Additional Content 1234567891011 Last »
FM Diversion and Dam Increases national debt

Archive for Fargo Dam

You are browsing the archives of Fargo Dam.

Aaron Carlson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Aaron Carlson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

I am writing to inform you that some information in Appendix G – Real Estate of the Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement dated July 2011 (Final Report) is incomplete and therefore inaccurate.

MN Center for Environmental Advocacy Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

MN Center for Environmental Advocacy Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

We have followed the process and reviewed draft document prior to publication of the FEIS. We are also aware that MN DNR has a number of remaining and additional legitimate concerns with the FEIS including the benefit cost analysis, effects of the diversion and water staging on sediment transport and geomorphology upstream and downstream of the project area, and fish passage. We believe that these areas of concern warrant further clarification before this FEIS can be considered complete.

Jon Rich Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Jon Rich Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The corps of engineers and the local sponsors say there is no alternative but they the local sponsors meaning Fargo have chosen a level of flood protection far beyond that of any city in Minnesota and North Dakota and so they end up supporting a very expensive project that is unrealistic and serves only to support development of land in North Dakota that never should be built on.

Glen and Marilyn Libbrecht Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Glen and Marilyn Libbrecht Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

As a local landowner and farmer, this project will have a very negative effect on me and fellow farmers and rural residents. When local city and state officials went to Washington to present their case for this diversion, were there any negative impacts mentioned? The impact of this project to the rural area has not been entirely considered.

National Wildlife Federation Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

National Wildlife Federation Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The Corps has not taken sufficient measures to mitigate the harmful environmental impacts and increased threat of flooding to upstream and downstream communities. The current plan threatens the upstream communities, including Hickson, Oxbow, and Comstock, by placing them under feet of water in flood years.

Minnesota DNR Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Minnesota DNR Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The locally preferred plan includes a water control structure that is classified as a high hazard dam, which requires preparation of Minnesota State EIS. As part of State EIS scoping, additional assessment and review will be necessary to demonstrate that the above mentioned criteria are fulfilled.

Executive Order EO 11988

Executive Order EO 11988

Executive Order 11988 — Floodplain Management SOURCE: The provisions of Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977, appear at 42 FR 26971, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 117, unless otherwise noted. By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, and as President of the […]

Page 19 of 19« First...5...10111213141516171819