Environmental Assessment 

 

PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative 

Prepared for: 

Rural Utilities Service 

Prepared by: 

Tetra Tech 

4900 Pearl East Circle, Suite 300W 

Boulder, CO 80301 

June 2009 

Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 i 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose for Federal Agency Action .................................................................................3

1.2.1 Rural Utilities Service ...............................................................................................................3

1.2.2 Western Area Power Administration ........................................................................................3

1.2.3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................4

1.3 Federal Environmental Process.......................................................................................4

1.4 Public Participation ..........................................................................................................4

1.5 Other Authorizations ........................................................................................................4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................7

2.1 Development of Alternatives............................................................................................7

2.1.1 Site Alternatives Considered....................................................................................................7

2.1.2 Evaluating Alternatives.............................................................................................................8

2.1.3 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................9

2.2 Description of Site A Project (Proposed Action) ..............................................................9

2.2.1 Site Layout..............................................................................................................................10

2.3 Alternatives to Site A .....................................................................................................15

2.3.1 Site B ......................................................................................................................................15

2.3.2 No Action Alternative..............................................................................................................15

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.......................17

3.1 Land Use .......................................................................................................................17

3.1.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................17

3.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................19

3.2 Wetlands and Floodplains .............................................................................................21

3.2.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................21

3.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................27

3.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................28

3.3.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................28

3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................34

3.4 Special Status Species ..................................................................................................35

3.4.1 Federally-Listed Species ........................................................................................................36

3.4.2 State Species of Concern.......................................................................................................37

3.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources ..........................................................................................39

3.5.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................39

3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................44

3.6 Vegetation......................................................................................................................48

3.6.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................48

3.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................60

3.7 Soils ...............................................................................................................................61
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 ii 

3.7.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................61

3.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................62

3.8 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................63

3.8.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................63

3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................63

3.9 Water Quality .................................................................................................................64

3.9.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................64

3.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................67

3.10 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................67

3.10.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................67

3.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................67

3.11 Transportation................................................................................................................68

3.11.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................68

3.11.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................73

3.12 Noise..............................................................................................................................73

3.12.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................73

3.12.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................74

3.13 Radio and Television Interference .................................................................................74

3.13.1 Site A ......................................................................................................................................75

3.13.2 Site B ......................................................................................................................................75

3.14 Human Health and Safety..............................................................................................75

3.14.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................75

3.14.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................76

3.15 Socioeconomic Conditions and Community Resources ................................................76

3.15.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................76

3.15.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................77

3.16 Environmental Justice....................................................................................................78

3.16.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................78

3.16.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................79

4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .....................................................................................................81

4.1 Land Use .......................................................................................................................81

4.2 Wetlands and Floodplains .............................................................................................81

4.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................81

4.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources ..........................................................................................82

4.5 Vegetation......................................................................................................................82

4.6 Soils ...............................................................................................................................82

4.7 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................82

4.8 Water Quality .................................................................................................................82

4.9 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................82

4.10 Transportation................................................................................................................82

4.11 Noise..............................................................................................................................82

4.12 Radio and Television Interference .................................................................................83
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 iii 

4.13 Human Health and Safety..............................................................................................83

4.14 Socioeconomic ..............................................................................................................83

4.15 Environmental Justice....................................................................................................83

5.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ..............................................................................85

5.1 Land Use Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................85

5.2 Wetlands Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................85

5.3 Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures.........................................................................85

5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Measures ..........................................................86

5.5 Fish and Wildlife Measures............................................................................................87

5.6 Vegetation Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................88

5.7 Soils Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................88

5.8 Air Quality Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................88

5.9 Water Quality Mitigation Measures................................................................................88

5.10 Aesthetics Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................88

5.11 Transportation Mitigation Measures...............................................................................89

5.12 Noise Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................89

5.13 Health and Safety Mitigation Measures .........................................................................89

5.14 Social and Economic Conditions Mitigation Measures ..................................................90

5.15 Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures...................................................................90

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................91

List of Tables 

Table 1 Summary of Disturbance Acres within Native Vegetation Types.....................................ES-2

Table 2 Potential Impact Index Scores ...............................................................................................9

Table 3 Major Land Uses in Site A ...................................................................................................17

Table 4 Major Land Uses in Site B ...................................................................................................19

Table 5 Disturbed Acres- Land Use.................................................................................................20

Table 6 Summary of NWI Wetland Occurrence and Extent by Classification in Site A ....................21

Table 7 Summary of Jurisdictional Wetland WUS Occurrence and Extent by Classification 

in Site A ............................................................................................................................22

Table 8 Summary of NWI Wetland Occurrence and Extent by Classification in Site B ....................27

Table 9 Summary of Jurisdictional Wetland WUS Occurrence and Extent by Classification 

in Site B ............................................................................................................................27

Table 10 Cultural Resource Projects in Site A..................................................................................28

Table 11 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Summary ................................................................33

Table 12 Cultural Resource Projects in Site B..................................................................................35

Table 13 Species of Conservation Priority Level Definitions ............................................................38

Table 14 Species of Conservation Priority, Mixed-grass Prairie (Missouri Coteau) 

Landscape Component (from ND Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy).........38

Table 15 Mammals with the Potential to Occur within Site A and Site B ..........................................41

Table 16 Mammals Observed within Site A and Site B ....................................................................41

Table 17 Waterfowl and Shorebirds Potentially Present at Sites......................................................43

Table 18 Raptors Potentially Present at Sites ..................................................................................43

Table 19 Avian Species Observed during the 2008 Site Visit...........................................................44
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 iv 

Table 20 Impacts on Wildlife Associated with Site A ........................................................................45

Table 21 Avian Fatality Estimates Reported at Monitored Wind Projects.........................................48

Table 22 Common Agricultural Crops in Ward County, ND..............................................................53

Table 23 Summary of Vegetative Community Occurrence...............................................................56

Table 24 Plant Species Observed During Site Visits ........................................................................57

Table 25 Summary of Disturbance Acres within Vegetation Communities.......................................60

Table 26 Minot, North Dakota Monthly Temperature And Precipitation(1).........................................64

Table 27 Existing Daily Traffic Levels On Roads Within And Adjacent To Site A.............................68

Table 28 Perception of Noise............................................................................................................73

Table 29 Minority and Low-Income Populations ...............................................................................78

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Total System Load and Capability During the Summer Season..........................................2

Figure 2. Renewable Proposals First-Year Costs to Produce 1 MWh ................................................3

Figure 3. Project Areas .....................................................................................................................11

Figure 4. Wetlands in Site A .............................................................................................................23

Figure 5. Wetlands in Site B .............................................................................................................25

Figure 6. Cultural and Historical Sites in Site A ................................................................................29

Figure 7. Cultural and Historical Sites in Site B ................................................................................31

Figure 8. ND GAP Vegetative Communities of Site A ......................................................................49

Figure 9. ND GAP Vegetative Communities of Site B ......................................................................51

Figure 10. Typical Agricultural Site ...................................................................................................54

Figure 11. Typical Tame Grassland Site...........................................................................................54

Figure 12. Typical Native Mixed Grass Prairie Site ..........................................................................55

Figure 13. Roadside View of Potential Columbian Watermeal Occurrence......................................59

Figure 14. Transportation for Site A..................................................................................................69

Figure 15. Transportation for Site B..................................................................................................71

Appendices 

APPENDIX A: SCOPING REPORT (CONTAINS CORRESPONDENCE AND NOTICES) 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) needs to develop additional electricity generating 

sources to serve the expected growth in demand on their member service providers. To meet 

mandated renewable energy requirements, Basin Electric has determined that within their member 

service area, wind energy is the most feasible source of renewable power. Basin Electric has 

submitted an application to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service for a loan for 

construction, and has requested transmission capacity on an existing transmission line owned and 

operated by the U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration. In accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act these federal agencies must consider and evaluate the 

potential environmental effects of their actions. 

After considering many possible locations for wind energy development, two sites in North Dakota 

were identified that have a sufficient wind potential and are located near existing transmission lines. 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was developed to assess the potential environmental impacts 

of the alternative sites under consideration. Two alternative sites – Site A (Proposed Action) and 

Site B - and the no-action alternative were considered in this EA. 

Basin Electric is developing plans for a proposed wind-powered electricity generation facility with a 

nameplate rating of up to 115.5 megawatts (MW) with a design capacity factor of 39 percent, or a 

yearly average design of 45 MW, in Ward County, North Dakota. The proposed project 

(PrairieWinds - ND 1, Site A) is located approximately 15 miles south of Minot, North Dakota. From 

Minot, access to Site A is provided by US Highway 83 and several two-lane gravel county roads. 

Current plans for Site A include the installation of up to 77 1.5 MW wind turbines (produced by 

General Electric) within approximately 30,000 acres (47 square miles). Infrastructure to be 

constructed or installed includes a substation, temporary laydown yard, access roads, and buried 

collector lines. Power would be delivered to the grid via existing Western Area Power Administration 

transmission lines that run through or near Site A. 

An alternate site has been identified approximately 10 miles southwest of Minot (Site B), also in 

Ward County. Either location would require construction of a new substation. 

Based on the analyses, it was concluded that development of either site would have no effects on 

wetlands, floodplains, historic properties, most threatened or endangered species, soils, air quality, 

water quality, radio and television interference, human health and safety, social and economic 

conditions, and minority or low-income populations. The project would have effects on other 

resources, as described below. 

 Land Use – Temporary disturbance during construction and permanent loss of agricultural 

lands would occur. In Site A, 984 acres would be temporarily disturbed during construction 

and 74 acres would be permanently disturbed. Site B would have a similar level of 

disturbance. There would be no disturbance under the No Action Alternative. 

 Whooping Crane – Both Sites A and B occur in the migratory route corridor of the 

whooping cranes. Because of a potential reduction of migration habitat from project 

construction it was concluded that there is a “may effect” determination for whooping cranes. 

 Tawny and Arogos Skipper - Potential habitat for the tawny skipper and the arogos skipper 

was not identified in Site A. Site B did have habitat identified but the level of disturbance that 

could occur within that habitat is unknown as the Site B project design has not been 

completed. 

 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Effects on wildlife in general from the project would be due 

to disturbance similarly to the effects described under Vegetation below. The potential for 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 ES-2 

direct mortality is due to construction activities, vehicle traffic, and operation of the wind 

turbines. 

 Vegetation – Reseeded grasslands and native vegetation would be disturbed. Construction 

would disturb 182 acres of seeded grasslands, and 172 acres of native vegetation (prairie, 

shrubland and woodlands), as presented in Table 1. Development would permanently 

disturb 14 acres of seeded grasslands and 11 acres of native vegetation from turbines and 

new access roads. Site B would have a similar effect. There would be no impacts on 

vegetation from the No Action Alternative. 

Table 1 

Summary of Disturbance Acres within Native Vegetation Types 

Temporary Disturbance 

Vegetation 

Community 

Turbines Roads Feeder Lines Substation / Lay Down 

Area 

Total 

Temporary 

Native Prairie 37.0 5.3 45.9 0.1 88.4

Native Shrubland 35.3 4.1 38.2 0.0 77.6

Native Woodland 3.2 0.9 2.2 0.0 6.2

Total 75.6 10.3 86.3 0.1 172.3

Permanent Disturbance

Vegetation 

Community

Turbines Roads Feeder Lines Substation / Lay Down 

Area 

Total 

Permanent

Native Prairie 0.3 5.3 0.0 0.1 5.7

Native Shrubland 0.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 4.3

Native Woodland 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9

Total 0.5 10.3 0.0 0.0 10.9

 Aesthetics - Visual impacts from the turbines, lights, and roads would occur from the project 

during construction and operation. However, the sites would retain their rural setting and 

appearance. 

 Transportation – There would be limited and short-term impacts from the use of existing 

roads during construction for the transport of equipment and construction materials. New 

access roads would not be available for public access so there would not be any permanent 

effects on transportation from the access roads. 

 Noise - The maximum noise levels from heavy equipment would be 85 to 88 dBA at a 

distance of 50 feet. Given that the distance to residences from any turbine is expected to be 

greater than 1,000 feet, noise levels during operation are not expected to be increased 

enough to be a concern at Site A or Site B. During construction some noise creating 

activities will be closer to residences as heavy equipment for turbines are moved and as 

collector lines are buried. Given the distance from receptors of the turbines, there would be 

no effect on noise during operation at either site. There would be no effect on noise from the 

No Action Alternative. 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 1 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 

This section describes the proponent’s purpose and need for the proposed project. Also discussed 

in this section are the involved Federal Agencies’ needs for action and a description of the Federal 

environmental process. 

1.1 Purpose and Need 

Basin Electric was formed in 1961 by member cooperatives after the U.S. Department of the Interior 

announced that the Federal hydropower system would not be able to meet the additional energy 

requirements of consumers of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation beyond the winter of 1965. Basin 

Electric was formed as a wholesale power supplier to plan, design, construct, and operate 

generating facilities necessary to meet the growing electrical demands of its member systems. 

Basin Electric established renewable energy goals in 2005 to meet Basin Electric established 

internal Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Wind is the most viable renewable technology 

based on availability and economics. Solar resources in the region are limited and while solar 

economics are improving, costs are still not competitive with wind. Geothermal and bio-based 

resources are in some cases cost effective, but are either restricted to limited or distant locations, 

available in only small quantities, or cause other environmental concerns. In contrast, potential wind 

resources in the Basin Electric member service territory are generally recognized as excellent, and 

limited mainly by land use and transmission. A 115.5 MW wind project was determined to be the 

best available, least-cost renewable resource option to satisfy future load and RPS requirements. 

Many areas served by Basin Electric in the project region are experiencing population growth. Basin 

Electric is experiencing load growth throughout their system in every consumer class (residential, 

commercial, and industrial). 

Between 1999 and 2006, Basin Electric’s system peak demand increased 752 MW from 1,195 to 

1,947 MW or approximately 107 MW per year. During the same period, Basin Electric system 

energy sales increased 5.3 million megawatt hours (MWh) (from 6.5 million MWh to 11.8 million 

MWh) or approximately 760,000 MWh per year. Basin Electric forecasts peak demand on its 

system to grow by 1,834 MW from 2006 through 2021 or approximately 122 MW per year. Basin 

Electric forecasts energy consumption on its system to grow by approximately 12 million MWh from 

2006 through 2021 or approximately 800,000 MWh per year. The average expected increase in 

energy sales compared to the average expected increase in peak demand results in a 75 percent 

annual load factor for the forecasted load growth. Demand is forecasted to double in the next 15 

years, with the 1,947 MW in 2006 projected to grow 1,834 MW by 2021, and 2006 energy usage 

at 11.8 million MWh forecasted to grow 12 million MWh by 2021. The load growth is driven mainly 

by commercial sector growth which includes energy-related development in the form of coal, and oil 

and gas development, and increased loads in the residential sector mainly located on the outskirts 

of larger cities (Basin Electric 2007). 

The difference in the load forecast plus other obligations (such as sales, losses, and reserves less 

Basin Electric’s system-wide load management), and existing and planned generating resources 

along with purchases, define the load and capability of the Basin Electric system which shows the 

amount of surplus capacity on the system. Figure 1 shows Basin Electric’s total system, summer 

season surplus/deficit capacity. 

Basin Electric’s total system deficit is 275 MW in 2008 and the deficit is forecasted to increase 

steadily. The two periods that do not produce additional deficits from one year to the next are when 

the Dry Fork Station in Wyoming is anticipated to go commercial in 2011 and when a long-term 

power supply obligation ends in early 2016 (Basin Electric 2008). 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 2 

Figure 1. Total System Load and Capability During the Summer Season 

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021

Year

Surplus/Deficit (MW)

Construction of PrairieWinds - ND 1 is required to meet the growing needs for power in Basin 

Electric’s service territory. Basin Electric has established the need to add a renewable energy 

resource to serve projected member load growth. This project was established on the basis of an 

ongoing need to address reliability and to supply low cost power to Basin Electric members, 

including renewable energy sources. 

Basin Electric is in the process of completing a detailed power supply analysis. The 2007 Power 

Supply Analysis (PSA) provides an in-depth look at Basin Electric’s current operating system, future 

load growth and the framework for future expansion, including both supply-side and demand-side 

resource expansion. Twelve resource expansion portfolios were created to meet the anticipated 

needs of Basin Electric and were evaluated with respect to cost, performance, and risk. All 

portfolios included some component of wind energy development (Basin Electric 2007). 

Of the twelve resource expansion portfolios analyzed in the PSA, the preferred portfolio included 

300 MW of wind, 200 MW of peaking generation, 250 MW of intermediate generation and 600 MW 

of baseload coal generation. The PrairieWinds - ND 1 project is proposed to meet a portion of Basin 

Electric’s projected wind generation requirement. 

Basin Electric received 12 proposals from nine different entities for wind generation. These 12 wind 

proposals were located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. Figure 2 shows 

the anticipated first-year cost of producing one MWh of each proposal. These costs typically include 

the cost of capital, debt service, operation and maintenance, and fuel. The renewable proposals 

were evaluated by Basin Electric staff. 

Based on the anticipated capacity factors, installation locations, costs of production, and durations 

of the proposed agreements, Basin Electric determined building their own wind generation facility 

was the most economical. 

Basin Electric’s 2007 PSA Study (Basin Electric 2007) was prepared in accordance with RUS 

General and Pre-Loan Policies and Procedures Common to Electric Loans and Guarantees 

published in 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1710 Subpart F. The purpose of the study was to 

determine the best capacity additions for Basin Electric’s service area. The capacity alternative 

ultimately chosen must be one which would ensure safe, adequate, and reliable electricity for Basin 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 3 

Electric and its members at the lowest reasonable cost. The preferred option identified by this study 

for Basin Electric to build its own facility is the anticipated lowest cost resource option compared to 

options including proposals received through a Basin Electric capacity solicitation process. 

Figure 2. Renewable Proposals First-Year Costs to Produce 1 MWh 

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

$80.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Site Proposal #

$/MWh

1.2 Purpose for Federal Agency Action 

1.2.1 Rural Utilities Service 

The purpose of the Electric Program of RUS is to provide reliable, affordable electricity to enhance 

the economic well-being and quality of life for all of the nation's rural residents. The Electric 

Programs provide leadership and capital to upgrade, expand, maintain, and replace America's vast 

rural electric infrastructure. Under the authority of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, the Electric 

Programs make direct loans and loan guarantees to electric utilities to serve customers in rural 

areas. 

The loans and loan guarantees finance the construction of electric distribution, transmission, and 

generation facilities, including system improvements and replacement required to furnish and 

improve electric service in rural areas, as well as demand side management, energy conservation 

programs, and on-grid and off-grid renewable energy systems. Loans are made to corporations, 

states, territories and subdivisions and agencies such as municipalities, people's utility districts, and 

cooperative, nonprofit, limited-dividend, or mutual associations that provide retail electric service 

needs to rural areas or supply the power needs of distribution borrowers in rural areas 

(http://www.usda.gov/rus/). 

1.2.2 Western Area Power Administration 

Western Area Power Administration (Western) is a Federal power-marketing agency under the 

Department of Energy (DOE) that operates and maintains transmission lines and associated 

facilities. Western’s Open Access Transmission Service Tariff provides open access to entities such 

as Basin Electric to supply power to their customer load areas. Western provides this service 

through an interconnection if there is available capacity in the transmission system. Basin Electric 

asked Western for an interconnection of the PrairieWinds - ND 1 Project to Western’s existing 115-

kilovolt (kV) transmission line which runs through Basin Electric’s proposed site. 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 4 

1.2.3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for carrying out Federal laws 

and programs that conserve fish, wildlife and their habitats (USFWS 2008a). The proposed project 

is situated within the boundaries of the USFWS Audubon Wetland Management District (WMD). 

The purpose of the WMD is to manage the land to meet the needs of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, and resident wildlife (USFWS 2009). 

The Proposed Action has 7,511 acres of USFWS grassland/wetland easements within its 

boundaries and Site B has 15,135 acres of USFWS grassland/wetland easements. These 

easements are legal agreements between landowners and the United States through the USFWS 

to permanently protect wetlands and grasslands. The landowner is compensated to maintain the 

wetland/grasslands in lieu of possible development. The purpose for these easements is to protect 

the habitats of migratory birds and other wildlife. A review of the proposed action and consideration 

of reasonable alternatives is necessary in order to consider how to reduce any negative wildlife 

impacts and prevent significant long-term impacts to wildlife and habitat resources. 

1.3 Federal Environmental Process 

Before RUS can provide funding or Western can agree to the interconnection, all relevant impacts 

must be examined, and an opportunity provided to the public for input, pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additionally, RUS must abide by its Environmental Policies and 

Procedures (7 CFR part 1794), and Western by DOE’s NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 

part 1021) to consider potential environmental impacts of its actions. This EA documents the 

consideration and evaluation of the potential environmental impact of the proposed project and will 

provide the public and other interested parties an opportunity to review and provide input. After a 

comment period, the EA will be used to support RUS’s and Western’s determination on whether or 

not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

RUS and Western will evaluate the significance of the potential impacts posed by the proposed 

project. This evaluation will consider the environmental effects and subsequent public, agency, and 

tribal comments. If the agencies determine there are no significant impacts, they will issue Findings 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Publishing a FONSI will complete the assessment portion of the 

Federal environmental process. If it is determined that there are significant impacts, the agencies 

will publish a notice of intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register and distribute copies to the 

public. An EIS will then be developed using the results of the EA and other analyses, and issued for 

public comment. If an EIS is needed, the agencies will publish a Draft and Final EIS and a Record 

of Decision. 

1.4 Public Participation 

RUS and Basin Electric provided an early and open process for determining the scope of issues 

and concerns related to the project. Basin Electric notified Federal, state, and local agencies, tribes 

and affected landowners of the PrairieWinds - ND 1 Project and requested information on issues 

and concerns. RUS and Basin Electric conducted a public scoping meeting on April 3, 2008 in 

Minot, North Dakota. 

1.5 Other Authorizations 

Several Federal, state, and local agencies have jurisdiction over certain aspects of the project. 

The agencies that have permitting authority or other responsibilities include: 

 North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD) – Wildlife management areas (WMA). 

 North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDOT) – Right-of-way authorization. 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 5 

 North Dakota Public Service Commission - Regulates energy conversion and transmission. 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Wetlands. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Wetland and/or grassland easements, waterfowl 

production areas (WPAs), and Endangered Species Act consultations, under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703 et seq.), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 

668-668d, 54 Stat. 250), Executive Order 13186 “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds, the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.), The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (public Law 105-57), and the NEPA 

(Public Law 91-190, 42 USC 4321-4347, as amended by Public Law 94-52, Public Law 94-

83, and Public Law 97-258). 

 State Historic Preservation Office – Properties listed (or eligible for listing) on the National 

Register of Historic Places. 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds – ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 6 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes the alternatives that were considered for further evaluation, and explains the 

reasons alternatives were dismissed from further review. It also describes the No Action Alternative. 

2.1 Development of Alternatives 

An initial screening process involved: (1) identification of potential transmission interconnection 

points, (2) delineation of the boundaries of the project area, and (3) examination of photographs, 

maps of existing and future land uses, transportation and utility maps, and maps that show 

environmental features including floodplains, wetlands, and soils. Basin Electric conducted a 

systematic evaluation that included: 

 Reviewing wind maps available from the US DOE, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

and the database available from the Energy & Environmental Research Center to 

determine areas with good, excellent, or outstanding wind power within its member service 

territory; and 

 Identifying existing electric transmission lines and substations with potentially adequate 

capacity (existing substations were desirable but not a necessary attribute for potential sites) 

within its member service territory and within the Western electrical grid. 

Once locations were identified meeting these criteria, Basin Electric proceeded by: 

 Studying the area using aerial photographs, maps, and existing land use databases. 

 Screening the area to identify restricted and potentially incompatible areas, including 

conflicting land uses, existing structures or developments, and environmental features. 

 Completing field surveys by a multidisciplinary team including a project engineer, 

environmental compliance specialist, and land use planner. 

 Identifying potential costs associated with development of viable options. 

 Conducting a comparative assessment of viable alternatives using criteria on 

reliability/dependability for energy supply, distance from existing transmission line capacity, 

cost (capital, operating, and maintenance), and environmental considerations. 

 Minimizing the number of homes and buildings adjacent to the project area. 

 Minimizing the number of landowners’ impacted. 

 Minimizing potential impacts to known wetlands and other waters of the U.S, threatened and 

endangered species, sensitive habitats, and other environmental resources. 

 Minimizing the costs associated with acquisition, construction, and operation and 

maintenance. 

2.1.1 Site Alternatives Considered 

Using the locating process discussed above, possible areas identified for the wind power project 

that met the criteria of having enough wind, close enough to existing transmission lines, within 

Basin Electric’s member service territory, and within Western’s grid area were: 

 Forbes/Edgeley area 

 Wishek/Napoleon area 

 Kenmare area 

Tetra Tech June 2009 7 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

 PrairieWinds - ND 1 Site A 

 PrairieWinds - ND 1 Site B 

2.1.2 Evaluating Alternatives 

The next step in determining locations to examine in detail was to review the availability of capacity 

on the nearby transmission lines. 

The Forbes/Edgeley area was not considered further because: 

 The local 115-kV line was indicated as already fully loaded as is the 230-kV line in the area. 

These lines were identified as unlikely to have adequate available transmission capacity to 

handle the power generated by the wind development. 

 The potential site would have required construction of a minimum of 25 miles of 

interconnection lines for an interconnection with the 115 kV line. This interconnection would 

have also required the installation of a substation at the 115 kV interconnection. 

 The remaining transmission line is a high voltage 345-kV transmission line, which would 

have involved an extremely expensive interconnection substation and a number of miles of 

costly 345-kV transmission line from the project to the interconnection line. The cost of the 

substation was estimated at roughly $9 million to $10 million, while the interconnection line 

was estimated at roughly $3 million to $5 million. Recent estimates have increased the cost 

of the substation to over $12 Million. 

 The transmission queue in the area appeared to be full, causing serious concern that 

access to transmission would be limited, or even impossible. Adding a substation 

interconnection to a large line, reduces the reliability of that line, discouraging the system 

operator from allowing interconnection. 

 The investigation of this area revealed that a large wind project was already planned in this 

area and several other prime locations in this area were already leased, indicating that 

Basin Electric would have difficulty in obtaining leases or easements to property for wind 

development. 

Wishek/Napoleon was not considered further because: 

 The only available transmission line was the 345-kV line described above. The estimated 

costs were expected to be similar to the Forbes/Edgeley 345-kV scenario, which caused this 

site to be poorly ranked. 

 As with Forbes/Edgeley, the transmission queue in the area appeared to be full. 

 The investigation of this area also revealed that a large wind project was already planned 

and several other prime locations were already leased. 

The Kenmare area site was not considered further because the 115-kV line in the Kenmare area 

has transmission limitation due to load growth in the region and export and import transmission 

reservations to Saskatchewan. An additional 100 MW could not be accommodated on that line. 

In analyzing the transmission lines around Minot, it became apparent that the 115-kV transmission 

line running north and south near Site A offered a stronger system for interconnection and the 230-

kV transmission line running east and west near Site B offered a stronger system for 

interconnection (Basin Electric Siting Study). The Forbes/Edgeley area, Wishek/Napoleon area, and 

Kenmare area sites lacked transmission capacity, leaving the PraireWinds - ND 1 Site A and 

PraireWinds - ND 1 Site B as reasonable alternatives to be considered in detail. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 8 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

2.1.2.1 Potential Impact Index (PII) 

The PII process is a means of indexing wildlife use of a site as part of the USFWS’s Interim 

Voluntary Guidelines. The PII process was completed for Site A, Site B, and the Edgeley/Forbes 

area site with the objective of determining potential impacts. 

The PII has three components designed to evaluate potential impacts on wildlife within a site as a 

whole (Table 2). A higher number indicates the potential for more adverse impacts, a lower score 

would indicate less potential for adverse impacts. The first checklist examines the site's physical 

attributes including topographic and meteorological characteristics, site size, migratory corridor 

potential and wind direction. The second component is a series of checklists that deal with the 

occurrence and status of bat and bird species of conservation concern. The third component 

addresses the ecological attractiveness of a site by looking at any special, unique, or extraordinary 

habitats or conditions that may attract wildlife. 

Table 2 

Potential Impact Index Scores 

Reference Site Site A Site B Edgeley/Forbes Area 

2771 252 257 257 1

 Audubon National Wildlife Refuge 

The similarity between the Site A and Site B scores (including the relation to species occurrence) is 

likely due to the similar amount of actively managed agricultural lands with pockets of wetland and 

native grassland habitat within the potential project areas. The close geographical proximity of the 

sites contributes to their similar topography and subsequent similar species diversity that is 

characteristic of the Prairie Pothole Region. In addition, the entire area is within the Central Flyway, 

which is known as a major migration corridor for numerous avian species. 

The difference between the scores can be attributed to the greater ecological attractiveness of the 

reference site as compared to the project areas. The reference site is part of a lotic system and 

offers a concentrated food source in the form of planted wildlife food plots. The three potential 

project areas lack these particular physical attributes. The Edgeley/Forbes Site was included in the 

PII but subsequently eliminated as an alternative (see section 2.1.2). 

2.1.3 Proposed Action 

Basin Electric continued to evaluate biological and physical features of the sites to assess which 

alternative they would put forward as their Proposed Action. Site A and Site B are similar in most 

aspects reviewed. The one biggest difference is that Site B would require an additional seven to 

eight miles of transmission line to be constructed to reach the 230-kV line nearest the site. Because 

transmission lines are expensive to construct ($400,000 per mile) and pose a risk to birds, Basin 

Electric decided that Site A would be their Proposed Action. 

2.2 Description of Site A Project (Proposed Action) 

Site A (Figure 3) would consist of a wind-powered electricity generation facility with a nameplate 

rating of up to 115.5 MW, or a yearly average of 45 MW. Site A is located approximately 15 miles 

south of Minot, North Dakota. From Minot, access to Site A is provided by North Dakota State 

Highway 83 and several two-lane gravel county and section roads. Proposed plans for Site A 

include the installation of up to 77 GE 1.5 MW wind turbines within an area of approximately 30,000 

acres (47 square miles). Infrastructure to be constructed or installed includes a substation, a 

temporary laydown yard, access roads (approximately 6 miles of improvements and additional 19 

Tetra Tech June 2009 9 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 10 

miles), and buried collector lines (approximately 45 miles). Power will be delivered to the grid via an 

existing Western transmission line near Site A. 

Exact turbine models are subject to change to ensure selection of a turbine that is both cost 

effective and optimizes land and wind resources. Basin Electric is proposing to use 77 1.5 MW 

turbines. This analysis uses GE 1.5 MW machines, model 1.5sle, as a representative turbine for the 

1.5 MW Class (GE 2005). Basin Electric may elect to select turbines by other turbine vendors. 

The GE Wind Energy 1.5-MW utility-grade wind turbine, model 1.5sle, has a nominal nameplate 

rating of 1,500 kilowatts (kW). Each turbine will have an 80-meter (262-foot) hub height and a rotor 

diameter (RD) of 77 meters (253) feet. The GE 1.5-MW turbine has a minimum operational wind 

speed of 7.8 miles per hour (mph), and reaches its rated capacity (1,500 kW) at a wind speed of 

31.3 mph. The cutout wind speed is approximately 56 mph. 

Each tower will be anchor-bolted to an underground spread footing or concrete shell design. The 

base would be up to 40 feet in diameter underground with up to 20 feet in diameter of concrete 

exposed at the surface. The foundation thickness depends on the geologic conditions. During 

construction, a minimum of a 135-foot radius from the tower foundation would be required for the 

crane pad, rotor lay down and construction area, and various construction related activities. A 

control panel inside the base of each turbine tower houses communication and electronic circuitry. 

Each turbine is equipped with a wind speed and direction sensor that communicates to the turbine’s 

control system to signal when sufficient winds are present for operation. These turbines feature 

variable-speed control and independent active blade pitch control to ensure maximum power 

output. 

The electricity is collected by a system of underground power collection lines. Both power collection 

lines and communication cables will be direct-buried on private property or public rights-of-way. 

Typically, this infrastructure would be adjacent to the access roads or along public rights-of-way or 

easements. In cases where such infrastructure must be sited on property that is not governed by 

the existing wind easement and land lease options, Basin Electric will obtain easements for the 

necessary property. 

Each wind turbine will be accessible via all-weather aggregate-surfaced roads up to 20 feet wide 

providing access to the turbines via public roads. Road width during construction will be wider to 

allow movement of cranes. The additional width would be reclaimed after construction. In some 

areas of the Project, it is more efficient to move the turbine erection crane cross-country, from 

turbine to turbine, on a route that is not a road. These routes are referred to as “crane walks.” 

Similar to the routes for access roads and underground collector lines, crane walks would be routed 

to avoid wetlands and cultural resource sites. 

The feeder system distributes power to the substation. At the substation, the power will be 

transformed to 115-kV and transmitted to an existing overhead 115-kV transmission line. 

2.2.1 Site Layout 

The site layout would be designed to optimize the wind resource while minimizing the impact on 

resources and any potentially sensitive areas. Wind-powered electric generation is entirely 

dependent on the availability of the wind resource at a specific location. A doubling of the wind 

speed will increase the available energy by a factor of eight times. The turbine array and collection 

system would be designed to minimize energy loss due to wind turbine wakes and turbulence and 

electrical line losses. 

 Ward County has established setbacks of the maximum tower height for wind towers from road 

rights-of-way, and occupied residences. Basin Electric proposes setbacks of 0.25 miles from 

USFWS WPAs, 500 feet from any large (greater than 50 acre) wetland complex, the height of the 

Environmental Assessment 

Tetra Tech June 2009 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

wind turbine from any developed road or transmission line; and 1,000 feet from occupied 

residences. The distances used with these setbacks are the same as those used in other wind farm 

projects. The towers are multi-coated conical tubular steel with a hub height of 80 meters (262 feet). 

Infrastructure to be constructed or installed includes a substation, access roads, operations and 

maintenance building, meteorological tower, and buried collector and communication lines. Power 

will be delivered to the grid via existing Western transmission lines that run through or near the site 

Substation 

A new substation would be constructed on approximately 1.8 acres. Access to the proposed 

substation is from existing county roads. The substation would be adjacent to the existing Western 

115-kV transmission line. Initial construction would include site grading and construction of a soil 

pad. 

The substation would consist of concrete foundations, steel structures, electrical insulators, and 

outdoor electrical equipment such as transformers, switches, and circuit breakers. The site would 

be secured with fencing and access would be limited. Associated with the substation would be an 

approximate 6,500 square foot maintenance building 

Construction 

Several activities must be completed prior to the proposed commercial operation date. The majority 

of the activity relates to equipment ordering lead time and design and construction of the facility. 

Below is a progression of activities during construction. Pre-construction, construction, and postconstruction activities include: 

 Order necessary components including towers, nacelles, blades, foundations, cable, 

substation material, and transformers; 

 Finalize turbine locations; 

 Complete survey to finalize locations of structures and roadways; 

 Soil borings (drilling), testing and analysis for proper foundation design and materials; 

 Complete construction of access roads for construction and maintenance; 

 Construct underground feeder lines; 

 Design and construct substation; 

 Install tower foundations; 

 Install underground cables; 

 Install towers and wind turbine; 

 Complete acceptance testing of facility; and 

 Commence commercial production. 

Private turbine access roads will be built adjacent to the towers. The specific turbine placement will 

determine the amount of private roadway needed. 

During the construction phase, several types of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty construction 

vehicles and private vehicles will use the access roads. Basin Electric estimates that there will be 

approximately 50 vehicle trips per day during peak construction periods. That volume will occur 

during the peak time when the road construction, foundation, and tower assembly are taking place. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 13 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Construction Management 

A contractor will be primarily responsible for construction management. The contractor will use the 

services of local contractors, where possible. Construction management will consist of: 

 Securing building, electrical, grading, road, and utility permits; 

 Performing detailed civil and structural engineering; 

 Scheduling execution of construction activities; 

 Completing surveying and geotechnical investigations; and 

 Forecasting project labor requirements and budgeting. 

The project will be constructed under the direct supervision of the on-site construction manager with 

the assistance of local contractors. The construction consists of the following tasks: 

 Site development, including roads; 

 Foundation excavation; 

 Installation of concrete foundations; 

 Electrical and communication system installation; 

 Tower assembly and machine erection; and 

 System testing. 

Throughout the construction phase, ongoing coordination occurs between the project development 

and the construction teams. The on-site project construction manager helps to coordinate all 

aspects of the project, including ongoing communication with local officials, citizens groups, and 

landowners. 

Project Operation and Maintenance 

Each wind turbine will communicate directly with the supervisory control and data acquisition 

(SCADA) system for the purposes of operation performance monitoring, energy reporting and 

trouble-shooting. Under normal conditions each wind turbine operates autonomously, making its 

own control decisions. The project will be operated and maintained by Basin Electric or a third party 

contractor. 

Basin Electric and the appropriate supplier will control, monitor, operate, and maintain the project by 

means of a SCADA computer software program. In addition to regularly scheduled on-site visits, the 

wind project may be monitored via computer. 

The SCADA system offers access to wind turbine generation or production data, availability, 

meteorological, and communications data, as well as alarms and communication error information. 

Performance data and parameters for each machine (generator speed, wind speed, power output, 

etc.) can also be viewed, and machine status can be changed. There is also a “snapshot” facility 

that collects frames of operating data to aid in diagnostics and troubleshooting of problems. The 

primary functions of the SCADA system are to: 

 Monitor wind project status; 

 Allow for autonomous turbine operation; 

 Alert operations personnel to wind project conditions requiring resolution; 

 Provide a user/operator interface for controlling and monitoring wind turbines; 

 Collect meteorological performance data from turbines; 

Tetra Tech June 2009 14 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

 Monitor field communications; 

 Provide diagnostic capabilities of wind turbine performance for operators and maintenance 

personnel; 

 Collect wind turbine and wind project material and labor resource information; 

 Provide information archive capabilities; 

 Provide inventory control capabilities; and 

 Provide information reporting on a regular basis. 

Decommissioning and Restoration 

Basin Electric has a contractual obligation to the landowners to remove the wind facilities, including 

foundations to a depth of four feet, when the wind easement expires. Basin Electric also reserves 

the right to explore alternatives regarding project decommissioning. Retrofitting the turbines and 

power system with upgrades based on new technology may allow the wind project to produce 

efficiently for many more years. Based on estimated costs of decommissioning and the salvage 

value of decommissioned equipment, the salvage value of the wind project may exceed the cost of 

decommissioning. 

2.3 Alternatives to Site A 

Using the evaluation criteria (see Section 2.1.2), Basin Electric determined that Site B was possibly 

a reasonable alternative to Site A. 

2.3.1 Site B 

The Site B wind project is located approximately 10 miles southwest of Minot, in Ward County, 

North Dakota (Figure 3) and its configuration would be similar to Site A. Site B is located over 

relatively level terrain near a Western 115-kV transmission line. There is no substation at this 

alternative location and a new substation would be constructed as part of the project for this site. As 

in Site A, Site B would consist of installation of up to 77 GE 1.5 MW wind turbines within an area of 

approximately 36,500 acres (57 square miles). Infrastructure to be constructed or installed includes 

a substation, temporary laydown yard, access roads, meteorological tower, and buried collector and 

communication lines. A site layout and turbine array has not been developed, however, the length 

of road and collector lines needed is expected to be similar to that described for Site A. Power will 

be delivered to the grid via existing Western transmission lines near the site. Development, 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of Site B would be the same as described under Site 

A. 

2.3.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, RUS would forego funding the wind project and associated 

facilities, and Western would not allow interconnection into their 115-kV transmission line. Basin 

Electric could decide to construct the project without RUS funding, but Western deciding not to 

allow an interconnection could halt the project. Basin Electric has a transmission line in the area, 

but interconnecting to it would be expensive (upwards of $3,000,000) and require about 4 miles of 

overhead transmission line. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that selection 

of the No Action Alternative would result in elimination of the PrairieWinds - ND 1 project. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 15 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 16 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter provides a description of the affected environment and environmental consequences 

of constructing the project at Site A or Site B. 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) and DOE guidance 

indicate that the amount of analysis should correspond to the importance of the issues: significant 

issues should be discussed more thoroughly than less significant issues. The level of detail and the 

amount of analysis presented in each section of Chapter 3 correspond to the issues raised about 

the project during the scoping process and agency consultation (Appendix A). 

3.1 Land Use 

3.1.1 Affected Environment 

3.1.1.1 Site A 

General Land Use 

Site A is primarily agricultural with scattered farmstead residences. None of Ward County’s zoning 

regulations apply to Site A. A conditional use permit will be required. Site A is not within the Minot 

city limits or within a known military installation. For safety, wind turbines are to be placed so that 

they be placed at least as far from any occupied residences or public road as they are tall (their 

total height). 

Based on a review of aerial photographs, USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) databases, and field studies, the majority of the land area 

is crop land. Table 3 identifies current land use in Site A. 

Table 3 

Major Land Uses in Site A 

Land Use Site A 

NLCD Native cover 9,060 acres (30%) 

NLCD Cropland cover 16,093 acres (53%) 

NLCD Developed lands 67 acres (<1%) 

State lands 64 acres (<1%) 

USFWS wetland easement 6,477acres (21%) 

USFWS wetland & grassland easement 878 acres (3%) 

USFWS WPA 156 acres (<1%) 

Number of Significant Ecological Communities (SECs) within site Three 

All NWI wetlands 3,446 acres (11%) 

All WUS 116,152 feet 

Estimated jurisdictional wetland WUS 368 acres 

FSA CRP contracted lands all or portions of 23 sections 

NLCD = National Land Cover Dataset 

NWI = National Wetlands Inventory 

WUS = Waters of the US 

FSA = Farm Service Agency 

CRP = Conservation Reserve Program 

Tetra Tech June 2009 17 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Important Farmland, Prime Forestland, and Prime Rangeland 

Congress enacted the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) to implement programs and policies 

to protect farmland and combat urban sprawl and the waste of energy and resources that 

accompanies sprawling development. This act resulted in creating a farmland use classification 

system which includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. 

Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. Projects 

are subject to FPPA requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to 

nonagricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal 

agency. The FPPA does not authorize the Federal Government to regulate the use of private or 

nonfederal land or, in any way, affect the property rights of owners. 

The NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (NRCS 2008) shows 1,986 acres of 

prime farmland (7 percent of Site A) and 14,032 acres of farmland of statewide importance (48 

percent of Site A). No prime forestland or prime rangeland is located within Site A. 

Formally Classified Lands 

According to RUS Bulletin 1794A-601 (USDA 1998), formally classified lands may include: 

 National Parks and Monuments; 

 National Natural Landmarks; 

 National Battlefield Park Sites; 

 National Historic Sites and Parks; 

 Wilderness Areas; 

 Wild and Scenic and Recreational Rivers; 

 Wildlife Refuges; 

 National Seashores, Lake Shores, and Trails; 

 State Parks; 

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Administered Lands; 

 National Forests and Grasslands; and 

 Native American Owned Lands and Leases Administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Formally classified areas will be avoided, and will not be discussed further. 

Other Lands 

Within Site A, classified lands include state lands (64 acres), USFWS wetland easements (6,477 

acres), USFWS wetland and grassland easements (878 acres), USFWS WPAs (156 acres), and 

CRP land (all or portions of 23 sections) (Table 3). 

3.1.1.2 Site B 

General Land Use 

General land use in Site B is the same as Site A. 

Based on a review of aerial photographs, USFWS, NWI, and NRCS database information, and field 

studies in Site B, the majority of the land area at the site is agricultural use (Table 4). 

 

Tetra Tech June 2009 18 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Table 4 

Major Land Uses in Site B 

Land Use Site B 

Native cover 13,408 acres (37%) 

Cropland cover 17,136 acres (47%) 

Developed lands 400 acres (1%) 

State lands 655 acres (2%) 

USFWS wetland easement 13,352 (37%) 

USFWS grassland easement 1,528 acres (4%) 

USFWS WPA 255 acres (0.7%) 

Number of Species of Concern within site One 

Number of SECs within site None 

All NWI wetlands 3,534 acres (10%) 

All WUS 67,702 feet 

Estimated jurisdictional wetland WUS 192 acres (0.5%) 

FSA CRP contracted lands all or portions of 13 sections 

Important Farmland, Prime Forestland, and Prime Rangeland 

The NRCS SSURGO Database (NRCS 2008) shows 1,723 acres of prime farmland (5 percent) and 

16,603 acres of farmland of statewide importance (46 percent). No prime forestland or prime 

rangeland is located within the project area. 

Formally Classified Lands 

Lands that may formally be classified according to RUS Bulletin 1794A-601 (USDA 1998) were 

identified in the previous subsection under land use for Site A. Formally classified areas will be 

avoided, and therefore not affected and will not be discussed further. 

Other Lands 

Within Site B, classified lands include state lands (655 acres), USFWS wetland easements (13,352 

acres), USFWS grassland easements (1,528 acres), USFWS WPAs (255 acres), and CRP land (all 

or portions of 13 sections) (Table 4). 

3.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

Development of either site will not displace any residences or existing or planned industrial facilities. 

Wind turbines will be sited a minimum of 1,000 feet from occupied residences. 

3.1.2.1 Site A 

General Land Use 

The area will retain the rural sense and remote characteristics of the vicinity. Wind turbines will be 

sited a minimum of 1,000 feet from occupied residences and will not displace any residences or 

existing or planned industrial facilities. At other wind developments in the upper Midwest, 

landowners frequently plant crops and/or graze livestock to the edge of the access roads and 

turbine pads. The access roads are up to 20 feet wide and low profile, so they are easily crossed 

while farming. Basin Electric will work closely with the landowners in locating access roads to 

minimize land use disruptions to the extent possible. Consideration will be taken in locating access 

roads to minimize impact on current or future row crop agriculture and environmentally sensitive 

Tetra Tech June 2009 19 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 20 

areas. During the construction of the wind power facilities, additional areas may be temporarily 

disturbed for contractor staging areas and underground power lines. These areas will be graded to 

original contour and reseeded with appropriate vegetation. 

Installation would result in the permanent conversion (longer than 30 years) to wind facilities of up 

to four acres of cropland and rangeland due to turbine construction, up to five acres of cropland and 

rangeland for the substation and laydown areas, and approximately 64.6 acres of access roads for 

a total of 74 acres of permanent disturbance. Table 5 shows the acres disturbed (temporary and 

permanent). 

Formally Classified Lands 

Formally classified lands would be avoided, therefore, there would be no impacts. 

Other Lands 

Temporary and permanent disturbance of easements and other ownership was calculated based on 

the preliminary site layout for Site A (Table 5). Unavoidable impacts to USFWS interests as 

described in Table 5 will be replaced by Basin Electric through the protection of equivalent habitat 

permanently protected by USFWS easement. Basin Electric will partner with the USFWS to 

implement this habitat exchange and provide funding to purchase this habitat. 

3.1.2.2 Site B 

Development of Site B would not displace any residences or existing or planned industrial facilities. 

Wind turbines would be sited a minimum of 1,000 feet from occupied residences. 

Formally Classified Lands 

Formally classified lands would be avoided, therefore, there would be no impacts. 

Other Lands 

A preliminary site layout has not been developed for Site B, however, given the conditions of Site B, 

it is assumed that effects on easements and other lands would be similar in extent to Site A. 

3.1.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to land use would occur. 

Table 5 

Disturbed Acres- Land Use 

Type Temporary Disturbance Permanent Disturbance 

(Acres) (Acres) 

USFWS Grassland Easement 32.7 1.1 

USFWS Wetland Easement 0 0 

State Land 9.4 0.2 

Waterfowl Production Area 1.1 0.3 

Privately Owned Lands 940.7 72.4

Total 984.0 74.0
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 21 

3.2 Wetlands and Floodplains 

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

According to the Ward County Department of Tax Equalization (Siebert 2008), neither Site A nor 

Site B have floodplains mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a 

result, potential floodplains have not been determined. However, no major drainages exist within 

Site A or Site B and no direct or indirect effects on floodplains and floodplains are likely. 

3.2.1.1 Site A 

Precipitation averages 17.5 inches per year and provides sufficient annual recharge of the 

abundant isolated depressional wetlands. 

The NWI (USFWS 1977) database indicated 20 wetland classification types (Table 6), covering 

approximately 3,447 acres (11 percent), mapped in Site A based on the hydrogeomorphic system. 

 

Table 6 

Summary of NWI Wetland Occurrence and Extent by Classification in Site A 

Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification Acres Percent 

Lacustrine, Littoral, Aquatic Bed, Intermittently Exposed 461.1 1.5

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed /Emergent, Semipermanently Flooded 61.0 0.2

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed /Emergent, Semipermanently Flooded, Partially 

Drained/Ditched 

7.4 <0.1

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded 429.6 1.4

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 1.3 <0.1

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Diked/Impounded 1.9 <0.1

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Excavated 20.1 0.1

Palustrine, Emergent/Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded 587.0 2.0

Palustrine, Emergent / Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Partially 

Drained/Ditched 

19.2 0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded 438.2 1.5

Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 54.8 0.2

Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded, Excavated 0.5 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded 1,109.2 3.7

Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 72.5 0.2

Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated 3.6 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Semipermanently Flooded 162.4 0.5

Palustrine, Emergent, Semipermanently Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 11.0 <0.1

Palustrine, Forested, Temporarily Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 0.3 <0.1

Palustrine, Forested, Seasonally Flooded 2.3 <0.1

Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub /Emergent, Seasonally Flooded 1.2 <0.1

Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Intermittently Exposed, Excavated 2.2 <0.1

TOTAL 3,446.8 11.4

All waters of the United States (WUS) are considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). WUS are those waters that are hydrologically connected to a traditionally 
Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

navigable waterway. In the case of Site A, the Souris River serves as the traditionally navigable 

waterway. Only wetlands considered to exhibit a “significant nexus” to WUS are subject to US Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulation, as opposed to isolated wetlands, which do not exhibit a 

“significant nexus.” Therefore, water features fall into one of three categories: wetland WUS 

(jurisdictional), non-wetland WUS (jurisdictional), and non-jurisdictional wetlands. 

The occurrence of USACE jurisdictional features across Site A was estimated by overlaying the 

NWI (USFWS 1977) and National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS date unknown) layers, as 

illustrated in Figure 4. The NHD provides geographical data for perennial and intermittent 

drainages, which for the purposes of this analysis were assumed to represent all of the WUS in Site 

A. The NHD data indicate that Site A contains a total of 116,152 linear feet of jurisdictional WUS 

(Table 3). It was then assumed that each NWI (USFWS 1977) wetland that intersects NHD 

drainage represents a hydrologically connected wetland exhibiting a “significant nexus,” thus 

identifying the subset that may qualify as jurisdictional wetland WUS. Predominantly, the wetlands 

of Site A are recognized as prairie potholes, which are classified as isolated wetlands that are not 

hydrologically connected to WUS. The NHD data identified 42,202 linear feet of WUS that intersect 

NWI wetlands resulting in an estimated acres (one percent of the project area) that may be 

considered jurisdictional wetland WUS (Table 7). 

Table 7 

Summary of Jurisdictional Wetland WUS Occurrence and Extent by Classification in Site A 

Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification Acres Percent 

Lacustrine, Littoral, Aquatic Bed, Intermittently Exposed 119.7 0.4

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded 99.7 0.3

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Diked/Impounded 0.5 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent/Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded 56.3 0.2

Palustrine, Emergent / Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 4.2 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded 60.2 0.2

Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 7.3 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded 44.7 0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 15.9 0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Semipermanently Flooded 31.6 0.1

TOTAL 440.1 1.4

Non-wetland WUS and wetland WUS are regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). The estimates 

of USACE jurisdictional features are based on assumptions, and therefore, warrant formal wetland 

delineations to confirm the determinations. 

3.2.1.2 Site B 

Precipitation averages 17.5 inches per year and provides sufficient annual recharge of the 

abundant isolated depressional wetlands. 

Review of the NWI (USFWS 1977) database identified a total of 13 wetland classification types 

(Table 8), covering approximately 3,534 acres mapped across Site B (10 percent of Site B) based 

on the hydrogeomorphic system (Figure 5). 

The NHD data indicate that Site B contains a total of 67,702 linear feet of jurisdictional WUS (Table 

9). The NHD data also identified 20,322 linear feet of WUS that intersect NWI wetlands in Site B 

resulting in 192 acres (0.5 percent of Site B) that may be considered jurisdictional wetland WUS 

(Table 9). 

Tetra Tech June 2009 22 

Environmental Assessment 

Tetra Tech June 2009 

Environmental Assessment 

Tetra Tech June 2009 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Table 8 

Summary of NWI Wetland Occurrence and Extent by Classification in Site B 

Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification Acres Percent 

Lacustrine, Littoral, Aquatic Bed, Intermittently Exposed 0.3 <0.1

Lacustrine, Littoral, Aquatic Bed, Intermittently Exposed 201.6 0.6

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded 682.1 1.9

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 16.9 0.1

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Diked/Impounded 3.2 <0.1

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Excavated 15.8 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent/Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded 641.6 1.8

Palustrine, Emergent / Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 8.5 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded 116.2 0.3

Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 37.6 0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded 1,553.8 4.3

Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 128.2 0.4

Palustrine, Emergent, Semipermanently Flooded 128.3 0.4

TOTAL 3,534.1 9.7

Table 9 

Summary of Jurisdictional Wetland WUS Occurrence and Extent by Classification in Site B 

Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification Acres Percent

Lacustrine, Littoral, Aquatic Bed, Intermittently Exposed 58.8 0.2

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded 43.0 0.1

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 13.3 <0.1

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Diked/Impounded 2.5 <0.1

Palustrine, Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Excavated 0.4 0

Palustrine, Emergent/Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded 4.5 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent / Aquatic Bed, Semipermanently Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 4.7 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded 2.9 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 2.6 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded 27.5 0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched 7.1 <0.1

Palustrine, Emergent, Semipermanently Flooded 24.6 0.1

TOTAL 191.9 0.5

3.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.2.2.1 Site A and Site B 

Basin Electric has committed to avoiding all wetlands, therefore, there would be no direct or 

indirect effects on wetlands. 

3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to wetlands would occur. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 27 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are the locations of past human activity defined by artifacts, features or 

architectural structures. These sites allow us to develop a better understanding of the 

lifeways and behaviors of early societies. Some sites may contain information important for 

research, public interpretation, and use by future generations. 

3.3.1 Affected Environment 

3.3.1.1 Site A and Site B 

In compliance with regulations established in the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), 36 CFR Part 800, 12 cultural resource surveys have been conducted in Site A 

(Table 10). These projects recorded eight sites and one isolate. Site types include stone 

rings, a lithic scatter, a road, a town hall, and homesteads and farmsteads. Of these sites, 

one is recommended eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), three are 

potentially eligible, one is recommended as not eligible, and the eligibility of the remaining 

three sites is undetermined. The cultural and historical sites in Site A and Site B are 

presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7,respectively. 

Table 10 

Cultural Resource Projects in Site A 

Reference Project Description and Location 

Franke, N. 1976 Right-of-way from Stanton to Kenmare; Sec. 4, 9, T151N R82W and Sec. 21, 28, 

T152N R82W. 

Snortland, J. 1978 Hwy 83 Survey; Sec. 3, 4, 9, 10, N1/2 of 15, S1/2 and S1/2N1/2 of 16, N1/2 of 21, 

S1/2 of 22, N1/2 of 27, T151N R83W; N1/2 of Sec. 22, 27, 28, 33, 34, T152N R83W. 

O'Brien, L. 1979 Test Excavation at 32WD117 and 32WD119, Sec. 3, 15, T151N R83W. 

Good, K. and J. 

Dahlberg, 1981 

Mitigation Plan for Transmission Line; Sec. 3, T151N R83W. 

Gregg, M. and P. 

Picha, 1990 

Erosion Control Survey; NE1/4 of Sec. 31 and SE1/4 of Sec. 32, T152N R82W. 

Blikre, L. and J. 

Borchert, 1991 

Surfacing Survey of County Rd. No. 20; S edge of Sec. 13, 14, 15 and the N edge of 

Sec. 22, 23, 24, T152N R83W. 

Stine, E., 2000 US Hwy 2 and 83 and ND Hwy 3 and 5 Survey; along those portions of Sec. 3, 4, 9, 

10, N1/2 of 15, S1/2 and S1/2N1/2 of 16, N1/2 of 21, S1/2 of 22, N1/2 of 27, T151N 

R83W; N1/2 of Sec. 22, 27, 28, 33, 34, T152N R83W that the highways run. Survey 

corridor ranged from 33 to 75 ft on each side of the highway centerline. 

Morrison, J. 2002 Water Pipeline Survey; Portions in S1/2 of Sec. 15 and the N1/2 of Sec. 22, T152N 

R83W. 

Bluemle, W. 2003 Water Pipeline Survey; Portions in Sec. 22, 27, 34, T152N R83W; and Sec. 3, 9, 10, 

15, 22, 27, T151N R83W. 

Jennings, S. and J. 

Lee 2005 

Evaluative Testing of 32WD1548; WSWSW of Sec. 22, T151N R83W. 

Kinney, J. 2006 Survey of DOT Borrow Areas; SWNENW of Sec. 33, T152N R83W. 

Fandrich, B. and L. 

Peterson, 2006 

Hwy 23 Survey; S edge of Sec. 13, 14, 15, and the N edge of Sec. 23, 24, T152N 

R83W. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 28 

 Environmental Assessment 

Tetra Tech June 2009 

 Environmental Assessment 

Tetra Tech June 2009 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

A Class III cultural resource inventory (Ethnoscience 2008) was performed at Site A. A summary of 

the inventory is presented in Table 11. The inventory examined 83 turbine locations (including 

alternate locations), access roads and underground collector lines which totaled 1,484 acres. This 

inventory identified 31 sites and three isolated finds. Of the 31 sites, 19 are prehistoric sites, 11 are 

historic sites and one is a multi-component site. The prehistoric sites include 18 stone feature sites 

and one depression site. The historic sites include two architectural sites and nine archaeological 

sites. The multi-component sites consist of historic architectural features, historic archaeological 

remains and a prehistoric stone feature. The three isolated finds consist of two lithic tools and one 

lithic flake, all of which are made of Knife River Flint. Of these sites, one is recommended eligible to 

the NRHP, 10 are not recommended eligible and the eligibility of the remaining 20 sites is 

undetermined. 

Table 11 

Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Summary 

Site No. Site Type Site Components NRHP Eligibility 

Recommendation

32WD1636 Prehistoric 1 ring Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1637 Historic US Coast & Geodetic Survey Triangulation 

Station 

Eligible Criteria A & C 

32WD1638 Prehistoric 8 rings Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1639 Historic school (2 features) Not eligible 

32WD1640 Historic cultural material scatter Not eligible 

32WD1641 Prehistoric 1 cairn Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1642 Prehistoric 2 cairns Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1643 Prehistoric 1 ring Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1644 Prehistoric 1 ring & 4 cairns Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1645 Prehistoric eleven stone features ( 2 cairns, 1 alignment, 

1 arc and 7 rings) 

Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1646 Prehistoric 2 rings & 1 arc Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1647 Historic cultural material scatter Not eligible 

32WD1648 Historic cultural material scatter Not eligible 

32WD1649 Prehistoric 1 cairn Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1650 Prehistoric 1 ring Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1651 Prehistoric 6 rings & 4 cairns Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1652 Prehistoric 1 stone feature Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1653 Prehistoric 2 rings Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

Tetra Tech June 2009 33 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds-ND 1 

Table 11 

Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Summary (Continued) 

Site No. Site Type Site Components NRHP Eligibility 

Recommendation

32WD1654 Prehistoric 1 ring & 1 cairn Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1655 Prehistoric 1 ring Undetermined under 

Criterion D 

32WD1656 Historic cultural material scatter Not eligible 

32WD1657 Historic farmstead (7 features) Not eligible 

32WD1658 Historic & 

Prehistoric 

Historic component (21 features); Prehistoric 

component (1 feature) 

Historic Component 

not eligible, Prehistoric 

component Undetermined 

under Criterion D 

32WD1659 Prehistoric 1 depression Undetermined 

under Criterion D 

32WD1660 Historic cultural material scatter Not eligible 

32WD1661 Historic farmstead (11 features) Not eligible 

32WD1662 Historic cultural material scatter Not eligible 

32WD1663 Historic cultural material scatter Not eligible 

32WD1664 Prehistoric 1 ring Undetermined 

under Criterion D 

32WD1665 Prehistoric 1 ring Undetermined 

under Criterion D 

32WD1666 Prehistoric 1 cairn Undetermined 

under Criterion D 

32WDX726 Isolated 

Find 

one Knife River Flint flake Not eligible 

32WDX727 Isolated 

Find 

one biface midsection made from Knife River 

Flint 

Not eligible 

32WDX728 Isolated 

Find 

one side scraper made from Knife River Flint Not eligible 

Cultural resource projects have been conducted in Site B (Table 12). These projects recorded four 

sites, one isolate and 10 site leads. Site types include stone rings, rock cairns, cultural material 

scatters and a farmstead. The eligibility for listing on the NRHP has not been determined for any of 

the four cultural resources in Site B. 

3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

To comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, an area of potential effect (APE) for cultural and historical 

resources must be defined that is specific to the proposed undertaking. Areas of direct effect would 

be associated with turbine and substation construction, laydown areas, access roads and 

underground collector lines. The APE is 984 acres (Table 5). 

Tetra Tech June 2009 34 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Table 12 

Cultural Resource Projects in Site B 

Reference Project Description and Location 

Scheider, F. and F. 

Holland 1977 

Sec. 27, T154N R85W; Sec. 30, 31, 32, T155N R85W; and Sec. 25, 34, 36, T155N 

R86W. 

Fox, R. 1980 Saskatchewan Intertie Transmission Line Right-of-Way; East-West line across 

centers of Sec. 3, 4, 5, T153N R85W; Diagonal line through SE of Sec. 7; SW and 

SWNW of Sec. 17; NENE of Sec. 18; E1/2 of Sec. 20; SW of Sec. 21, T154N R86W. 

Good, K. and J. 

Dahlberg 1981 

Mitigation Plan; Portions of Sec. 17, 20, T154N R86W. 

Gregg, M. and P. 

Picha 1990 

Erosion Control Study; NW of Sec. 23, T154N R85W. 

Bluemle, W. 2004 Berthold Microwave Site Survey; 300 square ft. block in SWNWSW of Sec. 3, T154N 

R86W. 

Jackson, M. 2007 Water Pipeline Survey; Sec. 26, 27, 28, 35, 36, T155N R86W. 

3.3.2.1 Site A 

One National Register eligible property (32WD1637) is present in Site A. This site is recommended 

eligible based on Criteria A and C. Measures would be taken to ensure this site is avoided and 

protected during construction. The layout for Site A has been revised to avoid impacts on all cultural 

and historical features identified in the Class III survey; therefore, no effects would occur. 

Twenty sites (32WD1636, 32WD1638, 32WD1641-32WD1646, 32WD1649-32WD1655, 

32WD1658, 32WD1659, 32WD1664-32WD1666) located in Site A have not been evaluated for 

their eligibility for the NRHP. These sites also would be avoided and therefore there would be no 

impacts. 

Cultural resources will not be obscured by the construction or operation of the project at Site A. 

3.3.2.2 Site B 

Four sites (32WD7, 32WD8, 32WD9 and 32WD77) located in Site B require additional review to 

determine eligibility for the NRHP. These sites also would be avoided and therefore there would be 

no impacts. A Class III inventory of turbine locations, access roads and underground collector lines 

has not been conducted for Site B. If Site B was selected, surveys for the presence of cultural 

resources would be needed, along with a determination of eligibility for the NRHP. 

3.3.2.3 No Action Alternative 

There would be no direct effect on NRHP eligible sites or any cultural resources under the No 

Action Alternative. 

3.4 Special Status Species 

This section discusses those species listed as threatened or endangered at the federal and state 

levels, and other species of concern that may be affected by the proposed project. Effects to 

federally-listed species are summarized here. Further detail on these species is found in the June 

2009 final Biological Assessment (BA) that will be appended to the decision document. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 35 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 36 

3.4.1 Federally-Listed Species 

Based on information received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Dakota Field Office, 

four listed species may occur in Ward County: whooping crane (Grus americana, endangered); gray 

wolf (Canis lupus, endangered); piping plover (Charadrius melodus, threatened), and Dakota 

skipper (Hesperia dacotae, candidate). None of these species was observed during the October 

2007 or June 2008 site visits, although intensive species-specific surveys were not conducted. 

Whooping crane

The whooping crane was close to extinction in the late 1960’s, and has been endangered since 

1970. The Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP) of the whooping crane is the only selfsustaining flock in the wild, and currently numbers around 250 birds (USFWS 2009); other captive 

birds and one additional migratory flock also exist. Although a host of historic and recent factors 

have contributed to the whooping crane’s decline, loss of habitat, particularly in the migration 

corridor, has been a major cause. The alternative project locations are both in the 75th percentile 

band of the AWBP migration corridor. This band represents that portion of the corridor where the 

large majority of crane sightings have been recorded, and thus the area where they are most likely 

to occur during migration. 

The proposed project could affect the whooping crane directly (through collision with a turbine or 

adjacent structure), indirectly (through denial of habitat if the birds avoid the site), and cumulatively 

(as contributing to ongoing and future development in the corridor). To avoid and minimize potential 

effects, a habitat compensation program will be implemented in collaboration with the North Dakota 

Natural Resources Trust, which will secure (through conservation easements) suitable lands to 

provide crane stopover habitat. Other measures include marking segments of an existing 

transmission line, development of an operations plan, and conducting post-construction monitoring. 

Gray wolf

Currently, gray wolves are limited to two separate populations in the western Great Lakes 

(Minnesota, Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of Michigan) and the greater Yellowstone ecosystem 

(extreme northwest Wyoming, western Montana, and northeast Idaho). There is also a recovery 

effort in portions of southeast Arizona and southwest New Mexico. In February 2009 the Service 

de-listed the gray wolf Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment; the area covered by this 

action includes approximately the eastern 3/5 of North Dakota. Currently, the gray wolf is listed as 

Endangered west of US Highway 83 and was recently delisted east of US Highway 83; this northsouth highway splits Site A with approximately 1/5 west of the highway, and 4/5 east of the split. 

While transient animals could occur in North Dakota, presence in the proposed project area is 

highly unlikely due to the absence of suitable habitat. 

In the unlikely event that a wolf or wolves were to pass through the project area, there is a chance 

of vehicle collision, though this would be minimized through the enforcement of a 30 mph speed 

limit. Otherwise, the facility itself, once constructed, would not adversely affect wolves either directly 

or indirectly through habitat loss or other disturbance. 

Piping plover 

The U.S. range of the Great Plains population includes New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, 

Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska (USFWS 1988), with most of the 

birds currently nesting in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska. Piping plovers 

winter primarily along the southern Gulf Coast and Pacific Ocean. The Great Plains population 

declined from the mid-1980’s through the 1990’s, attributed to reservoir and river operations, marina 

development, drought and other factors that impact the species’ breeding and wintering habitats. 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 37 

In 2002, the FWS designated critical habitat for the Great Plains population. In North Dakota, critical 

habitat includes the Missouri River from the Montana/North Dakota border to the North 

Dakota/South Dakota border as well as numerous basins in Divide, Williams, Eddy, Renville, 

Montrail, Burke, McLean, McHenry, Sheridan, Pierce, Benson, Burleigh, Kidder, Stutsman, Logan, 

McIntosh, and Ward Counties. The nearest designated critical habitat, Danielson Waterfowl 

Production Area, is located approximately 3.5 miles east of the proposed project area. 

Potential direct effects to the piping plover are considered discountable as it is highly unlikely that 

plovers would be found in the specific area of the proposal. Plover nesting or feeding habitat, 

characterized primarily by alkaline wetlands, is not found at the project site, and the nearest 

designated critical habitat is about 3.5 miles away. For these reasons, there would not be any 

indirect effects. Marking of an existing Basin Electric transmission line, as described in the BA, 

would benefit piping plovers by reducing collision risk. It is determined that implementation of the 

proposal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the piping plover. The proposal also will not 

destroy or adversely modify piping plover critical habitat. 

Dakota skipper 

Determinations of effect are not required for candidate species. As a voluntary conservation 

measure, potential skipper habitat will be identified, marked, and avoided during construction and 

operation of the project. 

3.4.2 State Species of Concern 

North Dakota accounts and manages for species of concern through its Wildlife Action Plan in the 

Game and Fish Department and the Natural Heritage Programs in the Parks and Recreation 

Department. The Wildlife Action Plan (also called the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy) (Hagen et al. 2005) focuses on rare and/or declining species, but promotes conservation 

of all species and their key habitats. The Plan also lists those species of highest conservation 

concern, further prioritized by the degree of conservation need. Characteristic species, habitat 

threats, and conservation actions are addressed according to major landscape type. Table 13

provides definitions for Conservation Priority Levels I, II, and III. There are no programmatic 

requirements as such for impact assessment, since the Plan is presently considered primarily a 

strategic document. But cooperation with and by other agencies and organizations in species and 

habitat conservation is considered integral to the Plan, and coordinated conservation actions will be 

developed as more species information is obtained. 

Table 14 lists the Species of Conservation Priority (SoCP) associated with the landscape 

component where the proposed wind facility would be located. About half of the species are 

considered ‘Level I’ and half ‘Level II’. Despite considerable loss or degradation of native habitat 

due primarily to agriculture, this landscape still provides an important breeding and migratory area 

for waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds. The state conservation strategy also recognizes the 

efforts to maintain and restore habitat in the Coteau through conservation easements, and 

encourages continued cooperation to maintain these efforts. 

The proposed PrairieWinds ND-1 facility would cause the additional loss of wetland and other 

habitats important to those species listed above. However, the habitat compensation plan as 

proposed and described further in the Biological Assessment will act to benefit state species of 

concern in addition to federally-listed species. 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Table 13 

Species of Conservation Priority Level Definitions 

With limited funds and 100 Species of Conservation Priority (SoCP), there was a need to prioritize species 

according to conservation need. The following categories were developed to describe the conservation needs 

for North Dakota’s SoCP. These definitions apply only for the purposes of State Wildlife Grant (SWG) 

planning. 

Level I: 

These are species that are in decline and presently receive little or no monetary support or conservation 

efforts. North Dakota Game and Fish Department has a clear obligation to use SWG funding to implement 

conservation actions that directly benefit these species. Level I species are those having a: 

• high level of conservation priority because of declining status either here or across their range 

- or - 

• high rate of occurrence in North Dakota, constituting the core of the species breeding range (i.e. 

“responsibility” species) but are at-risk range wide 

Level II: 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department will use SWG funding to implement conservation actions to benefit 

these species if SWG funding for Level I species is sufficient or conservation needs have been met. Level II 

species are those having a: 

• moderate level of conservation priority 

- or - 

• high level of conservation priority but a substantial level of non-SWG funding is available to them 

Level III: 

These are North Dakota’s species having a moderate level of conservation priority but are believed to be 

peripheral or non-breeding in North Dakota 

Table 14 

Species of Conservation Priority, Mixed-grass Prairie (Missouri Coteau) Landscape 

Component (from ND Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy) 

Birds Mammals Reptiles/Amphibians 

American Bittern (I) 

Northern Pintail (II) 

Northern Harrier (II) 

Swainson’s Hawk (I) 

Ferruginous Hawk (I) 

Sharp-tailed Grouse (II) 

Willet (I) 

Upland Sandpiper (I) 

Marbled Godwit (I) 

Wilson’s Phalarope (I) 

Short-eared Owl (II) 

Loggerhead Shrike (II) 

Sedge Wren (II) 

Sprague’s Pipit (I) 

Lark Bunting (I) 

Grasshopper Sparrow (I) 

Baird’s Sparrow (I) 

Le Conte’s Sparrow (II) 

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow (I) 

Chestnut-collared Longspur (I) 

Dickcissel (II) 

Bobolink (II) 

Richardson’s Ground Squirrel (II) Plains Spadefoot (I) 

Canadian Toad (I) 

Smooth Green Snake (I) 

Western Hognose Snake (I) 

Tetra Tech June 2009 38 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

The Natural Heritage Programs include designated Nature Preserves, a Natural Areas Registry, 

and a Natural Heritage Inventory (species and habitats) (NDPRD 2009). Works with other agencies, 

groups and individual landowners to set aside and increase protection for these resources. Again, 

while not requiring specific assessment of program components, coordination by project proponents 

is encouraged. 

Correspondence from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department regarding the proposal 

expressed concern about disturbance to native prairie and wetlands. Project planning and turbine 

siting has attempted to avoid these habitats, and as such any impacts to state species of concern 

should be minimal. 

3.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources 

3.5.1 Affected Environment 

3.5.1.1 Regulatory Background 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (7 U.S.C. 136; 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.) enables the USFWS and 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) to officially classify 

plants, animals, and the habitats in which they are found as threatened or endangered. Section 7 of 

the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions (including permitting) do not 

jeopardize listed species or destroy or modify the habitats of the same. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703) states that no one may take, possess, 

import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer to sell, purchase, or barter, any migratory 

bird or the nests, eggs, or parts of such bird, without a valid permit as issued by the USFWS. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 CFR 668) provides the basis for illegal 

possession or the taking of Bald and Golden Eagles. The statute further imposes criminal and civil 

punishments and enhanced penalty provisions for subsequent offenses. 

Clean Water Act 

The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, 

providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater 

treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act amends and builds upon the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to ensure that the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is managed as a national system of related lands, waters, and interests for the protection 

and conservation of our Nation's wildlife resources.

3.5.1.2 Habitat 

Four general types of habitat have been identified. They include: agricultural land, tame grass land, 

native prairie, and wetlands. Agricultural lands are identified as land planted to annual crops such 

as wheat and similar small grains. Tame grasslands are lands that are seeded with a mixture of 

native and non-native grass and forb species. Native prairie is defined as those areas that are not 

Tetra Tech June 2009 39 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

currently used, or in the past were used, for agricultural or forage production, and are predominately 

comprised of native grass and forb species. A more thorough discussion of these vegetation 

communities within both sites is included within the Vegetation Section 3.6.

In addition to these vegetation communities, the project areas have high densities of wetlands 

which provide valuable habitat for a wide range of wildlife species, including many migratory birds. 

Wetland densities within Ward County, North Dakota commonly reach as high as 100-150 wetlands 

per square mile. This area is known as an important breeding ground for ducks and over 70 

obligate wetland migratory bird species (NPWRC 2008). 

The lands within both project areas are owned and/or managed by a variety of private parties and 

public agencies. With the exception of a few parcels of North Dakota state lands, most of the land 

within the sites is privately owned. However, many of these landowners have easements on their 

property that are managed by federal or state agencies. Most of these easements are administered 

by the USFWS for the perpetual protection of grassland and wetland habitat. 

Site A 

The dominant vegetation communities within Site A are agricultural lands and tame grasslands 

covering approximately 53 percent and 15 percent of the project area, respectively. These areas 

provide foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Native prairie, shrubland and 

woodland habitats represent a much smaller percentage of the project area with a total of 14 

percent. However, these habitats are important towards increasing the habitat diversity and 

providing the foraging and cover habitat required for many of the wildlife species within the area. 

Wetland habitats occupy approximately 16 percent of Site A and are habitat for many of the 

migratory birds that utilize the project area for breeding and nesting. 

With respect to properties under easement, wetland easements administered by the USFWS are 

the most prevalent; accounting for approximately 21 percent in Site A. Wetland & grassland 

easements administered by USFWS are less prevalent with approximately 3 percent in Site A. 

Finally, USFWS managed WPAs account for approximately 156 acres (0.5 percent) in Site A 

(USFWS 2007b) (Table 3). 

Site B 

Similar to Site A, the dominant vegetation communities within Site B are agricultural lands and tame 

grasslands covering 47 percent and 15 percent of Site B, respectively. The native prairie, shrubland 

and woodland habitats are more prevalent within Site B than Site A with these habitats covering 

24.2 percent of the area. As previously discussed, these areas are highly valuable to wildlife as they 

increase the habitat diversity of the area and provide additional forage and cover habitat for many 

species. Site B had less wetland habitat than Site A with 12.8 percent of the site providing wetland 

habitat. 

The USFWS administered wetland easements are the most prevalent and occupy 37 percent of 

Site B. Grassland easements administered by USFWS are not as common and cover 4 percent in 

Site B. The USFWS administered WPAs occupy 0.7 percent within Site B (USFWS 2007b) (Table 

4). 

3.5.1.3 Mammals 

The wildlife resources within and adjacent to the project area were described using a range of tools 

such as: literature review; queries of the NDNHI, USFWS database, NatureServe, NDGFD 

databases and USGS Gap Analysis Program (GAP) layers; October 2007 and June 2008 site 

visits;Habitat Assessment Report (Tetra Tech 2008a) and consultation of the Critical Issues 

Analysis Report (Tetra Tech 2007). 

Tetra Tech June 2009 40 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Limited information was available regarding the utilization of the project areas by mammals; 

however, the project areas are located approximately 10 miles north of the Audubon National 

Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The ANWR’s wildlife list was reviewed and cross referenced with the 

habitat available within and adjacent to the project areas in order to determine which species 

potentially occur within the project areas. Table 15 shows the mammals that could occur in Site A 

or Site B, while Table 16 indicates which mammals were observed at the sites. 

Table 15 

Mammals with the Potential to Occur within Site A and Site B 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Badger Taxidea taxus Deer Mouse Peromyscus 

maniculatus 

Beaver Castor Canadensis Northern Grasshopper 

Mouse 

Onychomys 

leucogaster 

Raccoon Procyon lotor Meadow Vole Microtus 

pennsylvanicus 

Coyote Canis latrans Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster 

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethica Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus 

Pronghorn Antelope Antilocapra americana House Mouse Mus musculus 

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius 

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea 

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Least Weasel Mustela nivalis 

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Richardson’s Ground 

Squirrel 

Spermophilus richardsonii Moose Alces alces 

Thirteen-lined Ground 

Squirrel 

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus 

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 

Franklin’s Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii 

Source: USFWS. 2001. Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife List

Table 16 

Mammals Observed within Site A and Site B 

Common Name Scientific Name Comments 

Badger Taxidea taxus observed den only 

Beaver Castor canadensis den, forage evidence 

Raccoon Procyon lotor road kill 

Coyote Canis latrans numerous scat /visual 

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Visual 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethica lodge only 

Pronghorn Antelope Antilocapra americana Visual 

Source: Tetra Tech 2007 

Tetra Tech June 2009 41 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 42 

Bats 

There are no bat species federally listed as threatened or endangered in Ward County, North 

Dakota (USFWS 2007c). Although there are three bat species of moderate conservation concern 

for the state, they are believed to be peripheral and not breeding in North Dakota (NDGFD 2004). 

These include the western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis (Myotis 

evotis), and the long-legged myotis (Myotis volans). Small areas of potential bat habitat were 

observed within the project areas that may provide habitat for many of the common North American 

bats. The NDGFD is not monitoring any bats or bat colonies in Ward County (Tetra Tech 2007). 

Bats typically use farm buildings and dead/dying trees with cavities and loose bark as roosting and 

maternity habitats. The few farm buildings that may provide suitable habitat for roosting bats are 

widely dispersed throughout the project areas, as are the shelterbelts containing suitable trees. 

Snag density near the project sites is low and offers minimal roosting opportunities for bats. Bats 

typically use riparian corridors and wetlands as feeding habitats because of higher nocturnal insect 

densities in these areas. These habitats were present in the vicinity of the project sites. 

Site A 

Potential bat roosting and foraging habitat was observed during the 2008 habitat assessment 

surveys. Potential habitat noted included a snag-filled pond/swamp area along the eastern edge of 

Site A that may provide roosting and foraging habitat for bats. Although no bat species were 

observed during the June 2008 visit, this was likely due to cold dusk temperatures (45o F) with little 

to no insect activity (Tetra Tech 2008b). 

Site B 

Bat habitat characteristics such as farm buildings and dead/dying trees for roosting and riparian 

corridors and wetlands for foraging habitat exists in both sites. 

3.5.1.4 Avian Species including Migratory Birds 

Both project areas fall into two Bird Conservation Regions in North Dakota: Region 11 and Region 

17 (USFWS 2002a). Between these two regions there are 55 bird species of special conservation 

concern. There is also a list of 100 species of conservation priority for the state of North Dakota 

which contains 45 bird species across three priority levels (NDGFD 2004). Of the 55 species of 

conservation concern, 11 were observed within the project area during the field visits. It is likely that 

additional avian species migrate through the project areas including raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds 

and grassland birds. Species diversity and composition within the sites are also likely to fluctuate 

depending on the time of year and weather conditions. 

Table 17 lists waterfowl and shorebirds that may occur in the project areas and their corresponding 

North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy designation level (NDGFD 2004). 

3.5.1.5 Raptors 

There are eight raptor species of conservation concern for the project areas (USFWS 2002). Only 

three of these species were observed during site visits on Site A: ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), 

prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), although all eight of these 

species have the potential to occur within the project areas. Table 18 lists the raptor species that 

may be present in the project area and their respective North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy designation level (NDGFD 2004). Table 19 lists the avian species that were 

observed at Site A during a 2008 site visit. 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Table 17 

Waterfowl and Shorebirds Potentially Present at Sites 

Common Name Scientific Name Obs.* North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy Designation Level** 

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus No I 

Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis No I 

Willet Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

No I 

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda No I 

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus No I 

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa No I 

Wilson's phalarope Phalaropus tricolor No I 

Franklin's gull Larus pipixcan No I 

Black tern Chlidonias niger No I 

Northern pintail Anas acuta Yes II 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria No II 

Redhead Aythya americana No II 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus No II 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana No II 

Least tern Sterna antillarum No II 

Whooping crane Grus americana No III 

*Obseerved during 2007 site visit 

**Source: NDGFD2004: See Table 14

Table 18 

Raptors Potentially Present at Sites 

Common Name Scientific Name Obs.* North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy Designation Level** 

Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni No I 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Yes I 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Yes II 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos No II 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus No II 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Yes II 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus No II 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia No II 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus No III 

*Observed during the 2007 and 2008 site visit 

**Source: NDGFD 2004: See Table 14

Several raptor nests were mapped during the October 2007 site visit. Individual species use and 

level of activity for each nest was not determined, as the time of year was not conducive to nesting 

behavior observation. Stick nest sites that were observed during the October 2007 visit were 

revisited during the June 2008 visit to determine species and activity. Three active stick nests were 

observed: two Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) nests and one Great Horned Owl (Bubo 

virginianus) nest. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 43 
 Environmental Assessment 

Table 19 

Avian Species Observed during the 2008 Site Visit 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

American white pelican Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos 

Gray partridge Perdix perdix 

American avocet Recurvirostra Americana Great horned owl Bubo virginianus 

American coot Fulica Americana Horned lark Eremophila alpestris 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Killdeer Charadrius vociferous 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Lesser scaup Aythya affinis 

American robin Turdus migratorious Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

American wigeon Anas Americana Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Black-crowned nightheron Nycticorax nycticorax Northern pintail Anas acuta 

Blue-winged Teal Anas dicors Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Brewer's blackbird Euphagus 

cyanocephalus 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus 

Bullock's oriole Icterus bullockii Rock dove Columba livia 

California gull Larus californicus Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerine Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 

Common tern Sterna hirundo Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalus 

Double-crested 

cormorant 

Phalacrocorax auritis Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Willet Tringa semipalmata 

Franklin's gull Larus pipixcan Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 

Gadwall Ana strepera Yellow-headed 

blackbird 

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.5.2.1 Site A 

Construction activities associated with Site A would result in both short term and long term impacts 

to wildlife species. In addition, activities such as road construction and minimal tree clearing can 

destroy or disrupt habitats and allow for the introduction of unwanted invasive plants. Installation of 

buried collector lines would result in a temporary loss of wildlife habitat. Displaced wildlife would 

likely relocate to nearby unaffected areas within the project area until construction activities have 

Tetra Tech June 2009 44 
 Environmental Assessment 

been completed. Temporarily disturbed habitat would be reseeded. The overall impacts on wildlife 

of the construction and operation and maintenance of Site A are summarized below in Table 20. 

Table 20 

Impacts on Wildlife Associated with Site A 

Project Activity Potential Impacts Duration and Extent of Impact 

Impacts Associated with Construction 

Habitat disturbance; reduction or alteration 

of on-site habitat 

Long-term habitat reduction within 

tower, building, and access road 

footprints; 

Invasive vegetation; Reduced habitat quality Short-term as implementation of the 

Weed Control Plan would control 

weeds within the disturbance areas. 

Site clearing and 

grading; construction 

of foundations and 

turbine and tower 

installation; access 

road and utility corridor 

construction; vehicle 

travel, Direct injury or mortality associated with 

equipment or vehicle collisions. Would have 

greatest impact on wildlife with limited 

mobility such as amphibians, reptiles, 

ground dwelling birds, and burrowing 

mammals 

Short-term as impacts would cease 

upon completion of construction. 

Erosion and runoff; reduced reproductive 

success of amphibians using on-site 

surface waters; drinking water supplies may 

be affected. 

Short-term; may extend beyond site 

boundaries. 

Fugitive dust 

generation; respiratory impairment 

Short-term. 

Noise; Disturbance of foraging and 

reproductive behaviors; habitat avoidance. 

Short-term. 

Interference with behavioral activities such 

as foraging, migration or reproductive 

behaviors; disturbance and avoidance of 

migratory movements. 

Short-term. 

Accidental spill during 

equipment refueling; 

accidental release of 

stored fuel or 

hazardous materials. 

Exposure to contaminants; exposure may 

affect survival, reproduction, development, 

or growth. 

Short-term and localized to spill area 

Impacts Associated with Operation and Maintenance 

Noise; possible disturbance of foraging and 

reproductive behaviors; habitat avoidance, 

Short and long-term; greatest effect in 

highest noise areas 

Turbine operation, 

support machinery, 

motorized vehicles, 

and mowing 

equipment. 

Collision with turbines and towers; injury or 

mortality of birds and bats, 

 Long-term for many species; could 

potentially impact populations. 

Mowing at support 

building and turbine 

locations, 

Mowing; Injury and/or mortality of less 

mobile wildlife such as reptiles, small 

mammals, ground- nesting birds. 

Short-term. 

Accidental spill or 

release of herbicides, 

fuel, oil, or hazardous 

materials 

Exposure to contaminants; Exposure may 

affect survival, reproduction, development, 

or growth. 

Short- or long-term, localized to spill 

locations, 

Routine human and 

vehicle activities 

Disturbance of nearby wildlife and bird and 

mammal behavior; habitat avoidance, 

Short- or long-term and localized. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 45 
 Environmental Assessment 

Table 20 

Impacts on Wildlife Associated with Site A (Continued) 

Duration and 

Extent of Impact 

Duration and Extent of Impact Duration and Extent of Impact 

Erosion and runoff 

from poorly stabilized 

surface soils. 

Decreased aquatic habitat quality; reduced 

reproductive success of amphibians; wildlife 

drinking water supplies may be affected. 

Short-or long-term and localized. 

Disturbance to wildlife habitats by foot and 

vehicle traffic; potential disturbance of 

foraging and reproductive behaviors. 

Short- or long-term, in areas 

adjacent to the wind facility, access 

roads. 

Legal and illegal take of wildlife; potential 

disturbance of foraging and reproductive 

behaviors and/or reduced distribution of 

some wildlife, 

Short- or long-term, depending on 

species affected and magnitude of 

take. 

Invasive weeds; establishment and spread 

of invasive plant species by visitors, 

including unauthorized vehicles, and along 

facility access roads. 

Short-term as implementation of the 

Weed Control Plan would control 

weeds within the disturbance areas. 

Access to surrounding 

areas by visitors, 

including unauthorized 

vehicles, along facility 

access roads. 

Fire; potential ignition by visitors, including 

unauthorized vehicles along facility access 

roads 

Short-term or long-term reduction in 

habitat quality depending on the loss 

of native vegetation and introduction 

and establishment of invasive 

vegetation. 

Mammals 

The greatest impacts to mammal species would be temporary and associated with the construction 

phases. Project implementation would temporarily and permanently remove habitat. Approximately 

984 acres of habitat would be temporarily disturbed, while 74 acres would become permanently 

unavailable. The areas of temporary disturbance would be reclaimed and reseeded with an 

approved seed mix. It would likely take two growing seasons before these areas are restored. The 

acres of habitat permanently disturbed represent a relatively small amount of habitat available 

regionally. This small loss of habitat would not disrupt breeding, rearing or wintering behavior and 

would not influence the viability of local populations. 

The noise, habitat destruction and other forms of disturbance related to the construction phase 

would likely temporarily displace wildlife species within or adjacent to the disturbed areas. While the 

initial construction of the Proposed Action may displace wildlife species to adjacent areas, the 

displacement would be temporary. Upon completion of construction, wildlife species would become 

accustomed to operation and maintenance activities and would be expected to resume utilization of 

the project area. 

The potential for direct mortality of species resulting from construction activities or vehicle collision 

is limited. Adults are typically mobile and would be able to avoid construction equipment or vehicles 

(unless they were traveling at high rates of speed). 

Bats 

Assessing the full range of impacts to bats is challenging given the limited research indicating how 

bats respond to disturbances within their habitat. Mortality is the easiest response to monitor and 

Tetra Tech June 2009 46 
 Environmental Assessment 

there is growing research indicating that wind energy projects can result in increased mortality of 

bats. A number of monitoring studies have been completed over recent years resulting in bat 

mortality estimates for wind energy projects (TRC 2008; Erickson et al. 2002, 2003a,b; Johnson et 

al. 2003a; Strickland et al. 2001a,b; Young et al. 2003a,b). Collision mortality appears to be most 

significant for tree-dwelling migratory bat species, based on studies done thus far (Kuvlesky, Jr. et 

al. 2007). The Buffalo Ridge wind energy project since it is closest in vicinity and habitat to Site A. 

Bat annual mortality estimated for PrairieWinds - ND 1 based on monitoring data from the Buffalo 

Ridge project indicate a potential bat mortality of 5 to 179 per year. 

As previously mentioned, impacts to bats associated with the project would mainly be related to 

collisions. While some disturbance and displacement would likely occur as a result of the wind 

project activity, the displacement to adjacent habitat would not have a long-term impact. Since there 

is a wide range of annual bat mortality rates that have been documented at the various wind energy 

projects, it is difficult to know what the mortality rates would be for the project and what impact that 

mortality would have on the regional populations. 

Birds 

Temporary impacts to birds would occur due to implementation and construction activities. These 

impacts would entail temporary habitat loss, noise and dust disturbance, and an increase in injury 

and mortality due to vehicle collisions. These impacts would be temporary and would not reduce the 

viability of the regional populations. 

The project would result in similar impacts to birds that utilize the project area; however, the degree 

of the impacts would vary depending on habitat use and flight behavior. Impacts related to collisions 

are a concern and pose a threat to most birds that utilize the project area. Fatality monitoring has 

been completed at many wind energy projects within the country and Table 21 summarizes the 

fatality estimate observed at those wind energy projects. 

Using the annual avian fatality rates, the project could potentially result in 46 to 347 bird fatalities 

each year. Bird-turbine interactions are determined by visibility and weather, with increased birdturbine interactions occurring at night and in inclement weather. Inclement weather and low cloud 

ceilings force migrating birds to fly at reduced altitudes, thereby putting them at greater risk for 

adverse interactions with turbines, turbine towers, and support infrastructure (NWCC 2004). 

Compared with other avian species studied to date throughout the United States, raptors, including 

hawks, eagles, falcons, and owls, appear to be at higher risk of collisions with wind turbines. The 

reason for this higher frequency of collisions, relative to other species, is not fully understood 

(NWCC 2004). 

The Proposed Action could potentially impact nesting birds by temporarily and permanently 

removing nesting habitat. The Proposed Action would permanently remove approximately 20 acres 

of native prairie and tame grassland nesting habitat commonly used by ground nesting birds. In 

addition, approximately 5 acres of native shrub and woodland habitat would be permanently 

impacted thereby reducing nesting and foraging for a variety of other bird species that utilize Site A. 

Proposed turbine site # 9, is the site of a sharp tailed grouse dancing site, also known as a lek, 

where male grouse gather and display their courtship dance. The turbine site is proposed for 

development on tame grassland habitat. Basin Electric has decided to relocate turbine # 9. While 

there would be habitat loss, it would not reduce the viability of local populations as the amount of 

permanent habitat loss would be relatively low in comparison to amount of available habitat. Other 

mitigation measures to protect birds include designing the project so no new overhead powerlines 

would be constructed and conducting surveys for nesting birds during the breeding season. If active 

nests are located or other evidence of nesting observed, appropriate protection measures will be 

taken. Also, mowing activities will occur outside of the nesting season for ground nesting birds to 

avoid any bird mortality. A complete list of mitigation measure to protect birds is in section 5.5. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 47 
 Environmental Assessment 

Tetra Tech June 2009 48 

Table 21 

Avian Fatality Estimates Reported at Monitored Wind Projects 

Wind Resource Area State Turbines Annual Average Avian Fatality per Turbine 

Altamont Pass CA 5,400

7,340

0.3 to 0.9

0.05 to 0.1

Buffalo Ridge MN 354 2.8

Buffalo Ridge Phase 1 MN 73 0.3 to 0.7, 1.0

Buffalo Ridge Phase 2 MN 143 2.3

Buffalo Ridge Phase 3 MN 138 4.5

Foote Creek Rim WY 69 1.5, 1.8

Green Mountain (Searsburg) VT 11 <1

IDWGP (Algona) IA 3 <1

Judith Gap MT 90 4.5

Klondike OR 161.4 1.4

Mountaineer WV 44 4

Nine Canyon WA 37 3.6

Princeton MA 8 <1

San Gorgonio CA 2,900 2.3

Somerset County PA 8 <1

Stateline OR/ WA 454 1.7

Vansycle OR 38 0.6

Wisconsin WI 31 2.8

Multiple values were included if there were results from more than one study. 

Sources: TRC 2008 : Curry and Kerlinger (2004a,b); Erickson et al. (2001, 2002, 2003a,b); Johnson et al. (2002, 2003a); 

Kerns and Kerlinger (2004); Osborn et al. (2000); Smallwood and Thelander 2004; Strickland et al., (2001a,b); Thelander 

and Rugge (2001); Young et al. (2003a). 

3.5.2.2 Site B 

Site B would entail the same number of turbines and impact the same number of acres in relatively 

similar habitat. Impacts for Site B would be the same as with the project. For a more detailed 

discussion of impacts, see the project discussion above. 

3.5.2.3 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not have any impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitat. No 

development or disturbance would occur and wildlife would continue to utilize the project area as 

they currently do. 

3.6 Vegetation 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

Both Site A and Site B (Figure 8 and Figure 9) occur within the Missouri Coteau which is a 

relatively narrow, elevated escarpment where the Wisconsinan glacier stalled and melted slowly, 

depositing the glacial moraines that characterize much of the area’s soils and provide for the 

associated productive upland grass communities (Bryce et al. 1998). The region’s native vegetation 

is classified as the Northern Wheatgrass – Needlegrass Plains (Johnson and Larson 1999).

 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 

 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Agropyron sp. and Hesperostipa sp. are the most common indicators of the vegetative classification 

of the region. Dominant plant species include western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum [Agropyron] 

smithii), thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus [Agropyron dasystachyum]), needle and thread 

grass (Hesperostipa [Stipa] comata), green needle grass (Hesperostipa [Stipa] viridula), bluebunch 

wheatgrass (Psuedoroegneria spicata [Agropyron spicatum]), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and 

threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia) (Johnson and Larson 1999). 

The relatively short growing season and high productivity of these grasslands has kept much more 

of the native rangeland intact compared with more southern areas in the northern Great Plains 

(Johnson and Larson 1999). However, most of the relict rangeland is intensively grazed by 

livestock, and the natural fire regime has been absent for decades, causing a strong shift in 

historical vegetative composition. Areas with more favorable soils have been converted to 

agricultural lands for cropping, pastureland, or hayground (USDA 1974). 

3.6.1.1 Plant Communities 

The North Dakota GAP (USGS 2004) data and data collected during two field visits were used to 

evaluate existing vegetation communities within the sites. These vegetation communities are 

illustrated in (Figure 8 and Figure 9) for Site A and Site B, respectively. The composition of the 

vegetation communities is similar for Site B as Site A. The composition is summarized below. 

Plant Community Classifications 

Agricultural Land

Agricultural cropland refers to land converted to planted crops and managed for agricultural 

purposes. Table 22 lists the most common planted crops in Ward County, North Dakota (NDSU 

Extension Services 2008). Figure 10 shows an example of a typical agricultural site. 

Table 22 

Common Agricultural Crops in Ward County, ND 

Winter Rye Alfalfa Barley Buckwheat Canary Canola 

Winter Spelt Chickpea Corn Crambe Dry bean Durum 

Winter Wheat Field pea Flax Forages Spring Wheat Lentil 

White Wheat Lupin Millet Mustard Oats Safflower 

Potato Soybean Specialty Crops Sunflower Non Oil Sunflower Oil Triticale 

Tame Grassland

Tame grassland vegetation refers to communities of planted perennial herbaceous species. These 

areas have been replanted after extensive agricultural use with the objective of increasing their 

desirability as wildlife cover and to re-establish natural ecological functions (Tetra Tech 2008a). 

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and tall wheatgrass (Thinopyrum ponticum), intermediate wheatgrass 

(Thinopyrum intermedium), and crested wheatgrass are the predominant perennials in these 

habitats. Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and the occasional weed species such as: milkweed 

(Asclepias spp.), pigweed (Chenopodium spp.) and dandelion (Taraxacum spp.) are also found in 

these areas (Figure 8 and Figure 9). Figure 11 shows an example of a typical tame grassland site. 

These areas were originally planted under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

NRCS’s CRP. The CRP is designed to aid land owners in the conversion of highly erodible 

agricultural land into areas of tame or native grasses that will encourage wildlife, reduce soil erosion 

and sedimentation in streams and lakes, and improve water quality (NRCS 2008). Many 

Tetra Tech June 2009 53 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Figure 10. Typical Agricultural Site 

Figure 11. Typical Tame Grassland Site 

Tetra Tech June 2009 54 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

landowners have placed easements on the properties they have converted from agricultural land to 

tame grass habitat. These easements are managed by federal agencies and are typically 

associated with land use and/or access limitations that in some cases are based on a limited or 

perpetual contract (Tetra Tech 2007). All of the easements associated with Site A are administered 

by the USFWS and fall into two categories: wetland easement or grassland easements. These 

areas provide valuable cover for nesting and breeding for many different species of ground nesting 

birds in the area (Tetra Tech 2008a). 

Native Prairie

Grassland within this region of the country is mixed-grass prairie (Figure 12). 

In mixed-grass prairies there are two layers of grasses, one reaching about 12 inches above the 

ground surface, and the other about 48 inches. Both bunch and sod-forming grasses are present, 

as well as many forbs. Typical grasses of the mixed-grass prairie are little bluestem (Schizachyruim 

scoparium), green needle grass (Stipa viridula) and prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepsis). 

Roots extend to depths of about 5 feet (NRCS 2008). These areas provide valuable habitat for 

native wildlife. Historically, much of this native grassland has been converted to farmland. 

Native prairie communities also have a shrubland and woodland component. Common shrubland 

species include skunkbush (Rhus trilobata) and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Common 

woodland species include oak (Quercus spp.) and ash (Fraxinus spp.). 

Figure 12. Typical Native Mixed Grass Prairie Site 

Plant Community Occurrence 

A summary of the vegetative community occurrence at both sites is presented in Table 23. The 

plant species observed at both Site A and Site B during the October 2007 and June 2008 site visits 

are presented in Table 24. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 55 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Table 23 

Summary of Vegetative Community Occurrence 

Vegetative Community Site A Site B 

Acres Percent Acres Percent 

Agricultural land 16093.2 53.3 17,147.2 47.1

Planted herbaceous perennials 4526.4 15.0 5,438.3 15.0

Barren land 451.8 1.5 395.9 1.1

Developed - high intensity residential 0.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1

Developed - low intensity residential 0.9 <0.1 0 0

Developed - commercial/industrial/transportation 61.4 0.2 0 0

Developed - urban grasslands 4.3 <0.1 1.1 <0.1

Native cover types 

Prairie - mesic tall and mixed grass 90.8 0.3 192.6 0.5

Prairie - bluestem-needlegrass-wheatgrass 278.2 0.9 1,622.3 4.5

Prairie - wheatgrass prairie 994.5 3.3 3,098.8 8.5

Prairie - needlegrass prairie 309.1 1.0 530.9 1.5

Prairie - little bluestem 4.8 <0.1 18.0 0.1

Prairie - sand 242.7 0.8 568.7 1.6

Prairie - saline 259.8 0.9 254.9 0.7

Shrubland - upland deciduous 1870.8 6.2 2,334.2 6.4

Shrubland - lowland deciduous 2.0 <0.1 1.1 <0.1

Woodland - floodplain 3.9 <0.1 0 0

Woodland - deciduous 274.6 0.9 150.1 0.4

Wetland - lacustrine 476.0 1.6 204.2 0.6

Wetland - palustrine temporary 494.6 1.6 176.8 0.5

Wetland - palustrine seasonal 1312.5 4.3 1,928.8 5.3

Wetland - palustrine semipermanent 1383.5 4.6 1,590.8 4.4

Wetland - water 1062.6 3.5 727.4 2.0

Total 30,198.6 100.0 36,382 100.0

Source: North Dakota GAP (USGS 2004) 

Site A

According to the GAP (USGS 2004) data, the most abundant land cover type in Site A is 

agricultural land, covering 53 percent (Figure 8). An additional 15 percent is characterized as tame 

grassland (USGS 2004). In addition, Site A contains 2 percent that is barren or developed. The 

remaining land within Site A is native cover types such as: native prairie, shrublands, woodlands, 

and wetlands. Site A contains 30 percent of native cover types. Native prairie cover includes 

grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and wetlands. Based on the observations and data collected 

during the October 2007 and June 2008 field surveys, the condition of many of these native 

communities appeared to have been degraded as a result of long-term, heavy livestock grazing 

pressure. 

Site B 

The GAP (USGS 2004) data indicates that the most abundant land cover type within Site B is 

agricultural land, with 47 percent. Approximately 15 percent is tame grass (planted herbaceous 

Tetra Tech June 2009 56 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Table 24 

Plant Species Observed During Site Visits 

Species Name* Common Name Duration, Habit and 

Nativity** 

Wetland Indicator 

Status*** 

Acer negundo Boxelder ptn FAC 

Acroptilon repens Hardheads pfi NO 

Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem pgn FACU 

Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass pgi NO 

Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bentgrass pgn FAC+ 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Annual ragweed afn FACU 

Arnica fulgens Foothill arnica pfn NO 

Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon psn NO 

Artemisia frigida Prairie sagewort psn NO 

Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed pfn FAC 

Astragulus spp. Milkvetch NA NA 

Bromus inermis Smooth brome pgi NO 

Carex filifolia Threadleaf sedge pgn NO 

Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge pgn OBL 

Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge pgn FACW 

Celtis reticulata Netleaf hackberry ptn NO 

Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush psn NO 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle pfi FACU 

Cornus sericea Redosier dogwood ptn FACW 

Crataegus rotundifolia Fireberry hawthorn psn NO 

Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass pgi FACU 

Distichlis spicata Saltgrass pgn FACW 

Echinochloa muricata Rough barnyard grass agn OBL 

Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive pti FACElaeagnus commutata Silverberry psn NI 

Elymus lanceolatus Thickspike wheatgrass pgn FAC 

Elytrigia intermedia Intermediate wheatgrass pgi NO 

Elytrigia repens Quackgrass pgi FAC 

Fragaria virginiana Virginia strawberry pfn FACU 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash ptn FAC 

Geranium viscosissimum Sticky purple geranium pfn FACU 

Glycyrrhiza lepidota American licorice pfn FACU 

Helianthus annuus Common sunflower afn FACU 

Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley pgn FACW 

Juncus articus ssp. littoralis Baltic rush pgn NO 

Linum lewisii Lewis flax pfn NO 

Lonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle psi NI 

Madia glomerata Mountain tarweed afn FACU 

Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass pgn FACU 

Tetra Tech June 2009 57 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Table 24 

Plant Species Observed During Site Visits (Continued)

Species Name* Common Name Duration, Habit and 

Nativity** 

Wetland Indicator 

Status*** 

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass pgn FACW+ 

Phleum pratense Timothy pgi FACU 

Phragmites australis Common reed pgn FACW 

Picea sp. Spruce NA NA 

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass pgn FACU 

Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood ptn FAC 

Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen ptn NO 

Argentina anserina Silverweed cinquefoil pfn OBL 

Prunus virginiana Chokecherry psn FACUPseudoroegneria spicata Bluebunch wheatgrass pgn FACURibes aureum Golden currant psn NO 

Rosa arkansana Prairie rose psn NI 

Rubus occidentalis Black raspberry psn NO 

Salix exigua Narrowleaf willow psn FACW+ 

Salix amygdaloides Peachleaf willow ptn FACW 

Schoenoplectus acutus Hardstem bulrush pgn OBL 

Scirpus microcarpus Panicled bulrush pgn OBL 

Scirpus pallidus Cloaked bulrush pgn OBL 

Shepherdia argentea Silver buffaloberry psn NO 

Solidago missouriensis Missouri goldenrod pfn NO 

Stipa viridula Green needlegrass pgn NO 

Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis 

Western snowberry psn NO 

Tragopogon dubius Yellow salsify pfi NO 

Typha angustifolia Narrowleaf cattail pfn OBL 

Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail pfn OBL 

Ulmus americana American elm ptn FAC 

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle pfn FACW 

*Taxonomic nomenclature consistent with NRCS (2007a) PLANTS database. 

**a = annual; p = perennial; g = graminoid; f = forb; s = shrub; t = tree; n = native; i = introduced. 

***OBL= obligate wetland: occurs in wetlands more than 99% of the time; FACW = facultative wetland: occurs in 

wetlands 67 - 99% of the time; FAC = facultative: equally likely to occur in wetlands or uplands; occurs in wetlands 34 

- 67% of the time; FACU = facultative upland: usually occurs in uplands, but occasionally occurs in wetlands (1 - 33% 

of the time); UPL = upland: occurs almost always in uplands (less than 1% probability in wetlands); NI = no 

information; insufficient data to determine an indicator status; NO = no indicator status was provided, indicating the 

species only occurs in uplands; NA = Not Applicable; not identified to species. 

perennials) (USGS 2004) (Figure 9). Site B also contains 1 percent barren or developed land and 

37 percent native cover types (i.e. prairie grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and wetlands). 

3.6.1.2 Sensitive Plants and Communities 

The NDNHI data (NDPRD 2007) provide the locations of occurrences of Plant Species of Concern 

within and in proximity to Site A and Site B. The NDNHI (NDPRD 2007) data and NatureServe’s 

Tetra Tech June 2009 58 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

(2007) website provide the global and state sensitivity ranking and the federal status for each Plant 

Species of Concern. 

Site A 

No Plant Species of Concern were identified as occurring within or near Site A (NDPRD 2007). 

Site B 

The only Plant Species of Concern identified by the NDNHI (NDPRD 2007) as occurring within the 

boundaries of Site B is Columbian watermeal (Wolffia columbiana), which was recorded along the 

northeastern boundary of Site B. Rarely observed flowering, this perennial aquatic herb is 

characterized as mesotrophic to eutrophic, occurring in quiet waters from temperate to subtropical 

regions throughout the Americas (FNA 2007). This species’ occurrence in Site B was not confirmed 

during the October 2007 field visits. Figure 13 provides a roadside view of the wetland where the 

occurrence is believed to have been identified. The Columbian watermeal is assigned a global 

ranking of G5, indicating that globally, the species is secure because it is common, widespread, and 

abundant (NDPRD 2007). This species’ state rank is S2, indicating that it is imperiled and 

endangered in the state because of rarity or because of other factors making it very vulnerable to 

extirpation from the state (NDPRD 2007). This species is not designated as a federal threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or candidate species under the ESA (NDPRD 2007, USFWS 2007a).

Figure 13. Roadside View of Potential Columbian Watermeal Occurrence 

Tetra Tech June 2009 59 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 60 

3.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.6.2.1 Site A 

Site A would result in both temporary and permanent impacts to vegetation (Table 25). These 

impacts would be associated with clearing, grading, and other associated construction activities. 

Table 25 

Summary of Disturbance Acres within Vegetation Communities 

Temporary Disturbance 

Community Turbines Roads Feeder Lines Substation / Lay Down Area Total Temp.

Agricultural Land 332.0 40.9 320.4 0.0 693.3

Tame Grassland 76.9 12.0 91.6 1.6 182.2

Native Prairie 37.0 5.3 45.9 0.1 88.4

Native Shrubland 35.3 4.1 38.2 0.0 77.6

Native Woodland 3.2 0.9 2.2 0.0 6.2

Barren or Developed 5.0 1.4 7.1 0.0 13.4

Total 489.4 64.6 505.3 1.8 1061.2

Permanent Disturbance

Community Turbines Roads Feeder Lines Substation / Lay Down Area Total Perm. 

Agricultural Land 2.4 40.9 0.0 0.0 43.3

Tame Grassland 0.5 12.0 0.0 1.6 14.2

Native Prairie 0.3 5.3 0.0 0.1 5.7

Native Shrubland 0.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 4.3

Native Woodland 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9

Barren or Developed 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4

Total 3.4 64.6 0.0 1.7 69.8

Temporary disturbance and removal of vegetation would have the greatest impact. Temporary 

impacts would be most significant within agricultural land and tame grassland as the temporary 

disturbance within these two communities represents approximately 82 percent of the entire 

temporary disturbance within the project area. All areas temporarily disturbed would be reclaimed 

and reseeded. These areas would be expected to be recovered to their pre-disturbance condition 

within two growing seasons. These areas would be more susceptible to occupation of invasive 

weed species; however, weed treatment following reclamation would reduce the risk of weed 

invasion within the project area. 

The extent of permanent vegetation loss within Site A is relatively small given the size of the project 

area. Approximately 0.2 percent of Site A would be permanently impacted as a result of the 

development of Site A. The vegetation communities that would experience the greatest loss as a 

result of project implementation would be agricultural land and the tame grassland community. 

Agricultural land would comprise 62 percent of the permanently impacted acres while tame 

grassland would represent 20 percent. Some permanent loss in native communities would occur, a 

total of 5.7 acres of native prairie, 4.3 acres of native shrubland and 0.9 acres of native woodland 

would be permanently lost due to structures and roads. 

Development of Site A would avoid impacts on Plant Species of Concern. Based on the available 

information on known distribution, the project would not affect these resources.
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

3.6.2.2 Site B 

A preliminary site lay out for the Site B has not yet been completed; consequently, specific 

disturbance acres within the vegetation communities are not available. However, the size of the 

wind development project would be the same as Site A; therefore, based on the percent disturbed, 

it can be assumed that implementation of Site B would result in temporary removal of approximately 

984 acres of vegetation and approximately 74 acres of permanent removal. Because the vegetation 

community’s distribution and composition are relatively the same between Site A and Site B, it can 

be assumed that the distribution of disturbance acres would be relatively the same within the 

vegetation communities for both alternatives. Therefore, approximately 74 acres would be 

permanently disturbed within Site B, the majority of the permanent vegetation loss would occur 

within the agricultural land and tame grassland communities. In addition, there would be some loss 

within native vegetation communities such as native prairie, native shrubland, and native woodland, 

but those losses would be relatively small given the regional distribution of these communities. 

All areas temporarily disturbed would be reclaimed and reseeded. These areas would be expected 

to be recovered to their pre-disturbance condition within two growing seasons. These areas would 

be more susceptible to occupation of invasive weed species; however, weed treatment following 

reclamation would reduce the risk of weed invasion within the project area. 

3.6.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would not be development of a wind energy facility and there 

would be no disturbances; therefore, vegetation, including plant species of concern would not be 

affected by the No Action Alternative. 

3.7 Soils 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

The Missouri Coteau is characterized by a hummocky, glaciated landscape that resulted from 

collapse of superglacial sediment. The landscape of the Missouri Coteau formed when glaciers 

were forced to advance up a steep escarpment before they flowed onto the uplands. As glaciers 

advanced over the escarpment, sediment from the base of the glacier was forced up to the surface. 

When the climate moderated and the glaciers stagnated, sediment melting out of the ice 

accumulated at the surface, insulating the ice so that it took several thousand years to melt 

completely. As it melted, sediment slumped and slid, forming the hummocky topography. The result 

is poorly integrated stream drainage and numerous prairie pothole wetlands between mounds of 

glacial till (Bryce et al. 1998). 

3.7.1.1 Site A 

Soils within Site A consist of the Zahl-Williams-Vida-Bowbells, Williams-Bowbells, and WilliamsNutley associations (NRCS 2006). The Zahl-Williams-Vida-Bowbells association comprises 

approximately 16,653 acres (55 percent), and the Williams-Bowbells association comprises 

approximately 12,362 acres (41 percent). Finally, the Williams-Nutley association encompasses the 

remaining approximately 1,184 acres (4 percent). 

The soils occurring in Site A formed in glacial till deposits and are generally well drained, loamy 

soils (NRCS 2006). Topography is generally level to undulating with local relief ranging from 25 to 

200 feet and slopes ranging from three to 60 percent (NRCS 2006). 

3.7.1.2 Site B 

Soils within Site B consist of the Zahl-Williams-Vida-Bowbells, Williams-Bowbells, William-Nutley, 

and Wabek-Manning associations (NRCS 2006). The Zahl-Williams-Vida-Bowbells association 

Tetra Tech June 2009 61 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

comprises the majority of Site B, with approximately 24,443 acres (67 percent), and the WilliamsBowbells association comprises approximately 8,370 acres (23 percent) of Site B. The WilliamsNutley association covers approximately 3,297 acres (nine percent) of Site B, and the WabekManning association covers approximately 272 acres (one percent) of Site B. 

Soils occurring within Site B were formed in glacial till deposits and are well-drained loamy soils 

(NCRS 2006). Topography is generally level to rolling with relief ranging from 25 to 200 feet and 

slopes ranging from 10 to 25 percent (NCRS 2006). 

3.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.7.2.1 Site A 

Impacts common to the Proposed Action on soil resources occur in two separate stages; during, 

and after turbine and ancillary equipment construction. Short term impacts resulting from the initial 

construction activities include increased soil compaction and soil structure destruction. Additional 

potentially longer term impacts can result from mixing of surface and subsurface soil horizons and 

wind and water erosion. Although visual impacts to soil are greater during construction activities, 

topsoil erosion during and after topsoil redistribution has a greater effect on final reclamation 

success. 

Chemical changes would also result from mixing surface soil with subsoil during salvage activities. 

While the topsoil resource is generally high in organic matter and associated fertility, mixing surface 

and subsurface soils can effectively dilute the organic matter and nutrient content of the surface 

soil. The mixing of surface and subsurface soils can also result in increases in the clay content, pH, 

and salt content of surface soils. Such impacts could result in reduced productivity and cause 

difficulty in revegetating some soils. 

Impacts on physical characteristics of soil during salvage, stockpiling, and redistribution would 

include compaction, and destruction of soil structure as a result of soil handling and surface traffic. 

These impacts could impede root growth and result in decreased infiltration rates and permeability. 

Decreased infiltration rates and permeability would result in increased surface runoff and potentially 

more erosion from impacted sites. If conducted to adequate depth and spacing, additional tillage 

would eliminate the majority of subsoil compaction. 

Short-term surface soil loss by wind erosion associated with the Proposed Actions would be greater 

than normal until vegetation becomes reestablished. Potential for loss of subsoil would be greatest 

between initial disturbance and redistribution of cover soil. The volume of soil loss due to wind 

erosion depends on wind velocity, size of disturbance area, condition of exposed area, and soil 

texture. Water erosion potential is influenced by the extent of disturbance, surface soil texture, soil 

cover, and steepness of slope and could be significant during heavy precipitation events. 

Due to the relatively short construction period and prompt replacement of salvaged soils, reduction 

in soil biological activity is expected to be short-term. After soil redistribution, biological activity 

would increase and eventually reach pre-salvage levels. 

Greatest risks for long term soil impacts include soil loss from wind and water erosion and decline in 

productivity as a result of mixing and compaction. This potential for continued soil loss occurs until 

vegetation is reestablished. 

3.7.2.2 Site B 

Direct and indirect effects as a result of development of Site B would be similar to those for Site A. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 62 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

3.7.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to topsoil resources would occur. 

3.8 Air Quality 

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

3.8.1.1 Site A and Site B 

Particulate Matter (PM) as fugitive dust is likely the most prevalent air pollutant. Agriculture and 

vehicles using unpaved roads in the vicinity are likely the primary source of fugitive dust because 

there are no industrial activities in the vicinity. In addition, farming and ranching equipment may 

contribute to priority pollutants. 

The affected environment for air quality is typically characterized in terms of existing concentrations 

of air pollutants. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has set Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six principal pollutants, which are called “criteria pollutants:” 

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and lead (Pb). 

North Dakota’s AAQS are codified in North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) Chapter 33-15-02-

04. The North Dakota AAQS are identical to the national AAQS except for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), 

PM of 10 microns or less (PM10), PM of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and SO2. There are no national 

AAQS for H2S, only state regulations. EPA recently modified the national AAQS for PM by 

eliminating the annual standard for PM10, keeping the 24-hour standard for PM10, and modifying the 

standards for PM2.5. The applicable AAQS must be maintained throughout construction of the wind 

project. 

A search for air quality monitoring data near the Proposed Action did not uncover any available 

nearby published data. There are no known available monitoring stations within or in the immediate 

vicinity of Site A or Site B for the regulated criteria pollutants PM10, PM2.5, SO2, H2S, CO, O3, NO2, 

and Pb. 

The semi-arid climate for the study area is characterized by very cold, dry winters and warm, moist 

summers. Table 26 presents the monthly and annual average minimum and maximum 

temperatures for Minot, which is representative of the study area. The meteorological station in 

Minot has been collecting data over a 60-year period between 1947 and 2007. 

3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.8.2.1 Site A 

Air quality concerns include PM in the form of fugitive dust from construction activities, and other 

minor levels of criteria pollutants, air toxics, and hazardous air pollutants fom sources such as 

construction equipment and vehicle exhaust emissions which are controlled by the EPA or the State 

of North Dakota. 

The proposed project would have no significant impacts on air quality. Construction of the wind 

turbines, collector lines, roads, and substation would result in short-term emissions from operation 

of vehicles (tailpipe emissions) and generation of fugitive dust. These construction-related 

emissions would have minor short-term indirect and direct impacts on air quality. These impacts 

would be restricted to short periods of construction at relatively small individual wind turbine sites, 

along the proposed collector lines and roads, and at the substation. The impacts would diminish 

after construction ceases. Air quality permits would not be required for construction. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 63 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Table 26 

Minot, North Dakota Monthly Temperature And Precipitation(1)

Temperature ( ̊F)(2) Time 

Period Average 

Maximum 

Average 

Minimum 

Precipitation (inches) Snowfall (inches) 

January 17.1 -0.2 0.64 8.7

February 23.5 6.2 0.51 5.7

March 34.7 17.0 0.82 7.1

April 52.9 31.2 1.51 5.1

May 66.0 42.7 2.43 0.9

June 74.8 52.4 3.34 0.0

July 81.5 57.5 2.45 0.0

August 80.6 55.1 1.96 0.0

September 68.7 45.0 1.55 0.1

October 55.6 34.2 0.99 2.1

November 36.2 19.3 0.70 6.3

December 23.6 7.0 0.56 6.7

ANNUAL 51.3 30.6 17.4 42.7

(1) Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Data Summaries, Minot FAA Airport, North Dakota, 

Period of Record: 7/2/1948 to 

 12/31/2007 

(2) Degrees Fahrenheit = F

Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), CO, and SO2 during 

construction would occur from the tailpipes of internal-combustion engines in construction 

equipment and from construction worker vehicles and supply trucks traveling to and from work 

sites. 

Potential fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5 emissions) involve: (1) land disturbance 

emissions from construction of the Proposed Action, and (2) tailpipe emissions from construction 

vehicles. During construction, fugitive dust might be generated due to movement of construction 

vehicles at wind turbine sites, along collector lines and roads, and at the substation. 

3.8.2.2 Site B 

Effects would be the same as Site A. 

3.8.2.3 No Action Alternative 

If construction of the proposed wind project does not occur, management of air quality resources 

would remain as current. No wind turbines associated with this project would be constructed and no 

immediate direct or indirect effects to resources from the wind project would be expected. 

3.9 Water Quality 

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

Site A and Site B are located within the Glaciated Missouri Plateau, Great Plains Province 

Physiographic Region. The sites are located approximately 25 miles north of the Missouri River in 

the ecoregion referred to as the Northwestern Glaciated Plains. The Northwestern Glaciated Plains 

Ecoregion is near the westernmost extent of continental glaciation. Within the ecoregion is the 

Tetra Tech June 2009 64 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Coteau du Missouri physiographic region of the Missouri River basin. The Coteau du Missouri 

region is characterized as a relatively youthful glacial moraine landscape with significant surface 

irregularity and, as a consequence, a moderately high concentration of semi-permanent and 

seasonal wetlands (Bryce et al. 1998). The Coteau du Missouri was formed during the last ice age 

as a stagnation moraine. The result of near surface groundwater, hummocky terrain, and poorly 

draining glacial till deposits has resulted in a region of numerous small lakes, wetlands and sloughs, 

referred locally as prairie potholes and the presence of shallow groundwater. The Coteau du 

Missouri highlands are underlain by a thick sequence of undifferentiated glacial drift (up to several 

hundred feet thick). In the project area, bedrock underlies glacial drift at depths ranging from 75 to 

greater than 350 feet below ground surface (bgs). Bedrock consists of Cretaceous-aged siltstone 

and shales of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation. Topographically, the praire 

potholes region are highlands, forming a surface water divide from the Souris River basin to the 

northeast and the Missouri River located approximately 25 miles to the southwest. 

Site A is located on approximately 53 percent of cropland and 30 percent rangeland. Site B is 

located on 47 percent cropland and 37 percent rangeland. Portions of both potential project areas 

would be located in areas of numerous isolated wetlands as discussed in Section 3.2. 

Surface Water 

Both sites lie in the prairie pothole country of north central North Dakota and surface drainages are 

limited. Oak Creek, a tributary to the Souris River, flows north along the eastern portion of Site A. 

No other named surface water drainages are found within either project area. Lloyds, Gassman, 

and the South Branch Coulees approach the northeastern edge of pothole highlands near Site B, 

but do not extend into the pothole lakes region. These coulees are ephemeral drainages to the Des 

Lacs and Souris River. The Missouri River is located approximately 25 miles to the southwest of 

Site A and Site B; however surface topography slopes northeast towards the Souris River. 

The dominant geomorphological features of either area are the numerous pothole lakes, wetland 

features, and ephemeral drainages (i.e., drainages that only flow for short periods of time during the 

year). These drainages typically maintain flows in the spring of the year or in response to 

precipitation events and are limited in length due to undulating topography in the project area. Open 

water is almost exclusively available within the project areas in the form of prairie potholes. Pothole 

lakes are present throughout both project areas and range in size up to a maximum of 

approximately 100 acres in size but are generally less than 1 acre. These features are further 

discussed in the wetlands section presented previously in Section 3.2. Wetlands are important 

because they perform hydrologic (e.g., flood attenuation, surface water, groundwater recharge) and 

water quality (sediment retention, pollution control) functions. Wetlands also provide valuable 

habitat for species of special interest (e.g., migratory birds) and special status (e.g., State or 

Federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species, or species of 

conservation concern). 

Water quality in prairie potholes in North Dakota varies both temporally and spatially. The salinity of 

water in potholes is extremely varied, ranging from potholes in which the water is quite fresh to 

others containing brines that are several times more concentrated than sea water. Salinity is a 

measure of the quantity of total dissolved solids in water. Water is supplied to the potholes by 

precipitation on the water surface, basin runoff, and seepage inflow of groundwater. Depletion of 

pothole water results from evapotranspiration, overflow, and seepage outflow. Since potholes 

generally do not overflow, seepage outflow is the principal way in which dissolved salts can be 

removed. Salinity of pothole water is therefore a good indication of the seepage balance. Net 

seepage outflow results in fresh to brackish waters that constitute ephemeral to semipermanent 

ponds, whereas net seepage inflow results in brackish to saline waters that constitute 

semipermanent to permanent ponds (Sloan 1972). 

Tetra Tech June 2009 65 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

A general observation concerning water quality on the Coteau du Missouri is that water in potholes 

in glacial till is fresher than groundwater in glacial till. In contrast, groundwater in glacial outwash is 

fresher than water in potholes in glacial outwash (Sloan 1972). These conditions result because, in 

general, salinity increases in the direction of water movement. This is substantive evidence that in 

topographically high glacial till the water moves from the potholes into the ground, whereas 

groundwater in topographically low glacial outwash discharges to the pothole. Potholes in glacial 

outwash generally occur at lower altitudes and are more saline than potholes in till. 

Due to shallow depth and wind action, there is little stratification in ponds from temperature or 

salinity so that the water quality within a pothole is generally uniform throughout. Exceptions to this 

include zones of groundwater inflow and stratification that result from freezing and thawing 

processes within the pothole (Sloan 1972). The dissolved solids concentration in a pothole is 

increased by evapotranspiration. The rate of concentration is determined by the seepage balance. 

During the winter months, as water in the pothole freezes, dissolved salts are concentrated in the 

solution at the base of the ice. If freezing continues to the bottom of the pothole, this concentrated 

layer will exist in the unfrozen bottom sediments (Ficken 1967). Melting of pothole ice during the 

spring breakup and runoff from snowmelt usually occur simultaneously, so potholes are freshest in 

the early spring. Increasing salinity throughout the summer results from both evaporative 

concentration and diffusion into the pothole of the salts concentrated by freezing in the bottom 

muds (Ficken 1967). 

Groundwater 

Groundwater is the major source of drinking water in North Dakota. Sixty percent of the state's total 

population utilize groundwater to supply their drinking water needs, while 97 percent of the state's 

rural population use groundwater for drinking water purposes. Agriculture and industry in North 

Dakota also rely heavily on groundwater. http://www.health.state.nd.us/WQ/GW/pubs/GWT.HTM 

Shallow groundwater is prevalent across much of the Coteau du Missouri due to the nature of the 

low permeability glacial till deposits. About 90 percent of the glacial drift on the Coteau du Missouri 

is glacial till, and the remainder is largely glacial outwash and lake sediments (Sloan 1972). 

Groundwater movement in glacial till is controlled by its lithology and structure. This till, being a 

poorly sorted, largely unstratified mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, is not highly permeable, so 

groundwater moves most readily along the joints. Because joints in glacial till are most numerous 

near the land surface, the most active ground-water flow systems are shallow and localized in the 

vicinity of potholes. 

The water table in the glacial deposits is continuous with the water surface in prairie potholes: 

therefore, the hydraulic gradient adjusts to the water surface elevation of the potholes. In cross 

section the water table is represented by a nearly straight line which connects potholes. The 

potentiometric surface of the water table around a pothole determines the direction of groundwater 

flow with respect to the pothole. Groundwater flows toward the pothole (gaining) if the adjacent 

water table is higher than the pothole water surface and flows away from the pothole (losing) if the 

adjacent water table is lower than the pothole water surface. 

As mentioned previously, shallow groundwater is present at or near ground surface in the vicinity of 

pothole lakes and wetlands. Very few well logs are recorded within the vicinity of the project areas 

(NDSWC 2008). Based on information provided by a USGS observation well in Site A (T151N, 

R83W, Section 26), groundwater is present from 3 to 13 feet bgs and varies by as much as nine 

feet seasonally (NDSWC 2008). Information provided by a similar observation well (T155N, R86W, 

Section 24) in the Site B project area shows consistency with Site A. Groundwater is shallow (less 

than 15 feet) and can vary by nine feet or more over the course of a season. The first bedrock 

aquifer occurs within the Tongue River Member, Fort Union Formation at depths greater than 200 

feet bgs. This deeper groundwater resource is contained within aquifers comprised of water-bearing 

Tetra Tech June 2009 66 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

sandstone and lignite coal (Paulson 1983). Water quality from these aquifers is often poor, with high 

concentrations of total dissolved solids. 

3.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.9.2.1 Site A 

Due to the lack of flowing surface water or need for groundwater extraction in either site, there 

would be no impacts from construction and/or operation of Site A or Site B. Sediment and runoff 

during construction would be controlled, and, considering there is no surface water near the 

construction, there would be no impacts on surface water quality during construction. 

3.9.2.2 Site B 

Direct and indirect effects as a result of implementation of the Site B would be similar to those for 

Site A. 

3.9.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to surface waters or groundwater would occur. 

3.10 Aesthetics 

3.10.1 Affected Environment 

3.10.1.1 Site A 

The visual setting of Site A is rural, with farming, livestock grazing, and some residential 

development. Common public observation points consist of significant travel corridors within and 

adjacent to Site A, including Highway 83, Highway 23/247th Avenue, 345th Avenue, Highway 

53/359th Avenue, 62nd Street, 97th Street, 27th Street, 55th Street, 289th Street, and 317th Street 

(Figure 14). 

The original prairie landscape exists in an altered agricultural state. Linear features of highways, 

paved roads, gravel roads, two-track roads, electric transmission lines, and fencing transect each 

project area. 

The closest city to Site A is Max (population 287) located five miles south on Highway 83. 

3.10.1.2 Site B 

The visual setting of Site B is rural, with farming, livestock grazing, agricultural operations, and 

some residential development. The topography of the area is gently undulating to rolling, with 

numerous potholes. Common public observation points consist of significant travel corridors within 

and adjacent to Site B, including 254th Street, 240th Street, 226th Street, Prairie Trail, 54th Avenue, 

37th Avenue, 20th Avenue, and 11th Avenue (Figure 15). 

The closest cities to Site B are Berthold (population 450), located four miles north of Site B and Des 

Lacs (population 209), located four miles northeast of Site B. 

3.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.10.2.1 Site A 

Facilities within Site A would consist of wind turbines, collector lines, a substation, and access 

roads. The uppermost portion of the turbine blades would stand approximately 390 feet above the 

ground surface and would be visible for up to 10 miles. The visual character of the area would be 

altered from minimally developed agricultural land use to somewhat industrial. Some of the turbines 

Tetra Tech June 2009 67 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 68 

will require lights on top of the nacelle, for aircraft safety, potentially changing the view from nearby 

rural residences and roadways. Since the region does not contain highly distinctive or important 

landscape features and is not densely populated or used, visual impacts from development of Site 

A would be limited. 

Flickering shadows could be cast by moving rotors. Flickering would be limited to daylight hours 

when the sun is shining and noticeable only in the immediate area, and vary throughout the day and 

by season. 

3.10.2.2 Site B 

Direct and indirect effects of implementation of Site B would be similar to those for Site A because 

the setting and population are similar for both locations. 

3.10.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to visual resources (aesthetics) would occur. 

3.11 Transportation 

3.11.1 Affected Environment 

3.11.1.1 Site A 

County and township (section line) roads characterize the existing roadway infrastructure in and 

around Site A (Figure 14). There are two major highways within and adjacent to Site A: US 

Highway 83 runs through the eastern portion of Site A north to south, and ND State Highway 23 

runs through the northern portion of Site A east to west. There are no airports, airstrips, or railroads 

within or near Site A. 

According to the NDDOT, the functional capacity of a two-lane paved rural highway, such as 

Highway 23, is approximately 5,000 vehicles per day, also referred to as Average Daily Traffic 

(ADT). US Highway 83 is four lanes. Determining the specific capacity of any highway is a complex 

process and general estimates are used for planning purposes. In general, the NDDOT indicated 

that roads under 100 ADT are rarely counted. 

The existing daily traffic levels for highways that pass within and adjacent to Site A are documented 

in Table 27 (NDDOT 2006). Additional county and township roads run through Site A but have no 

count data available. 

Table 27 

Existing Daily Traffic Levels On Roads Within And Adjacent To Site A 

Roadway Segment Annual ADT/Commercial Truck Traffic 

Highway 83 through eastern portion of Site A 4,250/650 

Highway 23 through eastern portion of Site A 975/130 

3.11.1.2 Site B 

County and township roads characterize the existing roadway infrastructure in and around Site B. 

No state highways pass through or adjacent to Site B (Figure 15). The nearest highway is east to 

west trending US Highway 2, located four miles north of Site B. No count data is available for the 

roads that run within and adjacent to Site B as these roads are likely under 100 ADT. 

There are no airports or airstrips within or near Site B. 

 Environmental Assessment 

Tetra Tech June 2009 

 Environmental Assessment 

Tetra Tech June 2009 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

3.11.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.11.2.1 Site A 

During operation of Site A, the access roads will be used by operations and maintenance crews 

while inspecting and servicing the wind turbines. The access roads will be between towers and from 

existing roads to turbines, offset as necessary to allow for adequate crane access during 

construction. The permanent access roads will be up to 20 feet wide and low profile to allow crosstravel for farm equipment.he estimated maximum construction workforce is expected to generate 

approximately 25 additional vehicle trips per day for workers coming and going. The foundation for 

each turbine is expected to require an average of 40 truck loads (80 one-way trips) of concrete, and 

each turbine would required 20 trucks (40 one-way trip) to reach the site. Additional traffic from 

these vehicles would be short term, occurring during the actual pouring of the foundation and 

installation of the turbines. Using a combination of state highways and county and township roads 

within and adjacent to Site A, the traffic impacts are considered negligible. Since many of the area 

roadways have minimal ADT currently, the additional vehicle trips represent a large percentage 

increase which would be noticeable to local residents, but will still be less than seasonal variations 

such as autumn harvest. The capacity of any route and level-of-service to the traveling public will 

not be impacted. 

3.11.2.2 Site B 

Impacts that may occur as a result of Site B are similar to those listed for Site A. 

3.11.2.3 No Action Alternative 

No impacts to transportation would occur under the No Action Alternative. 

3.12 Noise 

3.12.1 Affected Environment 

Noise is measured in a number of ways and the relationship of tone, loudness, duration, etc. affect 

how sound is perceived. Table 28 shows how noise measured by A-weighted decibels (dBA) are 

perceived. 

Table 28 

Perception of Noise 

Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Noise Source Subjective 

Evaluation 

70 Vacuum cleaner 10 feet away or outdoors in a commercial area Loud 

60 Normal speech 3 feet away Moderate 

50 Typical office activities or background noise in a conference room Moderate 

40 Library background noise, quiet suburban environment at night, or typical 

background noise in a residence 

Faint 

30 Whisper 3 feet away or quiet rural environment at night Faint 

21 Concert hall background noise Very faint 

10 Human breathing Very faint 

0 Threshold of hearing or audibility Silent 

Tetra Tech June 2009 73 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

3.12.1.1 Site A and B 

Site A is located in a rural, predominantly agricultural area. As a result, sources of background 

noise to rural residents and occasional visitors to the area include wind, agricultural activity, 

recreation (primarily hunting), and vehicles traveling on Highways 83 and 23, county roads, and 

low-traffic gravel roads. Typical baseline noise levels in Site A likely range from approximately 38 to 

48 dBA, which would be perceived as “faint” according to Table 28. Potential noise receptors in the 

vicinity include scattered rural residences. 

3.12.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.12.2.1 Site A 

A three dBA increase in noise is considered barely noticeable to humans, a five dBA increase 

would typically result in a noticeable community response, and a 10 dBA increase is considered a 

doubling of the sound and is generally considered to be substantial. 

Noise generated by construction activities would occur intermittently over the construction period 

and would be generated by an increase in traffic on local roads, as well as heavy equipment 

operation. Available estimates from other wind project construction projects indicate that the 

maximum noise levels from heavy equipment would be 85 to 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet 

(Western 2007). During construction some noise creating activities will be closer to residences as 

heavy equipment for turbines are moved and as collector lines are buried. Construction noise in any 

one location would be limited to working hours and for the short period that construction would 

occur in any one area (generally a week or less). 

Given that the distance to residences from any turbine is expected to be greater than 1,000 feet, 

noise levels from turbines would not exceeded and noise issues are not expected to be a concern 

at Site A. 

3.12.2.2 Site B 

Direct and indirect effects on noise resulting from construction and operation of Site B are the same 

as Site A. 

3.12.2.3 No Action Alternative 

No impacts to noise will occur under the No Action Alternative. 

3.13 Radio and Television Interference 

Comsearch (2007a) identified off-air television stations within a 100-mile radius of the sites. Off-air 

television stations include broadcasters that transmit signals that can be received directly on a 

television receiver from terrestrially located broadcast facilities. Comsearch examined the coverage 

of off-air TV stations and the communities in the area that could potentially have degraded 

television reception as a result of the project (those within 40 miles). There are 19 registered 

stations within 40 miles. Of the 19 stations, 8 are presently licensed and operational (5 are full 

service analog stations, 2 are full service digital stations, and 1 is a low-power translator station). 

The other eleven stations are either in their license application, or construction phase, but not yet 

operational. 

Degradation of AM broadcast coverage would occur if a wind turbine is located within 2 miles of an 

AM directive antenna or within half-mile of a non-directive antenna. FM stations would be affected 

by turbines within 0.5 miles of very low-power stations, 1.5 miles of the low-power stations, and 2.5 

miles from the full-power stations (Comsearch 2007b) 

Tetra Tech June 2009 74 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Thirteen FM stations were identified within the search radius. Eight of the FM stations are full-power 

stations, two are low-power FM stations, and two are very low-power stations. The thirteenth station 

does not have a call sign nor is its transmitting power defined. All of the FM station antennas are 

located at distances greater than 6.27 miles of the center of the general project area. 

3.13.1 Site A 

Interference is expected to be limited, since interference generally occurs in older, overhead 

transmission lines with loose or dirty insulators and spark gaps. The underground collector lines 

would have no impacts to radio and television signals. In addition, transmission lines already exist 

in the project area. 

In February 2009, all television signals will be transmitted digitally, which will eliminate the problem 

of potential interference with television. This change will occur before construction and operation of 

the wind turbine would begin. 

There were no AM or FM antenna identified within 3 miles of any turbine, therefore, a project 

developed in Site A would not affect radio transmission. 

3.13.2 Site B 

Effects of developing Site B would be the same as Site A. There is one FM radio antenna, operating 

at a 99.9 MHz frequency, approximately 200 ft from the Site B boundary. Collector lines would be 

buried, minimizing any potential for radio interference is limited. 

3.14 Human Health and Safety 

3.14.1 Affected Environment 

3.14.1.1 Site A 

The predominant activities that occur within Site A include agriculture and vehicular travel. The 

safety regulations for these activities are defined and enforced by state and federal agencies. Four 

resources were analyzed for this section. These resources include air traffic, electromagnetic fields, 

hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste, and security. 

Air Traffic 

Minot International Airport is located approximately two miles north of the central business district of 

the City of Minot in Section 12, Township 155 North, Range 83 West. The airport is located 20 miles 

north of the center of Site A. There are two paved runways at an elevation of approximately 1,716 

feet above mean sea level. This airport supports small commercial aircraft. 

Electromagnetic Fields 

The term electromagnetic fields (EMF) refers to electric and magnetic fields that are present around 

any electrical device. Electric fields arise from the voltage or electrical charges and magnetic fields 

arise from the flow of electricity or current that travels along transmission lines, collector lines, 

substation transformers, house wiring, and electrical appliances. The intensity of the electric field is 

related to the voltage of the line and the intensity of the magnetic field is related to the current flow 

through the conductors (wire). EMF can occur indoors and outdoors. While the general consensus 

is that electric fields pose no risk to humans, the question of whether exposure to magnetic fields 

potentially can cause biological responses or even health effects continues to be the subject of 

research and debate. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 75 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Hazardous Materials and/or Hazardous Waste 

The site is located in a relatively rural area of North Dakota. Hazardous wastes from large industrial 

or commercial activities are not likely. Potential hazards may exist in rural areas from old gasoline 

facilities, landfill sites, and private activities. 

Potentially hazardous materials associated with Site A include fluids found in association with 

turbines and substation/transformer equipment. There will be three types of fluids used in the 

operation of the wind turbines that are petroleum products: gear box oil, hydraulic fluid, and gear 

grease. These fluids are necessary for the operation of each turbine. 

3.14.1.2 Site B 

The predominant activities that occur within Site B include agriculture and vehicular travel. The 

safety regulations for these activities are defined and enforced by state and federal agencies. The 

four resources analyzed for Site B include air traffic, electromagnetic fields, hazardous materials 

and/or hazardous waste, and security. Results of the analysis show that the affected environment of 

Site B is similar to Site A. Refer to Section 3.15.1.1. 

3.14.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.14.2.1 Site A 

Air Traffic 

The installation of wind turbines creates a potential for air traffic collision. However, power collector 

lines are expected to be buried, and the wind turbines themselves will be visible from a distance. 

The wind turbines would have lighting that complies with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

requirements. In addition, the FAA’s review did include evaluation of any potential interference with 

air traffic. 

Electromagnetic Fields 

Turbines will be no closer than 1,000 feet to occupied residences where EMF will be at background 

levels. Based on the most current research on EMF, and the distance between any turbines or 

collector lines and occupied residences, Site A will have no impact to public health and safety due 

to EMF. 

Hazardous Materials and/or Hazardous Waste 

The applicant does not anticipate generating any hazardous wastes. 

3.14.2.2 Site B 

Impacts that may occur as a result of Site B are similar to those listed for Site A. 

3.14.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, potential risks to health and safety would remain the same as they 

are currently. 

3.15 Socioeconomic Conditions and Community Resources 

3.15.1 Affected Environment 

3.15.1.1 Site A 

Site A is located in southeast Ward County, North Dakota in a primarily rural agricultural area 

located on either side of North Dakota Highway 83 and south of North Dakota Highway 52. With the 

Tetra Tech June 2009 76 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

exception of the City of Minot, land within Ward County is primarily agricultural with scattered 

farmstead residences. 

In 2006, Ward County had a population of 55,270, a decline of six percent from the 2000 census 

level (USCB 2006). Cities and small towns near Site A include Minot (36,567), Sawyer (population 

196), Max (population 287), Ryder (population 92), Douglas (population 64), and Benedict 

(population 53) (USCB 2001). 

The closest city with services is Max, located seven miles south of Site A. The community of Max 

has an economy focused on agriculture, ranching, and recreation. Max has a post office, two minimarts, cafe, elevator, automotive repair, bank, insurance agency, realtor, car dealership, hair 

salons, museum, four churches, lounges, funeral chapel, gas station, bulk gas and fuel and a 

fertilizer plant, along with several types of construction businesses. Max is also considered the 

gateway to Lake Audubon and Lake Sakakawea, with only 15 miles to fishing and water sports. The 

nearest hospital is Trinity Hospital in Minot, North Dakota. 

Schools in the vicinity are encompassed by the Max School District 50 (in Max city limits), School 

District 70 with South Prairie Elementary School located five miles north of Site A, and the Minot 

Public School District located within the city limits of Minot, North Dakota. 

3.15.1.2 Site B 

Site B is located in west-central Ward County, North Dakota in a primarily rural agricultural area 

with county and section roads passing within and near Site B. Cities and towns near Site B include 

Minot (population 36,567), Des Lacs (population 209), Burlington (population 1,096), and Berthold 

(population 450). The closest city with services is Berthold located approximately five miles north of 

Site B. Businesses in Berthold include auto body repair and painting, banking, beauty salons, grain 

elevators, gas station, bars and restaurants, fertilizer applicators, meat processing, plumbing and 

heating, and insurance sales. The nearest hospital is Trinity Hospital in Minot, North Dakota. 

Schools in the vicinity are served by the Berthold Public School District 54 and the Lewis and Clark 

School District 161. 

3.15.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.15.2.1 Site A 

Overall, socioeconomic impacts of the construction of Site A would be slightly positive as a result of 

associated food, lodging and other expenditures, with an expected influx of temporary workers for 

several months during installation of the wind project. 

During operation and maintenance of the facility (25 years or more), managerial staff and full time 

skilled technicians would be hired based on the skill set of the employee. Also, land on which 

facilities would be located is primarily leased private land. This would provide an extra income to 

landowners within Site A and would compensate for any potential farmland losses due to surface 

disturbance as a result of wind turbines and other infrastructure. 

Basin Electric can expect to pay approximately $675,000 annually for property taxes associated 

with the wind project. This amount includes the property tax assessed to PrairieWinds - ND 1 and 

the additional gross receipts tax paid by Basin Electric on the sale of the energy purchased from 

PrairieWinds - ND 1. 

3.15.2.2 Site B 

Direct and indirect effects of Site B are similar to those expected for Site A. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 77 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

3.15.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed no site would be built. The economic benefits and 

costs that would have come to Ward County would not occur. Financial costs and commitments 

associated with the construction and operation of the wind project would be eliminated or 

transferred to a different location. Project related increases in temporary and permanent jobs and 

tax revenues would not occur in the county. Basin Electric would not be able to supply power from 

this particular generation source and would have to look elsewhere to meet demand. 

3.16 Environmental Justice 

3.16.1 Affected Environment 

3.16.1.1 Site A and Site B 

The goal of environmental justice is to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of potentially adverse human health 

and environmental effects of a federal agency action, operation, or program. Meaningful 

involvement means that affected populations have the opportunity to participate in the decision 

process and their concerns are considered. 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations) is intended to ensure that adverse human health and 

environmental effects of agency actions would not disproportionately impact minority and lowincome populations, including Native American Indian Tribes. Table 29 shows minority populations 

in Ward County and North Dakota. For purposes of this section, minority and low-income 

populations are defined as follows: 

 Minority Populations – People of Hispanic or Latino origin of any race, African Americans, 

American Indians or Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific 

Islanders. 

 Low-Income Populations – People living below the national poverty level. In 2000, the 

weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four was $17,603 and $8,794 for an 

unrelated individual. 

Table 29 

Minority and Low-Income Populations 

Location Total Population Percent Minority Percent Below Poverty Level 

Ward County 58,795 6.1 10.8

North Dakota 642,200 6.6 11.9

EO 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks) is intended to 

ensure adverse human health and environmental effects of agency actions would not 

disproportionately impact child populations. 

Estimates of two populations of concern (minority and low-income) were developed to determine if 

environmental justice populations exist in Ward County, North Dakota (USCB 2000). 

The Three Affiliated Tribes – Hidatsa, Arikara, and Mandan (the Three Affiliated Tribes) is located 

approximately 30 miles west of Site A and 20 miles south of Site B. This reservation may represent 

the closest minority or low-income populations in the region. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 78 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

3.16.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

3.16.2.1 Site A and Site B 

The median family/household income for the region surrounding Site A and Site B is comparable to 

the statewide average. Consequently, income does not constitute a condition that warrants focus 

under EO 12898. The percentage of minority populations is also similar to the State, and therefore, 

there is no minority populations that would be disproportionately affected. 

While children and sensitive receptors exist near Site A and Site B, their proximity does not 

constitute a condition that warrants focus under EO 13045. 

3.16.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to environmental justice would occur. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 79 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 80 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects are defined by the CEQ 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...”(40 CFR 1508.7). Based on this definition, if the project does not have direct or 

indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects resulting from the project because there would 

be no impacts added to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Cumulative impacts from Site A and Site B are discussed together below due to the similarity of 

their direct and indirect effects. Because the No Action Alternative had no direct or indirect effects 

on any resources, it would have no cumulative impacts. 

The cumulative effects analysis area for this EA would be Ward County which incorporates the 

areas covered by Site A and Site B. Ward County is approximately 2,056 square miles (1.3 million 

acres) with a population of 58,795 as of the 2000 US Census (USCB 2000). With over half the 

population of the county living in Minot, the county is considered to be rural consisting of farmlands 

and grazing lands. 

Analyses focus on the cumulative impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable development 

with similar impacts as the Proposed Action or Alternative. The past and present development 

projects, as well as the reasonably foreseeable development in the cumulative effects analysis 

area, considered in this analysis are described below. 

Minot Wind Project 

The existing Minot Wind Project, a 2.6 MW facility consisting of two Nordex N60 wind turbines, is 

located 12 miles south of Minot. 

Minot Wind 2 

Minot Wind 2 is an expansion of the existing Minot Wind Project that was commissioned in 

2003. The expansion would include the construction of three additional 1.5 MW turbines for a 

combined capacity of 4.5 MW. Construction of the project is scheduled for early summer 2009 and 

completion is anticipated by late 2009 or early 2010. The proposed expansion is located 

approximately 2 miles north of Site A. 

4.1 Land Use 

Temporary and permanent disturbance from the project (Site A or Site B) would add to the already 

disturbed areas within each site. Much of the land has already been disturbed from past activities, 

particularly farming, but also other developments such as roads, highways, and residences. Native 

prairie, native shrubland, and native woodlands would be the only areas where impacts from the 

project would be “new” as the others are a result of previous disturbance. 

Cumulative impacts from the project would be insignificant because the proportion of the area 

permanently disturbed would be a small percentage of the total area (73.8 acres out of 1.3 million in 

the county). 

4.2 Wetlands and Floodplains 

There would be no impacts on wetlands or floodplains from the project and therefore, there would 

be no cumulative impacts. 

4.3 Cultural Resources 

There would be no impacts on cultural resources from the project and therefore, there would be no 

cumulative impacts. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 81 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

4.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources 

Past actions described elsewhere in this document, primarily agriculture and associated 

development, have resulted in loss of habitat. While project planning and avoid/minimize measures 

will limit somewhat the loss of native habitats, there would be an additional incremental loss due to 

project implementation. Likewise, the project would add to the existing and proposed future wind 

development in the state, thus contributing to cumulative effects to birds and bats as a result of 

collisions. 

The effects just described would include federally-listed and other special status species, and the 

potential impacts would be somewhat greater due to the already limited numbers of these species. 

Proposed monitoring, mitigation and compensation measures would address these potential 

impacts, but quantifying the degree of ‘offset’ is not possible. 

4.5 Vegetation 

Most of the sites have already had disturbance of native vegetation and CRP in the form of 

agriculture and development. Additionally, grazing has affected the remaining native vegetation. 

Cumulative impacts to vegetation are the same as those described above under Land Use and 

would be insignificant. 

4.6 Soils 

Reclamation would avoid any impacts on soils from the project; therefore there would be no 

cumulative effects from the project. 

4.7 Air Quality 

Minimal air quality impacts limited to the construction period would not contribute cumulative effects 

to the good air quality at either site. There would be no cumulative effects on air quality. 

4.8 Water Quality 

There would be no impacts on surface or groundwater from the project and therefore, there would 

be no cumulative impacts. 

4.9 Aesthetics 

Visual impacts from the turbines, lights, and roads would occur from the project. This would add to 

the past impacts of agricultural, residential, and transportation development. However, the sites 

would retain their rural setting and appearance. 

4.10 Transportation 

The limited and short-term nature of the use of existing roads during construction will not contribute 

noticeably to the cumulative effects, particularly when no other activities that would result in the 

change in the use of roads was identified as occurring during the same time period. Turbine access 

roads will not be available for public access so there will not be any cumulative effects on 

transportation from the access roads. 

4.11 Noise 

Cumulative effects on noise are the same as those described for direct and indirect effects. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 82 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

4.12 Radio and Television Interference 

There would be no impacts on radio and television transmission from the project and therefore, 

there would be no cumulative impacts. 

4.13 Human Health and Safety 

There would be no impacts on human health and safety from the project and therefore, there would 

be no cumulative impacts. 

4.14 Socioeconomic 

There would be no impacts on social or economic conditions from the project and therefore, there 

would be no cumulative impacts. 

4.15 Environmental Justice 

There would be no impacts on minority or low-income populations from the project and therefore, 

there would be no cumulative impacts. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 83 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 84 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

5.0PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 

5.1 Land Use Mitigation Measures 

Basin Electric will work closely with the landowners, the USFWS, and other agencies in locating 

wind turbines and access roads to minimize land use disruptions and impacts to environmentally 

sensitive areas to the extent possible. 

For projects that have the potential to convert important farmland to non-farm use, the NRCS must 

be contacted. NRCS uses a land evaluation and site assessment system to establish a farmland 

conversion impact rating score for a proposed project, and this score is used as an indicator for the 

project sponsor to consider alternative sites if the potential adverse impacts on the farmland exceed 

the recommended allowable level (NRCS 2007b). 

5.2 Wetlands Mitigation Measures 

Wetlands will be avoided to the extent practicable during the construction phase of Site A. If 

impacts to USACE jurisdictional waters are unavoidable, then Basin Electric will seek coverage 

under a Section 404 USACE Nationwide Wetland Permit. Permanent impacts to jurisdictional 

waters will be mitigated according to USACE requirements. 

Wetlands within USFWS easements on private property are under USFWS jurisdiction. If wetland 

impacts in USFWS easements cannot be avoided, Basin Electric will work with the USFWS to 

obtain permits for the impact and create required mitigation 

Wind turbines will be located a minimum of 0.25 miles from all WPAs. 

Basin Electric will use best management practices (BMPs) during construction and operation of Site 

A to protect topsoil and adjacent wetland resources and to minimize soil erosion. Practices may 

include containing excavated material, use of silt fences, protecting exposed soil, stabilizing 

restored material, and revegetating disturbed areas with native species. 

5.3 Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures 

The following mitigation measures are proposed to address impact to the APE of Site A: 

 Encourage avoidance: Basin Electric shall make a reasonable effort to design the project in 

such a manner as to avoid National Register eligible properties. 

 Address impacts to National Register properties located inside the APE: No surface 

disturbance shall occur within the boundary of National Register eligible property 32WD1637 

prior to completion of the field phase of a data recovery plan that has been reviewed and 

approved by the State Historical Society of North Dakota. 

 Address the eligibility of unevaluated sites inside the APE: No surface disturbance shall 

occur within the boundary of sites 32WD1636, 32WD1638, 32WD1641-32WD1646, 

32WD1649-32WD1655, 32WD1658, 32WD1659, 32WD1664-32WD1666 until their National 

Register eligibility has been determined. If one or more of these sites is determined to be 

National Register eligible, no surface disturbance shall occur within the boundary of sites 

prior to completion of the field phase of a data recovery plan that has been reviewed and 

approved by the State Historical Society of North Dakota. 

 Contact The Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation) if archaeological 

resources or other properties of Tribal interest are identified prior to or during construction: 

Contact Elgin Crows Breast, TCPO of the Three Affiliated Tribes (Phone: 701-627-4781). 

Tetra Tech June 2009 85 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

 Contact the North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment Committee and the North Dakota State 

Historical Society if a burial site is encountered during construction: The Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 allows Tribes to protect American Indian 

graves and to repatriate human remains. The proponent must comply with this act if a burial 

site is encountered as the aforementioned Act applies to all developments regardless of the 

funding source. Any burial site identified, including Tribal or pioneer, must be referred to the 

North Dakota Intertribal State Historical Society, North Dakota Reinternment Committee, Mr. 

Paul Picha, Chief Archeologist, 612 East Boulevard Avenue, P.O. Box 620 Bismarck, ND 

58505-0830 Belcourt, ND 58301, ppicha@state.nd.us 

5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Measures 

The following measures are described in greater detail in the PrairieWinds - ND 1 Biological 

Assessment. It is acknowledged that potential impacts to listed species cannot be ‘mitigated’ as 

such, but these measures are included in this section for logical document organization and for the 

benefit of those readers who may not access the BA or other related documents. 

Monitoring Plan/Sightings: 

 Monitoring and training procedures will be developed in coordination with the USFWS and 

documented in the project operations plan; 

 Project personnel will be trained to identify whooping cranes in the field; 

 Observations of whooping cranes by project personnel made as a result of monitoring or 

other incidental sightings in the project area and surrounding vicinity shall be immediately 

reported to the USFWS; 

 During the construction phase, Basin Electric would require contractors to modify or curtail 

construction activities within one half-mile of the observation of a whooping crane, leaving 

birds undisturbed until they are no longer observed within the wind project boundaries to 

minimize the potential for disturbance, displacement, and harm of roosting and foraging 

whooping cranes. 

 For three years post-construction, trained personnel acceptable to the USFWS will be on 

site during spring and fall migration seasons to observe whooping cranes (Spring: April 1 to 

May 15; Fall: September 10 to October 31). During that period, turbines located within onehalf mile of the observation of a whooping crane will be shut down until such time as the 

whooping cranes are no longer observed in the area; 

 During the construction phase and for three years post-construction, trained personnel 

acceptable to the USFWS will document avian migration use of the project area during the 

spring and fall migrations; 

 At the end of the three year post-construction whooping crane monitoring period, if 

whooping cranes or sandhill cranes (surrogate species) have been observed utilizing 

habitats in the project area, the federal agencies and Basin Electric would determine the 

suitability for additional monitoring. 

Monitoring Plan/Mortality: 

 During the spring and fall whooping crane migration seasons, Basin Electric will conduct 

mortality monitoring to detect any whooping crane mortalities that may occur on the project 

area. Post-construction mortality monitoring will help to identify individual turbines that 

contribute to avian mortality. This information could be used to modify operating procedures 

Tetra Tech June 2009 86 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

as necessary and provide valuable design and layout information for future wind 

development projects, aiding in the reduction of potential for avian mortality; 

 Basin Electric will immediately report any whooping crane or sandhill crane mortality to the 

USFWS and RUS. In the event of a whooping crane mortality, temporary shut-down of all 

project turbines would occur. Turbine operations would resume in a manner and at a time 

agreed to by the USFWS, the agencies, and Basin Electric; 

 The presence of a dead whooping crane at the project area would represent new 

information and, in this circumstance, RUS would request re-initiation of formal consultation 

with the USFWS; 

 Monitoring procedures for whooping crane/sandhill crane mortality will be developed in 

coordination with the USFWS. 

Habitat Compensation: 

 Basin Electric will provide funds for the acquisition of conservation easements to provide 

compensatory stopover habitat for the whooping crane. With oversight by the agencies, 

acquisition, maintenance and management of suitable lands will be accomplished by the 

North Dakota Natural Resources Trust, a non-governmental organization with considerable 

experience in similar land acquisition activities. Compensation is based on the estimated 

suitable stopover habitat lost (denied) to cranes due to construction and operation of the 

project, with current Ward County, North Dakota cropland and pasture land values providing 

a proxy habitat value. 

Annual Reports: 

 For three years post-construction, Basin Electric will provide annual reports each year to 

RUS, the NDGFD and USFWS. Reports will address compliance with the whooping crane 

monitoring and other avian studies developed in coordination with USFWS. 

5.5 Fish and Wildlife Measures 

 Prior to surface disturbance activities during the breeding season (February through July), a 

qualified biologist would survey potentially suitable habitat for nesting activity and other 

evidence of nesting (e.g., mated pairs, territorial defense, birds carrying nest material, 

transporting food). If active nests are located, or other evidence of nesting is observed, 

appropriate protection measures, including establishment of buffer areas and constrain 

periods, would be implemented until the young have fledged and dispersed from the nest 

area. These measures will be implemented on a site-specific and species-specific basis, in 

coordination with RUS and Western. 

 If construction is to occur during the breeding season for raptors (January through August), 

prior to construction activities, raptor breeding surveys will be conducted by a qualified 

biologist through areas of suitable nesting habitat to identify any potentially active nest sites 

within 0.5 mile from the project area. If applicable, appropriate protection measures, 

including seasonal constraints and establishment of buffer areas will be implemented at 

active nest sites until the young have fledged and have dispersed from the nest area. These 

measures will be implemented on site-specific and species-specific basis, in coordination 

with RUS and Western. 

 Basin Electric will develop bat mortality monitoring procedures in coordination with the 

USFWS. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 87 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

 Basin Electric has designed the project to avoid the construction of new overhead power 

lines. All collector lines will be buried with the exception of the line that ascends from the 

substation. 

 All temporary meteorological towers associated with the project will be removed as soon as 

construction begins. Any permanent meteorological tower will be freestanding and have no 

guy wires. 

 Mowing activities will not occur during the breeding season for ground-nesting birds to avoid 

any bird mortality. 

5.6 Vegetation Mitigation Measures 

The following mitigation measures would be implemented to avoid and reduce impacts to 

vegetation and sensitive plants: 

 Temporarily disturbed areas would be reclaimed by replacement of topsoil and seeding; 

 Revegetation would occur as soon as possible to establish vegetative cover and avoid 

establishment of weeds. Agricultural lands will be returned to their original use; 

 Noxious weeds would be controlled using appropriate weed control measures; 

 Annual post-construction monitoring and treatment for as long as determined by 

involved parties; and, 

 Minimize dust emissions during clearing, grading, and other construction activities to avoid 

adversely affecting vegetation. 

 Obtain native plant seed stock from seed sources within 250 miles of the project area to 

ensure success of revegetation effort. 

5.7 Soils Mitigation Measures 

Basin Electric will use BMPs during construction and operation to protect topsoil and adjacent 

wetland resources and to minimize soil erosion. Practices may include containing excavated 

material, use of silt fences, protecting exposed soil, stabilizing restored material, and revegetating 

disturbed areas. 

5.8 Air Quality Mitigation Measures 

Air quality effects caused by dust would be short-term, limited to the time of construction, and would 

not exceed the aforementioned AAQS particulate standards. It is unlikely that Site A or Site B would 

result in the exceedence of air quality standards. The limited duration of construction, along with 

implementation of the environmental protection measures presented in this document, is expected 

to mitigate air quality effects so that federal and state AAQS would not be exceeded. Complaints 

regarding fugitive dust emissions would be addressed in an efficient and effective manner. 

5.9 Water Quality Mitigation Measures 

Basin Electric will use BMPs during construction and operation to protect topsoil and adjacent 

pothole and wetland resources and to minimize soil erosion. Practices may include containing 

excavated material, use of silt fences, protecting exposed soil, stabilizing restored material, and 

revegetating disturbed areas. 

5.10 Aesthetics Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation is proposed. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 88 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

5.11 Transportation Mitigation Measures 

Basin Electric will work closely with landowners to site access roads to minimize land-use 

disruptions to the extent possible. 

5.12 Noise Mitigation Measures 

While there are no federal noise standards that directly regulate noise from the operation of wind 

turbines, EPA guidelines recommend a day-night average sound level (Ldn) of 55 dBA in typically 

quiet outdoor and residential areas. In order to achieve the recommended Ldn, wind turbines will be 

set back at least 1,000 feet from occupied residences. 

Special conditions can occur which are difficult to predict such as periods of high wind shear events 

where there is little masking wind noise at surface level but at hub-height there is sufficient wind for 

energy generation. Residents in homes that are poorly insulated or highly exposed without any 

vegetation nearby may perceive a higher indoor noise level than those in a typical well insulated 

home. If a complaint is registered and sound is measured above the Ldn on more than a rare 

occasion, Basin Electric may provide improved insulation or landscaping to mitigate these unusual 

situations. 

5.13 Health and Safety Mitigation Measures 

Air Traffic 

Basin Electric is coordinating with FAA on layout and lighting and will seek approval from FAA. 

Wind turbines and meteorological towers will have lighting and markings according to FAA 

requirements that minimize any potential for air traffic impacts. 

Electric and Magnetic Fields 

Basin Electric will continue to monitor EMF research, encourage utilities to work with customers in 

household EMF issues, and provide public education. 

Hazardous Materials and/or Hazardous Waste 

No mitigation is proposed at this time. All petroleum fluids will be contained within the wind turbines 

and electrical equipment. Any petroleum wastes generated will be handled and disposed of in 

accordance with local, state and federal regulations. 

Security 

Several security measures will be taken to reduce the chance of physical and property damage, as 

well as personal injury. First, the towers will be placed at least a fall distance, almost 400 feet from 

road RIGHT-OF-WAY and 1,000 feet from occupied residences unless county or township variance 

are obtained. These distances are considered to be safe based on developer experience and are 

consistent with the required local setbacks. They also serve to reduce noise. Next, security 

measures will be taken during construction and operation, including temporary and permanent 

(safety) fencing at the substation, warning signs, and locks on equipment and wind power facilities. 

Also, turbines will sit on solid steel enclosed tubular towers in which all electrical equipment will be 

located, except for the pad-mounted transformer. Access to the tower is only through a solid steel 

door that will be locked when not in use. 

Public Safety 

Bore holes would be covered. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 89 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

5.14 Social and Economic Conditions Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation is proposed. 

5.15 Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation is proposed. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 90 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

REFERENCES 

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard Practice for Environmental 

Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Designation E 

1527-05. 

Austin, E.A. and A.L. Richert. 2001. A comprehensive review of observational and site evaluation 

data of migrant whooping cranes in the United States, 1943-99. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota, and State 

Museum, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.Bryce, S., J.M. Omernik, D.E. 

Pater, M. Ulmer, J. Schaar, J. Freeouf, R. Johnson, P. Kuck, and S.H. 

Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Online at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/ndsdeco/index.htm. (Version 30NOV1998). 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric). 2007. Draft Power Supply Analysis Study. Basin 

Electric Power Cooperative, Bismarck, North Dakota. 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative. 2008. PrairieWinds - ND 1 Alternative Evaluation Analysis and Site 

Selection Study. Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bismarck, North Dakota. February 

2008. 

Bryce, S., J.M. Omernik, D.E. Pater, M. Ulmer, J. Schaar, J. Freeouf, R. Johnson, P. Kuck, and 

S.H. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Online at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/ndsdeco/index.htm. 

(Version 30NOV1998Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(CWS and USFWS). 2007. International recovery plan for the whooping crane. Ottawa: 

Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CWS and USFWS). 2007. 

International recovery plan for the whooping crane. Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally 

Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 

Comsearch. 2007a. Off-Air TV Reception Analysis at the Prairie Wind Energy Project Area near 

Minot, North Dakota. 

Comsearch. 2007b. Analysis of AM and FM Broadcast Station Operations in the Vicinity of the 

Prairie Wind Energy Project in North Dakota. 

Curry, D., and P. Kerlinger. 2004a. What Kills Birds? Curry & Kerlinger, LLC, McLean, Va., and 

Cape May Point, N.J. Available at: http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm. Accessed 

Feb. 10, 2004. 

Curry, D., and P. Kerlinger. 2004b. Wind Power and Bird Strikes, Curry & Kerlinger, LLC, McLean, 

Va., and Cape May Point, N.J. Available at: http://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htm. 

Accessed April 22, 2004. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. North Dakota [Emissions] Sources. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/areas/maps/ndsource.gif. Viewed July 14, 2008. 

EO 13045. 1997. Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. Federal 

Register Vol. 62, No. 78. April 23, 1997. Five pp. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 91 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Erickson, W.P., et al. 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor 

Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments, 

prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyo., for Bonneville 

Power Administration, Portland, Ore., Dec. 

Erickson, W.P., et al. 2003a. Stateline Wind Project Wildlife Monitoring Annual Report, Results for 

the Period July 2001–December 2002, prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, 

Inc., Cheyenne, Wyo., and Walla Walla, Wash., for FPL Energy, Oregon Office of 

Energy, and Stateline Technical Advisory Committee, May. Chapter 8 References 8-10. 

Erickson, W.P., et al. 2003b. Nine Canyon Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Report. 

September 2002–August 2003, prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., 

Cheyenne, Wyo., and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc., Pendleton, Ore., for Nine 

Canyon Technical Advisory Committee and Energy Northwest, Oct. 

Ethnoscience, Inc. (Ethnoscience). 2008. PrairieWinds – ND 1 Project: A Class III Cultural 

Resource Inventory of a Proposed Wind Energy Farm in Ward County, North Dakota. 

Prepared for Tetra Tech. Report dated July 2008. 79 pp. 

Executive Order (EO) 12898. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations. Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 32. February 

16, 1994. Five pp. 

 Ficken, J.H. 1967. Winter loss and spring recovery of dissolved solids in two prairie-pothole ponds 

in North Dakota, in Geological Survey research 1967: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

575-C. p. C228-C231. 

Flora of North America (FNA). 2007. Flora of North America Association. 

General Electric (GE). 2005. 1.5 MW Series Wind Turbine. http://www.geenergy.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/15mw/index.htm. 

Hagen, Sandra K., Patrick T. Isakson, and Steve R. Dyke. 2005. North Dakota Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy. North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Bismarck, 

ND. 454 pp. http://www.gf.nd.gov/conservation/cwcs.html. 

Johnson, G.D., et al. 2003a. Avian and Bat Mortality During the First Year of Operation at the 

Klondike Phase I Wind Project, Sherman County Oregon, prepared for Northwestern 

WindPower, Goldendale, Wash., by WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, Wash., March. 

Johnson, J.R. and G.E. Larson. 1999. Grassland Plants of South Dakota and the Northern Great 

Plains. South Dakota State University, College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 

South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station B 566 (revised). 

Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A study of bird and bat collisions fatalities at the Mountaineer 

Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: annual report for 2003. Prepared 

for: FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee by 

Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. 

Kuvlesky, Jr. et al. 2007. Wind energy Developments and Wildlife Conservation: Challenge and 

opportunities. DOI: 10.2193/2007-248. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1969 [As amended]. 42 United States Code (USC) 

§4332. 

National Historic Preservation Program (NHPP). 1966 [As amended through 2000]. (NHPP)National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). http://www.achp.gov/NHPA.pdf. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 92 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC). 2004. Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds and 

Bats. A Summary of Research Results and Remaining Questions. November 2004. 

http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wildlife/wildlife_factsheet.pdf. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. (NRCS) Soil Survey, Ward County, North 

Dakota. http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/NextPage.aspx. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007a. USDA PLANTS Database. Online at: 

http://plants.usda.gov/. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007b. Farmland Protection Policy Act. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fppa/. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2008. Conservation Reserve Program. On line at: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/. 

NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 

6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2006. Planning and Programming Division. 

2006 Traffic Volume Map for the State of North Dakota. 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD). 2004. North Dakota’s 100 Species of 

Conservation Priority. North Dakota Outdoors. July. Online at: 

http://gf.nd.gov/conservation/levels-list.html. 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD). 2007. Conservation PLOTS Guide. Valid 

through spring 2008. 

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department (NDPRD). 2007. North Dakota Natural Heritage 

Inventory Species of Concern and Significant Ecological Communities. October 16. 

North Dakota State University (NDSU) Extension Service. 2008. Crop Production and Marketing. 

On Line at http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/extension/. 

North Dakota State Water Commission (NDSWC). 2008. North Dakota Map and Data Resources. 

http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink2/4dcgi/wellsearchform/Map%20and%20Data%20Res

ources. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC). 2008. Ecoregions of North Dakota and South 

Dakota. 46i. Drift Plains, Level IV Ecoregion. Online at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov. 

Osborn, R.G., et al. 2000. Bird Mortality Associated with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo Ridge Wind 

Resource Area, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 143:41–52. 

Paulson, Q.F. 1983. Guide to North Dakota's ground-water resources: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2236. 25 pp. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/wsp/wsp2236. 

Pettyjohn, W.A., Hutchinson, R.D. 1971. Ground-water resources of Renville and Ward Counties: 

North Dakota Geological Survey Bulletin 50, pt. III, and North Dakota State Water 

Commission County Ground-Water Studies 11, pt. III. 100 pp. 

http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetContentRecord/PB-276. 

Siebert, Don (Director of Ward County Tax Equalization). 2008. Email subject: Ward County 

Floodplains. Email received July 14, 2008. 

Sloan, Charles. 1972. Ground-Water Hydrology of Prairie Potholes in North Dakota, Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 585-C. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 93 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Smallwood, K.S., and C.G. Thelander. 2004. Developing Methods to Reduce Bird Mortality in the 

Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, P500-04, 052, prepared for the California Energy 

Commission, Sacramento, Calif., Aug. 

Strickland, M.D., et al. 2001a. “Risk Reduction Avian Studies at the Foote Creek Rim Wind Plant in 

Wyoming,” in Proceedings of NWCC National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV, 

Carmel, Calif., May 16−17, 2000. Available at 

http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian00/default.htm. Accessed Feb. 11, 2004. 

Strickland, M.D., et al. 2001b. “Avian Studies at Wind Plants Located at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota 

and Vansycle Ridge, Oregon,” in Proceedings of NWCC National Avian- Wind Power 

Planning Meeting IV, Carmel, Calif., May 16−17, 2000. Available at 

http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian00/default.htm. Accessed Feb. 11, 2004. 

Tetra Tech. 2007. Critical Environmental Issues Analysis of Two Potential Sites for the Proposed 

Wind-Powered Electricity Generation Project Ward County, North Dakota. 

Tetra Tech. 2008a. PrairieWinds – ND 1 Wildlife Habitat Report. 

Tetra Tech. 2008b. Simone Vannoy personal communication with USFWS biologist Mike Goos. 

June 9, 2008. 

Thelander, C.G., and L. Rugge. 2001. “Examining Relationships between Bird Risk Behaviors and 

Fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area: A Second Year’s Progress Report,” in 

Proceedings of NWCC National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV, Carmel, Calif., 

May 16-17, 2000. Available at http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian00/default.htm. 

Accessed Feb. 11, 2004. 

TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC). 2008. Post-construction avian and bat fatality monitoring 

and grassland bird displacement survey at the Judith Gap Wind Energy Project, 

Wheatland County, Montana. Prepared for: Judith Gap Energy, LLC. 

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. Population, income, and ethnicity statistics for Ward 

County, North Dakota for 2000. 

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. Population, income, and ethnicity statistics for Ward 

County, North Dakota for 2001. 

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2006 Population, income, and ethnicity statistics for Ward 

County, North Dakota for 2006. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1974. Soil Survey Ward County, North Dakota. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. United States Department of Agriculture. 

Rural Utilities Service Bulletin 1794A-601 Guide for Preparing an Environmental Report 

for Electric Projects Requiring an Environmental Assessment. December 1998.United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1977 to present. National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) Maps. Washington, D.C. Online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/nwi/http://www.fws.gov/nwi/. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife 

List. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002a. Birds of Conservation Concern. Prepared 

by the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. December 

2002. Online at: http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 94 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Piping plover critical habitat, Unit 3 North 

Dakota. Compiled by USFWS Ecological Services, Bismarck, ND. September. Online 

at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/birds/pipingplover/. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Species accounts: whooping crane. 

Division of Endangered Species. Online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=B003. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. North Dakota Endangered Species 

Homepage. Online at: 

http://northdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endspecies/endangered_species.htm. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007b. United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Land Interests. Prepared by Region 6 HAPET Office, Bismarck, North Dakota. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007c. Endangered, threatened, proposed, and 

candidate species, North Dakota counties. Ecological Services North Dakota Field 

Office. Bismarck, ND. November. Online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/endspp/CountyLists/NorthDakota.pdf. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007d. Species accounts: piping plover. Division 

of Endangered Species. Online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=B079. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008a. Mountain-Prairie Region North Dakota 

Responsibilites: Online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/nd0.htm. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008b. Simone Vannoy, Tetra Tech, personal 

communication with USFWS biologist Mike Goos. June 9, 2008. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008c. The Whooping Crane Tracking Database: 

maintained by the USFWS. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Audubon National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex: Online: http://www.fws.gov/audubon/index.html. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Gap Analysis Program (GAP). Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. August. Online at: 

http://www.nd.gov/gis/mapsdata/download/. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). Date unknown. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). 

Online at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. 

Western Area Power Administration (Western). 2007. Wessingston Springs Wind Project, 

Environmental Assessment for Pre-Approval. December 2007. 

Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department 

of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Young, D.P., et al. 2003a. Avian and Bat Mortality Associated with the Initial Phase of the Foote 

Creek Rim Wind power Project, Carbon County, Wyoming. November 1998 June 2002, 

final report, prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyo., for 

Pacificorp, Inc., Portland, Ore.; Sea West Wind power, Inc., San Diego, Calif.; and 

Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyo., Jan. 10. 

Young, D.P., et al. 2003b. Comparison of Avian Responses to UV-Light-Reflective Paint on Wind 

Turbines, NREL/SR-500-32840, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colo., 

Jan. 

Tetra Tech June 2009 95 
 Environmental Assessment PrairieWinds - ND 1 

Tetra Tech June 2009 96 
APPENDIX A 

SCOPING REPORT