Public Mon Maq meeting hears from both sides

     Almost 100 people were present for the Mon Maq Dam public meeting, hosted by Jones County Conservation.

     The event was held on March 11 at the Durgin Pavilion at Camp Courageous.

     Aside from Conservation staff, several representatives from the DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife were also on hand to answer questions from the public. Representatives from consulting parties such as Jones County Historic Preservation (James Krapfl) and Friends of Mon Maq Dam (Tom Osborne) were also present and addressed the crowd. Tom MacDonald with Barr Engineering, who is working on the Mon Maq Dam project for Conservation, was part of the meeting as well.

     According to Osborne, the reason for Fish and Wildlife’s involvement is the demise of cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration and their $750,000 in grant funding to assist in removal of the dam. Once the Highway Administration backed out, a new federal agency was needed to carry on the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) Section 106 process. Fish and Wildlife is that new federal agency.

     Louise Malden with U.S. Fish and Wildlife explained the purpose of Section 106, as well as the EA (environmental assessment). She said in order to be in compliance with a project like this, an EA is needed.

     “We’ve been gathering input the last couple of years. We’ve been capturing that and recording that, and looking at the issues that have been brought up,” explained Malden. “That’s all going to be incorporated in the draft of the EA.”

     Section 106 “says that federal agencies need to take into account their actions on this work process,” said Malden. “We’re aware that the dam is an historic property. Any type of undertaking in which partial federal funding is used, you need to get approval from state historic preservation. We are working with SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) to try and resolve and to try and agree on an alternative that would not cause adverse effect to the dam.”

     NEPA is made up on laws and regulations from a variety of agencies.

     “This basically says that all federal agencies are required to take into consideration the action and any potential it has on human environment. This is why we’re requiring an EA,” continued Malden. “It becomes a decision document. It helps agencies like Fish and Wildlife make an informed decision as to whether they want to move forward with a particular action.”

     The Jones County Conservation Board (JCCB) has narrowed its list of dam alternatives down to two: no-action, which Tom MacDonald with Barr Engineering said comes with a price tag of $255,000 to $745,000 for maintenance and repairs; and the preferred alternative maintains 51 percent of the spillway and the creation of a 160-foot channel, at a cost of $1.2 to $1.7 million.

     Conservation Board member Dean Zimmerman said the Friends of the Dam group prefers the no-action alternative; however, not the one presented during the public meeting.

     “No action means no action,” clarified Zimmerman. “It means no costs associated with the dam.”

     Conservation Director Brad Mormann outlined several reasons why his department is pursuing this alternative:

     • Improve fish passage for all aquatic species

     • Enhance our natural aesthetics

     • Reduce upstream flooding

     • Develop some budget-friendly alternatives while trying to avoid effects throughout the river system

     • Improve angling opportunities

     • Enhance river navigation

     • Eliminate the dangerous hydraulics

     • Maintain the historical interpretation

     Also presenting at the meeting was James Krapfl with the Historic Preservation Commission. Krapfl shared criteria that enable a structure to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

     “In 2016, the Office of the State Archeologist conducted a survey of the dam area and found the dam eligible for the National Register on the basis of two of the criteria: significant events and based on its architectural characteristics,” he said.

     In October 2019, several entities (JCHPC, DNR, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife) came together in agreement on one of Conservation’s many alternatives at the dam site.

     “It would have preserved two-thirds of the dam and water flowing over it. A separation between the preserved section and a fish channel and an island to help preserve the feeling and the natural setting of the place,” showcased Krapfl. “It was a compromise that would preserve much of the integrity of the dam, not all of it.”

     However, the JCCB was not on board with this alternative.

     Krapfl said if SHPO approves on the JCCB’s alternative option, legal action would have to be taken.

     In allowing members of the consulting parties to speak, Osborne also shared multiple instances in which the public and Friends group opposed the various options/alternatives voted on by the JCCB. He said every time they voiced their opposition, it never made it into the JCCB minutes nor was it taken into account.

     So now there is a 30-day public comment in which to share thoughts and concerns about Mon Maq Dam. Comments will be received until April 1. You can send them to Mon_Maq_Dam_EA_Comments@fws.gov, with the subject line of: “Mon Maq Dam EA.”