Fargo-St. Cloud Project Phase IV Open Houses
Summary Report
August 2009
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Fargo to Monticello 345 kV Transmission Line Project Phase I Public Meetings Summary Report
1. Introduction 1
2. Venues 2
3. Format 2
4. General Notification 3
5. Meeting Attendance 5
6. Public Input 5
Tables
Table 1 Phase IV Open House Attendance by Location
Table 2 Phase IV Open House Attendance by Municipality
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Figures
Figure 1 General Open House Layout
Figure 2 Phase VI Open House Attendees
Figure 3 Phase I, Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV Open House Attendees
Appendices
A Open House Comment Form
B Newsletter
C Advertisement
1.
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
1. Introduction
The following report summarizes the results of the fourth phase of open houses for the
Minnesota portion of the Fargo-St. Cloud 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line project
(Project).
CapX2020 hosted open houses on July 27-30 and August 3, 2009. Public notification
included advertisements and mailed invitations. The open houses were held at the
following locations throughout the project area between the times specified below.
Monday, July 27, 2009
5 – 8 p.m.
St. Mary’s School
210 N 3rd Street
Breckenridge, MN 56520
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
10 a.m. – 1 p.m.
Barnesville Public School Old Gymnasium
302 4th Street SE
Barnesville, MN 56514
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
5:30 – 8:30 p.m.
Best Western Bigwood Event Center
925 Western Avenue
Fergus Falls, MN 56537
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
10 a.m. – 1 p.m.
Barrett Community Center
109 Barrett Ave
Barrett, MN 56311
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
5 – 8 p.m.
Broadway Ballroom
115 30th Avenue E
Alexandria, MN 56308
Thursday, July 30, 2009
5 – 8 p.m.
Melrose High School
546 5th Avenue E
Melrose, MN 56352
Monday, August 3, 2009
5 – 8 p.m.
Albany Elementary School
10 Forest Avenue
Albany, MN 56307
Invitations to the fourth phase of open houses were mailed to approximately 37,000
stakeholders within the notice corridors.
The purpose of the fourth phase of open houses was to:
2
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Present proposed routes
o For the Minnesota portion, the Fargo-St. Cloud project was in the proposed
routes phase.
Seek feedback from attendees
o Each attendee was offered and encouraged to fill out a comment form and
provide feedback on the route options. Appendix A contains a copy of the
comment form.
This was the final phase of open houses for the Minnesota portion of the Fargo-St.
Cloud project. A final phase of community outreach for the remaining portion of the
Fargo-St. Cloud project in North Dakota is planned for 2010.
2. Venues
Each open house took place at a different location within the project area. To
accommodate large crowds, the venues varied – hotel banquet rooms, school halls,
local organization buildings, etc. – and were selected to offer the public multiple
opportunities and dates to attend.
3. Format
Each open house was interactive. Attendees arrived at each open house between
specified hours, received Project information, viewed information display boards, and
spoke one-on-one with CapX2020 personnel and their consultants at different stations
throughout the room. This format is preferred for several reasons: the duration typically
accommodates a larger audience; individuals feel more comfortable asking questions
one-on-one with Project representatives; 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. Please note that
because the open houses were held at different locations, each meeting’s layout 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, including on electric and magnetic fields (EMF), permitting
requirements and many more. Copies of this information can be found on the Project
website (www.capx2020.com).
Copies of the display boards used at the open houses are available to view at the
Project website (www.capx2020.com).
3
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
The following is a brief description of each open house station:
Registration All attendees registered before entering 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, CapX2020 engineers provided information on the
transmission line components and the various types of structures that may be built
Attendees viewed hands-on displays, such as a conductor section, and had an
opportunity to ask specific questions about transmission lines, their operation and
construction.
Video viewing area Attendees viewed a video on transmission line construction,
which covered the process from surveying to stringing of lines.
Routing and environmental considerations Attendees were provided with a
detailed description of the routing process. Map boards were used to illustrate the step-
by-step routing process. Potential route alternatives were presented. Attendees had an
opportunity to ask questions about the route selection process.
Map station Attendees viewed detailed project maps and talked with CapX2020
representatives about their property in relationship to the proposed routes.
Interactive GIS stations – Two interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
stations provided attendees the opportunity to enter specific comments about a point,
area or linear feature, as the GIS was projected onto a large screen. Attendees
requested detailed aerial maps of their property or properties as they related to the
project area. These maps were then printed for the attendees.
Comment station Each attendee was offered and encouraged to complete a
comment form at the fourth phase of open houses. Appendix A contains a copy of the
comment form.
4. General Notification
The following methods were used to publicize the open houses:
4
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Newsletters informing the public of the open houses were mailed to approximately
37,000 stakeholders within the project notice corridors. Stakeholders included
individuals, groups and agencies identified as having property located within the
notice corridors. A copy of the newsletter can be found in Appendix B.
Advertisements announcing the open houses were published in the following
newspapers:
Albany Stearns-Morrison Enterprise 7/21/09
Alexandria Echo Press 7/17/09
Barnesville Record-Review 7/20/09
Belgrade Observer7/22/09
Bonanza Valley Voice, Brooten 7/16/09
Clearwater Tribune 7/18/09
Cold Spring Record 7/21/09
Fargo Forum7/17/09
Fergus Falls Daily Journal 7/19/09
Grant County Herald, Elbow Lake 7/22/09
Herman Review 7/16/09
Hoffman Tribune7/16/09
Melrose Beacon 7/18/09
Monticello Times 7/16/09
Osakis Review 7/21/09
Pope County Tribune, Glenwood 7/20/09
Sauk Centre Herald 7/21/09
St. Cloud Times7/21/09
St. Joseph Newsleader 7/17/09
Wahpeton-Breckenridge Daily News 7/19/09
West Douglas County Record, Evansville7/16/09
Wheaton Gazette7/21/09
A copy of the advertisement can be found in Appendix C.
5
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
The Project website (http://www.CapX2020.com) was referenced in all public
information materials including the Project brochure, newsletters, fact sheets and
comment form.
A toll-free hotline (1-866-876-2869) was created for the Project and was
referenced in all public information pieces including the Project brochure,
newsletters and fact sheets. A representative answers calls 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 also created and was referenced in all
public information pieces including the Project brochure, newsletters and fact
sheets.
5. Meeting Attendance
Registered attendance at the fourth phase of open houses totalled 439 people and
included residents of the project area, local business owners, local organizations,
energy sector representatives, and government agency representatives.
Due to the project area’s size, seven open houses were held at locations 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 439 attendees by municipality. The distribution of
attendees by municipality throughout the project area can be seen in Figure 2.
Phase IV Open Houses attendance was slightly lower than at the Phase III Open
Houses in May and June 2008. The Phase IV attendee distribution was similar to
Phase III, with the concentration of attendees focused around the city centers and
meeting locations. Figure 3 shows the attendee distribution for Phase I, Phase II,
Phase III and Phase IV of the open house process.
6. Public Input
Table 3 lists attendee comments submitted during the fourth 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 96 comment forms completed
and submitted by attendees at the fourth phase of open houses.
6
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
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
Health effects
Location of the proposed line
Proximity to homes
Making use of existing transmission line routes and road corridors
Continuing public communication
Costs
Stray voltage
Impacts to businesses
Siting criteria
Interference with TV, radio and cell phones
Substation location
Currently hosting a transmission line or pipeline and don’t want to host anything
else
Impacts to the environment including lakes, wetlands, animals and vegetation
Questions 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.
7
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Tables
8
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 1 Phase IV Open House Attendance by Location
Date Location Attendance July 27, 2009 Breckenridge, MN 20 July 28, 2009 Barnesville, MN 20 July 28, 2009 Fergus Falls, MN 37 July 29, 2009 Barrett, MN 49 July 29, 2009 Alexandria, MN 118 July 30, 2009 Melrose, MN 82 August 3, 2009 Albany, MN 113 Total 439
9
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 2 Phase IV Open House Attendance by Municipality
Municipality Attendance
Albany 42
Alexandria 58
Ashby 4
Avon 8
Baker 1
Barnesville 7
Barrett 7
Brandon 1
Breckenridge 6
Burtrum 1
Campbell 2
Clearwater 1
Clitherall 1
Cold Spring 8
Collegeville 1
Dalton 3
Detroit Lakes 4
Elbow Lake 15
Elk River 1
Evansville 3
Fairmount 2
Fargo 1
Farwell 5
Fergus Falls 23
Freeport 16
Fridley 1
Garfield 6
Glenwood 4
Glyndon 2
10
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 2 Phase IV Open House Attendance by Municipality
Municipality Attendance
Hancock 2
Herman 2
Hoffman 9
Holdingford 2
Holmes City 1
Horace 1
Kensington 11
Lowry 4
Melrose 37
Miltona 1
Moorhead 4
Norcross 1
Northfield 2
Osakis 25
Paynesville 2
Richmond 2
Rothsay 5
Sabin 4
Sartell 2
Sauk Centre 42
St. Cloud 12
St. Joseph 9
Unknown 8
Vergas 2
Villard 1
Wahpeton 5
Waite Park 5
Wendell 1
Wolverton 3
Total 439
11
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
Is there any additional
information related to the
potential route alternatives
that we should be aware of?
I farm and am most interested that you concentrate the power
lines on section lines or other existing corridors such as roads
and highways. It’s a safety risk if you place poles in the center of
fields.
As these lines are primarily needed for the urban areas, routing
on/along public highways corridors makes sense.
We own 4 quarters of farmland south of Moorhead in sections
28, 34 and 35. We currently have a power line on the east side
of SW¼ of section 28 that serves Moorhead. This line is located
on the property line between the railroad and our farmland. This
line is a single wood pole and is less obtrusive to our farming
operations. However, we also have an Ottertail power line that is
located 70 feet into our farmland in the N½ of section 34 and the
NW¼ of section 35. We have farmed around these double wood
poles for forty years. Ottertail paid a small one-time payment for
an easement that they can still use forty years later and on into
the future and make no more payments. Our costs still continue
for rent, taxes, and insurance, added seed and chemicals. We
lose the income on land the poles are on and around the poles
where we overlap to fill in the area around the poles. We have
the liability of driving past these poles. We receive no rent and no
profit. Own neighbours who farm along side get to use all their
land. If we had to let the transmission cross N½ sec 34 and
NW¼ sec 35, it would be preferable to put all poles and lines on
one set of single metal poles. This would lessen the impact on
our farm.
Dwelling on north side of section 35, Elmwood Township along
County 63. Loss of farmland.
Quarter mile north of township 63 on section line.
Pipeline runs through this area not far from our home.
Buse residents indicate they do not want this line across the
township. On my property there is a buried gas line 60 feet south
of I-94 along Ottertail County 1, which is also +/- 40 north of a
wetland slew. Above the slew to the south is my building site. On
the east end of my property, the pipeline is approximately 100
12
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
feet south of I-94. This narrow strip of land is farmed for hay
land. Really don’t want to lose any of this hay land! 1) Use the
south route!!! 2) Stay on the north side of I-94 by section 9 of
Buse Township of Ottertail County.
There are many homes along County Road 4.
I will submit a map at a later date.
I am the MnDOT District 4 Utilities coordinator. I am wondering if
the information viewed is available in PDF files by email.
Best route – I-94 the whole way.
This would possibly go right in my back yard! Raising a family
with electrical lines running through the property does not excite
me.
We own a dairy in section 35, Ashly Township, Stearns County
just to the south of the 1,000 foot potential route. Please be sure
that we are unaffected by the transmission lines with our metal
buildings.
This route would be an eyesore for 66 lake shore owners on
Pocket Lake, and the end of Lakeview Resort, that has been in
business for 50 years.
I believe it is a must that MnDOT lets the power line build within
a distance of 20 feet or less from the interstate fence, which
would be much better for nearly all landowners.
The northern route around Melrose would be better because it
would impact residential areas less. The southern route would be
closer to more houses and residential and if Melrose ever grew
and expanded to the south the power line would be in the way.
Pertaining to the routes near Melrose, I feel the northern route
would be a better option because it is further from residential
areas and would have less impact on the current population and
future growth of the city of Melrose.
The south route through Melrose needs to be examined. Most of
the city is skirted, but not the eastern most area. Please consider
moving that with the section line to the east.
13
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
Please use the I-94 corridor.
I don’t want it in my yard.
Yes, the alternative route would go right through our yard. We
live on a dead end road. We farm and we have hunting land. We
just built a new house and the route would be right next to it.
We don’t want the northern route.
I am putting in a private grass airstrip that would be directly
impacted, safety wise, by power lines of this height. The
directions are 230° and 50°, 230° would mean taking off and
clearing very high power lines if they were there. The land is
taken out of CRP and already laid out by Stearns County FSA. It
should be operational in 2010.
Transmission lines on two sides of property are unacceptable.
Also, wetlands with CRP contract involved as well as danger of
young children around stray voltage, which is real. No political
B.S. please.
Why the jog onto Island Lake Road? Run the power line along
the interstate, bury in tricky areas.
R-1 zoning south of Albany (five miles).
The city of Albany will provide written comments on the three
routes proposed and such to be forwarded to Darrin Lahr.
How it will affect businesses along the route. The construction of
this along an optional corridor will directly affect our business.
Why not go in a straight line and impact less people.
In section 17, Avon Township along 360th Street, there is 300
foot tower on the south side of the road.
Island Lake Road is a narrow township road with numerous
houses close to the road. It doesn’t make sense to erect a huge
power line along that route.
Proposed southern route affects many homes close to Island
Lake Road and 260th Avenue. Also, wetlands in area make this
route undesirable.
14
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
Sensitivity for stray voltage for dairy farmers needs to be
addressed.
The potential route would cross or border my field which has
drain tile every 60 feet at a cost of $600.00 an acre.
If Brockway Township incorporates into a city, will this affect the
route? Next week is a hearing regarding this issue.
Island Lake Road is a sensitive area just as the Avon Hills Area
is.
Please do not put the substation in Waite Park.
1) Cluster development in the works with approximately 15
homes for future development area of Highway 10 and 380th
Street. 2) Most of the northwest corner of Albany Township going
into Krain Township is in a 5,000 acre footprint that a wind
company is attempting to set up a wind farm. This includes
Highway 39, which is part of one of your proposed routes.
50-foot electrical service cable easement on property, also oil
pipeline easement running through north to south on property,
wind farm easement on total property.
We would like to put an irrigation system on the proposed route.
We would like the line to go south of the property so we could
utilize the 80 acre field.
Along the interstate we already have transmission line, fiberoptic
cables, Woebegon Trail, we own land on both sides of the
interstate and always already have to go through Freeport, a six-
minute round trip. We have enough; it’s someone else’s turn.
This is not a matter of not in my backyard. It’s a matter of not
everything in my backyard. We have a gas pipeline, county road,
bike trail, numerous large fiberoptic lines, three-phase line, not to
mention an interstate highway. If there is no other way, please
consider putting the line on the west edge of the Freeport
Industrial Park.
After attending this meeting,
is there any additional
The only case supporting power poles in center of fields is if
there is a natural entity such as a duck pond where the poles
15
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
information that you’d like to
receive regarding the
project?
could be placed.
All routing plans.
I believe the I-94 route would be the best.
Would like updates on finalized plan of placement of power line
and how close it will come to our property.
Our son is buying our farm.
Why not use the I-94 route?
Please keep me informed on state, federal, and any route
alternatives.
What is the best method of hearing my voice? I have many other
people in my neighbourhood that are proactive and not reactive.
Please keep me informed with the ongoing process.
Any and everything.
What does EMF do to RFD or other frequency driven equipment
on a farm? What levels are the EMF?
What the final routes are.
I am very concerned about the effect the EMF has on people
health wise. How many studies have you done on this and who
has actually done these studies?
Yes, we need to know when the public hearings are.
Notification of line movement.
Stay on/close to existing rights-of way. The southern routes
come through our yard between our home and the one our son
and family are buying from us. We have developed the farm into
five lost that were supposed to go on sale this fall. We were told
we would only be compensated for 150-foot strip through our
wooded land and by our natural environmental lake. We can’t
sell anything for two years because we don’t know what’s
happening.
I haven’t received much. Little has been communicated. I believe
the northern options will impact less people than the southern
16
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
option.
Updates on route south and north of Albany.
Need to know what the proposed route will be and how we can
continue to voice opinion for or against.
More specific location, miss my property (10 acres).
I think using the right-of-way is dangerous to people slipping in
the ditch in the winter.
We did not receive any answers to these questions.
How will power lines affect my TV, cell phone reception?
No.
Concerns on housing and building setbacks, radio signal
interference, stray voltage.
Please keep us informed of any additional routes you could
follow for us to utilize this 80-acre field.
Please provide any other
comments you may have
(continue on back if
necessary).
As a landowner (farming), I feel that a route along I-94 would be
the least intrusive to my business. Routing along and directly
over property lines would be better than offsets from the line. Our
safety as farmers is important too. While not opposed to the line,
please keep landowners requests in mind. Would be happy to
show like respect to farms if asked.
Loss of farmland I rent on north side of Elkton Township, section
31. Loss of farmland I own on north side of Elmwood Township,
section 35.
Do not want it out my front door.
I think to follow I-94 would be the best route. Shortest and to get
out where the land is less productive.
Keep the structures as close to the I-94 fence as possible.
The value to rural home and property impacted by this power line
damage to property and trees, TV reception, health concerns,
and also concerns about possible future sale of home and loss of
value due to this project. I would not want this power line to go
17
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
across my property. It would destroy and impact our property
greatly! If line were to run on south side of I-94, would not impact
our property that much. There are no homes in blue area of map
on that side of I-94. I do not want to see a power line on my
property or have it 75 feet away from my house or my other out
buildings.
We hope you chose the southern route. Our retirement acres are
in section 15 of Buse Township.
I would like to see the power line constructed along the right-of-
way line of I-94.
We don’t want any more lines by the transmission line. We want
it to go along I-94. We have land by both and it would cause less
farming problems if it goes by I-94.
We are interested in the route of CapX.
I suggest the southern (alternate) route be used as it crosses
mostly open and unoccupied farmland. As opposed to following
I-94 along the Park Region Geographic, which is heavily
occupied, many lakes and other geographic obstacles, scenic
views.
Why would the southern route when it is further and more costly
to utilities and consumers just because of MnDOT’s attitude
towards lines on their right-of-way? Makes no sense.
We are concerned about health issues and property values
related to the power line.
Please consider southern route from Alex to Sauk Centre. Our
operation is a 2,000-head dairy located on the south side
corridor of I-94.
Thank you for all the great information. Great explanations from
Darrin Lahr.
Use the interstate route.
Why run these on personal and private property? Why not stay
on I-94 with the least level of resistance from owners.
We think the line should follow the I-94 corridor and we would
18
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
prefer to not have it right next to us.
See my note.
I think the poles should be right next to the interstate highway
right-of-way fence, not taking more land from the farmers.
I would like to see it put on the I-94 fence line. If possible it would
cause the least damage to the ag community which has already
dealt with the I-94 land acquisition.
We would like you to consider taking the southern country route
from Alexandria to Sauk Centre instead of the I-94 route. The I-
94 route will have many homes, businesses, farms, and irrigators
to deal with.
What do you do in the case where people are having health
issues with these lines? Do you recognize the issues and
actually do something or is the homeowner pretty much on their
own?
Our main comment is our dairy is within 150 feet of the road.
I support the interstate route. I have a new house and the other
route comes right through my yard and splits my land in half. It
will greatly depreciate my valuation.
We would like to see the interstate route; this would disrupt less
wildlife and farms. We do not want these power lines through our
yard.
Run the line along the I-94 corridor. What’s the difference, power
poles versus billboard poles? It’s already established, not using
our ag land.
Please don’t run the line on the northern route. Run along I-94.
I have a home which is close to the proposed route and road and
would like to see this moved to County Road 10, which had
homes further away from the line.
We are going to begin fighting this through every available
means.
Follow the interstate (I-94). This area has already been scarred.
19
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
Combine corridor, interstate highway. Most direct route, most
efficient in my opinion. Can’t see a lot of jogging.
I think they should strongly look at old railroad bed corridors.
I am in breast cancer treatment and do not need power lines in
my front lawn. I don’t want anything interfering with my recovery.
Our property (10 acres) is valued at $300,000, after line goes in
our front yard our property won’t be worth anything. Who is going
to compensate us for the loss of value of our property?
Follow the northern route through St. Wendel Township near and
existing power line.
The northern route passes adjacent to a residential
neighbourhood in northwest St. Cloud. To my knowledge, no
residents of the neighbourhood were notified. Because of the
potential impact to the neighbourhood, these residents should be
notified of future meetings.
This time, 5 – 8 p.m., is milking time in the rural area. Dairy
farmers who might be affected by this project are unable to
attend.
Environmentally, I’d like to see you stay away from Bel Claire
substation site (turtles in Mud Lake). For the sake of Waite Park
expansion, I hope you don’t run lines up County Road 137.
I believe the substation would stifle the growth of the city of
Waite Park. Put the substation more towards Avon, out in the
middle of nowhere.
I live near Mapleview Road in Farming Township, Stearns
County. A 69 kV transmission currently exists along a section of
Mapleview Road. I suggest if this route is chosen, the 69 kV line
and new 345 kV be combined.
Comments: No access to my land!!
I am opposed to any deviation from I-94 corridor.
We are very concerned about the line coming down County
Road 4 in Lake Mary Township.
Regarding proposed route through section 34, Legrand
20
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
Township, Douglas County. I own property on both sides of
Highway 27. I question why a more direct route through section
34 from west to east near the center of the township, was not
proposed. This change I believe would be more acceptable to
affected landowners.
I am very concerned about the possibility of this coming directly
in my backyard. I have three boys with the youngest being
almost six months. I recently moved to this area. If I would have
known this, I would not have considered buying this property.
This is not my idea of raising a family with this right in my back
yard.
Our commercial buildings are right at the edge of freeway right-
of-way on north side of I-94. Your line would have to stretch over
them; we have given permission for ALASD sewer to follow the
freeway on our north side of I-94 so we recommend the line go
along south side of freeway.
The route along interstate 94 makes so much sense that I’m
afraid that the government and the lawyers won’t route the
system where it makes the most sense.
We are concerned about the proposed alternative route around
the east and south side of Lake Mary going down County Road
21 and County Road 4 heading to North Dakota. We live on
Oriole Lane and are very much against this alternative route (as
are others in the area).
I am glad you’re not going by our land anymore. I think you
should follow the right-of-way of the freeway and not on
landowners land.
I like the proposed I-94 route as it makes use of existing corridor.
It should be placed in the interstate ROW rather than adjacent
private land as second choice immediately on the ROW line.
I feel strongly that the power line should run the most direct route
down the I-94 corridor. It does not make sense to jog south to
the Pope/Douglas County line and up 114. I strongly oppose that
alternative. Keep it on I-94 please! Keep costs down! Go straight
21
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
line down I-94!
I feel that the shortest route between two main points is and
straight line up I-94 would be the shortest route from point A to B.
Cost wise I-94 makes much more sense. I strongly oppose the
County line 114 route. Keep I-94 corridor route.
The route along I-94 would be best as along 114 and no. 4 there
are numerous homes and resorts close to the roads.
We have a 110-acre piece of land that is parallel to the freeway
and is presently part of this project. We already have a power
line with a 150-foot easement and now they are talking about
putting in another 150-foot easement on the south side of our
land. We are presently in negotiations with a developer about our
land. This is going to make a difference to them. It was sold in
2006 and the developer was going to put up 167 homes on the
land. This is going to be a lot of residential homes there
eventually. There will be less of an impact on our land if these
lines were to be put across the freeway from us on the south
side of the rest stop. There is an easement there already. We do
not want this on our land. It will affect the price of our land and
ruin the scenic views of any homes to be built in the future.
Nobody wants to look out their window at a 100-foot steel tower.
If the I-94 corridor is used, please keep it out of all Melrose city
limits. Our home is within the 1,000-foot area on the east of
town. There are homes and a street (12th Ave) east of us and in
city limits. The rest of Melrose is skirted, please do that with the
east limit also.
Existing power line on north side of 440th Street. Ashley
Township, section 34 (north) –center pivot irrigation. Comes up
township road on southern edge of section line.
Please run the line along I-94. Already have billboards, why not
power poles. Don’t waste my farmland.
Bad move, through wetland and on the edge of the lake shore.
Avon Township is a developing township.
Bad for environment, also disturbing wetland. Get health effects
22
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms
Question/Information Comments
with cattle.
Why would you not follow I-94? Not only would it be cheaper,
there would only be less than half as many people affected.
Please do not put the substation in Waite Park.
Thank you for holding this open house. It was informative.
23
Phase IV Open House
Summary Report
Figures
"Open House" SignStation 1
Registration Desk
and Name TagsStation 2
Project BackgroundStation 3
Engineering
GIS Station 1 GIS Station 2
Station 5Comments
DVD Viewing Area
TV
Detailed CorridorMap Area
Station 4Routing and
EnvironmentalConsiderations Area D
rin
ks / C
ookie
s
DRAWN BY: MLTeichertDATE: 08/19/09
REVISED: 08/19/09
M:\Clients\V-X\XCL\CapX\Fargo\_ArcGIS\2009\08\OH_Atendees\_XCL_CAPX_Fargo_OH_Layout.mxd
General Public Meeting LayoutGeneral Public Meeting Layout
REVISED: 08/19/09
M:\Clients\V-X\XCL\CapX\Fargo\_ArcGIS\2009\08\OH_Atendees\_XCL_CAPX_Fargo_OH_IV_Attendees.mxd
PHASE IV PUBLICPHASE IV PUBLICMEETING ATTENDEESMEETING ATTENDEES
Legend
55
115
235
123
25
54
27
79
109
225
210
106
287
22
10
127
15
18
95
6
238
84
329
87
228
9
106
28
108
24
34
46
237
11
415
78
200
32
23
64
7
27
210
28
127
29
13
9
47
114
371
104
236
227
169
10
75
59
59
71
75
1081
10
12
29
29
94
94
WADENA
CLAY
CASS
BIG STONE
BENTON
CASS
BECKER
TRAVERSE
STEVENS
TODD
SWIFT
STEARNS
SHERBURNE
OTTER TAIL
MORRISON
MILLE
LACS
MEEKER
POPE
GRANT
KANDIYOHI
ROBERTS
GRANT
HUBBARD
CROW WING
RICHLAND
WRIGHT
DOUGLAS
WILKIN
Fargo
Wahpeton
Alexandria
DetroitLakes
Melrose
Paynesville
SaukCentre
Barnesville
Fergus
Falls
PelicanRapids
SaintCloud
Monticello
Min
ne
so
t a
No
rth D
ak
ota
Min
nesota
So
uth
Dakota
North DakotaSouth Dakota
Phase IV Public MeetingAttendee Locations
Municipal Boundary
1:800,000
DATE: 08/19/09
DRAWN BY: MLTeichert
0 10 205
Miles
12
3
4
5
6
7
Minnesota
NorthDakota
SouthDakota
Wisconsin
Note: - Of the 439 individuals that attended the Phase IV Open Houses, 304 (69%) 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.
Interstate
US Highway
State Highway
County Road / Secondary Road
REVISED: 08/19/09
M:\Clients\V-X\XCL\CapX\Fargo\_ArcGIS\2009\08\OH_Atendees\_XCL_CAPX_Fargo_OH_Attendees.mxd
PHASES I, II, III AND IV PHASES I, II, III AND IV PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEESPUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEES
Legend
55
115
235
123
25
54
27
79
109
225
210
106
287
22
10
127
15
18
95
6
238
84
329
87
228
9
106
28
108
24
34
46
11
415
78
200
32
23
64
7
27
210
28
29
13
9
47
114
371
104
236
336
294
227
169
10
75
59
59
71
75
10
12
29
29
94
WADENA
CLAY
CASS
BIG STONE
BENTON
CASS
BECKER
TRAVERSE
STEVENS
TODD
SWIFT
STEARNS
SHERBURNE
OTTER TAIL
MORRISON
MILLE
LACS
MEEKER
POPE
GRANT
KANDIYOHI
ROBERTS
GRANT
HUBBARD
CROW WING
RICHLAND
WRIGHT
DOUGLAS
WILKIN
Fargo
Wahpeton
Alexandria
DetroitLakes
Melrose
Paynesville
SaukCentre
Barnesville
Fergus
Falls
PelicanRapids
SaintCloud
Monticello
Min
ne
so
t a
No
rth D
ak
ota
Min
nesota
So
uth
Dakota
North DakotaSouth Dakota
Phase I Public MeetingAttendee Locations
Phase II Public MeetingAttendee Locations
Phase III Public MeetingAttendee Locations
Phase IV Public MeetingAttendee Locations
Municipal Boundary
1:800,000
DATE: 08/19/09
DRAWN BY: MLTeichert
0 10 205
Miles
12
3
4
5
6
7
Minnesota
NorthDakota
SouthDakota
Wisconsin
Note: - Of the 448 individuals 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 individuals that attended the Phase II Open Houses, 266 (68%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - Of the 374 individuals that attended the Phase III Open Houes, 281 (75%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - Of the 439 individuals that attended the Phase IV Open Houses, 304 (69%) 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.
Interstate
US Highway
State Highway
County Road / Secondary Road
A
Appendix A
Open House Comment Form
QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirree aanndd CCoommmmeenntt FFoorrmm
PPHHAASSEE 44 PPUUBBLLIICC MMEEEETTIINNGG RREEDD RRIIVVEERR TTOO SSTT.. CCLLOOUUDD TTRRAANNSSMMIISSSSIIOONN LLIINNEE PPRROOJJEECCTT
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 workshop 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 Street Address Daytime Phone No. (optional) City State Zip Code Is there any additional information related to the potential route alternatives that we should be aware of?
After attending this meeting, is there any additional information that you’d like to receive regarding the project?
Please provide any other comments you may have (continue on back if necessary).
Thank you for your time and interest in the Red River to St. Cloud Transmission Line Project WWWWWW..CCAAPPXX22002200..CCOOMM
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.
Red River to St. Cloud Transmission Line Project P.O. Box 9451
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9451
Affix Postage
B
Appendix B
Newsletter
CapX2020UPDATEJ u l y 2 0 0 9
PresortedFirst-Class Mail
U.S. Postage
PAIDSaint Paul, MNPermit No. 3302
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 • WPPI Energy •Xcel Energy
CapX2020 seeks public input as it finalizes route optionsThe CapX2020 project team has narrowed the route options forthe Red River-St. Cloud project. Open houses have been sched-uled to take comments and feedback about route options that willbe proposed in the upcoming Minnesota Route Permit application,which will be filed in the fall.
North Dakota route options will be developed in 2010.More information on the North Dakota routing process willbe available later this year.The open houses will include maps that display the route options.Please stop by anytime to provide your comments on the routeoptions. No formal presentation is scheduled.
This line is one of three 345 kilovolt transmission lines proposedby CapX2020, a joint initiative of 11 transmission-owning utilitiesin Minnesota and the surrounding region. The initiative is designedto expand the electricity infrastructure to ensure continued reliableservice, meet the growth in electricity demand and support renew-able energy expansion.
If you are unable to attend an open house, submit comments byvisiting www.capx2020.com, calling 1-866-876-2869 or sendingat email to [email protected].
Contact informationProject development manager – Xcel Energy
Darrin Lahr, routing leadJerry Chezik, project managerPO Box 9451Minneapolis, MN [email protected]
What’s nextWhen CapX2020 finishes its evaluation and has determined itsfinal route options for the proposed transmission line, a RoutePermit application will be submitted to the Minnesota PublicUtilities Commission (MN PUC), beginning the process specified instate regulations. This includes public meetings, scoping for anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) and any routing additionsrecommended by the public or interested parties (recommenda-tions must be to the MN PUC within the first four months after anapplication has been filed), development of a citizen’s advisorytask force if needed, public hearings, a draft and final EIS and aRoute Permit decision. The North Dakota Public ServiceCommission oversees similar permitting processes in that state.After a comprehensive public process, the MN PUC determineswhether the Route Permit application should be granted, and if so,what route the transmission line should take.
The Minnesota Office of Energy Security is also significantlyinvolved in the process, including developing an EIS and conduct-ing public meetings regarding the report.
Monday, July 275 – 8 p.m.St. Mary’s School210 4th Street NorthBreckenridge, MN 56520
Tuesday, July 2810 a.m. – 1 p.m.Barnesville Public School – old gym302 3rd Street SEBarnesville, MN 56514
5:30 – 8:30 p.m.Best Western Bigwood Event Center952 Western AvenueFergus Falls, MN 56537
Wednesday, July 2910 a.m. – 1 p.m.Barrett Community Center109 Barrett AvenueBarrett, MN 56311
5 – 8 p.m.Broadway Ballroom115 30th Avenue EastAlexandria, MN 56308
Thursday, July 305 – 8 p.m.Melrose High School546 North 5th Avenue EastMelrose, MN 56352
Monday, August 35 – 8 p.m.Albany Elementary School10 Forest AvenueAlbany, MN 56307
Open house schedule
www.capx2020.com
PO Box 9451 | Minneapolis, MN 55440-9451
CapX2020UPDATEJ u l y 2 0 0 9
The route options for the Red River-St. Cloud project, shown below, were developed based on information compiled frommeetings with local landowners and government officials, state and federal agencies, and other interested parties. Additional feedbackon the route options is welcomed at the open houses. The project team expects to file a Minnesota Route Permit application this fall.
Red River-St. Cloud potential route alternatives
Stay informedThe best way to participate is to stay informed. Follow progress on the individual agency websites and on the CapX2020 website atwww.capx2020.com.
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MN PUC): To view the full docket (all documents filed with the MN PUC), go to the agency’swebsite at www.puc.state.mn.us, click on “eDockets & eFilings” on the left-hand side and then click “Search Documents” and searchfor docket 06-1115. To view the Monticello-St. Cloud Route Permit application, search for docket ET-2, E002/TL-09-246.
Legend
North Dakota route options will be developed in 2010. More information on the North Dakota routing process will be available later this year.
C
Appendix C
Advertisement
~ P U B L I C N O T I C E ~CapX2020 seeks public input as they
finalize route optionsCapX2020 is hosting open houses onthe proposed Red River-St. Cloud 345kilovolt transmission line. Project infor-mation, including maps depicting po-tential route options, will be displayed.Please stop by anytime to provide yourcomments on the route options. No formal presentation is scheduled.
CapX2020 plans to file a Route Permitapplication for the Red River-St. Cloudtransmission line project with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission(MN PUC) in the fall. A Route Permit application for the Monticello-St. Cloud345 kV transmission line project wasfiled April 8, 2009.
This line is one of three 345 kV linesproposed by CapX2020, a joint initiativeof 11 transmission-owning utilities in
Minnesota and the surrounding region. The initiative is designed to expand the electric grid to ensurecontinued reliable service, meet thegrowth in electricity demand and support renewable energy expansion.
If you are unable to attend an openhouse, submit comments by visitingwww.CapX2020.com, calling 1-866-876-2869 or sending an email to [email protected].
For additional information on the regulatory process:
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (www.puc.state.mn.us)
Minnesota Department of Commerce (www.commerce.state.mn.us)
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, WPPI Energy and Xcel Energy.
Monday, July 275 – 8 p.m.St. Mary’s School210 4th Street NorthBreckenridge, MN 56520
Tuesday, July 2810 a.m. – 1 p.m.Barnesville Public School – old gym302 3rd Street SEBarnesville, MN 56514
5:30 – 8:30 p.m.Best Western Bigwood Event Center952 Western AvenueFergus Falls, MN 56537
Wednesday, July 2910 a.m. – 1 p.m.Barrett Community Center109 Barrett AvenueBarrett, MN 563115 – 8 p.m.Broadway Ballroom115 30th Avenue EastAlexandria, MN 56308
Thursday, July 305 – 8 p.m.Melrose High School546 North 5th Avenue EastMelrose, MN 56352
Monday, August 35 – 8 p.m.Albany Elementary School10 Forest AvenueAlbany, MN 56307
Open house schedule