Fargo to Monticello Project Phase II Open Houses...3333 13th Ave S Fargo, ND 58103 Thursday, March...

Fargo to Monticello ProjectPhase II Open Houses

Summary Report

March 2008

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

Fargo to Monticello 345 kV Transmission Line Project

Phase I Public MeetingsSummary Report

1. Introduction 1

2. Venues 2

3. Format 3

4. General Notification 5

5. Meeting Attendance 6

6. Public Input 7

Tables

Table 1 Phase II Open House Attendance by Location

Table 2 Phase II Open House Attendance by Municipality

Table 3 Phase II Open House Feedback from Comment Forms

Figures

Figure 1 General Open House Layout

Figure 2 Phase II Open House Attendees

Figure 3 Phase I and Phase II Open House Attendees

Appendices

A Open House Comment Form

B Advertisement

C Notification Flyer

1.

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

1. Introduction

The following report summarizes the results of the second phase of open houses for

the Fargo to Monticello 345-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project (Project).

Open Houses were held by the CapX2020 partners on March 17 through March 20

and March 25 through March 27, 2008. The public was notified of these meetings

through advertisements in the local newspapers, mailed invitations, and invitation

notices presented at the Routing Work Group Meetings. The open houses were held

at the following locations throughout the project area between the times specified

below.

Monday, March 17, 2008

3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.

Eagle Trace Golfers Club

1100 NW Main St

Clearwater, MN 55320

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.

American Legion

265 County Road 173

Melrose, MN 56352

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.

Arrowwood Resort & Conference

Center Minnesota

2100 Arrowwood Lane NW

Alexandria, Minnesota 56308

Thursday, March 20, 2008

3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.

Barrett Community Center

109 Barrett Ave

Barrett, MN 56311

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.

Bigwood Event Center

925 Western Avenue

Fergus Falls, Minnesota 56537

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.

Best Western Doublewood Inn

3333 13th Ave S

Fargo, ND 58103

Thursday, March 27, 2008

3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.

St. Mary's School Gymnasium

221 North 4th Street

Breckenridge, MN 56520

2

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

Invitations to the second phase of open houses were mailed to approximately 37,000

stakeholders within the notice corridors.

The purpose of the second phase of open houses was to:

Explain the Routing Process

o The public was presented with maps demonstrating the steps involved in

the routing process and an explanation of what the routing process entails.

Present Division of Project Area

o Due to timeline, routing, and to meet the critical electrical needs in the St.

Cloud area, the project area from Fargo to Monticello was divided into two

separate projects: Fargo to St. Cloud and St. Cloud to Monticello. The

public was presented with this concept.

Present Potential Route Alternatives

o For the Monticello to St. Cloud area, the Project was in the potential route

alternatives phase.

Present Refined Corridors

o For the Fargo to St. Cloud area, the Project was in the refined corridors

phase.

Seek Feedback from Attendees

o During Phase II of the process, feedback regarding local environmental

considerations, issues, or concerns and comments regarding the

community outreach process was solicited.

A third phase of open houses is planned for May 29, 2008 and will present proposed

routes for the Monticello to St. Cloud Project. The potential route alternatives for the

Fargo to St. Cloud Project third phase of open houses are planned for June 2 through

5, 2008.

2. Venues

Each of the open houses was held at a different location within the project area. The

venues varied per location in order to accommodate large crowds. They included hotel

banquet rooms, school halls, local organization buildings, etc. These venues were

selected to offer the public multiple opportunities and dates to attend the open houses.

3

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

3. Format

Each of the open houses was set up as an interactive open house. Attendees could

arrive at each open house between specified hours, receive Project information, view

information display boards, and speak one-on-one with CapX2020 personnel and their

consultants at different stations throughout the room. This format is preferred in that

the duration typically accommodates a larger audience, individuals can feel

comfortable asking questions one-on-one with Project representatives, and it sets the

stage of expectation for future open houses, as the intended audience will continue to

evolve throughout the process. An example of the general open house layout is shown

in Figure 1. It should be noted that, because the open houses were held at different

locations, the layout at each meeting may have varied slightly from what is depicted in

the figure.

Each attendee had an opportunity to collect Project informational handouts such as

Project fact sheets, Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF): the basics, permitting

requirements, and many more. A copy of this information can be found on the Project

website (www.capx2020.com).

Copies of the display boards used at each of the open houses are available to view at

the Project web site (www.capx2020.com).

The following is a brief description of each open house station:

Registration All attendees registered before going into the open house and received

a name tag. Registration information is used for future correspondence and as an

attendee record.

Project Background At this station, attendees gained an understanding of why the

Project is necessary and how it will benefit their interests.

Engineering At this station, engineers from the CapX2020 consortium provided

attendees with information on the transmission line components and the various types

of structures that may be built for this Project. Attendees saw hands-on displays

showing sections of conductors and had an opportunity to ask specific questions about

transmission lines, their operation, and construction.

Video Viewing Area Attendees could view a video on the construction of a

transmission line which covered the process from surveying to the stringing of lines.

4

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

Routing and Environmental Considerations Here, attendees were provided with a

detailed description of the routing process. Map boards of the St. Cloud to Monticello

area were used to illustrate the routing process on a step-by-step basis. The attendees

were presented with both the refined corridors for the Fargo to St. Cloud area and the

potential route alternatives for the St. Cloud to Monticello area. Attendees had an

opportunity to ask questions about the route selection process. At this station,

attendees were also presented with the concept of the division of the project area into

two separate projects: Fargo to St. Cloud and Monticello to St. Cloud. The attendees

were informed of the reasoning behind this and that these would be the two projects

going forward.

Community Outreach – Attendees were informed of the community outreach process.

The station included a diagram depicting the project timeline for community outreach

as well as filing route applications with the states. Attendees were presented with a

summary of the events of the first phase of open houses, including a summary of some

of the comments submitted by the public, as well as pictures from the previous open

houses. Further, attendees were provided with the appropriate agency contact

information necessary to participate in the Certificate of Need review process and the

subsequent route permit review process.

Map Station Attendees had a chance to view detailed project maps and talk with

CapX2020 representatives about their property in relationship to the potential route

alternatives and the refined corridors.

Interactive GIS Stations – Two interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

stations are set up to provide each attendee the opportunity to enter comment

attributes real-time to a specific point, area, or linear feature as the GIS is projected to

a large screen. Attendees could request detailed aerial maps of their property or

properties as they relate to the project area. These maps were then printed for the

attendees.

Energy Conservation – This station focused on options for energy conservation.

Attendees could ask questions regarding energy conservation and see examples of

easy ways to reduce energy use.

Comment Station Each attendee was offered and encouraged to complete a

comment form at the second phase of open houses. Appendix A contains a copy of

the comment form.

5

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

4. General Notification

The following methods were used to publicize the open houses:

Newsletters informing the public of the open house dates were sent to

approximately 37,000 stakeholders within the project notice corridors. An additional

365 stakeholders, who were not originally in the notice corridors, were added to the

newsletter mailing list because of further routing analysis. These corridors

included individuals, groups, and agencies identified as having property located

within the notice corridors. A copy of the newsletter can be found on the Project

website (www.capx2020.com).

Advertisements announcing the open houses were published in the following

newspapers:

Alexandria Echo Press3/12/08

St. Cloud Times3/9/08

Breckenridge Daily News3/9/08

Clearwater Tribune3/8/08

Elbow Lake Grant County Herald3/12/08

Fargo Forum3/9/08

Fergus Falls Daily Journal3/8/08

Hoffman Tribune3/13/08

Melrose Beacon3/8/08

Sauk Centre Herald3/8/08

Belgrade Observer3/12/08

Brooten Bonanza Valley Voice3/13/08

Cold Spring Record3/11/08

Glenwood Pope County Tribune3/10/08

Barnesville Record-Review3/10/08

Elbow Lake Grant County Herald3/12/08

Herman Review3/13/08

Wheaton Gazette3/11/08

A copy of the advertisement can be found in Appendix B.

6

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

A public open house notification flyer was handed out to all attendees at the

Routing Work Group Meetings held on March 4, 5, and 6, 2008. A copy of this

flyer is included in Appendix C.

The Project web page (http://www.CapX2020.com) was referenced in all public

information pieces including the Project brochure, Project newsletters, Project fact

sheets, and comment form.

A toll-free phone hotline (866-876-2869) was created for the Project. This number

is referenced in all public information pieces including the Project brochure, Project

newsletters, and Project fact sheets. A representative answers the call and directs

the caller’s questions to a CapX2020 partner representative.

A general e-mail address ([email protected]), which allows people to e-

mail questions to representatives, was created for the Project. The e-mail address

is referenced in all public information pieces including the Project brochure, Project

newsletters, and Project fact sheets.

5. Meeting Attendance

Registered attendance at the second phase of open houses totalled 443 people.

Attendees included residents of the project area, local business owners, local

organizations, people involved in the energy sector, and representatives of government

agencies.

Due to the size of the project area, six open houses were held at locations distributed

throughout the project area. A listing of the number of attendees per public meeting

location and date is provided in Table 1. If an attendee was unable to attend at one

meeting location, the next closest meeting offered an opportunity to attend on another

day. Table 2 provides a list of all 443 attendees by municipality. The distribution of

attendees by municipality throughout the project area can be seen in Figure 2. As

previously noted, the public meetings were also attended by local government officials.

Although open house attendance at the Phase II Open Houses was slightly less than

that at the Phase I Open Houses, the distribution of attendees was significantly higher

in the St. Cloud to Monticello area. Figure 3 shows the distribution of Attendees for

both Phase I and Phase II of the open house process.

7

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

6. Public Input

Table 3 lists attendee comments submitted during the second phase of open houses.

This summary reflects questions and comments directed to the Project team during the

meetings and those submitted on the comment forms.

The summary has been prepared based on a review of 88 comment forms completed

and submitted by attendees at the second phase of open houses.

In general, attendees were concerned about:

Land use – property devaluation and planned development

Agricultural use – power lines interfering with operations

Visual impacts on natural surroundings

Effects on health

Where the proposed line will be located

Loss of trees

Proximity to homes

Making use of existing transmission line routes

Continuing to communicate with the public

Costs

Siting criteria

Interference with TV, radio, and cell phones

Currently hosting a transmission line or pipeline and don’t want to host anything

else

Wobegon Trail and bike trails should not be considered

Impacts to the environment including lakes, wetlands, animals and vegetation.

Questions identified from comment forms were addressed by a letter, phone call, or

email from a CapX2020 representative. The information provided on the comment

forms is directly utilized in the routing process as well as the community outreach

process.

8

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

Tables

9

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

Table 1 Phase II Open House Attendance by Location

Date Location AttendanceMarch 17, 2008 Clearwater, MN 177March 18, 2008 Melrose, MN 111March 19, 2008 Alexandria, MN 60March 20, 2008 Barrett, MN 14March 25, 2008 Fergus Falls, MN 29March 26, 2008 Fargo, ND 43March 27, 2008 Breckenridge, MN 9Total 443

10

Phase II Open House

Summary Report


Municipality Attendance

Albany 8

Alexandria 27

Avon 15

Barnesville 6

Barrett 4

Battle Lake 1

Brandon 1

Breckenridge 1

Campbell 4

Chaska 1

Clear lake 2

Clearwater 54

Cold Spring 2

Edna 1

Elbow Lake 2

Elizabeth 1

Erhard 1

Evansville 2

Fargo 8

Felton 2

Fergus Falls 14

Freeport 14

Garfield 1

Glenwood 1

Glyndon 5

Hancock 3

Harwood 1

Hoffman 1

Horace 1

Kensington 3

Lake Osaka 1

11

Phase II Open House

Summary Report


Municipality Attendance

Litchfield 1

Little Falls 1

Maple lake 1

Melrose 27

Minneapolis 1

Monticello 23

Moorhead 13

Nelson 3

Norcross 1

Osakis 4

Paynesville 2

Prior lake 1

Richmond 1

Rothsay 5

Sabin 1

Sartell 3

Sauk Centre 17

Sauk Rapids 1

St. Augusta 9

St. Cloud 50

St. Joseph 8

St. Peter 1

Unknown 66

Villard 2

Wahpeton 5

Waite Park 2

Wendell 2

West Fargo 3

West Union 1

Total 443

12

Phase II Open House

Summary Report


Question/Information Comments

Are there specific things you

would like us to know about

your property?

Natural wildlife/ecosystem, century farm, Watab River divided

two Indian tribes wet lands, woods unharvested. Please stay in

the I-94 corridor

Natural environment – Healthy ecosystem. Wildlife much wetland

– natural woods and grass lands and flora. Century Farm –

History of Indian tribes on either side of Watab River. Small

Agricultural Fields – woods – unharvested

Center Pivot Irrigators near Highway 8. The freeway is the

obvious choice least impact on animals, farming and wildlife

The option of running on the North side of I-94 would be bad for

me as the easement would include my front lawn, and would be

right up to my front door step. I have a tree line running on my

property line that runs parallel to I-94. You would be destroying

all my trees, and the noise buffer I have to the freeway. I would

like to see it follow and run parallel to the existing power line on

the north side of the river.

I’m close but not “in” a proposed corridor. I find it amazing and

“not cost efficient to go through all of this when there is already a

large ROW – I-94

The addition that I live in is wildlife and ponds and heavy woods.

We have only buried lines we also have a community well

supplying 16 + homes that would be affected by this line. The

home is my retirement plan and would be adversely affected the

value of my new home – and homes in our addition would lose

value and all aesthetic value. We are a residential road – Co. Rd

136 is more of a Major Road – now and future. The preference

would be to follow I-94 as close as possible as it is already

undevelopable for residential and already impacted. Thank you

I have 68 acres with 2 additional bldg sites. Sale of these or any

of this property would be close to impossible. I do have 1.6 acre

piece on the no. side of the I-94 freeway that could handle a pole

if you came down that side of I-94. Use the freeway right of way

or does that make too much sense?

Our farm is in government CRP program with two wildlife areas

and is now a natural environment for deer, birds, fox, pheasant,

13

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



etc. We have lived here 30 years and spent many dollars

improving this land. Our home, barn, sheds and greenhouse are

our living. We are senior citizens and ask consideration for the

years of improvement made on our land. We planted 20,000

trees in 1991 and now have a natural wildlife area

There is our home. County Zoning restricts 1 dwelling on 40

acres. If a power line splits our property we could not sell. Ugly

lines reduce value of property. Property in CRP program planted

20,000 Norway pines. These would be cut to run line making

ugly swath thru property. Trees are habitat for wildlife

We live on a farm and have cattle pasture right up to the frontage

road that runs parallel to the freeway. I feel it would not be a

good environment for our cattle. It would also run close to our

house

The properties I own (3) are large tracts of land to be used for

residential developments. This type of power line would affect

the whole developments not just the shaded area your maps are

showing

Besides this property, (residential home property), it also is

proposed to run the line through business property we own in

Lynden township. I feel it would be unfair to subject one

individual to have all the property they own compromised in this

manner. Our business property is located in Clearwater, MN

Lynden Township. This property has wetlands and is used for

upland game training. We feel that power lines at this location

would be detriment to our business and wildlife we propagate.

Concerned about the wetlands and also a historic stage coach

trail

We live on 5+ acres south of I-94 within the city limits of St.

Cloud. Our land and that which is immediately East and West of

us, is prime residential development land. If the power line must

come through our area I would prefer that it follow very close to

the I-94 right of way. The land south of I-94 is not as likely to be

residentially developed

Please put the lines next to the freeway that way we maintain the

14

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



rural Clearwater/environment of our township. The freeway route

does not require that you destroy homes or landscape

I live within 2 miles of I-94, west of Monticello Power Plan. It is

my hope that the line be routed as close to the interstate as

possible so it will not blight the natural and rural areas off of the

interstate

We bought this area to have a lifetime dream house. For the past

7 years we have been disrupted by a gravel pit which will

continue for the next 5 years. We would rather not have a large

power line going over our house. We are very concerned about

the health issues besides the noise humming, and interference

issues.

My property sits inside of one of your proposed corridors

alongside I-94. I would hope that you would stick to running the

power line on a path that parallels the freeway (I-94) and not

away from it where it would affect more home owners

My property is located in one of the proposed routes. My concern

is why this line cannot be easy answer is following I-94 with less

of an issue for property owners. My property value certainly will

be less if this line follows 104. Thank you

Am I of the proposed routes, the route goes right near fish Lake

S.E. of Clearwater. There are 10 houses right along the borders

of this route along the freeway. This would not allow for the 150 ft

distance between poles and homes. Also fish lake has been

designated an endangered waterway by the federal and state

governments

My wife and I raised our family on this farm. We left our previous

farm because of a power line. Our property is also going to be

affected by the Highway and I-94 cut across.

I-94 cuts right through the middle of our property. The land on

the last is zoned commercial in the comprehensive plan. It

already has water/sewer in stalled. This has high visibility to the

interstate and we’ve had offers on the property – If it needs to

follow the interstate the East side would be better. That part of

our land is in St. Cloud. The west side also has hundreds of

15

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



trees that were hand planted to shield us from the interstate.

Can’t they follow existing lines? We feel that building along the

interstate where there are no lines – land is much more

expensive etc.

Yes there are 10 homes along the north side of Fish Lake that

would be affected by the line along down I-94. Fish Lake is also

a distressed watershed and additional activity along it will further

adversely affect it.

From Hasty to Fish Lake the Option on the North Side of 75 is

not an option neither I nor my neighbours want to see as it would

impact a lot of homesteads. Some of these homes are lake

homes and I think this choice is a bad one

Yes! 5 environmental lakes in Albany twp and farming twp.

shouldn’t the corridor be 1500 to 2000 ft from these lakes and

wetlands. Current 69 kV corridor passes thru this area disturbing

waterfowl and wildlife

I would like to know if the line will cross my land or how close to

my land it will be I think the line should run along the Freeway to

disturb less private Property and wild life areas.

The Highway corridors would be the best, least intrusive route to

go. It would make more sense than going along a residential

road such as ours

Our Monticello property is in the orderly annexation area – and

we already have a pipeline and power lines crossing the property

so we don’t want anything more on our land

There are routes shown going across both ends of Runway

Approach Zones on (3) Approaches. This appears to not been

taken into account. This is not desirable from a safety standpoint

and the FAA would likely have issues with this

The family is in the process of turning ag land into

Commercial/Industrial It will also have a 4 lane Hwy within 10-15

years

It affects a farm site to be developed into commercial real estate

some day! Hopefully it would not take too much or any of it to be

16

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



developed

People of the townships live there because they enjoy the

country progress is inevitable. Hopefully common sense will

keep the Power lines on the I-94 corridor. Not in rural families

back yards. I understand this is only in the planning stage but

don’t devalue wreck or destroy what is in the townships. Put it

where the damage is already done. I-94

But with State Park going on South side of freeway interferes

with State Rest Area – which already has a tower use you own

land along the river

Sand

80 acres – available for corridor

We have a couple endangered plant species on our property and

I am very concerned with the well being of these treasures

Alongside hwy in Collegeville Area would be best location. Many

family farms have been in families over 100yrs

No

If the power line follows I-94 corridor. I would like to see it a

minimum of 150’ from the R/W this would leave farmers room to

farm around the structure

We live on West Union Lake and have farm property on either

side of the interstate 94. We don’t want this line on our property

for several reasons. 1 We have already endured a forced

condemnation of land when I-94 came there and chopped our

land into many pieces, having to travel thru town of West Union

to get to some of our land. 2. We have plans to develop several

lots on our land near the interstate. These home sites will be for

our children. 3. With West Union Lake there and enjoying the

wildlife etc. I would hate to look over the lake and see a big

power line, It’s bad enough we have to see an enormous grain

bin as we look across the lake

Love my house, would like to keep it

Yes, Galaxy Road – there is a community well – that services 15

17

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



homes – on the North side of Galaxy Rd. The well is in a pump

house Building that would be in the easement. Also it is very

difficult to find water in this area – so eliminating this well would

be disastrous to the residents of this area called Crestwood Hills

– Also most of this land is on a granite ledge and very rocky.

Also we have a Hospice House on Galaxy Road on the South

Side. They added onto their property and are having a peaceful

quiet setting with wildlife etc. for terminally ill patients and their

families. Would hate to see that destroyed

We want to be informed – if it will be coming on our property,

prior to submitting the 2 finals picks to state. If it would come on

our property – do we get any monetary

Our land has the following issues: wildlife nesting and rearing

area, wetlands, farm land/highly erodible land/farm site. The

proposed line would go right through our farm site. Check it out

We are building three wind turbines on our land. We have a 20

mega watt locally owned C-Bed type wind farm.

We have a dairy farm. We also have a lot of wet lands and

swamp in our area

In the city of St. Joseph, map there is a new school being built in

the upper right corner of that area. Also in that section there is

proposed 90 acre regional park.

I do believe the visual aesthetics of the Avon/St. Joseph stretch

of the I-94 corridor will be harmed by the construction of a high

voltage power line. The north side of I-94 in this stretch of

Stearns County features the Lake Wobegon bike trail – a

relatively new feature that is used by more and more people

each year. The trail has spurred business and recreation in the

community. The south side of I-94 is even more vulnerable. The

famous view of St. John’s University would be obstructed by this

power line. The SJU skyline as seen from I-94 is on one of

Minnesota’s most beautiful features. I urge you to utilize one of

the possible routes either to the north or south that by-pass I-94

in this part of the county

Our property includes sod fields located near the Melrose Golf

18

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



Course and another set of fields bordered by wetlands protected

by the MN. DNR

Part of the property is listed on the historical registry for historical

places. The historical society stated that the site may go farther

south

I have a stream, woods and wildlife on these premises. I also

have a 3 year old at home

We live on a natural environmental lake which is already crossed

by an 115kV, H-Fixture transmission line. I don’t feel that it is

environmentally responsible to cross with the bigger power lines

especially if crossing with a parallel (2nd

) line

Lynden Township Comp. Plan covers many aspects of the

overlying concerns: Retaining rural nature of this specific area

(the county road is textbook rural), retaining agriculture load in

production (many quality acres lost), Preserving trees/forests

(the tree loss in this stretch would include many 100 yr. oaks),

protecting sensitive watershed (Plum Creek to Dallas, Felges

and Warner Lake vulnerable), Eliminate erosion (loss of trees

would absolutely make erosion inevitable). Solution: Interstate 94

corridor, meets neighbourhood needs, and fulfills Lynden

township Comp. Plan goals. Solution: Use the I-94 corridor,

corridor sharing minimizes many impacts, commercial/industrial

interests will rebound quicker, car lots and rental eg. dealers by

example do not love and raise children at these sites along I-94,

is it really any cheaper to acquire ag. or recreational land versus

commercial/industrial land? Really? Isn’t it a social obligation to

corridor share and not disrupt unmolested area? Specific loss to

(my retirement hobby farm): rural nature of property destroyed,

ability to develop acres for residential zoning is in jeopardy,

naturally occurring springs and water lilies indicate high quality of

water in plum creek, (the line will destroy this despite the best

efforts), loss of critical oak trees (100 yard) are irreplaceable with

other vegetation, many neighbours will lose homes, loss of oaks

on shore of Dallas/Felges Lake will remove natural barrier (these

are environmental lakes in Stearns City)

Housing going up more and more around us. Bought our land for

19

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



retirement. Wouldn’t be able to sell it with power lines ½ mi.

away. Golf course by us. The satellite images are 2 yrs old. More

houses now.

Lot of water

There are many houses and farmsteads on county rd 182. I think

they should keep it on I-94 right of way

I have wetland areas. Do you go through them? What will power

lines do to property value for farmable land? Other farms may

not want to buy land that they have to farm around power poles

I think the new line should be kept along I-94’s right of way

I am particularly interested as an investor in a wind farm (in

development) in Pope County.

Irrigation system-end gun extends to the property line by the old

R.R right of way. I noticed in the comment section that only

comments opposing placing line along the Wobegon trail were

printed. I specifically noted in my letter the many reasons the line

should be on the trail none of those comments were printed.

Why

For future – info on home generated energy and how the public

can exchange energy on times of need and excess

We are building a new home on a new residential cul-de-sac and

are concerned because immediately south of our property is a

large DNR protected wetland and also to the east of our

property. We also have lots of tall trees south of our property as

well as north of our property

I am totally in support of this project going forward on a fast

track. We need this

We would not like line on these properties. Lines across the road

from house at this location. Plan to build and farming

No everything was covered

People would be more receptive to this project if the following

changes were made to the landowner compensation process:

Make payments free of state and federal taxes, make easement

20

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



payments monthly instead of lump sum

I want to go on record – place the line where there is already an

eyesore – along the Freeway. I currently view power lines to both

the North and South of my home

I think we need this project. As a land owner I need to know

where exactly on the property they would go i.e. How close to

edge of field, etc

A bike path has been established on part of the former

Milwaukee Railroad line directly south of Fargo. This area should

be preserved for further transportation needs as the Metro area

continues to grow and increase in population

Do you feel we are

communicating effectively

with you? How can we

improve?

Continue Communicating. Please Consider staying within I-94

corridor to prevent intrusion to environment history and

grasslands and wildlife in area and to prevent agricultural

intrusion

Yes (21)

Please keep us informed

No. Had to get gossip from neighbours. Poor Communication.

First mailing received on 3/14/07. Ads in newspaper not clear on

route or who’s affected, should have been more upfront.

Actually I am pretty impressed with the information provided

Yes, In light of the area covered, and the number of potentially

affected people, I believe that you are doing everything that you

can reasonably be expected

Good

I initially signed up for email notification of meetings when I

received the first mailing. The next mailing I received was for the

3/17/08 meeting. I would like to be notified of all public meetings

Yes – very informative

No please contact me by mail with any information that affects

my farm

Would like to attend the planning meetings that you have

21

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



between the info mtg.

We would like to be a part of the “round table” planning sessions.

Vaguely – at best. You show me all the options and no option

seems to be a choice Option, Meaning You don’t really tell me

which options you prefer

This mtg. (3-17-08) at Clearwater does not include any more

specific routing than earlier mtgs at Clearwater regarding areas

west of St. Cloud. When will this info – from St. Cloud to

Alexandria be available

Yes – Everyone was very willing to greet you and assist w/

anything a person needed Very helpful

Yes. I would like to talk personally with someone on this

Yes keep us informed on future progress

Good Communication

Yes I think you answered a lot of questions that you are able to

at this time

Yes. Nice job

OK – Could place a picture of the type of structure in the local

papers

Yes meetings are good

Yes everyone was very informative and answered all the

questions I have at this time. Thank you

Yes - very informative

Yes, I need to go to meeting like this

The mailings have been very informative. The open-house today

is well run and the staff was helpful. Although my neighbour ask

me why these lines can’t be buried

So far. Enjoyed talking to the Open House Reps – pleasant and

informative

Yes you are communicating effectively

22

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



Create updates on a website so that citizens can see the latest

information routes and the tables. It seems a lot happens

between meetings. That would be better to be brought current at

a more convenient time and method

Yes but feel it won’t make a difference what we say

Not really. Very little new info was available

Yes – the meetings and open houses are helpful

Yes – good job

Yes, Great communication

Thank you for keeping us informed

Yes – People appeared to be open and honest very well

informed. Nice setup I could not get the Fargo-Monticello line

web page up. Very well done.

The Open House is a good way to show those affected what to

expect

Communications at the meetings are great. Please make these

same presentation materials available on a website for those

unable to attend

Are there topics you would

like more information on?

The decision making process for the final two alternatives. Also,

how the PUC makes its decision

None at present. Thank you

What is the environmental effect of wildlife? Run lines along

freeway or underground

I would suggest between St. Joseph and Monticello to try to stay

along I-94 and use old railway bed as much as possible. This

would have least impact I would think

I would like to know what priority items are ranked for example

wetlands versus residential. I saw the list of considerations but

would like to know how items are set in the ranking. I would like

to know if you have considered running along the abandoned

Rail Road bed between Monticello and St. Cloud

23

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



Final route selection prior to filing the application

Yes how does it affect the value of my farm for further

developments

LED Light bulbs

What specific guidelines are considered in routing lines at the

edge of environmental lakes and what distances are acceptable

from lakes

Location of capacitors on main grid. Are fuel cells a part of

overall planning

The two proposals that are state we would like to see it

No you have it covered pretty well

Yes, information on homeowners rights in such matters

Following the freeway would be the best route

Wind Generation

Impacts on the environment – wildlife – flora and fauna

Any changes from alongside I-94 is St. Wendel Township I

would be concerned

No (3)

Ask me later

On the St. Augusta Galaxy Rd area and other Routes in the

area. Also health effects

Are they going to Build a 69 kV from Alex – to Glenwood

Health concerns. What research has been done on people who

live within a quarter mile of high voltage lines

Eminent domain

Health concerns

Why can’t I-94 be used all the way

Kept informed on Route

24

Phase II Open House

Summary Report



The effect on TV and signals

How is the environment going to be affected? Are property

values going to go down? And if possible if your land is one of

the sites for a proposed tower, how will you be compensated

Exactly what decisions and elements are used in making

decision of what route to use for the transmission line and where

and when it might be feasible to upgrade an existing

transmission line

I have a living snow fence planted alongside I-94, from freeway

fence into my field 250’. It is part of a CRP contract. I don’t want

to lose that area. It cost a lot to put it in. The trees are all planted

with plastic weed protection. What about using other power line

easements that are already there

Abilities to interface with wind and solar power generation

EMF – I know someone who got sick from it

None

As time goes on – environmental assessment efforts

25

Phase II Open House

Summary Report

Figures

GENERAL PUBLICMEETING LAYOUT

Registration Desk and Name Tags

Project Background EngineeringTV

DVD Viewing

Area

Routing and Environmental

Considerations Area

Community Outreach

Energy

Conservation

CommentsGIS Station 1 GIS Station 2

Drin

ks / C

oo

kie

s

Entrance/Exit

"Open House" Sign

Detailed Corridor Map Area

Drawn By: E. Cowan

Checked By: H. Hilchey

File: Open House Layout for Phase II.dwg

Layout:

Date: 4/15/08

Figure 1

GENERAL PUBLICMEETING LAYOUT

Station 1

Station 2Station 3

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

NORTH DAKOTASOUTH DAKOTA

MINNESOTASOUTH

DAKOTA

59

71

59

210

CASS

RICHLAND

SaintAugusta

WestFargo

Wahpeton

94

29

94

169

10

75

59

12

71

10

59

75

10

169

169

10

52

34

64

9

84

21013

18

55

371

27

28

6

29

127

78

47

238

87

200

4104

32

95

25

2423

108

15

54

114

109

79

227

235

115

46

11

228

287

106

123

232

152

10

101

236

75

225

237

309

226

30212

55

55

15

210

371

34

9

23

104

127

152

6

47

108

28

28

28

55

27

114

78

210

23

27

24

29

119

29

25

9

108

27

106

210

55

34

87

27

4

27

CASS

OTTER TAIL

CLAY

TODD

BECKER

STEARNS

AITKIN

POPE

SWIFT

MORRISON

WILKIN

CROW WING

GRANTDOUGLAS

STEVENS

WADENA

TRAVERSE

WRIGHT

BIG STONE

HUBBARD

BENTON

SHERBURNE

KANDIYOHI

MILLELACS

MEEKER Otsego

Saint Cloud

Baxter

Fargo

Becker

Brainerd

Fergus Falls

Detroit Lakes

Alexandria

Morris

Little Falls

Wadena

Monticello

Staples

Crosby

Park Rapids

Princeton

Glenwood

Ortonville

Sauk RapidsFoley

MilacaMelrose

Perham

Benson

Sauk Centre

Annandale

Dilworth

Appleton

Barnesville

Long Prairie

Breckenridge

Pelican Rapids

Saint Joseph

PaynesvillePHASE II PUBLIC

MEETING ATTENDEESPHASE II PUBLIC

MEETING ATTENDEESDrawn By: M. Koch

Checked By: E. CowanFile: C:\Projects\CapX\GIS Data\MXDs\Phase II Pub Meet Attendees Map.mxd

Date: 05/12/2008

Figure 2

File ID: PII_PubMeetAttendees_2R

CANADA

WISCONSIN

SOUT

H DA

KOTA

NORT

H DA

KOTA

IOWA

Lake Superior

0 10 205Miles

LegendPhase II Public MeetingAttendee LocationsInterstateUS HighwayState HighwayCounty Road / Secondary RoadMunicipalities

Note: - Of the 392 people that attended the Phase II Open Houses, 266 (68%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - The other attendees' addresses were not able to be geo-coded because of either 1) no address was provided, 2) addresses only included post office boxes or 3) addresses did not match geocoding database.

NORTH DAKOTASOUTH DAKOTA

MINNESOTASOUTH

DAKOTA

59

71

59

210

CASS

RICHLAND

SaintAugusta

WestFargo

Wahpeton

94

29

94

169

10

75

59

12

71

10

59

75

10

169

169

10

52

34

64

9

84

21013

18

55

371

27

28

6

29

127

78

47

238

87

200

4104

32

95

25

2423

108

15

54

114

109

79

227

235

115

46

11

228

287

106

123

232

152

10

101

236

75

225

237

309

226

30212

55

55

15

210

371

34

9

23

104

127

152

6

47

108

28

28

28

55

27

114

78

210

23

27

24

29

119

29

25

9

108

27

106

210

55

34

87

27

4

27

CASS

OTTER TAIL

CLAY

TODD

BECKER

STEARNS

AITKIN

POPE

SWIFT

MORRISON

WILKIN

CROW WING

GRANTDOUGLAS

STEVENS

WADENA

TRAVERSE

WRIGHT

BIG STONE

HUBBARD

BENTON

SHERBURNE

KANDIYOHI

MILLELACS

MEEKER Otsego

Saint Cloud

Baxter

Fargo

Becker

Brainerd

Fergus Falls

Detroit Lakes

Alexandria

Morris

Little Falls

Wadena

Monticello

Staples

Crosby

Park Rapids

Princeton

Glenwood

Ortonville

Sauk RapidsFoley

MilacaMelrose

Perham

Benson

Sauk Centre

Annandale

Dilworth

Appleton

Barnesville

Long Prairie

Breckenridge

Pelican Rapids

Saint Joseph

PaynesvillePHASE I & II PUBLIC

MEETING ATTENDEESPHASE I & II PUBLIC

MEETING ATTENDEESDrawn By: M. Koch

Checked By: E. CowanFile: C:\Projects\CapX\GIS Data\MXDs\Meeting Summaries\Phase I and II Pub Meet Attendees Map.mxd

Date: 04/22/2008

Figure 3

File ID: PI&II_PubMeetAttendees_1R.pdf

CANADA

WISCONSIN

SOUT

H DA

KOTA

NORT

H DA

KOTA

IOWA

Lake Superior

0 10 205Miles

Legend

Phase II Public MeetingAttendee LocationsInterstateUS HighwayState HighwayCounty Road / Secondary RoadMunicipalities

Phase I Public MeetingAttendee Locations

Note: - Of the 448 people that attended the Phase I Open Houses, 270 (60%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - Of the 392 people that attended the Phase II Open Houses, 266 (68%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - The other attendees' addresses were not able to be geo-coded because of either 1) no address was provided, 2) addresses only included post office boxes or 3) addresses did not match geocoding database.

A

Appendix A

Open House Comment Form

QQQuuueeessstttiiiooonnnnnnaaaiiirrreee aaannnddd CCCooommmmmmeeennnttt FFFooorrrmmm PPPHHHAAASSSEEE 222 PPPUUUBBBLLLIIICCC MMMEEEEEETTTIIINNNGGGSSS

FFFAAARRRGGGOOO TTTOOO MMMOOONNNTTTIIICCCEEELLLLLLOOO TTTRRRAAANNNSSSMMMIIISSSSSSIIIOOONNN LLLIIINNNEEE PPPRRROOOJJJEEECCCTTT Thank you for your interest in this Project. Please complete the appropriate sections of this form to be included on the Project mailing list and to provide any comments or questions you would like addressed. You may submit your comments in writing in the space provided below and submit them either at the meeting or by mail to the address specified on the back of this form. You can also call 866-876-2869 for additional information.

I would like to be kept informed of the ongoing progress of this Project. Please include my name on the mailing list.

PLEASE PRINT e-mail address (optional) Name Organization Daytime Phone No. (optional) Street Address City State Zip Code Are there specific things you would like us to know about your property? (please continue on back if necessary)

Do you feel we are communicating effectively with you? How can we improve?

Are there topics you would like more information on?

Thank you for your time and interest in the Project

Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency ● Dairyland Power Cooperative ● Great River Energy Minnesota Power Minnkota Power Cooperative ● Missouri River Energy Services ● Otter Tail Power Company ● Rochester Public Utilities

Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency ● Wisconsin Public Power Inc. ● Xcel Energy

Please fold in thirds, staple and affix postage.

Fargo to Monticello Project P.O. Box 9451

Minneapolis, MN 55440-9451

Affix Postage

A

Appendix B

Advertisement

aemerson

TextBox

B

~ P U B L I C N O T I C E ~CapX 2020 Utilities

Host Public Meetings In Your AreaThe CapX 2020 utilities are holding anotherround of open houses in late March inseven communities to provide informationon the proposed electric transmission linebetween Fargo, Alexandria, St. Cloud andMonticello. Utility representatives will beavailable to answer questions about theproposed 345 kilovolt (kV) line and substa-tions and to discuss and collect informa-tion in the ongoing route developmentprocess. The open houses will includemaps that display revised corridors fromthe original notice corridor that was pre-sented last fall.

The Fargo-Monticello line is one of three345-kV lines being proposed by CapX2020, a joint initiative of 11 transmission-owning utilities in Minnesota and the sur-rounding region. The initiative is designedto expand the electricity infrastructure toensure continued reliable service, meet thegrowth in electricity demand and supportrenewable energy expansion. If approved,the proposed Fargo-Monticello line wouldbe built in phases to accommodate theneeds of the region. The projected in-serv-ice dates are:• Monticello to St. Cloud, 2011• St. Cloud to Alexandria, 2013• Alexandria to Fargo, 2015

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission(MN PUC) must approve two permit appli-cations before the lines can be built: aCertificate of Need (CON) and a RoutePermit. The CON application, which wasfiled on Aug. 16, 2007, examines whetherthe proposed facilities are necessary andwhat the appropriate size, configurationand timing of the projects should be. In aseparate Route Permit proceeding, the MNPUC determines the route and design ofthe line. The CapX 2020 utilities plan to filea Route Permit application with the MNPUC in late summer or fall 2008.

The CapX 2020 utilities also are involved insimilar proceedings for new transmissionlines with the North Dakota Public UtilitiesCommission.

If you are unable to attend the upcomingopen houses, submit comments by visiting www.CapX2020.com, calling 866-876-2869 or sending an email to [email protected].

For additional information on the regulatory process:

Minnesota Department of Commerce (www.commerce.state.mn.us)

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (www.puc.state.mn.us)

CapX 2020 utilities: Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Great River Energy,Minnesota Power, Minnkota Power Cooperative, Missouri River Energy Services, Otter Tail Power Company, Rochester

Public Utilities, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Wisconsin Public Power Inc. and Xcel Energy.

Monday, March 173 – 7 p.m.Eagle Trace Golfers Club1100 NW Main StClearwater, MN 55320

Tuesday, March 183 – 7 p.m.American Legion265 County Road 173Melrose, MN 56352

Wednesday, March 193 – 7 p.m.Arrowwood Resort & Conference Center 2100 Arrowwood Lane NW Alexandria, MN 56308

Thursday, March 203 – 7 p.m.Barrett Community Center109 Barrett AveBarrett, MN 56311

Tuesday, March 253 – 7 p.m.Best Western Bigwood Event Center925 Western AvenueFergus Falls, MN 56537

Wednesday, March 263 – 7 p.m.Best Western Doublewood Inn3333 13th Ave SFargo, ND 58103

Thursday, March 273 – 7 p.m.St. Mary’s School gymnasium221 North 4th StreetBreckenridge, MN

Open house schedule for Fargo-Alexandria-St. Cloud-Monticello 345-kV line:

B

Appendix C

Notification Flyer

aemerson

TextBox

C

Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency ● Dairyland Power Cooperative ● Great River Energy Minnesota Power Minnkota Power Cooperative ● Missouri River Energy Services ● Otter Tail Power Company ● Rochester Public Utilities

Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency ● Wisconsin Public Power Inc. ● Xcel Energy

MMMAAARRRCCCHHH 111777,,, 222000000888 333:::000000 PPPMMM ––– 777:::000000 PPPMMM

EEEAAAGGGLLLEEE TTTRRRAAACCCEEE GGGOOOLLLFFFEEERRR’’’SSS CCCLLLUUUBBB 111111000000 NNNWWW MMMAAAIIINNN SSSTTTRRREEEEEETTT

CCCLLLEEEAAARRRWWWAAATTTEEERRR,,, MMMNNN 555555333222000

MMMAAARRRCCCHHH 111888,,, 222000000888 333:::000000 PPPMMM ––– 777:::000000 PPPMMM AAAMMMEEERRRIIICCCAAANNN LLLEEEGGGIIIOOONNN

222666555 CCCOOOUUUNNNTTTYYY RRROOOAAADDD 111777333 MMMEEELLLRRROOOSSSEEE,,, MMMNNN 555666333555222


AAARRRRRROOOWWWWWWOOOOOODDD CCCOOONNNFFFEEERRREEENNNCCCEEE CCCEEENNNTTTEEERRR 222111000000 AAARRRRRROOOWWWWWWOOOOOODDD LLLAAANNNEEE NNNWWW

AAALLLEEEXXXAAANNNDDDRRRIIIAAA,,, MMMNNN 555666333000888


BBBAAARRRRRREEETTTTTT CCCOOOMMMMMMUUUNNNIIITTTYYY CCCEEENNNTTTEEERRR 111000999 BBBAAARRRRRREEETTTTTT AAAVVVEEENNNUUUEEE BBBAAARRRRRREEETTTTTT,,, MMMNNN 555666333111111


BBBIIIGGGWWWOOOOOODDD EEEVVVEEENNNTTT CCCEEENNNTTTEEERRR 999222555 WWWEEESSSTTTEEERRRNNN AAAVVVEEENNNUUUEEE

FFFEEERRRGGGUUUSSS FFFAAALLLLLLSSS,,, MMMNNN 555666555333777


BBBEEESSSTTT WWWEEESSSTTTEEERRRNNN DDDOOOUUUBBBLLLEEEWWWOOOOOODDD IIINNNNNN 333333333333 111333TTT HHH AAAVVVEEENNNUUUEEE SSSOOOUUUTTTHHH

FFFAAARRRGGGOOO,,, NNNDDD 555888111000333


SSSTTT... MMMAAARRRYYY’’’SSS SSSCCCHHHOOOOOOLLL 222222111 NNNOOORRRTTTHHH 444TTT HHH SSSTTTRRREEEEEETTT

BBBRRREEECCCKKKEEENNNRRRIIIDDDGGGEEE,,, MMMNNN 555666555222000

YYYOOOUUU’’’RRREEE IIINNNVVVIIITTTEEEDDD TTTOOO AAA PPPUUUBBBLLLIIICCC OOOPPPEEENNN HHHOOOUUUSSSEEE!!!

CapX 2020 is a joint initiative of 11 transmission-owning utilities in Minnesota and the surrounding region working together to implement a strategic plan to expand the electric transmission grid to ensure continued affordable reliable service, increase local capacity in response to job and population growth and to support renewable energy expansion. This is the first major upgrade to the regional transmission system in over 25 years. The proposed CapX 2020 Fargo to Monticello project involves the development of a new 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that will connect at substations in Fargo, Alexandria, St. Cloud and Monticello. The line would be built in phases beginning in 2010 with completion around 2015. A project area map is depicted below.

The upcoming public meetings will focus on the need for the proposed line as well as the route development process, including refinement of the preliminary notice corridors

Arrive anytime between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.

We look forward to seeing you!

For more information about the Fargo to Monticello Project, call toll free at 111---888666666---888777666---222888666999 or email ffaarrggooiinnffoo@@ccaappxx22002200..ccoomm.

Fargo to Monticello Project Phase II Open Houses...3333 13th Ave S Fargo, ND 58103 Thursday, March...

Documents

Transcript of Fargo to Monticello Project Phase II Open Houses...3333 13th Ave S Fargo, ND 58103 Thursday, March...