m

US Army Corps
of Engineers ®
DRAFT Environmental Assessment

St. Paul District

Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway Repair

Lac qui Parle County
Montevideo, MN
September 2023
 Environmental Assessment
Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway Repair

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 3
Authority ................................................................................................................................. 7
2 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 7
No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................. 8
Proposed Alternative .............................................................................................................. 9
Other Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................ 4
Screening of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 5
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................................... 6
Natural Resources .................................................................................................................. 6
Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 6
Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 7
Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) ............................................................. 9
Wetlands............................................................................................................................. 9
Vegetation .......................................................................................................................... 9
Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................................11
Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................12
Socio-economic Resources ...................................................................................................15
Recreation .........................................................................................................................15
Aesthetic Values ................................................................................................................15
Noise….. ............................................................................................................................16
Transportation....................................................................................................................17
Flooding Effects .................................................................................................................18
Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................19
Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................21
Climate Change.....................................................................................................................21
Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................22
4 Environmental Compliance ................................................................................................24
 National Environmental Policy Act .........................................................................................24
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...................................................................................25
Clean Water Act ....................................................................................................................25
Endangered Species Act .......................................................................................................25
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act .........................................................................................26
National Historic Preservation Act .........................................................................................26
5 Coordination ......................................................................................................................28
6 Distribution and Review of the Draft Environmental Assessment .......................................28
7 References ........................................................................................................................28
 Environmental Assessment

Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway Repair

1 Introduction

Background
This document is a DRAFT Environmental Assessment (EA) with a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for repairs to the Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway. The
purpose of this EA is to evaluate potential environmental impacts of proposed repairs
to the Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway, determine if environmental impacts rise to
the level of significant, and to serve as a record of interagency coordination for the
proposed actions. The document has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality’s
Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations §1500-1508), as reflected in the Corps
Engineering Regulation 200-2-2.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Corps) Lac qui Parle Dam and
Emergency Spillway is located on the upper Minnesota River 30 miles east of the
South Dakota Border. The dam is approximately 7 river miles upstream of Montevideo
and 300 river miles upstream of Minneapolis. The dam embankment and emergency
spillway are adjacent to and west of the control structure dam, between the control
structure and the intersection of route 75. The crest of the spillway is the bituminous
paving of County Road 33.
 N

_..,, \
A

..,
\ '\
_.,.- ... \

r \-"'
\

''

...,
_

CJ Project Area
'\
\
\

0 0.23 0.45 0.9Miles '

Is<> Co=IINl"f Map.Co,rnllu:on. tM>. lle.l!f. Gt.mlf\ $,a\eG,~pl\ ~IH~r-do9'H. Inc. ME1VNASA, U%5- E~ NI'S.¢ c........,, ~•~- USO,,,.
_,NO'>.
S011<n: i:.n, l,1l'Ou"f5, ~ NulO. Nll.!,11. cGlofl'!,N NCEAS, NLS.OS. "' M"'- Geoda,:Meyrcl>ft\ R~-1e..1a;n, GS,,. Gc,,ol,,'ld. R:"'1A.
IN•....,"P ~,-:11\;,, <;IS - t(l_,unty
\

'
Figure 1: Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway

The Lac qui Parle dam and emergency spillway were built between 1936 and 1939 by
the Work Progress Administration (WPA) and are eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. The crest of the spillway was paved in 1942. Operation of
the project was transferred from the state of Minnesota to the Corps in 1950. The
original authorized purposes of the structure included water conservation and flood
control and was later expanded to include recreation, fish conservation, and wildlife
conservation.
The emergency spillway extends approximately 2500 feet from the right bank of the
gated spillway structure with a top elevation of 941.5 feet (NGVD29). The spillway
discharges at an annual chance of exceedance (ACE) of 6%. During flood conditions,
spillway activation requires closure of County Road 33.
The spillway cross section is an earthen spillway with a 1V on 3H earthen slope of
hand laid grouted riprap on the downstream side. There is a reinforced concrete core
wall (I-Wall) on the upstream side to reduce seepage. Scour protection is provided by
both the bituminous roadway, forming the crest of the spillway, and the grouted riprap
ditch, located along the downstream toe of the spillway. Damage to the spillway due to
the spring 2019 inundation event leaves the spillway susceptible to further damage and
erosion.

Purpose and Need

On average, the spillway is overtopped on a one in six-year frequency, and damages
requiring repairs were sustained in 1952, 1997, and 2019. During the spring flooding of
2019, the Lac qui Parle emergency spillway experienced an extended duration
overtopping event which resulted in significant damage to sections of grouted, hand
placed rip rap on the downstream side of the emergency spillway (Figures 2-5). The
riprap failed at 3 locations when water flowing beneath the grouted riprap eroded the
underlying soils and discharged them at the embankment toe. The three affected areas
were back filled with mass concrete as a temporary repair measure shortly after the
2019 flood to limit the extent of future damage until a suitable repair method was
identified. Overall, the grouted riprap has degraded to varying degrees along roughly
1500 feet of the 2500-foot spillway. In addition, cracking and degradation of the grout
likely occurs along the remaining 1000 feet of the spillway and grouted riprap ditch.

Future flood events are expected to cause additional damage to the existing spillway if
not repaired with a suitable method. The project purpose was to identify a long-term
repair solution that satisfies the flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation
authorizations of the structure, meets current spillway design and safety standards, is
affordable, considers long-term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs, and avoids
or minimizes cultural or biological impacts.
Figure 2: One of three damaged areas after 2019 overtopping event. Floodwater
flowed under existing riprap in some areas, caused further erosion of grout between
granite riprap, and caused damage to portions of the road.
Figure 3: Floodwater running under existing riprap and exiting near toe of downstream
spillway slope.
Figure 4: Grout erosion between riprap as a result of the 2019 overtopping event.
Cracks that form between granite rip rap leave spillway vulnerable to future flood
damage.
Figure 5: Grout erosion and road-edge damage resulting from spring flood of 2019.

Authority
The primary project purpose of the Lac qui Parle Dam and Emergency Spillway project
as authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1936 (PL 74-738) is to provide flood
protection to the cities of Montevideo and Granite Falls and agricultural areas along the
Minnesota River downstream from Lac qui Parle Dam and Emergency Spillway. The
project also has purposes authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (PL 78-934) for
water conservation and low flow augmentation for fish and wildlife habitat and
recreation. The Corps is responsible for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the
project.

2 Alternatives

Initially, five repair alternatives and the no action alternative were considered. A
description of methods that apply to all considered repair alternatives is provided in the
paragraph below and a description of unique components for each considered
alternative is provided in sections 2.1-2.3. Rationale for screening of alternatives is
provided in section 2.4.

The following construction activities would be similar for each of the five repair
alternatives along the entire downstream slope and drainage ditch of the 2500’ grouted
riprap spillway. The full 2500’ was considered because it was determined that a partial
repair would leave the rest of the spillway vulnerable to damage. In addition, damage to
other sections could undermine repaired sections if damage occurred.
Mass concrete used as temporary repairs would be removed along with all grouted and
ungrouted riprap from the downstream spillway slope and drainage ditch. Some
removed riprap would be retained (quantity varies by alternative) for re-installation in the
drainage ditch for erosion protection. The Corps would also identify pieces of riprap that
are representative of the overall spillway to use in an interpretive display. The remaining
unused riprap would be transported to an approved Lac qui Parle Highway Department
storage area through an agreement between Lac qui Parle Highway Department and
USACE. Any amount exceeding the capacity of the existing storage area would be
transported to two USACE-owned areas where disposal material has previously been
stored. The downstream spillway embankment and drainage ditch would be graded as
needed to provide a suitable base for construction. Clean materials comprising the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MNDOT”) fine and MNDOT coarse filter
needed to restore the spillway to pre-scour elevations would be sourced from an
approved commercial supplier. A geosynthetic geogrid would be installed in areas
where MNDOT coarse filter material is in contact with riprap or articulating blocks.
(Alternatives 2 and 6). Retained ungrouted riprap would be re-installed as needed.
Downstream erosion protection would be constructed or installed as described in
Alternatives 2-6. Details of the considered repair alternatives are provided below. The
footprint of the repair alternatives is the same as the original spillway except where
noted.
Flood mitigation measures would be incorporated into the design to reduce risk of
overtopping. Sheetpile, or similar, barrier would be installed on the crown of the spillway
around the active construction area. After construction is complete, sheetpiling would be
cut to ground level
Construction conditions specific to each considered alternative will now be discussed in
sections 2.1-2.3.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the federal government would not repair the damages
to the Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway on the downstream grouted slope and
drainage ditch. This would result in an increased susceptibility of damage to the spillway
as the grouted, hand placed riprap is the primary erosion control mechanism on the
spillway. In an extreme event, flood damage could result in the failure of the spillway
and dam system to manage Lac qui Parle Lake pool levels. As a result, flood protection
to Montevideo, Granite Falls, and agricultural areas could be adversely affected.
Proposed Alternative
Alternative 3- Reinforced Concrete Slab. Under this alternative, a 12-14 inch thick
reinforced concrete slab that extends the length of the slope would replace the grouted
riprap erosion protection (Figure 6). A 1.5-foot-tall by 1.5-foot-wide toe block with 2-inch
diameter drainage pipes spaced every 10 feet would be installed at the toe of the slope
to prevent the slab from sliding down the slope. Additionally, an approximately 1-foot
wide by 6-inch-tall concrete key would be constructed at the top of the slope to also
prevent sliding of the reinforced concrete slab. Number 6 bars centered within the
concrete slab horizontally and vertically on a 6-inch spacing would be utilized to provide
crack control and withstand anticipated loads. A geogrid would be installed at the toe of
the slope, where the MNDOT coarse filter material is in contact with the ungrouted
riprap.
This alternative was selected due to its relatively high rating as a long-term safe spillway
design, affordability, lower long-term O&M costs, and constructability. 926 cubic yards
(CY) of grouted rip rap would be removed from the original structure during
construction, 5-10 CY of the rip rap material would be used in an interpretive display of
the original construction design. This display would be located at the Lac qui Parle dam
and emergency spillway site. The remaining rip rap material would be hauled and
donated to the Lac qui Parle Highway Department storage area in Lac qui Parle village
located approximately 1.9 miles southwest of the spillway (Figure 7). The Highway
Department intends to beneficially reuse the material in other nearby construction
projects. The facility is an upland site and material would be largely placed on the rock
surface or a flat, mowed turf grass area at the property until it can be reutilized in other
construction projects as determined by the Highway Department. Other material that
would be removed from the spillway includes 251 CY of concrete and 6,146 CY of fill
that was used in the original construction of the emergency spillway. These excavated
materials would be transported to the two USACE-owned disposal sites. Material
needed to obtain specified base layers for construction would be clean material
acquired through an approved facility. In all, the volume of material needed to return the
spillway to original grade and slope would total 7360 cubic yards of material.
 Existing Asp halt

Re inforced Concrete Sla b

Existing
Coarse Filte r Aggregate ::::::::::::::::::~ Existing Bitu mino us Pavement
Grade Existing Aggregate Base
Fin e Filte r Aggregate
Existing Sa nd a nd Gravel Fill
Existing Ordinary Fill

Pre -emb a nkment

Natu ra l Gro und Surface
No n-woven
Geot exti le

Figure 6: Proposed Alternative-Typical Cross Section of Spillway Repair with Reinforced Concrete Slab.
Figure 7. Disposal site #1- locations for storage/placement of riprap removed from current
spillway in Lac qui Parle, MN.
Figure 8. USACE-owned disposal locations for remaining material.

Construction Limits
Construction limits have been established in the immediate vicinity of the spillway repair
area and extend to the Corps’ boundary 50-80 feet from drainage ditch edge on the
downriver side of the spillway (Figure 8). Excavation of material and placement of the
proposed reinforced concrete slab spillway would be limited to the existing spillway
footprint; however, the construction limits extend downriver to provide access to the site.
Access from below the spillway was required to maintain road accessibility for
commuters in the region as complete road closure was unacceptable. The area
proposed for access qualifies as a seasonally wet, herbaceous wetland. Following
review of comments and the signing of the appropriate NEPA decision document, plans
and specifications would be finalized for construction to include environmental
protection measures that minimize temporary impacts to adjacent wetland areas and
returns the area to preconstruction conditions according to the guidelines identified in
attachment 1 (401 water quality certification with associated conditions for NWPs).
Figure 9: Construction limits for Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway repair
Access and Staging Areas
A contractor staging area would be established in the western parking lot on the
western bank of the Lac qui Parle Dam located on the downriver side of the spillway.
Coordination with Minnesota DNR (MNDNR) would occur prior to construction and
permission would be obtained from MNDNR for the portion of the staging area (parking
lot) that would occur within MNDNR land. Access and haul routes would be established
to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. No fill would be used for haul routes.
Haul routes and staging areas would be restored to their pre-project condition after
project completion.
Environmental Protection Measures
Environmental protection is the prevention/control of pollution and habitat disruption that
may occur during construction. The control of environmental pollution and damage
requires consideration of air, water, land, biological, and cultural resources; and
includes management of visual aesthetics; noise, solid, chemical, gaseous, and liquid
waste; radiant energy and radioactive materials; and other pollutants. The designated
contractor shall adhere to all environmental protection requirements listed in the
Construction Plans and Specifications. In general, these requirements will help to
ensure that the contractor’s actions:
• Are compliant with applicable state and local laws and regulations
 • Include appropriate best management practices to minimize impacts to air quality
and water quality
• Minimize erosion by reducing the duration that exposed soils are unprotected
and revegetating the area quickly after construction
• Maintain the natural elevation, drainage, and topography of the site
• Minimizes impacts to existing soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife in the project
area and adjacent habitats
• Properly handles and disposes of any wastes or fluids associated with
construction equipment through approved disposal sites and procedures.

Other Alternatives Considered

Alternative 2- Remove and Repair to Original Condition. All removed riprap in good
condition would be retained under this alternative for re-installation on the downstream
spillway slope and drainage ditch. The spillway would be restored to the as-built
condition and the grouted riprap replaced to the original locations. Riprap repair and
restoration under this task would be intended to repair scour protection and to restore
the original design and appearance to the maximum extent possible. Grouted riprap
would be installed to provide a 1-foot-thick layer of grouted riprap with drainage and
filter layers as described in section 2.2. A geogrid would be installed along the entire
length of the slope where the grouted riprap and MNDOT Coarse Filter material is in
contact with the grouted and ungrouted riprap.
Alternative 4- Mass Concrete. Under this alternative, a 1.5-foot-thick mass of
concrete that extends the length of the downstream slope would replace the existing
grouted riprap erosion protection. Construction of mass concrete would occur in three
lifts and only be minimally reinforced near the exposed concrete surface for shrinkage
and temperature. Number 4 bars located 3 inches below the slope surface and spaced
horizontally and vertically on a 6-inch spacing would be utilized. A geogrid would be
installed at the toe of the slope, where the MNDOT Coarse Filter material is in contact
with the ungrouted riprap.

Alternative 5- Roller Compacted Concrete. Under this alternative, a five-foot wide

layer of roller compacted concrete (RCC) placed in 8-inch lifts would replace the
existing grouted riprap erosion protection. This method does not utilize reinforcement,
and the width of RCC facing is determined by the roller construction equipment used to
compact the concrete material. A geogrid would be installed at the toe slope, where the
MNDOT Coarse Filter material is in contact with the ungrouted riprap. This alternative
requires the widest construction zone and largest volume of excavation and materials
to construct.

Alternative 6- Articulated Concrete Block. Under this alternative, a 6-inch thick,

open-cell, cable-tied layer of articulating concrete blocks (ACB) would replace the
existing grouted riprap erosion protection. ACBs would extend for a length of three
blocks beyond the toe of the slope and a length of four blocks beyond the crest of the
downstream slope. Additionally, two or more ACBs would be buried at the top of the
 slope with compacted sand and gravel to anchor the erosion protection and help
prevent sliding down the spillway slope. A geogrid would be installed along the entire
length of the slope where the ACB and MNDOT Coarse Filter material is in contact with
the grouted and ungrouted riprap.

Screening of Alternatives
Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate
all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any
alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Possible reasons to
eliminate a suggested alternative from detailed study include failure to adequately meet
the purpose and need, illegality, technological infeasibility, potential significant
environmental impacts, or it cannot be implemented.
Other specific considerations for the proposed alternative include:
- Must meet current Corps safety and operation standards for spillways
- Maximizes the effectiveness, constructability, and safety of the erosion control
method
- Construction and (O&M) Costs

Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 6 were screened from further consideration for the following
factors summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Screening of remaining action alternatives

Alternative 2- Alternative 4- Alternative Alternative 6-
Grouted Rip Mass Concrete 5- Roller Articulated
Rap Compacted Concrete
Concrete Blocks
Risk of failure exceeded x x
accepted engineering
levels
Higher operation and x x
maintenance costs
Greater excavation and x x
environmental impacts
Higher risk of damage x x
product (i.e. cracking of
product or potential for
scour damage)
Larger construction limits x
would be required
Least similar in x
appearance to existing
spillway
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the biological, physical, and social environments of the
affected project area relative to the alternatives under consideration. Relevant
resources are addressed in terms of their present condition, their projected condition
under the No Action Alternative, and the expected effects of the Recommended
Plan.

The project area includes the construction area along the Lac qui Parle spillway
(figure 9) and five potential disposal sites, three at Lac qui Parle County Highway
Department (figure 7) and two located approximately one mile north of Watson, MN
near routes 9 and 13 (figure 8). The spillway area is bounded to the west by County
Rd. 75, the Lac qui Parle Recreation Area parking lot to the east, the midline of
County Rd 33 to north, and extends 50-80 feet south from the Lac qui Parle
Emergency Spillway drainage ditch located along the downstream toe of the
spillway. Active construction would be limited to the downstream spillway slope.
Materials excavated from the existing spillway as well as new construction materials
would be transported along temporary haul routes located within the 50-80 foot
construction limit located on the downstream side of the spillway. Construction is
anticipated to occur over two construction seasons (i.e. begin in 2024 and finish by
October 2025.

Natural Resources
Air Quality
The Clean Air Act of 1963 requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
to designate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The USEPA has
identified standards for 7 pollutants: lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter, and particulate
matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, along with some heavy metals, nitrates,
sulfates, volatile organic and toxic compounds (Table 2). Lac qui Parle County, MN
currently meets all USEPA air quality standards (Available online at: (USEPA, 2021;
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_mn.html ). At present, the project
area is below the identified thresholds for all 7 pollutants.
Table 2: Six pollutants and their standard criteria designated by U.S EPA.
 Pollutant Averaging time Criteria Form
Carbon 8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per
monoxide 1 hour 35 ppm year
Lead Rolling 3 month 0.15 µg/m 3 Not to be exceeded
98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
Nitrogen 1 hour 100 ppb
concentrations, averaged over 3 years
dioxide
1 year 53 ppb Annual Mean
Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
Ozone 8 hours 0.070 ppm hour concentration, averaged over 3
years
Particle 1 year 12.0 µg/m 3 Annua l mean, averaged over 3 years
Pollution
(PM2.s) 24 hours 35 µg/m 3 98th percenti le, averaged over 3 years
99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
Sulfur dioxide 1 hour 75 ppb
concentrations, averaged over 3 years

No Action Alternative – No changes to air quality in the area are anticipated to occur.
Therefore, the project area is expected to remain below standard criteria for all 7
pollutants with established standards.
Proposed Alternative – Emissions from construction would be expected to result in a
temporary, localized increase in airborne particulates because of mobilization and use
of heavy machinery during two construction seasons. No long-term air quality standard
violations or long-term adverse effects to air quality would occur. Effects to air quality
resulting from the proposed alternative would be related to emissions from
transportation of personnel and equipment to and from the job site daily until completion
of construction. The limited temporal or quantitative contribution of emissions from the
proposed alternative to existing air emissions from other area sources such as vehicles
and boat traffic in Lac qui Parle County would not be expected to alter the attainment
state of the county. Standard construction BMPs would be used during construction to
minimize impacts to air quality and construction workers. Airborne particulates, including
dust particles, from construction activities and processing and preparation of materials
would be controlled at all times. The contractor would be required to maintain all work
areas free from airborne dust. In addition, hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions
from equipment would be controlled to Federal and State allowable limits at all times.
Therefore, we only anticipate temporary, minor air quality impacts to occur during active
construction periods.

Water Quality
Water Quality Standards (WQS) are the foundation of the Clean Water Act. In
Minnesota, the standards define the water quality goals for a waterbody by designating
its beneficial uses. The WQS also set maximum allowable concentrations for
contaminants for each of those beneficial uses as well as narrative standards for
conditions in and on the water. Finally, the water quality standards also include
antidegradation protections to provide extra protection for high-quality or unique waters
and existing uses. The Minnesota River located downriver from the project area, and
the section of river between Lac qui Parle dam and Granite Falls Dam is designated as
water source, warm water habitat, aquatic life and recreation, and industrial
consumption, and due to its scenic qualities, a restricted outstanding resource value
waters (MPCA, 2020 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/impaired-waters-viewer-iwav ),
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that each state identify waters
that are not meeting water quality standards and for which adequate water pollution
controls have not been required. Water quality standards protect such beneficial uses of
water as whole body contact (such as swimming), maintaining fish and other aquatic
life, and providing drinking water for people, livestock and wildlife.
The Minnesota River downriver of the Lac qui Parle Dam to Granite Falls Dam was
categorized as a 303(d) waterbody for aquatic wildlife, aquatic recreation, and aquatic
consumption uses in 2020 (MPCA, 2020
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/minnesotas-impaired-waters-list). In addition, Lac qui
Parle Lake and Lac qui Parle River, both located upstream of the spillway, were
categorized as a 303(d) waterbody in 2020. The river downstream of the dam is
impaired for fecal coliform, mercury in fish tissue, and turbidity.

No Action Alternative – Under the no action plan, the Lac qui Parle Spillway would
remain susceptible to further degradation during overtopping events. This could result in
additional erosion near damaged areas and increased sediment inputs adjacent to
herbaceous emergent wetland habitats which could reach the Minnesota River during
flood events. No significant changes to water quality are expected to the Minnesota
River under the no action plan although localized impacts would be more likely to occur
in nearby wetland areas.
Proposed Alternative – Construction activities would occur on the spillway and its
downstream erosion protection riprap ditch which is adjacent to seasonal wetland areas.
Excavation of material would be limited to the existing spillway footprint, but access
would occur from the downstream side. All work would occur outside the typical spring
flood pulse season when soils are drier. In addition, active construction would be limited
to smaller sections to reduce risk of erosion or flood-related damage. The proposed
repair activities may result in minor, short-term increases in sedimentation into the
Minnesota River if flooding were to occur during active construction. In addition, spillway
repairs could cause a short-term increase in turbidity at seasonal wetlands adjacent to
the construction site if flooding or heavy rains occurred during construction. The
greatest risk is if flooding occurs during active construction. Best management practices
would be implemented by the contractor to minimize soil erosion and impacts to
periodically flooded wetlands in the surrounding area. Flood mitigation measures would
be incorporated into the design to reduce risk of overtopping. This would include
temporary protection by sheetpile, or similar, barrier on the crown of the spillway around
the active construction area. After construction is complete, sheetpiling would be cut to
ground level, and the contractor would be required to quickly restore vegetation in any
disturbed soils to pre-project conditions. Therefore, the proposed alternative would only
have the potential for temporary, minor impacts on water quality.
Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW)
A Phase I HTRW analysis was conducted on November 19, 2021, in accordance with
ER-1165-2-132, Water Resource Policies and Authorities HTRW Guidance for Civil
Works Projects (see Attachment 3, Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste, for the
full report). Based on the desktop search and on-site inspection, this assessment
revealed that there were no recognized HTRW concerns within the study area for No-
Action or Proposed Alternative. Therefore, USACE does not recommend a Phase II
assessment.
Wetlands
According to the USFWS National Wetland Inventory map (USFWS 2021), the
surrounding vegetation downriver of the spillway is emergent wetland. The mowed
buffer adjacent to the spillway is highly disturbed. A site visit by USACE Regulatory staff
confirmed presence of wetland soils and vegetation adjacent to the downstream side of
the study area and within the mowed buffer (pers. comm. Marissa Merriman).

No Action Alternative – Under the no action alternative, no modifications to the

spillway would occur which leaves the structure vulnerable to future flood damages.
Greater amounts of damage could result as overtopping events and annual wear
weaken the grout that maintains the erosion protection surface of the spillway. Similar or
greater amounts of scour could occur under an overtopping event with the same
magnitude as the spring 2019 event. This scoured material could be deposited in
adjacent wetlands near damaged locations. As a result, localized impacts related to
flood damage are likely to occur under the no action alternative.
Proposed Alternative – At this time there would be no permanent impacts to wetlands
within the areas of haul roads and staging areas. Temporary impacts to wetlands below
the spillway would occur because access from the downstream side of the spillway
would be required to complete construction. As excavation is limited to the existing
footprint of the emergency spillway, there would be no permanent change in the extent
or location of existing wetlands. Drainage would be maintained throughout the
construction process, and appropriate BMPs would be utilized to minimize disturbance,
reduce movement of material, and to maintain existing slopes in the project area. For
the spillway replacement, USACE has verified that the project complies with Nationwide
Permit (NWP) 3 for Maintenance. USACE does not permit itself when completing Civil
Works projects but does utilize existing general permits for various projects. NWP 3 is
applicable because the work involves maintenance of existing currently serviceable
infrastructure and the specified use of the project remains unchanged. In addition,
minor deviations to the structures filled area are permitted when needed to meet current
construction codes or safety standards.
Vegetation
Vegetation within the spillway construction area is limited to the area located south of
the spillway toe to the USACE boundary (Figure 10). Based on a site visit on 4 August
2022, existing vegetation consists primarily of invasive Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris
arundinacea), with small inclusions of small diameter (i.e. < 3 inch diameter at breast
height), Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra) saplings, and a few
scattered stems of Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), Dogbane (Apocynum sp.),
and a thistle (Cirsium sp) in the unmowed area. The forbs that were present were
limited to a narrow strip along the northern edge of the unmowed area. Along the
mowed strip adjacent to the spillway toe and drainage ditch, species included turf
grasses (Poa spp.) primarily, but some sedges (Carex sp.) were also present. MN DNR
land located outside the construction limits of the project included meadow areas
dominated by Reed Canary Grass, managed food plots, and bottomland forest. Overall,
Reed Canary Grass made up approximately 90% of the plant cover in the project area.
turf grasses made up approximately 5-7% of the overall plant cover in the project area.
The remaining species of forbs and tree seedlings each made up less than 1% of the
overall plant cover in summer 2022.

Figure 10: Part of project area showing spillway slope, drainage ditch, mowed
easement, unmowed border, and MNDNR food plot.

Disposal site #1-3 consists of a gravel lot and mowed turf grass areas. Disposal site #4
consists of Du Page loam soils which is highly disturbed and has been a site for
disposal previously. The plant community consists of smooth brome (Bromus inermis),
quackgrass (Elymus repens), and spurge (Euphorbia sp.). The vegetation at this site
consists entirely of upland species and is not a wetland. Disposal site #5 is the location
of a previous disposal site, is highly disturbed, and no longer meets wetland criteria.
However, surrounding areas with vegetation consist of willow, cottonwood, reed canary
grass, and other typical riparian species.

No Action Alternative – Under the no action alternative, there is a greater risk of

damage and failure to the existing spillway. During low intensity flood events,
temporary, localized minor impacts to vegetation and species composition could occur.
Overall, it is anticipated that Reed Canary Grass would continue to dominate the area.
Over time tree saplings would continue to grow and convert the area to forest in the
absence of other disturbances.
Proposed Alternative – Under the proposed alternative, there would be temporary,
minor impacts to vegetation related to movement of materials to and from the
construction area. Precautionary measures are planned to reduce soil movement and
erosion. Construction would be planned for periods outside of the spring flood season,
but flood protection measures would be incorporated as a precaution to protect active
construction areas and reduce impacts to local vegetation. After construction is
complete, any exposed areas created by disturbance related to construction activities
would be reseeded with native species to stablilize soils. This would result in a
temporary improvement in habitat conditions by reducing the dominance of Reed
Canary Grass in the area. However, without further management it is anticipated that
Reed Canary Grass would outcompete the seeded species until sapling resprouts are
large enough to shade out the Reed Canary Grass. The mowed strip adjacent to the
spillway drainage ditch would be expected to remain as turf grass. Disposal of material
at site #1-3 (Lac qui Parle County Highway Department site) could temporarily disturb
existing turf grass but would be expected to recover after the material is used for other
projects. Site #4 consists primarily of disturbed, non-native vegetation. After disposal of
material, it is anticipated that early colonizing species would establish at the site, unless
material is repurposed for other projects as appropriate. Site #5 disposal would be
limited to the existing elevated disposal area to avoid impacts to adjacent wetland
areas. Site #5 contains sand soil that has been deposited at the site from other recent
Lac qui Parle Dam projects (USACE, 2019). Some sand material from the site may be
used during construction if suitable. The disposed fill material would occur directly over
this existing sand disposal area. Currently, the site is sparsely vegetated by species
adapted to highly disturbed, sandy conditions. A similar plant community will likely
recolonize material disposed of through the proposed Lac qui Parle spillway project.
Fish and Wildlife
Fish and wildlife habitats located in the vicinity of the project area include permanent
water, forested wetland, bottomland forest, food plots, prairie hillsides, and agriculture.
The Lac qui Parle Wildlife Management Area of the Lac qui Parle State Park provides
food and cover for a variety of fish and wildlife, including geese, white-tail deer, and
migratory birds primarily. The Lac qui Parle Lake pool, created by the Lac qui Parle
Dam and the Minnesota River, is habitat for Walleye (Sander vitreus), Northern Pike,
Sheephead, and other fish species.
No Action Alternative – Under the no action alternative, there is a greater risk of
damage and failure to the existing spillway. During low intensity flood events,
temporary, localized minor impacts to vegetation, fish, and wildlife resources may occur.
Proposed Alternative – The proposed alternative would have negligible effects on fish
and wildlife. Precautionary measures are planned to reduce soil movement and erosion.
Construction would be planned for periods outside of the spring flood season, but flood
protection measures would be incorporated as a precaution to protect active
construction areas and reduce impacts to local fish and wildlife populations. Best
management practices would be required by the contractor to minimize impacts to
vegetation at lower elevation areas which are inundated when the spillway is
overtopped. Vegetation in the construction limits and adjacent property is either mowed
several times annually, in a severely degraded state (i.e. dominated by non-native,
invasive species), or disturbed on an approximately annual basis and managed as food
plots for wildlife game species. Forest resources occur outside the project area and
would remain unchanged. Construction activities would primarily occur on the slope of
the existing grouted riprap spillway which provides minimal to no wildlife habitat. Access
routes via the toe of the spillway slope in the 50-80 foot wide construction limit would
temporarily displace invertebrates and small vertebrate species during active
construction, but the site is expected to return to pre-construction conditions quickly
after construction completion. As a result, disturbance to mobile wildlife species due to
the Proposed Alternative would be minor and temporary. Revegetation with native
species would be expected to have a temporary beneficial impact in the first several
years after construction, but then return to preconstruction conditions.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Federally Listed Species
For the project area, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) system was queried on 30 June 2022 and updated 16 August 2023.
IPaC results show that northern long-eared bat (endangered; Myotis septentrionalis),
tricolored bat (proposed endangered; Perimyotis subflavus), Dakota skipper
(threatened; Hesperia dacotae) and monarch (Danaus plexippus) may be in the project
area.
Northern long-eared bats hibernate during winter in caves or abandoned mines
(USFWS 2022). They typically use large caves or mines with large passages and
entrances; constant temperatures; and high humidity with no air currents. Within
hibernacula, they are found in small crevices or cracks. During summer, northern long-
eared bat habitat includes a variety of forested habitats and adjacent non-forested
habitats such as emergent wetland, edges of agricultural fields, old pastures,
fencerows, strips of riparian forest, and linear wooded corridors (USFWS 2022). In
summer, they roost under loose tree bark on dead or dying trees of at least three inches
in diameter at breast height, and forage in forested habitats near sources of water.
Suitable forested areas would be either dense or loose aggregations of trees, relatively
unfragmented compared to areas that are highly-fragmented or that have been clear-
cut.
Tricolored bats are usually found roosting singly. Maternity colonies averaged
approximately 4 (range 1-8) females and pups in Indiana (USFWS, 2021). In winter,
tricolored bats hibernate in caves. They prefer caves that are humid and warm. In
summer, they leave their hibernation caves and roost in trees, clumps of leaves in the
canopy, in crevices in cliffsides, and human-made structures. They also sometimes
roost in caves during summer. They forage for insects high in the air along forest edge
and the boundary of streams or open bodies of water. Tricolored bats mate during
spring, fall, and sometimes in the winter.
Dakota skipper is largely limited to remnant prairie habitats of two types. It is found in
high-quality moist bluestem prairie and upland prairie. Larvae depend on mid-sized,
native prairie grasses such as little bluestem (Schizachrium scoparium), sideoats grama
(Bouteloua curtipendula), and prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) as host plants
to provide suitable resources for development. Adult stages require adequate nectar
sources during the adult flight period.
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) was identified as a candidate species in
December of 2020, but it is not yet listed or proposed for listing. While no Endangered
Species Act Section (ESA) 7 requirements apply to candidate species, agencies are
encouraged to take advantage of any opportunity they may have to conserve such
species.
Adult monarch butterflies are large and conspicuous, with bright orange wings
surrounded by a black border and covered with black veins. The bright coloring of a
monarch serves as a warning to predators that eating them can be toxic. During the
breeding season, monarchs lay their eggs on their obligate milkweed host plant, and
larvae emerge after two to five days. Larvae develop over a period of nine to 18 days,
feeding on milkweed and sequestering toxic chemicals as a defense against predators.
The larva then pupates into a chrysalis before emerging six to 14 days later as an adult
butterfly. There are multiple generations of monarchs produced during the breeding
season, with most adult butterflies living approximately two to five weeks (USFWS
2020).
Although the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the federal list of
threatened and endangered species in 2007, it continues to be protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The
BGEPA prohibits unregulated take of bald eagles, including disturbance. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service developed the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines
(USFWS 2007) to provide landowners, land managers, and others with information and
recommendations regarding how to minimize potential project impacts to bald eagles,
particularly where such impacts may constitute disturbance. There are no bald eagles
nesting in the vicinity of the spillway. In the event that a bald eagle nest is found near
the construction area, USFWS would be notified and additional coordination would
occur. Under the current conditions, both the no action and proposed alternative would
have “no effect” on the bald eagle.
No Action Alternative – Under the no action alternative, no impacts to federally listed
species is anticipated.
Proposed Alternative – The proposed project is not anticipated to result in the removal
of any potential tricolored or northern long-eared bat summer roost habitat (i.e.; trees
greater than 3 inches in diameter-at-breast-height that exhibit any of the following
characteristics: exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, hollows; manmade structures).
Additionally, there is no documented or potential tricolored and northern long-eared bat
hibernacula habitat (i.e.; caves, abandoned mines) within the vicinity of the proposed
project area. Based on site-specific information, the St. Paul District has determined that
the proposed alternative would have no effect on the northern long-eared bat or the
tricolored bat.
The proposed project is not anticipated to result in the removal of any documented or
potential Dakota skipper habitat (i.e. high quality prairie with appropriate disturbance
regime). Remnant prairie does not occur at proposed disposal site locations or within
the proposed construction limit or adjacent downstream areas. The construction limit is
restricted to a highly disturbed habitats adjacent to the spillway. Therefore, this area
lacks the necessary species, and disturbance regime likely needed to support this
species. Additionally, adjacent MNDNR land on the downstream side of the spillway is
managed as food plots which are disturbed on an annual or more frequent basis to
meet management objectives. Overall, the proposed project area does not provide
suitable habitat to support this species’ full life cycle. Based on the site-specific
information, the St. Paul District has determined that the proposed alternative would
have no effect on the Dakota skipper.
Habitat available for the monarch butterfly is limited here due to the low flower diversity
in the project area. On a site visit on 3 August 2022 a few clumps of suitable common
milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) host plants and nectar plants such as thistles (Cirsium sp.)
were found, but each species made up less than 1% of overall plant cover in the project
area. Because the work would occur over a two-year period some host and nectar plant
patches would remain undisturbed and allowed to reach maturity each year.
Additionally, some individuals could be avoided where possible to minimize potential
impacts. The growth habit (i.e. rhizomatous growth of common milkweed, and biennial
habit and disturbance dependence of the thistle) of both plant species would allow them
to recover after construction is complete. Suitable habitat does not exist at the five
proposed disposal sites. Based on the site-specific information, the St. Paul District has
determined the proposed alternative would have no effect on the monarch.

State Listed Species

Coordination with MNDNR began in spring 2021 to evaluate potential impacts to rare
features, significant natural features and rare species. A Natural Heritage Review was
completed on May 13, 2021, and updated August 16, 2022. MNDNR provided a letter
stating that no rare features are anticipated to be negatively affected by the proposed
project. An on-site assessment conducted on August 3, 2022 also did not identify any
rare features in the study area.
In coordination with MNDNR, two state-listed species were previously known to occur in
the general region, including Iowa skipper (Atrytone arogos iowa) and black sandshell
(Ligumia recta)
Iowa skipper generally occurs in mesic to dry-mesic, native prairie in Minnesota. Host
plant preference for larva is most commonly big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and
little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) which was not observed within the project
area during the August 2022 site visit. Non-native grasses comprise a major part of the
proposed project area, and these species do not seem to support this species in the
Midwest. Therefore, no effects on state-listed species are anticipated for both the No
Action and Proposed Alternative.
The black sandshell is a native mussel species typically found in riffle and run areas of
medium to large rivers with sand or gravel substrate. No proposed project features
occur in the Minnesota River and a variety of best management practices would be
incorporated to minimize or avoid potential movement of soil from the project area to the
Minnesota River. Based on the site-specific information, the St. Paul District has
determined the proposed alternative would have no effect on the Black Sandshell.

Socio-economic Resources
Recreation
The region provides several recreational options including, camping, biking, hiking,
boating, picnicking, hunting opportunities, and playgrounds. The USACE day-use area
downriver of the Lac qui Parle Spillway on the West side of the Minnesota River is
primarily used as a fishing location and picnic area. Annual visitation to the recreation
areas below Lac qui Parle Dam from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020 was
estimated to be 22,610. Annual use over the same interval at the west recreation area
below the Lac qui Parle Spillway was 11,038.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources managed land located adjacent to the
construction limits below the spillway is managed as food plots and open to hunters
during portions of the year.
No Action Alternative – Alternative 1- No Action (Future without Project) – Under the
No Action alternative, the spillway would remain prone to additional damage and over
time could impact structure and function of the spillway. No changes to recreational
opportunities in the area are expected to occur in the near future. However, closures to
the western recreation area below the spillway as well as to County Highway 33 could
occur because of damage to the spillway and road surface. Therefore temporary, minor
adverse effects are expected under the No Action Alternative
Proposed Alternative – Under this alternative, a portion of the recreational access
parking area located south of the road adjacent to the western bank of the Minnesota
River would be used as a staging area. Picnic and fishing areas would remain
unaffected during construction on the eastern side of the Minnesota River. The MNDNR
have food plots located adjacent to the construction limits on the downstream side of
the spillway, and as a result there could be temporary impacts to this area due to noise
disturbance, parking availability, and access if construction overlaps with hunting
seasons. After construction is complete, access would return to pre-construction
conditions at the western recreational access. Remaining recreational use in the region
would remain unaffected by the proposed alternative. Therefore, the proposed
alternative would have only temporary, minor adverse effects on recreation.
Aesthetic Values
The Lac qui Parle Lake and State Park are located along the Minnesota River upriver
and downriver of the Lac qui Parle Dam and Spillway in Lac qui Parle County,
Minnesota. The spillway consists of hand-placed, grouted rip rap constructed in the
1930s by the WPA. The State Park contains river floodplain, prairie hillsides, and open
water. Downriver from the dam and spillway, the Minnesota River is a state designated
scenic river.
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, surrounding aesthetics would
be expected to be unaffected, but temporary minor impacts could occur within the
project area related to future flood damages (aesthetic of the spillway is discussed in
Section 3.14). The spillway would be at greater risk of additional, substantial damage
which could degrade its flood protection function over the long-term. Damage from the
spring 2019 flood event has affected the historic aesthetic along roughly 1500 feet of
the 2500-foot spillway. The greatest change has occurred in areas where rip rap was
displaced by water that seeped through damaged grout and scoured the existing
erosion protection surface. Flood flows caused varying degrees of damage to the grout
along the spillway, and these areas remain vulnerable to substantial damage during
subsequent floods.
Proposed Alternative – The spillway aesthetic would be changed under the Proposed
Alternative. However, mitigation measures coordinated through SHPO have been
developed and are discussed in Section 3.14. Other aesthetic impacts in the area due
to construction activities would be limited to the Proposed Alternative area and would be
temporary. Contractors would utilize BMPs throughout construction to limit movement of
material and return the surrounding area to its pre-construction condition. As a result, it
is expected that vegetation would quickly establish and return to the pre-construction
condition. Based on mitigation measures, BMPs throughout construction, and returning
the vegetation to pre-construction conditions, the proposed alternative would result in a
minor impact on aesthetics
Noise
The area in the vicinity of the proposed project includes recreation, transportation, and
agricultural zones. Agricultural and open space areas typically have noise levels in the
range of 34-70 decibels (dB; a measure of loudness) depending on their proximity to
transportation arteries (Figure 10). Noise associated with major transportation arteries
such as roads, railroads, airports etc., would be greater than those in rural areas.
Recreation-related noise, traffic, and agriculture, such as that created by vehicles,
machinery, and recreationists, are the main sources of noise within the study area.
 Sound
Level
••
Level l!qulvalent 10:

~ 140 • Gunshot, Fireworks

.,::, ::,e
(I

130 • Jet engine, 100' away

8~
" 1 20 - Jackhammers

..e"..,
~
110 - Rock concerts
i,. ..J0 • Chainsaw, car horn
UJ
100
90 • Lawnmower, hair dryers

-g 80 - Factory. noisy restaurant

0
..J
70 - Busy city traffic

60 • Normal conversation
~
e
{l
50 • Moderate rainfall
0
40 - Refrigerator
~

30 • Quiet office/library

20 - Quiet living room, whisper

Figure 10: Examples of the sound level and decibel (dB) level of various sources.
No Action Alternative- Common sources of noise would include transportation,
recreation, and agricultural activities. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be
no effect on noise levels in the project area.
Proposed Alternative- Common sources of noise would include construction,
transportation, recreation, and agricultural activities. Noise due to construction activities
in the vicinity of the Proposed Alternative area would have the potential to temporarily
impact wildlife that may be present in the area. In addition, construction noise in the
project area could temporarily disturb hunting opportunities in the adjacent state park
during active construction hours. Noise levels at the end of each workday would quickly
return to normal baseline levels found at the site. In addition, noise levels would be
expected to return to pre-action levels at the conclusion of the proposed work.
Therefore, the proposed alternative would have only temporary, minor adverse impact
on noise levels near the project area.
Transportation
The crown of the spillway is County Road 33, therefore access to the Proposed
alternative Area would occur primarily from this road. The road also serves as an
access point to the day-use area downriver from the Lac qui Parle spillway and dam on
the west bank of the Minnesota River. Average annual road use of County Road 33 is
330 vehicles per day according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation traffic
monitoring data
(https://mndot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7b3be07daed84e7fa
170a91059ce63bb accessed: 18 Mar, 2021).

No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, the spillway would remain
prone to additional damage and over time could impact structure and function of the
spillway. While a catastrophic failure due to flood damage is unlikely, potential for
localized damages that may create temporary lane closures on County Highway 33
would be anticipated with events similar to the 2019 spring flood. Therefore, under the
No Action Alternative it is anticipated that there would likely be temporary, minor
adverse impacts as a result of future flood damage. In addition, there is greater
likelihood of significant adverse effects resulting from failure of the spillway.
Proposed Alternative – Under this alternative, County Highway 33 would be
temporarily reduced to one lane during active construction. Coordination with the county
has occurred regarding an acceptable lane closure schedule for the highway. A
reduction in lanes could create delays for daily commuters over the two-year
construction period. Lane closures would be limited to the construction season and
would be expected to return to normal conditions during the winter season when active
construction cannot occur. There would be an increase in traffic associated with hauling
excavated material to approved storage or disposal sites during the construction
season. An estimated 145 truckloads of rip rap would be transported to the Lac qui
Parle Highway Department facility to store, which may be used for future reuse in their
construction projects. Additionally, around 750 loads of soil and concrete excavated
from the existing spillway would be transported primarily to disposal site # 4 and 5.
Disposal at site #5 would only be used if needed. Many roads in the region have been
designed to accommodate large farm equipment, implements, and trailers which is
expected to minimize overall impacts to existing transportation corridors in the project
vicinity. The exception is the road that would be utilized within Lac qui Parle village to
access the Highway Department facility storage area. The road over a 600-foot section
is comprised of gravel which could result in minor adverse impacts resulting from the
additional traffic hauling rip rap material to the site. Since the roads are utilized by the
Highway Department on a regular basis it is not expected that the overall wear will
impact accessibility or usability of the road. Overall, it is expected that minor adverse
impacts to commute time could occur during construction and due to gravel road wear
in Lac qui Parle village resulting from hauling of material for storage.

Flooding Effects
The Lac qui Parle Dam and Emergency Spillway is a component of the Lac qui Parle
Flood Control Project which also includes Marsh Lake Dam and the Chippewa River
Diversion. Together they have worked to reduce flood-related damages in surrounding
communities and agricultural land. In 2001, The Lac qui Parle flood control project was
estimated to have reduced damages by $11 million (USACE, 2004).

No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, the spillway would remain
prone to additional damage and over time could impact structure and function of the
spillway. The risk of catastrophic failure due to flood related erosion of the downstream
spillway is remote. However, if the Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway erosion led to
Dam failure, flood related impacts to agricultural lands and neighboring communities
could result. Therefore, under the No Action Alternative it is anticipated that there would
be minor adverse impacts as a result of an increased risk of future flood damage.
Proposed Alternative – Under this alternative, the spillway surface would be built to
modern safety standards for emergency spillways which would reduce the risk of
spillway failure and damage resulting from floodwater. Therefore, the proposed
alternative would have a minor beneficial effect on future flood damage risk.

Environmental Justice
An evaluation of environmental justice impacts is mandated by Executive Order 12898,
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations (February 11, 1994). This Executive Order directs Federal agencies
to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high, and adverse health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income
populations.
Affected Environment
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on-line EJScreen mapping tool
(Version 2020, https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen) was used to characterize existing
conditions for minority and low-income groups. The area used in the analysis is shown in
Figure 11. This area was chosen by using an approximate project study area boundary
and including a 2-mile buffer to the boundary, to determine the population most affected
by the Project. The community of comparison for this area is the Minnesota counties of
Lac qui Parle and Chippewa, respectively (Table 3). State and National values are
provided for further context. The EJScreen tool estimated an approximate population of
39 in the analysis area. Neither the minority population nor the low-income population is
50 percent or greater in the analysis area. The area of analysis was then assessed to
determine if the minority or low-income population there is meaningfully greater than that
of the community of comparison. The low-income population is lower than Lac qui Parle
and Chippewa Counties as well as national averages. The linguistically isolated
population is equal to or lower than the counties, state, and national averages. Based on
the EJScreen, there is a minority population of 10% in the analysis area which is less
than Chippewa County, state, and national averages, and not meaningfully greater than
that of Lac qui Parle County. The EJScreen does not indicate that there is a low-income,
minority, or linguistically isolated population within the analysis area that deviates from
the community of comparison. Other population dynamics show that 6% of the
population over 25 years of age have less than a high school diploma and the population
under 5 and over 64 years of age are 6% and 20%, respectively.
Table 3: Demographic data for the project area, counties, state, and U.S.

Analysis Area Lac qui Parle Chippewa Co., State USA

(project area Co., MN MN
 with 2 mile
buffer)

Population 39 6,719 11,953

Low Income 26% 28% 30% 24% 31%

Minority 10% 5% 13% 20% 40%

Linguistically 2% 0% 1% 2% 5%
Isolated

*Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year estimates.

~
t
:l0
~

Ch urchi l l 1st:St"'W

r
\
\
\

'
/
\

'-
( ''

\
\

\
I I-)

:r:------
GeoTe<hnolo ' -
g1es, Inc, M£TI/NASA, US s:
/ J J

Figure 11: Lac qui Parle Emergency Spillway Environmental Justice Boundary
Environmental Justice Effects
Environmental Justice is a national goal and is defined as the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies. The purpose of the project is to maintain long-term
function of the emergency spillway and dam, which provide flood protection to
neighboring cities and agricultural areas and supports water conservation and fish and
wildlife habitat augmentation in the region. Based on our assessment with the
environmental justice screening tool, minority populations will not be disproportionately
affected within the analysis area. The proportion of minority populations within the
analysis area are not meaningfully greater than minority populations in Lac qui Parle
and Chippewa Counties. In a similar fashion, there are no recognized low-income
populations within the analysis area that deviate from the community of comparison (i.e.
Lac qui Parle, Chippewa Counties, and National average). Implementation of the
proposed alternative would not have any permanent adverse effects on surrounding
communities. There would be a temporary increase in some socio-economic categories
related to employment. At the same time there would be temporary, minor adverse
impacts related to noise during the workday and minor delays in commute time through
the project area. Neither the No Action Alternative nor Proposed Alternative would
cause a disproportionately high and adverse impact on any environmental justice
population.

Cultural Resources
The Lac qui Parle Dam and Emergency Spillway were constructed between 1936 and
1939 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The crest of the spillway was paved
in 1942 and operation was transferred from the state of Minnesota to the Corps in 1950.
The Lac qui Parle Flood Control Historic District, to which the emergency spillway is a
contributing element, is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) under Criterion A for its association in broad patterns in history related to
politics/government, conservation, and engineering, and potentially Criterion B for its
association with hydraulics engineer Adolph F. Meyer. Aside from the historic district, no
known archaeological resources are located within the project area.
No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, the spillway would remain
prone to additional damage and over time, this damage could impact the structure and
function of the spillway. It is anticipated the no-action alternative would have an adverse
effect on the to the Lac qui Parle Dam emergency spillway since overtopping would
continue resulting in more failures needing temporary or permanent repairs.
Proposed Alternative- The proposed alternative would alter the historic material of the
emergency spillway resulting in an adverse effect on the Lac qui Parle Flood Control
Historic District. As a result, the Corps has made the determination of adverse effect
and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed to mitigate the adverse effect
(Appendix 2). Therefore, the proposed alternative would have a minor adverse impact.

Climate Change
The USACE, Institute of Water Resources (IWR) published a document titled “Recent
US Climate Change and Hydrology Literature Applicable to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Missions of the Upper Mississippi Region 07 in 2015”. The synopsis included
in that document generally describes territory within the St. Paul, Chicago, Rock Island,
and St. Louis USACE districts. The synopsis evaluated, observed, and projected trends
in temperature, precipitation, and stream flow as well as the general consensus in the
literature reviewed of the trending parameters.

The USACE IWR (2015) found a general consensus for a moderate to large upward
trend in observed average temperature, minimum temperatures, average precipitation,
extreme precipitation, and streamflow in the Upper Mississippi Region. There is a
reasonable consensus that maximum air temperatures have decreased slightly in the
recent past in the region. However, projected extreme precipitation is expected to have
only a small increase with moderate consensus in the literature reviewed and forecasts
of future hydrology and stream-flow are anticipated to be variable, with low overall
consensus in the literature reviewed. Therefore, it was presumed that these watersheds
are not anticipated to incur significant precipitation changes due to climate change
within the anticipated 50-year period of analysis. Furthermore, the proposed project is
not anticipated to influence global climate change.

Cumulative Effects
This chapter identifies possible cumulative effects of the considered alternatives when
combined with past trends and other ongoing or expected plans and projects. The
discussion of cumulative effects considers the effects on the resource that result from
the incremental impact of the action being considered when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency, Federal
or non-Federal, or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result
from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taken place over a period of
time (40 CFR §1508.1(g)(3)).

In order to identify present and reasonably foreseeable actions, information from

resource managers and online resources were compiled.

The Lac qui Parle spillway and dam has been in place since the 1930s. An inspection of
the dam in 2012 identified aging infrastructure at the dam that was in need of repair and
replacement. Attempts to repair in 2016 were hampered by high water and resulted in
reconsideration of the coffer dam design used to replace sluice gates, add stop logs,
trash racks, and an access walkway above the dewatering system, and repair damaged
concrete on the existing structure. This modification and repair to the existing dam
began in 2022 and the last phase concluded spring 2023. The work is within an 83’ X
12’ X 8’ deep area (<0.03 acre), and dredged approximately 300 yd3 of sands, fines,
and clays during the dam repair. The primary project effects associated with the project
are temporary, minor disturbance to benthic invertebrates, fish, and other mobile
wildlife, and minor adverse effects to historic architectural values. Due to the relatively
small area impacted and the temporary nature of the impacts associated with the dam
repairs, no long term adverse cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the
proposed spillway repair project.
The Marsh Lake Habitat Enhancement Project finished construction of project features
in 2020 and aims to restore ecosystem structure and function to Marsh Lake which is
contained within the Lac qui Parle WMA. The project is intended to improve aquatic
habitat connectivity between Marsh Lake, Pomme de Terre River and Lac qui Parle,
restore more natural hydrologic regime to Marsh Lake, restore wetland vegetation, and
improve conditions for waterfowl and native fish. Overall, this project will improve
environmental conditions for native habitats and species.
 Table 1. Environmental Assessment Matrix
No Action Alternative Proposed Alternative
BENEFICIAL ADVERSE BENEFICIAL ADVERSE

SUBSTANTIAL

SUBSTANTIAL

SUBSTANTIAL

SUBSTANTIAL
SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT
NO EFFECT

NO EFFECT
MINOR

MINOR

MINOR

MINOR
PARAMETER
A. Social Effects
1. Noise Levels X ST
2. Aesthetic Values ST ST
3. Recreational
ST ST
Opportunities
4. Transportation ST ST
5. Employment X ST
6. Flooding Effects X X
C. Natural Resource
Effects
1. Air Quality X ST
3. Wetlands ST ST
4. Vegetation ST ST
5. Fish and Wildlife ST ST
6. HTRW X X
7. Surface Water
ST ST
Quality
8. Threatened and
X X
Endangered Species
9. Climate Change X X
10. Soils X X
D. Cultural Resource
Effects
1. Historic Architectural
X X
Values
2. Precontact &
Historic Archeological X X
Values
X = Long-term effects; ST = Short-term temporary or recurring effects.

4 Environmental Compliance

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 USC § 4321 et seq.) establishes the
broad national framework for protecting our environment. NEPA’s basic policy is to
assure proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major federal
action. Two alternatives have been presented and the significance of the project’s
impacts have been evaluated. The document will be distributed to agencies, the public
and other interested parties to gather any comments or concerns. If no significant
effects to the environment are found, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be
signed by the St. Paul District commander (see Attachment 5, Draft FONSI).
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone from taking, possessing, or
transporting an eagle, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such birds without prior
authorization. Disturbing an eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause injury to
an eagle, decrease productivity or cause nest abandonment are considered forms of
take. Activities that directly or indirectly lead to take are prohibited without a permit. As
of a site visit by a USACE Wildlife Biologist on 3 August 2022, no bald eagle nests were
identified in the project area or project vicinity. Therefore, no take is anticipated.
Language would be inserted into the Plans and Specifications for the contractor to notify
USACE in the event that an eagle nest is discovered at a later date, and further
coordination with USFWS would be initiated.
Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 – Section 404 of the CWA
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States and is
administered by USACE. The Corps does not issue permits to itself but complies with
the provisions of the Act. The proposed spillway replacement is commensurate with the
types of activities described and would be authorized under Nationwide Permit 3 (NWP
3) regarding maintenance activities
(https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/missions/regulatory/nwp/).

Section 401 water quality certification is required for actions that may result in a
discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to ensure that the discharge
complies with applicable water quality standards. The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) is the agency responsible for issuing Clean Water Act Section 401
water quality certification for the project area. MPCA has issued Section 401 water
quality certification for NWP 3 with conditions which would apply to the proposed action.
A copy of the water quality certification for the NWP can be found in Appendix 1.

Provided that the terms and conditions of NWP 3 are followed, no additional
authorization under the Clean Water Act or the Rivers and Harbors Act is required. The
proposed project does not include maintenance dredging for the primary purpose of
navigation, nor does it include beach restoration, or new stream channelization or
stream relocation.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (16 USC § 1531 et seq.) provides for the conservation of
threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are
found. There are two federally listed species that are listed for the action area and two
candidate species. USACE St. Paul District has determined after conducting a site
assessment of the project area that the proposed action would have no effect on both
listed species (i.e. northern long-eared bat and Dakota skipper), and no effect on the
candidate species (i.e. monarch and tricolored bat).
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA; 16 USC 661‒667e) requires federal
agencies to coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and applicable state
agencies when a stream or body of water is proposed to be modified. The proposed
project was coordinated with USFWS and MNDNR on 5 July 2022. Additionally,
agencies will have an opportunity to review during the public review period.
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended by Public Law 96-
515 (94 Stat. 2987), established national policy for historic preservation, authorized the
Secretary of the Interior to expand and maintain a National Register of Historic Places,
and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 specifies that
federal agencies, must consider the effect of the action on any property included in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The Corps has determined the proposed alternative to have an adverse effect to the
Lac qui Parle Flood Control Historic District. In accordance with Section 106, a letter
was sent to the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 19, 2021
and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) of the Upper Sioux Community, Lower
Sioux Community, and Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Community on July 20, 2021 to
initiate consultation. Since letters were sent initiating consultation, there have been
several consultation letters. Copies of letters are located in Attachment 2 and include:
1) July 19, 2021 – Corps initiates consultation with SHPO
2) July 20, 2021 – Corps initiates consultation with THPO
3) August 2, 2021 – Corps completes eSubmittal notification to the Advisory Council
on Historic Properties (ACHP) of the adverse effect and request to participate in
consultation
4) August 12, 2021 – ACHP responds requesting more information
5) August 30, 2022 – SHPO concurs on the Corps’ determination and requests
additional information regarding the area of potential effects (APE)
6) December 20, 2021 – Corps letter to SHPO and THPO providing additional
information on the APE and draft MOA
7) February 16, 2022 – SHPO concurs with APE and providing comments on the
draft MOA
8) March 1, 2022 – ACHP declines to participate in consultation
9) August 15, 2022 – Corps letter to SHPO providing additional information on the
APE and revised draft MOA
10) December 1, 2022 – MOA executed
11) December 14, 2022 – MOA filed with ACHP
 Table 2. Compliance with Environmental Protection Statutes and Other
Environmental Requirements
Environmental Requirement Compliance1
Federal Statutes
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act Full
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended Full
Clean Air Act, as amended Full
Clean Water Act, as amended Full
Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended N/A
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended Full
Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 Full
Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended Full
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended Full
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended Full
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended Full
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended Partial
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended Full
National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 N/A
Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972 Full
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act Full
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended Full

Executive Orders, Memoranda

Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988) Full
Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species Full
(E.O. 13112)
Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (E.O. Full
11514)
Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Environment (E.O. Full
11593)
Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) Full
Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique Farmland (CEQ Full
Memorandum, 30 August 1976)
Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) Full
1 The compliance categories used in this table were assigned according to the following

definitions:
a. Full – All requirements of the statute, EO, or other policy and related regulations
have been met for the current stage of planning.
b. Partial – Some requirements of the statute, EO, or other policy and related
regulations remain to be met for the current stage of planning.
c. Noncompliance (NC) – Violation of a requirement of the statute, EO, or other
policy and related regulations.
 d. Not Applicable (N/A) – Statute, EO, or other policy and related regulations not
applicable for the project or the current stage of planning.

5 Coordination

Coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency can be found in Attachment 4

6 Distribution and Review of the Draft Environmental Assessment

This draft environmental assessment is being made available for a 30-day public review
and comment period. The document can be viewed at:
https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Home/Public-Notices/. Questions on the project or
comments on the Environmental Assessment can be directed to Lane Richter at 314-
925-5032 or at Lane.A.Richter@usace.army.mil or Vanessa Alberto at (651) 290-5388
or at vanessa.j.alberto@usace.army.mil . Please address all formal written
correspondence on this project to District Engineer, St. Paul District, Corps of
Engineers, ATTN: Regional Planning and Environment Division North, 332 Minnesota
Street, Suite E1500, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101.

7 References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. Species Status Assessment Report for the
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Version 1.1. March 22, 2022.
Bloomington, MN.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Species Status Assessment Report for the
Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus), Version 1.1. December 2021. Hadley, MA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Species Status
Assessment Report. V2.1 96 pp + appendices.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 23
pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2019. Environmental Compliance Review- Lac qui Parle
Dam, Gate Installation and Dewatering System. 26 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Minnesota River Basin Reconnaissance Study.
Section 905(b) Analysis (WRDA of 1986). 83 pp.