environmental assessment - central power electric...

Environmental Assessment Snake Creek to Parshall, North Dakota 115-kV Transmission Project Central Power Electric Cooperative Minot, North Dakota Mountrail-Williams Electric Cooperative Williston, North Dakota Prepared for: USDA, Rural Utilities Service September, 2012

Environmental Assessment September, 2012 Snake Creek-Parshall 115-kV Transmission Project TOC, Page i

Table of Contents Section-Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED, AND AUTHORIZING ACTIONS ......1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................. 1-6 1.3 AUTHORIZING ACTIONS .............................................................................................. 1-6 1.4 AUTHORIZING AGENCIES ........................................................................................... 1-8 1.5 AGENCY NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION .................................................... 1-9

1.5.1 Agency Notification .............................................................................................. 1-9 1.5.2 Agency Responses .............................................................................................. 1-10

1.5.3 Agency Consultations ......................................................................................... 1-11

2.0 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES .........................................................2-1 2.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 2-1

2.2.1 Land Requirements ............................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 2-4

2.4.1 Alternative Methods to Provide Service ............................................................... 2-4 2.4.2 Alternative Construction Methods, Materials, and Design ................................... 2-4 2.4.3 Route Alternatives ................................................................................................ 2-5 2.4.4 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................... 2-21

2.5 PRECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 2-21 2.5.1 Site Engineering Surveys .................................................................................... 2-21 2.5.2 Engineering Planning and Design ....................................................................... 2-21

2.6 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES .................................................................................... 2-21 2.6.1 Clearing ............................................................................................................... 2-21 2.6.2 Access ................................................................................................................. 2-22 2.6.3 Equipment and Materials Transport and Delivery .............................................. 2-22 2.6.4 Structure Installation ........................................................................................... 2-22 2.6.5 Conductor Stringing ............................................................................................ 2-23 2.6.6 Backfill Material ................................................................................................. 2-23 2.6.7 Construction Site Housekeeping ......................................................................... 2-23 2.6.8 Reclamation and Restoration .............................................................................. 2-23

Environmental Assessment September, 2012 Snake Creek-Parshall 115-kV Transmission Project TOC, Page ii

Section-Page 2.7 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 2-23

2.7.1 Transmission Line Right-of-Way Maintenance Procedures ............................... 2-23 2.7.2 Equipment Maintenance and Repairs Procedures ............................................... 2-24

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MONITORING, AND MITIGATION ..................3-1 3.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 REGULATIONS, STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ........................................ 3-1 3.3 RESOURCE TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER STUDY .................................... 3-2

3.3.1 Soils ...................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.2 Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.3 Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.4 Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.5 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 3-5 3.3.6 Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 3-5 3.3.7 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.8 Noise, Radio, and Television Interference ............................................................ 3-6 3.3.9 Socioeconomic and Community Resources .......................................................... 3-7

3.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..................... 3-7 3.4.1 Land Use Including Formally Designated Lands and Farmlands ......................... 3-7 3.4.2 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 3-8 3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species ............... 3-9 3.4.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources ............................................................................... 3-11 3.4.5 Human Health and Safety ................................................................................... 3-12

3.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................. 3-13

4.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................4-1

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Project Overview ...................................................................................................1-3

Figure 1-2 Proposed Action and Alternative Routes ................................................................1-4

Figure 1-3 Existing Overhead Line Replacement ....................................................................1-5

Figure 1-4 Environmental Assessment Flowchart ....................................................................1-7

Figures 2-1a to -1i Structure Drawings ....................................................................... 2-11 – 2-19

Figure 2-2 Bird Flight Diverter .............................................................................................2-20

Environmental Assessment September, 2012 Snake Creek-Parshall 115-kV Transmission Project TOC, Page iii

Section-Page

List of Tables Table 1-1 Authorizing Agencies and Permits ........................................................................1-8

Table 1-2 Agency Notification and Response Status ..........................................................1-10

Table 1-3 Agency Consultation by RUS .............................................................................1-12

Table 2-1 Location of Actions by County .............................................................................2-2

Table 2-2 Disturbance Area – Transmission Line Proposed Action ......................................2-3

Table 2-3 Disturbance Area – Transmission Line, Alternative Routes Action ....................2-3

List of Appendices

Appendix A - SI Conversion Factors Appendix B - Agency Responses Appendix C - Route Comparison Matrix Appendix D - 7.5’ USGS Quad Maps – Central Power Electric Cooperative

Mountrail-Williams Electric Cooperative

Environmental Assessment September, 2012 Snake Creek-Parshall 115-kV Transmission Project TOC, Page iv

Abbreviations and Acronyms ACHP

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation NDDOT North Dakota Department

of Transportation

BA Biological Assessment NDGFD North Dakota Game and Fish Department

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs ND SHPO North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office(r)

BMP Best Management Practice NDSWC North Dakota State Water Commission

CE Categorical Exclusion NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NESC National Electrical Safety

Code

CFR Code of Federal Regulation NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

CPEC, Central Power

Central Power Electric Cooperative NPDES

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

DR Department Regulation NRCS USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service

EA Environmental Assessment OPGW Optical Ground Wire

EIS Environmental Impact Statement PA Programmatic Agreement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency ROW Right-of-Way

ER Environmental Report RUS, Agency USDA Rural Utilities Service, USDA Rural Development

E.O. Executive Order § Section

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 TCP Traditional Cultural

Property

et seq Et sequential (and those that follow) THPO Tribal Historic

Preservation Officer

FAA Federal Aviation Administration U.S.C. United States Code

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact USACE U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act USDA U.S. Department of

Agriculture

FR Federal Register USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GIS Geographic Information Systems USFWS, Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

kV Kilovolt USGS U.S. Geological Survey

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act Western U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration

MHA Nation Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation

MWEC, Mountrail-Williams

Mountrail Williams Electric Cooperative

NDDOH North Dakota Department of Health

Environmental Assessment September, 2012 Snake Creek-Parshall 115-kV Transmission Project Section 1, Page 1

Section 1.0

Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Authorizing Actions

1.1 INTRODUCTION Central Power Electric Cooperative (CPEC) and Mountrail-Williams Electric Cooperative (MWEC) are proposing construction of a 115-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line that would originate at the Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration’s (Western) Garrison-Snake Creek 115-kV Substation and extend north and west to a delivery point at Mountrail-Williams’ existing Parshall Substation located northwest of Parshall, ND (Proposed Action). The Proposed Action includes 60.5 miles of overhead transmission line within an existing electric utility right-of-way (ROW) and 7.5 miles of overhead transmission line within new ROW. The existing utility corridor is a combination of overhead transmission and distribution lines with pole heights ranging from 50 to 61 feet. The proposed Project would bury 7 miles of existing distribution line and replace all other existing lines with 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line on poles ranging between 55 and 95 feet high. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is considering applications for financing the Proposed Action, which would make it a Federal action subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and RUS’s “Environmental Policies and Procedures” (7 CFR part 1794). CPEC and MWEC retained Stanley Consultants, Inc. to prepare an environmental report (ER) for the Proposed Action, from which the Project Manager from Stanley Consultants, Inc. coordinated with RUS to develop this environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA, its implementing regulations, and other applicable environmental laws, regulations and policies.


The Proposed Action would be comprised of 60.5 miles of overhead transmission line within existing electric utility right-of-way (ROW) and 7.5 miles of overhead transmission line within new rights-of-way. CPEC and MWEC considered two other alternatives, both of which would require acquisition of substantially more new ROW, cause new environmental disturbance in areas that do not have existing ROW, require costly conservation measures for potential effects to special status species including federally-listed endangered species, and the delays that would be caused by land acquisition and conservation measures for these alternatives would not meet the time-sensitive needs of the Project. RUS has reviewed both of these other alternatives and agrees that they are not reasonable alternatives and our agency finds that the Project proponents’ preferred alternative would be the agency’s Proposed Action because it avoids new disturbance to the environment and avoids costs associated with obtaining new ROW. RUS is presenting the Proposed Action in this document to receive public input for our consideration in making a final determination.

The area studied for the Proposed Action is located in McLean, Ward, and Mountrail counties, North Dakota. A vicinity map is shown on Figure 1-1. An overview of the project study area and the Proposed Action, the alternative routes, and the associated substations are shown in Figure 1-2. Figure 1-3 identifies those segments of the Proposed Action alignment with existing transmission or distribution lines that would be replaced by the new transmission line. Eight and one-half (8.5) miles of existing distribution lines within Central Power’s Proposed Action ROW would be buried within the ROW.

§̈¦94

§̈¦29

§̈¦194

§̈¦29

§̈¦94

£¤52

£¤281

£¤2

£¤85

£¤12

£¤83

£¤81

£¤83

£¤2£¤2

£¤83

£¤52£¤85

£¤2

£¤52

£¤85

£¤83

£¤2£¤2

£¤85

£¤75

£¤281

Winnipeg

FargoBismarck

Grand Forks

Minot

I0 25 5012.5 MileFIGURE 1-1

NORTH DAKOTA VICINITY MAPSNAKE CREEK - PARSHALL

TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

DATE: 3/10/2013REVISION 0SECTION 1, PAGE 3

"!D"!D

"!D

"!D

"!D

"!D

RAUB SUBMAXSUB

PARSHALLSUBSTATION

ROSEGLENSUBSTATION

GARRISON-SNAKE CREEK

115kV SUB

DOUGLASCREEK SUB

PROJECT AREA

"!D

"!D

"!D

"!D

"!D

"!D

Ft Berthold IndianReservation

Parshall

")7

")7

")6

")6

37th Ave NW

32nd Ave NW

44th Ave NW

UV37

UV37

UV23

")2 ")2 ")2

366th St SW59th Ave NW

MOUNTRAIL COUNTYMCLEAN COUNTY

MOUN

TRAI

L COU

NTY

WARD

COU

NTY

WARD COUNTYMCLEAN COUNTY MCLEAN COUNTY

WARD COUNTY

Ft Berthold IndianReservation

McLean NationalMcLean NationalWildlife RefugeWildlife Refuge

Hiddenwood NationalHiddenwood NationalWildlife RefugeWildlife Refuge

LakeSakakawea

Makoti

Ryder

Douglas

Max

GarrisonEmmetWhiteShield

Roseglen

£¤83

UV37

UV23

UV53

UV28

UV23

UV53

UV37UV37

UV37UV37

£¤83

£¤83

UV53

UV28

")22")22

")22

UV23 UV23

")15

³±5131

")15

³±5131

")13

")13

³±3143

³±5162

")3

")2

³±3143

")9

")9

17th St NW

18th St NW

35th Ave NW

")6

")721st St NW21st St NW21st St NW

")6 31st AveNW

19th St NW

34thAve NW

20th St NW

19th St NW

59th Ave NW366th St SW

46th Ave NW

37th St NW

Garrison-SnakeCreek115kVSub

MaxSub

RoseglenSub

Raub Sub

ParshallSub

DouglasCreek Sub

115 K

V

EXIST

. WAP

A

Fort Stevenson State ParkFort Stevenson State Park

I0 3 61.5 Mile

PROPOSED ACTION - CPECELIMINATED ROUTE - CPECPROPOSED ACTION - MWECELIMINATED ROUTE - MWECPROJECT STUDY AREA

FIGURE 1-2PROJECT OVERVIEW

SNAKE CREEK - PARSHALLTRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT


") ") ")

")

")

MCLEAN

WARDMOUNTRAIL

SNAKE CREEK - PARSHALL115 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECTI

CENTRAL POWER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.MOUNTRAIL-WILLIAMS ELECTRIC COOOPERATIVE, INC.

") SUBSTATIONSCPEC - NO EXISTING LINE: 4.5 MILESCPEC - DISTRIBUTION LINE UB REPLACEMENT: 12.1 MILESCPEC - DISTRIBUTION LINE REPLACEMENT: 8.5 MILESCPEC - EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE REPLACEMENT: 42 MILESMWEC - NO EXISTING LINE: 3 MILES, DISTRIBUTION LINE REPLACEMENT: 10 MILES


FIGURE 1-3EXISTING OVERHEAD LINE REPLACEMENT0 3 61.5 Miles


The Proposed Action would consist of construction of 68 miles of 115-kV overhead transmission line and upgrades to three existing substations. A detailed description of the Proposed Action is provided in Section 2.0. Descriptions of measurements and distances throughout this document are in non-metric units. A metric conversion table is included as Appendix A. In accordance with NEPA, the terms “effects” and “impacts” as used interchangeably and have the same meaning, and they can be either beneficial or adverse. RUS evaluates a range of environmental issues and potential effects on farmland, floodplains, wetlands, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, fish and wildlife resources, vegetation, air quality and water quality resulting from the Proposed Action. RUS also considers potential effects to human health and safety, socioeconomic and community resources, as well as effects on American Indian trust resources and effects to tribes and tribal members. 1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION As a result of unexpected network load growth due to increasing oil development in eastern Montana and western/central North Dakota, Western has identified system additions in the Western/Basin/Heartland Integrated System (IS) that are needed to meet the increased power requirements while maintaining system reliability and customer load-serving capability prior to construction of major transmission facilities. As part of Western’s assessment of system additions, it identified a need for a connection between Western’s Garrison-Snake Creek 115-kV Substation, and MWEC’s Parshall Substation by way of CPEC’s Roseglen and Douglas Creek Substations. In order to expedite the completion of the system additions, it is necessary to incorporate some of CPEC’s and MWEC’s existing facilities, which would require system improvements. These improvements would allow CPEC and MWEC to meet increased regional demands while continuing to provide efficient and reliable power within their territories. 1.3 AUTHORIZING ACTIONS Prior to making a decision to loan funds, guarantee a loan, or award a grant for a proposed action, RUS is required to conduct an environmental review in accordance with RUS regulations outlined in 7 CFR. part 1794. RUS “Environmental Policies and Procedures” at 7 CFR §1794.23(c)(9) state that and EA is required for ““The construction of electric power lines and related facilities designed for or capable of operation at a nominal voltage of 69 kV or more but less than 230 kV where more than 25 miles of power line are involved.” Because the Proposed Action would be an action covered under 7 CFR §1794.23(c)( 9), it requires the development of an EA without scoping. The EA will be made available for public comment for a 30-day period, after which, if RUS finds that the Proposed Action would have no significant effects on the quality of the human environment, it will issue a “finding of no significant impact” in accordance with 7 CFR §1794.43. Figure 1-4 on the following page is the Environmental Assessment Flowchart which lists the steps for the ER/EA process.


Figure 1-4 Environmental Assessment Flowchart

1. Project Description 2. Agency Consultation

3. Submit ER to RUS

4. RUS Review of ER

5. RUS Accepts the ER

as its EA 6. Applicant Legal Notice

& Advertisement

7. 30-Day Public Review 8. RUS Prepares FONSI 8. RUS Decision to

Prepare an EIS 9. Applicant Notices 10. Begin Construction


1.4 AUTHORIZING AGENCIES Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies may have jurisdiction over certain aspects of the Proposed Action. Table 1-1 provides a list of agencies and their roles in the Proposed Action process.

TABLE 1-1 – AUTHORIZING AGENCIES AND PERMITS Permit Jurisdiction Status

Local Conditional Use Permit

(for 115-kV transmission line)

McLean County, North Dakota Will be obtained as needed

Road ROW Permit McLean County, North Dakota Will be obtained as needed

Road ROW Permit Ward County, North Dakota Will be obtained as needed

Road ROW Permit Mountrail County, North Dakota Will be obtained as needed

Road ROW Permit Roseglen Township Will be obtained as needed

Road ROW Permit Gate Township Will be obtained as needed

State of North Dakota National Historic

Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation

North Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer

Class II/III performed and report completed August, 2012

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

North Dakota Department of Health Stormwater Permit Will be obtained as needed

Section 401 Water Quality Certification

North Dakota Department of Health Will be obtained as needed

CPA-106 Natural Resource Conservation Service To be submitted

N/A North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department

N/A North Dakota State Engineer


TABLE 1-1 – AUTHORIZING AGENCIES AND PERMITS (continued) Permit Jurisdiction Status

State of North Dakota (continued)

Road ROW Permit North Dakota Department of Transportation

ROW permits as required

N/A North Dakota Game and Fish Department

Tribal Agencies General Consultation Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes Contacted

Biological Consultation Three Affiliated Tribes, Fish and Wildlife Division

Contacted

Cultural Resource Consultation

MHA Nation, Environmental Division Contacted

Historic Preservation Consultation

Three Affiliated Tribes, Historic Preservation Office

Contacted

Federal Agencies Overall Approval Department of Agriculture, Rural

Utilities Service Review of Draft Environmental Report and preparation and advertisement of Environmental Assessment to be completed

Interconnection Approval Western Area Power Administration Approved

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological assessment and consultation to be completed as part of the NEPA process.

1.5 AGENCY NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION As part of the NEPA process and because the transmission line would cross or span wetland areas, farmland, and critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, several Federal, State, and local agencies were notified of the Proposed Action. 1.5.1 Agency Notifications Historic preservation and cultural resource agencies, and divisions of the Three Affiliated Tribes were notified. Agencies, notification dates, and response status are shown in Table 1-2 on the following page.


TABLE 1-2 – AGENCY NOTIFICATION AND RESPONSE STATUS Agency Notification Date Status

Rural Utilities Service May 23, 2012 Notification only

Natural Resource Conservation Service Area II Area III

May 23, 2012 May 23, 2012

Response received June 1, 2012 Response received June 29, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers May 23, 2012 Response received May 29, 2012

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service May 23, 2012 Response received July 19, 2012

Western Area Power Administration May 23, 2012 Response received July 17, 2012

North Dakota Game & Fish Dept. May 23, 2012 Response received June 18, 2012

North Dakota Dept. of Health May 23, 2012 Response received June 11, 2012

North Dakota Parks & Recreation Dept. May 23, 2012 Response received June 18, 2012

North Dakota State Engineer May 23, 2012 Response received June 27, 2012

North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office

July 10, 2012 (Class I Inventory Report)

Response received July 16, 2012

North Dakota Dept. of Transportation May 23, 2012 Response received June 15, 2012

McLean County Board of County Commissioners May 23, 2012 No response

Mountrail County Board of County Commissioners May 23, 2012 No response

Ward County Board of County Commissioners May 23, 2012 Phone response received July 3, 2012

Three Affiliated Tribes

Chairman May 23, 2012 Notification only

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer May 23 & July 5, 2012 No response

Environmental Division May 23 & July 5, 2012

No response

Fish and Wildlife Division May 23 & July 5, 2012 Scoping letter received July 19, 2012

1.5.2 Agency Responses Agency responses are in Appendix B. A brief summary of each responding agency’s comments is given below.

• Natural Resources Conservation Service - NRCS’ major responsibility is the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA).


o Area II – Jamestown Area Office. For the Proposed Action, an insignificant amount of farmland is affected by this activity, so FPPA does not apply; therefore, no further action is needed.

o Area III – Dickinson Area Office. The Proposed Action in Mountrail and Ward counties would not convert any farmland to non-farmland and therefore would not be an issue with the FPPA.

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – USACE administers Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Stated regulations that would apply for the Proposed Action should certain work occur in waters of the U.S. under either Section 10 or Section 404.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – USFWS or the Service holds certain resources in trust and manages them for the benefit of the American people. These resources include migratory birds, inter-jurisdictional fisheries, Federally-listed threatened and endangered species of plants and animals and their habitats, and units of the National Wildlife Refuge system. The Agency provided additional information for each of these resources as well as general comments regarding their review and recommendations.

• North Dakota Game and Fish Department – ND Game and Fish made recommendations pertaining to protection of wetlands and marking overhead lines when placed over perennial streams or sited in close proximity to large wetland complexes.

• North Dakota Department of Health – NDOH made recommendations pertaining to construction methods with respect to fugitive dust emissions, minimize adverse effects on water bodies, and minimize noise from construction activities on persons living near the construction area. Provided the Department’s minimum construction and environmental requirements.

• North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department – Parks and Recreation’s authority and expertise covers recreation and biological resources, in particular rare plants and ecological communities. Recommends that the project be accomplished with minimal impact and that all efforts be made to ensure that critical habitats are not disturbed in the project area.

• North Dakota State Engineer – The State Engineer’s comments addressed floodplains and wetlands. Recommended working closely with County floodplain administrators and that a permit would be required if transmission poles are placed in wetlands. All waste material must be disposed of properly and not left in identified floodway areas.

• North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office – A Class I inventory was performed and a report submitted to the SHPO, who recommended a Class II/III be performed on unsurveyed areas within the Project Area. Subsequently, because RUS determined that the project would require a phased identification and evaluation of historic properties, the SHPO responded to RUS’s request to prepare and execute a programmatic agreement (PA) to meet RUS’s responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

• North Dakota Department of Transportation – NDDPT indicated the project should have no adverse effect on DOT highways. If the Proposed Action requires any work within road right of way, appropriate permits and risk management documents would need to be obtained.


• Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation (Three Affiliated Tribes or MHA Nation) – The only comment received was that the Tribal Fish and Wildlife Division would like to see Mountrail-Williams utilize the Highway 23 corridor rather than construct the proposed alternate route.

1.5.3 Agency Consultation RUS contacted required agencies regarding the Proposed Action. These agencies and the status of consultations are listed in Table 1-3.

TABLE 1-3 – AGENCY CONSULTATION BY RUS Agency Notification Date Status

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Audubon National Wildlife Refuge January 15, 2013

Accepted request to sign Section 106 PA as signatory, PA to be executed before decision document is completed

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Dakota Ecological Field Services Office

February 4, 2013

Informal consultation, notification of RUS finding of may affect, not likely to adversely affect.

State Historical Society of North Dakota (SHPO) January 15, 2013


Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation of the Fort Berthold Resrervation (MHA Nation)

January 11, 2013


Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians January 10, 2013


Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes January 18, 2013 Accepted invitation to sign PA as consulting party

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe January 18, 2013 No Response

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe January 18, 2013 No Response

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe January 18, 2013 No Response

Oglala Sioux Tribe January 18, 2013 No Response

Rosebud Sioux Tribe January 18, 2013 No Response


TABLE 1-3 – AGENCY CONSULTATION BY RUS (continued) Agency Notification Date Status

Santee Sioux Nation January 18, 2013 No Response Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate January 18, 2013 No Response

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe January 18, 2013 No Response


Section 2.0

Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 GENERAL Transmission line routing requires investigation and study of several alternative routes to enable selection of the most practical routes, taking into consideration environmental criteria, construction costs, land use, impacts to the public, and maintenance and engineering considerations. Route selection also requires sound evaluation of these conflicting considerations. Alternatives considered for this project included alternative routes, other methods to provide service, and alternative designs. CPEC and MWEC utilized several tools to aid in the selection process including high-altitude aerial photography to identify land use, obstructions, and other considerations and GIS technology to consolidate and analyze information in order to minimize the effects of the Proposed Action on people and the environment while selecting a constructible, maintainable, and cost-effective route. Public input was also solicited.

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The Proposed Action is to construct 68 miles of 115-kV transmission line from Western’s existing Garrison-Snake Creek 115-kV Substation near State Highway 83 at Lake Audubon to MWEC’s existing Parshall Substation located northwest of Parshall, ND. The Proposed Action would be located in service territories of Western, CPEC, and MWEC, and would require coordination between them in order to have adequate facilities available to meet the purpose and need for the project. In addition to the transmission line, this Proposed Action would include upgrades to three existing substations to accommodate the new 115-kV transmission line. An approximate 2-3 acre expansion and new equipment would be required at each of CPEC’s Douglas Creek and Roseglen substations. New equipment would also be required at the Parshall Substation but


can be constructed within the existing facility site. The Proposed Action and alternative route actions are shown in Figure 1-2 in Section 1.0. Townships, Ranges, and Sections by County for the actions are shown in Table 2-1.

TABLE 2-1. LOCATION OF ACTIONS BY COUNTY Location of Actions in Mountrail County

Township Name Township Range

Sections - Proposed Action

Sections - Alternate Route Action

Plaza 152 88 19-24 24-30

Modo 152 89 19-24 19-20,25-29

Parshall 152 90 14,23-24 14,23-24 Location of Actions in Ward County

Location of Actions in McLean County

Township Name Township Range

Sections Proposed Action

Sections Alternate Route Action

Snow 148 83 4-5,9,16,21,28 5-9

Garrison 148 84 1-4,35

Endres 149 83 13-18,24-27, 34-35

McGinnis 149 84 13-19 31-35

Platt 149 85 13-18,21,24 27-30,34-36

Romsaas 149 86 13-18 17,20-22,25-27,29-30

Roseglen 149 87 5,8,17 17,20-25

Gate 150 87 5,8,17,19-20, 29-30,32

5,8,17,19-20, 29-30,32

Township Name Township Range Sections - Proposed and Alternate Actions

Hiddenwood 151 87 5,7-8,18-20,29,32

Orlien 152 87 19-20,29,32


2.2.1 Land Requirements Total acreage and the area of disturbance for the transmission ROW for the Proposed Action are shown in Table 2-2 and for the alternative route action in Table 2-3. Less than 1/10th of 1% of the total area of the Proposed Action would be permanently affected by the transmission structures. Temporary disturbance would be approximately 22% of the total area.

TABLE 2-2. DISTURBANCE AREA – TRANSMISSION LINE PROPOSED ACTION

Transmission Line – Proposed Action Total Area (acres)

Area of Disturbance (acres)

Temporary % of Total Permanent % of

Total

557 (1) 120 (2) 22% 0.4 (3) <0.1%

(1)Total area of transmission line ROW is based on an area 60’ wide x 55 miles + 100’ wide x 13 miles. (2)Temporary disturbance is based on a 30’ square area @ each of 1,090 structures +

a continuous 10’ track along the 68-mile length + 3, 5A material storage areas. (3)Permanent disturbance is based on a 5’ diameter area @ each of 1,090 structures.

Less than 1/10th of 1% of the total area of the alternative route’s action would be permanently affected by the transmission structures. Temporary disturbance would be approximately 21% of the total area.

TABLE 2-3. DISTURBANCE AREA – TRANSMISSION LINE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ACTION

Transmission Line – Alternative Routes Action Total Area (acres)

Area of Disturbance (acres)

Temporary % of Total Permanent % of

Total

591 (1) 123 (2) 21% 0.4 (3) <0.1%

(1)Total area of transmission line ROW is based on an area 60’ wide x 53 miles + 100’ wide x 17 miles. (2)Temporary disturbance is based on a 30’ square area @ each of 1,120 structures +

a continuous 10’ track along the 70-mile length + 3, 5A material storage areas. (3)Permanent disturbance is based on a 5’ diameter area @ each of 1,120 structures.

New substations will not be required as part of the Proposed Action although the existing Douglas Creek and Roseglen substations would be expanded to accommodate new equipment. The area of additional disturbance would be approximately 2-3 acres at each


site. Equipment to accommodate the new 115-kV line would also be installed at the existing Parshall Substation but the footprint would not require expansion. 2.3 STUDY AREA A regional study area of approximately 800 square miles within which it would be practical to construct a new line was defined and is shown on the Project Overview, Figure 1-1. Within this study area, five alternative routes were initially identified, three in CPEC’s territory and two in MWEC’s territory. The connecting point for each utility’s preferred route (Proposed Action) is the Mountrail/Ward county line on State Highway 23. 2.4 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS During evaluation of solutions to meet the need for this project, alternative methods to provide service; alternative construction methods, materials, and design; alternative routes; and a no-action alternative were considered. A summary of each of these alternatives is presented below. 2.4.1 Alternative Methods to Provide Service The project is a result of a regional grid issue. Presently, a new 115-kV transmission line is the most reasonable and most expedient method by which sufficient electrical power can be provided to the northwest part of North Dakota in support of current and immediate future demand for power to develop energy sources. Long-term methods are being developed but won’t be available for a number of years. 2.4.2 Alternative Construction Methods, Materials, and Design The primary alternative construction methods for transmission lines include either underground or overhead construction. Installing transmission cable underground increases costs approximately 10 times compared to overhead construction and, although materials continue to improve, the life of underground cable is much shorter than overhead conductor and it is much more difficult and time-consuming to find and repair the cause of outages. Alternative materials for the structures include wood, laminated wood, concrete, and steel poles and steel lattice structures. Due to the urgency of the project, the voltage involved, and because the Proposed Action is single circuit, wood poles are the most readily available and the most cost-effective material for the Proposed Action. Use of fabricated poles requires a longer lead time to acquire due to limited manufacturing facilities and high demand. Alternative designs include monopole or H-frame construction. Monopoles are generally taller in height because of the vertical separation needed between conductors. H-frame construction is generally lower in height but requires two poles at each location. Angle structures can be single or three-pole configurations. Wood angle structures require guying; monopoles are larger and, depending on material, may or may not require guying. Taking the alternative materials and designs available and the schedule into consideration, the Proposed Action would be constructed as an overhead, single-circuit, 115-kV line on


wood poles with single and two-pole tangent structures and single and three-pole angle structures with guys and anchors. 2.4.3 Alternative Routes Factors considered during the evaluation of potential route corridors for the Proposed Action included existing facilities and rights of way, zoning regulations, topography, access for both construction and maintenance, and avoidance of populated areas. Land use, topography, landowner considerations, and impacts to the public; engineering constraints and construction costs; and environmental factors were also included in route investigations. Aerial photography, a route comparison matrix, public meetings, GIS, National Wetlands Index (NWI) maps, and field reconnaissance were tools utilized to develop potential alternative routes. The alternative route selection process and considerations are described below. 2.4.3.1 Aerial Photography

High-altitude flights to obtain current aerial photographs of the study area were flown at the beginning of the route selection process. The aerial photographs were used to assess topographical features such as rivers, streams, lakes, roads, land use, railroads, airports, and towns. 2.4.3.2 Route Comparison Matrix

A matrix listing quantifiable factors was developed to assist in initial comparisons of route alternatives and to aid in identification of a preferred route with portions in both CPEC’s and MWEC’s territories (Proposed Action). Proposed routes were divided into existing and new route segments to enable a more detailed comparison of each alternative route as portions of routes overlapped or converged. The matrix quantified important considerations for each alternative route. The overall corridor comparison matrix is included as Appendix C. Considerations included: Land Use, Topography, Landowner Considerations, and Impacts to the Public • Project Area Extents • Topography • County Zoning and Zoning Regulations* • Existing and New Right-of-Way Requirements* • Landowner Considerations

o Number of Parcels Crossed* o Number of Landowners Affected* o Homes within 125’ and 250’ of the Proposed Centerline* o Landowner Input

• Designated Farmland, Prime Farmland, and Lands of State Importance* • Federal, State, Local ,and Tribal-Owned Lands*


Engineering Considerations and Construction Costs • Line Miles – Single and Double Circuit* • Substation Conversions* • Road and Highway Crossings* • Railroad Crossings* • Miles of Access Adjacent to Roadways* • Airports and Airstrips* • Lake, Stream, River Crossings* • Existing Distribution Lines to Bury (Miles)* • Estimated Construction Costs/Mile* • Additional Line to Operate and Maintain

Environmental Concerns • Floodplains* • Wetlands and Waterfowl Refuge Areas* • Endangered/Threatened and Protected Species and Critical Habitat Areas • Treed Areas* • Archaeological and Historical Resources • Cultural Concerns • Water Resources

*Quantifiable Considerations

2.4.3.2.1 Central Power’s Route Alternatives

Three proposed routes were reviewed within CPEC’s territory. Of the three proposed routes, two routes were eliminated from further consideration and one route was identified for the Proposed Action. These routes are shown in Figure 1-2 and the factors behind the decision are described below. Eliminated Routes – Alternate routes were found not to be reasonable alternatives for the following reasons:

• It would be more costly to acquire land. • It would cause new environmental disturbance in areas that do not already have

existing utility ROW. • The tribe expressed a desire to avoid using the part of the alternate route that crosses

their reservation lands. • Conservation measures for potential effects to special status species, including

federally-listed endangered species would be cost prohibitive. • Part of the Project need is to address imminent loss of power capacity. The delays

that would be caused by land acquisition and conservation measures for this alternative would not meet the time-sensitive needs of the project.

Proposed Action – Based on studies of the aerial survey photographs, the matrix, and field reconnaissance, the Proposed Action was identified. The majority of the Proposed Action would follow the existing 43.8-kV transmission line ROW, replacing approximately 42 miles of existing transmission line. Other portions of the new line would replace approximately 8.5 miles of existing overhead distribution line, minimizing surface disturbance. Approximately


4.5 miles of new ROW would be required. This action would require expansion and upgrades to two existing substations to accommodate the increased voltage. 2.4.3.2.2 Mountrail-Williams’ Route Alternatives

MWEC also utilized aerial survey photographs and field reconnaissance to identify potential routes for the new transmission line located within its territory. CPEC and MWEC agreed the best point at which to meet would be at the Mountrail/Ward county line and Highway 23. The county line is the boundary between the two territories. MWEC’s portion of the line would extend west from the county line to the existing Parshall Substation. MWEC identified two routes between the county line and Parshall Substation. Of the two alternatives, one was eliminated and one identified as the Proposed Action. These routes are shown in Figure 1-2 and the factors behind the decision are described below. Eliminated Route – The alternate route was found not to be a reasonable alternative for the following reasons:

• It would be more costly to acquire land. • It would cause new environmental disturbance in areas that do not already have

existing utility ROW. • The Three Affiliated Tribe expressed a desire to avoid using the part of the alternate

route that crosses their reservation lands. • Conservation measures for potential effects to special status species, including

federally-listed endangered species would be cost prohibitive. • Part of the Project need is to address imminent loss of power capacity. The delays

that would be caused by land acquisition and conservation measures for this alternative would not meet the time-sensitive needs of the project.

Proposed Action - The Proposed Action would require 3 miles of new ROW and upgrading the existing Parshall Substation. 2.4.3.3 Public Participation

To implement a community outreach program during the siting process, both CPEC and MWEC notified landowners of the Proposed Action and held public meetings to inform landowners and other interested parties of the Proposed Action. Notification letters were mailed to landowners directly affected by the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action and an alternative route were presented to the public for comment and discussion. As a result of the two public meetings and follow-up contacts with landowners, CPEC and MWEC made the determination to move ahead with the Proposed Action. Summaries of both CPEC’s and MWEC’s public meetings are presented below. CPEC held a public meeting on June 5, 2012 in Garrison, ND. MWEC held a public meeting on August 1, 2012 in Parshall, ND.


Central Power

CPEC or its member cooperatives have existing distribution or transmission lines for approximately 49 miles of the 67.6-mile Proposed Action. Approximately 5 miles of new ROW would be acquired at the southeast end of the line and 1 mile at the northwest end of the line. Utilizing the existing rights of way for the new 115-kV transmission line is CPEC’s preferred route; however, a feasible alternate route was also identified should CPEC encounter significant objection from landowners along the existing route. CPEC made the internal commitment to purchase new easements for the entire length of the new 115-kV transmission line even though they had existing ROW, and they also agreed to work with the landowners as much as was practicable in order to locate an alignment that would lessen the impact to farming operations. A public meeting was held in Garrison, ND on June 5, 2012 to gather comments and data from the public regarding the Proposed Action. The meeting was held in an open-house format featuring large informational displays and a PowerPoint presentation. Representatives from electric cooperatives in the area (CPEC, Verendrye Electric Cooperative, and McLean County Electric Cooperative), the acquisition firm (Ulteig Engineers), and the engineers (KBM, Inc. and Stanley Consultants, Inc.) were present to answer questions and engage the public in discussion. CPEC’s approach to presenting the project at the public meeting was to define the Proposed Action then speak individually to those landowners on whose property the existing line is located. If objections to the Proposed Action were minimal, then CPEC would not poll landowners along the alternate route at this time. However, if considerable objections were encountered, CPEC would then speak to landowners along the alternative route. Ulteig Engineers had an initial mailing of 181 letters to notify landowners along both the Proposed Action route and the alternative route of the public meeting. This was followed by a second mailing. Twenty-four individuals attended the meeting. CPEC’s representative gave a PowerPoint presentation and then, beginning at the southeast end of the Proposed Action, called out the names of each landowner along the route. If the landowners were in attendance, they were asked to comment on the project and to state whether or not they would have objections to the Proposed Action being constructed in the same alignment. If anyone was uncomfortable voicing their thoughts or opinions in public, they had the opportunity to complete a comment form and representatives from CPEC would contact them following the meeting. Following the public meeting, Ulteig Engineers contacted each landowner to confirm their awareness of the Proposed Action and to solicit opinions and discuss their willingness to construct the new line in the same location as the existing line. Even though CPEC has existing easements, the decision was made to obtain new easements along the entire line, both to compensate landowners and to unify easement durations. The majority of landowners along the Proposed Action route have agreed to grant new easements to CPEC. Ulteig Engineers continues to negotiate with those few remaining landowners who have not yet committed to granting a new easement. Although condemnation to acquire easements is an option, in those cases where a mutual agreement cannot be reached and in the interest of meeting a very aggressive schedule, CPEC and its engineers continue investigating adjustments to the Proposed


Action route to avoid those parcels. These adjustments are included in the analysis of the Proposed Action in this document. Mountrail-Williams

MWEC would require a new 100-foot ROW for 3 miles of the Proposed Action in Mountrail County. A public meeting was held in Parshall, ND on August 1, 2012 to gather input (comments, data, etc.) from the public regarding the Proposed Action. The meeting was held in an open-house format. Representatives from MWEC and HDR (MWEC’s engineer) were present to answer questions and engage the public in discussion. MWEC mailed 90 letters to notify landowners along both the Proposed Action route and the alternative route of the public meeting; 6 landowners attended the meeting. Questions were asked and answered regarding structure types, size of the easement, improvements in the easement, and purpose of the easement. 2.4.3.4 Engineering and Maintenance Considerations

Engineering considerations included topography, clearances to objects both within and adjacent to the ROW; proximity to other utilities; rivers, streams, and lakes; and span lengths. A major maintenance consideration was access both for responding to emergencies and damage to crops. 2.4.3.5 Environmental Studies

Biological studies were conducted on both CPEC’s and MWEC’s portions of the Proposed Action, and cultural resource inventories were completed on CPEC’s portion of the Project with the exception of two locations where minor alignment changes were made to accommodate landowner requests. Cultural resource inventories will be completed on MWEC’s portion of the Project when conditions permit. These studies and other environmental issues are addressed in Section 3.0. 2.4.3.6 Transmission Line Design

The Proposed Action will involve two entities, CPEC and MWEC. The project begins at an existing WAPA structure located approximately one mile north of its Garrison-Snake Creek Substation. Central Power’s ownership will begin at this take-off structure and end at the Mountrail/Ward county line on State Highway 23. Mountrail-Williams ownership will begin at the Mountrail/Ward county line and end at its Parshall Substation.

The Proposed Action will consist of approximately 68 miles of overhead transmission line on wood poles. No major river crossings are required for this line. The line will be constructed on single wood pole structures, wood H-frame pole structures, and wood angle structures utilizing one or three poles depending on the degree of the angle. Typically, standard round wood pole structures will be directly embedded into the ground. Angle structures will be guyed. A steel monopole structure erected on a concrete foundation may occasionally be required at angle or dead-end structures. The line will be designed in accordance with regulations and guidance found in NESC, RUS Bulletins, and Suggested Practices for Avian Protection On Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006.


Structure heights and spans will vary depending on topography. CPEC’s single-pole structures are typically 61 feet above the ground surface and spaced between 330-400 feet apart (Drawing Nos. TP-115BP, TP-115BBP, TS-4A, TS-5A, and TP-115), H-frame structures 61 feet above ground surface and spaced approximately 700 feet apart (Drawing No. TH-1AAX), and angle structures 52 feet above ground surface and spaced approximately 700 feet apart (Drawing Nos. TH-4A, and TH-5A). Switch poles are typically 95 feet above ground surface (Drawing No. SW) and are generally located at substation taps. Drawings showing these typical wood pole structures are shown in Figures 2-1a to 2-1hi on pages 3 through 10 in this section. Mountrail-Williams will use single-pole, vertical construction as shown in Figure 2-1i (Drawing No. TP-115) shown on Page 19 of this section. The line will be single-circuit with four wires, three phase conductors, and a static wire on the top. It is anticipated the phase conductors will be T2 336 ACSR 26/7 and the static wire will be a 48-fiber OPGW (optical ground wire) with a 0.465” outside diameter. T2 conductor consists of a pair of identical conductors twisted about each other with a long lay and can reduce outages by resisting galloping with a changing wind-attack profile and demonstrates low aeolian vibration and sub-conductor oscillation. OPGW serves a dual function: it is placed in the secure top-most position of the transmission line where it “shields” the all-important phase conductors from lightning and also provides a telecommunications path for the utility’s operations and maintenance. The static wire will be marked with spiral bird-flight diverters (Preform BFD-MS-3355 or Dulmison BFD0890) for the entire length of the new line as shown on Drawing No. BFD-2 (see Figure 2-2, page 20 of this section). T2 wire is considered more visible than standard conductor, so the phase conductors will not be marked with bird-flight diverters except in specific areas as recommended by USFWS. Right-of-way width for Central Power’s line will typically be 60 feet in width; Mountrail-Williams’ right-of-way width will be 100 feet. Down guys and anchors will fit within the easement widths.


Figure 2-1a 115-kV Tangent Horizontal Brace Post Structure


Figure 2-1b

115-kV Small Angle Horizontal Brace Post Structure


Figure 2-1c

115-kV Tangent Horizontal Brace Post Structure


Figure 2-1d 115-kV 90° Structure


Figure 2-1e 115-kV Tangent H-Frame Structure


Figure 2-1f 115-kV Three-Pole Large Angle Structure


Figure 2-1g 115-kV H-Frame 90° Angle Structure


Figure 2-1h 115-kV 3-Way Switch Structure


DWG. NO. TP-115

Figure 2-1i Mountrail-Williams Electric Cooperative

115-kV Tangent Structure


Figure 2-2

Bird Flight Diverter


2.4.4 No-Action Alternative Consequences of a No-Action Alternative are evaluated as part of the reasonable alternatives considered. If the Proposed Action or alternative route action is not approved, the need would still exist. Existing facilities in the area are not designed to carry 115,000 volts and there are no other existing facilities in the region. Construction of a completely new project in the area would increase impacts to the public and the environment, and require all new rights of way in addition to the existing facilities which would remain in use. Meeting the increased power demand with existing facilities and no improvements would have a negative impact on the quality of service to existing consumers and to continued energy development in the state until other sources of power, which are needed, are developed. 2.5 PRECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

Preconstruction activities will apply to all components of the Proposed Action and will include literature searches (Cultural Resource Class I Inventory), site engineering activities (aerial surveys and geotechnical borings), environmental surveys and studies (Cultural Resource Class II/III inventories and Biological Assessment), landowner contacts and easement acquisition, and engineering planning and design.

2.5.1 Site Engineering Surveys Geotechnical Borings. Geotechnical borings are done to provide soils information to design proposed foundations or determine backfill requirements around pole bases. Borings will be done as needed for design purposes. 2.5.2 Engineering Planning and Design The Proposed Action will comply with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. The facilities will be designed and built to applicable RUS design and construction standards, and constructed in accordance with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Standards. The Proposed Action will be sited in accordance with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies to avoid residences, sensitive environmental resources, wetlands, and cultural resources as much as possible.

2.6 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Construction activities include clearing, access, equipment and materials transport and delivery, structure installation, conductor stringing, fill material, site housekeeping, construction waste disposal, Best Management Practices, and reclamation and restoration. 2.6.1 Clearing Substation site clearing will include grubbing and grading of the substation yard expansion area. Minimal vegetation clearing is anticipated along the transmission right of way as much of the proposed 115-kV transmission line will be constructed on existing right of way and in cultivated fields and pastures. In general, trees within the right of way are cleared for the full


width of the right of way for safety and reliable operation. It is anticipated that only trimming will be required in existing right of way. The proposed transmission line will be constructed at existing grade in the right of way. In the unlikely event a structure must be located in a sloping or uneven area, a minimal amount of grading may be required. 2.6.2 Access Access to the construction site and material storage areas will be along established State, Township, and County roads. Access to the right of way will be from existing access points along these established roads. If additional access points other than those already established are required, they will be negotiated with landowners and required County/Township permits obtained. Deliveries from the storage areas to the structure locations will be along established roads to access the right of way, then along the right of way. New access areas that are needed will be developed with as little disturbance as possible, adequate Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be installed, and the disturbed areas restored as negotiated with landowners or per agency regulations. 2.6.3 Equipment and Materials Transport and Delivery It is anticipated that most of the material required for construction of the transmission line (e.g., structures, conductor, insulators, and hardware) will be delivered to existing Central Power or Mountrail-Williams facilities or to temporary material storage areas located along the line route. Structures and associated equipment/hardware will be delivered from the storage areas to individual structure locations as needed during construction. Materials and equipment for the substations will be stored at existing facilities or delivered directly to the substation sites during construction. Access to substation facilities will be along established roads and existing access points as the substations are existing facilities. 2.6.4 Structure Installation Insulators and other hardware will be attached to each wood pole structure before it is installed in place. Depending on soil conditions, a hole will either be excavated or augured. Wood pole structures will be placed directly in the hole using a crane or similar equipment, and the holes backfilled with crushed rock. Should a steel monopole be required at any location, insulators and other hardware will be attached to each structure before it is installed in place. These structures will either be placed directly in the ground or erected on a concrete foundation with anchor bolts using a crane or similar equipment. If placed directly in the ground, the hole will be backfilled with crushed rock.


2.6.5 Conductor Stringing Conductors will be installed using man-lifts, boom trucks, hydraulic tensioning machines and reel trailers. Stringing pulleys will be installed at the ends of the insulators and the conductors pulled through the stringing pulleys for a specified distance, typically 2-3 miles depending on the location of dead-end and angle structures. Permits will be obtained for road crossings. Equipment needed to ensure that conductors will not obstruct traffic or contact existing energized conductors or other cables will be put in place during stringing operations. Once the conductor is pulled to the design tension, it will be clamped in place. 2.6.6 Backfill Material Crushed rock will be used as backfill around poles and will be brought up to just below the ground surface. Native soil will be used to fill the remainder of the hole and to make a domed cap around the base of the pole. Excess material will be disposed of in accordance with landowner requirements or at an approved disposal site. Crushed rock will be obtained from a commercially-available source in the area. 2.6.7 Construction Site Housekeeping All construction waste and scrap materials will be removed from the area and disposed of at an approved disposal site. Waste materials generated by the construction crews will be collected in receptacles placed at the construction sites and disposed of at approved disposal sites. Portable sanitary facilities will be provided for construction crews. 2.6.8 Reclamation and Restoration During construction, ground disturbance will be kept to a minimum when possible. Temporary disturbance areas will be restored to their original condition to the extent practicable and as negotiated with the landowner. Reclamation activities will include removing and disposing of construction debris, removing all materials from material storage areas, leveling or filling equipment ruts, and erosion control. Compensation for restoration of the right of way across cultivated fields or pastureland will generally be negotiated with individual landowners. For roadside ditches, areas bordering wetlands, or lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or North Dakota Game and Fish, reseeding, when required, will be accomplished using recommended certified seed mixes approved by these agencies. 2.7 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Maintenance of substation and transmission facilities are routinely performed at scheduled intervals as specified for proper operation of the equipment. 2.7.1 Transmission Line Right-of- Way Maintenance Procedures

Routine right-of-way maintenance will be performed periodically or as necessary to remove vegetation that may interfere with the safe and reliable operation of the transmission line.


2.7.2 Equipment Maintenance and Repairs Procedures Equipment inspections will be done by vehicle or on foot. Routine equipment maintenance and repairs will be performed over the life of the transmission line; emergency repairs are made when needed.


Section 3.0

Environmental Effects, Monitoring, and Mitigation

3.1 GENERAL This section addresses the potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on resources in the affected environment and the degree to which the Proposed Action contributes to those effects, including the No Action alternative. Under NEPA, the terms “effects” and “impacts” are synonymous and can be either beneficial or adverse. Mitigation measures are included, as appropriate, in the discussion of each resource when applicable. Direct effects are those that occur at the same time and place. Direct effects could result from construction, operation, and/or maintenance of the Proposed Action. Indirect effects, or secondary effects, are those that occur later in time or further removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects can be temporary (associated with the construction phase) or permanent (remain for the life of an action). Cumulative effects result from the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes such other actions (Federal or non-Federal) and can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. They can result from similar projects or actions as well as from projects or actions that have similar effects. 3.2 REGULATIONS, STATUTES, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS Following is a listing of regulations, statutes, and Executive Orders that may be applicable to the Proposed Action.


LISTING CITATION Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7401 Clean Water Act 32 U.S.C. 1251 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Farmland Protection Policy Act 7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq. National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4321-4346 National Historic Preservation Act 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. Native American Graves & Repatriation Act 25 U.S.C. 3001 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act 42 U.S.C. 3251 E.O. 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality

3 CFR 1970 Comp., pg. 104

E.O. 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

3 CFR 1971 Comp., pg. 154

E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management 3 CFR 1977 Comp., pg. 117 E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands 3 CFR 1977 Comp., pg. 121 E.O. 12898, Environmental Justice 3 CFR 1994 Comp., pg. 859

3.3 RESOURCE TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER STUDY

3.3.1 Soils Soils generally crossed in Mountrail County are chiefly Parnell and Tonka series silt loams with a very small amount of Vallers series loam, saline. These soils are generally poorly drained, have high water tables, and are subject to ponding. The hazards of water erosion and soil blowing in the Parnell and Tonka soils are slight. The Tonka series is considered prime farmland, the Parnell series is not. In the Vallers soil, the hazard of soil blowing is moderate and water erosion slight. These soils are well suited to wildlife wetland habitat. Soils generally crossed in Ward County are Williams series loam, Parnell series silty clay loam, Tonka series silt loam, and Max series loam. The Williams series loam is identified as farmland of statewide importance and water erosion is the main hazard concern. The Max series loam is not considered prime farmland. Soils generally crossed in McLean County are Bowbells-Williams series loam, the Williams association series, the Max-Zahl-Williams series, and the Roseglen-Makoti association series. Water erosion is the main hazard concern of the Bowbells and Williams series, water erosion and soil blowing of the Max-Zahl-Williams series, and soil blowing of the Roseglem-Makoti association series. The Bowbells, Williams association, and Max-Zahl-Williams series are well suited for field crops, hay crops, and pasture grasses commonly grown in the county. The Roseglen-Makoti association series is well suited for cultivated crops.


Soils in the study area have been disturbed by activities associated with their agricultural use. Because the Proposed Action would have negligible impacts on soils, this topic has been dismissed from further study. 3.3.2 Floodplains The purpose of floodplain management is to avoid, to the extent practicable, actions that would result in the location of facilities in floodplains or that would affect floodplain values. Facilities located in a floodplain may be damaged or destroyed by a flood or may change the flood-handling capability of the floodplain or the pattern or magnitude of the flood flow. North Dakota State Water Commission recommended contacting County Floodplain Administrators with regard to any required floodplain permitting. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard boundary maps were imported into GIS and queried for any floodplains that would be crossed by the Proposed Action. There are no floodplains located within the Proposed Action. All waste material associated with the Proposed Action must be disposed of properly and not placed in identified floodway areas. Because there are no floodplains in the study area and no waste materials would be disposed of in a manner affecting floodplains, this resource topic has been dismissed from further study. 3.3.3 Wetlands The purpose of E.O. 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” is to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of the wetlands. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were imported into GIS and queried for wetlands that would be crossed by the Proposed Action. Results showed approximately 26 acres of wetland areas on the Proposed Action ROW. The primary types of wetlands crossed are Palustrine emergent temporarily flooded and Palustrine emergent seasonally flooded. Small wetland areas of less than an acre in size are found throughout the ROW. Some are associated with the only named waterway within the study area, the Middle Branch of Douglas Creek, but many are associated with unnamed drainage ways or isolated pothole wetlands associated with soil series found within the project area. The intent of final design would be to span and/or avoid surface water including streams, small lakes, and wetlands. Typical span lengths are between 330-400 feet, a length sufficient to span most wetlands encountered on the ROW, but the design would allow for occasional span lengths of up to 1,000 feet if necessary. In isolated instances where poles are placed in areas where the wetland boundaries may be in question, wetland delineations would be performed. If there is no reasonable alternative and it would become necessary to install a pole within a delineated wetlands boundary, required permits would be obtained from appropriate Federal, State, or local agencies and Best Management Practices implemented during and following construction until the disturbed area can be restored. CPEC and MWEC are consulting USFWS about wetland conservation easements they administer, will avoid impacts to sensitive resources identified by USFWS, or obtain a permit from USFWS if


needed to construct within easements. Because none of the alternatives would involve construction in wetlands, this resource topic has been dismissed from further study. 3.3.4 Vegetation Vegetation in the project area consists primarily of croplands with areas of native and non-native grasslands and mixed-grass prairie. Dominant plant species in the non-native grasslands include Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and Smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Mixed-grass prairie is the historical vegetation in the region. Dominant plant species in the mixed-grass prairie include blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Green needlegrass (Nassella viridula), Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and Needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comate ssp. Comate). Other plant species include Bearded wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus ssp. Subsecundus), porcupine grass (Hesperostipa spartea), Plains reedgrass (Calamagrostis montanensis), Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), Canby’s bluegrass (Poa secunda), Needleleaf sedge (Carex duriuscula), Thread-leaved sedge (Carex filifolia), Common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), milkvetch (Astragalus crassicarpus), Purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea), Silver-leaf scurf-pea (Pediomelum argophyllum), Prairie coneflower (Ratibida columnifera), white heath aster (Symphyotrichum ericoides), and American vetch (Vicia Americana). The North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the North Dakota Natural Heritage biological conservation database to determine if any plant or animal species of concern or other significant ecological communities are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the project area. Ecological communities within or adjacent to the Proposed Action are shown below. These areas would be avoided during construction.

• 2 Needle-and-thread Mixed Grass Prairie, one in Section 19, T148N, R83W and one

in Section 13, T149N, R84W • 1 Saline Wetland in Section 13, T149N, R84W • 1 Saltgrass Saline Meadow in Section 13, T149N, R84W

Noxious weeds commonly found in the project area include field bindweed, knapweeds, purple loosestrife, quackgrass, saltcedar, leafy spurge, Canada thistle, biennial thistles, toadflax, and absinth wormwood. Central Power controls weeds with herbicides only at pole bases and only at the request of the landowner. Re-seeding any disturbed areas would help contribute to the establishment native species and mitigate the potential for construction activities to contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. Minor to moderate temporary impacts to vegetation would result from construction traffic and at material storage areas, and would be restored as much as is practicable to preconstruction conditions or as negotiated with the landowner. Because the Proposed Action would be located in areas where the natural vegetation has already been disturbed and would not have greater than minor effects on vegetation, this resource topic has been dismissed from further study.


3.3.5 Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA), which was last amended in 1990, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The NAAQS sets limits on the amount of six criterion air pollutants. Areas that exceed these limits are termed “non-attainment” areas. Areas in non-attainment must take measures to prevent contributing sources to air pollution in non-attainment areas. The EPA Greenbook list of non-attainment areas, available at http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html, indicates that there are no counties in North Dakota that are in nonattainment for any of the NAAQS criteria air pollutants. The North Dakota Department of Health made recommendations for construction methods to reduce fugitive dust emissions which would release particulate matter, one of the NAAQS pollutants. Fugitive dust can be mitigated by watering roads and work areas as necessary. RUS finds that because the Proposed Action is not in a non-attainment area, because mitigation measures for fugitive dust release would reduce the temporary effects to negligible amounts of particulate matter release, and because none of the alternatives would create new point sources for air pollution, the overall project would have temporary negligible effects on air quality. Therefore, this topic has been dismissed from further study. 3.3.6 Water Quality Water quality can be affected through discharge of project-generated effluents into a watercourse and by runoff or leaching into surface or groundwater. One named creek is located within the project area, the Middle Branch of Douglas Creek. This creek and all unnamed drainage ways would be spanned. Utilization of existing ROW would also minimize impacts. In its response to the notification letter, North Dakota State Water Commission (NDSWC) said there are no sole-source aquifers designated in North Dakota. NDSWC’s response also addressed floodplains, obtaining required permits if poles are placed in wetlands, and properly disposing of waste material associated with the project. The letter stated that NDSWC had no other concerns associated with this project. The majority of pole locations can be accessed and holes drilled without the need for grading or leveling on the ROW. In the rare case where it may be necessary to prepare a level working area, it is anticipated that only minor surface alterations would be required and these areas would be restored to preconstruction contours as much as practicable. The small amount of grading and/or recontouring that would be required would not affect existing surface hydrology. The Proposed Action would not have significant sedimentation impacts affecting watercourses or drainage ways, as these features would be spanned. Best Management Practices would be implemented when disturbance from construction or construction traffic occurs on slopes or in locations in close proximity to a watercourse or drainage way where sediment from runoff could flow into the watercourse or drainage. NDDOH recommended that care be taken during construction activity near any water of the

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html


state to minimize adverse effects on a water body including minimal disturbance of stream beds and banks to prevent excess siltation, and the replacement and revegetation of any disturbed area as soon as possible after work has been completed. NDDOH also recommended that caution must be taken to prevent spills of oil and grease that may reach the receiving water from equipment maintenance and/or the handling of fuels on the site. Guidelines for minimizing degradation to waterways during construction were included and the response letter is in Appendix B. Groundwater may be encountered during excavation. Generally, dewatering would not be required but, when necessary, would be done in a manner that would minimize erosion consistent with NDDOH recommendations. Because only isolated poles would be placed in water and because the project proponents would take measures to mitigate impacts to surface waters and groundwater, RUS finds that the overall impact on water quality would be less than minor. Therefore, this topic has been dismissed from further study. 3.3.7 Transportation State, County, and Township roads would be utilized to transport men, machinery, materials, and equipment along the Proposed Action. Major roadways in the area include US 83, 34th Ave. NW, 21st St. NW, 59th Ave. NW / 366th St. SW / CR 7, and ND-23. Private access roads would be negotiated with individual landowners to access the ROW. The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) was consulted and responded that the Proposed Action should have no adverse effect on the NDDOT highways. If any work needs to be done in highway ROW, appropriate permits and risk management documents would need to be obtained from the DOT District Engineer. Because there would be no adverse effects on transportation, this topic has been dismissed from further study. 3.3.8 Noise, Radio, and Television Interference Radio and television interference results from corona around a line. Corona is a tiny electrical discharge that creates ionized air close to transmission line conductors. The corona results in a small amount of noise that could conflict with radios and televisions. Generally, transmission lines of 115 kV or less do not cause interference in radio or television reception because the level of interference is very low at the edge of the ROW. The transition of television broadcasts to digital signals further reduces the likelihood of noise interference from a transmission line. A vibration or humming noise can be noticeable and is most often associated with older transmission lines. It is usually the result of conductor mounting hardware that has loosened slightly over the years and can be identified and repaired by the utility as part of line maintenance. In its response, NDDOH noted that noise from construction activities may have adverse effects on persons who live near the construction area. Suggestions to minimize noise levels included ensuring that construction equipment is equipped with a recommended muffler in good working order and that construction activities are not conducted during early morning


or late evening hours. The NDDOH included a sheet entitled, “Construction and Environmental Disturbance Requirements” with the response. RUS has reviewed the information presented by NDDOH as well as mitigation measures proposed by the project proponents. Because of the voltage of the proposed transmission line, the distance from homes, and the mitigation measures proposed, RUS finds that the Proposed Action would not have greater than minor effects to the area soundscapes as a result of noise or radio or television interference. Therefore, RUS has dismissed this topic from further study. 3.3.9 Socioeconomic and Community Resources The construction and operation of the Proposed Action would have minor, if any, adverse effect on socioeconomic and community resources in the vicinity of the project. The work force would temporarily bring increased business to the area. RUS has therefore dismissed this topic from further study. 3.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Proposed Action would construct approximately 68 miles of 115-kV, single-circuit transmission line. Of the 68 miles, 42 miles would replace an existing 43.8-kV transmission line and 18.5 miles would replace existing distribution lines. The remaining 7.5 miles would require new ROW, approximately 4.5 miles between the take-off structure near Snake Creek north to Max Substation and approximately 3 miles at the north end of the project between the end of the existing 43.8-kV line and the Parshall Substation. Environmental resources that may be affected include land use, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, and fish and wildlife resources. Due to the majority of the Proposed Action being constructed on existing ROW and replacing an existing 43.8-kV transmission line, the overall direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action are minor or negligible. 3.4.1 Land Use Including Formally Designated Lands and Farmlands The compatibility of an agency action to existing land uses and possible land use changes that could occur as a result of the Proposed Action should be addressed. The Proposed Action is located in Mountrail, Ward, and McLean counties in the northwest quarter of North Dakota. Land use planning in these counties is regulated by local Planning Departments and a Conditional Use Permit for the Proposed Action is required in Mountrail and McLean counties, and a Special Use Permit is required in Ward County. The Proposed Action is located within areas zoned for agriculture, is consistent with county land-use plans, and is not located within any town boundaries. The Proposed Action would be located in areas of important farmland but would generally parallel existing roads located near section lines or would continue near section lines where the roads may have to veer around wetland areas. Paralleling existing roads facilitates access during maintenance or emergencies and has less impact on farming operations.


3.4.1.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would pass within 125 feet of 1 home and 250 feet of 15 homes, but all of these homes are located along the existing transmission line. The Proposed Action would cross 1 Federally-owned property administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 3 tribal-owned properties, and part of the study area is located within the boundary of the Fort Berthold Reservation. The Service’s land along the Proposed Action route is a waterfowl production area. The Service also administers Waterfowl Production Areas as well as wetland and grassland easements throughout North Dakota, and holds wetlands conservation easements along the Proposed Action route. The Proposed Action would also cross one tract of land under the jurisdiction of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians as well as the Fort Berthold Reservation under the jurisdiction of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation. CPEC, MWEC, and their consultants have been in contact with both tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Service, and both project proponents would continue to work with these landowners to assure that the Proposed Action would not be inconsistent with the purposes for which these lands were set aside. CPEC and MWEC consulted the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) about important farmlands, and the NRCS responded that they have no concerns about farmland conversion or loss of farmland from the Proposed Action. Direct and Indirect Effects. Lands disturbed by construction activities would be restored as much as practicable to preconstruction conditions or as negotiated with the landowner. Because the most of the Proposed Action route is located within existing ROW and the new ROW would be selected in consultation with land planning agencies, the Proposed Action would have no more than minor long-term adverse effects on land use. 3.4.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change in current land use. 3.4.2 Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, require Federal agencies to take into account the effect their actions may have on historic properties prior to carrying out such actions. 3.4.2.1 Proposed Action

Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (MAC) conducted a Class I file search on the Proposed Action in both Central Power’s and Mountrail-Williams’ territories and submitted a letter of findings to the NDSHPO. The SHPO’s recommendation was that Class II and Class III inventories were to be conducted on previously-unsurveyed areas within the Proposed Action. The Class I file search and the Class II/III inventories have been completed for portions of the Proposed Action route; however, due to rerouting to avoid sensitive resources, the entire area of potential effects (APE) has not been surveyed. Because snow cover is impeding ground visibility, the APE will not be able to be completely surveyed before the beginning of the construction season. Therefore, RUS proposed a phased identification of


historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.4(b)(2), and RUS has developed a programmatic agreement (PA), in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.14(b), to define how RUS will meet its Section 106 responsibilities for the Proposed Action. All required signatories to the PA have agreed to sign it, and it is being finalized for signature. The PA will be executed prior to RUS issuing a decision document to conclude the NEPA process. Direct and Indirect Effects. The project proponents have committed to avoiding historic properties and RUS anticipates a finding of no historic properties affected for all project components. If the sites can be avoided, then there would be no significant direct or indirect effects on cultural resources as a result of the Proposed Action. 3.4.2.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to existing cultural resources. 3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species, and Other Special Status Species The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 establishes a national program for the conservation and protection of threatened and endangered plant and animal species and the preservation of habitats upon which they depend. Under Section 7 of the ESA, Federal agencies may be required to consult with the USFWS to ensure that the actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In accordance with the ESA, Federal agencies and their applicants consult with USFWS when Federal actions may affect a federally listed species. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, including the feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or migratory bird products. The MBTA also serves to protect environmental conditions for migratory birds from habitat degradation. All above-ground power lines have the potential to increase the possibility of an “incidental take” of migratory birds, including endangered species, as a result of collisions and electrocutions. The USFWS and the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee have developed guidelines to mitigate bird fatalities from interaction with power lines. The mitigation measures discussed under the Threatened and Endangered Species section below would also mitigate the potential for bird fatalities of non-listed species. 3.4.3.1 Proposed Action

The Bismarck Ecological Services Field Office of the USFWS reviewed the Proposed Action and offered general recommendations (Appendix B). To minimize impacts to migratory birds, the Service recommends to the extent practicable that construction projects be scheduled for late summer or fall/early winter so as not to disrupt migratory birds during the breeding season. Because most of the project is in existing ROW where vegetation is regularly maintained, the ROW is not likely to be suitable habitat for nesting and breeding, and therefore construction would be consistent with existing disturbance in the area associated with maintenance. Additionally, CPEC has committed to retaining a biologist to assist with migratory bird surveys and recommendations for avoidance as may be needed


during construction. To minimize the electrocution hazard to birds, the Service recommends following guidelines presented in two publications available from the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC): “Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006” and “Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994.” Both Central Power and Mountrail-Williams incorporate these recommendations in their transmission line design. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940 and amended, prohibits anyone without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior from "taking" bald eagles including their parts, nests, or eggs. The NDFGD maintains a GIS database with eagle nest locations and other migratory bird nest locations. A database review showed that the nearest nest to the proposed action area is that of a Swainson Hawk, approximately 1.32 miles away from the Proposed Action. Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), a federally-listed threatened species, are known to use the Missouri River, Lake Sakakawea, and several alkali wetlands in the Proposed Action area during the breeding season, and there is designated critical habitat within a mile of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is located in the Aransas Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP) of Whooping Cranes (Grus americana) migration corridor. This population of Whooping Cranes is the only self-sustaining migratory population of Whooping Cranes remaining in the wild. Whooping Cranes breed in the wetlands of Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberta and the Northwest Territories of northern Canada and overwinter on the Texas coast. Whooping Cranes in the AWBP annually migrate through North Dakota during their spring and fall migrations. These endangered whooping cranes have been documented using roosting/feeding habitat in the vicinity of the proposed transmission route, which is located within the whooping crane migration corridor. The Service recommends maintaining visual marking devices within one mile of suitable whooping crane stopover habit for power line rebuild projects and for construction of new power lines, the Service recommends marking all new line and an additional equal length of line within one mile of suitable habitat. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson (KLJ) was retained to conduct a Biological Assessment (BA) identifying federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species, and designated critical habitat that may occur in the Proposed Action area in Central Power’s and Mountrail-Williams’ territories. Although the Proposed Action may result in temporary disruption of habitat or feeding areas, KLJ recommended it is not anticipated there would be long-term effects on any endangered, threatened, or candidate species or critical habitat. It was determined it would be unlikely the gray wolf or the pallid sturgeon would be in the Proposed Action area and would therefore not be affected. Other threatened, endangered, rare, or candidate species that might be found in or in proximity to the Proposed Action area have been addressed in this EA. Both Central Power and Mountrail-Williams have committed to installing bird flight diverters on the static line along the entire route to avoid avian collisions. Central Power would install bird flight diverters on an additional 4.5 miles


of line if required and would bury 12.1 miles of existing distribution line. Mountrail-Williams’ policy is to mark all of its lines in the area. Based on information in the BA including conservation measures to prevent bird collisions and electrocution, RUS made a determination that the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, federally listed species. KLJ discussed the Service’s recommendations in their scoping letter with Central Power and Mountrail-Williams, and both utilities have agreed to abide by them and stated this in the Biological Assessment. RUS initiated informal Section 7 consultation with USFWS on February 4, 2013. Consultation will be concluded prior to issuing RUS’s decision document. Direct and Indirect Effects. Minor, temporary displacement of birds could occur from the Proposed Action. Waterfowl, whooping cranes, raptors, and other bird species may be affected by the transmission lines, and wire collisions are a possibility. Collisions can be mitigated by marking the line or installing bird flight diverters. Central Power and Mountrail-Williams have committed to the installation of bird flight diverters shown in Figure 3-2, Section 3.0 to minimize collisions. Electrocution of large birds would be mitigated because the new line is of a higher voltage which increases spacing between conductors. Both Central Power’s and Mountrail-Williams’ line design would be in accordance with RUS specifications and Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 2006 guidelines. There is always some concern that transmission line structures provide hunting perches for raptors where no natural perches occur and could impact ground-nesting species. The Proposed Action would replace approximately 62% of the existing transmission structures so there should be little change in impact to ground-nesting birds in the area. If the recommendations in the Biological Assessment are accepted by RUS and the Service and are incorporated into the Proposed Action, it is anticipated there would be minimal direct or indirect effects from the Proposed Action. 3.4.3.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to threatened and endangered species, and other special status species. 3.4.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources Potential impacts to fish that can result from construction activities associated with the transmission line include increased sedimentation of ponds or flow impedance of streams from ground clearing. When working near creeks, ponds, or wetland areas, appropriate erosion-control measures would be implemented to control siltation. To minimize disturbance to existing fish and wildlife habitat in the area of the Proposed Action, the USFWS (Service) recommendations are:

• Avoid construction in native prairie, if possible, and reseed disturbed native prairie with a comparable native grass/forb seed mixture. Obtain seed stock from nurseries within 250 miles of the project area to insure the particular cultivars are well adapted to the local climate.


• Make no stream channel alterations or changes in drainage patterns. • Install and maintain appropriate erosion-control measures to reduce sediment

transport to adjacent wetlands and stream channels. The scope of authority and expertise of the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department’s Natural Resource Division covers recreation and biological resources, in particular rare plants and ecological communities. They reviewed the North Dakota Natural Heritage biological conservation database to determine if any plant or animal species of concern or other significant ecological communities are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the project area. Based on the review, they identified significant ecological communities in McLean County, as follows:

• Saltgrass Saline Meadow • Saline Wetland • Needle-and-thread Mixed Grass Prairie

3.4.4.1 Proposed Action

Habitat in the area could be temporarily disturbed or displaced by vehicular and equipment activity associated with construction of the Proposed Action. To the extent possible, critical habitat areas would be avoided. As construction activities cease, disturbed areas would be restored. The North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the Proposed Action be accomplished with minimal impacts and that all efforts are made to assure that critical habitats are not disturbed in the project area in order to help protect rare species in North Dakota. Their recommendation regarding reclamation efforts is that any impacted areas are revegetated with species native to the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects. Minor, temporary disturbance to habitat could occur from the Proposed Action, but it would be consistent with regular repair and maintenance in areas of existing ROW. Because the project proponents have agreed to implement mitigation measures to minimize or avoid impacts, the Proposed Action would have negligible to minor direct and indirect effects on fish and wildlife. 3.4.4.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to existing fish and wildlife resources. 3.4.5 Human Health and Safety For human safety, the transmission line is designed to comply with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) standards for designed clearances to ground, road and railroad crossings, and structures. Construction practices follow NESC and OSHA standards for worker safety.


Health effects of transmission lines on human health are addressed in the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health Publication No. 98-3981, August 1998, “The Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields.” 3.4.5.1 Proposed Action

Increased demand for power in the area north and west of the Proposed Action has placed a strain on existing facilities. Construction of the Proposed Action is necessary to allow the proponents to continue to provide reliable power to customers. With continued energy development and without the Proposed Action, it will become necessary to begin implementing rolling brownouts or blackouts in order to avoid damage to existing facilities which could result in reduced or no service available to the area. Such a consequence could endanger the health and lives of residents in the areas served by the transmission line. The Proposed Action has been located to avoid residential areas, schools, health facilities, and other public facilities in compliance with RUS Bulletin 1794a-601. Direct and Indirect Effects. If the Proposed Action is constructed, there would be no significant direct or indirect effects on health and human safety as a result of the Proposed Action. 3.4.5.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, lives and health could be endangered due to power shortages resulting from rolling brownouts or blackouts, or from losing service altogether as a result of severe damage to existing facilities due to overloading the system. 3.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes such other actions (Federal or non-Federal) and can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. They can result from similar projects or actions as well as from project or actions that have similar effects. When a cumulative effects analysis is warranted, the discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness. The incremental effects of a Proposed Action are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past actions and foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects are two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or compound or increase other environmental effects. Past actions are projects that have been approved and/or permitted and construction has either very recently been completed or has yet to be completed. Present actions are actions that are ongoing at the time of this Report. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those for which there are existing decisions, funding, or formal proposals, or which are highly probable based on known opportunities or trends; however, these actions are limited to a designated geographic scope and timeframe. Future actions that are merely possible but not highly probable based on information available at the time are not included.


The geographic scope is generally based on natural boundaries of the resource affected rather than jurisdictional boundaries. It is important to note that the geographic scope is different for each cumulative effects issue. The geographic scope of cumulative effects often extends beyond the scope of the direct effects, but not beyond the scope of the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action. For the Proposed Action addressed in this EA, a limit of one mile was assigned. One mile is chiefly based on impacts to biological resources (e.g., wetlands, Threatened and Endangered species) and land use (farmland) as there are no specific topographical features such as major rivers, lakes, or mountain ranges that define the area of the Proposed Action. For the purposes of this study, the timeframe considered for cumulative projects includes projects recently approved or completed that are not yet addressed as part of the existing conditions of the area, projects under construction, and projects that are in the environmental review or planning process and for which enough information is available to discern their potential impacts. Projects for which no or insufficient information is known or for which substantial uncertainty exists regarding the project are considered speculative and are not evaluated as part of cumulative effects. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were researched. One proposed project in the foreseeable future is the Thunder Butte Oil Refinery that would be constructed on land owned by the MHA Nation, The refinery would be a new 13,000 barrel-per-day petroleum refinery on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation located near Makoti, North Dakota. The MHA Nation would own and operate the refinery. The proposed facility would refine Bakken formation crude oil into diesel fuel, gasoline and propane. The transmission line that is part of the Proposed Action would supply power to the refinery. The EPA prepared and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the application for the refinery’s NPDES permit. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was a cooperating agency on the EIS. EPA issued a record of decision on the refinery in August 2011 and subsequently issued the NPDES permit for the construction and operation of the refinery in July 2012. RUS has reviewed the environmental information about the Thunder Butte refinery and finds that the effects of the Proposed Action would not have significant cumulative effects on the resources carried forward for analysis in this EA. Information on the refinery is available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/compliance/nepa/mharefinery.html.

http://www.epa.gov/region8/compliance/nepa/mharefinery.html

Environmental Report September, 2012 Snake Creek-Parshall 115-kV Transmission Project Section 4, Page 1

Section 4.0

References

References, Citations, Websites, Databases Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), 2006. Suggested Practices for Raptor

Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with

Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C.

Environmental Systems Research Institute – ArcGIS Version 10, Base Map Layer Data; 2012. Road centerlines have been digitized from United States Geological Survey’s 7.5’ Quadrangle Topographic Maps United States Department of Agriculture – Geospatial Data Gateway. http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/. McLean, Mountrail and Ward Counties; North Dakota; 2010 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service – Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. McLean, Mountrail and Ward Counties; North Dakota; 2012 United States Fish and Wildlife Service - National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Data-Download.html. McLean, Mountrail and Ward Counties; North Dakota; 2012

http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Data-Download.html

Environmental Report September, 2012 Snake Creek-Parshall 115-kV Transmission Project Section 4, Page 2

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). https://msc.fema.gov. McLean, Mountrail and Ward Counties, North Dakota; 2012 State of North Dakota GIS Hub Data Portal. http://web.apps.state.nd.us/hubdataportal/srv/en/main.home. Statewide coverage; North Dakota; 2012

https://msc.fema.gov/

http://web.apps.state.nd.us/hubdataportal/srv/en/main.home

environmental assessment - central power electric...

Documents