Red River Valley Water Supply Project
Environmental Impact Statement
SUMMARY OF JUNE 2003
PUBLIC MEETINGS
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
and
State of North Dakota
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
August 2003
RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUMMARY OF JUNE 2003
PUBLIC MEETINGS
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
and
State of North Dakota
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
August 2003
industrial water needs of the Red
River Valley.
INTRODUCTION
This Summary of June 2003 Public
Meetings compiles public and agency
comments received during public
meetings for the Red River Valley Water
Supply Project (Red River Project)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
This EIS will evaluate alternative ways
to meet the comprehensive water quality
and quantity needs of the Red River
Valley in North Dakota and East Grand
Forks, Moorhead, and Breckenridge in
Minnesota. Appendix A to this
summary includes written comments and
flip-chart notes from public meetings.
GDU Import to Sheyenne River
Alternative - This Missouri River
import alternative would link the
GDU Principal Supply Works to the
Sheyenne River to convey water to
meet the shortages of the Red River
Valley.
Missouri River to Red River
Import Alternative – This Missouri
River import alternative would use a
pipeline from the Missouri River to
meet the shortages of the Red River
Valley.
BACKGROUND
EIS Public meetings were held June 2326, 2003 in Grand Forks, Fargo, and
Valley City, North Dakota and in
Breckenridge, Minnesota. These
meetings provided the public an
opportunity to comment on alternatives
to be analyzed in the Red River Project
EIS. The alternatives were refined from
preliminary alternatives that were
reviewed during the initial scoping
process initiated in October and
November 2002.
North Dakota In-Basin Alternative
- This in-basin alternative would use
water supply sources within the Red
River Valley of North Dakota to
meet shortages.
Red River Basin Alternative - This
in-basin alternative would use
available surface, and/or
groundwater from Minnesota and
North Dakota to supplement water
supply sources to meet shortages.
The alternatives presented in the June
public meetings included:
Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU)
Import Pipeline Alternative - This
import alternative would use the
GDU Principal Supply Works and an
enclosed pipeline system to meet the
shortages of the Red River Valley.
No Action Alternative - This
alternative is the future without the
Red River Project.
SCOPING SUMMARY
The following paragraphs summarize
comments received during the meetings
and in correspondence. The wording is
intended to categorize and summarize
the substance of the comments, not
reproduce the exact wording of
individual comments. Many of the
comments are similar to those received
during the initial scoping period last fall.
GDU Water Supply Replacement
Pipeline Alternative - This import
alternative would use the GDU
Principal Supply Works and an
enclosed pipeline system to import
water from the Missouri River and
meet the full municipal, rural, and
1

Geographic Scope

Inclusion of areas near
Moorhead, Minnesota
Comment: A recommendation was
made to distribute the Department of the
Interior’s Water 2025 initiative to all
participants in the Red River Project.
Comment: A recommendation was
made to include Oakport Township and
Americana Estates which are scheduled
to be annexed by Moorhead, Minnesota.
Response: Water 2025 focuses on
reshaping and enhancing the tools that
will work to prevent crises and conflict
over water in the West. To make the
Water 2025 plan more accessible, a link
to the Water 2025 website, currently
found at http://www.doi.gov/water2025,
will be added to the
www.RRVWSP.com website, unless
security restrictions prohibit such links.
Response: This is a reasonably
foreseeable action. Oakport Township
and Americana Estates, which are
scheduled to be annexed by Moorhead,
Minnesota, will be considered in the EIS
analysis.
NEPA Process

Department of Interior’s Water
2025

Public Involvement
Comment: Most of the comments raised
about the NEPA process were related to
the need for more public awareness and
involvement, including coordination of
issues with Canada and the general
public.
Timeframe for Study
Comment: Questions were raised
concerning the timeframe of the project
analysis. Will there be a 50 year
planning horizon or predictions for 50
years from anticipated date of project
construction? It was suggested that the
time frame be 2060 instead of 2050.
Response: A public involvement plan
has been developed by the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) and the
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
(GDCD). Both Reclamation and GDCD
have public affairs staff to coordinate
efforts concerning this project.
Information is available on a web site
developed by Reclamation and GDCD.
This site is updated regularly and can be
found at http://www.rrvwsp.com.
Response: All of the current Red River
Project studies are based on a forecast of
the project to 2050. Any changes to the
2050 date would require revisions to
completed studies and potential delays in
the project schedule. The proposed Red
River Project is being designed for 2050.
Determination of Water Needs
Several individuals and entities
commented on various aspects of the
quantification of needs, and the
availability of surface water and
groundwater supplies to meet those
needs.
Canadian representatives have attended
Red River Project’s Technical Team
meetings and have commented on draft
plans and reports which provide an
avenue for coordination.
2

used in the EIS to assess impacts on the
recreation by the proposed alternatives.
Industrial Needs
Comment: Assertions were made that
the potential growth and expansion of
industry in the future and its subsequent
water demands are issues that need to be
addressed.

Comment: Measures included in
Reclamation’s draft report Water
Conservation Potential Assessment –
Red River Valley Water Supply Project
are considered to be either too
aggressive or too conservative,
depending upon the commenter’s
perspective.
Response: Estimating future industrial
needs is a key element in determining
the future water needs in the Red River
Valley. Reclamation, as part of the
Needs and Options Report, will evaluate
present economic activities and forecast
future activities in the valley. The
effects of the alternatives on industry
will be addressed in the EIS.

Response: The comments received
concerning Reclamation’s draft report
are being considered. Revisions to the
draft report are in progress. The report
estimates potential water savings that
could be achieved by implementing
water conservation in all alternatives.
The Dakota Water Resources Act
(DWRA) identifies water conservation
as a need to be included in the Needs
and Options Report.
Population Projections
Comment: Concern was expressed that
population projections were generally
too low.
Response: Using demographic
modeling, Reclamation has estimated
how many people will be living in the
valley in 2050. It is predicted that major
communities will increase in size while
rural populations will stay the same or
decrease.

Water Conservation Measures

Drought
Comment: Similar to the initial scoping
meetings, concerns were expressed
about the effects of drought on potential
water shortages and how drought would
affect the Red River and Missouri River
basins.
Recreation Needs
Comment: Recreation needs should be
better recognized and there should be an
understanding of who pays for future
development and management.
Response: Reclamation will evaluate
the effects of climatic cycles on
streamflow within the Red River and
Upper Missouri River basins. This will,
in part, be used to establish the
appropriate drought scenario to use for
hydrologic modeling and will provide an
understandable context regarding the
likelihood of more or less severe
droughts than previously experienced.
Response: Reclamation has completed a
draft Recreation Needs Assessment
Report to identify existing water-based
and water-dependent recreation facilities
and opportunities along the Sheyenne
and Red Rivers. Report results will be
3
Minnesota water as a supply was
politically feasible.
Scope of Alternatives
Although no new alternatives were
suggested during the meetings, there
were recommendations for coordinating
and implementing specific project
features as well as comments expressing
preferences for specific alternatives. As
required by the Council on
Environmental Quality implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1502.2[e]), a full
range of reasonable alternatives will be
evaluated in the EIS. These alternatives
will include a No Action and
development of in-basin and out-ofbasin water sources.
Response: The Minnesota communities
of East Grand Forks, Moorhead, and
Breckenridge have been added to this
proposed project’s service area.
Whether Minnesota water sources are
viable options will be evaluated during
development of the alternatives. The
EIS will summarize this information and
will disclose the legal steps necessary to
secure a water supply from Minnesota
and for Reclamation to construct
features outside of its authorized
geographic boundary of the 17 western
states.
The EIS will evaluate potential
environmental impacts of specific
alternatives together with engineering
and socioeconomic considerations.
Seven alternatives were presented during
this scoping period and are listed on
page 1. A preferred alternative has not
been identified at this time.


Comment: Questions were raised
concerning specific features such as
pipeline size and placement.
Response: Pipelines will be sized to
meet the needs as quantified in the
Needs and Options Report. Geographic
Information System layers have been
prepared that display the locations of
environmental resources such as critical
habitat for federally listed species,
ecological communities, wetlands and
streams, and historic properties.
Pipelines and other facilities will be
routed to avoid significant natural and
cultural resources whenever possible.
No Action
Comment: There are still concerns about
including a No-Action Alternative in the
EIS.
Response: The National Environmental
Policy Act requires a No Action
alternative in every EIS. The No Action
alternative will be the basis against
which all other alternatives will be
evaluated.

Pipeline Features

Ring Dikes
Comment: Concerns were raised about
the feasibility and practicality of ring
dikes.
Red River Basin Alternative
Comment: Support was expressed by
several commenters for the addition of
Minnesota communities; however,
commenters questioned whether using
Response: Ring dikes will be evaluated
as part of the Needs and Options Report
prior to incorporation in alternatives.
4


Lake Ashtabula
Hydrology Modeling of
McClusky and New Rockford
Canals
Comment: The possibility of raising
Lake Ashtabula elicited concerns for
surrounding property and impacts to
highways. How high would Lake
Ashtabula be raised and would this result
in a flood with dam failure?
Comment: How will channel losses be
addressed in the alternatives that route
water to the Sheyenne River? Are the
canals efficient at transferring water and
can they move water in the winter?
Response: Any proposed design
changes at Lake Ashtabula will be
evaluated as part of the Needs and
Options Report prior to incorporation in
an alternative.
Response: Channel losses will be
incorporated into hydrology modeling.
Canals and their ability to transfer water
will be discussed in the Needs and
Options Report.

NEPA requires that agencies consider
reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect or
cumulative effects that may result from a
proposed action or its alternatives. In
this case, dam failure is not a reasonably
foreseeable effect. Any proposed
changes for the dam at Lake Ashtabula
would be designed with a life
expectancy that exceeds the timeframe
under analysis for this project. In
addition, Reclamation experience
indicates that dam operations and
maintenance activities can reasonably be
assumed to alleviate the risk of dam
failure.

Groundwater and Artificial
Recharge
Comment: Concerns for current
groundwater use, aquifer storage, and
recovery, and groundwater data
availability were expressed similar to
those voiced during initial scoping.
Support for aquifer recharge was
expressed and suggestions were made to
consider additional aquifers for recharge.
Response: The Needs and Options
Report will consider groundwater and
artificial recharge of aquifers as part of
the analysis of alternatives. The effects
of the alternatives on groundwater will
be evaluated in the EIS.
Construction of Kindred Dam
Comment: It was noted that the
construction of Kindred Dam is not an
alternative and has been eliminated as an
option in the past due to environmental
impacts and cost benefit analysis.

Purchase of Irrigation
Groundwater Rights
Comment: Comments were received
concerning the issue of purchasing
irrigation water rights and permits.
Response: Kindred Dam was considered
but eliminated as an option to be used in
this project.
Response: Purchase of irrigation water
rights will be evaluated in the Needs and
Option Report. If purchases are
5
incorporated into an alternative, impacts
with be evaluated in the EIS.

Lake outlet during water quality
modeling. The results will be disclosed
in the EIS.
Desalination

Comment: Concerns for waste disposal
and treatment costs associated with
desalination efforts were mentioned.
Comment: Continued concern was
raised regarding the potential for the Red
River Project to transfer organisms
between the Missouri River basin and
the Red River basin as well as the
ecological and economic consequences
of transferring unwanted organisms.
Questions were raised as to whether
technology exists to prevent biota
transfer to the satisfaction of Canada and
Minnesota.
Response: Waste disposal and water
treatment costs will be addressed during
the development of alternatives as part
of the Needs and Options Report.
Effects of waste disposal on water
quality will be addressed in the EIS.
Environmental Consequences of
Alternatives

Biota Transfer
Response: Reclamation has contracted
with USGS Columbia Environmental
Research Center to conduct a biota
transfer risk and consequence
assessment for the Red River Project.
Risks and consequences (ecological and
economic) will be estimated for each
alternative evaluated in the EIS,
including No Action. USGS will
evaluate the potential risks of a transfer
of non-native biota and the uncertainty
associated with the risk estimations.
Water Quality
Comment: Concerns were raised about
potential fuel spills or other
contamination issues associated with
open canals. There was also a concern
expressed for pretreatment requirements
for pharmaceuticals. Commenters were
also concerned about the water quality of
water stored in ring dikes and the effect
of the Devils Lake Outlet on the quality
of water in the Sheyenne River.

Response: These water quality issues
will be addressed in the Needs and
Options Report as part of engineering
design and hydrology modeling. The
GDCD has developed a Hazardous
Materials Plan for the canals of the GDU
principal supply works.
Impacts to Transportation
Comment: Comments from the North
Dakota Department of Transportation
said that, “the EIS should address
impacts with regard to cost and flood
frequency availability of the bridge
crossings for options that provide for
conveyance of the proposed water
supply through current river channels.
The cost participation of mitigating
impacts to highways and bridges should
also be addressed. Also, any wetland and
cultural impacts must be addressed and
mitigated…”
Water quality issues associated with ring
dikes will be addressed during
engineering design and will be disclosed
in the EIS. Water quality impacts to the
Sheyenne and Red Rivers will be
evaluated with and without a Devils
6
Response: The Needs and Options
Report will address conveyance issues.
Impacts including costs, wetlands, and
cultural resources will be included in the
EIS.

Outside the Scope

Comment: Questions were raised as to
whether Canada, the City of Devils
Lake, and Kidder and Logan counties
could be added to the project study area.
Cumulative effects
Comment: Concerns were again raised
in regard to Missouri River depletions
and irrigation impacts.
Response: Delivery of water to Canada
is outside the scope of this EIS.
Communities considered, including
Minnesota cities, were originally
identified in the Phase I and II studies
for inclusion in a water supply project to
the Red River Valley. Although
Reclamation's initial interpretation of
DWRA limited the project to the Red
River Valley in North Dakota, comments
received during public scoping meetings
requested inclusion of Minnesota cities.
Including Minnesota cities falls within
guidelines established by Council on
Environmental Quality for responding to
public scoping comments and expanding
the scope of an EIS. However, no
comments were received during scoping
requesting consideration of water from
Canada and in fact Canada has expressed
opposition to this project.
Response: Cumulative effects to
Missouri River depletion will be
evaluated and addressed in the EIS.
Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects
on the Missouri River will be evaluated
for each alternative. The analysis will
include ecological impacts, including
Federal and State listed species, as well
as impacts to navigation, recreation, and
water supply. The cumulative effects
analysis will include existing and
reasonably foreseeable future
withdrawals from the Missouri River.
Both positive and negative effects to
irrigation by each of the alternatives will
be evaluated in the EIS.

Inclusion of Canada, City of
Devils Lake, Kidder County,
Logan County
Riverine and Riparian
Comment: North Dakota Game and Fish
stated that “one of our interests during
the review is to optimize the opportunity
to establish and maintain minimum
instream flows through Red River
Valley’s rivers and tributaries. By
establishing in-stream flows we maintain
numerous values of streams.”
Kidder and Logan counties and the City
of Devils Lake are outside of the Red
River Valley and the service area of this
project which includes the 13 eastern
counties in North Dakota and East Grand
Forks, Moorhead, and Breckenridge in
Minnesota.

Response: The EIS will evaluate
impacts to aquatic species based upon
information collected as part of the
aquatic needs assessment.
Devils Lake Outlet water
treatment
Comment: A recommendation was
made that flows from the Devils Lake
outlet should be treated before being
7
released into the Sheyenne and Red
Rivers.
Environmental Policy Act, the Council
on Environmental Quality states:
o “To include all proposals ever
considered as other actions
would most likely overestimate
the future effects of cumulative
effects on the resources,
ecosystems, and human
communities; therefore, the
analyst should develop
guidelines on what constitutes
“reasonably foreseeable future
actions” based on the planning
process within each agency.”
Response: This is outside the scope of
this project.

Inclusion of Devils Lake Inlet
Comment: A comment was made by the
National Wildlife Federation that
completion of the GDU principal supply
works would lead to construction of an
inlet to Devils Lake and that cumulative
impacts of a Devils Lake Inlet must
therefore be evaluated. Evidence to
support this claim was cited as:
o “…the State of North Dakota and
the North Dakota Congressional
Delegation consider the current
proposal to construct an outlet as
simply the first step in the State’s
plan to ‘stabilize’ Devils Lake
with an inlet to deliver Missouri
River water to the lake when the
level is low and an outlet to the
Sheyenne river to discharge
water when the level is high.”
o statements by Senators Dorgan
and Conrad that an inlet could be
reconsidered in the future
o the 1955 North Dakota statute
that established the GDCD,
which included as a purpose “To
replenish the waters, and to
restore the level of Devils Lake,
Stump Lake, and Turtle Lake.”
o a map prepared by the North
Dakota State Water Commission
and published in a 2003 edition
of North Dakota Water that
shows a proposed Devils Lake
inlet/outlet.
Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers
are statutorily prohibited from
constructing an inlet. Furthermore,
previously constructed or proposed GDU
facilities may not be used to transfer
Missouri River water to Devils Lake, so
North Dakota could not construct an
inlet that conveyed water through GDU
facilities. While the repeal of these
statutory prohibitions is possible, to
assume such an action by Congress
would be speculative. A non-federal
inlet that conveys Missouri River water
to Devils Lake without using the GDU
principal supply works has not been
proposed.
Since no federal, state, or private entity
has a viable plan for an inlet to Devils
Lake, we have concluded that it is not a
reasonably foreseeable future action, and
therefore will not be evaluated in the
EIS.
FUTURE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Information on progress on this EIS is
posted on our website at
www.rrvwsp.com. Newsletters are
mailed periodically free of charge to
subscribers who register online or by
Response: In Considering Cumulative
Effects under the National
8
contacting either the Bureau of
Reclamation at (701) 250-4242,
extension 3619 or Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District at (701) 652-3194.
Public comments will solicited during
the review period for the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. The
draft is scheduled for release in
December 2005.
9
APPENDIX A
RED RIVER VALLEY
WATER SUPPLY PROJECT EIS
PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS
10