CENTER TO GRAND FORKS 

345 KV TRANSMISSION LINE 

PROJECT 

SCOPING REPORT 

March 2010 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Rural Utilities Service 

Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page i March 2010 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Summary of the Alternative Evaluation Study .................................................... 6

2.2 Summary of Macro-Corridor Study ..................................................................... 6

3.0 Minnkota’s Pre-Scoping Process ............................................................................ 8

4.0 RUS’s Agency & Tribal Government Scoping Process ........................................ 9

4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...................................................................... 9

4.1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9

4.1.2 Notification ................................................................................................. 9

4.1.3 Agency Attendance ..................................................................................... 9

4.2 Tribal Governments ............................................................................................. 9

4.2.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9

4.2.2 Invitation to Consult ................................................................................. 10

4.3 Agency and Tribal Government Comments ...................................................... 11

5.0 Public Scoping Process .......................................................................................... 13

5.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Scoping Meetings Notices ................................................................................. 13

5.3 Public Scoping Meetings ................................................................................... 14

5.4 Public and Non-Government Organization Comments ..................................... 15

5.4.1 Agriculture ................................................................................................ 16

5.4.2 Cost ........................................................................................................... 16

5.4.3 Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 16

5.4.4 Endangered Species .................................................................................. 16

5.4.5 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................. 16

5.4.6 General Public Involvement ..................................................................... 17

5.4.7 Mailing List Request ................................................................................. 17

5.4.8 Management Areas ................................................................................... 17

5.4.9 Routing ...................................................................................................... 17

5.4.10 Right-of-Way ............................................................................................ 17

5.4.11 Safety ........................................................................................................ 17

5.4.12 Mapping Comments .................................................................................. 17

6.0 Macro-Corridors Expansion Areas ...................................................................... 18

7.0 Project Status ......................................................................................................... 19

8.0 Tentative Environmental Assessment Schedule .................................................. 20

9.0 Additional Environmental Review Requirements .............................................. 21

10.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 22
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page ii RUS Scoping Report 

List of Tables 

Table 2-1. Typical Characteristics of 345 kV Transmission Line Structures ..................... 3

Table 3-1. Pre-Scoping Comments by Topic ...................................................................... 8

Table 4-1. Tribal Government Consultation List .............................................................. 11

Table 4-2. Agency and Tribal Government Comments .................................................... 12

Table 5-1. Public Scoping Meeting Dates, Times and Locations ..................................... 13

Table 5-2. List of Newspapers .......................................................................................... 14

Table 5-3. Public and Non-Government Organization Scoping Comments by Topic .... 16

Table 8-1. Tentative EA Schedule .................................................................................... 20

Table 9-1. Required Permits, Approvals, and Coordination ............................................. 21

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1. Project Area and Macro-Corridors ................................................................... 5

Figure 2-2. Potential Project Upgrade Areas due to Interconnection Requests .................. 5

Figure 6-1. Macro-Corridors Expansion Areas ................................................................ 18

List of Appendices 

Appendix A – Pre-Scoping Meeting Materials and Comments 

Appendix B – Agency Scoping Meeting Materials 

Appendix C – Section 106 

Appendix D – Agency Scoping Comments 

Appendix E – Notice of Intent 

Appendix F – Public Meeting Newspaper Notices, Press Release, Public Service 

 Announcement 

Appendix G – Public Postcards 

Appendix H – Public Scoping Meeting Sign-In Sheets 

Appendix I – Public Scoping Meeting Materials 

Appendix J – Public and NGO Scoping Comments 

 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page iii March 2010 

List of Acronyms 

Abbreviation Definition 

AC Alternating Current 

ACSR Aluminum conductor steel reinforced 

ACSS Aluminum conductor steel supported 

AES Alternatives Evaluation Study 

CFR Code of federal regulations 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

EA Environmental Assessment with scoping 

EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

HVDC High Voltage Direct-Current 

kV Kilovolt 

MCM Thousand Circular Mills 

MCS Macro-Corridor Study 

Minnkota Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 

MW Megawatt 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOI Notice of Intent 

OPGW Optical Ground Wire 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PPA Power Purchase Agreements 

Project Center to Grand Forks Transmission Line Project 

PSA Public Service Announcement 

PSC Public Service Commission 

ROW Right-of-Way 

RUS Rural Utilities Service 

STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database 

SVC Static VAR Compensator 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TW Trapezoidal Wire 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 1 March 2010 

1.0 Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is 

considering a request for funding for a proposal by Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 

(Minnkota). The proposal is for the planned Center to Grand Forks Transmission Line 

Project (Project), an approximately 260-mile-long 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line in 

North Dakota. As specified in RUS’s Environmental Policies and Procedures, as codified 

in 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1794, the proposed Project requires the 

preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) with scoping (7 CFR 1794.24[b][1]). 

Accordingly, scoping meetings with the public, federal, state, and local agencies, and 

tribal governments were held between November 16 and November 19, 2009. This 

scoping report identifies and summarizes comments received during the scoping period 

from November 20 to December 18, 2009 and identifies what will be evaluated in the EA. 

This report describes the proposed Project, outlines the agency and public scoping 

meetings and materials, and provides a summary of the comments received at those 

meetings, which were held between November 16 and November 19, 2009. In addition, 

this document includes ten appendices containing supplementary information. 

 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 2 RUS Scoping Report 

2.0 Project Description 

Minnkota is proposing to construct an approximately 260-mile-long 345 kilovolt (kV) 

transmission line in North Dakota between the Center 345 kV Substation (located 

northeast of the Milton R. Young Generation Station, near Center, North Dakota) and the 

Prairie Substation (located west of Grand Forks, North Dakota) (Figure 2-1, page 5). The 

proposed Center to Grand Forks 345 kV Transmission Line Project (Project) is needed to 

replace the capability of transmitting the output of Milton R Young Station Unit 2 over 

an existing high voltage direct-current (HVDC) transmission line, and to improve 

regional electrical system reliability. The proposed Project could also support wind 

generation development in North Dakota. 

The proposed Project would consist of the following six major components. 

 345 kV High Voltage Transmission Line – The proposed Project consists of 

approximately 260 miles (based on the average length of typical routes within the 

Macro-Corridors) of new, high voltage alternating current transmission line to run 

from the Center 345 kV Substation at the Milton R. Young Generation Station near 

Center, North Dakota, to the Prairie Substation near Grand Forks, North Dakota. A 

crossing of the Missouri River in central North Dakota would be required. The 

proposed Project would deliver existing baseload generation to Minnkota’s 

cooperative members. While final engineering and design has not been completed, 

the line would likely be constructed with single-pole steel structures (Table 2-1). 

Typical structures would be approximately 150-feet-high and placed approximately 

1,000-feet apart. The typical right-of-way (ROW) for a single pole 345 kV line would 

be approximately 150-feet-wide. It is anticipated that the proposed Project would use 

795 MCM (thousand circular mills - conductor diameter) or 954 MCM aluminum 

conductor steel reinforced (ACSR) or aluminum conductor steel supported (ACSS) 

conductors (bundled) to minimize corona. The conductor size may need to be 

modified once the preferred route is selected and additional electrical optimization 

studies are completed. In addition, a fiber-optic cable would be part of the static line 

for the entire 260 mile transmission line length. 

 Center 345 kV Substation Upgrades – Most upgrades would occur within the 

existing substation’s fenced boundary (ownership shared with Otter Tail Power 

Company). This would involve installing new 345 kV circuit breakers, 345 kV deadend structures, a new 345/230 kV transformer and associated bus work, new 345 kV 

switches and associated foundations, steel structures, and control panels. A line 

reactor for open line voltage control may also be required. If the reactor is required a 

22,500 square foot addition to the north end of the substation would be needed. 

 Additional 230 kV Tie Line –This approximately 1,500-foot-long 230 kV tie line 

would parallel the existing tie line on Minnkota-owned property. It would be needed 

to complete a transmission-to-transmission interconnection with the Square Butte 

230 kV Substation. 

 Square Butte 230 kV Substation Upgrades – Existing 230 kV circuit breakers and 

line terminal equipment would be re-allocated from the existing HVDC tie line to the 

new 345 kV interconnect as part of the agreement with Minnesota Power. 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 3 March 2010 

 Prairie Substation Upgrades – All upgrades would occur within the existing 

Minnkota-operated substation’s fenced boundary. This would involve installing new 

345 kV circuit breakers, 345 kV dead-end structures, two new 345/230 kV 

transformers and associated bus work, new 345 kV switches and associated 

foundations, steel structures, and control panels. New 230 kV circuit breakers would 

be added to accommodate interconnecting with the existing 230 kV ring bus. Existing 

transmission line termination would need to be moved to convert the ring bus into a 

breaker-and-a-half bus arrangement. 

 Fiber Optic Regeneration Stations – Two or more fiber optic regeneration stations 

would be required along the transmission line route to re-amplify the protection and 

control signals carried in the optical ground wire (OPGW). Each station would 

require a 50 foot by 50 foot fenced area and small control building to house the 

electronic equipment. 

Table 2-1. Typical Characteristics of 345 kV Transmission Line Structures 

345 kV Transmission Line Details 

Voltage (kV) 345 kV 

ROW width (feet) 150 

Span (feet) 1,000 

Range of structure heights (feet) 120 - 150 (single circuit) 

120 - 175 (double circuit) 

Number of structures per mile 5 – 7 

Minimum ground clearance beneath conductor (feet) 35 - 40 

Depth of concrete footings for the poles (feet) 20 – 40 

Diameter of concrete footings for the poles (feet) 7 – 10 

The cost of constructing the proposed 345 kV line is estimated to be in the range of $1.1 

to $1.8 million per mile in 2009 dollars (including ROW, permitting, and other ancillary 

costs) with a total estimated cost for line construction of approximately $286 million. An 

additional estimated $37 million would be required to modify the terminus substations 

near Center and Grand Forks, North Dakota, for a total estimated Project construction 

cost of $323 million for a 260 mile line. Minnkota has a target completion date for the 

proposed Project of January 1, 2013. 

Studies are underway to address third party impacts to neighboring transmission systems 

as well as to address the needs of potential interconnection customers who have requests 

listed on Minnkota’s interconnection queue1. Figure 2-2 (Page 5) identifies areas of 

potential project upgrades due to interconnect requests. The results of these studies may 

indicate a need to increase the overall scope of this proposed Project. Such scope changes 

could include the addition of one or more of the following eight project components. The 

cost of these proposed Project additions would be borne by the beneficiaries of the 

additions. 

 

1 Current requests are for wind energy development projects. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 4 RUS Scoping Report 

 Tap the proposed Project in the area of Finley, North Dakota, and develop a 345 kV 

transmission line section between Finley and Fargo. Develop a new 345 kV 

substation near Finley. 

 Increase conductor size or type on the base Project between Center and Finley. The 

use of ACSS or ACSS/TW (aluminum conductor steel supported/trapezoidal wire) 

can raise the thermal capability without increasing conductor diameter. 

 Insert a series compensation station at the tap point near Finley to lower the effective 

impedance of the line and increase transfer capability. 

 Convert all structures between Center and Finley to double-circuit-ready structures to 

accommodate a future second 345 kV circuit. 

 Add a second 345 kV circuit between Center and Finley. 

 Add phase shifting transformers to the Square Butte 230 kV Substation to decrease 

flows into the 230 kV system at Center. 

 Add shunt capacitors to the Jamestown 345 kV Substation to increase transfer 

capability. 

 Add an SVC (Static VAR compensator) to the Maple River Substation to increase 

transfer capability. 

RUS environmental review of the proposed Project was initiated by submittal of an 

Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) and a Macro-Corridor Study (MCS) from Minnkota 

(www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm#Minnkota_Power_Cooperative,_Inc._). These 

studies were approved by RUS on October 22, 2009 and made available for the public 

and agencies to review and provide comment. The AES was developed to define the 

proposed Project need and summarize the studies and transmission alternatives that were 

used to develop the Project need. The purpose of the MCS was to identify and define 

potential transmission line corridors and show end points. The transmission line corridors 

were developed based upon environmental, engineering, economics, and permitting 

opportunities and constraints. These documents outlined the need for the proposed 

Project and determined potential corridors. 

 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 5 March 2010 

Figure 2-1. Project Area and Macro-Corridors 

Figure 2-2. Potential Project Upgrade Areas due to Interconnection Requests 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 6 RUS Scoping Report 

2.1 Summary of the Alternative Evaluation Study 

The AES assesses different technological alternatives such as no action, load 

management, conservation, baseload generation, intermediate generation, peaking 

generation, and several transmission alternatives. The outcome of the AES stated that the 

solution for meeting the energy demand and voltage stability needs of the Red River 

Valley region was to construct a new 345 kV transmission line between Center and 

Grand Forks, North Dakota. 

The Milton R. Young Generation Station has two generating units, Young 1 and 

Young 2. Currently, Young 2 output is carried over a dedicated HVDC transmission line 

from central North Dakota to eastern Minnesota. Over the next few years, two main 

actions will take place through amendments of the power purchase agreements (PPA) 

between Square Butte Electric Cooperative, Minnkota, and Minnesota Power, as follows: 

 Rights to the existing HVDC transmission line from the Milton R. Young Generation 

Station to Duluth, Minnesota, have been transferred to Minnesota Power. Beginning 

in 2013 it will no longer be available to carry the full generation output of Young 2. 

 Rights to the total output (455 MW) of Young 2 will be transferred to Minnkota over 

time. 

With the reassignment of the HVDC system, Young 2 power will need to be moved over 

the alternating current transmission system to Minnkota’s service territory. As discussed 

in the AES, system studies have shown that the transfer capacity on the alternating 

current system needs to be increased between Young 2 and Minnkota’s service territory, 

and that a new 345 kV transmission line from Young 2 to the Prairie Substation would be 

the best solution. A new line between these endpoints would also improve voltage 

stability and load serving capability to the northern Red River Valley. This would not be 

new generation, but a change in how the power is delivered to the users. 

2.2 Summary of Macro-Corridor Study 

The MCS was developed to identify macro-corridors within which the transmission line 

could be built. Upon consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, including the 

public, local, state, and federal agencies, and tribal governments with an interest in the 

Project area, Minnkota identified potential macro-corridors, which could be assessed 

during RUS’s scoping process. The macro-corridors were established with the intention 

that multiple route options could be developed that pass a limited number of residences, 

minimize environmental impacts, cross rivers near existing linear infrastructure, and 

avoid conflicting land uses. Figure 2-1 illustrates the macro-corridors presented in the 

AES and MCS and reviewed during the scoping process. 

The AES and MCS were released for public review and comment on October 22, 2009. 

The public was able to access the documents on both the RUS and Minnkota’s Project 

websites. Hard copies of the documents were available for review at the scoping meetings 

and distributed to the following libraries: 

 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 7 March 2010 

 Aneta Public Library, 11995 19th St, Aneta, ND 58212-0088 

 Bismarck’s Veterans Memorial Library, 515 N. 5th St, Bismarck, ND 58501-4057 

 Oliver County Auditor, 115 West Main, Center, ND 58530 

 City of Carrington Library, 55 9th Ave, Carrington, ND 58421-2017 

 Griggs County Library, 902 Burrel Ave, Cooperstown, ND 58425-0546 

 Goodrich Public Library, 122 McKinley Ave, Goodrich, ND 58444-0175 

 Grand Forks Library, 2110 Library Circle, Grand Forks, ND 58201-6324 

 Harvey Public Library, 119 10th St, Harvey, ND 58341-1531 

 Mayville Library, 52 Center Ave, Mayville, ND 58257-1299 

 Sheridan County Auditor, 215 East 2nd St, McClusky, ND 58356-1510 

 New Rockford Public Library, 811 1st Ave N, New Rockford, ND 58356-1510 

 Turtle Lake Public Library, 107 Eggert Street, Turtle Lake, ND 58575-0540 

 Washburn Public Library, 705 Main Ave, Washburn, ND 58577-0637 

 Northwood Public Schools and City Library, 300 35th St, Northwood, ND 58267 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 8 RUS Scoping Report 

3.0 Minnkota’s Pre-Scoping Process 

Beginning in March 2009, Minnkota launched a pre-scoping public involvement 

campaign for the proposed Project. This was an effort to inform and gather data from the 

public, agencies, and tribal governments on the proposed Project. Minnkota held five 

public open house meetings in May 2009, presented the proposed Project at thirteen 

county commissioner meetings, met with a variety of state and federal agencies at a 

North Dakota Inter-Agency meeting, sent letters to tribal representatives, and held an 

additional open house meeting in August 2009. 

The objective of this outreach was to educate interested stakeholders on the purpose and 

description of the proposed Project and gather information to develop potential corridors 

for the MCS. To achieve this objective, Minnkota publicized the proposed Project and 

public meetings through press releases, local advertisements, informational postcards to 

the public, and letters to county commissioners, agencies, townships, and tribes. A tollfree Project information hotline and website were established to offer resources and to 

collect input. 

Table 3-1 provides a list of comments received by topic during the pre-scoping phase of 

the proposed Project. All pre-scoping comments received are located in Appendix A. 

Table 3-1. Pre-Scoping Comments by Topic 

Comment Topic Number of Comments 

Mailing List Request 57 

Routing 34 

General Public Involvement 25 

ROW 5 

Employment 4 

Wind Development 2 

EMF 1 

Management Areas 1 

 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 9 March 2010 

4.0 RUS’s Agency & Tribal Government Scoping Process 

4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies 

RUS held an agency scoping meeting for interested federal, state, and local agencies in a 

presentation meeting format. The agency scoping meeting was held on November 19, 

2009 at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) office at 3425 Miriam Avenue, 

Bismarck, North Dakota. 

4.1.1 Purpose 

The purpose of the scoping meeting was to provide the agencies with information 

regarding the proposed Project and to discuss the following items: 

 Project permitting concerns 

 Scoping of environmental issues to be analyzed in the RUS environmental review and 

documentation of the Project (RUS Bulletin 1794A-603) 

 Roles and expectations of the lead and cooperating agencies 

 Schedule 

4.1.2 Notification 

RUS notified federal and state agencies of the proposed Project by mailing letters on 

November 2, 2009, that detailed the role of the RUS in the proposed Project, invited 

recipients to the agency scoping meeting, outlined the availability of the MCS and AES, 

specified the dates and locations of the public and agency scoping meetings, provided 

contact information for the RUS representative assigned to the proposed Project, and 

detailed the process for submitting comments (Appendix B). 

4.1.3 Agency Attendance 

A total of nine participants representing the following agencies signed in at the agency 

scoping meeting (Appendix B): 

 Bureau of Reclamation 

 North Dakota Parks and Recreation 

 North Dakota State Water Commission 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office 

 Federal Highway Administration 

4.2 Tribal Governments 

The MCS and AES discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report were submitted to all 

tribal chairs and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices for review. 

4.2.1 Purpose 

RUS is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 470f, and its implementing regulations, 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.3-800.7, require federal 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 10 RUS Scoping Report 

agency consultation with Indian Tribes that may be affected by the proposed Project. 

RUS is coordinating consultation with the tribal governments. 

4.2.2 Invitation to Consult 

RUS invited the following tribal governments to participate in government–togovernment and Section 106 consultation for the proposed Project. The tribal 

governments were also invited to field meetings in September 2009 at the Missouri and 

Sheyenne rivers due to a higher potential for cultural resources, and are being consulted 

during the preparation of a Programmatic Agreement. The two letters sent to the tribes 

are included in Appendix C. 

No tribal government participated in the scoping meetings or attended the September 2009 

field meetings. Following these meetings, the Applicant contacted each tribe directly to 

determine its interest in the Project. This effort identified other tribes that may have an 

interest in consulting. These additional tribes were contacted and are included in the list in 

Table 4.1. RUS received letters and oral communication from several tribal governments 

that have expressed interest to participate in the Section 106 process for this project. RUS 

will continue to consult with the tribal governments as indicated in Table 4-1. 

 Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the 

Fort Peck Reservation

 Oglala Sioux

 Bois Forte Ojibwe  Red Lake Band of Chippewa

 Crow Creek Sioux  Rosebud Sioux

 Flandreau Santee Sioux  Santee Sioux

 Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa

 Cheyenne River Sioux

 Grand Portage Band of Ojibwe  Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate

 Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe  Spirit Lake Tribe

 Lower Brule Sioux  Standing Rock Sioux

 Lower Sioux Community  Three Affiliated Tribes

 Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe  Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa

 Minnesota Chippewa Tribe  Upper Sioux Community

 Northern Cheyenne nations  White Earth Band of Ojibwe
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 11 March 2010 

Table 4-1. Tribal Government Consultation List 

Tribe Consultation Status 

Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck 

Reservation 

Consulting party 

Bois Forte Ojibwe Declined invitation 

Crow Creek Sioux No response to date 

Crow Tribe of Indians No response to date 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Declined invitation 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa No response to date 

Grand Portage Band of Ojibwe No response to date 

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Declined invitation 

Lower Brule Sioux No response to date 

Lower Sioux Community No response to date 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Consulting party 

Northern Cheyenne Nations Consulting party 

Oglala Sioux No response to date 

Prairie Island Indian Community No response to date 

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Declined invitation 

Rosebud Sioux Undecided 

Santee Sioux Consulting party 

Cheyenne River Sioux Undecided 

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Consulting party 

Spirit Lake Tribe No response to date 

Standing Rock Sioux No response to date 

Three Affiliated Tribes Undecided 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Consulting party 

Upper Sioux Community No response to date 

White Earth Band of Ojibwe Consulting party 

4.3 Agency and Tribal Government Comments 

The following federal, state, and local agencies and tribes provided written scoping 

comments that were mailed to RUS or Minnkota: 

 Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 

 North Dakota Department of Health – Environmental Health Section 

 North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department 

 U.S. Department of Interior – National Park Service 

 U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 12 RUS Scoping Report 

The comments discussed environmental topics including but not limited to cultural 

resources, management areas, recreation, routing concerns and suggestions, and general 

environmental impacts (Table 4-2). All agency and tribal government comments 

submitted during the scoping period are provided in Appendix D. 

Table 4-2. Agency and Tribal Government Comments 

Comment Topic Number of Comments 

Cultural Resources 3 

Cumulative Impacts 1 

EA vs. EIS 1 

Environmental Impacts 3 

General 1 

Management Areas 3 

Recreation 2 

Routing 2 

Visual Resources 1 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 13 March 2010 

5.0 Public Scoping Process 

RUS held six public scoping meetings, as listed in Table 5-1 below, using an open house 

format. Four of the public scoping meetings—Grand Forks, Carrington, Wilton, and 

Center—were held between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The Cooperstown and McClusky 

meetings were held between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. 

Table 5-1. Public Scoping Meeting Dates, Times and Locations 

Monday 

November 16, 2009 

Tuesday 

November 17, 2009 

Wednesday 

November 18, 2009 

Thursday 

November 19, 2009 

Grand Forks, N.D. 

Alerus Center 

Eagle Room 10 

1200 S 42nd St 

5 - 8 pm 

Cooperstown, N.D. 

Cooperstown City Hall 

611 9th St 

10 am - 1 pm 

McClusky, N.D. 

McClusky Community Hall 

117 Ave B North 

10 am - 1 pm Center, N.D. 

Center Civic Center Building 

312 N Lincoln Ave 

5 - 8 pm 

Carrington, N.D. 

The Chieftain Conference 

Center, Tee Pee Room 60 

4th Ave South, 

Highway 281 

5 - 8 pm 

Wilton, N.D. 

City of Wilton Memorial Hall 

105 Dakota Ave 

5 - 8 pm 

5.1 Purpose 

The purpose of the public scoping meetings was to provide the public with information 

regarding the proposed Project, answer questions relating to the proposed Project and 

environmental review process, identify concerns regarding the potential environmental 

impacts that may result from construction and operation of the proposed Project, and 

gather information from the public to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the 

RUS environmental review and documentation of the proposed Project (in accordance 

with RUS Bulletin 1794A-603). The notification process, public scoping meeting, and 

process for collecting public comments are described in the following sections. 

5.2 Scoping Meetings Notices 

Several methods were used to notify the public of the scoping process and meetings, 

including a Federal Register notice, legal notices in newspapers, paid advertisement in 

newspapers, meeting invitation post cards mailed first class, public service 

announcements (PSAs) on radio and television, Minnkota’s toll-free project information 

line, and the Project website used by Minnkota to provide additional outreach to the 

public and stakeholders in the proposed Project area. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EA and hold scoping meetings was published in 

the Federal Register on October 30, 2009. The NOI included a summary of the proposed 

Project, public scoping meeting information, 30-day public comment period start and end 

dates, and RUS contact information. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 14 RUS Scoping Report 

In addition to the NOI, a legal notice was published in the legal section and a paid 

advertisement was published in the news section of 14 newspapers within the Project 

area. A press release was distributed to the publications. Table 5-2 lists the names of the 

publications and dates of the advertisements and legal notices. 

Table 5-2. List of Newspapers 

Newspaper County Publish Date

Center Republican Oliver 4-Nov-09 

McLean County Independent McLean 4-Nov-09 

The Bismarck Tribune Burleigh 7-Nov-09 

Foster County Independent Foster 4-Nov-09 

Grand Forks Herald Grand Forks 7-Nov-09 

Griggs County Courier Griggs 6-Nov-09 

The Herald-Press Wells 7-Nov-09 

Lakota American Nelson 4-Nov-09 

McClusky Gazette Sheridan 4-Nov-09 

New Rockford Transcript Eddy 2-Nov-09 

Steele County Press Steele 6-Nov-09 

Steele Ozone and Kidder County Press Kidder 4-Nov-09 

Traill County Tribune Traill 6-Nov-09 

The Fargo Forum Cass 7-Nov-09 

The NOI is included in Appendix E. The newspaper notices, press release, and PSA are 

included in Appendix F. The public postcard is included in Appendix G. The Project 

website is <www.minnkota.com> and the toll free information line is 800.473.5679. The 

website address and toll-free information line number were provided on all published 

materials. 

5.3 Public Scoping Meetings 

An open house format was used to encourage discussion and information sharing and to 

ensure that the public had opportunities to speak directly with RUS and Minnkota 

representatives. Stations were set up around the room and staffed with representatives 

from RUS, Minnkota, or Project consultants. Information stations included: 

 Sign-in and Welcome Table 

o Welcome Board 

o Sign-in Sheets 

o RUS Meeting Handout 

o RUS Comment Form 

o Project Fact Sheet 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 15 March 2010 

 A series of Project information boards including 

o RUS Overview 

o NEPA Requirements 

o Environmental Assessment Process 

o Project Overview 

o Map of Macro-Corridors 

o Typical Transmission Line Construction 

o Public Participation Information 

 Large aerial maps displaying the Project macro-corridors were available for the 

public to review and mark with comments 

 Resources Table 

o Project Frequently Asked Questions 

o Factsheets – Electric and Magnetic Fields, Wind Developers, Stray Voltage 

o Project Business Cards 

o AES and MCS 

Sign-in Sheets (Appendix H) and comment forms (Appendix I) were made available to 

all scoping meeting attendees. Appendix I contains copies of the materials used at the 

Public scoping meetings including the information boards, large aerial maps, and 

handouts. 

5.4 Public and Non-Government Organization Comments 

A total of 27 public and non-government organization comments (excluding map 

comments) were received during the scoping comment period beginning on November 

20, 2009 and ending December 18, 2009. RUS requires a 30-day scoping comment 

period following the public scoping meetings. Comments collected during the public and 

agency scoping meetings were included in the scoping comment period. The comments 

received after the deadline were not included in this report, but will continue to be 

collected and considered by the RUS. Public comments were submitted using comment 

forms, letters, e-mails, telephone, online comment submission, and the toll-free Project 

information line. All comments received by Minnkota were submitted to the RUS for 

review. A summary of the public and non-government organization comments (excluding 

map comments) received are organized by topic and provided below in Table 5-3. Eleven 

topics were discussed within the comments. Note that many of the public comments 

received discuss more than one topic, explaining why the total comment count in Table 

5-3 equals more than the number of comments received during the scoping period. 

Each comment was listed as a separate topic and entered into the comment management 

database. Each comment is only entered into the database once, but is listed under all 

topics discussed within that comment. The comments received during the scoping period 

were separated into two main categories; public and non-government organization 

scoping comments, and agency and tribal government scoping comments. Agency and 

tribal government scoping comments are discussed in Section 3.5 and Appendix D. All 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 16 RUS Scoping Report 

public and non-government organization scoping comments (excluding map comments) 

received are located in Appendix J. 

Table 5-3. Public and Non-Government Organization 

Scoping Comments by Topic 

Comment Topic Number of Comments 

Agricultural Impacts 3 

Cost 2 

Cultural Resources 1 

Endangered Species 1 

Environmental Impacts 3 

General Public Involvement 1 

Mailing List Request 3 

Management Areas 2 

Routing 14 

Right-of-Way 5 

Safety 3 

Following is a discussion by topic of the specific resources addressed within each comment. 

5.4.1 Agriculture 

Three (3) comments were received regarding various aspects of agriculture. The commenters 

expressed concerns about potential impacts to agricultural lands and livestock, difficulty with 

farming around pole structures, and potential interference with GPS navigation systems on 

equipment and other farm communication tools. A common theme from the public was to 

avoid farmland that is in production and instead use pasture or non-cultivated land for 

routing. Potential impacts to irrigation systems were an additional concern. 

5.4.2 Cost 

Two (2) comments were received regarding cost, including the need for annual payments 

and concerns of land value depreciation of property with poles. 

5.4.3 Cultural Resources 

One (1) comment was received regarding cultural resources. This was a map that 

identified cultural resource sites on private property within the macro-corridors. 

5.4.4 Endangered Species 

One (1) comment was received regarding endangered species. A landowner expressed 

concerns regarding the whooping crane migration corridors that are located within the 

macro-corridors. 

5.4.5 Environmental Impacts 

Three (3) comments were received regarding environmental impacts. Comments 

identified private conservation areas that have used conservation practices to enhance 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 17 March 2010 

wildlife habitat and discussed concerns regarding the affect of the proposed Project on 

these areas. Additional comments were made regarding old growth tree areas and wetland 

features within the Project area. 

5.4.6 General Public Involvement 

One (1) comment was received regarding general public involvement. It was a name 

correction for future public mailings. 

5.4.7 Mailing List Request 

Three (3) mailing list requests were received. The toll-free Project information line and 

website allowed visitors to provide their contact information to be added to the Project 

mailing list. 

5.4.8 Management Areas 

Two (2) comments were received regarding the correction of a wildlife management area 

boundary within the Project area. 

5.4.9 Routing 

Fourteen (14) comments were received regarding routing concerns and routing options 

for the proposed Project. Comments included a recommendation to review future land 

use plans, protection of shelter belts, and to increase the distance of structures from 

residences. General comments requested that the Project not be routed near the 

commenter’s property. Additional suggestions included the possibility of undergrounding 

the transmission line, following section lines, and avoiding routing cross country. 

5.4.10 Right-of-Way 

Five (5) comments were received regarding right-of-way. Notification of surveys as common 

courtesy prior to survey completion was requested. General comments requested proper 

clearance area between structures and fencing for farm equipment to maneuver around 

structures. One commenter requested that Minnkota purchase their entire property. 

5.4.11 Safety 

Three (3) comments were received regarding safety concerns for people working under the 

transmission lines and noted that accidents can occur when there are obstacles in the fields. 

5.4.12 Mapping Comments 

Comments were written directly on the large aerial sheet maps of the macro-corridors 

that were made available at the public open house meetings. The majority of comments 

concerned boundaries of landowner’s property. Other comments included: 

 Locations of center-pivot irrigation systems 

 Locations of cultural resources 

 Private businesses 

 Mining operations 

 Land management areas 

 Areas of strong Project opposition 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 18 RUS Scoping Report 

6.0 Macro-Corridors Expansion Areas 

Through the scoping process, three areas beyond the macro-corridors as presented in the 

MCS were identified as expansion areas. The three expansion areas are shown in Figure 

6-1 and provide additional routing options for the Project. All landowners within the 

expansion areas have been notified of the Project. The legal land descriptions of the three 

expansion areas are: 

 SW 1⁄4 of section 28 of T149N R57W – Ora Township in Nelson County 

 W 1⁄2 of section 7 of T149N R57W – Ora Township in Nelson County 

 W 1⁄2 of section 1 and SE 1⁄4 of section 2 of T150N R52W – Fairfield Township in 

Grand Forks County 

 Figure 6-1. Macro-Corridors Expansion Areas 

 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 19 March 2010 

7.0 Project Status 

Based on the initial scoping process and additional comments received, RUS has decided 

to continue in its preparation of an EA and anticipates that distribution of the Draft EA 

should occur in early summer 2010. A public review and comment period on the Draft 

EA would occur in the same timeframe. In addition, RUS would engage in necessary 

agency consultation and coordination regarding potential affects to resources, pursuant to 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. RUS would continue to review and respond to substantive comments. 

An agency (RUS) decision regarding the outcome of the NEPA process should be 

reached in 2010. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 20 RUS Scoping Report 

8.0 Tentative Environmental Assessment Schedule 

The current schedule for developing the EA and the anticipated completion is provided in 

Table 8-1. This schedule is subject to change as the Project proceeds. 

Table 8-1. Tentative EA Schedule 

Federal EA Milestones Date 

Submit Alternative Evaluation Study and Macro-Corridor Study to RUS October 2009 

Hold Public Scoping Meetings for EA November 2009 

Publication of RUS Scoping Report March 2010 

Route Public Meetings (held by Minnkota) April 2010 

Publish Draft EA May - June 2010 

Comment Period on Draft EA June 2010 

Publish Final EA and issue agency (RUS) decision July - August 2010 

 
Rural Utilities Service Center to Grand Forks Project 

RUS Scoping Report Page 21 March 2010 

9.0 Additional Environmental Review Requirements 

Minnkota would be required to obtain approvals from a variety of federal, state, and local 

agencies prior to constructing the proposed Project. During development of the MCS, 

permitting and regulatory requirements were reviewed to identify jurisdictional 

authorities. 

Agencies with primary approval/permitting authority include RUS and North Dakota 

PSC. Table 9-1 identifies permits, approvals, and other project coordination that may be 

needed by federal agencies, tribal governments, the state of North Dakota, counties, and 

townships. This preliminary listing of regulatory requirements is subject to change as the 

proposed Project proceeds. 

Table 9-1. Required Permits, Approvals, and Coordination 

Agency Permit, Regulatory Compliance, or Coordination 

Federal 

Rural Utilities Service NEPA Compliance and Approval of Financial Assistance, Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

coordination, and Native American Consultation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 

and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1972 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899 

Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, and FAA Form 

7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration 

Department of Agriculture – Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 

Farmland Conversion Form - Form AD-1006 

State 

Public Service Commission Certificate of Site Compatibility, Certificated of Public Convenience and 

Necessity, and Route Permit 

Game and Fish Protection of Wildlife, Fish and Recreation Areas 

Parks and Recreation Natural Heritage Inventory 

State Historical Society Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act coordination 

Department of Transportation Road Approach/Access Permit, and Utility Permit/Risk Management 

Documents 

Counties Conditional Use Permits 

Townships Conditional Use Permits 

 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service 

March 2010 Page 22 RUS Scoping Report 

10.0 Conclusion 

The intent of the information within this Scoping Report is to identify potential Project 

affects and concerns that would be addressed in the EA document. All comments within 

this Scoping Report will be considered while developing the EA. 
AppendixA: Pre‐Scoping Meeting Materials &Comments

   

May 2009 Meetings 

Public open house meetings were held in May 2009 to announce the project to the public and begin 

a dialog between Minnkota and the residents within the preliminary study corridors. Additionally, 

Minnkota attended County Commissioners meetings to give an overall presentation on the purpose 

and need of the project to elected officials. 

Meeting Announcements 

For a series of five open house meetings, Minnkota used several forms of communication to 

educate the public on the project and announce opportunities for involvement. These outreach 

efforts included a press release and local newspaper advertisements. Minnkota’s communication 

efforts were to invite all members of the public that were located within one mile of the 

preliminary study corridors. 

Press Release 

Minnkota published a press release on April 29, 2009 in a number of local print media. Table 1 

displays a list of media outlets that received the press release. 

Table 1 – May 2009 Media Distribution List  

County Newspaper Ad Run 

Date 

Burleigh County Bismarck Tribune 5/6/2009 

Eddy County Devil’s Lake Journal 5/5/2009 

Eddy County New Rockford Transcript 5/4/2009 

Foster County Foster County Independent 5/11/2009 

Grand Forks Grand Forks Herald 5/5/2009 

Griggs County Griggs County Courier 5/8/2009 

Kidder County Steele Ozone & Kidder County Press 5/6/2009 

Oliver County Center Republican 5/7/2009 

McLean County McLean County Journal 5/6/2009 

McLean County Washburn Leader-News 5/6/2009 

Nelson County Valley City Times-Record 5/5/2009 

Nelson County Lakota American 5/6/2009 

Sheridan County The Jamestown Sun 5/4/2009 

Steele County Steele County Press 5/6/2009 

Traill County Hillsboro Banner 5/8/2009 

Traill County Traill County Tribune 5/9/2009 

Wells County McClusky Gazette 5/6/2009 

Newspaper Advertisement 

Minnkota advertised the open house meetings in several local newspapers within the preliminary 

project area. The advertisement included the time, date, and location of each open house meeting, 

the toll-free project information line, the project website address, and general project information. 

The advertisements were scheduled to run a few days prior to the open house meetings. All 

advertisements were placed in the media outlets listed in Table 1. 
Mailings 

Approximately 90 letters were mailed out to all county commissioners, townships with permitting 

jurisdiction and involved agencies. In addition, 12,800 postcards were mailed to all known 

residents within one mile of the preliminary study corridors. 

Agency Letter 

Minnkota mailed 16 Agency letters on April 27, 2009. The letters included a project introduction 

and requested review of resources and potential project impacts within the preliminary study 

corridors . 

County Commissioner Letter 

Letters were mailed to all County Commissioners within the preliminary study corridors and 

follow-up phone calls were made to confirm attendance at the County Commissioner Meetings. 

Minnkota mailed 17 County Commissioner letters on April 22, 2009. The letter included a project 

introduction and resource information for public involvement. 

Township Letter 

Minnkota mailed 57 Township letters on April 22, 2009. The letter included a project introduction 

and resource information for public involvement. It also included a preliminary explanation of the 

permitting process. 

Postcard 

Minnkota mailed out approximately 12,800 postcards on April 29, 2009. The postcard was mailed 

to all residents within one mile of the preliminary project area. In addition, postcards were sent to 

28 mayoral offices. The postcards included the time, date and location of each open house meeting, 

the toll-free project information line, project website address, and general project information. 

Meetings 

County Commissioner Meetings 

Minnkota attended 13 County Commissioner Meetings. Table 2 provides the county in which the 

meetings were held, the meeting date, and the Minnkota and HDR, KLJ or KBM representative that 

attended the meetings. 

At each meeting, Minnkota introduced the project to the commissioners with a presentation that 

covered the project need, project description and location, agency involvement, community 

concerns, and contact information. 
Table 2 – County Commissioner Meetings 

County Meeting 

Date 

Minnkota 

Representative 

Representative 

McLean 4/20/2009 Mike Hennes KLJ – Steve Miller 

Eddy 4/21/2009 Kelly Anderson KLJ- Duane Phillips 

Foster 4/21/2009 Paul Mahlen KLJ - Steve Miller 

Grand Forks 4/21/2009 Josie Olson KLJ – Terry Fasteen 

Trail 4/21/2009 John Graves HDR – Dave Schmitz 

Nelson 4/ 29/2009 Josie Olson KLJ – Duane Phillips 

Burleigh 5/4/2009 John Graves HDR – Dave Schmitz 

Griggs 5/5/2009 Kelly Anderson HDR – Dan Schmidt 

Kidder 5/5/2009 Paul Mahlen KLJ – Duane Phillips 

Sheridan 5/5/2009 Mike Hennes HDR – Dave Schmitz 

Steele 5/5/2009 Josie Olson HDR – Brian Hunker 

Wells 5/5/2009 Mike Hennes HDR – Dave Schmitz 

Oliver 5/7/2009 John Graves HDR – Michelle Bissonnette 

Public Meetings 

Minnkota held five public open house meetings to educate the public on the purpose and need for 

the project, the public’s role in the routing process, and to gather pertinent public input regarding 

the transmission line planning. Five meeting locations were determined throughout the proposed 

project area. The locations were spread out along the proposed corridors to increase meeting 

participation. Meeting locations, dates and number of attendees can be found in Table 3. 

Table 3 – May 2009 Public Open House Meeting Locations, Dates and Attendees 

Meeting Location Meeting

Date 

Number of

Attendees 

Headwaters Fort Mandan 

Visitors Center 

838 28th Avenue West 

Washburn, ND 58577 

5/6/2009 17 

Wing Public School 

Lunchroom 

4th and main, Wing, ND 58495 

5/7/2009 22 

The Chieftain Conference Center, Tee 

Pee Room 60 

4th Avenue South, Highway 281, 

Carrington, ND 58421 

5/12/2009 48 

Griggs County Central High School, 

Gymnasium 

1207 Foster Avenue NE, 

Cooperstown, ND 58425 

5/13/2009 36 

Red River High School, Commons, 

Door #1 

2211 17th Avenue S. 

Grand Forks, ND 58420 

5/14/2009 38 

Total 161 
Public Meeting Materials 

Minnkota developed materials to help facilitate discussions at the Public Open House meetings 

including hand outs, information boards, project video and large maps of the preliminary project 

area. 

Handouts 

Minnkota used a series of educational materials to describe the project overview, planning, and 

resources available for the public. The handouts included the Center for Grand Forks Project Sheet, 

Frequently Asked Questions, an EMF Fact Sheet, a Stray Voltage Fact Sheet, a Minnkota Brochure, 

and Project Business Cards. 

Boards 

Minnkota set up a series of poster boards to provide project information. The boards included an 

open house welcome, general project background and purpose, project timeline, photos and 

engineering drawings of typical 345 kV structures, routing selection information, and opportunities 

for public involvement through the project process. 

Project Video 

Minnkota developed an eight minute project video that provided an overview of Minnkota and the 

purpose and need of the project. The video was rolling throughout the duration of the open house 

meetings. 

Maps 

Minnkota provided large aerial maps (34x44 inch) of the entire preliminary study corridors to allow 

the public to identify their property in relation to the proposed project corridors. 

Meeting Plan 

A meeting plan was developed to organize general meeting information, open house locations, 

materials, set-up, and staff contact information. 

August 2009 Meeting 

Public open houses were held in May 2009, but mailings to the western part of the project area were 

delayed and not received in time to provide advanced notice of the meetings. Additionally, at this 

milestone in the project the study corridors changed in several areas, particularly in the western part 

of the project. Because of these reasons, Minnkota decided to host an additional open house 

meeting in Center, ND to display project materials, answer questions and address concerns. 

Meeting Announcements 

To announce the open house meeting held in Center, North Dakota, Minnkota used several forms of 

communication including a press release and local newspaper advertisements. 

Press Release 

Minnkota published a press release on August 3, 2009 in a number of local print media. A 

distribution list for the press release is located in Table 4. 

Table 4 – August 2009 Media Distribution List 

County Newspaper 

Burleigh County Bismarck Tribune 

Eddy County Devil’s Lake Journal 

Grand Forks Grand Forks Herald 

Kidder County Steele Ozone & Kidder County Press 

Oliver County Center Republican 
McLean County McLean County Journal 

McLean County Washburn Leader-News 

Nelson County Valley City Times-Record 

Nelson County Lakota American 

Sheridan County The Jamestown Sun 

Traill County Traill County Tribune 

Wells County McClusky Gazette 

Newspaper Advertisement 

Minnkota advertised the open house meeting in three local newspapers within the area near Center, 

ND (See Table 5). The advertisement included the time, date and location for the open house 

meeting, the toll-free project information line, the project website and general project information. 

The advertisements were scheduled to run a few days prior to the open house meeting. 

Table 5 – Newspaper Advertisement Media Outlets 

County Newspaper Run Date 

Burleigh County Bismarck Tribune 09/13/2009 & 09/20/2009 

McLean County McLean County Independent 09/13/2009 & 09/20/2009 

Oliver County Center Republican 09/10/2009 & 09/17/2009 

Mailings 

Invitation Letter 

Minnkota mailed out 938 Invitation Letters to all addresses within the preliminary study corridors 

west of the Missouri River and all addresses within 10 miles east of the Missouri River within in the 

preliminary study corridors. This mailing also included 50 new addresses that were added to the 

contact list due to the changes in the preliminary study corridors for the entire project area. The 

purpose of the letter was to inform recipients of the change in the preliminary study corridors and to 

inform them of another opportunity to provide input at an open house meeting. 

Meeting 

The Center, ND open house meeting was held at the Center Civic Center Building. Listed in Table 

6 is the meeting location, date and amount of attendees. 

Table 6 – August 2009 Open House Meeting Location, Date and Attendees 

Meeting Location Meeting

Date 

Number of

Attendees 

Center Civic Center 

Building 

312 N Lincoln Ave 

Center, ND 58530 

8/20/2009 53 

Public Meeting Materials 

To help facilitate discussion at the August 2009 open house meeting Minnkota provided the same 

series of educational materials as the May 2009 open house meetings. These materials were used to 

educate the public on the project and announce opportunities for involvement. In addition, 

Minnkota provided an updated study corridor map and updated large aerial maps to show the 

modified preliminary study corridors. 

Meeting Plan 

A meeting plan was developed to organize general meeting information, the open house location, 

materials, set-up, and staff contact information. 
Project Resources

Website 

A website was developed to provide project information to the public. It can be accessed through 

the Minnkota website at www.minnkota.com. The website launched on April 13, 2009. From the 

day it launched until November 16, 2009, the website has had 3118 visitors, 2111 of which are 

unique visitors (See Table 7). The majority of visitors viewed the project video and the preliminary 

project map. The website provides the following information: 

3⁄4 Home Page – General project information, project announcements, and project video 

3⁄4 Project Page – Detailed project information and preliminary corridor map 

3⁄4 Contact Us Page – Project manager contact information and links to log a comment or be 

added to the project mailing list. 

3⁄4 Resources Page – Glossary of terms and public meeting materials 

3⁄4 FAQ Page – List of frequently asked questions and answers 

Minnkota has continued to update the website as further information is available about the project. 

Table 7 - 2009 Web Hits 

Type Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov To 

Date 

Visits 68 809 395 410 411 303 419 303 3118 

Unique Visits 53 571 246 262 264 210 257 246 211 

Project Video 27 395 65 41 52 39 39 41 705 

Toll-Free Project Information Line 

Minnkota has established a toll-free project information line (800-473-5679). The toll-free project 

information line provides an opportunity for the public to receive general project information, to 

sign-up for the mailing list and leave a comment. The toll-free project information line launched on 

April 13, 2009 and has continually been modified to include updated project information along with 

the open house meeting times, dates and locations. 

Incoming Comments 

Minnkota has been collecting comments from the public to understand concerns or routing 

suggestions within the project area. The public can log a comment on the website, leave a comment 

on the project information line, email, mail or phone a comment to Minnkota, fill out a comment 

form during open house meetings or voice a comment to a CGF representative. Table 8 below 

indicates that as of November 13, 2009, Minnkota received 129 comments. Table 9 shows the 

various topics under which comments are coded. 

Table 8 - Pre-Scoping Comments Table 9 – Comment Categories 

Media To Date 

Email 6 

Hotline 64 

In Person 1 

Letter 3 

Meeting Comment Form 8 

Phone 14 

Website 33 

Total 129 

Please note: Comments may have more than one category assigned 

Topic To Date 

Mailing List Request 57 

Routing 34 

General Public Involvement 25 

ROW 5 

Employment 4 

Wind Development 2 

EMF 1 

Management Areas 1 
Response Protocol 

In order to streamline the tracking, integration, and response to comments received from the public 

on this project, Minnkota developed a comment management protocol. All comments were 

addressed in one of three ways; a personal phone call, a personal email, or a mailing from defined 

response packets. All response packets are outlined in Table 10. 

Table 10 – Pre-Scoping Response Packets 

Packet Description 

A Initial Postcard Response Letter 

B Generic Response Letter 

C Procurement Letter 

D Corridor Changes 

E Missed Contact 

F Wind Generation 

Pre-Scoping Comments 

Public and NGO Pre-Scoping Comments

Total Comments: 121

EMF

From Jim Quirk: Bill is a ham radio operator, concerned about the effect of CGF construction on low-horizon 

operation - - the base background noise level. Bill is also an electronic engineer who works in the basement of his 

home with embedded computer systems. Bill has attended past public information meeting(s) on CGF. But he said 

the moderators had minimized the interference issue without addressing it for his specific situation. I was hoping 

that a Minnkota engineer could contact him and address his concerns. He is otherwise willing to provide PTS.

Employment

I would like to be an approved vendor for this particular project. We do latticed steel so I wanted the contact 

information for Michael Hennes. My phone number is 609-213-3776. Right now we do a 500kv latticed steel project 

in Pennsylvania. It's a 180-mile-long 500kv line.

Hello, my name is Matthew Gross. I'm with Gross Mechanical in St. Louis, Missouri. My phone number is 314-645-

0077 ext 3037. I'd like to find out more information about future work coming out of the Minnkota Power plant. 

Again, my name is Matthew Gross. My phone number is 314-645-0077 ext 3037. I'd like someone to give me a call 

back as soon as they can.

Please add ILB to your mailing list when requesting RFP's for powerline construction with requirements of 220kV 

and above.

Hi, this message is for Michael Hennes. Michael, my name is Amy Cord and I represent Operating Engineers Local 

49 Fringe Benefit Plans. I'm actually calling to check and see if one of our deliquent contractors is doing some work 

on this particular project - the Center to Grand Forks project. It's called CJ Crane Service, CJ Construction or CJ 

Rigging. They've had three different names. I'd appreciate it if you'd return my call.

Good Afternoon. I am trying to reach the responsible person with regard to manpower, access control, and 

timekeeping on the {PROJECT]. We would like to have the opportunity to present our solution to your project team. 

I hope you will share the information below and we would appreciate your consideration as an access control 

solution. If you'd like to speak to a certified MAC sales representative call 1-888-388-7768 or visit us online at 

www.SecuredByMAC.com.

General

It may be of interest to you on Big Stone II Transmission site in Northwestern South Dakota. Ottertail didn't buy it.

General Public Involvement

I’m from Wing and I would like to say on your postcards you mailed, you have the Wing Public School listed and the 

city of Tuttle as the city and that is way wrong. How are people around here supposed to know which town to go to if

you don’t even have the right school and the town listed on the publications that you’re mailing in the mail?

Report date: 1/14/2010
I'm wondering if you're going to Wilson township or Grass Lake or Stivert. I'd like to talk to somebody. I just got 

notice today. There's a meeting out in Tuttle but I live so far away and I don't like to go unless it's going to involve 

me. It's important someone talk to me. I don't want to drive that far if I don't have to.

We just received the post card May 7, as to the meetings, and a person cannot just drop everything to attend a 

meeting in my area, on that short of notice, I do not know if this has anything to do with our land, but it would be nice

to know.

I'd like a little bit more information. We only got the meeting dates today in the mail and the only ones we could have

attended is the one in Center. You've got the Wing Public School in Tuttle - I didn't know the Wing Public School 

was in Tuttle. We can't make it on this short notice so I don't know if this meeting has anything to do with us. It 

would have been a little bit nicer if you could have sent us the information on the meeting dates not the day after or 

the day of but a week or two ahead of time. There's no way we can attend Carrington, Cooperstown or Grand 

Forks. Their too far for us to travel and we're out of the Wilton area. I don't even know if this pertains to us. I was 

just not happy to get this in the mail today to discover that the closest meeting was at Tuttle tonight which is even 

quite a ways from us.

I would like more information on this project line. I'm sorry - I just got your card today so I missed the meeting at 

Washburn.

We got a card regarding your open house but we received the card after the open house so please send us some 

information or give us a call.

I'd like more information on this line beings we got the card the day after the meeting in our area -- which isn't very 

helpful. Please get back to us on this project.

I got an announcement yesterday in the mail for a meeting that was held the day before which didn't do me a whole 

lot of good. It's a little frustrating. It feels like an "unvitation" when it comes a day later and there's no way we can 

possibly go the metting. I'd like to see you guys do another meeting so we could come and actually see what's going

on. Please add me to the mailing list. I'm not coming out for or against the project but it would be nice to be 

informed. Thank you.

I didn't get this notice until after this event occurred so I'm wondering where this will fall in relation to my property

Watching video on Internet doesn't work well with slow-speed Internet. Should consider maps or other large files for 

slow-speed Internet also

Should be an opton on 800 number that you could get a person. Especially around the time of the open houses or 

meetings to answer questions

We did not receive your postcard notice of the meeting time and date till after the meeting was past and visiting with 

other land owners they did not receive theirs till after the meeting also. Please contact us with the info on this issue.

Concerned about the conception of the transmission line from Center to Grand Forks. We did receive a postcard in 

the mail of the meeting that there was going to be some discussion on this. We didn't receive it until after the 

meeting was over here in Washburn. I also visited with some other area landowners here. They did not receive 

theirs until after the meeting was past also. I would like someone to contact us. My phone number here is 701-794-

3351 and it would be Wade Staigle (stag-lee). Look forward to hearing from you.

Report date: 1/14/2010
This is Dorothy Jean Hetland, wife of David R.Hetland, who passed away August of 08. You were notified of his 

death. I'd appreciate no more mailings to him. It's very, very hard to handle. If you need to talk to me, my phone 

number is 701-636-4768. Thank you very much.

I would like a synopsis of comments made at the public meetings held in May. Thank you.

We are totally opposed to this. We have a 40-acre tract as do all our neighbors around there. There are homes. We 

don't want any transmission lines running across our property where our horses are or where our home is. You 

might take a look at some of the land around there that is very open land. This is not open land where we are near. 

We are opposed to this. We are also very angry that you have chosen to do this meeting mid-week, on a Thursday 

night, when the majority of us work in town, in Bismarck. You scheduled this meeting in Center rather than closer to 

our area if it's going to affect us. We suggest we want a public meeting held in Wilton or Washburn at a decent time 

where working people who work in Bismarck/Mandan area are able to make the meeting. How else are we going to 

be able to voice our concerns and upset over about just getting this letter stating you're going to do this. Come hell 

or high water that we'll let you do this if we have to hire an attorney. We've spoken to the neighbors up and down the

road - nobody wants it. Again, I walk under the power lines already in existence anywhere on our little gravel road 

and my dog's hair stands on end. My husband has been witness to the fact that he's actually seen a pickup start 

once under these things. It actually started on its own. We don't want these power lines anywhere near our property 

or our animals. I certainly don't want it affecting my property values. We want to hear some response from you and 

we want to know when there's going to be another meeting closer to us so we can attend and voice our opinion.

Also under: Routing

My comment relates to your open house this evening in Center. According to my rural newspaper this week, 

previous meetings were held in Washburn, and Wing. I have subscriptions to the Bismarck Tribune & Washburn 

Leader, but saw no advance notice of those meetings listed. How were they advertised? I wouldn't mind driving to 

Wing or Washburn for information, (if I had been informed) but judging from your map of the proposed corridors, a 

Bismarck meeting would have serviced a larger portion of the affected landowners along the transmission line. 

What use was a meeting at Washburn, when that corridor is now eliminated? Will you continue having meetings on 

this project without contacting area newspapers (or landowners) well in advance, so landowners aren't properly kept

informed? Somebody dropped the ball on this one.

Also under: Mailing List Request

I have written an email but received no reply so I thought I'd try again to get some questions answered. Why has 

Minnkota eliminated all other routes but the one in the Wilton area but failed to have a information meeting in 

Wilton.Second I live west of Wilton and own land west and north of town. A reprehensive for Minnkota stop and 

talked to me about the transmission line but knew nothing about the area. The area west and north of Wilton is fast 

becoming a rural/urban area with many 40 acre and smaller developments and occupied homes. A power line in 

this area would severely damage the growth of Wilton and lower the land values in the region. I strongly appose any

transmission line being built in this area and see no reason why I must travel 50 miles to talk about it.

Also under: Routing

I want to talk to somebody, not this recording. I want some information....I want some information....hello...

Number is 363-2339.

Hello...nobody there to talk to . I'd like to talk to the project manager.

Hello, in the Fargo Forum appears an ad regarding the study for your proposed project will be at the Veteran's 

Memorial Library in Bismarck. However we have had patrons in looking for this information and we have not 

received it as of yet. Please send the information as soon as possible. Thank you. Also there is no way to leave a 

recorded comment on your voicemail, which is extemely frustrating to users.

I would like to know if these six meetings will be set up so interested people can come and go as necessary. I work 

and would like to come to the meeting but can’t stay for 3 hrs. So can I come and ask my questions and then leave

without missing anything really important?

Report date: 1/14/2010
She informed me that the information she received regarding a meeting at the Alerus was addressed to Rodney 

Partlow. She informed me that he is recently deceased as of August 16, she said the property is now in her name, 

would greatly appreciate it if we would send future correspondence in her name.

I'm not real happy. I'm receiving information about your project in Grand Forks. It's coming to my address in 

Fayetteville, NC. It's sad that you keep cutting down trees and sending information to people who have no interest in

this project. Please take my name off your mailing list. Please do me a favor, and yourself...and the environment 

and take my name off the list. It's unconscionable that someone doesn't go through the records to make sure 

people who are getting your mailings deserve to get them. I don't deserve to get them, I live in NC. I won't be 

coming back to ND. Please take my name off your list.

Mailing List Request

I would like to be on the mailing list for project information, please.

I'd like to be added to your mailing list for this project. If I could speak to someone, I'd like to ask a couple 

questions.If you could return my call I'd appreciate it.

I would like to be apprised of what's going on in my neighborhood.

I would like to have information on the project.

Please add me to your mailing list for the "Center to Grand Forks Project" Thank you.

We got the card today and I understand the meeting was in Washburn last night. Was it held? Either way, I'd like to 

be added to the mailing list.

We just received our card today, May 7th, that there was a meeting yesterday. Well, we were not able to attend. It is

over. So I'd like to be on the mailing list for future informational meetings in the area.

Please add me on the mailing list for project information.

I would like more information on the project.

We got your flyer to go to one of these meeting places but we were unable to attend. We'd like to have more 

information to learn if this includes us where we live. Thank you!

I would like to request information on this project

I would like to be added to the mailing list

I'd like to be on the mailing list for information on this proposed power line.

Live in home with existing 115 kV line. Would like the new line to go south of that. Also have land in Section 30 and 

north half of 31. Pasture & farming by Hutchinson Lake Nat'l Wildlife Refuge. Keep us informed with other meeting 

notices. Heard there is going to be 49 more turbines (wind) by Wilton (south side of Hwy 36).

Also under: Routing

Report date: 1/14/2010
I missed your meeting over at the schoolhouse. I did have some questions I would like to ask. Was this a meeting to

sell stock? I would like that package of information. I'm not a computer person so I can't check the computer. Thank 

you very much.

David called to indicate that his land is under the care of a trustee with two other siblings. A Judy Joyce and a 

contact for the trustee Charles Peterson. David would like to be added to the mailing list

Also under: ROW

Sister of David Johnson

Also under: ROW

Trustee for land owned by David Johnson, Judy Joyce, et al

Also under: ROW

My first comment on your project is why were there no informational meetings held in WILTON.I live west of Wilton 

and own land west and north of town in a area that is fast becoming an urban/rural area. With many 40 acre and 

smaller plots being devolved and houses occupied.Land in this area should not be considered for a power line for it 

would not only damage the future growth of Wilton but also drastically lower property values. I am strongly opposed 

to the use of this region as a transmission line site.

Also under: Routing

My comment relates to your open house this evening in Center. According to my rural newspaper this week, 

previous meetings were held in Washburn, and Wing. I have subscriptions to the Bismarck Tribune & Washburn 

Leader, but saw no advance notice of those meetings listed. How were they advertised? I wouldn't mind driving to 

Wing or Washburn for information, (if I had been informed) but judging from your map of the proposed corridors, a 

Bismarck meeting would have serviced a larger portion of the affected landowners along the transmission line. 

What use was a meeting at Washburn, when that corridor is now eliminated? Will you continue having meetings on 

this project without contacting area newspapers (or landowners) well in advance, so landowners aren't properly kept

informed? Somebody dropped the ball on this one.

Also under: General Public Involvement

Have moved out of state and would like to receive all new information as it happens. Thank You Jane Benz

Own 480 acres in ND, Sheridan County, Fairview Township. Land is on a ridge and think it would be great for wind 

energy. I am interested in knowing what we can do to get a wind study done. Can you give me some direction in 

that? Thank you

Also under: Wind Development

Management Areas

This landowner mentioned to me about some new project along the Missouri river. It is called Northern Plains 

National Heritage area and it may or may not effect the line

Routing

What part of Grand Forks County is proposed for the new transmission line?

Do you have a map where the new line will be located?

I am interested in viewing the route of the proposed transmission line. I own 23 quarters of land(3680 acres) in the 

general area that may be considered for routing. Most of my land lies in the Northern part of Griggs County. I 

recently received a card in the mail advising of pending meeting sites with dates. Because I am a 100% disabled 

veteran, it is difficult for me to get around, which is why I am requesting proposed routing material at home. Thanks 

very much.

Report date: 1/14/2010
I looked at the map you provide on your resources page and it does not clearly define the route that the proposed 

line will run. Can you please update that map and make it explicitly visible where this line will run? Otherwise my 

family has no way of knowing whether or not this will affect us. If you can't do this, I would like you to personally 

send me a map with the lines drawn out so I know where thi s will be going. Thank you.

I got a card from you that is the power line going through my land or close to my land. I would like more information 

on this and I don't know if I can make it to the keetings that you've got in the evenings. Thank you very much.

I'd like to receive more information on this power line.

Where can we find a map of your specific planned route?

I would like a better idea of where these lines are coming through since I seem to be in the path from what I can tell 

you your web page.

Is there anybody there I could actually speak to that answers phones or is all you get a computer voice? I'd like 

some information on where the transmission line is going to run through the counties and townships in the North 

Dakota area. Thank you.

I just got an announcement in the mail here today about a meeting you're having in the Washburn area. I didn't get it

until today, on Thursday, and the meeting was last night. I was just curious if this line is going to be close to this 

other transmission line that runs through here that one runs right past our yard.I hadn't heard anything in the past 

about another line coming in. I sure would have been at the meeting last night if I had received this card in time. I'm 

just curious where it's going to go.

Why do we get these cards two days after the meeting is over with? We would like to know where this transmission 

line is going - on what section, what quarer, what direction? How are we supposed to make a comment on your 

www.minnkota.com when we can't even afford computers out here? Not everybody can afford to own a computer. 

And what good do these cards do when it's after the meeting is over with? Yes, I want information on it. I want to 

know where this thing is going and when, and why and where. Thanks you.

Will the new line affect my land - 4 miles south of Washburn? I would like that information. Thank you.

Requesting Project Information -- Corridor Map

Requested call on Hotline, Add son to database. Close comment ID 12 after mailing.

I am a land owner in Wells County. What is your proposed route from Center to Grand Forks?

Live in home with existing 115 kV line. Would like the new line to go south of that. Also have land in Section 30 and 

north half of 31. Pasture & farming by Hutchinson Lake Nat'l Wildlife Refuge. Keep us informed with other meeting 

notices. Heard there is going to be 49 more turbines (wind) by Wilton (south side of Hwy 36).

Also under: Mailing List Request

Look at the ex. 345 to Jamestown area and then 230 to Grand Forks. The northern corridors proposed go through 

prime farmland vs. range land. (Owns land throughout Cathay Twp)

Report date: 1/14/2010
I'd like some more information on the proposed route of the line. I farm quite a bit of land between Larimore and 

Northwood and I'm just wondering what your route is planned for and stuff. I wasn't on your mailing list. Neighbors 

of mine got letters but I never got one.

We own land in Sheridan, County. I'd like to have someone call me. We have other properties along that corridor 

also.

Harvey is a land owner in Ball Hill Township in Griggs County. Is concerned about t-line routing near his property. 

Already has MPC 69 kV line in "back yard". Suggests that we use Hwy 200 corridor or go cross country. Harvy did 

not receive original mailing.

Also under: ROW

I'd like to comment on your power line plan on coming through by...I have Alliance running a mile along fields I own.

I have Dome running a mile along fields I own. I have MDU running a mile along fields I own and now I have the 

Red River Valley Water Supply project wanting to run a mile along fields I own. I absolutely do not want poles 

running across my land I own. I've had enough. That's my comment on it. I know you're contacting farmers in the 

area about running it. I wish you guys would go on lands I don't own. Thank you.

I'm interested in your project, the reason being I got a map from you and I've got land in both corridors north and 

south of McClusky. I have a farm north and a farm south. They belonged to my mother but I'm the POA for them. 

I'm interested in your project. The only thing I'd like to remind you guys is let's not just run a transmission line up 

there. Let's put some towers on the way up there too because we need to get some of the benefits off that too. Give 

me a call if you have any questions.

We are totally opposed to this. We have a 40-acre tract as do all our neighbors around there. There are homes. We 

don't want any transmission lines running across our property where our horses are or where our home is. You 

might take a look at some of the land around there that is very open land. This is not open land where we are near. 

We are opposed to this. We are also very angry that you have chosen to do this meeting mid-week, on a Thursday 

night, when the majority of us work in town, in Bismarck. You scheduled this meeting in Center rather than closer to 

our area if it's going to affect us. We suggest we want a public meeting held in Wilton or Washburn at a decent time 

where working people who work in Bismarck/Mandan area are able to make the meeting. How else are we going to 

be able to voice our concerns and upset over about just getting this letter stating you're going to do this. Come hell 

or high water that we'll let you do this if we have to hire an attorney. We've spoken to the neighbors up and down the

road - nobody wants it. Again, I walk under the power lines already in existence anywhere on our little gravel road 

and my dog's hair stands on end. My husband has been witness to the fact that he's actually seen a pickup start 

once under these things. It actually started on its own. We don't want these power lines anywhere near our property 

or our animals. I certainly don't want it affecting my property values. We want to hear some response from you and 

we want to know when there's going to be another meeting closer to us so we can attend and voice our opinion.

Also under: General Public Involvement

My first comment on your project is why were there no informational meetings held in WILTON.I live west of Wilton 

and own land west and north of town in a area that is fast becoming an urban/rural area. With many 40 acre and 

smaller plots being devolved and houses occupied.Land in this area should not be considered for a power line for it 

would not only damage the future growth of Wilton but also drastically lower property values. I am strongly opposed 

to the use of this region as a transmission line site.

Also under: Mailing List Request

Report date: 1/14/2010
We would like to stress that we are totally against any electrical transmission lines invading our property. We would 

also like to point out that we have been residents of our address since December of 2006, and we were never 

informed of any meetings in May of 2009. Unfortunately, because we work in Bismarck and Mandan, we are not 

able to make a 6:00 meeting in Center, ND on August 20, 2009 and have asked our neighbors the Paulson’s to 

deliver this letter to you.

The transmission lines are not only an eyesore, but we feel they are environmentally unsafe to human or animal 

inhabitants that live near them.

We have walked our dogs right under lines that cross 28th St NW to the south of us, and our short-haired dog’s hair 

literally stands straight up from the electrical current coming from them. Radios and cell phones don’t function while 

going near them.

We are also very concerned how their placement will affect our property value. We do not live on a large open land 

area on 28th St NW. Homes are built close to the road on 40 acre tracts that are deep not wide. When looking at 

the map, it appears that the transmission lines will run right along 29th St NW or at least within throwing distance.

Our hope is that you will find an alternative route that does not encroach upon residential properties. We feel that 

encroachment is an invasion of private property, and we will fight to see that it does not happen.

My wife and I own 400 acres on Section 9-142-81, this is the total acres that we own. Seventy acres is cropland, of 

which 46 acres are irrigated. Most is irrigated by gated pipe. The southeast area of section 9 is irrigated using a 

Heinzman-Traveler Big Gun that puts out 800 gallons per minute. The rest of the land is mostly cottonwood forest, 

which includes some of the oldest cottonwood trees in the state. It also includes a mile of river frontage. The forest 

and the riverfront have a unique value that is irreplaceable. If you put a power line through this land it will decrease 

the value of it; you will also destroy our livelihood and our security in our declining years, as well as the cottonwood 

trees that we cherish. At 76, I'm too old to start over.

If Minnkota's power line crosses section 9 twp-142 range 81, it would be within a half a mile of Basin's power line. 

That would put most of my irrigated fields between these two lines; working my fields with all the static electricity 

would be a hazardous job.

Opposed to project. Build the tower (wind) in the valley. Will take condemnation and than a yearly rental with 

updated loses periodically. Oour land value is based more on its aesthetic value than agricultural which has 

increased 30 fold in past 20 years. Based on that it shouldn't take much of a lawyer to tie things up in court.

We are opposed to having this be constructed anywhere near our property. We already have high transmission line 

going within a half mile and natural gas line going through our property.

I have written an email but received no reply so I thought I'd try again to get some questions answered. Why has 

Minnkota eliminated all other routes but the one in the Wilton area but failed to have a information meeting in 

Wilton.Second I live west of Wilton and own land west and north of town. A reprehensive for Minnkota stop and 

talked to me about the transmission line but knew nothing about the area. The area west and north of Wilton is fast 

becoming a rural/urban area with many 40 acre and smaller developments and occupied homes. A power line in 

this area would severely damage the growth of Wilton and lower the land values in the region. I strongly appose any

transmission line being built in this area and see no reason why I must travel 50 miles to talk about it.

Also under: General Public Involvement

We do not want this transmission line near our property. We live in a neighborhood made up of 12 40 acre parcels. 

There curently are 7 homesteads built with more planned. The neighbors we have talked to feel the same way as 

we do. We currently have a 230kv line running within a 1/2 mile of our properties and a natural gas line rumnning 

through them. Enough is enough! Keep us informed of the progress on this project.

Just a little input I think that the lines best route would be just a half mile or so north of Highway 200 from Mercer to 

McClusky. I have land on the north side of Pickardville that you have gotten a signing release for a I a'm in favor of it

going on sec 11 146 78. Please let me know if this may be your way to go. Dale C. Jorgensen McClusky

How am I affected? Local land owners informed me of a Transmission Line Project from Center to Grand Forks . 

However, as a land owner with existing power lines in the discussed area, I have not been notified of any 

construction project. Specifically, I own the NW 1/4 of section 26, Township 147, Range 56.

Report date: 1/14/2010
From Paul Mahlen: received a phone call from a Harvey Benson, 30 hwy 1, Hannaford,ND 58448. He asked about 

a map with the line on it. I told him we are still looking at corridors maps. He would like a copy of the corridor map 

for twp 145 R 58-64 and twp 146 r 58-64 near Hannaford.

ROW

Harvey is a land owner in Ball Hill Township in Griggs County. Is concerned about t-line routing near his property. 

Already has MPC 69 kV line in "back yard". Suggests that we use Hwy 200 corridor or go cross country. Harvy did 

not receive original mailing.

Also under: Routing

David called to indicate that his land is under the care of a trustee with two other siblings. A Judy Joyce and a 

contact for the trustee Charles Peterson. David would like to be added to the mailing list

Also under: Mailing List Request

Sister of David Johnson

Also under: Mailing List Request

Trustee for land owned by David Johnson, Judy Joyce, et al

Also under: Mailing List Request

We respectfully decline to let Minnkota Power or its agents or representatives to enter any of our property for the 

purpose of studying, surveying, testing or planning etc. for its wind energy CGF project. There are too many 

unanswered questions for the landowner regarding this project, including: specific location, compensation to the 

landowner, and the effects of the proposed power line to those individuals who have to farm or live near them. All of 

this land currently has crop on it, and it is not convenient for personnel to be on our property, We also allow limited 

hunting on our property, and your proposal would be disruptive to this activity.

Wind Development

I'd just like to answer two questions: that line built from Center to Grand Forks - is that going to carry wind power or 

is that for coal power? And if it's for coal power, where is the wind power going to? And why? Thank you. Call me.

Own 480 acres in ND, Sheridan County, Fairview Township. Land is on a ridge and think it would be great for wind 

energy. I am interested in knowing what we can do to get a wind study done. Can you give me some direction in 

that? Thank you

Also under: Mailing List Request

Report date: 1/14/2010
Agency and Tribal Pre-Scoping Comments

Total Comments: 17

Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe

...The Bois Forte Band is not aware of any cultural or religious properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) 

and does not with to comment further on this project...

Federal Aviation Administration - Bismarck Airports District Office

...The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires notification for construction or alterations as required by 

Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace...We recommend that when the 

proposed power line is to be located such that it requires notification per CFR Title 14 Part 77 that you coordinate 

the proposal with both the Bismarck Airports District Office and with the private-use airport...

Job Service North Dakota

Job Service North Dakota administers the employment service and unemployment insurance programs. We have 

no comments regarding the proposed project and have no applicable permits that are required from Job Service 

North Dakota.

Leech Lake Tribal Historic Preservation Office

...I have reviewed the documentation; after careful considertaion of our records, I have determined that the Leech 

Lake Band of Ojibwe does not have any concerns regarding sites of religious or cultural importance in this area...

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe - Executive Branch of Tribal Government

...Based on available information the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe is aware of the intentions of Minnkota Power 

Cooperative Inc. to construct 225 miles of transmissions line from Center, ND to Grand Forks, ND...

North Dakota Department of Transportation - Office of Project Development

...The project referenced above will have no adverse effect on the North Dakota Department of Transportation 

highways...

North Dakota Game and Fish Department

...Our primary concern is the possible disturbance of native prairie and wetland areas during construction of the 

transmission line. We ask that work within these areas be avoided to the extent possible, above-ground 

appurtenances not be placed in wetland areas, and disturbed areas be reclaimed to pre-project conditions. The 

department manages several Wildlife Management Areas within or adjacent to the preliminary project corridors. A 

special use permit would be required to cross these lands... We recommend overhead lines be marked when 

placed over perennial streams of sited in close proximity to large wetland complexes to minimize possible avian 

impacts...

North Dakota Natural Resources Conservation Service

Topics covered: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Form AD-1006, Wetlands conversion

Report date: 1/14/2010
North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department

The North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department (NDPRD) has reviewed the above referenced project proposal 

to construct a high-voltage transmission line with a corridor through Oliver, Mclean, Burleigh, Sheridan, Kidder, 

Wells, Foster, Eddy, Griggs, Nelson, Steele, Grand Forks, and Traill Counties. The proposed north route of the 

project through Oliver and McLean counties includes properties containing significant natural, historic, scenic and 

cultural resources. These properties include Cross Ranch State Park and the Cross Ranch Nature Preserve in 

Oliver County and the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center (owned by NDPRD) located in McLean County near 

Washburn. The Sakakawea Scenic Byway which travels on ND Highway 200 from Washburn to Stanton-also is in 

the preliminary northern route in Oliver/McLean counties, These properties not only protect the key components of 

each as listed above but also contribute significantly to the state of ND's tourism and travel industry. The 

transmission line located in the northern corridor identified on the preliminary corridor map would have significant 

impact to the scenic resources and associated tourism industries. NDPRD recommends the southern corridor in 

Oliver/McLean counties be the preferred route to avoid impacts to resources in the northern corridor. The south unit 

of the Cross Ranch Nature Preserve is located on the north border of the southern preliminary corridor in Oliver 

County. We recommend the transmission line be located south of this unit of the state nature preserve. Recreation 

properties funded through the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant are possibly within or adjacent to 

the project area. A list of projects for the above mentioned counties has been attached. These properties are 

protected by section 6(f) of the LWCF Act. Any property taken from within the 6f boundaries of these areas must be 

replaced with property of equal market value. Should any public or private utilities need to be added or relocated on 

the LV/CF recreational land, the NDPRD must be consulted prior to any action taken. Please contact Arik Spencer 

(701-328-5369 or aspencer(@nd.gov) if additional LWCF information is needed. The North Dakota Natural Heritage 

biological conservation database has been reviewed 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 this review, several occurrences have been indentified within or adjacent to the project area. Please see 

attached spreadsheet and map for more specific information on these species. For your information, these 

occurrences can be provided as a shapefile if requested. We defer further comments regarding animal species to 

the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Because this 

biological information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be species of concern or otherwise 

significant ecological communities in the area that are not represented in the database. The lack of data for any 

project area cannot be construed to mean that no significant features are present. The absence of data may 

indicate that the project area has not been surveyed, rather than confirm that the area lacks natural heritage 

resources. The Department recommends that the project be accomplished with minimal impacts and that all efforts 

be made to ensure that critical habitats not be disturbed in the project area to help secure rare species conservation

in North Dakota. Regarding any reclamation efforts, we recommend that any impacted areas be revegetated with 

species native to the project area.

Public Service Commission - Public Utilities Division

At its regular meeting on November 6, 2009, the North Dakota Public Service Commission passed a motion 

acknowledging the Letter of Intent, shortening the one year waiting period between filing a letter of intent and a 

siting application to six months,and assessing a filing fee of $100,000 due upon filing an application in Case No. PU09-670, Minnkota Power Coop, Inc.'s proposed 345 kV electric transmission line from Center to Grand Forks, North 

Dakota. A copy of the motion is enclosed. [I move the Commission acknowledge the Letter of Intent, shorten the 

one-year waiting period between filing a letter of intent and a siting application to six months, and assess a filing fee 

of $100,000 due upon filing an application in Case No. PU-09-670, Minnkota Power Coop, Inc.'s proposed 345 kV 

electric transmission line from Center to

Grand Forks, North Dakota.]

Santee Sioux Nation

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Santee Sioux Nation has no objection to your proposed project 

unless any cultural, natural resources and/or places with traditional cultural significance within the project are found. 

Then we want to be notified immediately. We also want to be consulted in the event of any NEPA or Section 106 

reviews which reflect any cultural significance that are specific to our Dakota culture.

Report date: 1/14/2010
State Historical Society of North Dakota

We received ND SHPO Ref.: 10-0173 RUS Proposed 345 kV high voltage transmission line from the Milton R. 

Young Power. Plant Station located near Center North Dakota to an existing substation near Grand Forks North 

Dakota and recommend that a Class I (file research) survey be conducted on the project area. Recommendations 

for any Class ll (reconnaissance) and Class Ill (pedestrian) survey for cultural resources should be included in the 

Class I report. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project to date. We look forward to further review of the 

Class I report. Please include the ND SHPO Reference number listed above in further correspondence for this 

specific project. If you have any questions please contact Susan Quinnell, Review and Compliance Coordinator at 

(701) 328.3576 or squinnell@nd.gov

State of North Dakota - Office of the State Engineer

...In reviewing the map you also provided, it is clear that you will be spanning several bodies of water, which contain

Sovereign Land of the State. Any features or work required for this project that cross or will be below the Ordinary 

High Water mark on the banks of the following rivers will require a Sovereign Lands permit. There is no cost to 

these permits but a waiting period of approximately 30 days is required to give other agencies time to respond with 

their concerns. The bodies of water that are Sovereign Lands, which you may be crossing, are the Missouri River, 

the Sheyenne River, the James River and the Red River...

US Army Corps of Engineers - North Dakota Regulatory Office

...Should the proposed 345kV transmission line result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 

United States or affect a navigable waterway, a Corps permit would likely be required. If however, the project and 

associated work can be accomplished by avoiding a discharge of fill into waters of United States and not affect a 

navigable waterway, a corps permit would not be required...

US Fish and Wildlife Services - North Dakota Field Office

I hope it is OK for me to provide some comments on the meeting minutes. Please take a look at the attached 

document for my comments. 

I will forward the shapefiles to our GIS person and we will get some maps back to you for our easement and fee title 

interests along the corridor alignments.

Here are several maps depicting the area requested with USFWS land interests. If you have any questions 

concerning USFWS land interests please contact the appropriate Wetland Management District listed below...

...The Service, Minnkota, and Minnkota's consultant, HDR Engineering, Inc., met at the Service's Bismarck Office 

on May 6, 2009. The Service Discussed our concerns related to potential project impacts to Service trust resources,

including migratory birds, federally-listed threatened and endangered species of plants and animals and their 

habitats, bald and golden egales, and unites of the National Wildlife Refuge system. When planning an activity, 

project proponents should give careful consideration to potential impacts to these trust resources and compliance 

with the laws mentioned above...

Report date: 1/14/2010
Appendix B:Agency Scoping Meeting  

   

RUSAgency Scoping Letter Mailing List

Mr. Dennis Breitzman

Bureau of Reclamation

304 E Broadway Ave

Bismarck, ND 58501

Mr. Steve Obenauer

Federal Aviation Administration

Bismark Airports District Office  

BIS‐ADO‐600

2301 University Drive, Bldg 23B

Bismarck, ND 58504

Mr. Wendall Meyer

Federal Highway Administration

1471 Interstate Loop

Bismarck, ND 58503

Mr. Roger Johnson

North Dakota Department of

Agriculture

600 E Boulevard Ave

Dept 602

Bismarck, ND 58505‐0020

Ms. Sheri Lares

North Dakota Department of

Transportation

608 E Boulevard Ave

Bismarck, ND 58505

Mr. Bruce Kreft

North Dakota Game and Fish

Department

100 N Bismarck Expressway

Bismarck, ND 58501

Ms. Cheryl Kulas

North Dakota Indian Affairs

Commission

600 E Boulevard Ave

1st Floor, Judicial Wing  

Room 117

Bismarck, ND 58505‐0300

Mr. Douglass Prchal

North Dakota Natural Heritage

1600 E Century Ave

Suite 3

Bismarck, ND 58503

Mr. Donald Felch

North Dakota Natural Resources

Conservation Service

220 East Rosser Avenue

PO Box 1458

Bismarck, ND 58502

Mr. Jesse Hanson

North Dakota Parks and Recreation

Department

1600 E. Century Ave, Suite 3

Bismarck, ND 58503

Mr. Jerry Lein

North Dakota Public Service

Commission

600 E Boulevard Ave

Bismarck, ND 58505

Mr. Jim Lindseth

North Dakota State Water Commission

900 East Boulevard

Dept. 770

Bismarck, ND 58505‐0850

Mr. Paul Picha

State Historical Society of North Dakota

612 E Boulevard Ave

Bismarck, ND 58505‐0830

Mr. Jason Renschler

US Army Corps of Engineers

1513 S 12th St

Bismarck, ND 58504

Mr. Terry Ellsworth

US Fish and Wildlife Services

3425 Miriam Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58501

   

   
United States Department of Agriculture 

Rural Development 

Washington, DC 

Committed to the future of rural communities. 

“USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.” 

To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800)795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

Web: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/

November 2, 2009 

To: [insert name and address here] 

RE: Agency Scoping Meeting for Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. Proposed 345 kV highvoltage transmission line from the Milton R. Young Power Plant Station located near 

Center, North Dakota, to the existing Prairie Substation near Grand Forks, North Dakota. 

Dear [insert name here]: 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) will hold an Agency 

Scoping meeting to provide information regarding the Project, answer questions, and accept 

comments regarding the potential environmental and cultural resource impacts that may result 

from Project construction and operation. The meeting is scheduled for: 

Thursday, November 19, 2009 

9 a.m. – 12 p.m. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

North Dakota Field Office 

3425 Miriam Avenue 

Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-7926 

The objective of the Agency Scoping meeting is to discuss the following items: 

• Project permitting concerns 

• Scoping of environmental issues to be analyzed 

• Roles and expectations of the lead and cooperating agencies 

• Schedule 

If your staff is unable to attend the Agency Scoping meeting, please provide written comments to 

RUS (contact information below). RUS appreciates your participation in the NEPA review 

process. Enclosed is a figure of the macro-corridors which may assist you in your review of the 

Project. 

RUS is serving as the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed 260-mile 345 kV high-voltage transmission 

line from the Milton R. Young Power Plant Station located near Center, North Dakota, to an 

existing substation near Grand Forks, North Dakota. Existing substations near Center and Grand 

Forks would be modified to accommodate the new transmission line. This project is referred to as 

the Center to Grand Forks (CGF) Project. The Project would deliver energy produced by the 

Young 2 power station to north-eastern North Dakota and northern Minnesota. In addition, the 

CGF Project would allow additional renewable wind energy to be delivered over the existing 250 

kV DC transmission line that currently serves Young 2. Minnkota Power is seeking RUS 

financing. 

Prior to making a decision on whether to loan funds, guarantee a loan, or award a grant for the 

Project, RUS is required to conduct an environmental review under NEPA in accordance with 7 
CFR Part 1794, as amended. According to these regulations, this Project is classified as an 

Environmental Assessment with Scoping. 

The Macro-Corridor Study (MCS) and Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) have been filed and 

are available for review at local libraries or on the RUS website at: 

http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm. 

RUS will also hold six Public Scoping meetings, in open house format, to provide information 

regarding the Project, answer questions, and collect comments regarding potential environmental 

concerns. 

Public Scoping Meeting dates and locations: 

3⁄4 Monday, November 16, 2009 

o Grand Forks, ND, Alerus Center, Eagle Room 10, 1200 S. 42nd St., 5 pm - 8 pm 

3⁄4 Tuesday, November 17, 2009 

o Cooperstown, ND, Cooperstown City Hall, 611 9th St. 10 am – 1 pm 

o Carrington, ND, The Chieftain Conference Center, Tee Pee Room 60, 4th Ave S, 

Highway 281, 5 pm - 8 pm 

3⁄4 Wednesday, November 18, 2009 

o McClusky, ND, McClusky Community Hall, 117 Ave. B North, 10 am – 1 pm 

o Wilton, ND, City of Wilton Memorial Hall, 10 Dakota Ave, 5 pm - 8 pm 

3⁄4 Thursday, November 19, 2009 

o Center, ND, Civic Center Building, 312 N Lincoln Ave, 5 pm - 8 pm 

Comments will be accepted until December 18, 2009. Information from this meeting will help 

RUS determine the scope of the Environmental Assessment. Based on comments received during 

scoping and impact analyses in the Environmental Assessment, RUS would either prepare a 

Finding of No Significant Impact or make a decision to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement. RUS will provide public notice of its decision. 

Questions and comments should be directed to Dennis Rankin, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, USDA Rural Utilities Service,1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 1571, 

Washington, DC 20250–1571, or e-mail: dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov. 

For more information, please visit www.minnkota.com or call Minnkota’s toll free 

project information line at 800-473-5679. 

Sincerely, 

Mark S. Plank 

Director 

Engineering and Environmental Staff 

Rural Utilities Service 

Enclosure (1) 



Appendix C: Section 106  

United States Department of Agriculture 

Rural Development 

 1400 Independence Ave, SW • Washington, DC 20250-0700 

Web: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov 

Committed to the future of rural communities. 

“USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.” 

To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

September 10, 2009 

Name 

RE: Proposed Center-Grand Forks 345 kV Transmission System 

 North Dakota 

Dear Name: 

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is considering an application for financial assistance from 

Minnkota Power Cooperative (Minnkota) for the construction of an approximately 260 mile 

long 345 kV electric transmission line and associated facilities to deliver power from the 

Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 (Young 2) power plant located near Center, North Dakota, to 

a delivery point in Minnkota’s service area near Grand Forks, North Dakota. The proposed 

line would be constructed using single pole steel structures typically about 150 feet tall and 

placed approximately 1,000 feet apart. In addition, various modifications to associated 

substations in the area of the proposed line also would be needed. 

Since 2005, regional transmission-system studies have demonstrated that, even without 

additional load growth, there are system voltage stability and load serving issues in eastern 

North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota. The proposed transmission line project would 

provide a sound technical solution to the well-identified northern Red River Valley voltage 

stability issue and a major improvement to the regional transmission grid. In addition, the 

proposed line would provide a direct link into Minnkota’s service territory. 

RUS is considering funding this application, thereby making the proposal an undertaking 

subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 

U.S.C. § 470f, and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 

Part 800). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is considering issuance of a permit 

under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for this proposal to cross the Missouri and 

Sheyenne Rivers, thereby making it an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. While 

both RUS and USACE have responsibilities under NEPA and Section 106, the agencies 

have yet to resolve lead agency status. 

To meet RUS requirements and provide general baseline information to support review 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106, Minnkota is 

developing two documents. The Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) explains the need for 

the proposal, discusses the alternatives that might be considered to meet the need, and 

establishes the alternative that Minnkota believes will best meet that need. In addition to the 

AES, RUS requires that Minnkota prepare a Macro Corridor Study (MCS) to describe the 

macro corridors that have been developed by the applicant based on environmental, 

engineering, economic, land use and permitting constraints. These documents along with 

the views of agencies, consulting parties, tribes and the public will inform RUS’s decision 
regarding which alternatives to carry forward to analysis in the NEPA Environmental 

Assessment (EA) document. 

 

The following counties could be affected by this proposal: Oliver, Burleigh, McLean, 

Sheridan, Wells, Foster, Eddy, Griggs, Nelson, Steele, Traill, and Grand Forks. As initially 

defined by RUS, the area of potential effects (APE) for the referenced undertaking includes 

a broad area encompassed by the macro corridors that will be described in the MCS. RUS 

will refine the scope of the APE as Section 106 review proceeds and more specific 

information is gathered about likely effects to historic properties. 

RUS is writing to invite the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota to participate in 

government-to-government consultation for the referenced undertaking. Please advise RUS 

in writing of your decision as soon as possible so that your input can be incorporated as 

early as possible in project development. Your decision about consultation should be sent to 

Mark Plank at 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Mail Stop 1571, Room 2244, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-1571 or via email at mark.plank@wdc.usda.gov. In order to facilitate your 

tribe’s participation, RUS also has notified Carol Robertson, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer for the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, about the referenced 

proposal. 

In order to get more information about this proposal, RUS is inviting the Flandreau Santee 

Sioux Tribe of South Dakota to attend meetings on September 22nd and 23rd, 2009 in 

Cooperstown and Cross Ranch State Park to review the Sheyenne and Missouri River 

crossings. Because the options for crossing the Missouri River are constrained, RUS and 

Minnkota want to hear your concerns as soon as possible. Minnkota has supplied the 

attached reimbursement policy for consultation meeting attendance. RUS requests that you 

notify Michael Justin, HDR Engineering, by phone or email at 763-591-5423,

Michael.justin@hdrinc.com in advance if you plan to attend this meeting.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 202-

720-1649. RUS appreciates your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Mark S. Plank 

Director 

Engineering and Environmental Staff 

Water and Environmental Programs 

Cc: Laura Dean, RUS 

 Dennis Rankin, RUS 

 Michelle Bissonnette, HDR 

 John Graves, Minnkota 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Rural Development 

 1400 Independence Ave, SW • Washington, DC 20250-0700 

Web: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov 

Committed to the future of rural communities. 

“USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.” 

To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

September 10, 2009 

Name 

RE: Proposed Center-Grand Forks 345 kV Transmission System 

 North Dakota 

Dear Name: 

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is considering an application for financial assistance 

from Minnkota Power Cooperative (Minnkota) for the construction of an approximately 

260 mile long 345 kV electric transmission line and associated facilities to deliver power 

from the Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 (Young 2) power plant located near Center, 

North Dakota, to a delivery point in Minnkota’s service area near Grand Forks, North 

Dakota. The proposed line would be constructed using single pole steel structures 

typically about 150 feet tall and placed approximately 1,000 feet apart. In addition, 

various modifications to associated substations in the area of the proposed line also 

would be needed. 

Since 2005, regional transmission-system studies have demonstrated that, even without 

additional load growth, there are system voltage stability and load serving issues in 

eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota. The proposed transmission line 

project would provide a sound technical solution to the well-identified northern Red 

River Valley voltage stability issue and a major improvement to the regional 

transmission grid. In addition, the proposed line would provide a direct link into 

Minnkota’s service territory. 

RUS is considering funding this application, thereby making the proposal an 

undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470f, and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic 

Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is 

considering issuance of a permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for this 

proposal to cross the Missouri and Sheyenne Rivers, thereby making it an undertaking 

subject to Section 106 review. While both RUS and USACE have responsibilities under 

NEPA and Section 106, the agencies have yet to resolve lead agency status. 

To meet RUS requirements and provide general baseline information to support review 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106, Minnkota is 

developing two documents. The Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) explains the need 

for the proposal, discusses the alternatives that have been considered to meet the 

need, and establishes the alternative that Minnkota believes will best meet that need. In 

addition to the AES, RUS requires that Minnkota prepare a Macro Corridor Study (MCS) 
to describe the macro corridors that have been developed by the applicant based on 

environmental, engineering, economic, land use and permitting constraints. These 

documents along with the views of agencies, consulting parties, tribes and the public 

will inform RUS’s decision regarding which alternatives to carry forward to analysis in 

the NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) document. 

The following counties could be affected by this proposal – Oliver, Burleigh, McLean, 

Sheridan, Wells, Foster, Eddy, Griggs, Nelson, Steele, Traill, and Grand Forks. As 

initially defined by RUS, the area of potential effects (APE) for the referenced 

undertaking includes a broad area encompassed by the macro corridors that will be 

described in the MCS. RUS will refine the scope of the APE as Section 106 review 

proceeds and more specific information is gathered about likely effects to historic 

properties. 

By letter dated September 10, 2009 to Marcus Levings, RUS invited the Three Affiliated 

Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, ND to participate in government-to-government 

consultation for the referenced undertaking. Please advise RUS in writing as soon as 

possible if the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, ND 

will participate in consultation so that your concerns and recommendations may be 

considered as early as possible in development of this proposal. 

RUS and Minnkota plan to review the potential Missouri and Sheyenne River crossing 

locations within the next few weeks. We are asking that one representative from your 

respective Tribe attend. Meeting details: 

Sheyenne River Meeting

When: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 

 Time: 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm (CST) 

 Location: Cooperstown – Town & Country Gas Station (corner of ND-200 and ND-

 45) 

Missouri River Meeting

When: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 

 Time: 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm (CST) 

 Location: Cross Ranch State Park – Sanger Campground Boat Ramp 

Minnkota will be sending you maps and other details pertaining to these meetings. 

RUS is hopeful that the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, ND 

will work directly with the Center to Grand Forks utilities and their representatives as 

review under Section 106 proceeds. Should you have any questions or require 
additional information, please contact Michael Justin at 763-591-5423 or via email at 

michael.justin@hdrinc.com. RUS appreciates your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Mark S. Plank 

Director 

Engineering and Environmental Staff 

Water and Environmental Programs 

Cc: Laura Dean, RUS 

Dennis Rankin, RUS 

 Michelle Bissonnette, HDR 

 John Graves, Minnkota 
Table - Tribal Letter Mailing List 

Title Organization 

Cultural Resources 

Department Director Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation 

Chairman Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation 

Preservation Officer Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Chairman Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Tribal Council Member Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation 

Chief Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation 

President of the Tribe Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota 

THPO Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota 

Chairman Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation 

Director of Cultural 

Resources Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation 

President Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota 

THPO Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota 

Tribal Chairman Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota 

Coordinator of Grande 

Portage Museum Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota 

President Oglala Sioux Tribal Council of the Pine Ridge Reservation 

Natural Resources Director Oglala Sioux Tribal Council of the Pine Ridge Reservation 

Tribal Council President Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota 

Chairman of the Tribe Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota 

NAGPRA Representative Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota 

THPO Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation 

Tribal Council President Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation 

Tribal Chairman/ Leader Santee Sioux of Nebraska 

Chairman of the Tribe Sisseton- Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation 

THPO Sisseton- Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation 

THPO Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota 

Tribal Council Chairperson Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota 

THPO Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota 

Chairman of the Tribe Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota 

Chairman of the Tribe Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation 

THPO Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation 

Chairman of the Tribe Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota 

THPO Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota 

Member at Large / THPO 

Contact Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota 

Tribal Council Chairman Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota 

Chairwomen of the Tribe White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 

THPO White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 
Appendix D:Agency Scoping Comments

HDR Engineering, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 600 

Minneapolis, MN 55416-3636 

Phone (763) 591-5400 

Fax (763) 591-5413 

www.hdrinc.com 

Page 1 of 4 

Meeting Notes

Subject: Agency Scoping Meeting 

Client: Minnkota Power Cooperative Project No: 110900 

Project: Center to Grand Forks Meeting Location: USFWS Office - 

Bismarck, ND 

Meeting Date: November 19, 2009 Notes by: Brian Hunker, HDR 

ATTENDEES 

Floyd Bentz, Bureau of Recreation 

Jesse Hanson, ND Parks and Recreation 

Kathy Duttenhofer, ND Parks and Recreation 

Jim Lindseth, State Water 

Jason Renschler, USACOE 

Terry Ellsworth, USFWS 

Paul Picha, ND SHPO 

Susan Quinnell, ND SHPO 

Make Schrader, FHWA 

Dennis Rankin, RUS 

Tim Bohan, RUS 

Duane Phillips, Stanley Consultants 

Mike Hennes, John Graves & Jennifer Johnson, Minnkota 

Michelle Bissonnette & Brian Hunker, HDR 

TOPICS DISCUSSED 

1. RUS Introduction – RUS 

• Provided an overview of the RUS 

• RUS provides the financing system 

• Invited agencies to be a cooperating agency and discussed the cooperating 

agency roles and responsibilities. Noted that cooperating agencies get 

documents throughout the process, instead of at the end when review may take 

more time. 

2. Schedule – RUS 

• RUS provided an update to the schedule that matches what was discussed at the 

public scoping meetings 

3. Project Description – Minnkota 

• Minnkota provided a description of the project 

• A transmission line would be needed with or without the plant 

• Grand Forks needs voltage stability and is at the heart of Minnkota’s service 

territory. Grand Forks has 4 lines into the area, whereas Fargo has 11 lines into 

the service area 
HDR Engineering, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 600 

Minneapolis, MN 55416 

Phone (763) 591-5400 

Fax (763) 591-5413 

www.hdrinc.com 

Page 2 of 4 

• A line to Grand Forks would improve reliability because of separation from lines 

in the southern portion of the state 

• No new plant expansions are warranted at this time 

• Minnkota needs low cost, constant generation 

4. Routing – Minnkota 

• Commitment to reduce cross-country segments. Use field, section, and halfsection lines for routing 

• Eliminate guy wires 

• Towers – average height of 140 feet, river crossing height of 200 feet, 1000 foot 

intervals 

• 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) is proposed. ROW is designed for wind drift. 

• Bird diverters will be installed. Minnkota is looking for input on diverter type 

• Weed control at the towers 

• Tree control would be used along the ROW. Minnkota is assessing feathering the 

ROW from the line 

• PSC has a 2:1 mitigation for tree removal 

• Minnkota would recommend multiple route alternatives in the Environmental 

Assessment (EA) 

5. Agency Comments to date – Minnkota 

• Minnkota reviewed agency comments to date as follows 

• Cultural Resources 

 Missouri River

• Native American Concerns 

• Agricultural Impacts 

 NRCS Farmland Protection Act

 Wetland Conversion

• Threatened and Endangered Species 

 Whooping Crane

 Piping Plover

 Least Tern

 Piping Plover Critical Habitat

• Sensitive Communities 

 Native prairie

 Riparian woodlands

 Prairie Chicken Leks

 Bald Eagle and Raptor Nests

• Migratory and Breeding Birds 

• Management Areas 

 WMAs, WPAs, State Park – Need Special Use Permit to cross these lands.

 USFWS Wetland, Grassland, and Conservation Easements

 LAWCON (Land and Water Conservation Fund grant) for Cross Ranch State Park
HDR Engineering, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 600 

Minneapolis, MN 55416 

Phone (763) 591-5400 

Fax (763) 591-5413 

www.hdrinc.com 

Page 3 of 4 

 Airports – Grand Forks expansion

 USDA – CRP parcels

• Surface Waters 

 River Crossings

 Section 10 and 404 Permits

• Wetlands 

 Avoid to the extent possible

 Avoid DOT mitigation sites

• ROW 

• Routing 

 River Crossings

 Residences

• Residences 

• Recreation – Missouri and Sheyenne Rivers 

6. Agency Questions and Comments 

• SHPO 

 Integrate EA and PSC process – Concern is that PSC has scheduled timelines that

the Federal agencies do not  

 Hard to comment on corridors

 Would like to comment on routes.

 River crossings are the main area of concern for cultural resources

 Minnkota and RUS held a river crossing site visit and no tribes participated

• BOR 

 McClusky Canal and Recreation Areas

 Parasailing at the recreation areas is becoming a more common event

• Avoidance Areas (State Parks, WMAs, and WPAs) are red flags for routing. 

Minnkota is looking for support from the agencies to stay out of avoidance areas. 

• Parks and Recreation 

 River Crossings – Public perspective of river crossings, intrinsic value of river for

users

 Cross Ranch has many bald eagles

 Keep lines crossing the river with other crossing points

 Airplane safety

• USACOE

 Use EA for decision document

 Permits depend on impacts – Temporary impacts are preferred under the

Nationwide Permit. Missouri River would be the focal point of permits – Letter

of Permission or Individual Permit

 Endangered Species Act – Entire stretch of MO River has historic and active least

tern and piping plover nesting locations. Some areas are designated critical
HDR Engineering, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 600 

Minneapolis, MN 55416 

Phone (763) 591-5400 

Fax (763) 591-5413 

www.hdrinc.com 

Page 4 of 4 

habitat ‐ “adverse modification of critical habitat.” Winter is the best to cross

the river, because no birds. Temporary staging on sandbars.  

 Section 7 consultation on MO River will be separate

 Section 106 ‐ High likelihood of cultural resources, thus need survey. USACOE

will consult with the SHPO on the permit application. Current Programmatic

Agreement on the Corp projects will not apply on the MO River–CFG will need a

separate Programmatic Agreement.

 Tap lines ‐ Allow taps in the future? Currently no taps, but Minnkota thinks that

the line may be tapped in the future. Taps would be paid by the party

requesting the tap.  

• State Engineer 

 Sovereign Lands Permit needed for river crossings – MO, James, and Sheyenne.

Permit applications would be sent to state and federal agencies for comment.

Recommend following time‐of‐year restrictions.  

 Wetlands – drainage areas greater than 80 acres require Drainage Permits. No

state mitigation for wetlands.  

 County Water Boards – may take jurisdiction of basins less than 80 acres

• Federal DOT 

 If not in interstate rights‐of‐way, then no jurisdiction

 Follow elevation requirements for lines over bridges



• National Heritage MO River – all state lands are within the Heritage Area 

• USFWS 

 Recommend wetland impact mitigation – better to restore drained wetlands

versus creation

 Recommend prairie impact mitigation

 Cumulative Impacts ‐ diversity of DC line. Additional capacity may cause

additional wind development – what is the impact of additional development?

 Avian Protection Plan – USFWS will ask for an APP. The APP should capture

known structures where electrocution has occurred and measures to reduce the

electrocution potential.  
Agency and Tribal Government Scoping Comments

Total Comments: 8

Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe

This letter is in response to notification of the proposed 345 kV high voltage transmission line. The Bois Forte Band 

is not aware of any cultural or religious prepoerties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and does not wish to be 

involved in any further consultation regarding this project.

Federal Aviation Administration - Bismarck Airports District Office

The Bismark Airports District office has no additional comments to the proposed transmission line and other 

improvements proposed for construction and operation and identified in your letter dated November 2, 2009. The 

Bismark District office comment letter dated June 4, 2009 to Minnkota Power Cooperative is enclosed for your 

reference. I appreciate that our office was given the opportunity to review this project. Please contact me at (701) 

323-7380 if you have any questions of need further information.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

This letter is in reply to your agency's request for comments on the propose d 345 Kv high voltage transmission line 

from the Milton R. Young Power Plant Station near Center, North Dakota, to the existing Prairie Substation near 

Grand Forks, North Dakota, and requesting our comments. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

does not have any comments to the above project at this time. USDA-NRCS does welcome the chance to comment 

on the alternatives once you have put those together for review. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this 

project. Should you require additional information, discussion, or clarification, please contact Donald E. Felch at 

(701) 530-2023.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service Q\IRCS) has reviewed your letter dated October 29,2009, regarding a

proposed 345 kV high-voltage transmission line from the Milton R. Young Power Plant Station located near Center, 

North Dakota, to an existing substation near Grand Forks, North Dakota, Important Farmlands - NRCS has a major 

responsibility with Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) in documenting conversion of farmland (i.e., prime, 

statewide, and local importance) tonon-agriculture use when federal funding is used. Your proposed project 

consists of activities that are subject to FPPA, New transmission towers and a new distribution substation may 

remove farmland from production; therefore, these sites may be subject to FPPA and an AD-106must be 

completed. Activities that do not enact FPPA include the burying of electrical lines or activities within city limits. 

Below are instructions for completing the AD-1006 for those areas affected by FPPA. For those areas subject to 

FPPA, the following form must be completed. Enclosed is a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD- 1006 or 

you may utilize a fillable, web based form athttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/fppa/pdf_files/AD1006.PDF to 

record the following. You will need to complete Part I and Part III. We will also need a map, at an appropriate scale, 

so we can accurately assess the area (e.9., 1:20,000 or 1:24,000). If the farmland (i.e., prime, statewide, and local 

importance) is determined to be subject to the FPPA, we will then complete Parts II and IV. NRCS will measure the 

relative value of the site as farmland on a scale of 0 to 100,according to the information sources listed in CFR, Sec. 

658.5(a). If FPPA applies to this site, Form AD-I006 will be returned to SWCA Environment4l Cg4sultanls for 

completion of Part VI, Site Assessment Criteria.. Wetlands - The Wetland Conservation Provisions of the 1985 

Food Security Act, as amended, provide that if a USDA participant converts a wetland for the purpose of, or to have 

the effect of making agricultural production possible, loss of USDA benefits could occur. The Natural Resource 

conservation Service has developed the following guidelines to help avoid impacts to wetlands and possible loss of 

USDA benefits for producers. If these guidelines are followed, the impacts to the wetland will be considered minimal 

allowing USDA participants to continue to receive USDA benefits. Following are the requirements: 1) Disturbance to

the wetland(s) must be temporary, 2) no drainage of the wetland(s) is allowed (temporary or permanent),3) 

mechanized landscaping necessary for installation is kept to a minimum and preconstruction contours are 

rnaintained, 4) temporary side cast material must be placed in such a manner not to be dispersed in the wetland, 

and 5) all trenches must be backfilled to the original wetland bottom elevation. NRCS would recommend that 

impacts to wetlands be avoided. If the alignment of the project requires passage through a wetland, NRCS can 

complete a certified wetland determination if requested by the landowner/operator. If you have additional questions 

pertaining to FPPA, please contact Steve Sieler, State Soil Liaison, NRCS, Bismarck, ND at (701) 530-2019.

Report date: 3/1/2010
North Dakota Department of Health - Environmental Health Section

This department has reviewed the information concerning the above-referenced project submitted under date of 

October 29, 2009, with respect to possible environmental impacts. This department believes that environmental 

impacts from the proposed construction will be minor and can be controlled by proper construction methods. With 

respect to construction, we have the following comments: 1. All necessary measures must be taken to minimize 

fugitive dust emissions created during construction activities. Any complaints that may arise are to be dealt with in 

an efficient and effective manner. 2. Care is to be taken during construction activity near any water of the state to 

minimize adverse effects on a water body. This includes 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. Caution must also 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 are attached. 3. Projects disturbing one or more acres are required to have a permit 

to discharge storm water runoff until the site is stabilized by the reestablishment of vegetation or other permanent 

cover. Further information on the storm water permit may be obtained from the Department's website or by calling 

the Division of Water Quality (701-328-5210). Also, cities may impose additional requirements and/or specific best 

management practices for construction affecting their storm drainage system. Check with the local officials to be 

sure any local storm water management considerations are addressed. 4. Noise from construction activities may 

have adverse effects on persons who live near the construction area. Noise levels can be minimized by ensuring 

that construction equipment is equipped with a recommended muffler in good working order. Noise effects can also 

be minimized by ensuring that construction activities are not conducted during early morning or late evening hours. 

The department owns no land in or adjacent to the proposed improvements, nor does it have any projects 

scheduled in the area. In addition, we believe the proposed activities are consistent with the State Implementation 

Plan for the Control of Air Pollution for the State of North Dakota. These comments are based on the information 

provided about the project in the above-referenced submittal. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may require a 

water quality certification from this department for the project if the project is subject to their Section 404 permitting 

process. Any additional information which may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the process 

will be considered by this department in our determination regarding the issuance of such a certification.

Construction and Environmental Disturbance Requirements 

These represent the minimum requirements of the North Dakota Department of Health. They ensure that minimal 

environmental degradation occurs as a result of construction or related work which has the potential to affect the 

waters of the State of North Dakota. All projects will be designed and implemented to restrict the losses or 

disturbances of soil, vegetative cover, and pollutants (chemical or biological) from a site. Soils - Prevent the erosion 

of exposed soil surfaces and trapping sediments being transported. Examples include, but are not restricted to, 

sediment dams or berms, diversion dikes, hay bales as erosion checks, riprap, mesh or burlap blankets to hold soil 

during construction, and immediately establishing vegetative cover on disturbed areas after construction is 

completed, Fragile and sensitive areas such as wetlands, riparian zones, delicate flora, or land resources will be 

protected against compaction, vegetation loss, and unnecessary damage. Surface Waters - All construction which 

directly or indirectly impacts aquatic systems will be managed to minimize impacts. All attempts will be made to 

prevent the contamination of water at construction sites from fuel spillage, lubricants, and chemicals, by following 

safe storage and handling procedures. Stream bank and stream bed disturbances will be controlled to minimize 

and/or prevent silt movement, nutrient upsurges, plant dislocation, and any physical, chemical, or biological 

disruption. The use of pesticides or herbicides in or near these systems is forbidden without approval from this 

Department. Fill Material - Any fill material placed below the high water mark must be free of top soils, 

decomposable materials, and persistent synthetic organic compounds (in toxic concentrations). This includes, but is 

not limited to, asphalt, tires, treated lumber, and construction debris. The Department may require testing of fill 

materials. All temporary fills must be removed. Debris and solid wastes will be removed from the site and the 

impacted areas restored as nearly as possible to the original condition.

North Dakota Game and Fish Department

Provided comments on the project in a letter dated April 2009. Comments remain the same. No additional 

comments at this time. Please call if you have any questions.

Report date: 3/1/2010
North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department

This letter is sent as the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department (NDPRD) comments requested at the 

USDA Rural Utilities Programs Public Hearing on for the above mentioned 345kV transmission line. NDPRD also 

participated in the "on the water” pontoon tour of 4 proposed river crossings in September of 09. [NNPRD] This 

letter will reiterate and expand on comments previously stated in a letter to Michael Hennes, Minnkota Power 

Cooperative, Inc dated May 26, 2009, Please note that ND Natural Heritage biological conservation data, and Land 

and Water project data was previously submitted this initial response letter, A copy of that letter is attached for your 

information. Nature Preserves: The proposed route of the project through Oliver County includes properties 

containing significant natural, historic, scenic and cultural resources. Cross Ranch Nature Preserve owned by The 

Nature Conservancy and Cross Ranch State Park are areas of concern and must be avoided. These tracts, owned 

and managed by either the ND Parks and Recreation and The Nature Conservancy are dedicated state nature 

preserves under the ND Century Code chapter 55-11. Protective covenants in Chapter 55-11 direct uses of those 

properties. The attached topographic map indicates location of state dedicated nature preserve lands in Oliver 

County. The actual path which the transmission line will take is not provided as of yet. However, it appears if 

“Potential Crossing #1” is the chosen river crossing route the transmission line route would travel in proximity to the 

state dedicated Cross Ranch Nature Preserve. The protective covenants applied by ND C.C. prohibits intrusions on 

the nature preserve properties such as a power transmission line would include. Please make note of the dedicated 

lands and use the information for routing the transmission line away from these lands, A map of boundaries has 

been included. River Crossing: Route transmission lines to avoid areas considered scenic such as state parks, 

nature preserves, recreational areas and wildlife management areas. Avoid placement of the poles on river banks to

reduce visual impacts of river recreational users. We strongly recommend limiting the river crossings to “Potential 

Crossing #2 or #3" to keep river crossings within an already existing impact corridor. Impacts of river crossings 

should include public values of limiting visual and scenic impacts on the river. Keeping the proposed transmission 

tine within the already impacted area will reduce the overall scenic/aesthetic impacts from the perspective of the 

river. Ecological Communities: River Bottomland forests provide recreational opportunities and wildlife and plant 

habitat. Avoid routes that fragment large forest blocks. Forest fragmentation can cause permanent reduction is 

species diversity and suitable habitat. AII 4 proposed "Potential Crossings" involve impacts to forested river 

bottomland. Careful consideration needs to be employed when selection transmission line routes, crossings, 

corridors and construction access. A map of significant ecological communities for Cross Ranch area has been 

included.

Report date: 3/1/2010
US Department of the Interior - National Park Service

The National Park Service (NPS) reviewed the October 30,2009, Federal Register Notice of Intent to hold public 

scoping meetings and prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Minnkota Power Cooperative, 

Inc., Center to Grand Forks Transmission Line Project, in North Dakota. Please consider the following comments in 

developing the EA for this project. General comment- Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota) proposes to 

construct approximately 260 miles of new, 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line in North Dakota, a230 kV tie line, two 

or more fiber optic regeneration stations, and upgrade several existing substations. Given the scope and nature of 

the proposed project, NPS expects it will have significant environmental impacts necessitating preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. We recognize that an 

EA may be prepared to determine if an EIS is needed. However, considering the information presented in the Macro

Corridor Study and the Alternative Evaluation Study, it seems improbable that a project of this magnitude could 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate all impacts to non-significant levels. Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail comments - 

The NPS administers the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (the Trail), which intersects the western portion of 

the proposed project corridors. The Trail was established by Congress in an amendment to the National Trails 

System Act in 1978 [16 U.S.C. $ 1246(a)]. Under this Act, the NPS is charged with the identification and protection 

of the historic route, remnants, and artifacts of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery Expedition for public use 

and enjoyment. The Expedition traveled the Missouri River through North Dakota in October, 1804 as they headed 

west and in August, 1806 on their return journey. North Dakota Highways 1804 and 1806 are the designated Lewis 

and Clark auto tour routes in this area. The public follows the historic Trail on these roadways and along or on the 

Missouri River in North Dakota. The proposed transmission line would extend from the Milton R. Young Station Unit 

2 (Young 2) near Center, North Dakota, to the Prairie Substation near Grand Forks, North Dakota. The proposed 

project corridors cross the Missouri River between Mandan and Washburn, North Dakota. According to the Macro 

Corridor Study the new high-voltage transmission line will likely be constructed with 150 foot high, single-pole steel 

structures placed approximately 1,000 feet apart and require a 150 foot wide right-of-way. Construction and 

maintenance of the line may impact subsurface or surface-level cultural resources within or near the right-of-way. 

The Trail cultural resources that have the potential of being impacted by the proposed project are Trail remnants 

and associated archaeological sites, Native American sites associated with the Trail story and the general cultural 

landscape. To protect these resources, an effort should be made to identify the locations of all potentially effected 

cultural resources in the project area. It is likely that extensive portions of the proposed transmission line corridor 

have not been surveyed for cultural resources. A Phase-I archeological survey should be conducted along the entire

260-mile corridor. Adverse impacts to recorded cultural resources must be avoided whenever possible. V/hen 

adverse impacts cannot be avoided, they must be properly mitigated. The erection of transmission lines across the 

Missouri River and the Lewis and Clark auto tour routes on each side of the river will degrade the Trail viewshed, 

which is an important component of the Trail visitor experience. The NPS is very concerned about cumulative visual 

impacts to the Trail from this proposed project and similar projects related to energy production and transmission 

either existing or forecast in the region and all along the Trail. Trail visitors drawn to the area for its scenic and 

historic qualities are likely to be sensitive to disruptions of the landscape by man-made structures. A rigorous visual 

impact assessment must be completed and included in the EA or EIS. To aid our evaluation of visual impacts to the 

Trail, we request photo simulations be prepared for areas near the Trail, including the river crossing. Additionally, 

the NPS recommends consulting with the Fort Mandan Foundation on siting the transmission line to minimize 

impacts to the Trail. The Lewis and Clark Fort Mandan Foundation President, David Borlaug, may be reached at 

701-462-8535. The Alternative Evaluation Study indicates that Minnkota has received interconnection requests for 

several hundred megawatts of new wind generation. It is our understanding that the proposed new transmission line

will be used to transport electricity from the existing Young 2 plant and the old line used to transport electricity 

generated from new wind developments to Minnesota. The cumulative impacts of the transmission lines, wind 

developments tied into the transmission lines, and other necessary infrastructure must be evaluated in the EA or 

EIS. There is a great deal of local, regional, and national significance in recognizing and preserving the resources of

the Trail. The NPS urges avoidance or minimization of adverse impacts to Trail resources from the proposed 

project. Potential impacts to the natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic values of the Trail should be thoroughly 

examined in the EA or EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We request a copy of the draft 

environmental document when it is available for review. If you have questions regarding our comments, or would 

like rnore information on the Trail, please contact Chief of Resources Stewardship Dan Wiley at 402-661-1830, or 

Dan_Wiley@nps.gov.

Report date: 3/1/2010
Appendix E: NOI

October 20, 2009 

Agency: Rural Utilities Service, USDA 

Action: Notice of Intent to Hold Public Scoping Meetings and Prepare an Environmental Assessment. 

Summary: 

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) intends to hold public scoping meetings and prepare an Environmental 

Assessment with Scoping (EA) to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and 7 CFR part 1794 in connection with potential impacts related to a proposed project by 

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota). The proposed Center to Grand Forks Transmission Line 

Project (proposed action) consists of the following; the construction of approximately 260 miles of 345 

kilovolt (kV) transmission line from Center to Grand Forks, North Dakota, upgrades at the Center 345 kV 

substation, upgrades at the Square Butte 230 kV Substation, additional 230 kV tie line, upgrades at the 

Prairie Substation, and fiber optic regeneration stations. Minnkota is requesting that RUS provide 

financial assistance for the proposed action. 

Dates: 

RUS will conduct public scoping meetings in an open house format to provide information and solicit 

comments for the preparation of the EA. The scoping meetings will be held on the following dates: 

Grand Forks, ND, Alerus Center, Eagle Room 10, 1200 S. 42nd St, Monday, November 16, 2009, 5:00 - 

8:00 pm 

Cooperstown, ND, Cooperstown City Hall, 611 9th St. Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 10:00 am -1:00 pm 

Carrington, ND, Chieftain Conference Center, Tee Pee Room 60, 4th Avenue S., Tuesday, November 17, 

2009, 5:00 - 8:00 pm 

McClusky, ND, McClusky Community Hall, 117 Avenue B North, Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 

10:00 am -1:00 pm 

Wilton, ND, City of Wilton Memorial Hall, 105 Dakota Avenue, Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 5:00 - 

8:00 pm 

Center, ND Center Civic Center Building, 312 N Lincoln Ave., Thursday, November 19, 2009, 5:00 - 

8:00 PM 

Addresses: 

To send comments or for further information, contact: Dennis Rankin, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, USDA Rural Utilities Service, at 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 1571, Washington, 

DC 20250–1571, or e-mail: dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov. An Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) and a 

Macro Corridor Study (MCS) has been prepared for the proposed project. All documents are available for 

public review prior to and at the public scoping meetings. The reports are available at the RUS address 

provided in this notice and on the agency’s Web site: http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/eis.htm. The 

documents are also available for review at the offices of Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. and on their 

Web site at www.minnkota.com. In addition, the following repositories will have the AES and MCS 

available for public review: 
Aneta Public Library, 11995 19th St, Aneta, ND 58212-0088 

Bismarck’s Veterans Memorial Library, 515 N. 5th St, Bismarck, ND 58501-4057 

Oliver County Auditor, 115 West Main, Center, ND 58530 

City of Carrington Library, 55 9th Ave, Carrington, ND 58421-2017 

Griggs County Library, 902 Burrel Ave, Cooperstown, ND 58425-0546 

Goodrich Public Library, 122 McKinley Ave, Goodrich, ND 58444-0175 

Grand Forks Library, 2110 Library Circle, Grand Forks, ND 58201-6324 

Harvey Public Library, 119 10th St, Harvey, ND 58341-1531 

Mayville Library, 52 Center Ave, Mayville, ND 58257-1299 

Sheridan County Auditor, 215 East 2nd St, McClusky, ND 58356-1510 

New Rockford Public Library, 811 1st Ave N, New Rockford, ND 58356-1510 

Turtle Lake Public Library, 107 Eggert Street, Turtle Lake, ND 58575-0540 

Washburn Public Library, 705 Main Ave, Washburn, ND 58577-0637 

Northwood Public Schools and City Library, 300 35th St, Northwood, ND 58267 

Supplementary Information: 

The primary purpose for the proposed action is for the reallocation of energy presently transmitted on the 

existing direct current (DC) line to this new 345 kV line. Currently, the output from the Milton R. Young 

Generation Station Unit 2 (Young 2) is purchased under contract by Minnkota and Minnesota Power, 

with each utility receiving approximately 50 percent of the output. Electricity generated by Young 2 flows 

over a dedicated DC, 465-mile-long transmission line from Center, North Dakota to Duluth, Minnesota, 

where it is converted back to alternating current (AC) for further transmission into the Minnesota Power 

and Minnkota service areas. Minnesota Power will take 100 percent ownership of the existing DC line 

and DC/AC conversion facilities in early 2010, and will utilize the DC line to deliver additional wind 

energy. Starting in 2013 Minnkota will begin receiving increasing allocations of Young 2 output until the 

year 2026, when Minnkota will purchase 100 percent of the Young 2 output. With no continuous capacity 

available to Minnkota on the HVDC system, the power will need to be moved over the AC transmission 

system to Minnkota’s service territory. 

Minnkota is seeking financing from RUS for its ownership of the proposed project. Prior to making a 

financial decision about whether to provide financial assistance for the proposed project, RUS is required 

to conduct an environmental review under the NEPA in accordance with RUS policies and procedures 

codified in 7 CFR Part 1794. Government agencies, private organizations, and the public are invited to 

participate in the planning and analysis of the proposed action. Representatives from RUS and Minnkota 

will be available at the scoping meetings to discuss the environmental review process, describe the 

proposed action, discuss the scope of environmental issues to be considered, answer questions, and accept 

comments. RUS will use comments and input provided by government agencies, private organizations, 

and the public in the preparation of the Draft EA. If RUS finds, based on the EA, that the proposed action 

will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, RUS will prepare a Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI). Public notification of a Finding of No Significant Impact would be 

published in the Federal Register and in newspapers with circulation in the project area. RUS may take its 

final action on proposed actions requiring an EA (§ 1794.23) any time after publication of applicant 

notices that a FONSI has been made and any required review period has expired. When substantive 

comments are received on the EA, RUS may provide an additional period (15 days) for public review 

following the publication of its FONSI determination. Final action will not be taken until this review 

period has expired. Where appropriate to carry out the purposes of NEPA, RUS may impose, on a caseby-case basis, additional requirements associated with the preparation of an EA. If at any point in the 

preparation of an EA, RUS determines that the proposed action will have a significant effect on the 

quality of the human environment, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement will be 
required. Any final action by RUS related to the proposed action will be subject to, and contingent upon, 

compliance with all relevant Federal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations and completion 

of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 

CFR Part 1794). 
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2009 / Notices 56173 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

California Recreation Resource 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Pacific Southwest Region, 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

ACTION: Request for applications. 

SUMMARY: Applications are being sought 

for certain positions on the California 

Recreation Resource Advisory 

Committee. New members will be 

appointed by the Secretary of 

Agriculture and serve three year terms. 

Appointments will begin July 2010 

when current member appointments 

expire. One member is being sought to 

represent each of the following interests: 

(1) Winter Non-Motorized Recreation, 

(2) Summer Motorized Recreation, (3) 

Summer Non-Motorized Recreation, (4) 

Non-Motorized Outfitters and Guides, 

(5) Local Environmental Groups, (6) 

State Tourism, (7) Indian Tribes, and (8) 

Local Government. 

The public is invited to submit 

applications for these positions. Current 

members who have only served one 

term may reapply. Application packages 

can be obtained at http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

passespermits/rrac-application.shtml or 

by e-mailing R5rrac@fs.fed.us. 

Interested parties may also contact 

Frances Enkoji, US Forest Service, at 

707–562–8846. 

DATES: All applications must be 

received by December 11, 2009. This 

timeframe can be extended if officials 

do not receive applications for the 

needed positions. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit applications by mail to Frances 

Enkoji, US Forest Service, 1323 Club 

Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anyone wanting further information 

regarding the California Recreation 

Resource Advisory Committee may 

contact Marlene Finley, Designated 

Federal Official, Pacific Southwest 

Region Recreation RAC, 1323 Club 

Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592; 707–562– 

8856. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA), signed December 2004, 

requires that the Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management provide 

Recreation RACs with an opportunity to 

make recommendations to the two 

agencies on implementing or 

eliminating standard amenity fees; 

expanded amenity fees; and 

noncommercial special recreation 

permit fees; expanding or limiting the 

recreation fee program; and fee level 

changes. Each Recreation RAC consists 

of 11 members appointed by the 

Secretary. 

Nomination Information: Applicants 

must complete an AD–755 form 

(Advisory Committee or Search and 

Promotion Background Information) and 

provide a narrative that addresses the 

following: 

(1) What group or perspective they 

represent and how they are qualified to 

represent that group; 

(2) Why they want to serve on the 

committee and what they can 

contribute; 

(3) Their past experience in working 

successfully as part of a collaborative 

group. 

Letters of recommendation are 

welcome but not required. Applicants 

do not need to live in a state within a 

particular Recreation RAC’s area of 

jurisdiction nor live in a state in which 

Forest Service managed lands are 

located. Application packages, 

including evaluation criteria and AD– 

755 are available at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/ 

rracapplication.shtml or by contacting 

the Pacific Southwest Region as 

identified in this notice. Completed 

application packages must be received 

by December 11, 2009. Additional 

information about the California 

Recreation RAC can be found at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/r5/passes/rrac or about 

recreation fees at http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

passespermits/about-rec-fees.shtml. The 

Forest Service will also work the 

Governor and local officials to identify 

potential applicants. The Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management will 

review applications and prepare a list of 

qualified applicants from which the 

Secretary shall appoint both members 

and alternates. The alternate will 

become a participating member of the 

Recreation RAC only if the member for 

whom the alternate is appointed to 

replace leaves the committee 

permanently. Recreation RAC members 

serve without pay but are reimbursed 

for travel and per diem expenses for 

regularly scheduled meetings. All 

Recreation RAC meetings are open the 

public and an open public forum is part 

of each meeting. Meeting dates and time 

will be determined by agency officials 

in consultation with the Recreation RAC 

members. 

Dated: October 21, 2009. 

Marlene Finley, 

Designated Federal Official, Recreation RAC, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 

[FR Doc. E9–26086 Filed 10–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.: 

Notice of Intent To Hold Public 

Scoping Meetings and Prepare an 

Environmental Assessment 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to hold public 

scoping meetings and prepare an 

Environmental Assessment. 

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS) intends to hold public scoping 

meetings and prepare an Environmental 

Assessment with Scoping (EA) to meet 

its responsibilities under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 7 

CFR part 1794 in connection with 

potential impacts related to a proposed 

project by Minnkota Power Cooperative, 

Inc. (Minnkota). The proposed Center to 

Grand Forks Transmission Line Project 

(proposed action) consists of: the 

construction of approximately 260 miles 

of 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line 

from Center to Grand Forks, North 

Dakota; upgrades at the Center 345 kV 

substation; upgrades at the Square Butte 

230 kV Substation; an additional 230 kV 

tie line; and upgrades at the Prairie 

Substation and fiber optic regeneration 

stations. Minnkota is requesting that 

RUS provide financial assistance for the 

proposed action. 

DATES: RUS will conduct public scoping 

meetings in an open house format to 

provide information and solicit 

comments for the preparation of the EA. 

Scoping meetings will be held on the 

following dates: Grand Forks, ND, 

Alerus Center, Eagle Room 10, 1200 S. 

42nd St., Monday, November 16, 2009, 

5–8 p.m.; Cooperstown, ND, 

Cooperstown City Hall, 611 9th St., 

Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 10 a.m.– 

1 p.m.; Carrington, ND, Chieftain 

Conference Center, Tee Pee Room 60, 

4th Avenue S., Tuesday, November 17, 

2009, 5:00–8:00 pm; McClusky, ND, 

McClusky Community Hall, 117 Avenue 

B North, Wednesday, November 18, 

2009, 10 a.m.–1 p.m.; Wilton, ND, City 

of Wilton Memorial Hall, 105 Dakota 

Avenue, Wednesday, November 18, 

2009, 5–8 p.m.; and Center, ND, Center 

Civic Center Building, 312 N Lincoln 

Ave., Thursday, November 19, 2009, 5– 

8 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: To send comments or 

request additional information, contact: 

Mr. Dennis Rankin, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, USDA, Rural 

Utilities Service, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Stop 1571, Washington, 

DC 20250–1571, telephone: (202) 720– 

1953 or e-mail: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
56174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2009 / Notices 

dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov. An 

Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) and 

a Macro Corridor Study (MCS) has been 

prepared for the proposed project. All 

documents are available for public 

review prior to and during the public 

scoping meetings. The reports are 

available at the RUS address provided 

in this notice and on the agency’s Web 

site at: http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ 

ees/ea.htm., the offices of Minnkota 

Power Cooperative, Inc. and their Web 

site at: http://www.minnkota.com; and 

the following repositories: Aneta Public 

Library, 11995 19th St., Aneta, ND 

58212–0088; Bismarck’s Veterans 

Memorial Library, 515 N. 5th St., 

Bismarck, ND 58501–4057; Oliver 

County Auditor, 115 West Main, Center, 

ND 58530; City of Carrington Library, 55 

9th Ave., Carrington, ND 58421–2017; 

Griggs County Library, 902 Burrel Ave., 

Cooperstown, ND 58425–0546; 

Goodrich Public Library, 122 McKinley 

Ave., Goodrich, ND 58444–0175; Grand 

Forks Library, 2110 Library Circle, 

Grand Forks, ND 58201–6324; Harvey 

Public Library, 119 10th St., Harvey, ND 

58341–1531; Mayville Library, 52 

Center Ave., Mayville, ND 58257–1299; 

Sheridan County Auditor, 215 East 2nd 

St., McClusky, ND 58356–1510; New 

Rockford Public Library, 811 First Ave. 

N, New Rockford, ND 58356–1510; 

Turtle Lake Public Library, 107 Eggert 

St., Turtle Lake, ND 58575–0540; 

Washburn Public Library, 705 Main 

Ave., Washburn, ND 58577–0637; and 

Northwood Public Schools and City 

Library, 300 35th St., Northwood, ND 

58267. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the proposed action is to 

reallocate energy presently transmitted 

on an existing direct current (DC) line 

to the proposed 345 kV line. Currently, 

the output from the Milton R. Young 

Generation Station Unit 2 (Young 2) is 

purchased under contract by Minnkota 

and Minnesota Power; each utility 

receives approximately 50 percent of the 

output. Electricity generated by Young 2 

flows over a dedicated DC, 465-mile 

transmission line from Center, North 

Dakota to Duluth, Minnesota, where it is 

converted back to alternating current 

(AC) for further transmission into the 

Minnesota Power and Minnkota service 

areas. Minnesota Power will take 100 

percent ownership of the existing DC 

line and DC/AC conversion facilities in 

early 2010; the DC line will be used to 

deliver wind energy. In 2013, Minnkota 

will receive increasing allocations of 

Young 2 output until the year 2026 

when Minnkota will purchase 100 

percent of the Young 2 output. With no 

continuous capacity available to 

Minnkota on the HVDC system, the 

power needs be moved over the AC 

transmission system to Minnkota’s 

service territory. 

Minnkota is seeking financing from 

RUS for its ownership of the proposed 

project. Before making a decision to 

provide financing for the proposed 

project, RUS is required to conduct an 

environmental review under NEPA in 

accordance with RUS’s Environmental 

Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 

1794). Government agencies, private 

organizations, and the public are invited 

to participate in the planning and 

analysis of the proposed action. 

Representatives from RUS and 

Minnkota will be available at the 

scoping meetings to discuss the 

environmental review process, describe 

the proposed action, discuss the scope 

of environmental issues to be 

considered, answer questions, and 

accept comments. RUS will use 

comments and input provided in the 

preparation of the Draft EA. If RUS 

finds, based on the EA, that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment, RUS will prepare 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). Public notification of the 

FONSI would be published in the 

Federal Register and in newspapers 

with circulation in the project area. RUS 

may take its final action on proposed 

actions requiring an EA (§ 1794.23) any 

time after publication of applicant 

notices that a FONSI has been made and 

any required review period has expired. 

When substantive comments are 

received on the EA, RUS may provide 

an additional period (15 days) for public 

review following the publication of its 

FONSI determination. Final action will 

not be taken until this review period has 

expired. Where appropriate to carry out 

the purposes of NEPA, RUS may 

impose, on a case-by-case basis, 

additional requirements associated with 

the preparation of an EA. If at any point 

in the preparation of an EA, RUS 

determines that the proposed action will 

have a significant effect on the quality 

of the human environment, the 

preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement will be required. Any final 

action by RUS related to the proposed 

action will be subject to, and contingent 

upon, compliance with all relevant 

Federal, State, and local environmental 

laws and regulations and completion of 

the environmental review requirements 

as prescribed in RUS’s Environmental 

Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 

1794). 

Dated: October 23, 2009. 

Mark S. Plank, 

Director, Engineering and Environmental 

Staff, Rural Utilities Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–26146 Filed 10–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Shasta Trinity National Forest, South 

Fork Management Unit, California 

Rattlesnake Fuel Reduction and Forest 

Health Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Hayfork District of the 

Shasta Trinity National Forest is 

proposing to use vegetation treatments 

to reduce risks from fire, improve forest 

health, and provide forest products on 

approximately 6,028 acres within the 

Rattlesnake watershed on the South 

Fork Management Unit of the Shasta 

Trinity National Forest. The active 

management needed in the Rattlesnake 

Fuel Reduction and Forest Health 

Project (Rattlesnake project) area to 

reduce fuels and stocking levels through 

thinning requires the removal of trees 

and biomass, some of which have 

commercial value. An estimated 33 

million board feet of merchantable 

sawtimber, and an estimated 35,092 

bone dry tons of biomass are expected 

to be removed. Providing wood 

products to meet regional and national 

needs is consistent with Forest Plan 

goals, standards and guidelines. The 

initial economic analysis shows that the 

average diameter and quantity of the 

material treated under this project 

would generally be insufficient to 

support a viable timber sale in today’s 

market. The Forest Service will analyze 

these vegetation treatments within the 

constraints of the Shasta Trinity 

National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, 1995. 

The proposed Rattlesnake project is in 

the vicinity of the Post Mountain and 

Forest Glen communities in southern 

Trinity County, California. The project 

area is within portions of the Wildland 

Urban Interface (WUI) boundaries for 

both of these communities and within 

the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area 

(AMA), and Management Area 19, 

Indian Valley/Rattlesnake, of the ShastaTrinity Land and Resource Management 

Plan (USFS 1995, p. 4–64 & 4–65). 

The project includes acreage in 

Township 1 North, Range 7 East, 

Sections 25 and 36, Township 1 North, 

Range 8 East, Sections 19–21, and 28– 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Appendix F: News, Press Release & Public ServiceAnnouncement  

CGF – Scoping Meetings November 2009 Media Distribution Plan  

Press Release, Public Legal Notice & Paid Display Advertisement 

The public legal notice, the paid display advertisement and the press release were 

distributed to the following publications: 

County   Newspaper   Publication  

Date

Burleigh The Bismarck Tribune 7‐Nov‐09

Cass The Fargo Forum   2‐Nov‐09

Eddy New Rockford Transcript 4‐Nov‐09

Foster Foster County Independent 2‐Nov‐09

Grand Forks Grand Forks Herald 8‐Nov‐09

Griggs Griggs County Courier 30‐Oct‐09

Kidder Steele Ozone and Kidder County Press 4‐Nov‐09

McLean McLean County Independent   5‐Nov‐09

Nelson Lakota American 4‐Nov‐09

Oliver Center Republican   5‐Nov‐09

Sheridan McClusky Gazette 5‐Nov‐09

Steele Steele County Press 6‐Nov‐09

Traill Traill County Tribune 31‐Oct‐09

Wells The Herald‐Press 7‐Nov‐09

Public Service Announcement 

A printed public service announcement was distributed to the following radio and television stations 

on November 3, 2009 and requested to air from November 9th to November 16th: 

Radio

` KFYR – AM, Bismarck 

` KHND-AM, Harvey 

` KJKJ-FM, Grand Forks 

` KKBO-FM, Bismarck 

` KKXL-AM, Grand Forks 

` KKXL-FM, Grand Forks 

` KMAV-FM, Mayville 

` KMSR-AM, Mayville 

` KNOX-AM, Thompson 

` KNOX-FM, Thompson 

` KPPD-FM, Bismarck 

` KQDY-FM, Bismarck 

` KQHT-FM, Grand Forks 

` KSNR-FM, Grand Forks 

` KSSS-FM, Bismarck 

` KUND-FM, Bismarck 

` KVXR-AM, Grand Forks 

` KWTL-AM, Grand Forks 

` KXMR-AM, Bismarck 

` KYCK-FM, Thompson 

` KYYY-FM, Bismarck 

` KZLT-FM, Thompson 

Television

` Bismarck- KBMY TV 17 - ABC 

` Bismarck- KFYR TV 5- NBC 

` Bismarck – KXMB TV 12- CBS 

` Bismarck - KNDX TV 32- FOX 

` Grand Forks-WDAZ TV 

Legal Notice 

CGF RUS Scoping Meetings 

November 2009 

The Rural Utilities Service Announces Public Scoping Meetings  

for the Center to Grand Forks Transmission Line Project  

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has announced six public scoping meetings for the Center to 

Grand Forks Transmission Line Project, a 260-mile 345-kilovolt transmission line proposed by 

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota). The purpose of these meetings is to provide 

information about the proposed project, answer questions, and collect comments regarding 

potential environmental concerns. These comments become part of an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) evaluating the proposal. All meetings will provide the same information in open 

house format; RUS and Minnkota staff will be available. 

► Monday, November 16, 2009

o Grand Forks, N.D., Alerus Center, Eagle Room 10, 1200 S 42nd St, 5 - 8pm 

► Tuesday, November 17, 2009 

o Cooperstown, N.D., Cooperstown City Hall, 611 9th St, 10am - 1pm 

o Carrington, N.D., The Chieftain Conference Center, Tee Pee Room 60, 

 4th Ave S, Highway 281, 5 - 8pm 

► Wednesday, November 18, 2009 

o McClusky, N.D., McClusky Community Hall, 117 Ave B North, 10am - 1pm 

o Wilton, N.D., City of Wilton Memorial Hall, 10 Dakota Ave, 5 - 8pm 

► Thursday, November 19, 2009 

o Center, N.D., Civic Center Building, 312 N Lincoln Ave, 5 - 8pm 

RUS and Minnkota staff will be on hand to provide information, answer questions and address 

concerns. 

The Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) and Macro-corridor Study (MCS) for the proposed project 

will be available at all meetings. The documents are also available for review on RUS web site at 

http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm, at the offices of Minnkota and on their web site at 

www.minnkota.com, look for the CGF Project link and at the following locations: 

Aneta Public Library 

Bismarck’s Veterans Memorial Library 

City of Carrington Library 

Goodrich Public Library 

Grand Forks Library 

Griggs County Library 

Harvey Public Library 

Mayville Library 

New Rockford Public Library 

Northwood Public Schools and City Library 

Oliver County Auditor 

Sheridan County Auditor 

Turtle Lake Public Library 

Washburn Public Library 

Direct comments to: Dennis Rankin, USDA Rural Development - Utilities Program, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250–1571, or dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

CONTACT: Dennis Rankin, USDA Rural Development - Utilities Program, 

(202) 720-1953, dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov

 

The Rural Utilities Service Announces Public Scoping 

Meetings for the Center to Grand Forks Transmission 

Line Project 

GRAND FORKS, N.D. – The Rural Utilities Services (RUS), an Agency of the 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Utilities, has 

announced a series of six public scoping meetings for the Center to Grand Forks 

transmission line project proposed by Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota). 

Minnkota is a generation and transmission cooperative headquartered in Grand Forks, 

N.D. 

Minnkota has proposed the construction of approximately 260 miles of 345 

kilovolt (kV) transmission line from Center to Grand Forks, N.D. to secure additional 

energy from Milton R. Young 2, a 455-megawatt (MW) coal-fired plant near Center, 

N.D., owned by Square Butte Electric Cooperative. 

 To bring the energy generated by Young 2 into the Red River Valley, Minnkota 

will construct a new 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line from Center to Grand Forks. 

Building the new transmission line will enable the existing DC transmission line from the 

Milton R. Young Station to carry more renewable wind energy. 

The purpose of these open houses will be to provide information regarding 

Minnkota’s proposed project, answer questions, and collect comments regarding potential 

environmental concerns. 
Meeting dates and locations: 

► Monday, November 16, 2009

o Grand Forks, N.D., Alerus Center, Eagle Room 10, 1200 S 42nd St, 5 - 8 pm 

► Tuesday, November 17, 2009 

o Cooperstown, N.D., Cooperstown City Hall, 611 9th St. 10 am - 1 pm 

o Carrington, N.D., The Chieftain Conference Center Tee Pee Room 60, 4th Ave 

S, Highway 281, 5 - 8 pm 

► Wednesday, November 18, 2009 

o McClusky, N.D., McClusky Community Hall, 117 Ave B North, 10 am - 1 pm 

o Wilton, N.D., City of Wilton Memorial Hall, 10 Dakota Ave, 5 - 8 pm 

► Thursday, November 19, 2009 

o Center, N.D., Civic Center Building, 312 N Lincoln Ave, 5 - 8 pm 

An Alternatives Evaluation Study (AES) and a Macro-Corridor Study (MCS), 

prepared by Minnkota will be available for review at the public meetings, and at a 

number of locations throughout the corridor; a list of viewing locations as well as the 

studies themselves can be found online at www.minnkota.com (look for the CGF project 

link) and on RUS web site at http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm. 

Comments concerning the potential environmental impacts and related review of 

this project are encouraged and will be incorporated into RUS’ Environmental 

Assessment for this project. Written comments will be accepted until December 18, 2009 

and can be submitted at any of the public meetings or to Dennis Rankin, USDA Rural 

Development - Utilities Program at: 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

 Washington, DC 20250-1571 

dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov

For more information please visit www.minnkota.com or call Minnkota’s toll free 

project information line at 800-473-5679. 
Public Service Announcement 

CGF RUS Scoping Meetings 

November 9 – November 16, 2009

CONTACT: Dennis Rankin, USDA Rural Development - Utilities Program, 

(202) 720-1953, dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov 

The Rural Utilities Service Announces Public Scoping 

Meetings for the Minnkota, Center to Grand Forks 

Transmission Line Project 

The Rural Utilities Service has announced public scoping meetings for the Center to Grand Forks

Transmission Line Project, 260 miles of 345 kV transmission line proposed by Minnkota Power

Cooperative, Inc.  The public is invited to attend the open house meetings held at the following times and 

locations: 

Grand Forks, Alerus Center, Monday, November 16, 5 - 8pm 

Cooperstown, City Hall, Tuesday, November 17, 10am - 1pm 

Carrington, The Chieftain Conference Center, Tuesday, November 17, 5 - 8pm 

McClusky, Community Hall, Wednesday November 18, 10am - 1pm 

Wilton, Memorial Hall, Wednesday, November 18, 5 - 8pm 

Center, Civic Center, Thursday, November 19, 5 - 8pm 

For more information, please visit www.minnkota.com or call Minnkota’s toll free project information

line at 800‐473‐5679.

# # # 
Affidavit of Publication for Public Legal Notice 

















Public Display Advertisement 















AppendixG: Public Postcards

Scoping Postcards

Appendix H: Public Scoping Meeting Sign‐in Sheets



















Appendix I: Scoping Meeting Materials

Open House Boards

1

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Utilities Service Public Open House Meeting

The purpose of thi ti i t this meeting is to:

– Provide information on the Center to Grand Forks Project 

– Answer questions

– Identify public comments regarding potential 

environmental concerns

1

Rural Utilities Service (RUS)

z A federal agency within the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture

z Provides financing for the installation, 

expansi d d i ti f l l t i ion and modernization of rural electric 

systems

z Is the lead Federal agency for this proposed 

project

2

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Requirements

z RUS is required to conduct an environmental 

review before it makes a financing decision. 

– Results will guide decisions related to human and 

environmental aspects such as wetlands, endangered 

species, cultural resources, land use and water.

z Comments collected from this open house and 

scoping period will be considered during the 

environmental review.

3

Environmental Assessment (EA) Process

Nov 2009 Hold Scoping Meetings

Ends Dec 18, 2009 30-day Public Comment Period

T

Jan 2010 Issue Scoping Report

imeline

4

Jan 2010 Issue Scoping Report

May 2010 Prepare and Publish EA

June 2010 30-day Public Comment Period

July 2010 Issue Decision Document

Anticipated 

T
Open House Boards

2

Center to Grand Forks Project

A redistribution of existing power that eliminates 

the need for a new coal-fired plant

– Calls for 260 miles of new transmission from 

Center, , N.D. to Grand Forks, N.D.

– Allows for the development of more 

North Dakota wind energy

– Construction is anticipated to begin in 2011

5

Macro Corridors

6

Transmission Line Construction

Typical 345kV Structures

Auger Holes for Footings Pour and Set 

Foundation

Erect Poles Replace and Regrade Fill String the Wire Restore ROW and Energize 

Transmission Line

Before

After

7

Typical 345kV Structures Preventing Bird Collision

Bird flight diverters make the line 

look larger to flying birds

Your Participation is Important

Submit written comments at this meeting or directly to: Dennis Rankin

USDA Rural Utilities Service

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20250–1571

dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov

Comment Deadline 

December 18, 2009

Participate in upcoming public comment periods

Follow the project on the web: www.minnkota.com

8

June 2010 Environmental Assessment 

Public Comment Period

Winter 2010/

Spring 2011

Public Service Commission 

Public Hearing
Center 345 kV

Substation

Square Butte Creek

Turtle Creek

Painted Woods Creek

HagelCreek

Sherk Creek

Yanktonai Creek

Buffalo Creek

Goose Creek

Painted Woods Creek

Coal Lake Coulee

Alderin Creek

Painted Woods Creek

Square Butte Creek

Painted Woods Lake

Lost

Lake

Yanktonai Lake

Nelson Lake

Mandan Lake

17

6

8 9

18 17

21

35

2 2

21

25

26

32 35 31

1

9

10

11

11

16

20

22

24

26

26

33

36 31

6 3

12 9 10

2

3 2

16

26 27

34

31

1

1

9 9

16 15

15

23

23

23

30 27 25

32

5 4

3 2

12

18

18

19

19

36

35

8

13

19

5

12

9 10

15 14

31

5

12

36

5

14

20 23

20

28 27

32 35

1

13

21 24

23

11

13

21 22

28

31

6

6

12 7

18

20 24

30

35 36

34

3

8

17

30 28

31

33

1 5

7

7

18

20

24

6

10 7

11

10 11

15

13

19

25

28 26

35

1

10

14

24

21

32

15

13

28

35

5

3

11

16

17

23

19 20

1

7

18

15 17

20

26

1

8

7

13

17

30 26

28

6

12 8

7

17

16

24

26 25 29

25 30 26

31

4

7

16

4

6 

8

33

5

16 13

23

19

28

31

36

2

12 7 9

14 13

25

27

32

2

12

20

6 4

20

25

32

34

7 10

7 8

12

19

24

28 27

33

7

36

34

4

10

9 12

15

21

1

9

18

16

24

19

27

8

17

29

25

35

2 1 6

20

35

36

5 2

8

18

3 5 2

12 7

17

14

20 22

23

29

2

24 20

19 22

31 35

1

12 8

13

13 15 18 17

24 19

6

2

16

14

19 23

23

3

16

14

20

24

23

28

27 25 25

36

36

3 5

22

20

30

1

18

21 23 19

4

6

11

18 17

22

22

12

8

13

14

15

30

32

32

4

11 11

11

14

16

20

26

36

4

11

23

29

34 31

10

13

14

13

24

1

5

12 7

35

6 4

2

10

11

15

14

29

25

3

6 5

22

25

6 3

8

11 12

17 15

18

22

2

1

11

8

21

24

19

19 23 24

5

8

17

13

13

32

31 33 34

34

4

10

16

21

24

29

29

32

2

7 11

17 14

19

4

13

29 

30

33

36

33

3 6

18

18

2

10 7

9

30

5 1

9

8

15

21 24

18

22

30 30 29

26

35 36 31

9

14

19

21

29

33

6

5

8

14

23

30

33 34 

M c L e a n C o u n 

O l i v e r C o u n t

y

M c L e a n C o u n t y

B u r l e i g

h

C o u n t y

O l i v e r C o

u

n t y

Center

Washburn

8TH ST SW

37TH AVE SW

16 1/2 AVE SW

34TH AVE SW

37 1 2/ A VE SW

19TH AVE SW

35TH AVESW

28

28TH ST N 

29TH AVE SW

34TH AVE SW

33RD AVE SW

33RD AVE SW

36TH AVE SW

36TH AVE SW

35TH AVE SW

25TH AVE SW

20TH AVE SW

27 THAVE SW

54TH ST NW

26TH AVE SW

31ST AVE SW

24TH ST SW

35TH AVE SW

32ND AVE SW

28TH AVE SW

11TH ST SW

7 1/2 ST SW

15TH ST SW

22ND AVE SW

35TH AVE SW

12 1/2 ST SW

41ST ST NW

80TH ST NW

19TH ST SW

26TH AVE SW

2 4 1/ 2 ST SW

16TH ST SW

22 1/2 AVE SW

34TH AVE SW

18TH ST SW

17TH ST SW

18TH ST SW

21ST AVE SW

26 HT AVES W

7TH ST SW

6TH ST SW

11TH ST SW

11TH ST SW

15TH ST SW

26TH ST SW

16TH ST SW

7 1/2 ST SW

10TH ST SW

20T H AVE SW

30TH AVE SW

33RD AVE SW

36TH AVE SW

10TH ST SW

8TH ST SW

14 1/2 ST SW

30TH AVE SW

19TH ST SW

26TH AVE SW

36 1/2 AVE SW

28TH AVE SW

10TH ST SW

26TH ST SW

35 1/2 AVE SW

24TH AVE SW

24TH ST SW

10TH ST SW

19TH ST SW

7TH ST SW

11TH ST SW

6TH ST SW

2 6 T HS T SW

20TH ST SW

19TH ST SW

18TH AVE SW

10TH ST SW

6TH ST SW 6TH ST SW

24TH AVE SW

17TH ST SW

19TH AVE SW

25TH ST SW

23RD ST SW

16TH ST SW

17TH ST SW

9TH ST SW

13TH ST SW

36TH AVE SW

23RD ST SW

21ST AVE SW

32ND AVE SW

2 53RD AVE NW

9TH ST SW

34TH AVE SW

9TH ST SW

22ND ST SW

27TH ST SW

15 TH ST SW

22ND ST SW

23RD AVE SW

21ST ST SW

7TH ST SW

23 1/2 ST SW 23RD AVE SW

31ST AVE SW

14TH ST SW

31ST AVE SW

23RD ST SW

7 THST SW

17TH AVE SW

8 1/2 S T SW

12TH ST SW

29TH AVE SW

35 TH AVE SW

18TH ST SW

26TH AVE SW

23RD AVE SW

19TH AVE SW 27TH ST SW

23RD ST SW

14TH ST SW

41ST STNW

9 1/2 ST SW

34TH AVE SW

8TH ST SW

34TH AVE SW

20TH A VE SW

21ST ST SW

24TH ST SW

12TH ST SW

27TH ST SW

20TH AVE SW

24 1/2 ST

26TH ST SW

7 1/2 ST SW

27TH ST SW

19TH ST SW

33 1/2 AVE SW

18TH ST SW

7TH ST SW

19TH AVE SW

5 1/2 S T SW

22ND ST SW

10 1/2 ST SW

7TH ST SW

30TH AVE SW

37TH AVE SW

12TH ST SW

27TH ST SW

18TH ST SW

20TH ST SW

17TH AVE SW

20TH ST SW

201 ST A

74TH ST NW

67TH ST NW

240TH AVE NW

24TH ST SW

19TH ST SW

22ND ST SW

12TH ST SW

41ST ST NW

24TH ST SW

12TH ST S W

11TH ST SW

1 9 1/2 AVE SW

21ST AVE SW

7 1/2 ST SW

8 1/2 ST SW

37TH AVE SW

292ND AVE NW

12TH ST SW

2 5 1/2 ST

15TH ST N

24TH AVE SW

25 1/2 ST

25TH ST SW

32ND AVE SW

30TH AVE SW

22ND AVE S W

29TH AVE SW

1 3TH ST SW

27TH AVE SW 27TH AVE SW

29TH AVE SW

35TH AVE SW

35 1/2 AVE SW

25TH AVE SW

25TH AVE SW

31ST AVE SW

35TH AVE SW

20TH AVE SW

22ND AVE SW

32ND AVE SW

27TH AVE SW

PQ25

PQ1804

PQ48

PQ200

PQ200

PQ200

PQ1804

£¤83

£¤83

£¤83

£¤83

Cross Ranch Preserve

Cross Ranch Preserve

Cross Ranch Preserve

Cross Ranch Preserve

Cross Ranch Preserve

Lost Lake WDA

Lewis & Clark

(Oliver) WMA

Arroda Lake WMA

Painted Woods WMA

Wilbur

Boldt

WMA

Square Butte WMA

WMA

Smith Grove WMA

Cross Ranch State Park

Cross Ranch

State Nature

Preserve

Cross Ranch

State Nature

Preserve

Painted

Woods

T143N

R 82W

T144N

R 83W

T141N

R 83W

T142N

R 82W

T142N

R 81W

T141N

R 82W

T144N

R 82W

T141N

R 81W

T142N

R 83W

T144N

R 81W

T143N

R 83W

T143N

R 81W

Lost Lake NWR

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:46:52 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill

2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland

")

") 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

Map Vicinity
McClusky Canal

McClusky Canal

Turtle Creek

Coal Lake Coulee

Coal Lake Coulee

Turtle Creek

McClusky Canal

Turtle Creek

Buf af lo Creek

McClusky Canal

Kasper

Slough

Lake Nettie

Lake Williams

Lake Brekken

Lake Ordway

Postel Lake

Blue Lake

Howells Lake

Lake

Holmes

Cherry

Lake

Nygaard Billows Lake

Slough

Hanson Slough

Nelson Lake

Mud Lake

Coal Lake

Peterson Lake

Pelican Lake

Turtle Lake

Lake Audubon

Heckers

Lake

Cottonwood Lake

Brush Lake

5

12 7

1

8

4

31

2 4

36

6

9

34

10

33

5

8

3

2

10

12

35

1

11

7

11

3 2

18

16

21

32

4

14

15

22

36

36

7

14

13

23

27

33

32

26

5

15

24

22 23

35

35

17

11

13

25

25

35

30

26

7 10

16

29

2

7

18

32

5

9

10

17

23 24

30

34

31 34

34

11

28

1

8

10

16

18

12

32

15

24

26

27

35 31

32

2

14 13

18

22

29

27

36 34

9

17 14

25

6

30

28 25

35

3 2

9

30

30

31

33

11

2

2

15

19

22

30

36

1

21

32

2

7

27

36

1

5

12

16

31

27

2 1

11

28

35

1

8

18 17

21

31

32

6

11

11

15

24

25

26

4

13

19

27

34

2

9

21 24

26

27

34

33

12

17

19

23

5

9

13

21

29

26

35

33

6

20

22

29

36

35

29

27

36

9

8

14

6

6

3

11

16 15

22 24

22

30

33

12

14

27

4

10

19

20

33

5

8

23 20 23

18

20

25

35 33

35

4

3

12 10

14

20

34

3

7 8

32

7

36

3

10

15

19

30 28

34

1

11

11

13

36

25

36

1 6

8

17

13

23

22

28 26

34

14

24 21

25

10

16

29 28

28

26

34

28

5

15

27

35

3

10

20

25

26

35

31

4

4 3

23

11

23 24

35

12 

21

30

31

16

3

6

18

20

13

26

36

2 5

10

28 26

31

2

7

16

26

33

31

3

18

19

30

12

20

5 6

11

1

36

4

9

18

22

30

33

1

24

8

31

1

7

15

19

29

31

28

12

26 

24

12

7

15

29 28

12

34

6

9 7

28

27

17

25

13

29

5

20

24

30

33

19

10

14

19

27

3

7

13

36

32

4

19

34 35

4

17

25

6

18

14

30

36

1

8

23 24

27

2

22 23

34 35

9

13

21

32

8

13

18

30

7

15 18

30

1 6

17

22

36 31

11

16

31

25

21

32

6

10

14

30

26

6

9

3 2 5

9 10 11

10 11

4

6 4

8

1

9

3 5 2

12 7

8

B 

M c L e a n C o u n t y

S h e r i d a n C o u n t y

Turtle

Lake

Mercer

41ST ST NE

17TH AVE NW

15TH AVE NW

16TH AVE NW

16TH AVE NW

12TH AVE SW

11TH AVE NW 11TH AVE NW

17TH AVE SW

2ND ST NW

6TH AVE NW

25TH AVE SW

16TH AVE N W

20TH AVE SW

5TH AVE SW

5TH AVE SW

26TH AVE SW

6 1/2 AVE SW

26TH AVE SW

17 1/2 AVE NW

13TH AVE SW

3RD ST SW

2 1/2 ST SW

5TH ST SW

ROOSEVELT ST

9 1/2 ST NW

93RD ST NE

6TH ST NW

7 1/2 ST NW

8TH AVE NW

9TH AVE NW

8TH ST NW

80TH ST NE

3RD ST SW

1ST ST NW

19TH AVE NW

2ND ST SW

66TH ST NE

6TH ST SW

12TH ST NW

16TH AVE SW

1ST ST SW

10TH AVE NW

5TH ST SW

22ND AVE SW

4TH S

23RD AVE NW

52ND ST NE

18TH AVE NW

14TH AVE NW

2 1/2 ST NW

5TH ST NW

26TH AVE SW

8TH ST SW 11TH AVE SW

26TH AVE NW

19TH AVE NW

14TH AVE NW

CENTER ST

13TH AVE SW

9TH ST NW

6TH ST SW

14TH AVE SW

25TH AVE NW

10TH ST NW

9TH AVE NW

14 T H ST NW

11TH ST NW

5TH ST SW

15TH AVE SW

9TH ST NW

2ND ST NW

24TH AVE NW

9TH ST NW

12TH ST NW

8TH ST SW

1ST ST SW

13TH AVE NW

24TH AVE NW

13 1/2 AVE NW

5TH ST SW

25TH AVE NW

7TH ST NW

4 1/2 ST NW

21ST AVE NW

18TH AVE SW

20TH AVE NW

24TH AVE NW

13TH AVE SW

2ND ST SW

3RD ST 

18TH AVE NW

15TH AVE NW

10TH AVE NW

16TH AVE SW

19 1/2 AVE NW

19TH AVE SW

22ND AVE SW

461ST AVE NE

1ST ST NW

6TH ST NW

19TH AVE NW

20TH AVE SW

11 1/2 AVE NW

7TH ST SW

10 1/2 AVE NW

6TH ST SW

1ST ST SW

11TH AVE SW

6TH ST SW

7TH ST NW

2ND ST NW

24TH AVE SW

12TH ST NW

25TH AVE SW

23RD AVE SW

8TH ST SW

26TH AVE SW

21ST AVE SW

10TH ST NW

46 2ND AVE NE

1 4T H AVE NW

1ST ST NW

22ND AVE NW

4TH ST NW

2ND ST SW

1

4TH ST SW

9TH AVE SW

CENTER ST

10TH AVE SW

19TH AVE NW

19TH AVE NW

13TH ST NW

10TH ST NW

5TH AVE NW

13TH ST 

CENTER ST

26TH AVE NW

3RD ST NW

26TH AVE NW

5TH ST NW

4TH ST NW

9TH ST NW

7 1/2 ST NW

9TH AVE NW

13TH ST NW

7TH ST NW

18TH AVE SW

4TH ST SW

14TH ST NW

2ND ST NW

1 1/2 ST SW

7 THS T SW

11TH AVE NW

9TH AVE SW

7TH AVE SW

25TH AVE NW

2 1/2 ST SW

15TH AVE NW

10 1/2 AVE NW

22 1/2 AVE NW

18 1/2 AVE NW

6TH AVE NW

47TH ST NE

8TH ST NW

85TH ST NE

8TH ST SW

26TH AVE NW

9TH ST NW

6

TH AVE SW

8 1/2 AVE SW

4TH ST NW

20TH AVE NW

12TH AVE SW

2ND ST SW

8TH ST NW 8TH ST NW

7 1/2 ST SW

1ST ST SW

5TH ST NW

7TH ST NW

3RD ST NW

C

5 1/2 ST SW

448TH AVE NE

6TH ST NW

2ND ST NW

7TH ST SW

7TH ST SW

10TH ST NW

24TH AVE SW

9TH AVE SW

3RD ST SW

20TH AVE SW

3RD ST NW

15TH AVE SW

1ST ST SW

14TH ST NW 

17TH AVE SW

10TH AVE NW

9TH AVE SW

20TH AVE NW

10TH ST NW

16TH AVE SW

7 1/2 ST NW

22ND AVE NW

15 1/2 AVE SW

6TH AVE NW

24 1/2 AVE SW

10 1/2 AVE SW

17 1/2 A VE SW

10 1/2 AVE SW

1ST 

1ST ST NW

13TH AVE NW

4 1/2 ST SW

8TH ST NW

17TH AVE NW

7TH AVE NW 7TH AVE NW

6TH AVE NW

22ND AVE NW 22ND AVE NW

15TH AVE NW

14TH AVE SW

11TH AVE NW

11TH A VE NW

13TH AVE SW

PQ41

PQ200

PQ200

PQ200

PQ200

PQ41

PQ200

£¤83

£¤83

£¤83

John E. Williams

Memorial Nature

Preserve

Turtle

Creek

III WPA

Stute

WPA

Haas WPA

Gaub

WPA

Laib WPA

East Lost Lake WPA

Turtle Lake II WDA

Turtle Lake III WDA

Lake Williams North WDA

Lake Williams South WDA

East Park

Lake WDA

Koenig WDA

Turtle Creek II WDA

Turtle

Lake

I WDA

Hecker's

Lake WDA

Coal Coulee WDA

Lake Holmes WDA

WDA

Blue Lake WMA

Mercer

Wise

Lake

Williams

Turtle Lake

T147N

R 81W

T146N

R 81W

T147N

R 80W

T146N

R 80W T146N

R 79W 

T145N

R 81W

T145N

R 79W

T145N

R 80W

T147N

R 79W

Audubon NWR

Lake Nettie NWR

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:46:52 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill

2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland

")

") 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

Map Vicinity
McClusky Canal

McClusky Canal

Stein

Lake

Johns Lake

Kindschi Lake

Alkali Lake

Bentz

Lake

Pop Lake

Cherry Lake

Pelican Lake

North Lake

Howells Lake

Jones Lake

Postel Lake

13

32

32

33 35

5

12

15

15

21

32

36 33

3 2

4

9

28

33

31 32

3

9

7

21

24

30

5 5

11

4 3 1

9

13

27

25

31

36

4 5

4

8 9

7

13

14

22

23 24

25

29

29

36

35

32

4

5

8

9

18

16

14 18

20

32

3 1

7

15

31

2 4

19

20

25

29

34 31

11

10

15

24

27

33

5 4

21

32 34

4

12

18

17

13

18

33

35 31

2

2

5

11

8

22

25

30

36

6

8

29

30

32

6

3

4

13 17

20

19

33

31

1 5

8

10

13

32

14

18

18

21

20

28 26

33

9

17

18

16 13

26

35

11

16

21

27

32 36 32

2

3

14

14

13

1

6 5

22 24 19

29

14 17

21

31

34

6 2

13

13

28

25

33

10

31

6 3 4 1

11 7

9

16

23

24

29 28

33

3

7

12

15

18

19 21

26

33

7

17

18

23

19

27

35

33

4

4

12 8

33

6

8

16

20

29

33

21

20

27 30

34 31

7

14

27

6

4 2

12

34 36

3

10

7

16

21

30

35

5

12

16

16

19

25

5

25

28

6

8

34

17

27

34

1

1

5

8

16

19

22

20

6

12 8 9

14

21 23

24

6

9

15

16

34

8

9

17

19

28

31 35

6

11 7

14 17 18

23

26

34

35

2

9 10

15

15

19 22

23

26 30 29

36 31

31

33

5

11

10 7

35

36

11

15 13 17

23

20

25

6

9

21

20

30

25 30 27

31

2

1

12 7

17

20

16

16

4

18

24

21

32 35

31

4

10

15 18

17

20

19

28

33

15

20

26 29

3

18

18 17

36 33

32

6

12

14

24

19

27

30

30

2

10

23

28

28

4 1 6 5

10

22

30

29 28 26

36

7

17

17 14

1

7

12 8

18

17

22

26

34 32

5

3 2

7 8

13

24

22

32

1

8 10

18

29

25 30

31

35

8 9

16

15

35

5

10

12

7

14

16

13

28 26

32

1 6

12

29

36

36

11

16

17

16

22 19

24

28

34

34

2 1 6

9

11

1

3

10

1

M c L e a n C o u n t y S h e r i d a n C o u n t y

McClusky

3RD AVE NW

5TH AVE NW 5TH AVE NW

1ST AVE NW

13TH AVE NE

12TH AVE NE

7TH AVE NE

3RD AVE NE

1ST AVE NE

2ND ST NW

6TH AVE NW

9TH AVE SE

8TH AVE SE

15TH ST NE

1ST AVE NE

1ST AVE NE

CENTER ST

5TH AVE NW

3RD AVE NW

1ST AVE SE

4TH AVE NW

1 S T AVE NE

1 ST AVE SE

13TH AVE NE

1ST AVE NE

5TH ST NW

4TH AVE NE

11TH AVE NE

16TH ST NE

5TH AVE SE

14TH ST NE

4TH ST E

7TH AVE NE

2ND AVE SW

7TH AVE NE

10TH AVE SE

2ND AVE NE

8TH AVE NE

CENTER ST

18TH ST NE

6TH AVE NE

12TH ST NE

9TH AVE NE

4TH STNW

3RD AVE NE

2 1/2 S T

NW

1ST AVE NW

11TH AVE NE

5TH ST NE

12TH AVE NE

18TH ST NE

6TH AVE NE

13THAVE NE

5 T H ST NE

13RD AVE NE

13TH ST NE

14T H ST NW

14TH AVE NE

7TH ST NE

3RD ST SW

9TH ST NE

4TH ST NE

C

16TH AVE NE

2ND ST SW

5TH ST NE

4TH ST NE

12TH ST NW

2ND ST NE

13TH ST NE

CENTER ST

3RD AVE NE

1ST ST SE

9TH ST NW

12TH STN E

13TH AV E NE

7TH AVE NE

8TH ST NE

3RD ST NW

8TH AVE NE

5TH ST NE

1STST NE

4TH AVE SE

2ND ST NE

1ST ST SE 1ST ST SE

4TH AVE NE

1ST ST SE

15TH ST NE

10TH ST NE

11TH AVE NE

15TH ST NE

8TH SNTW

3RD ST NE

8TH ST NE

5TH AVE SE

3RD AVE NW

1ST AVE NE

14TH ST NE

10TH ST NE

1ST ST NE

5TH AVE SE

5TH AVE NW

13TH ST NW

9TH ST NE

6TH ST NE

12TH ST NE

2ND ST SE

15 1/2 ST NE

15TH AVE NE

3RD ST SE

10TH ST NE

9TH AVE NE

18TH ST NE

1ST AVE SW

17TH A

9TH AVE NE

7TH AVE NE

9TH ST NW

3RD AVE NW

2ND ST NW

4TH ST NE

2ND AVE NE

4TH AVE NE

10TH ST NW

1ST ST SW

2ND ST NW

8TH AVE NE

2ND AVE NE

8TH ST NE

17TH ST NW

10TH ST NE 10TH ST NE

10TH AVE NE

3R D ST NE

13TH ST N E

17TH ST NE

16TH ST NW

6TH ST NE

12TH ST NE

15TH AVE NE

6TH AVE NW

10TH AVE NE

12TH ST NE

1 4T H ST NW

12TH ST NE

CENTER ST

5TH AVE NE

18TH ST NW

16TH ST NW

1 2TH AVE NE

CENTER AVE

13TH ST NE

6TH AVE NW

2ND ST NE

8TH AVE NE

13TH ST NE

4T H AVE NW

15TH ST NW

10TH AVE NE

11TH AVE NE

CENTER AVE

1ST ST NW

13TH ST NE

2ND AVE N W

8TH ST NE

11TH ST NE

17TH ST NE

16TH ST NW

1ST AVE NE

11TH ST NW

CENTER ST

6TH ST NE

2ND AVE SE

3RD AVE NE

2ND ST NE

3RD ST NE

19

1ST ST SW

2ND ST SE 2ND ST SW

2ND AVE NE

4TH AVE NW

12TH ST NE

16TH ST NW

4TH AVE NW

6TH ST NE

8TH AV E NE

3RD ST NW 3RD ST NE

2ND ST NW

1ST ST NE

8TH AVE NE

14TH ST NW

10TH AVE NE

10TH ST NW

6TH ST NW

15TH AVE NE

4TH AVE NE

3RD ST NE

1ST ST NE

6TH AVE NW

8TH ST NE

15TH AVE NE

10TH AVE NE

8TH ST NE

1ST AVE SE

7TH AVE SE

1ST AVE NE

CENTER AVE

9TH ST NE

1ST ST NW

1ST ST NW

5TH AVE NW

3RD ST SE

2 ND ST SE

11TH ST NW

6TH ST NE

10TH ST NE

16TH ST NW

4TH AVE NW

6TH AVE SE

6TH AVE NW

2ND AVE SW

5TH AVE SE

3RD AVE SW

PQ200

PQ14

PQ14

Davis Ranch Preserve

Lasher

WPA

Johns Lake WPA

Fox WPA

Thorson WPA

Moldenhauer WPA

Harris WPA 

Kindshi WPA

Holmes WPA

Jones WPA

Panko WPA

Kreiter

WPA

WPA

Oliver WPA

Lincoln Valley North WDA

Lincoln Valley South WDA

Kindschi WDA

Lonetree WMA

Old

Johns Lake

WMA

Lincoln Valley East W

Charles

Schroeder

WMA

McClusky

Pickard

Prophets

Holmes

Edgemont

Denhoff

Lincoln

Dale

T148N

R 75W 

T146N

R 76W

T147N

R 75W

T145N

T148N

R 76W

T148N

R 78W

T146N

R 75W

T146N

R 77W

T146N

R 78W

T147N

R 76W

T147N

R 77W

T147N

R 78W

T148N

R 77W

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:46:52 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill

2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland

")

") 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

Map Vicinity
James River

Sheyenne River

James River

Rocky Run

James River

Silver Lake

Duck Lake Crystal Lake

Lake Ontario

Cottonwood Lake

Hirshkorn

Lake

36

35 

5 

23

3

34

6

12 9

13 18

21

28

5

6

15

23 19

26

28 26

34 34

1 6

8

12

15

14

24

34 35

6 6

33

35 34

1 5 1 5

13

23 19

22

6

10

18

20 24

36

5 4 4 3

18

22

30 28

4

8

15

31 33

4 1

7 9

13 17

29

36

2

10 8

22 23

9

20

34

34

5 5 4

13

36

3

7

17

20

35

1 5

13

20

26 30

5 3

5 2

7 10

15

32

28

7 9

18 17

10

22

30

33

8 7

16

20 19

28

35

35

1

7 12

22

27 30 27

31

2 1

12 11

17

6

21

33

4 4

24 22

27

17 13

1 1

11

3 4

8

18

24

24

35

7 9

14

15 14

21

29 29 30

32 33 36

4

11

31

35

7 9

32 31

10

14

27

1

16

36 31

2 6

8

14 14

23

25 26

3

16

33

8

10 11

16 15

23

29

28

31 36

3

10

14 17

31

6

12

17

24

23 21

32 33

12 10

15 13

32 31

8

27

27

34

2 1

12

18 13

29

33

9

20

23

29 25

5

7

10

17

3

11

15 14

19

31

11

9

11

16

18

30

3

1

10

29 27 26

14

35

36

5 4

14

25 25 30 29

32 32 31

3

13

24 21

27

7 11

13

16

21

31

8 9

34

2

9

20

24 23

36 34 35

5

12 9

17 17

21

35 32

2

9

20

28

25

36

2 4

16

36

2

21

6 4 3

8

15

25

34

31

10 11

17 15 18

19 24 19 22

29

33

6 2

11

15

14

35 32

11 12

16

22

34

2

7

23

28

25

33

8

18

19

32

35

3

8

10

18

2

12

17

16 15

20

26 26 26 25

32 33

22 19

27 25

32

16 13 16

21

30 28

33

36

3

14 13 18

34

3

29

9

32

15

26 

11 

22 

28

3 

21 

17

17

20

9

5

5 2 

16 

34

5 8

23

14 

36

4

14 

35

27 

2

16

33

15

15 14 

20 

26

33

23

16 15

22

9

19 

4 

17

32

10

21 

8

28 

34

33

10

34

3 2 

35 

27 

21

27

4

20

30

28

2 

17

29 

8 9 10

16

6 

7

18

22

29 26

33

10 

11

Fessenden

Bowdon

Hurdsfield

15TH ST NE

41ST AVE SE

11TH ST NE

32ND AVE SE

39TH AVE SE

11TH ST NE

32TH AVE NE

35TH AVE SE

33TH AVE NE

35TH AVE NE

12TH ST NE

CENTER ST

1ST ST SE

2ND ST SE

25TH AVE SE

32ND AVE SE

CEMETERY RD

11TH ST NE

44TH AVE SE

CENTER ST

1ST ST NE

1ST ST SE

9TH ST NE

7TH ST NE

3RD ST SE

33TH AVE SE

11TH ST NE

43 1/2 AVE NE

31ST AVE SE

29TH AVE SE

40TH AVE NE

32ND AVE SE

38TH AVE SE

46TH AVE SE

2 7TH AVE SE

25TH AVE NE 25TH AVE NE

38TH AVE NE

44TH AVE SE

33TH AVE NE 4TH ST NE

31ST AVE SE

36TH AVE NE

38TH AVE NE

26TH AVE SE

39TH AVE NE

4 1/2 ST NE

40TH AVE NE

5TH ST NE

3RD ST SE

19TH ST NE

43TH AVE NE

2ND ST SE

30TH AVE SE

45TH AVE NE

26TH AVE SE

25TH AVE SE

3RD ST SE

47TH AVE NE

CENTER ST

48TH AVE NE

16TH ST NE

4TH ST NE

44TH AVE SE

1ST ST NE

7TH ST NE

1ST ST SE

34TH AVE SE

1ST ST NE

33TH AVE NE

31ST AVE SE

30TH AVE SE

38TH AVE SE

25TH AVE SE

10TH ST NE

28TH AVE SE

44TH AVE SE

35TH AVE SE

11TH ST NE

32ND AVE SE

30TH AVE SE

39TH AVE NE

38TH AVE SE

26TH AVE SE

37TH AVE SE

46TH AVE SE

36TH AVE SE

32ND AVE SE

45TH AVE SE

33TH AVE SE

35TH AVE SE

42ND AVE SE

36TH AVE SE

13TH ST NE

44TH AVE SE

17TH ST NE

15TH ST NE

30TH AVE SE

17TH ST NE

CENTER ST

19TH ST NE

18TH ST NE

2ND STS E

38TH AVE SE

18TH ST NE

41TH AVE NE

1ST ST NE

1ST ST SE

2ND ST NE

9TH ST NE

43TH AVE NE

3RD ST NE

39TH AVE SE

8TH ST NE

39TH AVE NE

17TH ST NE

44TH AVE SE

6TH ST NE

2ND ST SE

18TH ST NE

41ST AVE SE

3RD ST SE

35TH AVE NE

2ND ST SE

9TH ST NE

12TH ST NE

32TH AVE NE

9TH ST NE

12TH ST NE

CENTER ST

36TH AVE NE

13TH ST NE

25TH AVE SE

4TH ST NE

CENTER ST

2ND ST NE

1ST ST NE

2ND ST SE

2ND ST SE 

3RD ST NE

2 1/2 ST NE

17TH ST NE

14TH ST NE

27TH AVE SE

1ST ST SE

15 1/2 ST N E

42TH AVE NE

26TH AVE NE

45TH AVE NE

37TH AVE NE

36TH AVE NE

46TH AVE NE

44TH AVE NE

38TH AVE NE

28TH AVE NE

30TH AVE NE

31TH AVE NE

CENTER ST

2ND ST NE

36TH AVE NE

26TH AVE NE

27TH AVE NE

34TH AVE NE

27TH AVE NE

3RD ST SE

4TH ST NE

29TH AVE NE

30TH AVE NE

8TH ST NE

40TH AVE SE

3RD ST SE

42ND AVE SE

PQ3

PQ

15

PQ200

PQ3

PQ3

PQ200

£¤52

£¤52

Schaubert WPA

Weatherly WPA

Silver

Lake

WPA

Berg WPA

Chaseley WPA

Crystal Lake WPA

Foley

WPA

Bull Moose WPA

Schindler

WPA

Hoornaert WPA

Ehni

WPA

Monk WPA

Faul

WPA

Fritchie

WPA

Radtke

WPA

Heeren

WPA Chaseley WPA

Bibow WPA

Pipestone

WDA

Indian Hills WDA

Wells

County

WMA

Lonetree WMA

WMA

Haaland Speedwell

Bull

Moose Chaseley

South

Cottonwood

West

Ontario

Crystal

Lake

Pony

Gulch

Delger

Oshkosh 

Silver

Lake

St. Anna

Lynn

Rusland

T147N

R 72W

T145N

T146N

R 71W

T148N

R 70W

T146N

R 72W 

T148N

R 71W

T146N

R 70W

T148N

R 73W

T146N

R 73W

T147N

R 70W

T147N

R 71W

T147N

R 73W

T148N

R 72W

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:13:09 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill

2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland

")

") 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

Map Vicinity
Kelly Creek

Scotts Slough

Little Pipestem Creek

Rocky Run

PipestemCreek

James River

Pipestem Creek

Rocky Run

James River

Scotts Slough

Kelly Creek

Rocky Run

Little Pipestem Creek

Rosefield Slough

Lake George

Russell Lake Dry Lake

Schwoebel Slough

Lake Claire

15

5

17 15

1

12

14 13 17

22

26

14 16

22

27

4

9 10

17

9 10

29

3

9

33 32

1

18 15

26 30

2

10

17

23

13 18 16

22

15

21

30

34

5

9

27

36 35

4

13

19 20

12 8 12

30

4 6

7 11

15

35

21

34 34

10 7

13 18

22 19

4

13

21 22 23

29 26

33 33 34

5

10

18

19

28 26

3

10

14 17

28

3

16

22

9 11

16

23

4

11

22

27

33

23 22

36

12

16 14

21

20 21

17

20 20

6 4

12

27

2 6 5

8

15

11

16 15

24

30

33

2

22

11 7

21 23 20

28

35

4 6

9

15

6

7 10

27

35

6

10 8

11

15

3

11

1 6 4 1 5 4

17

26 25 27

4 1

12

16

22

27 28 30

36 35

3 6

13

25 28

3 1

7 8

24 20

20

34 36

3

29

34

5

13

32

14 15

10 8

15 14

19

27

31

3

9

16

23 23 19 21

36

2

9

24 19 21

25 29

1 5

9

16

21

2

7

18

21 24

35

5

7

13

24

27

32

4 1 4

10 8

16 17

26

12

22

3

25 28

36 32

9 8

16

31

9

16

29

11

18

23 24

14

19

32 31

2

14

25 25 28

7 8

15

31 32 33

3 2 3

9

28

34

10

24

33 31

3

12 10

22

30

33 31 33 34

21

15

26

32

14 

14

36

12

18

23

9

16 

24

19

1

17

11

2

10

13

5

22 

1

20 23

36 34 36

6 

10

15

21 24 

29

6

8

21

26 30 

33

12 

2 

8 10

23

30

23 

12

22

5

7

24

27 

31 34

7 

16 

25

1

7

18

2

29 

3

23

28 

35

2

23 24 

36 

11 

15 

14

25 25

13

1 

14

25 

31 32 

2

23

19

1 

13

22 

25

11 

17 15 

35 

2

12 13 

4 3

7

21 24 

27 

31

32 

19 

36

8

14 

26 

33

1 

12 

17 

5 

9 12

13

20 

5 

12 9 

14 18

35 

26 25

3 1

11

17

24 21

11 11 

13 

11 12

20

22 

28 26

1 4 3 

10 

14

19 24

23 

28

9 

18 16

35 33

20

34 

11 

13

6

13

2 

26

4 

14 

29 

35

16 

35

2

8 

36

6 

F o s t e r C o u n t y

F o s t e r C o u n t y

W e l l s C o u n t y

E d d y C o u n t y

W e l l s C o u n t y

Carrington

76TH AVE NE

58TH AVE SE

72ND AVE SE

71ST AVE NE 71ST AVE NE

73RD AVE NE 73RD AVE NE

3RDST NE

67TH AVE SE 67TH AVE SE

65 1/2 AVE NE

62ND AVE SE

60TH AVE SE

60TH AVE SE

64TH AVE SE 64TH AVE SE

62ND AVE SE 62ND AVE SE

72ND AVE NE

72ND AVE NE

71ST AVE SE

76TH AVE SE

77TH AVE SE 77TH AVE SE

65TH AVE NE

72ND AVE SE

9TH ST NE

1ST ST SE

1ST ST NE

2ND ST SE

5TH ST SE

10TH ST NE

5TH ST NE

74TH AVE SE

4TH ST SE

11TH ST SE

7TH ST SE

12TH ST NE

15TH ST NE

14TH ST NE 

66TH AVE NE

18TH ST NE

13TH ST NE

8TH ST SE

11TH ST

57TH AVE SE

56TH AVE SE

15TH ST NE

73RD AVE NE

1ST ST NE

7TH ST SE

14TH ST NE

6TH ST SE

2ND ST NE

58TH AVE SE

18TH ST NE

59TH AVE SE

74TH AVE NE

72ND AVE NE

12TH ST NE

8TH ST SE

12TH ST 

14TH ST NE

5T H ST SE

7TH ST SE

74TH AVE NE

56TH AVE NE

69TH AVE SE

5TH ST NE

75TH AVE NE

71ST AVE SE

77TH AVE NE

72ND AVE NE

76TH AVE SE

77TH AVE NE 2ND ST SE

9TH ST SE

18TH ST NE

12TH ST NE

67TH AVE NE

14TH 

63RD AVE NE

17TH ST NE

8TH ST NE

61ST AVE SE

13TH ST NE

71ST AVE NE

8TH ST NE

4TH ST NE

70TH AVE NE

3RD ST NE

CENTER ST

8TH ST SE

6TH ST SE

2ND ST SE

18TH ST NE

68TH AVE SE

58TH AVE NE

59TH AVE NE

59TH AVE SE

62ND AVE NE

64TH AVE NE

68TH AVE NE

60TH AVE NE

74TH AVE NE

61ST AVE NE

57TH AVE NE

16TH ST NE

68TH AVE SE

77TH AVE SE

2ND ST NE

4TH ST NE

8TH ST SE

65TH AVE SE

13TH ST NE

3RD ST SE

2ND ST SE

1ST ST SE

4TH ST SE

CENTER ST

1ST ST NE

58TH AVE SE

59TH AVE SE

8TH ST SE

17TH ST NE

8TH ST SE

6TH ST SE

4TH ST NE

6TH ST NE

63RD AVE SE

CENTER ST

2ND ST NE

6TH ST NE

7TH ST NE

60TH AVE NE

73RD AVE SE

76TH AVE SE

CENTER ST

2ND ST SE

61ST AVE SE

68TH AVE SE

1ST ST SE

63RD AVE NE

69TH AVE NE

5TH ST SE

64TH AVE SE

65TH AVE NE

69TH AVE NE

62ND AVE SE

14TH ST NE

63RD AVE NE

62ND AVE NE

63RD AVE SE

75TH AVE SE

5TH ST NE

14TH ST NE

75TH AVE NE

73RD AVE SE

63RD AVE NE

62ND AVE NE

75TH AVE SE

70TH AVE NE

73RD AVE NE

62 1/2 AVE N E

65TH AVE SE

MAIN STREET

62ND AVE SE

61ST AVE NE

66TH AVE SE

66TH AVE SE

76TH AVE NE

PQ15

£¤281

£¤52

£¤52

£¤281

Okert WPA

Barlow

WPA

Zink WPA

Hawksnest Melville

Rose

Hill Bilodeau Wyard Carrington

Woodward Birtsell Estabrook Nordmore 

Pleasant

Fairville Rosefield Superior Prairie

Longview Bordulac 

T145N

R 67W

T145N

R 68W

T146N

R 65W

T146N

R 68W

T148N

R 66W

T146N

R 66W

T146N

R 67W

T147N

R 65W

T147N

R 68W

T148N

R 68W

T145N

R 65W

T147N

R 66W

T148N

R 67W

T147N

R 67W

T145N

R 66W

T148N

R 65W

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:46:52 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill

2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland
Ba

Baldhill Creek

Baldhill Creek

Round Lake

Sibley Lake

Stony Lake

South

TwinLake

Johnson Lake

Lake Norway

Jones Lake

Red Willow Lake

Plum Lake

Lake Jessie

Lake

Addie

Lake Silver

Long Lake

Phelps

Lake

Cherry Lake

34

21

25

35

10

15

36 

10

2 1 

13 17 

22

8

14

19 21

15

19

29

1

10

27

35

1

14

6

11 8

24

3

10

13

23 24

30 29

35 36

16 17

23

3

24

27 26 30

31

14

23

26 25

36 32

6 1

11

18

23

5

8

15

19 19 22

6

18

30

35

6

12 7

14

30 27

36

6

11 11

21 20

2

7

14

1

10 8

17

25

2

15

28

3

16 15

29 29

6

17

24

27 26

34 35

8

3

17

33

15

20 22

14

26

1

7

18

1

12 9

23

2

11

18

27 30

31 32

5

17

34

7

2 1 5

26 25

3 1

9

18 16

22

13

25 29 26

9 10

17

24

10

23

27

36

2

12

8 10 9

17

22 19 23

32

4

12 7

32

11

13

19

3 4 3 5

16

22

13

22

31

5

12 8

28

12

15 13

24

25 29

6

13

21 24

10

15 13 18

32 36

5

31

7

18

20 24 19 20

32

2 3 2

10 12

18

13 17 16

19 20

34

14

2

11

21

34 35 33

4

8

23 22 20

5

15

22

6

21

14

36

5

12

14

4

11

20

28

7

20

33

30

31 31

9

13

28

33

4 2

3 2

7

15

21 20

1

2 

16 

21

31 34

12 9

20

28

36 35

13

21

28 25

3

16 13

4

11

15

22 19 23

27

6

8 

18

24 19

27

13

10 

14

20 

23

1

9

23

14

33 35

12 11

29 

32

6 

10

16

19

1

20

28

1

23 23

25

34

6

25

36 35

14

21

10

33

22

4 3 

16

24

34 36 

4 

11 9

24 24

4

11

7 9

21 22

9

23

26

33

9

34 32

1 

13 

15

21

24 

27

35

3

11

23

7

24

3 3

28

1 

23

4

21

18

26

36

10

16

26

34 31 

5

9 8

14

27

12 8

3

24

25 

35

14 13 17

24 

25 29

32

17

28

9

15

22

5 2

27

2

11

4

27

10

16

30

33 34 

15

6

8

17 15

5

11 

1

11

10

16 14

22

30 29

12

30

33

12

14

5

7 

2

12

36

4

16

26

2

18 15

22 22 

31

12

18

3 

12

13

G r i g g s C o u n t y

F o s t e r C o u n t y G r i g g s C o u n t y

E d d y C o u n t y

F o s t e r C o u n t y

E d d y C o u n t y

Glenfield

McHenry

Binford

4TH ST NE

95TH AVE SE

5TH ST NE

94TH AVE SE

105TH AVE NE

88TH AVE SE

106TH AVE NE 106T H AVENE

108TH AVE NE

104TH AVE NE

87TH AVE SE

90TH AVE NE

94TH AVE NE

101ST AVE NE

96TH AVE NE 96TH AVE NE

99TH AVE NE

101ST AVE NE

90TH AVE SE

101 1/2 AVE NE

95TH AVE NE

94TH AVE N E

87 1/2 AVE NE

CENTER ST

8TH ST SE

7TH ST SE

10TH ST NE

97TH AVE NE

11TH ST NE

89TH AVE NE

103RD AVE NE

CENTER ST

104TH AVE SE

JUANITA

104TH AVE NE

87TH AVE NE

106TH AVE SE

4TH ST NE

2ND ST NE

95TH AVE NE

5TH ST NE

1ST ST SE

4TH ST SE

2ND ST NE

107TH AVE SE

99TH AVE NE

12TH ST NE

3RD ST SE

11TH ST NE

103RD AVE NE

12TH ST NE

7TH ST NE

17T

4TH ST NE

89TH AVE SE

93RD AVE NE

5TH ST NE

90TH AVE SE

88TH AVE NE

92ND AVE SE

13TH ST NE

13TH ST NE

96TH AVE SE

105TH AVE NE

2ND ST SE

97TH AVE SE

98TH AVE SE

4TH ST SE

100TH AVE SE

4TH S

105TH AVE SE

88TH AVE NE

102ND AVE SE

101ST AVE NE

103RD AVE SE

100TH AVE NE

106TH AVE NE

3RD ST SE

105T H AVE NE

8TH ST NE

90TH AVE NE

108TH AVE SE

13TH ST NE

9TH ST NE

98TH AVE NE

4TH ST SE

9TH ST NE

101ST AVE NE

96TH AVE NE

102ND AVE NE

100TH AVE NE

97TH AVE NE

1ST ST NE

16TH ST NE

2ND ST SE

89TH AVE SE

94TH AVE NE

14TH ST NE

9TH ST SE

4TH ST SE

92ND AVE NE

90TH AVE NE

89TH AVE NE

9TH ST SE

14TH ST NE

2ND ST SE

102ND AVE NE

12TH ST NE

1ST ST NE

6TH ST SE

CENTER ST

8TH ST NE

7TH ST NE

100TH AVE NE

1ST ST NE

13TH ST NE

108TH AVE NE

14TH ST NE

2ND ST SE

14TH ST NE

5TH ST SE

103RD AV ENE

CENTER ST

10TH ST SE

107TH AVE NE

16TH ST NE

3RD ST NE

107TH AVE NE

108TH AVE NE

91ST AVE NE

15TH ST NE

5TH ST SE

13 1/2 S T NE

94TH AVE NE

6TH ST NE

5TH ST SE

103RD AVE NE

1ST ST SE

12THST NE

17TH ST NE

8TH ST NE

9TH ST NE 3RD ST NE

107TH AVE NE

13TH ST NE

92ND AVE SE

91ST AVE SE

13TH ST NE

95TH AVE SE

100TH AVE NE

102ND AVE NE

7TH ST NE

15TH ST NE

95TH AVE NE

1ST ST SE

17TH ST NE

101ST AVE SE

3RD ST NE

CENTER ST

101ST AVE NE

7TH ST NE

95TH AVE SE

1ST ST NE

17TH ST NE

106TH AVE NE

6TH ST NE

90 1/2 AVE NE

4TH ST NE

91ST AVE NE

93RD AVE NE

93RD AVE NE

3RD ST NE

11TH ST NE

101ST AVE NE

15TH ST NE

105TH AVE NE

4TH ST SE

94TH AVE NE

4TH ST SE

13TH ST NE

11 1/2 ST NE

97TH AVE NE

17TH ST NE

100 1/2 AVE NE

1ST ST NE

13TH STNE

15TH ST NE

6TH ST NE

PQ200

PQ20

PQ1

PQ1

PQ20

PQ200

PQ1

Swan Lake WPA

Wallace WPA

Tande WPA

Topp

WPA

Midgley

WPA

Johnson WPA

Larson WPA

Delfs WPA

Bauers

WPA

Lake Addie WPA

Evers WPA

Helland WPA

Haven

WPA

Graving WPA

Rix WPA

Howard

Stone

WMA

Sibley Lake WMA

Rolling

Prairie

McHenry Bryan Addie

Glenfield

Eastman

Florance

Cherry Willow 

Lake Rosendal 

Kingsley

Paradise

Helena 

McKinnon Mabel

Clearfield

T148N 

R 62W

T148N

R 61W

T148N

R 60W

T147N

R 63W

T147N 

R 62W

T147N

R 61W

T146N

R 62W

T146N

R 60W

T146N R 61W

T146N

R 63W

T145N

R 60W T145N R 62W

T147N

R 60W

T145N

R 61W

T145N

R 63W

T148N

R 63W

Sibley Lake NWR

Johnson

Lake NWR

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:13:09 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill

2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland

")

") 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

Map Vicinity
Sheyenne River

Sheyenne River

Maple River

Pickerel Lake Creek

Beaver Creek Sheyenne River

Sheyenne River

Lynch Lake

Lake Ashtabula

5

32 35

1 6

4 6

36

34 31 31

6 1 4 4 3 2

32 31 33 33

6

36

2

36

35

1

34 32

5 5 3

35

19

25 29 30

36

8 9

29

17

6

15

20 21

27 26

12

25 29

34

6 5

8

16 14

19

28

1 6

8

24 22

35

6 4

15

12

20

29

2

10

18 17

24

36

1 4 1

7

24

35 33

2 5 4

32 35

1

12

21

28

30

31

15

23

36 35

4 3

10

14

32

5

9

15

28

11

18

30 27 26

32

6

11 7

13

14

8

3 2

11

22

32

10

13 18

19 21

27

13

21

25

19

18

24 19

28

22

31

4 2

8

22

31 34

10 10 7

13

20

31 31

1 3 2

24

29

7

16

27

23

29

21

12

22

34

5 3

17

23 20 23

22

35

16

34

8

16 15

21

25 30 26

36

9

24

27 26

20 21

28

17

33 35 34

19

29

23

26 28

33

3

14

25

30 28 26 27

4

24

26

32 34 32

13 17 14

20

28 26 27

36

25

7

22

30

27

33

5

8 12

19

33

9 11

18 17

23 23

11 11

13 16 14 18

19 20

25

25

2

16

22

30

7 9

20

31

12 10

21

25

31

5

31

4 

22 24

34

12 12

13

32

32 34 

8

13 17 13

19

29

31

3 2 1

9 

18

20

29

28 

33 

1 5

17

36

1 3 1

12

15 

9

19

22

27

2 

4

17

21

24 

25

1

16

24

25

33

14 

25 28 26

6 4 

20

30

28 

33

21

30

7

18 16

4

22

4 

12 8 

16

25

12

24 19 

6 

7

13 17 

19

6

24

30 27 25

33

1

15

23 24 

36 34 

7 

23 24 

28 

10 9 

30 

7 

18

26

24 19 20

29

31

6

18

20

29 28

35

8

29 

32 35 

8 8

25 25

21

32

11

29 

5

16 

19 20

36 36

10

16

29

30

10 

13

27 26 

36 32

6 2 

7

20 23

33

17

28 

26 

12

15 

22 20 21

21

32

7

27

20

29 30

35 

4 

30

31 33

5 

9

31

5

11

16 14

3 

9 9

14 

11 

28

6 

13 17

21 21 

30

19

18

19

5 

23

28

33 34

2 5 1

31

2

36 32 33

3

G r i g g s C o u n t y

S t e e l e C o u n t y

Hope

Finley

Sharon

Cooperstown

134TH AVE NE

128TH AVE NE

116TH AVE NE

125TH AVE SE 125TH AVE SE

120TH AVE NE

116TH AVE NE

117TH AVE SE

119TH AVE NE

115TH AVE NE 115TH AVE NE

8TH ST NE

120TH AVE NE

113TH AVE SE

118TH AVE NE

114TH AVE NE

116 1/2 AVE NE

1 151/2 A VESE

5TH ST SE

118TH AVE NE

119TH AVE NE

4TH ST NE

121ST AVE NE

7TH ST NE

STEELE AVE

114TH AVE SE

1ST ST SE

118TH AVE NE

9TH ST NE

122ND AVE SE

13TH ST NE

133RD AVE NE

2ND ST NE

12TH ST NE

11TH ST NE

6TH ST SE

14TH ST NE

6TH ST SE

131ST AVE NE

3RD ST SE

118TH AVE NE

3RD ST NE

4TH ST SE

4TH ST NE

130TH AVE NE

14TH ST NE

8TH ST NE

129TH AVE NE

1ST ST NE

4TH ST SE

2ND ST SE

CENTER ST

7TH ST NE

1ST ST SE

113TH AVE SE

6TH ST NE

126TH AVE NE

121ST AVE NE

CENTERST

8TH ST NE

8TH ST NE

118TH AVE SE

CENTER ST

132ND AVE NE

6TH ST SE

124TH AVE NE

120TH AVE NE

131ST AVE NE

4TH ST SE

122ND AVE NE

128TH AVE NE

125TH AVE NE

117TH AVE NE

119TH AVE SE

127TH AVE SE

119TH AVE NE

3RD ST NE

5TH ST NE

115 1/2 AVE SE

133RD AVE NE

123RD AVE NE

113TH AVE NE

8 1/2 ST NE

4TH ST NE

13TH ST NE

7TH ST NE

3RD ST SE

117TH AVE SE

5TH ST SE

12TH 

131ST AVE SE

11TH ST NE

15TH ST NE

115TH AVE NE

114TH AVE NE

123RD AVE SE

2ND ST SE

7TH ST NE

1/2 ST NE

123RD AVE NE

4TH ST NE

2ND ST SE

6TH ST SE

115 1/2 AVE NE

12TH ST NE

5TH ST SE

CENTER ST

131ST AVE SE

128TH AVE NE

4TH S T SE

10TH ST NE

12TH ST NE

115TH AVE NE

3RD ST SE

12TH ST NE 12TH ST NE

5TH ST NE

119TH AVE NE

116 1/2 AVE NE

1ST ST NE

2ND ST SE

4TH ST NE

14TH ST NE

10TH ST NE

131ST AVE NE

123RD AVE NE

121ST AVE NE

2ND ST SE

132ND AVE NE

115TH AVE S

11

E

3TH AVE SE

117TH AVE SE

114TH AVE NE

122ND AVE SE

8TH ST NE

123RD AVE SE

125TH AVE SE

121ST AVE SE

12 4THAVE SE

127TH AVE SE

113TH AVE NE

129TH AVE SE

130TH AVE SE

133RD AVE SE

133RD AVE NE

1ST ST SE

9TH ST NE

130TH AVE NE

120TH AVE NE

14TH ST NE

132ND AVE SE

15TH ST NE

3 1/2 ST NE

5TH ST NE 

130TH AVE SE

1ST ST NE

124TH AVE SE

119TH AVE SE

15TH ST NE

11TH ST NE

126TH AVE SE

134TH AVE SE

6TH ST NE

113TH AVE NE

129TH AVE NE

133RD AVE SE

118TH AVE SE

4TH ST SE

126TH AVE NE

128TH AVE SE

123RD AVE NE

116TH AVE SE

117TH AVE NE

6TH ST NE

121ST AVE SE

123RD AVE NE

6TH ST SE

1ST ST NE

6TH ST NE

119TH AVE NE

123RD AVE SE

125TH AVE NE

115TH AVE NE

131ST AVE NE

114TH AVE NE

128TH AVE NE

120 1/2 AVE SE

120TH AVE NE

114TH AVE NE

2ND ST SE

15TH ST NE

11TH ST NE

CENTER ST

119 1/2 AVE NE

134TH AVE NE

120TH AVE SE

129TH AVE SE

131ST AVE NE

124TH AVE NE 124TH AVE NE

125TH AVE NE

125TH AVE NE

121ST AVE SE

127TH AVE NE

128TH AVE NE

PQ32

PQ200

PQ45

PQ32

PQ45

PQ32

PQ38

PQ32

PQ32

PQ200

Fritz

WPA

Ronningen WPA

Dronen WPA

Romness

Beav

Sharon

Lenora

Westfield

Finley

Melrose 

Sverdrup Riverside

S

Easton

Washburn Greenview

Franklin

T

T148N R 

R 57W

T147N

R 58W

T145N

R 57W

T146N

R 56W T146N R 57W

T148N

R 58W

T146N

R 58W

T147N

R 56W

T145N 

R 58W

T145N

R 56W

T147N

R 57W

T148N

R 56W

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:13:09 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill

2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland
South Branch Goose River

Drain No. 39

Mayville Drain No. 9

Elm River

Mayville Blanchard Drain

Burke Drain No. 15

Murray Drain No. 17

South Branch Goose River

North Branch Goose River

Middle Branch Goose River

Elm River

Beaver Creek

Miller Drain No. 29

Hanson Drain No. 18

Blanchard Drain No. 23

Roseville Drain No. 19

11

32

5 

31

6

36

36

4

8

18

22

30

30 27

4

17 14

28

29 27

32

7

20

25 29

17 15

34

7

28

29 28

7

20

9 10

22 23

22

32

32

9

16

19

25

35

26

34

6 1 6 2 4

18

24

20 21

19

27

27 26

33 35

11

15

29

4 3 1

11

19 22

20

33

33

12 7

18

19

30

25

15 14

16

23

25

13

14

15

24

31

15

16

23

28

29

35

7

9

13 13

21

30

31

5

27

10 12 10

24

2 1 6

17

21 22 19

20

19

20

29

20

21

30

32

6 5

9 8 9

13 17

18

27

31 35

32

15

20

28

14

21

25

5

8

14 18

20

29 26

32

3

8

26

16

28

29

13 17

19

21

28

28

31

33 31

1 3

9

20

1

7

33

3

8

14

24

20

26 29

6

17 16

23

22

34

33 34

17

20 21

24 21

28

4

10 11

17

23

26

28 30

34 36

8 10 10

17

21

36

13

23

30

30

36 34

5

18 14 17 16

25

30

18

24

29

32

9

17

33

5 6

4

12

22

32

3

15

24

30

30

6

4

7

12

16

32

8

15 18

8

26

16

22

2 6

23 19

26

6

5

9

18 16

14

21 19

31

5

21 19

28

4

18

21

25

33

7

11

19

31

12 8

16

24

23

35

2

1 5

12

13

19

31

31

2

16

30 25

36

4

9 7

27

29

36

18

25

21

3

28

1

20

15

24

17

23

7

22

27 26

32

8

15

22

27

27

5

10

15

23

34

12

13

32

22

24

27

25

2

9

23

1

9 

20

27

13

29

28

35

19

12

34

12

14 17

20 23

30 26

31

5

7 10

31

19

11

24

29

34

2 6

7

21

35 36

19

22

26

33

11

14

18

21

27

3 1 6

17

35

24

31

9

10

19

30

36

4

18

22

30

32

22

30 26

4 6

33 34

5

16

20

28

8

15

11

10

14

21

25

3

16

13

3

4

3 2

16

28

31

36

36 32

31 33 34 33 32 35

36 33 34 31 35 32

33

34

2

1

35

S t e e l e C o u n t yT r a i l l C o u n t y

Clifford

Mayville

Portland

Hatton

147TH AVE SE

149TH AVE NE 149TH AVE NE

148TH AVE NE

144TH AVE NE

15 6TH AVE SE

158TH AVE NE

140TH AVE NE

151ST AVE SE

138TH AVE NE

159TH AVE NE

145TH AVE NE

159TH AVE SE

140TH AVE NE

140TH AVE NE

141ST AVE SE

158TH AVE SE

157 1/2 AVE NE

140TH AVE SE

2ND S

140TH AVE SE

138TH AVE SE

144TH AVE NE

143RD AVE NE

4 1/2 ST SE

150TH AVE SE

144TH AVE NE

8TH ST NE

4TH ST NE

154TH AVE NE

6TH ST SE

148 1/2 AVE NE

151ST AVE NE

4TH ST SE

156TH AVE NE

1ST ST SE 

2ND ST NE

5TH ST SE

158TH AVE NE

6TH ST SE

150TH AVE NE

146TH AVE SE

6TH ST NE

3RD ST SE

139TH AVE NE

157TH AVE NE

12TH ST NE

7TH ST NE

146TH AVE NE

4 1/2 ST SE

146TH AVE NE

1ST ST NE

14TH ST NE

157TH AVE SE

12TH ST NE

2ND ST SE

142ND AVE NE

143RD AVE NE

2ND ST NE

9TH ST NE

147TH AVE SE 5TH ST NE

149TH AVE SE

CENTER ST

143RD AVE SE

11TH ST NE

CENTER ST

157TH AVE NE

3RD ST NE

7TH ST NE

157TH AVE NE

148TH AVE SE

155TH AVE NE

139TH AVE SE

149TH AVE NE

7TH ST NE

144TH AVE NE

2ND ST NE

1 41ST AVE NE

144TH AVE NE

5TH ST SE

10 1/2 ST NE

159TH AVE NE

8TH ST NE

144TH AVE SE

153RD AVE NE

141ST AVE NE

155TH AVE SE

152ND AVE NE

1411/2 AVE N E

149TH AVE NE

5TH ST SE

143RD AVE NE

150TH AVE NE

148TH AVE NE

147TH AVE NE

31/2 ST NE

7TH ST NE

1ST ST SE

7TH ST NE

143RD AVE NE

13TH ST NE

142ND AVE NE

141ST AVE NE

139TH AVE NE

138TH AVE NE

4 1/2 ST SE 4 1/2 ST SE

3RD ST NE

7TH ST NE

CENTER ST

5TH ST NE

143 1/2 AVE SE

142ND AVE SE

141ST AVE SE

149 1/2 AVE NE

2ND ST SE

145TH AVE SE

150TH AVE SE

155TH AVE NE

143RD AVE NE

152ND AVE NE

152ND AVE NE

159TH AVE SE

9TH ST NE

6 1/2 ST NE

1/2 ST NE

153RD AVE SE

156TH AVE SE

5TH ST NE

143RD AVE SE

150TH AVE NE

1/2 ST SE

12 1/2 ST NE

CENTER ST

144TH AVE NE

PQ18

PQ18

PQ200

PQ18

PQ18

Shaw WPA

Elken

WPA

Erickson

WPA

Fuller's

Lake

WPA

Thorson WPA

Wold

Viking Enger

Garfield Newburgh

Buxton

Morgan

Primrose

Blanchard

Bloomfie

Norman Edendale

Norway

Mayville Roseville

Lindaas

T148N

R 54W

T148N

R 53W

T147N

R 54W

T147N

R 53W

T147N

R 51W

T146N

R 53W T146N R 54W

T145N

R 53W

T148N

R 52W

T146N

R 52W

T147N

R 52W

T145N

R 51W

T145N

R 54W

T146N

R 51W

T148N

R 51W

T145N

R 52W

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:13:09 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill

2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland
Sheyenne River

Middle Branch Goose River

Goose Creek

BeaverCreek

Sheyenne River

Little Goose River

Goose River

Beaver Creek

Goose River

Sheyenne River

Goose Creek

Spring Creek

Pickerel Lake Creek

Beaver Creek

Harrison Lake

Hillesland Lake

Pickerel Lake

Matson

Slough

Twin

Lakes

Rugh Lake

Omild Slough

Horseshoe Lake

22

21

11 8

13 

16

20 24

27

32

10

13

22

28

25

3 5

11

20 19 19

25

34

26

3

33 35

6

14 13

21 24

28 30

36 33

4

9

18

31 32 35

3

13

35

2

16

20 24

27

4 5 1

15

36

12 11

21

27

28

5

17

22

25

34

26

36

19

7 9 7

23

29 30

32

15

34

1

4

8 12

30

31

19

27

22 24 23

25

36

2

14

23

29

1

28

34

33

31

10

17

14 13

33

16

21

29

6 5

8

15

21

18 17

35

17

6

20

26

32

18

1

30

31 33

2 6

15 14

29

26

4 3 2

11 12 7

21

35 34

8

19

25 29 30

36

9

4

20 21

27 26

10

18

27 29

31

36

3

8 11 7

24 22

35

22

25

5

15 18

24

36

17

35 31

2

16

30

31

11

16 15

23

30 27

1

7

15

24

6

12

13

19

25

31 32

5

19

9

17

22

30

2

11

18

31 34

33

7

14 15

23

29

8

14

13 16 14

22

35

24 21

28

32

1

20 21

28

13

23

3

12 10

17

23

26 28

10

18

20

28 26

36

9 10

32 34 32

8

13 14

20

26 29

34

6 4

9

27

33

16

19

33

17

25

10

17

24

32

9 

21

25

31

20

33

34

6 5 3

8 

15

32

11 12 7

16

28 

33 

22

27

16

29 25

2

7 11

18

25

9 10

15 

21 19

32 33

4 

12 

17 

28 

33

35

16

15

34

1

12 10

16 13

23

7

14

23 24 

36 34 

9 8 

28 

5

13

24 19 20

29

31

6

21

32 

21 

31 

17 

30

8

14

26

9

26 

18

22

22 20

13 18

20

29 30

35 

29

4

8

28 27

27 30 

36

1

19

17

1

9

28 25

3

22

26

33 

4 

8

14

4 3

27 

17

30

5

26

34

23 21

5

27

32

1 6

30 

6

10

29

16 15

19

33 32

18 

31

5

24

34

3 2

20

33

14 17

3 

15

24 22

15

28 28

36 31

4

15

20 

36 33

2 4

16

27

12 7 10

17

21 23

13

35

9

20

25

21

29

35

18

20

22 

29

34

5

16

22

32

29

32

16

19

27 28

34

N e l s o n C o u n t y

G r a n d F o r k s C o u n t y

S t e e l e C o u n t y

G r a n d F o r k s C o u n t y N e l s o n C o u n t y

G r i g g s C o u n t y

S t e e l e C o u n t y

G r i g g s C o u n t y 

Sharon

Aneta

117TH AVE NE

41ST ST NE

41ST ST NE

39TH ST NE 39TH ST NE

127TH AVE NE

115TH AVE NE

135TH AVE NE

119TH AVE NE 119TH AVE NE

114TH AVE NE

45TH ST NE

120TH AVE NE

114TH AVE NE

9TH AVE NE

28TH ST NE

26TH ST NE

122ND AVE NE

47TH ST NE

16TH ST NE

133RD AVE NE

13TH ST NE

133RD AVE NE

129TH AVE NE

117TH AVE NE

21ST ST NE

11TH AVE NE

124TH AVE NE

22ND ST NE

8TH AVE NE

16TH ST NE

40TH ST NE EAGLE AVE NE

14TH ST NE

42ND ST NE

43RD ST NE

118TH AVE NE

44TH ST NE

14TH ST NE

120TH AVE NE

19TH ST NE

32ND ST NE

16TH AVE

25TH ST NE

122ND AVE NE

124TH AVE NE

123RD AVE NE

20TH ST NE

45TH ST NE

116TH AVE NE

31ST ST NE

131ST AVE NE

130TH AVE NE

13TH ST NE

118TH AVE NE

118TH AVE NE

17TH ST NE

29TH ST NE

18TH ST NE

27TH ST NE

132ND AVE NE

115TH AVE NE

34TH ST NE

118TH AVE NE

119TH AVE NE

15TH ST NE

33RD ST NE

24TH ST NE

6TH AVE NE

120 1/2 AVE NE

29TH ST NE

116TH AVE NE

42ND ST NE

44TH ST NE

28TH ST NE

47TH ST NE

10TH AVE N E

13TH AVE NE

14TH AVE NE

125TH AVE NE

45TH ST NE

27TH ST NE

32ND ST NE

48TH ST NE

15TH AVE NE

2ND AVE NE

119TH AVE NE

49TH ST NE

45TH ST NE

7TH AVE NE

6TH AVE NE

122ND AVE NE

26TH ST NE

118TH AVE NE

40TH ST NE

25TH ST NE

18TH ST NE

24TH ST NE

16TH ST NE

14TH ST NE

30TH ST NE

7TH AVE NE

121ST AVE NE

132ND AVE NE

12TH AVE NE

40TH ST NE

120TH AVE NE

EAGLE AVE NE

122ND AVE NE

126TH AVE NE

128TH AVE NE

133RD AVE NE

134TH AVE NE

117TH AVE NE

123RD AVE NE

128TH AVE NE

13TH AVE NE

115TH AVE NE

14TH ST NE

13TH AVE NE

15TH ST NE

115TH AVE NE

31ST ST NE

118TH AVE NE

49TH ST NE

15TH ST NE

46TH ST

1ST AVE

3RD AVE NE

123RD AVE NE

25TH ST NE

48TH ST NE

120TH AVE NE

39TH ST NE

125TH AVE NE

1ST AVE NE

4TH AVE NE

43RD ST NE

47TH ST

42ND ST NE

25TH ST NE

20TH ST NE

46TH ST NE

2ND AVE NE

45TH ST

123RD AVE NE

42ND ST NE

33RD ST NE

21ST ST NE

14TH AVE

125TH AVE NE

1ST AVE NE

24TH ST NE 24TH ST NE

24TH ST NE

128TH AVE NE

7TH AVE NE

15TH ST NE

116TH AVE NE

48TH ST NE

120TH AVE NE

125TH AVE NE

115TH AVE NE

16TH ST NE

PQ15

PQ45

PQ32

PQ32

PQ15

PQ32

Tennison

WPA

Hofer

Marsh

WPA

Bothen WPA

Gerhart

WPA

Lavanger WPA

Guy WPA

Rugh Lake WDA

Goose

Lake WDA

Moraine Larimore

Melvin

Beave

Westfield

Lenora

Lind

Sharon

Ora Lee

Field Rugh

Grace

Loretta

Logan

Center

Adler

T151N

R 58W

T150N

R 56W

T149N

R 57W

T151N

R 55W

T149N

R 58W

T148N

R 56W

T1

T148N R 5

R 57W

T150N

R 58W

T151N

R 57W

T150N

R 57W

T150N

R 55W

T151N

R 56W

T149N

R 56W

T149N

R 55W

T148N

R 58W

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:13:09 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland

")

") 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

Map Vicinity
Grand Forks

International Airport

Goose River

HazenBrook

North Branch Goose River

Turtle River

WilsonCreek

Salt Coulee

English Coulee

English Coulee

Spring Creek

Fresh Water Coulee

Salt Water Coulee

Fresh Water Coulee

Goose River

19

11

14

15

21 24

36

9

18

6

9

17 15

19

27

26

3

11

17

23

29

34

11

22

22

28

34 36

35

5

15 14

16

15

21

28

28

33

31 33

1

7 9

13

1 4

8

17

18 15 14

12 8

14

14 16

16

20

32

32

2

13 17

8 12

26

29

5

17

13

6 6

16

20

31

4

4

18

27

27 25

33 35

3

10

13

20

21

23

29

5

16

19

30

30

34

10

10

24

22

25

2

12

7

18 16

34

16

16

24

28

27

34 32

31

28 30

29

32

7 10

35

11

33 35 31

17

22

26

1

33

32

19

27 29

32

2

10

16

24

25

36

2

12

7

36 31

5

17

17 15

21

4

5

8 9

8

17

20

3

4

9 10

3 6

11

9

14

27

4

7

8

20

29

34 31

3 6

8

13 14

23

24

2 6 3

33

2

9

17

16

19

28

25

29

32

10

33

4

6

18

22

21

36

10

18

27

8

15

24 22

36

3 1 3 2

9

20

21

30 29

31

5

9

12

14

33

5 1

17 15

34

8

32

3

4

10

10

23

23

28

35

15

19

21

11

32

1 4 2

20

27

26

5

12

11

16

35

9

34

35

12 8

7 9

21

25 30

34

4

7

16 18

20

32

33

6

5

14

20

12

13

27

3

8

5

10

15 18 13

33

6

7

22

22 23

25

28 26

36 33

32

34

3

5

13

22

30 26

4

15

28

34 35

34

5

34

1

8 

27

2

10

13

25

26

33

2 

32

10

17

11 7

5

7

23

30

1

30

31

19

16

23 

9

17 16

35

33

35 

11

34

36

34

6

22

26

36

35

3

27

32 35

2

7

31

2

12

18

4

22

26

3

9 10

36

2

14

21

25 26

20

15

29

18

1

4

11

29

12

6 2

12 8

14

23 21

13

31

6

11

11 8 

3

14

35

23

28

4

24

5 

24

9 

19 20

28

32 33

15

5

1

14

10

19

32

16 18

24

5

27

3 

7

22

36 31

8

18 15

3

15

17

20

30 29

34 35

15

14

21

28

35

10

26

33

17 

13

16

23

23

26

6

2 4

25

9 12

G r a n d F o r k s C o u n t y

S t e e l e C o u n t y

G r a n d F o r k s C o u n t y

Hatton

Northwood

Emerado

34TH ST NE

142ND AVE NE

31ST ST

21ST ST NE

140TH A VE NE

19TH ST NE

152ND AVE NE

151ST AVE NE

22ND ST NE

34TH ST NE

24TH ST NE

141ST AVE NE

10TH AVE NE

35TH ST NE

4TH AVE

16TH AVE NE

13TH AVE NE

16TH ST

16TH AVE

10TH AVE

17T H AVE N E

32ND ST NE

15TH ST NE

15TH ST NE

EAGLE AVE

138TH AVE NE

9TH AVE NE

143RD AVE NE

EAGLE AVE

17TH ST NE

8TH AVE NE

144TH AVE NE

14TH ST NE

25TH ST

22ND ST NE

6TH AVE NE

31 1/2 ST NE

17TH AVE

147TH AVE NE

19

THAVE NE

148TH AVE NE

18TH ST NE

20TH ST NE

149TH AVE NE

35TH ST

150TH AVE NE

36TH ST NE

153RD AVE NE

146TH AVE NE

28TH ST NE

154TH AVE NE

17TH AVE S

17TH ST NE

23RD ST NE

155TH AVE NE

8TH AVE NE

16TH AVE NE

30TH ST NE

16TH ST NE

29TH ST NE

16TH ST NE

157TH AVE NE

16TH ST NE

159TH AVE NE

4TH AVE NE

19TH ST NE

34TH ST NE

16TH AVE NE 16TH AVE

DEMERS AVE

35TH ST NE

21ST ST NE

22ND ST NE

27TH ST NE

7TH AVE NE

26TH ST NE

19TH ST NE

15TH AVE NE

24TH ST NE

158TH AVE NE

30TH ST NE

21ST ST NE

36TH ST NE

8TH AVE NE

20TH ST NE

33RD ST NE

139TH AVE NE

15TH AVE NE

30TH ST

17TH AVE NE 17TH AVE NE

31ST ST

17TH AVE S

33RD ST NE

34 1/2 ST NE

2ND AVE NE

11TH AVE NE

14TH AVE NE

15TH AVE NE

EAGLE AVE NE

13TH AVE NE

18TH AVE

12TH AVE NE

14TH AVE NE

29TH ST NE

16TH ST

13TH AVE NE

31ST ST NE

20TH ST NE

15TH AVE NE

23RD ST NE

8TH AVE NE

24TH ST NE

28TH ST NE

34TH ST

62ND AVE S

156TH AVE NE

10 1/2 AVE NE

24TH ST NE

25TH ST NE

16TH AVE NE

24TH ST NE

24TH ST NE

10TH AVE NE

19TH ST NE

29 1/2 ST NE

6TH AVE NE

18TH ST N E

PQ15

PQ15

PQ18

£¤2

£¤2

Grand

Forks Air

Force Base

Pender WPA

Turtle River State Park

Avon

Allendale

Garfield

Pleasant Fairfield

View

Michigan Union

Washington

Morgan

Arvilla

Chester

Oakville

Brenna

Buxton

Northwood 

T151N

R 52W T151N

R 54W

T150N

T150N R 52W

R 53W

T150N

R 51W

T148N

T150N

R 54W

T148N

R 51W

T151N

R 51W

T148N

T151N

R 53W

T149N

R 53W

T149N

R 52W

T149N

R 51W

T149N

R 54W

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\200911\CGF_ANSIE_48k_0911Scoping.mxd)

11/11/2009 -- 11:13:09 AM

012

Miles

November 2009 1:48,000

E 

Aerial photography published by National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2006.

Macro-Corridors Existing Transmission Lines400 kV DC345 kV AC250 kV DC230 kV AC115 kV or less AC

") Substation

Gas PipelineProposed Water Pipeline

XW Communication Tower

kj

Wind Turbine orGroups of Turbines

!( Center Pivot Irrigation

!( Dwelling

"/ Recreation$+ Dump or Landfill

2 Small Historic Site

ï Cemetery

#* Gravel Pit or Mine

x Power Plant

National Wildlife RefugeWaterfowl Production Area orWildlife Development AreaBureau of Reclamation or ArmyCorps of Engineers LandState Park, Recreation Area,or Wildlife Management AreaThe Nature Conservancy Preserve

o Public Airportr Private Airportf Heliport

HighwayIn-Use RailroadNorth Country TrailSnowmobile Trail

Incorporated AreaCivil Township BoundaryCounty BoundaryRiver, Stream or CanalWetland
The Center to Grand Forks (CGF) Project 

Supporting Renewable Energy 

North Dakota ranks first in the country for wind energy potential. As wind generation continues to expand 

in North Dakota, increased demands are placed on the current transmission network. 

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota) has proposed the construction of approximately 260 miles 

of 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from Center to Grand Forks, N.D. This project is anticipated to be 

completed by early 2013 in order to enable the transmission of energy from a planned wind power 

development to be carried on an existing transmission line. Reallocation of energy to this new line may 

allow more energy from potential future wind power developments to be carried. This project allows 

Minnkota to meet its energy demands without building a new power plant. 

Environmental Review Process 

Minnkota has filed a Macro-Corridor Study and Alternative Evaluation Study with the Rural Utilities 

Service (RUS). This meeting signifies the beginning of an environmental review process to guide 

decisions related to human and environmental aspects such as wetlands, endangered species, cultural 

resources, land use, and water. This meeting is hosted by the RUS to provide information on the project, 

answer questions and collect comments regarding potential environmental concerns within the identified 

macro-corridors. Results of these meetings will be incorporated into a Scoping Report that will be 

published in January of 2010. 

www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679
www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679

Why are new transmission lines being proposed? 

Minnkota is currently entering into a new agreement with Minnesota Power, located in Duluth, Minn., 

which will provide additional long-term baseload power supply for Minnkota and will allow Minnesota 

Power to develop significant wind energy facilities in central North Dakota. 

The Milton R. Young Station is a lignite-fired electric power plant located near Center, N.D., with two 

operational units: Young 1 and Young 2. This new agreement between Minnkota and Minnesota Power 

calls for Minnesota Power to purchase the transmission line built in 1977 that connects to Young 2. 

Minnesota Power will use that line to deliver new wind energy from Center to Duluth. 

In exchange for this line, Minnesota Power will, during the next 18 years, transfer its 50 percent of the 

energy rights it now has in Young 2 to Minnkota. To deliver the energy produced by Young 2 to 

Minnkota’s service area, Minnkota will build a new transmission line from Center to Grand Forks, N.D. 

Will wind energy be on the new lines? 

One of the goals of the project will free up the capacity of an existing transmission line in North Dakota 

to carry wind energy. North Dakota ranks first in the country for wind energy potential and Minnkota 

continues to develop wind energy in North Dakota. The immediate purpose of the Center to Grand Forks 

Project is to allow energy from proposed Minnesota Power wind energy facilities to be transmitted over 

the existing HVDC transmission line (currently used by Young 2). Power from Young 2 will be carried 

over the new line. Future opportunities to carry renewable energy over the new line may also exist. 

What do transmission structures look like? 

The structures being planned for this 345-kV transmission line are single-pole steel structures that vary in 

height from about 120 feet to 170 feet and have spans (or distance) between structures on an average of 

1,000 feet. Structures for the most part will be set on foundations but may be embedded into the ground 

without foundations. 

How much right of way will be required on either side of the line? 

The voltage and the type of transmission structure being built determine the size of the right of way. For a 

345-kV transmission line, the typical right of way is up to 150 feet wide. 

What can impacted landowners expect in the form of compensation? 

Minnkota will provide a one-time easement payment to property owners who host power lines based on 

the market value of the land and also they will receive payments for any crop or land damage that is 

caused by the construction or by maintenance of the line. The easement gives Minnkota permission to 

build, maintain and operate the transmission line. Property owners retain ownership of the land and may 

continue to use the land around transmission structures. Easements typically last 99 years. 
USDA Rural Utilities Programs 

Public Meeting Handout 

Applicant: Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 

Project: Center to Grand Forks Transmission Line 

What is the Rural Utilities Service? 

The Rural Utilties Service (RUS) is an agency that administers the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural 

Development Utilities Programs (RDUP). It is a Federal financing agency within the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Its mission is to provide financing assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants 

to rural cooperatives, corporations, and public entities for the installation, expansion and modernization of rural 

electric, telecommunication, and water and waste systems throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin 

Islands, and American Samoa. 

RUS does not construct, operate, or manage electric, telecommunications, or water and waste systems nor is RUS 

involved in obtaining right-of-way easements or property acquisitions. 

What is the purpose of these open houses? 

The purpose of this open house is to provide information regarding Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.’s 

(Minnkota) proposed Center to Grand Forks 345 kV Transmission Line Project, answer questions, and identify 

public concerns regarding the potential environmental impacts that may result from construction and operation of 

the project. Information from this open house will be incorporated into RUS’ Environmental Assessment for this 

project. This open house is intended to fulfill RUS’ public scoping meeting requirements pursuant to RUS 

Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR Part 1794. 

How should comments be submitted for the record? 

Comments concerning the potential environmental impacts and related review of this project are encouraged. 

Written comments will be accepted at this open house and should be left with the RUS representative at this 

meeting. Written comments will also be accepted through December 18, 2009. Written comments should be sent 

to: 

 Mr. Dennis Rankin 

 USDA Rural Utilities Service 

 1400 Independence Ave SW 

 Washington, DC 20250-1571 

 FAX # (202) 690-0649 

 E-mail: dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov

Once RUS has a satisfactory Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, it will make the EA available for 

public review and comment for a 30-day period. Based on the EA and comments received, RUS will either 

prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact or make a decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. 

There will be public notification of RUS’ decision. 

Sheyenne River

Ward County McHenry County

Walsh County

Wells County Eddy County

Kidder County

Pierce

County

Foster County

McLean Sheridan County

County

Morton

County

Cass County

Benson

County

Barnes County

Griggs County

Oliver

County

Grand Forks County

Steele

County

Stutsman County

Burleigh County

Nelson County

Ramsey County

Traill County

Goodrich

Velva Minnewaukan

Emerado

Larimore

Northwood

Thompson

Reynolds

Lakota

Aneta

Harvey

Fessenden

Cathay

Sykeston

Bowdon

Hurdsfield

McClusky

Carrington

McHenry

Glenfield

Binford

Cooperstown

Sharon

Finley

Hatton

Portland

Mayville

Clifford

Wilton

Hillsboro

Casselton

Steele

Grace

City

New

Rockford

Underwood

Washburn

Mercer

Turtle

Lake

Buxton

Valley

City

Mandan

Bismarck

Devils

Lake

Grand

Forks

Jamestown

Prairie

Substation

Center

345 kV

Substation

Missouri River

1

1804

32

46

65

45

54

41

15

200

15

25

1

3

14

32

6

81

35

10

38

23

3

32

1

200

18

30

36

3

20

19

26

200

36

15

41

9

200

53

14

20

30

18

57

1806

83

2

52

52

52

52

81

281

83

2

2

281

194

29

29

94

94

94

Map Document: (\\Mspe-gis-file\gisproj\Minnkota\110900\map_docs\PI\Scoping\CGF_11x17L_MC.mxd)10/27/2009 -- 9:25:23 AM

Macro-Corridors

Center to Grand Forks Project

Macro-Corridors

Project Substation

Highway

Railroad

Incorporated Area

County Boundary

Data Sources: NDDOT, NDSWC, USBC.

0 10 20 Miles

Map

Vicinity

October 2009

Comment Form 

Center to Grand Forks Transmission Line Project 

Name: ______________________________________ 

Address: ____________________________________ 

 ____________________________________ 

 ____________________________________ 

Phone Number: _______________________________ 

Fax Number: _________________________________ 

E-mail: ______________________________________ 

Comments Due by December 18, 2009 

Attach Additional Pages if Necessary 

Four Ways to Submit Comments

1. Fold, fasten, and attach postage to the 

reverse of this form and mail 

2. Submit to RUS representative at this 

meeting 

3. Fax to (202) 690-0649 

4. e-mail to dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov 
Please fold, fasten, and mail. No envelope necessary. 

______________________ 

______________________ 

______________________ 

Dennis Rankin 

USDA Rural Utilities Service 

1400 Independence Ave SW 

Washington, DC 20250-1571 

Place 

Stamp 

Here 
www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679

Frequently Asked Questions 

Who is Minnkota Power Cooperative? 

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota) is a regional generation and transmission cooperative 

formed in 1940 that serves 11 member-owner distribution cooperatives. It also serves as operating 

agent for the Northern Municipal Power Agency, an association of 12 municipal utilities in the same 

service region. Together, the Joint System serves more than 130,000 customers. Minnkota’s service 

area of 34,500 square miles is located in eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota and is 

headquartered in Grand Forks, N.D. 

Why are new transmission lines being proposed? 

Minnkota is currently entering into a new agreement with Minnesota Power, located in Duluth, 

Minn., which will provide additional long-term baseload power supply for Minnkota and will allow 

Minnesota Power to develop significant wind energy facilities in central North Dakota. 

The Milton R. Young Station is a lignite-fired electric power plant located near Center, N.D., with 

two operational units: Young 1 and Young 2. This new agreement between Minnkota and Minnesota 

Power calls for Minnesota Power to purchase the transmission line built in 1977 that connects to 

Young 2. Minnesota Power will use that line to deliver new wind energy from Center to Duluth. 

In exchange for this line, Minnesota Power will, during the next 18 years, transfer its 50 percent of 

the energy rights it now has in Young 2 to Minnkota. To deliver the energy produced by Young 2 to 

Minnkota’s service area, Minnkota will build a new transmission line from Center to Grand Forks, 

N.D. 

Where will the energy that flows on the new lines come from? 

The Milton R. Young Station is the primary generating facility for Minnkota. Located near the town 

of Center, the Milton R. Young Station consists of two units, Young 1 and Young 2. 

Young 2, which began generating electricity on May 11, 1977, is owned by Square Butte Electric 

Cooperative and operated by Minnkota. Currently, the output from Young 2 is purchased under 

contract by Minnkota and Minnesota Power. Under the proposed project, Minnesota Power will 

transfer its 50 percent of the energy rights to Minnkota over an 18-year period beginning in 2013. 

Will wind energy be on the new lines? 

One of the goals of the project will free up the capacity of an existing transmission line in North 

Dakota to carry wind energy. North Dakota ranks first in the country for wind energy potential and 

Minnkota continues to develop wind energy in North Dakota. The immediate purpose of the Center to 

Grand Forks Project is to allow energy from proposed Minnesota Power wind energy facilities to be 

transmitted over the existing HVDC transmission line (currently used by Young 2). Power from 

Young 2 will be carried over the new line. Future opportunities to carry renewable energy over the 

new line may also exist. 
www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679

Who will benefit from the transmission improvements? 

All electricity customers in the Minnkota service area will benefit from a more robust and reliable 

electric transmission system. The expansion also will increase the capacity of the existing electric grid 

system to carry wind energy. The expansion of the renewable energy industry in North Dakota will 

benefit the entire state and region. 

How will I find out if my property is potentially affected? 

Minnkota plans extensive outreach to property owners and community members within the study 

corridors. This Web site and the project information line (800-473-5679) will be maintained to 

provide up-to-date information regarding the progress of the project. Meetings will be held with 

landowners, local governments and the public to help determine the final route of the transmission 

line and identify property impacts. These initial meetings will be helpful in documenting property 

ownership and all avoidance areas in the potential corridor. A contact list will be maintained that will 

be used to mail important project information as well as announce upcoming public meetings. 

Current project maps are available on the Resources page and you can leave your comments for the 

study team on the Contact Us page. You can also call the project information line at 800-473-5679. 

Your call will be returned in a timely manner. Minnkota is dedicated to keeping the public involved 

in the public process. Please feel free to contact a member of the team at any time. 

How can I get involved? 

You can provide comments to Minnkota on both routing and project need at public meetings, on the 

Contact Us page, or on the project information line (800-473-5679). All comments, information and 

suggestions are valued and will be responded to in a prompt manner. Also, go to the Contact Us page 

to join the mailing list to keep informed on project activities and public events. 

What permits are required for the Project? 

If financing is provided by the USDA Rural Development's Electric Program, Minnkota is required to 

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Federal permits may be required by 

agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services (USFWS). 

Minnkota will follow the North Dakota Regulatory Process by applying for two permits from the 

Public Service Commission (PSC): a Certificate of Corridor Compatibility (N.D.C.C. Section 49-03) 

and a Route Permit (N.D. Admin Code 69-02). Additional permits from state agencies may be 

required, including the North Dakota Department of Transportation and the North Dakota Department 

of Health. Other state agencies will be consulted, including but not limited to the State Historical 

Society of North Dakota, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, North Dakota Parks and 

Recreations and the North Dakota State Water Commission. 

In addition to the federal and state permit requirements, local Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) along 

with other local permits may be required. Minnkota will coordinate with local officials throughout the 

Project. 

What is the regulatory process? 

As Minnkota is seeking financing from the USDA Rural Development's Electric Program, Minnkota 

is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The regulatory process is 

outlined in 7 CFR 1794. 
www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679

Minnkota will follow the North Dakota Regulatory Process by applying for two permits from the 

Public Service Commission (PSC): a Certificate of Corridor Compatibility (N.D.C.C. Section 49-03) 

and a Route Permit (N.D. Admin Code 69-02). 

What do transmission structures look like? 

The structures being planned for this 345-kV transmission line are single-pole steel structures that 

vary in height from about 120 feet to 170 feet and have spans (or distance) between structures on an 

average of 1,000 feet. Structures for the most part will be set on foundations, but may be embedded 

into the ground without foundations. 

How much right of way will be required on either side of the line? 

The voltage and the type of transmission structure being built determines the size of the right of way. 

For a 345-kV transmission line, the typical right of way is up to 150 feet wide. 

What can impacted landowners expect in the form of compensation? 

Minnkota will provide a one-time easement payment to property owners who host power lines based 

on the market value of the land and also they will receive payments for any crop or land damage that 

is caused by the construction or by maintenance of the line. The easement gives Minnkota permission 

to build, maintain and operate the transmission line. Property owners retain ownership of the land and 

may continue to use the land around transmission structures. Easements typically last for 99 years. 

Will the new lines be safe? 

Yes. Every effort is made to ensure safety during construction, operation and maintenance of 

transmission lines. Lines and line infrastructure are designed to withstand extreme weather 

conditions. Protective devices at line terminals stop the electricity flow under any abnormal operating 

circumstances. Utility practices meet or exceed standards set by national electric safety codes. 

What about EMF? 

Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are created by anything that conducts electricity including 

transmission lines, household appliances and business equipment. These fields are strongest closest to 

their source, so the farther away you are from the source, the less EMF reaches you. EMF exposure 

from transmission lines, which are high in the air and inside the negotiated easement, is minimal. 

Decades of scientific and medical research, reviewed by science organizations and government 

agencies, have found no cause/effect evidence of threats to human health from EMF. 

For more information, as well as an extensive list of references, review a booklet prepared by the 

National Institute of Environmental Health Services, National Institute of Health. 

Why not build the new lines underground? 

Minnkota is proposing overhead lines because of reliability and cost. Underground transmission lines 

generally cost up to 10 times as much as overhead lines; that's a cost impact customers cannot bear. 

The technology to build lines underground for long distances is also extremely difficult to manage. 

With overhead lines, air cools the lines and keeps them at a safe operating temperature. Underground 

lines require cooling mechanisms, which increase cost and decrease reliability. Locating and repairing 

underground line failures also takes longer, leading to longer outages. The reactive losses of 

underground lines are substantially higher than overhead lines, and installation requires lengthy, 

disruptive construction techniques. Design concerns such as capacity and heat dissipation are frequent 
www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679

limitations. Underground systems are justified primarily in heavily populated downtown urban 

centers, where right of way is severely limited for overhead lines. 

When will the lines be built? 

Line construction is expected between 2010 and 2013 after a rigorous public process to determine 

need and routing. Schedules can change, so Minnkota will publish meeting notices in newspapers and 

on this site. Please continue to check these resources for updated information. 

How much will the lines cost? Will my bills go up? 

The construction of the line and associated substations is currently estimated at $280 million. 

Adjusted costs for the project will be passed on to the 11 distribution cooperatives served by 

Minnkota through a future wholesale rate structure. At this time, it is not known what the impact on 

individual cooperative members’ rates might be. However, the building of the new line provides the 

lowest cost energy solution to meet the future needs of Minnkota and its consumers. 

How close will the transmission line be to houses? 

Minnkota is required to route the transmission line at least 500 feet from occupied houses. The 500-

foot avoidance criteria may be waived by the owner of the occupied house if stated in writing. 

Avoidance criteria laws can be found in the “North Dakota Energy Conversion and Transmission 

Facility Siting Act (49-22-05.1)”. 

Will the project impact radio, television, cell phone, and GPS reception? 

FM radio receivers usually do not pick up interference from transmission lines. If there is AM radio 

frequency interference, it typically occurs immediately under a transmission line and dissipates 

rapidly within the ROW to either side. 

A two-way mobile radio located immediately adjacent to and behind a large metallic structure may 

experience interference because of signal-blocking effects. This would generally require a movement 

of less than 50 feet by the mobile unit adjacent to a metallic tower. 

Television interference is rare but may occur when a large transmission structure is aligned between 

the receiver and a weak distant signal, creating a shadow effect. The transition to digital TV 

broadcasts will be complete by the time the Project is constructed. Digital reception is in most cases 

more tolerant of noise and somewhat less resistant to multipath reflections (i.e., reflections from 

structures) than analog broadcasts. 

Satellite television, GPS units and cellular service will not be impacted by the project. 
www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679

Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Facts 

What are Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF)? 

EMF are naturally present in the environment and are present wherever electricity is used. The earth 

has both a magnetic field produced by currents in the molten core of the planet and an electric field 

produced by electrical activity in the atmosphere, such as thunderstorms. The flow of electricity along 

transmission lines also produces low levels of EMF. 

What is the difference between Electric and Magnetic Fields? 

Electric fields are produced by voltage, which is the pressure behind the flow of electricity. Voltage 

creates electric fields around any electrical device that is plugged in even if it is not operating. 

Magnetic Fields are produced by current, which is the flow of electrons when the device is operating. 

Electric fields are measured in volts per meter (V/m). Magnetic fields are measured in milligauss 

(mG) or microTeslas (uT). 

What are typical exposure levels to Electric and Magnetic Fields? 

Everyone is constantly exposed to about 500 mG from the earth’s magnetic field and 100 V/m from 

the earth’s electric field. However, thunderstorms can temporarily increase the electric field in a given 

location to several thousand V/m. In addition to the earth’s natural fields, according to the Electric 

Power Research Institute (EPRI) the average household background magnetic field is between 0.5 

and 4 mG with an average of 0.9 mG, and the average electric field is 1 to 20 V/m. 

What are some of the things in my home and at work that produce EMF? 

Anything that generates, distributes, or uses electricity creates electric and magnetic fields. Below is a 

list of some appliances and machines commonly found in homes or offices and the magnetic fields 

they produce. 

Magnetic field 6 inches Magnetic field 

from appliance (mG) 2 feet away (mG) 

Electric shaver 100 – 

Vacuum cleaner 300 10 

Electric oven 9 – 

Dishwasher 20 4 

Microwave oven 200 10 

Hair dryer 300 – 

Computers 14 2 

Fluorescent lights 40 2 

Fax machines 6 – 

Copy machines 90 7 

Garbage disposals 80 2 

Source: Western Area Power Administration. Electric and Magnetic Fields: The Facts.
www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679

What are typical EMF levels near overhead transmission lines? 

The electric power associated with overhead transmission lines is typically a 60-Hertz (Hz) 

alternating current which is classified as an ‘extremely low frequency’. This ‘power frequency’ 

produces low levels of EMF. Both the electric and magnetic fields that constitute EMF are strongest 

directly under the lines and decrease rapidly with distance from the line. Actual field strengths vary 

with the size of the lines and height of the conductors from the point of measurement. Electric fields 

from power lines are relatively stable because the voltage does not change. Magnetic fields fluctuate 

as current changes in response to the changing loads. Tables in the listed reference material show 

typical values calculated for overhead power lines. 

What EMF health research has been done? 

Research related to possible adverse health effects from EMF exposure has been in progress for more 

than 30 years. In 1992, The U.S. Congress directed the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences (NIEHS) to direct the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination Program (EMFRAPID). The EMF-RAPID Program goal was to provide evidence to clarify potential health risks 

from EMF exposure. To date, the bulk of scientific evidence does not link extremely low frequency 

or power frequency EMF exposure to health hazards. 

Are there state and federal standards for EMF exposure? 

There are no standards established for safe levels of exposure to EMF. Some organizations have set 

advisory limits as a precautionary measure. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation 

Protection has established a continuous magnetic field exposure limit of 833 mG and a continuous 

electric field exposure limit of 4,200 V/m for members of the general public. The American Council 

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has set a Threshold Limit Value for occupational exposure to 

60 Hz (60 cycles per second) magnetic fields as 10,000 mG and 25,000 V/m for electric fields. 

Where can I find more information about EMF health research? 

 The National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS), EMF: Electric and Magnetic 

Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power, Questions and Answers. 

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/ 

 California Department of Health Services-California EMF Program 

http://www.ehib.org/emf/general.html 

 World Health Organization 

http://www.who.int/emf 

 Western Area Power Administration, Electric and Magnetic Fields Facts, 

http://www.wapa.gov/newsroom/pdf/emfbook.pdf 

www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679

Stray and Induced Voltage Facts 

What is stray voltage? 

The term stray voltage describes a special case of voltage developed on the grounded neutral of the 

electrical wiring system of a farm and/or the utility’s electric power delivery system. If this voltage 

reaches sufficient levels, animals coming into contact with grounded devices may receive a mild 

electric shock that can cause a behavioral response. The term stray voltage is often applied incorrectly 

to other electrical phenomena such as electric fields, magnetic fields and electric current flowing in 

the earth or on grounding systems. Stray voltage is not caused by proximity to or problems on high 

voltage transmission lines. 

What causes stray voltage? 

Electrical current flowing between the neutral wire and ground is a normal part of electrical systems. 

Stray voltage problems are most often the result of the system not operating properly. This abnormal 

condition leading to stray voltage can be caused by: 

 Poor grounding conditions 

 Inadequate connections 

 Undersized neutral conductors 

 

Why isn’t stray voltage applicable to this project? 

Distribution systems and electrical service lines use the neutral wire as a path for current flow, and 

based on local service loading, may have unbalanced flows on these wires. This, along with the 

abnormal conditions listed above, can create stray voltage issues. 

In transmission systems, the neutral or shield wire normally does not have any current flowing 

through it. The neutral or shield wire is only there in the event of a fault condition, such as lightning 

striking the transmission line. Plus, transmission lines by nature of their design will always have 

balanced current flow conditions. Both of these conditions mean that stray voltage does not come 

from transmission lines. 

What is induced voltage? 

Induced voltage is an electrical condition through which very low levels of voltage could be seen in 

objects in the near vicinity of a high voltage transmission line. Near objects could be buildings, 

fences, or other equipment in very close proximity to the transmission line. Much like stray voltage, 

induced voltage normally is not a problem. Where it is, the problem can be taken care of with proper 

grounding of the affected objects. 
www.minnkota.com

800.473.5679

How will induced voltage be eliminated? 

As part of the design and engineering process, the transmission line will be designed to eliminate any 

induced voltages in objects in close proximity to the line. National Electric Safety Code (NESC) 

clearances will be met, and the transmission line engineered in such a way as to ensure that induced 

voltages are not present. For objects that may be in close proximity to the transmission line, such as 

fences, simple precautions such as ensuring the fence is properly grounded are more than adequate to 

eliminate any induced voltages. 

Resources 

 Midwest Rural Energy Council 

http://www.mrec.org/sv-info.html 

 National Electrical Safety Code 

http://standards.ieee.org/nesc/ 

 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 

http://psc.wi.gov/utilityinfo/electric/strayvoltage.htm 

 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 

http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/farm/research.aspx 

Appendix J: Public & NGO Scoping Comments

HDR Engineering, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 600 

Minneapolis, MN 55416-3636 

Phone (763) 591-5400 

Fax (763) 591-5413 

www.hdrinc.com 

Page 1 of 1 

Meeting Notes

Subject: Public Scoping Meeting 

Client: Minnkota Power Cooperative Project No: 110900 

Project: Center to Grand Forks Meeting Location: Various 

Meeting Date: November 16 - 19, 2009 Notes by: Brian Hunker, HDR 

MEETING LOCATIONS AND DATES 

Monday, November 16 – Grand Forks, ND 

Tuesday, November 17 – Cooperstown and Carrington, ND 

Wednesday, November 18 – McClusky and Wilton, ND 

Thursday, November 19 – Center, ND 

TOPICS DISCUSSED 

1. Line location 

2. Compensation - annual or one-time lease payments 

3. Value of lease payments 

4. Land appraisal before and after the project 

5. Tower height and area 

6. Center pivot irrigation 

7. Wind energy facilities 

8. Two-way radio interference on communications between combine, harvesters, and, 

grain trucks 

9. Interference with GPS systems used in farming operations 

10. County tax base 

11. Will the project cause Cap and Trade? 

12. Avoid subdivision north and west of Wilton – Wilton is spreading north and west. 

13. Follow highway 41 

14. Why avoid federal lands? 

15. Affects on a pacemaker 

16. Environmental process and schedule 

17. Cost of farming around poles 
Total Comments: 27 

Public and NGO Scoping Comments 

Agricultural Impacts 

We would prefer that you do not come across our land. We are located right north of the Bald Hill Creek and in the 

Spring the roads can flood over. Also, the lines should be placed at no closer than a mile from the farm structure. We

have a water drain and gate on our land that we have spent thousands of dollars on and wouldn't want anything to 

interfere with that. Also, you need to take into consideration how the lines not only effect people but also livestock 

and other animals. Have you considered putting the lines underground instead of on top of the land? 

Also under: Routing 

We are very concerned about the proposed Center to Grand Forks 345KV Transmissíon Line. Long-term health issues 

from farming under power lines are a concern to us and to our employees. Since the state of North Dakota will not allow

residences within 500 feet of these lines, there must be some issues of safety. We are also concerned about how this

powerline could impact farming operations in the proposed corridor. We now experience interference on our 800 mghz

business band radios under the existing Western Power Administration Line (which Minnkota acknowledges in their 

information packet) and which we use extensively on our farm for communication. Safety could be a factor in our 

operation in situations where an emergency could arise if we do not have reliable communication. We have also 

experienced interference with our GPS system when we are near these power lines. We rely on this signal to steer our

tractors in planting and tillage operations. We have no row markers on our planters, so the GPS signal is the only way

to plant straight and not have skips or overlaps. Also, as we plant, we map all fields for the amount of seed applied and 

what variety crop is planted in that particular field. Without GPS, we could not do that. Using GPS for all these uses has

been shown to save 5%-10% in costs of production. Costs are higher in farming fields with power lines, The overlap of

spraying and fertilizing because of these poles when we have to go around them increases our costs. It also has a 

negative effect on the environment because of over application around these poles. We would request that any 

proposed power line not be located on farmland that is in production, but located on pastureland, non-crop land or 

other right-of-ways that would not interfere with farming operations- It is imperative that all aspects of this line be 

considered especially for future agriculture implications as technology is always advancing for farming practices. 

Modern farm tractors and combines have computers, software, and electronics that may not be compatible with 

farming under these power lines. It is not fair that the farming community bear additional costs for the operation of this 

proposed power line. 

Also under: ROW 

Safety 
Earlier this week I contacted Senators Dorgan and Conrad to address serious concerns that I have with regard to the

proposed power line corridors that could pass through my lands in Sheridan County, North Dakota. I have 3,000 acres

in Harris Township and my brother and I have 480 acres in Lamont Township. The 3,000 contiguous acres in Harris 

Township consist of agricultural land and grasslands. As a native of North Dakota and Sheridan County in particular, I 

decided to establish my retirement home there to enjoy the peace and quiet of the remote countryside. Now I find 

Minnkota Power is seeking to disrupt my plans with the proposed installation of power lines in that area. As projected 

on the map, the proposed corridors run parallel along Highway 200 and it appears as though they could bisect both of

my properties north and south of the highway. My most important concern is of the towers and lines running through 

my property in Harris Township. That property consists of a contiguous area running 4-1/2 miles from east to west right

off the paved road 8-1/2 miles north of McClusky. In the last decade, I have made diligent efforts to preserve the 

grasslands, including 1,000 acres of original short grass prairie. Countless hours and significant personal funds have 

been expended on this property in the restoration of grasslands, planting trees and employing no-till farming methods. 

These conservation measures have also enhanced wildlife habitat. I am told by informed sources that my grasslands 

have among the highest density of potholes for breeding ducks in the United States. The disruption with the installation

of power lines could be hazardous to the nesting cycles of wild birds, including song birds, pheasants, sharp tail 

grouse, partridges and all of the duck species native to the Central Flyway in the Missouri Coteau region of North 

Dakota. As you may know, the Whooping Cranes, an endangered species, migrate right through this corridor as well. 

Additionally, I am concerned about the disruption of agricultural operations. Of the land in Harris Township, 1600 acres

are under cultivation. We use very large equipment from self propelled sprayers to giant air seeders for planting. We 

also employ outsized combines and semi-trailer trucks to conduct harvesting operations. It is difficult to maneuver this

large equipment around towers. Has there been any consideration given to the use of an existing power corridor for the

installation in this new proposal? Are there existing easements already in place in other areas to accommodate this 

new project? Will North Dakotans wake up someday and find a saturated grid work of power lines and windmills to 

disfigure its natural landscape and beauty, all in the name of progress? Are there other sources of power, namely 

nuclear power, which would be clean and less disruptive to our countryside? Lastly, I would respectfully ask you to 

consider a plan for moving the proposed corridor entirely out of Sheridan County. May I hear from you. 

Also under: Routing 

Environmental Impacts 

Endangered Species 

Cost 

Annual payments - nuisance factor. Line down Y4 lines. Payment higher than market value. GPS interference.

Written agreement it will not. Payment to land operator 

Enclosed please find a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Dennis Rankin, UDA Rural Utilities Service this week. The letter

lists several concerns Minnkota may be able to address in addition to information from the USDA. Thank you for your

attention to this matter. I look forward to your response. On November 16, Minnkota Power held an open house in 

Grand Forks, North Dakota. We attended and, as landowners within your corridor consideration, have compensation 

questions which were not addressed at this evet. Nuisance fees: In addition to direct compensation for the easement,

there are annual losses due to pole placement. A 2007 sutdy, using Montana farming operations, reported yearly costs

to farm around a large monopole at $107.98. This includes lost time and productivity, and "overlap" excesses. Farming

rotations in the Red River Valley include higher value crops than those grown in Montana. Severance: Grand Forks 

chooses to invoke a 2 mile extraterritorial zoning authority and in their 2035 Land Use Plan have designated quarters

of our land which fall in your corridors of consideration for residential, industrial and mixed use. The open house had no

information about severance pay for the reduction in development value due to overhead transmission lines. Direct 

damage: Large farm equipment, found in the Red River Valley, can be difficult to maneuver and the potential for 

machinery damage by contact with a monopole is constant. The presence of pole increases risk to machinery and 

operators. GPS-based agriculture: Damage from transmission line interference to GOS-based equipment is 

compensable under many state laws. However, the power companies have greater financial resources to negate 

farmer attempts at remuneration. Reduced Resale Value: The land value wihtin the corridors will be severely reduced,

due to the permanent, restrictive nature of pwerline easements. This land has been targeted for development in the 

2035 Land Use Plan by the city of Grand Forks. Please indicate, at your earliest convenience, how these concerns will

be resolved. Thank you for your consideration of this inquiry. 

Cultural Resources 

[1910 map of Addie Township] 
Endangered Species 

Earlier this week I contacted Senators Dorgan and Conrad to address serious concerns that I have with regard to the

proposed power line corridors that could pass through my lands in Sheridan County, North Dakota. I have 3,000 acres 

in Harris Township and my brother and I have 480 acres in Lamont Township. The 3,000 contiguous acres in Harris 

Township consist of agricultural land and grasslands. As a native of North Dakota and Sheridan County in particular, I 

decided to establish my retirement home there to enjoy the peace and quiet of the remote countryside. Now I find 

Minnkota Power is seeking to disrupt my plans with the proposed installation of power lines in that area. As projected

on the map, the proposed corridors run parallel along Highway 200 and it appears as though they could bisect both of

my properties north and south of the highway. My most important concern is of the towers and lines running through 

my property in Harris Township. That property consists of a contiguous area running 4-1/2 miles from east to west right

off the paved road 8-1/2 miles north of McClusky. In the last decade, I have made diligent efforts to preserve the 

grasslands, including 1,000 acres of original short grass prairie. Countless hours and significant personal funds have 

been expended on this property in the restoration of grasslands, planting trees and employing no-till farming methods. 

These conservation measures have also enhanced wildlife habitat. I am told by informed sources that my grasslands 

have among the highest density of potholes for breeding ducks in the United States. The disruption with the installation

of power lines could be hazardous to the nesting cycles of wild birds, including song birds, pheasants, sharp tail 

grouse, partridges and all of the duck species native to the Central Flyway in the Missouri Coteau region of North 

Dakota. As you may know, the Whooping Cranes, an endangered species, migrate right through this corridor as well.

Additionally, I am concerned about the disruption of agricultural operations. Of the land in Harris Township, 1600 acres

are under cultivation. We use very large equipment from self propelled sprayers to giant air seeders for planting. We 

also employ outsized combines and semi-trailer trucks to conduct harvesting operations. It is difficult to maneuver this

large equipment around towers. Has there been any consideration given to the use of an existing power corridor for the

installation in this new proposal? Are there existing easements already in place in other areas to accommodate this 

new project? Will North Dakotans wake up someday and find a saturated grid work of power lines and windmills to 

disfigure its natural landscape and beauty, all in the name of progress? Are there other sources of power, namely 

nuclear power, which would be clean and less disruptive to our countryside? Lastly, I would respectfully ask you to 

consider a plan for moving the proposed corridor entirely out of Sheridan County. May I hear from you. 

Also under: Routing 

Environmental Impacts 

Agricultural Impacts 

Environmental Impacts 

In regards to Minnkota's Center to Grand Forks Transmission line - My wife and I own 400 acres on Section 9-14281,

of which 70 acres is cropland with 46 acres of irrigated land. Most of this land is irrigated with gated pipe. The 

southeast area is irrigated using a Heinzman-Traveler Big Gun that puts out 800 gallons per minute. Basin Electric 

has a line across the southern part of section 9. A Minnkota line would put most of our irrigated fields between the two

lines. Static electricity would make working our fields a hazardous job. The rest of the land is mostly cottonwood forest,

which includes some of the oldest cottonwood trees in North Dakota. It also includes a mile of Missouri River frontage.

The forest and the river frontage have a unique value that is irreplaceable. If you put a power line through this land it 

will decrease our livelihood and our security in our declining years, as well as the cottonwood trees that we cherish. At

76, I'm too old to start over. 

Also under: Routing 

Safety 
Earlier this week I contacted Senators Dorgan and Conrad to address serious concerns that I have with regard to the

proposed power line corridors that could pass through my lands in Sheridan County, North Dakota. I have 3,000 acres

in Harris Township and my brother and I have 480 acres in Lamont Township. The 3,000 contiguous acres in Harris 

Township consist of agricultural land and grasslands. As a native of North Dakota and Sheridan County in particular, I 

decided to establish my retirement home there to enjoy the peace and quiet of the remote countryside. Now I find 

Minnkota Power is seeking to disrupt my plans with the proposed installation of power lines in that area. As projected 

on the map, the proposed corridors run parallel along Highway 200 and it appears as though they could bisect both of

my properties north and south of the highway. My most important concern is of the towers and lines running through 

my property in Harris Township. That property consists of a contiguous area running 4-1/2 miles from east to west right

off the paved road 8-1/2 miles north of McClusky. In the last decade, I have made diligent efforts to preserve the 

grasslands, including 1,000 acres of original short grass prairie. Countless hours and significant personal funds have 

been expended on this property in the restoration of grasslands, planting trees and employing no-till farming methods. 

These conservation measures have also enhanced wildlife habitat. I am told by informed sources that my grasslands 

have among the highest density of potholes for breeding ducks in the United States. The disruption with the installation

of power lines could be hazardous to the nesting cycles of wild birds, including song birds, pheasants, sharp tail 

grouse, partridges and all of the duck species native to the Central Flyway in the Missouri Coteau region of North 

Dakota. As you may know, the Whooping Cranes, an endangered species, migrate right through this corridor as well. 

Additionally, I am concerned about the disruption of agricultural operations. Of the land in Harris Township, 1600 acres

are under cultivation. We use very large equipment from self propelled sprayers to giant air seeders for planting. We 

also employ outsized combines and semi-trailer trucks to conduct harvesting operations. It is difficult to maneuver this

large equipment around towers. Has there been any consideration given to the use of an existing power corridor for the

installation in this new proposal? Are there existing easements already in place in other areas to accommodate this 

new project? Will North Dakotans wake up someday and find a saturated grid work of power lines and windmills to 

disfigure its natural landscape and beauty, all in the name of progress? Are there other sources of power, namely 

nuclear power, which would be clean and less disruptive to our countryside? Lastly, I would respectfully ask you to 

consider a plan for moving the proposed corridor entirely out of Sheridan County. May I hear from you. 

Also under: Routing 

Agricultural Impacts 

Endangered Species 

From Jim Quirk ROW Agent: Helen is a senior who owns land adjacent to & in vicinity of Crystal Lake. Her family has

owned land in this twp for generations; her sister Neva Bodin of Casper, WY owns parcels adjacent to hers. The family

homestead is in Section 27. Helen's holdings in 27 are cropland, in 35 part cropland & part pastureland. Helen wonders

about CGF's impact from & to the hydrology of the area. A lake exists near the center of Sect. 15, accessible from a 

road along section's eastern boundar. Underground springs exist w/in 1.5's NE 1/4; sweet clover has thrived on the 

moisture up in Sect. 10 as well as many tall trees. Helen also reports that a tributary of the James 

R. passes along her southerly parcels: through SE1/4 of Sect. 27 & NE part of Sect. 35. Helen has witnessed frost 

heave in winter affecting the soils in the area. She asked if we have or are considering these factors in planning for 

CGF implementation. Helen asked me to verify if any of her holdings might be within the southern corridor. She also 

asked that I obtain a hard copy of HDR's Macro Corridor Study (10/09) and send this to her for her reference. 

General Public Involvement 

Name correction. "Albers" not "Weber" 

Mailing List Request 

Add to Mailing list. Save Shelterbelts.

Also under: Routing 

Add to mailing list 

Management Areas 

T 147. R 69. Section #33. Please research the wildlife status of entire section rather than just SW 1/2 and SE 40

being designated as Robert Morgan Wildlife MA. 
At a public meeting at Carrington, North Dakota, on May 12, 2009 after reviewing a map which our township was part

of, we noticed and brought to attention of representatives there the fact that their map was incorrect in documenting a

wildlife area located as follows: Wells County Township 147 N Range 69W (Cathay) section #33. This entire section is 

a designated wildlife area and the map they had included only a few acres of the 640 involved. Another meeting on 

November 17, 2009 still showed that the map was incorrect. No change had been made. Attached is written 

verification that the entire 640 of Section 33 is , indeed, all a wildlife area owned by ND State Game and Fish. Please

make sure this information gets where it needs to go so that these maps convey valid information 

Routing 

Add to Mailing list. Save Shelterbelts. 

Also under: Mailing List Request 

We would prefer that you do not come across our land. We are located right north of the Bald Hill Creek and in the 

Spring the roads can flood over. Also, the lines should be placed at no closer than a mile from the farm structure. We

have a water drain and gate on our land that we have spent thousands of dollars on and wouldn't want anything to 

interfere with that. Also, you need to take into consideration how the lines not only effect people but also livestock 

and other animals. Have you considered putting the lines underground instead of on top of the land? 

Also under: Agricultural Impacts 

We do not feel the line should go through our land because of the wetlands and inaccessability to the line and the

closeness of the line to occupied residences. 

Obviously, the placement of towers in fields is a concern for farmers - on the edge is better of course. If towers must be 

in agg fields, the size of modern farming equipment must be considered. The distance between towers and roads, 

trails or other objects must be enough for machinery passage. 

Also under: ROW 

Follow section lines. Try not to cross diagonally. Go through pastures is necessary before cropland if you go through

land. 

We own land in 143-81. There was irrigation in the S 1/2 17 143-81 - S 1/2 21 143-81. I sold the pivots because the 

river levels being low and a sandbar interfered that past few years. There is a pretty good chance we may buy new 

equipment if the river comes around. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed siting of the "Center to Grand Forks" transmission line. As

I'm sure you are aware, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has properties and priority conservation areas wither within or

near the proposed corridors. We very much appreciate Minnkota's consideration of unique ecological areas, public 

wildlife areas, scenic viewsheds and privately-owned natural areas, like those owned and managed by TNC. Since 

large, unfragmented natural areas are important to our mission of supporting biodiversity, as the transmission corridor

is refined we would ask that the power lines avoid TNC properties and public natural lands to the furthest extent 

possible. We would also ask that the scenic values of the Missouri River are considered when picking a river crossing

site by avoiding areas near The Nature Conservancy's Cross Ranch, Cross Ranch State Park, Smith Grove Wildlife 

Management Area and other protected areas. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and 

welcome any questions you may have. Please do keep me apprised of future developments on this project. Thank you

very much for your consideration. 

In regards to Minnkota's Center to Grand Forks Transmission line - My wife and I own 400 acres on Section 9-14281,

of which 70 acres is cropland with 46 acres of irrigated land. Most of this land is irrigated with gated pipe. The 

southeast area is irrigated using a Heinzman-Traveler Big Gun that puts out 800 gallons per minute. Basin Electric 

has a line across the southern part of section 9. A Minnkota line would put most of our irrigated fields between the two

lines. Static electricity would make working our fields a hazardous job. The rest of the land is mostly cottonwood forest,

which includes some of the oldest cottonwood trees in North Dakota. It also includes a mile of Missouri River frontage.

The forest and the river frontage have a unique value that is irreplaceable. If you put a power line through this land it 

will decrease our livelihood and our security in our declining years, as well as the cottonwood trees that we cherish. At

76, I'm too old to start over. 
Also under: Safety Environmental 

Impacts 

Dear Mr. Hennes: I am writing to express my concern about your consideration of crossing the Sheyenne River witha

345kV structure on our property: SW Â1⁄4, Section 34, Township 146, Range 58; S1/2 NW1/4, Section 35, Township 

146, Range 58; and SW Â1⁄4 NE1/4, Section 35, Township 146, Range 58. I was not able to attend the public meeting

held in Cooperstown, ND and Carrington, ND on November 17, 2009 due to having surgery on that day. I am 

submitting my request for excluding our farm as a potential Sheyenne River crossing site in written form. Our farm is a

small, working farm of approximately 340 acres with land on both sides of the Sheyenne River and has been in our 

family for four generations. Recently, our family converted ownership of the farm to the E. Myron Erickson Family 

Trust to assure the farm would continue to be a working farm by renting to four local tenants and also provide a place

of enjoyment, hunting opportunities and residence to family members. We paid to have rural water brought to the farm

several years ago with the opportunity to build our retirement home on the farm within the next few years. There are 

three reasons for my request to remove our farm from consideration in placement of 345kV structures on our land. - 

The beautiful view and serenity of the setting will be disturbed with a large power line passing through our small farm.

- Our fields and pastures are small and the need to work around line structures will make the parcels of land less 

desirable to rent by the local farmers. - The proximity of the line to our intended home building project, and the location

of the rural water placement, is an electromagnetic field concern for us. I understand this line needs to follow the ND 

Highway 200 corridor; however, I believe you can find a more desirable site for crossing the Sheyenne River than the

Erickson farm. Thank you for your consideration. 

June Weeks stopped at our home in rural Grand Forks county in July 2009. She informed us of the power line project.

7/25/09 -After meeting with June Weeks, I called Kadsmas, Lee and Jackson with a couple questions. Somebody 

called me back late in the day. 11/16/09 - I went to the Public Meeting in Grand Forks, ND. I had three items that were 

of interest to me and discussed them with Kadsmas, Lee and Jackson. I still have the same three concerns: 1) 

reduction in land values - nobody wants a power line on their property 2) Minnkota Power is not easy to work with 3) 

MOST IMPORTANT. Although th epower line can be no closer than 500 feet to a house, and according to June Weeks,

Minnkota Power tries to be at least 1500 feet away, put the lines in the middle of the sections to impact the least 

number of homes in Grand Forks County. 

As a Wilton resident I am very concerned with your Center to Grand Forks transmission project. We have nine families

living within two miles of Wilton's west side and more to be built in 2010. There are two developments in this area with 

the potential of 20 new family dwelling that would substantially help the City of Wilton and a struggling school system.

No one at the public meeting could or would explain why the project corridor was so close to Wilton. The transmission

line if built should be no closer than three miles of Wilton's city limits, This project should not be completed at the 

sacrifice of a small town's growth. 

We are steadfast against any new power lines on any of our properties. We have paid the local coops to bury all their

transmission lines. One of the main reasons is safety. We have had employees have accidents with obstacles in the

fields. We will do whatever is necessary to avoid towers on our land. 

Also under: Safety 
Earlier this week I contacted Senators Dorgan and Conrad to address serious concerns that I have with regard to the

proposed power line corridors that could pass through my lands in Sheridan County, North Dakota. I have 3,000 acres

in Harris Township and my brother and I have 480 acres in Lamont Township. The 3,000 contiguous acres in Harris 

Township consist of agricultural land and grasslands. As a native of North Dakota and Sheridan County in particular, I

decided to establish my retirement home there to enjoy the peace and quiet of the remote countryside. Now I find 

Minnkota Power is seeking to disrupt my plans with the proposed installation of power lines in that area. As projected

on the map, the proposed corridors run parallel along Highway 200 and it appears as though they could bisect both of

my properties north and south of the highway. My most important concern is of the towers and lines running through 

my property in Harris Township. That property consists of a contiguous area running 4-1/2 miles from east to west right

off the paved road 8-1/2 miles north of McClusky. In the last decade, I have made diligent efforts to preserve the 

grasslands, including 1,000 acres of original short grass prairie. Countless hours and significant personal funds have 

been expended on this property in the restoration of grasslands, planting trees and employing no-till farming methods. 

These conservation measures have also enhanced wildlife habitat. I am told by informed sources that my grasslands 

have among the highest density of potholes for breeding ducks in the United States. The disruption with the installation

of power lines could be hazardous to the nesting cycles of wild birds, including song birds, pheasants, sharp tail 

grouse, partridges and all of the duck species native to the Central Flyway in the Missouri Coteau region of North 

Dakota. As you may know, the Whooping Cranes, an endangered species, migrate right through this corridor as well.

Additionally, I am concerned about the disruption of agricultural operations. Of the land in Harris Township, 1600 acres 

are under cultivation. We use very large equipment from self propelled sprayers to giant air seeders for planting. We 

also employ outsized combines and semi-trailer trucks to conduct harvesting operations. It is difficult to maneuver this

large equipment around towers. Has there been any consideration given to the use of an existing power corridor for the

installation in this new proposal? Are there existing easements already in place in other areas to accommodate this 

new project? Will North Dakotans wake up someday and find a saturated grid work of power lines and windmills to 

disfigure its natural landscape and beauty, all in the name of progress? Are there other sources of power, namely 

nuclear power, which would be clean and less disruptive to our countryside? Lastly, I would respectfully ask you to 

consider a plan for moving the proposed corridor entirely out of Sheridan County. May I hear from you. 

Also under: Environmental Impacts 

Agricultural Impacts 

Endangered Species 

I am a private land owner in central Sheridan County. Our family farm is being approached by Minnkota Power for a 

power line, also by Otter Tail Services Power Association for a wind farm and a power line for its wind farms. Where we

live there is also large tracts of land under control of a government entity like US Fish & Wildlife or garrison division like

McClusky Canal. Land paid for by all American citizens and land owned by all of us. But whenever you see a map of a

proposed project all public owned land is off limits. Which is a bunch of B.S. All we hear is this is needed for the 

development of the betterment of our country and its future. Well, I think land owned by us all should be the first places

to start and finish. But no one has the guts to stand up. 

ROW 

Just thought that through common courtesy that someone would visit our place when doing some testing on our 

property. All we have had is someone visiting earlier letting us know that surveying is going to be done and just visited

with a few guys on our property drilling for soil testing. No one let us know and it sure would have been nice to be told!

Like I said all we ask is for "common courtesy" on your part. Thank you! 

Obviously, the placement of towers in fields is a concern for farmers - on the edge is better of course. If towers must be 

in agg fields, the size of modern farming equipment must be considered. The distance between towers and roads, 

trails or other objects must be enough for machinery passage. 

Also under: Routing 

Three years ago we spent several thousand dollars to have the power poles removed and lines buried on our property.

This property is in one of the proposed corridors. We do not want to see any more poles put on our property. The one

time payment paid to preperty owners for this inconvenience is a joke and very unfair! If it must go on our property, an

annual payment would be the only option, the end user of this electricity can pay a little more so the preperty owner 

doesn't bare the burden with little or no compensation. 
We are very concerned about the proposed Center to Grand Forks 345KV Transmissíon Line. Long-term health issues 

from farming under power lines are a concern to us and to our employees. Since the state of North Dakota will not allow

residences within 500 feet of these lines, there must be some issues of safety. We are also concerned about how this

powerline could impact farming operations in the proposed corridor. We now experience interference on our 800 mghz

business band radios under the existing Western Power Administration Line (which Minnkota acknowledges in their 

information packet) and which we use extensively on our farm for communication. Safety could be a factor in our 

operation in situations where an emergency could arise if we do not have reliable communication. We have also 

experienced interference with our GPS system when we are near these power lines. We rely on this signal to steer our

tractors in planting and tillage operations. We have no row markers on our planters, so the GPS signal is the only way 

to plant straight and not have skips or overlaps. Also, as we plant, we map all fields for the amount of seed applied and

what variety crop is planted in that particular field. Without GPS, we could not do that. Using GPS for all these uses has

been shown to save 5%-10% in costs of production. Costs are higher in farming fields with power lines, The overlap of

spraying and fertilizing because of these poles when we have to go around them increases our costs. It also has a 

negative effect on the environment because of over application around these poles. We would request that any 

proposed power line not be located on farmland that is in production, but located on pastureland, non-crop land or 

other right-of-ways that would not interfere with farming operations- It is imperative that all aspects of this line be 

considered especially for future agriculture implications as technology is always advancing for farming practices. 

Modern farm tractors and combines have computers, software, and electronics that may not be compatible with 

farming under these power lines. It is not fair that the farming community bear additional costs for the operation of this

proposed power line. 

Also under: Safety 

Agricultural Impacts 

I own approx 49.2 acres directly south of 32nd Ave in Grand Forks (E 1/2 of W 100 Acres Ex .80 RD of NE 1/4 24-

151-51 in Brenna Township). I did attend your open meeting in Grand Forks and had a nice visit with a Mr. Phillips. 

While I realize there is no established route to the Prairie Substation at this time, it appears that my land could easily be

affected. I put this land up for sale last year and have declines several offers in regards to selling the land in parcels. 

Although the offers far exceeded my asking price per/square foot, I declined them for the following reasons: This land

served as a "safety net" for my husband, in particular, in the event that he may need additional care. He has since 

passed away and I am now approaching my retirement years. This is the only 49 acres I have (unlike my surrounding

property owners). I'm 60 years old and have no desire in developing the land myself. The land is presently being 

farmed and asking anyone to "spot" farm the land is very unfair. At my age, it would be devastating to see you take just

a portion of my land, more-than-likely reducing the value of the remainder, thereby ending any type of security for my 

retirement. Ideally, it would be wonderful if YOU purchased all my acres, put the line wherever you want, and make 

money on the rest! I don't envy the task ahead of you and wish you success in this endeavor. Thank you for putting my

concerns into consideration. [map attached] 

Safety 

In regards to Minnkota's Center to Grand Forks Transmission line - My wife and I own 400 acres on Section 9-14281,

of which 70 acres is cropland with 46 acres of irrigated land. Most of this land is irrigated with gated pipe. The 

southeast area is irrigated using a Heinzman-Traveler Big Gun that puts out 800 gallons per minute. Basin Electric 

has a line across the southern part of section 9. A Minnkota line would put most of our irrigated fields between the two

lines. Static electricity would make working our fields a hazardous job. The rest of the land is mostly cottonwood forest,

which includes some of the oldest cottonwood trees in North Dakota. It also includes a mile of Missouri River frontage.

The forest and the river frontage have a unique value that is irreplaceable. If you put a power line through this land it 

will decrease our livelihood and our security in our declining years, as well as the cottonwood trees that we cherish. At

76, I'm too old to start over. 

Also under: Routing 

Environmental Impacts 
We are very concerned about the proposed Center to Grand Forks 345KV Transmissíon Line. Long-term health issues 

from farming under power lines are a concern to us and to our employees. Since the state of North Dakota will not allow

residences within 500 feet of these lines, there must be some issues of safety. We are also concerned about how this

powerline could impact farming operations in the proposed corridor. We now experience interference on our 800 mghz

business band radios under the existing Western Power Administration Line (which Minnkota acknowledges in their 

information packet) and which we use extensively on our farm for communication. Safety could be a factor in our 

operation in situations where an emergency could arise if we do not have reliable communication. We have also 

experienced interference with our GPS system when we are near these power lines. We rely on this signal to steer our

tractors in planting and tillage operations. We have no row markers on our planters, so the GPS signal is the only way

to plant straight and not have skips or overlaps. Also, as we plant, we map all fields for the amount of seed applied and 

what variety crop is planted in that particular field. Without GPS, we could not do that. Using GPS for all these uses has

been shown to save 5%-10% in costs of production. Costs are higher in farming fields with power lines, The overlap of

spraying and fertilizing because of these poles when we have to go around them increases our costs. It also has a 

negative effect on the environment because of over application around these poles. We would request that any 

proposed power line not be located on farmland that is in production, but located on pastureland, non-crop land or 

other right-of-ways that would not interfere with farming operations- It is imperative that all aspects of this line be 

considered especially for future agriculture implications as technology is always advancing for farming practices. 

Modern farm tractors and combines have computers, software, and electronics that may not be compatible with 

farming under these power lines. It is not fair that the farming community bear additional costs for the operation of this 

proposed power line. 

Also under: ROW 

Agricultural Impacts 

We are steadfast against any new power lines on any of our properties. We have paid the local coops to bury all their

transmission lines. One of the main reasons is safety. We have had employees have accidents with obstacles in the

fields. We will do whatever is necessary to avoid towers on our land. 

Also under: Routing