CENTER TO GRAND FORKS

345 KV TRANSMISSION LINE 

PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT

November 2010

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Utilities Service

Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page i Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................xi

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

1.1 Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. .............................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Agency Action ................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Purpose and Need........................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Proposed Project Description....................................................................................... 1-3

1.4.1 345 kV High Voltage Transmission Line ............................................................. 1-3

1.4.2 Center 345 kV Substation Upgrades..................................................................... 1-4

1.4.3 230 kV Tie Line........................................................................................................ 1-4

1.4.4 Square Butte 230 kV Substation ............................................................................ 1-4

1.4.5 Prairie Substation Upgrades.................................................................................... 1-4

1.4.6 Fiber Optic Regeneration Stations ........................................................................ 1-5

1.4.7 Proposed Project Access and Crossings of State Highways.............................. 1-5

1.4.8 Staging Areas............................................................................................................. 1-5

1.4.9 Relocation of Transmission Line Structures at the Center 345 kV Substation1-5

1.4.10 Relocation of Transmission Line Structures at the Prairie Substation............. 1-6

1.4.11 Underground of Distribution Lines...................................................................... 1-6

1.5 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................................................ 1-7

1.5.1 Transmission Structure and Right-of-Way Design ............................................. 1-7

1.5.2 Right-of-Way Preparation, Construction, Restoration, and Maintenance 

Procedures................................................................................................................. 1-9

1.5.3 Easement/Right-of-Way Acquisition.................................................................. 1-12

1.5.4 Associated Facilities............................................................................................... 1-13

1.6 Missouri River Crossing ............................................................................................... 1-13

1.7 Project Cost.................................................................................................................... 1-13

1.8 Project Schedule............................................................................................................ 1-14

2.0 Alternatives Analysis .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Alternatives......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 System Alternatives......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 No Action.................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.2 New Transmission - 230 kV Center to Grand Forks......................................... 2-3

2.2.3 New Transmission - 345 kV Center to Grand Forks......................................... 2-3

2.2.4 New Transmission - 345 kV Center to Fargo...................................................... 2-4

2.2.5 Underground Transmission Line........................................................................... 2-4

2.3 Development of Route Alternatives ............................................................................ 2-6

2.3.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 2-6

2.3.2 Preliminary Study Corridors................................................................................... 2-6

2.3.3 Macro-Corridor Study ............................................................................................. 2-7

2.3.4 Rural Utilities Service Scoping Report.................................................................. 2-7

2.4 Route Alternatives........................................................................................................... 2-7

2.4.1 Route Segment Selection Criteria .......................................................................... 2-7
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Table of Contents Page ii November 2010

2.4.2 Route Segments Used to Develop Route Alternatives........................................2-9

2.4.3 Route Segments Considered But Eliminated..................................................... 2-10

2.4.4 No Action Alternative........................................................................................... 2-13

2.4.5 Route A Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-13

2.4.6 Route B Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-14

2.4.7 Route C Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.8 Segment Alternatives............................................................................................. 2-16

2.4.9 230 kV Tie Line...................................................................................................... 2-18

3.0 Environmental Analysis..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 State Highway Crossing and Construction Access Locations...................................3-5

3.2 Land Use ...........................................................................................................................3-8

3.2.1 Description of Resources.........................................................................................3-8

3.2.2 Impacts.................................................................................................................... 3-15

3.2.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-31

3.3 Soils................................................................................................................................. 3-34

3.3.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-34

3.3.2 Impacts.................................................................................................................... 3-43

3.3.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-49

3.4 Vegetation...................................................................................................................... 3-50

3.4.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-50

3.4.2 Impacts.................................................................................................................... 3-54

3.4.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-57

3.5 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................... 3-58

3.5.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-58

3.5.2 Impacts.................................................................................................................... 3-60

3.5.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-61

3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species......................................................................... 3-63

3.6.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-63

3.6.2 Impacts.................................................................................................................... 3-65

3.6.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-70

3.7 Surface Water and Floodplain Resources.................................................................. 3-72

3.7.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-72

3.7.2 Impacts.................................................................................................................... 3-75

3.7.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-76

3.8 Wetlands......................................................................................................................... 3-78

3.8.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-78

3.8.2 Impacts.................................................................................................................... 3-81

3.8.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-82

3.9 Geologic and Groundwater Resources...................................................................... 3-83

3.9.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-83

3.9.2 Impacts.................................................................................................................... 3-83

3.9.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-84
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page iii Table of Contents

3.10 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties.............................................................. 3-85

3.10.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-85

3.10.2 Archaeological Impacts......................................................................................... 3-87

3.10.3 Architectural Impacts............................................................................................ 3-88

3.10.4 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-90

3.11 Visual Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-91

3.11.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-91

3.11.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................... 3-92

3.11.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-92

3.12 Noise............................................................................................................................... 3-94

3.12.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-94

3.12.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................... 3-95

3.12.3 Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 3-96

3.13 Human Health and Safety............................................................................................ 3-97

3.13.1 Description of Resources...................................................................................... 3-97

3.13.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 3-100

3.13.3 Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 3-102

3.14 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice........................................................... 3-104

3.14.1 Description of Resources.................................................................................... 3-104

3.14.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 3-108

3.14.3 Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 3-109

3.15 Recreational Resources............................................................................................... 3-110

3.15.1 Description of Resources.................................................................................... 3-110

3.15.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 3-115

3.15.3 Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 3-117

3.16 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................... 3-118

3.16.1 Regulatory Requirements.................................................................................... 3-118

3.16.2 Analytical Approach ............................................................................................ 3-118

3.16.3 Valued Environmental Components ................................................................ 3-119

3.16.4 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries...................................................................... 3-120

3.16.5 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities..................................... 3-120

3.16.6 Analysis Matrix ..................................................................................................... 3-122

3.17 Summary of Impacts................................................................................................... 3-125

4.0 Preferred Route Selection .................................................................................. 4-1

5.0 Public and Agency Coordination....................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Public Participation......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Federal, State, and Local Agency Consultation .......................................................... 5-2

5.3 Tribal Consultation......................................................................................................... 5-4

6.0 Identification of Required Permits or Approvals............................................... 6-1

7.0 References .......................................................................................................... 7-1
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Table of Contents Page iv November 2010

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Summary of Scoping Efforts.............................................................................................xv

Table 1.4-1. Typical Characteristics of 345 kV Transmission Line Structures.............................. 1-4

Table 1.5-1. Structure Design Summary.............................................................................................. 1-9

Table 1.7-1. Center to Grand Forks Transmission Project Options Cost Estimates................. 1-14

Table 2.2-1. System Alternatives........................................................................................................... 2-2

Table 2.4-1. Eliminated Route Segments.......................................................................................... 2-10

Table 2.4-2. Segment Alternatives Evaluated in the EA................................................................. 2-16

Table 3.0-1: Route Alternatives Summary Table................................................................................ 3-2 

Table 3.1-1: State Highway Crossing and Construction Access Locations.................................... 3-5

Table 3.2-1. Agricultural Statistics for Counties within the Study Area ......................................... 3-9

Table 3.2-2. USFWS Easements within the Route Alternatives.................................................... 3-12

Table 3.2-3. USFWS Easements within the Segment Alternatives................................................ 3-13

Table 3.2-4. State Surface Tracts within Route and Segment Alternatives .................................. 3-14

Table 3.2-5. State Surface Tracts within the Route and Segment Alternative Right-of-Way .... 3-15

Table 3.2-6. Agricultural Land Use in Route A Right-of-Way....................................................... 3-15

Table 3.2-7. Agricultural Land Use in Route B Right-of-Way ....................................................... 3-16

Table 3.2-8. Agricultural Land Use in Route C Right-of-Way ....................................................... 3-16

Table 3.2-9. Agricultural Land Use in Segment Alternative Right-of-Way.................................. 3-18

Table 3.2-10. Number of Homes from Route Alternative Centerline.......................................... 3-20

Table 3.2-11. Number of Homes from Segment Alternative Centerline ..................................... 3-21

Table 3.2-12. Existing Infrastructure near Route Alternatives ...................................................... 3-23

Table 3.2-13. Existing Infrastructure near Segment Alternatives.................................................. 3-25

Table 3.2-14. Aggregate Resources within Route Alternative ........................................................ 3-27

Table 3.2-15. USFWS Easements within the Route Alternatives Right-of-Way......................... 3-28

Table 3.2-16. USFWS Easements within the Segment Alternative Right-of-Way...................... 3-30

Table 3.2-17. Potential Temporary and Permanent Impacts to State Surface Tracts from the 

Route and Segment Alternatives Right-of-Way...................................................... 3-31

Table 3.3-1. STATSGO Soil Associations within Route Alternative............................................ 3-35

Table 3.3-2. Acres and Percent of Route Alternative With a Six Percent or Greater Slope...... 3-41

Table 3.3-3. Acres and Percent of Segment Alternative With a Six Percent or Greater Slope . 3-41

Table 3.3-4. Soil Impacts within Route Alternative Right-of-Way................................................ 3-43

Table 3.3-5. Soil Impacts within Segment Alternative Right-of-Way ........................................... 3-44

Table 3.3-6. Acres and Percent of Route Alternative Right-of-Way With a Six Percent or Greater 

Slope ................................................................................................................................. 3-45

Table 3.3-7. Acres and Percent of Segment Alternative Right-of-Way With a Six Percent or 

Greater Slope................................................................................................................... 3-45

Table 3.3-8. Farmland Soil Classifications for Route Alternative Right-of-Way......................... 3-47

Table 3.3-9. Farmland Soil Classifications for Segment Alternative Right-of-Way .................... 3-48

Table 3.4-1. GAP Land Cover Types within the Route Alternative ............................................. 3-51

Table 3.4-2. GAP Land Cover Types within the Segment Alternative......................................... 3-51
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page v Table of Contents

Table 3.4-3. Land Cover Data by Route Alternative Right-of-Way .............................................. 3-53

Table 3.4-4. Impaired or Vulnerable Terrestrial Communities by Route Alternative 

Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................... 3-54

Table 3.5-1. NHI Sensitive Species Data within and Adjacent to Route Alternatives............... 3-59

Table 3.5-2. NHI Sensitive Species Data within and Adjacent to Segment Alternative ............ 3-60

Table 3.5-3. March 2010 Raptor Nest Survey Results within and Adjacent to Route 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 3-60

Table 3.5-4. March 2010 Raptor Nest Survey Results within and Adjacent to Segment 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 3-60

Table 3.6-1. Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat by Counties that are Crossed by Route 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 3-63

Table 3.6-2. Number of Federally Listed Species Occurrences within Route Alternative and 

One Mile of Route Alternative ..................................................................................... 3-65

Table 3.6-3. Bald Eagle Nests and Observations Within and Adjacent to Route Alternative .. 3-65

Table 3.6-4. Potential Impacts to Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat......................... 3-66

Table 3.7-1. Surface Waters Crossed by the Route Alternative – From West to East............... 3-72

Table 3.7-2. Surface Waters Crossed by the Segment Alternative – From West to East........... 3-74

Table 3.7-3. Named Lakes Crossed by the Route Alternative – From West to East ................. 3-75

Table 3.7-4. Named Lakes Crossed by the Segment Alternative– From West to East.............. 3-75

Table 3.8-1. NWI Wetlands Identified within Route Alternative .................................................. 3-79

Table 3.8-2. NWI Wetlands Identified within Segment Alternative ............................................. 3-79

Table 3.8-3. NWI Wetlands Identified within Route Alternative Right-of-Way......................... 3-81

Table 3.8-4. Route Alternative Crossings of NWI Wetlands Greater than 1,000 Feet .............. 3-81

Table 3.8-5. Estimated NWI Wetland Impacts within Route Alternative Right-of-Way........... 3-82

Table 3.12-1. Noise Levels Associated with Common Sources..................................................... 3-94

Table 3.12-2. Calculated Audible Noise for the Operation of Proposed Single Circuit 

Transmission Line Designs (Receptor 5 Feet Above Ground)............................ 3-95

Table 3.13-1. Municipalities within Vicinity of Route and Segment Alternatives....................... 3-99

Table 3.14-1. Top Occupations for Counties within the Study Area..........................................3-105

Table 3.14-2. Population by Race and Ethnicity for Counties within the Study Area..............3-107

Table 3.15-1. State Managed Lands within one mile of the Route and Segment Alternatives 3-110

Table 3.15-2. Federal Managed Lands within the Route and Segment Alternatives.................3-111

Table 3.15-3. Federal Managed Lands within one mile of the Route and Segment 

Alternatives.................................................................................................................3-111

Table 3.15-4. Trails crossed by the Route and Segment Alternatives.........................................3-113

Table 3.15-5. Recreation Areas within one mile of the Route and Segment Alternatives .......3-114

Table 3.15-6. PLOTS within the Route and Segment Alternatives.............................................3-114

Table 3.15-7. State Lands within the Segment Alternative Right-of-Way ..................................3-115

Table 3.15-8. Federal Lands within the Route and Segment Alternatives Right-of-Way.........3-116

Table 3.15-9. PLOTS within the Route and Segment Alternative Right-of-Way......................3-117

Table 3.16-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Transmission Line Projects............3-121

Table 3.16-2. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Pipeline Projects ..............................3-121
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Table of Contents Page vi November 2010

Table 3.16-3. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Wind Energy Projects..................... 3-122

Table 3.16-4. Interaction Matrix ....................................................................................................... 3-123

Table 3.16-5. Cumulative Interaction Criteria ................................................................................ 3-124

Table 3.17-1. Summary of Route Impacts and Mitigation............................................................ 3-125

Table 4.0-1. Route Alternative Comparison Table ............................................................................ 4-2

Table 5.1-1. Public Open House Meetings......................................................................................... 5-1

Table 5.2-1. Agency Mailings................................................................................................................ 5-3

Table 5.2-2. Agency Meetings............................................................................................................... 5-3

Table 5.3-1. Initial Project Tribal Contact........................................................................................... 5-5

Table 5.3-2. Tribal Consultation List ................................................................................................... 5-5

Table 6.0-1. Potential Required Permits and Approvals................................................................... 6-1

List of Diagrams

Diagram 1-1. Structure Photo............................................................................................................... 1-8

Diagram 2-1. Transmission Line Loadability Limits......................................................................... 2-3

List of Figures

Figure 2.3-1: Preliminary Study Corridors

Figure 2.3-2: Preliminary Study Corridors and Macro-Corridors

Figure 2.4-1: Macro-Corridors and Proposed Route Segments

Figure 2.4-2: Proposed Routes and Segment Alternatives

Figure 2.4-3: Proposed 230 kV Tie Line

Figure 3.1-1: Highway Crossings

Figure 3.2-1: Land Use

Figure 3.2-2: Existing Infrastructure

Figure 3.2-3: USFWS Easements

Figure 3.2-4: State Surface Tracts, PLOTS, and TNC lands

Figure 3.3-1: STATSGO Soil Associations

Figure 3.3-2: Prime Farmland

Figure 3.6-1: Sensitive Natural Resources

Figure 3.7-1: Surface Waters and Wetlands

Figure 3.15-1: Managed Resource Lands
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page vii Table of Contents

Appendices

Appendix A: North Dakota Public Service Commission Siting Criteria

Appendix B: Detailed Route Maps

Appendix C: All Segments Data Table

Appendix D: Route Segment Descriptions

Appendix E: Environmental Data by Segment Alternative

Appendix F: Cultural Resource Tables

Appendix G: Visual Simulations

Appendix H: EMF Summary Report

Appendix I: Meetings Notes
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Table of Contents Page viii November 2010

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

AC Alternating Current

ACSR Aluminum conductor steel reinforced

ACSS Aluminum conductor steel supported

AES Alternatives Evaluation Study

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

ATV All-terrain vehicle

BMP Best Management Practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CPI Center Pivot Irrigation

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

dB Decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

DC Direct Current 

DOT Department of Transportation

EA Environmental Assessment with scoping

EHS Extra High Strength 

EMF electric and magnetic field 

EMI Electromagnetic Interference 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

GAP Gap Analysis Data

GIS Geographic Information System

G&T generation and transmission

HVDC high voltage direct-current

Hz Hertz

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

kV kilovolt

MCS Macro-Corridor Study

Minnkota Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 

MW Megawatt

NDGF North Dakota Game and Fish Department
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page ix Table of Contents

Abbreviation Definition

NDPR North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

NESC National Electricity Safety Council

NHI Natural Heritage Inventory

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NMPA Northern Municipal Power Agency

NWI National Wetland Inventory

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OPGW Optical Ground Wire

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PA Programmatic Agreement

PLOTS Private Lands Open to Sportsmen

PPA power purchase agreements

Project Center to Grand Forks Transmission Line Project

PSC North Dakota Public Service Commission

ROC Region of Comparison

ROW Right-of-Way

RUS Rural Utilities Service

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

Square Butte Square Butte Electric Cooperative

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic soils data

STATSGO General State Soil Geographic

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TW Trapezoidal wire

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VEC Valued environmental components

WDA Wildlife Development Area

WHO World Health Organization

WMA Wildlife Management Area

WPA Waterfowl Production Area

Young 2 Milton R Young Station Unit 2
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Table of Contents Page x November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page xi Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Introduction

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota) is requesting financing from the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to construct an electric transmission line 

and associated facilities in North Dakota, called the proposed Center to Grand Forks 345 kV 

Transmission Line Project (Project). The RUS, an agency that administers the USDA’s Rural 

Development Utilities Program, is required to complete an environmental analysis prior to 

approving financial assistance. In accordance with the Environmental Policy and Procedures for 

Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (7 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 1794), the proposed Project is classified as an Environmental Assessment with 

scoping (EA). This EA discusses the purpose and need, the reasonable and feasible alternatives 

considered, along with a detailed description including maps of the proposed action. A review of 

the affected environment within the Study Area, the environmental consequences of the 

proposed action, and planned mitigation of the potential environmental impacts are also 

included. 

Purpose and Need

Over the past ten years, Minnkota’s load has grown at a rate of 2.9 percent annually (Alternative 

Evaluation Study). In addition, Minnkota’s 2009 Load Forecast study showed that load will 

continue to grow at a rate of approximately 1.9 percent annually over the next 25 years

(Minnkota 2010a). In order to adequately serve this future load growth, Minnkota must increase 

its baseload generation resources. In particular, additional baseload generation is needed by the 

winter of 2013 to address an increased need for electricity use to serve new residences, 

commercial accounts, and pipeline pumping projects (Minnkota 2010a).

To address the need for additional baseload generation resources, Minnkota recently entered 

into an agreement to amend an existing power purchase agreement (PPA) with Minnesota 

Power, a division of ALLETE, and Square Butte Electric Cooperative (Square Butte). Pursuant 

to this agreement, Minnesota Power released to Minnkota the rights to its share of generation 

from the Square Butte-owned Milton R Young Station Unit 2 (Young 2) power station. This 

allows Minnkota to increase its allocation of generation from Young 2 from 50 percent to 100 

percent over the next several years. In return, Minnkota has agreed to release its rights for 

transmitting power from Young 2 on the Square Butte high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) 

transmission line that terminates near Duluth, Minnesota.

Thus, as a result of the agreement, Square Butte sold ownership of the HVDC transmission line 

to Minnesota Power. The agreement between Minnkota, Minnesota Power, and Square Butte 

provide Minnkota with an additional baseload power supply without the need to construct a new 

coal-fired plant, and provide Minnesota Power with existing transmission facilities to develop 

and deliver substantial wind energy from North Dakota to its consumers in Minnesota.

The agreement with Minnesota Power and Square Butte will enable Minnkota to begin acquiring 

additional baseload generation from Young 2 in early 2013. However, because the existing 

Square Butte HVDC transmission line will no longer be available to carry the full generation 

output of Young 2, the power generated by Young 2 will need to be transmitted via the 

alternating-current (AC) transmission system to Minnkota’s service territory in eastern North 

Dakota and western Minnesota.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Executive Summary Page xii November 2010

Regional transmission-system studies for the eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota 

area since 2005 have demonstrated the need for improvements due to systemic voltage 

instability and load serving issues. In addition, these studies have found that the existing AC 

transmission system is already operating at capacity without any additional load growth. System 

studies indicate that additional transmission into the northeastern part of North Dakota from 

the area of concentrated generation in central North Dakota is the preferred alternative in order 

to address these issues within Minnkota’s service territory.

Minnkota conducted an Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) for the proposed Project, which 

discussed system alternatives for addressing Minnkota’s Young 2 output transmission 

requirements utilizing the AC transmission system. The system alternatives discussed in this EA 

are included in Chapter 2, Alternatives. Regional transmission studies and Minnkota-specific 

system studies have shown that the best solution for addressing Minnkota’s transmission 

requirements, as well as for meeting the voltage stability and load-serving capability needs of the 

Red River Valley region, is to construct a new transmission facility.

The proposed Project would provide a direct link to Minnkota’s service territory, while 

providing a major improvement to the regional transmission grid and a sound technical solution 

to the northern Red River Valley voltage stability issue which is document in the AES. The 

proposed Project could also support wind generation development in North Dakota. Therefore, 

the proposed Project would be the optimal alternative to address Minnkota’s and the region’s 

needs.

Project Description

Minnkota proposes to construct a 345 kV transmission line from Center to Grand Forks, North 

Dakota. The proposed Project would consist of the following major components:

345 kV High Voltage Transmission Line – Approximately 260 miles (based on the 

average of the three routes) of new transmission line. No permanent access road would 

be located within the right-of-way (ROW).

Center 345 kV Substation Upgrades – Most upgrades (circuit breakers, dead-end 

structures, new transformer and associated bus work, switches and associated 

foundations, steel structures, and control panels) would occur within the existing 

substation’s fenced boundary. A line reactor for open line voltage control may also be 

required. If the reactor is required, a 22,500 square foot (0.5 acre) expansion to the north 

end of the substation, beyond the existing fenced boundary, would be needed.

Additional 230 kV Tie Line – Approximate 1,500-feet-long Tie Line would parallel the 

existing tie line on Minnkota-owned property. It is required to complete the 

transmission-to-transmission interconnection between the Square Butte 230 kV 

Substation and Center 345 kV Substation.

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

terminal equipment would be re-allocated to the new 345 kV interconnect.

Prairie Substation Upgrades – All upgrades (circuit breakers, dead-end structures, 

transformers and associated bus work, switches, associated foundation, steel structures, 

and control panels) would occur within the existing substation’s fenced boundary. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page xiii Executive Summary

Fiber Optic Regeneration Stations – Four fiber optic regeneration stations with 

permanent access roads would be require along the transmission line route to re-amplify 

the protection and control signals carried in the optical ground wire (OPGW).

Proposed Project Access and Crossings of State Highway - The proposed transmission 

line would cross state highways at 45 locations. Construction access to the proposed 

route alternatives may take place at the 45 crossing locations. Ten of the 45 potential 

construction access locations may require a temporary impact within North Dakota 

Department of Transportation ROW.

Staging Areas – Up to 14 temporary staging areas may be established for the proposed 

Project. Twelve staging areas would be located along the proposed route, one staging 

area would be located at the Center 345 kV Substation, and one staging area would be 

located at the Prairie Substation.

Relocation of Transmission Line Structures at the Center 345 kV Substation - Relocate 

sections of the Center to Jamestown 345 kV Transmission Line and existing 230 kV Tie 

Line

Relocation of Transmission Line Structures at the Prairie Substation - Relocate a section 

of the Prairie to Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Substation 230 kV 

Transmission Line

Underground of Distribution Lines - Where site specific considerations require, such as

areas where line clearance may be an issue or other ROW concerns, Minnkota would 

bury existing distribution lines within the distribution line’s existing ROW.

Proposed Routes

Three 1,000-foot-wide route alternatives have been proposed for the Project. The proposed 

route alternatives are shown in Figure 2.4-2. Route alternative descriptions are as follows:

Route A – This proposed route is approximately 247-miles-long and follows the 

northern portion of the macro-corridors. The proposed route begins at the Center 345 

kV Substation heading east crossing the Missouri River and continues north on the west 

side of Wilton, North Dakota. The proposed route continues north crossing Interstate 

83 and heading north parallel to State Highway 41. Then heads east crossing the 

McClusky Canal, James River, and Sheyenne River. Route A then heads north and turns 

northeast near Aneta, North Dakota, and continues east to the Prairie Substation near 

Grand Forks, North Dakota. 

Route B – This proposed route is approximately 270-miles-long and follows the 

southern portion of the macro-corridors. The proposed route beings at the Center 345 

kV Substation heading east across the Missouri River. It heads north along the west side

of Interstate 83 and State Highway 41 eventually traveling north parallel to State 

Highway 41. Route B turns east near State Highway 200 and crosses the McClusky Canal 

near McClusky, North Dakota. The proposed route continues east along section lines 

and heads north near Goodrich, North Dakota, turning east near State Highway 3, the 

turns south east of Hurdsfield, North Dakota, and continues east on the south side of 

Interstate 52. Route B then turns north on the west side of Interstate 29 and continues 

north to the Prairie Substation.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Executive Summary Page xiv November 2010

Route C – This proposed route is approximately 250-miles-long and follows the central 

portion of the macro-corridors. This proposed route begins at the Center 345 kV 

Substation heads north and then turns east to State Highway 83 on the eastside of the 

Missouri River, north of Wilton, North Dakota. The proposed route heads north on the 

west side of State Highway 41, turns east, and crosses the McClusky Canal near 

McClusky, North Dakota. The proposed route continues east parallel to State Highway 

200. Continuing east, the proposed route crosses the Sheyenne River and turns north 

near Sharon, North Dakota, and heads northeast on the south side of Northwood, 

North Dakota to the Prairie Substation.

In addition to the route alternatives, 38 segment alternatives have been identified as options

suggested by landowners and for avoidance or minimization of impacts to certain sensitive areas

found along the route alternatives (Figure 2.4-2). 

Affected Environment and Potential Impacts

The proposed Project crosses portions of 12 counties in central and eastern North Dakota that 

are Oliver, Burleigh, McLean, Sheridan, Wells, Foster, Eddy, Griggs, Nelson, Steele, Traill, and 

Grand Forks counties. The general land cover within the Study Area consists primarily of 

agricultural lands including cultivated crops and livestock grazing, with dispersed areas of 

pasture/hay and woodland. Agriculture is one of the most important industries in North 

Dakota. Cultivated croplands increase as the proposed Project moves east towards the Red River 

Valley, with approximately 60 percent cropland from Center, North Dakota (Center 345 kV 

Substation) to Mercer, North Dakota, to nearly 90 percent cropland from the Sheyenne River to 

Grand Forks, North Dakota (Prairie Substation). The primary cultivated crops include wheat, 

soybeans, and corn. Cattle are the lead livestock production in North Dakota. Center pivot 

irrigation units are commonly found within the Study Area.

Prairies and wetlands are more prevalent in the western portion of the Study Area, toward the 

Missouri River. Historically, North Dakota was mostly prairie land cover. In the western 

portions of the Study Area prairie covers more land and decreases towards the Sheyenne River 

and Red River Valley. Wetlands occur throughout the Study Area as the proposed Project 

traverses the Prairie Pothole Region of the upper Midwest. Wetlands are typically small, isolated 

depressions, but may also be found along drainages, rivers, and streams. Wetlands cover nearly 

12 percent of the land within the western portion of the Study Area, and decrease to about 5 

percent in the eastern portion due to increased cultivated crops. Wooded areas are not prevalent 

in North Dakota as the historic land cover was prairie. Currently, the most common wooded 

areas are shelterbelts around residences and buildings. The major rivers may have a wooded, 

riparian fringe. 

The Study Area contains undulating terrain in the western section within the Prairie Pothole 

region and near major rivers; otherwise the eastern half is nearly level within the Red River 

Valley. Major watercourses within the Study Area include the Missouri, James, and Sheyenne 

rivers.

The new transmission facilities would traverse primarily agricultural land. It is estimated that 

permanent easement ROW totaling between 4,498 and 4,900 acres of land would be required for 

the transmission line. The proposed routes are anticipated to permanently impact about 3.0 acres 

of land. The potential voluntary displacement of up to two homes may occur near the ROW 

within the routes, depending on final ROW location. Placement of the 150-foot-wide ROW 

within the 1,000-foot-wide route would reduce impacts to homes or be able to avoid homes 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page xv Executive Summary

within the route. Where it is not possible to provide a 500-foot setback between the final ROW 

and an occupied residence, Minnkota would work with the landowner to obtain a waiver to 

allow for transmission line placement within 500 feet of their home. No involuntary 

displacement of homes would occur. Landowner compensation would be established by 

individual easements. 

Approximately 3.0 acres of direct impacts are anticipated to occur to land cover (cropland and 

pasture), soils, and vegetation. Minnkota would span the Missouri and Sheyenne rivers to avoid

direct impacts to the rivers. A cultural resources survey of the final route alignment is proposed 

prior to construction to avoid affects upon archaeological and historic facilities. Potentially one 

Waterfowl Production Area may be impacted by Route A and Minnkota would work with land 

managers to reduce impacts. Socioeconomic impact is primarily positive due to the increase tax 

base of the county. 

Public and Agency Coordination

Minnkota pursued a public outreach effort that provided opportunities for landowner and other 

stakeholders to be involved in the routing process. Minnkota engaged landowners, interested 

members of the public, federal, and state agencies, and local government units. Table ES-1 

shows a summary of the scoping efforts to date.

Table ES-1. Summary of Scoping Efforts

Event Date Location Attendance

Tribal River Crossing 

Review 

September 22-

23, 2009

Bismarck, ND - Field trip to Sheyenne and 

Missouri River Crossings

Rural Utilities Service 

No Tribal Attendance

Public Scoping 

Meetings 

November 16 –

19, 2009

Grand Forks, ND – Alerus Center

Cooperstown, ND – City Hall

Carrington, ND – Chieftain Conference 

Center

McClusky, ND – Community Hall

Wilton, ND – Memorial Hall

Center, ND – Civic Center Building 

187 people signed in 

Agency Scoping 

Meeting

November 19, 

2009

Bismarck, ND – U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Office

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 

Rural Utilities Service

30-Day Scoping 

Comment Period

November 20 –

December 18, 

2009

NA 26 official public comment received 

(does not include mapping comments 

made during open house meetings) 

Section 106 

Consultation Meeting

April 22, 2010 Bismarck, ND Wahpekute 

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate

Mill Lacs Band of Ojibwe 

Rural Utilities Service 

North Dakota SHPO
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Executive Summary Page xvi November 2010

Event Date Location Attendance

Section 106 

Consultation Meeting 

– Tribal River 

Crossing Review

June 8-10, 

2010

Bismarck, ND – Field trip to Sheyenne, 

James and Missouri River Crossings

Rural Utilities Service 

Tribal Consultation 

Meeting

August 17, 

2010

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Fort Yates, 

ND and Conference Call 

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate

Standing Rock Sioux 

Rural Utilities Service 

Permitting Process/Timeline

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

agencies prior to construction. Agencies with primary approval/permitting authority include 

RUS and North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC). Other federal and state agencies 

include: United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal 

Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, Environmental Protection Agency, North Dakota (ND) Department of Health, ND 

Department of Emergency Management, ND Parks and Recreation Department, ND State 

Water Commission, State Historical Society of North Dakota, ND State Highway Patrol, and

ND State Land Department, and ND Department of Transportation. Chapter 6 identifies the 

permits and approvals that may potentially be required by federal agencies, the state of North 

Dakota, counties, and townships, respectively. This preliminary listing of regulatory 

requirements is subject to change as the proposed Project proceeds.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 1-1 Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.0 Introduction

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota) is a generation and transmission (G&T)

cooperative serving 11 rural electric distribution cooperatives. Minnkota is requesting financing 

assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to 

construct an electric transmission line and associated facilities in central and northeast North 

Dakota. The RUS, an agency that administers the USDA’s Rural Development Utilities Program, 

is required to complete an environmental analysis prior to approving financial assistance. In 

accordance with RUS’ Environmental Policy and Procedures for Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1794), the 

proposed Center to Grand Forks 345 kV Transmission Line Project (Project) is classified as an 

Environmental Assessment with scoping (EA). This EA discusses the purpose and need, the 

reasonable and feasible alternatives considered, along with a detailed description including maps 

of the proposed action. A review of the affected environment within the Study Area, the 

environmental consequences of the proposed action, and planned mitigation of the potential 

environmental impacts are also included.

1.1 Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 

Minnkota is a wholesale electric generation and transmission cooperative headquartered in 

Grand Forks, North Dakota. Incorporated on March 28, 1940, Minnkota provides, on a 

nonprofit basis, wholesale electric service to 11 retail/member-owner distribution cooperatives, 

which are the members and owners of Minnkota. The member systems’ service areas encompass 

34,500 square miles in northwestern Minnesota and the eastern third of North Dakota. The 

member systems serve approximately 125,000 of the 300,000 residents in the area. These 

cooperatives also serve more than 116,000 retail customers including many of the region’s 

schools, farms, homes, and businesses.

The primary source of baseload generation for the rural cooperatives is the Milton R. Young 

Generation Station located approximately 24 miles northwest of Bismarck, North Dakota, near 

the community of Center, North Dakota. As operating agent for the Northern Municipal Power 

Agency (NMPA) members, Minnkota also represents NMPA’s 30 percent share of the output 

from the Coyote Station near Beulah, North Dakota. NMPA is the energy supplier for 12 

municipal utilities located within the Minnkota service area. In addition, Minnkota has acquired, 

through power purchase agreements (PPAs) with large wind developers, significant North 

Dakota-based wind energy resources, totaling about 357 megawatt (MW) nameplate capacity. 

1.2 Agency Action

The RUS, an agency which administers the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural 

Development Utilities Programs, may provide financing assistance for the construction of these 

facilities. RUS is following its policies and procedures, 7 CFR Part 1794 Environmental Policy 

and Procedures for implementing the NEPA, in order to assure compliance with NEPA and 

related laws, regulations, and executive orders. In doing so, RUS worked with the local, state, 

and federal agencies with expertise in their resources, as well as Native American tribes and 

interested consulting parties to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 

Project. Prior to RUS making a decision on approving a loan for the proposed Project, an EA 

for the proposed Project must be completed. Following RUS guidance, Minnkota began the

project development process by preparing an Alternative Evaluation Study (AES) to identify the 

proposed Project’s purpose and need and alternatives for meeting capacity requirements and 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 1 – Introduction Page 1-2 November 2010

also prepared a Macro-Corridor Study (MCS) to begin the process of identifying a corridor for 

potential routes. A scoping process was initiated to provide the public, federal, and state 

agencies, and local governments with information regarding the description, need, and potential 

project locations or routing, identify concerns of the proposed Project, discuss compliance and 

permitting requirements, and gather information to be addressed in the RUS environmental 

review and documentation. Comments received during the scoping process are summarized in a 

Scoping Report. The MCS, AES, and Scoping Report prepared for the proposed Project can be 

found at: http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm#Minnkota_Power_Cooperative,_Inc._

1.3 Purpose and Need

Over the past 10 years, Minnkota’s load has grown at a rate of 2.9 percent annually (Alternative 

Evaluation Study). In addition, Minnkota’s 2009 Load Forecast study showed that load will 

continue to grow at a rate of approximately 1.9 percent annually over the next 25 years 

(Minnkota 2010a). In order to adequately serve this future load growth, Minnkota must increase 

its baseload generation resources. In particular, additional baseload generation is needed by the 

winter of 2013 to address an increased need for electricity use to serve new residences, 

commercial accounts, and pipeline pumping projects (Minnkota 2010a).

To address the need for additional baseload generation resources, Minnkota recently entered 

into an agreement to amend an existing PPA with Minnesota Power, a division of ALLETE, and 

Square Butte Electric Cooperative (Square Butte). Pursuant to this agreement, Minnesota Power 

released to Minnkota the rights to its share of generation from the Square Butte-owned Milton R 

Young Station Unit 2 (Young 2) power station. This allows Minnkota to increase its allocation of 

generation from Young 2 from 50 percent to 100 percent over the next several years. In return, 

Minnkota has agreed to release its rights for transmitting power from Young 2 on the Square 

Butte high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) transmission line that terminates near Duluth, 

Minnesota.

Thus, as a result of the agreement, Square Butte sold ownership of the HVDC transmission line 

to Minnesota Power. The agreement between Minnkota, Minnesota Power, and Square Butte 

provide Minnkota with an additional baseload power supply without the need to construct a new 

coal-fired plant, and provide Minnesota Power with existing transmission facilities to develop 

and deliver substantial wind energy from North Dakota to its consumers in Minnesota.

The agreement with Minnesota Power and Square Butte will enable Minnkota to begin acquiring 

additional baseload generation from Young 2 in early 2013. However, because the existing 

Square Butte HVDC transmission line will no longer be available to carry the full generation 

output of Young 2, the power generated by Young 2 will need to be transmitted via the 

alternating-current (AC) transmission system to Minnkota’s service territory in eastern North 

Dakota and western Minnesota.

Regional transmission-system studies for the eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota 

area since 2005 have demonstrated the need for improvements due to systemic voltage 

instability and load serving issues. In addition, these studies have found that the existing AC 

transmission system is already operating at capacity without any additional load growth. System 

studies indicate that additional transmission into the northeastern part of North Dakota from 

the area of concentrated generation in central North Dakota is the preferred alternative in order 

to address these issues within Minnkota’s service territory.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 1-3 Chapter 1 – Introduction

The need of this proposed Project is to address future load growth, system voltage stability, and 

load serving issues in Minnkota’s service territory. In order to accommodate this future load 

growth, Minnkota must increase its baseload generation resources. 

Minnkota conducted an AES for the proposed Project, which discussed system alternatives for 

addressing Minnkota’s Young 2 output transmission requirements utilizing the AC transmission 

system. The system alternatives discussed in this EA are included in Chapter 2, Alternatives. 

Regional transmission studies and Minnkota-specific system studies have shown that the best 

solution for addressing Minnkota’s transmission requirements, as well as for meeting the voltage 

stability and load-serving capability needs of the Red River Valley region, is to construct a new 

transmission facility. The proposed Project is needed to replace the capability of transmitting the 

output of Young 2 over an existing HVDC transmission line, and to improve regional electrical 

system reliability. 

The proposed Project would provide a direct link to Minnkota’s service territory, while 

providing a major improvement to the regional transmission grid and a sound technical solution 

to the northern Red River Valley voltage stability issue which is document in the AES. The 

proposed Project could also support wind generation development in North Dakota. Therefore, 

the proposed Project would be optimal alternative to address Minnkota’s and the region’s needs. 

1.4 Proposed Project Description

Minnkota is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain approximately 260 miles of 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). 

1.4.1 345 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 AC transmission line to run from 

the Center 345 kV Substation at the Milton R. Young Generation Station located about 4.5 miles 

southeast of the town of Center, North Dakota, in Oliver County, to the Prairie Substation 

located about 0.5 mile west of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota in Grand Forks County. 

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

Project would deliver energy from existing baseload generation to Minnkota’s cooperative 

members. While final engineering and design have not been completed, the line would likely be 

constructed with single-pole steel structures. Typical structures would be approximately 140-

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. No permanent access road would be 

located within the ROW.

It is anticipated that each phase wire would consist of bundled conductors composed of two 

959.6 kcmil (thousand circular mils) Suwannee TW (trapezoidal wire) type ACSR (aluminum 

conductor steel reinforced) cables. Each conductor has an outside diameter of 1.1 inches, which 

has an equivalent diameter of 959,600 circular mils. The trapezoidal configuration reduces air 

gaps between the strands. Suwannee TW type ACSR consists of seven steel wires at the center 

surrounded by 26 trapezoidal shaped aluminum strands. Two shield wires, also known as 

lightning protection wires, are planned. One shield wire would be optical ground wire (OPGW) 

on one side and 0.5-inch Extra High Strength (EHS) steel cable as the installed shield wire on 

the other side. OPGW consists of 24 strands of single mode fiber optics conductors in a steel 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 1 – Introduction Page 1-4 November 2010

tube wrapped with ten strands of steel wire around the fiber optic tube. The conductor size may 

need to be modified once a preferred route is selected and additional electrical optimization 

studies are completed. Table 1.4-1 outlines typical characteristics of a 345 kV transmission line 

structure.

Table 1.4-1. Typical Characteristics of 345 kV Transmission Line Structures

345 kV Transmission Line Details

Voltage (kV) 345 kV

ROW width (feet) 150

Approximate Span length (feet) 1,000

Range of structure heights (feet) 130 - 150 (single circuit)

Number of structures per mile 5 – 7

Minimum ground clearance beneath conductor (feet) 35 – 40

Depth of concrete footings for the poles (feet) 30 – 40

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

Average area of permanent disturbance per structure (square feet) 78.5

1.4.2 Center 345 kV Substation Upgrades

The Center 345 kV Substation is located about 4.5 miles southeast of the town of Center, North 

Dakota, and about 1 mile east of the Milton R. Young Generation Station in Oliver County. 

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 dead-end 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 (0.5 acre) expansion to the north end of the substation, beyond the existing fenced 

boundary, would be needed.

1.4.3 230 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 between the Square Butte 230 kV Substation and the Center 345 kV Substation.

The existing tie line and substations are located about 4.5 miles southeast of the town of Center, 

North Dakota, and about 1 mile east of the Milton R. Young Generation Station in Oliver 

County.

1.4.4 Square Butte 230 kV Substation 

The Square Butte 230 kV Substation is located about 4.5 miles southeast of the town of Center, 

North Dakota, and about 1 mile east of the Milton R. Young Generation Station in Oliver 

County. 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. This activity would be completed within the existing substation footprint.

1.4.5 Prairie Substation Upgrades

The Prairie Substation is located about 0.5 miles west of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota 

in Grand Forks County. All upgrades would occur within the existing Minnkota-operated 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 1-5 Chapter 1 – Introduction

substation’s fenced boundary. This would involve installing new 345 kV circuit breakers, 345 kV 

dead-end structures, two new and one relocated 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.

1.4.6 Fiber Optic Regeneration Stations

Four fiber optic regeneration stations would be required along the transmission line route to reamplify the protection and control signals carried in the optical ground wire (OPGW) fiber 

optic. Each station would require a 12-foot by 18-foot fenced area, small control building to 

house the electronic equipment, and a 75-foot-long by 16-foot-wide permanent access road.

These four stations would be placed at the base of a structure within the permanent 150-footwide ROW. They would be about 75-feet from the nearest section line road. 

1.4.7 Proposed Project Access and Crossings of State Highways

The proposed transmission line would cross state highways at 45 locations. Construction access 

to the proposed route alternatives may take place at the 45 crossing locations. Ten of the 45 

potential construction access locations may require a temporary impact within North Dakota 

Department of Transportation (DOT) ROW. Please see Section 3.1 of this EA for more detail 

on the crossing and access locations. 

1.4.8 Staging Areas

Up to 14 temporary staging areas may be established for the proposed Project. Eight of the 14 

staging areas would be used for material storage and pre-assembly work and up to 6 of the 14 

staging areas may be used for a portable concrete batch plant site. Six of the material storage 

staging areas would be located along the proposed route and would be about 10-acres in size, 

one 10-acre staging area would be located at the Center 345 kV Substation, and one 10-acre 

staging area would be located at the Prairie Substation. The six staging areas used for portable 

concrete batch plant sites would be about 5-acres in size. Each staging area would be a 

temporary impact. The staging area would involve accepting and storing the delivery of

equipment and materials necessary to construct the new transmission line facilities. Construction 

office trailers may be located within the staging areas. Concrete batch plants may be co-located 

with the material storage sites. These areas would be selected for their location, access, security, 

and ability to efficiently and safely warehouse supplies. The areas are chosen to minimize 

excavation and grading. Disturbed areas would be restored to pre-construction condition or per 

landowner agreement. The staging areas outside of the proposed transmission line ROW would

be obtained from affected landowners through rental agreements.

1.4.9 Relocation of Transmission Line Structures at the Center 345 kV 

Substation

Relocate two existing Minnkota-owned transmission line sections. The two relocated line 

segments and addition of new structures would facilitate changing termination of the lines within 

the substation. All relocated structures would occur on Minnkota-owned property. Relocation 

would involve:

Relocate the Center to Jamestown 345 kV Transmission Line. Overall line length would 

not change.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 1 – Introduction Page 1-6 November 2010

o Remove existing structures including: (#2: Deadend, #1B: Tangent, #1A: 

Deadend).

o Replace the existing #2: Deadend structure with a deadend structure at the same 

location.

o Relocate the existing #1B: Tangent and #1A: Deadend structures about 50 feet 

south of the existing locations.

o Replace conductor between structures.

The existing 230 kV Tie Line would terminate in a new bay within the substation. The 

new bay is approximately one span length south of the existing termination point. 

o Add three new structures and terminate at the new bay (two deadends and one 

tangent).

o Replace conductor between structures.

1.4.10 Relocation of Transmission Line Structures at the Prairie Substation

Relocate the existing Xcel Energy-owned 230 kV transmission line section. The relocated line 

segment and addition of new structures would facilitate changing termination of the line within 

the substation. All relocated structures would occur on Minnkota-owned property. Relocation 

would involve:

Relocate the Prairie Substation to Western Area Power Administration’s (WAPA) 

230 kV Transmission Line from a bay located in the northeast corner of the existing 

substation to a new termination point on the west side of the substation.

o Remove the existing deadend structure going into the north side of the 

substation and replace with a tangent structure at the same location.

o Add a new deadend structure to the northwest corner of the substation.

o Add a new deadend structure to the west side of the substation near the new 

termination point on the west side of the substation.

o Replace conductor between new structures.

1.4.11 Underground of Distribution Lines

Where site specific considerations require, such as areas where line clearance may be an issue or 

other ROW concerns, Minnkota would hire the local distribution cooperative to bury existing 

distribution lines within the distribution line’s existing ROW. Typically, underground

distribution lines would be installed by direct plow into the ground or directional drill under 

roads, driveways, and other permanent aboveground obstacles. Typical work progression would 

be that a trenching vehicle with a plow blade attachment drives the ROW and the plow blade 

slices through the ground, burying line that either feeds through a chute in the blade or is pulled 

behind the blade and into the ground. The blade path would be closed by driving the trenching

vehicle over the opening. The distribution lines would be buried from 24 to 48 inches deep.

Ground disturbance is temporary and limited to a small slit by the path of the blade and the 

track of the trenching vehicle. Temporary ground disturbance area would be about 6- to 8-footwide for the trenching vehicle path plus 1- to 2-foot-wide for the plow blade disturbance for the 

length of the buried line. If directional drilling methods are used, the temporary disturbance area

would be about 15 feet wide by 20feetlong at either end of the drilling site.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 1-7 Chapter 1 – Introduction

Underground distribution lines require that junction load break centers or switching centers are 

placed aboveground for maintenance and repair purposes. Typically, these junction centers

require a permanent aboveground metal box that is about 2 feet wide by 3 feet long in size, but 

may be up to 3 feet wide by 6 feet wide. Installation of a junction centers would require 

temporary disturbance to an area of about 20 feet diameter. 

Should it be necessary to bury distribution lines, the vegetation impacts would be minimal and 

the areas would be reviewed for cultural resources.

1.5 Proposed Project Facilities

In general, a high-voltage transmission line consists of three phases, each at the end of a separate 

insulator string (or delta string configuration), all physically supported by structures. Each phase 

consists of one or more conductors. When more than one conductor is used to make up a 

phase, the term ―bundled‖ conductors is used. Conductors are metal cables consisting of 

multiple strands of steel and aluminum wire wound together. There are also two shield wires 

strung above the electrical phases to prevent damage from lightning strikes. These cables are 

typically less than one inch in diameter. The shield wire can also include fiber optic cable that 

allows a path for substation protection equipment to communicate to equipment at other

terminals on the transmission line. Transmission lines are constructed on a ROW, whose width

is primarily dependent on structure design, span length, and the electrical safety requirements 

associated with the transmission line’s voltage.

1.5.1 Transmission Structure and Right-of-Way Design

Transmission Structure

Single pole, self-weathering steel single circuit structures are proposed for the majority of the 

proposed Project (Diagram 1-1). The self-weathering steel oxidizes or rusts to form a dark 

reddish brown surface coating to protect the structure from further weathering. The steel single 

poles are placed on large concrete foundations, which would be wider than the pole base. Final 

design and geotechnical investigations may warrant the use of special structures to avoid 

sensitive areas, comply with reasonable landowner desires, or accommodate special engineering 

circumstances. For example, crossing the Missouri River may warrant a different structure.

Each of the three phase wires would consist of bundled conductors composed of two 959.6 

kcmil Suwannee TW type ACSR cables or conductors of comparable diameter. Each conductor 

has an outside diameter of 1.1 inches. Suwannee TW type ACSR consists of seven steel wires at 

the center surrounded by 26 trapezoidal shaped aluminum strands. Two shield wires, also known 

as lightning protection wires, are planned. One shield wire would be OPGW on one side, and 

0.5-inch EHS steel cable on the other side. OPGW consists of 24 strands of single mode fiber 

optics conductors in a steel tube wrapped with ten strands of steel wire around the fiber optic 

tube.

Table 1.5-1 summarizes the structure designs and foundations for the single pole structures that 

would be used for the majority of the proposed Project. Information about the Missouri River 

structures is also provided.

The proposed transmission line would be designed to meet all relevant state codes, National 

Electric Safety Code (NESC), RUS standards, and other standards that Minnkota has adopted.

Appropriate standards would be met for construction and installation and all applicable safety 

procedures would be followed during and after installation.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 1 – Introduction Page 1-8 November 2010

Diagram 1-1. Structure Photo
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 1-9 Chapter 1 – Introduction

Table 1.5-1. Structure Design Summary

Line Type Structure 

Type

Structure 

Material

ROW

Width (ft)

Structure 

Height (ft)

Foundation 

Diameter (ft)

Span Between 

Structures (ft)

Proposed Project Single Pole 

Davit Arm

Steel 150 130-150 7-10 1,000

Missouri River Single Pole 

Davit Arm

Steel 150 160-200 10-12 1,700-2,400

Missouri River Three Pole Steel 150 150-170 10-12 1,700-2,400

Right-of-Way Design

The majority of the new 345 kV transmission line facilities would be built with single pole 

structures, which typically require a 150-foot-wide ROW for the length of the transmission line. 

In some limited instances, where specialty structures are required for long spans additional ROW 

may be needed for the transmission line. The additional ROW would be stated in the easement 

agreement with the landowner. When the transmission line is placed cross-country across private 

land, an easement for the entire ROW (150 feet in width) would be acquired from the adjacent 

landowner(s). Minnkota would locate the poles as close to property division lines as reasonably 

possible.

It is intended that the proposed Project would not share ROW with existing features, but rather

would parallel ROWs of existing features. Throughout the route development process, 

Minnkota sought to identify areas to parallel existing linear features including roads. 

Identification of opportunities to parallel existing linear features minimizes the proliferation of 

new corridors. 

Given the terrain in the area, construction of access roads outside of the 150-foot-wide ROW 

would not be needed. If obstructions exist that are completely blocking ingress and/or egress 

along the 150-foot-wide ROW corridor, such as flowing creeks, Minnkota would arrange with 

landowners to use existing field roads or create access from state and county highways, to access 

the structure locations.

Minnkota land agents would work individually with property owners to purchase easements for 

the new 345kV line if the RUS approves the loan application and the NEPA process is 

complete. Minnkota would pay just compensation for easements, and landowners would retain 

ownership of the property. Under the agreement, property owners could not place any 

permanent structures within the easement corridor that would restrict complete access and 

maintenance of the line or ROW.

In addition to the ROW, the fiber optic regeneration sites would be purchased in fee and 

separate from ROW easements. These sites would likely be located near road crossings to 

provide all-weather access to the sites.

1.5.2 Right-of-Way Preparation, Construction, Restoration, and Maintenance 

Procedures

Right-of-Way Preparation

Primarily agricultural and pasture lands would be crossed by the proposed Project. For safety 

purposes, tree and shrub clearing may be required in some areas in the 150-foot-wide ROW. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 1 – Introduction Page 1-10 November 2010

However, where safety requirements permit, low growing trees and shrubs would remain 

(generally less than 15 feet in height). Significant amounts of grading would not be anticipated 

for preparation of the transmission ROW. Some grading would be required for the fiber optic 

regeneration stations and their associated access roads.

Transmission Construction Procedures

Construction would begin after all federal, state, and local approvals are obtained, property and 

ROWs are acquired, soil conditions are established, and final design is completed. The precise 

timing of construction would consider various requirements that may be in place due to permit 

conditions, weather conditions, and available workforce.

Transmission line structures are generally designed for installation at existing grades. Typically,

structure sites with 10 percent or less slope would not be graded or leveled. At sites with more 

than 10 percent slope, working areas would be graded level or fill would be brought in for 

working pads. If the landowner permits, it is preferred to leave the leveled areas and working 

pads in place for use in future maintenance activities. If the landowner does not wish to leave 

the area leveled, the site would be graded back to its original condition as much as possible, and 

all imported fill would be removed.

There may be up to 14 staging areas that would be established for the proposed Project and

involves delivering the equipment and materials necessary to construct the new transmission line

facilities. The materials would be stored at staging areas until they are needed for construction. 

These areas would be selected for their location, access, security, and ability to efficiently and 

safely warehouse supplies. The areas are chosen to minimize excavation and grading. The staging

areas outside of the transmission line ROW would be obtained from affected landowners 

through rental agreements.

Structures would be delivered to either the staked location or a staging area. If the structures are 

delivered to the location where they would be installed, they would be placed on the ROW out 

of the clear zone of any adjacent roadways or designated pathways.

After the ROW is prepared and it is installation time, the poles are generally moved from the 

staging areas and delivered to the staked location. The structures would be placed within the 

transmission line ROW until the structure is set. Insulators and other hardware are attached 

while the structure is on the ground. The structure is then lifted, placed, and secured using a 

crane.

Minnkota proposes that all structures would have a concrete foundation. Concrete trucks are 

required to bring concrete from a concrete batch plant. Portable concrete batch plants may be 

utilized by the foundation contractor for the proposed Project. The foundation contractor will 

be responsible for the batch plants. Batch plants may be located within staging areas. If batch 

plants are located away from a staging area the foundation contractor would be responsible for 

all appropriate permits and agreements. Holes would be drilled in preparation for concrete. 

Drilled pier foundations may vary from 7 to 10 feet in diameter for the proposed Project 

structures and 10 to 12 feet in diameter for the Missouri River structures, and 20 to 40 (or more)

feet deep, depending on soil conditions. After the concrete foundation is set, the structure is

bolted to it. 

Most of the construction activity would be limited to the area immediately around each 

structure. Little additional ground disturbance is needed at the structure sites. The total area 

temporarily disturbed in the vicinity of each structure is expected to be confined to an area of 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 1-11 Chapter 1 – Introduction

about 60 feet in diameter (2,827 square feet). No permanent access roads would be constructed 

for the proposed Project; however, temporary construction access roads would be needed to 

access structure locations and would be located within the ROW. If a temporary access road is 

needed outside of the ROW, Minnkota would use existing public and private roads where 

possible. Where no existing roads provide access and if needed, temporary access roads up to 

30-feet-wide would be constructed and located through disturbed uplands (e.g., farmed land)

once any necessary access easements have been secured from the landowner(s).

Once the structures have been erected, conductors would be installed by establishing stringing 

setup areas within the ROW. These areas are usually established every two miles along the route.

Conductor stringing operations require brief access to each structure to secure the conductor 

wire to the insulator hardware and to install shield wire clamps once final sag is established.

Stringing equipment generally consists of wire pullers, tensioners, conductor reels, shield wire 

reels, and sheave blocks. Stringing operations involve pulling lightweight cables or ropes through 

the stringing sheaves located at every structure site. This cable or rope would be used to pull the 

conductors through the sheaves under sufficient tension to keep the conductor from coming 

into contact with the ground. Temporary guard or clearance poles would be installed as needed 

over existing distribution or communication lines, streets, roads, highways or other obstructions, 

after any necessary notifications are made and permits obtained. This ensures that conductors 

would not obstruct traffic or contact existing energized conductors or other cables.

Restoration Procedures

During construction, crews would attempt to limit ground disturbance wherever possible. Upon 

completion of construction activities, landowners would be contacted to determine if any 

damage has occurred as a result of the proposed Project. If damage has occurred to crops, 

fences, or the property, Minnkota would fairly reimburse the landowner for the damages 

sustained. In some cases, Minnkota may engage an outside contractor to restore the damaged 

property to as near as possible to the pre-construction condition. Disturbed areas would be 

restored to their pre-construction condition to the maximum extent practicable or required by 

regulatory agencies. Post-construction reclamation activities include removing and disposing of 

debris, dismantling all temporary facilities (including staging areas), leveling or filling tire ruts,

alleviating soil compaction, and reseeding non-cultivated areas disturbed by construction 

activities with vegetation similar to that which was removed.

Erosion control measures would be implemented as necessary to minimize runoff during 

construction. Specific measures would be determined once final design of the route is complete, 

and a field review is made to determine any areas of concern. Erosion control measures such as 

silt fencing, straw bale fencing, mulching, seeding, or mesh fabric overlay would be installed 

when and where appropriate. Access routes to structure locations would be reviewed prior to 

the mobilization of equipment so erosion concerns can be avoided or minimized. Construction 

crews exercise caution when equipment is within 50 feet of streams and rivers and would not 

drive equipment through streams or rivers that the transmission line crosses.

Maintenance Procedures

Transmission infrastructure has very few mechanical elements and is built to withstand normal 

weather extremes. With the exception of severe weather, such as tornadoes and heavy ice 

storms, transmission lines rarely fail. They are automatically taken out of service by the operation 

of protective relaying equipment when a fault is sensed on the system; such interruptions are 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 1 – Introduction Page 1-12 November 2010

usually only momentary. Scheduled maintenance outages are also infrequent. As a result, the 

average annual availability of transmission infrastructure is very high, in excess of 99 percent.

Minnkota would quarterly use the ROW to perform inspections usually by fixed wing aircraft, to 

maintain equipment and to make repairs over the life of the proposed Project. Minnkota would

also conduct routine maintenance to remove undesired vegetation that may interfere with the 

safe and reliable operation of the proposed line.

1.5.3 Easement/Right-of-Way Acquisition

For transmission lines, utilities typically acquire easement rights to accommodate the facilities. 

The evaluation and acquisition process includes title examination, initial owner contacts, survey 

work, document preparation, and payment. 

The first step in the ROW process is to identify all persons and entities that may have a legal 

interest in the real estate upon which the facilities would be built. To compile this list, a ROW 

agent would complete a public records search of all land involved in the proposed Project. A 

title report is then developed for each parcel to determine the legal description of the property 

and the owner(s) of record of the property and to gather information regarding easements, liens, 

restrictions, encumbrances, and other conditions of record.

The next step is evaluation of a specific parcel. After landowners are known, a ROW 

representative contacts each property owner or the property owner’s representative. The ROW 

agent describes the need for the transmission facilities, how the specific project may affect each 

parcel, and seeks information from the landowner about any specific construction concerns. The 

ROW agent may also request the owner’s permission for survey crews to enter the property to 

conduct preliminary survey work. Permission may also be requested to take soil borings to assess 

soil conditions and determine appropriate foundation design. Surveys are conducted to locate 

ROW corridors, natural features, man-made features, and associated elevations to be used during 

the detailed engineering of the transmission line. All surveys would be performed by experienced 

professionals.

The ROW agent then prepares an offer for the property owner(s) based on just compensation 

for the rights to build, operate, and maintain the transmission facilities within the easement area 

and reasonable access to the easement area. Otherwise, the ROW agent may obtain options to 

purchase ROW for the proposed route. The agent may also provide maps of the transmission 

line route or site and the landowner’s parcel and offer compensation for the transmission line

easement. The landowner is allowed a reasonable amount of time to consider the offer and 

present any material that the owner believes is relevant to determining the property’s value.

Utilities are usually able to work with the landowners to address their concerns and an 

agreement is reached for the utilities’ purchase of land rights. The ROW agent prepares all of the 

documents required to complete each transaction. Required documents may include: easement, 

purchase agreement, or contract and deed. If an agreement cannot be made, condemnation may 

be used. 

Once all ROW has been obtained and the construction phase begins, individual property owners 

would be advised of construction schedules, needed access to the site, and any vegetation 

clearing required for the proposed Project. The ROW would be cleared of the amount of 

vegetation necessary to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed transmission line, and 

landowners would be compensated for damages. To ensure safe construction of the 

transmission line, special consideration may be needed for fences, crops, or livestock. For 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 1-13 Chapter 1 – Introduction

instance, fences may need to be moved or temporary or permanent gates may need to be 

installed; crops may need to be harvested early; and livestock may need to be moved. In each 

case the ROW agent coordinates these processes with the landowner, who is compensated for 

damages.

Where possible, temporary staging areas would be located within the ROW and limited to 

previously disturbed or developed areas. When additional property is temporarily required for 

construction, rental agreements may be obtained from landowners for the duration of 

construction. These temporary easements would be limited to special construction access needs 

or additional staging areas required outside of the proposed ROW.

1.5.4 Associated Facilities

Fiber Optic Regeneration Stations

The other facilities associated with the proposed Project would be four fiber optic regeneration 

(or repeater) stations placed about 50 to 60 miles apart. Each station would require a 12 foot by 

18 foot fenced area with a small control building to house the electronic equipment. The 

building would need to be heated and air conditioned. It would house the electronic equipment 

plus a battery bank for backup power. The building would be located as close to an existing road 

as possible. An all-weather permanent access road to the building would be needed. 

1.6 Missouri River Crossing

The Missouri River crossing may require a specialty structure. A steel single pole or three pole 

structure may also be used. The single pole would be of similar configuration with the remaining 

proposed Project structures, only taller. The three pole structures would be shorter, but have 

three poles or a pole for each phase wire

1.7 Project Cost

The proposed Project costs include the survey, engineering, materials, construction, ROW, and 

Project management associated with the transmission line and substations. The proposed Project

has two major cost components. The transmission line portion of the proposed Project is 

estimated on a cost per mile basis and the substation portion is estimated on a facilities 

improvement cost basis.

The three route lengths are estimated to be between 250 and 270 miles. The average length of 

the three routes reviewed that met the minimum avoidance area impact criteria is about 260 

miles. The ultimate line length cannot be established until the route has been determined and the 

ROW acquisition process is substantially completed. The Project cost estimate has been 

developed using a shortest case, typical case, and longest case scenario that helps demonstrate 

the impact of the final route and ultimate line length impact to the overall Project cost. Table 

1.7-1, below, provides the total Project cost estimate (2009 dollars) for three line length options.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 1 – Introduction Page 1-14 November 2010

Table 1.7-1. Center to Grand Forks Transmission Project Options Cost Estimates

Option Line Length (Miles) Line Cost Project Total

Center to Prairie

Shortest Case 250 $275,000,000 $312,000,000

Center to Prairie

Typical Case 260 $286,000,000 $323,000,000

Center to Prairie

Longest Case 270 $297,000,000 $334,000,000

Note: All options are based on 795 ACSR conductor, mono-pole structures, an assumed line cost of $1,100,000 

per mile and an estimated cost of $37,000,000 for substation upgrades.

The substation costs represent estimated expenditures at three existing facilities. The estimate 

for modifications to the Center 345 kV Substation is $14 million, of which $3 million is for 

substation improvements and $11 million represents the cost of two new 345/230 kV 360 MVA 

power transformers.

The estimate for modifications to the Prairie Substation is $22 million of which $11 million is 

for improvements and additions and $11 million is for two new transformers equivalent to the

two Center units.

Cost estimates for third party impacts are not included in the Project estimate at this time as the 

base Project is anticipated to cause minimal impact to the existing transmission system. 

Operations and Maintenance

The primary operating and maintenance cost for a transmission line is the cost of inspections, 

usually done quarterly by air and by ground once a year. Annual operating and maintenance 

costs for transmission lines vary depending upon the setting, the amount of vegetation 

management necessary, storm damage occurrences, structure types, materials used and the 

transmission line’s age. For 115 kV through 345 kV transmission lines, past experience has 

shown that annual costs are approximately $300 to $500 per mile.

Substations require a certain amount of maintenance to keep them functioning in accordance 

with the accepted operating parameters and the NESC. Transformers, circuit breakers, batteries, 

protective relays, and other equipment need to be serviced periodically in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s recommendation. The site itself must be kept free of vegetation and drainage 

must be maintained.

1.8 Project Schedule

An expected permitting and construction schedule for the proposed Project is outlined below.

Environmental Assessment – Fall 2010

RUS Determination – Winter 2010

North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) Determination – Spring 2011

Pre-Construction Activities – Spring 2011

Construction Start – Spring 2011

Project Completion – Summer 2013
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 2-1 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis

2.0 Alternatives Analysis

This section describes the proposed Project and alternatives considered in this EA. Alternatives 

to the proposed Project were screened to assess the ability of the alternatives to meet the 

identified need for the proposed Project and to provide a comparison of the impacts of different 

alternatives in meeting the identified need for the proposed Project. Based upon this screening, a 

No-Action Alternative and three route alternatives are evaluated in this EA. In addition to these 

four alternatives, a number of system and segment alternatives were considered, but not

evaluated in detail. System Alternatives are discussed in Section 2.2 of this EA and within the 

AES. Segment Alternatives not evaluated in the EA are described in Section 2.4.

Rural Utilities Service Planning Documents

Following RUS guidance, Minnkota began the project development process by preparing the 

AES to identify the proposed Project’s purpose and need and alternatives for meeting capacity 

requirements and also prepared a MCS to begin the process of defining a study area and 

potential routes.

The AES explains the need for an action and discuss alternative methods that have been 

considered to meet that need. The AES identifies the electrical issues that an action is proposed 

to address and identifies and analyzes several alternatives to the action, such as upgrades of the 

existing power system, new transmission, new generation, PPA, load management, or energy 

conservation. The AES should explain each alternative in sufficient detail so that interested 

agencies and the public can gain a general understanding of each alternative. The AES should 

explain which alternative is considered the best for fulfilling the need for the action. It should be 

clearly explained why certain alternatives are unacceptable or less than optimal.

An MCS defines an action’s study area, shows the endpoints for a proposed transmission line

project, and develops macro-corridors within which a proposed transmission line project may be 

located. Within the study area, alternative corridor routes should be developed based on 

environmental, engineering, economic, land use, and permitting constraints. Corridors may vary 

in width from a few hundred feet up to a mile. The use of existing rights-of-way or double 

circuiting of existing electric transmission lines should be addressed as appropriate.

The AES, MCS, and Scoping Report are a part of the RUS scoping process to support their

proposed action. The intent of these documents is to provide information about the proposed 

action to the public and to facilitate public participation in the NEPA process. 

Alternative Evaluation Study

The AES was approved by the RUS and released for public review in October 2009. As outlined 

in the AES, since the transaction and modified PPAs with Minnesota Power and Square Butte,

and the transfer of the existing HVDC line to Minnesota Power, eliminated the need for new 

generation and any additional power purchases, load management, or energy conservation, the 

only relevant alternatives are those associated with transmission capacity to move the generation 

to the load source(s).

The AES discussed the following transmission alternatives to the proposed Project: (1) a noaction alternative that focuses on using the existing AC system for the output of Young 2, (2) a 

230 kV line from Center to Grand Forks, and (3) various configurations of a 345 kV line from 

Center to the Red River Valley, including an eastern terminus of Fargo at the Maple River 

Substation instead of Grand Forks.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Page 2-2 November 2010

2.1 Project Alternatives

Several alternatives to the proposed Project were identified during Minnkota’s development of

the proposed Project and during the public scoping process carried out by RUS. Two types of 

alternatives to the proposed Project were developed and evaluated:

System alternatives, which look at alternative means for meeting the stated need of 

the proposed Project.

Route alternatives, which review alternative routes to get from one end point to 

another.

2.2 System Alternatives

The AES analyzed transmission alternatives to the Project (i.e. No Action, 230 kV Line, and 

345 kV Line from Center to Fargo) to provide the required load serving capability to meet 

anticipated customer demand into the future and to provide voltage stability support for the 

northern Red River Valley (Table 2.2-1). For detailed information regarding the system 

alternatives, refer to the Section 3 of the AES published October 2009. 

Table 2.2-1. System Alternatives

Action Description

No Action Young 2 Generation is placed on existing system

New Transmission - 230 kV Center to Grand Forks Transmission line consisting of a 230 kV line from the Center 

Substation, Center, to the Prairie Substation, Grand Forks

New Transmission - 345 kV Center to Grand Forks Transmission line consisting of a 345 kV line from the Center 

Substation, Center, to the Prairie Substation, Grand Forks

New Transmission - 345 kV Center to Fargo Transmission line consisting of a 345 kV line from the Center 

Substation, Center, to the Maple River Substation, Fargo

Optional Corridor Concept for Interconnection 

Requests

Tap the proposed 345 kV transmission line to Grand Forks, 

near Finley, North Dakota, and develop a 345 kV line section 

between Finley and Fargo. Develop a new 345 kV substation 

near Finley.

Underground Transmission Line Underground construction of the entire 345 kV transmission line 

2.2.1 No Action 

The ―No Action‖ Alternative would place Young 2 generation on the existing system. The 

substantial wind generation development at the Square Butte bus and subsequent reallocation of 

Young 2 outlet, results in significant steady state and dynamic stability impacts on the AC 

transmission system in the North Dakota coal field region. Study efforts were completed in June 

2009 to evaluate these impacts. The studies have revealed the ―no transmission addition‖ option 

is not feasible due to the dynamic stability and steady state impacts on the North Dakota AC 

transmission system. Study results show that a new transmission line is required to transition the 

output of Young 2 off of the Square Butte HVDC line and onto the AC system. Based on this 

EA, if the proposed Project is not constructed it may cause other facilities to be built. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 2-3 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis

2.2.2 New Transmission - 230 kV Center to Grand Forks 

Minnkota conducted a study in 20051to assess the options for providing a transmission outlet 

for a possible third unit addition at the Milton R Young Station. At that time, the assumed 

generator size was 250 MW and the output was assumed to be delivered to Grand Forks. Even 

at 250 MW, a 230 kV line resulted in a significant increase in power flowing through WAPA’s

transmission system. A new 230 kV line for the full output of Young 2 (455 MW) would cause 

far more serious impacts to the existing AC system.

In addition, a transmission line’s ability to transport increasing amounts of electric power is 

referred to as the line’s loading limit. It is generally constrained by the line’s thermal limit. When 

a transmission line is short, the impedance of the conductor is smaller and therefore the line can 

be loaded up to its capacity, or thermal limit, and still maintain stable voltage (steady state 

stability). The longer the transmission line becomes, however, the higher the impedance of its 

conductor and the lower its ability to maintain acceptable steady state voltage. In short, as a 

line’s length increases its practical loading limit becomes less than its thermal limit, resulting in a 

longer line providing less load-serving capacity than a shorter line of the same voltage. Diagram 

2-1 below illustrates the relationship between line length and practical loadability.

Due to the length of the proposed line and the amount of output from Young 2, it has been 

concluded that 230 kV is not an acceptable voltage.

Diagram 2-1. Transmission Line Loadability Limits

Note: The above transmission line loadability curve is for 60 Hz uncompensated overhead lines, and based on 

Figure 6.1.2 from Power System Analysis and Design, Glover/Sarma, at 217 (PWS Publishers 1987). “SIL” 

refers to “surge impedance load,” which is the power delivered to an electric load that is equal to a 

transmission line’s characteristic impedance. For a 230 kV line, the SIL is approximately 145 MW.

2.2.3 New Transmission - 345 kV Center to Grand Forks

The Center to Grand Forks 345 kV Line is the best performing transmission alternative to meet 

Minnkota’s load serving needs as well as provide voltage support for the northern Red River 

 

1

Young 3 Transmission Study Report with Generator Cruise Rating of 250 MW; Tim Bartel, Senior Systems 

Engineer, Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., January 11, 2005
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Page 2-4 November 2010

Valley and Bemidji, Minnesota, areas. This conclusion is based on the technical analyses 

previously performed by regional planners and by feasibility studies recently performed for 

Minnkota by its consultant.

This line would provide voltage support to the Bemidji area and the Red River Valley. The 

stability performance for the 345 kV line from Center to Grand Forks requires less mitigations 

compared to the 345 kV from Center to Fargo and the voltage stability performance significantly 

increases voltage stability performance in the Red River Valley and Bemidji areas. In addition, 

when the proposed Fargo to St. Cloud 345 kV line is considered it could address the intended 

need of that area. 

2.2.4 New Transmission - 345 kV Center to Fargo

Stability performance is acceptable with a new 345 kV line from Center to Fargo and meets the 

MAPP criteria. There are required mitigations that may include capacitor additions at the 

Groton, South Dakota, 345 kV Substation, a Static VAR Compensator (SVC) at Jamestown or 

Maple River, and a capacitor at Jamestown or Maple River. The voltage stability limits are lower 

for the 345 kV line from Center to Fargo compared to the 345 kV line from Center to Grand 

Forks alternative creating less demand for the Center to Fargo line. 

Voltage stability performance was compared for the two 345 kV AC transmission alternatives. 

Based on study results, it can be concluded that the introduction of a 345 kV source into the 

Grand Forks area significantly increases voltage stability performance in the Red River Valley 

and Bemidji, Minnesota areas. This alternative, in general, exhibits higher voltage stability limits 

compared to the Fargo alternative. In cases where these alternatives had previously exhibited 

similar performance (without the proposed CapX 2020 Fargo to St. Cloud 345kV line), results 

show that the addition of the Fargo to St. Cloud line tilts the balance more in favor of the 

345 kV Center to Grand Forks alternative.

2.2.5 Underground Transmission Line

Undergrounding of transmission lines similar in size to the proposed Project is seldom used 

because of the significant construction, operation, and maintenance issues, and the resulting 

cost. Undergrounding of electric utility infrastructure is a technically feasible option, especially 

for lower voltage distribution lines. It is common today to see lower voltage distribution lines 

that connect to homes and businesses buried directly in the ground using less invasive 

construction methods. In the case of distribution lines, undergrounding offers aesthetic and 

environmental benefits while posing relatively few construction, maintenance, and operations 

challenges.

However, the complexity and cost of undergrounding increases as the voltage increases. As a 

result, undergrounding is seldom used for transmission facilities of the size of the proposed 

Project. A Minnesota Department of Commerce – Office of Energy Security review of proposed 

high voltage transmission lines, showed that the cost for underground construction has been 

between five and 15 times greater than the cost for a similar overhead transmission line. The 

cost for underground construction depends upon a variety of factors specific to a project, but 

represents the more complicated engineering, increased construction time, specialized material, 

and specialized labor requirements.

Minnkota has estimated the transmission line cost for the proposed Project to be about

$1.1 million per mile in 2009 dollars. The estimated cost range for the same voltage line to be 

placed underground is $5.5 to $16.5 million per mile. This cost range for an underground line 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 2-5 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis

does not include the cost for substations, with the large inductors that are necessary 

approximately every 20 miles to counteract the greater line charging currents associated with 

undergrounding. In addition, there are increased line losses and maintenance expenses incurred 

throughout the useful life of an underground line that makes its cost versus an overhead line 

even greater.

Because of the significantly greater expense, typically installation of underground transmission 

has been limited to locations where physical circumstances allow no other option or where 

overhead construction is prohibited. Examples include congested downtown centers where there 

is no space available between city streets and adjacent buildings for adequate clearance.

While underground lines reduce visual impacts (other than at the overhead/underground 

transition locations) and may minimize surface impacts after construction, there are distinct 

environmental consequences. The predominant environmental impact from the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of underground transmission lines arises from the need to develop 

and maintain a ROW totally cleared of woody vegetation. The construction activities for an 

overhead line are concentrated around the line’s structures, with the areas between structures left 

relatively undisturbed except for the removal of trees that could interfere with the energized 

conductors. A narrow pathway between structures is often all that is necessary to string the 

conductors. With underground construction, however, the entire ROW must be cleared for 

construction activities along the entire length of the corridor. This increases impacts to wetland 

areas due to the installation of access roads capable of supporting heavy construction 

equipment, trenching activities, and cable installation. These wetland impacts would be 

permanent if a drivable road were constructed to allow quick access to repair the underground 

line in the event of an incident taking it out of service.

Additional facilities are required for underground transmission line construction to control the 

thermal performance of the underground line. With larger capacity lines, gas-insulated line 

technology must be employed to provide the adequate heat removal capabilities that are 

necessary. Typical overhead transmission lines are bare conductor, and ambient temperature and 

wind across the lines are adequate to remove and disperse heat from the line. In underground

lines, a separate cooling system is required to remove and disperse heat away from the enclosed

underground containment. Cooling systems have only been employed on short underground 

transmission systems, and have not been used on longer line length applications. A transmission 

line of the length being considered on the proposed Project would require multiple cooling 

systems for the entire length of the line.

Underground lines also present challenging reliability and service issues. While overhead lines are 

subject to more frequent outages than underground lines, service is usually quickly restored by 

the automatic re-closing of circuit breakers, resulting in only a momentary outage of the 

transmission line. The lower incidence of outages with underground cables is offset by the fact 

that the outages are much longer. This is because re-closing circuit breakers is not recommended 

until it is verified that there is no fault in the underground cable.

Restoration of a faulted underground line also takes much longer due to the difficulty in locating 

the fault and accessing the site to make repairs. Repairing failures in high voltage extruded 

dielectric cables is typically not done. Instead, the cable is completely replaced between man-hole 

splice points that are generally located every 1,500 to 2,000 feet along the cable. This is 

expensive and very time consuming, with restoration taking several weeks or longer depending 

upon the location and difficulty of access. Replacing cable involves bringing in heavy equipment, 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Page 2-6 November 2010

including cable reels weighing 30,000 to 40,000 pounds, during all seasons of the year. If the 

failure is in a splice, it may be feasible to make a repair at the splice location without having to 

replace large quantities of cable, but access is still required for equipment and personnel. If the 

fault occurs in a wetland area where all-season roads are not maintained, restoration can be 

further delayed as matting is installed to gain access to the manholes used to replace the failed 

cable.

RUS reviewed the AES and determined that none of the system alternatives evaluated were able 

to meet the identified need as well or at a comparable cost as the proposed Project.

2.3 Development of Route Alternatives 

2.3.1 Study Area

As discussed in Section 1.3, in 2008-2009 Minnkota identified a need for additional power

generation in northeast North Dakota and northwest Minnesota. Transmission constraints in 

this area were also threatening the stability of the regional transmission system. Minnkota 

defined one Study Area, rectangular in shape, that encompassed an area from the Young 2 

Station near Center, North Dakota, (in the west) to Grand Forks and Fargo, North Dakota (in 

the east) (Figure 2.3-1). 

2.3.2 Preliminary Study Corridors

The Study Area was narrowed into preliminary study corridors, based upon the criteria identified 

in the bulleted list below (Figure 2.3-1). At first, the preliminary study corridors were developed 

to terminate in Grand Forks and Fargo. Through project development, Fargo was eliminated as 

an end point because initial load modeling indicated that the greater Grand Forks area had more 

load constraints. Therefore, corridors to Fargo were eliminated. The preliminary study corridors 

were developed by considering the following criteria:

Parallel existing rights-of-way (transmission lines, pipelines, railway, or roads), survey 

lines, section/field lines, and natural division lines;

Avoid populated areas;

Avoid major environmental natural features (Lake Ashtabula, Jamestown Reservoir, 

National Wildlife Refuges, Wildlife Management Areas, Wildlife Development 

Areas);

Cross major rivers at areas where there is an existing transmission line crossing;

Avoid public airports;

Maximize transmission system reliability (e.g. maintain maximum distance from 

existing Minnkota system transmission lines);

Minimize length; and

Follow PSC Exclusion and Avoidance Criteria – State designated exclusion and 

avoidance criteria as listed in North Dakota Administrative Code in Article 69-06-08-

02, Transmission Facility Corridor and Route Criteria (Appendix A)

The purpose of this activity was to identify potential constraints (natural or human resources 

that conflict with the location of new transmission line facilities) and opportunities (locations or 

areas well suited for the location of new transmission line facilities) this data was considered 

when developing the macro-corridors. Generally, constraint areas would be avoided, or at least 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 2-7 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis

minimized during the macro-corridor development process, and opportunities would be used, to 

the extent practicable, to develop route corridors between the two substations. Within the 

backdrop of constraints and opportunities, practical considerations such as total project length 

and potential cost issues are also considered.

2.3.3 Macro-Corridor Study

The preliminary study corridors were refined into macro-corridors (Figure 2.3-2). The MCS

provides information about environmental, land use, social, cultural, and permitting factors for 

the macro-corridors within the Study Area. The macro-corridors evaluated in the proposed

Project typically are about 6-miles-wide, with some portions of the macro-corridors being 8-

miles-wide, such as near the Young 2 Station and the Prairie Substation (Figure 2.3-2). 

2.3.4 Rural Utilities Service Scoping Report

Minnkota engaged the public to help refine the macro-corridors and develop route alternatives.

Minnkota voluntarily hosted three rounds of public open house meetings within the proposed 

Project area. In addition to public open house meetings, Minnkota used a project-specific Web 

site and project-specific information line to reach interested members of the public.

Following public and agency review of the AES and MCS, RUS held public and agency scoping

meetings across the macro-corridors to gain input on opportunities and constraints within the 

macro-corridors. The goal of the public meeting was to provide the public with information 

regarding the proposed Project, answer questions, and identify concerns regarding the potential 

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

The goal of the agency meeting was to provide federal and state agencies with information 

regarding the description, need, and potential locations or routing, discuss compliance and 

permitting requirements, and cover the range of issues to be addressed in the environmental 

documents.

RUS released a Scoping Report for the proposed Project in March 2010. The Scoping Report 

summarized the public scoping process and inter-agency consultation regarding the macrocorridors and potential Project alternatives. Based upon the scoping process, the Scoping Report 

identified the issues and alternatives to be evaluated in this EA. The Scoping Report can be 

found at http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm#Minnkota_Power_Cooperative,_Inc._

2.4 Route Alternatives

Federal agencies require that the EA evaluate potentially viable route alternatives. Within this 

EA, information is presented for three 1,000-foot-wide route alternatives located within the 

macro-corridors. Detailed route maps are located in Appendix B. The route alternatives are 

summarized in the following subsections. The basis for the preferred route selection is discussed 

in Chapter 4. 

2.4.1 Route Segment Selection Criteria

Transmission planning, designing, engineering, and environmental criteria were used to develop 

alternative routes for the proposed Project. State and federal regulatory requirements as well as 

input from stakeholders were considered. Route segments were developed within the macrocorridors by considering the following:

Follow existing rights-of-way, survey lines, natural division lines, and 

agricultural field boundaries when feasible – Minnkota used geographic 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Page 2-8 November 2010

information system (GIS) mapping and field verification to identify existing rightsof-way (transmission lines, pipelines, railroads, roads, etc.), and natural division and 

field boundaries.

Minimize length – Minimizing the length of a route generally decreases its impacts 

on the environment. In some situations, however, a longer route or route segment 

was chosen to avoid specific, undesirable impacts.

Avoid populated areas where feasible – One of the most common comments 

received at the public meetings was that residences should be avoided where 

possible. Per PSC Rules, a route would not be constructed within 500 feet of an 

occupied home unless a waiver is agreed to.

Avoid major environmental features where feasible – Major natural features such 

as threatened and endangered species, water bodies and wetlands, wooded draws, 

trees rows, state parks, state Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), federal Waterfowl 

Production Areas (WPAs), and federal Wildlife Development Areas (WDAs) were 

identified, mapped, and avoided where feasible.

Avoid known historic and cultural resources areas, where feasible – Known 

historic and cultural resources areas were identified, mapped, and avoided where 

feasible.

Maximize transmission system reliability and promote system redundancy 

where feasible – Both the routing of the proposed Project in close proximity to 

existing lines or double-circuiting it with existing lines were considered. In some 

cases, however, there were system reliability and safety concerns that supported 

keeping the proposed Project separate. Routing options were excluded from further 

consideration that double-circuited or paralleled an existing transmission line that 

would compromise system reliability or violate North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC) standards.

Avoid agricultural production – Consideration was given to avoiding center pivot

irrigation systems where feasible.

Avoid airports and other conflicting land uses – Minnkota worked with federal 

and state agencies and local governments to identify and map land uses that could 

conflict with the proposed Project. These included airports, WMAs, WPAs, WDAs, 

trails, sensitive state and federal management areas, and tribal-owned lands. These 

land uses were avoided where feasible.

North Dakota Public Service Commission Exclusion and Avoidance Criteria –

State designated exclusion and avoidance criteria as listed in North Dakota Rule 69-

06-08-02, Transmission Facility Corridor and Route Criteria. Refer to Appendix A

for PSC rules. 

In addition, consideration was given to comments received during public information meetings 

and agency meetings, which echoed many of the points discussed above. These comments 

included:

Utilize existing rights-of-way where feasible;

Avoid or minimize impacts to residences and population centers;
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 2-9 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis

Minimize impact to property values;

Avoid or minimize impacts to water resources and wildlife;

Avoid state and federal managed lands;

Minimize impacts at the Missouri and Sheyenne river crossings;

Avoid or minimize conflicts with adjacent land uses such as mining, wind energy 

facilities, center pivot irrigations, and sensitive species; and

Avoid or minimize impacts to historic and cultural resources.

Chapter 3.0 provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts for each route

alternative under consideration. All route segments and associated environmental information

considered in the route selection process are included in Appendix C.

2.4.2 Route Segments Used to Develop Route Alternatives

Route segments consist of narrower areas, approximately 1,000-feet-wide, located within the 

macro-corridors. Route segments narrowed the macro-corridors into more manageable areas 

within which natural and human resources could be quantified and compared. The objective was 

to identify potential route segments that minimized impacts on natural and human resources and

provided cost-effective Project options. The route segments would be joined to form a route.

In order to provide flexibility within the route segments for the eventual location of the actual

route alternatives and segment alternatives, while keeping the route and segment alternatives

manageable in size, route segments approximately 1,000 feet wide were developed. The entire 

area within the macro-corridors was reviewed to determine if areas suitable for route segments

were present. That is, investigation of the macro-corridors was not limited only to the central 

area of the macro-corridors, but the northern, southern, and all areas between were considered. 

Route segments were developed to avoid constraints, take advantage of opportunities, consider 

public and agency comments, and use all portions of the macro-corridors as appropriate.

Following the identification of the route segments, a screening process was used to identify and 

compare the route segments appropriate for more detailed evaluation. This entire process 

resulted in the selection of three route alternatives and 38 segment alternates for the proposed 

Project. The route alternatives should provide reliable electric power, while minimizing overall

adverse impacts on the human and natural environment in a cost-effective manner.

Ultimately, a network of about 191 route segments and the 230 kV Tie Line was established for 

the development of routing options between the Center 345 kV Substation and the Prairie

Substation (Figure 2.4-1). The large number of segments is due to the many combinations of 

route segments that could be combined to complete a transmission line from the Center 345 kV

Substation to the Prairie Substation. There are possible route alternatives and segment 

alternatives variations in the northern, central, and southern portions of the macro-corridors.

The route segments were developed in similar fashion to the macro-corridors. Route segments

took advantage of existing infrastructure (section lines, field lines, and roadways) to the extent 

practicable, while avoiding constraints such as municipalities, homes, state lands, federal lands, 

and engineering limitations. 

The route segment evaluation was focused on determining a reasonable route alternative that 

minimized overall impacts to natural and human environments and was economical and feasible

from an engineering standpoint. Route segments with high environmental and/or human
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Page 2-10 November 2010

impacts were screened in the analysis and eliminated from further consideration. The route

alternatives were chosen from the remaining segments based on a combination of factors 

including impacts and feasibility. For each route alternative, a representative alignment was 

created and used in the evaluation process to more accurately represent the affects of a new

transmission line within each alternative.

Minnkota developed three routes alternatives and 38 segment alternatives (Figure 2.4-2). A 

description of the route alternatives and segment alternatives is provided below. This EA 

evaluated these routes based on a variety of engineering, social, and natural resource criteria. 

These criteria reflected the natural and human resources present within the Study Area, 

engineering and economic considerations, and the concerns expressed by federal, state, and local

resource agencies and the public.

2.4.3 Route Segments Considered But Eliminated

Minnkota reviewed many potential route segments during the route development process.

Minnkota determined that some route segments were not feasible based on design and 

engineering standards, therefore, these segments were eliminated from consideration and not 

studied in the EA. Segments were eliminated in the course of route selection for one or more of 

the following reasons: to avoid human settlement, to avoid major environmental and cultural 

features, to avoid large water body crossings, to avoid center pivot irrigation systems, to 

minimize corner structures, and to minimize Project length. See Route Segment Selection

Criteria (Section 2.4.1) for a more detailed discussion of route selection. The following segments 

were reviewed but eliminated from inclusion in the route alternative analysis: Segments 004, 018, 

021,027, 030, 038, 042, 043, 046, 047, 048, 052, 057, 058, 069, 073, 078, 079, 083, 085, 086, 087, 

097, 102, 104, 107, 109, 118, 122, 124, 126, 139, 142, 143, 147, 149, 150, 152, and 155. Figure 

2.4-1 displays the segments considered for elimination. Descriptions of the eliminated route 

segments are provided in Table 2.4-1.

Table 2.4-1. Eliminated Route Segments 

Segment 

ID

Length 

(Miles) Reason Eliminated Description

S004 1.0

Since segment S097 was eliminated the 

south end of the segment has no 

connection to a route.

Heads north cross country for approximately 1 

mile. The segment parallels a 41.6 kV line for 

approximately 0.5 mile

S018 18.9

Additional miles, potential leks, cross 

230 kV twice, within 1.5 miles of Westerlind 

Airport

Heads north for approximately 9 miles parallel to 

5th Ave NW along the Sheridan/McLean County 

Line and turns east for approximately 9 miles

S021 0.8 Large water body crossing North and south segment that runs cross country 

for approximately 0.8 miles

S027 1.9 Historic facility within an eighth of a mile A north-south segment along 116.5 Ave NE on 

the west side of the Sheyenne River. 

S030 58.1 Large number of homes, close to 

municipalities, center pivot irrigation

Heads east-west mostly along State Highway 

200 north of Route C.

S038 5.8

No connection on the west end due to S124 

being eliminated, avoid Lake Jessie to the 

south, and populated area

An east-west segment on the north side of Lake 

Jessie along State Highway 65.

S042 3.5 No connection on the east or west due to 

S038 and S043 being eliminated

An east-west segment that is parallel to State 

Highway 65
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 2-11 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis

Segment 

ID

Length 

(Miles) Reason Eliminated Description

S043 7.5

Homes and archaeological resources 

located within 200 and 400 feet of proposed 

segment and crosses Pickard Lake Creek 

and the Sheyenne River

An east-west segment that is parallel to State 

Highway 65 and 45 for approximately 5 miles 

and crosses the Sheyenne River

S046 5.5 No connection on the east due to S057 and 

S058 being eliminated

Runs north-south and then east-west along 

quarter-section lines. North of the Ronningen 

WPA and crosses State Highway 45.

S047 1.0 Eliminated to reduce length and structures Heads north along 13th St NE for 1 mile.

S048 4.5

Crosses the Sheyenne River with large 

riparian area and is located near many 

archaeological sites

Heads east along a quarter-section line across 

the Sheyenne River to the Griggs/Steele County 

line, then south for 1 miles along the county 

lines, the east for 1 mile along Center St. 

S052 11.5

Crosses the 345 kV line, cultural resources 

sites, homes, wooded area, boat landing 

and camp site 

Segment heads west to east cross country along 

a quarter-section line for approximately 11.5 

miles and crosses the Missouri River

S057 4.2

No connection on the east or west due to 

S058 and S059 being eliminated, 

archaeological resources

Segments heads east-west along a quartersection line, then diagonally northeast crosscountry crossing the Sheyenne River to 6th St 

NE where it heads east-west crossing Horse Hill

S058 5.0

No connection to the north because S057 

was eliminated, located near an 

archaeological resource, and crosses the 

Sheyenne River

Heads north-south and then west-east crossing 

the Sheyenne River along quarter-section lines.

S069 1.0

No connection to the north and south due to 

S043 and S057 being eliminated and steep 

topography

Heads north-south along a quarter-section line 

about 05 miles east of the Griggs/Steele County 

Line

S073 1.5

No connection to the east or north due to 

S069 being eliminated and steep 

topography

Runs east-west along section lines along the 

same line as 8th St NE in Steele County

S078 3.5 No connection to the south due to S083 

being eliminated

Heads north-south along section line and 122 

Ave NE parallel to a gas lines

S079 3.0

No connection to the north due to S083 

being eliminated, located directly next to 

archaeological site

Heads north-south along section line parallel 

122nd Ave NE in Steele County

S083 33.0 Located near homes and archaeological 

resources

Runs east-west along 3rd St NE north of Route 

C

S085 4.0 Located within 400 feet of a residence

Heads east-west along quarter-section lines 

between 19th St NE and 20th St NE in Nelson 

County and 1st Ave NE and 2nd Ave NE in 

Grand Forks County

S086 3.0 No connection to the north due to S087 

being eliminated

Heads south along section lines and 155th Ave 

NE in agricultural land

S087 6.4

No connection to the north due to S086 

being eliminated and multiple crossings of 

the Goose River

Heads north along section lines and 155th Ave 

NE in agricultural land then east on 5th St NE
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Page 2-12 November 2010

Segment 

ID

Length 

(Miles) Reason Eliminated Description

S097 3.5 Close proximity to future development near 

the city of Wilton.

Heads east cross country for approximately 1.5 

miles crossing 41st St NW and then heads north 

cross country for approximately 2 miles crossing 

18th St SW, 230 kV WAPA transmission line, 

gas pipeline. The segment parallels an existing 

41.6 kV line for the northern 0.4 mile. 

S102 5.0

Since segment S097 was eliminated, the 

west end has no connection to a route. 

Located 1 mile north of the City of Wilton.

Heads east-west cross country and following 

field lines for approximately 4 miles and turns to 

head north for approximately 1 mile cross 

country. Crosses the DMVW railroad tracks and 

Highway 83

S104 1.4 Diagonal, congested area with transmission 

line, pipeline and field irrigation

Heads northeast on a diagonal cross country 

crossings a 41.6 kV transmission line, State 

Highway 83, field irrigation system, Yanktonai 

Creek, 230 kV WAPA transmission line and a 

pipeline. 

S107 4.0 Homes located within 200 and 400 feet of 

proposed route centerline.

Heads east-west cross country for approximately 

4 miles between 16th St SW and 15th St SW 

and crosses the DMVW railroad tracks and 14th 

Ave SW.

S109 1.0

Since segment S102 was eliminated, the 

south end has no connection to a route and 

bisects cropland.

Heads north for approximately 1 mile cross 

country along a quarter-section line and crosses 

15th St SW in McLean County.

S118 2.0 Residence 

Heads south 1 mile along 1st Ave NE and then 

east 1 mile along 2nd St NE, crossing the 

McClusky Canal 

S122 2.5 Residence and many trees Runs east-west along 9th street NE in Griggs 

County

S124 2.4

No connection to the west or north since 

S124 and S126 were eliminated, crosses 

the Northern Pacific Railroad and about 

0.75 mile south and east of Binford

Heads east-west along 9th St NE and northsouth parallel to State Highway 1

S126 2.0

No connection to the south because S124 

was eliminated, the line crosses Long Lake, 

and cultural resources 

Heads diagonal northeast-southwest on a cross 

country alignment north of State Highway 65 and 

across Long Lake

S139 3.0 Close proximity to residence and crosses 

the Middle Branch Goose River Runs north-south parallel to State Highway 32

S142 6.0

Golden Lake WMA, Shaw WPA, Wigen 

WPA, Thykeson WPA, Erickson WPA, and 

Golden Lake with many residences located 

about 1 mile away

Runs north-south for about 5 miles along a 

quarter-section line between 137th Ave NE and 

138th Ave NE and east-west for 1 mile along a 

quarter-section line

S143 6.0 Crosses the Goose River with large wooded 

riparian area, archaeological site 

Heads east-west for about 4.5 miles along a 

quarter-section line between 13th St NE and 

14th St NE then north-south for 1.5 miles along a 

quarter-section line between 143rd Ave NE and 

144th Ave NE. Crosses the Goose River.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 2-13 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis

Segment 

ID

Length 

(Miles) Reason Eliminated Description

S147 3.4

No connection to the east due to S150 

being eliminated, crosses the English 

Coulee

Runs east-west along quarter-section lines 

between 8th Ave NE and 9th Ave NE

S149 3.7 No connection to the west due to S147 and 

S150 being eliminated

Runs east-west for about 0.2 miles, then northsouth for about 1 mile along 19th St NE and 

east-west for 2.5 miles along a quarter-section 

line between 9th Ave NE and 10th Ave NE

S150 3.1

No connection to the south due to S147 

being eliminated, many residences near 

segment

Runs north-south parallel to 19th Street SE in 

Grand Forks County

S152 3.5 Near residences and archaeological 

resources

Heads north-south along 19th Street NE and 

turns west for 0.25 mile

S155 5.8 Near many residences, archaeological 

resources, and crosses gas line

Runs north-south along quarter-section lines to 

the Western 230 kV line, then diagonal along the 

Western line, the east-west along a quartersection line north of 15th Ave NE

2.4.4 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Project would not be constructed. No land 

would be used for transmission or substation facilities, and there would be no changes to the

existing environment in the Study Area. As discussed in Section 2.2, above, the No Action

Alternative does not meet the identified purpose and need for the proposed Project. A No

Action Alternative is evaluated in this EA in accordance with the Council on Environmental 

Quality NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) requiring review of a no action alternative.

2.4.5 Route A Alternative 

Route A is shown on Figure 2.4-2 and on Detailed Route Maps in Appendix B. This route is 

approximately 247-miles-long and follows the northern portion of the macro-corridors. The 

following is a description of the route from west to east starting at the Center 345 kV Substation 

to the Prairie Substation. 

The route proceeds northwest out of the Center 345 kV Substation for about 1 mile to the 

quarter-section line, then proceeds due east along the quarter-section line for about 8 miles, 

before turning northeast on a cross-country route to the Missouri River. This route crosses the 

Missouri River about one mile north of the existing HVDC transmission line. After crossing the 

Missouri River and State Highway 1804, the route proceeds north along the section line for 

about 3 miles, then east along the quarter-section line for 2 miles, then north for 4 miles along a

section line, and east for about 5.5 miles along a quarter-section line to within 0.5 mile west of 

State Highway 41. The route proceeds north for about 8.5 miles parallel to State Highway 41, 

turns east for 2 miles along State Highway 41, and follows State Highway 41 to the north for 

about 9 miles; within this segment the route spans the McClusky Canal. The route turns east for 

2 miles along 3rd Street NW to the McLean/Sheridan County line. The route proceeds 

diagonally, cross-country for about 8 miles to the eastside of Center St. in Sheridan County. At 

that point the route proceeds east about 0.25 mile north of 10th St NE for about 28.5 miles to 

State Highway 3, crossing the McClusky Canal and State Highway 14, then proceeds north for 

about 2 miles along State Highway 3. The route turns east along 12th St NE for about 15.5 

miles, crossing U.S. Highway 52, then turns north for about 1.5 miles on a quarter-section line. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Page 2-14 November 2010

The route turns east along a quarter-section line for about 29 miles, crossing State Highway 30 

and U.S. Highway 281; where it turns south for 1 mile to the quarter-section line, and continues 

east for 4 miles along the quarter-section line to turn south for 0.5 mile to 12th St NE 

(Foster/Eddy County line) where it travels 12 miles to the east. To bypass the towns of 

McHenry and Binford, the route goes south for 3 miles, then east for 12.5 miles along 3rd St 

NE/9th St NE, and north for 3 miles to 12th St NE. Along 12th St NE, the route heads east for 

about 12.5 miles, across the Sheyenne River and State Highway 45, to about 0.5 mile east of 

120th Ave NE in Steele County where the route travels north for about 7 miles on the quartersection to Aneta. At Aneta, the route goes northeast, diagonally, cross-country for about 6 miles 

to 6th Ave NE in Grand Forks County. The route travels east along 6th Ave NE for about 17 

miles, then north for 3 miles along the quarter-section line (about 0.5 mile west of 31st St NE), 

then east along the quarter-section line (between 8th Ave NE and 9th Ave NE) for about 9 

miles. Then turns to proceed northeast, diagonally, cross-country for about 3.5 miles, then north 

for about 4 miles on the west side of 19th St NE, where it turns east for 7 miles into the Prairie 

Substation. The segments that make up Route A are included in Table D-1 in Appendix D.

2.4.6 Route B Alternative

Route B is shown on Figure 2.4-2 and on Detailed Route Maps in Appendix B. This route is 

approximately 270-miles-long and follows the southern portion of the macro-corridors. The 

following is a description of the route from west to east starting at the Center 345 kV Substation 

to the Prairie Substation. 

The route proceeds northwest out of the Center 345 kV Substation for about 1 mile to the 

quarter-section line, then proceeds due east along the quarter-section line for about 12.5 miles 

across the Missouri River. This route crosses the Missouri River adjacent to the existing HVDC 

transmission line. After crossing the Missouri River, the route jogs north and east several times 

to avoid the City of Wilton by turning north to cross State Highway 1804 along a section line for 

about 4 miles, then turns east along the quarter-section line for 1 mile, then north for 3 miles 

along a section line, east for 1 mile along the section line, north for 1.5 miles along a section line, 

and east for about 5.5 miles along a quarter-section line to within 0.5 mile west of State Highway 

41. The route proceeds north for about 8.5 miles parallel to State Highway 41, turns east for 2 

miles along State Highway 41, and follows State Highway 41 to the north for about 9 miles; 

within this segment the route spans the McClusky Canal. The route turns east for 10 miles along 

3rd Street NW into Sheridan County, then south for 1 mile along 2nd Ave NE, and turning east 

along 2nd St NE for about 19 miles to 21st Ave NE, crossing State Highway 14, in Sheridan 

County. The route goes north along 21st Ave NE for about 2 miles, to 4th St NE, where it turns 

east for 5 miles to go north for 1.5 miles along 26th Ave SE (Wells County) to the quartersection (north of 5th St NE). The route travels east on the quarter-section (north of 5th St NE) 

for about 7.5 miles, crossing State Highway 3, then turns south for about 4 miles, crossing State 

Highway 200, to turn east on the quarter-section line (north of 1st St NE and south of State 

Highway 200) for about 29 miles. To avoid the city of Carrington, the route turns south for 1 

mile along a quarter-section line (west of 63 rd Ave SE in Foster County) to a quarter-section 

line (north of 6th St SE), where the route travels east for 28 miles, then north for 1 mile along a 

quarter-section line (east of 90th Ave SE). The route turns east at a quarter-section line (north of 

5th St SE) for 7 miles, then turns south for 1 mile, east for 3 miles, then south for 0.5 mile to 

Center St. in Griggs County. The route travels east along Center St. for 6 miles, to turn south for 

0.5 mile along a section line, then turns east along a section line for 10.5 miles to avoid the city 

of Cooperstown, then north for 2.5 miles to State Highway 200. The route travels east along 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 2-15 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis

State Highway 200 for 4 miles into Steele County. The route turns south for 2 miles along a 

quarter-section line (east of 120th Ave NE to Center St, where the route goes east for about 39.5 

miles, to near Hillsboro. The route turns north along a quarter-section line for about 34 miles, 

then east for 1 mile, and north for about 11 miles into the Prairie Substation. The segments that 

make up Route B are included in Table D-2 in Appendix D.

2.4.7 Route C Alternative

Route C is shown on Figure 2.4-2 and on Detailed Route Maps in Appendix B. This route is 

approximately 250-miles-long and follows the central portion of the macro-corridors. The 

following is a description of the route from west to east starting at the Center 345 kV Substation 

to the Prairie Substation. 

The route proceeds northwest out of the Center 345 kV Substation for about 1 mile to the 

quarter-section line. Then proceeds due east along the quarter-section line for about 1.5 miles to 

a quarter-section line (west of 32nd Ave SW in Oliver County) where the route turns north for 

about 5.5 miles to 17th St SW, where the route continues east for about 8 miles to near the Cross 

Ranch State Nature Preserve. At this point, the route crosses the Missouri River on a diagonal, 

northeast alignment to 16th St SW. The route travels east along 16th St SW for about 3 miles, 

then north for 0.5 mile on 19th St NW to the quarter-section line (north of 16th St NW) where it 

heads east for 2.5 miles, then north along 16.5 Ave SW for 7 miles. The route continues 

diagonally, cross-country for about 5.5 miles to 4th St SW in McLean County near the McClusky 

Canal. The route crosses the canal and travels north for about 0.5 mile to 3rd St SW, turning west 

for about 0.5 mile to 10th Ave SW. The route travels north along 10th Ave SW for about 6 miles 

to 3rd St NW. The route turns east for 11.5 miles along 3rd Street NW into Sheridan County, then 

south for 1 mile along 2nd Ave NE, and turning east along 2nd St NE for about 19 miles to 21st

Ave NE, crossing State Highway 14, in Sheridan County. The route goes north along 21st Ave 

NE for about 2 miles to 4th St NE, where it turns east for 5 miles to go north for 1.5 miles along 

26th Ave SE (Wells County) to the quarter-section (north of 5th St NE). The route travels east on 

the quarter-section (north of 5th St NE) for about 8 miles, crossing State Highway 3, then turns 

north for about 0.5 mile to 6th St NE. The route turns east along the 6th St NE for about 11 

miles, then north along 45th Ave SE for about 1.5 miles to a quarter-section line between 7th and 

8

th Streets NE. The route travels east along the quarter-section line for about 22 miles, then 

south along State Highway 281for about 0.5 mile to 1st St NE in Foster County. The route 

continues east along 1st St NE for about 26 miles, then turns north on State Highway 20 for 

about 2 miles to 3rd St NE (Foster County)/9th St NE (Griggs County), where it travels east for 

about 3.5 miles, then south for 0.5 mile along a quarter-section line, then east along a quartersection line (north of 8th St NE in Griggs County) for 6 miles. The route turns north along a 

quarter-section line for 3.5 miles to avoid Binford, then turns east along 12th St NE for 24.5 

miles crossing the Sheyenne River and State Highway 45. Just east of Sharon, the route turns 

north along 127th Ave NE for about 7.5 miles into Grand Forks County, then turns east along a 

quarter-section line (north of 1st Ave NE) for about 20.5 miles, crossing State Highway 18. The 

route turns north along a quarter-section line (between 26th St NE and 27th St NE) for about 3 

miles, then turns east along a quarter-section line (between 4th Ave NE and 5th Ave NE) for 

about 10 miles, then north along a quarter-section line (between 16th St NE and 17th St NE) for 

about 8 miles, crossing State Highway 15, then turns east for about 3 miles along a quartersection line (between 12th Ave NE and 13th Ave NE), then north for about 4 miles along a 

quarter-section line (between 13th St NE and 14th St NE) into the Prairie Substation. The 

segments that make up Route C are included in Table D-3 in Appendix D.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Page 2-16 November 2010

2.4.8 Segment Alternatives

In addition to the three route alternatives, Minnkota proposed 38 segment alternatives. The 

segment alternatives were formed from a combination of route segments that were not used to 

develop the route alternatives. The route segments used to develop the segment alternative is 

shown in Table 2.4-2. The segment alternatives serve as options suggested by landowners and 

for avoidance or minimization of impacts to certain sensitive areas found along the route 

alternatives. All segment alternatives were analyzed within Chapter 3 of this EA. All route 

segments and associated environmental information considered are included in Appendix C. The 

segment alternatives are labeled 1 through 38 and summarized in Table 2.4-2. Figure 2.4-2 shows 

the segment alternatives.

Table 2.4-2. Segment Alternatives Evaluated in the EA

Segment 

Alternative

Route 

Segments Description Associated Route Alternative

A01 S171

Diagonal northeast cross country segment through cropland 

for 1.6 miles crossing 32nd Ave SW. Serves as an 

alternative.

C

A02 S172

Heads east cross country on section line for 8 miles then 

diagonals northeast for 0.7 mile. Serves as a southern 

alternative.

A, B

A03 S059

Diagonals southeast cross county for 1.6 miles then heads 

east for 2.6 miles, turns northeast for 0.4 mile crossing of 

Missouri River then turns north for 1.1 miles. Serves as an 

alternate Missouri River crossing.

B

A04 S167

Diagonals northeast for 0.9 mile, then turns east for 1.7 

miles including a 0.5 mile wide Missouri River crossing. 

Serves as an alternate Missouri River crossing. 

A

A05 S111 Heads northeast on a diagonal cross country crossing the 

DMVW railroad. Serves as alternative. A, B, C

A06 S115 Heads east along section line and 13th St SW for 4 miles.

Serves as a crossover.

A, B, C

A07 S168

Heads 6.5 miles north along section line then diagonals 

northeast 6.6 miles cross country. Serves as a western 

option. 

A, B, C

A08 S008

Heads east cross country for approximately 3 miles 

crossing State Hwy 41. Segment then heads north cross 

country for approximately 4.3 miles crossing a 230 kV 

transmission line and McClusky Canal. Serves as an 

eastern crossing of McClusky Canal.

A, B

A09 S169 Heads west to east cross country for approximately 1 mile.

Serves as crossover for Alternative A07. A, B, C

A10 S010 Heads west to east cross country for approximately 1.5 

miles. Provides crossover to Alternative A11. A, B, C

A11 S011 Heads west to east cross country for approximately 1 mile. 

Provides crossover to Alternative A10. A, B, C

A12 S170 Heads north along 11th Ave SW and section line for 6 miles 

then turns east for 0.9 mile. Serves as a western alternative.

A, B, C
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 2-17 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis

Segment 

Alternative

Route 

Segments Description Associated Route Alternative

A13 S014 Heads north cross country for approximately 6 miles and 

crosses Center St. Serves as eastern alternative.

A, B, C

A14 S017

Heads east cross country for approximately 1 mile and then 

heads north cross country for approximately 6 miles and 

crosses Center St. Serves as eastern alternative.

A, B, C

A15 S050

Heads north parallel to Center Ave for approximately 6.8 

miles. Segment crosses 5th St NE and 9th St NW. Serves as 

crossover.

A, B, C

A16 S161 Heads north along Center Ave. Serves as an alternative. A

A17 S162 Heads east cross country for approximately 0.4 mile. 

Serves as an alternative.

A

A18 S020, S121

Heads northeast for 1.2 miles then turns east for 28.9 miles 

following 11th St NE and section line. Crosses McClusky 

Canal and North Dakota Highway 14. Serves primarily as a 

northern alternative.

A

A19 S049 Heads north along 45th Ave SE. Serves as a crossover. . A, C

A20 S034 Heads east 2.5 miles along Eddy/Foster County line, then 

south 3 miles. Serves as an alternate point of inflection.

A

A21 S039, S127 

Heads east cross country for 3.2 miles, turns northeast for 

0.3 mile then follows section line for 3.6 miles. Serves as a 

southern alternative.

A, C

A22 S130 Heads east along section line for 0.5 mile then turns north 

along 10th Ave NE for 1 mile. Joins Alternative A21. A, C

A23

S040, S041, 

S044, S051, 

S056

Heads south along half section line for 2.5 miles, turns east 

at half section line for 3.5 miles, crosses ND 45 and turns 

north for 1.5 miles crossing ND 65, heads east for 7.5 miles 

crossing Sheyenne River and ND 45. Serves as alternate 

crossing of Sheyenne River.

A, C

A24 S067 Heads north cross country along half section line. Serves 

primarily as crossover that joins Alternative A22. A, B, C

A25 S068, S072 

Heads north-south cross country along half section line for 1 

mile then turns east-west along section line for 1.5 miles. 

Serves as crossover.

A, B, C

A26 S070, S074, 

S076, S077 

Heads north cross country along half section line for 4.5 

miles crossing a 69 kV line. Turns east at half section line 

for 1.5 miles the turns north along 122nd Ave NE for 2.5 

miles crossing a 41.6 kV line. Serves a crossover.

A, B, C

A27

S080, S140, 

S141, S144, 

S145

Heads east for 16 miles, generally following 9th St NE 

crossing BNSF railroad, 230 kV line, and Middle Branch 

Goose River. Turns north for 3 miles following 138th Ave 

NE, jogs east along 12th St NE for 1 mile. Turns north along 

139th Ave NE for 3 miles crossing Beaver Creek and Goose 

River. Heads east for 4.5 miles along 15th St NE, then turns 

north for 4.5 miles cross country along half section line, 

crossing 69 kV line and BNSF railroad. Serves as southern 

alternative for Routes A and C or northern alternative for 

Route B.

A, B, C
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Page 2-18 November 2010

Segment 

Alternative

Route 

Segments Description Associated Route Alternative

A28 S134, S136 

Heads east for 2.3 miles along 18th St NE/Steele-Nelson 

County line, then 3.1 miles cross country north along 

section line. Serves as alternative.

A

A29 S138 Heads 2.9 miles north along 124th Ave NE, then 2.3 miles 

east along section line. Serves as alternative.

A

A30 S165 Diagonals northeast cross country through cropland and 

tree rows. Serves as alternative.

A

A31 S166 Diagonals northeast cross country through cropland. Serves 

as alternative.

A

A32 S093 Heads east-west along 5th Ave NE. Serves as a crossover. B, C

A33 S173, S183

Diagonals northeast cross country crossing the Sheyenne 

River for 1 mile, then 0.5 mile east along half section line, 

then 0.5 mile north along half section line. Parallels 13th St 

NE for approximately 2.5 miles, and then parallels State 

Highway 45 for approximately 2.1 miles. Serves as an 

alternative. 

A, C

A34 S174

Diagonals southeast 0.4 mile cross country, then 0.4 mile 

east crossing the Sheyenne River, then 0.3 mile northeast 

cross country. Serves as an alternative. 

A, C

A35 S175 Heads 1 mile east-west parallel to 8

th Ave NE. Serves as an 

alternative.

A

A36 S186 Diagonals northeast cross country through cropland for 

approximately 0.7 mile. Serves as an alternative. A

A37 S187

Heads 7 miles east-west parallel to 8th Ave NE, then 

diagonals 0.9 mile northeast cross country. Serves as an 

alternative. 

A

A38 S189

Heads northeast for approximately 0.5 mile and then turns 

east crossing the railroad and Missouri River for 

approximately 1 mile, turns north for approximately 0.6 mile. 

Serves as an alternative Missouri River crossing.

A, B

2.4.9 230 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. All route alternatives would include 

the 230 kV Tie Line. Figure 2.4-3 shows the 230 kV Tie Line 1,000-foot-wide route. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-1 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

3.0 Environmental Analysis

This section describes the environmental setting as it relates to each route alternative and 

segment alternative considered under the proposed Project. The resources and environmental 

settings included for analysis within this section were identified during the scoping process for

the proposed Project. The following subsections are divided into discussions about the 

description of the resource, potential impacts from the proposed Project, and potential

mitigation measures.

The description of the resource describes the resources and environmental settings found in the

Study Area. For purposes of analysis, the Study Area is the general area around the route and 

segment alternatives. The route is defined as the 1,000-foot-wide route proposed for each of the 

build alternatives (Route Alternatives A, B, and C and Segment Alternatives A01 through A38).

Table 3.0-1 provides a summary of the temporary and permanent impact for each route 

alternatives.

The Study Area includes portions of 12 counties in central and eastern North Dakota that are 

Oliver, Burleigh, McLean, Sheridan, Wells, Foster, Eddy, Griggs, Nelson, Steele, Traill, and 

Grand Forks counties. The general land cover within the Study Area consists primarily of 

agricultural lands including cultivated crops and livestock grazing, with dispersed areas of 

pasture/hay and woodland. Agriculture is one of the most important industries in North 

Dakota. Cultivated croplands are more prevalent in the east towards the Red River Valley, with 

approximately 60 percent cropland from Center, North Dakota, (Center 345 kV Substation) to 

Mercer, North Dakota, to nearly 90 percent cropland from the Sheyenne River to Grand Forks, 

North Dakota (Prairie Substation). The primary cultivated crops include wheat, soybeans, and 

corn. Cattle are the lead livestock production in North Dakota. Center pivot irrigation units are 

commonly found within the Study Area.

Prairies and wetlands are more prevalent in the western portion of the Study Area, toward the 

Missouri River. Historically, North Dakota was mostly prairie land cover. Prairie covers more 

land in the western portions of the Study Area and decreases towards the Sheyenne River and 

Red River Valley. Wetlands occur throughout the Study Area with a higher concentration in the 

Prairie Pothole Region of the upper Midwest. Wetlands are typically small, isolated depressions, 

but may also be found along drainages, rivers, and streams. Wetlands cover nearly 12 percent of 

the land within the western portion of the Study Area, and decrease to about 5 percent in the 

eastern portion due to increased cultivated crops. Wooded areas are not prevalent in North 

Dakota, as the historic land cover was prairie. Currently, the most common wooded areas are 

shelterbelts around residences and buildings. The major rivers may have a wooded, riparian 

fringe. 

The Study Area contains undulating terrain in the western section within the Prairie Pothole 

region and near major rivers; otherwise, the eastern half is nearly level within the Red River 

Valley. Major watercourses within the Study Area include the Missouri, James, and Sheyenne 

Rivers.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-2 November 2010

Table 3.0-1. Route Alternatives Summary Table

Impact Route A Route B Route C

Total Length (mile) 247.4 269.6 250.4

Length (feet) 1,306,386 1,423,274 1,322,101

Total ROW Acres 4,498 4,900 4,552

Approximate Number of Structures 1,309 1,425 1,324

Temporary Impacts

Temporary Structure Impact (acres) 84.7 92.3 85.7

Access Road Impact (acres) 397.7 433.3 402.4

Staging Areas (8) (acres) 80 80 80

Batch Plants (6) (acres) 30 30 30

Fiber Optic Regeneration Station Access Roads (4) (acres) 0.16 0.16 0.16

Highway Access Road (acres) 0.00 0.03 0.01

Center 345 kV Substation Expansion (acres) 0.52 0.52 0.52

230 kV Tie Line Structures Impact (acres) 0.34 0.34 0.34

230 kV Tie Line Access Road Impact (acres) 0.47 0.47 0.47

Total Temporary Impact (acres) 593.8 637.0 599.6

Percent of ROW – Temporary Impact 13.22 13.02 13.19

Permanent Impacts

Permanent Structure Impact (acres) 2.4 2.6 2.4

Fiber Optic Repeater Station (4) (acres) 0.02 0.02 0.02

Fiber Optic Repeater Station Access Roads (4) (acres) 0.08 0.08 0.08

Center 345 kV Substation Expansion (acres) 0.52 0.52 0.52

230 kV Tie Line Access Road Impact (acres) 0.01 0.01 0.01

Total Permanent Impacts (acres) 2.98 3.19 3.01

Percent of ROW – Permanent Impacts 0.07% 0.07% 0.07%

Restricted Tillage Area (acres) 7.1 7.7 7.1

The impact discussion describes the potential effects from the proposed Project alternatives. 

Under the No Action Alternative there would be no changes to the existing conditions in the 

route and segment alternatives; all resources would remain as-is and are not discussed within this 

chapter, except within the Socioeconomic Section (Section 3.14). For each of the route

alternatives, Minnkota identified a feasible 150-foot-wide ROW that could be located within the 

1,000-foot-wide route. The impact analysis was conducted assuming the placement of the 

feasible 150-foot-wide ROW identified by Minnkota. For those segment alternatives for which a 

feasible ROW has not been identified, analysis was conducted assuming the placement of the 

ROW along the centerline of the 1,000-foot-wide route. A discussion of the proposed Project

alternatives is presented in Chapter 2.4 Route Alternatives.

Temporary and permanent impacts associated with the 230 kV Tie Line and the Center 345 kV 

Substation expansion are included in route alternatives impact discussions. Temporary impacts 

associated with highway access areas and all staging areas are included with the route alternatives 

impact discussions.

Temporary and permanent impacts associated with the relocation of transmission line structures 

at the Center 345 kV Substation and Prairie Substation are not included with the route 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-3 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

alternatives impact discussions, since any impact would occur on previously disturbed Minnkotaowned property and within an area of the same land use; therefore, impacts would be the same 

as existing conditions.

The following assumptions were used to estimate resource impacts on land cover, vegetation, 

soils, prime farmland, and managed resource areas:

A 1,000-foot span distance between structures. 

Temporary impacts would include: a 30-foot radius for each structure and 

foundation (about 2,826 square feet per structure), a 15-foot-wide access road which 

would follow the proposed centerline, six staging areas along the line (approximately 

10 acres each), two end staging areas at the substations (approximately 10 acres 

each), six potential batch plant staging areas (approximately 5 acres each), four 30-

foot-by-57-foot access roads to the fiber optic regeneration stations, one 20-foot-by20-foot and one 20-foot-by-40-foot highway access road on Route B, and one 20-

foot-by-20-foot highway access road on Route C. 

Permanent impacts would include: a 5-foot radius for each structure and foundation 

location (~78.5 square feet per structure), four 12-foot-by-18-foot fiber optic 

regeneration stations, and four 16-foot-by-75-foot access roads for fiber optic 

regeneration stations. 

Temporary impacts for the 230 kV Tie Line would include a 50-foot diameter area 

around each pole of three 3-pole structures (3,909 square feet per structure) and one 

2-pole H-frame structure (2,936 square feet per structure). Poles in each structure are 

spaced 20-feet apart.

Permanent impacts for the 230 kV Tie Line would include a 7-foot diameter area 

around each pole of three 3-pole structures (115.5 square feet per structure) and a 5-

foot diameter area around each pole of one 2-pole H-frame structure (39.3 square 

feet per structure).

A Restricted Tillage Area was added as a permanent impact to each structure 

location on tillable land. This area was added to the calculated impacts on tillable 

land as a farmer may not wish to farm the land any closer than five feet from the 

structure base. The additional area buffer (5-foot radius) would be added to structure 

locations on tillable land (about 235.5 square feet per structure). Therefore, the total 

permanent impact of each structure on tillable land equals a 10-foot radius (about 

314 square feet per structure).

The final location and width of a ROW for the proposed Project is unknown at the time this EA

was prepared, and will be prescribed in the PSC’s Route Permit for the proposed Project.

Due to discussions with landowners and landowner preference, portions of the final alignment 

may be located beyond the 1,000-foot-wide route and segment alternatives that are discussed 

within this EA. However, in general, the majority of the final alignment would likely remain with 

the same landowner and would likely have the same land use as the route and segment 

alternative. Therefore, if portions of the final alignment are located beyond the 1,000-foot-wide 

route and segment alternatives, impacts of the final alignment would be consistent with what is 

addressed within this EA.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-4 November 2010

The mitigation discussion identifies potential measures to reduce or eliminate anticipated 

impacts for each resource area. Mitigation measures are not discussed for identified potential 

effects that are either not anticipated to occur under construction or operation of the proposed

Project or are anticipated to result in a positive effect. The mitigation discussion includes typical 

high voltage transmission line permit conditions issued by state and federal agencies, mitigation 

strategies proposed by Minnkota and additional mitigation measures that may be warranted.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-5 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

3.1 State Highway Crossing and Construction Access Locations

The proposed transmission line would cross state highways at 45 locations. Construction access 

to the proposed route alternatives may take place at the 45 crossing locations. Ten of the 45 

potential construction access locations may require a temporary impact within DOT ROW. No 

permanent impacts are anticipated. Table 3.1-1 displays the state highway crossing and access 

locations from west to east and potential impacts. Figure 3.1-1 displays the highway construction 

and access locations. Temporary impacts by resource are included within Environmental 

Analysis in Chapter 3.0. 

Table 3.1-1. State Highway Crossing and Construction Access Locations

Crossing 

Number

ND 

Hwy Route

North or East 

Access1

South or West 

Access1

Temporary Impact 

Anticipated

Description of 

Temporary Impact

1 25 C Drive off access Existing field access No NA

2 25 A/B Drive off access Existing field access Yes Remove & replace 

fence east side

3 1804 C

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

4 1804 A Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

5 1804 B Drive off access Drive off access Yes Remove & replace 

fence east side

6 / 7 83 A/B Drive off access Drive off access Yes Remove & replace 

fence both sides

8 / 9 83 C Drive off access Existing field access Yes Remove & replace 

fence east side

10 41 A/B Access from 

side road Drive off access No NA

11 41 C Drive off access Drive off access No NA

12 200 A Drive off access Access from side 

road No NA

13 14 A

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

14 14 B/C Drive off access Drive off access No NA

15 200 B/C Existing field 

access

Access from side 

road No NA

16 3 B/C Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

17 3 A Drive off access Access from side 

road No NA

18 200 B

Temporary 

access needed

Temporary access 

needed Yes

20x20 foot temporary 

access with culverts 

(both). Water on both 

sides of road.

19 52 C Drive off access Temporary access 

needed Yes 20x20 foot temporary access with no culvert
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-6 November 2010

Crossing 

Number

ND 

Hwy Route

North or East 

Access1

South or West 

Access1

Temporary Impact 

Anticipated

Description of 

Temporary Impact

20 52 A

Access from 

side road

Drive off access 500

feet south No NA

21 30 C

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

22 30 A Drive off access Existing field access No NA

23 281 B

No access due 

to railroad Existing field access Yes Gravel/build-up of east side access

24 281 C

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

25 281 A

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

26 20 B

Existing field 

access

No access, field 

access to ROW 800

feet south

No NA

27 20 A/C Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

28 1 A/C Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

29 1 B

No access due 

to water Existing field access Yes

Gravel/build-up of east 

side access. Water 

east side with no 

access for 150 feet

from road.

30 200 B

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

31 200 B

Temporary 

access needed

Access from side 

road Yes 20x40 foot temporary access with culvert

32 32 A/C Access from 

side road

Access from side 

road No NA

33 32 A

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

34 32 B

Existing field 

access

Existing field access Yes

East side would need 

some compaction. 

Water on east side of 

road

35 32 C

Existing field 

access

None Required 

(access from ROW) No NA

36 18 B

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

37 200 B Drive off access Drive off access No NA

38 15 B Drive off access Drive off access No NA

39 15 C Drive off access Existing field access No NA

40 18 C

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-7 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Crossing 

Number

ND 

Hwy Route

North or East 

Access1

South or West 

Access1

Temporary Impact 

Anticipated

Description of 

Temporary Impact

41 15 A

Existing field 

access

Existing field access No NA

42 18 A Drive off access Drive off access No NA

43 1806 A Drive off access Drive off access No NA

44 1806 B Drive off access Drive off access No NA

45 1806 C Drive off access Drive off access No NA

1 Existing field access - Construction access would be via existing field access which are adequate in size and 

strength to handle construction equipment.

Drive off access - Construction access would be through existing shoulder which is shallow enough and has 

adequate strength to handle construction equipment.

Access from side road - Construction access would not be along highway, but rather would access ROW via side 

road close to crossing location.

Temporary access needed - Construction access would require the building of a temporary access, which would 

be removed and land restored following completion of construction. Additional notes indicate if there is need 

for culvert to facilitate drainage or water flow.

None Required - Construction access would be from opposite direction and along ROW, no access along that side 

of highway.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-8 November 2010

3.2 Land Use

The routes include portions of 12 counties in central and eastern North Dakota, which are

primarily dominated by rural agricultural land use, i.e. pasture or cropland and nearby 

farmsteads. Less common types of land use in the vicinity of the routes include small farm-based 

towns, utility scale wind power generation, utility ROWs, airports, aggregate mining, and wildlife 

habitat. Larger urban areas are generally not present outside of Carrington, Cooperstown, and 

Grand Forks.

Data sources used to analyze land use in the vicinity of the proposed routes include local, state, 

and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and field work conducted by Minnkota’s 

consultant. Land use and land cover data were gathered from the North Dakota Gap Analysis 

Program (GAP) data (Figure 3.2-1) (Strong et al). GAP land cover definitions are included 

within Table C-2 (Appendix C). Detailed route maps (Appendix B) display these features at 

larger scales. All spatial analyses and mapping were completed using the ArcInfo license of 

ESRI® ArcMapTM 9.3.

3.2.1 Description of Resources

Agriculture

Land use within the Study Area primarily consists of agricultural production of cultivated crops 

and livestock with some dispersed areas used for hay production. The highest yield resources 

include wheat, corn, soybeans, hay, barley, and sunflowers. Livestock operations include mostly 

cattle and hogs farms. Cultivated croplands generally increase as the proposed Project moves 

east towards the Red River Valley. Percent crop cover ranges from approximately 60 percent 

cropland along the portions of the routes running between Center and Mercer, to nearly 90

percent cropland along the portions of the routes running between the Sheyenne River and 

Prairie Substation. As demonstrated by the high percentage of farmland across each route, 

agriculture is one of the most important industries in North Dakota. Figure 3.2-1 displays the 

extent of agricultural land use in the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

Agriculture is the primary land-based economic resource in the Study Area. According to the 

North Dakota 2007 Agricultural Statistics published by the USDA, North Dakota ranks 18th

among the states in total crop cash receipts. In 2002 there were an estimated 30,619 farms in 

North Dakota, and in 2007 the number increased by 4 percent to an estimated 31,970 farms. 

Four of the counties within the Study Area (Grand Forks, McLean, Traill, and Wells) are ranked 

in the top 20 for the states total value of agricultural products sold (USDA 2010).

In 2005, North Dakota had a total of 159 certified organic farms and ranked second in the 

country for number of certified organic cropland acres. North Dakota is the leader in 

production of organic oilseeds (flax and sunflowers), producing 50 percent of the total U.S. 

production (North Dakota Organic Advisory Board 2010). 

Table 3.2-1 summarizes farmland, cropland, and agricultural production for all counties within 

the Study Area based on 2007 USDA census data. The primary crop is wheat, and additional 

high production crops include hay, soybeans, corn, and barley. The number of farms increased 

in all counties from 2002 to 2007 with the exception of Sheridan and Oliver counties. Grand 

Forks County is ranked third in the state for highest total agricultural products sold.

Center pivot irrigation systems are commonly found within the Study Area to supplement 

natural rainfall (Figure 3.2-2). 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-9 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.2-1. Agricultural Statistics for Counties within the Study Area

Statistic Burleigh Eddy Foster Grand 

Forks

Griggs McLean Oliver Nelson Sheridan Steele Traill Wells

Number of 

Farms in 2007

(in 2002)

1,026

(946)

366

(325)

310

(309)

973

(863)

479

(423)

1,001

(918)

273

(307)

651

(598)

390

(393)

342

(318)

460

(427)

618

(579)

Average Farm 

Size in 2007 

(acres)

(in 2002)

857

(915)

1,029

(1,073)

1,290

(1,239)

848

(876)

848

(896)

1,162

(1,193)

1,384

(1,315)

845

(889)

1,282

(1,193)

1,175

(1,261)

1,182

(1,240)

1,225

(1,154)

Land Acreage 

in Farmland in 

2007

(in 2002)

879,542

(865,524)

376,620

(348,786)

399,912

(382,932)

825,552

(755,592)

406,115

(379,022)

1,162,923

(1,094,748)

377,904

(403,619)

550,121

(531,591)

500,070

(468,745)

401,959

(401,035)

543,650

(529,647)

757,008

(668,049)

Total Market 

Value of 

Agricultural 

Products Sold 

in 2007

(in 2002)

$82,236

($45,060)

$47,231

($21,189)

$94,959

($39,716)

$255,594

($144,840)

$63,305

($29,735)

$163,440

($84,271)

$53,389

($22,579)

$85,369

($41,198)

$52,488

($24,677)

$102,344

($52,199)

$182,870

($100,962)

$144,758

($61,275)

2007 Market 

Value of Crops 

Sold

$50,682 $38,658 $75,607 $233,477 $56,624 $145,847 $24,326 $77,333 $43,742 $99,946 $177,193 $132,852

2007 Market 

Value of 

Livestock and 

Other Uses 

Sold

$31,555 $8,573 $19,352 $22,118 $6,680 $17,593 $29,063 $8,036 $8,746 $2,397 $5,677 $11,906

Top Crop Items 

by Acres

Wheat, Hay, 

Sunflower 

seed

Wheat, 

Soybeans, 

Hay

Soybeans, 

Wheat, Corn

Wheat, 

Soybeans, 

Corn

Wheat, 

Soybeans, 

Corn

Wheat, 

Canola, 

Hay

Wheat, 

Hay, Corn

Wheat, 

Soybeans, 

Barley

Wheat, 

Hay, 

Barley

Soybeans, 

Corn, Wheat

Soybeans, 

Corn, Wheat

Wheat, 

Soybeans, 

Corn

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2007 Census of Agriculture
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-10 November 2010

GPS

GPS navigation systems are becoming more common on farm equipment. GPS units collect 

location data from at least three or more satellites at any given time. The accuracy of the location 

data is dependent on the number of satellites and the strength of the signal. Since satellites are in 

constant motion above the earth, GPS units are constantly picking up and dropping satellites. At 

times there might be instances when the GPS unit is not able to connect to enough satellites and 

the required accuracy is not met.

In 2002 the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) published a study that 

investigated the effects of overhead power-lines on GPS receivers with respect to the effects of 

EMI (electromagnetic interference) generated by two mechanisms: corona noise and gap 

discharges. Measurements evaluated whether the GPS signal could be scattered by overhead 

conductors and if EMI could adversely affect the signal received.

The test conducted in the study by IEEE used a Trimble GPS receiver near a 345 kV line to see 

if corona noise and gap discharge could affect the ―lock‖ a receiver had on the satellite 

constellation above. They made multiple measurements in fair and foul weather conditions and 

also under double circuit twin-conductor transmission lines.

The study reported that exposure to corona noise or gap discharge noise did not cause a loss of 

satellite signal lock. They did however note that the receiver may lose lock due to temporary 

poor satellite configurations, which may happen from many different sources, including poor 

satellite constellation (less than four visible satellites) and/or outages to the base station or 

transmitter.

On rare occasions, a transmission line structure may cause a temporary drop in accuracy due to 

blocking a view to one satellite, but this would only occur if the receiver, structure, and satellite 

are in a line, which is rare. Connection is usually restored within minutes and the GPS units 

return to normal function.

Forestry

The routes and the segment alternatives are located primarily in grassland and cultivated land 

with some forested areas adjacent to farmsteads, waterways, and within state- and federally 

managed lands. There are no economically important forestry resources within the proposed 

routes or segments alternatives.

Human Settlement

Human settlement in the Study Area has largely been developed to support agricultural 

industries. Farmsteads are widely distributed, but are typically located along rural roads running 

along section lines. In general, farmstead density increases as the proposed Project moves from 

west to east. Small, farm-based communities are located within 1 mile of the proposed routes; 

these communities range in size from unincorporated areas with a few houses to more 

established, incorporated municipalities. Incorporated municipalities within 1 mile of the 

proposed routes include Aneta (population 284), Sharon (population 109), Northwood 

(population 959), Goodrich (population 163), Thompson (population 1,006), and Binford 

(population 201). Three larger communities are within the vicinity of the routes: Carrington 

(population 2,268), Cooperstown (population 1,053), and Grand Forks (population 49,321). 

Populations listed were obtained from the 2000 census. In addition to homes, more developed 

communities may include other structures such as businesses, schools, government facilities, 

churches, and cemeteries.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-11 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Areas of human development are not generally considered compatible with transmission line 

development. As such, North Dakota has established a 500 foot setback from occupied 

residences (NDCC Rules 69-06-08-02).

Incorporated areas are displayed on Figure 3.2-2, while detailed home locations and cemetery 

locations are contained on the detailed route maps in Appendix B.

Existing Infrastructure

Developed infrastructure in the vicinity of the routes include federal, state, county, and township 

roads; utility scale wind farm development; utility ROWs; airports; radar facilities; and railroads. 

In some cases, existing infrastructure along the proposed routes is a compatible land use, while 

others infrastructure, such as airports and center point irrigation (CPI) systems is not. Figure 3.2-

2 displays the location of various infrastructure types in the vicinity of the proposed routes. The 

route maps in Appendix B display these features in more detail.

Wind farm development is increasing in North Dakota. There are three existing wind farm 

developments within the vicinity of the routes. Most wind farm development is located in the 

west region of the Study Area due to favorable wind conditions, availability of land and 

proximity to existing transmission lines. The exact size and location of future wind farm 

development are unknown, although according to landowners, wind development companies are 

actively discussing projects with them.

Existing ROWs (transmission lines, pipelines, railway, or roads) present opportunities for 

paralleling as these features are typically disturbed corridors and are considered compatible with 

the construction and operation of new transmission lines. In some cases, these ROWs may 

present siting challenges or have to be spanned.

Airports are present in the vicinity of the proposed routes. Most of these facilities are county or 

city airports, but there are smaller private airstrips within the Study Area. Portions of proposed 

routes fall within Airport Zone D of the Grand Forks International Airport. 

Mining Resources

North Dakota’s most important mined products are petroleum, coal, and natural gas. Other 

mined products include sand, gravel, clays, and salt. Of these, only sand and gravel are produced 

within the vicinity of the proposed route and segment alternatives. These aggregate mines are 

often expanding and operated on by heavy machinery. Transmission line development may be 

compatible with aggregate resource extraction, if structure placement and overhead lines would 

not interfere with future operations at the mining facility. The DOT maintains a database of 

aggregate resources; however, the database may not be updated regularly. Consequently, recently 

established aggregate resources may not be included in the database, and areas not under active 

resource extraction may still be included. DOT aggregate resource data were verified to the 

extent possible during field work and by using 2009 National Agricultural Imaging Program 

aerial photography. The detailed route maps (Appendix B) display the location of gravel pits and 

other mines in the vicinity of the proposed Project.

Coal surface mines are present in the vicinity of the western routes, but are not crossed by the 

proposed routes.

Tourism

Minnkota identified tourism activities that are located within the proposed routes and segment 

alternatives along with resources within the vicinity that may be indirectly impacted by the
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-12 November 2010

proposed Project because of viewshed effects or alteration of the landscape. The majority of 

tourism opportunities along the routes and the segment alternatives are associated with 

recreational resources including state WMAs, federal WPAs, Bureau of Reclamation’s Chain of 

Lakes Recreation Area, Cross Ranch State Park, Missouri River, Private Lands Open to 

Sportsmen (PLOTS), and the North Country National Scenic Trail. Refer to Section 3.15 for a 

discussion of the recreation resource information along the routes and segment alternatives.

Conservation Areas

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) grassland and wetland easements and Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) – Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Conservation 

Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) parcels are also present along the routes. These areas 

have been assigned various levels of legal protection, which generally prohibit development. 

These areas are intended to serve as wildlife habitat, to protect rare natural features or to 

preserve water quality. USFWS and NRCS easements typically retain private ownership and are 

generally considered confidential by these agencies. As such, information about the location and 

scope of potential impacts to these resources is limited.

The proposed Project would not cross any National Forest or National Grassland areas. 

Minnkota’s consultant coordinated with the USFWS to determine the preliminary extent of 

grassland and wetland easement parcels. Minnkota would coordinate with the USFWS to 

determine exact locations of grassland and wetland easement parcels for the ROW process. 

Grassland easements are surface easements that minimize impacts to land cover. Wetland 

easements protect the wetland basin(s) within the easement land. Figure 3.2-3 shows the USFWS 

easements within a one-mile-wide buffer of the center of the route. The USFWS has retained 

wetland easements on a number of parcels within the proposed Project area. Table 3.2-2 shows 

the number and acreage of USFWS easements within the routes. Table 3.2-3 shows the number 

and acreage of USFWS easements within the segment alternatives. 

Table 3.2-2. USFWS Easements within the Route Alternatives

Easement Type

Route A Route B Route C

Number of 

Easements 

in ROW

Acres of 

Easements 

in ROW

Number of 

Easements 

in ROW

Acres of 

Easements in 

ROW

Number of 

Easements in 

ROW

Acres of 

Easements in 

ROW

Grassland 0 0 1 48 1 48

Grassland and Wetland 3 134 5 229 7 298

Wetland 88 Unknown* 74 Unknown* 74 Unknown*

Total 91 Unknown 80 Unknown 82 Unknown

*Wetland easements are mapped at parcel level, but wetland easements only apply to the wetland basins with 

the parcel. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-13 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.2-3. USFWS Easements within the Segment Alternatives

Segment 

Alternative

Easement Type

Number of 

Total 

Easements

Acres of 

Total 

Easements

Number 

of 

Grassland

Acres of 

Grassland

Number of 

Grassland 

and Wetland

Acres of 

Grassland 

and Wetland

Number 

of 

Wetlands

Acres of 

Wetland*

A01 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A02 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A03 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A04 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A05 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A06 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A07 3 - 0 0 0 0 3 -

A08 3 - 0 0 0 0 3 -

A09 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A10 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A11 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A12 4 - 0 0 2 249 2 -

A13 11 - 0 0 2 61 9 -

A14 11 - 0 0 1 57 10 -

A15 11 - 0 0 0 0 11 -

A16 2 - 0 0 0 0 2 -

A17 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A18 13 - 0 0 1 11 12 -

A19 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A20 6 - 0 0 0 0 6 -

A21 8 - 0 0 0 0 8 -

A22 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A23 5 - 0 0 0 0 5 -

A24 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A25 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A26 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A27 5 - 0 0 0 0 5 -

A28 4 - 0 0 0 0 4 -

A29 3 - 0 0 0 0 3 -

A30 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A31 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A32 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A33 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A34 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A35 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A36 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A37 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A38 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

*Wetland easements are mapped at parcel level, but wetland easements only apply to the wetland basins with 

the parcel.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-14 November 2010

PLOTS is a voluntary program offered to landowners by the North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department (NDGF), which provides landowners with monetary compensation for allowing 

public access to their land for fishing or hunting. Land parcels are typically enrolled in the 

PLOTS program for two to three years, but some are under a long-term agreement. The location 

of these parcels is made public by the NDGF. Some CRP parcels are enrolled in the PLOTS 

program; therefore, locations are within the state’s GIS data, although not all CRP parcels are 

participating. PLOTS lands are displayed on Figure 3.2-4 and the detailed route maps in 

Appendix B. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Ducks Unlimited own property along the routes, which is 

used specifically to provide habitat for rare species native to North Dakota and nesting areas for 

waterfowl along the migratory pathway. These areas are generally concentrated near the Missouri 

River. TNC lands are displayed on Figure 3.2-4 and the detailed route maps in Appendix B.

State Surface Tracts

The North Dakota State Land Department (NDLD) manages the State Surface Tracts and

School Trust lands in North Dakota, which were granted at statehood for the support of 

primary and secondary education. Several Surface Tracts are located within the proposed route 

and segment alternatives. Some of these tracts have identifiable assets in addition to the current 

pastureland use, such as aggregate deposits, potential for wind tower placement, or cultivated 

land. The NDLD provided a listing of two groups of School Trust land: (1) Tracts not 

recommended for the electric transmission line, and (2) Tracts that can accommodate the 

electric transmission line. Figure 3.2-4 displays these tracts. Table 3.2-4 and Table 3.2-5 identify 

the tracts within the route and segment alternatives and route ROW, respectively. 

Table 3.2-4. State Surface Tracts within Route and Segment Alternatives

Route/Segment 

Alternative

NDLD Recommendation

Total

Not Recommended Minimally Impacted Not Addressed

Count Acres Count Acres Count Acres Count Acres

A 7 231.0 4 119.5 2 37.0 13 387.5

B 6 164.7 3 86.7 1 36.7 10 288.1

C 8 222.3 4 124.3 3 73.7 15 420.3

A02 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 72.8 2 72.8

A07 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 54.5 2 54.5

A13 0 0.0 2 59.0 0 0.0 2 59.0

A14 0 0.0 2 60.6 0 0.0 2 60.6

A15 0 0.0 2 61.4 0 0.0 2 61.4

A18 1 18.3 2 60.3 1 37.2 4 115.8

A19 0 0.0 1 1.0 0 0.0 1 1.0
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-15 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.2-5. State Surface Tracts within the Route and Segment Alternative Right-of-Way 

Route/Segment 

Alternative

NDLD Recommendation

Total

Not Recommended Minimally Impacted Not Addressed

Count Acres Count Acres Count Acres Count Acres

A 5 29.6 2 18.3 0 0.0 7 47.8

B 3 18.7 2 9.6 1 9.0 6 37.2

C 5 22.9 3 18.7 1 9.0 9 50.6

A02 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 18.2 2 18.2

A07 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.8 2 2.8

A13 0 0.0 2 7.1 0 0.0 2 7.1

A14 0 0.0 2 8.9 0 0.0 2 8.9

A15 0 0.0 1 9.1 0 0.0 1 9.1

A18 1 4.5 1 9.1 1 9.1 3 22.7

A19 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2

3.2.2 Impacts

Agriculture

The proposed Project would result in permanent and temporary impacts to agricultural land. 

Permanent impacts would occur as a result of structure placement along a route centerline. 

Impacts to these resources were determined by estimating the number of structures that would 

fall into areas being used for agricultural purposes. During construction, temporary impacts, 

such as soil compaction and crop damage within the ROW, may occur. Land use along each 

Route Alternative is displayed on Figures 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3. 

Route A 

Table 3.2-6. Agricultural Land Use in Route A Right-of-Way

GAP Land Cover Category

Route A

Acres in ROW Percent of ROW Temp Impacts Permanent Impacts

Cropland 2,502.4 55.6 330.8 1.7

Pasture 767.1 17.1 101.4 0.5

Total Agricultural Area 3,269.5 72.7 431.8 2.2

Source: ND GAP data (Strong et al).

Like the other routes, land use along Route A is dominated by agricultural cropland, which totals 

55.6 percent of the area within the ROW (Table 3.2-6). The most common form of agricultural 

land use along the route is row crops. Although agricultural land use along this route is common, 

the only land permanently removed from production would be the area directly affected by 

structure placement; the area directly under the transmission line that is outside of the structure 

would continue to be used for agriculture. Where appropriate, the proposed route would follow 

existing field edges or cross fields in a manner designed to minimize impacts to plowing and 

harvest patterns or as discussed with the landowner in the easement agreement.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-16 November 2010

If construction takes place outside of the winter months, temporary impacts to agriculture could 

occur as a result of construction activity. These impacts could include, but are not limited to, 

loss of planting opportunity, crop damage, and soil compaction. Minnkota would work directly 

with landowners to minimize impacts and to provide appropriate compensation for lost planting 

opportunities and crop damage. If necessary, compacted soils would be restored using a deep 

tillage practice, such as sub-soiling.

An effect of the proposed Project may be potential interference with agricultural activities, such 

as maneuvering equipment around structures and aerial spraying.

Route B

Table 3.2-7. Agricultural Land Use in Route B Right-of-Way

GAP Land Cover Category

Route B

Acres in ROW Percent of ROW Temp Impacts Permanent Impacts

Cropland 2,958.1 60.4 385.1 1.9

Pasture 756.5 15.4 98.5 0.5

Total Agricultural Area 3,714.6 75.8 483.6 2.4

Source: ND GAP data (Strong et al).

Like the other routes, land use along Route B is dominated by agricultural cropland, which totals 

60.4 percent of the area within the ROW (Table 3.2-7). Although agricultural land use along this 

route is common, the only land permanently removed from production would be the area 

directly affected by structure placement; the area directly under the transmission line that is 

outside of the structure would continue to be used for agriculture. Where appropriate, the 

proposed route would follow existing field edges or cross fields in a manner designed to 

minimize impacts to plowing and harvest patterns or as discussed with the landowner in the 

easement agreement.

If construction takes place outside of the winter months, temporary impacts to agriculture could 

occur as a result of construction activity. These impacts could include, but are not limited to, 

loss of planting opportunity, crop damage, and soil compaction. Minnkota would work directly 

with landowners to minimize impacts and to provide appropriate compensation for lost planting 

opportunities and crop damage. If necessary, compacted soils would be restored using a deep 

tillage practice, such as sub-soiling.

An effect of the proposed Project may be potential interference with agricultural activities, such 

as maneuvering equipment around structures and aerial spraying.

Route C

Table 3.2-8. Agricultural Land Use in Route C Right-of-Way

GAP Land Cover Category

Route C

Acres in ROW Percent of ROW Temp Impacts Permanent Impacts

Cropland 2,657.2 58.4 350.5 1.8

Pasture 778.8 17.1 102.7 0.5

Total Agricultural Area 3,436.0 75.5 453.2 2.3

Source: ND GAP data (Strong et al).
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-17 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Like the other routes, land use along Route C is dominated by agricultural cropland, which totals 

58.4 percent of the area within the ROW (Table 3.2-8). Although agricultural land use along this 

route is common, the only land permanently removed from production would be the area 

directly affected by structure placement; the area directly under the transmission line that is 

outside of the structure would continue to be used for agriculture. Where appropriate, the 

proposed route would follow existing field edges or cross fields in a manner designed to 

minimize impacts to plowing and harvest patterns or as discussed with the landowner in the 

easement agreement. 

If construction takes place outside of the winter months, temporary impacts to agriculture could 

occur as a result of construction activity. These impacts could include, but are not limited to, 

loss of planting opportunity, crop damage, and soil compaction. Minnkota would work directly 

with landowners to minimize impacts and to provide appropriate compensation for lost planting 

opportunities and crop damage. If necessary, compacted soils would be restored using a deep 

tillage practice, such as sub-soiling.

An effect of the proposed Project may be potential interference with agricultural activities, such 

as maneuvering equipment around structures and aerial spraying.

Segment Alternatives

Table 3.2-9 summarizes agricultural land use within the segment alternatives.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-18 November 2010

Table 3.2-9. Agricultural Land Use in Segment Alternative Right-of-Way

Segment

Alternative

Acres in ROW Percent in ROW Temporary Impacts (acres) Permanent Impacts (acres)

Cropland Pasture

Total 

Agricultural 

Area

Cropland Pasture

Total 

Agricultural 

Area

Cropland Pasture

Total 

Agricultural 

Area

Cropland Pasture

Total 

Agricultural 

Area

A01 17.8 0.9 18.7 60.2 3.0 63.2 1.9 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A02 48.9 29.7 78.6 30.8 18.7 49.5 5.2 3.2 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

A03 12.1 24.7 36.8 11.7 23.9 35.6 1.3 2.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A04 10.0 10.7 20.7 21.3 23.0 44.3 1.1 1.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

A05 7.2 7.6 14.8 18.8 20.0 38.7 0.8 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A06 38.3 23.6 61.9 52.5 32.3 84.8 4.1 2.5 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A07 69.3 50.5 119.8 29.2 21.3 50.4 7.4 5.4 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.1

A08 39.3 40.6 80.0 29.7 30.6 60.3 4.2 4.4 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A09 16.0 0.7 16.7 91.6 3.9 95.5 1.7 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

A10 11.7 4.1 15.7 41.9 14.6 56.5 1.3 0.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

A11 10.2 2.5 12.7 56.8 13.9 70.7 1.1 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

A12 32.9 25.9 58.8 26.2 20.6 46.9 3.5 2.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

A13 26.1 24.1 50.3 23.9 22.1 46.1 2.8 2.6 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

A14 14.0 44.4 58.4 10.9 34.8 45.8 1.5 4.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

A15 41.5 38.3 79.7 33.4 30.8 64.2 4.5 4.1 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A16 3.9 1.5 5.4 47.7 18.1 65.8 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A17 4.7 1.1 5.8 64.3 14.4 78.6 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A18 262.8 98.4 361.2 49.6 18.6 68.2 28.2 10.6 38.8 0.1 0.1 0.2

A19 71 23.3 94.3 65.0 21.3 86.3 7.6 2.5 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

A20 43.5 17.4 60.9 43.3 17.3 60.6 4.7 1.9 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A21 52.8 30.3 83.1 40.4 23.2 63.7 5.7 3.3 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A22 20.1 4.1 24.2 76.0 15.5 91.6 2.2 0.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A23 137.9 53.0 190.8 50.6 19.4 70.0 14.8 5.7 20.5 0.1 0.0 0.1

A24 30.6 0.9 31.5 85.9 2.5 88.4 3.3 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

A25 41.7 1.8 43.5 92.5 3.9 96.4 4.5 0.2 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

A26 128.4 8.7 137.1 82.8 5.6 88.4 13.8 0.9 14.7 0.1 0.0 0.1

A27 504.8 30.5 535.3 87.0 5.3 92.2 54.2 3.3 57.5 0.3 0.0 0.3

A28 89.3 2.5 91.8 91.0 2.5 93.5 9.6 0.3 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-19 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Segment

Alternative

Acres in ROW Percent in ROW Temporary Impacts (acres) Permanent Impacts (acres)

Cropland Pasture

Total 

Agricultural 

Area

Cropland Pasture

Total 

Agricultural 

Area

Cropland Pasture

Total 

Agricultural 

Area

Cropland Pasture

Total 

Agricultural 

Area

A29 65.5 7.1 72.7 69.7 7.6 77.3 7.0 0.8 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

A30 31.8 2.0 33.8 91.5 5.9 97.4 3.4 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A31 22.5 0.2 22.7 99.1 0.9 100 2.4 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A32 32.1 3.1 35.3 89.3 8.7 98 3.5 0.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

A33 77.5 26.1 103.6 60.0 20.2 80.2 8.3 2.8 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

A34 14.4 3.1 17.5 68.2 14.6 82.8 1.5 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

A35 17.7 0.1 17.8 99.3 0.7 100 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

A36 11.3 0.0 11.3 94.3 0.0 94.3 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

A37 90.4 36.0 126.4 62.7 25.0 87.7 9.7 3.9 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

A38 5.4 9.1 14.5 14.1 24.0 38.1 0.6 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-20 November 2010

GPS

A transmission line structure may cause a temporary drop in accuracy of a GPS unit due to 

blocking a view to one satellite, but this would only occur if the receiver, structure, and satellite 

are in a line, which is rare. Connection is usually restored within minutes and the GPS units 

return to normal function.

Forestry

No impacts to economically important forestry resources would occur, as these resources are 

not located within the routes and segment alternatives.

Human Settlement

Table 3.2-10. Number of Homes from Route Alternative Centerline

Distance from Route Centerline1 Route A Route B Route C

Homes 0 to 75 feet from Route Centerline 1 0 2

Homes 75 to 150 feet from Route Centerline 1 2 0

Homes 150 to 300 feet from Route Centerline 3 2 8

Homes 300 to 500 feet from Route Centerline 6 4 10

Total Homes 0 to 500 feet from Route Centerline (1,000-foot-wide Route) 11 8 20

Homes per Mile (1,000-foot-wide Route) 0.04 0.03 0.08

Homes 500 to 1000 feet from Route Centerline

(Beyond but adjacent to the 1,000-foot-wide Route) 32 26 29

1A centerline was estimated within the 1000-foot-wide route to identify potential impacts. Shifting of the ROW 

within the route would reduce impacts to homes or be able to avoid homes within the ROW.

Short-term impacts to residents and local business owners in the Study Area primarily would be 

related to disruption caused by temporary construction activities, such as noise. Long-term 

impacts may include displacement of residences or businesses due to location within the

proposed Project ROW.

The NESC requires certain clearances between transmission line facilities and buildings for safe 

operation of the transmission line. Minnkota would acquire ROW for the proposed Project 

sufficient to maintain clearances required to safely operate the transmission line.

In the event that a structure is located within the ROW required for a new transmission facility,

that structure would be displaced; meaning the property would need to be purchased by 

Minnkota and removed from the area. The potential for displacement varies by route and 

segment alternative. The house counts provided in following subsection and Table 3.2-10 are 

provided as a way to compare each route or segment alternative’s potential to displace homes; in 

practice, the routing of transmission lines rarely result in displacement of residences since the 

line can be usually be shifted to avoid existing residences.

As indicated in Table 3.2-10, Route Alternative C has more residences than Alternative Routes A

and B. As expected, the greatest number of residences affected would be located within a

distance of 500 -1000 feet, and would be slightly greater for Route A than Route C. The 

preferred location of the transmission lines is away from residential properties, thus as expected, 

fewer residences would be located within 0 to 75 feet. As indicated in Table 3.2-10, potential 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-21 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

voluntary displacement of up to two homes may occur near the ROW (0 to 75 feet from 

Centerline), depending on final ROW location.

Route A

Eleven homes are located within this Route (Table 3.2-10). Minnkota would develop the final 

ROW alignment to avoid these structures by maximizing the setbacks to the extent practicable. 

Assuming the final ROW selected continues to avoid these structures, long-term effects on these 

houses would be visual in nature (see Section 3.11 for a more detailed discussion of visual 

impacts). These homes, and the 32 homes located 500 to 1,000 feet adjacent to the route, may 

experience short-term effects during construction such as elevated noise levels and increased 

vehicle traffic. 

Route B

Eight homes are within this Route; these may be visually impacted by the proposed Project (see 

Section 3.11 for a more detailed discussion of visual impacts). These homes, as well as the 26 

residences located 500 to 1,000 feet adjacent to the route, may also experience short-term effects 

during construction such as elevated noise levels and increased vehicle traffic (Table 3.2-10). 

This alternative has the lowest density of homes.

Route C

Twenty homes are located within this Route. Assuming the final ROW selected continues to 

avoid these structures, long-term effects on these houses would be visual in nature (see Section 

3.11 for a more detailed discussion of visual impacts). These homes, as well as the 29 residences 

located 500 to 1,000 feet adjacent to the route, may also experience short-term effects during 

construction such as elevated noise levels and increased vehicle traffic (Table 3.2-10). This route 

has the highest density of homes.

Segment Alternatives

Table 3.2-11. Number of Homes from Segment Alternative Centerline

Segment 

Alternatives

Homes 

0 to 75 

feet 

Homes 

75 to 150 

feet 

Homes 150 

to 300 feet

Homes 

300 to 

500 feet 

Total Homes 

0 to 500 feet

(1,000-footwide Route)

Total Homes 

per Mile 

(1,000-footwide Route)

Homes 500 to 

1000 feet

(adjacent to 

1,000-footwide Route)

A01 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A02 0 0 1 0 1 0.11 1

A03 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A04 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1

A05 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A06 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A07 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A08 0 0 0 1 1 0.14 1

A09 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A10 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A11 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A12 1 0 0 0 1 0.14 0

A13 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1

A14 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-22 November 2010

Segment 

Alternatives

Homes 

0 to 75 

feet 

Homes 

75 to 150 

feet 

Homes 150 

to 300 feet

Homes 

300 to 

500 feet 

Total Homes 

0 to 500 feet

(1,000-footwide Route)

Total Homes 

per Mile 

(1,000-footwide Route)

Homes 500 to 

1000 feet

(adjacent to 

1,000-footwide Route)

A15 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1

A16 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A17 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A18 0 0 3 3 6 0.21 2

A19 0 0 0 1 1 0.17 1

A20 0 0 1 1 2 0.36 1

A21 0 0 0 1 1 0.14 3

A22 0 0 0 1 1 0.69 0

A23 0 0 1 1 2 0.13 0

A24 0 0 0 1 1 0.51 1

A25 0 0 0 1 1 0.40 0

A26 0 0 0 1 1 0.12 1

A27 0 0 1 2 3 0.09 1

A28 0 0 1 0 1 0.19 0

A29 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2

A30 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A31 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A32 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A33 0 0 0 1 1 0.14 0

A34 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A35 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A36 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

A37 0 0 0 1 1 0.13 0

A38 0 0 1 0 1 0.48 1
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-23 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Existing Infrastructure

Table 3.2-12. Existing Infrastructure near Route Alternatives

Infrastructure Type Route A Route B Route C

Point Features Count Count Count

Communication Towers 1 1 0 1

Utility Scale Wind Energy Turbines 1 0 0 4

Cemeteries 1 1 1 2

Center Pivot Irrigation Systems 2 7 7 4

Airports 3 0 3 2

Paralleling ROW Miles Miles Miles

Transmission Line 4 8.2 2.6 10.1

Highway 12.3 15.6 4.1

Other Roads 43.6 46.2 73.7

Total Length of Route Alternative Parallel to an Existing Corridors 64.1 64.4 87.8

1: Only features located within the route are included in this count.

2: Features located within a 0.5 mile of the route alternative centerline are included in this count.

3: Features located within 1 mile of the route alternative centerline are included in this count.

4: This analysis includes existing transmission lines paralleling highways.

Route A

Table 3.2-12 shows the existing infrastructure within the route alternatives. Route A would not 

impact airports or wind energy turbines as these features are not located within the Route.

One communication structure is located within the route, but may be avoided by the ROW. The 

final alignment of the ROW would take into consideration guy lines, which may constrain 

transmission line placement.

One cemetery is located within this route, but may not be within the ROW.

Seven CPI systems are located within a 0.5 mile of the route alternative centerline. Typically, CPI 

systems are located in the center of a quarter-section and have a 360 degree rotation for field 

irrigation. To assess potential impact, point data was used to identify the CPI system locations 

and a half mile buffer was added to determine the rotation in relation to the route. Depending 

on the final ROW location and structure placement, the operation of these irrigation systems 

could be affected. While not expected to completely prevent their operation, structure placement 

could prohibit complete 360 degree use, as a transmission structure could obstruct the CPI 

system from making a complete rotation. Not all CPI systems have a 360 degree range.

Paralleling would occur along about 64 miles of the route. The most common type of existing

ROW for this route to parallel would be along non-highway roads, such as rural section roads.

Route B

Table 3.2-12 shows the existing infrastructure within the routes. Route B would not impact 

communication structures or wind energy turbines as these features are not located within the 

Route.

One cemetery is located within this route, but may not be within the ROW.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-24 November 2010

Seven CPI systems are located within a 0.5 mile of the route centerline. Typically, CPI systems 

are located in the center of a quarter-section and have a 360 degree rotation for field irrigation. 

To assess potential impact, point data was used to identify the CPI system locations and a half 

mile buffer was added to determine the rotation in relation to the route. Depending on the final 

ROW location and structure placement, the operation of these irrigation systems could be 

affected. While not expected to completely prevent their operation, structure placement could 

prohibit complete 360 degree use, as a transmission structure could obstruct the CPI system 

from making a complete rotation. Not all CPI systems have a 360 degree range.

Three airports are located within one mile of Route B; one of these airports is public. The public 

facility is the McClusky Municipal Airport, located approximately 2 miles southwest of McClusky 

in Sheridan County. The runway of this facility is oriented to the northwest/southeast. By 

following the orientation of the runway to the southeast, this route is approximately 1.3 miles 

from the end of the runway. Neither the northwest or southeast approach zones of this airport 

would be impacted by this route.

The other airports are considered private and are not legally protected. One is located in Griggs 

County, approximately 3 miles east of the unincorporated community of Sutton. This airstrip is 

oriented in an east/west manner and would be parallel to the proposed route. The approach 

zones of this airstrip would not be impacted by this route.

The third airport is private, and is located in Steele County, approximately 1.7 miles west of the 

Steele/Traill county line. This airstrip is oriented in an east/west manner and runs parallel to this 

proposed route. The approach zones of this airstrip would not be impacted by this route.

Paralleling of existing infrastructure would occur along about 64 miles of the route. This route 

would parallel transmission line ROW for the shortest distance of the route alternatives. The 

most common type of existing ROW for this route to parallel would be along non-highway 

roads, for example rural section roads.

Route C

Table 3.2-12 shows the existing infrastructure within the routes. One communication structure is 

located within the route, but avoided by the ROW. The final alignment of the ROW would take 

into consideration guy lines, which may constrain transmission line placement.

Four utility scale wind energy turbines are located within this route. These turbines are part of a 

larger wind energy facility located in Oliver County, approximately 8.5 miles northeast of the 

incorporated municipality of Center. Although turbines are located within the route, the final 

ROW would avoid the fall distance of the turbine and are not anticipated to impact operation of 

the wind energy facility. 

Two cemeteries are located within this route; one may be within the ROW depending on 

centerline placement. This cemetery is located in Foster County. Structure placement would 

avoid impacting this feature or the final ROW alignment would be altered to avoid the cemetery.

Four CPI systems are located within a half mile of the route centerline. Typically, CPI systems 

are located in the center of a quarter-section and have a 360 degree rotation for field irrigation. 

To assess potential impact, point data was used to identify the CPI system locations and a half 

mile buffer was added to determine the rotation in relation to the route. Depending on the final 

ROW location and structure placement, the operation of these irrigation systems could be 

affected. While not expected to completely prevent their operation, structure placement could 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-25 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

prohibit complete 360 degree use, as a transmission structure could obstruct the CPI system 

from making a complete rotation. Not all CPI systems have a 360 degree range.

Two airports are located within one mile of Route C; one is considered public. The McClusky 

Municipal Airport is located in Sheridan County, approximately 2 miles southwest of McClusky. 

The runway of this facility is oriented to the northwest/southeast. By following the orientation 

of the runway to the southeast, this route is approximately 1.3 miles from the end of the runway. 

Neither the northwest or southeast approach zones of this airport would be impacted by this 

route.

The privately owned airport is located in Steele County, approximately 1.5 miles west of the 

municipal boundary of Sharon (incorporated). This airstrip is oriented in a north/south manner 

and is perpendicular to the proposed route in its vicinity. The route runs between 1,400 feet and 

2,400 feet south of the southern end of the runway. Using the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) standards for utility and visual runways, the maximum structure height in the route ranges 

between 70 feet along the northern edge of the route to 120 feet along the southern edge. If 

130-foot structures are used in this location, this route could impact the southern approach zone 

of this airstrip.

Paralleling of existing infrastructure would occur along about 88 miles of this route. The most 

common type of existing ROW for this route to parallel would be along non-highway roads, but 

it also has the longest stretch of parallel ROW with existing transmission lines.

Segment Alternatives

Table 3.2-13. Existing Infrastructure near Segment Alternatives

Segment 

Alternatives

Point Features (Count) Paralleling ROW (Miles)

Communication 

Towers1

Utility Scale Wind 

Turbines1

Cemeteries1

Center Pivot 

Irrigation 

Systems2

Airports3

Transmission 

Line 

4

Highway 

5

Other Roads

Total Existing 

Corridor

A01 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A02 0 0 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.3

A03 0 0 0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A04 0 0 0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6

A05 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A06 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0

A07 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3

A08 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1

A09 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

A10 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5

A11 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

A12 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.0 3.5 4.5

A13 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A14 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-26 November 2010

Segment 

Alternatives

Point Features (Count) Paralleling ROW (Miles)

Communication 

Towers1

Utility Scale Wind 

Turbines1

Cemeteries1

Center Pivot 

Irrigation 

Systems2

Airports3

Transmission 

Line 

4

Highway 

5

Other Roads

Total Existing 

Corridor

A15 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0.0 4.7 6.8

A16 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5

A17 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A18 0 0 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 23.1 23.1

A19 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5

A20 0 0 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3

A21 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7

A22 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

A23 0 0 1 0 0 0.0 0.5 1.9 2.5

A24 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A25 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

A26 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5

A27 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 29.9 29.9

A28 0 0 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.4 5.4

A29 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.1

A30 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A31 0 0 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A32 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0

A33 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2.5 2.5 5.0

A34 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A35 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

A36 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A37 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1

A38 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1: Only features located within the route are included in this count.

2: Features located within a half mile of the route centerline are included in this count.

3: Features located within 1 mile of the route centerline are included in this count.

4: This analysis includes existing transmission lines paralleling highways.

5: Highways paralleling transmission lines are not included in this analysis.

Mining Resources

Lignite mining is active near the western terminus of each proposed route, at the BNI Center 

Mine. The current location of this mine is approximately 6 miles west of the Center 345 kV

Substation. The mining operation is expanding south. Impacts to coal mining are not anticipated 

for any of the Route Alternatives.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-27 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.2-14. Aggregate Resources within Route Alternative

Infrastructure Type Route A Route B Route C

Aggregate Resources (number of mines) 5 2 6

Route A

Five gravel pits are located within Route A; two may be located within the ROW (Table 3.2-14). 

One is located just north of the Painted Wood Creek crossing in McLean County. This feature 

was identified based on 2009 aerial photography and appears to be in operation. This feature is 

approximately 750-feet-wide where it is crossed by the ROW. It is anticipated that this feature 

could be spanned by the proposed transmission line. Minnkota would work with landowners to 

minimize potential impacts to future gravel operations.

The second aggregate resource is located in Wells County, located approximately 1 mile east of 

the Wells/Sheridan county line. This feature was identified based on 2009 aerial photography 

and appears to be in operation. This feature is approximately 850-feet-wide where it is crossed 

by the ROW. It is anticipated that this feature could be spanned by the proposed transmission 

line.

Route B

Two gravel pits are located within Route B; one may be within the ROW (Table 3.2-14). It is 

located just north of the Painted Wood Creek crossing in McLean County. This feature was 

identified based on 2009 aerial photography and appears to be in operation. This feature is 

approximately 750 feet wide where it is crossed by the ROW. It is anticipated that this feature 

could be spanned by the proposed transmission line. Minnkota would work with landowners to 

minimize potential impacts to future gravel operations.

Route C

Six gravel pits are located within Route C; one may be located within the ROW (Table 3.2-14). 

This feature is located in Wells County, approximately 5 miles west of State Highway 30. This 

feature is under active resource extraction based on the 2009 aerial photography. The extent of 

this feature where it is crossed by the ROW is unclear. The entire extent of the area is 

approximately 1,500 feet wide, but it appears as if the western 750 feet of the feature is the only 

portion under active extraction. The eastern 750 feet of the feature does not appear to be under 

active extraction. It would be possible to span the western portion of this feature. If this route is 

selected, Minnkota would coordinate with the landowner to minimize impacts. Minnkota would 

work with landowners to minimize potential impacts to future gravel operations.

Segment Alternatives

One gravel pit is located within Segment Alternative A23. No other mining resources are located 

within the other segment alternatives. 

Tourism

Refer to Section 3.15 for a discussion on the affects to recreational resources. 

Conservation Areas

USFWS maintains grassland and wetland conservation easements within the Route Alternatives. 

A grassland easement would be impacted by placement of a structure within the easement. A 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-28 November 2010

wetland easement would be impacted by placement of a structure within a wetland under 

easement, but placement of a structure in the uplands of a wetland easement does not constitute 

an impact. Minnkota would work with local wetland management districts and landowners to 

determine the exact location and size of these easements and to avoid or minimize impacts.

Table 3.2-15. USFWS Easements within the Route Alternatives Right-of-Way

Easement 

Type

Route A Route B Route C

Number of 

Easements in 

ROW

Acres of 

Easements 

in ROW

Number of

Easements in 

ROW

Acres of 

Easements in 

ROW

Number of 

Easements in 

ROW

Acres of 

Easements in 

ROW

Grassland 0 0 1 11 1 11

Grassland and 

Wetland 3 27 3 46 3 54

Wetland 74 Unknown* 55 Unknown* 52 Unknown*

Total 77 Unknown 59 Unknown 56 Unknown

*Wetland easements are mapped at parcel level, but wetland easements only apply to the wetland basins with 

the parcel. 

Route A

The USFWS maintains grassland and wetland conservation easements within this route. As the 

locations of these easements are considered confidential, Minnkota’s consultant coordinated 

with this agency to identify potential impacts to these easements. Route A would not impact 

grassland easements but three grassland and wetland easements (27 acres) are present and 74 

wetland easements are present (Table 3.2-15). Table 3.2-16 lists the USFWS easements by 

segment alternative ROW. The spatial extent of wetland easements was not available at the time 

this EA was prepared, so acreage of impacts could not be determined. If this route is chosen, 

Minnkota would work with local wetland management districts and landowners to determine the 

location of these easements and to avoid or minimize impacts.

The NRCS maintains conservation easements along this route; however, these data are not 

publically available because they are considered confidential. PLOTS lands were analyzed along 

the route to determine the impacts to known CRP parcels along the route. Twelve CRP parcels 

totaling 379 acres fall within Route A. The actual amount of land enrolled in CRP along this 

route would likely be more extensive. If this route is chosen, Minnkota would work with the 

local NRCS and landowners to determine the location of these easements and to avoid or 

minimize impacts.

TNC holdings are not located within one mile of this route.

Route B

The USFWS maintains grassland and wetland conservation easements within this route. As the 

locations of these easements are considered confidential, Minnkota’s consultant coordinated 

with this agency to identify potential impacts to these easements. Route B has one grassland 

easement within the ROW totaling 11 acres. Three grassland and wetland easements are also 

present which total 46 acres. Fifty-five wetland easements are present within the ROW (Table 

3.2-15). Table 3.2-16 lists the USFWS easements by segment alternative ROW. The spatial 

extent of wetland easements was not available at the time this EA was prepared, so acreage of 

impacts could not be determined. If this route is chosen, Minnkota would work with local 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-29 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

wetland management districts and landowners to determine the location of these easements and

to avoid or minimize impacts.

The NRCS maintains conservation easements along this route; however, these data are not 

publically available because they are considered confidential. PLOTS lands were analyzed along 

the route to determine the impacts to known CRP parcels along the route. Three parcels totaling 

91 acres fall within Route B. The actual amount of land enrolled in CRP along this route would 

likely be more extensive. If this route is chosen, Minnkota would work with the local NRCS and 

landowners to determine the location of these easements and to avoid or minimize impacts.

TNC holdings are not located within one mile of this route, although the northern border of the 

Davis Ranch Preserve is located approximately 2 miles south of this route. Impacts to this 

preserve are not anticipated.

Route C

The USFWS maintains grassland and wetland conservation easements within this route. As the 

locations of these easements are considered confidential, Minnkota’s consultant coordinated 

with this agency to identify potential impacts to these easements. Route B has one grassland 

easement within the ROW totaling 11 acres. Three grassland and wetland easements are also 

present with total 54 acres. Fifty-two wetland easements are present within the ROW (Table 

3.2-15). Table 3.2-16 lists the USFWS easements by segment alternative ROW. The spatial 

extent of wetland easements was not available at the time this EA was prepared, so acreage of 

impacts could not be determined. If this route is chosen, Minnkota would work with local 

wetland management districts and landowners to determine the location of these easements and 

to avoid or minimize impacts.

The NRCS maintains conservation easements along this route; however, these data are not 

publically available because they are considered confidential. PLOTS lands were analyzed along 

the route to determine the impacts to known CRP parcels along the route. Four parcels totaling 

215 acres fall within Route C. The actual amount of land enrolled in CRP along this route would 

likely be more extensive. If this route is chosen, Minnkota would work with the local NRCS and 

landowners to determine the location of these easements and to avoid/minimize impacts.

TNC owns and maintains the Cross Ranch Preserve located approximately 7 miles south of 

Washburn in Oliver County. This preserve is broken into three units, North, Central, and South; 

the South Unit is located within one mile of the route. Portions of the South unit are located 

within the route, but may be avoided by the proposed ROW. Both the North and Central Units 

are located approximately 3 miles north of this route and would not be affected.

The Cross Ranch Preserve protects riparian cottonwood forests along the only free-flowing 

section of the Missouri River in North Dakota. Subsequently, the significance of mixed grass 

prairie habitat within the untilled landscapes of this location has been recognized. Many rare and 

unique species can be found within or adjacent to this preserve including federally listed species. 

For example, the TNC maintains bison herds on the Central and South units of this preserve.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-30 November 2010

Segment Alternatives

Table 3.2-16. USFWS Easements within the Segment Alternative Right-of-Way

Route/ 

Segment 

Alternative

Easement Type

Number of 

Total 

Easements

Acres of 

Total 

Easements

Number of 

Grassland

Acres of 

Grassland

Number of 

Grassland 

and Wetland

Acres of 

Grassland 

and 

Wetland

Number 

of 

Wetland

Acres of 

Wetland*

A01 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A02 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A03 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A04 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A05 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A06 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A07 2 - 0 0 0 0 2 -

A08 3 - 0 0 0 0 3 -

A09 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A10 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A11 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A12 4 - 0 0 2 34 2 -

A13 11 - 0 0 2 10 9 -

A14 11 - 0 0 1 6 10 -

A15 9 - 0 0 0 0 9 -

A16 2 - 0 0 0 0 2 -

A17 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A18 9 - 0 0 0 0 9 -

A19 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A20 5 - 0 0 0 0 5 -

A21 5 - 0 0 0 0 5 -

A22 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A23 5 - 0 0 0 0 5 -

A24 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A25 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A26 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A27 4 - 0 0 0 0 4 -

A28 2 - 0 0 0 0 2 -

A29 3 - 0 0 0 0 3 -

A30 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A31 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A32 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A33 1 - 0 0 0 0 1 -

A34 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A35 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A36 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A37 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

A38 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -

*Wetland easements are mapped at parcel level, but wetland easements only apply to the wetland basins with 

the parcel. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-31 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

State Surface Tracts

The NDLD indicated that some tracts have identifiable assets in addition to the current 

pastureland use, such as aggregate deposits, wind tower placement, or cultivated land. 

Construction of the electric transmission line would have an impact on these assets. There are 

also some tracts that would not be severely impacted or the future impact from the line is 

unknown. Table 3.2-17 lists the potential temporary and permanent impacts to the State Surface 

Tracts.

Table 3.2-17. Potential Temporary and Permanent Impacts to State Surface Tracts from 

the Route and Segment Alternatives Right-of-Way

Route/Segment 

Alternative

NDLD Recommendation

Total

Not Recommended Minimally Impacted Not Addressed

Temporary 

Impacts

Permanent 

Impacts

Temporary 

Impacts

Permanent 

Impacts

Temporary 

Impacts

Permanent 

Impacts

Temporary 

Impacts

Permanent 

Impacts

A 3.91 0.02 2.41 0.01 0.00 0.00 6.32 0.03

B 2.43 0.01 1.24 0.01 1.17 0.01 4.85 0.02

C 3.03 0.02 2.50 0.01 1.19 0.01 6.69 0.03

A02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.95 0.01 1.95 0.01

A07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.00

A13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00

A14 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.01

A15 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.01

A18 0.49 0.00 0.97 0.01 0.98 0.01 2.44 0.01

A19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00

3.2.3 Mitigation

Agriculture

The final ROW alignment would be designed to minimize impacts to agricultural land use. 

Several options are available to mitigate for impacts, including: 

Working with the landowner to site the ROW so as to minimize impacts on their 

property.

Siting the final ROW along existing field and section edges.

Crossing fields parallel to existing plowing patterns or by crossing fields at 90 degree 

angles.

Constructing the proposed route during the winter months when possible.

Areas disturbed during construction would be repaired and restored to 

preconstruction contours as required so that all surfaces drain naturally, blend with 

the natural terrain, and are left in a condition that would facilitate natural 

revegetation, provide for proper drainage, and prevent erosion.

Monetarily compensating landowners for crop damage caused by construction or 

operation and maintenance activities.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-32 November 2010

For lands currently used for agricultural purposes, land owners may conduct aerial spraying to 

apply pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers. Aerial spraying is typically conducted by small aircraft 

with low flying altitudes. If the proposed Project is constructed on agricultural land, aerial 

spraying operations would have to maneuver around transmission line structures. After the 

Project is constructed, aerial sprayers would need to fly over or parallel to transmission lines and 

aerial application of products directly below the transmission line within the easement may be 

limited.

Drain tiles may be present along the transmission line route. Minnkota would work with the 

landowners to identify locations of drainage tiles along the route and would minimize 

interference with tiling, where possible. In the event that Minnkota locates a tile that the 

landowner did not discuss, Minnkota would relocate the structure and repair the tile line, if 

damaged.

GPS

Some landowners use GPS navigation systems on farm equipment. Following construction, 

Minnkota may provide GPS coordinates for the transmission line structures to landowners, if 

requested. 

Forestry

The proposed Project would be routed to avoid impacts to trees and vegetation to the maximum 

extent possible. Minnkota would follow the PSC’s mitigation ratio of 2:1 for tree impacts.

Human Settlement

Minnkota would develop the final centerline and ROW alignment to avoid occupied homes by 

maximizing setbacks to the extent practicable within the 1,000-foot-wide route. In some 

instances, it may be preferable for the ROW to pass within 500 feet of an occupied residence 

due to other routing factors and, in such cases, Minnkota would work with the landowners 

affected to obtain a waiver of the 500-foot setback requirement. However, if Minnkota is unable 

to obtain the requested waiver, a viable route that complies with the 500-foot setback from all 

occupied residences may be developed within the Route Alternative.

Residents and local business owners in the Study Area primarily would be affected by temporary 

construction activities and long-term aesthetic changes. In addition, land owners may be affected 

by changes in land use for creation of the proposed Project ROW. Specifically, agricultural land 

would be temporarily disrupted during construction. To minimize impacts to landowners, 

Minnkota has agreed to the following mitigation measures:

The exact location of structure sites, the ROW, and other disturbed areas would be 

determined with landowner’s input.

The minimum area necessary would be disturbed.

Construction activities would be limited to the ROW, unless access permission is 

obtained from the landowner(s).

Landowner compensation would be established in conjunction with easement acquisition.

Existing Infrastructure

The final ROW alignment would be designed to minimize impacts to existing infrastructure. 

Mitigation for impacts to public airports, cemeteries, existing wind energy turbines, and 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-33 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

communication structures would not be required as these features would be avoided by the final 

ROW alignment. CPI systems would be avoided to the extent practicable, and where impacts 

would occur, Minnkota would work with landowners to ensure that final structure placement 

accommodates system functionality to the extent practicable.

Minnkota would work with wind developers, pipeline operators, and railway companies to route 

the transmission line to minimize impacts to their facilities during construction and operation.

Minnkota would continue to work with the FAA and does not anticipate any impacts to airspace 

and glide slope intercept for public airports along the route and segment alternatives. 

Aggregate Mining

The final ROW alignment would be designed to minimize impacts to existing aggregate 

resources. If impacts are unavoidable, Minnkota would work with landowners and existing mine 

operations to identify the extent of current and planned mining operations and structure 

placement could be designed to avoid areas where future extraction is planned, or by increasing 

the structure height in these areas to accommodate for the operation of large, heavy equipment.

Tourism

Refer to Section 3.15 for a discussion on the potential mitigation measures to recreational 

resources.

Conservation Areas

The final ROW alignment would be designed to minimize impacts to existing conservation 

areas. The exact locations of USFWS grassland and wetland conservation easements and NRCS 

CRP parcels are not currently available. Minnkota would work with the USFWS, local NRCS 

offices, and landowners to determine the location of these easements and to avoid or minimize 

impacts. If impacts cannot be avoided, Minnkota would work with the appropriate agency and 

landowner to determine the appropriate action.

Impacts to TNC’s Cross Ranch Preserve would be minimized to the extent practicable. If 

impacts cannot be avoided by the final alignment, Minnkota would coordinate with TNC.

State Surface Tracts

The final ROW alignment would be designed to minimize impacts to existing resources on State 

Surface Tracts. Minnkota would work with the NDLD to minimize impacts and would apply for 

a Right-of-Way Permit from NDLD if an easement is needed to cross State Tracts.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-34 November 2010

3.3 Soils

Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) soils data made available by the NRCS were analyzed using 

the ArcInfo license of ESRI® ArcMapTM 9.3.1 to determine impacts to prime farmland and to 

comply with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). General State Soil Geographic 

(STATSGO) soil associations, which consist of groupings of soils with distinctive characteristics, 

were also reviewed as part of this analysis.

3.3.1 Description of Resources

Soils within the routes range from black loam in the Red River Valley to a more porous, sandy 

soil in the west. Gravel and cobble are relatively frequent soil components within the western 

Study Area. 

Loam is ideal for agricultural uses because it retains nutrients and allows for water flow. This soil 

type is commonly considered prime farmland, and covers the majority of the eastern portions of 

the routes. The sandy, rocky, soil in the west is primarily used as pasture land. 

Figure 3.3-1 displays the soil map units across the route and segment alternatives. Figure 3.3-2 

displays the location of prime farmlands along the route and segment alternatives. Table 3.3-1

(below), E-1 and E-2 (in Appendix E) summarize the 32 primary STATSGO soil associations 

for the routes and segment alternatives 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-35 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.3-1. STATSGO Soil Associations within Route Alternative

Soil Association

Acres of Soil Type in Route Percent of Soil Type in Route

Description of Primary Soil Series

Route A Route B Route C Route A Route B Route C

Bearden-Antler (s4801) 1187.0 74.9 176.7 4.0 0.2 0.6

The Bearden series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly 

drained, moderately to slowly permeable soils that formed 

in calcareous silt loam and silty clay loam lacustrine 

sediments. These soils are on glacial lake plains and have 

slopes of 0 to 3 percent.

Buse-Barnes (s4751) 279.9 0.0 22.8 0.9 0.0 0.1

The Buse series consists of very deep, well-drained soils 

that formed in loamy glacial till on moraines. These soils 

have moderate and moderately slow permeability. They 

have slopes of 3 to 60 percent.

Fargo (s4719) 0.0 1490.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0

The Fargo series consists of very deep, poorly drained and 

very poorly drained, slowly permeable soils that formed in 

calcareous, clayey lacustrine sediments. These soils are on 

glacial lake plains, floodplains, and gently sloping side 

slopes of streams within glacial lake plains. Slopes range 

from 0 to 6 percent.

Forman-Aastad (s4750) 0.0 525.6 525.6 0.0 1.6 1.7

The Forman series consists of very deep, well drained, 

moderately slowly permeable soils formed in calcareous till. 

These soils are on till plains and moraines and have slopes 

ranging from 0 to 30 percent.

Glyndon (s4728) 461.2 204.0 979.0 1.5 0.6 3.2

The Glyndon series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly 

drained soils that formed in silty glacial lacustrine sediments 

and delta sediments on glacial lake plains. They have 

moderate permeability in the upper part and moderately 

rapid permeability in the lower part. They have slopes of 0 

to 3 percent.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-36 November 2010

Soil Association

Acres of Soil Type in Route Percent of Soil Type in Route

Description of Primary Soil Series

Route A Route B Route C Route A Route B Route C

Hegne-Fargo-Bearden (s4722) 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

The Hegne series consists of very deep, poorly drained 

soils that formed in clayey calcareous lacustrine sediments 

on glacial lake plains. These soils have slow or very slow 

permeability. They have slopes of 0 to 2 percent.

Heimdal-Esmond-Emrick (s4770) 2049.3 682.4 2315.6 6.8 2.1 7.6 The Heimdal series consists of very deep, well drained, 

moderately permeable soils that formed in calcareous 

glacial till. These soils are on glacial till plains and 

moraines. Slope ranges from 0 to 40 percent.

Heimdal-Fram-Emrick (s4768) 1561.8 590.0 1636.4 5.2 1.8 5.4

Heimdal-Fram-Emrick (s4769) 3540.6 1265.4 1195.8 11.8 3.9 3.9

Heimdal-Hecla-Embden-Egeland (s4732) 676.6 0.0 438.3 2.3 0.0 1.4

La Prairie-Fairdale (s4779) 135.6 101.6 114.6 0.5 0.3 0.4

The La Prairie series consists of very deep, moderately well

drained, moderately permeable soil that formed in loamy 

alluvium. These soils are on terraces and bottom lands in 

stream valleys. Slope ranges from 0 to 6 percent.

Lamoure-La Prairie-Heimdal-Emrick 

(s4782) 89.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

The Lamoure series consists of very deep, somewhat 

poorly drained, or poorly drained soils formed in silty 

alluvium on flood plains. Permeability is moderate or 

moderately slow. Slopes are less than 2 percent.

Lankin-Gilby-Antler (s4739) 587.5 1900.0 1261.9 2.0 5.8 4.2

The Lankin series consists of deep, moderately well 

drained, moderately slowly permeable soils that formed in 

lacustrine sediments overlying till. These soils are on glacial 

lake plains and in interbeach areas and have slopes 

ranging from 0 to 3 percent.

Lohnes-Claire (s4749) 292.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

The Lohnes series consists of very deep, well drained, 

rapidly permeable soils that formed in coarse and medium 

sands. These soils are on glacial lake and outwash plains 

and have slopes ranging from 0 to 15 percent.

Miranda-Larson-Heimdal-Emrick (s4771) 282.0 1875.2 955.8 0.9 5.7 3.2

The Miranda series consists of very deep, moderately well 

or somewhat poorly drained soils formed in till on uplands. 

Permeability is very slow. Slopes range from 0 to 9 percent.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-37 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Soil Association

Acres of Soil Type in Route Percent of Soil Type in Route

Description of Primary Soil Series

Route A Route B Route C Route A Route B Route C

Ojata-Bearden (s4785) 600.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

The Ojata series consists of deep, poorly drained, 

moderately slowly or slowly permeable soils that formed in 

silty lake sediments. These soils are on slightly depressed 

flats, swales, and channels in glacial lake and outwash 

plains and have slopes less than 1 percent.

Overly-Gardena (s4726) 0.0 0.0 345.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 The Overly series consists of very deep, well drained or 

moderately well drained soils that formed in calcareous 

sediments. Permeability is moderately slow in the upper 

part and moderately slow or slow in the substratum. These 

soils are on glacial lake plains and terraces on valley side 

slopes. Slope ranges from 0 to 15 percent.

Overly-Great Bend-Beotia-Bearden 

(s6901) 0.0 89.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

Perella-Colvin-Bearden (s3435) 93.1 1657.9 996.3 0.3 5.1 3.3

The Perella series consists of very deep, poorly drained 

soils that formed in lacustrine sediments. Saturated 

hydraulic conductivity is moderately high. These soils are in 

depressions on glacial lake plains. Slope ranges from 0 to 1 

percent.

Renshaw-Divide-Arvilla (s4741) 508.2 817.4 465.9 1.7 2.5 1.5

The Renshaw series consists of very deep, somewhat 

excessively drained soils formed in loamy sediments and 

the underlying sand and gravel on outwash plains and 

terraces. Permeability is moderate in the upper part and 

very rapid in the underlying material. Slopes range from 0 to 

25 percent.

Renshaw-Overly-Lankin-Brantford 

(s4740) 121.4 153.0 314.5 0.4 0.5 1.0

Sioux-Marysland-Lohnes-Arvilla (s4745) 0.0 0.0 149.8 0.0 0.0 0.5

The Sioux series consists of excessively drained soils 

formed in sand and gravel on outwash plains, terraces, and 

eskers. They are very shallow over sandy-skeletal material. 

Saturated hydraulic conductivity is high or very high. Slopes 

range from 0 to 40 percent.

Svea-Barnes (s4758) 825.3 4129.2 1847.4 2.8 12.7 6.1 The Svea series consists of very deep, well or moderately 

well drained soils that formed in calcareous till and local 

alluvium from the till. Permeability is moderate in the solum 

and moderate or moderately slow in the C horizon. These 

soils are on concave positions on till plains and have slopes 

ranging from 0 to 25 percent.

Svea-Buse-Barnes (s4760) 216.4 417.6 51.7 0.7 1.3 0.2

Svea-Cresbard (s4764) 636.1 391.1 504.9 2.1 1.2 1.7

Svea-Cresbard-Cavour-Barnes (s4766) 690.2 203.7 703.8 2.3 0.6 2.3

Svea-Hamerly-Barnes (s4759) 2253.2 1883.7 1758.8 7.5 5.8 5.8

Svea-Kloten-Edgeley (s4752) 322.8 318.7 322.8 1.1 1.0 1.1
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-38 November 2010

Soil Association

Acres of Soil Type in Route Percent of Soil Type in Route

Description of Primary Soil Series

Route A Route B Route C Route A Route B Route C

Tiffany-Hecla-Glyndon-Embden (s4729) 205.3 0.0 259.0 0.7 0.0 0.9

The Tiffany series consists of very deep, poorly drained 

soils that formed in glacial outwash. These soils have 

moderately high or high saturated hydraulic conductivity. 

These soils are in depressions and on glaciolacustrine 

deltas and outwash plains. Slope ranges from 0 to 1 

percent.

Tiffany-Swenoda-Barnes (s4730) 260.0 38.7 260.0 0.9 0.1 0.9

Tonka-Svea-Hamerly-Barnes (s4754) 1066.4 4450.1 1298.0 3.6 13.6 4.3

The Tonka series consists of very deep, poorly drained, 

slowly permeable soils that formed in local alluvium over till 

or glaciolacustrine deposits. These soils are in closed 

basins and depressions on till and glacial lake plains and 

have slopes of 0 to 1 percent.

Towner-Embden (s4762) 579.4 0.0 628.2 1.9 0.0 2.1

The Towner series consists of very deep, well or 

moderately well drained soils that formed in wind and water 

deposited sands over glacial till or lacustrine sediments. 

Permeability is rapid or moderately rapid in the upper part 

and moderate or moderately slow in the 2Bk and 2C 

horizons. These soils are on sand-mantled till or 

glaciolacustrine plains and have slopes ranging from 0 to 15 

percent.

Towner-Swenoda (s4731) 0.0 323.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

Trembles-Lohler-Havrelon (s4825) 55.5 107.4 183.7 0.2 0.3 0.6

The Trembles series are very deep, well and moderately 

well drained soils formed in alluvium. They are on 

floodplains, bottomlands, and low terraces. Slopes range 

from 0 to 4 percent.

Ulen-Hecla-Hamar (s4736) 0.0 299.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0

The Ulen series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly 

drained soils that formed in sandy glaciolacustrine deposits 

on glacial lake plains. Permeability is rapid. Slopes range 

from 0 to 3 percent.

Vallers-Svea-Hamerly-Buse-Barnes 

(s4756) 2013.5 0.0 2059.9 6.7 0.0 6.8

The Vallers series consists of very deep, poorly drained 

soils that formed in calcareous fine-loamy till on till plains, 

moraines and lake plains. These soils have moderately 

slow permeability. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-39 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Soil Association

Acres of Soil Type in Route Percent of Soil Type in Route

Description of Primary Soil Series

Route A Route B Route C Route A Route B Route C

Vebar-Reeder-Cabba-Amor (s4829) 158.5 142.5 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0

The Vebar series consists of well drained, moderately deep, 

moderately rapidly permeable soils that formed in residuum 

weathered from soft calcareous sandstone. These soils are 

on uplands and have slope ranging from 0 to 65 percent.

Velva-LaDelle-Barnes-Arvilla (s4780) 446.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0

The Velva series consists of very deep, well drained, 

moderately or moderately rapidly permeable soils that 

formed in stratified recent alluvium. These soils are on flood 

plains and low terraces and have slopes of 0 to 6 percent.

Wabek-Ruso (s4820) 266.2 266.2 699.0 0.9 0.8 2.3

The Wabek series consists of very deep, excessively 

drained, rapidly and very rapidly permeable soils formed in 

sand and gravel glaciofluvial deposits. These soils are on 

outwash plains, beach ridges, terraces, and terrace 

escarpments and have slope of 0 to 45 percent.

Walum-Kensal-Brantford-Binford (s4743) 192.6 0.0 629.2 0.6 0.0 2.1

The Walum series consists of very deep, moderately well 

drained, soils that formed in glaciofluvial sand and gravel 

containing appreciable amounts of shale. Permeability is 

moderately rapid above the sand and gravel and rapid or 

very rapid in the sand and gravel. These soils are on glacial 

outwash plains and have slopes ranging from 0 to 3 

percent.

Williams-Bowbells (s4786) 1780.0 2235.7 1772.2 5.9 6.9 5.8 The Williams series consists of very deep, well drained, 

moderately slow or slowly permeable soils formed in 

calcareous glacial till. These soils are on glacial till plains 

and moraines and have slope of 0 to 35 percent.

Williams-Nutley (s4798) 0.0 248.2 248.2 0.0 0.8 0.8

Williams-Tansem-Makoti (s4799) 0.0 0.0 246.6 0.0 0.0 0.8

Wilton-Williams-Temvik (s4796) 0.0 0.0 603.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 The Wilton series consists of very deep, well drained soils 

that formed in a silty loess mantle overlying till. Permeability 

is moderate in the silty loess mantle and moderately slow in 

the till. These soils are on uplands and have slopes of 0 to 9 

percent.

Wilton-Williams-Temvik-Mandan (s4797) 1449.2 1427.9 865.8 4.8 4.4 2.9
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-40 November 2010

Soil Association

Acres of Soil Type in Route Percent of Soil Type in Route

Description of Primary Soil Series

Route A Route B Route C Route A Route B Route C

Wyndmere-Barnes-Arvilla (s4747) 211.5 0.0 280.5 0.7 0.0 0.9 The Wyndmere series consists of very deep, somewhat 

poorly drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils formed 

in calcareous moderately coarse and coarse glaciofluvial 

and glaciolacustrine deposits. These soils are on delta, 

outwash, and glaciolacustrine plains, and on beach ridges. 

Slope ranges from 0 to 3 percent.

Wyndmere-Hecla-Embden-Arvilla (s4733) 680.5 1122.5 444.2 2.3 3.4 1.5

Zahl-Williams (s4792) 1114.7 765.2 964.4 3.7 2.3 3.2 The Zahl series consists of very deep, well drained, 

moderately slow or slowly permeable soils that formed in 

calcareous glacial till. These soils are on glacial till plains, 

moraines, and valley side slopes and have slopes of 1 to 60 

percent.

Zahl-Williams-Vida-Bowbells (s4787) 1523.6 1844.8 1614.5 5.1 5.6 5.3

Zahl-Zahill-Williams-Cabbart-Cabba 

(s4811) 530.5 599.1 161.6 1.8 1.8 0.5

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. 2006. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-41 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Potentially Erodible Soils

The North Dakota soil databases do not have attributes to identify erodible or highly erodible 

soils. In general, soils of 6 percent or greater slope have a higher potential for erosion, if 

disturbed. Slope was generated from the 30 meter National Elevation Dataset for North Dakota.

Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-3 show the acres and percent of route and segment alternatives that have a 

6 percent or greater slope. 

Table 3.3-2. Acres and Percent of Route Alternative With a Six Percent or Greater Slope

Route

Alternative

Acreage of Route with a Slope of 6

Percent or Greater

Percent of Route with a Slope of 6 Percent or

Greater

Route A 3,025 10.1

Route B 2,789 8.5

Route C 2,582 8.5

Table 3.3-3. Acres and Percent of Segment Alternative With a Six Percent 

or Greater Slope

Segment 

Alternative

Acreage of Segment Alternative with a 

Slope of 6 Percent or Greater

Percent of Segment Alternative with a Slope 

of 6 Percent or Greater

A01 46 23.5

A02 433 40.9

A03 328 47.6

A04 73 23.4

A05 111 43.7

A06 51 10.4

A07 352 22.3

A08 12 1.4

A09 0 0.0

A10 5 2.8

A11 0 0.0

A12 125 14.9

A13 54 7.4

A14 137 16.1

A15 79 9.5

A16 18 32.6

A17 8 17.0

A18 451 12.8

A19 6 0.8

A20 35 5.2

A21 153 17.6

A22 31 17.7
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-42 November 2010

Segment 

Alternative

Acreage of Segment Alternative with a 

Slope of 6 Percent or Greater

Percent of Segment Alternative with a Slope 

of 6 Percent or Greater

A23 378 20.9

A24 10 4.4

A25 38 12.8

A26 92 8.9

A27 97 2.5

A28 1 0.2

A29 20 3.2

A30 0 0.0

A31 0 0.0

A32 0 0.0

A33 79 9.1

A34 37 26.3

A35 0 0.0

A36 0 0.0

A37 2 0.2

A38 33 12.9

Prime Farmland

Federal agencies have a mandate under the FPPA to minimize unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form 

AD-1006) may need to be completed by the NRCS for the proposed Project. 

Soils may be generally classified as Prime Farmland, Prime Farmland if Drained, and Farmland 

of Statewide Importance. Soils considered prime farmland are widespread throughout the Study 

Area, but are most densely concentrated along the central and eastern portions of the routes. In 

general prime farmlands are abundant in and east of Sheridan County. As the proposed routes 

approach the North Dakota/Minnesota border and Grand Forks, prime farmlands become 

more concentrated into large contiguous blocks of the landscape. Prime farmlands are less 

common in the vicinity of the Missouri River (McLean and Oliver counties) and west of Grand 

Forks in Nelson County.

Soils classified as Prime Farmland if Drained are more common along the eastern portions of 

the routes. These soils are generally concentrated into two areas. The western block of soils 

considered Prime Farmland if Drained is oriented along a northwest/southeast axis generally 

situated between Harvey and Carrington, North Dakota. The eastern block is concentrated in 

Traill and Grand Forks counties, located southwest of the City of Grand Forks. This eastern 

block frequently abuts the contiguous blocks of prime farmland to form an expansive block 

covering nearly all of Traill County and most of the southwestern portions of Grand Forks 

County.

Soils designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance are less common along the proposed 

routes. These soils are most common in the vicinity of Finley, North Dakota, in Steele and 

Grand Forks counties. These soils are not as widespread as prime farmlands at any location.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-43 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

3.3.2 Impacts

Route and Segment Alternatives

Surface soils would be disturbed by site clearing, grading, and excavation activities at structure 

locations, pulling and tensioning sites, setup areas, and during the transport of crews, machinery, 

materials, and equipment over access routes (primarily along the transmission ROW). This 

disturbance is minimal, and is generally less invasive than typical agricultural practices such as 

plowing and tilling. Soil compaction would occur on access roads. Construction of the 

transmission line is expected to disturb 594 to 637 acres of soil, depending on the route (Table 

3.3-4). Approximately 3 acres would undergo more permanent impacts due to structure

installation (Table 3.3-4). Table 3.3-5 shows the temporary and permanent impacts of the 

segment alternatives. Minnkota would attempt to utilize existing, disturbed areas for staging 

areas to the extent practical. 

Disturbed soils can be subject to erosion, defined as the detachment and transport of individual 

soil grains by wind or water. Erosion by wind is related to soil moisture, soil texture, organic 

matter content, soil structure, vegetative cover, and climate. Wind erosion often occurs on dry, 

fine sandy soils when vegetation cover is sparse and strong winds are prevalent. Water erosion is 

related closely to a soil's infiltration capacity and the coherence of the soil particles that comprise

the soil. Soil properties that influence water erosion include soil texture, percent organic matter, 

soil structure, soil infiltration capacity, and soil permeability. Soils containing high proportions of 

silt and very fine sand are most erodible. Well-drained and well-graded gravels and gravel sand 

mixtures with little or no silt are the least erodible soils. Water erosion is also influenced by slope

length and gradient, as well as frequency, intensity, and duration of rainfall and the amount of 

time bare soils are exposed. Erosion could be caused by site clearing and earthmoving in 

addition to natural processes. 

During extended periods of saturation, soils can be prone to compaction and rutting. This is 

primarily expected to occur during construction, but could also occur if heavy equipment is 

driven over ROWs for maintenance during operation of the Project. Soil compaction has a 

restrictive action on water penetration, root development, and the rate of oxygen diffusion into 

soils. Low density and change of vegetation types may be an indirect effect of soil compaction. 

Soil characteristics that affect soil compaction include soil texture, soil moisture, and grain size. 

All soil types are susceptible to compaction and would also be susceptible to rutting if

construction occurs when the upper layers of these soils are moist or near saturation. 

Table 3.3-4. Soil Impacts within Route Alternative Right-of-Way 

Route

Alternative

Acres of Permanent 

Impacts

Acres of Temporary 

Impacts

Total ROW 

Acres

Route A 3.0 593.8 4,498.0

Route B 3.2 637.0 4,900.4

Route C 3.0 599.6 4,552.2
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-44 November 2010

Table 3.3-5. Soil Impacts within Segment Alternative Right-of-Way 

Segment 

Alternative

Acres of Permanent 

Impacts

Acres of Temporary 

Impacts

Total ROW 

Acres

A01 0.0 3.2 30

A02 0.1 17.1 159

A03 0.1 11.1 103

A04 0.0 5.0 47

A05 0.0 4.1 38

A06 0.0 7.8 73

A07 0.1 25.5 237

A08 0.1 14.2 133

A09 0.0 1.9 17

A10 0.0 3.0 28

A11 0.0 1.9 18

A12 0.1 13.5 126

A13 0.1 11.7 109

A14 0.1 13.7 127

A15 0.1 13.3 124

A16 0.0 0.9 8

A17 0.0 0.8 7

A18 0.3 56.9 530

A19 0.1 11.7 109

A20 0.1 10.8 101

A21 0.1 14.0 130

A22 0.0 2.8 26

A23 0.1 29.3 273

A24 0.0 3.8 36

A25 0.0 4.8 45

A26 0.1 16.6 155

A27 0.3 62.3 580

A28 0.1 10.5 98

A29 0.0 10.1 94

A30 0.0 3.7 35

A31 0.0 2.4 23

A32 0.0 3.9 36

A33 0.1 13.9 129

A34 0.0 2.3 21

A35 0.0 1.9 18

A36 0.0 1.3 12

A37 0.1 15.5 144

A38 0.0 4.1 38

Potentially Erodible Soils

An assessment of slope was conducted to quantitatively determine the potential for erodible 

soils within the ROW. A slope of 6 percent or greater was used to define those areas with a 

higher probability for erosion. Slope was generated from the 30 meter National Elevation 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-45 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Dataset for North Dakota. Route A ROW has the highest acreage of area with slopes of 6 

percent of greater, leading to a higher probability for erosion (Table 3.3-6). Table 3.3-7 lists the 

acreage and percent of segment alternative ROW with a slope of 6 percent or greater.

Table 3.3-6. Acres and Percent of Route Alternative Right-of-Way With a Six Percent or 

Greater Slope

Route

Alternative Total ROW Acres Acreage of Route ROW with a Slope of 6 Percent or Greater

Percent of Route ROW with a 

Slope of 6 Percent or Greater

Route A 4498 451 10.0

Route B 4900 422 8.6

Route C 4552 392 8.6

Table 3.3-7. Acres and Percent of Segment Alternative Right-of-Way With a Six Percent 

or Greater Slope

Segment 

Alternative

Total ROW 

Acres

Acreage of Segment 

Alternative ROW with a Slope 

of 6 Percent or Greater

Percent of Segment Alternative

ROW with a Slope of 6 Percent or

Greater

A01 30 6 21.7

A02 159 59 36.9

A03 103 49 47.5

A04 47 11 24.6

A05 38 17 45.4

A06 73 4 5.0

A07 237 47 19.6

A08 133 4 3.0

A09 17 0 0.0

A10 28 1 2.9

A11 18 0 0.0

A12 126 19 14.8

A13 109 9 8.2

A14 127 21 16.3

A15 124 16 12.5

A16 8 2 24.0

A17 7 2 23.7

A18 530 61 11.5

A19 109 2 1.6

A20 101 7 7.1

A21 130 18 13.7

A22 26 4 15.7

A23 273 56 20.5

A24 36 1 4.0

A25 45 9 18.9

A26 155 13 8.6

A27 580 9 1.6

A28 98 0 0.1
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-46 November 2010

Segment 

Alternative

Total ROW 

Acres

Acreage of Segment 

Alternative ROW with a Slope 

of 6 Percent or Greater

Percent of Segment Alternative

ROW with a Slope of 6 Percent or

Greater

A29 94 4 4.2

A30 35 0 0.0

A31 23 0 0.0

A32 36 0 0.0

A33 129 11 8.7

A34 21 6 30.6

A35 18 0 0.0

A36 12 0 0.0

A37 144 1 0.4

A38 38 5 12.7

Prime Farmland

Impacts to soils designated as Prime Farmland, Prime Farmland if Drained, and Farmland of 

Statewide Importance are provided in Table 3.3-8.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-47 October 2010

Table 3.3-8. Farmland Soil Classifications for Route Alternative Right-of-Way

Farmland 

Classification

Route A Route B Route C

Acres 

in ROW

Percent 

of ROW

Temp 

Impacts 

(acres)

Permanent 

Impacts 

(acres)

Acres in 

ROW

Percent 

of ROW

Temp 

Impacts 

(acres)

Permanent 

Impacts 

(acres)

Acres 

in ROW

Percent 

of ROW

Temp 

Impacts 

(acres)

Permanent 

Impacts 

(acres)

Prime Farmland 1,281.2 28.4 169.4 0.9 1,722.9 35.2 224.3 1.1 1,609.1 35.3 212.3 1.1

Prime Farmland if 

Drained 532.3 11.8 70.4 0.4 837.2 17.1 109.0 0.5 515.1 11.3 67.9 0.3

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance

544.2 12.1 72.0 0.4 505.2 10.3 65.8 0.3 625.7 13.7 82.5 0.4

Not Prime 

Farmland 2,143.1 47.6 283.3 1.4 1,837.3 37.5 239.2 1.2 1,804.3 39.6 238.0 1.2

Total 4,500.7 100.0 595.0 3.0 4,902.6 100.0 638.2 3.2 4,554.3 100.0 600.7 3.0
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-48 November 2010

Route A

Route A would impact the least amount of Prime Farmland of the three alternatives. Impacts to 

Farmland of Statewide Importance would be similar to the other route alternatives.

Route B

Route B would have the highest Prime Farmland and Prime Farmland if Drained impacts. This 

route would impact the least amount of Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Route C

Route C would impact a similar amount of Prime Farmland as Route B, but it would impact less 

areas considered Prime Farmland if Drained. This route would have the greatest impact on 

Farmland of Statewide importance.

Segment Alternatives

Table 3.3-9. Farmland Soil Classifications for Segment Alternative Right-of-Way

Segment Alternative

Prime Farmland Prime Farmland if 

Drained

Farmland of Statewide 

Importance Not Prime Farmland

Acres in ROW

Percent in ROW

Temporary 

Impacts (acres)

Permanent 

Impacts (acres)

Acres in ROW

Percent in ROW

Temporary 

Impacts (acres)

Permanent 

Impacts (acres)

Acres in ROW

Percent in ROW

Temporary 

Impacts (acres)

Permanent 

Impacts (acres)

Acres in ROW

Percent in ROW

Temporary 

Impacts (acres)

Permanent 

Impacts (acres)

A01 5.3 18.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 63.0 2.0 0.0 5.6 19.0 0.6 0.0

A02 9.2 5.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.4 63.9 10.9 0.1 48.2 30.3 5.2 0.0

A03 5.9 5.7 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 40.1 38.7 4.3 0.0 57.2 55.3 6.1 0.0

A04 7.8 16.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 37.8 1.9 0.0 21.3 45.5 2.3 0.0

A05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.3 100.0 4.1 0.0

A06 20.1 27.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.9 72.5 5.7 0.0

A07 4.1 1.7 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 232.8 98.0 25.0 0.1

A08 3.8 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 128.9 97.1 13.8 0.1

A09 14.9 85.5 1.6 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 12.6 0.2 0.0

A10 4.2 15.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.7 84.9 2.5 0.0

A11 2.5 13.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 86.3 1.7 0.0

A12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.6 86.5 11.7 0.1

A13 5.7 5.2 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 103.2 94.5 11.1 0.1

A14 2.1 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 124.5 97.7 13.4 0.1

A15 29.1 23.4 3.1 0.0 2.6 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.1 73.4 9.8 0.0

A16 0.7 8.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 91.5 0.8 0.0

A17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 13.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 86.5 0.7 0.0

A18 180.5 34.1 19.4 0.1 19.2 3.6 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 324.0 61.2 34.8 0.2

A19 91.3 83.5 9.8 0.0 4.7 4.3 0.5 0.0 8.9 8.1 1.0 0.0 4.6 4.2 0.5 0.0

A20 41.6 41.3 4.5 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.3 0.0 19.5 19.4 2.1 0.0 26.9 26.7 2.9 0.0

A21 52.9 40.5 5.7 0.0 7.6 5.8 0.8 0.0 14.4 11.1 1.5 0.0 54.5 41.8 5.8 0.0

A22 1.5 5.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 14.0 52.9 1.5 0.0 10.8 40.9 1.2 0.0

A23 85.4 31.3 9.2 0.0 12.7 4.7 1.4 0.0 55.6 20.4 6.0 0.0 118.9 43.6 12.8 0.1

A24 9.4 26.5 1.0 0.0 0.9 2.4 0.1 0.0 12.9 36.3 1.4 0.0 12.4 34.8 1.3 0.0
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-49 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Segment Alternative

Prime Farmland Prime Farmland if 

Drained

Farmland of Statewide 

Importance Not Prime Farmland

Acres in ROW

Percent in ROW

Temporary 

Impacts (acres)

Permanent 

Impacts (acres)

Acres in ROW

Percent in ROW

Temporary 

Impacts (acres)

Permanent 

Impacts (acres)

Acres in ROW

Percent in ROW

Temporary 

Impacts (acres)

Permanent 

Impacts (acres)

Acres in ROW

Percent in ROW

Temporary 

Impacts (acres)

Permanent 

Impacts (acres)

A26 47.8 30.9 5.1 0.0 10.2 6.6 1.1 0.0 50.0 32.3 5.4 0.0 46.7 30.2 5.0 0.0

A27 249.4 43.0 26.8 0.1 171.7 29.6 18.4 0.1 93.7 16.1 10.1 0.0 65.5 11.3 7.0 0.0

A28 11.5 11.7 1.2 0.0 14.9 15.2 1.6 0.0 25.9 26.4 2.8 0.0 3.1 3.2 0.3 0.0

A29 6.8 7.2 0.7 0.0 13.7 14.5 1.5 0.0 11.5 12.2 1.2 0.0 16.8 17.9 1.8 0.0

A30 18.8 54.1 2.0 0.0 7.2 20.7 0.8 0.0 7.6 21.9 0.8 0.0 1.2 3.3 0.1 0.0

A31 11.1 32.1 1.2 0.0 22.6 65.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.7 0.1 0.0

A32 16.4 45.6 1.8 0.0 19.6 54.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A33 45.4 35.1 4.9 0.0 12.1 9.4 1.3 0.0 17.9 13.9 1.9 0.0 53.7 41.6 5.8 0.0

A34 7.0 33.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 12.4 0.3 0.0 11.5 54.5 1.2 0.0

A35 8.9 49.8 1.0 0.0 8.9 50.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 92.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 7.8 0.1 0.0

A37 48.2 33.5 5.2 0.0 46.4 32.2 5.0 0.0 14.7 10.2 1.6 0.0 34.9 24.2 3.7 0.0

A38 5.3 14.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3 61.3 2.5 0.0 9.4 24.7 1.0 0.0

3.3.3 Mitigation

Route and Segment Alternatives

To the extent practicable, soil disturbance and excavation activities on steep slope would be 

avoided. Where disturbance and excavation cannot be avoided entirely, impacts would be 

minimized using Best Management Practices (BMPs). Sediment and erosion control plans would 

be developed that specify the types of BMPs necessary. Depending on the site, BMPs may 

include installation of silt fencing, straw bales, or ditch blocks and/or covering bare soils with 

mulch, plastic sheeting, or fiber rolls to protect drainage ways and streams from sediment runoff 

from exposed soils. Erosion control BMPs would be inspected during construction, especially 

during significant precipitation events. Soil compaction would be treated and restored through 

tillage operations, using a subsoiler.

All disturbed areas would be revegetated once construction is complete. Seed mixes would be 

specified based on site characteristics and in accordance with regulatory permits.

Potentially Erodible Soils

Slopes of 6 percent or greater tend to have a higher potential for erosion and would require 

BMPs if soils are graded or cleared. 

Prime Farmland

Impacts to prime farmland would be minimized by adjusting final structure placement to avoid 

these resources to the extent practicable. Soils classified as prime farmland would receive the 

highest priority for avoidance. Further impacts to prime farmlands would be minimized by 

paralleling the proposed Project adjacent to existing ROW features and field lines. Minnkota 

would coordinate with the NRCS to determine if anticipated impacts require evaluation under 

the FPPA and, if so, would coordinate this review and possible mitigation measures. Unless 

specific permission is given by landowners, field crossings would not be oriented diagonally if 

this would disrupt normal farming operations.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-50 November 2010

3.4 Vegetation

3.4.1 Description of Resources

Land use/cover along each route are displayed on Figure 3.2-1 and shown in Table 3.4-1. Table 

3.4-2 lists the land cover types by segment alternative, and Table 3.4-3 lists the land cover types 

by route ROW. Land cover data by segment alternative can be found in Table E-3 in Appendix 

E. GAP land cover data for North Dakota was used for this analysis (Strong et al).

Agricultural Vegetation

The general vegetative cover within the Study Area consists primarily of agricultural species used 

for grain and legume production such as wheat, corn, soybeans or sugar beets. Typically, areas 

used as cropland are established as monotypic communities. Pasture land is also common and is 

typically dominated by native or planted graminoid species. Many pastures are overgrazed and 

dominated by non-native grasses. Some locations retain characteristics of remnant prairie. 

Agricultural vegetative cover generally increases as the proposed Project moves east, with 

percent cover ranging from approximately 60 percent cropland in the west to nearly 90 percent 

cropland in the east.

Prairie, Woodland, and Wetland Vegetation

In the western sections of the Study Area, toward the Missouri River, prairie and wetland 

vegetation become more prevalent. Historically, North Dakota was mostly prairie land cover 

although much of the area has been modified for agricultural production. In the western 

portions of the Study Area, prairie cover is as high as 24 percent, decreasing to nearly 2 percent 

in the east. Typical species present in remnant prairies include bluestem (Andropogon spp., 

Schizachyrium spp.), needlegrass (Achnatherum), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), and sideoats 

(Bouteloua curtipendula). Healthy prairie habitats can also include a variety of forbs such as prairie 

smoke (Geum triflorum), pasque flower (Pulsatilla vulgaris), and coneflower (Echinacea spp., Ratibida

spp.).

Wetlands occur throughout the Study Area as the proposed Project traverses the Prairie Pothole 

Region of the upper Midwest. Wetlands cover up to 12 percent of the land near the center of the 

Study Area, but generally decrease in abundance in eastern portions of the Study Area due to 

increased cultivated crops. Wetlands are typically small, isolated depressions dominated by 

emergent vegetation, but also may be found along drainages, rivers, and streams. Common 

wetland vegetation includes reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), prairie cordgrass (Spartina 

pectinata), and cattail (Typha spp.). Large wetland complexes are typically considered a constraint 

to transmission line development, as construction may require additional permitting, wetland 

specific BMPs, or structure placement which would cause permanent impacts. Furthermore, 

maintenance of new infrastructure and ROW could be more problematic in wet areas.

Wooded areas are not prevalent in North Dakota, making up a small percentage of vegetative 

cover within the routes (approximately 1.2 percent of each route). Currently, the most common 

wooded areas are shelterbelts around residences and buildings. Some rivers and streams crossed 

by the routes may have a wooded, riparian fringe. Species commonly found in these wooded 

areas include deciduous species such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), aspen (Populus 

tremuloides), burr oak (Quercus macrocarpa) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides). 

Land cover classes that may conflict with the construction and operation of a new transmission 

line include developed areas, woodlands, water crossings, and large wetland complexes. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-51 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.4-1. GAP Land Cover Types within the Route Alternative

GAP Land Cover Category

Route A Route B Route C

Acres in 

Route

Percent of 

Route

Acres in 

Route

Percent of 

Route

Acres in 

Route

Percent of 

Route

Barren/Sparse Vegetation 49.2 0.2 36.2 0.1 37.2 0.1

Cropland 17073.1 57.0 20888.4 64.0 18363.1 60.5

Developed 99.2 0.3 135.5 0.4 165.7 0.5

Pasture 4989.2 16.6 4509.4 13.8 4754.4 15.7

Prairie 3,857.1 12.9 3,273.4 10.0 3,429.0 11.3

Shrubland 1,056.2 3.5 737.2 2.3 900.5 3.0

Wetland 2,441.1 8.2 2,733.3 8.4 2,347.3 7.8

Woodland 402.1 1.3 332.1 1.0 333.2 1.1

Total 29,967.3 100.0 32,645.4 100.0 30,330.5 100.0

Table 3.4-2. GAP Land Cover Types within the Segment Alternative

Segment Alternatives

Acres in Route Percent of Route

Barren/sparse vegetationCroplandDevelopedPasturePrairieShrublandWetlandWoodlandTotalBarren/sparse vegetationCroplandDevelopedPasturePrairieShrublandWetlandWoodlandTotal

A01 0.0 131.1 0.0 9.4 36.0 17.6 2.9 0.2 197.1 0.0 66.5 0.0 4.8 18.3 8.9 1.5 0.1 100

A02 4.8 303.8 1.4 201.6 399.5 131.6 11.3 4.6 1058.6 0.4 28.7 0.1 19.0 37.7 12.4 1.1 0.4 100

A03 7.0 81.7 7.8 150.4 255.6 70.9 62.1 54.2 689.7 1.0 11.8 1.1 21.8 37.1 10.3 9.0 7.9 100

A04 1.7 62.2 2.4 71.3 37.2 10.0 69.8 56.8 311.5 0.5 20.0 0.8 22.9 12.0 3.2 22.4 18.2 100

A05 2.7 50.9 0.0 81.2 105.9 8.0 6.4 0.0 255.1 1.0 20.0 0.0 31.8 41.5 3.1 2.5 0.0 100

A06 2.6 249.7 3.1 145.2 46.4 12.2 25.1 2.6 486.8 0.5 51.3 0.6 29.8 9.5 2.5 5.2 0.5 100

A07 9.6 490.4 0.8 304.4 511.4 59.4 203.4 3.7 1583.2 0.6 31.0 0.0 19.2 32.3 3.8 12.8 0.2 100

A08 8.5 293.7 0.1 235.7 209.8 34.6 99.3 1.7 883.4 1.0 33.2 0.0 26.7 23.7 3.9 11.2 0.2 100

A09 0.2 108.2 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.2 5.4 0.0 116.5 0.2 92.9 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.2 4.6 0.0 100

A10 0.4 101.4 2.4 19.9 22.6 3.2 35.4 0.3 185.8 0.2 54.6 1.3 10.7 12.2 1.7 19.1 0.2 100

A11 0.1 64.7 1.6 34.1 8.2 3.2 7.4 1.1 120.3 0.1 53.8 1.3 28.4 6.8 2.7 6.1 0.9 100

A12 7.6 250.8 7.3 162.8 204.8 56.6 139.4 6.5 835.8 0.9 30.0 0.9 19.5 24.5 6.8 16.7 0.8 100

A13 4.0 196.5 1.1 160.9 213.7 35.1 115.7 0.7 727.6 0.6 27.0 0.1 22.1 29.4 4.8 15.9 0.1 100

A14 0.2 123.9 5.9 242.2 297.4 42.6 134.5 2.0 848.8 0.0 14.6 0.7 28.5 35.0 5.0 15.9 0.2 100

A15 0.0 321.4 6.7 218.6 181.6 0.8 97.6 0.9 827.6 0.0 38.8 0.8 26.4 21.9 0.1 11.8 0.1 100

A16 1.3 28.8 0.0 11.8 1.7 1.4 10.1 0.0 55.1 2.4 52.3 0.0 21.4 3.1 2.5 18.3 0.0 100

A17 0.0 33.6 0.0 4.1 2.8 1.3 6.8 0.4 49.0 0.0 68.6 0.0 8.3 5.7 2.7 13.8 0.8 100

A18 2.2 1889.4 3.4 642.2 522.7 1.4 442.4 28.3 3532.1 0.1 53.5 0.1 18.2 14.8 0.0 12.5 0.8 100

A19 0.0 467.3 0.0 119.7 59.9 18.6 52.1 11.5 729.0 0.0 64.1 0.0 16.4 8.2 2.6 7.2 1.6 100

A20 0.0 300.7 0.0 121.2 45.3 89.5 96.2 16.3 669.2 0.0 44.9 0.0 18.1 6.8 13.4 14.4 2.4 100
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-52 November 2010 Segment Alternatives

Acres in Route Percent of Route

Barren/sparse vegetationCroplandDevelopedPasturePrairieShrublandWetlandWoodlandTotalBarren/sparse vegetationCroplandDevelopedPasturePrairieShrublandWetlandWoodlandTotal

A21 0.0 366.3 2.3 191.3 100.2 95.2 97.3 17.1 869.6 0.0 42.1 0.3 22.0 11.5 10.9 11.2 2.0 100

A22 0.0 113.8 0.0 27.6 3.2 13.3 2.0 15.1 175.0 0.0 65.0 0.0 15.7 1.8 7.6 1.2 8.6 100

A23 0.0 966.1 13.3 316.5 155.3 167.0 157.8 38.0 1814.0 0.0 53.3 0.7 17.4 8.6 9.2 8.7 2.1 100

A24 0.0 199.8 0.0 10.7 0.9 3.6 19.7 2.8 237.4 0.0 84.1 0.0 4.5 0.4 1.5 8.3 1.2 100

A25 0.0 270.1 0.0 13.0 1.1 11.2 3.5 1.7 300.5 0.0 89.9 0.0 4.3 0.4 3.7 1.2 0.6 100

A26 0.0 828.9 0.8 73.5 53.0 33.6 27.3 16.0 1033.1 0.0 80.2 0.1 7.1 5.1 3.3 2.6 1.6 100

A27 0.0 3294.7 22.7 195.7 40.4 98.2 174.7 39.3 3865.7 0.0 85.2 0.6 5.1 1.0 2.5 4.5 1.0 100

A28 0.0 606.8 0.0 15.6 3.4 4.8 19.2 3.2 653.1 0.0 92.9 0.0 2.4 0.5 0.7 2.9 0.5 100

A29 0.0 471.2 1.2 50.3 12.1 11.4 71.4 7.6 625.3 0.0 75.4 0.2 8.1 1.9 1.8 11.4 1.2 100

A30 0.0 208.7 0.0 16.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 4.4 231.3 0.0 90.2 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.9 100

A31 0.0 150.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 151.4 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

A32 0.0 204.2 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 239.9 0.0 85.1 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 100

A33 0.0 560.3 22.5 129.6 22.0 62.9 40.5 20.9 858.9 0.0 65.2 2.6 15.1 2.6 7.3 4.7 2.4 100

A34 0.0 85.3 0.0 14.6 1.5 12.1 13.3 14.1 141.0 0.0 60.5 0.0 10.4 1.0 8.6 9.4 10.0 100

A35 0.0 115.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 118.6 0.0 97.5 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100

A36 0.0 78.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 79.8 0.0 98.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.6 100

A37 0.0 672.7 2.3 198.5 47.4 5.6 10.2 24.4 961.0 0.0 70.0 0.2 20.7 4.9 0.6 1.1 2.5 100

A38 7.4 43.6 7.4 43.2 21.4 7.4 42.8 79.1 252.2 2.9 17.3 2.9 17.1 8.5 2.9 17.0 31.4 100
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

October 2010 Page 3-53 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.4-3. Land Cover Data by Route Alternative Right-of-Way

GAP Land 

Cover 

Category

Route A Route B Route C

Acres 

in ROW

Percent 

of ROW

Temp 

Impacts 

(acres)

Conversion

Impacts 

(acres)

Acres 

in 

ROW

Percent 

of ROW

Temp 

Impacts 

(acres)

Conversion

Impacts 

(acres)

Acres 

in ROW

Percent 

of ROW

Temp 

Impacts 

(acres)

Conversion

Impacts 

(acres)

Barren/Sparse 

Vegetation

7.8 0.2 1.0 <0.1 6.7 0.1 0.9 <0.1 5.9 0.1 0.8 <0.1

Cropland 2502.4 55.6 330.8 1.7 2958.1 60.4 385.1 1.9 2657.2 58.4 350.5 1.8

Developed 19.3 0.4 2.6 <0.1 26.8 0.5 3.5 <0.1 26.1 0.6 3.4 <0.1

Pasture 767.1 17.1 101.4 0.5 756.5 15.4 98.5 0.5 778.8 17.1 102.7 0.5

Prairie 610.1 13.6 80.7 0.4 547.8 11.2 71.3 0.4 541.1 11.9 71.4 0.4

Shrubland 172.8 3.8 22.8 0.1 129.6 2.6 16.9 0.1 145.5 3.8 19.2 0.1

Wetland 366.3 8.1 48.4 0.2 416.4 8.5 54.2 0.3 347.7 7.6 45.9 0.2

Woodland* 52.1 1.2 52.1 52.1 58.5 1.2 58.5 58.5 50.0 1.1 50.0 50.0

Total 4,498.0 100.0 639.8 55.0 4,900.4 100.0 688.9 61.7 4,552.2 100.0 644.4 53.0

Source: GAP data.

*These impacts would be considered a permanent vegetation conversion from woodland to shrubland or grassland. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-54 November 2010

Impaired and Vulnerable Terrestrial Communities

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department (NDPR) maintains the North Dakota Natural 

Heritage Inventory (NHI) as a spatial reference to protected and rare species occurrences or 

sensitive natural communities. The database includes data pertaining to flora and fauna species. 

While this inventory has not been completed throughout the entire Study Area, data is available 

for the vicinity of the Missouri River and Sheyenne River.

This database has assigned each occurrence a state conservation ranking, standards developed in 

part by NatureServe (NatureServe 2010). These rankings range between S1 for species or 

communities which are critically imperiled (less than 5 occurrences regionally) to S5 for species 

or communities considered secure (common species). Some communities are not assigned a 

rank, or are considered historical or extirpated (NatureServe 2009). These rankings are valuable 

to determine the extent of rare communities present in a given location. Rare communities 

present in the vicinity of the routes include areas of high quality prairie such as dry-mesic 

tallgrass prairies or needle-and-thread mixed grasses, high quality woodlands such as floodplain 

forests or burr oak upland woodlands and high quality shrublands and high quality wetlands. 

These communities likely harbor a greater diversity of plant species than the surrounding 

landscape. Impaired or vulnerable terrestrial communities are shown by route ROW on Table 

3.4-4 and by segment alternative on Table E-4 in Appendix E.

Table 3.4-4. Impaired or Vulnerable Terrestrial Communities by Route Alternative

Right-of-Way

State 

Conservation 

Ranking

Common Community Names

Route A Route B Route C

Acres in ROW Acres in ROW Acres in ROW

S1 Dry Mesic Tallgrass Prairie 4.8 -- 7.0

Water Sedge Rich Fen 2.2 -- 3.6

S2 Needle-and-thread Mixed Grass Prairie 9.0 9.0 13.4

Needlegrass-wheatgrass Prairie -- 3.7 --

S2/S3 Saltgrass Saline Meadow 0.8 -- 0.8

S3 Bur Oak Upland Woodland 2.2 2.1 3.9

Cottonwood-Green Ash Floodplain Forest 11.4 13.8 7.3

Green Ash Upland Woodland 1.6 1.6 --

S3/S4 Western Wheatgrass Prairie 9.0 9.0 13.4

S4 Buckbrush Shrubland -- 3.3 13.4

Buffaloberry Shrubland 0.1 3.4 --

Total 41.1 45.9 62.8

Source: North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory

3.4.2 Impacts

Impacts to these resources were determined by estimating the number of structures which 

would fall into the vegetation classifications (GAP data). 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-55 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Agriculture (see Table 3.4-3)

Route A

Land use along Route A is dominated by agricultural cropland, which totals 55.6 percent of the 

area within the ROW. This route would have the least permanent impact on agricultural 

vegetation, which would total 1.7 acres of impact. Temporary impacts would occur during 

construction and would affect 330.8 acres.

Route B

Land use along Route B is dominated by agricultural cropland, which totals 60.4 percent of the 

area within the ROW. This route would have the greatest impact on agricultural vegetation, 

which would total 1.9 acres of permanent impact. Temporary impacts would occur during 

construction and would affect 385.1 acres.

Route C

Land use along Route C is dominated by agricultural cropland, which totals 58.4 percent of the 

area within the ROW. This route would have moderate impact on agricultural vegetation which 

would total 1.8 acres of permanent impact. Temporary impacts would occur during construction 

and would affect 350.5 acres.

Prairie, Woodland, and Wetland Vegetation (see Table 3.4-3)

Route A

This route has the greatest coverage of prairie areas, 13.6 percent of the ROW, which is only 

slightly greater than prairie coverage on the other route alternatives. The most common type of 

prairie habitat along the route is dominated by a mixture of bluestem, needlegrass, and 

wheatgrass. Permanent impacts (0.4 acres) to prairie areas would be limited to structure and fiber 

optic regeneration footprints. Temporary impacts are estimated around 80.7 acres, and would be 

related to construction activities.

Approximately 8.1 percent of the ROW is considered wetland, although final permanent impacts 

to wetlands would be limited to 0.2 acre. In some areas, wetlands may share similar 

characteristics as prairie areas, but in many cases are degraded or dominated by non-native 

vegetation. Impacts to wetland areas would be similar to the other two route alternatives.

Woodland impacts would be similar to the other route alternatives. Approximately 52.1 acres of 

woodlands would be converted into grassland or scrublands. Woodlands that may be considered 

of higher biological integrity could include the cottonwood floodplains in the vicinity of the 

proposed Missouri River crossing. This route has is the smallest area of floodplain forests of 

each route alternative.

Route B

This route would have the least impact on prairie areas, which total 11.2 percent of the ROW. 

Permanent impacts (0.4 acres) to prairie areas would be limited to structure footprints.

Temporary impacts are estimated to be just over 71 acres, and would be related to construction 

activities.

Areas classified as wetland in the GAP data make up for 8.5 percent of the ROW, although final 

impacts to wetlands would be limited to 0.3 acre. In some areas, wetlands may share similar 

characteristics as prairie areas, but in many cases are degraded or dominated by non-native 

vegetation. Impacts to wetland areas would be similar to each route alternative.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-56 November 2010

This route would impact the greatest amount of woodland vegetation. Approximately 58.5 acres 

of woodlands would be converted into grassland or scrublands. Woodlands than may be 

considered of higher biological integrity could include the cottonwood floodplains in the vicinity 

of the proposed Missouri River crossing. This route has the greatest area of floodplain forests of 

each route alternative.

Route C

This route would have moderate impact on prairie areas, which total approximately 11.9 percent 

of the ROW. Permanent impacts (0.4 acres) to prairie areas would be limited to structure 

footprints. Temporary impacts are estimated to be just over 71 acres, and would be related to 

construction activities.

Areas classified as wetland in the GAP data make up for approximately 7.6 percent of the ROW, 

although final impacts to wetlands would be limited to 0.2 acre. In some areas, wetlands may 

share similar characteristics as prairie areas, but in many cases are degraded or dominated by 

non-native vegetation. Impacts to wetland areas would be similar to each route alternative.

Woodland impacts would be similar to the other route alternatives. Approximately 50.0 acres of 

woodlands would be converted into grassland or scrublands. Woodlands that may be considered 

of higher biological integrity could include the cottonwood floodplains in the vicinity of the 

proposed Missouri River crossing. This route would impact less area of floodplain forest than 

Route B and more than Route A.

Impaired and Vulnerable Terrestrial Communities (see Table 3.4-4)

Table 3.4-4 above and Table E-4 in Appendix E contain the acreages of impaired and vulnerable 

terrestrial communities within each route and segment alternative ROW.

Route A

This route would impact 41.1 acres of an impaired or vulnerable terrestrial community; the least 

of any alternative. This route would affect 7.0 acres of S1 ranked communities, more than Route 

B and less than Route C.

The most common type of rare community along this route is cottonwood-green ash floodplain 

forests, which are present along 11.4 acres of the ROW. Known occurrences of this community 

along this route are adjacent to the Missouri River crossing. Western wheatgrass and needle-andthread mixed grass prairies are the next most frequent type of community present along this 

ROW, 9.0 acres each. These communities are overlapping and present along the eastern bluffs 

of the Missouri River.

Route B

This route would affect 45.9 acres of impaired or vulnerable terrestrial communities, 4.8 acres 

more than Route A and 16.9 acres less acres than Route C. This route avoids communities 

assigned an S1 conservation ranking.

The most common type of rare community along this route is cottonwood-green ash floodplain 

forests. Known occurrences of this community along this route are adjacent to the Missouri 

River crossing. Western wheatgrass and needle-and-thread mixed grass prairies are the next most 

frequent type of community present along this ROW, 9.0 acres each. These communities are 

overlapping and present along the eastern bluffs of the Missouri River.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-57 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Route C

This route would affect the greatest area of impaired or vulnerable terrestrial communities of the 

three routes being considered, totaling 62.8 acres. This route would also impact the greatest area 

of communities assigned an S1 conservation ranking, totaling 10.6 acres.

The most common rare communities along this route are 13.4 acres each of needle-and-thread 

grass mixed prairies, western wheatgrass prairies, and buckbrush shrubland. These communities 

are overlapping and are located along the western bluffs of the Missouri River.

3.4.3 Mitigation

Agriculture

Mitigation of impacts to agricultural vegetation is addressed in Section 3.2.3. Minnkota would 

conduct a structure staking review with landowners, to the extent practical.

Prairie, Woodland, and Wetland Vegetation

Impacts to native vegetation would be minimized, when possible, by spanning habitats of higher 

quality. Where spanning is not feasible, impacts to native vegetation would be mitigated by reestablishing similar native species once construction is complete. Areas of non-native vegetation 

would be re-vegetated using native species appropriate for the local habitat, if approved by the 

landowner, to the extent practical. 

Final impacts to wetland vegetation would likely be smaller than those identified in this section, 

as structure placement would be selected to avoid placement in these areas when possible. 

Mitigation, if required, would be completed in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 Permit requirements. Wetlands that do not require a 

Section 404 permit would be restored to preconstruction conditions, to the extent practicable. 

Impacts to woodland vegetation would occur within the entire ROW where these habitats are 

present. Minnkota would mitigate impacts to woodland areas using a 2:1 replacement ratio 

(based on the number of trees removed), per PSC requirements. If feasible, the replacement 

areas would be located in the vicinity of the impacts. Where functional woodlands would be 

removed (such as shelter belts), mitigation would be designed to replace the intended utility of 

the impacted woodland.

Impaired and Vulnerable Terrestrial Communities

Impacts to impaired and vulnerable terrestrial communities would be minimized in a similar 

manner as discussed above; however, BMPs to minimize the spread of non-native species would 

be employed. In impaired and vulnerable terrestrial communities, BMPs may include but not 

limited to the following actions:

Where soil would be disturbed, the topsoil would be excavated separately from subsoil 

and stored in separate stockpiles.

Disturbed soils would not be transported to a different location on the proposed Project.

The time which areas of disturbed soils are left bare would be minimized.

Disturbed areas would be revegetated using a native seed mix consistent with native 

communities present near the area of disturbance.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-58 November 2010

3.5 Wildlife

3.5.1 Description of Resources

General Wildlife

In general, wildlife species present within the Study Area are typical of agricultural landscapes, 

pasture grasslands, and wetland habitat. Common mammals for these habitats include raccoon 

(Procyon lotor), skunk (Mephitis spp.), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), rabbits (Syvilagus spp.), bats (Myotis spp.), 

white-tailed deer (Odocorleus virginianus), and coyote (Canis latrans). The secondary ranges of 

pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) include the western part of 

the route alignments. Typical birds include songbirds; waterfowl; raptors; and game birds, such 

as pheasant (Phasianus colchinus), gray partridge (Perdix perdix), and sharp-tailed grouse 

(Tympanuchus phasianellus). In general, birds nest in shelterbelts and fencerow trees, and on the 

ground in the grasslands associated with prairie remnants, conservation land, lightly grazed 

pasture, and riparian corridors.

The Missouri and Sheyenne rivers, in particular, provide corridors for migration and foraging of 

wildlife as well as ample cover for small mammals, raptors, waterfowl, upland game birds, and 

other common wildlife along the routes. Additionally, the area described as the Northwestern 

Great Plains Ecoregion, which includes the route areas from western Wells County west to the 

Missouri River, includes relatively large tracts of grassland that provide native habitat for a 

variety of grassland species (USGS 2006).

Species of Concern in North Dakota

The NHI provides a system for identifying and prioritizing ecologically significant natural 

features in the state. Plant and animal species documented in the NHI have been assigned global 

and state ranks that describe the relatively rarity of each species. The North Dakota Natural 

Heritage Program has used these ranks to help develop a list of plant and animal species 

considered to be Species of Concern in North Dakota (Dirk 2006a, b). Species of Concern

include those plant and animal species that have populations considered at risk in the state of 

North Dakota; but North Dakota Species of Concern do not necessarily receive legal protection 

under state and/or federal endangered species acts. Federally listed species are discussed in 

Section 3.6.

Table 3.5-1 provides the Species of Concern documented in the NHI within one mile of the 

route alternatives. Species of Concern in North Dakota typically have been assigned a natural 

heritage state rank of S1, S2, or S3, as outlined below:

S1 Critically Imperiled – Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity or 

because some factor of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the 

state. Typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals (less than 

1,000). [Critically endangered in state.]

S2 Imperiled – Imperiled in the state because of rarity or because of other factors 

making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. Typically 6 to 20 occurrences or 

few remaining individuals (1,000 to 3,000). [Endangered in the state.]

S3 Vulnerable – Vulnerable in the state either because of rarity, or because it is found 

only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-59 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Typically 21 to 100 occurrences or between 

3,000 to 10,000 individuals. [Threatened in the state.] (NDNHI 2009)

Since areas within the routes have been studied to varying degrees of completeness, the species 

represented by the NHI data best serve as a snapshot of the potential presence of sensitive 

species, and do not necessarily represent a comprehensive list of all sensitive species located 

within the route alternatives. Hence, when assessing species records it is important to consider 

the similarity of habitats when interpreting the available data.

In general, most Species of Concern are associated with high quality rare or unique habitats and 

landscape features. In the route alternatives, most Species of Concern observations occur along 

the Missouri and Sheyenne rivers (Figure 3.6-1). Other species observances not associated with a 

major river are associated with unique habitats, such as remnant native prairie, riparian 

woodlands, wetland complexes, or rock outcroppings. 

Additionally, Table 3.5-1 summarizes known raptor nests, owl nests, and sharp-tailed grouse leks 

near the route alternatives. North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGF) has recorded 

sharp-tailed grouse lek areas in Grand Forks County, in the vicinity of the English Coulee 

Retention Dam, and in Sheridan County near the Prophets Mountain area.

Table 3.5-2 summarizes sensitive species near the segment alternatives. On March 29 and 30, 

2010, aerial surveys for raptor nests occurred within the route alternatives. The data from this 

survey are summarized in Table 3.5-3 and Table 3.5-4.

Table 3.5-1. NHI Sensitive Species Data within and Adjacent to Route Alternatives

Location Species

Route

A B C

Within 

Route

NHI Species of Concern 0 0 0

Raptor Nests* 0 0 0

Burrowing Owl Nests 0 0 0

Within 1 

mile of 

Route

NHI Species of Concern 7 4 9

Raptor Nests* 0 2 1

Burrowing Owl Nests 0 0 0

Within 2 

miles of 

Route

Sharp-Tailed Grouse Leks (within 

2 miles of centerline) 21 3 5

*Raptor nests include bald eagle and ferruginous hawk. Does not 

include data from March 2010 raptor surveys. See Table 3.5-3 

for March 2010 data.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-60 November 2010

Table 3.5-2. NHI Sensitive Species Data within and Adjacent to Segment Alternative

Segment 

Alternatives

Within Segment Alternative Within 1 mile of Segment 

Alternative

Within 2 miles 

of Segment 

Alternative

NHI Species 

of Concern

Raptor 

Nests*

Burrowing 

Owl Nests

NHI Species 

of Concern

Raptor 

Nests*

Burrowing 

Owl Nests

Grouse Leks 

(within 2 miles 

of centerline)

A04 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

A15 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

A16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

A17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

A18 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

A21 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

A23 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

A38 1 0 0 2 0 0 0

Table 3.5-3. March 2010 Raptor Nest Survey Results within and 

Adjacent to Route Alternative

Distance Feature Type

Route

A B C

Within Route

Raptor Nest 10 10 12

Raptor Observed 2 10 1

Within 1,000 feet of 

Route Limits*

Raptor Nest 6 4 3

Raptor Observed 0 2 0

Source: Minnkota 2010b 

*Does not include area within routes

Table 3.5-4. March 2010 Raptor Nest Survey Results within and 

Adjacent to Segment Alternative 

Segment 

Alternatives

Within Route Within 1,000 feet of 

Route Limits*

Raptor

Nest

Raptor

Observed Raptor Nest RaptorObserved

A15 1 0 1 0

A22 1 0 0 0

A27 2 2 0 0

Source: Minnkota 2010b

*Does not include area within routes

3.5.2 Impacts

Both direct and indirect effects could occur to wildlife species as a result of the proposed 

Project. Direct effects to wildlife are those effects that occur immediately or in proximity at the

time of the activity. Indirect effects are those effects that are likely to occur later in time as a 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-61 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

result of the activity. The direct and indirect effects, as listed below, would likely be the same for 

each route and segment alternative. 

Direct effects could include:

Direct habitat modification and reduction associated with construction clearing or 

grading; 

Removal of raptor nests (excluding bald and golden eagle nests) during the breeding 

season;

Introduction of sediment and fugitive dust through erosion and runoff during 

construction;

Potential for displacement of ground nesting birds, such as sharp-tailed grouse, from 

lekking areas, particularly where Route A crosses near the Prophets Mountains in 

Sheridan County. 

Exposure to contaminants from fuels and chemicals that are used during 

construction and operation; and 

Injury or mortality associated with collisions with construction equipment and/or 

overhead transmission lines. Collisions are discussed in more detail below.

Raptors, waterfowl, and other bird species may be affected by the construction and placement of 

the transmission line and associated facilities. Avian collisions are a possibility after the

completion of the transmission line. Waterfowl may be susceptible to transmission line collision, 

especially if the line is placed between agricultural fields that serve as feeding areas, or between 

wetlands and open water, which serve as resting areas. The transmission line shield wire is the 

part of the structure that is most likely to cause an avian collision. Additionally, the west half of 

the routes pass through the whooping crane migration corridor, which is discussed in 

Section 3.6.

Indirect effects could include:

Habitat disturbances that result in habitat fragmentation and/or species crowding in 

adjacent habitat, interfering with behavior and/or migration; 

Introduction of invasive vegetation that could change on-site habitat conditions; and

Interference with behavior or migration from noise created by proposed Project

facilities and human activity.

3.5.3 Mitigation

Minnkota would use the following minimization measures to address avian and other wildlife 

issues associated with the transmission line:

Consultation with the USFWS and RUS would continue to identify areas where both 

of the transmission line shield wires would be considered for marking in an 

alternating pattern. As noted in Section 3.6, both of the shield wires would be 

marked in an alternating pattern, as appropriate, to mitigate for sections of routes

near suitable whooping crane habitat within the whooping crane migration corridor.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-62 November 2010

The transmission line would be designed with consideration of the guidance found in 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee’s (APLIC) Suggested Practices for Avian 

Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006.

Preconstruction surveys for wetlands and woodlands in the vicinity of the 

transmission line and associated facilities would be completed to minimize impacts 

to wildlife habitat.

To discourage active nesting within parts of the ROW expected to be temporarily or 

permanently disturbed by the proposed Project, tree removal, ground clearing, or 

mowing would occur in late fall or early spring to discourage tree and ground 

nesting.

If the ROW is not cleared in early spring before the breeding season, a qualified 

biologist would survey the construction ROW for active ground nests and provide a 

construction buffer.

In case of permanent jurisdictional wetland impacts, any unavoidable loss of 

jurisdictional wetland habitat would be replaced with functionally equivalent 

wetlands, as required by applicable permits.

Appropriate erosion control measures would be installed and maintained to reduce 

sediment transport to adjacent wetlands, streams, and river channels.

If impacted, per the PSC requirement, trees would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, subject 

to landowner approval. 

Avoid refueling vehicles within 100 feet of a waterway’s edge to minimize the 

potential for hazardous-materials spills reaching the waterway.

Prompt restoration and re-vegetation of disturbed areas.

Use native plant seed stock for re-vegetation.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-63 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.6.1 Description of Resources

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, provides for the conservation of

ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. 

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or to 

modify their critical habitat. The RUS is developing a Biological Assessment to support their 

efforts to meet their responsibilities under Section 7(a) of the ESA. Through review of the BA, 

the RUS would make a determination of whether the proposed Project would or would not 

affect a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. 

Federally threatened species are those species likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Federally endangered 

species are those species already in danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant portion 

of, their range. Federal candidate species are those species being considered for listing as 

endangered or threatened, but for which a proposed regulation has not yet been published in the 

Federal Register. Designated critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that is essential for 

the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special 

management and protection. Table 3.6-1 summarizes federally designated species and critical 

habitat that may occur within the routes.

Table 3.6-1. Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat by Counties that are Crossed 

by Route Alternative

Species Type County 

Occurrences Preferred Habitat Habitat Present in Route

Endangered

Interior least tern 

(Sterna antillarum): Bird Burleigh, 

McLean, Oliver

Nests along midstream sandbars of the 

Missouri and Yellowstone rivers.

Yes, all routes at 

Missouri River 

Whooping crane 

(Grus americana)

Bird All

Migrates through North Dakota during 

spring and fall. Prefers to roost in wetlands 

and stock dams with good visibility (i.e. no 

or minimal woody debris within wetland or 

on wetland fringe).

Yes, all routes

Pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus albus)

Fish Burleigh, 

McLean, Oliver 

Known only from the Missouri and 

Yellowstone rivers. No reproduction has 

been documented in 15 years.

Yes, Missouri River 

Gray wolf 

(Canis lupus)

Mammal McLean, Oliver

Occasional visitor in North Dakota. Most 

frequently observed in the Turtle 

Mountains area of northern North Dakota.

No, all routes are 

greater than 75 

miles from Turtle 

Mountains

Black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes)

Mammal Oliver

Exclusively associated with prairie dog 

towns. No records of occurrence in recent 

years, although there is potential for 

reintroduction in the future.

No, large prairie 

dog towns capable

of sustaining a 

ferret population 

are not present 

within the routes 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-64 November 2010

Species Type County 

Occurrences Preferred Habitat Habitat Present in Route

Threatened

Piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus)

Bird

Burleigh, Eddy, 

Foster, 

McLean, Oliver, 

Sheridan, Wells

Nests on midstream sandbars of the 

Missouri and Yellowstone rivers and along 

shorelines of saline wetlands.

Yes, all routes at 

Missouri River 

Candidate

Dakota skipper

(Hesperia dacotae)

Insect Eddy, McLean, 

Wells

Found in native prairie containing a high 

diversity of wildflowers and grasses. 

Habitat includes two prairie types: 1) low 

(wet) prairie dominated by bluestem 

grasses, wood lily, harebell, and smooth 

camas; 2) upland (dry) prairie on ridges 

and hillsides dominated by bluestem 

grasses, needlegrass, pale purple and 

upright coneflowers, and blanket flower.

Possible, all routes

Designated Critical Habitat

Piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus)

Bird

Burleigh, Eddy, 

McLean, Oliver, 

Sheridan

Missouri River - Critical habitat includes 

sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, 

sand and gravel beaches on islands, 

temporary pools on sandbars and islands, 

and the interface with the river.

Alkali Lakes and Wetlands – Critical 

Habitat includes: (1) shallow, seasonally to 

permanently flooded, mixosaline to 

hypersaline wetlands with sandy to 

gravelly, sparsely vegetated beaches, saltencrusted mud flats, and/or gravelly salt 

flats; (2) springs and fens along edges of 

alkali lakes and wetlands; and (3) adjacent 

uplands 200 feet above the high water 

mark of the alkali lake or wetland

Yes, all routes at 

Missouri River 

crossing; No 

designated alkali 

lake and wetlands 

within routes

Delisted

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bird

Possible in all 

counties 

crossed by 

routes

The bald eagle has been recently delisted 

from the ESA. However, the bald eagle is 

still protected by other federal laws 

including: the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, and the Lacey Act.

Possible, all routes; 

aerial surveys 

conducted on 

March 2010 

documented one 

eagle nest in Eddy 

County about 700 

feet south of Route 

A (Minnkota 2010b)

Table 3.6-2 summarizes the known occurrence of federally threatened and endangered species 

within the route alternatives and one mile of the route alternatives. Table E-5 in Appendix E 

summarizes the known occurrence of federally threatened and endangered species within the 

segment alternatives and one mile of the segment alternatives. All NDPR occurrences represent 

past observation of piping plover and interior least tern along the Missouri River. USFWS has 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-65 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

also indicated that these points along the Missouri River represent historic nesting sites of piping 

plover and interior least tern. 

Confirmed whooping crane migration sitings are scattered throughout the west half of the route 

alternatives, from about the city of Carrington westward.

Table 3.6-2. Number of Federally Listed Species Occurrences within Route Alternative 

and One Mile of Route Alternative

Distance Species Occurrences

Routes

A B C

Within Route

NDPRD T&E Occurrences 0 2 0

Whooping Crane Sightings 0 0 0

Total T&E Species Observations 0 2 0

Within 1 mile

of Route

NDPRD T&E Occurrences 5 5 1

Whooping Crane Sightings 4 2 1

Total T&E Species Observations 9 7 2

Table 3.6-3 summarizes bald eagles that were observed with or near the routes during March 29-

30, 2010, aerial surveys. No eagles were observed near the segment alternatives during surveys 

(Minnkota 2010b).

Table 3.6-3. Bald Eagle Nests and Observations Within and 

Adjacent to Route Alternative

Distance Feature Type

Routes

A B C

Within Route

Bald Eagles (Soaring) 0 0 0

Bald Eagles (Perched) 5 4 0

Total Bald Eagles Observed 5 4 0

Within 1,000 feet 

of Route Limits 

(does not include 

route)

Bald Eagle Nest 1* 0 0

Bald Eagle (Nesting) 2 0 0

Bald Eagles (Soaring) 0 0 6

Bald Eagles (Perched) 3 3 3

Total Bald Eagles Observed 5 3 9

*Eagle nest located about 700 feet south of Route A in Eddy County

An active bald eagle nest was observed about 700 feet south of Route A in Eddy County. Most 

of the bald eagle observations (17 of 21 bald eagles plus an active eagle nest) were observed near 

the central part of the routes, within Foster, Eddy, and Well counties. Additionally, two eagles 

were noted along the Missouri River and two eagles were observed in Grand Forks County 

(Minnkota 2010b). 

3.6.2 Impacts

Due to the linear nature of the proposed Project, impacts to potential terrestrial species habitat 

would be limited to the area within the ROW. Long-term habitat impacts would occur at 

permanent structure and fiber optic station locations and where tree clearing is required; short-
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-66 November 2010

term impacts could occur at the 30-foot-wide temporary access road. Existing, adjacent habitat 

would be left undisturbed. 

Table 3.6-4 summarizes potential impacts to federally listed species and critical habitat. Species 

with potential impacts are discussed in more detail in this section.

Table 3.6-4. Potential Impacts to Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat

Species Type

Direct 

Impact 

Anticipated

Indirect 

Impact 

Anticipated

Comment

Endangered

Interior least tern 

(Sterna antillarum): Bird No Possible

Routes B and C: cross historic nesting sandbars 

Route A: crosses within about 1,000 feet of historic 

nesting sandbars

Whooping crane 

(Grus americana)

Bird Possible Possible All routes: run perpendicular to the migration corridor 

and include potential whooping crane stopover habitat

Pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus albus)

Fish No No All routes: no impacts to the Missouri River are 

expected

Gray wolf 

(Canis lupus)

Mammal No No

All routes: Greater than 75 miles from Turtle 

Mountains, an area that is occasionally used by gray 

wolf

Black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes)

Mammal No No

All routes: no known populations in North Dakota; 

routes do not cross any known potential habitat (prairie 

dog towns)

Threatened

Piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus)

Bird No Possible

Routes B and C: cross historic nesting sandbars, 

Route A: crosses within about 1,000 feet of historic 

nesting sandbars

Candidate

Dakota skipper

(Hesperia dacotae)

Insect No Possible All routes: do not cross any known sites; however, 

habitat loss may occur if native prairie is impacted 

Designated Critical Habitat

Piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus)

Bird No Possible

All routes: the Missouri River sandbars, which is 

designated critical habitat, would be spanned by the 

transmission line

Delisted

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

Bird No No

All routes: no eagle nests would be impacted by the 

Project; transmission line would meet APLIC 

guidelines

Interior Least Tern 

Routes B and C span sandbars on the Missouri River that are known to have historically been 

used as nesting grounds by interior least tern (Figure 3.6-1). Route A spans the Missouri River 

about 1,000 feet north of an historic nesting grounds sandbar. Aerial photography from 2009 

indicates that sandbars are still present at these locations (detailed route maps – Appendix B).
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-67 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

A direct impact to the interior least tern could occur in the event of a collision with the 

transmission line. While typical flight height information is not readily available, it is documented 

that, when searching for prey, the interior least tern hovers about 3 to 33 feet above water, 

which is lower than the expected height of the transmission line (Thompson et al. 1997). As 

such, direct impacts due to collision with the transmission line would be unlikely. 

Structure locations would be designed to avoid direct impacts to nesting habitat. Minnkota 

proposes to cross the Missouri River in one span; therefore, no structures would be placed 

within the Missouri River or its sandbars. In addition, Minnkota proposes to cross the Missouri 

River near existing transmission lines. The proposed Project would not cause a loss, 

fragmentation, or modification of sandbar habitat. 

Another direct impact could occur in the event that the installation of a new transmission line 

causes displacement of local nesting populations. The timing of construction at the Missouri 

River would be restricted such that construction activities would not be allowed during the 

nesting season from May through August. Minnkota proposes to construct at the Missouri River 

after August. Structure locations would be designed to avoid direct impacts to nesting habitat.

The primary indirect effect would be the potential for complete avoidance by interior least tern

of the nesting habitat located near the area of the proposed transmission line during 

construction. Loss of suitable nesting habitat (sandbars) is a concern regarding the interior least 

tern, due to the natural shifting of sandbars within the Missouri River as sandbars constantly 

erode and are created due to sediment deposition.

Whooping Crane 

Potential direct effects to whooping cranes would include mortality associated with collisions

and permanent loss of habitat. According to the USFWS, collisions with power lines are the 

greatest known source of mortality for fledged whooping cranes. Specifically, Stehn and 

Wassenich (2007) stated that shield wires are the wires most often struck by birds in flight. 

During preliminary discussions, USFWS commented that a new transmission line has the 

potential to affect whooping cranes during their annual spring and fall migration through North 

Dakota (Ellsworth, pers. comm.). The proposed Project crosses perpendicularly to the east half 

of the whooping crane migration corridor (Figure 3.6-1). The western terminus of the 

transmission line is located within the center (50th percentile band) of the whooping crane 

migration corridor. Migrating cranes are most vulnerable to collisions with structures in the early 

morning or late evening when light levels are diminished, as they fly at very low altitudes 

between roost and foraging sites, or when flying at low altitude when starting or ending a 

migration flight, especially when thermal currents are minimal.

The Study Area has seen conversion of native prairie and wetlands into agricultural land use 

beginning with 19th-century settlement, negatively impacting the quality and quantity of 

migration stopover habitat for numerous migratory birds. Construction of utility lines and roads, 

and the increased urban and industrial developments with the associated human disturbance 

near the Study Area have also negatively affected whooping cranes and migration habitat. Shortterm direct impacts could occur in the event that a whooping crane is displaced from available 

stopover habitat during proposed Project construction. Long-term direct impact could occur in 

the event that installation of a new transmission line causes displacement from local stopover 

habitat.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-68 November 2010

Stehn and Wassenich (2007) stated that whooping cranes responded to marked lines and tried to 

avoid the lines. Minnkota proposes to mark both of the new transmission line shield wires in an 

alternating pattern of the proposed Project within 1 mile of suitable habitat in the whooping 

crane migration corridor. Minnkota would work with the USFWS and RUS to identify marker 

device spacing.

The primary indirect effect would be the potential for complete avoidance by whooping cranes 

of the stopover habitat located near the area of the proposed Project. Loss of migration habitat 

is a growing concern. In addition, searching for suitable stopover habitat may cause increased 

energy expenditure, or increase the exposure to hazards as birds are required to fly low for 

longer distances. The potential exists for this disturbance to affect the physical condition of the 

birds, placing energy demands and stressors on individuals at a critical point in their life cycle 

(migration). The increased disturbance could also place the cranes at greater risk of exposure to 

other hazards encountered during migration such as structures, hunters, disease, and predation.

Piping Plover

Routes B and C span sandbars on the Missouri River that are known to have historically been 

used as nesting grounds by piping plover. Route A spans the Missouri River about 1,000 feet 

north of a historic nesting grounds sandbar. The route and segment alternatives that cross the 

Missouri River are located within the Missouri River critical habitat. Aerial photography from 

2009 indicates that sandbars are still present at these locations. See Figure 3.6-1.

A direct impact to piping plover could occur in the event of a collision with the transmission 

line. While typical flight height information is not readily available, piping plovers do spend 

much of their time walking or running rather than flying, because their inconspicuous sandcolored plumage makes them more difficult to see on the ground than if they flew and exposed 

their bright white underbody (Elliott-Smith et al. 2004). As such, direct impacts due to collision 

with the transmission line would be unlikely.

Structure locations would be designed to avoid direct impacts to nesting habitat. Minnkota 

proposes to cross the Missouri River in one span; therefore, no structures would be placed 

within the Missouri River or its sandbars. In addition, Minnkota proposes to cross the Missouri 

River near existing transmission lines. The proposed Project would not cause a loss, 

fragmentation, or modification of sandbar habitat. 

Another direct impact could occur in the event that the installation of a new transmission line 

causes displacement of local nesting populations. The timing of construction at the Missouri 

River would be restricted such that construction activities would not be allowed during the 

nesting season from mid-April through August. Minnkota proposes to construct at the Missouri 

River after August. Since piping plovers may use alkali wetland habitats for nesting, Minnkota 

proposes to conduct pre-construction surveys for active nesting piping plovers within the ROW.

If active nesting areas are identified during the surveys, Minnkota proposes to maintain a 0.5-

mile buffer of the active piping plover nesting areas that may be identified outside of the 

Missouri River and designated critical habitat. Structure locations would be designed to avoid 

direct impacts to nesting sandbar habitat.

The primary indirect effect is the potential for complete avoidance by piping plovers of the 

nesting habitat located near the area of the proposed transmission line during construction. Loss 

of suitable nesting habitat (sandbars) is a concern regarding the interior piping plover, due to the 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-69 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

natural shifting of sandbars within the Missouri River as sandbars constantly erode and are 

created due to sediment deposition.

Pallid Sturgeon

The proposed Project crosses the Missouri River, which is habitat for the pallid sturgeon. The 

proposed Project would span the Missouri River and not require installation of structures within 

the river channel. Additionally, Minnkota proposes to place structures about 100 feet away from 

the river’s existing bank to account for river flows that have the potential to erode the river’s 

bank. No direct impacts are anticipated to the pallid sturgeon due to construction or operation 

of the transmission line.

The proposed Project would utilize BMPs that would limit indirect impacts from sedimentation 

and erosion during construction, such as silt fence, straw bales, and revegetation. The proposed 

Project would not change water temperature of the river. Minnkota would not refuel vehicles 

within 100 feet of the river’s edge to minimize the potential for hazardous-materials spills 

reaching the river. No indirect impacts are anticipated to the pallid sturgeon due to construction 

or operation of the transmission line.

Gray Wolf

The gray wolf may pass through the Study Area, but viable gray wolf habitat does not occur in 

the Study Area. It is unlikely that gray wolves would be present during construction and 

operation, with the possible exception of an occasional transient animal. If gray wolves entered 

the proposed Project during construction they could be struck by vehicles, but the chance of 

collisions is considered negligible, particularly since posted speed limits would be very low.

The proposed Project would not have indirect effects on the gray wolf. In general, the Study 

Area and North Dakota do not provide suitable habitat for establishment of a viable wolf 

population. Any wolves that have occurred or may occur in the Study Area are rare, dispersing 

individuals from a core population in Minnesota, well to the east of the Study Area.

Black-Footed Ferret

Potential direct effects to black-footed ferrets include: permanent loss of habitat, eradication of 

prairie dog towns (food source), and predation from raptors. Potential black-footed ferret 

reintroduction habitat could be found in portions of Oliver County. No records of occurrence 

within the Study Area have been documented in recent years and there are no reintroduced 

populations near the Study Area. Minnkota would not eradicate a prairie dog town that may be a 

potential food source for the black-footed ferret. In addition, Minnkota would design their 

structures per APLIC guidelines that would reduce the ability of raptors to perch on the 

structures. This may reduce the opportunities for raptors to perch on the structures to prey on 

the black-footed ferret, if a population was reintroduced to the Study Area. No direct or indirect

impacts are anticipated due to construction or operation of the transmission line.

Candidate Species – Dakota Skipper

The direct effect to the Dakota skipper would be loss of habitat. Generally, the proposed Project 

impacts would be limited to localized permanent impacts due to structure installation or 

temporary impacts due to construction activities. Much of the proposed route and segment 

alternatives are disturbed lands. Areas that are disturbed during construction would be reseeded 

following construction.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-70 November 2010

An indirect effect would be the application of pesticides or herbicides for noxious weeds. 

Operations and maintenance crews would avoid broadcast applications of pesticides or 

herbicides within the immediate vicinity of any Dakota skipper present at time of application. 

Piping Plover Critical Habitat 

All route alternatives cross the Missouri River, which is designated critical habitat. 

No direct impacts within critical habitat are expected as the transmission line would span the 

Missouri River, with structures being placed about 100 feet away (back) from the river edge.

The transmission line conductors would occupy a height of about 80 feet above the ground, 

which could be considered an indirect impact. 

3.6.3 Mitigation

Minnkota would continue to work with the RUS to develop the Biological Assessment. 

Mitigation and minimization measures are expected to include:

Designing and siting the transmission line and structures according to APLIC 

guidelines for minimization of electrocution and collision.

Marking both shield wires of the transmission line in an alternating pattern with 

visual marking devices within 1 mile of suitable habitat in the whooping crane

migration corridor. Minnkota will work with the USFWS and RUS to identify marker 

device spacing. 

Avoiding Lake Williams National Wildlife Refuge, which is designated critical habitat 

for the piping plover.

Constructing the Missouri River crossing after August, which is outside of the 

breeding and fledgling season for the interior least tern and for the piping plover.

The USFWS reports that the breeding season for the interior least tern lasts from 

May through August. The USFWS states that the breeding season for the piping 

plover in North Dakota extends from mid-April through August.

Conducting pre-construction surveys for active piping plover nesting areas within the 

ROW. If active nesting areas are identified, Minnkota proposes to maintain a 0.5-

mile buffer of the active piping plover nesting areas that may be identified outside of 

the Missouri River and designated critical habitat.

Avoiding placing structures within the Missouri River channel and on sandbars of 

the Missouri River where interior least tern and piping plover nesting could occur.

Constructing the Missouri River crossing near existing transmission line crossing.

Maintaining a distance of at least 330 feet from active eagle nests, or 660 feet if the 

activity would be visible from the nest. Raptor nest surveys were completed in March 

2010.

Avoiding direct impacts to wetlands, native prairie, wooded draws or other sensitive 

habitat areas whenever feasible.

Conducting ground clearing in the fall and winter prior to the nesting season. If 

ground clearing is not completed in the fall or winter, ground surveys for nesting 

birds would take place prior to construction.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-71 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Replacing trees at a 2:1 mitigation ratio, per the PSC requirement and subject to 

landowner approval. 

Avoid refueling vehicles within 100 feet of a waterway’s edge to minimize the 

potential for hazardous-materials spills reaching the waterway.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-72 November 2010

3.7 Surface Water and Floodplain Resources

3.7.1 Description of Resources

There are many surface water resources (lakes, rivers, and streams) within or adjacent to the 

route alternatives (Figure 3.7-1). The Missouri River is the largest watercourse that is crossed by 

the route alternatives and is associated with large sandbars and wooded riparian habitat. In 

general, perennial watercourses are more frequent in the eastern half or the routes. Lakes are 

fairly evenly scattered throughout the vicinity of the route alternatives. Wetlands are discussed in 

Section 3.8.

Rivers and Streams

Four perennial rivers and one canal are crossed by the route alternatives. Most streams and 

creeks are mapped as intermittent in nature, with the exceptions of Kelly Creek, Baldhill Creek, 

Pickerel Lake Creek, and Spring Creek, which are perennial within at least one route alternative 

crossing. Table 3.7-1 and Table 3.7-2 summarize surface waters crossed by the route and 

segment alternatives. 

While most of the streams and creeks crossed by the route alternatives are intermittent in nature, 

aerial photography indicates that some of these intermittent surface waters may support open 

water for extended periods of time. 

Mapped FEMA Floodplains

For the proposed Project, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) data is only 

available for the Missouri River. At the route crossings, all Missouri River floodplain crossings 

are mapped as Zone A 100-year floodplains. Approximate FEMA floodplain widths are as 

follows:

Route A—1.0 mile

Route B—0.6 mile

Route C—0.5 mile

Segment Alternative A03—0.4 mile

Segment Alternative A04—1.0 mile

Segment Alternative A38—0.8 mile

Table 3.7-1. Surface Waters Crossed by the Route Alternative – From West to East

Surface Water 

Number of Crossings 

Comment

Route A Route B Route C

Named Rivers and Canal

Missouri River -

perennial 1 1 1

Approximate river width at crossing—

Route A: 2,400 feet ;

Route B: 1,700 feet; 

Route C: 1,800 feet;

McClusky Canal 2 2 2

Crossed in Sheridan Co. and McLean Co.; canal typically 

maintains perennial flow at crossings; surface water is typically 

150-foot-wide or less at crossings, upper banks at Sheridan 

crossing may be more than 300 feet wide
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-73 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Surface Water 

Number of Crossings 

Comment

Route A Route B Route C

James River -

perennial 1 1 1

Route A crosses in Eddy Co. and Routes B and C in Foster Co.; 

river width is 150 feet or less at crossings

Sheyenne River -

perennial 1 1 1

All crossings in Griggs Co.; Routes A and C cross at same 

location, the river is highly sinuous at the Route A/C crossing, 

meandering across an approximately 1,800-foot-wide apparent 

floodplain; river is typically 100 feet wide or less at crossings 

Maple River -

intermittent -- 1 --

Route B: Crossing is near stream headwaters, channel less than 

100 feet wide with 600-foot-wide floodplain

Goose River and 

branches -

perennial

3 2 2

Route A: River not mapped as perennial at crossing, Little Goose 

and N Branch Goose River also crossed; 

Route B: Perennial broad meanders at crossing, also crosses S 

Branch; 

Route C: Perennial oxbow backwaters at crossing, N Branch also 

crossed

Named Streams and Creeks with Open Water

Yanktonai Creek -

intermittent 1 1 1

Narrow meandering surface water that is crossed by all routes in 

McLean Co. near US 83

Painted Woods 

Creek - intermittent 1 1 1

All crossing in McLean Co.; Route A and B cross at same 

location

Rocky Run -

intermittent 3 -- 2

Route A: Crosses in Eddy Co. downstream of Route C crossing; 

stream generally 50 feet wide except for crossing at Rosefield 

Slough, which is about 400 feet wide

Route C: Crosses in Wells Co. near stream headwaters

Pipestem Creek -

intermittent -- 4 --

Three crossings in Wells Co., near creek headwaters; one in 

Foster Co. where creek is about 50 feet wide with an apparent 

800-foot-wide floodplain

Kelly Creek -

perennial --

Parallels for 

2.5 miles 1

Route B: Creek meanders within route for about 2.5 miles in 

Foster Co. 

Route C: Upstream of Route B, stream shows braided pattern at 

this location, but little surface water

Baldhill Creek -

perennial -- 1 --

Route B: Crossed in Griggs Co., tight meanders within 

approximately 1,000-foot-wide floodplain

Pickerel Lake 

Creek -perennial 1 -- 1

Routes A and C cross at same location; creek narrow 

(approximately 20 feet) at Griggs Co. crossing location

Beaver Creek -

intermittent -- -- 1 Route C: Crossing near creek headwaters in Grand Forks Co.

Spring Creek -

perennial -- -- --

Route C: Creek appears to be ditched at crossing in Grand Forks 

Co.

Cole Creek -

intermittent -- 1 --

Route B: Narrow creek crossing in Grand Forks Co.; farmed up to 

edge of creek

Elm Coulee -

intermittent -- 1 --

Route B: Narrow coulee crossing in Grand Forks Co.; farmed up 

to edge of creek

Wilson Creek -

intermittent --

Parallels for 

0.5 mile --

Route B: Parallel ditched part of creek in Grand Forks Co.; 

farmed up to edge of creek
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-74 November 2010

Surface Water 

Number of Crossings 

Comment

Route A Route B Route C

English Coulee -

intermittent 5 1 1

Route A:Crosses coulee three meanders within 2.5 miles; 

crosses two ditched sections within 1.0 mile, near prairie 

substation

Route B/C: Crosses ditched segment near prairie substation

Table 3.7-2. Surface Waters Crossed by the Segment Alternative – From West to East

Surface 

Water 

Number of Crossings 

Comment

A01 A04 A12 A13 A17 A21 A23 A33 A34 A37 A38

Named Rivers and Canal

Missouri 

River -

perennial

1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

A01: Crossing Width: 1,800 feet. A38 

Crossing Width: 1800 feet

McClusky 

Canal -- 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

A04: Crossed in McLean Co. A12: 

Crossed in Sheridan Co.

Sheyenne 

River -

perennial

-- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 1 -- --

A17: River is highly sinuous at 

crossing in Griggs Co.; floodplain is 

about 4,000 feet wide

A33: Minimal trees at this crossing in 

Griggs County; Crossing Width 

approximately 100 feet

A34: River is highly sinuous at 

crossing in Griggs County; Crossing 

With approximately 100 feet

Goose 

River and 

Branches -

perennial

-- -- -- -- -- 3 1 -- -- -- --

A21: Two crossings of N Branch 

Goose River; one crossing of Goose 

River 

A23:Crosses Goose Creek

Named Streams and Creeks with Open Water

Rocky Run

-

intermittent

-- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

A13: Project centerline may avoid 

crossing feature

Pickerel 

Lake Creek

-perennial

-- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 -- -- --

A17: Creek narrow (app. 20 feet); 

native grasslands adjacent to creek

A33: 

Beaver 

Creek -

intermittent

-- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- --

A21: Creek narrow (20 feet); sinuous 

at crossing

English 

Coulee –

Intermittent

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --

A37: Creek narrow (less than 50 feet) 

at crossing

Lakes

While some ―lakes‖ in North Dakota are, in a traditional sense, actually large wetlands, for the 

purpose of this EA, lakes were identified according to surface waters that have been named 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-75 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

―Lake.‖ Table 3.7-3 and Table 3.7-4 summarize lakes crossed by the routes and segment 

alternatives.

Table 3.7-3. Named Lakes Crossed by the Route Alternative – From West to East

Surface Water 

Number of Crossings

Comment

Route A Route B Route C

Yanktonai Lake 1 -- --

500-foot-wide crossing at west side of lake; lake is 

approximately 30 acres in McLean Co.

Lake Norway 1 -- 1

Route A/C: Crosses north side of 115 acre lake in Griggs Co.;

crossing width ranges from 800 feet to 1,400 feet at route

Table 3.7-4. Named Lakes Crossed by the Segment Alternative– From West to East

Surface Water 

Number of Crossings 

Comment

A12 A15

Mertz Slough 1 --

170 acre deep-water wetland in Sheridan Co; crossed by route 

but avoided by project centerline

Long Lake -- 1

100 acre lake in Griggs Co.; bottleneck in center of lake may be 

spannable without crossing open water 

3.7.2 Impacts

Rivers, Streams and Lakes

No direct short-term or long-term impacts to watercourses and lakes are expected as part of the 

construction and operation of the transmission line and associated facilities. All rivers, streams, 

and lakes would be spanned by the transmission line, including the crossing at the Missouri 

River.

The Devils Lake basin, located in northeastern North Dakota, has experienced dramatic 

increases in lake water levels. The current water level has inundated much of the surrounding 

area, causing displacement of residents and impacting surface transportation. The Sheyenne 

River was the natural outlet to Devils Lake at one time. Currently, the capacity of the 

constructed Devils Lake outlet may have to be increased to control flooding effects within the 

basin; as a result, flows within the Sheyenne River may increase. 

Applicable BMPs would be utilized to prevent indirect impacts due to runoff, erosion and 

sedimentation, or blockage of drainageways. 

Perennial water sources would be used to obtain water for dust suppression and the concrete 

batch plant. Water withdrawal for construction purposes would not be taken from USFWS 

wetland easements. 

Mapped FEMA Floodplains

Floodplains, including mapped FEMA floodplains, would be spanned by the transmission line 

wherever feasible. At the Missouri River crossing, the 100-year FEMA floodplains appear to be 

too wide to be completely spanned by the transmission line. Based on the expected width of the 

Missouri River floodplain crossing, floodplain impacts may be as follows, assuming a 1,000-foot 

span between transmission structures within the floodplain:

Route A—3 structures (235.5 square feet of permanent impacts)
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-76 November 2010

Route B—2 structures (157 square feet of permanent impacts)

Route C—1 structures (78.5 square feet of permanent impacts)

Alternative A03—0 to 1 structures (78.5 square feet of permanent impacts)

Alternative A04—3 structures (235.5 square feet of permanent impacts)

Alternative A38—3 structures (235.5 square feet of permanent impacts)

3.7.3 Mitigation

Rivers, Streams and Lakes

The proposed Project would require a number of water resource permits, including coverage

under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction

Activities and associated Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Permit to Cross 

North Dakota Sovereign Lands, Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit, and Section 10 Rivers and 

Harbor Act Permit. The placement of transmission line structures, land clearing that involves 

soil disturbance, or placement of construction mats may be considered a discharge of fill 

material that would require a permit from the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act. These permits would require Minnkota to develop and implement BMPs for 

sediment and erosion control during construction and operation of the proposed Project to 

protect topsoil and adjacent surface and groundwater resources, and to minimize soil erosion. 

Typical BMPs may include:

Locate structures and disturbed areas away from rivers and lakes, where practicable;

Contain stockpiled material, fuel, and chemicals, away from stream banks and lake 

shorelines;

Install sediment and erosion control measures prior to construction, in accordance 

with sediment and erosion control plans and permits; maintain in good working 

order for the duration of construction;

Use turbidity control methods prior to discharging wastewater from concrete

batching or other construction operations to streams or other surface waters;

Spread topsoil and seed in a timely manner;

Avoid use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides in or near waterbodies, including 

wetlands;

Fuel construction vehicles outside of waterbodies, including wetlands, and use

appropriate spill prevention and containment procedures; and

Implement procedures to minimize and control inadvertent fluid returns during

horizontal directional drilling operations, if they are used.

If the proposed Project structures cannot be sited such that impacts to jurisdictional water 

resources are avoided, compensatory mitigation under a USACE Section 404 may be required to

replace the loss of aquatic resource functions in the watershed. Compensatory mitigation could 

include the restoration, establishment, enhancement, or preservation of wetlands or other 

aquatic resources to off-set proposed Project impacts.

Minnkota would work with the USACE to determine the 100-year flood stage of the Sheyenne 

River and place structures about 2 feet above the 100-year flood stage. This would accommodate 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-77 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

potential flood effects on the Sheyenne River due to proposed improvements to the outlet of 

Devils Lake.

Dust suppression measures would be conducted by the foundation contractor who would build 

and maintain the ROW during construction. Minnkota or the foundation contractor would apply 

for a permit from the State Water Commission for water appropriations related to construction 

purposes. 

Mapped FEMA Floodplains

Minnkota would work with local planning and zoning commissions to obtain any applicable 

permits and approvals for potential impacts within the FEMA 100-year floodplain at the 

Missouri River crossing. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-78 November 2010

3.8 Wetlands

3.8.1 Description of Resources

The route alternatives span an area that is generally described as part of the prairie pothole 

region. The prairie pothole region is characterized by numerous shallow freshwater lakes and 

wetlands that pockmark the landscape. This region, which extends from Canada south to South 

Dakota and Minnesota, provides waterfowl habitat that is estimated to produce 50 to 75 percent 

of North American waterfowl in any given year (Witsch et al. 2000). 

The ecology of these wetlands is dictated by seasonal wet-dry cycles. Snowmelt and spring rains 

serve as the primary water sources, resulting in many seasonal wetlands than hold surface water 

early in the growing season and then dry out as the summer progresses. While some of these 

wetlands can be quite large greater than 100 acres, the majority of pothole wetlands are less than 

10 acres. 

Some of these wetlands may have relatively high salinities that support plant communities that 

are tolerant of salty conditions. Saline wetlands, in some parts of North Dakota, also provide 

nesting habitat for the federally threatened piping plover. 

Within the Study Area, wetlands tend to be most dense west of eastern Steele County, which 

forms the boundary of the Lake Agassiz Plain. In general, wetlands in the west half of the 

proposed Project (from Wells County west) have been less disturbed by agricultural practices 

and, thus, retain a more natural state. 

Wetlands are identified as shallow water systems that provide unique functions and values to the 

surrounding landscape, such as water quality protection, wildlife habitat, and flood storage. 

Wetlands connected to Waters of the U.S. (i.e. not isolated basins) are protected under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act and are regulated by USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Wetlands within the routes may also be held in a USFWS wetland easement or 

grassland easement. The approximate locations and numbers USFWS easements within the 

route and segment alternatives are identified in Figure 3.2-3 and Table 3.2-2. 

For this EA, general wetland locations were obtained from the National Wetland Inventory 

(NWI) (Figure 3.7-1). Wetlands are located throughout the routes; the various wetland types are 

shown in Table 3.8-1. Table 3.8-2 shows NWI wetlands within the segment alternatives. Table 

3.8-3 outlines NWI wetlands within the route ROW. NWI data represent general locations and 

acreages of wetlands within the route alternatives. Since NWI data in North Dakota may not 

reflect the true size of wetlands, wetland size was also verified by the use of aerial photography

that is dependent on the year the photograph was taken and the level of water in the wetland at 

that time. Therefore, in October 2010, Minnkota conducted an aerial photo review and field 

delineation of wetland features where access permitted. When a route centerline is selected, 

additional surveys for wetland resources would occur in the spring of 2011 after the snow melt.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-79 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.8-1. NWI Wetlands Identified within Route Alternative

Wetland Type Route A Route B Route C

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 1,676.6 5.6 1857.5 5.7 1,665.9 5.5

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 20.5 0.1 21.5 0.1 23.6 0.1

Freshwater Pond 62.8 0.2 34.8 0.1 22.1 0.1

Lake 25.1 0.1 21.5 0.1 19.9 0.1

Riverine 70.7 0.2 67.8 0.2 55.4 0.2

Total 1,855.7 6.2 2003.1 6.2 1,786.9 5.9

Source: USFWS NWI.

Table 3.8-2. NWI Wetlands Identified within Segment Alternative

Segment 

Alternative

Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetland

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub 

Wetland

Freshwater 

Pond Lake Other Riverine Total

A01 Acres 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8

Percent 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

A02 Acres 2.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4

Percent 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

A03 Acres 7.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 39.5 48.1

Percent 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 7.0

A04 Acres 7.4 6.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 55.3 69.4

Percent 2.4 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.8 22.3

A05 Acres 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3

Percent 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

A06 Acres 9.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 12.0

Percent 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.5

A07 Acres 119.7 0.1 0.6 32.4 0.0 0.0 152.8

Percent 7.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 9.7

A08 Acres 88.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.0

Percent 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

A09 Acres 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1

Percent 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5

A10 Acres 34.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8

Percent 18.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7

A11 Acres 6.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5

Percent 5.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4

A12 Acres 103.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.0

Percent 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4

A13 Acres 92.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.1

Percent 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8

A14 Acres 117.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 117.7

Percent 13.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9

A15 Acres 78.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.9

Percent 9.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5

A16 Acres 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5

Percent 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-80 November 2010

Segment 

Alternative

Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetland

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub 

Wetland

Freshwater 

Pond Lake Other Riverine Total

A17 Acres 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4

Percent 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0

A18 Acres 355.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 358.3

Percent 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.1

A19 Acres 35.6 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.2

Percent 4.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2

A20 Acres 68.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.9

Percent 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3

A21 Acres 66.1 0.0 4.7 9.1 0.0 0.0 79.8

Percent 7.6 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 9.2

A22 Acres 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5

Percent 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

A23 Acres 90.1 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 102.6

Percent 5.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 5.7

A24 Acres 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5

Percent 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8

A25 Acres 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Percent 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

A26 Acres 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6

Percent 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

A27 Acres 87.7 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.7

Percent 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3

A28 Acres 15.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6

Percent 2.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5

A29 Acres 55.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.4

Percent 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9

A30 Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A31 Acres 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Percent 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A32 Acres 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0

Percent 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

A33 Acres 27.7 0,0 1.3 0,0 0.0 2.2 31.2

Percent 3.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.6

A34 Acres 5.1 1.2 1.5 0.0 0,0 5.5 13.3

Percent 3.6 0,9 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.9 9.4

A35 Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A36 Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

A37 Acres 3.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8

Percent 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

A38 Acres 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 6.6

Percent 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 17.3
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-81 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.8-3. NWI Wetlands Identified within Route Alternative Right-of-Way

Wetland Type

Route A Route B Route C

Acres Percent

of ROW Acres Percentof ROW Acres Percentof ROW

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 255.1 5.7 272.3 5.6 236.2 5.2

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 3.5 0.1 2.7 0.1 3.7 0.1

Freshwater Pond 7.7 0.2 7.0 0.1 2.1 0.0

Lake 3.8 0.1 2.7 0.1 3.4 0.1

Riverine 9.4 0.2 9.2 0.2 7.9 0.2

Total 279.5 6.2 293.9 6.0 253.3 5.6

3.8.2 Impacts

Wetland impacts would be avoided or minimized through careful siting of the transmission line 

and associated facilities. Wetland basin locations on USFWS easements need to be identified, 

with the assistance of the USFWS, prior to construction. If construction activities are likely to 

impact wetlands regulated by USACE or the USFWS, Minnkota would notify the appropriate 

agency(s) and initiate the permit process.

Assuming that the transmission line would be centered within the route, all route alternatives 

would require permanent impacts to wetlands that are wider than the maximum transmission 

line span of about 1,000 feet. Additionally, segment alternatives A07 and A18 would likely result 

in permanent wetland impacts. Table 3.8-4 summarizes crossings greater than 1,000 feet for the 

routes. Table E-6 (Appendix E) summarizes crossings greater than 1,000 feet for the segment 

alternatives. As noted above, some of the NWI data may not accurately reflect the true wetland 

size. Wetland surveys would indicate actual wetland size. Wetlands within a 30-foot-wide 

construction ROW access road would also be temporarily impacted during construction. See 

Table 3.8-5 for a summary of the estimated permanent impacts for route alternatives. See Table 

E-6 (Appendix E) for a summary of the estimated permanent and temporary impacts by 

segment alternative.

Table 3.8-4. Route Alternative Crossings of NWI Wetlands Greater than 1,000 Feet

Estimated NWI Wetland 

Crossing Distance

Route A Route B Route C

Number of 

Crossings

Number of 

Structures 

Number of 

Crossings

Number of 

Structures 

Number of 

Crossings

Number of 

Structures 

1,000-2,000 Feet 4 4 7 7 2 2

2,000-3,000 Feet 1 2 1 2 6 8

3,000-4,000 Feet 0 0 1 3 0 0

Total 5 6 9 12 8 10
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-82 November 2010

Table 3.8-5. Estimated NWI Wetland Impacts within Route Alternative Right-of-Way

Description

Routes

A B C

Estimated Permanent Wetland Impacts

Estimated number of structures in NWI wetland 6 12 10

Estimated Acreage of Permanent Impacts (square feet) 0.01

(471)

0.02

(942)

0.02

(785)

3.8.3 Mitigation

Permanent impacts to wetlands would be avoided to the extent practicable through refinement 

of Project design. The majority of the wetlands that may be permanently impacted by the 

proposed Project appear to be isolated basins that likely do not fall under USACE jurisdiction. 

Surveys for USACE jurisdictional wetlands would be completed prior to construction. 

Permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters would be mitigated according to the 

USACE regulatory requirements, as applicable. Permanent impacts to wetlands under USFWS 

easements would be avoided if feasible. 

Minnkota would use BMPs during construction and operation of the transmission line and 

associated facilities to protect topsoil and adjacent wetland resources and to minimize soil 

erosion. Practices may include containing excavated material, protecting exposed soil, stabilizing 

restored material, and revegetating disturbed areas with native species. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-83 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

3.9 Geologic and Groundwater Resources

This section describes the geologic and groundwater resources that are crossed by the route and 

segment alternatives, the potential impacts of the routes and segment alternatives on those 

resources, and potential mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those potential impacts.

3.9.1 Description of Resources

This section describes the geologic and groundwater resources present within the Study Area. 

The Study Area is defined as the 1,000-foot-wide routes proposed for Routes A, B, and C, and 

the segment alternatives. Descriptions of the surficial and bedrock geology were obtained from 

digital GIS-based files obtained from the North Dakota Geological Survey, except as noted.

Geology

Most of the Study Area is underlain by Quaternary-age glacial sediments deposited by glacial ice 

originating from the Keewatin Ice Sheet. Glacial till of the Coleharbor Group is the dominant 

type of surficial sediment. Bluemle (2006) describes the till as an unsorted, unbedded mixture of 

boulders, gravel, and sand in a matrix of silt and clay, yellowish-brown to olive-gray in color. 

Smaller pockets of cross-bedded sand, also part of the Coleharbor Group, exist near some 

streams. The most extensive (approximately 10 miles) of these is near Baldhill Creek in Griggs 

County. Coleharbor Group thickness averages 100 feet in the Study Area. Recent-age sediments, 

in the form of river-deposited clay, silt, and sand, and windblown sand, underlie most of the 

remainder of the Study Area. The only part of the Study Area where glacial and post-glacial 

sediments are absent is in the Sheyenne River valley, where the Pierre Formation (bedrock) has 

been exposed through erosion effects of the river and its tributaries.

Bedrock in the eastern two-thirds of the Study Area is primarily shale formed in offshore marine 

environments during the Cretaceous Period. The Pierre, Niobrara, and Belle Fourche formations 

are the major shale units present, and they range in thickness from 75 to 700 feet. Bedrock in the 

western third of the Study Area is composed of sandstone and lignite of the Tertiary and 

Cretaceous periods, which is generally 400 to 650 feet thick. 

Groundwater

Groundwater resources in the Study Area exist in both surficial (unconsolidated) and bedrock 

aquifers. Major surficial aquifers are composed of river alluvium, such as along the Missouri 

River, and glacial outwash. These types of aquifers tend to be long and narrow in shape, and are 

not widespread in the Study Area. The Spiritwood Aquifer is a significant sand and gravel aquifer 

that trends north-to-south and intersects the Study Area in Griggs County. This aquifer is 

composed of sand and gravel that was deposited in a pre-existing bedrock valley, and is overlain 

by till in many areas. The depth to groundwater varies widely across the Study Area, and ranges 

from near the ground surface adjacent to streams, to more than 100 feet in topographically high 

areas underlain by thick till sequences. 

3.9.2 Impacts

The overall impact of the proposed Project on environmental and economic viability of geologic 

and groundwater resources would be negligible. Impacts would be limited to the displacement of 

surficial sediments, bedrock, and groundwater during construction of structure foundations. The 

borings for structural foundations would be drilled into the ground, and may extend 40 to 100 

feet below ground surface depending on soil conditions and structure type. Boring diameter is 

expected to be 7 to 10 feet. Given these values, the maximum volume of displaced soil and 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-84 November 2010

groundwater would be about 7,854 cubic feet (291 cubic yards) at a structure location. 

Construction spoils, including soil cuttings and boring stabilization fluids, would be disposed of 

off site. Topsoil would be left on site, if desired by the landowner. Groundwater from 

dewatering would be discharged on-site into an approved BMPs structure.

The storage and use of fuels, greases, and other chemicals during construction has the potential 

to impact geologic materials and groundwater. In addition, there is potential for construction 

activities to encounter previously contaminated soil. 

3.9.3 Mitigation

Impacts to geologic and groundwater sources may be avoided and/or mitigated by the 

following:

The depth and diameter of structure foundations would be minimized during the 

design phase.

In the event that previously contaminated soils are discovered during construction, 

the contractor would stop work immediately, contact the appropriate state agency, 

and consult with the agency with respect to an acceptable plan of action.

A SWPPP would be produced that includes procedures for proper storage and 

disposal of all hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated during the 

construction process.

Controlled staging areas would be used for refueling, for hazardous material loading 

and unloading operations, and to provide adequate spill cleanup materials and 

equipment. In the event that a spill did occur and cause damage to soil productivity, 

Minnkota could restore the productivity of the ROW. Spill impacts, if any, would be 

mitigated in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local cleanup standards.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-85 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

3.10 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Federal legislation and executive orders require consideration of the cultural and historical 

environment by federal agencies. In particular, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended ((NHPA)(16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.)), requires federal agencies to take into account the 

effect their actions may have on historic properties and consult on those effects with interested 

parties prior to carrying out such actions. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has 

developed regulations to guide agencies in implementing the requirements of Section 106 of the 

NHPA, (36 CFR Part 800) NEPA also requires that federal agencies assess their actions’ effects 

on the human environment, which includes the natural and the physical (e.g., buildings) 

environment, and the relationships of people to that environment.

All federal agencies whose actions may constitute an undertaking (such as providing permits or 

funding for a project) have responsibilities under the NHPA, however, the lead federal agency 

for NHPA compliance on this proposed Project is the RUS. RUS is coordinating compliance 

between the Section 106 procedures and the steps taken to meet NEPA requirements. As such,

studies and analyses conducted to comply with NEPA, including this EA, would be used and

expanded as appropriate by RUS to meet the requirements of Section 106. Pursuant to 36 CFR § 

800.2(d)(3), as part of its NEPA and Section 106 coordination, RUS has used its NEPA 

procedures to meet its requirements for public involvement under 36 CFR Part 800.

Consultation

The alternatives addressed by the EA cross a large area of North Dakota that was originally 

inhabited by several Native American tribal groups. The modern day descendants of those 

original inhabitants are currently spread out over a large area, including other states, such as 

Minnesota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and South Dakota. As the tribes retain concerns and interests 

in much of the Study Area, Minnkota began to elicit information from tribal governments and 

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) early in the project planning process. The efforts 

of Minnkota and RUS to consult with the interested tribes are outlined in Section 5.3 of this 

document.

3.10.1 Description of Resources

Although there is no one accepted definition, the federal government generally considers 

―cultural resources‖ to refer to historic, aesthetic, and cultural aspects of the human 

environment. These can include natural and built resources, and the relationship that people 

have to those resources. Those cultural resources that meet specific evaluation criteria developed 

by the National Park Service (NPS) may qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). Those cultural resources listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP are 

designated ―historic properties‖ under the NHPA. Historic properties can include archaeological 

and historical resources as well as traditional resources and use areas identified as having special 

meaning for specific communities. Archaeological and historic resources are those places that 

represent the visible or otherwise tangible record of human occupation. These resources vary in 

size, shape, condition, and importance, among other considerations; some are clearly evident on 

the landscape, while others are buried or only visible to knowledgeable people. For the purpose 

of this EA, archaeological resources are typically underground or at the surface, while historic 

resources include standing structures such as bridges and buildings. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.16(d), the area of potential effects (APE) is defined as the area within 

which Minnkota’s proposal has the potential to either directly or indirectly affect historic 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-86 November 2010

properties that may be present. Currently, the APE includes a 1000-foot corridor of the 

proposed routes and segments for each build alternative under consideration in this EA for 

archaeological resources. However, the APE also must address visual effects. Given the height 

of the proposed structures, this proposed Project could alter a historic property’s integrity by 

diminishing its setting or feeling. Accordingly, the APE is 2 miles from the build alternative 

centerline, but would be adjusted and refined as RUS learns more about the historic properties 

that might be present and the proposed Project’s specific effects on them.

Minnkota and its consultant reviewed available records of identified cultural resources, including 

but not limited to those provided by the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO), to avoid them to the greatest extent possible, taking into consideration other natural 

resources and existing conditions. Minnkota recognizes that the list of known resources is 

limited to those identified though surveys in specific locations, often tied to urban and rural 

development and infrastructure. Resources are typically categorized by type with an indication of 

relative importance, more exactly whether or not these resources are significant. The database 

information provided by SHPO, however, did not include specific information or details on the 

type of property listed, and was useful mainly in identifying site location. The standard 

significance is one applied by federal agencies for compliance with federal regulations, typically 

Section 106 of the NHPA (as amended), and is useful when determining sites to avoid. Where 

sites have not been evaluated for significance (and therefore for determination of eligibility for 

listing on the NRHP) and may be physically impacted by the proposed Project, Minnkota would

follow steps outlined in a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to determine eligibility and mitigation 

of adverse effects.

The following section presents the results of a search of available background information for 

the route and segment alternatives. Physical avoidance of resources was a consideration in 

locating route and segment alternatives for the proposed Project. Any historic property that 

cannot be avoided would be treated according to stipulations outlined in a Programmatic 

Agreement between RUS, SHPO, and other interested parties.

As mentioned above, the available background information illustrates the limited extent of 

previous archaeological site inventories. Archaeological inventories of the route and segment 

alternatives are being conducted, so it is not possible to quantify the entirety of the potential 

archaeological impacts and use that information during the route selection process.

Archaeologists often develop predictive models based on a number of factors, including but not 

limited to areas immediately adjacent to permanent water sources. According to this commonly 

used modeling factor, these environments have a higher probability to contain pre-contact 

archaeological sites because of the possible variety and abundance of potable water and flora and 

fauna resources. This water-based factor has been referenced during coordination among state 

agencies and the SHPO for this proposed Project. Other areas having potential for spiritual or 

archaeological sites were brought up during consultation meetings and include areas of higher 

elevation adjacent to water sources, as well as lower terraces along waterways and drainages.

Therefore, Minnkota and its consultant reviewed the location of route and segment alternatives

relative to known aquatic environments. The GAP analysis shows that Route C would impact 

fewer acres of aquatic environments than Routes A and Route B. One would expect, supposing 

that pre-contact archaeological sites are more common near permanent water sources, that fewer 

such sites would be impacted by the construction and operation of Route C.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-87 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Minnkota and its consultant are conducting field surveys and associated activities where access is 

permitted in the APE. Physical avoidance of resources would be preferred, but should a historic 

property be identified and not avoided, Minnkota and RUS would work with state agencies and 

the SHPO to resolve questions of significance and mitigation if necessary, as outlined in the PA.

Ongoing Resource Identification

Minnkota is committed to identifying and avoiding impacts to additional resources that may be 

within the route that have not yet been recorded. In anticipation of route selection, a pedestrian 

survey of the preferred route in selected areas with good surface visibility began in October 

2010. These areas included pastures, fallow fields, and cultivated fields. During the pedestrian 

survey, field crews noted when proposed testing locations were not accessible because of 

unharvested crops and noted areas recommended for additional testing. Subsurface testing of 

selected areas began after the pedestrian survey in late October 2010.

When a route centerline is selected, additional survey for architectural resources as well as 

archaeological resources will occur. Architectural resource survey and inventory can occur 

during the winter months, but additional archaeological survey is dependent on weather 

conditions. It is presumed that the archaeological survey would be completed after winter snows 

have melted and frost is out of the ground during the spring of 2011.

3.10.2 Archaeological Impacts

Minnkota and its consultant reviewed records sent from the SHPO to identify known 

archaeological resources within one mile of the centerline of the route and segment alternatives.

The literature review also included reports of previously surveyed areas relevant to the Study 

Area and Government Land Office maps. Results were requested for parts of Oliver, Burleigh, 

McLean, Sheridan, Wells, Eddy, Foster, Griggs, Steele, Grand Forks, and Traill counties.

Section-specific discussions of archaeological sites within one mile of the centerline of the route

and segment alternatives are provided below. The resources are grouped into seven categories to 

aid in assessment. These are Mound sites (sites with or without burials or additional features), 

Stone Features (sites containing circles, cairns, effigies or other stone alignments), Isolated Finds 

(single or very few chipped or ground stone flakes, tools, or broken tools), Cultural Material 

Scatter (chipped stone, animal bone, tools, or ceramics, either historic or prehistoric), Habitation 

(prehistoric earthlodges, hearths, caches, depressions), Multicomponent (containing both 

prehistoric and historic habitation materials or features), Unknown (not enough information on 

site form to categorize the site), and Historic Districts.

In addition to the resources listed below, the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation in Benson County 

is located approximately 20 miles north of the Study Area and the Knife River Indian Villages 

National Historic Site is located south of Washburn on the west end of the Study Area. These 

resources would not be impacted during construction or operation of the proposed Project.

Since the actual ROW would be narrower than the route and segment alternatives studied, 

Minnkota anticipates that all direct impacts to archaeological resources could be avoided by 

spanning or shifting the transmission line ROW.

Route A 

Fifty-four archaeological resources were previously recorded within 1 mile of the Route A 

centerline. There are no sites within 1 mile of the Route A centerline that are listed on or 

recorded as eligible for listing on the NRHP, and no historic districts; however, none of the 54 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-88 November 2010

sites have been formally evaluated for listing. Within 1 mile of Route A there are 9 mound sites, 

5 stone feature sites, 15 isolated finds, 23 cultural material scatters, 0 habitation sites, 2 unknown 

sites, and 0 multicomponent sites. Table F-1 in Appendix F provides additional site detail.

No previously recorded archaeological resources within 1 mile of Route A centerline would be 

directly impacted by construction or operation of the proposed Project.

Route B

Fifty-two archaeological resources were previously recorded within 1 mile of the Route B 

centerline. There is one site listed as eligible or recommended eligible for the NRHP and there 

are no historic districts; however, none of the 52 sites have been formally evaluated for listing.

Within one mile of Route B there are 0 mound sites, 6 stone feature sites, 15 isolated finds, 28 

cultural material scatters, 1 possible habitation site, 0 multicomponent sites, and 1 unknown site. 

There is also 1 site that may be a historic school site. Table F-2 in Appendix F provides 

additional site detail.

No previously recorded archaeological resources within 1 mile of Route B centerline would be 

directly impacted by construction or operation of the proposed Project.

Route C

Seventy-eight archaeological resources were previously recorded within 1 mile of the Route C 

centerline. One site is eligible for listing on the NRHP and one Historic District (Cross Ranch 

Archaeological District). The other 77 sites that have not been evaluated for listing on the 

NRHP include 7 mound sites, 27 stone feature sites, 14 isolated finds, 23 cultural material 

scatters, 3 habitation sites, 2 unknown sites, and 1 multicomponent site. It should be noted that 

the Cross Ranch Archaeological District contains numerous individual sites, many eligible for 

the NRHP, from all categories, but is listed here in Table F-3 as one site for tabulation purposes. 

Table F-3 in Appendix F provides additional site detail.

No previously recorded archaeological resources within 1 mile of Route C centerline would be 

directly impacted by construction or operation of the proposed Project.

Segment Alternatives

Thirty-six archaeological resources were previously recorded within 1 mile of the segment 

alternatives (Table F-4 of Appendix F). No archaeological resources were located within 1 mile 

of Segment Alternatives A01, A06, A09, A10, A11, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A19, A22, A24, 

A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A32, A33, A35, and A36. Two of the sites are either eligible or 

recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP. The remaining sites have not been evaluated. 

There are 4 mound sites, 5 stone feature sites, 1 isolated find, 23 cultural material scatters, 1 

habitation site, 2 unknown sites, and 0 multicomponent sites.

3.10.3 Architectural Impacts

Minnkota and its consultant reviewed records sent from the SHPO to identify known historical 

structures within 1 mile of the centerline of the route and segment alternatives. The literature 

review also searched for reports of previously surveyed areas relevant to the Study Area. Results 

were requested for Oliver, Burleigh, McLean, Sheridan, Wells, Eddy, Foster, Griggs, Steele, 

Grand Forks, and Traill counties. More information on the sites that lie within one mile of the 

route and segment alternatives is provided below. To help summarize the results of the SHPO 

records review, sites were grouped into categories as follows: Civic Buildings (post office, 

school, townhall), Farmstead Features (farmstead, house, ranch, elevator, windmill, dump, 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-89 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

depression, foundation, corral, fence, barn), Cemetery (cemetery and burial), Bridge, Church, 

Trail, Railroad (track and facility), Town Site, Camp Site (camp and expedition), District, and 

Miscellaneous (steamboat, Sheyenne River, unknown). 

Route A 

Fifty-six historic structures were previously recorded within 1 mile of the Route A centerline.

Four sites are listed or recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP. The remaining 52 sites 

have not been evaluated for listing on the NRHP. There are 8 civic buildings, 26 farmstead

features, 2 cemeteries, 8 bridges, 4 churches, 0 trails, 2 railroad, 3 town Site, 0 camp sites, 0 

districts, and 3 miscellaneous. Table F-5 in Appendix F provides additional site details. 

No previously recorded historic architectural site within 1 mile of Route A centerline would be

directly impacted by construction or operation of the proposed Project. This proposed Project 

could indirectly alter a historic property’s integrity by diminishing its setting or feeling if the APE 

is expanded beyond 1 mile, and if additional survey identifies new historic properties.

Route B

Fifty-one historic structures were previously recorded within 1 mile of the Route B centerline.

Four sites are listed or recommended eligible for listing and 1 site is eligible as part of a district

on the NRHP. The other 46 sites have not been evaluated for listing on the NRHP. There are 8 

civic buildings, 12 farmstead features, 3 cemeteries, 2 bridges, 9 churches, 0 trails, 2 railroad, 5 

town sites, 4 camp sites, 1 district, and 5 miscellaneous. Table F-6 in Appendix F provides 

additional site details.

No previously recorded historic architectural site within 1 mile of Route B centerline would be

directly impacted by construction or operation of the proposed Project. This proposed Project 

could indirectly alter a historic property’s integrity by diminishing its setting or feeling if the APE 

is expanded beyond 1 mile, and if additional survey identifies new historic properties.

Route C

Forty-six historic architectural sites were previously recorded within 1 mile of the Route C 

centerline. One site is listed or recommended eligible for listing and 1 site is eligible as part of a 

district on the NRHP. The other 44 sites have not been evaluated for listing on the NRHP.

There are 12 civic buildings, 11 farmstead features, 1 cemetery, 2 bridges, 10 churches, 0 trails, 2 

railroads, 6 town sites, 0 camp sites, 0 districts, and 2 miscellaneous. Table F-7 in Appendix F 

provides additional site details.

No previously recorded historic architectural site within 1 mile of Route C centerline would be

directly impacted by construction or operation of the proposed Project. This proposed Project 

could indirectly alter a historic property’s integrity by diminishing its setting or feeling if the APE 

is expanded beyond one mile, and if additional survey identifies new historic properties.

Segment Alternatives 

Sixty-seven historic architectural sites previously recorded by the SHPO are within one mile of 

the segment alternatives. No architectural properties were located within one mile of Segment 

Alternatives A01, A05 A10, A13, A14, A16, A17, A19, A20, A22, A24, A25, A29, A30, A32, 

A33, A34, A35, and A36. Two sites are eligible for listing on the NRHP. The other 65 sites have 

not been evaluated for listing on the NRHP. There are 11 civic buildings, 32 farmstead features, 

0 cemeteries, 4 bridges, 10 churches, 1 trail, 3 railroads, 2 town sites, 1 camp site, 0 districts, and 

3 miscellaneous. Table F-8 in Appendix F provides additional site details. Though no 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-90 November 2010

architectural property would be directly impacted by the proposed Project, this proposed Project 

could indirectly alter a historic property’s integrity by diminishing its setting or feeling if the APE 

is expanded beyond one mile, and if additional survey identifies new historic properties.

3.10.4 Mitigation

Construction activities for the route and segment alternatives would occur in areas with 

previously identified archaeological and historic resources that have not been evaluated for 

listing on the NRHP. Minnkota would adhere to stipulations concerning historic property 

discovery outlined in a PA, which includes a survey methodology to document the existing 

conditions within the proposed Project, identify the extent of resources within these areas, and if 

applicable, provide recommendations regarding NRHP eligibility prior to construction. During 

the proposed Project engineering phase, Minnkota would strive to avoid eligible historic 

properties or mitigate impacts by consulting with the parties in accordance with the PA to 

identify and implement appropriate responses to the effects. Such mitigative responses could 

include the items listed below.

Preservation in place;

Site stabilization;

Protection from erosion;

Documentation of existing conditions and any disturbance;

Interpretation or data recovery if necessary as appropriate;

Protection from looting/vandalism;

Revegetating to counteract wind erosion;

Fencing off sensitive areas during construction;

Trees cut at ground level with stumps left in place;

Informing construction crews on how to recognize resources and laws protecting 

resources; and 

Providing cultural sensitivity training to construction crews.

Minnkota would integrate a training, monitoring, and discovery plan into construction bid 

documents should previously unknown cultural resources or human remains be inadvertently 

encountered during construction along the route. The plan would outline the framework for 

handling such discoveries in an efficient and legally compliant manner. The plan may include the 

following topics: construction monitoring by a professional archaeologist at specific locations 

along the Study Area, procedures for identification and protection of resources in the field, 

contact information for parties to address a discovery, and procedures for avoidance and 

associated tasks in the event of work stoppage in a construction area.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-91 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

3.11 Visual Resources

3.11.1 Description of Resources

This section details the visual characteristics and visual resources of the route and segment 

alternatives along with the potential visual impacts and mitigation measures at various locations 

along the potential routes. The discussion of visual quality and aesthetics is based on a qualitative 

review of the existing landscape environment surrounding the Study Area. Visual and aesthetic 

resources within the Study Area were identified through discussions with state and local agency 

officials, review of comprehensive land use plans, and other local and regional plans, comments 

received from participating citizens at open houses, and through a review of aerial photography 

and field observation. Generally, visual and aesthetic resources within the Study Area include 

historic residential or commercial structures, parklands, open space areas, water features, scenic 

overlooks, and densely forested areas.

Determining the relative scenic value or visual importance of an area is a complex process 

involving both the philosophical and/or psychological response to what may be perceived as 

beautiful by the individual. Generally, landscapes that incorporate a balanced mixture of diversity 

and harmony have the greatest potential for high scenic value and may be considered important 

to persons living in or traveling through a region. Viewer response is based on the sensitivity and 

exposure of the viewer to a particular viewshed. Sensitivity relates to the magnitude of the 

viewer’s concern for the viewshed, while exposure is the function of the type, distance, 

perspective, and duration of the view.

The landscape topography crossed by the route and the segment alternatives is a mixture of 

agriculture, farmsteads, fallow fields, large open vistas, and gently rolling hillside topography. 

The proposed Project is primarily located in sparsely populated rural areas of North Dakota, 

where the landscape is mostly flat to rolling agricultural lands that can be classified as rural open 

space. The settlements in much of the Study Area are rural residences and farm buildings 

(inhabited and uninhabited) scattered along rural county roads. These structures are focal points 

in the open space character of the landscape crossed by the potential routes. A number of 

farmsteads date back the late 19th and 20th centuries, along with more modern farm buildings and 

residences that represent the different eras of North Dakota farm architecture. Scattered areas of 

forest and tree cover occur throughout the Study Area, primarily in areas considered unsuitable 

for farming, or planted as protection from the wind and sun around rural residences or 

farmsteads. 

Residences are located adjacent to roads where the proposed routes would be located and many 

residents have surrounded their homes with a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees that serve 

as natural windbreaks, shade, and enhanced privacy for homes. Cottonwood trees are commonly 

found within the Study Area and landowners have expressed the desire to have them untouched 

as they add to the visual landscape of their land. Minnkota intends to work with landowners in 

the Study Area to minimize the impact of the transmission line to the surrounding landscape and 

limit the removal of trees. As the proposed transmission line extends from west to east towards 

Grand Forks, the number of rural residences gradually increases, thereby increasing the potential 

for visual impacts to homes near the transmission line. Additionally, the transmission lines 

would be visible to travelers along the roads the three proposed route alternatives follow.

There are areas of high scenic integrity and significance at points along the routes, as identified 

by the public and agency officials during public open houses and agency coordination meetings. 

Specifically, these areas include river and open water features, historic structures, tree stands, 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-92 November 2010

public recreation areas, and scenic byways (State Highways 1804 and 1806). More information 

on these scenic areas can be found in Recreational Resources (Section 3.15). 

Land parcels along the proposed route alternatives considered to contain outstanding natural 

features and warrant protection or management have been placed into state and federal 

conservation easement programs or fee trust lands such as WMA’s or wildlife habitat areas 

under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. The proposed routes would follow existing field lines, field 

breaks, highways, county, and township roads in an effort to utilize existing corridors. 

NDPR reviewed the Project proposal and commented that the proposed route alternatives are

near properties containing significant natural, historic, and scenic resources. Properties include 

Cross Ranch State Park and the Cross Ranch Nature Preserve in Oliver County, which are 

located within proximity to the proposed Project and could affect the state park viewshed 

(Figure 3.16-1). 

In addition to the naturally occurring landscape features and the scenic byway, historic structures 

are located at various points along the routes. Data from SHPO and the NRHP were obtained 

to identify historic structures along the routes. These structures serve many functions, such as 

cultural resources and tourist destinations. Specific information about the location of 

archaeological sites and historic facilities can be found in Section 3.10.

3.11.2 Impacts

The new transmission line would create a new visual element within the vicinity of the proposed 

Project. The visual impact of the transmission line could affect landowners who live along or 

near the roads that the route and segment alternatives intend to follow or community residents 

who travel along these roads regularly. As the proposed Project extends from west to east 

towards Grand Forks, the number of rural residences gradually increases, thereby increasing the 

potential for visual impacts to homes near the transmission line. The natural landscape is often 

characterized as rolling and mostly flat terrain used for agriculture purposes. Depending on a 

viewer’s physical location, the terrain conditions, and natural landscape features such as tree 

cover, the transmission structures could be visible for distances between 1.5 and 2 miles. A 

viewer’s degree of discernable detail decreases as physical distance from an object increases. 

Beyond 2 miles in physical distance, the outline of structures most likely would not be seen. The 

transmission line wiring is unlikely to be seen clearly beyond distances of one-half to threequarters mile. Minnkota has created visual simulations of the proposed Project for the following 

crossings: Missouri River crossing, State Highway 1804 crossing, State Highway 1806 crossing, 

Sheyenne River crossing, typical section road, and a typical field line (Appendix G). These 

simulations help characterize the visual impact of the proposed Project.

3.11.3 Mitigation

In an effort to minimize the visual effects of the transmission line in visually sensitive areas, a 

route would parallel field and section lines or would be located in areas where compatible land 

uses have been identified by the public and agencies. The route and segment alternatives 

generally follow existing transportation corridors or quarter-section field lines. The proposed 

structures would be between 130- and 150-feet-tall, typically located just outside the public road 

ROW. Many of these roads currently do not share a ROW with a transmission line, with the 

exception of power distribution lines serving rural residences and farmsteads. 

Several areas the transmission line crosses may be considered visually sensitive, specifically the 

crossing points of the Missouri River, Sheyenne River, James River, Goose River, McClusky 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-93 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Canal, and various creeks throughout the Study Area (Figure 3.7-1). As part of the routing 

process, care has been taken to avoid the placement of structures in ecologically sensitive areas, 

typically identified by the public as areas of scenic significance, and additional care would be 

taken to avoid visual impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Minnkota intends to work with 

landowners in the route and segment alternatives to minimize the impact of the transmission line 

to the surrounding landscape and limit the removal of trees.

Although the transmission line would be a contrast to surrounding land uses, Minnkota would 

continue to work with landowners and public agencies to identify concerns related to the 

transmission line and aesthetics. In general, mitigation includes enhancing positive effects as well 

as minimizing or eliminating negative effects. Potential mitigative measures include the 

following:

Where feasible, the location of pole structures, ROWs, and other disturbed areas would 

be determined by considering input from landowners or land management agencies to 

minimize visual impacts. 

Structure types (design) would be uniform to the extent practical. The Project proposes 

to use self-weathering single pole steel structures, single circuited, ranging in height 

between 130 and 150 feet. The height of the structure may be reduced, as feasible, to 

minimize impacts within the areas of high scenic importance. The self-weathering 

structure would turn a brownish color to help blend with the landscape.

Structures would be placed at the maximum feasible distance from scenic highway, 

waterway, and trail crossings, within the limits of structure design. 

Care shall be taken to preserve the natural landscape; construction and operation shall be 

conducted to prevent any unnecessary destruction, scarring or defacing of the natural 

surroundings in the vicinity of the work.

To the greatest extent possible, waterways would be crossed in the same location as 

existing disturbances, such as utility lines or roads. This is especially important for the

crossing points of the Missouri River, Sheyenne River, James River, McClusky Canal, 

and Goose River.

The new transmission line would parallel existing ROWs and field lines to the extent 

practicable to minimize visual impacts to farmlands or open spaces.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-94 November 2010

3.12 Noise

3.12.1 Description of Resources

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Noise may include a variety of sounds of different 

intensities across the entire frequency spectrum. Noise is measured in units of decibels (dB) on a 

logarithmic scale. Because human hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of sound, 

certain frequencies are given more ―weight.‖ The A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale corresponds to 

the sensitivity range for human hearing. Noise levels capable of being heard by humans are 

measured in dBA. A noise level change of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to average human hearing. 

A 5 dBA change in noise level, however, is clearly noticeable. A 10 dBA change in noise levels is 

perceived as a doubling or halving of noise loudness, while a 20 dBA change is considered a 

dramatic change in loudness.

Cumulative noise increases occur on a logarithmic scale. If a noise source is doubled, there is a 3 

dBA increase in noise, which is barely discernible to the human ear. For cumulative increases

resulting from sources of different magnitudes, the rule of thumb is that if there is a difference

of greater than 10 dBA between noise sources, there would be no additive effect (i.e., only the 

louder source would be heard and the quieter source would not contribute to noise levels). Table 

3.12-1 below provides noise levels associated with common, everyday sources and places the 

magnitude of noise levels discussed here in context.

Table 3.12-1. Noise Levels Associated with Common Sources

Sound Pressure Level (dBA) Noise Source

140 Jet Engine (at 25 meters)

130 Jet Aircraft (at 100 meters)

120 Concert

110 Pneumatic chipper (powered by compressed air or hydraulics)

100 Jointer/planer

90 Chainsaw

80 Heavy truck traffic

70 Business office

60 Conversational speech

50 Library

40 Bedroom

30 Secluded woods

20 Whisper

Source: A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota, MPCA (revised, 1999)

Transmission lines produce noise under certain conditions. The level of noise depends on 

conductor conditions, voltage level, and weather conditions. Generally, activity-related noise 

levels during the operation and maintenance of transmission lines are minimal and would not be 

noticeable above ambient noise levels outside of the ROW. 

In foggy, damp, or rainy weather, transmission lines can create a crackling sound due to the 

small amount of electricity ionizing the moist air near the conductors. During heavy rain the 

background noise level of the rain is usually greater than the noise from the transmission line. As 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-95 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

a result, people do not normally hear noise from a transmission line during heavy rain. During 

light rain, dense fog, snow and other times when there is moisture in the air, transmission lines 

would produce audible noise approximately equal to household background levels.

Neither the PSC nor the North Dakota Department of Health regulates noise with measureable 

standards. There has been recent comment on proposed noise level targets prepared by the 

North Dakota Legislative Council for the Energy Development and Transmission Committee. 

This EA references 50 dB at the property line for noise sensitive land uses such as residences. As 

there is no weighting to this metric, Minnkota assumes that this is an un-weighted metric to 

account for predominant low frequency noise.

A 345 kV transmission line was evaluated using the Bonneville Power Administration CFI8X

model for audible noise from transmission lines. Where possible, the model was executed as a 

worst-case scenario benchmark, to ensure that noise was not under-predicted. Table 3.12-2

presents the L5and L50 noise levels predicted for a 345 kV transmission line. Using the L5and 

L50for demonstrating comparison to the sources in Table 3.12-1 is conservative because the 

noise level exceeded 5 and 50 percent of the time within an hour would be more than noise 

levels experienced as a long-term duration over 24 hours.

Table 3.12-2. Calculated Audible Noise for the Operation of Proposed Single Circuit 

Transmission Line Designs (Receptor 5 Feet Above Ground)

Structure Type Noise L5

(Edge of ROW, Estimated 

Ambient + dBA increase)

Noise L50

(Edge of ROW, dBA)

Steel Structure 345 kV Single Circuit 54.1 45.8

3.12.2 Impacts

Transmission Line

The proposed route and segment alternatives proceed through generally low density residential 

and farmland areas. Potentially up to one residence may be located adjacent to the ROW on 

Route Alternative A and two residences may be located adjacent to the ROW on Route 

Alternative B. Each of the proposed route and segment alternatives passes within 1,500 feet of 

some residences, but no closer than 150 feet. Since residences would be at least 150 feet away 

from the proposed Project, it is anticipated that coronal noise, the electrical breakdown of air 

into charged particles caused by the electrical filed at the surface of conductors, from the 

transmission line would be far enough away so as to not be heard above the ambient noise 

produced by wind and other natural phenomena. Short-term impact would be noise generated 

during operation of construction equipment and worker presences.

The proposed Project would not have significant noise effects for the surrounding area and 

would not exceed 50 dB at those times when noise sensitivity is at its highest. Noise produced 

by the proposed transmission line route alternatives would not exceed the North Dakota 

Legislative Council for the Energy Development and Transmission Committee recommended 

level of 50 dB at the property line. Therefore, predicted noise levels associated with the 

transmission line are typically much lower than the ambient noise in the Study Area and would

not increase the existing background noise levels in the Study Area.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-96 November 2010

Noise associated with the operation of the proposed Project is not predicted to impact any of 

the residences outside of the ROW.

Substation

The loudest noise levels associated with substation operation are when the cooling fans and oil 

pumps are in operation. Both of the substations proposed for transmission and equipment 

upgrades are located on Minnkota property.

Noise levels around substations are not anticipated to increase.

3.12.3 Mitigation

Construction activities would generate noise that is short-term and intermittent. Noise impacts 

associated with construction would be mitigated by limiting the hours of work to daytime hours. 

Heavy equipment used in construction would be equipped with sound attenuation devices, such 

as mufflers, to minimize the daytime noise levels. The primary mitigation measure for reducing 

transmission line noise would be to route the transmission line away from sensitive noise 

receptors, to the extent possible.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-97 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

3.13 Human Health and Safety

This section discusses the potential human health and safety impacts of the construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. Human health and safety includes potential issues ranging

from the flow of energy along the line to the proximity of the proposed Project to public 

services such as airports and hospitals. The majority of the information in this section was 

obtained from federal and state agencies, including the National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences (NIEHS), EPA, and World Health Organization (WHO). 

3.13.1 Description of Resources

Electric Fields

The electric field from a transmission line can join with a conductive object, such as a vehicle or 

a metal fence, which is in proximity to the transmission line. This would induce a voltage on the 

object, the magnitude of which is dependent on many factors, including the weather; object 

shape, size, orientation, and capacitance; object to ground resistance; and object location along 

the ROW. If these objects are insulated or semi-insulated from the ground and a person touches 

them, a small current would pass through the person’s body to the ground. This might be 

accompanied by a spark discharge and mild shock, similar to what can occur when a person 

walks across a carpet and touches a grounded object or another person.

The main concern with induced voltage on an object is the current flow through the person to 

ground if a person were to touch the object. The best method to avoid these discharges is not to 

park equipment directly under the transmission line. Another option would be to drop a chain 

that is attached to the equipment onto the ground (or lower the equipment head to the ground 

on a combine) prior to dismounting if parked near a transmission line and pulling the chain (or 

head) up after getting into the equipment. It is important to note that use of a chain attached to 

farm machinery to eliminate spark discharges is not necessary for safety reasons and therefore 

should only be considered if the discharge is considered annoying to the operator and the 

vehicle must be parked under the transmission line.

To ensure that any discharge does not reach unsafe levels, the NESC requires that any discharge 

be less than 5 milliamperes (ma). Minnkota would assure that any fixed object, such as a fence or 

other large permanent conductive object close to or parallel to the transmission line, would be 

grounded so any discharge would be less than the 5 ma NESC limit.

Magnetic Fields

Current passing through any conductive material, including a wire, produces a magnetic field in 

the area around that material. The magnetic field associated with a HVTL is strongest at the 

conductor and decreases rapidly with increasing distance from the conductor.

Electric and Magnetic Field Research

The question of whether exposure to power-frequency (60 Hertz (Hz)) magnetic fields can cause 

biological responses or even health effects has been the subject of considerable research in the 

past three decades. The most recent and exhaustive reviews of the health effects from powerfrequency fields conclude that the evidence of health risk is weak. The NIEHS issued its final 

report, NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic 

Fields, on June 15, 1999, following six years of intensive research. NIEHS concluded that there is 

little scientific evidence correlating extra low frequency electric and magnetic field (EMF) 

exposure with health risk. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-98 November 2010

There are no set federal guidelines for EMF. Published guidelines include, the International 

Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection has established a continuous electric field 

exposure limit of 4.2 kV/meter for members of the general public and the American Council of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists has set a Threshold Limit Value for occupational exposure 

to electric fields at 25 kV/meter for an electric field.

While the general consensus is that electric fields pose no human risk, the question of whether 

exposure to magnetic fields can cause biological responses or health effects continues to be 

debated.

Implantable Medical Devices

Implantable medical devices for example pacemakers, defibrillators, neurostimulators, and 

insulin pumps may experience interference from strong EMF. The function of these devices is 

vital and should not be impaired. The majority of research has been conducted on the 

interference to pacemakers from EMF. In 2004, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

report, Electromagnetic Interference With Implanted Medical Devices, stated that implantable medical 

devices may be more susceptible to interference from electric fields than to magnetic fields.

Effects may occur to a person with an implantable medical device and are usually temporary and 

resume normal function once the person is removed from the source of electric fields. Research 

has shown the following potential effects occur to pacemakers exposed to electric fields: 

Rate increasing;

Erratic pacing ;

Switching to asynchronous pacing or fixed-rate pacing;

Single beat inhibition (i.e. a single beat is missed by the pacemaker);

Total inhibition.

Older unipolar pacemaker designs are more susceptible to electric field interference. Research 

completed by Toivonen et al. (1991) indicated that the earliest evidence of interference was in 

electric fields ranging from 1.2 to 1.7 kV/meter. For older style unipolar designs, the electric 

field for some proposed structure types does exceed levels that Toivonen et al. indicated may 

produce interference. However, a recent paper (Scholten et al. 2005) concludes that the risk of 

interference inhibition of unipolar cardiac pacemakers from high voltage power lines in everyday 

life is small. In the unlikely event a pacemaker is impacted, the effect is typically a temporary 

asynchronous pacing (commonly referred to as reversion mode or fixed rate pacing). The 

pacemaker returns to its normal operation when the person moves away from the source of the 

interference.

Stray Voltage

―Stray voltage‖ is a condition that can occur on the electric service entrances to structures from 

distribution lines—not transmission lines. More precisely, stray voltage exists between the 

neutral wire of the service entrance and grounded objects in buildings such as barns and milking 

parlors.

Transmission lines do not, by themselves, create stray voltage because they do not connect to 

businesses or residences. However, transmission lines can induce stray voltage on a distribution 

circuit that is parallel to and immediately under the transmission line. Appropriate measures 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-99 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

would be taken to prevent stray voltage problems when the transmission line parallels

distribution lines.

Public Services

Public services generally refer to services provided by government entities to its citizens. Public 

services are often those services that are used to benefit public health and safety, such as 

education and emergency services (fire, ambulance, and police). Public services are concentrated 

within the municipalities within the Study Area. There are eight municipalities within one mile of 

the Routes A, B, and C and segment alternatives (Table 3.13-1).

Table 3.13-1. Municipalities within Vicinity of Route and Segment Alternatives 

Municipalities Route A Route B Route C SA 21 SA 27 SA 28

Within ROW - - Sharon None None None

Within Route - - Sharon None None None

Within 1 mile of 

Route

Aneta, Grand 

Forks, Northwood

Goodrich, Grand 

Forks, Thompson

Binford, 

Goodrich, Grand 

Forks, Sharon

Binford Hatton Aneta

Visible and marked existing utilities within the Study Area have been identified. There are 

existing fiber optics, pipelines, transmission lines, rural water lines, and associated facilities 

within the Study Area. Existing utilities are identified on the detailed route maps in Appendix B

and on Figure 3.2-2.

Transmission lines can present an important safety concern to airports and aircraft. The 

placement of transmission line structures or the stringing of transmission lines between 

structures could severely impact the safe operation of an airport or hinder the maneuverability of 

aircraft. If close enough, the presence of a steel transmission line structure or wiring could 

interfere with the operation of air navigation or weather systems. Transmission line wiring can

also present a significant risk to pilots. It is important to note that the physical dimensions of 

airport runways determine the class size of aircraft capable of landing at an airport. Furthermore, 

the aircraft design and propulsion system are determinants in an aircraft’s ability to land at a 

given facility. For example, jet aircraft are heavier, typically require a greater runway length for 

takeoff and landing, and require more glide slope clearance distance compared to propellerdriven aircraft. Both of these factors are important in relation to tall structures such as 

transmission lines because they determine the takeoff and landing glide slopes necessary for safe 

flight operation, which in turn determine the setback distance of tall structures such as 

transmission line structures.

The FAA has established guidelines to determine the appropriate setback distance for tall 

structures, including transmission lines, from public use airports and heliports. Federal Aviation 

Regulation (FAR) Part 77 establishes standards and notice requirements for reporting airspace 

obstructions for objects currently impacting or that could impact navigable airspace around 

aviation facilities. FAR Part 77 defines a series of imaginary surface zones surrounding airports 

that specify height restrictions for structures based on slope ratios. These imaginary surfaces 

include the primary surface, horizontal surface, conical surface, approach surface, precision 

instrument approach surface, and the transitional surface. According to FAR Part 77, ―an object 

will be considered an obstruction to a public airport (excluding seaplane bases and heliports) if it 

is of greater height‖ than any of the aforementioned imaginary surfaces. Each of these imaginary 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-100 November 2010

surfaces have corresponding slopes, based in part on the airport’s use designation, flight 

volumes, and plane size capabilities. All surfaces are measured at the mean sea-level elevation of 

the airport.

Furthermore, certain objects such as steel pole transmission line structures have the potential to 

conflict with the operation of airport navigational aids and weather observation station facilities. 

Specifically, these facilities include radar facilities used for aircraft navigation. These facilities 

may require similar routing regulations as airports and airstrips. 

One public airport (McClusky Municipal Airport) and three private airstrips are located within 

one mile of the routes and segment alternatives. The Grand Forks Airport has planned 

improvements for the existing airport layout because of a forecasted increase in aircraft 

operations. According to the July 2006 Land Use Compatibility Plan for Grand Forks 

International Airport, the future plan includes the construction of two additional runways. In 

additional to these future updates, Grand Forks Airport intends to make additional upgrades, 

including extending current main runway and existing crosswind runway. There is also a radar 

facility used for aircraft navigation located just over a mile from Segment Alternative A27. 

Air Quality

Corona consists of the breakdown or ionization of air within a few centimeters of transmission 

line conductors and hardware. Usually some imperfection such as a sharp edge, a protrusion on 

hardware, a scratch on the conductor, or water is necessary to cause corona. Corona can 

produce ozone and oxides of nitrogen in the air surrounding the conductor. Ozone also forms 

in the lower atmosphere from lightning discharges and from reactions between solar ultraviolet 

radiation and air pollutants, such as hydrocarbons from auto emissions. The natural production 

rate of ozone is directly proportional to temperature and sunlight and inversely proportional to 

humidity. Thus, humidity or moisture, the same factor that increases corona discharges from 

transmission lines, inhibits the production of ozone. Ozone is a very reactive form of oxygen 

molecules and combines readily with other elements and compounds in the atmosphere. 

Because of its reactivity, ozone is relatively short-lived. 

The federal government has regulations regarding permissible ambient air concentrations of 

ozone and oxides of nitrogen. The state has incorporated these federal ambient air quality 

standards into its air quality rules. The ambient air quality standard for ozone is 0.075 ppm based 

upon a three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average (40 CFR 

§50.15) concentration. Humid conditions and rain may cause transmission line insulators to 

release static electricity, converting oxygen to ozone.

3.13.2 Impacts

Direct and indirect effects resulting from the proposed Project would be similar for Routes A, B, 

and C and all segment alternatives. 

Electric Fields

According to the NIEHS, ―A person standing directly under a high-voltage transmission line 

may feel a mild shock when touching something that conducts electricity. These sensations are 

caused by the strong electric fields from the high-voltage electricity in the lines. They occur only 

at close range because the electric fields rapidly become weaker as the distance from the line 

increases. Electric fields may be shielded and further weakened by buildings, trees, and other 

objects that conduct electricity.‖ 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-101 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Insulated electric fences used in livestock operations can pick up an induced charge from 

transmission lines. Usually, the induced charge will drain off when the charger unit is connected 

to the fence. When the charger is disconnected either during maintenance or when the fence is 

being built, minor shocks may result.

Magnetic Fields

Peak magnetic field levels can vary considerably depending upon the amount of current carried 

by the line. According to the NIEHS, ―Alternating magnetic fields produced by AC electricity 

can induce the flow of weak electric currents in the body. However, such currents are estimated 

to be smaller than the measured electric currents produced naturally by the brain, nerves, and 

heath‖ (NIEHS 1999).

Electric and Magnetic Field

EMF would be strongest directly under the transmission line and decrease with increasing 

distance from the transmission line towards the ROW edge. Minnkota conducted an EMF study 

for the proposed Project. A summary of the EMF study that outlines calculation parameters is 

included in Appendix H. Based upon the capacity of the proposed Project design, calculated 

EMF values would not exceed about 3.6 kV/meter under maximum operating conditions at any 

location near the ground level underneath or in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line. 

During normal loading conditions, EMF values have been calculated to be approximately 0.98

kV/meter at the edge of the ROW. There are no anticipated EMF impacts expected as a result 

of the construction or operation of the proposed routes or segment alternatives. 

Implantable Medical Devices

At levels associated with high-voltage transmission lines, a transmission line within the routes or 

segment alternatives would not have regular, temporary interference with implantable medical 

devices at levels associated with high-voltage transmission lines. 

Stray Voltage

Appropriate measures would be taken to prevent stray voltage problems when the transmission 

line parallels distribution lines. There are no anticipated stray voltage impacts expected as a result 

of the construction or operation of the proposed routes or segment alternatives.

Public Services

Many of public services within the Study Area are located within municipality boundaries, but

rural water, fiber optic, transmission lines, and distribution lines are located outside of the 

municipality boundaries. Several of these municipalities have medical centers, hospitals, fire 

stations, police stations, and schools. There would be no direct or indirect effects to these public 

services with this proposed Project. 

Potential impacts to public services, mainly emergency services, would be related to construction 

activities that may disrupt roadways and access. Generally, construction activities would be 

staged such that public roads would not be closed for any substantial period. Emergency access 

for local residents, should they need emergency services, would be provided by halting 

construction and relocating equipment so emergency vehicles could access the residence. Once 

construction is complete, the transmission line would span all roads and therefore would not 

impede emergency services. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-102 November 2010

A transmission line within Routes A, B, C, or the segment alternatives is not anticipated to have 

any long-term negative direct or indirect effects to public services. 

The proposed Project would have a positive effect on public services by providing improved 

reliability and capacity to meet the growing demands for electrical service within the Study Area. 

The added transmission would reduce the risk of brownouts (leading to potential blackouts) by 

providing baseload power to the Minnkota service area. 

Aside from certain electrical impacts that are being addressed and mitigated through existing 

processes with neighboring utilities, Minnkota does not anticipate direct or indirect impacts to 

existing utilities from this proposed Project. 

Due to the distance of each airport from the proposed Routes A, B, C, and segment alternatives, 

the placement of the proposed Project structures within the Routes A, B, and C and segment 

alternatives would not create obstacles or hazards for air traffic related to the nearby airports. If 

the FAA determines impacts once a route is selected, Minnkota would file the required notice 

with FAA pursuant to the requirements set forth by FAR Part 77, Subsection 13.

Air Quality

No impacts to air quality due to the operation of the transmission line are anticipated.

Calculations done for a 345 kV project showed that the maximum one-hour concentration 

during foul weather (worst case) would be 0.0007 ppm. This is well below both federal and state 

standards. 

Most calculations for the production and concentration of ozone assume high humidity or rain, 

with no reduction in the amount of ozone due to oxidation or air movement. These calculations 

would therefore overestimate the amount of ozone that is produced and concentrated at ground 

level. Studies designed to monitor the production of ozone under transmission lines have 

generally been unable to detect any increase due to the transmission line facility.

Temporary air quality impacts caused by construction-vehicle emissions and fugitive dust from 

ROW clearing and construction are expected to occur. Exhaust emissions from diesel equipment 

may vary during construction, but would be minimal and temporary. The magnitude of these 

emissions is influenced heavily by weather conditions and the specific construction activity 

taking place.

3.13.3 Mitigation

The NESC provides standards regarding clearance to ground, clearance to crossing utilities, 

clearance to buildings, strength of materials, and ROW widths. In addition, the United States 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates worker safety in both 

construction and industrial settings and has developed and enforces regulations that are designed 

to protect workers from potential accidents. Minnkota would require OSHA-compliant safety 

procedures that would be followed during and after installation of the transmission line, 

including clear signage during all construction activities.

Impacts from electric fields could be minimized by grounding metal buildings, fences, or other 

larger permanent conductive objects in proximity or parallel to the line to prevent excessive 

discharges. Vehicles, which may be parked under or adjacent to transmission lines, generally are 

grounded adequately through their tires. In some instances, such as vehicles with unusually old 

tires or those parked on dry rocks, plastic, or other surfaces that insulate them from the ground, 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-103 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

the vehicle can be grounded by attaching a grounding strap to the vehicle that is long enough to 

touch the ground. 

Minimizing the length of transmission line parallel to or collocated (through the use of structures 

that allow under-building of distribution lines) with distribution or local service conductors 

would minimize the potential for a transmission line to contribute to stray voltage. However, 

collocating or paralleling existing distribution or local serving electric lines may be advantageous 

for minimizing other potential effects from the proposed Project. 

Potential shocks from insulated electric fences used in livestock operations can be prevented by 

shorting out one or more of the fence insulators to ground with a wire when the charger is 

disconnected or installing an electric filter to ground charges induced from a power line, while 

still allowing the charger to be effective. 

Proper safeguards would be implemented for construction and operation of the facility. The 

proposed Project would be designed according to local, state, and NESC standards regarding 

ground clearance, crossing utilities clearance, building clearance, strength of materials and ROW 

widths. Construction crews and/or contract crews would comply with local, state, and NESC

standards regarding facility installation and standard construction practices. Minnkota would 

establish industry safety procedures that would be followed during and after installation of the 

transmission line, including clear signage during all construction activities.

The proposed Project would be equipped with protective devices (breakers and relays located 

where transmission lines connect to substations) to safeguard the public in the event of an 

accident, or if the structure or conductor falls to the ground. The protective equipment would 

de-energize the transmission line should such an event occur. In addition, the substation 

facilities would be properly fenced and accessible only by authorized personnel.

Minnkota would ensure that all safety requirements are met during the construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. Additionally, when crossing roads or railroads during 

stringing operations, guard structures would be utilized to eliminate traffic delays and provide 

safeguards for the public. With the proper safeguards and protective measures implemented as 

described above, no additional mitigation should be needed.

Minnkota would continue to work with the Grand Fork International Airport and the FAA and 

does not anticipate any impacts to airspace and glide slope intercept for public airports along the 

route and segment alternatives; thus, it is not anticipated that any mitigation will be necessary.

BMPs would be used to control fugitive dust during construction including operating vehicles at 

reduced speeds and use of water and dust abatement methods. Dust suppression would be 

completed by the foundation contractor who would build and maintain the ROW during 

construction. Minnkota or the foundation contractor would apply for a permit from the State 

Water Commission for water appropriations related to construction purposes. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-104 November 2010

3.14 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

3.14.1 Description of Resources

Executive Order 12898, which requires federal actions to address potential environmental justice 

impacts to minority and low-income populations, was signed by President Clinton on February 

11, 1994. The responsible official must consider an action’s potential for demographic, 

geographic, economic, and human health risk factors when conducting and documenting a 

NEPA related analysis. The directives from this order are addressed in this analysis of the 

impacts of the route and segment alternatives. The analysis identifies whether the proposed 

Project could have disproportionate impacts to minority and low income populations just from 

potentially being sited in areas where those populations predominately reside.

This section describes the primary social and economic characteristics of the Study Area and 

along the route and segment alternatives under consideration. Socioeconomic factors analyzed 

include population, income, household, employment, household income, and poverty. U.S. 

Census data used for the evaluation are summarized at different geographic levels: national, 

state, country, census tracks, block groups, and block. Census block level data were used to most 

accurately portray the existing population conditions in proximity to the Study Area. Due to the 

predominately rural nature of the Study Area, with the notable exception of Grand Forks 

County, the size of the Census block groups increase as the population decreases. In some cases, 

persons living outside of the route and segment alternatives would also be included in the 

analysis. Therefore, the results may not actually display the existing conditions as they pertain to 

the residents living in proximity to the route and the segment alternatives. As a result, it is 

difficult to ascertain specific social or economic characteristics of the population living along the 

route and segment alternatives. However, based on the data available, general social and 

economic characteristics may be inferred from Census block data.

The route and segment alternatives include portions of 12 counties in North Dakota and several 

farm-based communities. The largest cities located near the route and segment alternatives

include Grand Forks (population 49,321), Carrington (population 2,268), Cooperstown 

(population 1,053), and Northwood (population 959). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 

racial characteristics within the Study Area are primarily white, with small American Indian 

populations. The Spirit Lake Nation lands, which is the nearest minority population, are located 

approximately 10 miles north of New Rockford, North Dakota (See Figure 3.2-2). No route or 

segment alternatives cross the Spirit Lake Nation lands, which are located in the northern 

portion of Eddy County. There is limited potential to impact minority or disadvantaged 

populations with the construction and operation of a new transmission line within the Study 

Area. 

To consider population characteristics, a Region of Comparison (ROC) is established to 

understand the dynamics of the population living in proximity to the proposed transmission line 

route and segment alternatives. The ROC established for the proposed Project comprises the 

selected counties the transmission line would cross. Additionally, towns and cities the route and 

segment alternatives would travel around or through were also included in part of this analysis. 

Shifts in population have occurred throughout the Study Area; populations continue to grow 

around the Grand Forks region, while many communities in the western portion of the Study 

Area have continued to lose population. The trend in decreasing rural populations is not 

exclusive to the Study Area. The changing dynamics in most rural areas, including the age of 

population and the ability to find work in more urban areas, has contributed to the decrease in 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-105 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

rural populations. The migration of young people away from rural areas has resulted in an 

increase in the average age of local residents. Furthermore, as area residents have aged, the desire 

to move to regional centers where better healthcare options are available has resulted in reduced 

rural populations and larger farming operations, or the loss of agricultural production. In turn, 

the migration of the population away from rural areas has had economic implications for rural 

communities. Employment in social services, particularly health care and elder care occupations 

has significantly increased over the past decade. Per capita and median household incomes are 

typically lower in rural western counties when compared to Grand Forks County.

Social Characteristics 

Population characteristics considered relevant to the social setting of the Study Area include the 

total population, estimated population, per capita income, and poverty status. Western North 

Dakota communities have gradually experienced reductions in total population. Additionally, per 

capita incomes rise significantly as the transmission line moves from west to east, a function of 

several factors including (but not limited to) higher cost of living, higher paying jobs, and higher 

property values. Finally, poverty levels are generally higher in the western Study Area when 

compared to the eastern Study Area.

Economic Characteristics

There are both similarities and differences between the economic characteristics of the western 

Study Area compared to the Grand Forks region. As identified in Section 0, the prevailing land 

use within the Study Area is agricultural, primarily planted crops. Many of the counties in the 

route and segment alternatives identify agricultural practices as a foundation of both the social 

and economic fabric of the county. Significant efforts by county and local officials to preserve 

and protect agricultural lands have been made. Aggregate mining for sand or gravel are also 

important economic activities in rural areas and in several instances, this type of extractive land 

use contributes directly to county and local road projects or other developments. Minnkota’s 

Milton R. Young Station and the lignite mining operations at the nearby Center Mine, owned 

and operated by BNI Coal Ltd., are important regional sources of employment in the western 

Study Area. 

As the proposed route alternatives move from west to east, the employment base of counties 

closest to Grand Forks diversifies. The larger population base of the Grand Forks region leads 

to both greater demand and needs for a range of services and products. Economic 

commonalities between the employment bases of the two regions are apparent. Management, 

professional, and other related occupations are leading industries in all counties, and 

employment in sales and service is also very strong. Table 3.14-1 lists the top four employment 

industries within Study Area counties. 

Table 3.14-1. Top Occupations for Counties within the Study Area

County Industry Percent of Workforce

Burleigh

Management/Professional 36.5

Sales and Office 28.8

Service Occupations 16.0

Production/Transportation 9.1

Eddy

Management/Professional 39.1

Agriculture 19.1
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-106 November 2010

County Industry Percent of Workforce

Service Occupations 17.9

Sales and Office 16.5

Foster

Management/Professional 35.6

Sales and Office 21.2

Service Occupations 14.9

Agriculture 13.5

Grand Forks

Management/Professional 32.2

Sales and Office 25.4

Service Occupations 20.1

Production/Transportation 11.1

Griggs

Management/Professional 35.1

Sales and Office 20.4

Service Occupations 16.7

Agriculture 16.0

McLean

Management/Professional 31.8

Sales and Office 22.1

Service Occupations 16.5

Construction 15.8

Mercer

Management/Professional 27.2

Sales and Office 19.2

Construction 17.1

Service Occupations 17.9

Nelson

Management/Professional 36.7

Sales and Office 20.5

Agriculture 16.2

Service Occupations 14.8

Oliver

Management/Professional 35.2

Agriculture 23.7

Sales and Office 15.8

Service Occupations 12.8

Sheridan

Management/Professional 43.0

Agriculture 35.0

Sales and Office 18.7

Service Occupations 12.9

Steele

Management/Professional 38.8

Agriculture 24.5

Sales and Office 19.5

Service Occupations 11.8

Traill Management/Professional 30.3
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-107 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

County Industry Percent of Workforce

Agriculture 22.3

Sales and Office 18.0

Transportation 15.7

Wells

Management/Professional 33.6

Sales and Office 21.4

Service Occupations 18.2

Agriculture 17.1

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, 2010.

Population by Race and Ethnicity

The Study Area is composed of a variety of racial and ethnic groups. Race is defined as a selfidentification data item based on an individual’s perception of his or her racial identity. 

Respondents to the 2000 Census selected the race(s) with which they most closely identified 

themselves. Ethnicity is defined as a classification of a population that share common 

characteristics such as religion, cultural traditions, language, tribal heritage, or national origin. All 

counties within the Study Area have a population with a 95 percent or higher population of 

White/Caucasian. The remaining populations in all of the counties include Black/African 

American, American Indian, Hawaiian, some other race alone, or two or more races 

(Table 3.14-2). 

Table 3.14-2. Population by Race and Ethnicity for Counties within the Study Area

County Burleigh Eddy Foster Grand 

Forks

Griggs McLean Nelson Oliver Sheridan Steele Traill Wells

Total 69,416 2,757 3,759 66,109 2,754 9,311 3,715 2,065 1,710 2,258 8,477 5,102

White/

Caucasian

66,043 2,691 3,717 61,530 2,739 8,586 3,661 2,019 1,700 2,226 8,276 5,036

Black/

African 

American

204 0 6 867 0 3 2 0 0 1 14 22

American 

Indian

2,079 37 0 1,612 8 589 24 28 5 21 76 35

Asian 279 2 10 632 3 7 13 4 0 0 16 3

Native 

Hawaiian 

0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Some 

other race 

alone

266 7 8 415 0 8 0 0 0 2 69 0

Two or 

more races

545 20 18 1,023 4 118 15 14 5 8 26 6

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, 2010.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-108 November 2010

3.14.2 Impacts

In general, increasing the transmission output capability and reliability would benefit the region 

on a long term basis. The proposed Project is not expected to have negative long term economic 

impacts. Indirectly, the increased capability and reliability of the electric system to supply energy 

to commercial and industrial users may contribute to the economic growth of communities and 

counties along the route and to future generation of renewable energy development. In addition, 

Minnkota would pay a transmission line tax to the state that gets allocated to the county; 

therefore, a positive economic gain would result to the county. Short-term positive economic 

gains would result from activities associated with construction. Local businesses would likely see 

an increase in revenues from construction of the proposed Project. The number of workers 

hired from within and outside of the Study Area may result in positive economic gains in the 

form of increased wages and spending, lodging, meals, and other consumer goods and services. 

It is estimated that 200 to 250 workers would be employed during construction. It is not 

anticipated that the proposed Project would create new permanent jobs, but it would create 

temporary construction jobs that would provide a one-time influx of income to the area.

The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in an economic or social hardship to minority 

or low-income populations.

Construction activities would provide a seasonal influx of additional dollars into the 

communities during the construction phase. Long-term beneficial impacts from the proposed 

Project include increased local tax base resulting from the incremental increases in revenues 

from transmission lines taxes. Within the State of North Dakota, utilities pay a transmission line 

tax to the state. The state divides and allocates that money to the counties where transmission 

lines are located.

One concern of residents living near existing or proposed transmission lines is how proximity to

the line could affect the value of their property. The potential change to property value that 

might be experienced has been studied in the past. Research on this issue does not identify a 

clear cause and effect relationship between the two variables. Instead, the presence of a 

transmission line becomes one of several factors that interact to affect the value of a particular 

property. The impacts on residential property values do not appear to be significantly different 

within various land use types (i.e., agricultural versus suburban or urban) – or at least any 

difference is too subtle for current research to detect. Therefore, property value impacts appear 

to be similar for all route or segment alternatives evaluated in this EA. 

As part of the federal scoping process for the proposed Project, questions and concerns about 

property values were raised. In general three primary concerns regarding the potential impact of 

a nearby transmission line on property value were voiced:

Concern of possible health effects from electric or magnetic fields (EMF): While no 

conclusive evidence of the effects of EMF on health exists, it is recognized that 

people’s concerns about this issue can influence their decisions related to purchase of 

property. 

The potential noise and visual unattractiveness of the transmission line: The visual 

profile of transmission line structures and wires may decrease the perceived aesthetic 

quality of property. The transmission facility would not generate noise above the 

existing noise levels.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-109 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Potential interference with farming operations or foreclosure of present or future 

land uses within the transmission line ROW: On properties that are farmed, 

installation of a transmission line can remove land from production and farming 

practices may have to be adjusted based upon pole locations. The proposed Project

may also be perceived as reducing the potential for development of the land for 

another use.

Location of a transmission line on their property may result in a lower rental fee for 

the property. Generally, it has been found that a new transmission line may result in 

a decline in property value immediately following the construction. However, this 

effect diminishes after a few years. A property’s value is influenced more by location 

to a school or job, the size of the house, and neighborhood quality, rather than the

presence of transmission lines.

When the route for the transmission line is chosen, a landowner whose property is 

affected by the ROW would be asked by Minnkota for an easement. Easements 

allow Minnkota to locate a transmission line on the property and enter for 

maintenance when needed. In return the landowner is compensated and receives 

payment based on the fair market value of the property. The landowner keeps

ownership of the land but they are restricted to certain activities so they do not 

compromise the safety and efficiency of the transmission line.

Under the No Action Alternative there would be an economic impact due to poor voltage 

stability caused by leaving about 225 MW stranded at Young 2. The poor voltage stability would 

cause rolling brown-outs and could limit potential to develop renewable energy. 

3.14.3 Mitigation

Construction of the proposed Project would result in short-term positive economic impacts for 

communities within the Study Area. In general, increasing transmission capacity and reliability 

would be an economic benefit to the surrounding communities and businesses. For these 

reasons, the proposed Project is not expected to have negative economic impacts on local and 

regional economies. As such, no mitigation measures are proposed to address socioeconomic 

impacts.

The proposed Project is not anticipated to impact minority or low-income populations; 

therefore, no mitigation measures are planned.

The payments of taxes to the state, then allocated to the counties in which the transmission line 

and associated infrastructure are located, are not anticipated to generate negative impacts. For 

this reason, no mitigation measures are needed.

Easement payments to landowners are required to compensate landowners for loss of use of the 

utility easement on their property (this would include a landowner’s leased property). In 

addition, Minnkota would communicate with landowners regarding the placement of structures.

The No Action Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need of the proposed Project. 

Based on this EA, if the proposed Project is not constructed it may cause other facilities to be 

built.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-110 November 2010

3.15 Recreational Resources

3.15.1 Description of Resources

Many recreational resources exist within the Study Area, including trails, rivers, lakes, federal 

lands, and state lands. This section describes the primary recreation resources of the Study Area 

and along the routes and segment descriptions under consideration. Recreational resources are 

identified to understand the potential effects that the proposed Project may have on the 

resources. Minnkota focused on recreational resources within the proposed routes and segment 

alternatives. However, some resources are identified in the Study Area that may have viewshed 

impacts from the proposed Project. 

Outdoor recreational opportunities along the three routes and segment alternatives include 

riding all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles, hiking, boating, fishing, camping, swimming, 

hunting, and nature observation. Recreational resource and land management data were gathered 

from state and federal agencies. Detailed route maps in Appendix B and Figure 3.15-1 identify 

the locations of recreation resources within the vicinity of the proposed routes and segment 

alternatives. Figure 3.15-1 displays the location of managed recreation lands in the vicinity of the 

proposed routes and segment alternatives. The detailed route maps in Appendix B show the 

recreation point locations, such as golf courses, picnic areas, local parks, and boat landings. 

State-Managed Lands

NDGF’s WMAs and NDPR’s state parks, nature preserves, and recreation areas play a large role 

in North Dakota’s outdoor recreation system. There are no state parks, nature preserves, and 

recreation areas located within the routes or segment alternatives. No WMAs are located within 

the routes. The Wilbur Boldt WMA is located within Segment Alternative A02. 

Two NDPR managed lands (Cross Ranch State Park and Cross Ranch State Nature Preserve) 

within 1 mile of the routes and no NDPR managed lands within the segment alternatives (Table 

3.15-1). Five WMAs located within one mile of the routes and segment alternatives. 

Table 3.15-1. State Managed Lands within one mile of the Route and Segment Alternatives

Route or Segment 

Alternative Resource Agency Name

C NDPR Cross Ranch State Park

C NDPR Cross Ranch State Nature Preserve

A, B, 

Segment Alternatives A01 & A02 NDGF Wilbur Boldt WMA

A NDGF Wells County WMA

C NDGF Robert L. Morgan WMA

C NDGF Smith Grove WMA

Segment Alternative A27 NDGF Golden Lake WMA

Federal Managed Lands

USFWS manages WPAs, Wildlife Development Areas (WDAs), and National Wildlife Refuges 

(NWRs). The Bureau of Reclamation manages the Chain of Lakes Recreation Area/McClusky 

Canal through Sheridan, Burleigh, and McLean counties. The East Park Lake, West Park Lake, 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-111 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Heckers Lake, and New Johns Lake are four in-line lakes on the McClusky Canal that make up 

the Chain of Lakes Recreation Area.

These federally managed lands provide habitat for a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland 

birds, plants, insects, and wildlife as well as provide opportunities for public access and wildlife 

dependent recreation such as hunting, wildlife watching, photography, camping, boating, fishing, 

and ATV/snowmobile riding (see Figure 3.15-1).

As discussed in the Land Use section (Section 3.2), the USFWS holds easements on private 

lands for the protection of wetland and grasslands resources. The purpose of wetland easements 

and grassland easements is to protect wetland areas and adjacent grassland buffers for the 

reproduction and growth of waterfowl species. The USFWS allows some hunting on these 

easements. 

Five WPAs, three WDAs, one NWR, and one Bureau of Reclamation-managed land are located 

within the routes and segment alternatives. Table 3.15-2 outlines the federal lands located within 

the routes and segment alternatives. 

Table 3.15-2. Federal Managed Lands within the Route and Segment Alternatives

Route or Segment 

Alternative Resource Agency Name

A USFWS Hoornaert WPA

A USFWS Topp WPA

A, B, C USFWS Gaub WPA

B, C USFWS Moldenhauer WPA

B USFWS Chasely WPA

A, B USFWS East Park Lake WDA

Segment Alternatives A07 & A12 USFWS Koening WDA

Segment Alternative A07 USFWS Lost Lake WDA

Segment Alternative A07 USFWS Lost Lake NWR

A, B, C, 

Segment Alternatives A07 & A08

Bureau of Recreation Chain of Lakes Recreation 

Area/McClusky Canal

There are 27 WPAs, two NWRs, and one Bureau of Reclamation-managed land located within 1 

mile of the routes and segment alternatives. Table 3.15-3 displays the federal lands located within 

one-mile of the routes and segment alternatives.

Table 3.15-3. Federal Managed Lands within one mile of the 

Route and Segment Alternatives

Route or Segment 

Alternative Resource Agency Name

Segment Alternative A07 USFWS Lost Lake NWR

C USFWS Sibley Lake NWR

A USFWS Bauers WPA

A USFWS Delfs WPA

A, B, C, USFWS East Park Lake WPA
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-112 November 2010

Route or Segment 

Alternative Resource Agency Name

Segment Alternatives A05 & A06

A USFWS Ehni WPA

A USFWS Faul WPA

A, B, C, 

Segment Alternative A08

USFWS Gaub WPA

A USFWS Indian Hills WPA

A

Segment Alternative A12

USFWS Kindschi WPA

A USFWS Schindler WPA

A

Segment Alternative A14

USFWS Topp WPA

B USFWS Chasley WPA

B, C USFWS Fritchie WPA

B, C USFWS Goodrich WPA

B USFWS Heeren WPA

B, C USFWS Lasher WPA

B, C USFWS Moldenhauer WPA

B, C USFWS Radtke WPA

B, C USFWS Thorson WPA

B, C USFWS Weckerly WPA

C USFWS Koenig WPA

Segment Alternative A04 USFWS Hecker’s Lake WPA

Segment Alternative A12 USFWS Crystal Lake WPA

Segment Alternative A13 USFWS Monk WPA

Segment Alternative A14 USFWS Midgley WPA

Segment Alternative A14 USFWS Swan Lake WPA

Segment Alternative A21 USFWS Erickson WPA

Segment Alternative A21 USFWS Fritz WPA

A, B,C, 

Segment Alternatives A07, A08, 

A09, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14

Bureau of Recreation Chain of Lakes Recreation 

Area/McClusky Canal

North Country National Scenic Trail

The NPS administers the North Country National Scenic Trail (trail) that crosses seven states 

(New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota). NPS 

explains that the trail is a collection of certified and proposed segments. Within North Dakota 

from Valley City, the trail follows the Sheyenne River to the Garrison Diversion then to the 

McClusky and New Rockford canals. Most of the certified segments occur on public lands, i.e. 

USFWS, Bureau of Reclamation, and USFS. The NPS is reviewing segments on the western 

portion of the trail in order to connect with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and the 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-113 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Knife River Indian Village National Historic Site (an NPS property). A portion of the trail runs 

parallel to the McClusky Canal and Chain of Lakes Recreation Area. Recreational opportunities 

include hiking and camping (See Figure 3.15-1). 

In addition, the NPS administers the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail that crosses 11 

states. The NPS attempts to preserve the remnants of the historic route of 1804-1806 Corps of 

Discovery Expedition and to provide a comprehensive interpretation of its history, including the 

American Indian perspective, to allow for better visitor understanding and appreciation of its 

significance. Recreational opportunities include canoeing the Missouri River and driving State 

Highways 1804 and 1806 (See Figure 3.15-1). Table 3.15-4 outlines the trails crossed by the 

routes and segment alternatives.

Table 3.15-4. Trails crossed by the Route and Segment Alternatives

Route or Segment 

Alternative Trail Name Associated Resource Land County

A, B, C

Segment Alternatives A07, A08

North Country National 

Scenic Trail

Chain of Lakes Recreation 

Area McLean County

A, B, C

Segment Alternatives A18

North Country National 

Scenic Trail McClusky Canal Sheridan County

A, B, C

Segment Alternatives A23, A33 

& A34

North Country National 

Scenic Trail McClusky Canal Griggs County

A, B, C

Segment Alternatives A03. A04 

& A38

Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail

Missouri River and State 

Highways 1804 and 1806 Burleigh & Oliver County

National Heritage Area

A National Heritage Area is ―a place designated by Congress where natural, cultural, historic,

and recreational resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape arising 

from patterns of human activity shaped by geography.‖ The Northern Plains Heritage 

Foundation received funding from Congress through the NPS to undertake a study to identify 

and evaluate a range of alternatives for managing, preserving, and interpreting the assemblage of 

nationally important historic sites, structures, stories, legends, and landscapes existing within the 

free flowing segment of the Missouri River in central North Dakota. The Northern Plains 

National Heritage Area includes: ―The proposed east/west boundary of the study area 

encompasses a distance of ten miles across or approximately five miles from the banks of the 

free flowing segment the Missouri River. The north/south boundary encompasses an 

approximate eighty mile distance from the Huff Mandan Village south of Mandan to the Big 

Hidatsa Village north of Stanton ND.‖

Automobile Tours

No designated state or federal scenic byways or backways are located within the Study Area. The 

Sakakawea Scenic Byway near Washburn is located north of the Study Area along State Highway 

200A from Washburn to Stanton. State Highways 1804 and 1806 are a part of the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail. State Highways 1804 and 1806 are located on the east and west 

sides of the Missouri River, respectively, and would be crossed by Routes A, B, C and Segment 

Alternatives A03 and A04. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-114 November 2010

Other Recreational Resources

No additional recreational resources, such as boat landings, golf courses, and playgrounds/ball 

fields, were located within the routes or segment alternatives. Table 3.15-5 outlines the resources 

located within 1 mile of the routes and segment alternatives. 

Table 3.15-5. Recreation Areas within one mile of the Route and Segment Alternatives

Route or Segment 

Alternative Recreational Resources

A Boat landing and camp site, Legacy Grove Camp, Fort Trotter Trail, Golf Ground or Country 

Club

B Boat landing and camp site, Legacy Grove Camp, Playground/Ball Field

C Playground/Ball Field

Segment Alternatives A03 Legacy Grove Camp

Segment Alternatives A04 Legacy Grove Camp

Segment Alternatives A14 Box T Ranch Bible and Saddle Camp

Segment Alternatives A21 Playground/Ball Field

Segment Alternative A38 Legacy Grove Camp

PLOTS is a voluntary program offered to landowners by the NDGF, which provides 

landowners with monetary compensation for allowing public access to their land for fishing or 

hunting. Table 3.15-6 illustrates the number and acreage of PLOTS lands within the routes and 

segment alternatives.

Table 3.15-6. PLOTS within the Route and Segment Alternatives

Route or Segment 

Alternative

Number of PLOTS 

Lands Total Acreage

A 15 518

B 4 122

C 10 326

Segment Alternative A05 1 64

Segment Alternative A08 1 47

Segment Alternative A12 4 116

Segment Alternative A13 1 31

Segment Alternative A14 2 96

Segment Alternative A18 7 224

Segment Alternative A19 2 37

Segment Alternative A23 1 18

TNC owns two properties within the Study Area: Cross Ranch Preserve and Davis Ranch 

Preserve. The Cross Ranch Preserve is divided into 3 units. The southern unit located within 

Route C is defined as uplands that are covered by mixed-grass prairie. The Davis Ranch Preserve 

is large prairie landscape in the Missouri Coteau consisting of high quality northern mixed-grass 

prairie with fresh, alkaline, ephemeral, and permanent wetlands. No routes or segment 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-115 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

alternatives are located within the Davis Ranch Preserve. Wildlife observation is allowed on 

TNC-owned lands.

3.15.2 Impacts

Direct impacts to recreational resources would be minimized to the extent feasible. Direct 

effects involve altering or physically changing recreation resources, conflicting with recreation 

area goals, or affecting accessibility to areas. Indirect effects are visual impacts to the scenic 

quality and natural appearance of the landscape as viewed from the recreational use area by a 

recreational user. The proposed Project would span recreational resources to minimize impacts, 

such as rivers and lakes. In general, recreational impacts would be visual in nature and limited to 

individuals using public or private property in the corridor for hiking, hunting, fishing, or nature 

observation.

The transmission line would likely be visible from all recreational resources located within and 

adjacent to the routes and segment alternatives and would have the potential to be visible from 

all recreation resources within approximately 1 mile of the routes and segment alternatives 

depending on the surrounding topography. 

No state managed lands would be impacted by the routes. The Wilbur Boldt WMA is located 

within Segment Alternative A02, but if this alternative is selected the final ROW may be able to 

avoid this WMA since the segment alternative just crosses the north side of the WMA. If the 

WMA is not avoidable the potential impacts are listed in Table 3.15-7.

Table 3.15-7. State Lands within the Segment Alternative Right-of-Way

Segment 

Alternative

ROW

Resource 

Agency

Name Acreage 

Along 

ROW

Length 

of 

Crossing

Number of 

Structures

Temporary 

Impacts 

(Acres)

Permanent 

Impacts 

(Acres)

Segment Alternative 

A02 

NDGF Wilbur 

Boldt 

WMA

0.40 100 0 0.04 0.0

Although five WPAs, three WDAs, one NWR, and one Bureau of Reclamation managed lands 

are located within the routes and segment alternatives. The ROW is anticipated to avoid most 

federally-managed lands, because the ROW may have space within the 1,000-foot-wide route or 

segment alternative to avoid the managed lands, even though the boundaries of the routes and 

segment alternatives may overlap with the boundary of the managed land. Table 3.15-8 provides 

a list of those ROWs that may impact federal lands if avoidance is not feasible. Route A may 

impact the Hoornaert WPA. The routes and segment alternatives are anticipated to span the 

Chain of Lakes Recreation Area. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-116 November 2010

Table 3.15-8. Federal Lands within the Route and Segment Alternatives Right-of-Way

Route or 

Segment 

Alternative

ROW

Resource 

Agency Name

Acreage 

Along 

ROW

Length of 

Crossing 

(ft)

Number of 

Structures

Temporary 

Impacts 

(Acres)

Permanent 

Impacts 

(Acres)

A USFWS Hoornaert 

WPA

8.86 2,635 3 1.17 0.006

Segment 

Alternative A07

USFWS Koening 

WDA

3.27 947 1 0.35 0.002

Segment 

Alternative A07

USFWS Lost Lake 

WDA

1.09 1,315 1 0.117 0.001

Segment 

Alternative A07

USFWS Lost Lake 

NWR

6.45 7,920 8 0.693 0.003

Segment 

Alternative A12

USFWS Koening 

WDA

0.16 994 1 0.017 0.000

A, B, C, 

Segment 

Alternatives 

A07 & A08

Bureau of 

Recreation

Chain of 

Lakes 

Recreation 

Area/

McClusky 

Canal

0 0 0

No impacts to other recreation resources, such as golf courses, parks, and camps are anticipated. 

The transmission line would span three trails. No structures would be placed directly in the trails 

and the trails would not need to be relocated or closed. Individuals using these trails would

continue to have access to the trails. However, during construction there may be short periods 

of disruption with construction workers in the area. 

The proposed Project would span the Northern Plains National Heritage Area. No structures 

would be placed within the Missouri River or block trail access. Individuals using the river and

trails would continue to have access to the resources. However, during construction there may 

be short periods of disruption with construction in the area.

No impacts to TNC lands are anticipated.

Table 3.15-9 illustrates the number and acreage of PLOTS lands that may be impacted by the 

routes and segment alternatives. Individuals using these properties would have access under the 

transmission line to the property; the proposed Project would not impact the recreational 

opportunities on PLOTS lands. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-117 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.15-9. PLOTS within the Route and Segment Alternative Right-of-Way

Route orSegment 

Alternative ROW

Number of PLOTS 

Lands Total Acreage

A 10 71

B 4 19

C 6 29

Segment Alternative A05 1 9

Segment Alternative A08 1 9

Segment Alternative A12 1 9

Segment Alternative A13 1 4

Segment Alternative A14 2 15

Segment Alternative A18 4 26

Segment Alternative A19 2 9

Segment Alternative A23 1 1

3.15.3 Mitigation 

The proposed Project would span existing trails, State Highways 1804 and 1806, and the Chain 

of Lakes Recreation Area/McClusky Canal. Since it is not anticipated that any recreational 

resources would be removed from service by implementation of the proposed Project, no 

adjacent land would need to be converted or dedicated to recreational use or wildlife 

management. Secondary recreational uses of proposed Project property may be allowable 

depending on security requirements. No other mitigation is anticipated to be necessary.

If Route A ROW crosses the Hoornaert WPA, Minnkota will work with the USFWS to apply 

for the appropriate permits and to minimize impacts. 

Minnkota would work with the state and federal agencies to reduce visual impacts to these 

resources. As discussed in Section 3.11, the transmission line would be designed to minimize 

impacts to aesthetics.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-118 November 2010

3.16 Cumulative Impacts

In addition to analyzing the individual impacts of a project, the federal environmental review 

process requires consideration of the cumulative environmental impact of multiple projects 

within an area. In conformance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, 

this section discusses the cumulative significance of past, present, and reasonably anticipated 

future projects on the environment along the Center to Grand Forks proposed routes and 

segment alternatives.

3.16.1 Regulatory Requirements

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of NEPA defines cumulative impacts as:

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

Cumulative impacts are considered direct effects, which are ―caused by the action and occur at 

the same time and place‖ (40 CFR 1508.8).

The CEQ regulations also require a discussion of cumulative actions and connected actions in 

the scope of the environmental review. These terms are defined as follows:

Cumulative actions are those ―which when viewed with other proposed actions have 

cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same [environmental 

review]‖ (40 CFR 1508.25 (a) (1)).

Connected actions are those that are closely related. ―Actions are connected if they: (i) 

automatically trigger other actions which many require environmental review; (ii) cannot or 

would not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously; or (iii) are 

interdependent parts of the larger action and depend on that larger action for their justification‖ 

(40 CFR 1508.25 (a) (1)).

Indirect effects, also termed secondary effects, are ―caused by the action and are later in time or 

father removed in distance, but are sill reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include 

growth inducing effects and other effects related to inducted changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, 

including ecosystems’ (40 CFR 1508.8).

3.16.2 Analytical Approach

This cumulative impacts review was developed in consultation with the federal and state 

agencies responsible for the various environmental resources within the routes and segment 

alternatives, and is limited to those resources the agencies identified as being of concern and 

potentially requiring mitigation. This type of screening ensures that the analysis focuses on 

critical resources. The cumulative impacts analysis is based on existing conditions of the critical 

environmental resources in each of the routes and segment alternatives.

This analysis uses an approach developed through graduate research (Shoemaker, 1994 and 

2004) and in dialogue with federal agencies such as the EPA, Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), USACE, and the Bureau of Land Management. It is a nationally accepted 

methodology on large infrastructure projects and consists of the following steps:
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-119 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Establish valued environmental components;

Establish temporal and spatial study boundaries;

Identify past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities both direct and indirect; 

and

Analyze cumulative impacts through use of a matrix format (CEQ 1997).

3.16.3 Valued Environmental Components 

Valued environmental components (VECs) are those components of the environment for which 

there is regulatory or public concern. VECs include the social, cultural, technical, economic, and 

natural components of the environment. This section follows two principles identified by CEQ 

when considering VECs: (1) focus only on the effects and resources within the context of the 

proposed action; and (2) present a concise list of issues that have relevance to the anticipated 

effects of the proposed action or eventual decision. Based on this guidance, the resources 

examined in previous subsections of Section 3.0 were reviewed to determine which constituted 

VECs that may be affected by cumulative actions. The factors used to decide which resources to 

review are listed below.

Land Use – Further consideration as the routes have the potential to impact agricultural 

activities. 

Soils –No further consideration as Minnkota would use approved and proven mitigation 

measures to minimize the potential for soil erosion.

Vegetation – Further consideration as the routes have the potential to impact agricultural 

activities and removal of prairie vegetation.

Wildlife – Further consideration due to potential for bird strikes, habitat change, and 

habitat fragmentation.

Threatened and Endangered Species – Further consideration to address any regional 

activities that may affect special status species habitat potentially impacted by the 

proposed Project.

Water Resources – No further consideration as Minnkota would use approved and 

proven mitigation measures to minimize the potential for sedimentation.

Wetlands – No further consideration as Minnkota would use approved and proven 

mitigation measures to minimize the potential for additional losses and habitat 

conversion of waters of the United States.

Geology and Groundwater – No further consideration as Minnkota would use approved 

and proven mitigation measures to minimize the potential for groundwater impacts.

Archaeological and Historic Resources – No further consideration as the routes are not 

expected to impact known cultural resources and values. Minnkota would conduct a 

cultural resource survey prior to construction and adjust the proposed Project’s ROW

alignment to avoid impacting any discovered cultural resource sites.

Visual Resources – Further consideration of the potential to affect the viewshed.

Noise – No further consideration as the routes are not expected to exceed state noise 

standards.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-120 November 2010

Electric and Magnetic Fields – No further consideration as the routes would be 

constructed following ―prudent avoidance‖ guidance.

Public Services – No further consideration, as the routes would not restrict the public 

from any public service.

Radio, TV, and Cell Phone – No further consideration as transmission lines rarely result 

in any impacts, and in the rare case that there are, the impacts can be readily mitigated by 

tightening loose hardware or upgrading receiving antennas.

Economic Factors – No further consideration as all proposed routes would positively 

affect economic conditions by improving the reliability of the local transmission system 

and reducing the potential for brown-outs.

Human Settlement – Further consideration because although no involuntary residential 

displacement is anticipated, the proposed Project may have an indirect effect on property 

values.

Recreation and Tourism – Further consideration as some of the routes and segment 

alternatives may have indirect visual impacts upon trail users. Further consideration may 

occur depending on proximity to other projects.

3.16.4 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

The temporal boundary is the design life of the proposed Project facilities. Spatial boundaries are 

based on the Study Area, which includes all land within the routes and segment alternatives 

under consideration for the proposed Project. 

3.16.5 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities

Regulations and case law provide direction as to what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable action 

that should be included in a cumulative impacts review. Reasonably foreseeable actions include 

activities that are not speculative and that constitute an independent utility or function. In 

addition, a reasonably foreseeable project should be planned and funded (Canter and Rumrill, 

1997). 

Additional development induced by the proposed Project is considered an indirect impact for 

purposes of a cumulative impacts analysis. The development of a wind generation facility in 

response to the proposed Project increasing the transmission outlet for such generation would 

only merit specific analysis if it is reasonably foreseeable. At this point, no specific wind 

generation facilities induced by this proposed Project have been identified as reasonably 

foreseeable. The following tables provide a summary of the activities identified within the Study 

Area that may contribute to direct or indirect cumulative impacts. Table 3.16-1 lists past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable transmission line projects. Table 3.16-2 lists past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable pipeline projects. Table 3.16-3 lists past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable wind energy projects.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-121 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Table 3.16-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Transmission Line Projects

State Project Description

Minnesota Fargo to St. Cloud 345 kV Transmission Project/ Great River 

Energy

Clay, Douglas, Grant, Ottertail, Pope, 

Stearns, Stevens, Todd, Traverse, and 

Wilkin counties

Minnesota Noble Flat Hill 230 kV HVTL/ Noble Flat Hill Windpark I, LLC Clay County

North Dakota 230kV Transmission Line/ FPL Energy Burleigh County Wind, 

LLC

Burleigh County

North Dakota 230kV Transmission Line/ FPL Energy Oliver Wind, LLC Oliver County

North Dakota 230 kV Transmission Line/ M-Power, LLC Barnes/Steele County

North Dakota 230 kV Transmission Line / Allete, Inc. Oliver County

North Dakota Luverne 230 kV Transmission Line/Otter Tail Corporation Barnes/Steele Counties

North Dakota 230 kV Transmission Line/Allete, Inc. Morton/Oliver Counties

North Dakota 102 MW Baldwin Wind Energy Center/Baldwin Wind, LLC Burleigh County

North Dakota 230 kV Transmission Line/ NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Oliver & Morton Counties

North Dakota 230 kV Electric Transmission Line/Otter Tail Power Company Sargent County

North Dakota Pillsbury-Fargo 230 kV Transmission Line/Minnkota Power 

Coop., Inc.

N/A

North Dakota Fargo-Monticello MN 345 KV CapX Transmission Line/

Northern States Power Company

N/A

North Dakota 230 kV Transmission Line/ Tatanka Wind Power, LLC Dickey - McIntosh Counties

Table 3.16-2. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Pipeline Projects

State Project Description

Minnesota Enbridge Pipeline Southern Lights Project/Enbridge Pipelines, 

LLC

108 mile, 20 inch pipeline in Kittson, 

Marshall, Pennington, Red Lake, Polk, 

and Clearwater Counties

Minnesota Lakehead Pipeline Terrace Expansion/Lakehead Pipeline 68.6 miles, 36 inch crude oil pipeline in 

Kittson, Marshall, Pennington, Red 

Lake, and Polk Counties

Minnesota Lakehead Pipeline Company Clearwater/Lakehead Pipeline 107 miles, 20 inch crude oil pipeline in 

Kittson, Marshal, Pennington, Red 

Lake, Polk, and Clearwater Counties

North Dakota Antelope Valley Station Water Pipeline/ Basin Electric Power 

Coop Inc.

Mercer County

North Dakota Crude Oil Pump Stations/ Enbridge Pipelines (North Dakota) 

LLC

Mountrail, McHenry, Ramsey, and 

Grand Forks Counties

North Dakota 30-Inch Crude Oil Pipeline/ TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, 

LP

Cavalier/Sargent Counties

North Dakota 6-Inch Crude Oil Pipeline/ Plains All American Pipeline, LP Dunn/Stark Counties
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-122 November 2010

Table 3.16-3. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Wind Energy Projects

State Project Name/Applicant Description

Minnesota Bitter Root Wind Farm Project/Buffalo Ridge Power Partners, 

LLC

138 MW project in Lincoln/Yellow 

Medicine Counties

Minnesota West Stevens Wind/West Stevens Wind 20 MW project in Stevens County

Minnesota Grant County Wind/Grant County Wind, LLC 20 MW project in Grant County

Minnesota Lakeswind Wind Power Plant/Project Resources Corporation 60 MW project in Becker, Clay, Ottertail 

Counties

Minnesota Noble Flat Hill Windpark I/Noble Flat Hill Windpark I, LLC 201 MW project in Clay County

Minnesota Bear Creek Wind Project 47.5 MW project in Ottertail/Todd 

Counties

North Dakota Rugby Wind Farm/Pierce County PPM Energy, Inc. N/A

North Dakota Wind Farm/Cavalier County Langdon Wind, LLC N/A

North Dakota Wind Farm/Logan County Just Wind-Wind Farm 

Development

N/A

North Dakota Wind Farm Expansion/Cavalier County Langdon Wind, LLC N/A

North Dakota Electric Generation Wind M-Power, LLC Griggs/Steele County

North Dakota 1000 MW Wind Farm/NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Oliver County

North Dakota 150 MW Border Winds Energy Project/Sequoia Energy US 

Inc.

N/A

North Dakota 125 MW Wind Energy Conversion Facility/Allete, Inc. Oliver County

North Dakota Emmons County Wind Farm Project/Just Wind, LLC Emmons County

North Dakota 175 MW Wind Farm/ Rough Rider Wind I, LLC Dickey County

North Dakota Bison I Wind Project/Allete, Inc. Morton/Oliver Counties

North Dakota Ashley Wind Power-Power Project CPV/Ashley Renewable 

Energy Company, LLC

N/A

North Dakota Luverne Wind North Field/Ottertail Power Griggs/Steele Counties

North Dakota Luverne Wind South Field/Ashtabula Wind II, LLC Griggs/Steele Counties

North Dakota 102 MW Baldwin Wind Energy Center/FPL Energy, LLC Burleigh County

North Dakota 102 MW Baldwin Wind Energy Center/NextEra Energy 

Resources LLC

Burleigh County

3.16.6 Analysis Matrix

The assessment of potential impacts is possible through the use of an interaction matrix based 

on the identified relevant activities. An interaction matrix not only lists activities and 

environmental effects, but also incorporates an association between cause and effect using 

evaluation criteria (CEQ).

Table 3.16-4 below identifies the potential cumulative impacts for the VECs identified above. As 

previously noted, cumulative impacts result from spatial (geographic) and temporal (time) 

crowding of environmental impacts. Many researchers and practitioners have used observations 

or environmental change theory to categorize how impacts build up and lead to different types 

of cause-and-effect pathways. Table 3.16-5 lists cause-and-effect pathway criteria that reflect 

common categories cited in CEQ’s Considering Cumulative Effects under the National 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-123 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Environmental Policy Act. The pathway criteria in Table 3.16-5 are used to evaluate potential 

interactions of activities in Table 3.16-4 leading to potential cumulative impacts. 

Table 3.16-4. Interaction Matrix

Resource Project Impact

Past, Present, and 

Reasonably Foreseeable 

Projects

Cumulative 

Interaction/

Pathway

Mitigation

Land Use Removal of land from 

agricultural production

Transmission Lines, Pipelines, 

and Wind Energy Facilities

Fragmentation and 

compounding effects

Span croplands to 

extent practicable; 

follow section or halfsection boundaries to 

the extent practicable; 

allow agricultural 

production under lines 

and adjacent to 

structures.

Soils Removal of prime 

farmland,erosion

Transmission Lines, Pipelines, 

and Wind Energy Facilities

Compounding effects

and Indirect effects

Span croplands to 

extent practicable; 

follow section or halfsection boundaries to 

the extent practicable; 

allow agricultural 

production under lines 

and adjacent to 

structures. Implement 

standard best 

management 

practices

Flora

Removal of 

grassland/prairie 

vegetation

Transmission Lines, Pipelines, 

and Wind Energy Facilities

Fragmentation and 

compounding effects

Revegetate with 

native species

Fauna

Displacement, avian 

collisions, habitat 

change, habitat 

fragmentation

Transmission Lines, Pipelines, 

and Wind Energy Facilities

Fragmentation and 

compounding effects

Marking of the shield 

wires and 

construction timing

Threatened 

and 

Endangered 

Species

Displacement, 

mortality, habitat 

change, habitat 

fragmentation

Transmission Lines, Pipelines, 

and Wind Energy Facilities

Fragmentation and 

compounding effects

Coordinate with 

regulatory agencies 

and implement 

project-specific 

conservation 

measures 

Visual 

Resources

Introduce pole 

structures 

Transmission Lines, Pipelines, 

and Wind Energy Facilities

Fragmentation and 

compounding effects

Parallel with existing 

linear features and 

field breaks and 

focus similar activities 

in one area.

Human 

Settlement

Displacement and 

lower property values

Transmission Lines, Pipelines, 

and Wind Energy Facilities Compounding effects

Comply with federal 

relocation 

requirements, provide 

compensation to 

impacted landowners 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-124 November 2010

Resource Project Impact

Past, Present, and 

Reasonably Foreseeable 

Projects

Cumulative 

Interaction/

Pathway

Mitigation

Recreation and 

Tourism

WPA impacts, trail 

crossings and visual 

impacts

Transmission Lines, Pipelines, 

and Wind Energy Facilities Compounding effects

Comply with federal 

regulations regarding 

permits if change a 

WPA use. Minimize 

crossings of 

recreational trails, 

consider trail location 

when identifying 

structure locations 

Water 

Resources/

Wetlands

Sedimentation, 

turbidity, runoff, and 

wetland fill and 

wetland type 

conversion

Transmission Lines, Pipelines, 

and Wind Energy Facilities

Fragmentation and 

compounding effects

Comply with state and 

federal regulations, 

develop wetland 

mitigation plan; 

maintain existing 

hydrologic 

characteristics

Table 3.16-5. Cumulative Interaction Criteria

Pathway Criteria Main Characteristics Example

Time crowding Frequent and repetitive effects on an 

environmental system

Forest harvesting rates exceeding 

regrowth

Time lags Delayed effects Exposure to carcinogens

Space crowding High spatial density of effects on an 

environmental system

Pollution discharges into streams

from nonpoint sources

Cross-boundary Effects that occur away from the source Acidic precipitation

Fragmentation Change in landscape pattern Fragmentation of natural habitat

Compounding effects Effects arising from multiple sources or 

pathways Synergism among pesticides

Indirect effects Secondary effects Commercial development following 

highway construction

Triggers and thresholds Fundamental change in system behavior or 

structure Global climate change
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-125 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

3.17 Summary of Impacts

Table 3.17-1 summarizes the resources that may be impacted as a result of construction of the 

proposed Project and the appropriate mitigation. The segment alternative impacts and mitigation 

are not summarized, but would be similar to that provided for the overall routes. 

Table 3.17-1. Summary of Route Impacts and Mitigation

Resource Impact Mitigation

Land Use Route A: Approximately 3.0 acres of land would be 

permanently impacted due to the construction of the 

transmission line (2.2 acres of agricultural land). The 

existing land use is primarily agriculture and would

remain in agriculture use since the land under or 

adjacent to the line can still be used by the landowner.

Route B: Approximately 3.2 acres of land would be 

permanently impacted due to the construction of the 

generation outlet (2.4 acres of agricultural land).

Route C: Approximately 3.0 acres of land would be 

permanently impacted due to the construction of the 

generation outlet (2.3 acres of agricultural land).

Impacts to USFWS easements may occur within the 

routes. 

Short-term impacts to residents and local business 

owners in the Study Area primarily would be related to 

disruption caused by temporary construction activities, 

such as noise. Long-term impacts may include 

displacement of residences or businesses due to 

location within the proposed Project ROW.

Potential voluntary displacement of up to two homes 

may occur near the ROW within the routes, depending 

on final ROW location.

Minnkota would work with landowners and 

regulatory agencies to minimize impacts of the

proposed Project.

To minimize impacts to land owners, Minnkota 

has agreed to the following mitigation 

measures:

The exact location of structure sites, the ROW, 

and other disturbed areas would be determined 

with landowners’ input.

The minimum area necessary would be 

disturbed.

Construction activities would be limited to the 

ROW, unless access permission is obtained 

from the landowner(s).

Landowner compensation would be established 

by individual easements.

Soils Route A: A total of approximately 3.0 acres of land 

would be permanently impacted by the transmission 

line construction. Approximately 593.8 acres of 

temporary impacts are anticipated. 

Route B: A total of approximately 3.2 acres of land 

would be permanently impacted by the transmission 

line construction. Approximately 637.0 acres of 

temporary impacts are anticipated. 

Route C: A total of approximately 3.0 acres of land 

would be permanently impacted by the transmission 

line construction. Approximately 599.6 acres of 

temporary impacts are anticipated. 

BMPs for erosion and sediment control would

be utilized to minimize wind and water erosion 

along the route. Only land needed for the 

transmission line structures would be 

permanently impacted. Temporarily disturbed 

areas that are not cultivated would be 

revegetated.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-126 November 2010

Resource Impact Mitigation

Vegetation Route A: A total of approximately 3.0 acres of land 

would be permanently impacted by the transmission 

line construction and 52 acres of woodland would be 

converted to shrubland or grassland. Approximately 

639.8 acres of temporary impacts are anticipated. 

Route B: A total of approximately 3.2 acres of land 

would be permanently impacted by the transmission 

line construction and 58.5 acres of woodland would be 

converted to shrubland or grassland. Approximately 

688.9 acres of temporary impacts are anticipated. 

Route C: A total of approximately 3.0 acres of land 

would be permanently impacted by the transmission 

line construction and about 50 acres would be 

converted to shrubland or grassland. Approximately 

644.4 acres of temporary impacts are anticipated. 

Minnkota would work with the USFWS to 

minimize impacts on easements and federalmanaged lands. Minnkota would avoid existing 

trees and shrubs as practicable. Minnkota 

would use BMPs during construction and 

operation to minimize impacts. Impacts to 

individual trees or shrubs would be replaced at 

a ratio of 2:1. Temporarily disturbed areas 

would be reseeded

Wildlife Impacts to wildlife populations are expected to be 

minimal. Potential avian and bat collisions may occur, 

but are anticipated to be relatively small.

A variety of mitigation measures would be 

implemented, as discussed in Section 3.5. 

Some examples of wildlife mitigation measures 

include continued consultation with RUS and 

USFWS, design transmission line following 

APLIC standards, preconstruction wetland and 

woodland surveys, and implementation of 

erosion control measures. 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Impacts to rare and unique natural resources are not 

anticipated.

Wetland surveys would be completed for 

wetlands prior to construction to ensure that 

transmission structures can span the wetlands. 

Minnkota has committed to marking of both 

shield wires in an alternating pattern in select 

areas, designed the line and structures per 

APLIC guidelines, and construction timing. 

Surface Water and 

Floodplain 

Resources

No impacts are anticipated to rivers, streams, 

drainageways, or floodplain resources.

To minimize impacts during construction an 

NPDES permit and SWPPP would be prepared 

and submitted to the North Dakota Department 

of Health. Minnkota would span all rivers and 

streams to the extent practicable. No structures 

would be placed within a regulatory floodway.

Wetlands No impacts are anticipated. Minnkota would mitigate impacts according to 

USACE requirements. All additional wetlands 

would be avoided to the extent practicable. 

Geologic and 

Groundwater 

Resources

No impacts to geologic and groundwater resources are 

anticipated. 

No mitigation measures are necessary.

Cultural Resources No impacts to previously identified cultural resources 

are anticipated.

Minnkota has completed a Class I Cultural 

Resources Inventory for the macro-corridors. 

Minnkota would conduct surveys prior to 

construction.

Visual The transmission line would be evident to individuals 

traveling on adjacent roads as well as residences and 

landowners that live in close proximity to the 

transmission line and substations.

The routes minimize the number of residences 

potentially impacted by the line. Minnkota 

attempted to site the routes along field lines 

away from residences. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 3-127 Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

Resource Impact Mitigation

Noise The closest occupied structure to the Center 

Substation is about 5,380 feet away; the closest 

occupied structure to the Prairie Substation is about

2,880 feet away. No impacts to noise sensitive land 

uses are anticipated. 

No mitigation measures are proposed. 

Human Health and 

Safety

No impacts are anticipated. Minnkota would follow ―prudent avoidance‖ 

methods to minimize EMF exposure and any 

potential impacts to human health. Minnkota

would conduct an EMF study. If proper 

safeguards are implemented, no additional 

mitigation is required.

Public Services No impacts are anticipated. The transmission line would be constructed 

according to the configuration identified by 

Minnkota to mitigate any potential impacts. 

Impacts to existing public services would be 

avoided to the extent practicable. 

Socioeconomics and 

Environmental 

Justice

Socioeconomic impacts are primarily positive due to 

increased expenditures during construction and the 

long term benefits of an increased tax base of the 

county due to transmission line tax. A nominal amount 

of land would be permanently removed from production 

due to the construction of the proposed Project.

The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in an 

economic or social hardship to minority or low-income

populations.

A concern of residents living near existing or proposed 

transmission lines is how proximity to the line could 

affect the value of their property.

The proposed Project is not expected to have

negative economic impacts on local and 

regional economies. As such, no mitigation

measures are proposed to address the 

socioeconomic impacts.

The payments of taxes to the state, then 

allocated to the counties in which the 

transmission line and associated infrastructure 

are located are not anticipated to generate 

negative impacts. For this reason, no mitigation 

measures are needed.

Easement payments to landowners are 

required to compensate landowners for loss of

use of the utility easement on their property

(this would include a landowner’s leased 

property). Minnkota would communicate with 

landowners regarding the placement of 

structures.

Recreational 

Resources

Impacts to recreational resources are primarily visual, 

and limited to individuals using the resources. 

Potentially one WPA may be impacted by Route A. 

The Chain of Lakes Recreation Area may be impacted 

by the three routes. The routes would span three trails. 

PLOTS parcels and USFWS easements would be 

impacted.

Minnkota would route the transmission line 

along field breaks and section lines to avoid 

state and federal managed lands. Visual 

impacts would be minimized by placement of 

structures away from these features to the 

extent possible. Access to trails, PLOTS, and 

USFWS easements would be maintained and 

recreational activity may continue.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis Page 3-128 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 4-1 Chapter 4 – Preferred Route Selection

4.0 Preferred Route Selection 

The deciding factors in selecting Route A as the preferred route are listed below. Table 4.0-1 

shows a comparison of routes A, B, and C. 

Route A would affect three more residences than Route B, but nine fewer residences 

than Route C. Placement of the 150-foot-wide ROW within the 1,000-foot-wide 

route would reduce impacts to homes or be able to avoid homes within the route. 

Route A would be the shortest in length, thereby reducing affects, environmental 

features, and cost. 

Route A would have the fewest number of poles in cropped lands, lessening the 

impact to farmers. 

All three routes affect about the same number of federal and state managed lands.

Route A would cross the Missouri River about 1.25 miles north of the existing highvoltage direct current transmission line, which would reduce the visual affect of a 

new river crossing to river users. Route A would reduce the affect to birds and

threatened and endangered species along the river by having a river crossing near an 

existing crossing point. 

Route A would reduce visual impacts to residents and travelers along state highways 

by not routing the Project within state highway rights-of-way. 

Route A has the fewest number of large water body crossings.

Route A best addresses public, agency, and tribal input and concerns raised at the 

meetings by minimizing impacts to landowners, agricultural practices, crossing the 

Missouri River at an existing crossing point, and environmental features. 

Route A has about 33 segment alternatives for routing options based upon discussions with 

landowners. As Minnkota negotiates easements and enters the state permitting process there 

could be variations with the final route alignment. However, the final alignment would be 

located within the macro-corridors. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 4 – Preferred Route Selection Page 4-2 November 2010

Table 4.0-1. Route Alternative Comparison Table

Route1

A B C

Resource

Total Length (mile) 247.4 269.6 250.4

Length (feet) 1,306,386 1,423,274 1,322,101

Total ROW2 Acres 4,498.0 4,900.4 4,552.2

Number of Structures 1,309 1,425 1,324

Impact 

Acres

Acres of Temporary Impact 593.8 637.0 599.6

Acres of Permanent Impact 3.0 3.2 3.0

Acres of Woodland Conversion3 52 59 50

Collocating

(miles)

Transmission Line (includes transmission line following highway) 8.2 2.6 10.1

Highway 12.3 15.6 4.1

Other Road 43.6 46.2 73.7

Total Existing Corridor 64.1 64.4 87.8

Homes (count)

0-75 feet from route centerline 1 0 2

75-150 feet from route centerline 1 2 0

150-300 feet from route centerline 3 2 8

300-500 feet from route centerline 6 4 10

Total Homes in 1,000-foot-wide route 11 8 20

0-100 feet beyond the route 10 2 10

100-500 feet beyond the route 22 24 19

Homes per Mile (within route) 0.04 0.03 0.08

Wetlands

Count of NWI Wetland Crossings greater than 1000 feet 5 9 8

Acres of NWI Wetland in ROW 280 294 253

Percent NWI Wetland in ROW 6.2 6.0 5.6

Land Cover

Percent Cropland within ROW 56 60 58

Percent Pasture within ROW 17 15 17

Percent Prairie within ROW 14 11 12

Percent Shrubland within ROW 4 3 4

Percent Woodland within ROW 1 1 1

Resource 

Areas

Total Resources Areas within ROW 2 1 1

Total Resources Areas within 1 Mile of Route Centerline 14 14 18

Cultural

Cultural Sites within Route 17 14 19

Cultural Sites within 1 Mile of Route 110 103 124

Center Pivot Irrigation within 0.5 Mile of Route Centerline 7 7 4

Communication Tower within Route 1 0 1

Airports within 1 Mile of Route Centerline 0 3 2

1. Route = 1,000-feet-wide

2

. ROW = 150-feet-wide

3

These impacts would be considered a permanent vegetation conversion.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 5-1 Chapter 5 – Public and Agency Coordination

5.0 Public and Agency Coordination

Minnkota pursued a public outreach effort that provided opportunities for landowner and other 

stakeholders to be involved in the routing process. Minnkota engaged landowners, interested 

members of the public, federal, and state agencies, and local government units. This section 

discusses outreach efforts in general. Refer to Appendix I for meeting notes and mailings

Initial meetings with federal and state permitting authorities started in April 2009. Meetings with 

the counties were held in April and May 2009. Minnkota began hosting a series of public open 

house meetings in the Study Area to discuss the proposed Project and identify potential issues 

and concerns in May 2009. 

5.1 Public Participation

Minnkota engaged the public from the initial stages of proposed Project development and 

continued public involvement throughout each stage of the Project by using a variety of 

outreach tools. Minnkota voluntarily hosted three rounds of public open house meetings within 

the proposed Project area. Table 5.1-1, below, identifies the Project phase, meeting dates, 

meeting locations, meeting materials and number of attendees for each round of meetings. 

Minnkota hosted pre-scoping and post-scoping public open house meetings, while the RUS 

hosted the Scoping meetings held in November 2009. Detailed information from the 2009 

public participation for this proposed Project is located in the Scoping Decision/Report 

prepared by RUS and published February 2010. 

In order to notify landowners of each round of public open house meetings, Minnkota used the 

following type of mail and media outreach: 

Direct mail notice to landowners with property within the proposed Project area.

Press release to television stations and radio stations within the proposed Project 

area.

Newspaper advertisements in the local newspapers within the proposed Project area.

Table 5.1-1. Public Open House Meetings

Project 

Phase Meeting Dates Meeting Locations Meeting Materials Total Attendees

Pre-Scoping 

(Hosted by 

Minnkota)

May 6-7, 12-14, 

2009

Washburn, Wing, 

Carrington, Cooperstown, 

Grand Forks

Informational boards, meeting 

handout, project video, aerial 

maps of potential project corridors 

161

Pre-Scoping

(Hosted by 

Minnkota)

August 20, 2009 Center

Informational boards, meeting 

handout, project video, aerial 

maps of potential project corridors

53

Scoping

(Hosted by 

RUS)

November 16 - 19,

2009

Grand Forks, 

Cooperstown, Carrington, 

McClusky, Wilton, Center

Informational boards, meeting 

handouts/resource factsheets, 

aerials maps of macro-corridors

187

Post-Scoping

(Hosted by 

Minnkota)

April 12-15, 2010

Grand Forks, Finley, 

Carrington, McClusky, 

Wilton, Center

Information boards, meeting 

handout/resource factsheets, 

mapping station, aerial maps of 

proposed routes, 30 minute 

presentation

503
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 5 – Public and Agency Coordination Page 5-2 November 2010

In addition to public open house meetings, Minnkota used a project-specific Web site and 

project-specific information line to reach interested members of the public. Minnkota hosted a 

Web site at www.minnkotacgf.com. The Web site content varied by the Project phase, but 

always provided the following information: 

Home Page – General Project information, announcements, maps, and video;

Project Page – Detailed Project information;

Contact Us Page – Project manager contact information and links to log a comment 

or be added to the project mailing list;

Resource Page – Glossary of terms, public meeting materials, factsheets, and RUS 

documents;

FAQ Page – List of frequently asked questions and answers. 

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

information line provided 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, was modified with each phase of the proposed Project to include 

updated Project information along with the public open house meeting times, dates, and 

locations.

Minnkota collected comments from the public to identify concerns about the proposed Project

or routing suggestions within the proposed Project area. The public could log a comment in one 

of the following manners:

1. Through the Web site;

2. Leave a comment on the toll-free project information line;

3. Email, mail or phone a comment to Minnkota;

4. Fill out a comment form during open house meetings;

5. Voice a comment to a Project team member at the open house meeting. 

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

public, Minnkota developed a comment management protocol. All comments were addressed in 

one of the four ways: (1) a return phone call, (2) an email, (3) a mailing with letter and resources 

information, (4) or discussed internally and added to the Project database. 

Minnkota will continue to notify the public of Project milestones through Project completion. 

5.2 Federal, State, and Local Agency Consultation

In April 2009, Minnkota sent letters to initiate correspondence with federal agencies, state 

agencies, and county commissioners within the proposed Project Study Area. Table 5-2-1 

provides information of all agency mailings for the proposed Project. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 5-3 Chapter 5 – Public and Agency Coordination

Table 5.2-1. Agency Mailings

Agency Type Purpose From Mailing Date

Federal and state agencies Project introduction Minnkota 4/27/2009

County Commissioners Project introduction Minnkota 4/22/2009

Federal and state agencies River crossing site visit RUS 9/16/2009

Federal and state agencies AES and MCS review and 

invitation to Scoping Meeting

RUS 11/2/2009

USFWS Letter to initiate Section 7 

Consultation

RUS 6/4/2010

Minnkota held meetings with federal, state, and local agencies to provide general Project 

information and provide updates as the Project progressed. Table 5.2-2 provides a list of agency 

consultation meetings from April 2009 to May 2010. 

Minnkota initiated agency meetings in April and May 2009. At these meetings, Minnkota 

provided a PowerPoint presentation with general Project introduction materials including the 

proposed Project background, need, Study Area, permits required, and approval process. 

Minnkota provided an opportunity for the agencies to identify and discuss any specific concerns 

related to the proposed Project. 

In September 2009, a meeting was held for federal and state agencies to review the proposed 

river crossing routes. Minnkota provided two pontoon boats to review crossings along the 

Missouri River. In addition to the Missouri River, the agencies reviewed potential crossings at 

the Sheyenne River. Minnkota and RUS received comments from the agencies during these site 

reviews to assist in the determination of crossing options with minimal impacts. 

The USACE hosts bi-weekly interagency meetings in Bismarck, North Dakota for other federal 

and state agencies. Minnkota attended two meetings (April 30, 2009, and April 15, 2010) to 

provide a status update of the Project to the state and federal agencies in attendance.

As necessary or requested by agencies, Minnkota will continue to meet with federal, state, and 

local agencies regarding the proposed Project. 

On April 21, 2010, the RUS hosted a meeting with the USFWS to initiate the Section 7 

Consultation process. Discussions included the Section 7 Consultation schedule, biological 

assessment, and federally listed species. On June 4, 2010, the RUS mailed a letter to the USFWS 

North Dakota Ecological Services Field Office of their intended approach to consultation under 

Section 7(a) of the ESA.

Table 5.2-2. Agency Meetings

Agency Meeting Date

North Dakota PSC Meeting 4/13/2009

McLean County Commissioners 4/20/2009

Eddy County Commissioners 4/21/2009

Foster County Commissioners 4/21/2009

Grand Forks County Commissioners 4/21/2009

Traill County Commissioners 4/21/2009
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 5 – Public and Agency Coordination Page 5-4 November 2010

Agency Meeting Date

Nelson County Commissioners 4/29/2009

Burleigh County Commissioners 4/29/2009

North Dakota Inter-Agency Meeting (NDGFD, USACE, BOR, USFWS, FHWA, NRCS, 

NDDOT, ND Office of State Engineer) 4/30/2009

Griggs County Commissioners 5/5/2009

Kidder County Commissioners 5/5/2009

Sheridan County Commissioners 5/5/2009

Steele County Commissioners 5/5/2009

Wells County Commissioners 5/5/2009

Oliver County Commissioners 5/7/2009

Federal and State Agency Boat Tour – NDGF, USACE, SWC, NDPRD 9/23/2009

USFWS 9/24/2009

Agency Scoping Meeting (BOR, ND P&R, ND SWC, USACE, USFWS, ND SHPO, 

FHWA) 11/19/2009

North Dakota Inter-Agency Meeting (ND SHPO, USFWS, NDDOT, USACE, FHWA, ND 

SWC, FAA) 4/15/2010

USFWS – Section 7 Consultation 4/21/2010

5.3 Tribal Consultation

RUS is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470f, 

and it’s implementing regulations, 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.3-800.7, to enter into consultation with 

agencies and other parties, including Native American tribes, that may have an interest in the 

effects to historic properties by the proposed Project. RUS is coordinating consultation with 

tribal representatives and governments.

RUS invited the tribes listed in Table 5.3-1 to participate in preliminary consultation and Section 

106 Consultation for the proposed Project. To initiate consultation, RUS sent a letter on 

September 10, 2009 providing general information on the proposed Project. In addition, this 

letter invited tribal representatives to field meetings in September 2009 at the Missouri and 

Sheyenne rivers. Both river crossings have a high potential for cultural resources, and Native 

American tribes are being consulted during the preparation of a PA. 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 5-5 Chapter 5 – Public and Agency Coordination

Table 5.3-1. Initial Project Tribal Contact 

Nation Nation

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

No tribal invites participated in the Scoping Meetings or attended the September 2009 river

meetings. Following these meetings, Minnkota contacted each tribe directly to determine its 

interest in the proposed 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 5.3-2. 

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 listed in Table 5.3-2. A representative of the Wahpekute, 

a non-Federally recognized tribe was also consulted.

Table 5.3-2. Tribal Consultation List 

Nation Date 

Mailed Response Consultation Status 

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Indians 5/8/2009 5/14/2009 - Letter Declined participation

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation

5/8/2009 12/15/09 - Phone Consulting party

Bois Forte Band of Chippewa Indians 5/8/2009 6/10/2009 – Letter Declined participation

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the 

Cheyenne River Reservation

5/8/2009 12/01/09 – Phone Consulting party

Crow Tribe (Apsaalooke Nation) 5/8/2009 No response to date Consulting party

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow 

Creek Reservation

5/8/2009 No Response to Date Consulting party

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 5/8/2009 12/03/09 – Phone Declined participation

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa

5/8/2009 No response to date Consulting party

Grand Portage Band of lake Superior 

Chippewa

5/8/2009 09/21/09 – email Consulting party

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower 

Brule Reservation

5/8/2009 3/22/109 – phone Consulting party
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 5 – Public and Agency Coordination Page 5-6 November 2010

Nation Date 

Mailed Response Consultation Status 

Lower Sioux Indian Community 5/8/2009 No response to date Consulting party

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 5/8/2009 No response to date Individual bands 

consulted

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians 5/8/2009 5/15/2009 – Letter Consulting party

Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge 

Reservation

5/8/2009 4/7/10 – email Declined participation

Northern Cheyenne 3/22/10 12/02/09 – phone Consulting party

Prairie Island Indian Community 5/8/2009 No response to date Consulting party

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 5/8/2009 12/17/09 – phone Declined participation

Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud 

Indian Reservation

5/8/2009 12/02/09 – phone Consulting party

Santee Sioux Nation 5/8/2009 12/08/08 – email Consulting party

Spirit Lake Tribe 5/8/2009 3/30/10 - phone Consulting party

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake 

Traverse Reservation

5/8/2009 12/01/09 – phone Consulting party

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 5/8/2009 Y6/11/2009 – Email Consulting party

Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort 

Berthold Reservation

5/8/2009 12/02/09 – phone Consulting party

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa 

Indians

5/8/2009 12/03/09 – phone Consulting party

Upper Sioux Community 5/8/2009 3/15/10 – phone Consulting party

White Earth Band of Minnesota 

Chippewa Tribe

5/8/2009 12/02/09 – phone Consulting party

To continue Section 106 Consultation for the proposed Project, RUS hosted a meeting on April 

22, 2010 in Bismarck, North Dakota. RUS sent an email on March 22, 2010 inviting tribal 

representatives to participate in the meeting. The meeting was intended to discuss proposed 

route alternatives and begin preparation of the PA. Three tribes participated in the meeting. 

Tribal representatives requested an additional meeting to visit the proposed Project river 

crossings including the Missouri River, Sheyenne River, and James River. 

Per participant request during the April 22, 2010 Section 106 Consultation meeting, RUS hosted 

a meeting for tribal representatives and agencies to review the proposed Project river crossings 

and continue preparation of the PA on June 8-10, 2010. Representatives from two tribes, 

(Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe) participated in the meeting. 

RUS will continue to consult with the active tribal and agency representatives to finalize the PA. 

A meeting was hosted by RUS on August 17, 2010, for tribal representatives interested in 

participating and gathering more information on the proposed Project. RUS worked with the 

tribes present, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate and Standing Rock Sioux, to develop an approach for 

cultural surveys and identify information the tribes had to share regarding the Study Area. RUS 

will continue to consult with the tribes to finalize the cultural survey approach and the PA.

In general, the tribes who participated in the consultation meetings expressed concerns that 

there may be areas within the proposed Project that may be important to them. The tribes 
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 5-7 Chapter 5 – Public and Agency Coordination

indicated that there is a possibility that the Project could affect spiritual or cultural resources 

particularly near major river crossings and areas of higher elevation adjacent a permanent water 

source, though tribes stressed that unrecorded burials might be found anywhere throughout the 

corridor. 
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 5 – Public and Agency Coordination Page 5-8 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 6-1 Chapter 6 – Required Permits or Approvals

6.0 Identification of Required Permits or Approvals

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

agencies prior to constructing the proposed Project. Agencies with primary approval/permitting 

authority include RUS and PSC. Table 6.0-1 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 and enters into the state permitting process.

Table 6.0-1. Potential Required Permits and Approvals

Agency Type of Permit, Regulatory Compliance, or 

Coordination Need

Federal

Rural Utilities Service

Approval of Financial Assistance Approval of Financial Assistance

NEPA Compliance, Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act Section 7 Consultation under NEPA

NEPA Compliance, Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act coordination Section 106 Consultation under NEPA

NEPA Compliance, Native American Consultation Section 106 Consultation under NEPA

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

Section 7 Consultation under NEPA

Right-of-Way Permit

Needed if permanent disturbance to land 

under a Grassland Easement or wetland 

under a Wetland Easement

Special Use Permit

Needed if temporary disturbance to land 

under a Grassland Easement or wetland 

under a Wetland Easement

Compatibility of Disturbed Easements

If constructed in wetlands within wetland 

easements or in grassland easements, 

then compatibility analysis is required

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Permit required for dredging or filling in 

jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

Section 10 permit if the proposed Project 

requires structures or work in or affecting

navigable waters

Construction Plan Approval

Construction plan and permit will be 

required for construction in or adjacent to 

jurisdictional waters

Federal Aviation 

Administration

FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed 

Construction or Alteration

The FAA must confirm that construction 

of the proposed Project does not 

constitute a hazard to air navigation

FAA Form 7460-2 - Notice of Actual Construction 

or Alteration

Notifies FAA of actual constructed or 

altered structure
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 6 – Required Permits or Approvals Page 6-2 November 2010

Agency Type of Permit, Regulatory Compliance, or 

Coordination Need

FAA Form 7461-1, Notice of Proposed 

Construction Hazard Determination

Notifies FAA of proposed structures that 

might affect navigable airspace. Form 

requires proposed markings and lighting. 

FAA must review possible impacts to air 

safety and navigation, as well as the 

potential for adverse effects on radar 

systems.

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture – Natural 

Resources Conservation 

Service

Farmland Conversion Form - Form AD-1006 Farmland conversion impact rating 

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure 

(SPCC) Plan 

Required if the substation facility has 

greater than 1,320 gallons of oil. Current 

SPCC Plans will be revised as 

necessary. A copy of the plan will be 

maintained on file with the substation’s 

owner/operator and will be reviewed by 

the certifying engineer every five years. 

State

Public Service 

Commission

Certificate of Corridor Compatibility

Required prior to construction of a 

transmission facility; designates corridor 

within which a route may be located

Route Permit

Required prior to construction of a 

transmission facility; designates route 

location within approved corridor

Department of Health

401 Water Quality Certification Required for fill in jurisdictional Waters of

the United States

NPDES Permit: General Construction Storm 

Water

Required for disturbance of over 1 acre of 

land. Must prepare a Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)

Department of 

Emergency Management

Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA) Tier II report

Required for owner/operators of facilities 

containing hazardous materials. A copy 

of the report must be filed annually by 

March 1st

Parks and Recreation

Department Natural Heritage Inventory

Compliance with NDCC 20.1-02-05 –

Management programs have been 

established for protection of threatened 

and endangered species in North Dakota. 

North Dakota does not have a list of 

threatened and endangered species

State Water Commission 

– Office of State 

Engineer

State Sovereign Lands Permit

If a project’s proposed construction 

activities could impact an island or bed of 

a navigable water or stream, a Sovereign 

Lands Permit must be obtained from the 

North Dakota State Water Commission, 

Office of the State Engineer

Conditional Water Permit Water appropriation
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 6-3 Chapter 6 – Required Permits or Approvals

Agency Type of Permit, Regulatory Compliance, or 

Coordination Need

State Historical Society of 

North Dakota

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act Coordination

Compliance with NDCC 55-03-01 and 55-

03-01.1 and Coordination with Section 

106 of the NHPA is required for projects

considered a federal undertaking (i.e.,

federal funding, USACE)

Permit to Investigate Effects on Cultural 

Resources

Compliance with NDCC 55-03 to assess 

the potential project effects to cultural 

resources

North Dakota State 

Highway Patrol Overheight/Overweight Permit

Permit required for hauling construction 

equipment and materials on state 

highways. Contractors will obtain as 

necessary

State Land Department Right-of-Way Permit Permit to obtain an easement on a state 

surface tract

Department of 

Transportation

Road Approach/Access Permit Permit required for construction of access 

roads from state highways

Utility Permit/Risk Management Documents Permit required for utility crossings on 

state highway ROW

Local

Counties – Barnes, 

Burleigh, Eddy (some 

township with permit), 

Foster (one township with 

permit), Griggs, Kidder, 

McLean, Oliver, Sheridan 

(one township with 

permit), Steele

Conditional Use Permits

Permit may be required for project 

construction depending on zoning 

regulations

Building Permit Permit may be required for substation 

construction and generation outlet line

Haul Road Agreement

Permit may be required for hauling 

construction equipment and materials on 

county roads

Utility Permit Permit required for utility crossings on 

county road ROW

Townships – Cass Co. 

(all townships), Eddy Co. 

(some townships retain 

permitting), Foster Co. 

(Bordelach Township), 

Grand Forks Co. (all 

townships), Sheridan Co. 

(Berlin Township), Traill 

Co. (all towships), Wells 

Co. (all townships) 

Conditional Use Permits

Permit may required for project 

construction depending on zoning 

regulations

Cities Building Permit Permit required if construction within city 

municipal boundary

Miscellaneous

Railway Companies

Temporary Occupancy Permit Required for any work within railroad 

ROW

Wire Line Crossing or Longitudinal 

Communication and Electric Permit

Required for locations where a project

crosses or is within railroad ROW
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 6 – Required Permits or Approvals Page 6-4 November 2010

Agency Type of Permit, Regulatory Compliance, or 

Coordination Need

Pipeline Companies Utility Crossing Permit Permit required to cross existing pipeline 

facilities

Transmission Line 

Utility Companies Utility Crossing Permit Permit required to cross existing transmission facilities
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 7-1 Chapter 7 – References

7.0 References

Air Quality Standard (Federal). 40 CFR Part 50, Subpart 15. 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=9754e31d9f03145d116e63115ff36dea&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40

:2.0.1.1.1.0.1.17&idno=40.

American Transmission Company. 2005. Property Values. 

http://www.atcllc.com/PropertyValues.shtml.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection On 

Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the 

California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA. 

Bluemle, John P., 2006. Surface Geology, Grace City Quadrangle, North Dakota, 1:24,000. 

North Dakota Geological Survey. 

Council on Environmental Quality. National Environmental Policy Act – Cumulative Impacts 

(40 CFR 1508.7). http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm.

Dirk, C.N.G. 2006a. North Dakota Animal Species of Concern. [Unpublished list]. North 

Dakota Natural Heritage Program, Bismarck. 11 pp.

Dirk, C.N.G. 2006b. North Dakota Plant Species of Concern. [Unpublished list]. North Dakota 

Natural Heritage Program, Bismarck. 7 pp.

Elliott-Smith, Elise and Susan M. Haig. 2004. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from 

the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/002. 

Accessed March 23, 2010.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Report No. 1005570, 2004. Electromagnetic Interference 

With Implanted Medical Devices: 1997-2003. A summary is available at 

http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?space=CommunityPage&cached=true&parentnam

e=ObjMgr&parentid=2&control=SetCommunity&CommunityID=404&RaiseDocID=

000000000001005570&RaiseDocType=Abstract_id. Accessed April 20, 2010.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed April 20, 2010.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 - Objections 

Affecting Navigable Airspace. 

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/content/FAR_Part77.pdf.

Federal Aviation Administration 2008. Airports. 

http://www.bts.gov/programs/geographic_information_services/.

Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Runways. 

http://www.bts.gov/programs/geographic_information_services/.

FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. 2-22-2009. Communication Towers. 

http://wireless.fcc.gov/geographic/index.htm?job=licensing_database_extracts.

Grand Forks Regional Airport Authority. 2006. Land Use Compatibility Plan for Grand Forks 

International Airport. http://www.gfkairport.com/authority/pdf/land_use.pdf. Accessed 

April 21, 2010.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 7 – References Page 7-2 November 2010

HDR Engineering, Inc, Great River Energy, Minnkota Power Cooperative. 2003-2009. 

Transmission lines.

HDR Engineering, Inc. 2009. Wind Turbine or Groups of Turbines, Center Pivot Irrigation. Data 

collected from field surveys, aerial photography interpretation and public open houses.

Licht, Daniel and Louis E. Huffman. Gray Wolf Status in North Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service/University of Nebraska Lincoln. 1996. 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=usfwspubs. 

Accessed May 10, 2010.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. March 1999. 

http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/Sound.pdf. Accessed May 2010.

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 2010a. 2009 Electric Load Forecast. Prepared by Clearspring 

Energy Advisors, LLC. January 2010.

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 2010b. Raptor Nest Survey Report for the Center to Grand Forks 

Project. Unpublished report. HDR Engineering, Inc. May 2010.

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. October 2009. Macro-Corridor Study (MCS). 

http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm#Minnkota_Power_Cooperative,_Inc._.

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. October 2009. Alternative Evaluation Study (AES). 

http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm#Minnkota_Power_Cooperative,_Inc._.

National Electric Safety Code (NESC). IEEE Standards Association. 

http://standards.ieee.org/nesc/ Accessed April 24, 2010.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1794. 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?sid=35800979288dae9318221183ff0a8f05&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfrv1

1_02.tpl#1700.

National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS). 1999. Heath Effects from Exposure 

to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington, DC. NIH Publication No. 

99-4493. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf. Accessed April 20, 2010.

National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS). 2002. EMF: Electric and Magnetic 

Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power. Questions and Answers.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/emf-02.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2010.

National Park Service. North Country National Scenic Trail information. 

http://www.nps.gov/noco/index.htm. 

National Park Service. Lewis and Clark National Scenic Trail information. 

http://www.nps.gov/lecl/index.htm.

National Park Service. North Country Scenic Trail line. Shapefile sent to Brian Hunker at HDR 

from Ken Howell, North Country National Scenic Trail Land Protection Coordinator, 

on 2009-May-20.

National Park Service. 1-1-2007. NRHP Sites. Data collect from: 

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome on 6-26-2009.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 7-3 Chapter 7 – References

Natural Resources Conservation Service. Prime and Unique Farmlands – Identification of 

important farmlands. 7 CFR, 657.5 (a) (1). http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/657-identificationimportant-farmlands-19905813. Accessed April 2010. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service - National Cartography and Geospatial Center. State 

Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database. Soils Data Mart. 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/USDGSM.aspx.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: April 12, 2010.

North Country Trail Association. North Country National Scenic Trail information. 

http://www.northcountrytrail.org/.

North Dakota Century Code. North Dakota Energy Conversion Facility Siting Overview. 

NDCC Rules 69-06-08-02. http://www.legis.nd.gov/.

North Dakota Department of Transportation. 6-27-2003. Tribal Lands. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

North Dakota Department of Transportation. 3-24-2008. Incorporated areas. 

http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

North Dakota Department of Transportation. 10-10-2008. State and federal roads. 

http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

North Dakota Department of Transportation. 4-17-2008. County and local roads. 

http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

North Dakota Department of Transportation. 3-9-2009. Railroads. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

North Dakota Department of Transportation., KLJ, HDR. 2001-2009. Pipelines.

North Dakota Department of Transportation., HDR. 2008-2009. Electrical substations. 

Downloaded from http://www.nd.gov/gis/. Updated with aerial photography and field 

surveys.

North Dakota Game and Fish Department Wildlife Management Area Guide -

http://gf.nd.gov/hunting/wildlife.html.

North Dakota Game and Fish. PLOTs information 

http://web.apps.state.nd.us/imf/imf.jsp?site=NDGFPLOTSGuide. Accessed on 

February 9, 2010.

North Dakota Game and Fish. 2009. Maps/Data Resources. Online: http://gf.nd.gov/maps/. 

Accessed 2009. 

North Dakota Game and Fish. Wildlife Action Plan. 100 Species of Conservation Priority. 2009. 

Online: http://gf.nd.gov/conservation/levels-list.html. Accessed 2009.

North Dakota Game and Fish. 1-2003. USBOR Land. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

North Dakota Game and Fish. 1-2003. State Park or Recreation Areas. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

North Dakota Game and Fish. 2-2006. State WMA. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

North Dakota Game and Fish. Data downloaded on: 2-9-2009. PLOTS Lands. 

http://web.apps.state.nd.us/imf/imf.jsp?site=NDGFPLOTSGuide.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 7 – References Page 7-4 November 2010

North Dakota Game and Fish. 6-25-2009. Threatened and Endangered Species data. Provided by 

NDPRD staff.North Dakota Legislative Council for the Energy Development and 

Transmission Committee (Legislative Document #19041 ―Allocation of Wind RightsBackground Memorandum‖ October 2009, 

http://www.legis.nd.gov/docs/pdf/19041.pdf).

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. 

http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/recreation/trails/lctrail.htm.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. Sakakawea Scenic Byway. 

http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/byways/find/Sakakawea/index.html.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI). 

http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/Nature/Preserves.htm.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. Natural Heritage Inventory. 2009. Guide to 

North Dakota Biological and Conservation Data. 8 pp. Received from North Dakota Park and 

Recreation Department July 11, 2009.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 6-11-2009. Threatened and Endangered Species 

data. Provided by NDPRD staff.

North Dakota Rules – Air Pollution Control, Article 33-15-02-04.1. 

http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/html/33-15.html.

NRHP (National Register of Historic Places). 2010. Registered Historic and Cultural Sites in 

North Dakota Data. 

North Dakota State Water Commission and US Geological Survey. February 2008. Water 

1:100,000 polygons and lines. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Laws, Regulations and Interpretations. 

http://www.osha.gov/comp-links.html. Accessed April 23, 2010.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration's Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(RITA/BTS). 2006. U.S. Military Installations. 

http://www.bts.gov/programs/geographic_information_services/.

Rumrill, J.N., and Canter, L.W., "Addressing Future Actions in Cumulative Effects Assessment," 

Project Appraisal, Vol. 12, No. 4, December, 1997, pp. 207-218. 

Rural Utilities Service. Bulletin 1794A-603. Scoping Guide for RUS Funded Projects Requiring 

Environmental Assessments with Scoping and Environmental Impact Statements.

http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/bulletin.htm. Accessed 2010.

Rural Utilities Service. March 2010. Scoping Report. 

http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm#Minnkota_Power_Cooperative,_Inc._

Scholten, A, Joosten, S. and Silney, J. March 2004. Unipolar Cardiac Pacemakers in Electromagnetic 

Fields of High Voltage Overhead Lines. FEMU, University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.

Shoemaker, Darryl J. 1994. Cumulative Environmental Assessment. Department of Geography 

Publication Series No. 42. Waterloo: University of Waterloo, ON.

Snowmobile North Dakota and North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. January 2008. 

Snowmobile trails. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 7-5 Chapter 7 – References

Stehn, Tom and Tom Wassenich. 2007. Whooping Crane Collisions with Power Lines: An Issue 

Paper. Tom Stehn, USFWS, Whooping Crane Coordinator. Tom Wassenich Texas State 

University – San Marcos, TX.

Strong, Laurence L., H. Thomas Sklebar, and Kevin E. Kermes. 2005. North Dakota GAP 

analysis project. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/projects/ndgap/ Version 12 JUN2006.

Thompson, Bruce C., Jerome A. Jackson, Joannna Burger, Laura A. Hill, Eileen M. Kirsch and 

Jonathan L. Atwood. 1997. Least Tern (Sterna antillarum), The Birds of North America Online 

(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/290. Accessed March 23, 

2010.

The Nature Conservancy. December 2007. TNC Preserves. GIS data. Provided by TNC regional 

staff.The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Cross Ranch Preserve. Online: 

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/northdakota/preserves/art

9055.html. Access July 2009.

Toivonen, L. Valjus, J.. et. al. 1991. The Influence of Elevated 50Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields on 

Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers: the Role of the Lead Configuration and Programming Sensitivity.

Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology. 14:2114-2122.

United State Army Corps of Engineers. 1-2003. USACE Land. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

United States Census Bureau. Top Occupations, Race and Ethnicity Populations, Census 2000 

Summary File 3. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet. Accessed 

April 15, 2010.

United States Census Bureau. 2000. United States Census 2000. www.census.gov. Accessed June 

2009.

United States Census Bureau (BOC). 2000. State boundary. http://www.census.gov

United States Department of Transportation (US DOT), Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA). 1963. Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 77. 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/ Accessed April 21, 2010. 

United States Department of Agriculture. National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2007 Census of 

Agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. Accessed April 2010.

United States Department of Agriculture. NRCS SSURGO Statewide Soils Data North Dakota. 

http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/ .

United States Department of Agriculture Rural Utility Service. 2002. ―Scoping Guide for RUS 

Projects Requiring Environmental Assessments with Scoping and Environmental Impact 

Statements‖. RUS Bulletin 1794A-603. February 2002.

United States Department of Agriculture. FSA Aerial Photography Field Office. 2006. Aerial 

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

United States Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division. 2008. County 

Boundary. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

United States Federal Register. September 11, 2002. http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/birds/pipingplover/fedreg091102.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2010.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 7 – References Page 7-6 November 2010

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. October 2009. USFWS Easements. Provided by USFWS 

regional staff July 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Information on grassland easements. 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/realty/Grassesmt.htm.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Information on wetland easements. 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/realty/Wetesmt.htm.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Information on conservation easements. 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pfw/r6pfw8b.htm.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. Accessed May 3, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Gray Wolf (Canis lupus). 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/biologue.htm. Accessed May 5, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Whooping Crane; Species Status and Fact Sheet. 

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WhoopingCrane/whoopingcrane-fact-2001.htm. 

Accessed May 5, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Critical Habitat for Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). 

http://www.fws.gov/plover/. Accessed May 17, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Least Tern (Interior Population). 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/birds/tern.html. Accessed May 7, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). 

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/STURGEON.HTM. Accessed May 5, 

2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Black-footed ferret. 

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/revfact.chy.

pdf. Accessed May 5, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dacotae). 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/dask.html. Accessed May 5, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory. 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. America’s National Wildlife Refuge System. 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/nd.html.

United State Forest Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. August 2004. North 

Dakota Gap Analysis Land Cover Database. http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 01-2003. USFWS WDA and WPA. 

http://www.nd.gov/gis/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 9. 12-2002. National Wildlife Refuge Boundaries. 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/gis/index.html.

United States Geological Survey. 2006. Ecoregions of North and South Dakota. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/ndsdeco/nodak.htm. Accessed March 

19, 2010.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Page 7-7 Chapter 7 – References

U.S. Geological Survey. National Land Cover Data Base. Online: www.mrlc.gov. Accessed 2009.

―Use of Global Positioning System (GPS) Receivers Under Power-Line Conductors‖ published 

in the IEEE Transactions On Power (October 2002).

Witsch, William and James Gosselink. Wetlands: 3rd Ed. New York. 920 pp.
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Chapter 7 – References Page 7-8 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 Figures

Figures
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Figures November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 A-1 Appendix A

Appendix A:

North Dakota Public Service Commission Siting Criteria
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Appendix A A-2 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 B-1 Appendix B

Appendix B:

Detailed Route Maps
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Appendix B B-2 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 C-1 Appendix C

Appendix C:

All Segments Data Table
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Appendix C C-2 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 D-1 Appendix D

Appendix D:

Route Segment Descriptions
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Appendix D D-2 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 E-1 Appendix E

Appendix E:

Environmental Data by Segment Alternative
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Appendix E E-2 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 F-1 Appendix F

Appendix F:

Cultural Resource Tables
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Appendix F F-2 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 G-1 Appendix G

Appendix G:

Visual Simulations
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Appendix G G-2 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 H-1 Appendix H

Appendix H:

EMF Summary Report
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Appendix H H-2 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.
Rural Utilities Service EA Center to Grand Forks Project

November 2010 I-1 Appendix I

Appendix I:

Meetings Notes
Center to Grand Forks Project Rural Utilities Service EA

Appendix I I-2 November 2010

This page intentionally left blank.