• GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

  • Join In - We Share Fishing Reports & Outdoor Information Here

     
      You know what we all love...

      The same things you do!!!! Share what you love & enjoy in the outdoors as well as thank those whose posts you 'appreciate.'

      Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
Rick

OutdoorMN News - DNR requests comments on scope of supplemental EIS for revised Fargo-Moorhead flood diversion project

Recommended Posts

Rick

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has determined that a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) is required for the Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority’s revised flood risk management project. 

The DNR will prepare the SEIS to analyze modifications in the revised project proposal. The DNR invites comments on the scope of the SEIS through June 11. The scope will determine what will be evaluated in the SEIS.

Broadly speaking, the SEIS describes the proposed project, identifies environmental impacts and considers mitigation and alternatives that may lessen those impacts. The supplemental review, which is not an entirely new EIS, will focus on those aspects of the revised project that were not evaluated in the original environmental impact statement (EIS).

The DNR will conduct the SEIS work concurrently with its review of the Diversion Authority’s permit application for its revised project.

The proposed Fargo-Moorhead flood risk management project is a dam and diversion channel system designed to divert flood waters around Fargo, North Dakota; Moorhead, Minnesota; and surrounding metropolitan areas.

The DNR denied the Diversion Authority’s previous permit application in October 2016 because it included insufficient mitigation; it did not meet state and local plans, rules and statutes; and there are alternatives that can provide needed protection. Since then, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton created a joint task force to develop engineering options to address concerns about the project’s impacts. The project applicant considered the task force’s work in developing the current project proposal.

DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr said substantial changes to the original proposal require additional analysis. He said the DNR’s determination that an SEIS is needed is entirely separate from the agency’s ultimate decision about permitability. The SEIS will help ensure that the potential impacts of the project, as revised, are thoroughly assessed and disclosed, he said.

“I want to emphasize that Minnesota continues to support enhanced flood risk management for the developed portion of the Fargo-Moorhead area that can meet Minnesota state standards,” Landwehr said.

As required by state law, the DNR will not decide on the permit application until the SEIS is deemed adequate. The SEIS adequacy determination is not a project approval, but is rather a decision about whether the supplemental review was completed properly. The DNR is expected to complete the SEIS and adequacy determination in fall 2018. A permit decision is expected soon thereafter.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing a federal supplemental environmental assessment for the proposed project, which is similar to the state SEIS in scope and purpose.

The DNR will accept comments on the scope of the SEIS during a 20-day period beginning May 22 and ending June 11 at 4:30 p.m.

A copy of the SEIS is available for public review at:

  • DNR Library, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155.
  • DNR northwest region office, 2220 Bemidji Ave., Bemidji, MN 56601.
  • Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Government Documents, 2nd Floor.
  • Moorhead Public Library, 118 5th St. S, Moorhead, MN 56560.
  • Fergus Falls Public Library, 205 E. Hampden, Fergus Falls, MN 56537.
  • Fargo Public Library Downtown, 102 3rd St. North, Fargo, ND 58102.

Written comments on the scope of the SEIS must be received by Monday, June 11 at 4:30 p.m. Comments may be mailed to:  Jill Townley, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155-4025.

Comments may be emailed to: [email protected] with “Fargo-Moorhead SEIS” in the subject line. If using the email address, include your name and mailing address so that you can be added to the mailing list.

Comments may be faxed to 651-297-1500.

The SEIS preparation notice, and additional details about the proposed project and the DNR’s review process are available on the Fargo-Moorhead project page.

###

 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this project about?

The proposed Fargo-Moorhead (FM) flood risk management project is designed to divert flood waters around Fargo, North Dakota; Moorhead, Minnesota and surrounding metropolitan areas. It would control flows through the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area by placing high hazard dams on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The dams, along with two tieback embankments, would then stage water in an upstream staging area. Water would drain from the upstream staging area into a 30-mile diversion channel around the metropolitan area that would outlet north of the metropolitan area.

What is the history of the DNR’s involvement with the project?

The DNR prepared a state environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Diversion Authority’s proposed project. That EIS process concluded in June 2016 with the DNR’s EIS adequacy determination.

On Feb. 18, 2016, prior to completion of state environmental review, the DNR received an application for a Dam Safety and Public Waters Work permit for the FM project, listing the Flood Diversion Board of Authority (the Diversion Authority) as the applicant. Based on the October 2016 Findings of Fact for the Dam Safety and Public Water Work Permit Application, the DNR denied the permit application for the proposed FM project.

In early 2017, the Diversion Authority informally coordinated with DNR staff regarding the permit denial by engaging in work sessions aimed at addressing the DNR’s concerns and discussing potential options moving forward. Later in 2017, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton created a joint task force to discuss flood control options and make recommendations. The task force created a technical advisory group that included engineers and staff from the Diversion Authority and the DNR. The technical group presented the task force with engineering options to address concerns about project impacts.

What is the revised project design?

On March 16, 2018, after considering the recommendations of the task force and technical advisory group, and engaging in additional discussions with the DNR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Richland-Wilkin Joint Powers Authority, the Diversion Authority submitted a permit application for a revised FM project, known as “Plan B.” The “Plan B” project changes the alignments of the southern embankment alignment, the eastern tieback and the western tieback. This plan also allows more flows through town. These component changes result in a new inundation and staging area, and also result in modifications to, and elimination of, some project structures, such as the Comstock ring levee. Plan B also results in reduced impacts to Minnesota acres, cemeteries and organic farms.

What will happen next?

The DNR has determined that these project design changes are “substantial and may affect the potential significant adverse environmental effects of the project” and has ordered preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The SEIS is designed to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project that were not assessed in the original EIS. During the SEIS process, the DNR will also be reviewing the Diversion Authority’s Plan B permit application. However, the DNR cannot make any decision on the application until the SEIS process is complete. The DNR currently anticipates completing the SEIS in October 2018, and making its permit decision shortly thereafter.

Additional information about the SEIS and permit application are available on the Fargo-Moorhead project page.

Discuss below - to view set the hook here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • Kettle
      Boot lake is not open to fishing.  I checked typo lake yesterday. Really sketchy right out from the access about 10 feet or so. Past that there was 4.5 inches. I did not fish just wanted to see if I got the new auger blades on correctly 
    • leech~~
      Nice Duff.  Don't you have a furs and feathers board, or you don't hunt and eat um? 🤔
    • Duffman
      Here's what I have in the man cave. I refer to it as "The BIG Board". Usually add a couple pics a year, this year I've added 7. (It's been a good year)   On a log basis, I've kept track of days fished on ice and open water, species caught, and how many different bodies of water per year. About to wrap up year 20 of doing that, usually just jot it down on the calendar at work and tally it up at years end. That log total list is on the side of  The BIG Board.          
    • mavshockeyfan
      Any news of ice conditions in the Mankato area?
    • papadarv
      Wanted a smaller compact high ah battery for early ice to run my camera. Found the Milwaukee M12 comes in a 3ah version, ¼ the weight and size of the small 12v lead acid and charges in 30 min verses 12 hours. Also the + - contacts in the battery match the male outlet plug and work with male spade lugs so connecting it to electronics doable. On line I can get a twin pack 4ah under $40. Pic is the smaller 3ah with a 5.5mm power cable. Video is my camera panner in motion with the M12's.    
    • eyeguy 54
      My 4th year in southern MN. Seams to be normal deer running around where we have been hunting.  
    • IceHawk
      Definitely would give the season a B. We were very fortunate in seeing a good number of deer. I sat a total of 4 sits during gun season and saw a total of 26 deer 6 bucks the rest does and fawns.  We went 4-5 with 3 nice bucks and doe being harvested. Would of easily filled the last tag but my brother is a trophy hunter and is very selective.  Me and my brother practice QDM and have put in a lot of food plots and minerall licks over the years and it has really paid off. . Its a lot of work but the rewards are worth it as I harvested 5 bucks in the last 5 years this year a  Nice 9 point . Looking forward to checking our trail cams soon to take note also  of our buck inventory. 
    • monstermoose78
      Where I hunt in the extreme eastern part of the arrowhead deer numbers show be low. My group of 7 guys hunted the whole season and saw 5 deer while hunting. A spike buck has been lucky as most have seen him and chose to let him walk. My dad took a 6 pointer that was chasing a doe. It’s not about killing a deer for me it’s about spending time with my family and it was a great year.    The population is where it it should be in the arrowhead. I am excited to see a possible wolf season coming again up there as it’s fun to have a wolf tag in the pocket just in case one slips up and comes out by you. My season was great would I have liked to see a few deer yepbut it was the relaxing I needed and provided me the stress relief I needed.   Taking out wolves would help the moose population so that is my stance!!!
    • monstermoose78
      Thanks for checking and the report 
    • iiccee63
      Well I went out and checked the lake Friday am. All locked up. I walked out a bit and it looked like 2 inches. It froze over even which is good. Hopefully it's 2 inches out in the middle too. More info to come!