BUILDING STRONG SM Nonstructural Flood Risk Reduction Considerations for the Red River of the North

BUILDING STRONG SM Nonstructural Assessment of: * Stand-Alone Project for Fargo and Moorhead * Area Downstream from Proposed Diversion Channel

BUILDING STRONG SM Hydrologic Data Development

BUILDING STRONG SM

Structure Data Collected for Assessment Location/Address Hydraulic Stream Station Structure Type Structure Value Content Value First Floor Elevation Adjacent Ground Elevation Depth of Flooding Velocity of Flooding Associated Flood Damages Construction Material

BUILDING STRONG SM Stand-Alone Assessment Facts: Develop Plans for the 100-, 200-, and 500-Year flood events 9,644 Structures Individually Evaluated Structure Types - Residential, Commercial, Public, Critical Facilities Measures Must Be Feasible to Implement (positive BCR)

BUILDING STRONG SM Nonstructural Stand-Alone Assessment

BUILDING STRONG SM Nonstructural Assessment Economic Sub-Areas (5)

BUILDING STRONG SM

Nonstructural Stand-Alone Plan Assessment IDSTREETCITY Nonstructural Technique100yr Cost Annualized Cost Benefits (x1000)BCRNet Benefit FREEDLAND DRHarwoodFlood Wall348,00019, , LIND BLVDHarwoodElevate Structure123,3306, , RIVERSHORE DRHarwoodElevate Structure112,1766, , RIVERTREE BLVDHarwoodElevate Structure118,5136, , ST SEHarwood TwpBuy Out129,5647, , AVE SEHarwood TwpBuy Out113,8706, , AVE SEHarwood TwpBuy Out147,8548, , AVE SEHarwood TwpBuy Out123,0746, , AVE SEHarwood TwpBuy Out147,8548, , ST SEHarwood TwpElevate Main Floor112,1766, , ST SEHarwood TwpElevate Main Floor113,1146, , ST SEHarwood TwpElevate Main Floor112,6616, , AVE SEHarwood TwpElevate Main Floor113,5666, , ST SEHarwood TwpElevate Main Floor111,8856, , AVE SEHarwood TwpElevate Main Floor109,1376, , AVE SEHarwood TwpElevate Main Floor110,2366, , ST SEHarwood TwpElevate Main Floor108,0705, ,918

BUILDING STRONG SM Economic Sub-Unit 100- Year Plan Total Cost Cass County North$43,458,596 Cass County South$56,807,340 Fargo North$477,819,023 Fargo South$715,101,326 Moorhead$266,429,979 Total 100-Year Plan$1,559,616, Year Stand-Alone Nonstructural Plan Results

BUILDING STRONG SM Area Downstream from Diversion Channel Facts: Develop Plans for the Least Cost 100-Year Flood Event 3,801 Structures Individually Evaluated Structure Types - Residential, Commercial, Public, Critical, Agricultural Measures Must Be Feasible to Implement (positive BCR)

BUILDING STRONG SM Nonstructural Downstream Assessment

BUILDING STRONG SM Nonstructural Downstream Assessment Economic Sub-Areas (6)

BUILDING STRONG SM The approach to this investigation was to determine the potential for implementing nonstructural measures downstream from the Fargo- Moorhead Metro area, outside of the influence of the proposed diversion channel project. The study area was widespread taking in parts of 6 counties, 3 in Minnesota and 3 in North Dakota. Over 3,800 structures were investigated, first, for being impacted by a flood event equal to or greater than a 100-year event, and secondly, for a least-cost approach to implementing nonstructural measures. While the study area consisted on many residential and commercial structure types, there were also numerous barns, machine sheds, grain bins, and silos. These structures are more common to rural areas, where agriculture is the leading industry. For these structure types, nonstructural techniques of elevating the structure, elevating a false interior floor, wet flood proofing, or dry flood proofing was considered. In many instances where farmsteads were identified, the structure types consisted of residential, barn, sheds, bins, and silos. Where practical, groups of structures were protected by ringing the perimeter of such groups of structures with earthen berms. Since the berms are not meant to meet FEMA levee accreditation standards, they were identified as a nonstructural measure but would not qualify to meet government levee standards. Of the 1,117 structures assessed in detail, 395 or 35% of the structures were found to be qualified for nonstructural mitigation. Many of the 395 examples consist of ring levees where more than one structure is being protected from flooding. Numerous worksheets were developed for this investigation and contain the individual structure and groupings of structures. Since the floodplain is characteristically flat, there were no geographical subareas within which to subdivide into smaller economic units. This is why political boundaries, divided along county lines, were used to subdivide the total study area. The approach to this investigation was to determine the potential for implementing nonstructural measures downstream from the Fargo- Moorhead Metro area, outside of the influence of the proposed diversion channel project. The study area was widespread taking in parts of 6 counties, 3 in Minnesota and 3 in North Dakota. Over 3,800 structures were investigated, first, for being impacted by a flood event equal to or greater than a 100-year event, and secondly, for a least-cost approach to implementing nonstructural measures. While the study area consisted on many residential and commercial structure types, there were also numerous barns, machine sheds, grain bins, and silos. These structures are more common to rural areas, where agriculture is the leading industry. For these structure types, nonstructural techniques of elevating the structure, elevating a false interior floor, wet flood proofing, or dry flood proofing was considered. In many instances where farmsteads were identified, the structure types consisted of residential, barn, sheds, bins, and silos. Where practical, groups of structures were protected by ringing the perimeter of such groups of structures with earthen berms. Since the berms are not meant to meet FEMA levee accreditation standards, they were identified as a nonstructural measure but would not qualify to meet government levee standards. Of the 1,117 structures assessed in detail, 395 or 35% of the structures were found to be qualified for nonstructural mitigation. Many of the 395 examples consist of ring levees where more than one structure is being protected from flooding. Numerous worksheets were developed for this investigation and contain the individual structure and groupings of structures. Since the floodplain is characteristically flat, there were no geographical subareas within which to subdivide into smaller economic units. This is why political boundaries, divided along county lines, were used to subdivide the total study area.

BUILDING STRONG SM