Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 

345 kV Transmission System 

Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 

February 2010 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Rural Development 

Washington, DC 

Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report i 

Contents 

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

2.0 Agency Scoping Meetings .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Notification ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Agency Attendance .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.4 Section 106 Consultation .................................................................................................. 2-2

2.5 Agency Comments ........................................................................................................... 2-2

3.0 Public Scoping Meetings ............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Notifications ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Public Scoping Meeting Materials ..................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Public Comments ............................................................................................................. 3-2

3.4.1 Form Letters ........................................................................................................ 3-3

3.4.2 Agriculture ........................................................................................................... 3-3

3.4.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 3-3

3.4.4 Connected Action ................................................................................................ 3-4

3.4.5 Conservation Easements .................................................................................... 3-4

3.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-4

3.4.7 Electrical Characteristics ..................................................................................... 3-4

3.4.8 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 3-5

3.4.9 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 3-5

3.4.10 Health and Safety ................................................................................................ 3-5

3.4.11 Historic and Cultural ............................................................................................ 3-5

3.4.12 Interconnection to Generation ............................................................................. 3-6

3.4.13 Land Rights and Easement Acquisition ............................................................... 3-6

3.4.14 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 3-6

3.4.15 Noise ................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.4.16 Process ............................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.17 Project Alternatives .............................................................................................. 3-7

3.4.18 Public Facilities or Uses ...................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.19 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.20 Recreation ........................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4.21 Residential ........................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4.22 River Crossings ................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4.23 Route Alternatives ............................................................................................... 3-8
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

ii Scoping Report 

3.4.24 Social and Economic ......................................................................................... 3-12

3.4.25 Transportation and Access ................................................................................ 3-13

3.4.26 Visual ................................................................................................................. 3-13

4.0 Project Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 1

Appendices 

Appendix A: Notice of Intent 

Appendix B: Public Meeting Newspaper Notices

 Legal Ads 

 Display Ads 

 Affidavit of Publication 

Appendix C: Newsletter/Public Mailer 

Appendix D: Agency Letters/Meeting Invitation 

 D-1 Federal and State Agency Letter and List of Recipients 

 D-2 Local Governments Letter and List of Recipients 

 D-3 Tribal Leader Letter and List of Recipients 

Appendix E: Agency Sign-In 

Appendix F: Public Scoping Meeting Sign-In 

Appendix G: Public Scoping Meeting Materials 

Appendix H: Public Scoping Comment Form 

Appendix I: Individual, Business, and Non-Government Organization Comment Index and Comments 

and Responses 

 Index of Public Comments by Category 

 Public Comments and Responses 

Appendix J: Tribal and Agency Comment Index and Comments and Responses 

Index of Agency and Tribal Comments by Category 

 Agency and Tribal Comments and Responses

Tables 

Table 1.1-1: Newspapers and Dates of Public Notices ........................................................................ 1-2

Table 3.0-1: Public Scoping Meetings – June 2009 ............................................................................. 3-1
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report iii 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AES Alternative Evaluation Study 

CapX2020 CapX2020 Transmission Expansion Initiative 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

D.P.C. Dairyland Power Cooperative 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EMF electric and magnetic fields 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

GIS geographic information system 

MCBS Minnesota County Biological Survey 

MCS Macro Corridor Study 

kV kilovolt 

MN DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

Mn/DOT Minnesota Department of Transportation 

MN PUC Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act 

NHIS National Heritage Information System 

NEPA 

NHPA 

National Environmental Policy Act 

National Historic Preservation Act 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPS National Park Service 

NSPM Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation 

NSPW Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin Corporation 

PSCW Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 

ROW Right-of-Way 

RPU Rochester Public Utilities 

RUS Rural Utilities Service 

SMMPA Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WPPI Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. 
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

iv Scoping Report 
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 1-1 

1.0 Introduction 

Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) intends to seek funding from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development Utilities Programs, for its anticipated ownership 

interest in the Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse Transmission System Improvement Project. The project is 

one of four transmission line projects proposed by CapX2020 utilities. CapX2020 is a regional joint 

initiative of 11 transmission owning utilities whose goal is to study, develop, permit and construct 

transmission improvements in Minnesota and the surrounding region needed to meet energy demands to 

the year 2020. The CapX2020 utilities involved with this project include: 

• Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) 

• Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSPM), and Northern States Power 

Company, a Wisconsin corporation (NSPW) (collectively, Xcel Energy) 

• Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) 

• Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) 

• WPPI Energy, Inc. (WPPI) 

The proposed project consists of constructing a 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line and associated 

infrastructure between Hampton, Minnesota, and the La Crosse area in Wisconsin. The project also 

includes construction of new 161 kV transmission lines and associated facilities in the area of Rochester, 

Minnesota and La Crosse, Wisconsin. The total length of 345 kV and 161 kV transmission lines 

associated with the proposed project would be approximately 150 miles. 

RUS funding of the proposed project would constitute a federal action subject to National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) analysis (42 United States Code [U.S.C]. § 4321, specifically 7 C.F.R. § 1794.3) and 

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). RUS determined that an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) was necessary to assess the potential for significant impacts prior to making a 

decision regarding whether to fund DPC’s ownership interest in the Project. The EIS process is 

conducted with the intent to adequately integrate the Section 106 and (NEPA) process. This is shown on 

the Federal Review Process diagram in section 4.0. This scoping report summarizes comments provided 

by the public during the scoping period and is indicative of what will be evaluated in the EIS required 

pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 1794. 

The Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) and the Macro Corridor Study (MCS) are two preliminary 

documents required by RUS when conducting an environmental analysis for proposed transmission line 

project. These documents provide agencies and the public with a general understanding of the proposed 

project. The AES explains the need for the proposed project and discusses the alternative methods that 

have been considered to meet that need and which alternative is considered the best for fulfilling the 

need. The MCS defines the study area and defines the project end points. Within the study area, macrocorridors are developed based on environmental, engineering, economic, and land use data as well as 

consideration of permitting constraints. These documents are available on the RUS website 

(http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/eis.htm) or by request to RUS. 
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

1-2 Scoping Report 

A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2009, informing the public of 

RUS’s intent to prepare an EIS and the dates for public scoping meetings during June 2009. A copy of 

the NOI is provided in Appendix A. Notices printed in local newspapers in the weeks preceding public 

scoping meetings, including a large display ad which identified meeting times and locations, and a legal 

notice similar to the NOI was also published as required by RUS guidance. A list of the names of the 

publications and dates of these advertisements is included in Table 1.1-1. Copies of the newspaper ads 

are included in Appendix B. 

Table 1.1-1: 

Newspapers and Dates of Public Notices 

Newspaper State Publication Dates 

Stewartville Star Minnesota June 2, 2009 

La Crosse Tribune Minnesota June 3, 2009 

Winona Daily News Minnesota June 3, 2009 

Winona Post Minnesota June 3, 2009 

Zumbrota News-Record Minnesota June 3, 2009 

Kenyon Leader Minnesota June 3, 2009 

Rochester Post-Bulletin Minnesota June 3, 2009 

Wabasha County Herald Minnesota June 3, 2009 

Cannon Falls Beacon Minnesota June 4, 2009 

Houston County News—La Crescent Minnesota June 4, 2009 

Lewiston Journal Minnesota June 4, 2009 

Plainview News Minnesota June 4, 2009 

St. Charles Press Minnesota June 4, 2009 

Buffalo County Journal Wisconsin June 4, 2009 

Arcadia News-Leader Wisconsin June 4, 2009 

Cochrane-Fountain City Recorder Wisconsin June 4, 2009 

Galesville Republican Wisconsin June 4, 2009 

Onalaska Community Life and Holmen Courier Wisconsin June 5, 2009 

Farmington/Lakeville This Week Minnesota June 5, 2009 

A public mailer was distributed to landowners and other individuals who requested to be on the project 

mailing list. . The mailing list was developed initially using county landowner data for the original study 

area. Contact information was added throughout the project when data was provided by stakeholders at 

public meetings. A copy of this mailer is included in Appendix C. 
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 2-1 

2.0 Agency Scoping Meetings 

RUS conducted two agency scoping meetings with federal, state and local agencies and tribal 

representatives that included a presentation and an interactive question-and-answer session. The agency 

meetings were held on June 17, 2009, at the Wanamingo Community Center, located at 401 Main Street, 

Wanamingo, Minnesota, and on June 24, 2009, at the Radisson Hotel in La Crosse, Wisconsin, located at 

200 Harborview Plaza, La Crosse, Wisconsin. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. 

Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) have requested to be cooperating agencies during the EIS process. 

RUS will act as the lead federal agency and prepare an EIS jointly with the USFWS and USACE. Each 

Federal agency will independently develop its own decision document. 

2.1 Purpose 

The purpose of the agency scoping meeting was to introduce the RUS NEPA process and provide a 

status of the proposed project to attending federal, state, and local agency representatives as well as 

tribal representatives. Project and RUS staff provided information on the project, required permitting 

processes, data collection, routing methodology and potential impacts that could result from the project. 

All information provided to the public was also available at the agency scoping meetings. 

2.2 Notification 

RUS notified the federal, state, and local agency representatives by sending letters to an RUS approved 

list of individual representatives. A preliminary list was created by DPC after which RUS recommended 

additions; DPC added the suggested contacts that were included in the final notice letter mail out. Federal 

and state agencies received a letter detailing RUS’s role in the project, the availability of the AES and 

MCS, the dates and locations of the public and agency scoping meetings, contact information for the RUS 

representative assigned to the project, and methods for submitting comments. Local agency and 

government representatives were sent similar letters that included a request for information regarding the 

presence of low income and minority populations. A copy of a sample of the federal and state agency 

letter, the local government letter, the Tribal letter, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer letters and 

list of recipients for each are included in Appendix D. 

2.3 Agency Attendance 

Representatives of the following agencies attended the agency scoping meeting in Wanamingo, 

Minnesota: US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MNPUC), 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Mn DNR), Minnesota Department of Transportation 

(Mn/DOT)-District 6, Minnesota Office of Energy Security, Minnesota Department of Commerce, 

Minnesota legislators, and representatives from Goodhue County, the City of Wanamingo, the City of 

Cannon Falls, and Cherry Grove Township. 

Representatives of the following agencies attended the agency scoping meeting in La Crosse, Wisconsin: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Public Service 

Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW), La Crosse County, La Crosse County Zoning and Planning 

Department, the City of La Crosse, the City of Onalaska, and the City of Onalaska Planning Department. 
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

2-2 Scoping Report 

Sign-in sheets from the agency scoping meetings are included as Appendix E. 

2.4 Section 106 Consultation 

Tribal leaders and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) received letters with similar 

information provided to the agencies as well as information on the Section 106 consultation process. 

A representative of the Shakopee Dakota Tribe attended the agency scoping meeting in Wanamingo, 

Minnesota, and is included on the agency sign-in sheet in Appendix E. The following tribes submitted 

comments during the scoping period: Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Leech 

Lake Band of Ojibwe, Ketegitigaaning Ojibwe Nation, Ho-Chuck Nation, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, 

Stockbridge Munsee, and Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians. The comment forms or letters and 

the RUS responses are included in Appendix J. Section 106 consultation is ongoing throughout the EIS 

process. 

2.5 Agency Comments 

The following federal and state agencies provided written comments: the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), National Park Service (NPS), MNPUC, Mn/DOT, PSCW, Mn DNR, and Wisconsin Mississippi 

River Parkway Commission, and WDNR. Senator Sharon Erikson Ropes of the Minnesota State Senate 

provided comments. The following local governments provided written comments: Goodhue County, La 

Crosse County, Farmington Township, New Market Township, Highland Township, Warren Township, the 

City of Hampton, Holden Township, and Bridgewater Township. An index and record of all agency and 

tribal items with delineated comments and corresponding RUS responses is included in Appendix J. 

Appendices I and J include an index of all comments by category. The indexes show each comment that 

was considered under each of the categories described in section 3.4. 
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 3-1 

3.0 Public Scoping Meetings 

RUS conducted six public scoping meetings listed in Table 3.0-1 using an open-house format between 

6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. CDT (local time) beginning June 17, 2009, through June 26, 2009, at the 

following locations: 

Table 3.0-1: 

Public Scoping Meetings – June 2009 

Date Location Number of Attendees 

June 16 Plainview–Elgin–Millville High School 

500 West Broadway 

Plainview, Minnesota 

162 

June 17 Wanamingo Community Center 

401 Main Street 

Wanamingo, Minnesota 

77 

June 18 City of St. Charles Community Meeting Room 

830 Whitewater Avenue 

St. Charles, Minnesota 

59 

June 23 La Crescent American Legion 

509 N. Chestnut 

La Crescent, Minnesota 

49 

June 24 Centerville/Town of Trempealeau Community Center 

West 24854 State Road 54/93 

Galesville, Wisconsin 

82 

June 25 Cochrane-Fountain City High School 

South 2770 State Road 35 

Fountain City, Wisconsin 

31 

3.1 Purpose 

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

regarding the purpose and need for the project, provide a project description, identify possible sites 

and/or corridor routes, discuss the scope of environmental issues to be analyzed, answer questions the 

public may have regarding the project and the environmental analysis process, and solicit public 

comments. 

3.2 Notifications 

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

those required by RUS as well as the direct mail newsletters and the project website used by DPC to 

provide additional outreach to the public and stakeholders in the project area. The NOI, published in the 

Federal Register on May 28, 2009, served to notify the public of RUS’s intent to prepare an EIS and hold 
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

3-2 Scoping Report 

public scoping meetings. A legal notice and newspaper ads were printed June 2, 2009, through June 5, 

2009. Mailers were sent to landowners in the project area to inform them of the public scoping meetings. 

These materials are included in Appendix A, B, and C. 

3.3 Public Scoping Meeting Materials 

The public scoping meetings were held on weeknights after regular business hours to allow people with a 

range of daily commitments to attend. An open house format was used to facilitate discussion and 

information sharing and to ensure that the public had opportunities to speak with a project staff. Fourteen 

stations were staffed by either representatives of RUS, DPC, Xcel Energy, WPPI, RPU, SMMPA, or 

consultants of DPC/Xcel Energy. Informational stations at the meetings included the following: 

• Sign-in and Welcome 

• RUS Station and NEPA process 

• State permitting processes 

• Project Background, including display boards on project description, purpose and need, the CapX 

2020 Initiative, and conservation and renewable energy 

• Transmission structures and land rights and right-of-way acquisition 

• Large project map 

• Routing process display board and video 

• Mississippi River existing transmission line crossing photos 

• Environmental resources 

• GIS (Geographic Information System) mapping and print-out station 

• Transmission line construction video 

• Public comment tables, including large sheet maps with detailed routes for mark-up and comment 

forms 

Sign-in sheets and comment forms were made available to all scoping meeting attendees. Copies of the 

public scoping meeting sign-in sheets are included in Appendix F, and all public scoping meeting 

materials are included in Appendix G. A copy of the public comment form is included in Appendix H. 

3.4 Public Comments 

A total of 1135 comments from 359 commenters were received during the scoping comment period 

beginning on May 28, 2009, ending on July 25, 2009. Public comments were submitted using comment 

forms, letters, emails, online comment form submission, and phone-calls. Some of the comments made at 

the public scoping meetings were recorded on project route maps, and documented later by digitizing with 

GIS and including in the public comment database. The public comments and RUS responses are 

included in Appendix I. Some of the comments submitted were, in whole or part, identical form letters. 

A summary of the public comments received and organized by category is provided below. Each of these 

were referred to as an item and entered into the comment management database. The items were 

indexed based on the source of the comments including; Federal agency (F), state agency (S), local 

agency (L), Tribe (T), non-government organization (N), business (B), or individual (I). The item was 

cataloged with a number based on the order it was received by RUS (e.g., I-076) and each comment 
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 3-3 

associated with an item was given a unique number (e.g., I-076-001). An index and record of all items 

with delineated comments and corresponding RUS responses is included in Appendices I (individual, 

business, and non-government organizations) and J (agencies and tribes). The appendices also contain 

an index that shows each comment that was considered under each of the categories described below. 

3.4.1 Form Letters 

There were two distinct form letters submitted, one regarding the Sky Harbor Airpark, located in the 

Brookings County to Hampton 345 kV project area, and one regarding environmental impacts of ultra or 

high voltage transmission lines. The Sky Harbor Airpark is not located within the Hampton–Rochester–La 

Crosse Transmission System Improvement Project area. 

Sixteen (16) letters were submitted regarding the Sky Harbor Airpark that were, in whole or part, identical. 

I-172 and I-173 are identical, and the first three paragraphs of I-236 and I-251 are identical to those of 

item B-018 (which closes with a personal note). Common themes include the number and types of craft 

using the field, FAA and Minnesota Department of Aeronautics regulations, and potential hazards. Two 

letters reference work with USFWS on wildlife habitat. The following items consider the Sky Harbor 

Airpark: B-018, I-111, I-112, I-115, I-138, I-140, I-144, I-172, I-173, I-203, I-227, I-229, I-230, I-236, I-244, 

and I-251. 

Three letters regarding environmental impacts contained two identical paragraphs regarding updated 

forecasts of electrical peak demand and lists of types of environmental harm (I-201, I-215, and I-132). 

Two of those letters were identical in additional details. 

3.4.2 Agriculture 

Thirty-seven (37) comments were received on various aspects of agriculture. General concerns include 

the loss of productive farmland and revenue associated with production, interference with farming 

equipment and operations, compaction of soil, and the health and safety of livestock especially dairy 

cattle. Several commenters suggested preserving agricultural land, prime and unique farmland, family 

farms, and organic farms. Specific comments were submitted regarding the impact to operations including 

tile drainage and possible destruction, center pivot irrigation systems, and the aerial application of 

chemicals. Commenters also questioned the ability of farms to navigate farm equipment around 

transmission line structures and if compensation for damages and losses would be provided by the 

utilities. 

3.4.3 Biological Resources 

Sixty-six (66) comments were received on biological resources including wildlife, fish, vegetation, habitat, 

wetlands, and biodiversity. Commenters requested that direct and indirect impacts to biological resources 

be analyzed and mitigation measures, including vegetation management and the control of invasive plant 

species, be discussed in the EIS. One comment also suggested that impacts to hunted wildlife be 

analyzed in the EIS. Mn DNR requests that in the impact analysis, the project team use data from the 

Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), including data from the Minnesota County Biological Survey 

(MCBS) Plant Communities, Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and Railroad Rights-of-Way Prairies. Mn 
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

3-4 Scoping Report 

DNR also requested that Habitat and Rare Species Surveys be conducted if any native prairie remnants 

or other special status species habitat could be affected by the proposed project. 

There were concerns about impacts to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge and 

the Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest. Commenters recommended that these areas be 

avoided. Questions regarding the impacts on specific plant and animal species including state and 

federally listed species were raised including short-tailed weasels, American bald eagles, Henslow’s 

sparrows, loggerhead shrikes, prairie voles, trout lily, wild ginger, prairie bush clover, and kitten tails. In 

addition, comments were received questioning the impacts to old growth forests, and clear cutting of 

vegetation when clearing the ROW. Another specific commenter was concerned about bird mortality 

related to collisions with transmission lines in the Mississippi River flyway. 

3.4.4 Connected Action 

Eight (8) comments were received regarding other projects that might be considered connected actions to 

the proposed project. Two commenters suggested that the EIS include all four CapX2020 transmission 

projects because they were studied and developed as a whole. Another commenter suggested that, at a 

minimum, the Brookings County to Hampton project be analyzed in the EIS for Hampton – Rochester – 

La Crosse because the projects are electrically connected at the proposed Hampton Substation. Other 

comments concerning connected actions discuss the potential impact related to coal generation to be 

connected to the project. 

3.4.5 Conservation Easements 

Six (6) comments were received regarding conservation easements. The commenters requested that 

land in conservation easements be avoided and the potential impacts assessed if the project passed 

through a conservation easement. Specific concerns include easements in Oakwood Township, 

Minnesota and land enrolled in the Minnesota Land Stewardship Program. 

3.4.6 Cumulative Impacts 

Nine (9) comments were received on cumulative impacts related to the project. Two commenters asked 

that property already hosting a pipeline, specifically the Williams pipeline or an existing transmission line 

easement, not be burdened with additional utility easements. One commenter questioned the cumulative 

impact to migratory birds and waterfowl if another transmission line were to be added within a flyway. A 

commenter questioned the cumulative impacts that would result if this energy project were potentially 

enabling new coal generation in the Dakotas and how would that impact global warming. Another 

commenter requested that the cumulative impacts of new wind farm development correlated to the final 

route alignment for the proposed project be analyzed in the EIS. 

3.4.7 Electrical Characteristics 

Nineteen (19) comments were received regarding electrical characteristics of the project. Most comments 

were requesting more information about the characteristics of electric and magnetic fields (EMF). Some of 

the commenters suggested that EMF would cause electrical interference with farm and communication 

equipment, especially GPS-driven farm equipment. There were also questions about the compensation 
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 3-5 

and mitigation be provided by the utilities if interference does occur. Other comments were regarding the 

potential effects EMF may have on humans and livestock. Comments also included static electricity and 

stray voltage issues, and how those would be mitigated. 

3.4.8 Environmental Justice 

Three (3) comments were received regarding environmental justice. A resident of Trempealeau County 

submitted a comment concerning proper and timely notification of the project for that area. The comment 

indicated that the population in Trempealeau County is small and displays low income characteristics and 

the residents would be uniquely disadvantaged. Other commenters questioned why the project would be 

routed in rural land and affect rural landowners when users in urban centers would be the principal 

beneficiaries of the project. 

3.4.9 Geology and Soils 

Fourteen (14) comments were received on geology and soil resources. The majority of the comments 

requested that sensitive and erodible soils and geologic features such as sinkholes and underground 

limestone caverns be avoided when routing the project. One commenter specifically requested that Pine 

Creek and Root River, which flooded, experienced mudslides, and were designated Federal Disaster 

Areas two years ago, be avoided by the project. Other commenters requested that the bluffs and other 

sensitive areas surrounding the Mississippi River, Black River, and Cannon River be avoided so that 

these sensitive features are not impacted by the project. It was also requested that mitigation of soil 

compaction and damage caused during construction and operation of the project be considered in the 

EIS. 

3.4.10 Health and Safety 

Ninety-four (94) comments were received regarding health and safety concerns related to the project. 

Several commenters requested that the EIS include assessment of detrimental direct and indirect impacts 

on human and animal health related to exposure to stray voltage or EMF emissions from a transmission 

line and include mitigation measures such as burying the transmission line. The commenters also spoke 

to the lack of sufficient information and conclusive studies on the connection between health effects and 

EMF, and requested that the EIS address the possible correlations. Specific diseases including cancer, 

adult and childhood leukemia, chronic fatigue syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease, sudden infant death 

syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, breast cancer, and a general increase in health risks were 

mentioned. Another commenter questioned the effect of EMF on pacemakers and defibrillators. 

Comments regarding the potential loss of production of dairy herd grazing in close proximity to a 

transmission lines were also received. Other health and safety comments included concerns about 

accidents, catastrophic failure due to adverse weather, being shocked by operating farm equipment under 

a transmission line, and clearance required to safely operate equipment under a transmission line. 

3.4.11 Historic and Cultural 

Nineteen (19) comments were received on cultural resources. Commenters requested that resources be 

avoided, such as, century farms, places currently or nominated to be on the National Registry of Historic 

Places, historic farms, historic school houses, cemeteries, archeological sites, historic trails, and 
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

3-6 Scoping Report 

homesteads. Other specific locations mentioned include Mount Trempealeau and Laura Ingalls Wilder 

Historic trails and homestead. Tribal representatives explicitly asked that specific areas of tribal 

importance be avoided including active tribal ceremonial sites, grave sites along the Mississippi River 

protected under Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA), Native American 

cave and mound burial sites, vision quest sites, and architectural property, archeological sites, culturally 

sensitive sites, or traditional cultural properties significant to the Ho Chunk Nation. In addition, tribes 

requested to be included in the formal Section 106 process by being provided with cultural resource 

studies and archeological reports and offered to host site visits with the RUS. 

3.4.12 Interconnection to Generation 

Twelve (12) comments were received regarding the project’s interconnection to a generation source. 

Most of the comments were inquiries regarding the kind of generation that would be energizing the project 

if built. Some commenters advocated locally generated energy and wind generated energy on the 

transmission lines, while others expressed their opposition to the lines carrying energy from coal 

generation. Those commenting on coal generation also requested that adverse environmental impacts 

caused by coal generation be assessed in the EIS, including air pollution, emissions, and global warming. 

3.4.13 Land Rights and Easement Acquisition 

Twenty-two (22) comments were received on land rights and easement acquisition. Most of the 

commenters questioned the process of easement acquisition, compensation for direct and indirect 

decreases in land and property value, allowable uses within an easement, eminent domain, maintenance, 

repairs, and easement valuation. Other commenters questioned the safe and allowable distance between 

a home and a transmission line, addressed avoiding properties that already have a utility easement, and 

questioned the fairness of placing the project on properties that do not directly benefit as a result of the 

project. Commenters also raised concerns about taking easements from landowners who own a small 

parcel of land. Commenters requested that all project activities remain within the ROW. 

3.4.14 Land Use 

Eleven comments (11) were received regarding land use. Commenters requested that direct and indirect 

impacts to current and future land use be examined in the EIS, to include agriculture, forests, river 

valleys, Mn DNR forestry management areas, sensitive land uses, businesses, recreational land, 

residential areas, and commercial land use. Specific concerns included the encroachment on the 

Peerless Chain Company property. 

3.4.15 Noise 

Five (5) comments were received regarding noise. The comments focused on the audible hum of 

transmission lines or the whistling that occurs in windy conditions. The commenters requested that noise 

impacts to quiet rural areas, noise, residential, recreational, and wildlife preservation areas where 

background noise is generally quiet and characterized by wind, insect, and bird noises be analyzed in the 

EIS. 
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 3-7 

3.4.16 Process 

One hundred twenty-five (125) comments were received on the various regulatory and planning 

processes the project is subject to prior to construction. These comments included questions and 

requests about the adequacy and legality of the federal, state, local, routing and planning processes used 

in the project. Comments received regarding the EIS and federal permitting process asked for the EIS to 

analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts across a variety of resources, including the Mississippi 

River crossing, National Scenic Byways, federally protected wildlife areas, and social and economic 

resources. A commenter also requested that the EIS independently verify the project’s need articulated 

by the proponent and include information, illustrations, and modeling for the transmission line structures 

and substations, river crossings, system alternatives, noise impacts, EMF, and mitigation measures for all 

resources. An explanation was also requested regarding the purpose of the scoping process, and 

specifically why public comments were not gathered prior to public scoping on the AES and MCS 

documents. Commenters also requested that other federal, state, and local regulations are met and 

agencies be provided the opportunity to be involved in the process. Specific agencies mentioned include 

the FAA, USFWS, Mn DNR, WDNR, and other state and local agencies, as well as the Ho-Chunk Nation 

Tribe, the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, and other tribes in Wisconsin. In 

addition, some commenters questioned the accuracy of the data used in the planning stages. 

Many of the process comments were regarding the adequacy of the public meetings, and the information 

provided. Commenters made note of information provided by staff and raised the question of veracity of 

the information. Some commenters believed the proponent’s discussion of project need was not 

sufficiently presented at the public scoping meetings. Additional comments regarding the need for the 

project are included in section 3.4.19 Purpose and Need. 

3.4.17 Project Alternatives 

Eighty-three (83) comments were received regarding project alternatives. Commenters provided 

suggestions for reasonable system alternatives to be included in the EIS: local generation and 

transmission, conservation, alternative sources of energy, renewable energy, nuclear energy, incentivized 

conservation, postponement, undergrounding, decentralized energy, load management, upgrading 

existing transmission lines, smart grid technology, and the no build alternative. Specific commenters 

requested that RUS choose alternatives that do not conflict with NPS and Wildlife Area policies. 

3.4.18 Public Facilities or Uses 

One (1) comment was received regarding public facilities or uses. Mn/DOT stated that safety rest areas 

cannot be encroached by utility lines or structures. 

3.4.19 Purpose and Need 

One hundred forty-three (143) comments were received regarding the project’s purpose and need. Most 

of the comments questioned the legitimacy of the need provided by the utilities and requested that the 

EIS independently verify the need for the project and review the background data used to create the need 

justification including load forecasts, assumptions, data, and projections. The EIS should also explain the 

regulatory criteria for approval of load forecasts applicable to the Proposal and provide a thorough and 
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

3-8 Scoping Report 

independent review of all forecast data and assumptions. The EIS should specifically analyze the degree 

to which the load forecast assumptions of the project proponents reflect load management and 

conservation. Some other commenters also suggested that the real need for the project is to create profit 

for the private power suppliers that have ownership in CapX2020. One specific comment questioned 

whether the project is appropriate for borrowing per the Rural Electrification Act, since according to the 

commenter, regional and urban centers created the need and will benefit from the project, not rural areas. 

3.4.20 Recreation 

Fourteen (14) comments were received on recreation resources. Most of the commenters requested that 

recreational areas be preserved and avoided. Specific areas and activities included the Woodland Camp, 

Camp Victory, the Zumbro River Valley, Lake Zumbro, useable lakes and rivers in southeastern 

Minnesota, Steeplechase Ski and Snowboard Area, the bluffs near the Mississippi River, hunting grounds 

on private and public property, fishing areas, hiking areas, campgrounds, trails, and parks. 

3.4.21 Residential 

Ten (10) comments were received regarding proximity to residences. Most of the commenters requested 

that residences, family farms, and future home sites be avoided. Other commenters asked that data 

gathered at public meetings be added to maps and current data be reviewed and updated regarding the 

location of homes in the project area. 

3.4.22 River Crossings 

Three (3) comments were received regarding the potential river crossings identified as part of the 

proposed project. Commenters request that the direct and indirect impacts of the Mississippi, Black, and 

Cannon River crossings; long-term maintenance; and cost of the crossings be analyzed in the EIS. One 

specific commenter asked that the transmission lines not create a barrier for migratory birds in the flyway. 

Another commenter stated that the Cannon River should be avoided because it is designated as part of 

the Minnesota Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Program, defined as rivers, along with their adjacent 

lands, that possess outstanding scenic, scientific, historic, and recreational resources. Commenters also 

requested that disturbed riparian areas be kept to a minimum for project construction. 

3.4.23 Route Alternatives 

One hundred seventy-seven (177) comments were received suggesting route alternatives. The 

comments varied from general routing suggestions to route specific comments. Some of the general 

comments included recommendations that existing corridors, ROWs, roads, rail lines, fence lines, 

property lines, non-farmable areas, established commercial and industrial corridors, and transmission 

lines should be paralleled and used when choosing the final route. Commenters also asked that existing 

residences and farms, private land, existing pipeline easements, rural river valleys, farmland, an 

agricultural protection district (A1) as specified in Goodhue County Zoning ordinance, existing contour 

terraces, bluff country, dairy farms, major roads, McCarthy Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA), the 

Zumbro River Valley, the Mississippi River corridor, and Weaver Dunes be avoided when choosing the 

final route. One comment suggested that properties with existing transmission lines be avoided, in order 

to limit cumulative impacts of additional transmission lines. Other commenters suggested that the project 
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 3-9 

should be routed through wildlife areas, wetlands, woodlands, and public Mn DNR land to avoid impacts 

to populated areas and agricultural land. Some commenters emphasized that the shortest and least 

expensive route should be used, and that the displacement of people should be avoided. Commenters 

also recommended that the project should be routed where it is needed, near population centers of 

Rochester and La Crosse and Highway 52. A comment was submitted requesting that the EIS include 

analysis of various corridor alternatives to determine which corridor would minimize impacts. A common 

request was to underground the entire project. 

The following is a bulleted list of route alternative comments. The comments presented here are the 

opinion of the commentor and not necessarily fact. The list is organized by geographical location of the 

proposed transmission line routes: 

Hampton to North Rochester Substation Siting Area 

• Consider routing along Highway 52, it reduces impacts on rural landscape, agricultural communities, 

and native wildlife and plant communities. 

• Combine existing line and new project to reduce impacts along Highway 52. 

• A5 (Highway 52) is preferred over A6 and A122, because the other routes would cut cross-county 

and be harder to construct. 

• Highway 52 is preferred because it would cause fewer impacts to residences, schools, cropland, and 

wildlife habitat. 

• The Highway 52 alternative is better than the Highway 60 alternative, which is 17 miles longer, 

encumbers small farms, and razes sensitive forest and wetland areas. 

• Avoid irrigation system on the Syngenta Farm near Route A120. 

• Avoid Crossing the Cannon River in areas designated Wild, Scenic and Recreational by the state of 

Minnesota. 

• Combine existing transmission lines and the new project route A70 into one corridor in Section 34 of 

Wanamingo Township. 

• Avoid contour terraces built for agriculture in Warsaw Township. 

• Avoid the homes near Highway 60. 

• Highway 60 is the preferred route to get from Zumbrota to Kenyon. 

• The route west of Highway 56 should be avoided because of potential impacts to shrike populations. 

• Avoid the farm at 22075 Northfield Boulevard, located northeast of Hampton, Minnesota, because of 

the huge agricultural and financial impact the route would have on its owners. 

• Avoid interruption to overlapping irrigation system on farm located on the northeast quarter of Section 

4, and northwest quarter of Section 3 in Hampton Township. 

• Avoid a property located directly west of the southern stoplight on Highway 52 in Cannon Falls that 

hosts an old growth Burr Oak forest that should be preserved. 

• If route A4 is chosen, re-route the transmission so that it parallels field lines and property boundaries 

and does not cut across fields and interrupt pivot irrigation system. 

• To avoid interruption to farming activities of landowner who owns multiple parcels, re-route the 

transmission line out of the field located near segment A-66, Section 31 of Wanamingo Township. 

The re-route should start one-half mile west of 70th Avenue, run north at 70th Avenue for one-quarter 

mile, and then run west along the property line. 
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

3-10 Scoping Report 

• Near route segment A-67, along Highway 60, Xcel already owns structures and has an easement in 

the field. The segment should be re-routed to parallel the existing line. This re-route would allow 

access for construction and maintenance and enable the landowner to continue aerial application of 

fungicides. 

• The route should avoid impacting future development in the city of Cannon Falls, which is planning a 

road improvement and light rail project. 

• The route that follows 50th Avenue would impact less residential housing and farmland than the 

alternative. 

• The City of Hampton prefers that the route is moved to the eastern city limits so the project does not 

affect future development. 

• The proposed route crossing of the Cannon River, located in an undisturbed area, would cause 

substantial negative impacts. New alternatives should be developed for crossing the Cannon River 

that should be limited to existing disturbed corridors such as highways or existing transmission lines. 

• Private land should be avoided, instead parallel Highway 35W near Northfield and Owatonna to 

Rochester and then parallel I-90 east. 

Zumbro River Crossing Area 

• The 345 kV route in the highly densely populated areas near Oronoco should be re-routed to the 

sparsely populated areas to the north. 

• Route B102 should be avoided because there is a major water runoff and deep ditches underneath 

the route. 

• The southern option in this area is the best route because its flatter, has less homes, and less trees 

than the northern option. 

• The route combination of B28, B91, B111, B93, B161, and B162 should be used. 

• Segment B32 should be avoided because it’s a fencerow, windbreak, a stand of 100 year old oak 

trees, and habitat for pheasants, deer, turkeys, birds, bees and butterflies. 

• There are alternative routes for every other segment except the one that crosses about 2.5 miles of 

the farm at 46998 170th Avenue near Zumbrota, Minnesota. 

Mississippi River Crossing 

• Alma 

o County Highway 12 and 247 are preferred over locations without existing linear features. 

o Avoid crossing the Mississippi River at segments listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 

o The project should be buried where the route crosses the Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge to avoid negative impacts. 

o Segment B27 should be avoided because it’s one-quarter mile from a home near Hammond, 

Minnesota. 

o The area north of the project area is better for transmission lines than the current corridors. 

o There are American bald eagle nests that should be avoided near the river bluffs, Camp Victory, 

and Woodland Camp on segment B18. 

o Route combinations B93, B159, and B162, or B93, B161, and B160 would cause less impact to 

homes, dairy farms, and agricultural use than the alternatives. 
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 3-11 

o Route combination B28, B111, B91, B93, B161, and B162, located in agricultural land, is 

preferred over the alternative B27, which is located through the Richard J. Dorer Memorial 

Hardwood State Forest. 

o B45 or B46 are preferred over B119, which is located through a residential yard. 

o If the Alma option for the Mississippi River crossing is chosen, MNDNR recommends that the 

existing 69 kV transmission line be paralleled past the Woodbury Wildlife Management Area near 

Zumbrota, Goodhue County, Minnesota. 

• Winona 

o Avoid the future RTP Company manufacturing sites that have been engineered and excavated. 

The future manufacturing sites are located near Winona, at 1416 and 1510 East Eighth Street 

and 1050 East Fourth Street. 

o Avoid impacts to the Mississippi River downstream of segments designated Wild and Scenic and 

listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 

o The project should be buried where the route crosses the Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge to avoid negative impacts. 

o If the Winona location for the Mississippi River Crossing is chosen, reduce visual impacts by 

placing the route on the east side of the last bluff as it descends toward the river and crosses 

Highway 61. 

o The route along I-90 is preferred over the option along Highway 25. 

• La Crescent 

o Choose the route along the Interstate 90 existing corridor. The La Crescent Mississippi River 

crossing location is preferred over the alternatives. 

o The current proposed route runs over a dairy farm at 4329 75th street northeast, near Rochester. 

The segment should be re-routed to follow the east property line. 

o Avoid impacts to the Mississippi River downstream of segments designated Wild and Scenic and 

listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 

o There may be a conflict with this project and the future east circle bypass road project around 

Rochester. It’s planned to be located in the same location near County Road 11, south of Viola 

Road, and north of County Road 9. 

o Route segments B120 and B119, and B117 are preferred over the alternatives. 

o The project should be buried where the route crosses the Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge to avoid negative impacts. 

o Segment B89 should be re-routed to avoid bisecting fields. The re-route should parallel County 

Road 11 south (near B160 on the map) or use segment B159. 

o The route located near 4313 Highway 247 northeast, in Elgin, should be re-routed so it parallels 

the property line that runs north and south and moved 1.5 miles to the east along Olmsted County 

Road 11. It should extend to the north and connect to one of the routes running east west. 

o Segments B112 and B89 would impact multiple dairy farms in Farmington Township, Minnesota. 

Segments B159 and B160 are preferred because they do not affect any dairy farms, the route is 

more direct, it affects less homes, and is routed through cropland. 
 Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

3-12 Scoping Report 

o The project should be routed along existing Interstates 90 and 94. 

o Segment B120 is routed behind a lot of properties, which is better than the alternatives that are in 

the front of many properties. 

o Segment B47 would be easy to access by using County Road 11. 

o Consider and alternative route through the Pfeiffer Valley, which could hide the lines below the 

skyline and reduce visual impact. 

o The area to the south of I-90 should be avoided because it is rich in bluff land habitat for the 

timber rattlesnakes, which are protected under Minnesota endangered species law. If the project 

were routed here, it would increase fragmentation of habitat and result in negative edge effects. 

o The La Crescent Mississippi River Crossing location would be more expensive, damaging, and 

difficult due to terrain than the other options. The La Crescent option would also destroy the view 

of the Mississippi River and the bluffs. 

Wisconsin Routes 

• Avoid crossing the Black River in segments designated Wild and Scenic and that are also listed on 

the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 

• Consider routes on Highway 35 that avoid impacts to farmland. 

• The existing lines to Arcadia should be paralleled. 

• Do not use the Arcadia and Blair routes as there are many hills that present a challenge for 

construction. An alternative would be to route the project parallel to Interstate 90 from Rochester to 

La Crosse, or parallel existing lines from Alma and Trempealeau into La Crosse. 

• The Q1 line in Wisconsin should be used as a route corridor, because there are fewer people than 

the other alternatives. 

• The existing La Crosse Substation should be expanded for this project. 

• Under segment C68, two existing structures should be replaced with one new double circuit pole in 

the field so the owner can use pivot irrigation instead or traveling guns, which use more electricity. 

The referenced property is located at N11794 Fremont Street in Trempealeau, Wisconsin. 

• The Wisconsin Great River Road National Scenic Byway should be avoided by this project because 

of potential aesthetic impacts and encroachment on the various intrinsic byway features. 

• WDNR requests that the La Crosse Marsh and Van Loon State Wildlife Area be avoided. 

161 kV Transmission Line 

• The Douglas Trail route is preferred over the alternatives because it takes advantage of the 

abandoned railroad corridor. 

• The 161 kV route in the densely populated areas near Oronoco should be re-routed to the sparsely 

populated areas to the north. 

• The western alternative is a better option because there is an existing ROW for People’s Cooperative 

transmission lines, it is shorter and straighter and there are fewer homes. 

3.4.24 Social and Economic 

Eighty-two (82) comments were received regarding social and economic resources. Most of the 

commenters requested that direct and indirect impacts to social and economic resources be analyzed in 

the EIS. Specific concerns and issues were regarding impacts to agriculture-based businesses, 
Hampton–Rochester–La Crosse 345 kV Transmission System Improvement Project 

Scoping Report 3-13 

recreation businesses, property and home values, re-sale value of property, taxes, land- and propertybased income sources, visual resources that provide values to properties, tourism and the resources it is 

based on, electricity rates, businesses, and future development. Comments were also received 

questioning the continued viability of small farms that might be part of a final alignment and therefore host 

an easement. Many commenters addressed financial compensation for decreases in home, farm, and 

property values that are directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project. Others questioned the 

source of project funds and wondered about other potential use for the money. 

3.4.25 Transportation and Access 

Two (2) comments were received on transportation and access. One requested that private airports be 

considered during the routing process. The other commenter requests that impacts to private drives be 

avoided. 

3.4.26 Visual 

Fourty-four (44) comments were received regarding visual resources. Many commented that transmission 

lines are ugly, unsightly, and eyesores. Others requested that the EIS address direct and indirect visual 

impacts to specific resources ranging from the National Scenic Byway located in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin, the Mississippi River channel, Van Loon Wildlife Area, scenic byways, neighborhoods and 

homes, Lake Zumbro, rural agricultural communities, waterways, wetlands, and recreational areas. The 

EIS should analyze the degree to which the proposed project would impact features like these for tourism, 

recreation, and enjoyment across all the alternatives. Mn DNR submitted comments stating a permit 

would not be granted for any type of construction within a statutory boundary of a state park, and if the 

project is proposed proximate to a state park, the EIS should include a viewshed analysis of impacts to 

park visitors. Mn/DOT indicated that they will strictly enforce vegetation management requirements at 

safety rest areas for aesthetic reasons. 
4.0 Project Schedule 

RUS will prepare the Draft EIS and anticipates distribution in summer 2010. A public review, public 

meeting and comment period on the Draft EIS would occur in that same timeframe. Additionally, RUS will 

engage in necessary agency consultation and coordination regarding potential effects to resources will be 

conducted. RUS will continue to review and respond to substantive comments provided to them. A Final 

EIS will be prepared and distributed in late 2010 with an opportunity for the public to review and comment 

on the Final EIS. A Record of Decision is anticipated to be published in spring 2011. 

 Federal Review Process