Appendix A - files.dnr.state.mn.us · Sip, Rob 05 05a . 6 Fargo Moorhead Flood Risk Management...

1 Fargo Moorhead Flood Risk Management Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A, Responses to Comments On Scope – August 2018

Appendix A

Responses to Comments on the Supplement to Environmental Impact Statement

Final Preparation Notice

Public Comment Period May 22- June 11, 2018


Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

List of Commenters and Comment ID ........................................................................................................... 5

Responses to Comments Received During the Draft SEIS Public Comment Period ..................................... 7

Agriculture Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 7

Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................... 7

Alternatives; Scope ................................................................................................................................. 16

Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources .......................................................................................................... 17

Cemetery Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 17

Cold Weather Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 18

Construction Best Management Practices .............................................................................................. 18

Cumulative Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................. 19

Dam Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 20

Economic Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 20

Emergency Access ................................................................................................................................... 21

Environmental Review Process ............................................................................................................... 22

Evacuation ............................................................................................................................................... 22

Financial Assurance ................................................................................................................................. 23

Flood Risk Transfer .................................................................................................................................. 24

Historical Structures ................................................................................................................................ 24

Hydrology and Hydraulics ....................................................................................................................... 24

Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................. 29

Local Government ................................................................................................................................... 29

Land Use Compliance .............................................................................................................................. 29

Mitigation Concerns ................................................................................................................................ 30

Mitigation Concerns; Delayed Planting .................................................................................................. 31

Mitigation Sufficiency ............................................................................................................................. 32

Mitigation, Timing ................................................................................................................................... 33

OHB Impacts to Minnesota ..................................................................................................................... 33

OHB Internal Flooding ............................................................................................................................. 34

Organic Farms ......................................................................................................................................... 36


Permit Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 36

Permitting Compliance; Section 404 ....................................................................................................... 37

Project Feasibility .................................................................................................................................... 37

Project Operations .................................................................................................................................. 38

Property Acquisitions .............................................................................................................................. 39

Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................... 39

Stream Stability ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Structures Missing................................................................................................................................... 40

Transportation Impacts and Requirements ............................................................................................ 40

Water Treatment Plant Impacts ............................................................................................................. 41

Wells and Septic Systems ........................................................................................................................ 42

Wetland and Stream Ecology .................................................................................................................. 42

Nonsubstantive Comments..................................................................................................................... 43


Introduction DNR released the Supplement to Environmental Impact Statement Final Preparation Notice for public review on May 21, 2018. The public comment period closed on June 11, 2018. DNR received 46 written comments on the scoping document from various state and local agencies, non-governmental groups, and citizens. An alphabetical listing of commenters, by organization or last name of commenter follows in the below.

A unique comment identification (comment ID) correlates individual comments within each comment document. Where feasible, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has grouped similar comments together and responded to a comment representative of the grouping. This improves the readability of the document and helps to show common themes expressed by commenters. In accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3000, subpart 5.B.4, DNR gave due consideration to all substantive comments objecting to the scope and a response was provided. For each group of comments or individual comment this document also indicates whether the issue prompted a modification or clarification to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) scope.

The Project Proposer and all permitting authorities that make a request will receive all comments for consideration.

Following the list of commenters are tables that include substantive comments received during the public comment period on the scope of Plan B.

There were a number of comments received during the public comment period that were considered non-substantive for a variety of reasons, such as an opinion, request to approve or deny a permit application, or general statement about the Project by the commenter. Nonsubstantive comments are identified by Comment ID and listed at the end of this document.


List of Commenters and Comment ID

Name Commenter ID Number

Unique Comment IDs

Aaland, Cash 23 23a-23b Askegaard, Mark 29 29a-29f Bahma, Amanda 01 01a Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 37 37a-37b Camrud Foss Concrete Construction 44 44a Cass Rural Water Users District 21 21a The Chamber – Fargo Moorhead West Fargo 40 40a Christianson, Douglas 11 11a-11b Cossette, Marg 12 12a-12d Dierkhising, Paul 06 06a Diversion Authority 31 31a Fargo Housing Authority 39 39a-39b Farsdale, Wayne and Marilyn 30 30a Hanson, Ben 19 19a Hertsgaard, Craig 16 16a Holy Cross Township Board Members 43 43a-43g Horace, City of 17 17a-17b Houska, Richard and Kristi 42 42a-42c Knoop, Kevin 02 02a Larson, Marcus 26 26a-26f Lindquist Construction 34 34a Lloyd, Bob 04 04a Luick, Senator Larry 22 22a-22b McConnon, Beth 28 28a-28g Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 32 32a-32c Nelson, Don 20 20a-20i Ness, Dave 09 09a-09e Ness, Judith 36 36a-36f Ness, Larry 08 08a-08d Ness, Matt 24 24a-24c North Dakota Department of Health 45 45a-45b North Dakota Department of Transportation 46 46a North Dakota State Water Commission 33 33a Olsgaard, Kristy 18 18a Pearson, Gary 13 13a Pleasant Township 07 07a Redlin, Gary and Patricia 35 35a Richland County Water Resource District 10 10a-10c Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Authority 38 38a-38g Rogne, Trana 25 25a-25g Sip, Rob 05 05a


Name Commenter ID Number

Unique Comment IDs

Spaeth, Tom 27 27a Tom Dawson Insurance 41 41a [email protected] (no name provided) 03 03a Waltz, Mark 15 15a Warren Township 14 14a-14b


Responses to Comments Received During the Draft EIS Public Comment Period

General Topic Comment ID

Agriculture Impacts Comment Summary

Comment Response

Impact on Scope of SEIS

24a

Commenter is concerned about impacts to staging area properties.

Impacts to staging area structures and lands, including farmland, are described in SEIS Section 3.10.2.

No Change.

36d Commenter asserts they will lose tillable acreage and experience delayed spring planting, resulting in loss of farm income.

Impacts to land (including agriculture) are included in SEIS section 3.10.2. The proposer's updated (2018) mitigation plan is described in SEIS section 3.10.3 and discusses mitigation for delayed planting. Full details can be found in SEIS Appendix F.

No Change.


Alternatives Comment Summary

Comment Response


10a Commenter requests DNR consider a more equitable distribution of the impacts between upstream and downstream areas.

The 2016 Final EIS (FEIS) completed a robust alternative rescreen analysis and evaluated balancing upstream and downstream impacts as Alternative #26. The Final EIS determined that balancing upstream and downstream impacts does not meet the project purpose and need (see 2016 Final EIS, Appendix M). As such, it was not evaluated in the FEIS. DNR also completed an Alternatives Screening Analysis using the updated Period of Record hydrology for the Draft Supplemental EIS (see Appendix B).

No change.




Comment Response


The Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) determined that even with the updated POR hydrology, balancing upstream and downstream impacts (Alternative #26) does not meet the project purpose and need. As such, it was not evaluated in the SDEIS.

11a Commenter suggests that an alternative would be no action with emergency measures along with distributed storage.

The DNR evaluated the Distributed Storage Alternative (DSA; which included emergency measures) in the Draft EIS (DEIS, Appendix C). DNR determined that Distributed Storage is an excellent basin-wide approach to provide local flood protection and should be pursued wherever feasible. Many communities in the Red River Basin, including Fargo and Moorhead, would greatly benefit from the implementation of additional upstream storage. That said, basin-wide flood protection was not the goal of the proposed project—the goal is to protect the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. It is determined that the DSA does not provide the communities on the Red River mainstem with protection from catastrophic events or from peak tributary flows. The analysis of this alternative determines that the DSA: 1) does not fully meet the project purpose; and 2) is not a feasible or practical alternative to the proposed project. DNR also completed an Alternatives Screening Analysis using the updated Period of Record

No change.




Comment Response


hydrology for the Draft Supplemental EIS (see Appendix B). The Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) determined that even with the updated POR hydrology, the DSA does not meet the project purpose and need and is not feasible. As such, it was not evaluated in the SDEIS.

20b Commenter would like consideration of Wild Rice diversion only

DNR considered a Wild Rice Diversion as Alternative #33 in the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) Alternatives Screening Exercise (SDEIS Appendix B). Alternative 33 would include a control structure on the Wild Rice River, a dam/southern embankment located entirely in North Dakota (between the Wild Rice and Red Rivers), a staging area that could extend upstream to about Christine, and no control on the Red River. A project design that does not account for Red River flow would also not account for the years that the Red River floods more than the Wild Rice River, which would make it harder for the project to receive FEMA 100-year accreditation (because it couldn’t be assured). As such, this alternative was not fully evaluated in the SDEIS.

No change.

23a Commenter asserts that the NED plan should be the baseline alternative for comparison.

Minnesota Rules 4410 do not allow a Responsible Government Unit to select for themselves the baseline project; all alternatives are compared to the proposed project, which is Plan B. Nevertheless,

No change.




Comment Response


Minnesota Rules allow for consideration of alternatives, and the NED plan (also known as the MN35K plan) was considered in both the 2016 Final EIS (FEIS, Appendix M) and the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS, Appendix B). The 2016 Final EIS (FEIS) completed a robust alternative rescreen analysis and evaluated the NED Plan as Alternative #3. The Final EIS determined that the NED Plan was infeasible (see 2016 Final EIS, Appendix M). As such, it was not evaluated in the FEIS. DNR also completed an Alternatives Screening Analysis using the updated Period of Record (POR) hydrology for the SDEIS (see Appendix B). The Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) determined that even with the POR hydrology, the NED Plan (Alternative #3) is infeasible. Although this alternative meets the 100-year accreditation and would have regional environmental benefits over Plan B, the acreage required for the Minnesota diversion footprint would result in greater direct impacts to Minnesota. Any alternative that would not offer benefits to the state that are commensurate with the impacts would be unable to be permitted in Minnesota because it wouldn’t represent the least impactful solution in Minnesota (as required by Minnesota Law); thus, would be




Comment Response


infeasible. As such, it was not evaluated in the SDEIS.

28a, 29a Commenters believe that the Minnesota 35K alternative has less impact than Plan B.

The MN35K plan was considered in both the 2016 Final EIS (FEIS, Appendix M) and the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS, Appendix B). The 2016 Final EIS (FEIS) completed a robust alternative rescreen analysis and evaluated the MN35K plan as Alternative #3. The Final EIS determined that the MN35K plan was infeasible (see 2016 Final EIS, Appendix M). As such, it was not evaluated in the FEIS. DNR also completed an Alternatives Screening Analysis using the updated Period of Record (POR) hydrology for the SDEIS (see Appendix B). The Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) determined that even with the POR hydrology, the MN35K plan (Alternative #3) is infeasible. Although Alternative 3 meets the 100-year accreditation and would have regional environmental benefits over Plan B, the acreage required for the Minnesota diversion footprint would result in greater direct impacts to Minnesota. Any alternative that would not offer benefits to the state that are commensurate with the impacts would be unable to be permitted in Minnesota because it wouldn’t represent the least impactful solution in Minnesota (as required by Minnesota Law); thus, would be

No change.




Comment Response


infeasible. As such, it was not evaluated in the SDEIS.

28c Commenter believes that basin-wide retention projects plus large scale water impoundments or drain tile alternative has less impact than Plan B.

The DNR evaluated the "Distributed Storage Alternative + More", which included: a) Dry dams on all seven tributaries (placed further away from the Red River) b) Drop water level on Bald Hill Dam earlier in the fall c) Drop water level on Orwell Dam in the fall d) Retention up & down the entire valley—White Rock (SD) to Red Lake e) Hold back waters of northern tributaries f) Tiling (with or without open/close monitoring) g) Have water flow from tributaries into the Red River, when the river can handle the water h) Internal Storage The 2016 Final EIS determined that Distributed Storage is an excellent basin-wide approach to provide local flood protection and should be pursued wherever feasible. Many communities in the Red River Basin, including Fargo and Moorhead, would greatly benefit from the implementation of additional upstream storage. That said, basin-wide flood protection was not the goal of the proposed project—the goal is to protect the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. It is determined that the DSA does not

No change.




Comment Response


provide the communities on the Red River main stem with protection from catastrophic events or from peak tributary flows. The analysis of this alternative determines that the DSA: 1) does not fully meet the project purpose; and 2) is not a feasible or practical alternative to the proposed project. DNR also completed an Alternatives Screening Analysis using the updated Period of Record hydrology for the Draft Supplemental EIS (see Appendix B). The Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) determined that even with the updated POR hydrology, the DSA + More does not meet the project purpose and need and is not feasible. As such, it was not evaluated in the SDEIS.

28d Commenter believes that the No Action Alternative (with Emergency Measures) has less impact than Plan B.

The No Action Alternative (with Emergency Measures) is addressed in the SEIS.

No change.

30a Commenter believes that basin-wide retention is cheaper and has less impact than Plan B.

The DNR evaluated basin-wide retention with the Distributed Storage Alternative. The 2016 Final EIS determined that Distributed Storage is an excellent basin-wide approach to provide local flood protection and should be pursued wherever feasible. Many communities in the Red River Basin, including Fargo and Moorhead, would greatly benefit from the implementation of additional upstream storage. That said,

No change.




Comment Response


basin-wide flood protection was not the goal of the proposed project—the goal is to protect the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. It is determined that the DSA does not provide the communities on the Red River main stem with protection from catastrophic events or from peak tributary flows. The analysis of this alternative determines that the DSA: 1) does not fully meet the project purpose; and 2) is not a feasible or practical alternative to the proposed project. DNR also completed an Alternatives Screening Analysis using the updated Period of Record hydrology for the Draft Supplemental EIS (see Appendix B). The Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) determined that even with the updated POR hydrology, the DSA does not meet the project purpose and need and is not feasible. As such, it was not evaluated in the SDEIS.

02a 03a 13a

Commenters suggest using restored wetlands instead of extensive diversion project.

The 2016 Final EIS (FEIS) completed a robust alternative rescreen analysis and evaluated wetland restoration as Alternative #20. The Final EIS determined that wetland restoration does not meet the project purpose and need (see 2016 Final EIS, Appendix M). As such, it was not evaluated in the FEIS. DNR also completed an Alternatives Screening Analysis using the updated Period of Record (POR) hydrology

No change.




Comment Response


for the Supplemental Draft EIS (see Appendix B). The Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) determined that even with the POR hydrology, wetland restoration (Alternative #20) does not meet the project purpose and need. As such, it was not evaluated in the SDEIS.

38d Commenter recommends analysis of a modified version of MN Diversion that includes storage, enhanced flows through town, and certified levees.

A detailed alternative screening was completed as part of the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) preparation and is described in Appendix B. Although the described alternative meets the 100-year accreditation and would have regional environmental benefits over Plan B, the acreage required for the Minnesota diversion footprint would result in impacts that are more direct to Minnesota. Any alternative that would not offer benefits to the state that are commensurate with the impacts would be unable to be permitted in Minnesota because it wouldn’t represent the least impactful solution in Minnesota (as required by Minnesota Law); thus, would be infeasible. As such, this alternative was not evaluated in the SDEIS.

No change.

08b 16a 23b 24b

Commenters requested that DNR consider the JPA Alignment or Charlie Anderson’s Plan asserting this plan has less impact, and aligns with Governor and TAG process.

The DNR evaluated two iterations of Charlie Anderson's plan (also known as the JPA Alignment) in the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS). Both iterations included a new

No change.




Comment Response


25g 36e 38c 28b 29b

dam/southern embankment alignment. One iteration included a modified northwest diversion alignment (Alternative #30) and the other retained the Plan B diversion channel alignment (Alternative #31, also known as Alternative C). The full evaluation of these alternatives can be found in SDEIS Appendix B. The DNR determined that Alternative #30 does not have significant environmental benefit compared to Plan B, and Alternative #31 does not have substantially less adverse socioeconomic impact over Plan B. As such, neither were fully evaluated in the SDEIS.


Alternatives; Scope Comment Summary

Comment Response


31a Commenter identified alternatives they think should not be evaluated in the Supplemental EIS.

DNR will evaluate all alternatives suggested by public comments as required in MN Rule 4410.

No change.

38b Commenter asserts that no additional alternatives were identified for evaluation in the SEIS prep notice.

The SEIS preparation notice did not include additional alternatives beyond the No Action Alternative (with Emergency Measures) due to the extensive alternative screening completed as part of the 2016 Final EIS.

No change.



Alternatives; Scope Comment Summary

Comment Response


However, any alternatives identified during the scoping period have been considered as part of the SEIS.


Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources Comment Summary

Comment Response


09c, 20e, 28f General concern for natural resource impacts, specifically for forest, fish and wildlife, overall and in the staging area.

To the degree that impacts to forests, fish and wildlife are different from the previously proposed Project, they are covered in SEIS Sections 3.4 (Wetlands) and 3.5 (Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources).

No change.


Cemetery Impacts Comment Summary

Comment Response


10c, 12a, 43f Commenters express concern about impacts in cemeteries overall as well as mitigation concerns about Holy Cross Cemetery.

Cemetery impacts and proposed mitigation is covered in SEIS sections 3.6 (Cultural Resources) and 3.10 (Socioeconomics).

No change.



Cold Weather Impacts Comment Summary

Comment Response


20c Commenter asserts that Ice Jam issues at the Control Structure with 50' gates.

Cold weather impacts were adequately described in the 2016 Final EIS.

No change.


Construction Best Management Practices Comment Summary

Comment Response


45a Commenter advises proposer use best management practices during construction of project and provides guidance.

Comment does not object to the scope of the SEIS nor does it provide additional areas to analyze. Potential impacts to and proposed mitigation and monitoring for wetlands and aquatic resources can be found in SEIS sections 3.4 and 3.5, respectively. Information on aquifers was found to be adequately covered in the USACE's 2011 Final Feasibility Report Environmental Impact Statement.

No change.

32b Commenter requests BMPs (more information) to be implemented during constructions, specifically related to streams

Design planning for construction of all project features has not developed to a point that would allow identification of proposed BMPs to manage construction stormwater. The Project would need a construction stormwater permit from the MPCA and this application would require

No change.



Construction Best Management Practices Comment Summary

Comment Response


identification of the specific BMPs proposed. One BMP is known for the Wild Rice River and Red River water control structures. The Wild Rice River and Red River control structures are proposed to be constructed adjacent to the respective rivers and then the natural river channel would be abandoned and the rivers redirected through the structures once construction is complete.


Cumulative Potential Impacts Comment Summary

Comment Response


37a, 37b Commenter provide information about a recent improvement petition for Clay-Wilkin Judicial Ditch No. 1 and Wolverton Creek Restoration and Sediment Reduction Project respectively.

These projects are included as a reasonably foreseeable project, for which a basis of expectation has been laid, in the cumulative potential effects chapter of the SEIS.

Included in SEIS.



Dam Safety Comment Summary

Comment Response


43g, 36b

Commenters have high hazard dam safety concerns including those living in the shadow of the dam, particularly around Comstock.

Dam Safety and safety concerns from a potential dam breach are discussed in SEIS section 3.9 (Dam Safety and Public Waters). A dam breach analysis was conducted for Plan B and is included as SEIS Appendix H. The depth of water behind the dam near Comstock during the 90,000 cfs Event (with breach) would range from 2-6 feet. A breach at this location is not likely to impact Comstock, which is approximately ½-mile east of the dam. If a breach occurred near Comstock, it would not cause a danger to loss of life. In general, just the fringes of Comstock would be "wet, but safe" (see SEIS section 3.9and SEIS Appendix H).

No change.


Economic Impact Comment Summary

Comment Response


17a Commenter requests that DNR conduct a new regional economic impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis.

The DNR believes that changes proposed between Plan B and the previously proposed project are not substantial enough to change the regional economic impact analysis. Additionally, the regional economic impact analysis was not conducted in such a way

No change.



Economic Impact Comment Summary

Comment Response


that individual city impacts can be separated out. The State also never completed, nor is required to complete, a cost-benefit analysis for projects. A cost-benefit analysis was a requirement of the USACE for their project development. However, some of the concerns mentioned by the commenter regarding transportation impacts are covered in SEIS section 3.7 (Infrastructure). Impacts to Horace are also a consideration in the dam safety shadow of impact, which is covered in SEIS section 3.9 (Dam Safety).


Emergency Access Comment Summary

Comment Response


36c Commenter is concerned that flooded roads will impact access for emergencies.

Access to the area by emergency services during flood events was adequately described in the 2016 Final EIS section 3.13 and 3.16.

No change.



Environmental Review Process Comment Summary

Comment Response


04a Commenter has concern about length of time to complete proposed project.

Comment does not object to the scope of the SEIS nor does it provide additional areas to analyze.

No change.


Evacuation Comment Summary

Comment Response


25f Commenter expressed concerned about the staging area evacuation plan related to life and safety issues.

Evacuation of the staging area was a topic that was adequately discussed in the 2016 Final EIS. The Property Rights Acquisition and Mitigation Plan (Appendix F) describes that no structures will be allowed within the floodway boundary (inner Zone 1) of the upstream mitigation area (i.e., staging area). For structures located on the fringes of the upstream mitigation area, it is anticipated that the additional depths will be minor and infrequent. Structures within this area will have an analysis conducted to determine what, if any, mitigation is necessary. This analysis will include any impacts of the staging of floodwaters on roads used to access the property. Key roads, including Interstate 29 and U.S. Highway 75, would be raised within the staging area to maintain

No change.



Evacuation Comment Summary

Comment Response


access through the upstream area and into the metropolitan area during floods. The elevations of North Dakota Highway 46 and Richland County Highway #1 are generally above the 100-year staging elevation and would still be passable during project operations.


Financial Assurance Comment Summary

Comment Response


25e Commenter expresses concern about financial assurances for operation and maintenance.

Financial assurance is not a component of environmental review; however, information on proposer funding is outlined in SEIS section 3.8.3 and Appendix F. The permit application will consider sufficiency of financial assurance when determining whether to permit Plan B.

No change.



Flood Risk Transfer Comment Summary

Comment Response


09d, 20a, 20i, 26c, 29f, 35a, 38f, 42c

Commenters are concerned about Minnesota bearing a higher risk, moving water from a natural floodplain and flooding currently flood-free lands, and doing so to benefit development in Fargo.

Flood risk transfer (including proportional differences in impact and benefit between Minnesota and North Dakota) is discussed in SEIS section 3.8.2.

No change.


Historical Structures Comment Summary

Comment Response


20f Commenter would like assessment of historical structures/sites in the staging area.

To the extent that impacts differ from the previously-proposed project, impacts to cultural resources, including structures and sites, is included in SEIS sections 3.6 (Cultural Resources) and 3.10 (Socioeconomics).

No change.


Hydrology and Hydraulics Comment Summary

Comment Response


42a, 08c, 36a

Commenters are concerned that there will be flooding on land that has previously not flooded.

Plan B would cause inundation of properties that had previously not been inundated during historic flood events. This potential impact as well as proposed mitigation

No change.




Comment Response


measures are included in SEIS sections 3.2 (Hydrology and Hydraulics) and 3.10 (Socioeconomics).

14a Commenter has concern that additional levees would be built for the Sheyenne River that would impact Warren Township. Commenter also wants to know the land elevation where water will enter the diversion.

The construction of levees along the Sheyenne River is not proposed as part of the project and it has not been identified as a reasonably foreseeable project for which a basis of expectation is laid. The SEIS will not evaluate speculative projects. Water would enter the diversion through the Diversion Inlet Control Structure. The commenter's request for land elevation where water enters the diversion is not clear. Project operations and details are contained in Chapter 2, Section 3.2 (Hydrology and Hydraulics). Additional details can be found in Appendix C (Hydrology and Hydraulics Report).

No change.

14b Commenter requests the height of the spillway compared to the land elevation.

The spillway on the Western Tieback would be constructed with crest height of 924 feet for approximately 3,800 feet before transitioning to crest height of 929 feet. Project operations and details are contained in Chapter 2 and Section 3.2 (Hydrology and Hydraulics). Additional details can be found in Appendix C (Hydrology and Hydraulics Report).

No change.




Comment Response


26f Commenter requests that the analysis be completed on existing conditions without POR hydrology or Plan A influence.

Modeling is needed to predict impacts of the project. Using data of hydrology that has occurred in the area, such as the POR, is an accepted practice for modeling. The H&H modeling conducted for Plan B is not influenced by the previously proposed project. Section 3.2 (Hydrology and Hydraulics) includes a section that describes the flood discharge rates for various historic floods to assist SDEIS reviewers in understanding how these predictions compare with historic floods.

No change.

26e Commenter has little confidence in mapping and theoretical impacts in the H&H.

DNR Hydrologists have reviewed the Hydrology and Hydraulics modeling that was conducted by the Diversion Authority to ensure the data, assumptions, methods and conclusions are suitable for use in the Minnesota SEIS. Details of this review is contained in SEIS Section 3.2 - Hydrology and Hydraulics.

No change.



Infrastructure Comment Summary

Comment Response


29e, 28e, 10b

Commenters are concerned about impacts to infrastructure in staging areas and drainage in Richland County. 29e – Also concerned about crop insurance, loss of organic certification, home and farmstead relocations.

DNR does not believe the impacts to infrastructure between the previously proposed project and Plan B will be substantially different. To the extent that there are impacts to disclose, they are included in section 3.7. The Final EIS section 3.13 also discloses impacts to infrastructure. 29e - Crop insurance, organic farms and structures impacts and mitigation can be found in SEIS section 3.10.

No change.

43d Commenter is concerned about roads, drainage issues, as well as snow.

Infrastructure impacts are discussed in EIS section 3.7. A Transportation Master Plan (SEIS Appendix D) was prepared for the staging area for Plan B. As part of this plan, key roads, including Interstate 29 and U.S. Highway 75 would be raised within the staging areas. Additional roads, including 3rd Street South, 140th Avenue South and 160th Avenue South in Clay County, Minnesota and 168th Avenue Southeast, Cass County Highway 81 and Cass County Highways 16/17 in Cass County, North Dakota would be raised where they cross the dam/southern embankment, but the remaining portions of these roads would not be raised. Portions of the remaining roads within the staging area would be inundated

No change.



Infrastructure Comment Summary

Comment Response


for a period of time during project operation. Based on historic records from 1902 to current, the project would have only operated 28 days total, which were outside of typical dates for farming operations to begin for the upcoming growing season, with the changes included as part of Plan B. After completion of the project, all parcels of land would continue to have direct access off of an adjacent road. Existing drainage would be maintained within the staging area with the exception of where drainage intersects with the dam/southern embankment. In these areas, a drainage channel would be constructed parallel to the dam/southern embankment to convey local runoff. The Dam/Southern Embankment would be located west of U.S. Highway 75 and would be located far enough from the roadway so that snow buildup is not anticipated to increase. The Diversion Authority completed a "Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project – Snow drifting/buildup along HWY 75" memorandum that summarizes this topic and is available upon request.



Land Use Comment Summary

Comment Response


22a Commenter has concern that floodplain preserved near the Sheyenne and Red River will be developed.

DNR is unaware of any future development plans in the area of concern. DNR also acknowledges that it is possible that development may occur in that area but cannot consider something that is unknown.

No change.

26a Commenter is concerned about Plan B’s consistency with MN Land Use regulations.

Plan B's consistency with laws and land use regulations is discussed SEIS section 3.8 (Land Use Plans and Regulations) and SEIS section 3.9 (Minnesota Dam Safety and Public Waters Regulations and Permitting).

No change.


Local Government Land Use Compliance Comment Summary

Comment Response


07a Commenter provided a copy of and requested review of Pleasant Township's Floodplain Ordinance re; NDCC 61.2.

This information will be added to the DSEIS and considered during permitting.

Information added to section 3.8.

29c Commenter is concerned that Plan B is not consistent with local water management plans.

Plan B's consistency with laws and land use regulations is discussed in SEIS section 3.9 (Minnesota Dam Safety and Public Waters

No change.



Local Government Land Use Compliance Comment Summary

Comment Response


Regulations and Permitting) and SEIS section 3.8 (Land Use Plans and Regulations).

43b Commenter asserts that Plan B does not adhere to Holy Cross Township, Ordinance 0001—An Interim Ordinance Establishing Moratorium on Water Impoundment.

This information will be added to the DSEIS and considered during permitting.



Mitigation Concerns Comment Summary

Comment Response


29d 12c 09b

Commenters are concerned about mitigation for the environment, existing ring dikes, township roads, land, and organic farms. One commenter questions how Minnesotans are to be compensated for their losses. One commenter questions mitigation for relocations and crop insurance. Financial assurance was also a concern.

A summary of proposed mitigation for all potential impacts is covered in SEIS Chapter 6, as well as within individual topic areas of Chapter 3. The Diversion Authority's full mitigation plan can be found in SEIS Appendix F. The USACE's full environmental mitigation plan can be found in SEIS Appendix G. Proposed mitigation for the environment is discussed in SEIS Sections 3.3 (FEMA), 3.4 (Wetlands), and 3.5 (Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources). Proposed mitigation for impacts to infrastructure, such as roads, is discussed in SEIS Section 3.7 (Infrastructure). Proposed mitigation for impacts to lands and organic farms is

No change.



Mitigation Concerns Comment Summary

Comment Response


discussed in SEIS Section 3.10. There is no Minnesota-specific mitigation proposed; mitigation for impacts in Minnesota would be covered by the type of impact and would be the same for both states. Mitigation sufficiency for topics such as relocations and crop insurance, including financial assurance, will be considered when determining whether to permit Plan B. Additional detail on mitigation commitments and financial obligation will be developed as part of the permit application process.


Mitigation Concerns; Delayed Planting Comment Summary

Comment Response


25d Concerned that the summer operation supplemental crop loss program is missing considerations or may not be feasible.

The flowage easements are required to consider all impacts to the parcels, including the risk of delayed planting. The Diversion Authority, USACE, NDSWC, and DNR have no control over federal crop insurance. The supplemental crop loss program is a provision proposed to mitigate for delayed planting. These proposed mitigations are described in SEIS section 3.10.3 and

No change.



Mitigation Concerns; Delayed Planting Comment Summary

Comment Response


Appendix F. Mitigation sufficiency for all potential impacts and financial assurance will be considered when determining whether to permit Plan B.


Mitigation Sufficiency Comment Summary

Comment Response


20g 25c 26b 43c

Commenters are concerned that proposed mitigation, including the staging area and the private land clean-up plan, is insufficient.

Proposed mitigation and additional mitigation recommendations are summarized in SEIS Chapter 6. Mitigation sufficiency for all potential impacts and financial assurance will be considered when determining whether to permit Plan B. Additional detail on mitigation commitments and financial obligation will be developed as part of the permit application process.

No change.



Mitigation, Timing Comment Summary

Comment Response


25a Commenter is concerned about timing of housing mitigation, compliance, and relocations.

The Diversion Authority would follow state laws and the URA for acquisition and relocation of impacted residential and farmstead properties. Flowage easements would be acquired prior to operation of the Project. The Project would become operational when all construction is complete. The flowage easements will need to be acquired prior to operation because that is when the potential impacts will occur. It is possible many of the flowage easements could be acquired sooner. The current estimate for completing acquisition of flowage easements and properties in the upstream mitigation area is 2025. SEIS section 3.10.3.6 describes information on the process and schedule for determining flowage easement value.

No change.


OHB Impacts to Minnesota Comment Summary

Comment Response


20d Commenter asserts that without revision to the current Oxbow design, the levy would result in perpetual impact to MN.

The loss of flood storage volume from the OHB levee would displace a portion of the floodwater. Floods below 21,000 cfs (when

No change.



OHB Impacts to Minnesota Comment Summary

Comment Response


project is not in operation) would result in minimal floodwater displacement. Floods above 21,000 cfs (when project is in operation) would have a larger flood volume displacement that is accounted for the in the H&H modeling.


OHB Internal Flooding Comment Summary

Comment Response


42b, 15a Commenters are concerned about internal flooding in OHB with snowmelt.

The Diversion Authority completed an interior drainage memorandum to evaluate the design of a system that would address runoff within the OHB Levee (the levee). Although a snowmelt event was not simulated, the larger 500-year, 24-hour rainfall event was simulated in the OHB interior drainage model that generates 6.63 inches of runoff (shown in Table 5 of the final interior drainage memorandum). This 6.63 inch runoff, when distributed as a 24-hour rainfall event, is much more intense and produces more runoff volume than the 100-year, 10-day runoff event (snowmelt event) that produces a total runoff volume

No change.



OHB Internal Flooding Comment Summary

Comment Response


of 5.0 inches based on the “Hydrology Manual for North Dakota.” The designed North Pond and West Pond have maximum allowable water surface elevations of 912.0 feet and 912.5 feet, respectively (shown in Table 1 of the final interior drainage memorandum). For the 500-year, 24-hour rainfall event, the North Pond and West Pond max water surface elevations are 907.9 feet and 911.1 feet, respectively, during the gravity discharge condition (shown in Table 7 of the final interior drainage memorandum). During pumping conditions (high Red River tailwater), the North Pond and West Pond max water surface elevations are 911.2 feet and 911.3 feet, respectively (shown in Table 10 of the final interior drainage memorandum). Both the North Pond and West Pond do not exceed the maximum allowable water surface elevation during the 500-year, 24-hour rainfall event. The inundation maps provided in the report show the results from 100-yr events. Further inundation analysis for the 500-yr event was conducted, and no existing structures would be impacted by street surcharging. The Diversion Authority and/or the DNR, upon request, can provide a copy of the interior drainage memorandum, referenced above.



Organic Farms Comment Summary

Comment Response


28g Commenter is concerned about long-term impacts to organic farming.

Impacts to and proposed mitigation for organic farms in discussed in SEIS section 3.10.

No change.


Permit Considerations Comment Summary

Comment Response


22b Commenter has concern that Plan B does not address the issues found in the DNR's 2016 Findings of Fact document for the previously-proposed project.

The DNR intends to make a well-informed permit decision, using all available past and current documentation, including the SEIS, and make a decision on Plan B that is consistent with Minnesota floodplain, public waters and dam safety policies, rules and statutes.

No change.

38e Commenter urges the DNR to develop an environmental review by beginning with the Commissioner's order and evaluating the application and alternatives against the criteria found in the Commissioner's order.

The DNR intends to make a well-informed permit decision, using all available past and current documentation, including the SEIS, and make a decision on Plan B that is consistent with Minnesota floodplain, public waters and dam safety policies, rules and statutes.

No change.



Permitting Compliance; Section 404 Comment Summary

Comment Response


45b Commenter advised that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers might require a water quality certification from the North Dakota Department of Health for the project if the project is subject to their Section 404 permitting process.

The Corps invoked CWA section 404(r) for the Project; however, the project proponents intend to collaborate with the states of North Dakota and Minnesota to complete the project, including, but not limited to, applying for Section 401 water quality certification. The potential need for a 401 Water Quality Certification is included in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.

No change.

32c Commenter advised that if a USACE Section 404 permit is required for the Project, the MPCA CWA 401 Water Quality Certification must ensure compliance with the state of Minnesota's antidegradation water quality standards.

The Corps invoked CWA section 404(r) for the Project; however, the project proponents intend to collaborate with the states of North Dakota and Minnesota to complete the project, including, but not limited to, applying for Section 401 water quality certification. The potential need for a 401 Water Quality Certification is included in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.

No change.


Project Feasibility Comment Summary

Comment Response


38a Commenter asserts Plan B is not a lawfully, feasible alternative.

In the SEIS and the separate 2018 permit application, Plan B is the proposed project. DNR has not come to a determination on the

No change.



Project Feasibility Comment Summary

Comment Response


permit for Plan B. The SEIS evaluation and subsequent permit decision will determine if Plan B is a lawful, permittable project. Permittability is discussed in SEIS sections 3.7 (Land Use) and 3.9 (Dam Safety and Work in Public Waters).


Project Operations Comment Summary

Comment Response


11b 12d

Commenters are concerned about townships being reimbursed for erosion and damage to roads, eroding embankments, and questions who will operate the dam.

Reimbursement for damage to township roads is addressed under Infrastructure in SEIS section 3.7, as well as in Appendix F. Dam alignment and maintenance is part of Dam Safety, which is covered in SEIS section 3.9. The 2018 Permit Applications lists the Diversion Authority as the entity that would maintain and/or operate the dam.

No change.



Property Acquisitions Comment Summary

Comment Response


25b 43e

Commenters are concerned about timing of property acquisitions related to project operation.

Construction prior to property acquisition would be in violation of Minnesota Rule 6115.0470 (Acquisition of Property); however, property interests or rights are not required prior to issuing a permit. A governmental agency, public utility, or corporation authorized by law to conduct a project may apply for a permit if the property rights to be acquired are fully described in the application (see Minnesota Rules 4410.0240, Subp.2.C.).

No change.


Purpose and Need Comment Summary

Comment Response


06a Commenter questions cause of flooding. Wetland restoration was evaluated in the 2016 Final EIS as an alternative to reducing flood risk in the Fargo-Moorhead Area. This alternative was dismissed from further evaluation due to limited flood reduction for larger floods and limited feasibility for implementation of basin-wide restorations that would meaningfully reduce flood risk in the Fargo-Moorhead Area.

No change.



Stream Stability Comment Summary

Comment Response


18a 26d

Commenters are concerned about impacts to stream stability, riverbank degradation and mitigation costs.

Potential impacts to and proposed mitigation and monitoring for streams is covered in SEIS section 3.5 (Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources).

No change.


Structures Missing Comment Summary

Comment Response


20h Commenter states that not all residential structures in staging area are accounted for.

Without additional information, the DNR cannot include the missing structures in our counts. The next opportunity to provide input on this missing information will be the Draft SEIS review.

No change.


Transportation Impacts and Requirements Comment Summary

Comment Response


46a Commenter states no adverse effect on ND DOT highways and advises that any work in

The SEIS discussed impacts to roads in section 3.7. Required permits are outlined in SEIS section 3.8.

No change.



Transportation Impacts and Requirements Comment Summary

Comment Response


right-of-way would require permits and risk management documents.


Water Treatment Plant Impacts Comment Summary

Comment Response


21a Commenter has concern about the water treatment plant being on the wet side of the dam with Plan B, and estimated costs to rebuild.

Impacts to and proposed mitigation for infrastructure are outlined in SEIS Section 3.7. The existing water treatment plant (WTP) located near St. Benedict's would be on the wet side of the Plan B embankment, which would require removal of the WTP and mitigation of the impacts to Cass Rural Water Users District (CRWUD). The Diversion Authority, along with the City of Fargo, would work with CRWUD to develop a regional water system solution that would provide water service to all CRWUD customers and maintain the financial position of the utility. The regional water system solution may require construction of a new CRWUD WTP, or it may involve connecting the distribution systems, providing discounted wholesale water, or cost-share for future CRWUD infrastructure requirements. The cost




Water Treatment Plant Impacts Comment Summary

Comment Response


estimate for the Project includes costs for this mitigation requirement.


Wells and Septic Systems Comment Summary

Comment Response


12b Commenter described wells and septic system concerns.

The 2016 Final EIS adequately covered impacts to wells and septic systems (Section 3.16). Although Plan B has different distribution of impacts, these are not substantively different from what was described in the 2016 Final EIS. The SEIS evaluated Plan B impacts structures, which can provide a sense of the magnitude of impact to wells and septic systems.

No change.


Wetland and Stream Ecology Comment Summary

Comment Response


32a Commenter requests identification of impacted surface waters and water quality standards. Request more information be included to inform their permit decision.

The 2016 Final EIS identifies all potentially impacted surface waters with the exception of new impacts from the Plan B revisions to the southern embankment, western tieback

No change.



Wetland and Stream Ecology Comment Summary

Comment Response


levee and eastern tieback levee. New surface waters potentially impacted by these revisions would be a different subset of direct and indirect wetlands and the eastern tieback/box culvert impact to Wolverton Creek. The construction activities that would occur in vicinity of these water bodies are large-scale earth moving and construction practices. The largest risk to water quality during construction would be erosion and sedimentation. Project operation would create hydrological changes that could then in turn create water quality impacts from instream or bank erosion. These impacts are described in the 2016 Final EIS section on Stream Stability and in the SEIS section on Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources.

Nonsubstantive Comments There were a number of comments received during the public comment period that were considered non-substantive for a variety of reasons, such as an opinion, request to approve or deny a permit application, or general statement about the Project by the commenter.


Nonsubstantive Comments Comment Summary

Comment Response


09e Commenter requested the DNR look at his comments from the Draft EIS.

DNR looked at the commenter’s letter submitted on the Draft EIS and believes they

No change.



Nonsubstantive Comments Comment Summary

Comment Response


have responded to and addressed all substantive items in the Final EIS.

05a 33a 44a

Commenters provided general comments and requested information on scoping document access.

Comments do not object to the scope of the SEIS nor does they provide additional areas to analyze.

No change.

08d, 09a, 24c, 36f, 38g, 43a

Commenters requested DNR deny the permit for Plan B.

The SEIS is not decision document and will not contain a permit decision. Decisions on whether to permit Plan B can be made only after the SEIS is determined to be adequate. Permitting is a separate process and is not part of environmental review.

No change.

08a, 17b

Commenters are generally opposed to Plan B.


No change.

01a, 19a, 27a 34a, 39a 40a, 41a

Commenters are generally in favor of and/or expressed support for Plan B.


No change.

39b Commenter recommends that DNR approve the project without delay.

The SEIS is not decision document and will not contain a permit decision. Decisions on whether to permit Plan B can be made only after the SEIS is determined to be adequate. Permitting is a separate process and is not part of environmental review.

No change.

Date post:	31-Mar-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungbao
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Appendix A - files.dnr.state.mn.us · Sip, Rob 05 05a . 6 Fargo Moorhead Flood Risk Management...

Documents