provide input into the study process. The following are public meetings held to date: Stakeholder Meeting #1 August 18, 2010 NEPA Scoping Meeting October 28, 2010 Public Information Meeting #1 October 28, 2010 Stakeholder Meeting #2 May 11, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting #3 August 16, 2011 Public Information Meeting #2 August 16, 2011 Public Information Meeting #3 August 17, 2011 North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-1 Section 6 Public Involvement Overall, the public and stakeholders are supportive of the project and no negative comments have been raised at meetings. Comments received verbally at the meetings included: Expedite the process; Use both structural and nonstructural measures; Use green solutions; Incorporate recreation where possible; Solution should be maintainable; and Make the NBEC an asset to the community. 6.4 Communications Plan A communications plan was implemented for the project to facilitate public involvement, and to assist the WCDC and USACE in the successful completion of the GRR, Engineering and Design Analyses, and NEPA compliance for the NBEC Flood Risk Management Study. The communications plan focused communications at three levels: 1) partners, including the WCDC, USACE, and its contractors; 2) stakeholders, including all interested/affected public entities (i.e., federal, state, regional and municipal governments) in the study area; and 3) general public, including all other interested/affected parties in the study area (e.g., residents, business owners, citizen groups, and user groups). The goals and associated objectives of the communications plan were accomplished through the following activities: Websites: The WCDC and USACE websites provided information and updates on study purpose, benefits, partners, approach, stakeholder/general public input opportunities, and related items. These website addresses were provided to the public (at public meetings) and stakeholders. Stakeholder and Public Information Meetings: Stakeholder and public information meetings were held to inform and update officials from affected municipalities and the general public on study approach, progress, locally preferred plan, and opportunities for input. Meetings were strategically timed over the course of the study development to maximize the benefit from meeting outcomes. Below is a list of dates and locations of the stakeholder and public meetings held. — First Stakeholder Meeting was held Wednesday, August 18, 2010, from 1 to 3 p.m. at the Romulus Athletic Center, Cirrus Room, 35765 Northline Road, Romulus, Michigan — First Public Meeting was held Thursday, October 28, 2010, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Canfield Community Center, 801 North Beech Daly Road, Dearborn Heights, Michigan North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-2 Section 6 Public Involvement — Second Stakeholder Meeting was held Wednesday, May 11, 2011, from 1 to 3 p.m. at the Romulus Athletic Center, Cirrus Room, 35765 Northline Road, Romulus, Michigan — Third Stakeholder Meeting was held Tuesday, August 16, 2011, from 1 to 3 p.m. at the Romulus Athletic Center, Cirrus Room, 35765 Northline Road, Romulus, Michigan — Second Public Meeting was held Tuesday, August 16, 2011, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Allen Park City Hall Municipal Auditorium, 16850 Southfield Road, Allen Park, Michigan — Third Public Meeting was held Wednesday, August 17, 2011, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Warren Valley Golf and Banquet Center, 26116 West Warren Avenue, Dearborn Heights, Michigan Virtual Site Visit. Various sites in the study area were videotaped and the recordings were presented at the third stakeholder meeting, and the second and third public meetings. The intent was to provide interested stakeholders and members of the public with visual context for the study. Electronic Notices. Electronic notices were periodically prepared and posted on the above-mentioned websites, and distributed to all identified stakeholders and to various electronic mailing lists that reach substantial portions of the target audience. Press Releases/Public Service Announcements. At critical points during the study process (e.g., upcoming public meeting), press releases and public service announcements were prepared and distributed to local radio and television media outlets. Project Contacts. Stakeholders and other interested parties had the opportunity to contact Wayne County and/or USACE project managers at any point during the course of the study via their direct phone lines and e-mail addresses. 6.4.1 Early Coordination Agency/Tribal Comments The following is a discussion of agency/tribal comments received. The comment letters are included in Appendix B. 6.4.1.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (May 11, 2016) Comment: The USEPA recommends increasing meandering along the NBEC and using a two- stage channel. They note that native deep-rooted vegetation, grasses, and/or shrubbery and trees may be planted on the bench platform to promote wildlife habitat and help reduce erosion potential. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-3 Section 6 Public Involvement Response: The NBEC exhibits some meandering in its current alignment and adding meanders to the project is not practical. A two-staged channel is the proposed design and will include plantings on the bench area. Plantings will focus on native species and avoidance of exotic and nuisance species. Comment: The USEPA asked that potential sediment contamination and remediation efforts be explained. Response: Sediment and excavated material quality is discussed in Section 3.4.8 and Section 4.4.8, which explains the Phase I evaluation of the channel widening area and need for Phase II investigations of select areas. Comment: The U.S. EPA encouraged the USACE to reuse excavated material to the greatest extent possible and indicated that excavated material may be used to fill basements of buildings demolished in urban Detroit. Response: USACE construction contracts include clauses promoting beneficial reuse and recycling of materials to the maximum extent practicable. Based on preliminary sediment analytical results, sediments are expected to be disposed in a Type II landfill and/or be placed on property purchased for the sole purpose of sediment disposal (see Section 4.4.8 [Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste]). Comment: Vegetation replanted along the NBEC could benefit pollinator populations. A Federal Highway Administration publication that provides information on vegetation benefiting pollinators is noted. Response: The plantings for the floodplain bench and/or the detention sites would likely include some pollinator promoting species. Comment: U.S. EPA’s online environmental justice mapping and screening tool (EJAssist) indicates that environmental justice populations live in the project vicinity. The U.S. EPA encouraged the USACE to perform public outreach to these communities, and indicated that the U.S. EPA would be interested in reviewing project elements that would benefit environmental justice populations and any residential relocations required as a result of the project. Response: Environmental justice and relocations required for the project are discussed in the following sections: Section 4.4.1 (Land Use, Population, and Housing); and Section 4.4.3 (Environmental Justice). In addition, extensive public involvement activities have been undertaken for the project, as described in Section 6.3 (Public Involvement Activities to Date) and Section 6.4 (Communications Plan). Comment: The U.S. EPA recommended attaching consultation documents regarding historic resources, and endangered species. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-4 Section 6 Public Involvement Response: State Historic Preservation Office concurrence is included in Appendix B. The consultation process is described in Section 3.3 (Historic and Cultural Resources), Section 4.3 (Historic and Cultural Resources), and Section 5.5 (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). The USFWS provided information on Federally listed species in their 2011 report which is included in Appendix B. The Federal determination on Federally listed species was updated in December 2016 and provided to USFWS and their concurrence letter is included in Appendix B (also see discussion in Section 5.4 [Endangered Species Act of 1973]). 6.4.1.2 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (May 20, 2016) Comment: A permit from the state is likely to be required for the project under various statutes, including (but not necessarily limited to) Part 31, Water Resources Protection and Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended. Response: The nonfederal project sponsor will be required to submit permit applications to the State of Michigan (see Section 5.0 [Compliance with Federal Statutes and Executive Orders]). This would not occur until sometime in the design phase (which follows the current NEPA process) when project construction plans are available for submission with the permit application. 6.4.1.3 Michigan Department of Transportation (May 31, 2016) Comment: MDOT notes that the nine communities of the NBEC study area are along five MDOT trunklines: US-24, M-39, M-85, I-94, and I-75. MDOT’s primary concern is that there are no negative or adverse impacts to MDOT structures or any other areas of influence resulting from the project. If there are negative or adverse impacts to structures under MDOT’s jurisdiction, MDOT expects those impacts to be mitigated as NBEC project costs. MDOT also provided field notes from 2007 and bridge inspection reports. Response: As discussed in Section 4.4.7 (Traffic and Transportation), the preferred alternative would result in minor disruptions of traffic through the NBEC study area associated with the temporary increase in the use of roads and freeways by construction-related equipment, particularly trucks hauling excavated material to disposal site(s), and road closures for construction of new crossings (bridge or culverts). However, these disruptions are expected to be temporary and minor. Implementation of the preferred alternative would reduce flooding, which would result in positive traffic impacts. Five bridges in the study area would be replaced, one bridge would be removed, and 14 bridges would be impacted by improvements. Of these bridges, only one of the impacted bridges is on an MDOT trunkline: the Southfield Road bridge at RM 6.37, which is M-39 at this crossing. 6.4.1.4 State Historic Preservation Office (January 12, 2012) Comment: The SHPO noted that “Based on the information provided for our review, it is the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that no historic properties are North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-5 Section 6 Public Involvement affected within the area of potential effects of this undertaking. The SHPO asked to be notified if the scope of work changes or if artifacts/bones are discovered. Response: Noted. USACE construction specifications include clauses protective of discovered cultural resources/historic properties and notification requirements. 6.4.1.5 Hannahville Indian Community (November 10, 2010) Comment: The Hannahville Indian Community does not have any information concerning the presence of any cultural resources in the project area. The Native American Tribe asked to be notified if any burial ground or artifacts are uncovered during construction. Response: If any cultural resources are located during project construction activities, BMPs would be implemented, including stopping all work in the vicinity of the discovery, securing the site from intrusion, and immediately notifying the county coroner in the case of human remains. If the discovery involves Native American remains, the designated Native American Tribal monitor(s) would be notified in consultation with the SHPO as soon as a determination is made. 6.4.1.6 Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (May 16, 2016) Comment: The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma does not have any information concerning the presence of any cultural resources in the project area. The Native American Tribe asked to be notified if any burial ground or artifacts are uncovered during construction and wants to serve as an interested party for the project. Response: See response to Hannahville Indian Community in Section 6.4.1.5, above. 6.4.1.7 Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan (October 26, 2010) Comment: The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan does not have any information concerning the presence of any cultural resources in the project area. The Native American Tribe indicated a wiliness to assist if in the future or during construction there is an inadvertent discovery of Native American human remains or burial objects. Response: See response to Hannahville Indian Community in Section 6.4.1.5, above. 6.4.1.8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (September 30, 2011) The USFWS submitted comments in a report on September 30, 2011. The report includes a description of the fish and wildlife resources and habitats in the project area; a discussion of potential impacts to these resources; and suggested mitigation, conservation, or enhancement measures deemed appropriate by the USFWS. The following addresses the discussions on project impacts, conservation measures, recommendations, and USFWS Findings” as presented on the last three pages of the report (the full report can be viewed in Appendix B). North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-6 Section 6 Public Involvement Impacts of the Selected Plan and Other Alternatives Comment: Limited impacts are expected from the construction of detention basins due to the urbanized nature of the project areas. The Powers Avenue basin site may provide habitat for a variety of terrestrial species after construction of the detention basin. Response: Noted Comment: The most significant impacts that the proposed plan may have on fish and wildlife resources would result from the clearing of vegetation along the NBEC required for construction of the greenway channel. Alternatives three and six would have short-term impacts from vegetation removal including the loss of migratory bird nesting and stopover habitat and the introduction and spread of invasive species. Long-term impacts may include the establishment of invasive species and the loss of potential Indiana bat habitat and migratory bird nesting and stopover habitat. In addition, the loss of the forested riparian buffer could limit the capacity of the stream to support a healthy and productive aquatic community. Response: Loss of riparian vegetation is necessary temporary impact in order to provide a widened floodplain for better flood water conveyance and a more natural river corridor. Use of native plantings and invasive control measures would help ensure a quality future habitat develops on the floodplain bench. Comment: Forested stream channels have a wider and more natural configuration. Wide forest reaches have more macroinvertebrates, benthic habitat, processing of organic matter, and nitrogen uptake than contiguous narrow deforested reaches (Sweeney ct al. 2004). In addition, forest buffers prevent nonpoint source pollutants from entering small streams and enhance the in- stream processing of both nonpoint and point source pollutants. Response: Noted. The proposed action will provide a wider and vegetated floodplain for more natural ecological riverine functions as stated. Comment: Because the proposed project site very likely provides nesting habitat for migratory birds, removing trees and other vegetation may negatively impact migratory birds. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended, it is unlawful to take, capture, kill, or possess migratory birds, their nests, eggs, or young. In addition, removing trees may also negatively affect Indiana bat. If a proposed action may affect Indiana bat, the USA CE must consult with the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Response: Vegetation clearing will be timed to avoid impacting migratory bird and protected bat species (Indiana bat and recently listed northern long-eared bat). Comment: Alternative three is the only alternative that is expected to have any impact to wetlands. A total of 0.036 acres of wetlands would be impacted from construction of the green way channel, however opportunities would exist to create wetland habitat within riparian areas to North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-7 Section 6 Public Involvement mitigate for any wetland impacts. Alternative three would also have the most impact to the existing stream channel due to dredging the channel, relocating portions of the stream, and installing a parallel drain enclosure. Response: More recent evaluation has revealed some wetlands are present that may be affected. The proposed action, Alternative 6, does not impact any wetlands along the river corridor. Preliminary estimates indicate approximately 1.93 acres of forested wetlands and emergent wetlands would be impacted as a result of construction of the Powers Basin under all of the action alternatives. The Beverly and German Drain disposal sites may have some low-quality wetlands, though at the time of the field visit (December 2016) wetland hydrology was not apparent. In the design phase these potential wetland areas would be further investigated and delineated, preferably during the growing season. Impacts to identified wetlands would be avoided and/or minimized during the design phase to the extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands that could not be avoided would be mitigated through mitigation banks, in lieu funds, and/or permittee responsible mitigation, if required. . Evaluation and Comparison of the Selected Plan and Evaluated Alternatives Comment: All of the proposed alternatives (except the "No Action" alternative) considered for the modification of the existing Ecorse Creek flood control project involve retention basins, greenways, channel improvements, or a combination thereof. Alternatives three, five, and six provide the most flood relief, while Alternatives three and six also provide the most opportunities for habitat improvements. However, Alternative three would also have the most impact to the existing channel. In addition, all plans except the "No Action" alternative will have a significant positive effect on groundwater resources by allowing detained flood water to infiltrate into the ground. It will also improve the surface water of NBEC by providing flood detention and supporting a more stable hydrology. Response: Noted. Comment: The alternatives will have a significant positive effect on fish resources by improving the water quality of NBEC and giving it more stable hydrology. The alternatives may also benefit wildlife by replacing urban/disturbed land with the emergent wetland habitat of the detention basins. Response: Noted. The detention basin of the preferred alternative at Powers and Inkster Roads is designed to gravity drain and has a bottom elevation above the NBEC and so is not likely to become emergent wetland. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Measures Comment: We recommend minimizing the amount of vegetation cleared as much as practicable. We further recommend that vegetation removal along the riparian corridor be remediated as soon as possible after construction. In revegetating the site, we recommend using native vegetation and a mixture of grasses, shrubs, and mature trees. Creating a riparian buffer with high species density North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-8 Section 6 Public Involvement and diversity will reduce stream bank erosion, filter pollutants, cool stream waters and reduce flood damage. It will also benefit migratory birds as bottomland hardwood forests with greater vertical and horizontal habitat heterogeneity will provide increased richness and abundance of migrant species (Wilson and Twedt 2003, Rodewald and Brittingham 2004). Response: Noted. Native vegetation is proposed for use in replacing existing riparian vegetation and to provide natural erosion control to supplement other necessary erosion control measures such as use of riprap in select location. Plantings will be effected as soon as possible after construction to help minimize opportunity for establishment of invasive and exotic species. Comment: Any removal of potential migratory bird nesting habitat associated with the proposed project should be completed before spring nesting begins or initiated after the breeding season has ended to avoid take of migratory birds, eggs, young, and/or active nests. Specifically, we recommend that no habitat disturbance, destruction, or removal occur between April 15 and August 15 of each year to minimize potential impacts to migratory birds during their nesting season, although you should be aware that some avian species initiate nesting before April 15. Response: Vegetation clearing will be timed accordingly. Comment: In addition, to minimize any potential effects to Indiana bat, we recommend minimizing tree clearing to the extent feasible and leaving any tree larger than 3 inches dbh standing. If tree removal is necessary, we recommend avoiding clearing trees larger than 3 inches dbh between April 1 and October 31. Response: Recommendations for avoidance of effects on Indiana bat will be included in the project specifications along with avoidance criteria for Northern long-eared bat. Comment: Finally, we recommend that you develop a non-native invasive species management plan to prevent the spread of invasive species such as common reed (Phragmites australis), and narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia). Response: The project operations and maintenance manual will include invasive species control requirements. Intensive plantings of native vegetation will assist in minimizing the presence of invasive species. Recommendations Recommendation: Minimize vegetation clearing to the extent practicable, and remediate the stream banks with native vegetation and a mixture of grasses, shrubs, and mature trees. Response: Project design includes planting native grasses, shrubs and trees. Much of the vegetation to be removed is composed of undesirable species. Recommendation: Avoid habitat disturbance, destruction, or removal between April 15 and August 15 to protect migratory birds. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-9 Section 6 Public Involvement Response: Vegetation removal will be timed as much as possible to occur outside of the migratory bird nesting season. Any clearing prior to August 15 would require cautious efforts to ensure avoidance of bird nesting activities. Recommendation: Avoid clearing trees larger than 3 inches dbh [diameter at breast height (4.5 feet off ground)] between April 1 and October 31 to protect potential Indiana bat roost trees. Response: Tree removal will be timed to avoid impacts to the Indiana bat and the recently listed northern long-eared bat. Some clearing may occur during the bat season if it can be shown that no bats are present through surveys or other methods acceptable to USFWS. Recommendation: Develop a nonnative invasive species management plan. Response: The project operations and maintenance manual will include invasive species control requirements. Intensive plantings of native vegetation will assist in minimizing the presence of invasive species. Summary of Findings and USFWS Position Comment: We recommend implementing the preferred alternative, Alternative six (Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements). Alternative six provides the highest net benefits, meets the evaluation criteria, and is constructible. In addition, the preferred alternative also poses opportunities to restore the degraded aquatic community. Modifying the existing channel presents opportunities to improve habitat conditions for the aquatic community by increasing flow and creating a more stable hydrology. We also encourage minimizing the amount of vegetation removed as a result of the channel improvements and revegetating the river bank after construction. Providing an effective riparian buffer would reduce streambank erosion, reduce siltation, and filter pollutants. We do not support Alternative one (No Action) as it would not provide any habitat improvement. Response: The secondary goal of the proposed action is to provide a more natural river corridor with a wide floodplain and native species which will provide benefits to both flood management, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Comment: Please note that this report does not meet the requirements of Inter-Agency Consultation under section 7(a)2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If you determine that Indiana bat may be affected by the proposed project, you should initiate consultation with our office. Response: The USACE included Sections 7 determinations in this EA and coordinated those determinations with the USFWS in December 2016. The USFWS provided a response with concurrence on Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat (December 22, 2016, Appendix B). North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-10 Section 6 Public Involvement Comment: If the project alternatives change, we ask to be included in developing revised recommendations and may change our report accordingly. Response: Noted. Also, updated ESA Section 7 determinations will be provided as necessary upon any changes to the Federal listings for Wayne County and/or significant passage of time or project revisions that may warrant a new Section 7 review. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 6-11 Section 7 Conclusions 7 Conclusions Environmental review of the proposed action indicates that no significant cumulative or long- term adverse environmental effects would be expected to result from the proposed action. Expected adverse project effects of the proposed action include minor, temporary construction impacts on air quality, noise, soils, infrastructure, utilities, and traffic and transportation. Temporary and permanent changes would occur to land use, and open space, parks and recreational facilities in the immediate project construction path as a result of construction and acquisition of lands for detention basins and channel improvements. The proposed action would result in reduced flooding along the NBEC. Positive effects of the proposed action would also be associated with improvements to public health and safety, traffic and transportation, and socioeconomics through reduced flooding; increased infiltration of detained floodwater into the ground and reduced flows to the NBEC; improvements in water quality, including at the Detroit River confluence with Ecorse Creek; increased hydrologic stability and improved wildlife habitat; and an increase in aesthetic values of the NBEC. The proposed action has been reviewed pursuant to the following Acts and EOs, as amended: Bald Eagle Act of 1972; the CAA; the CWA; the CZMA; the ESA; the FPPA; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958; Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; NEPA; the NHPA; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; EO 11514, Protection of Environment, March 1970; EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 1971; EO 11988, Flood Plain Management, May 1977; EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 1977; EO 12898, Environmental Justice, February 1994; EO 13112, Invasive Species, February 1999; and EO 13186, Migratory Bird Habitat Protection, January 2001. The project has been found to be in compliance with these Acts and EOs for this phase of the project (see Section 5 [Compliance with Federal Statutes and Executive Orders]). This EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA; the Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); and the USACE Policy and Procedures for Implementing NEPA (33 CFR Part 230). This EA concludes that 1) there are no significant cumulative or long-term adverse environmental impacts associated with the project; 2) project benefits outweigh the minor impacts that may result; and 3) it does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 7-1 Section 8 Public Review and Final Determination 8 Public Review and Final Determination This EA will be made available to the public for a 30-day review period. Following this period and a review of the comments received, a final determination will be made by the District Engineer regarding the necessity of preparing an EIS for the proposed action. Based on the conclusions of this EA, it appears that preparation of an EIS will not be required. Therefore, a Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is included in the next section of this EA. If the District Engineer determines that an EIS is not necessary, the Preliminary FONSI would be finalized. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 8-1 Section 9 Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact 9 Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Detroit District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has assessed the environmental impacts of reducing flood hazards and flood damage costs, and providing effective flood damage reduction measures under a flood risk management plan for the North Branch Ecorse Creek (NBEC), Wayne County, Michigan. Alternatives considered in this Environmental Assessment (EA) include the No Action Alternative, Corps’ 1988 Retention Basin Alternative, Wayne County 2008 Greenway Alternative, Optimized Powers Basin Alternative, Detention Basins with Limited Channel Improvements Alternative, and Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative. The recommended alternative (Alternative 6: Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements Alternative) includes construction of a single, optimized detention basin northeast of North Inkster Road and Powers Avenue in Inkster, Michigan, and greenway channel improvements of varying widths downstream of U.S. Route 24 (Telegraph Road) to the Detroit River. The proposed action would result in reduced flooding along the NBEC. Some structures along the path or improvements would require removal for project construction. Native plant species would be used for revegetation following construction activities, and the introduction or spread of invasive species would be minimized. An EA for the proposed action has been completed. The EA indicates that no significant cumulative or long-term adverse environmental effects would be expected to result from the proposed action. Expected adverse project effects of the proposed action include minor, temporary construction impacts on air quality, noise, soils, infrastructure, utilities, and traffic and transportation. Temporary and permanent changes would occur to land use, open space, and parks and recreational facilities within the construction limits as a result of construction and acquisition of lands for detention basins and channel improvements. The proposed action would result in reduced flooding along the NBEC. Positive effects of the proposed action would also be associated with improvements to public health and safety, traffic and transportation, and socioeconomics through reduced flooding; increased infiltration of detained floodwater into the ground and reduced flows to the NBEC; improvements in water quality, including at the Detroit River confluence with Ecorse Creek; increased hydrologic stability and improved wildlife habitat; and an increase in aesthetic values of the NBEC. The proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Michigan Coastal Management Plan. Project improvements are proposed within the 100-year floodplain; however, the project would not promote floodplain development, and because the project would reduce flooding, flood elevations would not increase. The proposed action complies with Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, because there is no practicable alternative to construction in the floodplain that would meet the project’s purpose and need. Additionally, the North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 9-1 Section 9 Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact USACE has determined that the project as proposed would have no effect on historic properties under the National Historic Preservation Act, and the State Historic Preservation Office has concurred with this determination. The project requires compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the placement of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the U.S. As the project is in the area where the State of Michigan has assumed the Section 404 permitting program, Section 404 compliance would be achieved through the State permit process, which occurs after preparation of project plans. The project would also receive CWA Section 401 State water quality certification, or waiver thereof, upon issuance of the State permit. The State permit review also includes coastal consistency review/certification. This EA, along with a review of comments received during public review of the EA, indicate that the flood risk management project for the NBEC does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. LTC Dennis P. Sugrue Date Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 9-2 Section 10 References 10 References AECOM, 2016a. Technical Memorandum. Population and Housing. North Branch Ecorse Creek Drain Flood Risk Management Study. August 10. AECOM, 2016b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update. North Branch Ecorse Creek Drain Flood Risk Management Study. June. AECOM, 2017. Technical Memorandum. Spoil Deposition Sites - Ecological Reconnaissance. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study. January 20. Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. La Roe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Creal, W., and J. Wuycheck, 2002. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List — Michigan Submittal for Year 2002. MDEQ Report #MI/DEQ/SWQ-02/013. ECIC (Ecorse Creek Inter-Municipality Committee), 2006. Ecorse Creek Watershed Management Plan (ECWMP). ECWAG (Ecorse Creek Watershed Advisory Group) and ADW (Alliance of Downriver Watersheds), 2012. Ecorse Creek Watershed Management Plan. June. Available online at: http://www.allianceofdownriverwatersheds.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ecorse_ creek_wmp.pdf. ECT (Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.), 2006. Memorandum: North Branch Ecorse Creek Drain Flood Control Preliminary Environmental Review Results. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. FTA (Federal Transit Administration), 2006. USDOT, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Report FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May. HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), 2009. 1999 Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines. Available online at: www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/ thresh99.html. Date accessed: January 2011. MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), 2002. Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section Procedure #51 Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols for Wadeable Streams and Rivers. MDEQ Surface Water Quality Division, Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 10-1 Section 10 References MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), 2010a. Coastal Management Program. Available online at: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3677_ 3696-11188--,00.html. Date accessed: December 22, 2010. MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), 2010b. Control and Management of Invasive Phragmites. Available online at: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135- 3313_3677_8314-178183--,00.html. Date accessed: December 28, 2010. MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), 2011. Michigan Environmental Mapper. Available online at: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3311_4109_ 9846_9848-141852--,00.html. Date accessed April 5, 2011. MNFI (Michigan Natural Features Inventory), 2004. Northern Riffleshell. Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Lea). Available online at: https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/abstracts/zoology/ Epioblasma_torulosa_rangiana.pdf. MNFI (Michigan Natural Features Inventory), 2011. Rare Species Explorer. Date accessed: July 26, 2011. MNFI (Michigan Natural Features Inventory), 2017a. Myotis sodalis. Indiana bat. Available online at: http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/explorer/species.cfm?id=11426. Date accessed: February 2, 2017. MNFI (Michigan Natural Features Inventory), 2017b. County Element Data. Wayne County. Available online at: http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/data/cnty_dat.cfm?county=82. Date accessed: February 2, 2017. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2011. National Weather Service Inundation Website. Available online at: http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/inundation/faq. php?wfo=mhx&gage=hokn7. Date accessed: January 2011. PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration), 2011. National Pipeline Mapping System Public Map Viewer. Available online at: https://www.npms.phmsa. dot.gov/PublicViewer/. SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments), 2008. SEMCOG 2008 Land Use. Shott, Michael J., 1986. Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Proposed Floodwater Retention Basin for the Ecorse Creek Flood Control Project. ER-7472. Lead Agency: USACE. URS (URS Corporation), 2011a. Wetland Assessment Report. North Branch Ecorse Creek Drain Flood Risk Management Study. July. URS (URS Corporation), 2011b. Noise Assessment Report. North Branch Ecorse Creek Drain Flood Risk Management Study. November. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 10-2 Section 10 References USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1988. Feasibility Report for Flood Protection in the Ecorse Creek Drainage Basin, Wayne County, Michigan. July 1987; and revised August 1988. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1990. Ecorse Creek Drainage Basin, Wayne County, Michigan. House Document 101-193. May 17. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2009. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region, eds. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-09-19. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2017. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management General Reevaluation Report. July. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2016. Memorandum. Inspection Report of Ecorse Creek Detention Basin Wetland Delineation. November 8-10, 2016. Detroit District Corps of Engineers. USBLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), 2016. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Available online at: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=la. Date accessed: August 9, 2016. U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. Population Estimates Program. Population Estimates Data Set. Available online at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-context= gct&-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_GCTT1_ST9&- CONTEXT=gct&-tree_id=809&-redoLog=true&-geo_id=04000US26&-format=ST-9| ST-9S&-_lang=en. U.S. Congress, 1966. River and Harbor Act of 1966. Public Law 89-789. November 7. Available online at: http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/89/789.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau, 2016. Community Facts. American Fact Finder. Available online at: http://factfinder.census.gov. Date accessed: August 9, 2016. U.S. Congress, 1990. Water Resources Development Act of 1990. Public Law 101-640. November 28. Available online at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/ senate-bill/2740/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Water+Resources+ Development+Act%2C+1990%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=14. U.S. Congress, 2007. H.R. 1495 – Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Public Law 110-114. November 9. Available online at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th- congress/house-bill/1495/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Water+Resources+ Development+Act%2C+2007%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=15. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 10-3 Section 10 References USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2010. Web Soil Survey (SSURGO). Database of Wayne County, Michigan. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Date accessed: October 2010. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2010. Great Lakes Area of Concerns: Detroit River Area of Concern. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/detroit.html. Date accessed: December 22, 2010. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Northern Riffleshell Mussel (Epioblama torulosa rangiana) and the Clubshell Mussel (Pleurobema clava). USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 1999. Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 62 pp. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 2007a. Indiana Bat Summer Life History Information for Michigan. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ endangered/section7/s7process/mammals/inba/inbaMIlifehist.pdf. Date accessed: December 27, 2010. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 2007b. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/ mammals/inba/pdf/inba_fnldrftrecpln_apr07.pdf. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 2010. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for Sistrurus catenatus catenatus. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r3/C03P_V01.pdf. Date accessed: December 28, 2010. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 2015. Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Endangered Species. Midwest Region. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nlebFactSheet.html. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1992. Ground water atlas of the United States: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin. HA 730-J. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ ha/ha730/ch_j/index.html. Date accessed: December 21, 2010. Wayne County, 2008. Wayne County, Michigan, Annual Report for Reporting Period January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2007, Certificate of Coverage MIG610040 General Storm Water Discharge Permit. Wayne County, 2016. Code of Ordinances, County of Wayne, Michigan. Codified through Ordinance No. 2015-610, adopted November 19, 2015 (Supplement 22). Online content North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 10-4 Section 10 References updated March 8. Available online at: https://www.municode.com/library/mi/wayne_ county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=13032. WCDC (Wayne County Drain Commissioner), 2008. North Branch of the Ecorse Creek Drain (NBEC) Flood Control Study. Weir, Donald J., Russell B. Henry, and C. Stephan Demeter, 1985. Archaeological and Literature Search, Pedestrian Reconnaissance, and Limited Shovel Testing for the Ecorse Creek Flood Protection Project, Wayne County, Michigan. Prepared by Gilbert/ Commonwealth Inc. Prepared for USACE. ER-7472. North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study February 2017 Environmental Assessment Page 10-5 APPENDIX A PLANT AND ANIMAL LISTS Table A-1 Riparian Vegetation Common along the NBEC Common Name Scientific Name slippery elm Ulmus mbra Siberian elm Ulmus pumila honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos black ash Fraxinus nigra winged sumac Rl111s copallin11111 red maple Acer r11br11111 cottonwood Populus deltoides crack willow Sa/;x fragilis cotrunon reed Phragmites australis natTow-leaf cattail Typha angustifolia Table A-2 Mammal Species Common along the NBEC Common Name Scientific Name raccoon Procyon lotor eastern chipmWlk Tamias striah1s eastern cottontail Sylvilagus jlorManus Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana striped skunk Mephitis mephitis woodchuck Ma1111ola monax squirrels Sci11111s spp. rmce Peromyscus spp. voles Microtus spp. white-tailed deer Odocoileus vbginianus coyote Canis /a/rans red fox Vulpes v11/pes fulva Table A-3 Bird Species Common along the NBEC Common Name Scientific Name European starling Shm111s vulgaris American robin T11rd11s migratorius American crow Co11111s brachyrl~w1cl1os mourning dove Zenaida macroura northern cardinal Cardino/is cardinalis red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus great blue heron Arden herodias mallard Anos p/atyrlr)11chos Canada goose Bran/a canadensis rock pigeon Columbo livia wild turkey Meleag1is gallopCll·o Table A-4 Reptile and Amphibian Species Common along the NBEC Common Name Scientific Name eastern American toad Bufo a111e1ictm11s green frog Rana cla111ilans eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis Table A-5 Federally listed and State-listed Species Common Name Scientific Name and Status Federally listed Species fo1· Wayne County, Michigan Indiana bat Myotis soda/is (E) northern long-eared bat Myotis seplenh'ionalis (T) n01ihern riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (E) prairie fringed orchid Platanthera leucophaea (T) mfa red knot Calid1is canutus rufa (T) eastern massasauga rattlesnake Sishw11s catenatus cate11ah1s (I) State-listed Species PotentiaUy Present along the NBEC three-awned grass Arislida longespica (T) grasshopper sparrow A111111odram11s sm·annan1111 (SC) Notes: E - Endangered, T - Threatened, SC - Special Concern Table A-6 Exotic I Nnisance Species Common along the NBEC Common Name Scientific Name co1mnon reed Phragmites auslralis na11'owleaf cattail Typha angustifolia reed canary grass Phalaris am ndinacea garlic mustard Allimia peliolata Queen Anne's lace Daucus carola crack willow Salix fragilis weeping willow Salix x sepulcra/is common teasel Dipsacus fullonum Table A-7 Common Trees at the Powers Basin Site Woodland Common Name Scientific Name silver maple Acer saccharinum green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica American elm Ulmus americana American basswood Tilia americana Table A-8 Common Shrubs at the Powers Basin Site Woodland Common Name Scientific Name common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica Tatarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica gray dogwood Cornus racemosa pawp aw Asimina triloba APPENDIX B AGENCY AND TRIBAL RESPONSES TO EARLY COORDINATION U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (MAY 11, 2016) MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (MAY 20, 2016) MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MAY 31, 2016) MICHIGAN STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (JANUARY 12, 2012) HANNAHVILLE INDIAN COMMUNITY (NOVEMBER 10, 2010) MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA (MAY 16, 2016) SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE OF MICHIGAN (OCTOBER 26, 2010) U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ESA SECTION 7 CONCURRENCE (DECEMBER 22, 2016) U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COMMENTS/REPORT (SEPTEMBER 30, 2011) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 MA'{ 1 1 Z016 REPL\'TOTHEATTENTION OF: E-J9J Charles Uhlarik Envrronmen1al Analysis Branch U. S, Almy Corps of Engineers - Detroit District 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226-2550 Re~ Scoping for the North Branch Ecorse Creek Drain Flood Control Project, Wayne. County, Michigan Dear Mr. Ublari.k: D1e U.S. EnviroDlT)ental Protection Agency has reviewed the referenced scoping document prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), pursuant to our au.thorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The proposed project involves reconstructing or ·widening a 16-mile segment of the North Branch of Ecorse Creek (NBEC), in Wayne County, Michigan. The purpose ofthis project is to reduce and/or control flooding issues within the NBEC floodplain. Proposed project improvements include addition of a 35-foot greenway between Madison Street and I-94, and a 15-foot greenway between I-94 and Allen Road. Also included will be replacement of five bridges that span NBEC, removal of the Victoria Bridge, general channel improvements, and construction of a retention basin at Powers A venue. USACE also proposes to store excavated material at either the Beverly Site, or the Consolidated Lumber Site. We commented on an earlier scoping document relating to this project, in a letter dated September 7, 2011. The scoping document did not specifically address EPA 's comments from our earlier letter. Those comments are reiterated in this letter. Based on our review, we have comments relating to sb·eam dynanlics, beneficial reuse of excavated material, promoting polJinators and l.lative plant species, envirorunental justice, and consultation records, as stated below. Stremn Dvnamics EPA recommends USA CE increase meaodering along the North Branch of Ecorse Creek, whi le maintaining the existing stream gradient. EPA also recommends USACE consider utilizing a two-stage channel approach for this stream. USACE may wish to plant native deep-rooted vegetation, grasses, and/or shrubbery and trees on the bench platform of the stream s.o as to promote wildlife habitat areas, while also reducing the potentjaJ. for severe erosion during flood Recycled/Recyclabte • Pnoied wilh Vegetable Oil Based lnl1s on 100% Recyclecl Paper (100% Post-Consllmer) events. Additionally, USACE should explain potential sediment contamination and any associated remediation efforts. Beneficial Reuse ofExcavated Material We encourage USACE to reuse excavated material to the greatest extent possible. We understand community revitalization is presently occurring in urban Detroi~ and excavated material may be utilized for filling basements of demolished buildings. Promoting Pollinators and Native Plant Species The 2014 Presidential Memorandum (PM) entitled, "Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health ofHoney Bees and Other Pollinators1/'respon ds to evidence ofsteep declines in certain pollinator populations. Pollinators are critical contributors to our nation's economy, food system, and environmental health. Vegetation within tbe project area can provide much needed habitat for pollinators, providing food, shelter, and connections to other patches of habitat. Maintenance staff and landscape designers can all take steps to improve the quality of vegetation to benefit pollinators, steps that can also reduce costs, maintaill public safety, and improve public good wilL Federal :Highway Administration recently published "Pollinators and Roadsides: Best Management Practices for Managers and Decision Makers. "2 This publication contains practices that can enhance or restore native vegetation benefiting pollinators at any project site, including l\TBEC. Environmental Justice EPA's environmentaljustioe (EJ) mapping program, EJSCREEN, indicates low income and minority populations live in the vicinity of this proposed project. EPA encourages USA CE to perform outreach to these affected communities in the fonn of public meetings, informational pamphlet distribution, etc. EPA will be interested in reviewing project-specific designs or features that will benefit local EJ populations, such as ip.creased green space, creation of walking trails, and green floodplain management. Consultation Records EPA recommends attaching consultation documents regarding historic resources (Michigan State Historjc Preservation Office), and endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources). EPA is available to discuss these comments at your convenience. Please feel free to contact Mike Sedlacek of my staff at 312-886-1765, or by emai1 at sedlacek.michael(a{epa.gov. 1 www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presideatialactions/presidential-memoranda :i: bttps://www.environment,fhwa..dot.gov/ecosystems/Pollinators Roadsides/BMPs pollinators roadsides.asp 2 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LANSING RICK SNYDER KEITH CREAGH GOVERNOR DIRECTOR May 20, 2016 Mr. Charles Uhlarik, Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch United States Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226-2550 Dear Mr. Uhlarik: SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment (EA) Early Coordination Request for North Branch Ecorse Creek (NBEC) Flood Risk Management Study Project Thank you for notifying us of the proposed NBEC flood risk project for which the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is requesting early EA coordination with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). As this project is not primarily for navigational purposes, we will not be able to perform early coordination through the Corps Project Review Committee. Coordination will instead be provided through the state’s permitting process. Please note that before construction can begin, a permit from the state is likely to be required for the proposed project under various statutes including (but not necessarily limited to) Part 31, Water Resources Protection; and Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams; of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA). The DEQ recommends that if early coordination is desired before application is made, it be performed through our pre-permit application process. The Section 401 certification review will be a part of the state permit review process, and if the state permit is approved it will carry with it the Section 401 certification. More information on pre-application consultation and the standard application process (referred to as the Joint Permit Application) may be found at: http://www.michigan.gov/jointpermit The DEQ staff person responsible for Wayne County is Jeremy Richardson, [email protected] , 586-753-3860. Mr. Richardson can assist you with the pre-application or the standard application process. CONSTITUTION HALL • 525 WEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30473 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7973 www.michigan.gov/deq • (800) 662-9278 Mr. Uhlarik 2 May 20, 2016 Thank you for your cooperation in protecting Michigan's water resources. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely Chris Antieau Great Lakes Shorelands Unit Water Resources Division 517-290-5732 cc: Mr. Jeremy Richardson, DEQ STATE OF MICHIGAN RICK SNYDER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KIRK T. STEUDLE GOVERNOR DIRECTOR METRO REGION OFFICE May 31, 2016 Mr. Charles A. Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers 4 77 Michigan A venue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Dear Mr. Uhlarik: This is in response to your letter dated April 29, 2016, regarding the North Branch Ecorse Creek (NBEC) Flood Risk Management Study in Wayne County, Michigan. Thank you for providing the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) an opportunity to review and comment on the update of the NBEC Flood Risk Management Study. As mentioned in your letter, the MDOT Metro Region Office and Taylor Transportation Service Center staff previously coordinated with the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers in 2010 and 2011. MDOT continues to support the updated NBEC Flood Risk Management Study. The department has reviewed the six alternatives (selected plan alternative #6) aimed to eliminate large scale flooding from a ten year designed storm event and substantial reduction in flooding from a 100 year design storm event that impacts nine communities of Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse, Inkster, Lincoln Park, Melvindale, Romulus, Taylor, and Westland along five MDOT trunklines, specifically US-24, M-39, M- 85, I-94 and I-75. MDOT's primary concern is that there is no negative or adverse impacts to our structures along the corridors listed above or any other area of influence resulting from the implementation of the NBEC Flood Risk Management Study recommendations. If there are negative or adverse impacts to structures under our jurisdiction, we would expect those impacts to be mitigated at the NEBC project costs. Please find enclosed the following documents for your review and files: 1. Field Notes from 2007 2. The 2005/2006 Bridge Inspection Reports (included with the Field Notes) 3. The 2015/2016 Bridge Inspection Reports If you have any questions, please contact me at 248-483-5103. Sincerely, -,~~ Tony Kratofil, P.E. Metro Region Engineer 18101 WEST NINE MILE ROAD• SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48075 www.michigan.gov • (248) 483-5100 LH-LAN-0 (01/03) STA1'1! 01' M1 CHIOAN RICK SNY OER MICHIGAN STATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GAl~Y HclDEL GOVERl\IOR STATE H1no1uc PRUUVATION Oi>rn."E e;J January 12, 2012 KAREN KREPPS DETROIT DISTRICT CORPS OF RNOINEERS PO BOX 1027 DETROIT Ml 48231-1027 RE: ER·l 1·571 North Brnndt Ecorse Crtck Drain Flood Control P-roject, SJl.,33,34,35,6, TIS.JS, RI flt,11 f., Delroit, W1ty11e C Dear Ms. Krepps ~ Un der the authority of Section 106 of the National Historic Preseivation Act of l The views of the public are essential to infom1ed decision making in the Section 106 process. Pederal Agency Officia'ls or their delegaled authorities must plan to involve tbe public in a manner that reflects the nature and comple1dty of the undertaking, its effects on historic propcnies and other provisions per 36 C'FR § 800,2(d), We remind you that Federall Agency Officil'lls or their delegated authorities are required to consult with the appropriate lndian tribe and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) when the undertnking may occur on or affect any historic properties on tribal lands. In ll!l <'1'Se!!, whether the project occurs on tribal lands or not. Federal Agency Officials or their delcgared authorities are also required to mnke a reasonable and good faith effort to ide11tify any Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations that might attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties in the area of potential effects and invite them to lbe consulting parties per 36 CFR § 800.2(c·f) . This letter evidences COE's compliance with 36 CFR § 800.4 "Identification of historic properties", and the fulfillment of COE1s responsibility to notify the SHPO, as a coosulti11g parry In the Section 106 process, under 36 CFR § 800.4(d)( 1ll "No historic pr<>p~rtits affected." The State Historic Pre$ervation Office is not the office of record for tl1is undertakin g. You are therefore asked to mainitain a copy of 1his letter with your environmental review record for this undenaking. If the scope of work changes in any way, or ifartifacts or bones are discovered, pt case notify this office immediately. lfyou have any questions. please contact Brinn Orennell, C1,1 ltural Resou~ Mnn~gement Speciolist. at (517) 335·272 l or by email at gri:nnellb@micbig_an.gov. Ple11sr refertncr our projed number In all communication with this office regarding this undertaking. Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment, and for yout cooperation. Sincerely, )) \.(. ~, r .J y ~v .. ) ~, t-L-- Martha MacFarlane Faes Deputy State Historic Preservation Olliccr for Brian D. Conway State Historic Preservation Officer MMF:DL/\.ROC·blb Copy: Crista M. Haag STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OfFICE ~ 6.. 70< WEST l November 10, 2010 ' ;· ., ·. URS Crista Haag, M.A. .. -3q East Seventh Street, Suite 2300 Cincinnati, OH 45202 · ... . RE: North Branch. Ecorse Creek Control Project, Wayne County, MI •. Dear Ms. Haag: . , On be4alf of the Hannahville Indian.CommuµityJw9uict.like;to thank u~s for your :· ··inquiry a,s to whether yom above cited project inay com~ into· conflict with the Nationaf .Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., and the applicable regulations at 47 CFR § 1.1307. The . . burial grounds and artifacts of ow· ancestors are very dear to our cc;>mmunity and.we take . all construction project~ that may affect our ancestor~ and tribal ~istory ve:l·y sericmsly. ' . ., ...... After a review of the specifications of yotir pro]ect, it is the belief of my staff and myself . ·.that your project'does not affect any Indian religious site or buiial ground of the : . . Hannahville Indian Community.and would not offend any federal law in place. We do . ask that your ·firm give the ttiqe notice if any burial ground or artifacts aie uncovered during the construction proc~s s . . . If you have any other ques ti o~s , please do not he~itate to call me at (906) 4 96 ~2934 . Once again· I. would l i~e to thank you for taking to time to ·contact my of.fi.ce on this inatter. · • ., I ' . ! ,.\_' ..: ·.~ .. : .. ) \. .-_.'· . '. .KENNETH MESHIGAUD ELAINE MESHIGAUD TAMMY WANDAHSEGA : · LISA LITTLE · Tribal Treasurer Tribal. Chairpe(son Tribal Vice -Chairp~rson Tribal Secreta'ry Cou~c il Members: John Meshigaud Sr., O. Joe Sagataw, Robin Halfaday, William ·Sagataw, . Audrey Gamez, Leroy Wandahsega, Lawrence Sagataw, Ea.rl Meshigaud . From: Uhlarik, Charles A LRE To: Allerding, Paul H LRE; Colton, Amanda R LRE Subject: FW: North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study, Wayne County Date: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:44:08 AM See email below regarding the Subject. Charles A. Uhlarik Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch US Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit MI 48226-2550 Office: 313.226.2476 Cell: 313.405.2647 -----Original Message----- From: Diane Hunter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 3:33 PM To: Uhlarik, Charles A LRE Dear Mr. Uhlarik: Aya, kikwehsitoole. My name is Diane Hunter, and I am the Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Federally Recognized Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. In this capacity, I am the Miami Tribe’s point of contact for all Section 106 issues. The Miami Tribe offers no objection to the above-mentioned project at this time, as we are not currently aware of existing documentation directly linking a specific Miami cultural or historic site to the project site. However, as this site is within the aboriginal homelands of the Miami Tribe, if any human remains or Native American cultural items falling under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) or archaeological evidence is discovered during any phase of this project, the Miami Tribe requests immediate consultation with the entity of jurisdiction for the location of discovery. In such a case, please contact me at 918-541-8966, by email at [email protected] The Miami Tribe wants to serve as an interested party to the proposed projects. In my capacity as Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer I am the point of contact for consultation. Respectfully, Diane Hunter Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Miami Tribe of Oklahoma P.O. Box 1326 Miami, OK 74355 "Es"EsEsther Helmss " October 26, 2010 Ms. Crista Haag URS RE: North Branch Ecorse Creek Drain Flood Control Project, Wayne County, MI. Dear Ms. Haag This letter is in response to the above referenced project. At this time we do not have any information concerning the presence of any Indian Traditional Cultural Properties, Sacred Sites or other Significant Properties to the projected project area(s). This is not to say that such a site may not exist, just that this office does not have any available information of the area(s) at this time. This office would be willing to assist if in the future or during the construction there is an inadvertent discovery of Native American human remains or burial objects. Feel free to call my office if you have any questions or requests at 989-775-4730. We thank you for including this Tribe in your plans. Sincerely, William Johnson /elh Curator Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan United States Deparbnent of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE East Lansing Field Office (ES) 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 1Cl1 IN REPLY REFER TO: East Lansing, Michigan 48823-6316 December 22, 2016 Mr. Charles A. Uhlarik Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 Re: Corps File North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study Dear Mr. Uhlarik: Thank you for your correspondence received on December 2, 2016 requesting consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Ac:t). The flood mitigation study area extends 16.9 miles along the North Branch of Ecorse Creek (NBEC) from the terminus of the NBEC on Ecorse Road (approximately 0.5 miles east of Wayne Road) to the mouth of Ecorse Creek at the Detroit River. According to the information provided, the goal of flood risk management for Ecorse Creek is elimination of large scale flooding from the 10-year design storm event and substantial reduction in flooding from the 100-year design storm event. Alternatives were formulated with measures to reduce peak flood flow rates, reduce runoff volumes, increase flood conveyance, and/or detain flood flows. As such, the alternatives incorporate non-structural measures (buffer zones, native vegetation), channel improvements (trapezoid channels, widening, sediment removal, concrete paving, floodwalls, or levees), and/or stormwater detention/floodwater storage. Six alternatives were evaluated in detail. Your analysis addressed potential effects to the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; NLEB). You hav·e determined that the NBEC Flood Risk Management Study may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Indiana bats and NLEBs and are requesting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurrence with your determination. Indiana Bat The proposed project is within the range of the Indiana bat and if any tree removal is required, then potential hnpact to this federally endangered species could occur. In Michigan, summering Indiana bats roost in trees in riparian, bottomland, and upland forests from approximately April through October. Indiana bats may summer in a wide range of habitats, from highly altered landscapes to intact ------ 2 forests. Roost trees vary considerably in size, but those used by Indiana bat maternity colonies are typically greater than 9 inches dbh. Male Indiana bats have been observed roosting in trees as small as 3 inches dbh. Northern Long-Eared Bat During the summer, NLEBs typically roost singly or in colonies underneath bark or in cavities, crevices, or hollows of both live and dead trees and/or snags (typically ~3 inches dbh). This species has also been found roosting in structures such as barns and sheds, particularly when suitable tree roosts are unavailable. These bats forage for insects in upland and lowland woodlots and tree-lined conidors. During the winter, NLEBs hibernate predominantly in caves and abandoned mine portals. On April 2, 2015, a final rule was published in the Federal Register listing the NLEB as threatened, along with an interim species-specific rule under section 4( d) of the Act, which lessens ESA restrictions that do not provide conservation benefits for the bat. On January 14, 2016, a final species specific 4(d) rule was published in the federal Register, further reducing restrictions that do not provide conservation benefits to the species. Incidental take is only prohibited under the final rule as a result of removing a known occupied maternity roost tree or removing trees within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree during the pup season (June 1 through July 31 ), or as a result of removing trees from within 0.25 miles of a hibernaculum at any time of year. Under the final NLEB 4( d) rule, incidental take of the species is exempt for the project area since the project does not occur within either area specified in the final 4(d) rule. However, federal agency actions that involve incidental take not prohibited under the final 4( d) rule may still result in effects to individual NLEBs. Per section 7 of the ESA, if a federal agency's actions may affect a listed species, consultation with the Service is required. This requirement does not change when a 4(d) rule is implemented. For this 4(d) rule, however, the Service has established a framework to streamline fonnal section 7 consultations when federal actions may effect the NLEB but will not result in prohibited !alee. Federal agencies have the option to rely upon the findings of the programmatic biological opinion for the final 4(d) rule and to fulfill their project-specific section 7 responsibilities by using the established framework. For projects that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the species, agencies may follow the typical consultation procedures. 3 We concur that the project is not likely to adversely affect Indiana bats or NLEBs for the following reasons: • There are no know Indiana bat or NLEB hibernacula near the project site. • No suitable maternity roost trees (greater than 9 inches dbh) were found in the project area during a habitat assessment in October 2010. • Tree and snag removal activities would be restricted to times that avoid potential for direct impacts to breeding female and juvenile bats, unless appropriate survey work is completed to show there are not bats present. Conclusion If tree clearing will occur, we recommend those activities to be performed between October and March to avoid direct take oflndiana bats. We appreciate the opportunity to cooperate with you in conserving threatened and endangered species. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Lisa Fischer, of this office, at (517) 351-5293 or [email protected]. Sincerely, /~~42. ~ / ~ Scott Hicks /re, ~ c:r-- Field Supervisor United States Department of the Interior FISH AND \.VlJ,DLIFE SERVfCFi Easl Lansing Field Oili.cc (ES) 2651 OoolidgeRoad, Suite 101 IN REPLY REFER TO: East Lansing, Michigan 48823-6316 September 30, 20 I I Lieutenant Colonel Michael C. Derc)sier District Engineer-Detroit District U.S. Atn1y Engineer P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 4823 I Re: North Branch Ecorse Creek Drain Flood Risk Management Study-Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Dear Lieutenant Colonel Derosier: Enclosed is our draft report on the proposed North Branch Ecorse Creek Project pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667e). This draft report fulfills the requirements tmder the 201 l Support Agreement and Scope of Work between our agencies. Our report provides: a description of the fish and wi ldlife resources an Overall, we support implementing Alternative 6 (Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements). Modifying the existing channel presents opportunities to improve habitat conditions fort.he aquatic community. We also encourage minimizing the amount of vegetation removed as a result of the channel improvements and rcvegetating the river bank with shrubs and trees where feasible ait.er constructioJ1. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these recommendations. We look forward to your comments and the opportunity to discuss this draft repo1i with your staff. Please notify Chris Mensing of this office, at (517) 3 51-8316 of any decisions regarding our recommendations and of any changes in the project plans. Sincerely, ~o# 1-tdvi · Scott Hicks Field Supervisor cc: MDEQ, Lansing, Ml (Attn: Chris Antieau) MDNR, Livonia, Ml {Attn: JcffBnumscheidel) USFWS, Alpena Fishery Resources Office, Alpena, MI (Attn: Jim Boase) North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management Study Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Draft Section 2(b) Report Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office East Lansing, Michjgan September 2011 Executive Summary The North Branch of Ecorse Creek (NBEC) flows 16.9 miles through central Wayne County, Michigan and provides stormwater conveyance for nine communities - Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse, Inkster, Lincoln P.ark, Melvindo l e~ Romulus, Taylor and Westland. The watershed drains an area of more than 19,000 acres. Over the last 40 years, the NBEC has experienced severe flooding, resulting in property damage, sewage back-ups, rond closures, and lost economic value. The project area consists of a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space. Suburban development and agriculture dominates land use in the headwater reaches, ai1d dense residential and commercial development with little green space typifies the rest of the watershed (MDEQ 2002a). The Ecorse Creek watershed is identified on Michigan's list of water-quality limited or threatened waters as fai ling to meet Michigan water quality standards for pathogens (bacteria) and for the protection of wann water aquatic life (MDEQ 2002b). The NBEC is characterized by depressed dissolved oxygen levels, flashy flows in response to rainfall and snowmelt, sluggish flow during low discharge periods, urban runoff: heavy siltation, and severely degraded benthic i1wertebrate and fish communities (ECIC 2006). ln 1988, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) evaluated alternatives for flood damage reduction and selected a plan that inCluded a large retention basin. In 2008, the Wayne County Drain Commissioner (WCDC) completed a. Flood Risk Management Study and recommended a "greenway" improvetnent project. However, neither project was constructed. Currently, USACE and Wayne County an~ developing an updated Feasibility Study and Envirorunental Impact Statement (EIS) that will re-evaluate the 1988 USACE plan, the 2008 Wayne County Plan, three new alternatives that combine elements of the two previous plans, and a no-action alternative. We support implementing Alternative 6 (Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements). Modifying the existing channel presents opportunities to improve habitat conditions for the aquatic community by increasing fl ow and creating a more stable hydrology. We also encourage minimizing the amount ofvegetation removed as a result of the channel improvements and revegetating the river bank after construction. Providing an effective riparian buffer would reduce streambank erosion, reduce siltation, filter pollutants, and provide habitat for migratory birds. Purpose, Scope, and Authority The USACE-Detroit District and Wayne County, Michigan signed a project partnership agreement (PPA) on October 30, 2009 and began a Feasibility Report for Flood Risk Management in the Ecorse Creek. Tbe l'PA authorized the development of a General Revaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The stated purpose and need for the project is to reduce flood hazards and flood damage costs, provide effective tl ood damage reduction measures, avojd or minimize adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial environments, and avoid adverse impacts to socio-economic and cultural aspects of the area. This document constitutes the teport of the Secretary oflnterior as required by Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). Section 2(b) of FWCA (16 USC 662(b)) specifies under "Reports and recommcndalions; consideration:,. " ... the reports and recommendations of the Secretary of the Jnterior on the wildlife aspects of such prqjects ... based on surveys and investigations c011ductcd by th.e United States Fish an According tu the Scope of Work, signed on May l 0, 20 l 1, the Service will co11duct a literatur~ review and field investigation of the fish and wildlife resources of the projecl area, attend one of two interagency and/or public meetings, and prepare a Draft Coordination Act Report (DCAR). The DCAR will utilize information collected during the literature review, field work, meeting attendance, as well as design information supplied by the USACE and Wayne County. The DCAR shall include the following information: l. A description (based on a literature review and previous field investigati<)n) of the fish and wildlife resources and habitats of the project area, including endangered or threatened species. 2. A discussion of potential impacts of the project alternatives on fish and wildlife resources, citing specific evidence supporting each identified potential impact. 3. A discussion ot: and rationale for, any suggested mitigation, conservation, or enhancement measures that may be appropriate for potential impacts of the proposed project altcmatives of fish and wildlife resources. Input, Coordination, and Concurrence of State Fish and Wildlife Agency At this time, the Michigan Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) has not provided comments on the proposed proj eot. A copy of this report and a request for comments will be submitted to the MDNR. Relevant Prior Studfos and/or Reports A Feasibility Report and EIS was developed by the USACE in July 1987 and revised in Augu$t 1988. The recommendations from the 1988 amended Feasibility Study were considered in the development of altonu1tives for the current DEIS. Specifically, the preferred alternative from the 1988 USACE Feasibility Study is included in the DEIS as Alternative 2 (Corps 1988 Retention Basin). The Service completed a FWCA report for the 1988 USACE Feasibility Study and EIS. However the proposed project has been significantly modified necessitating a reanalysis of the project. ln 2008, the Wayne County Drain Commissioner completed a Flood Risk Management Study. The recommendations from this study were considered in the development of alternatives for the cuITent DElS. The preferred alternative from this plan is included in the DEIS as Alternative 3 (Wayne County 2008 Greenway). Description of the Study Area The NBEC watershed is located in central Wayne County, Michigan. The watershed drains approximately 19 200 acres (30 square miles) from portions ofnine communities - Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse, Inkster. Lincoln Park, MelvindaJe. Romulus, Taylor and Westland. NBEC is one of three main tributaries of Ecorse Creek. It flows eastward from its headwaters jn Romulus, Michigan, for appro~im ately I 6.6 miles to its confluence with Le Blanc Drain and Sexton-Kilfoil Drain, which fonn Ecorse Creek. Ecorse Creek flows for approximately 0.5 mile to its tcm1inus at Detroit River. The majority ofNBEC is an open, trapezoidal channel; however, two segments from river miles (RM) 14.4 to 15.3 and 16.8 to 16.9 have been enclosed. The study area for analysis is the portion of tile NBEC watershed 1mpacted by an estimated 500- year flood event. The NBEC is the primary storm water conveyance system for 52,450 properties. Land use within the NBEC project area consists of a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space. Prior to l 830, much of the watershed was beech-sugar maple forest, although extensive areas in the headwaters and elsewhere wore mixed hardwood swamp or other types of wetland. Today. single fami ly residential development is the dominant land use (ECIC 2006). The topography of the watershed is flat wilh a gentle slope toward the Detroit River. Consequently, NBEC experiences sluggish flow during low discharge periods. The slope of the channel through ils middle reaches is relatively Oat, resulting in sediment deposition during low flows and severely limited hydraulic capacity. Surface soils are generally very poorly drained with a penuanent or seasonably bigh ground water table. Where thoy can be identified, soils west of Telegraph Road are generaJly course to moderately fine in texture (sandy loams), while soils east of Telegraph Road are generally moderately fine to fine (clay loams). These soils exhibit low penneability and lherefore inhibit the transmission of water through the soil. Furthermore, the Soil Survey Geographic Database indicates that soils throughout approximately half of the watershed are classified as Cut and FiJl Land (original soils arc impossible to identify) or that no soil survey data is available (NRCS 2011 ). Partly because of the low percolation rates of clay soils, as well as the effects of urbanization, stream flows in the watershed are very fl ashy and e1Tatic. Fish and Wildlife Resource Concerns, Problems, Needs, and Planning Objectives The NBEC exhibits unstable flow regimes, urban runofi~ and heavy siltation (MDNR 1992, MDEQ 2002a). These factors cont1ibute to severely degraded benthic invertebrate and fish communities (ECK' 200<>). 111 add.ition, much of the NBEC has been channeli 7,ed, further Limiting aquatic habitat. The planning objective for this FWCA report is to conserve the riparian habitat and restore aquatic resources to benefit the fish and wildJifo populations along the NBEC. Within the aJtemativcs presented, opportunities exist to improve the low flow conditions, restore native vegetation, minimize erosion and sedimentation, and restore a diverse aquatic community. Fish and Wildlife Resource Conditions Hydrograpbs of the NBEC depict "flashy" flows with an almost inm1cdiale response to a rain event full owed by a rapid recovery. This demonstrates the influence of impervious sutfaccs am.1 storm sewers on river flows and indicates !hat the hydrology of NBEC is primarily driven by surface flow (ECIC 2006). The combined biological oxygen demand of bottom sediments. suspended organic material, and aJgal respiration result in depressed dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the lower reaches oftbe basin. /\s the levels of DO decline, the diversity of aquatic species also decreases. Urban runoff, which may be heated as it travels across impervious surfaces, contributes to wanning of the stream, which further decreases DO levels. Biologjcal surveys conducted in 2001 by 01e Michigan Department of Envirorunental Quality (MDEQ) found that rnacroinvertebrate communities within NBEC were dominated by species that are tolerant of low DO levels and poor water quality (MDEQ 2002a, ECIC 2006). Fish communities within NBEC were rated fair or poor at all stations (MDNR 1992). The 1992 .MDNR report found only five species of fish in the NBEC, totaJing 31 individual specimens (fable 1). The MDEQ did not complete any fish surveys on the NBEC for their 2002 report. Table l. Total number of fish identified dw·ing the 199 J MDNR Biological Survey (MDNR 1992). Scientific Name Common Name Number oflndividuals Umbra limi Central Mudminnow 9 Carassius airratus Goldfish 1 Moh'opis vohtcellus Mimic Shiner 13 Pimephalus promelas Fathead Minnow 6 Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish 2 The entire Ecorse Creek Watershed fails to attain designated uses for the protection of aquatic life (MDEQ 2003). The biota in the watershed is impacted on a broad scale by unstable flows and excessive sedimentation resulting in the loss of stable habitat. In addition, urban runoff. past combined sewer overflow and unpermitted connections, industrial point source pollution, habitat modifications, and other impacts adversely affect the fish aod aquatic macrojnvertebrate communities in NBEC. In general, the fauna likely to inhabit the NBEC ripmian corridor consist ofs pecies conunonly found in urban settings. Raccoon, Eastern chipmunk, Virginia opossum, striped skunk. woodchuck, squirrels, mice, voles and moles are likely to inhabit the proposed project area. Various reptiles and amphibians such as Eastern American toad, green frog. and Eastern garter snake are also likely to be present. A common snapping turtle was observed during a site visit on June 16, 2011. Migratory birds likely utilize the NBEC's riparian corridor for nesting and as a migratory stopover sites. Seventy-eight species, including nco-tropical songbirds, have been recorded with breeding evidence within and adjacent to the NBEC watershed (J. Craves, Ro\lge River Bird Observatory, pers. comm. 201 l). A list of species is included in Appendix A. In addition, forested riparian co1Tidors serve as important stop-over sites for migratory birds (Ewert et al . 2006). Due to the highly developed nature of the watershed, lhe NBEC C()n-idor likely serves as .important refugia for a variety of mi&rratory birds. The proposed project site occurs within the range of Lndiana bat {Myo1is .wdalis). a federally listed endangered species. Although there are no records of Indiana bat observed in the Ecorse River Watershed, the proposed project occurs witl1in the bafs summermalemity range. Indiana bats are known to use a wide variety of tree species for roosting,. but structure (i.e., crevices or ~xfoliating bark) is probably most important in detennining if a tree is a suitable roost site. Roost trees generally arc dead, dying or live trees (e.g., shagbark hickory and oaks) with peeling or cxfoliating bark which allows the bat to roost between the bark and bole of the tree, but Indiana bats will also use narrow cracks, split tree trunks and/or branches as roosting sites. Southern Michigan maternity roost trees arc typically in open areas exposed to solar radiation. Roost trees vary considerably in size~ but those used by lndiana bat maternity colonies usually are large relative to other trees nearby, typically greater tham 9 inches dbh. Male Lndiana bats have been observed roosting in trees as small as 3 inches dbh. Alternative Plans Considered, Outcome of Plan Selection Process, and Alternatives Evaluated and Addressed by the Service in this Report The USACE developed alternatives for the proposed project that address the purpose and need for the project, meet planning criteria (e.g., technical effectivcness , potential environmental impact, social acceptability), and are constructible. Alternatives with a benefit/cost ratio above 1.0 were carried for.vard and were further analyzed. Five alternatives, including a sixth ·'No Action'' alternative, were developed and evaluated using detailed hydrology modeling and economic analysis. Alternative I - No Action No projecl would be implemented by either the federal government or the local communities to achjeve the flood control. Alternative 2 - Corps 1988 Retention Basin The selected aJtemative from the 1988 USACE Feasibility Study involves construction ofa storm water retention basin along Powers Road, Dearborn Heights, Michigan. The basin would have a depth of 30 foet and a storage volume of 275 acre-feet. Alternative 3 - Wayne County 2008 Greenway The selected alternative from the 2008 Wayne County Flood Risk Management Study includes reconstruction of tht; open channel, replacement of unders.ized bridges and culverts, installation of a parallel drain enclosure, relocation of portions of the drain, and construction of six stonn water detention basins. [n addition, channel improvements consisting of a vegetated trapezoid or a two-shelf vegetated greenwaywcreproposed along the entire length of the NBEC. Alternative 4 - Optimized Powers Basin This alternative consists of a single detention facility along Powers and Inkster Road in Lhe same general vicinity as Alternative 2. The facility would be gravity-drained to the NBEC and would provide approximately 250 acre-feet of stonn water storage. Alternative 5 - Detention Basins with limited Channel Improvements This alternative would utilize the same detention facili ty as Alternative 4, with the addition of five detention storage facilities in the dties of Dearborn Heights and Allen Park. Channel improvements would consist of constructing a 35-foot wide green way chaMcl from Madison Street to westbound l-94, and a 15-foot wide greenway channel from westbound 1-94 to Allen Road. This alternative was determined to have a benefit/cost ratio less than one. Therefore A1temative 5 is not cost effoctive and the USACE removed it from further analysis. As such, we will not be addressing impacts from I.his ahemative in this FWCA report. Alternative 6 - Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Improvements This alternative combines portions of Alternatives 4 and 5 and includes construction of a single storm water detention facility at Powers Avenue and Inkster Road, along with greenway channel improvements. The improvements consist of a 35-foot wide greenway channel from Madison Street to westbound 1-94. a IS-foot wide greenway channel from westbound I-94 to Allen Road, and a greenway channel of varying widths from Allen Road to the Detroit River. The USACE has se)ected Allcrnativc 6 as their preferred alternative. Description of Selected Plan The preferred alternative (Alternative 6) bas two main components: constn1cticm of a detention basin and modification of the existing channel by creating a greenway channel. A single storm water detention facility will be constructed northeast of Powers A venue and Inkster Road in Dearborn Heights, Michigan. The site for the basin currently consists ofa large vacant parcel, a church, and several residential parcels. The basin will be designed for gravity flow into and out of the basin. A hardened earth berm with concrete weir will be constructed to control flow into the detention basin. Flow into the basin will occur when the NBEC Level rises above the top elevation oftbe berm. Two 6-foot by 6-foot concrete cuJvert pipes will convey the fl.ow under Powers Avenue and into the basin. Outflow back into NBEC will be controlled by a 24-inch culvert pipe. Flow exceeding the basin volume will overtlow the outlet benn and be conveyed back to NBEC through a 6-foot by 6-foot culvert pipe crossing Powers Avenue. Spillway channels between Powers Avenue and NBEC will be hardened with riprap to prevent bank erosion. Between Station 286+69 and 474+77, a grccnway channel will be excavated along both sides of the existing creek. The greenway will consist of a 35-foot wide floodplain bench 11vith a low flow channel and bank slopes of3H:l V will extend from the outer edge of the floodpJajn bench to the existing grade. In the downstream portion of the creek, the channel botton1 will vary in width, with improvements limited to within the existlng top of the bunk. A 2li:l V bank slope will ex.tend from the channel bottom to the top bank. Construction of the gn.:enwoy channels will consist of tree am.I brnsh removal, topsoil stripping and stockpiling, installation of erosion control (blankets, silt fences, check dams, etc.), and access road construction. Upon completion of the construction, the site will be re.stored by replacing the stockpi led topsoil (add additional topsoil ifneeded) , seeding, planting, and b·cc teplaccment. Impacts of Selected Plan and Other Alternatives With the exception of Al tern ati ve one (No Action), all alternatives consist of the construction of one or more detention bas1ns. Alternatives three and six also include the modification of the stream channel and banks. Limited impacts are expected from the construction of detention basins due to the urbanized nature of the project areas. The Powers Avenue basin site may provide habitat for a variety of terrestrial species after construction of the detention basin. The most significallt impacts that the proposed plan may have on fish aod wildlife resources would result from the clearing of vegetation along the NBEC rnquired for construction of rhc greenway channel. Altcmatives three and six would have short-tenn impacts from vegetation removal including Che loss of migratory bird nesting and stopover habiLat o.ncl the introduction and spread of invasive species. Long-term impacts may include the establishment of invasive species and the loss of potential Indiana bat habitat and migratory bird nesting and stopover habitat. fu addition, the loss of the forested riparian buffer could limit the capacity of the stream to support a healthy and productive aquatic community. Forested stream channels have a wider and more natural configuration. Wide forest reaches have more macroinvcrtebrates, bentbic habitat. processing of organic matter, and nitrogen uptake than contiguous narrow deforested reaches (Sweeney ct al. 2004 ). In addition, forest buffers prevent nonpoint source pollutants from entering small streams and enhance the in-stream processing of both nonpoint and point source pollutants. Because the proposed project site very likely provides nesting habitat for migratory birds, removing trees and other vegetation may ne£ativcly impact migratory bfrds. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended, it is unlawful to take, capture. kill, or possess migratory birds. their nests, eggs, or young. ln addition, removing trees may also negatively affect Indiana bat. If a proposed action may affect Indiana bat, the USA CE must consult with the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (>f I 973 1 as amended. Alternative three is the only alternative that is expected to have any impact to wetlands. A total of 0.036 acres of wetlands would be impacted tTom construction of the greenway channel, however opportunities would exist to create wetland habitat within riparian areas to mitigate for any wetland impacts. Alternative three would also have the most impact to the existing stream channel due to dredging tne channel, relocating po11ions of the stream} and installing a parallel drain enclosure. Evaluation and.Comparison of the Selected PlaJl and Evaluated Alternatives AIJ of the proposed alternatives (except the "No Action" alternative) considered for the modification of the existing Ecorse Creek flood control project involve retention basins, grecnways, 1.:hanncl improvements, or a cornhinution thereof Alternatives three, five, and six provide the most flood relief, while Alternatives three and six also provide the most opportunities for habitat improvements. Howevt!r1 Alternative three would also have the most impact to the existing channel. In addition. all plans except the ''No Action" alternative will have a significa11t positive effect on groundwater resources by allowing detained flood water to infiltrate into the ground. It will a)so improve the surface water ofNBEC by providing flood detention and supporting a more stable hydrology. The altemative8 will have a significant positive effect on fish resources by improving the water quality of NBEC and giving it more stable hydrology. The alternatives may also benefit wildlife by replacing urban/disturbed land with the emergent wetland habitat of the uctcntion basins. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Measures We recommend minimizing the amount of vegetation cleared as much as practicable. We further recommend thut vegetation removal along the riparian corridor be rcmediated as soon as possible after construction. ln rcvegetating the sHc, we recommenu using native vegetation and a mixture of grasses, shrubs, and mature trees. Creating a riparian buffer with high species density and diversity will reduce stream bank erosion1 filter po11utants, cool stream waters and reduce flood damage. lt w.ill also benefit migratory birds as hottomland hardwood forests with greater vertical and horizontal habitat heterogeneity will provide increased richness and abundance of migrant species (Wilson and Twedt 2003, Rodewald and Brittingham 2004). Any removal of potential migratory bird nesting habitat associated with lhc proposed project should be completed before spring nesting begins or initiated after the breeding season has ended to avoid take of migratory birds, eggs, young, and/or active nests. Spcciflcally, we recommend that no habitat disturbance, destmction, or removal occur between April 15 and August 15 of each year to minjmize potential impacts to migratory birds during their nesting season, although you should he aware that some avian species initiate nesting before April 15. In addition, to minimize any potential effects to lndiana bat., we recommend minimizing tree clearing to the extent feasible and leaving any tree larger than 3 inches dbh standing. Iftree removal is necessary. we recommend avoiding clearing trees larger than 3 inches dbh between April 1 and October 31. Finally, we recommend that you develop a non-native fovasive species management plan to prevent the spread of invasive species such as coinmnn recd (Phragmites australis), and narrowleaf cattail (Typha angust~folia). Recommendations • Minimize vegetation clearing to the extent practicable, and remediatc the stream banks with nati vc vegetation and a mixture of grasses, shrubs, and mature trees. • Avoid habitat disturbance. destruction. or removal between J\pnl 15 and August 15 to protect migratory birds. • Avoid clearing trees larger t11an 3 inches dbh between Apri I 1 and October 31 to protect potential Inc.liana bat roost trees. • Develop a non-native invasive species management plan. Summary of Findings and FWS Position We recommend implementing the preferred alternative, Alternative six (Optimized Powers Basin with Channel Lmprovemcnts). Alternative six provides the highe~t net benefits, meets the evaluation criteria, and ts constructible. Ln addition, the preferred alternative also poses opportunjties to restore the degraded aquatic community. Modifying the existing channeJ presents t)pportunities lo improve habitat conditions for the aquatic community by increasing flow and creating n more stable hydrology. We also encourage minimi7.ing the amow1t of vegetation removed as a result of the channel improvements and revegctating the river bank after construction. Providing an effective riparinn buffer would reduce streambtmk erosion, reduce siltation, and filter pollutants. We do not support Alternative one (No Action) as it would nol provide any habitat improvement. Please note lha.t this report does not meet the requirements of Inter-Agency Consultation under section 7(a)2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Jf you dctennjne that Indiana bat may be affected by the proposed project, you should initiate consultation with our office. If the project altcmativos change, we ask to be included in developing revised recommendations and may change our report accordingly. References Ecorse Creek ln.tcr-Mu11icipality Commillcc (EC' IC). 2006. Ecorse Crc<.:k Watershed Management Plan (ECWMP). Ewert, D.N., G.J. Soulliere, R.D. Macleod, M.C. Shieldcastle, R.G. RodewuJd, E. Fujiura, J. Shicldcastlc, R.J. Gates. 2006. Mi&,rratory bird stopover site attributes in the western Lake Erie basin. Final Report prepared for The George G\II1d Foundation. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2002a. Biological Assessment of Detroit River Tributaries, Including the Ecorse River, Frank und Poet Drains, and Brownstown Creek Watersheds, Wayne County, Michigan, July - September 2001. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2002b. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List - Michigan Submittal for Year 2002. MDEQ Report #Ml/DEQ/SWQ-02/l 03. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2003. Total Maximum Daily Load for Biota for the Ecorse River Watt:rshed, Wayne County. Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1992. A Biological Study of the Ecorse River, Wayne County, August 27-28, 199J. Natural Resources Com:crvation Service (NRCS). 201 1. Soil Survey Geob1faphic (SSURGO) Database for Wayne County, Michigan. Available online at http://soildatatnort.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed September 22, 201 1. Rodewald, P.G. and M.C. Brittingham. 2004. Stopover habitats of landbirds during fall: use of edge-dominated and carly-successional forests. Auk 12 J: l 040-1055. Rouge River Bird Observatory. 2008. Wayne County breeding bird atlas data. 2002-2007. Rouge River Bird Observatory, University of Michigan-Dearborn. Avnilablc online at hltp :// www.rrbo.org/conservation-sci encc/ cooperati vc-research/wc-breeding-bird-atlas. Accessed 29 Sep 201 l. Sweeney, B.W., T.L. Bott, J.K. Jackson, L.A. Kaplan, J.D. Newbold. L. .J . Standley, W. C. Hession, and R.J . Horwitz. 2004. ruparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences JOl, 39: 14132-14137. 'Wilson, R.R. and D..J. Twedt. 2003. Spring bird migration in Mississippi alluvial valley forests. American Midland Naturalist 149: 163-175. Appendix A: List of bird species identified within and adjacent to the NBEC watershed during the 2002-2007 Wayne County Breeding Bird Atlas Project (Rouge River Bird Observatory, 2008) Alnerican crow American goldfinch A mcrican kestrel American robin American woodcock Bnltimore oriole Bank swallow Barn swallow Belted kingfisher Black-capped chickadee Black-crowned night-heron Blue jay Blue-gray gnatcatchcr Brown thrasher Brown-headed cowbird Canada Goode Carolina wren Cedar waxwing Chimney swift Chipping sparrow Common grackle common nighthawk Common ycllowthroat Cooper's Hawk Dickcissel Downy woodpecker Eastern bluebird Eastern kingbird Eastern medowlark Eastern phoebe Eastcm towhee Eastern wood-pewee European starling Field sparrow Grasshopper span·ow Gray catbird Great Blue Heron Great crested flycatcher Green 1Ceron Henslow' s sparrow Homed lark House finch House sparrow House wren Indigo bunting Killdeer Least flyc atchcr Mallard Mourning Dove Mute swan Northern cardinal Northern flicker Northern rough-winged $Wallow Purple mart\n Red-bellied woodpcck1,,'f Red-eyed vireo Red-shouldered hawk Red-tailed Rawl< Red-winged blackbird Ring-necked pheasant Roel< Pigeon ruby-throated hummingbird Savannah sparrow Song sparrow Sora Spotted Sandpiper Tree swallow tufted titmouse Turkey Vulture Vesper sparrow Warbling Vireo White-breasted nuthatch white-eyed vireo Willow flycatcher Wood Duck Wood thrush Yellow warbler Y cllow-billed cuckoo